No. No, it would not. You seem to be ignoring all the people telling you that exploiting foreign countries and indigenous peoples for labor and resources is the point of colonialism. If they became more “good-natured” and developed moral qualms about those things, there would (as many others in this thread have pointed out) be no reason to colonize in the first place.Wouldn't this new motivation make them good natured?
Oh sorry meant to say its impossible not asbIndia has over 100% population over the uk. Also smallpox on the american won't happen as india already went through small pox epidemic in 1bc its endemic now so no asb again.
True that , I mean if this empire does exist what prevents India as a whole from breaking off the colonial yolk and becoming independent, I mean Brazil and Argentina inspite of their elite having much in common with their colonial masters than with their locals became independent, then India would not be like south Africa but more like some central or south american countryIm confused to me it seems like one of those arguements for justification of european empires is that if they were still alive the world would be more advanced, and prosperous, which is bull crap. Also why is this not the indian empire then? If the indian are equal they get the vote the surely? No european cant exist without a group of people being supressed to make the primary and secondary groups successfull.
About rashidun caliphate, in my opinion ( others can point my errors) the Arabs learnt more from the Iranian and the Romans in Anatolia than what they learnt from Arabs the only exception being they learnt Islam from Arabs ( I know some of it was imposed not learnt ) which is why they didn't go Genghis Khan mode on them and plus the region they conquered was at the heart of the silk roadEuropean Empires got the lead sometime after the Renaissance which was due to various reasons like unbated Muslim invasions,end of the deadly plague,discovery of Americas and the Reconquest of Spain. I don't think that Rashiduns expansion was only due to religion. The regions they conquered were fertile but disunited. It was because of the new sense of unity mainly. Islam was a cohesive entity then in my opinion(no debate about this,please. You can keep your opinions). In this timeline,it is about a similar unity after the renaissance and Age of enlightenment.
That's the issue here why Britain ?? What makes it so special in this time line has not been elaboratedThis is not about superiority of one and inferiority of the other. This is only about a different timeline with British at lead in the first in this timeline. How would ethnicities and societies fare is the objective of this ATL. That's all. It's still one among the 1000s.
This is just one timeline where the Western Europe gets very powerful and rich due to various factors after Renaissance and Age of enlightenment. That doesn't mean this is the only one.That's the issue here why Britain ?? What makes it so special in this time line has not been elaborated