3 ms·

I'm curious if you are reading this from academics. My experience talking to history professors is a substantially less rosy view of the EIC, even if you someho

• rayiner 2mo ago
  No, it was from a random substack: https://www.strangeloopcanon.com/p/some-things-to-learn-from-the-british https://www.strangeloopcanon.com/p/some-things-to-learn-from.... I’m not sure what historians could debate here. The EIC ultimately failed as a business once it became a government—the costs of governing wiped out the profits from the trade monopoly. But the administrative achievements are undeniable. This is evident from undisputed historical facts. In the mid-18th century, England’s per capita GDP was only about double that of the Mughal Empire’s. The Mughals themselves were an organized, sophisticated, Persianate Empire with a centralized. bureaucracy. The technological advantage was incremental: e.g. iron cannons versus bronze cannons, standardized ammunition, etc. But the Mughals had vastly more manpower and state revenues. In the Anglo Mughal War, the Mughals obliterated the EIC forces with a 500,000 man army. Less than 75 years later, the EIC took over the Mughal Empire with just a few thousand European soldiers. It never had more than 35,000 European soldiers in India. That’s a crazy achievement. It would be like Amazon putting together a private army and taking over the EU.
  • UncleMeat 2mo ago
    If you read what historians wrote you'd know what they could debate. They are going to be far more informative than an entrepreneur writing about history.