Talk:Indian Rebellion of 1857

Result is wrong

The result is little bit wrong, it leads to the fall of company rule for which the rebellion was for and begin or leads to the British Raj or direct crown rule 2409:4051:2D8F:7A80:CC21:1C4E:C85F:967C (talk) 03:05, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

That may have been the result, but the EIC was British, and so was direct British rule, so therefore was it not a British victory? Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

No company and crown both were different. The rebellion was not against crown but was against East India company rule, their was indirect rule of britain before rebellion. After rebellion the east india company rule ended and lead to start of direct crown rule from British Empire.

It's like saying during American revolutionary war, it was British victory as colonizers or patriot forces were also majority british. It's misleading.

You can write in result: End of company rule in India.

Beginning of British Raj or direct crown rule. It's accurate

ate 2409:4051:2D8F:7A80:CC21:1C4E:C85F:967C (talk) 11:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

What? Sorry that makes no sense, the Company was British, many of the troops were British and they won. It was a Brirsh victory. Butr this is all I am going to say, your argument makes no sense. Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Buddy company lost all of India administration to British crown. Are you some joke sitting here without knowing a little bit of history. I have done MA in Indian History. One more thing is wrong and pretty sure you also don't known it The main cause of mutiny was not land taxes etc they were indirect reasons but the main cause of the rebellion was a fake rumour that the company new cartridges were greased with pig and cow fat which lead to outrage amoung both Muslims and Hindu soldiers and they refused to open it with mouth after which they killed their British officers and marched towards delhi to meet shah jaffar. It is nowhere mentioned in here too. If someone went to give government exam by reading this Wikipedia page he will fail all the questions😂 2409:4051:2D8F:7A80:CC21:1C4E:C85F:967C (talk) 13:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

The "result" parameter in Template:Infobox military conflict is restricted in what it can say. To quote from the template documentation "result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much." DuncanHill (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

But I am unsure there is a dispute, except here, can the OP produce a source that says it wasn't a British victory? Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

You are fighting here like small child British won... British won... and here I am like fool trying to correct this page for those people that prepare for government exams from Wikipedia.

First You give me the source that it was East india company victory because this rebellion was against the company rule and which dissolved. Which effectively means Indian victory as the rebellion/war cause was fulfilled the company rwas overthrown and ended permanently. If company rule didn't end then it was India lost the rebellion.

But I am not immature like you over fighting who won, who lost

The correct answer of result is :

End of Company Rule

Begining of British Raj 2409:4051:2D8F:7A80:CC21:1C4E:C85F:967C (talk) 14:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Here is the source Mr historian this is what Chat GPT says:

Chat Gpt screenshot

Also Google Indian Mutiny result it says the same thing as chat gpt 2409:4051:2D8F:7A80:CC21:1C4E:C85F:967C (talk) 15:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

one more source: The cause of mutiny was because of animal cartridges which is no where mentioned everything else like taxes were indirect and not main Chatgpt cause of rebellion screenshot 2409:4051:2D8F:7A80:CC21:1C4E:C85F:967C (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Google cause of rebellion source 2409:4051:2D8F:7A80:CC21:1C4E:C85F:967C (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Read a book instead of banging it on your head. The EIC was predominantly comprised of mercenaries. There were more other European diaspora than British, which were all outnumbered by the number of Indian sepoy that worked within it. Rancid Boar (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

A large number of scholarly books are referenced in the lead. Please explain cogently what your claim is. If your reply is intemperate, as your last one was, you risk getting no response at all, and in the face of repeated offence, WP restrictions and penalties. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

The title Indian Rebellion of 1857 should be changed to Indian Independence Revolution-I of 1857

As now the title of tha page is Indian Rebellion of 1857 it describes as the indian rebellion towards britishers but actually it was Indias first freedom fight for Independence in 1857 hence the page should be named as Indian Independence Revolution-I of 1857 as its the fact. Prajwal6649 (talk) 05:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

See talk page archive for every answer as to why not. Slatersteven (talk) 08:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 August 2024

Add to In Popular Culture > Literature: "One section of Victoria Holt's 1988 novel The India Fan takes place in Delhi leading up to and during the 1857 rebellion. Through the eyes of the protagonist, readers learn how the rebellion affected Indian and British citizens." Sivarta1128 (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a reliable source for this material that verifies the content and indicates that the book is notable enough for including this in the article. RegentsPark (comment) 22:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 September 2024

The section Haryana(Rewari) was removed in an edit war and now only two lines are left in article which are making no meaning. " Add section Haryana in the revolt" and " add Rao Tula Ram in commanders list" as he was leading the revolt in one of the only few states participating in rebellion.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Bunnypranav (talk) 10:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Haryana

Initial success

On 17 May 1857 Rao Tula Ram along with his cousin, Rao Gopal Dev, and four to five hundred followers, deposed the local tehsildar and occupied Rewari. He raised a force of about 5000 soldiers and set up a workshop for manufacturing the guns and other ammunition. Rao Tula Ram helped Emperor Bahadur Shah and other rebel forces who were waging war against British in Delhi. He sent Rs 45000/- through General Bakht Khan, ten days before the fall of Delhi and supplied large quantities of necessary commodities and supplied two thousand sacks of wheat.

The battle

Rao's forces, which were led by his cousin Rao Kishan Singh, fought against the British on 16 November 1857 in the field of Nasibpur on outskirts of Narnaul. The first charge of Rao Tularam's forces was irresistible and the British forces scattered before them; several British officers were killed or wounded.

The British successfully retaliated and after the battle of Narnaul Rao Tularam moved in to Rajasthan and joined the force of Tantia Tope for one year but the forces of the Tantia Tope were defeated by British forces in the battle of Sikar in Rajasthan. After which Rao Tularam left India to seek help from the Shah of Iran (also see Anglo-Persian War from November 1856 to April 1857), Dost Mohammad Khan ruler of Emirate of Afghanistan (also see First Anglo-Afghan War from 1838 to 42) and Alexander II Emperor of All Russia against British colonial empire. Rao Tularam's estates were confiscated by the British in 1859, though proprietary rights of his two wives were retained. In 1877, his title was restored to his son Rao Yudhister Singh, who was made head of the Ahirwal area. Ankitguin01 (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

What are you saying? Slatersteven (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 September 2024

Start firstly Appomattox  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.107.131.73 (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2024 (UTC) 

more images

just like how American Civil War has multiple images , it should be added here JingJongPascal (talk) 08:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Why? Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Extended-→confirmed-protected edit request on 11 October 2024

Change “ …. as well as the smaller ones of Rajputana, did not join the rebellion, serving the British, in the Governor-General Lord Canning's words, as "breakwaters in a storm".[15]” to “including smaller states consisting of Rajputana, similarly had not directly participated in rebellion under the British , something that Governor-General Lord Canning mentioned to be “ breakwaters in a storm” providing evidence to show to many officials it was seen that Britain had been suffering from immense pressure without the support of its allied princely states” ( The reason for the change is that the way the orginal is phrased it’s more of a quick interpretation with a quotation thrown in to provide evidence without starting the reason - needs to be cleared up. Tetrach (talk) 15:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Consisting? Similar to what? sorry this seems to adds words for no real benefit. Slatersteven (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)