https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kala_pani_%28taboo%29
That might be a bit of an issue. There's also the reason of simply why would they want to colonise Africa? The Swahili seem better as trading partners rather than a people to rule over. Somalia is nothing but a colossal headache for anyone trying to colonise it. Madagascar has effectively nothing to offer. The rest of East Africa is full of peoples who can mount a major resistance effort (Zulu and their predecessors). And not to mention, that corner of South Africa is too close to the Cape and Portuguese Mozambique which already was under European control. And any place outside of East Africa is rather ridiculous.
Further, the Maratha Empire if I recall was rather decentralised (the other name in English for it, Maratha Confederacy, should give a clue), which might pose a severe challenge for modernisation efforts. And they also lacked the infrastructure and organisation of society which medieval and early modern Japan had that allowed Japan to modernise in the manner it did.
Errr.....If you read Pommeranz (who cites Parthasarathi) you would see that India was not as developed as East Asia. Pommeranz repeats this numerous times, so I'm a bit dubious how well you know his book.Read thebooks on greatdivergence I am personally a supporter of the pommeranz parthasarathi and the california school of historians.
TBut lets say that isn't Oman who does that, lets say it's Gujarat instead. Gujarat were a muslim state in india, who fought the portuguese with the help of the ottomans and the mamluks much like Oman did and would have the same motive in taking the fight to africa.
Unfortunately the Sultanate of Gujarat no longer existed when Oman cleansed the Portuguese from the coast.
If you make a POD to have Gujarat resist the Gurkanis then the Maratha rise to power will probably be butterflied away.
My POD would have been a Gujarat victory at diu (either 1547, 1538 or 1509) having the same effect as the omani/ottoman victory at muscat 150 years later.
That (especially 1547 and 1538) would wank the Ottomans (who were far more invested in East Africa) moreso than the Gujaratis.
I never said india was as developed as east asi. I said India was very developed during the 17th and 18th centuries, that is all. So yes I have read his book. The problem with India is that space, geography, lack of homognoity and focus on village vs city culture made it next to impossible for any ruler of a united India to centralize the state in any meaningful way. This does not mean industrialization is not possible. Perhaps what should happen is that Marathas manage to be much more succesful and prior to british foothold in Bengal take care of their major thrats the nizam of hyderabad and the afghans. Once that happens lets have butterfly effect lead tot he british not winning in Bengal in 1757 and they are unable to gain a foothold on the continent. In such a situation I can defiantly see that by the 1800s an india that is nominally lead by the mughal empire but controlled by the marathas and their allies that is able to beat back the Durrannis, be too large a state for the British to conquer and in the worst case India simply goes through a situation analogous to China leading to a revolution that establishes republican government following technological and ideological diffusion with the west as in the case of China. Have you read his books I wonder, if so and rourke is another good author though he does differ from cali school somewhat, that India and China together were the centers of the world economy till the 1800s. So no they were developed just bad luck, decentralization, and a combination of endogenous and exogenous shocks striking these countries simultaneously screwed them.Errr.....If you read Pommeranz (who cites Parthasarathi) you would see that India was not as developed as East Asia. Pommeranz repeats this numerous times, so I'm a bit dubious how well you know his book.
Yet centralization is exactly what Mysore did with the asaf tukris and whatnot.The problem with India is that space, geography, lack of homognoity and focus on village vs city culture made it next to impossible for any ruler of a united India to centralize the state in any meaningful way.
And that would still not be industrialization. It would mean a non-British India (assuming the Marathas don't go all centrifugal).This does not mean industrialization is not possible. Perhaps what should happen is that Marathas manage to be much more succesful and prior to british foothold in Bengal take care of their major thrats the nizam of hyderabad and the afghans.
They were economic centers (though China was still far ahead of India), but that does not mean they were equally developed.India and China together were the centers of the world economy till the 1800s. So no they were developed just bad luck, decentralization, and a combination of endogenous and exogenous shocks striking these countries simultaneously screwed them.
I think you're joking...but Xinjiang was not Chinese in an economic sense. North China, which is actually economically part of China, was more developed than their Indian (or European) counterparts.Also why focus on yangtze, you point to yangtze and Ill point to xiniang as examples of udnerdevelopment.
No, they weren't on par. There is general consensus that the Qing Chinese were the most commercialized large agricultural economy in the Early Modern world.if you look at china as a whole it was roughly on par with india in development
The interior developed rapidly in the High Qing, while, as you note, the lower Yangtze was already saturated with people. Meanwhile large segments of Bengal itself remained underdeveloped.the chinese interior was underdeveloped.
Mysore centralized because it was small and compact. indian textiles were as complex and well developed in terms of the manufacturing industry as China this is a given. It was Indian cotton that dominated the European markets during the 17th, and 18th centuries and was the catalyst for the trade protectionist barriers set up by Britain and France. China was mainly relied upon for porcleans and tea, silk as well those were its major exports alongside rhubarb. In terms of agricultural development I will concede that Chinese agricultural development was slightly ahead of the Indian one but it was not that large when one looks at the output of foodstuffs in the ganges delta or along the major agricultural regions in India. The thing india lacked was that unlike China which was unified and the different regions from the pear river delta to the yangtze and the north china plain could contribute to the central states resources in terms of agricultural development and spread tech diffusion meant they enjoyed a considerable advantage over their fragmented Indian counterparts.Yet centralization is exactly what Mysore did with the asaf tukris and whatnot.
And that would still not be industrialization. It would mean a non-British India (assuming the Marathas don't go all centrifugal).
They were economic centers (though China was still far ahead of India), but that does not mean they were equally developed.
I think you're joking...but Xinjiang was not Chinese in an economic sense. North China, which is actually economically part of China, was more developed than their Indian (or European) counterparts.
No, they weren't on par. There is general consensus that the Qing Chinese were the most commercialized large agricultural economy in the Early Modern world.
The interior developed rapidly in the High Qing, while, as you note, the lower Yangtze was already saturated with people. Meanwhile large segments of Bengal itself remained underdeveloped.
Around 1750 Jiangnan produced more cotton per capita than Britain produced any textile per capita. I am unsure how much Indian cotton dominance was due to its superiority rather than India being closer and generally freer to Europeans.indian textiles were as complex and well developed in terms of the manufacturing industry as China this is a given. It was Indian cotton that dominated the European markets during the 17th, and 18th centuries and was the catalyst for the trade protectionist barriers set up by Britain and France. China was mainly relied upon for porcleans and tea, silk as well those were its major exports alongside rhubarb.
And yet Chinese population densities were far higher than Indian ones, especially before 1800 (also note that despite this, the Chinese were not particularly more susceptible to famine). This suggests significantly greater agricultural development.In terms of agricultural development I will concede that Chinese agricultural development was slightly ahead of the Indian one but it was not that large when one looks at the output of foodstuffs in the ganges delta or along the major agricultural regions in India.
The regions in china that were more developed agriculturally than the indian counterparts are guandong, fujian, zhejiang, anhui, jiangsu and shangdong.
Alright here is a good paper by kevin H rourke on the great divergence beetween India and Britain. combined bengal, surat, and madras exported to Europe 936,000 pieces of cotton by 1790. Oh and it is by Gupta and Broadberry both of whoom do not support parthasarthis conclusions so they are a bit more objective when it comes to south asia. COnclusion is textile manufacturing in terms of cotton in selected indian regions as if not more advanced than quivelent cotton manufacturing in CHina though in terms of silk china produced more.Around 1750 Jiangnan produced more cotton per capita than Britain produced any textile per capita. I am unsure how much Indian cotton dominance was due to its superiority rather than India being closer and generally freer to Europeans.
And yet Chinese population densities were far higher than Indian ones, especially before 1800 (also note that despite this, the Chinese were not particularly more susceptible to famine). This suggests significantly greater agricultural development.
I might be more inclined to believe you if you show me an Indian counterpart to Huguang.