PC: Universal Monarchy

Zagan · Nov 16, 2015

Is it possible to get a Universal Monarchy* in a TL?

* = at least in Europe and its colonies (China, Japan, etc may be excluded)

Note: I have searched and I have not found any TL about this interesting concept (no more borders!)
If there is a TL already written, may I have a link, please.

Or, if not a Monarchy, at least some kind of State encompassing the Earth.

Oh, and just to make sure, a Non-ASB TL, ok?

Thank you.

GlobalHumanism · Nov 16, 2015

Well...I think if the Angevin Empire had been able to last, possibly a Unified European Kingdom (or at least Dynasty) could have happened behind the Plantagenets?

Though some one correct me if I'm being too presumptuous

Practical Lobster · Nov 16, 2015

For a given definition of Europe, an expanded Frankish Empire would work.

HIM Dogson · Nov 16, 2015

The Holy Roman Empire could also work, as would, I suppose, a surviving Roman Empire.

LordKalvert · Nov 16, 2015

Britain, Spain, France and Russia could easily have done it.

Germany could conquer Europe and its colonies pretty easily in a WWI victory scenario. Japan and China could fall as well. The Western Hemisphere would be off limits though

China could also be a world wide Empire at numerous times in its history- just never seemed to want it

The Ottomans are possible as well.

Wouldn't put it past the abilities of several of the Indian states but don't know enough about their history

Not too many tweaks and the Mongols are probably there

penquista · Nov 16, 2015

If you want an Universal Monarchy based in Europe the choice IMO is only one HABSBURG!!!!

dandan_noodles · Nov 16, 2015

Habsburg Spain is probably your best bet; I keep coming back to Mary I having issue, but forreal, keeping England Catholic and making it Habsburg eliminates two of Philip II's biggest rivals (the English and the Dutch) in short order, which puts him in a much better position against his other two (The French and the Ottomans). A Habsburg England means Habsburg hegemony in the Netherlands, which makes the French Wars of Religion easier for the Habsburgs to win, and without their West European ally, the Ottomans are going to have a much harder time holding back the Spanish in the mediterranean and the Austrians along the Danube. If the House of Aviz dies out on schedule, the Spanish are going to have no serious colonial rivals, and opposition in Europe would be confined to the Poles, the German princes, and the Scandinavians.

Major Major · Nov 16, 2015

Someone once speculated on a world were Mary and Philip had a daughter, and Mary Queen of Scots and Francis had a son, and then they got married, putting England, Scotland, Ireland, France, Spain, Naples, and the Empire all under one person. How he'd hold them together would be another matter.

telynk · Nov 16, 2015

I think a universal monarchy in the form of a single unitary state covering all or most of the globe is very difficult to achieve. Before the 19th century, difficulties of communicating over large distances would make it hard for a central government to control this vast monarchy, while in the 19th or 20th centuries the difficulty would be nationalism and the desire for self-determination of the various peoples of this vast state.

However, there are two ways in which I think a universal monarchy could occur. One would be a vast personal union between separate countries that just happen to share a monarch. The Hapsburgs came the closest to this, but it could also occur if a King of France was elected HREmperor, or maybe as an expanded Angevin Empire.

However this first option really gives a universal monarch rather than a universal monarchy, as it would be a single person holding multiple crowns. The other option would be having a single person crowned 'emperor of the world', so that all other states are considered vassals of this 'world emperor', but to have this 'world empire' be decentralized in the same way that the HRE was. Maybe the medieval HRE could expand to eventually include all of Christendom under a single crown, or maybe this sort of 'emperor of the world' position could arise from an earlier attempt at a UN-type organization. But, I don't think it's possible to have such an 'emperor of the world' exert real power in all parts of this vast realm.

Nofix · Nov 16, 2015

Doesn't the Papacy technically count as one? The Pope is an elected monarch, and his followers stretch the entirety of the world.

Timaeus · Nov 16, 2015

Nofix said:
Doesn't the Papacy technically count as one? The Pope is an elected monarch, and his followers stretch the entirety of the world.

I was thinking this.

Zagan · Nov 17, 2015

We have a winner!

Thank you all for your insightful answers which helped me a lot.

However, there is a winner!

telynk said:
The other option would be having a single person crowned 'emperor of the world', so that all other states are considered vassals of this 'world emperor', but to have this 'world empire' be decentralized in the same way that the HRE was. Maybe the medieval HRE could expand to eventually include all of Christendom under a single crown, or maybe this sort of 'emperor of the world' position could arise from an earlier attempt at a UN-type organization. But, I don't think it's possible to have such an 'emperor of the world' exert real power in all parts of this vast realm.

This.

Timaeus · Nov 17, 2015

Zagan said:
This.

Meh, that sounds like the Papacy. At least, before the Reformation. It even divided the whole world in half in the treaties of Zaragoza and Tordesillas.

dandan_noodles · Nov 17, 2015

I definitely think a RL 'Universal Monarch' would be a mostly titular position; the King of Spain ends up as the hegemonic overlord of most of Europe, and is king of the New World once he unites the Spanish and Portuguese crowns, so the pope declares him the Universal Monarch. It doesn't make him the actual ruler of China or Hindustan or the Indies or the Congo, but it gives him the best bragging rights, which is honestly just as good.