Still, they did share over ages some stuff like hinduism(s). And anyway, it could be a mere excuse for land grabs, like the Teutonics to Balts...
Four Independent South Indian States
- Thread starter Flocculencio
- Start date
Still, they did share over ages some stuff like hinduism(s). And anyway, it could be a mere excuse for land grabs, like the Teutonics to Balts...
Europe also did share things over the ages like Christianity and that didn't give rise to a shared European identity. Religion is only a small part (though sometimes plays a significant part) of giving rise to a shared identity across a variety of cultures.
It's also good to remember that the Indian subcontinent is as culturally and linguistically diverse as Europe is, if not more so.
Last edited:
Italians and Germans can be considered closer than 18th century North and South Indians. In fact, these states may not even care about the Northern states which may come under European yoke.
The Vijayanagar Empire would become a factor if the Wodeyars get the throne of Hyderabad as well as Mysore. Also taking up the Chola banner and conquering Sri Lanka might make them appeal to the Tamilians and the Keralite kingdoms were vassels under Mysore. If the Mysoreans play thei cards right after getting the Throne of Hyderabad, they can bring all of present day South India and Sri Lanka uner their control.
Flocculencio
Donor
I'm not sure why they would want to do this. Remember these still aren't going to be particularly powerful. Why would they try to fight the European powers? Thailand didn't go and invade British Malaya because it would behave been suicidal
I think you're all still working on the anachronistic assumption that there was anything more than a superficial feeling of community between Indian cultures
I have to agree with others that there's no Indian nation in a timeline where there isn't a common experience under the British. The only possible unity might be if the British are foolish enough to offend religious sensibilities or pushing Christianity too hard. Despite the attempts of modern Indian nationalists to focus on the 1857 events as the first national uprising, in reality it was that the British had managed to offend Hindus and Muslims at the same time. And it was a grassroots thing - most of the princes knew where their strategic interests lay, and that was with the British.
Flocculencio
Donor
In this scenario that's unlikely since the British will have no reason to push Christianity too hard- in any case they won't be in direct control of the South Indian states. Secondly, the situation in South India is different from that in north India- you're right in that the Rebellion was a grassroots thing- the common people looked to the Mughal emperors as some sort of symbol of unity. There is no such common symbol in South India- the closest thing would be Vijayanagar and that's (a) three hundred years in the past and (b) only really relevant to the Telinga and Kannadiga- the Tamils and Malayalees have no real historical connection to it.
Flocculencio
Donor
OK pods revolve around the Seven Years War. France does somewhat better, losing Quebec but in naval terms manages to hold her own. In the Indian Ocean the French naval presence remains a credible opposition to Britain.
The major South Indian states engage in a power balancing game over the next fifty years. North India, in total chaos under the Mahratta begins to fall more surely under the European powers.
In South India, however, the game becomes one of a balance of power. France, Britain and even the Dutch and Portuguese get involved in power plays.
Four power centres establish themselves in South India. The Nizamate of Hyderabad, much as IOTL, is the largest state but one with serious tensions between the Muslim aristocracy and the Hindu populace. It is losing influence in the Southern Deccan to the Kingdom of Mysore, under the Hindu Wodeyar Dynasty.
ITTL Haider Alis coup is butterflied and the Wodeyars remain able to consolidate their power. They are the least dependent on foreign influence but are a valued ally courted by France and Britain.
In the Tamil country, the English hold the trading port of Fort St George and the French hold Pondicherry. In the interior, however, the Rajas of Madurai reconsolidate their power and enter the patronage game between France and Britain.
Across the Western Ghats is Travancore, the only South Indian state with a history of unaided victory against a European power, having defeated the Dutch a century earlier and limited their encroachment in Kerala to a trading concession in Cochin. The Maharaja of Travancore is therefore now ruler of two out of the three Malayalee kingdoms. Northern Kerala, the former Kingdom of Calicut is ruled by Mysore and Travancore does not, as yet, have the strength to challenge them. Unlike the other three states Travancore is mostly overlooked by France and Britain. Their main relations are with the Dutch who rule Ceylon.
This is how these four states will enter the 19th century- all independent but granting trade concessions to one European power or another.
The major South Indian states engage in a power balancing game over the next fifty years. North India, in total chaos under the Mahratta begins to fall more surely under the European powers.
In South India, however, the game becomes one of a balance of power. France, Britain and even the Dutch and Portuguese get involved in power plays.
Four power centres establish themselves in South India. The Nizamate of Hyderabad, much as IOTL, is the largest state but one with serious tensions between the Muslim aristocracy and the Hindu populace. It is losing influence in the Southern Deccan to the Kingdom of Mysore, under the Hindu Wodeyar Dynasty.
ITTL Haider Alis coup is butterflied and the Wodeyars remain able to consolidate their power. They are the least dependent on foreign influence but are a valued ally courted by France and Britain.
In the Tamil country, the English hold the trading port of Fort St George and the French hold Pondicherry. In the interior, however, the Rajas of Madurai reconsolidate their power and enter the patronage game between France and Britain.
Across the Western Ghats is Travancore, the only South Indian state with a history of unaided victory against a European power, having defeated the Dutch a century earlier and limited their encroachment in Kerala to a trading concession in Cochin. The Maharaja of Travancore is therefore now ruler of two out of the three Malayalee kingdoms. Northern Kerala, the former Kingdom of Calicut is ruled by Mysore and Travancore does not, as yet, have the strength to challenge them. Unlike the other three states Travancore is mostly overlooked by France and Britain. Their main relations are with the Dutch who rule Ceylon.
This is how these four states will enter the 19th century- all independent but granting trade concessions to one European power or another.
I do see that in the 19th centuary, Nizamate of Hyderabad falls as tension rises between the Hindus and Muslims. Also if that is the case, the Wodeyar might want to 'help' his fellow Hindus.
The Raja of Madurai might be able to play off the two powers against each other but if push comes to shove, he may have to choose one over the other.
On Travencore, if it has a good relationship[ with the Dutch, they might just be able to exert power in Ceylon as to 'help' the Dutch run it easily.
Also I have in mind a small revival for some of the Norther states.
Flocculencio
Donor
I think expecting the Dutch to pay attention to Travancori advice about Ceylon is a bit of a stretch. I have some interesting plans for Travancore actually...
Edit: I've also realised that Ive mixed up some dates for Kerala. If Hyder Ali is butterflied there may not be an invasion of Calicut
Last edited:
Flocculencio
Donor
1730-1760: Some thoughts on Travancore
OK- some more detail about the errors I mentioned earlier.
Without Hyder Ali, there's unlikely to be a Mysorean invasion of Calicut. This may well mean that Travancore, having defeated the Dutch in the 1740s may then set its sights on Calicut.
The situation as per OTL
Travancore already had an expansionist policy and it seems that its Varma kings had a general plan of uniting the Malayalees under their rule- in previous decades Travancore had already invaded and annexed Kollam and Kayamkullam. This was what triggered the war with the Dutch in the late 1730s and early 1740s. The Dutch were defeated and the peace terms recognised Travancori dominance over Cochin, stipulated that the Dutch would provide Travancore with European arms and officers to train the Travancori army to European standards. It's a very interesting corner of history and one which is overlooked- I don't think there are any other instances of an Indian power fighting an European one to a standstill. ITTL the Travancori army trained to Dutch standards was able to hold the line against Tippoo Sultan's forces from Mysore until the EIC joined the fight.
In TTL
Without a Mysorean invasion of Calicut, it's quite likely that Travancore would seek to continue its expansion Northward. Calicut would be the only Malayalee state to remain outside the dominion of the House of Varma and would be the obvious next target for invasion and annexation in the 1750s.
This has two interesting repercussions.
1) The Travancori policy is interesting in that it seems to have been a conscious drive to unite the Malayalee ethnic group under one crown. This will certainly have implications for 19th C nationbuilding. The Malayalee nation will already have a story of unification to use as building blocks for a national identity.
2) It puts Travancore in an interesting position as the only Indian state to have fought an European power to a standstill. This might mean slightly more manouvering room for Travancore as the English and French may well take the state a bit more seriously as it will now have a proven record of being able to punch above its weight. Both or either might be quite happy to court it as a local ally.
As much as I hate to deface this beautiful map I found, this is a summary of the situation as it was after the Dutch-Travancore War. Everything South of the black line is Travancore territory. Cochin retains its own Maharaja but as a powerless Travancori vassal. The Dutch have a trading post in Cochin itself but do not garrison the city. The spice trade is firmly in Travancori hands.
Now, by 1760, Travancore will probably strike North to impose a similar vassalage on Calicut. Calicut itself will retain its Zamorin but most of it's territory will be annexed by Travancore (as was the case with Cochin).
OK- some more detail about the errors I mentioned earlier.
Without Hyder Ali, there's unlikely to be a Mysorean invasion of Calicut. This may well mean that Travancore, having defeated the Dutch in the 1740s may then set its sights on Calicut.
The situation as per OTL
Travancore already had an expansionist policy and it seems that its Varma kings had a general plan of uniting the Malayalees under their rule- in previous decades Travancore had already invaded and annexed Kollam and Kayamkullam. This was what triggered the war with the Dutch in the late 1730s and early 1740s. The Dutch were defeated and the peace terms recognised Travancori dominance over Cochin, stipulated that the Dutch would provide Travancore with European arms and officers to train the Travancori army to European standards. It's a very interesting corner of history and one which is overlooked- I don't think there are any other instances of an Indian power fighting an European one to a standstill. ITTL the Travancori army trained to Dutch standards was able to hold the line against Tippoo Sultan's forces from Mysore until the EIC joined the fight.
In TTL
Without a Mysorean invasion of Calicut, it's quite likely that Travancore would seek to continue its expansion Northward. Calicut would be the only Malayalee state to remain outside the dominion of the House of Varma and would be the obvious next target for invasion and annexation in the 1750s.
This has two interesting repercussions.
1) The Travancori policy is interesting in that it seems to have been a conscious drive to unite the Malayalee ethnic group under one crown. This will certainly have implications for 19th C nationbuilding. The Malayalee nation will already have a story of unification to use as building blocks for a national identity.
2) It puts Travancore in an interesting position as the only Indian state to have fought an European power to a standstill. This might mean slightly more manouvering room for Travancore as the English and French may well take the state a bit more seriously as it will now have a proven record of being able to punch above its weight. Both or either might be quite happy to court it as a local ally.
As much as I hate to deface this beautiful map I found, this is a summary of the situation as it was after the Dutch-Travancore War. Everything South of the black line is Travancore territory. Cochin retains its own Maharaja but as a powerless Travancori vassal. The Dutch have a trading post in Cochin itself but do not garrison the city. The spice trade is firmly in Travancori hands.
Now, by 1760, Travancore will probably strike North to impose a similar vassalage on Calicut. Calicut itself will retain its Zamorin but most of it's territory will be annexed by Travancore (as was the case with Cochin).
Last edited:
Do you mind if we can do a joint TL, where the Marathas do not fall from power but become the new masters North India?
My PoD will be after the Death of Kanhoji Angre's son Sekhoji's death in 1733, wherein there is no split in thge family and the Angre family remains the commanders of the Maratha Navy and the Marathas do not neglect the Navy.
My PoD will be after the Death of Kanhoji Angre's son Sekhoji's death in 1733, wherein there is no split in thge family and the Angre family remains the commanders of the Maratha Navy and the Marathas do not neglect the Navy.
Last edited:
Flocculencio
Donor
I personally would prefer to keep this one focused on South India. Joint TLs tend to get very cumbersome due to different opinions and the difficulty of keeping the narrative consistent
Personally, I can guarantee I'd be an avid reader of both. Flocc, I have one question regarding your scenario: seeing as Travancore will successfully use ethnic nationalism to create a state, might the other South Indian states (and some north Indian ones) try to follow their lead? Mysore for the Kannadigas, etc?
Cheers,
Ganesha
Flocculencio
Donor
That is definitely a possibility. However Mysore's problem is that the Wodeyars are a relatively old and entrenched dynasty and Mysre itself is much less isolated than Travancore (which actually has an excellent strategic position with the sea on one flank and the mountains on the other). They'll be forced to deal with a lot more competing interests than Travancore will.
One major advantage Travancore had IOTL (and ITTL) was that the House of Varma were a relatively new force in the region. This was actually one factor behind the progressive nature of the kingdom- the Varma kings overturned the strict caste rules and instituted other social reforms because their power base was in the people, not in the high caste nobility (who were actually quite independent minded and thus a threat to royal authority). Thus, in order to undermine the nobility, the Varma kings tended to be quite populist in terms of their support for the common people and towards minorities like the Christian community (a number of Travancore court advisers were Syrian Christians). ITTL this could actually make for a strong base with which to develop nationalist ideals transcending caste/religious barriers
I'm not sure that the Wodeyars can afford to alienate their aristocracy (who are much more closely tied to the monarchy than would have been the case in Kerala). Having said that the Travancore model is certainly something they might consciously adapt in the later half of the 19th C.
Flocculencio
Donor
I realise this is turning into a TL very much focused on Travancore- my apologies but I had forgotten the Travancore-Dutch War and the possible consequences of that. I just think it's interesting that here we have a new state which has genuinely held its own against an European one. That gives an very interesting basis for a TL and for interactions with other European powers.
A note on butterfly nets: I'll be using a relatively lax one. The general shape of history is similar- the US gains Independence but the French Revolution is a lot more moderate, more consciously using the American Revolution as a model. The Republic isn't quite as violent and fights defensive wars against the European powers without really trying to spread the revolution.
A note on butterfly nets: I'll be using a relatively lax one. The general shape of history is similar- the US gains Independence but the French Revolution is a lot more moderate, more consciously using the American Revolution as a model. The Republic isn't quite as violent and fights defensive wars against the European powers without really trying to spread the revolution.
Last edited:
Very interesting. I'm assuming Eustachius De Lannoy will still be playing a large role in developing Travancore into a state capable of resisting colonialism?
How would the butterflies cause the French Revolution to be more moderate? What's the chain there?
Cheers,
Ganesha
Flocculencio
Donor
Yes, De Lannoy will be very much in residence as Valliya Kapithan (Great Captain) of the Travancore Army. He will be instrumental in first moving along the reforms of the Travancore Army, bringing it up to the equivalent of a drilled European force and, secondly, in constructing the fortifications that will defend Travancore. IOTL he supervised the construction of a line of forts across the breath of central Kerala to defend Cochin and Travancore from Mysore. This is quite a wide area to defend and though the lines did their job they were mostly destroyed by Tippoo Sultan. ITTL once the conquest of Calicut is complete he will have much more defensible borders to work with- the relatively narrow northern border and the Pallakad Gap which is the only major pass through the Western Ghats into central Kerala.
Rough justification- the Seven Years War goes better for France, leaving her in better financial shape through the latter half of the 18th C. Conditions aren't quite as bad, leading to an overthrow of the absolute monarchy but without the radicalism of OTLs French revolution fueled by the totally untenable position of the general populace. The royal family is exiled and France establishes a constitutional republic.