This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
Why does a user who keeps editing the numbers for this battle. It’s common knowledge that the Sikhs were outnumbered and also that the whole Bengal army was present to crush the Sikhs due to the decisive defeat and loss of prestige at Chillianwala. Your source is incorrect. It is also a biased and fake source, go read a book about the wars. CapChecker123 (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CapChecker123: Please explain why the cited source is "biased and fake" (you can discuss it at WP:RSN if needed). Also, if you are adding new numbers, you need to citeareliable source for those numbers. utcursch | talk 14:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you look at most sources and read websites where the information is given. It clearly states that the whole bengal army was present at the battle. As you’re oblivious to this it was around 56,000 men, in addition to this, the Sikhs numbered 10,000 in the previous battle to Gujrat (chillianwala). Raja Sher Singh united his army with that of his father. Which added a further 10,000 troops. Which makes 20,000 Sikhs vs 56,000 British forces Plus you haven’t added the afghan mercenaries in this battle which was at 1500 for the Sikhs. So use your head please. Not sure where you got the figure of 50,000 to 60,000 Sikhs. Absolutely ridiculous. CapChecker123 (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Utcursch I’ve cited my refernce. Go read the book my Kushwant Singh. a history of the Sikhs. Published by Oxford university press. Thank you. CapChecker123 (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When citing a source, even one published by as reputable a publisher as the OUP, please provide full details for it, especially ISBN, and a page number, otherwise the source cannot be validated. "Singh 2004" is insufficient information. Decrying reputable, printed sources such as Carl Cavanagh Hodge as "biased and fake" is not good argument for any article, and verges on incivility and POV pushing. I'd like to see some of these sources and websites where the "common knowledge" that the entire Bengal Army was present is given. This is a claim as fatuous as any inflated reckoning of Sikh numbers. I propose to leave the Khushwant Singh cite for Sikh numbers to stand, pending full citstion details, but restore the Hodge cite for British numbers. If edit warring continues, combined with incivility, I will seek protection for the page and if need be report the matter to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. HLGallon (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2nd request I would like to see page numbers, volume numbers, quotes, etc, for this source supplied by Capchecker. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shutup KansasBear, you’re already a delusional person I ain’t dealing with you. CapChecker123 (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And of course, when I have the time I shall properly have each page number and all that good stuff just for you guys, I am a busy guy with a job and studies. So I shall do all this when I am free CapChecker123 (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Shutup KansasBear, you’re already a delusional person..."
Ignoring the personal attack by CapChecker...........
I move that until CapChecker supplies said page numbers, volume number(s) and quote(s) that their edits be reverted until verified. Since they can post personal attacks but not the relevant information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Buddy, I’ll keep changing it back to facts. You’re so obsessed with me get a life. CapChecker123 (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The winners of wars will always inflate their victory by exaggerating the amount of enemies at the field. Julius Cesar was famous for always exaggerating barbarian numbers at every victory. (Well Tacitus did) There’s no personal issues at stake for me here. I just like fact and fiction. The 20,000 British at this battle is an absurd claim. The Sikhs could never have amassed 30,000 men at the final battle. Let alone 50,000-60,000. The army of chillianwallah was 10,000, combined with chattar Singh forces added another 10,000. Simple as that. Overwhelming heavy artillery and numbers won the battle here. After Dewan Mulraj surrender at Multan, general whish brought his heavy siege guns and large guns, and his army to Gough after hearing of his defeat at Chillianwalah. By you stating that only 20,000 British Indian troops were at this battle. You’re saying that this is the total amount of troops involved in the 2nd Anglo-Sikh war. This, as a matter of fact, is not true. CapChecker123 (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There’s no POV here at all. If anything you’re pushing the narrative that only 20,000 British troops defeated 50,000-60,000 Sikhs. On the contrary I’m just providing the actual figures, which you dispute. I’m speaking to HLGallon btw in all these posts. CapChecker123 (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@CapChecker123 I have read both web sites already. The history net site provides no information about British or Sikh numbers. The anglosikhwars site was copypasted from the Wikipedia article as it stood some time ago and is therefore a circular reference and worthless for this discussion. With regard for your accusations of POV, I could reply "tu quoque"; the losers of wars will also exaggerate the numbers of their enemies in the field. I have already suggested a compromise; the Khushwant Signh source (for which you have still not provided full citation details) for Sikh numbers and British sources (Roy/Hodge or some other source) for British / EIco numbers. These would be accurate to within a couple of hundred or so for British numbers, given that there were some irregular contingents present whose administration was less certain than for British or Bengal/Bombay Native units, and 100% accurate for casualties. You have seemingly had plenty of time to indulge in edit warring and your own version of POV, insisting that one side's version of data are "facts"; please use some of this time to provide your sources, in full. This page is nobody's personal blog, and should conform to core Wikipedia principles of verifiability and neutral point of view. HLGallon (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to the A History of the Sikhs, Volume 2 1839–2004 by Khushwant Singh, page 80-81.
"(p.80)The Attariwalas sent George Lawrence, who was their captive, with terms for a truce. They asked for the investment of Dalip Singh as maharajah and the evacuation of British troops from the Punjab. The offer was rejected."
"Battle of Gujarat, 21 February 1849"
"The Attariwalas advanced towards the Chenab and entrenched their forces in horseshoe formation between the town of Gujarat and the river. They were weaker both in guns (59 to the British 66) and in man power. The British attack began at 7:30 a.m. The Punjabis as usual opened fire too soon; they exhausted their ammunition and betrayed the position of their guns. In a cannonade lasting an hour, British guns silenced the Punjabi artillery. Then their cavalry and infantry charged Punjabi positions. Afghan cavalry, which had joined the Punjabis, tried to deflect the enemy but withdrew without achieving its purpose. The Punjabis engaged the enemy in a hand-to-hand combat. ‘In this action as well as at Chillianwala,’ wrote General Thackwell, ‘Seikhs caught hold of the bayonets of their assailants with their left hands and closing with their adversaries dealt furious sword blows with their right... This circumstance alone will suffice to demonstrate the rare species of courage possessed by these men.’ The weight of numbers and armour decided the issue. The Punjabis gave way. The British occupied Gujarat and pursued the Punjabis till they had destroyed all they could find. The battle of Gujarat ended organized Punjabi resistance to the feringhees. On 11 March 1849, the Attariwalas formally(p.81)surrendered their swords to Major General Gilbert at Hurmuck near Rawalpindi. They were followed on the 14th by the whole Sikh army. General Thackwell described the scene: ‘The reluctance of some of the old Khalsa veterans to surrender their arms was evident. Some could not restrain their tears; while on the faces of others, rage and hatred were visibly depicted.’ The remark of one veteran grey beard as he put down his gun summed up the history of the Punjab:‘Āj Ranjīt Singh mar gayā’—today Ranjit Singh has died." -- A History of the Sikhs, Volume 2 1839–2004 by Khushwant Singh, page 80-81.
I see no figures for Sikhs or anyone else for that matter. I believe we are done here. Any further disruptive editing or personal attacks should be reported. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
