AHQ: Could Britain have conquered all of India without the Industrial Revolution?

Could Britain conquer all of India without the Industrial Revolution happening?

  • Yes. British Raj goes as OTL.

    Votes: 28 45.2%
  • No. Britain only keeps outposts and trading ports.

    Votes: 30 48.4%
  • No. Britain is kicked off India by the Marathas or some Indian power.

    Votes: 4 6.5%

  • Total voters
    62
I know, the Industrial Revolution was bound to happen sometime or another with the situation set in stone, but let’s assume it never happens. Britain never industrialises.

The Industrial Revolution brought military advances that saw large swathes of India conquered in the late 18th and 19th centuries.

By 1900 AD, is India conquered by Britain?
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
Without industrial revolution,an OTL like conquest would be impossible unless they develop some confederation who'd invade the East. However,such conquests are incredibly bloody and possibly whole cities and regions would be depopulated. We've seen such conquests and they have been bloody.
*But* an industrial revolution not happening doesn't preclude a Scientific revolution which was a product of the renaissance(butterflying that is ASB). I don't know what you mean by Industrial here. Do you mean coal and gunpowder? Or does it include all other technologies like Solar? If not,then a scientific revolution that could improve could set a ground for a conquest violent as the OTL(Military casualties) but it would take shape better than OTL with a Solar powered colonies throught sunny India and yes,Indian populated regions would also be helped and benefited from.
 
Brits had quiet good grip from India already before industrialisation. India was too messy that they could defend itself. But conquest would be much slower.
 
The Industrial Revolution brought military advances that saw large swathes of India conquered in the late 18th and 19th centuries.
This is absolutely not true. In terms of military technology, Indian and EIC forces were at near-parity, and if there was a difference it was usually the Indian side that was superior. What the BEIC had going for it was organizational, economic, and naval superiority, which isn’t going away with no Industrial Revolution.

I do think the Raj would be much less stable without an Industrial Revolution, though.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
Okay,so shall we see how the British Empire goes around without a differently happening Industrial revolution?
 
doesn't conventional wisdom hold that India and industrialization went hand in hand? control over India, and it's markets, gave the prosperity to pay for the revolution, and the populous India gave a market for the goods of industry, which gave prosperity for more revolution, which sold the goods to a captive market, rinse and repeat.

Britain kicked France out in the seven years war, then went about consolidating control. They did it for the market, which then drove the revolution.

edit - what has to be remembered is that 'India' wasn't one homogeneous region, but rather a conglomeration of various kingdoms. Britain was able to use this to divide and conquer.
 
Could Britain conquer all of India without the industrial revolution?

No.

Without the Great Divergence, any gains would be temporary and soon lost again. OTL Ottoman Empire survived until 1918 even with the divergence. Without it, you can forget European colonialism altogether. The situation before the divergence was the near conquest of Europe by the Ottomans and constant raiding by their Barbary coast allies.

Any Mughal leader worthy of the name would be able to expel the British at will.
 
This is absolutely not true. In terms of military technology, Indian and EIC forces were at near-parity, and if there was a difference it was usually the Indian side that was superior. What the BEIC had going for it was organizational, economic, and naval superiority, which isn’t going away with no Industrial Revolution.

I do think the Raj would be much less stable without an Industrial Revolution, though.

Completely agree. The two things that really mattered were troop discipline and naval superiority. There were so many battles where the British managed to turn a victory into a rout or a defeat into a neutral result via bringing in reinforcements or evacuation respectively. Britain also had conquered the wealthiest province and other key strategic point by the 1760s. By the 1820s when industralisation started to properly take effect, the Brits were already dominant.
 
doesn't conventional wisdom hold that India and industrialization went hand in hand? control over India, and it's markets, gave the prosperity to pay for the revolution, and the populous India gave a market for the goods of industry, which gave prosperity for more revolution, which sold the goods to a captive market, rinse and repeat.

Britain kicked France out in the seven years war, then went about consolidating control. They did it for the market, which then drove the revolution.

edit - what has to be remembered is that 'India' wasn't one homogeneous region, but rather a conglomeration of various kingdoms. Britain was able to use this to divide and conquer.

Yep, it was that which allowed India to be conquered. Without the division Britian would have failed industrialization or not. In fact I doubt it would try to take on a united India.
 
No.

Without the Great Divergence, any gains would be temporary and soon lost again. OTL Ottoman Empire survived until 1918 even with the divergence. Without it, you can forget European colonialism altogether. The situation before the divergence was the near conquest of Europe by the Ottomans and constant raiding by their Barbary coast allies.

Any Mughal leader worthy of the name would be able to expel the British at will.
Eh, the Mughals were broken after Karnal and Nader Shah's sack of Delhi. Their authority was nominal in most of India and the Maratha played kingmaker until they too were broken. Waving away British industrialisation doesn't revitalise the Mughal Empire, unfortunately.

If the British could be repelled, it wouldn't have been by the Mughals.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
Eh, the Mughals were broken after Karnal and Nader Shah's sack of Delhi. Their authority was nominal in most of India and the Maratha played kingmaker until they too were broken. Waving away British industrialisation doesn't revitalise the Mughal Empire, unfortunately.

If the British could be repelled, it wouldn't have been by the Mughals.
By the time the British were getting a foothold,Mughals had been loosing relevance in India and the process was started by Aurangzeb. It's not possible for Mughals to do anything more by then but concede. Marathas on the other hand could conquer but holding them was a problem for them too. Before the British and the Mughals,Kushans were the last biggest unified Empire in India. India,due to its location,is a history dotted with empires of Immigrants since the Bronze age itself.
 
Other empires had conquered most of the subcontinent without any help from industrialization earlier. The industrial revolution as pointed out earlier didn't really take effect until after the British had consolidated their control over the sub-continent. If you are curious, the first military campaign in history where railroads were critical happened in 1859. There is a good argument that the success of the East India Company helped Britain industrialize, or at least industrialize first.
 
No.

Without the Great Divergence, any gains would be temporary and soon lost again. OTL Ottoman Empire survived until 1918 even with the divergence. Without it, you can forget European colonialism altogether. The situation before the divergence was the near conquest of Europe by the Ottomans and constant raiding by their Barbary coast allies.

Any Mughal leader worthy of the name would be able to expel the British at will.
OP asked about the Industrial Revolution, not the Great Divergence.
 
No way. Without their Industry (or India to help it grow) the British would not have been able to control the whole subcontinent for a lasting period of time. Granted, they still might conquer Bengal or another region in India, but without industrialization, I would hypothesize that Indian armies would be able to reform and reconquer what Britain had conquered previously. Best case scenario would maybe be they are able to take some regions, but not the whole thing. But IOTL, Bengal was the springboard that allowed them to continue their conquests as it was the richest Mughal province by far (at one time, this single province produced 12% of the entire world's GDP, and half of the Mughal Empire's). So maybe if they conquer another region, or if Bengal is already conquered by say, France, then no, the British wouldn't be able to take the whole subcontinent.
 

longsword14

Banned
I would hypothesize that Indian armies would be able to reform and reconquer what Britain had conquered previously
Problem is, Britain had a tight grip over the heart of the subcontinent before its industrial strength had become truly gigantic. Removing industrialisation does not change the fact that all potential opponents were only marginal.
 
Problem is, Britain had a tight grip over the heart of the subcontinent before its industrial strength had become truly gigantic. Removing industrialisation does not change the fact that all potential opponents were only marginal.
Yeah, but wasn't Britain's growing (albeit not totally dominant) industrial power a significant factor in the conquest of India? Surely without it, their conquests would have been slowed by a significant margin, or at the very least delayed a bit?
 

longsword14

Banned
Yeah, but wasn't Britain's growing (albeit not totally dominant) industrial power a significant factor in the conquest of India? Surely without it, their conquests would have been slowed by a significant margin, or at the very least delayed a bit?
Look at the campaigns of the Brothers Wellesley, they had no industrial advantage over their enemies. Britain's industrial lead became significant after it had gained a lot of OTL India.
 
control over India, and it's markets, gave the prosperity to pay for the revolution, and the populous India gave a market for the goods of industry, which gave prosperity for more revolution, which sold the goods to a captive market, rinse and repeat.

Britain kicked France out in the seven years war, then went about consolidating control. They did it for the market, which then drove the revolution.

Britain's main export markets during the first wave of the industrial revolution was America and Europe, not Asia.

Toward an Export Economy British Exports during the Industrial Revolution by François Crouzet said:
khsTjPk.jpg

(p.70)

Asia's importance to Great Britain as a market grew significantly with the end of the Napoleonic wars, and that was after Britain's industrial dominance became absolute.

Toward an Export Economy British Exports during the Industrial Revolution by François Crouzet said:
k9Vwnl6.jpg


FDddxnt.jpg

(pp.73-74)

Without the division Britian would have failed industrialization or not.

How so?
 
Well, I think the British had pretty firmly controlled Bengal subah by the time and a fair bit of the north by the time of the revolution- whether they could beat Mysore or the Marathas in the south is a different matter.
 
Top