How, then, might we describe the Maratha polity? At the outset, let us dispose of several notions prevalent in the historical literature. The Maratha polity was not an empire, if, by that, we have an image of imperial Rome or the Mughal Empire. There was no graded civilian/military ranking with attendant symbols of authority. Those in the military were not, until late in the eighteenth century, full-time professionals. The Maratha polity did not, and could not, impose a uniform legal or revenue system. It never minted a uniform, high-quality currency; neither did it build the straight roads which were the pride of the Roman Empire. Large parts of the Maratha polity, unlike Rome or the Mughal Empire, were permanently alienated to military commanders. There was no grand, imperial architecture.

Another term, in favor since the nineteenth century in writings on Marathas, is “confederacy.” This term, also, fails to describe many central aspects of the Maratha polity. Confederacy implies a long-term shared power among groups or individuals of more-or-less equal power for mutual benefit or gain. The models which come to mind are the co-operation between the Swiss cantonments or the pre-Revolution American colonies. Confederacy implies a long-term cast of characters (the confederates) to make and execute plans. In contrast, as we have analyzed, it was characteristic of the Maratha polity that the inner circle of power changed with each generation, sometimes as frequently as each decade. Men joined or left the inner circle, depending on the stability and strength of the ruling family.