What did the alliance with Khalistan involve?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?
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.What did the alliance with Khalistan involve?
The Marathas told Nepal otl that they would join the war if the Sikhs joined in, so 50/50 really.Would a Nepali-Sikh victory "save"the Mahrathas? Push back the EIC to the east of Bihar?
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.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.
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.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.
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.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 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.
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.@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?
this is for nepal at least. the lines show occupied territories at one point.Third Nepal–Tibet War - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
This had me scratching my head too.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.
I wonder if the brits had never gotten involved in India if the sikhs would have been the next big empire.
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.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?
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.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]
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.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.
China restored Digarcha to Tibet, however Kharta Valley was occupied by Nepal until 1818.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??
All empire builders are murderous rapist cunts. It is knownno 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.
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 ...
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.