The British Conquest of India (1798-1806) V. The 2nd Anglo-Maratha War: Holkar

[@michaelthayer5351]

I didn't know much about the British conquest of India before this series as it is mainly just glossed over as the "British filling the power vacuum left by the Mughals." But I had no idea it was done is basically a single decade of military campaigns and is probably the best case study for the old axiom "Geopolitics/History has two speeds: Glacial and Lightning." as the slow build of British influence in the 18th Century, training of the Sepoys, and British military technological superiority accumulated slowly until it gave way to dominion of the subcontinent as ambitious officials exploited the decades of groundwork and preparations of their predecessors.

[@somsahay2161]

Exceptionally well done video again, really impressed with the whole series. I would like to add a few points regarding the nature of the Maratha state as covered here though. The description of the Maratha and other Indian states as feudal is something that is difficult to define accurately. Now I agree with your point that the British (and the EIC) and other European states of the time had state apparatuses that were much more efficient in mobilization of men and resources. However, I would argue that the Indian states do not fit the definition of the feudal, especially not the Marathas. At least as far as feudal concerns with the ownership and authority over land, and the arrangement of administrative, economic, judicial and military matters. The Marathas had a centralized revenue system, with collectors and auditors that were paid and controlled by the Central government in Pune, and not under any regional chiefs or governors like Scindia or Holkar. This was true at least till the reign of Peshwa Bajirao II, the mad Peshwa. The Marathas also had a centralized army that depended upon the Huzurat (Royal army) forming the main force with centrally appointed and salaried officers. The regional chiefs were given conditional patents, that were non hereditary and transferable, and that also restricted them to mostly administrative and military affairs, having no control over the revenue collection. They could appoint jagirs, land assignments, out their own jurisdiction, but assessment was usually handled by the central officers working with them. The land assignments given to the nobles in the Maratha state were generally not hereditary, and were in fact transferable, with the exception of the large chiefs, but even they had to rely on the Pune court to enable them to take control of their land, which was famously seen in the case of Mahadji Scindia himself, who could only succeed to his patrimony when appointed by the Peshwa, and throughout 1760s he had acted as an officer in service of the Peshwa and other chiefs. Even the Holkar fief was nearly auctioned off when the Pune court decided to intervene in its succession in the 1760s, saved only by the intervention of the Peshwa himself, and a compromise was effected which took out the control of the army away from the Holkar family, and instead was given to a relative of the Holkars (the father of Yeshwantrao Holkar) while the civil administration was left to the Holkar queen. Later the Holkar queen dying with an heir, apponted that relative as her heir which finally restored the Holkar fief wholly in 1795. However, as obvious, these institutions degenerated, and the bureaucracy and the military of the state fell in decay. The reason for this, I would argue, is that while the Marathas were a post feudal polity for much of their existence, the real problem lay with their 'Constitution' which was was not as sound as the European states or companies (famously defined by their charters) for that matter. What I mean by this is that the Maratha instruments of legitimacy and transition of power from one generation to another depended on their leaders, and the empire did not possess the procedures and protocols to ensure the smooth functioning of the state in the absence or in case of decline of the established lineages. A succession dispute even when resolved, could not reestablish the full authority of the office in case of disputed legitimacy. The office itself did not command the authority to overshadow discrepancies in lineage or other forms of legitimacy. An example of this would be the erosion of the Maratha Emperor's authority after Shahu's death in 1748, as with no direct heir and the accusation of the collateral branch's heir being an imposter, the power De Facto shifted entirely to the Peshwas. The similar process happened with the Peshwas as well, with the sudden death of Madhavrao II, possibly suicide, the central authority, already weakened due to him being a minor for the majority of his reign, declined even further. The new Peshwa, the last from the legitimate natural line, was the son of Raghunathrao, the infamous instigator and ally of the EIC, largely considered a traitor. He could not exercise lawful authority, had no training in statecraft having been a prisoner most of his life, and thus resorted to tyranny which led to the civil war in the Maratha empire. Further, the Maratha state did not have a constitutional mechanism to properly distribute authority and responsibility across it's high command in case of an incapicated or weak figurehead. This led to the fragmentation of the network of rights and obligations that defined the relations between the centre and the provincial. The empire was now unable to coordinate all of its resources and effectively control far flung areas. The chiefs had dubious allegiance to the person of the Peshwa and the Central edifice, and neither did the figure head Peshwa had the means to impose effective allegiance. Thus, while I agree with your analysis that the Maratha empire/confederacy was lacking the efficient European state apparatus, I do not think it was a feudal state either. It was not a nation state like the Europeans or a Company, I think it was a transitional sort of state with limited bureaucracy that lacked a constitutional mechanism and procedure for respnsible power distribution at its top level, depending on the individuals to provide leadership and legitimacy.

[@jivie798]

Good explanation sir.

[@1cupof6]

I've derived so much enjoyment and learning from this series. Your series feels informative and unbiased. Whatever other events you tackle I will be tuned in, from here on out.

[@tickinbomb]

The point that was made at 22:10 was the old consensus of historiography Wellington's military career post-India, and it is demonstrably incorrect. Many of the lessons learnt during India, such as coalition warfare, importance of secure logistics chains, and I'd say most importantly, attacking at every practical opportunity he would later utilise. In each campaign in Iberia, he certainly attempted to take the offensive, and even if it ended with retreat such as his retreat to the Lines of Torres Vedras, it doesn't diminish his intention to always attack when advantages were present. Rather than disregarding his lessons from India, I'd say the opposite is true; India was an essential learning curve for Wellington's success in the Peninsular War.

[@TheBard1999]

21:55 after watching this series I think it can be suggested that Wellington adopted his stategy employed in Ibera, based on his experiences at suppressing rebellion of Dhondia Wagh that was covered in part 2.

[@Mrjmaxted0291]

I loved this series, incredibly impressive work capturing the scope of the conquest without doing away with the detail. I was wondering if you'd ever consider doing a series on the Troubles? I find these kinds of asymmetric conflicts fascinating and I think you'd bring an amazing perspective to it all.

[@lucasvanderhoeven3760]

So good that you’re back! If you’re planning on future video’s, why not consider a video about the Roman-Persian wars? It is such an interesting conflict that went on for seven centuries

[@StrategyStuff]

Thanks for your comment! I actually did a video for HistoryMarche on the final Roman-Sassanid war (Heraclius). As for future videos: there’s still Mao, and then I’ll start on a new series - originally I was planning US West, but after recent geopolitical events, I think it might be more timely to do a series on the strategy of appeasement in the 1930s.

[@lucasvanderhoeven3760]

Ah yes I really enjoyed the Heraclius vid, what a story! Good to hear that you have new projects in mind

[@myahein2095]

​@@StrategyStuff I know you are already in plan but please consider trying Anglo-burmese wars or British conquest of Konbaung empire. Maybe sometimes later, better luck chump❤

[@MorganCunningham-w6d]

@@StrategyStuff a video of the US West would be much more interesting in my opinion, simply due to market saturation on the topic of appeasement.

[@Garren-kx2jg]

Hows ur mao revolution progress??​@@StrategyStuff

[@JulienDLauriers]

your videos deserve so much more attention, the quality of the explanation and research are always great

[@LillianKoi]

Hello Strategy Stuff, hope you have good holidays. Your videos on geoeconomics was a massive inspiration for my thesis that let me graduate this year!

[@Aeyo]

Good to have you back Sir. I wish you Happy New Year if this video happens to be last of 2023.

[@StrategyStuff]

Yes it will be unfortunately, I’ll be on holiday.

[@Aeyo]

@@StrategyStuff I will be eagerly waiting for your future videos sir.

[@bigsarge2085]

Very informative. Thank you, Strategy Stuff!

[@cynic2201]

he has returned!

[@historicalwalrus589]

You have no idea how hyped I get when these videos drop 😁

[@alexop5919]

Thank you for your videos!!!

[@gastgedal]

Great series, thank you for your good work.

[@guru47pi]

Am I the only one that thinks it's absolutely amazing that the British Empire's rise to power during the Napoleonic era largely comes down to two brothers; one in Europe, while the other conquered India? They must have had some sibling rivalry! "I freed Spain and Portugal and beat Napoleon, twice." Oh yeah? I conquered India starting with little more than a handful of mercenaries, Machiavellian politics, and my huge balls."

[@StrategyStuff]

Well Richard can still claim that he helped launch Arthur’s career by giving him so many opportunities to conquer territory in India. R also helped his other brother Henry, who actually got to rule annexed Awadh for a while before the EIC got sick of Rs patronage and forced Hs resignation. IIRC by the time of their departure, A had already fallen out with R by this time coz R had failed to put A in charge of the EGY expedition (Part III). A would repay this “insult” in the future when he rejected Rs request for money after A became a Duke.

[@stupidminotaur9735]

Great video as always.

[@chralexNET]

How do you always upload when I have a hangover? it's magic.

[@micahistory]

incredible video man, this series was amazing

[@Agate717]

Hi S.S, hope you're doing well! Just want to ask if youre planning on making new videos. Your work is a real gift and I'd love to see more of it. As an aside, have you considered making videos on the Portuguese wars of hegemony in the Indian Ocean? It's real interesting stuff - arguably the first "Modern" war, with simualtenous theatres from Somalia to Indonesia. I think it'd be fascinating to cover!

[@craigchronicles5130]

Love your content!❤❤

[@krushnaji4940]

You compare revolutionary France and British India. so it's your duty to make video about strategy of revolutionary France in Europe. Seriously please make video about it.

[@Fronzel41]

So for the Wellesleys the biggest outcome was that Arthur learned the costs of gambling everything on reckless aggression. Sorry, Richard!

[@cleganebowldog6626]

I enjoyed all 5 parts of this series, thanks!!

[@Federuberti]

Excellent comparison regarding Revolutionary France at the end of the video

[@JuulJournal]

Great videos man. Keep it up!

[@Volition1001]

Welcome back! As a suggestion for videos I would love to see “the strategy of coups” in contrast to your “strategy of revolution” series. Thank you!

[@titanuranus3095]

Ordinary Things just released a video on that topic if it intrests you.

[@Volition1001]

@@titanuranus3095thank you!

[@Bookofshavings]

supremely well done

[@thecolonelpridereview]

Excellent work, well done.

[@abukharan5774]

Good stuff

[@ThomasEdgerley-gk6ho]

Hi Strategy stuff, I've been a long time enjoyer of your videos, and if you have a patreon, you're one of few I'd donate to for the sake of more content like this. Can't wait for your future projects. If it's of any interest while I've read about the great game from both British and Russian perspectives from the Sikh, Kazak and Persian operations to the conclusion at the Anglo-Russian convention, feel like you could make a video with better research and production than any others out there. All the best, hope all is going well.

[@StrategyStuff]

Hey! Thanks for the offer… I might consider a patreon haha, tho the limiting factor here isnt $, but just slow work and being sidetracked by life lol. Currently working on strategy of Mao Zedong, and honestly, bit of a nightmare considering how complicated it is…

[@ThomasEdgerley-gk6ho]

@@StrategyStuff Sounds great! Look forward to it, don't know a lot about Mao's strategy so sounds interesting! Best of luck. Also all the best for that whole life thing, gets rough sometimes.

[@max-imal8588]

That sounds like a very interesting topic, is there an estimate when our long wait​ will end? Also do you still plan on making a video on appeasement in the 30s, because that would be really interesting? @@StrategyStuff

[@Volition1001]

@@StrategyStuffDo you have an ETA on the Mao video? I’ve been looking forward to it for years now

[@andreascovano7742]

Amazing

[@qazdr6]

Excellent series

[@abdullahdaniyal114]

When new video will come?

[@dubsy1026]

Brilliant series

[@internethardcase]

You should do a Napoleon grand strategy video next!

[@we2j_31]

Just discovered this channel and I have a HUGE problem with the whole thing!… there aren’t enough videos 😢

[@stormshadow5283]

I hope you do a revolt of 1857 strategy

[@user-fx9kv1mw2r]

British couldn't conquer Maharaja Yashwantrao. Holkar was defeated only after his death

[@GregMcNeish]

Oh hell yes!!!

[@taWay21]

Bro where are you

[@theinformationbomber7102]

Holkar had to give up some territory in the treaty of peace or no ?

[@rohitrai6187]

Please make videos about Japan's Meiji Restoration and about Egypt-Ottoman Rivalry under Muhammed Ali

[@FirstCommandmentRigorist]

YES!!!!!!!! This series is so good. I think it would be cool if you did some did some episodes covering the time from Plassy to 1798

[@EnderGradRPC]

Peculiar request but can you do a video regarding the geopolitics of other countries on Bangladesh when it was under Pakistanis

[@jackcross4895]

"Ragtag band" "horde", nice unbiased description dude

[@joaopedrogameiro1408]

Such a great channel! It always surprises me that the regular everyday Indian never rose up in a mass revolt against an outside power. It’s even more shocking that the British could hold their own in Delhi with just 2,000 soldiers until Mornington arrived! India has a massive population!

[@StrategyStuff]

Well, nationalism as a motivating factor was new even for Europeans during this period, and furthermore the British Indian state probably had 0 direct impact on the everyday life of most regular Indians (most of the impact being indirect through local elites). And yeah, pretty amazing that Delhi held vs Holkar, who actually had some intention of taking the city (his cannon successfully breached the walls Oct 10, 11 and an assault was made Oct 14). And while this kind of lopsided victory will become much more typical in future colonial wars, in this case I think the British victory largely came b/c Holkar's horde was really a loose coalition that was here for easy plunder, not battlefield death. So most of them just didn't fight, and that ones who attacked were probably from Holkar's personal units - and he wouldn't have wanted to risk them too much, for fear of losing control over 'his' horde.

[@Abhishek-fe7hc]

👍 ​@@StrategyStuff

[@0MVR_0]

Once both Bengal and the orissa region were taken Pala would have 'naturally fallen' into the orbit of the British non-aligment was a recognition of a conundrum, namely the best option is only the least bad.

[@LillianKoi]

Return of the king!

[@user-fx9kv1mw2r]

I'm from Holkar clan. Maharaja Yashwantrao Holkar is our hero

[@anteep4900]

Not gonna lie thats pretty epic. The Brits mustve been outnumbered like 1000-1 and still pulled it off.

[@johnreese5230]

the civillian population difference here is largely irrelevant. As mentioned in this video, european technological and bureaucratic advancements enabled them to trounce local rulers, also in the other parts of the world. the 1000-1 difference became relevant in the mid 1900s where mass civilian protests and rebellions ultimately led to british packing their bags and leaving..

[@jdamsel8212]

The British fought one Kingdom at a time and had a professional army - the difference in numbers was not nearly as large as you might believe.

[@rockethola3515]

Goat

[@micahistory]

It really is insane how one tiny island on the other half of the world managed to conquer most of an entire civilisation within a decade. Great overview

[@Dokja0]

That is not a correct view. This conquering was done on the basis of decades of platform building by previous generation. What we see here is the final step of sorts..

[@micahistory]

yes@@Dokja0

[@johnreese5230]

british conquest of india started in 1857 by the capture of Bengal by EIC. It took them another 70+ years to hegemonize India, that too while still leaving large chunks of territory to be governed by indegenous rulers, of course with british cooperation

[@micahistory]

don't you mean 1757?@@johnreese5230

[@anteep4900]

Still, it's crazy the Brits could even manage 1% of this gargantuan task. I would be hugely embarassed if I was Indian@@Dokja0

[@moneymaker2024]

British f Maratha easily

[@asgaren]

Great video as always