Fun fact: That monarch that didn't came to the durbar was in the middle of India himself as Prince of Wales, and was caught unaware when his mother was proclaimed Empress of India.
1:25 Okay so why does that map show Scotland and Ireland as independent in 1901, when Ireland was very much not free and Scotland is still part of the UK?
I really don't like how centralised you present the Mughal Empire here. The Mughals were largely forced to rule through concessions to local rulers, and had trouble establishing a Muslim government structure. They also did not rule all of India. A second stickler is the fact that while yes, those trading ports were partly for trade with India, they were also in no small part used as stops along the way to China.
Also presenting the Mughal army as a massive, modern force and then going on to directly contradict themselves by mentioning the armored war elephants...
@@theanglo-lithuanian1768 I agree with you, EC is good enough to be a second/alternative learning source. Modules, papers, & published books are still better for main source tho. Also, don't mind Crabzula. He is just a salty pro-colonialism.
Been waiting for this for a while. The reason the British conquered was a mix of disunity among Indians, religious tensions, traitors, superior tech and tactics and economic dismemberment. Overall, a very sad tale.
I have been an informal student of Indian History since my middle school days, and this introductory part is a great condensation of the economic and political strength of the concerned parties at the inception of the colonisation. Great Work.
However I would differ Mughal Empire was in decline during the rime Aurangzeb and the Marathas were meanwhile bulldozing the subcontinent where Mughals were weak There wasn't a centralized power as shown in this episode when EIC began their wars. In simpler terms India was agin not united by a big empire but a lot of kingdoms fighting amongst themselves
The Mughals might have been in decline, but they were still wealthy and the biggest power in India at that time. The English were in an even sorrier state at that time and couldn't even say "we're still rich." This might have something to do with them beating themselves over religious disputes, albeit not nearly as bad as the HRE did.
"Flintlocks were far more complicated to manufacture than simple matchlocks, thus less-developed countries continued to use the latter into the mid 19th century, long after Europe had made the switch in the late 17th. In the Indian subcontinent, the natively-manufactured toradar matchlock was the most common firearm type until about 1830"
@@peterjerman7549 yea, wenn EH said that their administration so good was that even minor nobles lived in luxury, I tought : Its an interesting way to say that they tax the sh!t out of the peasants. But cant say bad about a would be colonized nation can we.
@@bendeguzborda5902 Definitely, EC takes this romantic occidentalist approach way too frequently, which hurts importantly native, in this case Indian, research. Stereotypes like these can seriously damage public understanding of a topic.
Now that you've introduced Armchair Historian, I'm surprised he wasn't a regular character from the very beginning. Didn't know you needed a devil's advocate until you had one.
@@mememaster2772 Agree with the annoying part, but with history there will _always_ be misunderstandings, misinformation, erroneous translations, paradoxical WTF moments, etc. that should be called out during the show.
Well, the moghuls too were foreign invaders coming out of a backwater region who still managed to conquer and rule much more developed and populated countries. As were most ruling dinasties in India. The subcontinent is very bad at defending itself, but excellent at assimilating its conquerors.
@@yj9032 depends you could define Indian til before Modern India as being Hindu, and treat the Mughals as foreign conquerors kinda like how Kublai Khan is treated
@@psuyog by being born in India currently modern India has population of approximately 200 million people who follow middle Eastern religion and if we go by your logic than those aren't Indians ?
@@psuyog Akbar was initially foreign but the end of his reign he apostated and founded a new religion. He became Indian and adopted Indian ethos of tolerance through his life. Not unlike the previous info Greek Kings or qutub Shahis in the south. Aurangazeb destroyed this legacy.
Yes, in paper, the British didnt really have much land. Only ones in Bengal, Madras, Punjab, Bombay, Karachi and a few scattered here and there. The majority still had Indian kings but in practice, those kings were merely figure heads forced to obey every command the British said in fear of an invasion
Which was only made possible due to some incredible luck and accidents in bengal, which allowed the british to gain the richest province in the region hostage.
You folks majorly mis portrayed Englands place in the 16th century. A generation after the Wars of the Roses, in the time of Henry the 8th, England was a dominate power in Europe. Trading in the Mediterranean, showing off in France in the "field of gold" festivals, building lavish country estates and boasting one of the biggest navies in Europe. 16th century English wool was clothing half of Europe, and Scottish fisheries were feeding the other half with fish caught off Iceland and Newfound Land. By Lizzy the 1st's time, English scientists were breaking new ground in science, and English ships were starting to travel the world, trading and plundering. Sure, the Mayflower expedition was put together by desperate peasants, but the real work of colonizing America was done by English corporations, wealthy private English citizens and money from the English government. 16th century England was an up and comer!
@@jgw9990 Agreed . The French would have been the leading Candidate to influence India . They were the ones who used Subsidary Alliances and Sepoy armies under Dupleix
This has been a party political broadcast from the UK Independence Party. In all seriousness though, whilst we were on the up, we were certainly not a big player, and our continued rise was not inevitable. France and Spain were the big powers at the time, and by all accounts there was no reason to think they would diminish, certainly not in favour of that tiny island off the french coast.
the Mughals had a great empire on paper and a brilliant/vast army... again on paper, but the empire was crumbling and the army was ill trained. Cool series but the Mughals were not as stable as you made them sound.
They were pretty stable till Aurungzeb. But Aurungzeb's empire was getting cracks, but just needed some capable rulers to hold and fix it. No one came.
Tbf this is talking about the 1600s when the Mughals were at their height. It was only at the end of the early 1700s after the death of Aurengzeb when the Mughals had a sudden collapse (in large part thanks to the Marathas).
How was the Mughal army ill-trained? They had the best army in the world until Sultan Aurengzab died, leaving his lands to be ruled by his incompetent sons who wasted the army's manpower and resources on fighting each other while there were rebellions everywhere and a big invasion on its way from Afghans and Persians
There’s actually a great video covering the development of the Indian state by the TH-camr Kraut that offers at least some insight into why India has historically had issues dealing with external threats such as the Mughals and British
EIC came in the 1600s, back then the Mughals were still powerful, If we talk about the situation when the EIC got Bengal in 1757, which made them a regional power in the subcontinent, at that time the Marathas were at their peak under the 8th Peshwa Balaji Baji Rao Bhat.
"How did Britain conquer India when the Mughal Empire was so mighty?" Spoiler Alert: Aurangzeb offended so many people that when the Marathas revolted, basically the entire Empire seceded at once, and the petty kingdoms squabbling were easy prey for the British.
Nope. After Aurungzeb, Empire was still intact. But there stayed no stability in Mughal empire. There was factionalism, incompetent rulers, weak finances and so on. And their military was already getting outdated. The Nadir Shah's raid was the final nail on the coffin. Incompetent Muhammad Shah Rangeela just had dance and songs, did not care to fix the empire. Even the European powers were shocked by seeing how easily Nadir Shah plundered Delhi, because earlier the British had been badly defeated by Aurungzeb in a conflict.
Nope. That was a myth propagated by the British to discredit local rulers in the eyes of the Indian people. In reality Aurangzeb was no more brutal or magnanimous than any other ruler of the time. What actually caused the fall of the Mughal Empire was Aurangzeb not leaving anyone adequate to replace him. None of Aurangzeb's heirs had the strength of will needed to keep an empire of than size together. There was also the problem of Indian vassals, regardless of empire, religion or ethnicity, having a tendency to turn against their allies for their own gain. Religion probably had very little to do with it. For example, what sealed the fate of the Subcontinent was the defeat of the Nawab of Bengal by the East India Trading Company. The Nawab of Bengal, a Muslim, was betrayed by his vizier, Mir Jafir (Also a Muslim), in order to curry favour with the Christian British. Similarly, many Hindus fought against the Marathas and Ranjit Singh of the Sikh Empire under the British flag. In fact, the Mughal emperor was considered the Emperor of India long after he had lost most of his lands and power. The army that flocked to the Mughal Emperor during the 1857 War of Independence was 2/3rds Hindu and 1/3rd Muslim. In short, things are a lot more complicated than modern leaders may have you believe.
“The Star-Spangled Banner.” The poem, originally titled “The Defence of Fort M'Henry,” was written after Key witnessed the Maryland fort being bombarded by rockets by the British during the War of 1812
5:25 “[The English] quite possibly would have been destroyed by the Spanish Armada if not for a fortuitous storm.” Except no. Not at all. Even before the storm at the Battle of Gravelines the English owned the Spanish Armada, not losing a single ship. The Spanish ships were built in an outdated medieval style which favored size in order to board the enemy vessel. The English were using a more modern style whose emphasis was on maneuverable cannon fire at a distance, making boarding by the enemy very difficult. In addition, the English were using four wheeled cannons with uniform cannonball sizes perfect for easy reloading below decks. The Spanish were using two wheeled cannons that were awkward to load and move and a lack of uniform cannonball size meant that they were often scrambling to find the right size cannonball for each particular cannon.
Not really the ship based artillery was viewd as an inefect weapon and very secondary. Really the best thing the English did during the spanish armada was the use of fireships to disperce and force the spanish to cut thire anchors leaving them vonruble to storms. Really naval figthing in the age of sail can be split into two eras. 1400-1650 is the age of boarding and 1650-1850 is the age of the ship of the line. At this point sinking ships with guns is really hard to do both because most gun crews are poorly trained, the guns are fairly ligth only around 12-24 punders on the big warships smaller warships are down in 6-12 punders. Untopp of that woddenships normaly dont want to sink they are really reciliant and navel doctrin is its better to capture an enemy then sink him. So the spanish ships where fully in line with the era thire size and sizable fore and aftcastles where designed to give them controll during boarding actions. This only chages after the anglo dutch wars which shows the effectivness of more heavily armed better trained and more gun focused ships.
Did they have another before this? I used to watch this channel a while ago but stopped, but then started again when I saw this video pop up on my feed.
I wish you would do a series on the Dutch Golden Age and how incredibly misunderstood it is. No wealth due to colonialism, but due to superior economic ideas. I think it would be very interesting for you to discuss. Good new series by the way! Looking forward to the rest of the series!
Thank you for doing this , I can already tell this will be exciting and fun series to see, and maybe also find out what all the school textbooks missed.
Only the top ones get mentioned. It was more of a Maratha Confederacy then a empire, different states ruling confederacy and uncentralized. They would have had to mention the Mysorian Kingdom,Bengal,Sikh state,Afghan state, Hyderabad as well if they go with all the rest
Only the top ones get mentioned. It was more of a Maratha Confederacy then a empire, different states ruling confederacy and uncentralized. They would have had to mention the Mysorian Kingdom,Bengal,Sikh state,Afghan state, Hyderabad as well if they go with all the rest
If you think the British conquest of India is a paradox, then you might also think the Persian (later Mughal) Empire, Afghanistan (former Mongols), or Ancient Macadonia. India has a long history of being conquered by smaller foreign powers, the British were just the latest and most successful (conquering the entire sub continent) to do so.
OMG YOU GUYS ACTUALLY USED THE MIRACLE OF ISTANBUL AS AN HISTORICAL REFERENCE!!! As a Liverpool fan I almost screamed when I saw that frame at 2:55 YNWA Extra Credits team!
the EIC were probably the only ones to conquer India from the Southern and north eastern parts interestingly. Most foreign conquerors arrive from the north west and conquer the fertile north. when they try their hand in the southern parts, their resources were exhausted due to a multitude of factors and loose them in a matter of years to rebels.
Well obviously one of the writers in this series is a Liverpool supporter and I very much approve. More history videos need references to the miracle in Istanbul ;)
I am indian and I am very fascinated and psyched about the series . I am always told the common explanation but a ton more praising of India . I am proud to know the true truth and power of india . Love from india .,❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️ . Pin me if you can . Yours sincerely 🤠🤠.byee howdy
I really appreciate this video... How you gave the disclaimer that nothing is certain and every thing is nuanced and subtle to set the tone that its just a version of many versions.
not really. instead of traditional conquering, they somehow managed to buy, bribe, inherit, take by force, take by treaty, take by fraud, until the British sat at the dominant center of the artichoke
@@eljanrimsa5843 yes, but still one kingdom at a time. The British took advantage of the fragmentation of India to become slowly, with patience, the dominant power of the subcontinent. This would not have happened with a strong and united Indian empire, like the Mughals or the Maurya.
Also when you have contradictory accounts, reasons or evidence for a historical event. “Truth” becomes fluid. Add in and imperfect picture and you come into paradox’s and contradictions. Europes dominance over the world, in the end comes down to a lot of luck. Seriously a conflict here lasting just a little longer, and empire not collapsing at the exact moment there. Could have drastically changed the world.
We're going to start the Conquest of India Series: The Introduction takes up a whole videos lol Guys you might be at this for the rest of your lives. I should know: I was there at the end.
@@PaulfromChicago in 1903 I think not, later on in the video when they talk about the English empire absolutely makes sense, but at the beginning of the video they are taking about 1903 and then it’s the United Kingdom but the map excludes Scotland for some bizarre reason.
another example is if your houston oilers were leading 35 - 3 against the buffalo bills in a playoff game in 1993. and the bills quarterback is their backup, frank reich, filling in for their star jim kelly, who is injured. then watching those same bills come from behind to win 41 - 38 in overtime.
I will be simultaneously critiquing the pronunciation in this series and getting depressed watching how my country was subjugated by the colonizers. Anyways, thanks for doing an EH series on India! I was hoping one day a popular history channel would a series on my homeland!
My understanding is that India fell to colonization due to a lack of institutional rigor which made them vulnerable to foreign powers, coupled with plenty of regional/ethnic divides which enabled said powers to play them off each other. As industrialization kicked in, the divergence between Western Europe and East Asia generally made these weaknesses fatal, allowing the British to consolidate control of the subcontinent (also the construction of the Suez Canal cutting down logistical costs).
I don't think 16th/17th century Europe were that "backward" compared to the Mughal India. I mean by that time European powers already colonizing the Americas and prove themselves to be powerful players in Asia (Portugal in particular was notorious for their greed and tenacity, from Africa, Arabia, India, all the way to Japan). Commodities from the Americas (e.g. tobacco) were quite popular in Asia, altho they were ofc no match for silk and certain spices.
I think the point was that Britain at the time was far behind the European powers. If you compared the New World holdings of England in the 1600s with like, Spain, for example, it was much smaller
@@GideonGleeful95 but, of course, there is a difference between saying England was behind on the colonisation game on the one hand and England was a backwater on the other. These are two very different claims.
@@GideonGleeful95 Britain was somewhat behind and not very powerful. But their military technology was still about on par with the rest of Europe (in a few cases superior, just not in number) and in turn Europe's with the likes of the Mughal Empire.
Fun fact: That monarch that didn't came to the durbar was in the middle of India himself as Prince of Wales, and was caught unaware when his mother was proclaimed Empress of India.
Edward VII was already king by then. the Durbar described at the beginning took place in 1903.
@@sylviamontaez3889 He's talking about the the Delhi Durbar of 1877 where Queen Victoria was proclaimed the Empress of India
There were 3 intact.
One for Victoria, other for Edward, and last one for George.
@@powerist209 Is George the father of the current Queen Elizabeth?
@@adarshmohapatra5058 Her grandfather, George V. He was also the only one that actually attended the durbar.
Zoey better be riding a war elephant before the end of this series.
NO PUNS SHALL BE MADE WHILE THE CAT HAS AN ELEPHANT
Looool 😂😂😂
It must be done!
Ja
Or a tiger...
Whoever wrote the line "Au contraire, Armchair" deserves a raise.
Fr
Agreed
*There you are, playing a WWII video game, and all of a sudden, you're an armchair historian*
Has anyone called Griffin Johnson??
@@CaptainAlliance lol
>historians love subjects of which they can just talk and talk forever without ever reaching an authoritative stance
Bah! The cowards! They ought to make an authoritative stance, so that they can make more history talk on the for- or -against viewpoints!
Exactly!
It’s more like popular subjects have been done to death and everyone likes novelty.
As an Indian, I'm super psyched for this series.
Except the emperor himself did not show up
As a brit I'm a bit embarrassed
@@elikorn8777 Your understanding is appreciated, usually on videos like these certain Brits glorify colonialism. See: the recent video on Megaprojects
As a Mexican, I know basically zilch about Indian history, I'm quite excited about some starting points!
@@elikorn8777 It's something to be proud of, not embarrassed of.
1:25 Okay so why does that map show Scotland and Ireland as independent in 1901, when Ireland was very much not free and Scotland is still part of the UK?
Because they forgor💀
“Oops.”
Yeah, they used the 17th century map from later in the video instead of the 20th century map.
"How did Britiain Control India?"
Well like everyone else.
Willing Vassals
Rule by and through the natives.
Also cannons.
@@Praisethesunson The indians had the cannons, not the English
@@Carewolf The British tied Indians to the cannons and then fired the cannons.
That's how the British kept their Indian soldiers following orders.
@@Praisethesunson Wasn't that way later?
@@kevinmendoza6386 Depends if you count the east India company or not.
Wanna watch without ads and see exclusive content? Go to curiositystream.com/extracredits to get a full year of Curiosity Stream & Nebula for 26% off.
Always excited to start a new series!
that is pretty correct
Those are some...interesting...choices in depictions of Britain on those maps
I guess the word choice for Britain is a bit odd
Scotland and Ireland was not part of the union yet
@@puneetmishra4726 In 1903, they were though.
@@billcipherproductions1789 oh, I meant in 17th century when Brits came to India
for India, too
I really don't like how centralised you present the Mughal Empire here. The Mughals were largely forced to rule through concessions to local rulers, and had trouble establishing a Muslim government structure. They also did not rule all of India.
A second stickler is the fact that while yes, those trading ports were partly for trade with India, they were also in no small part used as stops along the way to China.
The Mughal Sultan did what pretty much every feudal kingdom did in history: let landlords keep their lands in exchange for constant tribute payments
@@DieNibelungenliad EC have a habit of embellishing those they see as the oppressed.
Also presenting the Mughal army as a massive, modern force and then going on to directly contradict themselves by mentioning the armored war elephants...
@@andrewblair370 War elephants are generally useless if your soldiers are disciplined heck the romans demonstrated this at cannae
@@Cecilia-ky3uw i think you mean Zama not Cannae😅
In the battel of cannae Hannibal destroyed the romans
I have legit just finished a Uni module on this subject, Your timing as ever is on the dote
Extra history released the crusades and medicine (John snow) roughly at the same time I did their exams... So that was handy.
I wouldn't take anything EC has to say seriously if you care about passing your exam
@@Crabzula Speak for yourself. Did the trick.
@@theanglo-lithuanian1768 I agree with you, EC is good enough to be a second/alternative learning source. Modules, papers, & published books are still better for main source tho.
Also, don't mind Crabzula. He is just a salty pro-colonialism.
@@risymian3374 Agreed. They are called 'EXTRA' History for a reason.
Been waiting for this for a while. The reason the British conquered was a mix of disunity among Indians, religious tensions, traitors, superior tech and tactics and economic dismemberment. Overall, a very sad tale.
Yeah, colonialism always leads to tragedy.
You are directly contradicting this video at 5:01 and 6:53
@@Grzzgwzz Keep in the point the videos arguments are solely placed in the 17th century not the 18th or 19th in which the British would become so.
@@Grzzgwzz lol
You're wrong. British ruled over India by the means you mentioned but the British conquest of India was different.
I have been an informal student of Indian History since my middle school days, and this introductory part is a great condensation of the economic and political strength of the concerned parties at the inception of the colonisation. Great Work.
However I would differ
Mughal Empire was in decline during the rime Aurangzeb and the Marathas were meanwhile bulldozing the subcontinent where Mughals were weak
There wasn't a centralized power as shown in this episode when EIC began their wars.
In simpler terms India was agin not united by a big empire but a lot of kingdoms fighting amongst themselves
Marathas helped a lot in British Conquest of India
Are you The Manu Pillai - the author - by any chance? :)
When British came to India, Marathas weren't big. Even Shivaji wasn't on scene at thag time
@Agastya Prince but they still put up a fight unlike Mir Jafar
The Mughals might have been in decline, but they were still wealthy and the biggest power in India at that time. The English were in an even sorrier state at that time and couldn't even say "we're still rich." This might have something to do with them beating themselves over religious disputes, albeit not nearly as bad as the HRE did.
Love that you showed Liverpool winning
I ❤️Liverpool
YNWA
The image of Portugal and The Dutch Republic as mice wielding needles for spears will stay with me forever😂😂😂
"Flintlocks were far more complicated to manufacture than simple matchlocks, thus less-developed countries continued to use the latter into the mid 19th century, long after Europe had made the switch in the late 17th. In the Indian subcontinent, the natively-manufactured toradar matchlock was the most common firearm type until about 1830"
They might feature this in their "lies" episode.
Then imagine loosing to them during 1st and 2nd anglo-mysore wars and 1st anglo-maratha war lol.
I mean this whole episode is just pure occidentalism and romanticising the "other". "OMG guys, India was so great, so perfect" yeah sure buddy
@@peterjerman7549 yea, wenn EH said that their administration so good was that even minor nobles lived in luxury, I tought : Its an interesting way to say that they tax the sh!t out of the peasants. But cant say bad about a would be colonized nation can we.
@@bendeguzborda5902 Definitely, EC takes this romantic occidentalist approach way too frequently, which hurts importantly native, in this case Indian, research. Stereotypes like these can seriously damage public understanding of a topic.
Now that you've introduced Armchair Historian, I'm surprised he wasn't a regular character from the very beginning. Didn't know you needed a devil's advocate until you had one.
Thumbs up for armchair!
I disagree, the armchair was annoying and broke the flow of the episode.
There's already a channel by that name so they cant lol
@@mememaster2772 Agree with the annoying part, but with history there will _always_ be misunderstandings, misinformation, erroneous translations, paradoxical WTF moments, etc. that should be called out during the show.
I wonder the armschair historian is refer to the general amrschair historian or that channel with the same name
Your Indian viewers were waiting for this, and, you're about to receive a lot of views.
Here
They will get a lot of hate from hindutva brigade, for showing mughals.
A pakistani is here as well, love the mughals hate the British just like yall
@@ayyazkhan1917 yes, solidarity with all.
In the US we Pakistan and Indian people call each other bahi. Remember Jinnah and Gandhi were friends.
Well, the moghuls too were foreign invaders coming out of a backwater region who still managed to conquer and rule much more developed and populated countries. As were most ruling dinasties in India. The subcontinent is very bad at defending itself, but excellent at assimilating its conquerors.
Initially they were foreign, but akbar was as much indian as any other Indian.
@@yj9032 depends you could define Indian til before Modern India as being Hindu, and treat the Mughals as foreign conquerors kinda like how Kublai Khan is treated
@@yj9032 Akbar was initially a follower of Arab religion, how can he be Indian?
@@psuyog by being born in India currently modern India has population of approximately 200 million people who follow middle Eastern religion and if we go by your logic than those aren't Indians ?
@@psuyog
Akbar was initially foreign but the end of his reign he apostated and founded a new religion.
He became Indian and adopted Indian ethos of tolerance through his life.
Not unlike the previous info Greek Kings or qutub Shahis in the south.
Aurangazeb destroyed this legacy.
Indirect rule, through conspiring and corrupt nobility. And make damn sure the people don't understand what's happening.
Probably the most concise and accurate summary of the Indian conquest.
Yes, in paper, the British didnt really have much land. Only ones in Bengal, Madras, Punjab, Bombay, Karachi and a few scattered here and there. The majority still had Indian kings but in practice, those kings were merely figure heads forced to obey every command the British said in fear of an invasion
The Caste system (which the British did partially abolish) was a mojer help in doing that.
Not to mention ruthlessly exploiting internal divisions
Which was only made possible due to some incredible luck and accidents in bengal, which allowed the british to gain the richest province in the region hostage.
Woah! As a Pakistani, this topic is pretty important to me. Can't wait to see what comes next in this series!
@@DieNibelungenliad based
Same, I belong to one of the last 6 traditional Mughals families in South Asia, and seeing such videos is a great experience.
"We don't come to you, you come to us" - Said every wealthy Eastern power that went on to get colonized.
Not Japan.
@@sreyarthakrishna6195 doesn't they said "we don't come to you, and you don't come to us" instead?
yeah
@@sreyarthakrishna6195 they're a puppet now lol
@@siyacer like your ancestors were ours
I swear every extra history topic has been getting more and more interesting
And Im looking forward to a years worth of documentaries
history is an interesting topic own its own
Edward VII wasn’t a good prince (regarding the playboy stuff you mentioned) but as a king he was quite decent
Every single person from the subcontinent be like : "We have been summoned"
Ouch that 05 uefa champions league final reminder really stung
Well, you got your revenge two years later at least. Funny though, since that Milanese team wasn't nearly as good as the 05 team imho.
@@wasneeplus agreed the 05 team was absolutely better
Nowhere is safe…
You folks majorly mis portrayed Englands place in the 16th century. A generation after the Wars of the Roses, in the time of Henry the 8th, England was a dominate power in Europe. Trading in the Mediterranean, showing off in France in the "field of gold" festivals, building lavish country estates and boasting one of the biggest navies in Europe. 16th century English wool was clothing half of Europe, and Scottish fisheries were feeding the other half with fish caught off Iceland and Newfound Land. By Lizzy the 1st's time, English scientists were breaking new ground in science, and English ships were starting to travel the world, trading and plundering. Sure, the Mayflower expedition was put together by desperate peasants, but the real work of colonizing America was done by English corporations, wealthy private English citizens and money from the English government. 16th century England was an up and comer!
I'd still categorise England as a 2nd rate European power. The HRE and France were more significant
@@jgw9990 Agreed . The French would have been the leading Candidate to influence India . They were the ones who used Subsidary Alliances and Sepoy armies under Dupleix
This has been a party political broadcast from the UK Independence Party.
In all seriousness though, whilst we were on the up, we were certainly not a big player, and our continued rise was not inevitable. France and Spain were the big powers at the time, and by all accounts there was no reason to think they would diminish, certainly not in favour of that tiny island off the french coast.
the Mughals had a great empire on paper and a brilliant/vast army... again on paper, but the empire was crumbling and the army was ill trained. Cool series but the Mughals were not as stable as you made them sound.
They were pretty stable till Aurungzeb. But Aurungzeb's empire was getting cracks, but just needed some capable rulers to hold and fix it. No one came.
Tbf this is talking about the 1600s when the Mughals were at their height. It was only at the end of the early 1700s after the death of Aurengzeb when the Mughals had a sudden collapse (in large part thanks to the Marathas).
Exactly, the Mughals were declining at the time.
How was the Mughal army ill-trained?
They had the best army in the world until Sultan Aurengzab died, leaving his lands to be ruled by his incompetent sons who wasted the army's manpower and resources on fighting each other while there were rebellions everywhere and a big invasion on its way from Afghans and Persians
@@GideonGleeful95 Nader Shah*
There’s actually a great video covering the development of the Indian state by the TH-camr Kraut that offers at least some insight into why India has historically had issues dealing with external threats such as the Mughals and British
I did not expect an '05 Champions League final joke in this. Well done, quality content as always
that was a great final
The best
A dick move if you ask me personally.
Extra credits- posting a video on India
Their Indian viewers- we have been summoned
Get ready for hindutva hate.
@@yj9032 They'll ruin this, like they've ruined their sad pathetic lives
@@yj9032 Hindutva is evil tho. Hindutva and Hinduism is different.
@@yj9032 Hindutva and Hinduism is different.
Mughals were not in absolute power when EIC came in. Please look into Anglo-Maratha wars that actually solidified EICs rule in India.
You know when EIC came? In 1600s. Jahangir was the emperor.
Extra Credit does a lot of research before making videos. They are rarely wrong.
Battle of plassey was imp
EIC came in the 1600s, back then the Mughals were still powerful, If we talk about the situation when the EIC got Bengal in 1757, which made them a regional power in the subcontinent, at that time the Marathas were at their peak under the 8th Peshwa Balaji Baji Rao Bhat.
There was already a Anglo-Mughal war where EIC lost and banned by Aurangzeb until they paid huge fines.
EIC came in 1600 and check the map at that time
"How did Britain conquer India when the Mughal Empire was so mighty?"
Spoiler Alert: Aurangzeb offended so many people that when the Marathas revolted, basically the entire Empire seceded at once, and the petty kingdoms squabbling were easy prey for the British.
But it's more complex than that. Because if it was that easy, France or Spain or the Dutch would've taken India.
Nope. After Aurungzeb, Empire was still intact. But there stayed no stability in Mughal empire. There was factionalism, incompetent rulers, weak finances and so on. And their military was already getting outdated. The Nadir Shah's raid was the final nail on the coffin. Incompetent Muhammad Shah Rangeela just had dance and songs, did not care to fix the empire. Even the European powers were shocked by seeing how easily Nadir Shah plundered Delhi, because earlier the British had been badly defeated by Aurungzeb in a conflict.
Nope. That was a myth propagated by the British to discredit local rulers in the eyes of the Indian people. In reality Aurangzeb was no more brutal or magnanimous than any other ruler of the time.
What actually caused the fall of the Mughal Empire was Aurangzeb not leaving anyone adequate to replace him. None of Aurangzeb's heirs had the strength of will needed to keep an empire of than size together.
There was also the problem of Indian vassals, regardless of empire, religion or ethnicity, having a tendency to turn against their allies for their own gain.
Religion probably had very little to do with it. For example, what sealed the fate of the Subcontinent was the defeat of the Nawab of Bengal by the East India Trading Company. The Nawab of Bengal, a Muslim, was betrayed by his vizier, Mir Jafir (Also a Muslim), in order to curry favour with the Christian British. Similarly, many Hindus fought against the Marathas and Ranjit Singh of the Sikh Empire under the British flag.
In fact, the Mughal emperor was considered the Emperor of India long after he had lost most of his lands and power. The army that flocked to the Mughal Emperor during the 1857 War of Independence was 2/3rds Hindu and 1/3rd Muslim.
In short, things are a lot more complicated than modern leaders may have you believe.
The British literally could not have chosen a better time or location (Bengal) to come.
Weak kings, powerful regional players.
Fun fact the rockets mentioned in the star spangled banner might be reverse engineered from an Indian rocket made in Mysore
The rockets had guiding sticks made of swords and did much damage than just exploding
There’s no mention of rockets in the star spangled banner
“The Star-Spangled Banner.” The poem, originally titled “The Defence of Fort M'Henry,” was written after Key witnessed the Maryland fort being bombarded by rockets by the British during the War of 1812
@@MA-kw3ov and the rocket's red flair, the bombs bursting in air, gave proof through the night, that our flag was still there
5:25 “[The English] quite possibly would have been destroyed by the Spanish Armada if not for a fortuitous storm.”
Except no. Not at all. Even before the storm at the Battle of Gravelines the English owned the Spanish Armada, not losing a single ship. The Spanish ships were built in an outdated medieval style which favored size in order to board the enemy vessel. The English were using a more modern style whose emphasis was on maneuverable cannon fire at a distance, making boarding by the enemy very difficult. In addition, the English were using four wheeled cannons with uniform cannonball sizes perfect for easy reloading below decks. The Spanish were using two wheeled cannons that were awkward to load and move and a lack of uniform cannonball size meant that they were often scrambling to find the right size cannonball for each particular cannon.
The battle was indecisive. The Spanish Armada was still strong enough to invade England
EC seem to have a bee in their bonnet regarding the UK. They are also quite ready to jump to conclusions.
Not really the ship based artillery was viewd as an inefect weapon and very secondary. Really the best thing the English did during the spanish armada was the use of fireships to disperce and force the spanish to cut thire anchors leaving them vonruble to storms. Really naval figthing in the age of sail can be split into two eras. 1400-1650 is the age of boarding and 1650-1850 is the age of the ship of the line. At this point sinking ships with guns is really hard to do both because most gun crews are poorly trained, the guns are fairly ligth only around 12-24 punders on the big warships smaller warships are down in 6-12 punders. Untopp of that woddenships normaly dont want to sink they are really reciliant and navel doctrin is its better to capture an enemy then sink him. So the spanish ships where fully in line with the era thire size and sizable fore and aftcastles where designed to give them controll during boarding actions. This only chages after the anglo dutch wars which shows the effectivness of more heavily armed better trained and more gun focused ships.
Wow this should be a good series. By the way, Edward VII was many things, but I think “lazy” is a bit of a stretch.
EC seem to have a bit of a thing against the UK.
@@tams805 Everyone have a thing against the British, not the UK.
@@tams805 Even the British have a thing against the British.
@@sakataginko9092 Damn the British, they ruined Britain!
true, he was very dedicated to eating lunch.
So exited been my fav channel for quite some time
0:46 _"... with candalabra's on it's tusks"_
This is arguably the closest IRL version of the ancient psychic tandem war elephant!!
I was really looking forward to another indian series
Did they have another before this? I used to watch this channel a while ago but stopped, but then started again when I saw this video pop up on my feed.
Yes they had one about the saragahi fort
Get Zoey on a war elephant!
2:19 Hi, I’m Griffin Johnsen, The Armchair Historian
Hey Army!
I wish you would do a series on the Dutch Golden Age and how incredibly misunderstood it is. No wealth due to colonialism, but due to superior economic ideas. I think it would be very interesting for you to discuss.
Good new series by the way! Looking forward to the rest of the series!
+extra credits, just so you know, when you were talking about the Delhi Durbar, to you left Scotland out of the United Kingdom
I hate not being able to binge an entire series. It’s soo good, I want more!
Thank you for doing this , I can already tell this will be exciting and fun series to see, and maybe also find out what all the school textbooks missed.
Even in India we are told history from already explained situations, it would really be interesting to learn how many things actually went down.
I feel like the Maratha empire, which controlled a large amount of India, deserved a mention
At that time maratha empire was not exist.
There were many empires but just like a military campaign, only the top ones get the mention
Only the top ones get mentioned. It was more of a Maratha Confederacy then a empire, different states ruling confederacy and uncentralized. They would have had to mention the Mysorian Kingdom,Bengal,Sikh state,Afghan state, Hyderabad as well if they go with all the rest
Only the top ones get mentioned. It was more of a Maratha Confederacy then a empire, different states ruling confederacy and uncentralized. They would have had to mention the Mysorian Kingdom,Bengal,Sikh state,Afghan state, Hyderabad as well if they go with all the rest
Wow, the armchair from Blue's clues is a lot more condensing then I remember.
Can't wait for the fights to begin 😍
What fights?
I don't think they are going to discuss India-Pakistan issue. It's their policy to stay before 1920s
@@grapeshott There have been videos on WW2 by them.
Pumped for the next episodes. Their angle and approach is perfect!
If you think the British conquest of India is a paradox, then you might also think the Persian (later Mughal) Empire, Afghanistan (former Mongols), or Ancient Macadonia. India has a long history of being conquered by smaller foreign powers, the British were just the latest and most successful (conquering the entire sub continent) to do so.
Afghanistan and Macedonia didn't conquer India.
English were lucky
India never existed until recently. Most Indian empires aside from the Mughals and the Mauryans never ruled over half of the subcontinent
Ancient Macedonia defeated a tributary kingdom on the outskirts of modern Pakistan, they didn’t get conquer much
@@nauticaltruck802 Wrong. India is ancient and Mughals controoled most of the sub-continent
OMG YOU GUYS ACTUALLY USED THE MIRACLE OF ISTANBUL AS AN HISTORICAL REFERENCE!!! As a Liverpool fan I almost screamed when I saw that frame at 2:55
YNWA Extra Credits team!
the EIC were probably the only ones to conquer India from the Southern and north eastern parts interestingly. Most foreign conquerors arrive from the north west and conquer the fertile north. when they try their hand in the southern parts, their resources were exhausted due to a multitude of factors and loose them in a matter of years to rebels.
Well obviously one of the writers in this series is a Liverpool supporter and I very much approve. More history videos need references to the miracle in Istanbul ;)
BadHistory is going to have a field day with this series. So many misrepresentations, untruths, slides, etc already.
That's a splendid intro to this topic. Much better than our history books.
Always glad to see a new series
me to
Yes! So excited for this series! Definitely one of history's most defining moments.
Why aren’t you including Scotland and the rest of Ireland when showing Britain in 1903?
Yeah, that was a little weird, especially given the huge role of Scots in India!
That map makes no sense at all. For some reason they have included Northern Ireland, which wasn't even a thing at the time.
@@iapetusmccool exactly the whole of Ireland was part of the UK
Thank you for making this series I have been waiting for years for you to make a series on this topic
I am indian and I am very fascinated and psyched about the series . I am always told the common explanation but a ton more praising of India . I am proud to know the true truth and power of india . Love from india .,❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️ . Pin me if you can . Yours sincerely 🤠🤠.byee howdy
I really appreciate this video... How you gave the disclaimer that nothing is certain and every thing is nuanced and subtle to set the tone that its just a version of many versions.
1:27 Why isn’t Scotland included in the U.K. here? Has the channel become a Nicola Sturgeon simp or something?
Act of Union with Scotland wasn't passed until 1707
@@dandy-lions5788 that map was supposed to depict 1903
They are americans, daily reminder that they think that, "Braveheart" was an accurate potrayal of reality. Thank god their country is in decline.
@@landmine9302 As an American: You don’t say
I think jts really great how this channel isnt eurocentric and covers history worldwide, its really interesting and ive learned some uncommon things
A series on INDIA with a Liverpool FC reference! Already my most fav extra history episode 😍😍
"Sorry Milan"
That hurt so bad, 17 years later
The British conquered India like one eats an artichoke: one leaf at a time.
not really. instead of traditional conquering, they somehow managed to buy, bribe, inherit, take by force, take by treaty, take by fraud, until the British sat at the dominant center of the artichoke
@@eljanrimsa5843 yes, but still one kingdom at a time. The British took advantage of the fragmentation of India to become slowly, with patience, the dominant power of the subcontinent. This would not have happened with a strong and united Indian empire, like the Mughals or the Maurya.
Was that annoying chair really necessary?
Yes, because idiots love to act like they’re experts.
Also when you have contradictory accounts, reasons or evidence for a historical event. “Truth” becomes fluid. Add in and imperfect picture and you come into paradox’s and contradictions. Europes dominance over the world, in the end comes down to a lot of luck. Seriously a conflict here lasting just a little longer, and empire not collapsing at the exact moment there. Could have drastically changed the world.
There is only 1 truth.
Finally, there is a topic on youtube worth commenting. Looking forward to binge watch this.
3:24 I love this picture
Finally you cover Indian History. About time!
We're going to start the Conquest of India Series: The Introduction takes up a whole videos lol
Guys you might be at this for the rest of your lives. I should know: I was there at the end.
I have been waiting for this one for a long time, I love this channel
It’s nice to see your referring to Britain and not just England, but why is Scotland not coloured in with England, Scotland and Northern Ireland?
There betting on Scottish Independence happening before Irish reunification lol
At the time the map was referencing, Scotland was an independent nation.
@@PaulfromChicago in 1903 I think not, later on in the video when they talk about the English empire absolutely makes sense, but at the beginning of the video they are taking about 1903 and then it’s the United Kingdom but the map excludes Scotland for some bizarre reason.
@@gonotgone1 yup, you're right.
YES YES FINALLY INDIAN HISTORY WITH ITS OWN VIDEO
another example is if your houston oilers were leading 35 - 3 against the buffalo bills in a playoff game in 1993. and the bills quarterback is their backup, frank reich, filling in for their star jim kelly, who is injured. then watching those same bills come from behind to win 41 - 38 in overtime.
28-3. 'Nuff said
Too soon!
Is the podcast feed discontinued? Driving all night, the brilliant and clever history is a great asset.
As an Englishman, do love to see the 2005 Liverpool triumph shown :P
Wasn't expecting the Istanbul 2005 comparison but it's apt.
Omg best champions league ever. My mind was blown with the match
thanks for posting this on my Birthday
Happy Birthday to you
@@lordalphamax1188 thanks
2:46 2 + 2 does not equal whale, it equals 5.
Anyone get it?
That's nil.
You have no idea how long I've waited for this.
Extra Credits seems to be trying to widen *their* empire of Indian viewers. Not that I am complaining - we get some great history content.
The third time something I watch on youtube might be useful
Thing is.. your story is England vs India. But India was a region with many kingdoms. Britain simply made them fight each other.
And it works
Finally!!! I’ve been waiting for this for years 😊
I will be simultaneously critiquing the pronunciation in this series and getting depressed watching how my country was subjugated by the colonizers.
Anyways, thanks for doing an EH series on India! I was hoping one day a popular history channel would a series on my homeland!
Same bro.
Us in Ireland know how that feels my Eastern brother
@@UNION_JACK_THE_RIPPER Ireland and India Forever! Both got screwed and starved by the British! Both also have a similar flag! 🇮🇪 ❤️🇮🇳
@@FlaviusBelisarius-ck6uv Half of the world was screwed by the British.
@@Ishpreetb264 25% of the world you mean. Really, their time as a world superpower makes whatever the USA has done look like nothing in comparison.
My definitive history of this is eddie izzards version. "Do you have flaaaag?"
Oh boy, this ought to be good.
Read the title and thought this would be about Chandra Gupta. Now I'm super HYPED to learn about something I never learn about!
My understanding is that India fell to colonization due to a lack of institutional rigor which made them vulnerable to foreign powers, coupled with plenty of regional/ethnic divides which enabled said powers to play them off each other. As industrialization kicked in, the divergence between Western Europe and East Asia generally made these weaknesses fatal, allowing the British to consolidate control of the subcontinent (also the construction of the Suez Canal cutting down logistical costs).
Ohhh.. Looking forward to this series!
Me: Wonders if my day can get worse
Extra history: releases a video on indian history
Me: I am shocked and my day is made
Heck yeah , my favourite series till date
I don't think 16th/17th century Europe were that "backward" compared to the Mughal India. I mean by that time European powers already colonizing the Americas and prove themselves to be powerful players in Asia (Portugal in particular was notorious for their greed and tenacity, from Africa, Arabia, India, all the way to Japan).
Commodities from the Americas (e.g. tobacco) were quite popular in Asia, altho they were ofc no match for silk and certain spices.
I think the point was that Britain at the time was far behind the European powers. If you compared the New World holdings of England in the 1600s with like, Spain, for example, it was much smaller
@@GideonGleeful95 but, of course, there is a difference between saying England was behind on the colonisation game on the one hand and England was a backwater on the other. These are two very different claims.
@@grantm6933 England was a backwater compared to Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, China or India
@@GideonGleeful95 Britain was somewhat behind and not very powerful. But their military technology was still about on par with the rest of Europe (in a few cases superior, just not in number) and in turn Europe's with the likes of the Mughal Empire.
@@priyanshsahay3573 did that matter apparently no because Hernan Cortez conquered the aztecs with 600 men and himself
My dad wrote a book about this event, in case anybody is interested in reading more! It's called:
Delhi Durbar: 1911 The Complete Story
By Sunil Raman and Rohit Agarwal