Ellis MacVey
Donor
So, I don't think I really need to explain this too much, but, just in case, I will. Historically, the five kingdoms of the British Isles (for those of you who think of Britain as a single entity, which it technically is, but it's an "Imperial Federation" divided into five "Kingdoms", each with their own culture and language (or, in the case of Scotland, two languages), these kingdoms being England, Wales, Cornwall, Scotland, and Ireland), while they've been rather keen to interfere in each other's affairs (typically with either England or Scotland coming out on top and Cornwall getting screwed over), they've had a rather isolationist approach to the outside world.
This isolationism has caused them to often be able to avoid the ravages of war, even when their southern neighbor, France, was feeling particularly expansionist. However, this has also caused them many problems, as, while their isolationist policy was still in effect, they advanced much more slowly technologically, socially, and culturally. It is still rather hotly debated in Britain whether opting to end this isolationist policy and join the Second World War in 1927 was a good idea or not, even though it was in reaction to rather blatant Swedish aggression and did bring them some rather large economic benefits after the war ended in 1929.
However, as the British Imperial Navy is known as one of the greatest navies in the world, almost all of the British Kingdoms have a rather prestigious military history (the only exception possibly being Cornwall), and the British population being decently large, what if, instead of isolationist, Britain opted on an expansionist national policy?
Let's say, for the sake of this scenario, the British Kingdoms are united much earlier and more violently (Scotland and England are the most likely candidates), or perhaps something else happens to set one or more of them on a more expansionist course. What would happen? Would they be curb-stomped? Would they get overseas colonies like France, Spain, the Netherlands, or Sweden? Which territories would they focus on?
This isolationism has caused them to often be able to avoid the ravages of war, even when their southern neighbor, France, was feeling particularly expansionist. However, this has also caused them many problems, as, while their isolationist policy was still in effect, they advanced much more slowly technologically, socially, and culturally. It is still rather hotly debated in Britain whether opting to end this isolationist policy and join the Second World War in 1927 was a good idea or not, even though it was in reaction to rather blatant Swedish aggression and did bring them some rather large economic benefits after the war ended in 1929.
However, as the British Imperial Navy is known as one of the greatest navies in the world, almost all of the British Kingdoms have a rather prestigious military history (the only exception possibly being Cornwall), and the British population being decently large, what if, instead of isolationist, Britain opted on an expansionist national policy?
Let's say, for the sake of this scenario, the British Kingdoms are united much earlier and more violently (Scotland and England are the most likely candidates), or perhaps something else happens to set one or more of them on a more expansionist course. What would happen? Would they be curb-stomped? Would they get overseas colonies like France, Spain, the Netherlands, or Sweden? Which territories would they focus on?
I am aware that this is probably a very unlikely timeline, especially with Britain united as a multicultural federation instead of being Anglocentric like it is OTL or divided into 5 completely independent kingdoms. However, I did this because I thought it would be fun. One should probably note that, in this timeline, British governance is, of course, heavily decentralized. The language barrier is a bit of a problem, but the country's education system and as a whole is, much like Luxembourg, Canada, or Belgium, very multilingual, with the typical British citizen being at least able to sort of understand two languages other than their native ones. It is still somewhat Anglocentric, however, as England has the largest population.
In addition, for whatever reason, the Norman invasion of England never happened at all.
In this timeline, Britain is not a utopia, however. While they are extremely tolerant of other British cultures and multicultural in that aspect, xenophobia (when it comes to non-Brits) is a lot more common, and they are a lot more culturally conservative. In addition, the democracy is a rather new concept for them, only stretching back to reforms made in the early 1910s, and before that, they rather more closely resembled a psuedo-Integralistic state in many (but not all) ways.
In addition, for whatever reason, the Norman invasion of England never happened at all.
In this timeline, Britain is not a utopia, however. While they are extremely tolerant of other British cultures and multicultural in that aspect, xenophobia (when it comes to non-Brits) is a lot more common, and they are a lot more culturally conservative. In addition, the democracy is a rather new concept for them, only stretching back to reforms made in the early 1910s, and before that, they rather more closely resembled a psuedo-Integralistic state in many (but not all) ways.
