Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

[peter]

Airavat,

Here is a snippet from Jadunath Sarkar's History of Aurangzeb describing the battle of Smaugarh.

Issuing from his Centre, Dara advanced by his left side towards Aurangzib's right front, beating all his drums as if the victory had been already achieved by Rustam Khan's charge and nothing was left but to follow it up and annihilate the enemy. But he was soon un-deceived. Aurangzib's artillery had, as we have seen, already repelled Rustam's cavaliers, and stood calmly reserving their fire "until Dara had come quite close. Then all of a sudden the enemy discharged his cannon, musketry, and swivel pieces, which struck us and frightened numbers of our men, who scattered this way and that." Finding himself in imminent peril, Dara did not yet lose heart but turned to the right, to avoid the enemy's artillery, rallied his men, and fell upon Shaikh Mir's division. Aurangzib had pushed up so much reinforcement to the front and so many of his men had dispersed before Dara's advance, that for a time he was left without any guards. If Dara could then have forced his way to his rival's side, the victory would have been his.

Before this paragraph Sarkar says on the authority of various court historians of Aurangzeb's time that Dara was a bad general:

"Dara, who was ignorant of the rules of war and lacked
experience in command, foolishly hastened with the Centre and the Advanced Reserve in person, after the charge of Rustam Khan, and placed his own Van and Artillery behind himself." {Alamgirnamah, 99)

"Dara, in great excite- ment and helplessness, forgetting true generalship, foolishly drove his elephant beyond his own artillery, charged with a party of Syeds of Barha and Mughals, and thus forced his own guns to be silent." (Kambu, 15a.)

"Dara like an inexpert fighter disordered his own arrangement of troops and advanced beyond his artillery." (Aqil Khan, 47).

My question is Dara was close to victory as Aurangjeb was with very small number of guards (one source says he had just 1000 men left with him) and Dara could have easily smashed his way through. At this critical juncture why did Dara turn left?
Obviously court historians' analysis and then Sarkar following them and agreeing with them has to be taken with a pinch of salt since Sarkar himself describes Dara being on the verge of victory!

Please make sure your screen is wide enough so that the following line does not fold:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BATTLE OF SAMUGARH


------------------------------------------------------------------------Aurangzeb--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------Dast-e-Rast (Right of Centre)----------------Gol (Centre)---------------------Dast-e-Chap (Left of Centre)-----------------
----------------------1500 Strong ------------------------------------15,000 strong ----------------------- Led by Khan Dauran--------------------
----------------------Led by Bhadur Khan Koka---------------Aurangzeb's young son Md.Azam-----------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------- Supported by Murtza Khan, Qalij Khan etc ----------------------------------------

----Baranghar (Right wing) ----------------------------------Iltimish (Advance of centre)----------------- Jaranghar (Left-wing)---------------
----10,000 strong------------------------------------------------5,000 strong -----------------------------------10,000 strong--------------------------
----Led by Prince Md. Muazzam----------------------------- Led by Shaikh Mir ------------------------- Led by Murad Baksh and his forces--
----Supported by Champat Rai Bundela ---------------------Supported by Randola Khan------------------------------------------------------------
----Supported by Bhagwan Das Hada ------------------------Supported by Fateh Jang Khan --------------------------------------------------------
----Supported by Saif Khan, Islam Khan etc--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------Harawal (Advance Guard)--------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------10,000 strong -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------Led by Prince Md. Sultan ------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------Supported by Najabat Khan----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------Supported by Tahawwar Khan-------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------Two divisions of artillery under ------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------- Saf Shikan Khan and Zulfiqar Khan -------------------------------------------------------------



---Royal Artillery (Guns chained together) -------------------------------------------Dara's personal artillery---------------------------------------
------Led by Hussain Begman-----------------------------------------------------------Led by Barqandaz Khan--------------------------------------
------- Foot Muskeeters--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------Camel Corps -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----(500 mounted swivel guns)-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------Harawal (Advance Guard)-------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------10,000 strong -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------Led by Chatrasal Hada and Rajputs------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------3000 cavalry led by Askar Khan Bakshi ------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------4000 Afghan cavalry under Daud Khan ------------------------------------------------------

----Jaranghar (left wing) ----------------------------------Iltimish (Advance of centre)-------------Baranghar (Right-wing)---------------------
----10,000-15,000 strong------------------------------------------10,000 strong ---------------------15,000 strong-----------------------------------
----Led by 12 year old Prince Siphir Shikoh---------------Led by Kunwar Ram Singh -----------Led by Khalilullah Khan (Khan-i-Khanan)
----Supported by Rustam Khan Deccani-------------------(Son of Jaipur king Jai Singh)-----------Supported by his Uzbek mounted archers-
----Supported by Sayyids of Barha-------------------------Supported by Sayyid Bahar Khan etc-------Supported by Ram Singh Rathor------
----Supported by Qasim Khan------------------------------------ etc ---------------------------------etc--------------------------------------------------

--------------------Dast-e-Chap (Left of Centre)-------------------Gol (Centre)---------------------Dast-e-Rast (Right of Centre)------------------
----------------------Led by Fakhr Khan---------------------------12,000 strong ----------------------- Led by Zafar Khan Mewati-----------------
-------------------------------------------------------------Out of this 3000 picked cavalry----------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------Dara Shikoh---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Salient Points of the Battle:

Total forces of both sides were roughly equal: 50,000 each.

1) Battle started on May 29th 1658 at about 8 AM.
2) Dara discharged his artillery and after many hours and lot of dust and smoke was congratulated by Khaliullah Khan, the commander in chief who was also a traitor, that Dara's artillery had destroyed Aurangzeb's artillery (since they were not firing back ) and now Dara should order a general attack.

Points 3,4,5,6 below happened in parallel.

3) Dara gave an order for a general attack. His left wing led by Rustam Khan attacked the artillery under Saf Shikan Khan and was met by wall of musket fire. He moved past them and attacked the Vanguard under Md Sultan. put him under pressure. Rustam then engaged with Aurangzeb's right wing under Islam Khan. Aurangzeb then sent Bahadur Khan from "right of centre" and Shaikh Mir from "Advance of Centre" to check Rustam Khan. Qasim Khan of Dara's left wing decamps with his 6000 cavalry.
4) On Dara's Right wing Khaliullah Khan's Uzbeks fire a couple of volleys of arrows at Murad's left wing but are ineffectual and take no further part in the battle.
5) Chatrasal Hada and the vanguard slip between Zulfikhar Khan's artillery and Murad's left wing, attack Murad, kill some of his officers such as Yahiya Khan, Rana Garhib Das and then attack Aurangzeb's advance centre and left of centre. Raja Rup Singh Rathore (of Kishangarh) cuts his way to Aurangzeb's elephant but is killed.
6) Ram Singh Rathore from Dara's right wing attacked Murad in the left wing and more of Murad's officers like Murtaza Khan, Dindar Khan etc were wounded. Ram Singh and all his men perished. Daud Khan from Dara's Vanguard attacked Murad and prince Murad was borne backwards.

7) Kunwar Ram Singh of Jaipur, who was supposed to follow the charge of Chatrasal Hada decamps and does not stop till he reaches Jaipur.
8 ) Dara moves to the front to do the job that his traitorous Advance Guard should have done and clashes with and defeats Md Sultan and Najabat Khan and then falls on Shaikh Mir of Aurangzeb's Advance Centre. At this juncture about a thousand men stood between Dara and Aurangzeb as Aurangzeb had pushed lot of his men to all fronts to help out his troops. Dara inexplicably turns left, perhaps to pick and save his son as the commander of his left wing Rustam Khan had perished by this time.
9) This movement to the left allows Aurangzeb to regroup and now Dara, whose left wing was annihilated, moves towards his right wing, a distance of almost 4 miles, where the fighting was still raging. Somewhere in this movement Khalilulah Khan again advises Dara and asks him to dismount from the elephant. Dara's troops are no longer able to see him and loose hope. Rajputs at this point were dead and his vanguard and right wing other then the traitors perished.
10) Dara looses the war.

On Aurangzeb's side there were no traitors. On Dara's side Qasim Khan in the left wing with 6000 cavalry, Khalilullah Khan on the right wing with close to 10000 soldiers and Kunwar Ram Singh of Jaipur in the advance centre with 10000 soldiers were traitors and did not exert.

It seems that Dara was not as inept a general as court historians of Aurangzeb portrayed. Perhaps he should have sacrificed his son , who was in the annihilated left wing, and should have gone after Aurangzeb?

[tsarkar]

Ramana, thanks, finding an old book is like reuniting with an old friend.

it is entirely possible that the huns were absorbed into different cultures as they migrated - into India as Rajputs

Is it possible to get absorbed into Hindu castes or is it a myth?

No, in the Indian context, absorption does not erase original antecedents. I'll illustrate this using the following examples.

Charlemagne was responsible for assimilating Europe in the Christian fold, and he achieved this by ruthlessly destroying all previous socio-cultural-religious practices. Similarly, no pre-Islamic heritage survives in any Islamic lands.

However, assimilation in India is based on shared values, and not suppression/destruction of original antecedents. What makes a Mallu and a Dogra describe themselves as Indians are the values they share, and not the language/religion/cultural habits.

The Parsis came to India from Khorasan in AD 900, and their absorption in Indian society has not erased their original heritage.

The Chinese in Kolkata still retain their heritage.

The Marwaris who moved into Bengal 200 years ago, while intermarrying with Bengalis, and speaking fluent Bengali, still retain their unique flavour.

So had the Huns become Rajputs, they would have retained some heritage. However, we don't find any Hunnic heritage references among the Rajputs. So Rajputs could not have descended from Huns.

Rajputs that converted to Islam – Ranghar, Janjua, Jarral, etc, still proudly retain their Hindu heritage. Yet Huns that converted to Islam don't have any heritage. Because they were nomadic barbarians without any culture, unlike the Rajputs.

Also note that Rajputs and Huns have continuously fought with each other from end of Gupta reign right up to Ghaznavid times. For example, the founder of Gehlot clan, Guhila was born in a cave when their territory was attacked by the Huns.

Given that Huns periodically made looting invasions to India, their rallying under Mahmud Ghaznavi's banner was natural progression.

The biggest evidence of Pathan's Hunnic antecedents is their claim that they descended from the lost tribes of Israel, despite not an iota of Jewish cultural practices in themselves! Pathans and Afghans don't circumcise, which is a key Jewish trait. This chutzpah is typical Hunnic barbarian behavior!

[peter]

Ramana, thanks, finding an old book is like reuniting with an old friend.

it is entirely possible that the huns were absorbed into different cultures as they migrated - into India as Rajputs

Is it possible to get absorbed into Hindu castes or is it a myth?

[..]

The Parsis came to India from Khorasan in AD 900, and their absorption in Indian society has not erased their original heritage.

Sure but that is because the Indian Kings in Gujarat allowed the Parsis to sustain their culture and traditions. On the contrary if Gujarat kings did not want Parsis to "remain parsis" they would have had to give up their culture or none of them might have survived.

So had the Huns become Rajputs, they would have retained some heritage. However, we don't find any Hunnic heritage references among the Rajputs. So Rajputs could not have descended from Huns.

Rajputs that converted to Islam – Ranghar, Janjua, Jarral, etc, still proudly retain their Hindu heritage. Yet Huns that converted to Islam don't have any heritage. Because they were nomadic barbarians without any culture, unlike the Rajputs.

This is a good point and it did occur to me also. I reasoned to myself that perhaps the time when a group gets converted plays a role in how much they remember of their past. Recent converts remember more of their past heritage as opposed to conversions that took place long time ago. Second factor that influences is how complete the conversion of an area is. If 99.9% of an area gets converted then there is no one to remind you of your past heritage. But if the converts and the unconverted remain in close proximity then the link to the past does not get broken.

The biggest evidence of Pathan's Hunnic antecedents is their claim that they descended from the lost tribes of Israel, despite not an iota of Jewish cultural practices in themselves! Pathans and Afghans don't circumcise, which is a key Jewish trait. This chutzpah is typical Hunnic barbarian behavior!

The problem with this hypothesis is the language spoken by Pathans. Descendants of Huns are the Magyars and residents of Modern Hungary speak a language which is very different from Pashto. Pashto is classified among the Indo-Iranian group of languages while the Hungarian (thus by implication Hunnic) is part of Anatolian group and has no resemblance to Pashto.

BTW would you know if Huns indulged in vendetta killings as is attested in Afghans etc?

[tsarkar]

On the contrary if Gujarat kings did not want Parsis to "remain parsis" they would have had to give up their culture or none of them might have survived.

Hypothetically, yes. But no Indian government/king ever imposed any harsh terms on anyone. Even defeated enemies were charged tribute but let off. And the reason Parsis migrated specifically to India from Khorasan and did not go elsewhere is because from their previous trading relations with India, they knew the religious tolerance of this land. They just didn't come to India, they did their research before coming.

I reasoned to myself that perhaps the time when a group gets converted plays a role in how much they remember of their past. Recent converts remember more of their past heritage as opposed to conversions that took place long time ago. Second factor that influences is how complete the conversion of an area is. If 99.9% of an area gets converted then there is no one to remind you of your past heritage. But if the converts and the unconverted remain in close proximity then the link to the past does not get broken.

The Afghans and Pathans were in proximity to a large number of non Islamic people until 1896. Nuristan province was indigenous until 1896. Even the presence of these people didn't remind Afghans/Pashtuns of their pre-Islamic heritage. Because they didn't have any.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kafiristan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuristan_Province
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuristani_people
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siah-Posh_Kafirs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sfed-Posh_Kafirs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kata_(people)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shin_of_Hindukush

The problem with this hypothesis is the language spoken by Pathans. Descendants of Huns are the Magyars and residents of Modern Hungary speak a language which is very different from Pashto. Pashto is classified among the Indo-Iranian group of languages while the Hungarian (thus by implication Hunnic) is part of Anatolian group and has no resemblance to Pashto.

No, Magyar and Huns are different people. Magyar are Uralic people who entered Europe 895 AD and different than both Attilla the Hun who existed AD 434 and Indian Huna http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huna_people who invaded AD 500. These were displacement migrations. I speculate Huns in the Indian context had Central Asian origin and picked up Iranian influence in Pashtu

BTW would you know if Huns indulged in vendetta killings as is attested in Afghans etc?

No. Hunnic history is unwritten. But something else.

The reasons Huns were loathed in India was because of their penchant to massacre and take slaves for trading. That is why city populations would disperse to the countryside on Hunnic attacks. This pattern continued in Ghaznavid times, which leads me to speculate that Huns had taken up Ghaznavid banner. No Indian ever took slaves or traded them. While Rajputs might abduct a pretty girl for their wife, they never did slavery.

[peter]

On the contrary if Gujarat kings did not want Parsis to "remain parsis" they would have had to give up their culture or none of them might have survived.

Hypothetically, yes. But no Indian government/king ever imposed any harsh terms on anyone. Even defeated enemies were charged tribute but let off.

Perhaps "ever" is a bit too strong a term. Many counter examples do exist:
a) Ajit Singh of Marwar province, on attaining the throne of Jodhpur, put Muslims under great pressure. Holy book was thrown in the wells/defiled and anybody who resembled a muslim (with a beard and dress code) had either to change his appearence or risk persecution at the hands of Ajit's troops.

His grandson was far more severe. These were not isolated examples. Breaking of temples and mosques was cyclic in nature based on who had the upper hand.

b) Sikhs behaved identically starting with their leader Banda Bahadur. Infact when Kashmir was conquered by Sikhs they banned cow slaughter an edict which still runs true since it altered the taste buds of the local populace!

Does anyone know about Marathas on this?

I reasoned to myself that perhaps the time when a group gets converted plays a role in how much they remember of their past. Recent converts remember more of their past heritage as opposed to conversions that took place long time ago. Second factor that influences is how complete the conversion of an area is. If 99.9% of an area gets converted then there is no one to remind you of your past heritage. But if the converts and the unconverted remain in close proximity then the link to the past does not get broken.

The Afghans and Pathans were in proximity to a large number of non Islamic people until 1896. Nuristan province was indigenous until 1896. Even the presence of these people didn't remind Afghans/Pashtuns of their pre-Islamic heritage. Because they didn't have any.

The examples you gave are of people who inhabit very remote parts and armies of Islam could not reach them. Providence just caused them to retain their religion and they remained cutoff from the rest.

The problem with this hypothesis is the language spoken by Pathans. Descendants of Huns are the Magyars and residents of Modern Hungary speak a language which is very different from Pashto. Pashto is classified among the Indo-Iranian group of languages while the Hungarian (thus by implication Hunnic) is part of Anatolian group and has no resemblance to Pashto.

No, Magyar and Huns are different people.

I think the jury is till out on this one. If you ask the Magyars they will tell you that they are descendants of Huns and that is why names like Attila etc are very popular in modern Hungary.

[Singha]

perhaps like the visi-goths (western who spread to spain & gaul) and ostro-goths(eastern goths), there were eastern and western huns who diverged early, married into different local areas and finally ended up very different except a few fragments of remembered memories...

[Lalmohan]

^^^ yes the huns did split, its been talked about on this thread
one group to europe and another to india

[Airavat]

Ajit Singh of Marwar province, on attaining the throne of Jodhpur, put Muslims under great pressure.

His grandson was far more severe.

I think it was his son, Bakht Singh Rathod, who captured Ajmer from the Mughals in 1752 and also beat off a Maratha attack on that city. From the "Epigraphia Indica":

Numerous Persian and Arabic inscriptions (and other parts such as carved mehrabs, blind niches, etc) obtained from the mosques demolished by Maharaja Bakht Singh. In the words of Mr Gamek, "according to the accounts rife at Nagaur, Aurangzeb himself never destroyed more temples than did Bakht Singh mosques, and this may, indeed does, account for the numerous Arabic and Persian inscriptions which I found built topsy-turvey into the main circumvallation of the city some upside down, some diagonally, and others so that the lines of writing stand up vertically...."

[peter]

Ajit Singh of Marwar province, on attaining the throne of Jodhpur, put Muslims under great pressure.

His grandson was far more severe.

I think it was his son, Bakht Singh Rathod, who captured Ajmer from the Mughals in 1752 and also beat off a Maratha attack on that city. From the "Epigraphia Indica":

Numerous Persian and Arabic inscriptions (and other parts such as carved mehrabs, blind niches, etc) obtained from the mosques demolished by Maharaja Bakht Singh. In the words of Mr Gamek, "according to the accounts rife at Nagaur, Aurangzeb himself never destroyed more temples than did Bakht Singh mosques, and this may, indeed does, account for the numerous Arabic and Persian inscriptions which I found built topsy-turvey into the main circumvallation of the city some upside down, some diagonally, and others so that the lines of writing stand up vertically...."

Yes Bakht was much more severe then Ajit. Here is a snippet from Tod's Annals:

Death of Aurangzeb, March 3, 1707. — " In 1763, Ibrahim Khan, the king's Lieutenant at Lahore, passed through Marwar to relieve Azam in the vice-royalty of Gujarat. On the second day of Chait, the obscure half of the moon, the joyful tidings arrived of the death of the king. On the fifth, Ajit took to horse ; he reached the town of Jodha, and sacrificed to the gates, but the Asurs feared to face him. Some hid their faces in fear, while others fled. The Mirza came down, and Ajit ascended to the halls of his ancestors. The wretched Yavans, now abandoned to the infuriated Rajputs smarting imder twenty-six years of misery, found no mercy. In hopeless despair they fled, and the wealth which they had amassed by extortion and oppression returned to enrich the proprietor. The barbarians, in turn, were made captive ; they fought, were slaughtered and dispersed. Some sought saran (sanctuary), and found it ; even the barbarian leader himself threw fear to the winds in the unconcealed sanctuary of the Kumpawat. But the triumph of the Hindu was complete, when, to escape from perdition, their flying foes invoked Sitaram and Hargovind, begging their bread in the day, and taking to their heels at night. The chaplet of the Mulla served to count the name of Rama, and a handful of gold was given to have their beards removed.^ Nothing but the despair and flight of the Mlechchha was heard throughout Murdhar. Merta was evacuated, and the wounded Mohkam fled to Nagor. Sojat and Pali were regained, and the land returned to the Jodhani. Jodhgarh was purified from the contaminations of the barbarian with the water of the Ganges and the sacred Tulasi, and Ajit received the tilak of sovereignty.

[peter]

From: http://www.maharajajodhpur.com/hh/hist_lancer.htm. Have added a few things in bold:

Already celebrated as the "Jo Hukums", which literally means "As you command", for their reckless courage and discipline in following orders, however dangerous, the Jodhpur Lancers arrived in Egypt in early 1918, a part of the 15th Imperial Service Cavalry Brigade, 5th Cavalry Division, Desert Mounted Corps. After three months of training near Cairo they moved into the Jordan Valley. There, in more familiar terrain at last, they would cover themselves with glory. Indeed, bored with the trenches of France and itching for some real cavalry fighting, they showed their mettle in their very first action, at Abu Tulul on 14th July. Two squadrons of the Lancers led by Harji's son, Major Thakur Dalpat Singh (Kachwaha tribe), attacked a large body of Turks on a ridge, spearing many and capturing many more. The Eastbourne educated Dalpat, like his father a great favorite of Sir P's, outpaced his troop and single-handedly attacked a machine-gun emplacement, succeeding in capturing a senior officer. For this he was awarded the Military Cross. Not the only one decorated that day. In all the Lancers received six Indian Orders of Merit and seven Distinguished Service Medals for their success at Abu Tulul.

Yet, it was only the beginning. The Commander-in-Chief, Egypt Expeditionary Force, Sir Edmund Allenby's historic offensive into Palestine and Syria began on 19th September,1918. Four days later the Jodhpur Lancers with the 15th Cavalry Brigade, including the Mysore and Hyderabad Lancers, moved into position to capture strategic Haifa. This charming coastal town, now in Israel, was both strongly defended and easily defensible, commanded as it is by Mount Carmel (hailed for its beauty in the Song of Solomon) in the south-west and protected by the River Kishon in the north-east.

At 1400 hrs on 23rd September the battle began. Under heavy Turkish machine-gun fire, negotiating quicksand on the banks of the Kishon which they had to cross on the one hand, and the not-so-gentle slopes of Carmel on the other, the Jodhpur Lancers charged into Haifa. (The Mysore Lancers were sent in to "mop up" and the Hyderabad Lancers were held in reserve. Cover fire was provided by the Sherwood Rangers.) Interestingly the attack was led by 'B' squadron which consisted solely of Jodha Rathores. 'A' squad, the Mertias followed and 'C' squad, with its mixed forces, came in later.

Such raw courage the world had rarely seen. Nor had death and pain ever been treated with such disdain. Here were descendants of men who had fought at Sumel (Kumpa and Jaita's cavalry charged Sher Shah and penetrated deep), Khanua (Sanga's cavalry in his wings attacked Babur as discussed in this thread earlier) and Dharmat (Hadas, Jhalas, Sisodiyas and others charged Aurangzeb and reached his elephant. I don't think there were many rathores in the charge. Durgadas and company were in the gol protecting Jaswant Singh) and Merta (Dispersed De'boigne and the Marathas) and Malpura, all legendary Rathore charges, but this was perhaps the finest of them all. Indeed this charge at Haifa is described by many as the most remarkable cavalry action ever in the history of war and, as the historian Charles C.Trench remarks in his book, 'The Indian Army and the King's Enemies',."Only the Jo Hukums could have done it." That day the Jo Hukums had to be restrained as they galloped through the streets of Haifa, even after all the machine-gun posts had fallen, towards the placid and unknowing Mediterranean, spearing and butchering the unfortunate Turks who crossed their path, civilians even, for they had seen too many of their brothers fall. And among the dead was their beloved commander, Major Thakur Dalpat Singh (apparently he was shot in the spine).

What do forum members think about these:
a) Were Turks inept in the handling of machine guns?
b) Were rajput cavalry excellent in a charge that even with modern machine guns of 20th century it was hard to stop them just like at Dharmat etc?
c) Did it have to do with the speed and the mettle of the horses they possessed? Kathiawaris and Marwaris are known to be battle tough.
d) Had they figured out, through experience, the right density of horses to attack the artillery?
e) What else?

[svinayak]

However, assimilation in India is based on shared values, and not suppression/destruction of original antecedents. What makes a Mallu and a Dogra describe themselves as Indians are the values they share, and not the language/religion/cultural habits.

More than this the gothra and kula are similar in Dogra and mallu land and this brings as part of the same linage going back from previous generations. The language differences are only thousand years ago.

[Airavat]

The Indian horses bred to fight elephants:

[peter]

The Indian horses bred to fight elephants:

Interesting. I had seen the elephant snouts on horses in pictures but was not sure that it had an effect on the elephants!

Do we have some analysis of Rajasthani/Gujrati horses vis a vis suitability against artillery?

What about susceptability to loud noise?

[abhishekm]

Decent article from the Mint on the role played by Indian mercenaries in foreign wars, stretching back to the times of the Xerxes:

http://www.livemint.com/articles/2011/0 ... -8216.html

Here’s an interesting snippet:

Pakistani writer Mustansar Husain Tarar thinks that Porus actually defeated Alexander at the battle of Hydaspes (Jhelum). He believes Greek historians later papered over this humiliation by saying Alexander turned back because his army was disheartened (“sipah baddil ho gayi”). Alexander wouldn’t have retreated, Tarar argues, had the Indians not given the Macedonians a hiding. Funnily, Tarar says Pakistan has raised a monument to Alexander the Great (“Sikandar-e-Azam”) on the banks of the Chenab because they mistakenly think he was a Muslim who defeated the Hindu Porus

Stupid Pakis are so starved of national heros even Al-Alexander is being worshipped. Poor SDRE Porus must be rolling in his grave at the very thought.

[Lalmohan]

i recently got to see a pattern welded sword and its sub states/intermediate stages close up. very impressive, and quite a lot of complex metallurgy and processing and a great deal of skill required in its manufacture. clearly such swords would have been expensive and only available to the more senior commanders and leaders, whilst ordinary soldiers may have had simpler forged swords. i can see now why the spear was the more commonly available weapon that most ancient armies relied on

[ParGha]

In packed-ranks melee fighting, spears are also more easier to train with and provide greater reach (especially against horsemen) for the common infantryman. A long spear/billyhook and a short-sword/dagger combo was more useful for the commoners than long and cumbersome swords for their style of fighting.

They also had practical, day-to-day value, as the spear-shafts could be used for gathering fruits, threshing crops etc and the daggers could double as multi-purpose knives. It always cracks me up when fanbois talk about a khukri not returning to its sheath without drawing blood; an average khukri spends most of its life cutting bushes/firewood and other mundane tasks.

That said, if you want to use a spear for individual combat, it would take a lot more training, discipline and power to be a good spearman than a swordsman... but at the end of the long training, a good spearman will be a lot more powerful and dangerous opponent than a swordsman of equally long training.

[Rahul M]

that's very debatable, everything else being equal, trained spearmen almost always lost to trained swordsmen. which is why all ancient militaries eventually moved to swords for their core army.

[ParGha]

that's very debatable, everything else being equal, trained spearmen almost always lost to trained swordsmen. which is why all ancient militaries eventually moved to swords for their core army.

Everything is not equal: To be a proficient spearman capable of fighting individually, you will inevitably have to be stronger and train longer than a swordsman. Spearman's training is brutal and unforgiving, because you have only one killing point and you have to pin the enemy down on it before he/she gets within it. But if you complete the training, you have greater reach and quicker killing power.

Very, very few men ever mastered the spear... and those who did were honored above all others. There is a reason why in Indian mythology, the spear "Vel" is the favored weapon of the God of War; why in Chinese lore, the longstaff is the Grandfather, the Jian (straight-sword) is the Gentleman, the Dao (saber) is the General, and the Spear is the King of weapons; why the Roman emperor (and also the Holy Roman Emperor and later Hapsburg Emperor) was symbolized by the spear (even though Romans themselves used javelins and gladii)...

Fighting in closed-ranks is a completely different matter. Yet, even in that situation few major armies ever shifted towards swords. Only among the barbaric tribes and feudal militias, who were too loosely organized to form disciplined fighting ranks, did the sword gain common acceptance. Otherwise the sword was mainly an officer and NCO types' weapon (similar to today's SMGs and pistols in the military).

[Anoop]

Fighting in closed-ranks is a completely different matter. Yet, even in that situation few major armies ever shifted towards swords. Only among the barbaric tribes and feudal militias, who were too loosely organized to form disciplined fighting ranks, did the sword gain common acceptance. Otherwise the sword was mainly an officer and NCO types' weapon (similar to today's SMGs and pistols in the military).

Hello ParGha,

The Japanese feudal militia did shift to swords as the primary weapon for closed quarter battle until firearms rendered them obsolete. But since they generally fought among themselves, they didn't really have to innovate against a different kind of enemy that favored different weapons. For a stand-off weapon though, it would seem that the bow and arrow would be much more effective than the spear?

[ParGha]

For a stand-off weapon though, it would seem that the bow and arrow would be much more effective than the spear?

It generally was, and like all weapons even today it would have been even more effective if the archers were protected from a rush/testudo by a contingent of spearmen in a combined-armed formation. Ancient Indian and Medieval English armies were known to employ such formations very effectively. The English did not let go of that formula until firearms became small and cheap enough to replace them completely. Only the ancient Indians, for some unknown reasons, abandoned this proven formula before finding an effective substitute.

[Singha]

in a 1:1 fight how would a samurai sword, roman short sword, arab 'damascus steel' scimitar and gothic/english long straight sword hold up.

[hnair]

er, ParGha, I distinctly remember you (yes!! it was you ) saying spearman/pikemen can be trained in a few hours for team combat. I disagreed at that time, maybe I did not understand you better. In Southern style Kalaripayattu, the spear is considered the final level and was much used in small team combat situations. A Nodachi or a Broadsword can be used against cavalry, but probably aimed against the mount than an armored rider.

Singha-saar, the sword can be applied in so many ways. a cliche I know. So there are so many factors from armor strength over vital regions to arteries near skin. For the former, you need a sword with a certain sturdiness with lots of body muscles, weight etc in play and for the latter, an urumi/fansword would do (just make a small slice and the dude's fighting is over). Each weapon needs specialized knowledge that must come to you when you are in full rhythm. So coming to your question, each of the sword mentioned by you has its own technical and tactical details and each can win against the other, based on how much knowledge and inner rhythm the weilder has. An edge weapon should NEVER be used to parry due to edges getting blunted fast by nicks..... if there is no shield, you duck or step out of the way (or in case of broadsword, use specific regions nearer to the hilt where the weapon can afford to be blunt due to momentum reducing from the tip) a small fact overlooked amongst the clamor of clanging swords by Holly/Bolly/Mollywood. But still metal-metal contact happens. In that sense a sturdier weapon might fare better in long duration battles.

I saw some funky stuff posted earler about "India has no Masamunes". I had the good fortune of holding and inspecting feathered pattern blades from different countries (a private collection by a modern day shogun). A Kayamkulam sword felt no different than a bona-fide Sengoku katana. Both has its own spirit and is beautifully crafted. The difference is an iron-deficient society like Japan gave great prominence to sword makers, because there are not many iron stock to beat into blades, each sword and its maker is treasured. They mythified some of these gents due to the non-availability. I strongly suspect that a Kensei like Musashi-asan had to turn to wooden bokken due to this paucity. Sasaki Kojiro, whom he slapped in that island rumble, that dude was a far richer gent than the vagabondish Kensei and could afford a nodachi. Wootz and hammer welding techniques were perfected in India and was manufactured in far bigger numbers due to iron stock being plentiful. Infact the Brit armorers and curators (Diagram Group has a good beginner book on all sorts of weapons for teen/kids and there is a prominent mentioned about Indian blades's high quality) consider the finest swords to be out of the subcontinent and they should know. They stole so many from all over the globe.

Only after WWII did katana achieve Marvel Comics treatment thanks to khanlanders going ga-ga over marketing the loot that they bought back as "finest in the world". And here, I dont mean a katana is any less brilliantly made than its contemporaries in India or Europe. Just that we need to walk down history and ponder a bit.

[Anoop]

I am no expert, but I have read that the Japanese shinken is quite unique in that for its weight it has excellent cutting ability. Unlike broadswords, it is not a chopping weapon, it is a cutting weapon and accomplishes this by means of repeated folding of the metal onto itself and two separate sections - the hardened cutting edge and the thicker but softer back. It requires a slicing action to cut anything. I've never handled a shinken (live blade), but practice Iaido with an Iaito (non-sharpened blade). My teacher who trained for many years in Japan said that in the dojo, sometimes people don't even realize they've cut themselves until they see blood, the edge of a shinken is so sharp. It also rusts very quickly, so when a student is injured, two people go to help - one for the person and the other to clean the blood off the blade. Even with an Iaito, at the end of each practice, we clean it with powder and then with oil because it can rust from moisture and skin secretions.

Having said that, any weapon is only as good as the practitioner. I think the mystique of the Japanese sword owes a lot to the lengthy warring period, followed by the ascendancy of the military class that patronized literally hundreds of schools of fencing for over 200 years. It could also be due to the beauty of the sword itself and the fact that it also had to be used as a shield and not just a sword.

[ArmenT]

Fighting in closed-ranks is a completely different matter. Yet, even in that situation few major armies ever shifted towards swords. Only among the barbaric tribes and feudal militias, who were too loosely organized to form disciplined fighting ranks, did the sword gain common acceptance. Otherwise the sword was mainly an officer and NCO types' weapon (similar to today's SMGs and pistols in the military).

Hello ParGha,

The Japanese feudal militia did shift to swords as the primary weapon for closed quarter battle until firearms rendered them obsolete. But since they generally fought among themselves, they didn't really have to innovate against a different kind of enemy that favored different weapons. For a stand-off weapon though, it would seem that the bow and arrow would be much more effective than the spear?

Actually, in the Japanese case, bows were always the primary weapon of the samurai in a battle field. For closer range, they preferred the spear or naginata (and later, the arquebus) and the sword was the backup weapon in case the shaft of the spear broke. Swords were only really used in times of peace when individual samurai would duel one another (and even then, many didn't employ swords either). Most of the images of samurai swordsmen is largely due to movies.

As to why many armies preferred spears, pikes and axes to swords, there are a few very good reasons to do so: e.g. better range, lower cost etc. For example, the only metal work for a spear or an axe is for the head and the rest is made of wood, whereas a sword is largely made of metal. Also, major issue with making swords was that they had to protect them from breaking due to shock. This meant many operations of hardening and cooling it to prevent it from becoming too brittle but still retain an edge. This took time and money and it was much easier, cheaper and faster to manufacture spear or axe heads instead. That's why swords were mainly used by aristocracy and the average joe used spears or axes.

[ArmenT]

I've never handled a shinken (live blade), but practice Iaido with an Iaito (non-sharpened blade). My teacher who trained for many years in Japan said that in the dojo, sometimes people don't even realize they've cut themselves until they see blood, the edge of a shinken is so sharp. It also rusts very quickly, so when a student is injured, two people go to help - one for the person and the other to clean the blood off the blade. Even with an Iaito, at the end of each practice, we clean it with powder and then with oil because it can rust from moisture and skin secretions.

I have access to a Japanese navy officer blade from World War II (SHQ's grandpa was a Marine in the Pacific campaign and brought it back as a memento.) Even though he used it for many years to clear his property of brush and grass , the blade has still remained wonderfully sharp and bright. In fact, it is still possible for it to cut people without them realizing it, if they're dumb enough to test its sharpness by sliding their finger tip along the length of the blade (Yes, it happened to an idiot relative recently. In case a reader is wondering, best way to do it is to slide your finger perpendicular to blade's length). The only thing wrong with the sword is that the rope grip had unwound years ago and you can see the inside skin of the handle.

[Anoop]

Even though he used it for many years to clear his property of brush and grass , the blade has still remained wonderfully sharp and bright. In fact, it is still possible for it to cut people without them realizing it....The only thing wrong with the sword is that the rope grip had unwound years ago and you can see the inside skin of the handle.

It's amazing that it survived that kind of abuse so well. The best skin of the handle is made from the skin of a sting-ray - if you can afford it; its very pricey and is a mark of a good sword. In fact, the swordsmith does not make the scabbard nor the grip. That is the domain of specialists. The cloth grip is actually tied only at the end of the grip and is not even a knot; what holds it is just the tension of the winds and lacquer! The whole thing is quite fascinating...

[ArmenT]

^^^^
Yep, the grip is made of stingray skin. The guard is made of brass and there's a chrysanthemum engraved at the base of the sword.

Ok, that's enough of Japanese swords, back to your regular scheduled programming for this thread.

[Lalmohan]

the sword i saw was saxon from around 600AD, the patterns were really quite beautiful. in the saxon tribe, only nobles and great warriors would have swords or horses. the troops would form a shield wall and opposing sides would ram into each other until one gave way, and then spears and axes would come into play. great warriors (who should ideally fall in battle and not die in their beds of old age) would sometimes be cremated and then ashes buried with weapons and sometimes their horses and equipment. great kings would be buried in mounds, sometimes in their ships, on ridges overlooking river ways - to announce their area dominance over lesser tribes and vassal peoples.

[ParGha]

er, ParGha, I distinctly remember you (yes!! it was you ) saying spearman/pikemen can be trained in a few hours for team combat. I disagreed at that time, maybe I did not understand you better. In Southern style Kalaripayattu, the spear is considered the final level and was much used in small team combat situations. A Nodachi or a Broadsword can be used against cavalry, but probably aimed against the mount than an armored rider.

OK, let me clarify: It is quite easy to quickly train hundreds of spearmen/pikemen to fight in tightly-packed armored formations, it is much harder (harder than sword) to train an individual spearman who can fight on his own. And I believe you about kalaripaiattu, its pretty much the same thing with most martial arts.

[Yagnasri]

I was reading something about the poisons and toxins used at the tips of arrows fired by Indians in Ancient times. Can any one elaborate.

[Lalmohan]

BBC just ran a very good docu-drama about early hominids - first episode was arrival of homo sapiens in the indian peninsula just after the toba volcano eruption in s.e. asia and their conflict with homo erectus who had preceded them - both of them spreading out of africa over many centuries. toba volcano deposited upto 6m of ash on eastern india and led to severe disruption to the ecology of the subcontinent - and massive desertification and competition for resources.

its based on archeological evidence from sites in the thar desert. very vivid depiction of a band of homo eructus predating on a lone sapiens out to find water, and then killing him, whilst his wife and son try to hide in the mountains. sapiens has a throwing spear, which erectus apparently couldn't use because his palms faced forwards to the body (not sideways like ours), but erectus has flint knives and is built powerfully, particularly for running.

sapien dude gets eaten, but the wife and son make a perilious crossing of the desert and find the coast - and so survive, and find other sapiens who have made the crossing

second programme is about sapiens vs. neanderthals in europe
similar gore and violence

[ArmenT]

I was reading something about the poisons and toxins used at the tips of arrows fired by Indians in Ancient times. Can any one elaborate.

I know that Wolfsbane was definitely used in N. India to poison arrow tips. See this wikipedia article for more details (especially the Uses section and below ). Only reason I know about this plant is because there's a heavy metal band named after that plant and the singer of that band (Blaze Bailey) temporarily replaced Bruce Dickinson in the band Iron Maiden. I decided to do some reading about the origin of the name and found out some fun details about the plant including the fact that it was used to poison arrow tips in India (See? Who says listening to loud music is bad for you ) The plant also gets a mention in one of the Harry Potter books.

These two links about specific species of Wolfsbane (linked from the link above) should also be useful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aconitum_ferox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aconitum_napellus (Ladakhis use this to hunt Ibex)

[Klaus]

BBC just ran a very good docu-drama about early hominids - first episode was arrival of homo sapiens in the indian peninsula just after the toba volcano eruption in s.e. asia and their conflict with homo erectus who had preceded them - both of them spreading out of africa over many centuries. toba volcano deposited upto 6m of ash on eastern india and led to severe disruption to the ecology of the subcontinent - and massive desertification and competition for resources.

its based on archeological evidence from sites in the thar desert. very vivid depiction of a band of homo eructus predating on a lone sapiens out to find water, and then killing him, whilst his wife and son try to hide in the mountains. sapiens has a throwing spear, which erectus apparently couldn't use because his palms faced forwards to the body (not sideways like ours), but erectus has flint knives and is built powerfully, particularly for running.

Did they show either of the hominid species using fire? If no, then it is likely that they were incorrectly depicting H.Sapiens. In all probability the scenario BBC was portraying was a splitting of H.Erectus into 2 distinct subspecies (Peking Man & Java Man) who were migrating to their respective regions (North Eastern Asia and S.E Asia respectively) from the subcontinent.

The picture is also incomplete because the role played by Lucy and her "descendants" in Dmanisi & Flores in the human evolution story is not known yet. I'm inclined to believe that the sub-continent has a vital clue with respect to this.

BBC and other outlets are also extremely uncomfortable in exploring theories of hybridisation, the level of narcissism at work here is unbelievable.

[Klaus]

it is much harder (harder than sword) to train an individual spearman who can fight on his own.

I'm inclined to believe that the tradition of individual spear-man was derived from the art of staving or holding-off an attacking horde, till such a time that valuable artifacts (such as treasure or palace artifacts) were out of the danger zone. This concept is enshrined in the practice of the Silambam in South India.

[Singha]

they have found fossilized footprints in australia which were the running steps of a ancient hunter. supposedly the stride pattern shows a great sprinter, probably running with a throwing spear or boomerang....he could have been a outlier veteran rogue warrior, but bringing down swift game animals in a open country like australia cant have been easy ...

http://www.donsmaps.com/mungoprints.html

must have been tough times for ancient humans. every day could be a man's last day when he steps out for the hunt. the caves could harbour bears, sabertooths, poisonous spiders or serpents....had to be carefully checked out first. only the truly elite of the bushido creed, the strong of mind and body must have survived to an "old age" of 40.

[Klaus]

IMO a continental version of H.Floresiensis (larger and taller than its insular cousin) would be able to hunt the marsupials & flightless birds of Suhal (Terra Australis) at close range with thrusting weapons. There were hardly any threats to hominids in the southern continent, the only possible predator would have been the salties in the billabongs & occasional deaths due to "unsafe" cassowary encounters.

So IMO there were no aerodynamic javelins in use here because the need for them was not there, just weighty thrusting weapons.

[Singha]

amending my stmt slighlt, life expectancy could not be more than 30 so the elite spetsnaz males would likely mate from around 16 yrs and pass on their seed before dying off in 20s.
on the shoulders of these pioneers we stand

[ArmenT]

they have found fossilized footprints in australia which were the running steps of a ancient hunter. supposedly the stride pattern shows a great sprinter, probably running with a throwing spear or boomerang....he could have been a outlier veteran rogue warrior, but bringing down swift game animals in a open country like australia cant have been easy ...

Not easy to hunt in open country, but definitely possible. Humans aren't exceptional fast runners, but we have something a lot of other animals don't: efficient thermoregulation. What that means is while we don't run very fast, we have a lot more endurance than most other critters and can run at a decent pace for a long time. And we can sweat out excess body heat from almost all areas of our body, whereas many animals need to stop and pant for a while to get rid of their excess body heat. They recently did some experiments with a bunch of amateur and professional runners against antelope and they managed to tire the animal enough to close in for the kill in a couple of hours or so, by continually chasing it on relatively open ground.

See this wikipedia article for more details. Turns out some tribes are still using this technique.

[Singha]

wolves also use this strategy - chasing large animals for hours until it falls down from exhaustion.

wolves are champion endurance athletes and can allegedly run at jogging pace for 12hrs nonstop!

[Lalmohan]

Klaus - the scenario shown was 74,000 years ago. Both Erectus and Sapiens are shown using fire. Sapiens has the advantages of language and complex strategising (based on skull structure and implications for brain development) - he can outwit Erectus, and also Neanderthal. Erectus is shown as a prime athlete with strong flint tools/knives. A band of erectus hunters would be a bit like being faced by international rugby players who can sprint like olympians (based on bone structure and specific adaptations to running found on skeletons) - i doubt if sapiens would take them on unless he had superior numbers. there is evidence that erectus did hunt big game, and that they operated in groups with significant cohesion for the hunt and for caring for each other. sapiens is depicted as being at a level of development of the San bush people of the kalahari. it is notable that ostrich egg water carrier remnants have been found in the Thar, which is what the San use even today to carry water over arid terrain. sapiens' big advantage is that his group is far cleverer and collectively stronger and faster than his adversaries - though individually both neanderthal and erectus are physically stronger. for the first time that i've seen - sapiens is shown as being black, whilst neanderthal is shown as white(r) (a reasonable adaptation to ice age europe) and erectus is shown as being more "asian" including mongoloid.
i thought it was a very good programme - made by a german/south african collaboration with the BBC