Indian global domination?

A question in that regard. Would you consider - for purposes of referring to the unity or size or economic development or any of the relevant factors - what's now Pakistan to be part of "India" in the context of these discussions?

Or is it different enough from even the neighboring areas in what's the nation of India to be compared separately, like comparing Russia to the rest of Europe, say.

I'd regard modern India, pakistan, bengal, sri lanka and nepal as a historical cultural region called "India" in the same way that I'd regard everything from Muscovy to Gibraltar as "Europe". Just as with Europe, however, there are huge differences within that
 
When you mention the term "India", it includes the entire subcontinent consisting OTL India, Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Srilanka and Maldives. If the Mauryan Empire had survived for a few more centuries a unified polity was not impossible.Even if a totally united empire was difficult, two or three empires like Chola Empire in the south, Pala Empire in the east and Gupta Empire in the north and west stabilizing and lasting longer could have been possible. It must be remembered that the Chola Kingdom lasted for nearly 1500 years though their imperial era was much shorter, around four centuries.
 
A question in that regard. Would you consider - for purposes of referring to the unity or size or economic development or any of the relevant factors - what's now Pakistan to be part of "India" in the context of these discussions?

Or is it different enough from even the neighboring areas in what's the nation of India to be compared separately, like comparing Russia to the rest of Europe, say.

I'd regard modern India, pakistan, bengal, sri lanka and nepal as a historical cultural region called "India" in the same way that I'd regard everything from Muscovy to Gibraltar as "Europe". Just as with Europe, however, there are huge differences within that
 
I always wondered if an indian power could have went EASTward... conquering burmese lands, by example...

Hmmmmm...that wouldnt be the best solution for several reasons:
1: The terrain was against them and any invading army would have been pinned down in endless warfare against local trible groups.
2: That area is recourse poor, so there really isnt much reason to invade untill pre-modern times.
3: That area was heavily influenced by hindu and indian culture anyway. They were better of just leaving them asvassle states.
4: Would China really want another major superpower moving in to near their kingdom?And would any indian ruler want to provoke a chinease response?
 
If you have a better date, I am all ears. 1800 and such are after the European conquest has started to influence things, and the Industrial Revolution begun in Europe, so I'm leery about using it.

That is more than a little of a problem since for most of the 18th century India was in the process of falling behind quite a bit, the Mughal empire was collapsing, Bengal the most economically developed region on the subcontinent was lost to Europeans, and in general it was a pretty shitty time. I really wish there where a way to compare India and Europe at both of their heights because that would be a much fairer comparison between both of them because comparing them in the 18th century is like comparing Europe and India while Europe was in the middle of the thirty years war and India was at the height of its development and power.
 
That is more than a little of a problem since for most of the 18th century India was in the process of falling behind quite a bit, the Mughal empire was collapsing, Bengal the most economically developed region on the subcontinent was lost to Europeans, and in general it was a pretty shitty time. I really wish there where a way to compare India and Europe at both of their heights because that would be a much fairer comparison between both of them because comparing them in the 18th century is like comparing Europe and India while Europe was in the middle of the thirty years war and India was at the height of its development and power.

I repeat my question to Flocculencio: What part of Europe?

Some parts of Europe were severely impacted by the Thirty Years War. Some parts were virtually unaffected. And some saw only minor impact.

The Mughal empire collapsing shouldn't mean that Indian manufacturing and industrialization is collapsing with it unless we're looking at massive destruction everywhere.
 
I repeat my question to Flocculencio: What part of Europe?

Some parts of Europe were severely impacted by the Thirty Years War. Some parts were virtually unaffected. And some saw only minor impact.

OK I take back the analogy.

The Mughal empire collapsing shouldn't mean that Indian manufacturing and industrialization is collapsing with it unless we're looking at massive destruction everywhere.

Actually it did lead to massive destabilisation almost everywhere. Basically decay of Mughal power left a power vacuum for the Mahrattas to exploit- they, however were just as unstable so most of North and Central India disintegrated into warring principalities and shifting alliances. In the Punjab the Sikhs were beginning to establihs their dominance which in turn led to massive political turmoil as new power structures grew up. Meanwhile in the South, some generals from these wars were finding employment as mercenary leaders and so forth. One of them, Hyder Ali, overthrew the Wodeyar dynasty of Mysore setting in motion a chain of events that increased chaos in South India.
 
Actually it did lead to massive destabilisation almost everywhere. Basically decay of Mughal power left a power vacuum for the Mahrattas to exploit- they, however were just as unstable so most of North and Central India disintegrated into warring principalities and shifting alliances. In the Punjab the Sikhs were beginning to establihs their dominance which in turn led to massive political turmoil as new power structures grew up. Meanwhile in the South, some generals from these wars were finding employment as mercenary leaders and so forth. One of them, Hyder Ali, overthrew the Wodeyar dynasty of Mysore setting in motion a chain of events that increased chaos in South India.

Is this worse than the situation as say, Renaissance Italy?

I'm not an expert or even much of a dabbler, so I'm trying to make sense of this as much as I can.
 
Is this worse than the situation as say, Renaissance Italy?

I'm not an expert or even much of a dabbler, so I'm trying to make sense of this as much as I can.

Quite a bit more, I'd say because in Renaissance Italy warfare while endemic seems (as far as I can see) to have been more formalised and restricted. The 18th century in India was, in contrast, a period of profound destablisation.

To use the Mysorean example, the overthrow of the ruling Wodeyar dynasty by Hyder Ali completely upset the regional balance of power and, ultimately, provided opportunities for Britain and France to back rival sides to further their own regional ambitions.
 
Quite a bit more, I'd say because in Renaissance Italy warfare while endemic seems (as far as I can see) to have been more formalised and restricted. The 18th century in India was, in contrast, a period of profound destablisation.

To use the Mysorean example, the overthrow of the ruling Wodeyar dynasty by Hyder Ali completely upset the regional balance of power and, ultimately, provided opportunities for Britain and France to back rival sides to further their own regional ambitions.

Fair enough.
 
Top