• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

Could Britain have colonized Vietnam/Indochina instead of France?

R

raharris1973

Well-known member
Could Britain have colonized Vietnam/Indochina instead of France?

If Britain had done so, in the 19th century, for example, and, like OTL also done its India-based expansion into Burma, would it have ultimately completed its expansion into mainland Southeast Asia by colonizing Siam as well, since Siam would not have been able to play off Britain and France against each other?

Or would Britain have run out of steam and run into indigestion with the colonization of Indochina, Burma, and Malaya, being content to deal with the Kingdom of Siam through unequal treaties leaving the latter independent.

British imperialists often deliberately took 'breaks' from expansionism and London went through bouts of curbed enthusiasm for overseas projects, but Britain's imperial appetite, despite the large size of the existing empire, tended to grow with the eating.
 
Oh, certainly, IMHO- with consummate ease. Especially if they went about it in the same way as they colonized India, via establishing protectorates over vassal states first. Look at the rebellions in the Siamese-Vietnamese conflict, including the restoration of the Kingdom of Cambodia (in a weird 'halfway-house' relationship as a vassal of Kingdom of Siam and the Nguyen Kingdom of Vietnam, and literally all of their leaders, including the Kings of Cambodia, begged the British to intervene by establishing protectorates over them first, before approaching the French- starting in the 1830's and continuing at late as the 1880's. And one can easily envision a TL where the British decide it's worthwhile to get involved in the region, and build upon the foothold they establish with the Khmer in much the samme manner than they built upon the foothold they established in India with the Bengalis.
 
SinghSong said:
Oh, certainly, IMHO- with consummate ease. Especially if they went about it in the same way as they colonized India, via establishing protectorates over vassal states first. Look at the rebellions in the Siamese-Vietnamese conflict, including the restoration of the Kingdom of Cambodia (in a weird 'halfway-house' relationship as a vassal of Kingdom of Siam and the Nguyen Kingdom of Vietnam, and literally all of their leaders, including the Kings of Cambodia, begged the British to intervene by establishing protectorates over them first, before approaching the French- starting in the 1830's and continuing at late as the 1880's. And one can easily envision a TL where the British decide it's worthwhile to get involved in the region, and build upon the foothold they establish with the Khmer in much the samme manner than they built upon the foothold they established in India with the Bengalis.
Click to expand...
If the British get started via the Cambodian angle, in the 1830s, or in the 1840s, and work step by step from there, or even if they start as late as the first half of the 1850s and then move the next steps swiftly, that should be early enough to dominate, right? Because that beats out the timing of Louis Napoleon's expeditions and takeovers started in 1858 in Cochinchina and extended into Cambodia by 1863 then stretched into ncentral and northern Vietnam in the 70s and 80s.
 
raharris1973 said:
If the British get started via the Cambodian angle, in the 1830s, or in the 1840s, and work step by step from there, or even if they start as late as the first half of the 1850s and then move the next steps swiftly, that should be early enough to dominate, right? Because that beats out the timing of Louis Napoleon's expeditions and takeovers started in 1858 in Cochinchina and extended into Cambodia by 1863 then stretched into ncentral and northern Vietnam in the 70s and 80s.
Click to expand...
I'd imagine so. Look at all the stuff which happened under the second king of the Vietnamese Nguyen Dynasty, Minh Mang, and the continuing Siamese-Vietnamese Wars. Particularly the Lao Rebellion (where the Kingdom of Vientiane's ruler, Chao Anouvong, purportedly only began his rebellion and went on the offensive against Siam because he'd met with John Crawfurd on the 19th May 1822, and been led to believe that he'd be doing so as a new 'princely state' of the British East India Company, under an agreement nigh-identical to the Kingdom of Manipur's IOTL- with the British East India Company set to directly aid him in his efforts, by attacking Bangkok with a flotilla of gunboats and a sizable British naval force (i.e, the same plan which got co-opted, and implemented, for the opening battle of the 1st Anglo-Burmese War IOTL). Only for this support to never materialize, since the BEIC had already decided to go after Burma instead by then, and retain the Kingdom of Siam as a co-belligerent; with the resulting war having practically bankrupted the East India Company.

In an ATL though, it'd be all to easy to imagine the situation diverging, with the British East India Company being even greedier, looking at the geography of Indo-China, and following through on their promise to Chao Anouyong to go after Siam first. With the military support and assistance they'd have received from the Kingdom of Vientiane making it nigh-impossible for the (far weaker militarily) King of Siam to flee farther inland as the King of Burma did IOTL; enabling them to do so far more quickly, easily and cheaply than they did in the 1st Anglo-Burmese war, perhaps even turning a profit in the annexation of Siam. After which, they'd probably easily vassalize and/or conquer Cambodia and Vietnam, with Burma ITTL set to either endure in a manner akin to OTL's Thailand, or (given the French influence at their court) wind up as a French colony/protectorate, as TTL's equivalent of Vietnam.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top