Jump to content

Talk:List of regiments of the Indian Army (1903)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wel done and some observations

[edit]

Somebody has worked very hard on these two lists and deserves our grateful thanks. Minor quibbles regarding spellings, but not enough to interfere (eg. 42nd Regt.: would have suggested 'Devli' rather than 'Deoli', etc.).

The only real issue was the listing of the Guides Infantry under the Auxiliary list, rather than under the Punjab Command list. Presumably, because it does not have a number. The Guides Infantry was a full-time regiment of Indian troops, whereas the Auxiliaries were European (or probably Anglo-Indian, in the case of the railway units) 'Territorials': "box-wallahs" (the contemporary, and rather condescending, term for office-workers) and planters, such as the Calcutta Light Horse, as portrayed - in his own inimitable manner, by Roger Moore. If the Auxiliaries were largely a social club, the Guides were a very serious unit, with a formidable reputation, at least since the great forced-march of 1857.

The Punjab Irregular Force was originally set up as a Provincial corps (cf.: the Frontier Corps and the Assam Rifles, etc.) on call to the Governor of the Punjab, but became regular troops as the Punjab Frontier Force, a part of the Bengal Army, and then a Command on a par with the three Presidency Commands and hence integrated on the unified list immediately after Bengal, requiring the other two Commands to renumber their Presidency Army numbers. Protozoon (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missing regiments

[edit]

There is no 17th cavalry regiment and no 24th cavalry regiment - is that correct? Opera hat (talk) 10:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

17th Regiment of Bengal Cavalry re-raised at Mian Mir, 1885, by Col. E. H. E. Kauntze--FwdObserver (talk) 11:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was no 24th Cavalry Regiment; its logical antecedent in the Punjab Frontier Force was the 4th Punjab Cavalry, but this was reduced after the 2nd Afghan War. The four remaining PFF Cavalry Regiments became the 21st, 22nd, 23rd, & 25th Cavalry of the Line.--FwdObserver (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 60th, 68th, 100th, 111th and 118th infantry regiments are missing too. Opera hat (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
111th Mahars formed at Mhow on 19th June 1917.--FwdObserver (talk) 11:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This list is wrong and needs lots of work

[edit]

This list isn't even close to accurate. There were units created in 1917 on the main list. And why the list should include wartime units at all is unclear. A 1903 list should reflect the actual units of the Indian Army in 1903. 70.234.223.93 (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move

[edit]

For the main articles, we clearly do need to distinguish between the modern Indian Army and the army of British India, but I don't see any need for "British" in the name of this list. Does anyone have any comments on "List of regiments of the Indian Army (1903)" as a name? Xn4 (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it another day or two before renaming. Xn4 (talk) 04:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

It is commendable that you want to link the pages of Units to the Modern ones. However, please do not redirect if the link is not a redlink. Someone has put an effort to create an article under that name and that is the relevant one. However, I support if you redirect a redlink to its successor regiment's page and in addition, write some lines about the History which makes the link relevant to this list. --Vinay84 (talk) 08:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Hyderabad and Gurkha regiments

[edit]

Since the logic of classification is commands,Hyderabad should be part of Madras command.and Gurkha regiments should be part of respective commands.Propose mergers accordingly --Vinay84 (talk) 12:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it makes sense to group units according to the command structure of 1903.--FwdObserver (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then again, the four commands established in 1895 were only a transitional step in welding the disparate elements into one Indian Army. The next step was re-numbering the regiments in one sequence - that is what this page is all about. The third step was to re-organise the army into tactical formations. By 1908 there were only two commands; Northern and Southern.
Also the regimental line order is the more useful for reference.
--FwdObserver (talk) 01:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Auxiliary Force

[edit]

There was no Auxiliary Force as such before 1920, when the Auxiliary Force, India, was created from the Indian Defence Force, which was itself created in 1917 from the various Indian Volunteer Corps.
--FwdObserver (talk) 11:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frontier Corps

[edit]

The Frontier Corps and the Frontier Constabulary were part of the Civil Administration, and under the authority of the Chief Commisioner of the NWFP. The Corps was lead by Indian Army officers on secondment, but only in wartime did it come under Army Command.
--FwdObserver (talk) 11:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC) --FwdObserver (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Sistan Levy Corps was employed to guard the Line of Communication of the Sistan Force maintaining the East Persia Cordon during WWI. I have not found any earlier reference to it and i very much dout that it existed in 1903.--FwdObserver (talk) 21:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your new subdivision 'Gurkha regiments'

[edit]

Your new subdivision of segregating Gurkha regiments is incorrect. They are former Bengal/Punjab Regiments. No special command or presidency existed in which the Gurkhas were segregated from other infantry. The Gurkhas were treated exactly like any other infantry regiment and were part of Bengal/Punjab forces. Please revert. AshLin (talk) 07:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Gurkha rifles are segregated because ; while all other regiments were (almost) continuously numbered,they were numbered separately. (may be because of the way recruitmenmt happened?)

--Vinay84 (talk) 08:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is only a matter of nomenclature. The British found it convenient to recruit these troops in large number since they came from an impoverished mountain kingdom. Otherwise there is no difference. Even keeping them as a subsection under Former Bengal Regiments is wrong because there is no difference except that they were numbered differently. They were treated exactly like every other Regiment in organisation, manning tables, equipment tables and employment.
Since I have the time, I'm bringing them back in. AshLin (talk) 11:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It boils down to the simple fact that the Gúrkha Regiments were not included in the new infantry numbering sequence of 1903. The Corps of Guides also was not included in either the cavalry or the infantry sequence.
According to Sumner (p. 4), the new tactical command structure was effective from 1904.
--FwdObserver (talk) 20:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, the sub-section can be labelled to show that the Gúrkha Regiments were all former Bengal ones, without undermining the utility of the numerical order.
--FwdObserver (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, not all Gurkha regiments came from Bengal command. 1903 and later , the Gurkha regiments were called the Gurkha line .We need a proper source which gives us the official justification as tow Why? that happened.
Quite right, 10GR was a Madras Regt.--FwdObserver (talk) 09:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Gúrkha Line dates from 1861, when the 1st - 5th Gúrkha Regiments were so designated. The 6th, 7th & 8th GR were transferred to the Gúrkha Line in 1903, and their numbers from the Bengal Line (42, 43, & 44) were then allocated to the Rajputana Local Corps. The 9th & 10th GR had already joined the Gúrkha Line in 1901.
--FwdObserver (talk) 05:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AshLin can you try find out from any regimental source you have .Any published reports etc? --Vinay84 (talk) 03:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

My archive stores mostly primary sources after 1947 that to about Engineers. I'll try though but I am on a fortnight's Wikibreak from tomorrow. AshLin (talk) 11:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References to Perry and statistics copied from 1914

[edit]

Does F.W. Perry really cover 1903 in The Commonwealth Armies: Manpower and Organization in Two World Wars (War, Armed Forces & Society) ???
Or is this listed as a reference because the statistics and other details in the second paragraph are just copied from Indian Army during World War I with '1914' changed to '1903'.
--FwdObserver (talk) 22:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of regiments of the Indian Army (1903). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of regiments of the Indian Army (1903). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_regiments_of_the_Indian_Army_(1903)&oldid=1203681630"