Comments by "Winston Smith" (@kryts27) on "Understanding Indian Civilization Part 2" video.

  1. As for the British (English) they were initially a fairly poor country on the edge of Europe. With the Portuguese and Spanish mercantile discoveries, and the mutually competitive nature of European kingdoms, edged the British into piratical then naval competition with their Atlantic coast neighbouring countries. England was just wealthy enough to begin this start-up venture. The formation of the East India Company in London was squarely aimed at dominating mercantile trade with India. This would be as surprising these days if Iran had launched a Take Over America company. With state and naval weakness, India was not strong enough to beat off these seaborne invaders collectively (the Chinese with better Junk ships could hold back the European invaders until the mid-nineteenth century when the advent of ironclad ships made this also not possible).
    2
  2.  @kaushiksinha4673  You are right. This historical analysis is far from flawless.
    1
  3. Sorry, I wanted to say something about India before the narrator said something wrong about Rome. India is complex, but it's baffling complexity of it"s own creation seems to isolate it from political currents in the rest of the world. This is both it's strength and weakness. In terms of science, Indians make excellent mathematicians but poor experimental scientists (education is valued in India but in a narrow spectrum). In other words, India is creative without being very practical. Also (and the Indians know it themselves) how much the caste system holds India back from success, On the Roman thing, the narrator was somewhat wrong about Roman creativity (during the Empire period). The Romans did invent the arch and concrete and the (horizontal axis) water wheel (debatable), but agriculturally, the Romans invented nothing (probably because they had too many slaves) so the Pax Romana was not innovative.
    1