Successful Indian Mutiny

Day 1 or near it, one of the Indian officers realizes that destroying the British telegraph lines and railroad tracks is a top priority. That's all it takes; remarkably, the Mutineers left both intact until the very late stages of the game. Without their communication and transportation infrastructure, the British can't defeat the Mutineers in detail, and they won't defeat them in a war of attrition.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Day 1 or near it, one of the Indian officers realizes that destroying the British telegraph lines and railroad tracks is a top priority. That's all it takes; remarkably, the Mutineers left both intact until the very late stages of the game. Without their communication and transportation infrastructure, the British can't defeat the Mutineers in detail, and they won't defeat them in a war of attrition.

No.

For a start you're missing the nature of the mutiny. It was a Muslim uprising against the infidel, with some (minor) backing from some high-caste Hindus. They were not really an organised army in that sense.

Then you have to deal with the fact that the majority of the Indian Army remained loyal. The proto-Taliban mutineers are a few thousand headless chickens running around, whereas there is a loyal force of ca. 150,000 Indians and 100,000 Europeans ready to crush them.
 

Eurofed

Banned
Day 1 or near it, one of the Indian officers realizes that destroying the British telegraph lines and railroad tracks is a top priority. That's all it takes; remarkably, the Mutineers left both intact until the very late stages of the game. Without their communication and transportation infrastructure, the British can't defeat the Mutineers in detail, and they won't defeat them in a war of attrition.

Quite possibly, but just to be sure, let Britain be involved in a major war at the same time. E.g. adjust the schedules of the Crimean War and the Mutiny so they match. Although if Britain realizes it risks to lose India, it shall make an hasty exit from any European or American war and focus its resources on reconquering India instead. Nothing short of Sealion is more damaging to the British interests than sudden loss of Indian, even the dreaded continental hegemony.
 
No.

For a start you're missing the nature of the mutiny. It was a Muslim uprising against the infidel, with some (minor) backing from some high-caste Hindus. They were not really an organised army in that sense.

Then you have to deal with the fact that the majority of the Indian Army remained loyal. The proto-Taliban mutineers are a few thousand headless chickens running around, whereas there is a loyal force of ca. 150,000 Indians and 100,000 Europeans ready to crush them.

You're really mischaracterizing the Mutiny. It wasn't at all just a "proto-Taliban" mutiny, it was much more lateral across Indian society at the time. However, that was certainly a character of some of the mutineers (I would argue though some of the upper-caste Hindus were much, much worse).

Most of the mutiny was disenfranchised landlords (taluqdars) who'd lost land under the Lapse Doctrine and their peasants. The old aristocracy butted heads with the British EIC and they were losing. Rani of Jhansi, who's since been lionized in Indian lore was actually completely willing to compromise with the EIC if they recognized her son as the rightful ruler of Jhansi. It also helped the mutiny that even amongst their allies, the EIC was pretty much well mistrusted because of their wanton expansionism and well, greed. Not that no other Indian had ever been greedy, but a lot of lives were disrupted by EIC trade and public policy (as good some of it would be later for the foundation of India).

There were religious issues too obviously. Some brahmins felt that the British reforms (abolition of sati, divorce, etc.) as well as increasing missionary work was "eroding their civilization" and corrupting the moral character of Indians, etc. (i.e. they liked the caste system where they were on top). As side note, it was actually most radical Hindu sects that opposed women's suffrage and education etc. For some Muslims, they felt the Mughal Emperor was disrespected when he left the Red Fort, the using of pork grease was a violation of their religious edicts, British had no respect for their traditions etc. However, there was no overwhelming wave of jihad that spread amongst muslims. There definitely were calls to jihad and the defense of the faith, but most of these were people were just on the fringe. For instance, Aga Khan, who had many more times the support of Khairabadi, supported the British (who formally recognized his title after). There were plenty of Indian Sunni muslims who didn't want to support the rebellion because some of its main proponents were Shi'ite, etc.

A lot of the EIC's most favored kingdoms/sultanates were muslim (*cough* Hyderabad *cough*) and because muslims in India at the time were mostly urban the British were exposed to them much more often (and so more of them worked alongside them, etc.)

With that out of the way, it's hard to get this specific rebellion to succeed. Basically the Mutiny was doomed from the start because it was more a gradual eruption of disenfranchised former-elites fighting out against the new elites, coupled with some religious factions and a few people still squabbling over hundred-year old wars. What I mean to say is: it was very disunited.

For the actual 1857 Rebellion to turn out well you'll probably have to have mass destruction of railroads and transportation but more importantly you'll need more unified forces for the rebels. It really depends on how far you want to go back. If you can somehow get the Sikhs and Pathans to not support the British, it would deal a significant blow to them in the north (as both played a pretty big role in recapturing Delhi). More former-Maratha states supporting the rebellion as well as more cohesive support from Islam would be needed as well. Had the Indians had a commander and some sense of unity the British would've crumbled, as they simply didn't have the manpower to fight off that kind of force. But unfortunately, India was by no means unified at the time and certainly not enough to military stave off the British. You can do a lot more damage to British infrastructure this kind of rebellion though, and it would likely lead to more slaughter and violence on their part (they basically pulled a Nanking 90-some years before people really cared). That would definitely affect any future independence movements and might lead to more open rejection of British rule in some fringe areas of the Raj.
 
Perhaps a factor which could make a difference is if the Russians decided to play the "Great Game" a bit more aggressively.

What if the mutineers had had Russian military advisors and arms supplies ? Or if the Russians had made threatening moves, or even sent down a few flying columns from the North to distract British forces ?

Another possibility: that the Crimean War had gone just that little bit worse, and the Franco-English alliance had fallen apart after it into mutual recrimination (don't forget that Raglan reputedly inisted on calling the French "the enemy" thjroughout the campaign). Is it possible in this scenario that the French would be sufficiently cross with the British that they'd use their fleet to interfere with the transport of reinforcements to India ?
 
With that out of the way, it's hard to get this specific rebellion to succeed. Basically the Mutiny was doomed from the start because it was more a gradual eruption of disenfranchised former-elites fighting out against the new elites, coupled with some religious factions and a few people still squabbling over hundred-year old wars. What I mean to say is: it was very disunited.
Also slow. Some of the native ruler who went into revolt did so after the British had mopped up some of the areas where there had been mutinies. Not that it made it easy for them, but it did mean that they were not so stretched.

In addition the Mutiny was mainly in the north and centre. If it had been much wider then obviously the British would have had less troops with which to try and reoccupy more territory.

There is also an aspect that has so far not been picked up on this thread, namely the feudal nature of the conflict. Essentially by mutining the troops were breaking their word to the overlord. That put them on the slippery slope that if they did not like an leader who rose up from amongst them then they did not have to obey them either. As it turned out no great leader did rise up, not that the rajahs or ranis would have paid any attention to them. The fact is though that the British commander could issue orders with a better chance of them being obeyed than the mutineer leaders could, with the obvious exception of the rajahs and ranis who obviously weren't mutineers.
 
I've read, and I don't think it supports your thesis that well. http://www.amazon.com/Raj-Making-Un...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1281170029&sr=1-1 REALLY doesn't support it either. Thanks for the tv show though.

The breaking of one's word to one's overlord is less important if one believes the overlord broke it first, which the mutineers did believe.

If the railroads are gone, the Pathans aren't going to support the British over the mutineers.

It's true that the mutiny began as a shambles, but by the time the British took Delhi back they had the bugs out and were a working army (one with popular support, which the British entirely lacked in the Northwest). Give them even one more year, even just prevent the British from shipping troops to Peshawar initially, and the British will find themselves on the defensive in a nasty way. Hell, cut the telegraph lines early and the Governor of the Punjab surrenders to the mutineers.
 
I'm not at all denying that Islam didn't play a part in the mutiny, that radical Islam resisted British influences, or that some rebels may have felt more like mujahideen fighting the infidels. Nor would I think to diminish its impact on the rebellion. However, to characterize the mutiny as being:

a Muslim uprising against the infidel, with some (minor) backing from some high-caste Hindus.

is unfair and not really representative of the rebels at the time. There were plenty of Hindu backers of the rebellion, from all castes and many different ethnicities. Certainly not all rebels supported the restoration of the Mughals, and many muslims (see Aga Khan) were perfectly content to side with the British. Actually, outside of Delhi the rebellion didn't really take on a muslim character at all, since most muslims in India were urbanized. The majority of rebels outside Delhi were Hindu landlords who were set to lose their land either to or by the EIC. Inside Delhi sure, plenty of muslims and many hindus migrated to reinstate the Mughal Emperor- but it was more to rally the flag than it was to drive off the infidel.

It'd be like characterizing the response to the rebellion as being a Christian response to a surprise Muslim attack on their culture (completely ignoring the large Hindu contingents of rebels: particularly westward around the former Maratha kingdoms). Christianity certainly had its role in the conflict, as did religion, but it wasn't central to everything. More like, mixed along with all the socio-political, economical, cultural, geographical, whatever-have you tensions.

To get back on topic though, if you can get the Sikhs to oppose the British you've neared guaranteed a very good shot at victory. It's hard to do, but as a vague generalization the Sikhs were not as marginalized by the British as they were by the British sepoys who eventually rebelled. But the Sikhs were damn good at keeping the sepoys contained east of Lahore. If you somehow have the Sikhs join alongside the sepoys instead of restraining them, you'd have an extremely powerful fighting force that could make it hell for the British to administer the northwest.
 
If the Sikhs join there's also the prospect of a Sikh nation forming during mutiny and existing afterwords.:cool:

If the British do somthing very crass and stupid to turn the Sikhs against them, or if more of the Sikhs simply see this as a chance for statehood then they might join the mutiny. For their own gain of course.
 
If the Sikhs join there's also the prospect of a Sikh nation forming during mutiny and existing afterwords.:cool:

If the British do somthing very crass and stupid to turn the Sikhs against them, or if more of the Sikhs simply see this as a chance for statehood then they might join the mutiny. For their own gain of course.

I don't see that as too likely. The sikhs were not the greatest fans of the muslims at all. They're not going to fight to put the mughals in power over the current system where they're free to do as they please. The sikhs were amngst the most loyal groups iotl. To piss them off....then you'd have one of those situations where the changes you'd need to make would dwarf the reason you're wanting to make them.
 
I don't see that as too likely. The sikhs were not the greatest fans of the muslims at all. They're not going to fight to put the mughals in power over the current system where they're free to do as they please. The sikhs were amngst the most loyal groups iotl. To piss them off....then you'd have one of those situations where the changes you'd need to make would dwarf the reason you're wanting to make them.

Having the Sikhs rebel though would basically shut the British out of the northwest. I think a Sikh rebellion parallel to the Indian Mutiny wouldn't be a politically lateral affair: they would not support a return to the Mughal Empire. Instead, they would conquer the former territories that made up the Sikh Empire and try to reverse essentially what the British did to them in the past. If there's any good time to have done this, it was probably during this rebellion.

Without the Sikhs to contain the Sepoys, and without the ability to re-garrison Peshawar the British are put in a really precarious situation in the northwest.

However, what motivation do the Sikhs have to rebel. This is a great chance to punish the sepoys (whom they supposedly hated even more than the British) and reclaim territory anyway by supporting the British.
 
Top