Indians For Guns

I read this article on highroad but I have read A H Amin’s articles before probably on defence journal a Pakistani site or somewhere else and very factual article on how superior Enfield rifle was probably the key factor which enabled Britishers in prevailing in first war of Independence. I came across this while looking up info on guns of that war. Also do read about the sniper Bob at Lucknow residency. Not sure whether this sniper tale is true or not..welcome any comments on weapons of that era

Technical and Tactical Superiority of the Enfield Rifle over the Brown Bess Rifle held by the Indian Rebels in 1857
By A.H Amin
1998
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/inde ... 46217.html

The Enfield Rifle played a decisive role in defeating the rebellion of 1857. Much more than the British officers of that time or most British historians since 1947 want anyone to know. This tendency is understandable because it deflates the deliberately cultivated myth of "White Man's Superiority" in the post 1857 sociopolitical scenario. There is no doubt that the British soldier was brave, that their younger officer lot was resolute and that their higher commanders were by and large an assorted bunch of incompetent old men.

S.S. Thorbum was one of those very few Britons who admitted the superiority of the Enfield Rifle and the decisive part it played in the Sepoy defeat in 1857. In the Appendix of Thorburn's book which few people read, Thorburn made a very profound observation, he said, "Had the sepoys accepted the Enfield and mutinied afterwards, our difficulties in suppressing their revolt would have been enormously increased453.

A very simple gauge of this fact is the high proportion of EEIC's Bengal Army casualties in the First and Second Sikh Wars. This happened because the EEIC forces till 1849 were still equipped with the old Brown Bess Musket and the Sikhs were armed with a similar weapon. Thus the British suffered a very high proportion of casualties, in the Sikh wars as compared to the battles of 1857. Thus the following comparison is thought provoking:-

1. Mudki:- British Casualties - (First Sikh War) - 454
a. Total Strength - 12,350
b. Casualties - 872 men or 7.06%
c. Details -
(1) Killed - 215 or 1.74% of total
(2) Wounded - 657 or 5.32% of total
2. Feroz Shah - British Casualties - (First Sikh War)455
a. Total strength - 16,700
b. Casualties - 2415 or 14.46%
c. (Details:- -
(1) Killed - 694 or 4.154% of total
(2) Wounded - 1721 or 10.31% of total
3. Lucknow - March 1858 - British Casualties - 456:-
a. Total strength - 19,771
b. Casualties - 735 or 3.72%
c. Details:-
(1) Killed - 127 or 0.64% of total
(2) Wounded - 608 or 3.08% of total

The British casualties at siege of Delhi were higher because in Delhi most of the fighting was done at very close ranges and thus the advantage of longer range of Enfield Rifle was nullified. Secondly a large number of British casualties were caused by artillery fire. Technically and tactically speaking the Brown Bess musket was hopelessly outmatched by the Enfield rifle. The Brown Bess did not have an effective range of more than 100 yards and a maximum range of 200 yards. The Enfield with a. .577 calibre had an effective range of 900 yards. It could be rapidly reloaded and thus could fire upto four rounds per minute. The Brown Bess could not fire more than one round per minute in actual battle conditions457.

The sepoys were hopelessly outgunned in comparison with European troops they were facing in terms of actual infantry tactical combat. The European troops could play havoc with the sepoys even before they could get as close as 200 or 300 yeads. The same thus happened at Trimmu Ghat where Nicholsons largely European force armed with Enfields effectively annihilated the 46 NI even before they were within 200 yards of Nicholson’s force. The sepoys knew the tactical potential of the Enfield Rifle but mistakenly advanced against Nicholson's force thinking that they are loyal native troops because Nicholson’s Europeans were dressed in Khaki coloured uniforms. Lack of sepoy resolution to advance against Europeans in deliberate attack has a considerable connection with the immense technical and tactical superiority of the Enfield Rifle. This explains why the sepoys mostly used defensive lines at Lucknow and Delhi as their most favoured form of warfare. But we are still at a loss while explaining our failure at Valtoha despite the fact that we possessed both numerical and technical superiority in the shape of the Patton Tanks! Two British authors were much more intellectually honest in thus explaining the devastating tactical potential of the Enfield in 1857. They thus described the battle of Trimmu Ghat fought between Nicholson's moveable column and the 46 NI and 9 light cavalry on 12 July 1857 in the following words; "It was here for the first time that the "Enfield" demonstrated its enormous superiority as a weapon. At 300 yards the smooth bores of the 46th were firing at twice their optimum combat range and most of the fire was totally ineffective, the balls were half spent and wildly inaccurate. The Enfield's in contrast sighted as they were up to nine hundred yards and throwing a point five seven bullet of substantially higher muzzle velocity were firing at near point blank range, and with devastating effect. The heavy soft lead, high velocity bullets mushroomed as they struck home and the impact frequently stopped the advancing Sepoys dead in their tracks. At that range there were very few wounded, a solid hit would tear a jagged entry hole and leave an exit wound the size of a dinner plate. In the face of this withering fire the mutineers pressed home their attacks desperately, some of them coming to within 50 yards of the 52nd's ranks, but no troops could sustain that kind of battering and ran,...458.

It appears that more than the resolution of the British officer or the native subsidiary collaborator, or north of Jhelum River's martial races or the fiery Sikhs, it was above all the "Enfield" Rifle which was the real victor of 1857. But the British were clever. They stressed the superiority of white man more than the superiority of Enfield. Hardly any British account of that time admitted the role that Enfield Rifle played in the defeat of the Sepoys! The capabilities of the Enfield were never discussed and it was never compared with the Brown Bess! There is no doubt that the British officer in 1857 was a better leader. But can we blame the Indian of 1857 for not being a leader. His rights were usurped the day the northern invader started invading the Indo Pak region. Whatever the Sepoys of 1857 did was very extraordinary keeping in view their circumstances.

The introduction of accurate rifles as a matter of fact revolutionised warfare in the mid nineteenth century. What was happening in India in 1857 was not merely an “India only��? phenomena but was taking place in other parts of the world also. The Brown Bess Musket balls had thus hopped and rolled in flight leading to unpredictable results. The invention and innovation of Minie rifle developed in the 1840s revolutionised and dramatically changed infantry tactics. Before the 1840s the effective range of infantry weapons was 100 to 300 metres. The Minie Rifle increased this effective range to 1000 metres. In 1849 a Prussian Army suppressed a popular rising in Baden in Germany with devastating effect using the new Dreyse Rifle. Thus a German newspaper commented as following; Against a column of old musketeers, the impact of these new rifles is dreadful��?.459 In the Crimean War again in 1854 - 56 the superiority of the superior long range rifles was proved in a scenario where two European conventional armies fought on generally more equal terms taken the Sepoys versus the British in India in 1857.

Here at the Battle of Inkerman British infantry armed with French “Minie Rifles��? annihilated some 15,000 men out of a total Russian force of 27,000. In this battle the Russians were attacking the British in close order formation in vogue before the advent of Minie Rifle on the battlefield460. In Prussia the German General Moltke the Elder could not help commenting that “The English bullets simply could not miss��?461. This was not all, the new rifles to be effectively used required a soldier who had a good basic education and reasonable IQ because range between 100 to 500 metres was not easy to estimate by naked eye method which we call “JD��? or “Judging Distance��? in the army. Thus it was observed that in the US Civil War an average Union Army Soldier on the average consumed 900 pounds of lead and 240 pounds of powder to kill his enemy i.e. the Confederate Army soldier! This average figure it must be noted was for killing just “one Confederate soldier��?462. During the Prusso - Danish war of 1864 it was observed that the Prussian Dreyse Rifle which was superior to Minie Rifle. During this war in a small unit action 124 Prussian soldiers convincingly defeated 180 Danish soldiers by virtue of superior weaponry i.e. the Dreyse Rifle. Thus the Prussians started firing from 250 metres range and by the time the Danish were at the 150 metres line the Prussians troops had fired thrice ensuring that the Danish attack broke up and the Danish withdrew463. In another action in the Prusso - Danish war the Prussians opened fire on a Danish attacking unit at the range of 250 paces. After advancing for 100 more paces the Danish broke up and withdrew after having suffered 50% casualties464.

All these very convincing examples quoted from European military history dismiss the myth of “white man's superiority��? which the post 1857 British writers attempted to impose on the people of Indo Pak. These myths certainly had a negative influence on the Indo Pak man's mind in the period 1857 - 1947 and succeeded in a considerable manner in creating a docile Indian who silently accepted the British supremacy. Even today many Indo Pak writers are baffled at the overwhelming sepoy - British - Loyal Indian numerical differences in the battles of 1857. They are at a loss to explain why so few Britishers and Loyal Indians could defeat so many rebel sepoys in 1857. This aspect has two dimensions which we will discuss in greater detail in the later part of our analysis. However, in a nutshell, firstly the Enfield Rifle" seriously offset the “Sepoy Numerical superiority��? and secondly the “Sepoy numerical superiority��? was highly exaggerated by British soldiers who fought the battles of 1857 and by the post 1857 British Historians. These Britishers with few exceptions like Malleson were mostly praising and projecting each other!

Another very convincing proof about British conviction regarding the vast superiority of Enfield Rifle over the Brown Bess lies in the post 1857 native infantry standard personal weapon policy adopted by the British military authorities in India. The Enfield P-53 rifle was not issued at all to the native soldiers in India after 1857. Not even to the trusted so called martial races north of River Jhelum or Chenab! A very clever policy was adopted by issuing to the native troops a rifle which was identical to the Enfield rifle, but only externally. These were nomenclatured as the P.58 and P.59 muskets for “Native Infantry��?. These were of .656 smooth bore calibre and had an effective range of 200 yards as compared to the P.53 Enfield Rifle issued to the European troops which had an effective range of 900 to 1000 yards and was of .577 calibre. The Sikhs were trusted a little more and were issued Brunswick rifles which were a little better than the P.58 and P.59 Enfield muskets issued to the native infantry 465.

Thus when in 1866 the vastly superior Snider breach loading rifles were issued to the British units in India, the now inferior P.53 Enfield muzzle loaded rifle of the British soldiers was handed over to the native soldier. A breach loading rifle was hundred times superior to a muzzle loading rifle! Thus in 1874 when the British soldiers were issued the Martini Henri Rifle some phased out Sniders were issued to the Indian infantry. In 1892 once a newer and far superior Lee Metford Rifle was supplied to the British Army, the now outdated Martini Henry was given to the Indian Army. Even in 1911 the Indian soldier was issued a single shot non magazine weapon while the British soldier held a longer range magazine Lee-Enfield and Lee Metford Rifle466! The white man's supremacy was maintained by technically superior weapons!!.

The ironic aspect of the whole affair is that so effective was the British propaganda that many Indian and Pakistanis writing as late as 1971 were still convinced that the British of 1857 were more supermen and were really out numbered overwhelmingly by the rebel sepoys. Nowhere did these Indo Pak historians appreciate or point out the tremendous technical/tactical superiority of the Enfield Rifle. The over exaggerated figures of sepoy strength advanced by the British were also nowhere challenged. This is the irony of pre 1947 colonial history and historians of the post 1947 era have a very serious responsibility on their shoulders. The beauty and the irony lies in the fact that loyal Muslims and Hindus were a party in perpetuating such myths.

ngrewal,

The Enfield rifle mentioned in the article is not a Lee Enfield

Enfield rifle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pattern1853Rifle.jpg


Lee Enfield rifle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SMLE_Mk_III.jpg

Not a bad article but Winnie has a point. While many muskets and rifles produced at the Royal Small Arms Factory in Enfield were generically called "Enfields", the Lee-Enfield rifle was a much more modern beast of a specific (bolt) action type. They would not have been around in 1857. On the other hand, the rifled long gun was a huge improvement over the smoothbore musket as a tool of war.

While the rifles used by the British probably had something to do with the eventual suppression of the mutinous sepoys, one must not forget that not all Indian troops mutinied. The vast majority of "native" troops that mutinied were in the Bengal presidency unlike the Bombay and Madras presidencies. The total number of British white troops were small in percentage compared the number of "native" troops especially since a number of "Queens" regiments had been withdrawn from India to serve in the Crimean War. Many "native" troops loyal to their oaths did not take part in the rebellion and troops like the Gurkha Rifles actively helped suppress the mutineers. Without the assistance of loyal "native" troops, it is unlikely that the British would have been able to defeat the mutineers.

One must also not forget the that superiority of the British artillery using modern (at the time) weapons played a major factor in reducing the defensive works occupied by the "native" troops. While native troops had cannon, they were not up to par or employed as effectively as the British artillery. Properly employed artillery was worth more than rifles in breaching forts and other defensive works.

Please note that I am not making any statement for or against the "mutiny" or "the first war of Independence". I am just stating my opinions based on what I have read and studied about the subject.

Would question the statement that the Enfield gave higher velocity than the preceding smooth bores firing a lighter, for caliber, round ball. The Enfield's Minie bullet was far more accurate, and carried farther, but actually has lower velocity. And a smooth-bore musket is as quick, or quicker, to load. Unless it's a flintlock.
As to the "Lee-Enfield" being fielded in 1857, that was worth a chuckle.

Interestingly, the Afghans claim that, during the first Afghan war, their use of rifled guns, versus the smooth bores of the British, made it impossible for the British to maintain the occupation of Kabul, and forced them to the disastrous retreat. They are also sure that they invented the patched ball, but so are the Americans.

But, the thread brings back memories. A three-band Enfield was my first "big" gun, and despite its muzzle being ramrod-worn, could do creditable work with a patched round ball. Some of the locals, being familiar with the rifle, could do amazing work with it. Cheers.

A very interesting read ngrewal .Thank for posting.
There are few things in the write-up which I differ with.

Number of British casualties in Sikh wars; most of the accounts are British records and there is no record on Sikh side The British did manipulate figures for obvious reasons and Sir Harry Smith stated that in his accounts the causalities were much higher.

Battle of Ferozeshah is often referred as the night that shook the British Empire ,Entire forces of British E.I.C fought at Ferozeshah except Madras residency .British army commemorate Ferozeshah day to this day .

The Battle of Chillianwala of second Anglo Sikh war nicely is summarized in one statement by General Airey ,During Crimea war after the disastrous Charge of the Light Brigade, when Lord Lucan remarked "This is a most serious matter", General Airey replied, "These sort of things will happen in war. It is nothing to Chillianwala."
A war memorial of Chillianwala stands infront of Chelsea hospital.

Most historians fail to mention that it was native Indian troops that helped British in Anglo Sikhs wars when British almost surrendered at Ferozeshah but cunning move prevented it. It was this anger against Bengal and Poorbia regiments that motivated the Sikhs to help British snub the 1857 mutiny and siege of Delhi.
Another reason of British causalities in Sikh wars was superior artillery and much better cavalry of Sikhs.

XL_target,

I think yes the native troops without proper command were not comparable to British artillery in mutiny. However Afghans, Sikhs and Holkar’s were almost at par with British artillery with well trained and conditioned Generals and Gunners.

Very interesting article ngrewal.
Infact it was this weapon which actually triggered the "Sepoy Mutiny".
The cartridges of the rifle were greased......and the rumour was that the grease was actually lard and fat from pigs and cows. Since most "sepoys" came from the "upper" castes hindu and muslim families. They refused to use this rifle and rebelled.

Well the muzzleloader muskets were Enfield as my grand father had one of these which is now on my Father's elder brothers license and it says Enfield .The exact same weapon as in the top pic. I am sure u remember it Doc.

Bespoke wrote:and much better cavalry of Sikhs.

In fact the weakest wing of the army of the Lahore Durbar, was the cavalry

In fact the weakest wing of the army of the Lahore Durbar, was the cavalry

Very likely possible since advancing cavalry is very vulnerable to small arms and artillery fire. In addition to this the causes of defeat of Lahore Durbar were in plenty. After death of Ranjit Singh there was a civil war in his kingdom for grabbing the throne. Above all there was financial bankruptcy. Most of his sons were incompetent in politics, were lacking any political foresight and were killed one after the other by conspirators. Spies of East India Company had purchased many key men of Lahore Durbar, making large portions of army under key commanders stay away from the battlefields. It is said that supplies of bags of gunpowder for artillery were replaced with bags of mustard seeds. The Prime Minister of Lahore Durbar Gulab Singh(the forefather of Hari Singh the ruler of Kashmir during 1947) is said to have been complicit with East India Company and after ensuring the defeat of Lahore Durbar, Kashmir was practically gifted to him under Treaty of Amritsar(copy of the treaty available at http://www.kashmir-information.com/Lega ... itsar.html).

winnie_the_pooh wrote:

Bespoke wrote:and much better cavalry of Sikhs.

In fact the weakest wing of the army of the Lahore Durbar, was the cavalry

"Our English cavalry with their blunt swords were most unequally matched against the Sikhs with talwars so keen of edge that they would split a hair... I remember reading of a regiment of British cavalry charging a regiment of Sikh cavalry. The latter wore voluminous thick puggries round their heads, which our blunt swords were powerless to cut through, and each horseman had also a buffalo hide shield slung on his back. They evidently knew that the British swords was blunt and useless, so they kept their horses still and met the British charge by laying flat on their horses' necks, with their heads protected by their thick turbans and their backs by the shields; and immediately the British soldiers passed through their ranks, the Sikhs swooped round on them and struck back-handed with their sharp, curved swords, in several instances cutting our cavalry men in two..." Sgt William Forbes Mitchell

It is also true that in many instances Sikh cavalry did not get proper support from artillery and affected their performance.Sikhs never used their cavalry to full extent and relied too much on their infantry.

In another account

Smith decided to force his men through the Sikh left flank to get between them and the river, and sent more infantry to back up the cavalry. To discourage the Sikhs from reinforcing their left flank, the remainder of the British cavalry went in. This was the first of several charges made by the 16th Lancers, backed up by the 3rd Bengal Native Cavalry. They crashed into the enemy cavalry. Trooper Pearman observed 'such cutting and stabbing I never saw before or since'.

Outcome of any war is not decided only by heroism of few individuals or groups in battlefield. There are lot many factors that decide the final outcome of any war. East India Company was well versed with the art and science of winning the wars which the Indians lacked thoroughly in every part of the country.

goodboy_mentor wrote:Outcome of any war is not decided only by heroism of few individuals or groups in battlefield. There are lot many factors that decide the final outcome of any war. East India Company was well versed with the art and science of winning the wars which the Indians lacked thoroughly in every part of the country.

There is nothing more vital in outcome of a war or battle than heroism of “few” individuals.
Yes there are other factors the most vital is time of war and battle and there is no doubt that British were cunning or lucky enough to always time their wars perfectly and were suitably treacherous.

Sikh empire was well versed with “art and science of winning wars” they were ruling empire from Jamrud to border of Sind and from Sutlej to south and Srinagar in North and defeated the most fierce warriors Gurkhas and Afghans more than once and all this was created in less than 45 years.

Regards,
As Anglo-Sikh wars have been mentioned as I have lost a large no of my ancensters in these wars.First anglo-Sikh war was different from the second as in second war a small part of sikh army took part it strated from Kasur and Attock where a 6000 sikh force under Charat Singh Attariwala revolted as local british officers incited the local tribes to attack the sikh garrison when a another sikh force under Sher Singh reached there to contrl the revolt it joined the rebels. Another strange revolt took place in Multan where 2 British officers were killed by group of Nihangs and local Governor Mulraj joined the small group but Mulraj made a gravest mistake of not admiting the sikh forces of kasur and attock in his Fort due to the overclever tactics of Britishers. In the meantime rebel sikh forces were joined by By a Relegious leader Maharaj Singh except for 11,000 regular sikh troops out of 32,000 others came from followers of Maharaj Singh or Nihangs even artilery majourity came from home made stuff from the Mharaj Singh.In the first battle of second Anglo Sikh war was in Ramnagar where the britihers got a severe beating and retreated but unfortunatly sikh generals insecure of other officers loyalty did not take advantage had they attacked the retreating army and marched to either Lahore or Amritsar and taken the forts the britishers would have to retreat to Calcutta as the doors were open for delhi. But the sikhs waited till britishers regrouped in Chillianwala. Again the sikhs missed the oppurtunity at Chillan wala despite advised by Maharaj Singh sikh general Sher Singh un officialy granted safe passage to defated british army. At Gujarat where the most severe battle of guns perhaps after battle of water loo was fought sikhs were totaly outgunned due to the shortage of gunpowder which was mostly exhausted in chillan wala. It is true sikh officers were very well versed in art of war and knew how to win war but in second sikh war due distrust of eachother won the day for Britishers. Another important factor history ignores is FIRST FIGHTING BETWEEN BRITISHERS AND SIKHS TOOK PLACE MUCH BEFORE THE RANJIT SINGH during the period of lord wellesely sikhs under misals invaded Avadh and destroyed several posts of east India army and took a officer as a hostage and released him after taking a hugh ransom. First sikh war lost due to secret understanding of lahore durbar officers such as Dogras under Gulab Singh,lal singh ranjodh singh and teja singh apart from revenue officers and second anglo sikh war was lost due to distrust of each other and lack of intiative.

Dear bespoke if you read my statement again you will understand that nowhere I have said that heroism of "few" individuals is not important. Very recently the Battle of Longewala is testimony to this, it is heroism of "few" individuals that helped keep the map of India safe. But it would be wrong to say that heroism of "few" individuals is the "only" thing that decides the final outcome of war.

British were cunning or lucky enough to always time their wars perfectly and were suitably treacherous.

Why blame them for their competence and loyalty to their Crown? The British were doing the best thing in interest of their country with full loyalty. Sadly their oponents were simply incompetent in this matter, neither they had any vision for future or could see through the conspiracies or had any loyalty to their country. I would not call it cunning or lucky, it cannot be matter of co-incidence or luck that they knew how to produce results everytime. It cannot be a matter of only luck that they were able to find allies and traitors everywhere, from Mir Zafer in Bengal to Mir Sadiq the Prime Minster of Tipu Sultan and Gulab Singh the Prime Minister of Lahore Durbar.

Sikh empire was well versed with “art and science of winning wars” they were ruling empire from Jamrud to border of Sind and from Sutlej to south and Srinagar in North and defeated the most fierce warriors Gurkhas and Afghans more than once and all this was created in less than 45 years.

Then why did everything crumble within few years like a pack of cards after death of Ranjit Singh? Simply becuase he did not have any vision for the future after his death and it was only one man show. He was busy marrying and drinking. It is no surprise that when he was gone everything was gone with him.

I have visited the factory site approx 100 times.

They have a small museum there which contains many models of enfield rifles.

Only once have i seen another person in the museum (actually he met me outside asking for the directions for it). He was an ex soldier.

Shabash XL_target well said.

Please also note that as per 1857 the things arent as clear as the author of the book has put it.

Even in those days, the dispatches from the officers under attack ask for a "any european troops, no matter how small a group" of europeans to quell the sepoys. So the belief in european superemacy isnt a post 1857 phenomenon.

Also note that the first two battles were lost within minutes and there is a lot to say about the saying lion leading sheeep vs. sheep leading lions etc.

Now i am not comparing cowardice to valour etc etc.

But no indians were allowed to be officers in those days so the so callled 'leaders' in the mutiny were actually never used to leading; only following orders.

If you look at the battle strategy, it was just wave upon wave attacking the same position everyday and facing the cannon.

No advantage was taken of the weak rear or to flank them.

Death charges have never won wars.

Indian artillary were actually quite acurate but as the old saying goes "british line never breaks". When they saw the british line advancing amidst cannon fire, the whole regiment ran leaving their heavy cannon and strategic battlements in into east India company's hands.

Please also note that there were disproportionate numbers and this wasnt just to prove british as superman.

only 1000 odd soldiers of bengal regiment did not rebel; the whole regiment mutineed.

There are very clear accounts of the number of rebel troops even by indian writers. In fact it was due to these high numbers that the food became scarce and the seige like conditions led to the sepoys starving.

And as far as "the first war of indipendence" is concerned, lets not kid ourselves.

Many a places I have seen writers and fellow members included write "the first war of indipendence, which the british also call the great mutiny".

It was actually a mutiny which the govt propoganda teaches the kids in schools as "the great war of indipendence".

Nowhere even the then indian writers or newspapers use the words "war of indipendence" or "bharat mata" (mother india)or "azadi"(freedom) etc.

The words used are " jihad" (holy war) "fasad"(brawl) "danga"(riot) "gadar"(anarchy) "lootmaar"(looting-free for all) etc.

Brown bess' inferiority to the enfield is not in doubt then how do you explain that the sepoys with guns, no matter how inferior, were time and again pushed back by the Sirmoor regiment's gurkhas' Khukris.

I read an article which stated that the reason napolean lost the war with russians was because the tin being produced in france was of a particular crystalline structure which became brittle at minus something temperature.So when they entered russia, the armour just fell off and hence lost.

Many wars are won and lost on many criteria , one or two being the central or turning points.

p.s.: thanks to hamiclar without whom, my knowledge of 1857 would be far lesser.