Why did the British allow continued French outposts in India?

Why did Britain give back Pondicherry and other French outposts in India after the various wars of the 18th and 19th Centuries? Surely it would have been advantageous to knock out the French from trading in Asia permanently, and pretty easy to do?
 
Because a France without trading ports is a France with lots of now-worthless ships that could be turned to other uses, like invasion and piracy.
 
Why did Britain give back Pondicherry and other French outposts in India after the various wars of the 18th and 19th Centuries? Surely it would have been advantageous to knock out the French from trading in Asia permanently, and pretty easy to do?

Because those places were bargaining chips, used to obtain other concessions. And the British did eventually wind up taking them anyway, just later rather than sooner.
 
Why did Britain give back Pondicherry and other French outposts in India after the various wars of the 18th and 19th Centuries? Surely it would have been advantageous to knock out the French from trading in Asia permanently, and pretty easy to do?

Why would that be advantageous?
And why would Britain want to do purely what would be advantageous?
 
Why would that be advantageous?
And why would Britain want to do purely what would be advantageous?

If Britain had done it, say, in 1815, France would not have had any ports in Asia. That would have prevented further colonial expansion there.

Because those places were bargaining chips, used to obtain other concessions. And the British did eventually wind up taking them anyway, just later rather than sooner.

Unless I'm mistaken, France kept its 1789 Indian possessions until the 1940s. I appreciate they're bargaining chips, but they didn't seem to play very large in peace treaties.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
If Britain had done it, say, in 1815, France would not have had any ports in Asia. That would have prevented further colonial expansion there.

That would not have been to Britain's advantage. After all, the more French attention focused on colonial expansion in Asia, the less attention it would focus on quixotic quests for military glory in Europe.
 
That would be an interesting timeline though.

The Brits horribly defeat the French and knock out many of their Asian and Indian ports so the French try to put more pressure on the the English home front or any other various European country. Perhaps the French start playing bully to those under them, seizing other colonial power's possessions in the east indies to compensate their losses.
 
Would the French have been able to seize Indochina without their Indian ports? It would seem an awful long way to project power without refueling stops...
 
If Britain had done it, say, in 1815, France would not have had any ports in Asia. That would have prevented further colonial expansion there.



Unless I'm mistaken, France kept its 1789 Indian possessions until the 1940s. I appreciate they're bargaining chips, but they didn't seem to play very large in peace treaties.

They weren't going to be expanding in Asia anyway. Britain had India pretty well secured, the minute the French start massing troops in their parts of India the British invade, they don't really provide the French with any advantage against Britain. They're doing no harm and they keep things friendly with France.
 
Top