How far back for a Strong Imperial Union

The British Empire was at one time the largest, or second largest, state that ever existed. It was however a complete mess of a institution held together at times by hopes, dreams, and ducktape. By the late 1900 it was becoming obvious that the empire would not last forever. One example of such was the cost (one British minister had said in response to the idea of India being the crown jewel: Never has finery been so expensive)

There was an Idea in the late 19th century to make a more unified and cohesive empire called the Imperial Union. However looking at the map, demographics and other such things you begin to realize that by ww1 the IU was impossible. So I ask you. How far back would have to place a or multiple PoD to create by ww2 a mostly cohesive, most efficient, Imperial Union?

I'm feeling we'd have to go back a long time
 
I am not sure if it is possible with any way. Such empire would be inevitably too expensive and multi-ethnic. Perhaps at best you could get some loose Imperial Federation which has Britain, Ireland and white dominions.

Or then such empire would be formed with much longer timespan so every conquest could be integrated effectively to the empire.
 
Let's be clear: Africa wasn't a direct profit in taxing its people, but it was a profit because of the resources for metropolitan companies.

Either way, the empires biggest money maker was still India, which was in part because of how horrifyingly awful Britain treated the people. Once you start treating India fairly, the empire can't exploit it. Can't exploit it, and it becomes the Indian empire. Meaning independence is almost inevitable.

With Indian independence, most of Africa except the suez becomes useless.

That leaves the dominions. Which, to be fair, were always the basis of the imperial federation idea
 
I am not sure if it is possible with any way. Such empire would be inevitably too expensive and multi-ethnic. Perhaps at best you could get some loose Imperial Federation which has Britain, Ireland and white dominions.
Honestly I don't think ethnicity is the main issue but space.

By the time a global empire could function (1930s-1950s) the idea of an Imperial union is impossible. The only reason that the British empire could exist in the 1800s was because of decentralization policies.

To keep the union together however... well the British would have to give many rights to the conquered people particularly established ruling classes while simultaneously imparting enough of the English culture, this is the roman model. This is tricky at the best of times downright impossible when scientific racism comes into prominence.

Either way, the empires biggest money maker was still India, which was in part because of how horrifyingly awful Britain treated the people. Once you start treating India fairly, the empire can't exploit it. Can't exploit it, and it becomes the Indian empire. Meaning independence is almost inevitable.
You don't need to exploit a region to make money from it, it's just cheaper and quicker that way. Look at the difference between the British empire or the USA verse the short-lived but extremely wealthy Spanish empire. The problem with India is the risk of any conquors becoming Indian themselves (of course there's the fact that there are many different and highly distinct Indian subcultures but I think you get my point)

Holding on to Africa would be easier but again only if you think long-term.
 
Really I think the answer is hold onto the American colonies, so you're looking at a POD in the early 1700s or possibly even sometime in the lateish 1600s. The fundamental issue the British Empire had was it was a tiny Metropolitan, with the vast and very distinct set of colonies while e.g. in Rome's case while it's true ultimately the population of the Empire dwarfed Rome/Italy each individual conquest tended to be smaller than the already romanised whole.

So have Britain hold onto its American territory and ideally have something that pushes greater centralisation instead of a Dominion-esque model and even if British North America doesn't expand that much (and I'd put pretty good odds on it taking at least the bulk of the Louisiana purchase although quite possibly not managing much more than that/still smaller than the USA), you have a big enough core population of people who predominantly identify as British, and a big enough Metropolitan economy that absorbing more parts of the periphery become more practical.

I agree with what others have said that even in this scenario I can't see them successfully fully integrating India is just too big but in this case I could see a scenario where alongside a fully integrated North America, Australia (if they go there in this timeline), and New Zealand you have a bunch of small island territories (Malta, Cyprus), and for that matter hanging on to a decent chunk of African territory (e.g. Nigeria or South Africa again if they ended up in the same areas as OTL). At an extreme stretch if you wanted the most powerful Imperial union possible I could even see a situation where India remains under a sort of formal protectorate agreement probably splintered into multiple states (likely successors to the princely states) and economically and militarily bound to the greater Imperial whole (alongside, Imperial bases on Indian soil and possibly even some treaty ports/strategic islands directly under Imperial control), but can't see a realistic scenario where large swathes of the subcontinent would be under direct control by an ATL modern day

So how to go about this I suspect if Britain is still in control of all of British North America, about the 1840- 1850s without having had to take a massively devolved approach, you'll see close union between the culturally British parts of the Atlantic become more and more the default as at this point travel to Parliament gets increasingly simple, and the telegram, makes communication between the distant parts of empire fairly possible. This does however mean going against the trend of British imperialism of the period. I wonder if perhaps the answer might be giving Britain more of a external threat after all the American colonies tended to be most loyal OTL when they were worried about France, perhaps a more entrenched and organised Franco-Spanish alliance, with the colonies in America worried about their colonial neighbours while the British home islands still eyeing another Spanish Armada. Also once you achieve that first step of home islands Britain comfortably absorbing its American colonies into the core part of the nation, that then becomes an accepted/acknowledged policy option when dealing with colonies with other problems if the circumstances are right helping to drive integration elsewhere going forward.

The other big hurdle here given the timing is how to get beyond a whites only federation given the rise of scientific racism. While it suggests a very very unpleasant world throughout the early 1900s suspect the answer is don't bother. Instead the initial federalisation is integrating African colonies with a substantial ruling white majority where whites are still the only electors (so places like OTL South Africa or kenya). Then have a World War II equivalent against a power that completely discredits eugenics followed by a slow period of democratising the black majority states of the Empire (so something more like the American civil rights movement) which steadily sees black citizens granted the vote and then in turn taking power in their home states but still part of the Imperial whole but at this point with the Empire both sufficiently powerful and sufficient unified that independence isn't really seen as an option.
 
Last edited:

marktaha

Banned
Joseph Chamberlain.had vision of Imperial Federation- Britain Australia Canada ,New Zealand. Would have added parts of South Africa and Rhodesia.
 
It could make it work up to the 1950's depending on political will. Britain was really attached to India mostly and always neglected relation with the so-called White Dominions. That's why even after the independence, they changed Commonwealth to allow republics only to have India in. Without that move, Commonwealth could become smaller, more functional and could become more relevant.

That's why I think the provision to allow republics (1949), Suez (1956) or even to the end of Sterling area (1967) are the last chance to have Britain plus some former dominions/colonies to form a relevant organization. Not a federation, but definitely a confederation. And of course, further you go into the past, it's easier to get it done.
 
Last edited:
Top