Why did the armies of the British East India Company – mostly comprising of Indian soldiers – win consistently against the more numerous and better equipped armies of the then Indian rulers? Give reasons.

Drill and discipline

European drill and volley fire made sepoys cohesive, as at Adyar (1746), where about 930 French troops and sepoys routed some 10,000 of the Carnatic Nawab's men.

Regular pay, steady loyalty

Sepoys were paid on time, while Indian armies fell into arrears and lived by plunder, breeding desertion.

Unified command

A professional officer cadre held one chain of command, whereas Indian armies were levies of jagirdars and sardars loyal to their own chiefs.

Combined arms

Rulers relied on massed cavalry despite good guns like Tipu's rockets, but the Company integrated infantry and field artillery, as at Assaye (1803).

Fiscal-military state

After the Diwani of 1765, Bengal's revenue paid for the army, the military fiscalism that C.A. Bayly describes.

Credit and collaborators

The Jagat Seths financed the Plassey conspiracy, and Mir Jafar's defection decided the battle.

Divide and ally

The Nizam and the Marathas joined Cornwallis against Tipu in 1790-92, and in 1803 Holkar stayed aloof while Sindhia and Bhonsle were beaten.