Would a British Victory in ARW be better or worse for the world??

samcster94

Banned
This is a common scenario, but having the ARW go the other way has huge shock waves even at the time, especially regarding France. What is everyone's opinion on whether the alternate universe would go in a better or worse direction??? I am not looking for OTL politics, but more how the 19th century might have looked(like regarding slavery,suffrage, colonialism etc ...).
 
Byzantine fanatic

Byzantine fanatic

Worse, definitely. The defeat caused Britain to introduce more democracy and self rule to its remaining white colonies, which led to them turning into some of the most successful countries in the world today. France and by extension the whole of Europe was also affected. The west might still be in feudal system with lords and peasants otherwise.
 

RogueTraderEnthusiast

Honestly, it is a hard question to say whether or not it would better or worse. It would certainly change the progress of the New World as there is no Post-ARW Scenario that is still really a win that doesn't involve an institutional change regarding the Americas. Be it the appointment of a Governor-General of the American Mainland who has wide-ranging powers over an American Parliament or something else. Lets take that scenario - probably on the back of a great win for the British.

We've probably got some sort of constraints in terms of territory, but we also have people who are trying to settle further and further west.

We also have the policy of this American Mainland Authority determined by a combination of the Party who appointed them, the Party in power in Westminster, and the Parties in the American Parliament to some degree. How do they handle it? Does the Westminster party want them to restrain it? Accept it? Willing to fight on that grounds? (After all, you could have Westminster splits in terms of Pro-India, Pro-America, Pro-Everywhere, Pro-Isolation, etc).

I personally think that whilst you may see more willingness to partner with native groups (not nice, but more willingness) with the British than the Americans - since the British would appreciate having allies who have less political goals within the Empire. So the Iroquois may well become a major protectorate of the British in the New World, effectively creating a cultural divide between the Lakes, Coast and West of the Appalachians. They could also be weirdly interested in exploiting the railroad - It'd be a great twist to see the Iroquois work with British Financiers to build a railroad through their territory, collecting tolls on travellers through and using that to finance their own economy. (Whether the British let them keep it is another question ENTIRELY).

Equally - you could see the opposite, a brutal expansionist Governor given the leeway and popular support in the American Mainland to ride roughshod and make the Trail of Tears look like a comedy show in comparison.

In my opinion? I think the establishment of a more robust institutional pattern regarding overseas territories has the interesting twist of both leaving more Democracy (as to avoid another ARW, in the new territories and back in America), but also more local development. I think a pattern of regional Parliaments and Protectorates are a likely pattern after the ARW, much in the same way India was taken over via the Princely States and the Company Raj. This institutional improvement, and greater resources in both India and America leads me to believe that you're less likely to see the Opium Wars, but still have a richer British Empire, and one that is already a step away from a Federation itself.
 

Fabius Maximus

The feudal system was already either dead or moribund by the 1770s, and I don't think a British victory in the ARW would change that. Plus, Britain didn't have the resources to keep such a large area under its sway unwillingly, so any plausible British victory scenario would no doubt involve a compromise peace whereby the Colonies are allowed a large measure of self-government (the precise measure depending on how convincing the British victory is). So I expect that something like the dominion system would evolve anyway.

As to whether such a world would be better or worse, it's really impossible to say, IMHO: there would be so many butterflies that the world might end up looking completely unrecognisable, and could be either better or worse compared to OTL. It also depends partly on how you weight things -- e.g., without the example of a successful revolution and republican government, we might well see less in the way of republicanism and other left-wing agitation, resulting in a world that's less democratic than what we're used to but which also manages to avoid such cataclysms as the French Revolutionary Terror or the Soviet gulags. Whether such a world would count as better or worse than ours would depend on how much importance you attach to each of these things.

There is one unquestionable benefit which a British victory would convey, however: no USA means no War of 1812, and therefore althistory.com would be free from those interminable arguments over who won the war and whether or not the Americans had a justifiable casus belli.
 

xsampa

Banned
One thing to keep in mind is how Spain might react to Britain's plans for southwards expansion, as evidenced by the longstanding desire to purchase or outright seize Cuba. After the ARW, the Aranda plan was drafted to prevent further expansion. It called for the transformation of the Viceroyalties into kingdoms in their own right to act as buffers between the hostile United States and Spain. In a world without the ARW you might still see the same pressures, especiqlly in Mexico where the Criollos had even more reason to revolt than the pre-ARW Americans ever had.
 

Moosemac

From an American standpoint, I'm reminded of the Boer internment camps as how harsh the British could get to their own subjects, so I'm inclined to think this could get bad very quickly.
Now perhaps that is a completely unfair sentiment (because we are talking about a POD in the 18th century and for all I know the British could have been very generous in their peace deal) but that's my gut feeling.
 

Fabius Maximus

Moosemac said:
From an American standpoint, I'm reminded of the Boer internment camps as how harsh the British could get to their own subjects, so I'm inclined to think this could get bad very quickly.
Now perhaps that is a completely unfair sentiment (because we are talking about a POD in the 18th century and for all I know the British could have been very generous in their peace deal) but that's my gut feeling.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that's just ridiculous. (1) The Boers weren't British subjects. (2) The internment camps were set up to stop the Boers using guerrilla tactics, so unless the American rebels use the same tactics as the Boers, there'd be no point using the same tactics against them. (3) Countries are quite capable of treating different enemies differently -- the Union never treated the Confederacy like it treated the natives, for example. (4) We don't need to speculate in this case, as we can look at OTL's ARW, and see that the British did not, in fact, use internment camps as part of their strategy, nor (to my knowledge) was the idea even suggested. So why would they make use of them ITTL, when they're doing better than they did OTL and therefore have less incentive to resort to extreme measures?
 

ShortsBelfast

Byzantine fanatic said:
Worse, definitely. The defeat caused Britain to introduce more democracy and self rule to its remaining white colonies, which led to them turning into some of the most successful countries in the world today. France and by extension the whole of Europe was also affected. The west might still be in feudal system with lords and peasants otherwise.
Click to expand...
1) Serfdom had ceased to apply in Britain more than 250 years prior to 1776 and wouldn't survive Britain's agricultural and industrial revolutions in any event. OTL it had been comprehensively abolished across Europe with Russia the last hold out within 50 years of the industrial revolution with Russia the last hold out. Even if there were no Revolutionary or Napoleonic wars and the institution died away more slowly it would be gone before 1890. It just isn't compatible with railways and increased agricultural productivity -or automatic weapons and the need for mass armies;
2) The thirteen colonies all had legislatures and a reasonable degree of self-rule prior to the War of Independence, which was one reason why North America handled increasing independence so much better than the former Spanish and Portugeuse territories. Limited mainly to the wealthy and propertied granted but the franchise was gradually extended in every European country, British Dominion and the USA over the OTL C19th. Again, you might slow the speed of this happening but not butterfly this away. The defeat did encourage Britain to manage Australia, Canada and New Zealand better but it only encouraged a tendency already there among the Whigs. Rockingham, Burke and Grey had already worked out that the American colonies needed greater representation before the Boston tea party;
3) The French monarchy bankrupted itself backing the American rebellion but had severe money troubles even without that and would have inevitably had to share more power with its subjects whether the British had won the ARW or lost it;
4) Definitely better for Amerindians where the wider Imperial and European diplomatic obligations would have necessitated greater scrupulosity in adhering to treaties - contrast the American Indian nations with the First Nations in Canada; Probably better for Black Americans as well. Slavery would have been abolished across the Empire when tobacco was in decline and before the cotton boom so emancipation would have come a generation earlier;
5) Probably a single federal government across the entire Anglosphere.
 

Moosemac

Fabius Maximus said:
Sorry, that's just ridiculous. (1) The Boers weren't British subjects. (2) The internment camps were set up to stop the Boers using guerrilla tactics, so unless the American rebels use the same tactics as the Boers, there'd be no point using the same tactics against them. (3) Countries are quite capable of treating different enemies differently -- the Union never treated the Confederacy like it treated the natives, for example. (4) We don't need to speculate in this case, as we can look at OTL's ARW, and see that the British did not, in fact, use internment camps as part of their strategy, nor (to my knowledge) was the idea even suggested. So why would they make use of them ITTL, when they're doing better than they did OTL and therefore have less incentive to resort to extreme measures?
Click to expand...
Fair enough. Though if the Boers were not British subjects why did the British conquer them?
Also I guess that brings up the question of what exactly the British did to win the ARW in this scenario.
 
Koprulu Mustafa Pasha

Koprulu Mustafa Pasha

Gone Fishin'
Define bad? I mean... British power ceased eventually. The Thirteen Colonies might reflect Australia and Canada more. If this is a British victory without French and Spanish intervention then yes, it might be bad for the rest of the world. If it is a British Victory after an intervention then it might be harmed and it will take time to restrengthen but that does not seriously cause trouble. So British domination is delayed with a few decades.
 

The Gunslinger

It would be pretty hard to argue that Canadian aboriginals wound up any better than their American counterparts in the long term. I think as the decline happens you'll see less war, but with much of the same end result.
 
9 Fanged Hummingbird

9 Fanged Hummingbird

ShortsBelfast said:
Definitely better for Amerindians where the wider Imperial and European diplomatic obligations would have necessitated greater scrupulosity in adhering to treaties
Click to expand...
Why is this the case? The Brits weren't particularly honorable towards tribes aligned against them, the Iroquois weren't an equal partner in British dominion so much as a weapon the Brits unleashed against the tribes that didn't fall in line, and against French settlers. It was convenient to honor treaties with a couple of useful tribes but they weren't going to be any more saintly. Hell, look at British treatment of the aboriginals in Australia or general European treatment of Africans, hardly any honor or scrupulously upholding treaties.
ShortsBelfast said:
contrast the American Indian nations with the First Nations in Canada;
Click to expand...
What contrast? As I recall there have been a lot of issues between First Nations and the Canadian government regarding abuse by the government and the police. There was a dramatic armed standoff resulting in deaths on both sides in the 90's.
ShortsBelfast said:
Probably better for Black Americans as well. Slavery would have been abolished across the Empire when tobacco was in decline and before the cotton boom so emancipation would have come a generation earlier;
Click to expand...
Again, why? It took until the late 1830's for Britain to get around to banning slavery in the colonies, several decades after losing the American South and all the slaveholding lords there having lost a major source of their income. With a victory in the ARW the members of the House of Lords who had Southern interests continue to have a say in Parliament and would prevent abolitionist measures. Slavery would also probably last longer in the northern colonies which banned it immediately after the revolution.
 

ShortsBelfast

There were only around 15 - 20 Lords Proprietors in the American South and prior to the cotton boom slavery wasn't a major income generator in the region outside of Virginia. And I am certainly not saying that either the British or Canadians were saintly in their treatment of native peoples. But they did tend to renegotiate treaties with the tribes rather than ignore them or set them aside. The US wasn't very interested in European relations or in governing India and Malaysia whereas Britain had selfish reasons for ensuring that they did not have a reputation for dishonouring treaties and agreements. And there was a huge slavery lobby in both Houses of Parliament OTL. The anti-slavery movement was the first great popular crusade and symptomatic of religious awakening and the growth of the Middle classes. Both issues that transcended the British Empire.
 

Crusader0926

Unless someone makes a timeline where all the effects of the POD are discussed, you can't say something is objectively bad or good unless something horrific (on the scale of say Holocaust) since it'll come out different depending on the immediate aftermath and all the events afterwards.

You could say X continued but maybe Y was learned from it rather than how it happened in OTL. You could also say the opposite. You likely aren't gonna get a concrete answer with that kind of question unless you narrow down the scope of what we're judging for good and bad instead of the entire world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top