AHC:A centralized and expansionist state in Western Europe during the Middle Ages.

Then your centralized state becomes decentralized every quickly as it absorbs non-urban areas.

I don't think any area in the early middle ages western Europe was heavily urbanized btw. I don't think even northern Italy got there until high middle ages. So the earliest thing you can get is a unified northern Italy in the....1200-1300s maybe?
Even Rome massively declined in the middle ages. It was the largest city in Western Europe at one stage with 50,000 people. When you compare that to Constantinople's estimate 500,000 people...
 
Then your centralized state becomes decentralized every quickly as it absorbs non-urban areas.

I don't think any area in the early middle ages western Europe was heavily urbanized btw. I don't think even northern Italy got there until high middle ages. So the earliest thing you can get is a unified northern Italy in the....1200-1300s maybe?
Depends.If a successful ruler managed to take over of the Po plain valley and then fortified most of the Alpine passes,do you think a reasonably capable state could have emerged if this state mostly concentrated on internal development for the next few generations with only occasional military adventures only,mainly targeting the unification if Italy when the opportunity arises?
The problem is of course the Italian city states did constantly fight each other except the balance of power between them was never tilted enough so that one can conquer all the other ones. It had little/nothing to do with Catholicism.
Would it be utterly implausible if a highly capable ruler is able to unite Northern Italy?
The other big factor is that medieval era military technology don't require particularly centralized states, in fact decentralization might be more optimal at winning wars (but not retaining conquests)
I fully understand that.In the past,I was involved in a discussion regarding the effectiveness of the ERE vs their centralization.So what do you think would be required to turn a centralized state in Europe into a Qin like state that's highly capable military and managed to conquer all of it's feudal neighbours?
 
Last edited:

RousseauX

Donor
Depends.If a successful ruler managed to take over of the Po plain valley and then fortified most of the Alpine passes,do think a reasonably capable state could have emerged if this state mostly concentrated on internal development for the next few generations with only occasional military adventures only?
First you need to unify northern Italian city states, I think that's actually more difficult than facing an attack from France.

Would it be utterly implausible if a highly capable ruler is able to unite Northern Italy?

I fully understand that.In the past,I was involved in a discussion regarding the effectiveness of the ERE vs their centralization.So what do you think would be required to turn a centralized state in Europe into a Qin like state that's highly capable military and managed to conquer all of it's feudal neighbours?

The thing is that you had people with centralized states trying to unify Europe OTL, Hitler, Napoleon etc or just try to achieve hegemony in Europe, i.e Louis XIV and the Habspurgs. The fact that -nobody- manage to achieve it suggests state structure isn't the issue, it's something more fundamental like geography creating too many viable independent bases of power.
 
Last edited:
First you need to unify northern Italian city states, I think that's actually more difficult than facing an attack from France.
Why is that?If this is during the 900s,shouldn't northern Italian states be still pretty weak?From what I've read,the period immediately prior to Otto was when Kings come and go.


The thing is that you had people with centralized states trying to unify Europe OTL, Hitler, Napoleon etc or just try to achieve hegemony in Europe, Louis XIV and the Habspurgs are the case in point. The fact that -nobody- manage to achieve it suggests state structure isn't the issue, it's something more fundamental like geography creating too many viable independent bases of power.
But wasn't that more of a case because most of the examples you suggested were with centralized states duking it out?What I am proposing is a situation where Europe degenerates into a series of small feudal states,with only one of them successfully emerging as a fully centralised state with a great emphasis on meritocracy.
 

Deleted member 67076

You need some way to kick off an increased amount of urbanization, increased bureacratic effectiveness and a change in military strategy able to conquer and hold vast swaths of land and smack down any potential powerbase that can challenge the central state. This is difficult.

Perhaps it would be best to kick off Italy's urbanization much earlier whilst facilitiating technological and agricultural transfer from the Muslims much earlier- i.e, bring papermaking, rice, windmills and so forth to both cause a population boom, a period of vast economic growth and increased state organization that leads to a strong centralized state in Italy eager to expand. (and of course, declare independence from the HRE)

Italy might be your best bet since the North can be nicely fortified, the Po valley is very fertile, the crops can be diversified well IIRC and of course it had plenty of contact with the Muslim Works during this time period.
 

RousseauX

Donor
Why is that?If this is during the 900s,shouldn't northern Italian states be still pretty weak?From what I've read,the period immediately prior to Otto was when Kings come and go.
I thought Otto only had nominal rule over northern Italy.

But wasn't that more of a case because most of the examples you suggested were with centralized states duking it out?What I am proposing is a situation where Europe degenerates into a series of small feudal states,with only one of them successfully emerging as a fully centralised state with a great emphasis on meritocracy.

I don't think this works in an era where localized fortifications reign supreme because the advantage and capacity of a central state is pretty limited by the nature of warfare. A larger army don't help as much if its stuck besieging castles for months or years on end. At the same time a revolting feudal entity can hold out for a long time against a central government's armies.

If gunpowder artillery was available a couple centuries a head of time it tips the equation a lot more assuming you have enough urbanization in place.

I think one of the most telling examples of the era is the fact that Byzantium -decentralized- military power (the Theme system) and reduced state complexity to increase military efficiency.
 
Personally I would tend to think that a country like West Francia, if it had had a succession law earlier (Charles II the Bald had ended up with 2/3 of his grandfather's empire), could have saved a lot of time from OTL internal squabbles and would be easier to recentralize.
As for the influence of the church, it could be able to use the episode of the Avignon papacy.
 
This one might be a bit far east, but Ragusa has a lot of potential. It was under the control of Croatia after Byzantium withdrew in the late 900's, and Venice conquered it during the Fourth Crusade to eliminate it as a rival. If you make it throw off Croatian rule around 1000, maybe 1040, you could set it up as a rival to Venice. The Byzantines focused on Anatolia after Alexius came to power in 1080, so there wouldn't be much of threat from them. The main problem would be holding off Venice and Croatia who could easily blockade the coast.


Ragusa/Dubrovnik was never under control of Croatia(or at least what is legally considered a predecessors to today's state) before 1849, though there was a period in the 14th century when both were ruled by the same king following the peace of Zadar between the Angevins and the Venetians.

There is only one source puting Ragusa in (maybe under Croatian control) Croatia and that is Al-Idrisi. Which mentiones that Ragusa is the last town in Croatia. This probably shows some situation that existed during the second half of the 12th century but what the exact picture was we can't say for sure.
 
Top