[rayiner]

In the 1600s, the Indians probably had superior land-war weaponry. https://easy-history.com/the-military-revolution-in-india-pa.... By the 1700s, the British had leap-frogged the Indians by getting to iron-based canons earlier. But we’re talking incremental improvements. The point is that the Indians had a modern, gunpowder-powered military.

On the other side of the equation, the British were vastly outnumbered. Before 1800, the east india company had less than 20,000 Europeans in its army. On the other side, the Indians had hundreds of thousands of soldiers. Iron canons versus bronze canons weren’t the reason the British were able to overcome the Indian armies. It was that the EIC was able to get thousands of Indians to fight on their side, and exploited the divisions between the various Indian states.

[squeefers]

> the Indians had hundreds of thousands of soldiers

the "Indians" were all fighting each other, so Im not sure you can count their numbers together like that. India proper might have been on paper a force to be reckoned with, but the reality of it was actually dozens of smaller, poorer countries all vying for power AGAINST each other, not in cooperation. that isnt a formidable enemy, Im sorry

[squeefers]

the Sikhs still push the narrative that internal skullduggery defeated them in 1857, not being beaten by a superior force... the British say similar things about the battles they lost too. In fact Ive never heard a group of men say "fair enough, they were the better side that day" after losing