Quote:
Originally Posted by astralis
to the question of numbers- what adux said, how many white imperial troops (and not sepoys, for instance).
|
Numbers breakdown-per-ethnicity doesn't matter for the purpose of analyzing imperial control: Black cat, white cat, gray cat... they all caught the mouse the India Office wanted caught. For analyzing control you need information on troops' recruitment and training practices, unit-by-unit mission tasking, area of responsibility etc. A single 5-man MG placement at one end of a bazar provides one kind of control, three 10-man patrols moving around in the bazar provides a differet type of control; both are equally important in the role they play for establishing control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by astralis
also, many of the troops were positioned for imperial defense against the russians, as opposed to internal security.
|
The Russian (later Soviet) threat
was the internal security threat. Just as a side-note: usually around 40,000 troops (i.e the Quetta Division + brigades and flying columns) formed the regular presence on the Frontier; another 40,000 locally retained tribesmen constituted the various pro-British
lashkars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by astralis
certainly a number of factors led to the downfall of the empire, trade, technology, democracy, etc etc. however, THE biggest reason is simply nationalism.
|
No, it was not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by astralis
regarding your deliberate uncertainty,
i don't think so. the US and china, for example, both use deliberate uncertainty when it comes to responses regarding the taiwan strait. this is a strategy many other nations use, so this isn't a china-specific problem IMO.
|
What do you not think so? Does such politices not generate fear, instability and confusion? And whoever said it was a China-specific problem? It is the general problem with China. Doesn't my afterthought clearly illustrate that others do it too (to even greater extent than the Chinese)?