AHC: Smallest British Empire in 1900, POD of 1815
- Thread starter Zuvarq
- Start date
More likely, "fail to gain" - the British Empire grew substantially in the 19th century, especially the later half.
PoeFacedKilla
Banned
I agree. But let me give it a go and try as hard as I can.
After Napoleon I is defeated and exiled, 1815:
Some form of Federalist party begins to rise in Britain while not rising anywhere else within the empire (or at least no one that matters) and in the first half of the 1800s they set about uniting the british empire into a federal empire.
While Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand are all formed into federal dominions (autonomous at the moment.) These federalist, while helping to build the power of the dominions were also feeding the very heart of each dominions nationality; Meanwhile they keep the empire from expanding.
By the second half of the 1800s the British Federalists are the majority, and the dominionitairy parliments are becoming more and more anti-UK. In the late 1800s a Second English Civil War breaks out with Britain having to fight guerillas across the globe from Canada to India, who (powered by Russia and the US) quickly become conventional armies who combinded provide to be more than the UK can handle and is forced in the end to decolonize at least 50% of its empire, if not in the upwards of 70%.
So maybe 30% of what it was in 1900?
PoeFacedKilla
Banned
i think they all had nationalist tones by the mid 1800s and all it would take was Britain trying to force them into a federation, especially if the dominions are anti-federalist, for things to get complicated real quick.
Plus places like india already wanted independence.
I'm not convinced of that, especially given that they didn't have any great problem with OTL's empire.
And places like India are a different sort of problem than the white would-be dominions.
If you simply keep India out of the British Empire, a LARGE chunk of the OTL Empire ceases to be relevant.
Hell, most of it was already a net-drain and located in nonstrategic locations. Get the British to lose the "Empire for Prestige" sake and adopt a "Empire for Money" mentality, and you'll see a smaller, more compact Empire.
Hell, most of it was already a net-drain and located in nonstrategic locations. Get the British to lose the "Empire for Prestige" sake and adopt a "Empire for Money" mentality, and you'll see a smaller, more compact Empire.
Honestly... I don't know.
Me neither.
Definitely going to keep the size down if Britain's expansion from that point is based on what's actually advantageous. That the settlers on the ground wanted to push further did not require that to be done under the British flag, either.
How about this: No Mediterranean, Middle Eastern, Central Asian, or SE Asian territories. Minimal Indian territories (perhaps a 1-2 cities?), or none at all. In BNA, only Newfoundland is British. Everything else has been taken over, or gone independent. Ireland, Britain, etc. still remains British.
Bombay, Madras, and Calcutta were among the earliest EIC colonies. The EIC gained the right to tax and administer Bengal in 1757. Similar powers were gained in Bihar and Orrissa in 1764. Most of Mysore was in British hands by 1799. Half of Awadh was ceded in 1801, and the rest became essentially a vassal state.
And a map:
Here's an idea: Stop Egypt from defaulting on its loans and Britain won't acquire the Suez Canal. No Canal, no need to seize Egypt, no need to seize Sudan.
I could see the French Canadians breaking away IF they had at least covert US backing. India has the potential to drive the E.I.C out in the unlikely event that all its rulers act together. The Cape Colony is of course mainly settled by the Dutch so if India gos they will try to do the same. New Zealand is (very) loyal as is Australia despite being a partial penal colony. Still the likelyhood of any breakaway actually succeding as very slight and would need some sought of disaster to devestate the British Isles.