In terms of land area and population, the British conquest of India has got to be up there with the most significant conquests in history, yet is so rarely focused on. It's usually handwaved as 'the British EIC was to technologically advanced for primative Indians to counter and so they simply steamrolled the subcontinent.' It will be interesting to see an in-depth series on the process.
Mughals overextended and weakened, which was exploited by resurgent Persian Empire under military genius Nadir Shah. His and his succesors raids into Delhi and northern India broke the power of Mughals in 6 decades of almost uninterrupted invasions. The power vacuum and fragmentation led to further conflicts, the British, acting as power brokers filled the power vacuum as a benevolent outside power.
The funny thing is that India could have been a French or even Ottoman imperial possession, but both ventures failed while the British were able to succeed (something that contemporary historians would've called highly implausible given how vast the population and territory of India was compared to how tiny Britain was and how little Britain prioritized its army).
@@pax6833 French never had much political ambition in India like the Brits, nor did they have the military might to do so. Ottomans never really held any territory in India. Also, the EIC army was mostly Indian natives paid by Indian tax money, it was the largest European-style army in history, capable of taking over Europe if EIC willed.
Outstanding, my man! Thrilled to see you back in action. I love how you take your time making videos to ensure the information is top-notch. Terrific topic. Looking forward to the rest of the series. I'd love to see a future video on the VIC, and how the Dutch colonial approach was both similar and differed from that of the larger powers.
Thanks for the comment! Unfortunately I really don’t know when I would get around to Dutch East India Co (tho they played a major part in my previous video on Taiwan). They played a role pre-1790s re: Mysore but it’s not substantive enough to be mentioned in the next vid.
It’s absolutely wild that so little coverage is given to exactly how the EIC and Great Britain conquered India. Everyone talks about the impact of the British empire and it’s hegemony over a myriad of nations which changed the course of their histories, Bit nobody gives much consideration to the fact that the UKs colonialism was, in large part, fueled and shaped by their possession of India. India was the fulcrum around which the wheels of empire turned for Britain. Egypt ensured access to the Red Sea Aden was a good choke point to secure Indian shipping. The trucial system kept the Gulf secure for British interests in India South Africa was taken from the Dutch to better secure the route to India The great game. The Nigerian protectorates were were modeled in the image of the Indian Prince system, The fundamental difference being that Hausa rule of the Nigerian middle belt was unprecedented and arbitrary as opposed to the legitimacy of the Muslim princes ruling the Hindi population from the princely states in India. Indias importance to world history completely outweighs its coverage
White morons are praisin' british, y'all can understand what did to india by the fact of the matter that life expectancy of indians degraded from 72 to 32 when british forced to left india, still white christians are sayin' tgat british benefited india, they don't understand that british didn't benefit india as white christians claims rather british did all sorta things to serve their interests not for to serve indigenous communities of non western countries like india , infact white christians in comment section arguin' that if british wouldn't have conquered india then india wouldn't have gotten the benefits that india achieved as per their claims, the fact of the matter is thst even if british wouldn't have conquered india , india would accomplished everythin' that western countries achieved, it's entirely fakse claims of white christians thst they bring prosperity, india used to contribute 33% of the world's gdp before rhe arrival of british to india , india was the richest country at that india even statistical & logistical data are in public domain which demolishes white christians opinions & claims 'bout that british occupation of india benefitted india , they tend to forget that the so called benefits that british gave to india & other non western countries attained at cost of massacres, rape of hindu women at large scale, destruction & loot of wealth, induction of famishion, british created wealth by lootin' 45 trillion dollars, UK is developed cuz they looted india despite insia is now 5th largest economy in the world , british achieved nothin' by their own, these facts that british christians overlook deliberately cuz it'll exposed their fallacious & stupid arguments, i recommend white christians to watch out " shashi tharoor" video on YT whether british benefited india or not 🤣
The British mythology is that it just sort of happened. "We seemed to have conquered the world in a fit of absent mindedness." That's obviously horseshit. Of course they didn't have a grand, step-by-step plan (no one ever does) but this video is a nice and rare peak behind the curtain.
Well, the British/English ruling elites (i.e. the Normans) started their "colonization" effort in Normandy, then England, Wales, and Ireland. The administration, etc of the 13 colonies and India developed from their experience colonizing what we now consider as their own (adopted) "homeland", throughout the centuries. Of all those, I think Ireland was the actual basis/model for English style "world conquest", everything has its root in the colonization of Ireland. Like they were sending settlers, alongside soldiers and statesmen with the intention of "reshaping" the colony, instead of the ruling elites moving in to actually "rule" the land (which necessitate collaboration with existing local elites, and adopting local culture to legitimize their own rule). IMO British/English colonization effort were, in large part, fueled and shaped by their possession of England and Ireland. German and Scandinavian rednecks' (the Anglo-Saxons, and the Normans) importance to world history completely outweighs its coverage.
This is brilliant! I have dabbled in strategy as a manager, management consultant and as a University educator - so I hope I know quality in strategic analysis when is see it! Congratulations - I've subscribed and shared it.
Thank you. I’ve wanted to learn in detail about the British colonization of India, but there aren’t many “video documentaries” that go into nitty gritty details and concepts
It's always strange how one person can influence events to such a degree. Great Man Theory is probably not right as it ignores environmental factors, but nevertheless individual actions and decisions do matter sometimes as much as centuries long economic, trade, or demographic trends.
I think Mornington and Wellesley were products of their time and place. No doubt if it wasn’t them, it would have been other names. What was important was their training, inclinations, and power.
@@josephk.4200 Most certainly they were, Just like Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan and Napoleon were. Yet without them history would be radically different.
There’s no denying that Mornington had influence on events and that replacing him with X would have changed or at least delayed the course of British imperialism. At the same time, M’s influence was “structured” in the sense that it was tolerated by the UK Govt: M needed a lot of latitude in his decisionmaking bc of distance, and the costs of making a bad decision (esp in terms of European treasure/lives) was fairly low as far as the colonialists were concerned. These “structures” were ultimately influenced by broader organizational/tech trends: no G-G would enjoy that much freedom after steamship post and esp telegraph (tho late 19C FRA would see its share of “rogue” colonialists bc of 3rd Republic political weakness). So GMT and longer-duration factors are not necessarily opposed to each other, especially beyond a philosophical/fundamental level.
@@StrategyStuff That reminds me a lot of that Shakespearean line: "There is a tide in the affairs of men, Which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune.". The world may make the tide, but the man still needs to recognize it and decide when to embark.
@@michaelthayer5351Genghis Khan and Napoleon would have been just great generals of their time rather than what they are irl if they didn’t have the military reformations that occurred before them. For Mongolia it was centuries of tribal warfare for the French it was centralization and organization.
Strategy Stuff is back yay!! We've been waiting so long! "This is part 1 of a 5 part series" Strategy Stuff is back eyyy we'll be waiting so longgg T_T Just love this stuff though man, keep it up
@@privatechannel875 Emphasis is given more to battle of Plassey and Buxar. After battle of Buxar they directly jumps into 1857 war of Independence where they say it was end of Mughal rule but the fact is de-facto Mughal rule ended way earlier. After Aurangzeb's death mughal didn't had any power their administration was limited to the city of delhi and were puppets afghans followed by the Marathas and at the British.
Yet another banger from Strategy Stuff. I love the detail and style of your content, first giving a high-level view and then getting into the weeds, and I also love how you cover less-popular, but still extremely important, eras // events. Truly one of the best geopolitics/history channels on youtube, you deserve far more follows. Thanks for all your amazing work, looking forward to the rest of the series.
You came into my YT Feed and I'm glad you did as I found this to be a very enjoyable and educational podcast indeed!! A splendid little production that I can clearly see was well researched and produced. A new subscriber here. Well done!!
Fantastic - this is some of the most insightful and concise historical analysis you'll see anywhere. If anyone has recommendations on books with a similar approach (a clear strategic analysis that doesn't take 1000s of pages) for any other places and times, please share!
Hey, love your work, but could you include inline citations within your scripts? I understand including citations may take more work for the slides but I’d appreciate citations within the script (similar to how Wikipedia articles look) It would help anyone interested in further research into specific topics you touch upon in your videos. Thanks!
Why have I not found this channel earlier? I usually find interesting niche channels like this one much earlier. Can't wait to watch all of their videos!
Great to see you back, I rewatch your videos from time to time because of your style of presenting the material you cover. Top class stuff. Please by all means, keep it coming!
Excellent. Mornington somehow reminds me of the attitude of some Roman governors who milked their province for everything they could get before heading back to Rome to pursue their political career.
Welcome back; fantastic content as always. I thoroughly enjoy your deep dives on these subjects and all your work. Hope to see more of it in action, thank you!
Excellent stuff! From the Maratha POV, here is what I think caused their failure, in descending order of importance. 1. Mass desertions by European officers before the 2nd Anglo-Maratha war - Perron [Scindia's top general], Louis Bourquin, Chevalier Dudrenec, etc. All of them surrendered entire battalions to the British. Perron ended up retiring in France even before the war had ended. Marathas did have prior experience with Europeans defecting from their ranks before, such as Portuguese naval officers in Shivaji's time. Guess this time they couldn't manage it well. Marathas were ig at least a decade away from producing indigenous officers at a reliable rate. 2. Maratha disunity - They did not consider EIC a threat and by the time they did, it was too late. There is a letter by Bhonsle of Nagpur to the other Maratha lords which goes into this. Reason for disunity lies mostly on the disaster at Panipat which weakened the central authority of the Peshwa. 3rd battle of Panipat broke both Maratha and Afghan back and created a power vacuum which the British filled. The last time all Marathas fought together against common foe, was in the Battle of Kharda, in 1795. 3. Early deaths of Maratha lords in quick succession - James Grant Duff [EIC officer who fought against Marathas and later wrote history books on it] stated on the death of Peshwa Madhavrao, “…the plains of Panipat were not more fatal to the Maratha Empire than the early end of this excellent prince”. Many important Maratha lords died in a short span of time, leading to a crisis at the top level. So many leaders died in Panipat including young Vishwas Rao and Sadashiv Rao. Peshwa Balaji Baji Rao passed away 3 months later. Young Peshwa Madhavrao too passed away. Mahadji Scindia, who was the most powerful Maratha lord at that time. Young Peshwa Narayan Rao, then also his son Peshwa Sawai Madhav Rao. Then Nana Fadnavis whom the British called 'The Maratha Machiavelli' passed away. Yashwantrao Holkar also passed away despite getting victories and favourable terms over EIC. 4. Marathas failed to make an alliance with Mysore and the Nizam because the British weren't a threat by that time. Later they[Holkar] failed at their attempt at an alliance with Nepal and Punjab because it was too late. 5. Bengal had the largest revenue of all other regions in India. Bengal alone had 8x the revenue of Scindia's Malwa region. British getting Bengal without much trouble was their greatest win. 6. The Doji Bara famine.
I’d probably add a few more structural factors, like the failure of the feudal Maratha states to adequately manage succession and finance long wars (Shinde/Scindia and Holkar were already at war for 2 years before UK attacked). AFG might also have made a major dent in British fortunes had it invaded during the Holkar phase of the war.
What most people miss is that it wasn't a military triumph, the Indian military technology was almost as good as shown in Mysore, Punjab, Assaye and Colachel. And Indian soldiers were very ferocious, EIC itself succeeded because of Indian soldiers and Indian money. It was triumph of British administration and legal systems and the spirit that was imbibed in them because of the Empire, They just never gave up.
Also the British officer corps was superior, actual British units acted as an elite force in battle and most of the locals didn't have existing grievances with the British and if anything saw the opportunity of mediating force to replace the constant instability. But true, basically nothing would have functioned without Indians to run it and even if it had the company likely wouldn't have wanted to pay for it.
@@vorynrosethorn903 true and thankfully we imbibed that from the Britishers. Our Junior Commissioned Officers are one of the most professional and selfless troops in the world as shown in the Kargil War. Republic of India is somewhat the true successor the British Empire in Asia ( China think the same as well ).
I'm a simple guy - I see a new Strategy Stuff drop, I click. On the video, I suppose that I've always known this at some level, but India in c.1790 really reminds me of Renaissance Italy during the _condottieri_ period...and the buying-off of the French mercs without a shot being fired by offering them shares in the EIC actually got a real "LOL" moment.
It’s not related to this video, but I remember a passage in a Mughal history book where the Emperor (Aurangzeb?) arrived at a siege and the first thing he did was liberally distribute mansab (land grants) to friend and foe alike, kind of like an Oprah situation (“you get a village!… you get a village!”)
I suspect here we have the beginnings of the Political/Intellectual bloc that emphasized the “Civilizing” effects of British Expansion that became the trope for broader European Imperialism of the 19th & 20th Centuries.
Thanks for your comment! I think that will have to wait for another video after this series. Imho the British conquest (specifically during this period) is qualitatively different from the more “mercantilist” wars that cane before and was a harbinger of the pattern of European expansion in 19C.
Portuguese were defeated by every major and minor local power, the Dutch and the French never really had the political and military might for a large conquest in India.
@@miguelsilva1446Portuguese got kicked out by Dutch VOC and their allied native rulers in all of their major forts and trading hubs along the Malabar in the seventeenth century. Even their position in Goa was threatened by the Dutch, the pressure was enough that they had to sign a treaty with their long standing enemies the Adil Shahis of Bijapur. This is not to mention all the epidemics that decimated Portuguese Goa's population. So by the time period of this video (late 18th century) they had ceased to be a player a century ago.
@@Benji567891 It may be everywhere just not in the school curriculum. Nobody knew about the death of 3 million Bengali deaths during WW 2, thanks to the famine caused by the diversion of food grains, till a historian wrote about it a few years ago. Many Brits today still believe that colonialism was an act of benevolence.
Very good material, sheds some new light, on how even the empire has different pro-war and pro-peace factions and it is not a foregone conclusion that it will use its power even if it can.
Hi Strategy stuff, I’m an old fan of yours and I really admire your high quality videos. I recommend you “After Tamerlane” by John Darwin as it covers many of the topics of this video and of your channel in general, I think you would appreciate it. Keep doing what you are doing, support from Italy 🇮🇹
Thanks for your support! Haha, 'After Tamerlane' was one of the first books I ever read re: macrohistory and it definitely was an inspiration for this channel!
In fact, the last shot of the world war that the American Revolutionary War really was was fired in Mandalore India; by men under the command of Cornwallis, the very same general who'd been forced to surrender at Yorktown Va that effectively ended the fighting on that continent; so England clearly had significant forces in India at the time of 1782 AD, around when the final shot of that world war was fired- and it *was* a world-war, one of no fewer than *five* world wars within the last oh, 300 or so years.
Love these, keep them coming. I'd also love it if you covered how local polities dealt with and countered British encroachment. It might be a gradual process but would love to see the patterns.
I have tried, but unfortunately that’s an underresearched area and the many records that exist on the Indian side haven’t really been accessed (at least in a form where I myself can easily access them).
Excellent video as always! The map of the subcontinent especially: in Anarchy (written by Dalrymple) the maps not always help to understand the whole situation. I'm probably sure you're gonna talk about it in the next video but the Maratha were a confederacy (or as a local historian of the time said "a bunch of ferrets in a bag"). The only thing the video miss is many people in India preferred the British: the wanna be sepoy were attracted by much more high pay compared to local counterparts while Bengal was a safe heaven for merchants and bankers (in the rest of India war and pillaging were still too common). Maybe not many people but surely the right ones: those who fight and those who will support your economy (and by extent your expansion) the most. Maybe Is not an important detail but an interesting one.
Imho I talk about this in video 4, but I personally think that calling the Marathas a “Confederacy” was a misnomer, esp in 1800s. They were not like Switzerland or the US where u could control the central govt (Peshwa) and automatically get some authority over the great lords. This misunderstanding did much to influence the course of the 2nd UK-MAR war. And yes, I do point out that in both wars UK received a lot of indigenous elite support; and one of the reasons I say “British India” not Britain was that the conquests were mainly done by Indian sepoys.
The GOAT is back!
Who ? The British Empire ?
@@kenzo5096 What kind of GOAT is an empire that got beaten by Egypt and had to bow before the Americans in '56?
In terms of land area and population, the British conquest of India has got to be up there with the most significant conquests in history, yet is so rarely focused on. It's usually handwaved as 'the British EIC was to technologically advanced for primative Indians to counter and so they simply steamrolled the subcontinent.' It will be interesting to see an in-depth series on the process.
Mughals overextended and weakened, which was exploited by resurgent Persian Empire under military genius Nadir Shah. His and his succesors raids into Delhi and northern India broke the power of Mughals in 6 decades of almost uninterrupted invasions. The power vacuum and fragmentation led to further conflicts, the British, acting as power brokers filled the power vacuum as a benevolent outside power.
The funny thing is that India could have been a French or even Ottoman imperial possession, but both ventures failed while the British were able to succeed (something that contemporary historians would've called highly implausible given how vast the population and territory of India was compared to how tiny Britain was and how little Britain prioritized its army).
@@phunkracy Marathas conquered Delhi in 1737, two years before Nadir Shah. Mughals were already long broken by the Mughal-Maratha war by that time.
@@pax6833 French never had much political ambition in India like the Brits, nor did they have the military might to do so. Ottomans never really held any territory in India. Also, the EIC army was mostly Indian natives paid by Indian tax money, it was the largest European-style army in history, capable of taking over Europe if EIC willed.
@@jupe2001 it was one off vs like several decades of dunking on mughals by perso-afghan cavalry
Outstanding, my man! Thrilled to see you back in action. I love how you take your time making videos to ensure the information is top-notch. Terrific topic. Looking forward to the rest of the series.
I'd love to see a future video on the VIC, and how the Dutch colonial approach was both similar and differed from that of the larger powers.
Thanks for the comment! Unfortunately I really don’t know when I would get around to Dutch East India Co (tho they played a major part in my previous video on Taiwan). They played a role pre-1790s re: Mysore but it’s not substantive enough to be mentioned in the next vid.
It’s absolutely wild that so little coverage is given to exactly how the EIC and Great Britain conquered India. Everyone talks about the impact of the British empire and it’s hegemony over a myriad of nations which changed the course of their histories, Bit nobody gives much consideration to the fact that the UKs colonialism was, in large part, fueled and shaped by their possession of India.
India was the fulcrum around which the wheels of empire turned for Britain.
Egypt ensured access to the Red Sea
Aden was a good choke point to secure Indian shipping.
The trucial system kept the Gulf secure for British interests in India
South Africa was taken from the Dutch to better secure the route to India
The great game.
The Nigerian protectorates were were modeled in the image of the Indian Prince system, The fundamental difference being that Hausa rule of the Nigerian middle belt was unprecedented and arbitrary as opposed to the legitimacy of the Muslim princes ruling the Hindi population from the princely states in India.
Indias importance to world history completely outweighs its coverage
You missed the most important factor: India was the source of the opium which was sold to China which was a massive source of revenue for Britain.
White morons are praisin' british, y'all can understand what did to india by the fact of the matter that life expectancy of indians degraded from 72 to 32 when british forced to left india, still white christians are sayin' tgat british benefited india, they don't understand that british didn't benefit india as white christians claims rather british did all sorta things to serve their interests not for to serve indigenous communities of non western countries like india , infact white christians in comment section arguin' that if british wouldn't have conquered india then india wouldn't have gotten the benefits that india achieved as per their claims, the fact of the matter is thst even if british wouldn't have conquered india , india would accomplished everythin' that western countries achieved, it's entirely fakse claims of white christians thst they bring prosperity, india used to contribute 33% of the world's gdp before rhe arrival of british to india , india was the richest country at that india even statistical & logistical data are in public domain which demolishes white christians opinions & claims 'bout that british occupation of india benefitted india , they tend to forget that the so called benefits that british gave to india & other non western countries attained at cost of massacres, rape of hindu women at large scale, destruction & loot of wealth, induction of famishion, british created wealth by lootin' 45 trillion dollars, UK is developed cuz they looted india despite insia is now 5th largest economy in the world , british achieved nothin' by their own, these facts that british christians overlook deliberately cuz it'll exposed their fallacious & stupid arguments, i recommend white christians to watch out " shashi tharoor" video on YT whether british benefited india or not 🤣
The British mythology is that it just sort of happened. "We seemed to have conquered the world in a fit of absent mindedness." That's obviously horseshit. Of course they didn't have a grand, step-by-step plan (no one ever does) but this video is a nice and rare peak behind the curtain.
Well, the British/English ruling elites (i.e. the Normans) started their "colonization" effort in Normandy, then England, Wales, and Ireland. The administration, etc of the 13 colonies and India developed from their experience colonizing what we now consider as their own (adopted) "homeland", throughout the centuries.
Of all those, I think Ireland was the actual basis/model for English style "world conquest", everything has its root in the colonization of Ireland. Like they were sending settlers, alongside soldiers and statesmen with the intention of "reshaping" the colony, instead of the ruling elites moving in to actually "rule" the land (which necessitate collaboration with existing local elites, and adopting local culture to legitimize their own rule).
IMO British/English colonization effort were, in large part, fueled and shaped by their possession of England and Ireland.
German and Scandinavian rednecks' (the Anglo-Saxons, and the Normans) importance to world history completely outweighs its coverage.
"British Raj" not british india. .. there was no such thing called india ever existed till 1947.
This is brilliant! I have dabbled in strategy as a manager, management consultant and as a University educator - so I hope I know quality in strategic analysis when is see it! Congratulations - I've subscribed and shared it.
This is absolutely outstanding. One of the finest videos made on the subject of the colonization of India
Always love seeing a new upload from you! VERY excited for the rest of the series!
Great to see you back! This was awesome! Looking forward to more videos!
I love how unique the periods this channel examines compared to more other information sources
"This is part 1 of a 5 part series"
😍😍😍
So excited to have you back!! And with a bang too - great topic choice.
Thank you. I’ve wanted to learn in detail about the British colonization of India, but there aren’t many “video documentaries” that go into nitty gritty details and concepts
you mean the British invasion of india? Colonization...
It's always strange how one person can influence events to such a degree. Great Man Theory is probably not right as it ignores environmental factors, but nevertheless individual actions and decisions do matter sometimes as much as centuries long economic, trade, or demographic trends.
I think Mornington and Wellesley were products of their time and place. No doubt if it wasn’t them, it would have been other names. What was important was their training, inclinations, and power.
@@josephk.4200 Most certainly they were, Just like Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan and Napoleon were. Yet without them history would be radically different.
There’s no denying that Mornington had influence on events and that replacing him with X would have changed or at least delayed the course of British imperialism. At the same time, M’s influence was “structured” in the sense that it was tolerated by the UK Govt: M needed a lot of latitude in his decisionmaking bc of distance, and the costs of making a bad decision (esp in terms of European treasure/lives) was fairly low as far as the colonialists were concerned.
These “structures” were ultimately influenced by broader organizational/tech trends: no G-G would enjoy that much freedom after steamship post and esp telegraph (tho late 19C FRA would see its share of “rogue” colonialists bc of 3rd Republic political weakness). So GMT and longer-duration factors are not necessarily opposed to each other, especially beyond a philosophical/fundamental level.
@@StrategyStuff That reminds me a lot of that Shakespearean line: "There is a tide in the affairs of men, Which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune.".
The world may make the tide, but the man still needs to recognize it and decide when to embark.
@@michaelthayer5351Genghis Khan and Napoleon would have been just great generals of their time rather than what they are irl if they didn’t have the military reformations that occurred before them. For Mongolia it was centuries of tribal warfare for the French it was centralization and organization.
I'm always excited when your videos come out. Love the in-detail layout of everything, easily one of the best channels on military strategy
Strategy Stuff is back yay!! We've been waiting so long! "This is part 1 of a 5 part series" Strategy Stuff is back eyyy we'll be waiting so longgg T_T
Just love this stuff though man, keep it up
The irony is Majority of Indians think British took over India from Mughals. This is what Indians have been taught since independence.
No. I have grown up in India and have read NCERT books throughout school. They never say what your comment says.
@@privatechannel875 Emphasis is given more to battle of Plassey and Buxar. After battle of Buxar they directly jumps into 1857 war of Independence where they say it was end of Mughal rule but the fact is de-facto Mughal rule ended way earlier. After Aurangzeb's death mughal didn't had any power their administration was limited to the city of delhi and were puppets afghans followed by the Marathas and at the British.
Yet another banger from Strategy Stuff. I love the detail and style of your content, first giving a high-level view and then getting into the weeds, and I also love how you cover less-popular, but still extremely important, eras // events. Truly one of the best geopolitics/history channels on youtube, you deserve far more follows. Thanks for all your amazing work, looking forward to the rest of the series.
Another goddam banger, actually the only legitimately informational history channel out there
Holy crap what a hell of a channel, thank you so much for your stuff, love the work!
Just when I thought the channel was out, it pulled me back in.
Hell yeah, channel not dead. I love these videos
Great to see you back!!
Happy that you are back!
You came into my YT Feed and I'm glad you did as I found this to be a very enjoyable and educational podcast indeed!! A splendid little production that I can clearly see was well researched and produced. A new subscriber here. Well done!!
This channel IS great. Thank you for your obvious hard work. Thank you
Great video! Looking forward to the next one.
Fantastic - this is some of the most insightful and concise historical analysis you'll see anywhere. If anyone has recommendations on books with a similar approach (a clear strategic analysis that doesn't take 1000s of pages) for any other places and times, please share!
My favorite channel strikes again 🙏
Happy to see you posting videos again!!
Great to have you back man!
I'm glad you're back, I hope you can get assistants to help you make more videos
I'm excited for this series!
Oh yeah! The video I needed 🙏🙏
Oooo this topic is really interesting! Welcome back!!
Great vid, love your channel!
Welcome back brother. It's been too long, but we're still with you.
Glad to have you back.
I discovered your content recently and instantly subscribed. Great to see a new video!
Welcome back
Hey, love your work, but could you include inline citations within your scripts? I understand including citations may take more work for the slides but I’d appreciate citations within the script (similar to how Wikipedia articles look) It would help anyone interested in further research into specific topics you touch upon in your videos. Thanks!
Why have I not found this channel earlier? I usually find interesting niche channels like this one much earlier. Can't wait to watch all of their videos!
A new upload always puts a smile on my face :D
Absolutely fascinating, thank you!
Amazing vid
Your channel is about to explode in popularity. Keep at it bud.
Great to watch. I am Pakistan Studies teacher since 1990. I really appreciate your work ❤
This was excellent! Can't wait for the next one..
So happy to see you back in action after a long time
Im glad to see you being active. :)
Your channel is way underrated men. Excellent content, simple and yet efficient maps and images. Very interesting !
Another excellent video
I’ve waited years for these videos to return.
Great to see you back, I rewatch your videos from time to time because of your style of presenting the material you cover. Top class stuff. Please by all means, keep it coming!
Amazing content, waiting for the next part!
so glad you are back
Excellent. Mornington somehow reminds me of the attitude of some Roman governors who milked their province for everything they could get before heading back to Rome to pursue their political career.
Great Video can't wait for more
Extremely interesting, thank you :)
It's hard to say how much I appreciate this video... thanks a lot.
Welcome back; fantastic content as always. I thoroughly enjoy your deep dives on these subjects and all your work. Hope to see more of it in action, thank you!
i remember one of your earliest video long ago about the geopolitics of the Mughal Empire, glad to see how it play out in this series.
Great video
The mic improvement is outstanding
He is back boys!🎉
I love seeing these historical events analysed from a startegic POV
Please keep the uploads up
Yes!!! This is the video I've been waiting for
Amazing breakdown
Great video .
Welcome back. ❤
Excellent stuff! From the Maratha POV, here is what I think caused their failure, in descending order of importance.
1. Mass desertions by European officers before the 2nd Anglo-Maratha war - Perron [Scindia's top general], Louis Bourquin, Chevalier Dudrenec, etc. All of them surrendered entire battalions to the British. Perron ended up retiring in France even before the war had ended. Marathas did have prior experience with Europeans defecting from their ranks before, such as Portuguese naval officers in Shivaji's time. Guess this time they couldn't manage it well. Marathas were ig at least a decade away from producing indigenous officers at a reliable rate.
2. Maratha disunity - They did not consider EIC a threat and by the time they did, it was too late. There is a letter by Bhonsle of Nagpur to the other Maratha lords which goes into this. Reason for disunity lies mostly on the disaster at Panipat which weakened the central authority of the Peshwa. 3rd battle of Panipat broke both Maratha and Afghan back and created a power vacuum which the British filled. The last time all Marathas fought together against common foe, was in the Battle of Kharda, in 1795.
3. Early deaths of Maratha lords in quick succession - James Grant Duff [EIC officer who fought against Marathas and later wrote history books on it] stated on the death of Peshwa Madhavrao, “…the plains of Panipat were not more fatal to the Maratha Empire than the early end of this excellent prince”.
Many important Maratha lords died in a short span of time, leading to a crisis at the top level. So many leaders died in Panipat including young Vishwas Rao and Sadashiv Rao. Peshwa Balaji Baji Rao passed away 3 months later. Young Peshwa Madhavrao too passed away. Mahadji Scindia, who was the most powerful Maratha lord at that time. Young Peshwa Narayan Rao, then also his son Peshwa Sawai Madhav Rao. Then Nana Fadnavis whom the British called 'The Maratha Machiavelli' passed away. Yashwantrao Holkar also passed away despite getting victories and favourable terms over EIC.
4. Marathas failed to make an alliance with Mysore and the Nizam because the British weren't a threat by that time. Later they[Holkar] failed at their attempt at an alliance with Nepal and Punjab because it was too late.
5. Bengal had the largest revenue of all other regions in India. Bengal alone had 8x the revenue of Scindia's Malwa region. British getting Bengal without much trouble was their greatest win.
6. The Doji Bara famine.
I’d probably add a few more structural factors, like the failure of the feudal Maratha states to adequately manage succession and finance long wars (Shinde/Scindia and Holkar were already at war for 2 years before UK attacked). AFG might also have made a major dent in British fortunes had it invaded during the Holkar phase of the war.
Befitting work shows that, British took over India from Hindu Maratha and NOT Mughals as is commonly taught.
@BritishRajNationalistDelhi was never indian capital .it was Kolkata and Madras . Administrative and mercantile .
What most people miss is that it wasn't a military triumph, the Indian military technology was almost as good as shown in Mysore, Punjab, Assaye and Colachel.
And Indian soldiers were very ferocious, EIC itself succeeded because of Indian soldiers and Indian money.
It was triumph of British administration and legal systems and the spirit that was imbibed in them because of the Empire, They just never gave up.
Also the British officer corps was superior, actual British units acted as an elite force in battle and most of the locals didn't have existing grievances with the British and if anything saw the opportunity of mediating force to replace the constant instability. But true, basically nothing would have functioned without Indians to run it and even if it had the company likely wouldn't have wanted to pay for it.
@@vorynrosethorn903 true and thankfully we imbibed that from the Britishers. Our Junior Commissioned Officers are one of the most professional and selfless troops in the world as shown in the Kargil War.
Republic of India is somewhat the true successor the British Empire in Asia ( China think the same as well ).
It had as much to do with the policy of divide and conquer as military conquest!
Always enjoy these.
I'm a simple guy - I see a new Strategy Stuff drop, I click.
On the video, I suppose that I've always known this at some level, but India in c.1790 really reminds me of Renaissance Italy during the _condottieri_ period...and the buying-off of the French mercs without a shot being fired by offering them shares in the EIC actually got a real "LOL" moment.
It’s not related to this video, but I remember a passage in a Mughal history book where the Emperor (Aurangzeb?) arrived at a siege and the first thing he did was liberally distribute mansab (land grants) to friend and foe alike, kind of like an Oprah situation (“you get a village!… you get a village!”)
@@StrategyStuff LOLOLOLOLOL
Fascinating.
this is a super interesting video, you videos never fail to impress me
excellent explanation
I see a Strategy Stuff video, I instantly click.
love your content
I suspect here we have the beginnings of the Political/Intellectual bloc that emphasized the “Civilizing” effects of British Expansion that became the trope for broader European Imperialism of the 19th & 20th Centuries.
I would've liked to hear about Portuguese, Netherland and later French expansion prior to the British hegemony.
Yeah, it'd be great to have something like an addendum to the series
Thanks for your comment! I think that will have to wait for another video after this series. Imho the British conquest (specifically during this period) is qualitatively different from the more “mercantilist” wars that cane before and was a harbinger of the pattern of European expansion in 19C.
Portuguese were defeated by every major and minor local power, the Dutch and the French never really had the political and military might for a large conquest in India.
@@jupe2001what are you smoking?
The Portuguese were for a long time the strongest european power in India and a major power in the subcontinent
@@miguelsilva1446Portuguese got kicked out by Dutch VOC and their allied native rulers in all of their major forts and trading hubs along the Malabar in the seventeenth century. Even their position in Goa was threatened by the Dutch, the pressure was enough that they had to sign a treaty with their long standing enemies the Adil Shahis of Bijapur. This is not to mention all the epidemics that decimated Portuguese Goa's population. So by the time period of this video (late 18th century) they had ceased to be a player a century ago.
Wow!! .. great insights
even India’s own history books don’t have this wholistic view, explaining both sides of the history.
of course they don't..
And UK's history books have absolutely nothing on British colonialism. Don't blame them though.
@@Maplelust UK's history classes are somehow even worse than Indian history classes in teaching accurate info
@@Medleri That's not true at all, just so far from the truth, Britains past is at the forefront of everything in the UK nowdays, not just school.
@@Benji567891 It may be everywhere just not in the school curriculum. Nobody knew about the death of 3 million Bengali deaths during WW 2, thanks to the famine caused by the diversion of food grains, till a historian wrote about it a few years ago. Many Brits today still believe that colonialism was an act of benevolence.
Very good material, sheds some new light, on how even the empire has different pro-war and pro-peace factions and it is not a foregone conclusion that it will use its power even if it can.
5:50, There's a famous saying in India. "The British looted us so much that they even looted the word loot from us."
Did they mention the fact that the word was taken from Indian maratha light cavalry??😂😅😅
I don't think so.
HOLY HE'S BACK YESSS
Hi Strategy stuff, I’m an old fan of yours and I really admire your high quality videos. I recommend you “After Tamerlane” by John Darwin as it covers many of the topics of this video and of your channel in general, I think you would appreciate it.
Keep doing what you are doing, support from Italy 🇮🇹
Thanks for your support! Haha, 'After Tamerlane' was one of the first books I ever read re: macrohistory and it definitely was an inspiration for this channel!
OMG He's back!
The master as returned
Eyy he's back
Excellent and revealing. When can we see the subsequent parts?
I plan to release 1 every 2 weeks, so the next vid is on thurs
He's back
In fact, the last shot of the world war that the American Revolutionary War really was was fired in Mandalore India; by men under the command of Cornwallis, the very same general who'd been forced to surrender at Yorktown Va that effectively ended the fighting on that continent; so England clearly had significant forces in India at the time of 1782 AD, around when the final shot of that world war was fired- and it *was* a world-war, one of no fewer than *five* world wars within the last oh, 300 or so years.
welcome back
DUDE YES WE MISSED YOU
Somebody’s channel came back to life 😅😂❤
Welcome back.
Love these, keep them coming.
I'd also love it if you covered how local polities dealt with and countered British encroachment. It might be a gradual process but would love to see the patterns.
I have tried, but unfortunately that’s an underresearched area and the many records that exist on the Indian side haven’t really been accessed (at least in a form where I myself can easily access them).
@@StrategyStuff darn 😥
Very good
Excellent video as always! The map of the subcontinent especially: in Anarchy (written by Dalrymple) the maps not always help to understand the whole situation. I'm probably sure you're gonna talk about it in the next video but the Maratha were a confederacy (or as a local historian of the time said "a bunch of ferrets in a bag"). The only thing the video miss is many people in India preferred the British: the wanna be sepoy were attracted by much more high pay compared to local counterparts while Bengal was a safe heaven for merchants and bankers (in the rest of India war and pillaging were still too common). Maybe not many people but surely the right ones: those who fight and those who will support your economy (and by extent your expansion) the most. Maybe Is not an important detail but an interesting one.
Imho I talk about this in video 4, but I personally think that calling the Marathas a “Confederacy” was a misnomer, esp in 1800s. They were not like Switzerland or the US where u could control the central govt (Peshwa) and automatically get some authority over the great lords. This misunderstanding did much to influence the course of the 2nd UK-MAR war.
And yes, I do point out that in both wars UK received a lot of indigenous elite support; and one of the reasons I say “British India” not Britain was that the conquests were mainly done by Indian sepoys.
By that logic many in UK also supported Nazi Germany or at least were sympathetic to it.