Successful Indian Mutiny

As long as there remains the scent of faith in the hearts of our heroes, so long shall the sword of Hindustan flash before the throne of London- Padishah Bahadur Shah II

This is just a very vague idea.

Can we get Britain so embroiled in other wars in 1857 that the Indian Mutiny actually succeeds in defeating the Company forces in India (at least in the short term)? Lets say that, e.g. the Sikhs throw in with the mutineers in the interests of reviving an independent Punjab.

Let's say an earlier Crimean War combined with higher tensions with Civil War America leaves Britain overstretched. The mutineers drive the Company from North India and proclaim Bahadur Shah, the Mughal Emperor as their titular overlord, ushering in an era of warlordism in North India.
 
Last edited:
Then they haven't looked very closely at the tactics and engagements of the Mutiny. All it takes is one mutineer realizing that the railroads need to be torn up and the telegraph lines cut, early on, and the British are confined to Bengal and Oudh indefinitely. This will make peace talks interesting, since many of the Mutiny's cadre are Bengali, but Britain will go bankrupt before it can retake the Northwest without a working railroad network.

Alternatively, you can find a way to make the rebellion happen a little earlier - the rail networks in question were all built 1852-1857 - which also (I think) increases the odds of the Sikhs throwing in with the Mutiny.
 
Isn't this mainly an issue of leadership? Certainly the sepoys had the numbers, territory and supplies to at the very least make any attempt at reconquest prohibitively expensive. But who will a) realise that, b) draw the right conclusions and c) be listened to?
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Isn't this mainly an issue of leadership? Certainly the sepoys had the numbers, territory and supplies to at the very least make any attempt at reconquest prohibitively expensive. But who will a) realise that, b) draw the right conclusions and c) be listened to?

The sepoys largely dispersed. The mutiny was fought by mainly by a group of insurgents who would shortly thereafter adopt the name "Taliban".
 
The sepoys largely dispersed. The mutiny was fought by mainly by a group of insurgents who would shortly thereafter adopt the name "Taliban".

Isn't that the point? Keep them together, maintain discipline and get overall strategic control.

I can't see Bahadur Shah doing it.
 
Bahadur was a bit of an old fart, a kind of Japanese Emperor figure that nobody listened to but everybody respected. He was never more than a figurehead anyway...
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Isn't that the point? Keep them together, maintain discipline and get overall strategic control.

I can't see Bahadur Shah doing it.

Getting rid of the Wahhabist elements might help immensely, yes. A secular rising might get support from the Hindu and Sikh elements.
 
Isn't that the point? Keep them together, maintain discipline and get overall strategic control.

I can't see Bahadur Shah doing it.

Bahadur was a bit of an old fart, a kind of Japanese Emperor figure that nobody listened to but everybody respected. He was never more than a figurehead anyway...

Oh I wasn't suggesting that Bahadur Shah himself do it. I was thinking of a figure emerging who could use him effectively. Maybe another Mughal relation or someone of that sort. Essentially a person who could play the Shogun and unite efforts against the British.
 
Matters might also have gone the other way.

Had the inept commanders on the spot been replaced by more competent figures, particularly General Hewitt with someone like General Hearsey, the mutiny might well have been crushed in its infancy. As it was, two of the three presidential armies remained loyal and strong elements of the third, plus the Sikhs while the vast majority of the population either supported the British or refused to be involved.
 
Matters might also have gone the other way.

Had the inept commanders on the spot been replaced by more competent figures, particularly General Hewitt with someone like General Hearsey, the mutiny might well have been crushed in its infancy. As it was, two of the three presidential armies remained loyal and strong elements of the third, plus the Sikhs while the vast majority of the population either supported the British or refused to be involved.

That's certainly true- if the Sikhs do throw in against Britain, however, and are led by a charismatic and competent leader putting down the Mutiny will be a whole lot harder. The Khalsa was the finest army in India and the EIC only defeated it because it's leaders were feuding among themselves. If the dream of a Sikh Empire rises again and a Sikh warlord takes the field with the Sikhs united behind him the Company forces are going to be in a lot of trouble. If the other mutineers can be convinced to ally with, or at least not hinder the Sikhs things may well get interesting.

Waheguru ji ka Khalsa- Waheguru ji ki Fateh! To Delhi, to London! Bole so Nihal- Sat Sri Akal!
(The Khalsa belongs to God- Victory belongs to God! To Delhi, to London! Whoever utters this shall be fulfilled- Eternal is the Timeless One!)
 
Top