Which Indian Empire can create a Indian Empire?

Which Empire or Kingdom could unify India?

  • Maratha Empire

    Votes: 19 31.7%
  • Mughal Empire

    Votes: 33 55.0%
  • Sikh Empire

    Votes: 4 6.7%
  • Hyderabad State

    Votes: 1 1.7%
  • Bengal Sultanate

    Votes: 1 1.7%
  • Oudh State

    Votes: 1 1.7%
  • Rajputs

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Ahom kingdom

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Kingdom of Mysore

    Votes: 1 1.7%
  • Kingdom of Cochin

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Kingdom of Travancore

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    60
If there was no European conquest of India, like how the British did it, and just small trading posts, like British Bombay, Portuguese Goa or French Pondicherry, which Indian Empire has the best chance of unifying India?
 
I mean the Mughals did do it- it just didn’t last, so I’m gonna say that’s your best bet on the whole.

If your pod is less european influence, then the Mughals have had their collapse. Mysore could have done great things- even today areas in the former boundaries of Mysore display less corruption, lower crime rates they’re just overall better, but at the same time, I’m doubting their ability to take the Hindi belt as that’s the real agricultural and population core of the subcontinent.

So we have to look at people based in the hindi belt. The Rajputs are out primarily because expecting Rajputs to unify is like herding cats, the Mughals were actually making a little bit of a comeback under Shah Alam so maybe that’s a thing but it’s very unlikely, and that leaves Oudh and Bengal of which Bengal has the bigger population and a much bigger economy. The problem is, any rising state in the 18th century will probably keep feudalism to make their rule more stable in its initial stages, meaning there’s room for vassals to turn rebellious, and overthrow you in turn, so you’d need to end that whole system. Also in a post Mughal system, everyone will be posing as the legitimate representatives of the Mughals, which means that if they did create a centralised state, the Mughals have to be at least very close to the centre and that means that it’s much easier for them to make a comeback or use the conquerors authority to increase their own.
 
If it’s not the Mughals, the Marathas probably have the best shot at it—they owned a fairly large swathe of the subcontinent for a while and were only defeated because the British were able to exploit internal divisions to gain native allies. And they kept pace with Europeans in technology, especially artillery.

If not them, there’s an outside chance for the Nizamate of Hyderabad simply by virtue of being the largest and most powerful princely state, but none of the Nizams ever showed much territorial ambition outside of their existing borders AFAIK.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
Have Aurangzeb butterflied away and the more just,far sighted,wise and secular Dara Shikoh take the throne after Shah Jahan. There would not be much wrath from the Hindu and Sikh populations. And there you have a more unified India.
 
If the European powers had not succeeded in conquering the subcontinent but were confined to a few trading posts, the most likely native power that could have established an Indian Empire was the Marathas. The Marathas had established their power in Central and North India and had controlled Delhi itself. They had spread their power over half of the subcontinent. The Mughal Empire was in decline after the death of Aurangzeb and there were no successors who were able enough to turn the tide. The Maratha leaders had men and materials to defeat the other contestants and what they lacked was the unity. It was their internal quarrels and the mutual distrust that prevented them from becoming the masters of the subcontinent.
 
The Vijayanagara Empire was destroyed in 1565, barely eight years after Akbar had won the second battle of Panipat and started the second innings of the Mughal Empire. At that time the European powers were confined to certain trading posts and the peak time of the Mughals had not yet arrived. The contest for the supremacy in the subcontinent, as we understand commonly took place after the decline of the Mughal Empire. That might be the reason why the Vijayanagar was not included. The states mentioned are all the states that existed in this particular period.
If you consider in a broad way, the contest for supremacy in different parts of the subcontinent had gone on between several powers through out the history. Magadha, Kosala, Mauryas, Kalinga, Cholas, Cheras, Pandyas, Satavahanas, Kushanas, Guptas, Vakatakas, Vardhanas, Chalukyas, Yadavas, Rashtrakutas, Gurjaras, Pratiharas, Palas, Pallavas, Kakatiyas, Kadambas, Hoysalas, Several Rajput dynasties, Several Sultans, Nawabs etc. were all players in the game. The given list involves only a particular period and the Vijayanagar does not belong to this time frame.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
You forgot Mauryas and the contemporary ones like Indo-Greeks (They are also Indian as they are also rooted in India). Kushans are an another one.
 
Mauryas were mentioned, how to leave out the dynasty established by the great Chandragupta Maurya and produced the greatest emperor of India, Devanampriya Priyadarsi Ashoka himself. Not only that, no future empire ever covered five million square kilometers, the largest in the subcontinent. Indo-Greeks were left out, but many others were also left out. It is not easy to mention all the dynasties and the kingdoms, even prominent ones that came up here in the last two and a half millenia.
 
Top