AHC/WI: British Empire without Great Britain?

If there was no US than yes.

New York, capitol of the British Empire.

I agree with Matteo and think the rest of the empire would be hard to maintain in such a scenario, and actually it seems like India would definitely be lost in whatever event caused Britain to be completely overrun. So there'd be just North America and the Caribbean left, if that. The Alt-British North America would have no ability to power-project.
 
I agree with Matteo and think the rest of the empire would be hard to maintain in such a scenario, and actually it seems like India would definitely be lost in whatever event caused Britain to be completely overrun. So there'd be just North America and the Caribbean left, if that. The Alt-British North America would have no ability to power-project.

I don't understand why you say this. The British monarchy flees to the Americas, the British Navy flees to the Americas, and the loyalty of its colonies comes with it. The colonies in India didn't exactly need management by the crown, there is no real reason to assume they would go independent if this happened in the early 19th century.
 
I don't understand why you say this. The British monarchy flees to the Americas, the British Navy flees to the Americas, and the loyalty of its colonies comes with it. The colonies in India didn't exactly need management by the crown, there is no real reason to assume they would go independent if this happened in the early 19th century.

There were no colonies in India in the early 19th century. It was the East India Company/the mughals/various local nobles running the place.
If Britain falls then its not so easy as the EIC deciding to remain loyal to the crown in the Americas. The entire cornerstone of their organisation was selling Indian stuff in Britain and British stuff in India. There's no way the Americas of the time could substitute.
If France takes Britain then the EIC loses its financing. It has enough in the bank and enough local power to keep going for maybe a decade at best but after that its going to be going bankrupt unless it switches its alleigance.
Less than best case...there's a lot of money to be made in India. You can bet the French and others would be keen to swoop in. Not to mention local rulers in India would see the loss of the EIC's support as the perfect chance to increase their own power.
 
There were no colonies in India in the early 19th century. It was the East India Company/the mughals/various local nobles running the place.
If Britain falls then its not so easy as the EIC deciding to remain loyal to the crown in the Americas. The entire cornerstone of their organisation was selling Indian stuff in Britain and British stuff in India. There's no way the Americas of the time could substitute.
If France takes Britain then the EIC loses its financing. It has enough in the bank and enough local power to keep going for maybe a decade at best but after that its going to be going bankrupt unless it switches its alleigance.
Less than best case...there's a lot of money to be made in India. You can bet the French and others would be keen to swoop in. Not to mention local rulers in India would see the loss of the EIC's support as the perfect chance to increase their own power.

That's basically what I just said (or maybe not, sometimes what I said is not what I mean).

In time, the Americas could easily replace Britain as a potential market. The problem is, this isn't going to happen overnight. Potentially, one way to keep the British Empire alive would be for the East India Company to switch allegiances temporarily to France, then back to America when the British Empire is stronger. That would take a lot of somersaults to do, though.
 
Sorry bug this is english-centric wishful thinking.

The EIC was held by british shareholders, employed british len and relied on british harbours and naval constructions.

France had its own Indies Company. It had its own investors that wanted to real the profits for themselves.

You can't have a big and complex Navy to migrate far-away to a land without all the infrastructure and financial power to sustain it. This Navy will vanish just like the roman Navy vanished.

End of the story.
 
Sorry bug this is english-centric wishful thinking.

The EIC was held by british shareholders, employed british len and relied on british harbours and naval constructions.

France had its own Indies Company. It had its own investors that wanted to real the profits for themselves.

You can't have a big and complex Navy to migrate far-away to a land without all the infrastructure and financial power to sustain it. This Navy will vanish just like the roman Navy vanished.

End of the story.

You seem guilty of your own accusation.
While Britain itself was the mainstay of the British Navy the Navy will not just disappear overnight as you seem to want.
Yes it will diminish but it will not fade away while the goal to regain the Isles is still in place.
 
The EIC was held by british shareholders, employed british len and relied on british harbours and naval constructions.

*<snip>*

You can't have a big and complex Navy to migrate far-away to a land without all the infrastructure and financial power to sustain it. This Navy will vanish just like the roman Navy vanished.
The EIC had a dockyard of its own at Bombay that was definitely capable of building warships.
 
Quite frankly, I'm not surprised.
Would you be equally unsurprised to learn that during the period around the Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars a significant proprtion of Spain's battle-fleet was built at Havana -- using mahoghany, from Spain's New World domains, as the main timber -- rather than in Spain itself?
 
In a similar note, a great portion of Britain's fleet was built from wood from North America. Colonies were much more useful than many contemporaries think.
 
Yes Wood from America and Russia. But not built in America. Why ? Precisely because the colonial system ad Britain saw It in the 18th century was : Monopoly of manufacturing for Britain and the colonies provide Raw materials and are not even allowed to trade with third countries without transit through Britain.

That was one of the reasons why the 13 colonies decided to severe links with Britain. They wanted a more open decentralized system.

You are dreamng about some kind of always unvincible Britain whatever catastrophee falls on Britain's head. This is not serious.

Before the second half of the 19th century, there is no sustainable Royal Navy without the kernel of assets that had its heart in Britain (its industry, its infrastructure, its qualified workers, and most of all its financial system.

There would be no possible return for those who leave thousands of miles overseas.

Either Britain holds (and It had incredibly high probability of holding) or it falls.

But if it falls, it damn falls. In the 18tt century or around 1800, Britain's fall means :
- kissing goodbye to Sotland and Ireland,
- bankrupcy of the City. The financial place of London loses its role of world number one financial center,
- some kind of end of the Navigation act that was key to building Britain's trade Navy domination,
- fall of the british ruling class composed of the high nobility and of the financial and business gentry and some kind of social unrest and economic meltdown comparable to what France faced between 1789 and 1799,
- loss of many colonies instantly or in a few years and especially no ability to keep on holding India because Indians will revolt,
- limitation on the number of ships its Navy can hold.

This is chaos for a generation.

It may be hard to conceive but England was a complex system that could crash if its foundations crumbled.
 
Top