No India in the British Empire

Question, in a scenario where India is more united in 18th century, and thus thechance of Britain gaining it is reduced, where might Britainlook to for further colonial expansion?
 
Impossible to say. A different, more united India would completely change the early inroads of colonisation in the 16th and 17th century. The reason Britain managed to gain control of India during the 18th and 19th century was because it was best positioned after the 17th century to gain control of India, not because it was looking for a place to expand and decided tp go after India. Basicly, you need to first look at the 16th and 17th century to see what happens. Maybe Britain will gain (part of) Indonesa, maybe Britain will not gain a foothold in indonesia in the 17th century (because of the superiority of the VOC over BEI company) and Britain won't go for anything in the east.
 
Impossible to say. A different, more united India would completely change the early inroads of colonisation in the 16th and 17th century. The reason Britain managed to gain control of India during the 18th and 19th century was because it was best positioned after the 17th century to gain control of India, not because it was looking for a place to expand and decided tp go after India. Basicly, you need to first look at the 16th and 17th century to see what happens. Maybe Britain will gain (part of) Indonesa, maybe Britain will not gain a foothold in indonesia in the 17th century (because of the superiority of the VOC over BEI company) and Britain won't go for anything in the east.

Interesting, if Britain doesn't get anything in the east, does this increase their focus on the Americas andperhaps Africa?
 
They're certainly not going to focus more on Africa. They only kept South Africa to protect the Cape route to India, they only needed Egypt in their sphere so they could control the Suez route to India, their coastal possessions in West Africa can't be exploited before the mid nineteenth century and they'll never go into East Africa without India.

More to the point, without India they have vastly less wealth and power to go anywhere else at all.
 
They're certainly not going to focus more on Africa. They only kept South Africa to protect the Cape route to India, they only needed Egypt in their sphere so they could control the Suez route to India, their coastal possessions in West Africa can't be exploited before the mid nineteenth century and they'll never go into East Africa without India.

More to the point, without India they have vastly less wealth and power to go anywhere else at all.

Interesting, as they were already a growing maritime power before they got India. So, do you not think they'd focus more on America and pushing out as far as tey can go?
 
Well, talking about their 'focus' takes us down a blind alley. Real life isn't a Paradox or Total War game- most expansion into North America was done by private or semi-private entities, with the big military presence following. If the French are building forts in North America, so will the British as per usual.
But there's a limit to how far and fast you can expand. Settler colonisation is really, really expensive. By far the most valuable territories in the Americas were the Caribbean islands, and while Britain had the capacity to seize more Spanish and French possessions than it did historically, it will lose a lot of troops to yellow fever doing so.

Besides which, remember that most British expansion in India was done with Indian resources. Even if the British decided to embark on some vast campaign to acquire American territory, they wouldn't have much more ability to do it than in our timeline. In fact, American expansion will require much more commitment of blood and treasure from Britain itself, which means that a stronger Britain in the western hemisphere means a Britain less able to intervene where its core interests actually are: Europe.


Bottom line: No India means a much smaller British Empire. It will probably be much more focused on the Caribbean. It might acquire Cuba or Hispaniola, or even both- but if it does, it also loses the ability to trade colonial gains for European concessions which in the long run strengthens France.
 
The race for Africa won't happen as we understand it. A weaker Britain and a stronger France means that Europe could be radically different by the early nineteenth century. The scramble for Africa only really became possible in the late nineteenth century once enough European powers had developed the industrial, economic and medical capability to expand in the region. That in itself is highly contingent, of course.
But we don't even know what the map of Europe looks like- a stronger France means that the German states might have a completely different configuration, and any 'German' state or states might have greater (or no) interest in Africa. Belgium would never have entered the scramble without Leopold the II, who wouldn't exist. France wouldn't go into North Africa without the Bourbons needing to shore up their prestige, and then recommitted after 1871 to make up for the humiliation of the Prussian war. Those events aren't happening.

And, most importantly: no British India means a vastly weaker industrial revolution. That alone will dramatically curtail British (and general European) expansion.


Besides all that, the most interesting consequence of a stronger India isn't what it does to Europe but what it does to Asia. A strong Mughal or Maratha Empire is going to change the game in ways that frankly I don't have the training to contemplate.
 
This is very true, as someone who is both Indian and British, I find my two nationalities at war over which direction to go aha
 
If the British acquire Luzon in 7 years war, they would not even turn their eyes on their Indian possessions or China, their focus would be Japan/Pacific like OTL US of A...somebody else would take over their role in India..
 

Marc

Donor
No India, and no real Empire, simple as that. Motivation for Britain's imperialism is predicated on profit. Without the prize colonies of North America and India, internally the argument to spend limited resources is going to be very skeptically debated.
 
Last edited:
No India, and no real Empire, simple as that. Motivation for Britain's imperialism is predicated on profit. Without the prize colonies of North America and India, internally the argument to spend limited resources is going to very debatable.

And if they have the colonies of North America?
 
And if they have the colonies of North America?

Then we need a British colonial policy willing to fully control and exploit the region. Likely one that maintains slavery and the non-Royal Colony system that pushes off administrative and military responsibilities to the local authorities (Like the R.O.E.I.C did in our timeline) who can pump out high value commodity crops. They'd also likely be well served if they could make strong profitable gains elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere; maybe snatching up more good sugar and coffee islands like Santa Domingo or the Southern Cone territories.

The key issue here is getting the labor. Without the Indian masses,Britain will need to squeeze more muscle out of Africa to make the colonial system I the Americas profitable, so no major enforcement of ending the slave trade. That could motivate earlier seeking of influence in East Africa, to tap into that market once they've started overstretching the inelastic West African supply, which would back their historical ambitions on the Cape and Egypt (Though, I think it's just as likely they co-operate closer will the Ottomans with a POD early enough to butterfly in that kind of shift in British ambitions in India and the structure of their New World holdings).
 
If the British acquire Luzon in 7 years war, they would not even turn their eyes on their Indian possessions or China, their focus would be Japan/Pacific like OTL US of A...somebody else would take over their role in India..
No British India (especialy in the way described in the first post) would probably mean no 7 years war and especialy no Britain capable of projecting enough power to capture Luzon.
 
No British India (especialy in the way described in the first post) would probably mean no 7 years war and especialy no Britain capable of projecting enough power to capture Luzon.
The POD I am mentioning is 7 years war not before..If no Catherine Braganza marriage Britain would not have India for starters and it would be Portuguese vs another power instead.

I think Britain acquiring Luzon would shift the focus of Britain in East Asia from China to Japan..which means Spain can continue their trade with Qing Dynasty...for a longer time.
 
Last edited:
Top