Countries that could Challenge Britain's superpower status

Who could do it? (challenge Britain's Superpower status)

  • France

    Votes: 83 57.2%
  • Russia

    Votes: 67 46.2%
  • Germany

    Votes: 84 57.9%
  • Italy

    Votes: 1 0.7%
  • Spain

    Votes: 12 8.3%
  • Ottomans

    Votes: 12 8.3%
  • Austria

    Votes: 5 3.4%
  • Qing

    Votes: 21 14.5%
  • USA

    Votes: 88 60.7%
  • Other

    Votes: 6 4.1%
  • None

    Votes: 1 0.7%

  • Total voters
    145
I refer you to my last post. Yes, the US could have done it, but I don't believe that was possible by 1899, willing minds or not.

The U.S. became the largest economy by GDP ppp by the early 1870s and had surpassed the British in essentially all respects by the early 1890s.
 
USA, France and Russia. Germany was never much of a naval power so I don't think they could ever seriously challenge Britain on the seas.
 
The U.S. became the largest economy by GDP ppp by the early 1870s and had surpassed the British in essentially all respects by the early 1890s.

To be fair, I think it's debatable how strong the US economy might have been if there had been more investment in the military. It would be expensive to build the military up to an acceptable level, granted, but the experience was there. The main development would likely be the US Navy, and we couldn't just build battleships as IOTL. Perhaps "acceptable" would be enough to make a hypothetical war with Britain enough to mean that Canada would be guaranteed lost and the Caribbean easily able to be contested by the US.

USA, France and Russia. Germany was never much of a naval power so I don't think they could ever seriously challenge Britain on the seas.

WWI shows how strong Germany was. They almost won as it was, and it isn't hard to think of a pre-1900 POD which might allow Germany to dominate even more.
 
To be fair, I think it's debatable how strong the US economy might have been if there had been more investment in the military. It would be expensive to build the military up to an acceptable level, granted, but the experience was there. The main development would likely be the US Navy, and we couldn't just build battleships as IOTL. Perhaps "acceptable" would be enough to make a hypothetical war with Britain enough to mean that Canada would be guaranteed lost and the Caribbean easily able to be contested by the US.



WWI shows how strong Germany was. They almost won as it was, and it isn't hard to think of a pre-1900 POD which might allow Germany to dominate even more.
Yes, but I meant surpass British navy in strength which they never came close to, unlike France and USA. Russia on the other hans has access to all the important regions through lans borders and thus doesn't really need a strong navy.
 
Yes, but I meant surpass British navy in strength which they never came close to, unlike France and USA. Russia on the other hans has access to all the important regions through lans borders and thus doesn't really need a strong navy.

Afghanistan and Iran aren't really easy places to invade, especially since an invasion of either will prompt an immediate response.

Now surpassing the Royal Navy is a big question. It might be possible for the US to have outbuilt the Royal Navy by 1900, but a more logical strategy would be akin to Germany's. The US needs to defeat the Royal Navy around the Caribbean, Bermuda and Canada (including Newfoundland), and also in the Pacific. They can count on a large part of the Royal Navy staying home to defend in Europe. The US has a lot less to defend than the British.

But for a hypothetical conflict, we need to consider how much of a "total war" this fight will be, and how the US and Britain deal with Latin America (who gets an alliance with which country), since Latin America will be very important in a hypothetical conflict in the 19th century.
 
If the political situation was different, the US could have used the leadership of officers in the Civil War to build the Army and Navy to standards equivalent to Europe's. It's definitely possible that the well of talent from that could have been used. IIRC there were officers who were inspired by the Prussian/German system of leadership.

Post Civil war, with the country devastated. The South is on its knees, and the west still wild. You think the Americans would think of world domination?
 
The U.S. became the largest economy by GDP ppp by the early 1870s and had surpassed the British in essentially all respects by the early 1890s.

Yes, but it takes time to build up the ships and base infrastructure. The Germans were also out producing Britain, but they also started with an old navy and no bases. They were looking to supplant Britain, but realised that they had to acquire worldwide bases and trade to do that along with a large navy. It's not easy to do overnight. The Americans could have started earlier, but I don't believe they would have achieved that goal by 1899. The British still had a massive economy and could and did devote alot of it to naval expenditure when they needed to.
 
Post Civil war, with the country devastated. The South is on its knees, and the west still wild. You think the Americans would think of world domination?

It didn't stop some Union officers from envisioning such a scenario. The West was rapidly being brought under control. By the early 1870s, the South had figured out to thrive in the Union with their New South ideology which brought industrialisation and development like never seen. It isn't the most plausible of solutions to launch the British Empire and the United States down a path of confrontation, but if the United States had chosen to embark on that path, then they would have been able to pose a serious threat to the British Empire by 1899. The Civil War provides a good base of experienced soldiers to get things started.

The US already had plenty of influence in Latin America and the Pacific. Just look at Hawaii, especially the territories the King of Hawaii claimed including remote atolls in the Pacific and part of the Solomons. US imperialism could easily have been far stronger there.
 
It didn't stop some Union officers from envisioning such a scenario. The West was rapidly being brought under control. By the early 1870s, the South had figured out to thrive in the Union with their New South ideology which brought industrialisation and development like never seen. It isn't the most plausible of solutions to launch the British Empire and the United States down a path of confrontation, but if the United States had chosen to embark on that path, then they would have been able to pose a serious threat to the British Empire by 1899. The Civil War provides a good base of experienced soldiers to get things started.

The US already had plenty of influence in Latin America and the Pacific. Just look at Hawaii, especially the territories the King of Hawaii claimed including remote atolls in the Pacific and part of the Solomons. US imperialism could easily have been far stronger there.

A serious threat yes, but not taking over. Yes, US could have begun her imperialism much sooner, but still wouldn't, IMO, have supplanted Britain until early in the 20th century.
 
A serious threat yes, but not taking over. Yes, US could have begun her imperialism much sooner, but still wouldn't, IMO, have supplanted Britain until early in the 20th century.

Alone the US can smash the British Empire in the Western Hemisphere. Canada would either be annexed or turned into a puppet republic (maybe a mixture of both with Western Canada going to the US and the remainder as a republic or partiationed into several states) and Britain's Caribbean islands likewise annexed, though Guyana might go to Venezuela. If the US had France, Germany, or Russia as an ally (all are possible and reasonable choices) then Britain couldn't do a thing about it.

The US (the more militaristic US I'm proposing) alone versus Britain in the 1890s would be evenly matched. US plus an ally (France or Germany or maybe Russia) would definitely win in the 1890s. The US alone in the 1880s could handedly win in Canada, but would have trouble in the Caribbean--with an ally it would probably result in a US victory. The Pacific would likewise be a territory for expansion, and the US just needs to beat the local British forces. Japan would likely aid the British with their alliance, but 19th century Meiji Japan could be dealt with a hypothetical militaristic US.

The problem with discussing alliances is the British aren't stupid and would likewise have their own alliances. Ideally, Germany+Russia+America vs France+Britain+whoever (Austria-Hungary, Ottomans, Italy) is the best, but even "Central Powers US" (US+Germany+Austria-Hungary+Ottomans+etc.) is more than enough to get a solid victory. But by the 1890s, it's hard to put a reasonable permutation of alliances together in which this version of the United States won't reasonably be able to overcome in some form.
 
Alone the US can smash the British Empire in the Western Hemisphere. Canada would either be annexed or turned into a puppet republic (maybe a mixture of both with Western Canada going to the US and the remainder as a republic or partiationed into several states) and Britain's Caribbean islands likewise annexed, though Guyana might go to Venezuela. If the US had France, Germany, or Russia as an ally (all are possible and reasonable choices) then Britain couldn't do a thing about it.

The US (the more militaristic US I'm proposing) alone versus Britain in the 1890s would be evenly matched. US plus an ally (France or Germany or maybe Russia) would definitely win in the 1890s. The US alone in the 1880s could handedly win in Canada, but would have trouble in the Caribbean--with an ally it would probably result in a US victory. The Pacific would likewise be a territory for expansion, and the US just needs to beat the local British forces. Japan would likely aid the British with their alliance, but 19th century Meiji Japan could be dealt with a hypothetical militaristic US.

The problem with discussing alliances is the British aren't stupid and would likewise have their own alliances. Ideally, Germany+Russia+America vs France+Britain+whoever (Austria-Hungary, Ottomans, Italy) is the best, but even "Central Powers US" (US+Germany+Austria-Hungary+Ottomans+etc.) is more than enough to get a solid victory. But by the 1890s, it's hard to put a reasonable permutation of alliances together in which this version of the United States won't reasonably be able to overcome in some form.

Yes, Canada is doomed certainly, and as I have said previously, combinations of powers would definitely have worked. It is hard looking back now, with the US so massively superior, not to believe they couldn't easily have just taken over in the 1890's. But GB was a big superpower, not easily willing at that time to roll over. I don't think it would have been as easy as people think, but heck, I could be wrong!:)
 
Mexico with a POD between 1808 and 1830 and that has been very stable ever since. Could it reach or could it resemble Spain, Chile, Argentina, Italia and Australia?
 
Independent action against whom?
Any force it would realistically have to worry about, with the exception of the USA (but that's because British doctrine in NA since 1812 was that the Royal Army garrison was only meant to augment the Canadian Militia, and the Canadian militia was pretty poor at times). The RA had enough men in England to beat whatever the French could rush across the channel, the forces on the Indian North West Frontier were surely many times greater than what Russia could realistically send against it, and it had plenty of forces to seize the colonies and outlying territories of the blockaded opposition. The RA was as strong as it needed to be. If Britain still had some continental possession like Hannover which it needed to defend then it's army would certainly be more akin to those of its continental peers, but it didn't so it didn't.

It seemingly could not even against the weak enemy: simply could not bring the necessary numbers to the theater. France raised 309K, Britain 200K and the Ottomans 165K. Could Britain raise additional 470K?
Given that the Crimean War was the result of Russia invading the Ottomans, it's kinda hard to subtract the Ottoman forces. Raising another 300k though is certainly possible (though perhaps not popular), the population gap between metropolitan France and the British Isles disappeared over the course of the 1800s, so there's no demographic constraint, and the UK is considerably richer than France so there isn't much of a monetary constraint either. Britain lacked a need for a bigger army, and that's really the only thing it lacked.

I don't remember asking any questions,
which of the XIX century wars Britain could fight alone except when it was facing the backward "natives"?
:confused:
 
Given that the Crimean War was the result of Russia invading the Ottomans, it's kinda hard to subtract the Ottoman forces. Raising another 300k though is certainly possible (though perhaps not popular), the population gap between metropolitan France and the British Isles disappeared over the course of the 1800s, so there's no demographic constraint, and the UK is considerably richer than France so there isn't much of a monetary constraint either. Britain lacked a need for a bigger army, and that's really the only thing it lacked.

The population gap still existed in the 1850s. It was later in the century that the British caught up to France.
 
Still existed sure, but it was already considerably reduced by then was it not?

It had narrowed from 1800, but still, in 1850 France (excluding Algeria) had about 36 million people ; Britain/Ireland had 27 million.

Britain moreover had a larger navy than France. So it really did not have a way to field an equally large army, unless it brought in troops from its colonies.
 
Last edited:
It had narrowed from 1800, but still, in 1850 France (excluding Algeria) had about 36 million people ; Britain/Ireland had 27 million.
Ok, so there might be a little bit of a demographic constraint, though I still think an additional 300,000 would be doable if Britain really wanted to.
 
My options:

- France. Don't think I need to explain myself. Any nation close to challenge the British was France up until 1871. For me they're number one in the 19th century.

- Russia. Russia is for me the only country out of my options to challenge the British in the entire 19th century. Without Siberia they're still large and have a large population, military and taxbase. I kinda think Russia did not get out the potential it should have. Had the Russians lessened their wars with the Ottomans I'd say it wouls be easy.

- Germany. Post-1871 the biggest and most possible to challenge British hegemony. They don't have or will have British alike colonial Empire but their industrial power is stronger and they're an alternative to both France and UK.

- Ottomans. Only during a certain era (1800-1827). If the Ottomans use the Napoleonic wars as an opportunity to enforce reforms and get rid of the Janissaries then they may keep the Balkans South of the Danube and Sava river keeping the population and taxbase. The reforms not being halted also prevents being at mercy of the great 3 (UK, France, Russia). I'd give the Ottomans until 1827 when the Ottomans lost Greece and the whole capitulations started being more and more of a burden. After 1827, the Ottomans only have the Caliphate card to use. Being surrounded by the Sea does help.

- USA. Anything after the 1850s. The US industry surpassed Britain and a more ambitious president might even make the USA a bigger military and navak power by the 1880s. Hard but possible.


Not chosen:
- Italy. I did not choose Italy due to it forming rather late. Although earlier than Germany, Germans played their cards well and were already an industrial power in position to challenge the British. I'd give Italy the chance to be a concurrence in the Mediterranean but not on global level.

- Spain. I was thinking about choosing it. But I didn't. I might change it back if possible. If Spain keeps their American colonies, either as colonies or as dominions I'd give them a chance.

- Austria. Mostly a landbased nation. As a landbased power there is a chance to be a concurrence on Industrial level. But overal I'm not sure yet.

- Qing. I forgot why I did not choose them.
 
Top