So Just What Did Happen To The Nihangs In The Battle Of Sobraon?

[dalsingh101]

Little bits and pieces I've read of the Sikh-Anglo wars hint at severe reversals of nihangs in the battle of Sobraon.

Anyone know what happened?

Care to share?

Edited May 16, 2013 by dalsingh101

[BhagatSingh]

Men-at-arms says that "Although they would not submit to military discipline or training, and insisted on pursuing traditional Sikh tactics rather than the new-fangled European system introduced by Ranjit Singh, the Akalis' extreme bravery rendered them ideal for employment in desperate enterprises, and their courage was pivotal in the Sikh victories at Multan in 1818 and Naushehra in 1823. However, such employment had considerably reduced their numbers by the 1830s, which was doubtless Ranjit's underlying intention - since they were his most unruly subjects, observed one British officer, he 'endeavoured to use them up as fast as possible'. Their numbers were further diminished during the fighting which followed Sher Singh's death in 1843; they suffered additional heavy loses in the First Sikh War; notably at Sobrain (10 February 1846), after which little more was heard from them."

Quite tragic.

[dalsingh101]

Just wondering if any of the whiteys who fought at Sobroan mention their encounter with them?

Have to keep my eyes open.

Edited May 22, 2013 by dalsingh101

[HSD1]

Little bits and pieces I've read of the Sikh-Anglo wars hint at severe reversals of nihangs in the battle of Sobraon.

This is something that I remember has been discussed in the past but usually in reference to Sikh tactics as a whole rather than the Akalis specifically. What it boiled down to was obsolence - the Akalis like the Zulus or Highlanders or Pindaris or Asantes etc before them were fighting an enemy who knew them better than the Sikhs knew themselves.

The 19th century was one of those eras of rapid change where those who didnt keep up were swept away. The Akalis failed to learn what was going on in the world or how to react to it and paid the price. Rather than being due to Maharaja Ranjit Singh's realpolitik, the high attrition rate of the Nihangs was due to the melee nature of their tactics and the scale of the battles they fought.

To discuss Sobroan we need to think about the Punjab Army as a whole and the traitorous Dogras, and how that fits into what happened. Firstly, Sobraon was a defensive cantonment built long before the Sikh Empire. It was designed to prevent people crossing, probably from East to West and was designed to be defended by a small number of infantry against an enemy who wouldnt have large scale artillery or firearms. By the 1840s it was an obsolete defence. It couldnt accomodate more than 10000 men. In that era, if you were defending a river crossing or bridge you would defend the opposite side to the one your enemy would be on. Why? Well you would force their artillery to come right to edge of the water to see your positions and if the enemy infantry tried to cross they would run the risk of getting their gunpowder wet once they crossed to the other side and lose the ability to use their guns. Bridges could also be blown up. By trying to defend on the same side of the river as their enemy, the Punjabis were trying to maintain a 'beachhead' which is a far more difficult task. Add to that the fact that the East India Company had steam ships which could sail right up to the positions at Sobraon to bombard them or disembark troops behind the defences, you really have to wonder why Sikhs defended such an untenable position. The answer is that the Dogras knew what they were doing and the Sikhs didnt.

How does that bring in the Akalis? Well, they were outside the command structure of the Dogras and were relatively free to do what they wanted, but still chose to dig in at Sobraon. Big mistake. Secondly, the Akalis didnt know how to build defences to prevent attack from large groups of ordered infantry with firearms as they were too used to fighting Afghans. The British remarked at Sobraon how the Sikh defensive positions werent standardised. Some were incredibly well built, probably by well drilled and experienced Punjabi regiments who knew what they were doing and had training on it. The Akalis just seemed to throw bushes and palisades down and call it a day. One British cavalry regiment managed to actually fit through a gap in the defences because they had been so badly made! This gap also had no defenders - they had gone to the dugouts near the river. The flippancy and lack of discipline amongst Nihangs wasnt doing them any favours. They had gone from being a danger to themselves to putting everyone on their side in danger.

Thirdly, Akalis seemed to be ignorant of how artillery had changed even though they lived in the same country as one of the best artilleries in the world. In the 18th century, cannonballs tended to be made of solid metal. They were designed to bring down walls. Against infantry they were fired into the area in front of the enemy - the shot would then bounce and hopefully take out a whole column. Imagine it to be like bowling in cricket. The Akali idea of digging pits was a good one. The enemy artillery wouldnt be able to quite see where the Akalis were and wouldnt be able to bounce a shot through them. The alternative was to fire a shot into the hole which is no easy task even for experienced gunners. To illustrate this point, imagine you have some skittles (the sticks not the sweets) arranged in a square at the end of your garden. If you have to throw underhand (like a cannon on the floor would) you can practice to get the ball to bounce and take out a greater number than if it landed in the middle. But imagine you then dig a hole, and put the skittles in there randomly or to one side. A bit more difficult now isnt it? Unfortunately for the Akalis, as good as this idea was in the 18th century, by the 19th century the idea wasnt just obsolete it was downright dangerous. Mortars and howitzers had been invented that lobbed shells in a high arc to land vertically on the enemy (imagine in the skittles analogy that you are now allowed to throw overarm). Punjab had plenty of these new type of artillery and had used them to devastating effect on the Afghans and Chinese. The Akalis had been present at some of these battles, but it never occurred to them the implications if their enemies had these weapons. Add to that the new type of shells that were around. Canister/grapeshot/shrapnel/quicklime shells were in use by all modern infantries back then. The Akalis should have known this. If one of those shells landed in a hole filled with Akalis it would do far more damage as the hole amplifies the effect of the blast and reduces the chances of anyone inside being able to avoid a shell. In the skittles analogy, this would be like switching from an ordinary ball to a waterballoon. The regular regiments built trenches that were much thinner and with dugouts so they were less likely to be hit (smaller surface area) and even if they were the effects wouldnt be as bad.

After the artillery had finished and the battle started, the Akalis probably expected the British to come and jump in their holes and fight man to man as the Afghans did. The British, seeing a bunch of guys in a hole with few firearms, decided to just shoot them from above and avoid a melee and maintain their order. The Akalis failed to understand their enemies on a basic level or to even differentiate between their enemies strengths and how that would make them act on the battlefield. The British didnt understand why the Akalis dug these pits, one even wrote that the Akalis knew they were going to die so they had decided to dig their own graves! Obviously it's not true that the Akalis knew they were going to die and wanted to be buried like the English buried their dead, but the Akalis had dug their own graves in metaphorical way whether they knew it or not.

Those who survived the above didnt have a great time as the bridge to other side of the river was down. Most Sikhs didnt know how to swim, probably due to not having to in regular life or the dangers of Punjabi river wildlife. Again, another chink in the armour that is used to tear a wound more grievous than could have been imagined.

Finally, putting aside the reality of what happened, what about tactics? We all know about two and half strikes. Find their weak point and attack, surprise them and attack and half a strike for a pitched battle. The Akalis had got so comfortable that they thought they would win with a bunch of half strikes. Why did the Nihangs not set all of India on fire when the EIC had most of their troops in Sindh and East Punjab? Why did the Nihangs not adopt the French Republican column tactic? Why did the Akalis not take up horse artillery? Why didnt they crossover to India with the above tactics and turn the Grand Trunk Road into a highway of death? With their rear being attacked and supplies being ambushed and civil revolt likely to be incited by the Nihangs, Napier/Gough/Harding etc would have to send troops to garrison their rear and protect their supplies. The Nihangs could have done to British travelling from Calcutta to Ludhiana what they did to the Mughals and Afghans travelling from Delhi to Kabul in the previous century. But why didnt they? Where was the leadership? Where were the brains? Where were the fresh tactics that had always given us the edge? Why did they do such stupid things?

Unfortunately understanding our own history is fairly hit and miss with our lot. Plenty have their own agendas and I dont really care. If you believe that Akalis were infallible and that the reason we lost the First AngloSikh War was due to lack of religion or people not saying their prayers or drinking alcohol or beards not being long enough than you can, I wont argue with you no matter how stupid those points are.

Edited May 22, 2013 by HSD1

[BhagatSingh]

Yeah I don't know about that dude. I have to say that their beards were not long enough for this battle. If their beards were long perhaps if they touched the ground then howitzers couldn't have hurt them them, think about it more carefully.

In all seriousness, what is the source of this information?

Edited May 22, 2013 by BhagatSingh

[HSD1]

In all seriousness, what is the source of this information?

Which information?

[BhagatSingh]

What you said above.

[dalsingh101]

Thing is Akali Phula Singh was pushing for a preemptive attack on Ludhiana, which would have probably caused the Brits to exit India in the long run. Apparently M. Ranjit Singh prevented t.

[HSD1]

What you said above.

From reading books about the Anglos Sikh Wars, the Nihangs in Afghanistan, wars during that time period, maps of Sobraon, British correspondence, European accounts of Punjab and other information about that time period. Then it's just a case of connecting the dots. Talking about Sobraon reminds of some stuff I read about the Battles for the Taku Forts in China and the plight of Russian infantry in the Crimean War, there were similarities but also differences that make them interesting - if I find the articles I'll post them in the history subforum.

Thing is Akali Phula Singh was pushing for a preemptive attack on Ludhiana, which would have probably caused the Brits to exit India in the long run. Apparently M. Ranjit Singh prevented t.

True, but he said that in the 1810s whilst the Punjab Army was modernising. It sounded like he wanted to teach the British a lesson for what happened in Amritsar rather than thinking it through. The British were in the ascendancy whilst the Afghans were on the wane. Whilst the Sikhs modernised it made more sense to sort out the Afghans and leave the British to later. If we attacked the British whilst Afghanistan was still a threat we would have ended up with a war on two fronts.

Judging by what happened to the Sikh Misls when they fought the Marathas an attack on Ludhiana wouldnt have worked out too well. When Sikhs besieged Maratha strongholds the Ms managed to hold out as they had artillery and European officers and training. Sikhs had limited artillery and had a hard time getting supplies or feeding so many horses outside of Punjab. When the Ms took the field, we had the advantage and their European training/officers/artillery didnt count for sh*t. It didnt take them long to figure out that a string of well garrisoned and equipped forts would keep them safe as well as giving up the idea of beating Sikhs in pitched battles or skirmishes. The British would have carried on the same strategy and Sikhs would have had to overcome their shortfalls through modernisation, something that hadnt been achieved in the early 19th century until the mid 1820s.

The golden period for an attack on India would have been 1829 - 1836. We had modernised, were superior to the Afghans in technology/organisation/command and the British hadnt been able to bring steam technology to their forces in South Asia. Even if we had done it then, the Dogras and foreign officers in the Punjab Army would have been an unknown quantity as would the muslim majority of Punjab once large numbers of Sikh soldiers left to fight in other parts of India. There was also the question of what India would have looked like if Sikhs had won the Anglo-Sikh Wars.

[dalsingh101]

Thing is, there was a strong chance that other states would've rebelled at Anglo reverses.

[HSD1]

Thing is, there was a strong chance that other states would've rebelled at Anglo reverses.

True. But if they thought we were haphazard or hadnt thought it through or might lose in the long run then they might have just sat on the fence. Even better would have been to rope in some European or African countries who had grievances and had them on side. If Sikhs had inflicted some major defeats on the British, the French might have smelt blood and decided to get some payback for Britain keeping them down. Or Russia. But we'll never know. International and South Asian diplomacy wasnt something Sikhs practiced that well back then.

Edited May 22, 2013 by HSD1

[chatanga1]

It seems to me that the Akalis were only for fighting hand to hand.

There are reports from the British, in the 2nd anglo-Sikh war, that "Sikhs came running onto and transfixzed themselves on bayonets, before using their tulwars to kill the soldiers wielding the bayonets..."