Just regarding Australia, it is highly likely to become a British territory regardless of the ARW. Indeed, Americans as part of the empire virtually assures it. One of Australia’s first export industries was the American run sealing industry, which drew large numbers of American sailors south and who had a permanent impact on the Aboriginal nations they ‘engaged’ with. No convicts (itself far from certain) would slow down settlement, but the continent remains strategically significant and economically of some interest, and very easy for the British Empire to occupy. WA was claimed mostly to stop the French, and the logic of empire will be the same here. It’s quite plausible that ITTL Australia would receive even more American influence than OTL, in particular in the event of a gold rush.
How big could the British Empire get if they avoid the ARW?
- Thread starter Femto
- Start date
Lusitania
Donor
They will not integrate any colonies but let them govern themselves. Look at the Caribbean and the colonies north of USA the British never united the Caribbean and only the threat of USA forced them to create a Dominion and that was in the 1860s.
so there won’t be a BNA central government till end of 19th century.
Lusitania
Donor
Who is Napoleon???
there will not be a Napoleon or Napoleon wars, not in the same sense as iotl. Yes he was born but circumstances will be different and the outcome different.
how would the French reform? No one has said anything only that suddenly there is Napoleon when almost all day the lack of ARW means the French are not bankrupt. So how will it reform, who will lead. Not the same people.Different pressures and circumstances means different outcomes.
There's still plenty of potential for France to end up in dire financial straights IOTL even without the Revolutionary War. All the ministers that mismanaged France are still there and in their positions. Napoleon can still come to power, and he was already born before the start of the ARW
Last edited:
All I'm hearing is that things won't go the same route as OTL, which if anything is good for France. The early years of the Revolution were a mixed bag, to be diplomatic. It doesn't even have to be Napoleon in charge so long as Napoleon's high enough in the military hierarchy to contribute. There were other Revolutionaries that were talented generals. Not Napoleon sure, but Revolutionary France can overrun Europe any which way they like that makes the British aghast and their natural enemy. For all I know the French Revolutionary Wars are about exporting Republicanism to Europe instead of Napoleon's ambitions of empire.
Lusitania
Donor
The thing is that I not sure republicanism is the end result. You could have a constitutional monarchy (with very weak monarchy ) but still with personal liberties. So we could see the personal liberties being exported. Without the execution of the nobles we could see a much stronger France in the 1790s and 1800s.
Yes they still are Britain rivals, that not change.
Given the premise of this AHC... while it may be unlikely, I think integrating the colonies would be the best long-term strategy for British retention of control over North America.
My immediate thought would be the formation of a "Kingdom of New England" in the mid-1700s covering the most well-populated bits of British North America, essentially copying English laws but in North America, and replacing the colonies- and then when the Acts of Union happen in 1801, they merge all three of the Kingdom of Great Britain, Kingdom of Ireland, and Kingdom of New England into one entity.
Lusitania
Donor
I will actually disagree the british never once thought of integrating British North America with united kingdom. They never accepted Atlantic Canada colonies of new found land why would they give New England equal power to United Kingdom. You must understand the european view of colonist. They were not equivalent to United Kingdom.
so no there never will be a United Kingdom Union with BNA. Sorry that not in the cards.
The other factor is that there would have to be a great external peril for the various two dozen colonies to unite into a single dominion.
Femto
Banned
NEVER is bullshit. Late 19th century or early 20th century they could. Canada's case was different. If America stays in the Empire the case for an imperial federation would be a lot stronger. Sometime along the 1800s the British would realize that's their only hope of keeping the empire a thing in the long run, they did understand demographics. They were never worried about Canada outpacing the UK.
Last edited:
Lusitania
Donor
Sorry but you are misunderstanding european attitudes. I am sorry but british United kingdom would not share power with all these colonies. The reason was that it would eventually give power to them.
also remember that power even elected power in the 19th century in Britain was limited to a small segment of the population. It took till the early 30th century for voting franchise to become universal.
My tuppence on the matter involves highlighting that the Government and Parliament are not the same.
I agree that integrating the American colonies into Parliament is extremely unlikely even if restricted to the House of Lords.
Government however is another matter, the Monarch still has an engaging role at this time and advice from his/her colonies could be useful. Especially if they are trying to limit the various parliament's attempts to control Government.
I can see the colonies grouped in various General Governorates (eg New England, Grand Virginia, New Scotland etc) with the Governor General sending over a Minister
I agree that integrating the American colonies into Parliament is extremely unlikely even if restricted to the House of Lords.
Government however is another matter, the Monarch still has an engaging role at this time and advice from his/her colonies could be useful. Especially if they are trying to limit the various parliament's attempts to control Government.
I can see the colonies grouped in various General Governorates (eg New England, Grand Virginia, New Scotland etc) with the Governor General sending over a Minister
Last edited:
Your making some very good points. There isn't any inevitability in Napoleon becoming leader of France. France had been effectively bankrupt for many years, and the socioeconomic problems were right below the surface. That's why Louis XV most fames quote was. "After me comes the Deluge." Whenever the King called the Estates General things were likely to get out of hand. What Napoleon contributed beyond his military achievements were the domestic reforms he implemented. All the revolutionary committees, and directorates were never able to stabilized the economy, and civil administration. Until Napoleon's dictatorship everything was run on the basis of emergency decrees, and ad hock arrangements.
Napoleon overhauled French finances, and created a stable currency. He gave the country a uniform legal code. Made the land settlement permanent. Reached a concordant with the Catholic Church. Reformed the civil service. He created a government structure with legislative bodies, that a least gave the semblance of representative government. Finally what made him popular enough to become Emperor was to negotiate a peace treaty, to end 10 years of war. France hadn't been governed so well in a 100 years. I don't know if any other general who could have come to power, would have been such an effective national leader.
Beyond his tactical genius, Napoleon provided France with unity of command, both civil, and military. This enabled him to direct France's grand strategy, making all the parts work together. Previous campaigns were uncoordinated operations. Even the campaign of 1800 wasn't what Napoleon wanted it to be. He wanted the main front to be in Germany, but had to march on Italy, because he wasn't yet able to direct the generals on the German Front. From 1805 on he could make the whole team pull together. I don't know if any other French General of the time had the same sweeping scope of his political, and military vision.
Without the ARW, territory along the lines of The Two Georges is at the outer edge of feasibility. Most likely it's smaller, not because of less expansion elsewhere, but because of less expansion in North America. In OTL, the US doubled in size in the Louisiana Purchase. In a no-ARW ATL, France never sells that land to Britain consensually.
The question is whether Britain is willing to seize French Louisiana by force in the alt-Napoleonic Wars (which are a natural evolution of the French Revolutionary Wars). My take is that it isn't - the back-country is likely to be populated with people who still bear grudges against the metropole about whatever happened in the 1770s that butterflied US independence, and Britain may well specifically let France keep trans-Mississippi North America just to avoid giving land to its most rebellious citizens.
The question is whether Britain is willing to seize French Louisiana by force in the alt-Napoleonic Wars (which are a natural evolution of the French Revolutionary Wars). My take is that it isn't - the back-country is likely to be populated with people who still bear grudges against the metropole about whatever happened in the 1770s that butterflied US independence, and Britain may well specifically let France keep trans-Mississippi North America just to avoid giving land to its most rebellious citizens.
Femto
Banned
The Brits would certainly seize Louisiana in the alt-Napoleonic Wars. They would need to do it to appease the Americans and their desire for western expansion and the French can't to anything about it from the other side of the Atlantic. If they try to limit this American drive they would face a delayed American revolution. I think that in a scenario where the Brits avoid the ARW and make peace with the colonists and their grievances they would have to recognize these imperatives.
Last edited:
I would say it was his mind set that all politics are personal, and that international relations are a zero sum game. Internally his personal rule being based on setting factions against each other, led to internal friction. His megalomania led to surrounding himself with sycophants, rather then men of wise counsel. His foreign relations lacked reciprocity, making long term peace impossible. No stable balance could be reached, so wars were endless, and French Hegemony could only be maintained by military victory. The war machine that sustained that Hegemony overstrained France, and was unsustainable.
To answer your question more succinctly it was making himself a dictator. It set everything else in motion. In exile on St Helena he was asked about seizing power he said, "They expected me to be a Washington." Like all men who hold dictatorial power their life becomes an endless struggle for life, and power.
If they manage to avoid the ARW in the 1770s, it means they have sufficient buy-in from local elites, e.g. by getting rid of the Appalachian settlement line, that they can enforce the will of the metropole on other matters, provided the colonists are at least somewhat divided. The Louisiana Purchase in OTL was not universally welcomed - Federalists opposed it on essentially the same grounds I'm positing Britain wouldn't want to seize the area. In the ATL there's not going to be a sea-to-shining-sea kind of nationalism to promote it, so the Easterners would be less supportive than they were in OTL.