Help support TMP


"Question about Sikh's, Indian Mutiny and Afghan Natives" Topic


6 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please use the Complaint button (!) to report problems on the forums.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to The Sword and The Flame Message Board


Areas of Interest

19th Century

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Featured Ruleset

'Eres to You Fuzzy Wuzzy


Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 


Featured Showcase Article

Crucible's Boogey Men

Whatever happened to the Boogey Men?


Featured Workbench Article

VSF Vessels from the London War Room

Mardaddy has an adventure with two Victorian science-fiction vessels.


Featured Profile Article

Council of Five Nations 2010

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian is back from Council of Five Nations.


864 hits since 11 Sep 2016
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Murvihill11 Sep 2016 6:19 a.m. PST

I'm finishing up my Afghan army, with six tribes (10 jezail, 10 swords), two units of Ghazis (all swords) and one cavalry unit. Next I'm thinking about working on Sikh's and/or Indian Mutiny. I have two questions:
1. assuming a 10 unit army, how many units would be irregular and how many regular?
2. Are the irregular units close enough at 1/72 that I could use them for both or all three armies?
Thanks,
Dave M.

Frothers Did It And Ran Away11 Sep 2016 6:42 a.m. PST

You're referring to Afghan forces in those other conflicts I assume?

1. Almost none would be regular in the British/EIC sense of the term. Dost Mohammad had a palace guard but all Afghan forces in this period would have been feudal levies. Shah Shujah had some regiments drilled on British lines but these fled after the disaster of the First Afghan War and the survivors incorporated into Company units IIRC.

2. Yes.

Oh Bugger11 Sep 2016 8:45 a.m. PST

2. Are the irregular units close enough at 1/72 that I could use them for both or all three armies?

Just about though the Sikhs had more armoured cavalry than the Afghans.

On question 1 for Sikhs I'd go regulars for most of the infantry and artillery.

Murvihill12 Sep 2016 9:43 a.m. PST

"You're referring to Afghan forces in those other conflicts I assume?"
No, I'm referring to the Sikh army and the Mutineers. Both had significant numbers of irregulars listed in their OB for the Sikhs and with numerous references to them with the Mutineers but I'm not sure when they actually went into battle how much of the force would be irregular.
And I'm curious if The Afghans or Ghazis (who I put basically in off-white with turbans) could be used as reasonable stand-ins for the irregular forces of the other two.

Frothers Did It And Ran Away12 Sep 2016 3:13 p.m. PST

Oh, sorry I got the wrong end of the the stick. Haythornthwaite's Colonial Wars Sourcebook reckons about a third of the 150k strong Sikh army was regular infantry. I would reckon that means half regular, half irregular with the balance being artillery and cavalry of which the latter was mostly irregulars of the gohrchurra type.

As to the costuming I'd say no since Sikh turbans have a distinct look compared to Afghan ones, but it depends how fussy you are. Newline do an extensive Sikh wars range in 1/72 if that helps.

I think they'd proxy more easily for the Mutiny, but, like the Sikh Wars most of the real fighting fell to the regular troops.

Ivan DBA17 Sep 2016 10:01 a.m. PST

The pleural of Sikh is Sikhs. No apostrophe needed.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.