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

How did Britain conquer the Maratha Empire? In this video (Part 5 of a 5-part series), we go over the second half of the 2nd Anglo-Maratha War, where the expansion of British India was brought to a halt with an unexpectedly hard-fought campaign against the Maratha domain of Yashwantrao Holkar. After that, there will also be a brief discussion on the historical implications of British Indian hegemony, and also on the many parallels between it and Revolutionary France's attempted hegemony over Europe.
SCRIPT:
strategosstuff.blogspot.com/2...
All errors are my own.
▬ CHAPTERS ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
0:00 - Start
1:19 - 11. War with Holkar (1804-06)
18:04 - 12. Aftermath & Conclusion
▬ SOURCES ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Chowdhury M. Empire and Gunpowder. Routledge 2023.
Howard M. Wellington and the British Army’s Indian Campaigns. Pen & Sword Military 2020.
Pearse H. Lake’s Campaigns in India. Leonaur 2007.
Roy K. War, Culture and Society in Early Modern South Asia. Routledge 2011.
Davies H. Wellington’s Wars. Yale University Press 2012.
Holmes R. Wellington. Harper Perennial 2007.
Muir R. Wellington. Yale University Press 2013.
Severn J. Architects of Empire. University of Oklahoma Press 2007.
Stewart G. The New Cambridge History of India: The Marathas 1600-1818. Cambridge University Press 2008.
Wink A. Land and Sovereignty in India. Cambridge University Press 1986.
▬ ATTRIBUTIONS ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Wikipedia (basic facts + dates)
Maps:
Google Maps
sp-ao.shortpixel.ai/client/to...
(Chambal River)
www.clearias.com/up/aravalli.jpg
(Aravalli Mts)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_R...
(Rann of Kutch)
www.deviantart.com/cyowari/ar...
(India 1794)
www.deviantart.com/cyowari/ar...
(India 1802)
www.deviantart.com/cyowari/ar...
(India 1807)
www.deviantart.com/cyowari/ar...
(India 1836)
www.deviantart.com/cyowari/ar...
commons.princeton.edu/mg/wp-c...
(India 1860)
Pronunciations:
KZbin
Made using Microsoft Office 2013, Teleprompter, Remote Mouse, ShureMV7, Audacity, WavePad and VideoPad.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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❤

[@user-cn8cz3qz6z]

@@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

[@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.

[@historicalwalrus589]

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

[@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.

[@bigsarge2085]

Very informative. Thank you, Strategy Stuff!

[@micahistory]

incredible video man, this series was amazing

[@stupidminotaur9735]

Great video as always.

[@alexop5919]

Thank you for your videos!!!

[@gastgedal]

Great series, thank you for your good work.

[@cynic2201]

he has returned!

[@asgaren]

Great video as always

[@Fronzel41]

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

[@craigchronicles5130]

Love your content!❤❤

[@juulianstudios]

Great videos man. Keep it up!

[@chralexNET]

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

[@cleganebowldog6626]

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

[@thecolonelpridereview]

Excellent work, well done.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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!

[@abukharan5774]

Good stuff

[@Federuberti]

Excellent comparison regarding Revolutionary France at the end of the video

[@Bookofshavings]

supremely well done

[@qazdr6]

Excellent series

[@dubsy1026]

Brilliant series

[@andreascovano7742]

Amazing

[@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.

[@willrock8194]

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

[@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 😢

[@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.

[@GregMcNeish]

Oh hell yes!!!

[@LillianKoi]

Return of the king!

[@stormshadow5283]

I hope you do a revolt of 1857 strategy

[@rohitrai6187]

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

[@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.

[@jackcross4895]

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

[@EnderGrad]

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

[@theinformationbomber7102]

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

[@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

[@rockethola3515]

Goat

[@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.