4,043
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
bengal regiments
*[http://books.google.com/books?id=sUjRAAAAMAAJ&pg=PR3 Military reminiscences: extracted from a journal of nearly forty years' active service in the East Indies Volume 1] by James Welsh of the Madras Establishment 1830 [http://books.google.com/books?id=8UjRAAAAMAAJ&pg=PP13 Volume 2] (Service from 1790)
*[http://www.archive.org/stream/fortyoneyearsin00unkngoog#page/n100/mode/1up Forty One Years in India: From subaltern to commander-in-chief Volume 1] by Field Marshal Lord Roberts of Kandahar 1897 Chapter 6 onwards. Archive.org (I did put this one under Indian Mutiny) [http://www.archive.org/stream/fortyoneyearsin02robegoog#page/n11/mode/1up Volume 2] 1898 Regards [[User:Maureene|Maureene]] 22:55, 18 January 2010 (PST)
==Bengal regiments again==
This is ''incredibly'' confusing. Thank you for sticking with it. Ok, I think the table will be fine as long as we add a good explanation. I think when finished it will actually help a lot to make sense of these regiments. I find the fact it starts with a name a bit confusing, but I suppose it has to be that way. We could always use a bit of colour to highlight certain important number changes, if needs be. I am going to fill in a test version of the 1st Battalion on the talk page in a minute to check I understand how it works.
On the other matter, I think it might be less confusing all round if we make a new page for those regiments such as the original 19th. That has the added bonus of there being a page for the table to link to. The new table will be able to field people in the right directions so I don't think we need to worry about making a note on the actual 19th Reg page. We will link the table from all the pages. I suggest calling the page the [[19th Battalion of Bengal Native Infantry]] rather than a name such as [[19th Regiment of Bengal Native Infantry (1764)]]. What do you think? [[User:Sarahb|Sarah]] 06:44, 19 January 2010 (PST)
