Largest possible British Empire?

[GullibleCynic]

Planet Earth

Hyperbole aside, with early enough and detailed enough PODs most of the world is probably possible.

Keep the rest of Europe from colonizing. A surviving Iberian Union and the reconquista continuing into Morocco would keep the two main early colonizers occupied.

An earlier Suez Canal might keep the other powers with a med. port from going to the new world. Probably want a greater Germany that includes Austria and the city of Triest in that case.

Scandinavian colonies could likely be kept sparsely populated enough to be absorbed latter.

The Dutch would likely be the other big colonizer if the rest of Europe is distracted, but an Anglo-Dutch union might be possible down the line. Or maybe the British would just 'take custody' of any colonies if the Dutch were invaded by, say, France or Germany.

Surviving as a single state depends very much on how its governed, but if the right people make the right choices at the right time, there probably is a path forward as a single state. I bet it would be massively decentralized for the longest time, but it just needs to survive until the invention of mass media and telecommunications. Again, those techs would need to be used properly to unite rather than divide, but it is in principle possible. On that note, earlier communication tech would probably be good. Even telegraph would be useful as there could be Empire-wide newspaper stories with that.

It seems to me that the Americas, Southern Africa (up to at least Congo), India (incl the Pakistans), Indonesia (incl Philippines) and Oceania (incl pacific islands) should all be doable. Also Antarctica, because who else would want it in this ALT

China is a tough nut to crack, but the British Empire described above would have a larger population and far more resources, so it might be possible. Perhaps divide and conquer during a warlord period. A sort of reverse-India. Even still, I wouldnt bet on this one.

Middle East, SE asia, and Japan all saw a fair amount of Anglo influence OTL. Some sort of 'special partnership' or protectorate status for many of the countries in those areas might be possible there.

I see Europe being treated as peers, largely left alone, for historical reasons. When the center of gravity of the Empire moves away from London, (I think the Central American Canal zone, Panama or Nicaragua, might make the best capital) that perception might change. At the very least economic domination is practically assured, unless the Europeans can form an EU quickly and effectively. To be fair, there would be a lot of incentive to do so.

Might even be able to swing a British dominated world government before the present day. You would have to set up those dominoes really carefully for that though.

 

[Admiral Beez]

It's tricky to subject people when you claim to be a defender of liberty and democracy, especially after the World Wars. Thus the British Empire would have needed to push global imperial citizenship, like Rome where you weren't a citizen of Italy or Spain, but of the Empire. But this was impossible for the British Empire, since once you give peoples the right to break away, they will almost always take it.

 

[usertron2020]

Hyperbole aside, with early enough and detailed enough PODs most of the world is probably possible.

Get a POD around 1066

Keep the rest of Europe from colonizing. A surviving Iberian Union and the reconquista continuing into Morocco would keep the two main early colonizers occupied.

IOW, have Britain do as IOTL? That was what was unique about the events of the 7YW leading into the ARW. Thanks to Britain's 7YW war strategy "Take the stuff, run, and screw your allies", she went into the ARW finding herself as the proverbial Cinderella at the Ball with no gown, no slippers, no coach, no footmen, and no Prince Charming! At the Beggars Table in terms of having no allies. That's not the best way to conquer the world.

An earlier Suez Canal might keep the other powers with a med. port from going to the new world. Probably want a greater Germany that includes Austria and the city of Triest in that case.

But wouldn't that be opening the door to other European expansion in Asia, East Africa, and Australia?

Scandinavian colonies could likely be kept sparsely populated enough to be absorbed latter.

The Dutch would likely be the other big colonizer if the rest of Europe is distracted, but an Anglo-Dutch union might be possible down the line. Or maybe the British would just 'take custody' of any colonies if the Dutch were invaded by, say, France or Germany.

Surviving as a single state depends very much on how its governed, but if the right people make the right choices at the right time, there probably is a path forward as a single state. I bet it would be massively decentralized for the longest time, but it just needs to survive until the invention of mass media and telecommunications. Again, those techs would need to be used properly to unite rather than divide, but it is in principle possible. On that note, earlier communication tech would probably be good. Even telegraph would be useful as there could be Empire-wide newspaper stories with that.

It seems to me that the Americas, Southern Africa (up to at least Congo), India (incl the Pakistans), Indonesia (incl Philippines) and Oceania (incl pacific islands) should all be doable. Also Antarctica, because who else would want it in this ALT

Agreed

China is a tough nut to crack, but the British Empire described above would have a larger population and far more resources, so it might be possible. Perhaps divide and conquer during a warlord period. A sort of reverse-India. Even still, I wouldnt bet on this one.

I'd put the ranch AGAINST it. China has a national sense of self that India had struggled to develop for millenia. Totally different ball of wax, almost as extreme as Japan.

Middle East, SE asia, and Japan all saw a fair amount of Anglo influence OTL. Some sort of 'special partnership' or protectorate status for many of the countries in those areas might be possible there.

Agreed except for Japan. Japan's sense of self and insularity is China on steroids.

I see Europe being treated as peers, largely left alone, for historical reasons. When the center of gravity of the Empire moves away from London, (I think the Central American Canal zone, Panama or Nicaragua, might make the best capital) that perception might change. At the very least economic domination is practically assured, unless the Europeans can form an EU quickly and effectively. To be fair, there would be a lot of incentive to do so.

PANAMA!? Malaria? Mosquitoes? Tropical environment? Don't they get hurricanes? Jungle? Swamp? Quicksand? Indiana Jones-land is not where you would want to put a "British UN"! Sorry. New York it is.

Might even be able to swing a British dominated world government before the present day. You would have to set up those dominoes really carefully for that though.

World population growth and civilization development will mean that any British hegemony is inherently temporary.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

With a POD after the ARW what is the largest size the British Empire could ever feasibly hope to achieve and still look like a British Empire, with a similar system of control and covering the same core territories of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Egypt and India

How much larger could the empire have got?

Also were there any planned purchases of land that nearly succeeded but failed on OTL?

Well, let's see...

The French and British navies were about equal during the period of the ARW, but the French Revolution dealt their navy a major blow, and the French navy of the nineteenth century was never really in a position to challenge British naval dominance. So, if post-Napoleonic Britain decides to keep France from getting back into the colonial game, I don't think there's all that much France can do about it. The Dutch Empire was past its prime by the nineteenth century, and in a war between England and Holland the Brits could basically have taken what they liked. Butterfly away German and Italian unification, and I doubt you'd see any of the little states in Germany or Italy colonising in a big way. So, theoretically, you could keep all these countries from colonising, and have the lands that IOTL became French/German/Italian/Dutch colonies be taken by Britain instead somewhere along the line.

(Of course, IOTL one of the big motivators behind colonial expansionism was the fear that if your country didn't grab a territory, somebody else would, so you'd need to find some way of compensating for the lack of this factor ITTL.)

As for South America, direct rule of large swathes of the continent probably wouldn't be very realistic, but I could see the British setting up some sort of "informal empire" or system of protectorates (probably along the lines of Britain giving military and financial assistance in return for preferential trading rights).

With regards the USA, with no real colonial rivals to worry about the British could probably afford to take a more bullish stance in negotiations. Trying to conquer American territory probably wouldn't be worth it, but I could see the British getting their way more in disputes over borders or national spheres of influence.

 

[GdwnsnHo]

Technically - the entire world, over a very long period.

Now considering that the structure of how the Empire was governed kept changing, are we talking about loose colonies, federations, unitary polity governance? I'm not sure we have anything really specified here.

Personally, I do think that the Empire couldn't conquer everything comfortably without instituting a federal and colonial plan, that also treat the colonies as provinces, rather than resource heaps.

However, implement these policies, to create a common imperial culture, and you could certainly make it persist indefinitely (although, again, republicanism may remove the head of state).

 

[Analytical Engine]

Planet Earth

Why stop at one planet?

 

[GdwnsnHo]

Why stop at one planet?

The Might British Stellar Empire

RULED BY HER MOST AUGUST MAJESTY, ELIZABETH II OF WINDSOR - GUARDIAN OF EARTH, QUEEN OF THE MARTIAN GREEN TERRITORIES, DIVINE LEADER OF THE ANGLICAN THEOCRACY OF VENUS, RULER OF PLUTO, AND EMPRESS OF THE JOVIAN SUB-SYSTEM.

PRAISE TO THE EMPRESS!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7MG27BKwjaI

 

[Simon]

Why stop at one planet?

You beat me too it, first the solar system and then the galaxy.

BRITS IN SPAAAACE!

Truly the suns never set on the British (Galactic) Empire.

 

[B_Munro]

Well, a British empire in space wouldn't have to even incorporate the more troublesome parts of Earth [1]to be the Biggest Thing Ever...


[1] And observations so far indicate a distinct shortage of pesky aliens likely to object to being colonized.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

Why stop at one planet?

Didn't Cecil Rhodes say something about how if Britain conquered the Earth, he'd go looking for other worlds to bring under her control?

 

[Simon]

Didn't Cecil Rhodes say something about how if Britain conquered the Earth, he'd go looking for other worlds to bring under her control?

"To think of these stars that you see overhead at night, these vast worlds which we can never reach. I would annexe the planets if I could; I often think of that. It makes me sad to see them so clear and yet so far."

 

[RiseofBubblez]

Simple. British prime-minister accepts the French offer of unification in 1956, huge Franco-British Empire. Seriously it was a thing that almost happened during the Suez Crisis.

 

[Socrates]

Simple. British prime-minister accepts the French offer of unification in 1956, huge Franco-British Empire. Seriously it was a thing that almost happened during the Suez Crisis.

The offer was insane. The French PM would have been deposed if it came out.

 

[B_Munro]

The offer was insane. The French PM would have been deposed if it came out.

A Franco-British union is a bit more likely (if still not very) in a France Fights On WWII scenario, but would still face the fundamental fact that they couldn't abide either the moral or economic costs of holding onto most of their empires afterwards. Might lead to an earlier and more unified EU under Franco-British dominance, though.

 

[usertron2020]

Well, let's see...

The French and British navies were about equal during the period of the ARW

Not really, but qualitatively and qualitatively the French Navy was probably in a better state than they had ever been versus the Royal Navy in their whole history. Unless you want to count 1066, when the Anglo-Saxons didn't have a navy. Then again, the Normans weren't exactly full on French either.

IN the ARW the French Navy had a lot of luck (until 1782), combined with bad British leadership. Really, take your pick: Parliament, the Cabinet, Whitehall, the Crown, the Admiralty, even that the British seemed to be "between" great generations of leaders; ALL made their contributions between 1762 and 1778 to put the British in the worst situation they would ever be in regarding the defense of the realm itself.

Many like to hail Britain's resistance from the dangers of invasion at the hands of the Armada, Napoleon, and Hitler rolleyes. But it was in the ARW where the British were truly in the greatest danger. If the Spaniards had built up AND modernized their own navy to match that of the French, including a new emphasis on good hygiene for both fleets, plus toss in a fortuitous storm in the Channel at just the right time (1), then a replay of 1066 ARW-style is not out of the question.

1) Mind, it would also have required ASB levels of stupidity to get the British to send the English Militia to Ireland to "crush the Irish rebels" (2), leaving the fortifications of Southern England empty. That was too much even for the authors of the Boston Port Bill.

2) A minor "illegal" gathering of peaceful protests in Dublin declaring that they wanted Irish Free Trade (IOW, what the Americans originally wanted!). But the message was "Or else!" While the Commons immediately granted their demands, it normally would have resulted in London calling in the clans on, uh, the tribes. A good measure of the desperate times Britain found herself in pre-1782.

but the French Revolution dealt their navy a major blow

Never a good idea to send your naval commanders to the guillotine

Special Note: Despite all this, the Royal Navy was not only much larger than the French Navy, but it's whole history right down to better hygiene, emphasis on training-including aiming cannon shot, and the practice of concentrating on hull shots over rigging (the French preferred rigging shots because it aided in capture or escape) showed the merit of Britain's senior service, the finest fighting force ever to set forth in the Age of Sail, and well beyond.

 

[Socrates]

Usertron,

This is great stuff. If both the Spanish and French improved their fleets after the 7YW but there was no American revolt, and no luck on either side, what would have been the result of a naval war caused by some other event?

 

[usertron2020]

Usertron,

This is great stuff. If both the Spanish and French improved their fleets after the 7YW but there was no American revolt, and no luck on either side, what would have been the result of a naval war caused by some other event?

That's the nicest thing anybody's said to me in a while. Thank you.

The Franco-Spaniard-Dutch would never have dared to challenge an undistracted British Empire on the high seas. For that matter, assuming Skippy the Alien Space Bat has forced the British to:

a) Drop mercantilism

b) Leave the colonial assemblies alone

c) Continue the policy of Benign Neglect

d) Begin working towards the Dominion System

Then, Britain is in position to readily blockade Spanish, Dutch, and French ports to prevent their escape.

THIS more than anything is the worst effect on British military operations of having the American Rebellion in place. That, and the Admiralty's obsession with maintaining the blockade of the American Colonies and sparing whatever forces were left for economic warfare against Washington's supplies being sent to the West Indies. No matter what else, including even incredibly allowing a massive Franco-Spanish naval and amphibious invasion force to collect in the English Channel itself, nothing would keep the RN from doing its all to keep the US coastline blocked off and keep Washington's army naked and starving. They were less successful at keeping it unarmed.

The blockade wasn't broken until 1781 and the British, through raiding in the Caribbean, managed to keep the Continental Army hungry until the very end of the war.

Assuming that some MAJOR crisis in Europe brings in a new war? That's tough. Depends on the year, factoring in the French Revolution (or handwaving it), and what the cause of the war is.


Post-7YW EVERYBODY on the Continent was either Just. Plain. Pissed. at the British (Portugal, Russia, the German States, Prussia), frigidly indifferent to Britain's fate (Sweden, Denmark, Austria, the Ottoman Empire), or openly hostile and planning revenge (France, Spain, Holland). But ALL were in agreement that Britain was seriously in need post-7YW of being brought down a peg or three. The ARW just came at the worst possible time for Britain regarding relations with the Continent. The North Government seemed to assume that the absolute monarchs of Europe would never support a revolutionary republican country. Sure, the French, maybe. But we can handle them.

And if anyone else tries to jump in, well. Just more colonies for us to seize! Really. They did say this. It wasn't until Empress Catherine's formation of the League of Neutrality that the British thought the Russians were going to join the war against them. North fully planned that if that ever happened Britain would immediately sue for peace and just get whatever they could, no matter how abject the terms. Saving national sovereignty (no enemy troops on British soil), saving the RN, Gibraltar, Jamaica, Canada, and Bermuda seemed to be their absolute last diplomatic fallback positions.

One way or another, essentially everyone lost or just "survived" the 7YW (1), except the British, who cleaned up by backstabbing their allies and taking off after they'd secured all the loot for themselves that they could.

1) Yeah, Prussia did fine but if Russia's Empress Elizabeth had lived a few years longer and healthier, Frederick the Great would have been "Frederick the Unready".

Anyway, the answer is simple. All other things being equal, absolute curbstomp of the Franco-Spanish-Dutch fleets. Since they can never properly sortie into the Atlantic in this scenario, its just a matter of the British working over each French then Spanish then Dutch port to nail the warships there, while scarfing up all their colonies. This could mean a much stronger position for Britain if Nappy shows up. But if no French Revolution and no Napoleon, then the British Empire could be looking at a long Cold War with the whole of Europe! Farewell the Pax Britannica, perhaps? If that happens, European history rapidly butterflies into unrecognizability.

NOTE: This only holds with OTL European combatants. I know that we have a tiny handful of what could (I suppose) be politely called "High Tories" who believe that the Royal Navy in this era could defeat the combined fleets of the entire world using nothing but harsh language-OK, that was a cheap shot, shame on me-but having ALL of Europe at war with Britain to the death means an instant and unbreakable Napoleonic-style of an economic "Continental System" with real teeth in it. Britain CANNOT survive longterm without suing for peace under these circumstances.

 

[Socrates]

So if the British avoid the American Revelution is there any way the Bourbons can challenge them? Presumably the Dutch would always stay neutral and the Russians don't have any rivalry so the Bourbon alliance can't really depend on them. What are the Bourbons going to do? Never go to war with the British again? Or just go for European domination and give up on colonialism? Could they have a post 1763 ship building program to make up the gap?

 

[usertron2020]

So if the British avoid the American Revolution is there any way the Bourbons can challenge them? Presumably the Dutch would always stay neutral and the Russians don't have any rivalry so the Bourbon alliance can't really depend on them. What are the Bourbons going to do? Never go to war with the British again?

Realistically you can't keep Europe frozen in time forever. Something will come about eventually.

With no American rebellion whatsoever, the circumstances for France still look bleak. In many ways, the French Revolution was on automatic from the moment that Louis XIV took power. The cost sunk into the building of the Palace of Versailles, frex, in the $$$ of the time was so fantastic that I wish I had a direct source. My shoddy memory says some ridiculous figure like 100,000,000 livres in mid-17th century money! Louis XV spoke nothing but the truth when he said on his deathbed "After me, the deluge". Of course, he hated the future Louis XVI...

The 19th century was destined to be very radically different from any century that had come before. I know my guy's name is more or less dogmeat on any AH site, but sometimes Tolstoy is quite accurate about environment and the forces of history.

Or just go for European domination and give up on colonialism? Could they have a post 1763 ship building program to make up the gap?

The "emerging nations" of Prussia and Russia, plus the slow collapse of Spain and the Ottomans, mean that European domination is a chimaera for the Bourbons. Louis XIV tried to be, and was, the Sun King. But while he was dominating Europe, the British sailed out and swept over the world. The Bourbons won a battle but lost the war. Besides, while this was going on the Hapsburgs still ruled Spain and saw France as the enemy. By the time of the 18th century and established Franco-Spanish friendship, the "ship had sailed".

As to the French and Spanish building up their fleets? The Spaniards were too concentrated on holding on to their own vast empire, and the French Exchequer was already writing checks they couldn't cash. When you have an Estate System in which both the aristocracy (1st) and clergy (2nd) are tax exempt, and the commoners (3rd) are facing medieval levels of taxation (80-90%) to make up the difference, well...the explosion was bound to come eventually.

 

[Socrates]

Realistically you can't keep Europe frozen in time forever. Something will come about eventually.

With no American rebellion whatsoever, the circumstances for France still look bleak. In many ways, the French Revolution was on automatic from the moment that Louis XIV took power. The cost sunk into the building of the Palace of Versailles, frex, in the $$$ of the time was so fantastic that I wish I had a direct source. My shoddy memory says some ridiculous figure like 100,000,000 livres in mid-17th century money! Louis XV spoke nothing but the truth when he said on his deathbed "After me, the deluge". Of course, he hated the future Louis XVI...

So it sounds like the conclusion is that without the ARW, France is completely pushed out the colonial game. It seems likely they will have a war at sea with Britain at some point: the Choiseul was keen on a war over the Falklands crisis which they would have lost. Even if the King was a bit smarter, he just wanted to wait a few more years, so it sounds like the French massively overestimated their naval capability vis-a-vis the British. So sooner or later they're going to go to war and lose at sea.

The "emerging nations" of Prussia and Russia, plus the slow collapse of Spain and the Ottomans, mean that European domination is a chimaera for the Bourbons. Louis XIV tried to be, and was, the Sun King. But while he was dominating Europe, the British sailed out and swept over the world. The Bourbons won a battle but lost the war. Besides, whil;e this was going on the Hapsburgs still ruled Spain and saw France as the enemy. By the time of the 18th century and established Franco-Spanish friendship, the "ship had sailed".

But by the mid-1700s the Bourbons have France, Spain and Naples. It seems like Prussia is the real problem here, as Russia is too far East to really dominate deep in Italy and Germany. If we want to have a no ARW timeline and keep it more interesting than "Britain curbstomps the world" what can we do to change things here? How about knock out Prussia during the Seven Years' War? Then the Bourbons are in a very strong position on the continent, especially if they divide up Italy and Germany with the Habsburgs? (The Habsburgs will want to maintain the alliance as they'll be more worried about Russia.)

As to the French and Spanish buildingup their fleets? The Spaniards were too concentrated on holding on to their own vast empire, and the French Exchequer was already writing checks they couldn't cash. When you have an Estate System in which both the aristocracy (1st) and clergy (2nd) are tax exempt, and the commoners (3rd) are facing medieval levels of taxation (80-90%) to make up the difference, well...the explosion was bound to come eventually.

Well what about having a major reform push right after the 7YW? If that goes really badly for them, which it certainly could have, France might have been plunged into a national crisis and the nobility may have been forced to give way. Perhaps the triumvirate comes in early, you have tax raises forced through, the parlements broken and a massive naval building program? If Louis XVI then decided not to restore the parlements, more tax raises could have happened later. Could that keep France more level?