Why was the East India Company able to conquer so much of India

>>2129922
Because the Mughals had become weak by than, the emperor had become little more than a figurehead with his governors having basically all the power to fuck each other over. The EIC played this to their advantage by funding both sides in order to get them in a state of weakness where they could exploit them for political and economic gain. Couple that with their total naval dominance and the EIC didn't need a massive army in order to get Indian client states to do their bidding.

>>2129922
Because poos are inferior to Anglo-Saxons.

File: phezzan.png (136KB, 501x585px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 501x585px

>>2129922
They played multiple sides in a lot of India's conflicts, profiting no matter the winner. India was too busy being at war with itself to push out Perfidious Albion. The EIC also had superior European weaponry and tactics.

>EIC offers military protection to weak prince in exchange for a portion of his income from taxing peasants
>suddenly he's not so weak anymore
>surrounding princes want EIC protection from him
>no problem, it's gonna cost you though

>>2130180
not necessarily the last one. If anything the EIC was better led and not easily bribed because they were a corporate entity. European style training was pretty much in vogue in India.

It helps that the marathas had a succession crisis because the peshwas kept dying of TB and the confederacy splintered.
>>2129922
>mysore.
The british were largely allied with the marathas against mysore, at least at the time when mysore was important. Tipu sultan getting his army drowned by the Dharamraja of Travancore didn't help his jihading ass.

The mughals post aurangzeb were too spent to do anything except give tax rights to marathas.

He who controls the mouth of the Ganges controls the Ganges.

Source or GTFO