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?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >they lived better then than they do now
      Frick off Nigel

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        maybe if you ate those cows instead of worshiping them, you wouldn't be so skinny now would you?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          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?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            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

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            damn, i meant early bronze age, lol. Farming was still not as widespread

          • 1 year ago
            Epiphanes

            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...

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >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 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

            >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.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >"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

          • 1 year ago
            Epiphanes

            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.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >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.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >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 poorgays 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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        100% your fault, blame your own elite who preferred English money over Indian lives. The same applies to the Irish and their famine

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >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

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            It's a marxist talking point that's been thoroughly debunked by economic historians.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >economic historians.
            Ever wondered if they could be just as biased as those evil marxistoids?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Just because you place ideology ahead of logic, reason, evidence, and reality doesn't mean that anybody else is as fricked in the head as you are.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >logic
            >reason
            >evidence
            According to whom? Who built those graphs? Who quantified those human experiences? How is he redacting said experiences?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Name 5 books you've read on the subject. Also the source for the claims you just made.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      > "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

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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 gayging...

        where is my mental health care 😀

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Genetic memories.

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    How did one Indian man manage to conquer and shaft 70 million Brits?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        its over 80% white so indians and pakistanis are a minority

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Ok, Mr. Rajesh Vijay Prajeet Khan Bahadur Singh

          go back to cleaning the toilet now

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            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

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Makes false claims
            >Is told the claim is false
            “Go BaCk To ClEaNiNg ToIlEtS”
            What’s even the point of speaking to you?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            moronic frog poster

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Nobody voted for him. He was put in power by the leadership of the "conservative" party who are not conservatives but marxists.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        You don’t know what a Marxist or Marxism is.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I'm confused, that's clearly a welshman.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >conquer
      You don't know what that word means.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      jews put him in power to buckbreak rorkes
      jews also made tories win because corbyn was the only non-zionist in western politics
      jews own england
      that's why the EPL still kneels

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Easily, india isnt supposed to be one country eventually they will have civil wars and go back to this

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >medieval India was just a bunch of Muslim aristocrats ruling over Pajeet serfs
        based?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          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.

          Nah,

          Genetic memories.

          .

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Genetic memories.

            .
            what am I looking at darktroon

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          good thing the good guys came and kicked their asses

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >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

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        This, there is a reason why the coins of British India were bilingual in English and Persian.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Hopefully

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Hindus and Sikhs can cope

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      If USSR, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia can split up and keep going, I suppose India can too.

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Because the local indians did all the fighting. It is the same answer for literally every place.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Imagine all the local pajeets just clubbing each other going "you bloody bastard b***h! Fak you benchod!" as civilized rulers gaze from afar

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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!!!!"

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >the british conquered india
    why couldn't they have conquered south america

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >british conquest of latam
      imagine the reggaeton

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >civilize south americans
      its 2023 and they still have outdoor toilets

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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 fricked around a stern warning was usually enough to bring them in line.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >English colonise South America before the Spanish
      >still colonise North America like in our timeline
      >entire Western hemisphere is now Anglo
      VHH

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Because we're a superior race. If that's not blindingly obvious at this point I don't know what is.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Umm... sirs?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Why is he so ugly

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Indian phenotype

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            they look kinda similar

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          R1a face

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        His race exists because the white man permits it. A mistake in my view but hopefully more white people come around to my view.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          shut up paki english chinese basterd

          chup kar aur apney aukat may raho

          jai hind

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >His race exists because the white man permits it.
          its been like that for the last 2000 years

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            look at that basedface

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            s*o*y*f*a*c*e

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Saddam lovers are honestly braindead

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Amerimutt zogbots represent the white race
            No

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Guys... are the pajeets gonna give anglos PTSD?

        I'm not liking this...

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The rightful place of the indian.

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The superior white man is the indians rightful master. Out beneficent rule was good for them.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        A good days work is worthy of compensation.

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    local rulers had trouble collecting taxes, so they offered themselves to do it, for a small fee ofc

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    200? Im sure the British East India Company had at least 3000 white men in her pay

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      IQfy 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

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    How did a few dozen Pakis cuck the entire United Kingdom? Bong Anglitas are built for Lil Paki wiener

  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Indians ran India. The British didn't even conquer it

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      > 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.

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    i have developed some great tactics for making anglos mad on IQfy but none of them involve pretending to be a pajeet

  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    so the turks conquered the pajeets and then the brits joined them to subjugate them?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Yes

      Pajeets have been under foreign domination since 1600 BC, when the White Aryans invaded

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        India has the potential to be Europe 2.0.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          No it doesn't. Their average IQ is 80.

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    It's said that 200 Spanish led by Cortez conquered all of Mexico. The reality is undoubtedly more complicated.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Weren’t there a bunch of native Allie’s who fricking hates the Aztecs?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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 frick over the bastards who had been killing them since time immemorial .

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        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 frick over the bastards who had been killing them since time immemorial .

        Native Americans must pay reparations to Native Americans for the Native American genocide

  21. 1 year ago
    Epiphanes

    >200 Englishmen manage to conquer all of India,
    which incident are you even talking about?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The footprint required by the British to rule India was low.

  22. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >America (North/South), Ireland
      North and South America don't fight eachother, and Ireland hates Britain directly.

  23. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Indians are subhumans. Conquering that jungle filled with those backwards 50iq poo insects is not an accomplishment.

  24. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Why should whites feel ashamed about slavery and colonialism? Shouldn't the colored people feel ashamed for being conquered?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      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.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Why should israelites feel ashamed about conquering the world? Shouldn't the aryan people feel ashamed for being conquered?

  25. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Because the Anglo BVLL walked into India and was immediately met by a legion of beautiful brown women wanting to frick them dry and this was quickly followed by an army of simping Indian men wishing for the white mans sraps.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Because the Anglo BVLL walked into India and was immediately met by a legion of beautiful brown women wanting to frick 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.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *