British war hero who kept a human head on his desk & hunted tigers with a sword

Captain John Nicholson was a cranky, humourless, God-fearing, self-proclaimed clairvoyant Irishman who commanded regiments of hardcore kukri-swinging Gurkha, did battle with ferocious Afghan tribal warriors, crossed swords with blood-raging Sikhs and rampaging Indian mutineers.
He kept the severed head of a convicted outlaw on his desk as a warning to criminals, and used to hunt Bengal Tigers on horseback using only a cavalry saber.
Between riding down apex predators and crushing the skulls of all who opposed him in a bloodsplosion of gruesome vengeance, Captain Nicholson was so damned effective as the ultimate paragon of Victorian English colonial rule and ruled with iron-fistedness.  He was worshipped as a god in some rural sections of the Punjab until the mid-1980s, is forever remembered by the British history texts as the “Hero of Delhi”, and is equal parts respected and despised by roughly everyone on the Indian subcontinent.
Nicholson was best known for his role in the Indian Mutiny of 1857, planning and leading the Storming of Delhi. Famously dismissive of the incompetence of his superiors, he said, upon hearing of Colonel (later General Sir) Archdale Wilson’s hesitancy while on his deathbed, “Thank God I have yet the strength to shoot him, if necessary”.

One famous story recounted by Charles Allen in Soldier Sahibs is of a night during the Mutiny when Nicholson strode into the British mess tent at Jullunder, coughed to attract the attention of the officers, then said, “I am sorry, gentlemen, to have kept you waiting for your dinner, but I have been hanging your cooks.” He had been told that the regimental chefs had poisoned the soup with aconite. When they refused to taste it for him, he force fed it to a monkey – and when it expired on the spot, he proceeded to hang the cooks from a nearby tree without a trial.
Nicholson also called for the Indian Mutiny to be punished with greater severity. He proposed an Act endorsing a ‘new kind of death for the murderers and dishonourers of our women’, suggesting, ‘flaying alive, impalement or burning,’ and commenting further, ‘I would inflict the most excruciating tortures I could think of on them with a perfectly easy conscience.’
With the destruction of the main British Army during the infamous retreat from Kabul, the various garrisons around Afghanistan including Ghazni were besieged and waiting for the relief force to rescue them.
It was during this siege that Nicholson’s incredible determination, volcanic temper and savage fighting abilities first came to the attention of his superiors. It was also in Afghanistan that Nicholson’s loyalty to the natives under his command were displayed. When Colonel Palmer, Commander of the garrison agreed to surrender the fort, Nicholson argued that to do so, would condemn the Hindu soldiers to a certain death and he refused to comply with the order, kept hold of his musket and threatened with his bayonet any Afghan who came near him. Only when directly ordered by Colonel Palmer did he comply, flinging his sword at the feet of his captors and bursting into tears. Immediately his men were attacked by a large group of men and any hindus who refused to convert to Islam were immediately butchered. This episode had a lasting impact on Nicholson of which we will see more of later.

Nicholson, along with nine fellow officers were taken captive and held by the Afghans for over six months, mistreated and suffering the indignities of lice, dirt and poor food, but it was during this period that Nicholson’s extraordinary ability to impress and intimidate the natives, even as a captive first emerged. In one episode the men were being roughly searched for any valuables, Nicholson had a locket which contained a lock of hair from his mother, incensed that he was about to lose it he flew into a towering rage and threw the locket at the head of the Afghan Sirdar, the man seemed to like the fact Nicholson wasn’t scared of him and gave strict orders for the locket to be left with Nicholson. via
Nicholson never married, the most significant people in his life being his fellow Punjab administrators Sir Henry Lawrenceand Herbert Edwardes. At Bannu, Nicholson used to ride one hundred and twenty miles every weekend to spend a few hours with Edwardes, and lived in his beloved friend’s house for some time when Edwardes’ wife Emma was in England. At his deathbed he dictated a message to Edwardes saying, “Tell him that, if at this moment a good fairy were to grant me a wish, my wish would be to have him here next to my mother.” The love between him and Edwardes made them, as Edwardes’ wife latter described it “more than brothers in the tenderness of their whole lives”.
He died on 23 September 1857, in a small bungalow in the cantonments of Delhi, as a result of wounds received in the taking of the city nine days previously. He was 34, not as the tombstone gives it, 35.


http://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/british-war-hero-who-kept-a-human-head-on-his-desk-hunted-tigers-with-a-sword.html

I'm struggling to work out why Dodge posts so much history in 'News' sections. Perhaps he lives in the past, thinking of them as the 'glory days'.

So now Stassi is so wound up and a defender of antisemitism, because she does not condemn Hamas and supports them in their goal to wipe out the Jews.
And people wrongly assume most Nazi's are far right, you have all the evidence of Jew hatred here by the fact Hamas want to wipe all Jews out, of which Stassi cannot refute and she backs them.

I do hope the moderators are going to keep a very close eye on the pictures that are posted.

What is wrong with history?  If the objection is because it is in the news section, fine...let's start a history section.  Or a humanities section.  Or, whatever.  I find the posts on history by didge and others most interesting and enlightening.

Original Quill wrote:What is wrong with history?  If the objection is because it is in the news section, fine...let's start a history section.  Or a humanities section.  Or, whatever.  I find the posts on history by didge and others most interesting and enlightening.

Been asking for a history section for ages.
Thanks Quill

Brasidas wrote:

Original Quill wrote:What is wrong with history?  If the objection is because it is in the news section, fine...let's start a history section.  Or a humanities section.  Or, whatever.  I find the posts on history by didge and others most interesting and enlightening.

Been asking for a history section for ages.
Thanks Quill

it is in the science section
but I agree it could probably use it's own