Is there a historical example of a nation carrying on under the same name with none of its original territory that's not Eastern Rome?

Ughubughughughughughghlug

Ughubughughughughughghlug

RIP Cats 4/20(blaze it)/25
kiwifarms.net
Joined
May 14, 2019
I'm asking here because if it was in Q&A all I would get it haha peepeepoopoo rape benis.

I'm thinking of a common strategy game scenario, a nation loses all of its actual core territory - what in real life is its own culture and geographical homeland - but it carries on, without naming itself, in its conquered possessions. Temporary governments in exile (like WW2) don't count.

The only one that comes to my mind is Eastern Rome continuing to identify as Rome despite losing its actual Roman (Latin-speaking, Italian peninsula) territory and becoming a Greek state.
 
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Charred Dinosaur, Karen of Human Resources and Breadbassket
Before the rise of republics, this was common, in a sense.
Most monarchs in Europe had titles of lands they did not control, or that didn't even exist.
The head of the house of Habsburg calls himself "King of Jerusalem" to this very day.
The one that was established during the first crusade.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Eydallur, frozen_runner, geckogoy and 4 others
Serbia. The original homeland of the Serbs was in Kosovo until the 1500s but thanks to the Turks and NATO they have been ethnically cleansed. Armenia too. It was mostly Kurdish until the Russians conquered it in the 1800s and then all the Armenians who dodged the Turks got dumped in some tiny slice of land.

The Knights Hospitaller count too since they first controlled the Holy Land, then got booted to Rhodes, then got booted to Malta, and now are a sovereign nation with literally zero territory.
Pink Fluffy Cat said:
Benin / Benin Empire and Ghana / Ghana Empire but no one cares about random negro countries.
Click to expand...
Which was a literal WE WUZ situation in the case of Ghana, and in the case of Benin it was because the dictator was a pan-African Marxist who realized one day that he couldn't have his country named Dahomey because the old Dahomey was the one who was selling/human sacrificing most of the ethnic groups in the country.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Charred Dinosaur
It's really difficult to say what would count for this. Even your example of the Eastern Roman Empire is based on the faulty assumption that there was some kind of nation-state centered on Rome. The East/West split is really a modern historiographical thing rather than an actual separation of the Roman Empire into two distinct states, same with the Byzantine Empire. Even what we now refer to as "the Western Roman Empire" had its capital moved from Rome to Mediolanum in 286.

I would say the Kingdom of Sicily is one, because the Aragonese ruled it from 1282, but it was still referred to as "the Kingdom of Sicily" even though it was ruled by a Spaniard. The Kingdom of Naples is the same, conquered by the Aragonese in 1442. Even before the Aragonese, though, Sicily was conquered by the Normans in the 11th century. If we go that way we could also consider the Kingdom of England, ruled from 1066 onward by the French.

I'm not even trying to be a pedant about this, it's just that the modern understanding of nation state is so recent that there's not really an easy way to parse the question. Technically you could consider Russia one of these countries, because Russia has no dominion over Ukraine, which is home to one of the two principal tribes of the Rus peoples, so Russia isn't "the land of the Rus."
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Geddy Lee's Fee and See
Literally the entirety of the middle east outside of the larger states.

Afghan for example is made up of numerous different languages and cultures - some of which do not recognise a central government or have so little interaction with said government (up until the soviet invasion). Part of that lack of recognition of true Western recognised statehood would result in the locally known territorial names to change with the occupiers.

Zululand is another example. The location only vaguely holds significance to the Zulu Kingdom as it existed historically.
 
A Cardboard Box said:
It's really difficult to say what would count for this. Even your example of the Eastern Roman Empire is based on the faulty assumption that there was some kind of nation-state centered on Rome. The East/West split is really a modern historiographical thing rather than an actual separation of the Roman Empire into two distinct states, same with the Byzantine Empire. Even what we now refer to as "the Western Roman Empire" had its capital moved from Rome to Mediolanum in 286.

I would say the Kingdom of Sicily is one, because the Aragonese ruled it from 1282, but it was still referred to as "the Kingdom of Sicily" even though it was ruled by a Spaniard. The Kingdom of Naples is the same, conquered by the Aragonese in 1442. Even before the Aragonese, though, Sicily was conquered by the Normans in the 11th century. If we go that way we could also consider the Kingdom of England, ruled from 1066 onward by the French.
Click to expand...
Sicily is even weirder than that. The very name was transferred to the mainland part and the Aragonese had to call the island ruled by the king's brother (or whatever) "Trinacria". But historians said "lol" and call it "Sicily" (because eventually they dropped the Trinacria name) and the mainland part the "Kingdom of Naples". And then when they reunited centuries later it created the bizarrely named "Two Sicilies" which was never official but what everyone called it.

That's a lot for an island with no exports beside organized crime.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: InspectorJappOfficial and Lobster Cult High Priest
Save the Loli said:
The very name was transferred to the mainland part and the Aragonese had to call the island ruled by the king's brother (or whatever) "Trinacria"
Click to expand...
Almost right. Basically what happened was that when the Aragonese won the War of the Sicilian Vespers, they took control of Sicily, and Charles of Anjou, the king of Sicily at the time, fled to mainland Italy (referred to by historians as the Kingdom of Naples) while still retaining the title of the King of Sicily, whereas Peter III of the Crown of Aragon also claimed the title King of Sicily, so after the war ended in 1302, there were two "Kingdoms of Sicily," and centuries later they finally came under one crown, hence "the Kingdom of Two Sicilies."
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: InspectorJappOfficial, Lobster Cult High Priest, Geddy Lee's Fee and See and 1 other person
There have been various times throughout history when Mongolia/The Mongol Empire didn't include any of the territory that is modern-day Mongolia.

Both Poland and Lithuania have moved around a lot over the centuries, but I don't know if they were ever 100% outside the modern borders.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InspectorJappOfficial
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back