Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

nthw1 t1_itz0htm wrote

Britain’s history in India is very interesting and complex to say the least. I was always fascinated at how the subcontinent was utilized and ruled by the British. Without Indian manpower much of the Empire’s expansion in Asia probably wouldn’t have happened. To this day I’m still amazed that the British amassed an army of Indians to fight for the EIC and Empire. Truly, truly fascinating. It all started with the EIC.

62

never_rains t1_itzo543 wrote

Indian manpower captured India for Britain. The number of British soldiers who served in India was always small compared to the native contingent.

54

Odinshrafn t1_iu2mj7n wrote

Yeah the ratio under Company rule was crazy. It ranged between 3:1 to 7:1 (Indians:Europeans) throughout the Company period.

5

andtheywontstopcomin t1_iuejaqv wrote

It’s also worth mentioning that the British didn’t really “capture” india through conquest or war. Nor did they directly rule the entire subcontinent.

2

never_rains t1_iuem91e wrote

All of the India wasn’t ruled by Britain but they controlled two thirds by area and more by population.

2

andtheywontstopcomin t1_iuepc65 wrote

Correct me if I’m wrong but aren’t the yellow areas in this map not even 2/3 of the subcontinent?

To my understanding the British Raj was much poorer and less productive per capita than the relatively autonomous princely states

1

never_rains t1_iuers3z wrote

Wikipedia says that princely states occupied 40% of the area and 23% of the population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princely_state

British India was on average better than an average princely state. But there were few states like Travancore which performed better than British India. Tirthankar Roy has a really good book on it.

1

andtheywontstopcomin t1_iuevyh4 wrote

Can you elaborate?

I’m pretty sure the princely states outside of the nizams had higher GDP per capita than the Raj. Mysore (or maybe it was travancore) for example had electricity while the rest of the Raj was basically in poverty

Not to mention that nearly all industry in india collapsed when the British took over and there was a huge efflux of people from cities into rural areas. So rural poverty became a huge problem

1

Vir-victus t1_iuid2hx wrote

General rule of thumb: Around 85-90% of the Indian Army were Hindus.

At 1858, EIC Army was at about 360.000-400.000 strength, of which about 40.000 were Europeans.

1

SeleucusNikator1 t1_iu7llr6 wrote

Certainly didn't help (the British) that diseases like Malaria, Yellow fever, etc. thrived in tropical climates such as in Southern India. European men used to drop dead like flies from these diseases.

2

andii74 t1_itz5c50 wrote

What's fascinating is that it was one of the first mega corporation and till now the most powerful one to exist as well. At its peak it had one of the largest armies under its command and ruled vast stretches of land.

30

BobbyP27 t1_iu0gzjy wrote

A similar, sibling company, the Hudson Bay Company, ruled much of Canada, though with nothing like the military side of things, and still exists today as a chain of department stores.

18

SoLetsReddit t1_iu2wygx wrote

Oh the HBC financed and took part in plenty of wars and fighting in Canada didn’t they?

2

SeleucusNikator1 t1_iu7loi7 wrote

There's also the Dutch VOC who operated in Indonesia, and whose market value actually exceeded the British EIC.

3

AgoraiosBum t1_iuj7eij wrote

When young students learn about modern corporate malfeasance, a historian can only chuckle; they don't have anything on the old corporations like the EIC or VOC.

1

Vir-victus t1_iuidd8t wrote

Well getting local troops was the only way possible. Europeans werent familar enough with this tropic climate, shipping troops over took months and - more importantly:

The British army wouldnt allow the EIC to regularly recruit British people, for obvious reasons.

1