WI britain kept all colonial and island territories it occupied in 1814-1815?

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
At the congress of Vienna Britain refuses to agree to withdraw from any colonial territories it occupied during the Napoleonic wars.

It has possession and just doesn't want to leave figuring they earned them with all with blood sweat tears and money spent in the wars.

Practically this means britain keeps the Dutch East Indies, the French Caribbean and French India.

I probably didn't have a complete list of all the overseas territories Britain occupied in 1814-1815.

Did they in fact occupy *all* French and Dutch (what about Danish?) overseas colonies, or were some just left isolated during the Napoleonic wars? *during* the wars, the British never assigned any territories seized from France to a Bourbon Administration, did they? [not to my knowledge]

What are long term consequences?

The Prussians and Austrians and Russians (& Dutch & French) probably feel the British were greedy, and make their own claims for compensatory expansion within Europe on their own behalf.

Perhaps a knock-on of assertive British unilateralism with regard to the overseas territories, is that there is no persuading Prussia to relax its aims against all of Saxony and Russians aims against Prussian Poland (wonder what the border would look like). I also wonder if the Netherlands (or Denmark) would or could get any territorial compensation on the mainland.

This PoD in itself does not necessarily forestall later French, Dutch, Danish or other European colonial enterprises starting from scratch in areas yet unclaimed by Europeans. Things could go a few different ways.

On the other hand, the French may read the British actions in 1814-1815 as meaning the British are likely to sooner or later squash or grab French overseas colonial attempts, so the French might themselves hesitate to start colonial enterprises in Algeria and elsewhere in the 19th century, at least for a generation or two.

With the Brits in continuous possession of the old DEI & having the center of Batavia, they may not bother to build up Singapore.

I wonder if the Dutch would try to start any new colonies from scratch anywhere in the world. In Africa, perhaps in areas of the Malayan straits as yet untouched by Britain. Or they may figure that colonialism is a game they cannot win. Interestingly, the Dutch outpost at Deshima, Japan is rather more isolated without having the DEI to link up to.

On British policy in the Far East, one wonders if it would boost British efforts in the region and the drive for the China trade, or make them more complacent, perhaps delaying the opium wars.

If the French and/or Dutch try founding new colonies from scratch, and Britain is mainly content with its Napoleonic War gains, you could have some interesting opportunities. Perhaps the French moving first and more aggressively in New Zealand, earlier French interest in Indochina and Korea, more aggressive French led efforts to open the China market.

The Dutch probably wouldn't do it, but it they want to restart a colonial enterprise in the east perhaps they could try to seize Taiwan where they had a dormant centuries old claim.
 
I wonder if the Netherlands will survive it, and if so how.

The new Kingdom was based in part on a legitimate claim to heritage from the Republic's Stadhouder. If King Willem I has just lost all the East Indies, he's gonna have a difficult time indeed establishing his legitimacy.
 
This seems like a bad idea for Britain. It would end up antagonizing its neighbors at a time when all of Europe is exhausted by war, and undermine the Bourbon monarchy in France it has fought for so long to restore. It also presumably would not get Hanover back in this scenario.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Who is daring to hold Hanover as a hostage against the paymaster of Europe? Of course britain "compensating" the dutch you adding giving Hanover to the king of the Netherlands would be interesting and would be a deal the British parliament, gentry and public would love
 
Last edited:
Who is daring to hold Hanover as a hostage against the paymaster of Europe? Of course britain "compensating" the dutch you adding giving Hanover to the king of the Netherlands would be interesting and would be a deal the British parliament, gentry and public would love

While it is in a very powerful position in 1814-15, Britain surely remembers what happened in the American Revolution, when it basically had to fight an alliance single-handedly. It doesn't want to find itself in that situation again, so if it's going to hang on to the overseas colonies of the Dutch and French, it's going to offer some kind of restitution.

Hanover is the most logical thing to offer in exchange. Perhaps it could be given to the Dutch, while France is allowed to hang on to Belgium (which Austria didn't seem to mind giving up, anyway).

But the problem is that at the end of the day, it's still His Majesty's Government. It's hard to imagine Parliament going against the King's wishes to reclaim Hanover, even if it wouldn't mind doing so.
 
Last edited:

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
But the problem is that at the end of the day, it's still His Majesty's Government. It's hard to imagine Parliament going against the King's wishes to reclaim Hanover, even if it wouldn't mind doing so.

Fair enough, I realize the unlikelihood of Crown approval.

I guess I was just curious where this idea was coming from:
It also presumably would not get Hanover back in this scenario.

in the circumstances of 1815, who is occupying Hanover and going to hold it over the wishes of Britain. Was it the Prussians, Russians or others?

While either of those powers might have general concerns about "balance" neither of them loses anything of their own to British greed, as far as I can tell.

And either of them threatening to hold on to Hanover to enforce some demands seems to be really asking for trouble with a mighty nation.

Prussia won't be having any of this France in Belgium stuff either, and I recall seeing a map where Prussia at the end of the war was occupying half of it. The Austrians held the other portion I think, and can yield it, but not sure what they'd hope to gain in return.
 
I agree that Prussia wouldn't like either the Dutch possessing Hanover or the French Belgium. (Austria could receive the Italian territories it did OTL.) Just trying to think of some sort of compensation that could be negotiated for the loss of the sugar colonies, which were still quite valuable at this time. Without these colonies, Louis XVIII and William I are deprived of significant sources of revenue at a time when they're trying to establish their legitimacy in their respective kingdoms.
 
The Danish West Indies were occupied at the time, so add them to the list.

Note that there will be significant opposition from the British sugar planters, who will not be keen about new sources of sugar being added to the empire to compete with their plantations; that's a fairly wealthy and influential bloc.

Britain was powerful, but hardly to the point that she could dictate whatever terms she wanted to the rest of Europe (especially the Russians, who are already being seen as a potential threat). While the Royal Navy was supreme, the Army was very much not; even the "British" (i.e. not the Prussians) forces at Waterloo were mainly Dutch, German and other miscellaneous allies.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Note that there will be significant opposition from the British sugar planters, who will not be keen about new sources of sugar being added to the empire to compete with their plantations; that's a fairly wealthy and influential bloc.

Yes, I guess in this case it would just have to be counterbalanced by the British bakers, confectioners & consumers lobby :) An uphill battle I admit.

I agree that Prussia wouldn't like either the Dutch possessing Hanover or the French Belgium. (Austria could receive the Italian territories it did OTL.) Just trying to think of some sort of compensation that could be negotiated for the loss of the sugar colonies, which were still quite valuable at this time. Without these colonies, Louis XVIII and William I are deprived of significant sources of revenue at a time when they're trying to establish their legitimacy in their respective kingdoms.

Prussia may or may not think a Dutch Hanover is a big deal.

That aside, your last sentence interested me most. I suppose a logical knock-on consequence might be an earlier overthrow of the Bourbons (and possibly an earlier Orleanist regime) and trouble for the King of Netherlands, including possibly an earlier Belgian revolt. Of course the Dutch and French could attempt to set up new tropical sugar plantations in unclaimed Pacific territories or potentially available spots on the African coast. These would be expensive to start up however, and with the Pan-European objection to the trans-oceanic slave trade by 1815, they would need to staff plantations with blackbirded labor, coolies or convicts.
 
I agree that Prussia wouldn't like either the Dutch possessing Hanover or the French Belgium. (Austria could receive the Italian territories it did OTL.) Just trying to think of some sort of compensation that could be negotiated for the loss of the sugar colonies, which were still quite valuable at this time. Without these colonies, Louis XVIII and William I are deprived of significant sources of revenue at a time when they're trying to establish their legitimacy in their respective kingdoms.

France getting Belgium is a nonstarter, no? That was the entire point of the war.
 
France getting Belgium is a nonstarter, no? That was the entire point of the war.

Britain definitely didn't want France to control Antwerp, though perhaps they'd have accepted French control of areas further inland, as in the Talleyrand proposal:

300px-Partition-plan-Talleyrand-en.svg.png
 
Top