A Sikh Gorchurra Cavalry Question

[ARKOUDAKI]

@OB

“Our English cavalry with their blunt swords were most unequally matched against the Sikhs with tulwars so keen of edge that they would split a hair… I remember reading of a regiment of British cavalry charging a regiment of Sikh calvary. The latter wore voluminous thick puggries round their heads, which our blunt swords were powerless to cut through, and each horsemen had also a buffalo hide shield on his back. They evidently knew that the British sword was blunt and useless, so they kept their horses still and met the British charge by laying flat on their horses’ necks, with their heads protected by their thick turbans and their backs by their shields; and immediately the British soldiers passed through their ranks, the Sikhs swooped round on them and struck back-handed with their sharp, curved swords, in several instances cutting our cavalry men in two”.

Sgt. William Forbes Mitchell (93rd Sutherland Highlanders).

He seems to be talking about Gorchurra judging by the mention of shields.  I wonder what he had been reading?

You realize that the 93rd only arrived in India in 1857 (in time for the Indian Mutiny) and returned back to Scotland in 1870. So the reference of 'Sikh Cavalry' is probably erroneous, and more likely local India cav, as the Sikhs pretty much sided with the British/HEIC forces during the Mutiny.

@Italawars

How many native cavalries were capable and had the will to charge? absolutly none

Really....ask General Custer about those pesky Indians at the Little Big Horn. Try not to make generalizations without understanding history better.

In terms of the Sikh Wars, the regular Sikh Cav was trained in European tactics by General Allard (French Nap Merc), which included the charge. In fact, the Sikh Khalsa Army was well trained in offensive ops and demonstrated that in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, by the time of the Sikh Wars the foreign officers were all gone and the training regime had gone to pot and the leaders of the army adopted almost purely defensive ops...whereas with a little initiative they could have probably defeated their British/HEIC adversaries.

[Emir of Askaristan]

The quote from Forbes-Mitchell is from his book about the mutiny, but is from an appendix dealing with a swords, in this part is about the Sikh wars, beginning "I remember reading of..."

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/33426/33426-h/33426-h.htm#Page_286

OB does mention F-M as reading this.

This is a great discussion folks, with lots of information, references, discussion and opinions (mine included from earlier). Looking forward to more of both.

 

[ARKOUDAKI]

Thanks for the link Emir. So this is just a Highlander recounting a tale from something he read about the Sikh Cav. All of which is quite accurate, as a tulwar is pretty darn dangerous. I have held some and they are light in the hand but cut so well. In sharp contrast, British Cav steel has a long history of being a bit bendy and not cutting much.

All good info for people to have.

[OB]

The quote from Forbes-Mitchell is from his book about the mutiny, but is from an appendix dealing with a swords, in this part is about the Sikh wars, beginning "I remember reading of..."

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/33426/33426-h/33426-h.htm#Page_286

OB does mention F-M as reading this.

This is a great discussion folks, with lots of information, references, discussion and opinions (mine included from earlier). Looking forward to more of both.

That's great, another piece falls into place.  Thank you Emir.

 

[italwars]

@OB


@Italawars

Really....ask General Custer about those pesky Indians at the Little Big Horn. Try not to make generalizations without understanding history better.

Aroudaki...
1) there is nothing wrong in "generalising" as the sources (including yours) confirm that "generalising", if we talk about colonial warfare, is, as in many things of life,  the right and best way to reach a conclusion and it's also supported by well related statistical facts. Maybe you had nt been taught that history is an interdisciplinary science.
2) As shown by subsequent and recent archeological surveys and by very good articles/sources about Little Big Horn, including those  by the top writer on the subject, Gregory Michno,  and even those  by  Peter Panzeri who is not only a succsefull writer specialised in Indian Wars but also a wargamer (that could be helpful as i suppose your interest to history is driven by  wargame)..the totality of wounds  find on US troopers skeletons/remains  had been made by firearms or few by arrows not by melée weapons ..also the positions of the few  indians remains formed some kind semi-circles around the supposed spots were  last stands from isolated troopers took place.., not to mention the proximity of expended cartridge cases from Indian's weapons ...all evidences clearly suggesting that no contact/no charges/ no close-in occured that day but only fires at isolated small groups of coverless dismounted  men from an overwhelming mass of well armed warriors....i was not there but i'm also sure, from what i read, that the war tactics of dakotas never envisaged any kind of foot or mounted  charges ...so your  example suggest the opposite of what you're trying to teach me..
3)  please try to learn some foreign languages, read sources, better if you can get some sort of degree and  "study" something different than  Osprey Campaign
And finally  i don't know if many had never ridden a galloping horse..personally  i did and i ve also been on the receiving end of mounted anti-riots police threats ..my conclusion which will certainly piss of many is that i even question, if we talk about reality, the very possibily of a charge to close in   ...one thing is to charge the other is to threat to charge..

[ARKOUDAKI]

@Italwars, your comments continue to entertain, as your knowledge is clearly unique.

Let me remind you that you made an absolute statement when you wrote

-How many native cavalries were capable and had the will to charge? absolutly none

This was not a 'generalization' as you now seek to claim but was clearly you once again claiming something that is just plain incorrect. Yet, when you get called out for such silly statements you do what I have seen you do to so many forum members, attack the person citing that your logic is flawed. Your entire thread is an attack, claiming I (1) have a poor education, (2) a lack of knowledge of military matters, (3) that I can't speak foreign languages, etc etc.

As you have a habit of editing out your text to cover your personal attacks against others, lets memorialize your derogatory and false comments you have made:

1) there is nothing wrong in "generalising" as the sources (including yours) confirm that "generalising", if we talk about colonial warfare, is, as in many things of life,  the right and best way to reach a conclusion and it's also supported by well related statistical facts. Maybe you had nt been taught that history is an interdisciplinary science.
2) As shown by subsequent and recent archeological surveys and by very good articles/sources about Little Big Horn, including those  by the top writer on the subject, Gregory Michno,  and even those  by  Peter Panzeri who is not only a succsefull writer specialised in Indian Wars but also a wargamer (that could be helpful as i suppose your interest to history is driven by  wargame)..the totality of wounds  find on US troopers skeletons/remains  had been made by firearms or few by arrows not by melée weapons ..also the positions of the few  indians remains formed some kind semi-circles around the supposed spots were  last stands from isolated troopers took place.., not to mention the proximity of expended cartridge cases from Indian's weapons ...all evidences clearly suggesting that no contact/no charges/ no close-in occured that day but only fires at isolated small groups of coverless dismounted  men from an overwhelming mass of well armed warriors....i was not there but i'm also sure, from what i read, that the war tactics of dakotas never envisaged any kind of foot or mounted  charges ...so your  example suggest the opposite of what you're trying to teach me..
3)  please try to learn some foreign languages, read sources, better if you can get some sort of degree and  "study" something different than  Osprey Campaign
And finally  i don't know if many had never ridden a galloping horse..personally  i did and i ve also been on the receiving end of mounted anti-riots police threats ..my conclusion which will certainly piss of many is that i even question, if we talk about reality, the very possibily of a charge to close in   ...one thing is to charge the other is to threat to charge..

Italwars, your personal attacks are simply unacceptable and will not be tolerated. As stated, I have seen you do this time and time again to various forum members and to be frank, I am rather sick of it. I am aware from past experience with you that the moderators for some reason you a lot of slack of your nasty behavior but enough is enough. Your entitled to an opinion and entitled to back it up with facts. However, you are not entitled to launch your usual barrage of personal attacks against other forum members who clearly know the topics far better than you and which promote dialogue and the dissemination of knowledge.

[ARKOUDAKI]

OB started this thread with a good and interesting question. I have been researching the Khalsa Raj, and in particular the Sikh Wars for many years now, so hope the info/leads I have provided help. Apologies to OB and everyone else for this Italwars individual.

[italwars]

You should apologize for your lack of self control and good manners even in a forum dedicated to a relaxing hobby ..

[italwars]

@Italwars, your comments continue to entertain, as your knowledge is clearly unique.

Let me remind you that you made an absolute statement when you wrote
This was not a 'generalization' as you now seek to claim but was clearly you once again claiming something that is just plain incorrect. Yet, when you get called out for such silly statements you do what I have seen you do to so many forum members, attack the person citing that your logic is flawed. Your entire thread is an attack, claiming I (1) have a poor education, (2) a lack of knowledge of military matters, (3) that I can't speak foreign languages, etc etc.

As you have a habit of editing out your text to cover your personal attacks against others, lets memorialize your derogatory and false comments you have made:

Italwars, your personal attacks are simply unacceptable and will not be tolerated. As stated, I have seen you do this time and time again to various forum members and to be frank, I am rather sick of it. I am aware from past experience with you that the moderators for some reason you a lot of slack of your nasty behavior but enough is enough. Your entitled to an opinion and entitled to back it up with facts. However, you are not entitled to launch your usual barrage of personal attacks against other forum members who clearly know the topics far better than you and which promote dialogue and the dissemination of knowledge.

I understand your rage once faced by my logical facts but that’s my ideas about this topic ..I m totally free to generalize and tell you, as you ve be been so rude, that I don’t have “to better study history “ and “do not generalize” simply because my education in history ecc seems better than yours ..and nothing justify your arrogance for that reason I ve be obliged to teach you a well deserved lesson pointing some facts to you ..

But as you continue

I’ve reported again your shameful words ..and it s not the first time you do it including vs other forum members ..so I suggest you to leave if you cannot restrain yourself from personal attacks and this ridiculous rage even if you’re the aggressor ..Enough it’s enough ..sorry but I cannot do anything to appease your envy ..