DBWI: No British Revolution of 1843

Thomas1195

Banned
OOC: TTL Britain just became a dystopia. Math and science in university? I can't take the pain, let me be free of it!
OCC: not that extreme. British education ITTL is equivalent to education in Germany and to a lesser extent Japan IOTL (Of course students who study Classics do not have to study calculus). STEM courses and infrastructures are much more heavily invested and more popular than OTL United Kingdom. You know, IOTL, during the 19th century and early 20th century, a whooping majority of UK students studied Classics and Literature, and only few studied Science and Tech of all kinds. As a result, the United Kingdom lagged far behind Germany during the Second Industrial Revolution, which was scientific-based and mainly kickstarted by professional specialists with strong academic background like Werner von Siemens rather than being initiated by workmen like James Watts.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
For those who believe that gradual change is better, I must remind you that the British Revolution, together with 1848 Revolutions, had effectively blocked another more extreme wave of radicalism in the form of Socialism and Communism. Without these revolutions, Europe might seem to be more stable, but after 1890 they would have to face with the rise of Socialism and worse, Communism. Socialist parties would destroy Liberal ones and control the left, which would polarize politics.


OCC: radicalism is just social liberalism (Joe Chamberlain, Henry Campbell Bannerman, Lloyd George, Keynes, Beveridge). Lloyd George would definitely be a Radical ITTL.
 
But really how does one truly remove inequality? And has there not been war or failed harvests? Economic downturns, growing migration? Have you accounted for that?
 
There's nothing wrong with teaching literature, provided you also teach more practical subjects. The classics are still taught here in the British republic, it's just that they can only be taken as part of a curriculum that must also contain a large science or technical component at all levels of education below a masters degree.
So essentially like otl Britain then?
 
No. Besides, IOTL, by 1900, university education in the UK was still largely dominated by classics and literature. ITTL, this changed from around 1870s.

Are you forgetting the current drive toward the science based education prominent in many schools in Britain today?
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Are you forgetting the current drive toward the science based education prominent in many schools in Britain today?
OCC: Agree, you are right. But it's just late. This should have happened during the late 19th century. You know, the lag in education, technology and industry messed up hard the UK's war effort during ww1 (e.g. the inability to make decent shells, khaki dye, machine tools or optics, steel output could not meet its own demand,...). In the Republican TL, these problems were virtually non-existent.
 
OCC: Agree, you are right. But it's just late. This should have happened during the late 19th century. You know, the lag in education, technology and industry messed up hard the UK's war effort during ww1 (e.g. the inability to make decent shells, khaki dye, machine tools or optics, steel output could not meet its own demand,...). In the Republican TL, these problems were virtually non-existent.

But what makes you think that would be the case? Removing the monarchy brings republic, doesn't mean that social and political stagnation wouldn't occur, unless the elites or such a concept died
 

Thomas1195

Banned
But what makes you think that would be the case? Removing the monarchy brings republic, doesn't mean that social and political stagnation wouldn't occur, unless the elites or such a concept died
OCC: When you remove the monarchy and bring about the republic, you would have universal male suffrage at least for urban population, the Whigs/Liberals would become the main centre-right faction (IOTL they were the main parliamentary centre-left), while the Radicals would become the main parliamentary left relying on urban working class support instead of just a left-wing fringe. A powerful Radical presence in the Parliament would accelerate social progress by decades. You know, during the 19th century, Radicals were the chief supporters of national education and social reforms. ITTL, Britain would be able to have a proper education system from the 19th century (IOTL: 1902)
 
OCC: When you remove the monarchy and bring about the republic, you would have universal male suffrage at least for urban population, the Whigs/Liberals would become the main centre-right faction (IOTL they were the main parliamentary centre-left), while the Radicals would become the main parliamentary left relying on urban working class support instead of just a left-wing fringe. A powerful Radical presence in the Parliament would accelerate social progress by decades. You know, during the 19th century, Radicals were the chief supporters of national education and social reforms. ITTL, Britain would be able to have a proper education system from the 19th century (IOTL: 1902)

Interesting, and what happens to the elites? Remove one form of elite, and history has shown another merely takes its place.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
True that republican government moderated itself but shouldn't forgot how terrible its first years were. It is estimated that even 50000 innocent people lost their lives during Reign of Terror.
Yeah, it is undeniable that the British Republican Guards' methods that effectively silenced the Old Right were really ruthless and brutal. It was still terrible to see the war hero Duke of Wellington being hanged.
 
He ordered the Guards and Royal Horse Artillery to fire on the peaceful Chartist meeting in Hyde Park, of course he went to the gallows. It was that event that started the revolution. As for 50000 being killed, not only is that exaggerated by the neo monarchist fringe but includes those killed on both sides in the three attempted counter revolutions.
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
As for 50000 being killed, not only is that exaggerated by the neo monarchist fringe but includes those killed on both sides in the three attempted counter revolutions.
Oh. Anyway, most of them were pro-monarchy aristocrats. But the main issue was that these Republican Guards also wiped out all the "New" Right movements during the 1880s-1890s which were not inherently royalists, such as Protestant Democracy or Tory Democracy, via ruthless methods (later used by the French, Italian and German to force the implementation of secularization, and then John Edgar Hoover in the US to crush Socialist movements). Fortunately, under public pressures, they had been dissolved in 1910 by the Liberal Government.
 
I think that in addition to Queen Victoria dying and being replaced by that idiot tyrant, the revolution was caused by the brilliant Jacob Smith. He was the one to turn working and middle class resentment of the old order into a force used to produce a disciplined republican army. I'd also argue that he managed to ensure the revolution didn't end like France's did by providing expert but measured leadership in both military and domestic affairs. Yeah, some people might say he was a ruthless tyrant, but he did officially step down from power when his term was up.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
He was the one to turn working and middle class resentment of the old order into a force used to produce a disciplined republican army.
This man was crucial, yes. As well as Richard Cobden and the young John Bright, as these two were the ones who pushed for the Education Act 1850 which introduced free and compulsory primary education. They also helped shape British foreign and colonial policies during the rest of the 19th century: shifting from grabbing lands after lands to just strategic points, which helped save lots of money and keep investment capital in Britain.
 
Top