AHC: Provide foreign aid to the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857

[SPJ]

I am studying more about the Rebellion in India against the British East India company starting in 1857. As well as other wars involving the British Empire around that time in such as the First Anglo Afghan War, the First and Second Anglo-Sikh wars, Crimean war, Anglo-Persian War, 2nd Opium war, etc. With Britian having made so many enemies in Asia during this period I think I should be relatively easy to create a POD in which some enemy of the British decides to break whatever temporary alliance they had and provide aid to the Sepoys and other Indians fighting against The Company in India. I'm just not sure how the specifics might play out. I think it a POD involving one of the other wars mentioned would be best. As well as a POD the effects the timing of the Rebellion, either having it start sooner or later than OTL. So what PODs might lead to Russia, Persia, Afghanistan, the Qing, or any other government, to making the decision to send aid to the rebels in India?

I started thinking of this more after reading about Josiah Harlan and his time in India and Afghanistan. Part of me wonders if its plausible to create a TL in which he returns to the Afghanistan and helps convince Dost Mohammad Khan to send aid to the Sepoys

 

[LostInNewDelhi]

Funny thing is this era saw the peak of European stability, 1848 was on the rear-view mirror and France was working right alongside Britain in their Chinese wars. Aside from those two, who can project power in India? Prussia isn't a naval power, its commerce treaty with China was mostly for the benefit of the Hanseatic cities of the North German Confederation. No other Europeans have the ability either, much less the need. Russia is not even fully involved in Central Asia at this point, although it did in 1856 conclude the Crimean War with Britain and France-- but that war wiped out Russia's Black Sea naval infrastructure, if they mess with India they have a soft place for Britain to kick them. And the US was focused on internal improvements under the northern Democrats, who ironically replaced this emphasis with the slavery issue through the Kansas Nebraska Act, originally intended to quickly make these territories into states so a railroad could be built through them and instead creating the first shooting war between Americans over the transformational effects of slavery on society.

Basically the only one it can be is France, but if France opposes Britain who will take its side? Napoleon III was probably an Anglophile for other reasons but no doubt this occurred to him too. Could France turn its support for Muhammad Ali's Egypt into a more uncompromising attitude toward the Ottoman Empire, to the point of approving Austrian and Russian attacks on it? That would also require France to avoid antagonizing Austria by supporting Sardinia's expansion (1859-1861). How bad would Napoleon III's relations with Britain have to be (and the other French dynasties were birh much more Anglophilic) for him to put a confrontation with Britain over everything else? Could a different British government go out of its way to antagonize him?

That might be enough to get all of them to attack Britain together, but at this point Britain might back off and refuse to defend the Ottomans, unless Prussia joins on their side. And yes this basically recreates the Seven Years War plus Ottoman and maybe Indian theaters.

 

[Michael B]

Three reasons for no foreign aid.

1) The Royal Navy. Any power trying to deliver aid by sea is going to have to run the gauntlet of the Royal Navy. OK so it is not going to be organised to stop the first deliveries. However, when the Navy does it is not only going to inspect shipping going to India it is going to start to blockade the country in question. Tricky if far from Britian, but not impossible.

So you move it by land instead. Good luck here because the British have troops all over India and can intercept any serious attempt they learn of.

2) Who do you give it to? The mutineers with their lack of organisation.? The rajahs and ranis who did not weigh until the British had started to roll up the mutineers? You have to send peeople out to Indfia to find who to give it to then report back. Will take too long. Communications are by horse and ship not electrons on wires or through the ether.

3) Revenge. If you send a serious amount of aid the British are going to come after you. This is an era where Western powers resolve commercial disputes with non-Western powers by using miliitary force. Some places such as Afghanistan might but everyone else will be too wise too.

 

[LostInNewDelhi]

Three reasons for no foreign aid.

The third reason could just be dealt with by having superior military force to the British in the short term, and free trade capitalism doesn't mesh well with undying grudges-- Britain figured out a working relationship with the United States, as well as Prussia with its drive to annex Hanover.

The first two reasons are much more convincing-- the Royal Navy is very capable of intercepting seaborne aid, the French do not have a navy to match, and that assumes the aid is sent with a recipient in mind. The only option might be a very long Russian train through Afghanistan, but they haven't even subjugated Central Asia yet, pretty sure Bukhara, Khiva, and Kokand are still independent-- definitely the Turkmen raiders would be as well.

All right, it's just going to have to be a British Revolution then. RN in disarray and France sending aid just to have some rebel faction build a stable government around French Chandernagore.

 

[NedStark]

All right, it's just going to have to be a British Revolution then. RN in disarray and France sending aid just to have some rebel faction build a stable government around French Chandernagore.

The last chance for a British Revolution is 1828-1832, during which France also had its own revolutionary problems.

 

[LostInNewDelhi]

The last chance for a British Revolution is 1828-1832, during which France also had its own revolutionary problems.

I don't know, they didn't get welfare and universal suffrage until later in the century or the next century respectively, the timetable on those could be sped up with an insurrection.

Maybe a third US-British War plus Anglophobe France dividing up the Ottoman Empire with Russia. Polk gets more land in the Mexican American War, so then the US goes fifty-four-or-fight in Oregon to get more free states. Polk backed off and signed the current Oregon border in 1846, not wanting it to interrupt the Mexican war; but even after that there were disputes which could be escalated onto a full war.

Maximum stretching of the British military which now has to fight in two oceans plus the Med, and the greatest opportunity for defeat, bankruptcy, and insurrection in the wake of those disasters.

 

[Gannt the chartist]

I don't know, they didn't get welfare and universal suffrage until later in the century or the next century respectively, the timetable on those could be sped up with an insurrection.

Maybe a third US-British War plus Anglophobe France dividing up the Ottoman Empire with Russia. Polk gets more land in the Mexican American War, so then the US goes fifty-four-or-fight in Oregon to get more free states. Polk backed off and signed the current Oregon border in 1846, not wanting it to interrupt the Mexican war; but even after that there were disputes which could be escalated onto a full war.

Maximum stretching of the British military which now has to fight in two oceans plus the Med, and the greatest opportunity for defeat, bankruptcy, and insurrection in the wake of those disasters.

Basically nobody had welfare or universal suffrage until later in the century or 20th century. And the Mutiny is over by 1858, Britain was discussing universal suffrage from 1817 and the Great Reform Act is passed in 1832. Anglo US relations at no point after 1812 could have escalated to a war unless the US government choose one and immediately lose their merchant navym whaling fleets and cotton exports.

In 1857 when the Mutiny happens the main US consideration is Dred Scott followed by major financial crises. Getting New England to impoverish themselves in order to support Slaveocracy and Slaveocracy has no interest in Oregon at any point, its going to a free soil state and thats a bad thing unlike the prospect of adding new states south of the Mason Dixon line.

France at the time is not anglophobic, its a co belligerent with Britain in the Chinese war and by 1857 Prussia highly Anglophilic with Russia broke demoralised and in no position to intervene following the Crimean war ( where France is co belligerent with the UK). Support overland has the not so small issue that the Pathan tribes and Sikhs are sitting across the path and are vehemently pro British or anti Dehli.

 

[SPJ]

All these points make me consider again that changing the date of the rebellion would likely be best. If it starts sooner then maybe the Russians would find a way to ship supplies to some rebel groups. Then again, if the rebellion is delayed by several years then there might be more time for foreign powers to help stoke rebellion and supply cells of rebels before a rebellion starts.

I think the timing of when the rebellion starts can be influenced by PODs around the colonial administrator of India, James Broun-Ramsay, 1st Marquess of Dalhousie. Ramsey was authorities in his approach to administration, and during the 8 years he was in office he used the Doctrine of Lapse to annex 13 princely states in India. Which was one less than had been annexed since the doctrine was first used in 45 years before in 1803.

So perhaps a rebellion could start sooner by having Ramsey be even more authoritarian, annex more states, and allow even more Christian missionaries into India. Or rebellion may be delayed if he was instead replaced with another administrator who chose to have a more relaxed approach, and less willing to directly annex different princely states

 

[Michael B]

All these points make me consider again that changing the date of the rebellion would likely be best. If it starts sooner then maybe the Russians would find a way to ship supplies to some rebel groups. Then again, if the rebellion is delayed by several years then there might be more time for foreign powers to help stoke rebellion and supply cells of rebels before a rebellion starts.

What looks like one conflict is in fact two. The first one was the mutineer sepoys against the British. The second was the princely states against the British. The latter conflict was essentailly the second part of the War. Why the rajahs and ranis did not jump in what the British were initially in trouble but waited I don't know.

The first half of the War was essentially due to the British consolidating military service in India, ie becoming a monopsony for employing soliders. As the number of princely states dropped the alternative armies for sepoys to serve in dropped and the the British could more impose their own term. Sooner or later there was going to be a 'customer'revolt.

It would be easier for the Russians (or anyone else) to as suggested above supply rebel princely states than mutineer sepoys because they are easier to identify pre War. The problem is that if any rajah or rani takes arms from the Russians and the British find out they are going to get jumped on and lose their princely state. Moreover, their contemporaries are going to sit by and thank whatever diety they worship that they had not done the same.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

Honestly the more effective form of "foreign aid" would probably be through the Sikh Empire. Just avoid the assassination of Nau Nihal Singh and prevent the instability that followed after his death in otl and you have a strong regional power in India. I could see them join with the Indian Rebels and restore a weak Mughal state as a buffer in between the Sikh Empire and the British ruled India. Though I'm not sure if the Sikh empire would chose to side against the British during the rebellion.