Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
American Reacts to What if Britain Never Conquered India?
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 08. 2024
- Such an interesting topic to explore! If you enjoyed this video, please like and subscribe. #india #britain #reaction
Link to original video: • What if Britain Never ...
Follow me:
Instagram: / sogal.yt
Twitter: / sogal_yt
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
Quick announcement! Now you can follow me behind-the-scenes and direct message me if you want:
Instagram: instagram.com/sogal.yt/
Twitter: twitter.com/SoGal_YT
Hope to see you there!
If you would like to get the best info and history on The Empire's Effect on India, I really recommend Dr.Shashi Tharoor's Oxford Union address.. It's a relatively brief video, about 20 mins I think but it's because he stated direct points, historical Facts, data and statistics to show the direct logical result.. And great video btw, really enjoyed it and the channel as well😄👍
You should watch does britain awe reparation to india, by shashi tharoor
Simple and great suggestion. Don't ask a thief for help to find the theif ..... Video has lot of misinformation ... And lot of propaganda .... ( The most of books were written by colonial powers and they are not genuine ). India has a great history which is untold And twisted by the British so that they can say prove that British rule is the best thing that ever happened to India...
czcams.com/video/f7CW7S0zxv4/video.html
@@thatipuditeja9367 This is an American video that an American is reacting to. The problem is that when anyone tries to say what effects their ancestors had, they generally merely consider the bad effects, while puting more emphasis on the positives. Many of Indian descent run with the ridiculous notion that India would have both the benefits that they gained through the British being there but be richer and that India was a peaceful Nirvana when Europeans came along. It would be a lot like me suggesting that the UK was full of happy peaceful folk who all got along before the Romans, Vikings and Normans came along with their respective invasions. An example of the far too basic thinking being that the narrator of this video suggests millions wouldn't have died from a famine if Britain hadn't been there. But he says this without considering what multiple centuries of alternative history would have brought. He himself is considering the peaceful coexistence of many independent states. A very niaive notion.
Every scrap of inhabited land on the planet has been contested and if you are gaining prosperity from the bit your ancestors took from someone else, then you need to use some of that money to defend it.
Back then the whole europe and asia wanted a piece of India. India was outrageously rich back then. Hence everybody from Mongols to Alexander to British, portuguese etc came to India. India has been under foreign attack from 10th century BC till it got independent in 1947.
Even Christopher Columbus went in search of a new route to India and accidentally discovered America.
Mongols did not invade India. Genghis Khan willingly turned back during a pursuit of a traitor because Genghis Khan work on the idea of Retaliation and never ever he invaded anywhere without any need of retaliation. So since Indian people never bothered him he never bothered India even after knowing about the riches of India. Genghis Khan was a great man driven by morals and values.
@@tuhinroy6852 just search mongol invasion of india, never said anything about Genghis khan. Mongols tried a lot during 1200-1300 era.
@@coolpawan1 yes they tried but were not successful I think to actually have a significant Impact. Not disagreeing with your original comment, I just wanted to mention this that's all.
@Aarshey Tripathi mughals are actually turks, central asians. Indians just gave them the name mughals. They were turks just like lodi, khilji etc
@@sarojnayak8350 they were the descendants. Of Chengis khan even though the Mongols and also the Turks are also the same peoples
British men looted 45trillion from India!! 😭
It's painful! India was the wealthiest country. Only India was holding 1/4 of all wealth of the World.
So hurtful
When Britain came, india shares almost 25%of the world, after Britain goes, indian trade drops to less than 2%.
Now India is regaining it's great era with modern technology that's talks in world as "EMERGING INDIA". 🙏🙏🙏
@@chrisdechristophe it was the relative drop from 33% share of the world GDP to just 2%. Britain looted unimaginable amount of wealth from India.
500 years before, the Indian subcontinent was the superpower with the largest economy in the world. Then just before the British Raj era 300 years ago, it was still the 2nd superpower with China being number one. Then by the time the British left 75years ago, India was not even in the top 20. Now in just 75 years it is the 4th largest economy in the world and if projections are correct, will again be the largest economy in another 30 years after a gap of 500 years.
for over 1700 years India was the richest country, while China was at second spot and USA was the most poorest country in the world with GDP's less than 1%.
Google it
Cottton. India had its own cotton industry. One of the negatives was that Britain subdued the Indian cotton trade to benefit the English industry. Tea; the British introduced tea from China into India and Ceylon.
Yes it's right india didn t had the concept of tea but now every indian is drinking 3-4 glasses a day
@@harshitbasand9983 actually tea was comes from china to Britain and then from Britain to India
not just cotton we has over 180 different types of weaves systematically destroyed by british
Britiain had depended on it's wool industry since the middle ages. Imports of cotton from India made money for the EIC but threatened the vested intrests of the wool manufacturers, who got tariffs introduced on cotton imports. However wool manufacture was bound by traditional rules. Some small manufacturers started making cotton in England and were able to innovate quickly, So a cotton industry developed which was eventually able to get the tariffs removed.
At first the machines were only used for spinning but weaving was still done by hand. When practical automated looms were developed (1820s) That put hand weavers out of business in Britain as well as India. There were riots and other unrest in Britiain.
Note this was to the disadvantage of the EIC, who were forced to look elsewhere for profit. The EIC wanted to keep importing cotton goods from India. The idea that all Britons were working together against India is false. Britons were competing against each other to become rich.
India cotton had short fibres. Machines worked better with longer fibred cotton which American supplied.. By the American Civil war 85% of British cotton Imports came from America. Most Britons refused to support the South because of slavery and supported the boycott of imports from them. This lead to what is called the Lancashire Cotton Famine that shut down many mills and put many men out of work. Some mills tried to switch to Indian cotton but found they could only work at 40% of their normal speed. In the long run this benefitted British Industry by closing the less efficient mills, but at a great cost.
Elephants were equivalent to modern tanks in the olden days, hence they were domesticated. The more elephants an empire had is equivalent to the more number of nukes a modern country has.
Oh my ... There are so many loop hole n not being rude but wrong n less information..😐
@R T yea I can if you will listen
@R T so there are many flavours of icecream such as strowbarry , chocolate, vanilla and many more things I hope you will understand 😁
@R T yea it's tasty 😆
I still love the British
They are really civilised people
I dont know about rest of India
But for Bengal they did various productive things ❤❤
elephants were also used for wars back in the day
Indian have different cultures and languages but one thing which westerners never get that Indian are divided but their identity is India.
Not true tho. If the British didn't exist, we might have been four countries right now
India was a quarter of world's gdp and Britain was only 2% world's gdp
Because of British Indias people's struggling with life.
But don't give up.
We make india global leader in later years.❤️👍🙏🇮🇳😷🤟👌😍🤗
JAI HIND
Basically he is defending colonising of India
Yup
It may be worth pointing out that the Moghul conquest of India is estimated to have cost about 80 million lives. The Mahratta Confederacy survived by vast bands of light cavalry fighting for a warlord, looting and pillaging to obtain supplies, hence their nomadic lifestyle - staying in one place would exhaust local resources.
The East India Company cleverly managed local alliances with native rulers and employed far more Indian troops than British. They also employed some French, Portuguese and Dutch as necessary!
Telling the truth is always worth it. Unfortunately historical accuracy doesn't fit the current narrative and the pitchforks get sharpened whenever anyone attempts to buck the trend, that being, the British Empire was evil and caused all the woes of the world! Pity we were bankrupt after WW2, we should've kept control of India a bit longer and left the country in a more stabalised state. If we had they'd likely be the worlds leading superpower by now. The decades after the war were wasted but they'll get there....
Doesn't consider India as a market for British goods. India's huge population made its consumption more significant than it was as a source of raw materials. A myriad of Indian states scrapping one another could actually have been more use to the British industrial machine. Worked pretty well for the US 1914-18 & '39-'45.
Tea made population growth possible as it has medicinal value. Prior to tea, safe water was from fermentation, weak beer was the norm.
As it happens, Hitler actually loved and admired the U.K. he was a huge movie nut and his favourite movie was a movie about the British ruling India, and he was amazed of how a country the size of the U.K. could rule a country so much larger. This is why he did never wanted to go to war with the U.K.
well lets not forget he was also a massive wannabe artist, yet still invaded the hell out of Paris. it was more to do with the tactics of that strip of ocean that kept him out of England.
This video has lots of misinformation in it
8:44 he is kind of wrong here. As far as i remember Bengal and Mysore in 18th century had higher real wages and living standards than any country in Europe and maybe the world. (even though Mysore is in South India)
And from what i read there wasn't such a big gap in military technology. More than that, in some areas like rocket artillery Mysore was ahead of the British.
Well, Bengal is Independent anyway! So you dont have to speak for it as a Modern day Indian!
And before u say about West Bengal, in the pre-colonial era, the Eastern Part of Bengal(Bangladesh) was the Centre of Everything and Dhaka was the Wealthiest city on Earth!
@@peanutbar8882 I didn't know that dhaka was the wealthiest city on earth. It's a nice info.
@@aasamspb967 where are u from my brother?
@@peanutbar8882 india. And I thought I knew everything about my country.
@@peanutbar8882 are you from bangladesh?
This was one of Cody's shakiest "what ifs" in my opinion. He stacks assumptions up like Jenga here, and India's alternative history could just as easily have been two centuries of endemic brutal warfare and plenty of devastating famines even without a single European boot on its shores.
But it's the point about Europeans where the video just flies off into uncharted lala land. Had India not been British, then it was destined to become French India or Dutch India - or a patchwork of competing colonial interests like 19th century China. Extracting European expansionism from the scenario is just one "what if" too far. You basically have to magic Europe as it was in the 18th century out of existence to remove its influence (and therefore North American colonialism ceases to exist too), and without that the whole world's future at this point is unknowable.
Till now history has only been studied from a Western imperialist European perspective. But now with the loss of power in Europe with messy Brexit and the civil strife in the US, history will be brought out of the post colonial perspective. Indian historians will study western history with Indian perspectives, same with Chinese, Russians etc.
India is the Greek name for the Hindus. The Persians called people who lived East of the Indus river Hindus. And the Greeks called us Indica. India has a continuous cultural history going back to at least 5000 BC. Varanasi is the oldest continuously inhabited city in the world.
If the British had not come to India, the Marathas and Sikhs would have completed the reconquest of India from Arab and Turkish invaders. The Ahoms from Assam would have reconquered Bengal in the East.
But yes, the British occupation united everyone against the European imperialist enemy.
This is quite an ignorant comment. Dont mind.
British left India on it own.. After British went in 1947, There were 575 different princely states, and Britishers asked all to either remain independent or join Pakistan or join India.. A person named, "Sardar Vallav Bhai Patel" who is known as the IRON MAN OF INDIA, united all the 575 princely states and made them into one union.. Britisher left India divided.. India got united on its own..
Not quite the whole story, despite the role he played ... by the way, why have there been so many conflicts in the Indian subcontinent since 1947 .. ?
@@JohnGrayOnline About the conflicts I would categorize them into 2 parts, internal and external. Internal conflicts in the region stem from the diverse cultural and ethnic groups living in the region who when the nation was newly formed considered themselves more part of their cultures, region, etc than their country (similar to how the US was in its formative years leading to the civil war). This I believe is getting better since newer generations born in the country are becoming more sympathetic towards their country hence lesser conflict.
Then there is the external conflict, the 2 main reasons I believe are poorly drawn borders during the inception of the countries in the region and politicians in the respective countries. First is the J&K region which was a princely state which initially wasn't part of any of the nations(namely India and Pakistan) but the leader of the region was Hindu controlling a Muslim majority territory and Pakistan wanted them to succeed their territory to them since it is a Muslim majority land but their leader being Hindu opted to join India instead leading a conflict between the nations.
Next, early Pakistan was divided into 2 parts east Pakistan and West Pakistan which were very different in their cultures and ethnicity but were grouped together as a single country due to being Muslim majority regions. This was a logistical nightmare for Pakistan as the only land route connecting both of its territories was controlled by a possibly hostile nation. Also when Bangladesh declared its independence India supported them by blocking the land connection between the territories and supplying the fighters in Bangladesh with equipment (and possibly as undercover soldiers acting as the insurgents).
These problems along with politicians in respective countries exploiting the religious and national fervor to keep getting reelected and be in power further worsens the problems.
Hope that helps and take this opinion with a grain of salt as being Indian this opinion might be biased even though I tried to be as impartial as I could.
@@barramaccannes6374 Thanks for that full response, John
@@JohnGrayOnline No worries cheers 🍻
@ferzy09 Gave the army lol.. The people serving in that army were Indians only..
Army was also split between India and Pakistan..
Pick out any conflict of the world, 99% of them are due to Britishers
I have noticed that you are getting virtually all your information from American video sources. I really do think this skews your understanding of events as these sources are really biased when it comes to their reading of events.
Ya they are biased maybe you could look for other non biased videos
Let me know what other videos I should watch! Also, like and subscribe if you enjoyed this video 👍🏻 Related videos you might like are me reacting to:
🇬🇧The British Empire: czcams.com/video/0V-C1fYmfLI/video.html
🇮🇳 History of India: czcams.com/video/LkfelRXPVS0/video.html
India and China had remained the wealthiest lands and world trade centres for known 2000+ years without English Language or Railways. If Europe started modern industrial revolution, then India would have bought into it or have countered it with its own innovations, anyway. India saw rise and fall of Empires all through history and the land still stayed Rich. Of course, indian kingdoms and empires would have fought uncivilised wars amoung each other just like the europeans did till world war II and would have slowly consolidated into many sovereign nations within the sub continent.
But to occupy others land and loot, kill people is uncivilised and evil.
By the way, different religions co existed largely peacefully within the sub continent for so many centuries till Britain arrived. Brits did deliberately work in many ways to create divide in this religious harmony and they succeeded, at last. unfortunately, religion is the most easy and powerful weapon to create disharmony and hatred, even to date.
Pretty sure that tea is only a thing in India because the British introduced it as an alternate supply source to China.
Early on the Dutch were the big rivals to the British in trade and exploration. New York was originally New Amsterdam, Australia was New Holland, quite a few Caribbean islands were Dutch (until they allied with France and the UK took most of them), South African Boers were Dutch, the Dutch East Indies were a big trade area and the Dutch East Indiamen were the biggest armed trade ships around.
The Dutch were always a thorn in the British side, but never a credible threat on anything other than local-scales.
This is simple history............everyone seems to be valid.........Jesus, don't become the rich man's Judas............
Trump.....,...........
India is one of a half dozen countries (out of over 200 countries in the world) to have an orbiter around Mars. Around 40% of the engineers in Silicon Valley come from India. one in 5 Americans has an Indian doctor. Currently, India has one of the top 5 economies, and also one of the top 5 militaries in the world.
When the British left India in 1947 they left behind a populace with only a 13% literacy rate (the British government's budget for all education in India, Kindergarten through PhD, was less than half of New York City's educational budget at that time), an empty national treasury, and one of the bottom 3 economies in the world,.
It has come a long way in 74 years, and has the potential to go farther yet.
Put it this way, when the British left it meant the sectarian violence between Hindus and Muslims happened in India with led to the death of 30 million people.
Thats because they divided it into two and whole populations had to migrate from one side to another on foot(largest human migration in history).
@@44krishnan79 : The Muslim League insisted. Perhaps it would have been better to also have an independent Punjab to act as a buffer between the two new states.
@@44krishnan79 The division was very reluctantly acceded to by Britain, not caused by them. The notion of partition came from Jinnah and The All India Muslim League, not from the British. The murderous actions during partition happened because Indians feared and distrusted each other, not because of the British. Arguments have been made that the British could, and should, have done more to stop the violence but that's a complex topic in itself.
@@Bridgejunky2 Nope, the new historical evidence shows Jinnah was used as a pawn by the British to divide India, because the US and UK wanted to establish military bases after WW2, against the Soviet Union. Jinnah agreed to let US and UK to keep bases in Pakistan. The Indians had refused the British. So,they Partitioned India for their geopolitical agenda. The British knew many would be killed during Partition, but refused to help.
@@guilzd5836 Jinnah was a pawn?...hmm the new history ? If you knew anything about the man you'd know how stupid that is. Jinnah demanded a seperate state as Hindus would massively outnumber muslims which would (in his opinion) lead to genocide of the muslims. Facts my friend are rigid and set in stone, and not pretzels to be twisted and contorted to suit a particular narrative.
India was superpower back in days before British came in. 25% of world GDP 🌎was from India.
The biggest impact of Britain not being in India would have been felt in.... North America.
Yes. if the British had not been India, the USA would not exist, certainly not in its current form.
Remember that the Boston Tea party occurred directly as a result of a British Government policy aimed at stopping the East India Company from going bust.
The British Army went on to lose the US revolutionary war largely because it was also trying to put down rebellion in India at the same time. The result was it was spread far too thinly. especially in North America.
Remember that the last battle of the US revolutionary wars took place in India.
Maratha system were one of the best system in the world, they were not at all fragile.
@ferzy09 don't misslead my your biased facts. Maraths never had civil war. We betrayed by alliance.
Even with tax on tea it was still cheaper than from the US smugglers. That was the real reason behind the Boston Tea Party, a lot of the Founding Fathers were smugglers who wanted the British out so they could make more money. So what they are saying is that if Britain didn't have India they may have kept America longer.
Britain did keep the US - trade hardly changed
I think he is wrong about industrialization. As far as i remember up until the second half of 18th century India was more "industrial" than Europe.
Mughals under Aurangzeb had 25% of the world's gdp.
@@iwatchDVDsonXbox360 : Only because he was an Ivan The Terrible’ figure who subjugated everyone in reach, executed family members and imposed jizya taxes for thought crimes.
I don't agree with many things.
The industrialisation in the England was fueled by the de-industrialisation of India.
Well, if the British hadn’t invaded India there’d probably be a lot fewer of the curry houses that can be found in every English town! The photo of the painted elephant was taken in front of the Hawa Mahal (Palace of the Wind - or Breeze) in Jaipur and I’ve ridden on one of those elephants to the Amber Fort in Jaipur (albeit a little uneasily) which is the fortress pictured at the beginning and end of the video I believe!
Wow - that's cool. Thanks for letting me know.
@@SoGal_YT .
Quite a number of common words in English originated in India and, via the British Raj, migrated to Britain.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_words_of_Indian_origin
A ridiculous notion today that 'Britain invaded India'..how the hell could they with the massive population of India and a few British soldiers? .It is too stupid to even think about it, but of course, is now an acceptable rewrite of history in the woke era.
@@Witheredgoogie well of course ‘invasion’ in the accepted sense of the word is a massive oversimplification. It was far more insidious than that, a combination of trade deals (again in the loosest sense of the word), alliances with factions against other factions etc., until over time control was established. But that, generally speaking, is how the British Empire formed - trade/exploitation backed with military muscle.
@@ianpark1805 Well it follows then, that there must have been respect and co-operation from the indigenous population to have allowed this control to happen, because at anytime they could have completely overwealmed the British contingent and chased them into the sea as the Irish did with their unfortunate Jewish citizens.
That's normal elephant 🐘 in roads🛣️ & Nowdays too 👍🙏🇮🇳❤️
Yes we use elephant like taxi. Even you can book one in uber.
Marathas was Empire at first. It became confederation much later.
At first there were five Emperors who ruled Maratha Empire after the death of fifth Emperor it became confederation.
A confederacy is a loose alliance, not permanently bound. India today is still a collection of states, languages, religions and cultures. I agree with the video, it is unlikely it would have coalesced into a single state without external pressure, or internal wars.
When the British left it partially fractured into India, West Pakistan and East Pakistan ( now Bangladesh ) and Kashmir is still being fault over. It's still a melting pot.
When the British traders moved in, a gradual process - it wasn't an invasion, the French were already on the western shores, putting down roots. They were evicted by the British, in a similar way that they were dislodged from America. They weren't doing very well in the 18th c wars and peace treaties.
Moving in on potential colonies which are clusters of competing people's is easier if you can promote yourself as a benefactor against a rival. The Romans did it to the British tribes in 45AD, the Spanish did it against the Aztecs, and the British used the same technique to gain ascendency in India.
Cotton.
When the US civil war broke out, the supply of cotton to the British mills dried up. Indian cotton production was ramped up to provide the raw material and new plantations were opened in Egypt too.
Source : LGBTQ++++ community of Christian europe and america
10:21, 15:33 - As far as I know, elephants had and still have multiple uses in India, one of them being transportation. Their use would also spread out into the rest of the classical empires of the East and was even recorded to be in use all the way to the Eastern Mediterranean. To answer a previous question you raised, they were also used for war in quite a lot of battles and sieges, hence the term 'war elephant'. Looking at their history, they actually proved to be quite useful in battle, with peoples such as the Indians, Romans, Persians and even the Chinese making use of them because of how effective they were, as long as they were trained well enough and were used in the right way. They were primarily used to rush through and break up enemy ranks and they were especially good at intimidating horses, making them a good counter to enemy cavalry. They were used in war for quite a long time and as you saw in the Mughal video, it was used all the way up to the 16th-century during Babur's conquest of India. However, their use in combat would eventually be phased out, as gunpowder became more common in warfare.
As a (mostly) unrelated suggestion, you should check out History Matters' video on the age of the Vikings, for no other reason than to simply learn more history about other areas of the world. It's fairly interesting in its own right and H.M. does tend to mix in some dry humour into their content. Plus, the video does show some links to early British history, through their own interactions with the people of Scandinavia. Besides that, I'm also recommending a different channel for this topic simply because the more variety there is, the better.
Link: czcams.com/video/ExvEIOWB-H0/video.html
Yeah...I had no idea elephants were so widely used. Didn't even cross my mind they would be used in war. Thanks for the info. I'm also down for learning about other areas, so I'll definitely check out the Vikings stuff. I've never really looked into them before.
@@SoGal_YT .
Did you never learn about the Punic Wars and how Hannibal crossed the Alps with his army, including war elephants, to attack Rome from the north. :-)
@@SoGal_YT They were basically the tanks of the day. Used for breakthroughs. Big, scary and (until gunpowder weapons) unstoppable.
@@grahvis Americans tend not to learn about history that doesn’t involve themselves.
@@mikelarsen5836 Is the average American less aware of their country's history than any average citizen of any other nation? I doubt it to be honest. Remember that time David Cameron was quizzed on a US chat show but was unable to match some important events in British history with their dates? To be fair, I'd have breezed that test because I love history but Cameron, a highly intelligent and well educated Brit, did not. In any case being able to put a date on an event is only good for quizzes. Learning the lessons of history is what counts and Yanks are just as good, or bad, at that as everyone else.
Illogical..
What is the population of India in 1902
I’d advise you to watch Richard Attenborough’s Gandhi the film came out in 1982. It will give you a good idea of the end of British Rule in India and how the different factions in India dealt with getting independence from Britain.
Greece invaded India in 300bc Alexander the Great.
Before that the Aryans invaded..
Europe was in and out of India.
Goa was a Portuguese trading port.
Loads of others not just Brits.
Alexander tried but failed.
Aryan invasion theory is now pretty much debunked.
True
True
True
@@shubham8264 interesting, send me the debunks of 2. Please
@@yungpep bro..aryan invasion theory was created by maxmuller who never visited india in his life...and latest rakhigarhi DNA report of harward university said...we all indians are indigenous...later DNA mixing occurs very slowly ... And there is no evidences of any war in india valley civilization which signifies in support of any aryan invasion.. theory was supported by britishers who have split and rule policy ... So you can understand why these theories became populer
@@deshbhakt8561 Thank you, I have been looking into different studies more inline with that evidence 👍
@@yungpepYea y'all Europeans knew you were inferior to the indian Hindus and civilization, therefore to give yourself satisfaction y'all created a theory and it is so easy that everyone in europe accepted it even though it was just a theory.. It shows how inferior y'all felt that you all needed something to believe in
France & Portugal both had extensive lands in India
Really? I need to learn more about Indian history.
@@SoGal_YT Goa, in South West India was (until relatively recently May1987) Portugese. Its inhabitants being largely Christian, (though ethnically Indians) they drink alcohol and eat pork. The only part of India where pork is eaten :the fabulous fiery curry, vindhaloo is made of red wine vinegar and pork. . The French influence is weaker, but, until the East India Company beat them in battle there was a French influence in the lands they made treaties with. The Portugese had Macau in China until the 1990s,and French influence is still very strong in Vietnam.,particularly Vietnamese bread, pastries and coffee.
@@raymartin7172 the pork part is false, the north east and the south of India has extensive history of pork based dishes cause they were seldom conquered by the Muslim kings who mostly ruled the north.
@@EaterOfBaconSandwiches The dutch were defeated by indian kings themselves and they made a pact with them that the dutch will never intervene in indian politics+ the french were strong alies to indian kings like tipu sulthan and marathas and supplied weopons to them.. Only the british were strong enough to defeat these states which had powerful guns, cannons, and even innovated the first rocket launchers... The british was even defeated at many battles but won in the long run....
France had a small speck of land called pondicherry... And portugal the smallest state in india goa(size of a district) you call this extensive???? Pondicherry cannot even be seen on a map.???
Elephants were used as war 'vehicles' large, heavy and intimidating, they also in their decorated state would have been a badge of status for the Mughals... It's natural that Indian elephants would have done the heavy work of their human owners.
It's a pleasure taking in history with you, your curiosity is infectious 🙂
Recommendation - theres a related video this about -- 'what if the British never colonised America'.
PS- yanks would then be all spanish-speaking catholics with abortion etc outlawed.
You should look at Afghanistan and what is known as the Great Game, it partially explains why the Soviet Union invaded the country.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game
Well this alternative india concept is bullshit cause chanakya already have given the dreams of United india and it was almost been fulfilled in time of chandragupta maurya and was one of most prospering country
Don't need to watch the vid to tell you if the British did not conquer India, the French would have.
or the portuguese and the british could have taken brazil
@@galoglaich3281 Brasil was effectively a British colony. The Royal Navy evacuated the Portuguese Monarchy to Brasil when Napoleon took Lisbon.
The french was not strong enough + they were strong alies to indian kings the maratha and sikh empire was strong till mid nineteenth century and managed to hold of the british till 1818 and 1849,and the french even gave military training and weopons to indian kings + they would be nothing in india after waterloo in 1815.....they were simply not strong enough, dont forget indian kings defeated the dutch in 18th century itself and forced them to sign a treaty never to interfere in internal indian politics again + it took even the british 249 years 1600 - 1849 to completely conquer india and even begged aurangazeb inorder to stay after they lost the kids war in 1696.
@@44krishnan79 The british weren't strong enough either,they were just better bluffers than rest meaning that they could convince the indians that they were much stronger than they were in reality
We don't love Britain for uniting us but we hate them for breaking our country on the basis of religion.
The Maratha Empire was bigger than present day India.
We indians are good at forgiving but we will always remember that evil empire.
The first company to set up in India were the Dutch then came French and then British. The British left India before the Dutch. Goa a state of India was under Dutch till 1962. In 1962 India recaptured it which is known as the GOA Liberation day.
I suppose u mean Portuguese....!!!
@@fireinmymail Bucking the trend with a spot of accurate information?
They not only United they divided they created racial disparities Maoist and Marxist ideas religious tensions and btw Maratha had ideology and their system of governance was unified and had brought good trades to india
jewel in the crown. india had all we needed. spices were so expensive!
Facts are Facts. They are neither moral or immoral . They're just a reminder for the future generations. And the way forward for the great nation and an ancient civilization, called BHĀRAT i.e. the modern INDIAN UNION .
India might for a time remain under the East India Company which was a private company with its own army dedicated to trading not necessarily fair trading.
If british had not invaded india then american history and the outcome of their independence would have been a different story
One point I. Would like to make the empire stopped supporting their trade partners in the Confederacy after the emancipation proclamation as ending slavery had become more important than profit at this point in imperial history.
wrong , wrong and wrong . The British went around telling the world that India wouldnt be united as of today if it weren't for the British , that is absolute nonsense. India was always united culturally and linguistically . All the internal squabbling and racism was the direct result of the divide and rule policy of everyone who invaded India which left India in pieces and even created an artificial identity crisis in India to which we suffer to this day .
Portuguese first came to India in kerala
People should try to remember that Britain's actions whether in India or elsewhere weren't in isolation, someone else would have taken Britain's place, not an excuse just a fact. It reminds me of the argument that the first world war wouldn't have happened if the driver of Archduke Franz Ferdinand hadn't got lost and he hadn't been executed, this argument doesn't hold water as there was too many other reasons for the War or if Adolph Hitler had been killed at birth then there wouldn't be WW2 , sorry but I believe that type of thinking is just wishful in the extreme.
I agree, and one of the many reasons I don't much care for "what if" history fluff. In reality there's very few pivotal moments in history that can be truly turned on a single action or decision. The world tends to be moving inexorably towards one state of affairs or another and if one pebble doesn't start the avalanche, another one will.
If the British hadn't had it the French and Portaguese would have. The Indians wouldn't have been left alone in peace.
No u r absolutely wrong Portugese was thrown out and France was fed of war at that time they started there democracy started development in there country
The dutch too
True
Nope u are wrong
@@rebeccaanderson5626 You're wrong, my answer is provable and documented in history, yours is an unsupported statement.
Britain, France, Holland, Portugal and Arab traders had treaty ports in India. France, Britain, Portugal, Holland all had trading companies like the East India Company. India had the Moghul Empire and the confederacy of small entities. That's how the various trading companies managed to attain their treaty ports. All had one thing in common; the cast system. The East India Company used it's position to extend it's influence and eventually ruled all apart from the foreign treaty ports. They went after the Second World War. The Company made loss after loss and made a mess of it and Britain took over rule in 1840 leading to the demise of the Company. They proclaimed Victoria empress. Cotton lol. Realise that Lincoln's first concern was the Union not the emancipation of the slaves, Britain certainly sided with the Confederacy. The moment Lincoln freed the slaves(1863) he averted British intervention. Britain, France, Portugal, Holland, Germany, Austria, Japan, the US all established treaty ports in China, often by force. Britain forged India and Pakistan into the powerful nations they are today. Britain aquiesed to Gandhi's demands in I believe 1932 but the India had to wait till 1947/48 due to the War. India had a bloody split into Pakistan(than still including Bangladesh), India, Sikkim(later annexed by India, Nepal and Bhutan. It is more complex than Murray sets out though.
India was known as bharat in Mahabharata and ramayan and it's boundaries are also mentioned. U should have a look.
This is a completely wrong notion that before the British there were no idea of political unity of the subcontinent. That's the sort of education Britain propagated to divide India. There have been several times in history where not just India but large section of the entire subcontinent and as far as Afghanistan was under a single political entity. This is discounting the civilizational unity that has existed much longer than it.
This video is giving mis information about india
2:34 Basically every European country took a stab at India, the Portugese, France , Dutch and ofc the British.....
The seven years war were also fought in India between the French and British troops on Indian soil ( The British took over most of the French territory conqured in India), which was won by the British and ofc expanded....
Local Indian rulers allowed them to set a station near the coast in India from where they started expanding and conquering...
The Portugese ruled the state of Goa till 1961 and the Indian army had to shoo off the Portugese .....
The French had colonies such as Daman and Diu, Puducherry and Mahe also which they had till the 20th century....
The Dutch had some parts of Andaman and Nicobar Islands and some parts of South India, there's actually an Old Dutch cemetry in Fort Kochi, Kerala, the state I'm from...
India is the original source for cotton. The Greeks and Romans were introduced to Indian cotton fabrics and loved them. Growing cotton in the US and other places was a means to overcome a natural monopoly and lower corporate costs.
The Dutch East India Company and The Honorable East India Company were the world's first two corporations. Their investors profited extremely well for nearly 350 years. That individual and national profit and wealth, resulting in military power, came at the expense of African, Asian, and South American nations colonized by the European countries.
By the end of Mughal rule the share of Indian GDP in the world worth of 22%. By the end of the British rule in India its worth reduced to less than 1% of world's GDP. This drain of wealth from India to British made British encouraged to go egoistic wars in Europ, were again at the cost of lives of Indians. England with out India was nothing in front of Germany. If there were no British in India, we may not be unite as a single state but definitely be rich and prosperous in multiple states or possible federation and we would have been one of the powerful pole in this world.
French and Portugal, had small colony in India.
See unlike other countries India is culturally and traditionally same. From afganistan to Thailand combodia everything was under India
The Portuguese were the first in the 2nd half of the 2nd millennium to arrive in India (Vasco de Gama). Later the Dutch, the French, the British arrived in India as well. They, over time, bought and sold to each other the lands they controlled and colonized.
Indian religious was brutal that you don’t hear about
Sati
Hindu widows act 1856
Female Infanticide act 1870
Age of Consent act 1891
Which British introduced
We brought organistion to the chaos of the decline of the mogul emperors & of course Industrealisation & Railways & some Canals & Tea Production & Britain's biggest & mutch loved in India a Civil Service !!
There is a lot of nonsense in this video. Had the British not conquered India another European power would have conquered India. The East India Company kicked the French out of India. The Dutch handed their colonies over to the British. The Portuguese were also in India. Indian cotton was inferior to American cotton. British textile companies preferred to buy American cotton. During the American civil war, 400,000 British textile workers were thrown out of work because they could not get access to American cotton. The East India Company was listed on the London stock exchange. Its financial statements are still available. It wasn't that profitable an enterprise. Britain became rich because of the industrial revolution. The American economist, Milton Freidman stated that India benefitted more from colonisation than Britain. Adam Smith stated that colonies are a waste of money for the mother country.
Adam Smith died in 1790, he can't have really known about colonialism in the context of the industrial revolution. That's 20 years before the Luddites.
The dutch didnt have any colonies in india they were defeated by a small indian king in 1741 and humiated into signing a treaty never to interfere in indian politics again... The portuguese had a small patch of land the size of a district which they clung on desperately for centuries the portuguese were defeated by the dutch the dutch were defeated by a small indian king, when tipu sulthan (mysore empire) attacked the dutch were so afraid that they ran with their lives only the british had even tried to attack the indian super powers like mysore, bengal, sikhs and marathas others didnt even try... Tipu sulthan even defeated the british in two wars (he innovated first missile technology in warfare) before being defeated in 1799 after being attacked by british, hyderabad and marathas simultaneosly, arthur wellesly (same guy who defeated napoleon in waterloo) was called to defeat the largest indian power the marathas in 1818 after they went in internal strife... They waited till 1849 till ranjith singhs death to attack and defeat the sikh empire(last indian power) after 3 wars.. The british are like devious wolves waiting for the weakest moment to attack and kill... Only the british had the tenacity all other powers were defeated, the french would have been nothing in india after waterloo in 1815.It was just a matter of pure luck and having a stable government and bureacracy.
3:47 Maratha 😍
Imagine having such a rich country and no major army to oppose british rule.
When you leave your assets for the taking...theyre taken.
Read some real history dummy
Britain had taken 45 trillion from India. It's so painful to see 😭. Britain also stole the Kohinoor diamond from India which is now the most valuable diamond in the world. Just wish India could get back that money from Britain.
Next video.
What would have British have done if they haven't got India's resources and 45 trillion dollars.
Been slightly less powerful
We always had access to capital through the London banking system which was a big factor as to why we kicked Frenchies backside. No doubt Indian Princes banked with Coutts and lent us money to organise the fighting.
I love the fact how the Indian National Congress' flag is used in the video instead of the Indian flag.
Many of the imformation here is wrong ,No we were not diffrent like countries its like We were different states ruled by different maharajas but we were something different
We were always called hindistan or bharat and other names
Your comments about whether India would have been left alone was surprising considering you've started to learn about the History of Europe. Well no is the answer as we've seen in your other videos the french the Dutch the Germans the Spanish and the Portuguese were all busy building there very own Empire's at the same time. So what really annoys me as a British person is this constant condoning of "The British Empire" because most of our neighbours were doing the same thing, its just we were better at it.
Re the cotton question America ,while still British sent cotton to Britain ,here it was made into fabric,dyed and printed then sold back to America at a higher price until America realised they could do all that themselves hence Britain became more reliant on Indian cotton
British industrialisation started about fifty years before the USA, so it’s likely mass production made those products cheaper.
If the British had not gone to India? It would probably have belonged to France. Also the Portuguese stopped a Ottoman invasion in 1538, which is an impressive "what if". France was the major power regarding British involvement, and if Plassey had gone the other way? French (SE Asia)or Dutch (Indonesia) or even the Spanish and Portuguese would have been colonial contenders. Britain had a tiny army, and never more than 100,000 people in all of India - mainly because the fractured nature of the sub-continent and the Hindu people had little love or loyalty to their already foreign overloads. There are plenty of what-if's you could cover, and I don't think this is best.
Jewel in the crown
dont forget that diamond
The ancient Mayans had the same beliefs of Hinduism.
With no Indian landing in 1608 the British empire already existed, had got America and formalised sea superiority and a formidable land force. Not taking India would have also meant no resources used in India. The East India Company wouldn't have existed, nor would their demands on British military resources to secure their trading position. Whilst Indian resources would never have been secured, British resource would never have been allocated or required in that region. Imagine if Portugal or the Dutch had taken the region instead, or even a new Mongol empire, without the British stopping the wars when they arrived who knows who would have won in the area?
At this point everything else is decreasing in potential probability because it's all stacked upon this unknown. For all we know the Americas could have stayed, like Canada did, it's really fantasizing to think about what happens for over 150 years before American independence... Without India would there have been a greater focus on the Americas, would we even have bothered with China? If we focused westward instead of eastward history could have been very different.
I suggest you watch the film Ghandi; this deals with the British in India
From a wet, liberal perspective. Let’s keep in mind So-gal wants to learn.
@@donquixote3927 Ghandi is dramatised and plays with timelines as historical films tend to do, but it contains no inaccuracies. It aims to tell the Mahatma's story but it does not set out to be a balanced rendering of the history of the time. As a result, It does not offer any information which would show more positive aspects of Britain's engagement with India of which there are many. That does not mean it is not a good film however. It is very much worth a watch but it tells just one part of the story just as a film like Zulu tells only one part of its tale.
@@Bridgejunky2 there is no positive sign of Britishers. For example...sati system ( widow burning) was addressed by Indian reformer Raja Ram Mohan Roy and only after that approved by Bentinck dick head. I could go on with more example.
Now indian constitution borrowed it's ideas from France , Ireland, us, UK etc which doesn't really imply UK played a significant role in indian democracy.
All British did was to make a system which makes Indians.. Britishers and ensure its root hold in india.thanks to second world war.
are you seriously saying you went to university, what did you study ? woodwork.
indian is now among most powerful nations on the earth
Huh?
India ranks 17th in power
@@lionoftheuk6978 what power joker
@@lionoftheuk6978 call ur mom
@@akshaypal6753 India ranks 17th in power and the UK 5th
Didn't you know this ?
Doesn't Google work in India ?
@@lionoftheuk6978 i think u should work on urself , u r nothing and no one knows u in the world
There were plenty of very bad famines in 'Indian' areas before it was united into an empire.
Mad jack churchill reaction
India would be the richest and most developed country in the world if the British didn't invade India
If not Britain, Russia was likely - they wanted access to the sea - and then Germany wanted an Empire. And France under Napoleon was already there, before the British beat them there.
France was a close ally to indian kings+they dont back stab.
@@44krishnan79 Those Indian rulers who were allied to Britain, instead of to France, would tell the story differently. As always, its a question of perspective.
Why they were not in Japan?
Germany had no interest in India, they had no interest in colonies at all so britain, Russia and france wouldn't be scared of the new strong germany, this plan got discarded when the emperor wanted a place on the sun aswell like the british
Mughals first invaded to India then british, portugese and dutch together at that time invaded and they were all defeated later
Nope, we always saw each other as one people. The content doesn't really cover the previous 3500 years of history and beliefs.
Then whats up with the hundreds of kingdoms within the subcontinent???
Says alot about Union!
The only time Subcontinent was United was under Buddhist Mauryans, Muslim Mughals and The British
I didn't know Britain ever invaded India.
They have stolen everything from India. Because of Britain India is still a developing country now. If Britain didn't come to India, India would rule the world.
I have worked with several people from India. They say Famine is a self inflected problem as a state with food will not share with the ones without. Other problems tribalism is still a thing with the least educated people
That is so wrong to think British united india, infact they divided it into 4 prices Pakistan, india, Bangladesh and mayanmar. .
Unification happened without bloodshed and partision was bloody mess