Bharat Rakshak Forum Announcement

Hello Everyone,

A warm welcome back to the Bharat Rakshak Forum.

Important Notice: Due to a corruption in the BR forum database we regret to announce that data records relating to some of our registered users have been lost. We estimate approx. 500 user details are deleted.

To ease the process of recreating the user IDs we request members that have previously posted on the BR forums to recognise and identify their posts, once the posts are identified please contact the BRF moderator team by emailing BRF Mod Team with your post details.

The mod team will be able to update your username, email etc. so that the user history can be maintained.

Unfortunately for members that have never posted or have had all their posts deleted i.e. users that have 0 posts, we will be unable to recreate your account hence we request that you re-register again.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused and thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
Seetal

Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
johneeG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3473
Joined: 01 Jun 2009 12:47

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Postby johneeG » 21 Oct 2013 14:05

viv wrote:JohneeG/Atri: Can you shed some light on Battle of Koregaon? It is in usual telling listed as a Mahar vs Peshwa - 500 against 20K. This latter certainly is an exaggeration I'd think unless they were so well entrenched to defend themselves. Also, am puzzled - the articles I read state that Mahars were part of Shivaji's armies (no mention of prior to that), but in Peshwa times strict caste differentiation and humiliation was put on Mahars (why? if in Shivaji's time it was not so) and that is what caused them to join the Brits. Perhaps there is some truth and some exaggeration in the telling.


Viv saar,
sorry for not replying earlier. I didn't reply because I don't have much gyaan on this. But, since no one replied, I'll reply. First let me post some posts by Atri saar.

Atri wrote:
brihaspati wrote:Atri ji,
I am mildly protesting recognizing the term "Dalit". We can talk of the "Dalit" movement, Dalit" activism, but not "he is a Dalit". Dalit is a created category of the modern period - an invention which has no connection to any real term ever used to denote a whole "people" like a "caste". It is a politically created term, deliberately not linked to any caste - because its coiners were aware that focusing on particular "repressed" castes would make the political mobilization problematic with the intra-caste fights and counter claims of hierarchies would show up. Some of them might even have not been good examples of "suppression" and repression at various periods of history. We cannot recognize and thereby reinforce claims of further distinctions. Let us specifically focus on it as a created political movement and not any real social category. In India politically created abstract categories have a tendency of turning themselves into hereditary claims of a separate identity.



agree... was just trying to clarify about narendra jadhav's "jadhav" surname.. The point being, nothing can be told about a person's caste background by knowing his surname these days. "dalit" is an artificial group. I will give an example. The caste "mahar" was part of village panchayat in medieval times. There was lot of oppression yes especially in 19th century, but it was rarely between one monolithic block of "upper castes" against another monolithic block of "lower castes". Firstly there aren't such monolithic blocks as they are made out to be. The mutual dynamics among the castes which are today listed as backwards is much more complicated than between Brahmins and non-brahmins.

As for Shinde - I am friends with one who is very "active". He says he fell in "spell" when we first met at some time point. However Bhavi hates me thoroughly. The reason, I asked for my favourite old Marathi dish of jowar bread and coriander chutney [ I got fond of it when I stayed with not so well off "friends" in Narmada Parikrama] and she replied that it was the food of the "lower castes". I was younger then with a rather sharper tongue which could lash out instantly, and bhavi was subjected to a half hour lecture on how that food could be taken as holy food because it maintained the bulk of Shivaji's army. She has been angry ever since - as much as the hubby remains close.

Just keeps me wondering as to the real dynamics of the power dynamic around Shivaji with such attitudes!


hehehe, befitting reply... :D although bread of finger-millet (nachni) was more popular in the troops of Shivaji than bread of Jowar (Jwari chi Bhaakri)... He wasn't much popular amongst 96-clan Maratha people. His own brother in law and son in law remained faithful servants of Adilshah until their death, along with all the major Maratha families including his father and his step-brother.. The elites were further estranged by his land-reforms wherein he abolished mansabdari system.. Mahar, Ramoshi, Pardhi, Koli, Kayasthas, brahmins and other farming communities were his main support block.


Link to post

Atri wrote:Dalit is a very generic term. It comprises of thousands of castes. Not all dalits are neo-buddhists. Similarly, not all neo-buddhists are anti-brahminical. There was always a caste (which is scheduled as dalit in post independence india) which was in the power-circles of graama-vyavastha.

For example in MH, the Mahar Caste (of Mahar regiment) is a dalit caste, but was always represented in panchayat of every village. In maratha era, many mahar killedars (incharge of hill-forts) are mentioned. They were quite an integral part of Maratha armies. Yes, there was always a tussle in later Peshwa era (which had become too brahminical, especially after death of Madhavrao-1 in 1772). The Brahminization of Peshwa rule started after 1740 after death of Bajirao-1. But things were flying under radar and were manageable until 1772. Post 1780s, this started increasing. The infamous doji-bara famine made things worse (in famine, people tend to protect their near and dear ones at the expense of others). about 10 million died in maratha - india and broke the back of Marathas. Their last victory came in 1795. In 1799 Nana Phadnavis died. A huge famine broke out in same region again in 1802, again killing lakhs. This resulted in defeat of India in second anglo-maratha war. Official policies of Peshwas had skewed a lot against non-brahmins (that too against non-chitpavans).

One famous story which reflects this mindset - During 1795 battle of kharde (maratha vs nizam where nizam was defeated again), a mahar general put up his tent amidst the tents of Brahmina nd 96-clan Maratha generals. There was a huge fuss and the argument went to the ears of peshwa himself. The elder named Hiroji Patankar (a brahmin himself) in court persuaded the brahmins and 96-clanners that "this is a battle-ground (Ranaangan) and not a pankti of lunch in temple that Mahar should not be among them". The brahmin and 96-claner generals were openly unhappy, but agreed to accommodate the old man's verdict. This shows how the mindset was skewed and how the fissures were present among various social groups. With fall of marathas in 1802, this mindset remained.

Now, Mahars have always been an aggressive social group. Dr. Ambedkar too belonged to this caste. Amongst dalits, Mahars is the most emancipated dalit caste. They have most taken advantage of reservations and many of them have risen above. I think our HM Shinde too is a Mahar. The antibrahminism is predominantly seen in this caste of Mh-neo-buddhist dalits. This again is not a rule and most of them (so many are my personal friends, I can say that almost 60-70%) are normal. Yes, occasional gibe at brahmins here and there is fine. It happens everywhere and is helped by the fact that brahmins tend to talk and behave in snobbish and at times pretentious manner and this is ridiculed by others.

But this is also true that most of the virulent haters of brahmins come predominantly from this caste. Ridicule is different from hate-speech which is again different from being anti-dharma and anti-national. A section of these (BAMCEF, for eg) take to to such an extent that they start mirroring and repeating the words and ideas of Zaid Hamid and Hamid gul types. They are supported by some 96-maratha organizations under aegis fo NCP. The Brahminical IB killing off Karkare story has a lot of traction among this class.

This is where I draw the line.



Link to post

It seems to me that Battle of Koregaon was not really of much importance. What I mean to say is that the real things might have happened in negotiation room rather than battle field. That explains the retreat of Peshwa even though he had larger forces in the battle. Also, there may have been a fear of more brit forces joining from other sides.

All in all, I think the role of Mahars in this particular battle is exaggerated. And I think this exaggeration is done by the brits to keep the Mahars loyal to themselves. I am sure one can find many other instances of real Mahar bravery compared to this one.

It seems internal divisions within Maraata faction was on rise from the time of 1761(Panipath 3.0). As the pie stopped expanding, various factions start squabbling to get the largest pie by suppressing the other faction. This tendency seems to have steadily increased and became extreme in the famine conditions.

The famine itself may have been caused due to the bad policies of various rulers of the time(including Maraata).(from 1760 onwards) Frequently, the rulers resorted to scorched earth policy. And most of the time, no one was able to overpower the other completely. So the wars continued on and off without any decisive victor.

Of course, the policies of jihadhis and the policies of brits seem to have amplified the famine conditions. In fact, the famine followed the spread of brits and their railway network. There was a 20 year famine(or several famines in a 20 year period) immediately after 1857. Do you think that was accident? I think it was deliberately done by the brits.

It was this period when the India, which was previously seen as a golden peacock, came to be associated with extreme poverty in the west. 1857 - 1877. After that, India was regarded(by the west) as a poor country that needed a white man(the brits) to civilize.

By 1900, revolutions were brewing in the desh and by 1920s, it was ominous for the brits. Dear Bapuji enters the picture and delays the freedom by 2 decades.

I think the lesson is to expand the pie. All this reservation or no-reservation is also more or less the continuation of the same phenomenon. People are fighting because the pie is small and is not going to cover everyone's hunger. So, people are always at each other's throats. That allows the sarkaar to decide whom to empower how much. The sarkaar acts as a mai baap(or a referee) between various factions fighting with each other.

The real solution is not reservations and neither is the problem with having reservations. Reservations are an issue only because the pie is small. Once the pie is expanded and all people have enough opportunities, having or not having a reservation will become an irrelevant subject.

Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4089
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Postby Murugan » 30 Oct 2013 20:24

This requires research

Glorius chapter on Battles against invaders by Gurjar Pratihara Rulers, Especially Nagabhata II

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurjara-Pratihara

Historians of India, since the days of Eliphinstone, have wondered at the slow progress of Muslim invaders in India, as compared with their rapid advance in other parts of the world. Arguments of doubtful validity have often been put forward to explain this unique phenomenon. Currently it is believed that it was the power of the Gurjara Pratihara army that effectively barred the progress of the Muslims beyond the confines of Sindh, their first conquest for nearly three hundred years. In the light of later events this might be regarded as the "Chief contribution of the Gurjara Pratiharas to the history of India"

Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1187
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Postby Virendra » 30 Oct 2013 20:57

I would say Gurjara Pratihara were one of the many forces blocking Arabs.
The latter tried to penetrate from many areas.
In Gurjaratra they were defeated by Pulakesin
In Rajasthan they were defeated by Pratiharas and Bappa Rawal.
Up north they were defeated by Muktapida (from Kashmir) and Yashovarman (from Kannauj).
Each of their approaches was terminated by a different Indian power.
It shows that having a fragmented politico-military setup is often overestimated as the reason of invasions successes.
The answers to those questions are a bit more elaborate and complicated than that.

Regards,
Virendra

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16035
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Postby NRao » 30 Oct 2013 21:53

It shows that having a fragmented politico-military setup is often overestimated as the reason of invasions successes.


If the fragments are cohesive enough to withstand an invasion, would that not be enough?

BTW, from the examples you have provided can we deduct that there was fragmentation in the first place? (It does not appear to me that there was - but then I am not familiar with the situation.)

Shanmukh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2828
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Postby Shanmukh » 31 Oct 2013 06:22

NRao wrote:
It shows that having a fragmented politico-military setup is often overestimated as the reason of invasions successes.


If the fragments are cohesive enough to withstand an invasion, would that not be enough?

BTW, from the examples you have provided can we deduct that there was fragmentation in the first place? (It does not appear to me that there was - but then I am not familiar with the situation.)


NRao-ji,
The Gurjara-Pratiharas were at odds with the Chalukyas (and their successors, the Rashtrakutas) over the possession of Lata and Gurjara (roughly today`s Gujarat). In fact, most of the energies of Pratiharas were expended in fighting the Rashtrakutas. The Karkota family (family of Lalitaditya Muktapida) was at odds with most of the north Indian kingdoms, except for Yashovarma of KanyaKubja. So - while the fragmentation was insufficient to give victory to the Arabs, it also prevented the Pratiharas and Karkotas from exploiting their victories over the Arabs. There is hardly any example of any concerted effort from the Pratiharas or the Karkotas (or even the Chalukya-Rashtrakuta empires) to extirpate the Arabs from their Sindhi strongholds. As far as the Indian powers were concerned, the Arabs of Sindh were a sideshow. Most of their martial efforts were directed towards their other Indian neighbours.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48782
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Postby ramana » 31 Oct 2013 06:31

Nageshks, In the GDF History thread can you give more details of the Rastrakutas for their successor states lead to the modern Deccan.

Shanmukh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2828
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Postby Shanmukh » 31 Oct 2013 06:58

ramana wrote:Nageshks, In the GDF History thread can you give more details of the Rastrakutas for their successor states lead to the modern Deccan.


Will try to write up an article over the weekend, Ramana-ji.

Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1187
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Postby Virendra » 01 Nov 2013 11:55

Nagesh ji,

Don't know if it is relavant to your article (deccan focussed?) .. but just to let you know that my (Rathore) clan's roots are arguably traced back to the northern branch of Rashtrakutas.
Our humble beginnings are from Badaun, as feudatories of Gadhavals of Kannauj.


NRao wrote:If the fragments are cohesive enough to withstand an invasion, would that not be enough?
Only from a short term military stand point.
The problem with fragmented power structure gets highlighted when the defender is a prosperous agrarian region, and the invaders are 'nothing to lose' nomads whose entire economies are driven by war.
In such a neighborhood attacks become vicious, continuous and determined. Add to that the tadka of Islamic zeal and lure of grand booty for loot in India.
Now, such invasions can be warded off if the perimeter is strong enough. Once the perimiter falls, enemy sweeps into mainland. And then the kind of socio-economic model that India worked with, is put to test. It was not an easy job to gather good quality armies at a moment's notice in such a setup. The swiftness and agility that nomadic armies displayed was unmatched.
If there is a strong Imperial power to hold things together and keep an eagle's eye check from centre .. the perimeter itself would be well looked after and potent.
Worst of all, even if the perimeter did fall .. there would be a State powerful and urging enough to deal with the problem firsthand and immediately.
India had nothing of that sort in early medieval centuries. From political-military aspect .. there was just a colony of middle size autonomous Kingdoms, each one singing its own tune.[/quote]

Regards,
Virendra

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1194
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Postby peter » 23 Nov 2013 19:42

Virendra wrote:Nagesh ji,

Don't know if it is relavant to your article (deccan focussed?) .. but just to let you know that my (Rathore) clan's roots are arguably traced back to the northern branch of Rashtrakutas.
Our humble beginnings are from Badaun, as feudatories of Gadhavals of Kannauj.

Did Gadhavals and Rathores intermarry?

Virendra wrote:
NRao wrote:If the fragments are cohesive enough to withstand an invasion, would that not be enough?
Only from a short term military stand point.

But India did not have central kingdom which ruled all of India alike Iran did it? How was it defended well till 16th century i.e advent of Akbar?

Virendra wrote:If there is a strong Imperial power to hold things together and keep an eagle's eye check from centre .. the perimeter itself would be well looked after and potent.
Worst of all, even if the perimeter did fall .. there would be a State powerful and urging enough to deal with the problem firsthand and immediately.

Not true. Look at Iran and their run over by Arabs and almost complete conversion at the edge of the sword.

Virendra wrote:India had nothing of that sort in early medieval centuries. From political-military aspect .. there was just a colony of middle size autonomous Kingdoms, each one singing its own tune.


That is precisely the reason that India did not go down the Iran route.

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16035
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Postby NRao » 23 Nov 2013 20:10

Virendra ji,

I just found it fascinating that they could sustain a dispute among themselves and yet withstand one (which I assume was formidable) from outside.

As far as what happens over time, one does not have to go far at all to learn. The past 10 years of India are a very good teaching board.

Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1187
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Postby Virendra » 25 Nov 2013 10:07

peter wrote:
Virendra wrote:Nagesh ji,
Don't know if it is relavant to your article (deccan focussed?) .. but just to let you know that my (Rathore) clan's roots are arguably traced back to the northern branch of Rashtrakutas.
Our humble beginnings are from Badaun, as feudatories of Gadhavals of Kannauj.

Did Gadhavals and Rathores intermarry?

Haven't got a clue. But I'll try to find out.

peter wrote:
Virendra wrote:Only from a short term military stand point.

But India did not have central kingdom which ruled all of India alike Iran did it? How was it defended well till 16th century i.e advent of Akbar?

India wasn't defended so well. By the time Babur arrived on the scene, Turks had been ruling large parts of north India for centuries.
How much the foreigners could rule depended upon the individual strength of remaining native Kingdoms resisting them.
Yet nothing hides the fact that we were conquered and enemy was sitting in large parts of our area.

peter wrote:
Virendra wrote:If there is a strong Imperial power to hold things together and keep an eagle's eye check from centre .. the perimeter itself would be well looked after and potent.
Worst of all, even if the perimeter did fall .. there would be a State powerful and urging enough to deal with the problem firsthand and immediately.

Not true. Look at Iran and their run over by Arabs and almost complete conversion at the edge of the sword.

Iran is a much smaller region and I'm not discounting other factors in front of central Imperial powers.
My intent was to highlight the need of this factor in addition to others like, Cultural and Political vitality in pockets that feeded the decentralized resistance in India.
We lacked the former but had the latter factor. For Iranians it was the opposite.
My point is - for succesfull defense, both factors had to be there.

peter wrote:
Virendra wrote:India had nothing of that sort in early medieval centuries. From political-military aspect .. there was just a colony of middle size autonomous Kingdoms, each one singing its own tune.

That is precisely the reason that India did not go down the Iran route.

Yes unlike Iran we were not converted enmasse to Islam and were not conquered in all spheres of life, or all corners of the country.
I'm not disputing that. I'm only explaining why the invaders were able to penetrate here in the first place. What followed after that is something we all know and broadly agree upon.

Moreover, even before Turks the Arabs had already got a tiny foothold in India.
How did they manage it? They were not fighting a whole nation, but only Dahir's army.
Why only a tiny foothold? 1. Because even without a central imperial power, Indian Kingdoms could still raise temporary alliances to root out the enemy attacks. 2. Not to forget that the clan driven individual Kingdoms themselves were also quite strong to take on the Arabs in long haul.
Despite multiple attempts, Arabs could not proceed beyond Sindh.

Later, even those kind of alliances dried up. We don't see Chauhans, Gadhavals, Chandels or Palas allying.
We don't see Mewar, Marwar and Amber allying.
We don't see Marathas, Jats and Sikhs allying.

NRao wrote:Virendra ji,
I just found it fascinating that they could sustain a dispute among themselves and yet withstand one (which I assume was formidable) from outside.
As far as what happens over time, one does not have to go far at all to learn. The past 10 years of India are a very good teaching board.

I'm not sure how well we can call it sustenance. Yes we survived. But our backs were broken by this constant warfare and it lead to our fall in front of numerous foreign powers one after the other, who continued to rule us - Turks, Mughals, British.

Regards,
Virendra

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1194
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Postby peter » 27 Nov 2013 07:49

peter wrote:
Virendra wrote:Only from a short term military stand point.

But India did not have central kingdom which ruled all of India alike Iran did it? How was it defended well till 16th century i.e advent of Akbar?

Virendra wrote:India wasn't defended so well. By the time Babur arrived on the scene, Turks had been ruling large parts of north India for centuries.
How much the foreigners could rule depended upon the individual strength of remaining native Kingdoms resisting them.

I think this is a fallacy. If India was not defended well how is that India still has so many Hindus? Or do you subscribe to the JNU turd that it was the benevolence of invaders that allowed Hindus to keep their religion?

Virendra wrote:Yet nothing hides the fact that we were conquered and enemy was sitting in large parts of our area.
Time is the issue here. Before the advent of Babur do you feel large parts of India were under Arab/Turk/Afghan rule?

peter wrote:
Virendra wrote:If there is a strong Imperial power to hold things together and keep an eagle's eye check from centre .. the perimeter itself would be well looked after and potent.
Worst of all, even if the perimeter did fall .. there would be a State powerful and urging enough to deal with the problem firsthand and immediately.

Not true. Look at Iran and their run over by Arabs and almost complete conversion at the edge of the sword.

Virendra wrote:Iran is a much smaller region and I'm not discounting other factors in front of central Imperial powers.
My intent was to highlight the need of this factor in addition to others like, Cultural and Political vitality in pockets that feeded the decentralized resistance in India.
We lacked the former but had the latter factor. For Iranians it was the opposite.
My point is - for succesfull defense, both factors had to be there.

But does'nt a strong centre preclude weak states?

peter wrote:
Virendra wrote:India had nothing of that sort in early medieval centuries. From political-military aspect .. there was just a colony of middle size autonomous Kingdoms, each one singing its own tune.

That is precisely the reason that India did not go down the Iran route.

Virendra wrote:Yes unlike Iran we were not converted enmasse to Islam and were not conquered in all spheres of life, or all corners of the country.
I'm not disputing that. I'm only explaining why the invaders were able to penetrate here in the first place. What followed after that is something we all know and broadly agree upon.

But we are also discussing the merit of one system vs the other. Iran model in which the centre collapsed could happen anywhere.
Virendra wrote:Moreover, even before Turks the Arabs had already got a tiny foothold in India.
How did they manage it? They were not fighting a whole nation, but only Dahir's army.
Why only a tiny foothold? 1. Because even without a central imperial power, Indian Kingdoms could still raise temporary alliances to root out the enemy attacks. 2. Not to forget that the clan driven individual Kingdoms themselves were also quite strong to take on the Arabs in long haul.
Despite multiple attempts, Arabs could not proceed beyond Sindh.

Exactly. Do you think the expansion of Caliphate was not attempted in India? What was the reason for not much success till Ghori while countries like egypt/iran/even parts of christian europe fell much sooner.

Virendra wrote:Later, even those kind of alliances dried up. We don't see Chauhans, Gadhavals, Chandels or Palas allying.
We don't see Mewar, Marwar and Amber allying.
We don't see Marathas, Jats and Sikhs allying.

We actually do. Against Babur there were rathores from Jodhpur fighting under the banner of Sanga and almost all other major Rajasthan kingdoms were represented too. Same at Taraori against Ghori in the Chauhan army. Even
Chandela Vidyadhar had solid representation of Rajput clans in his army against Ghazni.
Virendra wrote:
NRao wrote:Virendra ji,
I just found it fascinating that they could sustain a dispute among themselves and yet withstand one (which I assume was formidable) from outside.
As far as what happens over time, one does not have to go far at all to learn. The past 10 years of India are a very good teaching board.

I'm not sure how well we can call it sustenance. Yes we survived. But our backs were broken by this constant warfare and it lead to our fall in front of numerous foreign powers one after the other, who continued to rule us - Turks, Mughals, British.

Regards,
Virendra

Well till the advent of Akbar majority of the time rajputs did not give an inch of land without fighting for it. This broadly represents a period of 800 years from 7th century till 16th century.

Once daughters started to be bartered to Akbar from then on rajputs lost the will to fight and did not resist much. Consequently British had almost no organized rajput resistance.

Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1187
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Postby Virendra » 27 Nov 2013 09:46

peter wrote:I think this is a fallacy. If India was not defended well how is that India still has so many Hindus? Or do you subscribe to the JNU turd that it was the benevolence of invaders that allowed Hindus to keep their religion?

You are talking about religious conversions and I am talking about politico-military landscape.
I would be one of the last persons on this planet to accept association with JNU turds, lefties and communists.
And yes, Hindus kept their religion not because of one but many reasons.
a) The common Hindu still wanted to remain a Hindu.
b) There was local politico-limitary resistance in pockets that allowed him to shield from the invaders.
c) Invaders though barbaric and furious, were a pure military machine. Hence had limited influence in the larger picture.
One cannot expect a military machine of few tens of thousands soldiers to convert an entire nation of tens of million people.
Indians have their religion encoded in their daily lives. It is not something they just show in their resume. It is something that breathes with them.
Not easy to get past it. But then .. I wasn't talking about religion in the first place.

peter wrote:
Virendra wrote:Yet nothing hides the fact that we were conquered and enemy was sitting in large parts of our area.
Time is the issue here. Before the advent of Babur do you feel large parts of India were under Arab/Turk/Afghan rule?

I never said entire India. Large parts of north India were indeed in Turkish rule.
Sindh had fallen since Arabs came.
Punjab had fallen since Mahmud came.
Delhi-Agra region had fallen since Khiljis.
Gangetic belt till Bihar-Bengal was conquered by Turks soon enough.
Last regions they covered included Kashmir.

In all this I haven't counted central India (of Chandels), Malwa, and hilly regions of Himachal. Only because those are gray areas where ruling power kept switching hands between sides.

peter wrote:
Virendra wrote:If there is a strong Imperial power to hold things together and keep an eagle's eye check from centre .. the perimeter itself would be well looked after and potent.
Worst of all, even if the perimeter did fall .. there would be a State powerful and urging enough to deal with the problem firsthand and immediately.

Not true. Look at Iran and their run over by Arabs and almost complete conversion at the edge of the sword.

Iran was a tiny state in front of the Imperially driven Arab juggernaut. Moreover, I've already said that Iran had the factor that India lacked, but it also didn't have the factor that India had (clannish states with local capacity of raising armies for pocketed resistance).
I'm not discounting one thing against the other. All I'm saying is, best defense would be to have both factors.

peter wrote:
Virendra wrote:Iran is a much smaller region and I'm not discounting other factors in front of central Imperial powers.
My intent was to highlight the need of this factor in addition to others like, Cultural and Political vitality in pockets that feeded the decentralized resistance in India.
We lacked the former but had the latter factor. For Iranians it was the opposite.
My point is - for succesfull defense, both factors had to be there.

But does'nt a strong centre preclude weak states?

No it doesn't. Mauryas, Guptas and Harshavardhan's weren't weak states. Sycthians and Huns were well fought off.

peter wrote:
Virendra wrote:Yes unlike Iran we were not converted enmasse to Islam and were not conquered in all spheres of life, or all corners of the country.
I'm not disputing that. I'm only explaining why the invaders were able to penetrate here in the first place. What followed after that is something we all know and broadly agree upon.

But we are also discussing the merit of one system vs the other. Iran model in which the centre collapsed could happen anywhere.

I don't think we can compare the two. Because the two models have to co-exist to give a proper defense to any well sized civilization.
In our case, post Harshavardhan there wasn't a national conscious at the politico-military level that would sense a danger in time and say "Hey this invader around the border needs to be warded off. Lets charge the Imperial army forward and if needed bring the other forces together as well."
All that happened was the reactive decentralized resistance after the enemy had penetrated in. Each to his own.

peter wrote:
Virendra wrote:Moreover, even before Turks the Arabs had already got a tiny foothold in India.
How did they manage it? They were not fighting a whole nation, but only Dahir's army.
Why only a tiny foothold? 1. Because even without a central imperial power, Indian Kingdoms could still raise temporary alliances to root out the enemy attacks. 2. Not to forget that the clan driven individual Kingdoms themselves were also quite strong to take on the Arabs in long haul.
Despite multiple attempts, Arabs could not proceed beyond Sindh.

Exactly. Do you think the expansion of Caliphate was not attempted in India? What was the reason for not much success till Ghori while countries like egypt/iran/even parts of christian europe fell much sooner.

If you read the quote again, I have already given the reason for 1. Why they could get in and for 2. why only win so little.
The following applies more or less all the medieval invaders of India:
They could win here because the defense wasn't proactive, strong and intellectually awaken.
They could win only so little, because though pocketed and decentralized, still there was resistance.

Like I said before, how much each invader succceeded, depends on many factors including the strength of individual Kingdoms and degree+nature of alliances put up.
As the factors kept weighing variedly over time, so was the extent of success of these invaders.

peter wrote:
Virendra wrote:Later, even those kind of alliances dried up. We don't see Chauhans, Gadhavals, Chandels or Palas allying.
We don't see Mewar, Marwar and Amber allying.
We don't see Marathas, Jats and Sikhs allying.

We actually do. Against Babur there were rathores from Jodhpur fighting under the banner of Sanga and almost all other major Rajasthan kingdoms were represented too. Same at Taraori against Ghori in the Chauhan army. Even
Chandela Vidyadhar had solid representation of Rajput clans in his army against Ghazni.

I'm not talking about one brigade of a Kingdom appearing in the ranks of another for once, at the last moment.
Such impromptu alliances don't work very well.
There is hardly a common plan, no co-ordination across the different factions.
Against the agile, nomadic, zealous, nothing to lose and religiously driven barbaric enemies .. you don't put up last minute huddle of different kinds of platoons and hope to win.
Besides, these few examples of Rathors showing up in Mewar army etc are regional small scale alliances (that too owing to the sense of 'Bhaayad' i.e. brotherhood among Rajputs).
They achieved but only so little when we look at the bigger picture.
Fine, Rajputana was saved. What about India?

peter wrote:
Virendra wrote:I'm not sure how well we can call it sustenance. Yes we survived. But our backs were broken by this constant warfare and it lead to our fall in front of numerous foreign powers one after the other, who continued to rule us - Turks, Mughals, British.

Well till the advent of Akbar majority of the time rajputs did not give an inch of land without fighting for it. This broadly represents a period of 800 years from 7th century till 16th century.

First, I don't know why we're talking only about Rajputs. India was 20 times larger than medieval Rajputana.
Second, I don't disagree on the fight part by even 0.1 percent. But Indian land did go in enemy hands well before Akbar, didn't it? That is what I'm saying.

Regards,
Virendra

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1194
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Postby peter » 28 Nov 2013 09:41

Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:I think this is a fallacy. If India was not defended well how is that India still has so many Hindus? ....

You are talking about religious conversions and I am talking about politico-military landscape.
........
And yes, Hindus kept their religion not because of one but many reasons.
a) The common Hindu still wanted to remain a Hindu.
b) There was local politico-limitary resistance in pockets that allowed him to shield from the invaders.
c) Invaders though barbaric and furious, were a pure military machine. Hence had limited influence in the larger picture.
One cannot expect a military machine of few tens of thousands soldiers to convert an entire nation of tens of million people.

a) The common Parsi in Iran also wanted to remain a Parsi. No difference with the Hindu in India.
c) Why did the invaders have such a large influence in Iran on Parsis?
Forget tens of thousands let us talk about a few hundred first. How do you describe the dramatic expansion and increase in followers of Islam within a few hundred years of its beginning?

Virendra wrote:Indians have their religion encoded in their daily lives. It is not something they just show in their resume. It is something that breathes with them.
Not easy to get past it. But then .. I wasn't talking about religion in the first place.

Do you think this was not true for Parsis who lived in Iran?

peter wrote:
Virendra wrote:Yet nothing hides the fact that we were conquered and enemy was sitting in large parts of our area.
Time is the issue here. Before the advent of Babur do you feel large parts of India were under Arab/Turk/Afghan rule?

Virendra wrote:I never said entire India. Large parts of north India were indeed in Turkish rule.
Sindh had fallen since Arabs came.
Punjab had fallen since Mahmud came.
Delhi-Agra region had fallen since Khiljis.
Gangetic belt till Bihar-Bengal was conquered by Turks soon enough.
Last regions they covered included Kashmir.

Regarding Sindh: Most of it was reconquered within a short time. If you believe Tod, James Bappa Rawal was instrumental in achieving this. A pocket of Arabs survived because near (MulSthan) Multan because the temple was threatened whenever the Hindus wanted to expel them.

Panjab was under the sway of Pundir Rajputs at the time of Prithviraj Chauhan which is a period of almost 200 years post Mahmud Ghazni.

Delhi-Agra region is an extremely small region and the Khiljis are a 12th/13th century tribe. Chauhans of Ranthambore, Siwana and Jalore fought with them. They reached pinnacle under Alauddin and after him they lost their grip.

Large parts of Gangetic plains were ruled by rajputs and there were many revolts almost constantly. It was not the case the writ of invaders ran over a large dominion.

In general my observation is that people assume that almost all of north/central/east/west India was under the sway of invaders since the first war that Dahir lost till the British came.

peter wrote:
Virendra wrote:If there is a strong Imperial power to hold things together and keep an eagle's eye check from centre .. the perimeter itself would be well looked after and potent.
Worst of all, even if the perimeter did fall .. there would be a State powerful and urging enough to deal with the problem firsthand and immediately.

Not true. Look at Iran and their run over by Arabs and almost complete conversion at the edge of the sword.

Virendra wrote:Iran was a tiny state in front of the Imperially driven Arab juggernaut.

Iran was not at all tiny in resources/man power compared to the Arabs. Their political organization was to blame. Once the king got defeated and was on the run no one else could stand up and fight. We cannot discount the conversion of Iranians as a factor either. In India as a contrast people did loose wars but they came back and fought. Look at history of Mewar. Khiljis took it over, a far smaller region then Iran, for some decades the clan prepared and regrouped under the leadership of Hammir and drove the Khiljis out. Even the name Islampur for Chittor never stuck. And it goes without saying that Jauhar and Saka caused the people to not covert.


Virendra wrote:Moreover, I've already said that Iran had the factor that India lacked, but it also didn't have the factor that India had (clannish states with local capacity of raising armies for pocketed resistance).
I'm not discounting one thing against the other. All I'm saying is, best defense would be to have both factors.

It is not easy to have both factors because they are in opposition to each other. Look at modern India. If god forbid Delhi was to fall can there be organized resistance by say Bihar or Orissa?

peter wrote:
Virendra wrote:Iran is a much smaller region and I'm not discounting other factors in front of central Imperial powers.
My intent was to highlight the need of this factor in addition to others like, Cultural and Political vitality in pockets that feeded the decentralized resistance in India.
We lacked the former but had the latter factor. For Iranians it was the opposite.
My point is - for succesfull defense, both factors had to be there.

But does'nt a strong centre preclude weak states?

Virendra wrote:No it doesn't. Mauryas, Guptas and Harshavardhan's weren't weak states. Sycthians and Huns were well fought off.

The shelf life of strong centres is much smaller. Harshavardhan's kingdom fell into disarray immediately after his demise. Mauryas ruled perhaps for 200-300 years and same for Guptas maybe slightly longer but not much. But look at Mewar they have had an unbroken chain for something like 1000+ years.

peter wrote:
Virendra wrote:Yes unlike Iran we were not converted enmasse to Islam and were not conquered in all spheres of life, or all corners of the country.
I'm not disputing that. I'm only explaining why the invaders were able to penetrate here in the first place. What followed after that is something we all know and broadly agree upon.

But we are also discussing the merit of one system vs the other. Iran model in which the centre collapsed could happen anywhere.

Virendra wrote:In our case, post Harshavardhan there wasn't a national conscious at the politico-military level that would sense a danger in time and say "Hey this invader around the border needs to be warded off. Lets charge the Imperial army forward and if needed bring the other forces together as well."
All that happened was the reactive decentralized resistance after the enemy had penetrated in. Each to his own.

This is not true. By and large each king in India behaved very identically.
a) They fought.
b) They did loose.
c) If they lost they made sure that they either died fighting and their women were not dishonoured i.e Saka and Jauhar.
d) They always tried to smuggle some little ones out of an impending annihilation so that the struggle could continue later.

Unfortunately this strategy is not understood by most. It is only when no legitimate claimant remained alive for a kingdom that the fight to regain the vatan of that clan/kingdom extinguished.

peter wrote:
Virendra wrote:Later, even those kind of alliances dried up. We don't see Chauhans, Gadhavals, Chandels or Palas allying.
We don't see Mewar, Marwar and Amber allying.
We don't see Marathas, Jats and Sikhs allying.

We actually do. Against Babur there were rathores from Jodhpur fighting under the banner of Sanga and almost all other major Rajasthan kingdoms were represented too. Same at Taraori against Ghori in the Chauhan army. Even
Chandela Vidyadhar had solid representation of Rajput clans in his army against Ghazni.

Virendra wrote:I'm not talking about one brigade of a Kingdom appearing in the ranks of another for once, at the last moment.
Such impromptu alliances don't work very well.

Point is that the alliances existed and happened many a time. People usually generalize, even in books, that Indians had no alliances and hence they fell.
In my opinion this is a cop out to describe why Indians lost wars. Take Babur and Sanga battle. I have written up about it in some earlier pages. Have you read it? Yet most books say Rajputs lost because:
a) They did not put up a united front (Not true in this case)
b) Babur had better trained army (Not true either. His advance guard of 1500 horsemen was cut to pieces in a matter of an hour and scared the shit out his army).
c) Babur had artillery! (If you read Baburnama he had couple of cannons and after one firing you had to wait close to an hour before the next shot could be fired. He himself says that cannons were not much used.).
d) Babur was a better strategiest. (He was great at intrigue and broke Sanga's general Silahadi. This is a common theme where the intrigue of the invaders is never highlighted. Indians unfortunately were a bit gullible and the rajputs never forgot their insult from past and to avenge the insult allied with an invader against their own master. It is a character flaw).

And so on.

Virendra wrote:They achieved but only so little when we look at the bigger picture.
Fine, Rajputana was saved. What about India?

I thought it was only the duty of rajputs to defend the country :)!

peter wrote:
Virendra wrote:I'm not sure how well we can call it sustenance. Yes we survived. But our backs were broken by this constant warfare and it lead to our fall in front of numerous foreign powers one after the other, who continued to rule us - Turks, Mughals, British.

Well till the advent of Akbar majority of the time rajputs did not give an inch of land without fighting for it. This broadly represents a period of 800 years from 7th century till 16th century.

Virendra wrote:First, I don't know why we're talking only about Rajputs. India was 20 times larger than medieval Rajputana.
Second, I don't disagree on the fight part by even 0.1 percent. But Indian land did go in enemy hands well before Akbar, didn't it? That is what I'm saying.

But there is big difference before and after Akbar. Before Rajputs were independent and never bowed to an invader. Post Akbar they became subservient in their own land.

I am surprised you do not see the difference pre and post Akbar. Akbar's rule was a watershed in rajput history and not many historians are aware of it because they consider Akbar an epitome of Indian secularism. Any one opposing him was a villain. Anyone aligned with him was "doing the right thing".

Same is true for today. We have bootlickers who lick their bosses feet, or MLA/MP IAS or IPS or anyother joker.

Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1187
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Postby Virendra » 28 Nov 2013 11:52

Double Post. Deleted
Last edited by Virendra on 28 Nov 2013 12:03, edited 1 time in total.

Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1187
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Postby Virendra » 28 Nov 2013 12:02

peter wrote:a) The common Parsi in Iran also wanted to remain a Parsi. No difference with the Hindu in India.

Wants does not translate into vitality and resistance automatically. Quick conversions in Iran have shown that.
peter wrote:c) Why did the invaders have such a large influence in Iran on Parsis?
Because the military and political victory in Iran was complete.
peter wrote:Forget tens of thousands let us talk about a few hundred first. How do you describe the dramatic expansion and increase in followers of Islam within a few hundred years of its beginning?

As far as India is concerned, there is nothing dramatic about it. Conversions in India have proceeded with a slow speed. There have been tiny spikes only at the time sand places where the marauding hordes of invaders visited.
For the rest of the world, they had state sponsored religions .. unlike India where there were no religions but only a way of life practiced by each and every person on a daily basis. You cannot catch and beat what is in the air itself. Such is the cultural vitality here.

peter wrote:Do you think this was not true for Parsis who lived in Iran?

I don't know. I only know of Indians.

peter wrote:Regarding Sindh: Most of it was reconquered within a short time. If you believe Tod, James Bappa Rawal was instrumental in achieving this. A pocket of Arabs survived because near (MulSthan) Multan because the temple was threatened whenever the Hindus wanted to expel them.

Not just Multan. Mansurah also was under Arabs and later under the Habbaris dynasty after the empire melted away in late 9th century. Moreover, the Kingdom of Sindh at that time was not as tiny as it shows on the map today. It involved parts of Baluchistan and Punjab.

peter wrote:Panjab was under the sway of Pundir Rajputs at the time of Prithviraj Chauhan which is a period of almost 200 years post Mahmud Ghazni.
Only to be taken back by Ghori. He didn't just jump to PrithviRaj Chauhan's land.

peter wrote:Delhi-Agra region is an extremely small region and the Khiljis are a 12th/13th century tribe. Chauhans of Ranthambore, Siwana and Jalore fought with them. They reached pinnacle under Alauddin and after him they lost their grip.

Again you talk about fighting and I'm talking about Politico-Military existence of enemy inside India.
Delhi-Agra was the first seat of Turks. This was the place they ruled directly. Remaining of Gangetic underbelly (till Bihar-Bengal) was ruled indirectly via intermediaries.
Yes they had to fight and yes their influence kept varying. But my point stands as they were standing in our area.

peter wrote:Large parts of Gangetic plains were ruled by rajputs and there were many revolts almost constantly. It was not the case the writ of invaders ran over a large dominion.

In most of the Kingdoms .. writ doesn't run like that anyway. The state keeps its hold via intermediaries and feudatories, be it a native dynasty or some foreigner. Change happened at the top.

peter wrote:In general my observation is that people assume that almost all of north/central/east/west India was under the sway of invaders since the first war that Dahir lost till the British came.
Not my assertion.

peter wrote:Iran was not at all tiny in resources/man power compared to the Arabs. Their political organization was to blame. Once the king got defeated and was on the run no one else could stand up and fight.

As I've said many times before and am growing tired of repeating. I am not discounting one factor's presence against another.
I stand for presence of both the factors as the best defense.

peter wrote:We cannot discount the conversion of Iranians as a factor either. In India as a contrast people did loose wars but they came back and fought. Look at history of Mewar. Khiljis took it over, a far smaller region then Iran, for some decades the clan prepared and regrouped under the leadership of Hammir and drove the Khiljis out. Even the name Islampur for Chittor never stuck. And it goes without saying that Jauhar and Saka caused the people to not covert.
I am well aware and have not refuted all this anywhere.

peter wrote:It is not easy to have both factors because they are in opposition to each other. Look at modern India. If god forbid Delhi was to fall can there be organized resistance by say Bihar or Orissa?

Depends on what kind of State it is at the Centre, what its policies are and how much of centralization exists.
Too much of anything is bad.
Iran was too much centralized (like Dahir's Kingdom) and India was too much decentralized.

peter wrote:The shelf life of strong centres is much smaller. Harshavardhan's kingdom fell into disarray immediately after his demise. Mauryas ruled perhaps for 200-300 years and same for Guptas maybe slightly longer but not much. But look at Mewar they have had an unbroken chain for something like 1000+ years.

Mewar had a dynastic rule lead by a lead clan. There you have your degree of centralization.
There was a council of Ministers that had plenty of powers and could moderate with the King successfully.
Military was clannish but owing allegiance to the Mewar State and its lead clan. Those are your decentralizations.
(This clannish hierarchy system did not exist outside Rajputana and hence Rajput rulers could never establish national empires.)
Did Mewar never had any bad and weak rulers? Well it did, many of them. What save Mewar and its people then?
The fact that Mewar was neither too centralized (dependent on one family of deriving power) and neither too decentralized (various Chieftains and their clans owed allegiance to the Mewari State lead by one clan).

peter wrote:This is not true. By and large each king in India behaved very identically.
a) They fought.
b) They did loose.
c) If they lost they made sure that they either died fighting and their women were not dishonoured i.e Saka and Jauhar.
d) They always tried to smuggle some little ones out of an impending annihilation so that the struggle could continue later.

And yet again we're back at "struggle", "fight". I have no more will to debate on this line as I never intended and never made any points to avoke such a debate.

peter wrote:I thought it was only the duty of rajputs to defend the country :)!

Did Rajputs exist in power an large scale outside Rajputana?
Rajputs saved where they dwelled .. the lands they ruled and kept. Outside that .. well whoever ruled those lands would know and care. That is what the medieval norm was.

peter wrote:I am surprised you do not see the difference pre and post Akbar.
I see the difference. My point is that he was not the first foreign ruler to issue farmans from the Indian soil and back then as you say rightly that Rajputs were independents. So what went wrong?

Regards,
Virendra

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1194
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Postby peter » 02 Dec 2013 05:25

Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:a) The common Parsi in Iran also wanted to remain a Parsi. No difference with the Hindu in India.

Wants does not translate into vitality and resistance automatically. Quick conversions in Iran have shown that.

Quick conversion there was under coercion. In India the coercion did not work because there was strong resistance and the writ of invaders did not run over large areas for long enough duration. Wherever the invaders ruled the density of conversions was highest.

Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:c) Why did the invaders have such a large influence in Iran on Parsis?
Because the military and political victory in Iran was complete.

peter wrote:Forget tens of thousands let us talk about a few hundred first. How do you describe the dramatic expansion and increase in followers of Islam within a few hundred years of its beginning?

Virendra wrote:As far as India is concerned, there is nothing dramatic about it. Conversions in India have proceeded with a slow speed.

Not at all. It was the solemn duty of every invader to get as many people converted as possible. The "slow speed" was because of resistance encountered and not because of any inherent quality in Hindu religion.

Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:Regarding Sindh: Most of it was reconquered within a short time. If you believe Tod, James Bappa Rawal was instrumental in achieving this. A pocket of Arabs survived because near (MulSthan) Multan because the temple was threatened whenever the Hindus wanted to expel them.

Not just Multan. Mansurah also was under Arabs and later under the Habbaris dynasty after the empire melted away in late 9th century. Moreover, the Kingdom of Sindh at that time was not as tiny as it shows on the map today. It involved parts of Baluchistan and Punjab.
Do you know of a chain of Arab kings/chieftains who ruled from the time of bin Qasim to the time Mahmud Ghazni in Sindh?

Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:Panjab was under the sway of Pundir Rajputs at the time of Prithviraj Chauhan which is a period of almost 200 years post Mahmud Ghazni.
Only to be taken back by Ghori. He didn't just jump to PrithviRaj Chauhan's land.

Ofcourse. But note the time difference. Bin Qasim: 700 some A.D. M Ghazni: 1000 AD or so. Ghori 1190+ A.D. The impression most people have is that all of west india was under the sway of invaders starting 700 some AD and that is absolutely untrue. Large parts of India in the west remained in the hands of rajputs.


Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:Delhi-Agra region is an extremely small region and the Khiljis are a 12th/13th century tribe. Chauhans of Ranthambore, Siwana and Jalore fought with them. They reached pinnacle under Alauddin and after him they lost their grip.

Again you talk about fighting and I'm talking about Politico-Military existence of enemy inside India.

No one is denying their existence. The debate is how large an area they controlled and why they did not have spectacular success like they had in Iran and rest of the world compared to India.

Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:Iran was not at all tiny in resources/man power compared to the Arabs. Their political organization was to blame. Once the king got defeated and was on the run no one else could stand up and fight.

As I've said many times before and am growing tired of repeating. I am not discounting one factor's presence against another.
I stand for presence of both the factors as the best defense.

Your stand is fine but the evidence from India actually shows that the reason it survived the onslaught of invaders extremely well was because of the way hindu kingdoms were distributed throughout the country. Let me quote from this book by William Hunter: "The Indian Empire, Its People, History And Products":

Within a hundred years after his (Muhammad's) death, his followers had invaded the countries of Asia as far as the Hindu Kush. Here their progress was stayed and Islam had to consolidate itself during three more centuries before it grew strong enough to grasp the rich prize of India. But almost from first the Arabs had fixed eager eyes upon that wealthy country. Fifteen years after the death of prophet, Usman sent a sea expedition to Thana and Broach on the Bombay coast (647 ? AD). Other raids towards Sindh took place in 662 and 664 with no results.

The armies of Islam had carried the crescent from the Hindu Kush westwards, through Asia, Africa and Southern Europe, to distant Spain and Gaul, before they obtained a foothold in Punjab. This long delay was due, not only to the daring of individual tribes, such as Sindh Rajputs, just mentioned but to the military organization of the Hindu Kingdoms.

Each of these groups of kingdoms, alike in the north and in the south, had a certain power of coherence to oppose to a foreign invader; while the large number of groups and units rendered conquest a very tedious process. For even when the overlord or central authority was vanquished, the separate units had to be defeated in detail, and each state supplied a nucleus for subsequent revolt. We have seen how the brilliant attempt in 711, to found a lasting Muhammedan dynasty in Sindh, failed. Three centuries later, the utmost efforts of two great Musalman invaders (Mahmud of Ghazni and Mohammed Ghori) from the north-west only succeeded in annexing a small portion of the frontier Punjab Province between 977 and 1176 A.D. The Hindu power in Southern India was not completely broken till the battle of Talikot in 1565; and within a hundred years, in 1650, the great Hindu revival had commenced which under the form of Maratha confederacy, was destined to break up the Mughal Empire in India. That Empire, even in the north of India, had only been consolidated by Akbar's policy of incorporating Hindu chiefs into his government(1556-1605). Up to Akbar's time, and even during the earlier years of his reign a series of Rajput wars had challenged the Muhammadan supremacy. In less than two centuries after his death, the successor of Akbar was a puppet in the hand of the Hindu marathas at Delhi.

The popular notion that India fell an easy prey to the Musalmans is opposed to the historical facts. Muhammadan rule in India consists of a series of invasions and partial conquests, during eleven centuries, from Usman's raid, circ.647, to Ahmad Shah's tempest of invasion in 1761 A.D.

At no time was Islam triumphant throughout the whole of India. Hindu dynasties always ruled over large areas. At the height of the Muhammadan power, the hindu princes paid tribute, and sent agents to the Imperial court. But even this modified supremacy of Delhi lasted for little over a century (1578-1707). Before the end of that brief period the Hindus had begun the work of reconquest. The native chivalry of Rajputana was closing in upon Delhi from the south; the religious confederation of the Sikhs was growing into a military power on the north-west. The Marathas had combined the fighting powers of the low-castes with the statesmen ship of the Brahmans, and were subjecting the Muhammadan kingdoms throughout all India to tribute. So far as can now be estimated, the advance of the English power at the beginning of the present century alone saved the Mughal Empire from passing to the Hindus.



Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:The shelf life of strong centres is much smaller. Harshavardhan's kingdom fell into disarray immediately after his demise. Mauryas ruled perhaps for 200-300 years and same for Guptas maybe slightly longer but not much. But look at Mewar they have had an unbroken chain for something like 1000+ years.

Mewar had a dynastic rule lead by a lead clan. There you have your degree of centralization.

Yes but if Mewar was only kingdom in entire India and it was defeated, as it certainly was at multiple points in history, we may have had a similar situation to what happened in Iran. The fact that India had many "Mewars" is what caused it to withstand the shock of the invasions.
Virendra wrote:Did Mewar never had any bad and weak rulers? Well it did, many of them. What save Mewar and its people then?
The fact that Mewar was neither too centralized (dependent on one family of deriving power) and neither too decentralized (various Chieftains and their clans owed allegiance to the Mewari State lead by one clan).

No. The reason Mewar was reconquered time and again by rajputs was because there was always a member of the ruling clan who was able to rally the Sardars under his banner to throw out the occupiers of his land. The reason Chauhans did not go after Delhi was because all sons of Prithiviraj died. The reason Ranathambore was not reconquered by Chauhans because all sons of Hammir Chauhan were killed. Even his extended family had perished. There are a very small number of exceptions.

Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:This is not true. By and large each king in India behaved very identically.
a) They fought.
b) They did loose.
c) If they lost they made sure that they either died fighting and their women were not dishonoured i.e Saka and Jauhar.
d) They always tried to smuggle some little ones out of an impending annihilation so that the struggle could continue later.

And yet again we're back at "struggle", "fight". I have no more will to debate on this line as I never intended and never made any points to avoke such a debate.
Sorry perhaps did not clarify well enough. I have heard many arguments over the years that Hindus in India remained Hindus because of some inherent strength of Hinduism. The argument makes no sense when conversion or beheading/hanging are the only alternatives. What people do not realise is that "struggle", "fight" is the reason why India still has its ancient religion. This has been captured well by Rajasthani Dingal couplet:

Aase Ghar Durgo Nahi hoto, Sunnat hoti saranki...



Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:I am surprised you do not see the difference pre and post Akbar.
I see the difference. My point is that he was not the first foreign ruler to issue farmans from the Indian soil and back then as you say rightly that Rajputs were independents. So what went wrong?

Issuing of farmaans is not of concern here rather the independence of rajput kingdoms. Prior to Akbar they were not subservient, en masse, to an invader. Yes they were conquered but they fought back. The only difference between the times before and after Akbar is the giving of daughters which had a psychological impact on the collective psyche of rajputana. What is the opinion of people in rajasthan?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16035
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Postby NRao » 02 Dec 2013 07:08

c) Why did the invaders have such a large influence in Iran on Parsis?

Because the military and political victory in Iran was complete.


I assume this relates to why Indians were not converted into Muslims (as opposed to other societies) ........... (I have not read most, if not all, previous posts).

One of the reasons, rather the main reason, that I had heard decades ago, is that India has never been one society. India is a multi-society state that had a common religion. The geographic area had multiple languages, multiple everything, but one religion. So, to some extent invaders did manage conversions locally, but total was not possible.

The second reason was the ability of Indians (and religion) to absorb what was considered foreign things, into their own culture - music, dance, etc - without replacing the old.

Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1187
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Postby Virendra » 02 Dec 2013 13:36

peter wrote:Quick conversion there was under coercion. In India the coercion did not work because there was strong resistance and the writ of invaders did not run over large areas for long enough duration. Wherever the invaders ruled the density of conversions was highest.
I don't disagree, but that is not the only factor. Else there won't be such large population of Hindus in areas of direct muslim rule. Besides, I've already said that hordes of cavalry, swinging hunters applying co-ercion is all good for terrorizing a place and getting temporary influence. But running proper writ over vast lands doesn't happen like that. One has to rule indirectly .. via middleman.
That is how Imperial powers (including Mughals) have always ruled.

peter wrote:Not at all. It was the solemn duty of every invader to get as many people converted as possible. The "slow speed" was because of resistance encountered and not because of any inherent quality in Hindu religion.

And why would they resist so hard if they didn't take pride in their culture, way of life etc? Everyone, including you, would call the resistance as "Hindu dynasties".
I have said what I had to. Will not repeat.

peter wrote:Do you know of a chain of Arab kings/chieftains who ruled from the time of bin Qasim to the time Mahmud Ghazni in Sindh?
I believe Sindh was ruled by Arabs as an outpost, so there won't be a separate Sindh rulers list. But only Governors who were sent one after the other. Will try to find out anyway.

peter wrote:Ofcourse. But note the time difference. Bin Qasim: 700 some A.D. M Ghazni: 1000 AD or so. Ghori 1190+ A.D. The impression most people have is that all of west india was under the sway of invaders starting 700 some AD and that is absolutely untrue. Large parts of India in the west remained in the hands of rajputs.
I don't hold such generalizations, but differences of perceptions are a common thing.
Can you tell me a good source on Pundhirs?

peter wrote:No one is denying their existence. The debate is how large an area they controlled and why they did not have spectacular success like they had in Iran and rest of the world compared to India.

Then we're talking about different points. I don't advocate the line that majority of north India was controlled by Turks but yes they did hold large parts of land. That is why they are seen to have given iqtas in gangetic plains and on one or two occasions in Nagaur as well (by Balban).

peter wrote:Yes but if Mewar was only kingdom in entire India and it was defeated, as it certainly was at multiple points in history, we may have had a similar situation to what happened in Iran. The fact that India had many "Mewars" is what caused it to withstand the shock of the invasions.

You are confusing between Imperial powers and mid sized Kingdoms. I never asked for one Kingdom.
There had to be an Imperial empire that would rule the semi-autonomous Kingdoms from centre.
What was needed was plenty of Mewars (and no there weren't enough Mewars or else gangetic plains won't fall to Turks) and a Mauryan/Gupta type of overseeing central empire.

Virendra wrote:No. The reason Mewar was reconquered time and again by rajputs was because there was always a member of the ruling clan who was able to rally the Sardars under his banner to throw out the occupiers of his land. The reason Chauhans did not go after Delhi was because all sons of Prithiviraj died. The reason Ranathambore was not reconquered by Chauhans because all sons of Hammir Chauhan were killed. Even his extended family had perished. There are a very small number of exceptions.

That is what I've said. Royal family was not the be-all to-all of the Kingdom. Thus not too much centralization.
These were clan based Kingdoms where one clan would take lead and other clans in the region would have allegiance. Not too much decentralization either.

peter wrote:Issuing of farmaans is not of concern here rather the independence of rajput kingdoms. Prior to Akbar they were not subservient, en masse, to an invader. Yes they were conquered but they fought back. The only difference between the times before and after Akbar is the giving of daughters which had a psychological impact on the collective psyche of rajputana. What is the opinion of people in rajasthan?

You're missing my point. I don't disagree on Raputs Independence and resistance and the fall of it.
How could a foreign ruler (before Akbar) issue farmans from within India while Rajputs were still Independent and as you say there were plenty of Mewars in India?
Since you didn't answer it last time. Let me answer myself.
It was because there wasn't a centre. India was a colony of Kingdoms. You could pick them one by one.

Regards,
Virendra

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1194
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Postby peter » 03 Dec 2013 04:40

Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:Quick conversion there was under coercion. In India the coercion did not work because there was strong resistance and the writ of invaders did not run over large areas for long enough duration. Wherever the invaders ruled the density of conversions was highest.
I don't disagree, but that is not the only factor. Else there won't be such large population of Hindus in areas of direct muslim rule.

What methods do you think were employed for conversion? This is a rather important but overlooked point.

Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:Not at all. It was the solemn duty of every invader to get as many people converted as possible. The "slow speed" was because of resistance encountered and not because of any inherent quality in Hindu religion.

And why would they resist so hard if they didn't take pride in their culture, way of life etc? Everyone, including you, would call the resistance as "Hindu dynasties".
I have said what I had to. Will not repeat.

The claim that most of the academics including our own JNU/AMU make is that invaders were benevolent and did not do any conversions. Most all conversions were through peaceful Sufis and the Hindus believe that it was the strength of their religion and their way of life which allowed them to remain Hindu.

I am forced to repeat that when the choice is between getting beheaded/hanged or getting your religion changed which one do ordinary people take?

The many hundred hindu kings who could not be conquered in total or continuosly in time is the reason why Hinduism still exists in India. And do not forget the densities that you see today are post partition densities of converts. Pre partition the picture was different.

Look at Bangladesh and Pakistan. These regions had almost complete uproot of Hindu kings for the longest time and thus had highest density of conversions. Even many rajputs in these lands converted to safegaurd their properties.

Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:Do you know of a chain of Arab kings/chieftains who ruled from the time of bin Qasim to the time Mahmud Ghazni in Sindh?
I believe Sindh was ruled by Arabs as an outpost, so there won't be a separate Sindh rulers list. But only Governors who were sent one after the other. Will try to find out anyway.
Great. It was a small pocket of Arabs.

Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:Ofcourse. But note the time difference. Bin Qasim: 700 some A.D. M Ghazni: 1000 AD or so. Ghori 1190+ A.D. The impression most people have is that all of west india was under the sway of invaders starting 700 some AD and that is absolutely untrue. Large parts of India in the west remained in the hands of rajputs.
I don't hold such generalizations, but differences of perceptions are a common thing.
Can you tell me a good source on Pundhirs?
Pundirs are spread in villages in Panjab, Haryana and Western UP. After their kings lost the population just moved into jungles and created new villages by clearing the dhak jungles. Chand bardai has some details and so does Prithivraj Vijay.

Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:No one is denying their existence. The debate is how large an area they controlled and why they did not have spectacular success like they had in Iran and rest of the world compared to India.

Then we're talking about different points. I don't advocate the line that majority of north India was controlled by Turks but yes they did hold large parts of land. That is why they are seen to have given iqtas in gangetic plains and on one or two occasions in Nagaur as well (by Balban).
Sure but the question is what was the length in time of the control exerted by the Balbans? See Chittor was also conquered multiple times. Khilji had it for couple of decades. But the control switched.

Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:Yes but if Mewar was only kingdom in entire India and it was defeated, as it certainly was at multiple points in history, we may have had a similar situation to what happened in Iran. The fact that India had many "Mewars" is what caused it to withstand the shock of the invasions.

You are confusing between Imperial powers and mid sized Kingdoms. I never asked for one Kingdom.
But a strong centre is only a "one Kingdom".
Virendra wrote:There had to be an Imperial empire that would rule the semi-autonomous Kingdoms from centre.
What was needed was plenty of Mewars (and no there weren't enough Mewars or else gangetic plains won't fall to Turks) and a Mauryan/Gupta type of overseeing central empire.
Gangetic plains fell because after Jaichand (who controlled large areas) there was a vaccum. No one from his house mounted a strong rebellion because most all perished in war with Ghori and others migrated out west. Further east the Chandels and Parmars held out for much longer.

Virendra wrote:
Peter wrote:No. The reason Mewar was reconquered time and again by rajputs was because there was always a member of the ruling clan who was able to rally the Sardars under his banner to throw out the occupiers of his land. The reason Chauhans did not go after Delhi was because all sons of Prithiviraj died. The reason Ranathambore was not reconquered by Chauhans because all sons of Hammir Chauhan were killed. Even his extended family had perished. There are a very small number of exceptions.

That is what I've said. Royal family was not the be-all to-all of the Kingdom.
Royal families were indeed the "be-all". Mewar were able to preserve the blood line and Chauhans were not able to preserve the blood line of prithviraj. The Sardars and chieftains without a king/prince to rally around could not reconquer. You had to have a reason to fight.

Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:Issuing of farmaans is not of concern here rather the independence of rajput kingdoms. Prior to Akbar they were not subservient, en masse, to an invader. Yes they were conquered but they fought back. The only difference between the times before and after Akbar is the giving of daughters which had a psychological impact on the collective psyche of rajputana. What is the opinion of people in rajasthan?

You're missing my point. I don't disagree on Raputs Independence and resistance and the fall of it.
How could a foreign ruler (before Akbar) issue farmans from within India while Rajputs were still Independent and as you say there were plenty of Mewars in India?

Hmm. Akbar won Delhi first from Hemu. His farmaans had effect only till his boundaries. After Jaipur gave him daughter his farmaans started having effect on the rulers of Jaipur. Same with rulers of Jaisalmer and Marwar after their daughters were married to him. His farmaans had no effect on Maharana Pratap in Mewar or Surtan Deora in Sirohi.

Is it not clear that Akbar's influence kept increasing as daughter diplomacy continued?

Do you feel prior to Akbar did Raos Ganga, Biram, Suja, Satal, Jodha, Ranmal in Marwar accept the farmaans from Delhi kings? Why did Mota Raja in Marwar start accepting Akbar's farmaans? Why did the progeny of Mota Raja in Jodhpur continue to accept Akbar's and his descendants farmaans?

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1194
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Postby peter » 13 Dec 2013 05:35

c) Why did the invaders have such a large influence in Iran on Parsis?

Because the military and political victory in Iran was complete.

NRao wrote:I assume this relates to why Indians were not converted into Muslims (as opposed to other societies) ........... (I have not read most, if not all, previous posts).

One of the reasons, rather the main reason, that I had heard decades ago, is that India has never been one society. India is a multi-society state that had a common religion. The geographic area had multiple languages, multiple everything, but one religion. So, to some extent invaders did manage conversions locally, but total was not possible.

I do not understand how a multi society helps in avoiding getting converted?
NRao wrote:The second reason was the ability of Indians (and religion) to absorb what was considered foreign things, into their own culture - music, dance, etc - without replacing the old.
I have heard this too! But it seems very odd. It makes it sound the invaders were a people of high culture who had no intention of forcing anyone to adopt their religion.

What has happened is that since there are so many Hindus in India despite invasions and the fact that in India Hindu religion is very accepting of other religions has been turned into a cause and effect whereby Hinduism's all absorbance is being bandied the reason for its survival.

Someone should ask people who come up with such "smart" reasons is why did these invaders succeed in converting people from iran/iraq to egypt to spain to Italy to Portugal? No less diversity then home is'nt it?

NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16035
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Postby NRao » 13 Dec 2013 07:44

No less diversity then home is'nt it?


I totally disagree with that statement.

member_19686
BRFite
Posts: 1330
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Postby member_19686 » 15 Dec 2013 11:42

Some reflections on the Khans Qaidu and Du’a and the great Khan’s lost legacy

Prolog
In our youth we spent an inordinate amount of time reveling in intricacies of history that few around us really cared for. Not unexpectedly, a girl told us that she was shocked that we took these readings in history more seriously than much else of what she considered fundamentally important. We were once in an involved discourse, surrounded by our few companions, of something we had recently learned about – the great Gujarati rebellion of 1320 CE. In course of his great jihads Alla-ad-din Khalji had brought 40,000 Hindu slaves from Gujarat to Delhi. Among them was a boy who was renamed Kushroo and taken as a homosexual partner by Sultan Qutub-ad-din Mubaraq Khalji the son of Alla. Recalling his past, Khusroo assassinated his lover, declared himself the ruler of Delhi, and aided by his fellow Gujaratis unleashed a Hindu rebellion in Delhi. The Hindu fighters killed the Mullahs of the Jami Masjid and seized the masjid. The masjid was converted to a temple the worship of Hindu gods reinstated. Qorans were confiscated and torn to pieces. Other Masjids in Delhi were also taken over and converted to temples and cow slaughter was proscribed. Mohammedans killing cows were captured and forthwith executed. Mohammedans were also prevented from taking Hindu women. Khusroo declared himself Hinduan Khan aur Sultan (hindUkAnAM suratrANa) and strove to roll back Islam from Hindustan. He established contact with the energetic Mongol princess Sati Khatun (great-great grand daughter of Hülegü) who was similarly facing the problem of subversion by the Mohammedan faction upon the death of Il Khan Oljeitu and sought to form an alliance to sandwiching the Islamic army between theirs. His ally the brave rAjpUt mokhadAjI guhila started a naval campaign on the coast of saurAShTra against Arabs and Moslem shipping to cut off horse supplies from Arabia. Sadly, all this came to an abrupt end. The Mullahs in Delhi sent Fakhr Maliq to alert his father Tughlaq Ghazi Baba who was with the bulk of the Khalji army to come and save them from the Hindu wrath. In the ensuing battle the Gujarati force was routed and Khusroo Khan met a gruesome end. On ascending the throne as Sultan Ghiyas-ad-din in Delhi, the Amirs, Mullahs and ****** praised him as Amir al Momin and the proselytizing sword of Islam but Tughlaq modestly stated: “mai.n to AwAra mard hU.n”. Nevertheless, Amir Khusroo sung a peculiarly worded panegyric for him:
Your name was Tughlaq the holy warrior, the revered one,
The Mongol Khan too at that time had the same name, Tughlaq!

This Tughlaq Ghazi whose line was to be as a dreadful disease upon India was a representative of the Qaraunas Turks. Our companions asked who were the Qaraunas Turks. The answer to this led us back to a part of Mongol history that is generally neglected i.e., the later days of the house of Ögödei and Chagadai.
The house of Ögödei had some connections with our land which we had narrated before – some members fought on the side of Hindus led by hammIradeva against Alla-ad-din Khalji (http://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/20 ... ast-stand/). But their story in Central Asia is one of interest primarily to connoisseurs though with some general instructive lessons.

The successors of Chingiz Khan
In August of 1227 CE the great Chingiz Khan, on verge of victory over the Tangut Kingdom, lay on his deathbed from a hunting accident surrounded by his clansmen and warriors. After having laid out the grand plan for “world” conquest, he counseled them with his famous maxim: “The glory of a deed lies in its completion”. Then by the illustration of the bundle of arrows he asked his family to be united and conceived a system wherein the whole Mongol Ulus would be their common inheritance with each Horde having one of his sons as a ruler...

http://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/20 ... st-legacy/

Yagnasri
BRF Oldie
Posts: 9186
Joined: 29 May 2007 18:03

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Postby Yagnasri » 15 Dec 2013 20:13

Kurush Khan was present in Malik Kefir attacks on south and seems to have helped him thereby slowly raised in ranks. As per the story he was served of the Solanki ruler of Gujarat who advised him to convert to escape death and take revenge. He married Devladevi princes of Devgiri another sad story as she changed hands to Muslims on his death.

Hemu and Khurush Khan are the two Hindu rulers of Delhi during Islamic rule. Unfortunately for us Hemu died and history changed.

Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1187
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Postby Virendra » 16 Dec 2013 21:07

I was going through a book containing a list of late Mughal Era manuscripts belonging to Diggi-Malpura Pargana in Rajputana.
There is translated correspondence flowing between Mughal and Rajput officers, Kings etc.
Parts of a letter struck me, so I bring it here. We all know about Aurangzeb's son Akbar, his revolt and involvement of Rathores etc. Let me know what you think of this letter in this context.

This is a letter written by Meghraj who was the Vakeel (sort of Ext. Affairs Min.) of Kachwaha Raja Bishan Singh of Amber.
It is written to the Raja himself.

Here goes :
Image
Image

When Akbar announced himself the emperor, did he do it from Udaipur?

Regards,
Virendra

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1194
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Postby peter » 17 Dec 2013 05:57

NRao wrote:
No less diversity then home is'nt it?


I totally disagree with that statement.


Can you please elaborate ?

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1194
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Postby peter » 17 Dec 2013 06:09

Virendra wrote:I was going through a book containing a list of late Mughal Era manuscripts belonging to Diggi-Malpura Pargana in Rajputana.
There is translated correspondence flowing between Mughal and Rajput officers, Kings etc.
Parts of a letter struck me, so I bring it here. We all know about Aurangzeb's son Akbar, his revolt and involvement of Rathores etc. Let me know what you think of this letter in this context.

This is a letter written by Meghraj who was the Vakeel (sort of Ext. Affairs Min.) of Kachwaha Raja Bishan Singh of Amber.
It is written to the Raja himself.

Here goes :
Image
Image

When Akbar announced himself the emperor, did he do it from Udaipur?

Regards,
Virendra

Bishan Singh was Raja of Jaipur had this data: "Mirza Raja BISHAN SINGH Bahadur, 18th Raja of Amber 1688/1699, born 1672, married and had issue. He died 31st December 1699."

If these dates for Bishan Singh is correct then 1688 is too late a date for the vakil to be writing in present tense about Akbar (son of Aurangzeb). I believe Akbar had already left India for Persia before 1688.

Akbar's "self coronation" as the king of India could very well have happened in some village in Udaipur kingdom. In 1681, when he revolted, Sisodiyas and Rathores were aligned in a common campaign against Aurangzeb. Akbar was fighting against them but he was broken away from his father Aurangzeb by the political intrigue of Rajputs.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1194
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Postby peter » 17 Dec 2013 06:16

Surasena wrote:
Some reflections on the Khans Qaidu and Du’a and the great Khan’s lost legacy

Prolog
In our youth we spent an inordinate amount of time reveling in intricacies of history that few around us really cared for. Not unexpectedly, a girl told us that she was shocked that we took these readings in history more seriously than much else of what she considered fundamentally important. We were once in an involved discourse, surrounded by our few companions, of something we had recently learned about – the great Gujarati rebellion of 1320 CE. In course of his great jihads Alla-ad-din Khalji had brought 40,000 Hindu slaves from Gujarat to Delhi. Among them was a boy who was renamed Kushroo and taken as a homosexual partner by Sultan Qutub-ad-din Mubaraq Khalji the son of Alla. Recalling his past, Khusroo assassinated his lover, declared himself the ruler of Delhi, and aided by his fellow Gujaratis unleashed a Hindu rebellion in Delhi. The Hindu fighters killed the Mullahs of the Jami Masjid and seized the masjid. The masjid was converted to a temple the worship of Hindu gods reinstated. Qorans were confiscated and torn to pieces. Other Masjids in Delhi were also taken over and converted to temples and cow slaughter was proscribed. Mohammedans killing cows were captured and forthwith executed. Mohammedans were also prevented from taking Hindu women. Khusroo declared himself Hinduan Khan aur Sultan (hindUkAnAM suratrANa) and strove to roll back Islam from Hindustan. He established contact with the energetic Mongol princess Sati Khatun (great-great grand daughter of Hülegü) who was similarly facing the problem of subversion by the Mohammedan faction upon the death of Il Khan Oljeitu and sought to form an alliance to sandwiching the Islamic army between theirs. His ally the brave rAjpUt mokhadAjI guhila started a naval campaign on the coast of saurAShTra against Arabs and Moslem shipping to cut off horse supplies from Arabia. Sadly, all this came to an abrupt end. The Mullahs in Delhi sent Fakhr Maliq to alert his father Tughlaq Ghazi Baba who was with the bulk of the Khalji army to come and save them from the Hindu wrath. In the ensuing battle the Gujarati force was routed and Khusroo Khan met a gruesome end. On ascending the throne as Sultan Ghiyas-ad-din in Delhi, the Amirs, Mullahs and ****** praised him as Amir al Momin and the proselytizing sword of Islam but Tughlaq modestly stated: “mai.n to AwAra mard hU.n”. Nevertheless, Amir Khusroo sung a peculiarly worded panegyric for him:
Your name was Tughlaq the holy warrior, the revered one,
The Mongol Khan too at that time had the same name, Tughlaq!

This Tughlaq Ghazi whose line was to be as a dreadful disease upon India was a representative of the Qaraunas Turks. Our companions asked who were the Qaraunas Turks. The answer to this led us back to a part of Mongol history that is generally neglected i.e., the later days of the house of Ögödei and Chagadai.
The house of Ögödei had some connections with our land which we had narrated before – some members fought on the side of Hindus led by hammIradeva against Alla-ad-din Khalji (http://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/20 ... ast-stand/). But their story in Central Asia is one of interest primarily to connoisseurs though with some general instructive lessons.

The successors of Chingiz Khan
In August of 1227 CE the great Chingiz Khan, on verge of victory over the Tangut Kingdom, lay on his deathbed from a hunting accident surrounded by his clansmen and warriors. After having laid out the grand plan for “world” conquest, he counseled them with his famous maxim: “The glory of a deed lies in its completion”. Then by the illustration of the bundle of arrows he asked his family to be united and conceived a system wherein the whole Mongol Ulus would be their common inheritance with each Horde having one of his sons as a ruler...

http://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/20 ... st-legacy/

Interesting! There seem to be some errors in this link [http://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/2004/06/20/hammira-devas-last-stand/]. This statement does not seem to be correct: "During the attack on the Rajput stronghold of Jalor, a Mongol general Kehbru and his brothers from the Northern alliance of the Chagadai Ulus, who were arch-enemies of the Khaljis, had taken the side of the Hindus."

Who is the writer of this wordpress blog? Can they be requested to join this forum?

member_19686
BRFite
Posts: 1330
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Postby member_19686 » 17 Dec 2013 08:12

He used to be here many years ago but got banned for telling the truth about Indian history (as secularism requires lies to sustain it), if you wish you can interact on twitter.

Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1187
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Postby Virendra » 17 Dec 2013 13:03

He is also an advocate of AMT. He has written many posts on Mongols.
I'm not sure whether he'll join here .. but peter can comment at his blog post and pursue the discussion.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1194
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Postby peter » 06 Jan 2014 10:15

Virendra wrote:
peter wrote:Issuing of farmaans is not of concern here rather the independence of rajput kingdoms. Prior to Akbar they were not subservient, en masse, to an invader. Yes they were conquered but they fought back. The only difference between the times before and after Akbar is the giving of daughters which had a psychological impact on the collective psyche of rajputana. What is the opinion of people in rajasthan?

You're missing my point. I don't disagree on Raputs Independence and resistance and the fall of it.
How could a foreign ruler (before Akbar) issue farmans from within India while Rajputs were still Independent and as you say there were plenty of Mewars in India?

peter wrote:Hmm. Akbar won Delhi first from Hemu. His farmaans had effect only till his boundaries. After Jaipur gave him daughter his farmaans started having effect on the rulers of Jaipur. Same with rulers of Jaisalmer and Marwar after their daughters were married to him. His farmaans had no effect on Maharana Pratap in Mewar or Surtan Deora in Sirohi.

Is it not clear that Akbar's influence kept increasing as daughter diplomacy continued?

Do you feel prior to Akbar did Raos Ganga, Biram, Suja, Satal, Jodha, Ranmal in Marwar accept the farmaans from Delhi kings? Why did Mota Raja in Marwar start accepting Akbar's farmaans? Why did the progeny of Mota Raja in Jodhpur continue to accept Akbar's and his descendants farmaans?


Virendra Please read the section "Rajputon ki Durdasha" in this rather well analysed book "Mewar ke Maharana aur Shanshah Akbar" by Shri Rajendra Bhatt and let me know what you think. The author seems to be saying somethings which I also have written.

http://www.new.dli.ernet.in/cgi-bin/DBscripts/allmetainfo.cgi?barcode=99999990023284

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48782
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Postby ramana » 25 Mar 2014 02:12

Virendra, Peter and Airavat

Wrongly titled but more about Central Asian Horses:

Alexander's Horse



Image

ALEXANDER’S HORSE
- Super horses of the ancient world
Aloke Sen


We stood in a huddle in a clearing at a state horse breeding farm near Ashgabat, Turkmenistan’s capital, under injunction not to move ‘no matter what’. That injected the right amount of mystery and alarm into the proceedings. Suddenly, without any warning, scores of majestic horses burst on the scene in a storm of hoof beat and dust. They streaked away, wheeled round, presumably at signals from unseen handlers, and bore down upon us, the transfixed spectators, in what can only be described as a controlled stampede. The animals were reputedly highly trained, but they were also highly intelligent, clearly aware that no harm was to come to us. Later, when the hair-raising display was over, we were allowed into the stalls to inspect them. Even to the uninitiated, each horse — with a sculpted head, a long graceful neck and a coat gleaming with a metallic shimmer — seemed to be a work of art, regal in bearing, a mount fit for a king.

And they were. Turkmenistan’s akhal-teke ‘golden horses’ did indeed excite many a king to try to possess them by whatever means possible. Legend has it that the Persian emperor, Cyrus, married a daughter of the King of Medes to gain access to the horses. The Han emperor, Wu Ti, mounted military expeditions and on a successful foray, got 13 horses from Ferghana. For Wu Ti, these ‘blood-sweaters’ (a water-borne parasite causing easy bleeding in the horse’s neck) were the ‘heavenly horses’; their possession was the mark of heaven’s grace.

But the royal connection that the enthusiasts of the akhal-teke most like to flaunt is the one with Alexander of Macedon. For them, the akhal-teke is ultimately Alexander’s horse, his Bucephalus, the most famous war horse of history, itself having been an akhal-teke. This last can do with further scrutiny, but according to historical accounts, to the extent they were reliable in an age much dominated by myth, Alexander did indeed own the Central Asian horses.

The akhal-teke is one of the oldest extant horse breeds of the world, tracing its ancestry to animals living thousands of years ago and identified as, variously, the Turkmene, the Scythian, the Nisean horse, ‘the super horse of the ancient world’. Herodotus, while describing the sacred chariot of Ahura Mazda in the army of Xerxes, mentions a horse “bred in the Nisei plain between Balkh and Midis”, which is graceful, with a clearly shaped head, long flexible neck, large eyes and fine but strong legs. Even allowing for the inevitable cross-breeding experiments over centuries and the blending of bloodlines since the time of Herodotus, it can very well be a description of the horses we were watching at the Turkmen farm. The akhal-teke seems to have defied time in the timeless vast expanses of its home, Central Asia’s Kara Kum desert.

The horse is named after its habitat (the Akhal oasis) and its breeders (the Teke tribe). The tribal masters raised and used the animals for the purpose of raiding. So they had to be adapted to both the severe climatic and food conditions of the desert and the requirements of their intended, somewhat violent, use. The horse was wrapped in numerous felt blankets so as to sweat out any surplus fat, making it a light, sturdy, long-distance vehicle, combining speed, stamina and endurance, need-based qualities that their raider-masters bred into them.

Contrary to all this build-up, the akhal-teke is not a big animal. It typically stands at 14 to 16 hands (or under 163 centimetres). The horse comes in different colours: golden buckskin or palomino, bay, black, chestnut and grey. What distinguishes it is a natural metallic bloom of its coat. It is this beautiful sheen that has led to the sobriquet, the ‘golden horse’. The animal is intelligent, lively and alert, and is known to bond best with a single master.

There is an interesting speculation about how the akhal-teke came to acquire its present build and features. With the rising desertification of habitat in Central Asia, its forebear, a stockier animal raised on the grasslands, was thought to have begun a slow evolution into the lean and hardy form of today. The long neck, large eyes, long ears equipped the akhal-teke to detect the dangers of the open plains. The unique golden colour aided camouflage in the desert.

Most of the estimated 6000-odd akhal-teke horses today are found in Turkmenistan, the country’s national emblem and pride, and in Russia, the inevitable consequence of the annexation of the Turkmen land by the Russian empire, but a smaller number is also to be found in north America, Europe and Australia. So even if, during our memorable visit, the Turkmen authorities treated the subject of the akhal-teke horse as almost an official secret, in the globalized village of today, one can buy an akhal-teke from a ranch in America or Europe.

Websites of commercial breeders, while advertising the horse as a racer, a show jumper, a dressage mount, illustrate its noble lineage by the sweeping claim that Genghis Khan’s mount and Alexander’s Bucephalus were both akhal-teke. But was Bucephalus an akhal-teke?

In his popular novels about Alexander, Valerio Massimo Manfredi, recycling legend, tells of the master and the mount coming together for their first encounter in a dramatic scene. Bucephalus, King Philip’s expensive present at 13 talents to his young son, is maniacally defying its grooms and scattering them to the ground. The prince, mesmerized by the “black stallion shining with sweat like a bronze statue under the rain, blacker than a raven’s wing, with a white star on its forehead in the shape of a bucranium, an ox’s skull”, shouts to his father that the horse be let free. A talent being the equivalent of 60 pounds of precious metal, Philip quite reasonably reminds his son of the high cost and says that more time is needed to break in the mutinous animal. Alexander lays a bet for 13 talents that he alone can tame the horse and proceeds to do so with a mix of raw courage and good horse psychology. At the end of the astonishing showmanship, Philip rather melodramatically tells his son that Macedon is not big enough for him, and that Alexander must seek out another kingdom for himself, thus effectively launching the manic conqueror on non-stop military campaigns through the known world.

While ancient chroniclers invariably glorified the son, the father remained somewhat under-rated. But Philip seemed to have been ahead of his times in realizing the value of horses, using the cavalry as a fighting unit, and encouraging a scientific breeding programme. He was known to have obtained horses for his troops from far-flung places. He had Bucephalus procured from a horse dealer of Thessaly, where prime existing local stocks were being crossed with Scythian, Persian (Nisean) and Ferghana horses to improve quality.

Therefore, by the time of Philip’s reign, the ancestor of the akhal-teke was already known to the Macedonian breeders, and Thessaly being one of the most important breeding centres, Bucephalus and today’s akhal-teke would have been logically connected through a common progenitor, making them blood-brothers of sorts.

But in case this explanation would still not satisfy the votaries of the akhal-teke wanting a more unambiguous endorsement, Alexander laid all speculation to rest when years later, during his campaigns through what are today Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Afghanistan, he married a Bactrian princess, Roxane, and collected a tribute of 50,000 ‘eastern horses’ from captured cities. That was finally the vindication of the noble akhal-teke’s Alexander connection.

The author is India’s former ambassador to Turkey, Cambodia and Myanmar





Being close to India, won't there be refs to this breed in Indian antiquity? Was this the horse used for ashwamedha?
In Valmiki Ramayana does the poet describe the ashwa/horse that Lav and Khush stop?

Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4089
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Postby Murugan » 18 Apr 2014 10:10


jamwal
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5004
Joined: 19 Feb 2008 21:28
Location: Somewhere Else
Contact:

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Postby jamwal » 18 Apr 2014 12:53

Have you played it ? How good is it ?

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3447
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Postby Paul » 18 Apr 2014 15:49

The travel diary of the Chinese monk Xuanzang from the first half of the 7th century records that numerous Buddhist stupas supposedly built by the Indian Maurya ruler Asoka (268–232 BCE) existed in Zabul as well as several hundred Buddhist monasteries and several dozen Hindu temples. The temple of the Brahman god Zun was famous far outside the borders of the kingdom and drew thousands of pilgrims annually. When the Arab governor of Sistan, 'Abd al-Rahman bin Samurah, reached Zabul with his troops in 653/54 CE, his path led to the temple of Zun. To demonstrate the impotence of the pagan god against the Muslims, he hacked both arms off the golden statue and tore out its ruby eyes.


Temple of Zabul

http://www.alamahabibi.com/English%20Ar ... temple.htm

Location of the Zoor Temple

In 1966 I provided thoughts on the location of the temple in my book Afghanistan After Islam but during that time I was not certain about the location of the temple. Now from discussions with the people of Zamindawar it clear a village by the name of Diya Zoor exists to this day three miles south of Musa Qala, the center of Zamindawar. This village has been divided into two sections called Zoor-e Awlia and Zoor-e Sufla (the large and small Zoor).

Relics of an ancient fortress and other structures are present in this village and the present Moslem residents of the area call it Kafir Qala (fort of the infidels) which was a domicile of the past infidels. The ancient Zoor of historians existed there given its name is still Zoor.

In Al-Kamel of Ibn-e Asir (Brill, 1868), the names of Dawar and Zoor have been erroneously noted as Balad-al-Dawan and Jabal-al-Zoor. The correct form of these words is Balad-al-Dawar and Jebel-al-Zoon and even today it is called Diya Zoor of Zamindawar which is the abode of the Alizai Pashtoon tribe. This area is located along the banks of the Helmand south of Ghor. Numerous ancient relics are in present in the area which are related to different historical periods.


Can some one shed light on this temple which fell into Arab hands in 653/54.

Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1187
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Postby Virendra » 20 Apr 2014 14:30

ramana wrote:Virendra, Peter and Airavat

Wrongly titled but more about Central Asian Horses:

Alexander's Horse

Image

ALEXANDER’S HORSE
- Super horses of the ancient world
Aloke Sen


We stood in a huddle in a clearing at a state horse breeding farm near Ashgabat, Turkmenistan’s capital, under injunction not to move ‘no matter what’. That injected the right amount of mystery and alarm into the proceedings. Suddenly, without any warning, scores of majestic horses burst on the scene in a storm of hoof beat and dust. They streaked away, wheeled round, presumably at signals from unseen handlers, and bore down upon us, the transfixed spectators, in what can only be described as a controlled stampede. The animals were reputedly highly trained, but they were also highly intelligent, clearly aware that no harm was to come to us. Later, when the hair-raising display was over, we were allowed into the stalls to inspect them. Even to the uninitiated, each horse — with a sculpted head, a long graceful neck and a coat gleaming with a metallic shimmer — seemed to be a work of art, regal in bearing, a mount fit for a king.

And they were. Turkmenistan’s akhal-teke ‘golden horses’ did indeed excite many a king to try to possess them by whatever means possible. Legend has it that the Persian emperor, Cyrus, married a daughter of the King of Medes to gain access to the horses. The Han emperor, Wu Ti, mounted military expeditions and on a successful foray, got 13 horses from Ferghana. For Wu Ti, these ‘blood-sweaters’ (a water-borne parasite causing easy bleeding in the horse’s neck) were the ‘heavenly horses’; their possession was the mark of heaven’s grace.

But the royal connection that the enthusiasts of the akhal-teke most like to flaunt is the one with Alexander of Macedon. For them, the akhal-teke is ultimately Alexander’s horse, his Bucephalus, the most famous war horse of history, itself having been an akhal-teke. This last can do with further scrutiny, but according to historical accounts, to the extent they were reliable in an age much dominated by myth, Alexander did indeed own the Central Asian horses.

The akhal-teke is one of the oldest extant horse breeds of the world, tracing its ancestry to animals living thousands of years ago and identified as, variously, the Turkmene, the Scythian, the Nisean horse, ‘the super horse of the ancient world’. Herodotus, while describing the sacred chariot of Ahura Mazda in the army of Xerxes, mentions a horse “bred in the Nisei plain between Balkh and Midis”, which is graceful, with a clearly shaped head, long flexible neck, large eyes and fine but strong legs. Even allowing for the inevitable cross-breeding experiments over centuries and the blending of bloodlines since the time of Herodotus, it can very well be a description of the horses we were watching at the Turkmen farm. The akhal-teke seems to have defied time in the timeless vast expanses of its home, Central Asia’s Kara Kum desert.

The horse is named after its habitat (the Akhal oasis) and its breeders (the Teke tribe). The tribal masters raised and used the animals for the purpose of raiding. So they had to be adapted to both the severe climatic and food conditions of the desert and the requirements of their intended, somewhat violent, use. The horse was wrapped in numerous felt blankets so as to sweat out any surplus fat, making it a light, sturdy, long-distance vehicle, combining speed, stamina and endurance, need-based qualities that their raider-masters bred into them.

Contrary to all this build-up, the akhal-teke is not a big animal. It typically stands at 14 to 16 hands (or under 163 centimetres). The horse comes in different colours: golden buckskin or palomino, bay, black, chestnut and grey. What distinguishes it is a natural metallic bloom of its coat. It is this beautiful sheen that has led to the sobriquet, the ‘golden horse’. The animal is intelligent, lively and alert, and is known to bond best with a single master.

There is an interesting speculation about how the akhal-teke came to acquire its present build and features. With the rising desertification of habitat in Central Asia, its forebear, a stockier animal raised on the grasslands, was thought to have begun a slow evolution into the lean and hardy form of today. The long neck, large eyes, long ears equipped the akhal-teke to detect the dangers of the open plains. The unique golden colour aided camouflage in the desert.

Most of the estimated 6000-odd akhal-teke horses today are found in Turkmenistan, the country’s national emblem and pride, and in Russia, the inevitable consequence of the annexation of the Turkmen land by the Russian empire, but a smaller number is also to be found in north America, Europe and Australia. So even if, during our memorable visit, the Turkmen authorities treated the subject of the akhal-teke horse as almost an official secret, in the globalized village of today, one can buy an akhal-teke from a ranch in America or Europe.

Websites of commercial breeders, while advertising the horse as a racer, a show jumper, a dressage mount, illustrate its noble lineage by the sweeping claim that Genghis Khan’s mount and Alexander’s Bucephalus were both akhal-teke. But was Bucephalus an akhal-teke?

In his popular novels about Alexander, Valerio Massimo Manfredi, recycling legend, tells of the master and the mount coming together for their first encounter in a dramatic scene. Bucephalus, King Philip’s expensive present at 13 talents to his young son, is maniacally defying its grooms and scattering them to the ground. The prince, mesmerized by the “black stallion shining with sweat like a bronze statue under the rain, blacker than a raven’s wing, with a white star on its forehead in the shape of a bucranium, an ox’s skull”, shouts to his father that the horse be let free. A talent being the equivalent of 60 pounds of precious metal, Philip quite reasonably reminds his son of the high cost and says that more time is needed to break in the mutinous animal. Alexander lays a bet for 13 talents that he alone can tame the horse and proceeds to do so with a mix of raw courage and good horse psychology. At the end of the astonishing showmanship, Philip rather melodramatically tells his son that Macedon is not big enough for him, and that Alexander must seek out another kingdom for himself, thus effectively launching the manic conqueror on non-stop military campaigns through the known world.

While ancient chroniclers invariably glorified the son, the father remained somewhat under-rated. But Philip seemed to have been ahead of his times in realizing the value of horses, using the cavalry as a fighting unit, and encouraging a scientific breeding programme. He was known to have obtained horses for his troops from far-flung places. He had Bucephalus procured from a horse dealer of Thessaly, where prime existing local stocks were being crossed with Scythian, Persian (Nisean) and Ferghana horses to improve quality.

Therefore, by the time of Philip’s reign, the ancestor of the akhal-teke was already known to the Macedonian breeders, and Thessaly being one of the most important breeding centres, Bucephalus and today’s akhal-teke would have been logically connected through a common progenitor, making them blood-brothers of sorts.

But in case this explanation would still not satisfy the votaries of the akhal-teke wanting a more unambiguous endorsement, Alexander laid all speculation to rest when years later, during his campaigns through what are today Iran, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Afghanistan, he married a Bactrian princess, Roxane, and collected a tribute of 50,000 ‘eastern horses’ from captured cities. That was finally the vindication of the noble akhal-teke’s Alexander connection.

The author is India’s former ambassador to Turkey, Cambodia and Myanmar


Being close to India, won't there be refs to this breed in Indian antiquity? Was this the horse used for ashwamedha?
In Valmiki Ramayana does the poet describe the ashwa/horse that Lav and Khush stop?

Akal Tekhe's exact ancestry is still unclear (we'll soon know why).
The 'International Encyclopedia of Horse Breeds' by Hendricks should have more info on it.
Image
According to experts, Horse domestication has happened independently in Central Asia and in India.
Turkmenistan where the Akal Tekhe is found today, did not have many horses in Bronze age.
Horses of Bactria-Margiana were not from Central Asia, which had heavier native breeds, but from southern part of Northwest India.
In fact entire Central Asia did not have deep ancestry of Akal Tekhe kind of horses.
What do I mean by Akal Tekhe kind ??
Here's the native Kazakh horse -
Image
It is much heavier, stout and with shorter legs.
This horse's features are in stark contrast from what we see in Etruscan, Marwari, Kathiawadi etc breeds.
Here's the Etruscan type horse found in a Bactrian seal of BMAC.
Image

Following are the Kathiawadi and Marwari respectively:
Image

Image

All these horse breeds on latter side of the contrast, have originated from the now extinct 'Equus Sivalensis' of India whose features are as follows :
-tall stature,
-slender limbs,
-long neck,
-elevated tail,
-long face,
and a broad brow.
Sivalensis is the oldest known true horse (Equus Caballus) type, originating from Shiwalik range, India.
Keeping in mind this list of features, compare the kazakh breed with the other three and also juxtapose on Akal Tekhe, you'll know ...
Akal Tekhe is most likely a descendent of Equus Sivalensis, like its Indian siblings. Even the Arab and Thorough breds are said to have received genetic contribution from the Sivalensis or its direct descendents.

For more details, visit - http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/reli ... post746297
and
"The Pictures Speak the truth"
Different Horses in ancient artefacts compared with modern breeds
by Premendra Priyadarshi

Regards,
Virendra

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 48782
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Postby ramana » 20 Apr 2014 23:25

Virendra, Thanks a lot. Do you have a blog where this can be captured and disseminated?

ramana

BTW I posted that link only for you!!!

Virendra
BRFite
Posts: 1187
Joined: 24 Aug 2011 23:20

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Postby Virendra » 26 Apr 2014 19:41

Ramana ji, you want me to blog this?
It has already been done by Premendra Priyadarshi : http://aryaninvasionmyth.wordpress.com/ ... rom-india/
Let me know if you still want me to rehash this and have any other dots to connect to.

peter
BRFite
Posts: 1194
Joined: 23 Jan 2008 11:19

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Postby peter » 09 May 2014 16:03

From James Tod:

"The contentions for empire during the vacillating dynasty of the Lodi kings of Dehli preserved the sterile lands of Maroo from their cupidity and a second dynasty the Shere shahi intervened ere the sons of Jada were summoned to measure swords with the Imperialists. But in (S 1572) 1516 a.d. a desultory band of Pathans made an incursion during the fair of the Teej held at the town of Peepar and carried of one hundred and forty of the maidens of Maroo. The tidings of the rape of the virgin Rajpootnis were conveyed to Soojoh who put himself at the head of such vassals as were in attendance and pursued overtook and redeemed them with the loss of his own life but not without a full measure of vengeance against the northern barbarian The subject is one chosen by the itinerant minstrel of Maroo who at the fair of the Teej still sings the rape of the one hundred and forty virgins of Peepar and their rescue by their cavalier prince at the price of his own blood"

Eerily similar to the incident in Africa

Murugan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4089
Joined: 03 Oct 2002 11:31
Location: Smoking Piskobidis

Re: Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Postby Murugan » 12 May 2014 11:09

Good Info about Alexander's 'wars' in India

Also some references about at least two invasion of India, one by Persian Cyrus, and also one assyrian queen Semirami before Alexander. This is new.

Falied Invasion of India
http://www.sanskritimagazine.com/histor ... f-macedon/


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Anoop.G, ArjunPandit, Chinmay, Google [Bot], Indranil and 42 guests