British Philippines from the Napoleonic Wars

Okay, in the 1760s, Britain captured Manila from the Spanish, promptly giving it back at the end of the war. In 1797, Britain debated taking the city again; it would've been feasible, since the garrison was only around a thousand men.

There are reasons to take it; it was an entrepot for trade, especially between China and the rest of the world.

On the other hand, running the place would've been a, umm, bitch. In 1762, the British got some Chinese on their side, who had maintained Chinese customs and been discriminated against by the Spanish. Chinese converts, however, stayed loyal to Spain, as did almost everyone else. And in the chaos in the aftermath of Manila's 1762 fall, slavers from the Muslim south captured thousands of Catholics as slaves. And the clerical orders have an enormous amount of land across Luzon, which I imagine the British will want to do something about.

On the other hand... Hrmm.

Turning outwards from this, Raffles might capture Deshima during the Napoleonic Wars; it's even closer, after all, and opening up Japan would only make British Luzon more profitable, instead of something of a sucking wound on the EIC treasury.

Thoughts?
 
It seems to me to be first a question of British willpower and materiel. I have no knowledge of the facts so I'll punt there.

If the British hold on the islands might be tenuous, due to the factors you cite, it seems to me that control over the Philippines might become a factor in any potential horsetrading between Spain and a potential ally. Particularly later on, after 1807.

Additionally, I wonder if there might be substantial effects in Spanish America, since the Phillipines was subordinate (IIRC) to the Viceroy of New Spain. If the Viceroy is the one responding to invasion, it might affect later events in the New World.

Lastly, while I won't dispute Manila's value as trading entrepot in general, how much of its value came as a result of the Manilla galleons traveling to Acapulco? I would imagine it was the largest share (though perhaps not a majority). This trade would instantly be cut off in the event of a British conquest. The value to Britain would be control of a port near to China (as it was to Spain, to have one in East Asia in general). Accordingly, the British might be more willing to consider an invasion as a consequence of, say, a different outcome of the Macartney mission in 1792-3. That would require some sort of POD in China itself (or the imperial court), since Qianlong's rejection of a commerical treaty was (IMO) the result of fairly long held policy and custom.
 
Actually, the British had only conquered the Manila area in 1762-64 while the rest of the Philippines (except Mindanao) is still under the Spanish rule.

Another, the Indios or the indigeneous Filipinos are not supporting the British but instead, they supported to the Spanish government.

If the British had colonized the Philippines sucessfully, Philippines would be more economically stable than in OTL (in par of Malaysia) because the British are emphasizing representative governance than the executive governance or caudilloism of the Spaniards.

This is my favourite Alternate History discussion.

The history would be significally different if the British grabs Argentina, Cuba, and the Philippines. I say that these three colonies of the Spanish Empire would be a vunerable of British invasion due to the weak Spanish control in Argentina and the Philippines.
 
Actually, the British had only conquered the Manila area in 1762-64 while the rest of the Philippines (except Mindanao) is still under the Spanish rule.

Another, the Indios or the indigeneous Filipinos are not supporting the British but instead, they supported to the Spanish government.

I don't see how this contradicts anything I said.

Anyway, since Malaysia didn't get representative government until the 1940s, I'm not sure there's really a change.
 
For the sake of the arguement lets run with it. Annexing the Philippines may result in Singapore being butterflied away(not entirely sure as the straights of Malaka are very important). British possession means the Americans won't be looking to pick them up so the US stays a minor player in Asian affairs throughout the first half of the 20th century at least. Most likely butterflying away Pearl Harbor.
 
For the sake of the arguement lets run with it. Annexing the Philippines may result in Singapore being butterflied away(not entirely sure as the straights of Malaka are very important). British possession means the Americans won't be looking to pick them up so the US stays a minor player in Asian affairs throughout the first half of the 20th century at least. Most likely butterflying away Pearl Harbor.

Singapore at best, IMO, becomes another Gibraltar. Why doyou need another entrepot if you have Manila?

Anyway, the butterflies are aflapping long before Pearl Harbor.
 
If we're butterflying away British possessions, then the first I'd pick is Hong Kong. Unlike Singapore, which gives control over the Straits of Malacca (IMO pretty important, at least to deny to anyone else) Hong Kong was (IIRC) mostly a port to enable access to China. With Manilla, the British would have something much more palatable...depending on relations with China and the desire of the British to have "troops on the ground" as a guarantee of trading rights.

Even then, since the acquisition of Hong Kong was an incredibly contingent (mistaken) outcome of the 1st Opium War, the butterflies of a 1797 East Asian POD probably affect it, regardless of the direct consequences on British / HEIC strategy in the region.

Still yet another question might well be to consider whether the British would retain the islands after 1815 or whether they would give them back as they did Dutch possessions. Given the religious problems, Britain would need fairly substantial reason to keep them. The most likely such reason would IMO be something having to do with China relations and/or trade -- which could make for a pretty interesting POD.
 
For the sake of the arguement lets run with it. Annexing the Philippines may result in Singapore being butterflied away(not entirely sure as the straights of Malaka are very important). British possession means the Americans won't be looking to pick them up so the US stays a minor player in Asian affairs throughout the first half of the 20th century at least. Most likely butterflying away Pearl Harbor.

As mentioned before the Straits are very important, even today, so I don't see Singapore being butterflied away. In fact its more important since it will be the necessary link to the Far East - very similar to Suez.

However, we do most probably move up the opening of Japan to the West.
 
Top