CH: Continental Europe One Country
- Thread starter Killer300
- Start date
How? I don't know, considering this stretch to area probably is one of the most divided places on Earth, but you have to combine ALL of continental Europe together into one country. As a bonus, try to include the British Isles in this country too.
Now, GO!
Any Romewank by Eurofed, and many of his Germanwanks.
Otherwise? Not possible.
Not without any POD in recognizable history, at least.
OTL is far from the best of all possible worlds (in the sense, closest to this criteria), but Europe has supported multiple polities capable of achieving and maintaining their independence even from a large hegemon since some wolf's cubs founded a city on the Tiber, if not longer.
It's far easier to have a hegemon, like a victorious Napoleon or WWII Germany, than it is to have a formally unified country. Do you include Russia in this? Given their size compared to the rest of Europe, they would be vital to any attempt to control Europe.
Perhaps a TL where Rome does a China and stays, for the most part, unified, and slowly becomes more and more culturally homogenous?
The thing is that Mongols, Hitler, Napoleon, even the HRE - these are empires not countries, and are likely highly heterogenous and with many different levels of central control in different areas. For anything as centralized as France it gets a lot harder - the Romans might do it if they took Germany and really stayed on their A game, but even the Romans had their limits when it came to assimilation...
Of course, there are multinational states with a fairly strong sense of identity - Switzerland, India. Hm. Can we have early modernizing China colonise all of a backwards Europe which misses out on the Renaissance, and develop an identity based on anti-colonialism and Catholic Christianity? Russia can be Pakistan...
Bruce
Of course, there are multinational states with a fairly strong sense of identity - Switzerland, India. Hm. Can we have early modernizing China colonise all of a backwards Europe which misses out on the Renaissance, and develop an identity based on anti-colonialism and Catholic Christianity? Russia can be Pakistan...
Bruce
Is the Scandinavian Peninsula included? It isn't directly connected to the rest of continental Europe in a straightforward way - Only through Russia, which you say isn't necessary to the challenge. It's hard to imagine the Romans or the Franks getting as far as Lapland - Why would they go through all the trouble?
Why would they even to all the trouble of Germania and "Eastern Europe"?
Its not that much better or easier.
How?
Seriously, how?
Even if you don't divide the Frankish kingdom amongst multiple heirs, the odds of it being ABLE to continue to grow like that are...in the realm of theoretical physics.
I Blame Communism
Banned
Yep: I'm not saying that marriages and births didn't direct the course of history - obvious they did - but they didn't direct it anywhere they liked and something so gigantic (both in itself and as a change) as a united continent doesn't depend on one bloke's fertility.
I like to use my own country's history in pointing this out. Scotland has shit luck when it comes to EUIII. By the standards often employed around here we'd have killed off in the 1100s. But medieval kingdoms had finite resources and a limited ability to project power, and a study of what happened in our - poor and small - country can give an idea of how overstretch worked in societies that were miles from inventing a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
If they split kingdoms up it wasn't because they were stupid, it was because that was how you prevented them splitting up by themselves. It was still done by Charles V when he was centralising the various slabs of his empire in an age of growing state power.
You don't just need a long succession of single sons. You need an endless succession of Charlemagnes. Daesna happen.
I like to use my own country's history in pointing this out. Scotland has shit luck when it comes to EUIII. By the standards often employed around here we'd have killed off in the 1100s. But medieval kingdoms had finite resources and a limited ability to project power, and a study of what happened in our - poor and small - country can give an idea of how overstretch worked in societies that were miles from inventing a monopoly on the legitimate use of force.
If they split kingdoms up it wasn't because they were stupid, it was because that was how you prevented them splitting up by themselves. It was still done by Charles V when he was centralising the various slabs of his empire in an age of growing state power.
You don't just need a long succession of single sons. You need an endless succession of Charlemagnes. Daesna happen.
This.
It doesn't matter what European empire you pick, European states at any point pre-1900 don't have the means to do this. Especially when a state attempting such hegemony - assuming "the state" is united enough for no internal troubles, as unlikely (read: never happened OTL) as that is - is going to be facing everyone else.
Louis XIV wanting to weaken the Habsburgs? Fine, those who don't see him as a bigger threat than the Habsburgs will temporally side with him. Louis XIV declaring war on all of Europe...guess what, that means all of Europe is going to be fighting him. And France is not up for that.
And related to this is the longevity of empire issue. Europe developing like China did would need a POD changing it beyond recognition. The Roman Empire is an entirely different kind of big blob. It simply is not going to be a Chinese style empire.
Russia is part of continental Europe though (everything west of the urals is considered europe)
As for making the whole of europe one country, in the 20th century you probably would need some kind of soviet wank.
Before that doubtful if it is even possible, only 2 remote options is a massively successful (asb option really) roman empire or some french empire that starts off highly successful during Napoleon.
I Blame Communism
Banned
Another problem: what's Russia? I quite often moan about how the English word encompasses two separate words in Russian (Rus'/Rossija) with distinct meanings; but the definition of both these things is mutable. Rossija in particular went back and forth went armies and governments. And it might never have been invented to start with.
Isn't kind of happening now? It just depends on who will control the E.U. the French or Germans. A United States of Europe would not include the U.K.
Given that people notice the current EU tendency to grind its poorer and weaker members into the dirt to avoid having to shell out money to help them, I frankly am doubtful of it developing into anything as closely united as a "United States of Europe" anytime soon.
Bruce
The original poster didn't say how _long_ it had to be united -if we need it to last, say, just for a couple generations, it's easier. The Roman Empire, after all, ruled over a larger and more diverse area than Europe west of Russia for several centuries before falling. I think you're letting your extended battle with Eurofed color your perceptions here...
Bruce