If America remains British, can Britain rule the world?

Wallet

Banned
At its peak, the British Empire would control a quarter of both the land and population of Earth. Even then, it wasn't even the strongest industrial power. That was the United States, their former colony. Today, that former colony is now the world's super power.

Had the 13 colonies stayed in the Empire and spread across the continent, could the added resources, population, and industrial might be enough to conquer the world?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
If so, at some point Britain is split into about ten states (Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and the heptarchy), the capital moves from London to Chicago, and "America" rules the world...

Best,
 
Two big "how" events need your clarification:

1) Had the 13 colonies stayed in the Empire
2) and spread across the continent,

How do you propose that comes about? It's important, as we can really answer your question if they could conquer the world. We first need to know what the rest of the world is doing?
 

Wallet

Banned
Two big "how" events need your clarification:

1) Had the 13 colonies stayed in the Empire
2) and spread across the continent,

How do you propose that comes about? It's important, as we can really answer your question if they could conquer the world. We first need to know what the rest of the world is doing?
Saner heads prevail in London. The colonies are allowed to form their own parliament that runs their own affairs and none voting MPs in London. The American dominion.

The Brutish, with extra American volunteers take the French and Spanish New World colonies in the Napoleon wars. Louisiana and Mexico are made into their own dominions.

As the American colonies spread their populations across the continent, more troops join the regular British army. After a few European wars, the British seize most of Africa.

A mad dictator unites Europe, for the final showdown. But the combine Anglo/Indian army takes Europe.
 

Don Quijote

Banned
If so, at some point Britain is split into about ten states (Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and the heptarchy), the capital moves from London to Chicago, and "America" rules the world...

Best,
Look, I'm not saying the OP's idea is much more plausible, but why would this happen?
 
Saner heads prevail in London. The colonies are allowed to form their own parliament that runs their own affairs and none voting MPs in London. The American dominion.

The Brutish, with extra American volunteers take the French and Spanish New World colonies in the Napoleon wars. Louisiana and Mexico are made into their own dominions.

As the American colonies spread their populations across the continent, more troops join the regular British army. After a few European wars, the British seize most of Africa.

A mad dictator unites Europe, for the final showdown. But the combine Anglo/Indian army takes Europe.
I would say that's borderline ASB for a few reasons (manpower mostly) but stranger things have happened so...

I'll pick on the parliament thing. If the US gets an independant parliament, it doesn't mean they won't get independant. Look at Eire/Ireland and Scotland: the Parliament is often the first step to Independance
 
I don't think Britain would remain united with its North American colonies as one country or federation.

This never happened with the Dominions in OTL, so why would it happen with the 13 Colonies?

But one possibility is British North America becoming an independent state within the Commonwealth. The Queen would be head of state. British North America (or whatever it will be called after independence) could end up being a more powerful state than the US in OTL (depending on how the British North America develops in the 19th century) because it would cover all of OTL USA and Canada.
 
All hail Britannia!

qKvMXLy.png


You've been watching Code Geass,haven't you?
 
Saner heads prevail in London. The colonies are allowed to form their own parliament that runs their own affairs and none voting MPs in London. The American dominion.

The Brutish, with extra American volunteers take the French and Spanish New World colonies in the Napoleon wars. Louisiana and Mexico are made into their own dominions.

As the American colonies spread their populations across the continent, more troops join the regular British army. After a few European wars, the British seize most of Africa.

A mad dictator unites Europe, for the final showdown. But the combine Anglo/Indian army takes Europe.

If the British have America they might well not bother to hold any of Africa save the Cape and assuming some kind of Suez canal; Egypt.

The British really did not need extra manpower to take the French and Spanish colonies they just needed a reason. A set of American colonies within the Empire would likely be the tail that wagged the dog or this case lion at times. Given their "security" concerns the inclusion of large swathes of North America in the Empire would be a given.

However even with America any Empire has a certain limit on its expansion, also you have to realise that world history is not a game of Risk or Civilisation, certain individuals need to gain from any conquest. Now who these individuals are can vary, from ambitious officials and soldiers to colonists out on the frontiers via financiers and newspaper editors but for conquest there must be a reason that someone gains. So for example Louisiana looks fairly plausible but a conquest of Mexico less so....especially in a situation where Britain and British North America would already control Mexico's trade without the costs of governing it.

The same with Africa, given control of much more valuable markets in the Americas then informal control as occurred with South America would be fine however if there was a scramble then fighting for control would not be high on the agenda so the British would be content with the Cape and assuming as above a Suez type canal Egypt. They might well end up with less of Africa, of course this is not a given depending on the actions and ambitions of individuals on the ground but there would be no great push for greater expansion in the region.

As for Europe falling to mad dictators this could happen but is not, contrary to the assumption of some, a given in fact it is rather unlikely, especially with a strong British interest lying just off the coast of France, Belgium and the Netherlands (the middle one might possibly not exist in this scenario). Conquering Europe however would be a tall order even for the British and holding it even with scads of Indian sepoys a further stretch and unnecessary, Britain was for a long time the most powerful industrial power on the planet. What the British economy needed and still needs is trade, as noted expanding the Empire did not in fact expand British industry as the best markets for British manufactured goods were in fact places like Europe and the Americas, surprisingly large amounts of which considered themselves independent (in some case they even considered themselves rulers of the universe).

As to relations with North America, well the Americans got rich in part by letting the British pay for their defence, this is even less likely to change if they are dominions or similar, look at the Canadians who wanted defences against the USA but really much preferred to have the British pay for it. You should not expect vast North American armies when guarded by the Royal Navy and reinforced by the British Army local defence forces will do. Without the existence of the USA as counterweight though it is unlikely such dominions would seek formal independence, they would just de facto enjoy it....plus free defence.

Edit: a not escaped
 
Last edited:
All hail Britannia!
All hail Lelouch, all hail Lelouch, all hail Lelouch!

In any case I think it is possible, but to do so would probably require a near perfect storm of events going right, and leaders not allowing pride, race, nationality, or social class to cloud their judgment or policies. (Good luck, with that!)
 
At its peak, the British Empire would control a quarter of both the land and population of Earth. Even then, it wasn't even the strongest industrial power. That was the United States, their former colony. Today, that former colony is now the world's super power.

Had the 13 colonies stayed in the Empire and spread across the continent, could the added resources, population, and industrial might be enough to conquer the world?


I think you are making a quite usual countersense.

I like the business analogy with mega mergers. Mega mergers most often end up in failures. 1 + 1 = a result inferior to 2 because there are contradictions and overcosts in merging some parts that have too different conditions of making business.

The anglo-american settlers, be they independant or under a dominion status did not want to pay high taxes. They would never have accepted paying high taxes in order to finance Britain’s imperial policy. Even less sending part of their population to fight in imperial Britain’s wars in other parts of the world.

After the seven years war, the british wanted stabilization of their empire except in the place where it had realized imperial expansion would be most profitable : south and east Asia.


It is not by chance that Britain went for the conquest and direct or indirect administration of India from the seven years war on. Nor is it that, after it had established a strong and extremely profitable control of India, Britain went for the economic colonization of China. The most profitable colonization be it full colonization (like in India) or just economic colonization (China) was in densely populated areas with developed and rich civilizations, not in empty lands where the process of turning scarcely populated vast areas into profitable territories was much longer, much more costly and where probability of success was much lower.

Concerning the Americas, Britain wanted some kind stabilization of colonization, which was the most important reason of the irrevocable breaking between Britain and the 13 colonies. The most intolerable act that triggered the American revolution and made it unavoidable in the median or long range was the one that is never mentioned because it was not formally an Act. It was the royal proclamation of 1763 that put considerable restraint on the settlers will to keep on taking possession of indian territories westwards.

The most intolerable of the intolerable acts was the fifth one that is very often forgotten in the list of these acts. It was the Quebec act.

The American settlers wanted to run their own business without the least restraint. They wanted to be able to conquer or take all they could when they could and they wanted to keep the profits for themselves, not to send a huge part of the profits to a very far away royal oligarchic kingdom.

The only way to have a tiny chance of Britain and the 13 colonies sticking together would be to turn their political regime into a real democracy where they would have developed a much stronger sense of anglo-saxon national community than existed OTL. And for this, you need a very early POD. I don’t know who wrote this but the point indeed was that Britain neglegted its continental American colonies for 150 years and then decided to interfere again in its American colonies’ business. You have to change this from the very beginning of the 13 colonies.


And by the way, it was only by 1890 that the US overcame Britain as an industrial power, at a time when the US were already far more populated than Britain.
 
Look, I'm not saying the OP's idea is much more plausible, but why would this happen?

Population: the *US will, sooner or later, have a larger population than the home islands, and thus will be able to control policy by out-voting everyone else in Parliament. If you assume that other dominions also have votes, then it'll just take a bit longer, unless you're also going to give India representation based on the native population; in that case, it's India that sets the policy.

If you simply don't give the colonists genuine representation in Parliament, eventually they'll proclaim independence.

That said, some kind of psudo-Dominion status is possible with the right (early) PoD, leading to a lasting full alliance; such an alliance does have the potential to dominate the world, eventually.
 

jahenders

Banned
At its peak, the British Empire would control a quarter of both the land and population of Earth. Even then, it wasn't even the strongest industrial power. That was the United States, their former colony. Today, that former colony is now the world's super power.

Had the 13 colonies stayed in the Empire and spread across the continent, could the added resources, population, and industrial might be enough to conquer the world?

A few thoughts on if the colonies remain:
1) They eventually become a commonwealth nation, akin to Canada -- they won't be an organic part of England
2) This probably implies that the British avert the ARW. This gives them more resources in fighting France, probably aiding/speeding that.
3) British / colonial forces will likely seize a few French colonies in America during the Napoleanic Wars, but certainly don't get a Louisiana Purchase. This has two effects: a) Much of that region remains semi-contested, slowing growth. b) Where British / colonial forces gain there, the British will decide what happens with that land -- new colonies, grants to English nobles, etc.
4) The Commonwealth of America (CoA) (AKA US) may spread across much of the continent, but the boundaries between it and Canada are almost certainly different. Alaska will probably be part of Canada, as will parts of what are now Washington (state), N. Idaha, Montana, and the Dakotas.
5) The British might avoid a war with Mexico or conduct it quite differently. So the CoA might not get California, AZ, NM, TX, etc. Instead, the British would be more interested in the coasts and less in empty deserts. So, the borders would again be different -- CoA might extend down the W. coast to Baja, and on the E. might include the Yucatan; however Mexico keeps S. AZ, NM, and TX (possibly as far up as a line from Odessa-San-Antonio-Corpus Christi).
6) The British would be more likely to keep Hawaii as a semi-independent kingdom (since that's what they'd done until the US got involved).
7) The ACW is probably avoided and that did a LOT to spur US industrial growth. Without it, you have less disruption and loss, but less growth and innovation.
8) The "Indian Wars" go differently, with different arrangements at the end.

So, the evolution of what's now the US would change significantly and the British would only gain part of that strength (as a commonwealth).
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Look, I'm not saying the OP's idea is much more plausible, but why would this happen?

Thanatos with representation eventually leads to the polity with the greatest population and this representation and this political control of the Legislature making decisions.

In this case, unless the same rights are accorded to India, numbers alone reduce Britain to the status of provinces of the American Empire sometime in the Nineteenth Century.

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Population: the *US will, sooner or later, have a larger population than the home islands, and thus will be able to control policy by out-voting everyone else in Parliament. If you assume that other dominions also have votes, then it'll just take a bit longer, unless you're also going to give India representation based on the native population; in that case, it's India that sets the policy.

If you simply don't give the colonists genuine representation in Parliament, eventually they'll proclaim independence.

That said, some kind of psudo-Dominion status is possible with the right (early) PoD, leading to a lasting full alliance; such an alliance does have the potential to dominate the world, eventually.

And realize it's not just the 13 colonies; there's no reason for the Maritimes and Lower Canada to stay out. Essentially, the whole of Anglophone North America and the relict Francophone population would have been integrated as well. There is no "Canada" from the Atlantic to the Pacific, any more than Australia was carved into separate dominions.

Best,
 
At its peak, the British Empire would control a quarter of both the land and population of Earth. Even then, it wasn't even the strongest industrial power. That was the United States, their former colony. Today, that former colony is now the world's super power.

Had the 13 colonies stayed in the Empire and spread across the continent, could the added resources, population, and industrial might be enough to conquer the world?

Probably not; Empires which get too big seem to eventually hit a point of diminishing returns, where it's no longer possible to keep control of all their present territory and conquer new land. Even if the American colonies had all indefinitely remained as quiet and obedient as lambs to His Majesty's government, the British Empire would still have reached such a tipping point at some stage in its history.
 

jahenders

Banned
Probably not; Empires which get too big seem to eventually hit a point of diminishing returns, where it's no longer possible to keep control of all their present territory and conquer new land. Even if the American colonies had all indefinitely remained as quiet and obedient as lambs to His Majesty's government, the British Empire would still have reached such a tipping point at some stage in its history.

While it's true that empires do reach some limits of control/management, that limit has expanded with technology and flexible management schemes. For instance, the ancient empires were quite small, Rome (with good roads and semi-distributed leadership) was able to manage bigger, England (with fast shipping) was able to manage a widely dispersed one, and then the US / USSR (with radio, aircraft, telephone, internet, etc) were able to manage even large ones.
 
So all the Europeans still go to the "American Dominion"?

This is an interesting point. Would this hypothetical BNA still attract the same levels of immigration? Europe will still need a valve for surplus population, and after all, Canada, NZ, and Australia still receive plenty of immigrants despite being British Dominions.
 
Top