Thread by @blog_supplement

A useful exercise in comparative history is to compare the last H empire, that of the marAThA-s, to the Chingizid Mongol empire. While separated in time by several centuries, they had certain similar approaches, problems, and the solutions 1. The issue of succession after the

founder was badly handled among the marAThA but better handled among the Mongols:
manasataramgini.wordpress.com/2018/08/31/a-b…
In the later phase the marAThA-s had relatively good run of the kokanastha prime ministers while the chingizids suffered many succession issues. In some ways the struggle

of raghunAtha rAv & the main line was paralled by Arik Boke, Qaidu and Dua's struggle as counter-Khans with the main line. All in all the Initial succession issues after the Chatrapati's death set back the marAThA-s much more than anything the Mongols faced till Quibilai.

2. The Chatrapati did much better with the foundation of a navy whereas the Mongols failed to master the domain of the sea. But the inability of the peshva to master the naval domain resulted in that being squandered to the English & they ended up much like the Mongols. The

Gujarat naval command of the gaikavaD also ended with appAjI paNDit.
3. Adoption & innovative use of new military tech. Both had to do so at a rapid pace to complement their cavalry strength. The Mongols initially showed more innovation in this domain, but the marAThA-s

eventually got there. In the end, it is hard to assess if one did better than the other -- needs more study.
4. Conquest and resource farming. The Mongol conquests were clearly more comprehensive& the marAThA-s gained bad name in some quarters despite being relatively mild. The

Mongol resource farming seems to have been better organized & more efficient than that of the marAThA-s despite their famous chautha collection expeditions.
5. Administrative vision for the empire. Surprising, despite the v1 & kAyastha talent the marAThA-s possessed, they fell

short in implementation to the Mongols. bAjIrAv-I & nAnA (also likely raghujI bhosle) thereafter had the vision but the actual execution was comparatively limited to certain regions. The Mongols despite perhaps having a smaller pool of human capital did well by bringing in others

6. This brings us to the issue of integration --the marAThA-s had ample opportunity to integrate fellow H from the conquered lands into an overarching administrative system but it seems they fell short of the Mongols. However, both managed military manpower with similar adeptness

Notably, the Mongols destroyed recalcitrant ones while simultaneously integrating a wide range of steppe folks like Khitans, Uighurs, Turkic tribes, Alani, Kirghiz, & also Koreans, some Han & Mohds. The marAThA-s were much less destructive but also integrated much less.

7. Appreciation of science & collecting of researchers. The rAjpUta savA_i jayasingha was an interesting example of this in the H world. There is little evidence for such an effort among the marAThA-s. Mongke, Hulegu, Qubilai (& some of his descendants) all put much effort in

this direction & coupled it with widening of educational opportunities. Also the synthetic world history project to understand other people under the crypto-jew Rashid-ad din
8. The big failing which both shared as heathen empires was an understanding of ideological enemies of

the state. The marAThA-s had a great start under the Chatrapati & shambhu; however, it seems to have dwindled in the later peshva phase. We hold that the last two were ultimately central to the unraveling of H power & continue to be H deficiencies to date.
In the end the

marahaTTa lost not because his rockets did not find their mark in Cockburn's groin but because he had no knowledge of the diversity of snails in the western ghats that his English rival was diligently collecting & classifying. The advaitin's saptadvIpA medinI...