Has the Sun set on the British Empire?

Fallen London
21

One member of the Royal Family was left on the Surface. There’s no mention of a Prime Minister in Fallen London that I’ve yet seen, suggesting that Lord Palmerston also escaped the Fall. Unless Parliament was in session at the time, it’s likely that at least some governmental representatives also escaped the Fall.

If everyone kept their heads, a functioning government ought to be re-established within a few days to a few weeks.

Some potential changes:

The Empress’ Shadow might find herself ruling in fact instead of mostly in name.

Scotland, Ireland and/or Wales might decide this is a great time to secede.

The British East India Company might find itself with a functioning army, fleet, and bureaucracy at a time when all three were in demand. How would the people in charge use that power? If the people involved with reducing miltary presence in India were stolen along with London, the succeeding government might have taken radically different policy towards the colonial holdings.

Across the Pond, The American Civil War was in full swing and the Confederacy was pinning a significant hope on the gamble the Europe in general and Britain in particular would be coerced into intervening militarily for fear of losing their cotton supply. Historically, that hope was unfounded; Britain remained neutral, even in the face of an inflammatory incident in which a Union ship boarded a British vessel in order to capture some Confederate diplomats that were on board. The “King Cotton” gambit was viewed as extortion, essentially, and they refused to be drawn in by it.

In the FL-verse, the loss of London could have had consequences in both countries. In the Confederacy, it would have changed the strategies and plans of the Confederate government. In Britain, an all-new government with a significant number of new and untested politicians, and influence out of proportion to their ideas compared to the normal circumstance, might actually vote for intervention. Especially if, in the face of conflict in the Colonies, a desperate government suddenly saw benefit to recognizing the Confederacy and developing it as a trade partner.

It just goes to show that you can imagine all kinds of things.

22

I think the idea of splitting resources shouldn’t be overstated. London’s colonies in the Neath very much seem to be &quotLondon’s&quot not &quotBritain’s&quot. It appears to me that London seems to take care of itself and its own possessions largely without the help of the Empire.

Reality and ideals are two very different things. England may theoretically have been the centre of the Empire and London certainly was rich, but many colonies largely governed themselves because it simply wasn’t practical to wait on England. The Empire was too big and colonies it would have taken almost a year for grievances to be taken to parliament, discussed and the decisions returned to them. In a way the Empire as a whole in this period was if anything less centralised than America, who had no sea to divide them and as such could theoretically rely on a single senate.

I do like the idea of how an absent London may have affected the Civil War though. Beyond the obvious cotton gambit, the Union was seen by many in Europe at the time as dangerously hypocritical for not honouring the Confederacy’s secession when they themselves had seceded from Britain out of a desire to represent themselves as they had done before increased British oversight following the Seven Years War. Europeans saw a stalemate as the most likely option (which would be tantamount to Confederate victory since they would remain a seprate country) and while some English politicians were won over by Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclomation many others saw it as an attempt to spark a race war since it didn’t free the slaves in Union allied slave-states like Missouri. Shortly afterwards a French embassy arrived in England to discuss potentially intervening in support of the Confederacy and it’s interesting to consider that this might have happened with many experienced politicians underground.
edited by Hark DeGaul on 7/19/2017

23

Of course, this is Fallen London, so things may have turned out differently, but historically the East India Company had nothing at the time of the fall of London. It was a vestige, existing in name only (and dissolved entirely in the 1870s). Post 1858-ish the Raj was directly controlled by the British government and that included all the armed forces formerly belonging to the HEIC. Now those left governing India might do something with all those resources, but none of it was under the control of the HEIC any longer. The mismanagement that led to the Great Mutiny saw to that.

24

Incidentally, the “settled” (i.e. white) parts of the British Empire were or became self-governing during this period, so they were kind of already doing their own thing. Indigenous peoples had to wait a while longer for that…

25

I think slickriptide’s comment raises an interesting secondary question to this:
If London fell was the Confederacy beaten, or did London’s absence shift the balance of Europe enough to bring the British and French in on the Confederacy’s side?

26

Seriously, I think unless the Manchester cotton barons entirely took over (not impossible with London gone) or the US did something outrageously stupid to provoke them, the UK was never going to side with the Confederacy, because of slavery. Many would probably have loved to have seen the USA humbled, but I think that the price (getting into bed with slave-owners) was one that few could stomach.

There was a fundamental reliance on southern cotton in the UK economy, but other sources were quickly found once the blockade started. And though there was support for the Confederacy, the general mood of the British people was seriously abolitionist. During the long peace the Royal Navy spent much of its energy fighting the seaborne slave trade, basically for the fun of it, and because it was what the folks back home clamoured for. I think the Confederates’ longed-for intervention was at least partially wishful thinking.

27

[quote=Plynkes]Seriously, I think unless the Manchester cotton barons entirely took over (not impossible with London gone) or the US did something outrageously stupid to provoke them, the UK was never going to side with the Confederacy, because of slavery. Many would probably have loved to have seen the USA humbled, but I think that the price (getting into bed with slave-owners) was one that few could stomach.

There was a fundamental reliance on southern cotton in the UK economy, but other sources were quickly found once the blockade started. And though there was support for the Confederacy, the general mood of the British people was seriously abolitionist. During the long peace the Royal Navy spent much of its energy fighting the seaborne slave trade, basically for the fun of it, and because it was what the folks back home clamoured for. I think the Confederates’ longed-for intervention was at least partially wishful thinking.[/quote]

Southern cotton was actually already being replaced by Indian cotton at the time of the American Civil War, but it’s a little far to say the UK never would have supported the Confederacy because of slavery. British abolitionists, like many US abolitionists, favoured a policy of gradual emancipation due to fears that sudden emancipation would lead to riots. Many feared Lincoln’s policy was little more than a desperate tactic to gain victory in a war that from a distance he appeared to be losing and would have to achieve extraordinary successes to win. As the Emancipation Proclomation didn’t free slaves in Union controlled slave-states (Missouri, Maryland etc.) most Britons thought it was just a ploy to destabilise the Confederacy and few trusted Lincoln had any honest desire to free slaves (Punch magazine ran this comic, which depicts Emancipation as a ‘card’ liable to cause a race war: https://www.sethkaller.com/images/items/o-725-003-Ks22848_Punch_10.18_w.jpg .)

As such British (and French) diplomacy was generally based around the question of whether they should get involved to help the Confederacy, act as mediators in a ‘two nation’ solution that would ultimately have allowed the Confederacy to continue existing, or remain entirely neutral.
edited by Hark DeGaul on 7/19/2017

28

While searching for Mysteries, I found a reference to Surface politics. The following echo is from The Waltz that Moved the World.

http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/PSGarak?fromEchoId=10192070

In short, London’s relocation did create a power vacuum, among other effects.

29

[quote=PSGarak]While searching for Mysteries, I found a reference to Surface politics. The following echo is from The Waltz that Moved the World.

http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/PSGarak?fromEchoId=10192070

In short, London’s relocation did create a power vacuum, among other effects.[/quote]

Interesting, but I wonder if the Duke is perhaps exaggerating a little in this section. If Europe really was a 40k-esque wasteland of mad anarchists and ruined cities I doubt they’d have time to send quite so many spies down to London. The fact the Empresses Shadow is still Princess of Prussia suggests things are relatively stable (Prussia unified after London’s fall and so likely wouldn’t exist if things were too radically different).

The fact they don’t mention which great power is unhelpful because it could just as easily be referencing the decline of the Ottomans (who were often included as a European power despite not being European) or the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867. The Great Powers aren’t really my area, but I imagine the second of those could be read as the ‘fall’ of Austria, which would fit for the Duke’s fallen power without us needing to suggest the Surface is too different without London. The ‘wars to replace her’ could be referring to the formation of Prussia including lands that used to be Austrian and the various Anglo-Prussian and Franco-Prussian wars.
edited by Hark DeGaul on 7/19/2017

30

The &quotTrent Incident&quot that I referred to earlier could have been that thing in a climate where there was a new PM and/or a new Parliament with a few nationalistic hotheads.

31

It strikes me as rather strange that the Empress and the Bats could negotiate the sudden transportation of one of the world’s largest and most important cities, but not take the royal navy with them. I mean, next to a city vanishing, what are a few cruisers and battleships brought along for the ride? London had a fleet only a short time ago and the Palace is rather…unhappy about its sudden decline.

I’m inclined to think that the Empress and her servants had the foresight to bring an unknown portion of the royal fleet to the Neath.
.
edited by Anne Auclair on 7/19/2017

32

On the topic of the American civil war, I don’t think London existing or not would have changed much. The South was fated to lose so long as the North was willing to keep fighting, because the North had a much larger population and the industry to keep up a war—barring a foreign country actually allying with the South and helping them fight, of course (which I don’t think the empire, even sans-London, would do).
Anyway, the general consensus seems to be that the empire exists still, but possibly has been eclipsed by France, and also has little to do with London. That would make sense, although I do wonder if losing London would just shatter the whole thing.

33

It’s much easier for an area as large as the Confederate States to secede than it is to force them back in to Union though. Even if you can beat their armies consistently there’s no guarantee you can quell the population. Incidently this was a major reason the British Empire couldn’t keep their hands on the US to start with, because even when they won battles the pro-secession population would rise back up as soon as the army moved on and even in such a relatively small area they didn’t have enough men to hold it all at once. For comparison’s sake Napoleon or Hitler’s disasterous campaigns in Russia also included a greatly superior military being bested by their inability to conquer such an enormous area. The Union may have had a stronger force than the Confederacy but they were also the ones who had to do all the legwork.

Obviously in real life the South lost, but I don’t think it was inevitable and I don’t think Britain would have definitely stayed out if things had gone slightly differently. With no guarantee that Lincoln was sincere about abolition the morality was less clear cut (and may not even have mattered. Modern governments have been willing on occasion to prop up vile systems for economic gain and there’s no reason the British Empire couldn’t have done so by claiming that it was none of their business how the Confederacy chose to make its cotton. Abolitionist fervour certainly hadn’t stopped Britain profitting off American cotton before the American Civil War.)
edited by Hark DeGaul on 7/19/2017

34

It doesn’t seem very likely to me that Britain would embark upon a major war with one of the greatest industrial and military powers in the world shortly after losing their capital, government and fleet to a huge swarm of bats. And Napoleon III, for all his Latin American ambitions, was pretty clear that he would not move to militarily support the Confederacy without British backing.

Speaking of Napoleon III, France seems to have fought and lost some version of the Franco-Prussian War, because France is currently a Republic again, with a third Empire in the future (maybe).
.
edited by Anne Auclair on 7/19/2017

35

Fair point. Do we know how much of the Navy and government Britain actually lost though? Presumably they should have been relatively unscathed as long as the Masters only took those boats and ministers resident in London at the time.

A nation in crisis might be more likely to act recklessly (dictators don’t tend to get supported during times of stability for example), but I do agree that it’s unlikely the British actually did get involved in America in FL canon. I just think the idea is interesting to consider and shouldn’t just be discarded on the grounds that European intervention of Confederate survival was implausible, especially if we’re willing to imagine a radically different Europe.
edited by Hark DeGaul on 7/19/2017

36

[quote=Hark DeGaul]It’s much easier for an area as large as the Confederate States to secede than it is to force them back in to Union though. Even if you can beat their armies consistently there’s no guarantee you can quell the population. …The Union may have had a stronger force than the Confederacy but they were also the ones who had to do all the legwork.

Obviously in real life the South lost, but I don’t think it was inevitable and I don’t think Britain would have definitely stayed out if things had gone slightly differently. With no guarantee that Lincoln was sincere about abolition the morality was less clear cut (and may not even have mattered. Modern governments have been willing on occasion to prop up vile systems for economic gain and there’s no reason the British Empire couldn’t have done so by claiming that it was none of their business how the Confederacy chose to make its cotton. Abolitionist fervour certainly hadn’t stopped Britain profitting off American cotton before the American Civil War.)
edited by Hark DeGaul on 7/19/2017[/quote]

My point is more that so long as the North wanted to keep fighting the war, the South was not going to win. They simply could not win the war by themselves; their only hope was that the North would tire and let them be. Of course, if the whole British military came in and fought with the South, that would probably change, but even with London gone I don’t think that would happen. Maybe some monetary support, and a few ships or something, but flat-out military support? I don’t think Southern cotton was that important to them, even sans-London.
You’re right that it’s hard to force something as big as the Confederacy to rejoin the Union, but all I can say is that regardless of how hard it was, they did it. I’m not sure how Britain’s support would have changed the fact that the Union army was capable of destroying large swathes of the South, as well as holding it under martial law for several years.
Anyway, this is rather off topic.

This inspired me to look into the history of the Government of France, and as a silly person from the USA I’m slightly weirded out by the fact that France has gone through ~8 governments in the same time mine has existed. I guess my Americentric history lessons haven’t taught me a lot about other parts of the world. :p
In any case, if the French lost that war, that doesn’t make them so much the dominant world power, does it? It’s possible that no one stepped in to completely fill Britain’s shoes, after all.
If, of course, they actually emptied those shoes.
edited by Pumpkinhead on 7/20/2017

37

Come to think of it, I want to know what’s happened to Italy. The Risorgimento was at a very delicate stage in 1861, and I would love to know what happens as a result of Italy suddenly becoming a pipeline for Things Man Was Not Meant to Know and excellent coffee.

38

Hey failbetter, write an entire history of the world after London fell. Apparently only that will satisfy us.

39

I think it is implicit in the fandom that we will never, ever, be sated.

Which is good for them! If we were, what would they do with their lives?

40

[quote=Pumpkinhead]Hey failbetter, write an entire history of the world after London fell. Apparently only that will satisfy us.[/quote]Duke

One thing that the Duke’s echo illustrates is that Failbetter has already written that history, in broad strokes at least. They just aren’t telling us what they’ve written.

This is part of the problem with talking about this stuff. What little we know is written with the meaty parts as fate-locked content that Failbetter would really prefer we not even hint at in the open like this. Even that much, though, isn’t enough to really say anything concrete about the state of the world.

I will say this about taking the Duke’s statements at face value - It explains something that’s bothered me from my first exposure to the FL-verse - why is London the center of the Great Game?

Yes, there are all of the &quotfantastic&quot elements of the Neath, but those are the elements of a Professor Challenger novel or a Quatermass novel. Especially after 30 years. The interest in the Neath would be it’s spiritual or mystical properties, not what little political clout London might be imagined to retain.

Let’s imagine that the Fall somehow predicated a decade of War; perhaps by igniting the First World War or its equivalent some decades earlier than it happened historically. The countries that remained uninvolved found themselves targeted by an ISIS-like terrorist conspiracy that emerged within the same timeframe that Fallen London itself emerged from Lake Avernus for the first time; just in time to further politically destabilize whatever government had emerged in post-Fall Britain. Initial spies report that not only is there a shadowy Anarchist conspiracy basing itself out of London, there are three other nations down there and a half-dozen other questionable independent settlements including at least one semi-mythical city perched on the edge of another universe entirely.

When the terrorists prove to be good at their jobs, it causes all of the players of the Game to make London one of their top priorities, just as we currently make the Middle East one of our top priorities. Never mind learning that the bombers are pawns in a Game whose true leaders are beings from across the universe and who don’t give a rip about humanity except its potential to be a tool of the Liberation of Night.

Here’s the frightening part -all of this chaos may be exactly what the Masters wanted. It might be the exact reason they chose London and took it at that point in history.