Avoid the Balance of Power Idea

[Unconsensual]

Simple idea: avoid the rise of the balance of power idea within the elites of Europe.

Why? More likelihood of French or Hapsburg dominance, but more importantly more trouble for the British who benefited disproportionally from this.

 

[Elfwine]

Simple idea: avoid the rise of the balance of power idea within the elites of Europe.

Why? More likelihood of French or Hapsburg dominance, but more importantly more trouble for the British who benefited disproportionally from this.

Almost impossible, as French or Hapsburg attempts at dominance will inevitably see people trying to check that.

 

[Socrates]

Almost impossible, as French or Hapsburg attempts at dominance will inevitably see people trying to check that.

If dominance reaches a certain point, states tend to start supporting the dominant power as a way to buy favour as they don't think taking them down is likely.

 

[Unconsensual]

IIRC the Hapsburg came damn close, if they had a milder Reformation or less successful Ottomans they could've very well reduced french influence.

 

[Velasco]

What if a more successful Holy Roman Empire - with centralized, integrated administration or something - created the idea that it is necessary for the common weal that Christendom enjoy a single supreme ruler?

 

[Unconsensual]

... created the idea that it is necessary for the common weal that Christendom enjoy a single supreme ruler?

I thought that was the Papacy

 

[raharris1973]

Europeans just should....

...have started drinking what they were drinking in East Asia.

Their international system was not easily fitted into the balance of power model.

I would suggest that the best written scenario that aborts the balance of power concept in Europe is the "Prince of Peace" multi-part timeline. Lots of fun, but, spoiler alert, the HRE unites western Christendom in the high middle ages. All sorts of good characters, the Hohenstaufens, Constance of Sicily, Rob "Hood" of Loxley.

 

[democracy101]

[Europeans just should]...have started drinking what they were drinking in East Asia.

This doesn't really mean anything. There was a general balance of power among the states in North and South China, (North) Central Asia (Mongolia and East Turkestan), (South) Central Asia (Tibet), and Northeast Asia (Manchuria and Korea) from about 500 BC to 1250 AD, and sporadically continued afterward. Granted, the specific situation changed over time, and the system was generally not as complicated as the one in Europe, but it was enough for some individual states to seek alliances with other regions.

Ultimately, however, the main reason that most of the states located in and around China Proper were absorbed over time was due to the nature of Chinese characters, which required outsiders to learn a complicated writing system that was tied to the culture. This "common" cultural identity eventually translated into political methods, and because the states in the West generally assumed separate identities, repeating this process in Europe would be extremely difficult, if not impossible.

 

[Elfwine]

If dominance reaches a certain point, states tend to start supporting the dominant power as a way to buy favour as they don't think taking them down is likely.

Except that every time we see someone even trying to reach that point, we see all sorts and manners of unlikely bedfellows and unholy alliances to keep them from it.

Some states might support the dominant power, but many won't.


I hate to say OTL is inevitable in any sense, but when we see over and over again wannabe hegemons stopped like this, even "modest" things like the Hapsburgs meeting all their defensive goals are almost impossible to achieve in full simply because no power ever came remotely close to the kind of monopoly on power's instruments needed.

The ability to make cannon or crossbows or whatever is too dispersed for any one polity to hold all the places that do so and leave rivals without the ability to maintain their independence.