WI Britain was unable to build an empire in India or China?

Suppose that by the time 1800 rolls around, Britain has lost most of its major holdings in India to whatever minor states occupy the subcontinent, and that it is unable to expand to China because of a stronger Qing Dynasty there. If Britain was to create an empire in Asia, where would it go instead? Would it take the Philippines, Japan, Vietnam, East Indies, etc? Assume that the Qing Dynasty is strong enough to keep China, but not strong enough to remove Europeans from states like Korea or Vietnam, and that Britain is unable to try to take India again. Given that India and China were the most lucrative targets, would Britain largely give up and restrict itself to various minor ports?
 

Onyx

Banned
So did the Danes, they held a few colonies in India, one was near Calcutta
There could be a chance that Germany might colonize India if they had the right stuff in the 1860s, thats in my alt history (They control Mysore), the Marathas would as well take over India from the Mughals and be the main power
 
It must be mentioned that Britain owned none of India in 1800. It was the EIC.

This is indeed a big question. Are they totally cut out of the Indian trade somehow or does the company just not hold anything? (ANYTHING? Not even factories?)
Too vague to answer as is.
 
No Japanese expansion: They were too poor to be bothered with.

No Dane expansion: They may have the most awesome empire ever, but when they are next to fucking france or germany. It's over, they can't be that rich without being invaded by the proverbial "600 pound gorilla"
 
It must be mentioned that Britain owned none of India in 1800. It was the EIC.

This is indeed a big question. Are they totally cut out of the Indian trade somehow or does the company just not hold anything? (ANYTHING? Not even factories?)
Too vague to answer as is.

Oh, whoops. I meant, if the East India Company loses most of its power, and its possessions are reduced to a handful of ports and factories, but Britain isn't cut out of trade directly. In this scenario, India isn't strong enough to resist all foreign powers, but, just for the sake of discussion, the British still aren't able to expand into the subcontinent.
 
Go for the East Indies...

Hmmm, perhaps the East Indies ? Kick the Dutch out, retain the Indies after the Napoleonic Wars ? IMHO, that'd be the most viable option for a British empire in the east outside of India...
 

Deleted member 1487

Would you care to expand on this?


There are several theories that explain the British head start in industrialization to the money taken from Indian princes' treasures. I don't buy it, but India and British colonialism there are not my specialties. Thus if Britain doesn't get the relationship and trade advantage then industrialization lags and the world is poorer. Europe based much of their industrialization off Britain's and managed to avoid several structural pitfalls due to the British experience (I am thinking specifically of Germany). I don't think the world would be poorer or worse off, but the later industrial revolution will completely change history.
 
William Pfaff's "Politics of Hysteria" (1964(!)) is brilliant on this issue.

It seems more like the British Empire was created because British naval supremacy, political effectiveness, and its industrial/technological jump start on everyone in the world gave it the power to amass an empire without even really trying to. Even a setback here or there wouldn't have stopped it in the big picture-- after all, from 1700 to 1914, the European powers and their colonies came to dominate most of the planet, Guns-Germs-and-Steel-syle.

I wish I knew the source, but some economic historian did a study and argued that Britain spent about as much taking and holding its empire as it gained from its colonial trade monopolies. So maybe being frustrated in their colonial moves would not have changed Britain so fundamentally.

China and India, though-- a different story. Imagine those countries' history without the humiliation of foreign domination, the breaking of native cultural confidence, etc.. No Mao, it seems to me, but I wonder if India could have made it to democracy on its own terms. Or even if it would have been a single country (well, three, after the partitions).
 
One more thought, looking at Wiking's post:

An interesting thread, probably been done already, is what if Germany had skipped its idiotic colonial project, as Bismarck recommended. It did absolutely nothing in terms of expanding Germany's true power or wealth.
 

Baskilisk

Banned
Well, for one, the wealth and manpower from India helped Britain become the industrial and colonial power it was in the 19th century. I dunno if they can live up to their OTL counterparts without it, especially if a rival power gets it, like France. India, that is.
 
Top