SwimLFS
2004-06-17 03:40:53 UTC
In some ways, this is a rehash of Mike Ralls' thread a two years ago.
However, his thread had a much broader scope, starting with the
failure of the Spanish Armada and moving forward to present day, in
order to establish whether or not the OTL result was maximal, minimal,
or average, given the various alternatives Britain could encounter in
backing into/establishing its empire.
The timeframe he suggested is massive, and a lot of information and
results would almost certainly get lost in the hash and noise of
alterations made to the TL that don't necessarily relate to the
British Empire.
So, let's narrow the field quite a bit. Most, if not all of the
foundations of the British Empire, were built by 1815. So, starting
with the defeat of Napoleon, what can be done to maximize the British
Empire, minimize it, or get roughly the same result?
Looking at Britain, it's been through the first wave of the industrial
revolution, but not the demographic transition. How do one or the
other relate to empire, or do they, at all?
Though dynastic politics are no longer as large a factor as sixty
years ago, or even longer, the King or Queen has a lot of influence
through society and money and at least some theoretical constitutional
power at the start of the era--all of these diminish as time goes on,
which may relate to the growth of Empire in some places, but not in
others.
North America is gone, but the EIC is still running? Is Britain's
informal empire "better" in that it is more effective, or would early
direct rule be better--eg William IV, Emperor of India.
Finally, I think the trends in Asia, Africa, and the Pacific should be
considered seperately, though not for purely geographic reasons, but
rather the reason d'etre and the style of expansion.
Cheers
L
However, his thread had a much broader scope, starting with the
failure of the Spanish Armada and moving forward to present day, in
order to establish whether or not the OTL result was maximal, minimal,
or average, given the various alternatives Britain could encounter in
backing into/establishing its empire.
The timeframe he suggested is massive, and a lot of information and
results would almost certainly get lost in the hash and noise of
alterations made to the TL that don't necessarily relate to the
British Empire.
So, let's narrow the field quite a bit. Most, if not all of the
foundations of the British Empire, were built by 1815. So, starting
with the defeat of Napoleon, what can be done to maximize the British
Empire, minimize it, or get roughly the same result?
Looking at Britain, it's been through the first wave of the industrial
revolution, but not the demographic transition. How do one or the
other relate to empire, or do they, at all?
Though dynastic politics are no longer as large a factor as sixty
years ago, or even longer, the King or Queen has a lot of influence
through society and money and at least some theoretical constitutional
power at the start of the era--all of these diminish as time goes on,
which may relate to the growth of Empire in some places, but not in
others.
North America is gone, but the EIC is still running? Is Britain's
informal empire "better" in that it is more effective, or would early
direct rule be better--eg William IV, Emperor of India.
Finally, I think the trends in Asia, Africa, and the Pacific should be
considered seperately, though not for purely geographic reasons, but
rather the reason d'etre and the style of expansion.
Cheers
L