Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

[peter]

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.

Prithviraja taking over Delhi means he and his family were the rulers of Delhi. Not a new claim!. Pundri and Sirhind were to the north west of this kingdom. Hammir Mahakavya is not wrong! You are just mis interpreting it. You keep bringing up Prithivraj Vijay but it does not cover the events related to the first battle at all.

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

It does not get it wrong. It is just a bad reading on your part.

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 is not related to the first battle of Taraori at all. This is a reference to the attack of Ghori on Gujarat. Apples and oranges.

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.

No. You are mis-interpreting again. Multan was conquered by Ghori in 1170's and he used it to launch attacks on India as well as Lahore so it did serve as his "capital".

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.

So what? Do you expect all history books to contain all facts? Prithviraja Vijay does not contain the encounter of Chauhans with Ghurids. Does that make it less valuable?

[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

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'.

I don't know what you are complaining about. It is rather straight forward interpretation of what you wrote and you can try asking others on this thread of what they think of what you have written. And am willing to accept "my skewed interpretation" if you write clearly what you mean.

[Airavat]

Prithvirja taking over Delhi means he and his family were the rulers of Delhi. Not a new claim!. Pundri and Sirhind were to the north west of this kingdom. Hammir Mahakavya is not wrong!

What does the Hammir Mahakavya have to do with "Pundri and Sirhind" neither of which it mentions?? In any case the text says that Hindu kings of the WEST were uprooted by Ghori, not the north west. Chauhan kingdom extended up to the Sutlej, as Prithvibhatta had captured Panchpattan on the Sutlej from the Muslims, hence "Pundri and Sirhind" were a part of the Chauhan kingdom. So the Hindu kings of the west who appealed to Prithviraj were not located in Haryana, to the west of Delhi, as you have been claiming but in the Indus plains.

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 is not related to the first battle of Taraori at all. This is a reference to the attack of Ghori on Gujarat. Apples and oranges.

And the point was that neither the "apple" nor the "orange" is found in your source, the Hammira Mahakavya.

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.

No. You are mis-interpreting again. Multan was conquered by Ghori in 1170's and he used it to launch attacks on India as well as Lahore so it did serve as his "capital".

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.

So what? Do you expect all history books to contain all facts?

Not me but nationalist historians. And the "facts" should tally with inscriptions, as they do in case of the Prithviraja Vijaya. It is their conclusion that the HM is inaccurate for the early period, and only useful for the post-Prithviraja period. Now if you believe that all these historians like RC Majumdar, KM Munshi, Jadunath Sarkar, and Pandit Bisheshwar Nath Reu (who analyzed the Raso for Jodhpur state), are all wrong, then this discussion is pointless. My last post here.

[Rahul M]

I don't know what you are complaining about. It is rather straight forward interpretation of what you wrote and you can try asking others on this thread of what they think of what you have written. And am willing to accept "my skewed interpretation" if you write clearly what you mean.

I don't doubt that you don't understand.
I think I write clearly enough since I haven't seen anyone else misinterpreting my posts consistently like you have. I would really appreciate if you do not reply to or quote my posts.
cheers.

[Lalmohan]

peter - we seem to be missing the point about tactics whilst focusing on individual prowess - even in the latter there are differences between nomads who live their lives on horseback and urban warriors who learn to fight on horseback. we are not discussing tactics for the use of cavalry. turko-mongols fought fluid battles of manouvre with fast - light and heavy horse with different aims. indian armies rarely concentrated cavalry into shock forces and rarely used manouvre, prefering to concentrate on complex combined arms formations - which could not cope well with a fluid battle. indian armies usually won against invaders if the battle was on ground where static formations could hold their ground. in open ground the nomads usually managed to gain the advantage - even if done by means of a feint to tempt the indian army into breaking formation

[Rahul M]

preaching to the wrong crowd LM, peter strongly believes that the rajputs had horse archers and that it was the best in the world (!) and that no Indian army ever lost a battle.

[ramana]

Guys, This is a serious thread. So don't use emoticons if you can.

[Reddy]

Just started learning Indian chess. Hope i am not digressing here (sorry if i am)… however, according to wiki chess was mentioned in Mahabharata too so it is with us for sometime. Since chess was believed to be used as a war strategy learning tool, can we learn sometime about battle formations from it? For example, horse is powerful piece but it is short legged, just like what was mentioned here about Indian horse breeds. Elephant is very strong running straight etc.

[Rahul M]

>> Hope i am not digressing here

not at all !

what we call chess today originated from chaturanga, but the rules are not exactly same. in chaturanga, which was modeled upon the classic four arms of Indian armies (viz. infantry, chariots, elephants and cavalry) no piece other than rook/chariot had freedom to move throughout the board, like certain pieces like queen, rook and bishop have in modern chess. the horse was in fact longer legged than the gaj/elephant/bishop.

[BajKhedawal]

A while ago you guys were discussing war horses, so here's a visual reference for you guys. I was at "The World Horse Expo" this January, and following was touted as the almost extinct breed used by the mongol hordes (supposedly nimble footed for archers). It was introduced at the show as a "Tiger Horse"

1 Tiger Horse

[BajKhedawal]

2 Andalusian Horse (War Horse for the Kings)

[BajKhedawal]

3 Mustang Horse (TFTA of the louis l'amour fame, this things now come with a VIN number etched on their neck)

[Lalmohan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mongolian-horse.jpg

A mongolian horse with trimmed hair, note lack of shoes and thick coat. traditionally requires little upkeep and forages for its own food in all seasons

such a breed would soon overheat in indian conditions

[tsarkar]

Few days back I checked with an ex-RVC officer. FWIW, Indian Army today are the largest breeders of dogs and mules, for COIN and logistics. I learnt that RVC is the largest supplier of mules to US CENTCOM for Af-Pak operations, and in terms of numbers, the largest Indian “weapons system” export to US.

They are in existence for last 250 odd years, with dedicated horse breeding centers and he explained the dynamics.

Purebred horses – Turkoman or Nicean – while thriving in their origin lands – are extremely difficult to maintain in foreign land. Before scientific breeding was discovered, nutritious diet available in origin lands might not be available in foreign lands. That is why Taimur planted barley for horses years in advance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timur

Timur's military talents were unique. He planned all his campaigns years in advance, even planting barley for horse feed two-years ahead of his campaigns.

Also, India being a tropical country – humid & hot – had a larger disease pool unlike drier highlands of Central Asia. So any large breeding attempt – pre-British – failed because of lack of original breeding conditions + higher susceptibility to diseases. Also, to maintain and enhance characteristics, the lineage had to be maintained, which was not possible as stocks dwindled due to warfare attrition + disease + geographical distance from heartland to replenish gene pool.

The Mughal army had become an elephant + infantry army by the time of later Mughals.

Arabian and Iranian horses were imported via the west coast. As Europeans took over the west coast sea trade, the Dakhani sultanates declined vis-a-vis Mughals since their supply of horses and manpower was cut off. The Portuguese were major suppliers of horses for the Vijaynagar empire via their West Coast + Persian Gulf colonies. Later, when Ottoman Turks expelled Portuguese from the Persian Gulf, the supply of horses to the Vijaynagar kingdom stopped.

Even the last empires before Industrial Revolution - British and Russian - were horse based.

The British in the 17th and 18th century bred thoroughbred horses, which mixed various genetic strains of Arab and Turkomen warhorses with hardy European workhorses . The Russian empire expanded same time after their generals and Tsars started scientific breeding of Turkomen horses for the Cossack armies. Even today, RVC breeds thoroughbreds.

[tsarkar]

I'll give another analogy on why Indians couldn't develop cavalry.

Comparing aircraft engines to horses, since power is measured in horsepower, the US with GE F110 engines generating 127 kN thrust developed F-16. The F-16 can be considered cavalry, since it has one horse (engine) one weapon platform (fighter)

In the same timeframe, the Chinese with WP-13B engines generating 68.7 kN thrust developed J-8II. Since the best available Chinese engine had half the horsepower of the US engine, they used two engines per fighter. The J-8II can be considered chariot, since it has two horses (engines) one weapon platform (fighter).

Historically, before horses evolved (3000 BC – 1000 BC), and equids were common, all civilizations used chariots – Egyptian, Greek, Sumerian and Indian.

As warhorse breeds evolved (Nicean/Turkomen), chariots were discarded by the Persians/Parthians - except for ceremonial purposes – since horse formations were easier to manoeuver than chariot formations, and use in pincer, flank and envelopment actions.

So civilizations with deficient horses built chariots, like the Chinese used two deficient engines built J-8II while civilizations with efficient horses built cavalry forces, like single engined F-16.

Most of our heros – Rama, Ravana, Meghnad, Krishna, Arjuna used multi-engined platforms (chariots or J-8II) to get relevant performance. None of them are shown on horses (F-16).

This itself is an indicator that good horse breeds were not available in India, because there are no depictions or venerations of horse mounted heros or forces before medival ages. A chariot would have been good in the plains of Kurukshetra but not NWFP. Every civilization discarded chariots when better horses were available, we increased elephants in lieu.

Achilles, Hercules, Zeus used Chariots, because equids hadnt developed into horses in that era, but Alexander used Buchephelis, a Nicean/Persian horse.

Until Rana Sanga or Pratap and Chetak, or Shivaji or Baji Rao 1, we rarely have horse mounted heros/forces. Puru & Hemu were elephant mounted in battle.

[Sanku]

This itself is an indicator that good horse breeds were not available in India.

Until Rana Sanga or Pratap and Chetak, or Shivaji or Baji Rao 1, we rarely have horse mounted heros/forces.

The points are no doubt valid and well explained. My "complaint" with the above model though (and I confess to be some what supporting Peter here) -- is that the above explanations (by the officer of RVC, Airavat, Rahul M et al) leave too much of a gap between the periods of early-medium vedic period and late Rajput kingdoms.

We are talking about a period of 1000+ years between a marked lack single horseman based cavalry, and those of Rajputana armies where horses are again sufficiently deployed.

Clearly Rana Sanga did not wake up one morning to find that the local breeds had been harnessed to the extent to be useful, the process must have been continuous. Also Hindu kingdoms on the western frontiers, which are not so humid and disease prone (just as Shahi's or Kushanas) -- had both geographical and cultural (interaction etc) overlap with horse breeders, including Parthians.

In such a case a Rajput king like Prithviraj -- with access to domestic horses regions from the Marwar/Mewar belt -- to access to horse areas in erstwhile Shahi areas (I am assuming the Islamic rule did not totally foreclose trade and interaction) -- would certainly be expected to be able to have access to horses to the degree it is often claimed.

Possibly it was just a much simpler reason? Of his armies not being assembled at the right moment when the strike happened?

Of course the same logic does not hold once the Ghorids break into the full Doab-gangetic belt, but Prithvi-raj is not a Gangetic king in the strict sense and hence a different yardstick may be used for him?

[Lalmohan]

tsarkar-ji, i propose that the jump from chariots to single mounts had more to do with the discovery of the stirrup - to enable a rider to handle weapons with stability - than the breed of the faster and stronger horse per se

[tsarkar]

You're right, Sanku, things evolved and didnt happen isolation.

In the Mahabharata, the Asvaka trible in Balkh/Afghanistan were horse suppliers. These became Asapzai/Yusufzai in recent times.

Since history, frontiersmen and horse suppliers served in Indian Armies. Also, Indians kingdoms in those areas did maintain good forces. Olaf Caroe's books mentioned how the Hindu Shahi kingdom at Kabul and Lahore, Afghanistan (different from Lahore, Punjab) held back Arabs/Persians/Turks for 400 years. Palas and Pratiharas defeated the Huns many times.

However, the logistic base for the Hindu Shahiya kingdom was the hinterland and Kannuaj area. They depended economically and otherwise on support from the hinterland. If due to internal fracturing, help was unavailable, then they were eventually defeated. They couldnt loot their kinsmen in east to raise money and robbing Huns in west didnt yield anything. Without money, cant maintain large standing armies. In contrast, most nomadic tribes were loot motivated. Even East India Company expanded because of profit/loot motive.

The Third Anglo Afghan War in 1919 was a huge financial loss for the British just after WW1. That is why they agreed to a ceasefire rather than punitive measures. BTW, Reginald Dyer of Amritsar performed very well with scant troops in that battle.

The Han Chinese faced similar issues. Whenever Han Chinese were strong, they were able to defend the Great Wall. Whenever they were weak, the Mongols and Manchus streamed over.

[Lalmohan]

the Han kingdom's also appointed "Warden of the Marches" to the north of the great wall - basically paid off some nomads to police the other nomad barbarian lands on their behalf - i.e. act as the first buffer layer to absorb any discontent amongst the nomads as a whole

with the EIC - they wanted not just immediate loot from conquest (gold and ornaments), but also the ability to extract economic value (sustained loot) from captured territory - cash crops like indigo, opium and jute (and later rubber, tea, coffee, etc.) to the detriment of local agricultural and forestry purposes

[tsarkar]

tsarkar-ji, i propose that the jump from chariots to single mounts had more to do with the discovery of the stirrup - to enable a rider to handle weapons with stability - than the breed of the faster and stronger horse per se

As per Herodotus, around 500 BC horses were specifically bred in Iran for cavalry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalry

As early as 490 BC a breed of large horses was bred in the Nisaean plain in Media to carry men with increasing amounts of armour (Herodotus 7,40 & 9,20).

There was cavalry without stirrups and bridles. Assyrian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Assyriancavalry.JPG

Greek Cavalry without stirrup http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippeis

Numidian Cavalry that Hannibal used to crush Romans at Canii didnt use saddles or stirrups. Incidentally this was African colonization of Europe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numidian_cavalry

To conserve weight, the cavalrymen did not use a saddle or bridle

Parthians defeating Romans in Battle of Carrhae AD 53 didn't use stirrups http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Carrhae

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

The Parthian shot was a military tactic made famous by the Parthians, ancient Iranian people. The Parthian archers, mounted on light horse, would feign retreat; then, while at a full gallop, turn their bodies back to shoot at the pursuing enemy. The maneuver required superb equestrian skills, since the rider's hands were occupied by his bow. As the stirrup had not been invented at the time of the Parthians, the rider relied solely on pressure from his legs to guide his horse.

Stirrup was unknown in Europe until middle ages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horses_in_ ... technology

The Romans are credited with the invention of the solid-treed saddle, possibly as early as the first century BC, and it was widespread by the 2nd century A.D. Early medieval saddles resembled the Roman "four-horn" saddle, and were used without stirrups.

Europeans learnt about the stirrups after defeating Arabs in the Battle of Tours in 732 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours

Charles Martel used captured Arab horses to set up his own cavalry in 735 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Martel

Further, unlike his father at Tours, Rahman's son in 736-737 knew that the Franks were a real power, and that Martel personally was a force to be reckoned with. He had no intention of allowing Martel to catch him unawares and dictate the time and place of battle, as his father had. They planned from to move from city to city, fortifying as they went, and if Martel wished to stop them from making a permanent enclave for expansion of the Caliphate, he would have to come to them, in the open, where, he, unlike his father, would dictate the place of battle. All worked as he had planned, until Martel arrived, albeit more swiftly than the Moors believed he could call up his entire army. Unfortunately for Rahman's son, however, he had overestimated the time it would take Martel to develop heavy cavalry equal to that of the Muslims. The Caliphate believed it would take a generation, but Martel managed it in five short years. Prepared to face the Frankish phalanx, the Muslims were totally unprepared to face a mixed force of heavy cavalry and infantry in a phalanx. Thus, Charles again championed Christianity and halted Muslim expansion into Europe........Notable about these campaigns was Charles' incorporation, for the first time, of heavy cavalry with stirrups to augment his phalanx. His ability to coordinate infantry and cavalry veterans was unequaled in that era and enabled him to face superior numbers of invaders, and to decisively defeat them again and again.

Added later - Indian/Afghan cavalry in the Battle of Gaugamela broke through Macedonian lines but were unsupported
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gaugamela

The Persian and Indian cavalry units stationed in the center with Darius broke through. Instead of taking the phalanx or Parmenion in the rear, however, they continued on towards the camp to loot.

Because they were mercenaries

Chandragupta Maurya apparently met Alexander as per Plutarch. He quickly learnt and forged alliances with frontier kingdoms to create a cavalry that helped against both Nanda and numerous Greek Satrapies and Selucus. However, as Mauryan empire became more Gangetic plain based, frontier based cavalry forces decreased.

[Lalmohan]

sarkarji, thanks - this is educational, i will research further

[tsarkar]

Added later

1. Importance of training - Charles Martel heavily taxed people and the Church to maintain standing armies. So much that the Church almost excommunicated him for looting Church property for maintaining his standing armies. What Charles was notable for was continuously training his armies for years, something only repeated in the modern era.

Also, Charles Martel showed well trained infantry could defeat heavy cavalry

2. Infantry armies were required to consolidate hold over vast provinces, like current Rashtriya Rifles, and this came at the cost of mobile forces.

Story isnt different today, formation of RR for Kashmir by General Joshi came at the cost of mechanization plans of General Sundarji.

You're welcome, Lalmohan!

[Rahul M]

tsarkar-ji, i propose that the jump from chariots to single mounts had more to do with the discovery of the stirrup - to enable a rider to handle weapons with stability - than the breed of the faster and stronger horse per se

no it had to do with breeds. stirrup came much later. rope stirrup was invented in India around 300BC as evident from sanchi reliefs. the type of stirrup we know now went to europe from central asia in the later half of the first millenium.

Until Rana Sanga or Pratap and Chetak, or Shivaji or Baji Rao 1, we rarely have horse mounted heros/forces.

the reason has more to do with lack of elephants of these armies than anything else. around the same time Hemu (Hemchandra Vikramaditya) was still fighting on elephant back, as was Akbar.
choice of elephants as rides for generals were dictated by the fact that the height made it easier for them to keep track of the battle and be visible to the army which acted as an inspirational tool.

conversely, the gupta emperors are usually depicted on horseback, a pointer to the fact that their campaign areas were not conducive to use of elephants.
Chandragupta II


do we see a stirrup here ?

[Rahul M]

This itself is an indicator that good horse breeds were not available in India.

Until Rana Sanga or Pratap and Chetak, or Shivaji or Baji Rao 1, we rarely have horse mounted heros/forces.

The points are no doubt valid and well explained. My "complaint" with the above model though (and I confess to be some what supporting Peter here) -- is that the above explanations (by the officer of RVC, Airavat, Rahul M et al) leave too much of a gap between the periods of early-medium vedic period and late Rajput kingdoms.
this whole summary is mistaken. there is no 'gap' and therefore no need to pick holes in the explanations assuming such 'gaps'.
the problem with peter's stand is it is simplistic to the level of a bushism. If I don't agree that Indian cavalry was the best in the world I am saying India had no cavalry.
the real situation is a little more complex. cavalry traditions never died out in India, even in the '1000 years' you allude to, there are many examples that show otherwise. however, since most enemies they faced in this era had infantry heavy armies, it was unwise to spend a fortune on extremely costly horses they didn't need.
We are talking about a period of 1000+ years between a marked lack single horseman based cavalry, and those of Rajputana armies where horses are again sufficiently deployed.
again, as I explained earlier, rajput armies by virtue of their geographical location could breed warhorses and also reinforce the breeds with foreign horses from time to time. the story of rest of India is different. the 1000 year number is clearly wrong given the example of the guptas, the palas etc.
Clearly Rana Sanga did not wake up one morning to find that the local breeds had been harnessed to the extent to be useful, the process must have been continuous. Also Hindu kingdoms on the western frontiers, which are not so humid and disease prone (just as Shahi's or Kushanas) -- had both geographical and cultural (interaction etc) overlap with horse breeders, including Parthians.
precisely, so you see there is no inconsistency in the theory. no one claimed the rajputs didn't have a cavalry tradition. that is a strawman argument.

In such a case a Rajput king like Prithviraj -- with access to domestic horses regions from the Marwar/Mewar belt -- to access to horse areas in erstwhile Shahi areas (I am assuming the Islamic rule did not totally foreclose trade and interaction) -- would certainly be expected to be able to have access to horses to the degree it is often claimed.
access does not equate to possession. it is determined by many factors, wealth and requirement among them. do I have access to a showroom selling a merc, sure I do. do I own one, no.
for internal conflicts what cavalry the rajputs had was adequate and while still having a cavalry tradition rajput armies before the muslim invasions were formed in the classic chaturanga minus of course the chariots but with the addition of camels. the evolution into a largely cavalry force happened as a reaction to the life and death struggle against the invaders. remember that even at tarain prithviraj was riding an elephant
Possibly it was just a much simpler reason? Of his armies not being assembled at the right moment when the strike happened?
the point being ? I thought this was anyway the widely accepted theory, at least here
Of course the same logic does not hold once the Ghorids break into the full Doab-gangetic belt, but Prithvi-raj is not a Gangetic king in the strict sense and hence a different yardstick may be used for him?

[Sanku]

Rahul M could you please use the quote feature Its very difficult to understand or reply from this.

Possibly it was just a much simpler reason? Of his armies not being assembled at the right moment when the strike happened?

the point being ? I thought this was anyway the widely accepted theory, at least here

The point being that first and foremost I dont think there is too much of a disagreement between most of what is being said by different posters here, however there is some what of a difference in emphasis + some disagreements on certain specific issue.

Personally I dont quite see why the discussion is some what heated (or at least appears so to me)

[Rahul M]

the coloured replies are mine, if that helps.

Personally I dont quite see why the discussion is some what heated

it becomes 'somewhat' heated when people routinely misrepresent the meaning and bring in irrelevant interpretations to pick a fight.

consider a hypothetical Rahul M who replies to your comment

Personally I dont quite see why the discussion is some what heated

as

what according to you is the hallmark of a good discussion and why do you think Indians are incapable of a reasoned debate ? you believe only non Indians are capable of discussing properly. what is it in their genetics, social or cultural upbringing that according to you, makes them superior to Indians in debating ?

and replies with similar comments in every discussion. after a while it becomes tiring.

[ArmenT]

rope stirrup was invented in India around 300BC as evident from sanchi reliefs. the type of stirrup we know now went to europe from central asia in the later half of the first millenium.

Indians invented the toe-stirrup around 500 BC. This was simply a rope loop to put the big toe through and was the originator of later stirrup designs. Later carvings in Sanchi, Mathura etc. also show horsemen riding with stirrups.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirrup#Early_development

[Murugan]

Examples of Horseman type coins of Chandragupta Vikramaditya and Kumargupta 380-455 AD. There is a coin of Purugupta of 480 AD also

Chandragupta and Kumargupta Horseman Type Coins

[tsarkar]

^^ Rahul & Murugan - you're right

Kautilya and Chandragupta drilled and trained their infantries similar to the greek pattern while alliances with the frontier tribes ensured good cavalry forces. Asokan peacenik ways took focus away from military development and the Greeks re-entered.

Srigupta founding the Gupta empire was a vassal of the declining Kushans and married a Lichchavi. The alliance enabled him to leverage Lichchavi forces. He also used Ex-Kushan troops. Guptas had a good cavalry, went as far as Balkh and like the British, had excellent longbowmen. They had the money to maintain a standing army and train them.

Guptas suffered same fate as Mughals. Shah Jahan - as a prince - declined to fight the Iranians who had taken Kandahar fearing Nurjahan would raise another of Jehangir's son to king - Shaharyar - who was her son in law marrying her daughter from her first husband.

The politics in the hinterland as well as economic cost of campaigns against the Huns weakened the Guptas. Just like conflict with Pathans and Iranians weakened the Mughals and most importantly denied them reinforcements from traditional supply bases. The British didnt occupy Afghanistan after the second afghan war because of the enormous cost of holding that area vis-a-vis low commercial returns.

Importance of Gangetic plains - the economic wealth allowed three kingdoms - Maurya, Gupta and EIC to successfully rule right up to Hindu Kush.

Speculation - Lichchavi were northern India/Nepal Kashtriya tribes (were they progenitors of the Gurkhas?). The disappearance of Lichchavi and rise of the Gurkhas couldnt have happened in isolation. The Lichchavi ruled Nepal well into the 8th century until attacked by the Tibetans. Also, the Shahi title of the Gurkha Kings might be carry foward of the Hindu Shahi descendents who went to Eastern Himachals and maybe hence to Tibet and finally Nepal

[Atri]

Sarkarji

IN fact raghuvamsha explains Vikramaditya using marine corps to conquer bengal, elephant divisions to conquer west and south and archers and horsemen to conquer northwest (trans-oxania). the gupta archers (coupled with siege engineers) did the trick against horse-mounted foes of persians and huns..

how did guptas go mughal way?

when Jahangir declined to fight iranians and northwestern invaders, Skandagupta died on India's frontier while Puragupta was planning a coup in Ujjain. The valiant old emperor did not return to save his throne, while dying to save India from falling against the murderous hordes of Khingila the hun..

Skandagupta deserves a magnificent bollywood film, IMHO.. at least a novel..

[Rahul M]

Atri ji, the guptas also had very good cavalry, including supposedly horse archers. foot archers alone can't counter nimble horse armies.

Skandagupta deserves a magnificent bollywood film, IMHO.. at least a novel..

kaaler mandira - Sharadindu Bandopadhay

all his historical novels are worth a read. here's a brief listing by b'ji http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 3#p1093963

[Atri]

Atri ji, the guptas also had very good cavalry, including supposedly horse archers. foot archers alone can't counter nimble horse armies.

yes. they controlled gandhar and traded with mesopotamia. they had complete access to all the trade routes (silk route and sea route). nothing could stop them from acquiring good horses.

I agree that the horse archers are nimble. But do they have the range and accuracy of foot archers? What if, similar to british, guptas too preferred to play a defensive battle. combination of heavy infantry protecting the archers and siege engines with cavalry playing the auxiliary role can win a war easily if enemy if cocky enough. of course, making the enemy that impatient and cocky while ensuring the supply column all the way from Punjab to Oxus, is the genius of Vikramaditya.

Dhonyobaad, Rahul babu..

[Lalmohan]

guptas had developed rapid and mobile forces, including infantry archers riding behind horsemen into combat positions

[Rahul M]

the problem with that is as always, initiative rests with the invader. you can't force him to give battle, which is what you want as a major status quoist power while the invader would have free run of the country, loot at will and target the supply lines.
given that the guptas literally chased them away I don't think they would have employed much defensive tactics. you are right though that combined arms tactics are a must.

[Rahul M]

^^ Rahul & Murugan - you're right

Kautilya and Chandragupta drilled and trained their infantries similar to the greek pattern while alliances with the frontier tribes ensured good cavalry forces. Asokan peacenik ways took focus away from military development and the Greeks re-entered.

nothing I have read suggests that there was any greek influence on mauryan armies. if anything, the reverse was true, the Indo-greeks gave up their spears and became sword wielding soldiers, like the Indian soldiers.

Srigupta founding the Gupta empire was a vassal of the declining Kushans and married a Lichchavi. The alliance enabled him to leverage Lichchavi forces. He also used Ex-Kushan troops. Guptas had a good cavalry, went as far as Balkh and like the British, had excellent longbowmen. They had the money to maintain a standing army and train them.

it was chandragupta I who married the lichchavi princess, kumardevi, not srigupta, his grandfather.
he got the throne of pataliputra as wedding gift.
samudragupta was kumardevi's son.

Guptas suffered same fate as Mughals. Shah Jahan - as a prince - declined to fight the Iranians who had taken Kandahar fearing Nurjahan would raise another of Jehangir's son to king - Shaharyar - who was her son in law marrying her daughter from her first husband.

the only 'possible' internal politics related problem of the guptas I have read of occurred during the succession post the death of chandragupta I, when his half brother kachgupta is supposed to have ascended the throne for sometime. one school thinks that samudragupta left with his loyal lichchavi guards on his campaign without bothering to contest kachgupta for the pataliputra throne. while he was busy conquering a neighbouring kingdom, kachagupta was assassinated by his ministers for adharma and samudragupta was crowned in absentia.

The politics in the hinterland as well as economic cost of campaigns against the Huns weakened the Guptas. Just like conflict with Pathans and Iranians weakened the Mughals and most importantly denied them reinforcements from traditional supply bases. The British didnt occupy Afghanistan after the second afghan war because of the enormous cost of holding that area vis-a-vis low commercial returns.
Importance of Gangetic plains - the economic wealth allowed three kingdoms - Maurya, Gupta and EIC to successfully rule right up to Hindu Kush.

exactly, it was economics more than anything, as is usually the case with war and conflict. which is again something missed by most of our popular narratives.

Speculation - Lichchavi were northern India/Nepal Kashtriya tribes (were they progenitors of the Gurkhas?). The disappearance of Lichchavi and rise of the Gurkhas couldnt have happened in isolation. The Lichchavi ruled Nepal well into the 8th century until attacked by the Tibetans. Also, the Shahi title of the Gurkha Kings might be carry foward of the Hindu Shahi descendents who went to Eastern Himachals and maybe hence to Tibet and finally Nepal

the lichchavis were a very strong confederacy during the time of ajatshatru.
curiously enough, they had a king who was 'elected' by a council for a fixed term. gautam buddha is said to have commented in glowing terms about the lichchavis' administration and that they would never be conquered if they stayed united.
ajatshatru did in fact succeed in driving a wedge between the lichchavi council members, so the text goes. at pataligam he set up a military camp for the campaign and this in turn became the city of pataliputra.
he also used two new weapons in that campaign, a scythed chariot and a stone throwing catapult -- both a few hundred years before anything comparable turned up elsewhere.

[tsarkar]

nothing I have read suggests that there was any greek influence on mauryan armies. if anything, the reverse was true, the Indo-greeks gave up their spears and became sword wielding soldiers, like the Indian soldiers.

The Greeks were the first to regularly train soldiers. The Persians used feudatories, mercenaries and levies. Chandragupta and Kautilya first started regular training of soldiers as per documented history. When I used the word Greek Pattern, I meant regular drilling and not tools & equipment, that change with time and circumstances.

Spears became irrelevant in the Indian context because the Indian longbowmen decimated densely packed greco type heavy infantry formations. Bowmen were also effective against cavalry formations. When India became feudal around 8th century, the economic ability to maintain and train large archer contingents decreased.

the only 'possible' internal politics related problem of the guptas...

The latter Gupta rulers were mostly fighting frontier wars, that created economic discontent in the hinterland, and allowed numerous regional power bases in Kannuaj, Punjab, Gujarat, Gaud, Kalinga to develop.

Two areas I wanted to read more was Lichchavis and their relatively long state 400 BC to 800 AD as well as the Kalinga rulers that didnt crumble to Turkish/Afghan invaders 1100-1200AD unlike others and successfully fought off until mid 1500s, and built the magnificent Sun Temple at Konark at the same time. Other independent states were the hill states of central himalayas/himachal, garhwal, kumaon, assam, Vijaynagar/Mysore

[Rahul M]

The Greeks were the first to regularly train soldiers. The Persians used feudatories, mercenaries and levies. Chandragupta and Kautilya first started regular training of soldiers as per documented history. When I used the word Greek Pattern, I meant regular drilling and not tools & equipment, that change with time and circumstances.

sorry, not true at all.
soldiers have been trained through drills as long as there have been professional soldiers, which is as soon as mankind. even levies were given rudimentary training before they were sent to battle. the macedonian army under philip was very well drilled but that doesn't mean they 'invented' it. this is not something that needed to be invented.

I do not understand how you came to the conclusion that the mauryans first started regular training. it is absolutely impossible that infantry, elephants and chariots were sent to war without regular training !!

secondly, you are confusing between professional soldiers and levies. even there, the greeks continued to be a semi-conscript army, not much unlike the persians in principle. the big difference being the social stature of an infantry soldier in greece. that meant it was the land owning middle class who could afford shields and armour formed the core of the army in search of loot. that they were willing to join up does not take away the fact that military service was compulsory for every able bodied male if called upon by the king, just as it was for the persians.
it is the Indian armies on the other hand that were composed of truly professional soldiers who were not forced by the king to fight. in fact, the peasant levy has been unknown in India from the ancient era to the modern age.

[Y I Patel]

it is the Indian armies on the other hand that were composed of truly professional soldiers who were not forced by the king to fight. in fact, the peasant levy has been unknown in India from the ancient era to the modern age.

There are two tendencies to Indian armies - unwillingness for forward deployment to NW areas, and necessity for king to be present to rally troops. The latter is why Hemu, Rama Raya, Raja Ram (Panipat III) needed to be present during decisive battles and the battle was lost when they fell - the conscripts had no more reason to continue the fight, and they just melted away.

This also would explain to me why the Shahis in particular had difficulties with assembling confederacies - even if the other rulers from hinterland were willing in principle to provide support, the support was provisional and limited in time because the supporters just could not raise enough willing men to sign up for indefinitely long periods of time. The men had to be back home to tend to the fields etc.

I always felt that both these tendencies were because the ruler had to raise a conscript army to meet the invader. Not something that would be particular to India either. So I am not sure that India never had peasant levies.

[Y I Patel]

I was intrigued by a comment by tsarkar (?) to the effect that India became feudal in the 8th (?) century and that caused a decline in the ability to raise sufficient surplus to field a standing army. I went back and can't seem to find it any more. Anyway, could you expand on this please?

[Rahul M]

There are two tendencies to Indian armies - unwillingness for forward deployment to NW areas,

how many of the empires that were being attacked by invaders from central asia showed an willingness to deploy to the 'NW areas' ? iran ? arab caliphates ? china ?
most of the reasons that applied to them also applied to Indian kingdoms, economics, terrain, climate, nature of enemy. and then there was the extremely important factor of horses which has been dealt with in some detail in this thread but you have chosen to ignore it.
why was the british empire, russians or US reluctant to deploy in the NW areas ? (they did but not with much enthusiasm and want to get out as soon as possible)
do you think we can conclude from that they all have/had conscript armies ?

and necessity for king to be present to rally troops

kings and generals fought on the frontlines right upto the gunpowder age. it has nothing to do with conscript or professional army.
alexander took far more risks fighting in the thick of the action during his campaigns, many historians express surprise that he survived for as long as he did. was he trying to lift the sagging morale of an untrained conscript army ? napoleon too had dozens of close shaves.
even those kings who were too old to fight had to be close to the action to keep track of the battle and to issue orders.
Indian generals or kings did not fight in the frontlines any more than their counterparts. take for example the fact that ghori was injured fighting in the first battle of tarain, clearly he was on the frontlines being visible to his men. a general in those days had to be seen slogging it out alongside his men, there is nothing else to it.

The latter is why Hemu, Rama Raya, Raja Ram (Panipat III) needed to be present during decisive battles and the battle was lost when they fell - the conscripts had no more reason to continue the fight, and they just melted away.

they were not conscripts, which is about the point of my last post.
you are confusing between a conscript army and a loose alliance made up of disparate contingents, some contributions from friendly kings, some mercenaries, brought together by the personal influence of one person, the monarch or general. obviously, such an army would scatter if that person dies. that doesn't mean the soldiers themselves were conscript levies forced to fight. they were volunteer soldiers in their respective kingdom's armies.

I wrote an explanation of soldier recruitment earlier in this thread
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 4#p1105944

I always felt that both these tendencies were because the ruler had to raise a conscript army to meet the invader. Not something that would be particular to India either. So I am not sure that India never had peasant levies.

the explanation is a little far fetched when simpler ones exist. why India didn't have compulsory levy is simple to understand, population. throughout recorded history it was always one of the top 2 populous nations. even a small percentage of population volunteering would produce a very large army.