What if the British Empire never existed?
- Thread starter Victus
- Start date
- Status
MarshalBraginsky
Banned
The obvious candidate for a stronger, more enduring Mughal Empire will be Dara Shikoh, but say if both him and Aurangzeb kicked the bucket, I'd place my bet on one of the younger brothers.
The best thing England can settle for is to acquire trading ports if they can't get an empire.
Frankly, the British IMO cannot really be replaced with regards to India....that conquest was done piecemeal with a variety of strategies with a really large amount of luck.
The Mughals do not even have to be strong to avoid Europe possessing territory beyond the forts and factories. Would it help? Absolutely. However places like Mysore and Travancore are a testament to the fact that India was up to the challenge of driving back Europe. (Heck, Mysore had begun to plan out its own European-style factories, and approached Burma and the Ottoman Empire. John Keay postulates that Tipu Sultan, had he lasted longer, may have even approached France itself!) this would drastically alter the purposes of the factories, and probably divert the Companies from directly acquiring land to trading "quietly" as Thomas Roe intended. Indeed that might elongate the life of the Companies, given that they were in their declines by the time they began to acquire large amounts of territories.
Without the British Empire, obviously the quest for riches wouldn't just stop, and I'm sure Europe would continue to want to trade with India, but the relationship might just end there. With trade.
For more information on the East India Company and its relationship with India, I recommend the Corporation that Changed the World by Nick Robins. A good read that also reveals just how the EIC managed to take control of India.
The Mughals do not even have to be strong to avoid Europe possessing territory beyond the forts and factories. Would it help? Absolutely. However places like Mysore and Travancore are a testament to the fact that India was up to the challenge of driving back Europe. (Heck, Mysore had begun to plan out its own European-style factories, and approached Burma and the Ottoman Empire. John Keay postulates that Tipu Sultan, had he lasted longer, may have even approached France itself!) this would drastically alter the purposes of the factories, and probably divert the Companies from directly acquiring land to trading "quietly" as Thomas Roe intended. Indeed that might elongate the life of the Companies, given that they were in their declines by the time they began to acquire large amounts of territories.
Without the British Empire, obviously the quest for riches wouldn't just stop, and I'm sure Europe would continue to want to trade with India, but the relationship might just end there. With trade.
For more information on the East India Company and its relationship with India, I recommend the Corporation that Changed the World by Nick Robins. A good read that also reveals just how the EIC managed to take control of India.
Last edited:
I'd argue that Dara was not a very strong candidate, since he did not have the confidence of his men; that was pretty much required. The Mughals were, after all, an army AND a state.
By Shah Jahan's time, revenue had increased by a very large amount, but expenditures even more so. Shah Jahan's building projects certainly did not help...so avoiding his reign might actually be beneficial in the long run; after all, he was also the man who created the bloody precedent of outright murdering his brothers, and began the path to religious conservatism.
Another option is also Aurangzeb's son, Akbar (who apparently shared the liberal views of his great grandpa), who had been very close to grasping the throne; stopped only because he decided to wait, allowing Aurangzeb to shrewdly send a letter to his camp stating his gratitude in leading his Rajput army into a trap, which caused the army to desert Akbar.
Last edited:
I am not sure that even the strongest Emporer could have stopped the malaise, I see the problem being the way the empire is set up rather than the people themselves.
The sub continent is too large for a single person to rule (before modern instantanious communication) so it has to be broken down into sub sections. Human nature and ambition will always have the leaders of these sub sections vieing for the attention of the Emporer and fighting amongst themselves.
The English and French just became a weapon to use against another sub ruler, but the various kings didn't realise they were climbing onto the back of a tiger.
The sub continent is too large for a single person to rule (before modern instantanious communication) so it has to be broken down into sub sections. Human nature and ambition will always have the leaders of these sub sections vieing for the attention of the Emporer and fighting amongst themselves.
The English and French just became a weapon to use against another sub ruler, but the various kings didn't realise they were climbing onto the back of a tiger.
Everybody would speak Dutch. 
Well, the Dutch did dominate vast swaths of oceanic trade during the 17th Century, and only lost it after a series of wars against England. If England tore itself apart during its own civil wars of that century, the Dutch would only have gotten stronger. Of course, being on the continent would mean they'd have to divert resources to an army more than an island nation with a powerful navy would.
Well, the Dutch did dominate vast swaths of oceanic trade during the 17th Century, and only lost it after a series of wars against England. If England tore itself apart during its own civil wars of that century, the Dutch would only have gotten stronger. Of course, being on the continent would mean they'd have to divert resources to an army more than an island nation with a powerful navy would.
Everybody would speak Dutch.
Well, the Dutch did dominate vast swaths of oceanic trade during the 17th Century, and only lost it after a series of wars against England. If England tore itself apart during its own civil wars of that century, the Dutch would only have gotten stronger. Of course, being on the continent would mean they'd have to divert resources to an army more than an island nation with a powerful navy would.
Well, it wouldn't be dominant
but it would be more powerful than OTL).However, the Dutch are going to get more colonies,however, without the Brits trust Nappy to nick them....( providing he isn't ruthlessly exterminated by butterflies). I wonder what a more Dutch South Africa would look like?Here's the thing. It wasn't a single person ruling the empire, and Akbar's system had created quite an efficient rule over the large empire. And those subsections really trying to come into their own didn't truly become a problem until well after even Aurangzeb's death. But all the problems start with Aurangzeb. Not because he himself was not shrewd or cunning (he was), but because he was trying to control the entire Empire by himself. And this angered the most important ally of the Mughals: the Rajputs. The whole Ajit Singh fiasco, coupled with the fact that his own son understood this and went to the Rajputs for help, which almost changed the fate of the Empire.
Obviously court intrigue existed, but that was the case everywhere, not just in India.
On another note, there are actually many PODs for the Mughals to succeed, even ones after Aurangzeb. Prince Akbar's rebellion, Bahadur Shah's rule being longer (John Keay stated that he was an excellent ruler, affected only by the fact that he did not live long enough), Shah Alam II successfully using his military reforms to beat back the Marathas, and even giving Shivaji just a little bit more, as he wanted, officially moving him into theMughal hierarchy.
And there were many instances of Indian rulers successfully playing off the English and the French. Haidar Ali comes to mind, for one. Heck, to even assume Europe was a tiger would be a bit much! Thomas Roe urged quiet trade, and many EIC officials did not want anything to do with war and expansion into India. Lastly, even the English and French were able to make rather dumb decisions, like Child's War.
Settler colonies, sure. But the Dutch could always use Germans and the like to help administer the VOC Empire.
When the contest for power in India started the British were not the sure favorites. The French were there and the Dutch and the Portuguese were completely sidelined. From the native side there were a limping Mughal Empire on her downward trail, the emerging Maratha Confederacy, the local rulers like Rajputs, Sikhs in Punjab, Nawabs of Awadh, Bengal, Nizam of Hyderabad, Mysore etc. In fact, among the native powers the Marathas were the most likely candidates. Had Shivaji, who was ten years younger than Aurangzeb, survived him, Mughal Empire would have collapsed earlier and the Marathas would have consolidated. Again it was the third battle of Panipat and the battle of Plassey that were the decisive turning points. The Marathas who held the largest territory, more than half of the subcontinent under them, lost the game.
Even if Shivaji survived Aurangzeb, Aurangzeb's son Bahadur Shah was said to be a great ruler, only limited by the fact that he died after five years. Shivaji may have consolidated Maharashtra, but I doubt he would go any further- the man had previously been inducted into the Mughal hierarchy, and a theory is that he left only because he did not gain a higher rank than the man who defeated him; Jai Singh I. Another is that Aurangzeb was planning to send him to defend Kandahar, far from Maharashtra. Keep him in Maharashtra with a mansab and a post as governor, and he could have well been happy "under" Mughal rule.
But you make a good point. The Compagnie des Indes was actually making a comeback at the time of Clive, and Chandernagore under Dupleix was becoming a real threat to the British....he was one of the few who did not want to restore Madras to the British, and without Madras, the HEIC is quite likely screwed. Madras was where they fled when Calcutta was captured by Siraj-ud-Daulah and without it, they would be left without a close location to reconsolidate.
The Dutch in Bengal were also making a comeback with regards to revenue. They were doing increasingly well, though militarily the Dutch had nothing to stand on.
All in all, Calcutta was actually in a sort of decline. And if the French heeded Dupleix concerning Madras, then the British Empire in India would not have occurred, let alone the British Empire in general.
Not just settler colonies. A nation with a small population doesn't have much it can spare to put into military forces while still maintaining its economy.
Add in the coast (which has its advantages and disadvantages, but as relates to this, is a disadvantage) and the limitations on ship draft (and thus size) from it and the Dutch are going to be very hard pressed to maintain parity with England ( "Britain" or not) and France as time moves on.
That's not to say that they can't do marvelous things, but the Dutch replacing the British is not feasible.
True. I'd say the Dutch would be more reliant on keeping powerful allies powerful than attempting to create a monolithic empire.
Yeah. It would probably be a good part of a "less European conquest" world - although then there's France.
France does have the manpower and deep water coastline.
Yes, but politically, at least in India, France had a lighter hand approach. After all, they generally allied with the countries they bordered. The trick there, however, is to prevent these allies from fighting each other.
Yes, but politically, at least in India, France had a lighter hand approach. After all, they generally allied with the countries they bordered. The trick there, however, is to prevent these allies from fighting each other.
I'm not sure that would necessarily last, especially with the absence of significant British competition.
Even with the absence of significant British competition, war would not necessarily lead toFrench domination, and I think the French knew that. In OTL, Mysore could have very well wrested the south away from the British the second time they clashed, yet inexplicably chose not to do so....here, they would be a French ally, not a client, and I don't think the French would attack them. As previously mentioned, France was attempting to help Tipu build his own Company. And the Marathas had a very strong army to contend with, not to mention Shah Alam II had been reforming his army and made it the strongest on the subcontinent right after that of the British. And the French may not necessarily argue with that, as long as trade continues to be good. After all, once the British conquered Bengal, revenues initially went up, but eventually went back down, and stock prices weren't exceedingly high. And Dupleix had made the Compagnie des Indes a viable competitor to the EIC, and Chandernagore a very rich city, without any real conquests (though he did not want to return Madras).
Sure. But assuming that the French policy OTL would continue without anyone changing it needs at least a little more discussion.
Its not as if the British conquered just because they could, the same would apply for any French motives.
True. But I'm just extrapolating here. Obviously it would change, but loose control is something the French did everywhere; New France, for instance.
Maybe it would change, but I personally don't think it would change to the British mindset. I would imagine, rather than establishing client states, the French Empire would be a network of allies first and foremost.
- Status