EU aside, what was the most successful attemp at unifyng Europe?
>>677185
Rome
Charlemagne?
Napoleon?
Hitler?
Habsburgs
Charlemagne
Roman Gaul campaigns
Bismarck
Ancient Finnic empire
Imperium Romanum familia
>>677185
If Constantine VI and Rotrude had ever married, that would have been the greatest Europe ever.
>>677211
Kill yourself my man.
>>677191
Eternal Anglos ruined everything
>>677207
Another proposed match was Charlemagne and Irene.
The closest Byzantium and the HRE got to being united was when Zoe went to Italy to marry Otto III. The Byzantine emperor was her uncle and he was celibate, her father was the heir to the empire but he only had daughters and she was the eldest, so the child she had with Otto III would have been the heir to both empires. Otto died before the marriage could go through. Who knows what Basil II was thinking when he arranged that marriage, he was terrible at securing the succession.
>>677185
Easily Napoleon
His territorial reforms lead the way for the unifications of Germany and Italy
Given enough time, he could have created an European nation
>>677185
Non in a federal way due multiculturalism (Rome, Charles, HRE)
The Continent System (confederation tho) was doom to fail since it was forced and revanchism was to big
>>677185
Rome. How is it even debeatable? They held onto 2/3 of it for centuries. Considering how weak and disunited the EU is, you could argue the romans were actually the most successful.
>>677185
Charlemagne and Napoleon really.
Between those two guys (so say 1000 years) no one succeeded in even temporarily doing the same due to others ganging up on the most powerful guy.
Which is what happened to Napoleon too.
>>677429
Romans didn't have borders, only influx, cities and outpost
>>677471
>Romans didn't have borders
Nigger they literally have a god of borders, Terminus.
>>677211
Islam couldn't even unify itself
>>677471
>Romans didn't have borders
are you stupid?
>>677509
He's got something of a point in that Romans didn't set as much store by territorial borders/lines on a map as modern nation states do, but even then that has nothing to do with the OP's question. It was fucking Rome, OP. Who gives a fuck about borders? Find me one other state in all of history that has ruled as much of Europe as the Roman Empire and I'll admit there might be a contest, but you can't do it.
By unify do you mean conquer?
The EU is the first and only attempt.
Charlemagne.
Just gavelkind my shit up tho.
>>677529
>Romans didn't set as much store by territorial borders/lines on a map as modern nation states do
They didn't? Then why did they use to mark borders between provinces on all crossing roman roads? Why was the concept of jurisdiction so prevalent in their legal code? What do modern nations do more than the romans to give more store to borders?
>>677529
That's more of a thing of ancient civilisations. The idea of very clear delineated borders is relatively modern. But also they did have many actual boarders ie things like the Rhine and Danube and Harridans wall,
>>677582
>The technical capacity of determinating very clear delineated borders is relatively modern.
FTFY. It's really all the difference.
>>677195
bismarck didnt want to unite shit
Charlemagne, Charles V (or Carlos I of Spain) and his son Felipe II and Napoleon. Napoleon was the one who tried it in an aggressive way.
>>677939
Napoleon's conquuests were in self-defense
Same can't be said of Charlemagne's
>>677976
He did not invade Spain in self-defense
>>677429
>Romans didn't have borders
>Literally some state/national boundaries in Europe & the near east align with original Roman provincial boundaries
>>677603
Well he wanted to destroy whole nations. And Catholics. It depends how you look at it.
>>677185
Christianity
>>677571
Lol
>>677195
>ancient finnic empire
This is the stuff they don't teach you in history class.
>>678816
Are you retarded?
>>678816
>WE WUZ EMPRERS N SHIET
>>677311
>Given enough time, he could have created a Global nation
Fixed.
>>678967
>>678967
>tfw Napoleon was never able to wage war against the Turks, retake Constantinople, and spread the Enlightenment to the muslim world
>tfw the Anglos did this
>>678979
That's what ANGLO BLOOD does.
>>677185
European unification is a ridiculuous concept that has no historical basis.
GOTT STRAFE ENGLAND
Why are people ITT blaming Anglos when it's Germanics who time and time again destroy European unity?
>>678893
>>678907
>hyper war denial
A high level of discourse is expected on this board, kiddos.
>>679008
The Germans generally cause European unity. Or at least try.
>>679008
Anglos spearheaded the wars against Napoleon.
Germany was just a bystander.
>>679008
>those damn Europeans are destroying European unity!
>>679021
It's the damned Scots that ruined Scotland.
>>678893
Lurk more, newfaggot.
Metternich at the Congress of Vienna
Europe is plurality
>>678816
>Helsinki
>Capital of the Finnic empire
Common misconception due to it being the capital now, but Turku was the actual capital.
>>677185
europe is strong without economical borders.
>>678979
>The Turks can be killed, but they can never be conquered.
t. Napoleon
