Challenge: Earliest possible time that a Napoleon analogue could attempt to conquer Europe?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 97083
  • Start date

Deleted member 97083

After the Roman era, what's the earliest possible time that you could see a European ruler either try to, or find himself in circumstances where, they attempt to conquer Europe and actually partially succeed? The ruler must be Christian and born after 476 AD.

A revolution need not be involved.

Could there be a 1300s, 1400s, 1500s AD version of Napoleon in any conceivable timeline? Or was the technology and level of organization just not there?
 
After the Roman era, what's the earliest possible time that you could see a European ruler either try to, or find himself in circumstances where, they attempt to conquer Europe and actually partially succeed? The ruler must be Christian and born after 476 AD.

A revolution need not be involved.

Could there be a 1300s, 1400s, 1500s AD version of Napoleon in any conceivable timeline? Or was the technology and level of organization just not there?
Thus French King Charles VIII ?
 
After the Roman era, what's the earliest possible time that you could see a European ruler either try to, or find himself in circumstances where, they attempt to conquer Europe and actually partially succeed? The ruler must be Christian and born after 476 AD.

Justinian tried and succeeded partially. He controlled Greece and the Balkans and conquered Italy and southern Spain. Not bad, in my humble opinion.
 
Well, the Muslim Expansion, The Carolingian Empire, Attila, Alexander of Macedon, and Justinian are good examples of vast territories gained in "short" amounts of time. So, I would say 500 A.D, or maybe earlier. Seems possible to me for example that we see some germanic ruler converting and conquering Spain, Gaul and Northern Italy or maybe another huge territorial combination.
 
as a sovereign or a suzerain? For the first, i would say the level of organisation wasn't there. For the second, Charlemagne.
 

Deleted member 97083

Charlemagne?
Charlemagne is one of the closest to approximate this but is there anything to suggest he wanted to conquer "Europe" as opposed to simply forming a cohesive and powerful Frankish kingdom in the western provinces of the former Roman Empire? It's possible that Charlemagne and the Franks in general didn't even place the same significance on the title "Roman Emperor" that the Pope did, and only accepted it because it was politically expedient.

A more "Napoleon-like" version of Charlemagne probably would have launched an all-out invasion of al-Andalus or the Byzantine Empire, seeking to conquer or dismember those realms.

Completely agree, the level of organisation needed only began to (re)emerge after 1300.
Who would you suggest after 1300, then?

Thus French King Charles VIII ?
If French king Charles VII had been succeeded not by Louis XI, but directly by Charles VIII, then we might have a 1400s Napoleon.

Charles VII had created France's first standing army since Roman times. Niccolo Machiavelli asserted that if his son Louis XI had continued this policy, then the French would have become invincible.
 
Top