First War of Independence of India in 1857 succeeds

Status
Not open for further replies.
I have seen a few threads discussing this topic. I was trying to create a timeline where this was succeeds and the resultant effects.

Lets see how this goes....


1. The war again the British company also included war against its assets. Vandals starts to uproot the telegraph post and all means of communication.
2. Without means of communications and getting restless by the rumors, Gen. John Nicholson gets caught unprepared in the plains of Punjab and is killed
3. Revolt breaks out in Punjab, sensing opportunity the local chieftains joins the rebellions and most of the British forces on the plains are annihilated.
4. Dost Mohammed of Kabul senses his chances and attacks the frontier posts, triggering large scale massacre of British forces. However he spares the sepoys so they could fight the British.
5. The prices of Rajputana seeing the way wind is blowing starts to side with the rebels as much as possible without openly declaring rebellions
6. Bahadur Shah Jaffar dies of a stroke in Delhi.

I am bit stuck here. Who could be the best and popular alternative at this juncture ?
 
Last edited:

ShlomoLen

Banned
I don't know much about this period, but I think for a British defeat, you'd need:
- a weaker British military (make them lack in something... like resources, manpower, technology, morale, or all of these combined)
- foreign intervention (some anti-British European power decides to kick in)
- the rebels having access to more advanced technology, like revolvers, breech-loading guns (for example, the Dreyse needle gun), or the Gatling gun (not invented yet)

You could somehow give the Indians revolvers and needle guns though, if you had some Germans and Americans in India.
 
Let me be the first to welcome you to the board.

Yeah, I think for this to work the British would need to be already heavily engaged in a war with France or Russia or both, to the point where they didn't have much to spare. (India, as I understand it, was one of those parts of the British Empire that made the Empire a paying proposition.)

France or Russia could then smuggle in guns, ammo and some people who know how to make them.
 

Grimbald

Monthly Donor
What about a war with the US over Canada breaking out at the same time?

Postpone the Oregon settlement and have it go military at the same time India revolts.
 
Let me be the first to welcome you to the board.

Yeah, I think for this to work the British would need to be already heavily engaged in a war with France or Russia or both, to the point where they didn't have much to spare. (India, as I understand it, was one of those parts of the British Empire that made the Empire a paying proposition.)

France or Russia could then smuggle in guns, ammo and some people who know how to make them.

Thanks Lycaon pictus


@ShlomoLen

I don't know much about this period, but I think for a British defeat, you'd need:
- a weaker British military (make them lack in something... like resources, manpower, technology, morale, or all of these combined)
- foreign intervention (some anti-British European power decides to kick in)
- the rebels having access to more advanced technology, like revolvers, breech-loading guns (for example, the Dreyse needle gun), or the Gatling gun (not invented yet)

You could somehow give the Indians revolvers and needle guns though, if you had some Germans and Americans in India.

-- British forces were numerically wayyyy behind at that time. In 1857 there were only 45000 British forces (incl. officers) out of total 311,000+ troops. If the initial butterfly flaps and the domino effects take hold, it would come down to even lower.The Crimean War have just finished and the British public sentiment would be high against another war in a far-off country for a business entity. Also add to this that if no large scale massacre of civilians happens (e.g Cawnpore) and civilians are allowed to go safely, it may turn the public sentiment in Britain and the Parliament may refuse to send regular British units to India.

-- French had a minor presence in India and they just fought Crimean war together with British. Russia is far away and Afghanistan is in between. Germany has no trading post in this part of the world and not enough marine power for making successful gun running operations. I have to think more on this

-- Dreyse needle gun would be wonderful addition. Anyway it has to reach an organized rebel army. The ragtag force that captures Delhi and other North Inidan cities can not manufacture it. So it has to be one of the ports. Nanasahib would seem the logical choice.

Grimbald--
What about a war with the US over Canada breaking out at the same time?

Postpone the Oregon settlement and have it go military at the same time India revolts.

Isn't the Oregon Treaty was signed at 1848? Will the dispute break out after 9 years and not earlier? Or it can be a tense skirmish only in the affected region, but it would demand lot of attention and military power of stand by. That would mean even lesser support for the British in India.

Being the heir to Peshwa, Nanasahib calls for arms. Though the Maratha Chieftains mostly didn't see each other eye to eye, they couldn't ignore the popular sentiment flowing the public of a reawakened Maratha empire. Karachi, Ahmadabad, Poona falls as the Maratha numbers keep on increasing. Soon The Siege of Bombay starts. Lord Elphinstone is given the choice of surrendering and getting safe passage to Goa. The Maratha chieftains Gaekwad, Scindia, Holkar, Bhonsle jointly pronounce Nanasahib as the new Peshwa and the nominal ruler of Maratha Confederacy.

This opens up both the ports of Bombay and Karachi, from where the know-how of Needle gun can come. And since the the removal of British was total from this region, it would be complete surprise for them when the Maratha actually start to use it.
 
The Bengal Army was most affected by the rebellion. Almost all of its regiments (72 out of 84)rebelled and moved west towards Delhi. Left with without alternative, the East India Company is forced to send a large part of its Madras
Army to defend Calcutta and Bengal.

Madras Army has 52 regiments and Bombay army has 23 regiments (all either rebelled or destroyed or disbanded and stripped of arms by Maratha).

But in general there were no large scale rebellion in the people of Madras and Bengal Presidency. Also the EIC still had their naval capability intact on the East coast of India.

Also in North India, thee Mughal emperor is dead. Who can be the possible alternative? The Mughal Empire has to die, it has become too weak to carry on.
 
I'm not sure when the Second Opium War broke out, but if you could somehow delay the Second Opium War until the same year as the Indian First War of Independence, then Britain is forced to expend her resources fighting both the Indian revolutionaries and the Qing Chinese forces. Although the British may win in China, she'd be exahusted fighting the Indian revolutionaries.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Welcome to the board.

1. The war again the British company also included war against its assets. Vandals starts to uproot the telegraph post and all means of communication.

They did that IOTL.

2. Without means of communications and getting restless by the rumors, Gen. John Nicholson gets caught unprepared in the plains of Punjab and is killed

John Nicholson caught unprepared? Not likely. Not likely at all.


3. Revolt breaks out in Punjab, sensing opportunity the local chieftains joins the rebellions and most of the British forces on the plains are annihilated.

The Sikhs would never join in with the rebel sepoys, whose stated goal was the restoration of the Mughal Empire. The Sikhs might not have liked the British, they hated the Mughals infinitely more.

4. Dost Mohammed of Kabul senses his chances and attacks the frontier posts, triggering large scale massacre of British forces. However he spares the sepoys so they could fight the British.

It was not impossible that Dost Mohammed might try to take advantage of the sepoy rebellion and this would certainly have given the British additional problems. But I don't think it would have made a difference in the long run, for the British had already decided to cut a deal with him and hand over Peshawar if that's what it took to buy him off. And if push came to shove, they could have temporarily abandoned the Northwest Frontier to focus on Delhi and other more important areas, coming back later.

More generally, I just don't see the British regiments being "annihilated" or "massacred" in the way you describe, Devilishly hard things to kill, British infantrymen. You have occasional examples, like the 44th Foot in Afghanistan during 1841, where British regiments were lead to disaster because of idiotic leadership. But the events of 1857 proved that the commanders of the British regiments in India were some of the finest fighting men Britain (or the world) ever produced.
 
Anaxagoras--
They did that IOTL.

--They did not do it massively. The British means of communication were mostly left intact, which gave a huge boost.


John Nicholson caught unprepared? Not likely. Not likely at all.

--Gen. Nicholson was aware of the rebellions. If he was not...
He busted an attempt to poison the whole British Officer Cadre during their dinner by their cooks.


The Sikhs would never join in with the rebel sepoys, whose stated goal was the restoration of the Mughal Empire. The Sikhs might not have liked the British, they hated the Mughals infinitely more.

--Sikhs would have joined to have their Sarkar Khalsa regained which they had lost just 10 years ago. Thats why Bahadur Shah has to die and Mughal Empire has to end, otherwise none of the Hindu kingdoms would support Delhi


It was not impossible that Dost Mohammed might try to take advantage of the sepoy rebellion and this would certainly have given the British additional problems. But I don't think it would have made a difference in the long run, for the British had already decided to cut a deal with him and hand over Peshawar if that's what it took to buy him off. And if push came to shove, they could have temporarily abandoned the Northwest Frontier to focus on Delhi and other more important areas, coming back later.

--The 44th Foot were retreating after doing an agreement. Only one survivor reached Jalalabad. If the British abandon NWF, again a similar massacre can not be ruled out.

More generally, I just don't see the British regiments being "annihilated" or "massacred" in the way you describe, Devilishly hard things to kill, British infantrymen. You have occasional examples, like the 44th Foot in Afghanistan during 1841, where British regiments were lead to disaster because of idiotic leadership. But the events of 1857 proved that the commanders of the British regiments in India were some of the finest fighting men Britain (or the world) ever produced.[/QUOTE]

-- This, I whole-heartedly agreed with. However without supplies and means of communication and against an enemy desperate and numerically very superior with very inferior weapons, they would have to fall back to regroup and restock. I believe their prime target would be, once all civilians have been rescued, to fall back to Calcutta or Madras and defend it.


MarshalBraginsky--
I'm not sure when the Second Opium War broke out, but if you could somehow delay the Second Opium War until the same year as the Indian First War of Independence, then Britain is forced to expend her resources fighting both the Indian revolutionaries and the Qing Chinese forces. Although the British may win in China, she'd be exahusted fighting the Indian revolutionaries.

2nd Opium War was during 1856-60. It can happen a bit earlier.
 
The problem is that the Indian Rebellion was a motley collection of different forces all rising up for very different reasons. There wasn't really a unified front or a real sense of Indian 'nationalism' at the time.

At best I think you might get a nominal restoration of the Mughals, and perhaps some of the peripheral Indosphere states such as Nepal or Afghanistan get a little bit more breathing room for the short-term, but you're certainly not going to see a unified 'Indian' state stretching from the Punjab to the Deccan.
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
Then again, so was the Anglo Persian War which also ended just a little over a month before the mutiny began, extending it a little might overstretch British capacity, I don't know how much however.

The problem is that the Indian Rebellion was a motley collection of different forces all rising up for very different reasons. There wasn't really a unified front or a real sense of Indian 'nationalism' at the time.

At best I think you might get a nominal restoration of the Mughals, and perhaps some of the peripheral Indosphere states such as Nepal or Afghanistan get a little bit more breathing room for the short-term, but you're certainly not going to see a unified 'Indian' state stretching from the Punjab to the Deccan.

Gotta agree on Wolf to be honest. Even with a victory in the Sepoy Mutiny, it would only restore the Mughals, but they'll probably only have control over at best Delhi and the surrounding countryside. However, it has also come to attention that not all the Princely States (especially the larger states inculding Hyderbad, Kashmir and Travancore) and not all of the Company controlled states (Bengal, Madras and Bombay) remained calm and did not take part in the overall rebellion. If it is possible to convince those states to take part, it might see a little more success.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
The problem is that the Indian Rebellion was a motley collection of different forces all rising up for very different reasons. There wasn't really a unified front or a real sense of Indian 'nationalism' at the time.

That's why I have always considered it inaccurate to call it the "First Indian War of Independence". After all, something like four-fifths of the troops which put down the rebellion were Indian.
 
The Crimean War have just finished and the British public sentiment would be high against another war in a far-off country for a business entity. Also add to this that if no large scale massacre of civilians happens (e.g Cawnpore) and civilians are allowed to go safely, it may turn the public sentiment in Britain and the Parliament may refuse to send regular British units to India.

Have to disagree with this. The public didn't become war weary in the 19th Century as they do today, the Company was (rightfully) seen as a quasi-state entity, the British people felt that India was a fundamental crux of Britain's greatness, and much of parliament had vested interests in the Company's financial success.
 
That's why I have always considered it inaccurate to call it the "First Indian War of Independence". After all, something like four-fifths of the troops which put down the rebellion were Indian.

Very correct. It's inaccurate at best and downright misleading at worst to call it the "First Indian War of Independence." To do so requires a silly sort of Indian nationalism which I'm afraid to say I once briefly subscribed to.

It's much more accurate to think of it as an Indian civil war between pro-British, anti-British, and neutral forces, with the British taking the side (obviously) of the pro-British Indians.

Cheers,
Ganesha
 
Very correct. It's inaccurate at best and downright misleading at worst to call it the "First Indian War of Independence." To do so requires a silly sort of Indian nationalism which I'm afraid to say I once briefly subscribed to.

It's much more accurate to think of it as an Indian civil war between pro-British, anti-British, and neutral forces, with the British taking the side (obviously) of the pro-British Indians.

Cheers,
Ganesha

I think that is even oversimplifying it, seeing many of the players were local princes without strong views about the British but just weighing up which side to join based on their assessment of the situation.
 
IMHO what you need MOST OF ALL is to get a unified command structure in Delhi and a workable taxation regime in place - without a unified command, there is no coherent leadership or direction, though they can fight defensively well enough, but with a unified command they could wipe out the Delhi Field Force and leave the relief blundering into an ambush. With taxation then ironically the spread of the rebellion may get more popular support because the sepoys are plundering and looting them all to gain supplies.

You could have Lucknow fall so that its attempted relief is a defeat for the relievers who through losses and illness have to fall back on Calcutta

IF Delhi survives and beats off the British relief THEN possibly Dost Muhammad might rise

Then by the time any large number of troops come from Britain you have a situation where a united leadership is running a functional economic state and is facing them with a combined force greater than theirs

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Within five years -- okay, ten, at the most -- the Sikhs are fighting the Moghuls, the Marathas are fighting the Moghuls, the Moghuls are having to defend themselves against Nepal as well, the Sikhs are fighting the Marathas, the Marathas are fighting Hyderabad, the Marathas are fighting amongst themselves, whoever's taken over in Bengal is looking at breaking free from Mughal authority...
 
wolf_brother--
The problem is that the Indian Rebellion was a motley collection of different forces all rising up for very different reasons. There wasn't really a unified front or a real sense of Indian 'nationalism' at the time.

At best I think you might get a nominal restoration of the Mughals, and perhaps some of the peripheral Indosphere states such as Nepal or Afghanistan get a little bit more breathing room for the short-term, but you're certainly not going to see a unified 'Indian' state stretching from the Punjab to the Deccan.

I am not looking for a unified India also. Mughals are also not coming back, either the Sikhs finish them off or any of the motley group of the rebels. Sikhs are fighting for themselves. So are the Marathas.

Grey Wolf--
IMHO what you need MOST OF ALL is to get a unified command structure in Delhi and a workable taxation regime in place - without a unified command, there is no coherent leadership or direction, though they can fight defensively well enough, but with a unified command they could wipe out the Delhi Field Force and leave the relief blundering into an ambush. With taxation then ironically the spread of the rebellion may get more popular support because the sepoys are plundering and looting them all to gain supplies.

You could have Lucknow fall so that its attempted relief is a defeat for the relievers who through losses and illness have to fall back on Calcutta

IF Delhi survives and beats off the British relief THEN possibly Dost Muhammad might rise

Then by the time any large number of troops come from Britain you have a situation where a united leadership is running a functional economic state and is facing them with a combined force greater than theirs

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

If the massacre of Cawnpour are prevented and the civilians reach Calcutta safely, it might achieve the surrendering of Lucknow. Saving Delhi would need someone not Mughal to step in the command. Could it be Bakht Khan?


Simreeve--
Within five years -- okay, ten, at the most -- the Sikhs are fighting the Moghuls, the Marathas are fighting the Moghuls, the Moghuls are having to defend themselves against Nepal as well, the Sikhs are fighting the Marathas, the Marathas are fighting Hyderabad, the Marathas are fighting amongst themselves, whoever's taken over in Bengal is looking at breaking free from Mughal authority...

That is why the Mughal Empire has to end. Could be the Delhi Field Force Marginally succeeds and the whole Royal Family dies in a stray artillery shot? In that case I need to bring John Nicolson back to life and kill him again :eek::eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top