Play
Multi-Player
Coins
Community
Settings
Help
Community   Maps   Forum   Mail   Ladders   Clans   Recent Games
Sign In | Sign Up
<< Back to Off-topic Forum   

Posts 1 - 14 of 14   
A rather thought-provoking alternate history: 12/6/2015 22:20:44


Von Jewburg
Level 35
Report
In the 17 and 1800s, Britain steadily pushed into India, until it became "The jewel in the crown".
But what if the British never gained control of the region? What if the Indian nations could and successfully repulsed European influence?

Would the land be conquered by another nation? Would it stay fragmented? Or would India unit without imperialism?
A rather thought-provoking alternate history: 12/6/2015 22:41:47


DomCobb
Level 45
Report
Let's look at the history before:
As the Mughal Empire declined, there was no local unified government that had a strong grip on its territory. The states that followed were weak, disunified and had lots of infighting, which allowed the British to step in and put the Indian states against each other and later unified India in order to "bring order."
The most plausible way India would not be under British rule would be if the Mughal Empire remained strong or if another European power took most or all of India.
A rather thought-provoking alternate history: 12/7/2015 02:39:17


Mister Kl
Level 55
Report
Some other Turkish Dynasty would have taken over...

No joke, like how many Turkish Dynasties Ruled the Muslim World between the 1400's- 1800's?

Tunis
Ottomans
Mughals
Timurids
Egypt
Algeria

Anyway, that aside, India was probably just a richer and Asian version of Africa.
A rather thought-provoking alternate history: 12/7/2015 03:15:08


[AOE] JaiBharat909
Level 56
Report
India was probably just a richer and Asian version of Africa.

^That's culturally offensive to Asians and Africans (just saying). If you want a better example of a region that's across the board a series of failed states with no hope then use the Middle East please.

Definitely true that the Indian states were not unified pre-British Empire nor under Mughal rule. The status quo would have likely prevailed where either Muslim invaders from the Northwest would have established dominance or Indian states would be in a constant state of economic and military contention. That being said the secondary effects on Britain would be tremendous. Most of the British wealth that spurred the Industrial Revolution was stolen from the coffers of India. Without the influx of wealth the British industrial revolution would have either been delayed or significantly reduced in size and scope. From this can be extrapolated all kinds of effects. If we assume that the Industrial Revolution went off in Britain without a hitch, we can assume that without a unified Asian front the Japanese would have broken through Bengal and conquered India.
A rather thought-provoking alternate history: 12/7/2015 03:15:45


Genghis 
Level 52
Report
"Asian version of Africa"

There are many things wrong with this analogy
A rather thought-provoking alternate history: 12/7/2015 05:37:39

wct
Level 56
Report
"Asian version of Africa"

There are many things wrong with this analogy

It's a metaphorical version of an analogy.
A rather thought-provoking alternate history: 12/7/2015 10:25:21

SVY
Level 47
Report
Potentially the Allies would not have won World War II. And Britain would be much, much less rich and powerful today. Meaning that America would be as well. And possibly India would have sided with Japan in WWII. Equally possible is that subcontinental India would have split into multiple states.

The Mughal dynasty was arguably the richest dynasty in the world in the sixteenth century. Estimates of the amount that the British robbed from India, inclusive of jewels and other artifacts, range as high as 230 TRILLION sterling or 475 trillion dollars.
Not only this, India supplied millions of soldiers for Britain in the world wars. It also supplied massive quantities of materials and food to the British war effort, at the expense of the natives' starvation. India's help was critical for Britain.

Edited 12/7/2015 11:25:08
A rather thought-provoking alternate history: 12/7/2015 20:04:14


[AOE] JaiBharat909
Level 56
Report
Yes you're right. India did supply millions of soldiers for Britain in WWI and WWII. One of them was my great great uncle, who got ambushed by the Ottomans in Iraq. What did he get in return. A fucking medal and his country got 28 more years of forced occupation.
A rather thought-provoking alternate history: 12/7/2015 23:18:15


Von Jewburg
Level 35
Report
But who's to say the World Wars would happen?
A rather thought-provoking alternate history: 12/7/2015 23:49:23

An abandoned account
Level 56
Report
Then this is how a map of the world would look:


Edited 12/7/2015 23:49:39
A rather thought-provoking alternate history: 12/7/2015 23:56:32


Mister Kl
Level 55
Report
India inversely caused the World Wars...
Apply the Equation

Y= The World Wars
K= The World
X= British India (where X must always equal 1 British India, so a=1)
a= How many India's needed to cause the World Wars

Y=K/X^a

so....

The World War's= The World divided by British India


So if a British India was 0 and a=1, K would be undefined...

So, yes India caused WW1 and WW2... Brits made mistake thinking they could tame it.
A rather thought-provoking alternate history: 12/8/2015 20:41:18


4Chan
Level 18
Report
hey fuck you our country was occupied for 4 years and then 5 years and my great uncle died in the resistance of luxembourg

so fuck you we ain't crying no god damn hissy fit, you shouldn't either

Grow up.

Edited 12/8/2015 20:41:29
A rather thought-provoking alternate history: 12/8/2015 20:44:36


☁WARLORD♥t(ಥ۾ಥt)SirℜicharD✠[WOLF]☁
Level 54
Report
haha
A rather thought-provoking alternate history: 12/8/2015 20:45:17


[AOE] JaiBharat909
Level 56
Report
You're bio is right about you: i'm a autistic weaboo faggot.
Posts 1 - 14 of 14   

Contact | About WarLight | Play Risk Online | Multiplayer Strategy Game | Challenge Friends, Win Money | Skill Game | Terms of Service