WI: England never founded a strong effective colonial Empire in the a World?

Let's say all of England's attempts to be a strong colonial power fail, they only keep small areas in the World, an Empire similar to the Dutch Colonial Empire, England's decisions, rulers and etc are not strong or effective, leading to a weak state. What would happen? Who would take advantage of this?

What I think is that France would dominate the Colonial world, France, Portugal and the Dutch dominate India. South Africa remains Dutch and Oceania would fall under the Dutch. Spain is still powerful. Egypt would be independent under Muhammad Ali. China is stronger and more stable due to no Britain. USA is not formed as an English speaking majority obviously. A lot would probably happen but tell me what u think would happen
 

Cadendish

Banned
I think the USA would still be formed in some way after all it wouldn't stop colonization of the America's.
 
A weak England could allow for more successful Scandinavian colonialism in the New World. Sweden made a go of it in the 17th century, and Denmark snatched up some Caribbean holdings in the 18th and 19th centuries. I don't think that they would become "great powers", but we could see, for example, a Swedish-speaking colony on the East Coast alongside Dutch, Spanish, and French colonies and heavier Danish presence on sugar islands.

I don't see France dominating at the level of England, as it would inevitably get drawn into European wars that will consume resources and, all else being equal ITTL, will not send out quite as many settlers. However, versions of TTL's Quebec and Malouines settlements would survive and thrive even with (or perhaps because of) lower numbers of immigrants; and if the French decide they really want to muscle into Oceania and Asia, there's not a lot the Dutch could or would do to stop them.

Spain may remain the 'pre-eminent' colonial Empire of this world, though beyond perhaps pre-emptively colonizing some Polynesian islands to prevent them from becoming a harbor for pirates attacking the treasure fleets, I don't see them expanding much more than they did IOTL.

IIRC the British Empire did a lot to end the trans-Atlantic slave trade. Without them, the slave trade may continue indefinitely or until industry makes most slave labor obsolete-a rather grim thought.
 
Hurrah & Huzzah! The way is cleared for the Irish to conquer the World!!!

Erin, go Braless!!! :biggrin:

Joho :love: If only I knew how to make shamrocks on the keyboard. :)
 

Ryan

Donor
Hurrah & Huzzah! The way is cleared for the Irish to conquer the World!!!

Erin, go Braless!!! :biggrin:

Joho :love: If only I knew how to make shamrocks on the keyboard. :)


Although, unfortunately for the Irish, even with a weaker England it's still a case of "Poor Ireland. So far from God, so close to England.”
 
The East Coast would be a melting pot, between English, French, Dutch, Spanish, Native and maybe Swedish? A lot of history is hard to predict without long research.
 
Let's say all of England's attempts to be a strong colonial power fail, they only keep small areas in the World, an Empire similar to the Dutch Colonial Empire, England's decisions, rulers and etc are not strong or effective, leading to a weak state. What would happen? Who would take advantage of this?

What I think is that France would dominate the Colonial world, France, Portugal and the Dutch dominate India. South Africa remains Dutch and Oceania would fall under the Dutch. Spain is still powerful. Egypt would be independent under Muhammad Ali. China is stronger and more stable due to no Britain. USA is not formed as an English speaking majority obviously. A lot would probably happen but tell me what u think would happen

The Dutch colonial empire was still pretty damn big and impressive and remarkably global in scale. How is England to fail at being a strong colonial power? Always being defeated on the seas by her rivals? Never managing to get the upper hand in colonial campaigns?

If Britain doesn't get India, the odds are very high no one gets India besides the Indians. India would likely be where the British focus, however, leading to at least a couple of areas of heavy penetration and some native vassals. If Britain gets Bengal as IOTL, they'll be very powerful indeed on the subcontinent but not necessarily able to conquer the rest of it assuming the French or Dutch step in.

Even if we assume England is only as interested as France was in the New World, then they still have New England as a major center of settlement. New England's population grew very rapidly as well, so they'd be very hard to dislodge. What's now the states of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire would definitely be part of the English New World, and most of Maine and Connecticut as well. However, I could see a very successful New Netherland occupying New England east of the Connecticut River. In the South, you have Virginia, Maryland, and the Carolinas as English colonies. These will also be difficult to dislodge. The Mid-Atlantic will be Dutch, Georgia and Florida Spanish, and Canada French. Although if you set the POD in 1492, there's quite a few opportunities for alternate colonisations. My favourite is a "reborn Vinland", Canada as colonised by Denmark-Norway.

Oceania could go to anyone. Outside of some places like Guam, it's of limited use in the days before the need for coaling stations. If no one else moves in, or the Spanish Empire stays more powerful (which it very well might if the British Empire is weaker), then Spain will keep control over most of the islands with maybe other European powers picking at the fringes. Or even Latin American countries as Chile and Easter Island demonstrate (or Peru and their large-scale blackbirding/slave raids in the region), but a stronger Spanish Empire likely assumes a relationship between Spain and Latin America as one comparable to that between Britain and Canada.

I think the USA would still be formed in some way after all it wouldn't stop colonization of the America's.

How? If there isn't a band of English colonies down the east coast of North America, there is no United States. They were distinct enough as it was IOTL, now go throw in a bunch of religious and linguistic differences, and even more importantly, the fact they'd be under multiple countries and would have no reason to revolt at the same time. Any "USA" would have to be a "North American Union" instead.
 
Let's say all of England's attempts to be a strong colonial power fail, they only keep small areas in the World, an Empire similar to the Dutch Colonial Empire, England's decisions, rulers and etc are not strong or effective, leading to a weak state. What would happen? Who would take advantage of this?

Specifically what locations? This has a large impact what happens internally and externally with England.
 

Although, unfortunately for the Irish, even with a weaker England it's still a case of "Poor Ireland. So far from God, so close to England.”
Not if a certain man of Clan Knight has anything to say about it.
 
The issue here is that, if you remove Britain from the colonial equasion, France and Spain are going to have ALOT more reasons to butt heads, and due to both being on the Continent their colonial wars are unlikely to remain as limited/relatively cheap or with the main land burden being pawned off onto allies as our own timeline's Franco-British or Anglo-Spainish conflicts were. Portugal, too, is going to need a new ally since the Anglo-Portugese Alliance won't be sufficent to protect her against Spain, especially since the lack of a rise in Anglo merchant power and the need to focus more attention away from the Med. towards France is going to lead Spain to be more motivated to undermine rather than fully co-opt Portugese merchant power. In my opinion, this is going to lead to the wars establishing colonial bounderies to be generally bloodier and resource-draining, with the Spainish therefore being able to dedicate fewer resources to the Med./North Africa and the French to Italy. This gives the penninsula a little more wiggle room, as well as making the region in general more vulnerable to the Ottomans and Hapsburgs, who likely take on a higher naval role as a result. The lack of a rising England also creates ALOT of butterflies relating to the Dutch and Protestantism in general, especially since the religion penetrated so well among the mercantile/middle class and, through them, got the roots to dominate England.

As a result, I expect European wealth to flow more towards the Hansa and Italy, as their traditional banking/merchantile positions are going to be less undermined by larger resource and population based rivals, Scandinavia and the Eastern Med. are going to be relatively more prosperious in general, ect. A stronger Danish or Swedish Empire are likely the result, becoming England's replacement as the core Protestant patron and European early industrial development (In partnership with the North German states), and a stronger Ottoman grip on the Med., North Africa, and into East Africa/the Indian Ocean (Due to Western European resources getting sucked up in greater quantities for similar gains in the New World). Scotland is in a... better position, but lacks the same proximity to capital, natural resources, and well-placed harbors and well-managed/situatied populations to get the kind of urbanization and direct control she'd need to become a big colonial Empire. As for India, I can see the colonization being more of a "client state" model if it exists at all, possibly with the Ottomans participating from their established positions in the East Indian and East African trade.
 
Even if we assume England is only as interested as France was in the New World, then they still have New England as a major center of settlement.

If England is only as interested as France was, then New England wouldn't be a major center - it would be sparsely populated like New France was.

France explored and claimed lots of regions. It just didn't send a lot of settlers to them.
 
If England is only as interested as France was, then New England wouldn't be a major center - it would be sparsely populated like New France was.

France explored and claimed lots of regions. It just didn't send a lot of settlers to them.

Except New England is smaller, and so the same number of people can fill up the space to a greater density than New France's great expanse.
 

Deleted member 97083

If England doesn't trade significantly with India, bringing wootz steel to Europe, then English metallurgy may not develop enough to allow the Industrial Revolution.
 
Except New England is smaller, and so the same number of people can fill up the space to a greater density than New France's great expanse.

True, but if its population is only about 70,000 (like that of New France), that still would not very a high density. (And if England sent colonists in the same proportion to the national population as France, it would be more like 20-30,000.)
 
In a way this is sort of the premise of a timeline I am planning. The Dutch and French are allied during the late 17th and early 18th century (possibly even longer, not sure yet) and form a counterweight to British colonialism. This finaly ends in a world that has 5 colonial powers of more or less equal strength: France, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal and England (maybe Britain, not sure yet). So Britain's colonial power is a lot smaller, while the French and Dutch is significantly stronger.
 
Last edited:
Let's say all of England's attempts to be a strong colonial power fail, they only keep small areas in the World, an Empire similar to the Dutch Colonial Empire, England's decisions, rulers and etc are not strong or effective, leading to a weak state. What would happen? Who would take advantage of this?

What I think is that France would dominate the Colonial world, France, Portugal and the Dutch dominate India. South Africa remains Dutch and Oceania would fall under the Dutch. Spain is still powerful. Egypt would be independent under Muhammad Ali. China is stronger and more stable due to no Britain. USA is not formed as an English speaking majority obviously. A lot would probably happen but tell me what u think would happen

1. The Dutch or Portuguese cannot dominate India. Especially Portugal. The Dutch alone forced the Portuguese out of most of their post in Asia. The Dutch can dominate with the trade in India. That only.

2. South Africa can remain Dutch. Oceania... maybe some islands. Australia and New Zeeland more likely to fall to the French. The Dutch population is too small to own those.

3. If there is no British power to keep the French busy it looks grim for the future of Spain. Especially if the Bourbons inherits the Spanish throne as they wish. Butterflies...

4. No British colonial empire means no expensive wars and rivalry with the French which also means no or later French revolution.

4. China is isolated. The British who forced to open China to trade is what helped China to develop. There is no saying the Chinese will end up better. Unless France takes Britains role.

5. True, no USA as we now it. But independent states in the Americas will be a thing eventually.
 
True, but if its population is only about 70,000 (like that of New France), that still would not very a high density. (And if England sent colonists in the same proportion to the national population as France, it would be more like 20-30,000.)

No, but it WOULD still be high enough to support some settlement and be relatively "urbanized" compared to their French, Dutch, and (nearby) Spainish counterparts; especially since we have to consider that without the same population pressures/grazing intensity/ect. you're going to be seeing less "let us sound the drums of war!" and so, like their counterparts, more Anglo-Native co-operation and admixture. I fully expect the local fur trade to last a lot longer than it did IRL all throughout the region, slowing the move inland and so increasing population density relative to the coasts/rivers even more as soil exhaustion slows, mass land grabs from the natives slow, marginal soils in New England are tapped less intensly and thus used up more slowly, ect. In general, the English New World looking alot like the others, and so the resulting map resulting alot more from the situation in Europe than local demographic trends (See English colonies eclipsing French, despite the later's larger population and generally larger economy/military in Europe). The potential new colonial powers in the region (The Swedes and Danes, and perhaps Scots) can't replace them as the "settler colony" due to lack of Norsemen.

In a way this is sort of the premise of a timeline I am planning. The Dutch and French are allied during the late 17th and early 18th century (possibly even longer, not sure yet) and form a counterweight to British colonialism. This finaly ends in a world that has 5 colonial powers of more or less equal strength: France, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal and England (maybe Britain, not sure yet). So Britain's colonial power is a lot smaller, while the French and Dutch is significantly stronger.

Then who is counterweighing the Franco-Dutch?
 
Top