DBAHC: Create This British Empire

I mean Britain could have a lot going for it, but personally I never get why france always gets screwed in these ideas. Indochina and the Sahara desert an empire don't make

I mean France also had a habit of pissing off good chunks of Europe. Yeah Charlemagne, Louis XIV, even General Bonaparte were all wildly successful during their runs, but one was over a thousand years before the next and him a century before the next. That's plenty of time for France to fuck up and piss off the Hapsburgs and Spain- hell even the ottomans, enabling England to scoop up some prizes.

Spain however, was staunchly pro France, especially during the Catholic Line and the Bourbons who succeeded them. The real challenge is a French king bad enough at his job to screw that up before the Colonial Revolutions
Considering how France decisively beat the HRE, Russia, and Ottoman Empire combined on multiple occasions, I don't see how pissing any of them off would make any difference.
 
Regardless, the French and Scottish alliance rules Britain and Europe. I don't see how the English could beat both powers, conquer Scotland, then somehow conquer India? This could be theoretically possible if the English took the French throne in the Ten Years War, but then, why is France not part of this empire?
My guess is something happened before the alliance came into place. Britain possibly taking over Scotland, and not taking over France because that means they would get involved in European matters and thus not have the time or focus to colonize like they did in these hypothetical maps.
 
Considering how France decisively beat the HRE, Russia, and Ottoman Empire combined on multiple occasions
Well, the alliances with Poland-Lithuania, the Dutch Republic, rebellious princes in the Holy Roman Empire, and/or Sweden which France had during those wars were IMHO the main factor in ensuring that France won in said wars.
 
My guess is something happened before the alliance came into place. Britain possibly taking over Scotland, and not taking over France because that means they would get involved in European matters and thus not have the time or focus to colonize like they did in these hypothetical maps.
France had no issues colonizing half of the America's while dealing with European affairs. The English would also have uncontested control of the French channel ITTL.
 
Well, the alliances with Poland-Lithuania, the Dutch Republic, rebellious princes in the Holy Roman Empire, and/or Sweden which France had during those wars were IMHO the main factor in ensuring that France won in said wars.
I won't say main, as France easily had the largest and best trained military in Europe, but having Poland as a base of operations to launch invasions of Russia with Swedish aid was a major factor in bringing down the Tsardom.
 
I won't say main, as France easily had the largest and best trained military in Europe, but having Poland as a base of operations to launch invasions of Russia with Swedish aid was a major factor in bringing down the Tsardom.
And the shrewd exploitation of the largely Protestant princes of Northern Germany not liking the Hapsburgs in Vienna helped bring down the Holy Roman Empire.
 
Fixed. France had a way larger population, army, navy, economy. Not to mention after the Franco-Scottish Union, England essentially became a French vassal.
And even the French balked at trying to conquer all of fucking India. Got their asses handed to them the one time they tried and had to settle for another trade port.
 
I wonder how this would have affected the North Americans. We know that the American Union was pretty brutal in their communist revolution, would the British stop that?
 
So, what of the PODs which could have avoided the Franco-Scottish Union would you say would be the most interesting? I would say that the Queen of Scotland and France dying from childbirth instead of "merely" being rendered barren by the difficult childbirth or King Francis II not being able to reform succession laws to allow Queen Marcelle I to succeed to the throne via switching to agnatic-cognatic/male-preference succession owing to her being an "only child". That or a surviving Prince Henry of France.
 
So, what of the PODs which could have avoided the Franco-Scottish Union would you say would be the most interesting? I would say that the Queen of Scotland and France dying from childbirth instead of "merely" being rendered barren by the difficult childbirth or King Francis II not being able to reform succession laws to allow Queen Marcelle I to succeed to the throne via switching to agnatic-cognatic/male-preference succession owing to her being an "only child". That or a surviving Prince Henry of France.
Well Francis's original plan was to marry Marcelle to Prince Leo of Spain, but when he died days before his parents died at sea and the Twin Kings Pietro and Philippe II plunged Spain into the Civil War (in of itself why mighty Espana lost most of its colonies) and Francis didn't want to a potential ally so he started working on the Franco-Scottish Plan. which fun fact, originally the plan was for the kingdoms to seperate, with the first child getting France and the next getting Scotland. But as we all know, only King August I survived to adulthood without becoming a monk
 
@Whiteshore: Marcelle? You can not be a little more realistic? (daughters of Francis and Mary would be called with one of this names: Marie, Marguerite, Catherine or Elisabeth, maybe Antoniette, Anne, Jeanne, Madeleine, Claude, Charlotte, Henriette, Françoise, Victoire, Louise or Renee but not other names)
 
@Whiteshore: Marcelle? You can not be a little more realistic? (daughters of Francis and Mary would be called with one of this names: Marie, Marguerite, Catherine or Elisabeth, maybe Antoniette, Anne, Jeanne, Madeleine, Claude, Charlotte, Henriette, Françoise, Victoire, Louise or Renee but not other names)
OOC: he wants it to sound like Myrcella from ASOIAF
IC: This map isn't... that implausible. The Mughals unified India, and have kept it to this day, and in that time they've done a damn good job of keeping it uncolonized, beating even the French when they had the backing of all North America. So I guess if you could have the Mughals break apart, there's a chance that India could be conquered, and that the Brits could be the ones doing the conquering, assuming they beat France somehow. I can think of a few PODs for the Mughals falling- maybe Ackbar's syncretic faith fails to take off? Hell, that would have all kinds of ripple effects given that said faith now dominates basically the southern hemisphere...
 
The Mughals unified India, and have kept it to this day, and in that time they've done a damn good job of keeping it uncolonized, beating even the French when they had the backing of all North America.
Even if the Mughals saw their coastal areas be subjected to a degree of economic imperialism for a while in the mid/late-19th century until the War of French Humilitation and their alliance with a rising Germany.
 
So, what PODs could have produced a stronger England in the first place?
Otl was a bit of an england screw since they didn't get Wales or the northern parts of Northumberland fully secured until the 1200s, and then the Auld Alliance, so if they succeeded there earlier they could go into Ireland and so on from there
 
OOC: he wants it to sound like Myrcella from ASOIAF
IC: This map isn't... that implausible. The Mughals unified India, and have kept it to this day, and in that time they've done a damn good job of keeping it uncolonized, beating even the French when they had the backing of all North America. So I guess if you could have the Mughals break apart, there's a chance that India could be conquered, and that the Brits could be the ones doing the conquering, assuming they beat France somehow. I can think of a few PODs for the Mughals falling- maybe Ackbar's syncretic faith fails to take off? Hell, that would have all kinds of ripple effects given that said faith now dominates basically the southern hemisphere...
India is like China. It's too big and technologically capable to be conquered. Sure you can get port cities here and there like with French Hong Kong or Portuguese Goa. But to take the entirety of India ? Asia, overall, is not the same as sub-Saharan Africa or the Western Hemisphere.
 
India is like China. It's too big and technologically capable to be conquered. Sure you can get port cities here and there like with French Hong Kong or Portuguese Goa. But to take the entirety of India ? Asia, overall, is not the same as sub-Saharan Africa or the Western Hemisphere.
I think the whole of india could be subdued... by multiple powers. Scottish Bengal, French Orissa, England in the north east, etc.
Because unlike china, indian political unity was always far more tenuous and if an empire collapsed at the right time? Indian Omlette, with the eggs being native kingdoms.
 
Even if the Mughals saw their coastal areas be subjected to a degree of economic imperialism for a while in the mid/late-19th century until the War of French Humilitation and their alliance with a rising Germany.
Well, and even that was down to France dominating those areas before the Mughals conquered them. The Mughals were always stronger as a state than the Qing (probably why they ended up being replaced by the Guang); I'd credit that to Ackbar reconciling the conquerers with the conquered in a way that the Qing never managed for Han and Manchus. The Mughals were never an Indian polity, purely; all of Central Asia and Tibet is a core part of their Empire now, and that's possible as they're a fusion of people.
 
Top