Jump to content

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


MisterrSingh
 Share

Recommended Posts

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt
  • advertisement_alt


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • yeh it's true, we shouldn't be lazy and need to learn jhatka shikaar. It doesn't help some of grew up in surrounding areas like Slough and Southall where everyone thought it was super bad for amrit dharis to eat meat, and they were following Sant babas and jathas, and instead the Singhs should have been normalising jhatka just like the recent world war soldiers did. We are trying to rectifiy this and khalsa should learn jhatka.  But I am just writing about bhog for those that are still learning rehit. As I explained, there are all these negative influences in the panth that talk against rehit, but this shouldn't deter us from taking khanda pahul, no matter what level of rehit we are!
    • How is it going to help? The link is of a Sikh hunter. Fine, but what good does that do the lazy Sikh who ate khulla maas in a restaurant? By the way, for the OP, yes, it's against rehit to eat khulla maas.
    • Yeah, Sikhs should do bhog of food they eat. But the point of bhog is to only do bhog of food which is fit to be presented to Maharaj. It's not maryada to do bhog of khulla maas and pretend it's OK to eat. It's not. Come on, bro, you should know better than to bring this Sakhi into it. Is this Sikh in the restaurant accompanied by Guru Gobind Singh ji? Is he fighting a dharam yudh? Or is he merely filling his belly with the nearest restaurant?  Please don't make a mockery of our puratan Singhs' sacrifices by comparing them to lazy Sikhs who eat khulla maas.
    • Seriously?? The Dhadi is trying to be cute. For those who didn't get it, he said: "Some say Maharaj killed bakras (goats). Some say he cut the heads of the Panj Piyaras. The truth is that they weren't goats. It was she-goats (ਬਕਰੀਆਂ). He jhatka'd she-goats. Not he-goats." Wow. This is possibly the stupidest thing I've ever heard in relation to Sikhi.
    • Instead of a 9 inch or larger kirpan, take a smaller kirpan and put it (without gatra) inside your smaller turban and tie the turban tightly. This keeps a kirpan on your person without interfering with the massage or alarming the masseuse. I'm not talking about a trinket but rather an actual small kirpan that fits in a sheath (you'll have to search to find one). As for ahem, "problems", you could get a male masseuse. I don't know where you are, but in most places there are professional masseuses who actually know what they are doing and can really relieve your muscle pains.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use