Share & grow the world's knowledge!
We want to connect the people who have knowledge to the people who need it, to bring together people with different perspectives so they can understand each other better, and to empower everyone to share their knowledge.
The rise of powerful Maratha houses like Scindia and Holkar indicates that the confederacy— (A) Strengthened imperial unity (B) Encouraged regional militarization (C) Prevented British expansion (D) Reduced revenue extraction
The Maratha Confederacy functioned as a system of decentralized military power. As families like the Scindias and Holkars gained "Saranjams" (land grants), they invested heavily in their own military infrastructure. They hired French and British mercenaries to train elite infantry and established inRead more
The Maratha Confederacy functioned as a system of decentralized military power. As families like the Scindias and Holkars gained “Saranjams” (land grants), they invested heavily in their own military infrastructure. They hired French and British mercenaries to train elite infantry and established independent weapons foundries. This regional militarization made the empire territorially massive but politically fragile. While it allowed for rapid expansion, it shifted the focus of power from the central authority in Pune to the individual military camps of the sardars, leading to internal competition for resources.
See lessWhich institutional feature most clearly distinguished the Maratha Confederacy from a centralized empire?
The Maratha state was built on a system of shared sovereignty. While the Peshwa in Pune held the central title, the regional chiefs exercised nearly complete control over their respective territories. They collected their own taxes, entered into local treaties and managed their own succession. ThisRead more
The Maratha state was built on a system of shared sovereignty. While the Peshwa in Pune held the central title, the regional chiefs exercised nearly complete control over their respective territories. They collected their own taxes, entered into local treaties and managed their own succession. This institutionalized autonomy meant that the empire functioned as a collective of states bound by a common cultural and military identity rather than a single administrative law. This distinction is what made the Marathas a “Confederacy”—a structure that allowed for great flexibility but lacked the unity of a centralized imperial system.
See lessThe decline of the Mughal Empire created conditions favorable for Maratha expansion mainly due to—
The internal decay of the Mughal court—marked by succession wars and the rise of powerful factions—shattered the empire’s ability to defend its distant subahs (provinces). This administrative paralysis meant that Mughal governors in Malwa, Gujarat and the Deccan were left without reinforcements or fRead more
The internal decay of the Mughal court—marked by succession wars and the rise of powerful factions—shattered the empire’s ability to defend its distant subahs (provinces). This administrative paralysis meant that Mughal governors in Malwa, Gujarat and the Deccan were left without reinforcements or funds. The Marathas exploited this by launching annual raids that crippled the local Mughal bureaucracy. As the Mughal tax-collecting machinery collapsed, the Marathas stepped in to fill the void, turning former Mughal provinces into Maratha tributaries. This shift was more about the failure of the Mughal system than just the military strength of the Marathas.
See lessWhich long-term consequence of Maratha rule indirectly facilitated British conquest of India?
While the confederacy facilitated expansion, its long-term consequence was a lack of national cohesion. By the late 18th century, the Maratha Empire had fragmented into several autonomous states with conflicting interests. The British exploited this fragmentation through diplomacy and subsidiary allRead more
While the confederacy facilitated expansion, its long-term consequence was a lack of national cohesion. By the late 18th century, the Maratha Empire had fragmented into several autonomous states with conflicting interests. The British exploited this fragmentation through diplomacy and subsidiary alliances. Because there was no single “Maratha State” to defeat, but rather a series of rival houses, the British were able to isolate and conquer them one by one. This internal division was the most significant factor that allowed a foreign trading company to eventually overcome the most powerful military force in India.
See lessWhich factor best explains the political rise of Maratha chiefs like Scindias and Holkars?
The Peshwas, starting with Bajirao I, recognized that a single center could not govern the vast territories being captured. They delegated military authority to talented commanders, transforming them from mere generals into hereditary "Sardars." Families like the Scindias (Gwalior) and Holkars (IndoRead more
The Peshwas, starting with Bajirao I, recognized that a single center could not govern the vast territories being captured. They delegated military authority to talented commanders, transforming them from mere generals into hereditary “Sardars.” Families like the Scindias (Gwalior) and Holkars (Indore) were allowed to manage the finances and defense of their assigned “spheres of influence.” This military autonomy was the engine of Maratha expansion, as it incentivized these chiefs to continuously push the empire’s boundaries further north and east to increase their own power and prestige.
See less