AHC: Lay the groundwork for largest possible European nation-state
Are we including European Russia in our definition of Europe? That gives us a total population of 746 million, which means to even hit 30% you need 226 million or so. If we kick out Russia, Belarus and the Ukraine we're down to around 570 million, which means we can hit 40% with only 228 million.
Also, must the country be entirely in Europe? If Russia is included as European when it has territory in Asia (up until fairly recently far more than it has now), and an alt-Byzantine empire although it would include Anatolia, it seems like it's reasonable. In the case of No Islamic Conquest, you could have a country based in Italy ruling a Latinized North Africa, for instance.
I'd suggest a "majority of the nations' population should be in Europe" rule, but I'd also wonder about things like (say) the United Kingdom of Britain and Canada. Should the non-European territories be contiguous to Europe, at least?
Also, must the country be entirely in Europe? If Russia is included as European when it has territory in Asia (up until fairly recently far more than it has now), and an alt-Byzantine empire although it would include Anatolia, it seems like it's reasonable. In the case of No Islamic Conquest, you could have a country based in Italy ruling a Latinized North Africa, for instance.
I'd suggest a "majority of the nations' population should be in Europe" rule, but I'd also wonder about things like (say) the United Kingdom of Britain and Canada. Should the non-European territories be contiguous to Europe, at least?
Deleted member 148213
European Russia is not really included, no, mostly because otherwise the no East Slavic empire clause wouldn't make sense, and also because Russia is underpopulated and culturally distant from the rest of Europe until *relatively* recently.
And yes, it has to be a European power- with the definition of Europe dependent on the POD. I'd say that in a no Islam TL, the entire Mediterranean basin is still considered part of the Christian world, and is more "European" in that way, so places like Anatolia and North Africa would count as European.
Non-European territories should not count in any way shape or form, because otherwise, OTL is an example of a "European" or at least Western power/culture with over 25% of the continent's population dominating it politically- the United States. The point here is to generate a culture on the continent that can form the core of a dominant state on it.
Hmm - no Norman conquest, keep Britain tied to Scandinavia, something something Pangermanisn, Scandianava-Britain-Germany-low Countries? A stretch, perhaps...mega-Lutheranism thrown in?
Another question: how large a proportion of the nation in question can consist of members of self-considering "other" ethnicities? Russia in its imperial periods was as much as half non-great Russian, England made up only about 58% of Britain plus Ireland, even Imperial Germany in 1914 was over 10% French, Danish, and Polish. A quarter? A third?
Another question: how large a proportion of the nation in question can consist of members of self-considering "other" ethnicities? Russia in its imperial periods was as much as half non-great Russian, England made up only about 58% of Britain plus Ireland, even Imperial Germany in 1914 was over 10% French, Danish, and Polish. A quarter? A third?
Personally, I think the easiest way is to have a unified Franco-Roman Empire with a policy of expansion and assimilation. Outside the extent of its Carolingian borders, Francia could spread east into the Pannonian Basin before the Magyars settle in and they could expand west “freeing” England from the Danes and Spain from Muslim invasions.
Such an Empire would likely still be multilingual, with a Latin South and a Germanic North. But it is likely they would all see themselves as part of the same “ethnic unit” ala Han Chinese down the line, especially if you have an outside force whether Islam, Orthodox Greek, or Slavic to whom they could compare themselves against.
Such an Empire would likely still be multilingual, with a Latin South and a Germanic North. But it is likely they would all see themselves as part of the same “ethnic unit” ala Han Chinese down the line, especially if you have an outside force whether Islam, Orthodox Greek, or Slavic to whom they could compare themselves against.
Imho the problem of creating an european empire, to which many have proposed solutions, is not the same as that of creating an european nation.
The two are, to some extent, antinomic. Without diving into the theory details, nationhood is closely tied in with modern statehood. Sovereignty and the formation of an imagined community, to give only two examples, are "provided to the nation" by the existence of a modern State; inversely, nationhood provides a basis for acceptance and support to the State. That is not to say that empire and nationhood cannot coexist, to the countrary: the Russian and British national consciousness both developped on the basis of their nation leading an empire. However, you cannot just assume that the empire will just become a modern State and all of its people will happily identify with the same nation. An example of what I mean is again given by the British and Russian empires, but also by the Ottoman empire, in the XIXth century, where the modernisation of the empire into a modern State was paired with the development of a national consciounsness for the leading people, on the one hand, and of other consciousnesses for the subaltern peoples. The same is true if we wank another early european empire, be it the Hohenstaufen, Rome or (kudos for originality!!) Samo's Kingdom. Even if we wank Frederick II into achieving his wildest dreams of dominium mundi, we still have to explain how the Empire's ideology will transition from triumphant christian universalism to german nationalism: if Frederick is lording over Jerusalem, Palermo and Rome as well as Anvers, Aachen and Hamburg, how would his successors come to see their empire as "german" and how would the people of the empire acquiesce that this makes any sense? We're just headed for a re-run of the ottoman collapse once the empire heads into the XIXth century. Empire-building is easy compared to ethnogenesis.
@Socrates makes the crucial point that an empire doesn't become a nation overnight as well. But I'd argue the chinese case is an exception, because of an interplay of its long-term history - the 1911 revolutionaries inherited a country that had been , on paper at least, united around a single cultural model since the Song at least, with no alternative cultural model for the elites - and of the particular flavour of Chinese nationalism - which developed both in the empire and against the empire in the sense that radical nationalists advocated for the ousting of the "foreign" Manchus. So if we want to reenact a similar process in Europe, we need either to suppress the cultural diversity of Europe from the high middle ages onwards, at least within the empire - good luck - , or to build an empire that is not only extensive but extremely long-lived, or to bring it into a particular situation of domination by a "foreign elite". When I say "or", I mean all these changes combined are probably necessary. Overall, when you add up all the changes needed to make Europe follow the same route as China, you end up with something that doesn't look like Europe at all.
Imho, while we can wank States in the premodern era a bit (as long as they stay under the "empire" threshold and stay compact & centralised enough that they can transition into modern States), the easiest way is to act upon the early stages of the formation of modern States & Nations in the late XVIIIth - XIXth centuries, while national identities were still fluid. I think France is our best bet, for a number of reasons: it is already a rather large nation, it has historically had a rather open conception of citizenship (in 1800 or 1900, it was way easier to become - nominally - French than German), and it underwent a period of expansion just at the point when it transition into moden State- and nationhood.
Let's say France has a slightly better early modern era, taking bits of Catalonia or the Rhineland in the XVIIth century for instance, and then the Revolution succeeds in keeping hold of the left bank of the Rhine. Since the Revolutionaries' conception of nationhood at this point was still based on citizenship and german nationalism wasn't whipped up yet, I suppose all those people in Catalonia, Belgium and the Rhine will assimilate. We end up with more or less a hundred millions French people today, which isn't that bad. I'd like to see the repartitions of seats in the EP with the French making up 1/4th of the EU's population.
There are also some more wildcards scenarii. First, there's the western Slavs option, but I wouldn't put my money on it since the unsuitability of the PLC for transitioning into a modern State and united nation makes it necessary to rewrite the entire history of the region from at least 1400 onwards. Probably earlier, since the Lithuanians had a well-established State and identity by then.
Second, you can "cheat" by toying with demography. If you delay the french demographic transition, or if you decrease the population of some parts of the continent as some have suggested, you end up with different results. I think you can integrate demographic variables in a AH scenario, but I find purely demographic scenarii arbitrary.
Third, you can envision a degree of successful colonial assimilation. I'm just mentioning it, since the odds of it succeeding are at least as low as in the other imperial cases, and this is not what the OP had in mind.
The two are, to some extent, antinomic. Without diving into the theory details, nationhood is closely tied in with modern statehood. Sovereignty and the formation of an imagined community, to give only two examples, are "provided to the nation" by the existence of a modern State; inversely, nationhood provides a basis for acceptance and support to the State. That is not to say that empire and nationhood cannot coexist, to the countrary: the Russian and British national consciousness both developped on the basis of their nation leading an empire. However, you cannot just assume that the empire will just become a modern State and all of its people will happily identify with the same nation. An example of what I mean is again given by the British and Russian empires, but also by the Ottoman empire, in the XIXth century, where the modernisation of the empire into a modern State was paired with the development of a national consciounsness for the leading people, on the one hand, and of other consciousnesses for the subaltern peoples. The same is true if we wank another early european empire, be it the Hohenstaufen, Rome or (kudos for originality!!) Samo's Kingdom. Even if we wank Frederick II into achieving his wildest dreams of dominium mundi, we still have to explain how the Empire's ideology will transition from triumphant christian universalism to german nationalism: if Frederick is lording over Jerusalem, Palermo and Rome as well as Anvers, Aachen and Hamburg, how would his successors come to see their empire as "german" and how would the people of the empire acquiesce that this makes any sense? We're just headed for a re-run of the ottoman collapse once the empire heads into the XIXth century. Empire-building is easy compared to ethnogenesis.
@Socrates makes the crucial point that an empire doesn't become a nation overnight as well. But I'd argue the chinese case is an exception, because of an interplay of its long-term history - the 1911 revolutionaries inherited a country that had been , on paper at least, united around a single cultural model since the Song at least, with no alternative cultural model for the elites - and of the particular flavour of Chinese nationalism - which developed both in the empire and against the empire in the sense that radical nationalists advocated for the ousting of the "foreign" Manchus. So if we want to reenact a similar process in Europe, we need either to suppress the cultural diversity of Europe from the high middle ages onwards, at least within the empire - good luck - , or to build an empire that is not only extensive but extremely long-lived, or to bring it into a particular situation of domination by a "foreign elite". When I say "or", I mean all these changes combined are probably necessary. Overall, when you add up all the changes needed to make Europe follow the same route as China, you end up with something that doesn't look like Europe at all.
Imho, while we can wank States in the premodern era a bit (as long as they stay under the "empire" threshold and stay compact & centralised enough that they can transition into modern States), the easiest way is to act upon the early stages of the formation of modern States & Nations in the late XVIIIth - XIXth centuries, while national identities were still fluid. I think France is our best bet, for a number of reasons: it is already a rather large nation, it has historically had a rather open conception of citizenship (in 1800 or 1900, it was way easier to become - nominally - French than German), and it underwent a period of expansion just at the point when it transition into moden State- and nationhood.
Let's say France has a slightly better early modern era, taking bits of Catalonia or the Rhineland in the XVIIth century for instance, and then the Revolution succeeds in keeping hold of the left bank of the Rhine. Since the Revolutionaries' conception of nationhood at this point was still based on citizenship and german nationalism wasn't whipped up yet, I suppose all those people in Catalonia, Belgium and the Rhine will assimilate. We end up with more or less a hundred millions French people today, which isn't that bad. I'd like to see the repartitions of seats in the EP with the French making up 1/4th of the EU's population.
There are also some more wildcards scenarii. First, there's the western Slavs option, but I wouldn't put my money on it since the unsuitability of the PLC for transitioning into a modern State and united nation makes it necessary to rewrite the entire history of the region from at least 1400 onwards. Probably earlier, since the Lithuanians had a well-established State and identity by then.
Second, you can "cheat" by toying with demography. If you delay the french demographic transition, or if you decrease the population of some parts of the continent as some have suggested, you end up with different results. I think you can integrate demographic variables in a AH scenario, but I find purely demographic scenarii arbitrary.
Third, you can envision a degree of successful colonial assimilation. I'm just mentioning it, since the odds of it succeeding are at least as low as in the other imperial cases, and this is not what the OP had in mind.
Maybe,
A) Keep Olaf II of Denmark alive and have him be competent.
B) Give Richard II a son who marries Yolande of Aragon, let said son marry an ATL Scottish heiress, and give them an eventual heiress.
C) Marry Elizabeth of Luxembourg to an elector.
Luxembourg's husband being an elector means that he has like three Electoral votes so a german wank is in order, so (maybe) relatively centralized HRE, possibly make it hereditary while you're at it, so I can see Poland fall easily, Lithuania too.
Now, have the HRE marry a Scandinavian bride whose line eventually comes on the united thrones of Scandinavia, and then have their heir marry the aforementioned Anglo-Scottish heiress (when she has a brother or two maybe), so now the Emperor has atleast.....
England, Scotland, Scandinavia, Germany, Hungary, Bohemia, Poland, Lithuania.
Now the Emperor has a claim on Aragon and France, this superpower wrecks both ITTL. At this point of time a reestablished Western Roman Empire would be possible. After all this it's a matter of conquering.
This'll probably collapse tho.
A) Keep Olaf II of Denmark alive and have him be competent.
B) Give Richard II a son who marries Yolande of Aragon, let said son marry an ATL Scottish heiress, and give them an eventual heiress.
C) Marry Elizabeth of Luxembourg to an elector.
Luxembourg's husband being an elector means that he has like three Electoral votes so a german wank is in order, so (maybe) relatively centralized HRE, possibly make it hereditary while you're at it, so I can see Poland fall easily, Lithuania too.
Now, have the HRE marry a Scandinavian bride whose line eventually comes on the united thrones of Scandinavia, and then have their heir marry the aforementioned Anglo-Scottish heiress (when she has a brother or two maybe), so now the Emperor has atleast.....
England, Scotland, Scandinavia, Germany, Hungary, Bohemia, Poland, Lithuania.
Now the Emperor has a claim on Aragon and France, this superpower wrecks both ITTL. At this point of time a reestablished Western Roman Empire would be possible. After all this it's a matter of conquering.
This'll probably collapse tho.
Last edited:
Deleted member 148213
You'd obviously want to avoid the French revolution and resultant early demographic transition if you were going the later French route; 100 million French is far short of the initial requirements outlined here; there are many plausible TLs with a POD within the last century that would yield some kind of greater Germany with a bigger population than that (Germany, even in the throes of a long demographic decline, suffering the impact of two wars, and the loss of much of its pre-1918 territory has over 80 million people). If France had grown as fast as the other European nations, then even within its current borders it could have 150 million people (though that isn't enough to meet the requirements either, that just keeps France on par with the roughly 20-25% of the European population it historically had before 1800).
But the point here was never about creating any single strong empire i.e. massive HRE or something, it was creating a more powerful and populous culture within the bounds of Europe that when transformed into a nation-state with maybe a little extra attached would dominate the continent in a way Germany or France were never quite able to.
I'm not sure how you tie in the French Revolution & demographic transition? Iirc the latter was a trend preceding 1789. Besides, I really am mistrustful of wanking the german nation for the reasons outlined above: much of the increase in population compared to OTL in germanwanks is made of non-german peoples.
I don't want to sound too negative about your imput - you do make me realise that the scenario I propose above is unsufficient. Maybe if pairing the borders expansion & a continuous growth we would end up with something a bit short of 200 millions Frenchmen? That's the 150M in the current borders plus the give or take 40 millions in the areas I propose to annex. If you can butterfly both world wars, then buffeting that number a bit to 200M is feasible.... if a stretch.
Still, I maintain my point that this scenario is way more realistic than the ones pictured above which take a continent-spanning Empire as a starting point. You are right to remind us that this isn't exactly the point, but that's where most people start from.
I don't want to sound too negative about your imput - you do make me realise that the scenario I propose above is unsufficient. Maybe if pairing the borders expansion & a continuous growth we would end up with something a bit short of 200 millions Frenchmen? That's the 150M in the current borders plus the give or take 40 millions in the areas I propose to annex. If you can butterfly both world wars, then buffeting that number a bit to 200M is feasible.... if a stretch.
Still, I maintain my point that this scenario is way more realistic than the ones pictured above which take a continent-spanning Empire as a starting point. You are right to remind us that this isn't exactly the point, but that's where most people start from.
The Mongols conquer Western Europe and govern it like the other parts of their empire:
No Southern Slavs. Romanic population in all Southern Slav countries. Romanic Pannonia too. Plus Romania and Moldova. Forming a single Romanic country. Around 750 000 sq km plus possible expansion in TTL Ukraine and Poland.
That will include a population of around 65 million people. Throwing around 20 million for diaspora, it's 85 million. Acccounting to a different demographic evolution it could very well be 100 million or more for this Romania (considering shared Latin heritage the name would fit).
That will include a population of around 65 million people. Throwing around 20 million for diaspora, it's 85 million. Acccounting to a different demographic evolution it could very well be 100 million or more for this Romania (considering shared Latin heritage the name would fit).
Last edited:
I think more unified Latin speakers or perhaps Germans that are more successful at assimilating slavic peoples, I don't think it's too too hard to get the Poles, the Slovaks, the Czechs and the Slovenians to become more integrated into the culture and states of the Germans but I think a greater sense of unity in the Latin speakers is probably the your best bet.
I would say a France that inherited / conquered Aragon, the Netherlands, Belgium, etc. France had an immense population compared to the rest of European nations in the Middle Ages (1/5 Europeans was French) and added to the fact that France was a very centralized country, there was a very powerful French assimilation.
OTL France assimilated and successfully integrated Normandy, Aquitaine, Burgundy, Brittany, Savoy, Corsica, Caledonia and Guyana. France could have even assimilated even more.
PD: An Iberian reconquest started by France?
OTL France assimilated and successfully integrated Normandy, Aquitaine, Burgundy, Brittany, Savoy, Corsica, Caledonia and Guyana. France could have even assimilated even more.
PD: An Iberian reconquest started by France?
As long as Civis Romanus Sum can be expanded as much as possible, does that matter?
Don't think it's going to be a problem. Greek-speakers saw themselves as Romans well into early modern times, the issue of language was never one.
Possibly. My idea is that no empire is going to live forever and through a common language and religion a common nationality can be molded. In OTL after the fall of the West and the Eastern provinces the Roman identity became incredibly insular
They saw themselves as Romans that is true. They also became a very insular national group and had trouble assimilating new peoples as the Romans of old did. Religious strife being a contributing factor to the loss of the Eastern provinces
Deleted member 148213
In Some Places, Fertility Rates Declined Before the Industrial Revolution - UCLA Anderson Review
Using parish records, researchers examine fundamental changes in society following the French Revolution
anderson-review.ucla.edu
What if Alaric defeated Clovis at Vouillé, and was able to create a Visigothic empire that integrated the Suebi/all of Iberia and Gaul to the Rhine?