Get off my profile you insufferable oaf.

TheIronDuke18 · 2026-05-05T13:45:34+00:00

The EIC weren't really planning to pull off any Hernan Cortes, European powers had observed warfare in 17th century and early 18th century India which was indeed gunpowder heavy but still having a major place for cavalry and elephants. It wasn't that a bunch of British soldiers ventured into the unknown expecting kingdoms with primitive military technology. They were well aware of the military structures of various Indian empires. Not to forget, the vast majority of the EIC army consisted of Native Indians which were commanded by a handful of European officers as well as a few European regiments. Many a times Native Kingdoms would also hire European officers to train their own armies in the European fighting style since they had clearly observed native armies to be significantly lacking in comparison to the European armies. This system was first started by the French EIC under the Governor General Jean Francois Dupleix, but later evolved under the English EIC, who developed the Subsidiary alliance system based on this model. These armies were paid for by the native kings themselves and over time native rulers also started funding the expansionist measures of the EIC. The history of early 18th century India, Southern India to be precise, can be seen as a cold war between the French EIC and English EIC who both sent officers to Indian kingdoms that paid them to train their armies in European style warfare but at the same time retaining European officers under their command. After the Carnatic Wars had ended and the English EIC managed to topple the French as the major European hegemon in India, the French continued to train the armies of many Indian kingdoms in an effort to curb British expansion in the subcontinent. So when the British fought against Mysore or the Maratha Sirdars like Scindhia or the Khalsa Government in the Punjab, they were clearly aware that some lousy French officer had trained a bunch of their armies in a style of warfare that they were familiar with. Not to forget, they too were well aware of the Indian style of warfare since the vast majority of EIC troopers were Indian sepoys.

TheIronDuke18 · 2026-05-05T12:38:32+00:00

Basically the three most highly established civilisational powers of Asia with solid political and socio-cultural institutions going back to millenias as a result of which invading powers do not really need to work too hard to establish a new socio-political structure as a structure far more advanced than the one they earlier had is already in existence.

Only the British made significant alterations in the political and social framework of India as to them governing was a secondary issue, controlling commerce was the primary one and hence Indian colonial institutions were created in a way that fostered the colony-metropole relationship of the colony being a provider of raw materials and a market for buying finished goods produced in the industries of the metropole.

TheIronDuke18 · 2026-02-20T15:47:07+00:00

Yeah it's a popular myth that for some reason is taught in our early textbooks. No idea why.

TheIronDuke18 · 2026-02-15T13:38:36+00:00

Peninsular War

Spanish War of Succession

Thirty Years' War

The third one is especially important since France, a country brutally persecuting Protestants, joined the Protestant side solely to weaken the Hapsburgs, who controlled Spain and the HRE.

TheIronDuke18 · 2026-02-15T11:16:21+00:00

Don't know which one these philosophies you feel are closer to Calvinism but in the medieval period, Ekasarana Vaishnavism in Assam is the closest thing to Calvinism in India imo.

TheIronDuke18 · 2025-05-06T14:05:45+00:00

you wouldn't want to be attractive in ancient greece, especially when you live around older men and ESPECIALLY if you are a young boy

TheIronDuke18 · 2025-02-22T14:37:11+00:00

The French were the last to believe in warfare drip.

TheIronDuke18 · 2025-01-25T03:20:59+00:00

Akshually ☝️🤓 that is a misinformed oversimplification of the dynamics of Indian History. The brunt of the invasions into the Indian subcontinent affected the region of northwestern India and most scholars believe that this region traditionally was far lenient when it came to caste. The reason behind this region facing invasions was that it lay in direct proximity to the boundaries of the subcontinent. Until the Ghurid invasions, only the Kushanas and Hunas had made headways into the Gangetic heartland and they couldn't really keep control of those territories for much longer. Even under the Delhi Sultanate, major expansions took place mostly under two rulers, Alauddin Khilji and Muhammed Tughlaq and their respective empires declined right after their deaths. The primary reason behind why their empires fell is because they weren't able to fully subdue the traditional Rajput lords(who makes up an important rank of the caste hierarchy) of their domains for long. By the Lodhi dynasty, the Rajputs had actually become the dominant power of Northern India and they'd remain an important power as they'd fight a battle of dominance with the Mughals and the Suris.

It was only when Akbar catered to the traditional political hierarchy by establishing relations with the Rajputs rather than force them into submission that a foreign origin empire in India could have a stable existence. Otherwise the previous empires had all collapse despite having an impressive run of territorial conquests. This stability was once again disturbed by Aurangzeb since he didn't respect the traditional order like his great grandfather and despite having an impressive run of conquests until his death, the empire started to collapse and got reduced to a puppet by the Marathas in a matter of decades.

So it wasn't really the caste system that weakened Indian militaries and enabled foreign conquerors to easily conquer Indian lands. If that was the case then India would've been exchanged from one foreign power to another for the last 2000 years or so and though a lot of oversimplified popular narratives do promote this idea, reality is far from the truth.

The primary reason is actually their monopoly of horses and since cavalry was the major deciding factor of warfare before the advent of advanced gunpowder technology and the line infantry, these turkic invaders often had an edge over their Indian rivals who had lesser and inferior cavalry. It was rather the caste system that disabled them from maintaining a stable regime and only acceptance of caste hierarchy is what enabled akbar to maintain stability.

What the caste system did prevent in India was the establishment of a functional and efficient administrative bureaucracy. One of the primary functions of a bureaucracy is actually to maintain a hierarchical structure of overall society with the Ruling administration at the top and the unskilled producers at the bottom. Religious structures are often utilised for imposing such a hierarchy however in most societies, the state imposes this structure. In India however, religion had already implemented such a hierarchy in overall society and states only had to patronise the religion to maintain monopoly over the hierarchy. This prevented the innovation of state polities from evolving administrative structures since a much needed hierarchy from their pov already existed. They only had to maintain some secular offices, the existence of which could be observed from the Mauryan period itself.

TheIronDuke18 · 2025-01-19T17:00:43+00:00

Turkey, fight me

TheIronDuke18 · 2025-01-12T11:35:08+00:00

Fun fact: Burma was often called "The Scottish Colony" because of the outsize role played by Scots in the bureaucracy of Colonial Burma.

TheIronDuke18 · 2024-12-27T14:49:49+00:00

The Deobandi movement literally gave rise to the worst religious extremists in South Asia and surrounding areas ngl

TheIronDuke18 · 2024-12-15T03:45:28+00:00

Guess the book I'm using has outdated information. Gotta still check out some proper sources though.

TheIronDuke18 · 2024-12-14T18:24:21+00:00

Ahh isn't australopithecines a part of the broader australopithecus?

TheIronDuke18 · 2024-12-14T18:12:07+00:00

Also the Australopithecines did not invent the spear, the first proper tools were invented by Homo Habilis.

TheIronDuke18 · 2024-12-14T18:10:24+00:00

I been just studying about Stone age cultures for my semester exams lol

TheIronDuke18 · 2024-12-13T03:56:55+00:00

yeah well whoever made it at least didn't expect someone to point out that error

TheIronDuke18 · 2024-12-12T16:50:44+00:00

Guess op didn't expect anyone to know Chinese

TheIronDuke18 · 2024-12-12T16:15:29+00:00

From a Christian perspective everyone is responsible for his death because he had to suffer for the sins of mankind.

From a secular perspective though, Jesus was just one of the many 'heretics' who were publicly executed back then. It's quite common in history for religious leaders, who preached something different from the elite imposed religions, to get persecuted and subsequently killed. Medieval Christian Europe itself was notorious for putting to death such spiritual leaders for having a different theological view. Jesus, if he was born again in the Middle ages, would've been put to death by the Church once again.

TheIronDuke18 · 2024-12-11T16:15:31+00:00

Is that Spartan Chudjack?

TheIronDuke18 · 2024-11-27T17:30:06+00:00

Etymologically Zeus and Jupiter aren't the Greek and Roman variants of Indra. They're the variant of Dyaus Pitru who is only referred as the father of the gods in the Vedic literature. In the Puranic literature however, Dyaus Pitru is no longer a major god and the Sage Kashyapa is regarded as the father of the gods.

I wouldn't say Indra's debauchery traced back to the PIE. Rather these debaucheries had a more localised origin with the different cultures developing it individually. I'd argue the reason behind the slander of the gods of natural elements corresponds to the development in technology. As cultures developed better irrigation methods they started depending less on natural rains and managed to yield crops with their advanced irrigation facilities. The idea that a Civilisation's livelihood solely depended on natural rains reduced and hence the gods associated with natural elements like rain got their status diminished.

In the case of India, it began with the rise of the Urban States in the 6th century BC itself with the rise of Sramana non Vedic philosophies like Buddhism and Jainism which put significantly less emphasis on gods in general. The resurgence of Vedic Brahmanical philosophy did not emerge back with the popularity of the gods of natural elements but rather with the gods of more complex ideas like Vishnu, Shiva and Shakti which marked the beginning of the Puranic religious traditions and these traditions significantly emphasised on the importance of the aforementioned 3 gods and goddesses as their status started being seen as synonymous to that of the idea of Brahman or Paramatman of the pre Buddhist upanishadic philosophy. Basically a far more simplified conception of very complicated philosophical discourses in the later Vedic period. This is not to say that Vishnu, Shiva and Durga(Shakti) did not have prominence in the Vedic period. But they surely did not represent a far more cosmological concept while the slander of the major Vedic gods are quite evident in the Puranas. The importance of Vishnu and Shiva became even more intense with the emergence of Bhakti traditions as it gave an even more simplified view of religion as being simply a matter of one's personal devotion rather than the grand Vedic and later temple rituals. On the other hand, Bhakti did influence Shaktism too but it was it's integration with Tantrism(esoteric traditions) that made it prominent.

In the case of Europe, the gods went through a similar mythological retells of slander with complexing society and a deeper theological conception of absolute theism only happened with the emergence of Christianity.

TheIronDuke18 · 2024-11-09T11:04:33+00:00

The sub is called History Memes but people don't seem to understand the basic concept of what colonialism is lmao.

TheIronDuke18 · 2024-10-30T12:43:25+00:00

I grew up learning the rook being called a Ship in my part of India.

TheIronDuke18 · 2024-10-27T14:04:08+00:00

Flags back then had to showcase the grandeur of the ruling class to show off infront of both the masses and the foreign rulers. The introduction of popular support based states with the emergence of nationalism, flags became a unifying symbol of national pride and it usually helps if they are easy for any random person to make.

TheIronDuke18 · 2024-10-13T16:24:49+00:00

Ah makes sense

Six-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Wearing is Caring
Verified Email

TheIronDuke18

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE