Largest possible British Empire?

It would not have happened anyway with that POD because the Castilian conquest of the Canary Islands had been in progress since 1402. It's probably so implausible to be ASB, but what if some of the English troop ships on their way to take part in the 3rd Crusade were blown way off course into the Atlantic, but fortuitously found the Azores, Madeira and the Canaries beginning 800 years of British settlement?

Even if that does happen, the Canaries would most likely become an independent state rather than an English colony, due to the slowness of communications if nothing else.

(Although I suppose it would be easier for England/Britain to conquer them later if they didn't have Spain protecting them.)
 
You could add large parts of China to the British Empire. As mentioned before Tibet, but also the areas surrounding the Yangtze River Delta, Pearl River Delta, a small part of Shandong, and probably other places too since they were unrivalled in the mid 19th century if they had the appetite for it.
 
It depends on what you think of as 'Britain'. I once envisioned a Britain which avoided the American Civil War, but up to the beginning of the 1800's immigration to the American realms grew and grew and America expanded westward. As the centre of power drifted towards America rather than Britain, and London (with many American diplomats in parliament) was forced to take an "America First" approach to a lot of things, discontent arose in the home country that eventually spilled over into revolution against the monarchy. The monarchy and parliament flees to America, and a Republic of Britain is set up on the home islands.

America/Britain-in-Exile takes over most if not all of Britain's western hemisphere territories while the Republic undergoes civil war after civil war. America eventually takes on a similar role to OTL USA, except more directly; they go to war with Spain over Latin American territories and seize the Philippines, they open Japan (but establish a protectorate), and so on. In my mind's eye, the East India Company would have set up shop in America long before, since that is where all the action was anyway, so America still has control of the Indian territories.

You basically get a North American goliath run by King and Parliament, with a spattering of colonies all over the world, while the British home islands are basically reduced to a backwater with successive tinpot dictatorships.
 
If the Brits get to keep the US, less effort will be made on other colonies as colonists will simply go there. But ok, why not.

Africa however is another thing. There is no impetus to colonise Africa in any shape or form. It's useless to get the interior. It's poor, hard to cultivate and people you send there drop like flies.

African colonialism on the OTL scale only happened because France ego was bruised after 1871 and wanted to show the world it still mattered. The Brits seeing that didn't want to be left behind and jumped on the colonisation ship.

Those colonies never made any money. You'd only see the coasts colonised (and not all of them, a lot of them are just as bad as the rest, see "Heart of Darkness", the scene where the gunboat fires at the jungle...). You'd have trading posts at the end of rivers, some inland if you really want but nothing besides that.
 
If the Brits get to keep the US, less effort will be made on other colonies as colonists will simply go there. But ok, why not.

It depends on the colony. India was mostly conquered as a private commercial venture so is unlikely to be significantly affected. Australia however might go differently - colonisation started there in no small part because Britain could no longer transport convicts to North America - but this probably depends on exactly how the Americans are retained, if the termination of transportation is part of the package forex then Australia would still be on the table.

Africa however is another thing. There is no impetus to colonise Africa in any shape or form. It's useless to get the interior. It's poor, hard to cultivate and people you send there drop like flies.

Sierra Leone was first settled in 1787 as a home for freed slaves, and what's now South Africa is mostly healthy for Europeans but mostly yes. Indirect rule is still a thing though (TBF you basically acknowledge this at the end).

African colonialism on the OTL scale only happened because France ego was bruised after 1871 and wanted to show the world it still mattered. The Brits seeing that didn't want to be left behind and jumped on the colonisation ship.

In an ATL were red ink is spreading across the map like a plague this would still be a motivation of course.
 
If the Brits get to keep the US, less effort will be made on other colonies as colonists will simply go there. But ok, why not.

Africa however is another thing. There is no impetus to colonise Africa in any shape or form. It's useless to get the interior. It's poor, hard to cultivate and people you send there drop like flies.

African colonialism on the OTL scale only happened because France ego was bruised after 1871 and wanted to show the world it still mattered. The Brits seeing that didn't want to be left behind and jumped on the colonisation ship.

Those colonies never made any money. You'd only see the coasts colonised (and not all of them, a lot of them are just as bad as the rest, see "Heart of Darkness", the scene where the gunboat fires at the jungle...). You'd have trading posts at the end of rivers, some inland if you really want but nothing besides that.

Kind of OT, but I've often wondered whether not doing the scramble for Africa could result in the colonial empires surviving to the present day, at least in attenuated form. Aside from the obvious economic advantages of not having to bother with all those unprofitable colonies, integrating small cities and islands is generally far easier than integrating country-sized areas (cf. Hong Kong, the Falkland Islands, the French Caribbean territories), so if the European presence in Africa was largely confined to a few city-state trading posts they might have been able to avoid serious independence movements springing up.
 
Kind of OT, but I've often wondered whether not doing the scramble for Africa could result in the colonial empires surviving to the present day, at least in attenuated form. Aside from the obvious economic advantages of not having to bother with all those unprofitable colonies, integrating small cities and islands is generally far easier than integrating country-sized areas (cf. Hong Kong, the Falkland Islands, the French Caribbean territories), so if the European presence in Africa was largely confined to a few city-state trading posts they might have been able to avoid serious independence movements springing up.
There probably wouldn't even have been colonial empires to be honest, as the places you mentioned still are in colonial hands, but we consider the empires to no longer exist. And it's not just Africa, but also Asia, so they would have still wanted independence as well. Hong Kong was leased to UK, so the Chinese were expecting to get it back and they will want and will take it by force if they have to. So, basically the colonial empires would still not exist to the current day, even without the Scramble for Africa.
 
Kind of OT, but I've often wondered whether not doing the scramble for Africa could result in the colonial empires surviving to the present day, at least in attenuated form. Aside from the obvious economic advantages of not having to bother with all those unprofitable colonies, integrating small cities and islands is generally far easier than integrating country-sized areas (cf. Hong Kong, the Falkland Islands, the French Caribbean territories), so if the European presence in Africa was largely confined to a few city-state trading posts they might have been able to avoid serious independence movements springing up.
Djibouti stayed French until 1977. It's easier to keep them if only by virtue that since they're smaller they're simpler to overwhelm with soldiers until they calm down. As islands, it's also hard to reach critical mass and they often benefit from being in a wider redistribution net.

Beyond that, you had serious colonial stuff in Asia by this time and it would have gone away at some point. Indochine could be slightly unruly.

It depends on the colony. India was mostly conquered as a private commercial venture so is unlikely to be significantly affected. Australia however might go differently - colonisation started there in no small part because Britain could no longer transport convicts to North America - but this probably depends on exactly how the Americans are retained, if the termination of transportation is part of the package forex then Australia would still be on the table.
Not convinced about India. Precisely because it's a commercial venture, you wouldn't need to conquer. See what happened with Dupleix in French India, and the BEIC was notoriously squimish with Afghan expedition and general conquest. For that, you want a state-led expansion which can sustain the costs and has another mission beyond profit (bringing civilisation, but not too much of it, to those heathens)


Sierra Leone was first settled in 1787 as a home for freed slaves, and what's now South Africa is mostly healthy for Europeans but mostly yes. Indirect rule is still a thing though (TBF you basically acknowledge this at the end).
Is it indirect rule if it's economic dominance? I think it's an issue of definition. The fact is also that at the time there weren't many/any centralised, big, African policies. So your indirect rule has to work with smaller rulers, which can complicate matters greatly. It does however help with outright conquest but why go there? Control the output and you're grand really.

In an ATL were red ink is spreading across the map like a plague this would still be a motivation of course.
On the other hand, there's no need to assert prestige and to fear the competition of any power if you already got all the nice parts
 
There probably wouldn't even have been colonial empires to be honest, as the places you mentioned still are in colonial hands, but we consider the empires to no longer exist. And it's not just Africa, but also Asia, so they would have still wanted independence as well. Hong Kong was leased to UK, so the Chinese were expecting to get it back and they will want and will take it by force if they have to. So, basically the colonial empires would still not exist to the current day, even without the Scramble for Africa.

Yeah, but if there were more (OTL plus various cities in Africa and Asia), we might consider them to still be empires. After all, the Dutch and Portuguese Empires of the 16th and 17th centuries were basically just trading posts, but we still consider them to be "proper" empires.
 
what about having the 7 years war go better for the Limeys, the Americans don't have to pay more in taxes. Also have the British take Louisiana, and the West Indies. The 13 colonies don't revolt and France is sent into civil war by the time of the FR. Britain like other Europeans invade. The British probably might take nothing or the northern coast along with colonies. We could see an alternate napoleonic wars against Britain maybe.
 
But wouldn't they get to own and/or tax most of the plantations there and whatnot, more than offsetting the cost?
That's a possibility. It also depends upon whether the defence cost is paid for by East India or the UK.

IOTL the costs of the Indian armed forces and British forces in India were paid for by the Government of India. AFAIK units such as the Kings African Rifles and Royal West African Frontier Force were paid for by the colonies they were based in.

The British armed forces deployed everywhere except India were paid for by HM Government. Corps that would now be called locally enlisted like the West India Regiment, West Africa Regiment, Hong-Kong Singapore Royal Artillery and Royal Malta Artillery were parts of the British Army proper and paid out of the British Army Estimates.

However, some of the dominions and colonies might make contributions to that through a grant known as an appropriation-in-aid. That's partially why studying expenditure on the British armed forces can be rather confusing because there were Gross Estimates and Net Estimates. For example part of the difference between the Gross and Net Air Estimates was an appropriation-in-aid from the Navy Estimates to pay for the Fleet Air Arm of the Royal Air Force, to give it its full title.
 
Henry V deciding to not waste his time continuing the Hundred Years War and instead goes up to kick Scotland's butt, then spends the savings on land forces on a navy, is a good first step. England didn't get into the imperial game seriously until 1607, 115 years after the (re)discovery of the New World. Adventures in Normandy, a nasty succession war, and Chapter One of the 12-Volume saga of Shall We Be Catholic Or Protestant Today? wasted a serious amount of time, treasure and bodies which could've gone into actually expanding the realm, mostly into the existing realms of people who can't fight back.

An early development of financial intermediaries would enable a cash-strapped nation to fund these efforts. Stock markets, banks, these can both concentrate the needed capital to start up colonies in the New World and also enrich the economy back home. IOTL the economic theory developed first in places like the Netherlands, which allowed that nation to punch far above its weight. A Romanophilic hygiene freak inheriting the throne and insisting on giving London a working sewage system would be a godsend, turning English/British cities into centres of industry and commerce without also being demographic black holes that suck in people from the country and kill them faster than they can reproduce. More people for the colonies! Importing of African labour may be neccessary for OTL levels of growth rates, but this doesn't necessarily have to be slavery. It's conceivable some sort of indentured service could be offered to Africans in contact with British colonies in Africa. Indentured servants have less reason to run away, and you probably could hire way more indentured servants than you could buy slaves. As for natives, an assimilationist policy that absorbs the natives rather than pushing or wiping them out means the colonies have yet more people, but risks political divergence from Britain as the ethnic makeup of the colonists starts to differ from Britain.

Let Spain and Portugal fight over South America, any realistic venture there is just going to spinter off into a hunt for worthless yellow rocks. The Caribbean and the Mississippi Basin is true wealth, ideal farmland for settlement and the growth of cash crops, and Texas with its oil just next door. Between a competent colonial governance and a peacekeeping force of riverboats throughout the basin, it should be easy for Britain to keep a lid on rebellion until the invention of railroads and the telegraph. Not an insane amount of land area, but it along with Portugal's OTL African empire connecting it to the Indian Ocean trade network leaves the first stage of the British empire looking very pretty and flush with cash indeed, ready to take on China and India.
 
Henry V deciding to not waste his time continuing the Hundred Years War and instead goes up to kick Scotland's butt, then spends the savings on land forces on a navy, is a good first step. England didn't get into the imperial game seriously until 1607, 115 years after the (re)discovery of the New World. Adventures in Normandy, a nasty succession war, and Chapter One of the 12-Volume saga of Shall We Be Catholic Or Protestant Today? wasted a serious amount of time, treasure and bodies which could've gone into actually expanding the realm, mostly into the existing realms of people who can't fight back.

An early development of financial intermediaries would enable a cash-strapped nation to fund these efforts. Stock markets, banks, these can both concentrate the needed capital to start up colonies in the New World and also enrich the economy back home. IOTL the economic theory developed first in places like the Netherlands, which allowed that nation to punch far above its weight. A Romanophilic hygiene freak inheriting the throne and insisting on giving London a working sewage system would be a godsend, turning English/British cities into centres of industry and commerce without also being demographic black holes that suck in people from the country and kill them faster than they can reproduce. More people for the colonies! Importing of African labour may be neccessary for OTL levels of growth rates, but this doesn't necessarily have to be slavery. It's conceivable some sort of indentured service could be offered to Africans in contact with British colonies in Africa. Indentured servants have less reason to run away, and you probably could hire way more indentured servants than you could buy slaves. As for natives, an assimilationist policy that absorbs the natives rather than pushing or wiping them out means the colonies have yet more people, but risks political divergence from Britain as the ethnic makeup of the colonists starts to differ from Britain.

Let Spain and Portugal fight over South America, any realistic venture there is just going to spinter off into a hunt for worthless yellow rocks. The Caribbean and the Mississippi Basin is true wealth, ideal farmland for settlement and the growth of cash crops, and Texas with its oil just next door. Between a competent colonial governance and a peacekeeping force of riverboats throughout the basin, it should be easy for Britain to keep a lid on rebellion until the invention of railroads and the telegraph. Not an insane amount of land area, but it along with Portugal's OTL African empire connecting it to the Indian Ocean trade network leaves the first stage of the British empire looking very pretty and flush with cash indeed, ready to take on China and India.
Nobody would know that Texas has oil, so there has to be a different reason for getting it. Also the absolute above wasn't " wasted" as it was seriously important to the development of the political systems that made England politically stable. So, without them, your English Empire could end up collapsing due to revolution. Also violently conquering Scotland is just begging for civil unrest as the now violently anti-english Scots try to regain Independence as a nation.
 
Last edited:
Nobody would know that Texas has oil, so there has to be a different reason for getting it.

Yeah, but if you wish Britain to have a semi-realistic wank, then it colonising and holding onto the Caribbean and the Mississippi Basin, with OTL New Orleans as the anchor, makes it natural for them to grab onto Texas and Mexico right next door. What's the alternative, letting the Spanish have it?
 
what about having the 7 years war go better for the Limeys, the Americans don't have to pay more in taxes. Also have the British take Louisiana, and the West Indies. The 13 colonies don't revolt and France is sent into civil war by the time of the FR. Britain like other Europeans invade. The British probably might take nothing or the northern coast along with colonies. We could see an alternate napoleonic wars against Britain maybe.
But, the seven years war will still cost money as you have to make up for losses and have to pay the soldiers.
 
Yeah, but if you wish Britain to have a semi-realistic wank, then it colonising and holding onto the Caribbean and the Mississippi Basin, with OTL New Orleans as the anchor, makes it natural for them to grab onto Texas and Mexico right next door. What's the alternative, letting the Spanish have it?
Yes
 
If the PoD is in the 100 years war, with an English Win, (ideally a total victory in 1351 - or a sneaky treaty with the nobles to institute the system below instead of paying the random) being "British" will inevitably be different, but if we want it as close to British as possible, whilst maximising the size of the future Empire, I'd suggest we have a King/advisor who causes the implementation of Viceroy system over France. Non-inheritable titles that are granted to a Lord, who basically administers as a Duke of Dukes on the Kings behalf. Viceroy of France (Northern France, granted first to Normandy), Viceroy of Aquitainia (Given to either a family member in Aquitaine, or a Gascon lord), and Viceroy of Arles/Bay of Lions (South Eastern and Mediterranean France). This isn't a replacement of the Feudal system, but a way to manage its application. Add some incentives to ensure good decentralised governance, and that system should up.

The benefits of this is that it still allows the manpower of France, with a safer British capital in London - with the addition of the interests of Britain still needing to be attained (Quick, invade the Scots and Irish with Ango-French troops!). It also means that Britain is involved in the Med, at least tangentally, and would be a contender for explorers interested in going out West. (Plus potentially involved in Italian adventures). It also means that (butterflies permitting) Britain is involved in the Med before the fall of Constantinople - which means they could learn/import some Byzantine scholars into S.France and onwards to London - creating the window of a Byzantophile King that starts to transform London into a "Third Rome". (I choose that idea on purpose).

Early discovery of the new world, the beginnings of widespread sewerage and intention towards empire could lead to vast early colonisation in OTL US Eastern Seaboard, and the Caribbean, taking it before the Spanish if the British get the knowledge first - perhaps sharing it with the Portugese in an alt Treaty of Tordesillas, with Spain limited by the British Empire being able to threaten them at land and sea by being France and Britain.

Once the New World starts getting secured, assuming Britain can maintain control in France and the Isles, whilst expanding overseas, it is a powerhouse that can really get the ball rolling if it intended to. A Britain with a strong French influence and Byzantine/Roman undertones could be an interesting cultural phenomenon that has the manpower, wealth and position to take OTL British Empire, and pat it on the head condescendingly. (Mainly because, lets be honest - would this Britain not take India? Doubtful.).

Anglo-Gascon-French in place of English, and Greek/Latin in place of French for posh/languages of the elite? That would be a very different British Empire. But one I'd like to visit.
 
Step 5. Occupy Caribbean sugar islands; profit

Step 8. Occupy Dutch colonies - South Africa (OTL) and East Indies (ATL); profit
Step 5 is perfectly feasible. AFAIK the British occupied all the French Caribbean sugar islands in the Seven Years War, but gave them back in the peace treaty.

IIRC the French sugar planters of Guadeloupe and Martinique were rather pleased to be under British rule during the Seven Years War because they had access to a larger market and therefore trade, but the existing British sugar islands wanted them given back to the French because they didn't like the competition.

AFAIK the British most of the Dutch, French and Spanish Caribbean islands twice during the Napoleonic Wars and gave many of them back twice. IIRC the main exception was Hispaniola.

As stated before Step 8 actually happened in the Napoleonic Wars anyway and AFAIK the British did not have to give them back. Therefore what we need is a reason for the British Government to want to keep them in the peace treaties. This is a semi-serious one. In 1815 France was allowed to keep what are now Belgium and Luxembourg, but what is now The Netherlands was annexed by Hanover. The sovereignty of the Dutch colonial empire passed from the former Dutch Republic to the UK, but the Dutch were still allowed to trade with their former colonies.

Although I acknowledge your points in Post 20 I still think a larger British Empire could more of a liability than an asset to the Mother Country. For one thing it would alter the European balance of power.

In European history from about 1500 to the end of the Cold War the most powerful country was usually opposed by a coalition of the smaller countries before it became powerful enough to impose a hegemony over Europe. IOTL this was first the territories controlled by the Hapsburgs, then France, followed by Germany and then the USSR. IIRC the rest of Europe ganged up against the UK during the American Revolutionary War, when IIRC France, the Dutch Republic and Spain were all at war with the UK and most of the rest of Europe was in the Armed Neutrality because it was felt that Britain had become too powerful after the Seven Years War.

If the British had a bigger empire sooner then its possible that it comes to an earlier end having being lost in a series of wars against coalitions of European powers. E.g. like Spain IOTL which developed a big empire sooner, but also lost most of it earlier. The bigger they come the harder they fall.
 
Although I acknowledge your points in Post 20 I still think a larger British Empire could more of a liability than an asset to the Mother Country. For one thing it would alter the European balance of power.

In European history from about 1500 to the end of the Cold War the most powerful country was usually opposed by a coalition of the smaller countries before it became powerful enough to impose a hegemony over Europe. IOTL this was first the territories controlled by the Hapsburgs, then France, followed by Germany and then the USSR. IIRC the rest of Europe ganged up against the UK during the American Revolutionary War, when IIRC France, the Dutch Republic and Spain were all at war with the UK and most of the rest of Europe was in the Armed Neutrality because it was felt that Britain had become too powerful after the Seven Years War.

If the British had a bigger empire sooner then its possible that it comes to an earlier end having being lost in a series of wars against coalitions of European powers. E.g. like Spain IOTL which developed a big empire sooner, but also lost most of it earlier. The bigger they come the harder they fall.

That's true. Hence why I reasoned that about the only way this could happen is if the rest of Europe is busy resisting Napoleonic continental hegemony in order to care too much about Britain taking a bunch of Islands in the Indies (both of them) or supporting independence movements in Spanish America.
 
Top