Marathas take Delhi

[VVD0D95]

Question for you all, had the Marathas succeeded in taking Delhi at some point between 1740 and 1780, what would this have changed? Could they have established a Hindu Empire in India, would they have been able to keep the British out of India, and if so what consequences could this have had for the region as a whole?

 

[WotanArgead]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Delhi_(1757)

 

[VVD0D95]

Ah thanks for this.

I guess I should change the thread to a Maratha victory at Panipat then?

 

[Indicus]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Delhi_(1757)

The Third Battle of Panipat is the better choice here.

The Marathas held many fundamental issues that stood in the way of creating a unified empire, such as the many disputes between the ruling families. It could only exist as long as it continued to have new territories to raid and conquer, otherwise these disputes would turn into vicious civil war, as indeed they did.

One way to get around this disunity is to somehow re-centralize the empire. I believe there was a proposal to place Peshwa Vishwantrao on the Peacock Throne, but the Third Battle of Panipat sunk those ambitions. If the Marathas won the Third Battle of Panipat, the Peshwa would be crowned the Padshah-i-Hind, a title with much prestige, and the Peshwa gains control of the centralized Mughal apparatus. This means that he can sideline the other families, thus cleaning up the disputes that caused vicious civil war.

And most interestingly, during one of Bengal's many horrific famines during British rule in the eighteenth century, the Marathas planned to conquer Bengal, but disunity stopped these plans. Here, it is very plausible that they conquer Bengal with heavy support from starving Bengalis. And thus, the British would be kicked out of Northern India.

 

[VVD0D95]

The Third Battle of Panipat is the better choice here.

The Marathas held many fundamental issues that stood in the way of creating a unified empire, such as the many disputes between the ruling families. It could only exist as long as it continued to have new territories to raid and conquer, otherwise these disputes would turn into vicious civil war, as indeed they did.

One way to get around this disunity is to somehow re-centralize the empire. I believe there was a proposal to place Peshwa Vishwantrao on the Peacock Throne, but the Third Battle of Panipat sunk those ambitions. If the Marathas won the Third Battle of Panipat, the Peshwa would be crowned the Padshah-i-Hind, a title with much prestige, and the Peshwa gains control of the centralized Mughal apparatus. This means that he can sideline the other families, thus cleaning up the disputes that caused vicious civil war.

And most interestingly, during one of Bengal's many horrific famines during British rule in the eighteenth century, the Marathas planned to conquer Bengal, but disunity stopped these plans. Here, it is very plausible that they conquer Bengal with heavy support from starving Bengalis. And thus, the British would be kicked out of Northern India.

Alright interesting, seeing the Peshwa take the Imperial throne, as the peacock throne had been removed and dismantled by Nader Shah had it not? What would the Peshwa be called with his regnal title?

Also, how could one get the actual Chhatrapati to hold onto true power before this point?

 

[Indicus]

Alright interesting, seeing the Peshwa take the Imperial throne, as the peacock throne had been removed and dismantled by Nader Shah had it not?

It was. I'm merely using it as a flowery expression to refer to the Mughal throne here.

What would the Peshwa be called with his regnal title?

He may take his title from Hemu Vikramaditya and call himself Samrat of Hindustan.

Also, how could one get the actual Chhatrapati to hold onto true power before this point?

At this point, the Chhatrapati didn't have any power to keep.

 

[WotanArgead]

The Third Battle of Panipat is the better choice here.

The Marathas held many fundamental issues that stood in the way of creating a unified empire, such as the many disputes between the ruling families. It could only exist as long as it continued to have new territories to raid and conquer, otherwise these disputes would turn into vicious civil war, as indeed they did.

One way to get around this disunity is to somehow re-centralize the empire. I believe there was a proposal to place Peshwa Vishwantrao on the Peacock Throne, but the Third Battle of Panipat sunk those ambitions. If the Marathas won the Third Battle of Panipat, the Peshwa would be crowned the Padshah-i-Hind, a title with much prestige, and the Peshwa gains control of the centralized Mughal apparatus. This means that he can sideline the other families, thus cleaning up the disputes that caused vicious civil war.

And most interestingly, during one of Bengal's many horrific famines during British rule in the eighteenth century, the Marathas planned to conquer Bengal, but disunity stopped these plans. Here, it is very plausible that they conquer Bengal with heavy support from starving Bengalis. And thus, the British would be kicked out of Northern India.

It should be taken into account that the Indian empires are in principle unstable. Even if they manage to expel the British from Bengal, it will not save them. Particularly acute will be the question of the external threat, since the very structure of the Marathas prevented the creation of a long-lived empire. And do not forget that the Muslims have possession in the south.
By the way - If anyone did not notice Marathi captured Delhi.

 

[VVD0D95]

It was. I'm merely using it as a flowery expression to refer to the Mughal throne here.



He may take his title from Hemu Vikramaditya and call himself Samrat of Hindustan.



At this point, the Chhatrapati didn't have any power to keep.

Indeed on your final point, my final point was in relation to before this period.

 

[VVD0D95]

It should be taken into account that the Indian empires are in principle unstable. Even if they manage to expel the British from Bengal, it will not save them. Particularly acute will be the question of the external threat, since the very structure of the Marathas prevented the creation of a long-lived empire. And do not forget that the Muslims have possession in the south.
By the way - If anyone did not notice Marathi captured Delhi.

This is true. Though if they needed an external threat to keep them going, there is the south to focus on

 

[Indicus]

It should be taken into account that the Indian empires are in principle unstable.

Yes, but here, they'd actually be a centralized empire, rather than the weird cross between a confederacy and an empire they were IOTL.

And do not forget that the Muslims have possession in the south.

Mysore is the only southern state which can remain independent from Europe at this point, and it will have enough problems as is with conquering Travancore and staying independent as is that the Marathas don't really need to worry.

By the way - If anyone did not notice Marathi captured Delhi.

In the same sense that the Sikhs and the Durrani captured Delhi - that is to say, they got to raid sack it, but were forced out a little while later.

Indeed on your final point, my final point was in relation to before this period.

The answer is no. Some Meiji Restoration-like event where the Chhatrapati regains power can't happen either.

 

[VVD0D95]

I see and I suppose for the chhatrapti to not lose power would need shahu to want to actually rule rather than do shit all

 

[AvatarOfKhaine]

What if the Maratha's follow the English/British model and have Vishwantrao made Emperor of India or Padshah-i-Hind etc and have him entrench the power of the regional nobles in a House of Lords equivalent?

That way the lords are given lasting power as a bribe while the new imperial family centralises while allowing the nobles a say to prevent fractures from being unaired and exploding into civil war.

Ironically by entrenching the nobles power into such a structure the new Emperor(s) can force them into illegal insurrection to diminish their support from other families and the people.

Maybe even have them do a Germany* and make themselves Emperors while recognising/giving out royal titles to local nobles?


*Obviously this would be before actual Germany forms in this manner, if it even does, or as a re-organisation.

 

[VVD0D95]

I like that suggestion

 

[AnotherTime]

Also, how could one get the actual Chhatrapati to hold onto true power before this point?

AFAIK, the Chhatrapati was reduced to a mere figurehead. By the time of the Third Battle of Panipat, the Empire turned into a Confederacy, with various nobles controlling parts of the Maratha domain.

 

[VVD0D95]

AFAIK, the Chhatrapati was reduced to a mere figurehead. By the time of the Third Battle of Panipat, the Empire turned into a Confederacy, with various nobles controlling parts of the Maratha domain.

True enough, before this then I imagine that one would need someone like Shahu to actually stay involved.

 

[Indicus]

What if the Maratha's follow the English/British model and have Vishwantrao made Emperor of India or Padshah-i-Hind etc and have him entrench the power of the regional nobles in a House of Lords equivalent?

I don't think the idea of forming a House of Lords would even exist here. I think he'd just retain the Mughal system and just make local nobles mansabdars and jagirdars, each getting money from the treasury (mansab) or land owned by the emperor (jagir). Such a system centralizes power in the Emperor's hands and keeps local nobility in line, because if they rebel they lose their mansab or jagir.

A House of Lords may come to exist in the future, but for the time being, all that would exist is a divan with imperial advisors and maybe a Hindu equivalent of an ulema, both inherited from the Mughal structure.

 

[VVD0D95]

I don't think the idea of forming a House of Lords would even exist here. I think he'd just retain the Mughal system and just make local nobles mansabdars and jagirdars, each getting money from the treasury (mansab) or land owned by the emperor (jagir). Such a system centralizes power in the Emperor's hands and keeps local nobility in line, because if they rebel they lose their mansab or jagir.

A House of Lords may come to exist in the future, but for the time being, all that would exist is a divan with imperial advisors and maybe a Hindu equivalent of an ulema, both inherited from the Mughal structure.

Interesting, though I'm not sure Hinduism has ever been so voiceforously organised as to have something such as the Ulema.

Edit. In the manner that they could directly state to an Emperor he was being a heretic.

 

[Indicus]

Interesting, though I'm not sure Hinduism has ever been so voiceforously organised as to have something such as the Ulema.

Here, they'd be inheriting the structure of the Mughals they have just dethroned, and that includes an ulema. They obviously can't have a Muslim advisory body, so the result is a Hindu ulema.

Edit. In the manner that they could directly state to an Emperor he was being a heretic.

The Marathas were purist Hindus. I doubt anyone could confuse them for heretics.

 

[VVD0D95]

Here, they'd be inheriting the structure of the Mughals they have just dethroned, and that includes an ulema. They obviously can't have a Muslim advisory body, so the result is a Hindu ulema.

Interesting, seeing how they try to reform and adapt it would be interesting

 

[AvatarOfKhaine]

I don't think the idea of forming a House of Lords would even exist here. I think he'd just retain the Mughal system and just make local nobles mansabdars and jagirdars, each getting money from the treasury (mansab) or land owned by the emperor (jagir). Such a system centralizes power in the Emperor's hands and keeps local nobility in line, because if they rebel they lose their mansab or jagir.

A House of Lords may come to exist in the future, but for the time being, all that would exist is a divan with imperial advisors and maybe a Hindu equivalent of an ulema, both inherited from the Mughal structure.

Well I didn't mean a literal "parliamentary" body with nobles, but something more like what you mentioned.

A small council with a larger body to draw from, like say Tudor England/.

Obviously analogy isn't perfect but I meant a legalised transfer of specific powers to regional nobles while centralising many other functions.