Flocculencio
Donor
Even though not really part of the Subcontinent I'd have to vote for the Pathans.
Jezail for the win.
There shall be neither a rupee nor a virgin left between the Deccan and the Khyber Gate...
Even though not really part of the Subcontinent I'd have to vote for the Pathans.
Jezail for the win.
No they largely broke Mughal power without any interference. The main factor was the extremism of the Mughal emperor of the time who alienated much of the empire's non-Muslim supporters.
However the Mahratta's fairly quickly splintered into various regional clans and failed to maintain any central organisation. Britain was able to use that with a measure of divide and rule but that was after we had defeated the French challenge.
Things might have been different if not for a severe defeat the Mahratta's suffered by Afghan invaders in 1761 near Delhi, if I remember rightly. This seriously set back their power but don't know enough about them to say how things had gone if they had won or how much of a change would have been required for that.
I still think that one problem is that there's no sense of Indian-ness. In the Grman lands there was at least a base concept of German-ness but there was pretty much no such thing as an Indian until the mid-19th century. This means that whoever goes on a conquest spree is always going to be seen as just another foreigner by anyone outside his immediate region.
And Rome for the Hellenistic world, and the Ottoman Sultanate for the Dar al-Islam...
For a Hindu rather than a Muslim unifier (go Marathas!) wasn't there a sense of us-vs-them re the Muslims? Or for somebody in, say, the Tamil deep south, being ruled by a foreign Hindu vs a local Muslim is six of one, half a dozen of the other?
Bruce
Also let's not forget that the European powers already had footholds in South India (yes, everyone always forgets South India)- Goa, Pondicherry, Cochin, Madras etc.
The problem with Nepal is China. The Nepalis were most interested in conquering Tibet rather than Oudh and then any more of India (though they did get around to that eventually) and always butted heads with China over it.This might sound a little weird but: Nepal.
If you somehow get the East India Company to collapse during the early 19th Century, when there would be at least a primitive sense of Indian-ness. This might happen if Nepal went to war with the Company at the same time the company went to war with the Marathas, and brought about the Nepal-Punjab-Maratha alliance together (This was attempted, in OTL but did not come about) and dealt a pretty hard blow to the Company, enough to cause the Indian soldiers to revolt.
With the British driven back to Bengal, and Gurkha Expansion into the Gangetic Plains. We have a bi-polar India with two powers: Nepal and Maratha empires (much like Austria and Prussia) in Germany. Nepal fits the Prussian model: Martial, religiously Homogeneous, somewhat peripheral to the nation, and unaffected by foreign influence... the usual "pure, austere warriors" stereotype.
Hey, this might be the forum's first Nepal-wank idea, too
Hey, this might be the forum's first Nepal-wank idea, too
The problem with Nepal is China. The Nepalis were most interested in conquering Tibet rather than Oudh and then any more of India (though they did get around to that eventually) and always butted heads with China over it.
Hmm, maybe another WI that requires a Balkanised China![]()
The problem with Nepal is China. The Nepalis were most interested in conquering Tibet rather than Oudh and then any more of India (though they did get around to that eventually) and always butted heads with China over it.
Hmm, maybe another WI that requires a Balkanised China![]()
Don't mention it to Faeelin or Hendryk.![]()
If I recall, Aurangzeb wasn't so much an extremist as he was simply more orthodox a Muslim than his predecessors, who were much more accepting of Hinduism. But, you're right, the Marathas managed to carve themselves a de facto empire within the Empire by the 1700s almost entirely without outside interference (the Europeans, while interested, remained on the periphery at this point).
Not so much "Britain" as specifically the East India Company, which should really be heavily emphasized... the Mughals would have remained, decentralized and weakened, had the Company not decided to become more aggressive and force out the middleman, specifically the rulers of Bengal (I believe they were called the Murshids?). Would the take over of India proceeded at all had the Company not had itself appointed Diwan?
No, you have to go back earlier than that. The Empire was steadily weakening, but technically still in good shape, until the Sacking of Delhi by the Persians in 1737. That broke the Empire's back, they never recovered from that. The British moving in and Third Panipat removed whatever power was left.
Hm...
If the East India Company lost, though, and the Empire was allowed to carry on... based on what was happening before, I'd say the Marathas would continue to increase their influence/power before ultimately usurping the Mughals entirely. The Emperor was already their puppet... if you could avoid the 1737 and 1761 attacks on Delhi, I'd bet it wouldn't take very long for a strong Maratha leader to appear, take the throne, and move to recentralize the empire.
To a large degree but the government was always involved to some degree. It put a lot of effort in helping the EIC overcome the French for instance and with much of the latter battles. Similarly with the trial of Hastings for alleged corruption. There was possibly an opportunity gap when, with the initial French direct influence defeated from ~1785, and the country more concerned with the Revolutionary and Napoleonic threats, the government in London was less concerned with events in India. Might have been an argument during that period that serious military set-backs for the EIC during that period might have been of less concern for London. Provided that it wasn't supplanted by another European power and maintained economic influence.
I don't think what London thought had much impact on what the EIC did until the 1830s at the earliest. The Hastings trial you mention was an apt example of how they couldn't make anything stick. The Maratha Wars which sealed Britain's hold on the subcontinent happened in almost total isolation w.r.t. the European conflict, so you can't use home-islands arguments to justify changes in India...in my opinion.
Of course, the Punjab technically isn't on the subcontinent, but by the same token, nowadays Prussia is technically part of Poland.
There shall be neither a rupee nor a virgin left between the Deccan and the Khyber Gate...