WI Robert Clive kills himself in 1744

[John Fredrick Parker]

FWIG, he attempted suicide shortly after arriving in Madras that summer, but the gun he was using misfired both times. Supposing it hadn't, and the boy who would go on to become one of the most consequential generals in the history of the British Empire OTL instead died at age 18 or 19?

Is it plausible we start to see the butterflies from this fairly early? FWIG, during the First Carnatic War, young Clive played a fairly notable role in the British response to the French actions in India; he was one of the few British subjects who, upon falling into French hands, refused to take an oath not to take up arms against them, and subsequently escaped and was part of the British Siege of Pondicherry. Had this siege not happened, could the French have held onto their Indian gains following the Austrian War?

 

[The Uchronian]

FWIG, he attempted suicide shortly after arriving in Madras that summer, but the gun he was using misfired both times. Supposing it hadn't, and the boy who would go on to become one of the most consequential generals in the history of the British Empire OTL instead died at age 18 or 19?

Is it plausible we start to see the butterflies from this fairly early? FWIG, during the First Carnatic War, young Clive played a fairly notable role in the British response to the French actions in India; he was one of the few British subjects who, upon falling into French hands, refused to take an oath not to take up arms against them, and subsequently escaped and was part of the British Siege of Pondicherry. Had this siege not happened, could the French have held onto their Indian gains following the Austrian War?

I dunno, but I do recall that @Tony Jones wrote a fascinating TL some years back called Cliveless World based on just this very premise. Why not check it out?

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

I dunno, but I do recall that @Tony Jones wrote a fascinating TL some years back called Cliveless World based on just this very premise. Why not check it out?

While interesting; more "butterfly effect" than "cause and effect", so not the most wieldy answer.

That said, it does make sense that France doing better in India would distract them from defending their possessions in North America, and that these two effects combined would help considerably with French finances, all in turn making a French Revolution unlikely down the line.

 

[unprincipled peter]

France doing better in India, which means Britain does worse, makes for a lot of subtle changes. France does better economically, while Britain does worse. North America really wasn't a game change. France wasn't able, thanks to having a useless navy, to defend New France. New France didn't really contribute much to France's economy. they didn't spend a lot on the defense, didn't gain much economically. psychologically, it's a different story, but the big hurt was losing India. France probably couldn't do as much with India as Britain did, as France was behind the eight ball in regards to the industrial revolution, but simply denying the market to Britain is huge. France will be better off economically, while Britain will be worse off. Overall, I don't see a whole lot changing as Britain will still be the world's premier economy because of the industrial revolution, but they will have a little less money to spend because of India.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

A few thoughts on the short term: if France does not return Madras to the English in Aix la Chapelle, that means the French now control all European ports in the Arcot State, allowing Dupleix more leverage against Anwaruddin Khan, or more room to support a preferred claimant, like Chandra Sahid; this, in turn, will give France more leverage to push their own preferred ruler of the Hyderbad State, Muzzaffar Jang. All of which will be made easier without Clive or British Madras (for example, a Siege of Arcot won't happen TTL).

By the early 1750's, the French will pretty much be the European power in Southeast India; in the southeast you have Mysore dominating, the French East India Co quite possibly also allying with (and/or intervening in) said kingdom, and the Portuguese and Dutch playing maintaining their colonial possessions (at least for the time being); and the British East India Co. now only in the north, with factories Bombay and Bengal. Going into 1756, when Siraj ud Daulah becomes Nawad of Begal, it's quite likely, due to any number of factors, that the showdown between him and the British East India Co, if it even still happens at all, doesn't go as OTL, meaning the Company doesn't end up turning Northeast India into a privatized kingdom like OTL.

All told, it looks like what TTL would be heading toward isn't necessarily a French India, but a far, far less British one.

 

[Matteo]

A few thoughts on the short term: if France does not return Madras to the English in Aix la Chapelle, that means the French now control all European ports in the Arcot State, allowing Dupleix more leverage against Anwaruddin Khan, or more room to support a preferred claimant, like Chandra Sahid; this, in turn, will give France more leverage to push their own preferred ruler of the Hyderbad State, Muzzaffar Jang. All of which will be made easier without Clive or British Madras (for example, a Siege of Arcot won't happen TTL).

By the early 1750's, the French will pretty much be the European power in Southeast India; in the southeast you have Mysore dominating, the French East India Co quite possibly also allying with (and/or intervening in) said kingdom, and the Portuguese and Dutch playing maintaining their colonial possessions (at least for the time being); and the British East India Co. now only in the north, with factories Bombay and Bengal. Going into 1756, when Siraj ud Daulah becomes Nawad of Begal, it's quite likely, due to any number of factors, that the showdown between him and the British East India Co, if it even still happens at all, doesn't go as OTL, meaning the Company doesn't end up turning Northeast India into a privatized kingdom like OTL.

All told, it looks like what TTL would be heading toward isn't necessarily a French India, but a far, far less British one.

It could be much more than southeast India that would fall under french control, although it would probably be a lesser degree of control than the one achieved by Britain OTL.


http://www.stampworldhistory.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/French-India.png

And this would be a total game changer because, without India asa giant captive market for its industrial exports, Britain would never become the industrial superpower that it became OTL thanks to India from the 1770's on.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

And this would be a total game changer because, without India asa giant captive market for its industrial exports, Britain would never become the industrial superpower that it became OTL thanks to India from the 1770's on.

Holy crap, that would be a massive change; I wonder, does this curb the industrial revolution the world over in general, or does it just mean that England doesn't get a chance to dominate the global manufactured goods market? And if it's the latter, who emerges as the big winner here (bearing in mind that the U.S. may now not happen)?

 

[Matteo]

Holy crap, that would be a massive change; I wonder, does this curb the industrial revolution the world over in general, or does it just mean that England doesn't get a chance to dominate the global manufactured goods market? And if it's the latter, who emerges as the big winner here (bearing in mind that the U.S. may now not happen)?

Britain will still be the main innovator, the one that defines economic evolution. But it will be far less profitable because contrary to british India, french or independant India won't freely accept to destroy its own craft factories.

It means the industrial revolution will be slower and different too. There will probably be less specialization as theorized by David Ricardo. Britain pushed the logic of specialization much further than most other economic powers did.

This also means Britain will be forced to be much more compromising on the industrial stage than it was OTL. Because it won't have the Indian milkcow to pay for its wars. It won't be able to support such a big Navy nor to wage all-out wars for so many years as it did OTL in the revolutionary and napoleonic wars.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Britain will still be the main innovator, the one that defines economic evolution. But it will be far less profitable because contrary to british India, french or independant India won't freely accept to destroy its own craft factories.

It means the industrial revolution will be slower and different too. There will probably be less specialization as theorized by David Ricardo. Britain pushed the logic of specialization much further than most other economic powers did.

The inventions that defined the first part of the Industrial Revolution likely still happen -- the Watt steam engine, the Cort iron making process, the power loom, and even the cotton gin, there's no reason any of them wouldn't still be invented TTL. So England will still have the ability to manufacture goods en masse, they just won't have the massive (literally) captive market of India; so you do have a very good point...