The problem is'nt in taking India, indeed the British way was actually probably the smartest way to do it (that is a mixture of direct rule, indirect rule through Protectorates and playing the native states against each other and weakening them), rather it's in getting a German state large enough (or even a Unified Germany) early enough to allow it to have the power and resources to do so.
AHC: German India
- Thread starter LeCHVCK
- Start date
From a bit more reading on the Ostend Company (Austrian) it seems they had trading posts akin to the Danes too. They don't need a warfleet to have this, just a trading fleet - i.e. the Ostend Company akin to the West India Company. No doubt these large merchantmen WOULD be armed and in the Indian scene this would make them warships anyway.
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Dutch was not a German dialect. Low German dialects, Upper German dialects and Dutch dialects were all on an equal footing.
Including Dutch in the mix, not impossible, would alter the whole concept of German.
Perhaps a standard language based on the dialects between Cologne and Frankfurt (am Main)?
Well John of Castille, married to Margaret of Austria, (OTL 1478-1497) didn't have to die. Alternatively have the Iberian Union succeed (dynasticly lead by the house of Aviz) with a surviving Miguel (Michael) da Paz (OTL 1498 - 1500).
However a separate Dutch speaking identity was already formed by 1500.
It can't be hard to change the Dutch identity though; a lot of separate identities were subsumed into what we consider the 'German' identity, like the Austro-Bavarian identity, the Prussian identity, and a few others.
Which makes them a target. The British shut it down in exchange for an alliance with Austria- if it actually became a direct competitor, then the colony is doomed. Though Britain was threatened in Bengal by the Dutch and the French in Chandernagore, both had a presence that deterred direct intervention initially. If the Austrians start doing exceedingly well, then EIC or CoI ships would be present in that port's harbour quickly.
Come to think of it, a nice way to have Austrian ports in India would be to have a powerful benefactor, like the Mughals or any other kingdom. If the port quietly acts as a middleman between larger powers and native kingdoms, then it could prosper without competing directly (ie if Britain can smuggle guns through the Austrian port).
I've actually had a question about colonial India that I think could be answered in this thread.
How exactly did the French and Portuguese outposts (Goa, Pondicherry, etc.) work when the subcontinent was ruled entirely by the British? What I mean is, I understood that the original European outposts were there as way-stations between European companies and native states for the purpose of trade. However, was British India open to trade for the French and Portuguese?
Or did the French and Portuguese use their small chunks of territory in the same way the British used the greater Raj, but on a lesser scale?
How exactly did the French and Portuguese outposts (Goa, Pondicherry, etc.) work when the subcontinent was ruled entirely by the British? What I mean is, I understood that the original European outposts were there as way-stations between European companies and native states for the purpose of trade. However, was British India open to trade for the French and Portuguese?
Or did the French and Portuguese use their small chunks of territory in the same way the British used the greater Raj, but on a lesser scale?
That all depends on when that happens. Austria and Prussia were still rivalling for the dominance over the rest of the German states until 1866.
After that point Austria was somewhere between in and out, until well 1945, when Austria described itself as separate.
The own 'Dutch' (Flemish, Hollandic, Brabantian, Guelderish etc.) identity already started to develop in the late middle ages and really flourished under the dukes of Burgundy (which had to know Dutch by demand of various Low Lands Estates).
Subsuming that is harder, when it develops independently for a long time.
The Biggest issue I see is any German power,either united or splintered, is going to be focused around Europe and having its priorities on land. For a German india to happen in my mind requires one of those strange acts of history like Cortez or garbaldi. A one of instance over over arching influences because those influence over time just reinforce a more continental mindset.
That wouldn't be much different from the OTL continental European colonial powers.
A (earlier) German colonial power IMHO can happen, but the specific question, whether a German India can happen?
A German state could play a similar role of OTL Portugal, the Netherlands or France in India, but uniting the Peninsula as Britain end up doing can be something different. OTOH the likelihood of the latter increased over time too.
Flocculencio
Donor
They were founded as trade outposts and also as bases for future expansion. The Portuguese, for example used Goa as a base to try to impose their dominance on Kerala and the French, likewise, used Pondicherry etc. as bases in much the same way Britain did with Madras and Calcutta when they were duelling for hegemony in India.
Once British hegemony had been established, however, these place pretty much became backwaters. They were too small for the same sort of profit extraction that Britain could accomplish, and and trade with British India would have been subject to the same tariffs as any other foreign trade so they just sort of...lingered. I presume it would have been too much of a prestige issue to simply give up the colonies to Britain.
Ah I see. Thank you for answering my question. I wonder then, with Portugal such a long-standing ally of Britain's, if they might have expanded somewhat more into India.
They should have sold them, like the Dutch and the Danish did. I think France might have gotten some African colonies for them.
IIRC the Dutch (also) traded Dutch possessions in India for British possessions in the East Indies (now Indonesia).
Ah I see. Thank you for answering my question. I wonder then, with Portugal such a long-standing ally of Britain's, if they might have expanded somewhat more into India.
The EIC had no allies. Goa functioned as an actual colony of Portugal, while the East India Company was in all senses just that: a company. Surrendering parts of India to Portugal just wasn't in their interest. Geographically, where would Portugal expand? The Western Ghats keep inland areas well outside of reach- which would mean that coastal areas would be the only place for expansion, and the Marathas had control over those parts. Even the British had a heck of a lot of trouble there when they were based in Bombay- Calcutta was a godsend to them.
Flocculencio
Donor
African colonies tended to be money sinks, though. The Danes were pretty much getting out of the colonial game and the Dutch traded their Indian concessions for concessions in the East Indies which were profitable.
Flocculencio
Donor
Portugal did try to expand south even before the British got into the game. They took Kerala but couldn't hold it (turns out setting the Inquisition loose on Hindus, Muslims, Jews and Orthodox Christians was not a winning strategy). The Dutch meanwhile came in, worked with the local nobility and managed to establish temporary dominance in the region and IIRC the Portuguese didn't really try to expand again. North and West of Goa, the Mahrattas were rising to power and Portugal didn't have the power or money to play political games with them. After that Britain and France came into play and everyone else got sidelined.
If French india was also a money sink, it is usualy easier and cheaper to have continuous colonies than all kind of spread out colonies. To be fair Pondicherry might have been usefull as base of operations for expansion in Indo-China.
Exactly. Portugal didn't have the trust of the people they were trying to conquer. Their zeal drove away a lot of people from supporting them- which is why I ask: where would they expand? The Company system worked well in India, where Portugal's didn't- they were conquerors, not traders.
To get back to the main question, however, the Dutch were a naval power; so were Britain, France, and even Denmark at the time. The German states were not.
Yes, but wasn't the Hanseatic League localised to the Baltic Sea? Plus you'd have to have a German state using that to transform into a naval power. Which would hurt the Dutch, because IIRC, they tended to use German mercenaries.