Does a failed ARW make the British Empire smaller or larger?

Now i know the answer to this question seems obvious, but hear me out. I've read in multiple places that the loss of the North American colonies severally changed the trajectory of British Colonialism. For example, Australia became a penal colony due to the loss of Georgia. I've read that it also caused them to pursue a much more aggressive policy in India.

So lets say that the British keep North America (the RW ends in a way that reconciliation is still possible, and doesn't leave any lingering animosity between the Americans and the Crown.) Do you all think this would ultimately butterfly away some of their other conquests? On the flip side, with all the added resources that the US has, would that allow for even more conquest? Would they even be interested?
 
In the long run, I think it makes it much larger. In OTL, the British Empire is Britain, Northern Ireland, and a handful of islands. But without the American Revolution, I think it's much more likely that you'll see some kind of federation*. I'm not sure what it would be called, but I'm partial to the name "Canzukus".

But in the short run, I think it might make it smaller. The empire would probably be less focused on India, erasing the need for a lot of Britain's conquests in Africa and possibly butterflying away the Raj itself. Instead, Britain would just hang on to a handful of relatively small territories (Bengal, Gujarat, Ceylon, Mumbai) and control the subcontinent indirectly.

*EDIT: By federation, I mean some kind of democratic entity covering at least the OTL UK, Ireland, Canada, and the US east of the Mississippi.
 
Last edited:
As is recall while Australia was used and seen as a good penal colony it was taken for three main reason.
1) A place was need to send convicts after the ARW
2) France and the Netherlands were expressing interests in Australia and the British government didn't want them to have it.
3) There was a need for a naval/supply base in the Far East/Pacific.

So the British government would still go after Australia after a Failed ARW because one of the problems in the thirteen colonies was they didn't like convicts being sent to them, they wouldn't want France/Netherlands to have it and they still need a naval/supply base in the Pacific.

India would be need because if they didn't take it another European power, most likely France, would take it and India was too valuable to let that happen. Plus India was the largest supplier of a key component of gunpowder and it will be needed.

They may not take all of India, a big chunk surely but i reckon that Portugal, the Netherlands and France will each have a good chunk or a bigger chunk in Portugal's case.

The scramble of Africa will still happen as the need for naval bases, supply areas, prestige and simply because they need to not let one European power control to much of it, plus the British government did want Cape to Cairo, though it may change to Cape to another north African city if butterflies delay or stop Egyptian independence from the Ottomans.

Various small colonies may still be taken. Singapore is a essential port which will be a good naval base that brings in money without the need to take the Dutch East Indies. Hong Kong or another Chinese port may be taken as the British still won't need to grab a big chunk of China as a port would be good enough.

Similarly various Pacific isles will be grabbed to as supply bases and to simply stop other powers getting them.

With Canada and the USA, possibly with various Native American nations as protectorates. Possibly a Anglo-Mexican war either happen or not but if they do they might take slightly less, leaving Mexico will a more territory on it's northern border.

Overall i believe it will be slightly larger, but not by a massive margin.
 
Last edited:
Smaller, but not for the reasons many have mentioned.

Britain was exploiting the American colonies as they did everywhere else. The arrangement was not beneficial to anyone outside of the planter class in America, and this would inevitably lead to rebellion. Thing is, the American colonies are strong enough to defeat Britain, and will at some point. Trying to hang on to the colonies with a PoD in the 1770s will only end in disaster for Britain.
 
Britain was exploiting the American colonies as they did everywhere else. The arrangement was not beneficial to anyone outside of the planter class in America, and this would inevitably lead to rebellion.

Exploiting. I.e. providing for the defence of the colonies against the French and getting almost nothing in return. Wow. What exploitation!
 
Smaller, but not for the reasons many have mentioned.

Britain was exploiting the American colonies as they did everywhere else. The arrangement was not beneficial to anyone outside of the planter class in America, and this would inevitably lead to rebellion. Thing is, the American colonies are strong enough to defeat Britain, and will at some point. Trying to hang on to the colonies with a PoD in the 1770s will only end in disaster for Britain.

We say exploiting, they say helping to defend us from the French and Indians at a discount. Ultimately, it was the fact that the Americans didn't get any say in the matter (specifically, the taxes being used to pay for it) that sparked the rebellion. As for the planter class, didn't they lead the rebellion?
 
We say exploiting, they say helping to defend us from the French and Indians at a discount. Ultimately, it was the fact that the Americans didn't get any say in the matter (specifically, the taxes being used to pay for it) that sparked the rebellion. As for the planter class, didn't they lead the rebellion?

Read up on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navigation_Acts

British protectionism destroyed local American industry. There are cases of there being no currency to speak of in the colonies due to the continuous flow of cash to Britain. It also didn't help that shit like the Proclamation of 1763 seriously hindered colonial growth (in the eyes of the colonists). America was fully self-sustaining by the 1750s, the only problem was the French. With that final obstacle gone, there was no reason to remain subjects of Britain.
 
Probably smaller in pure terms of land area.
The scramble for Africa was far from a far-gone conclusion even in the mid-19th century. With a POD a century earlier there's no telling whether economic forces will work out the same way.

India is still likely to end up British. A more powerful Britain will probably keep others out as per OTL and I don't see the situation with the Mughals and the EIC continuing far beyond where it did IOTL.

Australia...I don't see why it wouldn't still end up British. Unless we have a different situation with the French.

Read up on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navigation_Acts

British protectionism destroyed local American industry. There are cases of there being no currency to speak of in the colonies due to the continuous flow of cash to Britain. It also didn't help that shit like the Proclamation of 1763 seriously hindered colonial growth (in the eyes of the colonists). America was fully self-sustaining by the 1750s, the only problem was the French. With that final obstacle gone, there was no reason to remain subjects of Britain.
The same kind of thing happened in the UK you know. Rights in industries being given to one city over another and that sort of thing.
It was historically pretty common in Europe.

Doesn't make it a smart idea of course but it wasn't just Britain being especially mean to the US.

Smaller, but not for the reasons many have mentioned.

Britain was exploiting the American colonies as they did everywhere else. The arrangement was not beneficial to anyone outside of the planter class in America, and this would inevitably lead to rebellion. Thing is, the American colonies are strong enough to defeat Britain, and will at some point. Trying to hang on to the colonies with a PoD in the 1770s will only end in disaster for Britain.
They're really not.
IOTL it was internal anti-war politics and an alliance of practically every other nation in Europe that beat Britain.
Over hundreds of years of history there is always the chance of a disagreement emerging which results in a split that can't be healed as per OTL but US independence was FAR from a foregone conclusion.,
 
IOTL it was internal anti-war politics and an alliance of practically every other nation in Europe that beat Britain.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Yes, the Whigs being against the war and France fighting them (no other members of the alliance actually did anything) did hasten the end of the war, but could King George really supply several thousand troops across a huge ocean against rebels that hold the countryside, and thus the supplies?

I'd say once the ARW began, a British victory was just about as likely as an Axis one in WW2.
 
I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Yes, the Whigs being against the war and France fighting them (no other members of the alliance actually did anything) did hasten the end of the war, but could King George really supply several thousand troops across a huge ocean against rebels that hold the countryside, and thus the supplies?

I'd say once the ARW began, a British victory was just about as likely as an Axis one in WW2.

I think that's taking it a bit far. Before Saratoga, the British still had a good chance of winning the war. It was after the victory at Saratoga and the French entering the war on our side that things really started to turn against them.
 
I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Yes, the Whigs being against the war and France fighting them (no other members of the alliance actually did anything) did hasten the end of the war, but could King George really supply several thousand troops across a huge ocean against rebels that hold the countryside, and thus the supplies?

The poor Spanish! They and their fleet, tied down some 7000 men (;)) defending The Rock. I think they'd take umbridge to the idea that they didn't do anything, not to mention the havoc they caused for the Royal Navy in the Caribbean.

The Netherlands also didn't exactly have a bit part in the whole affair either. And considering that George really could finance a healthy number more than several thousand men for campaigns in the 1750s he wouldn't really have trouble doing it here too.

I'd say once the ARW began, a British victory was just about as likely as an Axis one in WW2.

That's almost laughable. The British were pretty well poised to crush the Colonists early in the war, and weren't exactly losing throughout the whole thing. Only foreign intervention prevented a negotiated peace between England and the Colonists versus outright independence.

But they continued to "defend against the French" even after the French were gone, which annoyed a few people.

The Spanish weren't gone, the Native tribes weren't gone, the French were not entirely gone, and Britain couldn't exactly just pack up all her forces and move on home.

The British didn't exactly bully the Americans versus expect them to pay for the cost of their own defence, which they pretty much refused to do.
 
But they continued to "defend against the French" even after the French were gone, which annoyed a few people.

Especially when you consider that the nearest rival (Spain) held very weak colonies in Louisiana, New Mexico, and Upper California as the nearest territories to Britain and their main cities were not quite as populous as any American city (IE New Orleans and Santa Fe vs Boston or Charleston) or mere villages (San Diego or Monterey).

Britain had de-facto run of North America had it played smart and kept America within the Empire.
 
The Spanish weren't gone, the Native tribes weren't gone, the French were not entirely gone, and Britain couldn't exactly just pack up all her forces and move on home.

The British didn't exactly bully the Americans versus expect them to pay for the cost of their own defense, which they pretty much refused to do.

...because the British wouldn't give them any say in the matter. The rallying cry was "no taxation without representation", not "no taxation".

EDIT: And lets not forget all the other grievances that the Americans had. I'm pretty sure that they wrote it down somewhere...
 
Last edited:
The British didn't exactly bully the Americans versus expect them to pay for the cost of their own defence, which they pretty much refused to do.

Yes let's not bother training more than a single American regiment and thence mock the American militia who served in the French and Indian War, amirite?

Your own revisionism and refusal to admit the British were dicking the colonists around in several ways is hilarious.
 
...because the British wouldn't give them any say in the matter. The rallying cry was "no taxation without representation", not "no taxation".

I notice this is what pro-British members of our board conveniently forget.

Almost like they don't want to admit they were imperialistic for centuries or something.
 
Yes let's not bother training more than a single American regiment and thence mock the American militia who served in the French and Indian War, amirite?

Your own revisionism and refusal to admit the British were dicking the colonists around in several ways is hilarious.

Yes, because the British totally thought they could rely on the militia to defend the colonies from the Natives, or not antagonize the Spanish, or not expand the colonies beyond the point that Britain was willing to go :rolleyes:

There were some pretty compelling reasons they didn't do it historically, and it was because they viewed the Colonials as unreliable (a view they held of any Colonial militia well into the 1800s, it wasn't unique to the Americans). I mean it's not like they'd just dragged Britain into a war they didn't want or something...

Funnily enough none of that isn't historical fact ;)

...because the British wouldn't give them any say in the matter. The rallying cry was "no taxation without representation", not "no taxation".

EDIT: And lets not forget all the other grievances that the Americans had. I'm pretty sure that they wrote it down somewhere...

None of which I hasten to add were unacheivable without revolution. The Colonials were doing nothing the British didn't expect of their other subjects, and those very same grievances the Colonists had were terribly hard to enforce by the British, which made them essentially useless.

It was only because the Colonists escalated things that this whole open warfare business started. (Yeah the North government wasn't innocent either but hey, the people agitating for revolution were going to have it with or without the consent of all the Colonists)

I notice this is what pro-British members of our board conveniently forget.

Almost like they don't want to admit they were imperialistic for centuries or something.

Oh no, no one is saying Britain wasn't imperialistic (some people are actually fond of that heritage for some reason) but what is amusing is when the Americans claim they were oh so oppressed when compared to people like the Acadians, the Native tribes, or the Indians.

That is truly hilarious.
 

Lateknight

Banned
I think their would another rebellion down the line I mean even today there is hard feelings. I really don't think that the british elite had political savvy necessary to keep the colonies.
 
None of which I hasten to add were unacheivable without revolution.
The Colonials were doing nothing the British didn't expect of their other subjects, and those very same grievances the Colonists had were terribly hard to enforce by the British, which made them essentially useless.
That's the problem. The Americans didn't like the way that the British government was treating its subjects in North America. As far as they were concerned, they were entitled to the same rights as people living in Britain, with their own representation.

Also, a lot of those grievances listed in the Declaration were directly caused by the British government: quartering soldiers, taxing without consent, suspending the legislatures of the states, not granting Americans a trial by jury, not giving the Americans any say in their own defense, and generally not giving them the autonomy that they desired. The only grievance that I think has nothing to do with the British government is the last one on the list, which accuses the King of "exciting"* attacks by Indians. That comes across as a deliberate bit of misinformation by the author, who was one of the most brilliant men of his generation and obviously knew better. But the rest of the grievances are legitimate, and were about the actions of the British King and of Parliament.
It was only because the Colonists escalated things that this whole open warfare business started. (Yeah the North government wasn't innocent either but hey, the people agitating for revolution were going to have it with or without the consent of all the Colonists)
I disagree. I think that there was a possibility for a peaceful resolution, and many of the Founding Fathers wanted exactly that. All the Americans wanted were the rights that they felt they deserved as British subjects. When the British refused to grant them those rights, independence was a reasonable course of action. The Declaration itself even calls for a peaceful separation, and talks about the possibility of friendship with our "British brethren". But the King wasn't going to let them become independent without a fight.
Oh no, no one is saying Britain wasn't imperialistic (some people are actually fond of that heritage for some reason) but what is amusing is when the Americans claim they were oh so oppressed when compared to people like the Acadians, the Native tribes, or the Indians.

That is truly hilarious.
Come on, don't answer a strawman with a strawman. I've never met a single American who claims that the Founders were oppressed compared to the Indians**.

*18th century way of saying "inciting"?
EDIT: **Native Americans or the people actually living in India.
 
Last edited:
I think their would another rebellion down the line I mean even today there is hard feelings. I really don't think that the british elite had political savvy necessary to keep the colonies.

Personally I've always believed that Pitt the Younger could probably have come to some* agreement with the Colonial governments. Once you have George III and his 'Kings Friends' out of the way it's not impossible for some kind of accommodation to be reached.

*Really it depends on the agreement, how much Parliament is willing to give, where the radical revolutionaries stand, and how brutal peace terms at first (if a first rebellion was put down) were. If there is deeply ingrained ill will towards Parliament in all of the 13 Colonies it is probably a lost cause, if not so bad it may be plausible for an agreement to be had. Maybe some kind of early 'dominion scheme' or something?
 
Top