What would India's "Prussia" have been?

Pkmatrix

Monthly Donor
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.

If I recall, Aurangzeb wasn't so much an extremist as he was simply more orthodox a Muslim than his predecessors, who were much more accepting of Hinduism. But, you're right, the Marathas managed to carve themselves a de facto empire within the Empire by the 1700s almost entirely without outside interference (the Europeans, while interested, remained on the periphery at this point).

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.

Not so much "Britain" as specifically the East India Company, which should really be heavily emphasized... the Mughals would have remained, decentralized and weakened, had the Company not decided to become more aggressive and force out the middleman, specifically the rulers of Bengal (I believe they were called the Murshids?). Would the take over of India proceeded at all had the Company not had itself appointed Diwan?

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.

No, you have to go back earlier than that. The Empire was steadily weakening, but technically still in good shape, until the Sacking of Delhi by the Persians in 1737. That broke the Empire's back, they never recovered from that. The British moving in and Third Panipat removed whatever power was left.

Hm...

If the East India Company lost, though, and the Empire was allowed to carry on... based on what was happening before, I'd say the Marathas would continue to increase their influence/power before ultimately usurping the Mughals entirely. The Emperor was already their puppet... if you could avoid the 1737 and 1761 attacks on Delhi, I'd bet it wouldn't take very long for a strong Maratha leader to appear, take the throne, and move to recentralize the empire.
 
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.

For a Hindu rather than a Muslim unifier (go Marathas!) wasn't there a sense of us-vs-them re the Muslims? Or for somebody in, say, the Tamil deep south, being ruled by a foreign Hindu vs a local Muslim is six of one, half a dozen of the other?

Bruce
 
For a Hindu rather than a Muslim unifier (go Marathas!) wasn't there a sense of us-vs-them re the Muslims? Or for somebody in, say, the Tamil deep south, being ruled by a foreign Hindu vs a local Muslim is six of one, half a dozen of the other?

Bruce

The thing is, in South India you had a completely different religious dynamic. Islam in Kerala, and Tamil Nadu was a mercantile religion, not a martial one. The Muslim conquerors never really made much of an impact there- the aristocracy was pukka Hindu.
 

Thande

Donor
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.

I didn't count those because the European control of the hinterland was almost nonexistent (except in the Carnatic after the 1750s), as opposed to Bengal, which was almost a direct British possession after the Black Hole business. Calling places like Pondicherry a foothold in India is, to my mind, like calling Hong Kong a foothold in China.
 
This might sound a little weird but: Nepal.

If you somehow get the East India Company to collapse during the early 19th Century, when there would be at least a primitive sense of Indian-ness. This might happen if Nepal went to war with the Company at the same time the company went to war with the Marathas, and brought about the Nepal-Punjab-Maratha alliance together (This was attempted, in OTL but did not come about) and dealt a pretty hard blow to the Company, enough to cause the Indian soldiers to revolt.

With the British driven back to Bengal, and Gurkha Expansion into the Gangetic Plains. We have a bi-polar India with two powers: Nepal and Maratha empires (much like Austria and Prussia) in Germany. Nepal fits the Prussian model: Martial, religiously Homogeneous, somewhat peripheral to the nation, and unaffected by foreign influence... the usual "pure, austere warriors" stereotype.

Hey, this might be the forum's first Nepal-wank idea, too
 

Thande

Donor
This might sound a little weird but: Nepal.

If you somehow get the East India Company to collapse during the early 19th Century, when there would be at least a primitive sense of Indian-ness. This might happen if Nepal went to war with the Company at the same time the company went to war with the Marathas, and brought about the Nepal-Punjab-Maratha alliance together (This was attempted, in OTL but did not come about) and dealt a pretty hard blow to the Company, enough to cause the Indian soldiers to revolt.

With the British driven back to Bengal, and Gurkha Expansion into the Gangetic Plains. We have a bi-polar India with two powers: Nepal and Maratha empires (much like Austria and Prussia) in Germany. Nepal fits the Prussian model: Martial, religiously Homogeneous, somewhat peripheral to the nation, and unaffected by foreign influence... the usual "pure, austere warriors" stereotype.

Hey, this might be the forum's first Nepal-wank idea, too
The problem with Nepal is China. The Nepalis were most interested in conquering Tibet rather than Oudh and then any more of India (though they did get around to that eventually) and always butted heads with China over it.

Hmm, maybe another WI that requires a Balkanised China ;)
 

MrP

Banned
The problem with Nepal is China. The Nepalis were most interested in conquering Tibet rather than Oudh and then any more of India (though they did get around to that eventually) and always butted heads with China over it.

Hmm, maybe another WI that requires a Balkanised China ;)

Don't mention it to Faeelin or Hendryk. ;)
 
The problem with Nepal is China. The Nepalis were most interested in conquering Tibet rather than Oudh and then any more of India (though they did get around to that eventually) and always butted heads with China over it.

Hmm, maybe another WI that requires a Balkanised China ;)


Well, the Nepalis were more interested in Tibet after their defeat in the Anglo-Gurkha war when they wisely decided not to mess with the British ambitions in India. But if the aforementioned coalition can stop the company, and cause it to retreat into Bengal, the North Indian plains become fertile grounds for conquest.

A more serious problem is that Nepal needs reform and quick -- Nepal treated its peasants rather poorly. But a "great man" can be of a lot of use here. Bhimsen Thapa was a Nepali commander who did what he could to reform Nepal and gave her a strong modern military. But as British had taken complete control of lands that bordered Nepal at the time, it was only useful for occasionally harassing Tibet. Bhimsen Thapa can become a much greater man in TTL due to his capabilty for conquest, and continued reforms. A Thapa aristocracy in place instead of some the less progressive factions can make Nepal a modern nation state in a few decades time.
 
If you're talking about the 19th century, I'd go with the Sikhs, especially since the Khalsa was a pretty good analog to the Prussians in terms of military competence. Of course, the Punjab technically isn't on the subcontinent, but by the same token, nowadays Prussia is technically part of Poland.

If earlier than that, probably Hyderabad, simply given the pre-existing size of the country. Hyderabad had a run at maintaining independence at the end of the Raj, and if they'd tried that earlier...

(My first post: She is constructive!)
 

Thande

Donor
Don't mention it to Faeelin or Hendryk. ;)

Well, I personally think balkanised Chinas are more interesting. I think the historical unity of China, one dynasty replacing the next, continuous Confucianism, largely lends itself to the apparent (I did say apparent) homogeneity and dullness of Chinese history that make most people say 'meh' and is responsible for the same kind of attitudes those very same Sinophiles despise.

Not unlike ancient Egypt - oh, everyone thinks they know about it, but the apparent homogeneity across thousands of years means that the detailed history tends to be neglected.
 
If I recall, Aurangzeb wasn't so much an extremist as he was simply more orthodox a Muslim than his predecessors, who were much more accepting of Hinduism. But, you're right, the Marathas managed to carve themselves a de facto empire within the Empire by the 1700s almost entirely without outside interference (the Europeans, while interested, remained on the periphery at this point).

Probably a question of terminology/relativity. Basically his regime was a lot less tolerant to the Hindu minority than previous ones and that was primarily what caused the unrest in the Rajputs and the Marahara revolts.

Not so much "Britain" as specifically the East India Company, which should really be heavily emphasized... the Mughals would have remained, decentralized and weakened, had the Company not decided to become more aggressive and force out the middleman, specifically the rulers of Bengal (I believe they were called the Murshids?). Would the take over of India proceeded at all had the Company not had itself appointed Diwan?

To a large degree but the government was always involved to some degree. It put a lot of effort in helping the EIC overcome the French for instance and with much of the latter battles. Similarly with the trial of Hastings for alleged corruption. There was possibly an opportunity gap when, with the initial French direct influence defeated from ~1785, and the country more concerned with the Revolutionary and Napoleonic threats, the government in London was less concerned with events in India. Might have been an argument during that period that serious military set-backs for the EIC during that period might have been of less concern for London. Provided that it wasn't supplanted by another European power and maintained economic influence.

No, you have to go back earlier than that. The Empire was steadily weakening, but technically still in good shape, until the Sacking of Delhi by the Persians in 1737. That broke the Empire's back, they never recovered from that. The British moving in and Third Panipat removed whatever power was left.

Hm...

Would the 1737 defeat have made much difference to the rise of the Marathas's or even have boosted it by further weakening the remaining influence of the Mughals? Since the main point under the discussion was about the Marathas's supplanting the Mughals.

If the East India Company lost, though, and the Empire was allowed to carry on... based on what was happening before, I'd say the Marathas would continue to increase their influence/power before ultimately usurping the Mughals entirely. The Emperor was already their puppet... if you could avoid the 1737 and 1761 attacks on Delhi, I'd bet it wouldn't take very long for a strong Maratha leader to appear, take the throne, and move to recentralize the empire.

See reply to previous section.

Steve
 

Thande

Donor
To a large degree but the government was always involved to some degree. It put a lot of effort in helping the EIC overcome the French for instance and with much of the latter battles. Similarly with the trial of Hastings for alleged corruption. There was possibly an opportunity gap when, with the initial French direct influence defeated from ~1785, and the country more concerned with the Revolutionary and Napoleonic threats, the government in London was less concerned with events in India. Might have been an argument during that period that serious military set-backs for the EIC during that period might have been of less concern for London. Provided that it wasn't supplanted by another European power and maintained economic influence.

I don't think what London thought had much impact on what the EIC did until the 1830s at the earliest. The Hastings trial you mention was an apt example of how they couldn't make anything stick. The Maratha Wars which sealed Britain's hold on the subcontinent happened in almost total isolation w.r.t. the European conflict, so you can't use home-islands arguments to justify changes in India...in my opinion.
 
I don't think what London thought had much impact on what the EIC did until the 1830s at the earliest. The Hastings trial you mention was an apt example of how they couldn't make anything stick. The Maratha Wars which sealed Britain's hold on the subcontinent happened in almost total isolation w.r.t. the European conflict, so you can't use home-islands arguments to justify changes in India...in my opinion.

Thande

Possibly I put the wrong emphasis on this section. Basically in agreement here in that if the EIC had suffered serious set-backs which removed most of their political/military power but left their economic interest largely intact London wouldn't have bothered too much. Provided this change didn't result in an European rival, specifically the one the other side of the channel, replacing the EIC as a major player in India. However there was a continued interest in India and British interests there, although it was not as important as later on.

Steve
 
I like the Nepal idea. For two reasons: we are in dire need of a nepal-wank, and because Nepal meets the requirements for the Prussia analogue.

BTW, we don't need a balkanized China, we need a preoccupied one. How about earlier Opium wars stemming from the Nepali victory over the EIC?
 
The Opium Wars happened because the British controlled a huge amount of Opium. In India. Rather close to Nepal.

So that's out.
 
Top