|
Post by raharris1973 on Jan 17, 2024 0:55:41 GMT
Could Britain have colonized Vietnam/Indochina instead of France?
If Britain had done so, in the 19th century, for example, and, like OTL also done its India-based expansion into Burma, would it have ultimately completed its expansion into mainland Southeast Asia by colonizing Siam as well, since Siam would not have been able to play off Britain and France against each other?
Or would Britain have run out of steam and run into indigestion with the colonization of Indochina, Burma, and Malaya, being content to deal with the Kingdom of Siam through unequal treaties leaving the latter independent.
British imperialists often deliberately took 'breaks' from expansionism and London went through bouts of curbed enthusiasm for overseas projects, but Britain's imperial appetite, despite the large size of the existing empire, tended to grow with the eating.
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jan 17, 2024 2:24:42 GMT
It is entirely possible, but the devil lies in the detail.
What were Britain's interests in the Far East?
1.) India 2.) China 3.) East Indies trade A very distant 4.) Malaya and the Straits
Now, Siam as you say survived by playing off one power against another quite successfully, but if there was real will at the right stage of the first half of the 19th century, this is not a guaranteed outcome.
So I think it more likely that, if the 'appetite' was there, Siam would be the more direct target for it. Indochina doesn't have the easily available resources to make it a 'must have' colony from Britain's point of view in the time where it could have a go.
Indochina, though, is a bit of a third or fourth rate prize in the Orient that it makes sense to fob off to France to keep them busy and content
|
|
|
Post by raharris1973 on Jan 18, 2024 0:11:48 GMT
Now, Siam as you say survived by playing off one power against another quite successfully, but if there was real will at the right stage of the first half of the 19th century, this is not a guaranteed outcome. So I think it more likely that, if the 'appetite' was there, Siam would be the more direct target for it. Indochina doesn't have the easily available resources to make it a 'must have' colony from Britain's point of view in the time where it could have a go. Indochina, though, is a bit of a third or fourth rate prize in the Orient that it makes sense to fob off to France to keep them busy and content Comparing "ones that got away" (from Britain), Siam and Indochina, it seems that Siam and Indochina both have pretty similar agricultural/plantation possibilities. So Indochina had rubber plantations, but they could likely be installed in Siam too. Strategically, the best thing Siam offers to Britain is that Kra Isthmus land connection between Burma and Malaya and a bit more buffering for both those holdings. Strategically, Indochina just offers yet another approach into southwestern interior China via the Red River a ways west of Hong Kong, so yeah, third or fourth rate.
|
|
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jan 18, 2024 1:17:17 GMT
As you say, Siam offers the absolute control of the Kra, as well as making British interests in the region geographically linked and continuous. It also has gold mines and tin deposits, plenty of teak, excellent rice production and potential for sugar and rubber; the latter is of slightly less relevance in the pre 1850 period.
|
|