Want this question answered?
the Indian Mutiny
Yes they were.
The people that participated in the French and Indian war were the British and french
"Sepoys". England however never had to 'force' Indians to become professional soldiers and there was no conscription in colonial times. The Indian army provided room and board, a salary and chances of advancement to many Indians, and there was no lack of takers. The Sikhs and Ghurkas stood out as the most martial Indian peoples serving in the British-Indian army and they were renowned for their fighting spirit.
When more than 90,000 Indian soldiers sacrificed their lives fighting for the British in the World War I in 1919, this monument was built in their honor and memory by the British Indian government in Delhi the Capital of India.
In private colonial homes
the Indian Mutiny
Yes they were.
The people that participated in the French and Indian war were the British and french
Indian troops recruited to serve in the British Army.
All the shots fired during the Amritsar massacre were fired by British Indian Army soldiers, commanded by Brigadier-General Reginald Dyer. The people fired upon were unarmed. The British Indian Army soldiers were a mix of Gurkhas and Baluchis, so they were Indian under British orders.
The British Soldiers brought cricket to Trinidad. It was then adopted by West Indian Planters.
Lobster Backs was the nickname for a British soldier during the French and Indian War because the British soldiers war red coats.
tribute to the 70,000 Indian soldiers who lost their lives during World War I, when they fought for the British Army
During World War I and World War II, Indians fought on the side of the British Empire. Many Indian soldiers served in the British Indian Army and British armed forces.
Up to the 1950s, it was the British Enfield 303 caliber rifle.
Yes, it was a negative term deemed at the soldiers the British served with in the French and Indian War.