Maratha Empire without Plassy

Had the British not conquered Bengal in 1759, how would the Maratha Empire developed?

The Maratha's had just become the dominant power in India by 1749. Fate intervened in Bengal a decade later, giving Britain a foothold which, by 1818, would extend to the whole of India and destroy the Marathas.

If Britain never gained hegemony, how would the Maratha develope?

For decades, it had been decentralizing.

Was the Maratha's fate that of the Muslim Mughal Empire, with the central authority ceding more and more power to the local Princes until they were defacto independent?

Is there any realistic change, absent European intervention, that the Maratha Empire might re-centralize into a legitimate federalized Hindu power?
 
Without Plessey, the English are still only one player in the game of thrones on the subcontinent, and thusly will have to be prudent in their actions lest France or a native power swoop in and mess things up.
Without British exclusivity there are many powers on the subcontinent still recieving European support, which means there cannot be complacency among the kingdoms. The Bengals are still likely at the very least semi-independent, as is Mysore planting stronger enemies across the continent. The Marathas, with their large empire are eventually going to decentralize the more land they procure, as seen under Madhavrao I, and it is a general tendency of Indian Empires to devolve power to their increasingly diverse territories.
However, seeing the stronger neighbors and tendency to decentralize the larger an empire gets, The Marathi Empire is unlikely to get as big as it did, which ultimately is a good thing; smaller territory, more cohesion. It will likely remain one of multiple powers on the subcontinent playing and being played off by a plethora of native and foreign powers.
 
Buxar was more important than Plassey in the development of British hegemony in India so without Plassey, ultimately British influence is more vulnerable and limited to Bengal unless something drastic occurs.

And quite frankly, the power of the Marathas is a lot weaker than the Mughals even taking face value. Their claim of being a 'Hindu' regime falls flat when one realises that the Maratha regime was quick to sack temples outside of Maharashtra; in fact Maratha doctrine was always to see India as a giant raiding ground outside of Maharashtra; residents of North India during the Third Battle for Panipat supported the Afghans more than the Marathas. And they had no real history of being a centralised empire of note; as you say they were decentralised; further, their growth was firmly halted in the Third Battle of Panipat, so Plassey does little to change anything to do with the Marathas' decline.
 
Last edited:
Top