Anglo-Chinese relations if no British Raj

If Great Britain had not secured India in the 1759-1818 timeframe for whatever reason (crushing defeat at Plassy, the French militarily not expelled from India after 7 Years War leaving Britain to take out the India states one by one without European intervention, whatever), how would this affect Britain's (and to a lesser extent, the rest of the European Powers) attempt to force open China's markets?

Would the weakened British Empire fight harder or would the defeat in India force them to change tactics to a more conciliatory negotiating style?

Would Britain even attempt strongarm tactics (the Opium War)after losing the Americas and failing to overrun India?

Would "colonialism" be a dead idea by this point (Britain, France and Spain having lost most of their empires by OTL Opium War)?

COULD Britain (without a forward base of India and the associated wealth) even attempt to force the issue?

Thanks.
 
Would not gaining India actually butterfly the Boston tea riot?

Potentially, but probably not. Britain and the East India Company still monopolized trade with India, even before the Raj. By the American Revolutionary War, Britain had only conquered part of India (Clive conquered Bengal, while Bombay and Madras were trading centers). Most of India wouldn't be conquered in OTL until 1818. I'm not even sure if the British Raj circa 1774 even got their tea from Bengal. I don't know the production areas well.

I'm not sure how much, if anything, this would change Anglo-American relations.

Tea would still be flowing in regardless of who rules India and the East India Company would ship/control it.
 
Potentially, but probably not. Britain and the East India Company still monopolized trade with India, even before the Raj. By the American Revolutionary War, Britain had only conquered part of India (Clive conquered Bengal, while Bombay and Madras were trading centers). Most of India wouldn't be conquered in OTL until 1818. I'm not even sure if the British Raj circa 1774 even got their tea from Bengal. I don't know the production areas well.

I'm not sure how much, if anything, this would change Anglo-American relations.

Tea would still be flowing in regardless of who rules India and the East India Company would ship/control it.
At least John Company would be in better shape and doesn't need government bailout due to the cost of governance and maintaining all those armies.
 
It depends. Who rules India instead? Are they businessmen?
There is money to be made in selling opium to China. Without having direct ownership of India in which to grow the opium it may be harder to stumble upon this but it could still happen.
And what else becomes of Britain in this scenario? Do they still control ports in the East Indies?
 
The previous state rulers would still rule. Mostly Marathas at this point with some Muslim princes as well.

I'm assuming that Indian Opium would still be available for purchase.

However, I'm also assuming less military power would be at British disposal. For instance, by the 1880's, the Raj had 500,000 soldiers and massive revenues to support first the East India Company, later the Crown government. Without that level of financial and military might, I have my doubts if Britain could force the issue in the 1840's in China as they might have otherwise.

If Britain can't, or they haven't provided the template for successful and profitable colonialism, perhaps the other European colonial powers wouldn't have attempted to do the same elsewhere (southeast asia, africa). "Colonalism" would be about profitable trade. Most of the European Empires were not profitable and were in fact drains upon their governments. Even at the time, many European leaders accepted this but largely saw their Empires as a status symbol, rather than a going and rational economic concern.

For example, I question if 1870's Germany really believe that Togo, Namibia, Tanzania and Samoa were going to significantly alter their bottom line in any positive manner.
 
Last edited:
At least John Company would be in better shape and doesn't need government bailout due to the cost of governance and maintaining all those armies.

I don't think that India adversely affected Britain. India was a huge economic boon for Britain, a protected market that largely paid for itself.

A couple of bailouts over two centuries is nothing compared to the benefits of the Raj to Great Britain.
 
Top