Talk:British East India Company
|
|
| Missing image Cscr-featured.png Featured article star | British East India Company is a featured article, which means it has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute. |
David -- just so you know -- I've got a textbook in front of me that calls the British East India the East India company ...aaargh!!! I like it with British myself....JHK
Absolutely so, JHK - it was the plain EIC to Britons just as the Dutch called theirs the United East India Company; I think the French may just have called theirs the "Company of the Indies" - anyway, I think it's legitimate to distinguish each by the country whence and (within commercially justifiable bounds) for which it operated. User:David Parker
true that, I'm writing a report on the Company and Was thoroughly confused about diffrent companies' origins, thanks
-Jose Gonzales
Darn fine article. I liked the graphics of the flag too.
I'm going through doing some copyediting, and I've put in some provisional headings. I'm sure they can be improved, but I hope they're better than nothing. Markalexander100 11:56, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
A good article, and very promising. But I have some questions:
- established a trade transit point and a factory. When? 1608?
- In 1615, Sir Thomas Roe represented the British interests at the court of the Mughal emperor. How long for? Was he a permanent representative, or was this a one-off mission?
- Its monopoly was curbed in 1694, but it was Deprived of its trade monopoly in 1813. Are these different monopolies?
- It therefore raised its own armed forces When?
- Around the same time, Britain surged ahead of its European rivals with the advent of the Industrial Revolution. ... the French were forced to maintain their trade posts ... without any military presence. This allowed the Company to surge ahead in its interests in the Carnatic from its base at Madras and in Bengal from Calcutta. I don't quite understand the relationship between these elements. Why did the Industrial Revolution help the company? Why did the lack of a French military presence in their trade posts help the company?
- a pact ... that would allow the land to be under the control of the Crown, and be leased to the Company How much control did the Crown have? What exactly did the Company lease? The passing of the 1773 act seems to imply that the Company was still the effective government until then.
- The Bengal famine, in which one-sixth of the population died, set the alarm bells ringing back home. Military and administrative costs mounted beyond control. Why did the famine affect the company? Did the costs rise because of the famine? Why?
- The Eastern British armies at home What does this mean? Were they in India or in the UK?
- In a series of reforms What series? Was the Act part of a series, or did it contain a series? The article only mentions one reform due to the Act.
- the King brought down the ministry What does this have to do with Burke's bill?
- with clearly demarcated borders between the Crown and the Company What was the role of the Company after 1784?
- the Company's rule extended across most of India, Burma, Singapore and Hong Kong Was this the same kind of governmental authority that the company had over India? How and when did it acquire and lose this authority?
- In 1845, the Danish colony of Tranquebar was sold to Great Britain. What does this have to do with the Company?
- The Company had at various stages defeated China, occupied the Philippines and conquered Java. When did these happen?
- China's efforts to end the trade led to the two Opium Wars with Britain...Deprived of its trade monopoly in 1813, the company wound up as a trading enterprise. The Opium Wars were 1839-1842 and 1856-1860; was the Company still trading by then? When did it stop trading?
- The efforts of the company in administering India were the model for the civil service system in Britain. When?
- the Company finally reverted to the Crown in 1874...The company was dissolved in 1858. How can these both be true?
Markalexander100 03:13, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks for the review. The questions specifically point out glitches in the article, and tackle the flow (which was much needed.) I am in the process of a further rehaul. Kindly keep watch Chancemill 17:29, May 5, 2004 (UTC)
| Contents |
John's Company?
I have done extensive research on the East India Company, and I am very positive that it was not called "John's Company". I tried changing it, but it got changed back. Can someone show me proof on this name?
- I thought it was John Company, not John's Company. What about John Company (London, 1926) by W. Foster, for starters. I've seen hundreds of references to this name. Mintguy (T) 21:08, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
- Or if you want to go back further, there's The Good Old Days of Honorable John Company: Being Curious Reminiscences Illustrating Manners and Customs of the British in India During the Rule of the East India Company from 1600 to 1858. pubblished in 1882. It seems your extensive research, doesn't extend that far. Mintguy (T) 21:21, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
Still one question: if the company was wound up as a trading enterprise after 1813, what were the commercial operations it was carrying out between 1858 and 1874? Markalexander100 05:54, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
How commonly was it known as "John Company"? Should this really be in the first line of the article? I have also not heard this name before. Would it be accurate to say that this is a rather archaic nickname? john
There are several books about the Company which use John Company in the title. I hadn't heard of it before either (though in my case that really doesn't mean much), but it does seem to be fairly common. Here's a quickly drawn assortment of books and links:
- John Company and Tea's Arrival in England (http://www.teamuse.com/article_001004.html)
- Bringing back John Company (http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/mp/2002/09/16/stories/2002091600060300.htm)
- John Company (http://www.willemigh.com/johncompany/index.php) (this one is a game based on the company!)
- John Company: A Novel of the East Indies (http://www.bookfinder.com/dir/i/John_Company-A_Novel_of_the_East_Indies/9625935088/) by Arthur Van Schendel ISBN 962-593-508-8
- Days of John Company : Selections from Calcutta Gazette 1824 - 1832 (http://www.indusbook.com/cgi-bin/indus/005721.html) compiled by Anil Chandra Das Gupta
- John Company To The Republic: A Story of Modern India (http://www.indiaplaza.com/catalog/catalogdetail/booksdetail.asp?itemid=205746&majorcat=books&subcat=books&place=US) by Mushirul Hasan ISBN 81-7436-130-8
Interestingly, there may be more to it than just an alternate name--this (http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?control=835&id=68) suggests that JC and BEIC were separate companies that merged in the early 1700s.
I left of several others which only mentioned the name to introduce somewhat tangential topics. It's even in Thomas Pynchon's Mason & Dixon. older≠wiser 02:34, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
Just a thought: there is no Wikipedia entry for Nabob, and no mention of the term here. Wetman 04:25, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
Ok, ok, you made your point.
Diamonds
- the largest diamond in the world, the Koh-i-Noor, was found in India
Apparently not: http://www.worlds-largest-diamonds.com/
— Matt 08:07, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
- Yup, That's right. Kohinoor was the world's largest diamond for a long time, but no longer. Amended. Chancemill 08:23, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
Malayan Peninsula and Tin mining
If India was the jewel of the empire, then the Malayan Peninsula (now West Malaysia) was the empire's treasury. Tin mining and rubber contributed immensely to the British Empire so much so that the British virtually denuded the peninsula of tin. They also brought in the Chinese and Indians who forever changed the political landscape of Malaya. Can somebody do some research on this and dig up, pardon the pun, some statistics on how much the British profitted.
Jardin Matheson
I heard that British East India Company eventually became the Jardin Matheson Group of today. If anyone knows that transition, would you please add this to the article? Thanks
- According to William_Jardine, it didn't. Just involved in the same business. Markalexander100 04:12, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
Dates
The article seems to imply that the Regulating Act of 1773 was a consequence of the American Revolution, which only started in 1775, although the Boston Tea Party did happen in 1773 in responce to the Tea Act. It is unclear to me what the right emphasis should be in rewriting the sections Financial troubles and Regulating Act of 1773, maybe a Historian can help with this? Miguel 03:28, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
---
Thanks to User:Isomorphic for reverting the page.
Dodgy statement
I've rm'd the following:
The games of badminton, polo, squash and snooker were invented by officers of the Company during their rule.
Google seems fairly sure that squash was invented at Harrow; I haven't checked the others, but if someone wants to check and re-add any that are true, I'd much rather see them incorporated in the text than in a "trivia" section (which is by definition irrelevant). Markalexander100 01:36, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
There seems to be a comment of "this is so fucking dumb" after the first paragraph, can this be removed
Highly Efficient Factories?
In History / Expansion, we have
By 1647, the Company had 23 factories and 90 employees in India.
That's 4 employees per factory. Before the age of robotics. Are we sure of these numbers?--StanZegel 06:45, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
In the English language of the time, the word factories meant trading posts run by factors. The places where things were made are manufactories. Dabbler 09:02, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- How should this best be handled: change the several occurrances of "factory" to "trading post", or insert an explanation at the first use of the term? --StanZegel 16:10, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Job Security?
In The End, we have
... it continued to maintain a trading office in London as of 2004. ... the Company was dissolved on January 1, 1874.
Keeping staff on the payroll 130 years after the need for them has ended seems a bit excessive, even in tradition-bound England. And when the company is actually out of business, one wonders who is paying the current expenses, and why. I suspect the statement above about 2004 needs verification. Is it undetected vandalism? --StanZegel 16:10, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Googling shows that there IS a company called The East India Company in London (Lincolns Inn Fields) but whether this is in any way connected to the original East India Company I cannot tell. It sells tea in decorative caddies. Dabbler 09:59, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Yale founded by a director? Anything on connections with yankee traders, early banks (eg Little&Brown), effects on American history ? The Bengal Famine said to have killed 15M. wblakesxWblakesx
Request for references
Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Taxman&action=edit§ion=new) when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 20:00, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)