Discussion of Britain

Alright I don't really have any questions to ask, I am just here for some discussion. What I am about to mention I am sure a lot of you have thought about before... but why not stimulate some nice conversation about it? Britain, especially from 1697 to 1815 was in a quite particular state (War of the Grand Alliance to the end of the Napoleonic Wars.) Britain during this time was not yet a superpower, but it had the strongest navy. Britain showcased how good a good navy really is. While the other traditional major powers during this period (France, Spain, and Austria) had populations several times bigger than Britain, it was honestly did not matter.

Now this is where my thought came in. Britain was an egg during the period 1697 to 1815. It had a shell to protect its inner weakness. Imagine this - the shell breaks. If Britain were to have lost its naval supremacy it would never have been able to put itself back together. Britain would be easy to take. And perhaps even more importantly Britain acted as buffer between the European powers and the rest of the world. Territorial acquisitions would be fast from the other countries. The British empire would collapse in a heart beat. It is just odd to think about how outwardly strong but internally weak Britain was. They played their cards very well, and even called a couple bluffs. History would have been quite different if they lost even one hand.
 
To elaborate further I'm looking into some POD's to weaken Britain to the point where it still has naval dominance, but is definitely weaker. The problem is you have a super strong superpower or a tier two power that cannot really defend itself :|
 
That's easy, actually, and your assertion about them owning the seas is not, technically, true. See here for a brief overview.

There was a while where the Dutch really had a shot at becoming lords of the ocean, before William of Orange (the third one) ended up being more interested in stimulating Britain's economy than his homeland. In all honesty, without that marriage, there's a strong change that we'd know of the Dutch as the masters of the age of sail, not the Brits. Stop that marriage, and you at least have the Dutch in an advantageous position over the English, if not downright commanding.
 
That's easy, actually, and your assertion about them owning the seas is not, technically, true. See here for a brief overview.

There was a while where the Dutch really had a shot at becoming lords of the ocean, before William of Orange (the third one) ended up being more interested in stimulating Britain's economy than his homeland. In all honesty, without that marriage, there's a strong change that we'd know of the Dutch as the masters of the age of sail, not the Brits. Stop that marriage, and you at least have the Dutch in an advantageous position over the English, if not downright commanding.

I would argue that strengthens my point. Realized I said 1697 to 1815 and certainly by 1697 it was clear that Britain was "top dog." Also realize how that from 1585 to 1697 Britain wasn't exactly doing well. Sure it had colonies but they weren't that productive compared to the Spanish. They we even being compressed from the North by France and from the south by Spain. During that time mainland Britain's politics weren't exactly "stable." (a civil war and a republic come to mind)

Britain is either overpowering or really to weak to be that scary.
 
I would argue that strengthens my point. Realized I said 1697 to 1815 and certainly by 1697 it was clear that Britain was "top dog." Also realize how that from 1585 to 1697 Britain wasn't exactly doing well. Sure it had colonies but they weren't that productive compared to the Spanish. They we even being compressed from the North by France and from the south by Spain. During that time mainland Britain's politics weren't exactly "stable." (a civil war and a republic come to mind)

Britain is either overpowering or really to weak to be that scary.

I wasn't trying to dispute your point as demonstrate that what you look to do is easy. Not putting William on the English throne does exactly what you're looking for, and there's a nearly endless number of ways you can pull that off.

Also, it's usually generally held the France was definitively the most powerful military of the time, even if they didn't much want to meet the English on the sea. In the end, it's a similar case to how the U.S. got away with a joke of an army for so long: It's really damn hard to mount an amphibious invasion. It's about the biggest logistical nightmare possible, even in modern times. The "shell" protecting Britain wasn't it's navy, it was it's lack of adjacency to the other European powers.
 
I wasn't trying to dispute your point as demonstrate that what you look to do is easy. Not putting William on the English throne does exactly what you're looking for, and there's a nearly endless number of ways you can pull that off.

Also, it's usually generally held the France was definitively the most powerful military of the time, even if they didn't much want to meet the English on the sea. In the end, it's a similar case to how the U.S. got away with a joke of an army for so long: It's really damn hard to mount an amphibious invasion. It's about the biggest logistical nightmare possible, even in modern times. The "shell" protecting Britain wasn't it's navy, it was it's lack of adjacency to the other European powers.

I would say if William never became a king of Britain and no other strong willed kings came I would not even be remotely surprised if Britain stayed in turmoil.

I must disagree with you disagreeing my shell concept. The fact it had no land borders is important, but only because of the fact it only had to strong navy. Even if another power could not launch an amphibious assault Britains "shell" (according to you, the channel) would damn it. Britain cannot handle an effective blockade. I once again must say Britain is either a superpower or not a power at all (at least before its population caught up with the rest of Europe in the latter part of the 19th century.)
 
I must disagree with you disagreeing my shell concept. The fact it had no land borders is important, but only because of the fact it only had to strong navy. Even if another power could not launch an amphibious assault Britains "shell" (according to you, the channel) would damn it. Britain cannot handle an effective blockade. I once again must say Britain is either a superpower or not a power at all (at least before its population caught up with the rest of Europe in the latter part of the 19th century.)

You don't have to have a strong navy, you have to have important trading partners with strong navies. Even then, what necessary thing does England import? It can domestically grow food, has steel and eventually coal, and certainly doesn't lack for foresty. I'm a bit stumped as to how a total naval blockade would actually gain more than it lost, especially since the Swede and Dutch would not take kindly to losing English trade.

The truth is that there's a variety of reasons for Britain's power: political, geographical, and militarily.

Also, the only time Britain would really ever be declared a "super-power" in my opinion is post-world war I before it's sequel. While the Empire days certainly were good days for it, it still didn't deserve super-power status at the time.

To summarize, I will agree that Britain is a fairly strong state, and more or less always has been, but I won't agree that it is nearly as all-or-nothing as you claim, as they still wielded great political clout even after having their Navy humiliated by the Dutch 50 years before the period you're examining. They had strong ties to all of the most powerful players on the world stage via marriage, meaning they were in little real danger from foreign powers.

If anything, I'd say their strong navy evolved as a way of protecting their extensive shipping interests, not as a method of home defense.
 
You don't have to have a strong navy, you have to have important trading partners with strong navies. Even then, what necessary thing does England import? It can domestically grow food, has steel and eventually coal, and certainly doesn't lack for foresty. I'm a bit stumped as to how a total naval blockade would actually gain more than it lost, especially since the Swede and Dutch would not take kindly to losing English trade.

The truth is that there's a variety of reasons for Britain's power: political, geographical, and militarily.

Also, the only time Britain would really ever be declared a "super-power" in my opinion is post-world war I before it's sequel. While the Empire days certainly were good days for it, it still didn't deserve super-power status at the time.

To summarize, I will agree that Britain is a fairly strong state, and more or less always has been, but I won't agree that it is nearly as all-or-nothing as you claim, as they still wielded great political clout even after having their Navy humiliated by the Dutch 50 years before the period you're examining. They had strong ties to all of the most powerful players on the world stage via marriage, meaning they were in little real danger from foreign powers.

If anything, I'd say their strong navy evolved as a way of protecting their extensive shipping interests, not as a method of home defense.

[FONT=&quot]
Let me try to address all of your points:

“If Britain did not have a strong navy it could still have important trade partners.” I agree completely. However Britain would have two problems. The first it would lack the only advantage it had in defending its colonies. During its several years of war with the French and Spanish in North America it was really nice that it could use its navy cut the world in half and prevent reinforcement. Without naval supremacy it would be completely conceivable that from 1697 to 1815 they could lose the vast majority of their possessions. Without an Empire Britain is nothing. Also the second reason why I disagree with you ties into another one of your points. Britain survives on imports. After 1800 Britain could not produce enough food for itself. Period. The island of Great Britain by itself could probably not support a population of over seventeen or eighteen million until probably the later stages of the industrial revolution in the early 20th century. In addition British business is and was completely dependent on imports. In order for Britain not to be a failure it needs imports. It’s one of the negatives of being a small island country.

I would also argue that Britain was a super power from 1815 to 1945(ish). After the end of the Napoleonic wars it was quite clear who was on top. While the congress of Vienna tried to make five countries of equal power Britain was easily on top. It was so powerful it could easily maintain a policy of having a navy more powerful than the next two combined. It controlled twenty percent of the world’s population and land area. That screams superpower to me.

I once again say Britain is either all or nothing.
[/FONT]
 
I'm just going to say that we have very different ideas of a superpower and leave it there.

In my estimation, a "superpower" is the sort of force that doesn't simply prove dominant, but could very conceivably defeat a coalition of it's adversaries single-handedly. I would argue that the only reason this has ever been true for Britain was after the French were bled dry by the Great War, while the British faced only manpower issues, not a total loss of industry a la France.

The fact that other countries in the 19th century didn't fight British superiority doesn't mean they couldn't have if they had wanted to. In many of those cases, too, it was more due to that countries internal weakness (former HRE states pre-German unification) than Britain's strength.

If they were such a dominant superpower, I must then ask why they needed a coalition to defeat nationalized France and did not simply do it themselves?
 
I'm just going to say that we have very different ideas of a superpower and leave it there.

In my estimation, a "superpower" is the sort of force that doesn't simply prove dominant, but could very conceivably defeat a coalition of it's adversaries single-handedly. I would argue that the only reason this has ever been true for Britain was after the French were bled dry by the Great War, while the British faced only manpower issues, not a total loss of industry a la France.

The fact that other countries in the 19th century didn't fight British superiority doesn't mean they couldn't have if they had wanted to. In many of those cases, too, it was more due to that countries internal weakness (former HRE states pre-German unification) than Britain's strength.

If they were such a dominant superpower, I must then ask why they needed a coalition to defeat nationalized France and did not simply do it themselves?

I would say that Britain could have taken on multiple enemies and one. Britain was so powerful in fact it didn't even have to fight them in a conventional sense. Just blockade them and wager economic warfare. I will admit towards the end of my definition of the British superpower (1870 - 1945) Britain definitely had stiff competition. However. Until at least 1900 I would say Britain could have had a favorable peace after a war with any nation on the planet. Just because from 1815-1870 all of the other countries were weak doesn't make Britain not a superpower.

For your second point I would say the United Kingdom was not a superpower until it finally defeated France in 1815, as I said earlier. However after the war there was simply no European power (until around 1870) that could compete. Britain was a superpower.
 
We're just talking past each other, and since no one else seems to want to chime in...

I agree they were the dominant power from 1815 until German reunification.

Being the best =/= superpower status.
 
We're just talking past each other, and since no one else seems to want to chime in...

I agree they were the dominant power from 1815 until German reunification.

Being the best =/= superpower status.

Yeah... wished some other people would chime. I agree that being the best doesn't automatically make you a superpower. However I think they had such an advantage over the other powers they should be considered one. We can agree though to disagree.
 
We're just talking past each other, and since no one else seems to want to chime in...

I agree they were the dominant power from 1815 until German reunification.

Being the best =/= superpower status.

What exactly is your definition of superpower?

The term is a bit Cold War specific, I agree, but if we examine some definitions, I think we can put it into the 19th Century context.

Nossel (from Wikipedia): "generally this term was used to signify a political community that occupied a continental-sized landmass, had a sizable population (relative at least to other major powers); a superordinate economic capacity, including ample indigenous supplies of food and natural resources; enjoyed a high degree of non-dependence on international intercourse; and, most importantly, had a well-developed nuclear capacity."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperpower#cite_note-Nossal-1
- excluding the obvious nuclear issue, this would describe Britain in the 19th century

Prof. Paul Dukes (Wikipedia): "a superpower must be able to conduct a global strategy including the possibility of destroying the world; to command vast economic potential and influence; and to present a universal ideology".
- again, exclude the destroying the world bit, the rest is quite an accurate depiction of Britain after 1815.

Professor June Teufel Dreyer (Wikipedia) "A superpower must be able to project its power, soft and hard, globally."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpower#cite_note-18
- ditto

If we go by these rough definitions, I think it can be argued that Britain was a superpower in the 19th century. Britain could easily project power wherever it needed. Crimea, China, Argentina, West Africa, the North-West Frontier, Egypt, New Zealand... Certainly, there were worries about other powers, but these were often greatly exaggerated by governments. No one could really challenge the Royal Navy at sea until the Second World War. Even the Army, for all its flaws was actually quite effective at getting the job done when needed. And if push came to shove, the Indian Army could be used to plug in the gaps (and was often far more effective to boot). Economically, there was no real equal to the British Empire until the late 19th Century, and even then, financially, Britain was the banker of the world until the First World War.

Anyway, my point is that an argument can be made that Britain was a superpower in the 19th Century.
 
Top