It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What Dynasty ruled in earnest for the longest period of time??

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2019 @ 09:03 AM
link   
So a pretty common trend amongst the ruling families/dynasties of the world, are for them to have the king/emporer/exc conquer a region and rule with absolute authority,”, but these dynasties rarely survive more than a generation or two..

Out of those who do survive, they often end up the property of some warlord or the other, who uses them like a puppet...

So what dynasty lasted the longest where that DID NOT happen???

What dynastic line went the longest without the decedents becoming puppets..


The trend seriously seems to be only a couple generations..


Granpappy was a bad MOFO, but by the time we get to his kids, kid... junior is weak sauce and usually at the whims of some warlord ..
edit on 23-7-2019 by JustJohnny because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 23 2019 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: JustJohnny

A lot of gray area. It would take some serious research, probably experts on every dynasty to get a strong answer and even that could be flawed with limited evidence going back to B.C. Japan and China probably have the best records though.



posted on Jul, 23 2019 @ 09:38 AM
link   
The adam n eve dynasty



posted on Jul, 23 2019 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: JustJohnny

Google is your friend, although it may not be what you might have expected.....

www.thelanguagejournal.com...



posted on Jul, 23 2019 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Stupidsecrets

China has been my latest historical plunge, and that is why I’m asking, but I am wondering about all cultures..


I’m not sure any lasted 4 generations without becoming puppets.



posted on Jul, 23 2019 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

I tried that and like your result, it includes puppets in its tally...

Trying to google that specific is not so friendly lol



posted on Jul, 23 2019 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: JustJohnny
a reply to: uncommitted

I tried that and like your result, it includes puppets in its tally...

Trying to google that specific is not so friendly lol


Not sure how you are defining 'puppet'? If the (for want of a better word) 'crown' has passed through a direct lineage for a period of time, that's referred to as a dynasty.



posted on Jul, 23 2019 @ 03:44 PM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

Absolutely, but after a generation or two, often if not always the king/emporer ends up getting held hostage by one of his own lords.

At that point the king/emporer only becomes a figurehead and wields very little of the power grand dad had.


What dynasty managed to hold power themselves the longest??


I have been presently going over Chinese history and it is just full of cases... that said western history is as well.. and some weak decent loses the realm..



posted on Jul, 23 2019 @ 04:22 PM
link   
I'm pretty damn sure the longest ruling dynasty was a European one, from Bulgaria. I can't for the life of me remember the family's name, but I think it started with either a B or a D.

Unless I've got something really ass-backward somewhere, I think they ruled for almost 3,000 years. That's a long-ass time for one family to rule anywhere, makes you wonder why they're not better known than that.



posted on Jul, 23 2019 @ 06:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

The longest ruling dynasty is japan, like 1800 years lol..

That said they were puppets for most



posted on Jul, 23 2019 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

You definitely do have it wrong lol.. 3,000 years predates Bulgaria by 2,00 year likely



posted on Jul, 23 2019 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: JustJohnny
a reply to: Nyiah

You definitely do have it wrong lol.. 3,000 years predates Bulgaria by 2,00 year likely


Actually, I don't. A previous poster's link had the info I was struggling to remember.


originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: JustJohnny

Google is your friend, although it may not be what you might have expected.....

www.thelanguagejournal.com...



Bulgaria. The House of Dulo or Dulo Clan reigned from 2137 BC until 753 AD, ruling the early Bulgars for 2,890 years. The Kubrat clan founded the dynasty, which brought about the unification of the Bulgar tribes.


I wasn't off by much, a 2,800 year reign. The Bulgaria name is simply referenced to give a modern location as a reference point, I wasn't suggesting modern Bulgaria itself had been around that damn long.

I'm a little dismayed that the link has no citations listed. I know I've read about this somewhere before in more detail, but it was a long time ago, and I cant figure out what the title was. It was a history book pertaining to Turkic history in Europe, that much I do recall.



posted on Jul, 23 2019 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

Fair enough that counts.. lol.. I will have to dive in pretty soon!



posted on Jul, 24 2019 @ 02:12 AM
link   
a reply to: JustJohnny
You will need some groundrules about defining "dynasty".
For example, the usual understanding in European history is that a fresh dynasty starts when succession passes through the female line. So the Tudor dynasty gives way to the Stuart dynasty, by the marriage of a king's daughter. But in practice this usage gets amended in two directions.

On the one hand, it may be convenient for historians to distinguish between eras by breaking up what is really one long dynasty. For example, all the kings of France for close on a thousand years were descended in the male line from Hugh Capet, but it's convenient to distinguish when the rule passes to a different branch, and talk about "the house of Orleans", "the house of Bourbon". In England, the rival houses of York and Lancsater were both descended from Geoffrey Plantaganet.

On the other hand, a dynastic name may be such a prestigious "brand" that it may be maintained even through female descent. For example, the last of the Hapsburg rulers was Maria Theresa, technically, and her descendants should have been called the house of Lorraine. But they preferred Hapsburg (or grudgingly Hapsburg-Lorraine). Arguably, the same thing has happened to the Dutch House of Orange. Similarly the house of Romanov celebrated its tercentenary just before the First World War, but for the second half of that period they were really a Germanic dynasty desended from Catherine the Great. If the rumours about Catherine the Great were true, they were not descended from the original Romanovs even in the female line.

Again, the ruling dynasty in Britain is technically "Windsor", a name adopted by Act of Parliament in the First World War. But according to the traditional rules, it would have become the house of Mountbatten by the marriage to Prince Philip. I understand that the younger members of the family now compromise and sign their surname on offical documents as Mountbatten-Windsor.

edit on 24-7-2019 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2019 @ 06:30 AM
link   
a reply to: Nyiah

I haven’t been able to dive into Bulgaria yet, but I’m skeptical ...

THE END of their rule is 700ad... so I question the evidence of that lol ..


That is not a criticism of your post.



posted on Jul, 24 2019 @ 06:33 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI

I mean, as you listed... through the male and it ends when someone NOT a direct descendent takes the thron.


It seems to me there is a steep decline that usually has the grandchild be incredibly weak..



posted on Jul, 24 2019 @ 07:53 AM
link   
a reply to: JustJohnny
In practice, we frequently see not a straight up-and-down, but a fluctuation. There might be a weak king in one generation, and a real monster in the next.
In England, the descendants of Henry II of Anjou included Richard the Lionheart, Edward I the invader of Wales and Scotland, Edward III the invader of France, Henry IV who seized the throne from his cousin, and Henry V the invader of France, and this dynasty was punctuated with several more feeble kings.

I invite you to consider the Hohenzollerns of Brandenburg. Frederick William, "the Great Elector", was ruling nine generations and two centuries after the first Elector of his house. Three generations later comes the king "Frederick the Great", Carlyle's hero. Five genrations later, the Emperor William II, who started World War One almost single-handed. A dynasty can be strong for a long time without being strong in every single generation.


edit on 24-7-2019 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2019 @ 08:19 AM
link   
Wouldn’t be ghengis khan? His sons and grandsons sat on the thrones of all nations I believe. The emperor in China, the Dalai Lama in Tibet, and the moguls of the Middle East. They ruled the strongest nations of the old world.



posted on Jul, 24 2019 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: pexx421

But didn’t his grandson lose the empire??

That seems to be the trend to me..

A super stud starts the dynasty.. maybe his kid is a bad @$$ too, but offer he is worthless..


Once you get to his kids VERY few grandkids didn’t lose the throne.. and out of those that didn’t, most were puppets.



posted on Jul, 24 2019 @ 11:51 AM
link   
a reply to: uncommitted

If you are familiar with the 3 kingdoms period, the Han emperors were puppets..

But it wasn’t only Chinese history.. if I’m right Charlemagne’s grandkids were puppets.




top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join