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

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.

Although It is often summarized this way, It was in fact quite different, depending in times and places.

What was true to a certain extent and in certain places (mainly in the late 19th and early 20th century) with the local elites was not true at all with the common people or in other times (before the late 19th century) or in other places.

It is necessary to make the difference between what one says about what one is doing and what one actually does.

So India being very specific, the french gaining control of It in the wake of Dupleix will not necessarily change how the french run their other colonies like the sugar islands which were very profitable slave factories. It may however change the way the french run their settler colonies because controlling the indian cash cow will provide France far more money to develop and hold their settler colonies, to sustain a bigger Navy, military as well as commercial, in order to reinforce relations with its colonies.
 
Last edited:
What about Russia? I know OTL that the British were terrified of Russia's potential to do so, whether it was plausible or not.
 
Although It is often summarized this way, It was in fact quite different, depending in times and places.

What was true to a certain extent and in certain places (mainly in the late 19th and early 20th century) with the local elites was not true at all with the common people or in other times (before the late 19th century) or in other places.

It is necessary to make the difference between what one says about what one is doing and what one actually does.

So India being very specific, the french gaining control of It in the wake of Dupleix will not necessarily change how the french run their other colonies like the sugar islands which were very profitable slave factories. It may however change the way the french run their settler colonies because controlling the indian cash cow will provide France far more money to develop and hold their settler colonies, to sustain a bigger Navy, military as well as commercial, in order to reinforce relations with its colonies.
So this could butterfly away the Revolution?
 
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.
One might say this approach worked regardless considering how France retained many territories until today though.
 
Sparsely populated jungles and islands. Impressive.
I'm not saying France still has an empire, just saying that this approach cannot be considered worse than the British one. In the long run, one integrated many territories frpm scratch
 
I'm not saying France still has an empire, just saying that this approach cannot be considered worse than the British one. In the long run, one integrated many territories frpm scratch
English has more speakers today in part because the British were better empire builders.
 
English has more speakers today in part because the British were better empire builders.
And also because of American hegemony. I will agree however that it probably oould have helped if the French had had an early start or more precisely hadn't been ousted out by the Brits
 
The British who now share their head of state with 16 countries, not less than three of which have strong British cultural roots, and the others of which are mostly ex-sugar islands.
But, that isn't retained territory and these countries would have little to no difference without the Queen, seeing as how she has no effect on their government. The French also have La Francophonie which I believe has more members and may actually do more than the Commonwealth.
 
But, that isn't retained territory and these countries would have little to no difference without the Queen, seeing as how she has no effect on their government. The French also have La Francophonie which I believe has more members and may actually do more than the Commonwealth.
It's not retained territory, but it is retained affinity and cultural dominance.

La Francophonie has some overlapping membership with the Commonwealth of Nations, but is otherwise a joke.
 
It's not retained territory, but it is retained affinity and cultural dominance.

La Francophonie has some overlapping membership with the Commonwealth of Nations, but is otherwise a joke.
Why? How's it much different from the Commonwealth?
 
English has more speakers today in part because the British were better empire builders.

In the sense that they (and their former colony America) were far better at exterminating or marginalizing native tongues, yes. Of course, in that respect, they just followed the Spanish example, improved with mass education programs.
 
The British who now share their head of state with 16 countries, not less than three of which have strong British cultural roots, and the others of which are mostly ex-sugar islands.
For the cultural part, I would say that's because many of them, Canada Australia and whatnot are white colonies. The local population don't count as much and probably don't have as much affinity.

Now to be fair, sugar islands don't have much of their original stock either. Dunno for Guyana though
 
Why do people assume that the difference between French oversea empire and the English one are necessarily because of how those places were internally administrated? I would think about other factors like different demographics and military capabilities.
 
Why? How's it much different from the Commonwealth?
One contains several industrialized states and several large economies. The other is France, maybe Belgium, Luxembourg, and a slew of poor countries.
In the sense that they (and their former colony America) were far better at exterminating or marginalizing native tongues, yes. Of course, in that respect, they just followed the Spanish example, improved with mass education programs.
Well, in the case of the settler dominions and the United States, the native population was sparse and their languages largely unwritten before contact.
And French is set to eclipse English with current demographics in Africa.
Demographics which are what they are because of the failures of the francophone world relative to the anglophone world, with exceptions no doubt.
 
Top