Would a British Raj governed near exclusively by princely states be more economical beneficial for Britain

[IndefatigableRN]

Where in these wars was naval force used for the purpose of shipping large numbers of troops around.

It’s probably one of the main reasons Britain was successful during both wars.

Seven Years War - Britain was able to transport large (comparatively) numbers of troops around North America and the West Indies by sea, something the French were unable to counter effectively. The capture of Louisbourg and Quebec are the main examples, but Britain was able to successfully capture and raid French possessions in the West Indies as well (leading I believe to the treaty trade of Canada for the return of the French sugar islands).

The British were also able to maintain and support large EIC forces in India (unlike the French), capture West African possessions, and even stage raids on the French coasts.

Napoleonic Wars - again, Britain was able to essentially transport troops wherever it wanted. Indeed, early in the war, Pitt (at least I believe it was Pitt), the then PM, had the main strategy of using the RN to transport troops around the world gathering up colonies and possessions. Large forces were easily moved around the world by the RN, to Canada (to counter the US invasion), to the US itself (see Baltimore, Washington and New Orleans), to the West Indies, to Argentina (they tried to capture Buenos Aires), South Africa and Ceylon (captured from the Dutch), India (defeating the Marathas and Mysore), and even in Europe and the Middle East (Portugal, Spain, Denmark, the ill fated Walchern expedition, Egypt). I think the obvious example is the Peninsular campaign where large numbers of troops were transported to, from (post Corunna) and then back to Spain and Portugal and then supported for years.

Now not all of these expeditions were successful, but they were all major movements of troops by sea.

 

[Socrates]

Where in these wars was naval force used for the purpose of shipping large numbers of troops around.

If your knowledge of history is so low that you're not aware that shipping large numbers of troops around was a major part of British success in these wars, then this is just too painful a debate for me to continue.

Which was achieved with bribes, commercial dominance of the subahs trade based on earlier bribes, and an effective political strategy that sided with the financial apparatus of the subah.

It was also achieved with an army of thousands of troops.

Not a particularly uncommon thing in 18th century India, especially in the second half of the century, and to be honest I doubt how effective that was across the board.

It was uncommon outside of the British and French EIC armies, which was why Indian princes were so keen to ally with them.

Well I'm not gonna read the whole book, but searching for myth, and you only see it when the British are kicked out of Calcutta which "breaks the myth of European invincibility". That myth may have existed for British high command but definitely not for the average soldier- and side note, he very explicitly refers to it as a myth. Also when considering Indian fighting forces he seems to ignore the fact that Indian muskets were more accurate than European ones, and in general relies on some very old assumptions on the (lack of) military revolution in early modern India. You can hardly blame him, there's only been two proper investigations into the mughal army as a fighting force since 1900, and everyone else is languishing in obscurity, but still.

Yes, because it was a myth because there's no such thing as "invincibility". The point is that they were successful enough to have that mythology developed around them, which doesn't exactly happen if you're just an average fighting force. And myths of invincibility don't exist for a high command, they exist for the army as a whole doing the actual fighting. As for what he "seems to ignore" and the "old assumptions" he relies on, is that based on your Ctrl + F and not reading the actual book?

 

[CalBear]

If your knowledge of history is so low that you're not aware that shipping large numbers of troops around was a major part of British success in these wars, then this is just too painful a debate for me to continue.

It was also achieved with an army of thousands of troops.

It was uncommon outside of the British and French EIC armies, which was why Indian princes were so keen to ally with them.

Yes, because it was a myth because there's no such thing as "invincibility". The point is that they were successful enough to have that mythology developed around them, which doesn't exactly happen if you're just an average fighting force. And myths of invincibility don't exist for a high command, they exist for the army as a whole doing the actual fighting. As for what he "seems to ignore" and the "old assumptions" he relies on, is that based on your Ctrl + F and not reading the actual book?

Play the Ball.

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

then this is just too painful a debate for me to continue.

Cool, I don't particularly want to keep this going with you either. Have a nice day!

 

[Basileus444]

Europeans had naval supremacy in eastern waters for centuries before they made successful large inroads into continental Asia. That is because large land-based empires like Ming/Qing China and the Mughals couldn't be hurt by them because their power bases were further inland than the range of coastal artillery. At most the Europeans could be like fleas biting an elephant, a bit irritating but unable to hit anything vital. Naval supremacy is a very useful tool but is hardly an insta-win, and it can only be effectively deployed in geographical areas that are conducive to it. The interior of large landmasses are not conducive to it. The 'elephant vs. whale' motif exists for a reason.

Prior to the mid/late 1700s it was only comparatively much smaller coastal and island states in Southeast Asia that were under serious threat from Europeans, because in that geopolitical context naval supremacy could be decisive. But India is continental. A fleet is useful on the coast, but the biggest fleet in the world can't help you take Delhi from a hostile army.

To take Delhi from said hostile army, you need an army of your own. Where are the British getting this army? They have little Indian territory of their own in this scenario from which to draw recruits. They could hire mercenaries, but they're doing so from the lands of their princely "allies" who know the army is being used to keep them in line. This system seems...precarious to me.

The British could draw from non-Indian sources, but those aren't enough. The British conquered India with primarily Indian recruits. They couldn't ship enough men from the home country to do it, particularly in pre-steam and pre-Suez days. And they have no other colonies that could fill the gap. What are the British going to do, buy slave soldiers from East Africa and use them as garrisons?

 

[Rajveer Naha]

If your knowledge of history is so low that you're not aware that shipping large numbers of troops around was a major part of British success in these wars, then this is just too painful a debate for me to continue.

And you don't care to enlighten us. What on earth makes you think that the paltry number of troops moved around in seven years war would be able to have any impact in India? Even in the Napoleonic wars troops were moved in small numbers over time to Iberia and that was a hop across the Bay of Biscay and the channel and imaging the efficiency in regards to India with the distances involved.

It was also achieved with an army of thousands of troops.

Really? It seems now that you must be intentionally ignoring fact although you claim to have so much knowledge of history of India and you think that Bengal was defeated with MILITARY force. The British never won a war militarily in India untill the Third Anglo-Mysore war and that too was won with significant support from allies. They never defeated any major Indian State head on and alone untill the Anglo Gurkha war in the 1810s although a partial victory was achieved in the Second Anglo-Maratha War in the 1780s.

was uncommon outside of the British and French EIC armies, which was why Indian princes were so keen to ally with them.

The Mysore Army was as well trained as any European Army, several units in the Maratha army were upto European standards seeing action from the battle of Panipat and following wars.
Many Indian States allied with them as they were the only ther alternative to the French at sea not because of their military prowess on land.

Yes, because it was a myth because there's no such thing as "invincibility". The point is that they were successful enough to have that mythology developed around them, which doesn't exactly happen if you're just an average fighting force.

And that aura of invincibility developed well into the 19th century in the 17th and 18th centuries their were plenty of defeats suffered by them. Only after they conquered most India and that feat was achieved by directly governing territories and it is doubtful if it could be done by the Company using their control on land and sooner or later some would get the idea to ditch the British and they would leave and OTL no one left as the British controlled the land and raised troops there. It was the contol of the land that allowed the Company to generate revenue and not the princely States. You say that they used to beat larger forces on their own give me a few such examples where they won Battles decisively outnumbered purely by military might and not bribes and cunning diplomacy.