America or India

I don't really see this as an either/or situation, because not only is it the EIC that is responsible for expansion into India, but as long as America remains loyal the colonies themselves will provide more than enough manpower to expand Westward, and I don't think the British will have to really "concentrate" too much there either.

If Britain goes after India and holds on to America, I don't think her colonies on the subcontinent will be any smaller, but British North America will probably not expand to the same size as OTL's USA(excluding Canada, of course). Although the Brits may conquer Louisiana at some point, the French will never sell it to them. British-American expansion Westward will probably be slower due to the fact that Americans may want to try their luck in other parts of the Empire, and a non-independent America will also have serious butterflies on immigration(I imagine there will be less of it). I'm not saying the border will stay at the Mississippi, but we shouldn't expect an Anglo-American Texas, Southwest, or California, though Oregon is still pretty likely.

India though? India will be fine. And by fine I mean British
 
If Britain goes after India and holds on to America, I don't think her colonies on the subcontinent will be any smaller, but British North America will probably not expand to the same size as OTL's USA(excluding Canada, of course). Although the Brits may conquer Louisiana at some point, the French will never sell it to them. British-American expansion Westward will probably be slower due to the fact that Americans may want to try their luck in other parts of the Empire, and a non-independent America will also have serious butterflies on immigration(I imagine there will be less of it). I'm not saying the border will stay at the Mississippi, but we shouldn't expect an Anglo-American Texas, Southwest, or California, though Oregon is still pretty likely.

I disagree. I imagine the Anglo American population would be smaller due to immigration reasons, but as Louisiana and Northern New Spain are basically depopulated, its very likely they would still be taken. In fact I imagine an openly imperialist Britain would have much less reservations over filibusters. And I'm sure they would like the San Francisco Bay as a port for Asian trade.
 
Another issue is whether American evangelicals start going to India. That could piss off the Indian population and lead to more revolts.
 
I think in Thande's TL Look to the West there's kind of this idea: the British stay in America, but it's France who gets India. I am afraid I haven't have enough time to read it through, but I seem to remember that this issue of "America or India" was mentioned at some point in that thread.

That's because the POD was in the 1720s or 30s wasn't it?

A POD in the the 1760s which leads to successful political integration of the 13 colonies into the United Kingdom means that the Brits are already well on their way to overrunning North America and India.
 
If Britain goes after India and holds on to America, I don't think her colonies on the
subcontinent will be any smaller, but British North America will probably not expand to the
same size as OTL's USA(excluding Canada, of course). Although the Brits may conquer
Louisiana at some point, the French will never sell it to them. British-American expansion
Westward will probably be slower due to the fact that Americans may want to try their luck in
other parts of the Empire, and a non-independent America will also have serious butterflies on
immigration(I imagine there will be less of it). I'm not saying the border will stay at the
Mississippi, but we shouldn't expect an Anglo-American Texas, Southwest, or California,
though Oregon is still pretty likely.
[/COLOR]

It would literally take just a thousand militia men from S.C. and Georgia to take New
Orleans, and with that one blow the whole of Louisiana falls. Since there isn't a defined
western border of Louisiana like there is in the east with the Mississippi and because northern
New Spain is empty of European settlement American settlers will simply move in sowing the
seeds of another war.

Why will there be less immigration? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The main
sources of immigration until the 1880s were Great Britain, Ireland, Germany and Scandinavia.
That the British government would make any effort to regulate immigration from those
countries is ASB (or from anywhere at this point in time really).

And it's not like the Brits didn't have their eyes on California, even with US independence.

 
Last edited:
Top