I think you may be making a common mistake here. When discussing French vs British colonialism in India, you have to take into account the differing situations and attributes of the two states. You can't just take out Britain and insert in France. For example, even if you had a PoD like Dupleix succeeding over the British in his efforts to expand French India, things like the lack of a mature financial system in France are going to have a large impact on what happens next. TBH I don't think the French have enough advantages to completely take over. Any successful French India is going to be multipolar in my opinion.
Sure, that was the english EIC.
Now, concerning India itself, since Clive did to a large extent copycat a strategy that had been devised by Dupleix some 10 years earlier, if the french had come out as winning the competition against the british for the control of India, then there would have been huge consequences.
The french would have made quite as much profit at exploiting India as the british did. And this may well have butterflied away the financial crisis that led to the french revolution and its chaos. British political life may become more radical than it was OTL.
France will have a very strong incentive to build an even bigger perchant and war Navy than it did OTL and triggered the virtuous circle into which Britain engaged thanks to its indian profits.
Plus the colonial ethos of the French up to that point did not really support a major overseas colony (see Canada / Louisiana)
It would help France I agree in the sense they would be less likely to collapse into bankruptcy (especially if the AWI did not happen as OTL) - but then do we see Napoleon playing the role of Wellesley in India???
I agree with the rest of your post but I would object to this one.
Canada was "a few arpents of snow" as the well known quote goes. A few colonists but mainly important for the fur trade. Louisiana was just too damn big, especially since the native population wasn't big enough to work the land in your place.
I would say it would be somewhat fairer to see how France treated sugar islands. India would be a place to extract a lot of wealth, I don't believe it would be treated the same way at all. Many more resources available would lead to a more hands on approach.
I don't know. If the British could do it in India and the Dutch could do it in Indonesia and the Spanish and Portguguese could do it in South America, I am confident the French would be able to do it too.But that would tend to lead France to a series of "Goa" style enclaves rather than the administration of larger entities as per the British. Until Algeria the French did not really have a significant colonial population to rule (Haiti did not end well).
That's not to say that they could not find a way, just that they may not be as competent at extracting wealth as the British or Spanish
I don't know. If the British could do it in India and the Dutch could do it in Indonesia and the Spanish and Portguguese could do it in South America, I am confident the French would be able to do it too.
Agreed, especially since the Brits played it by the rulebook the French wrote.
Now I'll give you that the French were not experts at colonial economy not based on plantations, at least on first look. A bit later, they did well with commerce in the East Africa region. The FEIC had some nice moments as well so if Dupleix is allowed to stay, who knows...
Not saying they would do it right, just saying it's not certain they would do it wrong.
But that would tend to lead France to a series of "Goa" style enclaves rather than the administration of larger entities as per the British. Until Algeria the French did not really have a significant colonial population to rule (Haiti did not end well).
That's not to say that they could not find a way, just that they may not be as competent at extracting wealth as the British or Spanish
Fair comment.
It would also almost inevitably lead to an earlier Suez Canal proposal. And most likely a Franco-Ottoman war over Egypt as a result.
It might actually defuse tensions in Europe if France is raking in the cash from her Indian and other colonies (Egypt??) as a result.
Saint-Domingue (the future Haiti) was enormously profitable for France. What caused it to "not end well" was an unusual set of circumstances (France itself going through revolution, the slaves being freed, the French navy being devastated by the loss of the nobility, the yellow fever epidemic devastating Leclerc's forces, and so on).
Saint-Domingue (the future Haiti) was enormously profitable for France. What caused it to "not end well" was an unusual set of circumstances (France itself going through revolution, the slaves being freed, the French navy being devastated by the loss of the nobility, the yellow fever epidemic devastating Leclerc's forces, and so on).
It is especialy interesting considering that England had managed to alienate most of Europe at the time, while France had managed to gain allies. Previously the European wars were basicly France against the rest of Europe (ok, a bit of an exaggeration), but England basicly only had some minor German states left as allies. If France can keep up with England naval wise, because of India, while the rest of Eurpe basicly stop caring. England is in trouble. To be fair, France needs some smart political and diplomatic manouvering to avoid other countries to get involved, because they might feel threathened by France.
True but it was still an oversized plantation economy - there wasn't really a French colonial population of any consequence (c. 30,000) compared to say Virginia (500,000) or the Carolinas (400,000)