Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

[member_28990]

There is a double bluff at play here.

The first one happens after the the actual battle. Imagine this - the world conquering army, famous for conquering two great civilizations of the day _ egyptians and the persians, gets defeated by a small time Indian king, has to fight a brutal rearguard action and barely makes it back to Babylon. The damage this would have dealt to Alexander's prestige was immense - and his claim of being a divine figure also would have taken a massive hit. So create this story of magnanimity towards the defeated Porus and pass the blame on the soldiers - who cares if they are completely opposite to Alexander's nature. Here was a guy who razed and burnt cities to ground, but suddenly became this paragon of mercy and honour. Even more silly, here was a general who actually tolerated his men saying " No baba, we are afraid onlee of going further." Try taking that line to any commander/general, and see what happens to you today - forget about 326 BC.

But this lie was resurrected in the colonial era to actively play down our military heritage - the SDREs needed to be taught that "even when you fight amazingly, you still lose, but fear not! your conquerors are kind honorable men." Also, this was an excellent way to introduce european civilizational superiority, as well as create a fertile ground for a school of thought to emerge which obsessed over finding greek influence on anything Indian and good.

[member_22539]

^+1. Agree. The present westerners consider themselves as neoclassical, those who are products of the renaissance and look to greece and rome for inspiration. To have their blue-eyed boy be anything but a demi-god is sacrilege, even though in reality he might have been a gay/bi-sexual (as was usual for greeks of the time) commander who finally crossed a bridge too far and got his ass whooped. It would be like the americans picking a fight with us after beating the iraqis, we know what a shock that will be to the victors.

[Singha]

Apart from desecrating the tomb of Cyrus other achievements include...

According to later Zoroastrian legend (Denkard and the Book of Arda Viraf), many sacred texts were lost when Alexander the Great's troops invaded Persepolis and subsequently destroyed the royal library there. Diodorus Siculus's Bibliotheca historica, which was completed circa 60 BCE, appears to substantiate this Zoroastrian legend (Diod. 17.72.2–17.72.6). According to one archaeological examination, the ruins of the palace of Xerxes bear traces of having been burned (Stolze, 1882).

---

BTW since afpak was a eastern province under darius3, Indian infantry, cavalry and elephants were there in gaugamela I think and gave a good account of themselves.

[Singha]

Darius after losing at issus should have changed tactics imo and launched a 700ad style guerilla war in his rear to limit his movements.....paid of shaky allies to desert....scorched earth.....hit n run tactics at twenty places...same way kutuzov destroyed Napoleon...and then harried him all the way back to Greece....paid of opposing greeks to burn his palace back home as well

[member_28990]

Darius after losing at issus should have changed tactics imo and launched a 700ad style guerilla war in his rear to limit his movements.....paid of shaky allies to desert....scorched earth.....hit n run tactics at twenty places...same way kutuzov destroyed Napoleon...and then harried him all the way back to Greece....paid of opposing greeks to burn his palace back home as well

you have too much expectation from the incompetent grade A coward that Darius III was, Singha sir He never had a chance against someone like Alexander.

[Singha]

dariusIII was probably militarily incompetent but not a coward. a coward would not give battle but seek treaty terms. darius lost one battle but still came to battle a second time by raising resources from his eastern provinces including afpak units.

little by little the hagiography is slipping...
http://www.utexas.edu/courses/citylife/ ... reat1.html

[Singha]

seems the greeks and persians had been at war, for 300 yrs before alaksindr with the persians mostly winning...much of greece was under persian or persian appointed satraps and a good number of greek 'merceneries' were in the persian army western regiments. they even fought against alexander's army when the persians fled and suffered a massacre after capture, some few were sold into slavery rest massacred.

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Iranian_H ... chaemenids

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Iranian_H ... e_Dariuses

darius3 was the last of the line, fairly weak and his empire in chaos.

[vinod]

About alexander's campaigns... which are the authentic sources and how truthful are they? Does anyone have a reliable list of these sources which are not interpretations or wishful thinking on some guys?

[member_28990]

dariusIII was probably militarily incompetent but not a coward. a coward would not give battle but seek treaty terms. darius lost one battle but still came to battle a second time by raising resources from his eastern provinces including afpak units.

going by whatever records (admittedly biased) we have of Issus and Guagemala, one wouldn't like to bet on the courage of Darius III. Peace treaty was probably out of question, since this was a civilizational blood feud for the greeks (Hellenistic League), who wanted to avenge the Pesians burning down the temple at Athens.

Slightly OT - but a really amazing adventure of those times that you can read about is Xenophon's march of the 10,000. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabasis_%28Xenophon%29 It is a real classic, and serves as a template for much of later adventure writing

[johneeG]

Myth of Alexander Victory in India

Scholars say alexander never won instead he lost to Porus
by Kamesh Aiyer

Many years ago I came across a comment in a Usenet posting (to those who don’t remember Usenet, it was the blog of the pre-web world), that said that there was no proof that Alexander won any victories in India and that it might be more appropriate to call him “Alexander the Merely Mediocre”.The comment amused and intrigued me and much later I had an opportunity to read Alexander’s biography by Plutarch. I was surprised to find out that Plutarch wrote his biography over two hundred years after Alexander’s death using oral legends as his source. It is possible that he may also have had access to a personal diary kept by Alexander’s physician, but that is about it. Plutarch wrote the biography of Alexander as part of a series of biographies that contrasted the different styles of great Greek leaders, and in his view, Alexander was possibly the greatest of the greats, flawed only by youthful indiscretions. But otherwise, the tale came from legends spread by Alexander’s friends after he came back from India and died.So the story of how Alexander met and defeated the Puru king (“Porus” to the Greeks) and released him because Puru asked to be “treated like a king” in defeat did not come from any documented source. It was a legend.
The story, then, of Alexander’s triumphant march into India, finally only giving up at the urging of his soldiers who were tired after years of fighting and who wanted to return to their loved ones (in Persia?); the odyssey down the Indus, defeating various kingdoms but sustaining a deadly wound; and, finally splitting his army in two so that they would have a better chance of returning with the news in case of further conflicts; returning with a fraction of his army to the seat of his empire in Persepolis and his death from his wounds; all based on legend. No documents, no sources, just myth.So did Alexander really venture successfully into India and turn back at the urging of his men? Or was it all spin?
I’ve searched what I can access of Usenet now and looked elsewhere for any follow-up to the original comment. I did not find any, so I thought I should follow up, if only with a comment on Boloji!
Alexander’s defeat of the Persian empire and his victory over Egypt are well documented by non-Greek sources. So, I am not saying anything about these. After Alexander’s death the empire was divided into three, corresponding roughly to Greater Greece, Egypt, and Greater Persia, with tributaries to the east commanded by generals, such as Seleucus. No lands east of the Indus were part of this division; and subsequently, under the Mauryas, an Indian empire extended all the way into modern Afghanistan (ancient Gandhara) and modern Baluchistan (ancient Gedrosia). So Alexander did not even leave behind successors who would acknowledge his rule.

So what exactly happened to Alexander in India?Supposedly, Alexander first met some resistance from minor kingdoms in the Northwest, possibly from around Swat. He defeated these rulers. Then he met Ambi of Taxila who welcomed him as a fellow ruler, agreed to be his vassal, and offered him safe transit to the east. Then Alexander laid siege to a city and commited a crime against Athena by promising a safe conduct to mercenaries defending the city and massacring them after they left the city – Plutarch believes that the withdrawal of Athena’s blessing was the reason why he could not complete his victories in India. Then Alexander crosses the Indus into the Punjab and somewhere near modern-day Delhi, perhaps even in the historic battlefields of Panipat or Kurukshetra, he fought Porus and Porus lost. There is a story about how the Indian elephant brigade was winning the day when by cleverly attacking Porus’ elephant, the Greeks managed to un-elephant Porus, and the elephants in disarry retreated rough-shod over their own troops.Porus is captured and brought to Alexander in chains. Alexander looks at the tall (supposedly 6 cubits) Porus and asks him how he wanted to be treated. Porus replied, “Like a king” – his arrogance and pride aroused Alexander’s admiration.Promptly, Alexander released Porus, agreed to be his friend, restored his lost kingdom to him, and added to it lands that were part of Ambi’s Taxila.Huh?
Let’s have that again. Ambi, who fought on Alexander’s side, lost lands to Porus as a result of Porus’s defeat. Some defeat.Then, having established himself as a magnanimous victor, Alexander asked Porus what it would take to win the rest of India. He made the mistake, I guess, of asking this in public with all his generals listening in, and Porus described the entire rest of the Gangetic valley with its multiple kingdoms, and the Magadhan empire downstream. Porus described these in terms of how much bigger they were than his own little kingdom.As a result, there was no more stomach among Alexander’s generals for continuing. They had almost lost to Porus. How could they successfully confront even larger forces?And so Plutarch’s story goes that the army revolted against continuing. And Alexander decides to retreat, but he asks Porus what the best way to return would be. He is told that he should go down the Indus in boats and then go along the Makran coast in boats and ships to Arabia and thence to Persia. And Alexander does something like that – at the Indus delta he splits his force into two and sends one by sea and the other by land and they both return safely after three years.
But, uh-ho?Why couldn’t he just retreat? He had just defeated Porus and obtained his eternal friendship. He had defeated the kingdoms along the way and set up his own warlords to rule them. Ambi was his friend (well, maybe). He knew the way back.There is a simpler explanation that does not require one to strain one’s intelligence. Alexander lost to Puru. Puru imposed a separate peace on Ambi that included the surrender of some Taxilan land to Puru and a withdrawal of support for the Greeks. Alexander negotiated a safe-conduct for his own troops, provided they went down the Indus, and did not trouble Taxila or Puru again.So there’s Alexander, having suffered his first major defeat, set adrift down the Indus with a much reduced army. To get food and supplies, they have to negotiate or fight with the cities they pass. They even pick up some “philosophers” from a city populated and defended by “philosophers”, i.e., Brahmins. Plutarch has some stories about these Brahmins, some of which remind one of prescriptions in Kautilya’s Arthashastra.Along the way, Alexander suffers a wound to the side.They reach the delta of the Indus and make a decision to split – I’d like to imagine that the idea of splitting his force came from his Indian philosopher friends. It was wise advice. Alexander’s most urgent concern would have been for his family and his empire if any Persian enemies or even some fair-weather friends received the news of his defeat. The two halves of his army would be tied by bonds of friendship (and hostages in all but name retained by Alexander in his force). Whichever half returned first, it would serve to spread a different story, a story of the victory and the magnanimity of Alexander the Great.

What was left back in the Gangetic plain? Two “small” kingdoms, Taxila and Puru, that were to be swallowed up by the expanding Magadhan empire. Twenty years later, Chandragupta Maurya would take over the Magadhan empire and the true details of the encounter between these Indian kingdoms and Alexander would be lost to history for ever.Instead, Alexander’s physician and friend who had taken care of him on his deathbed had a journal to write. And his other friends had a story to tell, that would ensure that the myth of Alexander Megalos (the Great) would keep his enemies from attacking him as he lay dying.
Centuries later, Plutarch makes Alexander immortal.Why do I call the legend of Alexander “spin”. Because that is what it is. Alexander could not afford to look like a loser. His successors could not afford to look like losers. Years later, Plutarch could not afford to deflate the Alexandrian bubble.If we took the inhabited portions of all of Alexander’s verified conquests, and excluded the “Indian” provinces of Gandhara and Gedrosia, the resulting empire, “Alexander’s empire”, would be a little bit smaller than the inhabited portions of the Gangetic plain. Yes, Alexander may have been a great warrior and he was surely a lucky one when he defeated the weakened Persian empire, but it would be silly of us to accept without question the thesis that Alexander was all set to conquer the kingdoms of North India. But such is the influence of the “West” on us Indians – and by the “West” I mean the Persians, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Arabs, the Europeans, the English, the Americans, and so on, that we accept without question that some tin-pot megalomaniac was about to do just that.

http://www.hinduwebsite.com/history/alexander.asp
http://www.drgeorgepc.com/Tsunami325BCI ... ander.html

http://controversialhistory.blogspot.co ... india.html

Another similar article:
http://www.esamskriti.com/essay-chapter ... dia-1.aspx

First and foremost, Alexander was never ever 'magnanimous' in any other incident in his whole life. He was ruthless and treacherous. So, if there is any incident talking about his magnanimity, it must raise suspicions. In the case of Alexander's alleged campaign into Bhaarath, Alexander's ally Ambhi lost lands and Alexander himself had to retreat through another route which was difficult and unknown to him and teeming with many fierce opponents resulting in the death of Alexander after a few years according to Plutarch(who depended on legends to write about Alexander's campaign into Bhaarath).

Second, when did Alexander tried to invade Bhaarath?

Did Megasthenes Meet Chandragupta Maurya



I got a comment on the post Dating Indian History by one GD Prasad , who claimed that to see the correct Indian History refer to Purana date, which I dismissed it as there was nothing to backup the comment. But curiously he said that the Chandragupta at the time of Alexander was of Gupta Dynasty not Maurya Dynasty. Now that worm has entered my head, After Googling much I am writing this article. Since this is the date that determines the entire Indian history is based on, we have to identify correctly who was the Chandragupta at the time of Alexander who met Megasthenes. Chandragupta Maurya is Indian King who renounced his empire and became jain monk , he went to Shravanbelagola in karnataka and died as simple man.

Megasthenes story

Megasthenes was the Greek ambassador sent by Seleucus Nicator in c. 302 B.C. to the court of the Indian king whom he and the Greek called "Sandrocottus". He was stationed in "Palimbothra", the capital city of the kingdom. It is not clear how many years Megasthenes stayed in India, but he did write an account of his stay, titled Indika. The manuscript Indika is lost, and there is no copy of it available. However, during the time it was available, many other Greek writers quoted passages from it in their own works. These quotations were meticulously collected by Dr. Schwanbeck in the nineteenth century, and this compilation is also available to us in English (J.M. McCrindle: Ancient India as Described by Megasthenes and Arrian). When European Indologists were groping to date Indian history during the nineteenth century (after having arbitrarily rejected the various Puranas), the Megasthenes account came in very useful.

How Chandragupta Maurya was Equated with Sandrocottus – Sheet Anchor Chronology.

Sir William Jones could not believe in the antiquity of the Bharata War according to Indian accounts because of his Christian faith which told him that Creation took place at 9-00 a. m, on 23rd October 4004 BC. He tried to search the Greek and Roman accounts. These accounts supplied some information about India of the time of the Macedonian king Alexander. It mentioned seven names of three successive Indian kings. Attributing one name each for the three kings the names are Xandrammes, Sandrocottus and Sandrocyptus. Xandrammes of the previous dynasty was murdered by Sandrokottas whose son was Sandrocyptus.

Jones picked up one of these three names, namely, Sandrokottas and found that it had a sort of phonetic similarity with the name Chandragupta of the Puranic accounts. According to the Greek accounts, Palibothra was the capital of Sandrokottas. Jones took Palibothra as a Greek pronunciation of Pataliputra, the Indian city and capital of Chandragupta. He, then, declared that Sandrokottas of the Greek accounts is Chandragupta Maurya of the Puranas. Jones died just a year after this declaration and possibly before his death, could not know that Puranas have another Chandragupta of the Gupta dynasty.

Later scholars took this identity of Sandrokottas with Chandragupta Maurya as proved and carried on further research. James Princep, an employee of the East India Company, deciphered the Brahmi script and was able to read the inscriptions of Piyadassana. Turnour, another employee of the Company in Ceylon, found in the Ceylonese chronicles that Piyadassana was used as a surname of Asoka, the grandson of Chandragupta Maurya. The inscription bearing the name of Asoka was not found till the time of Turnour. In 1838, Princep found five names of the Yona kings in Asoka's inscriptions and identified them as the five Greek kings near Greece belonging to third century BC who were contemporary to Asoka.

In the Greek accounts, Sandrokottas of Palimbothra is described as a contemporary of Alexander of Macedonia who invaded India during 327 BC to 323 BC This decides the approximate date of Chandragupta Maurya. Princep's research decides the approximate date of Asoka, the grandson of Chandragupta Maurya as in 3rd century BC Both these dates were adjusted with the reign periods of the three successive Magadha kings, Chandragupta, Bindusara and Asoka of the Maurya dynasty given in the Puranas. Thus, the date c. 320 BC was fixed as the date of coronation of Chandragupta Maurya. It is on this date that every other date of Indian history has been constructed.

Max Mueller, in 1859 AD, finalized this identity of Sandrokottas with Chandragupta Maurya and declared c. 320 BC, the date of coronation of Chandragupta Maurya as the Sheet Anchor of Indian history. M. Troyer did not agree with this conclusion and noted this fact in the introduction to his translation of Rajatarangani of Kalhana. He even communicated his views to Prof. Max Mueller in a letter but did not receive a reply from him.

Smith's Chronology:
Historian V. A. Smith took the chronological identity asserted by the predecessors in this historical hierarchy as the basis for further calculation of the exact dates of the different dynasties that ruled over Magadha after and before the Mauryas. He took the aid of numismatics in addition to epigraphy. He could not however get over, as if by compunction, to follow the Puranas in the enumeration of the kings and their dynasties. But he reduced their reign periods. The total reduction done by these British scholars, from Jones to Smith, comes to 1300 years according to some Indian chronologists.

Indian View Chandragupta Maurya did not meet Megasthenes

1. Megasthenes has nowhere mentioned the word Maurya
2. He makes absolutely no mention of a person called either Chanakya or Kautilya.
3. Indian historians have recorded two Chandr aguptas, one of the Maurya dynasty and another of the Gupta dynasty. Both of them had a grandson called Ashoka. While the Mauryan Chandragupta' s son was called Bimbasara (sometimes Bindusara), The Gupta Chandragupta had a son called Samudragupta. Interestingly Megasthenese has written that Sandrakuttos had a son called Samdrakyptos, which is phonetically nearer to Samudragupta and not Bindusara.

4.The king lists given by the Puranas say that 1500 years elapsed from the time of the Kurukshetra war to the beginning of the Nanda dynasty's rule. If one assumes the Nandas' period to be 5th century BCE, this would put the Bharatha war around 1900 BCE whereas the traditional view has always been 3100 BCE. This gives a difference of 1200 years which go unaccounted.
5. Megasthanese himself says 137 generations of kings have come and gone between Krishna and Sandrakuttos, whereas the puranas give around 83 generations only between Jarasandha's son (Krishna's contemporary) to the Nandas of the Magadha kingdom.. Assuming an average of 20 to 25 years per generation, the difference of 54 generations would account for the gap of the 1200 years till the time of Alexander.

6. The Chinese have always maintained that Buddhism came to China from India around 1100 -1200 BCE, whereas the western historians tend to put Buddha at 500 BCE
7. According to the Greek accounts, Xandrammes was deposed by Sandrokottas and Sandrocyptus was the son of Sandrokottas. In the case of Chandragupta Maurya, he had opposed Dhanananda of the Nanda dynasty and the name of his son was Bindusara. Both these names, Dhanananda and Bindusara, have no phonetic similarity with the names Xandrammes and Sandrocyptus of the Greek accounts.

8. Asoka's empire was bigger than that of Chandragupta Maurya and he had sent missionaries to the so-called Yavana countries. But both of them are not mentioned. Colebrook has pointed out that the Greek writers did not say anything about the Buddhist Bhikkus though that was the flourishing religion of that time with the royal patronage of Asoka. Roychaudhari also wonders why the Greek accounts are silent on Buddhism.

9. The empire of Chandragupta was known as Magadha empire. It had a long history even at the time of Chandragupta Maurya. In Indian literature, this powerful empire is amply described by this name but it is absent in the Greek accounts. It is difficult to understand as to why Megasthanese did not use this name and instead used the word Prassi which has no equivalent or counterpart in Indian accounts.

10.To decide as to whether Pataliputra was the capital of the Mauryas, Puranas is the only source. Puranas inform us that all the eight dynasties that ruled Magadha after the Mahabharata War had Girivraja as their capital. Mauryas are listed as one of the eight dynasties. The name Pataliputra is not even hinted at, anywhere in the Puranas.

No Concrete Proofs:
The Western scholars and their followers in India have been all along insisting on concrete evidence for ancient Indian chronology but they themselves have not been able as yet, to furnish any such evidence for the sheet anchor.

All the evidence supplied so far is conjectural. No numismatic or inscriptional proof is available for the date. Same was the condition at the time of V. A. Smith. He had written, "Unfortunately, no monuments have been discovered which can be referred with certainty to tile period of Chandragupta Maurya and the archaeologist is unable to bring any tangible evidence afforded by excavations."

Pandit Bhagavaddatta seems to have studied the fragments of Megasthenes in more detail than those who decided the identity. On the basis of Megasthenes's statements, he has arrived at the following conclusions. "Yamuna was flowing through Palibotha i.e., Paribhadra, the capital of the Prassi kingdom. Palibothra was 200 miles from Prayaga on way to Mathura. The kshatriyas there were known as Prabhadrakas or Paribhadrakas. Their king was Chandraketu. The capital Paribhadra was near to Sindhu-Pulinda which is in Madhya Desha and is today termed as Kali-Sindha. The Karusha Sarovara was between Sindhu-Pulinda and Prayaga." He further states, "Pataliputra cannot be written as Palibothra in Greek because 'P', in Patali is written in Greek as English 'P', only ; then why 'P', in Putra is changed to 'B', in Greek? There is no instance where Sanskrit 'P', is changed to Greek 'B'." Putra cannot be Bothra.

Conclusion
Based on all these, I would say the Sandrakuttos of Megasthanese was not Chandragupta Maurya. As far as Chandragupta of Gupta Dynasty meeting Megasthenes , we will see in another Article.

Source

* Defalsification of Indian history By Dr. Subramanian Swamy
* Bharateeya Historiography by Sriram Sathe

http://controversialhistory.blogspot.co ... gupta.html

The sheet anchor theory was invented by William Jones. It is a nonsense theory with no basis. Its a wild speculation.

If Megasthenes did not meet Chandragupta Maurya but instead belonged to the period of Chandragupta of Gupta dynasty, then obviously, Alexander would be a much later historical figure than Chanakya/Kautilya.

What do Puraanas say? (Remember, all Bhaarathyiya history has been constructed using Puraanic history as basis).

Bhaagavatha Puraana's account:

Let me give a full chronology from Hindhu Puraanas(mainly Bhaagavatha Puraana, 12th Skandha, 1st chapter):

• Puranjaya is 22nd King of Barhadratha dynasty ruling Magadha.
  His minister S'unaka assassinated him and placed his own son named Pradyotha on throne. Barhadratha dynasty ruled for 1006 yrs from Mahabharatha war.
  
  Pradyotha dynasty:
  1) Pradyotha
  2) Pâlaka
  3) Vis'âkhayûpa
  4) Râjaka
  5) Nandivardhana
  These are five kings of Pradyotha dynasty who ruled for 138 yrs.
  
  Then S'is'unâga Dynasty:
  01) Shishunaga
  02) Kâkavarna
  03) Kshemadharmâ
  04) Kshetrajña
  05) Vidhisâra( or Bimbisara)
  06) Ajâtas'atru
  07) Darbhaka(or Dharshaka or Dhasharatha or NagaDhashaka)
  08) Ajaya(or Udayana or Udayibhadhra or Udayashva)
  09) Nandivardhana
  10) Mahânandi.
  These are ten kings of S'ishunaga dynasty who ruled for 348 yrs.
  
  Then, Mahanandhi's son Maha-Padhma-Nandha started Nandha dynasty.
  
  Nava Nandha dynasty:
  Nandha and his 8 sons ruled for 100 yrs.
  
  Then, Chandhraguptha acquired the throne with the help of Chanakya.
  
  Maurya dynasty:
  01) Chandraguptha
  02) Vârisâra(or Bindhusara)
  03) As'okavardhana
  04) Suyas'â
  05) Dhasharatha
  06) Sangata
  07) S'âlis'ûka
  08) Somas'armâ
  09) S'atadhanvâ
  10) Brihadratha
  These are ten Maurya kings who ruled for 137 years.
  
  Then, Agnimitra of Shunga dynasty acquired throne.
  
  Shunga Dynasty:
  01) Agnimitra
  02) Sujyeshta
  03) Vasumitra
  04) Bhadraka
  05) Pulinda
  06) Ghosha
  07) Vajramitra
  08) Bhâgavata
  09) Devabhûti
  These are ten kings of Shunga dynasty who ruled for 112 yrs.
  
  Then, Kânva-dynasty:
  01) Vasudeva
  02) Bhûmitra
  03) Nârâyana
  04) Susharma
  These Kânva kings ruled for 345 yrs.
  
  Then, Andhra Shathavahana dynasty:
  01) Balî
  02) Krishna
  03) S'ântakarna
  04) Paurnamâsa
  05) Lambodara
  06) Cibilaka
  07) Meghasvâti
  08) Athamâna
  09) Anishthakarmâ
  10) Hâleya'
  11) Talaka
  12) Purîshabhîru
  13) Sunandana
  14) Cakora
  15) S'ivasvâti
  16) Gomatî's son Purîmân
  17) Medas'irâ
  18) S'ivaskanda
  19) Yajñas'rî (Shathakarni)
  20) Vijaya
  21) Candravijña & his 8 brothers
  22) Lomadhi.
  These thirty kings of Shathavahana dynasty ruled for 456 yrs.
  
  Then, in city of Avabruthi,
  7 Kings of Abhira
  10 Kings of Gardabhî
  16 Kings of Kanka
  8 Yavana Kings
  14 Turushka Kings
  10 Gurunda Kings
  11 Maula Kings.
  
  11 Maula Kings ruled for 300 yrs. All these dynasties together ruled for 1099 yrs.
  
  Then, in the city of Kilakilâ(Gaya)
  01) Bhûtananda
  02) Vangiri
  03) S'is'unandi
  04) Yas'onandi
  05) Pravîraka.
  
  Then, the following kings will rule simultaneously for unspecified time.
  13 Bahlika Kings
  7 Andhra Kings
  7 Kaus'ala Kings
  Nishadha Kings
  
  Total rule from Gaya was 106 yrs.
  
  Then, Vis'vasphûrji became king of Magadha.
  
  Then, the rule of Guptha dynasty started.

Link

Now, many of these Kings have more than one name or title and frequently different sources use different names or titles. So, it can be confusing. So, various names of these Kings(used in various sources are also listed).

Generally, it is believed that the Mahabhaaratha war happened around 3138 BCE. So, using this as the anchor, lets start trying to date the dynasties using the chronology provided by the Puraanas.

Then,

Mahabharatha war - 3138 BCE
22nd King of Bharahadratha dynasty - 2132 BCE (for 1006 yrs)
Pradyotha dynasty - 2132 BCE (for 138 yrs)
Shishunaga dynasty - 1994 BCE (for 348 yrs)
Nandha dynasty - 1646 BCE (for 100 yrs)
Maurya dynasty - 1546 BCE (for 137 yrs)
Shunga dynasty - 1409 BCE (for 112 yrs)
Kanva dynasty - 1297 BCE (for 345 yrs)
Shaathavahana dynasty - 952 BCE (for 456 yrs)
rule from Avabhriti city - 456 BCE (for 1099 yrs) (Yavanas are also mentioned during this period).
rule from Kilakila city - 603 CE (for 106 yrs)

Then, Guptha rule starts around 600 CE.

This above chronology is from Puraanas as it is. People like Kota Venkatachalam argue that this chronology is correct. But, according to this chronology the date for Guptha rule is coming to 600 CE which is very very late. It can't be correct. Guptha empire cannot be dated so late.

Link to post


According to Puraanic chronology, in city of Avabruthi, a total of 76 Kings ruling for a period of 1099 yrs. So, on an average, each king ruled for a period of ~14.5 yrs.

Then, the timeline would be approximately
7 Kings of Abhira (101.5 yrs) -> 456 BCE - 354 BCE
10 Kings of Gardabhî (145 yrs) -> 354 BCE - 209 BCE
16 Kings of Kanka (232 yrs) -> 209 BCE -> 22 BCE
8 Yavana Kings (116 yrs) -> 22 CE - 138 CE
14 Turushka Kings (203 yrs) -> 138 CE - 341 CE
10 Gurunda Kings (145 yrs) -> 341 CE - 486 CE
11 Maula Kings (159.5 yrs) -> 486 CE - 645 CE


So, according to Puraanic chronology, Yavanas ruled around 22 CE. But, the Puraanic chronology is not perfect. So, the Puraanic chronology needs some correction. For more details on the problems and correction in Puraanic chronology,
see this post.

My corrected Puraanic chronology:

My solution:
I think the Pradyotha dynasty which the Puraanas are talking about ruled from Avanthi simultaneously to Shishunaga dynasty which ruled from Magadha. There is one clue in the Puraanic chronology the King Nandhivardhana is mentioned both in Pradyotha and Shishunaga dynasty. The Puraanas say that the King from Shishunaga dynasty defeated the King from Pradyotha dynasty. Probably, Nandhivaradhana(of Shishunaga dynasty) defeated Rajaka(of Pradyotha dynasty). The actual King Pradyotha seems to have been the contemporary of Udayana and Dhasharatha who ruled Magadha. Udayana seems to have ruled from Pataliputhra after becoming successor of Dhasharatha.

Now, if we adjust this new angle(that Pradyotha and Udayana are contemporaries), then the chronology of Puraanas would be:

Mahabharatha war - 3138 BCE
22nd King of Bharahadratha dynasty - 2132 BCE (for 1006 yrs)
Shishunaga dynasty - 2132 BCE (for 348 yrs)
Nandha dynasty - 1784 BCE (for 100 yrs)
Maurya dynasty - 1684 BCE (for 137 yrs)
Shunga dynasty - 1547 BCE (for 112 yrs)
Kanva dynasty - 1435 BCE (for 345 yrs)
Shaathavahana dynasty - 1090 BCE (for 456 yrs)
rule from Avabhriti city - 634 BCE (for 1099 yrs)
rule from Kilakila city - 465 CE (for 106 yrs)

Then, the main Guptha rule starts around 500 CE.

I think this particular chronology is much better. I think the Guptha rule should go back a little more. It seems that the time between 500 BCE to 500 CE was a time of chaos and invasions without any strong central rule. The Puraanas also don't give much details about ruling dynasties of this time. Even the names of the Kings are not mentioned. So, some yrs discrepancy is expected in this period.

Link to post


So, rule in Avabhrithi starts around 634 BCE, a total of 76 Kings ruling for a period of 1099 yrs. So, on an average, each king ruled for a period of ~14.5 yrs.

Then, the timeline would be approximately
7 Kings of Abhira (101.5 yrs) -> 634 BCE - 532 BCE
10 Kings of Gardabhî (145 yrs) -> 532 BCE - 387 BCE
16 Kings of Kanka (232 yrs) -> 387 BCE -> 155 BCE
8 Yavana Kings (116 yrs) -> 155BCE - 39 BCE
14 Turushka Kings (203 yrs) -> 39 BCE - 163 CE
10 Gurunda Kings (145 yrs) -> 163 CE - 308 CE
11 Maula Kings (159.5 yrs) -> 308 CE - 468 CE

So, according to my corrected Puraanic chronology: Yavanas ruled around 155 BCE. The western history says that the Selucus Nicator rule started around 306 BCE.

As I already said, the Puraanas are vague about the period between 500 BCE to 500 CE. So, one can give preference to the western version in this case. So, its possible that a period of 150 yrs is an error in a total 1000 year period.

The important point is that Alexander, or greeks, or Selucus Nicator, ...etc had nothing to do with Mauryas or Gupthas.

So, the following wiki article is just nonsense:

Seleucid–Mauryan war
In 305 BC Chandragupta Maurya led a series of campaigns to retake the satrapies left behind by Alexander the Great when he returned westwards. Seleucus I Nicator fought to defend these territories, but both sides made peace in 303 BC. The treaty ended the Seleucid–Mauryan war and allowed Chandragupta control of the regions it was warring for.

Link

[Singha]

whoever sent him first down the indus to fight for each town and then into the makran desert truly snookered him.

but then again the tribes he had defeated in fata, bajaur and other afpakish areas would have made life hell for him on the other route as well.

his best bet was probably to get to quetta across the bolan pass, then on to herat province kandahar and onto into persia..he probably want a naval route to save himself and his companions if things got really bad on land, so wanted to hug the coast but was driven inland by impassable stretches and killed most of his army needlessly in the baluchi heat. a fit man would not survive out there, let alone one nursing many wounds and weakened by years of drinking, meat and war.

after this resounding success, no other greek expeditionary force seems to have even crossed into persia, let alone afpak. they preferred to sit around and loot judea and egypt for a while...cleopatra being the last of the Ptolemy dynasty greek blood!! in time the romans quietly took over as the successor hegemon state and did launch some attacks into asia minor and persia.

[Satya_anveshi]

Clip from Sikandar (1941) and great depiction of King Purushottam.

[Yagnasri]

Alex3 got his beloved horse killed in the war at Jhelam. That of course no one mentions. Entire Alex3 drama became a "history" after Brits and others Europeans wanted to loot and rule the world. The fact that his loyal generals killed his son after his death, the allegations his mother ( and he) has something to do with his fathers death, he being a bisexual etc were not mentioned for a long long time as those things do not suit Euro centrist historical narrative of that time. The fact Mallas nearly killed him and he died of the same injuries later in Babylon are also not mentioned. In fact Porushotham being a very small king as per their own story and no mention of Greek "Invasion" in any native Indian history is also now mentioned. Ambhi was paid huge amount in gold by Alex3 ( why pay the king surrendered to you???) is recorded but no reason was given.

Further defeat Cyrus (death in the hands of a female Indian queen also), Samaramis ( left to run with 10 people) etc who tried to invade India were also forgotten and hardly mentioned, because Indian are not supposed to lack marshal spirit.

My mango conclusions are Alex3 bribed to Ambhi to induce him to join his war on Purushotham and lost there escaping barely with his life. Joined Purushotham in the war on few kings in the south of his kingdoms including Mallas etc and was badly injured and later died. Selucas tried later and was badly beaten by Gupta Chandra Gupta, to whom Selucas has to give his girl in marriage and take 500 elephants to win his war with other Macedonians. Why taken elephants which according to Historians "proved" as useless in the war on Jhelam? We have no explanation.

[Singha]

wiki

The details of Cyrus's death vary by account. The account of Herodotus from his Histories provides the second-longest detail, in which Cyrus met his fate in a fierce battle with the Massagetae, a tribe from the southern deserts of Khwarezm and Kyzyl Kum in the southernmost portion of the steppe regions of modern-day Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, following the advice of Croesus to attack them in their own territory.[67] The Massagetae were related to the Scythians in their dress and mode of living; they fought on horseback and on foot. In order to acquire her realm, Cyrus first sent an offer of marriage to their ruler, Tomyris, a proposal she rejected. He then commenced his attempt to take Massagetae territory by force, beginning by building bridges and towered war boats along his side of the river Jaxartes, or Syr Darya, which separated them. Sending him a warning to cease his encroachment in which she stated she expected he would disregard anyway, Tomyris challenged him to meet her forces in honorable warfare, inviting him to a location in her country a day's march from the river, where their two armies would formally engage each other. He accepted her offer, but, learning that the Massagetae were unfamiliar with wine and its intoxicating effects, he set up and then left camp with plenty of it behind, taking his best soldiers with him and leaving the least capable ones. The general of Tomyris's army, who was also her son Spargapises, and a third of the Massagetian troops killed the group Cyrus had left there and, finding the camp well stocked with food and the wine, unwittingly drank themselves into inebriation, diminishing their capability to defend themselves, when they were then overtaken by a surprise attack. They were successfully defeated, and, although he was taken prisoner, Spargapises committed suicide once he regained sobriety. Upon learning of what had transpired, Tomyris denounced Cyrus's tactics as underhanded and swore vengeance, leading a second wave of troops into battle herself. Cyrus the Great was ultimately killed, and his forces suffered massive casualties in what Herodotus referred to as the fiercest battle of his career and the ancient world. When it was over, Tomyris ordered the body of Cyrus brought to her, then decapitated him and dipped his head in a vessel of blood in a symbolic gesture of revenge for his bloodlust and the death of her son.[67][68] However, some scholars question this version, mostly because Herodotus admits this event was one of many versions of Cyrus's death that he heard from a supposedly reliable source who told him no one was there to see the aftermath.[69]

his tomb bears a nice inscription:

O man, whoever you are and wherever you come from, for I know you will come, I am Cyrus who won the Persians their empire. Do not therefore begrudge me this bit of earth that covers my bones

[Yayavar]

I was asked to give a talk in my kids school a few years back. I showed scenes from Oliver Stone's movie and then talked about what happened to the army - how it was shaken and refused to advance, how it was divided into two and took two routes and was decimated, how Alexander was injured and never recovered, how Puru got his kingdom back and more etc. And then put it to the children - who won? They concurred that Puru won or at least Alexander did not win in India.

[member_22539]

^Children have a way with looking past all the BS.

[Singha]

^ minds uncluttered by psyops and sickular conditioning.

[Singha]

good read on the greek phalanx and roman legion system of fighting, with images of kit
http://www.scout.com/military/deadliest ... bate?s=534

[member_22539]

Given the discussions in one of the burkha threads regarding the warrior culture of Kerala, I feel it would be appropriate to post from a wonderful blog that details the forgotten glory of our ancestors and their militant past, which is so easily buried under all the non-violence BS that has been forcefully imposed on us for generations now.

Full credit goes to Bala Menon, I have only copy pasted whatever is on his blog.

The Nairs As Warriors - Part 1
In the compound of my tharavad in Trissur, there is a 'kotil', a small temple-like structure, within which there is a small stool (peedam). On this stool, there rests a sword, around three feet long, and leaning against the left corner is a small shield. A stone lamp is lit every evening before this 'peedam’ even today, as it has been for generations. Every year, we have a ritual called 'Bhoovaneswari Pooja' - conducted in memory of our ancestors, one of whom must have wielded this sword and shield.

This is the same story in many Nair 'taravads'. Who were our ancestors, these Nairs whose genes we carry, whose blood runs in our veins? Let us have a look at the Nair community as it was yesterday, in their role as noblemen and the military aristocracy in the region of Malabar, as Kerala was known throughout history. This is not to harken back to a bygone era of feudalism, but to put the place of the Nairs in history in perspective - as a community that lived with ‘dharma’ as its lofty principle. This sense of integrity, honour and belonging, which is so strong in the Nair community - similar to the Samurai of Japan - continues to a great extent this day.

(The stories of valiant Nairs like Thacholi Othena Kurup, Meloor Dayarappan, the Rani of Attingal, Vaikom Padmanabha Pillai, Edachena Kongan Nair, Velu Thambi Dalawa, Paliath Achan Govindan Menon, the Mamamkam Chavers and many others are outside the scope of this article and will be dealt with in subsequent posts. - BM)


Nair soldiers in Venad kingdom


More than 450 years ago, in 1553, a soldier poet called Luis de Camoens, sailed with a Portuguese troop ship from Lisbon to the West Coast of India. Camoens is known today as the creator of an epic work called The Luciad. During his sojourn in Malabar, he came into contact with the Nayar community (Nairs) and he wrote about them thus:

"By the proud Nayres the noble rank is claimed ;
The toils of culture and of art they scorn,
The warriors' plumes their haughty brows adorn ;
The shining faulchion brandish'd in the right,
Their left arm wields the target in the fight ;
' Of danger scornful, ever armed they stand
Around the king, a stern barbarian band.'*

Jonathan Duncan, who was governor of Bombay for the English East India Company in the late 1790s, visited Malabar (of course, Malabar here means Kerala as an entity, comprising the then kingdoms of the Samootiri in Calicut, the Raja of Cochin, the Maharaja of Travancore and the many petty fiefdoms of Nair chieftains called Naduvazhis). Duncan recorded that: "These lines (Comoen's verse) contain a good description of a Nayar who walks along, holding up his naked sword with the same kind of unconcern as travellers in other countries carry in their hands a cane or walking staff. I have observed others of them have it fastened to their back, the hilt being stuck in their waist band, and the blade rising up and glittering between their shoulders."


The Nairs have been known as a martial community since antiquity. The Roman philosopher Pliny the Elder called them "Nareae, the swordsmen, the military caste of the Indian coast" in his Naturalis Historia, published in AD 77 during the reign of Emperor Titus. (It must be noted here that Romans had a flourishing trade with the Malabar coast at this time - and Roman merchants and sailors came into close contact with the local population through the ancient port of Muziris, now Kondungalloor). "The Nareae are shut in by the Capitalis range, the highest of all the mountains of India (referring to the Western Ghats)." Megasthanes, the Greek traveller who visited India much earlier - in 302 BC, also makes a mention of the ‘Nairos’.

So, what is this word ‘Nair’? Kerala’s archaeologists have found the earliest mention of the word ‘Nair’ on a stone wall of the Dwaraka Krishnan Temple in Suchindram dating to AD 400 (it was recorded that a ‘Pallikkan Nair’ was the temple uralan or caretaker/trustee). The word ‘Nair’ also appears on the walls of a 9th century stone fortress called Bhoodathan Kotta at Trikodithanam (on the outskirts of Changanaserry). There are references to ‘Pada Nairs’ (warriors) in two stone carvings dating to the early Chera era (AD 900) at the Shiva temple of Nedumpuram Thali in Talapalli taluk of Thrissur.


Nair soldiers of the Cochin Maharaja - 1500s.

This was obviously the period when Nair military prowess showed itself in all its glory and gave birth to legends during the reign of Chera Emperor Rama Varma Kulashekhara (1020-1102), the most famous of the Cheraman Perumals. It was a time when wars with the Imperial Cholas raged across Malabar and the Nair armies formed suicide squads to do battle for the Cheras. The defence of the kingdom was entrusted to a group of Nair warriors called Patinayiram (10,000) with a Patamel Nair as its chieftain. From the Chera bastion of Kodungalloor (then known as Mahodayapuram), elite squads called Chaver-pada (meaning, one who has elected to die fighting), spread terror among the invading Chola forces. The Nairs dominated the social, political, cultural, and ethical levels of society creating the ‘Zeitgeist’ or the spirit of the times.

An inscription in Tirukkalukkunram, (a small town near Mahabalipuram or Mamallapuram in Tamil Nadu) reads: “During the 14th year of his reign (A.D. 1083-84) the Chola King Kuluttunga I* conquered Kudamalai-nadu, (the Western hill country - Malabar), whose warriors (the ancestors of the Nairs of the present day) perished to the last man in defending their independence. Another inscription in the ancient Vattezhuttu script of Tamil says: " ...all the heroes in the Western hill-country (Kudamalai-nadu) ascended voluntarily to heaven.” (as cited by South-Indian Inscriptions Vol. Ill, p. 130. - Epigraphica Indica, Dr. E. Hultzch, 1915).

The Chera-Chola wars lasted more than a hundred years, bringing about major societal upheavals and creating many Nair traditions like the anthropologically interesting matrilineal way of inheritance (marumakkatayam) and the 'sambandham’ marriage system.

The 'sambandam' system was, of course, a product of the times. The kings of Malabar instituted matrilieny so that the Nairs would always be available for war and would not have to be responsible for looking after their families or rearing their children. The Nair was thus able to devote his time to practicing in the ‘kalaris’ and get ready to die on the battlefield for his overlords.

[member_22539]

The Nairs As Warriors - Part II
There is no agreement among scholars about the origins of the Nairs as a distinct community. Some believe that Nairs are not native to Kerala, because of their traditions and mindset which are different from the other Dravidian communities of south India. Their worship of the snake (many Nair houses still have their sacred ‘sarpa kavus’ on their grounds) has given rise to a widely accepted theory that the Nairs are Nagas. a totemic clan of yore and they belong to the Nagavamsham kshatriya lineage who fought in the Mahabaratha war. Nair men and women tied their hair into a ‘kudumi, resembling a serpent’s head.


The 'sarpakavu' in my father's 'tharavad'.

The story goes on that the Nagas/Nairs spread out to many regions of southern India and Sri Lanka. When they reached Kerala, they fought the Namboodiris and later removed their sacred Kshatriya thread to escape the rampage of Parasurama who was on a kshatriya-killing spree. Chatambi Swamigal, one of the pioneering Hindu sages of the last century, said in his work ‘Pracheena Malayalam’ that the Nairs were Nakas (Snake Lords) who lived in the land of the Cheras (Chera is a snake in Kerala). It is likely that the Chera rulers were also Nairs. Modern day historians say the Nairs are related to the Bunts of Coorg and the Naidus of Andhra Pradesh and the Nayakes of Sri Lanka, communities that exercised political and military authority and upheld the law in their lands.

There are few written records available on Kerala history from the 11th to the 13th centuries. It was only after the 15th century and the coming of the Portuguesse that we get a detailed history of Malabar society. Several travellers wrote about the structural elements of the Nair community and their noble descent. Duarate Barbosa, a Portuguese who spent several years in Calicut was the first to explain the military reasons behind the marumakkatayam and sambadham systems.


A traditional Nair sword

" In this region of Malabar," wrote Gaspar Correa, writing on the three voyages of Vasco da Gama, "the race of Gentlemen is called Nairs who are people of war. They are people who are very refined in blood and customs and separated from all other people.. The Nayros must [in all places] where they go or stand wear such arms as are appointed for them and always be ready at the King's commandement.
As these Nayros go about in the streets they cry po! po!”. Gaspar desribes how three Nair nobleman from the Zamorin’s court came aboard Gama’s ship. They had gold ear-rings, gold bracelets above the elbow, they were bare-chested and carried a sword and shield.


Another type of Nair sword

In Nair families, young boys began military training at the age of seven in the several kalaris that dotted the land. Italian Jesuit Giovanni Maffei talked about the Nairs in his Historiarum in 1588: "Young Nairs ....they are expert wrestlers but still more proficient in the use of weapons...At one time, their weapons were the spear, arrows, the sword and the shield....now they emply all cannons and fireams with consummate skill; ...naked, with only their private parts covered, do they go into battle, wearing neither breastplates nor helmets." The ‘kalari’ teachers were noted for ‘marma adi’ an advanced way to disable a person temporarily for a short period or permanently or even to kill an opponent by placing a finger on specific nerve points or accupuncture points and these were imparted to selected students.


A Nair soldier goes to battle - stone inscription. circa 10th-12th centuries

Maffei also gives a glimps of the Nair's inclination for guerilla warfare."Their greatest protection is flight...but they flee and reappear in a flash and they hurl their javelins ...and if there is hand to hand combat they do most of the killing."

The Nair always showed a fascination for weapons. Dutch Rear-Admiral John Splinter Stavorinus wrote about this aspect in 1798: “Amongst the Malabars, the Nairs are the nobles and warriors of the land; they are known by the scimitar which they always wear whenever they stir abroad, and in the management of which, I was told they are very dexterous, particularly against a flying enemy. They have many privileges above the common people.”

Dr. Claudius Buchanan, a Scottish theologian, in his Christian Researchers in Asia (1811) said: “Their childlike delight is in parading up and down fully armed. Each man has a firelock, and at least one sword; but all those who wish to be thought men of extraordianry courage carry two sabres and they are more inclined to use them for assassination or surprise, than in the open field.”

Tomé Pires, a Portuguese apothecary *1515) gives gives us the same image: "...they are fighters with sword and buckler and arches. They are men who adorn their king and if by chance the king dies in battle they are obliged to die ... The Nairs are loyal and not traitors ... No Nair when he is fit to take up arms can go outside his house unarmed even if he be a 100 years old, and when he is dying he always has his sword and buckler by him so close that if necessary he can take hold of them. They always
make a deep reverence to the masters who teach them".

But this carrying of arms also led to the Nairs being involved in endless violent altercations, especially when they were practicing the system of Changatham. Here, a Nair served as a bodyguard to travellers in a land where banditry was rather common and Diderot's Encyclopaedia (France - 1700s) said that "these Nairs are so loyal thay they kill themselves, should he whom they were protecting is killed on the road.” The Changathams were also suicide squads and their remuneration was called ‘kaval panam’ of ‘Rakshabogam’.

The shields that the Nairs used were made of wood covered with leather, usually coloured bright red. A British official F. Fawcett described it as :“Within were some hard seeds, or metal balls loose in a small space, so that there is a jingling sound like that of the small bells on the ankles of the dancer, when the shield is oscillated or shaken in the hand. The swords are those which were used ordinarily for fighting. There are also swords of many patterns for processional and other purposes, more or less ornamented about the handle and half way up the blade.”

[ramana]

Yagnasri, I just returned from a trip to Austria, Czech and Istanbul. In Istanbul there is a museum of archeology ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul_ ... gy_Museums ) setup in 1880s to rival the British Museum in London. There is a bust of Alexander and the map of the areas he conquered.

It shook me up that it was mostly in Asia and Anatolia (modern Turkey) in particular. Alexander's conquest were mainly in West Asia. He hardly had much land in Europe or for that matter Greece.

[member_22539]

The Nairs As Warriors - Part III
The Dutch Records in the archives of the Tamil Nadu government gives details of the many battles in which Nair soldiers participated - on the side of the Zamorin and on the side of the Cochin Maharaja. Dutch general Van Goens tells about the war with the Portuguese and how the Nairs acquitted themselves well in the trenches ‘with fairly good grace in the heat of the tropical day.’

Several British writers, however described the Nair style of fighting as one that lacked discipline. Sir Hector Munro, a Scotsman who was ninth Commander-in-Chief of India, who fought against the Nayars with the Madras Army in 1761 said: "They lurk behind sand banks and bushes, then they appear like bees..they point their guns and fire them well.” The losses were said to have been heavy on the British side and it was recorded that a single Nair soldier killed 5 British Highlanders in a lightning blitz.


The Nair Pattalam - Nair Force - mural in Kayamkulam Palace

Pyrard de Laval, a French navigator, who spent 10 years in southernn India in the early 1600s called the Nairs "the best soldiers in the world and exceptionally agile." William Logan, the famous Scottish chronicler, who was collector of Malabar and lived there for 20 years, also mentions that the 'Nayars were excellent in skirmishing" and that they would have had more success had they fought as guerillas.

The iamge of the raging Nairs was captured well by Christopher Fuller in his book “The Nayars Today”. In the chapter "The Nobles of Malabar", he evocatively wrote about the military role "Honour and Gallantry! Love and battle! My sword and my mistress! These were their devices, and they were ticklish sticklers for the point of honour (as quoted in the Census of 1901, Cochin). "...The great majority of the Nayars probably spent time under arms. The armies were raised by the kings and the chiefs (naduvazhis) and were mostly engaged in fighting each other."


The memorail tof Pazhassi Raja at Mananthawadi, Wynad.

Which brings us to the legendary battles of Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja in the hills and forests of Wynad. Jungle warfare was fine-tuned here and a small, lightly-armed force of Nairs along with the hill tribes of Kurichias and Mullukurumbas fought the army of Hyder Ali during the second Mysorean invasion (1773) and later kept the might of the British at bay from 1793 to 1805. In 1797, Nair militias mushroomed all over Kottayam and killed British reinforcements and destroyed supply convoys. In Wynad, British troops who moved out of safety of their barracks were hunted and killed. (Lord Wellesly, who is considered a great military hero in Western writings, was defeated in many strategic battles for over three years by Pazasshi Raja . He returned to England and later became famous as the Duke of Wellington, the vanquisher of Emperor Napoleon at Waterloo.)


The Kurichis, as picturized in the film Kerala Varma Pazhassi Raja.

A very fascinating bit of information is given about the noble Kurichiya tribesmen of Wynad by Rao Bahadur G. Gopalan Nair, who was Deputy Collector of Malabar in the 1900s. In a book on the Wynad hill tribes, he wrote that the name Kurichiyan was given by the Kottayam Rajas because of their great archery skills. The term used is 'kuri-vechavan - one who aims'). It is suggested that the Kurichiyans belonged to a class of Nairs called Theke Kari Nair from Venad or Travancore and they were brought by the Kottayam Raja to fight the Vedar tribes. After the battles, their kinsfolk did not accept them back and they settled in the hills of Wynad. They apparently still follow Nair traditions in their life, death and other ritual cycles.


The former headquarters of Travancore's famed Nair Brigade

History has also recorded how Hyder Ali issued an edict during his Malabar invasion, depriving the Nairs of social and political privileges and disarming them unless they converted to Islam. The Nairs retreated to Travancore. When his son Tipu Sultan became ruler in 1782, he gave orders to his commanders “to "surround and exterminate the whole race of Nairs from Kottayam to Palghat, ."
Internet blogger Valerie Legrand (who claims to have been studying the Nairs for more than a decade) asserts that recent blood and bone tests indicate the presence of the warrior gene dopamine in the Nairs, similar to that of the Scythians or the Sakas - who ranged across Central and South Asia around 400 BC. (This is not corroborated).
“Warfare was the chief occupation of the Nairs. For over two thousand years they were able to maintain the integrity and security of their land and culture unlike the rest of India. The only race to have decisively defeated the Nairs are the British. The British colluded with the neo-converts to suppress these inherently rebellious traditional warlords and succeeded... The British Army (not native infantry) performed poorly against the Nair warlords....the Nairs considered it below their dignity to serve under the British and hence most Nair history has been blacked out from Indian records. The toll the Nairs took on the British is much higher than any recorded in Hindoostan of those times.”


The insignia of the Nair Brigade

Legrand is correct in this regard. The official British policy was to “Break the Nair community to break the backbone of Kerala.” The destruction of the fighting spirit of the Nairs became a political necessity for the British. Kalaripayattu was outlawed in the Malabar kingdoms in 1793. The British, who had earlier registered the Nairs as a martial race, delisted them for rebelling against them in Travancore in 1804 and 1809. The native Travanacore Nair army, comprising 1500 soldiers, was disbanded and the Nairs were forbidden from carrying arms in public. At the same time, other castes in Kerala were recruited in large numbers to become the native infantry for the British.
The titular suffixes of Nair warriors of that period were: Achan, Arimbrar, Chempakaraman, Kaimal, Kurup, Nair, Nambiar, Mannatiar, Manavalar, Menokki, ≈, Muttan, Panikkar, Patiar, Perimbrar, Pillai, Tampi, Taravanar. Unnithan and Valiyathan.
By this time, however, the Nairs were already losing their fiefdoms and political power, after being overwhelmed by Marthanda Varma, who ruled Travancore from 1729 to 1758. Marthanda Varma himself began recruiting a foreign force - the Nayakas of Madurai for his army to overrun the smaller kingdoms of southern Kerala.


The Nair Brigade - 9th battalion of the Madras Regiment- after the famous battle of Ichhogil Bund on Sept. 22, 1965 under the command of Lt. Col. B.K. Satyan in which 120 Pakistani troopers were killed in hand-to-hand combat for the loss of 27 Indians.

International explorer and writer Richard Burton (who translated the Arabian Nights and the Kamasutra) wrote about the Nairs in the 1850s. “The Nairs are rather a fair and comely race, with neat features, clean limbs, and decidedly a high caste look. They shave the head all over, excepting one long thin lock of hair, which is knotted at the end, and allowed to lie flat upon the crown....Their arms were sword and shield, spear and matchlock, with a long knife or dagger suspended behind the back by a hook attached to a leathern waistband. Being now deprived of their favourite pastimes —fighting and plundering — they have become cultivators of the soil, and disdain not to bend over the plough, an occupation formerly confined to their slaves. And yet to the present day they retain much of their old military character, and with it the licentiousness which in Eastern countries belongs to the profession of arms. In fact," war, wine, and women " appear to be the three ingredients of their summum honum, and forced abstinence from the first, only increases the ardour of their afiection for the last two.” An interesting observation, indeed!

In the India of today, the Nairs still contribute a sizeable percentage of the Indian armed forces, even in the top rungs. One of the most famous troopers of native India was the Thiruvathamkoor Nair Pattalam (Travancore State Army), also known as the Nair Brigade and which served as the Maharaja’s personal guard. This was the brigade that trounced the Dutch forces at Colachel ending their Indian dream and later defeated Tipu’s army at Nedumkotta. The Nair Brigade merged into the Indian Army after Independence to become the 9th Battalion of the Madras Regiment.

The nickname for the battalion is “Terrors” and the war cry : “Adi, kollu, adi, kollu” (Hit and Kill, Hit and Kill). It showed its mettle during the Hyderabad Police Action against the Nizam’s troops in 1948, and in 1962 served with distinction in high altitude areas in the Indo-China war in 1962. In 1965, the Nair battalion fought the famous Battle of Barki and captured Barka-Kalan and Ichogil Bund in Pakistan. In Operation Cactus Lily during the 1971 war, the battalion captured Mahend Ro Par and Fateh ro Par in Gadra in Sindh proivnce. It also saw active service in the Siachen conflict. Over the years, members of the battalion have been showered with several Vir Chakras, Shaurya Chakras, Sena Medals, Commendation Awards and Theatre honours.
****************
It remains a fact, however, that the Nairs - as a distinct soldiering community - began to lose most of their warlike characteristics by the middle of the 1800s. After the passage of many generations, they became increasingly attached to the land as agricultural landlords and the Malabar Manual of 1901 notes that “the Nayar is more and more becoming a family man. Comparatively few of them nowadays even engage in hunting” and Captain Heber Drury reported even earlier (in 1858): “ The mild and delicate looking Nayar now prefers a quite swing in the verandah or a lounge under a tree, chewing a betel.” The warrior Nair had at last returned home!

Lastly, a hearty thanks to JE Menon for linking this blog in the burkha thread, we would have missed such a gem without you. My deep gratitude to you.

Links for the above blog pages:

The Nairs As Warriors - Part 1
http://kairalinotes.blogspot.co.ke/2011 ... art-1.html

The Nairs As Warriors - Part II
http://kairalinotes.blogspot.co.ke/2011 ... rt-ii.html

The Nairs As Warriors - Part III
http://kairalinotes.blogspot.co.ke/2011 ... t-iii.html

[Rahul M]

thanks for posting these.

btw, I was reading a book on mughal armies and it mentions that the mughals felt that their best infantry came from the dom, bagdi etc communities of bengal. while I know of the military prowess of those communities through folk culture, I was wondering if there is other substantive sources for it, including the mughal ref.

anyone ?

[Vayutuvan]

Plutarch's Lives at Project Gutenberg

Lives of the noble Grecians and Romans by Plutarch

I quickly searched for Porus. This book does not have much details. Where did Kamesh Aiyer whose article was posted by johneeG get so many details? He mentions Plutarch and usenet.

Is the Plutach's lives which I linked above? Which usenet group? Is it under soc hierarchy or sci hierarchy? I would be a little skeptical of the soc.* hierarchy though sci.* also has a quite a few unbelievable theories posted. Anybody remember Plutonium and Jai Maharaj?

[Yagnasri]

I was fortunate to see paths etc used Pazhassi Raja in forests of Kerala they are some distance from the Banasura Dam. I was not knowing "Lord" of Wellington got beaten by him many times.

Ramana Sir,

Yes. He is great because he "Conquered Asia" (just like colonial powers did in 18th and 19th century) which by that time means only Persian and India which itself was not know really by Greeks. After India there is of course end of the world.

Alex3 did not do anything in Europe as there is almost nothing in Europe before Rome came as per the White History. It is as if entire Europe is unoccupied by humans before Rome. Celts and other people are not considered as important and we will never know about their history etc.

Alex3 was not considered as a Greek and is only a Macedonian Barbarian. As I posted this clearly seems to be a part of larger white narrative during the colonial period. He basically beaten Greeks and Persians in the war and out of which I am sure the numbers mentioned in Persian army are exaggerated. While "Historians" consider Persian army numbers in greeko Persian wars as exaggerated the do not consider the same in case of war between Alex and Persians. A large number of the Alex army is also mercenary - basically from Persian by the time he reached Tashasila. Further there is always fresh inflow and out flow from Macedonian as the loot was great.

He massacred people in the cities which have surrendered to him after promising no such action - Maskavathi. Huge killings of civilians and looting was done by his armies similar to Jihadis did and do today.

Greeks are basically weak at that time and Alex won wars against Persia and that is the only major power he defeated and rest are all small towns etc. Even Purushotham is not a prominantly known ruler and we do not know which dynasty he belong and other details of him till date. Mallas almost killed Alex and that is also not mentioned. He could not go back by the same way and half of his army went by sea. We have to note here that these people are not sea faring greeks etc and this sea voyage is a very risky one for anyone at that time. Why they did is also not explain why it was done.

[csaurabh]

I read somewhere that there are no Indian records of Alexander's invasion at all. It must have been something really minor.

[Singha]

after nearly 200 years of ruling over most of greece as colonies, persia was going down, with a inept Darius-III as the kshatrap. Alaksindr saw an opportunity to carve his empire, destroy a weak enemy, get some revenge for past persian conquests and suppression and took it.

the persians also had greek merceneries fighting on their side.

the persians never changed their religion or culture to the greek one. they were still zoroastrian when islam arrived 1000 years later.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Persian_Wars

[vishvak]

It is as if entire Europe is unoccupied by humans before Rome. Celts and other people are not considered as important and we will never know about their history

European landmass is much bigger than Macedonia, a region in Greece and probably bigger than landmass that Alex the Great conquered even by the most fantastic accounts. It is therefore important to know who all did that to Europe, and their connection to total medieval wars thrust on India - by the Portuguese, Dutch and later by the English post defeat of Marathas at Third Panipat battle. As it is, long ago I read some text that stated something on lines that the current Europeans have nothing to do with Greek or subsequent Roman civilization directly. More like that the Dark Age of Europe occurred due to these civilization collapsing - as noted elsewhere that Rome was the last civilization and efforts to stop collapse of Roman society failed that precipitated into the Dark Age.

[Rahul M]

I read somewhere that there are no Indian records of Alexander's invasion at all. It must have been something really minor.

correct. bactrian king menander/milinda is the one who is found in Indian texts.

[Supratik]

I am reading on wiki that the Chola invasions of SE Asia led to devastation and caused a shift of Malays from Hinduism to Islam. Anyone familiar with SE Asian history - can you confirm or deny?

[ramana]

Cholas had a hundred year war with the Sri Vijaya kingdom.
The Malays shift to Islam was due to Indian Muslim traders who controlled the trade routes.
They in turn were converted due to links with Gulf traders.

[Supratik]

Yes, thats what I thought but wiki says the Malay rulers converted to Islam as a reaction to the devastation caused by the Chola invasions but there is no reference to verify.

[Virendra]

Yes, thats what I thought but wiki says the Malay rulers converted to Islam as a reaction to the devastation caused by the Chola invasions but there is no reference to verify.

Then it is as clear bullshit as the Paki wikipage saying RawalPindi is named so after a village named Rawal.
The only Rawal village in Pakistan is 100 kms away from that city.
Besides, it says a Gakhar chief called Jhanda Khan used 'Rawal' - a purely Hindu term - in naming the city so.
Such rare gems the pakis are

[Rahul M]

^^
Virendra, your point is not very clear. what, in your opinion is the correct version ?

========

meanwhile maratha navy :
http://hero-for-modern-india.blogspot.g ... harat.html

[peter]

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

The battle for Chittor lasted 123 days (23 October 1567 to February 24 1568).

towards the end of 1568 Akbar concentrated his forces around the fort of Ranthambhor, held by a vassal of the Maharana of Chittor, Rao Surjan Hada of Bundi.

This fort had been attacked earlier in 1560, but that Mughal army had been defeated by the Rajputs. The fort of Gagraun, to the south of Bundi, had however been captured that year. Now after the capture of Chittor Akbar could turn once again to Ranthambhor.



Ramparts and walls are constructed on a neighboring hill and huge guns are dragged up with teams of bullocks, while the Ranthambhor garrison fires on the Mughals.



After gaining elevation, the Mughal guns exchange fire with Ranthambhor. After some time Akbar negotiates with the fort commander Surjan Hada.



Surjan Hada is enrolled as a Mughal mansabdar, raised to the rank of Rao Raja, and assigned new estates along with his ancestral kingdom of Bundi.



The Rajput garrison leaves the fort with their weapons and goods, Surjan Hada also takes out several Hindu murtis to prevent their desecration by the occupying Muslims.



A curious painting depicts a battle outside the fort of Bundi in 1577. This incident is not described either in Mughal or Rajput documents....but since Surjan Hada spent the rest of his days in exile at Benares, it seems he may have risen against the Mughals following the Battle of Haldighati (1576).

A treaty was signed by Hadas and Mughals after Hadas lost Ranthambore:
1. That the chiefs of Bundi should be exempted from that custom, degrading to a Rajput, of sending a dola to the royal harem.
2. Exemption from the jizya, or poll-tax.
3. That the chiefs of Bundi should not be compelled to cross the Attock.
4. That the vassals of Bundi should be exempted from the obligation of sending their wives or female relatives ' to hold a stall in the Mina Bazar ' at the palace, on the festival of Nauroza.^
5. That they should have the privilege of entering the Diwan- i-amm, or ' hall of audience,' completely armed.
6. That their sacred edifices should be respected.
7. That they should never be placed under the command of a Hindu leader.
8. That their horses should not be branded with the imperial dagh.'
9. That they should be allowed to beat their nakkaras, or ' kettledrums,' in the streets of the capital as far as the Lai Darwaza or 'red-gate ' ; and that they should not be commanded to make the ' prostration ' * on entering the Presence.
10. That Bundi should be to the Haras what Delhi was to the king, who should guarantee them from any change of capital.

In addition to these articles, which the king swore to maintain, he assigned the Rao a residence at the sacred city of Kasi, possessing that privilege so dear to the Rajput, the right of sanctuary which is maintained to this day.

With such a bribe, and the full acceptance of his terms, we cannot wonder that Rao Surjan flung from him the remnant of allegiance he owed to Mewar, now humbled by the loss of her capital, or that he should agree to follow the victorious car of the Mogul. But this dereliction of duty was effaced by the rigid virtue of the brave Sawant Hara, who, as already stated, had conjointly with the Kotharia Chauhan obtained Ranthambhor. He put on the saffron robes, and with his small but virtuous clan determined, in spite of his sovereign's example, that Akbar should only gain possession over their lifeless bodies.
Previous to this explosion of useless fidelity, he set up a pillar with a solemn anathema engraved thereon, on " whatever Hara of gentle blood should ascend the castle of Ranthambhor, or who should quit it alive." Sawant and his kin made the sacrifice to honour " they gave up their life's blood to maintain their fidelity to the Rana," albeit himself without a capital; and from that day, no Hara ever passes Ranthambhor without averting his head from an object which caused disgrace to the tribe.

[peter]

Atri/All,
Would you know the history of Sahu who as a child was captured by Aurangjebe? Was the young Sahu converted?

[member_29267]

I read somewhere that there are no Indian records of Alexander's invasion at all. It must have been something really minor.

There is text describing the events around the fall of Nandas and rise of Chandragupta Maurya. It's the Mudrarakshasa. It was actually composed a long time after the events (IIRC atleast 600-700 years). But assuming that the events were passed down as history, the text still doesn'tmetion Alexander. It has Pururava, the last Nanda, Chandragupta and also Chanakaya. But there is no mention of Alexander.

There is an Indic word 'Alakshendra' which has been equated to Alexander. But then again, we have no sources for the orgin of this (someone could have just made it up in the last couple of 100 years).

[ramana]

I though the author of the TV serial Chanakya made up that word.

[Lalmohan]

Yes, thats what I thought but wiki says the Malay rulers converted to Islam as a reaction to the devastation caused by the Chola invasions but there is no reference to verify.

i think this is very dubious. there is a timing difference and a parallel with conversion in the bengal hinterland. not by conquest, but by preaching and imparting agricultural guidance to semi-agricultural communities - i.e. the pir's guidance led to bigger harvests and the cultivation of forest lands and in exchange the beneficiaries turned to the new god. explains why until the well funded wahabbis got involved, muslims in SE Asia and Bangladesh were light green with many hindu practices still existant.

note that in the malay language, eid is known as "hari raya puasa" - the first word being very telling...

[ramana]

Lalmohan, Want your comments.

A turkish sword is called Kilij

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilij

Were the turco-afghan tribe of Khiljis named after these swords?

In other words Khilijis were a group of swords men in invading hordes and were named as such.