The British Conquest of India (1798-1806) II. The 4th Anglo-Mysore War

[@tiscotisa9731]

In less than a month?!?! You spoil us

[@flaviusarcadiusvibes]

So GOOD! You deserve big bucks for this content. A genuine treasure to the field of history, you make difficult to picture parts of history understandable, on top of delivering a high-quality meta review of complex topics. Really impressive stuff.

[@jonathon6756]

Let us rejoice, for the king has blessed us with another banger.

[@MrChrisRCT3]

The GOAT pumps out another banger 🔥

[@Progamermove_2003]

What if a mercantilist governor has came in place of Mornington and had decided to not fight against Mysore? Would the British had somehow been able to take advantage of a potential Mysore-Maratha rivalry, or the Mysore, upon completing it's reforms, could've become a real threat to British? Great video btw.

[@freddekl1102]

Somehow I doubt that even if they Mysore modernized they would've been more than a speedbump to British, Sikh Empire had the same story There's only really one case of native power successfully modernizing and it's Japan - and they were different because European powers actively encouraged and helped them to do it, instead of being a target of expansion

[@StrategyStuff]

'What ifs' are always difficult. It's possible that, if the UK stuck to mercantilism, they might have been happy to just stick to their coastal strips forever and merely try to get inland India as their 'sphere of influence' (like China or Latin America) thru economic/political/cultural domination. However, you can also argue that UK expansion would have happened regardless of mercantilism b/c of structural factors. Most notably, SoIs tend to turn into actual empires once other great powers start injecting themselves into the space. We saw a little of that in M's use of FRA activities in IND as a justification for expansion; later on, defense vs RUS would used as the justification for the UK advance into NW IND and the surrounding borderlands. So perhaps even a mercantilist UK might eventually establish an empire over inland IND, if only to pre-empt another power from doing the same. As for potential for a reformed IND state to be a threat to UK IND - it's possible, but as the rest of the 19C shows, it wasn't easy to keep pace with EUR, esp. after industrial revolution. During this time, MYS had a iron/steel industry and the stuff it produced was qualitatively better than EUR, BUT it was also producing only 15-20% of what UK was doing (EDIT: see follow-up response). The revenues of the MYS state were also only like c.7% of UK's (EDIT: corrected, see follow-up response). So behind the surface-level military comparisons (arguably the easiest of the modernizations to achieve), there were serious gaps in state strength btwn EUR and non-EUR which would require comprehensive, almost prescient reforms to 'fix'. Half-hearted/incomplete efforts would probably just see the state falling into the various 'Westernization' traps of the 19C: unsustainable debt (EGY), military failure (CHI), or rebellion + fragmentation (TUR).

[@Progamermove_2003]

@@StrategyStuff Such a complete and exhaustive reply. I really appreciate your analysis. Thanks for taking the time to explain it and once again it was a great video!

[@FFFanboy7]

@@StrategyStuff "Only" 15-20% of what the UK was doing? That sounds like a crazy high number to me. What's the source for it? Are you counting the production across the whole british empire, or across the home isles, or across british india, or how? I dont know the full context of how the British Steel industry was at this time but obviously the UK became one of the most important producers of steel in this era, so its quite surprising to me that there was this much activity in India. If you've got more info to expand on this i'd be interested.

[@StrategyStuff]

@FFFanboy7 Right, I did some extra research and I think the 15-20% figure can be misleading. 1stly, the figures are for iron production: and during the latter half of 18C, the numbers are indeed c.4-7k ton/year for MYS (Yazdani, Great War in South India) and c.20k/year for England and Wales (King, The British Iron Act 1750 - can google). The catch is that UK also imported c. 45k tons/year of iron, mostly from Sweden and RUS. In the 1790s, Cort et al developed methods that allowed the commercial production of bar iron using coal, rather than charcoal, which had hitherto been a major limiting factor in domestic UK iron production. This development, coupled up with protectionist UK tariffs during the Napoleonic Wars, caused domestic UK production to substitute out foreign imports. So in 1788 UK iron production was still at 32k tons/year, but by 1810 it exploded to 130k tons/year. UK imports of iron accordingly slumped to c.10k. (Evans, Ryden. Baltic Iron in the Atlantic World in the 18th Century, Chp. 4 - google).

[@bigsarge2085]

Fantastic. I always learn something new!

[@SmoothCake]

Hey man, I just wanted to say your content is really amazing. I have learned a lot of interesting new stuff through your videos. Even as a history enthusiast, your videos provide the kind of depth of knowledge that most other history channels cannot replicate. Please keep making videos, I am sure they will be more and more popular as time goes on.

[@iakona23]

Thank you so much!

[@meraklmuskulpesent8313]

I highly appreciate your work. Thank you.

[@Playerone1287]

Bro you're awesome, I wonder why no Indian KZbin channels and textbooks has taught us this deep, and belive me I've read most of the school and college textbooks

[@daa7241]

Probably you are dumb coz this is in ncert and tamil nadu 10-12th I can confirm

[@ItsMeChillTyme]

Indian textbooks are not interested in teaching history in particular but setting a tone or narrative that fuels the hearts and minds of future generations. It's a mythos about the founding with every incident mentioned tainted in a very black and white "us vs them" narrative. As if there was an "Indian whole" that was the "us" and the brits that was the them. The way its taught, it completely misses the mark that within India there were competing states just like on the European contintent.

[@vasekk.8168]

As a former IR student I see just one downside with your content: too late! :) These would have been so useful during my college years, you have no idea. Please keep them coming!

[@Anton2046gfkn]

Seeing this channel return from the dead is one of the best things to happen in media in 2023.

[@micahistory]

i am so glad to see you back again, I love how you cover these often neglected parts of history

[@5hitC0mbo]

great stuff man

[@GBERTS]

always very good!

[@Anjana-]

My friend recomended this channel and I've been eagerly waiting for this episode for last one week. Happy that you uploaded.☺️❤

[@josww2]

Great video, love your content, looking forward to the rest of the series!

[@TheRedBaron1917]

Lets goooo

[@istn9478]

At last! You are the best

[@erickromero5638]

LETS GOOOOOOOOO, new india conquest video just drop out 🔥🔥🔥

[@krushnaji4940]

I am region of India which was a part of Nizam kingdom I can tell you it was feudal society until Indian independence

[@LillianKoi]

Fantastic videos! I'm really glad you're still around here. British conquest of India is such a poorly understood conflict filled with myths and inaccuracies so this is extremely heplful!

[@caiodavi9829]

thanks for the info. i am gonna go conquer argentina using the knowledge i obtained from this channel.

[@AndrewRoberts11]

Surley the title should read "The Irish brothers' conquest of India (1798-1806) ..."

[@dingusdean1905]

I can’t wait for the next episode, I’m eager to hear about the Anglo-Maratha wars since the Marathas actually won against the EIC, so it’d be interesting to see what they did right compared to Tipu Sultan

[@yamnayaseed356]

The Marathas didn’t win the war of 1803-1805

[@MustardAndFries]

That was the first Anglo-Marathas war, the next war that would be covered is the second which the Anglos defeated the Marathas in. Similarly this was the fourth Anglo-Mysore war.

[@alileevil]

Pretty sure the British gained control over all of the Maratha empire.

[@Open_56]

Nah, they lost in the second war.

[@leanderbarreto980]

I live in Goa, yet have never heard of Dhondia Wagh, great stuff

[@vinfacts11]

How important was Bengal to these South Indian campaigns? Like I know you mentioned that they taxed Bengal heavily to fund the wars there (correct me if i'm wrong), but how else? Did the British get most of their troops from Bengal to fight in Mysore?

[@StrategyStuff]

No, the troops from Bengal (actually, mainly Awadh) fought in Northern India, except of course the European troops which were transferred wherever needed. It's usually blamed on the taboo on travelling overseas ‘kala pani’, but imho UK probably also understood that local troops would be better suited for S IND conditions. Bengal's main contribution was cash - during this period, UK revenues from Bengal alone (c.6-7m GBP) were about 2x the revenues of the MYS state (c.3m GBP). Of coz Bengal tax wasn't all used for war, c.0.75m GBP annually was sent to CHI for tea. London actually had to send 4m to IND as emergency funding during 2nd UK-MAR War.

[@SimonBea1]

Finally I find a well made documentary about how the British conquered India! Thanks!

[@sudheerkumar4421]

please provide the list of books and sources also for this series...been a huge fan of ur content for a long time...thank u!!

[@StrategyStuff]

Sources are in the description

[@sudheerkumar4421]

@@StrategyStuff oh..thank u

[@Captain_Carrot]

Great vid as always. One minor nitpick though - maybe I'm going crazy and/or you always talked like that, but you seem to have started always pronouncing " 's" as [ses]. It's only like that after words that end with an "s" by themselves, but in general it's just pronounced [s]. So "Harris's" is indeed [Harrises], but "Tipu's" is simply [Tipus].

[@StrategyStuff]

Thank you for telling me! I’ll admit I wasn’t in the best form when I recorded and checked the video, sorry…

[@Captain_Carrot]

@@StrategyStuff no problem. It didn't detract from the video, and judging by the fact that I'm the only one to point it out, not many people noticed anyway.

[@AGS363]

Remember: Nepotism is okay, if the results are good!

[@anon2034]

That was a quick release! Can you explain in a video after the series is over how these minor wars (like the "Mud War") were fought?

[@StrategyStuff]

A lot of these wars were basically British sepoys marching to a fort and A) either storming it, or B) retreating due to lack of supplies or the locals fleeing to the hills/jungle. I'm afraid the sources I read don't go much further than that. There was plenty of room for negotiations etc, but in keeping to their idea of 'fair dealing', if UK felt that their 'good faith' was violated, they wouldn't hesitate to kill/sack/burn the target. The Mud War (named after the 'mud forts' that were resisting UK) wasn't much different. In this case, Bengal Army sepoys attacked a few north Indian forts/walled villages (Sasni, Kachaura) on the frontier zone btwn UK (formerly Awadh) and Mughal/Maratha-Shinde territory. Its of minor relevance to the broader story, because it put the Bengal Army within kilometers of the major Shinde forts at Aligarh and Agra.

[@anon2034]

@@StrategyStuff Thank you for clarifying it.

[@JvmCassandra]

That’s the classic failure pattern to resist colonialism. Most imperial rulers thinks the colonists were successful because the way they wage war but actually they were successful because of the way they rule their subjects in their home country. Qing Dynasty tried to modernize their navy and army. Draining their treasury to procure rifles, artillery and gunboats. What they could buy was often a generation behind and at an extortionate rate. Consequently such modernizations alienated their subjects and exacerbated domestic political problems. What is more is in Qing Dynasty case, the officers in charge of the modernized army supplanted the imperial power and became warlords. The only success case was the Japanese one. They reformed politically. It wasn’t guns and bullets that were behind the Western ascendancy. It was their modern form of government and capitalism and market economy that underpinned their martial prowess.

[@PATRICKFOSTER01]

Honey, cancel the plans. Strategy Stuff just uploaded a new video.

[@0MVR_0]

interesting origin of hearts and minds

[@paullunsford8921]

This is extremely good. Out of curiosity, how do you make your maps?

[@StrategyStuff]

Powerpoint - with a bit of inspiration taken from the maps made by the US Military Academy at West Point. It's mostly just tracing, cutting/pasting, making assumptions re: borders/routes and trying to make the result less of a graphical mess lol.

[@micahistory]

It really is crazy how one company took over a whole civilisation

[@sandeepk4093]

*civilizations

[@shorewall]

Divide and Conquer.

[@xijinpig8982]

I think the map of Indian states needs Sindh, Gurkha Empire and Sikh Empire to be added at the very least... besides the current states in the map, Gurkhas and Sikhs especially will come in very handy to understand later stages of the British Colonisation of India. In a way, Nepal exists today as a sovereign state because it was the only Indian empire that had little to offer to the British upon hypothetical conquest and managed to keep itself independent by hook or by crook.

[@sandeepk4093]

Sikh empire and Sindh were not part of India/EIC at that point

[@xijinpig8982]

​@@sandeepk4093 Neither were the 5 Maratha states but they're shown in this map so we can see how the British interacted with the Indian states. Also, Sindh and Sikh Empire did end up being absorbed into the EIC, just before the Sepoy Mutiny, everything except parts of Burma, Balochistan, Arunachal and KPK were part of the EIC. He is moving in a chronological timeline and Mysore just got annexed.

[@sandeepk4093]

The British had no way of annexing Sikh empire and Sindh until after invasion of neighbouring independent states and kingdoms. Maybe he'll include their boundaries once the Marathas and other adjacent states have been taken in

[@majormung8304]

Have you learned about grand strategy through self study, or did you get a related degree?

[@StrategyStuff]

I have a grounding in politics and intl relations but it is mostly self study.

[@leaveme3559]

What a sad state of affairs for india that was..... i guess british conquest was a massive kick in the head for us a wake up call to push out of feudalism.... i wonder what the future holds for us tho.... I hope its not as fucked as the past 200 years were

[@syedabishosainrizvi7817]

what happened in the first 3 Anglo-Mysore wars? (All I know is that the third one went really bad for Mysore too)

[@StrategyStuff]

The first 2 (fought under Hyder Ali iirc) were essentially draws: back then, MYS used its light cavalry to raid S IND incessantly, even threatening Madras at one point. UK forces were constantly threatened by the appearance of MYS cavalry; but otherwise they were able to take a fort or 2. As for the 3rd war: MYS under Tipu began transitioning away from light cav to Europeanized infantry. His army achieved some initial results as it invaded Travanacore, but ultimately they were forced into retreat by UK forces (led by Cornwallis of US Revolution infamy). UK, however, proved unable to capture Seringapatam, so had to accept MYS' continued independence, tho it also imposed reparations/concessions that totaled up to 50% of MYS' pre-war revenue.

[@onlyfacts4999]

Interesting how Indian resistance is so weak

[@thecharlemagnekid9997]

great video! it would be interesting to see a more general discussion of westernization efforts by non-european states and why they often seemed to fail like the tanzimat period in turkey and chinas "strong state"

[@chynabad9804]

Dhondia WAAAAAAGH and His Majesty's Royal Marines?

[@julianshepherd2038]

Some people say that we Brits were just money grabbing ruthless barbarians but we also enjoyed annoying the French.

[@mrsupremegascon]

As a French, I approve this.

[@cynic2201]

Patreon now

[@lesliesimon7491]

Do we get reparation from British?

[@digitalcommunist6335]

You were weak , they made you strong. No. Weak indian learned to fight from strong british! Jai Hind!

[@andrei19238]

why did tipu adopt such a passive strategy? this isnt explained very well

[@OCinneide]

He knew he couldn’t beat the experienced British soldiers in the field, so he pulled back his troops to the capital and tried to hold out until the monsoons started and would force the British to retreat. But that year the monsoons were delayed and the British managed to capture the capital.

[@andrei19238]

@@OCinneide was there no way to delay the british advances using his cavalry? or try to harras their supplies

[@OCinneide]

@@andrei19238 they probably did that as well. But I honestly do not know. The video creator states that the British often over claimed how effective the light cavalry of the Indians were at raiding.

[@StrategyStuff]

It really is a sort of fatalistic strategy, in that Tipu was relying on the monsoon to save him. The War caught him while he was in the process of transitioning from cav-led force to Europeanized force, so T was left in situation where A) MYS sepoys couldn't beat UK sepoys and B) NOT enough MYS light cav to effectively harass/stall the large UK force (since he had to disband many of them to pay for Europeanization). Essentially, T had NO good options re: military resistance. For T, it was literally monsoon or bust - in this war, he made NO effort to defend anywhere outside of S'patam. He even demolished the forts of Bangalore + Hosur in the face of the UK advance (probably coz he was afraid that UK might retreat to those places in event of monsoon). As for raiding, T didn't have enough light cav to really devastate S India like in previous wars. His scorched-earth tactics did force Harris to alter his campaign route a few times, but NOT enough to stop him from arriving at S'patam. It also didn't help that the late monsoon meant that the Kaveri River was not the obstacle that Tipu hoped it would be.

[@andrei19238]

@@StrategyStuff had the monsoon come, would this really have stopped the british fromm returning next year?

[@rohitnirmal1024]

Dhondya= Stone in Marathi, Wagh= Tiger in Marathi

[@maxryabokon1515]

So India was conquered not because it was backward, as some suggested. One of the most important reasons was that it was divided and British used old " divide and conquer" tactics.

[@RC-du7zu]

I can’t wait to see what these “changes to Indian society” might entail.

[@ihmpall]

Superpower 2020

[@solariangeopolitics9944]

🤣

[@guilhermefaleiros4892]

The british make my eyes sore

[@johnw574]

Hyderabad was not an indigenous power, it was a vassal state of the mughal empire, another invasive power that conquered India. The British conquest of India was not of Europeans conquering poor innocent natives...

[@charlesferdinand422]

The British only fought with bows and today only fight at sea because they're terrified of having to fight anyone directly (like men); no wonder the modern-day British default war strategy (applied in both world wars) consists of hiding their tiny island while keeping an oversized navy to prevent anyone from landing there (thus avoid having to face the enemy) and the most important part which is to BEG the United States (Britain's historic boyfriend and current owner) to please come fight for them and save them. That's why they've made so much of the battle of Trafalgar when, in real-life, it had a little practical immediate effect and Napoleon barely sighed when receiving the news; but the British keep celebrating that victory because fighting on sea is all they can do, whenever they fight at land they get their sorry asses kicked even against "inferior" enemies such as Elphinstone's army in Afghanistan, Isandlwana, the American revolutionary war, Dunkirk, by the Jews at Palestine, the Dutch at Medway (after which the British lost their fleet which meant their island was open to invasion after which they panicked and surrendered ending the war in whatever terms (they could get no matter how unfavorable rather than fighting like men), Buenos Aires (twice) and Singapore, among many many others; and the only victories at sea they've scored have been by surprise attacks (such as the battle of the River Plate), ambushes (just like they did at the battle of Jutland or Cape Matapan) or by using overwhelming numbers (like they did with the Bismark: in the first encounter 2 German ships, including the Bismarck, fought against 3 British ships which included the most powerful British ship, the HMS Prince of Wales, known as "the pride of the Royal Navy" and the Bismarck alone defeated the 3 British ships and easily destroyed the HMS Prince of Wales, after which the British fled and only came back in overwhelming numbers, sending 12 ships against the Bismarck). That's why in Corunna they used their favorite tactic: be defeated and escape by sea (the same one used in Dunkirk); by the way, Wellington's only tactic consisted of hiding behind a hill and attacking only when the enemy lowered his guard while having an ally do most of the fighting; also explaining why during all of the wars between Britain and France the British only strategy consisted of conquering small irrelevant colonies with overwhelming forces which were their only direct victories. Also, they have no problem whatsoever betraying their allies to further its interests such as when they bombarded Copenhagen even though Denmark wasn't at war with Britain (they did this to destroy the Danish fleet so Napoleon couldn't use it to invade Britain if he conquered Denmark), or when the French surrendered in World War II after the British sent only a symbolic force (which achieved nothing and was defeated) and the British demanded the French hand over all of their ships to them (they were terrified that Hitler could use them to invade Britain) and when the French refused the British immediately forgot about their so-called "allies" and attacked the French fleet by surprise at Mers-el Kebir; and there's also the fact that the French surrendered because Churchill (supposed "tough guy") wrote them off and refused to send reinforcements, instead choosing to keep his forces in Britain in a sad attempt to deter an invasion and to improve his bargaining position during peace talks after the Germans won which he was sure would happen. Or when they betrayed the Portuguese (supposedly their oldest allies with whom they'd maintained an alliance treaty since 1386 although the Portuguese have never really seen any benefits while the British have) by sending them an ultimatum in 1890 demanding them to evacuate some of their African colonies and once they did they quickly moved to occupy these areas just so they could have a continuous land connection between South Africa and Egypt or during the Seven Years War: the British always seek a powerful ally with a powerful land army (as the British are too cowardly to fight like men) to protect them and fight for them and the United States didn't exist yet so they tricked Prussia into joining them and paid the Prussians to fight on the continent in their place but as soon as the British attained their goals in the other theaters of the war they immediately forgot about their Prussian "allies" and suddenly stopped the cash flow to Prussia and abandoned them just at the height of the war, leaving the Prussians to their own devices to fight alone against France, Austria and Russia, almost resulting in the destruction of Prussia, something every country in Europe took note of and is also why during the Circassian genocide when Russian captured the British ship Vixen (then delivering aid) the British loudly threatened war but backed down when they couldn't find any ally to do the actually fighting for them. During the Napoleonic Wars, the British were at their worst, paying others to fight for them, causing the Emperor of Austria to say "The English are flesh traffickers, they pay others to fight in their place", while Napoleon said the British were "a people of cowardly marine merchants". Here's a tiny selection of the countless British defeats: Afghans 6-13 January 1842 - retreat from Kabul - entire British army captured or killed (17,000 KIA) 3 September 1879 - Kabul ...again 27 July 1880 - Maiwand - 900-1,000 British/Indian troops killed By Mahdist March 13, 1884 - January 26, 1885 Siege of Khartoum - 7,000 force lost to Mahdis February 4, 1884 First Battle of El Teb Chinese 4 September 1839 Battle of Kowloon - defensive victory June 24-26, 1859 Second Battle of Taku Forts Russians Petropavlovsk - British landing repelled Battle of the Great Redan - British failure while the French do succeed in taking the Malakoff Balaclava - British lancers and hussars of the light brigade annihilated. Taganrog - failure of the Anglo-French contingent to take Taganrog Siege of Kars - Anglo Turkish force fails to take Kars Zulus Isandlwanna - an entire column wiped out. 1,400 killed Intombe - supply convoy wiped out. 104 dead Hlobane - No. 4 column wiped out. 225 killed Bulgarians Battle of Kosturino 1915 Battle of Doiran 1916 Battle of Doiran 1917 Battle of Doiran 1918 Argentinians 2 April 1982 - Invasion of the Falklands - 100+ Marines and sailors captured 3 April 1982 - Argentinians seize Leith Harbor. 22 Royal Marine POWs 10 May 1982 - sinking of the HMS Sheffield 22 May 1982 - sinking of the HMS Ardent 23 May 1982 - Battle of Seal Cove 24 May 1982 - sinking of the HMS Antelope 25 May 1982 - SS Atlantic Conveyor sunk by Argentinians 25 May 1982 - HMS Coventry is sunk by Arg. aircraft. 29 May 1982 - Mount Kent Battle - 5 SAS dead in friendly fire incident. 6-7 June 1982 - British paratroops vacate position under pressure, leaving radio codes 8 June 1982 - Bluff Cove Air Attacks 10 June 1982 - Skirmish at Many Branch Point - capture of the SAS contingent. Ghurka victories January 1814 - Battle of Makwanpur Gadhi - British army kept at bay January 1814 - Battle of Jitgadh - British attack repulsed with 300 KIA Spring 1814 - Battle of Hariharpur Gadhi - British Indian army stymied. November 1814 - Battle of Nalapani - British force decimated with 700+ casualties December, 1814 - Battle of Jaithak - 53rd Div. defeated and repelled. Dutch 16 August 1652 - Battle of Plymouth - De Ruyter's triumph 30 November 1652 - Battle of Dungeness - Dutch gain control of the English Channel 4 March 1653 - Battle of Leghorn - 5 ships captured or sunk 2 August 1665 - Battle of Vågen 1-4 June 1666 - Four Days' Battle - 10 ships lost with upwards of 4,500 killed and wounded 2-5 September 1666 - Burning of London 9-14 June 1667 - Raid on Medway - Dutch raid, ends with loss of 13 English ships 28 May 1672 - Battle of Solebay 7 -14 June 1673 - Battle of Schooneveld August 21, 1673 - Battle of Texel Others - by the Albanians (the 78th Regiment of Foot at Rosetta), - by the Americans (at Cowpens, in 1813 at Thames, and in 1815 at New Orleans), - by the Poles (in 1810 at Fuengirola), - by the native Indians (at Monongahela), - by the Egyptians (1807 at El-Hamad or Hamaad) - by Native Americans at the first Roanoake Island Colony where they defeated the English colonists who had then had to be rescued by Francis Drake, fleeing by sea (the usual British tactic of fleeing by sea) Among many, many, others.

[@benjaming4151]