It was disrespectful, by history forum standards.Hardly meant it as an insult, sir.
- 1
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I know a bit about you and what I know sheds the light of respect upon your efforts.
You owe no one an apology.
- 1
Napoleon yes, Hitler I'd say no. Temporary control during an unfinished war doesn't qualify as hegemony in my book. Napoleon's wars were interrupted by peace settlements, giving them at least the possibility of lasting a bit longer. Charles V never controlled as much land directly but his reign lasted longer than both of those, during which there were fairly long periods of relative stability.Nappy and Hitler were closer
I would, however, disqualify Charles V on a technicality. OP asks for a country and Charles V's domain was from two countries, neither of which was clearly dominant. As only about half was Spanish, Spain was not close to hegemony. As only half was Austrian (HRE actually), Austria was not close to hegemony. If we relax that condition, then I'd say Charles V was the closest to hegemony since Charlemagne.
- 1
The OP question was not for how long but who was the closest. Hitler was actually pretty close. With the USSR beaten or at least forced to peace this task would be accomplished and the Reich would last for thousand years
Hitler? No. He made a gambit based on a series of deceptions. The fact he willing throws the war to achieve the de-Jewification of the Pale of Settlement puts him another category altogether.Nappy and Hitler were closer
That's the quite another story.
Every wannabe hegemon made a failed gambit though
- 1
Let's say you have an apple and I rudely rip it out of your hands. You lift your hand to strike me down and take back your apple. You will certainly succeed because I have less muscle than you. But for about 3 seconds I hold that apple. Would you say I have hegemony for 3 seconds?The OP question was not for how long but who was the closest. Hitler was actually pretty close. With the USSR beaten or at least forced to peace this task would be accomplished and the Reich would last for thousand years
The problem is it has nothing in common with our discussion.
- 1
I'll try a more direct argument then. Hegemony requires consolidating temporary gains. There was never a chance that Hitler could consolidate his military gains. No matter how much land he occupied, he hadn't started the process that would bring him closer to hegemony.
One might even argue that Hitlers actions permitted the Soviet’s hegemony over Eastern Europe.
- 2
- 1
I respectfully disagree. He was pretty close to finish the Russians IMHO.
Yes, but Eastern Europe was hardly representative for the whole continent.
So why to troll?
From the fall of the USSR to sometimes after 2003, USA.
Now, and several previous examples is made up of at least two contending poles. Napoleon was close, he dominated most of Europe, however most of the German lands just looked for a time to break free, and while France could domimate west and central Europe, she couldn’t control UK or Russia - let alone both at the same time as they attempted.
If we consider Charlemagne, Salians, Franconians, they still had to compete with the other pole that based in Constantinoples. Nowadays Russia can not make inroads into the EU, because of EU but most of all because of USA. EU cannot project power outside of its own union. Example they alone cannot stand up to Russian influence in Ukraine and Belarus. Moreover they lost a cod war against Iceland due to US.influence and tried to ilegally fish outside of their quoatas in Norwegian waters recently. And despite making what could be considered a template of decleration of war in the UN, EU have failed to do anything once the Norwegian Coast Guard stopped them.
EU have a lot of economic power, but as I see it they can't project hard power over the rest of Europe unless Russia stops being Russia or USA steps out of NATO and Europe entirley.
Now, and several previous examples is made up of at least two contending poles. Napoleon was close, he dominated most of Europe, however most of the German lands just looked for a time to break free, and while France could domimate west and central Europe, she couldn’t control UK or Russia - let alone both at the same time as they attempted.
If we consider Charlemagne, Salians, Franconians, they still had to compete with the other pole that based in Constantinoples. Nowadays Russia can not make inroads into the EU, because of EU but most of all because of USA. EU cannot project power outside of its own union. Example they alone cannot stand up to Russian influence in Ukraine and Belarus. Moreover they lost a cod war against Iceland due to US.influence and tried to ilegally fish outside of their quoatas in Norwegian waters recently. And despite making what could be considered a template of decleration of war in the UN, EU have failed to do anything once the Norwegian Coast Guard stopped them.
EU have a lot of economic power, but as I see it they can't project hard power over the rest of Europe unless Russia stops being Russia or USA steps out of NATO and Europe entirley.
- 2
- 3
Post 91, how is it even a question of the USA being the hegemonic power over Europe? What country could even compete with the US on that front?
- 1
Because the US does not control Europe. It is a partner with Europe and is a large reason why Europe is not an extension of Moscow at this point. Those are two entirely different things.
When Europe starts treating America with some courtesy, saying thanks, and sending tribute our way; let me know. Right now it's all us pouring money into them.
Instead America has just captured european markets with their sugar water amongst other products
- 1
Like Nuclear Subs that outperform EU rivals?Instead America has just captured european markets with their sugar water amongst other products
Hegemony is not about direct control.
Hegemony is about one power being the one and only arbiter of war and peace, and the supreme judge in conflicts between minor powers.
The USA totally are hegemon over Europe.
As for tribute and profit... That's not the prime marker of empire. The USSR didn't profit much from its hegemony over Eastern Europe, it was expensive as hell. The USA as a whole also don't profit from the hegemony. But certain sectors that are connected to the government do. Military industry mostly, a phenomenally powerful and successful industry in the USA and a profiteer of its world wide power.
Last edited:
- 3
- 1