Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
The British Empire
Topic Started: Mar 28 2012, 05:59 PM (440 Views)
Basil Fawlty
Member Avatar
Post Tenebras Lux
Simple challenge: make the British Empire as big as it can realistically get without becoming overstretched. Start from 1750 and assume there is still a French Revolution / Napoleonic War.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Simon Darkshade
Member Avatar
Nefarious Swashbuckler
The American colonies are still going to go at that point in time, one way or another.

Possible additions:
Most of the Spanish and French Caribbean
Congo
Siam
Abyssinia
Southern Persia
Portuguese East and West Africa
New Caledonia and assorted Pacific islands
Philippines
Alaska, Hawaii, Oregon, California
Argentina

I'll expand on how these could be achieved when I get a moment.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Basil Fawlty
Member Avatar
Post Tenebras Lux
Hmm, you really think some sort of split is inevitable even before the Seven Years' War? I suppose I could move it back but I'm not sure how early a PoD is needed.

One idea Matt and I toyed with once was a different New England Confederation, which leads to different colonial structures. Admittedly, it's harder to maintain close transatlantic connections in the era before steam.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Simon Darkshade
Member Avatar
Nefarious Swashbuckler
Yes, that issue of distance pulling interests apart makes me think that separation is inevitable. It is only 25 years or so, and most of the underlying social, cultural, economic and political causes for separation are there, just lacking the immediate catalysts.

This is not to say that separation and independence could not occur under more amicable circumstances, which could change the character of early Anglo-American relations, but the issues that emerged from the Seven Years War put the nail in the coffin rather than being the coffin themselves.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBK
Member Avatar

I think the British Empire reached its maximum size in @. Any other expansion would be very hard to imagine. I could maybe see some kind of stronger South African colony if the boer woer had been prevented and the Transvaal and Free State had been absorbed into South Africa. But other than that I doubt very much that there could have been more expansion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Basil Fawlty
Member Avatar
Post Tenebras Lux
Most of the areas mentioned were underpopulated until the nineteenth or twentieth century and could be secured with a POD far enough back. In fact, Alaska, Hawaii etc. are straightforward enough that some of us spent considerable effort forecasting possible countermeasures. ;)

The areas that may give the most trouble are Persia, Abyssinia, the Philippines and Argentina. The first three have significant native populations and a rich cultural history dating back thousands of years, in some cases, and are less open to outright settlement. Unlike India, they were not fragmented and would not be open to piecemeal annexation. Possible, but not as easy as having Drake's New Albion claim survive.

It would be interesting to explore what effect so much additional land would have on the British colonial administration, if any.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Simon Darkshade
Member Avatar
Nefarious Swashbuckler
The British Empire reached nowhere near its maximum and indeed mainly grew by accident rather than design. It was also noteworthy in that it didn't take a great deal of manpower. The number of British troops in their Pacific possessions in 1940? Zero.

The Philippines were taken during the Seven Years War and controlling them would not take a huge force, but a significant one over a while.

Abyssinia was defeated by Napier and taking it down completely would work in a similar manner to Egypt.

Argentina was essentially the area around the Plate in the 1700s, and more forces with better leadership could achieve distinctly different results in the Napoleonic Period.

Southern Persia simply refers to asserting greater control over those areas that were under strong British influence in @, as well as extending de facto Indian control west a little.

Congo was very much up for grabs and Stanley did offer his services to the Colonial Office. Katanga was almost claimed in the race.

Various bits of the Caribbean can quite easily be picked up during the Napoleonic Wars or in previous conflicts. Cuba would be more difficult due to population size.

Siam did have large bits nibbled off by Britain and France, so taking more is not unconceivable and would follow a divide and conquer principle.

The Portuguese bits of Africa were the subject of some speculation as time went on; the affair of the Pink Map showed that cordial long term relations were a distinct second to British interests.

Throw in South West Africa, Cameroon and the German bits of East Africa for good measure; there were strong British interests and opportunities to get them.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Basil Fawlty
Member Avatar
Post Tenebras Lux
Simon Darkshade
Apr 1 2012, 03:36 AM
The British Empire reached nowhere near its maximum and indeed mainly grew by accident rather than design. It was also noteworthy in that it didn't take a great deal of manpower. The number of British troops in their Pacific possessions in 1940? Zero.
This is an important point and is probably a reason why they were able to grow so big without more opposition. If the British approached everything with a master plan for conquest, people would soon grow resentful and there would be pushback. Even in @, as late as 1814 some Russian commanders were talking about letting Napoleon be, because they realized if they destroyed France, the dominant position would not pass to Russia.

Like the Dutch and Portuguese, the British were able to punch far above their manpower weight.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBK
Member Avatar

Simon are you sure about the Pacific possesions? I guess it also mean what you consider Pacific, but I did not Hong Kong have a garrison? And Singapore, Malaysia? If you mean just some scattered island in the middle of that great ocean, I guess they would not need a garrison?

As for all the other ones you mention, there must be a reasons why Britain did manage to add those to her Empire. For the British, while maybe not looking for Empire as a great master plan, did certainly not let any oppertunity for the enlargement of the Empire go wasted. Other European powers had to be taken into consideration, such as France.
Edited by JBK, Apr 2 2012, 05:35 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Simon Darkshade
Member Avatar
Nefarious Swashbuckler
The term 'Pacific' included the British Pacific Islands - Gilbert and Ellice Islands, British Solomon Islands, Fiji, New Hebrides, Tonga and other smaller territories. Rabaul had to be garrisoned by an Australian battalion from mid 1941.

As for not letting opportunities go to waste, the classic example of the opposite of this occuring is the Congo and to a slightly lesser extent, Namibia/SW Africa.

The French came into the Empire game a bit later on and did well to grab what they could get.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · Alternate History · Next Topic »
Add Reply