Britain dedelops India, Formosa, Manchuria, DEI, PI, Brazil, Japan, etc in the 1800s.

Nov 2017
557
Guadalajara
OTL Britan never took advantage of huge iron reserves, huge numbers of poorly employed or unemployed, etc, in India. It allowed weak Holland, Portugal and Spain to rule rich colonies (just as inefficiently as Britain did), instead of simply seizing them.

ATL the British realize the unlimited potential of India to produce cheap, high quality pig iron, steel, ships, marmelade, steam engines, etc, with its unlimited iron ore and labor force and to provide troops, sailors and immigrants, Formosa to produce sugar, tea, coffee, cacao, ships, etc, Brazil to produce sugar, coffee, steel, rum, coffee, cacao, cattle, lumber, etc, the DEI to produce rubber, spices, coffee, cacao, ships, sulfur, tin, etc, PI to produce sugar, clothing, ships, fruit, marmelade, Manchuria to produce lumber, paper, coal, silk, soy, opium, pig iron, steel, ships and overcrowded Japan to produce silk, ships, steam engines, armament, etc, and to provide troops, sailors and immigrants to conquer and populate the Pacific Americas, the South Island (NZ), Tasmania, etc, (which also have enormous potential and are sparsely populated).

Accordingly, the Bank of England and the East India Company from a joint venturw to finance and undertake massive construction of pig iron and steel plants, shipyards, steam engine factories, etc, and to maximize production of tea, indigo, sugar, corn, cotton, etc, in India in 1810, when Europe is wrecked by Napoleonic wars and Holland, Spain, Portugal and Brazil are extremely weak (revolution has broken out in New Spain). Britain also encoutages young, healthy Indians to migrate to British Columbia, Belize, Guiana, etc,

Instead of returning the DEI to Holland after Napoleon's fall, Britain simply keeps them. It reinforces them with Indian troops and develops them (bringing more European and Indian settlers in a year than the Dutch did in centuries). in 1810 it invades the PI, Guam, Formosa and Manchuria. It offers Japan contracts to build ships under British supervision. It invites Japanese youngmen to join the RN and British army and others to become settlers in sparsely populated British colonies.

In 1811 Britain invades weak Hawaii, California and Acapulco using mostly Indian and Japanese troops. Thousands of Japanese and Indian and hundreds of European settlers arrive in Pacific North America.

In 1812 Britain invades weak Lima, Mollendo and Valparaiso and starts building excellent roads in Panama and Tehuantepec to allow rapid transportation of goods and people across the continent.
When the US declares war, a huge British fleet and army (including Indian, Japanese and Pacific Americas British troops, who travel across Tehuantepec to reach the Atlantic) invades New York, Boston, New Orleans and Baltimore in 1812 and 1813. The US capitulates and rejoins the British Empire.

In 1813 Britain invades Montevideo , Buenos Aires and Boer South Africa and transports thousands of immigrants to these large territories.

In 1814 Britain invades Brazil and all Portuguese colonies.

In 1815 Britain invades Cuba, Cartagena, Maracaibo

Within a decade India becomes the main pig iron and steel producer and the second ship builder in the world. 2 million Indians have migrated to Borneo, the Americas, etc,.

The joint venture invests heavily to develop the DEI, PI and Manchuria, creating othe economic powerhouses, which fuel British economy and growth.
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,568
Las Vegas, NV USA
So before 1837 Britain literally rules the world. How would the little teenage queen manage? Yes she has her dear PM Lord Melbourne, but is that enough?
 
Last edited:
Nov 2017
557
Guadalajara
In a constitutional monarchy the queen is irrelevant.

In 1828 Britain defeats and takes over the Ottoman empire and Persia with troops from India, Japan, the Americas, DEI, PI, etc,
In 1830 it invades Russia with troops from India, the former Ottoman empire, etc,

With an exploding economy and abundance of steel from India, New England (the reconquered US), Brazil, South Africa, Manchuria, Britain, etc, and of labor from India, Japan, China, DEI, former Ottoman empire, etc, Isambard Brunel is given unlimited funds to build rapidly 100,000 miles of RR worldwide. In 1934 he builds a 4 lane transcontinental RR in Tehuantepec, which revolutionizes transportation and migration across the oceans. Brunel also has unlimited funds to build rapidly and produce in large numbers his huge ships, which further revolutionize transportation and migration, fueling explosive growth. In 1840 he is commissioned to build the Suez, Nicaragua and Kra canals simultaneously, which he finishes in 12 years.

All British colonies produce large numbers of scientists, engineers, invemtors, etc, which expedite innovation, greatly improve sanitation and agriculture and accelerate industrialization and modernization.
 
Last edited:

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,568
Las Vegas, NV USA
In a constitutional monarchy the queen is irrelevant.
I wouldn't say irrelevant in the time of imperial expansion. The monarch was the constant across the imperial possessions and over a series of governments. In the 19th centrury the monarch could still have influence if not direct power. Besides, I did indicate Victoria had a close relationship with her first PM and she was able to retain him by refusing to accept the conditions set by his would be successor.

One thing I don't quite understand is how Britian itself, let alone its empire could have been governed well with so many changes of government. From 1800-1815 Britain had 7 changes of government. In Victoria's reign (64 years) there were 20 changes of government. How is the global empire you describe to be governed with some degree of consistency and long term planning under these circumstances?
 
Last edited:
Nov 2017
557
Guadalajara
Not nearly as preposterous as wasting unlimited iron ore and cheap manpower during the industrial revolution, so Brunel's advanced ships cost a forune and break him and are wasted completely and RR construction is severely hampered and bronze cannon are still used by the Confederacy, all owing to outragous steel cost and very limited availability. Nor as letting weak Holland rule the DEI without developing it for centuries, or letting weak Spain rule the PI for centuries, without developing them (although Britain had seized Manila in a couple of days during the 7 years was.
 
Last edited:
Nov 2017
557
Guadalajara
I wouldn't say irrelevant in the time of imperial expansion. The monarch was the constant across the imperial possessions and over a series of governments. In the 19th centrury the monarch could still have influence if not direct power. Besides, I did indicate Victoria had a close relationship with her first PM and she was able to retain him by refusing to accept the conditions set by his would be successor.

One thing I don't quite understand is how Britian itself, let alone its empire could have been governed well with so many changes of government. From 1800-1815 Britain had 7 changes of government. In Victoria's reign (64 years) there were 20 changes of government. How is the global empire you describe to be governed with some degree of consistency and long term planning under these circumstances?
Britain governing Brazil, Argentina, etc, with unlimited funds (owing to explosive RR and steel ship expansion) will certainly do a much better job than Latin American governments, etc, The first RR south of the US was built by the UK in British Guiana in 1845, the second one was in poor landlocked Paraguay, 37 km! The first one in Mexico (gold silver, etc,) was in 1873 between its main port of Veracruz and Mexico City, a few hundred miles!
 

Ighayere

Ad Honorem
Jul 2012
2,638
Benin City, Nigeria
Your concept of "develop" seems to be something along the lines of holding groups in thralldom but doing it in such a way that they can produce certain things that are deemed necessary. But I didn't see anything about health or education or even infrastructure. I wonder if the way you tend to use that word "develop" is really appropriate.
 

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,568
Las Vegas, NV USA
Your concept of "develop" seems to be something along the lines of holding groups in thralldom but doing it in such a way that they can produce certain things that are deemed necessary. But I didn't see anything about health or education or even infrastructure. I wonder if the way you tend to use that word "develop" is really appropriate.
A good imperialist makes sure the work force is productive. That means they're taught what they need to know and given what they need in order to live and work. Nothing more, nothing less. Colonies exist to profit the home country. If you have to raise the standard of living of the colony to do that, that's what you do.
 
Last edited: