1
Not fact. You could literally go to Wikipedia and see the ethnic break down of troops from a number of battles.
I and others have answered this question already but you're so stubborn in your ignorance you prefer your fantasy.Question: How do you explain the easy english conquest of India with a small army compared to the incredible number of Indian soldiers?
What you ignore is Indian troops fought for the British. You ignore Indians weren't a singular group under one banner.My answer : What separat the Enghish soldiers from Indian ones is almost exclusively discipline..and a disciplined army can defeat the much larger enemy without organization. There was no school where war strategy was taught.
In India there was no culture of tactics in war actions.
Yes, the British had superior tactics and technology but you refuse to acknowledge other things that are just as important: Indians weren't under the same banner and the British could recruit Indian soldiers.
One without the other would have been failure.
BTW, saying in India there was 'no culture of tactics in war' reveals you know nothing. I don't know of any army in history that didn't use specific tactics. You are legitimately ignorant and stupid.
I'm tempted to post a calculus problem because I doubt you can solve it. I don't believe you were ever a math teacher.
How about my bet? Why so silent?
Bookmarks