Indian Countries Colonise Europe

I know what you are all thinking right now. ASB. You're thinking that it is crazy and ridiculous for that to happen. But what people don't understand is that India was on equal terms with Europe for a very long time. What happened to India was the Mughal Empire collapsing while dragging the rest of the subcontinent down. European countries where able to snap them up (with Britain getting all of it eventually).

Could the same thing happen in reverse? Would Indian nations even want Europe if they had the oppurtunity?
 
I don't think it's ASB, given an earlier Pod (I think that the XVIII is too late, cause by then Europe was too strong). But in earlier times, India was more advanced than Europe in every meassurable aspect.

This was certainly the case in 2500 BC, during the rise of the Indo valley civilization. It was also the case around 1000 BC, and also around 500 AD, during the times of the Gupta empire.

Even in V th century BC, most of India was more advanced than Europe (if we look at it gographically, as the Greek city states occupied only a fraction of "Europe"). Megatestenes, a Greek who lived in India under the Mauyra, admired the country due to, amnong other things, the fact that slavery was almost non existant.

Indian philosophy and religion was very attractive to the Greek. At the same time, the Indians adopted many Greek notions concerning medicine or astronomy and develoved them on their own. By the first centuries of our era, they had a great numerical system and already new the Earth moved (and not the sun). The fact that they were divided most of the time could have spured competition and innovation.

An Europe controled entirely by Sri Lanka is not less ASBish that a Beritish controlled India.

But I think we've got to start early, at the V centrury AD at least. Keep Europe in the Dark ages, and make India safer from nomadic invansions, and you might get what you're looking for.
 
Europeans travelled to the far and near east for specific commodities.. Silk, spices... etc.

You have to ask. What would we have to offer that they'd be willing to risk the Cape of Good Hope or crossing potentially hostile (if they're Hindus or Buddhists, et al) Muslim territory for?
 
Europeans travelled to the far and near east for specific commodities.. Silk, spices... etc.

You have to ask. What would we have to offer that they'd be willing to risk the Cape of Good Hope or crossing potentially hostile (if they're Hindus or Buddhists, et al) Muslim territory for?

They could travel to sell their stuff. IOTL, Indian and Sri Lankan Ambassadors were recieved by the Roman emperors in the II century. And they don't need to co all the way round. If there's an earlier Pod, the Middle East may not be Islamic. Buddhism might have expanded into Central Asia (it did) Iran and even the Middle East (easier if you buttelfly away Constantin's conversion to Christianity).
 
Just is not happening. The Indian people have zero motivation for colonization attempts. Europe had plenty of motivation knowing about the spices and other East Asian goods and wanting to get them without having to paid the Muslims exorbitant prices. Hinduism and Buddhism are not actively proselyting faiths compared to Christianity. The spread of Christianity was a major motivator early on in European Colonization and stayed prominent throughout most of the old colonial period. India was dominated by oriental despotism type governments. These kinds of governments where the state is all powerful limit private enterprise. European kings were never able to acquire the kind of power that Indian kings had over their kingdoms.

India and China being equal to Europe until the end of the 18th century when Europe got 'colonies and coal' is bull. Yes, both areas had GDP equal to or higher then Europe. However, anyone who makes a comparison just on that is a naive fool. Per capita GDP in Europe was much higher for centuries, nutrition were better in Europe, there was higher productivity per labor hour in Europe, and modern science could only be found in Europe to name a few of the advantages Europe had. It was the 1500s, not the 1800s that marked the start of Europe's dominance.
 
Europeans travelled to the far and near east for specific commodities.. Silk, spices... etc.

You have to ask. What would we have to offer that they'd be willing to risk the Cape of Good Hope or crossing potentially hostile (if they're Hindus or Buddhists, et al) Muslim territory for?

Cornish pasties.
 
Europeans travelled to the far and near east for specific commodities.. Silk, spices... etc.

You have to ask. What would we have to offer that they'd be willing to risk the Cape of Good Hope or crossing potentially hostile (if they're Hindus or Buddhists, et al) Muslim territory for?

Coal, maybe? But India has coal, darn. Amber? Or maybe sealskin is a luxury product ITTL?

As a mini TL, have a partial Arab conquest of Europe, with constant Islamic/Christian conflict across the continent to break things up a bit. Let's say the Arabs never conquer India, but remain dangerous foes for it. Seeking to outflank the Arabs in the west, the Indian nation states begin to fight scrappy wars over the European principalities, eventually allying with the Byzantine Emperor. Gradually, the Emperor loses his power, and by the end of the 1858 European Mutiny, the Emperor is deposed, and a Tamil army occupies Constantinople, proclaiming domination over a continent?

Just a thought. :p
 
Well, a China hostile to Buddhism may drive misionaries west instead of east. We could see Buddhism take hold in Iran (merger with Zoroastrianism?) and the Middle East. It wouldn't becoem the dominant religion,but it would be enough to provide closer links.
 
Top