AmreekanDesi Posted February 17, 2018 Share Posted February 17, 2018 I always wonder what the difference would be in language, culture, religion, overall attitude if Maratha empire had lasted for a significant period. For example the Mughals had a solid rule over India for a good 4-5 generations (200+ years) where they had influence and power in majority of India (asides from south where they did get influence if not total power like In north) And because of this a lot of India does have parts of their culture whether it be language (Hindi has too muchPersian influences), culture or food. Maratha empire didn't have same influence on the culture and psyche. as some may know that for most of its existence it was strong in the region which is Maharashtra today. But it is true that they did defeat Mughals and gain influence and power over most of India at one point. But it was not long enough (really in historical context it's negligible almost). The British came and the rest is history. And then obviously they impacted the culture whether it be language again (English is commonly spoken and there are many indianized English words in our languages now) or culture and obviouslt sport. so the British too were here long enough to leave an imprint on the culture If you see there aren't many influences on indiannculture outside Maharashtra that the Maratha empire had simply because it didn't rule long enough in the region as a whole. my question is what would have been the impact if their reign was as strong and long as the Mughals or the British Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singh bling Posted February 17, 2018 Share Posted February 17, 2018 TBH Maratha's under Peshwa were never intetested in ruling or establishing Hindu raaj, for them chauth and money was main motivation to attack other kingdoms.They could had killed the mughals in 1720s and give Delhi to Rajputs or Jats but they never did. sandeep 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranvir Posted February 17, 2018 Share Posted February 17, 2018 26 minutes ago, Singh bling said: TBH Maratha's under Peshwa were never intetested in ruling or establishing Hindu raaj, for them chauth and money was main motivation to attack other kingdoms.They could had killed the mughals in 1720s and give Delhi to Rajputs or Jats but they never did. Hindus and Sikhs put money above everything else. The Muslims (and Christians) were hell bent on religious missions. sergio04 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MechEng Posted February 17, 2018 Share Posted February 17, 2018 Kokam would be used in many curries, vada pav would have been the go to snack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
velu Posted February 17, 2018 Share Posted February 17, 2018 i really dont think it migth have chnaged anything culturally .. western tamilnadu ( whole kongunadu belt ) was part of mysore kingdom from 1300 to 1800 till the 3rd anglo mysore war .. but there was no change in those 500 years because culturally whole kingdom was more or less same Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singh bling Posted February 17, 2018 Share Posted February 17, 2018 1 hour ago, MechEng said: Kokam would be used in many curries, vada pav would have been the go to snack. Vada pav was invented in 70s and Pav itself is English bread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted February 17, 2018 Share Posted February 17, 2018 No big difference. Perhaps, at most, push back colonization by 30-40 years but thats it. The Marathas were no match for the Europeans. Just like Qing China was brought to its knees, so too would've been the case for India. And if by some miracle the Europeans left us alone, Maratha empire would've collapsed on itself just like it was in the process of doing so. The Marathas were feudal & clannish entities and the 1700s onwards world sees the rise of nationalism, with feudalism and clan-behaviour becoming obsolete in major countries. The only reason Marathas get attention, is because Shivaji was a visionary guerilla fighter and the marathas were hindus. But beyond that, they were pretty incompetent at pretty much everything - modernizing their warfare and above all, were pathetic at diplomacy & politics. Panipat III is a clinical demonstration of maratha stupidity : brings along over 1 lakh civillians to follow them around on 'tirth yatra', fights on soil they do not control but pisses off every single ruler - from Rajputs to Awadhi to everyone. And then gets owned by Abdali. In my years of reading history, its rare i've come across a battle that has worse strategic and tactical awareness as Panipat III. velu and Book_Worm 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmreekanDesi Posted February 17, 2018 Author Share Posted February 17, 2018 15 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: No big difference. Perhaps, at most, push back colonization by 30-40 years but thats it. The Marathas were no match for the Europeans. Just like Qing China was brought to its knees, so too would've been the case for India. And if by some miracle the Europeans left us alone, Maratha empire would've collapsed on itself just like it was in the process of doing so. The Marathas were feudal & clannish entities and the 1700s onwards world sees the rise of nationalism, with feudalism and clan-behaviour becoming obsolete in major countries. The only reason Marathas get attention, is because Shivaji was a visionary guerilla fighter and the marathas were hindus. But beyond that, they were pretty incompetent at pretty much everything - modernizing their warfare and above all, were pathetic at diplomacy & politics. Panipat III is a clinical demonstration of maratha stupidity : brings along over 1 lakh civillians to follow them around on 'tirth yatra', fights on soil they do not control but pisses off every single ruler - from Rajputs to Awadhi to everyone. And then gets owned by Abdali. In my years of reading history, its rare i've come across a battle that has worse strategic and tactical awareness as Panipat III. I was always under the impression that Marathas were a greater empire than Mughals but we're just unlucky that their rise coincided with rise of European superpowers trying to colonise India whereas Mughals were lucky to have their peak at a time when India was still protected from European intrigues Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted February 17, 2018 Share Posted February 17, 2018 1 hour ago, AmreekanDesi said: I was always under the impression that Marathas were a greater empire than Mughals but we're just unlucky that their rise coincided with rise of European superpowers trying to colonise India whereas Mughals were lucky to have their peak at a time when India was still protected from European intrigues No, they were a lesser empire in every shape and form of the word. Mughals atleast got central authority down-pat. Atleast till Aurangzeb's time, when he died at 90 and left like 3 dozen claimants with zero experience ( because of Aurangzeb's paranoia that his sons would do to him, what he did to his father). Marathas on the other hand, couldn't put together central power if their life depended on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
randomGuy Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 ^^ then how 50 crore Muslims in Indian subcontinent? Many of them burqa wearing lol. These guys converted during Islamic rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 6 hours ago, Green Monster said: brother muloghonto is playing general in this thread... so much military expertise by someone who knows even mor than israeli generals about the fitness of women in combat salute to the gernail I have already proven your desert-barbarism religious ideology false by citation. You are just salty because i exposed you as a fake psychiatrist, by quoting university research papers that show women also rape men- something you categorically denied and now cannot run away from, faker ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 6 hours ago, BeardedAladdin said: The nation state of india never existed during the british or mughal period. So to claim that mughals or british reigned over 'india' is nonsensical, its looking at history backwards. India is not a nation-state. India is a historical geographical region. Evidenced as reference to India for 2300 years as ALL LANDS from Kabul to Burma. Himalaya to Kanyakumari. Republic of India is the nation-state. 6 hours ago, BeardedAladdin said: "india" for those years was just a continent of hundreds of different people. It was all a bunch of princely states, with some regions more 'centralized' and homogenous than others. There was no single nation state to 'reign' over. I will say one thing, neither british nor mughals had any real impact on modern India. Its recency bias. Hinduism and civilization in the subcontinent goes back thousands of years. They were a fart in the wind. I disagree. Before the British, India had no concept of rule of law, no concept of civic structure. British law is what seperates India from rest of the third world. Turning_track 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 16 minutes ago, MultiB48 said: there is no such thing as british law Yes, there is. Broadly speaking, the world is divided into british law and french law. In British legal system, innocence is presumed, guilt has to be demonstrated, in French legal system, both innocence and guilt have to be demonstrated. Either way, its the British who gave us rule of law. Prior to the British, there was no concept of 'law is absolute' in India - whether Hindu or muslim, the legal apparatus never applied itself to the monarch. This is where the British system is superior to Indian system and that is why we follow the British system, not the Indian system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmreekanDesi Posted February 18, 2018 Author Share Posted February 18, 2018 7 hours ago, BeardedAladdin said: I will say one thing, neither british nor mughals had any real impact on modern India. Its recency bias. Hinduism and civilization in the subcontinent goes back thousands of years. They were a fart in the wind. Aadhi awaam English boli but British had no impact Singh bling and Book_Worm 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda-esque Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 Yoh would eat Poha for breakfast (cue Indore)...Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
velu Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 3 hours ago, Yoda-esque said: Yoh would eat Poha for breakfast (cue Indore)... Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk poha doesnt belong to any state i guess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FischerTal Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 misal pav for everyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda-esque Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 poha doesnt belong to any state i guess Ok Sambar thenSent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk velu 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
velu Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 5 minutes ago, Yoda-esque said: Ok Sambar then Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk yep .. sambar most probably is a maratha dish simialr tamil dish is kootu poriyal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mariyam Posted February 18, 2018 Share Posted February 18, 2018 1 hour ago, FischerTal said: misal pav for everyone Isn't pav (sliced bread) a European introduced food item in India? Screopho 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts