Gurkhas owe a lot to British

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,964
India
I agree with most of your points except one. Nepalese ethnic groups lived and were a majority in Sikkim. Historically large portions of Sikkim and eastern Nepal were the strongholds of the Kirats (Rai/Limbu).
I mentioned originally not inhabited by Nepalese. Nepalese started to settle in Sikkim when Sikkim was annexed into Kingdom of Nepal and they continued to live there after monarchy in Sikkim was restored by the British, mostly the Lepcha and Bhutia lived before the Nepalese came, Nepalese were not considered equal citizens until Kingdom of Sikkim was merged into India in 1975. Many Nepalese settled in Darjeeling Hills to work in tea plantations of famous Darjeeling Tea. I was quite bewildered that many Nepalese nationalists are obsessed with Greater Nepal fantasy, also claiming history of Terai as their own but would hate the people who own this history.
 
Aug 2019
45
India
I mentioned originally not inhabited by Nepalese. Nepalese started to settle in Sikkim when Sikkim was annexed into Kingdom of Nepal and they continued to live there after monarchy in Sikkim was restored by the British, mostly the Lepcha and Bhutia lived before the Nepalese came, Nepalese were not considered equal citizens until Kingdom of Sikkim was merged into India in 1975. Many Nepalese settled in Darjeeling Hills to work in tea plantations of famous Darjeeling Tea. I was quite bewildered that many Nepalese nationalists are obsessed with Greater Nepal fantasy, also claiming history of Terai as their own but would hate the people who own this history.
Greater Nepal lol, more like Nepal - Terai + India in future
 

Devdas

Ad Honorem
Apr 2015
4,964
India
Greater Nepal lol, more like Nepal - Terai + India in future
Nepal politics all about taming Madhesis instead of sharing power with Madhesis. It seems more likely in near future that Nepal will fall to Chinese debt trap just like Sri Lanka in their anti-India obsession.
 
Aug 2019
45
India
Nepal politics all about taming Madhesis instead of sharing power with Madhesis. It seems more likely in near future that Nepal will fall to Chinese debt trap just like Sri Lanka in their anti-India obsession.
That's why Nepal will be divided into two different countries.
 

Zip

Jan 2018
563
Comancheria
Well the Irish had a pretty long history with the British army and some Irish Regiments had distinguished themselves, so on the whole I would guess they were looked upon pretty kindly
For part of the 19th Century a majority of the rankers in the British Army were Irishmen and they made up a significant number of those in English and Scottish regiments.
 
Jul 2014
1,638
world
I mentioned originally not inhabited by Nepalese. Nepalese started to settle in Sikkim when Sikkim was annexed into Kingdom of Nepal and they continued to live there after monarchy in Sikkim was restored by the British, mostly the Lepcha and Bhutia lived before the Nepalese came, Nepalese were not considered equal citizens until Kingdom of Sikkim was merged into India in 1975. Many Nepalese settled in Darjeeling Hills to work in tea plantations of famous Darjeeling Tea. I was quite bewildered that many Nepalese nationalists are obsessed with Greater Nepal fantasy, also claiming history of Terai as their own but would hate the people who own this history.
Lepchas are immigrants to Sikkim and Bhutias/Tibetans are even newer immigrants than the Lepchas. Kirat tribes of Rai and Limbus lived in Sikkim before them and till today form huge protions of the Sikkimese people. As for Nepalese nationalists they are idiots as much as anybody else.

Darjeeling and Bhutan (though even Bhutan had/has indegenouis Kirats in the south ) are different case from the Sikkim though Nepalese also did migrate to Sikkim especially Tamang and Gurung people.
 

Kevinmeath

Ad Honoris
May 2011
14,062
Navan, Ireland
Yes there is. The original post by the OP shows that the BEIC took a patronising view to the Gurkhas and saw themselves as "civilising them". Secondly, others have noted that having an average height of 5'2 will put any solider at a disadvantage in a hand-to-hand combat situation. Thirdly, my contribution demonstrated that prior to 1857, the BEIC didn't really think much of them at all.
Sorry there have been very few sources posted (mainly by those refuting the OP) and yours do not even support your position

1. Whether the BEIC had a patronising view of the Gurkha is irrelevant, the contention is that they did not consider them good soldier material which has not been proved in fact the opposite.

2. Well as to their small stature, it not very relevant in the age of firearms and the fighting record of the Gurkha shows this not to be a concern.

3. Your contribution has done nothing of the sort.
 

Kevinmeath

Ad Honoris
May 2011
14,062
Navan, Ireland
And the Brits also recruited a wealth of soldiers from other parts of South Asia, particularly prior to 1857. What's your point?
And they recruited these soldier from other parts of South Asia because they considered them poor martial material? I doubt it.

So why reruit Gurkha even though according to you they considered them poor soldiers? doesn't really make sense does it.


This quote demonstrates that the British were more taken aback at their loyalty than anything else:.........................
.............The Gurkhas, as demonstrated by the above, accepted authority without question which the BEIC loved. They had no desire for independence and no ambition to rid themselves of colonialism. The British officer even calls them "little fellows". If that's not patronising then I don't know what is.
It demonstrates that the British admired their honest and loyalty hardly surprising during such a widespread mutiny , it does not illustrate that this was their only quality. the British can hardly be said to be 'taken aback' at all.

What military organisation does not like loyal troops!

The Gurkhas came from an independent Kingdom so they had no need to 'desire for independence' and as 'for rid of colonialism' you are applying modern thinking to an historical event, the Gurkhas were professional soldiers serving as many had for centuries -- we may have a negative opinion of mercenaries today but that has not been the case historically.

And sorry describing the soldiers as 'little fellows' is not patronising but may even be considered affectionate.



And yet the recruits of the Bengal Army (which was responsible for the rebellion), were also praised prior to 1857...........................

..........................It seems that the BEIC would have much preferred the taller, fairer skinned, upper-caste recruits then the Gurkhas if they had not rebelled. Lord Cornwallis even compared them to the Prussian troops.
Sorry why does it have to be a simple good or bad? the Gurkhas must be poor soldiers but the BEIC recruited other groups who were also good? Why does one have to be good and the other bad?

Why were the troops of the Bengal Army so praised in comparison to the Gurkhas prior to 1857 if these Gurkhas were so extraordinary? Surely the super-human Gurkhas would have blown these Bengal troops out of the water?
Sorry are you really making this as a sensible argument? no body claimed that the Gurkhas were or are 'super-human' or that they would blow Bengali troops 'out of the water' or that Bengali troops were anything other than good soldiers.

The contention is that the Gurkhas were poorly regarded by the British and were poor soldier material which is simply nonsense.
 

Lord Fairfax

Ad Honorem
Jan 2015
3,422
Changing trains at Terrapin Station...
Absolutely. Brits would have lost against the Afrika Corps for sure if it wasn't for the dogged determination of the Gurkhas. An inspirational fighting force. Rommel was dumbfounded, and that's saying something!
This is a massive exaggeration, there were a couple of Gurkha battalions in Operation Crusader, or 1st El Alamein.
2nd El Alamein had perhaps 2 or 3 Gurkha battalions out of 86 Allied battalions.

The Gurkhas were tough fighters, but they didn't save the Western Desert campaign by themselves.
NZ and Australians had a bigger impact than the Gurkhas
 

Edric Streona

Ad Honorem
Feb 2016
4,513
Japan
New Zealand sent 10 contingents of troops, each totaling about 2 companies of mounted infantry.
They won 1 VC, for William Hardman of the 4th Contingent.
About 6500 kiwis fought in the Boer war. 230 killed or died of disease.
They were the first colony of GB outside of SA to volunteer to serve.