How Big could the British Empire Feasibly Have Gotten?

In Harry Turtledove's The Two Georges, a wanked British Empire consists of Britain, Ireland, all the continental US except Alaska, Canada, South Africa, Egypt, China (!), India, a wanked British Guiana, Australia, Arabia, Iraq, the Holy Land, Greece, the the Balkans, and little bits of Africa, Asia, and Oceania here and there. While I'm pretty sure THAT would be ASB, it begs the question: how big could the Empire have gotten?
 
If the 13 colonies stay in the British Empire, then I think you would have a British Empire with even more far-ranging protectorates than OTL. The British Empire was the leading power of the 18th and 19th centuries, and the US was the leading power of the 20th century, though it the global industrial leader since the mid-19th century. Imagine an Anglo-American Empire- there wouldn't be any power in Europe able to match it in either manpower or industry. The Empire wouldn't need to directly rule territory, it could simply make sure that free-trade policy was followed with the knowledge that the Anglo-Americans produced more and better goods than anyone else on Earth.
 
Feasibly without changing major political trends, or feasibly in the sim game sense?

If we still have a situation much akin to OTL's 19th century politically, they could probably have picked up Namibia, Cameroon and Tanzania, maybe bits of the Congo, and almost all of Oceania. I suspect taking over the Dutch East Indies, Siam and Indochina would also be possible if they had wanted to. If the much feared war with France really comes, French bits of Africa would also be possible (though I doubt they'd want or risk taking the Maghreb).

If we start with an abortive American Revolution, it's likely the indian Empire doesn't come about, but if it does, that could add North America to an Empire that otherwise looks a lot like OTL. Butterfly warning, though.

As to how much of the world Britain could have taken over if Parliament had decided to go Genghis Khan I don't know. I suspect less than it did OTL.
 
What are the chances of Britain doing a personal union thing with another European power (hell, even Japan or China if they put racism behind them) and inheriting their colonial empire?
 
What are the chances of Britain doing a personal union thing with another European power (hell, even Japan or China if they put racism behind them) and inheriting their colonial empire?

Weeny-to-none. Britain has had its own very distinct constitutional framework for ages which makes all personal unions after, at the latest, 1688, very loose associations. See Hanover and the "Sea-Powers". Under the latter, the Dutch colonies remained fully seperate, and there's no reason to assume things would have changed if the Netherlands had had a monarchy and stayed in Personal Union with England/Britain.

And of course if you had Britain uniting with any European great power you'd almost certainly have a War of the Whatever Succession which will at best result in our collaring some colonies and at worst be a nasty defeat.

You'll need an Asia-expert, but I'm pretty sure Japan and China have rules against this sort of thing.
 
Weeny-to-none. Britain has had its own very distinct constitutional framework for ages which makes all personal unions after, at the latest, 1688, very loose associations. See Hanover and the "Sea-Powers". Under the latter, the Dutch colonies remained fully seperate, and there's no reason to assume things would have changed if the Netherlands had had a monarchy and stayed in Personal Union with England/Britain.

And of course if you had Britain uniting with any European great power you'd almost certainly have a War of the Whatever Succession which will at best result in our collaring some colonies and at worst be a nasty defeat.

You'll need an Asia-expert, but I'm pretty sure Japan and China have rules against this sort of thing.
Ok then, but how about back to the original concept?
 
Depends on how the American question is resolved.

If the problems with the North American colonies is resolved peacefully with appropriate political compromises to appease the dissenters then the practice of sending convicts would stop. What was the attitude to convict labour instead of slave labour in the southern plantations in the 1770s?

No convict transportation to America then Australia is still used as in OTL. It still becomes part of the Empire.

If the British win the ARW then transportation may or may not continue. If the former then Australia may not be settled at least not as it was. We may start off as a military / naval colony (as it was to a degree anyway) with still a significant convict population to provide the labour force. We may not be settled at all if resources particularly manpower becomes an issue.

India will still be a source for ambitious merchant / soldiers trying to carve out profits and territory. Britain will still need to support militarily the adventurers and I suspect it will turn out much the same as OTL.
 
Guys

The big butterfly, if Britain kept the American colonies is how the rest of Europe responds. Historically the considerable alliance against Britain in the ARW was probably largely triggered by the degree of British dominant of the colonial and economic world, coupled with a period of poor diplomacy on Britain's part. If the conflict is avoided or Britain wins then balance of power politics would probably come into play again later on. The French Revolution could derail such an alliance in the short term but expect a major class sooner or later, especially as Britain continues to industrialise. This could see a British defeat, a draw of exhaustion or substantial gains on the continent itself.

Without the American revolution being stopped the best bet for a stronger Britain is one or more clashes with the US sometime in the 19thC. Gradually winning further territory so that Canada [or whatever BNA becomes called] is a major additional centre of power for the empire. At the same time the tension means that there is more pressure on Britain to develop technologically and socially so no resting at the oars and it also gives an incentive for greater unity in the settler colonies.

Either way Britain could have controlled markedly more of Africa and Asia if the desire had been there, especially in the 1st part of the 19thC, although whether that would have been a net gain or loss of power is a point that could be argued.

I doubt that a universal empire would have been possible, and definitely hope not. Too many established powers with a desire for independence.

Steve
 
Guys

The big butterfly, if Britain kept the American colonies is how the rest of Europe responds. Historically the considerable alliance against Britain in the ARW was probably largely triggered by the degree of British dominant of the colonial and economic world, coupled with a period of poor diplomacy on Britain's part. If the conflict is avoided or Britain wins then balance of power politics would probably come into play again later on. The French Revolution could derail such an alliance in the short term but expect a major class sooner or later, especially as Britain continues to industrialise. This could see a British defeat, a draw of exhaustion or substantial gains on the continent itself.

If the American colonies stay with the UK, then another clash would occur between the British and French. I think it would be over the Netherlands, with the Anglo-Prussian alliance supporting the Organists and the Franco-Austrian alliance supporting the Patriots. This war would weaken French finances in the same way that the ARW did, and then the food prices in '89 set off a popular revolution. IMO the French Revolutionary Wars were inevitable.

The French Revolutionary Wars give Britain a chance to pick up all the strategic pieces that it needs for a truly dominant global empire. Even if the French Revolutionary Wars doesn't go into Round 2 with the Napoleonic Wars, the Anglo-American Empire has already taken all the important real estate. India was firmly British since the Treaty of Paris in 1763.

So the 19th century balance of power is going to be tipped even more toward Britain to a really ridiculous degree. The American colonies grow at more or less the same rate as OTL, industrialization might be a little retarded from competition in Britain, but on the other hand there is more opportunity for British investment in North America.

I don't think that the rest of Europe is going to pick up on the whole Anglo-American Empire is a true superpower thing because they will be focused on their own problems. OTL France was navel gazing for most of the 19th century, with frequent regime changes (1800, 1815, 1830, 1848, 1871) and ATL would probably be more of the same. The Germans and Italians are also navel gazing, with wars of national unification being much higher on the list of concerns than Anglo-American global dominance. The Russians really present the only threat to that dominance, and I tend to think the British would heavily and openly back the Ottoman Empire, perhaps even to the degree that Balkan nationalism nevers gets off the ground, along with making sure to block any major Russian advances in Central Asia or China (as per OTL). I think that the British would get the parts of Africa that would be easy to turn into settler colonies, with British colonial policy picking up some of the American need for frontiers thinking. Once the American West starts closing down in the very late 19th, early 20th century, then Africa us ready to open up, with ATL Kenya, Rhodesia, and maybe Tanzania and Namibia.

Anyway, OTL once the Germans unified they presented a challenge to the European balance of power, since they threatened to become the paramount power of Europe, something that Britain needed to watch out for. ATL that doesn't really matter. The British are going to be extremely secure behind what by that time would be the steel wall of the Royal Navy. Even if a German-Russian alliance emerged in order to combat the British, it isn't going to be able to match the industrial might of the Anglo-American Empire. The French could end up with some kind of understanding with the British just to protect them from the Germans. And none of this might matter because at some point during the 19th century the Anglo-Americans probably start pushing for free-trade and have the economic and political heft to force it down Europe's collective throat.

I basically don't think that Europe can really threaten the Anglo-American Empire in a meaningful way. Napoleon's Empire came the closest of any European project to break OTL British Imperial power, and it failed. In OTL what finally broke the UK was WWI, which drained it of manpower, loaded it up with debt, and gave the colonies the chink in British armour they needed to eventually gain independence. With the American colonies manpower and industrial might it won't be possible to beat the British Empire, even if something like WWI happens.
 
Last edited:
Could we even go earlier than an American compromise? How about Joan of Arc dies in a farming related accident in childhood, and Britain annexes France, or at least sets up a weak puppet regime or whatever?
 
Guys

The big butterfly, if Britain kept the American colonies is how the rest of Europe responds. Historically the considerable alliance against Britain in the ARW was probably largely triggered by the degree of British dominant of the colonial and economic world, coupled with a period of poor diplomacy on Britain's part. If the conflict is avoided or Britain wins then balance of power politics would probably come into play again later on.

True, but the concern (which existed after all during the Napoleonic Wars) wasn't just the fact that so much of the world was pink, but rather the supremacy of English commerce and industry. So I don't think America would influence that for a while.
 
Could we even go earlier than an American compromise? How about Joan of Arc dies in a farming related accident in childhood, and Britain annexes France, or at least sets up a weak puppet regime or whatever?

Hrmm. I have serious doubts about this lasting, if only because the problem wasn't Joan so much as it was the Burgundians. [1]

[1] Perfidious Brussels!
 
I think keping all the North American colonies probably precludes much of the second Empire.

I think my Sun Never Sets TL (which I keep intending to continue) probably has the largest plausible British Empire, given that it looks like this:

world1970er8.png


where all the pink and red bits are British.
 

wormyguy

Banned
I think my Sun Never Sets TL (which I keep intending to continue) probably has the largest plausible British Empire, given that it looks like this:

where all the pink and red bits are British.

Except for the Americas, it's smaller than OTL.

It's possible, given liberal ASB intervention, that Britain might have maintained personal unions with Spain and Hanover . . .
 
Could we even go earlier than an American compromise? How about Joan of Arc dies in a farming related accident in childhood, and Britain annexes France, or at least sets up a weak puppet regime or whatever?

That could have resulted in a less centralized and more continentally-focused empire, and it would probably have become primarily French.
 
True, but the concern (which existed after all during the Napoleonic Wars) wasn't just the fact that so much of the world was pink, but rather the supremacy of English commerce and industry. So I don't think America would influence that for a while.

I don't know about that. With the POD being a political course that avoids the ARW the American economy isn't going to take the hits from the ARW, and then nearly a decade of political choas of the Articles ofConfederation.

Plus, with the American colonies in the picture, I think the Americans would play a role in grabbing any juicy looking bits of the Spaniards' American territory during the French Revolutionary Wars- Louisiana definitely, Cuba is a strong possibility, and maybe a successful attack on Buenos Aires? Additionally, the independence movements in Spanish American are going to get the same boost as OTL. So the British dominate more of the globe, and they have control of India.

The British were already economically dominant by the end of the Napoleonic Wars. With the American colonies in the Empire, British Imperial dominance will never be challenged. I really think this TL would see the British pushing Free Trade quite hard- doing things like forcing it on the newly independent countries of Central and South America, and on various trading partners globally.

With India already in the Empire post-1763 and the permanent addition of the North American colonies, I think this version of the British Empire could to the present day. With the strength of the American colonies, post-Napoleonic Wars (or French Revolutionary Wars) there could just be a long Pax Brittania, with the overwhelming strength of the British Empire maintaining peace among the Great Powers.
 
There is going to be a serious case of the tail wagging the dog in any TL where the British keep the American colonies, though.
 
Top