What if the American Revolution failed or never happened?

[Khazrak]

What if the American revolution never happened? How would the world be different? Would the outcomes of the World wars be different? Would the Cold War ever have happened? Would Canada and the US be one and the same country?

there are countless questions. I just cant think of many atm

[Jaketh]

the British empire probably would have conquered the world, because they would have millions of badass Americans in their ranks

[SigniferOne]

The British empire did conquer the world, in case you didn't notice.

No, what would've been different would be that the incredible 1500-1800 British liberalism would have died and disappeared from the world with the subsequent changes of the British culture, instead of having been ripped from its natural context and artificially placed on an immovable, impermeable footing in another continent, for ever after.

[Fluttershy]

The British empire did conquer the world, in case you didn't notice.

No, what would've been different would be that the incredible 1500-1800 British liberalism would have died and disappeared from the world with the subsequent changing British culture, instead of having been ripped from its natural context and artificially placed on an immovable, impermeable footing in another continent, for ever after.

thats news to... well everyone

[SigniferOne]

I don't think you know your history well enough then. The British owned the 19th century, and basically did with the world whatever they pleased.

[Armenum]

The US would have rebelled again and succeded in another 10 years. It's like in my ETW. The Americans rebelled and I put them down. But then, a few turns later they rebelled again caught me off guard and took over Boston. After some fierce battles I eventually crushed them

[Mr. Scott]

Well, the French revolution probably wouldn't have happened. Who knows, Europe may have kept its absolutism for 2 centuries longer.

[hellheaven1987]

I don't think you know your history well enough then. The British owned the 19th century, and basically did with the world whatever they pleased.

A news to me that Algeria belonged to... British.

[Londinium]

America would have continued along the line of self determination in the vein of Canada in real life. Eventually in the mid 1800s it would have been granted self governance and would go about it's merry way but tied closely to the United Kingdom. Alternatively the British parliament accepts the idea of American MPs in the House of Parliament and introduces seats for the colonies, with a stipulation that parliaments are elected a number of months in advantage for logistical reasons. This has more rammifications as it'd created a united nation of the two, probably eventually to evolve into a United Kingdom of Great Britain, Ireland and America. A third idea is that the colonies get their own parliament with powers devolved to it a la Scotland in the modern day, depending on how many powers are delegated to it, this may lead to my first idea that of America moving towards Dominion status or it may still create the latter example of a unified country.

Geographically the USA would include the Canadian provinces as there would have been no reason to split the two countries. Louisana would have been forcibly taken during future wars with the French as opposed to being sold by Napoleon to the Americans, the Mexican war would have invariably occured at some point also bringing the American frontier to the Pacific.

Alaska would probably have remained Russian until the modern day as theres no way the Tsars or Bolsheviks would have sold it to the British-Americans. Slavery would have been banned earlier in the South and without the political structure of the United States and the combined military power of both the North and the UK there would have been no civil war.

Socially America would have remained less isolationist and much closer to British society in it's tastes and political system and prevailing ideas. Just as the founding fathers were throughly British and immersed in British ideas, culture and fashion, so would the American nation.

This idea that there would have been no Revolutions in Europe and that autocracy would have reigned don't hold much water. There was already a movement in Poland to liberal ideas and over time other European nations would have experienced their liberalisation, nationalism would still have been a potent force in Europe driving many changes. The British experience wouldn't have been substantially different because there is a long tradition of liberalism and self governance in British history and this would have inevitably manifested itself the same way. It's worth remembering that most of the thinkers behind the American Revolution were British such as Locke, Hobbes and Paine with a smattering of Frenchies such as Rosseau et al. The ideas that spurred the Revolution are so quintessentially British, thats why it happened in a British colony.

World War One would have never happened as the Anglo-American juggernaut would have such an industrial and military advantage over everyone that it wouldn't have been worth the Central Powers risking bring them into the war. There would have been no need for reapproachment with Tsarist Russia or France due to a rising Germany and without the First World War the Tsarist regime probably wouldn't have fallen, instead liberalised after the reign of Nicholas I.

Without the World War, no Hitler, no holocaust, no Israel.

In short if the American Revolution had never happened or if it had failed and some reconciliation had occured between the colonists and metropolitian Britain (which is certainly possible, after all the Canadian rebellions were put down but in the long term it didn't sour the Canadian-British relationship) then the world would be a hugely different place today.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

I don't think you know your history well enough then. The British owned the 19th century, and basically did with the world whatever they pleased.

This statement fails.

[bushbush]

I don't think you know your history well enough then. The British owned the 19th century, and basically did with the world whatever they pleased.

I dont think they controlled continental Europe though.

[Londinium]

I dont think they controlled continental Europe though.

They much rather preferred to humiliate the other Europeans nations in Africa and Asia, ie telling the Portuguese to sod off with their pink map that lead to the fall of the Portuguese government, slapping the French in the face with Fashoda, upholding the Ottoman Empire to thwart the Russians, annoying the French with their occupation of Egypt, supporting French occupation of Morocco to annoy the Germans etc etc.

Why involve yourself in long costly wars on the continent and try to hold territory that gives you no advantage whatever whether you rule over it or just trade with it? The British were content to sit on the sidelines and pull the strings like a puppetmaster to suit them, about the only European issue of the 19th century they ultimately failed with was allowing German unification to occur because they misjudged the strength of the potential German state vis a vis France.

So while it can be said that the British didn't conquer the world in the 19th century, they certainly pretty much ruled it.

[hellheaven1987]

So while it can be said that the British didn't conquer the world in the 19th century, they certainly pretty much ruled it.

Ya, and got kicked in Afghanistan.

[bushbush]

US would still gotten independent years later. Probably like how Canada, Australia, India and other former colonies. They would ask for more and more power, becoming dominions of self-rule, and finally during the world wars using their contributions to demand more power. I can hardly imagine how a land size of america could submit to Britain forever. I mean even Canada got full sovereignty...CANADA!!!

[motiv-8]

I dont think they controlled continental Europe though.

Yet they, the British, dominated European politics the century through merely through the threat of action. Their picking a side could determine events. Sig is simply correct -- the Brotish simply dominated world affairs in the course of the 19th Century, from North America to China. The foreign policies of other powers along with the domestic policies to bolster the former consisted of coming up with a way to emulate, ultimately rival, the power and influence that the British Crown possessed.

Getting back to the main topic, it seems too presumptuous amd deterministic to me to state that a failed revolution would have automatically causes another revolution in short order, much less an eventual success. The Revolution was not inevitable; it required a quite curious and fortunate/unfortunate chain of events, along with an exhausting strength of will exerted by various individuals, to spring to life and then succeed. Much is ignored of the grave fracture that was rent in colonial society between loyalist and patriot. Most significant to the possibility of further revolt would be how the authorities treated their defeated subjects: would they do as the patriots eventually did to the loyalists, force them out of their property and livelihoods, or would Parliament enforce more conciliatory action in light of the significant sympathy carried by many MPs for the principles espoused by revolutionary thinkers? Would the defeat be swift or drag out as the war historically did? What would happen regarding the disposition of France?

These are real questions that must be addresses, taking into account the historical contexts with all it's trends, personalities, and fortunes if one is to seriously consider the possibilities. The fact that they rarely are in these types of discussions is why I hate counter-factual so.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Yet they, the British, dominated European politics the century through merely through the threat of action. Their picking a side could determine events. Sig is simply correct -- the Brotish simply dominated world affairs in the course of the 19th Century, from North America to China. The foreign policies of other powers along with the domestic policies to bolster the former consisted of coming up with a way to emulate, ultimately rival, the power and influence that the British Crown possessed.

Actually no. Their power in the continent was limited to the diplomatic goodwill of powers like Russia or Germany. That Napoleon had so many rivals is best explained by the fact the European royal houses were far more intimidated from his influence than from the British, and yet it took many wars to effectively destroy him. The bulk of it, carried by non-British forces.

Later Germany out-shadowed them. The British never had the means to project power on land alone during any time in their history, except if their opponents were too weak or too primitive to pose any serious resistance; the decisive intervention of the United States is what saved WWI from becoming a stalemate, and at one point in Jutland the whole war could have been lost depending on the success of the German fleet.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

A news to me that Algeria belonged to... British.

Also, an expansion on that statement. The British were very far from controlling foreign politics as they pleased: not only they had to strive together and at the mercy of others in the European balance, British intervention in the Americas if carried to any extent would have met the same fate as French, and that is failure, due to the commitment and surprising success of the US in carrying over the Monroe Doctrine. British influence in the Americas was limited to peaceful trading and economic investments, and that's it.

[Londinium]

Actually no. Their power in the continent was limited to the diplomatic goodwill of powers like Russia or Germany. That Napoleon had so many rivals is best explained by the fact the European royal houses were far more intimidated from his influence than from the British, and yet it took many wars to effectively destroy him. The bulk of it, carried by non-British forces.

Later Germany out-shadowed them. The British never had the means to project power on land alone during any time in their history, except if their opponents were too weak or too primitive to pose any serious resistance; the decisive intervention of the United States is what saved WWI from becoming a stalemate, and at one point in Jutland the whole war could have been lost depending on the success of the German fleet.

The British didn't need to project land power, the threat of the navy was enough, that was the whole point in maintaining such a massive navy instead of a large army. The Greek situation was broken due to British naval power, the British essentially forced the Spanish to give up their colonies by refusing to allow the Holy Alliance to attempt to retake South America and by voicferously breaking up any attempts at a Bourbon compact between Spain and France in the 1820s and 1830s. In the Crimean War they defeated the Russians while deploying relatively few troops. The British directly intervened in the Italian unification wars via promoting the idea of Sardinia annexing the small North Italian duchies and by directly intervening in the war against Naples and helping Garibaldi take Palermo etc etc.

British power has never been based upon land forces, it has always been based upon economic, naval and soft power. British power on the mainland has never been based upon French and Russian goodwill, or it would have crumbled at numerous times during the Napoleonic Wars and after. It says something when by the mid 1800s, Napoleon III spent most of his foreign policy efforts trying to appease the British, be it through the Crimean War or through wanting to recognise the Confederacy but refusing to do it until the British agreed to the idea.

[SigniferOne]

I never said they literally owned Europe; they clearly were the only dominant power however, and otherwise did their willy nilly all over Africa, India, and China.





But my point however, is that this later British character, heroic as it was in India and at Rourke's Drift, was different from Clarendon, from the classic Parliamentarian, the "True-Born Englishman" of Daniel Defoe, a long cultural tradition which swelled and exploded itself into what we now call America. Without America it was to dessicate and fade way from the world with nary a trace for having existed.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

The British didn't need to project land power, the threat of the navy was enough, that was the whole point in maintaining such a massive navy instead of a large army. The Greek situation was broken due to British naval power, the British essentially forced the Spanish to give up their colonies by refusing to allow the Holy Alliance to attempt to retake South America and by voicferously breaking up any attempts at a Bourbon compact between Spain and France in the 1820s and 1830s. In the Crimean War they defeated the Russians while deploying relatively few troops. The British directly intervened in the Italian unification wars via promoting the idea of Sardinia annexing the small North Italian duchies and by directly intervening in the war against Naples and helping Garibaldi take Palermo etc etc.

British power has never been based upon land forces, it has always been based upon economic, naval and soft power. British power on the mainland has never been based upon French and Russian goodwill, or it would have crumbled at numerous times during the Napoleonic Wars and after. It says something when by the mid 1800s, Napoleon III spent most of his foreign policy efforts trying to appease the British, be it through the Crimean War or through wanting to recognise the Confederacy but refusing to do it until the British agreed to the idea.

Great in theory to apply soft power, but in practice this mean is limited towards the perceptions and priorities of the target country. British economic interests tied them as much as they could tie others, and this is the main reason as to why there was an American Independence at all, and why the Monroe Doctrine and the outcome of the War of 1812 were not diplomatically favourable: there were simply too many economic interests in stake to attempt harsh terms or even harsh words with the United States. As a consequence, Britain never invaded any American country for imperialistic purposes, and they conducted themselves with restraint on the boundary frictions of the early XIX century (eg the Arostook affair). They were even afraid of recognizing the Confederacy.

In the continent, the victory in Crimea was solely due the special goodwill and capabilities of the anti-Russian coalition and could only be enforced jointly. Once the tremendously unbalancing event of the German unification not only radically changed the shape of Europe but factored in a competitor who would would prove both directly and indirectly fatal to British interests, it also deposed Napoleon III - and with it, the terms of the Crimean victory went down the hole vis a vis new Russian aggression. The British were unable to react against this.

Same thing as to any other diplomatic affair conducted in the XIX century: the British were never alone. Against greater powers like Russia or (theoretically) Austria, they relied on goodwill, and buying and maintaining that goodwill was their number one diplomatic priority on the continent. No matter how much "soft" power they applied, it amounted little for large and self-sufficient powers if their coastline was blockaded or not or if their overseas possessions were valuable or not. Thus if France had to by expediency align with the British against the Germans, it mattered little for Russia, Germany or Austria if the British thought this or that. German diplomatic incompetence ultimately was the main decisive factor in bringing over the Russians to the Allied side, and not British power or diplomacy.