UK Less Paranoid About Access to India - Effects on Imperialism

The more I read about the British Empire, the more it seems to primarily serve access to India. So what would the imperial world look like if Britain was more confident that it could access India without direct control of the routes to it? Or am I totally off base and the British saw their colonies and protectorates as valuable stand-alone possessions?
 
The more I read about the British Empire, the more it seems to primarily serve access to India. So what would the imperial world look like if Britain was more confident that it could access India without direct control of the routes to it? Or am I totally off base and the British saw their colonies and protectorates as valuable stand-alone possessions?

An earlier Suez Canal (mid 18th century at latest I would have thought) means Britain probably doesn't bother to take South Africa from the Dutch, which in turn probably means Britain stays out of most of sub-Saharan Africa. Afrikaners gradually spread throughout most of what is now South Africa and Portugal probably achieves its dream of linking Mozambique and Angola via the overland route, but most of the rest of sub-Saharan africa probably stays the same until the ATL version of the scramble.

Egypt and Aden probably get seized/reduced to puppet states much earlier though - there's no combination of circumstances that makes Britain uninterested in security of the route to India, the best you can hope for is to reduce it to minimum.
 
Egypt and Aden probably get seized/reduced to puppet states much earlier though - there's no combination of circumstances that makes Britain uninterested in security of the route to India, the best you can hope for is to reduce it to minimum.

I view Egypt as the most egregious example of Britain taking territories to protect India. If the British weren't so worried over someone (the French? indigenous Egyptians?) blocking British ships from going through the Suez Canal, I don't think Britain would have been nearly as interested in occupying Egypt.

You can be interested in security without engaging in conquest (unless you're Putin).
 
The more I read about the British Empire, the more it seems to primarily serve access to India. So what would the imperial world look like if Britain was more confident that it could access India without direct control of the routes to it? Or am I totally off base and the British saw their colonies and protectorates as valuable stand-alone possessions?

Depends on which colonies/protectorates. Most of the African ones, Egypt and the Gulf protectorates were loss making and did serve to merely safeguard the routes to India, Malaya and Hong Kong which were actually profitable.

I think steamship logistics come into play here- the need for coaling stations turned all these unprofitable waypoints into strategic positions.
 
Depends on which colonies/protectorates. Most of the African ones, Egypt and the Gulf protectorates were loss making and did serve to merely safeguard the routes to India, Malaya and Hong Kong which were actually profitable.

I think steamship logistics come into play here- the need for coaling stations turned all these unprofitable waypoints into strategic positions.

I think I heard that Egypt was more or less breaking even.
 
Top