Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

[Airavat]

Ratnagiri district history

Mahmud Khan Gavan, who afterwards became the celebrated minister of the Bidar Government, came from Persia as a merchant and landed at Dabhol in 1447. About 1459 Yusuf Adil Khan, the founder of the Bijapur dynasty, also entered India at Dabhol.

The port of Dabhol continued to flourish as a sea-port throughout this period. The Russian traveller, Athanasius Nikitin, who was in the Deccan from 1469-1474, had landed at Chaul and from what he heard there, wrote as follows:-"Dabul (Dabhol) is a very extensive sea-port where many horses are brought from Misr (Egypt), Rabast (Arabia), Khorassan, Turkestan and Neghortan, and all nations living along the coast of India and Ethiopia met.

Varthema in 1503 speaks of Dabhol as extremely good, surrounded by walls in the European fashion, containing a great number of Moorish merchants and governed by a pagan king, a great observer of justice. Dabhol commanded a sufficiently great naval force as it is evident from the fact that when the Raja of Calicut solicited help from the Deccan Rajas and sent ambassadors to Egypt against the Portuguese because they waged war against the Muhammedans. Dabhol fleet co-operated with the admiral Munsoor Ghory, sent by the Caliph of Egypt, along with the fleet of Mahmud Shah of Gujarat, in opposing the Portuguese at Chaul. However the Arab vessels fell in the hands of the Portuguese.

In 1556 A.D., Miquel Rodriques Coutinho continued "going to the territories of Salsette and Bardes against some troops of the Adilkhan ................ destroyed all the sea ports with fire and the sword, and captured a large number of ships. Having killed a number of the enemy, made many prisoners, and captured some valuable goods from a large Mecca vessel at Dabhol after a sharp engagement, he returned with honours and riches to Goa.

The entry of other Europeans into Indian seas was looked on as so much of a calamity that Dela Valle calls it one of the signs of the decay of the Portuguese that English and Dutch ships frequent the ports of Dabhol, (Chaul and Bassein) without hindrance and without acknowledging the Portuguese supremacy, though the latter still prevented native vessels from sailing in these seas without their permission. So late as 1624 no one could go to Europe by way of Persia and Turkey without obtaining leave from the authorities of Goa.

[Airavat]

Complete myth. Ghori was defeated only in the First Battle of Tarain, not seventeen times, and forget about being captured and pardoned each of those 17 times (no one who claims any interest in military history can believe such an outlandish story) , he escaped with a substantial portion of his cavalry even in that one battle.

Hindu sources say Ghori was captured while the Islamic ones don't. How do we decide which one to believe?

Hindu sources contradict each other, which one are you referring to?

[peter]

Rajput maratha relations are interesting. By 16tth-17th century, Rajputs had been intricately networked with Mughals. The Islamic rebellion of 1580s was quelled by Akbar using rajputs (as Airavat ji had shown). They were linked to Mughals and their other networks by means of marital alliances as well. Thus, for all practical purposes, 18th century Rajputs were extensions of Mughals (so some extent, there are notable exceptions, but that will be out of scope here. Airavat ji can illustrate on this better). For Marathas who were new to this politics of north, there were too many undercurrents which they took time to understand.

Bajirao-1 had kept amicable relations with Rajputana states by far and large. After his death, the empire became so heavily entangled in politics of North and South (Kaveri basin and south of Krishna-Tungabhadra river) that it was very hectic for nanasaheb to maintain his personal presence everywhere. Furthermore, unlike his father, he was not a soldier by character. He was an armchair politician of excellent calibre.

What do you think were the reasons for Marathas to get entangled in politics of Rajasthan?

Could we attribute it to the lack of a national identity? Or was it payback time for all the harm that rajputs did in Maharashtra under the employ of the mughals?

Cash is one major reason.

Very Interesting. Before I write further on this wanted to clarify some more questions:
a) What was the nature of intital maratha rajput contact in rajasthan ?
b) Did it start with maratha attacks on rajasthan ?

Rajputs had allied themselves with Mughals since days of Akbar. many of the Rajput kings were intimately linked with Mughals (mother of Aurangzeb was a Rajput princess, if I remember correctly).

Aurangjeb's mother was mumtaz mahal. Shah Jahan's mother was a rajput princess from Jodhpur region.

[peter]

Complete myth. Ghori was defeated only in the First Battle of Tarain, not seventeen times, and forget about being captured and pardoned each of those 17 times (no one who claims any interest in military history can believe such an outlandish story) , he escaped with a substantial portion of his cavalry even in that one battle.

Hindu sources say Ghori was captured while the Islamic ones don't. How do we decide which one to believe?

Hindu sources contradict each other, which one are you referring to?

Prithviraj Raso mentions that Delhi Tomars captured Ghori.

[Airavat]

Prithviraja Raso gets many facts wrong and its value as a historical text is limited. See the details here

The story of Prithviraja's elopement with Samyogita seems to be a creation of the fertile brain of the author of the 'Raso'. Neither the "Prithvirajavijaya Mahakavya" written in Prithviraja's time, nor the "Hammira Mahakavya" complied in the last half of the fourteenth century of the Vikrama era, makes any mention of any such event.

The story of Maharawala Samarasingji of Mewar being a brother-in-law of Prithviraja, and being killed in the battle with Shahabuddin, while helping his brother-in-law Prithviraja, is also an idle tale. This battle had, in fact, been fought in VS 1249, whereas Maharavala Samarasimha ruled in VS 1359.

The Raso gives the name of Jayachandra's father as "Vijayapala" but in all Gahadavala inscriptions his correct name is Vijayachandra. The Raso also makes Jayachandra perform the Rajasuya yagya and the Swayamvara ceremony.

Had Jayachchandra performed such a grand ceremony as the 'Rajasuya' some mention of it would have been found in the inscriptions of that monarch, or in the 'Rambhamanjarl Natika' by Nayachandra Suri, of which Jayachchandra himself is the hero. Fourteen copper plates and two stone inscriptions of Jayachchandra have been found, the last of which is dated VS 1245 (AD 1189). Although there are, thus, as many as sixteen epigraphic records belonging to him, not one of them contains any reference to his having celebrated a 'Rajasuya'.

the story of Prithviraja having abducted the daughter of the Yadava king Bhana of Deogiri and of the consequent battle between Prithviraja and Jayachchandra, also seems to be spurious. The founder of the city of Deogiri, was not Bhana, but Bhillama, who had founded the city about VS 1244 (AD 1187). Neither does this event find place in the history of Bhillama nor does the name Bhana occur in the pedigree of the dynasty.

Moreover, in the "Prithvirijavijaya" which was written in Prithviraja's time, the name of Prithviraja's mother is mentioned not as Kamalavati, but as Karpuradevi, who is stated to be the daughter not of Tunvara Anangapala (of Delhi), but of a king of the Haihaya dynasty (of Tripuri). in the "Hammira Mahakavya" also the name of Prithviraja's mother is mentioned as Karpuradevi.

As per the contemporary Prithviraja Vijaya Delhi was conquered by Vigrahraja IV (which is confirmed by the Bijolia inscription) but the Raso has Someshvara riding to the aid of "Anangapala of Delhi" half a century later!

The author of the "Raso" has mentioned the date of the birth of his hero Prithviraja as VS 1115, but in fact Prithviraja should have been born in VS 1217 (AD 1160) or somewhat later, as at the death of his father in about AD 1179 he was a minor and his mother took charge of the administration.

The Raso also makes no mention of Prithviraja's brother Hariraja, who captured Ajmer and launched an attack on Delhi against the Turks. His existence is proved in an inscription dated 1194 found at Ajmer, and the Prithviraja Vijaya describes him and his brother as "Rama and Lakshmana" while the general Bhuvanik Malla was the incarnation of Garuda (who saved the princes of Ayodhya from the serpent noose of Meghnad).

And further in describing the end of Prithviraja, the Raso contradicts other Hindu texts.

[abhigoel]

Third battle of panipat has been made as the battle between Indians and the outside invaders. Maratha's as patriotic indians who are fighting to save their motherland and Ahmed Shah who is a greedy invader. This is a corrupted view.
1) It was a clash between Durrani Empire (Capital- Kandhar) and Maratha empire (Capital - Pune)
2) Ahmed shah was a general of Nadir Shah who has won Delhi in 1739.
3) In 1751–52, the Ahamdiya treaty was signed between the Marathas and Mughals which allow Maratha's to control North India.
4) After taking up the throne Ahmed Shah Tried to win back those territorries that were one under the dominion of Nadir Shah.
5) Marathas were trying to increase there control up in the North. They has won Lahore and Attock under Raghunath Rao rom Abdali forces. (Though this had drained out their treasury)
6) Under the name of Jehad Abdali declared war with Marathas,
7) Power in North like Ruhelas, nawab of Awad and Jats (even some sikhs) have to side with one of the powers Afghans or Marathas
Sikhs who were the foes of Afgans when saw a bigger and organised force decided to side with Afghans. (Rajniti- Its foolish to fight with much stronger enemy if there is no hope of victory)
9) Ruhelas sided with afghans in the hope of getting the position in New delhi (like getting Prime Minister Post), nawab of Awad and Jats. They all knew that the centraised command of Afghans is temporary, and it would soon diintegrate into inner fighting (See current situation- some things just don't change easily)
10) Marathas fail to get Jats on their side due to the presence of Holkar.
11) Even Holkar's and Scindia's (who were Marathas Nothern Arm) have their vested interest in the defeat of the Pune forces. As a weakened Pune allow them to grew much stronger.
12) In the war as the local support was missing Maratha's lost.
13) Delhi darbar who was already looted by nadir shah did not have much to give to Afgans and staying in india with such a big standing army was foolish.
14) Abdali return soon after forging an alliance with Peshwa.
15) The battle was panipat was a loss for both the major power fighting and it was the smaller powers which gained (Holkar, Scindia, Jats, Ruhelas and Awadh) that gained in the immediate aftermath as now they were relatively free to work on their own ambitions.

Last point: If we consider the geography Afgans might have a closer relation to delhi than Marathas (Afganistan is closer to delhi than Maharashtra)

[vishvak]

Third battle of panipat has been made as the battle between Indians and the outside invaders. Maratha's as patriotic indians who are fighting to save their motherland and Ahmed Shah who is a greedy invader. This is a corrupted view.
1) It was a clash between Durrani Empire (Capital- Kandhar) and Maratha empire (Capital - Pune)


5) Marathas were trying to increase there control up in the North. They has won Lahore and Attock under Raghunath Rao rom Abdali forces. (Though this had drained out their treasury)

6) Under the name of Jehad Abdali declared war with Marathas,

13) Delhi darbar who was already looted by nadir shah did not have much to give to Afgans and staying in india with such a big standing army was foolish.

14) Abdali return soon after forging an alliance with Peshwa.

Last point: If we consider the geography Afgans might have a closer relation to delhi than Marathas (Afganistan is closer to delhi than Maharashtra)

Sir, I would say there are some contradictions in these points left, as well as the first statement, in the quote.
As far as "Afganistan is closer to delhi than Maharashtra", this according to me is relative. Today, in the age of technology and realpolitic today, how is Afghanistan anywhere near Delhi?
As far as Maratha empire is considered, many a times Marathas have mentioned explicitly that Afghanistan of today is part of 'Hindu Swarajya' or some similar statement.

[peter]

Prithviraja Raso gets many facts wrong and its value as a historical text is limited. See the details here
[..]

And further in describing the end of Prithviraja, the Raso contradicts other Hindu texts.

I agree with you that Raso has wrong facts. But depends which Raso are we talking about. Apparently there were 4 : shortest, short, medium and long Rasos. Other then the shortest one the rest have embellishments/mistakes and were written centuries after Prithviraj's time though the shortest one may have been written within a few decades of his time.

Interestingly H.G. Raverty, the translator of Tabakat-i-Nasiri has observed that different versions of this book have different descriptions on how M Ghori was saved in the first battle of Tarain! Not only Tabakat-i-Nasiri but even other books also differ in details. So Islamic chronicles are also not consistent with each other. For example one version of Tabakat translated by Raverty mentions that Govindraj Tomar of Delhi speared Ghori which caused him to fall down from the horse.

Then in a footnote to explain differences in Ghori's rescue from the battlefield in various recensions of Tabakat, Raverty quoting Ferishta who in turn quotes Zain-ul-Massir, says, that no one in Ghori's army noticed the fall of the Sultan. In the night when his chiefs halted and noticed his absence some of his Turkish slaves came back to the battlefield and searched for him amongst the slain. Ghori recognised their voices and asked for help. These slaves carried him to the rest of his army.

Coming back to the Hindu sources, even though they differ in detail have mistakes etc, they are all consistent that Ghori was captured.

In my opinion the Islamic sources, since many of them have different tales on Ghori's rescue, are trying to cover up his pardon at the hands of Prithviraj.

[abhigoel]

Third battle of panipat has been made as the battle between Indians and the outside invaders. Maratha's as patriotic indians who are fighting to save their motherland and Ahmed Shah who is a greedy invader. This is a corrupted view.
1) It was a clash between Durrani Empire (Capital- Kandhar) and Maratha empire (Capital - Pune)


5) Marathas were trying to increase there control up in the North. They has won Lahore and Attock under Raghunath Rao rom Abdali forces. (Though this had drained out their treasury)

6) Under the name of Jehad Abdali declared war with Marathas,

13) Delhi darbar who was already looted by nadir shah did not have much to give to Afgans and staying in india with such a big standing army was foolish.

14) Abdali return soon after forging an alliance with Peshwa.

Last point: If we consider the geography Afgans might have a closer relation to delhi than Marathas (Afganistan is closer to delhi than Maharashtra)

Sir, I would say there are some contradictions in these points left, as well as the first statement, in the quote.
As far as "Afganistan is closer to delhi than Maharashtra", this according to me is relative. Today, in the age of technology and realpolitic today, how is Afghanistan anywhere near Delhi?
As far as Maratha empire is considered, many a times Marathas have mentioned explicitly that Afghanistan of today is part of 'Hindu Swarajya' or some similar statement.

Sir, I agree that most of Afganistan had been a part of few delhi based empires, and vice a versa. I consider such claims on anyterritory based on distant history illogical.

My comments regarding delhi being closer were made in the historical context. In the last sentence I am refering to the physical distance, to add weight to my argument- "That for North indian elite both were the external powers. All the powers played their own games as per their own interest". To consider Marathas striving for a greater good is without basis. History help us to learn I request to keep it as unbiased as possible.

What is the contradiction? In the aftermath of the battle the Pune lost a lot of power and the sardars like the Holker and Scindia grew strong .(Both did not take part in battle. Although Scindia refuted that). Jats captured Agra and Ruheles delhi. They both looted whatever was left.

The difference in Maratha and these petty power may be in the level of thinking and the vision. Marathas may have a much longer horizon but it was now infeasible. The Battle of panipat showed that there is no unity between Marathas. Peshwa no longer had absolute authority. Maratha federation is now divided just like Rajputs were in 1000 A.D.

[abhigoel]

Coming back to the Hindu sources, even though they differ in detail have mistakes etc, they are all consistent that Ghori was captured.

In my opinion the Islamic sources, since many of them have different tales on Ghori's rescue, are trying to cover up his pardon at the hands of Prithviraj.

Sir, if we agree on the capture of Gauri, do you really believe that in the land of arthashastra and where even in the religious epics of battle (Mahabharat) supposed rules are routinely broken for gains, our kings would be so kind enough to let the enemy go free.

My knowledge have been from historical textbook in my school and what I watched in discovery of India serial. As per my knowledge Ghori was defeated by Bhimdev Solanki and it was a bloody battle in which there was so much loss that Ghori did not try to attack him again. It might not have been the case with Prithviraj Chauhan. It implies that in the first battle with Prithviraj, he might have committed some blunders about which he was confident that he could rectify in future.

As per the 'Discovery if India' its assumed that Ghori was not pardoned out of compassion, but out of treaty which imposed a heavy tax on Afghans. It must have been a well thought out strategy in the given conditions on the part of Chauhans.

[Airavat]

But depends which Raso are we talking about. Apparently there were 4 : shortest, short, medium and long Rasos. Other then the shortest one the rest have embellishments/mistakes and were written centuries after Prithviraj's time though the shortest one may have been written within a few decades of his time.

The only contemporary text is the Prithviraja Vijaya. As for the Raso (whether short or long) not only embellishments, the basic construct of the story is false. There was no Sanyogita, no swayamvar, and no battles between the kingdoms of Kannauj and Ajmer. It is astonishing that the poem gives a wrong name for Prithviraja's mother and doesn't even mention his valiant brother Hariraja!

Coming back to the Hindu sources, even though they differ in detail have mistakes etc, they are all consistent that Ghori was captured.

No they are not. Neither the Prabandha-chintamani nor the Viruddhavidhi-vidhvamsa mention it. The latter was written by Lakshmidhara, grandnephew of Prithviraja's general Skanda, a person intimately connected with events in the Kingdom of Ajmer.

The contemporary text is Prithviraja Vijaya, which gives the most accurate picture of the Geopolitical situation, backed up by inscriptions and coins. The main rivals of the Chauhan Rajputs were the Ghaznavid Turks in Punjab to the north, and the Solankis, Paramaras, and Chandellas to the south. It also provides data useful for military history:

The sixth sarga of the manuscript contains an account of Arnoraja, the grandfather of Prithviraj. Arnoraja completely vanquished the Mussalmans (Ghaznavi Turks from Punab) who had come via the desert, where for want of water they had to drink the blood of horses. Large numbers of them in heavy armour were killed by the heroes of Ajmer. The victory was celebrated with great elation, and in order to purify the place where the Mussalmans had fallen, the king constructed a lake called Ana Sagar after himself.

An early military exploit by the young Prithivraj was the suppression of a rebellion by his cousin Nagarjuna, the son of Vigrahraja. Without taking Kadambvasa or Bhuvanik Malla with him, Prithviraj started with a large army of horsemen, infantry, elephants, and camels to attack Nagarjuna, and captured Gudpura from him. He brought to Ajmer the wife and the mother of Nagarjuna, and placed the heads of his enemies on the battlements of the fort of Ajmer.

The manuscript next describes the conflict with the Turk ruler of Ghor. "The land of the North-West where horses abound, the beef-eating mlechha, named Ghori, who had captured Garjani (Ghazni) hearing that Prithviraja had vowed to exterminate the mlechhas, sent an ambassador to Ajmer."

None of these details are to be found in the Raso. And purely from the perspective of military history, did the Turki cavalry turn into a herd of sheep, which Prithviraja merrily captured and released at his will 17 times?

[peter]

But depends which Raso are we talking about. Apparently there were 4 : shortest, short, medium and long Rasos. Other then the shortest one the rest have embellishments/mistakes and were written centuries after Prithviraj's time though the shortest one may have been written within a few decades of his time.

The only contemporary text is the Prithviraja Vijaya.

Yes but Vijaya stops its narrative after the defeat of Ghori at the hands of Gujarat Solankis. It does not cover the battles of Ghurids with Chauhans.

Will comment on the Sanyogita a bit later.

Coming back to the Hindu sources, even though they differ in detail have mistakes etc, they are all consistent that Ghori was captured.

No they are not.

Hammir Mahakavya and Raso both say that Ghori was captured. So does the bardic literature of Hindus. Prithviraj Vijay does not cover this time period.

Neither the Prabandha-chintamani nor the Viruddhavidhi-vidhvamsa mention it. The latter was written by Lakshmidhara, grandnephew of Prithviraja's general Skanda, a person intimately connected with events in the Kingdom of Ajmer.

What do these books mention about the fate of Ghori in the first battle at Taraori?

The contemporary text is Prithviraja Vijaya, which gives the most accurate picture of the Geopolitical situation, backed up by inscriptions and coins. The main rivals of the Chauhan Rajputs were the Ghaznavid Turks in Punjab to the north, and the Solankis, Paramaras, and Chandellas to the south. It also provides data useful for military history:
[..]
None of these details are to be found in the Raso. And purely from the perspective of military history, did the Turki cavalry turn into a herd of sheep, which Prithviraja merrily captured and released at his will 17 times?

Will comment on multiple battles with Ghurids in short time.

What do you think about the multitude of tales to be found in the Islamic chronicles about the fate of Ghori at the end of the first battle at Taraori?

[Airavat]

Hammir Mahakavya and Raso both say that Ghori was captured. So does the bardic literature of Hindus. Prithviraj Vijay does not cover this time period.

Prithviraja Vijaya is accurate for the Chauhan genealogy, accurate for military details, and directly contradicts the basic story of the Raso. Even the Hammir Mahakavya contradicts the Raso.....it makes no mention of Jayachandra or Sanyogita. It has Prithviraja fight and capture the Turks in Multan, and not Tarain! It also claims seven further battles between the two. Subsequently it has Ghori capturing Delhi (!) after which he fights and captures Prithviraja.

The early Chauhan genealogy in the Hammir Mahakavya is also inaccurate, and nationalist historians agree that the text is only accurate from the end of Prithviraja onwards. They also believe that it gives the credit for early Chauhan battles, by Arnoraja and Vigrahraja against the Ghaznavi Turks of Punjab, to Prithviraja alone. Which is why it has him fighting 17 battles continuously and that too against the same enemy.

Had so many battles been fought prior to Tarain, they would find some mention in the Prithviraja Vijaya, the Prabandha-chintamani or the Viruddhavidhi-vidhvamsa.

[peter]

Hammir Mahakavya and Raso both say that Ghori was captured. So does the bardic literature of Hindus. Prithviraj Vijay does not cover this time period.

Prithviraja Vijaya is accurate for the Chauhan genealogy, accurate for military details, and directly contradicts the basic story of the Raso. Even the Hammir Mahakavya contradicts the Raso.....it makes no mention of Jayachandra or Sanyogita. It has Prithviraja fight and capture the Turks in Multan, and not Tarain! It also claims seven further battles between the two. Subsequently it has Ghori capturing Delhi (!) after which he fights and captures Prithviraja.

The early Chauhan genealogy in the Hammir Mahakavya is also inaccurate, and nationalist historians agree that the text is only accurate from the end of Prithviraja onwards. They also believe that it gives the credit for early Chauhan battles, by Arnoraja and Vigrahraja against the Ghaznavi Turks of Punjab, to Prithviraja alone. Which is why it has him fighting 17 battles continuously and that too against the same enemy.

Had so many battles been fought prior to Tarain, they would find some mention in the Prithviraja Vijaya, the Prabandha-chintamani or the Viruddhavidhi-vidhvamsa.

But what are we trying to argue for?

I thought I was arguing for whether Ghori was captured after the first battle of Taraori and you seem to be arguing about the accuracy of Raso.

Seems like we are talking past each other.

Can we please first resolve Ghori's fate after the first battle in 1191 and then move on to other topics like Sanyogita, many battles between Ghurids and Chauhans etc.?

[Airavat]

I thought I was arguing for whether Ghori was captured after the first battle of Taraori and you seem to be arguing about the accuracy of Raso.

But you referred to the Raso as your principal source for that claim.

Can we please first resolve Ghori's fate after the first battle in 1191

If the Hammira Mahakavya is your source then that first battle was not fought in 1191, but much earlier and far to the west in Multan. Since no details are provided about that or the subsequent battles, it seems that the author credited the achievements of early Chauhan rulers against the Ghaznavi Turks of Punjab solely to Prithviraja, and portrayed Ghori as the same enemy in all these conflicts. The Raso has an entirely different take and its problems were listed in an earlier post.

Both these texts are of a late period, and apart from their basic inaccuracies in the Chauhan genealogy, there is no corroborating evidence in the contemporary texts or inscriptions. And from the available evidence of military history of that period, the idea of the Turki cavalry being routed is acceptable, but not that of being surrounded and captured by the Indian cavalry on inferior horses, slow moving elephants, infantry, and camels. For that you would have to believe that their horses had magically turned into a herd of sheep!

[peter]

I thought I was arguing for whether Ghori was captured after the first battle of Taraori and you seem to be arguing about the accuracy of Raso.

But you referred to the Raso as your principal source for that claim.

I mentioned Raso along with other Hindu sources which include Hammir Mahakavya and Bardic sources that all of them say the same thing about Ghori being captured. Prithviraj Vijay is irrelevant because it does not cover the period of the first battle of Taraori. It stops many years before the first battle.

You have'nt mentioned what P Chintamani and V Vidhvamsa say about the fate of Ghori. So unless these two sources contradict raso, hammir kavya and bardic sources on the issue of Ghori's capture we have to conclude that all Hindu sources are consistent with each other on this point.

In addition Islamic sources are in disagreement with each other on the fate of Ghori. As I mentioned earlier that Raverty mentions Ferishta who quotes Zain ul Maasir that Sultan was left on the battlefield presumed dead and only in the middle of the night his servants came and fetched him.

This is a clear coverup. A tale had to be invented by the court historians of Ghori on why he arrived many hours later to the resting point of his defeated army.

Hindu source do not seem off the mark that Ghori was captured and then released later.

Can we please first resolve Ghori's fate after the first battle in 1191

If the Hammira Mahakavya is your source then that first battle was not fought in 1191, but much earlier and far to the west in Multan.

No. H Mahakavya published by R.O.R.I (Rajasthan Oriental Research Institute) mentions in Chapter 3 pages 50-55 that Ghori was captured in the first battle at Taraori.

Both these texts are of a late period, and apart from their basic inaccuracies in the Chauhan genealogy, there is no corroborating evidence in the contemporary texts or inscriptions. And from the available evidence of military history of that period, the idea of the Turki cavalry being routed is acceptable, but not that of being surrounded and captured by the Indian cavalry on inferior horses, slow moving elephants, infantry, and camels. For that you would have to believe that their horses had magically turned into a herd of sheep!

I will reply to the above points once we conclude on the fate of Ghori.

[Singha]

isnt this absolute ability assigned to the turkic cavalry ie incapable of being enveloped and captured a bit like the F22 or Abrams tank marketing? among a horde of tens of thousands of cavalry surely not all units could be of uniformly high caliber ?

[Rahul M]

no singha ji, war horses were very carefully chosen, so while not all would have same standard, there would be a minimum acceptable standard every horse would satisfy.

breeds like this were the staple of turk cavalry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akhal-Teke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkoman_horse

most war horse breeds of central asia are said to have originated from the nisean horse, the so-called superhorse of the ancient world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nisean_horse

[Singha]

but seemingly these TFTA horse breeds bred in a much cooler and drier env did not take to well to the swampy marshlands of the ganga-jamuna region (which was not thickly farmed then) and certainly not the rainy climes of eastern india. the mughals apparently loathed the climate of india and had a long list of complaints starting with horses becoming ill and dying out, no musk melons, no roses, no almonds etc etc

the ones you have posted, fine and sleek looking beasts though...must have needed fairly lavish care from camp followers and auxiliaries to keep them going on extended campaigns into India.

The Turkoman horses were fed a special high-protein diet of broiled chicken , barley, dates, raisins, alfalfa, and mutton fat. They wore thick felt blankets to cause sweating on hot days, keeping them slender and free from body fat

[Rahul M]

true but only if the campaign became an extended one to include the monsoons. and it was not a problem in semi-arid north west India.

[Rahul M]

the ones you have posted, fine and sleek looking beasts though...must have needed fairly lavish care from camp followers and auxiliaries to keep them going on extended campaigns into India.

The Turkoman horses were fed a special high-protein diet of broiled chicken , barley, dates, raisins, alfalfa, and mutton fat. They wore thick felt blankets to cause sweating on hot days, keeping them slender and free from body fat

those are for modern race horses. it's their ancestors we are talking about. the alsatian may look like a wolf and need a lot of care but its ancestors survived on their own in the wild and were far more dangerous.
horse raising practices varied from place to place but the common themes were they were given lots of space to roam and survived mainly on foraging. when on marches time and opportunity for foraging were less and it was supplemented with high value food like grains.
about taking care, the MBA types would of course have his own crew to take care of his horses (at least two, one for riding, another for battle). the common soldier would look after his own horse, in cavalry armies on setting up camp the men would first take care of their horses with a rub down, give it food and water, perhaps a blanket if needed and only then attend to his own needs.

if you are interested look up sidnel philips' warhorse cavalry in ancient warfare.

[peter]

no singha ji, war horses were very carefully chosen, so while not all would have same standard, there would be a minimum acceptable standard every horse would satisfy.

But won't the cavalry include the horse and the man on the horse? Is just having a good horse sufficient? If yes in what way?

Do you have a battle in mind where the Arabic/Turkic/Afghan cavalry carried the day against Indian horse with Hindus riding on it where Arabian horse was the sole trump card or it enabled a strategy which could not be countered by the Indian cavalry?

[Rahul M]

please point out where I have said cavalry does not include 'man on the horse'. failing which, kindly explain what you mean by this ridiculous question.

[Airavat]

No. H Mahakavya published by R.O.R.I (Rajasthan Oriental Research Institute) mentions in Chapter 3 pages 50-55 that Ghori was captured in the first battle at Taraori.

[peter]

please point out where I have said cavalry does not include 'man on the horse'. failing which, kindly explain what you mean by this ridiculous question.

Singha said that all cavalry units could not be of the same calibre. I assumed he meant not just the horses but the cavalry included the man on the horse and the horse.

You replied with a post mentioning the good quality of arabian horses thereby implying that good horses played an important role in good cavalry.

Hence my follow up question as to what qualities of a good horse do you consider a trump card and what is the evidence from a real battle for the same in the Indian sub-continent.

[peter]

No. H Mahakavya published by R.O.R.I (Rajasthan Oriental Research Institute) mentions in Chapter 3 pages 50-55 that Ghori was captured in the first battle at Taraori.

[img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-5Hx5mSKGqek/T ... akavya.jpg[/*img]

Thanks! Prithviraj set out for Multan and Ghori set out from Multan. They did not meet in Multan because Ghori returns to Multan after he had been captured and released. Multan was the last Ghaznivid area that Ghori captured from descendants of Mahmud Ghaznavi.

[Rahul M]

please point out where I have said cavalry does not include 'man on the horse'. failing which, kindly explain what you mean by this ridiculous question.

Singha said that all cavalry units could not be of the same calibre. I assumed he meant not just the horses but the cavalry included the man on the horse and the horse.

I would in turn assume that a BRFite would understand that horsemen on both sides would be suitably trained to their respective standards. this discussion has already addressed those points.

You replied with a post mentioning the good quality of arabian horses thereby implying that good horses played an important role in good cavalry.

if you bothered to actually raed my posts in stead of getting emotional over it you would have known that none of the examples I gave were arabian horses.

Hence my follow up question as to what qualities of a good horse do you consider a trump card and what is the evidence from a real battle for the same in the Indian sub-continent.

you are wasting time with these rhetorical questions but two can play at this game. if I may, answer this question and I will answer yours.
what qualities of a good horse rider do you consider a trump card and what is the evidence from a real battle for the same in the Indian sub-continent ?

[peter]

You replied with a post mentioning the good quality of arabian horses thereby implying that good horses played an important role in good cavalry.

if you bothered to actually raed my posts in stead of getting emotional over it you would have known that none of the examples I gave were arabian horses.

Emotional?

Hence my follow up question as to what qualities of a good horse do you consider a trump card and what is the evidence from a real battle for the same in the Indian sub-continent.

you are wasting time with these rhetorical questions but two can play at this game. if I may, answer this question and I will answer yours.
what qualities of a good horse rider do you consider a trump card and what is the evidence from a real battle for the same in the Indian sub-continent ?

I will quote Thapar, Romila;
A History of India v.1
Penguin, 1966 / 1980, 381 pages
ISBN 0140138366

[ANIMAL HUSBANDRY] It is strange that India never bred sufficient
horses of quality, the best blood having always to be imported; this
was to have disastrous consequences on the cavalry ... particularly in
comparison with central Asian horsemen. [ p.149] [Percival Spear,
p. 24 - Battle of Panipat 1525, and Babur's battle near Agra 1527 with
Rajputs under Rana Sanga] the Rajputs had no answer to the wheeling
tactics of the Mughal cavalry.

I have read this often enough that Central Asians/Turks/Arabs had horse advantage for the cavalry. I am trying to understand this point. It is not rhetorical at all.

To answer your question on what qualities would make a good cavalry rider:
a) Yoga to keep muscles supple and develop good co-ordination.
b) Practicing sword cuts on logs/clay figurines to develop strength in the stroke
c) Making sure to fight with a cocked wrist (almost like how you hit a squash ball)
d) Learning to not get the sword entangled in the ribs
e) Become an expert in controlling a horse
f) Use of blood clotting agents like opium to numb the pain and develop clots quickly.

Ofcourse there are more qualities needed but this is just the gist.

[Rahul M]

peter, it has been addressed again and again. only parts of western India spec. the rajputs had good war horses and they performed admirably in spite of their usual numerical disadvantage vis-a-vis the invaders. even so, during prithviraj's era they were not as cavalry heavy as they became later and I suspect the breed hadn't yet developed to its full potential. I assume you are aware that legends of marwari horse state that they were bred from shipwrecked arab horses. while I have doubts about that, it is very likely they used arab and turk horses to improve the domestic breeds.
for the rest of India getting good horses meant a combination of wealth and access to horse traders from the west, usually quite a rare coincidence. they never had as many as they would want. consequently were always at a disadvantage in cavalry.

the cost of foreign horses was astronomical. a horse trading trip to India with a single shipload of horses was considered enough for a man to live the rest of his life in comfort. there was a russian afanisy nikitin who made such a trip in 15th century.

>> Emotional?
emotional is the charitable explanation for why one would miss the fact that none of the examples were of arab horses.

>> what qualities of a good horse do you consider a trump card
trump card or not the qualities are obvious, speed, stamina, load carrying capacity and obedience.

[Airavat]

Thanks! Prithviraj set out for Multan and Ghori set out from Multan. They did not meet in Multan because Ghori returns to Multan after he had been captured and released. Multan was the last Ghaznivid area that Ghori captured from descendants of Mahmud Ghaznavi.

Multan was not a "Ghaznavid area", but under the Qaramitah Arabs who were conquered by Ghori in 1175. Lahore was the Ghaznavid kingdom which was acquired in 1186.

1) The text clearly states that the battle was fought "in the enemy's country".
2) Then it says seven more battles were fought after that first one.

Therefore this is not Tarain, located in Haryana within the Chauhan kingdom, and it is not in 1191 because seven other battles follow this one. By the way, there is no mention of Ghori being captured in these other battles.

[peter]

..., during prithviraj's era they were not as cavalry heavy as they became later and I suspect the breed hadn't yet developed to its full potential.

But is the stuff highlighted in the bold a valid assumption? Evidence from the first battle at Taraori suggests it was a horse cavalry charge of Hindus that defeated the Ghurid cavalry.

>> what qualities of a good horse do you consider a trump card
trump card or not the qualities are obvious, speed, stamina, load carrying capacity and obedience.

Well every history writer who tries to explain the victory of invaders in India has the "better breed of horses" as one of the main reason for their success (the second one is artillery!).

I have yet to see the evidence for it...

[Rahul M]

..., during prithviraj's era they were not as cavalry heavy as they became later and I suspect the breed hadn't yet developed to its full potential.

But is the stuff highlighted in the bold a valid assumption? Evidence from the first battle at Taraori suggests it was a horse cavalry charge of Hindus that defeated the Ghurid cavalry.

and that ^^^ invalidates my comment how exactly ?
I am sorry, I have no magic cure for lack of comprehension.

>> what qualities of a good horse do you consider a trump card
trump card or not the qualities are obvious, speed, stamina, load carrying capacity and obedience.

Well every history writer who tries to explain the victory of invaders in India has the "better breed of horses" as one of the main reason for their success (the second one is artillery!).

wrong. most explain it as Indians were not united and were poor fighters. if you have a better explanation let's hear it.
extending your posts so far in this thread one would assume that no Indian army was ever defeated in battle.

I have yet to see the evidence for it...

I suggest reading. nothing like it really.

[peter]

Thanks! Prithviraj set out for Multan and Ghori set out from Multan. They did not meet in Multan because Ghori returns to Multan after he had been captured and released. Multan was the last Ghaznivid area that Ghori captured from descendants of Mahmud Ghaznavi.

Multan was not a "Ghaznavid area", but under the Qaramitah Arabs who were conquered by Ghori in 1175. Lahore was the Ghaznavid kingdom which was acquired in 1186.

. Thanks for fixing the typo.

1) The text clearly states that the battle was fought "in the enemy's country".
2) Then it says seven more battles were fought after that first one.

Therefore this is not Tarain, located in Haryana within the Chauhan kingdom, and it is not in 1191 because seven other battles follow this one. By the way, there is no mention of Ghori being captured in these other battles.

Well if we read HM (Hammir Mahakavya) Chapter 3 Pages 13-15 it is mentioned that kings of "western tract" of India, who had been suffering at the hands of Sultan, chose Chandraraj to petition Prithviraj for succour. HM further says that Chandra informed Prithviraj that Sultan had committed atrocities on the populations of various Hindu kings and had established his capital at Multan.

Pritvhiraj attacking Multan is an epithet for an attack on Ghori. Just like Islamabad attacks New Delhi where the actual attack can happen in Kashmir or Rajasthan or elsewhere.

Chandra the messenger prince is identified with Chandra Pundir of Pundri near Karnal.

What is further known is that Sirhind or Bhatinda had a fort which was captured by Ghori in 1190 which is not too far from Pundri the dominions of Chandra. The march of Prithviraj was to reconquer Sirhind and that is the reason the engagement took place south of Sirhind at Taraori. This is the battle Hammir Mahakavya is talking about.

After the defeat of Ghori in 1191 further skirmishes with his forces at Sirhind continued.

This is a good segway to bring in the data from all Hindu sources about the number of battles that occured between the Chauhans and Ghurids:

PrabandhaChintamani: 23 engagements
PrithvirajaPrabandha: 8
Prithviraj Raso: > 20
Hammir MahaKavya: 7
Prabandha Kosa: 20
Prithivraj Vijay: Not relevant as it stops before the battle.
VirudhaVidhiVidhvansa states that Skanda, the Senadhipati of the Chauhana forces killed the Turukshas continually. This seems to be in line with other Hindu sources.

I should also mention that Ferishta notices that Hindu texts extant in his time had mentioned at least 7 battles between Ghori and the Chauhans.

Now the question to ponder over is that Ghurids and Chauhans had a common border from 1186 to 1192. With a Sultan at helm who had intentions to grow his kingdom do we expect that he or his chieftains would not have attacked across the border in these six years?

[peter]

..., during prithviraj's era they were not as cavalry heavy as they became later and I suspect the breed hadn't yet developed to its full potential.

But is the stuff highlighted in the bold a valid assumption? Evidence from the first battle at Taraori suggests it was a horse cavalry charge of Hindus that defeated the Ghurid cavalry.

and that ^^^ invalidates my comment how exactly ?
I am sorry, I have no magic cure for lack of comprehension.

If the Hindus did not have good breeds of local horses how did their cavalry beat the opposing cavalry, which was 100,000 strong according to their own authors?

>> what qualities of a good horse do you consider a trump card
trump card or not the qualities are obvious, speed, stamina, load carrying capacity and obedience.

Well every history writer who tries to explain the victory of invaders in India has the "better breed of horses" as one of the main reason for their success (the second one is artillery!).

wrong. most explain it as Indians were not united and were poor fighters.

I would have to disagree: Romila Thapar, entire Aligarh crowd, Perceval Spear etc are all "inferior horse breed propagators"!

if you have a better explanation let's hear it.
extending your posts so far in this thread one would assume that no Indian army was ever defeated in battle.

Nope. All I am saying is it was not the horses and neither the artillery which carried the day!

I have yet to see the evidence for it...

I suggest reading. nothing like it really.

Does'nt parse.

[Rahul M]

please let me know what the following phrases/terms mean to you, since it seems to be different from the commonly accepted meanings.

> cavalry heavy
> not developed to its full potential

[Airavat]

Well if we read HM (Hammir Mahakavya) Chapter 3 Pages 13-15 it is mentioned that kings of "western tract" of India, who had been suffering at the hands of Sultan, chose Chandraraj to petition Prithviraj for succour.
Chandra the messenger prince is identified with Chandra Pundir of Pundri near Karnal.

Identified by whom? Not by the Hammira Mahakavya....it only states "Sri Chandraraja son of Govindaraja". From the position of the Kingdom of Ajmer, which spread up to Gujarat, the western tracts would be Sindh, Multan, and Baluchistan.....not Punjab or Haryana.

What is further known is that Sirhind or Bhatinda had a fort which was captured by Ghori in 1190 which is not too far from Pundri the dominions of Chandra. The march of Prithviraj was to reconquer Sirhind and that is the reason the engagement took place south of Sirhind at Taraori. This is the battle Hammir Mahakavya is talking about.

Now the question to ponder over is that Ghurids and Chauhans had a common border from 1186 to 1192. With a Sultan at helm who had intentions to grow his kingdom do we expect that he or his chieftains would not have attacked across the border in these six years?

In other words your are trashing your own source? The Hammira Mahakavya is wrong? The seven battles were mere border skirmishes which took place before the first battle, which in turn did not take place near Multan. Presumably then this text is wrong about the second battle as well, because it states that Ghori first captured Delhi and then fought Prithviraja, and from simple geography this second battle could not have been fought at Tarain either.

To sum up, the Hammira Mahakavya is wrong about geography, wrong about chronology of battles, wrong about the locations of these battles, wrong about the capture of Delhi. The only thing that is right is that Ghori was captured by Prithviraja....how, when, where doesn't matter.

[peter]

Well if we read HM (Hammir Mahakavya) Chapter 3 Pages 13-15 it is mentioned that kings of "western tract" of India, who had been suffering at the hands of Sultan, chose Chandraraj to petition Prithviraj for succour.
Chandra the messenger prince is identified with Chandra Pundir of Pundri near Karnal.

Identified by whom? Not by the Hammira Mahakavya....it only states "Sri Chandraraja son of Govindaraja". From the position of the Kingdom of Ajmer, which spread up to Gujarat, the western tracts would be Sindh, Multan, and Baluchistan.....not Punjab or Haryana.

Wrong interpretation I am afraid. Prithviraj had taken over delhi by that time. Pundri, Chandra's area, was to the west of delhi. Sirhind was the closest fort that Ghori had captured. Chandra is identified in Raso and also Pundir genealogists from Pundri mention him.

What is further known is that Sirhind or Bhatinda had a fort which was captured by Ghori in 1190 which is not too far from Pundri the dominions of Chandra. The march of Prithviraj was to reconquer Sirhind and that is the reason the engagement took place south of Sirhind at Taraori. This is the battle Hammir Mahakavya is talking about.

Now the question to ponder over is that Ghurids and Chauhans had a common border from 1186 to 1192. With a Sultan at helm who had intentions to grow his kingdom do we expect that he or his chieftains would not have attacked across the border in these six years?

In other words your are trashing your own source? The Hammira Mahakavya is wrong?

No. You are mis-interpreting it again. HM is consistent with other Hindu sources including Prabandh Chintamani as well as VirudhaVidhiVidhvansa which all attest to multiple battles unlike what you were saying earlier.

The seven battles were mere border skirmishes which took place before the first battle, which in turn did not take place near Multan. Presumably then this text is wrong about the second battle as well, because it states that Ghori first captured Delhi and then fought Prithviraja, and from simple geography this second battle could not have been fought at Tarain either.

To sum up, the Hammira Mahakavya is wrong about geography, wrong about chronology of battles, wrong about the locations of these battles, wrong about the capture of Delhi. The only thing that is right is that Ghori was captured by Prithviraja....how, when, where doesn't matter.

As I have mentioned earlier even the Islamic sources are not consistent with each other or even themselves (for example different versions of Tabaka-i-Nasiri has different endings to the first battle of Taraori), don't have consistent names for geography or people, so do you propose we throw them all out too?

History writing is a bit more complicated .....

[peter]

please let me know what the following phrases/terms mean to you, since it seems to be different from the commonly accepted meanings.

> cavalry heavy
> not developed to its full potential

Well I looked at this full sentence:

during prithviraj's era they were not as cavalry heavy as they became later and I suspect the breed hadn't yet developed to its full potential.

and I interpreted it:
a) cavalry did not/could not play an important role in Prithviraj's era because
----i) his army was not cavalry heavy and
----ii) was hampaered by not having good horse breeds

[Airavat]

Wrong interpretation I am afraid. Prithviraj had taken over delhi by that time.

Delhi was conquered by Vigraharaja IV, not Prithviraja (as per the contemporary Prithviraja Vijaya as well as the Bijolia inscription). Another Chauhan ruler, Prithvibhatta had pushed up the boundaries of the kingdom to the Sutlej. That includes the whole of Haryana and South Punjab in the Chauhan kingdom. And all this much before Prithviraja....so this new claim that "kings of the west" uprooted by Ghori were all located in Haryana to the west of Delhi is ridiculous.

The real question is why the Hammira Mahakavya gets its geography and chronology wrong, while the Prithviraja Vijaya gets them right?

The land of the North-West where horses abound, the beef-eating mlechha, named Ghori, who had captured Garjani (Ghazni) hearing that Prithviraja had vowed to exterminate the mlechhas, sent an ambassador to Ajmer. This man had a wide forehead, but no hair on his head. The colour of his beard, eyebrows, and the eyelashes was of the grapes that come from Ghazni, and his speech was like that of wild birds; it had no cerebrals. His complexion was like that of a leper, and he wore a long choga.

When these fiends in the shape of men took possession of Nadol, the warriors of Prithviraja took up their bows and the emperor became angry and resolved to lay Ghori's glory to dust.

This manuscript shows an awareness for events taking place thousands of miles away. But the HM has no clue about Ghori's capture of Ghazni; it imagines that Hindu kings are ruling in the Indus valley which Ghori has conquered, and it further believes that Ghori's capital is actually Multan.

The HM does not know about the ambassador sent to the Chauhan court, or the Ghurid invasion of Gujarat via Nadol. The early Chauhan genealogy in the Hammir Mahakavya is also inaccurate, and nationalist historians agree that the text is only accurate from the end of Prithviraja onwards.

[Rahul M]

please let me know what the following phrases/terms mean to you, since it seems to be different from the commonly accepted meanings.

> cavalry heavy
> not developed to its full potential

Well I looked at this full sentence:

during prithviraj's era they were not as cavalry heavy as they became later and I suspect the breed hadn't yet developed to its full potential.

and I interpreted it:
a) cavalry did not/could not play an important role in Prithviraj's era because
----i) his army was not cavalry heavy and
----ii) was hampaered by not having good horse breeds

I am sorry to say in that case it's pointless discussing anything with you unless you improve your comprehension. because you will never understand what others are saying and derail threads with your skewed 'interpretations'.