WI: Russia and France invade India, 1801

Even with an "unreasonable streak of luck", logistics would get in the way eventually. The BEI Company has half a (sub)continent to call wealth and armies from, plus the backing of the #1 superpower in the world at the time. Russia+France would struggle to fight that sort of army in a perfect world with unlimited supples. 4000km of desert will stop unlimited supplies, and probably a lot of non-unlimited supplies as well. That desert didn't even have a railroad or anything to fix it up. I doubt a modern air supply route would be enough even.

So, any forces sent are certain to be defeated. I wouldn't say Sealion-level certain, but it comes close. Very close.

- BNC
Perhaps we're looking at this the wrong way. Rather then "how effective would the French and Russians be?", perhaps we should be asking "how much damage could the Afghanis and/or Punjabis do, backed up by whatever limited assistance the French and Russians could provide?"

This of course requires us to presume some competent planning and diplomatic groundwork, which may or may not be too much to ask for. OTOH Benoit de Boigne's refusal to lead the campaign suggests that some people were cognizant of just how impractical the OTL plans were, so perhaps all that is needed is for such people to have more sway?
 
Last edited:
The British would probably abandon their fight on the continent to defend their best colony. Napoleon will never be able to attack the British isles proper, at least not as long as he has to fight the Royal Navy (which would take an unreasonable amount of effort to defeat on its own), so London will know it is safe to go and do something else for 12-18 months.

Would they? Maybe, depends on what commitments they have. Keeping in mind they tended to be a lot less complacent about invasion than pretty much anyone living today, I don't think they'd be so quick to give up on Europe, especially for a conflict that would probably be over before they could rush troops from one theater to another.

Even with an "unreasonable streak of luck", logistics would get in the way eventually. The BEI Company has half a (sub)continent to call wealth and armies from, plus the backing of the #1 superpower in the world at the time. Russia+France would struggle to fight that sort of army in a perfect world with unlimited supples. 4000km of desert will stop unlimited supplies, and probably a lot of non-unlimited supplies as well. That desert didn't even have a railroad or anything to fix it up. I doubt a modern air supply route would be enough even.

So, any forces sent are certain to be defeated. I wouldn't say Sealion-level certain, but it comes close. Very close.

- BNC

That definitely overestimates the strength of the East India Company. This is a corporation that, as you say, had half a subcontinent to plunder, and yet it could barely break even financially from year to year, had to be bailed out of bankruptcy by the British government in the past and would again in the future, and when they felt the need to go on the offensive against potential invaders forty years later, couldn't support more than 15000 troops for that purpose. I still don't think the French or Russians could get anything significant to India, but if they really could turn Ranjit Singh against the British, then that could get ugly. And it was less than fifty years beforehand that the British were in danger of getting run out of Madras, so they weren't that secure on the subcontinent yet.
 
Perhaps we're looking at this the wrong way. Rather then "how effective would the French and Russians be?", perhaps we should be asking "how much damage could the Afghanis and/or Punjabis do, backed up by whatever limited assistance the French and Russians could provide?"

That view would certainly lead to a more interesting discussion. It also changes the topic from a 'Russia and French invasion of India in 1801', as the title suggests, to 'Afghani raid of India with a bit of a prompt from Russia and France'.

Punjab could cause a bit of trouble for a while, then the British would realise India matters more than distracting Napoleon, and the British would crush it. The Afghanis would be able to do hardly anything alone. A semi-nomadic raid that the Indian garrisons can take care of. Maybe a large part of those garrisons, but it would still be a raid rather than a proper invasion.

Would they? Maybe, depends on what commitments they have. Keeping in mind they tended to be a lot less complacent about invasion than pretty much anyone living today, I don't think they'd be so quick to give up on Europe, especially for a conflict that would probably be over before they could rush troops from one theater to another.

OTL Britain was at peace for a little while in 1802. Before then they had just broken Napoleons foray into Egypt. Napoleon wasn't doing a lot between then and 1805, so they weren't giving up too much anyway. Also, they had lost big-time in America 20 years previous, and what be horrified at the thought of losing the next most important colony as well. The Royal Navy was leaps and bounds better than the French Navy, so it can spare the stuff needed for the India operation. Everything else will be well above what is needed to protect Britain.

That definitely overestimates the strength of the East India Company. This is a corporation that, as you say, had half a subcontinent to plunder, and yet it could barely break even financially from year to year, had to be bailed out of bankruptcy by the British government in the past and would again in the future, and when they felt the need to go on the offensive against potential invaders forty years later, couldn't support more than 15000 troops for that purpose. I still don't think the French or Russians could get anything significant to India, but if they really could turn Ranjit Singh against the British, then that could get ugly. And it was less than fifty years beforehand that the British were in danger of getting run out of Madras, so they weren't that secure on the subcontinent yet.

I'll admit that I'm no expert on the BEI company or anything in detail about that time, so it is possible I am generalising a bit. However this was a time close to half way between the British first interfering in India (early 1700s?) and Victoria's title of Empress of India (1867). Something like the takeover of a continent doesn't happen in an instant, so the British hold on their half of India must have been firm enough that it could defend itself against the backwards remnants of the Mughals and other formerly important kingdoms. Technology must count for something, and the British were the masters of it at the time.

- BNC
 

longsword14

Banned
I'll admit that I'm no expert on the BEI company or anything in detail about that time, so it is possible I am generalising a bit. However this was a time close to half way between the British first interfering in India (early 1700s?) and Victoria's title of Empress of India (1867). Something like the takeover of a continent doesn't happen in an instant, so the British hold on their half of India must have been firm enough that it could defend itself against the backwards remnants of the Mughals and other formerly important kingdoms. Technology must count for something, and the British were the masters of it at the time.
The way English rule in India spread is a fascinating one. Dupleix started to use a method of showcase of strength to local rulers who used to be subordinate to a higher power to further his company's interest, later this model was adopted by Clive
. By the time European powers really started to spread their legs there was no single entity capable of facing any European force in strength.
Most of the time EIC used treaties of support to some mid tier power that would need English help, especially technological, to outfight its opponents. Later when the balance of power changed to enable some other ruler to get their foot in EIC's business they would get rid of them as well.
The English dominance in the subcontinent is a great story of division and incompetence. However, Ranjit Singh was a solid ruler who had consolidated himself up North and had taken care of the Afghans too. The traditional game of splitting a region into warring powers would not work as well in this time period. EIC's reach was no way close to where you keep pointing at nor was it strong enough to war so far away with problems yet to be solved in central India.

Naval technology, sure they were well ahead, but on land? No. The French had lost their position in the subcontinent some time ago but they were quite capable of being a capable opposition to British arms and armies.
 
Naval technology, sure they were well ahead, but on land? No. The French had lost their position in the subcontinent some time ago but they were quite capable of being a capable opposition to British arms and armies.

And in this scenario the French would only supply a very small amount of equipment, due to difficulty in carrying it across thousands of km of desert. The stuff that the Afghanis used would be the equipment for >90% of that force, and it couldn't match the British.

- BNC
 

longsword14

Banned
And in this scenario the French would only supply a very small amount of equipment, due to difficulty in carrying it across thousands of km of desert. The stuff that the Afghanis used would be the equipment for >90% of that force, and it couldn't match the British.

- BNC
I was not talking about the Afghans. Also, I was stating the fact that EIC did not have even a fracton of the reach you are suggesting they had, and the fact that England was not the high, beyond all power of Europe as you seem to be writing.
 
Last edited:
Top