British Civil War in the 19th Century: What Happens to India

Susano

Banned

Long-standing grievances? Let's remember here that you're talking about the army: the only way to reach long-standing grievances as the motivation of the typical sepoy is to completely disregard what they say (the cartridge issue being the almost exclusive focus) and also all other events that affect them (with the annexation of Oudh and the General Service Enlistment Act both coming in 1856). You'd also have to crowbar every minor incident beforehand, such as the refusal of the 38th Bengal Native Infantry to serve in Burma in 1852, into some sort of overarching rebellious metanarrative rather than view them as the isolated incidents that they were.
This grievances showed themselevs not in the number of incidents, but their quality. That a simple mutiny by some sepoys could turn into such a large event as it happened IOTL surely shows there was quite enough miscontent. IOTL that miscontent was vented in that rebellion, but IMO its plausible it might as well happen nine years earlier (or for that matter, alt-"1848" can be moved forwards some years).

In your desire to be a good little colonial warrior,
Ah, one of that crowd. Next youll tell us how were all slaves of evil Political Correctness, yes?

I'm curious: with all this talk of "alien invaders" and "foreign occupation", where exactly do you two think the Mughals came from?
From Afghanistan - 300 years ago at that point. And, more importantly, I dont see the British Empire moving its centre to India, whereas the Mughals on the other hand always had (as soon as they were the Mughals that is) their centre in India.
 
1848 sees Ireland revolt, the King's suppression of the Act; attempts by Whigs to reform the system and give rights to Catholics are shot down, as are attempts to lift some censorship restrictions and expand voting rights. Ultimately, it boils over into a revolution which sees the monarchy deposed.

How?
This currently makes no sense.
 
Is British attention really exclusive? Especially because, assuming America settles down, it runs itself.

Won't be totally exclusive, no. Especially since India was a very important trading area. However Britain maintaining control of the 13 states and western territories will be a big factor making changes. Especially since that will mean when the wheels come off the Spanish empire in Latin America, as it almost certainly will do, its bordering British North America.

Also a lot would depend on the circumstances. You would need something like the basically ASB scenario in "For Want of a Nail" where a British North America virtually ignores events elsewhere in the world, even when Britain on the verge of invasion for it to have no real impact. Let alone the question, for better or worse, of the interactions of the British and American economies and societies. Also, having nearly lost the colonies once Britain is likely, for a while at least, to be paying close attention to events there, whether intrusive or appeasing in approach.

Basically; I'm envisioning something like a permanent consulate under Bernadotte.

Why a greater military threat? Because a France that encompasses the Rhineland and Low Countries, under competent leadership, simply is a greater threat.

If it stays stable and encompassed those lands it would be a greater economic and potential military threat. However would it be able to? Such gains not only threatens Britain but with the spread of nationalism will cause problems in the German speaking lands as well as probably the low countries.

Also if there's no open war, or its greatly curtailed, you avoid the huge expenses of the Napoleonic conflicts. A lot less death and destruction, disruption of trade and massive subsidies to continental allies.

Furthermore is the French mega-state being maintained on a high military footing or not? If not its markedly less of a threat. If it is then its going to struggle to fund things without looting of the neighbours as in Napoleon's time.

Not saying its impossible but needs some balancing of the various forces at work. A reasonably stable and successful moderate consulate could well prompt unrest in Britain simply by posing an attractive alternative. There were strong forces in Britain favourable to the early republic until it went off the rails and started proving too unstable and expansionist.


Would India change? I'm actually surprised; I would have thought you'd think after Plassey India's fate was sealed, for the most part.

Plassey set the EIC on the road to territorial dominance but it was still fundlementally a trading company looking to maintain stability and minimise costs. By 1763 French direct military power in India was largely destroyed but there were still a lot of native states which if they have found some stable situation may well have lasted quite a while. [Or possibly one having emerged to form a new empire over much of the area. The latter might have led to a clash with British power as it would probably have sought to interfer in its trade or territory. However this needed necessarily have been the case.

Probably still likely that India would have come under increasing British political/military dominance but in what way and during what time period could change drastically.

A small note on the mutiny. From what I've read it was initially largely a mutiny, by some elements of the sepoy forces. Probably largely due to the fact that their economic and social position had deterrated as the dominance of the EIC reduced instability and the need for large numbers of troops. [Interesting that one of the 1st things the mutineers generally imposed on the various native rulers who often somewhat reluctantly 'rebelled' was a sizeable increase in their salaries. Unrest was also made more likely by the growing separation between the sepoys and their officers and as Rob C says by the growing interference by the British government. Some nasty attrocties occurred, most infamously the two Carnpore massacres, which by most accounts the British/Loyalist forces often retaliated against, and which worsened relations on both sides. However by no means certain that even with a politically dominant EIC it would have occurred other than possibly a few isolated clashes and uprisings.

Steve
 
Which part?

I admit I am surprised that both Stevep and Thande see something in broad outlines plausible.

Faeelin

I see the possibility of an extremely conservative/reactionary Britain and a civil war resulting from the lack of reform as quite possible. Not sure about some of the other aspects.

Gray Wolf had a long TL based very much on a similar thing. [May not have been on this board?] Had Ernest, Duke of Cumberland becoming king and heading both a highly reactionist cause and also being very anti-Catholic. Not sure all the steps that followed from it were likely but that would set up a very explosive situation.

Steve
 

Long-standing grievances? Let's remember here that you're talking about the army:


Actually, the Mutiny also involved local nobles and peasants, although this of course varied across a region with tens of millions of people.

If you're mutinying because your'e angry about ammunition, you mutiny over that, get your demands met, and then return to the ranks (or get discharged). You don't rush off and appoint somebody as the leader of a new, sovereign state.

But hey, I bet you also think the American Revolution was over the price of tea.

I'm curious: with all this talk of "alien invaders" and "foreign occupation", where exactly do you two think the Mughals came from?

Interesting. Do you also think Britain is under the yoke of German occupation? I hear your dynasty has some origins in some Hanoverian princeling who had a scimitar lobbed at him by a watery tart.

I admit I'm not overly fond of what happened to the Brits at Cawnpore, but I find it weird that a mutiny over a minor issue would end up killing women and children, especially when there were no long-standing grievances with British rule.

Won't be totally exclusive, no. Especially since India was a very important trading area. However Britain maintaining control of the 13 states and western territories will be a big factor making changes. Especially since that will mean when the wheels come off the Spanish empire in Latin America, as it almost certainly will do, its bordering British North America.

True, but to an extent success breeds success. A lot depends on how America plays out; if it's a running sore, that's one thing. If it's relatively quiescent, that's a whole nother ball game (and bad, bad news for Latin America).

I don't think it's ignoring everything, actually. I just don't think India's states were viable by the 1770s in the face of Europeans without some major changes. Could they have been made? Mmm. I'm not so sure.

I admit this conversation seems a bit of a reversal of our normal takes.
 
Susano

This grievances showed themselevs not in the number of incidents, but their quality. That a simple mutiny by some sepoys could turn into such a large event as it happened IOTL surely shows there was quite enough miscontent. IOTL that miscontent was vented in that rebellion, but IMO its plausible it might as well happen nine years earlier (or for that matter, alt-"1848" can be moved forwards some years).

Depending on the nature of the TL it could be difficult moving the mutiny too much. You would need to have the EIC establish a clear monopoly of power and hence have an interest/ability in cutting back on military expenditure and also a lack of wars that means the sepoys aren't needed as much and don't have the prestige and loot from such campaigns.


Ah, one of that crowd. Next youll tell us how were all slaves of evil Political Correctness, yes?

I think Robert's reply was OTL but you were sounding distinctly naieve in viewing it as some sort of independence struggle. Don't forget the majority of the native troops stayed loyal. [Without them it would have been impossible to regain control of the sub-continent]. It was more a case of some disaffected troops and some elements of the ruling elites who sought to take advantage, along with probably by that time a hardening of racial lines meaning some resentment by at least some 'ordinary' Indians.


From Afghanistan - 300 years ago at that point. And, more importantly, I dont see the British Empire moving its centre to India, whereas the Mughals on the other hand always had (as soon as they were the Mughals that is) their centre in India.

Not sure that is the safest comparison. The Mughals moved their centre into India because that was because that were where the richest and most important territories were. [Also not sure how much control they were able to keep of their former heartlands so may not have had much choice in the matter]. Also while in their earlier years they were pretty tolerant religious they were still more favourable to Islam than the EIC was to Christianity. Also they self-destructed largely because they lost that tolerance.

I think the only reason that towards the end of the mutiny there was talk of reviving the Mughal empire was because the various rebels realised they needed some sort of unifying symbol and idea and that was the one that various elements found most palitable.

Steve
 
Faeelin

I see the possibility of an extremely conservative/reactionary Britain and a civil war resulting from the lack of reform as quite possible. Not sure about some of the other aspects.

Gray Wolf had a long TL based very much on a similar thing. [May not have been on this board?] Had Ernest, Duke of Cumberland becoming king and heading both a highly reactionist cause and also being very anti-Catholic. Not sure all the steps that followed from it were likely but that would set up a very explosive situation.

Steve

You'd be thinking of A Plethora Of Princes, in the TL&Scen section.
 
Nekromans

That's it. Thanks.:D

Steve

LOL, you're reminding me of my own writing too. I quite enjoyed writing that, but recall I owe one or two people a thanks for putting it in Timelines which didn't used to exist as it does now

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Actually, the Mutiny also involved local nobles and peasants, although this of course varied across a region with tens of millions of people.

If you're mutinying because your'e angry about ammunition, you mutiny over that, get your demands met, and then return to the ranks (or get discharged). You don't rush off and appoint somebody as the leader of a new, sovereign state.

It did involve nobles and peasants as you said, although they were more prominent later.

From what I've read the cartridge issue is a bit of a red herring. The company did listen to the complaints and switch to a different one that wouldn't cause offense but by that time the troops were already alienated enough they didn't believe it.

But hey, I bet you also think the American Revolution was over the price of tea.

No, that what some of the American patriots claimed.;)

Interesting. Do you also think Britain is under the yoke of German occupation? I hear your dynasty has some origins in some Hanoverian princeling who had a scimitar lobbed at him by a watery tart.

Surely that's the argument your making?:confused:

True, but to an extent success breeds success. A lot depends on how America plays out; if it's a running sore, that's one thing. If it's relatively quiescent, that's a whole nother ball game (and bad, bad news for Latin America).

That's what I was saying, a lot depends on events in the colonies.

A good relation between the colonies and homelands may be bad for Mexico and neighbouring areas but may not and is likely to be more favourable for the more distant areas.

I don't think it's ignoring everything, actually. I just don't think India's states were viable by the 1770s in the face of Europeans without some major changes. Could they have been made? Mmm. I'm not so sure.

Difficult to know. [Not massively knowable about the history of the sub-continent in this period, or any other for that matter.;)] There were a number of potential successor states, most noticably the Maratha Confederation. Possibly with a better leader at some point they especially could have established a state ruling most of India that was effectively a successor to the Mughal empire. If established they might have been able to take a path similar to the Chinese or Ottoman empires - which is not necessarily the best thing for India of course. What was possibly fatal for the various India states is that several sought alliances with France when it wasn't actually in a position to give them real support. As such they became a threat to the British/EIC position, prompting intervention, without the strength to resist them.

I admit this conversation seems a bit of a reversal of our normal takes.

In what way?

Steve
 
Mysore was a challenger...with French support. I don't know what it could have done against the British WITHOUT French support.

That's all I was meaning earlier on, that kind of thing, anyway

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
This grievances showed themselevs not in the number of incidents, but their quality.
Was it their scope (the largest, a disturbance over batta in 1844, involving two infantry regiments) or the strength of resistance (which required only one regiment to be disbanded across the 51 years) that so impressed you?

Ah, one of that crowd. Next youll tell us how were all slaves of evil Political Correctness, yes?
I've got used to people not thinking about what I write. They could, however, do me the common courtesy of reading it before copying and pasting a spiel about the evils of colonialism.

Actually, the Mutiny also involved local nobles and peasants, although this of course varied across a region with tens of millions of people.
None of whom you mentioned in the post I was replying to, which was:
Why would the army remain loyal to Britain? Some regiments, sure. But even in OTL, a relatively minor spark set off a mutiny with the goal of expelling the British. Britain in the throes of revolution gets no notice?

If you're mutinying because your'e angry about ammunition, you mutiny over that, get your demands met, and then return to the ranks (or get discharged). You don't rush off and appoint somebody as the leader of a new, sovereign state.
Except that the sepoys hadn't had their demands met- hence why the men of the 3rd Light Cavalry are going to prison- and they weren't appointing someone as the leader of a new, sovereign state. The emperor had always been emperor, with even the British paying tribute to him. In the light of these fundamental factual inaccuracies, would you care to revise your argument?

But hey, I bet you also think the American Revolution was over the price of tea.
I don't think the American War of Independence was about tea, because I've read the primary sources. I've read them for the Indian Mutiny too, and I know exactly why the sepoys mutinied because they tell us: the cartridge issue. They were concerned with their own privileges and their own status, but they weren't doing it as part of some grand overarching war of independence as you seem to wish they were. Remove those attacks on privileges- for instance, by replacing people like Dalhousie with royal appointments- and what reason have the sepoys got to rebel?

Interesting. Do you also think Britain is under the yoke of German occupation?
No. Neither do I complain because the Prime Minister is Scottish. None of which makes any difference, because I'm not the one complaining about "alien occupation" and drawing arbitrary distinctions between the subjugation of ethnic groups based on whether they're next-door neighbours or not.
 
Top