Koprulu Mustafa Pasha
Gone Fishin'
Be it under the Mughals or Marathas. How likely is it to become a second Qing China? Is it going to be more developed or inferior to OTL 19th century Qing China?
Marathas winning the 2nd battle of Panipat would result in them banishing most of the muslim clerics who asked the Afghani sultan for help in getting rid of the marathas. And this would result in more unrest as the Peshwa at the time wanted to put his own son on the throne of Delhi.
Hmmm...pod at 1700 is too late , in 1750s Indian subcontinent was suffering from a prolonged effect of El nino and other climate related events , from 1750 1820s was going to a rough ride no matter who takes over the rule or remain in power in case of Mughal , the climate catastrophe was too much for any power to handle and will disintegrate for sure . The only reason why the British were successful was because they did not rule most of India till the 1780s , they didn't rule during the worst of famines and because of many other relevant reasons were successful and the people were indifferent because they already have been devastated because of the famines .To be a bit clear, the Pod can be 1700. I consider both the Mughals and Marathas as contenders as rulers of India. Mysore or Hyderabad... not so much... but for the heck of it, the Sikhs may be a third option.
I haven't read much commentary on foreign impressions of Indian military capabilities. Do you remember where you read this ?Portuguese officials in India noted that a well trained European army can conquor the country but to hold it together is impossible.
Yeah but it was from my history text book back my university days which may be true given the fact that Mughal rule was called khagaz Raj meaning paper Raj "everything on paper nothing in reality " , don't remember who told it ,may be the Portuguese viceroy , but considering it coming from a Portuguese it's funny because they lost wars to Mughals themselves, may be this observation was made in the late 17 th century when Mughal power was in serious decline and corruption became rampant and infighting a matter of policyI haven't read much commentary on foreign impressions of Indian military capabilities. Do you remember where you read this ?
They might be thinking of the Portuguese troops back from Europe rather than the dribs they had.but considering it coming from a Portuguese it's funny because they lost wars to Mughals themselves
Yeah but the defect that you pointed out here was not present in tipu sultan's army , his army was on par with any European army , well drilled and we'll disciplined underpinned by a sophisticated military administrative apparatus but the main problem was the size , a modern European army required a modern day taxation system and a credit system both of which India had but it wasn't efficient enough and Mysore state was small compared to the British empire in IndiaThey might be thinking of the Portuguese troops back from Europe rather than the dribs they had.
Bernier said something similar : “these immense armies frequently perform great feats, but when thrown into confusion it is impossible to restore them to discipline… I could never see these soldiers, destitute of order and marching with the irregularity of a herd of animals, without reflecting upon the ease with which five and twenty thousand of our veterans from the Army of Flanders, commanded by Prince Conde or Marshall Turenne would overcome these armies, however numerous.” and Manucci : “I saw in this action, as in so many others where I was afterwards present, that the only soldiers who fought were those well to the front. Of those more to the rear, although holding their bared swords in their hands, the Moguls (Central Asians) did nothing but shout ‘Ba-kush, ba-kush!,’ and the Indians ‘Mar, mar!,’ that is to say, ‘Kill, kill!.’ If those in the front advanced, those behind followed the example, and if the former retired the others fled, a custom of Hindustan quite contrary to that of Europe.”
I don't know. They still got drummed by the Company.his army was on par with any European army
Well the EIC was a powerhouse and tipu sultan's kingdom was small in comparison and it took four wars to finish him off and mind you EIC HAD ALLIESI don't know. They still got drummed by the Company.
Oh yeah that’s definitely why they almost captured the Madras presidency. Tipu Sultans state was able to field an army of 80,000 or so more than total EIC troops in around 1780 so the argument that Indian state fiscal capacity didn’t allow for large armies is a bit flawed imo. In Europe the French Revolution is partly remarkable due to the unprecedented size of the Grande Armée, and yet as a percentage of total state population, Tipu Sultans army was three times bigger. It also seems deterministic to say that while Indian armies were larger they used more primitive weaponry as while this was the case in 1750, the next few decades saw a rapid arms race to adopt the latest of technologies and in the case of Mysore, to improve them such that Europeans were desperate to capture one to send it back to England to be reverse engineered , after which it was used in Napoleonic campaigns and the war of 1812 in America. Also, Indian states definitely had the bureaucracies required for these armies as seen in the fact that Mysores tax revenue as a proportion of gdp was 40% in 1780, roughly the same as modern Germany.I don't know. They still got drummed by the Company.
I think the Marathas would quickly fall prey to western powers as it was at all points a confederacy- nominally headed by the chattrapati and theoretically commanded by the Peshwa, but each lord cared first and foremost for their own personal aggrandisement and so in my opinion would fall victim to western powers offering a leg up on their rivals.
Oh yeah, nobody was talking about the troops they raised but how they lost their battles.Tipu Sultans state was able to field an army of 80,000 or so more than total EIC troops in around 1780 so the argument that Indian state fiscal capacity didn’t allow for large armies is a bit flawed imo.
How did you get to that number ?In Europe the French Revolution is partly remarkable due to the unprecedented size of the Grande Armée
Mysore rockets were a gimmick. They had no value as military armaments.to improve them such that Europeans were desperate to capture one to send it back to England to be reverse engineered , after which it was used in Napoleonic campaigns and the war of 1812 in America.
United India in 19th century
Wasn't this OTL?
I wouldn't say a bunch of 11 provinces and three presidency that acted more or less independently from one another except in certain policy matters as United India , to elaborate my point further under the Indian high court act of 1861 the appeals from high court established at provinces went directly to the privy council in Britain there was no court of appeals at the all India level , same can be said about the administrative apparatus, at the all India level there was none , my point is there wasn't a United India in administrative aspects until the late 19th century, legally that is say in area of legislations until the passage of government of India act 1857 each of the three presidency acted independently but under the supervision of the governor general of india who also happens to be the governor general of presidency of Bengal , there are plenty of instances that the governor general of other two presidency disobeying the governor general of India, you could say the pre 1857 british rule in India was more of a confederation, further there was more complications as certain cities were ruled directly by the crown even before 1857 . Post 1857 when viceroyal rule was established the power to make laws passed over to the British parliament and viceroy's council with the power to administer the laws in hands of the provinces and as I said the provinces had plenty of freedom in this regard , again it was more of a loose federation although it was no longer a confederation and it's only in 1935 that you had United India legally and administratively. And don't get me started on on the 675 princely states 175 of whom had the power to makes laws and was subordinate only to the viceroy and in that 175 states 8 of them were practically independent for all intents and purposes except in matters of foreign policy .United India in 19th century
Wasn't this OTL?