Britain without India.

The British state would have had a lot more money, as they wouldn't have been bailing out the corrupt East India Company again and again.

There would also be fewer "nabobs": unscrupulous military men that went out to India, ruled like tyrants for a few years, channeling money into their own pockets, and then came back home and bought seats in parliament, with very right-wing reactionary views.

A lot of those "nabobs" were also the men willing to assimilate to Indian cultural traditions when they went out East; something that occurred much more under Company rule than under that of the Crown. Important leaders were also built up with Indian capital; I believe Pitt was one of those.

Britain without India alters the global balance of power and allows the creation of an Indian one. While I still think formal unity would continue on in India it might start to resemble Ottoman Tunisia, Algeria and Egypt in practice. Many of the Indian states for reasons of distance, population, basic industry, etc. might be able to forge their own spheres of influence. Tipu's Mysore was one that was very ambitious in scope, for one. Britain keeping some exclaves in India like Bombay or Calcutta might certainly change the flavour of those cities and create the beginnings of a proper Anglo-Indian cultural mix that still might find itself influential in Britain.
 
You would also get rid of the main reason the entire British Empire existed. The Cape, Aden, Malaysia, Kenya, Suez, even Australia and Hong Kong were really there to protect the crown jewel, India. Without it, there is no reason (and no funds) to establish an Empire on 'which the sun never sets'.
 
You would also get rid of the main reason the entire British Empire existed. The Cape, Aden, Malaysia, Kenya, Suez, even Australia and Hong Kong were really there to protect the crown jewel, India. Without it, there is no reason (and no funds) to establish an Empire on 'which the sun never sets'.

Some of those were and some were not. Hong Kong was to make money from the China trade and Malaysia was to protect the straits for Chinese bound ships. Australia was to have a Pacific base and a convict colony.
 
Some of those were and some were not. Hong Kong was to make money from the China trade and Malaysia was to protect the straits for Chinese bound ships. Australia was to have a Pacific base and a convict colony.

But those were taken by the EIC, who may or may not be authorised or have the manpower to do those things TTL. Well, except Australia, of course.
 
I'm not that knowledgeable either, but I believe the main effect would have been contingent on the fact that a british failure in the region leaves France open as the only country powerful enough to take it. This would have radically altered the global balance of power.

The Marathra empire isn't just waiting to fall to whichever European country takes a swing at it.
 
You would also get rid of the main reason the entire British Empire existed. The Cape, Aden, Malaysia, Kenya, Suez, even Australia and Hong Kong were really there to protect the crown jewel, India. Without it, there is no reason (and no funds) to establish an Empire on 'which the sun never sets'.

I can understand all of the colonies you mentioned apart from Australia and Hong Kong. Australia was far removed from India and played no role in its defence. It orginally started as a prison colony and as such was not motivated by Indian defence. Secondly, wasn't HK just part of the spoils of war after the 1st Opium war? It was also gained before crown control in India and not the other way round.
 
I'm really really interested in what Britain would be like without India, I just don't have the necessary knowledge to comment.

Likewise. The only thing I can think of is that without the cotton from India, Britain would be more dependent on the Southern US states and more pressured to choose a side in the American Civil War. (They may not necessarily support the South however. Just as well they might support the North in quickly retaking the cotton states and putting things back in order there. Sharecropper lordships like in Ireland would work just as well as slave plantations for them as long as the transition can be done quickly.)
 
Actually the train of events that lead to India falling under the complete domination of Britain was very unique and complex. In fact I bet a fair numbe rof people on this forum could tell you how unlikely India falling under British domination was. It really was a combination of luck, opportunity, and good leadership. If Britain didn't take over India I can't see any other power having the same luck as Britain had. We'd probably see some large settlements and territories under various European powers but the continent would be dominated by Indian rajas armed by, allied to, and with armies led by Europeans.

Yup- Britain came in in the aftermath of the collapse of the Mughals and the train of chaos that set off (e.g. through the rampant warlordism that allowed the Company to play factions off against each other so easily). Indian rulers (toward the end of the 18th Century) were beginning to get their act together militarily and had already started putting the lessons of the European military revolution into effect. However, by the time they were doing this it was already too late and Britain had managed to achieve hegemony.
 
In order to get enough cotton, the British Empire may also rely more heavily on doing diplomacy with India and giving Indian leaders resources that they want. The same goes with the rest of the world. I foresee a 19th century where people of different ethnicities are more polite to each other, though it's also a less stable 19th century without one group of nations on top.
 
A lot of those "nabobs" were also the men willing to assimilate to Indian cultural traditions when they went out East; something that occurred much more under Company rule than under that of the Crown. Important leaders were also built up with Indian capital; I believe Pitt was one of those.

Britain without India alters the global balance of power and allows the creation of an Indian one. While I still think formal unity would continue on in India it might start to resemble Ottoman Tunisia, Algeria and Egypt in practice. Many of the Indian states for reasons of distance, population, basic industry, etc. might be able to forge their own spheres of influence. Tipu's Mysore was one that was very ambitious in scope, for one. Britain keeping some exclaves in India like Bombay or Calcutta might certainly change the flavour of those cities and create the beginnings of a proper Anglo-Indian cultural mix that still might find itself influential in Britain.

The Mughal empire was falling apart with or without England. Not being colonized does not imply becoming an emerging great power just consider independant China in the 18th and 19th century.

And don't forget that Clive did just copycat the conquest strategy devised by Dupleix before stupid Louis XV had him recalled from India believing ut would appease Britain while it had the opposite effect.
 
Likewise. The only thing I can think of is that without the cotton from India, Britain would be more dependent on the Southern US states and more pressured to choose a side in the American Civil War. (They may not necessarily support the South however. Just as well they might support the North in quickly retaking the cotton states and putting things back in order there. Sharecropper lordships like in Ireland would work just as well as slave plantations for them as long as the transition can be done quickly.)

Good point on how Britain's relationship with the United States, and potentially all of Latin America, might develope differently.

Does anyone think Britain might take a more proactive stance on the Spanish Empire's American colonies and their move towards indepedence (in order to secure trading rights)?

Trade with "the America's" was vital to British interests. Without India, perhaps this becomes even more important?

Does anyone have a source which breaks out British exports by market in this era (Europe, the Americas, India, etc)?
 
One of the HUGE advantages that India gave Britain was the world's best supply of saltpetre for gunpowder.

Until the Chilean/Peruvian supplies started being developed in earnest, India had by far the best supply of saltpetre.

This meant Britain had a huge advantage in e.g. the Napoleonic wars.

I've heard this argument before but haven't seen anything to support it.

France fought Britain for 24 years under this disadvantage and I don't believe that Russia was hampered in the Crimean War either.
 
The Mughal empire was falling apart with or without England. Not being colonized does not imply becoming an emerging great power just consider independant China in the 18th and 19th century.

And don't forget that Clive did just copycat the conquest strategy devised by Dupleix before stupid Louis XV had him recalled from India believing ut would appease Britain while it had the opposite effect.

....but I didn't say that. In fact I agree with you that centralized authority was vanishing. But symbolically most rulers on the subcontinent owed formal allegiance to the Mughals and that didn't really change til after 1857. So I'm talking about symbolic power that might come to mean something real over the next few centuries. When I say spheres of influence, I don't mean global ones, but local ones.

it is important to remember though that Indian states were beginning to catch on by the late eighteenth century; when you have Mysore dictating terms at Madras, that isn't especially showing the weakness of Indian military organization.

On the other hand, many other states didn't show that innovation, but ultimately only Britain or France really showed the ability to take over the way they did, and the latter wasn't all that interested in conquest.
 
....but I didn't say that. In fact I agree with you that centralized authority was vanishing. But symbolically most rulers on the subcontinent owed formal allegiance to the Mughals and that didn't really change til after 1857. So I'm talking about symbolic power that might come to mean something real over the next few centuries. When I say spheres of influence, I don't mean global ones, but local ones.

QUOTE]


I don't think the Maratha's did anything more than pay lip service to the Mughal Empire at this point.

I find it more likely that:

1. the Maratha's break up into totally different Empires.
2. One Maratha Prince manages to conquer the rest and form a real Marath Empire.
 
....but I didn't say that. In fact I agree with you that centralized authority was vanishing. But symbolically most rulers on the subcontinent owed formal allegiance to the Mughals and that didn't really change til after 1857. So I'm talking about symbolic power that might come to mean something real over the next few centuries. When I say spheres of influence, I don't mean global ones, but local ones.

QUOTE]


I don't think the Maratha's did anything more than pay lip service to the Mughal Empire at this point.

I find it more likely that:

1. the Maratha's break up into totally different Empires.
2. One Maratha Prince manages to conquer the rest and form a real Marath Empire.

One Maratha prince never had enough power to dominate the other families. The Confederacy was simply how things were run. In fact, there never was a real point where a centralised Maratha Empire ever really existed; it was either small and unified under chiefs like Shivaji, and then became a fairly large decentralised grouping of different chieftains and families. The inertia to change this fact never emerged.

Within this fabric, control over the Mughal Empire was a powerful way to distinguish a chief; hence the Scindia of Gwalior becoming regent of the Empire.

And the Marathas did effectively turn into competing kingdoms. In 1857, the Nana Saheb was trying to regain real power as well as symbolic power as the Peshwa; so the separation of the Confederacy is OTL.
 
Russia

Those saying the French would (or would not) step in and take Britain's role forget- Russia will still have reason to move towards India. The "Great Game" started in 1813. Without Britain to balance Russia coming south from Central Asia we could see Russia successful in Afghanistan and conquering portions (or all?) of Iran (Persia), possibly even taking the Indus Valley (Pakistan). Russia has a constant need for warm-water ports, Russia wants expansion into Asia, Russia by way of their Central Asian and Caucasus conquests have experience with Muslim peoples making their conquest through Afghanistan and playing the Indian Muslims against the Hindus of the Ganges area easy.

I think exploring the possibility of a Russia wank in India (and the Middle East?) should be looked at. Possibly at the expense of not pushing as fast (or at all) into far east asia (eastern Siberia and Manchuria) as India distracts Russia from China.
 
Russia would always have the access to the Pacific and its border with China - Russia established this by 1689.

Dubious that the "Great Game" in the absence of Britain would result in a warm water port for Russia - they only managed to conquer the Khazak plains in the 1850's. If they are lucky(?) they might be bogged down in Afghanistan in the 1880's Certainly Persia would be a step too far - Britain would intervene to support the Shah if they had too

Without Britain the major power in North India is likely to be Muslim who would regard Russian advances in Afghanistan with some alarm and would drive them closer to an arrangement with Britain or even France.
 
Likewise. The only thing I can think of is that without the cotton from India, Britain would be more dependent on the Southern US states and more pressured to choose a side in the American Civil War. (They may not necessarily support the South however. Just as well they might support the North in quickly retaking the cotton states and putting things back in order there. Sharecropper lordships like in Ireland would work just as well as slave plantations for them as long as the transition can be done quickly.)

Just because Britain doesn't conquer India doesn't mean it won't trade with her. Bengal had a thriving cotton and textile hub before the British dominated them, and would continue to do well in this timeline. The main difference is that Britain would pay market rates for the produce, rather than monopsony ones. That may hit private fortunes of Manchester textile moguls somewhat, as well as EIC shareholders, who often purchased seats in parliament.

On the other hand, the British state as a whole will likely be wealthier, due to no need to bail out the EIC all the time. That wealth could be passed on to the rest of the taxpaying public, through reduced taxes.

The Mughal empire was falling apart with or without England. Not being colonized does not imply becoming an emerging great power just consider independant China in the 18th and 19th century.

And don't forget that Clive did just copycat the conquest strategy devised by Dupleix before stupid Louis XV had him recalled from India believing ut would appease Britain while it had the opposite effect.

True, but Clive and the British benefitted from British naval supremacy, established in the 1740s. That was ultimately Dupleix's undoing.

Those saying the French would (or would not) step in and take Britain's role forget- Russia will still have reason to move towards India. The "Great Game" started in 1813. Without Britain to balance Russia coming south from Central Asia we could see Russia successful in Afghanistan and conquering portions (or all?) of Iran (Persia), possibly even taking the Indus Valley (Pakistan). Russia has a constant need for warm-water ports, Russia wants expansion into Asia, Russia by way of their Central Asian and Caucasus conquests have experience with Muslim peoples making their conquest through Afghanistan and playing the Indian Muslims against the Hindus of the Ganges area easy.

I think exploring the possibility of a Russia wank in India (and the Middle East?) should be looked at. Possibly at the expense of not pushing as fast (or at all) into far east asia (eastern Siberia and Manchuria) as India distracts Russia from China.

Russian invasion into India was a constant paranoia of the Brits, but nothing more. The supply chains of a backwards, feudal empire into South Asia are completely unreasonable. The USSR could not get past Afghanistan in the late 20th Century despite being an industrial power.
 
True, but Clive and the British benefitted from British naval supremacy, established in the 1740s. That was ultimately Dupleix's undoing.

Well, the british naval supremacy did not enable Britain to oust France from India during the war of austrian succession. The french even were more successful than Britain in India during this war. So Britain's triumph in India was all but unavoidable.
 
Top