What would India's "Prussia" have been?

Thande

Donor
There is a striking similarity between the Holy Roman Empire of the eighteenth century and the Indian Mughal Empire of the same era. Both were decaying superstates that existed more on paper and as an idea than in reality. Both included countless small states, ruled by men whose titles originally signified minor lieutenant-governors when the Empires were strong, yet now conferred effective kingship. Both had strong religious foundations which had long since been subverted and undermined by realpolitick (the HRE was half Protestant; the Mughals' theoretical policy towards Islamic supremacy was tactfully ignored by the local rulers with many Hindu or other non-Muslim subjects).

If we carry this analogy to its logical conclusion, this means that (in the absence of European colonisation) a powerful Indian state would have risen from humble beginnings to unite most of India and exclude the former Mughal rulers - an Indian Prussia in other words.

Of course this analogy is not exact because in Germany the Hapsburgs continued to enjoy considerable power as Austria, whereas the Mughals of Delhi were puppetised by the Marathas and others, but never mind.

So which state could have united India? The two main possibilities to my mind are Mysore and Hyderabad; however, my perceptions may be tainted by the changes brought about by Europeans. Without Britain and France, for example, Arcot or Bengal could also have been contenders for the title - although Bengal remained closely aligned with Delhi for a long time. What do you think?
 
did the Mahratta have British help to overcome the Mughals? because they controlled much of northern India at their height.

possibly Hyderabad and allies in a new Deccan Federation (German Confederation anyone),


but to extend your analogy, we'd need an Indian Napoleon.... hmmmm...
 
I'm back, hate me more.
Anyways, the idea sounds very interesting. Remember, however, that Prussia was a state that was way less typical German than the other states until the "Prussification" of Germany. It was also geographically located away from Germany (not by much, but it still counts), and that it started (and was) extremely small. Also, don't forget that Prussia was founded by Teutonic Knights and was militaristic.
Bengal, however, seems nice here. Still, it was closely aligned with Delhi, so I dunno.
 
Rajistan is the Prussia of India and its people rajputs the warriors who fought for everyone and against everyone ....but they were not religious & noble like the teutonic knights but were opportunistic and mercenaries
 
A very strong arguement can be made that the Teutonic Knights, and especially the Prussians, weren't terribly noble and certainly were opportunistic.
 
Didn't the argument go that border states tend to do the unifying? Prussia was at the periphery of Germany, Macedonia for Greece, and the Qin for China. So some state on the Northwest Frontier with plenty of fighting with Afghans to sharpen their military skills would probably be most appropriate.
 

Thande

Donor
Didn't the argument go that border states tend to do the unifying? Prussia was at the periphery of Germany, Macedonia for Greece, and the Qin for China. So some state on the Northwest Frontier with plenty of fighting with Afghans to sharpen their military skills would probably be most appropriate.

...the Sikhs?
 
Having done a test on asian resistance to European culture, colonization, and commerce recently; I might know something about this.

India was one of the least resistant Asian nations to the Europeans (compared to Tokugawa Japan, Ming China, and SE Asia). If India had explored like the Chinese near the 1350s, they may find that there is nothing in the world as wealthy as India. They may find that the Europeans only bring 1 item of importance, gunpowder technology. The Indians could take gunpowder skills, and then close their ports. I think a wealthier 1300s in India would bring this on.
 
Having done a test on asian resistance to European culture, colonization, and commerce recently; I might know something about this.

India was one of the least resistant Asian nations to the Europeans (compared to Tokugawa Japan, Ming China, and SE Asia). If India had explored like the Chinese near the 1350s, they may find that there is nothing in the world as wealthy as India. They may find that the Europeans only bring 1 item of importance, gunpowder technology. The Indians could take gunpowder skills, and then close their ports. I think a wealthier 1300s in India would bring this on.

That's a valid point, but he's asking about, if we were to have an India free of colonialist ventures and united, which of the plethora of Indian nations would be the one to unify them, in a parallel to Prussia.
 
I'm forever intrigued by this often overlooked piece of history. India doesn't get the props it deserves as a regional power that alot of influence in the overall scheme of things. Much of the wealth and ideas of the Orient passed through India.

With any luck, Flocc will chime in.
 
I'm forever intrigued by this often overlooked piece of history. India doesn't get the props it deserves as a regional power that alot of influence in the overall scheme of things. Much of the wealth and ideas of the Orient passed through India.

With any luck, Flocc will chime in.

I still think that one problem is that there's no sense of Indian-ness. In the Grman lands there was at least a base concept of German-ness but there was pretty much no such thing as an Indian until the mid-19th century. This means that whoever goes on a conquest spree is always going to be seen as just another foreigner by anyone outside his immediate region.
 
I would go for Hyderabad

IIRC Rajistan was extremely fragmented ?

The Sikhs would have had great difficulties even getting as far as Delhi due to religious differences, though they could have carved a great empire out in the North, taking even Ladakh, parts of Nepal etc, even North beyond India's borders

Tippu Tib as another guy if he wasn't faced by a concerted opposition in Britain ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
did the Mahratta have British help to overcome the Mughals? because they controlled much of northern India at their height.

No they largely broke Mughal power without any interference. The main factor was the extremism of the Mughal emperor of the time who alienated much of the empire's non-Muslim supporters.

However the Mahratta's fairly quickly splintered into various regional clans and failed to maintain any central organisation. Britain was able to use that with a measure of divide and rule but that was after we had defeated the French challenge.

Things might have been different if not for a severe defeat the Mahratta's suffered by Afghan invaders in 1761 near Delhi, if I remember rightly. This seriously set back their power but don't know enough about them to say how things had gone if they had won or how much of a change would have been required for that.

but to extend your analogy, we'd need an Indian Napoleon.... hmmmm...

Not really. While it was still a clear 2nd in absolute power Prussia had emerged as Austria's main rival by seizing [and more importantly holding] Silesia in the 1740's. It had also won through, not without great cost, against a combined and sustained Austro-Russian attack in the 7 Years War.

The Napoleonic Wars did give three main advantages to Prussia. Austria's more prolonged resistance probably weakened it more. Also the defeat in 1807 not only shocked Prussia into major military and social reform but also deprived them of most of their Polish territories. Without those changes Prussia would have developed significantly differently and may well have not emerged as the dominant power in Germany.

Steve
 
No they largely broke Mughal power without any interference. The main factor was the extremism of the Mughal emperor of the time who alienated much of the empire's non-Muslim supporters.

However the Mahratta's fairly quickly splintered into various regional clans and failed to maintain any central organisation. Britain was able to use that with a measure of divide and rule but that was after we had defeated the French challenge.

Things might have been different if not for a severe defeat the Mahratta's suffered by Afghan invaders in 1761 near Delhi, if I remember rightly. This seriously set back their power but don't know enough about them to say how things had gone if they had won or how much of a change would have been required for that.


on the Wiki article it has some historians saying that without the Mahratta's defeat in that battle, Britain may never have gotten a foothold in India... I doubt that's accurate though. however, a Maratha victory at that battle may strengthen the Mahratta enough to become INdia's prussia
 
on the Wiki article it has some historians saying that without the Mahratta's defeat in that battle, Britain may never have gotten a foothold in India... I doubt that's accurate though. however, a Maratha victory at that battle may strengthen the Mahratta enough to become INdia's prussia

rcduggan

I don't know if either they or the vast array of cultures that were India would have been suitable for a Prussian type unification. However they might well, if they were able to form a powerful and coherent state, formed the next great Indian empire. Britain was gaining control of Bengal at about this time so the EIC might still have emerged as a territorial power. However a strong line from a powerful state in Delhi, the open successor of the Mughal state could have persuaded them to accept a different role, continuing to have trading interests but surrendering its territorial possessions. In that case India might follow a path more similar to that of China.

Steve
 

Thande

Donor
on the Wiki article it has some historians saying that without the Mahratta's defeat in that battle, Britain may never have gotten a foothold in India... I doubt that's accurate though. however, a Maratha victory at that battle may strengthen the Mahratta enough to become INdia's prussia

I dunno, Third Panipat was pretty damn decisive. It's the equivalent of 'Waterloo' in Indian idiom for a reason.

It wouldn't stop Britain getting a foothold in India, because that was due to Mughal weakness (Bengal), but it might well stop northern India being added to British India. It was Third Panipat that caused the Maratha Empire to shatter into the looser, feuding confederacy that was unable to resist Wellesley in the 1800s.
 

Trolim

Banned
rcduggan

I don't know if either they or the vast array of cultures that were India would have been suitable for a Prussian type unification.

Steve


True. India should be viewed as more analagous to Europe than to Germany or any specific country. Like China, it's a civilization all it's own.

That said, the Sihks make good candidates: on the border with neighboring hostiles (afghans), overemphasis on army, very martial. They have a good chance of unifying their corner of India, becoming a strong regional state (like prussia) maybe leading to empire.
 
I dunno, Third Panipat was pretty damn decisive. It's the equivalent of 'Waterloo' in Indian idiom for a reason.

It wouldn't stop Britain getting a foothold in India, because that was due to Mughal weakness (Bengal), but it might well stop northern India being added to British India. It was Third Panipat that caused the Maratha Empire to shatter into the looser, feuding confederacy that was unable to resist Wellesley in the 1800s.

Also let's not forget that the European powers already had footholds in South India (yes, everyone always forgets South India)- Goa, Pondicherry, Cochin, Madras etc.
 
Even though not really part of the Subcontinent I'd have to vote for the Pathans.

Jezail for the win.
 
Top