How big could the British Empire get if they avoid the ARW?

Femto

Banned
If the brits found a way to fully avoid the ARW, by use of an early imperial federation or a dominion system, how big could they get in the long run?


brits.png
 
Last edited:
You could have a political realignment occur during the Napoleonic Wars that sees the British giving up on ousting Napoleon being feasible and instead commit to containing him, and commit to trading outside of Europe or through smuggling proxies. So they can expand on what they did IOTL where they seized other European colonies such as the Cape and Indonesia, but go for it wholesale. You can spin political ideology at the time to make it sound as though they're doing this for containment and revenge; seeking to build a coalition of extra-European colonies capable of giving Britain the muscle to crack France, but the facade can quickly fade to the reality that they're really just doing it because they can. Especially if the French manage to defeat Russia and overrun all of Europe, the Ottoman Empire's Balkan possessions included. So let's check off the to-do list:

*They start with all of North America bar Mexico, that's a good base to conquer the rest of North America from. This'll be the longterm work horse of the Empire in demographics and will be critical in the early years to man the Royal Navy when it's trying to contain the French in the Mediterranean
*They have the naval supremacy to regularly raze any buildup of ships from Europe. See: Denmark. They should and they will, in all likelihood
*They can seize the entire Dutch colonial empire with relative ease from the New World to Japan; the Dutch colonies are hardly populous and they did it IOTL anyways
*French colonies are sparse and can be seized with no repercussions. As for France's conquests, they'll almost certainly gun for Russia and the Ottoman Empire, but actually controlling such vast stretches of land will prove impossible with the resources they have to work with. They'll get bogged down in the steppe, northern Russia, and the Balkans
*British intervention can keep France bottled at Constantinople indefinitely and turn the Ottoman Empire into a client state in one swoop. They can use 'Ottoman' jurisdiction to subjugate North Africa and Arabia. Very loose control, but economic domination is assured as the British need somewhere to dump their manufactured goods and they're as close to friendly as it gets to the British isles
*The British are NOT ending slavery any time soon in a scenario where they're already under severe economic strain and they control the entirety of the South and the Caribbean; expect full suzerainty of the West African coast and the exportation of Africa slavery to more parts of the world that are suited to it
*India ironically enough is likely to be more politically autonomous as the British will be stretched everywhere else and content to have their loose domination of the subcontinent intact
*Iran is going to be a high priority client state to maintain a strong force in the Caucasus mountains alongside the Ottomans. I'd expect a lot of economic interest from the British in Mesopotamia and the Levant as it's the midway between Britain and India and also the key chokepoint in containing France(though France north of the Caucasus is going to be spending a good amount of time with paper thin control). Imagine a far, far wealthier Middle East as the key to trade between East and West and for supplying the Royal Navy's anti-French Mediterranean forces
*Portugal's exiled Brazilian kingdom + colonies is almost certainly a client
*Latin America is messy but I don't think the British will invest much into keeping control of the region so much as ensuring that any French-aligned European states stay out. American manpower is going to be very helpful here, and the British may conquer parts of this region anyways like they tried to IOTL *cough*Rio de La Plata*cough*. But priorities, and a need to not go bankrupt is going to stop anything too ambitious(IMO)

I'd imagine that anything further east than India would be very low priority so long as the French are kicked out and their entire scope of focus shifts from East Asian trade to having the Britain-To-Gibraltar-To-Malta-To-Konstantiniyye-To-India daisy chain going strong to encircle France. This could lead to a natural progression of affairs for the world where Europe becomes far more focused on railways and coastal towns decline, whereas Britain becomes committed even more so to trade by sea, the completion of a Suez Canal, etc. and ends up either directly or indirectly dominating four to five continents(NA, SA, Africa, Australia, West Asia) given enough time for their new economic and political model to take root
 
Maybe not as big as you'd think. If the British end up focusing their attention on North America, this might result in less expansion in the rest of the world.
 

Grey Wolf

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Maya Jasanoff wrote a fantastic book, Liberty's Exiles, about this, showing how the loss of America brought refugee settlers to many other theatres, sparked entirely new ventures like Sierra Leone, and how the need to make a new life led to some of the more enthusiastic but vital second level operatives in some of the India conflicts
 
Last edited:

Femto

Banned
Maybe not as big as you'd think. If the British end up focusing their attention on North America, this might result in less expansion in the rest of the world.
But if they had America they basicaly would've control of all the american manpower. They could use american born british to colonize Africa and Asia. Not like forced ressetlement or anything. More like hiring or land grants all around the world.

All the europeans who leave europe in the 1800s would become anglos in some capacity. Bonus if the brits conquer La Plata.
 
Last edited:

Femto

Banned
You could have a political realignment occur during the Napoleonic Wars that sees the British giving up on ousting Napoleon being feasible and instead commit to containing him, and commit to trading outside of Europe or through smuggling proxies. So they can expand on what they did IOTL where they seized other European colonies such as the Cape and Indonesia, but go for it wholesale. You can spin political ideology at the time to make it sound as though they're doing this for containment and revenge; seeking to build a coalition of extra-European colonies capable of giving Britain the muscle to crack France, but the facade can quickly fade to the reality that they're really just doing it because they can. Especially if the French manage to defeat Russia and overrun all of Europe, the Ottoman Empire's Balkan possessions included. So let's check off the to-do list:

*They start with all of North America bar Mexico, that's a good base to conquer the rest of North America from. This'll be the longterm work horse of the Empire in demographics and will be critical in the early years to man the Royal Navy when it's trying to contain the French in the Mediterranean
*They have the naval supremacy to regularly raze any buildup of ships from Europe. See: Denmark. They should and they will, in all likelihood
*They can seize the entire Dutch colonial empire with relative ease from the New World to Japan; the Dutch colonies are hardly populous and they did it IOTL anyways
*French colonies are sparse and can be seized with no repercussions. As for France's conquests, they'll almost certainly gun for Russia and the Ottoman Empire, but actually controlling such vast stretches of land will prove impossible with the resources they have to work with. They'll get bogged down in the steppe, northern Russia, and the Balkans
*British intervention can keep France bottled at Constantinople indefinitely and turn the Ottoman Empire into a client state in one swoop. They can use 'Ottoman' jurisdiction to subjugate North Africa and Arabia. Very loose control, but economic domination is assured as the British need somewhere to dump their manufactured goods and they're as close to friendly as it gets to the British isles
*The British are NOT ending slavery any time soon in a scenario where they're already under severe economic strain and they control the entirety of the South and the Caribbean; expect full suzerainty of the West African coast and the exportation of Africa slavery to more parts of the world that are suited to it
*India ironically enough is likely to be more politically autonomous as the British will be stretched everywhere else and content to have their loose domination of the subcontinent intact
*Iran is going to be a high priority client state to maintain a strong force in the Caucasus mountains alongside the Ottomans. I'd expect a lot of economic interest from the British in Mesopotamia and the Levant as it's the midway between Britain and India and also the key chokepoint in containing France(though France north of the Caucasus is going to be spending a good amount of time with paper thin control). Imagine a far, far wealthier Middle East as the key to trade between East and West and for supplying the Royal Navy's anti-French Mediterranean forces
*Portugal's exiled Brazilian kingdom + colonies is almost certainly a client
*Latin America is messy but I don't think the British will invest much into keeping control of the region so much as ensuring that any French-aligned European states stay out. American manpower is going to be very helpful here, and the British may conquer parts of this region anyways like they tried to IOTL *cough*Rio de La Plata*cough*. But priorities, and a need to not go bankrupt is going to stop anything too ambitious(IMO)

I'd imagine that anything further east than India would be very low priority so long as the French are kicked out and their entire scope of focus shifts from East Asian trade to having the Britain-To-Gibraltar-To-Malta-To-Konstantiniyye-To-India daisy chain going strong to encircle France. This could lead to a natural progression of affairs for the world where Europe becomes far more focused on railways and coastal towns decline, whereas Britain becomes committed even more so to trade by sea, the completion of a Suez Canal, etc. and ends up either directly or indirectly dominating four to five continents(NA, SA, Africa, Australia, West Asia) given enough time for their new economic and political model to take root
I'm getting Code Geass vibes. Could this Uber British Empire try to take Europe?
 
Well, americans will be brits in this timeline.

Are Canadians and Australians Brits?

The thing is that, if roughly the entire area of British North America (give or take Louisiana and parts of Mexico and the Caribbean) becomes a dominion, or even a series of several smaller dominions, it would have a qualitatively different relationship with London than any of the Commonwealth realms of our world. After all, it was not long before the population of the United States exceeded that of the United Kingdom in our world, and there is no reason to believe that the area would not still become a center of industry, finance, and technology. I do think that this will have an Americanizing effect on the rest of the empire.
 

Femto

Banned
Are Canadians and Australians Brits?

The thing is that, if roughly the entire area of British North America (give or take Louisiana and parts of Mexico and the Caribbean) becomes a dominion, or even a series of several smaller dominions, it would have a qualitatively different relationship with London than any of the Commonwealth realms of our world. After all, it was not long before the population of the United States exceeded that of the United Kingdom in our world, and there is no reason to believe that the area would not still become a center of industry, finance, and technology. I do think that this will have an Americanizing effect on the rest of the empire.
Canada and Australia exist the way they exist because of the ARW.
 
Canada and Australia exist the way they exist because of the ARW.

Sure, but that is beside the point. The point is that British North American would have soon outpaced Great Britain in terms of population and economic activity in a way that none of the dominions of our timeline ever did.
 
But if they had America they basicaly would've control of all the american manpower. They could use american born british to colonize Africa and Asia. Not like forced ressetlement or anything. More like hiring or land grants all around the world.

Maybe, but TBH I'd expect most of that manpower to go to western settlement: plenty of prime farmland, only real competition consists of badly outnumbered native tribes, and Britain already has a large foothold in the area, making further expansion easier. So I'd expect a Britain inc. America Empire to consist primarily of OTL's Britain, USA and Canada, with British presence in other parts of the world consisting primarily of trading posts.
 
i don't get where people get the idea that the US is always going to become the hub of the empire. The immigration was no sure thing, heavily dependent on the US being the size of a continent and having swaths of land that was free for the taking. It's gold rushes were outside the colonies for example. A lot of the key industrial stuff is too. They would certainly be the most populous white dominion, but they wouldn't be able to pull the focus from Britain unless the home isles get Blitzed to hell and back.

Could the colonies expand west? Sure, but not from sea to shining sea.
 

Lusitania

Donor
The issue is that no ARW good chance no French Revolution no Napoleon. So be as completely different world.

Chance of no scramble for Africa, maybe France able to support Mysore so no british complete control of Indian sub continent. Britain not concentrate on India if it had BNA.

Event in future could see a union between France and Spain to counter a Britain so it could theoretically control most of New Spain including California.

French/Spanish Louisiana could be stay away from Britain.
 
It's a well-known fact that Britain's economy actually improved with the loss of the Thirteen Colonies, so remaining shackled together would not be beneficial. Personally, I don't see any reason to believe that avoiding the immediate causes of the American War of Independence, or even giving Britain victory in the war itself, would have resulted in eternal peace and prosperity. If anything, Britain would be encouraged to continue with their tone-deafness in relation to the Colonies, further exacerbating tensions. Britain's painful divorce with America led to better relations and more amicable parting with Britain's later colonies overall.

The issue is that no ARW good chance no French Revolution no Napoleon. So be as completely different world.
How so? The immediate causes of the French Revolution might be changed but the Ancien Regime was a ticking time bomb as I see it.
 
Last edited:
i don't get where people get the idea that the US is always going to become the hub of the empire. The immigration was no sure thing, heavily dependent on the US being the size of a continent and having swaths of land that was free for the taking. It's gold rushes were outside the colonies for example. A lot of the key industrial stuff is too. They would certainly be the most populous white dominion, but they wouldn't be able to pull the focus from Britain unless the home isles get Blitzed to hell and back.

Could the colonies expand west? Sure, but not from sea to shining sea.

In American history, Western expansion and settlement was largely spearheaded by the descendants of Englishmen and Scots-Irish who had lived on the frontier since well before the Revolutionary War. In any case, immigrants in the 19th century (and really, up until today) tended to settle disproportionately in and around large urban areas in places such as the Northeast. Even assuming that British North America never extends one inch beyond the Mississippi, those cities are still going to be there and, with the advent of industrialization, they will be places to will draw in immigrants looking for economic opportunities.

I would have to go add things up, but I am fairly confident that at least 150 million people, and quite possibly more than 200 million, live in the United States east of the Mississippi River - more than Australia, Canada, and New Zealand combined twice over. True, immigration and fertility patterns may unfold somewhat differently in a world where this area remains British, but I strongly doubt that things will be that different.
 

Lusitania

Donor
How so? The immediate causes of the French Revolution might be changed but the Ancien Regime was a ticking time bomb as I see it.
The ARW was financed almost entirely by France as way to weaken Britain. Without the debt it occurred the financial situation of France would not of been as dire as it was iOTL and there is a chance that different players would be involved and a different outcome to the problems the French were witnessing would of happen.

just as likely that a constitutional government with a House of Lords / parliament could of resulted from the French struggles.
 
Last edited:

Lusitania

Donor
In American history, Western expansion and settlement was largely spearheaded by the descendants of Englishmen and Scots-Irish who had lived on the frontier since well before the Revolutionary War. In any case, immigrants in the 19th century (and really, up until today) tended to settle disproportionately in and around large urban areas in places such as the Northeast. Even assuming that British North America never extends one inch beyond the Mississippi, those cities are still going to be there and, with the advent of industrialization, they will be places to will draw in immigrants looking for economic opportunities.

I would have to go add things up, but I am fairly confident that at least 150 million people, and quite possibly more than 200 million, live in the United States east of the Mississippi River - more than Australia, Canada, and New Zealand combined twice over. True, immigration and fertility patterns may unfold somewhat differently in a world where this area remains British, but I strongly doubt that things will be that different.
Without independence America would not become the home to Germans and other nationalities like it did. It would of stayed under British rule. So yes a strong BNA but nothing to rival USA in terms of size or economic strength.
 
But if they had America they basicaly would've control of all the american manpower. They could use american born british to colonize Africa and Asia. Not like forced ressetlement or anything. More like hiring or land grants all around the world.

All the europeans who leave europe in the 1800s would become anglos in some capacity. Bonus if the brits conquer La Plata.
Would going on foreign adventures on the behalf of a far off European power always be in America's best interest? Sometimes America's and Britain's interests could coincide but as time goes on the more likely it is that their interests would diverge. For example, Britain could be hostile to Russia over the Great Game while America developed a lucrative trade with Russia and has a vested interest in maintaining good relations with them. Or America could adopt protectionist policies for its economy which is at odds with Britain's globalist policy. Stuff like that.

I can imagine American politicians could easily rail against Britain as "big government shouldn't tell us what to do!" which would appeal to nationalists and individualists. But it seems inevitable to me that America would either try to get the upper hand in their relationship with Britain or go their own way to pursue their own agenda.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Would going on foreign adventures on the behalf of a far off European power always be in America's best interest? Sometimes America's and Britain's interests could coincide but as time goes on the more likely it is that their interests would diverge. For example, Britain could be hostile to Russia over the Great Game while America developed a lucrative trade with Russia and has a vested interest in maintaining good relations with them. Or America could adopt protectionist policies for its economy which is at odds with Britain's globalist policy. Stuff like that.

I can imagine American politicians could easily rail against Britain as "big government shouldn't tell us what to do!" which would appeal to nationalists and individualists. But it seems inevitable to me that America would either try to get the upper hand in their relationship with Britain or go their own way to pursue their own agenda.
But you are comparing apples to oranges, BritAin would not be interested in allowing BNA to be one a manufacturing center like USA did iotl. So yes manufacturing would of eventually expanded to BNA but be much later.
 
Top