Archbob
Ancient CFC Guardian
Some elements of Persian culture might still exist but a lot of it faded when Alexander pwned Darius III and Hellenized much of that region.
China has 5000 years of history, the US only 250.
- Thread starter Lord Chambers
- Start date
Some elements of Persian culture might still exist but a lot of it faded when Alexander pwned Darius III and Hellenized much of that region.
cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
Persia actually is a good point. but in terms of remaining "true" to the very original Persia, one can see that it has culturally changed a lot over time, at least much more than China.
Snowball
Chauvinist Pig
I think it is San Marino, technically.
cubsfan6506
Got u
I think it's really all a continuation. China was one of the first civilizations and most likely didn't have a lot in comon iwth modern china. This would kind of be like us declareing lineage to the first wester civilization of sumerica.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Not really the same thing at all, no.
The only tie between Sumer and America is one of remote influence ; Sumer influenced Phoenicia (possibly with other links thrown in) influenced Greece influenced Rome influenced England, a part of which went on to become America.
In China's case you can trace a much closer line - Qin China became Han China became Three Kingdoms China became Tang China became Song China became Yuan China became Ming China became Qing China became Republican/Warlords China became Communist China (probably forgetting a step or three along the way).
A much closer comparison would be the evolution between, say, the post-Charlemagne kingdom of the West Franks and today France. Culturally enormously different, but you can definitely trace a relatively unbroken line as a nation - Carolingian France became the medieval Capetian France, then Renaissance France under the Valois and Valois-Angoulème branches of the Capetian house. Then came the Bourbon and early modern France, then the mess of rapidly changing governments that followed the revolution (First republic, first empire, restored monarchy, second republic, second empire, third republic, fourth republic, fifth republic).
Similarly with England. The culture of England today has very little to do with that of Anglo-Saxon England - but that changes nothing to the fact that England is well over a thousand years old by now (although it nominally doesn't exist as a nation anymore, of course, and the Scots and various others would be quite cross at people who claimed United Kingdom = England)
The only tie between Sumer and America is one of remote influence ; Sumer influenced Phoenicia (possibly with other links thrown in) influenced Greece influenced Rome influenced England, a part of which went on to become America.
In China's case you can trace a much closer line - Qin China became Han China became Three Kingdoms China became Tang China became Song China became Yuan China became Ming China became Qing China became Republican/Warlords China became Communist China (probably forgetting a step or three along the way).
A much closer comparison would be the evolution between, say, the post-Charlemagne kingdom of the West Franks and today France. Culturally enormously different, but you can definitely trace a relatively unbroken line as a nation - Carolingian France became the medieval Capetian France, then Renaissance France under the Valois and Valois-Angoulème branches of the Capetian house. Then came the Bourbon and early modern France, then the mess of rapidly changing governments that followed the revolution (First republic, first empire, restored monarchy, second republic, second empire, third republic, fourth republic, fifth republic).
Similarly with England. The culture of England today has very little to do with that of Anglo-Saxon England - but that changes nothing to the fact that England is well over a thousand years old by now (although it nominally doesn't exist as a nation anymore, of course, and the Scots and various others would be quite cross at people who claimed United Kingdom = England)
aronnax
Let your spirit be free
Techincally, China has a the near same political system of around 2200 years.
But What I think he means is that a constant non-break of the same dynasty/republic/whatever under the same name.
So Technically, Dynasty-wise, UK last changed in "Political System" in 1917 when the Dynasty on the throne became Windsor.
However, base on the country's name and political system. UK last changed in 1922 when Ireland left.
And for France, in 1958 when the Fifth Republic was set up.
But San Marino has been "The Republic of San Marino" for over 1600 years
And Monaco has been under the House of Grimaldi for over 800 years.
But What I think he means is that a constant non-break of the same dynasty/republic/whatever under the same name.
So Technically, Dynasty-wise, UK last changed in "Political System" in 1917 when the Dynasty on the throne became Windsor.
However, base on the country's name and political system. UK last changed in 1922 when Ireland left.
And for France, in 1958 when the Fifth Republic was set up.
But San Marino has been "The Republic of San Marino" for over 1600 years
And Monaco has been under the House of Grimaldi for over 800 years.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
San Marino has made changes in its political system in those 1600 years, though. IIRC their current constitution is a few century olds - four or so, top.
Enkidu Warrior
Ultramagnetic
Japan certainly has the oldest unbroken imperial line, even discounting the first of the bunch who likely never existed. But then the imperial family has rarely ever been a truly political entity. I don't think even the irrationally anti-Chinese people here would claim that Japan has an older history than what is culturally it's mother country.
The Isle of Man claimed its parliament to be the oldest in the world.
Kadazzle
Emperor
A lot of Native American tribes still use the same government today.
I heard that the [wiki]Althing[/wiki] of Iceland is the oldest Parliament. Although Iceland itself has not been independent that long.
Shadylookin
master debater
it's not the length of your history that matters it's how you use it
How long have some of the native american tribes been around? Since they're somewhat independent I'm sure they could possibly rival china.
How long have some of the native american tribes been around? Since they're somewhat independent I'm sure they could possibly rival china.
Yeah, if China has had 20 times the history we have had, what does it say about our respective ratios of history to accomplishment?
(Not that such a statistic could ever have any meaning, but hey, they brought it up . . .)
(Not that such a statistic could ever have any meaning, but hey, they brought it up . . .)
cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
if we "start" count of China from 221 BC (start date of Qin Dynasty, althuogh not the start date of the Chinese culture)...
221 BC
+2007 AD
----------
2228 years.
that beats Rome by 19 years.
but seriously, the Byzantines don't count *as much* culturally, because they were cultrally more different than Rome than, say, the Yuan Dynasty to the Han Dynasty. althuogh politically i guess one could say they were the same, thuogh.
regardless, i think it is more important to look at this thing culturally, not politically, which would mean China definitely outstrips Rome (even if we add in Greece to the equation).
How Does chinese culture "beat"(hate this term) roman though? Undoubtedly Roma influenced the various European nations more so than any other force and they went on to become the worlds culturally dominant force, no? I mean by the 18th century the Chinese were literally copying european art and chiseling on Chinese faces to feel like a part of the international community.
And also just as China was conquered by the Mongols Rome was eventually conquered by the Ottomans. That present a signifigant Chinese dynastic break! That would be like me counting the Holy Roman Empire as part of the Roman sucsession (and Mussolini's but meh). While you can reply the Mongols became Chinese, I can empathicaly say the Ottoman culture much resembled Romanic and Byzantinian culture MUCH more than it resembled any former Asian or Arabian culture. The same can go for the Germanics especially the Ostrogothic and Visigothic who inherited the Largest former Roman chunks up until about the Christian ninth century!
And also just as China was conquered by the Mongols Rome was eventually conquered by the Ottomans. That present a signifigant Chinese dynastic break! That would be like me counting the Holy Roman Empire as part of the Roman sucsession (and Mussolini's but meh). While you can reply the Mongols became Chinese, I can empathicaly say the Ottoman culture much resembled Romanic and Byzantinian culture MUCH more than it resembled any former Asian or Arabian culture. The same can go for the Germanics especially the Ostrogothic and Visigothic who inherited the Largest former Roman chunks up until about the Christian ninth century!
cybrxkhan
Asian Xwedodah
first, i never said China "beat" Rome in the sense that their culture was superior. the two are essentially equal in my book in terms of superiority. in terms of longetivity
, that is another matter. there are two ways of thinking of China's cultural longetivity. the more conservative way puts the start of Chinese culture around the Shang dynasty, say, c.1500 BCE. that puts it at alrady 3500. the more liberal way (and the way supported by the Chinese and other Asian cultures) puts it around the Xia dynasty, say, c. 2200 BCE, making Chinese culture 4200 years old. so Chinese culture is about 4000 years old. and this is not even including the pre-Xia dynasty cultures.
when comparing the Mongols to the HRE/Ottomans whatever, the thing is the Mongols essentially kept the structure of the Chinese intact. no change. religion was practically the same, peasants still suffered the same way, etc. the HRE, on the other hand, was a different type of political and cultural entity; the Ottomans were also socially and culturally different than the Byzantines.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
The key difference being, of course, that very few serious historians would actually consider the Holy Roman Empire a legitimate continuation of the Roman Empire - the only continuity was the fact that they used "Rome" in the name. Similarly with the Ottomans : they borrowed the name as a thing of prestige and that was it ; they kept their own political institutions throughout.
Whereas in China's case, Mongols (and later the Manchus) came into the empire and within a generation of three had set themselves up as Emperors of China, accepted grudgingly as such (granted, superior military might may have helped), using essentially the Chinese system. And within a few more generations they had been kicked back out, with the Chinese Ming dynasty taking back power. Which is something that didn't happen to either Roman empires.
Whereas in China's case, Mongols (and later the Manchus) came into the empire and within a generation of three had set themselves up as Emperors of China, accepted grudgingly as such (granted, superior military might may have helped), using essentially the Chinese system. And within a few more generations they had been kicked back out, with the Chinese Ming dynasty taking back power. Which is something that didn't happen to either Roman empires.
Mirc
Not mIRC!!!
Which name did the the Ottomans borrow?Similar threads
