AHC: Have China conquer India.

Britain also had superior technology to the Indians which was a definite boost.

Not particularly. As the other chap said their main advantage was organisational i.e. placing emphasis on drilled infantry who could advance into fire. Technology-wise, Indian armies often had heavier, more extensive and more sophisticated artillery batteries than their Company counterparts- the problem was that with the emphasis placed on artillery, the infantry tended to lack the training to stand under fire- simplistically this meant that Company infantry could advance into fire, scatter the enemy infantry and then take the powerful but now unprotected cannon.

Britain essentially took advantage of a sweet spot- earlier, Indian states had been able to play the British off against the French but the Napoleonic Wars cut off French contact with India. As a result the British had a clear playing field. At the time the concept of disciplined infantry in Indian armies tended to be limited to elite units. One suspects that given twenty or so years more of French presence in India, Indian armies might have been able to fully adopt this new doctrine. However, Britain found itself without a counterbalance early enough to dominate the subcontinent.
 
Well Britain did it without much difficulty so I don't see why in another world the Chinese couldn't. But it would only be temporary.

Look at what Flocc said below. Additionally, the British controlled India only with the tacit acceptance of the native Indian ruling class (which included my family). The elites of India accepted the British for many years, which was how the British were able to control India. As the story of Indian independence demonstrates, as soon as the Indian elite turned against the British, continued British colonization became inviable.

That's how a country of 30 million (at that time) was able to control a subcontinent of 700 million people. The same restrictions apply to the Chinese. India is just too big to swallow up. You can't control that many people and that much land without the acceptance of the elite. Additionally, India has a recurring habit of swallowing up invaders into Indian culture. The Indo-Aryans, the Muslims, the Christians of St. Thomas, the British; all were, to an extent, swallowed into Indian culture. It's not a chance happening that the most popular restaurant dish in the UK is chicken tikka masala.

And finally, what Flocc said.

Not particularly. As the other chap said their main advantage was organisational i.e. placing emphasis on drilled infantry who could advance into fire. Technology-wise, Indian armies often had heavier, more extensive and more sophisticated artillery batteries than their Company counterparts- the problem was that with the emphasis placed on artillery, the infantry tended to lack the training to stand under fire- simplistically this meant that Company infantry could advance into fire, scatter the enemy infantry and then take the powerful but now unprotected cannon.

Britain essentially took advantage of a sweet spot- earlier, Indian states had been able to play the British off against the French but the Napoleonic Wars cut off French contact with India. As a result the British had a clear playing field. At the time the concept of disciplined infantry in Indian armies tended to be limited to elite units. One suspects that given twenty or so years more of French presence in India, Indian armies might have been able to fully adopt this new doctrine. However, Britain found itself without a counterbalance early enough to dominate the subcontinent.
 
Top