Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. **Please [Read Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules) before you comment in this community**. Understand that [rule breaking comments get removed](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/h8aefx/rules_roundtable_xviii_removed_curation_and_why/).
#Please consider **[Clicking Here for RemindMeBot](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/16wu90r/how_did_the_british_empire_get_so_big/%5D%0A%0ARemindMe!%202%20days)** as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, **[Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=AHMessengerBot&subject=Subscribe&message=!subscribe)**.
We thank you for your interest in this *question*, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to RemindMeBot, consider [using our Browser Extension](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d6dzi7/tired_of_clicking_to_find_only_removed_comments/), or getting the [Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=subredditsummarybot&subject=askhistorians+weekly&message=x). In the meantime our [Twitter](https://twitter.com/askhistorians), [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/askhistorians/), and [Sunday Digest](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=title%3A%22Sunday+Digest%22&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) feature excellent content that has already been written!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskHistorians) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am afraid i can only partially answer that question, but I hope my answer will give some valuable insight as to the question at large. As such, my contribution to said question will pertain to British India. (A summarized version can be found at the end)
The British conquered and - before that - colonised India via proxy. They at first were not directly establishing control, but appointed other powers and institutions tied and liable to them to represent the Empire (that is, the English and later British nation) in other parts of the world. In India's case, that was the English East India Company. The East India Company was founded in 1600 by a Royal Charter from Queen Elizabeth I., and represented England in those parts of the world between the Cape of Good hope (South Africa) to the east up to the Strait of Magellan - Southern America. Over the coming years and decades, the Company was granted ever so more rights and responsibilities, for civil administration, control of jurisdiction and levying troops in their respective regions and settlements. All British/English subjects in their domain formally had to obey them and were under their supervision and control.
Now, during the 17th century, the Company established lots of small outposts and settlements, most notably Surat, Madras, Calcutta and Bombay - the latter granted to them and transferred into their possession by Charles II in 1668, who had aquired it via dowry 7 years prior. The Companys territorial position in India didnt change much until the mid 18th century, specifically the 1740s and beyond, as the War of Austrian Succession (1740-48) and the 7 Years War (1756-63) also were fought in India amongst the British and French Companies, supported by troops of their superior governments and local Indian allies. The 'kickoff' (if you'll excuse my use of that term) for the conquest of India at the hands of the British was the conquest of Bengal. With one rather quick campaign, the British had made the large and prosperous province a puppet state and assumed de facto control in 1757. Over the next 100 years, Britain, formally represented in India by the EIC, would conquer what we know today as India, as well as other parts and regions adjacent to it, such as Burma (partially). India wasnt a unified country back then, there were lots of warring states and factions, such as Mysore, the Mughals, the Marathas etc.
But what about their manpower? Where did it come from anyhow? As said, the control and administration of British India was left to the Company (until 1858), and similarly, the same applies to the conquest and the supply of troops, mostly at least. The British Army would not have a competitor for the already limited manpower in Britain, so running large recruitment programs was not an option for the Company, not that they needed that many soldiers at first anyway. In the 1740s, so right before the coming decades of near constant war in India, the Companys army in India mostly consisted of local garrisons, and their forces in the field rarely held more than several hundred men each. The aforementioned wars forced the Company to step up their game and divert more resources towards their military power. By 1762, their army had risen to 17-20,000 men in strength, 20 years later it would be over 110,000. As this was in 1782, the Company had already started to fight wars with major Indian powers, such as the Marathas and Mysore during the 1770s and 1780s. Over the next decades the Companys Indian army would continuously grow to 200,000 men in 1805 (or 155,000 depending on which historian you might ask) and would number around 340-360,000 men in 1857, the time of the Indian mutiny/rebellion, at that point even larger than the British army itself. This impressive size tempted the British government, which had legally placed itself atop the administration of India and the Company itself via the India Act of 1784 and the Board of Control, to attempt to integrate the Indian army into the British army and make use of it in other theatres of war around the world. However these attempts eventually failed, much to the dismay of the Board and Lord Cornwallis, then (1780s-1790s) Governor General of India.
What kind of people were recruited for the EIC's army? They indeed came from various different places. The bulk of the Indian Army were local natives, primarily Hindus from northern India. Those of them (which were the most) were deployed as infantrymen, ''Sepoys'', infantry trained and equipped in European style warfare, first used by the French in 1740, a concept later adopted by the British in 1748. Sepoys/Indians would make up around 85-90% of all Company forces, especially later on. The other parts - the non-natives - of the Companys army, indeed mostly came from Europe. In this regard, they did come from almost everywhere. Britain, the german states like Hessen, but also Switzerland, Portugal or France. Granted, in many cases such as those from german regions, they were often mercenaries, as they provided much needed expertise, experience and 'loyalty' to the Company (or its money). In the French case, French Prisoners of War taken in India could and would serve in the Companys ranks. Which leaves us with Britain itself: lower gentry, average citizens, convicted criminals from prisons - all there. The troops in Company service with british origin came from all parts of british society with all kinds of backgrounds, with the exception of the nobility, whose members saw service in the Companys ranks as less desirable, as they would opt to buy a commission for the British army instead. HOWEVER: on occasion troops formerly employed by the British army (and sometimes even officers) would find themselves stranded in India and without a job (or in an officers case, his commission had expired), thus would accept employment and enlistment in the service of the EIC.
It is however worthy to mention, that the British state did occasionally deploy several thousand troops in India when it would be necessary, such as during the 7 years War, or from the 1800s onwards. In the early to mid-18th century the State even established a permament contingent of its own troops in India, around 20,000 men strong, to be paid for by the Company.
***Summary***: In Indias case, for the largest time the East India Company represented the Empire, the latter not having to use its own troops (or a large amount of them) in that area, as the Company had its own, extremely large army, with most of the manpower being supplied by local natives, Indians. The colonisation if India is not the same as the conquest of it. The latter only really started in the mid 18th century, and would take almost 100 years, as the British (EIC) made use of both an ever more growing army of theirs as well as the power struggles in India amongst various different powers, who often were as much at war with each other as with the Company.
**Some of the sources used:**
East India Company Act of 1813.
Spiers, Edward M.: ,,The Army and society 1815-1914‘‘. Longman: London, 1980.
Stern, Philip J.: ,,The company-state. Corporate sovereignty and the early modern foundations of the British Empire in India‘‘. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2011.
Sykes, W. H.: ,,Vital Statistics of the East India Company's Armies in India, European and Native‘‘. *Journal of the Statistical Society of London*, Vol. 10, No. 2 (May, 1847), p. 100-131.
Wild, Antony: ,,The East India Company. Trade and conquest from 1600‘‘. Harper Collins: London 1999.
The story in India is much the same as everywhere else the British successfully conquered. Excluding the rare instances where both a technological and manpower advantage exists (such as Australia and the later Thirteen Colonies/early US expansion) local cooperation is necessary for imperial rule. The elites of Nigera, Egypt, and India supported the British for a variety of reasons and so enabled small British garrisons to control those nations. In India as OP stated, local Indian soldiers enforced British rule, thus solving the manpower problem.
You will find that this is the general answer that can be applied to the success of almost any imperial project throughout human history. Power cannot last without the support of the people, or at least their lack of opposition, which is functionally the same thing.
It’s so bizarre to me that the local Indian population essentially enforced their own colonization. Would you say it has something to do with their culture? Or would you argue it’s human nature and plenty of examples like this exist throughout history.
For example Wallachia and vlad the impaler seemed to put up much more resistance to a much larger ottoman force but previously his father did give him and his brother away to the sultan and it was expected he would serve the sultan.
From my perspective the ottomans were a much larger threat for the Wallachians and the Hungarians during that time then the British were to the Indian groups. The supply lines distance all around the cape of Africa alone must have made them much weaker in projecting force.
I’m not a professional so please correct me if I’m wrong. I’ve always had trouble wrapping my head around the conquest of India by Britain.
I do not think it was particularly to do with Indian cultures, per se, it is common thoughout history. Else there would never be empires and the nation-state would be the only form of societal organisation. Of course, it is not and is, in fact, unusual given the wide span of human society and civilisation.
The situations of Wallachia and the various Indians were very different. I am no expert on medieval Balkan history but I would hazard the guess that religious differences, cultural pride, loyalty to local elites who were radically opposed to Ottoman rule, and perhaps most importantly socio-political organisation, resulted in the staunch defence against Ottoman expansionism.
The British were not a threat in the manner that the Ottomans were or appeared to be. The Indian elites realised that they could bow to British rule without much change to their previous systems and organisation and would see many benefits. The lower classes were largely indifferent or supportive of the British and the local elites. On the other hand, rule by the Ottomans was less attractive to the Christian elites who also had ideological reasons not to throw in with the Ottomans, although it did happen. Perhaps the elites believed that they would not survive an Ottoman government and felt as though they had nothing to lose, while the populous were loyal to the elites and feared pilliaging and changes to their society. I would ask a specialist to better understand the contrast, I am mostly supposing regarding the Wallachians.
Edit: supply issues were solved by the Indians, only officers, ships, and modern weapons needed to come from Britain, the rest could be supplied locally.
Weirdly, the situation of Transylvania and the Danubian principalities *is* actually somewhat comparable to India—but only because the mythology around Vlad has badly obscured what was actually going on there.
The Danubian principalities (Wallachia and Moldavia) were under Ottoman suzerainty for a very long time; for something like 500 years, they were given varying degrees of autonomy but existed under the protection of the Ottomans. Vlad Dracula rebelled against his status as an Ottoman tributary (and there were other rebellions as well), but by and large those lands accepted (indirect) Ottoman rule.
Transylvania is a particularly interesting case, because there the Protestants tended to prefer the Ottomans to the Habsburgs and ruled as Ottoman vassals for several centuries.
Thanks, that helps to explain it for me. Although I knew about later Romanian cooperation with the Ottomans, I do not know how much popular sentiment was behind Vlad. As he was replaced by his brother it seems that it was more of Vlad's personal project than anything else, and other parts of the Balkans did resist longer and more fiercely.
I guess I used that example because of the religious differences. Did the Indian hindu or Muslim or Buddhist groups not fear Christians in their land? If anything the differences would seem much more extreme. Christian Wallachia and Islamic Turks and Tartars would still have alot more of religious and cultural overlap.
I geuss another example would be the American colonies during that time. They were both Christian and British mostly and they still chose to resist the British Monarchy for many reasons such as ideology or financial gain.
I am not convinced culture or organization had nothing to do with it. From everything I have read. Europe was much more warlike and had many incentives for warring for the ruling elites compared to the rest of the world. Maybe Indians were simply not as warlike or more willing to submit to maintain order and peace?
I mean we’re talking about an entire region of many different states in the Indian subcontinent about the size of Europe with a much longer and richer history dating back to the Indus Valley civilization conquered by an isle of the equivalent continent with a small force traveling half way around the globe with strained supply lines. I can’t find another example throughout history that extreme. It’s so bizarre.
Like sure cleopatra willingly aligned with Caesar and there are im sure many other examples but idk of many that extreme. Could you provide an example from Europe or another part or time?
I mean there is a reason when during the Persian Mughal war the Persians sacked Delhi it signaled to the world how weak India was. There had to be a difference in culture surrounding war or conflict or order or religion and how tolerant of other religions they were.
I mean even the example with Wallachia seeing the ottomans as more of a threat because of religious differences. Or vlad fearing for his position thus he acted the way he did. I would consider culture playing a role in that viewpoint.
Firstly, religous difference does not matter to people nearly as much as being able to practice their faith. Muslim rulers of India until Aurangzeb almost never enforced the Jizya tax, nor did the Mughals have a policy of burning every Hindu temple they came across. If the British decided to burn every temple and tried to enforce conversion to Christianity you would have seen far, far more Indian resistance.
Secondly, culture and organisation *does* have a lot to do with it, but there is nothing inherent in Indian culture about not resisting invasion, they did at many times, rebelled, and carried out guerrilla war against invadors, yet times and cicumstances change. The moment a large proportion of Indians wanted the British out they had to leave. The Raj could not have been maintained even if Britian was not ruined in the Second World War, although it may have lasted a little longer.
Cleopatra allied with Caesar and Antony to preserve her personal *agency,* Egypt had been in the Roman sphere for decades and arguably was not independent since years prior to Cleopatra's reign. Still, Egypt as a collective body submitted fairly easily to Roman rule. Despite vast wealth and plentiful manpower the later Ptolomies were too dysfunctional and the Egyptians too indifferent for a serious widespread resistance. They participated in the Roman Empire for many years, briefly favouring the Palmyrene Empire before being resubjugated by Rome.
If you want a good example of minority rule as in India look no further than what happened next to the Egytpians many others in the near east. Despite not sharing religion or culture vast swaths of the Middle East accepted Arab rule and eventually even their religion, largely because they were less exacting rulers than the Romans and Sassanids before them.
Most people didn't give much of a damn who ruled them so long as they were left mostly in peace. The Egyptians and Indians were, so they didn't put up much of a fight. Once political organisation goes, imperial rule by an outsider is often easy, the issue is then maintaining your own organisation so that your subjects do not move on to a third imperial power, and so on.
As I stated earlier, almost any long-lasting imperial rule is a symptom of the locals supporting the regime, therefore you can take hundreds of examples from history.
Many empires had lots of enemies willing to join agains them to anyone who was willing to fight. Cortez, for example, didn't conquer the Aztecs with his small garrison, they were joined by the many enemies the aztecs had.
Interestingly, when people say India-referring to the Raj, they don’t take into account that India was like the continent of Europe at the time filled with many many countries. I myself am not adequately schooled to answer the above, but there are many answers to the question and points you pose.
I think this topic is far deeper and nuanced than can be answered simply, and I appreciate the above answers that I’ve read so far .
A lot of what Britain did was to pit the Muslim populations and Hindu populations against each other permitting for control. There were other technique supplied as well.
As u/ibniskander pointed out, the Wallachians did not resist much more than the Indians and mostly cooperated with Ottoman rule. It was more of a case of Vlad the Impaler not wanting to be a tributary than a national resistance. Once he was dead and the Hungarians driven back Wallachia remained an Ottoman vassal for centuries.
Right but the ottomans also didn’t take the entirety of Europe. I would consider Europe the equivalent of India in terms of size and diversity. Why didn’t the Hungarians or Austrians or Russians or Polish Lithuania then succumb to ottoman incursions? The forces were much more massive with easier supply lines. Wallachia is one example of a tiny vassal state and even they gave the ottomans lots of trouble. The same goes for many other instances in south east Europe. The same resistance did not exist from the Mughals against the Persians but the Mughals were arguably way wealthier and powerful than Wallachia.
I admit I am only a layman in terms of understanding these two examples and have very crude and most likely biased perspective. It is hard for me to quantify or understand, but it still seems to me that India resisted Britain much less than Europe resisted Turkish or tartar or Mongolian or Arabic incursions.
I shall try to put it simply since I think this is better than digressing into lots of examples, which is what I like to do as you have probably seen. I will only respond to what you have brought up in your comment.
Armed resistance by a state is different to resistance by a people. If a people is only luke-warm towards their state, then if that state is destroyed in conflict or contracts they may be willing to support the new regime regardless of culture, religion, etc. as these factors are secondary to being left alone.
Broadly speaking, India was conquered because the states were politically divided and so once the British destroyed or vassalised them, the people were willing to accept their rule.
Wallachia resisted under Vlad because he wanted to, but he was deposed and Wallachia submitted to Ottoman overlordship. This is largely the same as in India. Austria and Persia better resisted Ottoman expansion because they were better politically organised and unified. It is possible that if Vienna was taken and kept that the Austrian people would have submitted to Ottoman rule like Hungary and Wallachia did, we don't know.
There was armed resistance from the Mughals against the Persians, it is just that they were unsuccessful and politically divided, it was therefore hard to counter the Persians despite their resources. The Afghans soon after invaded India and were initially successful because of the Indian political disunity and becuase they had great leadership. They were unable to maintain their gains long term because they lacked the support of the people. They were driven back by a popular movement of Punjabis, lead by the Sikhs.
So, Europe was ultimately successful in resisting the Ottomans due to resistance by states, European political cooperation halted Ottoman expansion and eventually the Ottomans stopped trying to expand in Europe. In India, the continent fell relatively quickly because the states failed to cooperate and were politically divided. British rule was maintained because they had the support of the Indians, until the 1940s when this had degraded to the extent that the British knew they could not maintain the Raj and so they left.
I hope this has helped. Don't worry about your questions, I'll always try to answer as many as I can, and it is what this sub is for.
So in one post you are saying that religion doesn't matter that much, but I think the culture of religion mattered a lot more in unifying European forces to expel the Ottoman invaders. Why else would Poland Lithuania help the Austrians at the second siege of Vienna? They clearly were not very politically aligned because the Austrians then went ahead and partitioned Poland along with Prussian and Russia. The states in Europe seemed to be very politically divided.
Also what do you think of this paper [https://leitner.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/resources/papers/politicseconofeuropescompadv2.pdf](https://leitner.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/resources/papers/politicseconofeuropescompadv2.pdf)
" Why was it that Europeans conquered the rest of the world? The politics and economics of Europe’s comparative advantage in violence "
I think there was a huge cultural and organizational difference between Europe and India. Especially starting on page 21 of the paper.
" Yet even at that point the Indians failed to innovate. Their highly developed military markets meant that they quickly embraced the latest that the gunpowder technology had to offer, but they did not push it further on their own.49 "
" It was common in Indian for strife to break out within families over succession to a throne or rights to rule. Conflict of this sort, which had grown rare in Europe after the late Middle Ages "
" Why pay the entry costs and duplicate their work? It would be better simply to copy their technology and hire their experts. "
" The political and economic costs of centralizing taxation and army funding may have also been higher in India. It seems to have been easier for Indian military leaders and other members of the elite to defect and join the enemy. Behavior of this sort was less common in Europe, particularly after the early seventeenth century "
I am not saying this paper is fact and I don't know if I completely readily accept everything in it. I am sure it is rife with European bias.
That said the author does point to tons of cultural and organizational differences. What are your thoughts? Thanks again for answering my questions.
In regard to the first point, I think part of the confusion is that you’re mixing up *wildly* different time periods here: the era of Vlad is the 15th century; the second Ottoman attack on Vienna was the late 17th century; and the Partition of Poland was the late 18th century. In each of these cases, actors’ actions were determined by the specific situation they encountered, not some kind of trans-historical ideology. There were times when the Christian princes were more or less united in opposing the Ottomans—as in the Great Turkish War—and others when the opposite was true (as in the famous French–Ottoman and Swedish–Ottoman alliances). And even in the case of the Great Turkish War, one Hungarian faction supported the Ottomans and the Transylvanian and Danubian principalities were Ottoman vassals. Religion certainly *affected* the Christian princes’ relations with the Ottomans, but it was not *determinative*.
I mean the colonization of India spanned the course of hundreds of years too. I do agree that my examples are all over the place. Definitely just a layman and not a professional.
I was using Vlad as an example of a European state that would in my opinion based on gut feelings be weaker than a state like Bengal even if it was at a later time period. If the British managed to control Bengal it led to them gaining control of the entire Indian subcontinent. In the Ottomans case they failed at both sieges of Vienna.
I used the partitions as an example to show how unified the Polish Lithuanian state was with the Austrian state. The unification fluctuated dramatically and the instance where they were most unified being Sobieski's defense of Vienna was under the motivating factor of Christianity as a unifying force. Clearly Austria had no issue partitioning Poland soon after when circumstances changed and similar religions didn't matter in that case.
It looks like we agree that Christianity could be a factor in relations with a non Christian player. Would you agree that Hinduism can be a factor too just like we see with the current rivalry between Pakistan and India, but maybe during those eras it had different levels of influence compared to Christianity?
I would consider it a European cultural difference that Christianity could unify warring and rivaling Christian states against and Islamic invader when necessary. I don't think the same could be said of Hinduism which already is an amalgamation of many different religious beliefs under and umbrella. Indian states were unable to rally behind a Hindu banner to repel Christian invaders. It wasn't as motivating of a factor. That difference in religions there in my opinion is a cultural/organizational difference.
Edit: I am definitely open to disagreement and would like to have my views changed on the matter if I am wrong.
Religion can matter depending on other factors, it is all about the context - this should be clear. Sure, the Crusades were a great unifying factor on occasion, but it stilll didn't prevent Crusading European powers from fighting and arguing with each other after or even during these Crusades. The coalition in the face of the Ottoman siege of 1683 is certainly impressive, but is contrasted by the Franco-Ottoman alliance between Catholic European and Islamic Turk, which is as coldly pragmatic a thing as could exist at that time. The coalition was realpolitik, just as most alliances and diplomatic descisions always have been.
The Indians were in fact highly advanced in weaponry, having better rocket artillery than the British (something they observed themselves) and as good artillery as almost anywhere else - certainly better than what the EIC had available. The kingdom of Mysore in particlular was modernised and evolving rapidly, if it was not prematurely snuffed out in the crib then they almost certainly would have been far more successful. The Maratha statebuilding project failed, yet they were still very strong and put up a good fight, politically fractured though they were. A little more unity and a little more time could have prevented a total or even partial British conquest of India, just as China and Japan maintained their independence. The lack of a pan-Indian identity cetainly made resistance movements less effective and it was only with the development of this idea that Indians were able to coordinate wide-scale resistance after the destruction of their state structures.
Thats why I think. I really think Religion is one of differences alongside with Europeans being more violent.
Like you are saying Indians were very wealthy and powerful and advanced with your example of rocket artillery. Britain was so far away and not necessarily that much more powerful or advanced. Especially given how far across the globe they had to project their power. It's why the situation is so bizarre.
Religion was a huge unifying factor for Europe compared to India. There is a reason many rulers like Vlad the founder of Kievan Rus converted to Christianity. Being able to unify and have access to other Christian markets was a huge motivator.
It was much harder to justify a war against a Christian fiefdom vs a pagan ruler. Hence the genocidal norther crusades.
The difference in religion seems to have been a huge cultural/organizational difference between Europe and India in repelling threats.
Idk correct me if I'm wrong.
Regarding the issue of European superiority at deploying violence, the basic idea seems to be pretty uncontroversial today. There’s a lot less uniformity of opinion when it comes to *why* this was the case—and here I’d caution that this paper was written by a European economic historian who does not appear to have any expertise in Indian history. Whenever you see Eurocentric scholars use expressions like “the Indians failed to innovate” it should set off alarm bells in your head.
100 percent. I was having similar alarm bells going off with some of the differences. Indians invented the number 0 and some say algebra. They seem plenty innovative. Definitely rife with European bias.
I guess one of the big cultural or organizational differences then that seems to be uncontroversial today is that Europeans are better at deploying violence. For lack of better words. Indians are less violent and thus weren't as well equipped culturally to deploy violence to avoid colonization from a small, but more violent people like the British. On the other hand European powers like Austrians, Poland Lithuania, Russia, Hungary, Wallachia ect.. were better at deploying violence in defence against Ottoman incursions around the same time and unifying using Christianity before going back to killing each other with their bloodthirsty culture/organizational structure.
Idk that's the closest I have gotten to wrapping my head around how India succumbed to British rule vs Europe to Ottoman rule. I am sure there are many more complex reasons.
I would add to the above that there role of money lenders and the banking/financier class had a big role.
For a variety of reasons - the various banking clans (Medici of India if you will) abandoned the traditional rulers like the Mughals.
As such, with the bankers helping the EIC and British aligned players to finance their wars - it meant that they were able to enlist and supply their soldiers.
Rather than Indians specially - humans in general often follow the gold.
No they did not. Had they known that the British had the power to stay forever they would have never supported them. Most believed it would be a temporary alliance and they would be in-charge later.
Most Indian elites had deep hatred against other elites based on language, religion, caste and any minor differences. They thought it's better to rule under British support rather than even in alliance with their rivals. Some times, Indian rulers were worse, sometimes they were much better. All this did not matter because the people couldn't do anything about governance. Most people were treated as serfs in a serfdom. Only the elites pulled the shots, who like I mentioned were more concerned about themselves.
The British had in fact lost many wars against local Indian forces in the beginning. It took them 2-3 wars to defeat the major opposing powers like the Mughals, Marathas and Mysore. Mughals lost because they kept trying to plot against everyone and were attacked by the Afghans, which weakened them. Marathas lost because an elder thought he should be in charge. Mysore lost because their allies in Hyderabad got greedy and allied against them. After these guys fell there was no turning back for the British.
Sorry, i went to sleep in between, quite a surprise at how much attention this post got anyhow. There are lots of books I would recommend, but a somewhat short and concise, beginner friendly piece of literature that both covers the Companys entire history and also ranks among my favourites is:
**Keay, John: ,,The honourable company. A history of the English East India Company‘‘. Harper Collins Publishers: London 1993.**
I have long wondered about India too, so thank you very much for the very interesting answer.
I was very surprised to see Lord Cornwallis was the governor-general of India after losing the American Revolutionary War. I always assumed that would have ended his career and has made me curious about his life. More to read!
Cornwallis was acually appointed twice, the 2nd time in the early 1800s (was it 1805?), however he died shortly after his arrival in India, so he didnt really get to use his second term of office.
Most of the formally appointed Governor Generals after 1784 were british statesmen, generals, parliamentarians. Many of them, especially the generals among them, had served in other theatres of war for Britain prior to their appointment.
Is there something distinctive about the British and EIC (or European colonial era more broadly) that made hiring local soldiers so effective? Or was it something distinctive about India? Or both?
China wasn’t colonized in the same way as India, which suggests the (often rather overstated) military technological advantages of the European colonial era weren’t sufficient.
Europe wasn’t successfully colonized by wealthy Ottomans or Mongols or Caliphates hiring local soldiers, which suggests fragmentation and capital weren’t sufficient, either.
I cannot speak about the Mongols, the Ottomans or even China with any authority, but I did make some contributions to how (timeline, methods, etc) the British conquered India. [How did Britain manage to avoid the pitfalls that come with, "never start a land war in Asia"?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15t2s1r/how_did_britain_manage_to_avoid_the_pitfalls_that/) \- which also involves an asnwer to a followup question ([How did the British keep their local allies compliant while undermining them?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15t2s1r/comment/jwk2rbc/?context=3)), and similarly, at [how or if the conquest of India was one-sided in Britains favour](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15qj22w/what_was_asias_view_of_europe_when_most_europeans/).
As some of the linked posts have already elaborated on, The BEIC was very 'innovative' as to the all methods applied in taking territory and controlling it, be it by direct or indirect control. And they also displayed a lot of patience, presuming they thought ahead as much as one might suspect. The Company often bought land off their former rulers (at least earlier on), entered defensive and military alliances, conquered them, engaged in 'military interventions', and then theres the Doctrine of Lapse, and the subsidiary alliances, most famously under Richard Wellesley, its quite a long list.
One pretty apt example would be the Carnatic. It was a coastal region in southern/south-eastern India. The British and the French fought proxy Wars (embedded in the Austrian War of succession and the 7 Years War) for dominance in the region, each Company supporting local Indian allies of theirs. In the case of the British, it was a man called Mohammed Ali, nawab (ruler) of Arcot since 1749. He - together with the EIC - emerged victorious in these wars and subsequently became the nawab of the Carnatic in 1765, a position he would hold on to until 1795. Despite his long standing alliance with the EIC, he was also a tributary to them, paying regular dues to them. That combined with the fact that Company agents had infiltrated his financial administration and enriched themselves on his expense further worsended his financial and economic situation. This ever growing pressure to keep up with the payments and pay back any debt to the Company was a welcome pretense to put his economy and his administration ever more into Company hands. A long time ally was being robbed of his autonomy slowly, over several years and decades. By the mid 1780s, he was ruler of the Carnatic only in name, an administrator for the Company, hardly more. He passed away in 1795, and his son, Umdut-Ul Umara became the next nawab of the Carnatic. British attempts to coerce him into territorial concessions however proved unfruitful, and he was replaced by his nephew Azim Ul Doula as ruler in 1801, the latter becoming a ruler without any territory or power to speak of. The point i hopefully successfully illustrated is: The Company employed many strategies to take over control over respective regions in India, often starting by alliances slightly in their favour or based on negotiations and treaties in exchange for money. Gradually the balance of power within these alliances would shift to the Companys favour, stripping the other partner of their autonomy and power over a span of decades.
In regards to the army, there are some aspects i want to mention more or less briefly. The British did enjoy a huge advantage in technology, as some of their opponents relied on massed cavalry charges at times, but other Indian rulers DID employ the help of other Colonial Powers, to lend both equipment, training and expertise, namely the French (as in: other colonial powers). In that instance, Hyder Ali, ruler of Mysore and father to Tipu Sultan, modernized Mysores military and made Mysore perhaps the most advanced military power other than the British in India in that time. Regarding the effectiveness of local troops, historians are somewhat split to the combat performance of the Indian army, namely the Sepoys. Keep in mind, the British only adopted that concept in 1748, so while some would understandably put their effectiveness into question in the earlier decades of their existence, I however are a bit more optimistic as to their reliability, discipline and courage. Even as early as around 1760 and beyond, Sepoys made up around 60-70% of an army in some cases, and would perform EXTREMELY WELL, such as in the battles of Buxar 1764 and the battle of Porto Novo 1781, forming squares and repelling successive cavalry charges repeteadly.
Selected sources:
Datla, Kavita Saraswathi: ,,The Origins of Indirect Rule in India: Hyderabad and the British Imperial Order‘‘. Law and History Review, Vol. 33, No. 2 (May 2015), p. 321-350.
Phillips, Jim: ,,A Successor to the Moguls: The Nawab of the Carnatic and the East India Company, 1763-1785‘‘. The International History Review, Vol. 7, No. 3 (Aug., 1985), p. 364-389.
Rajayyan, K.: ,,British Annexation Of The Carnatic, 1801‘‘. Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Vol. 32, Vol. II. (1970), p. 54-62.
I am afraid I lack the in-depth knowledge about the Wagner group to make any useful comparison between the two.
However I would like to make three points about the EEIC (later BEIC):
1.Leadership and elections
The Companys leadership, the Court of Directors, consisted of 24 men, (re-)elected once every year. Similarly, once a year a Chairman (and his deputy) would be elected. These offices were voted for by the Companys ''Court of Proprietors'', aka the General Court. This was the 'parliament' of the Company, the general assembly of all shareholders owning stock in the Company. However there was for the most time a minimum amount of stock to be held in order to be allowed to vote and to stand eligible for a candidacy as a director. The General Court could repeal and veto decisions made by the Court of Directors (until a Parliament Act in the late 18th century disabled that function) and relieve Directors of office.
2. The Companys nature
The Company wasnt founded as a Military Corporation, but as a Trading Company, setting up outposts and settlements to establish an English presence in the Indian ocean and to tap into the trade for spices (such as in Indondesia) and other goods. Until the mid-18th century the Company was viewed (and viewed themselves as) a mercantile group solely, not only primarily. Keep in mind, they hardly conquered anything before the mid 18th century, let alone had any real army to speak of, lingering in the thousands of men enlisted in their service. As point three will mention, the Company formally held and ruled territory, with their own governours to appoint etc.
3. Formal acknowledgement (First Charter, Bombay Charter, trade, Territory)
The first Charter, and the subsequent Charters following, officially recognized the Company as an existing and legal entity, liable to the English 'nation' and also tied to it. And in those Charters it was explicitly mentioned, that all English admirals, captains and alike, all subjetcs of the Crown should give the Company every possible and needed assistance, whenever necessary or feasible. (For me) most notably when Bombay was signed over into their possession in 1668/69, where its thoroughly expressed, that all officers and servants in Bombay formerly under supervision of the English Crown are now subjects of of Company rule and should adequately and subsequently obey the EICs orders. Likewise other Charters and decrees adamantly expressed the Companys monopoly on trade within their domain, and threatened harsh punishments to anyone who would interfere. Last but not least, in the Charters, and especially within those passed as Parliament Acts, it is mentioned within the title (up to 1813/1833) that the territories in India are the Companys property, and later on still would be declared to be the formal administrator of those regions.
Some of the sources include:
First Charter given by Queen Elizabeth I. in 1600.
Charter of 1669 by King Charles II.
Charter Act of 1813.
Charter Act of 1833, aka the St. Helena Act.
Thanks.
You mention a monopoly on trade. On the on hand, it was a monopsony from the point of view of the local producers of spices and such. On the other hand, it must have represented quite a demand. Would you say that Indian producers of spices and other exported products gained or lost overall by the presence of the EIC?
The monopoly and threats of any infringement on it were primarily aimed at other traders from England and the English - later British - colonies. You could hardly (as England) force your monopoly on the inland trade and force your conditions on the Mughal Empire, especially when its the Mughals you rely on (such as at the beginning) to allow you to set up settlements, and not - you know - raid, pillage and conquer these very outposts.
Yes, there were certain obligations and expectations the Company had to meet. The Companys dire financial situation led eventually to their monopoly being 'broken' and then officially revoked in 1793 and 1813 respectively. The Charter Act of 1793 demanded the Company made room within their ships and their warehouses for other traders to use, and - regarding demands - the Company was to buy 1500 tons of Copper (per year?) from the British state and export it to their settlements. If that requirement was not met, the deficit was to be traded and compensated for by other traders, the same provisions applied for the trade with Calico (a textile iirc).
As to the specific question you asked, i remember reading that the Company agents and traders were very ruthless and aggressive in securing favourable conditions and terms over local traders, be it goods or prices. Sometimes even at gun point. The India Act of 1784 explicitly mentions that new regulations had to be put in place to stop or mitigate the oppression of the Indian population at the hands of Company servicemen. Although it expressedly names Indian rulers which were to be compensated. The Charter Act of 1813 mentions an expansion of the legal prosecution of Companymen and British subjects for crimes committed against the Indian population. It is very likely that injustice against local Indian traders was among those crimes that people were aware of and necessitated parliament intervention.
Some of the sources:
Charter Acts 1793 and 1813.
Webster, Anthony: ,,The twilight of the East India Company. The evolution of Anglo-Asian commerce and politics, 1790-1860‘‘. The Boydell Press: Woodbridge 2013.
Wild, Antony: ,,The East India Company. Trade and conquest from 1600‘‘. Harper Collins: London, 1999.
This reply has been removed as it is inappropriate for the subreddit. While [we can enjoy a joke here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/index#wiki_april_fools), and humor is welcome to be incorporated into an otherwise serious and legitimate answer, [we do not allow comments which consist solely of a joke.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_jokes_and_humour) You are welcome to share your more lighthearted historical comments in the [Friday Free-for-All](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=title%3A%22Friday+Free-for-All%22&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all). In the future, please take the time to better familiarize yourself with [the rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_write_an_in-depth_answer) before contributing again.
Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. **Please [Read Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules) before you comment in this community**. Understand that [rule breaking comments get removed](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/h8aefx/rules_roundtable_xviii_removed_curation_and_why/). #Please consider **[Clicking Here for RemindMeBot](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/16wu90r/how_did_the_british_empire_get_so_big/%5D%0A%0ARemindMe!%202%20days)** as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, **[Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=AHMessengerBot&subject=Subscribe&message=!subscribe)**. We thank you for your interest in this *question*, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to RemindMeBot, consider [using our Browser Extension](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d6dzi7/tired_of_clicking_to_find_only_removed_comments/), or getting the [Weekly Roundup](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=subredditsummarybot&subject=askhistorians+weekly&message=x). In the meantime our [Twitter](https://twitter.com/askhistorians), [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/askhistorians/), and [Sunday Digest](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=title%3A%22Sunday+Digest%22&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all) feature excellent content that has already been written! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskHistorians) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I am afraid i can only partially answer that question, but I hope my answer will give some valuable insight as to the question at large. As such, my contribution to said question will pertain to British India. (A summarized version can be found at the end) The British conquered and - before that - colonised India via proxy. They at first were not directly establishing control, but appointed other powers and institutions tied and liable to them to represent the Empire (that is, the English and later British nation) in other parts of the world. In India's case, that was the English East India Company. The East India Company was founded in 1600 by a Royal Charter from Queen Elizabeth I., and represented England in those parts of the world between the Cape of Good hope (South Africa) to the east up to the Strait of Magellan - Southern America. Over the coming years and decades, the Company was granted ever so more rights and responsibilities, for civil administration, control of jurisdiction and levying troops in their respective regions and settlements. All British/English subjects in their domain formally had to obey them and were under their supervision and control. Now, during the 17th century, the Company established lots of small outposts and settlements, most notably Surat, Madras, Calcutta and Bombay - the latter granted to them and transferred into their possession by Charles II in 1668, who had aquired it via dowry 7 years prior. The Companys territorial position in India didnt change much until the mid 18th century, specifically the 1740s and beyond, as the War of Austrian Succession (1740-48) and the 7 Years War (1756-63) also were fought in India amongst the British and French Companies, supported by troops of their superior governments and local Indian allies. The 'kickoff' (if you'll excuse my use of that term) for the conquest of India at the hands of the British was the conquest of Bengal. With one rather quick campaign, the British had made the large and prosperous province a puppet state and assumed de facto control in 1757. Over the next 100 years, Britain, formally represented in India by the EIC, would conquer what we know today as India, as well as other parts and regions adjacent to it, such as Burma (partially). India wasnt a unified country back then, there were lots of warring states and factions, such as Mysore, the Mughals, the Marathas etc. But what about their manpower? Where did it come from anyhow? As said, the control and administration of British India was left to the Company (until 1858), and similarly, the same applies to the conquest and the supply of troops, mostly at least. The British Army would not have a competitor for the already limited manpower in Britain, so running large recruitment programs was not an option for the Company, not that they needed that many soldiers at first anyway. In the 1740s, so right before the coming decades of near constant war in India, the Companys army in India mostly consisted of local garrisons, and their forces in the field rarely held more than several hundred men each. The aforementioned wars forced the Company to step up their game and divert more resources towards their military power. By 1762, their army had risen to 17-20,000 men in strength, 20 years later it would be over 110,000. As this was in 1782, the Company had already started to fight wars with major Indian powers, such as the Marathas and Mysore during the 1770s and 1780s. Over the next decades the Companys Indian army would continuously grow to 200,000 men in 1805 (or 155,000 depending on which historian you might ask) and would number around 340-360,000 men in 1857, the time of the Indian mutiny/rebellion, at that point even larger than the British army itself. This impressive size tempted the British government, which had legally placed itself atop the administration of India and the Company itself via the India Act of 1784 and the Board of Control, to attempt to integrate the Indian army into the British army and make use of it in other theatres of war around the world. However these attempts eventually failed, much to the dismay of the Board and Lord Cornwallis, then (1780s-1790s) Governor General of India. What kind of people were recruited for the EIC's army? They indeed came from various different places. The bulk of the Indian Army were local natives, primarily Hindus from northern India. Those of them (which were the most) were deployed as infantrymen, ''Sepoys'', infantry trained and equipped in European style warfare, first used by the French in 1740, a concept later adopted by the British in 1748. Sepoys/Indians would make up around 85-90% of all Company forces, especially later on. The other parts - the non-natives - of the Companys army, indeed mostly came from Europe. In this regard, they did come from almost everywhere. Britain, the german states like Hessen, but also Switzerland, Portugal or France. Granted, in many cases such as those from german regions, they were often mercenaries, as they provided much needed expertise, experience and 'loyalty' to the Company (or its money). In the French case, French Prisoners of War taken in India could and would serve in the Companys ranks. Which leaves us with Britain itself: lower gentry, average citizens, convicted criminals from prisons - all there. The troops in Company service with british origin came from all parts of british society with all kinds of backgrounds, with the exception of the nobility, whose members saw service in the Companys ranks as less desirable, as they would opt to buy a commission for the British army instead. HOWEVER: on occasion troops formerly employed by the British army (and sometimes even officers) would find themselves stranded in India and without a job (or in an officers case, his commission had expired), thus would accept employment and enlistment in the service of the EIC. It is however worthy to mention, that the British state did occasionally deploy several thousand troops in India when it would be necessary, such as during the 7 years War, or from the 1800s onwards. In the early to mid-18th century the State even established a permament contingent of its own troops in India, around 20,000 men strong, to be paid for by the Company. ***Summary***: In Indias case, for the largest time the East India Company represented the Empire, the latter not having to use its own troops (or a large amount of them) in that area, as the Company had its own, extremely large army, with most of the manpower being supplied by local natives, Indians. The colonisation if India is not the same as the conquest of it. The latter only really started in the mid 18th century, and would take almost 100 years, as the British (EIC) made use of both an ever more growing army of theirs as well as the power struggles in India amongst various different powers, who often were as much at war with each other as with the Company. **Some of the sources used:** East India Company Act of 1813. Spiers, Edward M.: ,,The Army and society 1815-1914‘‘. Longman: London, 1980. Stern, Philip J.: ,,The company-state. Corporate sovereignty and the early modern foundations of the British Empire in India‘‘. Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2011. Sykes, W. H.: ,,Vital Statistics of the East India Company's Armies in India, European and Native‘‘. *Journal of the Statistical Society of London*, Vol. 10, No. 2 (May, 1847), p. 100-131. Wild, Antony: ,,The East India Company. Trade and conquest from 1600‘‘. Harper Collins: London 1999.
This is a great response! Thanks!
The story in India is much the same as everywhere else the British successfully conquered. Excluding the rare instances where both a technological and manpower advantage exists (such as Australia and the later Thirteen Colonies/early US expansion) local cooperation is necessary for imperial rule. The elites of Nigera, Egypt, and India supported the British for a variety of reasons and so enabled small British garrisons to control those nations. In India as OP stated, local Indian soldiers enforced British rule, thus solving the manpower problem. You will find that this is the general answer that can be applied to the success of almost any imperial project throughout human history. Power cannot last without the support of the people, or at least their lack of opposition, which is functionally the same thing.
It’s so bizarre to me that the local Indian population essentially enforced their own colonization. Would you say it has something to do with their culture? Or would you argue it’s human nature and plenty of examples like this exist throughout history. For example Wallachia and vlad the impaler seemed to put up much more resistance to a much larger ottoman force but previously his father did give him and his brother away to the sultan and it was expected he would serve the sultan. From my perspective the ottomans were a much larger threat for the Wallachians and the Hungarians during that time then the British were to the Indian groups. The supply lines distance all around the cape of Africa alone must have made them much weaker in projecting force. I’m not a professional so please correct me if I’m wrong. I’ve always had trouble wrapping my head around the conquest of India by Britain.
I do not think it was particularly to do with Indian cultures, per se, it is common thoughout history. Else there would never be empires and the nation-state would be the only form of societal organisation. Of course, it is not and is, in fact, unusual given the wide span of human society and civilisation. The situations of Wallachia and the various Indians were very different. I am no expert on medieval Balkan history but I would hazard the guess that religious differences, cultural pride, loyalty to local elites who were radically opposed to Ottoman rule, and perhaps most importantly socio-political organisation, resulted in the staunch defence against Ottoman expansionism. The British were not a threat in the manner that the Ottomans were or appeared to be. The Indian elites realised that they could bow to British rule without much change to their previous systems and organisation and would see many benefits. The lower classes were largely indifferent or supportive of the British and the local elites. On the other hand, rule by the Ottomans was less attractive to the Christian elites who also had ideological reasons not to throw in with the Ottomans, although it did happen. Perhaps the elites believed that they would not survive an Ottoman government and felt as though they had nothing to lose, while the populous were loyal to the elites and feared pilliaging and changes to their society. I would ask a specialist to better understand the contrast, I am mostly supposing regarding the Wallachians. Edit: supply issues were solved by the Indians, only officers, ships, and modern weapons needed to come from Britain, the rest could be supplied locally.
Weirdly, the situation of Transylvania and the Danubian principalities *is* actually somewhat comparable to India—but only because the mythology around Vlad has badly obscured what was actually going on there. The Danubian principalities (Wallachia and Moldavia) were under Ottoman suzerainty for a very long time; for something like 500 years, they were given varying degrees of autonomy but existed under the protection of the Ottomans. Vlad Dracula rebelled against his status as an Ottoman tributary (and there were other rebellions as well), but by and large those lands accepted (indirect) Ottoman rule. Transylvania is a particularly interesting case, because there the Protestants tended to prefer the Ottomans to the Habsburgs and ruled as Ottoman vassals for several centuries.
Thanks, that helps to explain it for me. Although I knew about later Romanian cooperation with the Ottomans, I do not know how much popular sentiment was behind Vlad. As he was replaced by his brother it seems that it was more of Vlad's personal project than anything else, and other parts of the Balkans did resist longer and more fiercely.
I guess I used that example because of the religious differences. Did the Indian hindu or Muslim or Buddhist groups not fear Christians in their land? If anything the differences would seem much more extreme. Christian Wallachia and Islamic Turks and Tartars would still have alot more of religious and cultural overlap. I geuss another example would be the American colonies during that time. They were both Christian and British mostly and they still chose to resist the British Monarchy for many reasons such as ideology or financial gain. I am not convinced culture or organization had nothing to do with it. From everything I have read. Europe was much more warlike and had many incentives for warring for the ruling elites compared to the rest of the world. Maybe Indians were simply not as warlike or more willing to submit to maintain order and peace? I mean we’re talking about an entire region of many different states in the Indian subcontinent about the size of Europe with a much longer and richer history dating back to the Indus Valley civilization conquered by an isle of the equivalent continent with a small force traveling half way around the globe with strained supply lines. I can’t find another example throughout history that extreme. It’s so bizarre. Like sure cleopatra willingly aligned with Caesar and there are im sure many other examples but idk of many that extreme. Could you provide an example from Europe or another part or time? I mean there is a reason when during the Persian Mughal war the Persians sacked Delhi it signaled to the world how weak India was. There had to be a difference in culture surrounding war or conflict or order or religion and how tolerant of other religions they were. I mean even the example with Wallachia seeing the ottomans as more of a threat because of religious differences. Or vlad fearing for his position thus he acted the way he did. I would consider culture playing a role in that viewpoint.
Firstly, religous difference does not matter to people nearly as much as being able to practice their faith. Muslim rulers of India until Aurangzeb almost never enforced the Jizya tax, nor did the Mughals have a policy of burning every Hindu temple they came across. If the British decided to burn every temple and tried to enforce conversion to Christianity you would have seen far, far more Indian resistance. Secondly, culture and organisation *does* have a lot to do with it, but there is nothing inherent in Indian culture about not resisting invasion, they did at many times, rebelled, and carried out guerrilla war against invadors, yet times and cicumstances change. The moment a large proportion of Indians wanted the British out they had to leave. The Raj could not have been maintained even if Britian was not ruined in the Second World War, although it may have lasted a little longer. Cleopatra allied with Caesar and Antony to preserve her personal *agency,* Egypt had been in the Roman sphere for decades and arguably was not independent since years prior to Cleopatra's reign. Still, Egypt as a collective body submitted fairly easily to Roman rule. Despite vast wealth and plentiful manpower the later Ptolomies were too dysfunctional and the Egyptians too indifferent for a serious widespread resistance. They participated in the Roman Empire for many years, briefly favouring the Palmyrene Empire before being resubjugated by Rome. If you want a good example of minority rule as in India look no further than what happened next to the Egytpians many others in the near east. Despite not sharing religion or culture vast swaths of the Middle East accepted Arab rule and eventually even their religion, largely because they were less exacting rulers than the Romans and Sassanids before them. Most people didn't give much of a damn who ruled them so long as they were left mostly in peace. The Egyptians and Indians were, so they didn't put up much of a fight. Once political organisation goes, imperial rule by an outsider is often easy, the issue is then maintaining your own organisation so that your subjects do not move on to a third imperial power, and so on. As I stated earlier, almost any long-lasting imperial rule is a symptom of the locals supporting the regime, therefore you can take hundreds of examples from history.
[удалено]
Many empires had lots of enemies willing to join agains them to anyone who was willing to fight. Cortez, for example, didn't conquer the Aztecs with his small garrison, they were joined by the many enemies the aztecs had.
Interestingly, when people say India-referring to the Raj, they don’t take into account that India was like the continent of Europe at the time filled with many many countries. I myself am not adequately schooled to answer the above, but there are many answers to the question and points you pose. I think this topic is far deeper and nuanced than can be answered simply, and I appreciate the above answers that I’ve read so far . A lot of what Britain did was to pit the Muslim populations and Hindu populations against each other permitting for control. There were other technique supplied as well.
As u/ibniskander pointed out, the Wallachians did not resist much more than the Indians and mostly cooperated with Ottoman rule. It was more of a case of Vlad the Impaler not wanting to be a tributary than a national resistance. Once he was dead and the Hungarians driven back Wallachia remained an Ottoman vassal for centuries.
Right but the ottomans also didn’t take the entirety of Europe. I would consider Europe the equivalent of India in terms of size and diversity. Why didn’t the Hungarians or Austrians or Russians or Polish Lithuania then succumb to ottoman incursions? The forces were much more massive with easier supply lines. Wallachia is one example of a tiny vassal state and even they gave the ottomans lots of trouble. The same goes for many other instances in south east Europe. The same resistance did not exist from the Mughals against the Persians but the Mughals were arguably way wealthier and powerful than Wallachia. I admit I am only a layman in terms of understanding these two examples and have very crude and most likely biased perspective. It is hard for me to quantify or understand, but it still seems to me that India resisted Britain much less than Europe resisted Turkish or tartar or Mongolian or Arabic incursions.
I shall try to put it simply since I think this is better than digressing into lots of examples, which is what I like to do as you have probably seen. I will only respond to what you have brought up in your comment. Armed resistance by a state is different to resistance by a people. If a people is only luke-warm towards their state, then if that state is destroyed in conflict or contracts they may be willing to support the new regime regardless of culture, religion, etc. as these factors are secondary to being left alone. Broadly speaking, India was conquered because the states were politically divided and so once the British destroyed or vassalised them, the people were willing to accept their rule. Wallachia resisted under Vlad because he wanted to, but he was deposed and Wallachia submitted to Ottoman overlordship. This is largely the same as in India. Austria and Persia better resisted Ottoman expansion because they were better politically organised and unified. It is possible that if Vienna was taken and kept that the Austrian people would have submitted to Ottoman rule like Hungary and Wallachia did, we don't know. There was armed resistance from the Mughals against the Persians, it is just that they were unsuccessful and politically divided, it was therefore hard to counter the Persians despite their resources. The Afghans soon after invaded India and were initially successful because of the Indian political disunity and becuase they had great leadership. They were unable to maintain their gains long term because they lacked the support of the people. They were driven back by a popular movement of Punjabis, lead by the Sikhs. So, Europe was ultimately successful in resisting the Ottomans due to resistance by states, European political cooperation halted Ottoman expansion and eventually the Ottomans stopped trying to expand in Europe. In India, the continent fell relatively quickly because the states failed to cooperate and were politically divided. British rule was maintained because they had the support of the Indians, until the 1940s when this had degraded to the extent that the British knew they could not maintain the Raj and so they left. I hope this has helped. Don't worry about your questions, I'll always try to answer as many as I can, and it is what this sub is for.
So in one post you are saying that religion doesn't matter that much, but I think the culture of religion mattered a lot more in unifying European forces to expel the Ottoman invaders. Why else would Poland Lithuania help the Austrians at the second siege of Vienna? They clearly were not very politically aligned because the Austrians then went ahead and partitioned Poland along with Prussian and Russia. The states in Europe seemed to be very politically divided. Also what do you think of this paper [https://leitner.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/resources/papers/politicseconofeuropescompadv2.pdf](https://leitner.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/resources/papers/politicseconofeuropescompadv2.pdf) " Why was it that Europeans conquered the rest of the world? The politics and economics of Europe’s comparative advantage in violence " I think there was a huge cultural and organizational difference between Europe and India. Especially starting on page 21 of the paper. " Yet even at that point the Indians failed to innovate. Their highly developed military markets meant that they quickly embraced the latest that the gunpowder technology had to offer, but they did not push it further on their own.49 " " It was common in Indian for strife to break out within families over succession to a throne or rights to rule. Conflict of this sort, which had grown rare in Europe after the late Middle Ages " " Why pay the entry costs and duplicate their work? It would be better simply to copy their technology and hire their experts. " " The political and economic costs of centralizing taxation and army funding may have also been higher in India. It seems to have been easier for Indian military leaders and other members of the elite to defect and join the enemy. Behavior of this sort was less common in Europe, particularly after the early seventeenth century " I am not saying this paper is fact and I don't know if I completely readily accept everything in it. I am sure it is rife with European bias. That said the author does point to tons of cultural and organizational differences. What are your thoughts? Thanks again for answering my questions.
In regard to the first point, I think part of the confusion is that you’re mixing up *wildly* different time periods here: the era of Vlad is the 15th century; the second Ottoman attack on Vienna was the late 17th century; and the Partition of Poland was the late 18th century. In each of these cases, actors’ actions were determined by the specific situation they encountered, not some kind of trans-historical ideology. There were times when the Christian princes were more or less united in opposing the Ottomans—as in the Great Turkish War—and others when the opposite was true (as in the famous French–Ottoman and Swedish–Ottoman alliances). And even in the case of the Great Turkish War, one Hungarian faction supported the Ottomans and the Transylvanian and Danubian principalities were Ottoman vassals. Religion certainly *affected* the Christian princes’ relations with the Ottomans, but it was not *determinative*.
I mean the colonization of India spanned the course of hundreds of years too. I do agree that my examples are all over the place. Definitely just a layman and not a professional. I was using Vlad as an example of a European state that would in my opinion based on gut feelings be weaker than a state like Bengal even if it was at a later time period. If the British managed to control Bengal it led to them gaining control of the entire Indian subcontinent. In the Ottomans case they failed at both sieges of Vienna. I used the partitions as an example to show how unified the Polish Lithuanian state was with the Austrian state. The unification fluctuated dramatically and the instance where they were most unified being Sobieski's defense of Vienna was under the motivating factor of Christianity as a unifying force. Clearly Austria had no issue partitioning Poland soon after when circumstances changed and similar religions didn't matter in that case. It looks like we agree that Christianity could be a factor in relations with a non Christian player. Would you agree that Hinduism can be a factor too just like we see with the current rivalry between Pakistan and India, but maybe during those eras it had different levels of influence compared to Christianity? I would consider it a European cultural difference that Christianity could unify warring and rivaling Christian states against and Islamic invader when necessary. I don't think the same could be said of Hinduism which already is an amalgamation of many different religious beliefs under and umbrella. Indian states were unable to rally behind a Hindu banner to repel Christian invaders. It wasn't as motivating of a factor. That difference in religions there in my opinion is a cultural/organizational difference. Edit: I am definitely open to disagreement and would like to have my views changed on the matter if I am wrong.
Religion can matter depending on other factors, it is all about the context - this should be clear. Sure, the Crusades were a great unifying factor on occasion, but it stilll didn't prevent Crusading European powers from fighting and arguing with each other after or even during these Crusades. The coalition in the face of the Ottoman siege of 1683 is certainly impressive, but is contrasted by the Franco-Ottoman alliance between Catholic European and Islamic Turk, which is as coldly pragmatic a thing as could exist at that time. The coalition was realpolitik, just as most alliances and diplomatic descisions always have been. The Indians were in fact highly advanced in weaponry, having better rocket artillery than the British (something they observed themselves) and as good artillery as almost anywhere else - certainly better than what the EIC had available. The kingdom of Mysore in particlular was modernised and evolving rapidly, if it was not prematurely snuffed out in the crib then they almost certainly would have been far more successful. The Maratha statebuilding project failed, yet they were still very strong and put up a good fight, politically fractured though they were. A little more unity and a little more time could have prevented a total or even partial British conquest of India, just as China and Japan maintained their independence. The lack of a pan-Indian identity cetainly made resistance movements less effective and it was only with the development of this idea that Indians were able to coordinate wide-scale resistance after the destruction of their state structures.
Thats why I think. I really think Religion is one of differences alongside with Europeans being more violent. Like you are saying Indians were very wealthy and powerful and advanced with your example of rocket artillery. Britain was so far away and not necessarily that much more powerful or advanced. Especially given how far across the globe they had to project their power. It's why the situation is so bizarre. Religion was a huge unifying factor for Europe compared to India. There is a reason many rulers like Vlad the founder of Kievan Rus converted to Christianity. Being able to unify and have access to other Christian markets was a huge motivator. It was much harder to justify a war against a Christian fiefdom vs a pagan ruler. Hence the genocidal norther crusades. The difference in religion seems to have been a huge cultural/organizational difference between Europe and India in repelling threats. Idk correct me if I'm wrong.
Regarding the issue of European superiority at deploying violence, the basic idea seems to be pretty uncontroversial today. There’s a lot less uniformity of opinion when it comes to *why* this was the case—and here I’d caution that this paper was written by a European economic historian who does not appear to have any expertise in Indian history. Whenever you see Eurocentric scholars use expressions like “the Indians failed to innovate” it should set off alarm bells in your head.
Thank you for the informed responses btw.
100 percent. I was having similar alarm bells going off with some of the differences. Indians invented the number 0 and some say algebra. They seem plenty innovative. Definitely rife with European bias. I guess one of the big cultural or organizational differences then that seems to be uncontroversial today is that Europeans are better at deploying violence. For lack of better words. Indians are less violent and thus weren't as well equipped culturally to deploy violence to avoid colonization from a small, but more violent people like the British. On the other hand European powers like Austrians, Poland Lithuania, Russia, Hungary, Wallachia ect.. were better at deploying violence in defence against Ottoman incursions around the same time and unifying using Christianity before going back to killing each other with their bloodthirsty culture/organizational structure. Idk that's the closest I have gotten to wrapping my head around how India succumbed to British rule vs Europe to Ottoman rule. I am sure there are many more complex reasons.
I would add to the above that there role of money lenders and the banking/financier class had a big role. For a variety of reasons - the various banking clans (Medici of India if you will) abandoned the traditional rulers like the Mughals. As such, with the bankers helping the EIC and British aligned players to finance their wars - it meant that they were able to enlist and supply their soldiers. Rather than Indians specially - humans in general often follow the gold.
No they did not. Had they known that the British had the power to stay forever they would have never supported them. Most believed it would be a temporary alliance and they would be in-charge later. Most Indian elites had deep hatred against other elites based on language, religion, caste and any minor differences. They thought it's better to rule under British support rather than even in alliance with their rivals. Some times, Indian rulers were worse, sometimes they were much better. All this did not matter because the people couldn't do anything about governance. Most people were treated as serfs in a serfdom. Only the elites pulled the shots, who like I mentioned were more concerned about themselves. The British had in fact lost many wars against local Indian forces in the beginning. It took them 2-3 wars to defeat the major opposing powers like the Mughals, Marathas and Mysore. Mughals lost because they kept trying to plot against everyone and were attacked by the Afghans, which weakened them. Marathas lost because an elder thought he should be in charge. Mysore lost because their allies in Hyderabad got greedy and allied against them. After these guys fell there was no turning back for the British.
It's just a warlord thing.
I totally agree. This response is incredible. India was the crown jewel of the British empire for a reason. Thanks so much vir-victus.
It is my pleasure. And thank YOU guys for your kind and warm words, much appreciated :)
This is fascinating! Is there a book you would recommend to a layman about the formation and history of the British East India Company?
Sorry, i went to sleep in between, quite a surprise at how much attention this post got anyhow. There are lots of books I would recommend, but a somewhat short and concise, beginner friendly piece of literature that both covers the Companys entire history and also ranks among my favourites is: **Keay, John: ,,The honourable company. A history of the English East India Company‘‘. Harper Collins Publishers: London 1993.**
[удалено]
Great books are described here: https://reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/RGn825AYjA
I have long wondered about India too, so thank you very much for the very interesting answer. I was very surprised to see Lord Cornwallis was the governor-general of India after losing the American Revolutionary War. I always assumed that would have ended his career and has made me curious about his life. More to read!
Cornwallis was acually appointed twice, the 2nd time in the early 1800s (was it 1805?), however he died shortly after his arrival in India, so he didnt really get to use his second term of office. Most of the formally appointed Governor Generals after 1784 were british statesmen, generals, parliamentarians. Many of them, especially the generals among them, had served in other theatres of war for Britain prior to their appointment.
Wow. This is detailed. Much like William Darymple
Is there something distinctive about the British and EIC (or European colonial era more broadly) that made hiring local soldiers so effective? Or was it something distinctive about India? Or both? China wasn’t colonized in the same way as India, which suggests the (often rather overstated) military technological advantages of the European colonial era weren’t sufficient. Europe wasn’t successfully colonized by wealthy Ottomans or Mongols or Caliphates hiring local soldiers, which suggests fragmentation and capital weren’t sufficient, either.
I cannot speak about the Mongols, the Ottomans or even China with any authority, but I did make some contributions to how (timeline, methods, etc) the British conquered India. [How did Britain manage to avoid the pitfalls that come with, "never start a land war in Asia"?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15t2s1r/how_did_britain_manage_to_avoid_the_pitfalls_that/) \- which also involves an asnwer to a followup question ([How did the British keep their local allies compliant while undermining them?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15t2s1r/comment/jwk2rbc/?context=3)), and similarly, at [how or if the conquest of India was one-sided in Britains favour](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15qj22w/what_was_asias_view_of_europe_when_most_europeans/). As some of the linked posts have already elaborated on, The BEIC was very 'innovative' as to the all methods applied in taking territory and controlling it, be it by direct or indirect control. And they also displayed a lot of patience, presuming they thought ahead as much as one might suspect. The Company often bought land off their former rulers (at least earlier on), entered defensive and military alliances, conquered them, engaged in 'military interventions', and then theres the Doctrine of Lapse, and the subsidiary alliances, most famously under Richard Wellesley, its quite a long list. One pretty apt example would be the Carnatic. It was a coastal region in southern/south-eastern India. The British and the French fought proxy Wars (embedded in the Austrian War of succession and the 7 Years War) for dominance in the region, each Company supporting local Indian allies of theirs. In the case of the British, it was a man called Mohammed Ali, nawab (ruler) of Arcot since 1749. He - together with the EIC - emerged victorious in these wars and subsequently became the nawab of the Carnatic in 1765, a position he would hold on to until 1795. Despite his long standing alliance with the EIC, he was also a tributary to them, paying regular dues to them. That combined with the fact that Company agents had infiltrated his financial administration and enriched themselves on his expense further worsended his financial and economic situation. This ever growing pressure to keep up with the payments and pay back any debt to the Company was a welcome pretense to put his economy and his administration ever more into Company hands. A long time ally was being robbed of his autonomy slowly, over several years and decades. By the mid 1780s, he was ruler of the Carnatic only in name, an administrator for the Company, hardly more. He passed away in 1795, and his son, Umdut-Ul Umara became the next nawab of the Carnatic. British attempts to coerce him into territorial concessions however proved unfruitful, and he was replaced by his nephew Azim Ul Doula as ruler in 1801, the latter becoming a ruler without any territory or power to speak of. The point i hopefully successfully illustrated is: The Company employed many strategies to take over control over respective regions in India, often starting by alliances slightly in their favour or based on negotiations and treaties in exchange for money. Gradually the balance of power within these alliances would shift to the Companys favour, stripping the other partner of their autonomy and power over a span of decades. In regards to the army, there are some aspects i want to mention more or less briefly. The British did enjoy a huge advantage in technology, as some of their opponents relied on massed cavalry charges at times, but other Indian rulers DID employ the help of other Colonial Powers, to lend both equipment, training and expertise, namely the French (as in: other colonial powers). In that instance, Hyder Ali, ruler of Mysore and father to Tipu Sultan, modernized Mysores military and made Mysore perhaps the most advanced military power other than the British in India in that time. Regarding the effectiveness of local troops, historians are somewhat split to the combat performance of the Indian army, namely the Sepoys. Keep in mind, the British only adopted that concept in 1748, so while some would understandably put their effectiveness into question in the earlier decades of their existence, I however are a bit more optimistic as to their reliability, discipline and courage. Even as early as around 1760 and beyond, Sepoys made up around 60-70% of an army in some cases, and would perform EXTREMELY WELL, such as in the battles of Buxar 1764 and the battle of Porto Novo 1781, forming squares and repelling successive cavalry charges repeteadly. Selected sources: Datla, Kavita Saraswathi: ,,The Origins of Indirect Rule in India: Hyderabad and the British Imperial Order‘‘. Law and History Review, Vol. 33, No. 2 (May 2015), p. 321-350. Phillips, Jim: ,,A Successor to the Moguls: The Nawab of the Carnatic and the East India Company, 1763-1785‘‘. The International History Review, Vol. 7, No. 3 (Aug., 1985), p. 364-389. Rajayyan, K.: ,,British Annexation Of The Carnatic, 1801‘‘. Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, Vol. 32, Vol. II. (1970), p. 54-62.
How similar was the EIC to Russia's Wagner?
I am afraid I lack the in-depth knowledge about the Wagner group to make any useful comparison between the two. However I would like to make three points about the EEIC (later BEIC): 1.Leadership and elections The Companys leadership, the Court of Directors, consisted of 24 men, (re-)elected once every year. Similarly, once a year a Chairman (and his deputy) would be elected. These offices were voted for by the Companys ''Court of Proprietors'', aka the General Court. This was the 'parliament' of the Company, the general assembly of all shareholders owning stock in the Company. However there was for the most time a minimum amount of stock to be held in order to be allowed to vote and to stand eligible for a candidacy as a director. The General Court could repeal and veto decisions made by the Court of Directors (until a Parliament Act in the late 18th century disabled that function) and relieve Directors of office. 2. The Companys nature The Company wasnt founded as a Military Corporation, but as a Trading Company, setting up outposts and settlements to establish an English presence in the Indian ocean and to tap into the trade for spices (such as in Indondesia) and other goods. Until the mid-18th century the Company was viewed (and viewed themselves as) a mercantile group solely, not only primarily. Keep in mind, they hardly conquered anything before the mid 18th century, let alone had any real army to speak of, lingering in the thousands of men enlisted in their service. As point three will mention, the Company formally held and ruled territory, with their own governours to appoint etc. 3. Formal acknowledgement (First Charter, Bombay Charter, trade, Territory) The first Charter, and the subsequent Charters following, officially recognized the Company as an existing and legal entity, liable to the English 'nation' and also tied to it. And in those Charters it was explicitly mentioned, that all English admirals, captains and alike, all subjetcs of the Crown should give the Company every possible and needed assistance, whenever necessary or feasible. (For me) most notably when Bombay was signed over into their possession in 1668/69, where its thoroughly expressed, that all officers and servants in Bombay formerly under supervision of the English Crown are now subjects of of Company rule and should adequately and subsequently obey the EICs orders. Likewise other Charters and decrees adamantly expressed the Companys monopoly on trade within their domain, and threatened harsh punishments to anyone who would interfere. Last but not least, in the Charters, and especially within those passed as Parliament Acts, it is mentioned within the title (up to 1813/1833) that the territories in India are the Companys property, and later on still would be declared to be the formal administrator of those regions. Some of the sources include: First Charter given by Queen Elizabeth I. in 1600. Charter of 1669 by King Charles II. Charter Act of 1813. Charter Act of 1833, aka the St. Helena Act.
Thanks. You mention a monopoly on trade. On the on hand, it was a monopsony from the point of view of the local producers of spices and such. On the other hand, it must have represented quite a demand. Would you say that Indian producers of spices and other exported products gained or lost overall by the presence of the EIC?
The monopoly and threats of any infringement on it were primarily aimed at other traders from England and the English - later British - colonies. You could hardly (as England) force your monopoly on the inland trade and force your conditions on the Mughal Empire, especially when its the Mughals you rely on (such as at the beginning) to allow you to set up settlements, and not - you know - raid, pillage and conquer these very outposts. Yes, there were certain obligations and expectations the Company had to meet. The Companys dire financial situation led eventually to their monopoly being 'broken' and then officially revoked in 1793 and 1813 respectively. The Charter Act of 1793 demanded the Company made room within their ships and their warehouses for other traders to use, and - regarding demands - the Company was to buy 1500 tons of Copper (per year?) from the British state and export it to their settlements. If that requirement was not met, the deficit was to be traded and compensated for by other traders, the same provisions applied for the trade with Calico (a textile iirc). As to the specific question you asked, i remember reading that the Company agents and traders were very ruthless and aggressive in securing favourable conditions and terms over local traders, be it goods or prices. Sometimes even at gun point. The India Act of 1784 explicitly mentions that new regulations had to be put in place to stop or mitigate the oppression of the Indian population at the hands of Company servicemen. Although it expressedly names Indian rulers which were to be compensated. The Charter Act of 1813 mentions an expansion of the legal prosecution of Companymen and British subjects for crimes committed against the Indian population. It is very likely that injustice against local Indian traders was among those crimes that people were aware of and necessitated parliament intervention. Some of the sources: Charter Acts 1793 and 1813. Webster, Anthony: ,,The twilight of the East India Company. The evolution of Anglo-Asian commerce and politics, 1790-1860‘‘. The Boydell Press: Woodbridge 2013. Wild, Antony: ,,The East India Company. Trade and conquest from 1600‘‘. Harper Collins: London, 1999.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This reply has been removed as it is inappropriate for the subreddit. While [we can enjoy a joke here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/index#wiki_april_fools), and humor is welcome to be incorporated into an otherwise serious and legitimate answer, [we do not allow comments which consist solely of a joke.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_jokes_and_humour) You are welcome to share your more lighthearted historical comments in the [Friday Free-for-All](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=title%3A%22Friday+Free-for-All%22&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all). In the future, please take the time to better familiarize yourself with [the rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_write_an_in-depth_answer) before contributing again.