ABSTRACT
In Anglo-Indian historiography there is considerable disagreement over the role of force and fortifications. In general, historians have decided that the use of force and the establishment of fortified settlements was essentially a defensive development. The myriad conflicting statements in the records of the East India Company lend themselves to this somewhat tentative conclusion. Even where forts were built and the English employed force, such actions were largely in retaliation against attacks on English commerce and English settlements. There was thus no claim to sovereignty inherent in the situations. On the other hand, however, it may be argued that force was the logical outcome of such a relationship, because the basis of the relationship was mercantile in an age dominated by the precepts of mercantilism. Fortifications for defence were understandable in commercial terms during the mercantilist era, especially where English commerce in India was seen to be struggling in an often hostile environment.
