The Smallest Empires in History

[MAGolding]

3) The Roman Empire was very small by the time it was conquered by the Turks in 1453, consisting of a vassal fiefdom containing most of the Peloponnesus and the capital city Constantinople and a small region around it. The Peloponnesus has an area of 21,5439.6 square kilometers or 8,320.3 square miles. It is smaller than Haiti, and some parts of it were ruled by Venice, making the Despotate of the Morea smaller still. The parts of the empire around Constantinople may may or may not have been enough to make the Roman Empire in it's last period larger than the Haitian Empire. But of course it was the surviving part of the vast Roman Empire.

2) The Thessalonikan realm was very small by the time it was conquered by Nicaea, probably containing only a small area around the capital city. But it was a fragment of the Roman Empire that was originally many times times much larger.

1) Modern Haiti has an area of 27,750 square kilometers or 10,710 square miles. The first and second Haitian Empires probably had very similar areas. Thus they probably count as the smallest empires by constant size all during their existence.

Note: The current official size of Wales is 20,779 Square kilometers or 8,023 square miles. If the rulers of sub Roman Britain claimed to be the rightful successors of Constantine III (see number 8 above), then they might be considered Roman Emperors even when their realm was reduced to the approximate size of modern Wales, or even much smaller. Thus the hypothetical Welsh Roman Empire might have been the smallest empire ever.

Note: At its peak around 1241 the Second Bulgarian Empire had a territory of 477,000 square kilometers or 184,000 square miles. By about 1350, in the reign of Ivan Alexander (r. 1331-1371), Emperor of the Bulgarians and the Romans, the size was down to 137,000 square kilometers or 53,000 square miles.

Ivan Alexander made several of his sons co-emperors at various periods. Ivan Alexander's son Ivan Sracimir became Emperor of Vidin or Badin about 1356, defying his farther's authority. Vidin was conquered by Hungary in 1365, and when Ivan Sracimir regained Vidin in 1369 he had to be an Hungarian vassal. Judging by the map I would guess his empire at Vidin was about 27,400 to 34,250 square kilometers or 10,600 to 13,250 square miles.

The Ottomans conquered southern parts of Bulgaria in the reigns of Ivan Alexander and his son Ivan Shisman (r. 1371-1395). The Bulgarian capital Tarnovo was captured in 1393 and Ivan Shishman was captured in Nicopolis in 1395. The Turks captured Vidin in 1396 and Ivan Sracimir was probably killed in 1397. Fruzhin (d. c. 1460) son of Ivan Shisman and Constantine II (d. 1422), son of Ivan Sracimir, were recognized by the Christian powers as Bulgarian Emperors. They may have regained some Bulgarian lands in the Uprising of Konstantin and Fruzhin which may have lasted from 1404 or 1408 to 1413 or 1418. It is believed by some historians that Constantine II may have retained some lands in Bulgaria until 1422 shortly before his death. In which case Constantine II's last remaining possessions may have been the smallest empire ever.

Note: The Island of Elba has an area of 224 square kilometers or 96 square miles. Thus Napoleon's rule of Elba in 1814-1815 could be called the smallest empire in history. But Article II of the Treaty of Fountainebleau said that Napoleon would retain the title and rank of Emperor for life, and Article III said that the Island of Elba would be an independent principality for life for Napoleon. Thus the title of emperor and rule of Elba were two distinct and separate things.

So these are my thoughts about the smallest empires in history.

 

[Naima]

3) The Roman Empire was very small by the time it was conquered by the Turks in 1453, consisting of a vassal fiefdom containing most of the Peloponnesus and the capital city Constantinople and a small region around it. The Peloponnesus has an area of 21,5439.6 square kilometers or 8,320.3 square miles. It is smaller than Haiti, and some parts of it were ruled by Venice, making the Despotate of the Morea smaller still. The parts of the empire around Constantinople may may or may not have been enough to make the Roman Empire in it's last period larger than the Haitian Empire. But of course it was the surviving part of the vast Roman Empire.

2) The Thessalonikan realm was very small by the time it was conquered by Nicaea, probably containing only a small area around the capital city. But it was a fragment of the Roman Empire that was originally many times times much larger.

1) Modern Haiti has an area of 27,750 square kilometers or 10,710 square miles. The first and second Haitian Empires probably had very similar areas. Thus they probably count as the smallest empires by constant size all during their existence.

Note: The current official size of Wales is 20,779 Square kilometers or 8,023 square miles. If the rulers of sub Roman Britain claimed to be the rightful successors of Constantine III (see number 8 above), then they might be considered Roman Emperors even when their realm was reduced to the approximate size of modern Wales, or even much smaller. Thus the hypothetical Welsh Roman Empire might have been the smallest empire ever.

Note: At its peak around 1241 the Second Bulgarian Empire had a territory of 477,000 square kilometers or 184,000 square miles. By about 1350, in the reign of Ivan Alexander (r. 1331-1371), Emperor of the Bulgarians and the Romans, the size was down to 137,000 square kilometers or 53,000 square miles.

Ivan Alexander made several of his sons co-emperors at various periods. Ivan Alexander's son Ivan Sracimir became Emperor of Vidin or Badin about 1356, defying his farther's authority. Vidin was conquered by Hungary in 1365, and when Ivan Sracimir regained Vidin in 1369 he had to be an Hungarian vassal. Judging by the map I would guess his empire at Vidin was about 27,400 to 34,250 square kilometers or 10,600 to 13,250 square miles.

The Ottomans conquered southern parts of Bulgaria in the reigns of Ivan Alexander and his son Ivan Shisman (r. 1371-1395). The Bulgarian capital Tarnovo was captured in 1393 and Ivan Shishman was captured in Nicopolis in 1395. The Turks captured Vidin in 1396 and Ivan Sracimir was probably killed in 1397. Fruzhin (d. c. 1460) son of Ivan Shisman and Constantine II (d. 1422), son of Ivan Sracimir, were recognized by the Christian powers as Bulgarian Emperors. They may have regained some Bulgarian lands in the Uprising of Konstantin and Fruzhin which may have lasted from 1404 or 1408 to 1413 or 1418. It is believed by some historians that Constantine II may have retained some lands in Bulgaria until 1422 shortly before his death. In which case Constantine II's last remaining possessions may have been the smallest empire ever.

Note: The Island of Elba has an area of 224 square kilometers or 96 square miles. Thus Napoleon's rule of Elba in 1814-1815 could be called the smallest empire in history. But Article II of the Treaty of Fountainebleau said that Napoleon would retain the title and rank of Emperor for life, and Article III said that the Island of Elba would be an independent principality for life for Napoleon. Thus the title of emperor and rule of Elba were two distinct and separate things.

So these are my thoughts about the smallest empires in history.

I don't thinki you can claim Roman empire was small because when conquered by Turks was small, By that logic then also Chinese empire was small by they time Mongols conquered their last city , Island of Elba was not even an empire .

If you want to make aserious list you should instead start from the opposite, or the maximum expansion of the empires and then measure that .
But remember that most of time the size of an Empire is not indicative of power ... For example Mongol Empire conquered a hugge land , but most of it was empty deserts and couln't control it but for some reasons Historians keep painting in color half a globe when Mongols couln't control evenhalf of it but only some scattered cities and kingdoms in between.

 

[Scaeva]

I don't thinki you can claim Roman empire was small because when conquered by Turks was small, By that logic then also Chinese empire was small by they time Mongols conquered their last city , Island of Elba was not even an empire .

If you want to make aserious list you should instead start from the opposite, or the maximum expansion of the empires and then measure that .
But remember that most of time the size of an Empire is not indicative of power ... For example Mongol Empire conquered a hugge land , but most of it was empty deserts and couln't control it but for some reasons Historians keep painting in color half a globe when Mongols couln't control evenhalf of it but only some scattered cities and kingdoms in between.

By that standard some maps of the Roman Empire would also have to change, since areas shaded as "Roman" often include client kingdoms.

Similarly maps of European colonial empires of the 16th - 18th Centuries would have to change since they include areas that were claimed by those empires but that were in practice still governed by native people who were to varying degrees independent.

 

[Commodus]

Didn't the Irish have an Empire consisting of some small territory in Wales?

 

[cachibatches]

Akkadian empire was pretty small.

 

[Naima]

By that standard some maps of the Roman Empire would also have to change, since areas shaded as "Roman" often include client kingdoms.

Similarly maps of European colonial empires of the 16th - 18th Centuries would have to change since they include areas that were claimed by those empires but that were in practice still governed by native people who were to varying degrees independent.

Actually not, is not the same thing, one thing is control kingdoms , another is empty land without even population.
Most Roman empire maps include civilization lands and directly controlled zones, even if Romans could project power way beyond borders like Deserts, Hibernia, Nubia , Germany and so on , by the actual "Mongol" type of mapping Roman Empire would look much larger .

 

[MAGolding]

I don't thinki you can claim Roman empire was small because when conquered by Turks was small, By that logic then also Chinese empire was small by they time Mongols conquered their last city , Island of Elba was not even an empire .

If you want to make aserious list you should instead start from the opposite, or the maximum expansion of the empires and then measure that .
But remember that most of time the size of an Empire is not indicative of power ... For example Mongol Empire conquered a hugge land , but most of it was empty deserts and couln't control it but for some reasons Historians keep painting in color half a globe when Mongols couln't control evenhalf of it but only some scattered cities and kingdoms in between.

I said that the tiny remnant Roman Empire conquered by the Turks in 1453-1460 was

But of course it was the surviving part of the vast Roman Empire.

Should the size of the Roman Empire be listed at its largest or at its smallest or at some intermediate size? In a list of the largest empires ever it might be appropriate to list the Roman Empire at its largest instead of its average size. And in a list of smallest empires ever it may be appropriate to list the Roman empire at its smallest instead of at its average size.

Anyway, l point out that the first and second Haitian Empires were probably the smallest ever, and that they were always that small and were never much bigger.

 

[SufiMystic]

What about the "Empire" of Trebizond? That consisted of a small strip of land between the Pontic mountains and the Black Sea. Probably the smallest and least powerful "Empire" I've ever heard of.

In reality it was barely more than a tiny city state for most of its existence, or a very small principality at most. Not even a kingdom. Let alone an empire - a title far in excess of its puny actual reach and power.

 

[MAGolding]

What about the "Empire" of Trebizond? That consisted of a small strip of land between the Pontic mountains and the Black Sea. Probably the smallest and least powerful "Empire" I've ever heard of.

In reality it was barely more than a tiny city state for most of its existence, or a very small principality at most. Not even a kingdom. Let alone an empire - a title far in excess of its puny actual reach and power.

It is hard to tell how large a distant region is just by looking at a map. Distant regions are always smaller in the imagination that nearby ones, so it is easy to think that they are a lot smaller than they are.

I see that the Trebizond Eyalet had a reported area of 10,507 square miles or 27,210 square kilometers in the 19th century. An expert on Turkish historical geography could compare that to the size of the Trebizond empire at various stages. Thus it is possible that the Trebizond Empire was sometimes smaller than the Haitian Empire.

 

[SufiMystic]

It is hard to tell how large a distant region is just by looking at a map. Distant regions are always smaller in the imagination that nearby ones, so it is easy to think that they are a lot smaller than they are.

I see that the Trebizond Eyalet had a reported area of 10,507 square miles or 27,210 square kilometers in the 19th century. An expert on Turkish historical geography could compare that to the size of the Trebizond empire at various stages. Thus it is possible that the Trebizond Empire was sometimes smaller than the Haitian Empire.

 

[MAGolding]

see also this thead especially my post 69 on page 7:

http://historum.com/general-history/52791-smallest-empire-7.html

 

[Apollon]

3) The Roman Empire was very small by the time it was conquered by the Turks in 1453, consisting of a vassal fiefdom containing most of the Peloponnesus and the capital city Constantinople and a small region around it.

People keep referring as the Roman empire what was actually left from the Byzantine Empire in 1453. The Roman empire was long gone for centuries before 1453.
If this is being done for prestigious reasons or desired thoughts, it is actually a misnomer in itself!

 

[Maki]

People keep referring as the Roman empire what was actually left from the Byzantine Empire in 1453. The Roman empire was long gone for centuries before 1453.
If this is being done for prestigious reasons or desired thoughts, it is actually a misnomer in itself!

Byzantine Empire was Roman Empire.

 

[Apollon]

Byzantine Empire was Roman Empire.

Only in the minds of those who wished it to be!!!

 

[MarAntiguo]

This is like asking who was the biggest dwarf in history...

 

[Maki]

Only in the minds of those who wished it to be!!!

Yes, for example the people who lived in it during its existence.

 

[Apollon]

Yes, for example the people who lived in it during its existence.

Of course, the people whose language was Greek and not Latin.

This same people whose religion was Greek Orthodox and not Roman Catholicism,
....and finally but not least the people whose culture naturally was transplanted in modern day Greece and no where else!

 

[Maki]

Of course, the people whose language was Greek and not Latin.

This same people whose religion was Greek Orthodox and not Roman Catholicism,
....and finally but not least the people whose culture naturally was transplanted in modern day Greece and no where else!

Greek was one of the main languages of the Roman Empire since antiquity and no one called the Orthodox Church Greek Orthodox during the Middle Ages. In fact, the official title of the Ecumenical Patriarch doesn't mention Greece, but mentions Rome.

 

[Apollon]

Greek was one of the main languages of the Roman Empire since antiquity and no one called the Orthodox Church Greek Orthodox during the Middle Ages. In fact, the official title of the Ecumenical Patriarch doesn't mention Greece, but mentions Rome.

Greek may had been one of the main languages in the Roman empire as other languages also were like in Gaul, in Iberia, Britain, North Africa etc.
The official language of communication however in the Roman Empire was LATIN. Greek was learned and studied only by the elite Romans as the language that had produced an admirable civilization during the Classical or the Hellenistic periods after the death of Alexander the Great.

If nobody called Orthodoxy.... "Greek" in the middle ages (and I'm not sure that this assumption is correct), it was because it was assumed to be without saying it.

It depends in what sense it's assumed the Ecumenical Patriarch would refer to Rome?
Even if that is so, in no way could this be interpreted to conclude him as being a Roman.
It takes a lot more than that!

 

[Maki]

Greek may had been one of the main languages in the Roman empire as other languages also were like in Gaul, in Iberia, Britain, North Africa etc.
The official language of communication however in the Roman Empire was LATIN. Greek was learned and studied only by the elite Romans as the language that had produced an admirable civilization during the Classical or the Hellenistic periods after the death of Alexander the Great.

Not quite true. Most documents in the East were translated into Greek, and Suetonius in his Life of Claudius claims that the emperor himself considered both Greek and Latin Roman languages and praised the superiority of Greek. During the late antiquity in the ERE, imperial communication with imperial subject was done in Greek, despite Latin's official status. And the first language of most people entering the imperial administration in the 5th century ERE was Greek, though proficiency in Latin was also needed.

If nobody called Orthodoxy.... "Greek" in the middle ages (and I'm not sure that this assumption is correct), it was because it was assumed to be without saying it.

Yeah, sorry. I wasn't clear in the previous post. I meant no one from Byzantium called the Orthodox Church Greek. The Westerners did for political reasons.