Mughal Empire

>Seriously, how does an empire fall so quickly and dramatically and get their jewels and their land all taken?
The Brits had far superior technology in their naval power. See the Dutch ventures in India through the 1500s
>I was always told I was descended from the Mughals on my dad's side.
Sorry to hear that
>How did the Brits BTFO the later Mughals so badly if they were such a wealthy empire?
Mughal Empire was on the decline from political infighting. Maybe Indians sided with the British in search of higher status if the regime changed.
>Surely they had funds and some access to modern. weapons, plus the manpower.
They had some gunpowder weapons, but nothing on the scale of the European gunnery. Western ships could bombard coastal cities without fear of retribution from the much smaller Indian vessels.
Also, the manpower was constrained by the caste system, and military doctrine lagged behind Western forces that were used to repelling cavalry (bayonet and musket) and well drilled.
>Was it a case of British divide & conquer strategy?
That was a big contribution, yes.

File: 1499520024154.jpg (59KB, 414x479px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 414x479px

>>34489531
I liked the Mughal empire in Total War: Empire. Crushing ppl with elephants is pretty comfy.

File: Birth_of_the_Khalsa_gallery.jpg (142KB, 1200x512px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 1200x512px

>>34489531
Reasons...

>>34489531
The British didn't need to divide and conquer anything. The hindu natives already hated the mughals and were resisting before the British ever arrived. By the time the Brits had any meaningful presence in India they had already been supplanted by the Marathas

>>34489531

How did they fall?

Muslim invasions.
Infighting.
Crafty British merchants playing them against each other to assist their troops to conquer India.

>>34489531
the Brits didn't conquer India. They got the land-owning classes on side with lucrative trade deals in exchange for reduced sovereignty. Tipu Sultan resisted but the Brits had enough local allies that his emnity could be overcome.
India had no sense of being one people or one nationality prior to the birth of Hindu nationalism in the late 19th century - and if Britain hadn't mishandled the Quit India movement so much it may well never have taken off.

>>34491805
>India had no sense of being one people or one nationality prior to the birth of Hindu nationalism in the late 19th century - and if Britain hadn't mishandled the Quit India movement so much it may well never have taken off.


That's completely true, which is why the whole area is a mess today. What went so wrong? Surely there would have a lot of anti-colonial sentiment if not starting way back then, then after World War II ... not to mention the stuff pre-war and during it

>>34491736
>Infighting.

Fuggin always

>>34494211
This is correct

>>34491191
>Muslim invasions
But I thought the Mughals were the Muslim invaders (descendants of the Mongol overlords of Persia that went native and converted to Islam).

>>34497316
Meant for>>34491736