Why are principalities always (or almost always) micro-states?

[Miaristan]

Hi,

This is something I wish to understand because while when we talk, listen, read, or write about monarchies, we often reference to kingdoms, but perhaps less known is that there are also what we call principalities (monarchies ruled by princes or princesses), as well as duchies and emirates (ruled by what we often call the equivalents of "princes" in the Islamic world).

When worldbuilders include monarchies in their fictional world, "kingdom" tends to be the default government system in their monarchies, which is perhaps quite simplistic, because I wish to include kingdoms, but also principalities in my fictional world.

I know principalities tend to have smaller areas and are not always sovereign as compared to kingdoms, but I would be interested to know if a principality will always have a very small area worthy of micro-states or if a principality could have a larger area. Would it be believable if a principality ever has an amount of area as large as a kingdom?

Thanks you for your answers, and have a good day!

PS: Also, perhaps you could use this thread to help me to understand better what is exactly a principality.

 

[Ban]

Principalities could at times rival kingdoms in size, just take a look at historical principalities such as Russian principalities (Novgorod, Tver, etcetera), Italian principalities (Benevento, Salerno, etcetera), the principalities of the HRE (Category:Principalities of the Holy Roman Empire - Wikipedia) and so on and so forth.

The remaining modern principalities of Liechtenstein, Andorra (co-principality) and Monaco are microstates, which in all likelihood is the source of presenting them as such, but historical principalities were by no means necessarily small.

As for what a principality is. Usually they were the result of a larger realm fracturing. The subjects of a former king styled themselves as princes, and thus the title they passed on to their heirs was not king but prince.

 

[skip.knox]

When trying to understand an institution--or even a single word--I have two starting points: etymology and history. That is, what were the original meanings and connotations of the word, and what are the historical examples where that term gets used?

This word comes from princeps, which is Latin, so you start there. It merely means "first" so in theory it can be applied to any ruler, whoever is "first." Doesn't even have to relate to kingdoms. It finds various but related uses throughout the Roman Empire, and that persists into the medieval empire. But it wasn't really common.

More common was the use of the word "prince" which got used in a variety of contexts, but the usual sense is as applied to the eldest heir of a royal house. In English, most are familiar with the Prince of Wales, a title always given to the eldest son of the royal family (still is? I lose track after about 1700). But a prince might not rule much of anything, and when ruling something it might not necessarily be called a principality.

That's the narrow view, in brief. More broadly, though, historians have used the term prince and principality to indicate a ruler who didn't carry the title of rex (king). That's how we get references to princes in Islam, for example, even though I'd argue that usage is misleading, and Arabic has perfectly serviceable terms. They've even been adapted in spelling to other languages.

So, short answer: size doesn't matter. There are tiny kingdoms and larger principalities. In story terms, work out how you want the terms to work in your world; if the usage is idiosyncratic, have someone explain once or twice (at most), and have at it.

 

[skip.knox]

Ban's reference to Novgorod is a great example of the difficulty of the terms. Actually, the difficulty is us. We moderns want rigid consistency in our terms. Medieval people were quite comfortable with fluid terminology.

So, Novgorod is called (by historians) variously a republic, a principality, a land, and a city-state. And that's just in English. But it's really even more fun than that. Like many another medieval "principality" there was also a bishop (archbishop, in this case) who had authority and land, including rights of taxation and justice, and who sometimes could be the "real" ruler. In some places they were even called prince-bishops.

Modern politics are a kindergarten compared to medieval politics!

 

[ButlerianHeretic]

I'm suspecting there may be a sampling bias as older principalities that were larger got merged into larger nations, while perhaps smaller ones had a better chance of remaining as independent city-states or micros-states. For example, the smaller states in Europe are often on borders between larger neighbors and play their neighbors against each other to maintain their independence.

 

[Ban]

Indeed skip.knox . Just before Napoleon did his extended Tour de France, most of my surroundings were ruled by the Prince-Bishopric of Liège, an independent state by all acounts. To your caveat that the terms used back in the day would be different and that a princedom (especially in medieval times) does not equate a singular state as we know it, I would only add that this is not just a case of English, considering historians in the Netherlands also refer to Novgorod (among many others) as "Prinsdommen" (Princedoms/Principalities).

 

[Rosemary Tea]

In English, most are familiar with the Prince of Wales, a title always given to the eldest son of the royal family (still is? I lose track after about 1700).

Prince Charles is the Prince of Wales, so yes, that title is still in use.

 

[Prince of Spires]

Prince Charles is the Prince of Wales, so yes, that title is still in use.

And he has been since about 1700...

A principality is simply a country ruled by a prince(sess). As the others pointed out, that has little bearing on size or how the country is actually ruled. It's a historical thing, and that's about it.

Just to add to the confusion. In general I think readers expect an empire to be bigger than a kingdom and a kingdom to be bigger than a principality. However, most of these names are just used because that's how they became known. The Eastern Roman empire was still called an empire right until it was conquered in 1453. However, at that time it was pretty much just a large city state. By the same token, the ruler of the British Empire was a king or queen, not an emperor, simply because they'd always been kings. A principality may well come into existence because a prince ruled a piece of land, which gained independence. If that then grows in power and size it likely would still be called a principality.

 

[Mad Swede]

When looking at historical examples of principalities you need to be aware of language issues. In English, Wales is called a principality. But, historically, Wales was not ruled by princes. In Welsh their rulers were and are called tywysog (plural tywysogion), a word which means chieftain or leader. (The Irish Gaelic word taoiseach has the same entymological roots and the same original meaning.) It was the Norman/Plantagenet English who translated tywysog to prince and they did so as a result of not understanding how Wales was ruled at the time. Medieval Wales was a sort of confederation of several nominally independent states of which the largest were Gwynedd, Powys, Morgannwg, Gwent and Deheubarth. Each was ruled by it's own tywysog, a post which was sometimes hereditary and sometimes elected. Together these states elected an overall tywysog for the whole country, though usually only when needed (eg when the English were making a major attack).

The various families who provided these tywysogion had a long term impact on British and European history, both through their descendants and through their sponsorship of what we now call the arts. Rhys ap Tewdwr, last tywysog of Deheubarth, was the forefather of the Tudor dynasty. The tywysgion of Buellt sponsored the compilation of what is now called the Red Book of Hergest, the single most important collection of medieval Welsh literature in the world and one of the original manuscript sources for the Mabinogion and hence the Matter of Britain. (The Red Book of Hergest is now in the Bodleian Library and was the inspiration for Tolkien's Red Bok of Westmarch in the Lord of the Rings.)

So the fact that a state is ruled by a prince (who may be elected) rather than a king or emperor doesn't preclude it from having a major impact on the culture and history of other states around it. As writers we sometimes forget this.

 

[S J Lee]

Remember that a LOT of "titles" are translated only into "approximate" English.

The word "prince" has at least four different meanings in English - the Roman meaning, Machiavelli's, the English one, and the Russian one. Don't worry too much. Calling a senior member of a Gaelic clan a "member of the derbfine" instead of a "nobleman" isn't doing your tale any favours.

Game of Thrones has a lot of "knights", but do you seriously think Jaime Lannister speaks ENGLISH? Complaining about how any knight in Westeros can dub anyone a knight (hence hedge knights) because in England it doesn't work the same way ... is pointless. Arguing that GRRM should have described "hedge knights" as being, more accurately, "ronin" is absolutely missing the point.

It's standard thoughout history to use approximations when we try to give a quick summary of another culture. No need to overthink it unless you are writing a non-fiction book or doctorate thesis on the matter.

Translated into English, Machiavelli's book for any non-elected long-term ruler is called "the Prince"...but when you read his book, you can see it should, in modern English, be called "the Dictator" (no, not in the technical Roman sense, but the modern sense)

The word prince can refer to son of a king, but also some senior nobles? eg in Russia, a "prince" (in English) was not actually a son of a king or Tsar, but from a small number of the most ancient noble families? Princes of the Russian Empire

Similarly, Augustus is sometimes referred to by writers such as Gibbon as a "prince" which probably meant "princeps" = "first"..ie, Augustus pretended to be the "first among equals"...he was in theory just another Roman senator/politician who just happened to be respected more than the rest...?
Augustus' "principate" is "not to be confused with a "principality", says Wiki...
Principate - Wikipedia

Similarly, the word "Emperor" can be confusing. To SOME people it means "a king who rules other kings" such as the German Kaiser, who had nominal sub-kings? EG, Saxony continued as a nominal "kingdom" with a "king" up until 1918, the end of WW1 1918 List of rulers of Saxony - Wikipedia

To others it means the ruler of a collection of states (though the UK on its own is not an empire!)
The Roman emperors did not call themselves "Emperors" in our modern sense, however? they were simply Roman politicians who were DE FACTO dictators.... men who had "imperium", ie, who had political power? Eg, Augustus never put a crown on his head or sat a thone, he was always consul this year, and some other senior office the next...but everyone knew who really called the shots?

Similarly, the "Emperor of Ethiopia" didn't mean Ethiopia had conquered many other lands, or even pretended to have done so ...
Emperor of Ethiopia - Wikipedia.

The Emperor of Ethiopia (Ge'ez: ንጉሠ ነገሥት, nəgusä nägäst, "King of Kings") was the hereditary ruler of the Ethiopian Empire, from at least the 13th Century until the abolition of the monarchy in 1975. The Emperor was the head of state and head of government, with ultimate executive, judicial and legislative power in that country.

 

[S J Lee]

So I would say .. don't sweat it too much. Call your rulers something that quickly gives a good impression of what his place in the pecking order is, and get on with hooking the reader. You can flesh it out as the book goes on, if you need to. "King" is just fine. "High king" can mean "king who orders other kings about" or simply "The most senior king, first among equals". Your readers won't know which until they delve into the book in detail. Aslan made the Narnia kids "kings" but Peter was the "High King" (or am I wrong?) They didn't seem to boss people about much, so it hardly mattered. A king is probably more senior than a "chief".

Here is a guy who has put a LOT of effort into codifying the translation of Chinese noble titles into English. As a historian, or writer of historical fiction, this might matter. But if you were reading Chinese-flavoured fantasy, would you sweat about whether someone was a "Lord National Uncle" or, more technically, a "Prince of the Second Rank"? Do you think your readers will be interested, or will their eyes glaze over? Ancient Chinese Ranks and Titles - Nyanovels - Cultural Notes

We often read about "Roman knights" in history books, but a member of the Roman equestrian order was NOT the same thing as a medieval knight ... who is not necessarily the same thing as a heavy cavalryman .. and none of them have anything to do with a modern Englishman who gets a knighthood.