Fun fact: That monarch that didn't came to the durbar was in the middle of India himself as Prince of Wales, and was caught unaware when his mother was proclaimed Empress of India.
@sylviamontaez38893 жыл бұрын
Edward VII was already king by then. the Durbar described at the beginning took place in 1903.
@RealLifeW0rld3 жыл бұрын
@@sylviamontaez3889 He's talking about the the Delhi Durbar of 1877 where Queen Victoria was proclaimed the Empress of India
@powerist2093 жыл бұрын
There were 3 intact. One for Victoria, other for Edward, and last one for George.
@adarshmohapatra50583 жыл бұрын
@@powerist209 Is George the father of the current Queen Elizabeth?
@SonofSethoitae3 жыл бұрын
@@adarshmohapatra5058 Her grandfather, George V. He was also the only one that actually attended the durbar.
@KyleRayner123 жыл бұрын
Whoever wrote the line "Au contraire, Armchair" deserves a raise.
@mjgallo59503 жыл бұрын
Fr
@aunulimansfield32773 жыл бұрын
Agreed
@CaptainAlliance3 жыл бұрын
*There you are, playing a WWII video game, and all of a sudden, you're an armchair historian*
@ericmcconnaughey27823 жыл бұрын
Has anyone called Griffin Johnson??
@VikingLord1013 жыл бұрын
@@CaptainAlliance lol
@thetruerift3 жыл бұрын
Zoey better be riding a war elephant before the end of this series.
@Hk5463-t1o3 жыл бұрын
NO PUNS SHALL BE MADE WHILE THE CAT HAS AN ELEPHANT
@LydiaOfAragon643 жыл бұрын
Looool 😂😂😂
@2Links3 жыл бұрын
It must be done!
@Shinzon233 жыл бұрын
Or a tiger...
@ecurewitz3 жыл бұрын
YAAASSSSSS!!!!
@nzx.3 жыл бұрын
As an Indian, I'm super psyched for this series.
@CaptBackwards3 жыл бұрын
Except the emperor himself did not show up
@elikorn87773 жыл бұрын
As a brit I'm a bit embarrassed
@blink182bfsftw3 жыл бұрын
@@elikorn8777 Your understanding is appreciated, usually on videos like these certain Brits glorify colonialism. See: the recent video on Megaprojects
@triculious3 жыл бұрын
As a Mexican, I know basically zilch about Indian history, I'm quite excited about some starting points!
@heli0s1013 жыл бұрын
@@elikorn8777 It's something to be proud of, not embarrassed of.
@lorefox2013 жыл бұрын
>historians love subjects of which they can just talk and talk forever without ever reaching an authoritative stance
@zachlong54273 жыл бұрын
Bah! The cowards! They ought to make an authoritative stance, so that they can make more history talk on the for- or -against viewpoints!
@lambert8013 жыл бұрын
Exactly!
@thenoblepoptart3 жыл бұрын
It’s more like popular subjects have been done to death and everyone likes novelty.
@hamzaferoz61623 жыл бұрын
"How did Britiain Control India?" Well like everyone else. Willing Vassals
@Praisethesunson3 жыл бұрын
Rule by and through the natives. Also cannons.
@Carewolf3 жыл бұрын
@@Praisethesunson The indians had the cannons, not the English
@Praisethesunson3 жыл бұрын
@@Carewolf The British tied Indians to the cannons and then fired the cannons. That's how the British kept their Indian soldiers following orders.
@kevinmendoza63863 жыл бұрын
@@Praisethesunson Wasn't that way later?
@Praisethesunson3 жыл бұрын
@@kevinmendoza6386 Depends if you count the east India company or not.
@alexv33573 жыл бұрын
1:25 Okay so why does that map show Scotland and Ireland as independent in 1901, when Ireland was very much not free and Scotland is still part of the UK?
@BatCostumeGuy3 жыл бұрын
Because they forgor💀
@Xalerdane3 жыл бұрын
“Oops.”
@SonofSethoitae3 жыл бұрын
Yeah, they used the 17th century map from later in the video instead of the 20th century map.
@NGBigfield3 жыл бұрын
Always excited to start a new series!
@In_Our_Timeline3 жыл бұрын
that is pretty correct
@pileofcheese50173 жыл бұрын
I really don't like how centralised you present the Mughal Empire here. The Mughals were largely forced to rule through concessions to local rulers, and had trouble establishing a Muslim government structure. They also did not rule all of India. A second stickler is the fact that while yes, those trading ports were partly for trade with India, they were also in no small part used as stops along the way to China.
@DieNibelungenliad3 жыл бұрын
The Mughal Sultan did what pretty much every feudal kingdom did in history: let landlords keep their lands in exchange for constant tribute payments
@tams8053 жыл бұрын
@@DieNibelungenliad EC have a habit of embellishing those they see as the oppressed.
@andrewblair3703 жыл бұрын
Also presenting the Mughal army as a massive, modern force and then going on to directly contradict themselves by mentioning the armored war elephants...
@Cecilia-ky3uw3 жыл бұрын
@@andrewblair370 War elephants are generally useless if your soldiers are disciplined heck the romans demonstrated this at cannae
@Mirtis-m3v3 жыл бұрын
@@Cecilia-ky3uw i think you mean Zama not Cannae😅 In the battel of cannae Hannibal destroyed the romans
@TheAnalyticalEngine3 жыл бұрын
Those are some...interesting...choices in depictions of Britain on those maps
@martijn95683 жыл бұрын
I guess the word choice for Britain is a bit odd
@puneetmishra47263 жыл бұрын
Scotland and Ireland was not part of the union yet
@billcipherproductions17893 жыл бұрын
@@puneetmishra4726 In 1903, they were though.
@puneetmishra47263 жыл бұрын
@@billcipherproductions1789 oh, I meant in 17th century when Brits came to India
@eljanrimsa58433 жыл бұрын
for India, too
@gluttonousmanu27253 жыл бұрын
However I would differ Mughal Empire was in decline during the rime Aurangzeb and the Marathas were meanwhile bulldozing the subcontinent where Mughals were weak There wasn't a centralized power as shown in this episode when EIC began their wars. In simpler terms India was agin not united by a big empire but a lot of kingdoms fighting amongst themselves
@iamhoney10183 жыл бұрын
Marathas helped a lot in British Conquest of India
@GauravKetkar083 жыл бұрын
Are you The Manu Pillai - the author - by any chance? :)
@007dalal3 жыл бұрын
When British came to India, Marathas weren't big. Even Shivaji wasn't on scene at thag time
@anuragpatel14763 жыл бұрын
@Agastya Prince but they still put up a fight unlike Mir Jafar
@alex_zetsu3 жыл бұрын
The Mughals might have been in decline, but they were still wealthy and the biggest power in India at that time. The English were in an even sorrier state at that time and couldn't even say "we're still rich." This might have something to do with them beating themselves over religious disputes, albeit not nearly as bad as the HRE did.
@Hablablah3 жыл бұрын
"We don't come to you, you come to us" - Said every wealthy Eastern power that went on to get colonized.
@sreyarthakrishna61953 жыл бұрын
Not Japan.
@ObywatelMurawjow3 жыл бұрын
@@sreyarthakrishna6195 doesn't they said "we don't come to you, and you don't come to us" instead?
@In_Our_Timeline3 жыл бұрын
yeah
@siyacer3 жыл бұрын
@@sreyarthakrishna6195 they're a puppet now lol
@memesins56473 жыл бұрын
@@siyacer like your ancestors were ours
@FlaviusBelisarius-ck6uv3 жыл бұрын
Been waiting for this for a while. The reason the British conquered was a mix of disunity among Indians, religious tensions, traitors, superior tech and tactics and economic dismemberment. Overall, a very sad tale.
@Ricklyplinth3 жыл бұрын
Yeah, colonialism always leads to tragedy.
@Grzzgwzz3 жыл бұрын
You are directly contradicting this video at 5:01 and 6:53
@sirsteam64553 жыл бұрын
@@Grzzgwzz Keep in the point the videos arguments are solely placed in the 17th century not the 18th or 19th in which the British would become so.
@grapeshott3 жыл бұрын
@@Grzzgwzz lol
@Ishpreetb2643 жыл бұрын
You're wrong. British ruled over India by the means you mentioned but the British conquest of India was different.
@AlcoholicBoredom3 жыл бұрын
5:25 “[The English] quite possibly would have been destroyed by the Spanish Armada if not for a fortuitous storm.” Except no. Not at all. Even before the storm at the Battle of Gravelines the English owned the Spanish Armada, not losing a single ship. The Spanish ships were built in an outdated medieval style which favored size in order to board the enemy vessel. The English were using a more modern style whose emphasis was on maneuverable cannon fire at a distance, making boarding by the enemy very difficult. In addition, the English were using four wheeled cannons with uniform cannonball sizes perfect for easy reloading below decks. The Spanish were using two wheeled cannons that were awkward to load and move and a lack of uniform cannonball size meant that they were often scrambling to find the right size cannonball for each particular cannon.
@DieNibelungenliad3 жыл бұрын
The battle was indecisive. The Spanish Armada was still strong enough to invade England
@tams8053 жыл бұрын
EC seem to have a bee in their bonnet regarding the UK. They are also quite ready to jump to conclusions.
@deadline933 жыл бұрын
Not really the ship based artillery was viewd as an inefect weapon and very secondary. Really the best thing the English did during the spanish armada was the use of fireships to disperce and force the spanish to cut thire anchors leaving them vonruble to storms. Really naval figthing in the age of sail can be split into two eras. 1400-1650 is the age of boarding and 1650-1850 is the age of the ship of the line. At this point sinking ships with guns is really hard to do both because most gun crews are poorly trained, the guns are fairly ligth only around 12-24 punders on the big warships smaller warships are down in 6-12 punders. Untopp of that woddenships normaly dont want to sink they are really reciliant and navel doctrin is its better to capture an enemy then sink him. So the spanish ships where fully in line with the era thire size and sizable fore and aftcastles where designed to give them controll during boarding actions. This only chages after the anglo dutch wars which shows the effectivness of more heavily armed better trained and more gun focused ships.
@Lucianfuhlbruck3 жыл бұрын
Love that you showed Liverpool winning
@ngalethu55283 жыл бұрын
I ❤️Liverpool
@supremegeneral24243 жыл бұрын
YNWA
@erwansallard54713 жыл бұрын
Well, the moghuls too were foreign invaders coming out of a backwater region who still managed to conquer and rule much more developed and populated countries. As were most ruling dinasties in India. The subcontinent is very bad at defending itself, but excellent at assimilating its conquerors.
@yj90323 жыл бұрын
Initially they were foreign, but akbar was as much indian as any other Indian.
@Cecilia-ky3uw3 жыл бұрын
@@yj9032 depends you could define Indian til before Modern India as being Hindu, and treat the Mughals as foreign conquerors kinda like how Kublai Khan is treated
@psuyog3 жыл бұрын
@@yj9032 Akbar was initially a follower of Arab religion, how can he be Indian?
@morningstar39973 жыл бұрын
@@psuyog by being born in India currently modern India has population of approximately 200 million people who follow middle Eastern religion and if we go by your logic than those aren't Indians ?
@siddharthyadavchekkala28453 жыл бұрын
@@psuyog Akbar was initially foreign but the end of his reign he apostated and founded a new religion. He became Indian and adopted Indian ethos of tolerance through his life. Not unlike the previous info Greek Kings or qutub Shahis in the south. Aurangazeb destroyed this legacy.
@robertgrey58873 жыл бұрын
I have legit just finished a Uni module on this subject, Your timing as ever is on the dote
@theanglo-lithuanian17683 жыл бұрын
Extra history released the crusades and medicine (John snow) roughly at the same time I did their exams... So that was handy.
@Crabzula3 жыл бұрын
I wouldn't take anything EC has to say seriously if you care about passing your exam
@theanglo-lithuanian17683 жыл бұрын
@@Crabzula Speak for yourself. Did the trick.
@risymian33743 жыл бұрын
@@theanglo-lithuanian1768 I agree with you, EC is good enough to be a second/alternative learning source. Modules, papers, & published books are still better for main source tho. Also, don't mind Crabzula. He is just a salty pro-colonialism.
@silentbyte1963 жыл бұрын
@@risymian3374 Agreed. They are called 'EXTRA' History for a reason.
@EnoshII3 жыл бұрын
"Flintlocks were far more complicated to manufacture than simple matchlocks, thus less-developed countries continued to use the latter into the mid 19th century, long after Europe had made the switch in the late 17th. In the Indian subcontinent, the natively-manufactured toradar matchlock was the most common firearm type until about 1830"
@yj90323 жыл бұрын
They might feature this in their "lies" episode.
@SafavidAfsharid31973 жыл бұрын
Then imagine loosing to them during 1st and 2nd anglo-mysore wars and 1st anglo-maratha war lol.
@peterjerman75493 жыл бұрын
I mean this whole episode is just pure occidentalism and romanticising the "other". "OMG guys, India was so great, so perfect" yeah sure buddy
@bendeguzborda59023 жыл бұрын
@@peterjerman7549 yea, wenn EH said that their administration so good was that even minor nobles lived in luxury, I tought : Its an interesting way to say that they tax the sh!t out of the peasants. But cant say bad about a would be colonized nation can we.
@peterjerman75493 жыл бұрын
@@bendeguzborda5902 Definitely, EC takes this romantic occidentalist approach way too frequently, which hurts importantly native, in this case Indian, research. Stereotypes like these can seriously damage public understanding of a topic.
@Jimbobthethird3 жыл бұрын
Every single person from the subcontinent be like : "We have been summoned"
@arthurdowney28463 жыл бұрын
The image of Portugal and The Dutch Republic as mice wielding needles for spears will stay with me forever😂😂😂
@rickshaw2963 жыл бұрын
You folks majorly mis portrayed Englands place in the 16th century. A generation after the Wars of the Roses, in the time of Henry the 8th, England was a dominate power in Europe. Trading in the Mediterranean, showing off in France in the "field of gold" festivals, building lavish country estates and boasting one of the biggest navies in Europe. 16th century English wool was clothing half of Europe, and Scottish fisheries were feeding the other half with fish caught off Iceland and Newfound Land. By Lizzy the 1st's time, English scientists were breaking new ground in science, and English ships were starting to travel the world, trading and plundering. Sure, the Mayflower expedition was put together by desperate peasants, but the real work of colonizing America was done by English corporations, wealthy private English citizens and money from the English government. 16th century England was an up and comer!
@jgw99903 жыл бұрын
I'd still categorise England as a 2nd rate European power. The HRE and France were more significant
@khanofkhaganas8032 жыл бұрын
@@jgw9990 Agreed . The French would have been the leading Candidate to influence India . They were the ones who used Subsidary Alliances and Sepoy armies under Dupleix
@intergalactic922 жыл бұрын
This has been a party political broadcast from the UK Independence Party. In all seriousness though, whilst we were on the up, we were certainly not a big player, and our continued rise was not inevitable. France and Spain were the big powers at the time, and by all accounts there was no reason to think they would diminish, certainly not in favour of that tiny island off the french coast.
@951sht3 жыл бұрын
Your Indian viewers were waiting for this, and, you're about to receive a lot of views.
@syonadaniel82143 жыл бұрын
Here
@yj90323 жыл бұрын
They will get a lot of hate from hindutva brigade, for showing mughals.
@ayyazkhan19173 жыл бұрын
A pakistani is here as well, love the mughals hate the British just like yall
@951sht3 жыл бұрын
@@ayyazkhan1917 yes, solidarity with all.
@jhonshephard9213 жыл бұрын
In the US we Pakistan and Indian people call each other bahi. Remember Jinnah and Gandhi were friends.
@strategicgamingwithaacorns28743 жыл бұрын
"How did Britain conquer India when the Mughal Empire was so mighty?" Spoiler Alert: Aurangzeb offended so many people that when the Marathas revolted, basically the entire Empire seceded at once, and the petty kingdoms squabbling were easy prey for the British.
@billcipherproductions17893 жыл бұрын
But it's more complex than that. Because if it was that easy, France or Spain or the Dutch would've taken India.
@grapeshott3 жыл бұрын
Nope. After Aurungzeb, Empire was still intact. But there stayed no stability in Mughal empire. There was factionalism, incompetent rulers, weak finances and so on. And their military was already getting outdated. The Nadir Shah's raid was the final nail on the coffin. Incompetent Muhammad Shah Rangeela just had dance and songs, did not care to fix the empire. Even the European powers were shocked by seeing how easily Nadir Shah plundered Delhi, because earlier the British had been badly defeated by Aurungzeb in a conflict.
@sars9103 жыл бұрын
Nope. That was a myth propagated by the British to discredit local rulers in the eyes of the Indian people. In reality Aurangzeb was no more brutal or magnanimous than any other ruler of the time. What actually caused the fall of the Mughal Empire was Aurangzeb not leaving anyone adequate to replace him. None of Aurangzeb's heirs had the strength of will needed to keep an empire of than size together. There was also the problem of Indian vassals, regardless of empire, religion or ethnicity, having a tendency to turn against their allies for their own gain. Religion probably had very little to do with it. For example, what sealed the fate of the Subcontinent was the defeat of the Nawab of Bengal by the East India Trading Company. The Nawab of Bengal, a Muslim, was betrayed by his vizier, Mir Jafir (Also a Muslim), in order to curry favour with the Christian British. Similarly, many Hindus fought against the Marathas and Ranjit Singh of the Sikh Empire under the British flag. In fact, the Mughal emperor was considered the Emperor of India long after he had lost most of his lands and power. The army that flocked to the Mughal Emperor during the 1857 War of Independence was 2/3rds Hindu and 1/3rd Muslim. In short, things are a lot more complicated than modern leaders may have you believe.
@juice84313 жыл бұрын
The British literally could not have chosen a better time or location (Bengal) to come.
@yj90323 жыл бұрын
Weak kings, powerful regional players.
@Breakfast_of_Champions3 жыл бұрын
Indirect rule, through conspiring and corrupt nobility. And make damn sure the people don't understand what's happening.
@sars9103 жыл бұрын
Probably the most concise and accurate summary of the Indian conquest.
@juice84313 жыл бұрын
Yes, in paper, the British didnt really have much land. Only ones in Bengal, Madras, Punjab, Bombay, Karachi and a few scattered here and there. The majority still had Indian kings but in practice, those kings were merely figure heads forced to obey every command the British said in fear of an invasion
@sionsmedia82493 жыл бұрын
The Caste system (which the British did partially abolish) was a mojer help in doing that.
@alexv33573 жыл бұрын
Not to mention ruthlessly exploiting internal divisions
@mvalthegamer24503 жыл бұрын
Which was only made possible due to some incredible luck and accidents in bengal, which allowed the british to gain the richest province in the region hostage.
@shubharthidutta9793 жыл бұрын
Extra credits- posting a video on India Their Indian viewers- we have been summoned
@yj90323 жыл бұрын
Get ready for hindutva hate.
@abhinavjha30823 жыл бұрын
@@yj9032 They'll ruin this, like they've ruined their sad pathetic lives
@rudrasingh63543 жыл бұрын
@@yj9032 Hindutva is evil tho. Hindutva and Hinduism is different.
@anirudh1773 жыл бұрын
@@yj9032 Hindutva and Hinduism is different.
@paullenoue81733 жыл бұрын
Now that you've introduced Armchair Historian, I'm surprised he wasn't a regular character from the very beginning. Didn't know you needed a devil's advocate until you had one.
@jose.lfurtado62453 жыл бұрын
Thumbs up for armchair!
@mememaster27723 жыл бұрын
I disagree, the armchair was annoying and broke the flow of the episode.
@deftheocelot91253 жыл бұрын
There's already a channel by that name so they cant lol
@paullenoue81733 жыл бұрын
@@mememaster2772 Agree with the annoying part, but with history there will _always_ be misunderstandings, misinformation, erroneous translations, paradoxical WTF moments, etc. that should be called out during the show.
@cyka77053 жыл бұрын
I wonder the armschair historian is refer to the general amrschair historian or that channel with the same name
@aidanrogers44383 жыл бұрын
1:27 Why isn’t Scotland included in the U.K. here? Has the channel become a Nicola Sturgeon simp or something?
@dandy-lions57883 жыл бұрын
Act of Union with Scotland wasn't passed until 1707
@queenofhearts36643 жыл бұрын
@@dandy-lions5788 that map was supposed to depict 1903
@landmine93023 жыл бұрын
They are americans, daily reminder that they think that, "Braveheart" was an accurate potrayal of reality. Thank god their country is in decline.
@exiledadrian1033 жыл бұрын
@@landmine9302 As an American: You don’t say
@sarasamaletdin45743 жыл бұрын
Edward VII wasn’t a good prince (regarding the playboy stuff you mentioned) but as a king he was quite decent
@NYCfrankie3 жыл бұрын
Ouch that 05 uefa champions league final reminder really stung
@wasneeplus3 жыл бұрын
Well, you got your revenge two years later at least. Funny though, since that Milanese team wasn't nearly as good as the 05 team imho.
@NYCfrankie3 жыл бұрын
@@wasneeplus agreed the 05 team was absolutely better
@jasonperry7093 жыл бұрын
Nowhere is safe…
@valorix33853 жыл бұрын
Woah! As a Pakistani, this topic is pretty important to me. Can't wait to see what comes next in this series!
@queenofhearts36643 жыл бұрын
@@DieNibelungenliad based
@manzarmaqbool6176 Жыл бұрын
Same, I belong to one of the last 6 traditional Mughals families in South Asia, and seeing such videos is a great experience.
@joshuadyson81933 жыл бұрын
the Mughals had a great empire on paper and a brilliant/vast army... again on paper, but the empire was crumbling and the army was ill trained. Cool series but the Mughals were not as stable as you made them sound.
@grapeshott3 жыл бұрын
They were pretty stable till Aurungzeb. But Aurungzeb's empire was getting cracks, but just needed some capable rulers to hold and fix it. No one came.
@GideonGleeful953 жыл бұрын
Tbf this is talking about the 1600s when the Mughals were at their height. It was only at the end of the early 1700s after the death of Aurengzeb when the Mughals had a sudden collapse (in large part thanks to the Marathas).
@christianvalencia44893 жыл бұрын
Exactly, the Mughals were declining at the time.
@DieNibelungenliad3 жыл бұрын
How was the Mughal army ill-trained? They had the best army in the world until Sultan Aurengzab died, leaving his lands to be ruled by his incompetent sons who wasted the army's manpower and resources on fighting each other while there were rebellions everywhere and a big invasion on its way from Afghans and Persians
@DieNibelungenliad3 жыл бұрын
@@GideonGleeful95 Nader Shah*
@athesiaman77493 жыл бұрын
There’s actually a great video covering the development of the Indian state by the KZbinr Kraut that offers at least some insight into why India has historically had issues dealing with external threats such as the Mughals and British
@arjunbadi60383 жыл бұрын
I feel like the Maratha empire, which controlled a large amount of India, deserved a mention
@mianyousaf1093 Жыл бұрын
At that time maratha empire was not exist.
@Ginger_Hrn Жыл бұрын
There were many empires but just like a military campaign, only the top ones get the mention
@manzarmaqbool6176 Жыл бұрын
Only the top ones get mentioned. It was more of a Maratha Confederacy then a empire, different states ruling confederacy and uncentralized. They would have had to mention the Mysorian Kingdom,Bengal,Sikh state,Afghan state, Hyderabad as well if they go with all the rest
@manzarmaqbool6176 Жыл бұрын
Only the top ones get mentioned. It was more of a Maratha Confederacy then a empire, different states ruling confederacy and uncentralized. They would have had to mention the Mysorian Kingdom,Bengal,Sikh state,Afghan state, Hyderabad as well if they go with all the rest
@RainbowBoo423 жыл бұрын
I swear every extra history topic has been getting more and more interesting And Im looking forward to a years worth of documentaries
@In_Our_Timeline3 жыл бұрын
history is an interesting topic own its own
@sionsmedia82493 жыл бұрын
If you think the British conquest of India is a paradox, then you might also think the Persian (later Mughal) Empire, Afghanistan (former Mongols), or Ancient Macadonia. India has a long history of being conquered by smaller foreign powers, the British were just the latest and most successful (conquering the entire sub continent) to do so.
@NoName-hg6cc2 жыл бұрын
Afghanistan and Macedonia didn't conquer India. English were lucky
@nauticaltruck8022 жыл бұрын
India never existed until recently. Most Indian empires aside from the Mughals and the Mauryans never ruled over half of the subcontinent
@nauticaltruck8022 жыл бұрын
Ancient Macedonia defeated a tributary kingdom on the outskirts of modern Pakistan, they didn’t get conquer much
@NoName-hg6cc2 жыл бұрын
@@nauticaltruck802 Wrong. India is ancient and Mughals controoled most of the sub-continent
@augustulus1277 Жыл бұрын
2:19 Hi, I’m Griffin Johnsen, The Armchair Historian
@Manstermash5 ай бұрын
Hey Army!
@neelspd3 жыл бұрын
I have been an informal student of Indian History since my middle school days, and this introductory part is a great condensation of the economic and political strength of the concerned parties at the inception of the colonisation. Great Work.
@2Links3 жыл бұрын
Get Zoey on a war elephant!
@rithvikpbalaji10023 жыл бұрын
Fun fact the rockets mentioned in the star spangled banner might be reverse engineered from an Indian rocket made in Mysore
@aritrochatterjee45663 жыл бұрын
The rockets had guiding sticks made of swords and did much damage than just exploding
@MA-kw3ov3 жыл бұрын
There’s no mention of rockets in the star spangled banner
@rithvikpbalaji10023 жыл бұрын
“The Star-Spangled Banner.” The poem, originally titled “The Defence of Fort M'Henry,” was written after Key witnessed the Maryland fort being bombarded by rockets by the British during the War of 1812
@chingizzhylkybayev8575 Жыл бұрын
@@MA-kw3ov and the rocket's red flair, the bombs bursting in air, gave proof through the night, that our flag was still there
@georgethompson54073 жыл бұрын
+extra credits, just so you know, when you were talking about the Delhi Durbar, to you left Scotland out of the United Kingdom
@matthiasw87773 жыл бұрын
I did not expect an '05 Champions League final joke in this. Well done, quality content as always
@animeshpati55252 жыл бұрын
that was a great final
@About37Hobos2 жыл бұрын
The best
@forzaacmilan36 Жыл бұрын
A dick move if you ask me personally.
@honkhonk17123 жыл бұрын
Even in India we are told history from already explained situations, it would really be interesting to learn how many things actually went down.
@foundationgamer97713 жыл бұрын
2:46 2 + 2 does not equal whale, it equals 5. Anyone get it?
@Vernardo3 ай бұрын
That's nil.
@newworld20863 жыл бұрын
Mughals were not in absolute power when EIC came in. Please look into Anglo-Maratha wars that actually solidified EICs rule in India.
@grapeshott3 жыл бұрын
You know when EIC came? In 1600s. Jahangir was the emperor. Extra Credit does a lot of research before making videos. They are rarely wrong.
@jayantjha31283 жыл бұрын
Battle of plassey was imp
@anirudh1773 жыл бұрын
EIC came in the 1600s, back then the Mughals were still powerful, If we talk about the situation when the EIC got Bengal in 1757, which made them a regional power in the subcontinent, at that time the Marathas were at their peak under the 8th Peshwa Balaji Baji Rao Bhat.
@memesins56473 жыл бұрын
There was already a Anglo-Mughal war where EIC lost and banned by Aurangzeb until they paid huge fines.
@mianyousaf1093 Жыл бұрын
EIC came in 1600 and check the map at that time
@sreeram49643 жыл бұрын
Thing is.. your story is England vs India. But India was a region with many kingdoms. Britain simply made them fight each other.
@myhonestreaction62172 жыл бұрын
And it works
@ragnarlothbrok79733 жыл бұрын
So exited been my fav channel for quite some time
@kloassie3 жыл бұрын
0:46 _"... with candalabra's on it's tusks"_ This is arguably the closest IRL version of the ancient psychic tandem war elephant!!
@StRodeNL3 жыл бұрын
I wish you would do a series on the Dutch Golden Age and how incredibly misunderstood it is. No wealth due to colonialism, but due to superior economic ideas. I think it would be very interesting for you to discuss. Good new series by the way! Looking forward to the rest of the series!
@jacobprice25793 жыл бұрын
Wow this should be a good series. By the way, Edward VII was many things, but I think “lazy” is a bit of a stretch.
@tams8053 жыл бұрын
EC seem to have a bit of a thing against the UK.
@redcrown50703 жыл бұрын
@@tams805 Everyone have a thing against the British, not the UK.
@sakataginko90923 жыл бұрын
@@tams805 Even the British have a thing against the British.
@InuyashaHanyu3 жыл бұрын
@@sakataginko9092 Damn the British, they ruined Britain!
@robertbeckett76543 жыл бұрын
true, he was very dedicated to eating lunch.
@miss423103 жыл бұрын
Can't wait for the fights to begin 😍
@FlaviusBelisarius-ck6uv3 жыл бұрын
What fights?
@grapeshott3 жыл бұрын
I don't think they are going to discuss India-Pakistan issue. It's their policy to stay before 1920s
@FirstNameLastName-tg3rc3 жыл бұрын
@@grapeshott There have been videos on WW2 by them.
@scrollcaps3 жыл бұрын
Wow, the armchair from Blue's clues is a lot more condensing then I remember.
@alessandrodelogu79313 жыл бұрын
The British conquered India like one eats an artichoke: one leaf at a time.
@eljanrimsa58433 жыл бұрын
not really. instead of traditional conquering, they somehow managed to buy, bribe, inherit, take by force, take by treaty, take by fraud, until the British sat at the dominant center of the artichoke
@alessandrodelogu79313 жыл бұрын
@@eljanrimsa5843 yes, but still one kingdom at a time. The British took advantage of the fragmentation of India to become slowly, with patience, the dominant power of the subcontinent. This would not have happened with a strong and united Indian empire, like the Mughals or the Maurya.
@JoeOfGoa3 жыл бұрын
Thank you for doing this , I can already tell this will be exciting and fun series to see, and maybe also find out what all the school textbooks missed.
@sunlight90563 жыл бұрын
I hate not being able to binge an entire series. It’s soo good, I want more!
@drishaanpaliwal3 жыл бұрын
I was really looking forward to another indian series
@anoushkashenoy6923 жыл бұрын
Did they have another before this? I used to watch this channel a while ago but stopped, but then started again when I saw this video pop up on my feed.
@drishaanpaliwal3 жыл бұрын
Yes they had one about the saragahi fort
@lewislw43443 жыл бұрын
OMG YOU GUYS ACTUALLY USED THE MIRACLE OF ISTANBUL AS AN HISTORICAL REFERENCE!!! As a Liverpool fan I almost screamed when I saw that frame at 2:55 YNWA Extra Credits team!
@gonotgone13 жыл бұрын
It’s nice to see your referring to Britain and not just England, but why is Scotland not coloured in with England, Scotland and Northern Ireland?
@ciarancurley54823 жыл бұрын
There betting on Scottish Independence happening before Irish reunification lol
@PaulfromChicago3 жыл бұрын
At the time the map was referencing, Scotland was an independent nation.
@gonotgone13 жыл бұрын
@@PaulfromChicago in 1903 I think not, later on in the video when they talk about the English empire absolutely makes sense, but at the beginning of the video they are taking about 1903 and then it’s the United Kingdom but the map excludes Scotland for some bizarre reason.
@PaulfromChicago3 жыл бұрын
@@gonotgone1 yup, you're right.
@17-MASY2 жыл бұрын
3:24 I love this picture
@Just_A_History_Nerd3 жыл бұрын
Was that annoying chair really necessary?
@xxmemestar69xx823 жыл бұрын
Yes, because idiots love to act like they’re experts.
@nnspenaz23433 жыл бұрын
Why aren’t you including Scotland and the rest of Ireland when showing Britain in 1903?
@Zveebo3 жыл бұрын
Yeah, that was a little weird, especially given the huge role of Scots in India!
@iapetusmccool3 жыл бұрын
That map makes no sense at all. For some reason they have included Northern Ireland, which wasn't even a thing at the time.
@nnspenaz23433 жыл бұрын
@@iapetusmccool exactly the whole of Ireland was part of the UK
@WebertHest3 жыл бұрын
BadHistory is going to have a field day with this series. So many misrepresentations, untruths, slides, etc already.
@pozzowon2 жыл бұрын
"Sorry Milan" That hurt so bad, 17 years later
@nightmareeyes94193 жыл бұрын
6:03 … near complete rule over the India is controlling half of an country while being in state of nearly unstoppable conflict with at least a few regions?
@forzaacmilan36 Жыл бұрын
I didn't expect to get attacked like this. No need, no need.
@gracefulcubix47303 жыл бұрын
the EIC were probably the only ones to conquer India from the Southern and north eastern parts interestingly. Most foreign conquerors arrive from the north west and conquer the fertile north. when they try their hand in the southern parts, their resources were exhausted due to a multitude of factors and loose them in a matter of years to rebels.
@safisiddiqui63683 жыл бұрын
That's a splendid intro to this topic. Much better than our history books.
@ihl07006775253 жыл бұрын
I don't think 16th/17th century Europe were that "backward" compared to the Mughal India. I mean by that time European powers already colonizing the Americas and prove themselves to be powerful players in Asia (Portugal in particular was notorious for their greed and tenacity, from Africa, Arabia, India, all the way to Japan). Commodities from the Americas (e.g. tobacco) were quite popular in Asia, altho they were ofc no match for silk and certain spices.
@GideonGleeful953 жыл бұрын
I think the point was that Britain at the time was far behind the European powers. If you compared the New World holdings of England in the 1600s with like, Spain, for example, it was much smaller
@grantm69333 жыл бұрын
@@GideonGleeful95 but, of course, there is a difference between saying England was behind on the colonisation game on the one hand and England was a backwater on the other. These are two very different claims.
@priyanshsahay35733 жыл бұрын
@@grantm6933 England was a backwater compared to Spain, Portugal, Netherlands, China or India
@tams8053 жыл бұрын
@@GideonGleeful95 Britain was somewhat behind and not very powerful. But their military technology was still about on par with the rest of Europe (in a few cases superior, just not in number) and in turn Europe's with the likes of the Mughal Empire.
@Cecilia-ky3uw3 жыл бұрын
@@priyanshsahay3573 did that matter apparently no because Hernan Cortez conquered the aztecs with 600 men and himself
@winterroll52553 жыл бұрын
Pumped for the next episodes. Their angle and approach is perfect!
@fidelklckap18213 жыл бұрын
Extra history makes fun of armchair historians(rightfully) while they are also armchair historians and are known to make many mistakes in their videos
@sionsmedia82493 жыл бұрын
And this video has already shown many (quite big) mistakes. Like saying India had a good army, wich they didn't, not just when Britain came but also because of the Caste system for thousands of years, and that's why India has been conquered by multiply smaller foreign powers.
@tams8053 жыл бұрын
@@sionsmedia8249 Yeah, this video is incredibly rich of them. Don't get me wrong; I enjoy their videos for the most part. But they are entertainment and a launch platform for learning more. The actual content isn't reliable.
@grapeshott3 жыл бұрын
@@sionsmedia8249 Indians had a good army. It's not a mistake. Yes, Mughal army was declining from 1720s, but other kingdoms had good armies. The Indian rulers could defeat the Europeans in battles till 1800s. Marathas, Tipu, Ranjit Singh, etc repeatedly defeated the English in many battles.
@grapeshott3 жыл бұрын
@@tams805 No, they are accurate here. It's a misconception that all Indian rulers had weak armies in 1700s
@memesins56473 жыл бұрын
@@sionsmedia8249 Oh really? Should I remind you of Childs War?
@anamosamapper75213 жыл бұрын
I think jts really great how this channel isnt eurocentric and covers history worldwide, its really interesting and ive learned some uncommon things
I am indian and I am very fascinated and psyched about the series . I am always told the common explanation but a ton more praising of India . I am proud to know the true truth and power of india . Love from india .,❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️ . Pin me if you can . Yours sincerely 🤠🤠.byee howdy
@Moonstone.mp4 Жыл бұрын
My dad wrote a book about this event, in case anybody is interested in reading more! It's called: Delhi Durbar: 1911 The Complete Story
@Moonstone.mp4 Жыл бұрын
By Sunil Raman and Rohit Agarwal
@leonhardeuler76473 жыл бұрын
Extra Credits seems to be trying to widen *their* empire of Indian viewers. Not that I am complaining - we get some great history content.
@zachbonney73723 жыл бұрын
Yes! So excited for this series! Definitely one of history's most defining moments.
@rajnair46783 жыл бұрын
A series on INDIA with a Liverpool FC reference! Already my most fav extra history episode 😍😍
@realhumphreyappleby3 жыл бұрын
Finally you cover Indian History. About time!
@femia41253 жыл бұрын
Omg best champions league ever. My mind was blown with the match
@Maharaja_of_Punjab3 жыл бұрын
YES YES FINALLY INDIAN HISTORY WITH ITS OWN VIDEO
@yousefshahin26543 жыл бұрын
Always glad to see a new series
@In_Our_Timeline3 жыл бұрын
me to
@vasinlavs3 ай бұрын
bro helped me more than my history teacher👏🙌🙌🙌
@robbiecotton68273 жыл бұрын
Well obviously one of the writers in this series is a Liverpool supporter and I very much approve. More history videos need references to the miracle in Istanbul ;)
@UditSingh3 жыл бұрын
You have no idea how long I've waited for this.
@89technical3 жыл бұрын
We're going to start the Conquest of India Series: The Introduction takes up a whole videos lol Guys you might be at this for the rest of your lives. I should know: I was there at the end.
@Teag_Brohman153 жыл бұрын
thanks for posting this on my Birthday
@lordalphamax11883 жыл бұрын
Happy Birthday to you
@Teag_Brohman153 жыл бұрын
@@lordalphamax1188 thanks
@abhijaysarmah74183 жыл бұрын
Me: Wonders if my day can get worse Extra history: releases a video on indian history Me: I am shocked and my day is made
@jaysmith14083 жыл бұрын
Is the podcast feed discontinued? Driving all night, the brilliant and clever history is a great asset.
@ace4483 жыл бұрын
Also when you have contradictory accounts, reasons or evidence for a historical event. “Truth” becomes fluid. Add in and imperfect picture and you come into paradox’s and contradictions. Europes dominance over the world, in the end comes down to a lot of luck. Seriously a conflict here lasting just a little longer, and empire not collapsing at the exact moment there. Could have drastically changed the world.
@yj90323 жыл бұрын
There is only 1 truth.
@im_not_emo52493 жыл бұрын
I have been waiting for this one for a long time, I love this channel
@dbilly1213 жыл бұрын
As an Englishman, do love to see the 2005 Liverpool triumph shown :P
@nishugoyal3 жыл бұрын
Finally, there is a topic on youtube worth commenting. Looking forward to binge watch this.
@FlaviusBelisarius-ck6uv3 жыл бұрын
Oh boy, this ought to be good.
@aaditya_693 жыл бұрын
Thank you for making this series I have been waiting for years for you to make a series on this topic
@TheBespectacledN00b3 жыл бұрын
And they have got British borders wrong again.
@billcipherproductions17893 жыл бұрын
Yes and no. In 1903 yes, but in 1600, no.
@sionsmedia82493 жыл бұрын
@@billcipherproductions1789 Well they're talking about 1903 so yes, they're wrong.
@billcipherproductions17893 жыл бұрын
@@sionsmedia8249 They showed the same map for 1600.
@demonslayer3482 Жыл бұрын
As a Indian, the explanation is easy, we were rich technologically more advanced but, by this time we were already invaded by Mugals and on top of that British used divide and conquer techniques
@AdarshHari7083 жыл бұрын
LETS GOOO. A football reference in a video about India from Extra History. SIGN. ME. UP
@elhombredeoro9553 жыл бұрын
Brandon
@Rvc5463 жыл бұрын
I really appreciate this video... How you gave the disclaimer that nothing is certain and every thing is nuanced and subtle to set the tone that its just a version of many versions.
@extrahistory3 жыл бұрын
Wanna watch without ads and see exclusive content? Go to curiositystream.com/extracredits to get a full year of Curiosity Stream & Nebula for 26% off.
@Bricriu-gj9dd3 жыл бұрын
Read the title and thought this would be about Chandra Gupta. Now I'm super HYPED to learn about something I never learn about!