AHC: India is to Britain, as the Byzantines were to Rome

There are certain elements that define the relationship that Rome had with its Hellenic territory in the Byzantine or Eastern Roman Empire. The Byzatine Empire, despite being conquered by Rome and its population, or at least the ruling classes, regarding themselves as Romans, was heavily Hellenic in nature. Furthermore, Greek culture was very influential in Roman society. Finally, even during the times when the empire was nominally unified, the Hellenic east was very influential in its governance.

Is it possible to create the same, or at least a similar relationship between Britain and India. I assume that the PoD(s) for this would have to go pretty far back and would require fundamentally changing British, if not European, attitudes to colonialism.

Minimum goals

  • The British in India embrace Indian customs. (not that difficult as I believe that was the state of affairs before the Mutiny and the end of company rule)
  • Indian culture gains a wide degree of respectability in British high society.
  • The British Raj or its ATL equivalent uses an Indian language for administration. (I believe that the Netherlands used a native language for the administration of Indonesia, but I might be wrong).
Intermediate goals

  • Britain has an Indian Prime Minister.
  • Britain's Asian territories are subordinated to the Raj or the ATL equivalent. Bonus points if it includes British East Africa.
  • India, or a significant part of it, is still under British rule, or there is at least one significant successor state that recognises a significant degree of continuity with Britain. Bonus points if the head of state is a British Monarch.
  • Indian culture gains widespread respectability amongst the British middle-classes.
  • Some degree of intermarrying between the British and Indian upper classes. Bonus points if there is little to no stigma to intermarriage between Britons and Indians.
  • The British Raj or ATL equivalent is able to significantly lobby the British government on imperial policy.
  • The Indian ruling classes see themselves as British/Anglo-Indian first, although they may remain largely Indian in culture.

Hard goals

  • Britain ruled by an Anglo-Indian Monarch.
  • Widespread intermarriages between the British and Indian upper classes. Bonus points if intermarriage between Britons and Indians is encouraged.
  • A British government is expelled from the British Isles due to unrest or invasion and re-establishes itself in India and vows to reunify the Empire. Alternatively a civil war for control of the Empire results in one of the contending factions controlling India. Bonus points if they can retake the home islands.
  • Indian culture gains some degree of influence with the white working classes.
  • Some sort of dual power system between Britain and India a la the Eastern and Western Roman Empires or the Austro-Hungarian Dual Monarchy.
  • Britain's Pacific territories (Australia, New Zealand Papua New Guinea, Pacific Islands, and any other territories they might control ITTL) are under India's administration/sphere of influence.
  • Significant portions of India's population regard themselves as British/Anglo-Indian first.
  • India is able to industrialise and an Indian bourgeoisie plays a significant role in the political economy of the Empire.
 
Last edited:
Unless India turns into a dominion, or remove racism towards Indians, this would not happen. An Anglo-Indian viceroy would be possible, but not a king. Take note that the relationship between Rome and the Byzantines is more different than Britain and India since Rome and Byzantine are two separate countries and India was a colony of Britain
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Unless India turns into a dominion, or remove racism towards Indians, this would not happen. An Anglo-Indian viceroy would be possible, but not a king. Take note that the relationship between Rome and the Byzantines is more different than Britain and India since Rome and Byzantine are two separate countries and India was a colony of Britain
British racism actually got worse in the latter half of the nineteenth century, so presumably you could have it not do that and that would get rid of the racism objection.
 
Take note that the relationship between Rome and the Byzantines is more different than Britain and India since Rome and Byzantine are two separate countries and India was a colony of Britain

Well, of course the Romano-Byzantine relationship and the British-Indian relationship is completely different. But Rome and Byzantine (assuming you mean the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire) were never "two separate countries," rather the latter was a direct continuation of the former.
 
A good start would be to somehow make India into a majority-Christian country. There would still be massive cultural differences to be overcome, but this would at least remove one of them, and *maybe* make people on both sides more willing to associate/intermingle with one another.
 
I always thought that the analogy was Rome (then Constantinople) and Egypt for Britain and India rather than between Rome and Constantinople.
 
probably one of the preliminary is to have the local british "go native".

If they start to identify more with where they live, or better yet, where they were born, you might start to see some tension as they demand for more autonomy. If the homeland plays its card disastrously bad, this could escalate into a war of independence with the anglo-indian ending in control of all asian territories.

Breaking off however would not necessarily mean turning their back on the british system but it could be tweaked to local reality.
 
Basically do you mean Peshawar Lancers?

I think that Britain did use local languages. They first used Persian - the royal court language - and then they used Urdu.
 
This is a very hard AHC, almost impossible.

Your biggest problem here is not religion really (although this might help smooth some aspects over) but race. By the middle of the 19th century scientific ideas about race were becoming more widespread in England, with non-white races being seen as inferior. Admittedly not everyone thought this way, but it was a major barrier.

But even before this race and "otherness" was a key barrier to intermixing. Whilst British officers and administrators often enjoyed going out and playing the "big chief", particularly in more rural areas of the Raj, the fear of going native or "jungly" as it was called was ever-present. Britishness and Indianness (or more accurately regional Indian identity) were seen as incompatible for many even though some small scale mixing in the Anglo-Indian community did occur.

But I do like a challenge so here are some thoughts on how some of your criteria could be met:

Minimum goals

The British in India embrace Indian customs. (not that difficult as I believe that was the state of affairs before the Mutiny and the end of company rule)
Indian culture gains a wide degree of respectability in British high society

Going to lump these together - hard (see my bit above) to do. It depends what you mean by respect - some aspects of Indian culture did continue to fascinate the Victorians, but respectability is a very loaded term. Its easy to respect a foreign brahmin as an exotic priest but having him as, say, a potential brother in law? Whole different issue.

The British Raj or its ATL equivalent uses an Indian language for administration. (I believe that the Netherlands used a native language for the administration of Indonesia, but I might be wrong).

Tough because British policy in India increasingly came to be a matter of splitting racial and cultural groups - divide and rule sort of thing. A lot of colonial administrators were multi-lingual too. But there is no "Indian" language as the Raj incorporated a vast amount of land and peoples. You could maybe get an administration that was multi-lingual, but in any British led administration English would be the common tongue.

Intermediate goals

Britain has an Indian Prime Minister

How do you feel about someone like Rajani Palme Dutt? He was a rising star on the British left - if you had him stay with Labour, rather than be seduced by the appeal of Moscow, he might end up a potential party leader. Then again, he was half-Indian only and I'm not sure how "Indian" he considered himself to be...

Britain's Asian territories are subordinated to the Raj or the ATL equivalent. Bonus points if it includes British East Africa.

This is, actually, quite achievable. At various times Burma, Malaya etc were run from Calcutta (admin centre of the Raj) so its not inconceivable that wider areas could be folded in. Maybe through some of the Armed Forces reshuffled that happens post Boer War? Although here you would need a reason why Calcutta is chosen over Singapore or Hong Kong.

India, or a significant part of it, is still under British rule, or there is at least one significant successor state that recognises a significant degree of continuity with Britain. Bonus points if the head of state is a British Monarch.

Well before independence the Monarch was the head of state of India, so if you butterfly independence somehow (or instead follow a dominion or home rule agenda) then that would still be the case.

Indian culture gains widespread respectability amongst the British middle-classes.

Depends what part of Indian culture you want. Remember that Indian culture is in no way one definable thing, even now, and the Raj incorporates a much wider area than the Indian state today. Curry was already a major part of British life in the mid 19th century (although it bore little direct resemblance to authentic Indian food). You could easily have a middle-class trend - by the late 1890s British consumer taste is a huge force. Look at how popular "Japanese" things (clothes, art, ornaments) were in the UK after Britain signed the naval agreement with Japan.

Some degree of intermarrying between the British and Indian upper classes. Bonus points if there is little to no stigma to intermarriage between Britons and Indians.

Much, much, much harder. As above, the race barrier is key here. You're asking to sweep away millennia of xenophobia. Remember there were people who hated (literally HATED) the idea that Prince Albert was a German and he was still a "civilised European".

The British Raj or ATL equivalent is able to significantly lobby the British government on imperial policy.

Seeing as the Raj admin did lobby Westminster extensively in our time period, any devolved "India" would have little trouble doing the same, as long as their interests are in tandem.

The Indian ruling classes see themselves as British/Anglo-Indian first, although they may remain largely Indian in culture.

Back to the race thing I'm afraid. Best you could get would be a developing colonial identity such as was emerging in Canada, Australia, etc in the early 1900s where people were slowly starting to see themselves as Canadian or Australian first and British second. Maybe if you increased the British population in India, and had them stay longer term on a personal level (remember many went back every couple of years and most children of colonial families were sent back to boarding school in Britain if their parents could afford) you might get a more developed settler class, but that identity would always be Anglo-Indian rather than Indian as Indian people might see it. Plus again we're back to there being no such thing as "Indian" for much of the period.


Hard goals

Britain ruled by an Anglo-Indian Monarch.

For me this is impossible. Back to the race thing. Best you could have is Britain ruled by a monarch who has been part of the Anglo-Indian community. But he/she would not be mixed race.

Widespread intermarriages between the British and Indian upper classes. Bonus points if intermarriage between Britons and Indians is encouraged.

As above so below.

A British government is expelled from the British Isles due to unrest or invasion and re-establishes itself in India and vows to reunify the Empire. Alternatively a civil war for control of the Empire results in one of the contending factions controlling India. Bonus points if they can retake the home islands.

This is potentially possible (Hello Kaiserreich!) but you'd have to have a convincing POD that explained why India was picked over Canada. An Imperial Civil War would make for an interesting timeline, but it would almost certainly be a central authority vs independence type of struggle.

Indian culture gains some degree of influence with the white working classes.

See the middle-class question. Not too hard. But depends what you mean by Indian culture. Food - easy. Religion - tough. You might have more influence if you had more Indian migration to Britain earlier - say in the 1880s or 1890s (plenty of famine in India to push this), although this goes hand in hand with racial tension as well.

Some sort of dual power system between Britain and India a la the Eastern and Western Roman Empires or the Austro-Hungarian Dual Monarchy.

Hard. Why would Whitehall relinquish control? Best you can hope for, I think, is devolved power.

Britain's Pacific territories (Australia, New Zealand Papua New Guinea, Pacific Islands, and any other territories they might control ITTL) are under India's administration/sphere of influence.

Maybe an economic sphere of influence as India grows into a powerhouse economy, but still the relationship would be more "first among brothers"

Significant portions of India's population regard themselves as British/Anglo-Indian first.

Depends on how you handle the settler question but also how you handle the emerging wave of Indian nationalism. Your choice of POD would lead to varied outcomes here.

India is able to industrialise and an Indian bourgeoisie plays a significant role in the political economy of the Empire.

Arguably figures like J N Tata were already doing this, so this is easy to achieve!

Hope this helps. Sorry it was so long, got carried away!
 
Last edited:

Thanks for all of this.

I think there might be a number of changes that could make it more plausible. First, and least likely, having Nestorian Christianity make greater inroads in India, in particular in the East where British influence began, and among the ruling classes. This would have a number of effects that would benefit a more integrated approach to India. Firstly, it would help to establish a more sympathetic view of at least some Indians during the earlier, more religiously driven, period of colonialism. Secondly, it would create a pool of potential interracial marriages that would be, if not acceptable at least not unthinkable, and would help establish a greater precedent for intermarriage between Britons and Indians. Thirdly, it might mean more stable British rule, at least in areas where Christianity is already a part of the religious and cultural milieu, and more success for Catholic and Anglican missionaries in India. This does, however, throw up a huge swarm of butterflies.

The rise of "scientific" racism would certainly pose a problem, but I think there are a number of ways of changing its impact on British colonialism, by limiting its influence and altering it. In terms of limiting it, it might be possible to have the British intelligentsia be more hostile to scientific racism (whilst still viewing Europe and Britain as superior on cultural and religious grounds I don't want this to be totally ASB).

As I understand it there was some degree of hostility to these ideas in the early 1800s, with many viewing it as an attempt to justify re-establishing slavery. It shouldn't be too hard to strengthen this hostility. The Church could condemn it as godless Darwinism, the Royal Society could condemn it as not understanding Darwinism, and a greater emphasis placed on the "civilising" mission of British colonialism. Maybe even have a British equivalent of Lusotropicalism and Pluricontinentalism develop (One Nation Imperialism?).

Furthermore, I remember reading somewhere that some of the early critics of European colonialism opposed it on racist grounds, namely that non-Europeans were inherently inferior and therefore any attempt to civilise them was both a fools errand and a waste of European time and resources. If this aspect could be played up, it might force the colonial lobby to embrace a more universalistic and cosmopolitan view.

In terms of altering scientific racism, might it be possible to play up the idea that Indians, or at least certain Indian races and upper castes, are Aryan in nature. This would help secure the support and sympathy of the native elites (generally speaking telling people that they are naturally superior to others is a good way to get them to like you), maybe even getting them to identify with the empire, whilst also allowing the British to play their divide and rule games, in this case between the Indo-European speaking north and the Dravidian south. This also means that the British don't have to make an ASB 180 degree turn on racial attitudes, as they could still see Africans and southern Indians as inferior.

Another potential PoD might be the Sepoy Rebellion. During the uprising the British press was swept up in a storm of racism and jingoism that likely had long term implications on the British view of Indians. Furthermore, the brutal repression of the rebels likely would have set back any positive view of the British within Indian society. Crucially, in the aftermath of the rebellion the British government took direct control of the Indian colonies from the British East India Company, which led to some fundamental changes in administration. Most notably, during the period of company rule it was fairly common for the British traders and administrators in India to embrace Indian culture and customs, even taking Indian lovers. With the end of company rule the government cracked down on this sort of fraternisation, and enforced a degree of separation between Brits and the natives. If the rebellion can be prevented, or diplomatically resolved before it becomes the huge clusterfuck it was IOTL, then that might prevent that change in circumstances. As a result, Brits going native might be, if not acceptable, at least accepted as just how things are done in India. Furthermore, a diplomatic resolution to the Mutiny could lay the foundations for a more equitable balance of power between Westminster and Calcutta. This, of course, would kick up a storm of butterflies.

Finally, if Britain were to suffer a major setback in their other colonial spheres, might that force them to build up and better integrate India? Say if they lost Canada in the War of 1812 (unlikely but just for the sake of the argument), the British South Africa Company's attempts to expand British control are a total disaster (and Cecil Rhodes dies a broken and bankrupt pauper in abject poverty :D), and the Portuguese are able to establish their coast to coast colonial ambitions in southern Africa. The failure of Rhodes in particular might serve as a condemnation of his vision of a white supremacist settler colony, and a vindication of the Indian model that was built on co-opting and integrating native elites.
 
Roman culture and Greek culture was almost interchangeable to a great extent.The people from both cultures recognized each other as civilized folks.This was clearly not the case between the British and the Indians.The Greeks of the Empire saw themselves as citizens,and was recognized as such when the Empire granted most of the citizenship.This will never be the case to India.
 

Glad to be of help!

I think its a really interesting idea - are you thinking of doing a timeline on it? I would love to read that...

Couple of points:

I think actually what you want is maybe a Nestorian community that enters into a union with the Anglican Church. Its about making them part of the establishment as much as making them Christian. Remember Britain is increasingly religiously tolerant in this period but intermarriage is, as you observe, tough!

You aren't wrong about the Indian Rebellion of 1857, but one of the consequences of this was, as you say, more direct British Government control. It was the post 1857 Raj that laid the basis for a modern Indian state(s) and in your timeline you would need to find a way for the Company to reform and modernise without this takeover. By 1857 the East India Company was a little old-fashioned and poorly organised in comparison with its heyday. Not saying this couldn't be changed of course!

I don't think you need total colonial collapse in Canada or anything - Britain focused a huge proportion of resources on India anyway. You don't need a major political POD for what you are looking for - which is essentially a cultural and social change in attitudes to underpin future political change.

You would need to settle the Irish Home Rule issue though - maybe making Home Rule pass? The British were anxious about allowing more freedom in India because of what this might trigger in Ireland. A more Empire-focused Britain would help - maybe worth thinking about Joseph Chamberlain and his tariff reform program here?

Plus actually, looking back over my post, the main thing you need to tackle is not scientific racism as much as good old-fashioned "I hate you because you are different" racism. Maybe, as you said, more English migrants in India and Anglo-Indians but also, as I suggested, more Indian migrants (of all social classes - if you want to truly affect change across Britain) in the late 19th century would help here.
 
British racism actually got worse in the latter half of the nineteenth century, so presumably you could have it not do that and that would get rid of the racism objection.

I don't think the people got more racist. It's just the demographics of the people that went out there later became skewed to more racist groups. Under the Company it was often the urban poor who couldn't get into the British Army, combined with second and third sons of the gentry who were willing to face a lot of risk and do disreputable stuff to get rich quick. These people couldn't give a damn about race, and were quite happy to bed the local women. Under the Raj, they were elite families from Britain, with very clear mentalities of societal hierarchy, social status and lineage. Often the women, who traded on status more than wealth, were the most racist ones.
 
Roman culture and Greek culture was almost interchangeable to a great extent.The people from both cultures recognized each other as civilized folks.This was clearly not the case between the British and the Indians.The Greeks of the Empire saw themselves as citizens,and was recognized as such when the Empire granted most of the citizenship.This will never be the case to India.

Edmund Burke admired the Indians as a more ancient civilization than Britain. Perhaps you could get his ideas to spread more?
 
Huge problems with setting this up but one starting point I was thinking about would be for the EIC and Clive to agree to support the Mughals in return for the Diwani (tax collecting) rights they got after Plassey in any case (1st important PoD)

The EIC then grows by proxy with the Mughal Emperor being mostly a company figurehead.Most of India is eventually unifoed under a resurgent Mughal - EIC state and they displace the French and others from India.

Britain continues to recieve larges amounts of money from the EIC (unlike OTL where the EIC continually needed bailing out). EIC officials are much more integrated with the Indian elite (as they were pre 19th century). A number of Indian princes set up homes in UK - a few are even granted honours in the UK and Ireland.

Racism still exists in the UK but is qualified by the Mughals being "our" Indians.

2nd Important PoD - Both of William IV legitimate daughters survive childhood long enough for Victoria to be seen as redundant to the succession. One actually lives long enough to be Queen Charlotte.

Victoria meets up with a Mughal prince and much to the scandal of the court, they are married in 1840 and reside in England. Both of Williams daughter die from cholera in 1842.

Victoria becomes Queen of United Kingdom and eventually Empress of India. Their Anglo-Indian family is large and eventiually a compromise is made dividing the personal union with the elder branch ruling the UK and the junior branch ruling India and the surrounding British Empire possessions.

Eventually racist tendencies reduce, at least towards Anglo-Indians (and indeed towards Indo-Anglicans in Dehli) and at the elite level there is more of an acceptance of Indian nobility being on a par with UK (or at least Irish ;)).

Postulate a worse WW1 for UK and a communist inspired government takes over in the aftermath of a defeat / lack of victory in 1919. The main line of the Royal Family is wiped out as per the Tsar in Russia by revolutionaries leaving the cadet branch as the heirs. Supported by monarchists in the UK and the other dominions, Indian troops eventually intervene (with the help of the mostly loyalist RN) and restore parliamentary monarchy in the UK with the "Indian" Emperor as the constitutional monarch.

Very far fetched - I agree. More far fetched than the ruling house of Hannover becoming Kings of England due to a marriage years earlier - not so sure.
 
Last edited:
Arguably we have a TL on here which pulled this off in a rather convincing way.
Fight and be Right by EDT
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=94562

Whilst what you describe TECHNICALLY doesn't happen, but there are interesting parallels.
Namely, the Federation of Workers Republics is essentially what would happen if the British Empire rather than just Great Britain herself became "Syndicalist". It is an international federation which (in truth) is ruled from Britain but is slowly being more and more controlled by the Indian Workers Republic as it becomes more economically and militarily superior to the other states in the federation.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
I like @Derek Pullems approach regarding the tax laws, but I think we could see something very interesting happen.

I think the most interesting thing that could happen with a "Anglo-Mughal restoration" would be the deal-making it would require in the UK.

One interesting solution I can see is that a union is made between the Mughals and the House of Hanover.

By this I mean that a daughter of higher standing within the Mughals is married to Edward, OTL's Duke of York and Albany - and that he is named Nawab of Bengal, Bihar and Odisha, and (this may be pushing it) - have the Mughals name the eldest son of that union the heir of the Mughal Empire.

It sounds a bit daft (arguably it is) - but this would create the House of Hanover-Bahadur.

Now it would require some interesting decisions in London when they hear of the war - perhaps an ATL Edward who has a fascination with India and the Company. (He is said to have not kept the most upright company).

After that, a bit of dynastic trickery/unfortunate accidents/circumstances, and you could see a member of the House Hanover-Bahadur being the best claimant to the throne of the Mughals, and the British Empire.

I think it'd be interesting to see a cadet branch of the family in charge, because they'd have an interest in a prosperous, and pliant India, and so India would still be an economic powerhouse - with a very strong relationship (and later unification) with the British - with probably a slightly less skewed relationship between them.

Plus, it'd be badass to be able to claim to be descended from Timur, Genghis Khan, and various European Badasses.
 
Top