After winning the Seven Years' War, how could Great Britain grow?

Infinity

Banned
Like any great power, the growth of Great Britain was spurred by rivalry. First Spain, then the Netherlands, and finally the French were its greatest rivals. Once Great Britain became the undisputed winner of maritime expansion, what did Great Britain have to look forward to? Where did they have to turn to next?

Was there any incentive to aggressively colonize India, and open up trade with east Asia earlier than in otl? Should Great Britain have spent more effort policing the world? Could French, Dutch, and Spanish smuggling have been punished, without ruinous political backlash? Was the world just too large for Great Britain following the Seven Years' War?
 
Britain was very aggressively colonizing India and expanding trade with east Asia during that period, just under the flag of the East India Company.

Even after their victory in the Seven Years way Britain was just one of several great powers, not a superpower. France, Spain, Russia, China, etc were all probably reasonably close to Britain's power.
 

Infinity

Banned
Britain was very aggressively colonizing India and expanding trade with east Asia during that period, just under the flag of the East India Company.
Most of the colonization of the interior occurred between 1800-1850. Could it have occurred earlier?

Furthermore, in 1773, duty was no longer imposed upon tea in India. The Tea Act was passed because the British East India Company was financially struggling. The question is: what could the British government have done to prevent this? Could a better solution be reached and earlier than in otl? The root of the problem was smuggling. Perhaps a more aggressive British navy was possible. Punishing smuggling on the European side of the equation would been more politically palatable, at least in America.

The main issue is time though. Great Britain had to act fast. If possible, prevent problems before they balloon out of control. Whatever it takes to encourage growth.
 
Most of the colonization of the interior occurred between 1800-1850. Could it have occurred earlier?
Probably not, up until the mid 1700s Britain was too busy trying to be the dominant force in India to attempt to colonize it. Also there isn't an easy way to make them dominant early because they had other Europeans to worry about as well as no (decisive) technology gap.

Furthermore, in 1773, duty was no longer imposed upon tea in India. The Tea Act was passed because the British East India Company was financially struggling. The question is: what could the British government have done to prevent this? Could a better solution be reached and earlier than otl? The root of the problem was smuggling. Perhaps a more aggressive British navy was possible. Punishing smuggling on the European side of the equation would been more politically palatable, at least in America.
There really isn't much that they could do about the financial problems either at the time, fighting world spanning wars is expensive and not fighting them means you can't be a colonial power. The only thing they could do is tax the citizens of their colonies and that leads to OTL if not extremely careful (if possible at all without a much earlier POD that would butterfly away the 7 years war.)
 

Infinity

Banned
Would it have been a viable strategy for Great Britain to poach Spanish colonies? Maybe starting with the Philippines, Florida, or Argentina. I'm not sure if more land is really what Great Britain needed though. Maybe there's something parliament could do. Maybe a policy which encourages the development of existing territory would possible. Maybe more propaganda would have been helpful. After all, pamphlets played a decisive role in the English civil wars of the seventh centuries. What writers put the same amount of effort into promoting colonial expansion? Companies could even profit off of ads for colonization like occurred at a later date. How about ads from the British East India and British West India companies? Both to encourage the purchase of their products, increase labor, and garner political support for favorable policies.

Furthermore, parliament might be able to create laws which encourage exports to wealthier European countries. Maybe some sort of "British Mainland Trading Company" would be helpful. Anything with caffeine or tobacco was likely to sell.

Alternatively, if there were some sort of political or religious conflict which shortly precedes otl economic conflict, then Britain might retain its colonies as it did with the civil wars of the 17th century. Then again, this might lead to even further division than in otl. Still worth considering.

Suppose there's a special division in parliament which serves the colonies for a designated period of time. That way, colonists are represented more directly. Nothing seems more alien than a distant shadowy government enacting laws without these leaders ever being seen in person. Seeing members of parliament in person would make the colonists feel more like they're a part of Great Britain. A visit from a prince or princess might help as well.
 
Would it have been a viable strategy for Great Britain to poach Spanish colonies? Maybe starting with the Philippines, Florida, or Argentina.

Yes. The problem Britain had post-7YW was exuberance that led them to be foolhardy about the European alliance structure. While dominant at sea, they failed to culture an alliance with any mainland power. That meant that France and Spain could concentrate on naval expansion without worrying about their armies too much and could successfully challenge Britain during the American Revolutionary War. While they had burnt bridges with Prussia, Britain could have developed an alliance with either Austria or, especially, Russia, but they were unwilling to make the concessions necessary to do so. If they had, France would have been locked down on the continent and they could have defeated the Bourbons at sea more easily. Florida was already gained in the Seven Years War, the EIC captured Manila during the 7YW (but failed to keep it due to giving an easy peace to France for domestic reasons), and the River Plate was a target, so all of these are viable captures.

I'm not sure if more land is really what Great Britain needed though. Maybe there's something parliament could do. Maybe a policy which encourages the development of existing territory would possible. Maybe more propaganda would have been helpful. After all, pamphlets played a decisive role in the English civil wars of the seventh centuries. What writers put the same amount of effort into promoting colonial expansion? Companies could even profit off of ads for colonization like occurred at a later date. How about ads from the British East India and British West India companies? Both to encourage the purchase of their products, increase labor, and garner political support for favorable policies.

The idea of state-led colonial expansion was largely anathema at this time. There is a limit to the administrative capacity of the British state and a big concern after the 7YW was whether they could manage all the land they had gained. As for the East and West India Companies, they DID lobby tremendously for both more funds and freedom from political interference, and were tremendously successful at it until the Great Reform Act in the early 1830s.

Furthermore, parliament might be able to create laws which encourage exports to wealthier European countries. Maybe some sort of "British Mainland Trading Company" would be helpful. Anything with caffeine or tobacco was likely to sell.

European trade was the majority of British exports until well into the 1800s. Forming a trade company monopoly would not only be politically impossible, as it would hit a lot of existing companies, it would also reduce trade due to the desire of monopolies to limit sales to keep prices up.

Alternatively, if there were some sort of political or religious conflict which shortly precedes otl economic conflict, then Britain might retain its colonies as it did with the civil wars of the 17th century. Then again, this might lead to even further division than in otl. Still worth considering.

Suppose there's a special division in parliament which serves the colonies for a designated period of time. That way, colonists are represented more directly. Nothing seems more alien than a distant shadowy government enacting laws without these leaders ever being seen in person. Seeing members of parliament in person would make the colonists feel more like they're a part of Great Britain. A visit from a prince or princess might help as well.[/QUOTE]

Representation in parliament (as for example, was planned by Pitt the Elder) would certainly have done a better job of improving dialogue between the American colonies and London. A major part of the breakdown was that both sides simply didn't understand the other's position very well, due to limited touch points (Franklin being one of the few). It would also have blunted the "no taxation without representation" argument, which was so successful. Of course, dialogue is only a mechanism for solving problems, so it would have to lead to good policy to be successful. It's also worth pointing out that colonial representation would have given more influence to the Caribbean planters than the mainland colonies, as they were much more important economically to the UK at the time.
 
Top