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
Airavat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2326
Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31
Location: dishum-bishum
Contact:

Post by Airavat »

peter wrote: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?
Was it that easy? Jaswant did attack him twice at the Battle of Dharmat and the Battle of Khajwa.

Destroying Aurangzeb would not have finished the Mughal Empire.....and for this reason the Maratha Peshwas, far more powerful than Jaswant Singh, did not destroy the much weaker Mughal Emperors of the 18th Century. Because that would not have finished the empire.....it was more practical to control the Mughal Emperor and let the empire die a natural death.

This is exactly what Jaswant had attempted to do by prodding Muazzam to rebel against his father.....control the Mughal Empire by proxy.
csharma
BRFite
Posts: 694
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31

Post by csharma »

Airavat, We know that in the 18th century, Maratha power expanded in northern India. Marathas had also sacked Delhi in 1737 (or so), a couple of years before Nadir Shah did the same.

I have read accounts which mentioned that Marathas used to provide security to the Mughal emperor in Delhi and hence ruled by proxy. There was an incident in which an Afghan general had kidnapped the Mughal emperor. The Marathas hunted the guy down and reinstalled the blinded the emperor on the throne.

Can you describe the extent and the duration of Maratha control over Delhi and hence Mughal emperors.


Thanks.
sanjaychoudhry
BRFite
Posts: 756
Joined: 13 Jul 2007 00:39
Location: La La Land

Post by sanjaychoudhry »

The Mughal emperor was recieving a pension from the Marathas, with the Maratha army stationed at Delhi for his protection. The Peshwa was the real ruler behind the throne. The battle for control of Delhi was fought between the Maratha army (led by French officers) and British army commanded by General Lake. It is called the Battle of Patparganj and was fought at the spot where the Noida golf course exists today. There is a huge memorial there in memory of that battle erected by the British.
csharma
BRFite
Posts: 694
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31

Post by csharma »

When did the Marathas start exercising control over Delhi? How did happen?
Airavat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2326
Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31
Location: dishum-bishum
Contact:

Post by Airavat »

csharma wrote:Can you describe the extent and the duration of Maratha control over Delhi and hence Mughal emperors.

Thanks.
Maratha control over Delhi starts in 1784, when Mahadji Scindia took the Emperor Shah Alam under his protection. He was appointed Wakil-i-Mutaliq with direct control over Delhi, Mathura, Aligarh, and Agra, and it was from his son Daulat Rao that the British took these places after the Second Anglo-Maratha War (1803). Daulat Rao Scindia was recognized as the Maharaja of Gwalior.

How and why Shah Alam sought Maratha protection is a story with its roots in the Third Battle of Panipat (1761).

After the battle Ahmad Shah Abdali left Najib Khan Ruhela in charge of Delhi and the surrounding regions, with Shah Alam as emperor, but the latter refused to come to Delhi and lived under the protection of the Shia Nawab of Awadh.

After settling their internal wrangles, the Marathas returned to North India in 1771. They escorted Shah Alam from Allahabad to Delhi and installed him as emperor after ejecting the Ruhela occupiers....but the death of the Peshwa, and the murder of his successor, called them back to Maharashtra. Later came the first Anglo-Maratha War (1779-81).

All this meant that the Marathas were unable to exercise direct control over Delhi for another ten years. The petty fights for control over the emperor was fought over between Persian, Mughal, and Afghan nobles.

Mahadji Scindia had risen to power by capturing Gwalior Fort and by mediating a peace treaty between the Marathas and the British. So the helpless Shah Alam sought his protection in 1784 from his infighting nobles.

For a few years the Marathas had direct control of the Mughal Empire (Delhi-Mathura-Agra belt)...but in 1787, deperately short of cash, Mahadji Scindia invaded the Kingdom of Jaipur but was defeated and forced to retreat to his own lands in Ujjain (MP).
csharma wrote:There was an incident in which an Afghan general had kidnapped the Mughal emperor. The Marathas hunted the guy down and reinstalled the blinded the emperor on the throne.
This happend in 1787 when Scindia was trying to recover his power and raising a new army (under the French officer De Boigne). The grandson of Najib Khan Ruhela, Ghulam Qadir, captured Delhi, thoroughly looted the Mughals, sexually abused the Mughal princesses and blinded Shah Alam.

Mahadji's army recaptured Delhi, hunted down Ghulam Qadir and on Shah Alam's orders had him blinded in revenge (1788). Delhi and all other places remained under their direct rule for the next 15 years.
Sanjay
BRFite
Posts: 1224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Chaguanas, Trinidad

Post by Sanjay »

Airavat, can you tell me anything about the use of matchlocks by Shivaji's army and/or by contemporary Rajput forces ?
csharma
BRFite
Posts: 694
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31

Post by csharma »

Thanks, Airavat. Are you a history professor or something? :-)
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 60012
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Post by ramana »

csharma and others you might want to read Airavat Singh's "The Last Mughal" which is a historical romance of the last years of the Mughal Empire. He describes this very question on a fictional way. Its on internet.
Keshav
BRFite
Posts: 633
Joined: 20 Sep 2007 08:53
Location: USA

Post by Keshav »

ramana wrote:csharma and others you might want to read Airavat Singh's "The Last Mughal" which is a historical romance of the last years of the Mughal Empire. He describes this very question on a fictional way. Its on internet.
Can you provide the link?
Airavat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2326
Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31
Location: dishum-bishum
Contact:

Post by Airavat »

ramana wrote:csharma and others you might want to read Airavat Singh's "The Last Mughal" which is a historical romance of the last years of the Mughal Empire. He describes this very question on a fictional way. Its on internet.
Thanks Ramana but not anymore. E-books are a failed experiment....most of the info in that book is on my blogs.
Sanjay wrote:Airavat, can you tell me anything about the use of matchlocks by Shivaji's army and/or by contemporary Rajput forces?
I think you asked this same question in the earlier thread?

By "Rajput" I assume Rajasthani, which means mainly cavalry forces, likewise with Shivaji. His infantry were spear-wielding Mavles.

Matchlocks (and later flintlocks) were best used by soldiers on foot, since they could take a steady aim, and could bunch up in a group to deliver concentrated fire at the target. So foot-soldiers like Purbias, Ruhelas, Jats, Berads, and Telingas were hired by the existing powers (Mughals, Marathas, Rajputs, Europeans) to man the infantry-arm of their forces.

During the Mughal-Maratha wars the Berads provided matchlock firepower in some very crucial battles.

Among Rajputs, Sawai Jai Singh (the builder of Jaipur), had the wisdom to raise a large force of infantry to man the walls of his new capital....but this force did not receive funds or adequate training after his death, and eventually dwindled away under his successors.
csharma
BRFite
Posts: 694
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31

Post by csharma »

Airavat, can you provide the link to your blog.
peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Post by peter »

Sanjay wrote:Airavat, can you tell me anything about the use of matchlocks by Shivaji's army and/or by contemporary Rajput forces ?
Matchlock men were also used under Jaimal, the defender of Chittor against akbar. One marksmen wrecked lot of havoc amongst mughal ranks.
kaangeya
BRFite
Posts: 139
Joined: 03 Mar 2008 02:34

E-books and other things

Post by kaangeya »

Airavat,

I bought the e-book version of your OpKar-1. If the idea didn't work out, it is not because of me! :roll:

How big were the Indian soldiers of the day compared to their European, Central Asian counterparts? Who could be rivals as well as colleagues in the same battle? What sort of physical training did they have to undego to join the levies? India has for centuries had an armed peasantry isn't it? And given that successful abdominal surgery was not to be till the late 1800s, what sort of care was available to the injured in those days (1700s?)
Airavat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2326
Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31
Location: dishum-bishum
Contact:

Post by Airavat »

csharma wrote:Airavat, can you provide the link to your blog.
See the "www" beneath every post of mine on BRF.
peter wrote:Matchlock men were also used under Jaimal, the defender of Chittor against akbar. One marksmen wrecked lot of havoc amongst mughal ranks.
Yes. These were hired from Kalpi in Uttar Pradesh. But Sawai Jai Singh armed indigenous foot-soldiers in Jaipur with matchlocks in the 18th century.
kaangeya wrote:I bought the e-book version of your OpKar-1. If the idea didn't work out, it is not because of me!
No-no I was actually referring to the earlier historical novel....all that info is now on my blogs.
kaangeya wrote:How big were the Indian soldiers of the day compared to their European, Central Asian counterparts?
Size depends on bone structure, diet, and genetics. If you look at say medieval paintings, the European visitors look smaller and skinnier than their Indian counterparts.......but this changed in the 19th century with the colonial occupation.

Or visit museums and look at some of the armour or clothes worn in medieval times, and you come out thinking, "Wow! Those guys must have been huge!"

In the previous thread there was a sculpture of a soldier from the Mauryan era:

Image
kaangeya
BRFite
Posts: 139
Joined: 03 Mar 2008 02:34

Physique

Post by kaangeya »

Or visit museums and look at some of the armour or clothes worn in medieval times, and you come out thinking, "Wow! Those guys must have been huge!"
Do you mean the Europeans or the Indians? I have seen some European suits of armour, and their broadswords (> 150 cm). They are huge. I did read that ridiculous pulp fiction book by Michael Crichton (Timeline) where the European middle ages turn out to be some sort of golden age, where he talks of large well built knights jousting. But soldier physique becomes less of an advantage with good projectile weapons isn't it?
Keshav
BRFite
Posts: 633
Joined: 20 Sep 2007 08:53
Location: USA

Re: Physique

Post by Keshav »

kaangeya wrote:But soldier physique becomes less of an advantage with good projectile weapons isn't it?
I think you're pretty much correct. Knights faded out when Europe popularized sturdy bows and effective crossbows.
Sanjay
BRFite
Posts: 1224
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Chaguanas, Trinidad

Post by Sanjay »

Airavat, I've heard the story of the Kalpi mercenaries but it is odd that their commander was an individual named "Ismail" - does that mean they were one of the Rajput tribes that converted to Islam ?

But what of Shivaji's Marathas ? I can appreciate that matchlocks may not have been widespread in field armies but what about his fortress troops ? Surely the shortage of artillery need not have applied to matchlocks as well ?
peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Post by peter »

Airavat wrote:
peter wrote:Matchlock men were also used under Jaimal, the defender of Chittor against akbar. One marksmen wrecked lot of havoc amongst mughal ranks.
Yes. These were hired from Kalpi in Uttar Pradesh. But Sawai Jai Singh armed indigenous foot-soldiers in Jaipur with matchlocks in the 18th century.
Other then muslim sources is there anyone else who calls them from Kalpi? Akbar's chroniclers claim that since the sharpshooters could not be found it was assumed they disguised and left the fort.

Other possibility seems more logical that they perished in the final fight and were probably local rajputs?
ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 1004
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Physique

Post by ParGha »

-deleted by poster-

Reason: Out of scope of this thread.
Last edited by ParGha on 18 Mar 2008 22:15, edited 1 time in total.
kaangeya
BRFite
Posts: 139
Joined: 03 Mar 2008 02:34

Physique

Post by kaangeya »

In a projectile sport like cricket size doesn't seem to matter. Maybe that's why a Symonds or a Hayden are frustrated when after all that huffing and puffing they are hit out of the park by much smaller guys. wonder how this translates into the really serious business of projectile-weapon-armed-combat. What is the largest average physique that Indian troops have faced in the last 200 years? we have the legend of Rana Pratap's 100 kg armour. How big could he have been? Nothing < Center/Nose tackle/DE/OT. Even linebacker (tops out at 125 kg and ~192 cm) wouldn't be big enough.
ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 1004
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Physique

Post by ParGha »

kaangeya wrote:In a projectile sport like cricket size doesn't seem to matter. Maybe that's why a Symonds or a Hayden are frustrated when after all that huffing and puffing they are hit out of the park by much smaller guys. wonder how this translates into the really serious business of projectile-weapon-armed-combat. What is the largest average physique that Indian troops have faced in the last 200 years? we have the legend of Rana Pratap's 100 kg armour. How big could he have been? Nothing < Center/Nose tackle/DE/OT. Even linebacker (tops out at 125 kg and ~192 cm) wouldn't be big enough.
I really don't know what cricket has to do with what I think you are trying to say, and I don't think this really the place to speculate it. If it is simply speculation that you wish to do, I would suggest one of such threads in others forums hosted at BR. Cricket is a game, combat is not a game.

A 100 kg armor is not unheard of, plate-armor weighing as much as 18 stone (114kg) have been recorded as in use in France. However I highly doubt Rana Pratap would have used it regularly. For one thing he would have had access to the world's best armor makers - Indian blacksmiths who could make extremely light weight and strong chain mail (whenever Europeans could afford it, they bought it) - so why he buy cheap Eurostyle plate armor? Also in India the only animals capable of supporting such an armored soldier would have been the elephant (in Europe it would have been an exceptionally strong Destrier). But Rana Pratap obviously prefered the much more flexiblity and mobility afforded by his light Kathaiwari.
indygill
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 86
Joined: 24 Aug 2007 17:53

Post by indygill »

kaangeya wrote:
... I did read that ridiculous pulp fiction book by Michael Crichton (Timeline) where the European middle ages turn out to be some sort of golden age, where he talks of large well built knights jousting. But soldier physique becomes less of an advantage with good projectile weapons isn't it?

this sounds more like white supremecy or nazism. Anyway these european breeds of superhumans were no match against the Mongols and later the Arabs. So i don't get it as to what this writer is trying to prove. Anyway Europe only became dominant in warfare when ithey mastered the "Fire power" ie the cannons and guns etc in human history.
ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 1004
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Post by ParGha »

-deleted by poster-

Reason: Out of scope of this thread.
Last edited by ParGha on 18 Mar 2008 22:17, edited 1 time in total.
kaangeya
BRFite
Posts: 139
Joined: 03 Mar 2008 02:34

Physique

Post by kaangeya »

ParGha,

Get the idea about sports etc., this place isn't a discussion about that for sure. Projectile weapons do change things and upset all advantages of physique. The crossbow negated physical advantage that a bigger soldier may have had with the longbow. That's all the sporting reference was about. Could Rana Pratap have used his Chetak wearing that heavy armour?
indygill
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 86
Joined: 24 Aug 2007 17:53

Post by indygill »

the Arabs were very much stopped by force majeur, and driven back to a small foot-hold in the Iberian Peninsula. You couldn't pick someone more demonstrably successful like the Avars, Alans, Huns, Magyars or Turks?
Are you referring to The Battle of Tours between Franks (led by Charles) and Muslims?

Weren’t Muslims more interested in saving their loot and move it to safety in that episode? Did it stop future raids and occupation by Muslims into Europe? No it did not. It was only the political revolts by Berbers in North Africa that stopped Muslim raids. Anyway even after that Muslims remained in Southern Europe for centuries to come. Turks when they attacked Vienna they were Muslims. Muslim raids continued for many centuries with literal occupation of parts of Europe. One can also argue that had the Mongols not attacked and destroyed Baghdad and other Muslim strongholds in 13th century the raids and occupation by Muslims into Europe would have continued for many more centuries.
ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 1004
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Re: Physique

Post by ParGha »

kaangeya wrote:ParGha,

Get the idea about sports etc., this place isn't a discussion about that for sure. Projectile weapons do change things and upset all advantages of physique. The crossbow negated physical advantage that a bigger soldier may have had with the longbow. That's all the sporting reference was about. Could Rana Pratap have used his Chetak wearing that heavy armour?
No problemo, I get what you are saying.

Now I don't think Rana Pratap would have worn the 100kg armor on his horse. When the European knights wore such plate armor they usually rode a lumbering mini-elephant like this baby here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Perc ... tHorse.jpg
ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 1004
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Post by ParGha »

-deleted by poster-

Reason: Out of scope of this thread.
Last edited by ParGha on 18 Mar 2008 22:17, edited 1 time in total.
Airavat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2326
Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31
Location: dishum-bishum
Contact:

Post by Airavat »

Akbar's attack on Chittor (1567-68) as illustrated in the Akbarnama miniatures.

An attempt to dig beneath the fort walls and plant explosives backfires, as the charge blows back at the Mughals sending men and horses flying in the air. From the fort the Rajputs shoot arrows and stones at the confused mass of Mughals. Below at the Mughal camp Akbar is informed of the disaster:
Image

After several failed attempts to breach the fort walls, the Mughals construct towers to gain a vantage point to fight the Rajputs inside the hill-fort. One day Akbar, armed with a matchlock, shoots down the Rajput commander Jaimal Rathore by a lucky shot. Akbar can be seen at the top of the tower, while on the left Jaimal is taken inside the fort. The fort wall is also breached at some places but the Mughal attempts to storm inside and capture the fort at this critical point are repulsed.
Image

February 23 1568, Rajput women and children perform jauhar, while the men prepare for their final death ride into battle....to embrace death and kill as many of the enemy soldiers as possible in the final cavalry charge.
Image

The battle for Chittor lasted 123 days (23 October 1567 to February 24 1568). Akbar had started his campaign by taking smaller forts of Mewar before directing his army to surround Chittor....but before this Maharana Udai Singh (father of Maharana Pratap) took his family out of the trap and based himself in the western Aravalli Hills. From here he could send forces to harass the Mughal army besieging Chittor.

But the invading army was large and besides laying siege to the fort, Akbar sent cavalry detachments to ravage the Mewar villages and prevent any supplies or military help from reaching the fort. As can be seen in the last photo, the Mughals besieging the fort had constructed a wall around their camp with space for guns, to protect themselves from any surprise attack of the Rajput cavalry from inside Chittor Fort.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

ParGha wrote: :roll: The Mongols stopped at the outter edge of Europe, didn't they? As did the Arabs?
How about Attila? :wink: That too against the MIGHTY roman empire.
Europe's dominance in war is cyclical, it comes and goes over time.
Dominance over whom?
Trying to hide from the Roman pretty established hegemony in West Asia and North Africa in the pre-GunPowder Era is simply deluding yourself
The same could be said for Persians to an extent; they had a see saw battle against the eastern Roman empire and Greece for the longest time. In fact growth of Islam militarily is directly linked with the last success of Pars.
(I don't consider the Greeks "Western").
Oh the ecchendee!! Do you know that most westerns today would die if they you told them that they were not the true inheritors of Greek high culture?

In fact they fancy themselves after Romans who were essentially a admix of Etruscan and Greek culture and Etruscan and Italic genetic stock and language.

Modern Rome was almost completely resettled with Germainc tribes post the fall of the original Rome. Most Europe as we know it are Germanic or Viking tribes.

You can check the wiki for history of Rome to validate my comments.

Thus not only are Romans of the period you are talking of not "European" in the sense of overgrown Norse louts but are direct descendants of Greece which you refuse as being European.

Johaann had a post as how though US likes to say it is modeled after the Greek city states is actually more Germanic in origin.

The truth is that Europe was never a culturally homogeneous place like India and that is why it has never been a nation unlike India almost continually being one. Most major elements of Europe through history actually clash severely against each other.

And Oh BTW I agree Greece is not European -- but then by the same token neither is Ancient Rome. What Is European is the Holy Roman empire.
Against almost all major foes the British superiority was in having a more coherent and stable national self-identity than their foes.


A trading company with national self-identity? Now that a new one to me. I always thought it was greed mostly. :shock:

A much easier explanation is less that the British East India company had national self-identity and more that Indians were divided bitterly; more on the basis of Individual claims to thrones and preferring Individual success over group success. Note that in almost all the Anglo-Maratha wars the British were minuscule; the real war was a civil war.

Just like you see in cricket always the only people who could defeat the Indians were Indians themselves and the failing of the Indians have been Individuals forsaking the group over their well being. Yet another lesson common to both histories is the import that Indians have shown in their leader and the massive loss of confidence that comes forth after he falls.

We are a "Hero" based individualistic (not in the western sense) society.

So while you may say that cricket and war are different -- many a wise man has suggested before that how you "play" sport talks of your national character -- to which I agree; we can see a lot about a nation from its other supposedly trivial pursuits.
ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 1004
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Post by ParGha »

-deleted by poster-

Reason: Out of scope of this thread.
Last edited by ParGha on 18 Mar 2008 22:18, edited 1 time in total.
Airavat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2326
Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31
Location: dishum-bishum
Contact:

Post by Airavat »

ParGha wrote:The greed-factor explanation depreciates even more significantly for high-value positions like gunners or officers - an officer like James Skinner could be awarded a fair-sized kingdom or more in local service... in EIC they wouldn't promote a chi-chi Anglo-Indian like him to even a flag-rank, yet such men took their rissala to the EIC anyway.
The reason for that is the desire of the Europeans to take away their accumulated wealth back home to Europe. Despite all the power and luxury they got in India by receiving jagirs from their Indian employers, these people had no real wish to raise a family or live out their old age in this alien land.

The French officers could even buy a rank of nobility from their home country with this wealth. Thus the honourable De Boigne and the treacherous Perron, both serving Scindia, returned home to become nobles and buy vast estates for their families.

The British officers had an additional cause for re-joining the EIC ranks; this was to regain their "honour". So that when returning home to England or Scotland they may not suffer the indignity of being labelled traitors to their nation.

See the example of O'Brien in the hill-state of Kangra. An ordinary Irish soldier who deserted his unit, became the commander of more than a battalion of soldiers, lived a life of luxury in that quaint hill-state, but was still anxious to be reinstated by the EIC.
O'Brien is said to have initially raised a battalion for Maharaja Sansar Chand, drilled as infantrymen, and armed with matchlocks, which were stamped with O'Brien's name.

A small force of cavalry was attached to this force—the saddles and swords of these soldiers were also stamped with O'Brien's name. The cost of this entire corps was paid for by grants of land.

Colonel Ochterlony the British political agent at Ludhiana, opened direct communication with O'Brien offering him a monthly salary of Rs 250 and a pardon for his desertion, if he came over to their side with his army.
His wish was to return home with as much wealth but still have the respect of their countrymen. So it was greed mixed with a desire to return home and lead a comfortable retired life of honour.
peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Post by peter »

Airavat wrote:Akbar's attack on Chittor (1567-68) as illustrated in the Akbarnama miniatures.

An attempt to dig beneath the fort walls and plant explosives backfires, as the charge blows back at the Mughals sending men and horses flying in the air. From the fort the Rajputs shoot arrows and stones at the confused mass of Mughals. Below at the Mughal camp Akbar is informed of the disaster:
Image

After several failed attempts to breach the fort walls, the Mughals construct towers to gain a vantage point to fight the Rajputs inside the hill-fort. One day Akbar, armed with a matchlock, shoots down the Rajput commander Jaimal Rathore by a lucky shot. Akbar can be seen at the top of the tower, while on the left Jaimal is taken inside the fort. The fort wall is also breached at some places but the Mughal attempts to storm inside and capture the fort at this critical point are repulsed.
Image

February 23 1568, Rajput women and children perform jauhar, while the men prepare for their final death ride into battle....to embrace death and kill as many of the enemy soldiers as possible in the final cavalry charge.
Image

The battle for Chittor lasted 123 days (23 October 1567 to February 24 1568). Akbar had started his campaign by taking smaller forts of Mewar before directing his army to surround Chittor....but before this Maharana Udai Singh (father of Maharana Pratap) took his family out of the trap and based himself in the western Aravalli Hills. From here he could send forces to harass the Mughal army besieging Chittor.

But the invading army was large and besides laying siege to the fort, Akbar sent cavalry detachments to ravage the Mewar villages and prevent any supplies or military help from reaching the fort. As can be seen in the last photo, the Mughals besieging the fort had constructed a wall around their camp with space for guns, to protect themselves from any surprise attack of the Rajput cavalry from inside Chittor Fort.
Nice writeup. Were the marksmen really from Kalpi though?
peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Post by peter »

ParGha wrote:
indygill wrote: Are you referring to The Battle of Tours between Franks (led by Charles) and Muslims?

Weren’t Muslims more interested in saving their loot and move it to safety in that episode? Did it stop future raids and occupation by Muslims into Europe? No it did not. It was only the political revolts by Berbers in North Africa that stopped Muslim raids. Anyway even after that Muslims remained...
The Arabs were pretty much put on the backfoot once the Franks pushed them south of the Pyrenees.
What was the reason for france not being assailed again by arabs?

India apparently after several defeats of arabs for first few hundred years kept getting attacked. What could be the reason for this?
Last edited by peter on 16 Mar 2008 20:06, edited 1 time in total.
peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Post by peter »

ParGha wrote:Against almost all major foes the British superiority was in having a more coherent and stable national self-identity than their foes.
Hmmm. Interesting point. Is it because Brits were a very small nation and very homogeneous?

Patwant Singh's Sikh history book describing sikh-brit wars suggests that treacherous generalship was the cause of the defeat of sikhs whereby Brits had broken away some key generals from the sikh army with whom they got in bed immediately after the war.

Why is it that in India treachery knew no limit?
ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 1004
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Post by ParGha »

peter wrote:
ParGha wrote: The Arabs were pretty much put on the backfoot once the Franks pushed them south of the Pyrenees.
What was the reason for france not being assailed again by arabs?

India apparently after several defeats of arabs for first few hundred years kept getting attacked. What could be the reason for this?
After the Battles of Rajasthan and Navsari the serious threat of Arab conquest in India stopped. At the end of their raids they only held some marsh lands in the Sindh. So I am unsure as to what pattern you are referring to? The most successful Islamist efforts into India were largely outsourced to the Turanis (Turkics), and Iranis to a lesser extent - against whom the Arabs had much better record of success.
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Post by Lalmohan »

indygill wrote:
kaangeya wrote:
... I did read that ridiculous pulp fiction book by Michael Crichton (Timeline) where the European middle ages turn out to be some sort of golden age, where he talks of large well built knights jousting. But soldier physique becomes less of an advantage with good projectile weapons isn't it?

this sounds more like white supremecy or nazism. Anyway these european breeds of superhumans were no match against the Mongols and later the Arabs. So i don't get it as to what this writer is trying to prove. Anyway Europe only became dominant in warfare when ithey mastered the "Fire power" ie the cannons and guns etc in human history.

I found out recently that the average British soldier during the Zulu Wars in 1879 was 5'4" and weighed 140lbs (changed later). he was usually malnourished and likely to suffer from various diseases. In many cases when he went back to Britian he would die from TB - the poor man's disease. He would have joined up to escape poverty and unemployment, at a time when the Empire was possibly at its most powerful.

you can infer from this what the average British soldier was like in the Anglo-Mysore/Maratha/Sikh wars earlier in the century.

by contrast, the average Zulu in 1879 was 6' tall, powerfully built and having run 100 miles to get into 'theatre', and not having eaten for 3 days, run five and a miles in 45 minutes over rough hilly country in barefeet and be ready to go into battle against an overwhelmingly better armed enemy and keep pressing home the assault whilst taking fearful casualties at standoff ranges
Last edited by Lalmohan on 18 Mar 2008 02:28, edited 1 time in total.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

ParGha wrote:Rest of your post brings up issues that a more critical reading of my earlier post(s) should be able address by itself.
Dunno see how in fact you attribute mythical qualities to "Europe" when there was no "Europe" in the first place culturally; genetically and linguistically; there was no European dominance either. Europe does not have a linear history -- the linear "European" history is invented to give Europe a history it never had it is as much history as LOTR is mythology for European anglo-saxon people :D (BTW Tolkein himself said he was trying to precisely that).

Secondly I believe Airvat has already sealed the greed argument quite well I don't think I need to add to that.

Now to come to Peter's point
peter wrote:Hmmm. Interesting point. Is it because Brits were a very small nation and very homogeneous?
That does not hold water because many a time treachery was not done against India; or even a large size kingdom. In most case the treachery was against a Individual -- one section of kings or nobility being against the other even in the smallest part of a Kingdom. As can be seen by the information provided by peter himself.

There was failing of a national idea no doubt -- that of course was due to political fracture however on the ground the battle was being fought by a bunch of people united in greed at the cost of the current establishment.

The failure of treacherous Indians was to be not able to see that "British" are the others -- in fact they could not see that since they were too used to living with "others" for a large time and hence they thought they had it figured out.

The conquest of India was not a large game plan or exploration -- it was a accident of history borne out of opportunism paying off in case of the British and a India long broken by continuous civil war on religious lines for the longest time.

As always the loss was due to poor understanding of the adversary and his motivations.
peter
BRFite
Posts: 1207
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Post by peter »

ParGha wrote:
peter wrote: What was the reason for france not being assailed again by arabs?

India apparently after several defeats of arabs for first few hundred years kept getting attacked. What could be the reason for this?
After the Battles of Rajasthan and Navsari the serious threat of Arab conquest in India stopped. At the end of their raids they only held some marsh lands in the Sindh. So I am unsure as to what pattern you are referring to? The most successful Islamist efforts into India were largely outsourced to the Turanis (Turkics), and Iranis to a lesser extent - against whom the Arabs had much better record of success.
Sorry. Used Arab incorrectly. Should have been more precise: Please read Arab+Turk+Aghan+(whoever else of the same religious group) inplace of Arab.

We do read about attack after attack on India but not on europe after Tours.

What was the reason despite initial forays being defeated in India too?
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Post by Sanku »

peter wrote: We do read about attack after attack on India but not on europe after Tours.

What was the reason despite initial forays being defeated in India too?
The Turks did reach Austria and laid siege to Vienna in 1529. Even though they could not take Austria they did control much of East europe and Greece etc till the 19th century when a expanding Europe with strength from colonial loot broke Ottoman power. Greece continued with Ottomans till such time.

They did control Egypt Persia et al. along with Europe at the same time.

What "saved" Europe was Europe then consolidated substantially under the Hapsburgs as well as looking at the war as a continuation of the holy war or the crusade (the last bit is my own understanding)

All in all not what you would call unaffected by Turks.
csharma
BRFite
Posts: 694
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31

Post by csharma »

Turks actually laid siege to Vienna a couple of times. In 16th century when the Ottomans were at the peak of their power, Europe Christendom actually feared for its survival.

However, they did not rule Persia. There were a bunch of Ottoman-Persian wars but Persia remained independent of Ottoman rule.

Arabia was under their control.

In effect Turks held sway over vast expanses of land from parts of Europe to India.
Post Reply