Bharat Rakshak

Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
It is currently 03 Sep 2014 06:53

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2246 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 57  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: 21 Jan 2008 22:25 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01
Posts: 740
Last page of previous thread

Archived in Military History Archive.

-------------------
Somebody had asked about the origins of the word "talwar": Yesterday I came across an etymology tracing it back to Sanskrit "Taravari". Since my Sanskrit is non-existent, can someone more cultured break the word and see if it makes sense and share it with us? Unfortunately I didn't pay attention to the exact title and author, but I think it was Tony Cullen. It had plenty of really interesting weapons from the Indian sub-continent. Historic India was veritably a massive Q's workshop... unfortunately that also meant that in 1600s almost all of India was like today's NWFP.

Anyway I will try to get you all the exact title and author in a week or so :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 21 Jan 2008 22:34 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 38065
No need ParGha:


Tulwar

[quote]

TULWAUR, s. Hind. talwar and tarwar, ‘a sabre.’ Williams gives Skt. taravari and tarabalika. [“Talwar is a general term applied to shorter or more or less curved side-arms, while those that are lighter and shorter still are often styled nimchasâ€


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2008 20:15 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19
Posts: 803
ramana wrote:
Please post accounts of battles in Ancient and Medieval India.

Eg.
Historynet.com's Alexander and the Battle of Hydaspes River

Enjoy.


"Alexander the great" by Wally Badge which is a Syriac edition, with English translation, of the folk-lore and legends connected to Alexander the Great. This ancient text represents a Greek text that is much older than any text that has been known before. This text shows that alexander was actually defeated (though perhaps a later layering of the text confuses the issue).

a) Darius's call to help from Porus
Image
Image

b) Porus's letter to Alexander and the reply and the ensuing fight
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2008 20:39 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Posts: 1825
Peter, thank you for the interesting post.

We used to have a thread "Non Western World View". This post should be in that thread. Time to revive it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2008 21:21 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 38065
Paul I posted Peter's psot there. I also found a follow-up to the Battle of Hydaspes River


What We Learned... from the Hydaspes River


[quote]

What We Learned... from the Hydaspes River
By Richard A. Gabriel


Alexander the Great had come 2,500 miles since crossing the Hellespont in 334 bc and conquering the Persian Empire to the Indian frontier. Now, planning to attack India itself, he ordered shipwrights to prepare landing craft for use on the Hydaspes and Indus Rivers, which flanked the border. In March 326 bc, Alexander crossed the Indus and seized Taxila, establishing a base for the invasion. Here he learned that Porus, an Indian prince, was marshaling his army on the banks of the Hydaspes. Alexander marched his army 110 miles from Taxila to the Hydaspes, where Porus’ army of 30,000 infantry, 4,000 cavalry, 300 chariots and 200 elephants waited on the far bank. Alexander faced a forced river crossing opposed by a strong enemy.

Alexander’s army comprised 23,000 Greek heavy infantry, 1,000 Iranian horse-archers and 8,000 heavy cavalry. While calling up his landing craft, he sent for large supplies of wheat to persuade Porus that he would wait until the rainy season ended before crossing. For several nights Alexander marched his cavalry up and down the riverbank as if searching for a crossing point. At first Porus moved to keep him in check, but after concluding that Alexander had no intention of crossing, Porus remained in camp. Alexander’s forces now roamed the riverbank unchallenged.

Alexander divided his army into three parts. A force of 3,000 cavalry and 8,000 infantry under Craterus stayed directly opposite Porus’ position. Alexander led the turning force of 5,000 cavalry and 10,500 infantry, including 2,000 archers, while a reserve force of 1,000 cavalry and 4,500 infantry under Meleager waited for Alexander’s force to secure the far bank. One night a terrible storm arose, with rain, wind and thunder. Using the weather as a screen, Alexander moved his turning force into position 17 miles upstream.

His chosen crossing point was a headland that jutted into the river toward a wooded island, providing concealment for his landing craft. By dawn Alexander’s force had crossed the river and begun moving toward Porus’ camp.

With Alexander approaching, Porus faced a dilemma. Was this a feint or the main attack? Porus sent 2,000 of his cavalry to intercept Alexander, reserving his main force to deal with Craterus’ expected attack. Alexander destroyed the Indian cavalry and continued his advance. Porus then switched to the defensive, deploying his infantry in a line, each wing protected by only 1,000 cavalry and some elephants.

Alexander attacked Porus’ left with 4,000 cavalry and his right with 2,000 horsemen. Porus ordered the cavalry on his right to circle behind the battle line and reinforce his left, so Alexander’s 2,000 Greek cavalry simply followed them. Alexander then shifted his 1,000 horse-archers against Porus’ left while moving his heavy cavalry to envelop the Indian infantry. Porus extended his left to block the envelopment, which created a gap in his line. Alexander sent his heavy cavalry into the gap while the Greek cavalry riding behind the battle line shattered Porus’ left.

Porus rallied his troops into a phalanx to meet Alexander’s frontal infantry attack, so Alexander ordered his cavalry to encircle the packed Indian phalanx. Then his infantry and cavalry attacked in concert. Craterus soon arrived on the field with fresh troops, turning the battle into a slaughter. Eight hours later, Alexander had lost 280 cavalry and 700 Greek infantry, while Porus suffered 12,000 killed and 9,000 taken prisoner. The road to India was open.

Lessons:

Seize the initiative. Prussian Field Marshal Helmuth von Moltke once said, “The offensive knows what it wants, whereas the defensive is in a state of uncertainty.â€


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 24 Jan 2008 21:58 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 38065
Peter, where did you get the book by Wally Badge? Is it online?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 25 Jan 2008 00:08 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01
Posts: 740
ramana wrote:
Paul I posted Peter's psot there. I also found a follow-up to the Battle of Hydaspes River


What We Learned... from the Hydaspes River


Quote:
What We Learned... from the Hydaspes River
By Richard A. Gabriel


Eight hours later, Alexander had lost 280 cavalry and 700 Greek infantry, while Porus suffered 12,000 killed and 9,000 taken prisoner. The road to India was open.


Some one contact this writer and tell him about the other version of the battle.


Without knowing the exact details of the battle, I would still challenge the number of Porus' men killed in the given time frame. As a rule of thumb in ancient battles the maximum number of kills are achieved when the enemy has either surrendered or is running, and usually over the span of 2-3 days. Only since the advent of effective fire-support - i.e artillery and airpower - have so few been able to kill so many in so short a period of time. Alexander has a long record of massacres of surrendered soldiers and civilians alike - including some of the most atrocious one of his career, namely the 50-60,000 defenders killed at Madra and Sudra after surrendering - so I won't doubt that 12,000 men could have been killed. I just highly doubt that 12,000 soldiers could have been killed in so short a time with so little losses. The typical policy of Alexander in such massacres was to accept surrender, disarm the opponent, lull them into believing the were safe and then slaughtering. The lull and cull trick worked in the short-run. In the long run, it drove all the little western kingdoms firmly into the Magadhan fold... Selukos' oigins as a cavalryman - the servicearm most responsble for hunting down and slaughtering in old armies - definitely did not help him find allies to face off Chandragupta.

As an aside: IMHO Greece and Greeks are weird... Westerners have co-opted the Greek heritage as "Western heritage", the Greeks had tried their hardest to maintain distinction from the Middle-Eastern entities, so they are probably ade for each other... but still, from a factual basis they are not quite "Western". For example, Latin (with its huge and enduring impact on Western civilization) seems and sounds so much closer to Old Persian or Sanskrit than to old Greek. Something just doesn't seem correct...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 25 Jan 2008 00:55 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31
Posts: 1652
Has any western writer written in detail about the battle(s) where Chandragupta Maurya defeated Selukos and rolled back the Greek empire from India? How about the 'lessons learnt' of that battle?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 25 Jan 2008 03:40 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01
Posts: 740
Kakkaji wrote:
Has any western writer written in detail about the battle(s) where Chandragupta Maurya defeated Selukos and rolled back the Greek empire from India? How about the 'lessons learnt' of that battle?


As a matter of fact there is a new book titled "Alexander the Great Failure" by John D. Grainger, where the failed policies, immoral acts and unwise decisions of Alexander are given a microscopic examination. I am yet to read it fully, but I have browsed some sections regarding India. Since the book is mainly about Alexander, he doesn't dwell too much on post-Alexander actions in detail, but rather establishes a macro-case on lessons that should be learnt. The macro view is that Alexander failed in achieving what Cyrus the Great had created (i.e Persian Empire), neither did he create a viable and enduring alternative like the Roman Italy, Mauryan India or Qin China - all of whose tremendous impact persists to this day.

Anyway, back to your question, the macro-case presented runs approximately like this among many Western scholars and intellectuals (ex Pressfield et al):

1. Invading India was immoral, Alexander's mandate from the Greek culture was to destroy the Persian enemy... not run off on his own glory trip beyond Persian borders.

2. Alexander's acceptance of many Persian princes, courtiers and soldiers made him more "Asian" (i.e despotic way he kills his close friends in drunken orgy), hence the Greeks should really have sided with Indians fighting for their freedom against Alexander.

3. Alexander's excesses in India - especially at Madra and Sudra - is despicable as an act against his mandate by morals of his time, and as a war-crimes act in ours.

4. Alexander's campaigns in India could not have proceeded much further - NOT because of the elephants - but because of Indian FORTS. Indian forts were the most scientific ones he and his engineering commander Demitrios had faced outside of the Western campaign (Tyre, Gaza). Greeks were literally bashing their heads against stone walls... every siege lead to loss of morale, breakdown of discipline and massacres. India was literally covered with such forts.

5. Alexander's excesses finally drove the independent little kingdoms and republics of India into seeking collective security under the Mauryas.

6. Greek presence in India was untenable given the bitterness and hatred his initial thrust had created. It was best-off to retreat to Bactria under those circumstances.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 25 Jan 2008 06:56 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Oct 2002 11:31
Posts: 1652
Sounds like Alexander was a prequel to Aurangzeb. :)

I remember reading that Chanakya had sent Chandragupt to join Alexander's army, to learn the Greek tactics of war. Chandragupt used what he learnt from the Greeks in his own campaigns, and that's how he was able to defeat Selukos.

Don't know how true the above story is but I think that whenever the Indian leaders kept their minds open to learn from the outside world, they could defeat the invaders. When they closed the gates and turned inwards, the invaders defeated them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 25 Jan 2008 11:10 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Apr 2006 17:58
Posts: 405
http://orbat.com:80/site/maps/india/india/india1760_maratthas_clive.jpg


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 25 Jan 2008 11:23 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25
Posts: 6675
I can spot one glaring error, the Nizams of Hyderabad never ruled Tamil Nadu and most of coastal Andhra, don't what other errors in the Map are


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 25 Jan 2008 20:40 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01
Posts: 740
Aditya_V wrote:
I can spot one glaring error, the Nizams of Hyderabad never ruled Tamil Nadu and most of coastal Andhra, don't what other errors in the Map are


It is simplification. Northern Tamil Nadu, ruled by Nawab of Arcot, is put as Nizam's dominion. Technically all the Moghul vassals south of the Narmada River reported to the Nizam; in reality Arcot and Hyderabad had on-again, off-again relations. Same with the various Maratha sardars and Afghan maliks spread out all over Northern India. Let us not even get into the status of the local rulers (i.e Rajputs, Amirs, Nawabs in Maratha vassalage, Rajas in post-Mughal vassalage etc). Give the cartographer a break!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 25 Jan 2008 22:08 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Sep 2006 02:23
Posts: 280
Location: India
Ramana, please archive the old thread of this and put a link to it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 25 Jan 2008 23:38 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 38065
Done.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Feb 2008 06:48 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Apr 2006 17:58
Posts: 405
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Hindu_percent_1909.jpg


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: 02 Feb 2008 07:02 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 Apr 2006 17:58
Posts: 405
http://www.shelleys.demon.co.uk/dinia.htm


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 02 Feb 2008 10:32 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 38065
Gs, Please lets not get carried away. First reduce the inline image size or post a link. next Rahmat Ali's ravings dont belong here. So get rid of it.

Thanks, ramana


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 03 Feb 2008 11:54 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31
Posts: 2326
Aurangzeb's Afghan War (1667-78)

Aurangzeb captured the Mughal throne at Agra in 1657, after fighting his brothers and imprisoning his father Shah Jahan. The result of this usurpation and infighting were initial revolts in different parts of the Mughal Empire——in the northwest additional causes fuelled a rebellion greater in strength and longer in duration than the others.

The Mughals lost the fort of Kandahar in Afghanistan to the Persians in the reign of Shah Jahan. Attempts by them to recover this important fort, twice under Aurangzeb, ended in failure and dented Mughal prestige. Subsequently the Persian Shah Abbas II had encouraged the Shia Sultanates in the Deccan to assert their independence while Aurangzeb was fighting his brothers——he even threatened to invade India around 1664-65. Though the danger never materialized these incidents left their impact on the frontier peoples, the Afghans.

Divided into numerous tribes, the Afghans were subjects of the Mughal Empire. Their brethren joined the empire's armies and were settled in different parts of India to keep the local Hindu resistance in check (this was specially the case in Uttar Pradesh). Within their frontier homeland of dry rugged hills and narrow valleys, the Afghans (i.e. Pasthuns) could not sustain their population on agriculture, and gained more from taxing trade caravans traversing the Khyber Pass.

But even this did not satiate their growing numbers——hence they were always on the lookout for raiding each others lands, or seeking such opportunities in the neighboring Mughal territory.

Mughal Administration

The frontier regions formed part of the province of Kabul, and the Mughal viceroy was stationed at that town. Under him were governors at Peshawar, Jalalabad, and Attock, with their military quotas and lesser officers to hold numerous other hill-posts.

The policy of the Mughal government since the days of Akbar was to maintain a strong military presence, invade the lands of a tribe that broke the peace, and bribe the other tribes to join in the plunder of their neighbour.

Divisions among the different tribes were natural, but divisions within a tribe and in families were also a useful tool for the Mughals to control the Afghans. Unlike the Rajput clans, who generally obeyed their clan-heads and followed them into war, the Afghans only did so if their chief was a capable leader and could get them monetary gains. If that chief was incapable then someone else rose up to claim the leadership of the tribe.

The drawback of such a system was the proliferation of leaders and fighting groups among the Afghans, ocassionaly uniting among themselves, but incapable of making any long-term plan of operation. The only time when the Afghans have been a nation was under Ahmad Shah Abdali——and he had Persians and Uzbeks in his army to keep the Afghan element in check.

The Afghans were closely matched to the Mughals in military resources——weilding firearms they took advantage of the broken nature of their country to lay ambushes for the advancing enemy. Concealing themselves behind rocks and trees and on mountain tops till the enemy was caught in a trap. Only the Mughal artillery and cavalry could break up their formations when caught off-guard.

The first rising was of the Yusufzai in 1667.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 04 Feb 2008 08:25 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31
Posts: 2326
Image
Map of the frontier from jqvaraderey

From their homes in the region of Swat (green portion of map) the Yusufzai spread south into Attock and east into Hazara in 1667. Their leader was Bhagu, who had proclaimed himself Wazir of their puppet king, and had obtained religious sanction from Mullah Chalak (showing the susceptibility of the Pashtuns to religious extremism, as seen earlier from their role in the Raushaniya rising against Akbar).

The Mullah himself led the first body of 5000 Yusufzai across the River Indus into Hazara where they captured the fort of Chhachal and expelled the local Mughal officers. Other Yusufzai bands penetrated into the Peshawar district.

The governor of Attock, Kamil Khan, retaliated by marching into the Yusufzai homeland, forcing the invaders to rush back for its defence. The Mughal officer with the loyal Khattak Pashtuns, enemies of the Yusufzai, was reinforced by more men sent from Peshawar: Gakkhars from the Punjab and Rajputs under Maha Singh Bhadauria.

They marched along the course of the Indus and attacked the over 20,000 Yusufzai who were blocking that ferry point across the river. The Mughal artillery broke their formation and the cavalry completed the Yusufzai defeat——2000 were killed and many more drowned in the river. A pyramid of their severed heads was built on the river bank but the main body of the tribe escaped across the river.

The Mughals made a long halt at that ferry, not being strong enough to take on the Yusufzai in their own home.

Meanwhile the viceroy of Kabul sent another force under Shamshir Khan, which followed the Kabul river east and then swerved north to join the force under Kamil Khan. The united army crossed the River Indus into the Yusufzai lands——their villages were burnt, the crops trampled, and property looted by the Mughals. But the invasion caused other tribes, like the Akuzai and the Malizai, in the neighbourhood to join the Yusufzai in resisting the invaders.

A new viceroy

In 1668 Aurangzeb appointed his Mir Bakshi, Muhammad Amin Khan (a Persian officer and the son of the famous Mir Jumla), at the head of a force of 9000 to crush the Yusufzai.

By this time Shahbaz Khan had bribed the Utmanzai tribe to side with the Mughals. Amin Khan took over command from him and pressed further into the lands of the Yusufzai and their allies, sacking the fertile Swat valley.

Image

Villages like Hijaz and Karahmar were destroyed and the territory of Bajaur was also invaded. The remaining pockets of Yusufzai resistance were the high peaks of their mountain homes, but even these were scaled by the Mughals and large numbers of Pathans were killed or taken prisoner.

The Yusufzai were finally defeated but the Mughals did not take any chances——other garrisons in the region were strengthened. In 1671 Maharaja Jaswant Singh and his Rathor clansmen were appointed to hold the post of Jamrud on the road to Kabul.

They saw action only a year later in the rising of the Afridi and allied tribes in the Khyber region....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 08 Feb 2008 08:41 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31
Posts: 2326
While the new viceroy, the Persian officer Muhammad Amin Khan, took his post in Kabul, his deputy in Jalalabad came into conflict with the Afridi tribe. Under the leadership of Akmal Khan, the Afridis closed the Khyber Pass in the spring of 1672, and proclaimed war against the Mughals calling on all Pathan clans to join them.

Akmal Khan went so far as to strike coins in his name as a sign of independence.

The haughty Mughal viceroy, who had been passing the winter at Peshawar, moved to Kabul for the summer months, disregarding his officer's advice. He had with him all his family and camp followers, which slowed down the rest of his army, and doomed them to an ambush in the narrow gorge at Ali Masjid.
Image
the hill and fort of Ali Masjid at Khyber

The Persian nobleman opened negotiations with the Afghans but the price they demanded was too high and he tried force. In the battle that followed the Afghans rained down arrows, bullets, and stones from the hill-tops on the Mughals. The army broke into a confused mass into which the triumphant enemy charged——Muhammad Amin Khan and his officers escaped with their lives to Peshawar but in the words of the Mughal chronicler:

Quote:
Ten thousand men fell under the enemy's sword in the field, and above two crores of rupees in cash and kind was looted by the enemy. They captured 20,000 men and women and sent them to Central Asia for sale.


Amin Khan's own family, including his wife, were among the prisoners but he secured their release by paying a huge ransom. All the Mughal lands across the Khyber Pass were lost to the Afghan tribes——only Jaswant Singh continued to hold post at Jamrud beneath the pass.
Image
Jamrud leading to the mountain pass of Khyber

General Afghan rising

News of this great victory, and of the immense riches gained by Akmal Khan, spread like wildfire among the Pathans. Many of them came over to his army; other tribes raised the banner of revolt against the Mughals. The recently supressed Yusufzai's recovered their lands from Mughal occupation.

The Khattak tribe, located in the southern portions of Peshwar, rose under their chieftain Khushal Khan, who had recently served in the Mughal campaign against his hereditary enemies the Yusufzais. Khushal joined up with Akmal and inspired the Afghans with his poetry and by his victories over the isolated Mughal posts.

Aurangzeb heard of the disaster in May 1672. He first sent the viceroy of Lahore, Fidai Khan, to hold Peshawar against any further advance by the exultant enemy. Mahabat Khan, viceroy of the Deccan then engaged in fighting the great Shivaji, was appointed to recover Kabul since he had governed the province thrice before.

But the now old Mahabat had no interest in fighting the tribes and he came to a secret understanding with them. Aurangzeb then sent Shujaet Khan in the winter of 1673-74 as an independent commander to open the road to Kabul.

Shujaet avoided the besieged Khyber Pass and took his army towards the lesser known Karapa Pass a little to the north of the River Kabul. But a heavy snowfall on 21 February, booged down his army, the vigilant Afghans followed close behind and surrounded the Mughals from the hill-tops.

From this vantage point they launched bullets, arrows, and stones throughout the night——charging the shaken enemy at dawn. Shujaet Khan was killed but a portion of his army was saved because Jaswant Singh had wisely sent up a body of 500 Rajput cavalry with guns who broke through the enemy's cordon.

Aurangzeb takes command

Aurangzeb was now convinced that an all-out campaign under his own command, and with better resources, was required to crush the Afghans. Accompanying him were Fidai Khan (now appointed viceroy of Kabul), the Turk noble Aghar Khan, and the Afghan (i.e. Indian Pathan from UP) noble Dilir Khan known to us from his battles against Shivaji.
Image
Kohat

His young son Akbar marched by way of Kohat (blue portion in map south of Peshawar), accompanied by Asad Khan and Jaswant Singh, and avoiding the Khyber route captured Kabul in 1674. The Khyber Afghans were now trapped——from Peshawar Mughal detachments entered the lands of the Ghorai, Shirrani, and Yusufzai tribes, burnt their villages and took thousands of prisoners, and sold them into slavery.

These victories cowed the Daudzai, Tarakzai, and Tirahi tribes into submission. Cracks appeared within the families of the rebels. Akmal Khan's relatives offered to arrest him if they were pardoned, Bhagu's son joined the Mughals, Khushal Khan's son also took up Mughal service. The Bangash and other tribes i nthe region came to the Mughal side.

Meanwhile Agahar Khan had been trying to force open the Khyber Pass. He had first defeated the Mohmands posted on the south flank and then ousted the main Afghan army of 40,000 from the Ali Masjid defile. Followed by Fidai Khan, the new viceroy, he captured Jalalabad and tried to link up with the Mughals at Kabul by way of the Jegdalek Pass.
Image
Jegdalek village with the pass in the background

The Ghilzai tribe had sworn to hold the pass but were ousted by him after a long battle. Fidai Khan reached Kabul and Prince Akbar returned to Peshawar. But the Afghans had not been crushed—they retreated to remote valleys to lick their wounds, recoup losses, and waited for another chance.

Fidai Khan on his return from Kabul in the Spring of 1675 was attacked in the Jegdalek Pass, losing many of his soldiers and camp-followers, but Aghar Khan came up from Gandamak and rescued him.

The crisis of the war was over——all the Mughal posts were strongly held, revenue was collected from the obedient tribes, and caravans went through the Khyber and other passes. All that remained now was to crush the old die-hards.

The new governor Amir Khan, appointed in 1677, brought over the remaining Afghan chieftains to his side by paying them subsidies. He created divisions among the followers of Akmal Khan by pointing out how the greater share of plunder was going into the hands of the Afridi tribe. On his death the tribe submitted to the Mughals. Khushal was betrayed by his son and captured soon after.

But before all this, a more momentous event that would change the history of India, took place towards the end of 1678. Maharaja Jaswant Singh, holding the post of Jamrud with his army, died that winter, and this event gave Aurangzeb the opportunity to annex his kingdom (Jodhpur), divide the Hindu territory of Rajputana into two separate halves that could be crushed in detail, and impose jaziya on the Hindu population——bringing to life his long-cherished dream of making India an Islamic State.

NOTE: All the Afghan lands were not involved in this war, which centred on the Peshawar-Jalalabad-Kabul axis. Afghan tribes in North Baluchistan and the Sulaiman Range remained unaffected by this conflict.

The Turk Aghar Khan because of his numerous victories over the Afghans created such terror among them that Afghan mothers used to hush their children to sleep on taking his dreaded name.

This same story has been repeated for generals in other ages. Kunwar Man Singh in Akbar's time, Sardar Hari Singh Nalwa in the 19th Century, and to British generals in a later period.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2008 10:01 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19
Posts: 803
ramana wrote:
Peter, where did you get the book by Wally Badge? Is it online?

Yeah: http://books.google.com/books?id=xIa0ka ... 4I8Hh1Z7mU


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2008 10:12 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19
Posts: 803
Airavat wrote:
But the now old Mahabat had no interest in fighting the tribes and he came to a secret understanding with them. Aurangzeb then sent Shujaet Khan in the winter of 1673-74 as an independent commander to open the road to Kabul.

Shujaet avoided the besieged Khyber Pass and took his army towards the lesser known Karapa Pass a little to the north of the River Kabul. But a heavy snowfall on 21 February, booged down his army, the vigilant Afghans followed close behind and surrounded the Mughals from the hill-tops.

From this vantage point they launched bullets, arrows, and stones throughout the night——charging the shaken enemy at dawn. Shujaet Khan was killed but a portion of his army was saved because Jaswant Singh had wisely sent up a body of 500 Rajput cavalry with guns who broke through the enemy's cordon.

Marwar chronicles mention rathore king yashwant (a.k.a Jaswant) advised shujat to negotiate in peshawar and not head to kabul as the afghans wanted to negotiate. Many tribe elders had come to peshawar.
Shujat did not heed and marched towards karappa pass to head to kabul. There was a tough engagement with afghans where he was killed. Yashwant on hearing this divided his army into two. One he led himself and the other under a Bhati chieftain. Both had light artillery and approached karappa pass from two sides. A massive fight erupted and yashwant lost 300 rajputs but managed to kill more afghans and afghans did run away. This allowed the holed up mughal army be brought back safely from the mouth of karappa pass.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 09 Feb 2008 10:17 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19
Posts: 803
Kakkaji wrote:
Sounds like Alexander was a prequel to Aurangzeb. :)

I remember reading that Chanakya had sent Chandragupt to join Alexander's army, to learn the Greek tactics of war. Chandragupt used what he learnt from the Greeks in his own campaigns, and that's how he was able to defeat Selukos.

Don't know how true the above story is but I think that whenever the Indian leaders kept their minds open to learn from the outside world, they could defeat the invaders. When they closed the gates and turned inwards, the invaders defeated them.


How would this explain porus's victory?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 11 Feb 2008 09:26 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 26 May 2007 17:22
Posts: 191
A book review on Followers of Krishna: Yadavas of India


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 11 Feb 2008 23:32 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 30 Jul 2004 15:05
Posts: 2472
Folks, this thread is meant for Historical battles. Does a Indian History / Mythology thread exist? If not , I would like to start one.

Pl advice.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 12 Feb 2008 12:31 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 12 Jan 2006 16:43
Posts: 104
Friends,

Are any good ebooks available on the net on the 3 panipat battles ?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 12 Feb 2008 21:39 
Offline
Forum Moderator

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 38065
There is an account of third battle by a Maratha munshi in service of a state in now Uttar Pradesh. Will look and post in the e-books thread.

Need to know more about the Chola empire's moves into South East Asia and thier naval exploits.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 05 Mar 2008 06:51 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31
Posts: 2326
Airavat wrote:
But before all this, a more momentous event that would change the history of India, took place towards the end of 1678.

Maharaja Jaswant Singh, holding the post of Jamrud with his army, died that winter, and this event gave Aurangzeb the opportunity to annex his kingdom (Jodhpur), divide the Hindu territory of Rajputana into two separate halves that could be crushed in detail, and impose jaziya on the Hindu population——bringing to life his long-cherished dream of making India an Islamic State.


This site Packhum.org has many translated Islamic documents from India's history. Among these is a letter written by Aurangzeb to his father Shah Jahan, after he had imprisoned him in the Agra Fort:

Quote:
Your humble disciple hath already repeatedly declared to your august audience, that my object in marching towards Agra was not rebellion, or to depose the emperor of Islaum.* The Penetrator of all secrets is my witness, that this unworthy and unlawful idea had never glanced on the mirror of my heart.

As, during the extreme illness of your majesty, the reins of power had dropped from your hands, and the eldest prince, who had not even the resemblance of a mussulmaun,* having obtained arbitrary rule and authority, exercised unlimited controul, and revived the customs of infidelity and atheism throughout the empire; thinking it lawful, politic, and just to overthrow his designs, I advanced to these parts.

My first battle was with wicked infidels, who had destroyed mosques, and erected on their sites temples to their idols*. :eek: The second engagement was against the evil-acting atheists;* and, as my intention was virtuous, in each, with an inferior force, I became successful, and preserved without a wound.


On the original page if you place the mouse cursor over the star next to the word "idols", the pop-up describes these "mosque-breaking infidels": Jeswunt Sing, the powerful raja of Rhatore, commanded in this battle; which was fought near Oojein, the capital of Malwa, A. D. 1658.

The reference is to the Battle of Dharmat where Aurangzeb was opposed by Jaswant Singh Rathore, the Maharaja of Jodhpur, and his Rajput army. But when did he demolish mosques as alleged by Aurangzeb??

As we all know the Muslim invaders demolished thousands of Hindu temples and erected mosques on their sites.....this served the double purpose of eliminating the indigenous faith on the one hand and converting the locals to Islam on the other. Hindu rulers used to demolish these illegal structures and restore the temples wherever they had the upper hand—this was the case in Rajputana. But they never demolished mosques of Muslim civilians in their states, unlike what the Muslim rulers did to the temples of their Hindu subjects.

Rajput rulers also demolished the mosques built by invaders in the Sultanate of Nagaur and in the Sultanates of Malwa and Gujarat. But this was in the pre-Mughal era.

So now it seems that Rajput rulers had the power to restore Hindu temples, by demolishing the illegal structures built on their sites, even as generals of the Mughal Empire. This is what Jaswant Singh must have done as governor of some Mughal province or district....and even this restoration of temples caused such heart-burning to this wretch Aurangzeb!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 05 Mar 2008 22:19 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19
Posts: 803
Remember vaguely that Aurangjeb installed Jijiya in India after jashwant's death (was jaswant poisoned)?

http://www.uq.net.au/~zzhsoszy/ips/j/jodhpur.html

23 Maharaja JASHWANT SINGH I 1638/1678 (son of a Mewari Princess), born 24th December 1626, installed on the gaddi on 25th May 1638, married (amongst others) (a), 1649 Maharani Jasma De of Khandela, married (b), Maharani Janak Kumari of Khandela, and had issue. He died 28th November 1678 in Kabul, poisoned on orders of Padshah Aurangzeb.

Was he afraid of this king?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2008 08:34 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Sep 2007 08:53
Posts: 634
Location: USA
peter wrote:
Remember vaguely that Aurangjeb installed Jijiya in India after jashwant's death (was jaswant poisoned)?

Was he afraid of this king?


It appears that Aurangzeb was very afraid of Jaswant Singh for one reason or the other. Col. James Tod in "Annals in Antiquities of Rajasthan" confirms this, but not why Jaswant Singh was such a threat, especially when Shivaji was also there.

Col. James Tod wrote:
Sighs never ceased flowing from Aurang's heart while Jaswant lived. . . had all the princely contemporaries of Jaswant- Jai Singh of Amber, Rana Raj Singh of Mewar, and Chattrapati Shivaji coalesced against their national foe, the Mughal power would have been made extinct. Could Jaswant, however, have been satisfied with the mental wounds he inflicted upon Aurangzeb, he would have had ample revenge; for the image of the Rathore crossed all his visions of aggrandizement. The cruel sacrifice of his heir, and the still more barbarous and unrelenting ferocity with which he pursued Jaswant's innocent family, are the surest proofs of the dread which the Rathore prince inspired while alive.


Personally, I don't know how reliable Col. James Tod is, really, considering that the "Jodha-Akbar" row was caused by information taken from his chronicles. He was not a historian, after all.

Oxford History of India wrote:
...the death of Jaswant Singh emboldened the imperial bigot to re-impose the hated Jizyah, or poll-tax on non Muslims"


Apparently, Aurangzeb sent "poisoned clothes" to Prithvi Singh, Jaswant Singh's son, but I don't know how Jaswant Singh died.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2008 09:04 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 22805
Location: Embarrassed by fresh-off-the-boat Indians
[quote="Maratha"][/quote]

The login name "Maratha" is not allowable as per forum guidelines.

I have changed it to Marat


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2008 09:07 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Sep 2007 08:53
Posts: 634
Location: USA
shiv wrote:
Maratha wrote:


The login name "Maratha" is not allowable as per forum guidelines.

I have changed it to Marat
.

Do you wanna just go ahead and change it to my name, Keshav?

Does Marat even mean anything?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2008 09:23 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Posts: 22805
Location: Embarrassed by fresh-off-the-boat Indians
Keshav wrote:
[
Do you wanna just go ahead and change it to my name, Keshav?

Does Marat even mean anything?


Done.

Marat in fact means nothing and therefore cannot serve as a precedent for future members to call themselves "Jat", "Warrior" "Raja Raja Chola" or even "Shivaji Maharaj" and the like based on the precedent set by a person being allowed to call himself "Maratha"

Please read the forum guidelines linked from the top of every forum page.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2008 09:42 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31
Posts: 2326
Marat wrote:
Col. James Tod in "Annals in Antiquities of Rajasthan" confirms this, but not why Jaswant Singh was such a threat, especially when Shivaji was also there.


A more reliable authority is Jadunath Sarkar:

Quote:
Aurangzeb's plan for the forcible conversion of Hindus required that Jaswant's State should sink into a quiescent dependancy or a regular province of the empire.

Hindu resistance to the policy of religious persecution must be deprived of a possible efficient head.


At another place he writes of Jaswant Singh's son Ajit Singh who fought against the Mughal occupiers of Jodhpur:

Quote:
Aurangzeb could have made an honourable and lasting peace and turned the Rathores into devoted allies, by restoring Ajit Singh to all his father's territory and rank.

But he wanted to dismember Marwar and thus prevent the possible opposition to his anti-hindu measures, which a great independent Hindu State in Northern India might have offered.

There was to be no second high-spirited and strong Jaswant Singh to rally around himself and lead to victory the discontented Hindus of the empire.


Ajit Singh, like his father, also demolished illegal structures built on Hindu temples, and banned cow-slaughter, while ruling the Mughal province of Gujarat.

During Shivaji's attack on Shaista Khan, Jaswant Singh was posted on the route with his 10,000 man army, but they didn't check the Marathas due to an understanding between Shivaji and Jaswant. This was another "mental wound" inflicted on Aurangzeb by Jaswant Singh, because Shaista Khan was the emperor's mamu.

Sarkar also shows how Jaswant and Shivaji had joined together to support Aurangzeb's son, Muazzam the governor of the Deccan, for the Mughal throne by encouraging him to rebel against Aurangzeb. This plan didn't work out.

But in the next generation, under Sambhaji, the Marathas and Rajputs had joined forces to install Aurangzeb's son Akbar on the Mughal throne, and thus increase their own power and independence.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2008 10:59 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 20 Sep 2007 08:53
Posts: 634
Location: USA
Airavat wrote:
A more reliable authority is Jadunath Sarkar:


Could you give me the name of specific books that Jadunath Sarkar has written on the subject?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2008 18:22 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19
Posts: 803
Keshav wrote:
Airavat wrote:
A more reliable authority is Jadunath Sarkar:


Could you give me the name of specific books that Jadunath Sarkar has written on the subject?


If I remember right Sarkar penned "History of Aurangzeb" in multiple volumes.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 07 Mar 2008 18:24 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19
Posts: 803
Airavat wrote:
Marat wrote:
Col. James Tod in "Annals in Antiquities of Rajasthan" confirms this, but not why Jaswant Singh was such a threat, especially when Shivaji was also there.


A more reliable authority is Jadunath Sarkar:

Quote:
Aurangzeb's plan for the forcible conversion of Hindus required that Jaswant's State should sink into a quiescent dependancy or a regular province of the empire.

Hindu resistance to the policy of religious persecution must be deprived of a possible efficient head.


At another place he writes of Jaswant Singh's son Ajit Singh who fought against the Mughal occupiers of Jodhpur:

Quote:
Aurangzeb could have made an honourable and lasting peace and turned the Rathores into devoted allies, by restoring Ajit Singh to all his father's territory and rank.

But he wanted to dismember Marwar and thus prevent the possible opposition to his anti-hindu measures, which a great independent Hindu State in Northern India might have offered.

There was to be no second high-spirited and strong Jaswant Singh to rally around himself and lead to victory the discontented Hindus of the empire.


Ajit Singh, like his father, also demolished illegal structures built on Hindu temples, and banned cow-slaughter, while ruling the Mughal province of Gujarat.

During Shivaji's attack on Shaista Khan, Jaswant Singh was posted on the route with his 10,000 man army, but they didn't check the Marathas due to an understanding between Shivaji and Jaswant. This was another "mental wound" inflicted on Aurangzeb by Jaswant Singh, because Shaista Khan was the emperor's mamu.

Sarkar also shows how Jaswant and Shivaji had joined together to support Aurangzeb's son, Muazzam the governor of the Deccan, for the Mughal throne by encouraging him to rebel against Aurangzeb. This plan didn't work out.

But in the next generation, under Sambhaji, the Marathas and Rajputs had joined forces to install Aurangzeb's son Akbar on the Mughal throne, and thus increase their own power and independence.


Why did Jaswant continue to serve aurangjeb when his son was poisoned by the mughal's order and jaswant and him were at loggerheads?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2008 07:05 
Offline
BRF Oldie

Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31
Posts: 2326
Why did Aurangzeb do nothing against Jaswant Singh when the latter pulled down mosques and restored the original Hindu temples?

Why did Aurangzeb not take any action against Jaswant, when it was clear that he was conspiring with Shivaji and Muazzam to overthrow him?

At the Battle of Khajwa Jaswant Singh treacherously made an alliance with Aurangzeb's brother Shuja, and actually turned his army around to attack Aurangzeb's men, thouroughly looted their camp and treasure, and marched back to his own kingdom.

And yet Aurangzeb could not punish him for this act of war....why?

The answer to these questions is the same as the answer to your question.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: 08 Mar 2008 19:48 
Offline
BRFite

Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19
Posts: 803
Airavat wrote:
Why did Aurangzeb do nothing against Jaswant Singh when the latter pulled down mosques and restored the original Hindu temples?

Why did Aurangzeb not take any action against Jaswant, when it was clear that he was conspiring with Shivaji and Muazzam to overthrow him?

At the Battle of Khajwa Jaswant Singh treacherously made an alliance with Aurangzeb's brother Shuja, and actually turned his army around to attack Aurangzeb's men, thouroughly looted their camp and treasure, and marched back to his own kingdom.

And yet Aurangzeb could not punish him for this act of war....why?

The answer to these questions is the same as the answer to your question.


It has been established by Keshav and you that aurangzeb was afraid of Jaswant Singh. Why did Jaswant not attack aurangzeb openly and be done with him once and for all?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 2246 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 57  Next

All times are UTC + 5:30 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: kaizanin and 17 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group