AMERICAN REVOLUTION LOST!!!! What happens to China?

[Incanian]

So after thinking about the American war for independence, I was wondering about the effects a stronger presence in North America would have on the Qing empire. Seeing as North America is a higher priority, would the British have a higher stand on the Chinese?

What would be the effects of a British victory in the American war for independence on Qing China?

 

[BiteNibbleChomp]

Really, it could go anywhere. Britain and the Qing didn't really have a lot to do with each other until the 1820s or so (yes, there was contact and a bit of trade before then, but nothing substantial enough to really affect anything in a major way). It really depends on 1) whether Britain decides to prioritise America or Asia (Australia was settled as a result of the ARW being lost), 2) when do they start actually looking at China (if you've butterflied Napoleon, it could be a decade or two earlier, or because America it might be 50 years later), and 3) how aggressive they are about it. None of these can really be predicted without knowing more details about the PoD

- BNC

 

[Avrorrange]

So after thinking about the American war for independence, I was wondering about the effects a stronger presence in North America would have on the Qing empire. Seeing as North America is a higher priority, would the British have a higher stand on the Chinese?

What would be the effects of a British victory in the American war for independence on Qing China?

North America wasn’t as big a priority as Asia (i.e India),that’s why it was let go.

 

[Incanian]

North America wasn’t as big a priority as Asia (i.e India),that’s why it was let go.

Well since Canada, and America would be a huge superstate, especially the growth of Cotton, and Cash crops with slaves in the deep south, they may be leaning more towards North America in this timeline.

 

[Incanian]

Really, it could go anywhere. Britain and the Qing didn't really have a lot to do with each other until the 1820s or so (yes, there was contact and a bit of trade before then, but nothing substantial enough to really affect anything in a major way). It really depends on 1) whether Britain decides to prioritise America or Asia (Australia was settled as a result of the ARW being lost), 2) when do they start actually looking at China (if you've butterflied Napoleon, it could be a decade or two earlier, or because America it might be 50 years later), and 3) how aggressive they are about it. None of these can really be predicted without knowing more details about the PoD

- BNC

I mean, if they priorities North America, some other power, maybe France may get into China, or maybe Russia, against the British colonial dominance. The Qing might be in a weird situation. If Napoleon is butterflied without France supporting the revolution, Spanish Latin America will be held onto for a while longer, so Spain and Britain may have a cold war in North America, which may drive attention away from China, which other Powers may want to get under spheres of influence.

 

[BiteNibbleChomp]

I mean, if they priorities North America, some other power, maybe France may get into China, or maybe Russia, against the British colonial dominance. The Qing might be in a weird situation.

Spain and France aren't strong enough in the 1790s-1810s to directly challenge Britain outside of Europe and expect to win. The ARW was the straw that broke the camel's back in the case of the French economy, and if that wasn't the reason they went bankrupt in 1789, something else would have done so not too long after. In this time, neither country has the ability to be actively trying to get more colonies, otherwise there is a reasonable chance that at least Spain would have grabbed part of Australia not long after the British (even if, at this point, it was just a flag on the ground and a message to London).

If those two powers are going to challenge Britain, it will be after their finances are in order and maybe after a revolution. So 1825 minimum I think.

Spanish Latin America will be held onto for a while longer, so Spain and Britain may have a cold war in North America

Yes to keeping Latin America, no to the Cold War. Cold wars weren't a real concept at this point in time (they only really emerged once war became so destructive as to be counterproductive to the nations involved) - if Spain and Britain don't like each other and there is a clear reason, they will fight about it. And that is a fight that Britain will win.

which may drive attention away from China, which other Powers may want to get under spheres of influence.

Who? and why? As of 1780, no-one really had any interest in colonies in China other than the Portuguese who had Macao. Qing policy at the time was also very restrictive to trade, so "spheres of influence" doesn't really apply. China is too big and too powerful for one country to say "this is all subject to me only". I couldn't justify a way for China to become one nation's subject in my TL where colonisation there happens in 1950, there's no way it is going to happen earlier when the tech difference is so much smaller.

- BNC

 

[Brady Kj]

I think it's safe to assume that China wouldn't be enormously different for the first 50 years. However, if further down the road, there are a lot of loyal British subjects in the rapidly growing and rather successful colonies of North America, then British North America would be a great source of soldiers, sailors, supplies, and specie to find in future wars against whichever country Britain wishes. This is likely to be bad for China.

 

[Incanian]

Spain and France aren't strong enough in the 1790s-1810s to directly challenge Britain outside of Europe and expect to win. The ARW was the straw that broke the camel's back in the case of the French economy, and if that wasn't the reason they went bankrupt in 1789, something else would have done so not too long after. In this time, neither country has the ability to be actively trying to get more colonies, otherwise there is a reasonable chance that at least Spain would have grabbed part of Australia not long after the British (even if, at this point, it was just a flag on the ground and a message to London).

If those two powers are going to challenge Britain, it will be after their finances are in order and maybe after a revolution. So 1825 minimum I think.


Yes to keeping Latin America, no to the Cold War. Cold wars weren't a real concept at this point in time (they only really emerged once war became so destructive as to be counterproductive to the nations involved) - if Spain and Britain don't like each other and there is a clear reason, they will fight about it. And that is a fight that Britain will win.


Who? and why? As of 1780, no-one really had any interest in colonies in China other than the Portuguese who had Macao. Qing policy at the time was also very restrictive to trade, so "spheres of influence" doesn't really apply. China is too big and too powerful for one country to say "this is all subject to me only". I couldn't justify a way for China to become one nation's subject in my TL where colonisation there happens in 1950, there's no way it is going to happen earlier when the tech difference is so much smaller.

- BNC

I think Qing China might be safer against the British. I get the points you say, but China might not be in as big of a problem as they used to. With a huge superstate across North America, with all the Cotton, and cash crops, the British may have better items to trade for with the Chinese. As for the Opium Wars, I don't know if it still would happen. It might, but if it does, the Qing may be in trouble.

 

[Avrorrange]

Well since Canada, and America would be a huge superstate, especially the growth of Cotton, and Cash crops with slaves in the deep south, they may be leaning more towards North America in this timeline.

I can see North America as potentially being far less developed in such a timeline.I think there will be far less migrants and that the British themselves may discourage further migration of non-British colonists,given such groups were seen at times of being far less loyal.

 

[Avrorrange]

I think Qing China might be safer against the British. I get the points you say, but China might not be in as big of a problem as they used to. With a huge superstate across North America, with all the Cotton, and cash crops, the British may have better items to trade for with the Chinese. As for the Opium Wars, I don't know if it still would happen. It might, but if it does, the Qing may be in trouble.

There’s plenty of cotton in China,so there’s no need for the British stuff.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

I can see North America as potentially being far less developed in such a timeline.I think there will be far less migrants and that the British themselves may discourage further migration of non-British colonists,given such groups were seen at times of being far less loyal.

He said American Revolution lost, not averted. Unless it's before 1776 (called the year of the hangman by Loyalists), I think the British might discourage non-British colonists not because of loyalty issues (any colony would be suspect) but because larger populations are harder to control. They will only win because of Loyalists, but the fact remains it was difficult to sort out the loyalsits and traitors whenever a town gets reoccupied.

 

[GauchoBadger]

There’s plenty of cotton in China,so there’s no need for the British stuff.

I'll have to agree -- no foreign imports interested the chinese government at the time, since the chinese already had plenty of varied resources and products within their own territories. This was the main justification for the Qing dynasty's isolationist policy.

 

[Avrorrange]

He said American Revolution lost, not averted. Unless it's before 1776 (called the year of the hangman by Loyalists), I think the British might discourage non-British colonists not because of loyalty issues (any colony would be suspect) but because larger populations are harder to control. They will only win because of Loyalists, but the fact remains it was difficult to sort out the loyalsits and traitors whenever a town gets reoccupied.

During the revolution period,the British saw that settlers of non-British descent were far less likely to remain loyal.From what I have read,before the revolution,non-British settlers weren’t rebelling,but they seem to be less respectful to the crown compared to the likes of G.Washington,who was initially respectful to the crown but later rebelled against it.