Fun Fact: Did you know that the Mongol Empire actually remained unified for 32 years after Genghis Khan's death, and only collapsed due to a succession dispute.
And that after Alexander the Great's death, for over a year, the Diadochi has agreed to peacefully partition his empire with Perdiccas as a regent. Alexander died in June of 323 BC, and it took until September of 322 BC until his empire split in to warring factions.
The reason I know this is because one time about half a year ago I got in a debate on r/Fallout where someone said something along the lines of "The way Caesar's Death is handled is ridiculous" and I broadly agreed, until they said something along the lines of "In the event of Caesar's Death the Battle of Hoover Damn shouldn't even happen" so I questioned what they meant.
They said "The game rubs in that Caesar as a charismatic dictator, yet when he dies, Legion just carries on as usual. It should have collapsed." or something along those lines.
So I pointed to this Mr House line, saying that a year before the Legion collapsing seemed like a realistic timeframe.
They claimed that lasting a year was unrealistic, and that when you have empires lead by singular figures, their death would lead to them collapsing INSTANTLY, like with Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great, and that it didn't make sense for an empire without it's head to last long enough to attack Hoover Dam.
Now I didn't know this at the time, but I figured, "Actually, how long did it take for those empires to collapse? Given speed of communication, I'm willing to wager that they actually took a while to collapse."
And then I discovered that the whole idea of the Mongol Empire being tied to Genghis Khan as a singular figure is actually a massive misconception. Like seriously, the vast majority of Mongol expansion happened AFTER his death.
So I pointed this out, along with the fact that actually Alexander the Great's Empire lasted a year after he died, which is the exact same time-frame Mr House gives for Legion's survival. They shifted the goal posts, we got in a back and forth about Legion. Then about a couple posts later they were discussing how stupid Legate Lanius was as a character and said something along the lines of: "Legate Lanius shouldn't be immediately recognised as the new Caesar if Caesar dies. The whole point is that Caesar's a singular charismatic dictator"
And it's like, I literally proved that point wrong by demonstrating that the time-frame of Legion's collapse is literally completely reasonable, according to historical examples THEY HAD USED.
Like, imagine making a criticism of a game, and using historical examples to try and back it up, being literally factually shown that those historical examples don't actually support what you're saying, but instead literally imply the opposite, and then using the exact same criticism later. Requires you have literally zero self awareness.