WI: Scramble for India
- Thread starter Aaaaasima
- Start date
-
- Tags
- colonization india more rajs
Pellaeon
Banned
Maybe have the Spanish, French, and Dutch have greater toe holds early on in the 1600-1700s and then have Britain's naval dominance knocked down a peg but not utterly broken.
Hence greater competition for India-proxy wars with Europeans backing rival Indian princes and states, you have the various east India companies competing and also influencing their government's policies. You have Indian princes maneuvering between the European powers and gradual concessions to European powers.
Perhaps ending with spheres of influence and European settlements in various regions.
Though this end might happen a century or two later.
This might delay or accelerate eventual Indian independence.
I imagine that would depend on the factors involved.
Hence greater competition for India-proxy wars with Europeans backing rival Indian princes and states, you have the various east India companies competing and also influencing their government's policies. You have Indian princes maneuvering between the European powers and gradual concessions to European powers.
Perhaps ending with spheres of influence and European settlements in various regions.
Though this end might happen a century or two later.
This might delay or accelerate eventual Indian independence.
I imagine that would depend on the factors involved.
You'd no doubt have an equivalent to Ethiopia (and no doubt several) in Indian rulers who resist conquest and can successfully play off European powers against each other.
In this scenario, there wouldn't be an "India" any more than there is a "Europe" or an "Africa". I'd imagine some sort of "Indian Union" might exist and "pan-Indianism" would be an ideology, but the facts on the ground would prevent any sort of real unification of India.
In this scenario, there wouldn't be an "India" any more than there is a "Europe" or an "Africa". I'd imagine some sort of "Indian Union" might exist and "pan-Indianism" would be an ideology, but the facts on the ground would prevent any sort of real unification of India.
Depends. You could easily see a narrowly-defined “India” only encompassing part of what we consider India.
Maoistic
Banned
Well, there was a colonial scramble for India beginning with the Portuguese and continuing with Spanish, Dutch, British, French and even the Germans, Danes and Swedes. This scramble just lasted far longer than that of Africa (almost three centuries until the decisive British victory at Plassey that gave Britain complete monopoly over India) due to the inferior technology of pre-industrial Europe and, even more importantly, the remoteness of India. It's funny how Europeans fought as much with themselves as with the Indians over control of India thanks to how the passage to India was swarmed by ships from almost every major Western European power.
Seems plausible. Even within our history the Princely States remained semi-independent even under British rule, subject to a subsidiary alliance and or acknowledging the suzerainty the British crown. Most only became part of the Indian nation after independence. A situation like Siam where they were used as a buffer doesn't seem unlikely.
The EIC didn't even gain complete control over Bengal until the Battle of Buxar.
Maoistic
Banned
By monopoly, I mean the British effectively controlled every major facet of India, though especially the economy, even if it hadn't annexed it all yet.
What's the evidence for this? How did the British control the economy in the Punjab in 1758?
You haven't really demonstrated that the British controlled the entire coast of India or-if they did-how that would allow them control the economy of the Punjab. Kind of odd how Mysore was able to defeat the British quite a few times in the first Anglo-Mysore war and fight them to stalemate in the second if the British already controlled every major facet of India.
Maoistic
Banned
It's just like how the Roman Empire had a monopoloy over Europe despite not having annexed the entire continent. The fact that Germanic petty kingdoms could occasionally defeat the Romans is not evidence that this wasn't the case.
And you seriously telling me that the British did not control virtually all the coasts of India after the Seven Years War and the Battle of Plassey?
Okay but you still haven't provided evidence that the British did have a Roman-Germanic "monopoly" over India. Can you give me an example of the British controlling the economy of non-vassal native Indian states?
Well what do you mean by "control"? Certainly the British weren't able to prevent defeats/stalemates in naval battles or arms/munitions/officer transport until later on. We know that the British deliberately tried to prevent european officers from being employed in native Indian states-they pushed that as a demand on defeated states constantly. Why were the British unable to prevent Tipu from getting French officers if they controlled the coasts?
Indeed. Britain didn't have control over most of India until the Maratha wars.
longsword14
Banned
Britain had effectively made themselves a major player once Mir Qasim had been puppetized and all attempts by Delhi were beaten off(the Mughals could send some forces, but EIC troops would just beat them up).
The only power that could have stopped them were the Marathas, and they were prone to fracturing, despite recognising the threat. Even an attempt to have a coalition of Hyderabad, Mysore and the Confederacy did not last long. After that, during Wellesley's tenure the British played an even better game. The stalemate developed in previous cases did not happen again, and the system of subsidiary alliances was brought in.
Once the Company had a stable base of revenue in the plains, their likelihood of being dislodged is low.
The best bet to keep them out is to snuff them in Bengal. That would, of course, still leave the French but the natives' chances against them might be better (or not, the French were the first one to play the local rulers to great effect).
The only power that could have stopped them were the Marathas, and they were prone to fracturing, despite recognising the threat. Even an attempt to have a coalition of Hyderabad, Mysore and the Confederacy did not last long. After that, during Wellesley's tenure the British played an even better game. The stalemate developed in previous cases did not happen again, and the system of subsidiary alliances was brought in.
Once the Company had a stable base of revenue in the plains, their likelihood of being dislodged is low.
The best bet to keep them out is to snuff them in Bengal. That would, of course, still leave the French but the natives' chances against them might be better (or not, the French were the first one to play the local rulers to great effect).
This may be a reference to the imperial firman, or tax-collection rights, given to the EIC by the Mughal Emperor a little while after the Seven Years War. This was, in any case, a major factor in the rapid expansion of Mughal rule.
If France was able to keep its southern holdings, you would most likely see it expand a little, but not a whole lot, confirming the Hyderabad-style alliance with Mysore. Furthermore, with his de jure domains split, the Mughal Emperor would not give tax collection rights to anyone. This is too late for Portugal, and most certainly too late for the Netherlands, however.