"Indian Mutiny - Brits must always win?" Topic

I'm reading through the Julian Spilsbury book and am struck by the fact that the Mutineers always break and run when the British close in w the bayonet. (Some mutineers hold out to the last or are trapped, but they are the minority and are always mopped up.) This appears to be reflected as well in the British attitude that they must attack and dominate operationally even if they are woefully short of resources – i.e. Delhi.

Failing this, they seem to think that the Mutineers will gain confidence and India will be irrecoverable.

Does this reflect the idea that the British were perceived as invincible by the rebels? Did the latter lose their nerve whenever the British closed in to close quarters?

If so, are there wargame rules sets that reflect this? And is the campaign really "winnable" for the rebels?

I think the truth is the Mutineers were psyched out by their former masters, and even though they fought bravely, over and over again, I wonder if deep down they didn't expect to lose stand-up fights. The British drive to stay on the offensive was probably to capitalize on their opponent's sense of inferiority. Of course, taking the offensive is often a good idea, whatever the circumstances; initiative can be everything.

It also has to be remembered that there really wasn't a native officer corps. The highest they had were basically junior officers/NCO's, and so the Mutineer forces struggled the entire conflict to find effective commanders at the top and middle levels. A few rose up (Tantya Tope and the Rani), but it wasn't nearly enough.

Even had these two weaknesses been overcome, the British army (with their local allies) were simply a far better army, from the bottom up. It's true they came within an ace of losing India, but this was more due to being unprepared, being overwhelmingly outnumbered and having to fight in an unfamiliar landscape and climate.

As regards rules, in my opinion the best thing is to simply make the British significantly better at everything (except ambushes?): morale (!), firing, melee, etc. The Mutineer player should have a lot more troops, but of lesser quality and predictability. Factors like ambushes and heatstroke can also help level a scenario to make things fun for all.

Anyway, there are some thoughts. I'm no expert on the war, so others with more knowledge will probably chime in shortly; I'll be interested to see what their take is.

Spilsbury is a very good read. I'd also highly recommend Christopher Hibbert's book if you haven't read it already--cracking stuff!

Hope this helps a little.

I ran an Indian Mutiny campaign and the way we handled it was by placing all the players on the British side as individual captains of companies within a Bengal native infantry regiment and the mutineers played by a judge.

And yes, for the most part the British side wins.

Our Yahoo group of this campaign is here
link

The Delhi Ridge was a close run thing, one more assault and it would have been curtains for HM subjects…

True enough.

The main British advantage was in having a comprehesive vertical command structure and increasingly, as the fighting went on, better armament. The Mutineers had neither.

When it was a smooth bore musket fire fight on both sides the results were more even. Russell noted the same in the Crimea.

I don't think the British who included many Punjab Muslims and Sikhs enjoyed any moral ascendency against their foes. Indeed quite late in the game when a mutineer victory looked less likely new Sepoy regiments and Princes decided to give it a go.

I'd second Hibbet's book and add Dalrymple's Last Moghul and any first hand accounts you can get your hands on. Its a fascinating period.

The attack doctrine if we can call it that was hotly disputed among British officers. Some for some against.

I use Field of Battle for Mutiny games and find it works very well.

For the more disorganised Mutineers use a seperate commander for each regiment with perhaps a brigade around the leader. the Mutineers will then fall into and out of action pretty much regardless of their general's wishes as they so often did. On many an engagement the Indian artillery outclassed their opponents and this can be replicated if you wish. I would rate the Sepoys as the same training class as British regulars but all with smooth bore muskets.

British auxillaries tended to carry smooth bore muskets too as did some of the regulars though the latter were requipped asap.

I've found a Mutiny game on these lines demonstrates the advantages of better equipment and command nicely and seems to me to feel something like the battles we read about.

If so, are there wargame rules sets that reflect this?

These are worth a look and consideration: "John Company, 3rd Edition" By Chris Ferree & Patrick R. Wilson.

Bespoke rules and much extra info for anyone interested in the era of the HEIC at:

link

The same page has a number useful titles for 19th century military adventures. One of my favorites is TVAG's "The Sun Never Sets" which presents an in depth treatment of running an ongoing campaign covering the Imperial obligations of England post-Mutiny to the end of the 19th century, recommended.

A long poke around TVAG's website will reward one with all sorts of colonial (and 19th century) inspiration not least of which is a two-volume compendium of Sudan material by Douglas Johnson (and others) from the pages of the legendary "Savage & Soldier" magazine.

No, not a , just a real fan of TVAG's efforts…

When I was researching scenarios for the IM, I started with the only three battles the British lost. I came up with: Chinhat, where Sir Henry Lawrence was outnumbered ten to one and chased back to Lucknow; The first relief of Arrah where the Mutineers successfully used guerrilla tactics and ambushed an unprepared column at night and one other battle I can't remember the name of at the moment, where the retire bugle call was given in error and the British attack fell apart. But, yes, in general the Imperial forces were able to triumph over ten times (and more) of their number again and again. This makes for a fun game for the Imperial player, but not much fun for the poor Mutineer player. One way to deal with this is to have the mutineers run by the GM. The Devil's Wind rules offer this approach. I have them but have yet to try them. Bob Bergman also uses this approach in his excellent games PDF link The only drawback being they can only be used for an Imperial defensive action Another way is to assign Imperial (non-native) casualties from sunstroke and thirst if the Imperials do not reach their objectives within a set amount of time. As Reactionary mentions, there were still many near run things, including the Imperial assault on Delhi which, IIRC, came very close to being recalled when the initial attacks ran into tough resistance.

I found another British "defeat", but not the one I was looking for. The Battle of Sassiah. 742 Europeans with an artillery battery vs. 4,000 mutineer infantry, 1,500 cavalry and 11 guns. Malleson blames General Polwhele for losing the initiative and engaging in an artillery duel while he made his infantry lie prone. The Imperial forces did eventually take their objective but were not strong enough to hold it and the mutineers refused to retreat. So the British ended up retreating and losing a gun. The only thing that kept it from becoming a total disaster was that the mutineers ran out of artillery ammunition. The British lost 45 men killed and 108 wounded and missing. Malleson says: "Of Polwhele's battle it only remains to be said that it should stand out in history as a warning of the manner in which Europeans, or, I would rather say, the British race, should not fight Asiatics."

Yes, I just read about Sassiah. The morale of the story – according to Polwhele's contemporaries – is that one always has to attack "natives" and close with the bayonet. Any messing around to win fire superiority is asking for trouble as it allows your opponent to become too confident.

Sort of the theme of my original post in a nutshell.

Who was that kinda clownish old commander in the Sikh wars, who insisted on closing with bayonets against the not so inclined to flee Sikhs? In one battle, during a nasty artillary and long range rifle duel, when informed that they were out of cannon balls, said "Good! Then we can use the bayonet!"

He won the battles, but lost a ton of troops. Gough? Napier? One of them, I think.

link

Yes, that was Gough. The incredible thing is that his troops absolutely loved him (he does sound like a nice old boy) in spite of his high casualties. Then again, the Sikh Khalsa were some tough fellows. If THEY had been well led, well, things could have got very interesting…