Rosen And Lynn Summary
Rosen and Lynn have differing opinions on the impact of the Indian caste system on sepoy armies. For Rosen, the armies had to be separated from the caste system to be successful. Lynn, on the other hand, argues that integration with the caste system was imperative to the success of the sepoy armies in India.
Rosen suggests that the British were successful in India, not because they changed Indian social systems, but because they were able to separate their armies from society and overcome the fragmentation of the caste system. Rosen uses the Maratha army’s adoption of European military practices as an example. The Maratha army recruited soldiers from all social classes, were disciplined, and had limited contact with society; this was how European’s structured their armies and the Maratha’s used this model to create a professional infantry but only after the men were removed from the caste system.
Rosen also examines how the sepoy armies grew in professionalism over time, citing uniforms, that set …show more content…
While Rosen ultimately blames the remaining caste system in the Bengal army for the Great Mutiny, his chapter does not explain why the army could operate in that manner. Rosen’s argument fail to take into account different Indian concepts and ideals that may have contributed to the growth and success of the sepoy armies. His view focuses on the way European military values were reflected in the structure of sepoy armies, as seen in his discussion on how pay and uniforms served to separate the soldiers from the rest of society. Conversely, Lynn focuses on how European and Indian values worked together to create the sepoy armies, and his argument is stronger because of his analysis on the cultural values that drove Indians to military service under the
Rosen suggests that the British were successful in India, not because they changed Indian social systems, but because they were able to separate their armies from society and overcome the fragmentation of the caste system. Rosen uses the Maratha army’s adoption of European military practices as an example. The Maratha army recruited soldiers from all social classes, were disciplined, and had limited contact with society; this was how European’s structured their armies and the Maratha’s used this model to create a professional infantry but only after the men were removed from the caste system.
Rosen also examines how the sepoy armies grew in professionalism over time, citing uniforms, that set …show more content…
While Rosen ultimately blames the remaining caste system in the Bengal army for the Great Mutiny, his chapter does not explain why the army could operate in that manner. Rosen’s argument fail to take into account different Indian concepts and ideals that may have contributed to the growth and success of the sepoy armies. His view focuses on the way European military values were reflected in the structure of sepoy armies, as seen in his discussion on how pay and uniforms served to separate the soldiers from the rest of society. Conversely, Lynn focuses on how European and Indian values worked together to create the sepoy armies, and his argument is stronger because of his analysis on the cultural values that drove Indians to military service under the