Still flogging the same old horse, Jord?
Bitter much?
I criticize because I care, Wanda. Besides, with your jabs at America all the time, you're not much better than me.
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.
Interesting. Was this the reasoning behind the Irish-wank story in the Writer's Forum?
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...
Oh, I understand it. I just don't have to like it, even if it's informal.
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.
That's pretty good. Out of curiosity, why do you say the Americans "accept Southern Ontario"? I was under the impression that the Brits still wanted it, and that's why we didn't get it, because we hadn't been successful enough in that area to drive them out. Or have I missed something?
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...
Yes, (not) sorry for making you go through something so painful.
Some interesting ideas here
What if Napoleon is successful against Britain? Perhaps he makes some wiser decisions such as not betraying his Spanish allies to place his brother on the throne of Spain, and not invading Russia. Something like Zach's TL perhaps, except outside of Australia, New Zealand, Newfoundland and South Africa the British are unable to expand their influence. Maybe even have it where Napoleon is able to conquer Ireland and Scotland setting up friends and family as monarchs of those places and reducing Britain to just England & Wales.
Just a thought. However a Scottish House of Bonaparte with King Joseph on the throne is intriguing.
A more successful Napoleon, especially one that doesn't let his ego get the better of him, I think could do a lot to curtail British power. After all, at his height he had almost the entire continent supporting him, which was one of Britain's main fears in history.
I think a Scottish puppet kingdom might be a bit too much, even for him, though.
Actually the splashes of Pink all over the map in many ways represents the failure of British 19th century policy - they had to exchange an informal commerical hegemony over most of the world for a costly formal rule over a quarter of it. The descent from the post-Napoleonic heights could have gone lots of ways (I critique many maps for not having more varience in their British possesions and going for stuff Britain wouldn't have given a fig for) but you'll nearly always end up with a Britain with lots of stuff by centuries end due to the existing British capital advantages and the British isles in early industrial resources.
Perhaps they do have enough of an advantage to guarantee some success, but nothing is inevitable. Especially in alternate history. An informal "organization/empire/whatever" of incredibly strong trade connections is fine by me, but political control does not have to go hand in hand with that and I think large sections of the board have forgotten that. The sheer amount of territory that came under direct British control is very unlikely, and the insistence by the board that this is the only way things can be, or should be, has long since passed my tolerance level.
I don't see how a Chartist rebellion (that involves a lot of the new rich and which any large company will probably just adjust too) will see Britain losing the informal commercial empire.
I think IBC's post mentioned that the turmoil that would come with such a revolution would provide a very strong window for the rest of the world. Other nations take advantage under various excuses, colonies will rebel, and more than a few distant army/navy units won't acknowledge the new regime. In time, Britain may rebuild a powerful trade network, but there's a lot working against them in that time.
Of course, my knowledge of the Chartist movement is spotty at best. You should probably talk to IBC as he obviously knows more than I do.
Yes, yes you may.
