To pick up on some to brain-storm further:
- I think we're agreed on an earlier wind-up of the EIC and an earlier British Raj. But how much earlier? If it happens before the 1840s, then the British don't hold all of India. Would that still lead to the same zest for conquest of the whole subcontinent?
Probably not much earlier. But I don't see what, as a direct consequence of the POD, prevents a conquest of most if not all the subcontinent
.
- American missionaries in India. Are they really going to go here rather than the American frontier? If they do, it will likely piss off the Indians a lot. An earlier Indian mutiny perhaps?
Difficult to say, butterflies are going to have huge effects here. However, probably not. The Mutiny was a "perfect storm" in my opinion. They may be more diffuse resistance with several small uprisings as opposed to one single big revolt.
- American entrepreneurs: Would they go to India? If they're backed by British gunboats, it would seem like Latin America is the easier bet. Do you really think a lot would go?
Latin America depends on the consequences on Spain, which in turn depend a lot on what forms TTL's *French Revolution takes. Some Americans might go to India, but probably will not have a major impact there overall. If Latin America is unwelcoming, they might take interest in West Africa.
- Where could the British have annexed more in Africa? If they were aware they were money sinks, why did they bother with places like Kenya and Nigeria?
Private companies (who did not believe in the "money sink" thing), rivalry with France, prestige. For Kenya, strategical reasons related in a roundabout way to the defence of the route to India.
- What's your rationale for not great numbers going to Africa? It seems to me like American dominions would have a lot more of the imperialist propaganda Britain saw, and a lot more white people would be inspired by it. Especially if they know how to farm already.
Again, there's a century of butterflies here. Hard to assess.
- China is very interesting to me. Could the *British Empire push the other powers out here, as they did in India?
Difficult, and little need to. Depends also on what happens to Southest Asian European colonies.
How deep could penetration go? It seems to me Chinese nationalism is a much more tangible force than Indian nationalism in the 19th Century, and I can't figure out whether that would stop things or not.
Indian nationalism is largely a consequence of British rule. I don't know enough about Chinese nationalism, but I guess you are right that it is going to be a force earlier. To me, the point is that China is a unitary and functional state, which as such could respond to British meddling in an organized and sort of coherent way regardless of "nationalism". This is going to make any British attempt to outright conquest problematic. OTOH, Britain may acquire a larger economic dominance over Chine ITTL.
- I never knew about Raffles and the Dutch East Indies. Do you have any sources on it?
Not on the web. I was going upon memory based on the outdated "History of South East Asia" by Hall. Basically, it says that Raffles acted as a governor for British-occupied Jawa between 1810 and 1815. He had some grand plans there that promised a lot, but by 1815 he had nothing to show for all money invested there. Whitehall was happy to hand the island back to the Dutch, since they had not proved to be profitable, in addition to general foreign policy reasons.
Raffles was very vocally against it. He was convinced (not without reason) that Indonesia could be turned into a very profitable British possession if sufficient time and investment were provided. It seems to me that in Britain there was a feeling that it was too much to handle. This might change if America is on board, but on the other hand, as noted, there could be no British takeover to begin with.
Thanks a lot. This is really helping me form my opinions better.