British Revolution in the 1880s or 90s; how does the Empire react?

How would Britain's colonies react if the British government was overthrown?

  • Accept the revolution as a fait accompli and the revolutionaries as the legitimate rulers of Britain

    Votes: 6 15.0%
  • Declare the revolution illegitimate and invite Victoria over to continue ruling them

    Votes: 17 42.5%
  • Declare independence

    Votes: 15 37.5%
  • Sit out the contest entirely

    Votes: 8 20.0%
  • Have similar revolutions of their own

    Votes: 9 22.5%
  • Other (please specify)

    Votes: 7 17.5%

  • Total voters
    40

Saphroneth

Banned
There have been revolutions in the past where a government with a strong army nevertheless fell because the army didn't want to start shooting people. If enough of the army is sympathetic to the revolutionaries' aims, it could end up being effectively paralysed.
But my point was more about the strength of volunteerism, showing a strong sympathy with the army and a desire to help it. That is, there was strong popular support for the army - an army, I might note, which has no conscription. People are in the army because they want to be, even if it's only for pay.

By contrast, AFAICT the main revolutions of OTL which succeeded in the way you describe were against conscript armies.
 
Honestly, this thread could literally be about any revolutionaries, whether fascists, communists, liberals, anarchists, it doesn't matter, that actual polls title has nothing to do with Marxist takeover.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, this thread could literally be about any revolutionaries, whether fascists, communists, liberals, anarchists, it doesn't matter, that actual polls title has nothing to do with Marxist takeover.

Well, the OP mentions a stronger and more radical left, although you do raise an interesting question: how, if at all, would things be different if instead of a socialist revolution there was some sort of hard-right military coup? (At least this would solve the issue of how the revolutionaries are supposed to beat the army.)
 
Well, the OP mentions a stronger and more radical left, although you do raise an interesting question: how, if at all, would things be different if instead of a socialist revolution there was some sort of hard-right military coup? (At least this would solve the issue of how the revolutionaries are supposed to beat the army.)
Much much worse, army and navy more likely to support it, that'd be a disaster, it's like with the freikorps and Weimar Germany.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Well, the OP mentions a stronger and more radical left, although you do raise an interesting question: how, if at all, would things be different if instead of a socialist revolution there was some sort of hard-right military coup? (At least this would solve the issue of how the revolutionaries are supposed to beat the army.)
Personally I think the big question is who's likely to lead it. I can hardly imagine the Duke of Cambridge launching a coup.
 
Personally I think the big question is who's likely to lead it. I can hardly imagine the Duke of Cambridge launching a coup.
With a reasonable run-up, Wolseley might be a good bet:

'He periodically despaired of the consequences of the democratic process - "pandering to the whims of a mob in order to gain and retain power". He even yearned for a time when:
"the license of democracy and socialism will be conquered by the sword, and succeeded by cruel military despotism. Then it will be that the man of talk will give way to the man of action, and the Gladstones, Harcourts, Morleys, and all that most contemptible of God's creatures will black the boots of some successful Cavalry colonel. A new Cromwell will clear the country of these frothing talkers, and the soldiers will rule. Would that my lot could have been cast in such an era."'
 

Saphroneth

Banned
With a reasonable run-up, Wolseley might be a good bet:

'He periodically despaired of the consequences of the democratic process - "pandering to the whims of a mob in order to gain and retain power". He even yearned for a time when:
"the license of democracy and socialism will be conquered by the sword, and succeeded by cruel military despotism. Then it will be that the man of talk will give way to the man of action, and the Gladstones, Harcourts, Morleys, and all that most contemptible of God's creatures will black the boots of some successful Cavalry colonel. A new Cromwell will clear the country of these frothing talkers, and the soldiers will rule. Would that my lot could have been cast in such an era."'
Sounds workable. He might be distressingly good at it, too.
 
I think its worth pointing out that, so far, the debate has assumed that this revolution would have happened in some sort of a vacuum - that the colonies only hear about it when it is in full swing. But any revolution or coup like this would have been preceded by months if not years of dramatic instability and uncertainty.

The 1880s and 1890s are part of the modern information age. You have transatlantic cables and telegraph points connecting the Empire and the Metropole. Moreover, recent research points out that even for far-flung Australia and New Zealand, large numbers of colonial subjects returned to Britain on a regular basis. By the 1880s there was already a magazine, The Australian, for visitors from Australia IIRC.

My point is that whatever happens in the colonies will have occurred with months of anticipation and warning. Whilst the actual outbreak of violence might catch them by surprise, there will have been a general sense that such things might happen given the preceding build-up. In this situation I would expect both colonial authorities in various places but also pro- and antagonistic groups to the British Imperial project (Irish Nationalists, Boers, the Army of the Raj, Missionary groups etc etc) to have thought about what they might do in the circumstances. Or be already actively taking advantage of the weakening of British control as instability at home distracts Westminster in the run-up to Revolution/Coup/whatever.
 
Top