Talk:The Peshawar Lancers

Novels Low‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternate History (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternate History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Alternate HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Alternate HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Alternate HistoryAlternate History articles

Excessive Links[edit]

I noticed that an unusually large number of words in this article are linked to other wikipedia articles. A lot of these are justified because they are about historical figures and terms that not all readers may be familiar with (i.e. Benjamin Disraeli and outre-mer), but many of the linked words are to words that your average wikipedia reader does not need to have defined for them, i.e. slavery or colony. In some cases, the linked article is about something very different from what the word is referring to in the alternate history of this novel and this could cause confusion to readers (i.e. the Okhranka article linked is about something very different from the supernaturally-assisted satanic assassins of 2025 in the novel). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.76.193 (talk) 03:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

It should be noted that the novel owes a tremendous amount to King--of the Khyber Rifles by Talbot Munday.69.19.14.29

It should be noted that the novel owes a great deal not only to Mundy, but to George MacDonald Fraser, the creator of the Flashman novels, as well as the other adventure authors in the dedication. There are a number of references to Flashman throughout the novel. A portrait of Flashman in in the King family hall at Rexin. He is listed as a relation of the Padgetts(Pagets in Flashman) and the Kings. The chess set looted by Flashy from the Summer Palace shows up in the possession of Elias Bar Binyamin. Most importantly Stirling has borrowed his villain Count Ignatieff from Fraser.Ron 13:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's quite a bit of influence from both books - Athelstane King's name is borrowed from Mundy's Athelstan King, Yasmini fits as a mystical woman adventuer in both, the Khyber Pass is significant, and I think Ignatieff's pseudonym when posing as a Muslim comes from King of the Khyber Rifles as well (although I need to doublecheck that). The Dark 13:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

I think someone should put a map on the page detailing the many empires. Otherwise, it's kind of confusing. 66.177.196.95 16:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree.

Some people made a cool attempt of it here

http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=9237

Point of divergence[edit]

I note that the article says things diverged in 1878, with The Fall. Yet France is an kingdom in this novel, and in 1878, France was a republic. Could things have diverged earlier?--Wehwalt 16:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably some kind of Bonapartist revival. --147.143.102.11 13:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stirling has mentioned several times that he doesn't always cover our Earth's history exactly in some of his novels, so its possible there may be an earlier POD. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

For whomever it may concern, I have begun a general cleanup and improvement of the article. If you have any suggestions, please post them here and I will endevour to take care of them in due course. Comandante Talk 01:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The map has some mistakes that shouldn't be that difficult to change. First some parts of the British Islands should be changed to reflect the areas they do control (I believe there was talk in the book of the area becoming a Viceroyalty so its not just claimed territory). Second, Madagascar and the Batavian Republic (Indonesia) should be labelled as protectorates instead of what they are now. Third, Egypt and Brazil aren't shown at all on the map except for their present borders, maybe an "other nations" category will work. Fourth, France also controls Spain and Southern France but that is not labelled. Finally, Japan also controls the Indochina area and eastern Thailand. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 18:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the details, I will try to factor some of them in. However, when I made this map I intended it to be as simple as possible, which is why protectorates and possible viceroyalties are lumped together as "claimed" lands; I will broaden this to a more appropriate term, but still intend to keep it as a single catagory. The Egypt and Brazil issue will be addressed, as well as French lands and Japanese lands. Keep in mind that when I made the map I still hadn't found time to reread the book, so some details were bound to be lost. I'll have the updated map uploaded soon. My intended cleanup of the page has also been put off by other things, but I'll carry it out at a later date. -- Comandante {Talk} 18:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought you could just drop the whole claimed lands category altogether. I don't think its that necessary to show what the empires want to control, only what they do. Good work though on the initiative though, the article does look better. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New map uploaded. I decided to keep the claimed lands (and expanded the NA claim, "the whole North American continent") because they were a reason to actually keep the Western Hemisphere in the map at all, other wise it would be all gray. Related to that, I did not elaborate on the Egyptian and Brazilian Empires any further because I felt them to be too insignificant in the overall context of the story to specifically mention. North America was also seldom mentioned in the book, but as part of the article cleanup I planned to add in a section concerning Shikari in Galveston, which takes place in NA, and so left it in the map. Lastly, I changed "claimed" to "possessions of" in the case of the Raj, since the lands thus marked are technically a part of the Raj but not wholly integrated. I thought it sounded better than territories. Anyway, once I get a good chunk of free time, I'll return to work on the rest of the article. -- Comandante {Talk} 20:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought I let you know, when I click on the pic of the new map I get sent to the page with the old map. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 23:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Click on it again and you should see the new map. For some reason it just shows the old image on the image page, it may have something to do with that recent change to Wikimedia that messed up other images. It's not much of a problem though, since the image on the article itself is up to date. -- Comandante {Talk} 23:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dominion of Braganza? I never heard Brazil called that, where is it from? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some forum discussion that involved the author on alternatehistory.com. Someone had uploaded a map from there over mine, so I took details from that map and made a new and improved one, then uploded that. I haven't seen the discussion myself yet, but if some argument ever arises over the name Braganza, an advantage of my latest map is that the key can be altered without reuploding the image. -- Comandante {Talk} 19:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thats a pretty good map, alright I'm down with the whole Brazil deal. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few pointers on the map: 1) The Raj controls Herat, which is in Afghanistan. 2) The Afghani tribes control a portion of Baluchistan, which is in Pakistan. 3) The Raj controls Aden. I assume this to be equal to the British colony of Yemen.

None of these are currently incorporated into the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.72.193 (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it would probably just be the port city of Aden and the immediate surrounding area, not all of Yemen. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 22:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The British did only own the port of Aden, yes. Either way, its not detailed on the map. Also, the novel explicitly states Herat is owned by the British and parts of Baluchistan are still controlled by tribes. I'm no good at graphic design, so I am unable to update the map.69.73.72.193 (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no real point in adding in such an extremely fine detail as Aden and Herat. They'd be nothing more than specks on the map, and would not further a reader of the article's understanding of the world in the book. They are just trivial details mentioned once or twice in the book with no significant bearing on the plot, and adding them to the map will only give them undue significance. I added in major nations and territories only, because they are all that a reader of the article needs to know. As for Baluchistan (which I don't know how I missed, definitely more than a speck), I'll adjust the map accordingly when I have some spare time later this week. -- Comandante {Talk} 23:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right about Aden. Thanks for updating it by the way. My thought about Herat, which I will admit I didn't explain well (if at all), is that it shows the Raj's border runs farther north and west into modern Afghanistan than was originally displayed on the map. This would, by my estimation, mean there is roughly a verticle rectangle seperating the Angrezi Raj from the Caliphate. Is there any historical support for Herat just being an enclave? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.192.193.247 (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is why it's frustrating when authors create fantasy worlds and don't bother to draw their own maps; they leave too much to chance and speculation. Answering your question, it appears that Herat has been and currently is nothing more than a city smack in the middle of Afghanistan. Even considering the radical historical liberties taken with the book's timeline, there is little chance that Herat ever expanded or took on a more important role. Then you add in the fact that Herat isn't mentioned once in the appendix detailing the lands of the Raj, and the evidence points to Herat probably being less important that Aden (since port towns generally are a bigger boon to an economy than remote landlocked villages in the midst of barbarian-filled deserts), and therefore negligible on the map. If Stirling would just make a sequel, however, it would clear a good deal up better than we ever could. -- Comandante {Talk} 01:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion[edit]

I plan to do some major expansion of the article soon by integrating reviews to create a theme and literary citicism section. Any sources you think I should use would be greatly appreciated. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some of the sources I plan to use. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New version of the map[edit]

I'm concerned about the current version of the map. Most of the minor states are not mentioned in the book or any other source I have seen, yet there they are on the map. Seems like OR to me, is there any source to back up the borders of the current map? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Peshawar Lancers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Peshawar Lancers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011033701/http://www.peter-hodges.com/2008/05/16/interview-with-s-m-stirling-part-one/ to http://www.peter-hodges.com/2008/05/16/interview-with-s-m-stirling-part-one/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

British Monarch List[edit]

I swear, I remember a full list of British monarchs in the novel being mentioned either on this article or the List of fictional monarchs. I don't know what happened to it. Maybe the info got deleted by accident. The only info I could find was on the List of fictional monarchs article, which had this list, and it's only about half the list:

Victoria II reigned from 1921 to 1942. Presumably the eldest surviving child of George V, she was hedonistic, intelligent and sexually liberal; most of what defined her reign is whitewashed out of history books. She died unmarried and without issue.
Albert I, the cousin of Victoria II and a former Professor of Indo-European Languages, reigned from 1942 to 1989.
Elizabeth II, reigned from 1989 to 2005. She is known as the 'Whig Empress' for pushing for the right for women to study at universities.
King-Emperor John II is the ruler of the British Empire (Angrezi Raj) in an alternate history set in 2025. He was the second son of Elizabeth II, his older brother Edward having predeceased him. He was killed when the Imperial air yacht Garuda was hijacked and heavily damaged by the captain, a radical Afrikaner nationalist, in collaboration with the Russian Empire.
Charles III, the son of John II. Reigned from 2025 onwards.

--JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]