I'm going to start making more shorter videos for more frequent uploads. If you want context on how Britain conquered India, I made a vid on that too. ruclips.net/video/RDHFVi8vyrQ/видео.html
About those textiles, do you think it's possible that the British would have been more lenient towards or supportive of the Confederacy during the US Civil War if they relied more heavily on the cotton produced in the region? How reliant was Britain on Indian goods for their textiles compared to the US?
Originally I was going to include it, but upon research I think even if the British did rely more on Confederate cotton, they wouldnt have gone to war or opposed the Union to get it. While they did get cotton from the South, they got a lot of industrial goods and food from the North. So in the end, even without India, Britain doesnt do anything in the US Civil War.
@@AlternateHistoryHub The Brits could've seen the benefits with siding with the Union anyway, since the Confederates' defeat was practically a similar inevitability to Nazi Germany's defeat: they were outmatched industrially. If Britian were to side with the CSA (and if it wins), they're gonna have a very salty Unionist navy harassing commercial ships during the war and in future wars.
"Sometimes history seems like very unrealistic fiction" -Cody "Fiction has to make sense, reality has no such obligations" "Truth is stranger than fiction"
so what do we think is the most unrealistic thing that has ever happened in history is? My money is on Alexander the Great conquering the entire world out of fucking nowhere and spreading greek philosophy and culture from egypt to India. That shit reads like a bad self-insert fanfiction.
Not really, it was more of a perfect storm -Philip II, his father, united Macedonia and the Greeks -Persia was weak and splintering. Unable to counter the Macedonian Phalanx or Alexander's ingenuity Had Alexander lived up to his 70s, the Empire would be stable for a century or two You want a bad fanfiction, America making the same mistakes over and over again
@@therakishrogue I can think of other stuff that seems unrealistic, but still happened because fuck the odds (condom optional). Hitler's ambitions being half realized toward the later years of WWII; Imperial Japan taking most of the Pacific until facing the US; the premise of 1984 threatening to exist in China; the American colonies going toe to toe with the British military; the Mongols conquering most of Asia and parts of Eastern Europe; Ethiopia defending itself from Fascist Italy Those were the ones that came to mind now, but there are millions of other examples.
I love economics, trade and societal structures, fucking sucks that history channels refuse to talk about it for more than 5 seconds. All of these underrated topics are just as important as war and conquest.
In 1946 India : bro give my trillion money and gold back In. 1947 Britain : huh bye bye India: but my money Britain : but i gave you freedom India : but you looted me and I'm poor Britain : lets divide their nation India : what
@@geraldgrenier8132 a world without the British empire would also greatly impact the whole of Europe. Like who knows if napoleon even comes to power or if he does does he never fall.
What does that make Time-travel alternate history? In one of the books of the 1632 series, the American time-travelers and European Allies try to stop the Mughal Empire's path to decline and bring modern technology and ideas
You underestimate Britain and it’s empire if you think Britain is nothing without it ... or you’re from India . The British empire did not start in India which means it would have existed with it . I get that this is a joke but just in case people take this a little too seriously I thought I’d write this .
J 19 existing doesn’t mean being alive he’s talking about how Britain looted India and got rich because of it if they never conquered India they wouldn’t as prosperous as they’re now cuz no spice trade
@@Valencetheshireman927 British wouldn't be as powerful or influential. They would have never reached Australia and they also would've lost first world war
@@Valencetheshireman927 British made most of their money from spices and opium they took from India.East India Company would sell tons of opium to China.
Dylan 953 If you really think about it, every single person might’ve not been born. The fact that you were born is already extremely rare. The butterfly effect could change everything. I don’t know though, I’m not an expert. Please don’t kill me in the comments.
@@mehdin7282 haha why are you so worried about people disagreeing with you? I think you make a fair point. I do family genealogy, and it's incredible to see how someone's life could have gone a completely different way if they had made one decision over the other, even if the decision seems so small. I agree, chances of anything really happening in life are rare.
@@mehdin7282 This makes sense, but I don't think it will effect everyone, what about people from Latin America? They don't have connection to the British or India (excluding Guyana and Suriname) so I don't think it will effect them, but yeah, a lot of people wouldn't exist in this timeline.
Basically it boils down to two things: - Without the British conquering India and in that process unifying them, there would be no single modern day nation named India. - And this video would probably be in French, since there won't be much of a British Empire anyway
@North Sentinelese you are right he forgot to mention a main point that Marathas did had a common goal and ideal a united and strong Bharat. They would have done it by probably making an alliance with the Sikh and Ahom empires
My alternate history scenarios 1. What if France won the Franco-Prussian war 2. What if the white army won the Russian civil war? 4. What if the Republicans won the Spanish civil war? 3. What if the French invasion of Mexico succeeded? 5. What if Andrew Jackson lost the 1828 presidential elections? 6. What if the 2008 recession never happened? 7. What if the Mexican-American war never happened? 8. What if the Mexican civil war never happened? 9. What if Germany became communist instead of fascist? 10. What if the Great Depression never happened?
Depending on how you define the White Army. If you mean the Russian Republic stays around, then Cody already made that video. If you mean the Bolsheviks are defeated, that could be interesting. Hitler wouldn't have to had invade Russia for Lebensraum because Germany would be able to establish control over most of Eastern Europe (imagine the Wehrmacht simply has to fight the Polish Army, then the Ruthenian Army and the Ukrainian Army, and the Baltic States - none of those would be able to defeat the Germans separately. Hell in fact they were all steamrolled within a year under Soviet control). And get Rodzavesky into power in Russia.
But sadly not very likely, since millions of people were dying in famines on the subcontinent long before the Brits arrived, and would have happened many more times if they had never arrived at all.
@@Lodatzor actually everything positive Britain did for India and other colonies was completely unintentional and merely coincided with their own interests. It's like saying that Germany is doing well today because of Hitler. Hitler's actions may have in a weird way contributed to one thing that led to another that led to Germany being what it is today but Hitler intentions had nothing to do with it. In all colonies that I can think of, there was tiny good that came from colonization but it was net horrible. Justifying Britain's actions saying "well it would've happened anyway" is not very logical because if it happened because of someone else, it would've been them at the end of the blame.
@@sunniedae2031 *"actually everything positive Britain did for India and other colonies was completely unintentional"* No, that's not even remotely accurate. The British colonial model, unlike the Spanish and the French, was to create independent trading partners. That's why places like Canada gained independent status as early as 1867, and didn't need a rebellion to do it. In fact, literally every single British colony was granted independence willingly, which is why most of the former empire is still a voluntary part of the Commonwealth of Nations. You know, a network of trading partners. *"It's like saying that Germany is doing well today because of Hitler."* No, it's not at all and your comparison is as offensive as it is pathetic. You bigots keep trying to sell your bigotry, but basic historical knowledge debunks every bigoted claim you lying little racists make. *"In all colonies that I can think of, there was tiny good that came from colonization but it was net horrible." That's because you know precisely nothing about world history, and are not worth listening to. You know nothing of the oppressions in pre-colonial, theocratic, imperial India. You know nothing of the hundreds (sometimes thousands) of years of slavery and conquest in African history. You know nothing of the slavery, conquest and genocide by the Islamic caliphates and the Chinese imperial monsters. You know nothing of the rampages of the Mongols, the Assyrians and the Aztec, and you have no comprehension whatsoever of the fact that the British put a stop to ALL of it. It was the British who pioneered and enforced the abolition of slavery. It was the British who spread ideals of democracy, common rights and industrialization to India and Africa. It was the British who were actively asked by the Maori chiefs in New Zealand to take over, to help prevent them form wiping each other out in tribal warfare, and it was the British who were restraining the American colonists in their desires to slaughter and conquer the natives. You are ignorant, and a bigot.
@@Lodatzor you clearly have only ever read narrative "history" written by "historians" sponsored by the British Empire. I'm sure you also think everyone in India and Africa lived like savages and were taught civility by the cultured European man. Of course you can believe what makes you happy. I like fairytales too, but I can tell the difference.
@@sunniedae2031 *"you clearly have only ever read narrative "history" written by "historians" sponsored by the British Empire."* No, I just make a point of going and finding out what really happened. YOU have cl;early only read the type of garbage spewed forth by places like Buzzfeed and the New York Times, with their attempts to rewrite history. That's why I give you a wealth of detail,. you can't respond to a single things which was said, and have to resort to some dumb, pathetic narrative about how actual historical facts are simply "sponsored" by the British Empire. Your inability to form even the barest of counter-arguments merely proves that I am right, you are wrong, and that you don't even have the integrity to admit it. *"I'm sure you also think everyone in India and Africa lived like savages and were taught civility by the cultured European man."* No, not at all, but it certainly is the case that India was home to genocidal, theocratic empires who hideously oppressed their people, and that the British period unified that subcontinent into a modern country and handed it over as a parliamentary democracy. Just like EVERY OTHER British colony. Oh, and I also know for a fact that Africans had been engaging in slavery for at least two thousand years, that they were the ones who did all the enslaving, and that slavery in Africa didn't stop until the Europeans did conquer it in th 1870s. You just don't understand this because you are an ignorant bigot who merely parrots whatever you heard on Twitter. *"I like fairytales too, but I can tell the difference."* Apparently not, since what you believe is an ignorant, bigoted narrative that you can't even defend when challenged. Go read a book sometime, and then you will come to understand that everything I said is true, and nothing that you believe is even remotely accurate. Next.
I guess I'm not the only one who happened to have watched FitMC whole channel for no apparent reason since I don't play Minecraft anymore. Thx Google recommendation
"Those countries are far smaller than India" **Shows current day Germany instead of the German Empire** I mean, it's not wrong, but it's still the wrong nation
@@user-bz1od4yc5r It is debatable, modern day Germany is descended from the Republic that the allies created in Bonn, and has nothing to do with Prussia, just that you do not think of modern day Germany as a synonym for the German Reich already shows that it may well be another country.
@@user-bz1od4yc5r Saying that the German Empire and the Republic of Germany are the same is like saying that Nazi Germany was like the Holy Roman Empire.
@@Chicodon008 Clearly you don't know. 45 Trillion is more than double the annual GDP of the US, basically how much money is circulating or how much the country entire country is producing, without taking expenses into account. It would be literally impossible for the USA to pay for this, the largest economy in the world, let alone the UK. If you have more than 2 brain cells in economics, it's not that hard to understand.
@Vishnu K U have to understand that britain bribed their way into winning battles. For example, the battle of Plassey, which was the most important battle for the British, as its result would change the fate of the British empire in India, was won by the British for the sole reason that they promised the position of Nawab to the general of the Nawab's army, Mir Jafar. EIC also lost to Aurangzeb. Therefore it cannot be said that the sole reason for the colonization of India was the tactics and technology of the British. While ashoka on the other hand is truly great.
@Vishnu K True, but without the help of regional kingdoms like Nizam/nawab they would have never conquered India. EIC brutally lost to Aurangzeb and they literally pleaded him. EIC lost to Tip sultan because of his rocket technology which was way advanced than the EIC and tore through the EIC cavalry and infantry decreasing their morale. EIC even lost the first war against Maratha. Then they turned kingdom against kingdom and had lot of money to bribe. So they succeeded in capturing bit by bit. Sure EIC was strong but ur overestimating them.
No European country called themselves a legitimatized empire until after Napoleon. The only empire was the Holy Roman Empire and Russia (which is likely them considering themselves the 3rd Rome). When the Holy Roman Empire ceased France called itself an empire. This trigged Austria to call themselves and Empire. Followed by Germany. Spain for much of its history was an empire. But never officially called itself an empire because that would cause issues with the Holy Roman Empire which was backed by the Pope (only Carlos was an HR Emperor)
Well if not for india. I'm not sure Britain would even exist now. Considering our people fought in both of the "Britishers" so called "World War". They used us. Also we were extremely wealthy before they came in. They owe us reparations if we're talking about compensation here.
@@tazmoir I've seen benghalense in binomial names but I've never heard and seen Bengalese and I did a quick Google and surprisingly it is a word en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Bengalese
Well Indian states did try to modernise, even before East Asian kingdoms tried to. Mughal India had already experienced Proto Industrialisation before Europe and Indian Kingdoms and Empires like those of the Sikhs and Mysore used advanced weaponry like rockets in their militaries and employed Europeans as soldiers, generals and advisers. The Mysore kingdom, under Tipu Sultan, established many factories and industries like Silk manufacturing in many cities. Tipu Sultan kept diplomatic contacts with Napoleon and Middle Eastern States. India was quite advanced, it had very large cities and high urbanisation rates of 15% overall and was one of the world's biggest manufacturers of textiles, silks, ceramics, ships etc. In 1700, Dhaka had a population of 1 million, Agra over 800,000 , Delhi 650,000 , Lahore 750,000 , Ahmedabad over 500,000 and there were many other large cities like Varanasi, Prayagraj, Patna, Burhanpur, Multan, Surat etc with over 200,000 people. Both the Marathas and the Kingdom of Mysore attempted to set up large advanced Blue Water Naval fleets on the lines of the French Navy. The Indian economy was also quite advanced with a larger percentage of the population working in industrial and service sectors than in Europe.
Imagine if a time-traveler Industrialize the Maurya Empire! The Alexander Inheritance by Eric Flint has a ship of time-travelers going back to Ancient history, two years after Alexander's death, 321 BC India, China and the Americas are in a much better situation
Cody in his if the South would have won vid: "The British didn't need Southern cotton because they could just import it from India" Cody in this vid: "The British could just import cotton from the South" So if the British didn't take India then the British might have sided with the South in the American Civil War?
Well perhaps but if the union still made it about slavery in the emancipation proclamation the British would probably still back down. Also Russia and Prussia supported the union so that could mean war with other world powers
The observation made by you that Maratha was without ideology and eventually it will die after the old guard dies. The so called old guard, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, the emperor of Maratha died in 1680 and his ideology was 'Swaraj' means self rule, which was later adopted in Indian Freedom struggle. The idea of 'Swaraj' was so strong that it took power from Mughals and Maratha confederacy stayed in power till 1818. FYI, founder of Maratha Empire, only ruled Western Maharashtra but his idea of 'Swaraj' was so strong and effective that after Shivaji's death, Aurangzeb marched to Deccan from Delhi to conquer everything left by Shivaji but Marathas revolted and eventually Aurangzeb died in Deccan trying to defeat Shivaji's successor. Power of ideology ❤️
That ideology will only come in handy for defeating Mughals and creating Swaraj. But after that? Nope they won't try to unite , they were not imperialist
@@sahilbatra8391 There's no proof. All the folklores identifies looters as Borgis & not Marathas. Not even single folklore mentioned the word Marathas. On the contrary, besides Marathi, Chhatrapati Shivaji was more celebrated in Bengal by Gurudev and other famous Bengali Renaissance leaders.
I think I have a good idea. What if the moon was habitable? There is no need for a realistic POD, but I think it could be a series, like What if Rome never existed.
@@Rangerman69420 yes. With Gallileo inventing the telescope, we would almost certainly know the moon was habitable by the end of the 1700's. If my calculations are to be believed, in 1889 the Swiss(or maybe some other country) would land men on the moon.
"The only thing for certain is that millions wouldn't have died from famine" Oh cody, if you give humans the benefit of the doubt, they will always prove you wrong
Nope, millions indeed wouldn't have died in the Indian subcontinent if not for the empire and the average income of the people would also be much higher
@@devansh3700 famine was caused by imperial policy yes. By the horrible viceroys of the raj not the average brit. But whats worse is that the last famine under the raj in ww2 has evidence as being the result of officals being corrupt and were hoarding food to sell themselves when Britain sent grain from Australia. The wage would not be higher at all you wouldnt see the influence of european ideals of workers rights and the caste system would have seen an apartheid style of rule.
There has never been a famine that was not man-made in human history. Indians haven't managed a famine since the British left, and never had one before the British arrived. So no, I think that claim is a pretty safe bet.
I am assumping world will be more advanced than today in some ways. But this has many Butterfly Effects too. So this is a very complex scenario as well as interesting.
^so great ashoka conqured everything but supposedly stopped just outside ancient tamil kingdoms... Lol. Sounds like a shit excuse to me.. And btw Kerala and Tamilnadu weren't conquered by mughals either who ruled the North for 7 centuries.
@Siyovaxsh En-sipad-zid-ana true...indian subcontinent had a bunch of kingdoms fighting against each other..and sometimes one kingdom managed to dominate others for a short time which these idiot nationalists use desperately to prove something called india existed before british invasion
Tanjore marathas barely held power for a mere century constantly attacked by southern tamil kingdoms and telugus..by that logic east coast of India is a tamil kingdom because cholas tempoarily conqured till the ganges..Funny how idiotic nationalists are desperate to call india as a single country since ancient times
@@rajbagwe3732 No, false. Nowhere other than India and Ireland experienced famines, and in the case of the Irish famine it was caused by a crop disease which struck the entire European continent.
@@jesse4246 Well, in the case of India, the colonial governors had no idea what they were doing, having never ruled over a land or population of such enormity before. There is no doubt many of them were guilty of criminal negligence in their mishandling of the famines, which happened for the same reasons they had always happened in Indian history, but that's pretty much the only real example. Why? Well, because in the case of the Irish, the main reason the famine got so bad was because the potato had artificially ballooned the Irish population to begin with. Not many people realize that the British actually oversaw the largest population in the history of Ireland, but it was unnaturally sustained by reliance upon this particular crop. The population had swelled from 5m in 1800 to 8.8m by 1840, and 3.3.m poor laborers lived almost exclusively on this potato. So, when it suddenly was taken away, the effect was shocking to the nation. But, the larger factor was not starvation, but instead disease due to the sudden death toll, which then prompted mass migration, and over the next 40 years the population dwindled back down to 5m by 1880. Even today, despite decades of self-rule and with all the benefits of modern agriculture, the population of Ireland is still below 7m, as no-one has tried t base an unsustainable growth spurt upon one crop ever again. So, what were you saying?
4:29 unlike pakistan being a theocratic islamic state, India isnt a 'hindu' nation but secular one. This is mistake ive seen people make everywhere. Only Pakistan was created on communal lines whereas india wasnt.
But let us just say that we would have not been there if britain didnt tear us apart by putting useless laws and taxes on everything i am pakistani but also love india
What if instead of Europe developing an individualist culture and Asia developing an collectivist culture it was the other way around? (maybe the greeks develope something simmilar to Confucianism and Asia developes something simmilar to western philosophy and culture)
But the reason that happened is because Europe has a history of fighting wars against itself and rebelling. In Asia and the Middle East, there were longstanding religious empires that didn't exist in the same way as in Europe, at least after Rome fell I guess, but idk anything about Rome. The Holy Roman Empire had to negotiate with its kingdoms, whereas I'm pretty sure China just had a central authority with total control. In Europe, authorities kept being undermined and overthrown until liberalism appeared. That being said, this is from a text in history class I read a long time ago that made the argument why Europe has an individualist culture, so I don't know if this is absolute fact or just the author's opinion that my teacher really liked. You should research it yourself if you really like history, since it's really fun, in my opinion.
Its unlikely, because the populations in Asia are much higher than in Europe. Whatever you have more of diminishes in value. People's lives are no different, at least to someone who isn't closely related to themselves. Have less people, have more value of people's lives and have people with much more liberal tendencies. Have more people, have less value of people's lives, have people with much less liberal tendencies. Its all just economics really.
I still see several problems with this, India hasn’t historically been like all of Europe, India hasn’t been a continent, it has been much more like germany except it unified every few centuries. The Maratha in fact had a very nationalistic message, although I don’t know how much that would pass on to commoners. At least early on, maratha empire wasn’t as fragmented as you make it out to be, there are stages of its fragmentation: 1) Shivaji-baji Rao, it was extremely unified like any other nation 2) baji Rao-Maratha afghan war it was more like the German empire, with lords holding a lot of power 3) afghan war - its end when 5 kings were under the Emperors control only in name, this last situation is what people think of when they think of the Martha empire For India to stay independent, Martha empire would need to stay in one of the first 2 stages of its decentralisation, if Tara bai took control during maratha empires civil war in early 1700s, maratha empire would remain in the first stage, or Tara bai could lose but maratha empire could win during the maratha afghan war which means it would stay in stage 2 and become more like the German empire. Either way, India would eventually unite or stay united, and not in an alliance like EU North west frontier is crucial to control, any independent India would have to control that frontier, so I would say that frontier is still conquered regardless of the British
BAKA BAKA BAKA BAKA BAKA BAKA BAKA BAKA under the Martha’s the common enemy was the Mughals, maybe they could have stretched that our far enough to give India a common national identity, but if not, Afghanistan and Iran could be the boogeyman since they undertook several large scale invasions of India in the 1700s. But even if Iran and Afghanistan doesn’t work, 19th century nationalism would still rise in India with the rise of industrialization. While it’s true that industrialization was harmful in the short run, there’s no way Indian corporations wouldn’t see the benefit of industrialization, specially with the high rate of urbanization before British rule
Sriram Srinivas Language is also not what Indian national identity has every been built on, it’s been built on shared history and culture, which is extremely similar, not as similar as Germany which is homogenous, but extremely similar
BAKA BAKA BAKA BAKA BAKA BAKA BAKA BAKA any good statesman could have easily turned Iran into a boogeyman, it shouldn’t be hard for a few Bismarck type of person, which is exactly what Shivaji did earlier on. But if Marathas weren’t able to create a unified identity, it still should take longer than late 1800s
I think at some point in that alternative history someone could just came up with idea : "hey what about i buy those fancy weapons from the British and start uniting the whole sub-continent, i might be become the next "the great" from here", pretty much they would just becoming next Qing empire.
@@natalkumar6132 yeah but then all the states would do that and you'd be stuck with the same disunity but with a million or so dead soldiers Besides, that's exactly what the british did, loan arms to fight wars with one princely state against the the other to further their own interests By buying industrial weapons, you have single handedly done the britishers work for them my friend 😂
If we base this at all off my tw empire play throughs, india would eventually colonize the Americas and annex Britain, as well as most of eastern Europe
India was a global power until the 18th century, so that could have happened. Asia basically ruled the world until the Industrial Revolution and the subseuqnrt great divergence.
@@rajanyapurohit5113 Not really. The various groups in India like the rajputs, marathas, nagas, sadhus, Sikhs, etc have alone defeated invading groups like the British and Mughals. They weren't to be taken lightly.
@@ahmedshaharyarejaz9886 Without the British Empire, Napoleon might not have been defeated. So no United Germany probably, Germany would be living in Frankenreich!
No country had as important to the British empire as India,so it wouldn't change much outside that country. But without India, there's no British Empire and even if there was,it certainly wouldn't be anywhere close to as big and powerful as it was .
@@sarahemilyzulkifli6635 You really think Falkland Islands or Ghana are as important as India then you are deluded. Loot from India funded the conquest of the rest of the British empire.
@@Valencetheshireman927 yep it would be like you can say the german empire and by that i mean as small as german empire in size but not the economically powerfull abd the great powers of europe would be france and germany
As your indian fan i was always waiting for this scenario. And am i glad you covered it with it . It is exactly what i thought india would be without the British. We would be wealthy but politically fractured and the "crown" would definitely lose its "jewel" . But i like this timeline in this India chooses its own path and destiny maybe we could turn up like china ? Who knows? I have a few other scenarios in mind and they are really worth looking into please consider them for your next project : What if India went communist?: where the indian freedom struggle is dominated by communist leaders leading it to become communist after independence. What if French colonized India ? Actually the french really had a very good chance too if they were not intially defeated by the British .
I have your answers right here my friend: 1. There would be an even bigger famine that would have killed countless more lives, and India would likely have to undergo massive reforms to undo the damage caused by such a system if they even managed to break free, which depends on the strength and power of their communist leader. Likely either China or Russia would try and influence India, if not straight up take them over. I sincerely doubt India would have tried to become communist of its own free will. As a result, India would not be nearly as rich as it is today, and would likely still be picking itself up or at least miles behind where it is now. Not only does it depend on their rulers, but trying to instill communism in a country like India, would likely be particularly devastating. 2. India would likely have been a lot worse off. The French were pretty ruthless colonizers. India likely wouldn't experience its enhanced infrastructure compliments of the British, but still experience famine perhaps even on a greater scale all the same. Ghandi probably would have been executed or silenced, and the French probably wouldn't have cared at all to unite India. Also, at least in modern times, India is actually really, really wealthy. It's hard to say if that would have happened despite if the British colonized India or not... Probably, but then again the infrastructure they set in place was a huge boon, and who knows how Indian industry would turn out if the country was more fractured. Of course the wealth isn't very well distributed, but India has always had a social class system so I don't think that the wealth would be more distributed if the British never colonized. As a matter of fact, it's possible that the wealth might be even more concentrated in a few hands if Britain never colonized.
There are very few reasons to believe that India would have been richer. At the time India had a Malthusian economy and growth was measured in population growth. India's population grew by nearly 250% during the Raj. The British could have done a much better job but in hindsight it's always easy to criticize. 250% includes the famines to which the British most likely contributed to and made them more deadly.
@Aspiring Physicist bullshit,we would have prolly be a warmonging country, hell we might not even be a country.we might have been many small extremist countries like Afghanistan
The industrialisation of Europe would have demolished the economy even more that it did (like in China the loss of wealth was more the devaluing of the traditionally made goods by cheaper often higher quality goods from Europe, which had started even before the British became the main player in India). The Dutch and French likely would have tried to take the place of the British but in what form would be unclear. The country would probably be in several parts, any union only holding a part of the country with similar people plus what they can hold though conquest. Bandits and criminals would continue to exist widely and be treated like an army reserve by many states. Soldiers would act much like bandits themselves when on campaign (the rules and habit of hanging the English had in fact made a lot of their military control easier, especially in places where the native defenders acted worse than them resistance was light). Famines would continue especially due to the destruction crops by troops and raiders though the death rate would be lower due to it being spread out and the total population being lower. Western thought would likely be more notable for spreading ideas like nationalism and pan-nationalism that would spark many of the conflicts of the 19th century. The ethnic tensions would only be washed away with even stronger hatred (probably between different socialist ideologies). The subcontinent would be less golden eagle more hundred Napal's. In the short many small country's with complicated history's, problematic royal and caste grasps at power, strong regional rivalries, extreme ethnic and religious tensions and a mix of economic and social approaches would exist. Currently China would probably be the main foreign power with interests and influence in the subcontinent and they might have puppet states in the North from the time of the cold war.
Having an interest in History and doing my Ph.D. work in cotton breeding, I would be very interested in a 20 minute video about the influence of textiles. Same goes for the effect of improting Dutch tea to causing he Boston Tea Party.
I think it’s fairs to say that Empire in general is never a good thing. Look at Belgium in the Congo, Spain wiping out the majority of the native population of the Americas, the Portuguese Empire starting the Slave Trade, Frances actions in Algeria, The Millions killed in the Mongol Conquests or, in this case the British exploration of India.
@@T0T4LG4MER5 Absolutely. Spanish conquest of Haiti and Cuba was by every stretch of the imagination a genocide, one of the most brutal genocides in history. Their gold mines in Peru were brutal slave labour as well. Portugal shipped more slaves than any other country, Netherlands ruined Java and Sumatra with their Indonesian colonies and Japan's conquests during WW2 left a trail of barbaric crimes. Most of those are forgotten by the wider public, while they should be told at school for all of us to remember.
@@T0T4LG4MER5 I think what angers me is all the people that make long-winded arguments how the British Empire spread their law codes and industrialized their colonies. Its just so much bullshit, Britain basically invented the current form of the caste system to divide and conquer India. Whatever improvements were made by building infrastructure are offset by enslaving million in plantations of luxury crops and the improved administrative efficiency was offset by artificially drawn borders and discrimination of locals, leaving them with no trained labour after regaining independence.
Could this scenario also change the outcome of the American Civil War, if India wasn't a source of cheap cotton maybe the Confederate's plan to get British backing would have worked.
@@boygenius538_8 Even if it was abolitionist,Lincoln didn't declare the war as a war of emancipation until much later.The British were generally favourable towards the Confederate until the slavery angle was brought in.You can check Oversimplified's video on the topic.
When Cody started talking about Indian cotton, I immediately thought he were going to talk about how the Confederacy would be around today. They would have received the help of the British in that timeline to turn the tide of the Civil War against the North because the Brits would've been much more dependent on Southern cotton to fuel their textiles industry. That was an interesting curveball, however, going with the Boston Tea Party instead.
@Tall Jakee The US actually declared the war, admittedly Britain's interfering with its merchant trade and impressing large numbers of sailors into its navy to fight the French had something to do with it. Also the US did not like the fact that Britain supported native peoples in their opposition to US expansion, and they wanted Canada.
Some Interesting Scenarios What if Mexico won the Mexican-American war? What if Spain kept its colonies? What if Russia won the Russo-Japanese War? What if Austria united Germany? What if the Arabs won the Arab-Israeli Wars?
@@christiandauz3742 Yes. But how about a variant: Mexico handles the Texans more competently, and the US is a little more cautious when it inevitably jumps on Mexico, resulting in a more limited war, with smaller concessions. Have Santa Ana die young, say.
He did a very good trick of divide and rule which is still effective today in any politics. To fight between two kings in India, and then to rule over both of them. The same thing was done by bringing a difference between the two largest communities of India so that their attention would shift away from driving the British out of the country and fighting among themselves. The role of a weapon in any battle is very small. The war is fought with the mind, it is won by diplomacy, this is what history has always taught us.
Video Suggestions: _What if Spain never conquered Philippines._ _What if Japan became Christian / What if Portuguese missionaries successfully converted whole Japan._
That would be interesting to see A Sharif christianized Japan: perhaps we'd see more interactions like tsunenaga had with the pope, them utilizing more black samurai like yasuke, them trying to conquer china sooner, etc.
just a thought, but what for would Japanese christianity take? Would they adopt European Catholicism as is? Or would they develop their own form brining in aspects of buddhist philosophy and some shintoist rituals and practices (perhaps retaining the kami in some form, perhaps as something like angels or something analagous to saints). I suspect for it to catch on, the latter would be more likely. The biggest problem the rulers of Japan had with christianity was it's foreignness, and that it was controlled by outsiders. If they ditched the Latin Rite and developed their own native one that would have had a better chance.
It's just the Anglocized way of pronouncing those words. An English speaker would say German, not Deutsche, Polish, not Polska, and Bombay, not Mumbai. Let's not get started with the massacre of English by most Indians.
Also, even European nations were extremely fractured which did eventually unite into republics, India might have developed like France, a rough and stormy political history but would have been united. Also, the Maratha Empire was not a confederacy until much later, for the first about 100 years, I believe. That too, if the British weren't there, it probably would not have even fractured, the Marathas did become corrupt and thus got disunited but that was majorly fueled by British influence. India eventually would have been either an independent state or would be divided into 4-5 states which would probably have merged at one point through war and conquest. The major powers were the Marathas, the Sikhs, Bengal, Hyderabad and the Confederacy of Southern States.
It still would had balkanised since each state is linguistically and ethnically different. The Punjabis would had to face rebellion from the Ladakhis, Kashmiris and the Afghans. Marathas were already facing rebellion all over their empire and Bengal sultanates were always rekted by their Eastern neighbours whenever they tried to invade NE India.
What if present US stayed out it's military bullying ? I think that's a much better scenario. Do the terror organizations in the Muslim world even exist and what about all the political influencing in the Latin America's.
Probably the South Sea Company stock wouldn't have ballooned the way it did. People were investing crazily in that company partly because people who already invested in the East India Company early on had become incredibly rich.
One thing you did not mention directly is that the British may have very well supported the CSA (confederate states of america) during the American Civil war as they would have been severely reliant on their cotton production. One of the major reasons they did not in our timeline is India had surpassed the south in production.
Your new theories seem kinda, empty. Although video quality has been improved the theory itself lacks depth. Cody, pls, we want to hear you talk about those textiles.
@@__-td8rq Abraham Lincoln was stanch anti slavery, but during the early stages of the civil war, he wouldnt even consider the emancipation proclamation since he still had hopes for negotiation and reconciliation. However once the CSA began to win some battles and it was clear that the war would be a lenghty one, the european powers began to seriously consider recognizing, or at least trading with the CSA (a large factor was the cotton and tobacco). Abraham realized that not only was quick reconciliation not an option, but he also had to prevent the european powers from interfering. Once the emancipation proclamation was signed, the war became about the total abolishment of slavery and the europeans didnt want to support the slavery states.
The Mythical Mr.Kraken The UK was already in somewhat open support of the Confederacy; they were the absolute last to support the Union, and were the loudest international voice suggesting Lincoln just let them secede. The French were de facto against the Confederacy (and with the Union) simply because they knew the UK would happily trade with them.
I think there's a very good chance it could have happened. Sure the Queen and the sentiments of the Empire were against slavery. But I doubt they were publicly pro famine or genocide either and that didn't stop them from supporting or allowing those things when there was enough of a profit motive. Hell a chunk of the CSA's strategy was King Cotton diplomacy, which was to leverage cotton trade to get European powers, specifically GB to join the war on their side.
Very bogus marxist interpretation of industrialization. No it didn't happen because they wanted to curb wages and had the leverage of a small population. Industrialization led to exponential population growth in Europe so your own point is completely debunked.
You could work on uniting the Indian empires into one I suppose. Also btw, are you Indian. if you are you probably know this, Gandhi was also a great nuisance for India.
Why doesn’t it surprise that an INDIAN would say that about Britain. Have you even visited the place ? There’s more to it then coal . That’s like saying India is just curry and anglophobia 🤷♂️.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm going to start making more shorter videos for more frequent uploads. If you want context on how Britain conquered India, I made a vid on that too. ruclips.net/video/RDHFVi8vyrQ/видео.html
Nice
What if brintain never conquered usa/Canada basicly america
AlternateHistoryHub What if the U.S. continued their operations during the Lebanese Civil War in the 80’s?
make a 20 minute video on british textiles
Do what if Africa and Europe never existed? That would cool
Cody: “you don’t want me talking for twenty minutes about British textiles”
Me: ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT?
Fr
@Mansuba's Counseling User damn that's interesting, but i don't remember asking
I came to the comments to say this very thing. @AlternateHistoryHub You owe us a video about British Textiles.
@@TylerSkylionChilders I dont know why but when I read that I just imagined a mob swarming tylers house chanting BRITISH TEXTILE.
Agreed... make the video
"You dont want me talking about British textiles for 20 minutes"...
...on the contrary actually my friend.
THEKINGOFMETROPOLIS well yes but actually yes
Almost a thousand likes in a day. I say we do want those 20 minutes.
@@inexpertxennial6067 , let me guess
Students?
Yes
Chaos: shows warhammer
Anarchy: shows 2b2t
Thanks
InkoShootsAShotgun well I mean it is the oldest anarchy server in minecraft
Popbob is on this server. He is Popbob
Just a Pretzel
GENIUS COMMENT.
welcome to the oldest anarchy ser... *Wait wrong channel*
Since when did Cody start watching FitMC?
His Maratha prononciation sounds like Martha.
Batman: Why did you say that NAME???
Lol. Good one.
Hona😂
Wow making fun of pronunciation, top tier humor😂😂😂
@@mrinalrohilla2654 roasted
Lmaooo
About those textiles, do you think it's possible that the British would have been more lenient towards or supportive of the Confederacy during the US Civil War if they relied more heavily on the cotton produced in the region? How reliant was Britain on Indian goods for their textiles compared to the US?
Originally I was going to include it, but upon research I think even if the British did rely more on Confederate cotton, they wouldnt have gone to war or opposed the Union to get it. While they did get cotton from the South, they got a lot of industrial goods and food from the North. So in the end, even without India, Britain doesnt do anything in the US Civil War.
Food (from the North) > Cotton
Now Turtledove's Southern Victory timeline becomes a reality and millions are doomed to a brutal death in 4 major wars between the 2 former allies
Chessed Gamon my thoughts exactly!
@@AlternateHistoryHub The Brits could've seen the benefits with siding with the Union anyway, since the Confederates' defeat was practically a similar inevitability to Nazi Germany's defeat: they were outmatched industrially.
If Britian were to side with the CSA (and if it wins), they're gonna have a very salty Unionist navy harassing commercial ships during the war and in future wars.
"Sometimes history seems like very unrealistic fiction" -Cody
"Fiction has to make sense, reality has no such obligations"
"Truth is stranger than fiction"
Frederick Cubbins Hahaha what a story Mark.
@@nont18411 Yeah, you can say that again.
so what do we think is the most unrealistic thing that has ever happened in history is? My money is on Alexander the Great conquering the entire world out of fucking nowhere and spreading greek philosophy and culture from egypt to India. That shit reads like a bad self-insert fanfiction.
Not really, it was more of a perfect storm
-Philip II, his father, united Macedonia and the Greeks
-Persia was weak and splintering. Unable to counter the Macedonian Phalanx or Alexander's ingenuity
Had Alexander lived up to his 70s, the Empire would be stable for a century or two
You want a bad fanfiction, America making the same mistakes over and over again
@@therakishrogue I can think of other stuff that seems unrealistic, but still happened because fuck the odds (condom optional). Hitler's ambitions being half realized toward the later years of WWII; Imperial Japan taking most of the Pacific until facing the US; the premise of 1984 threatening to exist in China; the American colonies going toe to toe with the British military; the Mongols conquering most of Asia and parts of Eastern Europe; Ethiopia defending itself from Fascist Italy
Those were the ones that came to mind now, but there are millions of other examples.
The one guy who wanted to hear about British textiles for 20 minutes:
NOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
Michael Cutler there were actually a lot of people, one of the pro-20minutes comment got over 1000 likes
Honestly I could listen to Cody speak all day about British textiles
I love economics, trade and societal structures, fucking sucks that history channels refuse to talk about it for more than 5 seconds. All of these underrated topics are just as important as war and conquest.
Kinda ironic how the guy you're talking about is literally under your comment lmao
Me
In 1946 India : bro give my trillion money and gold back
In. 1947 Britain : huh bye bye
India: but my money
Britain : but i gave you freedom
India : but you looted me and I'm poor
Britain : lets divide their nation
India : what
@Pushkar Mujumdar what ?
@Pushkar Mujumdar it's 45 trillion $ not 500
@Pushkar Mujumdar it's 45 trillion $ not 50
best comment by far
@Pushkar Mujumdar no i’m not...
"if there is a great conflict, maybe Britain isn't in the winning favor"
*The kaiser liked that*
Twitter: @EspressD3press if India isn’t England’s crown jewel does the Kaiser as we know him exist or for that mater Edward or Nicolas
@@LordEvan5 or even something like Germany exist
@@DaveMiller6042 pan germany would exist without the british empire.
@@geraldgrenier8132 a world without the British empire would also greatly impact the whole of Europe. Like who knows if napoleon even comes to power or if he does does he never fall.
@@DaveMiller6042 im sure that part,britain would still win
History sounding like bad fiction is the truest thing I’ve heard all week.
What does that make Time-travel alternate history?
In one of the books of the 1632 series, the American time-travelers and European Allies try to stop the Mughal Empire's path to decline and bring modern technology and ideas
@@christiandauz3742 now the time line where Maratha Prince survived .
Indeed.That is why nothing is impossible.Fiction is a legit thing
The assassination of the Archduke that started WW1. History demanded he die.
Aryrix 1 HISTORY NEEDS SACRIFICE!!!!!!!!!!
Britain: BUT IM NOTHING WITHOUT INDIA!!!!!
Cody: If you’re nothing without India then you shouldn’t have it.
You underestimate Britain and it’s empire if you think Britain is nothing without it ... or you’re from India . The British empire did not start in India which means it would have existed with it .
I get that this is a joke but just in case people take this a little too seriously I thought I’d write this .
J 19 existing doesn’t mean being alive he’s talking about how Britain looted India and got rich because of it if they never conquered India they wouldn’t as prosperous as they’re now cuz no spice trade
@@Valencetheshireman927 British wouldn't be as powerful or influential. They would have never reached Australia and they also would've lost first world war
@@Valencetheshireman927 British made most of their money from spices and opium they took from India.East India Company would sell tons of opium to China.
Marvel reference?
Land: Exists
Britain: its free real estate
elizebath ki maa ka bhosra
Pk Ind Zindabad
England exist, Vikings: its free real estate
@@rayuzy sahi kha bhai
Bhai kitne baar KITNE BAAR ye joke marega. Marne de bhai ye meme ko..
@Yonis Elias #PKMKB
Britain: *Doesn't conquer India*
Pakistan and Bangladesh: "Something's wrong I can feel it."
Hey, at least Bengal would still be in one piece
Nabil Ahmed
At least Panjab would be one place
@Lolrence 571 "I am once again asking for you-"
*There is no request for a Discord server. Take of your clothes.*
britian
The concept of modern India wouldn't exist either. It'd probably never unify. It'd be a whole lot of warring states.
If India wasn’t conquered I would not be born
My ancestors were British and Indian from Pondicherry
Dylan 953 If you really think about it, every single person might’ve not been born. The fact that you were born is already extremely rare. The butterfly effect could change everything. I don’t know though, I’m not an expert. Please don’t kill me in the comments.
@@mehdin7282 haha why are you so worried about people disagreeing with you? I think you make a fair point. I do family genealogy, and it's incredible to see how someone's life could have gone a completely different way if they had made one decision over the other, even if the decision seems so small. I agree, chances of anything really happening in life are rare.
@@mehdin7282 This makes sense, but I don't think it will effect everyone, what about people from Latin America? They don't have connection to the British or India (excluding Guyana and Suriname) so I don't think it will effect them, but yeah, a lot of people wouldn't exist in this timeline.
who care,
I don't know if that makes it worth it
Cody:"We both know you don't want me talking for 20 minutes about British textiles "
Me: Bold of you to assume.
Haha same.
Basically it boils down to two things:
- Without the British conquering India and in that process unifying them, there would be no single modern day nation named India.
- And this video would probably be in French, since there won't be much of a British Empire anyway
The second point would depend on who then would invent the internet and what the common language would be
So I am guessing in butterfly effect Internet won't exist. And we won't be having this conversation in RUclips
@@AshGamer007 No, we would be having it on voustube
@North Sentinelese you are right he forgot to mention a main point that Marathas did had a common goal and ideal a united and strong Bharat. They would have done it by probably making an alliance with the Sikh and Ahom empires
But, there would be a nation called The Marathas Empire. The Richest and most advanced country in the world
My alternate history scenarios
1. What if France won the Franco-Prussian war
2. What if the white army won the Russian civil war?
4. What if the Republicans won the Spanish civil war?
3. What if the French invasion of Mexico succeeded?
5. What if Andrew Jackson lost the 1828 presidential elections?
6. What if the 2008 recession never happened?
7. What if the Mexican-American war never happened?
8. What if the Mexican civil war never happened?
9. What if Germany became communist instead of fascist?
10. What if the Great Depression never happened?
Depending on how you define the White Army. If you mean the Russian Republic stays around, then Cody already made that video. If you mean the Bolsheviks are defeated, that could be interesting. Hitler wouldn't have to had invade Russia for Lebensraum because Germany would be able to establish control over most of Eastern Europe (imagine the Wehrmacht simply has to fight the Polish Army, then the Ruthenian Army and the Ukrainian Army, and the Baltic States - none of those would be able to defeat the Germans separately. Hell in fact they were all steamrolled within a year under Soviet control). And get Rodzavesky into power in Russia.
Interesting, very interesting...
What if France lost battle of tours
Some of those are interesting but we should let Cody make the videos he wants
The Killer the Russia one already has a video
You know, I've never actually thought about how absurd the rise of the East India Company actually is. Guess reality really is stranger then fiction.
It's basically a cyberpunk story without the cyber.
They easily manipulated the Indian Rulers.
Salnax
So a punk story?
Which one?
its quite easy to understand
Anglican is the True Religeon
"The british empire never colonized india"
The French: *I see this as an absolute win! Hon hon hon*
@split haven exactly
@Ilyass Abbad 😈😳😳
split haven how?
The French would get wrecked. There is a reason they tried conquering india but never did.
@@nakaimoore6548 some Brits like to believe that. They see what is bad about other empires, not their own.
Britain : Hey India, wanna hear a joke ?
India : Okay
Britain : Your money
India : I didn't get that
Britain : Exactly
India : Oh, wait wha-
Nani
💀
Lmao
@@KeDeBeBS shut up dude, accept krna seekh le
@@KeDeBeBS tu kya khair nikalega meri, india se bahar jaake dekha hai kbhi?
"We both know you don't want me talking for twenty minutes about British textiles."
You dare assume my interests?
Britain: *sad colonisation noises*
Britain: *colonises France*
Dutch: *Happy specerijen noises*
That Guy did you do that just to trigger Brits or did you genuinely not know the non-American spelling is with an s?
@That Guy I'm from the UK and "colonisation" is how it's spelt here btw
That Guy, you realise not everyone speaks American English, right? Colonisation, civilisation, etc. are part of British English.
I never thought 2B2T and a study on the effects of colonization would be in the same video
Good one lul
Hey! Did you know that 2b2t is the oldest anarchy server in Minecraft!
@@1UnoriginalUsername yes lul
"Millions don't die from famine." That's good enough.
But sadly not very likely, since millions of people were dying in famines on the subcontinent long before the Brits arrived, and would have happened many more times if they had never arrived at all.
@@Lodatzor actually everything positive Britain did for India and other colonies was completely unintentional and merely coincided with their own interests. It's like saying that Germany is doing well today because of Hitler. Hitler's actions may have in a weird way contributed to one thing that led to another that led to Germany being what it is today but Hitler intentions had nothing to do with it. In all colonies that I can think of, there was tiny good that came from colonization but it was net horrible.
Justifying Britain's actions saying "well it would've happened anyway" is not very logical because if it happened because of someone else, it would've been them at the end of the blame.
@@sunniedae2031
*"actually everything positive Britain did for India and other colonies was completely unintentional"*
No, that's not even remotely accurate. The British colonial model, unlike the Spanish and the French, was to create independent trading partners. That's why places like Canada gained independent status as early as 1867, and didn't need a rebellion to do it. In fact, literally every single British colony was granted independence willingly, which is why most of the former empire is still a voluntary part of the Commonwealth of Nations. You know, a network of trading partners.
*"It's like saying that Germany is doing well today because of Hitler."*
No, it's not at all and your comparison is as offensive as it is pathetic. You bigots keep trying to sell your bigotry, but basic historical knowledge debunks every bigoted claim you lying little racists make.
*"In all colonies that I can think of, there was tiny good that came from colonization but it was net horrible."
That's because you know precisely nothing about world history, and are not worth listening to. You know nothing of the oppressions in pre-colonial, theocratic, imperial India. You know nothing of the hundreds (sometimes thousands) of years of slavery and conquest in African history. You know nothing of the slavery, conquest and genocide by the Islamic caliphates and the Chinese imperial monsters. You know nothing of the rampages of the Mongols, the Assyrians and the Aztec, and you have no comprehension whatsoever of the fact that the British put a stop to ALL of it.
It was the British who pioneered and enforced the abolition of slavery. It was the British who spread ideals of democracy, common rights and industrialization to India and Africa. It was the British who were actively asked by the Maori chiefs in New Zealand to take over, to help prevent them form wiping each other out in tribal warfare, and it was the British who were restraining the American colonists in their desires to slaughter and conquer the natives.
You are ignorant, and a bigot.
@@Lodatzor you clearly have only ever read narrative "history" written by "historians" sponsored by the British Empire. I'm sure you also think everyone in India and Africa lived like savages and were taught civility by the cultured European man.
Of course you can believe what makes you happy. I like fairytales too, but I can tell the difference.
@@sunniedae2031
*"you clearly have only ever read narrative "history" written by "historians" sponsored by the British Empire."*
No, I just make a point of going and finding out what really happened. YOU have cl;early only read the type of garbage spewed forth by places like Buzzfeed and the New York Times, with their attempts to rewrite history. That's why I give you a wealth of detail,. you can't respond to a single things which was said, and have to resort to some dumb, pathetic narrative about how actual historical facts are simply "sponsored" by the British Empire.
Your inability to form even the barest of counter-arguments merely proves that I am right, you are wrong, and that you don't even have the integrity to admit it.
*"I'm sure you also think everyone in India and Africa lived like savages and were taught civility by the cultured European man."*
No, not at all, but it certainly is the case that India was home to genocidal, theocratic empires who hideously oppressed their people, and that the British period unified that subcontinent into a modern country and handed it over as a parliamentary democracy. Just like EVERY OTHER British colony. Oh, and I also know for a fact that Africans had been engaging in slavery for at least two thousand years, that they were the ones who did all the enslaving, and that slavery in Africa didn't stop until the Europeans did conquer it in th 1870s. You just don't understand this because you are an ignorant bigot who merely parrots whatever you heard on Twitter.
*"I like fairytales too, but I can tell the difference."*
Apparently not, since what you believe is an ignorant, bigoted narrative that you can't even defend when challenged. Go read a book sometime, and then you will come to understand that everything I said is true, and nothing that you believe is even remotely accurate.
Next.
2:19
"Anarchy"
*Shows 2b2t server*
"Cody is a man of culture"
yoga5631 THE OLDEST ANARCHY SUBCONTINENT IN HISTORY
I guess I'm not the only one who happened to have watched FitMC whole channel for no apparent reason since I don't play Minecraft anymore.
Thx Google recommendation
Konitrix -
CULTURE 100
@@konitrix3166 DEATH TO HERESY! GLORY BE TO THE IMPERIUM OF MAN! AND HIS HOLY EMPEROR OF MANKIND! DEUS VULT!
2b2t . The oldest anarchy server in minecraft
"Those countries are far smaller than India"
**Shows current day Germany instead of the German Empire**
I mean, it's not wrong, but it's still the wrong nation
Yeah Silesia, Pomerania and Prussia proper should be included too
@@gokbay3057 also Alsace, Norther Lorraine, norther Schleswig, The Province of Posen and Eupen-Malmedy
no, its the right nation, just the wrong time period
@@user-bz1od4yc5r It is debatable, modern day Germany is descended from the Republic that the allies created in Bonn, and has nothing to do with Prussia, just that you do not think of modern day Germany as a synonym for the German Reich already shows that it may well be another country.
@@user-bz1od4yc5r
Saying that the German Empire and the Republic of Germany are the same is like saying that Nazi Germany was like the Holy Roman Empire.
India - give my trillion dollers back
British - I'm broke now....
No country on earth can pay that much money I hope you know that
@@invalidcrazy7034 Play Bitch better have my money by Rihanna
@@II-cq5gb No
@@invalidcrazy7034 I know. They all wasted it fighting wars
@@Chicodon008 Clearly you don't know. 45 Trillion is more than double the annual GDP of the US, basically how much money is circulating or how much the country entire country is producing, without taking expenses into account. It would be literally impossible for the USA to pay for this, the largest economy in the world, let alone the UK. If you have more than 2 brain cells in economics, it's not that hard to understand.
Chandragupta: Time to conquer all of India
Britain: Beat ya to it
@Vishnu K ashoka is one of the best kings in india
Most of India
@Vishnu K U have to understand that britain bribed their way into winning battles. For example, the battle of Plassey, which was the most important battle for the British, as its result would change the fate of the British empire in India, was won by the British for the sole reason that they promised the position of Nawab to the general of the Nawab's army, Mir Jafar. EIC also lost to Aurangzeb. Therefore it cannot be said that the sole reason for the colonization of India was the tactics and technology of the British. While ashoka on the other hand is truly great.
@Vishnu K Say what now?!?!?!?!
@Vishnu K True, but without the help of regional kingdoms like Nizam/nawab they would have never conquered India. EIC brutally lost to Aurangzeb and they literally pleaded him. EIC lost to Tip sultan because of his rocket technology which was way advanced than the EIC and tore through the EIC cavalry and infantry decreasing their morale. EIC even lost the first war against Maratha.
Then they turned kingdom against kingdom and had lot of money to bribe. So they succeeded in capturing bit by bit. Sure EIC was strong but ur overestimating them.
8:05 Cody I'm going to be real with you man you vastly under estimate how much i want you to talk about textiles
"If Britain didn't have an India it wouldn't have an empire". Oh! So that's why France never had an empire.
well neither empire lasted as much as the british monarchy, and colonial france was much smaller than british colonies
No European country called themselves a legitimatized empire until after Napoleon. The only empire was the Holy Roman Empire and Russia (which is likely them considering themselves the 3rd Rome). When the Holy Roman Empire ceased France called itself an empire. This trigged Austria to call themselves and Empire. Followed by Germany.
Spain for much of its history was an empire. But never officially called itself an empire because that would cause issues with the Holy Roman Empire which was backed by the Pope (only Carlos was an HR Emperor)
@@ernstschmidt4725 the portuguese empire lasted 600 years,it began much before the british and ended two years after the british empire
Well if not for india. I'm not sure Britain would even exist now. Considering our people fought in both of the "Britishers" so called "World War". They used us.
Also we were extremely wealthy before they came in. They owe us reparations if we're talking about compensation here.
@@karannsyt Oh hey there Shashi is that you?
When he said bengalese I couldn't stop laughing
He said Bengalis
@Digonto 8:47
Bengalese, Bangali, Bengali, Bangladeshi all a real and somewhat valid words
@@fruityautism bengalese ain’t a real word bro
@@tazmoir I've seen benghalense in binomial names but I've never heard and seen Bengalese and I did a quick Google and surprisingly it is a word
en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/Bengalese
Well Indian states did try to modernise, even before East Asian kingdoms tried to. Mughal India had already experienced Proto Industrialisation before Europe and Indian Kingdoms and Empires like those of the Sikhs and Mysore used advanced weaponry like rockets in their militaries and employed Europeans as soldiers, generals and advisers. The Mysore kingdom, under Tipu Sultan, established many factories and industries like Silk manufacturing in many cities. Tipu Sultan kept diplomatic contacts with Napoleon and Middle Eastern States. India was quite advanced, it had very large cities and high urbanisation rates of 15% overall and was one of the world's biggest manufacturers of textiles, silks, ceramics, ships etc. In 1700, Dhaka had a population of 1 million, Agra over 800,000 , Delhi 650,000 , Lahore 750,000 , Ahmedabad over 500,000 and there were many other large cities like Varanasi, Prayagraj, Patna, Burhanpur, Multan, Surat etc with over 200,000 people. Both the Marathas and the Kingdom of Mysore attempted to set up large advanced Blue Water Naval fleets on the lines of the French Navy. The Indian economy was also quite advanced with a larger percentage of the population working in industrial and service sectors than in Europe.
Imagine if a time-traveler Industrialize the Maurya Empire!
The Alexander Inheritance by Eric Flint has a ship of time-travelers going back to Ancient history, two years after Alexander's death, 321 BC
India, China and the Americas are in a much better situation
@@christiandauz3742 oh i really dont think so pal
But we cant predict anything so yeah maybe you are right coz we live in present
Lmao what? Rockets? Wgat kind of bs is this? 🤣🤣
NO U
Yea, look up tipu Sultan rockets
Cody in his if the South would have won vid: "The British didn't need Southern cotton because they could just import it from India"
Cody in this vid: "The British could just import cotton from the South"
So if the British didn't take India then the British might have sided with the South in the American Civil War?
Britain imported far more cotton from the south than from India.
Damn, what a nerd
Well perhaps but if the union still made it about slavery in the emancipation proclamation the British would probably still back down. Also Russia and Prussia supported the union so that could mean war with other world powers
That kinda sounds like world war 1 starts a little early ngl
The Brits did side with the CSA financially. That's one of the reasons that taking New Orleans was so important.
The observation made by you that Maratha was without ideology and eventually it will die after the old guard dies.
The so called old guard, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj, the emperor of Maratha died in 1680 and his ideology was 'Swaraj' means self rule, which was later adopted in Indian Freedom struggle.
The idea of 'Swaraj' was so strong that it took power from Mughals and Maratha confederacy stayed in power till 1818.
FYI, founder of Maratha Empire, only ruled Western Maharashtra but his idea of 'Swaraj' was so strong and effective that after Shivaji's death, Aurangzeb marched to Deccan from Delhi to conquer everything left by Shivaji but Marathas revolted and eventually Aurangzeb died in Deccan trying to defeat Shivaji's successor.
Power of ideology ❤️
@prathmesh Any proof that Marathas killed Bengalis and looted Orrisa ?
That ideology will only come in handy for defeating Mughals and creating Swaraj.
But after that? Nope they won't try to unite , they were not imperialist
@@lohengramm7798 Today the only part remain Hindu India which was under Maratha rule from Attok till West Bengal.
@@sahilbatra8391 There's no proof. All the folklores identifies looters as Borgis & not Marathas. Not even single folklore mentioned the word Marathas. On the contrary, besides Marathi, Chhatrapati Shivaji was more celebrated in Bengal by Gurudev and other famous Bengali Renaissance leaders.
I think I have a good idea.
What if the moon was habitable? There is no need for a realistic POD, but I think it could be a series, like What if Rome never existed.
The space race between URSS and USA would have become a lot hotter.
@@S3rp3nte My friend, you're thinking is constrained. We would have a space race... Between the German Empire and France!
@@ivanthegreat2.070 Are you supposing that we would have gone to the moon a lot faster?
@@Rangerman69420 yes. With Gallileo inventing the telescope, we would almost certainly know the moon was habitable by the end of the 1700's. If my calculations are to be believed, in 1889 the Swiss(or maybe some other country) would land men on the moon.
Ivan the Great 2.0 I don’t see how that would work...
"The only thing for certain is that millions wouldn't have died from famine"
Oh cody, if you give humans the benefit of the doubt, they will always prove you wrong
It really makes sims in TS4 look like real humans when they stand around for days without showering or eating.
Nope, millions indeed wouldn't have died in the Indian subcontinent if not for the empire and the average income of the people would also be much higher
@@devansh3700 ..mmm...maybe not
@@devansh3700 famine was caused by imperial policy yes. By the horrible viceroys of the raj not the average brit. But whats worse is that the last famine under the raj in ww2 has evidence as being the result of officals being corrupt and were hoarding food to sell themselves when Britain sent grain from Australia. The wage would not be higher at all you wouldnt see the influence of european ideals of workers rights and the caste system would have seen an apartheid style of rule.
There has never been a famine that was not man-made in human history. Indians haven't managed a famine since the British left, and never had one before the British arrived. So no, I think that claim is a pretty safe bet.
Next one...
"What if the Mongols never invaded and ransacked Baghdad?"
That is a spicy one! If the Islamic golden age did not get annihilated by the Mongols who knows how the world would look today! Yes please Cody!
I am assumping world will be more advanced than today in some ways. But this has many Butterfly Effects too. So this is a very complex scenario as well as interesting.
anneeq008 this is a good one
Many pieces of science and philosophy wouldn't be lost...
We'd be building colonies on Mars.
Technological advancement wouldn't be halted and we'd probably be better off.
There wouldn't be united India, Chanakya laughs in the background.
@Aryan Jaiswal bruh calm down
Tamilnadu and Kerala laughs at chaanakya
^so great ashoka conqured everything but supposedly stopped just outside ancient tamil kingdoms... Lol. Sounds like a shit excuse to me.. And btw Kerala and Tamilnadu weren't conquered by mughals either who ruled the North for 7 centuries.
@Siyovaxsh En-sipad-zid-ana true...indian subcontinent had a bunch of kingdoms fighting against each other..and sometimes one kingdom managed to dominate others for a short time which these idiot nationalists use desperately to prove something called india existed before british invasion
Tanjore marathas barely held power for a mere century constantly attacked by southern tamil kingdoms and telugus..by that logic east coast of India is a tamil kingdom because cholas tempoarily conqured till the ganges..Funny how idiotic nationalists are desperate to call india as a single country since ancient times
Q: What if Britain didn't conquer X?
A: Millions wouldn't have died from famine.
True
@@rajbagwe3732 No, false. Nowhere other than India and Ireland experienced famines, and in the case of the Irish famine it was caused by a crop disease which struck the entire European continent.
@@Lodatzor might wanna look in to what the British did in response to these disasters
@@jesse4246
Well, in the case of India, the colonial governors had no idea what they were doing, having never ruled over a land or population of such enormity before. There is no doubt many of them were guilty of criminal negligence in their mishandling of the famines, which happened for the same reasons they had always happened in Indian history, but that's pretty much the only real example.
Why? Well, because in the case of the Irish, the main reason the famine got so bad was because the potato had artificially ballooned the Irish population to begin with. Not many people realize that the British actually oversaw the largest population in the history of Ireland, but it was unnaturally sustained by reliance upon this particular crop. The population had swelled from 5m in 1800 to 8.8m by 1840, and 3.3.m poor laborers lived almost exclusively on this potato. So, when it suddenly was taken away, the effect was shocking to the nation.
But, the larger factor was not starvation, but instead disease due to the sudden death toll, which then prompted mass migration, and over the next 40 years the population dwindled back down to 5m by 1880. Even today, despite decades of self-rule and with all the benefits of modern agriculture, the population of Ireland is still below 7m, as no-one has tried t base an unsustainable growth spurt upon one crop ever again.
So, what were you saying?
@@Lodatzor TLDR, can't trust Carlos Valderrama
2:19 THE OLDEST ANARCHY SUBCONTINENT ON EARTH.
I died when i saw it
2B2T
4:29 unlike pakistan being a theocratic islamic state, India isnt a 'hindu' nation but secular one. This is mistake ive seen people make everywhere. Only Pakistan was created on communal lines whereas india wasnt.
Yes, exactly. This is the only thing that bothered me about this video
But let us just say that we would have not been there if britain didnt tear us apart by putting useless laws and taxes on everything i am pakistani but also love india
India may not technically be a 'Hindu nation', but it was created as a state for Hindus, as opposed to Pakistan being for Muslims.
@Tejas Misra And a few million Muslims from Southern India
not to mention india has regions with buddhist, sikh, christian, and even muslim majorities
What if instead of Europe developing an individualist culture and Asia developing an collectivist culture it was the other way around? (maybe the greeks develope something simmilar to Confucianism and Asia developes something simmilar to western philosophy and culture)
Genosse Lennart Woah the thought blew my mind!
But the reason that happened is because Europe has a history of fighting wars against itself and rebelling. In Asia and the Middle East, there were longstanding religious empires that didn't exist in the same way as in Europe, at least after Rome fell I guess, but idk anything about Rome. The Holy Roman Empire had to negotiate with its kingdoms, whereas I'm pretty sure China just had a central authority with total control. In Europe, authorities kept being undermined and overthrown until liberalism appeared.
That being said, this is from a text in history class I read a long time ago that made the argument why Europe has an individualist culture, so I don't know if this is absolute fact or just the author's opinion that my teacher really liked. You should research it yourself if you really like history, since it's really fun, in my opinion.
@@somebodyelse9130 in Asia the situation was and is bipolar ..bipolarity among Nations is much more stable than a multipolar situation similar to EU
Its unlikely, because the populations in Asia are much higher than in Europe. Whatever you have more of diminishes in value. People's lives are no different, at least to someone who isn't closely related to themselves. Have less people, have more value of people's lives and have people with much more liberal tendencies. Have more people, have less value of people's lives, have people with much less liberal tendencies. Its all just economics really.
@@arghya4NE
Would you define what "bipolar" means in this context?
I still see several problems with this, India hasn’t historically been like all of Europe, India hasn’t been a continent, it has been much more like germany except it unified every few centuries. The Maratha in fact had a very nationalistic message, although I don’t know how much that would pass on to commoners.
At least early on, maratha empire wasn’t as fragmented as you make it out to be, there are stages of its fragmentation:
1) Shivaji-baji Rao, it was extremely unified like any other nation
2) baji Rao-Maratha afghan war it was more like the German empire, with lords holding a lot of power
3) afghan war - its end when 5 kings were under the Emperors control only in name, this last situation is what people think of when they think of the Martha empire
For India to stay independent, Martha empire would need to stay in one of the first 2 stages of its decentralisation, if Tara bai took control during maratha empires civil war in early 1700s, maratha empire would remain in the first stage, or Tara bai could lose but maratha empire could win during the maratha afghan war which means it would stay in stage 2 and become more like the German empire. Either way, India would eventually unite or stay united, and not in an alliance like EU
North west frontier is crucial to control, any independent India would have to control that frontier, so I would say that frontier is still conquered regardless of the British
Still there won't be a common enemy that all the Indians would have to unite. This would take longer or might never happen.
BAKA BAKA BAKA BAKA BAKA BAKA BAKA BAKA under the Martha’s the common enemy was the Mughals, maybe they could have stretched that our far enough to give India a common national identity, but if not, Afghanistan and Iran could be the boogeyman since they undertook several large scale invasions of India in the 1700s. But even if Iran and Afghanistan doesn’t work, 19th century nationalism would still rise in India with the rise of industrialization. While it’s true that industrialization was harmful in the short run, there’s no way Indian corporations wouldn’t see the benefit of industrialization, specially with the high rate of urbanization before British rule
I'd say India is more like Europe than just Germany- there's no common Indian language or culture like there was for Germany.
Sriram Srinivas Language is also not what Indian national identity has every been built on, it’s been built on shared history and culture, which is extremely similar, not as similar as Germany which is homogenous, but extremely similar
BAKA BAKA BAKA BAKA BAKA BAKA BAKA BAKA any good statesman could have easily turned Iran into a boogeyman, it shouldn’t be hard for a few Bismarck type of person, which is exactly what Shivaji did earlier on. But if Marathas weren’t able to create a unified identity, it still should take longer than late 1800s
I think at some point in that alternative history someone could just came up with idea : "hey what about i buy those fancy weapons from the British and start uniting the whole sub-continent, i might be become the next "the great" from here", pretty much they would just becoming next Qing empire.
basically any Empire Total War Maratha campaign
Its your lack of perspective that gives such a shitry version of history .
@@natalkumar6132 yeah but then all the states would do that and you'd be stuck with the same disunity but with a million or so dead soldiers
Besides, that's exactly what the british did, loan arms to fight wars with one princely state against the the other to further their own interests
By buying industrial weapons, you have single handedly done the britishers work for them my friend 😂
If we base this at all off my tw empire play throughs, india would eventually colonize the Americas and annex Britain, as well as most of eastern Europe
That's too farfetched
Rajanya [India] Christ....he’s talking about in a fictional video game....it’s a joke...
India was a global power until the 18th century, so that could have happened. Asia basically ruled the world until the Industrial Revolution and the subseuqnrt great divergence.
@@mehmeh7052 ruling the world's a bit far mayve. They were equal to European powers on average, wouldn't say they were stronger in AD times at least.
@@rajanyapurohit5113 Not really.
The various groups in India like the rajputs, marathas, nagas, sadhus, Sikhs, etc have alone defeated invading groups like the British and Mughals.
They weren't to be taken lightly.
Britain without India: I'm too weak!
Britain with India: UNLIMITED POWER!!!!
If it managed to conquer all of India, then it was most likely not weak in the first place.
@SrArjamann I suppose they don't know much about Patel 😖
India without Britain... no India at all... mmmm
@@rossevanricamara4169 They didn't conquer all of it. They conquered a third then basically loansharked the rest.
Unlimited powaa
"without India there would be no British empire "
*HON HONS IN FRENCH*
Hons Hons in german
Without British Empire there will be no one to save France from Unified Germany so JA JA JA in German.
@@Kai555100 Germans don't do that, you uncultured potato.
@@Kai555100 *Hans Hans* In German
@@ahmedshaharyarejaz9886 Without the British Empire, Napoleon might not have been defeated. So no United Germany probably, Germany would be living in Frankenreich!
Stalin: I killed millions through famine.
Mao: I also killed millions through famine.
British East India Company: Hold my tea.
But they didnt
Alex Dunphy they did contribute heavily to the famine though not directly causing it. They also benefited heavily from it so they prolonged it
@@alexdunphy3716 they killed 1.9 billion dude , it's fucked up
@@ieatpotato8719 its more along about the lines of 35 million
@@alexdunphy3716 first that comes to mind is bengal famine, look it up. The list of atrocities committed by the british on India is not a short one.
First of all I wouldn't have been from a British ancestry (my ancestors are British and Bangladeshi) [also wouldn't have been born]
mutt
who knows, maybe someone back in the line still becomes a merchant and marries an indian girl (or viceversa)
@@AmalekIsComing what's wrong with you
@@abloodorange5233 mutt
@@abloodorange5233 mutt
"What if Britain never conquered (insert country / people here)
Feels like there could be a whole lot of these
No country had as important to the British empire as India,so it wouldn't change much outside that country. But without India, there's no British Empire and even if there was,it certainly wouldn't be anywhere close to as big and powerful as it was .
@@thechosenone1533 nah they are all important
@@sarahemilyzulkifli6635 You really think Falkland Islands or Ghana are as important as India then you are deluded. Loot from India funded the conquest of the rest of the British empire.
@@thechosenone1533 The British empire existed before it colonised India so it would exist without India but it wouldn’t have been as powerful.
@@Valencetheshireman927 yep it would be like you can say the german empire and by that i mean as small as german empire in size but not the economically powerfull abd the great powers of europe would be france and germany
I want 20 minutes of you talking about textiles
Do “What if that guy in Wuhan didn’t eat a bat”
America would still be powerful and Italy and Spain would still have their parties
@@eyeofthepyramid2596 and 90% of the world wouldn't know eating bats was a real thing
All Proposed events and public getherings isn't delay or cancelled in 2020.
We would have been happy......
@@rajasekars5106 you were happy in 2019? even in terms of pure politics it was still a shitshow
What if communist China fought the Soviet Union during the Sino Soviet split
What if china JOINED the Soviet union?
Hi
Nuclear war obviously neither nations leaders were very smart or abided to any international law
The West laughs it's ass off while it's enemies kill each other
Expect 2 to 3 nuked Chinese cities
Those two trading nukes would not have been good for anyone.
British Empire:
🕺 ⚰️ 🕺
🕺 🕺
🕺
Creative death dance
Lmaooooooo so underrated
Cody: “you don’t want me talking for twenty minutes about British textiles”
**sad textile and subscribers' noises**
Then we wouldn’t have T series, I see this as an absolute win
Yes
As your indian fan i was always waiting for this scenario. And am i glad you covered it with it . It is exactly what i thought india would be without the British. We would be wealthy but politically fractured and the "crown" would definitely lose its "jewel" . But i like this timeline in this India chooses its own path and destiny maybe we could turn up like china ? Who knows?
I have a few other scenarios in mind and they are really worth looking into please consider them for your next project :
What if India went communist?:
where the indian freedom struggle is dominated by communist leaders leading it to become communist after independence.
What if French colonized India ?
Actually the french really had a very good chance too if they were not intially defeated by the British .
The jewel was gifted to the British and India is a rich country
I have your answers right here my friend:
1. There would be an even bigger famine that would have killed countless more lives, and India would likely have to undergo massive reforms to undo the damage caused by such a system if they even managed to break free, which depends on the strength and power of their communist leader. Likely either China or Russia would try and influence India, if not straight up take them over. I sincerely doubt India would have tried to become communist of its own free will.
As a result, India would not be nearly as rich as it is today, and would likely still be picking itself up or at least miles behind where it is now. Not only does it depend on their rulers, but trying to instill communism in a country like India, would likely be particularly devastating.
2. India would likely have been a lot worse off. The French were pretty ruthless colonizers. India likely wouldn't experience its enhanced infrastructure compliments of the British, but still experience famine perhaps even on a greater scale all the same. Ghandi probably would have been executed or silenced, and the French probably wouldn't have cared at all to unite India.
Also, at least in modern times, India is actually really, really wealthy. It's hard to say if that would have happened despite if the British colonized India or not... Probably, but then again the infrastructure they set in place was a huge boon, and who knows how Indian industry would turn out if the country was more fractured. Of course the wealth isn't very well distributed, but India has always had a social class system so I don't think that the wealth would be more distributed if the British never colonized. As a matter of fact, it's possible that the wealth might be even more concentrated in a few hands if Britain never colonized.
Zxzi ‘gifted’ lmao
@@tahakhwja you can search it yourself
There are very few reasons to believe that India would have been richer.
At the time India had a Malthusian economy and growth was measured in population growth. India's population grew by nearly 250% during the Raj. The British could have done a much better job but in hindsight it's always easy to criticize.
250% includes the famines to which the British most likely contributed to and made them more deadly.
Honestly as an Indian, this timeline seems so much better (even with the uncertainties)
Well not being invaded and subjugated for 2 century is certainly better
No offence but I think there British conquering is what made India what it is.
@@suryadevaeada4407 Sure but that would not be so bad.
@Aspiring Physicist bullshit,we would have prolly be a warmonging country, hell we might not even be a country.we might have been many small extremist countries like Afghanistan
The industrialisation of Europe would have demolished the economy even more that it did (like in China the loss of wealth was more the devaluing of the traditionally made goods by cheaper often higher quality goods from Europe, which had started even before the British became the main player in India). The Dutch and French likely would have tried to take the place of the British but in what form would be unclear. The country would probably be in several parts, any union only holding a part of the country with similar people plus what they can hold though conquest. Bandits and criminals would continue to exist widely and be treated like an army reserve by many states. Soldiers would act much like bandits themselves when on campaign (the rules and habit of hanging the English had in fact made a lot of their military control easier, especially in places where the native defenders acted worse than them resistance was light). Famines would continue especially due to the destruction crops by troops and raiders though the death rate would be lower due to it being spread out and the total population being lower. Western thought would likely be more notable for spreading ideas like nationalism and pan-nationalism that would spark many of the conflicts of the 19th century. The ethnic tensions would only be washed away with even stronger hatred (probably between different socialist ideologies). The subcontinent would be less golden eagle more hundred Napal's. In the short many small country's with complicated history's, problematic royal and caste grasps at power, strong regional rivalries, extreme ethnic and religious tensions and a mix of economic and social approaches would exist. Currently China would probably be the main foreign power with interests and influence in the subcontinent and they might have puppet states in the North from the time of the cold war.
"Look how well Iraq went."
Still the best one.
Islam is like dynamite..
Islam is like dynamite, spark and boom!
Having an interest in History and doing my Ph.D. work in cotton breeding, I would be very interested in a 20 minute video about the influence of textiles. Same goes for the effect of improting Dutch tea to causing he Boston Tea Party.
The more I learn about Asian history the more I understand how destructive, greedy and violent the British Empire really was. Thanks for the video!
I think it’s fairs to say that Empire in general is never a good thing. Look at Belgium in the Congo, Spain wiping out the majority of the native population of the Americas, the Portuguese Empire starting the Slave Trade, Frances actions in Algeria, The Millions killed in the Mongol Conquests or, in this case the British exploration of India.
@@T0T4LG4MER5 Absolutely. Spanish conquest of Haiti and Cuba was by every stretch of the imagination a genocide, one of the most brutal genocides in history. Their gold mines in Peru were brutal slave labour as well. Portugal shipped more slaves than any other country, Netherlands ruined Java and Sumatra with their Indonesian colonies and Japan's conquests during WW2 left a trail of barbaric crimes.
Most of those are forgotten by the wider public, while they should be told at school for all of us to remember.
@@T0T4LG4MER5 I think what angers me is all the people that make long-winded arguments how the British Empire spread their law codes and industrialized their colonies. Its just so much bullshit, Britain basically invented the current form of the caste system to divide and conquer India. Whatever improvements were made by building infrastructure are offset by enslaving million in plantations of luxury crops and the improved administrative efficiency was offset by artificially drawn borders and discrimination of locals, leaving them with no trained labour after regaining independence.
If it wasn't the the Empire the world would be much worse
@@RichARock Nope, for starters millions of people wouldn't perish in famines caused by colonial greed and incompetence.
Yt: has india on thumbnail
Indians: v hav been summoned
👻
Yes
Did someone call me?
@Olivia Addison 👍
The Sun has finally set on the Empire
*Coughs in Falklands*
Actually not.
*Laughs in British Indian Ocean Territory*
But as the sun rose on a Germany eager to stamp out the stubborn english resistance
Nah. Not happening. Never. Rule Brittania, Brittania rules the slaves.
The last time I was this early the Dutch East India company was still in power.
First
I could listen to you talk about British textiles all day, Im A history major, it's basically class with higher quality visual aids
"Could it unite? ... Yes"
HRE: First time?
Reason why Britain Conquered India is because that it's nothing personal.
It's just Good Business.
Britain heard of the legends of excellent tech support in a faraway land.
@@리주민 lol
Could this scenario also change the outcome of the American Civil War, if India wasn't a source of cheap cotton maybe the Confederate's plan to get British backing would have worked.
Britain was abolitionist and wouldn’t be strong enough to fight the Union
@@boygenius538_8 Even if it was abolitionist,Lincoln didn't declare the war as a war of emancipation until much later.The British were generally favourable towards the Confederate until the slavery angle was brought in.You can check Oversimplified's video on the topic.
@@ashishmehta8342 everyone knew what the war was about, the proclamation just made it official
@@boygenius538_8 Official declarations make a huge difference in determining your foreign policy.
As someone who as theorised this exact scenario, when Cody laughed after saying "That's simple enough right?", Man, got me in the feels.😂
When Cody started talking about Indian cotton, I immediately thought he were going to talk about how the Confederacy would be around today. They would have received the help of the British in that timeline to turn the tide of the Civil War against the North because the Brits would've been much more dependent on Southern cotton to fuel their textiles industry.
That was an interesting curveball, however, going with the Boston Tea Party instead.
@Tall Jakee
I'm sorry, but did you just call the War of 1812 a humiliating defeat for the British? It was a draw at worse.
@@festethephule7553 yeah the British got their asses handed to them.
@@prathikjain8950 That must be why the Congress burned down. The American Army was just so succesful they got carried away
@Tall Jakee The US actually declared the war, admittedly Britain's interfering with its merchant trade and impressing large numbers of sailors into its navy to fight the French had something to do with it. Also the US did not like the fact that Britain supported native peoples in their opposition to US expansion, and they wanted Canada.
u should know that the EAST INDIA COMPANY and the CROWN STOLE 45 TRILLION USD (TODAY'S MONEY) FROM INDIA WHEN IT WAS A COLONY
Forgetting that India was united for long centuries like under the Gupta , Maurya or Nanda empires when other countries were hunter gatherers
Bruh they never conquered tamil kings
They never understand this thing
Hunter gatherers bruh nice state ment kid .
I got an Alternate Scenario: What If ireland Was the one who got the giant empire, not england.
LOL!
Sheep blight
Oh god, Scotland would be referred to Northern Britain with it ending up under Irish rule after a rebellion in Easter.
The only reason england was so strong was because of rome
*prove me wrong*
@@chip1646 The only reason why Britain was so powerful was because of ancient aliens teaching them how to rule the waves.
Some Interesting Scenarios
What if Mexico won the Mexican-American war?
What if Spain kept its colonies?
What if Russia won the Russo-Japanese War?
What if Austria united Germany?
What if the Arabs won the Arab-Israeli Wars?
The first two can only happen if a time-traveler Industrialize and introduce Progressive policies to Mexico and Spain
@@christiandauz3742 Yes. But how about a variant: Mexico handles the Texans more competently, and the US is a little more cautious when it inevitably jumps on Mexico, resulting in a more limited war, with smaller concessions. Have Santa Ana die young, say.
He did a very good trick of divide and rule which is still effective today in any politics. To fight between two kings in India, and then to rule over both of them. The same thing was done by bringing a difference between the two largest communities of India so that their attention would shift away from driving the British out of the country and fighting among themselves. The role of a weapon in any battle is very small. The war is fought with the mind, it is won by diplomacy, this is what history has always taught us.
Video Suggestions:
_What if Spain never conquered Philippines._
_What if Japan became Christian / What if Portuguese missionaries successfully converted whole Japan._
That would be interesting to see A Sharif christianized Japan: perhaps we'd see more interactions like tsunenaga had with the pope, them utilizing more black samurai like yasuke, them trying to conquer china sooner, etc.
Sorry meant to say what if.
VITTXRIO there is already a what if Japan became Christian just go to the channel whatifalthistory I will find the vid
just a thought, but what for would Japanese christianity take? Would they adopt European Catholicism as is? Or would they develop their own form brining in aspects of buddhist philosophy and some shintoist rituals and practices (perhaps retaining the kami in some form, perhaps as something like angels or something analagous to saints).
I suspect for it to catch on, the latter would be more likely. The biggest problem the rulers of Japan had with christianity was it's foreignness, and that it was controlled by outsiders. If they ditched the Latin Rite and developed their own native one that would have had a better chance.
@@who41683 "The Japanese Emperor is a descendant of Archangel Amaterasu"
Would be pretty hilarious tbh
I changed the comment so that others have no idea what its about and also because I thought it sounded mean
It's just the Anglocized way of pronouncing those words. An English speaker would say German, not Deutsche, Polish, not Polska, and Bombay, not Mumbai.
Let's not get started with the massacre of English by most Indians.
LegoLife Yeah, but it’s fun to take the piss out of English speakers bc we’ve had it coming for centuries
"I'm British, we didn't conquer the world to learn their language."
-SovietWomble
Math And that’s why we deserve ruthless mockery at the very least
White guilt tho
2:19
Well bois
Another youtube invasion it is
I have an idea for a video
"What uf Muhammad Ali took over the ottoman empire?" What if he won his war with the ottomans and took over the empire?
Anarchy:
Shows 2b2t
The oldest Anarchy server in Minecraft
the oldest anarchy server in Minecraft.
The oldest anarchy server in Minecraft.
The oldest anarchy server in minecraft
Chaos:
Shows Black Legion traitors
Also, even European nations were extremely fractured which did eventually unite into republics, India might have developed like France, a rough and stormy political history but would have been united. Also, the Maratha Empire was not a confederacy until much later, for the first about 100 years, I believe. That too, if the British weren't there, it probably would not have even fractured, the Marathas did become corrupt and thus got disunited but that was majorly fueled by British influence. India eventually would have been either an independent state or would be divided into 4-5 states which would probably have merged at one point through war and conquest. The major powers were the Marathas, the Sikhs, Bengal, Hyderabad and the Confederacy of Southern States.
If you truest believe that a Confederation of states would never have fractured into smaller princedoms etc, you don’t know an awful lot about history
It still would had balkanised since each state is linguistically and ethnically different. The Punjabis would had to face rebellion from the Ladakhis, Kashmiris and the Afghans. Marathas were already facing rebellion all over their empire and Bengal sultanates were always rekted by their Eastern neighbours whenever they tried to invade NE India.
*_”An entire channel dedicated to geography:”_*
KnowledgeHub
Nice. BTW: The "th" in "Maratha" is pronounced like the "th" in "Thailand", not like the "th" in "think".
Sabko hindi nahi aati hai yaar
When nobody remembers the titanic sinking sad horn noises
What about the RMS Lusitania, far more people died when that ship sunk?
@@Zenas521 but the Titanic was this day
Zenas Starchild 300 more people died on the Titanic than on the Lusitania.
>using Brandon F's footage without permission
I'M TELLING BRANDON!
?
Farbery
Brandon must, and shall, remain the most humble and obedient of servants. Even if that requires distributing his footage.
What if America stayed out of foreign conflicts (George Washington Farewell Address)?
We did for the most part for over a century. A better question would be somethhing like "What if America took part in the Napoleonic Wars?"
No Parugauy
What if present US stayed out it's military bullying ? I think that's a much better scenario. Do the terror organizations in the Muslim world even exist and what about all the political influencing in the Latin America's.
Latin America specially would be a way better place to live.
Salnax We did take part it’s called the war of 1812.
My dream has finally come true. I have been waiting and suggesting for you to make this video for six years, ever since I first came to this channel.
The British Empire would be bankrupt after the south seas crap.
Lmao no. That got sorted out well in advance.
It was walpole
@@jamesphillips531 always comes back to Walpole
Probably the South Sea Company stock wouldn't have ballooned the way it did. People were investing crazily in that company partly because people who already invested in the East India Company early on had become incredibly rich.
“Millions don’t die from famine” *price is right theme*
Yep
Yes
NO
Yep
One thing you did not mention directly is that the British may have very well supported the CSA (confederate states of america) during the American Civil war as they would have been severely reliant on their cotton production. One of the major reasons they did not in our timeline is India had surpassed the south in production.
The jazz in the background is incredible.
Really that guitarist is GETTING IT.
Your new theories seem kinda, empty. Although video quality has been improved the theory itself lacks depth.
Cody, pls, we want to hear you talk about those textiles.
I agree with the first line.
If Britain's textile industry required American cotton, would that mean they would support the CSA due to trade interests?
Probably not queen Victoria helped end the global slave trade
@@__-td8rq Abraham Lincoln was stanch anti slavery, but during the early stages of the civil war, he wouldnt even consider the emancipation proclamation since he still had hopes for negotiation and reconciliation. However once the CSA began to win some battles and it was clear that the war would be a lenghty one, the european powers began to seriously consider recognizing, or at least trading with the CSA (a large factor was the cotton and tobacco). Abraham realized that not only was quick reconciliation not an option, but he also had to prevent the european powers from interfering. Once the emancipation proclamation was signed, the war became about the total abolishment of slavery and the europeans didnt want to support the slavery states.
The UK was very close to recognising the CSA for this reason.
The Mythical Mr.Kraken The UK was already in somewhat open support of the Confederacy; they were the absolute last to support the Union, and were the loudest international voice suggesting Lincoln just let them secede. The French were de facto against the Confederacy (and with the Union) simply because they knew the UK would happily trade with them.
I think there's a very good chance it could have happened. Sure the Queen and the sentiments of the Empire were against slavery. But I doubt they were publicly pro famine or genocide either and that didn't stop them from supporting or allowing those things when there was enough of a profit motive. Hell a chunk of the CSA's strategy was King Cotton diplomacy, which was to leverage cotton trade to get European powers, specifically GB to join the war on their side.
India is in its own way a European union. With different states having very different languages, culture, but sharing some common beliefs. And United.
Next upload:
“What if no one ate a bat in Wuhan”
they would eat a pangolin
What if the Japanese won at the battle of wuhan?
"What if Americans didn't feed cows cow"
We don't now if it was a bat,it is just a hypothesis
Very bogus marxist interpretation of industrialization. No it didn't happen because they wanted to curb wages and had the leverage of a small population. Industrialization led to exponential population growth in Europe so your own point is completely debunked.
4:29 India is a secular country. It's literally written into the preamble of the constitution in an amendment because others weren't getting it
Correction: Muslim Pakistan secular India.
Fun fact - there was a point in time where England's queen Elizabeth wore Indian luxurious cotton clothes
Then I shall have no purpose and wouldn’t be famous.
You could work on uniting the Indian empires into one I suppose. Also btw, are you Indian. if you are you probably know this, Gandhi was also a great nuisance for India.
You would sneak a nuke from the Indian military an go rampaging
Just like Britain.
@@ishanbajpai6940 Britain in terms of power today would be comparable to Italy. It's just a barren wet rock with a little coal.
Why doesn’t it surprise that an INDIAN would say that about Britain. Have you even visited the place ? There’s more to it then coal . That’s like saying India is just curry and anglophobia 🤷♂️.