Board Thread:Questions and Answers/@comment-4923787-20130807230514/@comment-32656-20130811092159

Yeah, no way the Marathas can conquer everything. Population just not in their favor, really.

Even if they won Panipat, no way they can unite India.

Like otl India, innovations would slowly be introduced. If the south is independent, the rate would be somewhat faster than otl, but not too drastically so.

Really cannot see the Marathas lasting until the present, however - their "empire" was more a confederacy of the various Maratha tribes and chiefs under a warlord than anything else. Those things simply aren't that stable. Played a role in why it fell otl, even.

Not quite what I said, Imp - their navy was still vastly weaker than the European ones. Just that it wasn't a turkey shoot.

Just really not possible for the Marathas to go much further than otl. Definitely not Bengal.

Plassey is overstated, really - the only net effect of it was to get the Brits a small land increase, and money. The real fighting was further south, which the Brits won easily. A loss at Plassey would have minimal effect, truth be told. No territorial losses or the like.

What I meant - and even clarified - by "less advanced culture" was that there would be less outside innovations and influences added to the region. Improvements would occur slower.

If the Afghans had been "caught" before the Maratha supply lines were cut off, the Afghans would have just pulled back and fought elsewhere. Would not have even bothered to fight.

Not an accurate list of their territories - they had many "factories" and their forts at other locations, primarily Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras. Maldives were not British until the 1880s, and Sri Lanka until the 1790s.

Again, Can: India is akin to Europe. No one is going to declare themselves emperor of it. Nor would they use the term "India."

Not possible for them to gain control of India.