Revolution in Great Britain

If the American Revolution was more violent and expensive for the British or, persay, more successful for the Colonials, and all of the british-american colonies were lost, would there have been a revolution in Britain instead of France?
 
Instead of France? Hardly. There were many reasons for the French Revolution, and these wouldn't disappear just because the American Revolutionary War was more costly. Granted, there might be some greater-scale revolts in the UK, but I really doubt there'd be anything even remotely resembling a revolution.

Of course, if all the colonies are lost, things might look different, but even this is approaching ASB territory. I just don't see how that'd happen in the first place, and without knowing this, I think it's impossible to predict the consequences.
 
Last edited:
Instead of France? No.

Parallel to France? Yes. And that would have very interesting butterflies on Europe and world history.
 
I wonder whether our winning the war might not lead to a transatlantic revolution down the line, by consolidating the centralising, authoritarian, Tory-istic trend in our politics even more than it got consolidated in the 1790s or the 1820s and at the same time landing us with a running headache in America than could cross-polinate ideas back to our native radicals...
 
I wonder whether our winning the war might not lead to a transatlantic revolution down the line, by consolidating the centralising, authoritarian, Tory-istic trend in our politics even more than it got consolidated in the 1790s or the 1820s and at the same time landing us with a running headache in America than could cross-polinate ideas back to our native radicals...

Exploding with the failure of the Great Reform Act to pass through Parliament?
 
Top