That number is taken from John Glubbs "The Fate of Empires" and it's just something he pulled out of his ass. There’s no set time period for how long empires last.
Many, like the Macedonian and Mongol empires lasted only a few decades.
Many, like the Sassanid, Spanish, and Ottoman Empire lasted over 400 years.
That “mUh 250” number also ignores two things
>When an empire “falls”, is it the end of that country’s status as a great power or the complete end of that entire civilization? The British Empire no longer exists, yet the UK is still a thing.
>When an empire “began”, was it at the very start of that civilization or as they start conquering shit? After all, Rome engaged in plenty of imperialism long before it became an empire.

>>17871398 (OP)
You know that the 250 year mark is just an average, right retard?
>When an empire “falls”, is it the end of that country’s status as a great power or the complete end of that entire civilization?
The former.
>When an empire “falls”, is it the end of that country’s status as a great power or the complete end of that entire civilization?
>>When an empire “began”, was it at the very start of that civilization or as they start conquering shit?
Also the former, every nation that becomes a great empire begins small, has a rise and a decline. It's really that simple.

That was not his point.
His point was that it's either the Empire dies in 250 years or it reinvents itself to return to the virtues that allowed it to prosper in the first place.
Which is exactly what happens every single time

>>17871398 (OP)
The USA is definitely on the decline, Trump is to the USA what Caligula was to the Roman empire

>>17871398 (OP)
The mongol empire lasted by any standard atleast through the end of Yuan dynasty. thats a little longer than daddy's boys empire lasted.

>>17871427
the issue is 250 years. It doesnt happen and you cant list it happening retard.

>>17871557
Great recessions
Civil war
Schisms
Revolts
etc

All responses to the failures of the Empire that has gone complacent and corrupt. And all happens within 250 years of an empire's history.

>>17871398 (OP)
>Many, like the Macedonian and Mongol empires lasted only a few decades.
>Many, like the Sassanid, Spanish, and Ottoman Empire lasted over 400 years.
>That “mUh 250” number also ignores two things
That's because you have incorrect "start" and "end" years for those.

For example, the Han Chinese empire is frequently cited as being 400 years long with this disproving the 250 model, but it in fact proves the 250 model once you realize the "real" start and end dates involved. The Han dynasty collapsed after 200 years and was reinvented when it was "restored" by a cadet branch of the Imperial family. The first half of Han has more in common with its predecessor Qin than it does with its latter half, and the succeeding Wei dynasty was a de facto continuation of latter Han's systems under a new ruling family. Therefore, it was really Qin + Former Han = 250 years and Later Han + Wei = 250 years.

I'm not an expert on Macedonian, Mongol, Sassanid, Spanish, or Ottoman history, but I would still say that it's a safe bet that if you choose the correct start and end dates for those, you will also easily find 250 year cycles.

So yes, USA will be fine in 2026 because 1776 isn't the "real" start date for the American Empire.

>>17871398 (OP)
250 years is a rough timeline for how generations naturally unfold, from the foundation builders to the innovators and planters and then to the harvesters and enjoyers of good times and finally to the looter or the re-inventor/builder.

It is by no means a law of empire nor is it always correct. It is just a basic pattern that is observed often enough but not all the time.
You have barbarism, civilization, refinement, decadence, and barbarism in that order as a generalized trend.

>>17871608
hes not making any point then. Most of that happens within 10 years. Nothing stays the same. Him mentioning 250 years is retarded. Whats the actual quote.

>>17871909
making retarded shit up to try to simplify history because your too stupid to learn isnt impressive. 250 years is 100% arbitrary and based on nothing.

>>17871398 (OP)
its 250 years of HEGEMONIC power retard

ottomans were never even hegemonic only a regional power at best

America has only had 80 years of hegemony so far

>>17871398 (OP)
...you didn't even read the text...he addresses this...

>>17871398 (OP)
>That number is taken from John Glubbs "The Fate of Empires" and it's just something he pulled out of his ass.
It's even more hilarious when you realize that Glubbs was a British military officer that was endlessly butturt over seeing the death of his own empire and saught to project it onto everyone else.

>>17871445
>Trump is to the USA what Caligula was to the Roman empire
so we aren't even at the peak of our power and influence then?

>>17871909
>I'm not an expert on Macedonian, Mongol, Sassanid, Spanish, or Ottoman history, but I would still say that it's a safe bet that if you choose the correct start and end dates for those, you will also easily find 250 year cycles.
The Sassanid Empire remained intact for about 400 years. It was only the Arabs that ended it.

>>17871909
https://people.uncw.edu/kozloffm/glubb.pdf
What I dislike with his 250 years is the arbitrariness that contradicts itself, showing he's bullshitting with end dates (or start dates, or classification of the 'empire' itself) to justify his thesis.
1) Romanov Russia is counted as a single dynasty - yet the "Arab Empire" is counted as one despite the Rashidun-Umayyad-Abbasid being a lot more different than the Ivan dynasty to Romanov. If it was Russian Empire it would hurt his thesis, so he arbitrarily makes it Romanov.
2) The Ottoman Empire's 'fall' is 1570 yet 1683 is the last siege of Vienna and more when the Ottomans are actually declining. They took Cyprus around 1570.
3) Spain: Why 1750? Spain hadn't yet lost its South American colonies at this stage, that's 19th century. If it's supremacy then the Spanish were less relevant well before 1750, the Greeks were irrelevant well before 100 BC, the British Empire was not so omnipotent in 1750.

It's just thoroughly sloppy work. I Know he recognizes the dates he chose are arbitrary but that really cuts at his entire thesis if we can demonstrate that say The Ottomans decline happened after 363 years, not 250.

>>17871445
>Trump is to the USA what Caligula was to the Roman empire
An absolute nothingburger succeeded by nearly 150 years of absolute dominance and supremacy?

250 years only applies to empires that run their natural course, as in don't collapse beforehand.

Glubb's ideas are an interesting notion but he plays too fast and loose with definitions and cherrypicks his samples too hard to say anything useful. He ignores most empires that lasted for less than 200 years out of hand, continuously flip flops on whether the "fall" of an empire is its literal destruction or just when it enters a period of terminal decline - and then tends to pick absurd and obviously cherrypicked dates for the latter, and has an extremely inconsistent definition of what an "empire" even is, slipping Greece (every Greek kingdom from the ascension of Alexander the Great to the rump-ification of the Seleucids) and Arabia (every Caliphate from the original conquest of the Levant to the destruction of the Abbasids) in as unified empires