WI an independent East India Company

I think the British would try to send a task force over to quell the mutineer first.NO way they will let India cut loose without even trying.I do believe that the British government acts have made it clear that India isn't John Company's property,it was British territory whose governance was more or less outsourced to John Company only.
Well, that "outsourced governance" is something that comes later doesn't it? After the Benghal famine?
As you note, it is a mutiny, would there be a big civil war among loyalists and mutineers?

Plus, a "recolonisation" attempt against a European trained enemy from across the World has very little chances of success, especially if France/VOC is on the way, harassing your (very long) supply lines
 
Well, that "outsourced governance" is something that comes later doesn't it? After the Benghal famine?
As you note, it is a mutiny, would there be a big civil war among loyalists and mutineers?

Plus, a "recolonisation" attempt against a European trained enemy from across the World has very little chances of success, especially if France/VOC is on the way, harassing your (very long) supply lines
Bombay and some other places started out as British territory leased to John Company.I also doubt John Company is capable of self-sufficiency until the late 1700s.

As for some sort of civil war,I'd presume one side would generally lose quickly.In these kinds of civil wars,people tend not to try and fight to the death.They more or less try to flee or defect whenever one side seem to be losing,especially since the sepoys don't really have much loyalty to the British crown.

No doubt actual units of the British army stationed in India would try to resist.

By the way,can we at least work out how can John Company even try to rebel,as in who actually has a kind of authority that can at least rally the mutineers?
 
Last edited:
Bombay and some other places started out as British territory leased to John Company.I also doubt John Company is capable of self-sufficiency until the late 1700s.

As for some sort of civil war,I'd presume one side would generally lose quickly.In these kinds of civil wars,people tend not to try and fight to the death.They more or less try to flee or defect whenever one side seem to be losing,especially since the sepoys don't really have much loyalty to the British crown.
I would argue that the Company was self sufficient. Shame I don't have internet at home where my sources are :/

Anyway, most of the profits until the XIXth century were mostly in the country trade, which would not disappear with independance. The really big point is whether they can renew their armement and replenish their arsenals.

If we plan on the period 1750-1800, the attitudwe of France is key. Would they ally with the Company and fight Britain? Would they be neutral? Would they fight a three way war?

aht would really be the defining factor. If Britain can't have free access to a well entrenched Company, the bid for independance can succeed.
If Britain has access AND has backed for France, the bid is useless and will be crushed
If the Company is allied to France, providing them with gunpowder and a place in their European networks, now that'd be interesting as we would see a lot of the profits and networks that went to London go to Bordeaux or Nantes instead since Amsterdam had been crushed as a safe place to invest money
 
I would argue that the Company was self sufficient. Shame I don't have internet at home where my sources are :/

Anyway, most of the profits until the XIXth century were mostly in the country trade, which would not disappear with independance. The really big point is whether they can renew their armement and replenish their arsenals.

If we plan on the period 1750-1800, the attitudwe of France is key. Would they ally with the Company and fight Britain? Would they be neutral? Would they fight a three way war?

aht would really be the defining factor. If Britain can't have free access to a well entrenched Company, the bid for independance can succeed.
If Britain has access AND has backed for France, the bid is useless and will be crushed
If the Company is allied to France, providing them with gunpowder and a place in their European networks, now that'd be interesting as we would see a lot of the profits and networks that went to London go to Bordeaux or Nantes instead since Amsterdam had been crushed as a safe place to invest money
I mean in terms of the infrastructure and facilities they have in India,as well as the armies in place to put crush any invaders,including a European Expeditionary force.
 
What if the Company became a personal possession of the King - much as Congo was for Leopold?

Would require some "improvements" to the Company administration and finances (earlier Opium export????) but would be interesting if the Crown held financial control over an Indian state outside of Parliament.

Tricky to engineer but very interesting.......
 
What if the Company became a personal possession of the King - much as Congo was for Leopold?

Would require some "improvements" to the Company administration and finances (earlier Opium export????) but would be interesting if the Crown held financial control over an Indian state outside of Parliament.

Tricky to engineer but very interesting.......
There was a serious OTL effort to do so, in 1760s. Foiled OTL. WI it succeeds?
 

ben0628

Banned
Bombay and some other places started out as British territory leased to John Company.I also doubt John Company is capable of self-sufficiency until the late 1700s.

As for some sort of civil war,I'd presume one side would generally lose quickly.In these kinds of civil wars,people tend not to try and fight to the death.They more or less try to flee or defect whenever one side seem to be losing,especially since the sepoys don't really have much loyalty to the British crown.

No doubt actual units of the British army stationed in India would try to resist.

By the way,can we at least work out how can John Company even try to rebel,as in who actually has a kind of authority that can at least rally the mutineers?


The governor general would be the most important person in India. There would probably be some executive company members who had power as well.

As for self sufficiency in military terms, they had the manpower, the had an already existing military, they have food to feed the military, they have wood for ships and they had a shit ton of saltpeter for gunpowder.

I agree about a quick civil war. It'd probably look more like a coup. It'd last a couple days, during that time, rebels would kill loyalists and capture key positions.

As for British soldiers in India, most officers would be loyal but I don't know about the regular soldiers. Soldiers back then in the British army tended to either be gullible people persuaded to go on an "adventure" by recruiters or former criminals who were let out of prison under the condition they serve (I might be over generalizing). These people's loyalty could be bought.
 
Top