Largest possible British Empire?

I'll throw in my own two cents and say that the reason for why the British Empire was so big was because the largest territories, Canada( currently the second largest nation) and Australia( current the sixth largest), were rather simple to take since they were sparsely populated and had various disadvantages against the British. ( weak weapons and succumbing to disease) Otherwise, according to my calculations, the British Empire would be the third largest Empire in history, with the Mongolian Empire and Russian empire coming in first and second, respectively. Though one could make the same arguments for those empires, which ruled sparsely populated territory as well.
 

Deleted member 97083

If the English had taken Scandinavia in the medieval era, they could become a naval power earlier, as well as retain most of the traditional naval defensibility of Britain (since almost all of their land forces could be concentrated in southern Jutland).
 

It's

Banned
Just as the scramble for Africa got really under way?

European naval artillery got better in the XVth century. Mobile artillery in the XVIIIth.

France had a massive empire, bigger than the English one at the time but got defeated in Europe. When they started again they conquered the other half of Africa.

On the other hand, England never had much success on its own against European forces. It was very good at paying for it, not much at the rest.

Also if you want to dispute the fact that artillery, rifles and modern logistics are not valid explanation to explain why the British empire was bigger than the Roman we'll have an interesting discussion

I'm pretty sure Britain already had a substantial empire- much larger than the Roman one- before the scramble for Africa and before the invention of the (certainly practically usable) MG.

Rome, BTW, was just cited as a good example of an empire where so much prestige was attached to conquest, as much for domestic politics as for economics. I didn't want to get bogged down in technologies of the times. The relevant technological comparisons are with contemporaries. Britain didn't have super advanced technologies compared to its rivals- but it did have a more pronounced (but not unique) commercial focus. The only other European imperial power with as an intense commercial focus was probably the Netherlands, and this can be seen in the size of their empire which, proportionately, was of a similar size compared to its homeland (at least for population) as the uk.
 
I'm pretty sure Britain already had a substantial empire- much larger than the Roman one- before the scramble for Africa and before the invention of the (certainly practically usable) MG.

Rome, BTW, was just cited as a good example of an empire where so much prestige was attached to conquest, as much for domestic politics as for economics. I didn't want to get bogged down in technologies of the times. The relevant technological comparisons are with contemporaries. Britain didn't have super advanced technologies compared to its rivals- but it did have a more pronounced (but not unique) commercial focus. The only other European imperial power with as an intense commercial focus was probably the Netherlands, and this can be seen in the size of their empire which, proportionately, was of a similar size compared to its homeland (at least for population) as the uk.

The Dutch, of course, got screwed as a power when all of their innovations in commerce were imported to England, who did them at greater scale. And with iron and coal deposits.
 

It's

Banned
The Dutch, of course, got screwed as a power when all of their innovations in commerce were imported to England, who did them at greater scale. And with iron and coal deposits.
"Screwed"? Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery! But yeah, this goes to my assertion re Britain's commercial focus in empire building.
...and the British were the first to understand the potential of iron and coal in combination. It wasn't a case of "they're the only country with coal and iron, the dumb lucky b@stards!"
 

longsword14

Banned
"Screwed"? Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery! But yeah, this goes to my assertion re Britain's commercial focus in empire building.
...and the British were the first to understand the potential of iron and coal in combination. It wasn't a case of "they're the only country with coal and iron, the dumb lucky b@stards!"
No, but some decades into the 19h century it was a serious advantage over those who did not.
 
How about England resupplies and bounces off the Emirate of Morocco in 1490 ? Doesn't England have an adequate relation with Morocco at that time ?
I don't know, but are you suggesting that this eventually leads to a British protectorate of Morocco instead of it being divided between France and Spain?

This reminded me of something I read in N.A.M. Rodger's The Safeguard of the Sea, which IIRC was that when trade was bad during the middle ages the English merchant marine would turn to piracy and they became the most notorious practitioners of armed robbery at sea on the Atlantic coast of Europe. Again IIRC they would often spend the winter months operating from the Barbary ports and the locals began to copy them, which was how the Barbary pirates came into being.
 
I don't know, but are you suggesting that this eventually leads to a British protectorate of Morocco instead of it being divided between France and Spain?

This reminded me of something I read in N.A.M. Rodger's The Safeguard of the Sea, which IIRC was that when trade was bad during the middle ages the English merchant marine would turn to piracy and they became the most notorious practitioners of armed robbery at sea on the Atlantic coast of Europe. Again IIRC they would often spend the winter months operating from the Barbary ports and the locals began to copy them, which was how the Barbary pirates came into being.

No...

In 1490, Christopher Columbus, sailing for a hesitant England, takes the route south to find India, or Cathay and the Great Khan. He sails south first to the Emirate of Morocco to get supplies and shot off westward taking the trade winds southwest and landing on the Carribean.
 

longsword14

Banned
No...

In 1490, Christopher Columbus, sailing for a hesitant England, takes the route south to find India, or Cathay and the Great Khan. He sails south first to the Emirate of Morocco to get supplies and shot off westward taking the trade winds southwest and landing on the Carribean.
Interesting thing is, Columbus was going to try his luck somewhere else because he had not got an answer yet; it was to petition the French monarch. He did get an affirmative before he could do that.
 
Does the population of the British Isles impose an upper limit on the size of the territory that the British can control? Some examples:
  • If England (or Scotland) conquered Latin America with its OTL population shortly before the Spanish and Portuguese where would the settlers come from? If they still mainly came from Spain and Portugal it might be an English or Scottish empire in name, but culturally it would still be Latin instead of Anglo or Celtic.
  • The British could have kept the Dutch East Indies in 1815 if they wanted to, but did the British Isles have enough people to provide the civil servants, police and army garrison?
I think the British could have retained some of the territory it conquered in the Seven Years and Napoleonic wars, but was given back in the peace settlements, that is some islands in the Caribbean Sea and Indian Ocean plus the Dutch East Indies with its OTL population and governed them successfully. However, taking and settling large chunks of a continent would require a bigger British population to provide the population.

Are there any ways to significantly increase the population of the British Isles during the Middle Ages and to increase the size of its economy proportionately as the sinews of war are infinite money. Is there any scope for less bloody civil wars, improvements to agriculture and better public health?
 
Are there any ways to significantly increase the population of the British Isles during the Middle Ages and to increase the size of its economy proportionately as the sinews of war are infinite money. Is there any scope for less bloody civil wars, improvements to agriculture and better public health?

While he is standing on the rim of the privy to hang an hourglass in the water closet of his new castle, William the Conqueror slips and hits his head against the drinking fountain. Waking up from his unconsciousness, William sees a vision, a vision of a flux capacitor modern property law.
 
While he is standing on the rim of the privy to hang an hourglass in the water closet of his new castle, William the Conqueror slips and hits his head against the drinking fountain. Waking up from his unconsciousness, William sees a vision, a vision of a flux capacitor modern property law.
Very droll...

Flush toilets, clean drinking water and modern property law. Were the first two invented by the Normans or by the Saxons before they were conquered?

But seriously if we want a much bigger empire that can be maintained for as long as the real one then a richer and more populous British Isles is required. As this is the pre-1900 forum we are allowed to go back to pre-history to get it.
 
Top