Talk:Siege of Delhi

message: There has been an ongoing edit war regarding this. Specifically, references to Field Marshal Roberts's memoirs are repeatedly being removed and replaced with figures from Britannica and Dalrymple. My objections are:
* When the Deputy Assistant Quarter-master General for an army (Roberts), responsible for collating troop numbers, and feeding them and supplying them with ammunition, takes the trouble to note the precise strengths of the troops he is reponsible for, this number should be regarded as authoritative.
* Britannica's figures are in the right ball park, but not 100% accurate and omit several contingents (Baluchis; Kashmiris; Jhind). Also, in classing British troops as "regulars" and by implication dismissing the Gurkhas, Sikhs and Pathans as "irregulars", it creates an artificial distinction. Although these contingents belonged to "irregular" units of the Company's Bengal Army or the "Punjab Irregular Force", this does NOT mean that they were disorderly crowds of freebooters. It meant that their terms of enlistment were peculiar to the region(s) in which they were raised. They also had only seven British officers per battalion instead of twenty-six in the "regular" Bengal Army units. This was not a weakness; native personnel of merit could naturally occupy positions of responsibility and initiative, rather than all native personnel being promoted purely on seniority and all responsibility being stifled by the hordes of British officers, so that even the most senior native officers of the rebellious Bengal Native Infantry were mainly superannuated lance-naiks (lance-corporals). The two Gurkha units present in the besieging army were raised in 1815 following the Anglo-Nepali war; the Sikh and Pathan ("Punjabi") units were raised in 1846 - 1849, in the aftermath of the Anglo-Sikh wars. These units later formed the backbone of the Indian Army. There were some hastily organised corps of volunteers present e.g. Hodson's Horse, but between them they would be unlikely to number more than a few hundred, and their numbers were not recorded.
* If Dalrymple (who was writing largely from the rebel perspective) does not specifically note the presence of a Kashmiri contingent in the besiegers, this does NOT mean that they were not there. Roberts is again authoritative on this point. (Note that the Kashmiri contingent's contribution is also referenced in Hibbert, Edwardes etc.)
* Likewise, if the state of Patiala is to be included in the info. box as being part of the British force, then some description of their contribution should be included.
* The "PintreeWeb" site is a Scouting Jamboree site, and does not contain (or no longer contains) any part of Roberts's memoirs. I have restored the Project Gutenberg page for these.
In short, please do not replace Roberts's figures with some figure plucked from an unauthoritative or tangential tertiary website, or remove any contingent because some other site fails to mention them. HLGallon (talk) 15:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  British / East India Company strength 

message: If IP's keep on adding material that is not backed up by sources I will ask for PP, make a case at talk. Slatersteven (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: POV pushing