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

What happens if it´s Dupleix who wins Plassey and Buxar?

Well, at the time of Plassey, It had already been 3 years since Dupleix had been stupidly/suicidally fired by the french government and the board of the french EIC.

But the point is that if he had not been fired, he would have continued his policy that Clive and the british did copycat almost unchanged.
 
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.

I don't know. I think the presence of Hinduism and Islam is what prevented the conversions, not lack of effort, so Spain and Portugal would change their policy to keep control, rather than double down on the Catholicism and lose the colonies.

The modern secular world owes something to colonialism; the idea that a state can exist with multiple and different religions was not the norm in Europe and Christendom until they had to make allowances for the people they conquered.
 
Plassey, Buxar were not fought between the French and the English, but between the nawab of Bengal and EIC. The two were fought in Bengal,not South India. The French never had a presence in Bengal.
Chandernagor would beg to differ.
It was in the context of a war of influence between European backed princes. This theorized by Dupleix.

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...
Issue is of course a United Afghanistan to trade with but that would certainly be possible. Treat the rulers like true princes, send their kids to Oxford... They'll stay in your orbit
Well, at the time of Plassey, It had already been 3 years since Dupleix had been stupidly/suicidally fired by the french government and the board of the french EIC.

But the point is that if he had not been fired, he would have continued his policy that Clive and the british did copycat almost unchanged.

Damnit you incompetent rulers! #dupleixforpresident #dupleix2017
 
Last edited:
So much misinformation the marathas were defeating the British forces handily. Britain got lucky that is all. 1 the marathas following loss to Durarani recovered but not to same extent as before. The peshawas were fghting each other following madhav rao's untimely death. Even in the 1800s the marathashad beaten the brits. They lost because peshwa fled to British territories and Britain thus used internal discord to defeat scindia. Had madhav rao not died well we would have seen a maratha india.

As for mughals period, come on. What could Spain or Portugal do against the vast armies wealth and power wielded by the mughal emperors No impossible. The only two candidates who could have taken India would have to be France or Britain as above posters said but it would be unlikely. Otl quote honestly is asb. At least the formation of the raj is asb and only occurred due to ungodly luck on part of the british.
 
So much misinformation the marathas were defeating the British forces handily. Britain got lucky that is all. 1 the marathas following loss to Durarani recovered but not to same extent as before. The peshawas were fghting each other following madhav rao's untimely death. Even in the 1800s the marathashad beaten the brits. They lost because peshwa fled to British territories and Britain thus used internal discord to defeat scindia. Had madhav rao not died well we would have seen a maratha india.

As for mughals period, come on. What could Spain or Portugal do against the vast armies wealth and power wielded by the mughal emperors No impossible. The only two candidates who could have taken India would have to be France or Britain as above posters said but it would be unlikely. Otl quote honestly is asb. At least the formation of the raj is asb and only occurred due to ungodly luck on part of the british.
Well known UK found it too hard and changed the difficulty level of their Civilization game around 1700.

Fucking noob.
 
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.

I'd say that France has a shot, provided that thing are different in Europe of course. The Dutch managed to take over Indonesia, so I don't think India* is entirely impossible for them (or the Portuguese, or maybe even the Spanish, if the stars align just right) but probably we are talking about vanishingly small chances.

*Admittedly a different ballgame than Indonesia both politically, demographically and, to a lesser extent, technologically - and the Dutch had their own lucky breaks IOTL.
 
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).

There is generally no such a thing as a "dynastic union" in Islamic contexts (although there are dymastic alliances everywhere).
 
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.

Spain was too busy contemplating converting China during its victory disease period to pay much heed to India. Just saying. :p
 
Spain was too busy contemplating converting China during its victory disease period to pay much heed to India. Just saying. :p

That's why I was thinking surviving Trastamaras and a dynastic union with Portugal is the easiest way to pull it off. Shift their focus somewhat.
 
Maybe France. But the colonisation of India was really more than an "accident" than something that was planned.
 

Wallet

Banned
Britain isn't loseing India after 1800, probably 1776. Even if the British isles were invaded and occupied India will remain British.

France could have had it much earlier. No Spanish Armada, but the Spanish lose their fleet outs where. The British occupy the new world, with the French and Spanish looking else where. The British would be fully occupied with the 13 colonies, Canada, Cuba, Mexico, and Louisiana keeping their attention and troops there.

The French take India while Spain focuses on colonies in east Asia along with the Philippines
 
Would French rule over India in a manner broadly similar to the Raj have butterflied how France ruled over other areas?
 
Would French rule over India in a manner broadly similar to the Raj have butterflied how France ruled over other areas?

On the contrary. Rule in India provided such a massive flow of wealth that it contributed a lot to financing the imperial expansion in other areas of the colonial power that held India.
 
On the contrary. Rule in India provided such a massive flow of wealth that it contributed a lot to financing the imperial expansion in other areas of the colonial power that held India.
I'm not saying that India precludes a French colonial empire elsewhere. Rather, I'm suggesting that India makes France better at colonialism and imperialism than was the case historically.
 
How come?
From what I understand, the French approach to colonialism was to try to make subject peoples French. If France in India sees the benefits of indirect rule and use of local elites and norms to advance the goals of the French state, then it might change how they approach rule elsewhere.
 
I'd say that France has a shot, provided that thing are different in Europe of course. The Dutch managed to take over Indonesia, so I don't think India* is entirely impossible for them (or the Portuguese, or maybe even the Spanish, if the stars align just right) but probably we are talking about vanishingly small chances.

*Admittedly a different ballgame than Indonesia both politically, demographically and, to a lesser extent, technologically - and the Dutch had their own lucky breaks IOTL.

It took the Dutch until the 1920s to fully secure the territory of modern Indonesia which speaks volumes about the effort kt took.

@OP As others have pointed out Britain did not conquer India but rather managed to pull off, over the course of a century, a process of hegemonisation in the wake of the collapse of the previous hegemon.
 
Top