WI: The Marathas focus on South India

The Maratha Empire was able to briefly dominate North India in the late 1700s, before its various princes fought amongst each other and the Empire became a weak Confederacy prior to being conquered by the British. However, initially, at the time of the Maratha Empire's founder Shivaji, it didn't really focus on conquering North India. Instead, it looked to the south. According to History of Aurangzib Volume 4, which despite its name focuses on the Maratha Empire, Shivaji took a lot of time conquering the western coast up to Malabar and conquered a number of enclaves like Jinji and Thanjavur and by the time he died, he conquered quite a bit of South India. This is likely because the father of Shivaji, Shahaji, who was a quite notable Bijapuri general, conquered quite a bit of South India, such as Thanjavur, which he gave to Ekoji, another of his sons, to rule, and Shivaji wanted to match the achievements of his father. But, of course, this focus on South India was reversed, as the Marathas were struggling to retain independence against the Mughal Empire in the 1680s and 90s. By the time it recovered, the south was now dominated by fairly strong and quite sizeable states like Mysore and Travancore, as well as by Europeans. The north was clearly an easier target for expansionism, as it was in the middle of a bloody imperial collapse and there was less European influence.

So, assuming the north is still ruled by a strong, centralized, Mughal Empire, and the Marathas, or indeed most of South India, is not in the middle of a massive invasion, what if the Marathas continue to expand into South India in the 1680s and 90s? Could they potentially unify most of South India under their rule?
 
If Nader Shah never rises to the throne of Persia, then the Mughal Empire most likely won't be severely weakened by a disaster like the Battle of Karnal (1739). This could theoretically result in the scenario you're requesting, if after 1700.
 
Last edited:
If Nader Shah never rises to the throne of Persia, then the Mughal Empire most likely won't be severely weakened by a disaster like the Battle of Karnal (1729). This could theoretically result in the scenario you're requesting, if after 1700.

That's one way for sure. The Mughal decentralization was slowing before the Battle of Karnal, and that would act as a barrier against the Marathas' expansion north, thus forcing them to expand south.

But I was thinking about Prince Akbar's rebellion against Aurangzeb in c. 1680. According to The Rajput Rebellion against Aurangzeb by Robert C. Hallisey, “Had the young prince immediately coordinated his forces for an attack on his father at Ajmer, he could have easily won the Mughal throne because Alamgir had dismissed his commanders after his apparent victory against the Rajputs and was nearly defenceless. Instead of pressing the attack, however, Akbar dallied for two weeks while preparing his troops for the clash with Alamgir. In the interim, the emperor regrouped the imperial forces at Ajmer and welcomed the returning armies of Shahabuddin Khan, Hamid Khan, and Prince Azam.” Checking these reviews, this book has major flaws, but it is trustworthy enough for our purposes. So, Prince Akbar winning is plausible enough, and without Aurangzeb, the Mughals may conquer, say, Golconda, as that was a goal of the Mughals for quite a long time, but not any more of the Deccan. That opens up the possibility of the Marathas continuing to expand in the south rather than being briefly conquered.
 
Top