Alternate History Thread III

[das]

Damn it das, just as I start work on something in the same era you do this

a) I'll remind you that my PoD was way back in 1770; so by the early 19th century, many things have changed. Napoleon still being an important military commander in the British Revolution world is more of a coincidence, really. So, ofcourse it will be different!
b) As I already said, I'll soon switch to another althist in a very different era, so feel free to fill in my niche for me in the meantime.

Do you do "AltHis' for hire" because then I have one for you?

I do these things occasionally, yes, but I intend to work on another project of my own for now. Still, what do you have in mind?

Knowing that the League would now be dead anyway

Not necessarily; it wasn't solely a product of Pavel I, in fact it was Catherine's idea first (see American Revolutionary War), and the fact that Pavel didn't reverse it outright but instead revived it says something for this policy's natural importance for Russia. Alexander may well have continued it; there were many arguments for both courses in OTL, and this world's situation actually favours the continuation one more than the abandonment one.

Still, it won't necessarily be enough, so the complaint is a non-crucial one. Although, an actual Russo-British naval war over the League of Neutrality sounds like an interesting althist as well...

The British vacillation and incompetence in the Biscay 1805 sounds more unlikely, although it probably could be blamed on the fear of losing another commander in a "reckless" action.

In terms of numbers the British secured a minor victory here forcing several French vessels to return to their base in Spain.

This bit sounds a bit confusing. Apparently, there was an additional naval battle?

Not only would French troops remain in England to secure the peace, but the British were also forced to give up their possessions in India to the French.
Having secured victory and hoping to reduce British power for all time, the French restored full independence to Ireland and Scotland along with a guarantee of independence.

Sounds kinda strange. On one hand, destroying Britain and taking India is a bit extreme, to say the least; I even suspect the British might not accept it, and facing defeat their government might flee to Canada (a la the Braganzas in Brazil). On the other hand, the French seem a bit inconsistant; one'd think they'll demand Gibraltar, at least, if they are going to go all the way... Incidentally, the conquest and partition of Britain will create a neat opportunity to give some more annoying relatives and marshalls a few kingdoms! The English Royal House of Ney!

The decisive battle stood at Budweis, some 120 kilometres south of Prague. Outnumbered, Napoleon nevertheless managed a draw in the battle, mainly thanks to inefficient communications between the allied commanders.

Actually, as he indeed would be outnumbered, why would he charge headfirst into Austria as in OTL? Trafalgar wasn't the only reason he abandoned the invasion plans; he needed the troops in Europe if he were to quickly beat up his enemies there. In this world, that war will probably be more drawn-out, with the main theatres in western Germany and northern Italy. Actually, Napoleon's victory isn't even assured, especially if the British were to fight on instead of rolling over like that.

And incidentally, if Britain were to fall, the Third Coalition will probably have a better impetus to fight on to the end. With Britain gone, they would have lost the last chance of revanche; if in OTL time worked against the French, here it would work for them. So 1805 would be the last best chance to defeat Napoleon, at least for this decade.

To sum up, in my humble opinion the War of the Third Coalition would have been less uneven, more drawn-out and more bitterly-contested in this world, though possibly still ending with a French victory (I in fact doubt that after such a defeat Russia would've even tried to oppose Napoleon; the European direction would have definitely been blocked, so Asian campaigns - especially against Persia - sound more probable, and a clear shift to a "southern orientation" would probably have allayed Napoleon's suspicions, at least before the French become more established in India; meanwhile, the peace with Prussia and Austria will probably be more Carthaginian than in OTL).

The Portuguese invasion of Spain also sounds a bit dubious; the Braganzas were at this point more concerned with holding their realm together. Without Britain to support them, the Portuguese most probably would not have pursued such an active foreign policy (to say the least!).

Still, quite interesting. Glad to see that I am no longer alone.

 

[Harleqin]

a) I'll remind you that my PoD was way back in 1770; so by the early 19th century, many things have changed. Napoleon still being an important military commander in the British Revolution world is more of a coincidence, really. So, ofcourse it will be different!
b) As I already said, I'll soon switch to another althist in a very different era, so feel free to fill in my niche for me in the meantime.

I'll try

I do these things occasionally, yes, but I intend to work on another project of my own for now. Still, what do you have in mind?

Basically just the one I'm trying, namely what would happen if weather changes delayed the British attack long enough for the Swedish fleet to arrive and Nelson was killed in the action. The Swedes are a problem, but a side effect of the weather is that their fleet actually leaves the base rather than stay in port as in OTL.

Not necessarily; it wasn't solely a product of Pavel I, in fact it was Catherine's idea first (see American Revolutionary War), and the fact that Pavel didn't reverse it outright but instead revived it says something for this policy's natural importance for Russia. Alexander may well have continued it; there were many arguments for both courses in OTL, and this world's situation actually favours the continuation one more than the abandonment one.

Still, it won't necessarily be enough, so the complaint is a non-crucial one. Although, an actual Russo-British naval war over the League of Neutrality sounds like an interesting althist as well...

The British vacillation and incompetence in the Biscay 1805 sounds more unlikely, although it probably could be blamed on the fear of losing another commander in a "reckless" action.

Well, according to the Danish texts I read on the conflict, it was very much the zar that held it together and when news reached of his assassination it was expected by the Danish authorities that the League would be disbanded.

On the battle in the Biscay the British fleet is superior and in terms of damage done they do win the battle. However, they are outnumbered and the French manage to gang up on some of the British ships forcing them to disengage. The French end up in as bad a condition as the British, but where the British are forced to pull back to Portsmouth, the French can send the remains of their fleet to Brest, leaving the damaged vessels to head for a friendly port with ghost crews. The ships that make it to Brest are enough to divert the British long enough for the fleet there to leave the port.
Much of the force that was used to blockade it was engaged in the Battle of the Biscay and thus missing.
Due to the slow information there wouldn't be time for the Channel and North Sea fleets to make it to Brest.

This bit sounds a bit confusing. Apparently, there was an additional naval battle?

I lost the bit you're quoting But yes, the British would attempt to stop the invasion fleet, but outnumbered again and reeling the French would, barely, manage to defeat it.

Sounds kinda strange. On one hand, destroying Britain and taking India is a bit extreme, to say the least; I even suspect the British might not accept it, and facing defeat their government might flee to Canada (a la the Braganzas in Brazil). On the other hand, the French seem a bit inconsistant; one'd think they'll demand Gibraltar, at least, if they are going to go all the way... Incidentally, the conquest and partition of Britain will create a neat opportunity to give some more annoying relatives and marshalls a few kingdoms! The English Royal House of Ney!

Completely forgot about Gibraltar. The reasoning on India (not an expert on Indian history) is that the French and the British were both engaged in trying to get control of the sub-continent and with a win the French could use it to force the British to give up their control.
I'm not sure the British government would have a choice. With 180,000 French troops I don't think the British would have a chance. Their standing army in Britain was never that large and calling up militia and conscripts would take more time than they had.
The king might make it to Canada though. That's a sterling idea. Of course, with such forces in Britain, the French would be lacking those troops elsewhere, namely in Germany.

Actually, as he indeed would be outnumbered, why would he charge headfirst into Austria as in OTL? Trafalgar wasn't the only reason he abandoned the invasion plans; he needed the troops in Europe if he were to quickly beat up his enemies there. In this world, that war will probably be more drawn-out, with the main theatres in western Germany and northern Italy. Actually, Napoleon's victory isn't even assured, especially if the British were to fight on instead of rolling over like that.

Well, I know he'd been outnumbered in OTL battles, so it seemed logical that he would use his (over)confidence to go straight for the throat. I'll re-think this bit a ... ehm... bit.

And incidentally, if Britain were to fall, the Third Coalition will probably have a better impetus to fight on to the end. With Britain gone, they would have lost the last chance of revanche; if in OTL time worked against the French, here it would work for them. So 1805 would be the last best chance to defeat Napoleon, at least for this decade.

To sum up, in my humble opinion the War of the Third Coalition would have been less uneven, more drawn-out and more bitterly-contested in this world, though possibly still ending with a French victory (I in fact doubt that after such a defeat Russia would've even tried to oppose Napoleon; the European direction would have definitely been blocked, so Asian campaigns - especially against Persia - sound more probable, and a clear shift to a "southern orientation" would probably have allayed Napoleon's suspicions, at least before the French become more established in India; meanwhile, the peace with Prussia and Austria will probably be more Carthaginian than in OTL).

Yes. However, seeing Britain fall might just as well cause such demoralization that they would try to save their own skins. I'll think it over and see what happens.

The Portuguese invasion of Spain also sounds a bit dubious; the Braganzas were at this point more concerned with holding their realm together. Without Britain to support them, the Portuguese most probably would not have pursued such an active foreign policy (to say the least!).

Still, quite interesting. Glad to see that I am no longer alone.

Honestly, I don't know that much about Portuguese history or politics. Knowing the conflicts they've had with Spain and seeing the French in such trouble against the guerillas, it seemed obvious that they would try to gain an advantage from it. I'll read up a bit on Portugal
Could be though that there are some British troops that have escaped and made it to Portugal along with a large part of the British fleet.

 

[silver 2039]

The British would never have given up India. The Jewel in their Crown.

Also it is a rather strong possibliltiy that India would have revolted with such a drastic weakening of British power.

 

[Harleqin]

The British would never have given up India. The Jewel in their Crown.

Also it is a rather strong possibliltiy that India would have revolted with such a drastic weakening of British power.

The British might not have had a choice and by this period of time their hold was not complete. However, one thing is giving it up on paper, you'd still have to be able to complete the takeover which would be problematic.

A revolt is a very real possibility though. Or, rather, increased aggression from those areas that were still independent (at least nominally).

 

[das]

Basically just the one I'm trying, namely what would happen if weather changes delayed the British attack long enough for the Swedish fleet to arrive and Nelson was killed in the action. The Swedes are a problem, but a side effect of the weather is that their fleet actually leaves the base rather than stay in port as in OTL.

What about the Russian fleet from Kronstadt? Not sure if Pavel had any plans, but I recall the British fearing that greatly. Then again, ofcourse, it will take more time for the Russians to get to Copenhagen. Now, if they were to send a fleet to help defend Denmark from a "hypothetic" British attack previously...

it was very much the zar that held it together

I would argue that though many Russian foreign policies of the time were very personal in style, the idea of a "northern alliance" with Denmark-Norway and Prussia - to keep Britain out and Sweden in check - was also supported by many prominent statesmen. A tri-polar version of the Napoleonic Wars (Britain vs. France vs. the Northern League, with interchanging alliances) could also be interesting.

On the battle in the Biscay the British fleet is superior and in terms of damage done they do win the battle. However, they are outnumbered and the French manage to gang up on some of the British ships forcing them to disengage.

That doesn't make much military sense, IMHO. How does one gang up on an individual ship in a line-of-battle? In any case, after the First of June, the British had generally adapted more aggressive tactics; so the inferior French fleet spreading out its lines would have commited suicide, allowing the British to break the French line altogether.

On the other hand, the British still weren't very good at those tactics, and so they were even more risky than usual. A failed attempt to break the French line might indeed result in what you have in mind (as the British will expose some of their ships to French fire, and after losing them may well try to retreat).

Completely forgot about Gibraltar. The reasoning on India (not an expert on Indian history) is that the French and the British were both engaged in trying to get control of the sub-continent and with a win the French could use it to force the British to give up their control.

But by then the French had mostly given up on India, instead concentrating on actually propping up local states, most notably Mysore. I suppose that a revival of French Indian ambitions is not strictly impossible, however...

Here's an option for you; the British East Indies Company strikes me as just autonomous and unscrupulous enough to disengage from Britain if the alternative is French rule. Simply declare the Prime Minister a French spy and the Parliament bribed. Or better yet, simply ignore all and any French orders, and pretend that nothing happened, while still gaining de facto independence. An Anglo-Indian Empire (kinda like a Sarawak writ large) sounds very tempting, don't you think?

I'm not sure the British government would have a choice. With 180,000 French troops I don't think the British would have a chance. Their standing army in Britain was never that large and calling up militia and conscripts would take more time than they had.

There's a difference between choice and chance... I suspect that a schism might occur. In that case, Fox will probably head the collaborationists (that said, he was quite patriotic, so after the French start carving Britain up he might "change his mind"), while Pitt will flee north. Ofcourse, the resistance is unlikely to be very succesful, at least if the British fleet is ruined.

Well, I know he'd been outnumbered in OTL battles, so it seemed logical that he would use his (over)confidence to go straight for the throat.

He had just barely enough troops to win back then. Here, he would simply not have enough - on the initial stages, obviously, as later he will be able to bring in more reinforcements and fresh conscripts.

Yes. However, seeing Britain fall might just as well cause such demoralization that they would try to save their own skins. I'll think it over and see what happens.

Unlikely. I can easily imagine them trying to talk peace with Napoleon... but he will probably view it as a sign of their weakness and his strenght, and will be right, ofcourse. Therefore, he will present outrageous terms, which will be rejected. Then the French whack everyone around, naturally (where's Panda?).

Could be though that there are some British troops that have escaped and made it to Portugal along with a large part of the British fleet.

Why Portugal? Its small, quite far away and the seas in between seem to be French-controlled. Canada, again, is a far better destination.

Incidentally, that will also cause an earlier Anglo-American war; the Crown will at the same time be naturally more concerned with Canadian affairs (causing faster escalation of various territorial disputes), AND will have lots of troops that need to be used somewhere, AND will have the fear of a Franco-American invasion to finish off the House of Hannover. Preemptive measures are needed!

If they start fast enough, they may well take advantage of the New Englander separatism and Anglophilia. Another step towards a Greater Canada...

A revolt is a very real possibility though. Or, rather, increased aggression from those areas that were still independent (at least nominally).

Expanding on the Anglo-Indian idea, immediately upon the peace treaty the BEIC will probably have to fend off native attacks, especially those coming from Francophilic Mysore. I think the Mysoreans will fare better than in OTL, ofcourse, and might even survive the war, but I suspect that in the end the BEIC will hold out. Then they may well begin taking over the other British holdings, as well as consolidating the Company's grasp on India. Its kinda like Disenfrancised's first NES, actually, only instead of an Australian superpower we have the Company.

Incidentally, in 1805, Arthur Wellesley with his elder brother Richard (the Vice-Roy) were still in India...

Hope you don't mind my random brainstorming.

 

[Harleqin]

I'll respond to all these in more depth a bit later when I have the energy

However, with the naval line of battle... if you have more ships than your opponent, then it seems obvious to try and use it, meaning you could angle some at the end of the line to concentrate fire. Possibly even try to get some on the other side.

 

[silver 2039]

Expanding on the Anglo-Indian idea, immediately upon the peace treaty the BEIC will probably have to fend off native attacks, especially those coming from Francophilic Mysore. I think the Mysoreans will fare better than in OTL, ofcourse, and might even survive the war, but I suspect that in the end the BEIC will hold out. Then they may well begin taking over the other British holdings, as well as consolidating the Company's grasp on India. Its kinda like Disenfrancised's first NES, actually, only instead of an Australian superpower we have the Company.

They would have to content with Mysore, Marathas, Rajputs, Sikh Empire, and the still nominally independent Mughals. I think it unlikley they would be able to contend with all these threaths lacking a solid base of completly loyal soldiers. Plus a good deal of their investment would be gone by seperating from the Empire, and would they retain a technological advantage? Where would they get the latest weaponry and equipment from? They would have to develope their own industrial base in India, a foregin country, with local powers still around, and a potentially hostile population who may well resent a much heavier presence of British treating them like second class citizens in their own country.

The Company would be utterly doomed once a Sepoy-like Rebellion occured as their soldiers revolted and they would have no other white troops to draw upon to crush the rebels.

Most likely possobility is the the Company may attempt to hold on in India but ultimatley the attempt will fail and local powers will retake lost land and the Company in India will be eventually destroyed maybe holding onto a few enclaves perhaps in Bengal, Bombay, and so on.

 

[Symphony D.]

Although I agree with silver about the situation being generally untennable, the possibility does exist for BEIC to go mercenary, which is rather interesting to contemplate.

 

[das]

They would have to content with Mysore, Marathas, Rajputs, Sikh Empire, and the still nominally independent Mughals.

Do I need to explain in detail why none of these were real threats as of the early 19th century?

I think it unlikley they would be able to contend with all these threaths lacking a solid base of completly loyal soldiers.

There is no such thing as completely loyal soldiers. In the meantime, they still will have both the old British troops that will stay and the local sepoys, who too were quite loyal.

Plus a good deal of their investment would be gone by seperating from the Empire

And their debt.

Where would they get the latest weaponry and equipment from?

Would they really need it? If they would, they would simply build it in India. Well, it obviously won't be the latest, but they still could remain "on the level" if they try.

with local powers still around

Again, this argument would have applied in the late 18th century. Not in the early 19th.

treating them like second class citizens in their own country.

The key words are "treating them like citizens". The BEIC may well be desperate enough...

But honestly, how are the British worse than the Greeks or the Turks? They may perfectly well create a functional Anglo-Indian state, especially as they had already defeated their competition by then. The notion of the Sepoy Mutiny still happening is simply ridicilous - the BEIC will obviously tread more carefully in this world. For one thing, it will not be under any pressure from the British government or the British society.

 

[North King]

Do I need to explain in detail why none of these were real threats as of the early 19th century?

In a word, yes. The Sikhs and the Marathas in particular would still be powerful threats. Other, more minor states, due to the ensuing weakness of the BEIC, would rapidly rise to fill the power vaccuum of the Mughal collapse. In our world, the British did it, but without the Empire's support, the Company would find itself adrift and needing to consolidate, and the British holdings in India, romantic as the notion of them going independent is, simply would not be able to hold together.

Would they really need it? If they would, they would simply build it in India. Well, it obviously won't be the latest, but they still could remain "on the level" if they try.

India was forcibly kept non-industrialized by the British. Should an Industrial base be built there, the Indian subcontinent would have even more power if they rose in revolution. It was too risky to build manufactories there, and far too expensive. Far cheaper to have them shipped in from the motherland--which incidentally the BEIC would not have. Thus, they would rapidly fall to parity, and then behind the native states in military power; the EIC would be forced to use diplomacy to stay alive, and such states are never particularly powerful.

The key words are "treating them like citizens". The BEIC may well be desperate enough...

This seems to be going out on a limb. White racism was still flying strong in the 1800s.

But honestly, how are the British worse than the Greeks or the Turks? They may perfectly well create a functional Anglo-Indian state, especially as they had already defeated their competition by then. The notion of the Sepoy Mutiny still happening is simply ridicilous - the BEIC will obviously tread more carefully in this world. For one thing, it will not be under any pressure from the British government or the British society.

All the nations which managed to conquer India adapted to become essentially Indian themselves. The Mughals were the closest to a foreign ruler, with their Islamic roots and such, but in the rest of their culture they essentially abandoned their Turkish roots. So would the EIC, assuming they could even hold on to their empire. So they would become an Indian state quickly enough. The natives would be tempted to, and would not be able to be stopped in a siezing of power. The EIC as an independent state would collapse.

The idea of the East India Company somehow managing to survive as an independent, corporate state is rather silly in my opinion. It would either have to evolve into something completely different, or it would die.

 

[das]

In a word, yes. The Sikhs and the Marathas in particular would still be powerful threats. Other, more minor states, due to the ensuing weakness of the BEIC, would rapidly rise to fill the power vaccuum of the Mughal collapse. In our world, the British did it, but without the Empire's support, the Company would find itself adrift and needing to consolidate, and the British holdings in India, romantic as the notion of them going independent is, simply would not be able to hold together.

The Sikhs weren't powerful threats YET; the Marathas already WEREN'T a powerful threat. The former were still busy uniting Punjab, the latter were consumed by civil war.

I really don't see any problem in that part of the consolidation stage. The BEIC back then was very much autonomous and capable of handling its own affairs independently. The Empire's actual support in the early 19th century was limited, especially as far as the military goes.

India was forcibly kept non-industrialized by the British.

Because it was a colony. Now it will become a home base. Why the hell do you think that the BEIC will follow the same historical course in domestic history?! It will naturally have to adapt to its circumstances.

This seems to be going out on a limb. White racism was still flying strong in the 1800s.

Err... "Still"? It wasn't there yet, not in its developed 19th century form. Plus I again point you to the example of Sarawak. What does James Brooke have that Richard Wellesley doesn't have?

All the nations which managed to conquer India adapted to become essentially Indian themselves. The Mughals were the closest to a foreign ruler, with their Islamic roots and such, but in the rest of their culture they essentially abandoned their Turkish roots. So would the EIC, assuming they could even hold on to their empire. So they would become an Indian state quickly enough.

It would either have to evolve into something completely different, or it would die.

That's precisely what I was talking about, if you haven't noticed yet.

The natives would be tempted to, and would not be able to be stopped in a siezing of power.

Err... what exactly do you mean (central power will probably be off-limits for a long time, while they already ARE the power on the lower levels)? And how would the BEIC fail to stop them?

 

[North King]

The Sikhs weren't powerful threats YET; the Marathas already WEREN'T a powerful threat. The former were still busy uniting Punjab, the latter were consumed by civil war.

And? An easy war against an outsider power is always a good uniter.

Besides which, the Marathas were not effectively destroyed, and as previous history showed, they kept coming back repeatedly already. Without a very strong British presence, they would rise again.

I really don't see any problem in that part of the consolidation stage. The BEIC back then was very much autonomous and capable of handling its own affairs independently. The Empire's actual support in the early 19th century was limited, especially as far as the military goes.

Ah, but lack of support is not at all the same as independent. Without a mother country, the BEIC would not have a market to sell their goods effectively--they would either have to take over India for someone else, or starve to death.

Because it was a colony. Now it will become a home base. Why the hell do you think that the BEIC will follow the same historical course in domestic history?! It will naturally have to adapt to its circumstances.

And if they industrialize it, then all is lost. They're not stupid; there's a good reason why the British didn't utilize India to its full potential. If the BEIC industrialized India, then they are effectively inviting a powerful revolt to establish an independent nation.

Err... "Still"? It wasn't there yet, not in its developed 19th century form. Plus I again point you to the example of Sarawak. What does James Brooke have that Richard Wellesley doesn't have?

Yes it is. Good heavens, you don't actually think that Darwinistic theories started racism, do you? The slave trade began before the Age of Exploration, and they were already exporting millions in the 16th Century. Whites simply believed that natives were inferior, if they even ranked on the "erior" scale at all.

That's precisely what I was talking about, if you haven't noticed yet.

No, you were talking about an Anglo-Indian state, which is unlikely at best.

Err... what exactly do you mean (central power will probably be off-limits for a long time, while they already ARE the power on the lower levels)? And how would the BEIC fail to stop them?

Central power would be seized by Indians. Indian politics at the time was a veritable snakepit, underhanded and dirty. The BEIC would not be able to survive without the profits that selling their goods gave them.

 

[das]

And? An easy war against an outsider power is always a good uniter.

Ahem. Observe the Second Anglo-Marathan War.

They were NOT destroyed by the British yet, instead they kept destroying THEMSELVES. The British didn't even have to manipulate them, really.

Without a mother country, the BEIC would not have a market to sell their goods effectively--they would either have to take over India for someone else, or starve to death.

Or how about they could simply trade with someone else? Although, I recognise your point. They would indeed have to make radical changes. I agree that success is far from assured. It is, however, a distinct possibility.

And if they industrialize it, then all is lost. They're not stupid; there's a good reason why the British didn't utilize India to its full potential. If the BEIC industrialized India, then they are effectively inviting a powerful revolt to establish an independent nation.

Err... why? They will build factories. Ran by the British and their allies. They will herd poorer Indians to work there, providing them with employment. Yes, that does invite greater degrees of organisation. But it still doesn't assure success.

I do suppose that after a while the BEIC will probably be forced to grant more and more rights and power to the locals. But a smooth transition from a British-ran Indian state to an Anglo-Indian state (an Indian state with a partially-English elite, possibly with an English national language - for national unity - and considerable leftovers of the British Raj's political traditions) is not strictly impossible.

Good heavens, you don't actually think that Darwinistic theories started racism, do you?

The two concepts aren't directly related, though the former had influenced the latter.

The slave trade began before the Age of Exploration, and they were already exporting millions in the 16th Century.

Slave trade had nothing at all to do with racism. If anything it was a perfect example of black-white cooperation (because most slaves were bought from native rulers, as opposed to simply captured in slave raids). It is absurd to consider that the Europeans imported the black slaves because they were black. They imported the black slaves because they had already killed off the native ones, and Africa was the closest source, plus the locals were all too eager to trade.

In any case, what does that have to do with British policies in India? Before 1818 they were quite tolerant. In this world they would have no choice but to be tolerant.

Whites simply believed that natives were inferior

Racism is a bit more complex than that. There wasn't a scientific concept of race as such before the 19th century; if anything, back then it had basically the same meaning as ethnicity has today ("the German race", "the French race", "the Dutch race"). Now, on that level "racism" did exist, but it, too, is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

No, you were talking about an Anglo-Indian state, which is unlikely at best.

An Anglo-Indian state. Like a Graeco-Indian state. Or like a Turko-Indian state. Or a Manchu-Chinese state, or a Normano-English state.

Yeah, sorry if I wasn't clear before.

Central power would be seized by Indians.

You still did not even try to answer my question. WHAT DO YOU MEAN UNDER CENTRAL POWER?

 

[North King]

Ahem. Observe the Second Anglo-Marathan War.

They were NOT destroyed by the British yet, instead they kept destroying THEMSELVES. The British didn't even have to manipulate them, really.

...Yet they still kept coming back.

Or how about they could simply trade with someone else? Although, I recognise your point. They would indeed have to make radical changes. I agree that success is far from assured. It is, however, a distinct possibility.

The sponsorship of the British Empire was necessary. Period.

Err... why? They will build factories. Ran by the British and their allies. They will herd poorer Indians to work there, providing them with employment. Yes, that does invite greater degrees of organisation. But it still doesn't assure success.

I do suppose that after a while the BEIC will probably be forced to grant more and more rights and power to the locals. But a smooth transition from a British-ran Indian state to an Anglo-Indian state (an Indian state with a partially-English elite, possibly with an English national language - for national unity - and considerable leftovers of the British Raj's political traditions) is not strictly impossible.

It's not impossible, but it's not plausible, either. The idea that somehow you can repress Indian nationalism, especially given that their entire army would be made up of sepoys, is rather absurd.

Slave trade had nothing at all to do with racism. If anything it was a perfect example of black-white cooperation (because most slaves were bought from native rulers, as opposed to simply captured in slave raids). It is absurd to consider that the Europeans imported the black slaves because they were black. They imported the black slaves because they had already killed off the native ones, and Africa was the closest source, plus the locals were all too eager to trade.

Er... Yes, that's why they bought those white slaves in such excess, too... The Europeans regarded the rest of the world as unchristian, and thus, worthless. Columbus' first thought upon reaching the New World is that the natives would make good slaves. It's simply ridiculous to regulate racism to some other time period. It was there, and it was strong.

In any case, what does that have to do with British policies in India? Before 1818 they were quite tolerant. In this world they would have no choice but to be tolerant.

It has to do with the fact that they would be reluctant to hand over power. And this means that the natives would seize power, rather than having it handed to them. Thus, this hypothetical statelet would fall to pieces.

Racism is a bit more complex than that. There wasn't a scientific concept of race as such before the 19th century; if anything, back then it had basically the same meaning as ethnicity has today ("the German race", "the French race", "the Dutch race"). Now, on that level "racism" did exist, but it, too, is irrelevant to the matter at hand.

No; there was certainly racism around.

But in any case, it is somewhat irrelevant to discuss it, except for the fact that the British regarded Indians as heathen and barbaric, and generally disregarded their wishes. The sole successes they scored were when they brainwashed the natives (see the sepoys), and you cannot brainwash an entire population--especially one with such deep roots as India.

An Anglo-Indian state. Like a Graeco-Indian state. Or like a Turko-Indian state. Or a Manchu-Chinese state, or a Normano-English state.

The Graeco-Indian state was not that important except in terms of cultural transmission--only rarely did they campaign into India itself. Notably, it was primarily Greek, and mostly in Bactria. Very little integration occurred.

The Turko-Indian states, by which I assume you mean either Delhi or the Mughals, both were rapidly assimilated. As were the Manchus, for that matter, while the British culture was not particularly unlike the Normans except in language.

The BEIC could not survive as an independent entity without outside support. If that support went away, it would crumble under the combined pressure of various Indian states and its own fragility. The only reason the British managed to keep control was due to careful diplomatic manipulation, and without the power of the British crown behind them, they are just another minor Indian power, suspect to the same squabbling as regular Indian powers.

You still did not even try to answer my question. WHAT DO YOU MEAN UNDER CENTRAL POWER?

Er... Rule? You know... Government? The British aristocracy really wouldn't be able to survive that well. And assuming they could keep the English language is rather silly, given the fact that they would be vastly outnumbered by the native population.

Now, if you mean an Indian state with some hints of British, as in, the British decided to intermarry and become more or less one with the populace, so that it was not really a British state at all--that could be a viable entity. But not some Anglo-Indian corporate state. It would not be able to hold itself together, nor hold its enemies out.

 

[das]

You raise many highly-arguable points here (the Marathas, the English language and everything in between), but whatever. In the end, I indeed did mean a state that was a result of a synthesis of the British elite and the native population.

...I think we scared Harleqin away.

 

[Nuka-sama]

What if the French had taken over Mexico while the U.S. was fighting the civil war?

 

[das]

Franco-American War seems likely. Actually, that is quite interesting, as its not all that easy to predict how it will go. I suspect that in the end American chances are higher, if only because the British will inevitably favour the US if it begins to lose; such a larger defeat may well throw the Second Empire into a more severe domestic crisis.

 

[Insane_Panda]

And possibly cause its collapse quicker... preventing any war over the Hohenzollern crisis and not giving Prussia a chance to unify Germany then (though the Prussian unification was by now in many ways inevitable, but it would likely happen later and through more peaceful means).

 

[das]

IMHO the Second Empie wasn't that unstable, although if France were to commit enough resources to it, winning some early victories but later provoking a British intervention on the American side, the fallout from the defeat would probably be enough. In that case I suspect that Napoleon III may have to abdicate, leading to a military dictatorship/regency; alternatively, a revolution like the OTL one would have been possible had the OTL one not been so utterly implausible (honestly, the Third Republic is one of the most unlikely states ever, especially if we consider its duration).

So yeah, a military dictatorship of one kind or another is the most probable outcome.

In Spain things may well turn out as in OTL (the funny thing about the whole crisis was that the Hohenzollern candidate didn't accept the offer in the first place...), although now, ironically, France may be able to intervenne in the latest round of the Carlist Wars. An interesting possibility is that of a Bourbon restoration in France; it may well intervenne in Spain (to support either the Carlists or some other Bourbons) and Italy (to support the Pope), with early success. A Franco-Austrian alliance against Italy and Prussia may also come to be.

Incidentally, Prussia may well use the French attention elsewhere to speed up the unification process. That, along with the Mediterranean crises and the aforementioned alliance system, might result in an early general European war. Russia and Britain might remain neutral, in which case the chances would be nearly even (especially if the Franco-American War teaches the French generals some important lessons), or they might intervenne, most probably against the Franco-Austrians. Alternatively Russia may use this moment to launch an early Russo-Turkish War (getting the right to rebuild the Black Sea Fleet in exchange for neutrality?), with the British having to choose between a new Peninsular War and a new Crimean one (only the latter will be much more difficult than in OTL as the French will be neutral at best, while the British will now have to fight in Bulgaria as opposed to Crimea; I predict very heavy Russian casualties, but ultimately the Anglo-Turks will not hold in the Balkan Mountains and will probably have to pull back towards Edirne).

Another interesting question is, whither Mexico, and America for that matter? Might the Americans try and annex some parts of Mexico (Baja California is obvious, but some other borderlands too may get their attention)? And might this be a beginning of a beautiful new era of reckless expansionism, in that case? In that case, an early Spanish-American War would also fit in just fine. Although the British could beat the Americans to the Phillipines.

 

[Dachs]

OOC: All of this is very interesting business still going on here. I enjoyed das' and Harleqin's althists immensely, and wish to contribute something entirely different, or at least a different era. I've had this sitting around for such a long time...