Are there any other European countries, besides Britain, that could have could have conquered India?

Besides Britain, were there any other countries that could do it? If so, which ones and how would their rule of India compare to the British Raj.

For a definition of "India", let's go with present day Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh.

As a bonus question, could Britain have ever lost India to a rival power? Whether or not they're European doesn't Matter( so Japanese can count ,but I doubt on the possibility). Like say in any war or conflict, Britain loses and they have to give up territory in South Asia, so even a small chunk of India could count as losing India. It doesn't count if India or a small chunk become completely independent though, as they at least have to be within the sphere of influence of another country.
 
France and perhaps Spain when it was on its zenith.

I doubt highly that anyone can take India from Brits. Other powers were too weak for this and probably without motivation.
 
France and perhaps Spain when it was on its zenith.

I doubt highly that anyone can take India from Brits. Other powers were too weak for this and probably without motivation.
So, how would a French Raj be different from the British Raj? I already have an idea if how Spain would rule India, but how would the French do it?
 
The Raj is pretty much the only way a European country could hold down the subcontinent. A long, drawn out process of indirect conquest and reliance on local princely states and local leaders to collect taxes in your name and in some cases set a lot of their own domestic policy is the only way you take and successfully hold a land that big and that populous. You also can't try to force your religion on people too much, at least not to the extent other powers did in other parts of the world.

Spain would make a poor ruler in India if they tried to do it the way they did the New World, since they wouldn't have an initial tech advantage, a total desmadre in terms of the internal politics of the two major powers, and a super-plague to help them establish direct control. The Viceroyalties not a model they can replicate in India.

The Dutch and the Portuguese don't have the population I think, nor do they have the kind of industrial boom that would make them crave the raw materials that in part motivated the conquest of India.

So France I could see doing it, or a very different Spain that manages the spoils of its New World conquests differently. Maybe a surviving Trastamara Dynasty that unites with Portugal, giving them the resources they need to expand the PEIC's holdings in India but nonetheless maintaining a more hands-off approach that led to the BEIC and later the Raj's ultimate success?

The fact that it also includes a vast number of semi-independent princely states and native Indians in low-level governmental positions means that no one is taking it from the Brits. At least, not the whole thing. If British rule in India collapses the Portuguese/French/Dutch might be able to increase the size of their holdings.
 
How would Spain rule it?
genocide and forced conversions without the benefit of disease killing 70-90% of the native population, actually the reverse. Spain and Portugal both would have had a Goa region in India, France and Holland would have had a better success largely because they were not assholes.
 
Before the 18th century European conquest of the Indo-Gangetic Plain should be considered impossible, at the very least extremely implausible. That rules out the Iberians, and probably the Dutch as well.

Remember that the British were extremely lucky during their conquest; would a weaker European power (i.e. all other European powers) be nearly as successful? It's hardly a given.
 
So, how would a French Raj be different from the British Raj? I already have an idea if how Spain would rule India, but how would the French do it?
More territories ruled by princely states. The French were rather more hands off (of course so were the British until relations with a few local rulers went sideways).

Apart from the French, I suppose the Dutch or Portuguese grabbing most of India isn't implausible. The Ottomans or Hanseatic League if the POD is early enough work too (Ottomans possibly by a dynastic union or something... Persia's nightmare).
 
Before the 18th century European conquest of the Indo-Gangetic Plain should be considered impossible, at the very least extremely implausible. That rules out the Iberians, and probably the Dutch as well.

Remember that the British were extremely lucky during their conquest; would a weaker European power (i.e. all other European powers) be nearly as successful? It's hardly a given.
Weaker? Spain, France and even the Dutch could be easily(maybe a bit hard for the later) stronger than Britain or England given the right POD.
genocide and forced conversions without the benefit of disease killing 70-90% of the native population, actually the reverse. Spain and Portugal both would have had a Goa region in India, France and Holland would have had a better success largely because they were not assholes.
No, this is simply not going to happen. People know when they can enforce something and when they can´t.
 
Weaker? Spain, France and even the Dutch could be easily(maybe a bit hard for the later) stronger than Britain or England given the right POD.

No, this is simply not going to happen. People know when they can enforce something and when they can´t.

I agree with you, though a Spain who plunders the New World and manages not to tear itself down again defending the Habsburg holdings may suffer from victory disease. Either way, both Spain and Portugal are going to place a higher emphasis on conversion than the Brits, which wouldn't win them many friends among the Brahmins.
 
As a bonus question, could Britain have ever lost India to a rival power? Whether or not they're European doesn't Matter( so Japanese can count ,but I doubt on the possibility). Like say in any war or conflict, Britain loses and they have to give up territory in South Asia, so even a small chunk of India could count as losing India. It doesn't count if India or a small chunk become completely independent though, as they at least have to be within the sphere of influence of another country.

See references to The Great Game which spanned nearly 7 decades in the 19th Century between Britain and Russia.
 
As a bonus question, could Britain have ever lost India to a rival power? Whether or not they're European doesn't Matter( so Japanese can count ,but I doubt on the possibility). Like say in any war or conflict, Britain loses and they have to give up territory in South Asia, so even a small chunk of India could count as losing India. It doesn't count if India or a small chunk become completely independent though, as they at least have to be within the sphere of influence of another country.
The very obvious answer is France. France got rid of England or almost a couple times but gave the territory back after treaties. France wrote the textbook on conquering India with Dupleix pionnerring the armies of sepoys and the agressive alliances with the local powers ending in territorial concessions.

It ended in Plasseix as the French backed armies of the princes were severely defeated, among other reasons because the powder was wet. It has also been said they lost the war because the news of said war arrived much faster to the Brits than the French.

India cannot be lost to Spain as it's on the other side of the Tordesillas, so Spain wouldn't arrive early enough to get it. The Portuguese are too few to actually conquer it and that was not their modus operandi anyway.

The Dutch could have some inways of course, but the Dutch are fragile. The Dutch live or die on their Eastern Trade while the Brits always had a local market, agriculture and industry to fall back too. If England is strong enough to dispute India, England is strong enough to seriously disrupt Holland.

Basically, by the time England has a big enough foothold in India, you only have the French as contender. Or more precisely, the English were the contender for a long time, even if they were there first
 
Was all of India really so profitable, though? What drove the British in OTL to feel the need to conquer all the way up to Afghanistan (and even then, attempt to conquer Afghanistan twice as well?)? I prefer the notion of a strong local power in the west (surviving Mughals, or perhaps another Islamic dynasty), and the east divvied up between princely states and European holdings, which, given a different Seven Years War, could have been the French in Madras, British in Bengal, and the Dutch in Ceylon.
 
Was all of India really so profitable, though? What drove the British in OTL to feel the need to conquer all the way up to Afghanistan (and even then, attempt to conquer Afghanistan twice as well?)? I prefer the notion of a strong local power in the west (surviving Mughals, or perhaps another Islamic dynasty), and the east divvied up between princely states and European holdings, which, given a different Seven Years War, could have been the French in Madras, British in Bengal, and the Dutch in Ceylon.
The reason of going after Afghanistan is the result of the "solution" every empire comes up to the problem of securing their borders- conquer the states along your border or at least make them loyal protectorates. The problem with that solution is- the more you conquer the more you have to defend. Russia was moving quick through Central Asia. Afghanistan was next.
 
The reason of going after Afghanistan is the result of the "solution" every empire comes up to the problem of securing their borders- conquer the states along your border or at least make them loyal protectorates. The problem with that solution is- the more you conquer the more you have to defend. Russia was moving quick through Central Asia. Afghanistan was next.

True, but the British seemed to have an obssession with India. They might have simply propped up the Kingdom of Afghanistan, funnelled in weaponry, advisors, and Sepoy troops to bolster their numbers, and waited for the Russians to come and leave. Hell, you could have a northeast 'Indian' state ruled from Kabul.
 
True, but the British seemed to have an obssession with India. They might have simply propped up the Kingdom of Afghanistan, funnelled in weaponry, advisors, and Sepoy troops to bolster their numbers, and waited for the Russians to come and leave. Hell, you could have a northeast 'Indian' state ruled from Kabul.
They had an obsession with it because of the textile trade. By controlling India, they cut off the existing supply and replaced it with theirs AND got a massive captive market to absorb the flow from the English factories
 
They had an obsession with it because of the textile trade. By controlling India, they cut off the existing supply and replaced it with theirs AND got a massive captive market to absorb the flow from the English factories

Fair enough.

But now I have an image of a massive Afghanistan allied to a British Raj, an Afghanistan that controls beyond the Indus, but is contained in the south by a British protectorate over Balochistan. Hmm...
 
Top