Alternate Third Nepali-Anglo War Discussion

Sārthākā

Well-known member
What if Nepal won the Anglo-Nepalese War of 1814-16 and the Sikhs honor their alliance with Nepal? The British would be confined to the Bengal Region only, and the history of India would have been so different that this is a criminally underrated PoD.
 

Buba

A total creep
What if Nepal won the Anglo-Nepalese War of 1814-16 and the Sikhs honor their alliance with Nepal?
What did the alliance with Khalistan involve?
Didn't the Madras Presidency control most of Tamilnadu (senso largo) at this point already?
Would a Nepali-Sikh victory "save"the Mahrathas? Push back the EIC to the east of Bihar?
 

stevep

Well-known member
What did the alliance with Khalistan involve?
Didn't the Madras Presidency control most of Tamilnadu (senso largo) at this point already?
Would a Nepali-Sikh victory "save"the Mahrathas? Push back the EIC to the east of Bihar?

Probably not. The Gurkhas were good troops and the Sikhs were powerful but even if willing I'm doubtful they could project power deep into the Ganges valley, which is what they would need to do. Raiding yes but that probably wouldn't make them popular with the locals.

Also India is so rich and important in trade terms that the EIC, supported by Britain after Napoleon's defeat, would seek to regain a dominant role in the peninsula. The Mahrathas had already been broken, by the Afghans in 1760, followed by bitter infighting then Welseley's victories before he went to Iberia. Plus at this point many Indians would probably prefer the Brits to the Sikhs especially given the religious differences and the lack of the British interests in seeking religious conversions.

At the very best, with brilliant leadership and some luck they could delay British domination of India a bit and probably change a few aspects of it but Britain is too powerful and the region too important for trade terms to not fight for it. Unless possibly you have some extended new conflict in Europe but that's not very likely once Napoleon has lost his army in Russia and then another one in Germany in 1813.

Steve
 

Sārthākā

Well-known member
What did the alliance with Khalistan involve?
a division of the western gangetic plain between nepal and punjab, a royal marriage with one another, and i believe something akin to a non-aggression pact.
Would a Nepali-Sikh victory "save"the Mahrathas? Push back the EIC to the east of Bihar?
The Marathas told Nepal otl that they would join the war if the Sikhs joined in, so 50/50 really.
 

Sārthākā

Well-known member
Probably not. The Gurkhas were good troops and the Sikhs were powerful but even if willing I'm doubtful they could project power deep into the Ganges valley, which is what they would need to do. Raiding yes but that probably wouldn't make them popular with the locals.
Nepal controlled the northern gangetic valley in 1814 in the west along with most of Bihar. They didn't need to project power when they were already there.
Also India is so rich and important in trade terms that the EIC, supported by Britain after Napoleon's defeat, would seek to regain a dominant role in the peninsula. The Mahrathas had already been broken, by the Afghans in 1760, followed by bitter infighting then Welseley's victories before he went to Iberia. Plus at this point many Indians would probably prefer the Brits to the Sikhs especially given the religious differences and the lack of the British interests in seeking religious conversions.
Ah not exactly. The Marathas told Nepal otl that they would join the war if the Sikhs joined in. Which if they do, then the three major native powers of the subcontinent will be fighting throughout the subcontinent against the british. The anglo-nepalese war actually cost the British the equivalent of all the three maratha wars, and if the marathas and sikhs join in then the monetary gain for the british is going to be very low and the EIC was tethering near bankruptcy during this time.
At the very best, with brilliant leadership and some luck they could delay British domination of India a bit and probably change a few aspects of it but Britain is too powerful and the region too important for trade terms to not fight for it. Unless possibly you have some extended new conflict in Europe but that's not very likely once Napoleon has lost his army in Russia and then another one in Germany in 1813.
i do agree that in the end the brits would win, the disparity is too high, however still, an early defeat, EIC bankruptcy and Nepalese Dominion over the Himalayas (as King Girvan called it) being confirmed, Indian history would still be massively changed.
 

Buba

A total creep
I can't find a map of India in 1814. All seem to be of 1805 and show Bihar and Dehli in EIC hands, with Awdh/Oudh as a vassal.
 

Buba

A total creep
@Sārthākā - thanks for the map.
So, Nepal overran the Dehli area during the 1814-16 war?
I'd not expect the Ghorkas to hold it - they lack the cavalry and artillery for it.
Which the Sikh's do, however ...
Indeed an interesting POD.
If the EIC runs out of money the UK might not be so eager to prop it up (in spite of its enormous soft power among UK elite) as the order of the day is paying back the 200% GDP debt from the French Revolutionary Wars.
If major scale strife between Calcutta and the Katmandu-Lahore Axis continues into the 1830s - would the electorate watering-down Reform Act from 1832 weaken support for the EIC among the MPs and Lords?

BTW - re-Reform Act - I see that an act reforming the British franchise was mooted by Pitt the Younger in 1786 and defeated 174–248. Anybody know what the details of that Act were?


EDITED AND ADDED LATER:
If the Nepali-Sikh coalition smashes the Bengal Presidency's army (i.e. warlike, tall, light skinned hunks from the North), with EIC India being saved by Madrasi (Tamil, Telugu) and Bombay (Dalits?) troops - would it kill the Martial Races theory in the crib? Naturally, if the Punjab remains outside (direct) EIC/British rule, then Punjabisation of Madrasi and Bombay formations is butterflied away anyway. Besides Punjabis of all three creeds, also Mahrathas, Rajputs, Pushtuns, Gwarhalis, Balochs, etc. are less likely to be recruited. Less likely, as the EIC/British did recruit from outside directly controlled territories, e.g. Nepal :)
 
Last edited:

Sārthākā

Well-known member
@Sārthākā - thanks for the map. So Nepal overran the Dehli area during the 1814-16 war?
I'd not expect the Ghorkas to hold it - they lack the cavalry and artillery for it.
Which the Sikh's do, however ...
Indeed an interesting POD.
If the EIC runs out of money the UK might not be so eager to prop it up (in spite of its enormous soft power among UK elite) as the order of the day is paying back the 200% GDP debt from the French Revolutionary Wars.
If major scale strife between Calcutta and the Katmandu-Lahore Axis continues into the 1830s - would the electorate watering-down Reform Act from 1832 weaken support for the EIC among the MPs and Lords?

BTW - re-Reform Act - I see that an act reforming the British franchise was mooted by Pitt the Younger in 1786 and defeated 174–248. Anybody know what the details of that Act were?
the 'overrunning' was a small raid out of control actually. The Gurkhas sent around 2000 troops as a raid into the EIC's territories in the region as the Mughals during this time were virtual British vassals. They found the city's defenses to be weak, and then plundered the city, sat there for some days, and hearing of Octolerny arriving to relieve the city, left. It was more of a raid, than an actual occupation really. The attack at Lucknow was more of a real occupation than Delhi. The raid was actually done with co-planning with Maharajah Ranjit Singh. Singh promised around 3000 troops to the raid, but he never committed them and never entered the war. Had the Punjabis entered the war, then the raid to Delhi could have been called a real occupation really.

For many reasons like not honoring the alliance, Nepali historians and History books tend to be very scathing of Ranjit Singh.......for understandable reasons.

Another loose canon is China. Nepal was a Tributary Kingdom to China, like Vietnam under the Le Dynasty. However China only intervened in favor of the Les and not Nepal, even when Nepalese delegations in the Forbidden city literally threw the entire treasury at the face of the Chinese emperor to intervene. He didn't. If the Nepalese, with the aid of the Punjabis push the British, then the Qing court has more incentive to intervene, I think.

(Yeah - about the last point, Nepalese Gurkhas took part in the Opium Wars with great relish to defeat the Qing because of this as well. Nepal only sent a new tributary mission to China in 1888 after relations had smoothened somewhat due to the war).
 

stevep

Well-known member
this is for nepal at least. the lines show occupied territories at one point.

I'm confused because I haven't heard of any actions by the Nepalese so far south. The wiki article on the war similarly mentions no Nepalese offensives or even raids and only defensive actions after the war started in 1815 [Actually the dow was in Nov 19814 but the 1st offensives weren't until the following year]. Initially successful in defending territory they were however isolated from their western territories and then a new offensive in 1816 forced them to make peace.

The article is large friendly to Nepal but does mention some points that show they were less that good neighbours, including that they were arguing for a border on the Ganges! [Both sides were expanding pretty aggressively at this point in time]

It also mentions that they have seized part of the territory of Butwal then the rest seized after its ruler, lured to Katmandu with a promise of recompense, was murdered. Also of an attack on Sikh lands which were defeated in 1809 so not sure how friendly the Sikhs would have been to an alliance with Nepal.

There is a map of the war, basically identical to the one you should, which shows lands lost to Britain but not the Tibetian lands which were actually restored to Tibet after Chinese intervention on their behaviour. See map of border changes at the end of the war for details. I'm not sure why the region south to the Ganges is crossed, unless it marks lands under British influence but not directly ruled??

Do you know anywhere on-line where those raids into the Ganges valley are mentioned please?
 

Buba

A total creep
I'm not sure why the region south to the Ganges is crossed, unless it marks lands under British influence but not directly ruled??
This had me scratching my head too.
My guess is that the hatched areas are those overrun by the Ghorka raids/offensives early in the war, described by @Sārthākā in his post a few posts ago.
 

stevep

Well-known member
This had me scratching my head too.
My guess is that the hatched areas are those overrun by the Ghorka raids/offensives early in the war, described by @Sārthākā in his post a few posts ago.

The problem is that is a very large area, including significant centres such as Delhi and I would have thought that even raids on them would have been mentioned but I've never heard of that before and there's no mention of them in the wiki article at all. The Nepalese role seems to have been almost solely defensive.
 

stevep

Well-known member
I wonder if the brits had never gotten involved in India if the sikhs would have been the next big empire.

If they had continued to have good political and military leaders possibly although a lot would have depended on whether they could attract converts from both Hindus and Muslims - without too strongly alienating the rest of those much larger populations. If not their going to be a small minority outnumbered by both other groups. Which means that once their edge in leadership falters they could be in serious problems.
 

Sārthākā

Well-known member
I'm confused because I haven't heard of any actions by the Nepalese so far south. The wiki article on the war similarly mentions no Nepalese offensives or even raids and only defensive actions after the war started in 1815 [Actually the dow was in Nov 19814 but the 1st offensives weren't until the following year]. Initially successful in defending territory they were however isolated from their western territories and then a new offensive in 1816 forced them to make peace.

The article is large friendly to Nepal but does mention some points that show they were less that good neighbours, including that they were arguing for a border on the Ganges! [Both sides were expanding pretty aggressively at this point in time]

It also mentions that they have seized part of the territory of Butwal then the rest seized after its ruler, lured to Katmandu with a promise of recompense, was murdered. Also of an attack on Sikh lands which were defeated in 1809 so not sure how friendly the Sikhs would have been to an alliance with Nepal.

There is a map of the war, basically identical to the one you should, which shows lands lost to Britain but not the Tibetian lands which were actually restored to Tibet after Chinese intervention on their behaviour. See map of border changes at the end of the war for details. I'm not sure why the region south to the Ganges is crossed, unless it marks lands under British influence but not directly ruled??

Do you know anywhere on-line where those raids into the Ganges valley are mentioned please?
the wiki article and english sources online are notoriously wrong and limited in their information regarding the war. Nepali books like the Sanghamsubba Yuddha or english books like Anglo-Nepal War: A Military Review Premasiṃha Basnyāta, The Gurkha War: The Anglo-Nepalese Conflict in North East India 1814 - 1816, The invasion of Nepal John Pemble, Britain's Gurkha War: The Invasion of Nepal, 1814-16 are far more accurate and show the information, regarding even the raids deep into the Ganges and other territories.
The article is large friendly to Nepal but does mention some points that show they were less that good neighbours, including that they were arguing for a border on the Ganges! [Both sides were expanding pretty aggressively at this point in time]
no one is really denying that, Nepal was not exactly a good neighbor. It was a growing empire after all, and empires don't tend to be good neighbors.
It also mentions that they have seized part of the territory of Butwal then the rest seized after its ruler, lured to Katmandu with a promise of recompense, was murdered. Also of an attack on Sikh lands which were defeated in 1809 so not sure how friendly the Sikhs would have been to an alliance with Nepal.
Friendly enough to sign a treaty of alliance in 1812. Sikhs and Gurkhas repeatedly tried to take 'vacations' in each other's territories before the treaty stopped it.
There is a map of the war, basically identical to the one you should, which shows lands lost to Britain but not the Tibetian lands which were actually restored to Tibet after Chinese intervention on their behaviour. See map of border changes at the end of the war for details. I'm not sure why the region south to the Ganges is crossed, unless it marks lands under British influence but not directly ruled??
China restored Digarcha to Tibet, however Kharta Valley was occupied by Nepal until 1818.
 

Buba

A total creep
Yay for separate thread!
no one is really denying that, Nepal was not exactly a good neighbor. It was a growing empire after all, and empires don't tend to be good neighbors.
All empire builders are murderous rapist cunts. It is known :)

Sikh and Ghorka BFF against British? No prob! Look at the Communists and Nazis in 1939 ...
Or 1st French Repblic/Empire and Spain against UK ...
Politics does make odd bedfellows ...
 

stevep

Well-known member
Yay for separate thread!

All empire builders are murderous rapist cunts. It is known :)

Sikh and Ghorka BFF against British? No prob! Look at the Communists and Nazis in 1939 ...
Or 1st French Repblic/Empire and Spain against UK ...
Politics does make odd bedfellows ...

Very true about the odd bedfellows that war or even simply politics make. ;)
 

stevep

Well-known member
the wiki article and english sources online are notoriously wrong and limited in their information regarding the war. Nepali books like the Sanghamsubba Yuddha or english books like Anglo-Nepal War: A Military Review Premasiṃha Basnyāta, The Gurkha War: The Anglo-Nepalese Conflict in North East India 1814 - 1816, The invasion of Nepal John Pemble, Britain's Gurkha War: The Invasion of Nepal, 1814-16 are far more accurate and show the information, regarding even the raids deep into the Ganges and other territories.

no one is really denying that, Nepal was not exactly a good neighbor. It was a growing empire after all, and empires don't tend to be good neighbors.

Friendly enough to sign a treaty of alliance in 1812. Sikhs and Gurkhas repeatedly tried to take 'vacations' in each other's territories before the treaty stopped it.

China restored Digarcha to Tibet, however Kharta Valley was occupied by Nepal until 1818.

OK will try and pick up one of those books when places are open again. [Lock-down closing most things and as a matter of policy I avoid Amazon like the plague.

Steve
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top