If Britain retained the 13 colonies how would the Empire develop?

This thread is way too optimistic for UK. It is ignoring WAY, WAY too many close in butterflies. First, you need decide if the UK simply won the ARW or it was avoided. Big, Big difference in TL. Even with a win, you will get different TL from the different win TL. A win because the UK simply decide to keep fighting on land in North American and wins in 1790 is different from a war where the UK prioritized the USA by pulling forces from Asia and the Caribbean. Next, when you change a major global war, the resulting TL is barely recognizable to OTL merely a few decades out. Think about Calbear's WW2 versus our TL where we get issues like the Polish people don't exist anymore and European Russia is basically a big nature preserve with isolated German Farms. And after the USA wins, there will never be a cold war. Or look at the various WW1 TL which rapidly diverge.

Now to some other points. I guess you guys are assuming no ARW due to some modest concession to colonist over the years. If you want a POD - UKWins, you need to state what it was. First item, sure the line of control at the high point of the Appalachian Mountains was a point of friction, but it was a very weak line. All my ancestors were in North America by 1750. They are European. Many of them never lived under UK effective control despite living under what maps identify as UK lands. The line merely slowed immigration. Showed where you got no UK support and very occassionally mostly symbolic raids by redcoats that burn a few houses. These wood houses were easy to rebuild, and at this time people often were moving every decade or so anyway.

Now right after the ARW in OTL, the USA basically stopped taking immigrant flows. ITTL, it continues, maybe at a faster pace. Net, Net, we may well expand faster west than OTL because the population is likely growing faster. Against basically a vacuum. It also has impact on other colonies such as the Aussie ones and NZ. Even if founded, the form up much slower.

In a no war scenario, France has major possession in India. Sri Lanka is dutch. South Africa is likely to stay Dutch. You don't get a OTL British empire plus, what you get is the first British Empire (North America) being the focus of development and to a large extent the second British Empire (South Asia) never being fully born. As one diverts immigrant resources, financial resources, military resources and government focus to North America, it is simply pulled from other areas of the world.

I agree with much of this. The quote in the original post was considering a super British Empire made up of the BNA and India. My point in launching this discussion was trying to imagine the impact on the British Empire of a continuing British North America.

Whilst I do think that a European war is inevitable after the Seven Years War and that this war will result in even more colonies being occupied by Britain or simply seceding like the Spanish and Portuguese colonies, I'm not convinced Britian has the strategic will or resources to administer such a large Empire.

So I think that if the ARW is won or avoided (preferably avoided) then India and Africa will not see as much in resources and attenntion from the UK.
 
I agree with much of this. The quote in the original post was considering a super British Empire made up of the BNA and India. My point in launching this discussion was trying to imagine the impact on the British Empire of a continuing British North America.

Whilst I do think that a European war is inevitable after the Seven Years War and that this war will result in even more colonies being occupied by Britain or simply seceding like the Spanish and Portuguese colonies, I'm not convinced Britian has the strategic will or resources to administer such a large Empire.

So I think that if the ARW is won or avoided (preferably avoided) then India and Africa will not see as much in resources and attenntion from the UK.

Britain can make their gains during the Napoleonic Wars in North America and India.

I would agree Africa (apart from Southern Africa) takes up less interest but I am still interested in seeing a British Empire dominated by North America and South Asia. Remember that Britain now has the resources of the 13 colonies and Quebec to boot.
 
Britain can make their gains during the Napoleonic Wars in North America and India.

I would agree Africa (apart from Southern Africa) takes up less interest but I am still interested in seeing a British Empire dominated by North America and South Asia. Remember that Britain now has the resources of the 13 colonies and Quebec to boot.

I guess I'm trying to put myself in the UK Government's shoes in the period 1780-1880.

There is an strong colonial / dominion state just across the Atlantic with similar language and cultures with seemingly inexhaustible mineral and land resources with minimal opposition from indigenous and other colonial entities. Investment opportunities are immense and legally it operates under the same regime as the mother country.

There is also a vast country with immense human resources and which also controls key luxuries and trade routes which is half way around the world and requires a string of colonial commitments just to maintain a trade link. Culturally it is alien and whilst the economic potential is huge the idea of ever integrating the peoples completely is socially unimaginable.

For me you pour money into BNA and keep the minimum required to maintain trade with the East (think dozens of Hong Kongs / Singapores).

Australia and New Zealand are interesting experiments and represent an alternative dumping ground for miscontents once BNA gets tired of accepting Britiains criminals (or indeed when they want a home for theirs)
 
I guess I'm trying to put myself in the UK Government's shoes in the period 1780-1880.

There is an strong colonial / dominion state just across the Atlantic with similar language and cultures with seemingly inexhaustible mineral and land resources with minimal opposition from indigenous and other colonial entities. Investment opportunities are immense and legally it operates under the same regime as the mother country.

There is also a vast country with immense human resources and which also controls key luxuries and trade routes which is half way around the world and requires a string of colonial commitments just to maintain a trade link. Culturally it is alien and whilst the economic potential is huge the idea of ever integrating the peoples completely is socially unimaginable.

For me you pour money into BNA and keep the minimum required to maintain trade with the East (think dozens of Hong Kongs / Singapores).

Australia and New Zealand are interesting experiments and represent an alternative dumping ground for miscontents once BNA gets tired of accepting Britiains criminals (or indeed when they want a home for theirs)

India and China are already understood to be markets of enormous size and further growth potential. Most of the efforts towards empire were not directed by some kind of master plan by happened by a combination of ad hoc government reactions to what people were already doing.

The Empire it might be argued rather pulled than was pushed by the central government, the pushing that was needed was done by ambitious men on the frontiers.
 
I guess I'm trying to put myself in the UK Government's shoes in the period 1780-1880.

There is an strong colonial / dominion state just across the Atlantic with similar language and cultures with seemingly inexhaustible mineral and land resources with minimal opposition from indigenous and other colonial entities. Investment opportunities are immense and legally it operates under the same regime as the mother country.

There is also a vast country with immense human resources and which also controls key luxuries and trade routes which is half way around the world and requires a string of colonial commitments just to maintain a trade link. Culturally it is alien and whilst the economic potential is huge the idea of ever integrating the peoples completely is socially unimaginable.

For me you pour money into BNA and keep the minimum required to maintain trade with the East (think dozens of Hong Kongs / Singapores).

Australia and New Zealand are interesting experiments and represent an alternative dumping ground for miscontents once BNA gets tired of accepting Britiains criminals (or indeed when they want a home for theirs)

However at the time the EIC was not under the direct control of the British Government, likewise since they did not exactly have extensive use of the British Army they can do their own thing for now.

I would agree though that for the British Government itself, the main focus is North America.

By the 20th Century I could see the ITTL British Empire covering All of North America, Southern Africa, India/South Asia and Australia/NZ with various "Singapores" across the world, perhaps with various "protectorates" to secure markets.
 
I guess I'm trying to put myself in the UK Government's shoes in the period 1780-1880.

There is an strong colonial / dominion state just across the Atlantic with similar language and cultures with seemingly inexhaustible mineral and land resources with minimal opposition from indigenous and other colonial entities. Investment opportunities are immense and legally it operates under the same regime as the mother country.

There is also a vast country with immense human resources and which also controls key luxuries and trade routes which is half way around the world and requires a string of colonial commitments just to maintain a trade link. Culturally it is alien and whilst the economic potential is huge the idea of ever integrating the peoples completely is socially unimaginable.

For me you pour money into BNA and keep the minimum required to maintain trade with the East (think dozens of Hong Kongs / Singapores).

Australia and New Zealand are interesting experiments and represent an alternative dumping ground for miscontents once BNA gets tired of accepting Britiains criminals (or indeed when they want a home for theirs)

Well, to bang on about NZ again, much of the early migration from the 1840s onwards was by private company, or religious group, not by government, although the leadership of said groups were usually very closely connected to government.

The New Zealand company was a private company, in the old sense, run by people who were enthused with the idea of colonisation, in order to help Britain (by removing people) and with improving the colonies. They planted most of the initial colonies in both islands. Their main leader, Wakefield, spent time in BNA, Australia and NZ, before settling on the latter (after messing up the former). He basically kept trying till it worked.

The religious group I refer to principally were Free Church types of Scotland, who founded my province.

My point being, that colonisation was becoming a lot easier in the middle part of the 19th century. Ships, navigation, technology generally were improving massively and alongside that, people were becoming willing and able to privately fund colonisation efforts. So we do not need a government to colonise, we need a government to be sympathetic to colonisation - enable it rather than do it.
 
Last edited:
Well, to bang on about NZ again, much of the early migration from the 1840s onwards was by private company, or religious group, not by government, although the leadership of said groups were usually very closely connected to government.

The New Zealand company was a private company, in the old sense, run by people who were enthused with the idea of colonisation, in order to help Britain (by removing people) and with improving the colonies. They planted most of the initial colonies in both islands. Their main leader, Wakefield, spent time in BNA, Australia and NZ, before settling on the latter (after messing up the former). He basically kept trying till it worked.

The religious group I refer to principally were Free Church types of Scotland, who founded my province.

My point being, that colonisation was becoming a lot easier in the middle part of the 19th century. Ships, navigation, technology generally were improving massively and alongside that, people were becoming willing and able to privately fund colonisation efforts. So we do not need a government to colonise, we need a government to be sympathetic to colonisation - enable it rather than do it.

I could definately see a interest in NZ, certainly the British Government would not object.
 
One odd occurrence might be though that Upper Canada for example is less developed.

In a united British America, the St Lawrence Valley could replace New York as the main way people access the Midwest. That could cause more population in that are.

If they were given representation in the British Parliament then it would set a precedent for the other colonies to gain such representation thus butterflying the Dominions

There is no way in hell the American colonies will accept a deal in which they don't get substantial local autonomy. Representation at Westminster is a potential additional benefit, not an alternative.

As to the idea of Imperial overstretch it might be worth noting that during the American War of Independence the British fought the French and Spanish to a standstill in the Caribbean, India and Gibraltar. Only in the Thirteen Colonies did they lose and that was more because the issue was politically divisive back home and effecting the efforts to raise money for the fight elsewhere.

The British Empire in our timeline demonstrates how the idea of imperial overstretch is absurd. Did the British success in India limit their expansion into the East Indies? Did being 'focused' on Australia mean they couldn't take British Columbia? It's a nonsense concept that only exists because it applies in computer games for fairness reasons. As long as colonies aren't a net cost, there's no limit to how many you can have.

The British would try to restrict colonists to east of Appalachians, which means slower colonisation of the British lands.

No, they wouldn't. The only reason for the proclamation line in our timeline was to encourage settlement along the coasts first, to prevent other European powers making claims. They would have been quite happy to open up the interior once that was done.

What you could well see in terms of influence is the shift in balance of power within the Empire as the American Dominions increase in terms of population and economic strength. Therefore as the C20th progressed you might see the Americans run things more than the Mother Country.

This is inevitable. The way it is most likely to happen is that Britain maintains an unfair advantage in representation for a while. When eventually the increasing population means they do go below a minority, it's something they've been expecting for a while as inevitable.

How far South will they go? Will they try and gain Cuba as well?

I suspect that Cuba will be highly desired by the Brits. However, it is the lynchpin of the Spanish Empire and, without a Trafalgar, the Spanish are likely to remain a significant power. It all depends on which way the cookie crumbles.

Louisiana: Well defended. California: I would like to see that militias cross deserts and mountains in good orders.

A handful of well equipped forts thousands of miles apart is not going to stop millions of settlers who want to expand West. France also will not be able to afford getting into a global war with a super charged British Empire. They will likely sell up. California can be reached by boat, seeing that the Pacific was virtually a British lake in the 19th Century.

In India you'd see the British colonisation of it, but Pakistan and Gujarat could easily go to a different power.

Not another power necessarily, but I think the Sikh state could remain as a useful buffer.

Britain will be less interested in West Africa, they will still be interested in the Cape and East Africa for the route to India alone.

Except they've already got slave ports on the West African coast. That will likely cause ventures inland to get palm oil etc. I don't really see what East Africa offers.

Whilst I do think that a European war is inevitable after the Seven Years War and that this war will result in even more colonies being occupied by Britain

Would the French really be willing for another war against a British Empire with the American colonies loyal? Certainly by 1800 or so the power difference would be very large.

I'm not convinced Britian has the strategic will or resources to administer such a large Empire.

The localities would provide their own resources for administration. I don't see what "will" has to do with it.

India and China are already understood to be markets of enormous size and further growth potential. Most of the efforts towards empire were not directed by some kind of master plan by happened by a combination of ad hoc government reactions to what people were already doing.

Indeed. This isn't a computer game where the player has some limit that reduces governance. In any colony, a local administration is set up, which will fund itself through local taxation, recruit private individuals to run things, and train its own military. Occasionally they'll need to call in the British to fight a war, but this was the same Empire that managed to crush a full scale rebellion in India as well as defeat the Chinese Empire at the same time. "Overstretch" is an abstract term that doesn't make sense when you come to practicalities.
 
Britain can make their gains during the Napoleonic Wars in North America and India.

Why are you assuming there is going to be a Napoleonic War? If there is no ARW, the finances of France are in better shape which completely derailed the OTL French Revolution.

If Britain puts resources into North America, it has less resources elsewhere. If it has garrisons in Kentucky it can't place those same men in Gujarat. And if the colonials are having to rely on their own resources, why should they stay in the Empire? And why would the North Americans be willing to foot resources to increase British power in Malaysia?
 
Why are you assuming there is going to be a Napoleonic War? If there is no ARW, the finances of France are in better shape which completely derailed the OTL French Revolution.

Even if there is no French Revolution, the status quo in France was not sustainable. Thus there is going to be some civil unrest and thus they will have less reosurces to deal with India.

If Britain puts resources into North America, it has less resources elsewhere. If it has garrisons in Kentucky it can't place those same men in Gujarat. And if the colonials are having to rely on their own resources, why should they stay in the Empire? And why would the North Americans be willing to foot resources to increase British power in Malaysia?

However it was not the British Government which doing things in India, it was the EIC. Thus yes Westminster would be putting resources in BNA, but have nothing to do with India. To them the EIC can do what it likes and it was the case in OTL until the Mid-1800s.

However the British are not exactly going to pass using the colonies resources either, so they will be reliying on both. The North American resources however will be used in North America and not India.
 
There is no way in hell the American colonies will accept a deal in which they don't get substantial local autonomy. Representation at Westminster is a potential additional benefit, not an alternative.

OK give them the sort of self-government that the US States ended up getting but have them part of the UK itself and with seats at Westminster.

The British Empire in our timeline demonstrates how the idea of imperial overstretch is absurd. Did the British success in India limit their expansion into the East Indies? Did being 'focused' on Australia mean they couldn't take British Columbia? It's a nonsense concept that only exists because it applies in computer games for fairness reasons. As long as colonies aren't a net cost, there's no limit to how many you can have.

Agreed, North American resources can be used to expand in North Amerixa while the EIC can continue to take control of India.

This is inevitable. The way it is most likely to happen is that Britain maintains an unfair advantage in representation for a while. When eventually the increasing population means they do go below a minority, it's something they've been expecting for a while as inevitable.

Agreed although by then the Americans would consider themselves to be "British" to a large degree.

I suspect that Cuba will be highly desired by the Brits. However, it is the lynchpin of the Spanish Empire and, without a Trafalgar, the Spanish are likely to remain a significant power. It all depends on which way the cookie crumbles.

Britain could exploit local grivences in Latin America while the example of BNA is going to be a factor as well in a "if they democratic rights why can't we?"

In India you'd see the British colonisation of it, but Pakistan and Gujarat could easily go to a different power.

Not another power necessarily, but I think the Sikh state could remain as a useful buffer.

That depends on of they can find a good sucessor to Ranjit Singh, OTL they did not.

Except they've already got slave ports on the West African coast. That will likely cause ventures inland to get palm oil etc. I don't really see what East Africa offers.

Once the Suez Canal is built, it would be securing the route to India.

Would the French really be willing for another war against a British Empire with the American colonies loyal? Certainly by 1800 or so the power difference would be very large.

Alright then the EIC's interests are still going to clash with the French, thus confrontation between the two is likely.
 
I think without the ARW Britain would allow the EIC to be completely autonomous (as they did before the Revolution) and the company would choose someone from the EIC to be Governor-General instead of being appointed by the British government. So Cornwallis will never become the Governor-General and reform the EIC (he introduced Tax and Judicial reforms, worked to reduce nepotism, and the Mysore Wars would end drastically different from OTL). Without him, the EIC would probably be more corrupt and an ATL analog of the Sepoy Mutiny would be a lot worse because of it.
 
I think without the ARW Britain would allow the EIC to be completely autonomous (as they did before the Revolution) and the company would choose someone from the EIC to be Governor-General instead of being appointed by the British government. So Cornwallis will never become the Governor-General and reform the EIC (he introduced Tax and Judicial reforms, worked to reduce nepotism, and the Mysore Wars would end drastically different from OTL). Without him, the EIC would probably be more corrupt and an ATL analog of the Sepoy Mutiny would be a lot worse because of it.

Interesting, so what would happen with a even bigger Indian Munity, would the British Empire get involved fixing the mess of the EIC or would they just give up on India.

However a more independent EIC would likely still have a monopoly on trade and not force them to allow Christian Missionaries, thus the causes of the Indian Munity would be different if they happen at all.
 
Interesting, so what would happen with a even bigger Indian Munity, would the British Empire get involved fixing the mess of the EIC or would they just give up on India.

However a more independent EIC would likely still have a monopoly on trade and not force them to allow Christian Missionaries, thus the causes of the Indian Munity would be different if they happen at all.

You reckon a lot of very religious Americans in parliament means they're going to tolerate Christian missionaries being banned from India? Given the Americans had their own issues with the EIC (see a certain incident in Boston), I can't imagine the EIC getting away with even worse corruption.

Regarding East Africa, Egypt is is the gateway to India. They don't need to take East Africa unless the source of the Nile is threatened, and I can't see anyone stupid enough to do that in OTL. Besides, it's not like cutting India off from Britain is the key to depriving Britain's power in this timeline. If it happened for a short period Britain, due to her American dominions, will be able to curbstomp France (or any alternative), and take the area back.
 
You reckon a lot of very religious Americans in parliament means they're going to tolerate Christian missionaries being banned from India? Given the Americans had their own issues with the EIC (see a certain incident in Boston), I can't imagine the EIC getting away with even worse corruption.

So are you suggesting the EIC would get an even worse deal from their perspective then OTL?

Regarding East Africa, Egypt is is the gateway to India. They don't need to take East Africa unless the source of the Nile is threatened, and I can't see anyone stupid enough to do that in OTL. Besides, it's not like cutting India off from Britain is the key to depriving Britain's power in this timeline. If it happened for a short period Britain, due to her American dominions, will be able to curbstomp France (or any alternative), and take the area back.

Sorry I meant to say the Horn of Africa at least, the rest would depend on various factors.
 
So are you suggesting the EIC would get an even worse deal from their perspective then OTL?

Well, I think they got a pretty amazing deal in our timeline, but yeah, I think it's likely to get clamped down on faster.

Btw, as a small thing, the way you quote line by line causes massively long posts that are hard to read and sometimes causes people to skim such posts. I'd just use inverted commas or quote in bigger blocks. Just a suggestion.
 
Interesting, so what would happen with a even bigger Indian Munity, would the British Empire get involved fixing the mess of the EIC or would they just give up on India.

That really depends on what Britain's doing . But I think they would probably do something about it if it can.
 
Btw, as a small thing, the way you quote line by line causes massively long posts that are hard to read and sometimes causes people to skim such posts. I'd just use inverted commas or quote in bigger blocks. Just a suggestion.

Sorry to ask but how would it look in practise compared to how I currently post?

That really depends on what Britain's doing . But I think they would probably do something about it if it can.

Right so they are likely to get involved, since it would likely mean India becomes an actual colony how would it turn out?
 
The British would try to restrict colonists to east of Appalachians, which means slower colonisation of the British lands.

No, they wouldn't. The only reason for the proclamation line in our timeline was to encourage settlement along the coasts first, to prevent other European powers making claims. They would have been quite happy to open up the interior once that was done.

I don't think the British were so much in fear of other Europeans invading the eastern seaboard (which had over a million settlers already) as they were struggling to deal with the ongoing conflict in the Great Lakes region with the local tribes, which had been allied with France. Britain needed to find a way to appease them.
 
Top