AHC - A new owner of India!

French victory in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars does NOT require French naval supremacy, as it is quite possible for an over-stretched Britain to eventually be knocked out by economic and social chaos. The grand strategy decisions made by Napoleon could have been different, meaning that hostilities drag on towards 1820 etc

Revolution in Britain won't drive the British from their OWNED holdings in India, but will break the bond between prince and sovereign and could lead to a general revolt against the influence of the EIC, which they are going to have great difficulty in dealing wiith as revolutionary fervour and economic confiusion is going to affect them in waves from Britain

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I think the best candidate for a non-British power to dominate India post-1800 is... India. How close did the 1857 rebellion get to success, anyway?

Or possibly the EIC, if you don't count them as British--can we come up with a course of action which would involve them remaining basically independent, and possibly increasing the role of native Indians in administration? Either way, someone who is actually based on the subcontinent would have the best chance of supplanting the British...
 
I'm more partial to a "Ranjit Singh rolls all sixes" scenario ;)

Its a good idea, that one, especially if Britain is busy elsewhere.

I can't see the 1857 rebellion achieving a long-lasting united solution, there was no money, no unity and no leadership (or too much diverse leadership) and if Britain HAD been unable/unwilling to fight back then it would have resulted in a chaotic India

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
The Dutch ally themselves with the Americans can then go on the offensive in Bengal during 1779-80. It's pre 1800, but so what? You are not going to have anyone displace Britain, not even the Russians, after 1800.
 
He wanted a POD after 1800

and as we've all stated, not going to happen.
no one is going to take India from Britain, and Britain is going to get India after 1700; because of they're ability to not care about Europe.

If any country want to control India, they have to have the most powerful navy and be the dominant colonial power.

By 1800 its total ASB for any European country besides England to get India, they're navy was powerful enough to take on France and the Dutch because that was their policy.

Every other colonial power had to focus on its own borders before sending armies abroad. England had the luxury of being an Island, so they build a great navy so they couldn't be invaded and from that its over.

You have to have England loose the "second" hundred years war for someone else to own India.
 
Then I've already gave out a suggestion for a non-European candidate to own India. Persia came close to conquering India though, but I could be wrong. It was during Nadir Shah's time. Other than Persia, there's always the idea of partitioning India between a European power and an Asian power. In this case, it could be the Dutch, Swedes, Danes (the Danes did control some ports in India a long time ago), or the unlikely Prussians that would control one part of India (the western portion) while in the eastern portion would go to a China that doesn't become isolated from the rest of the world. I've always wondered how a small Indian territory under Chinese occupation would turn out. Other than that, there's always a surviving Maratha Empire annexing the defeated Mughal Empire.
 
Then I've already gave out a suggestion for a non-European candidate to own India. Persia came close to conquering India though, but I could be wrong. It was during Nadir Shah's time. .

Persia never came anywhere close to conquering India. Nadir Shah sacked Delhi- that's not even halfway down the Gangetic plain and nowhere near South India
 
The Ottomans need superior naval capabilities to reach India, though they got lucky with Aceh. Of course, that could be a possibility.
 
Its a good idea, that one, especially if Britain is busy elsewhere.

I can't see the 1857 rebellion achieving a long-lasting united solution, there was no money, no unity and no leadership (or too much diverse leadership) and if Britain HAD been unable/unwilling to fight back then it would have resulted in a chaotic India

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

Well, can we run with Singh? Say he pulls off a miracle in Tibet. Makes it back to the Panjab and continues empire building with dual victories over the British, and by 1857 (not necessary AT 1857) the British will be in far less of a position to conquer all of the subcontinent, and Indian rebels will have a successful, Indian-based alternative to British rule.

One of Ranjit's successors might even make an arya-varta across the Indo-Gangetic plain and kick the British out of Bengal.

The British might still be in the Deccan. Sorry, WILL be in the Deccan, but their position will be a lot more tentative. The Portuguese and French might be able to expand outside of Goa and Pondicherry (respectively). And Hyderabad would be able to play off outside influence to maintain regional-power status.
 
I don't see any prerequisite in the original post that says the power in question couldn't be a local, native one. With a POD after 1800 it would certainly be possible to end up with an India united by a dynasty based in the subcontinent.
 

whitecrow

Banned
But, I think there are other ways. The dominant colonial power is going to dominate India though, so whomever that may be there's nothing any other country could do when you have a great navy.

What if the dominant colonial power f*cks up in some war and is unable to consolidate power over India due to internal strife in the empire or the need for the navy to patrol other holdings from some Big Bad adversary or revolutions?
 
Top