Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 06 Jun 2009 16:53

I have seen estimates of India's population during Mughal times as around 40-50 million, I have also seen suggestions that average abdul ghazi claimants may have exaggerated, but it needs some thinking...

there are two levels to think of

1. urban populations, which would be massacred following conquest - what would be a reasonable urban level? Pataliputra in ancient times is said to have been close to a million, but was this the norm? if so, then slaughtering 1 lakh has limited impact on depopulation. if the city is closer to 3-4 lakh which appears to be more normal for ancient times world wide, then this is catastrophic

2. rural populations, which may be unlucky to get in the path of the invaders - India has always been a rural majority country. did we see the continual migration of rural groups to recently abandoned urban areas?

many of the soldiers would have come from the countryside, e.g. the muslim soldiers of tughlaq's army slaughtered by Timur were from the peasantry, and similarly for hindu armies

killing off 100,000's of able bodied men should therefore have a very debilitating effect on regeneration. for example, Genghiz Khan's assault on Kwarazam is said to have fundamentally broken up the Iranian agriculture system, which has never recovered and left large parts of the country side as desert to this date

what was the mechanism of regeneration in India? even to the extent of raising powerful new armies?
what was the mechanism of cultural preservation? is it only the resilience of the Hindu culture?
I think there must have been far stronger economic drivers too

i guess what i am getting to is that by and large the myth of the invincible ghazi domination of hindu india is basically just that - a myth. there was i think a difference between conquest and domination. our social and political systems adapted to conquest, but domination was never achieved.

Sandipan · Post by **Sandipan** » 06 Jun 2009 21:55

I dont know whether this is the right thread to post it, Can we not have some information on ancient Indian Ocean expeditions to different corners of the World. Few months back I was seeimg a History Channel report saying that Chinese might have visited America well before Colombus did. I had read and heard from my father as well that there are lot of Indian influence on Mayan & Aztec civilisation. If anybody has some data on it, it could be a fascinating reading. I know for sure that Cholas had a very robust navy but well before that Indian expeditioners visited far lands but never to conquer.

CalvinH · Post by **CalvinH** » 06 Jun 2009 23:14

The ancient indian population (in North India at least) was organized across three clusters

1. Walled city - The city surrounded by a fort/walls and usually includes places for royals, merchants, officials etc
2. Populace around walled city - Mostly workers/traders who will come inside walled city in the day/week for different work or trading. This could stretch to 10-20 Kms around the walled city.
3. Rural population - may include mud forts or havelis of local landlords/jagirdars.

3 constituted the biggest chunk of the overall population and was the producer category.

1 and 2 size would depend on the city stature or trade routes. Cities like Delhi/Lahore/Agra have size bigger then other cities.

In event of conquest rural population would disperse or take/hide itself away from the direct route of the conquest which were generally fixed. The only way to annihilate this population was to destroy livestock or standing crops which usually is not done as this category is required to feed the marching Army. Also this population usually wont have cash and gold so not much to loot from them. However any local resistance will be put to sword.

Massacre usually will take place for category 1, the walled city hence the overall population at any time has little significance. I believe Hinduism survived because most of the population belonged to category 3 and thus kept itself out of the way of different wars and conquest.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 07 Jun 2009 00:13

Calvin - fair enough, I buy that logic. How do we explain the urban regeneration, and also the re-establishment of military force after such catastrophies?

anupmisra · Post by **anupmisra** » 07 Jun 2009 01:06

Sandipan wrote:Indian influence on Mayan & Aztec civilisation.

There's a publication called "Hindu America" by Lal Chaman. I used to own a copy but mispleaced it when I moved over to the US thirty years ago. Here's a link Hindu America

Here's another source: Click

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 07 Jun 2009 01:24

Lalmohan: We are not sure how they estimated the various numbers; until we know that we should take the numbers with a pinch of salt - both the population that existed and the population that was massacred. All foreigners who had visited India then were struck by the size, wealth, diversity and huge population. Be it Alberuni or any one else, in spite of their personal views on Hindus, India truly astounded them. One gets a picture of their 'shock and awe' at the Indian civilization. They are bound to have exaggerated some numbers, even that of the people that they killed.

As far as reinforcing the military, I think the then Kings used lots of alliances to wage war against each other. More over it appears people of all castes participated in war - different role perhaps. It is my view that Kshtriyas were the core force, but in times of war people outside the fort - for example tribesmen, would have participated in the war. I am thinking on the lines of National or Reserve Guards, who are used whenever necessary. It would be interesting to hear views from gurus.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 07 Jun 2009 01:49

traditional armies consisted of a kshatriya core of professional soldiers - typically a standing army. in times of war it would be augmented by a peasant levy with inferior equipment and training. in traditional Hindu forms of war, there were distinct roles required of these groups. To some extent muslim rulers also copied this model.

and yes, there was considerable shock and awe at 'the fabled land of Hindustan' - from everyone right uptil Victorian times

Sandipan · Post by **Sandipan** » 07 Jun 2009 06:19

Anupmishra - Thanks for your links and sources. The more i read, greater it seems the thirst. Archaelogy site of which you gave link had few errors in my opinion. Firstly, I belive this Aryan concept is really hogwash. There is nothing called Aryan civilisation. This concept of Aryans coming from somewhere near Caspian Sea and inhabiting the country eversince gave them a arguement that India belonged to nobody and everybody is an outsider, so British too have rights over Indias riches. Secondly, I diagree with the reference of American Indian, there is no tribe called American Indian, it was a mstake of colombus that when he landed in America, he thought he reached India and started calling the people Indians.

CalvinH · Post by **CalvinH** » 07 Jun 2009 06:44

SwamyG, people outside the forts like clans and local chieftains (category 3) not only participated but also provided bulk of the irregular/regulars

Military re-rejuvenation is more dependent on money/material than manpower. I dont think anytime after a major battle there was lack of able bodied man to re-organize a fighting force.

for re-establishment of military force after any crushing defeat or massacre would need a kind of understanding of how armies were raised for major campaigns or organized resistance to one, and how a battle was actually fought. Usually few kings/kingdoms were rich enough to have a large paid army on the direct rolls over a extended period of time. They kings at most depending on how rich they are will directly control a contingent of cavlary/elephansts/Infantry and in case of major campaign/resistance will mobilize money, material and manpower from their Sardars. Most of the kings used to depend on their jagirdars, local sardars, chieftains/clan leader for large part of cavlary and infantry. In Modern times, Sadashiv Rao was leading 22 Maratha chieftains like Holkar, Scindia etc who contributed to his force when Peshwa declared formation of a Grand Army to March Northwards. These clans/local chieftains will form an auxillary force which will be arranged around the core force directly formed by the King/his nominee. Core force will controls strategic assets like war elephants or artillery. In Panipat the core force was headed by Vishwasrao who was son of Peshwa.

In a battle usually the bulk of the losing army used to desert, fled, retreat or surrender beyond one point when defeat used to become obvious. Winning army has option to chase or plunder and usually the latter was preferred. If X men participated in the battle from the loosing side massacre would involve loosing 0.4X in the battle or soon after. Else 0.2X would be the maximum number. Without modern weapons its very difficult of kill large number of people in few hours in a battleground especially if large number of them lose interest in battle beyond one point and choose to disperse then to fight.

Retreating core (whatever left) part would go back to the walled fort for prolonged resistance if they know surrender is unacceptable. Others from the auxiliary force will simply disappear into the rural area and will be back to their local place.

This is just the manpower part of the any organized military. Military re-rejuvenation would required money and material too. Crushing defeats have led most of the empires to decline not because of lack of able bodied man but due to empty treasuries and lost control to revenue generation mechanisms like controls of trade, authority to collect and levy taxes etc. Once you loose the money and means to generate it quickly you loose power to build back an army or mobilize from local sardars.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 07 Jun 2009 09:41

Lalmohan and SwamyG - thank you for attempting to bring in an element of scientific credibility on the question of historically quoted numbers.

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 07 Jun 2009 10:26

ramana wrote:In response to my question above our SwamyG responded in IF:
Later, Caliph Hisham (A.D. 724-43) appointed al-Junayad as the governor of Sind. Some where between A.D. 731 and A.D. 738 Pulakesi defeated these forces. Pulakesi was a Chalukyan prince of Lata in the southern part of Gujarat, near Navasarika. Lata was the northern-most province of Chalukyas. Dantidurga, a Rashtrakuta King was known to have helped Pulakesi. This defeat of the Arabs is important because this is the deepest part of India that the Caliphate ever penetrated.

Pratihara Nagabhata I of Avanti (present Malwa) (A.D. 730-56) is credited for driving out the Muslims out of the area. I think Nagabhata operated from the Northern-Eastern side (Ujjain) and Pulakesi operated from the Western-Southern area. Thus the North and South were saved.

Subsequently the Arabs are driven back till the Indus river.
Very good summary article in such a short time! So this battle was as important as Tours was to France for it checked Arab expansion(Note I didnt say Islamic expansion) and stemmed the tide. How come this was never brought out in the history books of India? Growing up the Chalukyas were described as another medieval dynasty that rose and fell as if by magic.

I think this one should be better documented and available as an essay.

Airavat can you help?

Thanks, ramana

There were a series of Arab invasions from Sindh and many battles fought by different Indian chiefs to repulse them. The above describes the invasion by Junaid, where the Arabs were defeated in the north by the coalition of Rajput clans under Nagabhatta I. In the southern battle at Navasari (738 CE) the role of Dantidurga is more important because he subsequently overthrew the Chalukya rulers and established the Rashtrakuta kingdom in the Deccan. Dantidurga also annexed the Chalukya possessions in Lata.

On this occasion the Arabs were not driven across the Indus. This happened when a renewed invasion by Junaid's successor Tamin was defeated somewhere in Rajasthan. This defeat encouraged Hindus in Sindh to rise up in rebellion, whence the Arabs took refuge across the Indus and later established a new capital Mansura. Even after this the Arabs tried unsuccessful naval raids on the petty kingdoms in Gujarat and Maharashtra.

Another major invasion occurred between 813-33 CE, under the governor Bashar (called Vega Varisa in the Indian records), which was defeated by Nagabhatta II with his Chauhan and Guhilot feudatories.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 07 Jun 2009 10:39

Airavat: The Arabs were not driven in that particular battle. By 'subsequent' I meant later years.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Jun 2009 23:06

Google Books
Mughal Warfare

kaangeya · Post by **kaangeya** » 10 Jun 2009 03:36

There's a publication called "Hindu America" by Lal Chaman. I used to own a copy but mispleaced it when I moved over to the US thirty years ago. Here's a link Hindu America

It has no factual basis at all. I am not saying that this never happened or could not have happened. From what we know and have uncovered to date, there is no evidence that thsi happened.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 10 Jun 2009 04:58

Sandipan wrote:I dont know whether this is the right thread to post it, Can we not have some information on ancient Indian Ocean expeditions to different corners of the World. Few months back I was seeimg a History Channel report saying that Chinese might have visited America well before Colombus did. I had read and heard from my father as well that there are lot of Indian influence on Mayan & Aztec civilisation. If anybody has some data on it, it could be a fascinating reading. I know for sure that Cholas had a very robust navy but well before that Indian expeditioners visited far lands but never to conquer.

Try this thread in India Forum

LINK

The next page has a estimated route to South America.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 11 Jun 2009 01:07

the ancient egyptians, mayans and khmer appear to have had a similar connection to the plaedes constellation, there appears to be some sort of architectural linkage related to these stars between some of the great monuments of these cultures - but this could be more von daniken type herb haze.

tenochtitlan in bolivia which is very definitely pre-columbian has several stone face carvings around the place which are not andean in features, but distinctly asian, particularly chinese and indian - this has no clear explanation that can be traced to anything tangible. there have been a number of coastal civilisations in peru over the years, there is reasonable conjecture that they have had atleast exploratory contact with asian cultures scouting over the pacific

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 11 Jun 2009 01:48

Anyone have any idea about Sky Disc of Nebra? is it Fake ,an attempt to make Euroepans on par with Medieval Eastern sophistication in star gazing .

negi · Post by **negi** » 17 Jun 2009 03:36

Folks I have been googling a bit for Garwhwal-Kumaon history but to no avail ; It would be great if someone could point me to some decent literature on above subject.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 17 Jun 2009 04:34

negi: It depends on where you google

. Seriously I find lot of good material by searching google images and books.

Here you go:
Proverbs & Folklore of Kumaun and Garhwal
History of Uttaranchal
Imperial Gazateer of India Includes Kumaun.
Garhwal Himalaya: A study in historical perspective

All the above or limited perviews onlee. ensoy.

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 21 Jun 2009 07:53

x-posting from India-US thread in Startegic forum...

shyam wrote:
shravan wrote:According to legends, King Kim Suro of the ancient Kaya Kingdom in Korea married with Ayodiya’s Princess of India way back in A.D. 45;
Do you know what are the evidences to claim this? I know that this claim was made by Koreans few years back, but this could not be verified by local records in Ayodhya.

Could they be talking of one of these other Ayodhya sounding kingdoms? The timeline of 45 AD however introduces a big disconnect with these kingdoms as these are in middle ages...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saharanpur ... 94_A.D..29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayutthaya_kingdom

shravan · Post by **shravan** » 21 Jun 2009 10:45

shyam wrote:Do you know what are the evidences to claim this? I know that this claim was made by Koreans few years back, but this could not be verified by local records in Ayodhya.

It is written in their books in the 11th century in Korean language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heo_Hwang-ok

Yogi_G · Post by **Yogi_G** » 21 Jun 2009 14:40

Found this...here

Korean memorial to Indian princess

In the northern Indian city of Ayodhya, a visiting Korean delegation has inaugurated a memorial to their royal ancestor, Queen Huh. More than a-hundred historians and government representatives, including the North Korean ambassador to India, unveiled the memorial on the west bank of the River Saryu.

Korean historians believe that Queen Huh was a princess of an ancient kingdom in Ayodhya.

She went to Korea some two-thousand years ago and started the Karak dynasty by marrying a local king, Suro.

Today, the historians say, Queen Huh's descendants number more than six-million, including the South Korean president - Kim Dae Jung.

(source: http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/wo ... 205728.stm).

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 25 Jun 2009 08:52

Lalmohan and SwamyG, it might also be illustrative to look at data on Persia. It seems the population was 2.5M around time of Genghis Khan's attack on Persia. He left alive 250,000 people. Some of the cities did not recover their population till the 20th Century ie eight hundred years later. All this per wiki.

So maybe we should look at population estimates of North Indian cities and see travelers accounts about the silence etc. Look at accounts of post Firoz Tughlaq's rein.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 25 Jun 2009 12:53

Ramana - thanks

I have read a bit about Mongol history, and yes there are some big numbers mentioned. What we do know is that the mongols who occupied persia over time became persianised, in the same way that mongols in china became sinocised and those in turkic lands became turkicised, etc. and later the mughals become Indianised.

whilst the mongols did massacre hundreds of thousands, i still feel that they did not totally breakdown a population base or civilisation in the case of previous great empires. an exception being the tangut nation of hsi-hsia, which definitely ceased to exist after the battle of the ice river, and the later destruction of their capital. mongol strategy was to create so much terror that a numerically superior foe would be utterly demoralised and not be able to resist occupation. in the case of china, genhgiz became almost disheartened by the chinese ability to send more and more armies out of the interior despite his continued victories, hence his determination to slaughter the population into submission

so in the iranian case, i have a feeling that like india, there was massive damage, but no annihilation. indeed we see that 200 hundred years after Genghiz's invasion and that of Hulagu Khan, we see Timur's return and the destruction of Isfahan and Herat and so on... with similar numbers of casualties being mentioned.

I guess my point remains the same, that India absorbed horrific damage and survived and thrived and was not defeated or subjugated as a civilisation

Airavat · Post by **Airavat** » 27 Jul 2009 07:13

An 18th-century battle at Tunga-Madhogadh, near Jaipur, that shook north India is still fondly remembered by local residents. The battle was fought on July 28, 1787, between the forces of legendary Maratha General Mahadji Sindhia and the Rajputs of Jaipur and Jodhpur, led by the then Jaipur Raja, Sawai Pratapsinghji.

It was the only battle of the many waged by Sindhia in Rajputana that he didn’t win in his 42-year eventful military career. The local people celebrate this fact under the aegis of the Yuva Chetna Manch and the Battle of Tunga Foundation in a grand fashion on July 28 every year.

India Today

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 26 Aug 2009 21:38

With Jaswant Singh's book on Jinnah and discussions on Partition, let us take a look at a crucial battle and period in our history that created the World's greatest set of soldiers - the Indian Army.

I have pieced together a gist of the historical narrative from the book "Empire's First Soldiers" by D.P.Ramachandran. Lancer Publishers. Copyright 2008. I have copied several sentences straight out of the book - all credits to the author and publishers. DPR presents a rich political backdrop for this battle - so read it

****************
Battle of Adayar (a.k.a Battle of San Thome)

Adyar river flows along the Southern districts of Chennai metro emptying its content into Bay of Bengal. In 1746 Madras a small town (Chennai) was 4 miles north of this river. San Thome a Portuguese settlement was between Madras and the river.

On October 24th 1746 two armies faced each other to fight a battle, the outcome of which was to provide the greatest miliarty enterprise in the subcontinent - the creation of the Indian Army.

The northern bank of the river was occupied by the army of Nawab of Carnatic, 10,000 strong commanded by Nawab's son Mahfuz Khan. On the southern bank was a puny force of 1000 - 300 Europeans and 700 French trained Indian soldiers under a Swiss engineer Captain Louis Paradis. This group was put together by Compagnie des Indies Orientales - the French East India Company.

The French force crossed the river braving the artillery fire following a classic European technique of the musketry salvo; drawn up in three ranks and advancing, while firing successive volleys of shot. Then they fell on the enemy with the bayonets. The Nawab's line broke and fled westward. The French force had proved that Indian soldiers when trained well could fight as good or better than the Europeans. The French also made a point - numbers did not matter and only training and discipline did. The large Eastern ill-trained armies could be defeated.

The British watched this as a bystander and took important lessons. They had earlier capitualted at Madras to the French without much fight. With Fort St. George under their belt, French had become masters of Madras - a prize possession of the British. The army of English East India Company in those days was merely a watch-and-ward outfit comprising at the best soldiers or mercenaries past their prime and untrained civilians recruited as peons and factory watchment. Trade was the priority and not warfare even after having a presence of 150 years in the subcontinent.

The French on the other hand, pioneered the concept of sepoy levies, enrollment and training of Indian soldiers to fight under different colors. Southern India had abundant soldiers who went were money was good; warriors for hire. Fighting was a matter of honor but it did not make a difference under whose flag one fought as the Indian nationhood in the political and military sense was yet to be born. At that time Southern India was in internal strife, with Nizams, Nawabs and Rajahs staking claims and the populace showing no allegiance to any of them. French-British rivalry had taken off in Europe and 1740s in Madras was a key period for both Britain and France as their power struggle crept from Europe into Madras.

One of the consequence of the Battle of Adayar (a.k.a Battle of San Thome) was that Nawab lost San Thome. The other one was the genesis of a new soldiering culture to evolve in India leading to the creation of the Indian Army that went on to prove they were second to none on battlefields across the World. Third, the British who had Madras back in their hands found the nerve to fight the French. French had earlier returned Fort St. George to Britain via a "treaty of ransom". After the Battle of Adayar, the French annuled that treaty. In 1748, Najor Stringer Lawrence had began building a proper fighting outfit in Madras, a process that resulted in the creation of Madras Army - the finest fighting force in the entire subcontinent at that time. The artillery was beefed up. Lawrence used the French model - raised sepoy levies resulting in the beginings of native infantry, which in turn became the forerunner of the Indian Army. British having tasted success in Madras and South copied it in the other two presidencies - Bengal and Bombay.
**************************

It is my opinion, the author does not comment, that the Battle of Adayar was also key in stopping the Nawab from expanding and occupying two key Hindu pockets - Trichinopoly and Madura. After the death of Aurangzen, the Nizams and Nawabs were fighting to take over the South from the Hindu Rajahs. It was in this crucial juncture that this battle took place. If the British-French rivalry had not crept into South India, the Nizams and Nawabs would have had more time to take over the entire South - having far reaching consequences.

ssmitra · Post by **ssmitra** » 26 Aug 2009 22:06

According to wikipedia, The Ashoka's battle of Kalinga has one of the highest casualties 110,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_letha ... ld_history

These refer to battles in which armies met on a single field of battle and fought each other for anywhere from one to several days and do not count civilian casualties.
Does anyone here know what kind of battle formations were used ORBAT etc.. and any information of the progression of the battle and the reason for such high casualties.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 26 Aug 2009 23:46

SwamyG, Wiki has the same called Battle of Madras.

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

I recall it was all ended by Treaty of Aix-La-Chappell.

BTW here is wiki on Dupleix the French governor of that time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fra ... is_Dupleix

And a brief apparaisal of French in India:

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

I didnt know that Nawab Siraj-ud-daulah was advised by French to take Fort William and led to the Battle of Plassey!

Looks like in retrospect he was howla!

Hyderabadi speak for fool.

Rahul M · Post by **Rahul M** » 29 Aug 2009 13:24

ssmitra wrote:According to wikipedia, The Ashoka's battle of Kalinga has one of the highest casualties 110,000
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_letha ... ld_history

These refer to battles in which armies met on a single field of battle and fought each other for anywhere from one to several days and do not count civilian casualties.
Does anyone here know what kind of battle formations were used ORBAT etc.. and any information of the progression of the battle and the reason for such high casualties.

Ashoka's ORBAT is not available AFAIK but that of Nanda empire, Maurya empire and the Gangahridai kingdom is. (all from wiki but I have come across these figures elsewhere too)

Nanda

According to Plutarch, at the time of Alexander's Battle of the Hydaspes River, the size of the Nanda Empire's army further east numbered 200,000 infantry, 80,000 cavalry, 8,000 chariots, and 6,000 war elephants, which was discouraging for Alexander's men and stayed their further progress into India:

Maurya

Historians theorize that the organization of the Empire was in line with the extensive bureaucracy described by Kautilya in the Arthashastra: a sophisticated civil service governed everything from municipal hygiene to international trade. The expansion and defense of the empire was made possible by what appears to have been the largest standing army of its time[citation needed]. According to Megasthenes, the empire wielded a military of 600,000 infantry, 30,000 cavalry, and 9,000 war elephants.

Gandaridai, whose king, Xandrammes, had an army of 20,000 horse 200,000 infantry, 2,000 chariots and 4,000 elephants trained and equipped for war".... "Now this (Ganges) river, which is 30 stadia broad, flows from north to south, and empties its water into the ocean forming the eastern boundary of the Gandaridai, a nation which possesses the greatest number of elephants and the largest in size. "

if we take these numbers at face value half a million man armies were quite common in ancient India.

also wiki says on the kalinga war

Although Ashoka's army succeeded in overwhelming Kalinga forces of royal soldiers and civilian units, an estimated 100,000 soldiers and civilians were killed in the furious warfare, including over 10,000 of Ashoka's own men.

ashish raval · Post by **ashish raval** » 31 Aug 2009 14:02

Evidence of existance of Shri Krishna claimed by a researcher. Interesting.

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_kr ... ng_1286054

ashish raval · Post by **ashish raval** » 25 Sep 2009 15:49

So when are we going to change the syllabus of Indian History ! When the rest of the world is teaching a different history of India ?
Aryan invasion theory is in coffin which will be closed soon.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news ... 053274.cms

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 25 Sep 2009 19:54

Lalmohan wrote:I have read a bit about Mongol history, and yes there are some big numbers mentioned. What we do know is that the mongols who occupied persia over time became persianised, in the same way that mongols in china became sinocised and those in turkic lands became turkicised, etc. and later the mughals become Indianised.

Mongols generally Turkicized themselves; Genghiz Khan himself began the process with introduction of a Mongol script based on a Turkic language. However they most generally did not Persianize or Sinicize themselves - those individuals and families who did were treated with contempt and derision. And I suspect much of the Persianization and Sinicization was done by chroniclers from those countries, eager to couple the larger Mongol claims with their own and make good a bad deal (as modern China does with Manchu conquest of Tibet). Mughals came to India already highly Turkicized (indeed they were really Turks with some Mongol influence); in India they began to Persianize.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 26 Sep 2009 19:44

ParGha wrote:
Lalmohan wrote:I have read a bit about Mongol history, and yes there are some big numbers mentioned. What we do know is that the mongols who occupied persia over time became persianised, in the same way that mongols in china became sinocised and those in turkic lands became turkicised, etc. and later the mughals become Indianised.
Mongols generally Turkicized themselves; Genghiz Khan himself began the process with introduction of a Mongol script based on a Turkic language. However they most generally did not Persianize or Sinicize themselves - those individuals and families who did were treated with contempt and derision. And I suspect much of the Persianization and Sinicization was done by chroniclers from those countries, eager to couple the larger Mongol claims with their own and make good a bad deal (as modern China does with Manchu conquest of Tibet). Mughals came to India already highly Turkicized (indeed they were really Turks with some Mongol influence); in India they began to Persianize.

pargha - there are reasons

1. the persian and chinese cultures being stronger absorbed the mongols faster and their traces dissapeared (note how the mughals turned indian through marriage to rajputs) - something to do with softer lifestyles being more attractive. genghiz tried to prevent this but his successors succumbed
2. the turkic and mongol culture and way of life being similar evolved togther into a more definite identity, with the turkic language dominating

ParGha · Post by **ParGha** » 26 Sep 2009 21:27

Lalmohan wrote:1. the persian and chinese cultures being stronger absorbed the mongols faster and their traces dissapeared (note how the mughals turned indian through marriage to rajputs) - something to do with softer lifestyles being more attractive. genghiz tried to prevent this but his successors succumbed

Disagree. The Mongols kept a distinct identity as overlords of the settled people i.e. the Chinese, the Persians etc. In any given Mongol held area, the class system was inevitably with pure-blood Mongol families at the top, followed by Turks/Tibetans/Other Foreigners, followed by native collaborators, and finally the native settled people. Those who tried to ape the softer lifestyle were treated in two ways by others - if they were powerful, they were humored and ignored; if they were weak, they were despised and degraded. The slow absorption theory is a post-facto rewrite of an otherwise constant bloody and nasty intestine warfare.

In China, where records were best kept, we know that Mongol families lived apart from the Chinese, and when the Ming forces came into power they systematically killed or drove off those families - and chased them into the Gobi and poisoned most of the oases on the borderlands, so that Mongols would never be an independent threat to China again. Of course, the Mongols simply allied themselves under the Manchus can came back under a Banner Army, but that is a different story.

By the way, Maj. Hodson and his two sowars did more to make Mughals "Indian" than all the centuries of soft, entitled living and Rajput concubines. Anyway, Mughals are not Mongols; they were of Turkic origin and committed Muslims - quite a different ball game.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 27 Sep 2009 21:12

^^^ Pargha
thanks, I learned something

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 10 Oct 2009 11:53

History Channel documentary on the Battle of Hydaspes. Between Alexander and Porus (Paurava). Probably based on Arrian's account.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Spartan307# ... Ozg3rLwZlY

A few things I liked about the documentary is that they did not try to misrepresent a victory over a small Indian state as a victory over India. They also presented the fact that Alexander's army did not stand a chance against the Nandas and their allies and hence wisely avoided conflict with them.

Really wish such documentaries could be made by Indians on the battles that matter to Indians.

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 10 Oct 2009 17:11

But there is another view that says Alex 3 has lost that one. I remember reading something by Dodge

csharma · Post by **csharma** » 10 Oct 2009 22:40

I think I had read on BR about a different outcome of Battle of Hydaspes. Also, there are some who say it was a stalemate. Are there any references for those?

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 11 Oct 2009 12:35

I remember reading somewhere about it by Dodge or some other historian. You see, the story of of porus telling Alex that he shall be treated as a King actually the wrong. It was said by Darius Daughter. Alexander movie by Stone has that scene. If we read Mudra Raksham and other stories porus do not come as good as we think about him. So we do not really know what happened in the war between Alex 3 and Porus from any Indian writers.

One of the miths is the war elephants have turned out to be useless. If I remember the standard of Selucus is Elephant (can some one confirm it pls) He also used them in war. Indian war elephants are trained to take part in War. In India they were used even in middle ages quire successfully. How come such a failed system was used time and again even by Alex generals. Particularly when it is a very costly system to use.

So things simply add up.

One more thing Porus was not killed like any other kings by Alex. Remember Alex is nothing but a mass murderer if we really read what he has done and ignore all the image building of the Greeks and western writers. Why such a person has allowed Porus to live?

One more thing I remember Some Tom Clancy Novel wherein there is a sentence which says " these are the people who defeated Alexander" I do not remember which book But I wonder why he as written like that.

Historians from west has a vested interest to show Indians as losers in that war which is the first historical war between Indian and a major western power. So west can not loss Can it??? (did not Samaramis Invaded India and lost miserably)

Yagnasri · Post by **Yagnasri** » 11 Oct 2009 12:42

Any one has any information about the wars Hemu has fought. We know only about the last one where he was killed.