A Maratha victory at Panipat (1761)?

[Cregan]

Ok so everyone seems to be arguing against me that it was the loss at Panipat that then resulted in the chronic disunity, infighting and administrative malpractice of the later Maratha Confederacy (despite it rebounding again following that loss), which prevented the Marathas from consolidating their rule over India and eventually being conquered by the British.

So how does victory (while incurring heavy casualties) at Panipat change these centrifugal tendencies in the Maratha Confederacy? What evidence is there of concrete administrative policies that the Marathas were planning to implement to centralise their control over India if they won? IOTL they actually further decentralised the Maratha Confederacy after their rebound by dividing up their far-flung territories between autonomous aristocrats and chieftains, resulting in disunity.

All I can see from history is a continuation of their previous policies - the Marathas didn't even have a coordinated, effective strategy to fight the Durranis in the first place, with the Peshwa first appointing his brother to lead the expedition, that brother refusing to do so unless he got paid more, forcing the Peshwa to then send his cousin, son and half-brother in his stead. That doesn't exactly signify sophisticated administration that is ready to effectively rule an entire Subcontinent.

 

[Kaushlendra pratap singh]

1- Peshwa wanted to shift their capital further North living Puna as a Deccan sub-capital to be a training ground for Peshwa hair.
2- The gain and consolidation of the North will make the pre-central banking institutions made up of Chitpwan Brahmin will be joining the hand of North Indian bankers like Jain and Marwadi.
Innovation due to the mixing of two excellent financial systems will end the problem of financing the Maratha army.
3- The Maratha's next conquest will be Bengal, which will be simple to them in 1761.
4- the consolidation of the north by Maratha make them rightfully ruler of India. The southern small Hindu kingdom will directly assume vassalage without many big problems.
5- The problem of Mysore - Hyder Ali's rise in the south happen due to the defeat of Panipat.
Without this defeat, the Wodiyar Hindu ruler will submit to Maratha.
6-Rajput were already subjugated in their homeland between 1741-1760.
7-Hyderabad was subjugated just before the defeat of Panipat.
8- Peshwa ruled from Delhi as a prime enforcer of the titular Muslim Mughal emperor and Deccan Chhatrapati Hindu emperor.
9 - It will be a game of time how many years the mughal emperor title will survive.

 

[Kaushlendra pratap singh]

Also @Cregan please read the source-

Hundi - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Maratha Peshwa use to give a guarantee to Hundi to the Chitpawan brahmin banker against debt taken to do the regular payment. and this banker uses them as a credit.
Mughal invested justice and civil and military power in their subedar which they selected from their Mansabdar. On the other hand, Peshwa strictly separates the justice, civil and military power from their subedar or local governor.

Peshwa also establishes a singular administrative authority in their kingdom as a permanent settlement. Where Mughal subedar changed 3-4 years by the time of Aurangzeb mansabdari was sold in open to the highest bidder which leads to massive Corruption in the taxing system of mughal.
By the end of the mughal 17 century, this overtaxing nature of the mughal empire lead to massive rebellion in mughal Khalsa land which was directly ruled by the mughal emperor.
Some places like Rajputana and importantly most agricultural parts of Bihar and Eastern Uttar Pradesh were never given there due to tax to the mughal empire.
Also most Peshwa separate police and army forces in their land.

 

[Cregan]

Ok, so a stable Maratha hegemony over India after victory at Panipat is dependent on a few factors:

1. Administrative reforms, including a new northern capital. This would simply mean that they takeover Delhi once they abolish the Mughal throne and replace it with a Maratha imperial throne (but won’t shifting the Peshwa’s seat of power away from the Maratha heartland of Pune make him lose influence?)
2. Buy-in from the Brahmin and Jain bankers (who habitually used to fuel succession conflicts between Mughal princes - will they now fund succession wars among Maratha chiefs?)
2. Easy follow-up conquests of the northern and eastern Nawabs, especially the rich region of Bengal (yes Nawabi power will be shattered by being defeated alongside their Durrani allies, but the follow-up Maratha abolition of the Mughal throne will provoke the surviving Nawabs, even in their weakened state, to fight against the Marathas - will this not stymie the Maratha consolidation of the north and destabilise India?)
3. Rajputana staying mostly been cowed, (but the Rajputs were always loathe to submit to Maratha rule - won’t they rebel alongside the Nawabs once the Marathas abolish the Mughal throne?)
4. Maratha expansion into Punjab (but will they end up fighting the Sikhs? And this also means the Marathas now have to defend a long northwestern border against the Afghans - will both these things cause overextension?)
5. While all this Maratha consolidation is happening over North India, the remaining South Indian states also need to be subdued (but won’t they fight back and cause further overextension? Hyderabad will definitely fight once the Mughal throne is abolished, although I agree that Hyder Ali/Tipu Sultan won’t rise to power in Mysore and transform it into a military powerhouse)

I’m still not convinced. But I will say this - if the Marathas do manage to follow-up Panipat by consolidating all of India (without facing major rebellions - a big if) while still improving their administration (this is crucial), the British (or any other European colonisers) will be unable to conquer the Subcontinent from them. A successful Maratha Empire that encompasses all of India would be too powerful to colonise.

 

[Kaushlendra pratap singh]

(but won’t shifting the Peshwa’s seat of power away from the Maratha heartland of Pune make him lose influence?)

Pune will be remain the seat of Pehswa's hair.

who habitually used to fuel succession conflicts between Mughal princes - will they now fund succession wars among Maratha chiefs?

There will be two group of banker jain of marwad and Chitpwan brahmin of Deccan, they will fight with each other in the financial area to win the trust of Peshwa.
Also, the mughal pay there army after collecting tax.
where Peshwa directly collect debt from this banker and after collecting revenue fills the debt.

yes Nawabi power will be shattered by being defeated alongside their Durrani allies, but the follow-up Maratha's abolition of the Mughal throne will provoke the surviving Nawabs, even in their weakened state, to fight against the Marathas - will this not stymie the Maratha consolidation of the north and destabilise India?

Until they crushed their opponent in India, Peshwa never going to remove the Mughal emperor from the throne.
Always remember Peshwa were not sovereign they were the prime minister of Chhatrapati.
So there no need to remove Mughal emperor until they can handle backlash from the Muslim noble.

but the Rajputs were always loathe to submit to Maratha rule - won’t they rebel alongside the Nawabs once the Marathas abolish the Mughal throne?

Rajput politics become fragmented due to death of Jaisingh in 1741, there was no one who can become leader of bickering rajputana.
Also there was only three 4 indian power remains
1- Awadh nawab he participated in the panipat battle if Martha wins he will lose his power.
2- Bengal nawab already losing power to the British
3- Hyderabad Nizam was subdued in 1759 by Sadashiv Rao the man who was leading Maratha army in panipat.
4-after that many small nawabs have no power to defend themselves there and from the Maratha army. Rising against Maratha is all together different thing.

but will they end up fighting the Sikhs? And this also means the Marathas now have to defend a long northwestern border against the Afghans - will both these things cause overextension?

In 1759 Raghunath rao, peshwa younger brother rebuild golden temple, so Maratha can win to secure the north-western border, they can also give the official permit to convert Muslims to Sikhism.

The southern kingdom already in contact Maratha and they supported Martha against the Aurangzeb by money and information.

 

[Brahman]

Ok so everyone seems to be arguing against me that it was the loss at Panipat that then resulted in the chronic disunity, infighting and administrative malpractice of the later Maratha Confederacy (despite it rebounding again following that loss), which prevented the Marathas from consolidating their rule over India and eventually being conquered by the British.

So how does victory (while incurring heavy casualties) at Panipat change these centrifugal tendencies in the Maratha Confederacy? What evidence is there of concrete administrative policies that the Marathas were planning to implement to centralise their control over India if they won? IOTL they actually further decentralised the Maratha Confederacy after their rebound by dividing up their far-flung territories between autonomous aristocrats and chieftains, resulting in disunity.

All I can see from history is a continuation of their previous policies - the Marathas didn't even have a coordinated, effective strategy to fight the Durranis in the first place, with the Peshwa first appointing his brother to lead the expedition, that brother refusing to do so unless he got paid more, forcing the Peshwa to then send his cousin, son and half-brother in his stead. That doesn't exactly signify sophisticated administration that is ready to effectively rule an entire Subcontinent.

Because Marathas, despite their losses at Panipat still persisted and were the strongest force in the Subcontinent, Afghans, who though did win Panipat then went into a brutal war with Sikhs which they lost in the end. A Loss at Panipat ends Afghan ambitions and expansions then and there.

Many of the problems you mention of Marathas were prominent after the Panipat battle, not before it. Sure fragments of it existed but not to the degree you mention.

@Kaushlendra pratap singh has already raised very good points about Marathas challenges and administration. Even if Marathas did know nothing about Administration, which is false, they really didnt even need to think that more further, because Mughal administrative structure is still there and Marathas can reappropriate for their own needs.

Marathas winning and taking over India is very much a likely prospect, infact it is more likely than OTL Mughal conquest, where some wayward warlord from Central Asia (Babur) is able to establish one of the most impressive Indian Empires in Medieval Era

 

[Cregan]

Alright, lets say they pull it off - what does a Maratha Empire that encompasses the whole of India by the early 1800s look like?

 

[Kaushlendra pratap singh]

Alright, let's say they pull it off - what does a Maratha Empire that encompasses the whole of India by the early 1800s look like?

A bureaucratic nightmare made up of brahmin, there is general resentment in the rising lower class, by the mid of 1850, there may be a major revolt against Peshwa, which help in mitigating the problem in lower-class peasants.
Central bureaucracy will be open to the general public.
Peshwa/ruler being Brahmin will give birth to an early end of the legally sanction caste system.
Formalization of Hinduism by the Peshwa.
Maratha Noble depended on their literate woman Mb on day-to-day administrative matters, ruling and trade.
Jaipur king Swai Jaisingh already translated tradition of translating western scientific book into Sanskrit(no other eastern country had done it until 1850,), a stable 100 years from 1760 to 1850 will give new arms scientific and industrial in India.
Due to focal point of world trade Indian banker will remain the most well-off of in the world and will fund colonisation of Africa .

 

[Sardar]

I have my doubts that a Maratha victory at Panipat alone could save the Empire. At their core, the Empire especially during this period mainly focused on looting and was becoming more decentralized, not less. That doesn’t discount great change that could be implemented should the Peshwas claim the throne of Delhi for themselves, however. But a lot will have to happen before administrative reforms can take place to save the Empires territorial integrity, seeing as the overthrow of the Mughals will thoroughly disrupt the status quo in India.

 

[Cregan]

I have my doubts that a Maratha victory at Panipat alone could save the Empire. At their core, the Empire especially during this period mainly focused on looting and was becoming more decentralized, not less. That doesn’t discount great change that could be implemented should the Peshwas claim the throne of Delhi for themselves, however. But a lot will have to happen before administrative reforms can take place to save the Empires territorial integrity, seeing as the overthrow of the Mughals will thoroughly disrupt the status quo in India.

This is exactly my point too @Sardar thank you, but the others are implying that it will be a smooth takeover with little to no difficulty. I remain highly dubious.

 

[Mayukh]

I have my doubts that a Maratha victory at Panipat alone could save the Empire. At their core, the Empire especially during this period mainly focused on looting and was becoming more decentralized, not less. That doesn’t discount great change that could be implemented should the Peshwas claim the throne of Delhi for themselves, however. But a lot will have to happen before administrative reforms can take place to save the Empires territorial integrity, seeing as the overthrow of the Mughals will thoroughly disrupt the status quo in India.

Exactly.

 

[Sardar]

Because Marathas, despite their losses at Panipat still persisted and were the strongest force in the Subcontinent, Afghans, who though did win Panipat then went into a brutal war with Sikhs which they lost in the end. A Loss at Panipat ends Afghan ambitions and expansions then and there.

Thing is though the Marathas also fragmented and weren't able to effectively expand after the battle. While I have no doubt a victory at Panipat would help to unite the Empire, they weren't exactly known for their skill in establishing long-term central rule over anywhere in India.

Many of the problems you mention of Marathas were prominent after the Panipat battle, not before it. Sure fragments of it existed but not to the degree you mention.

Yea but what happens when Maratha conquests inevitably begin to stall somewhere else in India (the South or Bengal being the most likely). I will grant that should the Peshwas displace the Timurids on the throne of Delhi, and absorb the Mughal administrative structure, then they will have an easier time of it than otherwise. But that's a pretty damn big if. I mean who's to say if the Peshwas replace the Mughals, then the Nawabs of Oudh or Bengal don't try and make a play for the Imperial Throne, placing a son of theirs on it? Or even that when the Marathas try and subdue the South, there isn't a massive rebellion in North India to reclaim the throne for the Mughals?

I'm not saying a Maratha India is impossible, but I am saying it's hard because of how the Marathas operated IOTL, and how the Mughals were viewed.

Marathas winning and taking over India is very much a likely prospect, infact it is more likely than OTL Mughal conquest, where some wayward warlord from Central Asia (Babur) is able to establish one of the most impressive Indian Empires in Medieval Era

I would agree with you if the Marathas didn't alienate a lot of India by looting so much instead of conquering and incorporating into their Empire.

Jaipur king Swai Jaisingh already translated tradition of translating western scientific book into Sanskrit(no other eastern country had done it until 1850,), a stable 100 years from 1760 to 1850 will give new arms scientific and industrial in India.

Disregarding the other points which have varying degrees of plausibility in my opinion, to believe this India will have a stable hundred years after is not something remotely plausible, with European influence growing every day in Asia. Not even Japan and Hawaii could manage this, and they were literally on the other side of the planet from Europe.

 

[Brahman]

Thing is though the Marathas also fragmented and weren't able to effectively expand after the battle. While I have no doubt a victory at Panipat would help to unite the Empire, they weren't exactly known for their skill in establishing long-term central rule over anywhere in India.

But they were known for their longevity, Fragments of Maratha empire survived till 1950 across before the reorganization of states, while nothing comparable existed for Mughals with the closest being Hyderabad but even it did not really patronize or look upto Mughal like how Schindas, Barodas or even Thanjavur did to Marathas. Now rivalries between Marathas would always exist but it would not be deadly to its unity like you mention, It would be curbed due to victory in Panipat and the Authority of Peshwa and Chattrapathi would become much more firm.

Yea but what happens when Maratha conquests inevitably begin to stall somewhere else in India (the South or Bengal being the most likely). I will grant that should the Peshwas displace the Timurids on the throne of Delhi, and absorb the Mughal administrative structure, then they will have an easier time of it than otherwise. But that's a pretty damn big if. I mean who's to say if the Peshwas replace the Mughals, then the Nawabs of Oudh or Bengal don't try and make a play for the Imperial Throne, placing a son of theirs on it? Or even that when the Marathas try and subdue the South, there isn't a massive rebellion in North India to reclaim the throne for the Mughals?

I'm not saying a Maratha India is impossible, but I am saying it's hard because of how the Marathas operated IOTL, and how the Mughals were viewed.

Marathas were already the top dog of Indian Subcontinent, Bengal just lost a few years ago to British and was in terminal decline and Awadh was a small fry by comparison. Marathas even after Panipat loss were the preeminent power of subcontinent, even the British acknowledged it and treated Marathas as their main enemy. If they win Panipat and eventually take over, there would literally be no one to oppose them like you mention. Sure they can dream but Marathas would be too entrenched to be disposed.

Maratha India is much, much more possible and likely than British India, Delhi Sultanate India or even perhaps Mughal India

I would agree with you if the Marathas didn't alienate a lot of India by looting so much instead of conquering and incorporating into their Empire.

But that really did not significantly hamper them as people suggest, Maratha sure were hated but their power was near absolute before Panipat. Even after Panipat they quickly consolidated

 

[Sardar]

But they were known for their longevity, Fragments of Maratha empire survived till 1950 across before the reorganization of states, while nothing comparable existed for Mughals with the closest being Hyderabad but even it did not really patronize or look upto Mughal like how Schindas, Barodas or even Thanjavur did to Marathas. Now rivalries between Marathas would always exist but it would not be deadly to its unity like you mention, It would be curbed due to victory in Panipat and the Authority of Peshwa and Chattrapathi would become much more firm.

I'm not so sure about that. It's not like the Scindias or Holkars were loyal to the Bhonsle or Peshwa dynasties, but IIRC in Hyderabad the Kutba was still read in the Mughal Emperor's name even until the 20th century. The Maratha states were independent dynasties which desired power and estates solely for themselves.

Marathas were already the top dog of Indian Subcontinent, Bengal just lost a few years ago to British and was in terminal decline and Awadh was a small fry by comparison. Marathas even after Panipat loss were the preeminent power of subcontinent, even the British acknowledged it and treated Marathas as their main enemy. If they win Panipat and eventually take over, there would literally be no one to oppose them like you mention. Sure they can dream but Marathas would be too entrenched to be disposed.

What about rebellions in the South and North India? If the British don't consolidate in Bengal and their conquests stall, what happens to large parts of India where loyalty to the Mughals was strong? And it's not like the North Indian Muslims would take the Mughals being deposed lightly, either.

 

[Brahman]

not so sure about that. It's not like the Scindias or Holkars were loyal to the Bhonsle or Peshwa dynasties, but IIRC in Hyderabad the Kutba was still read in the Mughal Emperor's name even until the 20th century. The Maratha states were independent dynasties which desired power and estates solely for themselves

The point I was making that Marathas were strong enough and had longevity to survive and leave its imprint across the Subcontinent in the form of various states compared to Mughals. It is to just show that Maratha states are also capable of existing and would not fold like people suggesting

What about rebellions in the South and North India? If the British don't consolidate in Bengal and their conquests stall, what happens to large parts of India where loyalty to the Mughals was strong? And it's not like the North Indian Muslims would take the Mughals being deposed lightly, either.

There would be minimal to none, because tgere is no one left to oppose, Everyone is subdued or an ally of Maratha for it to happen

 

[Kaushlendra pratap singh]

I'm not so sure about that. It's not like the Scindias or Holkars were loyal to the Bhonsle or Peshwa dynasties

The problem occurred in 1790 due to main line of succession in Peshwa Holker and Scindia died(it happen due to the defeat of Panipat) and new rulers of this place were never trained in the way of Peshwai, on the other place new Peshwa was the son of a kin killer Raghunath rao .

 

[Kaushlendra pratap singh]

IIRC in Hyderabad the Kutba was still read in the Mughal Emperor's name even until the 20th

In the name of Aurangzeb.

 

[MagicalPhantom345]

Religion and Geopolitical defence were two of the prime reasons for the mass killing, if Afghans did loose the battle, first is eliminated entirely and the second is greatly mitigated. There might be killing, but no different to other regular killing across the subcontinent

I am of the opinion that the Peshwa would leave the Sikhs be return in tribute.
But eventually an ambitious Sikh Raj may look to forge his own empire with backing from the British or the Russians.

 

[Brahman]

I am of the opinion that the Peshwa would leave the Sikhs be return in tribute.
But eventually an ambitious Sikh Raj may look to forge his own empire with backing from the British or the Russians.

That seems reasonable, though Sikhs would have worse luck against Marathas than against Afghans in any war due to sheer size of Marathas compared to Sikhs. Their conflicts would not be so bloody like Sikh Afghan war as the major aspect, religion along with ethnicity is removed along with Marathas being amicable with Sikhs compared to Afghans

 

[prani]

Ok, so a stable Maratha hegemony over India after victory at Panipat is dependent on a few factors:

1. Administrative reforms, including a new northern capital. This would simply mean that they takeover Delhi once they abolish the Mughal throne and replace it with a Maratha imperial throne (but won’t shifting the Peshwa’s seat of power away from the Maratha heartland of Pune make him lose influence?)
2. Buy-in from the Brahmin and Jain bankers (who habitually used to fuel succession conflicts between Mughal princes - will they now fund succession wars among Maratha chiefs?)
2. Easy follow-up conquests of the northern and eastern Nawabs, especially the rich region of Bengal (yes Nawabi power will be shattered by being defeated alongside their Durrani allies, but the follow-up Maratha abolition of the Mughal throne will provoke the surviving Nawabs, even in their weakened state, to fight against the Marathas - will this not stymie the Maratha consolidation of the north and destabilise India?)
3. Rajputana staying mostly been cowed, (but the Rajputs were always loathe to submit to Maratha rule - won’t they rebel alongside the Nawabs once the Marathas abolish the Mughal throne?)
4. Maratha expansion into Punjab (but will they end up fighting the Sikhs? And this also means the Marathas now have to defend a long northwestern border against the Afghans - will both these things cause overextension?)
5. While all this Maratha consolidation is happening over North India, the remaining South Indian states also need to be subdued (but won’t they fight back and cause further overextension? Hyderabad will definitely fight once the Mughal throne is abolished, although I agree that Hyder Ali/Tipu Sultan won’t rise to power in Mysore and transform it into a military powerhouse)

I’m still not convinced. But I will say this - if the Marathas do manage to follow-up Panipat by consolidating all of India (without facing major rebellions - a big if) while still improving their administration (this is crucial), the British (or any other European colonisers) will be unable to conquer the Subcontinent from them. A successful Maratha Empire that encompasses all of India would be too powerful to colonise.

My logic is simple, if British East India company can conquer India, Marathas can do the same, like British East India company didn't do something special, they just continued mostly the policy of the predecessor empires. Serious reforms began only after 1870s just look at old indian statute they all date to 1870s, prior to that was a complex patchwork of regulations and customs.
EIC just played politics really well, in any other timeline this may not happen, say a incompetent governor general, the whole thing would come crashing down.
Problem with most people including people in India is that they view period of expansion and conquest from 1700-1880s from the pov of 1890s when British rule was firmly established and they have for a few decades engaged in social engineering, even i was guilty of the same the more i learnt the more i felt, it was stupid luck and happenstance, it wasn't predestined for south Asia to be colonized that too by the British.