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.
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.