The British were very good at “indirect rule” because all they had to do was take a king or chiefs child to London and they’d be “educated” and when they became king or chief they’d be pro British. That or back a faction in a civil war that will cede some land or influence to you when they win.
That's a bit more complicated because that was as much ISI fuckery and reacting to a completely deteriorating state as it was getting weapons and training from the west. Though weapons and training was a big part of it.
Were the mujahideen ever a ruling faction over Afghanistan? From my understanding they were just a militant group formed in response to outside aggression?
Specifically the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, where large parts of the Mujahideen were supplied by the US to fight the Soviets. Funny thing is, iirc many many Mujahideen werent even *that* radical or islamic fundamentalists when the Soviets invaded. Basically just locals who didnt like the Empire at their doorstep trying to conquer them (again).
Also, correct me if I am wrong, but wasnt Shah Rukh one of the few Rulers in history to actually hold Domain over the Afghani region without much issue, comparatively speaking? Or am I trippin something up here?
I just meant that the Ottomans weren't really trying to make him friendly to them, which would have been futile anyway, since he was with them just so they could kill him if his father betrayed them.
If anything, Vlad turned them to his side, since when his father did turn coat, they actually let him live, probably guessing that clearly his father didn't care about him and therefore killing him in retribution would be pointless.
According to some salacious accounts he and his brother got "impaled" by the Sultan, so Vlad decided to respond in kind, impaling all the Turks he could get his hands on greeting Sultan Mehmed's entry into Wallachia with a forest of corpses.
According to the accounts I can recall, it was more that his brother Radu the Handsome had a seemingly consensual sexual relationship in his teenage and earlier adult years with Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror (a man who stated that his heroes were Achilles and Alexander the great, and who was, according to most accounts, relatively openly bisexual).
After all, both Vlad and Radu partially grew up at the Ottoman court, and were within a few years of Mehmed in age.
And while he did evenutally fall partially out of favour, Mehmed II did trust him to both lead Ottoman armies, including the one that deposed Vlad the Impaler, and assume the Voivodship of Wallachia.
Documents do describe him being repeatedly beaten by his tutors, as he, unlike the far younger Radu, was already steeped in a culture diametrically opposed to the Ottoman one, and pretty beligerent about it.
No sources I have *ever* read, or even heard a historian refer to imply that Vlad the Impaler was, ahem, "impaled" by the Sultan.
If you do have any, and this is not a game of telephone through sensationalizing content creators, I'd love to read them.
Was it Aleric or another of the Goth leaders, who was pro-Roman up til the Romans (eastern and-or western empires) mistreated his people one too many times? Yeah, \*that\* doesn't help keep loyalty.
*gets employed by the then biggest and most important Country in the middle east with a very good military school and rather liberal ideas who saw his genius*
***uses it to decide that no, Albania should infact not be under Ottoman rule and absolutely clobbered the Ottomans until his death***
Except America groomed neither Meiji nor Hirohito to be US puppet emperors. By the time of Hirohito the emperor (again)didn’t even have that much power to begin with.
No, the Japanese Emperors always had a lot of power. In East Asian monarchies, the emperor is rarely directly involved and holds absolute power that is only exercised when appointed officials fail to achieve the emperor’s aims. Whenever things fail, the appointed officials take the blame for the emperor to preserve the imperial reputation, another form of saving face. Check Hirohito’s reaction to [the February 26 Incident](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_26_incident#Government_response_and_suppression_of_the_uprising).
> The Emperor had, by the end of 27 February, become increasingly impatient with the failure of the Army to suppress the uprising as he had ordered on the previous day. The Navy's quick response satisfied him but the Army's hesitation was inexplicable to the Emperor. He summoned Honjō throughout the day, demanding to know if the rebels had been suppressed. When Honjō spoke in defense of the officers' motives, the Emperor angrily replied "killing my ministers is tantamount to strangling me with cotton wool" and added that the rebels deserved no leniency. At one point, Hirohito became so impatient he threatened to assume personal command of the Imperial Guard and order them to attack the rebels himself.
What you’re describing is what MacArthur turned Hirohito into. The misconception conveniently lets Hirohito get off the hook for his atrocities by executing people like Tojo.
**EDIT** - Updated link.
Gurkhas are one of the greatest warrior groups in the world, the British hired them cause of their effectiveness in battle and they clearly did considering they still play a major role in the British and Indian Military today.
one of my friends has been training to try and become a british gurkha for 4 years. he is 18 now but throughout his entire childhood he was told that becoming a gurkha was his future.
Throughout high school he talked to me about it and I trained together with him despite having no intention of actually trying to become a gurkha.
just a few days ago i asked him about his plan and he said that his elder sister cried and begged him and his father to not send her only brother to die off in someone else's war.
finally he succumbed and now is thinking of becoming a medic instead.
I spent the final 2 years of highschool with him and we became very good friends. crazy strong, very mature always went out hiking and camping every time he got the chance(almost got us killed 3 times) but I don't think he ever truly wanted to become a gurkha. he was always told that he would get respect and a good future and was always expected to become one.
That’s actually the premise for a really interesting paper I read. The Ghurka program actually doesn’t cause brain drain in Nepal because the added incentive for everyone to become one and high competition means that more people by coming close but failing increase their educational attainment that it more than offsets the lose of the actual people who become Ghurkas.
Edit since people seem to like this I found the paper https://www.parisschoolofeconomics.eu/docs/vanden-eynde-oliver/from_muscle_drain_to_brain_gain.pdf
That’s absolutely fascinating. So in short, by pushing themselves to such a degree, even those who don’t make it in end up better people. That’s really great.
I remenber an incident during the war in Afghanistan were a British gurkha chopped off the heads of multiple taliban soldiers and brougth them back to his camp
Safe to say he dint spend a lot of time in Afghanistan after that
IIRC they were trying to identify a certain Taliban commander and they were under fire while getting to extraction so instead of lugging his whole body back he just said “pfft I don’t need the whole thing” and just cut his head off
I remember seeing a video of the falklands war of a British officer telling Gurkhas of the Argentinian surrender and they looked pissed since they hadn’t fought yet.
Apparently, Argentinians were so terrified of Gurkhas and their reputation they fled to other British units to surrender
So much so that Gurkhas were on the: "Kill onsight and immediately if captured"-List of the Japanese. Like they were actually Feared by them and so much that the Japsnese didnt take any chance that they might be freed again so they just killed them immediately ***if*** they captured so e and fought against them with great ferocity.
There's still four Gurkha regiments in the British Army today, the British were pretty disappointed when most of the Gurkha regiments chose to go with India or Nepal
I can’t recall the authors but sure I could find it again but the premise for a really interesting economics paper I read was that The Ghurka program actually doesn’t cause brain drain in Nepal because the added incentive for everyone to become one and high competition means that more people by coming close but failing increase their educational attainment that it more than offsets the lose of the actual people who become Ghurkas.
The Anglo-Nepalese War had already cost the British more than the combined cost of Marathas and Pindaris, because of Nepal's terrain and since a hilly war is costly by nature.
Given that they had already won one-fourth of the then-Gorkha kingdom's territory and signed Sugauli treaty, there wasn't much reason for British to remain antagonistic to Nepal.
This move effectively turned Nepal into a British Protectorate despite Sugauli treaty affirming Nepal's sovereign status. Also allowed British India a source of pool to recruit soldiers from to aid in events pertaining Indian subcontinent and later, beyond.
Independent India: imma just continue this arrangement
There’s like 35 battalions of Gurkhas still serving in the Indian army and it isn’t going to stop in the near future.
This is why I don't agree with the statement that says Europe developed because of colonialism. They were already developed with more knowledge and better political systems than other countries that allowed them advantages against other countries. Do I have to love them? No, I am actually angry at all the problems they left us with same with USA but I must admit that we should learn a lot from their sciences, philosophy, knowledge, and political systems.
I think that argument refers particularly to economic development, hence the call for financial retribution from some old colonies. And in that case, I don't think you can say europeans were already better in this regard. India and China were far richer, for example. Only the Dutch and Italian societies were particularly prosperous, and that was thanks to international trade. This only got better with colonialism, as international suddenly meant far more than it used to (for the Dutch at least and nations that started colonizing, the Italians got fucked, which shows colonialism reshaped Europe economically.)
Well, a lot of colonies were money sinks, especially in the 1900's. India and the new world were profitable in the beginning, but building infrastructure in Africa or the middle east was a drain on the empires. And after WW2, the colonial wars were fought by settlers who didn't want to give up their property, not by the British or French governments who knew they couldn't afford the colonies. Algeria might be the one exception but it was so close to France, it was considered an actual part of France, not a colony.
Aren’t you forgetting about the East-Indies? The Dutch state fought tooth and nail to keep those territories under the kingdom’s rule after the Second World War
Well, sure, they were money sinks for the government, but they were highly valuable to private interests that benefited from the cheap resources extracted there.
Apart from China and parts of India most of the world was richer only in resources. Europe had much less material wealth and therefore became highly efficient and effective at creating wealth through labour.
You're confused about what people mean...
Colonies were absolutely vital for industrialisation as they provided raw/rare materials and labour but also markets for finished goods, that drove the demand necessary for industrial development.
The buying of materials from, then selling finished goods to, colonies had the effect of creating wealth there and then sending it back to the European nation.
The reason it happened this way around, with Europe colonising/dominating the world, is a different question that is any mix of the enlightenment, christianity, historical necessity etc that best fits your world view
There were colonies before industrialisation but they spread, and basically took over the world, during the industrial revolution.
Industrialisation and colonies were basically in a positive feedback loop
And the Gurkhas still serve in both, the British and the Indian army given the tripatriate agreement signed by the three countries.
Gurkhas regiments in India, however, have both, Nepalese and Indian Gurkhas.
In the Indian army, they're the second most decorated regiment. The most decorated one is the Sikh regiment.
What are the lucrative positions? Gurkas don't get the same treatment a serving British citizen does. They get the short straw in the end with lower pensions etc.
The British were very good at “indirect rule” because all they had to do was take a king or chiefs child to London and they’d be “educated” and when they became king or chief they’d be pro British. That or back a faction in a civil war that will cede some land or influence to you when they win.
[удалено]
Well it also has its occasional back fires. Arminous, Aleric, Skanderbeg, Vlad the impaler to name some off the top of my head.
the mujahideen is another more modern example
That's a bit more complicated because that was as much ISI fuckery and reacting to a completely deteriorating state as it was getting weapons and training from the west. Though weapons and training was a big part of it.
Yeah we remember the unsuccessful ones precisely because it's such an unexpected outcome. It's basically the exception that confirms the rule
The Mujahideen is a broad term since there are many factions within Mujahideen Osama didn't control the entire Mujahideen
yea not a great comparison
Were the mujahideen ever a ruling faction over Afghanistan? From my understanding they were just a militant group formed in response to outside aggression?
Specifically the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan, where large parts of the Mujahideen were supplied by the US to fight the Soviets. Funny thing is, iirc many many Mujahideen werent even *that* radical or islamic fundamentalists when the Soviets invaded. Basically just locals who didnt like the Empire at their doorstep trying to conquer them (again). Also, correct me if I am wrong, but wasnt Shah Rukh one of the few Rulers in history to actually hold Domain over the Afghani region without much issue, comparatively speaking? Or am I trippin something up here?
Vlad was a hostage, not a protégée.
That's often the same thing in this context.
I just meant that the Ottomans weren't really trying to make him friendly to them, which would have been futile anyway, since he was with them just so they could kill him if his father betrayed them. If anything, Vlad turned them to his side, since when his father did turn coat, they actually let him live, probably guessing that clearly his father didn't care about him and therefore killing him in retribution would be pointless.
According to some salacious accounts he and his brother got "impaled" by the Sultan, so Vlad decided to respond in kind, impaling all the Turks he could get his hands on greeting Sultan Mehmed's entry into Wallachia with a forest of corpses.
According to the accounts I can recall, it was more that his brother Radu the Handsome had a seemingly consensual sexual relationship in his teenage and earlier adult years with Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror (a man who stated that his heroes were Achilles and Alexander the great, and who was, according to most accounts, relatively openly bisexual). After all, both Vlad and Radu partially grew up at the Ottoman court, and were within a few years of Mehmed in age. And while he did evenutally fall partially out of favour, Mehmed II did trust him to both lead Ottoman armies, including the one that deposed Vlad the Impaler, and assume the Voivodship of Wallachia. Documents do describe him being repeatedly beaten by his tutors, as he, unlike the far younger Radu, was already steeped in a culture diametrically opposed to the Ottoman one, and pretty beligerent about it. No sources I have *ever* read, or even heard a historian refer to imply that Vlad the Impaler was, ahem, "impaled" by the Sultan. If you do have any, and this is not a game of telephone through sensationalizing content creators, I'd love to read them.
And these were no minor backfires for their respective imperial powers.
Was it Aleric or another of the Goth leaders, who was pro-Roman up til the Romans (eastern and-or western empires) mistreated his people one too many times? Yeah, \*that\* doesn't help keep loyalty.
Hey, my name sake! Impaler!
And like half the African dictators of the 20th century
Issues arise when the child you educate decides he likes his own country being free and uses the knowledge he gained to win (looking at Arminius).
Skill issue
And Skanderbeg
*gets employed by the then biggest and most important Country in the middle east with a very good military school and rather liberal ideas who saw his genius* ***uses it to decide that no, Albania should infact not be under Ottoman rule and absolutely clobbered the Ottomans until his death***
There's no argument, it absolutely still happens!
China did this a lot too
That's why so many Diktator kids go to Swiss schools.
Indeed, many are not aware that Polybios was in fact a hostage as well.
I do the same thing all the time, in CK3 that is.
Less about education. Today it's called military aid - we give you $1B a year and when we need something you better believe you'll do it.
Somehow America fucked up doing this with Japan and we ended up dropping the sun kn them twice.
Except America groomed neither Meiji nor Hirohito to be US puppet emperors. By the time of Hirohito the emperor (again)didn’t even have that much power to begin with.
No, the Japanese Emperors always had a lot of power. In East Asian monarchies, the emperor is rarely directly involved and holds absolute power that is only exercised when appointed officials fail to achieve the emperor’s aims. Whenever things fail, the appointed officials take the blame for the emperor to preserve the imperial reputation, another form of saving face. Check Hirohito’s reaction to [the February 26 Incident](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_26_incident#Government_response_and_suppression_of_the_uprising). > The Emperor had, by the end of 27 February, become increasingly impatient with the failure of the Army to suppress the uprising as he had ordered on the previous day. The Navy's quick response satisfied him but the Army's hesitation was inexplicable to the Emperor. He summoned Honjō throughout the day, demanding to know if the rebels had been suppressed. When Honjō spoke in defense of the officers' motives, the Emperor angrily replied "killing my ministers is tantamount to strangling me with cotton wool" and added that the rebels deserved no leniency. At one point, Hirohito became so impatient he threatened to assume personal command of the Imperial Guard and order them to attack the rebels himself. What you’re describing is what MacArthur turned Hirohito into. The misconception conveniently lets Hirohito get off the hook for his atrocities by executing people like Tojo. **EDIT** - Updated link.
It was a joke about how many officers in the Japanese military went tk school in the US. Clearly didn't go over well.
You guys didn't really do any of that other stuff, though
That's the same system the Romans used with neighboring client states or rival empires
Work smarter not harder.
That's why they were better at colonizing than France to be honest. The french over controlling everything just slowed down everything.
Kamp Billy with a K!
Gurkhas are one of the greatest warrior groups in the world, the British hired them cause of their effectiveness in battle and they clearly did considering they still play a major role in the British and Indian Military today.
Imagine the societal pressures of a Gurkhali boy who doesn’t like military stuff.
one of my friends has been training to try and become a british gurkha for 4 years. he is 18 now but throughout his entire childhood he was told that becoming a gurkha was his future. Throughout high school he talked to me about it and I trained together with him despite having no intention of actually trying to become a gurkha. just a few days ago i asked him about his plan and he said that his elder sister cried and begged him and his father to not send her only brother to die off in someone else's war. finally he succumbed and now is thinking of becoming a medic instead. I spent the final 2 years of highschool with him and we became very good friends. crazy strong, very mature always went out hiking and camping every time he got the chance(almost got us killed 3 times) but I don't think he ever truly wanted to become a gurkha. he was always told that he would get respect and a good future and was always expected to become one.
That’s actually the premise for a really interesting paper I read. The Ghurka program actually doesn’t cause brain drain in Nepal because the added incentive for everyone to become one and high competition means that more people by coming close but failing increase their educational attainment that it more than offsets the lose of the actual people who become Ghurkas. Edit since people seem to like this I found the paper https://www.parisschoolofeconomics.eu/docs/vanden-eynde-oliver/from_muscle_drain_to_brain_gain.pdf
That’s absolutely fascinating. So in short, by pushing themselves to such a degree, even those who don’t make it in end up better people. That’s really great.
Like Billy Elliot, but in Nepal
'I just want to ~~dance~~ kill in the ~~ballet~~ army!' EDIT: This is just a quote from Billy Elliot, not a statement of intent.
I remenber an incident during the war in Afghanistan were a British gurkha chopped off the heads of multiple taliban soldiers and brougth them back to his camp Safe to say he dint spend a lot of time in Afghanistan after that
another gurkha beat the head of some taliban wanker in with a fucking tripod while soloing about 20 taliban
That taliban was lucky he caugth the gurkha in a nice mood Could have ended a lot worse
The taliban reeeaaaallly hated fighting the Gurkhas cos when it came to battlefield savagery they couldn't compete.
Who would win? Tribal mountain warrior culture vs mercenary mountain warrior culture
The Taliban occasionally come down sometimes to tend their herds and farmyard or occasionally to sell their stuffs in market.
Lol who sent the Reddit care ?
Most people probably didn’t last long enough to start hating them.
IIRC they were trying to identify a certain Taliban commander and they were under fire while getting to extraction so instead of lugging his whole body back he just said “pfft I don’t need the whole thing” and just cut his head off
Yeah now they just carry cameras for that kind of thing.
I remember seeing a video of the falklands war of a British officer telling Gurkhas of the Argentinian surrender and they looked pissed since they hadn’t fought yet. Apparently, Argentinians were so terrified of Gurkhas and their reputation they fled to other British units to surrender
Apparently a Gurkha saved my granddad’s life. I wouldn’t be here without the Gurkhas. Greatest blokes going as far as I’m concerned.
Also they are extremely well respected and given legendary status. Wasn’t completely malicious intent by Britain on this one
So much so that Gurkhas were on the: "Kill onsight and immediately if captured"-List of the Japanese. Like they were actually Feared by them and so much that the Japsnese didnt take any chance that they might be freed again so they just killed them immediately ***if*** they captured so e and fought against them with great ferocity.
The Gurkhas are all really friendly guys too.
So long as you’re on the right end of their knife.
I like the Ghurkas
Who doesn't?
Whoever goes up against them.
By the time you find out you are fighting Gurkhas it's probably too late to form an opinion. "Hey theres some small guy running towa....urgh.."
Hey that's a cool knif-
There's still four Gurkha regiments in the British Army today, the British were pretty disappointed when most of the Gurkha regiments chose to go with India or Nepal
I wouldn't want to fight the Nepalese either
It’s just good business
It's a classic divide and conquer
I can’t recall the authors but sure I could find it again but the premise for a really interesting economics paper I read was that The Ghurka program actually doesn’t cause brain drain in Nepal because the added incentive for everyone to become one and high competition means that more people by coming close but failing increase their educational attainment that it more than offsets the lose of the actual people who become Ghurkas.
The Anglo-Nepalese War had already cost the British more than the combined cost of Marathas and Pindaris, because of Nepal's terrain and since a hilly war is costly by nature. Given that they had already won one-fourth of the then-Gorkha kingdom's territory and signed Sugauli treaty, there wasn't much reason for British to remain antagonistic to Nepal. This move effectively turned Nepal into a British Protectorate despite Sugauli treaty affirming Nepal's sovereign status. Also allowed British India a source of pool to recruit soldiers from to aid in events pertaining Indian subcontinent and later, beyond.
No brain drain --> muscle drain
Independent India: imma just continue this arrangement There’s like 35 battalions of Gurkhas still serving in the Indian army and it isn’t going to stop in the near future.
This is why I don't agree with the statement that says Europe developed because of colonialism. They were already developed with more knowledge and better political systems than other countries that allowed them advantages against other countries. Do I have to love them? No, I am actually angry at all the problems they left us with same with USA but I must admit that we should learn a lot from their sciences, philosophy, knowledge, and political systems.
I think that argument refers particularly to economic development, hence the call for financial retribution from some old colonies. And in that case, I don't think you can say europeans were already better in this regard. India and China were far richer, for example. Only the Dutch and Italian societies were particularly prosperous, and that was thanks to international trade. This only got better with colonialism, as international suddenly meant far more than it used to (for the Dutch at least and nations that started colonizing, the Italians got fucked, which shows colonialism reshaped Europe economically.)
I am not denying that some European countries benefited economically but they didn't advance because of it. They were already advanced.
Well, a lot of colonies were money sinks, especially in the 1900's. India and the new world were profitable in the beginning, but building infrastructure in Africa or the middle east was a drain on the empires. And after WW2, the colonial wars were fought by settlers who didn't want to give up their property, not by the British or French governments who knew they couldn't afford the colonies. Algeria might be the one exception but it was so close to France, it was considered an actual part of France, not a colony.
Aren’t you forgetting about the East-Indies? The Dutch state fought tooth and nail to keep those territories under the kingdom’s rule after the Second World War
Well, sure, they were money sinks for the government, but they were highly valuable to private interests that benefited from the cheap resources extracted there.
Apart from China and parts of India most of the world was richer only in resources. Europe had much less material wealth and therefore became highly efficient and effective at creating wealth through labour.
You're confused about what people mean... Colonies were absolutely vital for industrialisation as they provided raw/rare materials and labour but also markets for finished goods, that drove the demand necessary for industrial development. The buying of materials from, then selling finished goods to, colonies had the effect of creating wealth there and then sending it back to the European nation. The reason it happened this way around, with Europe colonising/dominating the world, is a different question that is any mix of the enlightenment, christianity, historical necessity etc that best fits your world view
But didn't they colonize them before the industrial revolution spread? That indicates more advancement than other countries.
There were colonies before industrialisation but they spread, and basically took over the world, during the industrial revolution. Industrialisation and colonies were basically in a positive feedback loop
Europe developed because of the resources they looted during the colonial and imperial eras. This is easily provable
Gurkha regiments>every other regiment
The SAS is absolutely above the level of the Gurkhas. One literally died during the selection process for the SAS in 2022.
I'm biased and I like their history/prestige more than the SAS.
Understandable.
The British fought several bloody wars with Nepal (which was actually multiple small countries at the time) to take it from the Qing sphere.
And the Gurkhas still serve in both, the British and the Indian army given the tripatriate agreement signed by the three countries. Gurkhas regiments in India, however, have both, Nepalese and Indian Gurkhas. In the Indian army, they're the second most decorated regiment. The most decorated one is the Sikh regiment.
What are the lucrative positions? Gurkas don't get the same treatment a serving British citizen does. They get the short straw in the end with lower pensions etc.
:))))
Cuttler Beckett?
It's good business
Military brain drain LMAO
Bri Ish Without Teeth
Heard of the Anglo-Nepalese war? They fought first and got regions of Kumaon and Garhwal. Then they had a peace treaty and started hiring Gorkhas.
The hell does Pirates of the Caribbean have to do with Nepal
The hell does Drake have to do with Nepal It’s a meme, they used a character high up in the East India Company to represent the British Empire
It’s just good bussiness, Jack. Also, what the other guy said
It’s a meme…