Of course this is incorrect, go look up an empire and see.
… Roman empire got over 1000 years, Ottoman’s got 623 years, Mongol empire only got 162.
…and Italy, Turkey, and Mongolia are still around, they’re just not empires anymore. They’re Nations.
“Average”
Mean, median, or mode?
Yes.
it isn’t an average, it’s a literal bs made up number
Sure, but that doesn’t change there will be outliers at both ends. And the lower end would likely have far more. So no matter the average, it would be on lower end of the max.
So if an empire and only one lasted to 1000, but others 5 years, or even days. It makes sense that an average around 250 is entirely possible.
if you want to go into statistics, normal average are useless for these things, as many empires last a few years, while others can last thousands. they don’t fall in a normal distribution, you might need a geometric mean.
but also, empire is such a vague term. did the Roman empire fall around the 5 century? or do you count Byzantium as the Roman empire?
Did England start with the Norman invasion? or was it from before and the Normans were just a new dynasty?
it’s something that’s practically impossible to count, what’s an empire? when it started/ended? and on top of that no normal distribution.
I don’t disagree, there isn’t a great way to quantify the data, I’m just making a discussion out of the main comment seemingly missing what an average is by talking about edge cases on the high end. Also their 3 examples, which I assume are the only 3 high end cases. Already have a massive discrepancy.
1000 and the next closest being ~600, it infers that long empires are few and far between.
there’s no average, that number was literally made up for some bs theory of empires.
it isn’t because it’s an “average” it’s literally made it, and it’s impossible to get, as whatever definition of empire will miss so many “empires”.
it’s multiple layers of bs.
No one’s arguing that dude, but that doesn’t mean people can’t point out and talk about someone who missed what an average is as well.
these where the first versions of empire that existed on this world and full of equal parts flaws and dumb luck as a result
the modern hybrid euro-colonial versions also have flaws and luck on their side, but, more importantly, they learn and adapt from each other and, as a result, have a pattern that we can now identify.
You do know what average means in this context, right? You divide the sum of the empires’ years by the number of empires.
But if the average hides a huge range of datapoints, it becomes less useful.
The actual paper the number comes from (Fate of Empires by John Glubb) is complete bullshit, though. Even the cherry-picked examples it uses, which are limited strictly to the surroundings of the Mediterranean, don’t use any kind of consistent criteria for when an empire starts or ends. He tries to count “Alexander (and his successors)” as one coherent entity and then picks an end year in which all of them had either already collapsed long ago or would not do so for many decades to come. He cuts centuries off of the Roman Empire’s lifespan by just saying that the empire was unstable and getting invaded a lot (and ignoring the Eastern Empire entirely). HIs reckoning of the “Arab Empire” includes three separate caliphates, and the end date isn’t even the actual end of any of them
Other than that, no, it does not attempt to find an average in the sense of a mean lifespan. It actually does argue that 250 years for an empire can be compared to a human living 70 years.
Then it wouldn’t be reasonable to assume the US would collapse right at the average (mean) though. If the majority of empires collapsed at the same age (the mode) it would be different, but the mean tells you very little about when any particular empire will collapse.
The mean number of children per household is a decimal, that doesn’t mean any households have partial children.
Mean, mode, or median?
What’s the standard deviation look like?
Rome lasted 1,480 years.
in b4 someone says that it is an “average”.
that number is made up BS anyways
Forget about averages, his post isn’t even factually correct. Rome did not last 1,480 years.
depends how you define Rome, from 753bc and the Byzantine empire lasted all the way to 1453CE. so Rome lasted longer if you count it as the Roman empire.
The Roman Empire began in 27 BC with Augustus, the first emperor of Rome. It eventually split in half in 395 AD. The Western Roman Empire, including the city of Rome itself, fell in 476 AD. The Eastern Roman Empire, or the Byzantine Empire was centered on Constantinople, not Rome.
yhea, but they still considered themselves Roman.
the point is that it is impossible to determine when exactly an empire begun or ended.
we could argue for weeks and the Roman empire, and that’s just one of countless empires.
The point is Rome did not last 1,480+ years as you and the other poster claimed, not even close. Odoacer conquered Rome and became the first barbarian king of Italy in 476 AD.
tell that to the byzantines who claimed to be the successors of the Roman empire. don’t think they got the memo
The Roman Empire split in 395 AD. The Western Roman Empire, including the city of Rome itself, fell in 476 AD.
Uh, yeah, not like this.
If you’re sitting around waiting for the empire to fall, then it’s never going to fall. Empires fall because people make them fall.
And it’s going to be achieved with blood…
I hate to be nitpicky about a meme but I love to be nitpicky. This claims is based on bullshit statistics that the author made up or bent to his will. The Ottoman empire alone shows this to be incorrect but Rome too stands out. Besides, what would an arbitrary amount of time have to do with the collapse of complex economic systems. Its bullshit idealism and I hate seeing it.
I am begging the US to collapse though
Also worth pointing out that, while America may be 249 years old, no one would consider it an empire for the majority of that time. Its debatable, but I would argue we didn’t really reach an empirical level of power until the late 40s, when we started taking over what was left of the British Empire’s influence over the middle-eas5.
Average. It’s just an average. I haven’t verified whether the number is accurate (and often it’s probably debatable what qualifies as an empire and at what point it fell) but some empires lasting way longer does nothing to disprove 250 years being the average lifespan.
The second part of what you said is still entirely correct of course, that number has no real predictive capabilities for the collapse of the USA.
It isn’t though, I have seen the original source of this claim and its bs. The author just picks and chooses when empires begin and end so that it fits their claim. I would concede the point if it were ever actually an average.
It’s not just Glubb. The Changing World Order by Ray Dalio also arrives at the 250 year number.
Cliodynamics and Structural-Demographic Theory suggests cycles of 200-300 years as well.
The 250 year thing is basically completely made up BS
250 years is just a rough estimate. As an expert, what’s the number you’ve arrived at?
It’s straight up not a thing, there is no number of years which tends to correspond to the life expectancy of empires
We’re talking about the average life expectancy of an empire. It’s a fairly straightforward calculation if one has all the data ready.
It’s not really that straightforward though, is it? Firstly is it a mean or a median average? What counts as an empire? When do we date the rise and fall of specific empires? These are not questions with straightforwards answers. Would Hitler’s Germany count as an empire? How many Roman empires were there?
I wish liberals could actually read.
I wish more people understood statistics. Did you learn about moments?
You’re all worried about statistics and the poor guy can’t even read.
Hurrr librulz durrrrr. Fuck off.
Do you count the Byzantine as separate or the same as Rome?
Your talking about structures comprising huge numbers of people across multiple generations. There is no clear “death”. Just the gradual shifting from one set of conditions to another. Pick any line in the sand, declare it to be the “end” of an empire, and you’ll still find people living under its rules, speaking the language, and using the currency well afterward.
Hell, look at Britain. No longer the globe-strangling power that they were, but it’s still the same country with the same rules and government and money.
Good counter argument
It being an average number, pulled out of it’s context, doesn’t necessarily mean anything beyond just the average
Regardless, that is the number we are interested in.
Sure, we could also work out the average life expectancy of a mammal.
But, would it really be useful, predictive or meaningful, given the variety and variability of the conditions the data emerges from?
Yes. The average life expectancy of a human for instance is a useful statistic in healthcare, social services, financial and retirement planning, etc.
mammal, not human
Yes, because of the relatively similar conditions and needs of humans
Something empires don’t have!
Interesting… 😂
Average out of which number? There has not been enough empires in human history to get any kind of valid statistical conclusion.
Also, the ancient egyptian empire lasted over 3k years, for you to get an average of 250y with such outlier you would need to include what, several 10y “empires”, or divide empires by ruler. Which would then make the conversation moot since each US president would be a new “empire”.
The claim comes from John Glubb, and he used this chart to make the average out of… 11 data points!?! While missing tons of other ancient empires that lasted thousands of years?!
This is the book where he makes such claim
So to answer your comment, yeah math is easy. Impossible to reach such average number with all the data though, given that it was made with a wildly incomplete and incorrect data…
the ancient egyptian empire lasted over 3k years
No, not even close. The Egyptian Empire lasted from 1570 to 1069 BC.
The claim comes from John Glubb
No, there are others as I’ve already mentioned. The Changing World Order by Ray Dalio also arrives at the 250 year number. Cliodynamics and Structural-Demographic Theory suggests cycles of 200-300 years as well.
Why are you selectively choosing to consider only the “new kingdom” part of the whole thing? Overall it’s from 3150 BC – 30 BC
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egypt
I can also reach to whatever conclusion if I decide to ignore what doesn’t fit and modify what does to make it fit better. That’s wrong…
Why are you selectively choosing to consider only the “new kingdom” part of the whole thing? Overall it’s from 3150 BC – 30 BC
You don’t really know what you’re talking about do you? Here, look at this: https://www.worldhistory.org/Egyptian_Empire/
The Egyptian Empire rose during the period of the New Kingdom (c. 1570- c. 1069 BCE)
Three
Add fiddy and we’ll talk.
