One of the major reasons for the Fall of the Sikh Empire

[MisterrSingh]

Machiavelli on Mercenaries

Mercenaries and auxiliaries are both useless and dangerous.

Anyone who relies on mercenary troops to keep himself in power will never be safe or secure, for they are fractious, ambitious, ill-disciplined, treacherous.

They show off to your allies and run away from your enemies.

They do not fear God and do not keep faith with mankind.

A mercenary army puts off defeat for only so long as it postpones going into battle.

In peacetime they pillage you, in wartime they let the enemy do it.

This is why: They have no motive or principle for joining up beyond the desire to collect their pay.

And what you pay them is not enough to make them want to die for you.

They are delighted to be your soldiers when you are not at war; when you are at war, they walk away when they do not run.

It is true that occasionally a ruler seems to benefit from their use, and they boast of their own prowess, but as soon as they face foreign troops their true worth becomes apparent.

Experience shows individual sovereigns and republics that arm the masses are capable of making vast conquests.

***

This will upset Sikh Empire fanboys, but it's an indisputable part of why things went pear-shaped.

 

[GurjantGnostic]

53 minutes ago, MisterrSingh said:

Machiavelli on Mercenaries

Mercenaries and auxiliaries are both useless and dangerous.

Anyone who relies on mercenary troops to keep himself in power will never be safe or secure, for they are fractious, ambitious, ill-disciplined, treacherous.

They show off to your allies and run away from your enemies.

They do not fear God and do not keep faith with mankind.

A mercenary army puts off defeat for only so long as it postpones going into battle.

In peacetime they pillage you, in wartime they let the enemy do it.

This is why: They have no motive or principle for joining up beyond the desire to collect their pay.

And what you pay them is not enough to make them want to die for you.

They are delighted to be your soldiers when you are not at war; when you are at war, they walk away when they do not run.

It is true that occasionally a ruler seems to benefit from their use, and they boast of their own prowess, but as soon as they face foreign troops their true worth becomes apparent.

Experience shows individual sovereigns and republics that arm the masses are capable of making vast conquests.

***

This will upset Sikh Empire fanboys, but it's an indisputable part of why things went pear-shaped.

 

Good share Veer Ji. 

[KhoonKaBadlaKhoon2]

Could you go more into detail? Which mercenaries contributed? Or helped set off the chain of events that occurred?

[MisterrSingh]

6 hours ago, KhoonKaBadlaKhoon2 said:

Could you go more into detail? Which mercenaries contributed? Or helped set off the chain of events that occurred?

There wasn't an Anasingh Singhwalker who turned to the Dark Side and forced the empire's downfall, lol.

The issue I raise in this topic is on a philosophical basis; the idea of mercenaries being loyal to nobody but their pocket. We had Frenchies and all European sorts running around Punjab as part of the "Sikh" army. How the hell was that ever going to turn out positively for us?

[KhoonKaBadlaKhoon2]

On 9/25/2020 at 1:42 AM, MisterrSingh said:

There wasn't an Anasingh Singhwalker who turned to the Dark Side and forced the empire's downfall, lol.

The issue I raise in this topic is on a philosophical basis; the idea of mercenaries being loyal to nobody but their pocket. We had Frenchies and all European sorts running around Punjab as part of the "Sikh" army. How the hell was that ever going to turn out positively for us?

But, could you explain how they contributed to the downfall? One could argue if it wasn't for their assisting in the army modernizing, Sikhs would have had no chance against the British. They would have likely also moved in much sooner if we were still a simple musket and sword cavalry. 

[MisterrSingh]

1 hour ago, KhoonKaBadlaKhoon2 said:

But, could you explain how they contributed to the downfall? One could argue if it wasn't for their assisting in the army modernizing, Sikhs would have had no chance against the British. They would have likely also moved in much sooner if we were still a simple musket and sword cavalry. 

Do we have a Sikh empire now?

Was it worth having a fleeting Sikh empire just in name when the fighting force consisted of men who had zero dedication for the furtherance of Sikh aims?

That's your answer. 

[KhoonKaBadlaKhoon2]

On 10/12/2020 at 3:13 AM, MisterrSingh said:

Do we have a Sikh empire now?

Was it worth having a fleeting Sikh empire just in name when the fighting force consisted of men who had zero dedication for the furtherance of Sikh aims?

That's your answer. 

I mean what was the alternative? We would have likely stayed in the jungles and died in the jungles. Look what the Brits did to proud, rebellious, one dimensional fighting force of Native Indians. We were just as one dimensional of a fighting force before. 

No, not my answer. You've still in no way shown how the hired Europeans contributed to the downfall. I've got my issues with how things were run. But, those Europeans did indeed help Punjab/Sikhs get with the times. 

[GurjantGnostic]

49 minutes ago, KhoonKaBadlaKhoon2 said:

I mean what was the alternative? We would have likely stayed in the jungles and died in the jungles. Look what the Brits did to proud, rebellious, one dimensional fighting force of Native Indians. We were just as one dimensional of a fighting force before. 

No, not my answer. You've still in no way shown how the hired Europeans contributed to the downfall. I've got my issues with how things were run. But, those Europeans did indeed help Punjab/Sikhs get with the times. 

I think the thinking is that the Khalsa were not entrusted with the proper power of oversight and leadership. And that the Raj was not run in accordance with Gurmat. When combined with foreign influences, and notoriously untrustworthy mercenary forces you lose your Raj. We really have yet to see a Khalsa Raj, as admirable as Ranjit Singh Ji's Raj was compared to the worlds standards it really didn't constitute proper Sikh or Khalsa Raj, Halemi Raj, Dharam Raj, in my opinion. 

[GurjantGnostic]

The british for example may employ regiments of foreigners. Give them their own brigade. But the brits oversee all that.

The Jathas should have continued their seperate training and existance, also attended a central war college to standardize training, and overseen all other brigades as respected subjects to the Khalsa leadership. 

Mercenaries should not be used. 

And the Raj should have been run according to Gurmat. 

[KhoonKaBadlaKhoon2]

41 minutes ago, GurjantGnostic said:

I think the thinking is that the Khalsa were not entrusted with the proper power of oversight and leadership. And that the Raj was not run in accordance with Gurmat. When combined with foreign influences, and notoriously untrustworthy mercenary forces you lose your Raj. We really have yet to see a Khalsa Raj, as admirable as Ranjit Singh Ji's Raj was compared to the worlds standards it really didn't constitute proper Sikh or Khalsa Raj, Halemi Raj, Dharam Raj, in my opinion. 

I can agree with much of that. You're right. But, I think the most untrustworthy turned out to be locals of Hindu and Sikh faiths. The blame should solely there, besides Maharaja Ranjit Singh completely f**cking up who would be his successor. Unless I am completely unaware of a trend of our mercenaries also betraying us to the British.