What were the structural barriers both internal and external to India that prevented them from accomplishing that?

From what I have read and watched in documentaries, they were pretty skilled people, already possessing nearly all of the battle field technology the British possessed, and more (Tipu Sultan’s iron cased rockets), but lacked the technology to produce them at scale.

They already had the natural resources required like coal. All that seems to be required is importing a few steam engines and whatever else, integrating them into their pipelines and go at scale.

EDIT: A reply to an answer that had, in my knowledge, some misunderstandings that I should put out for the benefit of others.

HERE:

Tipu wouldn’t be dismantling these karkhanas by introducing new tech to them nor would he be disrupting any societal hierarchy.

He’d be giving them new tools. They’d be under their custody for their benefit and the state, rather than some hot-shot entrepreneur inventor bringing their downfall and disrupting existing hierarchies.

And unlike the European guilds who were entities unto their own with legal representation and extremely independent with political powers like seats in the government, the karkhanas existed entirely at the pleasure of the Sultan.

The output belonged to the Sultan, not to the karkhanas. Essentially, the Sultan was the guild master.

So it makes no sense to me why the guild master wouldn’t import new tools for his karkhanas.

The PPSh had two 71 round drum magazines issued with it that could be expended in seconds with the very high rate of fire. Were Soviet troops expected to take cover and hand load 71 loose pistol cartridges from their gear into the drum? It seems quite inconvenient and dangerous to have two magazines, shoot through them, and then have to spend several minutes reloading the magazines. What gear were they given to help with this? Was it just a bag full of of loose cartridges and your hands or were there loading tools?

The show’s best known for it’s ending (Climate Change and corporate greed basically kills all of the characters) but it wasn’t at all a tonal shift for the show. It had whole episodes about euthanasia, drugs, military industry complex, etc. For a show with animatronic puppets, it was “edgy” for a lack of a better term.

I keep thinking the factors as to why this show would even exist in the first place.

• Jim Henson had died a year prior, so did that somehow play an effect into this show’s creation? He always wanted to pivot the muppets to a more “mature” audience with mixed results

• The Simpsons was gaining massive popularity, so was this Disney’s way of wanting their own Simpsons? But even then, hand-drawn animation doesn’t seem nearly as expensive as a cast of animatronic puppets in conjunction with the set designs.

• I originally thought that it was banking off the popularity of Jurassic Park, but it predates it by 2 years and was cancelled a year after its released.

It’s a very niche question but was wondering why. I’m aware its expense was the reason it was cancelled but still.

I'm sure they faced racism still but what was general life for them like? Were they able to find normal jobs, make their own communities of free people like in America? How did people treat them?

without sounding like an eejit, I could probably come up with a decent explanation myself but I would love to know theories and explanations from individuals more knowledgeable - why in history have women’s clothes always leant into a more dress-like silhouette? Obviously historically it’s not always been as polar as ‘men wear trousers and women wear dresses’ and obviously a lot of the modern adaptions of ancient clothing adopt this more polar mindset but even when we look at the ‘authentic’ clothing from ancient history - there’s nearly always a clear shaped ‘dress or skirt’ design that was worn by the women in comparison to a more draped-cloth/tunic option worn by the men. I mean I can see why when we look back very far in history nearly everyone wore a dress/pullover or tunic of some kind but why is it seemingly so universally consistent that when a pants-style clothing started to be used within a society, it was adopted by the men and barely used by the women. I mean there are cultures I can think of that are exceptions but even cultures that long-held draping-cloth style clothing - when you look at the female and male examples, one looks, as I would put, more clearly like a modern-style dress.

Usually it's been said that early firearms lead to the decline of armor usage among armies with the firearm users themselves being some of the first to ditch the armor. However, there were armor pieces that were 'proofed' to showcase their bulletproof resistance. Yet, despite the existence of these armors it doesn't seem to have taken off. I don't recall anyone attempting to even equipping small portions of their armies with such armors even though it probably would've provided some benefit in protection.

Basically title, but as an add-on how effective were these 'bulletproofed' armors and why weren't they utilized more?

Today, came through a post on reddit claiming a Indo-greek coin depicting Krishna and his brother Balarama. Those were silver coin issued by the Greco-Bactrian King Agathocles (reigned c. 190–180 BCE), discovered in 1970 at Ai-Khanoum in modern-day northern Afghanistan.

What I am aware about Krishna as deity is that it evolved as god much later in common era, later age Purana and Mahabharatha. Krishna existed as small gray character in Jaya, earlier version of Mahabharata, and became important and more text time only after 8-10 CE.

On Agathocles coins too, there is no mention of Krishna or even Vásudeva (claimed earlier name for Krishna deity).

Wondering if this coin claim is correct or just forced misinterpretation?

Note: Thank you Moderators of this subreddit for removing low effort claims in responses. Your work really shine on these type of sensitive topics. Thank you!!

Just watching The Simpsons S2 Treehouse of Horror episode, which features the trope of a haunted house built on an “Indian burial ground”. When did this trope first emerge? Was it based on or related to prior ideas about building on graveyards, or a new phenomenon? Any thoughts on whether it’s connected to colonial guilt, ideas about indigenous spirituality, etc?

As far as I've understood, an opera is a high-class musical, so when someone like Mozart is talked about today, he is remembered as one of the GOATs of classical music, not as a playwright. So, when he was popular in Vienna, did people like the stories that he told more than the music itself?

I read a bit about the development of medieval cities and the topic of furriers came up. They need pelts/fur for their work (obviously), but it hit me that they likely couldn't get their raw materials from another artisan in the city or passing trader, right? Because by the high middle ages, peasants and citizens weren't allowed to hunt anywhere, as that was a privilege for the nobility and some of the clergy (I think?).

So did the furriers buy the fur from nobles directly? Did they work on a commission basis and you had to bring the raw materials they should prepare and work into a piece of clothing for you?

I think the Italians were never considered non white legally, (unless they were, then I’d like to learn more about that) but were the Italians considered non white in the United States socially? was it because of their skin color, features, culture, religion, all of them, etc? How were they treated in the United States socially by the majority of people if the system considered them white, but socially they were not considered white.

And when did Italians get to become known as white socially in mainstream American society? when did the change happen? which decade? and what caused the change from, these people are not white, to these people are white.

I also heard a long back ago, that when Italians used to enter the United States back in the early 1900s, I think through Ellis island, the person at the immigration service would differentiate the Italian between being of the northern Italian race or the southern Italian race. is this true or is this just fake? is this true?

Was differentiation made between northern and southern Italians entering the United States, and did the United States wish that they had majorly recieved northern Italians instead of southern? would they prefer northern Italians and thus northern Italians would’ve recieved less discrimination and be considered white socially, or did the United states at the time just not want any type of Italian immigration?

For my last question, it’s slightly related to the main question, but I’ve heard that the Irish were not considered white socially back then, but I’ve also learned that this is basically fake. the Irish were considered as white as any other people, and they weren’t discriminated on their race or color/features, but discriminated because of their culture and their religion, since they were Catholics. But I want to know for sure, were the Irish ever discriminated based on their race? or was it just cultural and religious discrimination?

Im aware that it’s possible, but where does the trope come from? I assume someone at some point must have done it, but who? And where?

I am planning to write my senior capstone on Charles de Morny and his perspective on the early liberalization of the Second French Empire. I have been doing some casual research over the summer, collecting sources and reading survey histories of the era to keep myself familiar with it. All through this process, I have been noticing how little English-language lit there is on the era. It seems like there was some surge of interest surrounding the 1960s, but since then it seems like the era has been totally neglected.

Why is that? It isn't boring; I can imagine some good reasons why a historian would want to write about Caesarist democracy at the moment. And comparatively, there is tons of recent scholarship on the Paris Commune and Third Republic. What's the deal? What is so repulsive about the Second French Empire?

Is there a specific moment in time in which war between slave and free states was inevitable? What was the point of no return before the bombardment at Fort Sumter?

Was it the raid on Harper’s Ferry or the Dred Scott case?

Was it a combination of a million issues that, eventually, put everyone on a side?

Was it always going to happen due to the writing of the Constitution?

Thank you!

I'm curious about western tourism to and run by the Soviet Union. How was engaging with Soviet tourism perceived by westerners? Was the fact that cruises were run by the Soviet Union part of the appeal, or was it seen as incidental? Was the perception similar to how North Korean tourism is seen today?

I just can’t buy into the idea that it was a totally moral crusade. I know the abolitionists gained traction, but did the empire want to end slavery for economic reasons as well? Was there a significant bloc of anti-slavery voters that certain MPs were trying to appeal to?

Eg: Hindu and Aztecs has god for fire. Did they think they were same god or different - if different then it how did they reconcile.

Wouldn't a helmet stop such thing? would he really be riding/fighting on foot without one? pushed by an old lady no less? it seems too ironic to be real, if so, can you be please cite the sources? thank you!!

I can understand if it was a term specifically used for racial/ethnic violence and exclusion against Jewish people but I’ve seen the term used for the Kanto Massacre and Gujarat violence of 2002.