NationStates Jolt Archive

Alternate History Exercise. Tell your own or any good stories you have read?

For a possible number of reasons, the American Independence movement never got started strong enough for there to be a Revolutionary War. It could have been because a prominent Independence leader died, the First or Second Continental Congress never happened, taxes were never raised on the American colonies, etc. Or there was a Revolutionary War but it was lost and there was no strong movement after that.


Taking into account other situations worldwide, does the British Empire continue on to become an almost global Empire? What probably happens?

Well the French Revolution might not of occurred, as France wouldn't have been bankrupt and starving...so Napoleon might not have came to power...

Native Americans might have been treated more fairly, and might even have their own nation...

Mexico would have retained much of its territory in the West and Southwest...

just a few thoughts...

Well done Aerion! Thanks for coming out.

Canada would be fucking massive.

I think it would have taken far longer eventually the North would have repatriated their respective constitutions. The USA would likely have been a constitution Monarchy. I think the British empire would have extended it reign but eventually the sun would finally set on the empire. The French would have been in big trouble. Quebec would have fallen to the English and North of 49 parallel. It is even conceivable that the USA would have extended as far as North West Territories and as far south as Mexico northern border of Mexico. Once the French fell. The British could turn their sights on Spain. This whole continent would be a constitutional Monarchy. They may have moved into South America.

Well done Aerion! Thanks for coming out.

As what? If reference to current events, I am a liberal and a huge supporter of our new President Obama. I am glad history happened the way it did.

Just thinking about how powerful the British Empire once was.

What probably happens?"Rome never fell" scenario?

Old school, nice.

It would depend on the circumstances that lead to the Revolution either not occurring or failing. Had the Prime Minister not been obsessed with his personal power and George III not mad, It's very likely that there would have been an American Parliament and American Minister, and that Canada would have been lumped into the American Parliament instead of getting their own independence in 1867.
The problem is that Britain really had no interest in expanding past the Appalachians, although they were very interested in California during the Gold Rush era. Another problem is that the Louisiana Purchase would not have occurred. Napoleon may have sold the property to the US, but never Britain, and he sold it largely to avoid the open revolts being proposed when Louisiana passed from Spanish to French rule.
I'd argue that the native tribes would not be better off, as France treated it's colonies so badly, it still has horrible relations with them, and the Spanish tended to follow a policy of eradication.
The northwestern end of the North American continent as far down the coast as about the middle of California would be Russian, since Seward wouldn't have bought it to keep the Russians out of the Civil War, which would have made the Cold War era interesting

Boston would just be another place on the Coast where the people talk funny and good Lobster. Their baseball team would still stink.

Can you picture the thin red line. Marching through Texas against Santa Anna. The Alamo would be just another city in Texas.

No immigration threat with Mexico. We would be one happy continent.

As what? If reference to current events, I am a liberal and a huge supporter of our new President Obama. I am glad history happened the way it did.

Just thinking about how powerful the British Empire once was.

Thank you for the topic something worthy to think about.

Anyone who has played Europa Universalis could answer this question. What happens is that the Xhosa conquer the whole goddamned world.

Well the French Revolution might not of occurred, as France wouldn't have been bankrupt and starving...so Napoleon might not have came to power...

Native Americans might have been treated more fairly, and might even have their own nation...

Mexico would have retained much of its territory in the West and Southwest...

just a few thoughts...

I don't know about the Native American thing, the taxes were largely to pay for protecting the colonists.

Eventually the English would let us go like Canada and Australia, but it would be a largely gradual thing.

There maybe, and I'm far from a historian so this is all just willy nilly, would not have been the isolationism, so the Colonies would have been involved in World Wars I & II a lot earlier. I'm not sure how much effect that would have had.

Texas might have either not happened, fell to the Spanish, or possibly succeeded but not joined with the other 'colonies.' This might have opened the door for California to remain independent (Vallejo had surrendered to the Bear Flag Army by inviting them to dinner when they showed up, he didn't like the governors that much anyway.) With that the west coast might be the closest thing to resemble 'the United States' left.

The slave trade would have ended a bit sooner and without a war, I think.

Perhaps the French would have kept Louisiana meaning that there would be a slightly enlarged Mexico, a French state, the 'free' West, and Canada for the sake of ease would extend down the East coast. Or the two would remain separate, I don't really know the history of our Northern neighbor.

The nuclear bomb might not have been developed until after the war, meaning that no city would actually have had one dropped on it. The Cold War would certainly be a bit different.

Since New York and LA are now in different countries the entertainment industry wouldn't have migrated (perhaps, if Florida went British instead of Spanish, it would have moved there), the two would exist side by side instead of dividing up film/television/news, etc.

I'm a little tapped out, I think. Plus, all the history buffs and people who approach international relations like a game of Risk have enough to complain about in my post.

It would depend on the circumstances that lead to the Revolution either not occurring or failing. Had the Prime Minister not been obsessed with his personal power and George III not mad, It's very likely that there would have been an American Parliament and American Minister, and that Canada would have been lumped into the American Parliament instead of getting their own independence in 1867.
The problem is that Britain really had no interest in expanding past the Appalachians, although they were very interested in California during the Gold Rush era. Another problem is that the Louisiana Purchase would not have occurred. Napoleon may have sold the property to the US, but never Britain, and he sold it largely to avoid the open revolts being proposed when Louisiana passed from Spanish to French rule.
I'd argue that the native tribes would not be better off, as France treated it's colonies so badly, it still has horrible relations with them, and the Spanish tended to follow a policy of eradication.
The northwestern end of the North American continent as far down the coast as about the middle of California would be Russian, since Seward wouldn't have bought it to keep the Russians out of the Civil War, which would have made the Cold War era interesting



Well though out but I think it would been a matter of time before the Louisiana purchase was British Victory. I think they would blasted them right back to Paris. The French were in dire straits as it was which was why they need to sell the land to get money for their war effort. The British empire was preoccupied with with the fight back in Britain and didn't really want to fight a war on many fronts.

One important aspect would have benn that, with the American Colonies still usable as a dumping ground for convicts, Australia would not have been settled when it was by the British.

Given the French were interested in the place, it is entirely possible we'd be speaking of l'Australie.

I don't know about the Native American thing, the taxes were largely to pay for protecting the colonists.

Eventually the English would let us go like Canada and Australia, but it would be a largely gradual thing.

There maybe, and I'm far from a historian so this is all just willy nilly, would not have been the isolationism, so the Colonies would have been involved in World Wars I & II a lot earlier. I'm not sure how much effect that would have had.

Texas might have either not happened, fell to the Spanish, or possibly succeeded but not joined with the other 'colonies.' This might have opened the door for California to remain independent (Vallejo had surrendered to the Bear Flag Army by inviting them to dinner when they showed up, he didn't like the governors that much anyway.) With that the west coast might be the closest thing to resemble 'the United States' left.

The slave trade would have ended a bit sooner and without a war, I think.

Perhaps the French would have kept Louisiana meaning that there would be a slightly enlarged Mexico, a French state, the 'free' West, and Canada for the sake of ease would extend down the East coast. Or the two would remain separate, I don't really know the history of our Northern neighbor.

The nuclear bomb might not have been developed until after the war, meaning that no city would actually have had one dropped on it. The Cold War would certainly be a bit different.

Since New York and LA are now in different countries the entertainment industry wouldn't have migrated (perhaps, if Florida went British instead of Spanish, it would have moved there), the two would exist side by side instead of dividing up film/television/news, etc.

I'm a little tapped out, I think. Plus, all the history buffs and people who approach international relations like a game of Risk have enough to complain about in my post.



I think you are on the right track. World war 1 and 2 would have happened. The former USA would have been forced to get in much earlier which may have even shortened the second one. It is hard to say what would have happened to the Japanese. They may have emerged as a threat.

But, would the French Revolution have occurred if there wasn't an American revolution?

Without the French Revolution there would have been Napoleon...and no Louisiana purchase.

I think the Native Americans would have a nation of there own, as the British weren't interested in going much farther than the Appalachians.

The nuclear bomb might not have been developed until after the war, meaning that no city would actually have had one dropped on it. The Cold War would certainly be a bit different.
Without an American Revolution, would there have been a French Revolution? And without a French Revolution, would there have been a Russian one? And without a Russian revolution (that is, without a USSR), who would the cold war have been between?
My money is on Britain and France.
I'm a little tapped out, I think. Plus, all the history buffs and people who approach international relations like a game of Risk have enough to complain about in my post.
The American colonies wouldn't have made much of a difference then. Maybe England would have gotten an extra guy each turn, but otherwise it wouldn't matter until they finally conquered all of North America.

New York would not have the statue of Liberty. The Liberty Bell in Pennsylvania would still be in the church perhaps. Paul Revere would have been just a silversmith. It is hard to say where the national capital would be. Benedict Arnold would possibly have been a great military commander. Maybe even one some of our money. George Washington would be just a military commander.

Well though out but I think it would been a matter of time before the Louisiana purchase was British Victory. I think they would blasted them right back to Paris. The French were in dire straits as it was which was why they need to sell the land to get money for their war effort. The British empire was preoccupied with with the fight back in Britain and didn't really want to fight a war on many fronts.

More likely New Orleans would be Spanish. The British weren't really that interested in Westward expansion.

As far as the Japanese in WWII, they would have taken the Pacific without the Americans to fight with-and won, since it's doubtful anyone else would be concerned or drop the bomb on them with the War in Europe occupying everyone's attention.

But, would the French Revolution have occurred if there wasn't an American revolution?

Without the French Revolution there would have been Napoleon...and no Louisiana purchase.

I think the Native Americans would have a nation of there own, as the British weren't interested in going much farther than the Appalachians.

The French Revolution was sort of inevitable-the French were incompetants just asking for the Reign of Terror. Although the American Revolution happened first, it's not like the French peasants looked at the papers and said, "Zut alors! We should try that!"

Similarly, had the Russians not sold their American colonies, the Gold Rush may well have lined their coffers enough to defer the discontent that lead to the October Revolution, which would have negated the existence of the Soviet Union entirely.

Hank Aaron Babe Ruth would have been a cricket player. Soccer season would never end. Hockey would probably suffer greatly. Football would be rugby. Arthur Treacher's Fish & Chips would be an nationwide sensation. Starbucks would be a tea company.

The American Revolution was a pivital point in history. Not only was it the first colony to rebel and gain independence, but it was the first successful democracy since Rome. So, this could be played out a few ways.

First, the world today would still be a monarchy or some form of totalitarian government. So many countries based their constitutions (if applicable) off of the US Constitution, that without it, the world has no base stone for democracy. So, it can be assumed that there will be struggles for power, maybe not necessarily England and France, but any of the world powers (ex: Austria-Hungary and Russia).

Secondly, if the American Revolution hadn't happened, then there wouldn't have been any of the other revolutions (Yes, they could've happened regardless, but for the sake of rhetoric, they don't happen). So, L'Ouverture's revolution in Haiti probably would not have existed. Most of the Western hemisphere would still be colonies, or have evolve into dominionships.

Now, without the American Revolution, the Proclamation Act of 1763 probably would've been still be in effect. Spain would probably try to invade the Louisiana territory, striking war. Russia cloud've expanded eastward away from the western Canadia coast into east Canada. If both of these actions happened at the same time, Russia and Spain could ally, then France would fight the war back in Europe, possibly pinning England down. In that case, England would have to surrender the colonies to either of the three powers. We could be speaking Russian, Spanish, or French as opposed to English. The English language could, in theory, exist no longer. Of course, this is worse-case senario.

If we were to assume France somehow regained Canada from England in a European war, A second French-Indian War could've happened over the Ohio River Valley again. This is highly unlikely, however.

These predictions seem farfetched, but they are plausible.

FTSE 100 would FTSE100000 would be worldwide just about, wow. The pound in America. 4th of July just a hot day in July. No fireworks, sigh. The world would be a very different place.

Well the French revolution wasn't entirely taken from our revolution. The country was already dirt poor and socially and politically ripe for it. The same with Russia. The people would chant for bread during riots. As far as WW1 and 2, the United states would have been involved much earlier, and used as the canadians were. Disposable, in other words. (sorry, Canada, you've got a good military, but the Brits used them for suicide missions and bullshit without proper support). I'm going to agree with everyone as far as expansion goes, Brits really didn't care about expanding the colonies here. The tribes would still likely be roaming the plains, mountains, and whatnot, as the native americans in the states were much more nomadic than the central and southern americas, and that made it a bit easier for the conquistadors. Also, by that time, the natives in the north had started to pick up and use rifles, gunpowder, and their tactics were quickly advancing and beating ours (I'll take a guerilla to your rectangle any day). I think it's safe to say that a lot of the coastal areas would be major ports but the heart of the country would stay intact. On a sidenote, World War 1 may never have been won by the allies, because American involvement (the fresh troops and whatnot) was a major part of the German surrender, or it may not have happened as quickly. Also, the German depression would have happened much sooner, so WW2 may have been started sooner. Not to mention a lot of the ideas that staved off WW2 to begin with were Wilson's ideas. Just some thoughts...

The American Revolution was a pivital point in history. Not only was it the first colony to rebel and gain independence, but it was the first successful democracy since Rome. So, this could be played out a few ways.

First, the world today would still be a monarchy or some form of totalitarian government. So many countries based their constitutions (if applicable) off of the US Constitution, that without it, the world has no base stone for democracy. So, it can be assumed that there will be struggles for power, maybe not necessarily England and France, but any of the world powers (ex: Austria-Hungary and Russia).

Secondly, if the American Revolution hadn't happened, then there wouldn't have been any of the other revolutions (Yes, they could've happened regardless, but for the sake of rhetoric, they don't happen). So, L'Ouverture's revolution in Haiti probably would not have existed. Most of the Western hemisphere would still be colonies, or have evolve into dominionships.

Now, without the American Revolution, the Proclamation Act of 1763 probably would've been still be in effect. Spain would probably try to invade the Louisiana territory, striking war. Russia cloud've expanded eastward away from the western Canadia coast into east Canada. If both of these actions happened at the same time, Russia and Spain could ally, then France would fight the war back in Europe, possibly pinning England down. In that case, England would have to surrender the colonies to either of the three powers. We could be speaking Russian, Spanish, or French as opposed to English. The English language could, in theory, exist no longer. Of course, this is worse-case senario.

If we were to assume France somehow regained Canada from England in a European war, A second French-Indian War could've happened over the Ohio River Valley again. This is highly unlikely, however.

These predictions seem farfetched, but they are plausible.



Pretty good, pretty good. I think France would have lost big time. Here is why.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_III

Great Britain defeated France in the Seven Years' War, becoming the dominant European power in North America and India. However, many of its American colonies were soon lost in the American Revolutionary War, which led to the establishment of the United States of America. A series of wars against revolutionary and Napoleonic France, over a twenty-year period, finally concluded in the defeat of Napoleon in 1815.

The Russian and Spanish thing could have happened though. Alaska might be still Russian.

Well the French revolution wasn't entirely taken from our revolution. The country was already dirt poor and socially and politically ripe for it. The same with Russia. The people would chant for bread during riots. As far as WW1 and 2, the United states would have been involved much earlier, and used as the canadians were. Disposable, in other words. (sorry, Canada, you've got a good military, but the Brits used them for suicide missions and bullshit without proper support). I'm going to agree with everyone as far as expansion goes, Brits really didn't care about expanding the colonies here. The tribes would still likely be roaming the plains, mountains, and whatnot, as the native americans in the states were much more nomadic than the central and southern americas, and that made it a bit easier for the conquistadors. Also, by that time, the natives in the north had started to pick up and use rifles, gunpowder, and their tactics were quickly advancing and beating ours (I'll take a guerilla to your rectangle any day). I think it's safe to say that a lot of the coastal areas would be major ports but the heart of the country would stay intact. On a sidenote, World War 1 may never have been won by the allies, because American involvement (the fresh troops and whatnot) was a major part of the German surrender, or it may not have happened as quickly. Also, the German depression would have happened much sooner, so WW2 may have been started sooner. Not to mention a lot of the ideas that staved off WW2 to begin with were Wilson's ideas. Just some thoughts...



Yeah but bigger colonies eventually you have to expand may have taken longer. Assuming they still won the 7 years war and finally beat Napoleon. It may have taken far longer but they would eventually be looking for fight. Not to mention you would have the colonies to gather troops from. You may have noticed we kind like to fight over here.

You are shirts, we are skins, let's go!

Yeah but bigger colonies eventually you have to expand may have taken longer. Assuming they still won the 7 years war and finally beat Napoleon. It may have taken far longer but they would eventually be looking for fight. Not to mention you would have the colonies to gather troops from. You may have noticed we kind like to fight over here.

You are shirts, we are skins, let's go!Okay, not going to debate the "we like to fight" part (guilty), but the colonies were already starting to become overpopulated, people were just up and moving across the Appalachians and cutting a little profit on fur and other trade with the french and natives. Besides, a lot of our increase in population and interest in expansion was due to immigrants from other countries, mostly the German countries (they weren't unified until Napoleon's nephew took control of France), Italian countries, and the Irish...

We would've caught the next revolutionary wave, or hopped on the bandwagon during the revolutions of 1848 if it took that long. The formula of decentralization and massive wealth would've made revolution hard to resist at one time or another.

Colonial holdings may enrich a nation, but the failure of the US to launch would have no impact on the later French Revolution, save that the world would know democracy just doesn't work, as the French model failed miserably.
However, as far as post WWII goes, it is likely there would be three powers emergent-the Soviets, provided the October Revolution got on course, the British, who would be forced to retain their Empire to compete, and the Japanese, who would face no opposition in conquering Asia and the Pacific, other than the British, already hard-pressed by the War in Europe.

However, without the American example, it is likely Europe would be even more communist than it is, and that Britain would pull itself further from Europe than it already has.

Also, without the Monroe Doctrine, South and Central America would be even bigger cesspools as anyone with a boat would stake claims and fight out their initial wars there...

Without an American Revolution, would there have been a French Revolution? And without a French Revolution, would there have been a Russian one?
French, certainly. It wasn't really related to the American one, and the French, being the country of thinkers at the time, would also certainly be able to write a constitution in their own.
The Russian one wouldn't happen without the French, but see above.
OTOH, it could be harder to accomplish, and thus could stop midway, at the Mensheviks, who actually aimed for an egalitarian socialism-capitalism mixture similar to some modern EU countries rather than pure socialism.


And without a Russian revolution (that is, without a USSR), who would the cold war have been between?

Without USSR (as it was) and US? Probably no one. The British-French opposition would remain, though, but it's not strong enough to call a cold war.

Obviously everything would be much better, and Americans would be able to spell.

Obviously everything would be much better, and Americans would be able to spell.

What an obvious troll, oh my!

What an obvious troll, oh my!

Pot? Meet kettle. Black much?

Well the French Revolution might not of occurred, as France wouldn't have been bankrupt and starving...so Napoleon might not have came to power...

Possible.

Native Americans might have been treated more fairly, and might even have their own nation...

You're out of your mind. Where had England ever encountered a native people that it couldn't subjugate?

Mexico would have retained much of its territory in the West and Southwest...

With the enmity between Spain and England, this MIGHT be true if Britain were trying to drive a wedge between Mexico and Spain -- but that's all moot if there's no independent Mexico, which there might not be without a successful US revolution. I know Mexico's independence wasn't won by war (unless it was; I'm fuzzy in that whole era and too lazy to look it up).

I think it would have taken far longer eventually the North would have repatriated their respective constitutions.

The North what? If you're talking the Civil War, would that have even happened?

The USA would likely have been a constitution Monarchy. I think the British empire would have extended it reign but eventually the sun would finally set on the empire.

How? When? Britain would have just maintained control over most of an entire continent of seemingly limitless resources. Enough to fuel any conquest. Also, with no Revolutionary War to fight, England's military attentions could have been diverted elsewhere. With cities in British America growing and then churning out army and navy units, there's very little that would stand it its way.

The French would have been in big trouble.

They already were. They lost the French & Indian War, recall, and were all but kicked off the continent, save for some Caribbean islands and isloated territories. Quebec, isolated from support from France and surrounded on all sides by British land, might very well have just surrendered or ceded itself to Britain without so much as a pistol shot.

Quebec would have fallen to the English and North of 49 parallel. It is even conceivable that the USA would have extended as far as North West Territories and as far south as Mexico northern border of Mexico. Once the French fell. The British could turn their sights on Spain. This whole continent would be a constitutional Monarchy. They may have moved into South America.

Seems possible to me. Desire for a global empire + limitless resources?

Also, the British military would not have had to fight wars in both 1776 and 1812. I don't think they'd have gone so power-mad as to take over Europe or other established lands, but in the race to colonize as much as possible, retaining America would have given the British an insurmountable lead. They may have even been the sole superpower, which could very well have stunted the empires and challengers of later centuries. I'm not sure Germany ever messes with a Britain that's in charge of most of a hemisphere, Australia, India, and the rest of its territories.

It's fun to speculate, but too many factors are too variable to do anything but spitball at this. Think of all the people who may or may not have existed and the things they did, didn't do, invented, provoked, etc. Hard to say what British America's policy on immigration would have been, but given what it was in England proper, there might be Teslas, Fords, Carnegies, and others...but not necessarily.

Taking into account other situations worldwide, does the British Empire continue on to become an almost global Empire? What probably happens?
Without the Revolutionary War, it's hard to concieve as to how an America would come into existance. A Franklinesque Albany Plan might have been formed should there have been a negociated settlement with colonial conservatives in, say, 1775, but I doubt that the pressures that led to the formation of the USA proper in 1789 (or Canada in 1867) would have existed.

The other big question is as to how the UK and America deals with slavery. My guess would be that the UK goes no futher than to ban the slave trade, as to buy out slaveowners in the South would have met serious opposition and be too expensive. (IIRC slaveowners were bought out rather than proclaimed free in the British Empire.)

Taking into account other situations worldwide, does the British Empire continue on to become an almost global Empire? What probably happens?

No white shiney teeth for youse.

Another thought:

Given the chronic state of separation from England (and how long it took to get from England to the Colonies), It occurs to me that separation and some form of independence might have been inevitable. Pride of place + distance from those giving the orders and reaping the benefit of your hard work = potential for a revolutionary critical mass.

Another thought:

Given the chronic state of separation from England (and how long it took to get from England to the Colonies), It occurs to me that separation and some form of independence might have been inevitable. Pride of place + distance from those giving the orders and reaping the benefit of your hard work = potential for a revolutionary critical mass.

Nah, we'd have just had a Governor-General run the place. Held India until the 40s, Kenya etc 'til the 60s.

And UK please, not England.

Nah, we'd have just had a Governor-General run the place. Held India until the 40s, Kenya etc 'til the 60s.

And UK please, not England.

Most of the Colonial documents of the time we're discussing refer to "England" or "mother England" if you were a loyalist. I appreciate your asking politely, but "England" in this context is accurate. Had I meant the UK, as is the preferred nomenclature now, I'd have said UK.

I don't think you can compare India and Kenya to the American Colonies. Those who've never seen much, in any, White civilization before versus those who are part and parcel OF the colonial power, complete with its most advanced military hardware? No comparison. How else were so many held in check by so few?

Most of the Colonial documents of the time we're discussing refer to "England" or "mother England" if you were a loyalist. I appreciate your asking politely, but "England" in this context is accurate. Had I meant the UK, as is the preferred nomenclature now, I'd have said UK.
To be fair, a lot of other Americans just don't make the distinction today, and it can be quite irritating.

Most of the Colonial documents of the time we're discussing refer to "England" or "mother England" if you were a loyalist. I appreciate your asking politely, but "England" in this context is accurate. Had I meant the UK, as is the preferred nomenclature now, I'd have said UK.

Pejoratively. England used to be synonymous with UK (Or 'Kingdom of Great Britain which was the technically correct term for pre-1801') but isn't anymore. So it grates a little. It also leaves a little confusion to what you mean (just England, the larger British State, if you're including Ireland etc).


I don't think you can compare India and Kenya to the American Colonies. Those who've never seen much, in any, White civilization before versus those who are part and parcel OF the colonial power, complete with its most advanced military hardware? No comparison. How else were so many held in check by so few?
I'm not sure what point you're making. Despite the problems you describe re:orders travelling time etc the UK was able to hold much of its empire well past when it was an issue. See Australia, Canada etc.

The question is more that, are you saying it happened, but was crushed, or never happened at all?

The question is more that, are you saying it happened, but was crushed, or never happened at all?

Either, but preferably never happened at all. Since if it was crushed there would be an almost inevitable movement again.

The question is more that, are you saying it happened, but was crushed, or never happened at all?
Either one, probably.

They both provide excellent food-for-thought, especially as the former could well lead to more attempts at throwing off British rule, whilst the latter could hint at a satisfaction with any attempts that were made to reconcile the colonies with the crown. Or, indeed, the latter could just mean that the problems that the Americans were to revolt a number of years later than they did.

The American Revolution was a pivital point in history. Not only was it the first colony to rebel and gain independence, but it was the first successful democracy since Rome. So, this could be played out a few ways.

I think you're confusing 'democracy' with 'republic'. Pre-principate Rome was many things, but a democracy it wasn't. Trying to unpick the complexities of the (unwritten) republican constitution would take a very long post, but since the only senior office of the Roman Republic open to plebeians was the tribunate, and only land-owning non-patricians could elect a tribune, that's hardly unvarnished democracy.

The remaining seven senior magistratates, all extraordinary magistrates, and all senators had to be patricians.

The relationship between the senate and the various evolving (and sometimes purely theoretical) Roman legislative assemblies was complex, but while the assemblies may have had de jure precedence over the senate in some cases, the senate was de facto supreme.

On this basis, I'd argue that the Venetian Republic was at least as successful a republic than Rome was, and a considerably more recent one too. Arguably a more successful one since Venice never replaced the Doge with a monarch.

And 'first colony to rebel and gain independence' might be better expressed as 'first overseas colony of a modern European power to rebel and gain independence.' History is littered with examples of states rebelling and seceding from other states.




One important aspect would have benn that, with the American Colonies still usable as a dumping ground for convicts, Australia would not have been settled when it was by the British.

Given the French were interested in the place, it is entirely possible we'd be speaking of l'Australie.

I'd slightly disagree. Australia wasn't just settled as a dumping ground for convicts - though it was certainly convenient for that purpose. It was also considered to be an important strategic supply and repair point for Royal Navy ships. Britain would have been interested in Australia for that purpose regardless of other events. However, given that the French were poking around Australia at almost precisely the same time (archaeologist colleagues of mine have identified the site of a French encampment in Tasmania, for example), I think it entirely possible that Australia could have looked very different had the British settlement of Australia been at all delayed. Instead of a single English speaking territory, why not a New South Wales, Victoria, Terre Van Dieman, Australie de L'Ouest, and Dutch North Australia?

Either, but preferably never happened at all. Since if it was crushed there would be an almost inevitable movement again.

Well, in that case, the question is more to how was the world different at the time, that removed the factors that lead up to the Revolution to begin with.

All in all however, I'd say the British Empire would still be in power, most of Europe would be German, because of their unopposed movements against Europe, Britain would have been less involved in the scramble for Africa, which would have removed a lot of the tensions caused by the new age of imperialism and colonization of Africa. World War One would end up occurring later, possibly involving the USSR, and likely over various arms races and such not.

A lot of modern history relies on WW2, and the dropping of nuclear bombs on Japan, but, Germany could have probably have ended up with nuclear weapons before the BE or Russians, and it all depends on whether or not the BE and (possibly) USSR, can take out enough of Germany to prevent that from happening.

Israel, however, wouldn't exist, and I'd say the UN probably wouldn't exist ether, nor would any sort of superinternational organization.

In terms of culture, I say it would be extremely nationalistic, and possibly borderline fascist in some areas.

Canada would be fucking massive.

it is fucking massive now.

Either one, probably.

They both provide excellent food-for-thought, especially as the former could well lead to more attempts at throwing off British rule, whilst the latter could hint at a satisfaction with any attempts that were made to reconcile the colonies with the crown. Or, indeed, the latter could just mean that the problems that the Americans were to revolt a number of years later than they did.

Well, I ask because in Canada, we had two failed revolutions, the Rebellion of Upper and Lower Canada, and still got independence, but only after the British empire realized we'd be happier with more autonomy.

However, if the revolution simply never happened, it's unlikely that the colonies would have gotten much autonomy at all, ever.

On a sidenote, World War 1 may never have been won by the allies, because American involvement (the fresh troops and whatnot) was a major part of the German surrender, or it may not have happened as quickly. Also, the German depression would have happened much sooner, so WW2 may have been started sooner.
It would be won. Just later and with greater losses. But there's no doubt about the outcome.

On the other hand, it could actually prevent a revolution in Russia and formation of USSR. The cause of the revolution was participation in an unnecessary war; if Germans were stronger and the Allies weaker, however, the war could enter Russia proper, which would turn it into a defensive one.


If that were the case, it's likely, although not certain, that WWII wouldn't happen at all. Germany would either be stronger at the moment of surrender and the Versailles treaty conditions would be much better, taking the pressure off, or it would be totally obliterated as after WWII. In the latter case, in effect WWI and WWII would sort of be combined into one.

Further events, with a different situation in Europe, no US, and no USSR, would be too different to reasonably even guess about.

I'd slightly disagree. Australia wasn't just settled as a dumping ground for convicts - though it was certainly convenient for that purpose. It was also considered to be an important strategic supply and repair point for Royal Navy ships. Britain would have been interested in Australia for that purpose regardless of other events. However, given that the French were poking around Australia at almost precisely the same time (archaeologist colleagues of mine have identified the site of a French encampment in Tasmania, for example), I think it entirely possible that Australia could have looked very different had the British settlement of Australia been at all delayed. Instead of a single English speaking territory, why not a New South Wales, Victoria, Terre Van Dieman, Australie de L'Ouest, and Dutch North Australia?

Entirely possible. But I'd've expected the French to try for the fertile Southeast first - not to mention Britain sticking a military station at Albany on the west coast quite early on. So it would be more like Terre Van Dieman and French South-East Australia, British Queensland, British South Australia and Western Australia, and the Dutch Territories.

I conquered a third of china as Jin Xuan.

That's like conquering both France and Germany as Luxembourg.

As what? If reference to current events, I am a liberal and a huge supporter of our new President Obama. I am glad history happened the way it did.

Just thinking about how powerful the British Empire once was.
Yes... but that doesn't mean that if they held onto this one set of colonies, others would not have rebelled later (as they did).

I conquered a third of china as Jin Xuan.

That's like conquering both France and Germany as Luxembourg.

What?

Boston would just be another place on the Coast where the people talk funny and good Lobster. Their baseball team would still stink.

Can you picture the thin red line. Marching through Texas against Santa Anna. The Alamo would be just another city in Texas.

No immigration threat with Mexico. We would be one happy continent.
Why would you think that? the Spanish did not treat the indigenous people of Mexico any better than the Americans did.... did you think Spain and England would not have fought over the Southwest?

Hank Aaron Babe Ruth would have been a cricket player. Soccer season would never end. Hockey would probably suffer greatly. Football would be rugby. Arthur Treacher's Fish & Chips would be an nationwide sensation. Starbucks would be a tea company.
...Arthur Treacher's had its day and has faded into obscurity, and Starbucks started out as a tea and spice company IRL.

England would not have fought over the Southwest?

England =/= the UK.

What?

Jin Xuan's force was the three kingdom era's whipping boy.

...okay, so they had a bunch of whipping boys, but...

Jin Xuan's force was the three kingdom era's whipping boy.

...okay, so they had a bunch of whipping boys, but...

But I mean what does that have to do with anything?

But I mean what does that have to do with anything?
Well, it is an Alternate History thread, after all :p

England =/= the UK.
I understand that, but mother England is what the people of the time we're talking about were concerned with.

I conquered a third of china as Jin Xuan.

That's like conquering both France and Germany as Luxembourg.

Or tiny little Rwanda successfully invading the Congo.

Oh, hang on....

I understand that, but mother England is what the people of the time we're talking about were concerned with.
But then we may as well start using comtemporary English in this thread as well by that logic.

I understand that, but mother England is what the people of the time we're talking about were concerned with.
The ones from England, maybe.

The ones from the rest of the UK, not so much.

Why? Do you believe that automatically everything about the UK EXCEPT American Independence would be identical?

Why? Do you believe that automatically everything about the UK EXCEPT American Independence would be identical?
What the hell do you mean by that?

No, it probably wouldn't be, but that really makes little difference to whether or not it ought to be called the UK or England. Calling it "England" just because the people of the time did so just heaps on obscurity on to the discussion, especially since the UK of the time is basically the same area as the UK of now, bar the Republic of Ireland going walkies.

Well, sorry if I've offended anyone but the concerns that the American Colonies had were with breaking away and the response in England -- I don't think they feared the rest of the Empire so much as what Fat George was going to do. Scotland, Wales and England had only "recently" united in 1707 or so, and Ireland did not become a part officially until 1801 -- so to say that people of the 1770s were referring to "The United Kingdom" as it applies today doesn't make much historical sense.

And I really don't think it necessitated such a hostile response. Do you think it's meant to be insulting in some way?

Yes, Canada IS massive today. And would have still more territory had those upstart colonies not decided to go their own way.

And they probably would not have marched into Washington and burned down our Capitol if we had all still been one big happy family and not tried to, you know, invade up north.

Well, sorry if I've offended anyone but the concerns that the American Colonies had were with breaking away and the response in England...
The response in Britain.

The term was around in the 1770s; no need to reinforce an ungainly Americanism.

Well, sorry if I've offended anyone but the concerns that the American Colonies had were with breaking away and the response in England -- I don't think they feared the rest of the Empire so much as what Fat George was going to do. Scotland, Wales and England had only "recently" united in 1707 or so, and Ireland did not become a part officially until 1801 -- so to say that people of the 1770s were referring to "The United Kingdom" as it applies today doesn't make much historical sense.

And I really don't think it necessitated such a hostile response. Do you think it's meant to be insulting in some way?

England was used to refer to all of the 'Kingdom of Great Britain' which was the correct name for the state at the time, but using it here just confuses what you're actually referring to. So it makes sense to use more specific terms.

The response in Britain.

The term was around in the 1770s; no need to reinforce an ungainly Americanism.
...Alright, I'm out. I'm not going to argue with you over a name that appeared in historical documents at the time, as Intangelon and Forsakia has just said right over my post.

I will remind you all of your incredibly offended sensibilities the next time the term USian, which has absolutely NO historical merit, comes up.

Independence would inevitably come about, though possibly much later and peacefully. Also it is possible that Canada and the US could be one country, or they could be three or four.

...Alright, I'm out. I'm not going to argue with you over a name that appeared in historical documents at the time, as Forsakia has just said right over my post.

I will remind you all of your incredibly offended sensibilities the next time the term USian, which has absolutely NO historical merit, comes up.

It's a form that is used in other languages. And non-legal names have their validity in usage rather than anything else. England was once an accepted name for the 'Kingdom of Great Britain', the usage declined to the point that it isn't anymore. If sufficient numbers of people use USian then it will become accepted.

But you're right there is a lot of hypocrisy with the users of USian objecting England being used to mean all of the UK, and also vice versa.

Well, in that case, the question is more to how was the world different at the time, that removed the factors that lead up to the Revolution to begin with.

All in all however, I'd say the British Empire would still be in power, most of Europe would be German, because of their unopposed movements against Europe, Britain would have been less involved in the scramble for Africa, which would have removed a lot of the tensions caused by the new age of imperialism and colonization of Africa. World War One would end up occurring later, possibly involving the USSR, and likely over various arms races and such not.

A lot of modern history relies on WW2, and the dropping of nuclear bombs on Japan, but, Germany could have probably have ended up with nuclear weapons before the BE or Russians, and it all depends on whether or not the BE and (possibly) USSR, can take out enough of Germany to prevent that from happening.

Israel, however, wouldn't exist, and I'd say the UN probably wouldn't exist ether, nor would any sort of superinternational organization.

In terms of culture, I say it would be extremely nationalistic, and possibly borderline fascist in some areas.
I'm missing your reasoning for most of this. Care to explain?

...Alright, I'm out. I'm not going to argue with you over a name that appeared in historical documents at the time, as Intangelon and Forsakia has just said right over my post.
It was innacurate then, and innacurate now.

That is all.

Why? Do you believe that automatically everything about the UK EXCEPT American Independence would be identical?

Alright, I've published on this topic academically, so I'll break cover and attempt to address this seriously.

The dynamic between the different components of the United Kingdom since its de jure founding in 1707 has been subtle, complex and evolving.

Katganistan is correct to a certain extent in stating that many senior officials of the British Empire in the late 18th and 19th centuries would have considered themselves as representing 'England' regardless of whether they were English, Scottish or Welsh.

Let's take just two famous examples. The well-known last words of the very Scottish and Glasgow-born general John Moore at Coruna in 1809 were "I hope the people of England will be satisfied! I hope my country will do me justice!". Later, William Gladstone - Liverpool-born to a prominent Scottish family, and resident for much of his adult life in Wales - would never have considered himself to be representing anything other than England.

So I regret to partially concur with Katganistan that, whatever terms we may feel to be appropriate today, 'England' isn't an entirely inappropriate term to put in the mouths of historical figures.

However, I would argue that it's also an inappropriate term for a modern writer to use about historical figures regardless of how they might have described themselves. Sir John Moore may have stated that he was fighting for England, but he was very clearly a Scot, and would have considered himself to be a Scot. 'England' may have been used as an 18th- and 19th-century collective term in much the same way as we today would use 'Britain' or 'the United Kingdom' (not quite the same thing, as our Ulster friends would be quick to point out), but this doesn't mean that John Moore couldn't simultaneously be Scottish and fight for England. He was, in any sense of the word, a British soldier. To insist today on calling the late 18th-century United Kingdom 'England' just because that was the usual collective term of choice in its day obscures the fact that 'England' didn't mean quite the same thing in 1776 as it does in 2009.

The interaction between the terms 'England', 'Britain', 'United Kingdom' has evolved over the last few centuries. Let's not forget that the United Kingdom in 1776 consisted of England (which itself contained England and Wales) and Scotland, but less than 30 years later, the United Kingdom consisted of England, Scotland and Ireland, a union that would then last until the 1920s before much of Ireland became independent.

The idea of a single 'British' national identity (and there's plenty of academic writing on this - I suggest Linda Colley's Britons: Forging the Nation) was, despite earlier theoretical precursors, largely a socio-political invention of the early 19th century and the Napoleonic Wars. Prior to that, there were plenty of people who considered themselves wholly separately Scottish, Welsh (where, in 1801, Welsh was the first language of some 90% of the population) and English while also stating in public discourse that their country was 'England'. In time the collective 'England' has been replaced with the collective 'Britain' and/or 'UK', but when used as a collective, the terms are more or less synonymous while also being distinct; even in the 18th and 19th centuries, a difference was almost always acknowledged both de facto and de jure between the collective use of the term 'England' and the accurate use of the same term.

But Katganistan does separately raise a separate interesting point. Would the modern UK look the same if the USA had never become independent? Perhaps not. For one thing, the dynamic between Ireland and the rest of the 19th-century UK would have been very different; with no US Irish expatriate community, and with most of the potato famine exiles (assuming the famine runs the same course) emigrating to what would still be British territory in North America and Australia, any pro-independence movement would have had a very different political, economic and social base.

It was innacurate then, and innacurate now.

That is all.

So is USian.


To the OP: England and France would have continued the endless bickering over the western hemisphere (and everything else), possibly to this day. The French Revolution probably would not have happened, Russia would have been wealthy enough from the gold and other precious resources that the Soviet Revolution probably would not have happened. Germany would quite possibly still be Prussia if it was independent; or very possibly Prussia would combine with Belgium, Norway, and other nations in the region in an attempt to compete with the Super Powers that are France, Spain, England, and Russia; the four nations who control all the colonies in the west.

snip

I anoint you the Stephen Fry of NSG.

I anoint you the Stephen Fry of NSG.
Don't do Archregimancy a disservice now.

Dull, and, for reasons I post every time this same tedious exercise arises, intellectually undistinguished.

I'll point all taking part to the delightfully abrasive opinions of E.H. Carr.

I anoint you the Stephen Fry of NSG.

I think my wife would be very surprised if I suddenly announced I was just like Mr. Fry.

I'm much, much skinnier ;)

I think my wife would be very surprised if I suddenly announced I was just like Mr. Fry.

I'm much, much skinnier ;)

..and presumably your underwear isn't handwoven by exquisite boys.

Pejoratively. England used to be synonymous with UK (Or 'Kingdom of Great Britain which was the technically correct term for pre-1801') but isn't anymore. So it grates a little. It also leaves a little confusion to what you mean (just England, the larger British State, if you're including Ireland etc).

Kingdom of Great Britain!

Seriously, I reckon the Empire would probably fought it out with Japan until the British kicked the Japanese arse, then take the Japanese territories and the British Empire becomes absolutely massive.

Then Rome happens.

After the Empire's collaspe, Russia would take Japan or Japan would become a republic. China would either be a democracy or a dictatorship, rather than a Maoist state. Ireland would probably be united for one reason or another...

Kingdom of Great Britain!

Seriously, I reckon the Empire would probably fought it out with Japan until the British kicked the Japanese arse, then take the Japanese territories and the British Empire becomes absolutely massive.

Then Rome happens.

After the Empire's collaspe, Russia would take Japan or Japan would become a republic. China would either be a democracy or a dictatorship, rather than a Maoist state. Ireland would probably be united for one reason or another...

Please do present me with a definitive account of the "fall of Rome", a sentiment that in itself suggests your ignorance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Two_Georges

Idk if its been posted, But I believe this to be a pretty accurate Portrayal...Its set in 1996...

Alternate History Exercise. Tell your own or any good stories you have read?
...

Taking into account other situations worldwide, does the British Empire continue on to become an almost global Empire? What probably happens?

The French Revolution and Napoleon would have lasted a lot less, UNLESS France, scared by the enormous power Britain would have achieved, switched to the building of a strong alliance system with the continental counterparts, mostly Spain, Prussia, Austria and Russia.

And personally, I think Britain would still have its empire, Cause the US would still be under British control, and therefore its WWI and WWII success would be shared by Britain...And I dont mean just victory in the wars, I mean, Financial and Production capacity, larger Military, Babyboom, and overall sphere of influence...

It would be shared, if not controlled directly by Britain...

And personally, I think Britain would still have its empire, Cause the US would still be under British control, and therefore its WWI and WWII success would be shared by Britain...And I dont mean just victory in the wars, I mean, Financial and Production capacity, larger Military, Babyboom, and overall sphere of influence...

It would be shared, if not controlled directly by Britain...

Given that Edward VIII, inter alia, prompted re-integration into European diplomacy for fear of economic decline, I sincerely doubt that, replete with American colonies, Britain would have followed a similar policy.

To quote British historian G.M. Trevelyan: “It was well that America was made. It was tragic that the making could only be effected by a war with Britain. The parting was perhaps inevitable at some date and in some form, but the parting in anger, and still more the memory of that moment’s anger fondly cherished by America as the starting-point of her history, have had consequences that we rue to this day.”

I think the United States would eventually have formed anyway. However, I would make an educated guess that it would have split from the U.K. approximately 1830 or so. The U.S. wouldn't have been a significant power, but the U.K. would eventually have become a lesser power, though perhaps not as quickly as they have these days.

Given that Edward VIII, inter alia, prompted re-integration into European diplomacy for fear of economic decline, I sincerely doubt that, replete with American colonies, Britain would have followed a similar policy.

Admittedly I have little knowledge of Edward's reign...so Ive been reading up on Wikipedia about him....he was King less than a year, and im not seeing anything he did that wouldve prevented WWI and therefore nothing that wouldve prevented WWII....

What are you getting at there?

Admittedly I have little knowledge of Edward's reign...so Ive been reading up on Wikipedia about him....he was King less than a year, and im not seeing anything he did that wouldve prevented WWI and therefore nothing that wouldve prevented WWII....

What are you getting at there?

Wrong Edward. Edward VII. My mistake.

To quote British historian G.M. Trevelyan: “It was well that America was made. It was tragic that the making could only be effected by a war with Britain. The parting was perhaps inevitable at some date and in some form, but the parting in anger, and still more the memory of that moment’s anger fondly cherished by America as the starting-point of her history, have had consequences that we rue to this day.”

I think the United States would eventually have formed anyway. However, I would make an educated guess that it would have split from the U.K. approximately 1830 or so. The U.S. wouldn't have been a significant power, but the U.K. would eventually have become a lesser power, though perhaps not as quickly as they have these days.

I dont think so, possibly Slavery couldve provoked a split down the road...But that wouldnt be the whole of the US...And Im not sure what other issue could have done it...afterall the US and Britain were very close after the Civil War and through to WWI and II to Today...

At worst I think it would have a similar relationship to what Canada's and Australia's are...

Wrong Edward. Edward VII. My mistake.

But I think he still wouldve signed into the Entente, if for no other reason than to counter the Germans, As the US really had little bearing on German Policies in the 1800s, if anything Germany may have been more motivated with a more powerful Britain...meaning that eventually the Allies and Central powers would still have fought....and Presumably with American support earlier in the war it wouldve ended sooner, and possibly have been more fierce....and I dont really think it wouldve effected the Treaty of Versailles and so Germany would still have been punished at the end, giving rise to Hitler...and a Similar situation in WWII...

I think the real wildcard would be Russia, as in, whether the Tsarist regime would still have remained in power...and if it did, how it would handle WWII, and if that wouldve affected the outcome...and if it didnt, how the USSR wouldve dealt with Britain being its main competition in the Cold War, rather than the US...

I think I would also predict a Much different, if even existing, EU...

The English-speaking Americas would havebecome the dog that wags the tail of European Britain. Pretty much what is happening now.

But the US would have a Prime Minister and not a president.

No American Independence?

The rest of the world would revert to the stone age and lose any langauge skills and civilization it had built up over the last 20,000 years and our opposable thumbs would fall off.

No America, no civilized world.

america without the revolution is canada, possibly without the flim falm manifest destany, and thus possibly greater respect for indiginous cultures.

it almost happened, and if anything, a much MORE civilized world in a social and humanitarian sense is likely to have developed. britain may have ended up having to share hegemony with france. southern california would still be part of mexico and texas an indipenent nation. alaska part of canada, or an indipendent nation, or part of a nation of pacific coast states.

its pretty hard to say for certain what course would have been fallowed, the fine detail resides in many more subtle later turning points.

it would be a different world certainly, but THAT much different? i don't think so. more a matter of what is now america, or part of it, being like australlia and canada. perhapse we might have had our own ghandi. along about the time on our present timeline we had lincoln. that would have been interesting.

i'm sure there's no guarantee of it, but more honest and more nearly equal negotiation with indiginous cultures could have been a real bennifit for all concerned this far down the line.

So is USian.
And..?

You can start legitimately whining when I use such a term.

And..?

You can start legitimately whining when I use such a term.

But its more fun when its illigitemate.

But its more fun when its illigitemate.
A fair point.

Hmm, since the french revolt wouldn't happen, the dutch would never be a kingdom, but still a republic. Also, it's colonial empire would stay bigger with Formosa, Ceylon but especially South Africa! Boeren wars would never happen since the Dutch would still have South Africa. More fights would be fought with the British about Western Indonesia and Malaysia.

Belgium(and Luxembourgh) would have stayed in Austrian hands longer, and the French would wage endless wars to get it. The British would wage endless wars to stop the French, in the east of Belgium the Prussians would slowly gain some territories like Luxembourgh. The dutch just might in a some kind of enlightement give equal rights to catholics and then perhaps conquer some minor cities in the north of Belgium (Turnhout, Hasselt, Genk).

And what about the German unification? Would it have happened? Perhaps slowly all of the north would indeed end up in Prussian hands, with the south going to the Habsburg.

Polish nationalists would still be revolting every once in a while against the (P)Russians.

Italian unification? The northwest might just fall into the hands of the French, while the north east becomes Austrian, and the pope staying in the middle of Italy and perhaps going towards the south.

Well the French Revolution might not of occurred, as France wouldn't have been bankrupt and starving...so Napoleon might not have came to power...

Native Americans might have been treated more fairly, and might even have their own nation...

Mexico would have retained much of its territory in the West and Southwest...

just a few thoughts...

And let us not forget slavery!

america without the revolution is canada, possibly without the flim falm manifest destiny, and thus possibly greater respect for indigenous cultures.

You seem to think us Canadians just politely asked the Natives to give us everything from Southern Ontario to the Pacific, and then they agreed to it while we sang kumbaya in the sunshine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_River_Rebellion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North-West_Rebellion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_residential_school_system

No US revolution means that the US and Canada would be one big colony. No way the British would be able to prevent an expansion into the west, but they could delay or slow it down. Britain, with American industry and manpower, would be an absolute powerhouse. The empire would be much bigger and last longer. French Revolution still happens but, no republic is set up as Britain intervenes before things get to out of hand. No Napoleon, no Grand Armee, No Napoleonic Wars. Another rebellion in British North America occurs in 1834 with the Southern States attempting to declare Independence after the abolition of slavery. This leads to eventual independence or Dominionship of BNA similar to Canada. British Empire grows bigger than in real life, maybe they would actually finish that Cape to Cairo Railway with the extra materials and manpower. No Napoleon means no Franco-Prussian War, means no unified German state. Some sort of big World War I type event would still happen, I'm thinking Britain (maybe allied with Prussia or the Ottomans or both) vs France, Russia and some other European allies (maybe Italy and Spain). Depending on the outcome of that last war a host of things could happen, let's assume that Britain wins. Russian Revolution probably still happens, although probably not the same way. By now British North America is becoming the dominant world power, Imperial Japan is a moderate world power. France is fading, Italy and Spain are gone. The Ottoman Empire is crumbling and Germany is starting to come together after Prussia made big gains during the big war. Eventually the British Empire also starts breaking apart. France, Spain and Italy are the founding members of an equivalent of the EU.

That's about all I got. Feel free to poke holes into, demolish and/or completely rape my ideas.

Y'know, I'm going to take this in another direction: what if the Revolution happened, but the Americans lost the Revolution?

Personally, I see one of two things happening.

Because King George III was a little on the crazy side, he would've probably set up a tighter control on the colonies after the Revolution. Of course, no matter how 1984-esque he set up the government, the ideas of rebellion are still there and a Second Revolution could've ensued, maybe bringing even stronger support from other European colonies. Consequently, no matter how tough the British government was on the colonies, the colonies would've still eventually broken off at some point.

A wiser move would be to grant more freedoms to the colonies, or even create a domionship, similar to Canada's. Even though the USA would've been free to deal with its internal affairs, Britian still has dominionship over it. Since I'm not exactly sure on how the whole "dominionship" deal technically works, I can't create a strong argument on what would've happened next. If a Canadian or someone else wants to build off of this, feel free to do so.

There are so many factors to take into account when dealing with how history would've continued after that point. There might've been a Confederate States formed regardless of the situation due to the fact that the South was in no ready position to free its slaves when the North forced them to (1865), let alone when the UK did (1833). Whether or not the Confederacy lived is impossible to tell, but it's highly unlikely.

I apologize to the person who started this forum for changing the topic slightly, but it opens new ideas for people to talk about.

...Alright, I'm out. I'm not going to argue with you over...
Kat, sorry.

I was being a bit of a pendantic twat earlier in the thread. I was in a crabby mood, but that's no excuse.

Apologies.

The idea of a single 'British' national identity (and there's plenty of academic writing on this - I suggest Linda Colley's Britons: Forging the Nation) was, despite earlier theoretical precursors, largely a socio-political invention of the early 19th century and the Napoleonic Wars. Prior to that, there were plenty of people who considered themselves wholly separately Scottish, Welsh (where, in 1801, Welsh was the first language of some 90% of the population) and English while also stating in public discourse that their country was 'England'. In time the collective 'England' has been replaced with the collective 'Britain' and/or 'UK', but when used as a collective, the terms are more or less synonymous while also being distinct; even in the 18th and 19th centuries, a difference was almost always acknowledged both de facto and de jure between the collective use of the term 'England' and the accurate use of the same term.

Im not disagreeing, just pointing out that what we've been calling "The United States, or the US" wouldve been different in that time too,

The Majority of Americans wouldve considered themselves Virginians, Carolinians, Pennsylvanians, etc....And, prior to the Civil War, it was more accuate and more common to describe the nation as These United States, as opposed to The United States...And it was many of these feelings of State Loyalty over National Loyalty which prompted the act of Secession during the Civil War, particularly in Virginia...

It May be altogether possible that individual States or Colonies wouldve tried to form their own nations, or revolutions on their own...Ala Vermont... And some stay loyal to the Empire, ala the various provinces of Canada prior to Confederation...Without an American Revolution, or a failed attempt at one...

the revolution was barely successful as it was. so i imagine it being crushed. why? because america decided help from another country would lead to being their colonies instead. the revolution was a british victory because of this. britain took steps to attempt to prevent a second attempt. in 1833, when the british empire oulawed slavery, the southern colonies rose up illegally but were routed (beaten bad). britain democratized with time as they were already constitutional monarchy with a representative parliament. in the 1900's they gave america a referendum and the result was independence desires, overwhelmingly. america then joined the commonwealth and is today like australia.