Basicly I got this idea of the lets say early 20th century colonial situation in Asia.Well, considering French India lasted IOTL until the mid 20th century..
Assuming though you mean France controlling (directly and indirectly) a sizable chunk of the subcontinent, then yes, it's possible, British domination of India was hardly assured and France itself did at one point have some sizable possessions in India and influence in an even larger area.
If you mean a French Raj though I doubt it, as ultimately the British really did get lucky and it took them centuries of focusing on India to do so (and a good portion of it was'nt even conquered until the 19th century).
Basicly I got this idea of the lets say early 20th century colonial situation in Asia.
The Netherlands got roughly Indonesia and Sri Lanka
France got (most of) India (at least the southern part)
England got Indo-China, Thailand, Malaysia, Sumatra, Birma and the bay of Bengalen
They either control it directly or through vasal kingdom (just like Britain and the Netherlands did OTL). Is this in anyway possible?
I was thinking a 17th century POD (although it might be early/mid 18th century) and with Britain out of the subcontinent it focusses more on going east from the Bengal area, while France has his hands full on trying to control India and thus shows no interest in Indo-China.Depends on how far back the PoD is, the Dutch territory is obviously plausible since it happened IOTL, the French getting Southern India is plausible as well (it was their main area of focus IOTL as it was), however Britain getting all of Indochina I'm not so sure of as it never had any interest in the area while France (and Spain for the matter) had interests in the area of OTL French Indochina dating back to the early 18th century.
Ultimately in Indochina's case I think it most likely that France gets roughly OTL, Britain gets Burma and the Malay Peninsula and the remainder of Thailand is either a buffer state or split between the two.
I was thinking a 17th century POD (although it might be early/mid 18th century) and with Britain out of the subcontinent it focusses more on going east from the Bengal area, while France has his hands full on trying to control India and thus shows no interest in Indo-China.
The thing is though Eastern Indochina really holds no value for Britain, the English/British colonies were always based on profit (or protecting India in the 19th century onward), and the area really is'nt that appealing for them.
Now if Britain has Bengal and Burma they very likely would go North into Uttar Pradesh, Tibet and Yunnan, as they border their regional core and are potentially very lucrative.
Assuming that France for whatever reason does'nt have an interest in Indochina then the area of what's now Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos would end-up in the Spanish sphere as it's right next to the Spanish Philippines and, as I said, they had a long standing interest in the region.
Is a French India possible? And if so, how? And when?
I have no idea what you mean with thisI don't think that India can have two rulers. All Indian territory controlled directly by an European Power is ASB and I don't see how rival Europeans powers would manage the Princely States: They'd probably just throw them against their rival ad infinitum...
Ah ok, so the british got help from an asb then in otl? (overuse of the ASB expression again anyways)I don't think that India can have two rulers. All Indian territory controlled directly by an European Power is ASB and I don't see how rival Europeans powers would manage the Princely States: They'd probably just throw them against their rival ad infinitum...
I have no idea what you mean with thi
I, of course, meant a French India instead of a British India. So no British, just French.Well, India can't be divided in two by the French and the British without an obvious endless conflict between them. As I said, India is too big to solely ruled by a direct European administration. The British knew that as they bought up the Native States submission. Now, if the French are able to buy their loyalty as well, we will only have countless wars until only one Great Power is dominant (basically what happened OTL).
Ah ok, so the british got help from an asb then in otl? (overuse of the ASB expression again anyways)
India was never entirely ruled by the British, there were the Princely States too...
could it be that britains focus shifts more west? (Persia, pakistan)
Ah ok, so the british got help from an asb then in otl? (overuse of the ASB expression again anyways)
India was never entirely ruled by the British, there were the Princely States too...
Those princes were not independent. They basically had to ask the British for permission to go to the bathroom.