Longest dynasty possible?

[RGB]

Originally Posted by WhatIsAUserName

Surviving Merovingians could work, if that's somehow possible, as mentioned earlier. It would actually produce a style of monarchy similar to the one in Japan.

Except with much much longer hair.

[Plumber]

I thought some of Egypt's were long enough to be extended a bit.

[WhatIsAUserName]

Originally Posted by Plumber

I thought some of Egypt's were long enough to be extended a bit.

Did any of those last more than 500 years? I thought they weren't long enough. Unless you're talking about a Ptolemaic Dynasty that survives till the present-day.

[NikoZnate]

Originally Posted by Plumber

I thought some of Egypt's were long enough to be extended a bit.

There's the 17th/18th Dynasty (actually the same dynasty, but divided into two since it straddles the Second Intermediate Period and the New Kingdom) which lasted about 360 years (give or take). Otherwise Egyptian dynasties typically lasted between 100 and 200 years. Even the house of Ptolemy only persisted for about 275.

[democracy101]

Originally Posted by chornedsnorkack

Would you call Silla a single dynasty since... when?

In 8th, early 9th century, Japan, Silla and China all had rulers who exercised some real power. And all three had the ruler´s power weakening in 9th century.

In Japan, the Fujiwara who seized power in 9th century kept the emperors on the throne as figureheads for centuries. And so did the Minamoto, Ashikaga and Tokugawa after they seized power.

In Silla and China, the rulers were made figureheads - but lasted only briefly. The last Silla ruler was a figurehead for 8 years - then defected to Koryo, abdicated and was left alive to die natural death long time afterwards. The last Tang emperor was a figurehead for less than 3 years, then forced to abdicate but killed in less than a year.

China had a tradition of dynastical change - many longlived dynasties had been overthrown, and Tang themselves had seized throne in 618. However, Silla did not have such tradition yet - sacred and true bone had ruled since prehistoric time.

What might have happened in Silla to cause a new regime to keep Silla ruling family around as figureheads - long term?

Incidentally, Koryo ruling family WAS kept as figureheads by military dictators, finally by Choe family, for about a century - 1170 to about 1270.

So - who could have replaced Silla, if not Koryo as per OTL?

Originally Posted by WhatIsAUserName

Well, I agree that China can't have a dynasty that lasts too long. By 500 CE, the institution of dynastic change is too well-established. And I already mentioned Japan. Silla seems like it could work, but I'm not sure how old the Silla Dynasty is. When do the historical records of its monarchs go from legendary to real? I.e., what is the earliest attested monarch?

Although it is remotely possible that Silla existed in some form around 57 BC, it probably did not directly control the area enclosed by the Nakdong River and become centralized until about 200-300. If you want to certify based on records, Naemul (356-402) was the first ruler to appear in Chinese sources. In comparison, Baekje and Gaya also probably started expanding outward from their capitals around the same time period. In other words, it is possible that Silla was the last of the three to be consolidated.

On the other hand, Chinese records suggest that Goguryeo existed in some form at least by the 1st century BC, and it was probably centralized around the 1st century AD. However, records after 500 suggest that Goguryeo considered itself to be a direct successor of Buyeo, and extended its chronology accordingly. Jumong was a Buyeo prince before he fled to Jolbon, another Buyeo region, so it can be argued that the Buyeo-Goguryeo entity existed in some form around 300-200 BC. In terms of sources, Chinese ones suggest that Buyeo was founded around the 2nd century BC at the latest.

If Goguryeo manages to unify the peninsula politically by 450-500, which I will attempt to do in my ATL scenario, then it is possible that it could last around 800-900 before its rulers become figureheads or cease to exist. I am planning on another dynasty overthrowing it, but if figurehead rulers are maintained for a significant amount of time, or a relative of the last ruler marries the new ruler and starts a new royal line, then I guess it would be possible for the dynasty to continue to exist for at least several centuries.

In OTL, there was a relatively smooth transition from Silla to Goryeo after the chaos had died down, but military dictators did rule Goryeo from 1170-1270, and Yi Seonggye overthrew the ruler in 1388 and maintained the rulers as puppets until 1392, establishing Joseon. In comparison, Goguryeo went through a similar situation when Yeon Gaesomun overthrew the ruler in 642 and ruled until 665/6, and Joseon was mostly led by the Andong Kim clan from 1834-63. In other words, with the right POD and butterflies, it is possible for figureheads to be maintained, given the examples in OTL, but it would be very hard to prolong the situation for more than a few centuries unless a clear precedent is established.

[TurkishCapybara]

An Ottoman Empire that lasts into the 29th Century?

That would be >1500 Years.

[Errnge]

It's hard to do this because so many factors go into such a long time period, but I thing it would be really awesome if the Argead Dynasty survived to the modern day. They were established in 808 B.C., and went on until 310 B.C. If they survived, somehow, even in a little speck of land in Macedonia, the Argeads would be a dynasty almost 3000 years old

[WhatIsAUserName]

Originally Posted by democracy101

Although it is remotely possible that Silla existed in some form around 57 BC, it probably did not directly control the area enclosed by the Nakdong River and become centralized until about 200-300. If you want to certify based on records, Naemul (356-402) was the first ruler to appear in Chinese sources. In comparison, Baekje and Gaya also probably started expanding outward from their capitals around the same time period. In other words, it is possible that Silla was the last of the three to be consolidated.

On the other hand, Chinese records suggest that Goguryeo existed in some form at least by the 1st century BC, and it was probably centralized around the 1st century AD. However, records after 500 suggest that Goguryeo considered itself to be a direct successor of Buyeo, and extended its chronology accordingly. Jumong was a Buyeo prince before he fled to Jolbon, another Buyeo region, so it can be argued that the Buyeo-Goguryeo entity existed in some form around 300-200 BC. In terms of sources, Chinese ones suggest that Buyeo was founded around the 2nd century BC at the latest.

If Goguryeo manages to unify the peninsula politically by 450-500, which I will attempt to do in my ATL scenario, then it is possible that it could last around 800-900 before its rulers become figureheads or cease to exist. I am planning on another dynasty overthrowing it, but if figurehead rulers are maintained for a significant amount of time, or a relative of the last ruler marries the new ruler and starts a new royal line, then I guess it would be possible for the dynasty to continue to exist for at least several centuries.

In OTL, there was a relatively smooth transition from Silla to Goryeo after the chaos had died down, but military dictators did rule Goryeo from 1170-1270, and Yi Seonggye overthrew the ruler in 1388 and maintained the rulers as puppets until 1392, establishing Joseon. In comparison, Goguryeo went through a similar situation when Yeon Gaesomun overthrew the ruler in 642 and ruled until 665/6, and Joseon was mostly led by the Andong Kim clan from 1834-63. In other words, with the right POD and butterflies, it is possible for figureheads to be maintained, given the examples in OTL, but it would be very hard to prolong the situation for more than a few centuries unless a clear precedent is established.

A few questions: First, didn't Puyo and Koguryo exist at the same time? Second, isn't this relying on legendary rulers? I remember that Wang Mang's Xin Dynasty fought Koguryo, as recorded in Chinese sources, but did they record who was leading Koguryo at the time, and things like that?

Either way, a long-lasting Korean dynasty would probably be good enough as the world's longest-lasting dynasty.

[democracy101]

Originally Posted by WhatIsAUserName

A few questions: First, didn't Puyo and Koguryo exist at the same time?

I guess that could be possible, but the traditional interpretation is that Goguryeo originated in Jolbon, a Buyeo region, that probably later split off due to ideological reasons. It's also more complicated by the fact that Dongbuyeo split off from Bukbuyeo a few years or decades before Jolbon did. Buyeo was probably established in some form around 300 BC, and while Jolbon was still part of it for about 200 years or so, it started asserting itself by 100 BC as Gojoseon refugees started migrating north, and probably became a separate entity by 82 BC when the Lintun Commandery ceased to exist.

Originally Posted by WhatIsAUserName

Second, isn't this relying on legendary rulers? I remember that Wang Mang's Xin Dynasty fought Koguryo, as recorded in Chinese sources, but did they record who was leading Koguryo at the time, and things like that?

The problem is that although the Han dynasty did acknowledge Goguryeo rulers by the 1st century AD, I couldn't find any Chinese records that specifically named Goguryeo rulers until after 500 or so. However, the Book of the Later Han does mention events that probably correspond to Daemusin's (18-44) and Taejo's (53-121/46) reigns. By the time that Cao Wei invaded in 244, Goguryeo already maintained a complex tributary system of its own, suggesting that its rulers had been firmly established before that time. Even though Gwanggaeto (391-413) was the first to adopt a reign name and was assigned a posthumous name after his death, suggesting that its rulers considered themselves as emperors around that time, there is nothing suggesting that corresponding Chinese states considered Goguryeo as anything more than a regional power until its demise.

Originally Posted by WhatIsAUserName

Either way, a long-lasting Korean dynasty would probably be good enough as the world's longest-lasting dynasty.

As I said before, however, this would require many generations of puppet rulers, which would be extremely hard to do given the events in OTL.

[edvardas]

From the time they first owned in castle in Switzerland until now it has been over a thousand years . When did they first rule a state? With a different World War l, the Hapsburgs could have been in power for a thousand years.

[Joyeux]

Does the dynasty have to be ruling its own state or can it be subordinate to a king?
And do cadet branches count?

[WhatIsAUserName]

Originally Posted by democracy101

I guess that could be possible, but the traditional interpretation is that Goguryeo originated in Jolbon, a Buyeo region, that probably later split off due to ideological reasons. It's also more complicated by the fact that Dongbuyeo split off from Bukbuyeo a few years or decades before Jolbon did. Buyeo was probably established in some form around 300 BC, and while Jolbon was still part of it for about 200 years or so, it started asserting itself by 100 BC as Gojoseon refugees started migrating north, and probably became a separate entity by 82 BC when the Lintun Commandery ceased to exist.

Well, I guess that's one interpretation, but I've come across two sources here and here referring to the Puyo and Koguryo as contemporaries. It describes Koguryo as absorbing Puyo, which would explain why Koguryo would describe itself as a successor to the Puyo. I also am pretty sure Wang Mang fought the Puyo and Koguryo at the same time. I mean, it's one thing for Koguryo to say that it has the same origins as the Puyo, but it doesn't seem like it only sprung up after the Puyo, if that makes sense.

Originally Posted by democracy101

The problem is that although the Han dynasty did acknowledge Goguryeo rulers by the 1st century AD, I couldn't find any Chinese records that specifically named Goguryeo rulers until after 500 or so. However, the Book of the Later Han does mention events that probably correspond to Daemusin's (18-44) and Taejo's (53-121/46) reigns. By the time that Cao Wei invaded in 244, Goguryeo already maintained a complex tributary system of its own, suggesting that its rulers had been firmly established before that time. Even though Gwanggaeto (391-413) was the first to adopt a reign name and was assigned a posthumous name after his death, suggesting that its rulers considered themselves as emperors around that time, there is nothing suggesting that corresponding Chinese states considered Goguryeo as anything more than a regional power until its demise.

Okay, that seems reasonable.

Originally Posted by democracy101

As I said before, however, this would require many generations of puppet rulers, which would be extremely hard to do given the events in OTL.

Well, of course, Japan went through a total of, what, 12 centuries of puppet rulers? I guess it's not completely impossible.

[WhatIsAUserName]

Originally Posted by Joyeux

Does the dynasty have to be ruling its own state or can it be subordinate to a king?
And do cadet branches count?

I prefer functional independence for a dynasty. For example, various kings in Korea and Japan paid tribute to Chinese Emperors, symbolically assuming the role of submission. However, in actuality, China had no control over how these countries were ruled. So therefore, these dynasties count in my eyes.

As for cadet branches, I know this might sound a bit discriminatory, but I'll take cadet branches along the paternal line. So, in my eyes, the Valois and Bourbons are the same dynasty as the Capet, if that makes sense.

[democracy101]

Originally Posted by WhatIsAUserName

Well, I guess that's one interpretation, but I've come across two sources here and here referring to the Puyo and Koguryo as contemporaries. It describes Koguryo as absorbing Puyo, which would explain why Koguryo would describe itself as a successor to the Puyo. I also am pretty sure Wang Mang fought the Puyo and Koguryo at the same time. I mean, it's one thing for Koguryo to say that it has the same origins as the Puyo, but it doesn't seem like it only sprung up after the Puyo, if that makes sense.

I guess it's possible, but the Gwanggaeto Stele (414) was carved before Buyeo was completely absorbed in 494, and it clearly states that Chumo, Goguryeo's founder, was a former prince of Bukbuyeo, which suggests that Buyeo existed for a while before Goguryeo was established.

Originally Posted by WhatIsAUserName

Well, of course, Japan went through a total of, what, 12 centuries of puppet rulers? I guess it's not completely impossible.

Yes, but I'm inclined to believe that one of the reasons that Japan's ruling line lasted for so long was the absence of any foreign invasions. The major reason for the end of the dictatorship during Goryeo was the Mongol invasion, and outside pressures during the other periods of dictatorship in Korean history also caused their demise. Korea also had roughly four stable regions (Three Kingdoms Period) which all promoted individual identities and rulers for at least 500 years, which I don't think occurred in Japan.