Weren't the Sikhs ferocious warriors at one time?

I know the ones that were killed Sunday were American and didn’t have the same training.

But, weren’t the Sikhs at one time one of the more feared Indian Warriors? I seem to recall they wore double swords. Real Bad asses. They even had their own martial arts, Sanatan Shastarvidiya.

I have trouble keeping the Gurkha and Sikhs separate in my mind. Both are from India? The Gurkha still train and continue their warrior tradition.

As shock troops how were the Gurkha and Sikhs deployed? Were they given different functions?

The Sikh warriors were, indeed. Sikh dentists, not so much.

Sikh are mostly in India (Punjab). Gurkha are mostly in Nepal.

They are still heavily represented in the martial professions. I thought I just saw some stats, can’t find them again. Some were fighting during Operation Blue Star. After that, some killed Indira Gandhi, but maybe that’s iffy.

The Indians were the only people that managed to stop Alexander the Great. Depending on who you read, Indian king porus was defeated by Alexander or basically fought him to a standstill at the Battle of the Hydaspes River.

What’s not in dispute is Alexander’s troops refused to fight any further into India. They didn’t want any part of India’s fighters. Afterward, Alexander was wounded several times attacking an Indian tribe called the Malli.

http://wso.williams.edu/~junterek/india.htm

Thanks for the interesting story, but Sikhs wouldn’t exist for another ~1800 years.

And if you mean that because they’re Punjabi, it does seem that lots of the Sikhs’ martial reputation is due to religion.