These two are more or less obvious (not sure if Charlemagne's state can be identified as "France") but both are too much based upon the brutal force. IMO, Louis XIV with a seriously different personality and a greater reliance upon the diplomacy instead of the force could do it more smoothly even if on a somewhat lesser scope. He already had a great ...er... "cultural influence" ("everybody" was trying to copy the French fashions, adopt French culture, etc.) which he could keep expanding.
He had the strongest army in Europe but he was routinely facing the coalitions (at least some of which could be avoided with a better diplomacy and not being so obviously expansionist) and the military thinking of the time did not yet favor the concentration of an overwhelming force, fast actions and other things that came in the late XVIII - early XIX. Compare his campaigns in the Netherlands with the easiness of their occupation by the quite average generals of the French Revolution. If he could grasp the real limits of what he could do by force, he could do much more by diplomacy and achieve some kind of the European dominance.
