Industrial Revolution w/o ARW or Opium Wars

Take a PoD in 1778, wherein the American Revolution fails, where the French Revolution is delayed and significantly milder, and where the Indian Kingdoms of Mysore and Maratha do better against the British. This last part, unless I'm way off, would mean less British opium, thus likely no war with China to make them buy it (vastly oversimplifying, but I think it holds), while the second part means the Holy Roman Empire, at the very least, lasts longer.

What I'm really interested in here, for this thread, is -- how does all this affect the course of the industrial revolutions of OTL? Is it slowed in Britain? Does trade with the colonies make up for lost trade with China? What about in North America, and what OTL became Germany?

Does France, with much less upheaval, have a better shot at its own IR? What about the Netherlands, without the occupation? For that matter, does industrialization just come earlier (even if still in Britain) depending on how much less violent the Continent is*?

All in all, how much is the global economy set forward, or back?

*not to get into that can of worms here -- there have been threads on that

John Fredrick Parker said:

Anyone then?

Click to expand...

1778? Kinda reminds me of For Want of a Nail, btw.

In any case, you could perhaps make the case for an alternate version of the Napoleonic Wars or something, which might have the effect of kickstarting the I.R. then.

CaliBoy1990 said:

1778? Kinda reminds me of For Want of a Nail, btw.

Click to expand...

Same PoD

In any case, you could perhaps make the case for an alternate version of the Napoleonic Wars or something, which might have the effect of kickstarting the I.R. then.

Click to expand...

Ah yes, the articles google gives me seem to confirm that, OTL, the Napoleonic Wars served as a major catalyst for the Industrial Revolutions of both Britain and America. While I see trade policy keeping the latter from happening, I do have a rudimentary idea for a continental conflict in the 1790's -- except I see it being (a) shorter, less revolutionary, and, overall, less bloody; as well as (b) going worse for Britain, leading to a peace that's likely worse for their interests on the continent. If I have this right, this would mean taking longer for the Industrial Revolution to kick-start; that about right? If so, how much of a lag are we talking about here?

To be honest the driver for the opium trade will be even greater if the East India Company does not win the Maratha / Mysore wars. To stave off bankruptcy the opium fields of Bengal will still be required and China's habit will still be fed.

Derek Pullem said:

To be honest the driver for the opium trade will be even greater if the East India Company does not win the Maratha / Mysore wars. To stave off bankruptcy the opium fields of Bengal will still be required and China's habit will still be fed.

Click to expand...

Not only that but it might provoke more interest from Britain in seeking alternate markets - an earlier penetration of Japan for example?

If there is no industrial revolution, there is no Opium wars. It was the power of industry that gave Britain the wealth and military might to be able to project power to China that way.

Yes - I'm a bit unsure as to what the OP believes drove the Opium wars.

IMHO the Opium wars arose out of a trade imbalance where China demanded silver for its tea, silk, porcelain etc and the EIC was running out of hard cash. China did not want anything UK had to offer apart from Opium so EIC became a dealer.

When China closed the dealers down, UK stepped in to enforce "free trade"

China and the Opium wars had negligible impact on the Industrial Revolution, they were a transition period between mercantile state trading companies and liberal free trade