The Universal Monarchy

Who came closest to establishing the Universal Monarchy?


  • Total voters
    123

Thande

Donor
English and British foreign policy from the Reformation (or just before) right up to the present day (in a modified form) has always revolved around the idea of taking action to prevent the creation of what is known as The Universal Monarchy, a single state ruling all or most of Europe along absolutist-royalist lines, as this would be a singular threat to English/British independence and liberty.

This is of course ultimately the root causes of Britain being at the forefront of the 'stately quadrille' idea that prevailed in the 18th century, of switching allies whenever it looked as though your current partner was getting too powerful, and organising war positions based on keeping things divided and equal rather than on any kind of ideological common feeling or attachment.

Anyway, several individuals since 1400 or so have come closer than most to being within reach of establishing such a Universal Monarchy. Which in your opinion came closest? If you have another suggestion, give it.

(And to pre-empt Ridwan Asher, the Ottoman Empire doesn't count, mainly because it's too far away).
 
(And to pre-empt Ridwan Asher, the Ottoman Empire doesn't count, mainly because it's too far away).

Yeah yeah I'm listening.... :rolleyes: : ))

I'll be pointing towards Nappy though. His empire was indeed the largest unitary empire ever existed in Europe.
 
I'd go with Charles V, largely because he had the largest domain since Charlemagne, and because no one else in Europe could have realistically challenged him.
 
Napoleon.

Charles V's boys may have bought into it, but it was opposed by France as well as England-France still a very powerful state-and Spaniards, Italians, and Germans resented fighting for each other's problems.

Louis XIV as is commonly known broke his country of sorts economically even if no one saw it at the time, and he's more known for culture anyhoo.

I vote Nappy. Who else could get so much of Europe at hell, both de jure and de facto, and inspire such culture and political thought? He even invaded Russia, for heck's sake. Chuck Five never did that.
 
I'd go with Charles V, largely because he had the largest domain since Charlemagne, and because no one else in Europe could have realistically challenged him.

Agreed.

The Habsburg inheritance of the Netherlands and Austria, the inheritance of his mother and grandfather which included Spain, also to include the American Empire and the wealth plundered by Cortes and Pizarro from the Aztecs and the Incans gave him access to amount of gold others considered imaginable. Top it off with his Italian dominions (Naples, and Milan which he later gained for his son), and the Imperial Title, he was quite powerful. France never managed to regain their 'claims' in Italy, and even signed into an alliance with the Ottomans to hold him back.

Not to mention he was the first Emperor in generations to be able to hold Italy under a bayonet. The Italian princes, at least after the Italian Wars were finalized in the 1550s, walked lockstep with Spain.

EDIT: Not to mention Napoleon rode on the coat tails of the Revolution. He didn't want a "Universal Monarchy" that many felt Charles V wanted to create. Something akin to a Federation seems more like Napoleon aspired towards. He tore downc the archaic laws of the ancien regime, freed the bourgeois, established religious tolerance... he was an important man, but not for a universal monarchy. It was an outdated thing by time he came around.
 
Napoleon, definitely. All Charles V did was inherit a bunch of countries at the right time. He did not create his empire from scratch. He left litle lasting legacy. Even at the height of his power, he had formidable European rivals. Napoleon, on the other hand, was the master of Europe. He managed to create a unitary state that left a lasting legacy in Europe. He directly contributed to the eventual unification of Italy and Germany. The Code Napoleon is still used today as the basis of many legal systems around the globe. Beat that, Hapsburgs.
 
Napoleon: he actually achieved the nightmare scenario: hostile power in command of the whole coast of Europe opposite us, Britain the only power continuing to resist, effective supremacy over everything west of Russia. He was beaten and lost the universal monarchy, but he actually achieved what we were so afraid of. Willy only got as far as "I'll achieve it if I win this war", the others not even quite that far.

Hitler would make the grade, too, had he included.
 
Last edited:
I didn't think Napoleon counted, he wasn't interested in establishing a Monarchy. I don't really know enough about the other choices though, so I'll hold my vote.
 
I didn't think Napoleon counted, he wasn't interested in establishing a Monarchy. I don't really know enough about the other choices though, so I'll hold my vote.

...He was the only one who did, in the strictest sense, "establish" a monarchy. He established quite a few others, as well. He was pretty down with establishing monarchies.
 
Only Nappie and Chuck V, Neither Willie II nor Hitler want that

Well i Vote for napoleon because like some one here(Like IBC and Ubric Man said) he was the only who dominated almost all the direct lands of Europe, but Charles V have an all Continent Spaming Empire, from Philipanes to The Americas to Europe....
 

Thande

Donor
...He was the only one who did, in the strictest sense, "establish" a monarchy. He established quite a few others, as well. He was pretty down with establishing monarchies.

Yeah, that's pretty much his defining characteristic...

The reason why I don't necessarily see Napoleon as the frontrunner is that I think the real nightmare scenario must include the Universal Monarchy having at least some degree of sea power: Napoleon couldn't even enforce his own Continental System. By contrast Philip II had his Armadas and Wilhelm at least had the High Seas Fleet. Britain survived even through Napoleon's victories precisely because France had no way of starving her out, much less invading her. (I appreciate this factor is not necessarily included in the conventional definition of Universal Monarchy however).
 
How about Charles X Gustav of Sweden? I think he stood a decent chance for that
Thing is, Charles X Gustav never even came within realistic sight of the kind of power that Napoleon or Charles V wielded. He was powerful, yes, but not master-of-all-I-survey, hey-I'll-go-conquer-a-random-country-for-fun powerful, like Napoleon or Charles V.
 

wormyguy

Banned
If you mean all (or nearly all) of Europe being directly ruled over by a single monarch, then none of the above. If indirect rule can be counted, then Napoleon.

I'm surprised you didn't put Henry V up there.
 
What about the Grand mother of Europe - Queen Victoria of Great Britian and Empress of India. She has to be the one with her match making is still felt today with kings and queens marring relatives lol
 
Napoleon. But Charles V would be an interesting possibility... I demand IV come here now and dream ups some kind of Hapsburg unified Europe.
 
Top