Comments by "No Name" (@NoName-hg6cc) on "Conquest of India - A Historical Paradox - Extra History - Part 1" video.

@nauticaltruck802 Wrong. India is ancient and Mughals controoled most of the sub-continent
4
Afghanistan and Macedonia didn't conquer India. English were lucky
3
Mughals had been emperors, recognized, for centuries. English were invaders
3
Not in 1600. India was a mighty empire Europeans went to for trade and like said in the video, English were the most pathetic of the bunch
2
@marksnow7569 In 1600 nobody could tell India would be fragmented
1
@marksnow7569 In 1600 Mughal empire was still strong and united, in went be until 1700 that cracks showed, until then Europeans could not hope to topple it, they could only trade and, I repeat, the most puny and pathetic were the English
1
@marksnow7569 No, English were pathetic and puny because in 1600 they were just another power, who couldn't use violence without repercussions
1
@marksnow7569 The downfall of Portuguese and Indians is what brought them to power, they were aggressive but it didn't pay off until late 1700 early 1800
1
@marksnow7569 Rarely aggressive? More like rarely successful
1
Not in 1600
1
@Swift-mr5zi It's also because India was plundered
1
@icoudntfindaname The only time they did fought Mughal, they lost badly
1
We do have other documents, although some are unreliable
1
Meh.
1
@Kaiyanwang82 what???
1
But they did have more GDP. And that's a fact, like it's a fact China produce more than Norway.
1
@ap6480 exactly
1
England pre 1700 is way overrated
1
No, Mughales were the respected emperors of a powerful empire when backward pirates from a puny little island kingdom in a North European island came, pathetically begging for scraps off their table
1
Actually they kinda did
1
Outdated? As cavalry was? Please
1
@stanisawzokiewski3308 Their elephants had artillery mounted on them
1