Longest dynasty possible?

WhatIsAUserName

Today, the longest-reigning dynasty is the imperial house of Japan, dating back to at least 500 CE. Of course, the claim is that the imperial house dates back to 660 BCE, but I don't think anybody really believes that.

Thus, the challenge is, with a point of divergence before 500 CE (when the Emperor Keitai took the throne, and because there is reason to doubt that he was really part of the same dynasty as the Emperor Buretsu), is there a way to get a dynasty beginning before 500 CE and lasting till the present day?
 
The Kiat

The Kiat

Not unless it had some sort of divine aura/mythology and had no real power. Any emperor with power is going to attract those who would like to topple and replace him with themselves. Just look at China and Europe.
 

EternalCynic

After Cao Cao's defeat in 208 and his retreat to the northern half of China, he continues to insist he is the legitimate ruler of the Han Dynasty. Instead of then Han Dynasty splintering into Wei, Shu, and Wu, it's splintered into three rival empires each claiming the legitimate mandate of the Han. Wei, Shu, and Wu are respectively known as Cao Han, Sun Han, and Liu Han after their respective founders.

This sets a precedent where instead of uprisings overthrowing a crumbling dynasty, the throne merely passes to a different family.
 

WhatIsAUserName

EternalCynic said:
After Cao Cao's defeat in 208 and his retreat to the northern half of China, he continues to insist he is the legitimate ruler of the Han Dynasty. Instead of then Han Dynasty splintering into Wei, Shu, and Wu, it's splintered into three rival empires each claiming the legitimate mandate of the Han. Wei, Shu, and Wu are respectively known as Cao Han, Sun Han, and Liu Han after their respective founders.

This sets a precedent where instead of uprisings overthrowing a crumbling dynasty, the throne merely passes to a different family.
Click to expand...

The whole point of a dynasty is having the same family. Generally, I'm talking about descent along the father's line, so that doesn't count then. That's a good idea, but that's not the same thing as having the Han Dynasty. It's more akin to the Northern Zhou or Later Zhou being called continuations of the Zhou Dynasty.
 

John Fredrick Parker

Donor
EternalCynic said:
After Cao Cao's defeat in 208 and his retreat to the northern half of China, he continues to insist he is the legitimate ruler of the Han Dynasty. Instead of then Han Dynasty splintering into Wei, Shu, and Wu, it's splintered into three rival empires each claiming the legitimate mandate of the Han. Wei, Shu, and Wu are respectively known as Cao Han, Sun Han, and Liu Han after their respective founders.

This sets a precedent where instead of uprisings overthrowing a crumbling dynasty, the throne merely passes to a different family.
Click to expand...

Better yet, Cao Cao wins the Battle of Red Bluff, and doesn't kill the puppet emperor; then it's just a matter of the Han dynasty lasting as long as possible.

OK, technically it's the "latter Han dynasty", but I think the case can be made it's pretty much the same patrilineal descent from Liu Pang, meaning it meets the OP.
 

WhatIsAUserName

John Fredrick Parker said:
Better yet, Cao Cao wins the Battle of Red Bluff, and doesn't kill the puppet emperor; then it's just a matter of the Han dynasty lasting as long as possible.

OK, technically it's the "latter Han dynasty", but I think the case can be made it's pretty much the same patrilineal descent from Liu Pang, meaning it meets the OP.
Click to expand...

Well, in this case it would be descent from Emperor Guangwu of Han. There was a disruption with Wang Mang's Xin Dynasty. Because of that, I wouldn't say that the Eastern Han Dynasty isn't the same thing as the Western Han Dynasty, because the Han lost power to another dynasty. Nothing similar happened to Japan, even if there were competing claimants.
 

John Fredrick Parker

Donor
WhatIsAUserName said:
Well, in this case it would be descent from Emperor Guangwu of Han. There was a disruption with Wang Mang's Xin Dynasty. Because of that, I wouldn't say that the Eastern Han Dynasty isn't the same thing as the Western Han Dynasty, because the Han lost power to another dynasty. Nothing similar happened to Japan, even if there were competing claimants.
Click to expand...

This may be nitpicking, but -- according to Wikipedia, Emperor Guangwu was a descendant of Emperor Jing of Han, who was definitely a patrilineal descent of Emperor Gaozu.

I'm aware of the disruption, I just thought that if the Latter Han lasted longer, you may well end up with a dynasty that comes to be thought of as the "natural" rulers of China, whose rule can only be disrupted -- but never really lost. Not the same thing as Japan, but I thought it might satisfy the OP. Does that make sense?
 

WhatIsAUserName

John Fredrick Parker said:
This may be nitpicking, but -- according to Wikipedia, Emperor Guangwu was a descendant of Emperor Jing of Han, who was definitely a patrilineal descent of Emperor Gaozu.

I'm aware of the disruption, I just thought that if the Latter Han lasted longer, you may well end up with a dynasty that comes to be thought of as the "natural" rulers of China, whose rule can only be disrupted -- but never really lost. Not the same thing as Japan, but I thought it might satisfy the OP. Does that make sense?
Click to expand...

Oh wait, I think I remember doubting Liu Bei's descent from Liu Bang. You're right about Emperor Guangwu. However, it definitely satisfies my criteria as the longest dynasty. I just won't say that, even if Cao Cao won at Red Cliffs, I would say that the dynasty would last from 25 CE to 2012 CE, as opposed to 202 BCE to 2012 CE.
 

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?
 

WhatIsAUserName

chornedsnorkack said:
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?
Click to expand...

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?
 

Elfwine

willbell said:
Could an Anglo-Saxon dynasty have started in the 5th century and then defeated Viking and Norman conquests?
Click to expand...

Theoretically, but we - OTL - have no real documentation of anyone that early. That's going to be a problem, sorting out the difference between the mythical beginnings of a given dynasty which may or may not have some facts mixed in, and confirmable historic presence..
 

Flocculencio

Donor
Elfwine said:
Theoretically, but we - OTL - have no real documentation of anyone that early. That's going to be a problem, sorting out the difference between the mythical beginnings of a given dynasty which may or may not have some facts mixed in, and confirmable historic presence..
Click to expand...

Yes- after all if you count myth, Queen Elizabeth is Woden-Born
 

chornedsnorkack

Could the Pippinid mayordomos be defeated by another dynasty taking over the post of Mayordomo - so that the next mayordomo dynasty is faced with too long lived and well established tradition of Merovingian rois faineants to dispense with them?
 

Arachnid

I agree with The Kiat that for a dynasty to last this long you need real power to reside elsewhere so when an incompetent moron takes the throne he isn't overthrown and the dynasty ended. So what about the ERE, have the House of Constantine take the throne as OTL, convert Rome to Christianity and transfer the to Constantinople. Then have his descendants remain on the throne while real political power transfer to the Magister Militum as a Shogun equivalent. Then have a tradition of seeing the position of Magister Militum change hands while the House of Constantine remains on the Imperial Throne. After that all you need is an ERE to survive until the present day.
 

Elfwine

Arachnid said:
I agree with The Kiat that for a dynasty to last this long you need real power to reside elsewhere so when an incompetent moron takes the throne he isn't overthrown and the dynasty ended. So what about the ERE, have the House of Constantine take the throne as OTL, convert Rome to Christianity and transfer the to Constantinople. Then have his descendants remain on the throne while real political power transfer to the Magister Militum as a Shogun equivalent. Then have a tradition of seeing the position of Magister Militum change hands while the House of Constantine remains on the Imperial Throne. After that all you need is an ERE to survive until the present day.
Click to expand...

And for the dynasty to, y'know, continue. Even a powerless dynasty still has to be fertile enough to keep going and to not kill off its (presumably male, depending on how dynastic continuity is defined) members.

I'm not sure you need real power to reside elsewhere - most OTL long lived dynasties have survived a few morons before being overthrown or dying out.

Take the Hapsburgs and Romanovs. Peter III was overthrown, but he dynasty continued via his son.
 
Last edited:

Simreeve

They aren't a ruling dynasty, only a 'noble' one, but there's still a Chinese lineage (now on Taiwan) that claims descent from Confucius and has a documented family tree running back to about three or four generations before him.
One of their current members is a rap artist.
Yes, seriously... but it's a sort of 'Confucian Rap', with a moral message, rather than the better-known 'Gangsta' style.

:cool:
 

Fox Eating Bamboo

It would probably help for this dynasty's country to have loose rules concerning adoption and inheritance so that, in the event that heirs aren't forthcoming, they can pick one off the street.

Also, religion helps a lot. If actually removing the monarch is considered anathema or heretical, it would provide a huge disincentive for any conquerer: you upset the population and give rivals fodder to attack you with. That way, whenever the dynasty gets 'overthrown', which almost certainly will happen given 1500+ years, it won't actually end, just lose non-ceremonial power.

I think the easiest for this to happen would be a small, isolated kingdom far from, say, Mongols. Maybe Hawaii?
 

Archdevil

The House of Capet was pretty long-lived.

Almost as long as the Japanese one.

Some of the Egyptian 'dynasties' were actually the same family IIRC.
 

WhatIsAUserName

Archdevil said:
The House of Capet was pretty long-lived.

Almost as long as the Japanese one.

Some of the Egyptian 'dynasties' were actually the same family IIRC.
Click to expand...

Well, the House of Capet doesn't really have a chance. Even if you have it survive from Hugh Capet till the present day, that's only about 1000 years, whereas the Japanese one has been around at least 1500 years. 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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top