Is the wikipedia article wrong? The numbers are a little unclear, but it suggest that 1.3 million Indian men volunteered for the British army in WW1, with 75,00

Is the wikipedia article wrong? The numbers are a little unclear, but it suggest that 1.3 million Indian men volunteered for the British army in WW1, with 75,000 or so dying in the process. That's about a tenth of the casualties, so I'd assume the Indians were a similar proportion of active-duty soldiers. There was also a pretty nasty war in East Africa, although the details are hazy in my mind. I'm also finding about 72,000 colonial casualties on the French side - which is a smaller proportion, given the colossal numbers the French fielded, but still substantial. The German army is a very misleading case regardless, since they were pretty much the only power without significant non-white minorities or colonies, aside from perhaps Austro-Hungary. I'm also unsure about to what extent Romans were black. Obviously, about half their traditional dominion was in Africa, so you'd expect some part of them to be black - and there are certainly many archaeological remains suggesting so, even as far north as England. I also don't know if having black characters is any less true to history than having white characters, since Roman Romans were distinctly brownish, and very short to boot.