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.
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.
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.
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.
Kanhoji Angre is often called the "Father of the Indian Navy" for his defiance of colonial maritime powers. His primary objective was to assert Maratha sovereignty over the western coastline. He developed a sophisticated naval strategy that used coastal fortifications in tandem with a mobile fleet.Read more
Kanhoji Angre is often called the “Father of the Indian Navy” for his defiance of colonial maritime powers. His primary objective was to assert Maratha sovereignty over the western coastline. He developed a sophisticated naval strategy that used coastal fortifications in tandem with a mobile fleet. By attacking European vessels that refused to pay for Maratha “permits,” he crippled their monopoly on trade. His naval prowess was so great that for decades, the British and Portuguese were unable to defeat him, securing the Maratha Empire’s maritime frontier during its formative years.
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 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 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 lessThe Maratha navy under Kanhoji Angre primarily aimed to—
Kanhoji Angre is often called the "Father of the Indian Navy" for his defiance of colonial maritime powers. His primary objective was to assert Maratha sovereignty over the western coastline. He developed a sophisticated naval strategy that used coastal fortifications in tandem with a mobile fleet.Read more
Kanhoji Angre is often called the “Father of the Indian Navy” for his defiance of colonial maritime powers. His primary objective was to assert Maratha sovereignty over the western coastline. He developed a sophisticated naval strategy that used coastal fortifications in tandem with a mobile fleet. By attacking European vessels that refused to pay for Maratha “permits,” he crippled their monopoly on trade. His naval prowess was so great that for decades, the British and Portuguese were unable to defeat him, securing the Maratha Empire’s maritime frontier during its formative years.
See less