AH Challenge: Fail, Britannia!

[Jord839]

We have far too many Britwank TL's on this forum, and even many that don't still give the British Empire huge swathes of the world. And of course, a distressing number of posters think the British Empire was saintly and did nothing but good and violently attack those who disagree. It's not only boring, but annoying. I think it's time we reverse this.

Yes, I am proposing a Brit-Screw. Deal with it.

Your challenge is, with a POD no earlier than 1770, to either keep Britain from ever gaining the vast majority of their OTL empire, or to make them lose most of it before 1900. How you do this is up to you. Political unrest, colonial rebellions, secessions, other nations or native peoples successfully resisting the start British imperialism in those areas, all of them are acceptable. Don't just have one nation(especially the US. There's too much Ameriwank as well, although at least that has plenty of Ameriscrew to help balance it) take all it's colonies and be basically Britain in another color though, please, wanks are not what I'm looking for.

Try to keep it realistic and...go!

(The preceding post has been translated into Britwankese for your convenience: HERESY! Republican drivel HERESY! Lies and slander HERESY! Ameriteen HERESY! Empire bad, Empire lose! HERESY! Also, HERESY!!!one!!!!)

 

[Umbric Man]

Whatever else, I like having '-screw' become the nega-wank suffix. Galloscrew, Hispanoscrew, Ameriscrew, Britscrew, Sinoscrew, Nipposcrew all roll off the tongue well.

EDIT: Whilst at it, losing the French and Indian War, or even Queen Anne's war (which gave several Caribbean islands, western Newfoundland/Placentia, Acadia, and returned the captured Rupert's Land to Britain from France) will help keep Britain from going beyond the thirteen colonies, Bermuda, Bahamas, Leeward Islands, and Barbados in the Americas. That's not that big when you think on it, especially by Anglophone standards.

EDIT: Noticed POD of 1770. Well, have France gain all the Queen Anne's War losses BACK in a F&IW-wank for them.

 

[Jord839]

Whatever else, I like having '-screw' become the nega-wank suffix. Galloscrew, Hispanoscrew, Ameriscrew, Britscrew, Sinoscrew, Nipposcrew all roll off the tongue well.

Indeed it does. Although "Polescrew" sounds like something far dirtier than usual...

EDIT: Whilst at it, losing the French and Indian War, or even Queen Anne's war (which gave several Caribbean islands, western Newfoundland/Placentia, Acadia, and returned the captured Rupert's Land to Britain from France) will help keep Britain from going beyond the thirteen colonies, Bermuda, Bahamas, Leeward Islands, and Barbados in the Americas. That's not that big when you think on it, especially by Anglophone standards.

EDIT: Noticed POD of 1770. Well, have France gain all the Queen Anne's War losses BACK in a F&IW-wank for them.

That would be the most obvious choice, yes, but what about others?

Also, it doesn't necessarily mean the British won't conquer India or other areas, as I'm sure some Britwankers would love to point out. It's the best start, though.

Any other ideas?

 

[Domoviye]

During the American Revolution, Quebec due to certain political changes in the part of Britain joins the Americans as an ally (not a partner).
This stretches Britain a little more than OTL, and gives France something to rally around. The French join the war a little earlier and fight with a bit more fervor.
During the war Gibraltar is successfully taken by French and Spanish troops. British forces in India are also pushed back slightly, allowing French troops to gain some new Indian allies.
By the end of the war Britain loses all but its maritime colonies in North America, loses Gibraltar to Spain, and acknowledges the French possessions in India.
France with its markets in India doesn't suffer as serious a revolution later on.
The USA controls much of America while independent Quebec keeps the British from advancing in the North.
With the lose of Gibraltar, Britain can't control the Mediterranean nearly as easily and never takes Egypt.
Dutch, French and Britain begin to colonize Australia. Britain uses it as a penal colony.
In the 1800's the French and British have divided India between them. The French fan the flames of revolution amongst the people of British India. In 1846 the Indian Mutiny begins. The French supply the revolutionaries with weapons, intelligence and cash.
The British declare war on France while they're fighting in India.
Russia uses this time to advance in the Crimean and Spain (doing much better than OTL) attacks the Ottoman taking control of Egypt.
After 2 years of fighting wide stretches of India are virtually destroyed, and the British are holed up in a few cities on the coast. France having unleashed chaos are also in the same position.
Australia sees fighting between the French and Dutch against the British. The French and Dutch promise the Penal colonies freedom and money if they support them. Vicious fighting ensues.
In America the USA sees its chance and attacks the French and English colonies in the Caribbeans and Maritimes. Its large coastal fleet succeeds but is virtually gutted in the fighting.
After 8 years of fighting, India is a basket case Australia is practically lost, pirates roam throughout the Caribbeans attacking everyone, and only P.E.I and Newfoundland remain British in North America.
A peace treaty is signed by the exhausted countries.
Most of India is let go as it is absolutely useless for anything now. Only a few cities are retained by the French and English, the rest of the country gains independence. Most of the Caribbeans are made independent with the Bahama's becoming American. Nova Scotia becomes a US protectorate. Britain retains only a small colony around Botany Bay in Australia, the rest is taken by the French and Dutch.
Britain realizing its surrounded by enemies, hunkers down and builds up its army and navy.
Its colonies in the America's, Africa and Asia appear more like armed forts than colonies.
In China it tries to set up trading posts and when its rebuffed violently it moves in with extreme violence in the 1860's doing some extreme looting and pillaging. Several important Chinese leaders are executed by firing squad.
Britain gains Shanghai, Hong Kong as British ports.
China shocked by the violence begins modernizing immediately.
In 1890 after handing territory to many other countries, a modern Chinese army attacks the Europeans. Using several mid sized modern army as shock troops, backed by a number of poorly armed conscripts, China forces British, French, German and American traders and soldiers out of China.
With this final indignity, Britain becomes extremely isolationist, holding its few scraps of territory like a poor man holding his last coin. Only in South Africa does Britain have a firm hold, and it is surrounded by the strongest fortifications in the world.
Like a wounded beast, watching the jackals come closer waiting for it to die, it growls its defiance into the night.

 

[TheNordicBrit]

One of the simplest is to have England be either occupied or under heavy restraint thanks to a successful Spanish Armada. Scotland would be too weak to make colonies, but possibly strong enough to repel any Spanish attacks. Ireland would probably be given special status, maybe even have a Hapsburg King to reinforce its Catholicism. This would obviously weaken Britain to the point of not having a large role to play colonially or on the continent, by the time it does get stronger then I'd expect the time for colonies would be over (or at least, colonies in the Americas).

EDIT: Just noticed post 1770...

 

[Analytical Engine]

Bah, you're just jealous of my (completed) Britwank Empire TL...

 

[I Blame Communism]

The bullet that pierced William IV's coat in Flanders in 1813 instead pierces his brain. Keeping butterflies to the minimum possible, George IV still outlives his other brothers Frederick and Edward, but manages to eat himself to death a few years earlier, before Catholic Emancipation.

The throne can now be taken by Ernest Augustus, OTL's king of Hanover, militant defender of Protestant Ascendancy and Britain's least-liked man.

It's the late 20s or early 30s. The Six Acts are in effect. The situation in the countryside is plummeting towards the *Swing Riots. Chartism is stirring in the cities. The king is adamant that he will allow neither Catholic emancipation nor parliamentary reform. Commons and Lords at loggerheads. Days-of-May style conspiracies among the liberal middle-classes.

King Ernest goes the Charles X route: he decamps from London, declares the suppression of all the newspapers he doesn't like and the arrest and transportation of some prominent critics of his reign.

London is hungry and restless. Someone throws stones at the soldiers sent to close down the press. Paris 1830 ensues.

By the time the red-white-green flag of the commonwealth has been hoisted over Britain, then the Spanish have nicked Gibraltar, various colonial forces refuse to accept the new government, a variety of Indian potentates have asserted their independance, and of course conservative Europe hates our guts.

 

[Jord839]

Like a wounded beast, watching the jackals come closer waiting for it to die, it growls its defiance into the night.

That is an incredibly detailed answer. I love it.

Especially the last line, but that's just because how cool it is.

One of the simplest is to have England be either occupied or under heavy restraint thanks to a successful Spanish Armada. Scotland would be too weak to make colonies, but possibly strong enough to repel any Spanish attacks. Ireland would probably be given special status, maybe even have a Hapsburg King to reinforce its Catholicism. This would obviously weaken Britain to the point of not having a large role to play colonially or on the continent, by the time it does get stronger then I'd expect the time for colonies would be over (or at least, colonies in the Americas).

Earliest POD was 1770. I'm pretty sure the Spanish Armada happened before that...

Bah, you're just jealous of my (completed) Britwank Empire TL...

I couldn't care less about your ASB delusions.

Seriously, I'm just annoyed that more than half the timelines of note in non-ASB sections, and god knows how many of the ones that aren't, involve either Britwank or Britain staying almost the same rather than losing some of their obscene amount of OTL luck. And, as I said, we have too many people who think the Empire did no wrong and every scrap of its land belonged to it by divine right so they could "spread civilization" or some other claptrap. I hate it more than Ameriwank nowadays, because at least Ameriwank has plenty of Ameriscrew to balance it out alongside its detractors.

The bullet that pierced William IV's coat in Flanders in 1813 instead pierces his brain. Keeping butterflies to the minimum possible, George IV still outlives his other brothers Frederick and Edward, but manages to eat himself to death a few years earlier, before Catholic Emancipation.

The throne can now be taken by Ernest Augustus, OTL's king of Hanover, militant defender of Protestant Ascendancy and Britain's least-liked man.

It's the late 20s or early 30s. The Six Acts are in effect. The situation in the countryside is plummeting towards the *Swing Riots. Chartism is stirring in the cities. The king is adamant that he will allow neither Catholic emancipation nor parliamentary reform. Commons and Lords at loggerheads. Days-of-May style conspiracies among the liberal middle-classes.

King Ernest goes the Charles X route: he decamps from London, declares the suppression of all the newspapers he doesn't like and the arrest and transportation of some prominent critics of his reign.

London is hungry and restless. Someone throws stones at the soldiers sent to close down the press. Paris 1830 ensues.

By the time the red-white-green flag of the commonwealth has been hoisted over Britain, then the Spanish have nicked Gibraltar, various colonial forces refuse to accept the new government, a variety of Indian potentates have asserted their independance, and of course conservative Europe hates our guts.

That is very interesting. Has anyone made a Chartist uprising TL? I'd love to read one like this. Not just because of my known anti-imperialism, but because it genuinely seems very interesting and I can't recall any TL's that use the premise.

 

[Wolfpaw]

That is very interesting. Has anyone made a Chartist uprising TL? I'd love to read one like this. Not just because of my known anti-imperialism, but because it genuinely seems very interesting and I can't recall any TL's that use the premise.

Seconded. I nominate IBC to spearhead such a thing, especially since it will give us President (or perhaps Lord Protector once more?) Francis Budett and a new flag for the Republic of Britain:

(Won't those silly Hungarians be jealous? )

 

[Mr Qwerty]

Russia uses this time to advance in the Crimean and Spain (doing much better than OTL) attacks the Ottoman taking control of Egypt.
After 2 years of fighting wide stretches of India are virtually destroyed, and the British are holed up in a few cities on the coast. France having unleashed chaos are also in the same position.
Australia sees fighting between the French and Dutch against the British. The French and Dutch promise the Penal colonies freedom and money if they support them. Vicious fighting ensues.
In America the USA sees its chance and attacks the French and English colonies in the Caribbeans and Maritimes. Its large coastal fleet succeeds but is virtually gutted in the fighting.
After 8 years of fighting, India is a basket case Australia is practically lost, pirates roam throughout the Caribbeans attacking everyone, and only P.E.I and Newfoundland remain British in North America.
A peace treaty is signed by the exhausted countries.
Most of India is let go as it is absolutely useless for anything now. Only a few cities are retained by the French and English, the rest of the country gains independence. Most of the Caribbeans are made independent with the Bahama's becoming American. Nova Scotia becomes a US protectorate. Britain retains only a small colony around Botany Bay in Australia, the rest is taken by the French and Dutch.
Britain realizing its surrounded by enemies, hunkers down and builds up its army and navy.
Its colonies in the America's, Africa and Asia appear more like armed forts than colonies.
In China it tries to set up trading posts and when its rebuffed violently it moves in with extreme violence in the 1860's doing some extreme looting and pillaging. Several important Chinese leaders are executed by firing squad.
Britain gains Shanghai, Hong Kong as British ports.
China shocked by the violence begins modernizing immediately.
In 1890 after handing territory to many other countries, a modern Chinese army attacks the Europeans. Using several mid sized modern army as shock troops, backed by a number of poorly armed conscripts, China forces British, French, German and American traders and soldiers out of China.
With this final indignity, Britain becomes extremely isolationist, holding its few scraps of territory like a poor man holding his last coin. Only in South Africa does Britain have a firm hold, and it is surrounded by the strongest fortifications in the world.
Like a wounded beast, watching the jackals come closer waiting for it to die, it growls its defiance into the night.

Very poetic last line, yeah. A few points:
1. A more successful Spain might be able to hang on to Spanish America. If Spain controls the Mediterranian (and France is probably going to have to build a separate Med fleet to compete), Spanish Egypt is quite likely, yes, particularly if Russia badly beats Turkey. Is Spainwank possible this late?
2. France's actions in India are incredibly stupid. Of course, people have been known to do stupid things, so it's plausible after all.
3. The US attacks both France and Britain simultaneously? Yes, Americans can be stupid too, but...
4. China pulling a Meiji is nice, but I doubt shock at British brutality would do it (I'm sure the Chinese were just as good at brutality as anybody else). Perhaps an incident that showcases European weakness?

 

[Jord839]

Seconded. I nominate IBC to spearhead such a thing, especially since it will give us President (or perhaps Lord Protector once more?) Francis Budett and a new flag for the Republic of Britain:

(Won't those silly Hungarians be jealous? )

Ok, that's just awesome. The Hungarians will just have to figure something else out, won't they?

Very poetic last line, yeah. A few points:
1. A more successful Spain might be able to hang on to Spanish America. If Spain controls the Mediterranian (and France is probably going to have to build a separate Med fleet to compete), Spanish Egypt is quite likely, yes, particularly if Russia badly beats Turkey. Is Spainwank possible this late?
2. France's actions in India are incredibly stupid. Of course, people have been known to do stupid things, so it's plausible after all.
3. The US attacks both France and Britain simultaneously? Yes, Americans can be stupid too, but...
4. China pulling a Meiji is nice, but I doubt shock at British brutality would do it (I'm sure the Chinese were just as good at brutality as anybody else). Perhaps an incident that showcases European weakness?

All of these are good points, and I really should have realized them.

1.This is an intereting line of thought. Even a Spainwank on this level might not last long or be as effective as Britwank though. Spain didn't really have the resource or population muscles that OTL Britain did, so they won't be quite as insurmountable power as time goes on, I think. Sooner or later they'll either have to reform quite a bit or lose much of that territory as per OTL.
2. Hey, nothing wrong with imperialist plans backfiring in time.
3. Wait, I missed that in the original post. I think a properly built up US(less peaceful relations with the Quebec he describes, possibly? Or just some other butterflies on the continent towards the natives/Spanish?) could do as is said here with enough time, but yeah, it's probably going to be gutted by the effort as he says. I'm thinking pyhrric victory here. Although it's probably more likely that they buy/"occupy to protect" those islands in the midst of another French-British War, I think.
4. I have to agree, an incident that shows European weakness would be a much better motivator to modernize, particularly if they've been suffering similar or worse from European powers than OTL.

 

[MNP]

Ah Jord, I knew I wished you a belated happy birthday for a good reason. I feel the exact same way you do toward AH-Britains. I look forward to this thread even if I don't have any PoDs after 1770, save perhaps in the ARW the Southern Strategy allows Britain to keep the southern colonies and then it becomes embroiled in massive insurgency when the empire attempts to abolish slavery.

 

[Domoviye]

Very poetic last line, yeah. A few points:
1. A more successful Spain might be able to hang on to Spanish America. If Spain controls the Mediterranian (and France is probably going to have to build a separate Med fleet to compete), Spanish Egypt is quite likely, yes, particularly if Russia badly beats Turkey. Is Spainwank possible this late?
2. France's actions in India are incredibly stupid. Of course, people have been known to do stupid things, so it's plausible after all.
3. The US attacks both France and Britain simultaneously? Yes, Americans can be stupid too, but...
4. China pulling a Meiji is nice, but I doubt shock at British brutality would do it (I'm sure the Chinese were just as good at brutality as anybody else). Perhaps an incident that showcases European weakness?

I was smiling when I wrote that last line, I thought it would be a nice ending.
1) Probably no Spainwank in TTL. I didn't mention or think about what was happening in Spanish America, but I'd assume it was similar to OTL just a bit later and Spain maybe doing a bit better. So Spain would be a comfortable middle power not a fading power.
2) 'The best laid plans of mice and men...'
3) I threw that in so that the British would lose the Caribbeans. I have no idea why the Americans would attack both countries. Maybe they tried to do it peacefully, but some loose cannon admirals on both sides acted rashly. And hey the Americans got a protectorate and the Bahama's out of the deal, and the French and English Caribbeans are now independent so ripe for the picking later on. It didn't go too terribly for the Americans.
4) I was running late and had to get to work, so I thought if some of the more conservative elements of government were executed and humiliated it might be enough to get the ball rolling.

Glad you liked the scenario. I kind of like it enough I may in the future write it down properly and in detail to see what happens.

 

[Dan1988]

Seconded. I nominate IBC to spearhead such a thing, especially since it will give us President (or perhaps Lord Protector once more?) Francis Budett and a new flag for the Republic of Britain:

(Won't those silly Hungarians be jealous? )

Not really ():

 

[Wolfpaw]

Not really ():

It's funny you posted this; I just rechecked the source where I got the "red-white-green" order and noticed that there was a second paragraph from a different source right above it that claimed the order to be "green-white-red."

Oh those Brits and their curious grasp of vexillology

 

[Flame]

For starters, how about the mutiny of the Batavia not happening and the Dutch colonize Australia and New Zealand.

Why not make things even more interesting with the "Glorious Revolution" not happening (and the Dutch push out the French without English help), and thus Amsterdam remains the center of world trade, keeping the Dutch at power.

 

[Wanderlust]

Still flogging the same old horse, Jord? Bitter much?

I started mine by having the young Guy Fawkes blow Sir Francis Drake up at his game of bowls, then Ireland 'inherits' Britain after the Armada has landed.

 

[I Blame Communism]

Seconded. I nominate IBC to spearhead such a thing, especially since it will give us President (or perhaps Lord Protector once more?) Francis Budett and a new flag for the Republic of Britain:

ItIt is a very great honour, life of service to cause of our Commonwealth, quite unworthy, &cetere &cetera.

This has actually been a bit of a fixation of mine for some time, and I'm convinced that the time to achieve revoluion in 19th C Britain is before the Chartists became Chartist as such. France 1830 is my model: when the pre-enlightenment order is sufficiently pig-headed to turn both the emerging rich and the emerging poor of an industrial society against it, revolution results. Chartism in the strict sense, coming after 1832 when the middle-class liberals joined the governing class, was doomed to a France 1832 situation: however catchy the songs, they were going to get shot to bits.

And there's really so many crises in the early 30s. Emancipation, Reform, Captain Swing, the BPU and the Days of May, *Tithe War (O'Connell has to be in here somewhere, of course, and Feargus O'Connor). Replacing William with a god-awful king is really the straw that breaks the camel's proverbial back.

(Won't those silly Hungarians be jealous? )

Jealous, old boy? The oppressed nations of Europe will be grateful, when we liberate them!

Given Francis Burdett's membership of the Friends of Poland, the British Radical taste for quixotic, romantic foreign causes, and of course the Commonwealth's somewhat poor relations with the kingdom of Hanover and its sponsors, I think *1848 with a revolutionary Britain would be fun.

 

[Analytical Engine]

In all seriousness, I can think of two ways to do this, though at least one might be considered cheating...

1) Paradoxically, one could do it by having the empire be *more* successful, at least at first. Bear with me for a moment...

Basically, I see a LTTW-esque "Hanoverian Dominions" of several independent kingdoms/dominions/whatever in personal union, and various corporate states that transition directly into either dominions or republics. In this way, the number of actual crown colonies (and thus the size of the "Empire" itself) can be kept quite small, and spun off at a suitable time.

Naturally, since most Americans are congenitally unable to understand monarchy/empires, you will jeer. However, the First British Empire was a rather informal thing anyway, so there...

2) The other solution is what I call "less good luck for Britain".

It starts off with the Americans accepting southern Ontario being within their territory in the Treaty of Paris. Later on, a different result in the French Revolution leads to a constitutional monarchy or an actually (mostly) liberal republic, so no French Revolutionary Wars or Napoleonic Wars.

This leads to the Dutch keeping the Cape, Ceylon, Malaya, the (majority of the) Gold Coast, and the eastern half of OTL British Guiana. Eventually, they also colonise all/more of New Guinea.

The more peacefull France colonises Western Australia and possibly New Zealand (though that might be partitioned between France and Britain).

A less belligerent policy in India (not having the Duke of Mornington as Governor-General would help), and worse luck in the Anglo-Maratha (and Anglo-Mysore Wars) Wars, allong with a surviving Sikh Empire in the Punjab. Eventually, it leads to a more informal EIC sphere of influence over much of India. The Company Lands eventually get spun off as republics/dominions/whatever in good time.

Due to there not being a Napoleonic War, there is no War of 1812. Paradoxically, this leads to greater American influence over the region. They manage to purchase Oregon, the North West Territories, and most of Rupert's Land.

--

There you go- not one, but two solutions from none other than the board's "Mr Britwank" himself...

Now, I must cleanse myself in the holy fires of Britwankishness...

 

[Grey Wolf]

Well, I'm reading 1759 at the moment, it seems the perfect point to reverse history

- Have Dupleix remain in India and don't send Lally
- Give Montcalm some MEN
- Back Bonnie Prince Charlie properly, or as he was Drunken Sot Charlie
- Have Ferdinand of Brunswick drown in the ditch he fell into

Best Regards
Grey Wolf