The British Conquest of India (1798-1806) III. Colonial Reorganization

[@michaelthayer5351]

"AE is just a number." -Mornington after annexing half of India in less than a decade, probably.

[@pedromotta4231]

Dude saw the ottomans full annexing the mamluks in a single war and took that as a challenge

[@MrPresidente98]

Hello, just wanted to say that I came across your channel by accident but I am so glad about it! Honestly, there are so many historical channels on KZbin nowadays, which focus more on popularization of history rather than diving deep into the topic. For people who are familiar with many historical events this is really depressing and tiring because from time to time there is nothing new and interesting to watch on KZbin when it comes to historical content. That's why I am so happy I discovered your channel! Well done maps, clear timelines, names of important places and individuals and most importantly great narration! You are a creat creator. I hope you will continue your fantastic work. Cheers!

[@lorefox201]

yes this channel is such a gem

[@LuisAldamiz]

This is one of the best channels, maybe not in animations and other video-tricks but the content is excellent and very well explained.

[@TheSkypeConverser]

+infinity, love this channel a lot

[@akhanddbangladesh8274]

It was Bengal presidency under British Raj. .. There was no such a thing called India ever existed till 1947.. GET IT RIGHT!!

[@jdamsel8212]

@@akhanddbangladesh8274 cope kanglu

[@AGS363]

Of course, most of the British officials were themselves...members of the Gentry.

[@vorynrosethorn903]

Always the way, intellectuals support the dominance of intellectuals, politicians of politicians.

[@julianshepherd2038]

​@@vorynrosethorn903you bought your commission at auction so yes. They did that until after the shambles that was the Crimean War. So around 1860 I guess.

[@julianshepherd2038]

Also few people in England were literate which is why the Scots often rose through the ranks.

[@singingsatellite6845]

Best history and geopolitics channel on the internet right here. These types of videos ought to be implemented in college.

[@robert9016]

These are basically lectures. I’ve had classes with things similar to this, but it really is quite good. It’s always nice to have a history channel that goes into actual depth rather than clickbaiting and giving simple explanations that are just what people want to hear.

[@GregMcNeish]

This series is outstanding. It's always fascinating to learn how political maneuvering was so fundamental to colonialism, finding and exploiting openings created by existing dynamics and tensions within a society. There's a lot to learn from these examples about how the world continues to work today.

[@bobettethedestroyerthebuil1034]

There’s an arguable addition that the societal changes Britain seeked to make didn’t work because Indian land was already as occupied as it could be. British North America had bountiful “free land” from native Americans, which allowed them to avoid much of the rural exploitation (minus slavery) by continually allowing peasants to occupy new land.

[@LuisAldamiz]

They are very different colonial concepts: North America was a settlement colony, as the Brits did not believe it was very profittable to exploit the natives, India was a purely economic colony, as there was no room for any sort of colonial settlement and the socio-economic structure of the natives was absolutely ripe for further exploitation via hierarchical alliance with the already consolidated local elites. In a sense India was like the south of the North American colonies: a slave plantation (or almost so). Anyhow, Britain did try to contain the expansionism of its own unruly North American settlers, limiting colonization to the east of the Appalachian Mts. It was a large factor in the creole uprising that they call "American Revolution" and it was this North American independence which had Britain looking for other colonies on which to subsidize its navy and general superpower status... such as India.

[@bobettethedestroyerthebuil1034]

@@LuisAldamiz I would say Britain attempted to contain its settlers as it had fought just before hand a costly war which it could not gain the upper hand in (Pontiac’ war). For the British, if they couldn’t get a decisive victory when the natives had no outside help, there were fears they could push them out with the aid of the French and/or Spanish. As for India there is much overlap between the plantation complexes of the zamindars and the plantations of their American colonies. It isn’t a coincidence either that slavery was not abolished in India as the rest of their colonies.

[@blugaledoh2669]

@@LuisAldamizcreole uprising? What?

[@LuisAldamiz]

@@blugaledoh2669 - What what? Creole = colonial (in the sense of settled peoples rather than natives), uprising = revolt.

[@blugaledoh2669]

@@LuisAldamiz ah ok

[@AndrewRoberts11]

Mornington, and his noble hoard of Irish brothers, commissioned thousands, of now public domain, pictures of their campaigns in India. You could sprinkle a few of the collective Wellesley clan's "Company Pictures", through the power-points.

[@thesalafislav]

Weirdo

[@AlthewizardofOz]

Great video series...keep up the great work!

[@yamnayaseed356]

You could publish this series as a book and make a good few pounds if you market it in India. This is solid material there.

[@leanderbarreto980]

Or hong Kong dollars

[@ellidominusser1138]

I think it's amazing how many wars Great Britain was in even while fighting Napoleon in europe. They used Napoleon as a distraction to carve up an Empire.

[@Nn-3]

In this case it was less "Britain", and more the EIC acting as a state in itself.

[@LuisAldamiz]

@@Nn-3 - It was semi-autonomous but fully integrated within the British state and its elites. Didn't you raise an eyebrow or two when it was mentioned in the first video that Morrington was elder bro of Wellington? Or when in this very video that he was extremely dependent on the patronage of Pitt? The only one who has not shown up yet is Rotschild, the guy who was hedge-funding against Napoleon at Waterloo before hedge-funding was a thing and when the fastest communication method was messenger pidgeons.

[@LuisAldamiz]

They had a cunning plan... mwahahaha! One that actually worked anyhow: keep Europe divided, protect national industry, seek naval hegemony, establish colonies to subsidize all that on native exploitation. One has to admire the British elites if for no other reason that they managed to avoid the trappings that sunk Spain, beginning with not accepting the Low Countries as almost only manufacturing power and following by mastering the practical application of the old Roman adagio "divide et impera".

[@mesa9724]

@@Nn-3EIC management was just as british as britain itself. Also they were subject to the British state or crown or government whatever.

[@Nn-3]

@@LuisAldamiz I meant that the EIC was moreso acting independently. It wasn't like the British Parliament was directly overseeing the day-to-day happenings in India, or recruiting huge armies directly. The EIC sourced most of its troops and funding on its own, and largely acted independently when it came to foreign policy on account of how distant Britain was.

[@connor4955]

This is so good. Compare to Extra History where its just a VERY general overview

[@wheresmyeyebrow1608]

Your channel is unique on this entire website - your illistrations and narrative are straightforward and easy to pick up unlike the fighting rectangles on other channels hahaha

[@zahzuhzay6533]

Live the sources used!

[@finnwheatley2194]

This is an excellent, balanced overview

[@Sergio1Rodrigues]

Your videos and series are just amazing, thank you

[@willow_tree]

keep up the great vids, love u king

[@aymankhan2670]

Please make videos on the Anglo-Mahratta War & the Anglo-Sikh War. These battles were significant in British imperial history, yet there's no detailed videos about them on KZbin.

[@xijinpig8982]

Are you going to continue this series with more conquests after 1982, like with Burma, Marathas, Gurkhas, Sikhs and Afghans?

[@StrategyStuff]

Perhaps in the future! This video series will go up until 1806/7, so the next 2 videos will be on 1) 2nd Anglo-Maratha war and 2) Holkar’s counter-attack.

[@micahistory]

I barely knew about Mornington before this series, he's quite fascinatinf

[@shgjjj2879]

Top quality content, the push for gentrification in India as you put it is a great approximation for the same in other countries, enlightenment and property rights led to interesting outcomes

[@micahistory]

interesting video, i never knew any of this really

[@chissstardestroyer]

Britian was *cunning* in regard to India; they had a far smaller and far less-effective army; and far less in quantity of population; but they won; and one reason why was that they had developed a policy in colonial affairs of buying off the leadership; and operating behind the scenes as muscle for the newly appointed leaders, who would have to cry out to them- hence they cornered the market on enforcement. Much like their far more brutal terrorist policies in Ireland at that: use of local leaders who're always under their thumbs; and excessively brutal towards the peasants.

[@nathanbogomolny2395]

Wake up babe new strategy stuff dropped

[@onlyfacts4999]

Interesting that the Indians in the occupied regions put up surprisingly little resistance to Britain's oppressive reforms.

[@spleehk21]

I suspect it may have something to do with the fact that the Indian gentry & religious elites have it better under the British than under the rulers (both Hindu and Muslim) before them.

[@jdamsel8212]

@@spleehk21 How so? Both religious and political reforms deprived the gentry and religious elites of power.

[@Nn-3]

​​@@jdamsel8212 The 10:00 to 15:00 minute video section basically argues that the Indian gentry were supported by Britain to the detriment of the peasants.

[@libshastra]

@@spleehk21local rulers had enormous debts going generations. You could buy merchant class easily by guaranteeing timely repayment. It worked pretty effectively. The only ones who fought back were the Marathas and Sikhs

[@LuisAldamiz]

The problem of India was (is?) much like the problem of ancient Egypt: the hierarchies were too consolidated and adapted way too well to whoever managed to de facto control the country. Those were native (or "nativized") princes originally but eventually foreigners took over and the system worked too well to allow for much resistance. It's not that there are "slave races" but nations may be directed by history into such resignation to oppression and exploitation and that's a trap that is very difficult to exit once you fall into it. And it is affecting Britain today as well: compare the British passivity to much worse impositions with the endless protests in France. Machiavelli wrote (simplifying but illustratively) that there are two kinds of nations: those like Turkey, which used to absolute rule are very difficult to conquer but easy to keep after conquest, and those like France, which, very divided in his day, are easy to conquer but almost impossible to retain, because the conqueror will inherit the pre-existing divisions and quarrels. India seems to have got the best (or worst) of both worlds: it was divided enough to be relatively easy to conquer but it was also used to princely and caste hierarchical rule (which Britain reinforced) to be kept under the thumb for more than a century with only limited revolts.

[@lorefox201]

oooh nice

[@lorefox201]

Mercantilists were right once again to the surprise of nobody, Britain plays at social engineering and manages to make a genetic-cultural divide based caste system even MORE loopsided.

[@lucasnadamas9317]

There's something really interesting about the fact that it's quite literally a company, that is to say the modern meaning of company, but instead of a product and liscences it owns land and basically a country, like isn't there something ridiculous and funny about a country having shareholders? especially one that is almost casually performing one of the most impressive feats of conquest of all time, but to which it's opposed to becouse it will lower it's profitability

[@sebastianjuara]

i really love your ocontent

[@Hession0Drasha]

It's a shame the gentry only improve their assets for themselves, and not for the benefit of society in general. Same in the modern uk. Profits for them, often creates more poverty for everyone else.

[@shorewall]

Perverse incentives explain most, if not everything. People do what they think works best for them.

[@helloworld0609]

Would like to hear Indians about their perspective on this history.

[@hellothere8807]

I as a brit have spoken to afew Indians on it. Alot of them hate the British for what we did which is very understandable. Then some understand we aren't like that anymore and it wasn't the British public that did all the bad stuff but the terrible government we had at the time. I love India it was there independence day recently❤

[@dsbdsb6637]

All social experiments employed on us are now being exported globallly namely Identity politics & Enlightement values reconfiguration etc. so i find Western culture wars amusing as we have been dealing with it for few centuries.

[@James-ip8xs]

​@@hellothere8807skill issue

[@julianshepherd2038]

There are various theories and philosphies but it was about profit, profit and profit.

[@bigsarge2085]

✌✌

[@chissstardestroyer]

The biggest difference between British policy in Colonial America and India is who settled there: the early USA really was a set of English settlements; "outposts", actually, ethnically part of England, and that was also part and parcel of the problem they had herein that they didn't have in India: "Rights of Englishmen" was the nature of that conflict- simply put: in Colonial America, England really messed up in terms of policies; but in India; their emphasis on rule of law was a surprisingly just improvement in jurisprudence- and that helped to prevent uprisings. Here in the USA, almost all of those who settled here from the Old World by then were Englishmen- there it was, like with most of their colonies: very few Englishmen managing a lot of non-english locals. There were locals, Amerindians as we called them; but due to plagues and the results of wars mixed together, plus they tended to fight eachother too much to be able to win; they were really rapidly being replaced, or civilized to the point that their civilizations no longer are able to be recognized., hence truly conquered... but the USA really is a kind of "breakaway section of England" in terms of ethnics; but make no mistake here: there really is a lot of cultural hatred we have for England, due to their abuses.

[@domino2560]

British reformist sound like the Neocons of the 1800s

[@dsbdsb6637]

You got it.

[@RC-du7zu]

Watching Mornington gobble up the Indian states is like watching a supervillain plot.

[@RobertPaterson]

Very similar to how Rome occupied their empire

[@LuisAldamiz]

But much much faster.

[@rob6927]

Most of the empires work like that.

[@Thecrownswill]

One day could you cover the early efforts of the Nazi party in Berlin?

[@nikeshpatel19]

We all come here now, lol.

[@chynabad9804]

Look, you don't have to put so much emphasis on 'rational' being a term you have to approach with caution. This is the third episode, you already stressed this point more than once before. Trust in and respect for the viewer - you largely succeed in this already, and I think a small bit more is due.

[@mesa9724]

I know it’s not that simple but imagine your entire subcontinent and culture being conquered by a company 😂

[@pedromotta4231]

Every country has its embarrassing moments. The Brits got conquered by a frenchman and haven't fully recovered to this day.

[@mesa9724]

@@pedromotta4231 Humm what

[@ellidominusser1138]

​@@mesa9724 william the conqueror, the reason why english is so similar to french

[@mesa9724]

@@ellidominusser1138 First english is not so similar to French. Secondly England has not recovered from that? Thridly it was not embarassing for English for the previous anglo saxon king to be deposed by a norman duke… just normal things of medieval Europe.

[@volodymyrboitchouk]

​@@mesa9724looks like someone's still salty about 1066

[@NeofolkClassics]

Less scare quotes.

[@rexanguis214]

Constructive Criticism............from a view who wants to see you succeed.........you need to work on your delivery, but more importantly, your narrative is going by micro step by microstep..........its okay to gloss over things occasionally..........you will keep your audience more engaged and interested...........god bless

[@scarletcrusade77]

I wonder if South Asians watch these videos and genuinely feel anger or do they just admire how a basically a trade company with a private army took over an entire sub-continent with a series of crafty maneuvers.

[@shehryarashraf5840]

it is what it is

[@krushnaji4940]

Its fact of our life truth be told we don't care that much now

[@libshastra]

We feel anger and admire the tenacity. In addition to that we are learning a lot. A lot of these info was locked away in British Archives. Indians did not get access to them unless they became British Citizens.

[@thelakeman2538]

Many of the rulers (be it more popularly known ones like Tipu Sultan, or even more lesser known ones like the briefly mentioned polygars in the small wars portion of the previous video like Veerapandiyan Kattabomman, etc) the British fought during this time period are part of local and regional folk tales, and are placed in a general nationalist narrative of resistance against colonialism and imperialism, overlooking their own flaws as feudal rulers. The general attitude towards the EIC would be anger I suppose, but while watching these videos my attitude is more dispassionate. Stuff like the stratification of land holding and increasing power of landlord classes and the lacklustre land reforms post-independence play a big role in the underdevelopment and continued poverty of a lot of places in modern India (eg- Bihar) and South Asia in general.

[@පැරකුම්බා]

We know more than this u know cuz this is the victors story not the losers... i dont think you will ever see our side of the story, maybe in future u will.... But to answer ur question, its frustration, i guess its pretty simillar to what mordern ethnic english face in current UK.... Hope i answered your question.

[@akhanddbangladesh8274]

It was Bengal presidency under British Raj. .. There was no such a thing called India ever existed till 1947. .. GET IT RIGHT!!

[@greg_4201]

Just a little reminder about a point which probably 99% of viewers will misinterpret; the overwhelming majority of tax burden on the working class is literally the hallmark of a wealthy, socially advanced society with good services and a high standard of living. If you look around today at societies where the rich pay most of the taxes and the lower class pays little or none, they are all the most corrupt, backward, impoverished third world shitholes where people have no stake in society, no recourse against the most extreme abuse and absolutely no hope of improvement. The rich can never carry the poor, for the simple fact that if a rich man had to pay for the upkeep of thousands of poor men, he wouldn't be rich for long, and there would then be no investment in overall growth at all. There was a time when such patronage was normal; the institution was called slavery. Was it sensible to imagine European society could be transplanted to India under the auspices of a trading company? Probably not, but did India get closer to European society and prosperity as a result of the attempts and the longterm development? Certainly. Development of course depends greatly on the population in question; one only has to look at Singapore where the British started from scratch to see a contrast. Yes, huge numbers of those people were Indian, but they lacked the feudal hierarchy of India, the caste issues, or any parasitical kind of entitled overseers. Sure Singapore kicked off at the tail end of the given time period in the video, and the Imperial process and methods were more developed, as opposed to the haphazard, private-run show it had been up to that point. I just think it's worth pointing this out as no doubt many people will approach and interpret this video with a Marxist lense, i.e without context or backgorund knowledge.

[@VineFynn]

In developed countries it tends to be that the top 20% of earners pay about 80% of income taxes.

[@greg_4201]

@@VineFynn sorry, I mispoke. I meant that in the most developed countries more tax is paid by the lower classes relative to poorer countries by a huge amount. so the point stands the same. the simple fact is that in the poorest, most corrupt and underdeveloped societies the average person is paying little or no taxes. in that situation there is no investment in the public at large. It's also true that in the most developed countries there is a tipping point where the more the burden is carried by the rich, the more the economy stagnates, production declines, and infrastructure and services suffer. comparing the US to most of Europe is a good example. in the US the top 1% are paying 28% of the taxes, and it is starting to look like a third world country relative to the more developed European nations, where the gap is less pronounced.