How best to unite the planet?

The U.S., E.U., Russia, and China divide the world into spheres of influence. Later establish some sort of unified directorate to avoid conflict between the four, which evolves into a global government. Probably inevitable and not necessarily just.
 
I don't think anybody can do it before a certain number of technologies allows them. They can certainly set the stage for doing so, as say China with it demographic base, developed institutions, cultural power and control or easy access to some of the richest areas on Earth has a much better chance at a play for world domination then say Portugal. (Assuming both get a impetus to expand and colonise).

Anyway I would say a China that doesn't turn inward has the best chance. They can colonise America from the other side, setting up population explosions and vast amounts of resources coming in. They can also do it in Australia and the rest of Oceania, and maybe also over in South Africa. They already had domination over much of East Asia, with the main threat to them being from the North. They are culturally linked to much of the area, and technical fealty can evolve into real fealty.

A European power that unifies in the late medieval period has a shot at it. The Hapsburg came close to uniting most of Western Europe, but it is a very loose, and fragile unification. A European power still has to trigger the right outward impetus and development of technology and institutions to make use of them.

Powers situated in the middle of Eurasia + Northern Africa still have a chance, but aren't located as well. Those in Subsaharan africa, the America, Australia and other areas require a whole bunch of PODs that would crush all the competition and spur them on, while making sure they unite their region. Aka a big reach, especially since some require entirely new crop packages.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
As several others have noted, there are some major difficulties. A world that is very multipolar (e.g. OTL in the age of national empires like the British, French etc.) is unlikely to see one of these power utterly win out, because if that's a threat, the others temporarily drop their mutual hostility and gang up on the most threatening one. So that's out. This leaves us a POD related to a more universalist empire, such as Rome, ancient Persia, China, India under the Mauryas, an Islamic Caliphate... And that seems more promising. Suppose one of such great empires goes through an ATL industrial revolution, things could build from there. Bit of a problem, though. There are two things that can happen. Either that industrialisation is on the fast side, or it's on the slow side.

-- If fast, then chances are other powers can't catch up, giving the superpower in question a lot of momentum that just keeps gathering and gathering. It could then conquer the world because it got that critical head start: it was halfway done before any rival could even begin to get its act in order! Of course, such a rapid industrialisation would change society massively, leave the empire unable to properly absorb conquered populations, cause all sorts of cultural and social and economic upheavals (not to mention political ones)... all of which may very well rip the empire apart with the very force of its sudden outward explosion. Imagine all the upheavals the West saw in the period of, say, 1500-1945... but all happening at once within the space of one single century. Enjoy and stay safe, kids! I would rate the chances of an empire going through such vast changes actually surviving the ordeal as very, very slim.

-- If slow, all those upheavals are stretched out over time. Maybe even more stretched out than the aforementioned upheavals were in OTL, allowing for more periods of peace and 'acclimatisation to the new normal'. That way, such a changing empire could process the changes in a sustainable way, and would survive them easily. On the flip-side, that would almost certainly allow rival powers to catch up. Technology wouldn't stay secret forever. In the end, we'd see multiple empires going through the processes of industrialisation, much like various european powers did in roughly the same time-scale. That same thing would happen, but with (say) Rome and Persia or something.

I think only the second avenue offers a realistic path to a 'united world', because the first option almost certainly leads to a chaotic disintegration of the empire. Let's imagine the second, 'slow' course of events. But specifically, let's consider the - not unrealistic - notion that one big empire manages to spark a slow industrialisation, but a major rival catches on (and therefore catches up) relatively quickly. This may well lead to a scenario where multiple rivals flourish (which isn't what we want), but it's not unthinkable that the established power of two existing rival empires allow them to absorb lesser contenders over time. So, to stick with the example, Rome and Persia industrialise, all the while staying fierce rivals. Rome conquers Northern Europe and Africa, while Persia subjugates all of India and Central Asia up to and including Siberia. Rome sails west and captures the Americas, while Persia defeats China while also annexing South-East Asia. In the end, the two rivals each control half the world. At that point, all it takes is for one of them to collapse due to some internal failure, allowing the other to become the sole hegemon, which gobbles up the remnants of its broken rival piecemeal.

Is this an extremely likely scenario? Perhaps not, because the course of events can easily swerve off into some other direction (e.g. multipolar world, or a bipolar one where the two rivals are equally matched forever, or a bipolar one where both collapse in the end). Still, I think that "simply uniting the world" is actually very difficult. A bipolar world is the best set-up, because one simple factor (the collapse of one side) allows for the other to assume absolute dominion over the Earth. So, yeah... that would be my suggestion for having it happen.
 
Roman Empire industrialization is the one I will pick as the most likely to succeed in world domination.

I will actually love a TL with the Romans conquering the world with the power of technology... perhaps with a subsequent crossover with Halo saga, where they manage to defeat and assimilate the Covenant (Roman Sangheili awwwww so much love), then another crossover with Mass Effect with logical curbstomp of the Council and total war against the Reapers without stupid Catalysts in the way! And then a travel to 40k Galaxy for the Imperium vs Imperium uhuhuh

Uh... or perhaps I need to take my meds before I go crazy.
 

Deleted member 97083

Nope. Lebensraum was the goal of the Nazi regime and up to the Urals seems fine.
That was their first attempted conquest but they planned for later conquests using their enlarged territory.

Also didn't Napoleon quite literally want world domination?
No. The Napoleonic Wars were a continuation of the French Revolutionary Wars. The traditional monarchies on the continent wouldn't accept a republic or a constitutional monarchy on the continent, while Britain despite being a constitutional monarchy itself wouldn't accept any hegemonic power on the continent.

Napoleon's goal was to create a series of client states so that the Continental System, or the embargo on the U.K., could be enforced. Napoleon didn't want to annex or settle Russia. Almost all of his foreign policy actions as Emperor of France can be explained by a desire to expand the blockade on Britain.
 

Redcoat

Banned
That was their first attempted conquest but they planned for later conquests using their enlarged territory.


No. The Napoleonic Wars were a continuation of the French Revolutionary Wars. The traditional monarchies on the continent wouldn't accept a republic or a constitutional monarchy on the continent, while Britain despite being a constitutional monarchy itself wouldn't accept any hegemonic power on the continent.

Napoleon's goal was to create a series of client states so that the Continental System, or the embargo on the U.K., could be enforced. Napoleon didn't want to annex or settle Russia. Almost all of his foreign policy actions as Emperor of France can be explained by a desire to expand the blockade on Britain.
But if nappy had gotten Britain to give up early...
 

Deleted member 97083

But if nappy had gotten Britain to give up early...
Then Napoleon might have annexed other Romance speaking countries and a little bit more of Catholic Germany, but his main strategy would still be to create client states rather than annexation.
 
The Indus Valley Civilization goes through an Industrial revolution in the 2000s BC and becomes a world-empire by default ;). Commie blocks and giant public baths everywhere!

Alternatively the Song Dynasty does the same in the 1200s. Though whether they would find it worthwhile to control the entire world, and whether other parts of the world would catch up fast enough to compete is debatable.

The other classic examples are industrial Rome, an Anglo-French Medieval union (Centrum's backstory in GURPS), or the Habsburgs dominating Europe and then the world in the 1500s.

For this do we need there really to be one global state, or is a hegemony that is the sole hyperpower and just hasn't bothered to conquer some remaining independent states OK?
 
I’ve often thought that the key to world domination is individual humility and and a cultural focus on integration. If, for example, Alexander had been content on taking Egypt and the Near East and focused the organs of state on full “grecification” of those regions then in a generation or two those parts of the empire become insperable and taking the next nibble (Persia, probably) becomes that much easier. The trouble would be that no one leader gets to call themsleves “conqueror of the world” which is a driving force for most great conquerors. Also, you’d need a reliable cycle of leadership with one great conqueror followed by four or five great administrators followed by another great conqueror... etc. In short, I think world conquest is ASB. That’s why I endorse a steady, slow march of global economic integration that marginalises the nation-state and national identity imperceptibly over time.
 
I’ve often thought that the key to world domination is individual humility and and a cultural focus on integration. If, for example, Alexander had been content on taking Egypt and the Near East and focused the organs of state on full “grecification” of those regions then in a generation or two those parts of the empire become insperable and taking the next nibble (Persia, probably) becomes that much easier. The trouble would be that no one leader gets to call themsleves “conqueror of the world” which is a driving force for most great conquerors. Also, you’d need a reliable cycle of leadership with one great conqueror followed by four or five great administrators followed by another great conqueror... etc. In short, I think world conquest is ASB. That’s why I endorse a steady, slow march of global economic integration that marginalises the nation-state and national identity imperceptibly over time.

Agreed. Alexander, the Romans, or even the Mongols aren't going to conquer the world for good. Their empires don't have the institutions that will keep them around for good. Compare this to the late 19th or early 20th centuries where the institutions (especially the economic ones) were around that would enable a world unification (be it a dystopic or otherwise) with no world wars involved if things had gone absolutely right.
 
Maybe Papal world conquest? That was proposed few years ago in Papalwank tread.

Falastur said:
Observe for instance, the HRE in something like 1088 (it's too early in the morning and I'm not going to look it up right now but I bet he's not hard to find...Conrad II or someone maybe) walking barefoot into Rome and prostrating himself before the Pope in penance for being too disrespectful of Papal power. Observe John declaring England a Papal fief in order to avoid having to take Magna Carta seriously. In a world where events favoured Popes much more, it's entirely plausible that the Popes could have eventually forced Christianity into a position where they truly did have temporal power in Europe and kings were almost like mere feudal provincial lords. Though science in such a Europe would be greatly stifled, there's no reason why such a united Europe couldn't come to slowly spread out, eventually taking the Americas and Africa over the course of several centuries, and possibly slowly enveloping Asia too. Considering that the universal Christendom was a policy most kings ascribed to at the height of Papal power, a world conquest isn't a totally ASB possibility.
 

VT45

Banned
Agreed. Alexander, the Romans, or even the Mongols aren't going to conquer the world for good. Their empires don't have the institutions that will keep them around for good. Compare this to the late 19th or early 20th centuries where the institutions (especially the economic ones) were around that would enable a world unification (be it a dystopic or otherwise) with no world wars involved if things had gone absolutely right.

Which is why I went with the British Empire. Using protectorates and puppet monarchs like they did in India could be extended across the world. It’d preserve the veneer of self rule while the planet would actually be under the yoke of London.
 
Well, the Achaemenid Empire came closest to having more than 50% of the world population within its borders, so if can conquer Greece then turn east, avoid the issues it became plagued with later on, and strong-arm its way onto the Indo-Gangetic Plain it would probably just be so big that by shear population it could just continue to snowball from there.

Also maybe a Habsburg wank that sees all of western and central Europe (and by extension both of the Americas and at least part of North Africa) under a single throne, and you could probably see at least a global hegemony, if not outright universal monarchy.

A south-centric China (probably a non-starter) which focuses on projecting power into the east indies could stumble upon Australia and from there follow the Southerlies to the Americas.
 
POD: before French revolution. All european empires combine, together conquering Russia and without major opposition and as a united force, they expand further and eventually conquer Earth. They then focus on making their rule more benevolent, preventing rebellions.
 
You would need to have some common thing effecting all humans of the world equally or perhaps as deeply. Space Aliens would suit. Especially hostile ugly space aliens who eat babies. Space aliens who want our planet for their own. Also limited to reasonably the same technology as humans of that time. The hostilities would have to continue for centuries. Of course what I have simply described could be going on right now. :)
 
Top