WI: The Burmese capture Chittagong in 1824

After doing some random readings about Southeast Asia I found a curious fact about the First Anglo-Burmese War (1824-1826): It says that the Burmese general Maha Bandula decided to not attack the British in Chittagong, in a cautious tactic as he didn't want to risk overstretching the supply lines, unknown to him the city was barely protected and it would threaten the base of operations of the EIC, Calcutta.

But what if Bandula decided to gamble and put Calcutta on the reach of the Burmese? What would be the Company's reaction, would they still launch the naval landing in Yangon? Even supposing the Burmese still lose, in OTL the war was massively expensive for the EIC, it bankrupted Bengal a decade later and put India in deep financial crisis.
 
Would a serious loss result an earlier enactment of the Government of India Act 1858. IOTL, after the 1857 Mutiny, the EIC lost all it admin and military powers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_India_Act_1858

Perhaps the 1824 loss in Burma prevents the Mutiny of 1857.
So a big panic leading to a earlier British government involvement in the subcontinent? I assume the relations with with the Sikhs are unlikely to change.

Just to add some stuff, assuming the Burmese either win or get a favorable (at least financially) peace, the French already had a significant influence in Burma, with French advisers in the Burmese court at Ava, in the 1820s how could the French profit from this?

Also assuming it kickstarts some sort of modernization in Burma, could this trend spread to the rest of SEA (basically Siam and Vietnam)?
 
With the British defeated in Burma, do the French in India make any trouble? The territories mapped below were returned to France only eight years earlier in 1816.

French-India.png


And what of the Great Game? With British prestige damaged, does Russia make more moves into northern India? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game
 
The Great Game wouldn't really get started for a few more years, so I think it's unlikely to be seriously impacted unless this PoD has wide ranging effects. If, however, the Burmese successfully capture Chittagong but are eventually repulsed at great cost, we could see EIC ventures into the North of India hampered for a while. But, from what I've read of the Great Game the Russians only started to push into Central Asia because they feared the British were doing so, and vice versa, so without an initial interest by the British these events could be pushed down the line.
 
With the British defeated in Burma, do the French in India make any trouble? The territories mapped below were returned to France only eight years earlier in 1816.

French India was dead, and those colonies were surrounded on all sides by either British territory or British vassals. It's not possible for the French to do any trouble.

Anyways, this would greatly slow the British expansion into India. The Sikh Empire would have more time to reform its military and it might be able to repel the British permanently.
 
Very interesting PoD. While I can't see the Burmese having a full victory over the British, could they manage to get a better peace to them? They would still have to renounce influence in Assam, Manipur, and Cachar to the British (the original cause of the war), But the British wouldn't annex Arakan and Tenasserim and burden Burma with heavy reparations, so that Burma would remain effectively independent, and, maybe able to eventually modernize (some British travelles in Burma at that time had a very positive impression of that country).
So, would this scenario be possible, with a Burmese invasion of Chittagong?
 
Would a serious loss result an earlier enactment of the Government of India Act 1858. IOTL, after the 1857 Mutiny, the EIC lost all it admin and military powers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_India_Act_1858

Perhaps the 1824 loss in Burma prevents the Mutiny of 1857.

Probably. I can't imagine India would have a viceroy (instead a governor-general) as Victoria wouldn't be Queen, nor would the Mugjal Padshah be overthrown (though he may lose the title of Padshah-i-Hind). In addition, the dethroning of vassals that occurred while the colony was put under the direct rule of the crown would not occur, so there would be a whole lot of princely states.
 
French India was dead, and those colonies were surrounded on all sides by either British territory or British vassals. It's not possible for the French to do any trouble.

Anyways, this would greatly slow the British expansion into India. The Sikh Empire would have more time to reform its military and it might be able to repel the British permanently.

What did the Sikhs have left to do in the area of modernization? I thought their army was fairly powerful and only fell to treachery from within?
 
What did the Sikhs have left to do in the area of modernization? I thought their army was fairly powerful and only fell to treachery from within?

Well, the Khalsa was restricted to Sikhs only, which makes sense considering that the Khalsa is a religious thing. That sapped them of valuable support, especially important when it was probably majority- or plurality-Hindu at this point. Admittedly it's not too big of an issue, but they would be stronger if they accepted Hindus and Muslims into their army.

The major issue with the Sikh Empire was that it fell into disarray after Ranjit Singh. With this POD, it's entirely possible that this disarray is entirely butterflied away.
 
Very interesting PoD. While I can't see the Burmese having a full victory over the British, could they manage to get a better peace to them? They would still have to renounce influence in Assam, Manipur, and Cachar to the British (the original cause of the war), But the British wouldn't annex Arakan and Tenasserim and burden Burma with heavy reparations, so that Burma would remain effectively independent, and, maybe able to eventually modernize (some British travelles in Burma at that time had a very positive impression of that country).
So, would this scenario be possible, with a Burmese invasion of Chittagong?

That was mostly my intention with the thread: Burma still loses, but isn't heavily damaged like OTL. With the British pacified for a while and greater contact with the French the Konbaungs start the painful process of modernization, whatever it is sucessful or not would be interesting to know, but the Kingdom was doing some progress in the fields of language (Burmese started to replace Mon in regions like Pegu where it was always dominant), education and even if the equipment was poor the military was pretty organized, but the Burmese still have the downsides of many provinces (particularly the Shan States) still are big fiefdoms and the messy succession.

Probably. I can't imagine India would have a viceroy (instead a governor-general) as Victoria wouldn't be Queen, nor would the Mugjal Padshah be overthrown (though he may lose the title of Padshah-i-Hind). In addition, the dethroning of vassals that occurred while the colony was put under the direct rule of the crown would not occur, so there would be a whole lot of princely states.

I'm not very knowledgeable about the Company rule and the Raj, but what would be the immediate effects of the EIC being replaced by direct-rule in pre-Mutiny India? And could you explain the situation of the Princely states? I knew about the Company's doctrine of lapse, but not about the Raj's administration.

Well, the Khalsa was restricted to Sikhs only, which makes sense considering that the Khalsa is a religious thing. That sapped them of valuable support, especially important when it was probably majority- or plurality-Hindu at this point. Admittedly it's not too big of an issue, but they would be stronger if they accepted Hindus and Muslims into their army.

The major issue with the Sikh Empire was that it fell into disarray after Ranjit Singh. With this POD, it's entirely possible that this disarray is entirely butterflied away.

How much influence the British had in the destabilization of the Sikh Empire?
 
I'm not very knowledgeable about the Company rule and the Raj, but what would be the immediate effects of the EIC being replaced by direct-rule in pre-Mutiny India?

For one, without the financial difficulties of the British East India Company due to bad business decisions, there would be a much smarter rule of India earlier, and without having to bail out the BEIC, British finances would be better. Also, the British East India Company tended to ignore native distinctions and borders - for instance, to simplify administration, the Maharaja of Jammu was given control over Kashmir and Ladakh despite the total lack of connection between any of the three regions. It's why, even in the modern day, the borders of Jammu and Kashmir cuts through Dogra-inhabited lands, even though it makes a lot more sense to include the south as part of Kashmir. But I'm digressing. The point is, many such bad decisions that ignored internal ethnic borders and internal politics simply for the sake of ease of administration would not occur.

And could you explain the situation of the Princely states?

The princely states greatly differed in terms of autonomy. You had states like Hyderabad, which was pretty much independent in its internal affairs, and others, like the Gujarati princely states, that had no autonomy and were little more than glorified aristocrats. ITTL, there'd be more glorified aristocrats, and more autonomous princely states.

How much influence the British had in the destabilization of the Sikh Empire?

Not much - it was caused because the legitimate successor of the great Ranjit Singh was an incompetent, while his illegitimate son was competent. Naturally this caused a split and strife within the empire.
 
Top