Large european empire

I wasnt sure how to word this, but would it be possible that perhaps under roman leadership ? or with a even earlier POD. there could be a huge European country, comprising of almost all of southern europe and central europe. domitated by one culture for example latin and lasting. i mean look at china or india, even those are still around, so why would a similar state be impossible in europe under right circumstances ?
 
Because the kind of circumstances that produced those - both geographica and human - don't exist in Europe.

Especially not over "southern and central Europe".

You might be able to get something on the human side with a sufficiently early POD, but it would have to be early enough to change Europe beyond recognition.
 
Of course the kind of circumstances exist; what do you think the Roman Empire was?:p

Well, Southern and Western Europe mostly. I do think it is worth mentioning that Austrai for a time during the 18th century exerted significant influence over both Central and Southern Europe.

Ah, right, one lasting culture. That's a bit harder. Austria certainly doesn't fit that at all.
 
China yes, India no. India was historically just as diverse as Europe. The very Idea of "India" as a single united country only date back to the British colonial period.
 
Of course the kind of circumstances exist; what do you think the Roman Empire was?:p

A state that never had any significant power in Central Europe.

Well, Southern and Western Europe mostly. I do think it is worth mentioning that Austrai for a time during the 18th century exerted significant influence over both Central and Southern Europe.

Ah, right, one lasting culture. That's a bit harder. Austria certainly doesn't fit that at all.

And Austria exerting influence is not the same as one polity covering Central and Southern Europe.
 
The Pyrenees, Alps and the Mediterrenean really negate this from ever happening in such an early PoD. Not to mention Balkan topography. The Basques survived until now, after thousands of years, in a tiny section Europe.

India, is not at all homogenous, and would most likely be better off under a very, very loose federation. China, OTOH, is a civilization-state, it's not ethnically homogeneous (Manchus, Han, Uighurs etc...), there are dozens of languages and myriad cultures.

Europe's Geography is the entire reason for the stark divide between Spaniard and Frenchmen, between an Italian and a German; it's not just ancestry, but after a few hundred years the customs, traditions and language starts to drift. Look at America today, and then look at Britain.
 
It might be a good idea for the OP to define what they mean by Southern Europe and Central Europe, as the formers border is'nt Universal and the latter can and does vary wildly in defintions.
 
China has at least three highly distinct geographical regions. India has even more. Both have been united several times.

The Pyrenees, Alps and the Mediterrenean really negate this from ever happening in such an early PoD. Not to mention Balkan topography. The Basques survived until now, after thousands of years, in a tiny section Europe.
The Pyrenees are not that restrictive. They can be bypassed either in Septimania or Gascogne, especially Septimania.

And multiple empires have included both sides of the Alps, including the HRE and Austria. Not to mention the Roman Empire itself.
 
China is an anomaly in that 90% of it's massive population belongs to the same ethnic group. I'm not sure why this is, maybe just geography? At any rate, it's a major anomaly. India has always been very, very multi-ethnic and until modern times, united only by force. And even with China, though 90% of its population is Han Chinese, they've diversified into speaking mutually unintelligible dialects.

A huge, mono-ethnic empire just isn't very feasible anywhere, much less Europe.
 
China has at least three highly distinct geographical regions. India has even more. Both have been united several times.

The Pyrenees are not that restrictive. They can be bypassed either in Septimania or Gascogne, especially Septimania.

And multiple empires have included both sides of the Alps, including the HRE and Austria. Not to mention the Roman Empire itself.

I'm not saying they're restrictive, I'm saying their profound impact on culture for a PoD before Rome is unavoidable. Of course you can have a transalpine Empire, it just won't be culturally unified, and the HRE is NOT a good example of what the OP is asking (neither is Austria).

China doesn't have the bottlenecks that Europe does, and Chinese demography is heavily influenced by those mountains, hills and deserts (hence the different ethnicities and cultures).
 

PhilippeO

Banned
dominated by one culture for example latin and lasting.

is Romance Language and Christianity fit the definition of "One Lasting Culture" ?

if it is, only the state that need to established.

1 ) More successful Justinian ? consolidation of Byzantine power in Italy and Spain instead Africa.

2 ) Less successful Slavic and Hungarian invasion ? absorption of these groups to Romance languages ? OR 3) Earlier Unification of Danube Basin ? some successful Hungarian Kings that managed to establish dinasty and rule from Vienna to Black Sea.

if Balkans stay speak Romance or Greek languages, it will be India equivalent. India losing Indus river to Pakistan, this balkans state losing west Med, but having "huge empire with lasting culture" in East Med.

3) More successful Habsburg ? with Naples and Milan integrated to Spain.
and southern France instead of Flanders. the Balkans could be acquired later.
 
is Romance Language and Christianity fit the definition of "One Lasting Culture" ?

if it is, only the state that need to established.

1 ) More successful Justinian ? consolidation of Byzantine power in Italy and Spain instead Africa.

Leaves Central Europe unconquered.

2 ) Less successful Slavic and Hungarian invasion ? absorption of these groups to Romance languages ? OR 3) Earlier Unification of Danube Basin ? some successful Hungarian Kings that managed to establish dinasty and rule from Vienna to Black Sea.
Leaves most of Southern Europe unconquered.

if Balkans stay speak Romance or Greek languages, it will be India equivalent. India losing Indus river to Pakistan, this balkans state losing west Med, but having "huge empire with lasting culture" in East Med.
But not Central Europe.

3) More successful Habsburg ? with Naples and Milan integrated to Spain.
and southern France instead of Flanders. the Balkans could be acquired later.
Still leaves Central Europe outside the Spanish branch, and thus out of any one polity.
 
Last edited:

Rex Mundi

Banned
China is an anomaly in that 90% of it's massive population belongs to the same ethnic group. I'm not sure why this is, maybe just geography? At any rate, it's a major anomaly. India has always been very, very multi-ethnic and until modern times, united only by force. And even with China, though 90% of its population is Han Chinese, they've diversified into speaking mutually unintelligible dialects.

A huge, mono-ethnic empire just isn't very feasible anywhere, much less Europe.

The Han are a rather unique group in terms of how they're defined. Han Chinese living in different regions of China display a great diversity in terms of both language and culture; though much of that has eroded through modern attempts at cultural homogenization, the Han are arguably grouped together on less stringent grounds than many other 'ethnicities'.
 
China has at least three highly distinct geographical regions. India has even more. Both have been united several times.

The Pyrenees are not that restrictive. They can be bypassed either in Septimania or Gascogne, especially Septimania.

And multiple empires have included both sides of the Alps, including the HRE and Austria. Not to mention the Roman Empire itself.


i think some people are just overestimating the geographical hinderences, sure they are a hinder. but it wont stop a expanding empire from conquering/dominating it. as for dialects, just look at german speaking areas. I am Austrian, i can understand a bavarian, but i cant or barely understand a swiss, let alone someone speaking plattdeutsch. In Austria where i live, almost every village or every valley has their own little differences in dialect or speaks a bit different. in the past it was more dramatic than now, because our dialect became a bit germanized and standarized. german is still our language.

the only reason spanish and french drifted apart was because rome fell, before they were all resembling latin with regional dialects and influences, then they started to become more diverse and french is the most derived romance language IIRC
 
Last edited:
i think some people are just overestimating the geographical hinderences, sure they are a hinder. but it wont stop a expanding empire from conquering/dominating it.

It will make it more difficult to take and more difficult to hold, however.

And large empires don't need the additional strain.
 
Top