With any PoD, make Britain the backwater of Europe, a minor power that nobody bothers to even exploit. i.e, no major British Empire at any point.
Irrelevant Britain
- Thread starter CandyDragon
- Start date
Due to its opportune geography and large coal deposits, this could be hard, especially in the industrial age. You'd have to find some way to prevent Britain from industrializing and/or dominating naval trade before other countries. Perhaps having a disunited British Isles would be a start, potentially a no Norman conquest scenario. But as soon as coal starts powering a navy, it's hard to keep Britain out of the running.
It's too strategically placed to believe that no one will ever exploit it. However, backwater political status could be had. A disaster during the period of the Spanish Armada, perhaps? Not an invasion of England, necessarily, just a more astute approach by the Spaniards leading to a naval victory. England was nearly bankrupt at the time anyways; such a serious reverse leading to political concessions could knock them out of consideration for world power status. That's just one quick idea; I'm sure others will have better ones. Stronger, more unified Kingdoms of Ireland and Scotland over the course of time might keep them to busy to form an empire.
At several points before the 18th century the British navy was allowed to fall into decay and rot. Just have one of these periods become the norm, and the British won't come to greatness.
They'll be somewhat important, and once they industrialize the coal will be of great importance, but if they're dominated by other powers, they'll be a somewhat important resource for raw materials, and some manufactured goods, but they'll never build an empire.
They'll be somewhat important, and once they industrialize the coal will be of great importance, but if they're dominated by other powers, they'll be a somewhat important resource for raw materials, and some manufactured goods, but they'll never build an empire.
I Blame Communism
Banned
The traditional way around here is to have England, by French endeavour or its own, physically dominated by France. This can't be done after the mid-1500s.
But the introduction of steam confirmed - against a stiff challenge from America, true - an already existing domination of both military and civilian kinds of shipping. The heyday of our world economic superpower came in days when steam-shipping was still in a distinct minority.
The 19th century saw long periods of stagnation, complacency, appearance obsession, faulty doctrine, and the like, as did the 17th: when a serious challenge appeared, it was fixed. I don't see how you can prevent it: Britain has a huge mercantile interest and a series of overseas colonies. It's not Russia, which could built a fine fleet and then forget about it.
For Britain to just stop trying to be a maritime power would require some sort of physical disaster.
A) Would we industrialise so early and completely, in the absence of such naval and imperial power? The answer is probably yes in any recognisable Britain, although quite possibly other powers would catch up quicker, especially France, if it avoids its own physical disasters.
b) But if we do industrialise as IOTL - and takeoff is reckoned around the 1780s, the point-of-no-return perhaps in the 1760s - then there is no question of 'somewhat important'. We're only talking about the greatest change in human life since the invention of settlements and agriculture here.
Coal had long been growing and Britain certainly produced more than everybody else put together by a long way around 1800, but it was not the first element of industrialisation or necessary for it: it put steam-engines in the ideas-space, but that's bound to happen (coal is a domestic good, nearly all the consumption was at home) and anyway some of the early mills didn't even rely on steam at all.
It's with the railway that it became super-duper important.
How did we get from a less enthusiastic naval-imperial policy to being somebody's colony? The British crown of the early 1600s, which had no army, a small fleet that it rented to other people, a tiny colonial empire, and a small trade, was still a perfectly independent polity.
But who would buy the coal if not us? Very few people in Europe used coal for anything prior to railways and the associated explosion in the iron industry (some in Belgium where it was easy to get, I believe): they had abundant charcoal. Britain, except for a few areas, is short on forest (and even then some 18th C foundries were located in the Highlands precisely to take advantage of it) and so coal has been mined from the earliest times.
And of course railways are an offshoot of coal-mining.
Are we talking about the industrial revolution or not here?
But mercantile imperialism came before industrial explosion and very likely contributed to it, by furnishing Britain with vast markets in which it could sell without limitation.
But the introduction of steam confirmed - against a stiff challenge from America, true - an already existing domination of both military and civilian kinds of shipping. The heyday of our world economic superpower came in days when steam-shipping was still in a distinct minority.
The 19th century saw long periods of stagnation, complacency, appearance obsession, faulty doctrine, and the like, as did the 17th: when a serious challenge appeared, it was fixed. I don't see how you can prevent it: Britain has a huge mercantile interest and a series of overseas colonies. It's not Russia, which could built a fine fleet and then forget about it.
For Britain to just stop trying to be a maritime power would require some sort of physical disaster.
A) Would we industrialise so early and completely, in the absence of such naval and imperial power? The answer is probably yes in any recognisable Britain, although quite possibly other powers would catch up quicker, especially France, if it avoids its own physical disasters.
b) But if we do industrialise as IOTL - and takeoff is reckoned around the 1780s, the point-of-no-return perhaps in the 1760s - then there is no question of 'somewhat important'. We're only talking about the greatest change in human life since the invention of settlements and agriculture here.
Coal had long been growing and Britain certainly produced more than everybody else put together by a long way around 1800, but it was not the first element of industrialisation or necessary for it: it put steam-engines in the ideas-space, but that's bound to happen (coal is a domestic good, nearly all the consumption was at home) and anyway some of the early mills didn't even rely on steam at all.
It's with the railway that it became super-duper important.
How did we get from a less enthusiastic naval-imperial policy to being somebody's colony? The British crown of the early 1600s, which had no army, a small fleet that it rented to other people, a tiny colonial empire, and a small trade, was still a perfectly independent polity.
But who would buy the coal if not us? Very few people in Europe used coal for anything prior to railways and the associated explosion in the iron industry (some in Belgium where it was easy to get, I believe): they had abundant charcoal. Britain, except for a few areas, is short on forest (and even then some 18th C foundries were located in the Highlands precisely to take advantage of it) and so coal has been mined from the earliest times.
And of course railways are an offshoot of coal-mining.
Are we talking about the industrial revolution or not here?
But mercantile imperialism came before industrial explosion and very likely contributed to it, by furnishing Britain with vast markets in which it could sell without limitation.
The POD would have to be something along the lines of extreme corruption in the navy that surpassed even OTL and saw domination, not colonization, but humiliating and disastrous defeat by a larger power, which continued to keep a large navy after the humiliation. Not easy.
Before the late 1500's the English navy was laughable, it didn't even have charts of its home waters. If the early navy had been destroyed before it could become useful, it might keep the British thinking they should simply protect their own shores.
Likely, but it depends on the POD.
Agreed. But if it happens after France, Spain and maybe Prussia industrialize, it could go very differently.
Agreed. This would mean the British become an economic power, not necessarily a military or expansionary power.
If the government doesn't act on industrializing quickly enough for some reason, it might take a while to be used, allowing other nations to surpass it. Or the government might try to control it too much, and smother a lot of the industry via centralization.
Who said colony. I was thinking dominated by threats of violence and much larger economies.
If parts of Europe industrialized sooner than Britain they may need some more coal. If Britain is small, weak and relatively poor, they might sell some of their coal and resources to get some much needed funds, which would allow them to industrialize later.
Limited industrialization, and later than OTL. After France, and several other countries industrialize.
True, which is why a POD in the 1500's is probably necessary. Unless we want England invaded.
Doing it after 1500 is very improbable. Weakening any of the British polities through balkanization is your best bet.
hmm...if Britain was a minor empire, then I seriously doubt the foundation of the colonies due to the fact theyre a minor power. Also, if they were a minor power, then I doubt that Britain and France would have gotten in so many wars due to the fact Britain would not have had the military power to back it up. If no one exploited the British, then I think they would have closed them selves off like Japan did before we sent people to try and open it up to trade.
The pope grants Henry VIII the anullment of his marriage, England thus stays catholic. Edward VI dies young just as he did in OTL and is succeeded by Mary Tudor who still marries Philip II. In TTL, she gives birth to a son, who is both King of Spain and England, England thus remains a backwater of the spanish Empire in the way the spanish (southern catholic) Netherlands did, wealthy but globally insignificant.
The butterflies, they are burning!!!!
Even if England were to become part of the Spanish Habsburg's domains, there's no reason why they couldn't have an empire of their own. Portugal kept control of its empire during the Philippine period, after all, and it was Aragon* that had the Italian domains under its aegis.
But even in this scenario, England would still be an important source of money, manpower and resources for the Spanish campaigns on the continent. If anything, it would allow the Spaniards to give France the finger if it meant excluding it from foreign expansion...
*There was no officiall country called the "Kingdom of Spain" IOTL until after the War of the Spanish Succession.
I Blame Communism
Banned
Anent Balkanisation: none of the things vital to what we shall call Anglo-British world power (navy, commercial imperialism, industrial explosion) depended on in direct way on a united Britain. Indirectly a French-aligned Scotland might certainly be a means to keep England poorer, more embattled, and less secure; but a Scotland that goes the Irish way doesn't particularly hurt England's immediate prospects.
Not easy at all; and further, the threat of an upstart power usually prompts energetic new men and plans as seen various times in the history of sea power in Britain and other countries: Fisher, the massive expansions after Beachy Head, the Dutch redesigned their navy after their embarrassing draw with Cromwell and beating us good and proper the next time around. The first and last examples in particular are very applicable since we're talking about powers for whom a naval-mercantile interest is absolutely vital.
That's why I think you have to strike before it is.
Of course, the sciences of sailing and hydrography were less advanced full-stop. The really essential fact was that England in the 1500s had much smaller resources than France or Spain. But it did have a sufficient seafaring tradition to pay for a good navy when it was paying. The Elizabethan sailors were exploiting resources that the country had.
Similar case: if you have the resources to build a navy and the need for one, you build it. So you have to get rid of the one or the other or both.
This is just what I mean about a seafaring tradition. The Elizabethan navy was destroyed in that it ceased to be maintained at any standard of efficiency, shrank in size, got rented out to other countries, and in general ceased to be an important factor in English policy. Ships went obsolete and sailors died.
More sailors were born, however, and ships continued to be built, because this is a country with enough civilian seafaring to allow the establishment of a fleet. When the time came, William III could establish a much larger fleet than what existed (by about a factor of four) for this reason.
This isn't a lottery, though. France you could just about sell me (especially with Belgium); Spain took its sweet time joining the industrial world as it was; and Prussia at this time means East-Elbian Prussia whose big resource is Silesian coal (which isn't as I've said, such a big deal until a capital-goods boom that very much depends on British circumstances) and whose native proto-industry actually got murderously undercut in the early industrial period.
Historians put the origins of the British industrial revolution further and further back; I don't agree with the more extreme examples, but I think it's fair to say that while it might not have happened in Britain, it's difficult to make so dramatic a transition anywhere else.
The sinew of war is money; and in the 18th century, when Britain explicitly and implicitly thought about wars in terms of markets and trade, this is especially true. And whichever way you look at it, 'world workshop' is no backwater.
The government created the conditions for industrialisation precisely by establishing that the role of the state was to facilitate making money and my using its armed forces to capture markets (ie, what we're saying it isn't going to do) and kneecap competitors, but it had almost nothing directly to do with the early process of industrialisation itself; nor, at the very earliest stage, did the traditional mercantile Big Money. The mills were started by tradesmen and publicans pooling their savings. And Britain is conspicuously just about the only country who built an entirely private railway network in the period.
For what to be used?
Early industrialisation in various countries, by the way, relied not just on British capital but also on big contingents of globetrotting British steam-men. Really dramatic industrial change would require an alternative epicentre, presumably in France(-Belgium).
That's fundamentally contradictory to the nature of Britain at this time, and the question of industrialism actually being invented in some sort of semi-planned economy is a really vast one and probably beyond the scope of the discussion.
But planning and intervention was by no means death to industrial development. Look at Japan.
How can Britain be an economic power and yet threatened by larger economies? In the 18th century the volume of British trade and manufactures was already at a point where it had few serious competitors - chiefly, again, France. Much of the eastern half of Europe was basically a producer-economy in this world system.
What for?
This is a good example of how deeply the industrial revolution as we know it depended on Britain's unique circumstances. We needed to keep a rising population warm in winter; more coal was mined; this encouraged the use of the steam-pump and the rail-cart; the industrial revolution created vast stocks of capital; somebody suggested putting the steam-pump on the rail-cart; railway-mania.
If the rise of textile factory-production for an unlimited market happened in some other country, relying (as early British mills frequently did) on some other source of power such as hydraulics, who is to say that coal, iron, and railways promptly become the indices of industrial development? The best possibility I can see is a Franco-Belgian economic area and even that's certainly very different.
After all, the building of railways everywhere was certainly influences by a mixture of their strategic possibilities and heady romanticism: a lot of them took a long time to pay their bills.
But if Britain is poor and without imperial markets (the island being of a fixed size, I presume this is what is meant by small), why coal to begin with?
But we must recognise than an industrial revolution and a world economy that aren't British are fundamentally different. This is seriously one of the largest changes to the basic forces of history I can think of within the last several centuries. If we recognise it's massive importance, we must surely recognise that the particular circumstances of it can have huge repercussions?
Not easy at all; and further, the threat of an upstart power usually prompts energetic new men and plans as seen various times in the history of sea power in Britain and other countries: Fisher, the massive expansions after Beachy Head, the Dutch redesigned their navy after their embarrassing draw with Cromwell and beating us good and proper the next time around. The first and last examples in particular are very applicable since we're talking about powers for whom a naval-mercantile interest is absolutely vital.
That's why I think you have to strike before it is.
Of course, the sciences of sailing and hydrography were less advanced full-stop. The really essential fact was that England in the 1500s had much smaller resources than France or Spain. But it did have a sufficient seafaring tradition to pay for a good navy when it was paying. The Elizabethan sailors were exploiting resources that the country had.
Similar case: if you have the resources to build a navy and the need for one, you build it. So you have to get rid of the one or the other or both.
This is just what I mean about a seafaring tradition. The Elizabethan navy was destroyed in that it ceased to be maintained at any standard of efficiency, shrank in size, got rented out to other countries, and in general ceased to be an important factor in English policy. Ships went obsolete and sailors died.
More sailors were born, however, and ships continued to be built, because this is a country with enough civilian seafaring to allow the establishment of a fleet. When the time came, William III could establish a much larger fleet than what existed (by about a factor of four) for this reason.
This isn't a lottery, though. France you could just about sell me (especially with Belgium); Spain took its sweet time joining the industrial world as it was; and Prussia at this time means East-Elbian Prussia whose big resource is Silesian coal (which isn't as I've said, such a big deal until a capital-goods boom that very much depends on British circumstances) and whose native proto-industry actually got murderously undercut in the early industrial period.
Historians put the origins of the British industrial revolution further and further back; I don't agree with the more extreme examples, but I think it's fair to say that while it might not have happened in Britain, it's difficult to make so dramatic a transition anywhere else.
The sinew of war is money; and in the 18th century, when Britain explicitly and implicitly thought about wars in terms of markets and trade, this is especially true. And whichever way you look at it, 'world workshop' is no backwater.
The government created the conditions for industrialisation precisely by establishing that the role of the state was to facilitate making money and my using its armed forces to capture markets (ie, what we're saying it isn't going to do) and kneecap competitors, but it had almost nothing directly to do with the early process of industrialisation itself; nor, at the very earliest stage, did the traditional mercantile Big Money. The mills were started by tradesmen and publicans pooling their savings. And Britain is conspicuously just about the only country who built an entirely private railway network in the period.
For what to be used?
Early industrialisation in various countries, by the way, relied not just on British capital but also on big contingents of globetrotting British steam-men. Really dramatic industrial change would require an alternative epicentre, presumably in France(-Belgium).
That's fundamentally contradictory to the nature of Britain at this time, and the question of industrialism actually being invented in some sort of semi-planned economy is a really vast one and probably beyond the scope of the discussion.
But planning and intervention was by no means death to industrial development. Look at Japan.
How can Britain be an economic power and yet threatened by larger economies? In the 18th century the volume of British trade and manufactures was already at a point where it had few serious competitors - chiefly, again, France. Much of the eastern half of Europe was basically a producer-economy in this world system.
What for?
This is a good example of how deeply the industrial revolution as we know it depended on Britain's unique circumstances. We needed to keep a rising population warm in winter; more coal was mined; this encouraged the use of the steam-pump and the rail-cart; the industrial revolution created vast stocks of capital; somebody suggested putting the steam-pump on the rail-cart; railway-mania.
If the rise of textile factory-production for an unlimited market happened in some other country, relying (as early British mills frequently did) on some other source of power such as hydraulics, who is to say that coal, iron, and railways promptly become the indices of industrial development? The best possibility I can see is a Franco-Belgian economic area and even that's certainly very different.
After all, the building of railways everywhere was certainly influences by a mixture of their strategic possibilities and heady romanticism: a lot of them took a long time to pay their bills.
But if Britain is poor and without imperial markets (the island being of a fixed size, I presume this is what is meant by small), why coal to begin with?
But we must recognise than an industrial revolution and a world economy that aren't British are fundamentally different. This is seriously one of the largest changes to the basic forces of history I can think of within the last several centuries. If we recognise it's massive importance, we must surely recognise that the particular circumstances of it can have huge repercussions?
Last edited:
I Blame Communism
Banned
Hum. If Jacobitism were to prevail in '14-15 (when it had it's best real shot) we might be talking. Both France and Spain had energetic regimes and large resources at this point and could have gone places, especially if they both realised earlier on that world markets were more important than a hantle of Italian duchies or Rhine forts.
(Of course getting Belgium at some sufficiently early point massively changes the game for France and makes it much easier for her to have something like the British industrial revolution.)
No sure thing, though. It's not as if the Stewarts were against commercial imperialism: they practised it cheerily at times.
Nor do I see how Scotland and Ireland could be 'spun off as French puppets'. Perhaps one could get Jacobite Ireland depending on France in the 1690s; but Jacobite Britain is Jacobite England is England is the centre of power and quite capable of outdoing France in its own back-garden.
And the last time France tried to rule Scotland went so well...
The butterflies, they are burning!!!!
Even if England were to become part of the Spanish Habsburg's domains, there's no reason why they couldn't have an empire of their own. Portugal kept control of its empire during the Philippine period, after all, and it was Aragon* that had the Italian domains under its aegis.
But even in this scenario, England would still be an important source of money, manpower and resources for the Spanish campaigns on the continent. If anything, it would allow the Spaniards to give France the finger if it meant excluding it from foreign expansion...
*There was no officiall country called the "Kingdom of Spain" IOTL until after the War of the Spanish Succession.
Portugal already had colonies before, England didn't. Since England would be an important source of money for the Habsburgs, there would not be enough left to build up the royal navy as it did happen in OTLs Elizabethan era (there definately won't be the gold robbed from spanish gold fleets by english pirates in TTL), so Britannia won't ever rule the waves. Without ruling the waves no hope to establish a meaningful colonial empire, maybe some toy colonies by the grace of Spain like OTLs Nova Scotia and New Brunswick (too far north, too cold and thus not interesting for Spain) at best.
Only if it was prevented from industrializing on its own and all the industrial output, resources and most of the profits would go to the "overlords" ruling the country. Whoever they were. If the overlords in question would just be good old Normans, you'd need something bordering on a caste-like system of Norman-descended Brits vs. Anglo-Saxon-and-other descended Brits. And it would have to endure perfectly intact for centuries, with little room for social mobility. Something like this actually happened in OTL, but it was already almost gone by the 14th century. So, it's pretty ASB to hope the Normans won't mingle more with the locals and will constantly want to prevent them from reaching wealth. Worse yet, if the commoners of Britain revolt against the Norman-only ruling class, you could get early 20th century Ireland levels of nastiness, but a hundred times worse.
In any case, it's very hard to decimate Britain to the point where it's the Albania of the Atlantic.
Even my long TL, which features a generally less succesful Britain, didn't overdo the nerfing to the point of implausibility. Once the Age of Sail analogue rolls in, Britain will start counting its first global successes. But, without a Cromwell-like era of maritime tradition build-up, Britain might turn out to not be the only ruler of the seas.
In any case, it's very hard to decimate Britain to the point where it's the Albania of the Atlantic.
Even my long TL, which features a generally less succesful Britain, didn't overdo the nerfing to the point of implausibility. Once the Age of Sail analogue rolls in, Britain will start counting its first global successes. But, without a Cromwell-like era of maritime tradition build-up, Britain might turn out to not be the only ruler of the seas.
Very doable; just have Harald Hardrada land after Hastings, and have England partitioned between Scandinavians (Danes and/or Norse) and Normans, with the Scots and Welsh remaining independent. As long as England is divided into competing realms it will remain weak and relatively insignificant.
I agree with pretty much everything you said.
Which is why at the bottom of my last post I said this:
After reading your post, I'm going to say it 'Definitely needs a POD in the early or mid 1500's. Barring invasion and conquest of course.Domoviye said:
amphibulous
Banned
British ports dominate the North Atlantic. The UK blocks routes from Germany and Scandanavia, and France only has a handful of sites for decent Atlantic ports to the UK's hundreds. Don't forget that the min motivation for the Armada was that neutralizing Britain was necessary if the Spanish were going to be able to supply their troops in the Netherlands effectively.
Islands in strategic positions like the UK either establish very strong defenses or are fought over ferociously.
The best you could sanely do with a small change is to have the UK lose its naval contest with the Netherlands and so not gain a major empire. Then, later, when the UK is threatened by France or Stuart craziness it could repeat 1688 in a way that would make it a junior partner to Holland. Maybe the UK could then split into Stuart and Orange parts? The Dutch would then exploit the ports and the coal.
Another change that might work is to have the British do a Dubya and spend more on fighting the American Revolution that the Colonies are worth. The AR succeeded mainly because the French spent insane amounts of money supporting it, leading to the collapse of the Ancien Regime. If the spending and sanity were reversed, then the UK could end up in a very nasty position.