How did it happen? No memes, please don't post that dumb green text about aliens.
How did England (Britain/UK if you insist on pretending it wasn't just England and here vassal states.) conquer India, not just "India" as we know it tosay but the India in the pic.
Book and Documentary recommendations would be good.
youtube.com
Those are pretty good desu pham, but I would like to know about the conquest.
Other urls found in this thread:
England never conquered India, it ruled it in an alienince with local indian elites. They had a ready made army which the illegitimate indian states were allowed to use to oppress the population they were supposed to be governing.
India wasn't a unified country back in those days, there were hell lot of kings and nawabs who were always ready to fight each other, English used this for their own benefit and conquered eastern India pretty easily,after that it was just a matter of time before traitors started joining them and they started expanding their territories.... They faced tough opposition only in Northern/Southern India which they conquered anyways with some diplomacy and advanced warfare.
All in all Indians were assholes at that time and Britishers were smart(still they are assholes)*.
same reason most empires conquer.
Internal division, distrust/dislike of the previous ruling parties.
Britain had the extra benefit of being able to shoot them without them being able to shoot back.
>Britain didn't conquer India
>Britain helped Indians conquer India
>and conquered half of India as well
Let's hear how it was worse for Asians to build an empire than for Europeans to build an empire next!
>people who think Indians didn't have firearms
You have the internet, user.
British had flintlock muskets; Indians had matchlock muskets.
Flintlock > matchlock
Much like how PS4 > Xbox One
But flintlocks have bullets, so that's a bad comparison
iirc they didnt conquer all of those lands, some of them were ruled by pro british hindu noble who were helped by the british against the mughal empire
This quite interesting. Machiavelli says in the Prince that all the lands that the Romans managed to conquest, they were initially invited there by someone who wanted help with a local rivalry and they ended up taking over everything. Looks like Britain took a leaf out of their book.
Could someone redpill me on the Partition?
>redpill me on
Fuck off.
Well history keeps repeating itself! People with brains had and will keep conquering those without brains..
...
>Britain had the extra benefit of being able to shoot them without them being able to shoot back.
Indians had decent enough amount of firearms and artillery.
What British had as their advantage was discipline.
Indian warlords have never seen something like that - a line of men all in the same uniforms standing, loading and firing stoically despite being fired at, with officers flogging insubordinate soldiers on the battlefield and so on.
Yes for the most part, they eventually bought out majority of Raja, military men, and other landowners until they practically had their hands in the pants of everyone in power. They, now the east India trading company given permission from the queen to have a monopoly on India, won the people's favor initially by pandering to Hindu values. Hindus at the time, and to this day made up a majority of the people. This was especially favorable for certain tribes and groups, who were kind of sick of being ruled by Muslim elites and their more western traditions. Then they tried the area that is now Afghanistan, Pakistan, and jammu & Kashmir. They failed. Then they continued until they were successfully able to install enough figureheads and puppets to overthrow the mughal dynasties. Kashmir was then entrusted to them after trading some hands. Then they were like "hey, let's try to pick away at that giant mass of arguing tribes and separate regional identities north of us!" They said before immediately getting destroyed. Out of anger they took sri Lanka and invented the IPA.
"Well this is just out of hand" cackled england. And they (the British empire) took India. They still allowed regional governments to function, so long as the English were in their pockets.
The britisg then decided to try Afghanistan again after hearing that Russia also wants that land after signing a contract that says neither country will try that land again. England declared a monumental victory as it limped back to Delhi, crushed again by the same clusterfuck a 3rd time.
If shit hadn't hit the fan before it was about to. With the administrate failures from executives changing to military men and cultural researchers to military men and Hindu powers solicitors
things were handled very shittily.
Now the idea that the British were behind the scenes in India was less of common conspiracy theory and more of a fact of life.
Struggle for Pakistan by jalal and
Consise history of modern india
It's 2:30 am and reading it again I messed up the order, goodnight
People with capital are able to get better deals than people without capital.
People willing to use violence are able to get better deals than people who aren't.
We've known 'might makes right' forever; thankfully, people these days understand that evoking 'might makes right' means you have lost the argument, but not everyone.
>No memes, please don't post that dumb green text about aliens.
But that's pretty much how it happened
British didn't directly rule India, they were hundreds of years ahead of India in technology and ruled through local rulers. There were never more than a couple dozen thousand British people in India at any one time.
Consequences of Violence are unpredictable, Not always does the people who use violence get great deals sometimes they get great defeat.... Its consequences mostly depend on people of the region.
The thing about capital is true,it always gets you great deals.
Muslims didn't believe in that the indian state could be secular, and some didn't even want a secular state but a muslim one. It was convenient for the british to have India divided so they allowed Pakistan to exist.
>No memes
Unfortunately you have to accept at least 1 meme.
The Mughals were just as brutal as the British.
Can you logically explain what is wrong with that assertion? I have seen plenty of people flip their shit over it and accuse me of saying British rule was benevolent white man's burden bla bla, but can you actually rationally explain why I should assume that the Mughals were benevolent?
The Niwabs and other small states paid protection to whoever benefited them the most, though the British would tax/extort them as much as the Mughals or other local strongmen, they had ships with dozens of cannons, they could sell their tea and other commodities for higher prices to the British, on land the Mughals had rockets and cannons also, but the British quickly adopted rockets and were more organized after the napoleonic wars as well as having an advantage in logistics due to their naval power and empire.
People seem to imagine colonization with a modern lens, they imagine ordinary Indian people had a say and resisted the foreign conquerors as they did during India's independence movement, but this is a very inaccurate view of what happened.
The Romans were notorious for making alliances, building up their military, then betraying the allies. Making new alliances as they built up again, repeat.
> August 1765, when the young Mughal emperor Shah Alam, exiled from Delhi and defeated by East India Company troops, was forced into what we would now call an act of involuntary privatisation. The scroll is an order to dismiss his own Mughal revenue officials in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa, and replace them with a set of English traders appointed by Robert Clive – the new governor of Bengal – and the directors of the EIC, who the document describes as “the high and mighty, the noblest of exalted nobles, the chief of illustrious warriors, our faithful servants and sincere well-wishers, worthy of our royal favours, the English Company”. The collecting of Mughal taxes was henceforth subcontracted to a powerful multinational corporation – whose revenue-collecting operations were protected by its own private army.
OP here
They did though, if the Queen of England is Empress of India, they got conquered.
What are those days? The Maratha and Mughal empires seem pretty fucking unifying to me. India had been unified before.
>...see pic
They had rockets.
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
I thought some of you would have some insight, I'd have better luck on Reddit. You people make me sick.
>couple
>dozen
>thousand
Have you heard of numerals, pretty nifty Indian invention user. Also, from what little I've read, and evidently you've read less - there were often in excess of a 100,000 British men stationed in India.
Finally some relevant discussion.
shut the FUCK up Poojeet you dirty smelly curry-eating diarrhea-looking cow-worshiping Delhi nigger
The Indians definitely had firearms. They also had cannons and rockets IIRC
I smell someone trying to get his homework done for him.
Are you serious? You anons are about as useful as a spastic in a magnet factory. Between you, you can't muster one good book recommendation.
WTF!!! If I know about history of a country it doesn't mean I'm the citizen of that country. Think before you comment on someone dumbass.
Nice try Pajeet but I can smell you from here
I honestly don't fucking understand people like you. I'd get if a disenfranchised poorly educated second worlder Bangladeshi or Pakistani felt resentment towards me, but what the fuck do I owe you?
quite perfidious
THE ETERNAL ANGLO
why are indians such betas? nobody other than indians would sink low to be slaves to anyone else, maybe flips/thais but that's it
That's such a cool landscape in the world. I want to see a fantasy world made from heightened analogs of those regions
Dog you are! I'm from Canada btw
What now they wipe rich indian asses? Nationalism is a relatively recent european phenomenon and its exportation and use in historical analysis is one of the greatest faults of our time
t. pajeet
literally no other ethnicity on the planet, not even blacks are as subservient as indians