Could the Maratha Empire have survived?

The Emperor was a joke, his own governors had started carving their own paths.

The status of the emperor was not. If they overthrew him, it would cause a lot of anger from Persianized Indians. This status is enormous, and the Marathas of the 1770s had a real need to avoid this enormous anger lest they lose the support of the Nizam and other Muslims in their ranks, even if absorbing the bureaucracy of the Mughals would prove beneficial. The Marathas of the 1760s with a victory at Panipat are in a much stronger position to abolish the Mughal Empire, as they can withstand anger from Muslims and Persianized Indians without suffering reversals.
 

longsword14

Banned
, as they can withstand anger from Muslims and Persianized Indians without suffering reversals.
What exactly is even the point of the title when the person on the throne is clearly useless? Couldn't the Marathas simply do what the Brits did, all the while the previous Mughal underlings go on their own ways or find accommodation?
 
What exactly is even the point of the title when the person on the throne is clearly useless?

Status among Persianized Indians. Of course, the Marathas abhorred India's Persian legacy with their staunchly Hinduist policies, but the same is not true among the Nizam, the Nawabs, or other "vassals" of the Mughal Empire.

Couldn't the Marathas simply do what the Brits did, all the while the previous Mughal underlings go on their own ways or find accommodation?

The British could only do what they did because the Emperor allied with rebels, and they took the imperial palace and turned it to ruin. On the other hand, the act of abolishing the throne would likely cause a Persianized Indian rebellion within the Maratha Empire, a large short-term crisis that the Marathas cannot afford in the 1770s. In the 1760s, with the Durrani pretty much destroyed in the case of the Marathas winning Panipat, such a rebellion can be withstood by the Marathas.
 
@maidros Any more thoughts on this subject?

Would a PoD of Haidar Khan succeeding in assassinating Sadashivrao on the 25th October 1759 work? IIRC this would allow Raghunathrao to lead the northern expedition. Would he be a better general than Sadashiv? And how does Sadashiv dying impact the ATL war with the Nizam?

EDIT Does a repulsion of the Afghans even fix the long-term problem? What stops Abdali from waiting and invading again later like he did multiple times in the past?
 
Last edited:
@Indicus Where on earth are you getting your `history' from? Tipu was as much a looter as the Marathas, if not more. He looted Thanjavur so thoroughly in the Second Mysore War that revenues fell by 80-90% for the next several years, with widespread depopulation. In fact, both Tipu & his father are legendary for looting. They so thoroughly despoiled Malabar during the 30 years they held it that even today, Malabarese use the Mysorean rule as symbols of misrule. Same goes for Coorg. Tipu thoroughly depopulated Coorg, hunting down everyone there like animals & settling them into a state slavery elsewhere. The Brits didn't get a whole lot of allies in south India for no reason. Tipu & his father had become utterly hated in the south by nearly everyone, & not because of their success (Smaller kings didn't care whether they were ruled by Tipu, British, Nizam or Marathas. But Tipu being a total barbarian with them upset them all thoroughly). The idea that the Marathas were a bunch of looters, while Tipu was a model of modern rule is arrant nonsense at its best. Can I request you to read Michaud (if you can read French)? It will tell you what Tipu's own French allies (forget his British enemies) thought of him.

As for the rockets, it was a common feature of both western & south Indian warfare. The Marathas also used rockets aplenty at Panipat. Tipu didn't introduce it; his father also used the same rockets that Tipu used. In fact, almost all French officers of Tipu (either directly in their own writings, or via Michaud), are contemptuous of Tipu's artillery (belongs to the time of Machiavelli, according to Michaud). The first experience of the British was in the First Mysore War, which is why Mysore gets credited with the rocket artillery.

As for `modern Mysore' winning against the `pillaging Marathas', AFTER the Marathas lost at Panipat (where they lost their best troops), Haidar was so thoroughly crushed by them at Chinakurali in 1771 that Haidar had to agree to a humiliating peace (restoring all Maratha lands north of the Tungabhadra, & paying a huge indemnity to the Marathas). All Haidar had left when Madhava Rao was done with him was his capital & a ton of debts to everyone, including the Marathas.

As for the Marathas pillaging, it had nothing to do with their administration. Their administration was a continuation of the Mughal administration - they hardly made any real changes in it. In fact, they did cut down on the slave-taking & slave-trading for which the Mughals were notorious. Nor did they run out of lands to pillage. In fact, they had the rich Indo-Gangetic plains to pillage (which they hardly touched). No, their problems were that after the death of Madhava Rao, they were totally disunited with everyone & his grandmother vying for the thrones, putting up contending candidates in smaller neighbouring states, thus weakening their own allies with internecine warfare, etc.

@123456789blaaa
The Marathas can succeed if they remain united. You need Madhava Rao like Peshwas ruling for about 50 years. Then they can easily win. However, Maratha unity, given their essentially free chieftains, is hard to achieve, unless you have a strong Peshwa like Baji Rao or Madhava Rao on the throne.

As for the Afghans, Abdali won at Panipat but was so weakened in the bargain that he never posed a serious threat again. Even the disunited Sikhs were sufficient to beat him off again & again after 1761 (he did invade several times, but was beaten off by the Sikhs each time).
 
Status among Persianized Indians. Of course, the Marathas abhorred India's Persian legacy with their staunchly Hinduist policies, but the same is not true among the Nizam, the Nawabs, or other "vassals" of the Mughal Empire.

Can you quote these `Hinduist policies' of the Marathas who `abhorred Persian legacy'? The Marathas used the same Persian script & language in their administration that the Mughals did.

For the Marathas, the puppet emperor was useful because nearly everyone (including the British) was `acting' for the emperor in the 18th & 19th centuries. This goes into the complex politics of the 18th century. The Marathas were collecting taxes in the name of the Mughals & they wanted to retain that fiction to collect taxes from other places not under their control too. They wanted the Mughal emperor as a meat shield for their actions, because Bengal, Awadh & Nizam all recognised (theoretically at least) the Mughal emperor as their overlord. If they became strong enough to do away with the puppet, they would happily throw him out. As would anyone else. It has nothing to do with any `Persianised legacy'. Tipu wanted his recognition to come from the Ottoman emperor (the Caliph, technically), because getting his authority to rule would mean that he would be subordinate to the Nizam of Hyderabad, the technical Mughal governor of everything in the Deccan outside the Maratha territory.

The British could only do what they did because the Emperor allied with rebels, and they took the imperial palace and turned it to ruin. On the other hand, the act of abolishing the throne would likely cause a Persianized Indian rebellion within the Maratha Empire, a large short-term crisis that the Marathas cannot afford in the 1770s. In the 1760s, with the Durrani pretty much destroyed in the case of the Marathas winning Panipat, such a rebellion can be withstood by the Marathas.

Okay, who constitutes this `Persianised Indian' class? If you are talking Nawab of Awadh, the Rohillas, they were on the side of Abdali in Panipat. If he is defeated, they die with him. Marathas wouldn't forgive them, certainly not Najib Khan Rohilla, who would likely be strung up.
 
@maidros From my reading, it seems that Nanasaheb managed to build up a strong base of central power by distributing land grants to various families (the Holkars, Scindias, etc). This granted him lots of personal loyalty. It was only after Panipat that you see a division in power between the central government and the two families of the Holkars and Scindias in particular. if the Maratha beat Abdali, do you see a more central government evolving?

Do you have any ideas on how to have the Maratha win against Abdali? I'm favorable towards the PoD I pointed out above because I've also come across the constant theme of Sadashivrao's strategy being completely wrong for beating Abdali. It actually seems as if the Maratha were in the same place the Mughal armies were when fighting them previously. A big, unwieldy army venturing forth and then having their supply lines cut off by a much more mobile force, which then weakened them enough to be beaten. Given that Abdali always had to retreat back to Afghanistan anyways, I would think a strategy of attacking his supply lines and then harassing him as he retreated would work. The inability to coordinate the different sections of the army properly (the cavalry and trained infantry in particular) emerges as another big problem which would be minimized if a decisive battle were avoided.

Another PoD would be Abdali dying in the cholera outbreak amongst his troops in his 1757 Indian expedition. I'm unsure which PoD better or if they would even work. The latter PoD has the advantage of Sadashiv being seemingly quite competent when in his element in the Deccan. I would think that his strategy would be suited against the EIC in the Deccan while the "attacking supply lines" method would fail miserably. Sadashivrao was also involved in some of the first military modernization (the Gardi Musketeers) while the more cavalry-oriented Maratha families seem more conservative. Would Ragunathrao fail miserably in the Deccan or against EIC Bengal?

There seems to be a lot more material on the Maratha after Panipat and about Shivaji then about the reign of Nanasaheb, unfortunately. The reason I'm asking you all these questions is that you're one of the few people I've seen online who has much substantial knowledge at all (that isn't nationalist dickwaving bullcrap). Do you have any idea on where I can research the answers to my questions?
 
@maidros From my reading, it seems that Nanasaheb managed to build up a strong base of central power by distributing land grants to various families (the Holkars, Scindias, etc). This granted him lots of personal loyalty. It was only after Panipat that you see a division in power between the central government and the two families of the Holkars and Scindias in particular. if the Maratha beat Abdali, do you see a more central government evolving?

Do you have any ideas on how to have the Maratha win against Abdali? I'm favorable towards the PoD I pointed out above because I've also come across the constant theme of Sadashivrao's strategy being completely wrong for beating Abdali. It actually seems as if the Maratha were in the same place the Mughal armies were when fighting them previously. A big, unwieldy army venturing forth and then having their supply lines cut off by a much more mobile force, which then weakened them enough to be beaten. Given that Abdali always had to retreat back to Afghanistan anyways, I would think a strategy of attacking his supply lines and then harassing him as he retreated would work. The inability to coordinate the different sections of the army properly (the cavalry and trained infantry in particular) emerges as another big problem which would be minimized if a decisive battle were avoided.

Another PoD would be Abdali dying in the cholera outbreak amongst his troops in his 1757 Indian expedition. I'm unsure which PoD better or if they would even work. The latter PoD has the advantage of Sadashiv being seemingly quite competent when in his element in the Deccan. I would think that his strategy would be suited against the EIC in the Deccan while the "attacking supply lines" method would fail miserably. Sadashivrao was also involved in some of the first military modernization (the Gardi Musketeers) while the more cavalry-oriented Maratha families seem more conservative. Would Ragunathrao fail miserably in the Deccan or against EIC Bengal?

There seems to be a lot more material on the Maratha after Panipat and about Shivaji then about the reign of Nanasaheb, unfortunately. The reason I'm asking you all these questions is that you're one of the few people I've seen online who has much substantial knowledge at all (that isn't nationalist dickwaving bullcrap). Do you have any idea on where I can research the answers to my questions?

Marathas were united when there was a strong Peshwa, disunited when the Peshwa was weak. Same was with the Mughals. Their problem was lack of institutions that could promote unity. They need those institutions. Otherwise, they will fall apart when they get a weak(er) Peshwa.
 
Top