A British Empire that keeps the 13 colonies more or less powerful than OTL?

Mitchell Hundred

Assuming the ARW was not successful and the British were able to hold onto the colonies how do you think the influence and impact of the British empire over the ensuing century plus would have gone?

Would they have become an even more powerful empire than OTL or would their focus and demands change and perhaps not put as much of their efforts into places like India or Africa and elsewhere?
 

Emperor-of-New-Zealand

Kicked
I suppose it depends on the nature of British rule in North America. If the 13 remain direct colonies, and the British aren't threatened by the growing importance of the American continent, then perhaps they focus on maintaining their power there (and in India - India was already firmly in Britain's sphere by the end of the 7 Years War), only claiming other territories where necessary to maintain naval routes, coaling stations, etc.

Alternatively, if the American colonies get some semblence of self-government, then we might see Britain do what they did in OTL and try to compensate, keeping themselves strong in order to secure their dominance over their American subjects.
 

Fabius Maximus

Probably weaker. Settler colonies weren't in general big money-spinners, so I doubt Britain would make more from the American colonies than it did IOTL by trading with the US, and they'd have the extra (compared to OTL) burden of actually keeping control of the place (which might be significant, if indepententist sentiment remains strong after the failed Revolution).
 

Socrates

I agree with others on the nature of the rule. If it's a violent putdown of the revolt there and then rule by force, then it will consume much of the UK's resources, probably turning into a 19th century Vietnam.

If it's rule by compromise and devolution, then it will add to the UK's strength considerably. Some sort of deal on taxation would be worked out, and there were huge revenues coming in from cotton by the 1820s. It is also likely that Cuba would be taken with time, which would be a mega Jamaica. There is also going to be a substantial manpower contribution from the extra population for future wars.

Another thing to remember is that the British Empire did not expand from the centre, but from people on the ground in Africa and India taking things upon themselves to push influence for their own ends. That means any concerns about "focus" do not make sense. In this timeline, the population of people on the ground is going to be bigger, so there will be likely more of this filibustering.
 

SuperFrog

My current timeline has the ARW turn into a guerrilla war. Which does hurt Britain, and even more so the colonies, but they will bounce back during the industrial revolution.

Something else to be noted, if the Brits won the ARW, they probably won't get as much of India (planned for the future in my timeline).
 

M79

A negotiated settlement with some concessions to the colonists would probably smooth over relations and permit for a Continental Assembly of sorts. That body would have the right to tax the colonies, slowly at first, and probably go a long way to meeting the British objectives. A burned out American army or guerilla war will probably see a successor state being founded west of the Appalachians, perhaps at OTL Louisville, St Louis, Chicago, Austin, or maybe farther West. Such a nation would be founded by refugees from the American Revolution and perhaps compete with the British for loyalties. The possibility of another Revolution in a generation is plausible, especially once Napoleon gets moving, and IMO would likely succeed unless large occupation forces were already present.
 

Emperor-of-New-Zealand

Kicked
SuperFrog said:
Something else to be noted, if the Brits won the ARW, they probably won't get as much of India (planned for the future in my timeline).
Click to expand...

I don't really buy that; India until the Sepoy Rebellion was ruled by the East India Company and expanded as an appanage to them. After the Seven Years War and the end of French influence in the subcontinent, British rule over most of it is pretty much guaranteed if the EIC gets its way. Plus, eventually the British will come to realise that India is their crown jewel; having North America doesn't make India any less valuable or prestigious.
 

Emperor-of-New-Zealand

Kicked
M79 said:
The possibility of another Revolution in a generation is plausible, especially once Napoleon gets moving, and IMO would likely succeed unless large occupation forces were already present.
Click to expand...

I don't dispute that a second rebellion is on the cards in the future, but Napoleon doing his thing requires the French Revolution to go exactly as OTL, which it wouldn't because of butterflies. Any alternate ending to the ARW results in an alternate French Revolution.
 

Praeses

I think there was an AH novel that describes the United States as a Dominion and then the problems with the British abolition of slavery. I think that would most likely be the impetus for a 2nd revolution.

Although, a failed ARW would most likely mean the colonies are not united so the south may be the only ones that rebel.
 

TRH

Emperor-of-New-Zealand said:
I don't really buy that; India until the Sepoy Rebellion was ruled by the East India Company and expanded as an appanage to them. After the Seven Years War and the end of French influence in the subcontinent, British rule over most of it is pretty much guaranteed if the EIC gets its way. Plus, eventually the British will come to realise that India is their crown jewel; having North America doesn't make India any less valuable or prestigious.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, the EIC did a terrible job of staying solvent, which required their getting bailed out by the government several times. Butterflies could have them fold completely if there's more reluctance to foot their bills.
 
Emperor Norton I

Emperor Norton I

When all was said and done, the British found they had the economic boom of trade with the former Colonies while having to pay for none of the upkeep.
 

Fabius Maximus

Socrates said:
If it's rule by compromise and devolution, then it will add to the UK's strength considerably. Some sort of deal on taxation would be worked out, and there were huge revenues coming in from cotton by the 1820s. It is also likely that Cuba would be taken with time, which would be a mega Jamaica. There is also going to be a substantial manpower contribution from the extra population for future wars.
Click to expand...

OTOH the UK got a huge amount of revenue from trade IOTL. Extra manpower if always useful, although if the colonies grow too much it might prove difficult to keep them part of the Empire in a way which doesn't unbalance it.

(Although it would be quite interesting to see a sort of Late Roman Empire-type situation, where the official and ceremonial capital is London but the government is actually in British North America because that's where most of the population and money is.)
 
Avrorrange

Avrorrange

Fabius Maximus said:
2010? What took them so long? :p
Click to expand...
He's referring to Code Geass,where after a series of f#$ked up alternate history POD that couldn't possibly have happened one after the other(like the Romans failing to conquer Britain and then all of a sudden,the next POD is Queen Elizabeth I having a son,when the existence of Queen Elizabeth should have been obliterated by the previous POD),one of the main premise was that Yorktown was a massive trap and the entire US army,including Washington was slaughtered to the last man.The American Revolution was basically crushed,but because somehow the French Revolution wasn't averted and Napoleon took power,he was somehow able to magically conquer Britain,forcing the British Royal family to flee to the Americas and form a new Empire there.Said Empire,Britannia,managed to conquer Japan in 2010.
 

M79

Emperor-of-New-Zealand said:
I don't dispute that a second rebellion is on the cards in the future, but Napoleon doing his thing requires the French Revolution to go exactly as OTL, which it wouldn't because of butterflies. Any alternate ending to the ARW results in an alternate French Revolution.
Click to expand...

I would disagree that Napoleon would be nullified by the failure of an American revolution. The root causes of French rebellion will remain, though they may smolder a bit longer because of the additional funds in the French royal treasury. There was still conflict between France and Austria over northern Italy, there was still conflict with Britain every so often, so Napoleon might still run rampant - perhaps this time starting as a royal officer.
 

Emperor-of-New-Zealand

Kicked
M79 said:
I would disagree that Napoleon would be nullified by the failure of an American revolution. The root causes of French rebellion will remain, though they may smolder a bit longer because of the additional funds in the French royal treasury. There was still conflict between France and Austria over northern Italy, there was still conflict with Britain every so often, so Napoleon might still run rampant - perhaps this time starting as a royal officer.
Click to expand...

How could he be a royal officer? Napoleon's military rise was dependent on the French Republic. He wasn't born to a French noble family, so his prospects were limited while the Bourbons were in power. Anyway, the butterfly effect would be in full force. If one aspect of the American Revolution changes, then so does everything else thereafter. France might end up a constitutional monarchy, like Britain, for instance. Who really knows? The butterfly effect might cause Napoleon to meet an unfortunate and early demise.
 

Matteo

Mitchell Hundred said:
Assuming the ARW was not successful and the British were able to hold onto the colonies how do you think the influence and impact of the British empire over the ensuing century plus would have gone?

Would they have become an even more powerful empire than OTL or would their focus and demands change and perhaps not put as much of their efforts into places like India or Africa and elsewhere?
Click to expand...

The problem with your what if is that it has no basis.

One way or another, the american colonies will severe links with the London government. It may take 20 or 40 mord years but it will happen.

Not because of so-called american exceptionalism but because of something close to physical laws.

One government can't keep control of a massive population that lives 6000 kilometers away from it, separated by an ocean or more than an ocean.

The pressure for a level of decentralisation that is so juge that it can be called nothing else than "independance" is so strong that it is unavoidable.
That's why Canada, Australia, ... etc, became dominions.

And the other point is that Britain was all but a democracy. It was ruled by a small oligarchy of nobles and merchants that prefered Britain losing territories than themselves losing power. They did not want Britain being ruled by colonials.
Just consider what choice the Penn family did when the american revolution began.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top