So basically, I'm looking for a POD that makes India a French colony rather than a British colony. Could we perhaps have France win the Seven Years War, giving them dominance over India? If not, I don't think a French India will last long given the political turmoil in France.
French India
- Thread starter Montgomerie Ward
- Start date
I think you may be making a common mistake here. When discussing French vs British colonialism in India, you have to take into account the differing situations and attributes of the two states. You can't just take out Britain and insert in France. For example, even if you had a PoD like Dupleix succeeding over the British in his efforts to expand French India, things like the lack of a mature financial system in France are going to have a large impact on what happens next. TBH I don't think the French have enough advantages to completely take over. Any successful French India is going to be multipolar in my opinion.
Your objection is accurate. However I disagree with the consequence you seem to draw from it.
The part of the mature british financial system has been overestimated while It should not have. Sure, It is better to have such a modern and efficient financial system because It gives a government more leverage.
But leverage without massive capital stock and flows just won't be enough to make the difference.
Holding India had a gigantic virtue of its own because It secured a gigantic capital flow for Britain. This is why Britain was, like other rival powers, on the verge of bankrupcy when It fought long and costly wars until the seven years war included. And this is why It no longer was on the verge of bankrupcy in the wars fought after the 7 years war. Because Britain then had its golden eggs goose : India.
Ah, I was thinking about posting a thread like that just yesterday!
I agree with Matteo, much like China in the late XIXth century, India was the golden goose of the XVII-XVIIIth centuries.
Money isn't the a problem as long as you have India and the means to secure it. Even Asia to Asia commerce would be enough to sustain it, let alone exportations to Europe...
I would say the problem is more political than anything else. The French never knew how to properly dose state intervention in their East India Companies. It went from too much with Richelieu to not enough with Dupleix.
Dupleix pionneered the alliance/protectorate tactic that the Brits would later use with great success. If I recall, he was called back to France because he was TOO successful and the company deemed it too costly.
That's also a tension that was ever lasting in the BEIC but didn't stop them.
I wouldn't exactly know why, I would say that maybe the English high class was more stable, economically and politically? That's pure and absolute speculation on my part, do break this argument in shards if you can.
The French can, and almost did take over India, or at least the Southern half.
From there you have several PoD:
*Dupleix isn't called back and keeps reinforcing the French position
*The French don't give back Madras after the treaty of Aix la Chapelle. Maybe Louisbourg is ransomed against some sugar island or something like that?
*The battle of Plassey is lost by the Brits, helping the allies of the French assert their dominance.
If you wanna be cheeky you can always try something a bit different:
Just before the Revolution, an expedition had been sent to recover the Vietnamese kingdom for Gia Long from the Tay Son rebellion. Led by Pigneau de Béhaine, the expedition was cancelled by an officer in Pondichéry. Pigneau still went ahead with his own money and managed to help the vietnamese king significantly.
Now say this goes through, the French army actually gets into Indochina before the 1800. At the death of Gia Long (maybe earlier than OTL), it's turned into a Protectorate during the Napoleonic wars. Using this base, and with the complicity of the sultans of Mysore, manage to get a solid foothold in India. With a huge diplomacy effort, the manage to overturn the alliance system of the Brits.
I imagine a lot of Indian kingdom were not happy with the British land grabbing and the way the Benghal famine was handled. Wiggle room there.
That's more outlandish but maybe some elements of it are not completely ASB? The help of Mysore in particular seems like a solid PoD. Maybe if Napoleon manages to ally himself with Oman as well?
I agree with Matteo, much like China in the late XIXth century, India was the golden goose of the XVII-XVIIIth centuries.
Money isn't the a problem as long as you have India and the means to secure it. Even Asia to Asia commerce would be enough to sustain it, let alone exportations to Europe...
I would say the problem is more political than anything else. The French never knew how to properly dose state intervention in their East India Companies. It went from too much with Richelieu to not enough with Dupleix.
Dupleix pionneered the alliance/protectorate tactic that the Brits would later use with great success. If I recall, he was called back to France because he was TOO successful and the company deemed it too costly.
That's also a tension that was ever lasting in the BEIC but didn't stop them.
I wouldn't exactly know why, I would say that maybe the English high class was more stable, economically and politically? That's pure and absolute speculation on my part, do break this argument in shards if you can.
The French can, and almost did take over India, or at least the Southern half.
From there you have several PoD:
*Dupleix isn't called back and keeps reinforcing the French position
*The French don't give back Madras after the treaty of Aix la Chapelle. Maybe Louisbourg is ransomed against some sugar island or something like that?
*The battle of Plassey is lost by the Brits, helping the allies of the French assert their dominance.
If you wanna be cheeky you can always try something a bit different:
Just before the Revolution, an expedition had been sent to recover the Vietnamese kingdom for Gia Long from the Tay Son rebellion. Led by Pigneau de Béhaine, the expedition was cancelled by an officer in Pondichéry. Pigneau still went ahead with his own money and managed to help the vietnamese king significantly.
Now say this goes through, the French army actually gets into Indochina before the 1800. At the death of Gia Long (maybe earlier than OTL), it's turned into a Protectorate during the Napoleonic wars. Using this base, and with the complicity of the sultans of Mysore, manage to get a solid foothold in India. With a huge diplomacy effort, the manage to overturn the alliance system of the Brits.
I imagine a lot of Indian kingdom were not happy with the British land grabbing and the way the Benghal famine was handled. Wiggle room there.
That's more outlandish but maybe some elements of it are not completely ASB? The help of Mysore in particular seems like a solid PoD. Maybe if Napoleon manages to ally himself with Oman as well?
Derek Pullem
Donor
The East India Company in the second half of the 18th century was not a cash cow it was a cash sink. It moved from paying money to the UK government to asking for loans in the 1770's
Now ownership of India was profitable given the right kind of set up but that set up wasn't the EIC.
You'd need a different kind of empire established than the one the British had in the layer 18th century which wouldn't really be profitable until the later 19th century (it was profitable in late 17th though)
Now ownership of India was profitable given the right kind of set up but that set up wasn't the EIC.
You'd need a different kind of empire established than the one the British had in the layer 18th century which wouldn't really be profitable until the later 19th century (it was profitable in late 17th though)
Sure, the book of the british EIC were a very different thing from the economic assessment of the global economic relation between Britain and India.
But as far as the latter is concerned, India (not Sudan or Kenya) was hugely profitable for Britain (Britain as a whole and, also especially the ruling class and soldiers adventurers that participated more it less directly in the ruthless exploitation of India) from the beginning. This is why it was the jewel of the crown. It is rather when India became less profitable that Britain considered driving India towards autonomy and independance.
But as far as the latter is concerned, India (not Sudan or Kenya) was hugely profitable for Britain (Britain as a whole and, also especially the ruling class and soldiers adventurers that participated more it less directly in the ruthless exploitation of India) from the beginning. This is why it was the jewel of the crown. It is rather when India became less profitable that Britain considered driving India towards autonomy and independance.
Sure, that was the english EIC.
Now, concerning India itself, since Clive did to a large extent copycat a strategy that had been devised by Dupleix some 10 years earlier, if the french had come out as winning the competition against the british for the control of India, then there would have been huge consequences.
The french would have made quite as much profit at exploiting India as the british did. And this may well have butterflied away the financial crisis that led to the french revolution and its chaos. British political life may become more radical than it was OTL.
France will have a very strong incentive to build an even bigger perchant and war Navy than it did OTL and triggered the virtuous circle into which Britain engaged thanks to its indian profits.
Now, concerning India itself, since Clive did to a large extent copycat a strategy that had been devised by Dupleix some 10 years earlier, if the french had come out as winning the competition against the british for the control of India, then there would have been huge consequences.
The french would have made quite as much profit at exploiting India as the british did. And this may well have butterflied away the financial crisis that led to the french revolution and its chaos. British political life may become more radical than it was OTL.
France will have a very strong incentive to build an even bigger perchant and war Navy than it did OTL and triggered the virtuous circle into which Britain engaged thanks to its indian profits.
It is especialy interesting considering that England had managed to alienate most of Europe at the time, while France had managed to gain allies. Previously the European wars were basicly France against the rest of Europe (ok, a bit of an exaggeration), but England basicly only had some minor German states left as allies. If France can keep up with England naval wise, because of India, while the rest of Eurpe basicly stop caring. England is in trouble. To be fair, France needs some smart political and diplomatic manouvering to avoid other countries to get involved, because they might feel threathened by France.
Derek Pullem
Donor
True but the other consequence would be a much closer relationship between UK and its North American colonies. With a stronger France the antagonism created by asking the colonists to pay for their own defense is likely to reduce and there will be no "Tea Party".
You may end up with a British North America taking India's place as the jewel of the Empire - which would not reduce the financial strength of the British in the long run.
Plus the colonial ethos of the French up to that point did not really support a major overseas colony (see Canada / Louisiana)
It would help France I agree in the sense they would be less likely to collapse into bankruptcy (especially if the AWI did not happen as OTL) - but then do we see Napoleon playing the role of Wellesley in India???
You may end up with a British North America taking India's place as the jewel of the Empire - which would not reduce the financial strength of the British in the long run.
Plus the colonial ethos of the French up to that point did not really support a major overseas colony (see Canada / Louisiana)
It would help France I agree in the sense they would be less likely to collapse into bankruptcy (especially if the AWI did not happen as OTL) - but then do we see Napoleon playing the role of Wellesley in India???
I agree with the rest of your post but I would object to this one.
Canada was "a few arpents of snow" as the well known quote goes. A few colonists but mainly important for the fur trade. Louisiana was just too damn big, especially since the native population wasn't big enough to work the land in your place.
I would say it would be somewhat fairer to see how France treated sugar islands. India would be a place to extract a lot of wealth, I don't believe it would be treated the same way at all. Many more resources available would lead to a more hands on approach.
Derek Pullem
Donor
But that would tend to lead France to a series of "Goa" style enclaves rather than the administration of larger entities as per the British. Until Algeria the French did not really have a significant colonial population to rule (Haiti did not end well).
That's not to say that they could not find a way, just that they may not be as competent at extracting wealth as the British or Spanish
I don't know. If the British could do it in India and the Dutch could do it in Indonesia and the Spanish and Portguguese could do it in South America, I am confident the French would be able to do it too.
Agreed, especially since the Brits played it by the rulebook the French wrote.
Now I'll give you that the French were not experts at colonial economy not based on plantations, at least on first look. A bit later, they did well with commerce in the East Africa region. The FEIC had some nice moments as well so if Dupleix is allowed to stay, who knows...
Not saying they would do it right, just saying it's not certain they would do it wrong.
Derek Pullem
Donor
Fair comment.
It would also almost inevitably lead to an earlier Suez Canal proposal. And most likely a Franco-Ottoman war over Egypt as a result.
It might actually defuse tensions in Europe if France is raking in the cash from her Indian and other colonies (Egypt??) as a result.
If the British can find a way to Dominion-ise British North Amercia and concentrate on the settler colonies (BNA, ANZAC) then although France and Britain would be competitors they don't actually have a huge degree of overlap in their commercial interests.
Saint-Domingue (the future Haiti) was enormously profitable for France. What caused it to "not end well" was an unusual set of circumstances (France itself going through revolution, the slaves being freed, the French navy being devastated by the loss of the nobility, the yellow fever epidemic devastating Leclerc's forces, and so on).
As I recall the French court was rather friendly with the ottomans in the XVIIIth century. There's even a wiki page about it.
I could see the French getting rights of passage over Suez instead, maybe a sort of joint project. Reinforce France, Ottomans get custom rights and get free to operate in the Indian Ocean as long as France keeps its Western European monopoly. Maybe an alliance against Persia or Austria?
That said, I remember that time period is also the time it went to shit for the Ottomans with massive epidemics in their core cities. Depends on the exact PoD I guess?
Derek Pullem
Donor
True but it was still an oversized plantation economy - there wasn't really a French colonial population of any consequence (c. 30,000) compared to say Virginia (500,000) or the Carolinas (400,000)
True. The french in Saint Domingue were even more successful than the british in Jamaica.
Britain alienated most of Europe only after its triumph in the seven years war when it had its crisis of hubris. Not before
Yes but with better financial incentives, for example thanks to the extra capital then would gain from India, the french could finance mass immigration to its north american colonies before losinglosing them.
Have France keep the austrian netherlands in 1748. Britain will be much more cautions before starting war again against France. Not in 1754. Then have Dupleix not fired from the french EIC and successfully implement his imperial stragegy in India some 15 years earlier than Clive and the english EIC started doing so.
You fan have the french then have more money to finance a successful defensive war in north America. The french could send each year 10,000 to 20.000 settlers to north America from the mid 1750's on.
Last edited: