I think the 7 years war is basicly too late to avoid a British India, or at least Britsh India. I do not believe that France or the Indians will be able to completely remove the British from the Indian subcontinent.
No India in the British Empire
- Thread starter VVD0D95
- Start date
Deleted member 109224
The wealth was in the east and the British will still be interested in taking advantage of that. If not India, then there'll be a focus on China, Malaya, etc. It will likely begin with British businessmen and corporations heading east and end up being followed by the British Government.
If there's still a revolt in the American colonies and Spain gets involved, I don't see why the British wouldn't look and think "oooh an opportunity!". The Philippines could be very very lucrative for Britain, the Governor of Jamaica tried to capture Nicaragua OTL, and the British tried to take Havana and Rio de la Plata OTL.
The gist being, the Philippines (a global trade center) become a core of Brish activity in Asia, the Caribbean and Rio de La Plata become important way-stations on the way to the Philippines, and Britain orients itself towards the Atlantic and Pacific rather than Africa and India. Canada would also be a prominent overland route methinks.
Why doesn't Britain control India? Does Tippu Sultan in conjunction with the French manage to drive the British out of India? Do the British still hold Bengal or did the French gain Bengal from them?
I could feasibly see the first Anglo-Mysore War going poorly for Britain, with Hyderabad and Mysore driving the British out of southern India.
If Britain doesn't have India, might Clive end up in North America?
If there's still a revolt in the American colonies and Spain gets involved, I don't see why the British wouldn't look and think "oooh an opportunity!". The Philippines could be very very lucrative for Britain, the Governor of Jamaica tried to capture Nicaragua OTL, and the British tried to take Havana and Rio de la Plata OTL.
The gist being, the Philippines (a global trade center) become a core of Brish activity in Asia, the Caribbean and Rio de La Plata become important way-stations on the way to the Philippines, and Britain orients itself towards the Atlantic and Pacific rather than Africa and India. Canada would also be a prominent overland route methinks.
Why doesn't Britain control India? Does Tippu Sultan in conjunction with the French manage to drive the British out of India? Do the British still hold Bengal or did the French gain Bengal from them?
I could feasibly see the first Anglo-Mysore War going poorly for Britain, with Hyderabad and Mysore driving the British out of southern India.
If Britain doesn't have India, might Clive end up in North America?
Well you can start out that there is no bailout of the East India Company in 1773. You just butterflied away the American War of Independence as we know it. It the bailout that pushed the tensions between the British and the North American colonists over the edge into crisis.
Second, the British don't have Indian grown opium to ship to China to balance their trade with China. No Opium War.
The British are likely not trying to secure routes of communications with a subcontinental empire they don't have. Now, they may try to grab the Dutch East Indies. The East india Company tried for that first and went into India as compensation when they lost. Later on they did make inroads in the East Indies, but left most of it to the Dutch because they already had their Indian empire. However, if the British go that route, they may take over the Cape Colony from the Dutch, but Egypt and Aden are not directly on the route of communication with what is now Indonesia as they are with India and they are probably left alone, so no British involvement in the Middle East. And Dutch Ceylon is left alone too.
The Indian subcontinent had something like half the wealth and population of the entire British empire, and if anything I am underestimating things, so the British empire as a whole is alot weaker. And some have claimed that the British deliberately retarded Indian industrialization.
Second, the British don't have Indian grown opium to ship to China to balance their trade with China. No Opium War.
The British are likely not trying to secure routes of communications with a subcontinental empire they don't have. Now, they may try to grab the Dutch East Indies. The East india Company tried for that first and went into India as compensation when they lost. Later on they did make inroads in the East Indies, but left most of it to the Dutch because they already had their Indian empire. However, if the British go that route, they may take over the Cape Colony from the Dutch, but Egypt and Aden are not directly on the route of communication with what is now Indonesia as they are with India and they are probably left alone, so no British involvement in the Middle East. And Dutch Ceylon is left alone too.
The Indian subcontinent had something like half the wealth and population of the entire British empire, and if anything I am underestimating things, so the British empire as a whole is alot weaker. And some have claimed that the British deliberately retarded Indian industrialization.
Deleted member 109224
There were already other lingering issues. The Proclamation of 1763, Stamp Act of 1765, Declaratory Act of 1766, Townshend Acts of 1767, and Quebec Act of 1774 all had to do with the 7 Years War and issues deriving from it. EIC issues contributed to the Tea Act of 1773, but that act was also about cracking down on Tea Smugglers.
Odds are without the bailout the revolt could be delayed but it would take something else to prevent it entirely.
The response of the Sons of Liberty to the Tea Act was to dump the wretched tea into the harbor. In response to that, Parliament closed the port of Boston, suspended the Massachusetts charter, provided for the quartering of soldiers in homes and for trials of colonial officials to be held in Britain (the Intolerable Acts). After this, the colonists started gathering arms, raising militia, physically attacking British officials and their supporters and driving them from their homes, and the other colonies supported this.
Jackson Lennock listed other grievances and controversies, but it was the Tea Act that was the proximate cause of the rebellion. While the colonists still said they were loyal to the King for a few years afterwards, they stopped making even a pretense of obeying his/ Parliament's laws.
Jackson Lennock listed other grievances and controversies, but it was the Tea Act that was the proximate cause of the rebellion. While the colonists still said they were loyal to the King for a few years afterwards, they stopped making even a pretense of obeying his/ Parliament's laws.
Mysore is small fry in India at time. The major power was the Maratha confederacy. Easiest way for India not too fall to British is for battle of panipat lead in Maratha victory over the afghans. That leads to Maratha consolidation in northern India and also enahnces there position in the Mughal court. Furthermore the lack of loss would lead to the lack of creation of the Knights system by Madhavarao and the ensuing civil wars and the Marathas could conceivable unite India unnopossed. Quite honestly after Plassey the only state in the Indian subcontinent that had the capability to Match the British in terms of preventing them from taking over was the Marathas. The Punjab Sikh State too was strong but they did not have the same level of power projection as the Marathas.
Deleted member 109224
Would the Marathas unite all of India or just the north?
Last edited by a moderator:
All they already controlled Deccan the north the east. Only Bengal Oudh Mysore and Hyderabad we’re out of their control in India and even then in that period Mysore was handily defeated and the nizam of Hyderabad was defeated several times by the Marathas. Plus the Marathas also controlled the Mughal empire. As for Bengal they would not have the resources or ability to take out the Marathas who already controlled most of the subcontinent and as for Oudh once again was too small to pose a threat. Furthermore relations between the panjab Sikh State and Marathas was strong the panjab State even trying to send soldiers to help Marathas at panipat though those men arrived late. So we would see the continuation of a Sikh panjab and Maratha alliance leading to the these two states being the dominant powers and the British would not really have been able to do much given even when the Marathas were at their weak east during the ssscond and third Anglo Maratha wars they were able to hold their own and just barely lost. That too because of infighting between Peshwa and knights Scindia Vs gaekwads vs Peshwas which only happened after panipat leading to Madhavrao being forced to decentralise the confederacy to survive.
Deleted member 109224
The Mughals weren't able to conquer the southernmost bit where Mysore and Travancore are. Nor was the Delhi Sultanate.
Perhaps an india divided between the Marathas in the North and an independent Mysore and Travancore in the south...
Oh Mysore and travancore would’ve probably become tributaries paying chauth same as Mughal times when southern states paid tribute in turn for not being conquered. But there is no question once affairs in north were sorted the Marathas would target Mysore and Hyderabad given Mysore region and Tamil lands too already had a Maratha presence of sorts. Nayaks of Madurai and thanjore who were later conquered by the nizam of Hyderabad I believe( in 1600s or 1700s) and more specifically riches of south India too much to pass up.
Yeah something like that where south was in tributaries status.
Deleted member 109224
Interesting.
Might the southern states attempt to "pull a Meiji" and break away from the northern yoke at some point in the 19th century?
They could try but I really only see Mysore doing it Travancore had relatively good relations with marathas. Honestly I dthink my beloeve a Maratha confederacy would be more different to India today just quite a bit more decentralized. Essentially the Mughal system was kept byarathas so not much change and would probably function as a bit more decentralized Mughal empire but yes Mysore and also Hyderabad and Bengal would be potential breakaway candidates. But the problem is these states military was not really as strong as the Maratha army.
Optical_Illusion
Banned
Yes, I think that's quite questionable. British India seems not very relevant to the First Industrial Revolution in Britain (mid-late 1700s to mid-early 1800s).
Late 18th century Britain seems almost certainly due to industrialise. You've got substantial growth in per capita gdp (probably 250% India in 1700) and relatively high income consumers for goods (esp. nominally in world), a low share of employment in agriculture (something like 40% of population in 1700, low compared to most nations and comparable to Netherlands), productivity increases in every industry happening (huge growth in productivity for metals, fuel, construction, books; textiles like cotton actually not the essential or leading industry in output or productivity terms), and we know that science and technology are changing quickly purely on a qualitative level.
India looks much like a place that on a Malthusian decline through the 17th and 18th centuries, without much change under EIC. It doesn't have any of those features. It's not a place that's likely to industrialise its textile production, or anything much really. GDP/capita really only improves in the late 19th century a bit, with increased international trade, but even then that has limited scope by the Raj failing to make much impact in agricultural productivity or reduce share of population working in agriculture, and improve education (which is then a huge potential driver for growth).
Economic history may unfold quite differently throughout the 19th century (though I doubt much too "pulling a Meiji" as everything seems to indicate Japan was uniquely placed for that, but I wouldn't close the book on it with a good early divergence point), however the immediate story seems like it's not going to be vastly different in a world where there's empire in India.
In terms of talking about a weaker industrialisation, or at least weaker growth, the per capita growth rate seems fairly linear in Britain since about 1820 (indifferent in the medium term to changes and expansions in empire), so I'm a bit skeptical that it would be vastly different without British India (esp. given relatively low proportions of economy involved in trade etc) though of course the patterns of activity could change.