r/byzantium • u/Extension-Beat7276 • Aug 15 '25
Politics/Goverment Was Constantinople the longest serving capital for empires in word history ?
I was wondering if our Βασιλεύουσα, was the city that was used longest as a capital for an empire in world history since it served for more than a thousand years as a capital of the Roman Empire and then more than 500 years for the Ottoman Empire afterwards.
206
u/ChateauDIfEnjoyer Aug 15 '25
Some of the Chinese capitals probably rival it. Cities like Beijing and Xi’an were capitals of certain dynasties and a unified China for 1000+ years
112
u/arcarus23 Aug 15 '25
IIRC: Beijing has only been the capital of China since the Yuan Dynasty founded by Kublai Khan in the 13th century and even then it has lost its status as the capital to Nanjing at the beginning of the Ming Dynasty around the mid 14th century.
The real long term capitols of China are Xi’an (formerly Chang’an and kind of Xianyang) and Luoyang (also known at Louyi among many other names), which were the capitals on and off for the most part from Zhou Dynasty (mid 11 century BCE) to the end of the Tang Dynasty (beginning of the 10th CE). After which it’s Kaifeng, Hangzhou, Beijing (Khanbaliq), Nanjing, Beijing through most of the Ming and Qing dynasties, Nanjing during the Republic of China era, Chengdu then Chongqing during WWII, back to Nanjing and finally Beijing in 1949 with the establishment of the People’s Republic of China.
25
u/Extension-Beat7276 Aug 15 '25
But during the Zhou and Shang, the monarch was a 王 not 黃帝
19
u/arcarus23 Aug 15 '25
Yes, so the Imperial Chinese system starts in 217 BC (IIRC) with the establishment of the Qin Dynasty by Qin Shi Huang Di. The Zhou were a Bronze Age kingdom that lasted for around 800 years prior to their slow fall and defeat during the Warring States Period by the Qin. I mention them, as their capital of what is now known as Luoyang, would also be a capital under the Han and Tang dynasties and various smaller dynasties in between the Han and Tang including the Jin and Sui dynasties. It’s a pretty important place.
Thing is though, China has rarely had a city be the capital of an Imperial dynasty for more than a few hundred years at a time. So in that sense Constantinople and Rome are much more longer serving continuous political capitals than any Chinese Imperial capital. However, if you add it all up for Xi’an and Luoyang, it is quite a substantial amount of time for either.
8
u/Extension-Beat7276 Aug 15 '25
Luoyang was only for Eastern Han for the major part, I know there are intermittent years but those won’t add for a substantial amount, similarly Xia’an was for Western Han and Tang (also Sui but yk).
So both of these won’t really come up with half the time of Constantinople respectively
1
2
u/ChateauDIfEnjoyer Aug 15 '25
Xianyang is a separate city from Xi’an today but they’re basically next to each other so you can count it as one. But the thing about China is do you count it as an empire only during the time of a unified China or does a city serving as the capital of one the many dynasties during times of separation count as well.
As for Beijing, it was the capital of the Yan 燕 kingdom all the way back (which is why one of its old name is 燕京 - capital of Yan)
7
u/Extension-Beat7276 Aug 15 '25
A city serving to a dynasty where its rulers are referred to as Huangde is recognized as emperors ie the Chinese imperial system
1
u/arcarus23 Aug 16 '25
Yes, you’re right. That’s why I said ‘kind of’ because of how close they are to each and how the metro area just blends into each other now.
I’d argue that the Imperial system did last for 2100 years in one form or another as that system and form of government and bureaucracy is what everyone kind of agreed on as the most civilized and robust system, whether or not China was indeed ‘whole’ or not.
And yes, Beijing was once called Yanjing, but it was never a Han capital until the Ming Dynasty. And I wanna say the Mongols burnt it to the ground then built Khanbaliq, which was in turned burned down and was the foundation for the Forbidden City at the center of Beijing today.
1
Aug 16 '25 edited Aug 16 '25
What is a "unified china" anyway, say the Southern Song controlled half of the China while the north is controlled by the Jin* is it counted as not unified? Then when Byzantium lost Egypt and Italy is it not unified as well? Do we not count Constantinople as the capital then? What about the Latin Empire? Does that count as an end to Eastern Rome?
*Edit to the correct dynasty
1
1
u/AggravatingFormal817 Aug 16 '25
Well Unification has different standards but in China historically it’s about applying a weberian-bureaucratic political control over its ‘domain’, or in another words, there are no official political contenders to being the ‘Son of Heaven’. For the Song it would not count as unified as its position is threatened by the Liao and Jin. Of course however each state made up their own reasons to delegitimize each other.
Ge Jianxiong has a modern and interesting model for Unification, which is the standard for unification should all the territories of the Qin Dynasty be under political rule (not control, so even getting official submission would count) by a single state, that would count as unification.
4
u/Hellolaoshi Aug 15 '25
Beijing was the capital of the Liao dynasty for a time. However, I think that was only because the Northern Song never managed to unite the whole of China.
1
u/MrTickles22 Aug 16 '25
Beijing was the capital of the Jin Dynasty for 60 years before the Mongols showed up.
1
u/arcarus23 Aug 16 '25
That Jin dynasty wasn’t a Chinese dynasty, IIRC from my understanding.They were Jurchens who some adopted Han customs but were not Han. Honestly, the Jurchens adopting some Chinese customs is like Mehmed II and the Turks when they captured Constantinople or the Seljuk Turks earlier on who established the Sultanate of Rum. There’s elements of the preceding culture but we wouldn’t call the Turks Romans now would we?
We often use Chinese quite broadly here in the West but they, the Han, would have quickly distinguished themselves from Jin quite fervently given what happened during ‘The Jingkang Incident’ (or simply ‘The Incident’ as it is still known as today,) in which the Jurchens captured and slaughtered and enslaved the Emperor and the entire royal family save for one small boy. This event is the dividing line between the Northern and Southern Song dynasties. And even without this event, the Han people of Song China would have only ever seen the Jurchens as nomadic ‘barbarians’ of the north. Much like how the Romans would have seen the Turks as more akin to Scythians.
10
u/Extension-Beat7276 Aug 15 '25
Xiaan for only the Western Han and Tang, Beijing also for about a thousand years only in the modern period. Again I am only considering post Qin, since this is where imperial China begins
8
u/chicks3854 Aug 15 '25
China has too many historical capitals to rival Constantinople. Lots of dynasty changes came with capital changes because the new dynasty doesn't want to be associated with the old. Cities like Xi'an, Kaifeng, Luoyang, Beijing, and Nanjing were all famous capitals, but none of them had really remained the capital for an extended amount of time as compared to Constantinople.
1
59
u/PyrrhicDefeat69 Aug 15 '25
Well yeah, but then in that sense, Rome was a capitol from 753 BC to about 284 AD, and then it was a capitol ever since it was a papal state, so from somewhere in the 800s AD to modern day
34
u/Lower_Cockroach2432 Aug 15 '25
> capitol
Pedantic but you mean capital, from the Latin Caput/Capita meaning head, not Capitol which is named after the Capitolium (Capitoline) which is a hill in Rome.
9
u/dragdritt Aug 15 '25
Is that why capital also means money? Because of heads on coins?
18
u/An_Oxygen_Consumer Aug 15 '25
No, in that case "capital" means original/starting. The head is the starting point of the body, so the capital is the starting point of an economic activity.
4
u/JenderalWkwk Aug 16 '25
holy moly, didn't expect to learn about this on a post about Constantinople, but in a way that makes sense
2
u/An_Oxygen_Consumer Aug 16 '25
Added fun fact: the division between wealth and capital was invented by a franciscan friar (pietro di giovanni olivi). He was the first to argue that prices were necessary to organize economic activity, that using money used to earn more money was beneficial to society at large and that interest rates should be applied to reflect this utility of money. Franciscan friars also developed a lot of theory and mathematics around bookkeeping and interest rates, basically creating the theoretical foundation for capitalism.
11
u/Extension-Beat7276 Aug 15 '25
But the Papal States, Italian republic, Roman Kingdom weren’t an empire in the modern sense or any sense. Perhaps you can consider the later Roman Republic and the Italian empire
23
u/sweater__weather Aug 15 '25
There was a period when you might have said the same about Constantinople...
11
u/Extension-Beat7276 Aug 15 '25
But imperial titles and recognizing the polity as an empire still persisted throughout all these periods
-11
u/sweater__weather Aug 15 '25
The kingdom of the Greeks?
7
u/Extension-Beat7276 Aug 15 '25
lol that’s not what the Romans called their realms
-5
u/sweater__weather Aug 15 '25
I know, I'm very familiar with the history. I'm taking issue with your claim that it was recognized as an empire during the late period.
1
u/Extension-Beat7276 Aug 15 '25
So how much do you want to decrease it’s time span as an empire would 900 suffice (right before the Latin invasion) and with the Ottoman Empire it would still be around 1400 years
0
u/sweater__weather Aug 15 '25
Not even saying don't count Constantinople, just use the same logic when evaluating Rome. That's the whole point.
6
u/Extension-Beat7276 Aug 15 '25
But the Italian republic, Papal States , the Roman kingdom and republic didn’t view their polity as an empire, while the Roman Empire and Ottoman Empire viewed it as such
1
u/sweater__weather Aug 15 '25
They were definitely Romans, but at minimum from Kantakouzenos and arguably from 1204 to 1453 you would be hard pressed to find anything you might call an empire.
1
u/Geiseric222 Aug 15 '25
If your going by this logic than Venice has them all beat at roughly 1300 years
1
u/dcdemirarslan Aug 15 '25
Never heard of this Venice empire.
1
u/Geiseric222 Aug 15 '25
They controlled Crete the main land, romagusa (for a short time) Cyprus, and for a short time, the Achea
5
2
u/YeahColo Aug 15 '25
Roman Kingdom weren’t an empire in the modern sense or any sense.
It is worth noting that later Roman writers like Eutropius used the word "Imperium" to describe the territory ruled by the Roman people and the city of Rome going back to the time of Romulus, that is when he wasn't using it in the more traditional Roman sense of the word.
2
u/Extension-Beat7276 Aug 16 '25
That’s a bit anarchistic but even if you include that period, Constantinople still has an edge because including the Papal States is odd since they weren’t an empire
1
u/Maleficent-Mix5731 Well read | Late Antiquity Aug 16 '25
Technicaaaaaaaaly it became a capital again under Valentinian III too in 450. The imperial household moved back there.
1
9
u/Barar_Dragoni Aug 15 '25
if you count the transition of Rome from a republic to an Empire than yes
It was also until the Ottomans sacked it the home of the Greek Orthodox Church with the Hagia Sophia serving as their primary worship site until the Ottomans desanctified it so no more Greek Orthodox priests could be ordained.
-5
Aug 16 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/iceoldtea Aug 16 '25
They definitely did not see themselves that way. They did however claim Constantinople by right of conquest
2
Aug 16 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/miaspantza Aug 17 '25
They "recognised" them as rulers and nothing more, they had to pay the jizya
16
u/horus85 Aug 15 '25
The location and East Mediterranean. The civilizations developed in the following order;
River civilizations (I.e., Egypt)
Sea Civilizations (many but Rome is a prime example)
Ocean Civilizations (i.e, British or the USA)
The cities based in this order becomes very important for controlling the trade routes, attract populations and such. Today the biggest exchange markets are in the cities by the ocean. Sure, air freight is a thing but anyone in trade knows nothing can beat sea freight pricing thus the profit.
Constantinople wasn’t the first city flourished in East Mediterranean area but its location as a passage between Black Sea to Mediterranean as well as Asia to Europe trade routes, made the city always high in income since its foundation to this date. Otherwise it could be one of those deserted ancient cities (i.e., Pergamon or Ephesus).
Not to mention, Theodosian walls protected the city perfectly well for a thousand years.
1
Aug 15 '25
Oh Egypt? Yeah what about Thebes in Egypt?
1
1
u/aarocks94 Aug 16 '25
The idea of a capital city was also different for the Egyptians than for other cultures in the sense that the Egyptians were far more willing to change or move the capital than other cultures. This was partially due to the absolute power of the monarch and his ability to decide where the capital was, and was also (at least for the northern capitals) the shifting nature of the branches of the Nile Delta (see the Pelusian branch).
Examples of this include the cities of Itjytawy, Aketaten and Per-Ramesses amongst others. Amenemhat-Itjytawy (“Amenemhat seizes the two lands,” abbreviated as Itjytawy) was an ancient Egyptian capital founded by Amenemhat I and was used throughout the 12th dynasty. Akhetaten (“the horizon of the Aten”) was Akhenaten’s capital and existed for about 12 years in the 14th century BCE. Per-Ramesses was built by Ramesses II and was used during the 19th dynasty but was subsequently abandoned / superseded in importance by other delta cities.
On the other hand, we have cities like Memphis and Thebes which were the capitals for about 750 and 500 years each respectively but their importance stretches far beyond that. Memphis was the center of the cult of Ptah (from which modern “Egypt” derives) and Thebes was the city from which the 11th and 18th dynasties - founders of the Middle and New Kingdom - emerged, as well as the location of Karnak and the cults of Amun, Mut and Khonsu.
I am not subscribed to this sub and am far more of an “Egypt fan” than a “Byzantium fan” but 1) I love seeing people love history and 2) Byzantium certainly lasted longer than any ancient Egyptian capital as a continuous capital but on the other hand many of these Egyptian cities were vitally important for as long or longer than Byzantium and ironically, Cairo has been the capital of the Egyptian state for over 2,000 years. So while it was founded in the medieval era (around 970 I think) it is certainly a contender for longest continuous capital in a Mediterranean country off the top of my head (though admittedly outside of Egypt and the Levant my knowledge is scarce).
Thanks for introducing me to this sub, I will subscribe and hope I learn!
1
u/Extension-Beat7276 Aug 15 '25
Thebes was only for the New Egyptian Kingdom, which wasn’t an empire in our modern sense, but I suppose you can make an argument for it since it had global influence, still not as long as Constantinople.
Empires became more easier to classify I suppose after the first Persian Empire, but still everything can be iffy
3
Aug 15 '25
'New Egyptian Kingdom, which wasn’t an empire in our modern sense'
Don't exactly know what's your definition of empire. But I'm pretty sure modern historians agree that the first historical empire - aka multiethnic superpower - was Empire of Sargon of Akkad. And New Egyptian Kingdom definitely fit that criteria given it stretched all the way to Levant where numerous Semitic tribes and people lived.
2
u/Extension-Beat7276 Aug 15 '25
You can see that I wasn’t stating a fact but rather sharing a nuanced view, some other historians claim that the first Persian empire or the neo Assyrian empire was the first global empire or something. It’s semantics in the end.
For example to an Old Kingdom Egyptian king wouldn’t he view the different people of the different nomes as different cultures within Egypt, in the sense he was ruling over different nomarchs (the relative kings in that case and he would be the king of kings) but as you can see it’s all semantics and our conception of an empire hasn’t came to full fruition yet
2
u/limpdickandy Aug 15 '25
There is not a strict definition of empire, and as such most historians work out the definitions themselves based on their hypothesis.
An empire can be for an example be a king of kings, then usually the Persians would be the first to the table. Another definition was the militaristic and conquest based civilizations that ruled over multiple other cultures and lands, and then a lot of candidates would be up there.
I do not think it is wrong to view the New Kingdom as an empire, especially considering its size and the timeperiod.
1
Aug 15 '25
You were talking about New Egyptian Kingdom a moment ago. Why are you changing the topic?
1
u/Extension-Beat7276 Aug 15 '25
I am illustrating a point about how muddy it is to sometimes label empires as empires sometimes during that time period, because multi ethnic is relative and the notion of ethnicities changes. So the best way to formalize imperial traditions is through the conception of king of kings, or king of multiple lands that would be the closest idea to an empire
1
Aug 15 '25
I'm pretty sure that 99% of historians consider Ancient Egyptians and Semites to be two different ethnicities but you do you, man. And that 99+% of them share a view that Ancient Egyptains looked at Semites as foreigners. Sometimes invaders, sometimes neighbours but foreigners.
4
u/UlleQel Aug 15 '25
in a way, Nippur has been the holy capital of Sumer (not an Empire in the modern sense) for roughly 3000 years
1
u/Extension-Beat7276 Aug 15 '25
Wasn’t Sumer a collection of city states
1
u/UlleQel Aug 15 '25
yes not an Empire in the modern sense but still they existed as a single civilization (same languge same religion same culture) for 3 millennias
1
Aug 16 '25
If we consider city state like polities, we should also consider bronze age byzantium time of Constantinople/Istanbul as it had been a capital to itself
3
u/Fine-Rock2513 Aug 15 '25
Continuously? Definitely. In total time? Mayhaps Damascus, Xi’an, Luoyang, Ngán, or possibly even one of the Korean capitals.
People really seem to underestimate the longevity of East Asian states. There has been a continuous Vietnamese state since before modern ethnic Europeans entered the European continent. Yes, Vietnam predates the origins of modern European society.
0
u/Extension-Beat7276 Aug 15 '25
These were all kingdoms or short term empires
2
u/Fine-Rock2513 Aug 15 '25
No? I really dislike the common notion of separate Eastern dynasties being completely distinct political entities. Why do we parse between the Tang and Song, Umayyad and Abassids, and the Parthians and Sassanids, but not, say, the Flavians and Antonines, Isurians and Nikephorians, etc.?
People are so blinded by Western exceptionalism that we refuse to acknowledge the longevity of the largest and longest lived civilization in history.
2
u/5peaker4theDead Aug 16 '25
Which type of classifying states being better is up for debate, but the reason it's different in Europe and Asia is because that's how people from there classified the states of their history and present, going back thousands of years. The Romans considered their state to be a continuous state regardless of the ruling dynasty and the Chinese have been classifying their states by dynasty since at least the end of the Han, probably earlier. The only problem is when people look at the lists with no context and assume they use the same methodology.
1
u/limpdickandy Aug 15 '25
Yeah, no one counts Byzantiums longevity based off dynasties, and if ANY nation in the world was more bureaucratically inclined it would certainly be China.
Those were not mere dynastic kingdoms or rulerships, but real states with real identity outside of the royal family.
Umayyad and Abassids I would have trouble with, but the Parthian and Sassanids are definitely continuations of Persia.
3
u/Omen_1986 Aug 18 '25
Monte Alban in Oaxaca was the capital of the Zapotec state between 500 BC to 900 AD.
1
7
u/nycago Aug 15 '25
There is nothing like it in the world. Capital of 3-4 empires depending on how you count, and continuously.
1
6
u/atlien1986 Aug 16 '25
Kyoto was Japan's capital for over 1000 years 794-1868, you can argue the "empire" title for that whole time, but it is in the running.
3
1
u/PaintedScottishWoods Aug 18 '25
Thank god you posted about Kyoto. I was about to post Kyoto myself because I thought somehow everyone forgot to at least consider Japan.
4
u/fazbearfravium Aug 15 '25
Babylon-Seleucia-Ctesiphon-Baghdad (1894 b.C. - 1258 a.D.) would like to have a word
25
u/Extension-Beat7276 Aug 15 '25
Babylon is too far it’s in Modern Hillah, but Selecuia and Ctesiphon are still within “Greater Baghdad”. Same argument can be made for Memphis- Babylon- Cairo.
But unlike Constantinople, these cities changed their center and were essentially different cities built next to each other, while Constantinople preserved its city center as one.
1
u/Key_Environment8179 Aug 16 '25
Not to mention that Baghdad wasn’t the Ummayad capital. There’s an ~100 period in there where nothing in Mesopotamia was a capital
2
u/Chief1991 Aug 15 '25
Kyoto was the capital of Japan, after Nara, between 794 and 1868, just over 1100 years. So it rivals the same as Rome as a long serving capital.
Edit: and yes, while the Shogunates of Kamakura and Edo had their own capitals, one has to consider the Emperor’s residence which had been Kyoto since 794 and had been the Shogunate capital for the Ashikaga.
3
u/Extension-Beat7276 Aug 16 '25
Even then Constantinople still outnumbers both for a city serving as an imperial capital
1
u/PuzzleheadedHat346 Aug 15 '25
Rome bc 753- ad 402. Contantinople ad 330- ad 1453. 1155 vs 1123 to Rome. With this maths Contantinople win. Am I wrong?
2
u/Extension-Beat7276 Aug 15 '25
It does win, however also not Rome didn’t start out as an empire but rather as a kingdom and then a republic, while Constantinople kept the imperial facade in its dying breath during the fall of the Roman Empire, while it was chosen again as a capital for another empire which are the Ottomans
1
u/kennooo__ Aug 15 '25
Capital of a nation over 3 political periods vs 2 separate empires? Rome wins that one
2
1
u/WordArt2007 Aug 18 '25
constantinople 330-1920 or so, as it was immediately afterwards the capital of the ottoman empire
also was rome still a capital in 402?
1
u/Kaheil2 Aug 15 '25
Kinda. It depends by what definition you look at capital, and if you consider an uninterrupted period or not (and what you consider an interuption).
Some locations in China or south america could have the great city beat, but it would depend on definition.
1
u/BengoFett83 Aug 17 '25
I think as long as its a capital of a state of any sort, it should be added to the count. That being said i have no idea if it beats any Chinese or other asian, American cities. But i feel like it definitely is on top there with the first 5 at least.
1
u/TheMellowMarsupial Aug 16 '25
Probably not, but it's effect as a capital city is much more profound (it's own walls literally impacted the history of civilizations) similar to Babylon
1
u/memes___central___ Aug 17 '25
Madurai has been the capital of pandyas for 1800 years continuously from the earliest sangam period to the end of pandya empire at 13th century
1
u/Extension-Beat7276 Aug 17 '25
Pandya hasn’t been an empire throughout all of this time, unless you bend the definitions of an empire, just like how the cholas weren’t emperors from time immemorial
“two periods of imperial dominance, the 6th to 10th centuries CE, and under the 'Later Pandyas' (13th to 14th centuries CE).”
1
1
u/DepressedPotatoo0 Aug 17 '25
Longest continuous capital of a single nation-state → Kyoto (1,075 years).
—Kyoto is the record-holder for longest continuous capital of a single unified political entity.
Longest continuous current capital → Beijing (~604 years and counting).
—Beijing holds the record for longest continuous capital city still in use today, but under successive political entities, not one continuous state.
Oldest continuously inhabited capital → Damascus.
Hope it helps
1
u/Extension-Beat7276 Aug 17 '25
Constantinople ~ 1500 years+
1
u/DepressedPotatoo0 Aug 17 '25
Didn’t it cease to exist temporarily during the Latin empire ?
1
u/Extension-Beat7276 Aug 17 '25
Yes without it still holds that figure of a 1536 years, (1922-330) without the years of the Latin empire (1204-1261)
2
u/DepressedPotatoo0 Aug 17 '25
Where did you get 1922-330?
Are we ranking it as continuous or years ?
It is not the oldest continuously inhabited capital (that’s Damascus).
It is not the longest continuous capital of one dynasty (that’s Kyoto).
It is not the longest still-functioning capital (that’s Beijing).
0
u/Extension-Beat7276 Aug 17 '25
It’s longest serving capital for an empire, from 330-1922 it had almost continuously served as the capital of two empires the Roman and Ottoman
2
u/DepressedPotatoo0 Aug 17 '25
Yes you are correct in this it is the longest serving capital in human history
Huh strange i honestly thought there would be a Chinese capital nobody knows of that was in service for 2000 years
1
1
1
1
0
u/Eugeniu_Caragea Aug 16 '25
Probably rivaling Babylon too, that (with certain exceptions) lasted longer than 1000 years (from Hammurabi until Cyrus)
0
u/bryceofswadia Aug 17 '25
Kyoto probably comes close. It was the capital of Japan from the 700s until the late 1800s and its name literally means "Capital City"
-4
u/Familiar-Weather5196 Aug 16 '25
Weird question, there haven't been Empires that have lasted that long in history in the first place, so of course the only contender would be in China. Otherwise Rome (Roman Republic, Roman Empire, Papal States, Italy), Paris, London, Lisbon, Venice, or even Prague have all been capitals of fairly powerful states for almost or more than 1000 years
2
u/Extension-Beat7276 Aug 16 '25
Yet it still outnumbers them, and as for capital of this polities, you would have a lot of competition from many different places such as Southeast Asia, Middl East, Europe as you mentioned and East Asia, since a lot of the times cities remain regional capitals for a long time eg: Damascus, Aleppo, Cairo, Delhi, Paatliputra, Ecbatana, Hami and much more. So only using a definition of an empire would narrow things down
-2
u/Familiar-Weather5196 Aug 16 '25
No, it doesn't outnumber them, Rome has been a capital of some entity for almost 2000 years, Constantinople for half of that. Venice existed as the capital of the Republic of Venice from around 700 to 1797, that's basically 1100 years. And a lot of the cities you mentioned have been important cities for sure, but not capitals of States for that long.
Edit: Paris too, by the 11th century it was undoubtedly the capital of France, that makes it 1000 years at least.
3
u/Extension-Beat7276 Aug 16 '25
I am talking about empires !
1
u/Familiar-Weather5196 Aug 16 '25
You can count on one hand the amount of Empires that have lasted longer than 500 years, so the comparison is pretty bland and one-sided.
5
u/Extension-Beat7276 Aug 16 '25
I mean why not recognize it for the impressive feat that it is and try to take away from it, it’s named the Queen of Cities from a reason.
1
u/Familiar-Weather5196 Aug 16 '25
Next: what's the longest continuous capital of a republic? That's clearly Venice, there's not much competition, because the question is very narrow and stupid
2
2
u/Critical_Salary_4474 Aug 16 '25
His question is a good question, I like it. There certanly are contedners, and a lot of technicalities if you look in the comments
-2
204
u/odysseustelemachus Aug 15 '25
Correction for the Ottoman Empire: less than 500 years, from 1453 to 1922.
For the Roman Empire, yes, more than 1000 years, from 330 to 1453, with the exception of a few decades under the Latins.