Plausibility Check: A 19th or 20th Century European Hegemon Other than France, Germany, or Russia?

CaliGuy

Banned
What I am curious about is this--was it realistically possible for a country other than France, Germany, or Russia to become the hegemon and the main land power in Europe in the 19th and/or 20th centuries?

Basically, France, Germany, and Russia are probably all doable for this for the 19th and/or 20th centuries; however, what I am curious about is if any other continental European power can realistically fit this description during this time frame.

Anyway, any thoughts on this?
 
That's tough. Spain and Italy were the only two with the right size. Poland was just a size too small, and still is. Spain and Italy had less coal, less resources for industrialization, and worse governance. Perhaps an Italy that could reform much faster and earlier? Some sort of collapse in the Kingdon of Two Sicilies?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
That's tough. Spain and Italy were the only two with the right size. Poland was just a size too small, and still is. Spain and Italy had less coal, less resources for industrialization, and worse governance. Perhaps an Italy that could reform much faster and earlier? Some sort of collapse in the Kingdon of Two Sicilies?
What about Austria(-Hungary), though?
 
Oh, yeah, forgot. Maybe some 1848 Republican Revolution? Like a Danube Federation kind of deal? Would be interesting to see that as dominant culturally, especially considering Vienna's culture status in the early 20th Century.
 
That's tough. Spain and Italy were the only two with the right size. Poland was just a size too small, and still is. Spain and Italy had less coal, less resources for industrialization, and worse governance. Perhaps an Italy that could reform much faster and earlier? Some sort of collapse in the Kingdon of Two Sicilies?

I could see Poland doing it if they managed to sell France on the Pre-emptive Invasion of Germany Pilsudski wanted in 34'. Get 1939 Eastern Borders and 1945 Western Borders, get French Help with Industrialization, Poland has the 6th Largest Proven Coal Reserves in the World to help with that.

It could potentially go well enough for them that if an EU Analogue comes around, Poland could potentially take the German Spot instead of being number 5 like they are now.

Of Course if all that happens the question is what happens with the Soviets. . .They were weak from 34' to 41' but they won't stay that way forever. . .
 
If a way could be found to keep the Union of Kalmar intact, with a solidly established breakdown of what powers the king has, and what powers the nobles have, it would be a force to be reckoned with. In such circumstances, Poland or parts therof might bet added to the Union, or pieces of the Germanies. This is earlier than the proposed POD, but might have potential. It might take until the 19th century before the Union is established as the Hegemon on the continent. Swedish iron mines will certainly come in handy!

Has anyone done any timelines with the Union of Kalmar remaining in place.

Sticking with the same theme, if the nations of the old Union joined in armed neutrality as the great War tore Europe apart, they might be the only continental powers in Northern Europe to come through more or less in one piece--especially if Finland broke free and joined, and some of NW Russia decided that Kalmar was a better choice than Bolsheviks.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Oh, yeah, forgot. Maybe some 1848 Republican Revolution? Like a Danube Federation kind of deal? Would be interesting to see that as dominant culturally, especially considering Vienna's culture status in the early 20th Century.
What about having Austria co-opt European nationalism in 1815 by going radical and creating an ethnic federation back then, though?
 
I think Austria is really your only option, given the OP. You've ruled out France, Germany, and Russia as part of the question, and really there were good reasons why those powers came to the fore, or remained there in France's case, in the nineteenth century. I won't say it was inevitable, because virtually nothing is truly inevitable in history, but there were strong reasons for it. As for the alternatives you ask about, Only Austria has the potential, as I see it. Neither Italy or Spain have as much in the way of necessary resources as Austria. It's worth remembering here that Austria became a fairly highly industrialized nation IOTL, with quite a lot of industry. As I see it, there is a tendency to view Austria through the lens of 1918 and project that back to the entire history of the state. This leads us to ignore the elements of strength while placing too much emphasis on the weaknesses (which there most certainly were. I'm not trying to say Austria didn't have major internal faultlines, just that I think we need to re-examine our weighing of competing trends.). Plus, both of the alternative hegemons, Spain and Italy, have even more significant problems to acquiring regional dominance. Both are hemmed in by substantial mountain ranges, which isolate them from the rest of the continent. On the first hand this makes the need for a regionally dominant military less strong, because the nations are shielded, at least to a degree. The geography also encourages naval strength as both Spain and Italy are dependent on the sea for more of their trade and are more vulnerable to attack than Austria. They also have more to gain from naval strength, and I think, and easier time acquiring colonial territories. Additionally, Spain has incredibly strong internal divisions that need to be dealth with before it can become a regional hegemon. Italy, to my knowledge, doesn't have that problem, though I could be wrong, but it was relatively late to be united into a single state. Earlier than Germany, to be sure, but the factors I already mentioned lessen the need for a unitary Italian state to have a powerful army.

Honestly, I don't think Austria needs any truly major reforms to achieve this status, given the OP stipulates the OTL powers are weakened. Incremental reforms, leaders making better decisions, and perhaps a way to play other ethnic groups off the Hungarians (the Serbs might fit the bill and that could be achieved either through Austria never losing Serbia or by re-acquiring it in the nineteenth century) would be enough to eliminate Austria's largest impediments.
 
Austria, not just for the reasons discussed, but also because it was just as likely a candidate to lead the formation of Germany as Prussia.
I agree. But that would have meant an Austrian victory via war or diplomacy over Prussia, and it's continued traditional role as the leading German state. Prussia seems to have done a better job concentrating its efforts in unifying Northern Germany to its camp at the expense of Austria. In addition. because of the size of the "non-German" part of the Austrian Empire, its multiple non-German policies in areas such as Italy, the Balkans, and Hungary, the growing foreign rivalries not just with Prussia in Germany but Sardinia and France over Italy, Russia and the Ottomans in the Balkans, they ended up seemingly looking like they were not making the Germans their top priority. This may have led many Germans, especially the "Protestant" northern part of Germany to look elsewhere for leadership. Something Bismarck and the Prussians were able to do.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 94680

Maybe if it conquers France back during the early 1400s; else, though, No, it can't.

Care to expand on your thinking? I mean writing them off from the early 1400s onwards seems a little harsh when you're willing to give Italy and Norway-Swweden a shot...
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Care to expand on your thinking? I mean writing them off from the early 1400s onwards seems a little harsh when you're willing to give Italy and Norway-Swweden a shot...
Without conquering France, England/Britain wouldn't be a land power in (continental) Europe; thus, it wouldn't qualify for this.
 
Does the Ottoman Empire count as European? If they do, they could probably work.
I think the non-Chrisitan factor kicks in. Though some of the European powers might be willing to use the Ottomans to gain a leg up on another power, ie., Britain and France against Russia in the Crimean War, I don't think any of the European Powers due to their histories would like a too influential Ottoman Empire in Europe. (Austria, Russia specifically.)
 
Top