Love your videos!💚

hey why's the link not working for me i have Call of War

Now Indians colonize England 😂😂😂

Hey, What's the Map, Kashmir or atleast 2/3rd of Kashmir is Under Indian Control,Why hasn't you Shown it,If you won't, Don't do a Half-knowledge Videos about India

Idiotic Video, There were no BIG rebellions for Independence after 1857 except for the Naval Mutiny of 1946, and Most of Kashmir is Under Indian Rule,But the video didn't show that reality

Subsidiary Alliance and the Court of Wards

Well I mean yeah, that’s how most empires operate.

Ali ali dam ali ali dam ali ali dam ali

That's why it's called an empire 😅

There were no emirates in India proper.

Not only India, 1/4 of the world was British at one point.

They were the most powerful empire in the world, nobody could push them around.

@@Tethloach1Until Germany in WW2

As a Pakistani: ignoring the oppression, injustice, looting etc, I agree. Especially considering what an insignificant location it's at. You'd think a country like Türkiye would be in the best position to have the dominance in the world like the UK did. Considering it's the crossroads between 3 or 4 continents

@@soviet0nion879 I thought the British empire collapsed because of WW2?

*For £££

🤓

Is there a better reason?

You win.

So True

Na, it was Shell, or microsoft, privateers so filthy rich they can do anything. wagner are mercenary's. like many of the indian tribes who helped with the conquest of india for english money.

British india was as mich bigger entity than Russia’s wagner company. Before 1880s, the East India company’s gdp was double that of britain.

5th largest economy lol

@@HabbyHabsGNGI’m Indian but Germany is richer than us and German population is around 80 million while our is 1.5 billion ppl

Britain *

@@HabbyHabsGNG yet no toilets

​@@marusdod3685wrong, now more than 90% of Indians have access to toilets and they solved it in the last decade. No toilets era was the British Raj.

Just goes to show that bad guys can always bring the biggest rivals together

Hindus also fought Hindus and Muslim kings would slaughter their co religionists if money and power was involved.

​@@maddogbasilBritain had a small army and used Indians to fight Indians. Sinks against Hindus, Muslims against sinks, Muslims against Hindus. They copied the Roman empire as they had never had an empire before.

it is mostly when two tribes fight then they use the race card and draw their background into the fight

This is assuming Hindus and Muslims were as divided as communists and nationalists, even tho they weren’t. Most people didn’t even think there was a difference between the 2 communities

Around 60 million starved to death from famines in India throughout British rule due to being forced to grow more opium than food

@@raptorbrotherhood766id say the British is the best country to be colonized by but they’re still pretty bad consider how the spanish, Portuguese , french, and dutch treated their colonies

@@zekdopa591 there is no “best” man, we all suffered

​@@raptorbrotherhood766 Indians starved from over breeding and being at war. It's funny how Indians always neglect the fact the British actually tried to deal with the famine by sending food convoys there that were originally meant to be going to Britain

@@raptorbrotherhood766 I wouldn’t say best but more “least bad”

Pity it's so misleading

Thank You! A lot of people assume it was some easy conquest of technologically superior Europeans defeating a “primitive” land running at guns with shields and swords when in reality they suffered countless defeats against an enemy experienced and innovative (just look up mysoreans rocket elephants or mhugal camel gunners) in gunpowder warfare especially in the wars against the Marathas, Mysoreans, Kalingans, etc and perhaps even more that we’ll never know because the British love to cover up their failures and disasters by destroying as much evidence as possible. So yes not easy by any means and the Sepoy Mutiny ended up collapsing the East India Company forcing the British crown to get involved.

@@raptorbrotherhood766 I bet does same people would go full denial if they found out in does earlier conflicts the British coward behind a fortified wall that was getting bombarded by the Indian navy or that during a brutal defeat the British commanders were forced to bow and beg for forgiveness. It also shows that the British had to think tactically and not try to use overwhelming force to conquer their enemies because doing that would had been suicide. It was the slow and steady way that won out in the end it’s just a shame the people of India had to suffer so much as a result of the conquest, ironically now India is considered the worlds 4 strongest military while the UK is 5 or 6. How the tables have turned

@@jonathanviera1589 India was a very large nation so the British really had to be careful and strategic with everything, they couldn’t just outright invade everyone, they would’ve lost much sooner if they did that. It was more of a case like this: Kingdom A and Kingdom B are big rivals. The British come and fight Kingdom A. Kingdom B supports this because they hate Kingdom A and the British are essentially doing them a favor. Kingdom A gets conquered and Kingdom B is idle thinking the British are their friends. The British go to the people of kingdom A and are like “hey we know you really hate us after what we just did, but we know you guys hate kingdom B even more, so why don’t you enlist in our armies and help us takeover kingdom B where you can get your revenge defeating your long time rival”. The British recruiting troops from kingdom A they conquered invade Kingdom B. Local puppet rulers are installed to rule over the kingdoms but also swear allegiance to the crown so long as the British let them keep some position of power and pamper them with privileges and luxury and therefore neither rebel.

According to Philip T. Hoffman in "Why Did Europe Conquer The World?", Mughal empire had difficulties to compete in advanced weaponry because they couldn't raise taxes as much as the British (and other European countries in general). High taxes were the norm in Europe, while in Mughal empire, they had to depend on their local lords and chieftains (who had became stronger as Mughal rulers became increasingly weaker prior to British arrival) for their tax revenues. It resulted in Mughal empire couldn't effectively invested in better weapons and raised army to fight British encroachment into their realm. And finally they themselves had to fell into submission before British empire.

@@gorilladisco9108 yeah, the Mhugals were basically declining as the Marathas started taking over their empire, but the Mhugals did use gunpowder and even had swivels mounted on top of camels as a sort of mobile artillery

Burma separated, not India

​@@ThinThin-lq8pg Obviously,as India was still a part of the Raj

sarcasm?

@@ozymandiasultor9480 yes

@@be.athiest.always OK, good use of sarcasm.

​@@ozymandiasultor9480are you a sarcasm inspector? what's the salary? im interested..

Freedom and empire is when the people have 0 say in government, are deindustrialied, impoverished and the world’s richest most advanced country is sent back to the dark Ages?

They were low caste bcoz of their inability to fight and no self-respect, dignity and honour. They even used to sell their women.

I don't think that was the focus of the video

@@Astro-X agreed, however it's hard to miss as it was the main reason the Empire went tits up.

Probably worse if it not better. Portuguese did Inquisitions in Goa while they were there. Honestly, we can't really compare evil with evil. It makes no sense. I don't understand the logic when people say Hitler was worse than Mao or Stalin or vice-versa. They were all evil and almost all empire have been insurrected on evil. Even though democracy is a farce but atleast we 'think' we're free. In a world full of evil, delusion seems to be the only hope to cope and survive.

They can't during 1400s Indian millitary were way ahead

1400 would have been a disaster, the reason Britain managed to take India was it's superior fire power. Without that, Indian manpower would have carried the day

Britain must be known for the Patience they showed to infiltrate in the Asian Lands AND THEY WORTH IT

Portuguese and Spain were very religious empires the British was a secular empire they didn’t interfered in religious matters that’s why they could recruit Indians and battle against themselves if it was Portuguese they really won’t tolerate any other religion and Revolte would happen quite frequently

Charles III is not part of the House of Windsor. That was the anglicised name of the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas. Royals follow their father's house. Charles is from Sondersburg-Glucksberg und Schleswig-Holstein.

@@stephfoxwell4620 you should read this: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Windsor

​@@stephfoxwell4620i am sure you are aware that royals have developed a funny habit of changing their house name at will during the last century. Honestly, Charles III sticking with his mother's house is much more canonical than renaming Battenberg to Mountbatten and Sax Coburg to Windsor

@@sarantis1995 The names are changed to hide their Germanness.

@@stephfoxwell4620 Ehm beg to differ here a bit. They changed their royal house name to signal to the Brittish people that they stand with them during WO1, that they are the Brittish Royal Family and not to hide their Germanness. Everyone knows that the current line of UK Monarchs, ever since King George I, flows from the house of Hanover. A German kingdom and at the time an electorat of the Holy Roman Empire. There is no hiding that. But the change to Windsor was a deliberate choice to signal to the people, we belong to you. We choose you. And also, all Royal Houses in Europe where intwined with the German nobility at the start of WO I. The whoe royals only marrying royals thing ensured that. King George V made it beyond clear that they where Brittish with the name change to the House of Windsor.

Not exactly. There were none significant colonies of european powers, but small port cities controlled by trading companies.

Goa remained a Portuguese colony for over 450 years (1510-1961)

Well the British were invaded and colonised by the Vikings, Roman’s and French. It’s just what humanity has done for forever.

@@kadourimdou43Conscious animals

@@kadourimdou43 Now also india too. Because Rishi Raj

It was supposed to happen.

Didn't Brits unify India and form a single language?

This fact is truly amazing.

Where are they now?

@@joso7228dumbass that argument doesn’t work as they literally built the largest empire in human history and held onto it for two centuries

Only nominally. A bit like how the Ho,y Roman Emperor or the Pope supposedly "ruled Europe". Just a matter of suzerainty.

Tell me, when were the horrors of holocaust discovered by the world? Subhash Chandra Bose was based, and his moral duty extended to India and the people of India. Also, he joined a side who commiitted far fewer atrocities across the world anyway.

@@Alduizard it was worldwide known infamously. Bose was an educated man, unlike you.

@@abc_cba Poor bag of rice, so easily triggered. Ambedkar was right abt christians, and being a staunch ambedkarite myself, I do hope for more dara singhs across the country, to civilize and tame the inherent barbarity of the christian society, as evident in their horrible backward practices like witch hunting and disgusting misogynistic divorce laws, by, like you said, culling religious differences across the nation and thus bringing coherence, loyalty and unity :) Jai Shree Ram! Jai Bajrang Bali!🙏

Afgans controled Bengal then. So, Bengal wasn't independent then.

​@@koushikdas1992it actually was independent . And no foreign state or country dictated terms to it. Bengal as state was effectively independent

When India did do that? Sure, a person with an Indian name is the prime minister, but he is a British citizen and considers himself British. India never colonized no one...Too much meditation, I guess.

​@@ozymandiasultor9480Bro, He is being a toxic Nationalist and trying to say India will rule the Britannia after 2100 Bro having Vengeance Issue

Have you ever been to Leicester?.@@ozymandiasultor9480

2124, look at the year@@ozymandiasultor9480

Indians will surrender invading uk

Computer software

@@ffpredator5214 Which one smartass?

There actual goal is to take over now a days bangladesh which used to be your pakistan rest of the india was princely states

India exists with 250 million untouchables. Britain exists as one of the richest countries in Europe, which means one of the richest in the world.

@@hirenahir76200why Bengal ?

At least India only had one major European coloniser with some small Portuguese and Dutch influence, China on the other hand (Qing back then) got assaulted by several European powers as well as the USA and Japan during the Opium era which is also known as the "century of humiliation" sure it wasn't truly colonized but China got the "it's free real estate" treatment too.

​@@ozymandiasultor9480Casteism exists in India today no doubt but it's nowhere near how bad it was during the British Raj days(peak of the caste system). And while some caste discrimination exists untouchability is past, it is banned and doesn't exist anymore (The term you might want to use is Dalit and Tribals). While the UK is a developed country, it is not even close to one of the richest countries in the West.

nothing.

@@ozymandiasultor9480 Why? Doesn't Britain at the time needed to focus elsewhere like making sure Russia did not conquer the Ottoman Empire?

​@lerneanlion Well, the "Great Game" wouldn't occur, therefore Russia would steamroll into the power vacuum of India.

@@lerneanlion You want to talk geopolitics of that period? Too much writing... Sure, Britain was a global superpower and had a lot of things to do, but if you want the short answer, it meant very little, almost nothing for Britain. If you want more I recommend the historical book "The Last Mughal: The Fall of a Dynasty, Delhi 1857" by William Dalrymple.

@@ozymandiasultor9480 If losing India means little to nothing to Britain, how long will it take for Britain to come back then? After all, they had a lot of things to do.

Local ruler was maratha's

Nope not really, rajasthan was sieged by rajputs. Harayana region was sieged by Jats, most of central and northern India was part of Marathas, nizams and Mysore state along with rajputs were vassals states of Marathas

​@@lakshyasingh2239no true nawab of bhopal , nawab of bengal , kingdom of mysore , nawab of junahgarh all were turks and in centre the remaining mughal empire

@@heart-is-blue what marathas Sikhs ahom rajput jaats were local rulers

avg british person is rich af by all historical standards, even back then

⁠@@vortigan9068Charles Booth concluded around 1/3 of England lived in poverty at the end of the 19th century. Adjusted for inflation, you would live off roughly $1000 - $2000 a year as a laborer. Some monkeys eat more than this.

@@vortigan9068 My other comment got shadow banned but essentially, Charles Booth concluded 1/3 of Britain lived in poverty at the end of the 19th century; adjusted for inflation, it was $1000 - $2000 a year for the lowest class.

since when did India become a continent

@@HabbyHabsGNG Nevermind you don't get it. Hint: I was not referring to India.

@@HabbyHabsGNG Where did he claim India was a continent?

Rule Britannia

and britain now fell off to nothing again, leaving only US at the top and Russia to some extent.

@@metallica3556 I wouldn't say nothing, Britain is largely regarded as the 4th player in the world after US, Russia and China. In all events you can see "US and UK" put together

France is more important than GB @@user-jf5qw6vg3h

lol China and India will be greatest

Don't glorify it , india and china are greatest countries ever witnessed Britain arrive in 1606 it takes 250 years to colonized entire indian subcontinent they take 5 years to defeat china with hand of 35 m sq land and still china manages to make their own nation and Don't forget india and china where fighting 8-9 invaders at same time during colonial era indeed we lost but I proud of my country that it fought and in 89 years afterwards throw those invaders . China and india also came from nothing but managed to survive 2000 years and richest land in history for like millinemials . Us , Russia are also greatest countries worlds see but not Britain they looted and made world poor .

Because of the caste system lack of military reforms Lack of unity

@@Avinashm7 In short, Britain was strong enough and able to do that.

Yeah if it was so sarcastic, he could have just created a youtube short instead of a whole video.

@@namantaneja7323 That is not sarcasm, that is the truth.

@@ozymandiasultor9480 I admit that's a truth, but the way was presenting was sarcastic and hence I was pointing that. I am saying if this "truth" could be put forward like this, it would have ended as a youtube short. But a whole video had to be dedicated for that due to the sheer amount of storylines and narrations. You also know you put that comment in a sarcastic tone.

Was? Maybe. Great Britain was also a superpower that had 1/4 of the whole world.

Difference in Timeline, Perhaps ​@@ozymandiasultor9480

​@@ozymandiasultor9480 during mughal time till 17 century , british colonization occurs in 18 century Actually ottomon and spanish were main power in 17 century

Now you have even less. It is wrong.

@@stephfoxwell4620 Care to educate us with some facts?

@@OhioDan Well for a start, Britain didn't colonise India. If it had there'd be a population of white or mixed race Indians. Britain had a maritime/trading Empire . It needed to control ports only. It sought to control hinterlands by co-opting local tribes or ethnicities. Britain controlled just 40% of India and only for 90 years. 1857-1947. Britain colonised New England, Nova Scotia, parts of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and S Africa. In India Britain merely traded with the greedy local magnates. Just like it did in China.

@@stephfoxwell4620 I'm with you so far. Colonization requires settlement, and the British didn't settle India. So to call it a colony is a misnomer.

@@OhioDan Got it in one. The UK is currently being colonised. A net nine million immigrants mainly from India and Africa since 2010.

It wasn't population that fueled the British (not English) empire. It was industrialisation. The same reason United States over took the UK. Industry is king

Demographic transition

nothing happened to the population.. They just decided colonial empires werent worth it anymore

Comparatively, the British:india population ratio is bigger today than it was in 1750

@@refresh-dh6qj That the way it should be done.

Yes because the first Anglo Maratha war was lost because the British army and navy was focused in the Americas fighting the Americans, and later fighting of the kingdom of France and Spain. And the same was true during the second war, the British army was focused in Europe fighting napoleon, as was the navy. The British Army was never a majority of the East India companies forces it was made up almost entirely of sepoys. Wellington did have respect for the military prowess of the Marathas, however given the defeat he inflicted on the Marathas who by far outnumbered him shows they weren’t the equal to the British army, nor even as disciplined given what happened at the battle of assaye. If they were they would have lost despite having such advantages. The Marathas even has 10,000 troops trained in European military tactics.

Marathas were like the Scottish highlanders when it came to war formidable in hand to hand combat yet against British line regulars they lacked the discipline to fight them adequately.

​@EvropaAeterna the second Anglo Maratha war was also lost due to a civil war among Marathas (Yashwanthrao Holkar was fighting against combined peshwa+ British forces and got no support from any other rulers in India except for jats , who later betrayed him).

@@abhinavkumar9c017 Yet the effect was the same the British weren’t interested in India at the time their armies and navy were focused on Europe fighting napoleon. And the British in India was a private company led by merchants.

UK was no more lol, UK today is divided much like India centuries ago, diversity will surely be the downfall of western societies today

India's contribution to world GDP before brits arrived : 25 % ( also the India was the richest country of the world for 1600 years by then, the longest for ANY country ever, the record still stands ). After brits left : 2% Famines in India in the 2000 years before brits arrived : 17 Famines that occurred under british rule of 200 years : around 25 Here's a list of some of them : The British era is significant because during this period a very large number of famines struck India.[2][3] There is a vast literature on the famines in colonial British India.[4] The mortality in these famines was excessively high and in many cases it has been increased by British policies.[5] The mortality in the Great Bengal famine of 1770 was between one and 10 million;[6] the Chalisa famine of 1783-1784, 11 million; Doji bara famine of 1791-1792, 11 million; and Agra famine of 1837-1838, 800,000.[7] In the second half of the 19th-century large-scale excess mortality was caused by: Upper Doab famine of 1860-1861, 2 million; Great Famine of 1876-1878, 5.5 million; Indian famine of 1896-1897, 5 million; and Indian famine of 1899-1900, 1 million.[8] The first major famine of the 20th century was the Bengal famine of 1943, which affected the Bengal region during wartime; it was one of the major South Asian famines in which anywhere between 1.5 million and 3 million people died.[9] The total number of people who died because of this Famines alone and in India alone goes over tens of millions of people. If you add to this the total number of people who died by any cause that was a result of brits or their policies in all of their colonies then the number easily crosses hundreds of millions. Hence, the lady is correct on this point. Infact, the last great famine under british ruled India was the great Bengal famine of 1943, of which multiple photos and videos you can find in the internet including on KZfaq. When multiple concerned british officials wrote to churchil how his actions have created the most devastating famine of the world in the 20th centuary, he replied, " why hasn't Gandhi died yet ". India's contributions to the world : The Hindu numerical system, also known as the decimal base system which forms the basis of mathematics and is the system we use today, and which may as well be the greatest invention ever in the history of humanity, Madhava, an Indian mathematician who founded the Kerala school of Mathematics almost discovered calculus over 200 years before newton or leibnitz were even born, and a LOTS AND LOTS of other fundamental contributions to maths, physics, logic, philosophy, biology, etc. India is one of the 3 earliest, oldest civilization, namely, the Harrappan civilization (India), the Masopotamian civilization ( modern day iraq) , the Egyptian civilization. Which one of these is the oldest is highly debatable and a topic of ongoing research, but India was the most extensive and widespread civilization of these all. Ancient Indians invented/ discovered many things some of which are, soap, shampoo, buttons, diamonds, steel, city planning, drainage systems, underground drainiage systems, the world's first port, the game of chess, etc. The first language in the world is also an Indian language ( one of these, Sanskrit or Tamil, both Indian languages). India has also made tremendous contributions in the modern times in STEM and almost every field. On top of it all, the brits committed littoral atrocities in India and other colonies, the most famous of this is the Jaliawalla bagh massacre, whose committer was later treated as a hero, and when an Indian, named Sardar Udham Singh, shot dead him in London as a revenge, he was tried as a terrorist and hanged, his testimony before the court was recorded and I encourage you to read it. In short, if you have studied history from british or european textbooks, I suggest you to for once try different sources like the internet or history books from other countries, manly former colonies.

India's population grew despite the British, not because of the British.

He rule in 8th century pls make this video

Spices in those times = money. That was all that mattered.

There are several reasons. 1. Indian based empires didn't control Sri Lanka. When British land on Sri Lanka in 1796 CE, Dutches controlled coastal areas of Sri Lanka. Sinhalese Kingdom of Kandy controlled other all areas of Sri Lanka. It's a major reason why British didn't merge Sri Lanka with British Raj. 2. British East India company colonized coastal areas of Sri Lanka in 1796 CE. But people of coastal areas rebelled against British East India company with help of Kingdom of Kandy. So, British established dual control in 1798 CE. Due to further rebellions, British proclaimed separate crown colony called 'British Ceylon' by abolishing rule of British East India company in 1802 CE. British were unable conquest Kingdom of Kandy by a military campaign. But British colonized Kingdom of Kandy by signing 'Kandyan convention' with Kandyan officials in 1815 CE. British East India company started colonization in India in 1757 CE. But India became a crown colony in 1858 CE. Sri Lanka become a crown colony of Britain before India is also a reason why British didn't merge Sri Lanka with British Raj.

Phahahahaha!!!! 😂😂

The Mughals had almost a million troops at their command vs 3000+ anglo troops and their allies how is that humiliating when they were outnumbered 300 to 1?

Humiliating the British was never a big deal, they were an insignificant country before conquering India. That’s why their conquest of India is so surprising

@@refresh-dh6qj Very few.

Hindu nationalists cry about everything. They are snow flakes

Hindu nationalists where pro British, theyre actually the main reason British were able to conquer india. After conquering Indian kingdoms, British would hand over power to Indian elite whose descendants are Hindu nationalists today

Whats your opinion of how a tiny number of westerners managed to end up controlling the entire subcontinent? The idea that there was complete technological equality is very hard sell

@@wesleysanders8570 read contemporary European records. Especially in regards to the Sikh empire. British and other former napoleonic war generals stated that the Sikh rifles, matchlocks and canons were superior to those of the British and even Napoleonic ones, the Sikh army as well being the first Asian empire to have a fully modernized army being completed in 1827. Some books to read on the topic would be “six battles for India” by George Bruce, and any books about the Sikhs by Griffin.

@@wesleysanders8570 and further elaborating on this. The population of the Khalsa/sikhs was less than 500,000 yet they were able to conquer and rule over a large portion of South Asia being outnumbered 10:1 by Hindus, Jains, Muslims, Buddhists. There were even more Christians in the Sikh empire than Sikhs themselves.

@@wesleysanders8570 and one final point to add is that the Sikhs were considered by Europeans both contemporary to the Sikh empire and after to be the Prussian equivalent within Asia. The British going as far to claim that the Sikhs were the hardest enemy they had ever faced in Asia ( in a book called The Sikhs by John J H Gordon)

@@Khalsafauj96 I'm well aware the Sikhs were good soldiers, but that doesn't answer the bigger question- why did the Brits go on to rule India, instead of the Sikhs?

yeah a corp with its own army

Wrong many others tried they couldn’t the British only did cause the traitors of bey of bengal and the marthra and muguls afghans and Sikhs where all fighting

Very true.

thats just false, the Indian economy was the largest, if the region stabilized it would've been like modern japan, instead the main power (mughals were in decline) which led to the British taking it over

@@HabbyHabsGNG Indians were not so aggressive, militarily and technologically they were way behind European main powers, and that ahimsa philosophy of non-aggression wasn't helpful. Any of the European big powers was able to turn India into a colony.

lol yeah thats why the british lost multiple wars against the marathas, btw the "ahimsa" policy didn't plauge all of south Asia (India) besides Indias countries were on par if not ahead of Europe in terms of economy, military and overall manpower, so idk what ur talking abt@@ozymandiasultor9480