Talk:Ambela campaign
(Redirected from Talk:Umbeyla Campaign)
Latest comment: 4 months ago by Eastfarthingan in topic War result
 | The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | A fact from Ambela campaign appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 27 July 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
_without_national_boundaries.svg)
Need for rewording?
editI read "Reinforcements drafted in the local Commander-in-Chief eventually broke through the pass". Should that read "Reinforcements drafted by the local Commander-in-Chief eventually broke through the pass" instead? Otumba (talk) 11:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes it should have. Thanks, Woody (talk) 12:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
- No problem, and thank you for the correction. Otumba (talk) 13:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
War result
editWhat is the explanation in the second source @Eastfarthingan for British victory RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 12:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- You mean Jalal? to quote 'The Ambala campaign of 1863 was a success for the British in terms of immediate military objectives.' Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- So what do you think the result of this conflict should be written as for readers then? Inconclusive? Mutual result? RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Since the British clearly completed their objectives (yes, it took longer than expected and at high cost) it was not a defeat. Some sources say it was but there is no explanation as to why. Therefore it should stay the same unless a consensus can be made. Eastfarthingan (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- What is the explanation exactly that the British had? Non of the sources provided actually talk about HOW but declare a side to have won, militarily atleast.
- Isnt it for us here on Wikipedia then to decide what is to be written? Theres more internet sources. Most of which Ive observed characterise the campaign as a British failure to subdue the tribe. If the British won then that would imply there was a tribal loss, what was it?
- I'm more leaned towards Afghan tribal victory than I am British Indian victory. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Since the British clearly completed their objectives (yes, it took longer than expected and at high cost) it was not a defeat. Some sources say it was but there is no explanation as to why. Therefore it should stay the same unless a consensus can be made. Eastfarthingan (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- So what do you think the result of this conflict should be written as for readers then? Inconclusive? Mutual result? RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's far fetched to say that it was a Tribal victory especially when the British & Indians took the high points and then broke out through the pass. Then as a reuslt forced the Bunerwals and various Khans and leaders to accept peace therefore defeating the 'Fanatics' which was the British objective. I cant see what benefits the tribes got from it, other than siding with the British. Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)