How many Europeans in a British Gurkha Battalion ?

[chicklewis]

I know that Gurkha units in the Colonial British army have British officers in command, but wonder how far down the chain of command the European presence went?  Are there likely to be European NCOs?  If so, would those NCOs wear the rifle green uniforms? 

Any information would be appreciated. 

[carlos marighela]

I'll have a look for my copy of Mason. If memory serves, early ine the piece the officer componennt was typically quite small. In the latter part of the 19th C you would essentially have, a CO, 2IC, Adjutant and eight company commanders, all British officers. Companies were divided in two, at least one would be commanded by a British subaltern. That would give you your fighting component but you could add QM, RMO to that so up to around 30 but more likely around 20-24.  I can't remember off hand but the wings or half battalion commanders were I think drawn from the senior company OCs. British NCOs were not a feature of Indian Army battalions, at least not in the period this post suggests you are interested in.

[Plynkes]

Interesting. Osprey suggests that in the 1860s, companies would be commanded by subadars, and that the lowest level you would find a British officer would be the one commanding the wing (and he would get an assistant subaltern in the 1870s). Then there would be about six European officers in the Battalion HQ, for a grand total of eight, or ten in the 1870s.

Then when battalions were reorganised into four double-companies in the 1890s, you would have a major or a captain commanding each of those, with a captain or subaltern assisting him, plus perhaps a couple of trainee subalterns to get under their feet and into mischief. So including the battalion HQ you are looking at 16-20 European officers in the battalion by then, I guess.

The 1914+ Osprey says 13 European officers in an Indian Army battalion in 1914.

I don't know how accurate this is, I'm just reading it out of a book. 

As Carlos says, no European NCOs. Officers wore Rifle Green while the troops were still doing so, with a peaked cap in the 1850s and later a Rifle Green helmet. In the 1880s the switch to khaki was made.

[ARKOUDAKI]

Depends on what period you are looking at? Generally speaking, the Gurkhas had white officers as well as a couple of NCOs....but the NCO ranks were eventually filled with Nepalese. Remember that in the 1840s the Gurkha regts were just forming, and some were just based on HEIC regular infantry batt formations...and dressed in red, not dark green. Hope this info helps.

[chicklewis]

Very good stuff, thanks, all, for the timely information.

Chick

[Arthur]

Depends on what period you are looking at? Generally speaking, the Gurkhas had white officers as well as a couple of NCOs....but the NCO ranks were eventually filled with Nepalese. Remember that in the 1840s the Gurkha regts were just forming, and some were just based on HEIC regular infantry batt formations...and dressed in red, not dark green. Hope this info helps.

Dunno where you got the Gurkhas in red. The first three Nepalese battalions were raised in 1815 and their uniforms were laid down in an Adjutant General's circular dated 9 January 1829, which clearly specified dark green rifles-style coatees and trousers. A famous watercolour dated 11 October 1834 shows a group of Nasiri battalion Gurkhas stationed at Sabathu and wearing their regulation dark green uniform along with a peaked belltop shako as opposed to the peakless model used by HEIC sepoys (see Boris Mollo's The Indian Army for a summary of the 1829 circular as well as a reproduction of the Sabathu watercolour).  

And like both Carlos and Plynkes, I've never come across any reference to European NCO's in Gurkha units.

[Trooper]

Totally agree with Plynkes and the others, and Mr P is pretty authorative on matters colonial. Never heard of European NCOs in any Indian Army formation, even EIC ones. In fact, the only instance of Eurpean NCOs in any colonial unit I know of were the Europeans in the Natal Native Contingent.

[ARKOUDAKI]

@Arthur, I am shocked that you didn't know this fact...as usually you are a treasure trove of info on colonial matters. Just to let you know, the 9th Gurkha Rifles actually started out as the 63rd Bengal Native Infantry (BNI) in 1824 (although it was a group founded in 1817). And yes, they were dressed up as a regular HEIC BNI unit, in red uniforms with yellow facings, and had white NCOs and officers. The 63rd BNI fought at Sobraon (1st Sikh War) and actually captured a Sikh standard. In 1861 they became the 9th Gurkha Rifles Regt of Bengal Infantry. Yet, it wasn't until 1894 that they converted to the traditional Gurkha uniform of rifle green and black facings.

As for Gurkha dress, there is a load of info on this from a variety of sources. I would recommend the 'The Tradition Book of the Gurkhas' by Marrion and Fosten, which is quite well done. The National Army Museum (NAM) had them on hand for 10 quid last time I was there. You can probably find it on Evil Bay as well.

@Arthur, I think the print you are referring to is one of four Gurkhas, one officer and three soldiers....this is on display at the Gurkha's Museum in Winchester. The peaked headdress was short-lived, with the adoption of the white cloth cap during the Sikh Wars that lasted through the Mutiny.

On that note, I can also well recommend a trip to the Gurkha's Museum in Winchester: http://www.thegurkhamuseum.co.uk/

Hope this info helps. And Arthur, don't worry I still love ya! 

[Arthur]

@Arthur, I am shocked that you didn't know this fact...as usually you are a treasure trove of info on colonial matters. Just to let you know, the 9th Gurkha Rifles actually started out as the 63rd Bengal Native Infantry (BNI) in 1824 (although it was a group founded in 1817). And yes, they were dressed up as a regular HEIC BNI unit, in red uniforms with yellow facings, and had white NCOs and officers. The 63rd BNI fought at Sobraon (1st Sikh War) and actually captured a Sikh standard. In 1861 they became the 9th Gurkha Rifles Regt of Bengal Infantry. Yet, it wasn't until 1894 that they converted to the traditional Gurkha uniform of rifle green and black facings.

Totally different thing : the 63rd BNI was raised in Fategahr (current state of Uttar Pradesh) and Mainpuri in the Punjab, not in Nepal. The men weren't Nepalese and the unit wasn't a Gurkha outfit, unlike the Sirmoor and Nasiri battalions, hence the red coats. The regiment officially BECAME a Gurkha unit in 1894 and may have been one from 1861 onwards, which accounts for the change in uniforms.

To my knowledge, the only genuine Gurkha regiment to have red coats in the mid-19th century was the 1st Nasiri battalion which started out in green uniforms. It became the 66th BNI in 1850 when the original 66th mutinied and was disbanded. The unit's arms, colours and stores were handed over to the Nasiri Gurkhas who were reclothed in red in the process.  

[ARKOUDAKI]

Totally different thing : the 63rd BNI was raised in Fategahr (current state of Uttar Pradesh) and Mainpuri in the Punjab, not in Nepal. The men weren't Nepalese and the unit wasn't a Gurkha outfit...

Hi Arthur,

I have to disagree with you on this one as my research suggest otherwise. To be clear, as stated the 63rd BNI was formed from men using the Manipuri and Fatehgarh levies in 1819 and 1817 respectively. They were also know as the 32nd BNI for a short while. In 1824 they became the 63rd BNI. However, your belief that there were NO Gurkhas present in the unit is entirely mistaken, as although this was a mixed race regiment there was a full company of Gurkhas in it from the start. Mainpuri and Fatehgahr had a lot of Gurkhas who had been there for a while.

According to the research work of Gokul Sinha,

"Manipur: The entry of the Nepalis and their settlement in Manipur can be traced to 1819 at the
earliest. It is quite probable that some scattered Nepali families were already settled in Manipur
before this date. Some scholars push back the history of the Gorkhas in Manipur to the beginning
of the 16th Century. Lore also has it that the first Nepali came to Manipur at the beginning of the
10th Century. He married a Meitei girl called Kumbi, who belonged to the Mayang Heikong
Ningol, a popular Manipuri clan. Since this man reared cows and buffaloes in the Khuti, or the
goth (cowshed), his descendants are knowns as gotimayan."

and in regards to Fatehgahr, Uttar Pradesh

"Uttarakhand: The history of Gorkha settlement in Uttaranchal, the erstwhile northern Uttar
Pradesh, is as old as that of Himachal Pradesh (Note, which is quite a ways back!).

The districts of Kumaun and Garhwal fell under the Gorkha kingdom between 1790 and 1815.
Dehradun valley was captured by Balbhadra Kunwar in 1803. General Amar Singh Thapa was in
charge of Kumaun and Garhwal, whereas Balbhadra Kunwar was the administrator of the
Dehradun valley. Srinagar and Simla were under the charge of Bahadur Bhandari and Dasharath
Khatri. Ranjor Thapa, the son of Amar Singh Thapa, was entrusted with Sirmoor in Himachal
Pradesh. After the AngloGorkha War, when these lands were ceded to British India, the soldiers
and the settlers of these places became de facto subject of India."

You can read more about this at: http://www.gorkhaparisangh.com/pdf/roleofgorkhas.pdf

I think like most people you are getting confused by a typical British mistake of only thinking of Gurkhas as coming from modern day Nepal, which is not the case. The Gurkha Empire spread over a lot of territory outside of what it is today. After the Gurkhas lost the war to the British in 1815, the land was taken from them and the empire essentially dissolved as such. The expansionist HEIC took the rest, as it often did. Moreover, in typical fashion, the British effectively rewrote history to so claim that the Gurkhas only came from Nepal, when in fact this was not the case, as they had already spread out over other parts of India. This might have been part of their efforts to legitimize their own takeover of Gurkha lands. The British/HEIC were great at doing this to all the locals. This was the same British arrogance that made countries like Iraq and Afghanistan that in fact never really existed...after all, merely drawing lines on a map doesn't make a nation. Hence, why Iraq even today is a mess, as it comprises so many distinct groups that really don't have a whole lot in common and don't necessarily like one another.

Less I digress too much...

In 1893 the Bengal Army did away with mixed raced units and thus the 9th Gurkhas was born, based on the original core of Gurkhas troops that had always been present.

Also, remember that the Sikh Army also used Gurkha units, but these were also mixed race troops but did contain numbers of Gurkhas. After all, the Gurkhas were always good mercs.  

In closing, as you know Arthur, I often bow to your immense knowledge of such matters but on this occasion I think you need to look at the history again. Please don't have any hard feelings. Hugs and kisses!

[Arthur]

Yup, but we're talking about a racially mixed unit, not a proper Gurkha battalion Hence the classification of the 63rd as a bog-standard BNI battalion rather than a Gurkha regiment until at least the Mutiny, which is why the men wore red coats until the high command decided otherwise.  

The basic rule of thumb still applies : Gurkha = dark green uniforms, BNI = red coats until someone decides to change the label on the tin. Simples, although a bit of a nightmare for Daltonians 

[aecurtis]

Anyone know the truth of the statement here that the 4th Gurkha Rifles had a British sergeant-major in the Umbeyla campaign?

http://www.britishempire.co.uk/forces/armyunits/gurkha/4thgurkhas.htm

I'd have to dig out "Bugles and a Tiger" or possibly "The Road Past Mandalay", but I'm fairly certain that I recall John Masters' mentioning British NCOs attached to Gurkha regiments as instructors in technical subjects.  That may have been peculiar to the Interwar period, with the additions of machine guns, communications equipment, and so forth.

Allen