Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50373
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Postby ramana » 03 Jun 2007 07:12

Please post accounts of battles in Ancient and Medieval India.

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

Enjoy.

Sanjay M
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4892
Joined: 02 Nov 2005 14:57

Postby Sanjay M » 03 Jun 2007 07:24

Read about how Alexander's Setu allowed him to lay seige to the island fortress of Tyre.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 03 Jun 2007 14:43

From the first link- nice collation, but the author cannot help but display which side he is rooting for. :D

The Indians were even more astonished than the Guards as Alexander landed on his feet, put his back to the wall and assumed his fighting stance. A group of Indians then attacked, but all, including their commander, fell to his sword. Alexander felled a second leader with a stone, hurled with the force of a small catapult. More Mallians only added their bodies to the growing heap in front of the raging commander. [i]The Indians may have been brave, but they recognized a near-inhuman killing machine, a veritable mythic hero from their Vedic epics come to life, :roll: :roll: and prudently kept their distance, forming a half circle from which to hurl every sort of missile at him. [/i]

Thats the whole problem with most accounts of Alexander or anyone Greek- hagiographical to the extreme. OTOH, accounts of Indian history have been suitably edited of anything imprudent and "martial" by our generous Marxist historians.

I think Airavat would like this thread as well.

amar_g
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 10
Joined: 28 Nov 2006 11:09

Postby amar_g » 03 Jun 2007 15:14

Well i loved all tales taught in history books about Great Shivaji and his Guerrilla warfare ..but i guess those wouldnt qualify here..but its great whenever one gets to read about them..its all about having faith in ones capabilities..and use of brains over just brawn.

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 864
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Postby ParGha » 03 Jun 2007 19:31

Gentlemen,

Recently I came across a wikipedia entry called the "Battle of Rajasthan"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rajasthan

... where an Indian coalition stopped the invading Arab army in an Indian equivalent action of Vienna, Lepanto or atleast Potiers in historic significance. In the same article is a mention of another battle vaguely mentioned in history text-books - the Battle of Navsari - where a combined Solanki (late Chalukya) and Rashtrakuta army stopped another Arab invasion in Gujarat.

* The two battles effectively determined that the Islamic influence in India would be of a decidedly different Turco-Iranian flavour than the Arab one (which streches from Morocco to Iran).

* The Battle of Rajasthan is interesting because both sides were fighting in familiar territory - the desert - unlike Tours (Franks basically lured the Arabs into the mountains in the winter), Lepanto (Spanish vs. Turks on seas) or Vienna (a set-piece battle in Europe).

Let us for the moment ignore the religious aspect and concentrate only on its national character. Why then have I never read of it in Indian history text-books (one set of state-board, NCERT)?

RajP
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 2
Joined: 01 Jun 2007 19:34

Postby RajP » 03 Jun 2007 19:54

Detailed Rajput History and Battles

edited on advice of Rakesh

Rakesh the purpose of my comments was to highlight the bias of the Marxist historians against native indians and not muslim bashing.

Thank u.
Last edited by RajP on 07 Jun 2007 18:59, edited 3 times in total.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5690
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Postby Rakesh » 03 Jun 2007 20:10

RAW Agent: Please read forum guidelines on choosing a proper username. Before you reply to my second point below, I would prefer that you change it or I will do that for you.

Secondly, this forum is not meant to vent your pet peeves you appear to have against Muslims. What you just mentioned above, while tragically wrong, is part of Indian History or to put it better - the history of Bharat. Please stop with your agenda on Muslim bashing, as that is NOT the purpose of this thread and portray the battle for what it was worth. If after this you still cannot connect the dots, then take a cue from forum members who posted earlier than you in this thread. Thank You.
Last edited by Rakesh on 03 Jun 2007 20:24, edited 2 times in total.

Rakesh
Forum Moderator
Posts: 5690
Joined: 15 Jan 2004 12:31
Location: Planet Earth
Contact:

Postby Rakesh » 03 Jun 2007 20:17

Ramana the thread title is not making grammatical sense and thus I changed from 'Ancient and Medieval India Battles History thread' to 'Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat'. I hope that is okay.

PaulJI
BRFite
Posts: 149
Joined: 10 Mar 2007 00:49

Postby PaulJI » 03 Jun 2007 22:30

ParGha wrote:... unlike Tours (Franks basically lured the Arabs into the mountains in the winter), ...


Sorry, mate, but there aren't any mountains anywhere near Tours, so although we don't know the exact site of the battle, we can confidently say no mountains were involved. The story is that Martel avoided Arab scouts by marching his army through "mountains" (really, forested hills, of modest size), rather than along the old Roman roads. But the Arabs had advanced through gentle, fertile, countryside once they'd crossed the Pyrenees.

Also, it was early October, which is not exactly winter. Early autumn, usually mild weather though quite often wet - the traditional campaigning season in Europe, after the harvest was in, so plenty of food for the armies. The Arabs had been fighting in France on & off for 20 years, so they knew what they were doing, & fighting at that time of year was their choice. They were the ones on the offensive, remember.

saptarishi
BRFite
Posts: 269
Joined: 05 May 2007 01:20
Location: ghaziabad
Contact:

Postby saptarishi » 03 Jun 2007 23:29

MAHABHARATA,,how can anybody forget this epic,,,people say MAHABHARAT was a myth but i think its true

Shankar
BRFite
Posts: 1905
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 11:31
Location: wai -maharastra

Postby Shankar » 04 Jun 2007 00:28

I think so too -it is too detailed and accurate to be a fiction

Sumeet
BRFite
Posts: 1222
Joined: 22 May 2002 11:31

Postby Sumeet » 04 Jun 2007 01:31

Left over parts of Indika of Megasthenes

India, again, possesses many rivers both large and navigable, which, having their sources in the mountains which stretch along the northern frontier, traverse the level country, and not a few of these, after uniting with each other, fall into the river called the Ganges. Now this river, which at its source is 30 stadia broad, flows from north to south, and empties its waters into the ocean forming the eastern boundary of the Gangaridai, a nation which possesses a vast force of the largest-sized elephants. Owing to this, their country has never been conquered by any foreign king: for all other nations dread the overwhelming number and strength of these animals. [Thus Alexander the Macedonian, after conquering all Asia, did not make war upon the Gangaridai, as be did on all others; for when he had arrived with all his troops at the river Ganges, and had subdued all the other Indians, he abandoned as hopeless an invasion of the Gangaridai when he learned that they possessed four thousand elephants well trained and equipped for war.]


(38.) It is said that India, being of enormous size when taken as a whole, is peopled by races both numerous and diverse, of which not even one was originally of foreign descent, but all were evidently indigenous; and moreover that India neither received a colony from abroad, nor sent out a colony to any other nation. The legends further inform us that in primitive times the inhabitants subsisted on such fruits as the earth yielded spontaneously, and were clothed with the skins of the beasts found in the country, as was the case with the Greeks; and that, in like manner as with them, the arts and other appliances which improve human life were gradually invented, Necessity herself teaching them to an animal at once docile and furnished not only with hands ready to second all his efforts, but also with reason and a keen intelligence.



The same writer tells us further this remarkable fact about India, that all the Indians are free, and not one of them is a slave. The Lakedaemonians, and the Indians are here so far in agreement. The Lakedaemonians, however, hold the Helots as slaves, and these Helots do servile labour; but the Indians do not even use aliens as slaves, and much less a countryman of their own.

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

Postby Airavat » 04 Jun 2007 03:34

A little-known battle in 1581, during the hieght of the Islamic rebellion against the Mughal Emperor Akbar.

Sanderson-Beck

In 1579 Akbar removed the leading preacher and had himself proclaimed the supreme arbiter of all religious issues, making the reluctant Islamic legal scholars ('ulamas) sign the document. He came to believe in reincarnation, and under Zoroastrian influence he established sacred fire in the palace. Yet he disliked the dualism of light and dark, doubting the existence of Satan. He was influenced by Sufi Suhrawardi's theology of illumination and even began worshipping the sun by facing east in prayer. Akbar investigated and reformed previous pious land grants. The prohibition against repairing or building new temples was revoked as was the death penalty for apostatizing Muslims, who had been forcibly converted. Akbar's religious policy was known as universal toleration. As Hindus were appointed to high positions, Muslims became more resentful.

The revolt broke out in Bengal and Bihar, where Governor Muzaffar Khan Turbati reduced the pay of troops, enforced the branding of horses to prevent fraud, and revoked the unauthorized alienation of land. Early in 1580 Bengal officers proclaimed Akbar's half brother Mirza Hakim of Kabul emperor, and the chief judge in Jaunpur called upon Muslims to rise against Akbar. Loyal Mughal troops quickly regained Bihar, and Akbar led an army of 50,000 horsemen that drove Hakim out of Kabul. Akbar forgave his brother, but Kabul remained a problem until Hakim died in 1585. Resistance in Bihar and Bengal continued until the Afghans finally made peace in 1586, and the remaining rebels were crushed the next year.


The final battle fought outside Kabul was crucial since the foreign muslims in Mirza Hakim's army had publicly stated that their battle was with the Kaffir Akbar and his Rajput allies and not with Muslims.

At this time Akbar was still on his way to Jalalabad, and the army defending Kabul was commanded by his son Murad and Kunwar Man Singh. The enemy troops boasted, "The Turanis and Persians who are in the Imperial army will join us without fighting, the brave Rajputs will perish, and the other natives of India will be made prisoners!"

Mirza Hakim's men camped on the hill range overlooking the Kabul plain and made their assault on August 2, 1581. The imperial troops were pushed back towards the city walls. But Man Singh and his Rajputs made a counter-attack using elephants with swivel-guns mounted on their backs. These elephants broke the enemy's advance and the swivel-guns shot down the leaders of their army....disheartened and distracted the foreign Muslims broke and fled. Hakim narrowly evaded capture near Kotal Minar and escaped to Ghorband.

When Akbar reached Kabul on the 11th Hakim submitted to him.

A crucial battle because victory lay with a mixed force of foreigners and Indians against a purely foreign force. Subsequent to this Man Singh also crushed the Raushaniya fanatics and the Yusufzai Pathans in the same region.

Arun_S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2800
Joined: 14 Jun 2000 11:31
Location: KhyberDurra

Postby Arun_S » 04 Jun 2007 03:59

saptarishi wrote:MAHABHARATA,,how can anybody forget this epic,,,people say MAHABHARAT was a myth but i think its true


One has to be crazy or stupid to think Mahabharat is a myth.

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 864
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Postby ParGha » 04 Jun 2007 04:48

Sumeet wrote:Left over parts of Indika of Megasthenes

The same writer tells us further this remarkable fact about India, that all the Indians are free, and not one of them is a slave. The Lakedaemonians, and the Indians are here so far in agreement. The Lakedaemonians, however, hold the Helots as slaves, and these Helots do servile labour; but the Indians do not even use aliens as slaves, and much less a countryman of their own.


Steven Pressfield gives a very good historic-fictional account of it in The Virtues of War. I had thought he had made up this legend because he is somewhat of an Indophile, but never knew it was based on historic account. Not that I thought ancient Indians as slave-holders, but that it was unlikely that ancient Greeks were sophisticated enough to acknowledge virtues in others (the recognized arts and sciences) - the narration is from a Greek perspective.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 04 Jun 2007 13:35

Arun_S wrote:
saptarishi wrote:MAHABHARATA,,how can anybody forget this epic,,,people say MAHABHARAT was a myth but i think its true


One has to be crazy or stupid to think Mahabharat is a myth.


Or Romila Thapar..
Given the amount of stuff they have dug up over the years- it definitely did occur. Dwarka was a myth, till they started finding the submerged citie/s.
There is a decent book written on "ancient indian warfare" by a rtd IA general- forgot his name, which goes into the classical formations mentioned in the Mahabharat, and their tactics etc.

Airavat,

Thats a pretty interesting account. You could also post the swan song of the Kacchawa Rajputs, where they had the same tactics- swivel guns on cavalry, used against them and were caught on the wrong foot.

Also, quite interesting to note that despite the Mughals having had artillery galore, they were not that adept in its use. The Persians & Turks otoh were quite specialised.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 04 Jun 2007 13:38

The Week has a good article on the Rani of Jhansi, more of a book review actually- kind of debunks her as a Tantya Tope equal/ freedom fighter, and points to her being a reluctant last moment entry when the Brits spurned all her entreaties for a fair deal.

I think her "mythos" is pretty much due to Subhadra Kumari Chauhans poem dedicated to her.

Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4187
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Postby Murugan » 04 Jun 2007 15:17

Wars of Alexander the Great: Battle of the Hydaspes River

This looks like self-aggrandizement of auropeans.

In the month of May INDIANs fought hard and Porus Surrendered and in the month of JULY Indian fought hard again. (But in the month of May indians were defeated, isn't it?)

then Alexander - III, the gay's army was fighting for eight years, and crossing indus was a cake walk but ganges wd be difficult. and there was monsoon, very ferocious the auropean never had seen.

and here is the piece

Rumors flew about the camp that the kingdoms against which Alexander would lead them could muster thousands of war elephants and hundreds of thousands of tough soldiers.
Fatigue drained the men's morale - (or they shat in their pants seeing the large and ferocious army of Nanda?)

***

In few more links you will find Samudragupta is compared to Napolean. How about auropean supremacy. Samudragupta was born 1000 years before napolean but that arrogance will always keep the auropeans one up even if Alexander the gay's army shat in their pants.

***

ssmitra
BRFite
Posts: 134
Joined: 24 Mar 2004 12:31
Location: Punjab
Contact:

Postby ssmitra » 05 Jun 2007 05:40

JCage wrote:
Arun_S wrote:
saptarishi wrote:MAHABHARATA,,how can anybody forget this epic,,,people say MAHABHARAT was a myth but i think its true


One has to be crazy or stupid to think Mahabharat is a myth.


Or Romila Thapar..
Given the amount of stuff they have dug up over the years- it definitely did occur. Dwarka was a myth, till they started finding the submerged citie/s.
There is a decent book written on "ancient indian warfare" by a rtd IA general- forgot his name, which goes into the classical formations mentioned in the Mahabharat, and their tactics etc.



This is an interesting discussion. My 2 paisa is maybe it is based on actual events. Similar to the way the Legend of King Arthur evolved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Artorius_Castus

After all it is in prose and the longest poems ever. They are always open to interpretation. As a scientist what I have found most amazing is the references to (again open to interpretation) genetics, cloning, fusion etc.. as far back as 5th century BC.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 05 Jun 2007 06:14

ParGha wrote:
Sumeet wrote:Left over parts of Indika of Megasthenes

The same writer tells us further this remarkable fact about India, that all the Indians are free, and not one of them is a slave. The Lakedaemonians, and the Indians are here so far in agreement. The Lakedaemonians, however, hold the Helots as slaves, and these Helots do servile labour; but the Indians do not even use aliens as slaves, and much less a countryman of their own.


Steven Pressfield gives a very good historic-fictional account of it in The Virtues of War. I had thought he had made up this legend because he is somewhat of an Indophile, but never knew it was based on historic account. Not that I thought ancient Indians as slave-holders, but that it was unlikely that ancient Greeks were sophisticated enough to acknowledge virtues in others (the recognized arts and sciences) - the narration is from a Greek perspective.

Someone quoted as saying that 50% of the greek population was slave.

Vishy_mulay
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 09 Feb 2007 09:21
Location: Melbourne

Postby Vishy_mulay » 05 Jun 2007 06:50

Acharyaji more than 75% of total ancient Greek population was slave.
It must be remembered, however, that a very large part of the population was not free, that the Athenian state rested on a foundation of slavery. Two fifths (some authorities say four fifths) of the population were slaves. Slave labor produced much of the wealth that gave the citizens of Athens time and money to pursue art and learning and to serve the state.


http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-201729

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 05 Jun 2007 07:02

Vishy_mulay wrote:Acharyaji

I feel uncomfortable when you call me Acharyaji

Vishy_mulay
BRFite
Posts: 174
Joined: 09 Feb 2007 09:21
Location: Melbourne

Postby Vishy_mulay » 05 Jun 2007 07:07

Acharya it was sort of rekindling gesture since I was away so long. Had no intention of making you uncomfortable. Apologies and big HI to all BRfites. :D :D

Has this been posted before?

[quote]
In conclusion, this article has tried to address the basic issue, whether “ Thirteen dayâ€

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

Postby Airavat » 06 Jun 2007 03:39

JCage
Airavat,

Thats a pretty interesting account. You could also post the swan song of the Kacchawa Rajputs, where they had the same tactics- swivel guns on cavalry, used against them and were caught on the wrong foot.


Ah you mean the Battle of Manupur (1748).


Murugan
then Alexander - III, the gay's army was fighting for eight years, and crossing indus was a cake walk but ganges wd be difficult. and there was monsoon, very ferocious the auropean never had seen.


These causes of retreat were propounded by colonial Europeans to disguise the fear in the Greeks and the military setbacks they suffered in fighting the small Indian states. Note that the modern Europeans relentlessly denigrate the Indian war-elephant, claiming that a "few sword thrusts" would frighten the beasts and send them running (!).

In reality the ancient Greeks (Alex included) had a wholesome respect for the war-elephant. Later rulers like Seleucos and Hannibal tried to obtain elephants for their own campaigns. It's safe to say that if Hannibal's army had fifty elephants instead of the twelve that survived the crossing of the Alps, there may never have been a Roman Empire.

John Snow
BRFite
Posts: 1941
Joined: 03 Feb 2006 00:44

Postby John Snow » 06 Jun 2007 21:21

While visiting Jodhpur I was intrigued by the fact that Marwaris (actuaries) under writing Moghal campaigns and trading decent profits out of war. Is this analogous to King George Bush financing the trillion dollar war in Iraq and coming soon Iran war with Chinese bought treasury bills?

Make War to make Money (action call to riches!)

From the movie Thomas Becket

'I would rather corrupt than occupy' King Henry ( peter Otoole)

abhischekcc
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4278
Joined: 12 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: If I can’t move the gods, I’ll stir up hell
Contact:

Postby abhischekcc » 06 Jun 2007 21:31

JS, could you give a few more details about the said marwari financing?

Thanks in advance.

ParGha
BRFite
Posts: 864
Joined: 20 Jul 2006 06:01

Postby ParGha » 07 Jun 2007 01:29

John Snow wrote:While visiting Jodhpur I was intrigued by the fact that Marwaris (actuaries) under writing Moghal campaigns and trading decent profits out of war. Is this analogous to King George Bush financing the trillion dollar war in Iraq and coming soon Iran war with Chinese bought treasury bills?

Make War to make Money (action call to riches!)

From the movie Thomas Becket

'I would rather corrupt than occupy' King Henry ( peter Otoole)


Marwaris are just one small trading community among Indians, while Chinese are a national entiety: The motivations beyond money or the purpose of the said acquired money can be quite different. Like abhi before I would love to know the specific campaigns they financed... we can then piece together possible motivation from the adversery faced or the region involved.

JCage
BRFite
Posts: 1562
Joined: 09 Oct 2000 11:31

Postby JCage » 07 Jun 2007 03:26

Why is it surprising? The Marwaris and many other communities in India engaged in commerce with, supported, and even fought for the Mughals. Its a matter of survival after all and making the best of what you have- another Indian trait. Doesnt reduce the fact that bar significant swathes of Akbars period of rule, the Mughal empire was still a despotic centralized empire which often fell into Islamist bigotry. While one may recognise this fact, it is also equally true that the Mughals were the dominant central empire in North India for a significant period & money lenders, feudal chieftains, and mercenaries all served them and made money off them!

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

Postby Airavat » 08 Jun 2007 04:57

The first recorded battle in Indian History:

DASRAJAN

The battle of ten kings

Date: could be anywhere between 3500 BCE and 1900 BCE, depending on how the Rigveda is dated. Although chronologically it definitely occured 4 or 5 centuries before the Mahabharat War.

Background: The ancestors of the Kauravs-Pandavs (of the famous Mahabharat epic) belonged to the Bharat clan. Over a period of centuries this clan formed numerous settlements between the Saraswati and Yamuna Rivers....the clan name was applied to this kingdom. In the internal struggles for power, Sudas of the Tritsu sub-clan became dominant over the Kingdom of Bharat.

Vishvamitra of the Kusika family was his priest but Sudas replaced him with Vasishta due to the latter's greater knowledge. A long rivalry broke out between the two priests until Vishwamitra left the Kingdom of Bharat. He formed a confederacy of ten clan-kingdoms in northwestern India, which feared the political expansion of Bharat, and used them to take his revenge.

The Battle: The clan-kingdoms of Puru, Yadu, Turvasu, Anu, and Dhruyu, along with the lesser-known Alina, Pakhta, Bhalanas, Siva, and Vishanin, joined their forces and marched towards the Kingdom of Bharat. Sudas received intelligence of this movement and gathered his forces to stop the allied host on the River Parushni (Ravi).

Sudas appears to have dammed the river and then unleashed its force when the armies of the ten kings reached the spot. As the raging Parushni washed over them, the Anu and Dhruhyu kings were drowned, and the allied forces scattered. Sudas launched his chariots and infantry on the wavering enemy, Purukutsa of the Puru Kingdom was killed, the rest of the allies broke and fled.

Baljeet
BRFite
Posts: 410
Joined: 29 May 2007 04:16

Postby Baljeet » 08 Jun 2007 06:04

Interesting thread. One of the premise is about history is, "It is written by victors". It is a well recognized fact, Alexander never quite met his match during his march to glory except in Porus. His all glorified victory of Darius rings a little hollow because, Darius himself was a little coward, most persians were happy at his demise, "Good Riddance".

As far as Marwari's are concerned, Bhamashah was a Marwari Baniya who financed the entire war effort of Rana Pratap. Yours Truly had the pleasure to visit Udaipur, where Rana Pratap's armor and swords are at display. It is written, his armour and swords together weighed, 100kg. It is mind boggling weight on a man who is going to fight with swords. Further, the urban legend has it, Rana Pratap was so powerful he would cut a man and his horse in two pieces with his blow.

Agree with JCage on Rani laxmi Bai, she reluctantly joined the mutiny after all her concillatory efforts were spurned by Brits. However, Still that doesn't diminish her fighting skills or her resolve.

As far as Mahabharat is concerned..the televised version of this legend united this nation beyond anyone's belief. Krishan was 16 kalaon ka gyata tha.

IMHO Mahabharat is and will always be more relevant than Ramayan. Agree with others, "whoever thinks mahabharat never happened...is a moron" One character was missed in this serial, "BavanVeer".

Baljeet
BRFite
Posts: 410
Joined: 29 May 2007 04:16

Postby Baljeet » 08 Jun 2007 06:14

ssmitra wrote:
JCage wrote:
Arun_S wrote:
saptarishi wrote:MAHABHARATA,,how can anybody forget this epic,,,people say MAHABHARAT was a myth but i think its true


One has to be crazy or stupid to think Mahabharat is a myth.


Or Romila Thapar..
Given the amount of stuff they have dug up over the years- it definitely did occur. Dwarka was a myth, till they started finding the submerged citie/s.
There is a decent book written on "ancient indian warfare" by a rtd IA general- forgot his name, which goes into the classical formations mentioned in the Mahabharat, and their tactics etc.



This is an interesting discussion. My 2 paisa is maybe it is based on actual events. Similar to the way the Legend of King Arthur evolved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Artorius_Castus

After all it is in prose and the longest poems ever. They are always open to interpretation. As a scientist what I have found most amazing is the references to (again open to interpretation) genetics, cloning, fusion etc.. as far back as 5th century BC.

ssmitra
IMO sanskrit is the only language that can describe events in least amout of words, hence the prose format. You can agree or disagree.

ssmitra
BRFite
Posts: 134
Joined: 24 Mar 2004 12:31
Location: Punjab
Contact:

Postby ssmitra » 08 Jun 2007 07:13

Baljeet wrote:
ssmitra wrote:
JCage wrote:
Arun_S wrote:
saptarishi wrote:MAHABHARATA,,how can anybody forget this epic,,,people say MAHABHARAT was a myth but i think its true


One has to be crazy or stupid to think Mahabharat is a myth.


Or Romila Thapar..
Given the amount of stuff they have dug up over the years- it definitely did occur. Dwarka was a myth, till they started finding the submerged citie/s.
There is a decent book written on "ancient indian warfare" by a rtd IA general- forgot his name, which goes into the classical formations mentioned in the Mahabharat, and their tactics etc.



This is an interesting discussion. My 2 paisa is maybe it is based on actual events. Similar to the way the Legend of King Arthur evolved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucius_Artorius_Castus

After all it is in prose and the longest poems ever. They are always open to interpretation. As a scientist what I have found most amazing is the references to (again open to interpretation) genetics, cloning, fusion etc.. as far back as 5th century BC.

ssmitra
IMO sanskrit is the only language that can describe events in least amout of words, hence the prose format. You can agree or disagree.


Baljeet, I am neither agreeing or disagreeing. I have studied sanskrit as a lot of us in till 10th. the reason I say interpretation is key, is because if you ask any of the teachers or even "Shastri's" they always have some variation to the meaning depending on whether they studied in say patna, varanasi or hardwar.

SriSri
BRFite
Posts: 545
Joined: 23 Aug 2006 15:25

Postby SriSri » 08 Jun 2007 08:11

That's just not true. Sanskrit is perhaps the only language which is very well defined as in it can never have dual meanings or very rarely if at all depending on the "not so cleverness" of the reader.

Mitra Ji, You obviously didn't study Sanskrit very well till Class 10. :roll:

The clarity in meaning (which imho is a USP) is one of the reasons why Sanskrit is so vast and appears complex to untrained or under trained eyes.

ssmitra
BRFite
Posts: 134
Joined: 24 Mar 2004 12:31
Location: Punjab
Contact:

Postby ssmitra » 08 Jun 2007 11:54

SriSri wrote:That's just not true. Sanskrit is perhaps the only language which is very well defined as in it can never have dual meanings or very rarely if at all depending on the "not so cleverness" of the reader.

Mitra Ji, You obviously didn't study Sanskrit very well till Class 10. :roll:

The clarity in meaning (which imho is a USP) is one of the reasons why Sanskrit is so vast and appears complex to untrained or under trained eyes.


Sri no need for a personal denigration, this is a discussion. I completely agree with you that Sanskrit is one of the most defined language. But we are talking about something written in the form of a prose.
But lets get back to the topic.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 50373
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Postby ramana » 08 Jun 2007 18:15

OK lets not get into merits of Sanskrit here. Please stick to topic.

Thanks, ramana

karthik
BRFite
Posts: 228
Joined: 22 Sep 2000 11:31
Location: chennai

Postby karthik » 09 Jun 2007 00:43

How vast was Asoka's empire? After Chandra Gupta whacked Seleucus and took over Bactria and parts of Persia how far did Asoka extend it? Are all these Stans like Afghanistan, Kazakhstan etc., result of Asoka's Conquest?

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 09 Jun 2007 00:52

Rani of Jansi
http://azygos.sulekha.com/blog/post/200 ... graphy.htm

The Rani of Jhansi - a short biography

[quote]
THE RANI FRAMED



“Evil things were said of her, for it is a custom among us odisse quem laeseris-to take a Native ruler’s kingdom and then to revile the deposed ruler or his would be successor. It was alleged that the Ranee was a mere child under the influence of others, and that she was given to intemperance. That she was not a mere child was demonstrated by her conversation; and her intemperance seems to be a mythâ€

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Postby svinayak » 09 Jun 2007 02:01

ramana wrote:OK lets not get into merits of Sanskrit here. Please stick to topic.

Thanks, ramana

Better discussion on Sanskrit is HERE

SriSri
BRFite
Posts: 545
Joined: 23 Aug 2006 15:25

Postby SriSri » 09 Jun 2007 06:53

ssmitra wrote:
SriSri wrote:That's just not true. Sanskrit is perhaps the only language which is very well defined as in it can never have dual meanings or very rarely if at all depending on the "not so cleverness" of the reader.

Mitra Ji, You obviously didn't study Sanskrit very well till Class 10. :roll:

The clarity in meaning (which imho is a USP) is one of the reasons why Sanskrit is so vast and appears complex to untrained or under trained eyes.


Sri no need for a personal denigration, this is a discussion. I completely agree with you that Sanskrit is one of the most defined language. But we are talking about something written in the form of a prose.
But lets get back to the topic.


I'm sorry. It just seemed very clever at that moment. :-? :oops:

ssmitra
BRFite
Posts: 134
Joined: 24 Mar 2004 12:31
Location: Punjab
Contact:

Postby ssmitra » 09 Jun 2007 08:00

SriSri wrote:
ssmitra wrote:
SriSri wrote:That's just not true. Sanskrit is perhaps the only language which is very well defined as in it can never have dual meanings or very rarely if at all depending on the "not so cleverness" of the reader.

Mitra Ji, You obviously didn't study Sanskrit very well till Class 10. :roll:

The clarity in meaning (which imho is a USP) is one of the reasons why Sanskrit is so vast and appears complex to untrained or under trained eyes.


Sri no need for a personal denigration, this is a discussion. I completely agree with you that Sanskrit is one of the most defined language. But we are talking about something written in the form of a prose.
But lets get back to the topic.


I'm sorry. It just seemed very clever at that moment. :-? :oops:


no problem.....


Return to “Military History Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest