The Off Topic Topic

[HVC]

But the act was to pay for soldiers stationed in the colonies to defend against the dastardly frence menace in case they struck again in the future. Were there new ships commissioned to do the same in the east?

[Admiral Yi]

I don't what you mean by commissioned.  There were ships sent to Indian waters to fight the French.  Maybe some already stationed there.

[HVC]

Did they build and man new ships to patrol the east which incurred new ongoing costs. Like the new costs of stationing soldiers in the west.

[Sheilbh]

What countries were involved in the Stamp Act?
Stamp Act 1765
Territorial extent   Great Britain British America British West Indies

So this makes it look western hemisphere only.

East India company didn't fail until mid 1800's right? Did they pay for their own military?

Yes.

I think it's the key to the British empire. The East India Company steps into an existing world of highly developed state functions, finances and militaries. It really kicks on when it gets appointed as tax farmers for Bengal by the Mughals. That means they have a tax base and military/enforcement wing which the leverage via Indian financiers to take more territory and contracts.

But it means that basically for the rest of the history of the British empire India is self-funding (unusual in itself) but also able to field a British Indian army. In many areas it is stepping into the shoes of existing states (occasionally invited as in that first engagement in Bengal, more often after shooting the previous occupant). Broadly speaking any military engagement involving the Brits east of Suez is very likely to be mainly British Indian Army (eg Opium Wars) with a smattering of, say Highlanders. It's why the Great Indian Revolt/First War of Independence is so dangerous for the empire. Edit: And worth noting that is what precipitates the end of Company rule and the institution of the Raj.

India basically means the empire is paying for and providing its own army. Which means the metropole in GB just needs to pay for and can overwhelmingly focus on the navy which it does globally (although worth noting it's a very diverse navy and not purely recruited from the "British"). Those are two advantages no other European empire has, often because they need a home army because they're on the continent and few seize areas sufficiently rich and developed enough to pay for forces that both garrison but can be used offensively but also few break into areas that have already got those large state infrastructures to do that. I think China's the only place that comes close and it doesn't suffer the same fate as India (which is why I'm a Qing-poligist ).

[HVC]

(which is why I'm a Qing-poligist ).

Man, you blind sinophilia goes way back

As for the east india company i remember my Indian friend going off on the brits and how they're conquerers and colonizers (i don't think he's a fan of your people ) and I said that the brits didn't conquer India, old timey British Walmart did... he was not pleased

[Sheilbh]

Needless to say any sympathy with the Qing is very much not in line with modern Chinese views.

We say old-timer British Walmart but it may be old and new again. The way corporate and state power are merging it may not be long before we see it again