How did 200 Englishmen manage to conquer all of India, a land of 350 million people?
How did 200 Englishmen manage to conquer all of India, a land of 350 million people?
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI
— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
indians ran india thats why the british empire days are looked back on so fondly by so many indians
they lived better then than they do now
>they lived better then than they do now
Fuck off Nigel
maybe if you ate those cows instead of worshiping them, you wouldn't be so skinny now would you?
This is what always gets me
Look at the supposed "upper class" of Indian culture, and they're actually pretty thin, skinny, and dysgenic. they seem smart and all, but most of them are sick and suffer from some degree of inbreeding. Genetically, they're the same as other Indians but they made difference choices such as vegetarianism, fasting, and so on. Its weird to see that the middle and lower classes are actually taller and stronger since they eat meat at least a few times a week and don't inbreed quite as much.
Is there any other culture in the world where the upper class didn't eat meat and chose a life of asceticism and begging?
Back in the early stone age meat was much more common that grains, bread was sort of a luxury. It was still like this in many regions where farming was hard, funny enough meat (pork) was abundant in northern russia during the 1980s economic problems, while bread was scarce. The opposite was true in the south
damn, i meant early bronze age, lol. Farming was still not as widespread
domestication of pork allowed multiple nations to get meat more cheaper than usually it would be. Pigs are virile, they multiple easily and they are easier to raise than, lets say, cows.
I wonder if ancient preference of pork meat, cheaper to attain, over cows, harder to maintain and it would be killing milk-provider if you kill the cow for meat, caused the cow meat taboo in Indian aryan culture...
>I wonder if ancient preference of pork meat, cheaper to attain, over cows, harder to maintain and it would be killing milk-provider if you kill the cow for meat, caused the cow meat taboo in Indian aryan culture...
Thats a big part of it. You can get way more out of cows by using their dairy products and not killing them. This must have persisted in the Gangetic plain for a long time but not penetrated in the southern regions.
I think it was taken too far. I read that Indians who worked with animals in any way were looked down upon. For example tanners were seen as untouchable despite providing a very important source of leather and material
>The Muslim conquests changed this a bit because low born Hindus would happily become Muslim to escape their lowly state
read 2 books on this, its totally false. There's no recorded evidence of a mass conversion especially from lower castes.
>"the upper class of India are inferior to the lower class"
In the past, tall fat Hindus were born to rich families while short thin Hindus were born to poor families. The Muslim conquests changed this a bit because low born Hindus would happily become Muslim to escape their lowly state. Then the British takeover really shuffled things more because many Hindus became Christian or entered the service of the British East India Company so that they got privileges and pay that they would never have gotten otherwise under high born hindu landlords
it is interesting how Indian culture, especially northern, regards fat people as muscular. Any religious depiction of strong warriors either depicts them as fat or fat and muscular, unlike the athletic fitness shown in western art.
>it is interesting how Indian culture, especially northern, regards fat people as muscular.
This has nothing to do with Indian culture bro, it's just some Pakistani who pretends to be Indian or white when it suits him.
From the Mesolithic and Harappan times, the classic Indian build was ecto/mesomorph and tall. Even in the Iron age it stayed the same according to most studies on grave sites. Something happened recently which likely shifted Indians metabolism towards fat storage (especially in the northern regions). Likely famine induced epigenetics.
>Any religious depiction of strong warriors either depicts them as fat or fat and muscular, unlike the athletic fitness shown in western art.
This is also just false.
Here's a description of Rama (ancient King, warrior, and supposedly a divine being from the Vedic period 1200-800 BC)
>He has broad shoulders, mighty arms, a conch-shaped neck, a charming countenance, and coppery eyes; he has his clavicle concealed and is known by the people as Rama. He has a voice (deep) like the sound of a kettledrum and glossy skin, is full of glory, square-built, and of well-proportioned limbs and is endowed with a dark-brown complexion.
I don't see anything here about him being fat. Most art showing Rama shows him as lean, athletic, muscular and tall.
>low born Hindus would happily become Muslim to escape their lowly state
This is a common bullshit myth. The reality is that Islam was the "prestige religion" of India from the 12th century to the 19th century. The Muslims formed a ruling warrior aristocracy in India and didn't want to lessen their religion's prestige by letting low caste poorfags convert en masse. They also didn't want to lose our on jizya and kharaj taxes, since they were flat taxes levied as a poll tax on per-household basis. Conversion was mainly limited to the Hindu upper castes and nobility. You couldn't just "convert" to Islam in medieval India, you had to be vetted by the aristocracy and found worthy. Or you were a woman from a Hindu aristocratic family (like the Rajputs) who would be taken as a wife by some Muslim princeling, and thus convert for the marriage to be legal.
100% your fault, blame your own elite who preferred English money over Indian lives. The same applies to the Irish and their famine
>colonialism does something supposedly good and everything good happening is because of le English
>show famines
>noooooooooooo it's actually all le your fault noooooooo
Everytime
It's a marxist talking point that's been thoroughly debunked by economic historians.
>economic historians.
Ever wondered if they could be just as biased as those evil marxistoids?
Just because you place ideology ahead of logic, reason, evidence, and reality doesn't mean that anybody else is as fucked in the head as you are.
>logic
>reason
>evidence
According to whom? Who built those graphs? Who quantified those human experiences? How is he redacting said experiences?
Not interested in talking with someone who is motivated only by butthurt post-colonial we-wuzzing and the direct rejection of reality that is the pseudo-Marxist politics so popular among that group. You're incapable of accepting or understanding reality, and even if you were you would reject it as it doesn't flatter your politics.
im actually moroccan french, but yeah as i was saying during its time in the british empire indian living standards went up by tens of thousands of % they still use buildings built by the british 200 years ago
they also outlawed slavery forcing the indian land owners to pay their workers thus improving living standards and the indian economy
when india was a member of the british empire it had the largest economy in the world and was the richest country in the world
Name 5 books you've read on the subject. Also the source for the claims you just made.
> "the british empire days are looked back on so fondly by so many indians they lived better then than they do now"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_India_during_British_rule
thats cool and all lefty-tard , this place after all is your official hug-box safe space (being a honey pot for the FBI the feds genuinely don't want too see shut down)
but enough morale fagging...
where is my mental health care 😀
Genetic memories.
How did one Indian man manage to conquer and shaft 70 million Brits?
The pm doesn't hold that much power. He can get ejected instantly. Of course I don't expect pajeets to understand how a government is supposed to work
The UK is 90% Pakistani or Indian at this point thanks to globalist immigration policy. Of course they will vote for one of their own.
its over 80% white so indians and pakistanis are a minority
Ok, Mr. Rajesh Vijay Prajeet Khan Bahadur Singh
go back to cleaning the toilet now
britain is over 80% white plus probably 70% of the 20% non white are only there with student visas so they spend less than 5 years in the country
>Makes false claims
>Is told the claim is false
“Go BaCk To ClEaNiNg ToIlEtS”
What’s even the point of speaking to you?
retarded frog poster
Nobody voted for him. He was put in power by the leadership of the "conservative" party who are not conservatives but marxists.
You don’t know what a Marxist or Marxism is.
I'm confused, that's clearly a welshman.
>conquer
You don't know what that word means.
israelites put him in power to buckbreak rorkes
israelites also made tories win because corbyn was the only non-zionist in western politics
israelites own england
that's why the EPL still kneels
Easily, india isnt supposed to be one country eventually they will have civil wars and go back to this
If you look at the names, literally all of these are Muslim kingdoms.
The only exceptions are 37, 39, 41, 42, 43.
So basically medieval India was just a bunch of Muslim aristocrats ruling over Pajeet serfs and constantly feuding with each other.
>medieval India was just a bunch of Muslim aristocrats ruling over Pajeet serfs
based?
Nah,
.
.
what am I looking at darktroon
Yep. When the Mughals invaded India, they mainly fought other Muslim aristocrats. The Muslims had been ruling India for 600+ years when Babur launched his invasion.
good thing the good guys came and kicked their asses
>good thing the good guys came and kicked their asses
> posts a Ridley Scott film scene
Crusaders? In India? They couldn't even get past pic related
This, there is a reason why the coins of British India were bilingual in English and Persian.
Hopefully
Hindus and Sikhs can cope
If USSR, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia can split up and keep going, I suppose India can too.
Because the local indians did all the fighting. It is the same answer for literally every place.
Imagine all the local pajeets just clubbing each other going "you bloody bastard bitch! Fak you benchod!" as civilized rulers gaze from afar
You jest, but Mughal warfare played out exactly like this. The Muslim commanders would just sit in their tents and smoke hashish and order their Pajeet slaves to zerg rush the enemy, who would do the same. The Baburnama is filled with stories like this.
"u bloody bich basterd!! wat u saying about Sultan Alamgir Khan, saar?!??"
"why u benchod madarchod bloody!!! u bich rascal!!! this land is property of Badshah Abdullah Khan!!!!"
>the british conquered india
why couldn't they have conquered south america
>british conquest of latam
imagine the reggaeton
>civilize south americans
its 2023 and they still have outdoor toilets
The Spanish conquered it first. After the Spanish empire collapsed Britain preferred indirect influence. As long as they didn't engage in the slave trade they were left alone. If they fucked around a stern warning was usually enough to bring them in line.
the best timeline would be
>spanish empire collapses
>britain favors slavery
>the entirety of south america becomes a giant slave plantation for the next 5000 years
>English colonise South America before the Spanish
>still colonise North America like in our timeline
>entire Western hemisphere is now Anglo
VHH
Because we're a superior race. If that's not blindingly obvious at this point I don't know what is.
Umm... sirs?
Why is he so ugly
Indian phenotype
they look kinda similar
R1a face
His race exists because the white man permits it. A mistake in my view but hopefully more white people come around to my view.
shut up paki english chinese basterd
chup kar aur apney aukat may raho
jai hind
>His race exists because the white man permits it.
its been like that for the last 2000 years
look at that basedface
s*o*y*f*a*c*e
Saddam lovers are honestly braindead
>Amerimutt zogbots represent the white race
No
Guys... are the pajeets gonna give anglos PTSD?
I'm not liking this...
The rightful place of the indian.
The superior white man is the indians rightful master. Out beneficent rule was good for them.
And to think back then those guys were paid, right now the indian elites still live like this but with slaves not free paid men, its disgusting.
A good days work is worthy of compensation.
What 200 men? Where did this number came from?
I mean, a war can be started by a single person but then it grows, it isn't 1 or 200 by the end
local rulers had trouble collecting taxes, so they offered themselves to do it, for a small fee ofc
200? Im sure the British East India Company had at least 3000 white men in her pay
Why do you make this same thread so often?
You change up the filenames too so that people can't track it, but honestly I've seen this thread and image pop up dozens of times and I've only been coming here for 3 weeks or so
I dont know much about India either, but I can tell you are blatantly making up stuff to bait Indians into responding, although it seems like none are here yet.
British India wasn’t a wholly English enterprise, far from it: India was in effect jointly ruled by the princes of India and the English working hand in hand.
Both England and the Indian princes became fabulously wealthy through this intimate partnership.
LULZ is not a board for history, you're doing it wrong
Instead of sharing relevant facts about the subject at hand, you should be posting racebait and trying to assert your supposed "racial superiority" via larping as an 18th century aristocrat who had nothing to do with you or your family
How did a few dozen Pakis cuck the entire United Kingdom? Bong Anglitas are built for Lil Paki cock
Indians ran India. The British didn't even conquer it
They used naval power to control trade, the Marathas then emerged and challenged Mughal power and Britain stepped in, offering protection to this or that Zamindar and Nawab.
The Indian nobility cooperated with the British and had no loyalty to an idea of "India", which to them meant domination by the Mughals or whatever warlord predominated, usually foreign conquerors, of which the British were no different. Much of the elite of the newly independent India were part of the bureaucracy and civil service set up by the British.
> The Indian nobility cooperated with the British and had no loyalty to an idea of "India", which to them meant domination by the Mughals
But most Indian princes were themselves Muslim, and had no particular dislike for the Mughals.
i have developed some great tactics for making anglos mad on LULZ but none of them involve pretending to be a pajeet
so the turks conquered the pajeets and then the brits joined them to subjugate them?
Yes
Pajeets have been under foreign domination since 1600 BC, when the White Aryans invaded
India has the potential to be Europe 2.0.
No it doesn't. Their average IQ is 80.
It's said that 200 Spanish led by Cortez conquered all of Mexico. The reality is undoubtedly more complicated.
Weren’t there a bunch of native Allie’s who fucking hates the Aztecs?
Most of the army that conquered Mexico was the various non-Aztec tribes who had hated the Aztecs for (at least) generations and were happy to throw in with the Spanish to fuck over the bastards who had been killing them since time immemorial .
Native Americans must pay reparations to Native Americans for the Native American genocide
>200 Englishmen manage to conquer all of India,
which incident are you even talking about?
The footprint required by the British to rule India was low.
We did it in the way we conquored everything else, starting with Scotland and Rreland in the middle ages.
>See two warring tribes on a bit of land we want.
>Recruit/equip one tribe and direct it in conqouring the other.
>Claim the now loyal and grateful lands to be part of the Empire.
The Spanish (Cortez) did this as well in South America.
If in the future, when we have milked it dry, the lands want to be free from the empire again, let them, but split the two groups into tow rival nations again so that they spend all their time fighting each other instead of coming for us. See India/Pakistan, most of Africa, America (North/South), Ireland, etc.
>America (North/South), Ireland
North and South America don't fight eachother, and Ireland hates Britain directly.
Indians are subhumans. Conquering that jungle filled with those backwards 50iq poo insects is not an accomplishment.
Why should whites feel ashamed about slavery and colonialism? Shouldn't the colored people feel ashamed for being conquered?
>Shouldn't the colored people feel ashamed for being conquered?
They they seethe about it 24/7. It's all they talk about. If they write a book or make a film it's always about how they're an inferior turdskin.
Considering that the colored people were engaged in slavery and imperialism - just much less effectively and in a much less organised fashion - they really do not have a single leg to stand on on that front.
Why should israelites feel ashamed about conquering the world? Shouldn't the aryan people feel ashamed for being conquered?
Because the Anglo BVLL walked into India and was immediately met by a legion of beautiful brown women wanting to fuck them dry and this was quickly followed by an army of simping Indian men wishing for the white mans sraps.
>Because the Anglo BVLL walked into India and was immediately met by a legion of beautiful brown women wanting to fuck them dry
This was true. A third of East India Company men had Indian wives or mistresses. Indian men were throw their daughters at them in the hope of advancing their status.