peter wrote:Till Pratap and Amar Singh I do not see any problem with Mewar lineage. Sure Vikram, Banbir and Uday Singh for some time left a bit to be desired but Pratap was more exemplary then Sanga and Kumbha and Hamir.
In his efforts, Yes. In terms of Kingdom, No. The army he commanded and the Kingdom he inherited were as large as his ancestors had.
Kumbha ran his writ at Nagor and Sanga choked Lodi to the extent that Peel Khal near Agra was his northern boundary.
No need to mention how they humbled the sultanates further south again and again.
OTOH Pratap was fighting to hold ground at his own Kingdom and capital.
Not that it takes away anything from his glory, there is no campaign of Pratap outside Mewar.
peter wrote:They did not on their own. It was the specific act of giving daughters which made these principalities align with the Mughals.
Two of the major houses - Mewar and Amber were both politically and militarily weak at that time.
But I can see that not just Mewar, small states like Bundi also did not give any daughters to Mughals even though they allied to Mughals.
peter wrote:Succession issues have been there all the time. Prithviraj's granfather was killed by his own son and his father had to be whisked away to Gujarat and so on so forth. That is no reason for anyone to align with the Mughals.
Succession war is not what causes the alliance. The instability and splintered military because of political infighting at all levels is what renders the top leadership weak. Even Pratap was whisked away when Chittor was sacked by Akbar.
peter wrote:But this period is no more unique then the earlier periods. Earlier too Bhatis were at war with Rathores, Rathores were at war with Parihars, Sisodiyas were at war with Rathores and so on so forth.
This cannot be an excuse for Kachwahas to behave the way they did.
Yes but with the difference of degree in decentralization.
There are enough instances where large armies from all over Rajputana have gathered under one head and fought.
Rathores and Sisodiyas fought together under Kumbha, Kachhwahas and Sisodiyas fought together under Sanga
But look at Pratap, he never had the same pool of political, military resources cutting across Rajputana. Only the Bhils and traditional Mewar allies from south.
Further back, PrithviRaj's influence can be gauged from the fact that he ran to Tarain to fight Ghori and sieged one of his outposts in Punjab for moonths.
Tarain is not even on the border of modern Rajasthan while Ajmer is only a locality in the center of modern Rajasthan.
I'm not excusing Kachhwahas, I'm trying to deliberate and understand the various facets of what happened.
peter wrote:Diplomacy did happen even with Ghoris of the world. There is record of letter exchanges before the war(s) started. Apparently Ghori wrote that he would be happy and leave if Prithviraj converts to Islam. Obviosuly Mr Ghori did not know what Prithviraj was all about. So diplomacy failed.
Ok, point taken. My understanding is that PrithviRaj owned a much larger Kingdom than Amber of Akbar's times.
Not sure if this is the best comparison.[/quote]Let us not forget that during the Sultanate time many small kingdoms were reapetedly attacked by the Delhi as well as Gujarat and Malwa Sultanates. No one gave a daughter. Take the example of Songaras from Jalore or Hammir at Ranathambore. These were small principalities. No bigger then Amber.
I don't think Hammir was a petty Kingdom's ruler. He had a huge army and is influence and revenue sources ran into entire Malwa and even north Rajasthan :
-- Khandela 90 kms northeast to Amber
-- Mount Abu at southern most tip of Rajasthan
-- Dhar (in MP) 320 kms south east to Udaipur
-- Champa in south weast tip of Malwa
-- Gadha Mandala 550 kms south east to Ranthambore
And I don't know if before Akbar any other muslim King (turk/mughal) made a serious attempt to forge alliance with any of the Rajputs.
Pratap's and Chhatrasal's warspeter wrote:Can you please give a few examples of winning wars as enemy?
The former defended and retook his Kingdom single handedly and the latter defeated many Mughals Generals including:
Rohilla Khan, Kaliq, Munawwar Khan, Sadruddin, Sheikh Anwar, Sayyid Latif, Bahlol Khan and Abdus Ahmed.
His Kingdom extended between Chitrakoot and Panna on the east and Gwalior on the west.
Streched from Kalpi in the north to Sagar, Garah Kota and Damoh in the south.
peter wrote:Why do you think the Marathas were fighting at Panipat against Abdali? It was too far north from their home.
Because Abdali had decided to fight them and the latter were stamping their authority up in north. They didn't raid Mughals.
In the various towns villages or forts Marathas raided .. were it Mughals who got overrun/capitulated or was it Hindu citizenry and Royals?
and if removing Rajputs from the battlefield was the only concern then what were they doing looting in Jaipur, Jodhpur, Bundi, Kota etc even after receiving (the much touted reason of agression) cash??
I would be happier if they had killed the opposing royals and established friendly governments or may be forge an alliance;
rather than Holkars laying entire Rajputana to waste that it couldn't get up again.
The arson and looting was ever increasing while people like Nana Saheb couldn't just by themselves hold all Marathas in discipline.
Settle it in open battlefield and spare the rest .. why the arson and looting .. or even better, if they needed money they were supposed to ally Rajputs and take on Mughals who were fat with sucking entire India's blood.
Mughals were the ones who deserved to be robbed of money, levied heavy taxes etc .. not Rajputs and Jats.
peter wrote:Think about who was the fighting arm of Mughals? It was the rajputs. If you have to subdue the central leadership in Delhi whom do you take on first? The fighting arm or the leadership itself?
So now Mughals don't have any army and administration of their own?
peter wrote:Think about it : if anyone comes occupies your territory/house no matter on whosoever's orders you don't like that person.
peter wrote:No. I think they wanted to neutralise the fighting arm of the mughals and then take on the central leadership. It was a perfect plan.
peter wrote:The point is that a cycle once started has to reach its conclusion. Karmically since rajputs were the first aggressors, no matter at whosoever's behest, and caused numerous raids in Marathaland the reverse had to happen too.
Like I said above, settle it as two armies why the arson and looting ... why lay entire Rajputana to waste?
I don't mind Marathas coming back at Rajput armies and rulers. But their method ... did they just challenge Rajputs to bring their army out in field and settle it like Hindus used to ?? No the people were hurt, that wasn't supposed to happen.
Here, read this from a Marathi author --
"And the Scindias and Holkars started on a ruthless campaign of extorting money from the lands they overran.
The Rajputs made the mistake of calling Maratha aid to sort out their internal strife and paid a very heavy price.
Ajmer, Jodhpur and Jaipur were to pay heavily to the Marathas. the Rajput treasuries too started getting empty
and the land was so ravaged by the invading troops that there were near famine conditions."
~ pg 71. The Rajputs of Rajputana: A Glimpse of Medieval Rajasthan By M. S. Naravane
What else do you think antagonised the Rajputs and Jats that they left Marathas on their own against Abdali?
peter wrote:Actually if we study the history of Rashtrakutas they defended India against the Arabs. Are modern Marathas descendants of Rashtrakutas? I am sure they are.
Reu and many others place Rathores as the descendants of Rashtrakutas and not the Marathas. Reu has written a complete book on it.
peter wrote:Mandore had Parihars. Bhatis were already in Jaisalmer and surrounding regions. Tomars in Delhi. Chauhans at Ajmer. Chalukyas in Gujarat. Parmars in Jalore and so on so forth.
Delhi is not medieval Rajputana. Gujarat is not medieval Rajputana.
Yes there were more than one clans .. always. But like I said above, with the way PC ran upto Tarain and even sieged Ghori's outpost for months .. I doubt there was the same degree of fragmentation in Rajputana back then.peter wrote:Virendra wrote:Yet PC emerges as the main leader in Rajasthan .. were there wars between politically+miitarily independent Kingdoms inside Rajasthan?
Moreover different clans used to come together under one imperial head and fight. That almost disasppeared by the time we reach Haldighati in 16th century.
peter wrote:Every clan of rajasthan fought under the banner of Pratap. There were Rathores, Bhatis, Tomars, Jhala, Chauhans, Hada, Deora, Songara and some Kachwahas too. What is happening in modern Rajasthan is that Pratap is not being given his due because Udaipur claims that they are the Hindu Suraj since they did not give daughters and every other major king of rajasthan resents this for obvious reasons. So they leave no stone unturned in humbling Pratap's achivement.
How many Rathores, Bhatis, Tomars, Jhala, Chauhans, Hada, Deora, Songara and Kachhwahas on Pratap's side?
Half the clan? One third?
How many do you expect to come when there are multiple independent and warring Kingdoms (big/small) based on clans .. where the clannish armies are aligned to their respective Kingdoms and the Kingdoms aren't united.
By the time we go from Sanga to Pratap Mughals had settled themselves in delhi-Agra. Could Amber (adjacent to Delhi-Agra) in their political soup of weak Kings and succession wars; have stopped them alone? I think not.[/quote]
Sure. But so could the Khichis at Gagron not stop the Malwa sultanate from running them over. But did they yield a daughter? Why not?
Yes. I am not debating the daughter act. I'm looking at Amber's weaknesses.
peter wrote:See as is clear from the Ishwardas Nagar's write up that responsibility of getting Shivaji out was Ram Singh's. How does Shivaji find trusted men who are not Marathas and are willing to put their life on the line for him? They were Ram Singh's men. They could be sent back to Jaipur after the mission is over or to some other place.
Will have to repeat my point. Soldiers are always well accounted for. Wouldn't there absence be an easily noticed event in the administrative apparatus?
peter wrote:I actually do not understand his conversion to Islam bit. If you can find anything on it while you are in Jaipur I will be very happy to learn the details.
peter wrote:Do you have examples from medieveal Indian history where the presence of gun powder carried the day?
From Babur's use of gunpoweder in India to Scinidia's use of French guns against native Indian forces.
peter wrote:But why not return home after they were healed? Doesnt add up.
Look at this:
Perhaps the general perception of Maratha prospects took a huge beating and the soldiers thought they might land in trouble enroute or had other thoughts about the conditions back home?
peter wrote:I thought that Malik Kafur was the first to have gone and attacked south of the Vindhyas. Was there somebody before him? Islamic sources would surely mention a name if indeed someone did cross Vindhyas?
Not if the effort wasn't a success. We know how silent they get on instances where their patrons fall short of victory.