AHC: Great Power Burma?

[Crying]

Okay, I'm not technically asking for Burma as a Great Power, though that would be kind of cool to see. What I want is actually something more along the lines of Burma managing to resist colonization by the British and industrializing - I imagine that this would rather naturally lead to Burma managing to attain a status similar to that of OTL Japan, which was considered a Great Power at least for a time.

Basically, what I'm asking for is a logical/realistic series of events that have Burma remain uncolonized/independent, industrialize without getting taken over and become at least a regional power.

 

[Intransigent Southerner]

I imagine that this would rather naturally lead to Burma managing to attain a status similar to that of OTL Japan

Eh... This assumption seems unfounded to me. Two statistics showing how Burma was critically lacking in terms of both preexisting urban networks and a labor force:

• In 1800, Edo (capital of Japan) had over 1,000,000 inhabitants, with other cities (Kyoto and Osaka) in the range of 300,000~500,000. Amarapura (capital of Burma) had more than 100,000 inhabitants. No other city in Burma had a population of over 20,000.
• In 1800, Tokugawa Japan had around 30 million people. Burma had a grand total of 2.5 million.

The only real advantage Burma has over Japan is its ridiculously high literacy rate for adult men. But literacy in itself doesn't do much for industrialization, especially since Burmese popular literacy was due to Buddhist monastic education rather than state-run programs.

The best evidence that Burma could not "Meiji" is the fact that your scenario did happen with a society very similar to that of Burma. This is, of course, Thailand, which remained independent but failed to become a regional power. And logically, an independent Burma would fare worse than Thailand. This is because of at least three reasons:

• In 1824, the most powerful empire in Southeast Asia was Thailand, not Burma (or any European power, for that matter). So Thailand had a stronger base of power from which to negotiate its place in the new world system.
• The Thai heartland (Bangkok) was right by the coastline. This meant that any would-be European colonizers either had to conquer all of Thailand in one big gulp or none of it; they couldn't just detach the coast from the interior, as they did in Java or Hyderabad or countless other countries. Few European powers were willing to take this risk. By contrast, the heartland of the Burmese empire was in the interior, which meant Europeans could conquer the coastal areas first, wait for the coast to be absorbed into the empire, and then conquer the weakened rump state. This is basically what happened in the Second and Third Anglo-Burmese Wars.
• Burma was right next to Bengal, the center of British power in Asia.

Things could have gone (much) better for the Konbaung empire and for Burma in general, but Meiji-ing is not a plausible option.

 

[Indicus]

At one point, Burma actually conquered Thailand, specifically the kingdom of Ayutthaya, but then lost it a few years later to the current ruling house of Thailand thanks to a Chinese invasion. If it retained Thailand, you could get a stronger Burma for sure. Another thing you may want to do is weaken British control of Bengal - say, have Siraj-ud-Daulah successfully kick out the British from Bengal for a while during the Seven Years War. That would substantially delay the British conquest of India, and give Burma enough time to adjust to the new circumstances.

 

[Intransigent Southerner]

If it retained Thailand, you could get a stronger Burma for sure

Burmese Thailand is not sustainable without an exceptional monarch, as the reign of Nanda Bayin demonstrated in the 16th century. In fact, attempts to hold on to Thailand in the 16th century just led to the Burmese empire disintegrating more quickly. Hsinbyushin not keeping Thailand was definitely the smarter choice.

 

[Agatho]

At one point, Burma actually conquered Thailand, specifically the kingdom of Ayutthaya, but then lost it a few years later to the current ruling house of Thailand thanks to a Chinese invasion. If it retained Thailand, you could get a stronger Burma for sure. Another thing you may want to do is weaken British control of Bengal - say, have Siraj-ud-Daulah successfully kick out the British from Bengal for a while during the Seven Years War. That would substantially delay the British conquest of India, and give Burma enough time to adjust to the new circumstances.

So there are a number of interesting points here that might further the OP. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable in this period of history can answer some of the questions they raise:

1) It seems the Chinese invasion was largely responsible for the Burmese pulling out troops. What sort of internal political changes within China would keep them from invading?

2) How would the Burmese hold Thailand? Could they hold it long term or would it have to be spun off as a vassal which could be integrated more slowly?

3) The British being kicked out of Bengal, even for a while, may mean the Raj doesn't span the entire subcontinent. They may be more interested in securing their borders though, which could mean a more aggressive attitude towards Burma. Is there any way the Burmese could avoid that, perhaps through a treaty of alliance or something similar?

 

[Intransigent Southerner]

1) It seems the Chinese invasion was largely responsible for the Burmese pulling out troops. What sort of internal political changes within China would keep them from invading?

Very little. The Qing-Konbaung war was a frontier conflict that grew into a major conflict due to the Qianlong emperor's characteristic megalomania (same reason rivalries between a few Tibetan tribes ended up degenerating into one of the most expensive wars in Chinese history). Burmese sources aren't even sure why the Qing invaded.

Could they hold it long term or would it have to be spun off as a vassal which could be integrated more slowly?

Neither. As I said above, the example of Nanda Bayin shows that Burmese Thailand is simply not sustainable in any way. Even if the Konbaung rulers keep Thailand as a vassal, once Thailand recovers - and it certainly will, the economic factors of Chinese trade are too much in its favor - the balance of power will be too equal to allow Burma to keep controlling Thailand.

 

[Monarch]

Could Thailand have done the reverse and conquered Burma and become a regional power?

 

[GauchoBadger]

How can Kombaung Burma keep the territories it lost in the First Anglo-Burmese War (such as Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, eastern Shan, and Manipur)?

 

[raharris1973]

How did Siamese, Khmer, Vietnamese and Malay literacy rates compare to Burmese in this period? Heck, how about Chinese, Tibetan or Bengali?

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

I see a few mentions of how British Bengal is right there, but that makes me wonder what would happen if an Anglo-Burmese war broke out when the Konbaung Dynasty was at its peak in the 1760s. Qualitatively, how did the Burmese army compare to the army of the BEIC?