What can save the Mughals?

At their height it seems like they didn't really need to learn anything from the europeans. When they did need to learn from the europeans they didn't have the strength to enforce the changes that they needed to make. The challenge is allow the Mughals to succeed without damaging europe's growth.
 
At their height it seems like they didn't really need to learn anything from the europeans. When they did need to learn from the europeans they didn't have the strength to enforce the changes that they needed to make. The challenge is allow the Mughals to succeed without damaging europe's growth.

Try Gurkani Alam by Tony Jones.
 
The challenge is allow the Mughals to succeed without damaging europe's growth.

Hard! And probably not do-able, because a lot of the growth of Europe, the UK in particular, came from exploiting India. Keeping the Mughals strong means more money staying in India and less flowing into Europe, even if the Mughals keep up trade with Europe. Which is going to have an effect.

I had it pushing European nations to expand more in other areas of the world, such as Africa to make up the difference as much as they could...
 
Well reducing the religous tension that the mughals faced must make them a bit stronger. It does seem like Aurangzeb seemed to claim too much and tried to be too pushy with the islamicization, but I don't think that that was the only problem.

What about if their was an alliance between portuguese and mughals to keep the British out (butterflying away the dowry of braganza). Or maybe later with an alliance with another colonial power. This would end up with many Mughal concessions and losses but never total irradication or political irrellevence.
 
At their height it seems like they didn't really need to learn anything from the europeans. When they did need to learn from the europeans they didn't have the strength to enforce the changes that they needed to make. The challenge is allow the Mughals to succeed without damaging europe's growth.

Bettwr said WHO can save the Mughals - Aurangzeb, by dying. The sooner, the better.
 
Hard! And probably not do-able, because a lot of the growth of Europe, the UK in particular, came from exploiting India. Keeping the Mughals strong means more money staying in India and less flowing into Europe, even if the Mughals keep up trade with Europe. Which is going to have an effect.

I had it pushing European nations to expand more in other areas of the world, such as Africa to make up the difference as much as they could...

Why are you so sure that Europe's advance was dependent on the expoitation of India?
 

Valdemar II

Banned
One word: Money. Without the exploitation of India Europe will have less of it, which will have an impact.

I think it's a slightly naive perception of growth, the reason Europe grew to dominans was the improvement of native production, if you look at the economies of the 17-19th their position was improved more through internal efficiency than through cash-mining of external sources, several of the powers which was came to dominans like Austria and Prussia lacked colonial empires, while both Netherlands, Portugal and Spain fell in the same periode. A richer India will result in more trade between Europe and India and as a result a richer Europe.

But I think you correct in that Britain will end up in a weaker position without India, but Europe as a whole; no.
 
One word: Money. Without the exploitation of India Europe will have less of it, which will have an impact.

Valdemar has it right. Besides, did we see Spain industrialize during the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, when they had the entire wealth of the Americas to exploit? Quite the opposite, IIRC.
 
I think it's a slightly naive perception of growth, the reason Europe grew to dominans was the improvement of native production, if you look at the economies of the 17-19th their position was improved more through internal efficiency than through cash-mining of external sources, several of the powers which was came to dominans like Austria and Prussia lacked colonial empires, while both Netherlands, Portugal and Spain fell in the same periode. A richer India will result in more trade between Europe and India and as a result a richer Europe.

But I think you correct in that Britain will end up in a weaker position without India, but Europe as a whole; no.

You need money, in this era precious metals like silver and gold struck into coins, in order to invest in economic ventures (colony-founding, ship-building, goods-purchasing). With India independent it will be absorbing European coin and not giving it back. That means that coin will not be in circulation in Europe to be invested, which means the OTL investments that were made aren't, which means that Europe is less productive that it OTL would have been.

To give you a parallel situation from OTL: The British started selling opium in China in order to correct the trade in-balance that they had vis-a-vis China. Basically the British were paying coin for Chinese goods, and the Chinese didn't want any goods the British had. Opium corrected the in-balance, actually tipping it in Britain's favor, which set off the Opium War.

So, if Mughal India is independent and strong, Europe does not grow as fast, which will have serious knock-on effects for Europe. Specifically, the British did a LOT of the European empire-building, and the modern-world inventing, and they did with India as the money-producing engine of their Empire. Without that engine, the UK doesn't do what it did, and that causes all kinds of ripples.

Valdemar has it right. Besides, did we see Spain industrialize during the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, when they had the entire wealth of the Americas to exploit? Quite the opposite, IIRC.

Spain didn't industrialize, but the Dutch did with Spanish gold. If you don't have that Spanish gold in circulation in Europe, then you don't have the Dutch Golden Age and all of the opportunities that opened up to the rest of Europe. The Spanish spent significant amounts of their wealth paying various concerns in the Burgundian Inheritance for things like banking and manufactured goods. Those purchases couldn't have been made without the American gold. So no gold, no Golden Age, and history after that gets rippled.
 
You need money, in this era precious metals like silver and gold struck into coins, in order to invest in economic ventures (colony-founding, ship-building, goods-purchasing). With India independent it will be absorbing European coin and not giving it back. That means that coin will not be in circulation in Europe to be invested, which means the OTL investments that were made aren't, which means that Europe is less productive that it OTL would have been.

Would India really be absorbing as much specie after 1780 or so, given the massive improvements in British manufacturing? Improvements that had very little to do with the exploitation of India in OTL.

Spain didn't industrialize, but the Dutch did with Spanish gold. If you don't have that Spanish gold in circulation in Europe, then you don't have the Dutch Golden Age and all of the opportunities that opened up to the rest of Europe. The Spanish spent significant amounts of their wealth paying various concerns in the Burgundian Inheritance for things like banking and manufactured goods. Those purchases couldn't have been made without the American gold. So no gold, no Golden Age, and history after that gets rippled.

Flanders and Brabant had been at the forefront of the European economy since medieval times, and the Dutch Golden Age simply resulted from the migration of skiled labour and merchant capital northwards as a result of the Eighty Years War. Presumably, this would happen even without any gold in the Americas. You also might want to consider why the Spanish spent all that gold in the Burgundian Inheritance in the first place.
 
What Matthais is trying to say is that Europe during the 17th century was much poorer and less productive than either india or china and that the reversal of this was brought about by the huge influx of gold and goods from the Americas which was used to fund the major moneymaker of the 18th century which was the Atlantic trade. Matthais and my professors seem to agree about this subject. That being said it kind of ignores the ideas of mercantilism which were so prevalent at this time. I think that native european production would not be destroyed by competition instead it might focus on its own development through the atlantic trade.

This is an interesting debate, but I think it all comes from me miswording the challenge. When I said "and not damaging european growth" I was thinking of the common cop out: "the mughals suceed because europe is crushed by a 30 years war that turns into a 120 year war and more disease and tons of scientists are killed off, so in 1784 a Mughal fleet is seen off the coast of England..." What I meant was a POD that is Mughal not European. No Peshawar lancers style asteroids or Salt and Rice plagues.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
What Matthais is trying to say is that Europe during the 17th century was much poorer and less productive than either india or china and that the reversal of this was brought about by the huge influx of gold and goods from the Americas which was used to fund the major moneymaker of the 18th century which was the Atlantic trade. Matthais and my professors seem to agree about this subject. That being said it kind of ignores the ideas of mercantilism which were so prevalent at this time. I think that native european production would not be destroyed by competition instead it might focus on its own development through the atlantic trade.

This is an interesting debate, but I think it all comes from me miswording the challenge. When I said "and not damaging european growth" I was thinking of the common cop out: "the mughals suceed because europe is crushed by a 30 years war that turns into a 120 year war and more disease and tons of scientists are killed off, so in 1784 a Mughal fleet is seen off the coast of England..." What I meant was a POD that is Mughal not European. No Peshawar lancers style asteroids or Salt and Rice plagues.

Well the comparative poverty of Europe versus Arabia/India/China is overrated if not directly wrong, the average European peasant or artisan wasn't poorer* than his easten equalant, but the nobles were poorer.

*Often they were on average richer than their easten equalant.
 
Top