Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 12 Jul 2011 05:57

^^^ Thanks for the clarification. The real differences IMO are in the way the neurons are wired in the three species. Another factual error maybe the fact that Erectus could not have attained Mongloid or Asian features until it had actually migrated to NE Asia. Whereas the scenario was about the sub-continent being a kind of stop-over before occupation of East Asia if I am reading this correctly (Peking Man & Java Man are direct descendants of Erectus and were dated to not earlier than 55000 years in these 2 locations).

Sorry if going OT, willing to continue this discussion elsewhere.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 12 Jul 2011 17:46

Klaus - that is a fair observation. the erectus actors are whites and possibly an indian and definitely one chinese guy made up with the relevant skull and dental modifications. all are big guys, well muscled and so on. the chinese actor could be coincidental, or a suggestion of linkage to peking man - they don't make a point about it. but given the view in china that they are derived from erectus, it is possibly a sub-conscious acknowledgment by the film makers.
the black actors playing sapiens are bantus, but i wonder if they should actually be san? (to be genetically accurate)

you can see clips on the BBC website

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 12 Jul 2011 20:07

Lalmohan wrote: the black actors playing sapiens are bantus, but i wonder if they should actually be san? (to be genetically accurate)

AFAIK only the San had the tradition of storing water in ostrich shells. Of course, the Bantus and Basarwas in Botswana developed a method to find new sources of water but I doubt that this would have predated the ostrich shell storage option. Its not such an easy task to tame baboons for the task.

So yes it should've been actors of San extraction if they wanted to be technically accurate.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 12 Jul 2011 20:22

raises an interesting point - the san are not exactly powerfully built, unlike the bantus. if early sapiens was more san than bantu then overcoming erectus and neanderthal in combat is all the more remarkable

ofcourse later the bantus drove the san out of the more fertile lands and into the desert margins... but thats another story

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 12 Jul 2011 21:06

Lalmohan wrote:raises an interesting point - the san are not exactly powerfully built, unlike the bantus. if early sapiens was more san than bantu then overcoming erectus and neanderthal in combat is all the more remarkable

ofcourse later the bantus drove the san out of the more fertile lands and into the desert margins... but thats another story

Not taking anything away from Sapiens but I would say we had fate on our side in the sense that we did not have to take on both Erectus and Neanderthal in the same theatre, atleast from all the evidence gleaned so far. Although there seems to be a time and location overlap from 90000 ybp - 75000 ybp in Arabian peninsula and the Levant where all 3 species might have shared space (scratchy evidence in Israeli & Syrian caves with 3 layers of cave artifacts, bottommost are basic Neanderthal crude bones, middle layer exclusive modern human lobster and chitin shells, top-most layer artifacts from both species with speculation that Neanderthal learnt from Sapiens). So a small community believes that the European face-off from 40000 ybp to 32000 ybp was 'revenge' by Sapiens for the apparent failure, loss of territory & H&D in the Levant at this earlier time.

Then there is the theory that the Bab-el Mandeb passage was a land bridge and the Persian Gulf a giant freshwater oasis + inland river system before the Hormuz gap (gate) flooded over at the end of the ice age.

Also, one cannot rule out the possibility that Sapiens developed strut attachments on the arm-bones (similar to what long bow archer skeletons in medieval England have) due to constant javelin throwing. In that sense, Sapiens was a strong arm-shoulder species, Neanderthal was a strong torso (a human mule) and the Erectus was the cross-country marathon champ.

P.S: Documentary shows the diseased Erectus going paki on the benevolent Sapiens. Also, Sapiens finding multiple uses for objects and Erectus shown as not having consistency of thought and as attention deficit.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 12 Jul 2011 21:51

yeah - wondered about that going paqui bit... probably a device to show that sapiens could be mean too

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Jul 2011 08:37

a great alliance of the three races would have been great - sapiens as cavalry, ballista operators, arrow shooters and 'leaders', neandarthals as the uruk hai to contribute some brute massed infantry power and erectus as more agile light infantry and scouts (orcs).

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 13 Jul 2011 11:52

singha-ji, i like your thinking. there are two schools of thought - i can't decide between them:

1. sapiens, neanderthal and erectus interbred to create different groupings of modern humans. there is some genetic evidence to support that theory. this presumes a collaborative model of humanoid interaction

2. sapiens ruthlessly destroyed the other two (and more humanoid species) over competition for resources - and probably ate them. if sapiens was much smarter, then that is a likely outcome, given how selfish we know sapiens to be. neanderthal and erectus bones have been found with tool made cut and scrape marks depicting butchery, and so have sapiens bones over the years - if there had been natural disasters, e.g. volcanos and tsunamis, etc., then small bands of hunter gatherers scraping an existence out of the desert would have pounced upon any free protein addition to the diet

my instinct is towards option 2

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 13 Jul 2011 12:11

^^^ Lalmohan ji, IMO both options could have taken place. We have to keep in mind that all three species were operating based on a clan system. The size of the clan would have varied among the 3 and would have depended upon local environmental conditions. Also, clan sizes between the same species also would have varied sharply and that would have decided as to which species clan came out victorious in a certain locality.

I feel that Erectus contributed to the phenomenon of gut infections due to the habit of eating raw meat (commonly infested with tapeworms) inspite of possessing knowledge of cooking. They also ate brain tissue which Sapiens and Neanderthal did not but the practice caught on with modern humans (marooned shipwreck survivors).

Perhaps, greater research into the spread of STI's across various hominid species could give us more answers whether there was interbreeding or not? Another point of contention is the method in which specific morphological features would have been resolved, for example the palms of Erectus faced forward and had lesser Degree of Freedom than our wrists.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Jul 2011 13:10

I thought in the classical 'gorilla' image the palms faced backward rather than forward. sapiens face inward.

imo the neanderthals had to face brunt of climate changes, being in europe and lost headcount rapidly. the sapiens had settled themselves in the best posible tropical river basins in north africa and middle east by then and survived and took over vacated land the neanderthals could no longer control.

the 'loss' of erectus is more mysterious to me. they had plenty of range in India/ASEAN/China to occupy and evolve from. maybe the rise of sea levels somehow marooned them offshore and cut a large % of them off the mainland trade and knowledge routes...the remnants were picked off by the invading sapiens in the course of time...or became the marginalized 'forest tribes' like Veddas in sri lanka?...the agricultural productivity in the damp humid climate of ASEAN was low until modern methods were applied...the chinese rulers from up north had a pretty rough time trying to control guangdong and fujian due to the humid and swampy conditions.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 13 Jul 2011 13:30

i have seen hypotheses that australian aboriginals and other hidden forest tribes might be offshoots of other hominid lines blended with sapiens - is there any credence to that?

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 13 Jul 2011 13:54

new guinea island has its share of ancient tribes too...its a huge island.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 13 Jul 2011 14:56

and there's the inhabitants of the nicobar islands, plus the orang asli in malaysia

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 13 Jul 2011 19:52

Lalmohan wrote:i have seen hypotheses that australian aboriginals and other hidden forest tribes might be offshoots of other hominid lines blended with sapiens - is there any credence to that?

IIRC, Singha ji posted the link to Mungo man in central Australia. It calls the Out of Africa theory into question. IMO the study should be undertaken for the entire family consisting of the timeline when the last common ancestor of the genuses Pan, homo-hominins, gorilla and pongo (Orangutans) existed.

Pan (chimp), homo-hominins and gorilla genuses existed in Africa but the Orangutans had no African component at all, hence it is likely that the branch which evolved to Orangutans split away from the first 3 outside Africa around 12 mya, the picture is complicated as the locations of the continents and sea-levels were somewhat different from today. We also could have a separate evolutionary path in SE Asia leading to Orang-Pendek, Mungo Man and possibly Hobbit Man of Flores (incorrectly named as Homo-Floresiensis).

Link to Kow swamp people

SE Asia during the last ice-age

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 14 Jul 2011 06:42

unscientific feeling - Malinga might have some bloodline of Vedda warrior in him.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 14 Jul 2011 09:12

ParGha wrote:
Rahul M wrote:that's very debatable, everything else being equal, trained spearmen almost always lost to trained swordsmen. which is why all ancient militaries eventually moved to swords for their core army.
Everything is not equal: To be a proficient spearman capable of fighting individually, you will inevitably have to be stronger and train longer than a swordsman. Spearman's training is brutal and unforgiving, because you have only one killing point and you have to pin the enemy down on it before he/she gets within it. But if you complete the training, you have greater reach and quicker killing power.

you are talking about individual fighting which is basically martial arts. I was talking of spearmen as army units.
historically, spearmen units were the easiest to train (all they had to do was stand with spears pointed out) and this is why all untrained/semi-trained levy soldiers were fielded as spearmen. that didn't make them formidable warriors but it was easier to hold a defensive position as an untrained grunt if you had a spear rather than a sword.
spears were also cheaper to make and it made sense to arm the rabble with a cheap spear than an expensive sword.

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

not conclusive, every weapon finds its own set of fans and resultant eulogies. you could say the same about the bow and arrow (viz. the honour given to bowmasters like arjun) or swords. swords/asi have had an exalted status in India as mythology says it was built by brahma and had a life of its own.
part of the mystique of the spear comes from the fact that it is the first proper sharp edged weapon of war known to mankind. it was built by binding a stone knife to the end of a staff. the flint knife itself did not have enough reach to be useful in combat because the opponent could bash you with his club before you could reach him with the knife.

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

quite the opposite !!

it was the barbaric tribes (gauls/celts/britons/germans etc) who were completely spear based with the exception of tribal leaders and a few of his companions.

on the other hand, let's consider the evolution of the roman army
by all considerations a very capable military force of the ancient era.
>>> tribe based armies of the roman kingdom era -- greek style hoplite i.e spearmen
>>> early manipular army of the republic era -- 3 lines of soldiers, initially all were armed with spears. very quickly, as the romans developed swordmaking, the thrusting spears were dropped from the 2 lines in the front for swords. only the triarii reserve continued to use the sword.
>>> post marian reforms republican army -- the manipular structure scrapped and the full army organised into legions and everyone was armed with gladius, the roman sword and 2 throwing javelins (not spears). this re-organisation coincides with the most successful phase of roman military.
>>> imperial roman army -- the basic structure of the late republican army continues in modified form with some changes in attire and armour. the principal weapon changes from the gladius sword to the longer spatha. the auxilia, army contingents formed by people from allied and subjugated countries, were also armed with swords, shields and javelins.

let's have a look at the other european power, greece.

>>> starts with a hoplite i.e spearman army
>>> philip of macedon introduces a longer spear called sarissa for the phalanx which becomes famous due to alexander's exploits. the fact ignored in normal discourses is that the phalangites all carried a back up sword, the kopis, which they used as much if not more than the sarissa.
>>> the last macedonian kingdom with their spear army gets thumped by the sword based romans at the decisive battle of cynoscephalae, which heralded roman supremacy over the greeks. and in the process settled the debate of sword vs spears.

moving over to the persians
>>> achaeminid era -- sword making underdeveloped in persia and all melee infantry armed with spears. the spear armed levies in particular were pathetic against alexander.
to make up for the lack of native sword infantry they employed a small but prized contingent of Indian swordsmen.
>>> parthian era -- the army was mostly cavalry based. however, the medes maintained a sword armed infantry that gave a lot of grief to the romans under mark antony. AFAIK there was no spear infantry. the persians had turned from completely spear armed to no spear in the span of a few hundred years !
>>> sassanian era -- spear infantry made a comeback to counter the byzantine army which was increasingly reliant on cavalry, even employing hub horsemen for that purpose.
simialrly in medieval japan and europe, the spear made a comeback to counter mounted samurai and knights. the counter tactic ?
the knights and samurai left their horses and fought as infantry swordsmen and more often than not routed the spearmen.
I could go on.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 14 Jul 2011 09:33

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

this is a very difficult question because these weapons are not exactly in the same category.
the samurai sword was much smaller than the rest except the gladius, because it was developed to be used in the relatively cramped urban settings of medieval japan. it is the sword equivalent of the H&K MP-5.
the roman short sword gladius was meant to be used in formation, technology wise it was not much advanced compared to other swords of the time. btw, they did change to a longer straight sword called the spatha. it can be argued that this is the father of european straight swords.

the european straight sword (not rapier) to asian curved sword is more apples to apples comparison. suffice to say the incredulity of crusaders when their swords broke and chipped time and again in fights with the wootz steel swords settles this issue. it was the adoption of crossbow that finally allowed the crusaders to save face. the sword fights were loaded in once direction. in time many europeans started craving for these swords as well.

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 14 Jul 2011 11:29

^^^^
Actually, through most of the crusades, the Arabs were mostly using straight swords. Scimitars came into use only towards the end of 13th century or so, by which time the crusades were mostly over. What impressed the Europeans was the lightness of the Arab swords + the fact that they held their edge a lot longer than some European swords. The good thing about scimitars was that they were light, curved and sharp blades and easier to use on horseback. The bad thing about scimitars was that they were exceptionally thin profile blades, so they would break pretty easy if they hit something hard, such as good European armor (where a blunter, but heavier European sword would thrust through). SDRE Indians fixed this defect in scimitars when they made talwars, because they made the blade have a thicker spine and a smaller curve ending in a point, so it could work as a slashing as well as a thrusting weapon.

As for samurai swords, they were made of very poor quality raw materials, which is why they had to do a lot of processing to improve the steel before they made a sword. The resulting steel was extremely high quality for its time and contributed to their fame. However, it must be noted that despite all the refining, such swords weren't able to pierce 6th century Viking armor either (which was also made using pattern welding techniques). All the stuff you see in Anime movies about Japanese swords cutting through solid concrete and thick iron bars is a bunch of horse-puckey. In reality, today's automobile springs are made of higher quality steel than Japanese swords from the 17th century, due to advances in steel technology.

Indians didn't have to do as much processing with wootz steel, as the Japanese had to do with their steel, because it was higher quality ore to begin with.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 14 Jul 2011 13:27

Armen, AFAIK the curved swords were introduced by the turks and well in use by the 11th and 12th century in ME, if not earlier. that coincides with 3rd and 4th crusades IIRC. I agree the original arab swords were straight.

p.s just going through wiki, it tells me crusade1 was against the seljuk turks, which means curved swords were most likely although these might not have been made from wootz steel. however given the local access to wootz steel and the curved sword in fashion among the turks I wonder how long it would have taken to marry the two in the expedited circumstances of war.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 15 Jul 2011 00:00

A turkish sword called Yatagan evolved from Kilij is the prototype for modern cavalry swords.

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

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

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 15 Jul 2011 09:44

Rahul M wrote:Armen, AFAIK the curved swords were introduced by the turks and well in use by the 11th and 12th century in ME, if not earlier. that coincides with 3rd and 4th crusades IIRC. I agree the original arab swords were straight.

p.s just going through wiki, it tells me crusade1 was against the seljuk turks, which means curved swords were most likely although these might not have been made from wootz steel. however given the local access to wootz steel and the curved sword in fashion among the turks I wonder how long it would have taken to marry the two in the expedited circumstances of war.

Actually the Seljuk turks reputedly got their design of curved swords from the province of Anatolia and while some used curved swords, they did not really become common until the end of the 13th century. If you look at all the captured swords in museums from the crusade era, as well as paintings and carvings from the middle east of that period, the majority are mostly straight.
E.g. 14th century Mameluke sword
There is a very good set of illustrations of middle eastern swords of that period from books by David Nicolle. Not just the swords themselves, but paintings, shields etc. also give us a pretty good idea of the shapes.

Kanson · Post by **Kanson** » 15 Jul 2011 18:42

There is a general view that curved swords like Talwar are much balanced while wielding and short one like Roman Gladius are much swifter compared to longer ones. How much are these views valid?

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 16 Jul 2011 07:24

Exhibition in the Met Museum depicts an early 18th century miniature painting from Bikaner, Rajasthan, showing Mahadevi with an assortment of weapons: a Rajput katar (dagger), baghnakh (tiger claws), flexible sword, axe, spear, ankush (elephant goad), talwar, bichhwa (curved dagger), gada (mace), khanda (straight Rajput sword broadening out at the tip), chakram (discuss), trishul (trident), iron ball and chain.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 16 Jul 2011 07:44

Durga and Kali are sometimes depicted with a sword thats shaped like a question mark '?' . is that a real weapon or invented by artists.
what exactly is a Bhojali ? is that a bongal breaper type weapon ?

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Jul 2011 08:03

Armen, even david nicolle assigns a CA origin to curved swords.
note the dates. clearly, for a time both were used although over the centuries the curved design supplanted the straight one, as it did in India.

david nicolle : armies of the caliphates.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 16 Jul 2011 08:12

Singha wrote:Durga and Kali are sometimes depicted with a sword thats shaped like a question mark '?' . is that a real weapon or invented by artists.

hain jee ? that is the iconic kharga or ख्नाडा (nassal n) as it is called in colloquial bengali. the origin word is clearly khanda which itself is a variation of kharga.
this particular shape probably originated from the farming sickle IMHO.

here's the corps badge of the Indian Army's II strike corps or 'kharga' corps.

what exactly is a Bhojali ? is that a bongal breaper type weapon ?

bhojali is a dagger. there are many supposed variants some of which have curves.

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 16 Jul 2011 08:38

Rahul M wrote:Armen, even david nicolle assigns a CA origin to curved swords.
note the dates. clearly, for a time both were used although over the centuries the curved design supplanted the straight one, as it did in India.

No questioning the fact that the original curved swords seem to have central asian origin. But one of his other books states that the Seljuk turks got their ideas from the Anatolian region of their empire. Perhaps those guys got it from the Hunnic or Mongol invasions. As you stated, both curved and straight designs co-existed for a while, but curved swords were mostly a minority in the middle east until the end of the 13th century, after which they started to dominate over the straight sword. This has been stated by several authorities including Nicolle.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 28 Jul 2011 09:20

incidentally, the kharga has a similar shape to the egyptian khopesh

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

however the khopesh supposedly originated from axes while the kharga from the sickle.

Klaus · Post by **Klaus** » 29 Jul 2011 10:56

Singha wrote:Durga and Kali are sometimes depicted with a sword thats shaped like a question mark '?' . is that a real weapon or invented by artists.

This sickle edged weapon is used by many seers, mantrawadis and followers (mostly in divine psychological state) in Kerala devi/bhadrakali temples.

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 30 Jul 2011 18:12

The Kharga and the Kopesh are two different weapons though. If you look at the above images of the two carefully, you should see one very significant difference: Notice where the cutting edge is. The Khopesh only has one cutting edge and that's on the outside of the C shape (the wikipedia article also mentions that only the outside of the curved part is sharpened). The inside edge of the Khopesh is pretty thick. The Khopesh's inside curve was meant to block the opponent's strike, hook their weapon and disarm them. The sharp end of the C curve could then finish them

Now look at the Kharga (at least, the illustration on the badge). In this, the inside edge is sharp and all the way down to the hilt, not just the curved part. On other ones, it is sharp on both edges (though admittedly, these were decorative ones and may not be suitable for combat). Regardless, this is a weapon with different sharp edge and used differently.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 Jul 2011 20:59

agree on everything except that the kharga is sharp only on the inner edge.

abhinavjo · Post by **abhinavjo** » 30 Jul 2011 22:01

I visited the national museum, Delhi recently and saw a 'Dao' which was made in Almora. Arent Dao's weapons of Assamese and the naga's?
The guide wasnt any help and these Dao's were made way before independence so no kumaon regiment-naga regiment affiliation scene

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 Jul 2011 22:18

what did it look like ? could you find a similar pic on the net or may be doodle something on gimp/ms paint ?

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 30 Jul 2011 23:02

A dao is an Assamese straight sword. Nagas have it too, as do Arunachal, Sikkim, Bhutan, Nepal etc. In some of these areas, it is called a "dha" or "dah". Confusingly, the Chinese also have a sword called a dao, but their dao is not shaped like the Assamese dao. For one thing, Assamese dao had a squarish end.

Pic of a Dao and other Indian swords here
Here's a pic of a huge one

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 30 Jul 2011 23:14

used in bengal as well, it's called dao in east bengal and dah in west bengal. I asked him for a sketch because there's a version which is very similar to the kharga, sometimes called the ram-dah. a decorative one from nepal.

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 30 Jul 2011 23:38

Never knew that it extended to Bengal as well (and here I'm Bengali myself

). By the way, in Tamil Nadu, there is a similar version of the above, called the "Aruval". While most of these are shorter (i.e. large knife like instead of sword like) and used for cutting coconuts and chopping wood, larger ones similar to your picture above exist and were used for self defence and war. Like the Kharga, the inner edge is the sharp edge.

abhinavjo · Post by **abhinavjo** » 30 Jul 2011 23:47

Rahul M wrote:what did it look like ? could you find a similar pic on the net or may be doodle something on gimp/ms paint ?

Looked Exactly like this

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 31 Jul 2011 01:15

that is a naga dah, i think
is the top end meant to double up as a digging implement?

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 14 Aug 2011 06:51

x-posts from Distorted History thread:

Theo_Fidel wrote:When Kufur reached Madurai he faced an Army much larger than his own and barely won by the skin of his teeth. Neither Vijayanagara nor Kattabomman were able to raise a similar army from the local population. There were specific reasons for this that both of them in their own way were unable to mobilize a large majority of the community. One must remember Malik Kafur conquered Madurai with an estimated force of just 14,000 and 2000 cavalry. The Chola and Pandya kingdoms at various times field armies of 100,000+ soldiers.

Airavat wrote:From what I've read Sundara Pandya III did not convert to Islam or travel to Delhi; rather he took Malik Kafur's aid when he was already in southern India. It was only a temporary alliance and the five Pandya kinsmen continued ruling after his departure. This was in 1310-11 and immediately after Ravivarman Kulasekhara took advantage of the turmoil to invade from Kerala, and immediately after him, Prataprudra Kakatiya invaded the area in 1312 while he was a tributary to the Delhi Sultanate.

Even after the Madurai Sultanate and Vijayanagar were established in the area, the Pandyas continued to rule till the early 15th century. Though towards the end their inscriptions appear in only the Tinnevelly district.

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 14 Aug 2011 06:54

SwamyG wrote:Airavat:
You are right; we probably have to check that Wikpedia entry and check the sources. What you describe closely fits in with what KAN Sastri narrates in his monumental work "A History of South India".

1. 1303-1304 Ala-ud-din sent under Malik Fakhr-ud-din Juna an expedition to Warangal to plunder and loot. He cared more about the loot than territories. The Telugu army defeated the looters, and it was a severe loss of H&D to Delhi Sultanate.

2. 1307 - Ala-ud-din sent Malik Kafur. Why? Because of the earlier loss, Singana of Devagiri decided to not pay tribute to the Sultanate and helped a refugee King of Gujarat. So what happens? Ramadeva, Singana's father, denounces his son and asks Ala-ud-din to take necessary steps. Malik plunders Devagiri and poor Singana has to run away. Malik captures Ramadev, and takes him as a prisoner. Ala-ud-din frees Ramadeva and entrusts him with money and territories. Ramadeva remains loyal for the rest of his life.

3. 1309 - Malik Kafur is now sent to Warangal, to avenge for the loss of H&D in 1303-1304. He goes to Devagiri. Ramadeva gives him all he wants. By 1310, Kafur wrecks havoc in Warangal and returns to Delhi with loot.

4. 1311 - Malik Kafur is sent again to the South. This time against Hoysala and Pandyan Kingdoms. Devagiri becomes the base of the operations, and Ramadeva gladly helped Kafur with all his requirements. Why? Because, Hoysala ruler - Ballala III had earlier snatched some territory from him. Ballala goes on an expedition to Pandya country, actually he was fishing in the troubled waters of Pandyan Kingdom. Kafur takes this opportunity and overruns Hoysala capital with ease. Ballala returns and puts up resistance. It is too late.

5. Malik Kafur then targets Ma'bar - ruled by the Pandayans. So who helps him now? Ballala. Yea the history is sad indeed. Ballala guides Kafur along the difficult mountain routes. Times fly, the Pandaya princes harass Malik Kafur; but time catches the Pandays. Vira Pandya is forced to run away. So Malik Kafur goes in search of him, then marches to Kanchipuram destroys temples, loots the city. Returns to Vira Pandya's capital. Decides to loot Madurai. Sundara Pandyan comes to know of this, and runs away with some treasure. Sundara's uncle Vikrama Pandyan then comes out and defeats the Muslims. Malik Kafur retreats, but has enough loot and returns to Delhi.

6. 1312 - Ramadeva dies. Singana ascends the throne of Devagiri. So Malik Kafur is again sent down to South. Singana flees.

7. The Pandaya Princes - Vira and Sundara continue to fight. So Sundara approaches and seeks Malik Kafur's aid. The Muslims did not help him much. It was troubled times; and fitting Ravivarman Kulasekhara of Travancore who was in alliance with Sundara marches up to Kanchipuram, against Sundara. So who joins him? It is Vira Pandyan, of course. Naturally Sundara needs help so he goes to the Kakatiya ruler Prataparudra II. The Kakatiya ruler helps him out, sends a large force under Muppidi Nayak and defeats Kulasekhara and Vira Pandyan.

It is treachery and opportunism that stands foremost in history. Fathers against sons, brothers against brothers, friends against friends, sons against fathers. One can get emotional and call them names, or one can study them and ensure we don't repeat it again. I say "or" because when one gets emotional, anger follows suit and the best decisions are not taken. Like N^3 often advocated controlled and calculated action instead of frothing at mouth.

ManjaM wrote:Reading about Malik Kafurs victory against the Pandians made me wonder how a 16000 army managed to defeat a 1 lakh army. The bravado with which the Pandians marched out to meet the raiding army inspite of advice to the contrary indicates that war wasnt taken seriously or rather the effect of war on the futures of the people and the kingdom wasnt understood. But then again, war or skirmishes wasnt new to the area with some jostling being a constant between kingdoms. I guess what was new was the rules. The Muslims fought by their rules which was loot, pillage, rape and murder whereas the the Hindu rules was different and did not include 3 of the above activities. I think if the Pandya king knew what were the rules of the game, he might not have marched out in such bravado and might have been much more circumspect. Gurus to correct me if I am wrong.