Which one is the most successful one?


*poll coming*

Successful in what way? Perpetuating their line? The Habsburgs ought to take the cake for sheer bloody-minded refusal to die. Longevity? The Valois got that one locked up.

Warriors, 9 million copies sold worldwide.

Seriously though how have you managed to include the tudor 'dynasty' and completly ignored any Chinese/Indian/Japanese 'dynasty'

Well I thought it was clear,but it seems ,it is not.

Overall,all included;

longevity,line duration,military,famousity etc..

overall:)

Warriors, 9 million copies sold worldwide.

Seriously though how have you managed to include the tudor 'dynasty' and completly ignored any Chinese/Indian/Japanese 'dynasty'

I just made a mistake,I thought seven would enough with Qin dynasty,but then I remembered there is lots of poles and I just dont want to be dead.

There is other option:)

Julius and Augustus where the best leaders , but i don't know if they where the best dynasty.Anyway they got my vote. And where the Ottomans just one dynasty or there where several different dynasties in different period of times in the Ottoman empire as there where with other empires ?

If Constantine was in the poll i would vote for him. I think he is a much better leader than Justinian.

Julius and Augustus where the best leaders , but i don't know if they where the best dynasty.Anyway they got my vote.
The Iulio-Claudii don't technically include Iulius, because he wasn't an Emperor. :p But interesting choice nonetheless.
And where the Ottomans just one dynasty or there where several different dynasties in different period of times in the Ottoman empire as there where with other empires ?
It was one dynasty, although I believe there was a bit of fudging involved in counting who was descended from whom.
If Constantine was in the poll i would vote for him. I think he is a much better leader than Justinian.
The house of Constantinus, though, includes Iulianus. Would you vote for that dynasty knowing that Constantinus is balanced by Iulianus? :p

Habsburgs and Hohenzollerns are among the most successful dynasties. Habsburgs started as owners of some couple villages in Switzerland, and they became the most influential christian dinasty for a couple of centuries. Hohenzollerns as well, they were extremly able, having started quite lowly, and steadily building their might.

Julius and Augustus where the best leaders , but i don't know if they where the best dynasty.Anyway they got my vote. And where the Ottomans just one dynasty or there where several different dynasties in different period of times in the Ottoman empire as there where with other empires ?

If Constantine was in the poll i would vote for him. I think he is a much better leader than Justinian.


There is a mistake.You should think this way imo;

Ottoman empire was a multiethnical state ruled by turkish(well in the beginning more but then very very mixed) ottoman family.From the Osman I to Mehmet 6 all leaders (except mustafa I) were grandchildrens of Ertuğrul Gazi.(Father of Osman I)


About Constantine-Justinian argument;

I value wise leaders more than militaristic leaders.Constantine might be the better general,but Justinian was wiser.

edit:Actually I thought to put Palalaigos dynasty for having Michael and Konstantine but,compared to Justinian they are weak.

If Constantine was in the poll i would vote for him. I think he is a much better leader than Justinian.

It was one dynasty pretty much, though as daschpmg says it was really up to the current emperor to expand on his heritage. Seeing as especially early on prospective heirs killed each other until there was one remaining it was easy to see who was descended from who but as the dynasty progressed and this practice became less common the lines of who were in charge became less and less clear.

The Iulio-Claudii don't technically include Iulius, because he wasn't an Emperor. :p But interesting choice nonetheless.

It was one dynasty, although I believe there was a bit of fudging involved in counting who was descended from whom.

The house of Constantinus, though, includes Iulianus. Would you vote for that dynasty knowing that Constantinus is balanced by Iulianus? :p


The Iulio-Claudii don't technically include Iulius, because he wasn't an Emperor. But interesting choice nonetheless.

He was not an emperor but he was the one who pushed Rome into becoming the empire it was. And Augustus did claim heritage from Ceasar. So...

It was one dynasty, although I believe there was a bit of fudging involved in counting who was descended from whom.

I see. So all Sultans where descended by Mohamed (who conquered Constantinupoli)?

The house of Constantinus, though, includes Iulianus. Would you vote for that dynasty knowing that Constantinus is balanced by Iulianus? :p


But hasn't Iulianus the apostatos fame suffered by the efforts of the Orthodox church ?

Interestingly he seems like the pagan anthithesis of Constantine. And in addition he was in love with classical Greece. So he is like the other side of the coin which i also like. The thing is in the end Constantine's Christianity won , so he does not balance Constantine out. He attempted to , though.


It was one dynasty pretty much, though as daschpmg says it was really up to the current emperor to expand on his heritage. Seeing as especially early on prospective heirs killed each other until there was one remaining it was easy to see who was descended from who but as the dynasty progressed and this practice became less common the lines of who were in charge became less and less clear.

Alright.

Julian was not onlz not successful in his religious undertakings (his young death can be put to blame), but he was very unsuccessful in his eastern campaign. The tragic expedition against Persia and the peace Jovian had to sign to rescue the remains of the army are his fault. The Empire had to resign of some of its most valuable border strongholds, like Nisibis.

It was one dynasty, although I believe there was a bit of fudging involved in counting who was descended from whom.


Let me help you with this:)

Osman I,the son of Ertugrul Ghazi,has decided to have a little fun and for that he and his 8 friends assaulted the marriage ceremony of nicea's mayor.I really dont know,how they did this (some stories tell Osman I's friend Akçakoca had a musket,I am sure that has helped),but they caught the bride,before she can marry the Nicean mayor.Her name was Holofira and the nine took them to Ottoman Capital(Söğüt).After then Osman I brought an Imam to convert Holofira and give her a new name.(Nilüfer).Then she and Orhan I married.She gave a lot of babies to Orhan of course.The eldest Murat I occupied the throne(!(still ottoman beylik,with a new capital Bryndisium)) and after a war against Bulgarians Murat I accepted cease fire for lots of money and bulgarian princess.So Murat brought an imam and converted and married.
After Murat I the throne had a new owner Bayezid I who was the child of this bulgarian princess and married a serb.(converted by imam)He had four grown up boys they fought with each other after Timurs victory at Ankara...
Mehmet I got the throne married a turkish women had Murat II.Amazing but Murat II married a jew then he became Mehmet II.Mehmet II has taken Constantinople,Trebizond and more and lots of wives.....

....Then Suleiman the Magnificent had the crown,his mother choosed a russian girl for him to marry from Suleimans local Harem.Roxalane.Converted and named Hürrem Sultan....


It is very long story,but still afaik except mustafa I they all came from the line of Osman I....

I would like to post this site here : http://www.roman-emperors.org/julian.htm So do you agree , disagree ?

The Saxe-Coburgs (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5640122&postcount=1). :D

What about the Han? Prosperous, powerful, long lasting... Or the Song: now there's a tenacious group.

As the list focuses on Europe, I will go with that (plus I know nothing about Eastern Dynasties), definitely Habsburgs or Ottoman.

For their role in ruling a single state, the Ottoman Dynasty wins. They were at times one of the (if not the) most powerful Empire in the western world. They were a major player in Europe for hundreds of years.

The Habsburgs I would put as about equal. They ruled at least 2 major powers (Austria and Spain), as well as many other states (at times of some significance). IIRC they included some effective Holy Roman Emperors, but I may be wrong. They were a major player in Europe for hundreds of years. I wouldn't put Austria or Spain on par with the Ottoman Empire, but combined..... I am not sure whether a strict definition of dynasty would combine the Austrian and Spanish (and various other) Habsburgs.
I don't think it is hard to say they were the greatest dynasty in Europe.

Julio-Claudian dynasty, isn't that impressive beyond 2 or 3 people, and lasted what, a hundred years?
The Third Reich? lol. Hozenhollens (no idea how to spell that right now, but the Prussians) maybe.
I have no idea how Justinian fits in, or what oterh leaders that would include.
Piast and the Poles just don't cut the mustard compared to the top above.
The Tudors are a lot like Julio_Claudian. They have some important and great rulers, but not a large dynasty.

Thanks for that link shortguy. Just awesome, and I had to thank you.
And if Kafka sees this great job:lol:

The Capetians, once you take into account the Bourbon, Valois and Orleans branches of the family. They still rule Spain and Luxemburg.

The Romanovs surely deserve at least a mention.

ONE thread where us Poles can't thread-jack.

A quick google of Piast gives other ideas :)
No thread cannot be stolen by the Poles.

ONE thread where us Poles can't thread-jack.

Well, the Jagiello family was close to hegemony over nearly the entirety of Eastern Europe, but it didn't quite make it...

What about the Han? Prosperous, powerful, long lasting... Or the Song: now there's a tenacious group.
But the Han had two periods. That lousy Wang Mang always screws things up. (Helped me win a quiz bowl game just under the wire...funny story, maybe I'll tell you on IRC.)
The Romanovs surely deserve at least a mention.
Hey, you're right. They didn't do half bad at all for being a rather distant cadet branch of the Riurikids. They certainly saw one of the greatest territorial expansions in history. :p
He was not an emperor but he was the one who pushed Rome into becoming the empire it was. And Augustus did claim heritage from Ceasar. So...
Grumble. I guess if you extend 'dynasty' like that then they weren't terrible.
I see. So all Sultans where descended by Mohamed (who conquered Constantinupoli)?
From Osman, actually. Quildavyr obviously knows it better than I do, but it's pretty remarkable. Kinda like the aforementioned Capetians (I simply referred to the Valois, one of their cadet branches; they technically include both Valois and Bourbon at the very least, as well as their originals).
But hasn't Iulianus the apostatos fame suffered by the efforts of the Orthodox church ?
Not being a member of said Orthodox Church I wouldn't know about that. It's true that most ancient historians kinda vilified him, but ever since Gibbon atheistic and antireligious historians have usually attempted to paint him as awesome mostly because a) he was against Christianity as a state religion and b) he won the Battle of Argentoratum. Personally, I ignore the attempts to abandon Christianity as a state religion - 'cause frankly I don't know enough about that, or care - and focus on his dumb Sassanid campaign. For which there was little excuse. I just think he went all overboard and wanted to turn the clock all the way back to Alexandros, so he figured he'd conquer Persia. Didn't work out, because he didn't really know much about fighting a campaign, and because he didn't know not to poke the Persians.
I would like to post this site here : http://www.roman-emperors.org/julian.htm So do you agree , disagree ?
Strongly disagree. It's more of that apologism for anti-Christianity. The author apparently believes that Constantius didn't actually need the men for the war against the Sassanids (and given that he was fighting Shapur II, who actually knew what he was doing, I'm inclined to side with Constantius) and that it was all a vile plot to take down Iulianus, who was a political threat. Most of the sources that that site seems to use for the life of Iulianus were, after all, written by Iulianus himself, and as one must take Caesar's dispatches with a grain of salt one should also not accept Iulianus' propaganda with no reservations. (The others, by Ammianus Marcellinus, were written by a pagan. Huh...wonder why he'd want to paint Iulianus in a good light. :p) I prefer to view Iulianus in terms of what he actually ended up doing for the Empire: he changed up a lot of Christianity/pagan janx that Plotinus would know more about than I would and which had no lasting effect in the Empire, and he lost a war, his life, and several key fortresses to the Persians. That doesn't leave his ledger very high IMHO.

The Ghandi dynasty.

For sheer longevity the Ji family of the Zhou Dynasty beats the Hapsburgs.
1046 – 256 BC (790 years) vs 1278 - 1918 (640 years)

The Hapsburgs have to be acknowledged the winner of the "refusal to die" contest though, as the Zhou kings were but convenient puppets to have around during the latter half of their reign.

In terms of length these guys lasted a long time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomonic_dynasty

Founding date: 1270
Deposition: 1974

Grand total of 704 years of ruling Ethiopia ;) Ji family is still longer.

Has to be the Habsburgs.

But how about the Saksen-Coburgs?

At one point in the 19th century they had family members on nearly every throne in Europe. Not bad for such a small German state... (and they still are ruling the UK, Belgium and probably some others... ;) )

I voted the Hapsburg, but Saxe-Coburg FTW.

Also in terms of longevity these guys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_House_of_Japan) win - their record: 2668 years.

The Capetians, once you take into account the Bourbon, Valois and Orleans branches of the family. They still rule Spain and Luxemburg.

QFT.
10 chars.

4th. They had best 'mids. :mischief:

After a quick wiki, the Capetians are up there (I never realized the Bourbon and Valois were part of the Capetians). They are definitely up there. Even just as the Kings of France. A match for the Habsburgs as the dominant family in Europe (though Habsburg Spain > Bourbon Spain:)). Controlling the number 1 continental power for centuries, and many other lesser states.

The Imperial Family of Japan has been around for some 2500+ years. I'd say they have a case based on longevity alone.

The Habsburgs lasted the longest and popped up in the most places. Plus a descendent still survives today!

Umm, the Capetians are older than Habsburgs and currently rule 2 countries (both of which were at one time Habsburg lands).

The Habsburgs lasted the longest and popped up in the most places. Plus a descendent still survives today!
There are descendants of most of the royal houses scattered all over the place. Pretenders pop up everywhere.

House of Hanover? :confused:

How about the Khans*?

They're pretty indisputably the most successful military dynasty, what with forging the
largest contiguous empire ever, solely through force of arms. An empire which became pretty well developed in terms of governance and laws and so on.

Admittedly, they weren't particularly long-lived. The main strain of the dynasty (Genghis to Kublai) only lasted about a hundred years. But the Yuan dynasty is a clear continuation of the line which can add another 70 years onto that. Moreover, the Chagatai Khanate lasted till the 17th century. And I think it'd be mighty difficult to find a dynasty that was more successful in raw terms then the Khans.


*Since Khan is a title, I'm pretty sure this isn't the proper name. Anyone got any ideas?

*Since Khan is a title, I'm pretty sure this isn't the proper name. Anyone got any ideas?
It's the House of Borjigin.

Of those listed, Hapsburgs, hands down; they pretty much controlled the world at the beginning of the 20th C.

Of those listed, Hapsburgs, hands down; they pretty much controlled the world at the beginning of the 20th C.
Ah, no, they controlled Austria-Hungary. And, essentially, nothing else of significance.

How about the Khans*?

They're pretty indisputably the most successful military dynasty, what with forging the
largest contiguous empire ever, solely through force of arms. An empire which became pretty well developed in terms of governance and laws and so on.

Admittedly, they weren't particularly long-lived. The main strain of the dynasty (Genghis to Kublai) only lasted about a hundred years. But the Yuan dynasty is a clear continuation of the line which can add another 70 years onto that. Moreover, the Chagatai Khanate lasted till the 17th century. And I think it'd be mighty difficult to find a dynasty that was more successful in raw terms then the Khans.


*Since Khan is a title, I'm pretty sure this isn't the proper name. Anyone got any ideas?

Don't forget they're also the ancestors of the Mughal Dynasty in India (Babur was descended from Genghis Khan through his mother side).

Don't forget they're also the ancestors of the Mughal Dynasty in India (Babur was descended from Genghis Khan through his mother side).

I'm pretty sure the Mughals are decended of the Timurids, after Timur the Lame conquered the area and installed one of his brothers as ruler.

The founder of the Mughal dynasty was Babur, "The Tiger," who ruled from 1483 to 1530. Babur was not fully a Mongol: his mother was descended from Genghis Khan, but his father was descended from Timur. Like his ancestors, he rose from comparatively little to become one of the great conquerors of his time.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MUGHAL/BABUR.HTM

Okay, so he was half-Mongol.

IIRC Timur was also of Mongol descent. But would that include Genghis (or at least claims of him)?

Timur was not of Genghis Khan descent, but IIRC, he was Mongol.

The lack of descendance to Genghis was the trason Timur never declared himself khan.

Also, I believe he was of a mixed turkish-moingol descendance.

Certainly not the Tudors. Three generations, five monarchs, 118 years? Unimpressive even by English standards. Never even extended the country's border's much beyond England (including Wales, which was technically part of England at the time).

The Mughals were in fact directly descended from Genghis Khan.
Timur married the daughter of Chagatai and the granddaughter of Genghis Khan. Their offspring would rule the Timurid dynasty. Babur of the Timurid dynasty and the founder of the Mughals was thus a direct decendent of Genghis Khan.

The last ruler directly decended from Genghis Khan was Mohammed Alim Khan the Emir of Bukhara. The Emirate of Bukhara was a fairly autonomous protectorate of Russia. He would be driven from power in 1920 by the Bolsheviks.
So the dynasty of the Khans has ruled over parts of Asia continuously from 1215-1920.

So the dynasty of the Khans has ruled over parts of Asia continuously from 1215-1920.
Descent is not the same as a continuing dynasty. Half the nobility of Europe could trace their ancestry to Charlemagne, but that doesn't mean that the Carolingians are still a ruling dynasty. "Dynasty" implies the continuing rule of single house or family.

Descent is not the same as a continuing dynasty. Half the nobility of Europe could trace their ancestry to Charlemagne, but that doesn't mean that the Carolingians are still a ruling dynasty. "Dynasty" implies the continuing rule of single house or family.

Now that is rather sexist now isn't it ;)

Now that is rather sexist now isn't it ;)
No... It's simply a fact that most cultures only recognised dynastic continuation through the male line. You can't re-write history to suit modern viewpoints.

Why not? We do it all the time.

Why not? We do it all the time.
Fallacy of the majority. Doesn't make it logical or correct.

Certainly not the Tudors. Three generations, five monarchs, 118 years? Unimpressive even by English standards. Never even extended the country's border's much beyond England (including Wales, which was technically part of England at the time).

True, the Tudors werent impressive when comparing it to the other various dynasties.

However, this is the dynasty that established Protestantism in its borders, saw the rise of a proper English Navy and the transformation of England from a medieval state into a proper reinassce. Even if the dynasty's last queen did leave England rather bankrupt, the impact that the Tudors left was more influential than say the Stuart Dynasty which caused a civil war.

The Tang Dynasty of China, the Joseon Dynasty of Korea, the Romanov Dynasty of Russia, the Hasburg Dynasty, the Ottoman Dynasty and the Přemyslid Dynasty

However, this is the dynasty that established Protestantism in its borders, saw the rise of a proper English Navy and the transformation of England from a medieval state into a proper reinassce.
The Protestantism bit was incredibly incomplete by the time the last Tudor monarch died, and would return to plague England in the next century (causing no end of trouble for the Stuarts, as it would happen, and causing many of that benighted dynasty's woes). The Royal Navy went down the tubes after Lizzie died and didn't get good again until the Commonwealth appears and officers like Monck and Blake reform it into the precursor of the world-beating fleet that made the scene in the latter years of the War of the Grand Alliance. (Crediting the Tudors with the successful Royal Navy is like doing the same for Alfred the Great; sure, their fleets were nice, but they didn't last all that long.) The 'transformation' bit is much more on the money, but it came at a serious price. After Henry VII died, Tudor England was constantly fighting wars with both its British neighbors and with antagonists on the Continent. Henry VIII was just as warlike as his daughter was, sending troops to either fight the French or ally with the French against the Habsburgs (on alternate wars). The finances were in a mess even earlier than they were for France and the Habsburgs, with the English getting into serious trouble in the 1540s, IIRC, while their Continental foes/friends did the same ten years later. In fact, Henry's wars helped strengthen Parliament a great deal because he was forced to borrow from them so often to pay his terrible mercenary soldiers. Hence another genesis of the problems that bedeviled Charles I. I mean, yeah they did fantastic things for England, but they were not even close to the best English dynasty, let alone best historical one.
Even if the dynasty's last queen did leave England rather bankrupt, the impact that the Tudors left was more influential than say the Stuart Dynasty which caused a civil war.
Oh, I don't know. The Stuarts, especially their Restored version, didn't do all that badly. William III and later Anne in fact did very splendidly in the Wars of the Grand Alliance and Spanish Succession respectively. Charles II didn't do that badly either; although some of his domestic policies were crummy and he hadn't much sense in the foreign policy sphere, it was under his reign that the sea monopoly of the Dutch was forever shattered in the later Anglo-Dutch Wars. Only James II and Charles I were unequivocally lower-quality rulers of the Stuarts, and even Charles tried to centralize like his buddies on the Continent were doing; he just had the misfortune of having to try in England. I mean, not that the Stuarts were amazingly awesome or anything, but they don't deserve their bad rap. Kinda like the French in general, or the Habsburgs in general.

IMHO the best English/British dynasty was either the Hanoverians or the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha line. Since they're almost the exact same thing, the question ought to be moot, but whatever.

The Protestantism bit was incredibly incomplete by the time the last Tudor monarch died, and would return to plague England in the next century (causing no end of trouble for the Stuarts, as it would happen, and causing many of that benighted dynasty's woes). The Royal Navy went down the tubes after Lizzie died and didn't get good again until the Commonwealth appears and officers like Monck and Blake reform it into the precursor of the world-beating fleet that made the scene in the latter years of the War of the Grand Alliance. (Crediting the Tudors with the successful Royal Navy is like doing the same for Alfred the Great; sure, their fleets were nice, but they didn't last all that long.) The 'transformation' bit is much more on the money, but it came at a serious price. After Henry VII died, Tudor England was constantly fighting wars with both its British neighbors and with antagonists on the Continent. Henry VIII was just as warlike as his daughter was, sending troops to either fight the French or ally with the French against the Habsburgs (on alternate wars). The finances were in a mess even earlier than they were for France and the Habsburgs, with the English getting into serious trouble in the 1540s, IIRC, while their Continental foes/friends did the same ten years later. In fact, Henry's wars helped strengthen Parliament a great deal because he was forced to borrow from them so often to pay his terrible mercenary soldiers. Hence another genesis of the problems that bedeviled Charles I. I mean, yeah they did fantastic things for England, but they were not even close to the best English dynasty, let alone best historical one.

Oh, I don't know. The Stuarts, especially their Restored version, didn't do all that badly. William III and later Anne in fact did very splendidly in the Wars of the Grand Alliance and Spanish Succession respectively. Charles II didn't do that badly either; although some of his domestic policies were crummy and he hadn't much sense in the foreign policy sphere, it was under his reign that the sea monopoly of the Dutch was forever shattered in the later Anglo-Dutch Wars. Only James II and Charles I were unequivocally lower-quality rulers of the Stuarts, and even Charles tried to centralize like his buddies on the Continent were doing; he just had the misfortune of having to try in England. I mean, not that the Stuarts were amazingly awesome or anything, but they don't deserve their bad rap. Kinda like the French in general, or the Habsburgs in general.

IMHO the best English/British dynasty was either the Hanoverians or the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha line. Since they're almost the exact same thing, the question ought to be moot, but whatever.

Alright, you do have your points, but I still believe that the Tudor Dynasty was important to the growth of the English Power. But I agree with you, the best Dynasty was the Hanoverians. The 3 Georges were remarkleble of the country, even if their power did slowly diminish.