AHC: Most multiethnic pre-1900 empire

Create the most multiethnic pre-1900 empire you can.

Imperial Russia, 1890:

Armenians
Azeri Turks
Bashkirs
Belarussians
Chechens
Estonians
Finns
Georgians
Germans (Baltic, Volga)
Greeks
Inuit
Jews (Yiddish)
Kalmucks
Karelians
Kazakhs
Kirghiz
Krim Tatars
Lapps
Latvians
Lithuanians
Moldovans (Romanians)
Mongols
Mordvins
Ossetians
Poles
Russians
Samoyeds
Swedes
Tajiks
Turkmens
Ukranians
Uzbeks
Volga Tatars

That's 33. How many more do you want?
 
Imperial Russia, 1890:

Armenians
Azeri Turks
Bashkirs
Belarussians
Chechens
Estonians
Finns
Georgians
Germans (Baltic, Volga)
Greeks
Inuit
Jews (Yiddish)
Kalmucks
Karelians
Kazakhs
Kirghiz
Krim Tatars
Lapps
Latvians
Lithuanians
Moldovans (Romanians)
Mongols
Mordvins
Ossetians
Poles
Russians
Samoyeds
Swedes
Tajiks
Turkmens
Ukranians
Uzbeks
Volga Tatars

That's 33. How many more do you want?

Don't forget the Chuvash, Circassians, Ingush, Mari, Cossacks, Udmurts, Komi, etc. There's also the many indigenous ethnic groups in Siberia and the Russian Far East, like the Tuvans, Yakuts, Buryats, Altay, Chukchi, Evenks, Nivkhs, etc. There were always ethnic Han Chinese and Manchus along the border regions of China, ethnic Koreans along the border with Korea, ethnic Ainu in Sakhalin, and Aleuts in the Aleutian Islands.
 
Imperial Russia, 1890:


That's 33. How many more do you want?

I'm not sure why Britain's not being discussed. As of about 1890 or so, when India, about half of Africa and half of Papua New Guinea were part of the empire the number of ethnic groups would be well into the hundreds, easily more than any others being discussed here.
 
I'm not sure why Britain's not being discussed. As of about 1890 or so, when India, about half of Africa and half of Papua New Guinea were part of the empire the number of ethnic groups would be well into the hundreds, easily more than any others being discussed here.

I was going to mention the same thing. Wasn't overall the British Empire the largest in history? The Mongols had the largest continuing land empire, but overall it was my understanding the British controlled more, just scattered overseas.

You add up the languages and dialects of India alone, that's a lot. Then there's the various tongues of Africa, other Asian holdings, Australia Aborigines, Polynesia, and the Natives of Canada. That's a lot, and even by WWI a lot of the colonized indigenous people still spoke their languages.
 
Please do. It's confusing and I'd really like to know how the whole ethnicity thing worked there.
BTW, are you Croatian?

I am of Croat descent, yes.

Okay, onto Austria-Hungary.

The Austrians dominated the government pretty much entirely until 1867. In 1867 was the Austro-Hungarian Compromise, often know as the Ausgleich. Before the Ausgleich, although the Kingdom of Hungary was technically self-governing, the governors were appointed by the Austrian Emperor and therefore the Austrians dominated the Empire. After the Ausgleich, the "Crown of Saint Stephen" was reintroduced (Saint Stephen being the patron saint of Hungary). So, it became a dual monarchy, with the Austrian Emperor being both Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary.

The Compromise was brought about because with nationalism becoming more of an issue, and the Magyar nobility being a lot more powerful than the Slavic nobilities, the Austrians decided to give the Magyars autonomy, largely so the Magyars could help with keeping places like Bosnia and Croatia in the Empire.

Austria-Hungary was divided into Cisleithania, the directly Austrian-ruled parts (Austria, Slovenia, Istria, Dalmatia, Bohemia-Moravia, Galicia), whilst the Hungarian-ruled parts were Transleithania (Hungary, Slovakia, Transylvania, North Serbia, Slavonia, Croatia proper). So basically, the Austrians were first-class citizens, the Hungarians second (arguably Germanised Czechs were also second-class citizens) and Slavs as third-class. There are some notable exceptions, however. Slavs could get to high positions (though not the highest positions, i.e. prime minister of Austria or Hungary) if they showed loyalty to the Empire and competence, especially in the armed forces, which by WWI were quite heavily Slav.
 
I'm not sure why Britain's not being discussed. As of about 1890 or so, when India, about half of Africa and half of Papua New Guinea were part of the empire the number of ethnic groups would be well into the hundreds, easily more than any others being discussed here.

At least 1000. Largest empire in history and it includes Papua New Guinea, India, and a good part of Africa. I don't see how this wouldn't be tops for shear 'number of ethnicities'.
 
I am of Croat descent, yes.

Okay, onto Austria-Hungary.

The Austrians dominated the government pretty much entirely until 1867. In 1867 was the Austro-Hungarian Compromise, often know as the Ausgleich. Before the Ausgleich, although the Kingdom of Hungary was technically self-governing, the governors were appointed by the Austrian Emperor and therefore the Austrians dominated the Empire.

Until 1805, the Crown of St. Stephen a/k/a the Kingdom of Hungary, ruled
"Royal Hungary" (the areas around Budapest), and also several other Kingdoms and Princedoms (Transylvania, Banat, Croatia, idunno what else). Each of these realms was semi-autonomous, but all answered to Budapest.

From 1805 to 1867, the Kingdom of Hungary was abolished. There was a "Kingdom of Hungary" with local autonomy, but it ruled only "Royal Hungary". All the other pieces of the former Kingdom were ruled from Vienna.

After the Ausgleich, the "Crown of Saint Stephen" was reintroduced (Saint Stephen being the patron saint of Hungary). So, it became a dual monarchy, with the Austrian Emperor being both Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary.

And with all the former elements of the old Kingdom again subordinated to Budapest and not Vienna.
 
Probably the Empire of Charles V, the different Indian ethnic groups from Mexico to Florida to Chile. The different ethnic groups of Milan, Naples and Sicily. Franche Comte and the different groups of the entire Low countries not to mention Iberia has always been very multi ethnic.

Not to mention he ruled over many ports in North Africa.
 

Strategos

Banned
Imperial Russia, 1890:

Armenians
Azeri Turks
Bashkirs
Belarussians
Chechens
Estonians
Finns
Georgians
Germans (Baltic, Volga)
Greeks
Inuit
Jews (Yiddish)
Kalmucks
Karelians
Kazakhs
Kirghiz
Krim Tatars
Lapps
Latvians
Lithuanians
Moldovans (Romanians)
Mongols
Mordvins
Ossetians
Poles
Russians
Samoyeds
Swedes
Tajiks
Turkmens
Ukranians
Uzbeks
Volga Tatars

That's 33. How many more do you want?

Dammit, I wanted to point this out.

You forgot the Mountain Jews. Seriously. Mountain Jews.


But in any case, the multiethnic nature of both the Russian Empire and the Mongolian Empires is rather...an oddity. Neither were known for...tolerance and were rather in fact infamous for shall we say...inspired methods of rule. Both were known for and did commit brutal acts of mass murder and forced migration but in the end, both came to rule over a truly vast and diverse subject people. The Mongols because reputation often preced them, thus lessening desire for overt resistance in many cases and because the Mongols never engaged in specific ethno exterminations.

The Russian Czars were a bit less extreme in the initial conquest but there line of continuity lasted and gave a gruesome counter example of a multicultural empire, possibly even multicultural society. It allowed them to exist and continue existing. Sounds kinda obvious but the important bit is is that unlike current history where in certain, more elderly minded, modernization and westernization are thought to be synonymous. But in the former Russian Empire, whole nations and ethnicities were able to hold on to there identities, in spite of the brutality of the Czars.


Although the fact that outside of revolt, or recruitment, the Russian Empire could be comparitively light handed in day to day affairs.


Modern day Multiculturalism is both a revolution in thought as much as a reaction to the extremes of Western Imperialism and Nazism.

Russian Imperialism was slightly different. Kiss the boot and they would take it off your throat. And give you a kick in the bum just for reminding. Other than that, you were left alone.

They never expected you to like the boot and sing praises to the cobbler who made it.


But yeah, if you would define multicultural/multiethnic as similar, then take the Russian Empire and go with it. Like...instead of displacing Native American, assimilate there nations as States of the Union and keepbto decent treaties.

That always was a sticking point for me. The trashing of treaties. The slaughters and brutal massacres are one thing, but the sheer dishonorable doucheiness of constantly going back on treaties....


Mind you, even going the nicer manner, there isnt an honestly decent and noble way to do almost anything of note as far as nationbuilding in those days. Russian Style is about the nicest.

As in, you get to exist and not be turned into a pile of skulls.
 
Until 1805, the Crown of St. Stephen a/k/a the Kingdom of Hungary, ruled
"Royal Hungary" (the areas around Budapest), and also several other Kingdoms and Princedoms (Transylvania, Banat, Croatia, idunno what else). Each of these realms was semi-autonomous, but all answered to Budapest.

From 1805 to 1867, the Kingdom of Hungary was abolished. There was a "Kingdom of Hungary" with local autonomy, but it ruled only "Royal Hungary". All the other pieces of the former Kingdom were ruled from Vienna.

And with all the former elements of the old Kingdom again subordinated to Budapest and not Vienna.

I thought I said this :p but yeah, I didn't go further back than 1800 for the sake of simplicity.
 
Perhaps Ethiopia, a very multi- ethnic place. And even though the Amharas were dominant they were never THAT dominant with the Oromo being majority and all.

Sokoto could be an interesting candidate too, although you could see the Fulani and the Hausa to together form a dominant majority. Songhay was also quite multi-ethnic.

Africa and Asia (especially India) are definitely places you should look for multi- ethnic empires though.


Ethiopia actually stands a very good chance of meeting the OP i believe there was even a case of chinese travelers reaching it in the 11th century(might be wrong century) if greater trade was started with china or possibly with korea, japan or the philippine kingdoms we might see greater far east asian diversity earlier in africa.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned egypt. (various greeks, romans, nubians, hebrews), persians) and the list goes on i couldn't think of them all arcoss history as some no longer exist or names have changed.
 
The British Empire at the end of the nineteenth century had territories in all the continents, Asia, Africa, Americas, Australia and Europe. Hence obviously it was the most multi-ethnic empire in history. The Russian Empire may claim the runner-up position in this case.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Imperial Russia, 1890:

Armenians
Azeri Turks
Bashkirs
Belarussians
Chechens
Estonians
Finns
Georgians
Germans (Baltic, Volga)
Greeks
Inuit
Jews (Yiddish)
Kalmucks
Karelians
Kazakhs
Kirghiz
Krim Tatars
Lapps
Latvians
Lithuanians
Moldovans (Romanians)
Mongols
Mordvins
Ossetians
Poles
Russians
Samoyeds
Swedes
Tajiks
Turkmens
Ukranians
Uzbeks
Volga Tatars

That's 33. How many more do you want?

We can get more with Russia. Count all the Dagestani ethnic groups separate and consider the different Cossack groups as different ethnicities.:D
 
Top