- Jan 2018
- San Antonio
Don't all the peoples of India owe a lot to the British?
Unfortunately, you seem too emotionally invested for me to take you seriously. Where did I claim that the British did not view them as good soldier material? I merely said that they were not special. Don't misrepresent me again.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.
Please show me this hallowed "fighting record'. I can show you the fighting record of many such groups. And I highly doubt the records of the post-1857 period would be highly reliable considering the prevalence of the debunked "martial race" theory.fighting record
Yes it has. It is you who has yet to post a single source.Your contribution has done nothing of the sort.
What a weird misrepresentation of my post. Did I use the term "poor martial material" or anything akin to it? I merely said that they were unremarkable in relation to the variety of other recruits. Your repeated attempts to strawman me should stop.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.
And how does "honesty and loyalty" (more like submissiveness), relate to their supposed "martial ability".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.
Of course it does my little friend!And sorry describing the soldiers as 'little fellows' is not patronising but may even be considered affectionate.
That's your perceived contention.The contention is that the Gurkhas were poorly regarded by the British and were poor soldier material which is simply nonsense.
This is just getting sad now and you've lifted these quotes from a random website without properly considering them: https://www.craiglawrence.co/quotes.html (not very reliable). The first quote is from the Battle of Makwanpur which involved the entire Nepali army and not just Gurkhas. In fact, the bulk of the Nepal generals who participated in the Anglo-Nepal war were non-Gurkhas:“I have never seen more steadiness or bravery exhibited in my life. Run they would not and of death they seemed to have no fear, though their comrades were falling thick around them, for we were so near that every shot told."
Ensign John Shipp WRITING in 1816. John Shipp was a ranker who had risen to officer rank. He fought in many wars in India. Against the Ghurkas he was in the 87th Foot. He had fought against Pindarees, Marahattas before but considered the Ghurkas the bravest.
Also on a personal note. You are in no position to lecture on childishness or semantics when your sources are not saying what you say and you seem to be doing mental gymnastics to interpret any references to a ghurkas height as “see the Brits said they were small. Must not have considered them special then” the two lines of thought are not related. And yes if you take a quote like “the ghurkas stayed loyal”
And then use that to say “the Brits were amazed by their loyalty” then yes you need to find some proof of the amazement because it’s not in the source you suggested.
Actually it's hardly surprising there was no great plaudits for the fighting abilities of the Gurkha forces prior to 1857, since the truth of the matter is that as far as Britain was concerned the Anglo-Nepalese war was a minor affair on the very edge of Empire. During this period you have the end of the Napoleonic war, the hundred days campaign and the end of the war of 1812, so a small border war is hardly going to be noticed. Even for the EIC this was a minor affair compared to the later Indian wars, such as third Anglo-Maratha or the Anglo-Sikh wars. Ironically for this thread, the only reason it has any importance outside of Nepal today is the creation of the first Gurkha regiments.Originally, the Gurkhas were actually looked down upon by the British who were mostly indifferent to them:
View attachment 23938
Source: Heather Streets, Martial Races: The Military, Race and Masculinity in British Imperial Culture, 1857-1914, Manchester University Press (2004), p. 77
The railways was paid for the Indian tax payers and cost for per kilometer track of railways was much higher than the one England or USA. East India company actually opposed the abolition of Sati when it was first proposed by the Indian reformer Raja Mohan Roy. It was only later that the company abolished it. And British left India divided into more than 500 princly states. Raj left India a poor and uneducated country.We gave them English I suppose.
And they have railways and a justice system.
And I suppose ended their fragmented regional states and made an actual state called India.
But on balance we took a lot of wealth and business, shot a lot of them and stopped much loved and cherished cultural customs like sati and the thuggee religion.... and they helped us win two world wars. So they might consider the debt paid.
Yeah. No. It was sarcasm mate.The railways was paid for the Indian tax payers and cost for per kilometer track of railways was much higher than the one England or USA. East India company actually opposed the abolition of Sati when it was first proposed by the Indian reformer Raja Mohan Roy. It was only later that the company abolished it. And British left India divided into more than 500 princly states. Raj left India a poor and uneducated country.
The only good thing that Brits left were English and Cricket.
For comparison look at Taiwan after Japanese colonial rule and India after British.
In fact, the bulk of the Nepal generals who participated in the Anglo-Nepal war were non-Gurkhas: