Why wasn't india settled by europeans.

Jan 2009
1,119
#11
Well, you had the Portuguese in Goa, and the French down in Pondicherry.
As with the English, they came, they mixed with the locals, then most of them went away leaving their genetic and cultural legacy.
 
Nov 2011
8,771
The Dustbin, formerly, Garden of England
#12
Before modern medicine, specifically antibiotics, quinine and vaccinations, tropical climes were often a death sentence for Europeans. Even the well educated lads who joined the HEIC to make some money only had a 50/50 chance of returning to Britain--the mortality rate on the outward voyage alone was 8% in the 18th Century. The Dutch East India company were satisfied when the mortality rate of company soldiers and officials dropped below 35% in their first year on station.
While Cholera, plague, malaria and smallpox were not unknown in Europe, they were not endemic and in other places yellow fever, malaria, sleeping sickness, Dengue fever and lots of nasty thing only identified in the 20th Century, like Green Monkey disease, Bilharzia and Loa Loa saw off the pinkskins in their hundreds. That's why virtually no European settlement in West Africa, Malaya or Burma.
The healthy lands of South and South East Australia, the African Highvelt and Kenyan highlands and New Zealand were conducive to European-style agriculture and thus mass settlement.
 
Dec 2011
3,532
#13
Because there were already a lot of people there with their own cities etc and we didn't care for the climate or disease. Settled colonies such as the US, Canada, etc were largely empty (even today New Zealand has only four million people but is the size of the British Isles with 60 million) and had a European climate
 
May 2010
2,964
Rhondda
#14
In my opinion, once people have settled to farming, it never makes much sense to displace the actual workers, though you may well change the ownership of property. It is quite easy to push out hunter-gatherers, but if you want profit out of land, keep the people who know how to work it, and keep the profits coming in anyway. It seems likely, for this reason, that except where conquering pastoralists want to turn land back to being hugely less productive, the populations of countries change far, far less than we believe, at least until relatively recent racist nuttiness took over from normal greed.
 
Jul 2017
386
Sydney
#15
Climate wise, the British could have tried settling in Himalayan hill stations but I reckon they were also quite densely populated compared to most other places the British colonized for settlement
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
3,956
India
#16
India was heavily populated and British ruled India through their Indian staffs and regional warlords and colonization wouldn't have worked for them.
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
3,956
India
#18
Well, you had the Portuguese in Goa, and the French down in Pondicherry.
As with the English, they came, they mixed with the locals, then most of them went away leaving their genetic and cultural legacy.
Both in Pondicherry and Goa mixed race people were handful. Pondicherry remained Tamil majority, Goa remained Konkani majority and Hinduism remaining the dominant religion.
 
Dec 2017
433
Australia
#20
Australia is very hot.
Dry, hot summers doesn't mean humid. Very few people living in tropical climate in northern Australia. Likely under 450,000. In Cairns, Darwin, Broome and rural areas. The middle of Australia is empty. Most people living (around 80%) in southern part of the continent where there're four seasons. In Victoria, NSW, SA, WA, Tasmania, ACT, where at most two weeks in a year of hot days (+35C and more) .


1545486541253.png
 
Last edited: