Talk:Battle of Nalapani

WP:Copying within Wikipedia
This article contains some content identical to the Anglo–Nepalese War article as demonstrated here. As some of the material was added to the war article in November and then the battle article in January byt the same editor (Manoguru), it would seem part of this article was copied from the Anglo–Nepalese War. Per Copying within Wikipedia I am noting that the history of the text can be found here Nev1 (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not quite sure how to address this issue (if this is indeed an issue), since I was the one who entered the section on the Battle of Nalapani in the Anglo-Nepalese War. But since the story was getting too long, I thought it best to devote a separate article for it. (Manoguru (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC))

Copy editing and suggestions
G'day, I hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes by posting here. Anyway, I've done a bit of copy editing on the article over the past two weeks. I've probably done all that I can now. I don't have much knowledge of the topic, so I have really only been trying to tighten up some of the language that was used. I hope that it has helped in some regard. If you do not agree with some of my edits, please feel free to revert/undo them. A couple of things that I noticed while working on the article: Anyway, good luck with improving this article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * there are a lot of block quotes used. I wonder if this is really necessary. Could most of these not be reworded and worked into the prose?
 * also, in the legacy section, I wonder if the point shouldn't be made a bit more clearly that as a result of the conflict, the Gurkhas would later be recruited into the British Army. It is mentioned vaguely in the Cultural references section, but not explicitly in the body of the article.


 * Rupert, thank you very much for all your help. The sentences run much fluidly now. I want to get back to work on this article as soon as possible, but currently I don't have access to internet in my new apartment. Hopefully that will be sorted out by tomorrow. I think you have raised a valid point about the Legacy section. Although it is not 100% correct to say that this particular battle lead to Gurkha recruitment, the overall Anglo-Nepalese War did lead to this effect. I will try to include that matter too. As for the blockquotes, it was just my laziness that prompted me to use them. I think we can reduce some of those. Happy Easter! :D (Manoguru (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC))
 * G'day, I've had another go at copy editing the article. Please review and adjust as you see fit. Anyway, I'm not sure if you are looking to take this back to GAN sometime or not, but I have a couple more suggestions. Firstly, it occurs to me that the Aftermath section probably needs a little bit on the subsequent battles of the war and how Nalapani fit in with the overall conflict. Additionally, if possible, it would be good to identify some of the units that took part in the battle. One British regiment, the 53rd, appears to have been identified, but were there any others? Also, there is a "citation needed" tag that should be dealt with before going back to GAN and I do think that it would be a good idea to rewrite the two block quotes in the Aftermath using your own words. Finally, if possible, a couple more images would enhance the visual appeal of the article and would serve to break up the text in the bottom part of the article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Good day to you! "Aftermath section probably needs a little bit on the subsequent battles" -- That was exactly what I was thinking. The more I study the story of these men, the more fascinated I become. After Nalapani the British soldiers head towards Jaithak, where the story is unfolded in two parts. The same characters reappear -- Mawby, Carpenter, Ludlow -- and they make the same mistake of under estimating their enemy. The result was a sound defeat! I have long been thinking of writing an article on the Battle of Jaithak, as a follow up of Nalapani, but I just don't have time to do so right now -- maybe during the coming holiday season I will look into it. A sketch of that battle is given in the article on Anglo-Nepalese War. Identifying units seem a good idea, but I am not quite sure if readers will be that interested. Princep (p. 84) as well as Thorn (p. 225-226) gives a detailed break down of the British forces. However, it is hard to find the same kind of information regarding the Nepalese forces. BTW, I found that in William Thorn's "A Memoir of Major-General Sir R.R. Gillespie," there is a map of the Nalapani battle ground, and the positioning of Gillespies men during the first attack. But thanks to the incompetence of Google, only half the map is actually scanned. I wonder if it is possible to find this book somewhere else. (Manoguru (talk) 11:12, 26 September 2012 (UTC))

Reasons for British failure
I am not sure where I got this, but I think it is best to keep it in the talk page until I find the suitable reference:

1. The main reason for the failure of the British to swiftly capture the fort lay in the fact that their fighting style, more used to plains, with rigid infantry formations and cavalry charges, was ill-suited to mountain warfare. Against an enemy situated behind by a fortified wall, the cavalry was completely useless, and the infantry, using formations that had been developed for flat, open battlefields where it was important to maintain ranks and dressing, was rendered ineffective by the steep terrain. 2. The men under Gillespie, whether by intention or by accident, failed to obey his order. 3. The strategy of attrition, which to the British seemed a less valorous option, occurred to them only after they had paid a high price. 4. Infantry charges should not have been ordered until the walls completely broke down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manoguru (talk • contribs) 14:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Gillespie's men clearly disobeyed his command, and it could not have been an accident. The plan for the first British attack clearly called for a simultaneous storming of the fort from different directions. It is incredibly unlikely that they could not have heard the gun fire or misinterpreted the signal for attack. Even if they did so, the noise and din caused by the battle should have alerted the troops who failed to take action that the battle has already begun. The worst that could have happened, if they did not really intend to disobey, was that they would have been late to arrive at the scene of the battle, because clearly the officers in charge were aware that the plan called for simultaneously attack. I wonder if there was any legal inquiry made by the British army about this incident. (Manoguru (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC))

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Battle of Nalapani.webp

Nalapani
Slow and kids sound 182.50.66.29 (talk) 01:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)