Would it have been possible for all of Christian Europe to have been brought under a single ruler/dynasty during the High Middle Ages/12th century? A medieval Napoleon as it were.
>>495663
Care to go into detail? Charlemagne almost achieved European unity hundreds of years earlier. With the increase in literacy and clerical bureaucracy in the 12th century, it's not outright impossible.
>>495665
Karl the Great's empire only covered a third of Europe and didn't really lasted for too long
>>495665
>European unity
Look at the Carolingian empire map. Does that look like entire Europe to you?
>>495624
If only he had fucked his wife more often.
>>495624
yes. If the moors won.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GSjZro7FH0
Maybe Frederick II, if he'd managed to subdue the Papacy
>>495624
what can that armor actually protect you from? Arrows?
>>495624
>feudal """""""unity""""""""
>>495624
>Would it have been possible for all of Christian Europe to have been brought under a single ruler/dynasty during the High Middle Ages/12th century?
No because feudalism.
>>496083
You wear it under your plate and mail armor
it keeps you comfy and helps absorb shock
>>496090
okay, thanks.
>>496083
Padded cloth can actually protect pretty well against swords.
>>495624
No, but people trying is (one of the reasons) why the Pope called the First Crusade.
>>496302
only slashy swords not stabby
>>496347
Well obviously.
>>496353
So by "pretty well" you meant it was useless against the most basic sword designs in Europe when it was implemented?
>>496356
What the fuck are you talking about? It can turn slashes at times. How does the fact that I doesn't protect against stabs make it shit? If you're an Archer who cannot afford much it's a hell of a lot better than nothing.
>>496362
>How does the fact that I doesn't protect against stabs make it shit?
because spears are basic weapons and arming swords and broadswords are easily used for stabbing, both of which were basic European sword designs.
Padded armor didn't protect against sword "pretty welll", they protected against them "better than nothing", which is what you should have said from the start anon.
Now settle down and go take a nap.
>>495834
Y-yes?
Spain was in muslim hands, southern Italy was more greek than latin (Thus excluded from Europe), Germany and Poland were populated by pagan slavs and remnant germanic pagan tribes, the balkans were a clusterfuck, England was still a semi-barbaric place.
Charlemagne pretty much dominated the entire Europe.
>>496366
"Pretty Well" was relative to how well most expect it to protect, whi
>>496410
Which is next to nothing.*
You're right though I'm tired.
>>495835
He was too busy being tsundere for Philip Augustus
>>496405
>apart from this long list of exceptions based on muh feels that take up most of Europe, Charlemagne had control of it
>>496405
...and the most retarded post of the day goes to!
>>496465
>it wasn't a part of Europe except for the way in which it was
The Romans couldn't push into Germania because agriculture had not developed to the extent it did during the middle ages, an army marches on its stomach.
Charlemagne could push into Germany but had no overwhelming advantage in other terrain.
After this no group had enough of a military advantage to expand that far again before their rivals adapted.
>>496465
>and Istanbul are Europe)
Constantinople was absolutely European in every sense and Istanbul is also European geographically.
Your definition of Europe seems to be comprised entirely of Gaul, Lotharingia, and Northern Italy.
>>496546
>Constantinople
>European
Eastern Roman/Byzantine empire was the counterpart to Europe, a mirror image of Latin/Germanic christianity. They were not Europe and were not considered as such.
My definition of Europe seems to be that because during Charlemagne's time THAT was Europe, plus parts of the English isles, the Asturias and nothing else.
>>495624
No, because Charlemagne time came before one of the major change that brought down most powerful rulers: feodalism.
Under the threat of viking attacks during the 9th and 10th centurt, most local lords started to build castles and fortress to protect themselves and peasants around it. They quickly realised those heavy defenses also gave them independance from a king who never had the time or the might to siege them. Therefore, local lords became the real unit of power and kings became weak and ruler only in name. At this point it was virtually impossible to unify Europe or only in name.
This began to change only when Kings became important again, to lead crusades and fight foreign powers (because they made sure to rise nationalism so people fear more the next country than the next lord) but it was still fragile until gunpowder realy change the way to siege.
Then it was the holy triad, France, HRE and England, lock in a political mexican stand-off. Even Charles Quint, the most powerful HRE emperor ever, failed to break this situation.
Then France grew bigger, until Louis XIV ruled virtually over Europe but was stopped to really accomplish it by an alliance of pretty much everyone else. The same alliance later tried to stop Napoleon but had even more troubles with it.
>>496465
Europe is a purely geographical expression you dumb american.
>>496600
No it's not dumb europoor. Europe is an idea, as a geographical expression it sucks because borders are not as well defined, especially when compared to Africa (Border well definied) and Africa. Asia is a much better comparison because you cannot define it purely in a geographical manner,.
>>496602
>you cannot define it purely in a geographical manner
>>496569
It's not in the 12th century, but Francois the 1st ran against Charles V in the imperial election of 1525.
Had he won, he would have united France and the Empire, and he had promised to lead a crusade on Constantinople. If successful, we would central europe unifed under one flag and maybe one church.
But he made the mistake of paying the electors before the election, when Charles only offered money in case of victory.
So instead it resulted in locking europe in a Hapsburg vs Capetians conflict for the next century, and solidifying a franco-ottoman alliance.
Europe is defined by ethnic, linguistic, and geographical boundaries.
Culture and religion play literally no part.
>>496607
>1525
What am I writing. It was 1519.
>>496569
>Louis XIV ruled virtually over Europe
He ruled over one of the most powerful Frances in history but every time he tried to extend his power he got BTFO'd by alliances and he basically only succeeded in making sure a Holy Roman Spain would never happen and in making sure France would be politically isolated for the next half century.
Why a Napoleon when you have the Pope?
>>496405
This is one of the dumbest things I've read in my entire life wow
>>496567
>they were not Europe
Nigger what
>>496606
Actually he's right: it emerged as a political rather than a geographic designation. "Christendom" was the prevailing term until the Ottomans started expanding into the Balkans. You can literally trace the semantic shift in Papal bulls and the writings of Erasmus and a few more primary sources. With each successive Ottoman victory you see "Europe" replacing "Christendom".
So, yes, it's political, not strictly geographic.
Yup
A mongol dynasty
inb4 european castles, shitty weather
China was a much much more difficult region to conquer, more humid, richer, bigger armies, more unified, better tactics etc
Europe would've been a piece of cake like the rest of the world.
>>496086
this, before at least the 1500's kings and the like never were the absolute rulers in their territory in the way most people think about kings
they always were either the ruler because their family had more dibs on the throne than the other families(Primus inter pares) as was the case in France, or because they were elected by the other electors in the territory(holy roman empire)
>>497435
Cause he claimed that Charlemagne ruled almost all Europe and then pointed out that the parts that he did not rule where not part of Europe.
Which is wrong.
Yes the Carolingian was the largest and strongest force in the overall mainland Europe. But the rest of Europe, is still Europe.
>>495624
>Would it have been possible for all of Christian Europe to have been brought under a single ruler/dynasty during the High Middle Ages/12th century? A medieval Napoleon as it were.
Anything is possible. But you could only nominally be "king of all of Europe". Much the same way that the kings of France only really ruled Paris and the immediate vicinity and how the >Holy >Roman >Emperors never could really exercise their full authority over Germany. The nature of feudalism and the strength of castles would always enable members of the nobility to stay relatively independent of their so-called lord, whether he was a medieval Napoleon ruling all of Europe or only a Capet or Valois ruling from Paris.
>>497473
China has always been shit.
>>495624
Like a 2nd Charlemagne?
Well, it didnt happen in the High Middle Ages, but the Habsburgs almost made that happen in the 16th century, if it wasnt for those pesky Brits and Dutchmans.
>>497590
Finally a post I have a picture for to reply with.
>>499537
>>499542
>>499545
>>499550
It slowly got better.
>>495835
>bankrupt his kingdom with failed crusade
>good
>>499556
Oh well at least your neighbors got their shit together.
>>499565
Jesus
>>496607
Stop... I can only get SO errect
>>499556
The HRE was constantly fucking each other over with infighting, the only good thing they ever did together was Vienna. And even still Poland had to save their ass.
>>499738
>Poland had to save their ass
They stopped them twice.
>>496366
Stabs are harder to come by than broad strikes.
A stab is more easily parried, blocked, or evaded.
A stab requires a strong forward motion where one is exposed, a slash is faster, one can recover more easily, one is exposed for less time, movements can be fluid and don't require you to cancel out your own energy when you draw back.
Stabs were more "advanced".
Slashing was the peasants game.
Not to mention a spear is not that hard to counter when you as well have a spear.
>>499565
Do Germans actively try to destabilize/decentralize Europe or are they just hilariously incompetent?
>>499537
Man those are some badass counts and marquis they might as well be dukes.
>>499774
Those would be the Britbongs.
>>499752
>a slash is faster, one can recover more easily
No. Not really. Not at all.
You don't know what you're talking about.
>>495624
Charles V got close. Mind you, England would have been under Habsburg control too, had a marriage not failed due to an unexpected death. Also, Portugal would go to the Spanish king a couple of decades after his resignation.
I have no idea why, but when he resigned, he gave his possessions to many different heirs, and no one was ever as powerful as him again.
>>503275
Cause simultaneously managing two Empires was not as easy as in the vidya, he even advised his son to reject the Imperial Crown if offered in the future.
>>496405
You've more or less excluded the entirety of Europe, you do realize that?
>>496602
I'm a European the only defining European trait is that all europeans want to fight their neighboring europeans. No exceptions.
So unless there's something more to it, you're just wrong. What defines EUROPE if not it's traditional geographical borders?
>>504390
EUROPE is an idea. EUROPE is christendom, Europe is common value shared by people and a cultura that has its roots mainly in Greek, Jewish and Roman history and thought.
Europe at some point included most of the levant and northern Africa, just because those parts are outside the traditional boundaries it does not mean they were not culturally European thus European. You could also include coastal Algeria and Lybia under French and Italian rule.
>>497435
because he is using Europe when he should be using Christendom
>>504461
>under French and Italian rule.
Yeah, nope. The nail in the coffin for the Mediterranean was Islam and Arabification. Before that that I'd agree that they at least had a lot of common with Italy and Greece, maybe even more so than northwestern Europe.
>>504557
>Before that that I'd agree that they at least had a lot of common with Italy and Greece, maybe even more so than northwestern Europe.
Fuck northwestern Europe they became EUROPE much later. Besides, I'm talking about those parts of Lybia and Algeria like Orano that were mainly populated by europeans of Italian, French (pied noirs) and spanish stock
>>504515
Nope. Besides, most of what constitutes Christendom overlaps with areas where there was a strong influence of greek thought, roman law and culture and jewish religious thought.
>>497435
Renaissance really, which prospered in Catholic lands and around the Rhine/Charlememe. Before that there were still strong cultural currents from the Byzantine Greeks.
