Which empire had the greatest cultural and social impact on its conquered lands?

Which empire had the greatest cultural and social impact on its conquered lands?


  • Total voters
    71

royal744

Ad Honoris
Jul 2013
10,114
San Antonio, Tx
Marathas Empire was actually completely destroyed by British and Peshwas were receiving pension from the company, however many regional warlords of Marathas ended up as the princely state of British. In second Anglo-Maratha war, Marathas had to cede large chunk of their Empire to British.





That's not true. British taxation was pretty harsh on Indians, debt trap was quite common among farmers, even monsoon fails there was no tax waiver to farmers. Millions of Indians were starved to death by Europe's hero Winston Churchill during World War 2 to fight Britain's war. To claim colonialism was good for Indians, Britain would have to treat Indians at par with Native Brits in resource allocation and taxation but that was not the case.
Isn’t it also possible or probable that without the English/Brits therewould be no India as it exists today?
 
Apr 2019
12
Vancouver
Isn’t it also possible or probable that without the English/Brits therewould be no India as it exists today?
True. India, Pakistan and Bangladesh would have been a united country. This is also like arguing if there was no Holocaust there would have been no Israel, so all Israelis should be grateful to the Nazis.
 
May 2011
13,781
Navan, Ireland
True. India, Pakistan and Bangladesh would have been a united country. This is also like arguing if there was no Holocaust there would have been no Israel, so all Israelis should be grateful to the Nazis.

Really please do explain how if not for the period of British rule the Indian sub-continent- a complex place full of different ethnic and religious groups would have automatically become one single entity?

And sorry the Holocaust reference is simply foolish and really shows that that you don't really understand what the Holocaust and the Nazi's actually were but simply think involving them in a discussion makes you appear somehow morally better.
 
Apr 2019
12
Vancouver
Really please do explain how if not for the period of British rule the Indian sub-continent- a complex place full of different ethnic and religious groups would have automatically become one single entity?

And sorry the Holocaust reference is simply foolish and really shows that that you don't really understand what the Holocaust and the Nazi's actually were but simply think involving them in a discussion makes you appear somehow morally better.
India was a united empire under the Mauryas, Guptas, Tughalaks, Lodis, Mughals, Marathas, etc. She didn't need to be colonized to become one country. When the British left, they left behind 565 princely states, which were initially going to be independent. It was under the able leadership of Sardar Patel that these states were integrated to India. States like Hyderabad and Kashmir had to be integrated by force. So the British left behind a disunited India, including breaking it up into artificial countries like East and West Pakistan.

The point about the Nazis is that if unintended positive consequences come out of an oppressor's behavior, that doesn't make the oppression any more morally right.
 
May 2011
13,781
Navan, Ireland
India was a united empire under the Mauryas, Guptas, Tughalaks, Lodis, Mughals, Marathas, etc. She didn't need to be colonized to become one country. When the British left, they left behind 565 princely states, which were initially going to be independent. It was under the able leadership of Sardar Patel that these states were integrated to India. States like Hyderabad and Kashmir had to be integrated by force. So the British left behind a disunited India, including breaking it up into artificial countries like East and West Pakistan.

The point about the Nazis is that if unintended positive consequences come out of an oppressor's behavior, that doesn't make the oppression any more morally right.
None of which are a signal that India would become a single unified country in fact the fact that a a company of private Merchant adventurers could come to dominate India is a sign of the weakness of any of the powers in India to dominate the whole country.
 
Likes: Aelfwine

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,315
India
None of which are a signal that India would become a single unified country in fact the fact that a a company of private Merchant adventurers could come to dominate India is a sign of the weakness of any of the powers in India to dominate the whole country.
Marathas were quite a formidable force, India didn't need any foreign interference. British just sought opportunity during the period of political turmoil in India. English is a global language because it was forced upon the Empire. With or Without English world would not have been any different.
 
May 2011
13,781
Navan, Ireland
Marathas were quite a formidable force, India didn't need any foreign interference..
The Marathas were so formidable that a bunch of Merchant Adventurers beat them and dominated a sub-continent.


British just sought opportunity during the period of political turmoil in India. .
The British East India Company do what all such entities do-- seek profit, they or those like them still do.

English is a global language because it was forced upon the Empire. With or Without English world would not have been any different .
Not sure English was 'forced' on anyone but if you wanted to get ahead it helped. If the British still spoke Welsh or French things would not have been different I agree, but if the British did not arrive in India another European country would have.

If the BEIC had dominated but just 'traded' then if could have been worse for 'India' divided into several state none of whom liked the other each with 'India companies' from various states more than willing to sell munitions, provide 'advisors' perhaps even whole regiments of mercenaries (the BEIC had its own European regiments, leased units of the crown , plus locally raised troops) to the highest bidder. Infact these different companies might well see that it was in their own financial interest that there be no 'winner' and ensure that a balance of power (or disorder ) remained.
 
Apr 2019
12
Vancouver
None of which are a signal that India would become a single unified country in fact the fact that a a company of private Merchant adventurers could come to dominate India is a sign of the weakness of any of the powers in India to dominate the whole country.
The private merchants sat peacefully for a couple of centuries before they started taking over Indian states. As for weakness, the Duke of Wellington, the victor of Waterloo, the general who defeated Napoleon, rated Assaye (against the Marathas) as his toughest battle.
 
Apr 2019
12
Vancouver
The Marathas were so formidable that a bunch of Merchant Adventurers beat them and dominated a sub-continent.




The British East India Company do what all such entities do-- seek profit, they or those like them still do.



Not sure English was 'forced' on anyone but if you wanted to get ahead it helped. If the British still spoke Welsh or French things would not have been different I agree, but if the British did not arrive in India another European country would have.

If the BEIC had dominated but just 'traded' then if could have been worse for 'India' divided into several state none of whom liked the other each with 'India companies' from various states more than willing to sell munitions, provide 'advisors' perhaps even whole regiments of mercenaries (the BEIC had its own European regiments, leased units of the crown , plus locally raised troops) to the highest bidder. Infact these different companies might well see that it was in their own financial interest that there be no 'winner' and ensure that a balance of power (or disorder ) remained.
The British EIC did the same in China as all drug cartels do - sell opium to make profits. Unlike drug cartels, the British invaded China to force it to buy opium. The profits from this trade helped a lot of British citizens. And some American ones too- like FDR's family and John Kerry's family.
 
The British EIC did the same in China as all drug cartels do - sell opium to make profits. Unlike drug cartels, the British invaded China to force it to buy opium. The profits from this trade helped a lot of British citizens. And some American ones too- like FDR's family and John Kerry's family.
and where they exporting this opium from? it is in india where they acquired opium in the first place probably in rajasthan where people were known for their opium use and tried selling it to the british, british banned opium their but then it started installing factories in east india esp bihar and bengal and their agriculture fields were forced to produce opium and indigo for the british trade. this is one of the major reasons for the bengal famine in the mid twentieth century. The people there were forced to grow dye and drug instead of food crops. All their remaining food produce was shipped to UK in order to feed their soldiers on indian expanse.

regards
 

Similar History Discussions