Why did the French lose the Seven Years War in India?

Jul 2019
6
California
What advantages did both the British and the French have in the Indian theatre/Carnatic wars during the Seven Years War and why did the British win in India rather than the French?
 
Oct 2015
1,138
India
I suspect this must have something to do with weapon technology, because the French lost against English not only in India but elsewhere as well. However, scholarly opinion is different and as follows:

Secondly, the "Home Government" , i.e French Govt did not extend the support to French establishment in India like the British did. Col. Malleson has written on this topic.

Malleson writes [1] that Britain had a parliamentary democracy and some of the directors of English East India Company either were members pf parliament or could influence it. Thus government policy could be tuned to needs of English EIC. The royal fleet could come to defence of company's possessions.

On the other hand, France had a despotic system under which the French company was left to defend its possessions with its own forces and fleet.

There was not a clear difference between the quality or leadership abilities of English versus French in India. In fact, Malleson says that French Dupleix was a genius.

[1] The History of French in India (1674-1761), by Colonel GB Malleson, WH Allen & Co. London, 1893. p-582-583
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: frogsofwar

stevev

Ad Honorem
Apr 2017
3,571
Las Vegas, NV USA
Britain defeated France in the Seven Years War so it's no surprise that they defeated the French in India. It would be remarkable if they did not given British naval superiority.
 

betgo

Ad Honorem
Jul 2011
6,446
Malleson writes [1] that Britain had a parliamentary democracy and some of the directors of English East India Company either were members pf parliament or could influence it. Thus government policy could be tuned to needs of English EIC. The royal fleet could come to defence of company's possessions.

On the other hand, France had a despotic system under which the French company was left to defend its possessions with its own forces and fleet.
France was an absolute monarchy, but Britain was not a parliamentary democracy. It was / is officially a constitutional monarchy. The king and House of Lords had power. Less than 1/4 of adult men could vote. There were pocket boroughs controlled by aristocrats, as well as vote buying and intimidation.

It was a democratic system for its, compared to the many absolute monarchies, and it may have given Britain an advantage.

France lost a large portion of its empire in that war. It lost large areas in North America, as well as India. The defeat and the expenses incurred probably had a role in causing the French Revolution.
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,983
India
Robert Clive was responsible for confining French power to Pondicherry.
 
Oct 2015
1,138
India
@betgo

The exact words used by Col Melleson are: "free parliamentary system" for English versus "despotic system" for France.
 
May 2018
895
Michigan
I suspect this must have something to do with weapon technology, because the French lost against English not only in India but elsewhere as well. However, scholarly opinion is different and as follows:

Secondly, the "Home Government" , i.e French Govt did not extend the support to French establishment in India like the British did. Col. Malleson has written on this topic.

Malleson writes [1] that Britain had a parliamentary democracy and some of the directors of English East India Company either were members pf parliament or could influence it. Thus government policy could be tuned to needs of English EIC. The royal fleet could come to defence of company's possessions.

On the other hand, France had a despotic system under which the French company was left to defend its possessions with its own forces and fleet.

There was not a clear difference between the quality or leadership abilities of English versus French in India. In fact, Malleson says that French Dupleix was a genius.

[1] The History of French in India (1674-1761), by Colonel GB Malleson, WH Allen & Co. London, 1893. p-582-583
I am curious as to what the French Colonial legacy is in India. One of the reasons Britain secured India were the activities of the Wellesley brothers, and Arthur Wellesley's remarkably fair treatment to the Indians: by the standards of the time, he was treating them as equal to white men. Richard Wellesley ended massive amounts of corruption in the EIC as Governor-General. Unfortunately, the Wellesley legacy didn't quite take hold as much as history might have liked: the famines, and Armistar contrast with infrastructure building and Jac Weller's assertion that the ethics introduced by Richard Wellesley into the Indian Civil Service have carried on into today.

However, I am not trying to start a discussion on Britain in India. Rather, I was wondering how the French treated the locals, relative to the non-Wellelsey British acted in India.
 
Apr 2019
410
India
I am curious as to what the French Colonial legacy is in India. One of the reasons Britain secured India were the activities of the Wellesley brothers, and Arthur Wellesley's remarkably fair treatment to the Indians: by the standards of the time, he was treating them as equal to white men. Richard Wellesley ended massive amounts of corruption in the EIC as Governor-General. Unfortunately, the Wellesley legacy didn't quite take hold as much as history might have liked: the famines, and Armistar contrast with infrastructure building and Jac Weller's assertion that the ethics introduced by Richard Wellesley into the Indian Civil Service have carried on into today.

However, I am not trying to start a discussion on Britain in India. Rather, I was wondering how the French treated the locals, relative to the non-Wellelsey British acted in India.
If being colonized was inevitable then any day Indain would have chosen British over French. French couldn't have kept India under control as long as the British did unless all of Indian would have died.