Cases where a country's capital does not have a land connection to (most of) the rest of the country

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
20,093
SoCal
#1
In the 19th century and maybe early 20th century as well, there was speculation that Russia might eventually want to conquer Constantinople and move its capital there. Unless Russia would have actually conquered and annexed all of northern Anatolia's coastline, though, Russia would not have actually had a land connection to Constantinople. (Also, I certainly don't think that either Romania or Bulgaria would have actually been willing to give up their sea access so that Russia could actually have a land connection to Constantinople.)

In turn, this raises an interesting question: Which cases, if any, were there where a country's capital literally did not have a land connection to (most of) the rest of the country?

Any thoughts on this?

Also, island nations are obviously excluded from my question here.
 

AlpinLuke

Forum Staff
Oct 2011
26,622
Italy, Lago Maggiore
#4
It depends also on the conception of "country", if we include imperial conquests ... Venice and the other Sea Republics owned more land beyond the sea than around themselves. I think Genoa was the one with the most evident disparity while Venice had a nice territorial continuity at least regarding its domains on the Adriatic Sea.
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
20,093
SoCal
#5
It depends also on the conception of "country", if we include imperial conquests ... Venice and the other Sea Republics owned more land beyond the sea than around themselves. I think Genoa was the one with the most evident disparity while Venice had a nice territorial continuity at least regarding its domains on the Adriatic Sea.
Where did most of Venice's and Genoa's population live back when they were republics?
 
Nov 2018
312
Denmark
#6
How about Copenhagen?

I have no idea at what point the seat of government was moved there, though.
If you look at a map from before 1658, then Copenhagen is more centered in the kingdom.
Moreover, by ship there is not so far neither to Norway nor Schleswig / Holstein.
The city became an important port city under Valdemar the Great in 1160 who led a crusade against Wendish people and conquered Rügen.
Furthermore, it is well placed to control the trade in and out of the Baltic Sea.
In 1443, Christoffer III made the city a royal residence.
Danmark_før_1658.png
 
Likes: Kotromanic
Oct 2011
275
Croatia
#7
In the 19th century and maybe early 20th century as well, there was speculation that Russia might eventually want to conquer Constantinople and move its capital there. Unless Russia would have actually conquered and annexed all of northern Anatolia's coastline, though, Russia would not have actually had a land connection to Constantinople. (Also, I certainly don't think that either Romania or Bulgaria would have actually been willing to give up their sea access so that Russia could actually have a land connection to Constantinople.)

In turn, this raises an interesting question: Which cases, if any, were there where a country's capital literally did not have a land connection to (most of) the rest of the country?

Any thoughts on this?

Also, island nations are obviously excluded from my question here.
Roman Empire for much of time after Arab invasons. Granted, distance was merely one of streets of Bosphorus, but:
 
Likes: Futurist
Nov 2018
312
Denmark
#9
The rest of Denmark does have a road connection to Copenhagen, though:

Does anyone know when these bridges were first built?
The Little Belt Bridge (Lillebælt) was completed on May 14, 1935.
The Great Belt Bridge (Storebælt) Railway opened on June 1, 1997, and the road link opened on June 14, 1998.
The Øresund connection opened on July 1, 2000.
 
Likes: Futurist