WI the Industrial Revolution was delayed by 20-30 years?

The particular conjunction of factors that led up to the Industrial Revolution looks propitious to me and I wonder how much it could be derailed. Without alien intervention there's always going to be a lot of coal under Britain, but the political and economic situation are quite volatile.

To delay the revolution the alternatives of greater enserfment or an increased rights and power over the land for agricultural workers look likely to me to tie people to countryside slow the creation of a proletariat, and I wonder if a different settlement of the English civil war or an alternate civil war could cause either of those. Or just long-term religious and political strife could do it too. I'd love to hear other possibilities.

As for the WI part of the WI, there are broad questions of whether the delay would change how European expansion would encounter Asia and Africa, how competition between European powers would go, what the political makeup of European countries would be, and all kinds of things.

In the short term England or Britain would doubtless lose out relative to other powers though.
 
The particular conjunction of factors that led up to the Industrial Revolution looks propitious to me and I wonder how much it could be derailed. Without alien intervention there's always going to be a lot of coal under Britain, but the political and economic situation are quite volatile.

To delay the revolution the alternatives of greater enserfment or an increased rights and power over the land for agricultural workers look likely to me to tie people to countryside slow the creation of a proletariat, and I wonder if a different settlement of the English civil war or an alternate civil war could cause either of those. Or just long-term religious and political strife could do it too. I'd love to hear other possibilities.

As for the WI part of the WI, there are broad questions of whether the delay would change how European expansion would encounter Asia and Africa, how competition between European powers would go, what the political makeup of European countries would be, and all kinds of things.

In the short term England or Britain would doubtless lose out relative to other powers though.

Perhaps Russia is able to stay a powerful nation throughout the 1800s instead of defeating napoleon and then immediately steamrolling towards chaos?

Britain probably is just as powerful as OTL tho, even before the revolution they owned the seas and were one of the richest nations on the planet if not the richest, that won't change (in fact it just got better because of industrialization.)

Germany is interesting to me, without industrialization could Prussia defeat Austria the way it did? Especially in 7 weeks? Then to France could Prussia defeat France without all of its industry? Probably no Germany in this TL, at least not in the way we know it.
 
From beginning to end the Industrial Revolution in Britain lasted about a hundred and fiftty years. Starting it later is not going to have that great an impact. At least not to the exteent of greating major PoDs.
 
Well, I think about some PODs in sparse order, let me know if they are plausible:

1) Better chances for the CSA to obtain independence with a less industrialized USA;
2) Late colonization of Africa and Asia, but with a major resistance from the local popolations against the European penetration;
3) Delayed unification of Italy and Germany, because Austria could be more or less stronger than a less industrialized France or Prussia;
4) Japan never industrialized so was defeated by Russia, or maybe Japan puppetized by USA, UK or Russia;
5) Survival of the Qing Empire due to a less intervention of the European powers (and probably neither UK Hong Kong).
6) Russia won the Crimean war, because her army could be on par of that Anglo-French.
 
The process of industrialization was one of many different factors proceeding at stop-go tempos amalgamated into a rough aggregate . Would 20 years really do much for the rest of the world? No they were hopelessly behind technologically, though for many places the specific problems they had (famine and political instability) might have abated or worsened. Some parts of industrialization was the accumulation of iron tools or labor gaining experience; I failed to see how those would be delayed in any meaningful way.

The earliest parts of industrialization was in coal refining, transportation, and metal refining: the refining and metallurgy were a matter of skill accumulation and some entrepreneurship : not too relevant to the number of factory workers . The railroad was dependent on the demand for coal and the steam engine that pumped the mines; something that might have been dented by less workers but not much else.

The problem with delay migration was that a lot of the early industrial complexes were in the countryside due to a lack of a railway network to ship materials efficiently (or by a canal). So delayed migration wouldn't affect early industrialization too much, the populations of Europe was still growing at a fast rate with the same amount of land; urbanization was really the only way to go unless one wants to go the way of impoverished serfdom like Russia. (something that was quite frankly impossible in England with the social situation and the amount of wealth tied to non-agricultural sectors)
 
1) Better chances for the CSA to obtain independence with a less industrialized USA;
Subject to Lincoln getting re-elected less industrialised USA is still going to win. The reason for this is that it was much larger. an independent CSA depends on political and diplomatic factors.
2) Late colonization of Africa and Asia, but with a major resistance from the local popolations against the European penetration;
Many of the colonies in Africa were trophies and were not serious occupied until the European owner has industrialised.
3) Delayed unification of Italy and Germany, because Austria could be more or less stronger than a less industrialized France or Prussia;
Italy was a light weight and remains so. Delayed unification of Germany is a serious PoD and game changer. For one a group of small and medium Germanic states as opposed to a single large one will be seen by Britian as less of a threat and hence no need to join the Entente. For another a Franco-Prussian War now becomes winnable by France.
4) Japan never industrialized so was defeated by Russia, or maybe Japan puppetized by USA, UK or Russia;
5) Survival of the Qing Empire due to a less intervention of the European powers (and probably neither UK Hong Kong).
Two good points. On OTL Japan was able to industrialise whilst China was not because the Euorpeans were extracting treasure from the latter but not the former. Reversing the two is easily done. On the first have events force the Japanese to pay Europeans and Americans more in reparations for "insults" etc/occupation by them as spheres of interest or quasi-colonies. This leaves less treasure for industrialisation.
On the second change events to stop the outflow and China can now afford to import the know how and people to industrialise. Assuming that she still wants to.
6) Russia won the Crimean war, because her army could be on par of that Anglo-French.
Without industrialisation the Russians are not going to match the Anglo-French forces. To industrialise Russia still faces the issues that she did at the end of the nineteenth century with the added problem of serfdom. Liberate them earlier and you might get earlier industrialisation. Delay doing so and you delay it with the possibility of civil war as the serfs try to throw off their shackles.
 
Without industrialisation the Russians are not going to match the Anglo-French forces. To industrialise Russia still faces the issues that she did at the end of the nineteenth century with the added problem of serfdom. Liberate them earlier and you might get earlier industrialisation. Delay doing so and you delay it with the possibility of civil war as the serfs try to throw off their shackles.

So do you think without industrialization, Russia will collapse more fast than OTL? I think it could be a good point, but in that case I guess without industries it couldn't exist a communist revolution...
 
So do you think without industrialization, Russia will collapse more fast than OTL? I think it could be a good point, but in that case I guess without industries it couldn't exist a communist revolution...
Not collapse, but not climb either. France would not have allied with a country that it did not think would help it in a war with Germany beyond geographical position. A super Ottoman Empire would have been unlikely to have crushed any Teutonic hordes.
 

frlmerrin

Banned
I'm not clear on this one. When you say that you want to delay the industrial revolution you are discussing it as if it were a continual event what it was was a process in which many events occured and some of those events built on earlier events.

Coking had been known in England (earlier elsewhere) for smelting since the mid 1500s
Rolling mills go back to the late 1500s
Savery used steam water pumps in 1698.
Derby built a coke charged blast furnace 1709
Newcomen built the first true steam engine in 1712, Watt improved it 1765ish.
Darby III started the Ironbridge in 1775 but they were bulk casting iron before that.
Verbruggen and Maudslay develop the modern lathe from 1772 onward over many years
Trevithick didn't start using HP steam until 1800ish
Marc Brunel first applied mass production methods (to block making) 1802-8
Stephenson's Rocket wins the Rainhill trials 1829
1830 tools between the 1840s and 50s
Standardisation of engines only arrived with the Crimean war and the RN's need for gunboats.
Bessemer converter 1851
Stainless steel 1911+

I have limited this list to steam, metalurgy and machine tools obvious omissions are textile production, leather work and the production of non-ferrous commodities.

There is no revolution here as such but a continuous process lasting 350 years, the process does peak around 1700-1800 but even so it is a continous process.

So my question to the OP is what do you mean by the industrial revolution and what is it you want to retard exactly?
 

Thank you for providing a more articulate and concise version of my post .

Anyways I think the best thing you are looking for is something global: like a period of cooling leading to less overall activity (though the little Ice Age did have the effect of increasing farming efficiency). The problem would then be that it would affect everyone, not just the industrializing nations.
 
Top