Very interesting. My Father was born in India ( which at one time nearly got him deported ) his Father and Great Grandfather, lived and worked there as engineers in the foundries of the Indian railway. I heard many of these stories from my Dad and your account - as his was - is balanced and accurate. My old man had nothing but respect for Indian people whom he always befriended since being sent "home" to Britain to escape the massacre of partition at the age of 14.
That is interesting. Did he ever go back? It sounds like your family lived there for a good 50 years or so. Is that without ever going back to England? Did they adopt a lot of Indian mannerisms? This is really interesting to me. Of course, as an American, I know people right now who were somewhere till they barely got out before a massacre or some kind of violent retribution. The big difference is, they had to leave their own country and come here or the taliban would play Buzkashi with them being in the middle. Alive. Just like they did to the Soviets.
Finally a decent and informative video on this very forgotten and underrated topic! It's the first episode of a series? Ohh, just Marvelous! Many thank's for your quality content, as always Chris! I'm proud of being your subscriber! Keep up the great work!
@@Grenadier311 Do you mean my nickname? If so, thanks bud. Its based on the Old Guard of Napoleon I. Hell if they weren't immortal, i dont know who else could be 😂👍
Good morning, Chris, as always, your story telling is a vision. I could feel the dust & flies of the parade ground, as the court martial was held. Classic rumor control, and now I have to wait until the next episode, Cheers and thanks for a brilliant story telling.
Your video arrives just as I finish the first pages of Arthur Herman's book "Gandhi and Churchill" which in the prologue, details the Sepoy Rebellion. Perfect timing!
I remember reading about a decade ago that sociopaths may (estimated, subjective) make up about 1 in 5 people in the developed world. One of their favorite occupations appears to be mid-level management. This seems to be backed up by the fact that 2 out of the 3 mid-level managers so far in this story clearly display sociopathic megalomania. The higher ranking commander who showed clear empathy for his soldiers obviously wasn't a sociopath however.
Careful what you wish for many indian hindus in uk itself clearly haven't forgotten not good to open old wounds. The recent Kalistanti issues shows east asians have long memories and carry long grudges.
Very interesting story, thank you for telling! So many conflicts are nominally about one thing (like the greased cartridges), while in reality that thing just provides a focal point for people to rally around who were already discontented for myriad other reasons.
Really appreciate you covering this era in the British rule of India and the horrific and tragic consequences that happened in this conflict. Your narrative of its causes is testament to your hard work researching this and presenting it fairly with a well-rounded perspective as should by a historian with integrity and passion as I consider you are. Looking forward to your episodes of this conflict.
I am very interested in learning the British perspective of the 1857 revolt. I was glad to learn that it was not all black and white but the discrimination against Indians is not as wide as i thought thanks for your perspective. Love your videos from India. Keep up the good work
@@TheHistoryChap Hey its me again can you explain the general British persons attitude to Indians and Africans, i read that the British in the 19-20th century looked at Indians as equal or "slightly inferior" while the African man was a "Dirty barbarian" and some said that the British didn't discriminate or hate them or that they only passively hated them. I am interested in knowing what was their approach to Indians and blacks and for example how a British public would react to Indians or Africans walking in London with western or traditional cloths in the 19th century
Wonderful storytelling Mr Green, and quite nuanced indeed-- quite a rarity these days. I see the rebellion of 1857 as a period of divergemce between the attitudes of the indian masses and their colonial overlords (including the anglo-indian and christian communities of india, as well as native rulers), towards each other. An interesting point of note is that after the rebellion, indian princes and british officials developed increasingly warm relatiins with each other (except for those that had rebelled) and had only occasional disputes. The ordinary people and the anglo-indians, on the contrary, grew increaaingly distrustful of each other, leading to a vicious cycle of racial violence and injustices. Another interesting point is that after the end of Company rule, which had essentially copied most of the mughal way of administration, revenue collection, and military organisation (with little to no interest in engaging with the societal affairs of their subjects), the Raj brought an entirely new system of governance and positive development (as i think i have good reason to believe) that shaped the country to greater extent. What do you think, Mr Green?
Aah, now this is a fascinating topic, I was drawn into it by a rather excellent novel the title I now forget but I read it in months before leaving for India in 1990. Thanks to that book, i made a visit to Lucknow a priority, glad I did. I skipped seiing the taj mahal in favour of a day wandering around the ruins of the British residence, its a day I will never forget. Could send you some photos I took Chris , if you have an email ? . Look forward to this series, it will be a cracker.
Sometimes living in England, I forget just how geographically large India is. It would take you over 24 hours to drive from Barrackpore to Meerut in a car.
@@TheHistoryChap I’m an American. As your most likely aware Americans aren’t the most geographically knowledgeable people. If it isn’t in the US we have a tendency to ignore it. I traveled quite a bit in SE Asia when I was young, but never had the opportunity to see India. I have always thought it an intriguing place. But, life has limited my travels. I also love history. Sorry to babble. You map made the difference for me.
Thank you very much for a most interesting history,.I've liked,subscribed and will look for more of your prorammes👍😃. Best wishes from jolly old England 👍😎Pete 🤓
@@TheHistoryChap Thank you very much for replying. I'm across the country in sunny Norfolk. I'm already glad I found your channel. The videos were great,highly watchable👍
India was a region with many kingdoms but for the first time the concept of a united rebellion took form in northern plains of India.However it wasn't well organized nor supervised by a central authority and failed.But its seen as the first major rebellion against Foreign rule.You must understand that these are polar opposite cultures and will not get along especially in those times.
Why do we have to wait? One of the most interesting historical events. First learned of it through Flasman and have hoovered up any content I can find. Currently reading Dalrymple
Walter Slater my great great grandfather served in Staffordshire 1st of foot and saw action in both Crimea and the Indian Rebellion, on 3 charges of court marshall over a period of 20 years service, Private Walter Slater returned to England with his wife and new children
@@TheHistoryChap Walter came from Oxfordshire, very poor as most were back then, married and in need of money, got caught stealing a clothes line, he was twenty years old, 2 months hard labour, joined the Staffordshire regiment shortly after. When you see the battles that were documented in the Crimea its amazing how he survived let alone go into India
Sutte was abolished several times before under some Indian kings too. Also it was Indian reformers who pressured British to abolish it. British generally try to take credit for these things. Yes, the government was British. Most Indians were fed up with general increasing poverty of india.
Mangal Pandey wasn't just hanged if I remember correctly. He was hanged with a cannon on his back. Or something of that sort. But other than that a very good video. Waiting for more from India
There are several conflicting accounts of the Mangal Pandey incident; some, for instance, mention the suicide attempt and others do not, and the general details seem to have got a bit fogged. And it is a misnomer to call the rebellion a war of independence; the idea of a self-governing Indian nation-state didn't take route until around the turn of the century.
It was only named that a near century later and the name implies intentions the rebels likely never thought of let alone had, the vast majority of Indians also supported the British which would mean most modern Indians are descendented from people on the wrong side of a struggle for national independence. The reality it that it was a mutiny which sparked off a wider rebellion and was then crushed by loyal Indian troops, the British and a variety of quickly raised counter forces like the Sikhs and Afghanis. The only one able to turn it into a national movement was the mugal emperor and he in way in large part sympathetic to the British and only went along due to the involvement of his sons.
John Masters has at atleast two books written on the Indian Independence movement. 1. Night Runners of Bengal based on 1857 mutiny/Independence struggle. 2. Bhowani Junction - based on the freedom struggle in the subsequent years (Gandhi Nehru et. al)
The use of tallow as a lubricant and protective film and water proofing was standard in 1850 and till half a century later, when petroleum entered the market. So there is no basis for using words like 'conjecture' and 'rumoured' about the use of tallow.
There is a rumor among the Indian sepoys that the cartridges are coated with grease made from both pork lard and beef tallows. When the sepoys request or demand evidence, the East India Company denied them and even suggested that the sepoys greased their own cartridges. The refusal to show evidence and the suggestion to grease their own cartridges reinforced the rumor. The mutiny is actually the result of years of unresolved tensions and issues between the East India Company and various Indian kingdoms. The cartridge controversy is the spark the ignited the mutiny.
I enjoy this channel, but I'd like to respectfully point out two things that this film doesn't seem to address. One is that it seems clear that every time tensions were being diffused, a new and almost certainly deliberately invented rumour was put into cicrulation in order to stoke things back up again. The other thing is that yes, the fighting was eventually vicious on both sides, but the Indian's targeting of women and children in the way described right from the start (and there was much, much more just as bad later) was behind the fury which caused the British to retaliate in kind, however wrongly.
Generally Indians are very respectful and do not used to target women in wars. Still they did it in initial phase meaning some anger must be festering. Also later indian soldiers refused to kill women. Also lots of indian soldiers started war as lost cause since Lord Rama wouldn’t grant the victory anymore since this “sin” was committed. ( source ..”eyewitness to Gadar by varsikar. He was present in areas when fighting was going on.)
@@lokendrasingh9781 I'm not sure why very respectful Indian soldiers would slaughter civilian women and children because their anger was "festering" over conditions in the army.
@@martynb901 I am not sure either. There are many things wrong with Indian culture but killing women and children during war wasn’t one of them.( exception aside). In case of Kanpur Siege in same war soldier did refuse to kill women and children even though they were ordered to kill. So they did consider it wrong act. Human nature can be very unpredictable.
I think this documentary although very good does not take into account the economic ravaging of Indian economy that took place during that time. Pesants with one fell swoop becoming owners of land to tenant farmer. BEIC tended to be extremely aggressive and exploitative of local industry and hence there was extreme deirbunization with a lot of artisans joining the fray with the peasants. During that period that region also saw depopulation because a lot of people moved away from the BEIC region. I think that was a more important cause than religion.
@@TheHistoryChap Cartridges, not weapons. The Indian forces of the British Empire are distinct for their almost... USMC-like treatment. They got the outdated secondhand stuff. A lot of which finds its reasoning in this event.
I’ve read several books on the Indian Mutiny. It was the last hurrah of the old Brown Bess. One book I read actually put some blame on the white wives (memsahibs), of officers of the company, for looking down on Indian soldiers and discouraging their husbands fraternization with their troops, thus severing the very strong bond between officer and sepoy.
I never realized the Irish and Indian flags are the same colours. Or didn’t connect the two. It’s for the same reasons too, that of religion. And both are historically pissed at the British. Was just wondering if it was reeeeally the best idea to try to allay a potential Indian rebellion with an Irish unit😅
The Irish and the Indians both had a complicated relationship with the British empire. Witness the huge numbers from both countries who fought for the British.
@@TheHistoryChap well of course. Good subject for a video: was there any actual subterfuge in either world war by Irish or Indian troops, or other actors. If not, why not. There would have been much opportunity, and both countries were at the summit of national consciousness. Politics aside, I mean. De Valera/Churchill being amply covered, as well as the main Indian protagonists attitudes being well known. I think it comes down to the professionalism of the Indian and Irish soldiers. The incident you covered, at another time, the temptation of an Irish unit to goad an Indian one into rebellion..tempting.
Excellent brilliant video Was the sepoy mutiny an ‘Indian war of Independence’ ? The sepoys’ were fanatical British servants. For a hundred years , they roamed around Indian subcontinent dismantling Mogul India. They served the British 🇬🇧. Then the British and Sepoys murdered each other. The British were able to put down the sepoy insurgents with the help of the loyal fanatical Sikh regiments. The Muslim Nawab princes kept out of it. The last Moghul was a puppet of the British, who was made a scapegoat . He were never involved.
It seems reasonable to point out that more Indians fought in support of the British, than against. It looks less like a war of independence, than in which certain groups wanted power and status for themselves.
His sons were involved and he was forced to be by their involvement but yes he remained sympathetic to the British throughout and was horrified by the atrocities committed in his name. He was nothing but a figurehead both for the British and then the rebels, and had limited influence over either.
Also the sepoys weren't fanatical, often they weren't very reliable, in that they would lose their heads in battle rather than mutiny. This was part of why the Sikhs were so eager to fight them, they had been insulted by being treated as inferior warriors by troops who had performed poorly against them, they saw the British as beating them fair and square, but only the British, they hated the airs of the sepoy after having been beaten by the blunt ends of the officers swords to advance on the enemy in battle and not hover around in fear while being shot by cannon. As the conflict showed the sepoys were loyal to regiment, reputation and pay but loyalty to the British was conditional.
Not surprising that those at the top of the pile don't want to see any improvements in the lives of those beneath them. Of course the top castes didn't want anything to change, and least of all evangelical religion that would target the lowest castes and elevate their condition. That battle still goes on in India today.
In the mid march of 1856 to 1857 Around 17 thousand royal Nepal Gurkha army were sent by the Shree tin Maharaj prime minister Junga Bahadur Rana of Nepal to help east India company to fight against the Indian mutiny rebels and the last Mughal badshah Bahadur jaffar Shah's resistance troops . Gurkha army killed as much as 16 thousand mutiny rebels and resistance army of Mughal badshah and captured of Bahadur Shah's 4 sons from the red fort of Delhi, next day they killed and hanged all four sons of Bahadur Shah'. Gurkha also captured the last Mughal Bahadur jaffar Shah and his two wife from the Lal Killa palace. Few weeks later Bahadur Shah' and his wife were sent to Burma via boat, east India company and British officers treat them so badly, their conditions were like a beggars. After the mutiny event, east India company and British government were so impressed with Gurkhas .,. Later , Britain starting to recruiting Gurkha to their regiments - sorry for my poor English
Yes. it was seen as another example of British undermining Hindu culture (& trying to replace with their own). As you can see/hear in my video, there were a lot of reasons that had been building up to an explosion.
They also ended infanticide and sexual slavery, which might have been more major but due to Victorian scruples they didn't like to talk about it in detail beyond a mention.
The cartidges were not made using any animal fat because being made in Great Britain, they would have been rancid and unusable by the time they had made the long sea voyage to India, and because of the great temperature change from Britain to the sub-continent. They were made using mineral oil. Russia (which had recently been beaten on their own soil by Great Britain and France in the Crimean War) pushed the animal fat lies for their own aims of revenge against Great Britain and France. They had long hoped to replace Great Britain in India.
@@TheHistoryChap Mineral oil wouldn't go rancid after five months in a wooden ship with wildly varying temperatures. If the ammunition wasn't used, it wouldn't be paid for. "A nation of shopkeepers" would consider that unthinkable. I would say that my source was 'common sense', wouldn't you? The same as Russia's unfriendly behaviour. If you disagree, I'll will stay subscribed to the excellent 'The History Chap'.
You make it sound as if the east India company never did anything wrong and it’s all the fault of the locals and rumour’s.High taxes taking of the crops famine and other injustices.Very one sided.
@@TheHistoryChap Oh I am so sorry! I should have been more clear, William Brydon during the 19th century was the soap survivor of a whole British army. It might be a interesting video
I don't understand how little film or television has been made of this. It has everything, location, action, drama tragedy. Maybe it's to politically sensitive a subject.
@@TheHistoryChap I had to change the way I saw things quickly as my Indian hosts did not consider this a mutiny or rebellion. It was very much the first war of independence and I kept my admiration for the defenders under wraps. Very different from the Boys Own perspective I had at that time.
Hi Chris, The Mutiny/rebellion was the Special Subject of my History degree, and I wrote my final 12k dissertation on the Jhansi-Gwalior Campaign of 1858. I'd be very happy to share my knowledge and research if you would find it helpful. A very good out outline of the causes btw - it is interesting to note that even Nehru, the father of modern India rejected the idea of the rising as "The First War of Indian Independence".
Chris, that's very interesting about Nehru's view on it (I am in that camp too). Would be interested in picking your brains. Please drop me a line via my website (www.thehistorychap.com) so we can have a private conversation.
Hi Chris, great video essay. Popular history discourse is saturated around the cartridge incident here in India also. Maybe because it sounds dramatic for a story. Although it was a trigger moment for sure, it was not the whole cause. Thanks for elaborating on the other factors such as conservative backlash and effects of doctrine of lapse.
Hi Chris, I came to university hoping I was going to learn about history like this. Instead, my morale has been crushed by the intersectionalist, post-marxian drivel that the universities force down our throats. But after re-watching your channel over the last few days you have re-ignited my passion, and you have reminded me why I came to study this subject in the first place. Thank you. If I make it through this course I want you to know that you helped me on the way.
At which university are you studying, Tyrolian? Perhaps I can help with an alternative bibliography? Lectures are all very well but you can't beat countless library-hours. I'm hard-of-hearing so had little option other than to get a booklist, hit The Bodleian, and crack on. Which neo-or-post-Marxist authors are you being bombarded with, by the way? I'd be very happy to supply antidotes, dependent on subject areas. Good luck!
For those interested, two great books (novels written against historical fact) and set in the Indian Mutiny are: "Blood of an Englishman" and "The Heroic Garrison". 👍
You could also try "Flashman in the Great Game" by George MacDonald Fraser. While the novel itself is tongue-in-cheek, it is (generally) accurate and the extensive historical notes at the back of the book are excellent.
Hi Chris, this will be, I'm sure, an interesting series. When I come back to the UK I normally pick up a book or two, last year I came back with one called Empireland by Sathnam Sanghera the front cover says "How imperialism has shaped modern Britain" if you come across it, its worth having a look, the Indian uprising is mentioned quite a bit. Have a great weekend and good luck from Spain!!
Agreed. British military leadership was generally high quality. But also Indian culture is big in loyalty towards your employer. So even mediocre officer will perform great with such a high quality well trained troops.
I so often find myself spurred on to researching the topics you cover, it's worth noting my thanks. You provide such a well crafted foundation, which is then easy to expand and build on. Gratitude!
My great great grandfather survived the rebellion but alas his wife and children had not. They were strung up and spears left in their bodies to be found. He remarried and had more children and our family did not permanently leave India until 1914, returning back to Britain to fight in the trenches of the Great War.
Interestingly how the things about guns kept coming up. It almost sounds to me like someone was trying to use that to stroke the rebellion to start. Has anyone ever looked into or any type of proof come up, that someone was using that, or taking advantage of it, to start the rebellion?
I just started reading “Sahib: The British Soldier in India 1750-1914” by Richard Holmes. I’m very appreciative of you covering this topic and I’m looking forward to your future videos on this topic!
India was ruled by the Moghuls, who were not Indian. However, all that is lost in "Whitey bad!" (You are welcome for democracy, clean water, fertilizer, modern medicine; mass produced steel; autos; lights; electricity; modern math; etc., etc., etc., etc.!) This to is forgotten in all the whining. So the Moghuls were Turkmen and descendants of Genghis Khan. This to is forgotten. But was India ever really untied in the past? It has obvious multiple ethnic groups and many languages. More like Europe, than Han China in the East of China's modern landmass.
1) There is no love lost for the mughals in modern Indian historical discourse. The point is, it's not forgotten that mughals were turko-mongols and outsiders as you are stating here. BTW Mughals were not descendants of Genghis khan but Timur, who in no way was related to the bordugin family, and the only mongol heritage the timurid family has is timur's later wife bibi khanum whom he married after killing his former friend hussain in the siege of Samarkand. This woman was from the chagatai khan family 2) I don't get this argument of "India was never united" From the pro raj faction. Is this a trick to Delegitimise the nation hood? As you have correctly summarised India is more like Europe, having multiple ethnicities, languages and cultures. So to have a United India is just like having an empire ruling from Britain to norway to eastern Europe which rarely happened. In the case of India it happened a few times like the Mauryan empire or brief period in the Mughal empire. although these empires didn't cover the whole subcontinent. You realize that before modern communication and transportation, holding together a subcontinent or continent like Europe was very difficult. That's why you see more instances of North Indian plains or South India coming under a single empire and not the whole subcontinent. 3) The other flaw in this argument is if " India was never a single country " So was Germany or Italy before unification despite having a single language. Because the nation state is a relatively new concept. If going by the definition of 17th century European nation state, half of the countries in the modern world won't qualify for a nation. 4) I understand why the pro empire faction will only focus on good things and why nationalists will only focus on bad things, because each has to justify their enterprise. But one shouldn't be blind to the other side of the story.
We never called sons of bas tard ch rist to come to india. Time has changed Our economy is going to overtake west very soon and you will be following sharia enforced by your favorite islamic immigrants.
Mauryan Empire, Gupta Empire, Karkota Empire, Pala Empire are the major empires which covered majority of India from Afghanistan to the extreme South of Tamil Nadu. North Indian kings defeated Huns and sent them back to central Asia and Gilgit region of Kashmir. Kashmir and Bihar region of India made joint armires to defeat the invading Tibet from two fronts in 700-800AD. Your perception of Indian history is wrong.
objective presentation. You could have dwelled more on the economic hardships that EIC taxation and biased business policies brought on the Indian people and how it added to the resentment. But, overall very nice and crisp. thanks. sharing.
Thank you very much for watching, and for your thoughts, about some of the economic hardships that may have also caused some people to want to rebel against the east India company
Really a very learned,interesting and informative talk on the beginnings of the Indian Mutiny, i very much look forward to your future talks on the subject Chris
The more that I look back at history, the more shocked I am at the fact that there is so little change in the way we treat each other. We as a people seem almost incapable of showing any empathy or learning from our mistakes.
A most interesting account of what is an integral part of our history and that of India who've shared such a close relationship, still seen in many ways. Thankyou so much for this video I look forward to the continuing series.
The British did not want to control India. But the Moslem rulers kept attacking the British usually with French assistance, and their armies became devastated after British victories, though their numbers were fewer. It needs to be remembered that the British also has Indian allies. After the native powers were devastated that were neighboring the British trade areas other Indian groups moved in destroying communities. The British did not realize the state of the territory of Bengal till it was very apparent that millions were starving. So the British government began taking authority to relieve the suffering from the poor state of the native Bengal authorities. The British continued to take authority from the native government to protect the Indian people from the failed native government till they controlled the India subcontinent. This charity expense caused the British India Company to go bankrupt but at the same time created the state we know as India.
Your comments are full of lies. Indian rulers are quite good at talking care of their subjects. Majority of famine and starvation happened under British rule. Had British rules with justice, things would have been good but British were the worst rulers ( not even ordinary bad . )
They used the brown bess, or matchlocks in the case of non-sepoy forces, as a result they tended to be outranged and would probably have been so more often if not for the fact that the British were very aggressive and usually took things to the sword and bayonet regardless of casualties. Due to the murder of British women and children there were many British driven by anger and the more cautious commanders typically didn't get to grips with the enemy in the first place due to being greatly outnumbered.
