If America remains British, can Britain rule the world?

Let's not focus on OTL politics but on the possible outcome of this union. Around the turn of the 19th century, British North America and the UK had about the same population. If 1) Americans get representation in the UK Parliament the political balance within the UK would irremediably change and geographical affiliations (American v British) will eventually superpose political affiliations (Liberal v Conservative), I'm not sure about the effects of this but I dare say that it would be a disastrous situation, if sustainable. But, if 2) America gets its own Parliament in a Dominion-like situation, it would simply drift away from Britain. Both nation's interests simply don't cross. For instance, how would America benefit from the British Empire and how it wouldn't affect the interests of London's economic elite?
 
To speak strictly to the OP's question: even if the British Empire included all of what would be today's United States and Canada, they would not be able to rule the world. If only for the simple reason that holding down such a vast empire would take immense resources and effort to coordinate before the age of modern communications.

There's also the issue that Britain's likely rivals (France and Russia) would certainly adjust their geo-strategic aims accordingly to counter the threat of such a super power.

This also ignores the issue of how one would over time coordinate the vastly different priorities and problems inherent in ruling a large maritime empire versus a continental one.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Putting the blame solely on the UK parliament is disingenuous of you. A lot of issues were reactions to illegal smuggling and colonials refusing to raise or pay for troops (thereby leading to non-colonial troops having to be stationed).
Parliament does have a large part to blame but making the colonials out to be only victims is like saying "you weren't to blame when I hit you for calling my mother a whore" (not that you'd ever do that!)

After the French surrendered in 1760, what was the need for an imperial garrison in Boston, again?

Best,
 
France and French Guyana?

If you just need water East and West Malaysia or Indonesia also work

Again, units that are demographically similar. Guyana is dominated by their homeland just as Hawai'i is dominated by the US.

Indonesia is an island chain, as is Japan for that matter, and both are relatively contiguous.

Malaysia may be the best exception to the rule, even though Sarawak and Sabah combined have only 1/5 of the total population of the nation. The rest is concentrated in Malaya proper. That, and I think that Sarawak is relatively autonomous as it is, if I remember correctly. Even then, they are geographically close.

To speak strictly to the OP's question: even if the British Empire included all of what would be today's United States and Canada, they would not be able to rule the world. If only for the simple reason that holding down such a vast empire would take immense resources and effort to coordinate before the age of modern communications.

There's also the issue that Britain's likely rivals (France and Russia) would certainly adjust their geo-strategic aims accordingly to counter the threat of such a super power.

This also ignores the issue of how one would over time coordinate the vastly different priorities and problems inherent in ruling a large maritime empire versus a continental one.

Pretty much this, in the end. to keep the union together, there would probably be a devolution of powers. I'm almost imagining a split like in Castille/Aragon, where one nation is responsible for one part of foreign adventures, while the other half is relatively insular and focuses its attention elsewhere.

Now, here's a question: If a sizable portion of the British Empire remains directly connected (For argument's sake, let's say the UK, this North American Union, a South Africa Analogue, and Australia) if loosely, does the capital change? Remain in London? Start rotating between cities?

I don't think we'd get to 2Georges level of Britwank by far, but the possibility for something lesser is there.
 
Pretty much this, in the end. to keep the union together, there would probably be a devolution of powers. I'm almost imagining a split like in Castille/Aragon, where one nation is responsible for one part of foreign adventures, while the other half is relatively insular and focuses its attention elsewhere.

Now, here's a question: If a sizable portion of the British Empire remains directly connected (For argument's sake, let's say the UK, this North American Union, a South Africa Analogue, and Australia) if loosely, does the capital change? Remain in London? Start rotating between cities?

I don't think we'd get to 2Georges level of Britwank by far, but the possibility for something lesser is there.

It probably depends on what the Empire's remit is. If it ends up as basically a military alliance, the location of the capital shouldn't be too contentious (not many Americans complain about NATO being based in Belgium, for example). If it's more centralised, I'd expect the capital to move to America at some point, although for historical reasons they'd probably keep London as a ceremonial capital (for coronations and the like).

ETA: I suppose the closest precedent would be the later Roman Empire, where the Emperors mostly ruled out of Milan or Ravenna but Rome was still officially the top city.


ETA ETA: Actually, thinking of Rome, I guess you could also see a situation like the East/West division of the Roman Empire, wherein the British Empire theoretically remains a single entity, but in practice gets divided into two independent halves.
 
Last edited:
It probably depends on what the Empire's remit is. If it ends up as basically a military alliance, the location of the capital shouldn't be too contentious (not many Americans complain about NATO being based in Belgium, for example). If it's more centralised, I'd expect the capital to move to America at some point, although for historical reasons they'd probably keep London as a ceremonial capital (for coronations and the like).

Even an effective military alliance wouldn't be feasible in my opinion. Why would an American fund/fight wars in Europe, India, China, etc. with next to nothing in return? It's not like the Brits are willing to give a slice of the cake and the Americans are not in an economic position to reclaim it during the first half of the 1800s.

I can only see this union as an early Commonwealth or something like the HRE.

EDIT: To answer the question, London remains the ceremonial capital because the king/queen lives there. Everyone will sing 'God save the King/Queen' but that's pretty much it.
 
Even an effective military alliance wouldn't be feasible in my opinion. Why would an American fund/fight wars in Europe, India, China, etc. with next to nothing in return? It's not like the Brits are willing to give a slice of the cake and the Americans are not in an economic position to reclaim it during the first half of the 1800s. I can only see this union as an early Commonwealth or something like the HRE.

What sort of cake are you referring to? If it's an economic one, the Americans would benefit from access to Imperial markets, so opening up new lands to Imperial traders would benefit them.
 
What sort of cake are you referring to? If it's an economic one, the Americans would benefit from access to Imperial markets, so opening up new lands to Imperial traders would benefit them.

OK, I probably skipped up an argument here. I assume that the UK would adopt a stronger protectionism policy to avoid competition from American industry. A probable tax war in the long term.
 
OK, I probably skipped up an argument here. I assume that the UK would adopt a stronger protectionism policy to avoid competition from American industry. A probable tax war in the long term.

IOTL the late 18th/early 19th centuries saw the eclipse of mercantilism in favour of free trade, so the British government would be more likely to pull down tariffs with the colonies than to set them up.
 
IOTL the late 18th/early 19th centuries saw the eclipse of mercantilism in favour of free trade, so the British government would be more likely to pull down tariffs with the colonies than to set them up.

UK favored free trade because they didn't have competition.

Early American industry was focused on internal market, if they have easier access to other markets, it might change. So would UK tax policy.
 
UK favored free trade because they didn't have competition.

Early American industry was focused on internal market, if they have easier access to other markets, it might change. So would UK tax policy.

Well the UK didn't set up tariffs with the USA IOTL, right? And if in real life American industry wasn't seen as a major threat, why would it be in a scenario where America was still part of the Empire?

Plus, even if it was, there would still be a very good reason to trade freely anyway -- namely, the need to keep the Americans on-side and give them some benefits from staying part of the Empire.
 
Well the UK didn't set up tariffs with the USA IOTL, right? And if in real life American industry wasn't seen as a major threat, why would it be in a scenario where America was still part of the Empire?

IOTL the US had a very protectionist policy during the early 19th century to develop its industry. Free trade would probably slow down American growth (less canals, railroads, etc.) and would mostly benefit Southerners and their cotton. In a long term, the South, which have direct access to Liverpool, would dominate American economy and politics during the 19th century. In this case, the union might work, America would be the minor partner in the Empire until the tax policy changes.
 
IOTL the US had a very protectionist policy during the early 19th century to develop its industry. Free trade would probably slow down American growth (less canals, railroads, etc.) and would mostly benefit Southerners and their cotton. In a long term, the South, which have direct access to Liverpool, would dominate American economy and politics during the 19th century. In this case, the union might work, America would be the minor partner in the Empire until the tax policy changes.

Since British capital was hugely important in the development of US transport infrastructure that bit seems unlikely to be retarded. What you might well see is less manufacturing industry on the other hand the manufacturing industry you do see would likely be more efficient than OTL which might well see lower initial growth compensated by higher growth later as economies of scale got big in the BNA Dominion(s).
 
In practical terms, there needn't be much difference between "an alliance between nation states" and "an empire".

Heck, after Canada et al. were granted dominion status, the British Empire arguably *was* an alliance between nation states. By WW2 they even had a choice of whether or not to join in Britain's wars: Canada, Australia and New Zealand independently declared war on Germany, whereas Ireland chose to stay out.

You're wrong about Australia. Canada and New Zealand declared war on Germany independently, but Australia had a Unionist government and considered the British declaration of war to be binding on it too.

IOTL the US had a very protectionist policy during the early 19th century to develop its industry. Free trade would probably slow down American growth (less canals, railroads, etc.) and would mostly benefit Southerners and their cotton. In a long term, the South, which have direct access to Liverpool, would dominate American economy and politics during the 19th century. In this case, the union might work, America would be the minor partner in the Empire until the tax policy changes.

The US had a period of reduced tariffs between Polk's liberalization in 1846 and Lincoln's tariff hikes in 1861. Economic growth was the same as before and after.

The South overall was more pro-trade than the North, but there were variations. For example, Louisiana depended heavily on sugar tariffs. The South in general also depended on slavery for cotton, which the metropole stopped being happy with around the time of the ARW. Conversely, the North would've been on the right side of the Corn Law barrier after 1815, so its food crops would fare better than in OTL. It might even butterfly away the abolition of the Corn Laws.
 
The US had a period of reduced tariffs between Polk's liberalization in 1846 and Lincoln's tariff hikes in 1861. Economic growth was the same as before and after.

After almost 50 years of protectionism, the US already had a well-developed industry and a continuous influx of immigrants due to the Irish Famine and the 1848 Revolutions. The liberalization was somehow a refletion of the pre-Civil War tensions. Once the South was defeated, the tariffs went up again.

Since British capital was hugely important in the development of US transport infrastructure that bit seems unlikely to be retarded. What you might well see is less manufacturing industry on the other hand the manufacturing industry you do see would likely be more efficient than OTL which might well see lower initial growth compensated by higher growth later as economies of scale got big in the BNA Dominion(s).

As someone else mentioned, It's also important to mention that the British Empire is not alone in the world. The other European powers will unite against this overpowered Britain and foment their national industry earlier. And when Europe is strong enough to compete, the UK will defend itself with tariffs, IOTL it happened when Germany was created. As (Northern) US and UK's economies are not complementary they wouldn't agree on the same barriers. Still, I'm not even calculating the costs of maintaining an overseas empire in Asia, without going into further analysis, suffice to say that the EIC is a public company negociated in London, it's not like we have computers to control the financial market during the 1800s.
 
As someone else mentioned, It's also important to mention that the British Empire is not alone in the world. The other European powers will unite against this overpowered Britain and foment their national industry earlier.

That underlined statement was in the context of the idea of the British conquering the world. However on the idea of the rest of the power uniting to "industrialise earlier" how and why? I doubt Britain would appear any more overpowered than it was in during most of the 19th Century OTL. Yet it was never a huge threat on most people's "Whose is trying to take our stuff today?" lists because it was a largely contented power.

The very fact that maintaining the Empire took up a sufficient amount of British energy served to somewhat limit the central government's notions of expansion. Given the likelihood of an even greater focus on investment in North America then British interest elsewhere is likely to wane. You might see the same level of expansion in India for example but even that is not in fact a given here. What you will not see is much interesting in bucking the interests of the European powers on their home turf...okay maybe if they cross over to a neighbour's home turf the British might intervene but the likelihood of Britain turning the Empire into some kind of world conquering engine? Not likely.

Which leaves little to unite against really.
 
However on the idea of the rest of the power uniting to "industrialise earlier" how and why?

Two words: Continental system.

I doubt Britain would appear any more overpowered than it was in during most of the 19th Century OTL. Yet it was never a huge threat on most people's "Whose is trying to take our stuff today?" lists because it was a largely contented power.

Other two words: Manifest destiny.

The very fact that maintaining the Empire took up a sufficient amount of British energy served to somewhat limit the central government's notions of expansion. Given the likelihood of an even greater focus on investment in North America then British interest elsewhere is likely to wane.

British economy was largely dependant on their overseas empire - around 30% of their GDP during the 1800s. And, most obviously, the shipping industry as well. If you want an Empire that focuses on North American continent, instead of the overseas, you should probably get rid of the British Isles as well and call it the Empire of America.
 
There's also the issue that Britain's likely rivals (France and Russia) would certainly adjust their geo-strategic aims accordingly to counter the threat of such a super power.

Would these guys care?

This also ignores the issue of how one would over time coordinate the vastly different priorities and problems inherent in ruling a large maritime empire versus a continental one.

Does Britain really care what America is doing? Honestly, one of the most plausible and interesting parts of LTTW is the Empire of America, which is part of Britain but basically does its own thing most of the time.
 
I don't think so. If anything, I'm pretty sure holding all of America would probably make the fall of the British Empire earlier considering how vast the place is and all the resources, money needed to help develop the land and making sure that America doesn't end up doing their own thing.
 
In practical terms, there needn't be much difference between "an alliance between nation states" and "an empire".

Heck, after Canada et al. were granted dominion status, the British Empire arguably *was* an alliance between nation states. By WW2 they even had a choice of whether or not to join in Britain's wars: Canada, Australia and New Zealand independently declared war on Germany, whereas Ireland chose to stay out.

Ireland didn't consider itself a British dominion by 1939, though. Two years earlier it adopted a new constitution that effectively severed links with the UK.
 
Top