Which PoD provides the best chance for lasting hegemony over Europe?

[polyharmonic]

The Roman Empire is the closest thing we have to lasting hegemony over most of Europe. From 1CE till about 337CE, one empire controlled much of Europe although there were some periods of disunity.

After the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476CE, other leaders have tried to reestablish hegemony over Europe. None succeeded except very briefly.

Of the various leaders and PoDs, which one had the highest chance to establish Roman Empire levels of hegemony over much of Europe and lasting at least several decades?

For all choices, I list the leader and the year he began his reign or began consolidating power as PoD.

Note that the conquest of most of Europe does NOT have to be completed by the leader in the PoD. It can be completed by successors. The PoD is just the starting point.

Also note that highest chance does not mean likely. For instance if PoD A has a 10% chance and all others have 1%, then pick PoD A.

Also I would be curious if people can rank the different PoDs from highest to lowest chance.

 

[Pentapolim]

The earlier, the better. Justinian and Charlemagne are both great options.

 

[Arcavia]

Stalin could do it if for whatever reason there was no D Day and minimal allied intervention in Italy. Perhaps a TL Sketch would be as follows:

Pre-1939: Francisco Franco is assassinated by an unknown militiawoman in 1934. Civil war breaks out as OTL but the various nationalist factions never manage to coalesce around a single leader. Thus Spain is far-left from the get-go.

1939-43: Japan is more successful in overrunning parts of British India. Britain, needing the Indian manpower base to have any hope of winning the war, is forced to divert to fighting Japan first and the US--possibly due to more isolationists in Congress, possibly due to the British being unwilling to use their territory to launch an invasion until after Japan is dealt with--goes along with it. Nonetheless, they continue LL to the Soviets in Europe; Roosevelt reckons that every dead Soviet is an American who gets to come home and tell his grandchildren what it was like beating Hitler someday. Italy persuades Hitler that maybe Italians are better served in Africa than dying in Stalingrad and the Africa campaign lasts much longer, probably until late 1943. However, lend-lease continues to the Soviets as OTL.

Kursk still happens as IOTL but Hitler never orders any fallback. Red Army holds at Prokhorovka and break Citadel.

1944-46: In 1944, Bagration is just as successful as OTL. Red army pushes into Poland, etc. Stalin recognizes that, the longer the Allies spend with Japan, the more stuff he gets in Europe and stops pressuring for an immediate landing. By Summer 1945, the Red Army has taken Berlin. Some diehard Nazis flee to, say, Bremen and continue the war, but by early 1946 the war's pretty much over (Nukes are still developed as OTL, but once the Red Army's taken Berlin and the Nazis are obviously beaten x/c in occupied territory nobody can stomach nuking Paris or Rome). Red Army rolls over the rest of the Continent, setting up collaborationist regimes from the Pyrenees to the Vistula. Spain sees the writing on the wall and officially joins the Comintern.

Now everything with the exception of Portugal, Britain and maybe some of the Nordics are Red and do as the Kremlin commands. Does that count as hegemony?

Oh, and a comment on the "earlier the better" argument: I'd actually argue the later the better. Hegemony is easier to maintain when you can communicate across the continent quickly. Even Rome could never prevent generals from marching on the City and declaring themselves Emperor, after all...

 

[RousseauX]

Edgy answer: Merkel 2012 or so

 

[DominusNovus]

Hegemony? Lasting?

Justinian. If you can make most of his conquests stick - really, as long as the Byzantines can keep the Mediterranean free for trade - then the Roman Empire in Constantinople is the cultural, political, and economic hub of Europe and should remain so, absent the series of bodyblows the Byzantines took (and look how well they did taking those bodyblows). There's no shortage of PODs around Justinian, so take your pick.

 

[Arcavia]

Hegemony? Lasting?

Justinian. If you can make most of his conquests stick - really, as long as the Byzantines can keep the Mediterranean free for trade - then the Roman Empire in Constantinople is the cultural, political, and economic hub of Europe and should remain so, absent the series of bodyblows the Byzantines took (and look how well they did taking those bodyblows). There's no shortage of PODs around Justinian, so take your pick.

A more overextended Rome/Byzantium just has more problems to deal with IMO. Constantinople is too far east to exercise control over France, Germany, etc. and a Byzantium expanding into the Northern Balkans or other land routes is a Byzantium that has to deal with the Avars, Magyars, Bulgars (more than IOTL at least), Mongols, etc.

Not to mention the Norse and the Arab conquests, which would be even more devastating if the Basileus is trying to not only hold onto but expand from the desolate outposts across the Mediterranean that were left after Belisarius. During the Early Middle Ages Byzantium, what with the great migrations and facing Islam, simply couldn't afford the massive expense of expanding into Northern and Western Europe.

 

[polyharmonic]

Here's my ranking from easiest to hardest:

1. Stalin - He literally came the closest. USSR held hegemony over Eastern Europe over many decades and a few PoDs could see the Soviets expand further west than OTL. USSR is geographically and demographically the most equipped to pull it off if they turn back Hitler much more quickly than OTL and keep heading west.

2. Napoleon - If he consolidates and doesn't invade Russia, he's practically there.

3. Charlemagne - At his death, he's practically there. His sons just need to keep it together somehow.

4. Hitler - Needs to consolidate after fall of France and not invade USSR. Maybe if he dies right after somehow.

5. Charles V - Towards the end, his empire was too sapped by attrition from Ottoman wars, Protestant Reformation, etc. He simply didn't have the power.

6. Justinian - After the fall the West, Byzantines are surrounded by too many powerful adversaries. He doesn't have the resources to re-establish the Roman Empire from Anatolia. He and Belisarius already overachieved IMO.

7. Mehmed IV - Western Europe is too strong to defeat and very united against Islamic rule. He can't do much better than OTL.

8. Ogedei - Best case is a Golden Horde that extends west. Mongols are simply way too overstretched and too far from base and too foreign to impose lasting rule in Western Europe.

 

[JackLumber]

Hitler gets in here but no Kaiser billy? Sad
2nd Reich>3rd Reich

 

[cmakk1012]

What if Charlemagne had had only one son? Could that have kept his empire together for another generation and began a tradition of a unified HRE?

 

[LSCatilina]

What if Charlemagne had had only one son? Could that have kept his empire together for another generation and began a tradition of a unified HRE?

Well, Charlemagne had only one surviving son IOTL, Louis. You might thing of his grand-sons.
And, it probably wouldn't have helped on the short run : even Charlemagne tought about dividing Francia among his sons in 806, Louis (while being more concerned about a certain imperial transmission) did so.
At this point, the aristocratic autonomy only increased, and even discount regionalist tendencies (which were particularily important in Aquitaine and Italy), it only grew more and more with Carolingian forced to at least pay lip service to it, and often to actually abide by it.

Carolingian Empire was on this regard a weak state, a continuation of Francia maintained trough wealth and prestige accumulation : that it barely lasted three generations (or five, if you count the late Carolingian situation) isn't really surprising giving the challenges it had to face, and a certain institutional unstability it created from the beggining.
Even if Louis had only one son, I'm not sure how you'd prevent challengers (regional or not) to appear, Bernard of Italy style.

EDIT : It's why HRE did managed to survive longer, it was because it was not the Carolingian Empire on most matters and built on more stable fundations.

 

[AussieHawker]

I think most of the pre Charles options have the issue of time. At some point they will hit another span of bad luck, and collapse. It happened repeatably with China, it happened with large Indian Empires, it happened to Central Asian empires and it happened to European empires like Rome. Later means less time for them to fuck up, and better organisation and legitimacy.

But if you start too late, you have the issue of more resistance. Protestent reformation. Balance of power. Nationalism. Nukes. Outside European powers, like the USA. Etc,

So France, Germany, Russia and the Ottomans all have decent shots if they get over particular humps.

 

[Vuu]

Charlemagne, Charles V and Mehmed IV immediately fly out of the window. Ogedei too.

Charlemagne ruled a state that was basically by law required to fragment with each generation. Similar for Charles V - he ruled his stuff like a feudal possession, not a state. Mehmed is simply too foreign - it would basically result in eternal rebellion, nobody wanted to be ruled by an Islamic country. Ogedei is also too foreign, and his state is also set up for fragmentation, plus they lost steam. King Milutin (i think) even bullied Mongol vassals and got away with it, multiple times.

Napoleon has a good chance - he had massive popular support everywhere. If he had paid attention to his supply train and logistics in Russia, and not beeline to Moscow, he'd easily be the hegemon of the whole continent, and the fall of Britain would become an statistical inevitability.

Stalin and Hitler? Unstable, really, and too oppressive. Hitler could coax western Europe into obedience, but the hairsplitting between Germans and Slavs would waste too much time and resources on stupid shit, though that was more of a result of political goals giving into ideology, not the other way around as many say nowadays. If he were to successfully destroy Russia, the entire "Slavs r bad" ideology should be gotten rid of ASAP. As for Stalin, he'd fail in western Europe, since communism was weak there.

Therefore, we reach to the conclusion: Justinian has the best chance, and for one extremely major reason: if Byzantium were to retain control of Italy, high chance that the schism of 1054 would be averted completely, and Europe would be religiously unified. Greatly eases the task of ruling

 

[WunWun]

SNIP

No US lend-lease = the Red army collapses after Kyiv and Hitler takes the USSR.

To be honest, I see Charles V being capable of establishing lasting hegemony. Earlier and you get the issue of not enough already existing infrastructure. Later options might be Napoleon or Hitler, depending on how it goes.

 

[isabella]

No US lend-lease = the Red army collapses after Kyiv and Hitler takes the USSR.

To be honest, I see Charles V being capable of establishing lasting hegemony. Earlier and you get the issue of not enough already existing infrastructure. Later options might be Napoleon or Hitler, depending on how it goes.

I think Napoleon if was able to prevent himself from attacking Russia had the best chance...
Charles V for being successful would need a weaker Ottomans Empire and a weaker France plus with him we have the problem of the division of the Empire. A way for resolving everyhting would be: France ruled by a serie of weak kings and maybe a long civil war plus an earlier definitive victory against Ottomans and then reuniting the two branches with Philip II having only daughters and the eldest (daughter of Maria Manuela born instead of OTL Don Carlos) marrying Maximilian II and Maria’s eldest son (and so giving to him Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, Milan and South Italy plus Americas to add to Austria, Bohemia, Hungary and the Imperial Crown)... That can work also with an ATL Isabella Clara Eugenia (daughter of Don Carlos and Elisabeth of Valois) who marry the heir of Austria and all the sons of Philip II dying young

 

[Arcavia]

No US lend-lease = the Red army collapses after Kyiv and Hitler takes the USSR.

To be honest, I see Charles V being capable of establishing lasting hegemony. Earlier and you get the issue of not enough already existing infrastructure. Later options might be Napoleon or Hitler, depending on how it goes.

I never specified whether lend-lease was still happening and meant for it to continue largely as IOTL--just without an accompanying invasion of Western Europe. I'll edit the prior post for clarity.

 

[DominusNovus]

A more overextended Rome/Byzantium just has more problems to deal with IMO. Constantinople is too far east to exercise control over France, Germany, etc. and a Byzantium expanding into the Northern Balkans or other land routes is a Byzantium that has to deal with the Avars, Magyars, Bulgars (more than IOTL at least), Mongols, etc.

Not to mention the Norse and the Arab conquests, which would be even more devastating if the Basileus is trying to not only hold onto but expand from the desolate outposts across the Mediterranean that were left after Belisarius. During the Early Middle Ages Byzantium, what with the great migrations and facing Islam, simply couldn't afford the massive expense of expanding into Northern and Western Europe.

Who said anything about a more overextended Byzantium? We’re talking hegemony here. All they need to do is keep the Med free for merchants, and they’ll be plenty powerful enough.

 

[Arcavia]

Who said anything about a more overextended Byzantium? We’re talking hegemony here. All they need to do is keep the Med free for merchants, and they’ll be plenty powerful enough.

OTL though that didn't happen after the Arab explosion. A more Western focused Byzantium will not be able to prevent a foothold on the Mediterranean being gained at least in Palestine if not Syria and the remainder of OTL Arab conquests.

 

[Tonifranz]

OTL though that didn't happen after the Arab explosion. A more Western focused Byzantium will not be able to prevent a foothold on the Mediterranean being gained at least in Palestine if not Syria and the remainder of OTL Arab conquests.

Yes, but the Islamic Conquests could easily be butterflied away. Just kill Muhammad early, and the Arabs would not be united, and would not conquer at all.

 

[Tripledot]

If Hitler successfully conquers Eastern Europe, there wouldn't be a chance for any nations to secede in the wake of an inevitable civil war, since they'd all be dead. If Germany manages to stay united after that, it'll control most of continental Europe by default.

 

[Diego]

Charles V, 1506 is early enough to butterfly away a lot of religious troubles. It could butterfly away the Protestant Reformation, give Edward VIII an earlier male heir, screw France, make the Habsburgs inherit some more crowns, the possibilities are many.

Napoleon is the second best option, but he needs to win against the british navy or at least make a lasting peace with the coalition, that is hard.

Hitler can win the WWII if he reach, control and can use the resources of the Caucasus, Stalin can control Europe if the Wallies let him, but I think that planned and heavily regulated economies tend to become weaker with time, and the nazi system is even more prone to fall than the Soviet Union.