This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India: Uttarakhand Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Uttarakhand (assessed as High-importance). Nepal High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United Kingdom Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Asian / British / European / South Asia This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force British military history task force European military history task force South Asian military history task force

80.74.137.161 (14:44, 25 December 2011‎) had changed the British troop size to be 22,000 from over 30,000. He did give a citation to "The Victorians at war, 1815-1914: an encyclopedia of British military history" where the troop size is indeed given to be 22,000. However this must account only for the first division, at Dinapur, commanded by Major-General Marley, which was the largest and the main division in charge of attacking the capital city. Nevermind that it failed in the task. In <Smith, Plan of Operation, p. 215-219.> is given the detailed breakdown of all the forces. The addition of all the men is clearly greater than 30,000, as Smith correctly insists. (Manoguru (talk) 16:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Smith got it wrong. The strength of the invasion force was only 22,000. Smith mistakenly believed that first division had 22,000 troops. In reality, it had only 8,000.

Yes, thank you for the correction, my friend. I just check with the Prinsep, who was the official historian of East-India Company during the Governorship of Lord Moira, and the figure given by Smith does not match up. So he must have made a mistake. Now, if only we could get the casualty figures too!! Happy New Year!! (Manoguru (talk) 13:13, 1 January 2012 (UTC))[reply]

What's the consensus on the Nepalese only fielding 11,000 men? That seems woefully low for the population at the time. Perhaps a further miscalculation by Smith or is there just a lack of information on the numbers? I would have thought they'd have hugely outnumbered the British considering the location. 86.5.160.43 (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Uttarakhand workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Uttarakhand or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 13:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is pretty poorly written, someone might want to touch it up a bit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.214.202 (talk) 23:37, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although there is an unprecedented detail of this war that has survived, sadly the article itself is quite scanty on details. I have listed some references as well as external links that opens to those references. I hope someone will take up the challenge of filling in the details. (Manoguru (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Does anybody have a source that describes the war from the Nepalese point of view. All the books that I have been able to find were written by the British. (Manoguru (talk) 05:59, 9 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

It seems to me this article is incredibly biased in the Nepalese's favour, a more impartial article would be fitting. 128.193.15.52 (talk) 05:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The BOLD/CAPS part of this sentence in the Trade section doesn't make sense to me:

" ... The British had made constant efforts to persuade the Nepalese government TO ALLOW THEM THEIR TRADE TO THE FABLED TIBET through Nepal. ... "

Not knowing the reality of this history, I don't feel qualified to change/edit this sentence. But it would seem to make more sense if it read "... to allow them TO trade WITH the fabled Tibet ... "

Almadenmike (talk) 06:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The very last line "in 2015 mr tej thapa also along with thapa group in 1815 Nepalese war" does not make any sense to me. Appears some kind of vandalism. --Satyam Mishra ^--talk-- 20:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been unable to find the source listed for many of the references in the article. "Smith "Plan of Operation". References to it are very vague and any pointing in the right direction would be appreciated. 86.5.160.43 (talk) 13:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Smith (1852) is a book listed under Secondary sources. "Plan of Operation" is presumably a chapter in it. The write-up is quite old and current citation conventions have not been followed. You can improve them if you wish. The citation should have been something like {{sfn|Smith|1852|loc="Plan of Operation"}}. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]