My vote goes to 18th and 19th century France. And also a mention towards tsarist Russia and imperial Germany during WW1.
- 1
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Since the fall of Rome? The usual list : Byzantium (Justinian), the HRE (borders aside, they had the ambition to unite Christendom*), France (Napoleon), Russia Alexander and Stalin), and Germany (Hitler).
*I’m thinking about Charles Quint, but also the way the pre-investiture crisis HRE.
*I’m thinking about Charles Quint, but also the way the pre-investiture crisis HRE.
Rome, obviously.
Of course, if we consider war shorter durations, the USA between 1991 and 2003 (and even later to a lesser extent).
Of course, if we consider war shorter durations, the USA between 1991 and 2003 (and even later to a lesser extent).
- 2
The Habsburg monarchy of Charles I/V (Spain/HRE) sometime in 1525 might be a contender.
Francis of France was defeated and humbled at Pavia and had to sign a humiliating peace. England was still being strung along as a possible foil and an ally against France. Charles was about to start courting Portugal's princess Isabella. Italy was under Habsburg hegemony following Pavia. Reformation in the HRE was so far limited to peasant revolts, which were being taken care of by HRE princes united in the Swabian league. Hungary and Bohemia were not yet defeated by Ottomans at Mohacs, and while Ladislav Jagiello had little authority, he was well disposed towards Charles IIRC. Because Ottomans took Belgrade and Hungary was super vulnerable. Sigismund Jagiellon of Poland was in talks with Charles regarding military help against Turkish raids against SE Poland as well.
Sweden was freshly independent from Kalmar Union, both were thus not really able to assert themselves internationally.
Jury is still out on whether Muscovy/Russia actually is Europe or not
For a few months in mid 1525, Europe was the Habsburg oyster.
Francis of France was defeated and humbled at Pavia and had to sign a humiliating peace. England was still being strung along as a possible foil and an ally against France. Charles was about to start courting Portugal's princess Isabella. Italy was under Habsburg hegemony following Pavia. Reformation in the HRE was so far limited to peasant revolts, which were being taken care of by HRE princes united in the Swabian league. Hungary and Bohemia were not yet defeated by Ottomans at Mohacs, and while Ladislav Jagiello had little authority, he was well disposed towards Charles IIRC. Because Ottomans took Belgrade and Hungary was super vulnerable. Sigismund Jagiellon of Poland was in talks with Charles regarding military help against Turkish raids against SE Poland as well.
Sweden was freshly independent from Kalmar Union, both were thus not really able to assert themselves internationally.
Jury is still out on whether Muscovy/Russia actually is Europe or not
For a few months in mid 1525, Europe was the Habsburg oyster.
- 1
Ah, the Universal monarchy, the Humanist dream.
Then this damned little monk came, with his coarse peasant babbling, and ruined everything.
Last edited:
- 7
- 4
- 1
- 1
A habsburg on every throne in europe, now that'd be a funny sight.The Habsburg monarchy of Charles I/V (Spain/HRE) sometime in 1525 might be a contender.
Francis of France was defeated and humbled at Pavia and had to sign a humiliating peace. England was still being strung along as a possible foil and an ally against France. Charles was about to start courting Portugal's princess Isabella. Italy was under Habsburg hegemony following Pavia. Reformation in the HRE was so far limited to peasant revolts, which were being taken care of by HRE princes united in the Swabian league. Hungary and Bohemia were not yet defeated by Ottomans at Mohacs, and while Ladislav Jagiello had little authority, he was well disposed towards Charles IIRC. Because Ottomans took Belgrade and Hungary was super vulnerable. Sigismund Jagiellon of Poland was in talks with Charles regarding military help against Turkish raids against SE Poland as well.
Sweden was freshly independent from Kalmar Union, both were thus not really able to assert themselves internationally.
Jury is still out on whether Muscovy/Russia actually is Europe or not
For a few months in mid 1525, Europe was the Habsburg oyster.
Paid for by looted gold, and ran by the Flemish, but it was a sight to see indeed despite those two downsides.Ah, the Universal monarchy, the Humanist dream.
Then this damned little monk came, with his coarse peasant babbling, and ruined everything.
I think you both overestimate the capability of Tsarist Russia to become the hegemon of Europe. In coordination with a large coalition it was able to project power into western Europe in 1814 but any attempt to recreate the Napoleonic dominance would mean fighting against that same coalition.
- 1
Man, just imagine how inbred they would all get from marrying each other. And how terrible the family tree would look like
It would make some of Ptolemaic family shrubland look like the tallest, proudest oak trees.
Au contraire, more Habsburgs is exactly what they needed to get less inbred. Broaden the pool and it'll take forever to get bad, and it only takes a few accidental outward procreations to keep running, where with 2-ish families they're always marrying eachother every generation.Man, just imagine how inbred they would all get from marrying each other. And how terrible the family tree would look like
- 1
- 1
I think Napoleon was the only one with any chance of holding on to it.
- 4
- 1
For the period prior to Blenheim, it looked like Louis XIV might manage to dominate Europe. Austria was near collapse and the Dutch forces had been beaten so many times they were reluctant to engage in anything beyond purely defensive actions. Nobody rated the English as having any real military weight, and many of the Electors were siding with Louis.
Victory, which looked 1-2 campaign seasons away would have resulted in a Spanish throne with a French king on it, the key frontier forts of the Dutch in French hands (making them permanently vulnerable to invasion and hence lacking in independent policy) the HRE controlled by princes with a pro-French outlook and Italy controlled by France.
The Blenheim happened and gave the anti-French alliance the belief that they could win, compromising the French position in Italy as well as saving Austria from invasion.
Victory, which looked 1-2 campaign seasons away would have resulted in a Spanish throne with a French king on it, the key frontier forts of the Dutch in French hands (making them permanently vulnerable to invasion and hence lacking in independent policy) the HRE controlled by princes with a pro-French outlook and Italy controlled by France.
The Blenheim happened and gave the anti-French alliance the belief that they could win, compromising the French position in Italy as well as saving Austria from invasion.
- 1
Napoleonic France. For some time they controlled the whole Europe short of Portugal
- 1
The EU is not a country nor dominated by one particular country though. Alliances having dominated the continent is not new, it happened after the Napoleonic wars and WW1.
- 3
Last edited:
- 2
The EU is pretty much a hegemonial power on the European continent...
Everyone else defines his foreign policy primarily by the stance towards the EU... Switzerland, Norway, the UK, the non EU Balkan states. Relations with the EU are central to trade, security etc. It's the biggest fish by far
Everyone else defines his foreign policy primarily by the stance towards the EU... Switzerland, Norway, the UK, the non EU Balkan states. Relations with the EU are central to trade, security etc. It's the biggest fish by far
- 1
I agree that the EU is the hegemonial power on the continent, as almost all European countries are members, but it is not a country and it is hard to argue that the union is dominated by any particular country.
I guess it would be possible to argue that the US is enjoying hegemony over Europe through NATO (where the balance between members is far more unequal) but NATO has a pretty narrow scope compared to the EU.
I guess it would be possible to argue that the US is enjoying hegemony over Europe through NATO (where the balance between members is far more unequal) but NATO has a pretty narrow scope compared to the EU.
- 2
By this logic the Habsburgs are also out. Charles V gathered a lot of power and influence but it was from several countries.
Charlemagne's Franks are the obvious contender between the fall of Rome and the modern era. There was always a rather powerful East Roman state but I think Charlemagne outclassed it for a short time.
In the modern era the predominant state on the continent was usually balanced by English/British seapower and after 1700 by the Russians as well. Louis XIV, Napoleon and Bismarck came close to dominating the continent but they were never truly hegemonic as long as those two resisted.