Why were Indian kingdoms defensive against British?

[TrueSpirit1]

By the way this Hector Munro had won the Battle of Buxar in Bihar.

900 European and 7000 Indian troops, supported by 20 field-guns.

Against them 50,000 strong army of Mir Kasim, nawab of Awadh, and Mughal emperor Shah Alam. And if that was not enough they also had a whole brigade of modern troops under the German mercenary 'Samru'.

But, in Buxar, Munro had the advantage of services from a turncoat among his adversaries. At least, that's what the conventional / textbook history suggests.

On second thoughts, it was not Munro & it was not Buxar but Plassey. My bad.

 

[Simple_Guy]

Some remarkable facts about the Battle of Buxar from British point of view:

photo from the book The Military in British India. The whole book has many mentions of mutinies/desertions by troops, showing that the British did not have an easy time. Incidents like these make their Indian opponents look even worse than what we thought.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

Lack of coordination, Lack of leadership, Unorganized Armies, Lack of Modern weapon system and their study ..

 

[Simple_Guy]

The turning point is the Battle of St Thome in 1746.

The Nawab of Carnatic (Tamil Nadu) had attacked the French with a 10,000 strong army, mostly horsemen supported by big guns and infantry, and made a defensive position at St Thome. The French force of 230 Europeans and 700 Indians, all infantry, was coming for an attack despite their small numbers. They fired volleys and then charged with bayonets, sending the Mughals fleeing.

Until this battle the Europens were mere traders defending their settlements. But after this victory they became masters of southern India, dictating terms to the local chiefs and rulers. The mughal Nawab of Carnantic, from master ended up as a pensioner.

In military impact, the Indians who had experienced the whithering fire of infantry, whether mughal, maratha, or telinga, formed a defensive attitude, not daring to provoke the european companies to war. They hired europeans to develop Indian infantry in the same manner, but their whole attitude still remained defensive, dooming them to defeat and subjugation.

 

[Waffen SS]

The turning point is the Battle of St Thome in 1746.

The Nawab of Carnatic (Tamil Nadu) had attacked the French with a 10,000 strong army, mostly horsemen supported by big guns and infantry, and made a defensive position at St Thome. The French force of 230 Europeans and 700 Indians, all infantry, was coming for an attack despite their small numbers. They fired volleys and then charged with bayonets, sending the Mughals fleeing.

Until this battle the Europens were mere traders defending their settlements. But after this victory they became masters of southern India, dictating terms to the local chiefs and rulers. The mughal Nawab of Carnantic, from master ended up as a pensioner.

In military impact, the Indians who had experienced the whithering fire of infantry, whether mughal, maratha, or telinga, formed a defensive attitude, not daring to provoke the european companies to war. They hired europeans to develop Indian infantry in the same manner, but their whole attitude still remained defensive, dooming them to defeat and subjugation.

Yes, agree. Many blame Mir Zafar for defeat in Plassey, but despite betrayal of Mir Zafar still 12000 soldiers fought for Bengal's Nawab and 45 French soldiers, mean while British had barely 4000 soldiers with only 8 cannon, still Bengal's troops were defeated.

After Siraj's capture of Kolkata Clive with a small force came to recapture Kolkata mean while Bengal's troops numbered 100000 and British had 500 British and 800 sepoys despite this British got success and a treaty was signed. British began to bombard Fort from warships, Bengal's General Manik Chand after few success seeing this new tactic fled. Then British attackked Aligar fort and found no soldier there, mean Nawab came and British retreated, later Clive decided to attack again, here was dense fog, Britishers lost their way, while going, 2 times Bengal cavalry attacked them, but were repulsed. Suddenly British came almost near to that place where Nawab was staying, completely unprepared fled, sole Artillery crews fired from Maratha ditch inflicting causalities despite this British continued and peace treaty was signed.

British inflicted 1300 causalities on 100000 strong Bengal army and suffered 57 dead and 137 wounded.

And Battle of Buxer, the less said the better.

But most crushing defeat was Battle Of Sobraon British decisively defeated Sikhs.

Battle of Sobraon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Battle of Pollilur (1780) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was the only battle where Indians decisively defeated British.

I have read that Indian artillery crews were slow, they could fire only 1 round in 15 minutes mean while Europeans fired 2 or 3 rounds per minute!

History Curriculum Homeschool | Heritage History

 

[Maharaj]

I was talking about standing armies and more specifically standing cavalries.
Huge armies have been plenty in India, be it ancient age or medieval.

This is not true. The Pratihara Empire and the Rashtrakuta Empire had huge standing armies
and had a bigger cavalry than the Gupta Empire which was confirmed by the accounts of the
Arab travelers. And more importantly the Pratihara rulers considered themselves as the rulers
and protectors of northern India against the Arabs which is confirmed by the Pratihara
records and Arab accounts. On the other hand the Rajput rulers do not seem to have
the desire to unify northern India like the Maurya, Gupta and Pratihara Emperors and
to protect whole northern India against foreign invaders like the Maurya, Gupta and
Pratihara Emperors did.

 

[Virendra]

This is not true. The Pratihara Empire and the Rashtrakuta Empire had huge standing armies
and had a bigger cavalry than the Gupta Empire which was confirmed by the accounts of the
Arab travelers. And more importantly the Pratihara rulers considered themselves as the rulers
and protectors of northern India against the Arabs which is confirmed by the Pratihara
records and Arab accounts. On the other hand the Rajput rulers do not seem to have
the desire to unify northern India like the Maurya, Gupta and Pratihara Emperors and
to protect whole northern India against foreign invaders like the Maurya, Gupta and
Pratihara Emperors did.

And where exactly am I disagreeing with you?
You talked about Rashtrakutas and Pratiharas of 9th, 10th century with huge cavalries.
I said Cavalry gained more importance some time after Guptas demise. So again, what gets the goat?
8th century onwards, India was under constant bombardment of foreign invasions. That is what forced an overhaul in military formations, pushing cavalry further up in importance and utility.
By the way, Pratiharas and Rashtrakutas themselves are the earliest Rajput dynasties.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[Simple_Guy]

In SOuth India Mysore was the biggest challenge to the British. In east India the Kingdom of Awadh should have given a similar fight. But it could never do so. Soldiers of the British were recruited from Awadh but the native army of this same region could not match up to them. Here is why:

Oudh and the East India Company

by 1785 the nawabi army had degenerated practically to a state of uselessness. It is remarkable that while Oudh was in those days one of the principal recruiting grounds for soldiers, its own army should have degenerated to that extent. The causes are not far to seek. They were, firstly, the peculiar relationship of Oudh with the Company ; and secondly, the character of the nawab.

Until the battle of Buxar in 1764, the army of Oudh was reputed to be formidable. P. E. Roberts remarks : "The battle of Buxar . . meant that the Mughal Emperor himself, supported by his greatest minister [Shujauddaula], lay prostrate before the victorious armies of the mercantile state...." 1 . The foundation of the decay was laid then. The military reputation of Oudh received a severe blow.

Shujauddaula, vigorous and able as he was, might have made a recovery, but apparently he, too, felt less confident of his strength and resources than before. In 1768 he even accepted a treaty with the Company limiting the size and equipment of his army.

By this Shujauddaula agreed not to entertain an army exceeding 35,000 men of any denomination whatsoever. Of this, 10,000 men were to be cavalry ; ten battalions of trained sepoys including officers, not to exceed a total of 10,000; the najib regiment of 5,000 including matchlockmen were to remain at that number; 500 men for the artillery, that number never to be exceeded. Shujauddaula also engaged to arm none of his forces, except the 10,000 men mentioned, after the English manner, nor to train them in the discipline of the English troops.

In 1774 Shujauddaula put himself under further obligations to the Company by inviting and receiving their military aid in his war against the Rohillas. In 1775 and 1777 two brigades of the Company's army were posted in Oudh, .... Their presence, and the comparative security that Oudh enjoyed owing to the military reputation of the English, so closely allied with the nawab, pushed the original Oudh army into the background, and from disuse and absence of proper supervision it deteriorated very rapidly.

 

[Simple_Guy]

History of Hyderabad state

 

[Peter]

The British were victorious in their battles duet to their sophisticated gunpowder weapons and their ability to get traitors to wreck the enemy army.Otherwise how could you expect them to win a battle like Plassey with just 3000 troops.If the Indians had attacked the British we would have got slaughtered as we lacked proper weapons to fight them.

Despite the disadvantages we did organize a resistance in 1857 where many of our brave Indians got killed for their country`s sake.Even in 1857 what was disheartening was that very few princely states joined the freedom fighters and instead sided with the British.It seems that the Indian kingdoms princes had no love for their motherland and only wanted their dominions to be safe.(IMO they are like today`s politicians)

 

[shinoj]

One of the Main Reasons why British were successful was they had Guns and Artillery while we did not have.

Our Warriors were quite easily better and braver than the British but the British had Guns for which we had no answer. this was one of the Main reasons of British Domination.

 

[Simple_Guy]

The question is not why British won. But why Indian powers could not take the battle to the British bases in India?

We had guns and artillery hundreds of years before the British came.

 

[Hari Sud]

Gentlemen

All posts have reflected on one or the other issue in India for British victory in just 100 years from Plassey to 1857, roughly about 200 million people. There is a few very serious issue missed. First and foremost, the British psyche to subvert the enemy before you fight. The Normans and Anglo- Saxons had perfected the art of subversion while fighting the Scots in the north. First they found in the enemy a few contenders to throne or leadership of the area who were unhappy. They were bribed to the limit. They sprang up unknown at the critical moment (during the battle). The second and equally important issue they had perfected over hundreds of years was the art of finding allies in the neighbourhood. Without reluctant America in both the World Wars, victory was impossible. In Scotland they found allies within the quarreling tribals. Ofcourse the power of their guns was greater. The Aurangzeb era guns had been bypassed by the more modern artillery which the British possessed during the Plassey and Buxor (ten years later). Throughout their anti Maratha campaign, battles with Caranatic strongmen Haider Ali and Tipu Sultan and later in the north with Gurkhas and Sikh army in Punjab their guns had better range and greater power.

Also, we Indians work better under strict discipline and under whiteman's rule. The British enforced better discipline and administered men under arms well. This brought the local soldiers to the British recruiting station in greater numbers. Our Rajas were bad managers of men.

Hence they applied all these principles learnt over years when they came to fight the very first battle in Bengal I.e. Plassey. It was hardly a battle. It was more like a skrimish. They had found a disgruntled old man ready to side with them in Mir Jafer. They bribed him to the hilt and then asked him to walk away during the skrimishes. That is what he did. Plassey battle was lost in the first twenty minutes. Mir Jafer was declared the king and then disposed off later.

All thru the Maratha campaign battles were fought after the subversion had been completed. During the Sikh war, they dare not use these techniques during the life time of Maharaja Ranjit Singh. As soon as he was dead, the struggle for the crown broke out as Maharaja had married many times and produced sons, hence intrigue took hold. It was easy to deal with Sikh army for the British when morale was low and it's structure had been weakened.

Gurkhas would not have lost except the power of British Guns which General Ochtorloney possessed at the last battle of Malon.

Hence battles were lost one after the other not for lack of bravery of the Indians but leadership were unable to deal woth suvbersion and intrigue which the British were most capable.

 

[Simple_Guy]

Subversion and intrigue was nothing new for us. Indian rulers were not angels. They employed bribery and treachery freely against each other.

Question is not why they lost, but why they remained defensive? Marathas went to Delhi to serve the Mughals and fight at Panipat, but they could never muster the courage to attack the British base of Bombay!

 

[Simple_Guy]

they dare not use these techniques during the life time of Maharaja Ranjit Singh.

Ranjit Singh is the classic example of an Indian king being defensive. He had the army, a big kingdom, but he dared not take on the British.

Ranjit signed the Treaty of Amritsar without even fighting a battle.

The British frontier moved from the Yamuna up to the Sutlej without a shot being fired.

 

[Haha]

One of the Main Reasons why British were successful was they had Guns and Artillery while we did not have.

Our Warriors were quite easily better and braver than the British but the British had Guns for which we had no answer. this was one of the Main reasons of British Domination.

We also had guns, Mysorean rocket and artillery was better than British.

Lack of good generals, massive presence of traitors among Indian kingdom's Army, lack of poltical consousness among Sepoys of British army resulted in India's defeat.

Ranjit Singh went to defensive because thought British invincible. Saab lal ho jayega.

 

[Peter]

We also had guns, Mysorean rocket and artillery was better than British.

Lack of good generals, massive presence of traitors among Indian kingdom's Army, lack of poltical consousness among Sepoys of British army resulted in India's defeat.

Ranjit Singh went to defensive because thought British invincible. Saab lal ho jayega.

We did possess guns but they were vastly inferior to British produced ones.I mean the Brown bess and other rifles were no match for our guns.However the other points that you pointed out are valid.

 

[Simple_Guy]

Certainly not "vastly" inferior. They were comparable.

But again not looking at the causes of defeat.....just why they lost aggression?

Islamic invaders also has superior horses, archers, and we lost to them also, but we never lost our warlike spirit and aggression. So why against the British?

 

[Peter]

Certainly not "vastly" inferior. They were comparable.

But again not looking at the causes of defeat.....just why they lost aggression?

Islamic invaders also has superior horses, archers, and we lost to them also, but we never lost our warlike spirit and aggression. So why against the British?

The British weapons and rifles had greater range and accuracy than our Indian guns.Also most of our soldiers fought with swords and shields along with a few who carried guns.On the other hand the British fought with bayonet equipped muskets.Of course the bravery of our soldiers cannot be doubted.

 

[Simple_Guy]

You are again and again talking about why we were defeated.

I'm asking why we lost aggression? Our warrior spirit?