AHC: Unite Europe

Your challenge is to unite Europe under a single political entity. You may use any and all PODs.

By definition of unite, it has to control at least 80% of Europe, in terms of land AND population.

Bonus points for not going into ASB territory.
 
1812--The Russians make a stand against Napoleon instead of sending General Winter and General Mud against him. They lose. Badly. Napoleon divides European Russia into tiny republics and lets the Romanovs keep Asian Russia.

1814--Napoleon restores the Holy Roman Empire, with himself as Holy Roman Emperor and the territories of what would have been Portugal, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Austria-Hungary, the Low Countries, Poland, European Russia, Ukraine, the Baltic Republics, Switzerland, Scandinavia, and the European territories of the Ottomans divided into various member "republics" and member "monarchies," with Napoleon's relatives and supporters as local monarchs.

How long does this thing have to stay together to count as a United Europe?
 
Hitler doesn't invade Russia and secures his hold on Europe. No Pearl Harbour. United Nazi Europe?*

Or, a Napoleon PoD.

Would surviving Roman Empire that is intact count?

*You asked for a United Europe with any PoD
 
Hitler doesn't declare war on the US and US efforts are limited to extending lend lease to the USSR and Britain.

By 1946, the Algarve is filled with young Russian men.
 
The Hapsburgs marry off into all of the royal houses of Europe, creating personal unions that eventually lead to political union?
 
Rome survives the migration period and pushes its frontiers to the Carpathians and the River Vistula. Throw in a few technological advances early to help them maintain their political control.
 
Rome perceives some kind of economic/imperial benefit in Germany and thereabouts, and forms an Empire stretching from their peak territory IOTL to a Danube-Vistula river line.

If that's not enough territory, they'd have to expand (and have client kingdoms) to the Don. If I recall correctly, the territory was somewhat sparsely populated so it couldn't be impossible, but it would be difficult to control (then again, having a Don River Line would allow for better control of migrants into Europe).
 
An EU-like entity that includes Russia forms in a TL in which that makes sense, and the EU-like entity federalizes.

Alternatively, a foreign colonial power colonizes almost all of Europe.
 
The Don...

Thats ambitious, even by my standards. The nice thing about the Vistula-Carpathian border is its relatively short.
 
The Don...

Thats ambitious, even by my standards. The nice thing about the Vistula-Carpathian border is its relatively short.

Yeah, the Don probably wouldn't work, but I've seen timelines/hypotheticals about a Roman border there that would potentially expand the lifespan of the Western Empire by a bit.
 
Charles Martel dies before the Battle of Tours. Muslim forces defeat the Franks and conquer everything west of the Rhine. Shortly later they cross the channel and conquer England. Then they move across the Rhine conquering modern day Germany and Poland. At this point power is consoldated and a European Caliph is named. He looks to secure power by invading Italy. Following the conquest of Italy, the Muslim conquerors move through the Balkans before converging on Byzantium where the ERE falls before an allied Muslim armies from the east and west. Sometime around 1000 AD Europe is under the rule of a muslim Caliphate.

You never said it had to be a Christian entity :)
 
Charles Martel dies before the Battle of Tours. Muslim forces defeat the Franks and conquer everything west of the Rhine. Shortly later they cross the channel and conquer England. Then they move across the Rhine conquering modern day Germany and Poland. At this point power is consoldated and a European Caliph is named. He looks to secure power by invading Italy. Following the conquest of Italy, the Muslim conquerors move through the Balkans before converging on Byzantium where the ERE falls before an allied Muslim armies from the east and west. Sometime around 1000 AD Europe is under the rule of a muslim Caliphate.

You never said it had to be a Christian entity :)

Nice one, but in reality the force which Charles Martel defeated was a raiding party searching for loot, not for land to conquer.
 
Nice one, but in reality the force which Charles Martel defeated was a raiding party searching for loot, not for land to conquer.

Thats the Moorish propaganda. The Frankish line is that it was an invasion. Both sides have a reason to push their side. But, if the Muslims faced no serious resistance, why wouldn't they invade?
 
Nice one, but in reality the force which Charles Martel defeated was a raiding party searching for loot, not for land to conquer.

Yes, the importance of Karl Martell's victory was greatly overblown by Frankish propaganda.

But if Karl dies early, then the struggle among wannabe mayors-of-the-palace and their respective puppet kings might severely weaken the Frankish kingdom(s). Furthermore, the Franks might no reassure their dominance over Alamans, Bajuvarians, Saxons, Friesians and Lombards.

Under these circumstances, I can see the Muslim power in Spain extend their domains over Aquitaine and Burgundy. Which still does not lead to an Greater Andalusian Europe.
 
Thats the Moorish propaganda. The Frankish line is that it was an invasion. Both sides have a reason to push their side. But, if the Muslims faced no serious resistance, why wouldn't they invade?

True, both sides have good points. Why they didnt invade? Perhaps for the same reasons the romans didnt push deeper into Germania, not worth the trouble.
 
Thats the Moorish propaganda. The Frankish line is that it was an invasion. Both sides have a reason to push their side. But, if the Muslims faced no serious resistance, why wouldn't they invade?

Because robbing people and ruling over them are two very different things and robbing is easier and means that they don't have more christians who don't want to be ruled by muslims added to their already christian heavy empire. Resources that would be spent to take French lands would be better spent securing everything west and south of the Pyrenees. And if they conquer the place then they loose the impressive racket they have looting the defenseless Christians.
 
Because robbing people and ruling over them are two very different things and robbing is easier and means that they don't have more christians who don't want to be ruled by muslims added to their already christian heavy empire. Resources that would be spent to take French lands would be better spent securing everything west and south of the Pyrenees. And if they conquer the place then they loose the impressive racket they have looting the defenseless Christians.

Why was Spain and France different than Palestine, Egypt, Syria, Persia etc? I know why those areas were vulnerable to conquest. But why were they converted whereas the Franks would not?
 
Nice one, but in reality the force which Charles Martel defeated was a raiding party searching for loot, not for land to conquer.

The army that conquered Spain in the first place was little more than a raiding party.

A major part of Muslim geo-strategy in this period was the recon/raid-in-force that was easily capable of and several times did conquer large swathes of territory that turned out to be severely under-defended.

As a kind of counter-point to the tendency of earlier European historians to over-blow particular moments in history, such as Charles' victories, more modern historians (and amateur historians) have a tendency to under-rate particular moments in history. Human social mechanisms like knowledge accumulation tend to more resemble a clock pendulum than a system truly at equilibrium -- they swing too far one way and then end up swinging too far the other, instead of ending up right in the middle where they belong.
 
Why was Spain and France different than Palestine, Egypt, Syria, Persia etc? I know why those areas were vulnerable to conquest. But why were they converted whereas the Franks would not?

Because Muslims where thinner on the ground in Al-Andalus than they where in the heartland of the Caliphate. It would be biting off more than they could reasonably chew and it's telling that even in Syria, Egypt and Iran large pre-islamic religious groups still exist in much of the country.
 
Because Muslims where thinner on the ground in Al-Andalus than they where in the heartland of the Caliphate. It would be biting off more than they could reasonably chew and it's telling that even in Syria, Egypt and Iran large pre-islamic religious groups still exist in much of the country.


hmm, for tribal warlords in Mecca, isnt everything biting off more than they could chew? Yet in short order they conquered a weak Persia, significant territory from a weak ERE, went straight through to India in the east and Spain in the west. You'll have to forgive me if I believe there is more to the story. The fact that their are non muslims in the mideast just validates the point. The only difference I see is the Franks were unified and armed whereas the Persians and Byzantines were weak following their war while the Visogoths and Vandals were politically unstable. But, I am semi-ignorant on the subject so please enlighten.
 
Top