AHC/WI: No British Raj; Britain only has its settler colonies (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc.)

Deleted member 97083

What if the British failed to take most of India, or alternatively lost India in the Sepoy Rebellion; furthermore the British expand minimally in Africa, only having South Africa, Sierra Leone, and loose influence over Egypt. They might sell their smaller ports in Africa to other powers.

Basically, the British Empire is minimized in size, but after they have already created their settler colonies in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, which remain under their control.

How would this change the economy, outlook, politics, development, etc. of the British Empire and affected countries?

If possible, assume that India has somehow been lastingly united under the Mughal Empire with only coastal concessions by other European powers.
 
Not sure how you manage to stop British domination of India with a post 1780's PoD (which seems implicit if TTL still has British Australia but not the 13 colonies), but this would certainly be possible with a mid 18th Century PoD (in the non-European theaters of the 1740-63 wars); however, that would likely have implications for the rest of the British empire, contradicting the OP.
 

Deleted member 97083

Not sure how you manage to stop British domination of India with a post 1780's PoD (which seems implicit if TTL still has British Australia but not the 13 colonies), but this would certainly be possible with a mid 18th Century PoD (in the non-European theaters of the 1740-63 wars); however, that would likely have implications for the rest of the British empire, contradicting the OP.
No particular restrictions on POD, as long as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand become British. If it's not possible to prevent India from being taken over, then India can rebel from Britain and become independent that way as long as it happens before 1860.
 
More likelihood of an Imperial Federation without the underlying concern about this being dominated by India. A widely different situation in both Fiji and South Africa (and East Africa for that matter) if Chinese or South East Asian labour is imported rather than Indian
 
If the British don't control India during the early 19th century and just focus on Canada, Australia and new Zealand, I doubt South Africa would end up British. The value of South Africa was as a half-way station to india (or Indonesia.). Mind you, since I think you need a POD at least as early as the 7-year war, if not earlier, I think it is possible the French revolutionand Napoleon might be butterflied entirely.

My advise would be a 17th century POD, in which the English lose all their Indian (and Indonesian and Malay) colonies to the Netherlands and/or France and thus decide to focus on the America's. When the Dutch and French focus mainly on Asia they ignore Australia, which the British decide to colonise when they lose some kind of alternate American revolution.

In the end the British only have the goldcoast in Africa, which they abandon, sell, lose, whatever after the end of the transatlantic slave trade.
 
If the British don't control India during the early 19th century and just focus on Canada, Australia and new Zealand, I doubt South Africa would end up British. The value of South Africa was as a half-way station to india (or Indonesia.). Mind you, since I think you need a POD at least as early as the 7-year war, if not earlier, I think it is possible the French revolutionand Napoleon might be butterflied entirely.

My advise would be a 17th century POD, in which the English lose all their Indian (and Indonesian and Malay) colonies to the Netherlands and/or France and thus decide to focus on the America's. When the Dutch and French focus mainly on Asia they ignore Australia, which the British decide to colonise when they lose some kind of alternate American revolution.

In the end the British only have the goldcoast in Africa, which they abandon, sell, lose, whatever after the end of the transatlantic slave trade.

Not ruling India doesn't preclude trading with it - and it was the trade that was the by a long way the most profitable part of the relationship with India. Britain would still value South Africa as a staging point (and as a choke point on other people's trade).

I suspect if there is no Raj (and you probably need a POD before the battle of Plassey to ensure that) then India remains mostly independent (albeit as several states rather than just one) - I don't see the French or the Dutch having the resources to take down the Mahratta Confederacy forex, and Ranjit Singh's Sikh Empire is going to be well beyond reach of any European power.
 
my understanding of the details regarding Britain-India is sketchy, but the basics, as I understand them, is that Britain only had a small-medium footprint in India prior to gaining the bulk of it in the 7 years war. It was this take over (and the ability to suppress native industry) that allowed the extremely profitable relationship that put Britain in such a fantastic economic position in the latter 18th century into the 19th century. Sans this, Britain is likely to be in good shape financially, but not as good as OTL. This will have consequences. If France is able to hold onto their share and manage to garner some of that profit, they're going to be in better shape and may butterfly the French revolution. If the FR still goes forward, Britain won't have the resources to finance all the various alliances. Who knows, with a weaker Britain, the continental system may actually work. Britain won't have the resources to finance such a fabulous navy, and may not be total master of the seas.
 
Without India, South Africa is probably still worth having - but the problem is that India, by and large, didn't need to import anything. It even had the Romans loosing bullion by the bucketload. So what do you sell India? My first instinct? Weapons.

In all likelyhood, I expect someone else will conquer India, but in theory India could be a rich location to sell weapons to, and provide with technical expertise. I also think that Britain would want something - Ceylon - from their Britain can extend its European foreign policy to the Indian subcontinent - divide and trade. Side against the larger powers, and be willing to trade with different people regularly. Ceylon would also be a good location for a settler colony, if only because it is small and the native population can be sold into slavery piece by piece to the Indian subcontinent.

--- But I digress, that isn't the request of the OP.

I think that they'd still want control over Ceylon, if only to protect their trade routes from the now-united India, to the point of turning it into a settler colony. Which leaves the Empire well placed for reform. How exactly it federally works, I dare not say - but I can see local Parliaments elected democratically - first by landowners, and then universally - like Westminster.

As to its long-term geopolitics, it is a bit weird. They're quite widely distributed, and besides Australia/South Africa, they aren't massively rich in resources. What they are though, is everywhere, and able to react to concerns across the globe as if they are local, or nearby - this is their big strength.

Their ever-presence, and need for a strong navy leaves Britain in a position where it wants to be the master of all trade. See Opium-war style conflicts to ensure Britain has access, if not exclusive access to trade. Add in decent merchant ports, and the fact that inside the Empire/Federation there need not be tariffs - and suddenly it is much cheaper for British merchants to travel the world to trade. Negotiate treaties well, and it becomes much easier for British sailors to trade, or foreigners to come to the nearest British port, buy and sell goods there, and leave the rest of the British.

It isn't perfect, lord, you still have race issues in South Africa for instance - but the Federation can play trader and financier to the world. It'd just need to be willing to fight to ensure its dominance.
 
The very latest POD is the Seven Years War. If Siraj-ud-Daulah were able to remove the British from Bengal, which is doable - he took Calcutta for a while - the British would lose in South India as well, and that means a French-dominated South India, Hyderabad as a theoretical British ally, and Bengal as fiercely independent.

More likelihood of an Imperial Federation without the underlying concern about this being dominated by India

I doubt it. There is still the concern of many, many dominions with greatly divergent interests. That doesn't exactly make any Imperial Federation very tenable.

A widely different situation in both Fiji and South Africa (and East Africa for that matter) if Chinese or South East Asian labour is imported rather than Indian

I also doubt that. If memory recalls, according to British racial theory, Malays were a lazy race.
 
I doubt it. There is still the concern of many, many dominions with greatly divergent interests. That doesn't exactly make any Imperial Federation very tenable.
Oh it is by no means a certainty but it goes down from "practical impossibility" to "very difficult to achieve". We are now talking Britain plus five or six odd Dominions all Anglophone (more or less) wanting British immigration, British military protection and British capital and a British market for their products. And no elephant in the room in terms of race, religion and larger population than all the rest put together.
I also doubt that. If memory recalls, according to British racial theory, Malays were a lazy race.
I was actually thinking Siamese, Burmese or Vietnamese all of whom have some areas of relatively dense populations which might be receptive to labour contracts to alleviate population pressures. Or even Korean or Vietnamese from North East Asia.
 
In all likelyhood, I expect someone else will conquer India,
if the UK doesn't have it, might they adopt a policy of 'if we can't have it, we don't want anyone else in Europe having it either', and make it a major foreign policy point to prevent the other Europeans from conquering it? IIRC, everyone thought India was a major economic boon to hold, so the Brits might worry about possible future enemies controlling it...
 
Much depends on what, exactly, happens. How does Britain lose India? A more successful Sepoy Rebellion that drives Britain out of north India could simply lead to a desire for a rematch, say. Or, we could see Britain aiming for a purer thalassocracy, one without substantial non-white holdings. Or we could see Britain evolve like a conventional European great power. Or ...
 
Not sure how you manage to stop British domination of India with a post 1780's PoD (which seems implicit if TTL still has British Australia but not the 13 colonies), but this would certainly be possible with a mid 18th Century PoD (in the non-European theaters of the 1740-63 wars); however, that would likely have implications for the rest of the British empire, contradicting the OP.

I disagree on the POD. Conquering India was not a given before the early 19th century.

But I agree with you on the fact that not conquering and exploiting India will massively change the course of anglo-saxon history.

India was the jewel of the crown and the fuel to Britain's industrial precocious massive growth. It was far more precious to Britain than its settler colonies. And it financed settling, investing and developing these settler colonies.

India's control is what made Britain the most powerful country of the world from the end of the napoleonic wars to WW1.

If it had had to choose, Britain would have sacrificed any of its settler colonies (leaving the french control most of North America or anyone settle Australia) to make sure it could gain a dominant position in India.
 
Top