Which empire had the best shot at world domination?

The British could at least say that the sun never sets on their Empire. Although they were far away from ruling the whole world, at least they had an Empire that were spread over large parts of the world.
 
The Kingdom of France had such advantages that it is truly amazing that it was never able to conquer the world.

In 1650, it had a greater population than England, Spain, and Portugal combined, and its population was also twice that of the German lands. It had claims on an easily navigable area (by way of the Great Lakes and Mississippi) -- Louisiane, the North American interior -- that constitutes even to this day the single largest and most fruitful area of arable land in the world. This land had few diseases, unimaginable amounts of game, a great wealth of mineral resources, and a remarkable consistency across a very large area that, as mentioned, was tied together through an easily navigable river system.

On top of this, France had a strong monarchy, international prestige, and a geographic position in Europe that made it at once in touch with every region and close to the papacy.

Almost all of these advantages were, for the most part, squandered. These advantages were great. Global domination could have been a very natural development, and it could have become permanent, as well. Global domination failed to occur, however, for several key reasons.

The first is the lack of strategic foresight of the Bourbons and some of their ministers (particularly Colbert) with regard to their overseas holdings. If France were to have settled New France with only half of the English colonists or were to have settled New France with the same number of people but two generations earlier, New France would have a population exceeding 300 million people today from natural growth alone, and perhaps higher since it would attract significant immigration later.

Second, the French birthrate began to significantly decline in the age of Louis XIV. If it were as high as that of England or Germany during the XVIIIth and XIXth centuries, the metropole alone would have a population exceeding 150 million, and perhaps as high as twice that number. With such an advantage in population, other lands too could have been easily taken and settled, including Australia, New Zealand, Argentina, Uruguay, and South Africa. India, of course, and the rest of Asia would be firmly under France's sway, to say nothing of the Mediterranean.

Third, France antagonised the Papacy rather than assuming its ancient role as the Pope's chief defender. The trajectory of Philippe IV and François I and then, of course, Louis XIV towards the proto-Gallican national church model (and then outright Gallicanism under Louis le Grand) forced the papacy into the arms of the Habsburgs for political patronage over the course of five hundred years. This, too, was very shortsighted. If France were more prominently and more vigilantly Catholic than she became during the reigns of the Louis's, such as she was prior to Bourbon realpolitik, she would have had the support of the Pope and could have used her status as Eldest Daughter of the Church to advantage against Protestant powers. With this and her advantages in geography and demography, France could have united Western Europe under the Throne of the Lilies and created a permanent cultural zone.
 
Last edited:
I guess the options would be:

- A British Empire including the American colonies, which develops into some sort of federation and later lets in European nations
- A united Europe before the age of discovery. This could most feasibly be done my the Macedonians, the Romans or the Franks
- The Chinese having an industrial revolution first and using their huge population to settle everywhere else
 
To get WORLD domination, you need railroads and steamships, almost certainly. That basically rules out any classical empire.

To project power across the world's oceans, you need to be the dominant naval power.

So. Britain is the obvious choice, although keeping the 13 colonies might be necessary.

The US is a possible choice. Spain or France (or a Bourbon union) would stand a chance. China, if you have an early enough PoD is possible.

I don't think there really are any other viable candidates, without very early PoDs that would change the world so much it wouldn't be recognizable by the time you got that global empire.
 
Persia had the best chance in the ancient world, seeing that their rather loose form of rule was really the only administratively sound way to govern a world full of diverse cultures and differing opinions. Biggest problem seems to be that they couldn't devise a form of legitimacy that would stop nobles from squabbling over the throne, unlike China which pretty much de-fanged the nobility during the Qin and Han periods.

Mongolia had a good chance if they had reformed their administration along more settled lines before the Empire split.

Spain could have had a shot if they, again, had reformed their administration. I think France is probably too obvious a contender to actually be a possible candidate (everybody would gang up as soon as it got the inclination to do so, like in OTL).

Britain came closest in the 19thC - but I think the results of world domination would probably result in an Anglo-Indian Empire rather than a purely British Empire.

Still, the Soviets (prior to the Sino-Soviet split) and the US (prior to 2003) have come closer than any other country before them in terms of world domination.
 
To get WORLD domination, you need railroads and steamships, almost certainly. That basically rules out any classical empire.

I don't think that's true. China was able to control a very large cultural zone without those things. Many of the advantages of railroads and steamships could be matched, I think, by aqueducts, canals, and similar infrastructure on a massive scale that served to united such empires as Rome and China. Wise civil engineering seems like it could make up for the loss of steamships and railroads.
 
I don't think that's true. China was able to control a very large cultural zone without those things. Many of the advantages of railroads and steamships could be matched, I think, by aqueducts, canals, and similar infrastructure on a massive scale that served to united such empires as Rome and China. Wise civil engineering seems like it could make up for the loss of steamships and railroads.

WORLD domination is what the OP wants. Yes, China could control a large area and huge population, but canals and aqueducts only get you so far - especially across mountains (e.g. into India) or across deserts (e.g. into Russia)

Roads, even Roman quality roads only get you so far.
 
WORLD domination is what the OP wants. Yes, China could control a large area and huge population, but canals and aqueducts only get you so far - especially across mountains (e.g. into India) or across deserts (e.g. into Russia)

Roads, even Roman quality roads only get you so far.

Well, sure, one would need ships, but it would be more than possible to project global power with sailing frigates, ships of the line, and tall ships as cargo vessels. I don't think that world domination requires holding all global territories, or is that the standard we are using ?

World domination would require, by my reckoning, being a sufficiently large empire in one's own area so as to not worry about being invaded, with large and wealthy territories overseas being peacefully possessed, and with hegemony and moral authority over all that would dare contend rather than cooperate, as well as the ability to enforce cooperation anywhere in the world if it were not forthcoming.

My contention is that one could sufficiently project transoceanic power through sail ships and could build rich and well-populated colonies without railroads. The biggest weakness I see would be in the ability to actually project real power overseas by sail ships, but I think a big enough navy and merchant marine could induce loyalty. I guess all I'm saying is that steamships and railroads are overrated. One could be the undisputed and unchallenged global hegemon with 1803 tech. It would just require a deft application of other instruments of power.
 

LordKalvert

Banned
well tricky, if Queen Mary and Phillip of Spain had a kid, would that be Spain or England that ruled the world? Because that's a powerful pair and I don't think they're getting stopped

The Russians had several shots-

The Mongols do pretty good

The Macedonians were on the rampage and probably could have taken it all


China had several chances but never tried it

The Turks had an opening but that's a long shot


But the number one shot goes to the Pope
 
Top