Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Post by peter »

Narayana Rao wrote:[..]

In respect of Ashoka - Peterji - Which historial account you are referring? Which books say that he has killed people because his religion told him to?
I was replying to "Katare" where he had said that Hindus (Rajputs) did not massacre the opposing army. I agree that if the army had surrendered they probably were spared. But Ashoka was a Hindu and the Kalinga army did not surrender. So Ashoka's army kept fighting and caused a large scale destruction of the Kalinga army.
Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1211
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Post by Virendra »

Even then, the point of killing the enemy army and of killing civilian population en masse are quite different.
I think that is where the major practical distinction comes in the way Indian armies behaved and the Islamic invaders did.
Consider the "secular" Akbar's example. He ordered summary execution of civilians inside Chittor fort after he had won and entered the fort as a victor.

Regards,
Virendra
member_20033
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 30
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Post by member_20033 »

Its not only about Islam all abrahamic religion have been brutal with anyone who did not accept them. Europe was full of civilization which were poly tesic but once Chiristanity got upper hand they wiped off everyone. You are free to read the horros of inquisiton how eye lids where cut and than their children were cut to pieces in front of their eyes in the name of saving their souls from hell..

Dear peter look at irrationality of ur argument. If kalinga army did not surrender what was Ashoka suppose to do. stop fighting in mid way. Would that be logical. Secondly after seeing the kiling what did ashoka do he renounced war that is Hindu civilization which took man to the height of knowlege instead of making them fools by forcing them to believe in some book without righ to question what is written..

Till Europe belived in supermacy of Chruch they were in dark ages. Once martin luther questioned church there was enligthment.

I am sick and tired of people who will say only their religon shows the true path when they dont have any logical arugment to prove what they are saying. As marharshi said any religion which talks too much about the devil is relgion from the devil.
member_20033
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 30
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Post by member_20033 »

Peterji if you dnt know the meaning of enmasses than you should read some books on islamic invasion of india. Hindus believe in dharm yudh where a non combactant or a combactant who had surrendered were nto harmed. the war was fought during day times and by fair means. While Muslims not only killed combactants but every single individual from the mass who could fight. That resulted into chopping of head of all grown up males. while their womens and female child were taken as sex slaves while male child was converted and sold in market as slaves.

Such brutatlity can only be seen in abrahamic religion
peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Post by peter »

Chanakaya wrote:[..]

Dear peter look at irrationality of ur argument. If kalinga army did not surrender what was Ashoka suppose to do. stop fighting in mid way. Would that be logical.

[..]
Ofcourse Ashok should'nt have stopped (else he would have been defeated) and he did'nt. But it did result in a massive massacre. In wars massacres do occur. To imply that somehow Hindus would not fight to commit a large scale destruction of opposing army is a fallacy (that is the point Katare was arguing for).
peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Post by peter »

Chanakaya wrote:Peterji if you dnt know the meaning of enmasses than you should read some books on islamic invasion of india. Hindus believe in dharm yudh where a non combactant or a combactant who had surrendered were nto harmed. the war was fought during day times and by fair means.
You are talking about Mahabharata. Please start reading this thread from page 1. Also do find out at what time Shivaji attacked Shaista Khan and at what time Tanaji Malasure attacked.
member_20033
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 30
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Post by member_20033 »

peter wrote:
Chanakaya wrote:[..]

Dear peter look at irrationality of ur argument. If kalinga army did not surrender what was Ashoka suppose to do. stop fighting in mid way. Would that be logical.

[..]
Ofcourse Ashok should'nt have stopped (else he would have been defeated) and he did'nt. But it did result in a massive massacre. In wars massacres do occur. To imply that somehow Hindus would not fight to commit a large scale destruction of opposing army is a fallacy (that is the point Katare was arguing for).

You first need to find the meaning of word massacre. if the army which is fighting in the battlefield, is killed it cant be called massacre. Its utterly foolish to say equate Hindus with Abrahamic religions. Hindus never fought wars to impose their views on other, or make them slaves. Hindus never killed non combatants in dharm yudh. If in 3500 year of recorded history there had been few stray incidents you cant paint the entire civilization with that brush, although Ashoka decimating Kalings army is not one of them.
member_20033
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 30
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Post by member_20033 »

peter wrote:
Chanakaya wrote:Peterji if you dnt know the meaning of enmasses than you should read some books on islamic invasion of india. Hindus believe in dharm yudh where a non combactant or a combactant who had surrendered were nto harmed. the war was fought during day times and by fair means.
You are talking about Mahabharata. Please start reading this thread from page 1. Also do find out at what time Shivaji attacked Shaista Khan and at what time Tanaji Malasure attacked.
I really dont know from where did you got the reference Mahabharat. Weren't Rajputs doing Dharma yudh against islamic invaders in India.

Actually west will never understand the concept of Dharm. All the west knows is religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma

If you read Arthsashtra by Kautiliya he had mentioned four different kind of wars. A enemy who fight observing all the rules as per dharma is dharma yudh.

If enemy uses deceit, unfair means to fight its called छद्म yudh.

Hindus fought Islamic invaders for 1000 year observing all the rules of dharma. Eg starts from Raja Dahir of Debal to Prithviraj Chahan, Anandpal, Jaipal Ranna Hamir dev etc. Because we fought a just war never killing a non combatant, not forcing conversion on their people, not beheading their capture soilders we were at receiving ends.

Once Shivaji started paying them back in their own coin in 100 years Hindus defeated muslims and capture the country back.

Even Shivaji (marathas) never destroyed a mosque or raped a women or force conversion on anyone. They never killed a captured solider.

But for you they are equally culprit and stand on the same footing as with Abrahamic invaders who use rape and conversion to destroy as tools of war.

I think you are not able to see things in proper context. Instead of picking one example and painting the entire history with the same brush you should understand, accept and appreciate the difference between civilization founded by Sanatan Dharma and chaos created by Abrahamic religion.
peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Post by peter »

peter wrote:
Chanakaya wrote:[..]

Dear peter look at irrationality of ur argument. If kalinga army did not surrender what was Ashoka suppose to do. stop fighting in mid way. Would that be logical.

[..]
Ofcourse Ashok should'nt have stopped (else he would have been defeated) and he did'nt. But it did result in a massive massacre. In wars massacres do occur. To imply that somehow Hindus would not fight to commit a large scale destruction of opposing army is a fallacy (that is the point Katare was arguing for).
Chanakaya wrote: You first need to find the meaning of word massacre. if the army which is fighting in the battlefield, is killed it cant be called massacre. ..
Acha. Then why did Ashoka have a change of heart? Are you trying to invent a new history of India?
Atri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4152
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 21:07

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Post by Atri »

Chanakaya wrote:
Once Shivaji started paying them back in their own coin in 100 years Hindus defeated muslims and capture the country back. Even Shivaji (marathas) never destroyed a mosque or raped a women or force conversion on anyone. They never killed a captured solider. But for you they are equally culprit and stand on the same footing as with Abrahamic invaders who use rape and conversion to destroy as tools of war.
This technique of Chhadma-Yudda OR Koota-yuddha started with Sri Krishna himself when he defeated Kaala-Yavana.

Maharana Pratap started deploying it against Mughals. It was taken up by Malik Ambar and cultivated in Deccan Marathas. Shahaji (Shivaji's father) perfected this technique and created a system based on this kind of warfare and a large pool of people with right expertise and mindset which helped kid Shivaji in his endeavor since he was 14. Shivaji's work was continuation of his father (strategy, resources and people). One can say Shivaji's was third attempt of Marathas to win independence. First two were by his father. He could not keep the venture going for more than 8-9 years.

And Shivaji did destroy mosques. Killed captured soldiers and thier chieftains (both hindu and muslim) by deceit. He rebuilt quite a few temples by destroying mosques and churches, many of whom were built on rabble of previously standing temple. But few were destroyed anyways and temples were built. Marathas did resort to arson, pillage and at times even rape during war. Their loot of Bengal is infamous. But rape was more of an exception than rule.

Yes, they did not use rape and conversion as tools of war. I wish they had, at least marrying the captured women to the elite chieftains and soldiers as trophy and then raising the children as Hindus. They even did the first part of previous sentence, but failed to do the second part, owing our stupidity of our own "religious elites". Their sons and daughters from captured women were raised as Muslims because the contemporary "Pandits" won't recognize those kids as "one of us".

In spite of all this and more, I would not put them on same footing as that of "Abrahmic invaders" simply because the system they stood for and tried to implement was "inherently" Dharmik. While conversions, arson and rape continued in "peace times" in muslim rule (Paki land and BD is example, so are many paki areas within ROI), this was not the case during the "peace times" of Hindu rule. So, even if some future Pro-Indic force resorts to cruel and violent response (like Parashurama), it will not result in Abrahmization of Hindu OR Dharma. Because, the system of dharma is inherently decentralized and multipolar.
Last edited by Atri on 24 Sep 2012 11:13, edited 2 times in total.
peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Post by peter »

peter wrote:
Chanakaya wrote:Peterji if you dnt know the meaning of enmasses than you should read some books on islamic invasion of india. Hindus believe in dharm yudh where a non combactant or a combactant who had surrendered were nto harmed. the war was fought during day times and by fair means.
You are talking about Mahabharata. Please start reading this thread from page 1. Also do find out at what time Shivaji attacked Shaista Khan and at what time Tanaji Malasure attacked.
Chanakaya wrote: I really dont know from where did you got the reference Mahabharat. Weren't Rajputs doing Dharma yudh against islamic invaders in India.
No they were not. They broke enough mosques in their time. Why do you think there are hardly any mosques in rajasthan?
member_20033
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 30
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Post by member_20033 »

[/quote]
You are talking about Mahabharata. Please start reading this thread from page 1. Also do find out at what time Shivaji attacked Shaista Khan and at what time Tanaji Malasure attacked.[/quote]
Chanakaya wrote:
I really dont know from where did you got the reference Mahabharat. Weren't Rajputs doing Dharma yudh against islamic invaders in India.
No they were not. They broke enough mosques in their time. Why do you think there are hardly any mosques in rajasthan?[/quote]

Peter kindly give reference for your acquisition.

There are hardly any mosque in Rajasthan because Rajasthan never came under the dominion of Muslims. It was always ruled by hindu Rajputs which accepted suzeranity of Muslims but was never direclty ruled by muslims.
member_20033
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 30
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Post by member_20033 »

Chanakaya wrote: You first need to find the meaning of word massacre. if the army which is fighting in the battlefield, is killed it cant be called massacre. ..
Acha. Then why did Ashoka have a change of heart? Are you trying to invent a new history of India?[/quote]

killings on battlefield is different from killing innocent helpless non combatants. it is the uniqueness of our civilization that non combatants were not harmed in battles, nor were women raped and punished on victory. Hindu civilization has always glorified an honorable death on battle field fighting to preserver your dharma. If Kaling's army perished they were fighting for their dharma and If Asoka saw the futility of his actions he was realizing his dharma. The decimation of kalings army can not be called massacre.

if you are filled with ill intentions and hell bent on equating the barbarism of your Abrahamic region with Hindus, I cant show you the light. Prejudice can not be reasoned out of a person because they weren't reasoned into him. If you want to stay a fool and be happy with your foolishness so be it. Your stupidity doesn't warrant a reply from me.
Last edited by member_20033 on 24 Sep 2012 11:55, edited 3 times in total.
member_20033
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 30
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Post by member_20033 »

Atri wrote:
Chanakaya wrote:
Once Shivaji started paying them back in their own coin in 100 years Hindus defeated muslims and capture the country back. Even Shivaji (marathas) never destroyed a mosque or raped a women or force conversion on anyone. They never killed a captured solider. But for you they are equally culprit and stand on the same footing as with Abrahamic invaders who use rape and conversion to destroy as tools of war.
This technique of Chhadma-Yudda OR Koota-yuddha started with Sri Krishna himself when he defeated Kaala-Yavana.

Maharana Pratap started deploying it against Mughals. It was taken up by Malik Ambar and cultivated in Deccan Marathas. Shahaji (Shivaji's father) perfected this technique and created a system based on this kind of warfare and a large pool of people with right expertise and mindset which helped kid Shivaji in his endeavor since he was 14. Shivaji's work was continuation of his father (strategy, resources and people). One can say Shivaji's was third attempt of Marathas to win independence. First two were by his father. He could not keep the venture going for more than 8-9 years.

And Shivaji did destroy mosques. Killed captured soldiers and thier chieftains (both hindu and muslim) by deceit. He rebuilt quite a few temples by destroying mosques and churches, many of whom were built on rabble of previously standing temple. But few were destroyed anyways and temples were built. Marathas did resort to arson, pillage and at times even rape during war. Their loot of Bengal is infamous. But rape was more of an exception than rule.

Yes, they did not use rape and conversion as tools of war. I wish they had, at least marrying the captured women to the elite chieftains and soldiers as trophy and then raising the children as Hindus. They even did the first part of previous sentence, but failed to do the second part, owing our stupidity of our own "religious elites". Their sons and daughters from captured women were raised as Muslims because the contemporary "Pandits" won't recognize those kids as "one of us".

In spite of all this and more, I would not put them on same footing as that of "Abrahmic invaders" simply because the system they stood for and tried to implement was "inherently" Dharmik. While conversions, arson and rape continued in "peace times" in muslim rule (Paki land and BD is example, so are many paki areas within ROI), this was not the case during the "peace times" of Hindu rule. So, even if some future Pro-Indic force resorts to cruel and violent response (like Parashurama), it will not result in Abrahmization of Hindu OR Dharma. Because, the system of dharma is inherently decentralized and multipolar.
+ 1

Atri i have never read of Marathas destroying mosque out of vengeance. If they have removed a church or mosque which was built on destroyed temple to restore the temple than i wont consider it be destruction. It was rightfully ours just like the mosque constructed in kashi and vrindavan needs to be converted to temple.

Hindus are made fools in the name of Sickularim. This will destroy our civilization and when the next wave of conversion starts Hindus wont be able to defend themselves as they are losings faith in their own civilization , due to complete lack of knowledge and inferiority complex which is ingrained in our education system and our society.
Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1211
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Post by Virendra »

peter wrote:
peter wrote:No they were not. They broke enough mosques in their time. Why do you think there are hardly any mosques in rajasthan?
Chanakaya wrote:Peter kindly give reference for your acquisition.
There are hardly any mosque in Rajasthan because Rajasthan never came under the dominion of Muslims. It was always ruled by hindu Rajputs which accepted suzeranity of Muslims but was never direclty ruled by muslims.
Both the reasons stand valid for why we don't see many mosques in Rajasthan.

Rajput rulers did not break a lot of mosques since they were not as fanatic and religiously inclined, at least in matters of war.
They would leave the civilian population and religious places out of it.
As opposed of consistent Islamic record, there are only a few examples of such mosque destruction by Hindu rulers and hence those few are popular.
Examples - Ajit Singh destroyed mosques built by Aurangzeb in Marwar. Mewari MahaRanas like Kumbha who destroyed mosques of Nagor Sultanate.
All these cases are of when Muslims invaders/rulers crossed all limits of barbarism and interference. So there was obviously equal and opposite repulsion. Aurangzeb interefered in Marwar's succession, the deceptive Nagor sultanate forced the hand of Kumbha. They were killing cows summarily in temple compunds and deceived Maharana by making false promises for his mercy. The list goes on.
Muslim/Mughal influence over Rajputana kept fluctuating over time. Now if Rajputs were as fanatic, they could've destroyed the Shrine in Ajmer on one of the instances when the invaders influence waned off and Rajputs were more powerful. After all Ajmer was at the heart of Rajputana, surrounded by Rajput states all over, all the time.

Hindu-Muslim or Native-Invader tussle was an ongoing phenomenon for many many centuries. It resulted into mosque destruction only in such few extreme situations.
Also since the Rajputana was never under direct Mughal rule, there was lesser influence of Islam and lesser conversion/migration to change the demography. Therefore not many mosques to destroy anyway.

Another reason is that Rajputs were mostly on the defensive all the time. Being native, them and their populace had stuff to lose - not the incoming invaders.

Regards,
Virendra
Last edited by Virendra on 24 Sep 2012 13:35, edited 2 times in total.
member_23629
BRFite
Posts: 676
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Post by member_23629 »

No they were not. They broke enough mosques in their time. Why do you think there are hardly any mosques in rajasthan?
Peter dude, you are suffering from the "you too" syndrome -- when one's own behaviour cannot be justified, people start giving the argument of "So what! You are also like us!"

Are you saying polytheists have a habit of breaking religious places of other faiths, on the same level as monotheists? Exactly which scriptures of Hindus promote only one god at the expense of others?

As far as the non-existing mosques in Rajasthan are concerned, the state was never ruled by Muslims and neither had it any significant Muslim population. The state was in non-stop war with Muslims for 500 years. So do you expect djinns to come to Rajasthan to build the mosques there? There are no mosques on south pole either -- this I am sure proves that penguins have a habit of breaking mosques.
Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1211
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Post by Virendra »

varunkumar wrote:As far as the non-existing mosques in Rajasthan are concerned, the state was never ruled by Muslims and neither had it any significant Muslim population. The state was in non-stop war with Muslims for 500 years. So do you expect djinns to come to Rajasthan to build the mosques there? There are no mosques on south pole either -- this I am sure proves that penguins have a habit of breaking mosques.
It was, in a small way. There was this Nagor Sultanate in Marwar. Quite dysfunctional most of the times and kept paying tributes to surrounding Rajputs to stay alive. Not many cases like that but nevertheless, technically it was one such case of direct rule.
I think most of their influence was limited to the Nagor city and not the surrounding countryside.
Not only they failed to gain control and conversions in the latter, but also the counter raids of Rajputs fell on them via these areas only.
Last edited by Virendra on 24 Sep 2012 13:34, edited 1 time in total.
member_20033
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 30
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Post by member_20033 »

varunkumar wrote:
There are no mosques on south pole either -- this I am sure proves that penguins have a habit of breaking mosques[/b][/b][/b].
+++++1 :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Anand K
BRFite
Posts: 1115
Joined: 19 Aug 2003 11:31
Location: Out.

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Post by Anand K »

Napoleon rightly pointed out that an army moves on it's stomachs.

An ancient/medieval army on the move, far from their home territory, will have to "appropriate" resources (food, water and wood) from annexed lands and captured enemy stocks. The depth and breadth of this depends largely on the nature of the invading force. The Persians had large transport flotillas, Alexander's soldiers & Roman Legionnaires carried very heavy loads on their backs and used horses/camels/mules instead of oxes....... the usually drawn out Chinese campaigns saw soldiers turning into farmers for certain parts of the year. If you had effective logistics and standardized coinage which is accepted even by the invaded you do not need to loot the annexed lands as much. Or you can go the Hun and Mongol ways, living on nuts, mare's milk, yoghurt and occasionally horse blood and then devouring everything they conquered.....

There is very little information on ancient and medieval (pre-Sultanate) military logistics of India. I suspect the Mauryas or Guptas had quite efficient logistic systems due to their more centralized and reportedly efficient state systems (while it lasted)..... This could support a steady and well planned campaign. In case of deep thrusts and punitive raids even this state structure would not be feasible methinks. I wonder how Samudragupta managed it while dashing for Mu Ka Nadu or how Dharmapala fed his armies while sweeping aside Pratiharas or the Marathas in Panipat. On the latter, the ravage of the lands was one reason the Rajputs and Jats refused to help the Marathas.... and the Marathas also kept desi versions of the Bashi Bazouk, viz. Pindaris.

IMHO, to a great degree, Indian armies would also have resorted to "appropriations" during their campaigns. Any other way around it? Hungry soldiers can't fight so well and then you will have to resort to desperate tactics. Also, how much can an army marching on roads across farmlands and dwellings resist itself from doing some IPC 420/320? The high born officers and lords might be well versed in ideals of Dharmayuddh but the aam line infantry might not be so... erudite. Professional soldiers and standing army with unit cohesion, legacy and ethos were not widespread or common... not just in India. In Indian ancient/medieval military history, is there mention of units like Persian Immortals or Macedonian Companions or Caesar's own X Legio "Gemina" or Titus Labienus's German Cavalry (which later evolved into the foederati system) which have long histories and legacy during their time?
Fun fact: V Legio Alaude, till it was finally destroyed few centuries later had the elephant as their symbol 'coz in the Battle of Thapsus they held the line and destroyed the Optimates' elephant cavalry; they actually volunteered for this task.

PS: While the principles of Dharma Yuddh (cavalry fights cavalry, chariots fights chariots, athiratha fights athiratha etc) are said to be sacrosanct, it is mentioned in the Mahabharata that rules went out of the window when the first arrow whizzes past your ear. I mean, Arjuna apparently used a WMD on the Samsaptakas and Trigartas, no?

Just a ramble.....
Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1211
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Post by Virendra »

IIRC Huen Tsang mentions Indian armies clashing in an open field while farmers are sowing crops in a nearby farm.
Mahabharata was "Maha" bharata war, a world war of sorts with intense stories, ambitions and emotions rolling behind it.
With this large a war and such stakes, yes rules might be thrown out of the window sometimes.
Anand K
BRFite
Posts: 1115
Joined: 19 Aug 2003 11:31
Location: Out.

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Post by Anand K »

Talk about the apocaplytic Mahabharata battle...... it was probably designed by the Gods to cull their powerful but unstable and wayward offspring a la Trojan War. :D

I had once heard a story about Lord Krishna choosing the battle site of Kurukshetra. He went scouting for a location and witnessed a farmer killing his young son and using the body to plug a break in a dyke in his farm. Anybody knows this story or the origin?
Also, in K M Munshi's Krishnavatar he portrays sage Parashara , Ved Vyasa's father being mauled to death by wolves in Kurukshetra while his son watched helplessly. Quite a sordid place, eh?

And now they have an NIT there..... :D.
peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Post by peter »

Chanakaya wrote:
You are talking about Mahabharata. Please start reading this thread from page 1. Also do find out at what time Shivaji attacked Shaista Khan and at what time Tanaji Malasure attacked.

I really dont know from where did you got the reference Mahabharat. Weren't Rajputs doing Dharma yudh against islamic invaders in India.
No they were not. They broke enough mosques in their time. Why do you think there are hardly any mosques in rajasthan?
Chanakaya wrote: Peter kindly give reference for your acquisition.

There are hardly any mosque in Rajasthan because Rajasthan never came under the dominion of Muslims. It was always ruled by hindu Rajputs which accepted suzeranity of Muslims but was never direclty ruled by muslims.
Look we cannot become a history teacher for you. You have to make some effort to read history books. Any way here are some references:
Kumbha broke lot of mosques.
So did Jaswant Singh, Ajit Singh, Bakhat Singh of Jodhpur.
Bhim Singh of Udaipur destroyed 300 mosques in a single campaign in Gujarat.
peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Post by peter »

Chanakaya wrote: You first need to find the meaning of word massacre. if the army which is fighting in the battlefield, is killed it cant be called massacre. ..
Acha. Then why did Ashoka have a change of heart? Are you trying to invent a new history of India?
Chanakaya wrote: [..] The decimation of kalings army can not be called massacre.

if you are filled with ill intentions and hell bent on equating the barbarism of your Abrahamic region with Hindus [..]
It was a massacre. No two ways about it. It is very easy to give a lecture on what is dharmic and what is not in the comfort of your living room.

What does Abrahamic religion have got to do with this thread? It is about wars in medieveal India. Stick to the topic at hand.

MODS: Please take a note of it. If this gentleman wants a discussion on the merits of religion please point him to the appropriate thread.
peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Post by peter »

Atri wrote:
Chanakaya wrote:
Once Shivaji started paying them back in their own coin in 100 years Hindus defeated muslims and capture the country back. Even Shivaji (marathas) never destroyed a mosque or raped a women or force conversion on anyone. They never killed a captured solider. But for you they are equally culprit and stand on the same footing as with Abrahamic invaders who use rape and conversion to destroy as tools of war.
This technique of Chhadma-Yudda OR Koota-yuddha started with Sri Krishna himself when he defeated Kaala-Yavana.

Maharana Pratap started deploying it against Mughals. It was taken up by Malik Ambar and cultivated in Deccan Marathas. Shahaji (Shivaji's father) perfected this technique and created a system based on this kind of warfare and a large pool of people with right expertise and mindset which helped kid Shivaji in his endeavor since he was 14. Shivaji's work was continuation of his father (strategy, resources and people). One can say Shivaji's was third attempt of Marathas to win independence. First two were by his father. He could not keep the venture going for more than 8-9 years.
[..]
Very interesting post! Thanks. Would you know of a good reference which talks about the heredity of Shivaji? Also I have read somewhere, perhaps incorrectly, that Shivaji was unlettered. Is it true?

What was Shivaji's clan doing prior to Shahji? Do we know about their history?
peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Post by peter »

varunkumar wrote:
No they were not. They broke enough mosques in their time. Why do you think there are hardly any mosques in rajasthan?
Peter dude, you are suffering from the "you too" syndrome -- when one's own behaviour cannot be justified, people start giving the argument of "So what! You are also like us!"
Not at all. I am saying it is written no where in Hindu Dharma that if someone does "Julm" on you than you should keep accepting that julm in perpetuity. Rajputs followed their Dharm. They did not break the first mosque. But when their temples got destroyed they replied in kind.
varunkumar wrote: Are you saying polytheists have a habit of breaking religious places of other faiths, on the same level as monotheists? Exactly which scriptures of Hindus promote only one god at the expense of others?
Look these extrapolations are useless. Just follow the evidence and data.
varunkumar wrote: As far as the non-existing mosques in Rajasthan are concerned, the state was never ruled by Muslims and neither had it any significant Muslim population.
Never say never again. Many a times rajput principalities were captured. And whenever they were captured temples were the first things that were destroyed.

Take the example of Taragarh fort in Ajmer. Once the descendants of Prithviraj died and there was no one left in his lineage Ajmer became a centre of muslims.

Even Chittor was occupied by the Sultans. Hell even the name of Chittor was changed to Khijarabad. Since Mewar had people who took it back all the temples that were broken were rebuilt by breaking the mosques that stood on them.
varunkumar wrote: The state was in non-stop war with Muslims for 500 years. So do you expect djinns to come to Rajasthan to build the mosques there? There are no mosques on south pole either -- this I am sure proves that penguins have a habit of breaking mosques.
This is plain uninformed. Read Tod especially the reign of Ajit Singh and Bakhat and then come and discuss.
member_23629
BRFite
Posts: 676
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Post by member_23629 »

Look we cannot become a history teacher for you. You have to make some effort to read history books. Any way here are some references:
Kumbha broke lot of mosques.
So did Jaswant Singh, Ajit Singh, Bakhat Singh of Jodhpur.
Bhim Singh of Udaipur destroyed 300 mosques in a single campaign in Gujarat.
Were Rajputs also destroying mosques before Muslims invaded India, attacked Rajasthan and demolished our temples? No, there is no record of Rajputs doing so. So they were not driven by fundamentalism or irrational hatred of other faiths. Their mosque breaking spree was "returning the favour" or "getting even" especially when these mosques stood on freshly demolished temples (like the Adhai Din Ka Jhopda in Ajmer).

The principle "We will do to you what you do to us" never fails in real life. It is very effective. (That is why I am in great favour of printing fake Pakistani notes and pushing them across the border -- the day this happens, Pakees will come to an understanding with us not to touch each other's currency.)
member_23629
BRFite
Posts: 676
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Post by member_23629 »

Never say never again. Many a times rajput principalities were captured. And whenever they were captured temples were the first things that were destroyed.

Take the example of Taragarh fort in Ajmer. Once the descendants of Prithviraj died and there was no one left in his lineage Ajmer became a centre of muslims.

Even Chittor was occupied by the Sultans. Hell even the name of Chittor was changed to Khijarabad. Since Mewar had people who took it back all the temples that were broken were rebuilt by breaking the mosques that stood on them.
And how many years did this "occupation" last, like of Chittor? The day Allaudin Khilji died, the Rana had his officers tied with ropes and flung from the fort walls. Same with Taragarh. Prithviraj's brother ruling in Ranthambhore organized a night raid on the fort and killed all Muslims inside, including the Muslim governor (whose grave still stands inside the fort and Muslims come to worship even now). There was no Muslim occupation and rule of Rajasthan -- these were tactical defeats of a few years or months before Rajputs captured their territory again. It was non-stop war.
peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Post by peter »

varunkumar wrote:
Never say never again. Many a times rajput principalities were captured. And whenever they were captured temples were the first things that were destroyed.

Take the example of Taragarh fort in Ajmer. Once the descendants of Prithviraj died and there was no one left in his lineage Ajmer became a centre of muslims.

Even Chittor was occupied by the Sultans. Hell even the name of Chittor was changed to Khijarabad. Since Mewar had people who took it back all the temples that were broken were rebuilt by breaking the mosques that stood on them.
And how many years did this "occupation" last, like of Chittor? The day Allaudin Khilji died, the Rana had his officers tied with ropes and flung from the fort walls.
And who told you this?
varunkumar wrote: Same with Taragarh. Prithviraj's brother ruling in Ranthambhore organized a night raid on the fort and killed all Muslims inside, including the Muslim governor (whose grave still stands inside the fort and Muslims come to worship even now).
I am sorry but this is plain uninformed. You need to cite a reference if you want us to believe you.
varunkumar wrote: There was no Muslim occupation and rule of Rajasthan -- these were tactical defeats of a few years or months before Rajputs captured their territory again. It was non-stop war.
This I agree with.
Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1211
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Post by Virendra »

peter wrote:Very interesting post! Thanks. Would you know of a good reference which talks about the heredity of Shivaji?
Peter .. Airavat's last blog post was about Shivaji's (Rajput?) ancestry. Might want to take a look?
Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Post by Katare »

peter,

Some of the most beautiful and ancient mosques are located in Rajsthan. Ajmer sharif is one of the most revered and largest shrines of Muslims in India. It was built ( as per some sources) when Prithviraj Chouhan was ruling most of the north India from Ajmer (his capital). A great Mosque was built by Aurangzeb in Kota which still stands there in all it's beauty. Jaipur has a grand beautiful mosque built by emperor Akbar. Why do you think there are "hardly any mosques" in Rajsthan?

About Hindu's demolishing mosque theory -
What you don't understand is that desecrating a mosque (or any place of worship) would be a sin for a Hindu too. It's like Muslims will not insult Jesus Christ, because he is a Muslim prophet too, even if a Christian insults the Muslim prophet. A hindu will not get any reward in this life or next for fighting or hurting nonbelievers. Hindu scriptures don't give any sanction/obligation to a hindu to do anything that is specific to a non-hindu. The composer of hindu scriptures don't even seems to have any knowledge of any other religion leave aside threats from them. A hindu has no obligation to protect his god or temple neither he has any obligation to protect the honor of it's seer's, saints, prophets or scriptures. Old religions were/are "exclusive clubs" who's membership was not available to outsiders. There is/was no obligation/duty to convert others or spread the words of prophet. Hindus don't have sense of outsiders in political sense, they hardly objected to foreign rules solely on the basis of ruler's origin or religion. Killing or hurting or taking property of non-hindu will not be rewarded or punished any differently than killing of a hindu at judgement day in Hindu hell/heaven. War's were highly "stylized" rituals to show personal bravery and win glory for the clan or family name. There was no strategic sense of chasing the defeated army or eliminating their local base but rather naively, in victory they relied on their power to continue winning and in defeat they ran to forests and hills to regroup and keep the dharma of fighting.
Katare
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2579
Joined: 02 Mar 2002 12:31

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Post by Katare »

Rajsthan's history is not that of a nation but of individual clans and families. If they have united under 1 Rana in a centralized kingdom, they could have forged a great empire but none of these families/clan would submit to even another Rajput clan leave aside a non Rajput sovereign. Although their small sizes forced them to become vassals of bigger ranas or Sultans but never a non rajput kingdom was ever allowed or even dared.

Almost all of the Rajputana was always in the hands of great Rajput clans like Sisodiya, Kuchwaha, Jhalas and solankis, even when they were paying tributes to Sultan. Lost Rajput forts and territories were recaptured almost immediately after the main column of imperial forces left. Some times the Sultans will reinstall the defeated King/Rana or his heirs after winning and plundering the city because there was no other option. No one dared installing a non Rajpoot (even non clan) king/nawab in Rajsthan because it was certain that it'll not get legitimacy ever and as soon as royal forces leave for Delhi it'll all be over for local non rajput king. Akabar built a great partnership with rajputs which allowed him to forge a stable empire since the last true all India empire of Gupta's (1000 years earlier). Aurangzeb broke that relationship (desecration of temples of Marwar by his soldiers overseeing succession of deceased Rana) and Mewar and Marwar revolted again but defeated/contained by Aurangzeb's forces. He bought his peace with Rajputs on generous terms, for a winner, so he can concentrate his efforts on the southern front against Deccan sultans.

The most prominant of rana's came from state of "mewar". None of the Rana's of Mewar, the most prominent Sisodia clan of rajsthan, ever submitted in person to Sultans of Delhi/Ghazni/Ghor, even when they lost and had to buy peace with hefty tribute and indemnity. This is the only exception in muslim India, every other hindu/muslim king/sultan had to submit in person with sons/heirs. This was nothing more than a face saving concession to Sisodia clan but even Aurangzeb had to agree with it. The only other option was the continuos bloodshed until all of the rajpoots are killed and their women had performed "Jouhar" by burning themselves in fire pyre. In the end winning against rajput's was never a profitable business for Sultans so eventually they focused on containment and partnership.
peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Post by peter »

Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:Very interesting post! Thanks. Would you know of a good reference which talks about the heredity of Shivaji?
Peter .. Airavat's last blog post was about Shivaji's (Rajput?) ancestry. Might want to take a look?
Thanks! Very nice writeup as usual by Airavat. I do wonder if there is corroborative evidence from Maharashtra about this migration from Udaipur.

Perhaps Atri would know what is the origin of Sajjangarh fort. Was it named after Sajjan Singh their ancestor from Mewar?
peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Post by peter »

Katare wrote:peter,

[..]

About Hindu's demolishing mosque theory -
What you don't understand is that desecrating a mosque (or any place of worship) would be a sin for a Hindu too. [..]
There is enough evidence that rajputs were not mute spectators to the destruction of temples sin or not. To further elaborate: when Aurangjeb became the king of India he wrote a letter to Shah Jahan and justified his usurpation of the throne by saying that Shah Jahan was soft on the mosque breaker Jaswant Singh.
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Post by RamaY »

Peter

Ashoka's famous change of mind is not about war itself.

He was looking to occupy kingdoms using means other than war. It was a different matter that he got an avedic Buddhist advisor, which resulted in two things
- conversion of Hindus into Buddhism by state/government/king
- propagation and eventual expulsion of Buddhism out of India

If he gotten a dharmic advisor, the story of India would have been different.

P.S: the current version of history itself is invented by Western indologists and propagated by JNUwadis. So don't feel bad when someone offers a different/truer version of history.
peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Post by peter »

RamaY wrote:Peter

Ashoka's famous change of mind is not about war itself.

He was looking to occupy kingdoms using means other than war. It was a different matter that he got an avedic Buddhist advisor, which resulted in two things
- conversion of Hindus into Buddhism by state/government/king
- propagation and eventual expulsion of Buddhism out of India

If he gotten a dharmic advisor, the story of India would have been different.
I don't understand your point. Who is the avedic advisor? And how do you reckon buddhism was thrown out of India?
RamaY wrote: P.S: the current version of history itself is invented by Western indologists and propagated by JNUwadis. So don't feel bad when someone offers a different/truer version of history.
What true history are you talking about?
member_23629
BRFite
Posts: 676
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Post by member_23629 »

What true history are you talking about?
The history not written by the white man.
member_20033
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 30
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Post by member_20033 »

peter wrote:
RamaY wrote:Peter

Ashoka's famous change of mind is not about war itself.

He was looking to occupy kingdoms using means other than war. It was a different matter that he got an avedic Buddhist advisor, which resulted in two things
- conversion of Hindus into Buddhism by state/government/king
- propagation and eventual expulsion of Buddhism out of India

If he gotten a dharmic advisor, the story of India would have been different.
I don't understand your point. Who is the avedic advisor? And how do you reckon buddhism was thrown out of India?

RePeter

Buddhism was thrown out of India by your Abrahamic culture. Afghanistan, northern Pakistan, Gilgit, Bihar, Bangladesh were Buddhist centre in India. They were all destroyed by Islamic invasion. the nail in the coffin was fall of Nalanda in 12th CE. Buddhist who were overly peaceful failed to realize that barbarism of Abrahamic culture cannot be reasoned out. It need to be fought. Hindus have philosophy of fighting against evil. Hindus fought and we prevailed. Now you can freely balme hindus for destruction of Buddhism from India.

time and again I compare Vedic civilization with Abrahamic nomads to bring out the difference between the two. You may hate me for this but u can’t look things in isolation. You here leisurely accuse Hindus of destroying mosque, Hindus of killing enemies or destroying Abrahamic culture. But u don’t want to look into the circumstance of things. did we go to Rome or Arabia to destroy them? They came to our home, attack our civilization, destroyed our temples, raped and plunder and if we retaliate we are criminals. This is ur sucking Abrhamaic ideology
RajD
BRFite
Posts: 176
Joined: 29 Mar 2011 16:01

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Post by RajD »

[quotePeter - Perhaps Atri would know what is the origin of Sajjangarh fort. Was it named after Sajjan Singh their ancestor from Mewar?/quote]

The name 'Sajjan Gad' has nothing to do with any Sajjan Singh from Mewad or elsewhere.
This fort was named as such by the Raja himself when he offered it as residence to his Guru Shri Ramdas Swami Maharaj.
He not only gave this fort to the swami but gave adjacent land also in order to look after his well being.
Shri Swami resided on the fort till his death and one can find his samadhi over there. Also, original documents of this award along with some others have been displayed over there.
Rgards.
Rajendra
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Post by RamaY »

There are different ways of studying history.

1. Idiots way - read and believe whatever is given to you
2. Intellectual way - read and verify with other sources/works
3. Conscious way - read and verify with other sources and observe the consequences of individual/national choices.

I can only feel pity with the minds that think Ashoka got his change of heart in the middle of the battle field and realized the teachings of Buddhism then and there. It doesn't happen like they show in melodramatic movies.

In earlier battles of Ashoka, perhaps the opposing army surrendered as soon as they sensed/realized imminent defeat. But Kalingas (todays Odisha and North Andhra) did not do that and they fought till the last man standing in the battle. Being a democratic kingdom it was apparently some citizens also participated in it. This is what led to decimation of entire Kalinga army and part of its society. Calling it a massacre is nothing but an insult to valiant and independent Kalinga society. We can read about their valor even in MB.

This is what made Ashoka to reconsider his approach to empire building. One should note that Kalinga war did not stop or dither Ashoka from his empire building vision. He realized the need for a valor satrap like Kalinga, fighting on his side, to protect his vast empire.

It is a different matter that he was surrounded by Buddhist strategists and not Dharmic Mantris. A Dharmic mantri would have given examples of Shat-chakravartins before him and guided him accordingly. The Buddhist strategists on the other hand offered a so-called "peaceful" approach.

It is a different matter whether the "peaceful" Buddhism made wars unnecessary in the coming years, decades and centuries within and outside Bharat. If that was so there should have been no wars/battles between ~250BC to ~800AD (assuming the Gora-altered historical dates are correct) until the resurrection of violent-Hinduism by Jagadguru Adi Samkaracharya.
Atri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4152
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 21:07

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Post by Atri »

regarding sajjangarh, it was known as "Parali" (परळी) prior to Samartha Ramdas Swami moved residence. Sajjangarh (fort of sajjanas) is name given to fort by Shivaji himself..

regarding rajput lineage of shivaji, there are theories supporting that. Shivaji himself claimed it as did his father Shahaji. They proved their stake in property of Ghorpade family of Mudhol who had attested their rajput lineage in court of Adilshah (bijapur). Thus, by proving this stake, Shahaji too claimed the Sisodiya lineage.

It might be possible that this was not the case and that he was not of Sisodiya lineage. But this is what he officially claimed even during coronation.

So, +1 to Rajendra ji and RamaY ji.. :)
Post Reply