AHC: German India

[Janprimus]

The Hanseatic League also traded in North Sea ports. IOTL Gradually the Low Countries (after the Dutch revolt only the North) took over much of their trade.

Still it really depends on POD's. By the time the Dutch were a trading power, there wasn't a German state, which could do so.

What could have happened, that Austria-Burgundy (including the Burgundian Netherlands) stay together. This could make that region the starting point of colonial (and mercantile) expansion by the HRE.

 

[Badshah]

The Hanseatic League also traded in North Sea ports. IOTL Gradually the Low Countries (after the Dutch revolt only the North) took over much of their trade.

Still it really depends on POD's. By the time the Dutch were a trading power, there wasn't a German state, which could do so.

What could have happened, that Austria-Burgundy (including the Burgundian Netherlands) stay together. This could make that region the starting point of colonial (and mercantile) expansion by the HRE.

Butterflies by that point would alter things so that said state would certainly not be able to conquer India. And of course the whole Ostend Company dissolved because of the Anglo-Austrian Alliance. What would change that here? The HRE would be constantly poised against the French, too- wouldn't that hurt both French and German naval growth?

 

[Flocculencio]

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.

Well, it's not like the British had the trust of the people either- they were just much better with realpolitik. Though you're right- it's telling that one of the root causes of the 1857 rebellion was the turn towards more aggressive evangelisation by certain elements in the EIC.

 

[Flocculencio]

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.

Well, yes I presume it was considered useful as a supply base, but that's really a post facto consideration since French involvement in Indochina started much later.

 

[GeographyDude]

I guess have Prussia play it relatively straight. Yes, in business transactions with India, they will make about 2/3's of the profits, leaving about 1/3 for the Indians. But they're not going to push the envelope too much further than this.

And in this ATL, Prussia beats England to the best trading areas in India. And the Indians in these areas might welcome the better deals the Prussians provide, as well as the backstop of protection.

And like Goa being a Portuguese colony, this would be a timeline in which India had a number of different colonies and/or semi-colonies.

 

[Clandango]

Perhaps someone tries to institute some form of Salic law in India early on and some lands not ruled by a company or the British empire somehow end up with Hanover, which Prussia then takes? Ridiculous on all accounts of course, but people like to make things interesting on timelines here. Ahh, and how we're we defining India again? The subcontinent or the Indies in general?