Hello, and thank you for joining me.

I'm Mr. Marchant and I'll be your history teacher for today's lesson.

I'll be guiding you through all of our resources, and my top aims are to ensure not only that you enjoy our learning, but also that you can successfully meet today's lesson objective.

Welcome to today's lesson, which is part of our unit on the East India Company, where we've been asking ourselves, when did Mughal authority collapse in India? By the end of today's lesson, you'll be able to evaluate when Mughal authority in India collapsed.

There are three keywords which will help us navigate our way through today's lesson.

Those are successor state, assassinated, and authority.

A successor state is a smaller country which is formed after a larger country begins to break down.

When an important person is killed for political reasons, it is said that they have been assassinated.

And authority refers to the ability to keep others under your control.

Today's lesson will be split into three parts and we'll begin by thinking about India in the 17th and 18th centuries.

By the end of the 17th and start of the 18th century, the Mughal Empire ruled over most of the Indian subcontinent.

The Mughal emperors had held power in India since 1526 and continued to do so until 1858.

During the 17th and 18th centuries, the Mughal emperors experienced a number of challenges, including rebellions, leadership struggles, the rise of successor states, foreign invasions, and the rise of the East India Company, otherwise known as the EIC.

So we'll think about each of these different challenges in turn.

So let's start by considering rebellions against the Mughals.

Some subjects rebelled against Emperor Aurangzeb towards the end of the 17th century.

This included Hindu Jats.

20,000 Jats rebelled in 1669, and again from 1685 until 1688 a second Jat rebellion occurred.

In both of these instances, the Jat rebels were defeated by the Mughal army.

Reflecting on what we've just heard, which statement is most accurate? That the Mughals were unable to defeat the Jat rebellions, that both Jat rebellions were immediately defeated, or that the Second Jat Rebellion took years to defeat? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct answer was C.

The Second Jat Rebellion took years to defeat, but the Mughals were still successful in putting the rebellion down.

And now we can think about the rise of the EIC.

The EIC began trading in India at the start of the 17th century.

In 1685, the EIC refused to pay tax and fought the Mughals between 1686 and 1688.

During Child's War, all of the EIC's factories in India were captured by the Mughals.

The EIC had to beg the emperor to pardon them, which Emperor Aurangzeb chose to do.

So, let's make sure we have a secure understanding of what we've just heard.

What happened at the end of Child's War? Was it that the EIC begged the Mughals for a pardon, that the EIC overthrew the Mughal emperor, that the Mughals begged the EIC for a pardon, or that the Mughals overthrew the leader of the EIC? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct answer was A.

At the end of Child's War, the EIC begged the Mughals for a pardon after having been defeated by the Mughal military.

So now we can consider leadership struggles as a challenge for the Mughals.

After Emperor Aurangzeb died in 1707, his descendants fought one another for power.

In 1719 alone, four different men served as Mughal emperor after powerful nobles assassinated Emperor Farrukhsiyar.

Fighting between Mughals distracted them from the rest of the empire.

So, let's make sure we have a secure understanding of what we've just heard.

I want you to write the missing words from the following two sentences.

Our first sentence reads: in 1719, Emperor Farrukhsiyar was blank by powerful nobles.

And our second sentence reads: blank different Mughal emperors reigned in 1719 alone.

So what are the two missing words? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answers.

Okay, so we were thinking about the blank words from our two sentences.

For the first sentence, you should have written assassinated as the missing word.

In 1719, Emperor Farrukhsiyar was assassinated by powerful nobles.

And in our second sentence, you should have identified the missing word as four.

Four different Mughal emperors reigned in 1719 alone.

A further challenge to the Mughals in the 18th century was the rise of successor states.

After 1707, several Mughal successor states emerged, including Hyderabad and Bengal.

The leader of Hyderabad, Nizam al-Mulk, called himself a servant of the Mughal emperor and always flew the Mughal flag.

However, we could question the loyalty of the Nizam and those who were in Hyderabad, because after 1724, all officials in Hyderabad swore loyalty to the Nizam rather than to the Mughal emperor.

So, let's check our understanding of what we just heard.

Who did Mughal officials in Hyderabad swear loyalty to from 1724 onwards? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct answer was to the Nizam.

The Nizam of Hyderabad that is, rather than to the Mughal emperor.

Foreign invasions were another issue which affected the Mughal Empire in the 18th century.

In 1738, the Persian Emperor Nadir Shah invaded the Mughal Empire.

The Mughals were defeated at the Battle of Karnal in 1739.

The Nawab of Bengal even refused to send troops to help the Mughal emperor during this battle.

The Persians sacked Delhi after their victory at the Battle of Karnal.

During that attack on the Mughal capital, 30,000 people were massacred and 700 million rupees worth of treasure was stolen.

So, let's check our understanding of what we just heard.

What occurred after the battle of Karnal in 1739? Was it that the Mughal army forced the Persian army out of India, that the Mughal army conquered Persia, that the Persian army sacked Delhi, or that the Persian army conquered the Mughal Empire? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct answer was C.

After the Battle of Karnal, the Persian army sacked Delhi, during which 30,000 people were massacred and 700 million rupees worth of treasure was stolen.

The rise of the East India Company continued in the 18th century.

During the 1740s, the EIC began recruiting sepoys and building up a private army in India.

In 1757, the East India Company scored a military victory over the Nawab of Bengal and the French Compagnie des Indes at the Battle of Plassey.

This helped to give the East India Company greater power over Bengal.

By 1764, the East India Company had fought other groups in India, including the Mughal emperor at the Battle of Buxar.

At this battle, the Mughal emperor was actually forced to surrender to the East India Company following his army's defeat.

The EIC and the Mughal emperor signed the Treaty of Allahabad in 1765.

The EIC gained control over Bengal, the richest part of Mughal Empire, and the Mughal emperor was banned from entering Delhi, the capital city of his empire, and placed under the EIC's protection.

These changes have been referred to as part of the Plassey Revolution, which historians date from 1757 to 1765.

So, let's reflect on what we've just heard.

We have a statement on the screen that reads: the EIC always had a stronger military than the Mughals.

Is that statement true or false? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that that statement was false, but we need to be able to justify our response, so two justifications have appeared on the screen.

The first says that the EIC was able to defeat the Mughals during Child's War from 1686 to 1688, but not at the Battle of Buxar in 1764.

The second justification says that the EIC was able to defeat the Mughals at the Battle of Buxar in 1764, but not during Child's War from 1686 to 1688.

So which one of those two justifications is correct? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to check your answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct justification was B.

The EIC was able to defeat the Mughals at the Battle of Buxar in 1764, but 80 years beforehand during Child's War, the East India Company had been defeated by the Mughal Empire.

So now we're ready to put all of our knowledge of India in the 17th and 18th centuries into practise.

Starting with the earliest, I want you to sort the events shown in the table into chronological order.

You should use the numbers one to six to indicate your answer.

So pause the video here and press play when you're ready to check your responses.

Okay, well done for all of your effort on that first part of Task A.

So, I asked you to sort all of the events in the table into chronological order, and you should have done that as follows.

The first event was that 20,000 Hindus took part in the first Jat rebellion.

The second event was that the Mughals defeated the EIC during Child's War.

The third event was that Emperor Farrukhsiyar was assassinated by nobles.

The fourth event was that officials in Hyderabad swore loyalty to the Nizam.

The fifth event was that Nadir Shah's army sacked Delhi.

And the sixth event was at the EIC and the Mughals signed the Treaty of Allahabad.

So really well done if you got each of those events identified in their correct chronological order.

And now we can move on to the second part of Task A.

I want you to identify which events from our previous question belong to each of the following time periods.

Those time periods are 1658 to 1707, 1707 to 1740, and 1740 to 1765.

So pause the video here and press play when you're ready to reflect on your responses.

Okay, well done for all of your effort on that second part of Task A.

So I asked you to identify which events from question one belong to each of our time periods.

Between 1658 and 1707, the Mughal Empire experienced the first Jat rebellion and the Mughals' defeat of the EIC during Child's War.

Between 1707 and 1740, Emperor Farrukhsiyar was assassinated by nobles, officials in Hyderabad began swearing loyalty to the Nizam, and Nadir Shah's army sacked Delhi.

Between 1740 and 1765, the EIC and the Mughals signed the Treaty of Allahabad.

So really well done, especially if you managed to identify each of the correct events for each of those periods.

And now we're ready to move on to the second part of our lesson for today, where we are going to focus on Mughal authority.

In the late 17th century and throughout the 18th century, Mughal emperors faced many challenges to their rule in India.

The challenges experienced in this period provide examples which demonstrate the weakening of Mughal authority in India.

Political and military factors can affect the level of authority a ruler has.

A ruler's authority may be considered weak if they cannot control day-to-day governance and their subjects do not show loyalty towards their ruler.

So that's thinking about the politics of authority.

And a ruler may also be considered weak if they can no longer defeat their enemies and prevent attacks on their country.

So those are some of the military considerations which we might make.

So, I want you to identify the political factor which suggests a ruler's authority would be weak.

Is it that they failed to defeat attacks on the country, that they cannot control the actions of officials, or that they have a different religion to most of their subjects? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct answer was B.

A political factor which suggests a ruler's authority would be weak is that they cannot control the actions of officials.

It would suggest that those who should be listening to them are deciding to ignore them instead.

And let's try another question.

This time we have a statement that says, military strength has little effect on a ruler's authority.

Is that statement true or false? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that that statement was false, but we need to be able to justify our response, so two justifications have appeared on the screen.

The first says that a strong military may be necessary to bring a ruler's biggest opponents under control.

And a second justification says a strong military allows a ruler to control day-to-day governance.

So which one of those two justifications is correct? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that justification A was correct.

We might say that a ruler's military strength would affect their authority because a strong military may be necessary to bring a ruler's biggest opponents under control.

And we can think of a specific example that might demonstrate political and military weaknesses that affect a ruler's authority.

So the event we'll take to demonstrate this is the Persian Sack of Delhi in 1739.

During that event, the Mughals were defeated at the Battle of Karnal and 30,000 people were massacred by the Persians in Delhi.

So this tells us that the Mughals were unable to defeat Persian attacks, and because of that, we might say that for military reasons, the Mughals had weak authority by 1739.

Similarly, during the Persian Sack of Delhi, the Nawab of Bengal refused to send his own troops to help the Mughal emperor.

So in other words, we might say that some important subjects did not help the emperor, For that reason, we might also say that Mughal authority was weak, but this time for political reasons.

So, let's reflect on what we've just heard.

I want you to change one word to correct the following sentence.

The Nawab of Bengal's actions in 1739 suggest that the Mughals had strong control over officials in their empire.

So what's the incorrect word and what should you change it to to make the entire sentence correct? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to check your answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who changed the word strong to weak.

The Nawab of Bengal's actions in 1739 suggests that the Mughals had weak control over officials in their empire.

So, we're now ready to put all of our knowledge about Mughal authority into practise.

I want you to identify two political examples from the period 1658 to 1765 which suggests that Mughal authority in India was weakening, and then I want you to identify two military examples from that same period which suggests that Mughal authority in India was weakening.

So pause the video here and press play when you're ready to reflect on your responses.

Okay, well done for all of your effort on that task.

So, firstly, I asked you to identify two political examples from the period 1658 to 1765 which suggests that Mughal authority in India was weakening.

And your answers may have included any two from Jat Hindus rebelled in 1669 and again from 1685 to '88, the Emperor Farrukhsiyar was assassinated by powerful Indian nobles in 1719, that after 1724, officials in Hyderabad swore loyalty to the Nizam rather than the Mughal emperor, that when the Nadir Shah invaded in 1738 the Nawab of Bengal refused to send troops to help the Mughal emperor, or that the Treaty of Allahabad gave the EIC control over Bengal.

So well done if you managed to pick any two from that list.

And for the second part of Task B, I asked you to identify two military examples from the period 1658 to 1765 which suggests that Mughal authority in India was weakening.

And your answers may have included that Nadir Shah's army massacred 30,000 people and stole 700 million rupees worth of treasure during the Sack of Delhi after defeating the Mughal at the Battle of Karnal.

And that the EIC defeated the Mughal army at the Battle of Buxar, forcing the Mughal emperor to surrender to the Company.

So really well done if your own answers look something like those models which we've just seen.

So now we're ready to move on to the third and final part of our lesson for today where we are going to think about the timing of Mughal collapse.

Historians mostly agree that by the end of the 18th century, Mughal authority in India had already collapsed.

However, historians frequently disagree on when exactly Mughal authority collapsed.

So, let's reflect on what we've just heard.

I want you to write the missing number from the following sentence.

Most historians can agree that by the end of the blank century, Mughal authority in India had already collapsed.

So what's the missing number? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the missing number was 18.

Most historians can agree that by the end of the 18th century, Mughal authority in India had already collapsed.

In the past, different groups of historians commenting on the collapse of Mughal authority have dated it to one of three periods, either between 1658 and 1707, between 1707 and 1740, or between 1740 and 1765.

When historians evaluate when Mughal authority collapsed, they often focus on the level of military and political power the emperors had at particular times.

Recently, historians have become less convinced that Mughal collapse can be dated to the period from 1658 to 1707.

During this period, historians now argue that Mughal authority was challenged, but it had not collapsed.

So, let's make sure we have a secure understanding of what we were just discussing.

We have a statement on the screen that reads: recently, most historians have agreed that Mughal authority collapsed in the 17th century.

So is that statement true or false? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that that statement was false, but we need to be able to justify our response, so two justifications have appeared on the screen.

The first says that many historians used to suggest Mughal collapse began between 1605 and 1658, but this is no longer common.

And the second says that many historians used to suggest Mughal collapse began between 1658 and 1707, but this is no longer common.

So which one of those two justifications is correct? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct justification was B.

Many historians used to suggest that Mughal collapse began between 1658 and 1707, but this is no longer a common argument.

So, we're gonna take the example of the Jat rebellions in 1669 and again from 1685 to '88 to demonstrate why Mughal authority had not collapsed by the end of the 17th century.

So, during the Jat rebellions, thousands of Hindu Jats rebelled against the Mughals.

The rebels refused to remain loyal to the emperor and attack the Mughals.

So we have a political and a military challenge here.

However, the Mughals had enough military power to defeat both rebellions.

And so in this case, we could argue that the Mughals retained authority, because they clearly still had enough military power to bring the Jats back under control.

So, let's reflect on what we've just heard.

Why did the Jat rebellions suggest the Mughals still had authority in India between 1658 and 1707? Is it because subjects were unwilling to challenge Mughal rule, because the Mughals had enough military power to defeat the rebels, or because the Jats only rebelled against the Mughals once? Pause the video here and press play when you're ready to see the right answer.

Okay, well done to everybody who said that the correct answer was B.

The Jat rebellions suggest the Mughals still had authority in India by the late 17th century, because the Mughals had enough military power to defeat both of those rebellions.

So, we're now in a good position to put all of our knowledge about the timing of Mughal collapse into practise.

We're going to split Task C into three parts.

Firstly, I want you to explain why some historians would suggest Mughal authority collapsed between 1707 and 1740.

Then I want you to write one paragraph to explain why some historians would suggest Mughal authority collapsed between 1740 and 1765.

And then finally, thinking about everything we've discussed in today's lesson, I want you to conclude whether Mughal authority collapsed between 1707 and 1740 or between 1740 and 1765.

So in that third part of Task C, it's really gonna be your judgement that's important and how you justify it.

So pause the video here and press play when you're ready to reflect on all of your responses.

Okay, well done for all of your hard work on that task.

So, for the first part of Task C, I asked you to explain why some historians would suggest Mughal authority collapsed between 1707 and 1740.

Your answer may have included: some historians argue that Mughal authority collapsed between 1707 and 1740 as, during these years, the political and military power of the Mughal emperors became significantly weaker.

For example, officials in Hyderabad swore loyalty to the Nizam rather than the Mughal emperor after 1724, showing that some leaders gained more control over day-to-day governance.

Furthermore, the Persian army sacked Delhi in 1739 after winning the Battle of Karnal, showing that the Mughals lost their ability to defend important parts of the empire between 1707 and 1740.

So well done if your own answer to question one looks something similar to that model.

For question two, I asked you to explain why some historians would suggest Mughal authority collapsed between 1707 and 1740.

And your answer may have included: some historians argue that Mughal authority collapsed between 1740 and 1765 as during these years, the Mughal were unable to prevent the rise of the East India Company, the EIC.

In 1764, the Mughal emperor was forced to surrender to the EIC after being defeated at the Battle of Buxar.

The following year, the Mughals signed the Treaty of Allahabad, which gave the EIC control over Bengal.

This suggests that Mughal authority had collapsed as the EIC commanded a stronger military in India by the 1760s and also gained the right to rule over the richest region of the Mughal Empire.

So again, really well done if your own answer looks something similar to that model we've just seen.

So now we can think about the third part of Task C where I asked you to conclude whether Mughal authority collapsed between 1707 and 1740 or between 1740 and 1765.

Your answer may have included: Mughal authority collapsed in the years between 1707 and 1740.

Although the Mughal emperors were unable to prevent a rise of the EIC after 1740, this was only because of weaknesses which already existed.

The Sack of Delhi shows that the Mughals had already lost the ability to defend their empire from attack before 1740 and the emergence of successor states like Hyderabad shows that the Mughals had also lost day-to-day control over key parts of the empire before 1740.

So really well done if your own answer to question three looks something similar to that.

Alternatively, for question three, you may have concluded that Mughal authority collapsed in the years between 1740 and 1765, rather than earlier.

Between 1707 and 1740, the Mughals had clearly become weaker, but it was not clear that anyone else in India held more authority than the emperors.

However, the Treaty of Allahabad which the Mughals had to sign in 1764 showed that the EIC had grown more powerful in India and could begin controlling the Mughal emperors directly.

So really well done if your own answers look something similar to either of those two models we've seen for question three.

And that means we've now reached the end of today's lesson, so we're in a good position to summarise our learning about Mughal authority and the East India Company.

We've seen that the Mughals faced a range of challenges including rebellions and foreign invasions which weakened their authority during the late 17th and throughout the 18th centuries.

The EIC gained military and political power during the 18th century, especially during the years of the Plassey Revolution.

Historians explaining Mughal collapse usually focus on weakening political control and military power of the emperors.

And most historians agree that Mughal authority collapsed between 1707 and 1765, but disagree over exactly when this happened.

So really well done for all of your effort throughout today's lesson.

It's been a pleasure to help guide you through our resources and to think together about the East India Company, the Mughal Empire, and when exactly Mughal authority collapsed in India.