Any Indian power which had a coast did have a significant interest in trade and navy.
And Chola and Pandya bad
Chera good .What is a common thing or trope that always seem to happen?
- Thread starter Viking25
- Start date
And Chola and Pandya bad
Chera good .
The thing is France preferred very indirect rule at the time. Probably equally as bad but with less "benefits" for France. Does that stay the same or change?
I personally stan the Kingdom of Kalinga. #DownwithAshokaAnd Chola and Pandya bad
I mean I could see Frances colonial policy changing when faced with a colony as wealthy as India(Haiti was their only colony worth a damn) to be a bit more direct, and a lot depends on when France gets control of India. Is it during the reign of the Bourbons(A French victory in the seven years war would be the most likely POD for this or even one before. Dupleix could also just not be recalled from India)? A Victorious Napoleon? Or under some sort of Republic? One of the more concrete butterfly effects I could see arising from this is that Mumbai, Kolkata, and Chennai which were all built by the British probably don't emerge as India's major urban centers with corresponding French settlements taking their place, I don't know which but Pondicherry would work as a decent substitute for Chennai and Chandannagar which during Dupleix's time in charge was said to make Kolkata look like "A poor cousin" develops into another major city. As for religion, The French were considered to be relatively more pro hindu than the British, and while I can't see them persecuting Indian religions the Catholic Church probably gets a significant boost, though I doubt its more than a distant 3rd place barely ahead of Sikhs in the grand scheme of things by the time French rule in India ends.
I think that would only work in a TL where he never became Emperor of the French, instead being sent to a remaining french colony in India and doing his thing there
The French did get India under him in, What Madness is this though that TL.......isn't known for its realism shall we say
I suspect this is only because "balance of powers" was needed and that's the only manner England can survive to become a puppet of RU
Sacer Bubonicus
Banned
WW1 happens and then the map doesn't change at all between 1919 and 2019. Mostly seen in Kaiserreich maps where the mod developers' own comments about the unstable nature of the German imperial project are glossed over and it all survives somehow.
Alternatively, WW1 doesn't happen and the map stays constant until present-day.
Alternatively, WW1 doesn't happen and the map stays constant until present-day.
I don't remember much of how India was like their in general, but at one point after the defeat of Britain in the Napoleonic Wars, The East India Company declared itself Independent with some guy named Hornby(Or was it Horner?) being proclaimed King. I say some guy because unlike most other characters in the TL he doesn't seem to be based on or a riff off any actual person, and seems to have been entirely invented by the author as when I searched up his name I got precisely 0 hits.
I swear to god in 99% of WW1 doesn't happen scenarios the British empire somehow manages to maintain its exact borders in 1914. The weird instance that the continued existence of some of the most virulently racist, oppressive and exploitive regimes in history would make the world a better place is also pretty annoying.
In many cases also the British Empire is the only empire that mantains their 1914 borders, because the rest of countries suddenly explode in many States (with OTL borders) because "economics" and "they're too unstable".
Nah the one I am thinking of this had this for everyone, even fucking Portugal!
The only Portuguese Empire I am interested in is one centered in Brazil!
I'd be interested to see someone other than T.R carry similar ideals and energy. A timeline where the Democrats get a president who kicks off the progressive era (like I dunno, the POD is that Benjamin Harrison gets a second term or something) feels pretty novel
TNO did Bukharin, who somehow did worse than Stalin even if he wasn't nearly as evil. I'm guessing the reason for this cliche is outside of Stalin, Trotsky is one of the more well-known big Soviet figures at the time and OTL he kind of encouraged the idea he should've been Lenin's successor
Here's something I feel is kind of cliche; if Germany wins WW1, one of the Allies/Entente Powers gets mad about losing or something and goes fascist. I mean, Germany did lose but it was never guaranteed to fall into authoritarianism because of it. Another cliche? When I see what ifs on Alexander the Great it's "what if he was more successful?" Alexander was already so successful OTL that if history was fiction, I'd accuse him of being some writer's self-insert. Alexander-screw TLs would be a nice change of pace.
Would you say a common trope in the "no Mexican-American War" timeline is "Mexico becomes Mexichad and holds onto stuff like California?"
Last edited:
Anyone think it's hilarious that his Stalin allegory was the same animal the Soviets used to compare to capitalists?
A Portuguese empire surviving with its capital in rio de jaineiro will probably be the most peculiar european empire in the 19th and 20th century (at the height of european empires). Because the empire will be part of the partition of Africa, perhaps having a much larger Angola and Mozambique. Not to mention that it is likely that decolinization will not occur in this empire with angola and mozambique being considered part of the state (similar to france and algeria).