So, to keep the thread alive while I very slowly try to get away from all of the little side projects I've been doing, I've got a few discussion points, mainly about Asia.
Japan, Korea, and the Pacific:
Since we said that the US, being more Dem-Rep than Federalist-leaning ITTL, is a bit less expansionist, and thus is unlikely to be the one opening Japan, and may be less involved in Hawaii (or more, given the lack of a British Pacific Coast, and the expanded American one) than IOTL. I'd expect Britain to open Japan a bit later than the US did IOTL.
India and the rest of the subcontinent:
British colonization is delayed by wars with Mysore. Colonial activity happens in between these wars, but is slower that IOTL. Expansion into modern Uttar Pradesh happens only in 1815 (during the ceasefire in the prolonged Napoleonic wars) as opposed to around 1804 as in IOTL, by some point soon after 1820 when the war ended, let's say 1823, all of that region is conquered. The British focus more on the Principalities just inland from Orissa, and end up a bit further ahead there than IOTL before the Napoleonic wars. The Gulf of Khambhat is significantly colonized much later as Mysorean naval and pirate/privateer I guess attacks make accessing the region harder for the British . Individual cities are controlled, but not a lot of inland territory. We might see more cities coming under British rule though. After Central India is conquered though, they will have an overland connection and expansion in the region should pick up speed. Basically, the Bombay Presidency ends up the most screwed out of all of them.
I’d say that by 1830 the British mostly fill in the gaps in central India, but still don't have the northwest and OTL Pakistan. Maybe after the 1830s (Ie. 1840s ish), they finally subdue Mysore, because, after all, without significant allies and with the rocket technology gap closing, it is going to happen eventually. I would guess that with the west coast being more problematic, the British would focus on expanding into the east, gaining a bit more land in coastal Burma by 1830, and later making northern Burma a protectorate. Given slower British expansion, I can see both the Afghans and the Russians expanding more into the region. I’d imagine the Afghans expanding a bit into India, and this in turn delaying British entry into Baluchistan and Central Asia, allowing the Russians to gobble up a few more small local states, like taking more of Badakhshan and maybe even Kashmir, though this is for later, once we have the rest of the world up to the 1830s figured out. I could also see slower British expansion meaning ever so slightly larger Portuguese land holdings around Goa. Not too much larger, but a smidge.
The Gurkha wars would either not happen or go differently, given the fact that a different king would be in charge (
Rajendra Bikram Shah rather than
Girvan Yuddha Bikram Shah). We might end up with an even longer Nepal or a shorter one. What do you guys think about this (assuming any of you are even still watching this thread).
Here's a SUPER ROUGH map of what I was thinking of, borders are definitely subject to change if someone with better knowledge of the region is willing to help. Especially Princely States and Afghanistan.
Other Topics:
The Second Opium War is something to think about, though IOTL, it starts a bit after the point that TTL is at rn.
The white Raj of Sarawak. I find it interesting as a historical concept, there's no reason for it not to, so it happens ITTL. The question is, how do TTLs events impact Sarawak.
The Chinese Kongsis on Borneo. Family/clan-run mining companies that hold sizable tracts of land in northwestern Borneo, south of Sarawak. I kind of want to do something with them but I'm not sure.
US of A:
Moving away from Asia for a moment, the USs increased anti-British and Pro-French leaning after TTLs revolutionary war was just kind of brought up, but its effects never discussed. There are two things that come to mind. First of all, the "pseudo war" after the French revolution. I see the Dem-Rep governemnt being more supportive of the French Revolution, and it either not happening or being even less pronounced. There's also the Haitian revolution. While I still think that the Haitians will eventually win, what would a more pro-French but less expansionist US do here? Would they send more aid to the French? Troops? Blockade Haiti? Impose even worse sanctions? Or maybe just do nothing differently from OTL? I'd imagine Newfoundland would be quite poor to begin with, being reliant on the US and Britain, but the US likely restricting trade with it, Newfoundland would have to import almost everything from Britain, which would be a pain in the ass and ramp up prices.