Which one have higher chance to conquer the world - British Empire or United States?

Easily the USA. Throughout history, the British Empire always had rivals that could seriously give a run for her money - Spain France, Germany, Russia/USSR, etc. The best window of opportunity is rather not even that far ahead of it's competitors, between 1815 and 1871 and even then it was contested, France was still a great power, the United States was growing fast, Germany, a potential rival had quite a few tries to try. Even given the best circumstances, I doubt that Britain in some AH-American Civil War time frame could really "take over the world" by herself. If you given the United States a crazy leader and totalitarian expansionist government in 1946, I don't see what is stopping the stars and stripes flowing all over the globe.
 
As the US didn't exist before 1776, it is quite useless to look before that period of time.

Britain probably has the most chances to achieve World Conquest from 1776 to WWI : it was always a strong power and became dominant after Napoleon's fall in 1815. It also had the strongest Colonial Empire during Victoria's reign. Britain only lost her place as the major power after WWI.

As for the US, they were very weak when their history began. They only became one of the World's major power after WWI. They became one of the two dominating forces after WWII and the only superpower after the USSR's fall.

I doubt though that one country can conquer the world : the world is far too vast and nationalism are likely to render it impossible to control.
World Domination seems more likely : a strong power having allied, vassalised, submitted or conquered the other countries.
If that's what we're talking about, I'd say britain before WWI and then the U.S. from WWI onward.
 
If you given the United States a crazy leader and totalitarian expansionist government in 1946, I don't see what is stopping the stars and stripes flowing all over the globe.

well for one thing,the states would have a very short time frame before other countries would get a nuke(russia had their first successful nuclear test in 1949,britain and canada probably had first hand knowledge of how to make one).

another would be that american troops and public would be exhausted and tired after ww2,and wouldent take well to their ''crazy leader and totalitarian expansionist government'' starting another one out of nowhere.
 
I doubt though that one country can conquer the world

I think it could be done - but it requires a lot of time or nukes. The US might conquer the world after 1945 in a rush, but that would surely include massive use of nukes and the like. Britain, on the other side, has centuries to do that and hence in the meantime could integrate the formerly conquered nations.
 
US

Really, could any one country actively rule the world? "Soft power", sure... just look around. But to actively conquer and rule? Too many people, too many different cultures, too big a distance and too hard to exert that level of dominance (The British are a good example of just such difficulties actually).

However, if you accept a broader definition of "conquering", then the US could pull it off -- if there's a change in philosophy in ~1830ish from isolationist to expansionist. The 19th and 20th centuries provided ample opportunities if the US chose to pursue them, even beyond the "soft power" style that one can argue about today.

  • Win the Mexican-American war (did that) but keep ALL the territory (instead of just NM and California, and giving back Mexico City, etc.). The Mexican population was considerably smaller compared to that of the US at the time, and significantly less than what it would grow into over the next 150 years in OTL. Encourage US development in all of its new Mexican territories.
  • Win the Spanish-American war (did that) but keep ALL the territory, (instead of keeping Guam, Puerto Rico and the Phillipines while giving Cuba independence in 1902) and actively pursue colonization/expansion and democratic political development in those areas. It would also be wise to provide the framework for their eventual inclusion into the now-growing "United States of America plus Everyone Else".
  • Beat Japan in WWII (did that) and retain territorial rights rather than handing governorship back to the Japanese in 1951-52.
  • Actively support the Republic of China in its efforts at democratization, from the 1920s through WWII. Ally status or client state would be the best bet; attempting to govern China during this time period would be impossible, much as it proved for China itself. The side bonus is that there's also no Communist China to spend the 21st century worrying about either.
  • Maintain an active governing presences in West Germany, Italy and North Africa for a significant amount of time after WWII. Institute democracy after a period of oversight but provide the aforementioned constitutional framework for eventual inclusion into the now larger "United States of A Lot of the Earth" (or some **slightly** more catchy name, lol). And really, who's going to complain... Britain? France? There's no NATO or UN to worry about. Everyone is still under the weather, so to speak, from WWII.
  • Use the Berlin Airlift crisis to continue WWII (or start WWIII) with the Soviets. In other words, actually call Stalin's bluff as opposed to doing an end run and just lifting in supplies. Nuke Moscow before they get the bomb. Demand unilateral surrender and revoking of the Treaty on the Creation of USSR, the document that birthed the USSR. Institute democracy (perhaps utilizing the previous Constitution of the Soviet Union but without the one party Communist system that made it dysfunctional), building on the models already being practiced in Guam, Puerto Rico, Cuba, the Phillipines, Japan and Europe/N. Africa, etc.
  • Pursue incidental "wars" -- political and military -- to secure footholds in Central and South America from the 1920s to 80s: Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama, etc. Continue the expansionist philosophy in the Middle East with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, as well as maintaining Iran (with a Shah, of course) and Pakistan as a client states. This is all assuming butterflies haven't done away with the need for some or all of this by now.
  • Create a petition process to allow other countries to join if they wish. Provide a constitutional framework, bill of rights, list of duties and requirements, etc. that has to be adopted and instituted before membership is granted.
  • Given the broad range of "nations" that now have a vested interest in the United States, developing some UN-like parliamentary body -- that takes the essence of the United States government but broadens it to allow for active inclusion of other nations -- would seem to make logistical sense. Just make sure it actually has "teeth" unlike our current model.
Voila, "President of the World" elections every four years and a House/Senate that actually have more than two parties. Nations govern themselves locally within a common framework of laws, and elect world leaders to guide the development of the world at large.

Or maybe that was just a US-wank. /shrug
 
Easily the USA. Throughout history, the British Empire always had rivals that could seriously give a run for her money - Spain France, Germany, Russia/USSR, etc. The best window of opportunity is rather not even that far ahead of it's competitors, between 1815 and 1871 and even then it was contested, France was still a great power, the United States was growing fast, Germany, a potential rival had quite a few tries to try. Even given the best circumstances, I doubt that Britain in some AH-American Civil War time frame could really "take over the world" by herself. If you given the United States a crazy leader and totalitarian expansionist government in 1946, I don't see what is stopping the stars and stripes flowing all over the globe.

Lol! The British Empire has the best chance of the two - though its unlikely anyone could do it.

Britain had its rivals but it could have been done theoretically over time starting in its zenith but before widespread industrialisation.

Any attempt for the US before 1945 would have been unrealistic, after 1950 we are now headed down the road of nuclear destruction and certainly from the 70s onwards it is impossible for anyone - not much point in ruling a devestated world :p. 1945-1950 possibly their best chance but Russia had survived the Nazis before, and I cant see the USA being prepared to take the casualties required to beat them.
 

Eurofed

Banned
I stand in to remark that it is actually quite easy to give the USA a much better head start and make it much more successful than OTL, my signature TL is among other things, dedicated to prove that principle.

Just give the USA a few very useful nudges at the start:

A) make Canada join the USA in the ARW: this greately enlarges their resources, expands their economic base, and hugely improves their strategic standing vs. a weakened British Empire in any future confrontation.

B) make early American culture more accepting and assimilationist of non-WASP people: this makes them have no qualms about annexing huge swaths of Latin Americans and giving them equal rights as citizens, as opportunities arise again and again during the 19th century: the Mexican War and ATL intervention in the Spanish American Wars of independence are two obvious ones, the Spanish-American War is another one. History proves that America has potential for cultural and political assimilation of new citizens that is only matched by Rome.

C) nudge American culture towards biparisan support of expansionism, militarism, and economic interventionism: this shall make the country be settled, industrialize, become militarly strong more quickly (a large part of US military weakness up to the ACW and WWI was self-induced, they could have built much bigger and better armed forces with their economic base), which creates more potential for greater expansion and more opportunity to put the extra land, people, and resources you annexed to good use.

This combination may easily yield a USA that by 1900 owns all of the Americas and choice bits of the Pacific, creating a fitting power base to crush and assimilate the British Empire and/or Europe in a couple of World Wars, provided that Europe does not unite to match super-America and/or China and India do not make their post-colonial take off much earlier.

USAO America could have easily gone on a successful WC. The TL is instead steering towards a 1984-like tripolar setup only because I purposefully let butterflies groom a parallel united Euro-Russia match, but it could have gone a different way.

IMO the British Empire never had the full potential for WC expansion and assimilation that America had, if you nudge it to be more expansionist and less exclusionary and snuff out Canada, it lost its true opportunity for WC when it lost America.
 
Last edited:
If you can drum up enough support at home for it in terms of sheer probability I’d go with the US post WWII but as other of said you likely need to use nukes rather liberally. in lieu of that probably Britain have them win the ARW and eventually take over the bulk of North America you’d also need to have them utilize India a lot better than they did OTL “which frankly is just as likely to backfire IMHO” and if the opportunity arises have the foreign service cut a deal to help the Han elite in China to overthrow the Qing in return for nominal British overlordship at which point you have a highly improbable behemoth with both the needed population base and the resources married to the world’s first industrialized economy baring nukes that’s probably your best shot at World Conquest.
 

Kharn

Banned
America. It was basically, at its height, Britain+Russia but on steroids. It had far more Naval capacity and at 1945, had plenty of manpower reserves. The USSR was the only power that could resist total conquest. And even then with nukes, a greater and better trained military that hasn't had the vast majority of it's exp slaughtered in a bloodbath, a utterly superior Air Force and Navy, an Army whose only shortcoming was a lack of good heavy tanks, which could be remedied, a totally secure and indomitable economy that was just getting warmed up, the USSR would face the one foe that could take it down via brute force all the way to the Urals and not be over-extended or killed off by logistics. And this power can invoked the Holy Nukinatus if necessary.


The rest of the world is either already exhausted, or nothing more ammo sponges.


Britain could only have done so(Not an endorsement) by having strong immigration to its colonies and keeping them with a high birthrate/immigration rate and slaughtering the natives and starting this in 1800. By 1900 have almost all of its empire be loyal and numbering 500 million or more with no doubts as to loyalty and most if not all colonies industrialized with South Africa conquering most of Sub-Sahara Africa... Basically, a realistic Draka Scenario that has the Draka influence British thought enough that eventually they abandon slavery altogether and go for a White Empire policy. Either through Racial Genocide or Cultural Genocide so complete that India looks simply like a darker-skinned England. Even better and bloodier is combine the two with a BE that isn't opposed the American Expansion west and actively encourages immigrants from Britain and other 'approved' nations to colonize it. Then take all of Mexico once that war start along with expanding in Africa and ...yeah.... All of this by 1914. It becomes a superbly awesome showdown of doom.


Either way, it requires a shit-ton of mass-murder and likely genocide by either the Atom or the Bayonet. Grimdark scenario is Grimdark.
 
Last edited:
neither actually,but for the sake of the thread,i'd have to say britain in the 19th century.probably through some kind of treaty akin to the UN with the other great powers,with britain just so happening to be in charge.

although conquer is a loose term,do you mean like say,having every other country pay taxes,or having every other county be your slave

Clearly the USA, since the world was in ruins in 1945 and only we had the bomb.
 
Clearly the USA, since the world was in ruins in 1945 and only we had the bomb.
as i said before,NOTHING is going to make the american public want to go to war AGAIN especially with their allies,after all it wasent only the british that were getting war weary.also,its not like the other nations werent trying to get a nuke too,and besides,even of they did nuke the world into oblivon,what then? sit back and enjoy the radiation coming from canada?
 
Last edited:

Redbeard

Banned
No power has ever been even close to “Conquer” the world, which includes UK and USA. But if we instead say “rule” or “dominate” UK was close in 19th century and USA in 2nd half of 20th century. They both exerted power globally (as no one else ever has) and no power could leave their own backyard without having to look out for the Brits/Yanks coming to punish them.

But inside those backyards Brits/Yanks had(has) to be very careful, perhaps one at a time, but never all. I simply can’t imagine a plausible power that it would be in direct control of the entire planet – which is also why the term “international law” is such an illusion.

But back to your question the Brits were first to be global and did more themselves to achieve their role than the Americans did IMHO. The American position post WWII was handed over to them almost for free by taking over responsibilities from European powers bleed white in two world wars.

So neither UK nor USA completed their marathon but the Brits arrived at the 5 km mark about a 100 years in advance and due to the time passed it is really difficult to say if USA reached 4,5 or 5,5 km.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 
Yeah, I never said that either British Empire or United States CAN CONQUER the world. (and I don't believe it, too)
But I was asking which one that HAVE HIGHER CHANCE to do that.
It is different, isn't it...? :D
 
Yeah, I never said that either British Empire or United States CAN CONQUER the world. (and I don't believe it, too)
But I was asking which one that HAVE HIGHER CHANCE to do that.
It is different, isn't it...? :D
can you give us a time peroid so we can stop bickering?
 
Top