So as many of you know, I am already constructing a TL based on India, Mughal in character. However, I also wanted to take a look at a period which is generally written off for the subcontinent: the 1800s.
Generally 1757 is looked at as the end of independent Indian action at the expense of European powers. I just wanted to explore the historically powerful states, and even general uncertainty of the period.
For one, just to return to the 1700s, Plassey actually involved quite little fighting. Compared to the so-called forces involved, a miniscule amount took place in the fighting, and fewer still were casualties. The spread of British rule in India was primarily political and administrative in character. While the military undoubtedly played an important part, I would argue the political role was infinitely more important.
It is looking at this that I take a look at one of the few powers that could have actually defeated the Army of Bengal during Company rule: That of the Sikh Empire.
The Sikh Empire's largest weakness was probably administrative, in the sense that succession was never completely established. They largely inherited the administration of the Mughal whom they absolutely hated, and yet- they established arguably the strongest cohesive fighting force on the subcontinent. And with Ranjit Singh at the helm, there is someone with the skill and temperament to act as a bulwark against the East India Company. ZGenerally speaking this was never a real problem, as Company and Sikh interests tended to align vis-à-vis most issues. It was after Ranjit Singh's death where the issues concerning both start to fester.
I found it interesting that the defeat of the Sikhs in the First Anglo-Sikh War was attributed to subterfuge. Once again in the Battle of Ferozeshah, we see small casualty numbers in contrast to the forces actually deployed. Several historians also believe that Lal Singh and Ten Singh were not fully loyal to the Sikh Empire and were bribed by the British. They cite Ten Singh's lack of action when the British forces at Ferozeshah were divided, instead allowing Company reinforcements to back up the Governor-General's forces.
Whether or not that accusation is true, I think it is an interesting part of Company history that is seldom looked at (on this site). The Khalsa was a modern fighting force, and benefited from European doctrine and training. It had the capacity to defeat the British.
Of course the fact that the situation in Afghanistan is just as interesting during this time with the conflict between Shah Shuja and Amir Dost Mohammad Khan, and later between the Amir and his own son, are intriguing. For this, I would recommend reading William Dalrymple's "Return of the King'. But that does not discount the Sikhs, and the possibilities they had, if we look at alternate history.
The rise of the Sikh Empire is an interesting part of Indian history, and shows that Indian independent action was not moribund post-Plassey, but was in fact, strong. In many ways, the Indian Mutiny is simply an extension of this fact. And of course looking even before, to Mysore, which often does get a look, it must be admitted that Indian independent action was present to the middle of the nineteenth century, and the Company, far from easily taking over a sleeping giant, actually played a deft and clever diplomatic game in order to achieve the hegemony it did over the Indian subcontinent.
Personally, the subject has become a recent interest; I might pursue a TL concerning it; probably I'll keep notes or something as I continue on Cardamom Dreams, but I really did want to foster the discussion on this forum. Indian history is not as well-known here, but that shouldn't be a reason to altogether ignore it, or perhaps dilute it.
In any case, discussion is certainly welcome. These are just the thoughts of a rambling uni student.
Generally 1757 is looked at as the end of independent Indian action at the expense of European powers. I just wanted to explore the historically powerful states, and even general uncertainty of the period.
For one, just to return to the 1700s, Plassey actually involved quite little fighting. Compared to the so-called forces involved, a miniscule amount took place in the fighting, and fewer still were casualties. The spread of British rule in India was primarily political and administrative in character. While the military undoubtedly played an important part, I would argue the political role was infinitely more important.
It is looking at this that I take a look at one of the few powers that could have actually defeated the Army of Bengal during Company rule: That of the Sikh Empire.
The Sikh Empire's largest weakness was probably administrative, in the sense that succession was never completely established. They largely inherited the administration of the Mughal whom they absolutely hated, and yet- they established arguably the strongest cohesive fighting force on the subcontinent. And with Ranjit Singh at the helm, there is someone with the skill and temperament to act as a bulwark against the East India Company. ZGenerally speaking this was never a real problem, as Company and Sikh interests tended to align vis-à-vis most issues. It was after Ranjit Singh's death where the issues concerning both start to fester.
I found it interesting that the defeat of the Sikhs in the First Anglo-Sikh War was attributed to subterfuge. Once again in the Battle of Ferozeshah, we see small casualty numbers in contrast to the forces actually deployed. Several historians also believe that Lal Singh and Ten Singh were not fully loyal to the Sikh Empire and were bribed by the British. They cite Ten Singh's lack of action when the British forces at Ferozeshah were divided, instead allowing Company reinforcements to back up the Governor-General's forces.
Whether or not that accusation is true, I think it is an interesting part of Company history that is seldom looked at (on this site). The Khalsa was a modern fighting force, and benefited from European doctrine and training. It had the capacity to defeat the British.
Of course the fact that the situation in Afghanistan is just as interesting during this time with the conflict between Shah Shuja and Amir Dost Mohammad Khan, and later between the Amir and his own son, are intriguing. For this, I would recommend reading William Dalrymple's "Return of the King'. But that does not discount the Sikhs, and the possibilities they had, if we look at alternate history.
The rise of the Sikh Empire is an interesting part of Indian history, and shows that Indian independent action was not moribund post-Plassey, but was in fact, strong. In many ways, the Indian Mutiny is simply an extension of this fact. And of course looking even before, to Mysore, which often does get a look, it must be admitted that Indian independent action was present to the middle of the nineteenth century, and the Company, far from easily taking over a sleeping giant, actually played a deft and clever diplomatic game in order to achieve the hegemony it did over the Indian subcontinent.
Personally, the subject has become a recent interest; I might pursue a TL concerning it; probably I'll keep notes or something as I continue on Cardamom Dreams, but I really did want to foster the discussion on this forum. Indian history is not as well-known here, but that shouldn't be a reason to altogether ignore it, or perhaps dilute it.
In any case, discussion is certainly welcome. These are just the thoughts of a rambling uni student.