Talk:Battle of Chillianwala

Numbers

"The Sikhs had little if any superiority to the British force of around 16,000". That doesn't make sense when compared to the estimate given in the box of 23,000 Sikh troops - an almost 50% numerical advantage. The Khalsa were brave, well trained troops in a good defensive position, so on the face of it they had a significant advantage. I notice as well the 'source' for the statement is an internet blog and an opinion piece, which are not good source materials.Cavort (talk) 10:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Casualties

HLGallon,

I think this little debate can be settled amicably rather than having two sides insist on reverting as though this article were a personal fiefdom. By the standards set forth on wikipedia, the merits of various primary and secondary sources can be debated. Keay has an excellent record as an historian of subcontinental studies, and is by no means an indian nationalist or, his british nationality notwithstanding, a colonial imperialist. He has fairly dealt with the subject matter, so to cast aspersions on the figures which he cites is a little unfair. He has drawn from a number of primary and secondary sources, both British and Indian, for his detailed work. His history of the battle of chillianwalla ranging from Grewal and Griffin (Cambridge and Oxford presses respectively) to Malcolm and Marshall is no exception.

Proposed settlement: cite both figures, but give precedence to the primary source you have cited, with the subtext of "other estimates" to the one keay cites. In this fashion, more credence will be given to the official figures, while accounting for the possibility of any alternate possibilities described by legitimate british military and indian subcontinental historians. Let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.79.113 (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Official casualty returns are just that; all casualties are counted, confirmed, their next of kin notified where known, and names published in the London Gazette or other official communiques. They are not estimates; they are solid facts as far as can be ascertained. To claim that they were falsified because "official casualty figures are often diluted for propaganda purposes going back to the time of Alexander" is an unsubstantiated slur. The loose wording of Keay's text quoted, "... they had lost three thousand men ..." suggests total casualties, rather than killed. If Keay had a valid primary source for that number of dead, it should be quoted verbatim. The British Army did indeed make dubious claims to a victory and perhaps inflated the number of enemy losses, but the furore immediately after the battle which resulted in Gough's immediate supersession shows that the full extent of the casualties was known immediately, and the highest authorities were aware that the victory was no such thing. HLGallon (talk) 01:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

HLGallon,

It is not a slur, and given wikipedia's encouragement of congeniality and politeness, i would advise you to choose your words more carefully. Imperial britain was no stranger to manipulating indian history, as anyone who is familiar with the Aryan Invasion Theory knows. For me to point out a possibility with respect to casualties is both appropriate and justifiable. You are welcome to disagree with that politely, and I am more than willing to accept corroborations that those numbers should be trusted. Let us not forget, that until I made that change to the battle outcome, you were more than happy to leave that result there as it was. I am not interested in rewriting history, as everyone knows the sikhs ultimately lost both anglo-sikh wars--with the later battle of gujrat being decisive. So let's assume good faith moving forward and adjust our verbiage to match.Thank you.

Anyhow, you are forgetting the significant indian component to the British Indian army who probably would not have received the luxury of having their names published in a local gazette. Can you corroborate that those numbers could not have been deflated? Irrespective, I'll allow for this issue to pass if you can verify where the estimates are coming from for sikh casualties--there is no citation in that box. I think it's only fair if we apply the same standards.

Regards, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.79.113 (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Minor nitpick; it wasn't the British Indian Army at the time, it was the Bengal Presidency Army of the British East India Company. Its sepoys were long-serving soldiers who had the same or better rights to pensions and compensations to widows and other family members as British soldiers. They were certainly not casual labourers or cannon fodder whose numbers could be fudged or ignored for propaganda purposes. It is not for me to prove that numbers were not deflated; it is for detractors to prove that they were. You will note that I have consistently used the figures for strengths and casualties most favourable to the Sikhs in the info. box, and used Indian and Sikh researches as references and citations. In particular, the Indian historian, Major General A.H. Amin, has discussed Gough's casualties at great length in one of the two on-line sources I have provided (defencejournal.com). He can hardly be accused of pro-British partisanship; and nowhere does he allege that casualty figures were massaged. HLGallon (talk) 02:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

HLGallon,

Yes, I am aware that the British East India Company was still officially ruling in India until the transfer to the British Crown post 1857, etc; I mentioned British Indian Army, rather than Bengal Presidency Army, for simplicity's sake. Also, just to nitpick as well, since the EIC was ultimately answerable and answering to the English Crown and Parliament, British Indian Army, would not be inaccurate either. Nevertheless, your attention to specificity is appreciated. With that, an appropriate segue...

Now, with respect to the casualties, you have made a fair point regarding inflation and deflation; however, you still have yet to point out the specific reference for the 3600 number. I know you mention your Indian and Sikh references--fair enough--but where specifically does the 3600 estimate come from? Which source? While the source for Gough's casualties is duly noted, you have not mentioned the source for the Sikh army. The dispute isn't whether you use sources that are partial to the Sikh cause, but what source if any was used for that particular estimate? If you can specify and officially cite that as the appropriate reference in the info box, it will lend the more credibility to our mutually stated aim of accuracy and put an end to this back and forth. More importantly, it will make this a much better reference page for readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.79.113 (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Sikh victory?

It is highly debatable that this was a Sikh victory, I have read in numerous books that the battle was inconclusive and as such I will find the sources and add them here. Thereafter if no-one can reasonably object, I will amend to an inconclusive battle.Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello Gaius,

Thank you for posting on the discussion page first before making the change. However, one of the best practices here is to wait more than a few hours before making a unilateral change, especially since a previous consensus had been reached between some of the principal editors here.

Regarding your point, your contention is actually incorrect. Keay specifically notes that the british pretended otherwise--he doesn't support their claim and supports the sikh claim to victory instead. Whatever your personal thoughts may be regarding the battle and british military history in general, it absolutely was a strategic check to the british. While I can understand britain's concerns at the pr fallout of admitting to a victory at the time, given the end of empire, as historical enthusiasts we can ensure an honest look at these events. As you know, John Keay is no Indian nationalist, and in any event, both Sikh Wars were ultimately won by the EIC, so it would be rather silly to quibble about semantics when the military ramifications of these battle should be obvious to all. Let me know what you think.

Best Regards,

Devanampriya (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Anon,

In the interest of heading off an edit war, I would like to suggest that we politely exchange our views on the discussion page. As you can see, there was a previous consensus between two principal* editors that has been settled for almost a year and a half now. Gaius apparently misread the Keay quote and relied on that as the foundation for his unilateral change. I have since posted the exact quote to demonstrate that Keay (hardly an Indian nationalist) had indeed supported the Sikh claim to victory. If there is anything specific you would like to discuss, let us do so here rather than on the edit page. As such, for the time being at least, I do insist that we retain the status quo. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you.

Regards,

Devanampriya (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I have checked the two sources that say inconclusive and they are solid by reputable scholars. Professor Richard Holmes in "Redcoat" and Ian Heath in "The Sikh Army" (an author who rightly venerates the Sikh's military prowess yet still does not call Chillianwalla a Sikh victory). Have a look yourself. Besides this any reader of the facts of the battle would agree that that there is no way in which the Sikh army can be credited with an outright victory when the British army was left intact, inflicted more casualties and only left the field after the Sikh's had already withdrawn. 87.115.220.137 (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Anon, Thank you for finally deciding to post on the discussion page. First off, I am merely restoring the status quo ante that was maintained for a year and half before Gaius’ unilateral change on specious grounds (he misinterpreted--or misrepresented--the Keay quote). So the onus is on you to recognize this and only make changes after other editors have been consulted. Gaius did not do that but made the change within hours of his notice on the discussion page.

Second, Dalhousie himself mocked Gough’s claims to victory as ridiculous. So to persist in splitting the difference flies in the face of the historical method. I recognize that new sources have been included and will attempt to locate them myself. But there are a number of reputable sources that also attest to Sikh Victory.

Third, it is a very simple case here for anyone remotely acquainted with military history:

1. Who was the attacker? 2. Who was the defender? 3. What were the objectives? 4. What was the result? 5. What were the ramifications?

This is the standard matrix in determining the results of battles. Additionally, there appears to be a discrepancy regarding Sikh battle strength. A number of sources such as The Sikhs by Patwant Singh (also reputable), attest to only 10,000 sikh troops (additionally the source cited for Sikh casualties is the 1911 Encyclopedia britannica.Since this was at the height of empire we may have to take another look at this). This was reiterated by a number of other scholars who noted that it was the Sikhs who were actually outnumbered, which is what made it such a disaster for the british army at the time. Apparently even an 80 year old Wellington volunteered to return to India.

Fourth, the british left the actual field first, allowing roving sikh irregulars to kill british wounded. The british disengaged from the village of chillianwala 3 days later as there were torrential rains during that time (I will include this and the cite in the article to clarify further doubts from readers). So it is a rather silly argument to even remotely support the EIC’s claims to victory through the “inconclusive: both sides claim victory argument” when it was the british who advanced and attacked entrenched sikh positions to begin with. To say that Sikhs had to have overrun british positions and outright rout the british army (which was actually done to the 14th light dragoons) in order to have achieved victory is shifting the goal posts since the Sikhs were the defenders.

Finally, there were a number of outright defeats of the british by indian kingdoms and empires in battles (such as pollilur and mangalore) and wars (Child’s War and Second Mysore). Chillianwala was regarded as more disastrous than all of them. So let us put the colonial holdovers behind us and recognize what is a fairly open and shut case. The goal here for all of us is not to look for favorable sources or those that admire certain parties, but rather to ensure that the historical method is adhered to and that the truth (as best recorded and analyzed) is what is presented on the wikipage. One must recognize that there were certain disparaging colonial motifs regarding their adversaries that fly in the face of truth and remain in place today. I do not seek to replace them with kneejerk nationalist revisions that demonize imperialists, but rather with a clearer lens so that people can understand what happened, why it happened, how it happened, and what future generations can learn from it. I hope you are interested in doing the same.

Devanampriya (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Why do you still ignore the two solid sources by scholars of the period that say the battle was inconclusive? I don't defend them because "they are favourable" (as you say) but because they are genuine sources by respected scholars of the period in which the battle took place. The first (Professor Holmes) is an expert on the British Army, the second (Heath) is an expert in the Sikh Army. They both say Inconclusive and then explain why. Look them up!

This is an encyclopaedia, not a place for opinion. Articles are built on sources. 87.115.220.137 (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Anon,

I am not ignoring these sources so please do not engage in hyperbole. I merely said I will do what I can to procure them to ensure that all editors conduct due diligence. I encourage you to do the same. A respectable british source--who relied on more than just his own view of the battle--was used to substantiate the claim of Sikh Victory and not, as you claim, my opinion. It remains there against the two gaius has provided. Additionally, not a few contributors have been found to misrepresent sources as well.

Finally, for those who are familiar with wiki debates resulting in the battle of sources, contributors in the end must examine the facts themselves to determine logic behind the very conclusions being proposed by these authors. Frequently even the most credentialed of experts can be found straying from the historical method. That is why I posted a standard matrix regarding battle outcomes which you seem to have conveniently ignored. Simply pointing to a source without examining what it actually says beyond your favored verbiage does no scholar any good. Since you are so vehement about your sources, please do all the readers here a favor and quote the authors' on the battle outcomes. In this way we can evaluate their rationale while I procure copies of these books. But in the mean time, answer my questions:

1. who was the attacker? 2. who was the defender? 3. what were the objectives? 4. what were the results (i.e. were the objectives met and how)? 5. what were the ramifications?

anyhow who does this simple analysis for anyone remotely schooled in history can see why it is a colonial holdover to refer to chillianwala as inconclusive: both sides claim victory. As I already pointed above, Dalhousie chastised and mocked Gough's claims to victory. The British left the field first and retreated to the village of chillianwala--they didn't leave the village for 3 days (torrential downpours). As I said, these pages should not be a battle of nationalisms--it is about finding and cataloging the truth. I urge you to do precisely that.

Devanampriya (talk) 04:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Two academic sources against your opinion and original research. I'm changing it back to the agreed version. Disagree? Let's take this to an admin.87.115.220.137 (talk) 12:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Anon,

You are not answering any of my questions. Please operate in good faith and do not make ridiculous charges of original research when a citation is actually used to reference the result (and accepted by the page's creator at the time) and--unlike you--i have provided the quote--where is yours? You claim you have read the two sources you tout, but you have not even deigned to post the relevant quotations.

By all means, I am more than happy to take this to an admin. Keay's validity is written about extensively above, and Major Amin, who was cited by the creator of this page, also refers to Chillianwala here as a Sikh Victory in a defence journal: http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/july/chillianwala.htm

"British military historians rationalised their defeat at Chillianwala by laying the blame on “Bad Terrain” “Lack of Artillery” “Cowardice of the Native Troops” etc. Chillianwala was forgotten and Gough again became a hero. The damage done at Chillianwala to the prestige of British arms was enormous and played a major role in changing Indian attitudes about the British, leading directly to the “Great Sepoy Rebellion” in which the British almost lost their Indian Empire and the English East India Company whose private Bengal Army had fought Chillianwala lost India to the British Crown!"

Please conduct yourself appropriately as wikipedia has a policy of civility. Do no make baseless and unsubstantiated charges. I will gladly await an admin. Until then, the status quo ante remains.

Devanampriya (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not wish to enter this sterile debate, but please note I rely on Major General (not mere Major) Amin for his exhaustive research on figures and casualties. I have avoided too much reliance on his editorialising. HLGallon (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Has anybody even read Heath's "The Sikh Army"? He states that both sides claimed victory but criticizes the British claim on page 42 because of the size of their losses and tactics. He also quotes Lord Dalhousie when he criticized the British claim of a victory, "A few more such victories will lose us the Empire"

I also think Holmes' "Redcoat" is a bad source to use because it is "An anecdotal history...based on personal diaries"--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 04:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you're stretching the truth very far claiming this is a Sikth victory. It's clearly an indecisive battlePyrrhusEP (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The article is another evidence of this website NOT being neutral in displaying facts

Evidence: Casualties " The final losses to Gough's army were 757 killed, 1,651 wounded and 104 missing[3] for a total of 2,512.[12] Almost 1,000 of the casualties were British rather than Indian. This was mainly a result of the disaster which befell the 24th Foot, which suffered 590 casualties, over 50 percent. "

Note the tone on the second sentence. "casualties were British rather than Indian. mainly because.. etc, etc". Why is there a hint of justification in this article? So what if many British soldiers died in the field of battle? Is it wikipedia's role to take sides ? If so then it is unfit to post articles of History. Please state facts without personal opinion. Internet is a tool of freedom and liberty only as long as nationalism stays out of the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajjanajjas (talk • contribs) 07:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

If you consider a single factual, cited statement to be evidence of bigotry, then I suggest you contribute elsewhere. I note you are a recent contributor to Wikipedia, but you already appear to be a single purpose account. The article on this battle has undergone countless revisions, all intended to establish neutrality and concensus. By all means, correct any statement or phrasing you find misleading, but do not implicitly accuse editors of non-neutral point of view. HLGallon (talk) 11:34, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Battle of Chillianwala. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007165716/http://orbat.com/site/history/historical/uk/chillianwala1849.html to http://orbat.com/site/history/historical/uk/chillianwala1849.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007165716/http://orbat.com/site/history/historical/uk/chillianwala1849.html to http://orbat.com/site/history/historical/uk/chillianwala1849.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007165716/http://orbat.com/site/history/historical/uk/chillianwala1849.html to http://orbat.com/site/history/historical/uk/chillianwala1849.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Chillianwala. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080216224904/http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/july/chillianwala.htm to http://www.defencejournal.com/2000/july/chillianwala.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:08, 16 July 2017 (UTC)