Smallest British empire WITH India

NiGHTS

So, with the Empire still keeping India, how small could it become? Think of this thread as the reverse of this one.

Bonus, how would the Empire deal with being cut off from the Mediterranean through the Atlantic, like say they never get Gibraltar and Spain is stronger than OTL after the Napoleonic wars, so that it's able to make going into or leaving the Mediterranean,without Spanish permission, hell for people, even if they eventually beat them.
 
Last edited:

spendabuck

Banned
I'm not as well versed in this time period, but Britain would probably still need most of its African colonies (in the east) to keep India; primarily Egypt so they control the Suez Canal, but most of their African colonies would probably be included if Egypt is. Also, while this doesn't need to happen to keep India, I'm sure that Britain would be interested in keeping their Pacific colonies to control trade in Asia; so, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, etc.
 

NiGHTS

spendabuck said:
I'm not as well versed in this time period, but Britain would probably still need most of its African colonies (in the east) to keep India; primarily Egypt so they control the Suez Canal, but most of their African colonies would probably be included if Egypt is. Also, while this doesn't need to happen to keep India, I'm sure that Britain would be interested in keeping their Pacific colonies to control trade in Asia; so, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, etc.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, they only gain control of Western Australia, lose all of the colonies/territories in the Americas, establish a Suez canal zone, similar to the Panama canal zone, and lose the Opium Wars. Those are some ideas.
 

NiGHTS

WalterWilliams said:
Perhaps, they only gain control of Western Australia, lose all of the colonies/territories in the Americas, establish a Suez canal zone, similar to the Panama canal zone, and lose the Opium Wars. Those are some ideas.
Click to expand...
They could also lose the Boer wars, so South Africa is lost, or at least most of it except for Cape Town, which functions similar to Hong Kong.
 

NiGHTS

In Africa, instead of the British directly conquering regions, they instead make spheres of influence, where they arm various groups in East Africa and form alliances, like the British did with the Natives in North America.
 

pompejus

spendabuck said:
I'm not as well versed in this time period, but Britain would probably still need most of its African colonies (in the east) to keep India; primarily Egypt so they control the Suez Canal, but most of their African colonies would probably be included if Egypt is. Also, while this doesn't need to happen to keep India, I'm sure that Britain would be interested in keeping their Pacific colonies to control trade in Asia; so, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, etc.
Click to expand...
I see no reason why Britain would need its African colonies. The Netherlands didn't have any African colonies and they managed to control Indonesia.


My best guess would be a POD during the middle orlate 18th century. The Uk loses all of North America during the American war of independence. Lets butterfly away the French revolution. France got a better deal out of the war, maybe some British carribean islands, sp the economic and financial situation in France is better. End result: Britain lost Canada, some carribean islands and never got Guyana, South Africa and Sri Lanka from the Dutch. The British do not found Singapore (since they never controled Indonesia) and the Dutch exchange the British Indonesian, Malay and Gold coast colonies for the Dutch Indian colonies (maybe including Sri Lanka, if you consider Sri Lanka as part of India). At this point Britain only has India and some Carribean colonies. The last mightbe lost through a war with the USA (or someone else). Or maybe Britain sells them since aren't worth much after slavery ended. The Netherlands, Portugal, France and/or Germany colonise Australia and New Zealand. Since the idea f prestige colonies don't appear, Africa and Oceania are barely colonised. In the end Britain only has India and is barely any poorer than OTL, since it lack a lot of money sink colonies and can focus on the big price.

One thing I forgot, after the American War for independence Anglo-Dutch relations get better (probably as a reaction to a stronger France) and Britain is allowed to use the Dutch Cape colony as a half-way station to India, soit doesn't feel the need to create one themselves in the area.
 

Deleted member 67076

If you avoid the British occupation of Egypt and the Cape, they lose their primary reason for their East African colonies. Egypt could be done if they don't rack up all that debt and modernize better.

Combine that with the US ripping Canada away from them, and avoid the 1870s depression that led to the Scramble of Africa and most of Nigeria and Ghana would avoid being British as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top