Major,GC, are you comparing a constellation of Mughal Sultanat e Hindustan, Khalsa led Punjab, Marathwada, Sirajuddawla's Bengal, Tipu's Mysore etc...with GREAT BRITAIN?
A 1st rate Imperial Military power having a global navy of those times.
And are you equating the India of those days with GB vs the India of today with say Russia???
Britain was not a "great power" in 1760. In fact, they stayed away from engaging Indian rulers at the time of Aurangzeb, and the Marathas after him, because they were too powerful for the British to handle. I'll give you the fact that the British had a bigger and better navy than the Marathas, but that did little or nothing to change the outcome of continental wars.
The British started intervening in a major way only after the disasterous defeat of the Marathas at the third battle of Panipat. The Marathas lost the majority of their army in that battle, and consequently, their control on vast swathes of North India. It also led to infighting among the Maratha Confederacy, which gave the British the perfect opportunity to intervene. The main problem at that time was that Indians weren't united among themselves as they are today-hence, the Marathas fought against everyone-the Sikhs, Rajputs, Mughals and Tipu Sultan, and were loathe to accept Tipu Sultan's proposal of a three way alliance between them, the Nizam of Hyderabad and Tipu to drive the British out of India.
I'll admit that the comparison of today's India against the P-5 is with the Marathas against the British is inadmissible. But that has to do with a host of other factors than the generic: "we're more powerful today" position. The reason that many invaders and occupiers could not rule the entire subcontinent and were eventually defeated was due to, in major part, the number of different armies they had to face. If India was ruled by one emperor, like Persia was, then the Islamic hordes would have defeated him and imposed their religion on the rest of the country. Even Alexander had to turn back when he heard that the Magadha empire was ten times bigger than the kingdom of Porus that he had defeated with great difficulty. Due to the constant fear or being attacked or attacking someone, armies tended to suffer from war weariness in a relatively short time. Another important factor in those times (around 1760) was that India (collectively, that is) was the 2nd largest economy in the world, and could afford to fight battles independently without having to face sanctions, cut-off of spare parts, or hostile world opinion. Inspite of that, the reason the British could easily gain control of India was because the decline of the Marathas after 1762 had left a power vaccuum which they filled up quite nicely.
Anyway, my point is that while an apples to apples comparison cannot be made, statements as "we are too big to be bullied by anybody" are illfounded because the population of a country has little or nothing to do with the way in which it exercises its foreign policy. If it did, then Pakistan would play a bigger role in world affairs than Russia, and Japan would be easily bullied compared to Bangladesh. What matters is the economic condition of the country-and as long as we're a developing country, we are VERY MUCH susceptible to bullying from the developed countries.
No, potential adversaries of the Marathas. Where did I ever say anything about the Mauryans?British and Frenc were potential adversaries of the Mauryan Empire????
God, I would take it had you quoted the Romans or Hans.
Major, according to what I have read, currently there is only one Indian Army division in Binaguri, and the other division which is normally based in WB is currently deployed in Kashmir. If the Chinese slice through India's chicken's neck, then even this division will be ineffective. The development of infrastructure on China's side has been tremendous, while there has been no such development on the Indian side, which will impose major limitations on troop deployment in case of a war with China.Like what Nona wants Nona gets???
NO, China simply can't beat us. Be advised to google up for a comparative analysis, watchout the terrain, match up the military doctrines and you will be "delighted to know" that we ensure your safety.
As about the rest P4s beating us to pulp with their ICBMs..well what kind of military literature do you subscribe to? Please educate me what kind of scenario would make them START showering ICBMs on India without any prelude of armed conflict? And what will be the possible result of an armed conflict in our territorial waters? And remember its again only the US that can aspire of mounting an offesive against India ALL BY ITS OWN. But would even the US feel very comfortable in conesting India without any provocation and without estimating the blood spill that will follow up? Can any of the P4s think of having staying power in India? Or are you suggesting a NATO kind of invasion against India?
I'm not suggesting any kind of invasion of India by NATO. That is impossible, period. I'm suggesting maybe a naval blockade by either the US or US&Britain (Britain cannot do anything on its own) and then air domination by the USAF. That would be enough to force India to the negotiating table without NATO ever landing a soldier on Indian territory.
During the Cold War, the ICBMs and BMD systems on both sides were on hair trigger alert. At least twice during the Cold War, the US and the USSR came extremely close to nuclear war without ever landing a single soldier on the others' territory. Once was when a bug in a SAM system indicated to the Russians that US ICBMs were heading towards Russia, and another time when a bug in a Soviet submarine radar almost caused the captain to launch a retaliatory nuclear tipped torpedo at the US. My point is that regardless of the chance of such a scenario involving India at present, it is still *possible*-it may not be very *probable*, but the possibility, however miniscule, exists. Isn't that the reason why the Surya ICBM is being developed?Please educate me what kind of scenario would make them START showering ICBMs on India without any prelude of armed conflict?
Last edited by gamercube; 19 Apr 08, at 22:22.
We were strong. And "Great Britain" only became Great/Imperial after it captured India. Adux, please read a book by Randolf Cooper called "The Anglo-Maratha Campaigns and the contest for India". It explains in detail the rise of the British and does away with the oft-repeated myth that the British succeeded because they were much powerful than any of the Indian rulers. Here you'll find many different chapters of the book:And how would that compare us with a first military imperial power like Great Britain. India was never as strong as it is today; militarly speaking. Economical I do agree we were far better off.
The Anglo-Maratha Campaigns and the ... - Google Book Search
Pay more attention to the chapter titled, "The Anatomy of Victory".
Major, I also request you to take a look-"Great Britain" as you call it wasn't so "Great" until after the capture of India.
One line from above : Suraya ICBM?...lol
It doesnt exsits. The next stage of Indian missile is Agni 3 Agni 3++, Agni3 SM..and possibly Agni 4. Surya is rumour which has no basis came out of some reporters ass. That doesnt mean India doesnt have an ICBM program or capbility. Rather it is not Surya, I had read about it long time back in BR, They are missile man Arun S, has already as stated .
Gamercube, are you claiming that we at that time had a leader to match the future Duke of Wellington? As far as I know he never lost a battle. The closest he came was waterloo when blucher came to his aid.
Yes. Peshwa Bajirao I of the Marathas never lost a single battle until his death.Gamercube, are you claiming that we at that time had a leader to match the future Duke of Wellington? As far as I know he never lost a battle. The closest he came was waterloo when blucher came to his aid.
Baji Rao I - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)