Ok, so the American Colonies failed their little 'revolution', so how can this affect the world as we know it?
Ignore all the thought police. True this question has been asked before but it's ok to ask again. The thread Nazis will try to shut you down just ignore them. You might want to add what you think would have happened. I think the idea of England winning would have sparked more thought within England of overthrowing the King much like France did.Ok, so the American Colonies failed their little 'revolution', so how can this affect the world as we know it?
I think the idea of England winning would have sparked more thought within England of overthrowing the King much like France did.
Thanks; And I think that AlternateHistory should have a 'Change Forum' optionHello! Welcome to the site.
You're in the Future History forum. Since your question pertains to a point of divergence (POD) in the 1770s, it would be better asked in the Before 1900 forum. There is a wealth of information on this subject there, given how often it comes up in alternate history.
Beyond that, though, there are lots of ways a failed American Revolution would affect history. Whole stories and timelines have been written on this site about it, detailing just about every angle. Feel free to have a gander here.
They lose the British Isles during the Napoleonic wars but end up conquering the rest of the Americas and two centuries later begin a campaign of world conquest with giant robots. ALL HAIL BRITANNIA!Ok, so the American Colonies failed their little 'revolution', so how can this affect the world as we know it?
Well, this has been much talked about, as shown here. In the short term, the American revolutionaries will be suppressed, but in the longer term, some sort of self-governance will need to be instituted, and I think the British are smart enough to do that. Some sort of "Dominion of North America" is more than likely at this point. I'd argue that such measures would be immensely successful. Colonists are going to move west regardless, and I think Britain (or British North America) would conquer Louisiana and go further in such a scenario. In the short term, the occupation of British North America would probably delay the British Empire's conquest of, say Mysore, but in the long term, with the US's vast resources, the British Empire would probably be greater and more powerful, if less India-focused than OTL.
Moving further away from the US, you'd see a slightly-delayed French Revolution - French finances were doing so horrendously and the leadership was so incompetent that a lack of support of the American Revolution would be insufficient to stop it. Republicanism is birthed in the fire of revolution, and France has the military might to embark on conquest. If it establishes Spain as a client as OTL, it gives British North America an excuse to conquer Louisiana, but a lot of the French Revolution is up in the air, so to speak.
I've detailed this idea elsewhere, but I think a victory (or ideally avoiding the revolution altogether), would lead to the start of a Federal Parliamentary System. - I.e. Westminster is Parliament for the UK (and certainly the one with primacy), but then New York, or Philadelphia hosts one for the Eastern USA, with any colonies beyond the Appalachian Mountains being simple territories to later be formed into a new Parliament.
As to what it changes? Having the vast resources of the US under their control makes the British Empire significantly more dangerous on the world stage. Huge settler colony that is ethnically similar, and very close - suddenly the prospect of having to keep the continent divided is less important as there are the nearby resources of the US to draw on - so you could see Britains continental affairs lead to more acquisitions.
Alternatively, (or alongside that), you have different economic goals - India might be easier to take, and might be worth taking to prevent the French from taking it over, but it isn't needed as a massive cotton plantation (but I guess the later opium plantation isn't a 'bad' idea). Which means India might be approached differently - perhaps less Company Raj, and more Parliament of Orissa, Parliament of Mysore - basically local democracies of the landowning classes.
Fundamentally this forces any system to have to adapt - and chances are this Britain would lead to a loose federation with a common foreign policy and strategic plan - even to the point of using different currencies. As to joint decision making - how do you handle the desire to prevent the rise of a single India (an obvious strategic concern of the White Parliaments), with having the sheer number able to dominate political decision making. Chances are you'd seen England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland all suddenly getting Parliaments of their own to balance the numbers.
I think the end result wouldn't be a democracy, but something of a hybrid between an Oligarchy & Stratocracy ABOVE the Parliaments, made up of former officers and politicians, and economic interests.
Might it change once the cultures intermix and homogenise? Possibly - it might change with a larger white population emerging in an alt-Aus and alt-BNA (and I guess European possessions), so that the culture of those in power dominates - but it could well operate regardless of this - and simply operate in the interest of maintaining the union of the Parliaments. (i.e. push the frontiers, set up new parliament, push them again, establish another).
TL;DR - with an autonomous, but pacified America on side, the UK has a much bigger stick to wave around - but many of the same strategic goals.
I don't think so. Both for technical and political reasons.
The technical reason is that before the age of jetliners, you just can't have one united democratic political entity made of 2 big parts (the 13 colonies can not be compared to Belize or british caribean islands) separated by 6,000 kilometers of ocean. The travel and communications time makes it impossible to maintain a link between representatives to the imperial parliament and their constituents.
The political reason is that Britain was then all but a democracy. It was a narrow oligarchy of aristocrats and high level financiers and merchants that did not want to lose control. They did not want to share power with colonial "upstarts". They wouls have prefered, as they later did OTL, retaining their control in Britain at the cost of loosening their control on the settler colonies by granting dominion status than losing control in Britain.
I don't think so. Both for technical and political reasons.
The technical reason is that before the age of jetliners, you just can't have one united democratic political entity made of 2 big parts (the 13 colonies can not be compared to Belize or british caribean islands) separated by 6,000 kilometers of ocean. The travel and communications time makes it impossible to maintain a link between representatives to the imperial parliament and their constituents.
The political reason is that Britain was then all but a democracy. It was a narrow oligarchy of aristocrats and high level financiers and merchants that did not want to lose control. They did not want to share power with colonial "upstarts". They wouls have prefered, as they later did OTL, retaining their control in Britain at the cost of loosening their control on the settler colonies by granting dominion status than losing control in Britain.
I don't think so. Both for technical and political reasons.
The technical reason is that before the age of jetliners, you just can't have one united democratic political entity made of 2 big parts (the 13 colonies can not be compared to Belize or british caribean islands) separated by 6,000 kilometers of ocean. The travel and communications time makes it impossible to maintain a link between representatives to the imperial parliament and their constituents.