What if during the indian mutiny in Delhi there was a competent general able to reverse the english assault? would the east india company have been kicked out of india? would the british government respond? and how? what would india be like today?
A Independent india 100 years in advance.
- Thread starter England666
- Start date
India would not be united, the whole idea of a United India did'nt really start until the late 19th century and even IOTL did'nt exactly workout completely (Pakistan and Bangladesh are afterall independent).
Additionally the British could not be kicked out of all if the subcontinent, they could lose the North-West, possibly Central North India and Central India at most.
Additionally the British could not be kicked out of all if the subcontinent, they could lose the North-West, possibly Central North India and Central India at most.
Maybe The East india company would have singed a treaty with the muhgals forcing them out of india. or maybe the war would have lasted years ending with an invasion of burma.
No, not completely. Calcutta would most likely stay, definitely the South and Central areas. However, with a butterfly effect and any sort of cultural renaissance that could happen in Lahore and Delhi might create the atmosphere of rebellion throughout the subcontinent. But this would definitely be long term, and I don't think it would be united at all.
This is half-true. Areas of the subcontinent definitely did lend themselves to form united empires, like the Indo-Gangetic Plain. And the Marathas had something of an Indian union going, even though it was based on rulers' ties, etc. etc.
Perhaps not. i wonder though if eventually the armies of the revived mugahl empire would have conquered all of india and maybe even burma? i think that would have happened as the small kings look to the emperor for protection against the british and other western powers.
Here's the thing, though; Bahadur Shah was only a nominal figurehead, and his sons, while youthful and active, were not the best commanders. While the troops initially declared for the emperor, he was not really leader, but only a symbol. Leaders such as Nana Sahib, and if the Sikhs join, the Sikhs, would create their own independent nations, not join up with the Mughal Empire.
No. Most of Burma was never seriously in the Mughal sphere of influence, and your proposed revival is too late to really chage that. A Mughal-Burmese alliance might be possible though, but even that is difficult.
Oh I'm well aware most of the Subcontinent has been unified before, what I meant was the ideology espousing the concept of a United India.
To be fair, that's because nationalism in general only really sprouted in the 19th century anyways.
Actually a sort of nationalism was documented in the 2ond century BC in ancient Athens.
Dr. Strangelove
Banned
A better chance for ending british hegemony in India in the 19th century would be a Sikh victory in the 1st Anglo-Sikh war.
Flocculencio
Donor
Why would they see the Mughals as automatically better? Even at the height of the Raj, Britain only directly ruled about half of India- the rest was ruled by their vassal rulers. The Indian princes were on the whole very happy with the British (which is why for the most part the actual Indian nationalists despised the,).
Secondly, in much of South India there really was no tradition of Mughal rule.
Thirdly, a revived Mughal empire in this scenario is pretty much going to be limited to the Gangetic valley. It's not magically going to expand and if it tries you're actually going to see the central Indian states cozying up to Britain (or whichever other power can act as a balance).
Flocculencio
Donor
Because the Khalsa then magically projects power across the whole of India.
Seriously, a lot of you guys don't seem to really get the scale of India.
A more realistic and better pod is that eithr the Maratha emerge victorious or do not engage the durranni. This prevents the Maratha from being unable to stand up to british during the anglo maratha war. Therefore british are unable to get a strong foothold in the majority of india sans bengal.
Another pod is the maratha confederacy somehow beats the british or at least stalemates them and does not collapse but remain united
However Im not very sure if the above scenarios are asb or not.
Another pod is the maratha confederacy somehow beats the british or at least stalemates them and does not collapse but remain united
However Im not very sure if the above scenarios are asb or not.
He said it would be a good POD, not that the Sikhs would take everything over. Without the Sikhs in their side, the British will be in a weaker position, especially if an alt-Rebellion occurs, which could further butterfly other changes, like the southern kings effectively demanding more powered handed to them.
It's not actually ASB. The Marathas had quality soldiers, but it was their leaders which sucked; something which both the Afghans and British affirmed.
Anaxagoras
Banned
The Sikhs would never get involved on the rebel side, though. They hated the Mughals far, far, far more than they ever could have hated the British.