Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

[tsarkar]

Hard to agree with as Hunting wild boar and other animals in rajasthan was extremely common.

I find it amusing you’re comparing hunting huge herds of Altai Maral, Elk, Red Deer, Desert Ibex with pig sticking. Do some homework, compare the sizes & performance of these animals, as well as the size of their HERDS with a boar, that usually is a SOLITARY creature except when mating.

Then do a comparison of the time, effort and most importantly, individual skills and collective teamwork required to run a herd down to feed the tribe. These collective skills were later applied to maneuver warfare. In contrast, pig sticking is an individual or small team sport, and doesn’t impart the collective skills referred above. Running an elk herd down takes days & weeks, pig sticking is practiced for a few hours of a day.

You are mentioning a lame point – like comparing elk hunting with pig sticking. Lame points are those that are unsupported by facts, and will not stand up for verification. So, a good discusser should check whether his points are valid or not before posting them.

Wait a minute Ramayana and Mahabharata are replete with chariot warfare using bows and arrows. Shooting arrows from a fast moving platform was a skill people had in India and had used it well. There are descriptions of people putting the "horse lagaam" in their teeth and fighting with swords in both hands. See no reason why they could not practice archery on a horseback. Did you read Padmanabha's snippet given above? He talks about having a bone bow as a standard issue to each horsemen.

You’re completely missing the point, aren’t you? The equipment was always there, the rulers and soldiers LACKED THE IMPERATIVE to hone those skills for various reasons discussed earlier by everyone.

I will not comment on chariots, because its usage is mythological.

Now, presence of foot archers + presence of cavalry does not mean horse archers were present. Horse archery is a skill unique from cavalry and archery. I CANNOT put an archer on horseback to get a horse archer. I CANNOT arm a cavalry solder with bows and arrows and get a horse archer. Horse Archers are a unique SYSTEM of highly proficient men, mounts and weapons. You are misrepresenting all archers and all cavalry as horse archers. This is incorrect.

Majority of wars with the invaders took place in northern India. "Naarthies" filtered a lot of invasions from the south. So the invaders were fought with cavalry predominantly.

Not really, once frontier tribes converted, like the Khokhars, Gakhars, Janjua, and Jarail, they often joined the invaders in looting the hinterland. I see the Eastern bank of the Indus as the start of Indian hinterland.

When Jats of Multan fought Mehmud of Ghazni, they didn’t have any cavalry. When Jats fought Taimur, they didn’t have a cavalry contingent. Only miniscule number of leaders rode on horseback.

Basic logic – 1. Northies rode horses + 2. Northies fought most battles - does not mean - that Northies fielded strong cavalry forces equal to or better than invaders. By equal, I mean equal not just in numbers but equal ALSO in training and tactics.

Not true. Prithviraj Chauhans army in the first battle of Tarain outflanked Ghori's army.

You’re making a completely incorrect statement without any supporting facts when you say Prithviraj outflanked Ghori in the first battle of Tarain. Prithviraj didn’t outflank, he attacked on a broad front and broke through enemy lines collapsing its flanks.

Similarly, parroting “not true” to indisputable facts like Prithviraj’s getting outflanked in the second battle of Tarain or Marathas getting encircled at Panipat – without citing any facts – is extremely immature.

First understand the difference between a frontal attack, flank attacks, pincer movements, envelopment and double envelopment.

Now, any army commander who is well versed in these tactics, keeps a strong rear guard or mobile reserves. Like Khalid Bin Walid’s mobile guard or Alexander’s Companion Cavalry.

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

This force was earmarked as a cavalry RESERVE for use in battle as required.

Note the word RESERVE – for use after main force has been committed. If the commander notices a sudden strategic advantage, or finds part of his army threatened AFTER main forces have been committed and battle has been joined, he uses the mobile reserve.

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

In battle it would form part of a hammer and anvil tactic: the Companion cavalry would be used as a hammer, in conjunction with the Macedonian phalanx-based infantry, which acted as their anvil. The phalanx would pin the enemy in place, while the Companion cavalry would attack the enemy on the flank or from behind.

There are no such defined units in Indian history, whose job was to create breakthroughs, or be employed strategically. Not just that, these troops would need to practice and train hard for days to achieve proficiency. We find no mention of such units or their training in history.

Only Shivaji had his initially irregular bands that he effectively employed given their fanatic loyalty to Shivaji. In commanding loyalty of his men, Shivaji equaled or bettered Alexander.

Now you give me examples of maneuver warfare tactics, units and training employed by Indian generals. Give me one example of Indians executing a pincer movement. Give me one example of Indians outflanking the invaders. Give me one example of Indians doing a double envelopment.

I agree with Peter here. The historian RC Majumdar writing in The Delhi Sultanate observed that the greatest extent of the Sultanate was established by Muhammad bin Tughluq (1325-51) but even he failed to conquer Rajasthan:

"To Muhammad bin Tughluq, either as crown-prince, or as Sultan, belongs the credit of all these conquests which completed the triumph of Islam and seemed to have finally put an end to Hindu independence in the South. The authority of the Sultan was acknowledged all over India, save Kashmir, Orissa, Rajasthan and a strip of Malabar Coast, and he established an effective system of administration over this vast empire."

Now, Kashmir and the Malabar coast (Kerala) are ruled out because there was no invasion of these regions. Orissa also faced only one invasion by way of Bengal, but Rajasthan was bang next door to Delhi! So had the Rajputs only made "frontal charges" they would have been crushed in battle after battle and their lands would have been occupied by the invaders.

This did not happen partly because of the fierce resistance and the tactic of "jauhar" which denied the Turks any resources or converts from a fallen fort. But where old clans fell, new ones rose to replace them (like the Sesodias and the Rathods) and they defeated and drove out the Turks from Rajasthan in a series of battles. "Frontal attacks" could not have won all these battles?

RC Majumdar writes: "It is also quite clear from contemporary chronicles that Muhammad Tughluq and the later Sultans practically left Rajputana severely alone, and the various Rajput principalities recognised Mewar as the paramount power at least in name."

Airavat – The invaders were extremely small in numbers, and while able to defeat enemies in battle, lacked “boots on ground” to run the country. So they either established local Hindu feudatories to run captured territories for them, or if such feudatories were unavailable, they looted & left.

After defeating the Sen dynasty, the Delhi Sultanate established Hindu Zamindars who were earlier Kshatriyas. They established the Thakur dynasty in Bihar when Ferozshah Tughlaq appointed Pt. Kameshwar Thakur to collect taxes.

Marathas were feudatories of the Deccan Kingdoms after Malik Kafur demolished the Yadavas. The Marathas fought for the Bijapur sultanate against the Vijaynagar kingdom at Tallikota and Shahaji himself served the Adil Shahis.

In Rajputana, while some like the Rulers of Amber served Mughals, most other chieftains were ferociously independent. So all invaders did was loot Rajastan, but they lacked boots on the ground to rule Rajasthan. Once the main force went back to Delhi, resurgent local forces forcibily threw off shackles of authority.

We need to understand that Turks had a long supply chain - they sourced their men from Central Asia - and in face of determined resistance, they simply couldnt keep up with the attrition. Same goes for all invaders - including the British - India was too big for their grasp, and they had to let go when confronted with persistent and resurgent locals.

The fact that Rajasthan was independent of Delhi is not proof that Rajputs were well versed in maneuver warfare like the Central Asians.

[Lalmohan]

the mughals hated postings to bengal with a passion (too much SDRE fish eating action) and got their musharrafs kicked in assam countless times. even the mughal derivative later bengali sultans/emirs had little success up the bramhaputra

that whole mughal anti-SDRE mindset is alive and well you know where

[Airavat]

Hard to agree with as Hunting wild boar and other animals in rajasthan was extremely common.

You are mentioning a lame point – like comparing elk hunting with pig sticking.

This painting depicts a boar being hunted by a Rajput horse-archer:

Airavat – The invaders were extremely small in numbers, and while able to defeat enemies in battle, lacked “boots on ground” to run the country. So they either established local Hindu feudatories to run captured territories for them, or if such feudatories were unavailable, they looted & left.

The Turks had plenty of "boots on the ground" to establish:
1) Ghanavid sultanate in Punjab.
2) Delhi Sultanate.
3) Gujarat Sultanate.
4) Malwa Sultanate.
5) Khandesh Sultanate.
6) Bahmani Sultanate.
7) Madurai Sultanate.
Bengal Sultanate.
9) Jaunpur Sultanate.

After defeating the Sen dynasty, the Delhi Sultanate established Hindu Zamindars who were earlier Kshatriyas. They established the Thakur dynasty in Bihar when Ferozshah Tughlaq appointed Pt. Kameshwar Thakur to collect taxes.

Revenue collectors hardly hold the country. It takes a standing army. In Bengal the invaders settled down in cities like Lakhnawati, Satgaon, Sonargaon, Firuzabad-Pandua, built strong forts like Ekdala and had a standing army which was used to invade Orissa, Chittagong, Tripura, Assam, and on one occasion Nepal. The Bengal sultans constantly fought against their overlords of the Delhi Sultanate with this standing army.

In Rajputana, while some like the Rulers of Amber served Mughals, most other chieftains were ferociously independent. So all invaders did was loot Rajastan.

Lets just stick to the Turk-Rajput conflict before getting into the Mughal era. The first myth of the Turks being less in numbers is blasted by the contemporary historian Abdulla Wassaf who says that Alauddin Khalji had an army of 475,000 horse. Obviously he combines the numbers in the field-armies with fort garrisons and the soldiers holding important cities and towns.

But such large numbers enabled the Khaljis to send separate armies simultaneously to southern India (under Malik Kafur), to Rajputana (under Ulugh Khan), to Malwa (under Ain-ul-Mulk), and all the while holding more than enough soldiers in Delhi to be able to defend against a Mongol attack. They even had frontier garrisons at Dipalpur, Multan, and Uch, even though they had abandoned Lahore to the Mongols.

By contrast Rajput armies were always smaller than those of the Turks. the Rajput population in the state was always a fraction of the total population, and the ruling clan was a fraction of that fraction. Even after the Turks were defeated and the big Rajput kingdoms like Mewar and Marwar had been established, their armies numbered 25,000 horse and 20,000 horse respectively. The smaller principalities and forts did not field more than a few thousand strong cavalry.

In no instance did the invaders ever loot and run back to Delhi, for the simple reason that there was not much to loot in Rajasthan. Firstly the Rajputs followed a scorched earth defence against the Turks, the peasants would burn their crops and take refuge in remote places, and whatever little wealth there was would be sheltered in the forts. And even after a fort fell the Rajputs used jauhar to deny the invaders any wealth or slaves.

For the Delhi Sultanate, Rajasthan's importance was always strategic. Gujarat could not be held, and the routes to the Deccan secured, unless Rajasthan was crushed permanently. Secondly, the Rajput principalities sat astride the trade routes coming from West Asia and Central Asia, and Muslim caravans and supplies of horses to the Sultanate were fair game for the Rajputs.

Even in the late 17th century this strategic importance of Rajputana made the Mughals attempt annexation of these kingdoms despite the rulers being enrolled in the Mughal military system as mansabdars. The aim of Aurangzeb's Rajput War (1679-82), and of his annexation of Jodhpur state, is described by the preeminent historian Jadunath Sarkar as follows: "Mughal traders and Mughal armies would be able to pass easily from the capital [Delhi] to Western India and the Arabian Sea, the proud lord of Udaipur [Mewar] would be taken in flank, and a long wedge of Muslim territory would be driven right across Rajputana, cleaving it into two isolated halves which could be crushed in detail."

they lacked boots on the ground to rule Rajasthan. Once the main force went back to Delhi, resurgent local forces forcibily threw off shackles of authority. The fact that Rajasthan was independent of Delhi is not proof that Rajputs were well versed in maneuver warfare like the Central Asians.

Chittor fell in 1303 and was occupied by the invaders, by no less than Alauddin's own son Khizr khan, for eleven years! Jaisalmer was occupied for two years, Siwana for 7 years, Ranthambhor for 25 years, Jalor for fifty years, and Mandor for ninety. In each case it took sustained warfare by the Rajput clans to win back these strongholds and expel the Turks from Rajputana. The Sultanate of Nagaur was established by the Dandani Turks and it's name does not figure in Muslim history because it was defeated by the Rajput Kingdom of Mewar and it's lands eventually fell to the Rathods of Marwar.

In subsequent periods the Kingdom of Mewar fought and won repeated battles against the Sultanates of Gujarat and Malwa.....the latter sultanate was eventually dismembered, its northern territory distributed among Rajput chieftains. The stream of recruits from Central Asia and West Asia came to Gujarat, Malwa, and the Deccan Sultanates from the sea route. So it can't be argued that these Rajput victories came because the Turks no longer had access to horses or horse-archers for maneuver warfare.

[Varoon Shekhar]

"the mughals hated postings to bengal with a passion (too much SDRE fish eating action) and got their musharrafs kicked in assam countless times. even the mughal derivative later bengali sultans/emirs had little success up the bramhaputra.."

There's also Orissa, where the Ghurids/their successors, after defeating the Chauhans and Gahadavalas in the late 12th century , met with at least two major setbacks, losses that helped Orissa stay pretty much independent for several centuries. Does anyone have details of these battles- I will also look it up.

[tsarkar]

Airavat
I referred to boar hunting as pig sticking. Pig sticking was a sport practiced in my family till the generation before me in our Terai farmlands, where wild boar was common and a nuisance in the fields, and they’re quite tasty. One of my granduncles had his intestines torn out in such a hunt and was sewn up using horse tail hair without antibiotics or anesthesia. The boar was shot by a gun, though it was unsportsmanlike.
My PoV is that while boar hunting does help develop individual skills, it doesn’t impart the collective fighting skills required to hunt herds of elk and Altai Maral.

I also agree most Indians persistently fought foreign occupiers and threw them off in many places as very correctly described by you. Even Aurungzeb could not dominate the Deccan despite 27 years of campaign.

However none of these battles for freedom were recorded using maneuver warfare tactics, or collective training imparted to men.

When Mughals attacked, the Turks had lost their skills and when Nadir Shah attacked, the Mughals had lost their skills

[Singha]

I have read the maratha confederacy after shivaji followed a loose alliance of warlords who each controlled certain areas and were happy to let the mughals rule on paper while extracting whatever they wanted from the mughal revenue and being de facto rulers.

they went as far south as ginjee near pondicherry where a huge fort stands over the road and two hills today.

[Rahul M]

singha ji, AFAIK people consider the manipuri to be a local breed, perhaps related to the tibetan pony. it's not a proper horse (though those criteria are a little ad-hoc) mind, so the chances of being the progeny of foreign horse-breeds are low.

[ramana]

Airavat
.....
My PoV is that while boar hunting does help develop individual skills, it doesn’t impart the collective fighting skills required to hunt herds of elk and Altai Maral.

I also agree most Indians persistently fought foreign occupiers and threw them off in many places as very correctly described by you. Even Aurungzeb could not dominate the Deccan despite 27 years of campaign.

However none of these battles for freedom were recorded using maneuver warfare tactics, or collective training imparted to men.

When Mughals attacked, the Turks had lost their skills and when Nadir Shah attacked, the Mughals had lost their skills

IOW they became Indianised or nativised.

[peter]

everything that a soldier is issued with is not directly related to fighting. the bows could well have been used for hunting, a very necessary requirement for a mobile force that lives off the land.
by now I'm a little tired of repeating, circumstantial evidence or conjecture does not equate to conclusive evidence. what you have presented till now has not even a small amount of direct evidence. if horse archery was a regular part of rajput armies why isn't it represented in the paintings of the period, for instance ? or in the arms from that era ?

Do you know of wars in which mounted archers wrecked havoc on the opposing cavalry in India? I do not want examples from europe or mongols or huns. We cannot just extrapolate from other cultures and think it applies equally in India. Let me remind you that even as late as 18th century, by when musket technology had improved greatly, a cavalry charge on good horses could not be dealt with in India. Regarding archery in India both on horses and without is well attested. People who have read primary sources differ with your opinion and let me just quote one such reference from Hyman Wilson:

The matchlock has long since supplanted the bow and arrow in India; and no traces are left of that dexterity in the use of the latter, in which the Hindus seem to have rivalled their neighbours, the Parthians. The exploits of the semi-divine heroes of the Mahabharata are, however, of the marvellous, and would be, perhaps, little intelligible, even if they could be illustrated by modern practice. The text seems to intend stating, that a moveable mark was suspended in the air, and whirled rapidly round upon a pivot; that upon a level with the plane of the circle which it described was fixed, upon one side of it, a hoop or ring; and that five arrows were to be simultaneously shot through the ring as the mark came opposite to it. This feat was worthy of Arjuna. It might have baffled Robin Hood. None of the competitors, however, have any chance; for, like the suitors of Penelope, they cannot even bend the bow!

It is still a favourite exercise with the Hindus to bend a bow made of a very stubborn hambu, and strung with an iron chain, or cord loaded with iron plates; and it requires no ordinary muscularity to effect the object.

[peter]

btw, this question is for peter as well, what was rajasthan called in ancient times ?

Rajasthan did not exist as a state earlier. Parts of it were in various kingdoms and kept changing hands.

[tsarkar]

Ramana, on a humourous note, you probably know the quaint english phrase "gone native" to describe Englishmen who took up Indian habits and married Indians.

http://dictionaries.cambridge.org/defin ... native*1+0

[peter]

Hard to agree with as Hunting wild boar and other animals in rajasthan was extremely common.

I find it amusing you’re comparing hunting huge herds of Altai Maral, Elk, Red Deer, Desert Ibex with pig sticking. Do some homework, compare the sizes & performance of these animals, as well as the size of their HERDS with a boar, that usually is a SOLITARY creature except when mating.

Not relevant. Targeting a fast moving boar on horseback is far tougher then making a killing in a big herd. Impression I get from reading your post is that you are relying too much on either british historians or british trained historians or the court historians of Islamic kings. I hope you realise there is more to history then what has been penned by such historians.

You are mentioning a lame point – like comparing elk hunting with pig sticking. Lame points are those that are unsupported by facts, and will not stand up for verification. So, a good discusser should check whether his points are valid or not before posting them.

Lame point? I am afraid you have not seen the picture posted by airavat.

Wait a minute Ramayana and Mahabharata are replete with chariot warfare using bows and arrows. Shooting arrows from a fast moving platform was a skill people had in India and had used it well. There are descriptions of people putting the "horse lagaam" in their teeth and fighting with swords in both hands. See no reason why they could not practice archery on a horseback. Did you read Padmanabha's snippet given above? He talks about having a bone bow as a standard issue to each horsemen.

You’re completely missing the point, aren’t you? The equipment was always there, the rulers and soldiers LACKED THE IMPERATIVE to hone those skills for various reasons discussed earlier by everyone.

No. Read primary sources on history of India to get an understanding. Lack of imperative is your imagination as is the quote in umpteen history books that Babur's artillery mowed down the opposing cavalry!

Now, presence of foot archers + presence of cavalry does not mean horse archers were present. Horse archery is a skill unique from cavalry and archery. I CANNOT put an archer on horseback to get a horse archer. I CANNOT arm a cavalry solder with bows and arrows and get a horse archer. Horse Archers are a unique SYSTEM of highly proficient men, mounts and weapons. You are misrepresenting all archers and all cavalry as horse archers. This is incorrect.

No I am not doing that. You are imagining it. Kanhadde Prabandh does not mention any infantry attacking the mongol soldiers of Ulugh Khan and it further states mongols were pierced by the arrows of Hindus.

Majority of wars with the invaders took place in northern India. "Naarthies" filtered a lot of invasions from the south. So the invaders were fought with cavalry predominantly.

Not really, once frontier tribes converted, like the Khokhars, Gakhars, Janjua, and Jarail, they often joined the invaders in looting the hinterland. I see the Eastern bank of the Indus as the start of Indian hinterland.

No. It was much further west.

When Jats of Multan fought Mehmud of Ghazni, they didn’t have any cavalry. When Jats fought Taimur, they didn’t have a cavalry contingent. Only miniscule number of leaders rode on horseback.

Irrelevant. jats were not the ruling tribe but a peasant tribe and they moved with live stock. Horses were used by the kings of the domain.

Basic logic – 1. Northies rode horses + 2. Northies fought most battles - does not mean - that Northies fielded strong cavalry forces equal to or better than invaders. By equal, I mean equal not just in numbers but equal ALSO in training and tactics.

I am afraid you do not understand medieveal Indian history. Question for you is do you even know how many invasions of India were attempted and how many were succesful before that of Mahmud of Ghazni? Who fought in these wars and how?

Not true. Prithviraj Chauhans army in the first battle of Tarain outflanked Ghori's army.

You’re making a completely incorrect statement without any supporting facts when you say Prithviraj outflanked Ghori in the first battle of Tarain. Prithviraj didn’t outflank, he attacked on a broad front and broke through enemy lines collapsing its flanks.

No dear. Please check your facts.

Similarly, parroting “not true” to indisputable facts like Prithviraj’s getting outflanked in the second battle of Tarain .....

Please consult Dashrath Sharmas book on early chauhan dynasties. Chauhan army was *never* outflanked at Tarain.

First understand the difference between a frontal attack, flank attacks, pincer movements, envelopment and double envelopment.

Know them well. You need to read history from primary indian sources to see both sides of the coin.

Now, any army commander who is well versed in these tactics, keeps a strong rear guard or mobile reserves. Like Khalid Bin Walid’s mobile guard or Alexander’s Companion Cavalry.

If this is your holy grail why did Alexander loose to Porus?

Airavat – The invaders were extremely small in numbers, and while able to defeat enemies in battle, lacked “boots on ground” to run the country. So they either established local Hindu feudatories to run captured territories for them, or if such feudatories were unavailable, they looted & left.

This takes the cake I am afraid. Invading armies outnumbered Indian kings many to one. Have you consulted any primary sources on Indian history from the Hindu side?

[peter]

However none of these battles for freedom were recorded using maneuver warfare tactics, or collective training imparted to men.

So the wins people like Porus, Samudra gupta, Dantidurga , Hammir, Kumbha, Pratap, Shivaji, Durga Das etc had over invaders were just flukes? Where are you getting this drivel from?

[Rahul M]

.........
Do you know of wars in which mounted archers wrecked havoc on the opposing cavalry in India? I do not want examples from europe or mongols or huns. We cannot just extrapolate from other cultures and think it applies equally in India. Let me remind you that even as late as 18th century, by when musket technology had improved greatly, a cavalry charge on good horses could not be dealt with in India. Regarding archery in India both on horses and without is well attested. People who have read primary sources differ with your opinion and let me just quote one such reference from Hyman Wilson:

now you are simply making irrelevant comments that have nothing to do with this discussion.
consider this

Do you know of wars in which mounted archers wrecked havoc on the opposing cavalry in India?

what on earth does this have to do with the fact if mounted archery existed in India or not ?

We cannot just extrapolate from other cultures and think it applies equally in India.

more empty rhetoric.

Let me remind you that even as late as 18th century, by when musket technology had improved greatly, a cavalry charge on good horses could not be dealt with in India.

some more statements whose relevance to this discussion is a little less than zero.

Regarding archery in India both on horses and without is well attested.

yet you have failed to present even one conclusive evidence, let alone multiple ones.

People who have read primary sources differ with your opinion and let me just quote one such reference from Hyman Wilson:

the only such person seems to be you.
the quote you provide again says absolutely NOTHING about mounted archery.

what exactly are you doing here ? trying to recreate history based on your fantasies ?
a board like BR functions on the unsaid assumption that people will be bound by a certain level of logic, if you insist on violating that I may have to warn you.

btw, this question is for peter as well, what was rajasthan called in ancient times ?

Rajasthan did not exist as a state earlier. Parts of it were in various kingdoms and kept changing hands.

kindly assume that you are not alone in being privy to that bit of information. many regions have names even if they are not an unified political entity.

[ParGha]

IOW they became Indianised or nativised.

Actually they became complacent, not Indianized. They began to rely on the achievements of their forefathers rather than their own capabilities - an attitude best illustrated by the nobles in Ray's The Chess Players.

Arguably the first foreigners to Indianize their approach to warfare were the French, who were followed by the British with resounding success. While at first glance it appears that the Indian soldiers were Europeanized with technology, training and tactics, a deeper study reveals that the British were simultaneously adapting all those to Indian environment and Indian psyche to beat the Turks and Turkish-styled armies in India.

[Lalmohan]

wellington is said to have learned his craft in india before taking it to europe to eventually beat napoleon

[ramana]

wellington is said to have learned his craft in india before taking it to europe to eventually beat napoleon

He is upposed ot have said that "Battle of Assaye" was his finiest one.

He also brought to England from India, the practise of a wooden /leather scabbard instead of metal one which needed constant sharpening of the sword.


I saw a blurb in the Museum of Sword in Chelsea, London.

[jambudvipa]

tsarkar :"Only Shivaji had his initially irregular bands that he effectively employed given their fanatic loyalty to Shivaji. In commanding loyalty of his men, Shivaji equaled or bettered Alexander".

Please try and not use western benchmarks to measure up those who saved our ancestors skins.Taking a leap from Alexander to Shivaji not a good idea in terms of history.
What comparison is there between someone who was a glorified bandit as far as we are concerned and someone who was known for his morals?
What point of his career did CHattrapati Shivaji face a mutiny from his troops (Im not metioning Netaji Palkars defection nor Shambhujis defection,both came back anyway)?So where does the question of comparing the loyalty of his troops to alexander arise?

CHattrapati Shivaji hardly fielded irregular soldiers or bands .even intially,would he have survived agaisnt the Adil Shahis with an irregular force? he would have been crushed as many before him were.
Irregular tactics definately yes,no arguement there.

there exists a legend in Maharashtra that Samarth Ramdas had established vyayamshalas and martial arts training centres across maharashtra,which meant by the time Chattrapati Shivaji came of age a more or less standing army was ready for him.

There are many references to battle tactics empolyed by Hindu kings.eg the shahi kings of kabul used mountain warfare ie cutting off the logistics lines of the invading army and ambushes in the passes.


if you can read marathi the books to read would be by Shivashahir babasaheb Purandare.

[peter]

.........
Do you know of wars in which mounted archers wrecked havoc on the opposing cavalry in India? I do not want examples from europe or mongols or huns. We cannot just extrapolate from other cultures and think it applies equally in India. Let me remind you that even as late as 18th century, by when musket technology had improved greatly, a cavalry charge on good horses could not be dealt with in India. Regarding archery in India both on horses and without is well attested. People who have read primary sources differ with your opinion and let me just quote one such reference from Hyman Wilson:

now you are simply making irrelevant comments that have nothing to do with this discussion.
consider this

Do you know of wars in which mounted archers wrecked havoc on the opposing cavalry in India?

what on earth does this have to do with the fact if mounted archery existed in India or not ?

We cannot just extrapolate from other cultures and think it applies equally in India.

more empty rhetoric.

Let me remind you that even as late as 18th century, by when musket technology had improved greatly, a cavalry charge on good horses could not be dealt with in India.

some more statements whose relevance to this discussion is a little less than zero.

Not quite. Humans beings are supposed to be learning animals. If we assume that mounted archers caused the defeat of medieveal Hindus in every war they fought with the invaders then do you really think that people who could shoot arrows accurately on horseback to hunt game would not have deployed cavarly archer units?
It is a thought experiment. History requires some deduction and logic.

Regarding archery in India both on horses and without is well attested.

yet you have failed to present even one conclusive evidence, let alone multiple ones.

People who have read primary sources differ with your opinion and let me just quote one such reference from Hyman Wilson:

the only such person seems to be you.
the quote you provide again says absolutely NOTHING about mounted archery.

Really? Please read about Parthian horsemen here and then figure out why does Wilson compare hindus to Parthians?

what exactly are you doing here ? trying to recreate history based on your fantasies ?
a board like BR functions on the unsaid assumption that people will be bound by a certain level of logic, if you insist on violating that I may have to warn you.

This is a bit odd. I have busted the long held belief that cannon and artillery of first mughals pulverised the hindu forces. Evidence upon evidence was supplied. Then I presented evidence from primary Indian sources that *all* cavalry men carried bows and arrows in the Jalore army. Also presented evidence that bows and arrows were used to kill mongols. Further the same evidence said no infantry in the jalore army. I do not know how you can call this as fantasy? These are hard facts from my vantage point.

btw, this question is for peter as well, what was rajasthan called in ancient times ?

Rajasthan did not exist as a state earlier. Parts of it were in various kingdoms and kept changing hands.

kindly assume that you are not alone in being privy to that bit of information. many regions have names even if they are not an unified political entity.

But that is exactly the point. Why would you expect rajasthan to have a name earlier? There were many kingdoms like ballabhi, ajaymeru, mewar etc....

[Singha]

manouver warfare seems == supercruise in other threads. more important than victory itself (by whatevar suitable means it was grabbed)?

theoritical idea:
in jordan area there are ancient stone walls in the desert running for miles that channeled wild animals into
narrowing zones finally leading to a pit where they fell into and were killed. I wonder if a well organized infantry with
mobile wooden/bamboo/wagon obstacles implanted with spears and using rows of trenches to disappear behind could
contain and defeat a horse cavalry army? has it ever been done?

http://news.discovery.com/archaeology/d ... kites.html

[Singha]

wiki

Tactically there were only two ways for infantry to beat cavalry in an open field battle: firepower and mass. Firepower could be provided by swarms of missiles. Mass could be provided by a tightly packed phalanx of men.[5] Such tactics were long-established; the Romans used missile troops such as slingers, and the core infantry learned to deal with swarming enemy cavalrymen by forming a hollow square fenced with a solid hedge of iron pila (large javelins). Alexander the Great combined both methods in his clashes with the Asiatic horseman of Persia and India, screening his central infantry phalanx with slingers, archers and javelin-men, before unleashing his cavalry against the enemy. Both mass and firepower could be aided by a good tactical position, such as on a hill or on rough terrain, where enemy cavalry would have trouble manoeuvring.[6]

These ancient lessons were relearned in the Medieval period, both in the Crusades, and in the continued operations of forces like the Flemish footman and particularly the Swiss Pikeman and the English Longbowman. Against Saladin's light cavalry at Jaffa (c. 1192) during the Crusades, Richard of England drew up a line of spearmen, kneeling on the ground with spear planted in front, forming a hedge of steel against the charging enemy horsemen. Behind the spear wall, crossbowmen stood ready, with assistants helping to reload. The Muslim armies attacked but the combined firepower of the archers and the steadiness of the wall of spears held. Once the Muslims pulled back, Richard ordered his armoured knights forward, and Saladin withdrew. At the battle of Courtrai in 1302, the determined Flemish infantry staked out a good position on advantageous ground (cut up with streams and ditches) and stood firm against the cavalry charge of the French nobles using their pikes and wooden Goedendag a combination spear and club. The French charge was stopped and the Flemish infantry then moved forward to liquidate the opposition. At Bannockburn, the Scot fighters dug numerous pits to foil the English cavalry, blunted the English advance, then counter-attacked with their pike army to soundly defeat their opponents.These and other example illustrate the importance of trained infantry, but the dominance of the footman did not come overnight. Both cavalryman and infantryman continued to operate for long periods side by side throughout the Medieval period

[Singha]

did indian armies ever use the long european style pikes made famous by 'swiss pikemen' ?

[peter]

wiki

Tactically there were only two ways for infantry to beat cavalry in an open field battle: firepower and mass. Firepower could be provided by swarms of missiles. Mass could be provided by a tightly packed phalanx of men.[5] Such tactics were long-established; the Romans used missile troops such as slingers, and the core infantry learned to deal with swarming enemy cavalrymen by forming a hollow square fenced with a solid hedge of iron pila (large javelins). Alexander the Great combined both methods in his clashes with the Asiatic horseman of Persia and India, screening his central infantry phalanx with slingers, archers and javelin-men, before unleashing his cavalry against the enemy. Both mass and firepower could be aided by a good tactical position, such as on a hill or on rough terrain, where enemy cavalry would have trouble manoeuvring.[6]

These are all good points. Few additional things need to be mentioned. Speed of horses, their carrying ability, actual number of cavalry and the deadliness of firepower was also relevant. Think of a machine gun fire. If the rate of firing is high and volume is heavy no cavalry could proceed through the hail of firepower. On the other hand if you had slow reloading bows/muskets/guns/cannons, the output of which may not be accurate the opposing cavalry had a chance. If the infantry could choose the battle ground days in advance and dig ditches or build earthern work embankments/walls (like medieveal ruler Sher Shah did or the Japanese did against the attack of Mongols and Koreans) then cavalry was in trouble.

Since Rahul brought Lord of the rings let me also fall back on it and give an example from the second part where House of Rohan attacks the underworld creatures on horseback and decimates them. It is a nicely shot scene and may not be inaccurate.

Rohan Cavalry Movie

Also let us not forget that cavalry had its other nemesis in elephants. If the mass of elephants was large they could really scare the horses as happened between porus and alexander.

These ancient lessons were relearned in the Medieval period, both in the Crusades, and in the continued operations of forces like the Flemish footman and particularly the Swiss Pikeman and the English Longbowman. Against Saladin's light cavalry at Jaffa (c. 1192) during the Crusades, Richard of England drew up a line of spearmen, kneeling on the ground with spear planted in front, forming a hedge of steel against the charging enemy horsemen. Behind the spear wall, crossbowmen stood ready, with assistants helping to reload. The Muslim armies attacked but the combined firepower of the archers and the steadiness of the wall of spears held. Once the Muslims pulled back, Richard ordered his armoured knights forward, and Saladin withdrew. At the battle of Courtrai in 1302, the determined Flemish infantry staked out a good position on advantageous ground (cut up with streams and ditches) and stood firm against the cavalry charge of the French nobles using their pikes and wooden Goedendag a combination spear and club. The French charge was stopped and the Flemish infantry then moved forward to liquidate the opposition. At Bannockburn, the Scot fighters dug numerous pits to foil the English cavalry, blunted the English advance, then counter-attacked with their pike army to soundly defeat their opponents.These and other example illustrate the importance of trained infantry, but the dominance of the footman did not come overnight. Both cavalryman and infantryman continued to operate for long periods side by side throughout the Medieval period

In India the closest equivalent would be the long metal javelin also called "ballam" or "bhala".

[Murugan]

Maharana Pratap with Bhala


Peshwa Bajirao Charging with a Bhala

[Murugan]

This statue of Bajiprabhu Deshpande at Panhala Maharashtra is very impressive but it completely astonishes me that instead of having a shield in another hand, he holds second sword. The ferocity of the warrior is nicely depicted.




Bajiprabhu was the Hero of the Battle of Pavan Khind - a rear guard battle

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

[Lalmohan]

massed infantry will withstand cavalry since horses are not not soosai orientated. however, if the ranks can be broken then scattered infantry will be cut down by fast moving horsemen

this is where horse archer units come in. charge headlong firing arrows at the infantry wall, turn around and retreat whilst firing to the rear. an infantry commander seeing the enemy 'flee' orders the pursuit. now his tight ranks break and move forward. now the light horse archers either draw them forwards over a hill or around a forest into the ambush or move around to the flanks and pour in devastating fire on a less defensible body

the mongols seem to have used this tactic literlly hundreds of times with success (although i suspect that their C2 was very strong)

according to sandhu's excellent book, only vijayanagar mastered the use of horse archer formations, but that too with a strong turkish core. local troops were trained but never in sufficient numbers, and nor were there enough horses

[Singha]

I have read a hypothetical scenario what would have happened if africans had managed to domesticate and breed rhinos, elephants and zebras in large numbers to form a offensive army and there been a food surplus to permit seasonal wars . the southern edge of the greek, roman, mongol, turkic empires would have to face lakhs of powerfully built west and east african warriors mounted on 1000s of rhinos and fast moving zebras. unlike a horse, a rhino isnt so sensitive and a line of them would charge and trample through pike bearing infantry like they didnt exist, while zebra cavalry would mop up and outflank in the 2nd line.

for sheer mayhem perhaps 5000 bad tempered cape buffalo could accompany the rhinos as loose-cannon 'tanks' for that x-factor.

a javelin throwers and archers using composite bows and metal arrows in a elephant division numbering 2000 beasts, selected as the largest
and most bullish of the huge stock.

with proper C3I, such a unified army of africa (UAA) would have torn the arabs/greek/roman and their horse/camel cavalry limb from limb and chased down the mongols and let the heavy forces maul them severely.

yindu had smaller and weaker elephants, not much good horses, and gaurs cant be persuaded to gore and kick unlike cape buffalo. our rhinos are lazy riverine beasts vs the bigger dryland rhinos of africa.

[Lalmohan]

nice scenario!
worth reading up on shaka zulu and the war fighting system he built up. although only using infantry... very formidable

[derkonig]

yindu had smaller and weaker elephants, not much good horses, and gaurs cant be persuaded to gore and kick unlike cape buffalo. our rhinos are lazy riverine beasts vs the bigger dryland rhinos of africa.

Even the yindu animals are SDRE..

[ParGha]

Lalmohan,

Highly disciplined infantry can be trained to carry heavy shields or missile weapons outranging the horse-archers; they can also be trusted not to break ranks in pursuit. In their better days Roman and Ming heavy infantry regularly took on cavalry-centric foes and beat them. It requires discipline, strategy and ruthlessness, but it can be done.

In fact there is still a lesson to be learnt here: India has in someways replaced its dependence on Arab horses with its dependence on Arab oil, the first one did little good to its security - the second one is likely to do even less. OT, but methinks Indians should use some of the relief provided by the nuclear shield to start approaching warfare from an angle of their natural advantages rather than international "norms".

[Lalmohan]

and indeed in all the battles where indian armies held their formation, they prevailed against the mleccha hordes. when the ranks broke, the battle usually failed

there was a battle in the afghan highlands where the (then) indian army held firm on the mountain pass against the turushkas for days and days despite the most strident efforts of the foe, only to fail later when the ranks broke to chase the fleeing enemy (if someone can reference the battle that would be welcome - pre islamisation of afghania)

[tsarkar]

Not relevant. Targeting a fast moving boar on horseback is far tougher then making a killing in a big herd.

The elk and altai maral run faster than boars. A herd chase lasts days, and builds stamina of men and horse. Boar chases last for hours. Elk hunt requires TEAMWORK, boar hunt is an INDIVIDUAL sport. Elk hunts require combined effort of many horse archers. Boars are solitary creatures, so only few men are required to hunt them.

Kanhadde Prabandh does not mention any infantry attacking the mongol soldiers of Ulugh Khan and it further states mongols were pierced by the arrows of Hindus.

It mentions horsemen with bows, and it mentions archers shooting Turks. No where does it describe horse archer columns. Kanhadde Prabandh is a poetic work in veer ras. If Kanhadev was so skillful and his troops so well versed, why did the Jalore Army lose finally?

Irrelevant. jats were not the ruling tribe but a peasant tribe and they moved with live stock. Horses were used by the kings of the domain.

Ah ha. I wonder what the Jat Regiment chaps will say if you happened to discuss your pearl of wisdom at their mess.

So you think only Kshatriyas did all the fighting as per scriptures and the farmers and cowherds clapped from the stands.

In real life, resources come from all segments of society. In real life, whether past or present, Indian Army recruits from all corners and social structures. Somehow you’re deluded into thinking Teutonic Knight type “Kings” did all the fighting while rest of India, like the “peasant” Jats, twiddled their thumbs.

So in real life, while some “Kings” could shoot arrows on horseback, they constituted a miniscule percentage of the whole army fighting the invaders. Hence we couldn’t field horse archer columns.

BTW, the Jat peasant types established a kingdom closer to Delhi & Agra than anyone else. Lastly, the Marathas too were a farming community like the Jats, so get rid of your silly romantic notions that only kings and Kshatriyas did all the fighting.

Please consult Dashrath Sharmas book on early chauhan dynasties. Chauhan army was *never* outflanked at Tarain.

Dashrath Sharma was a romantic historian, and he based his research on poetic works. If Chauhan Army was never outflanked and surrounded, then how was Prithviraj captured/killed? Why didn’t part of the army survive to fight another day? Why did none of the leaders survive?

Why didnt the Chauhan dynasty rule Delhi instead of the Ghurid dynasty if their strategy and tactics were so brilliant? Stop mixing historical facts with romantic notions.

If this is your holy grail why did Alexander loose to Porus?

Ah, indeed, could you provide any facts that Porus defeated Alexander? Coins are found in India with Greek inscriptions coined by the Greek/Indo Greek rulers. No one found coins IN GREECE with Hindu inscriptions coined by Hindu rulers.

Invading armies outnumbered Indian kings many to one. Have you consulted any primary sources on Indian history from the Hindu side

Poetic record of both sides tend to outnumber opponents. Factual sizing is done based on scale of logistics, time taken by armies to move, etc.

So the wins people like Porus, Samudra gupta, Dantidurga , Hammir, Kumbha, Pratap, Shivaji, Durga Das etc had over invaders were just flukes?

Porus disappears without a trace some years post battle. No one found any trace of Puru kingdom while there were numerous satrapies of diadochi.

No records of Dantidurga fighting invaders were found. He erects inscriptions for defeating the Chalukyas. Won’t he have mentioned defeating the Mlechas?

Hammir – respected for courage, but strategy? Sending Ranmal to negotiate with Khilji?

Kumbha – brave warrior and notable for forging successful alliances. No records of any remarkable battle tactics used.

Pratap – Legendary bravery, but not a single victory.

Shivaji’s tactics were well known, and I have specifically mentioned those.

Where are you getting this drivel from?

You have not given one fact to support your delusional romantic "veer ras" notions. PLEASE PROVIDE EXAMPLES OF BATTLE TACTICS FROM YOUR CHERISHED POETIC “HINDU” WORKS. Oh, and I am a Hindu Kshatriya myself, in name and in deed. However I dont let emotions cloud my judgement, and I separate romance from warfare.

if you can read marathi the books to read would be by Shivashahir babasaheb Purandare.

Jambudvipa – I read, write and speak Marathi well, and have read Babasaheb Purandare’s works. His play Janta Raja has been screened all over India and was like by everyone.

I used the word “irregular” in the positive sense – highly motivated troops who could melt into the countryside and reform at short notice. This gives the commander extreme flexibility.

This is a bit odd. I have busted the long held belief that cannon and artillery of first mughals pulverised the hindu forces.

No you didnt. The importance of Artillery in those battles WILL STILL BE appreciated by strategists. You may go around posting in forums that you changed history, your incorrect posts will be incorrect and facts will be facts.

Then I presented evidence from primary Indian sources that *all* cavalry men carried bows and arrows in the Jalore army.

Just because they carried bows does not make them an effective horse archer column. You cannot extrapolate presence of equipment to presence of tactics and strategy. The Egyptian and Syrians had more and better tanks than Israelis in 1967 and 1973, but lacked tactics & strategy.

So for all your incorrect words, facts will still remain facts.

And frankly, after reading your BS about Jats, your intellect is revealed and further discussion with you becomes meaningless.

Gokula led the Jat uprising in 1699 when the Mughals were strongest and the empire at their peak.

[Atri]

For good study on Marathas, "New History Of Marathas" by G.S.Sardesai is an excellent resource. Babasaheb Purandare (in his own words) is far too jingoistic. He is a bard of Shivaji, rather than a historian. Much as I enjoy reading his books which are written in extremely inspirational language and style, I won't give it much credence as lover of history. In Marathi, I would recommend all 10 volumes of "Riyasat" by G.S.Sardesai and books by Narhar Kurundkar.

@Singha ji,

The emergence, the dominance and eclipse of Maratha "confederacy" is linked with ill health of Peshwas and their early deaths. Even East India company continued the policy of Pune court by continuing to rule the gangetic plains in the name of Mughal emperor. For establishing their (British Empire's) rule on gangetic plains required a genocide of 10 million people after 1857. Akbar too could establish a stable polity on Gangetic plains owing to 200 years of constant marauding and irregularity by earlier Sultanates.

While it is easy to criticize Marathas for their "official loyalty" towards Mughals, it should be understood that the people of Gangetic plains essentially prefer status-quo. One of the reasons of Panipat campaign was to establish Vishwasrao on the throne of Delhi after neutralizing the threat from Pathans (both Abdali and Najib). This somehow leaked out and Bhau had to face tremendous opposition from the populace their. It also made the potential allies like Shuja suspicious. Surajmal et al wanted Delhi for Jats. However Bhau had to declare publicly that he is here to protect India and Mughal emperor and had no plans of supplanting him.

The policy of Pune court was to slowly emerge as logical and legitimate successors to Mughals so that the transition is smooth and people won't be much of a trouble. Hence they continued various laws and tax policies of Mughals (including differential additional 2.5% octroi tax on Hindus). Except for the monetary clause of Jiziya, all other clauses were abolished. However, abolishing the additional 2.5% of tax means heavy burden on revenue. Hence they continued with this too. People were so used to it that they did not bother.

Marathas acquired the right to rule from Mughal emperor. Almost all provinces of India except for Awadh, Rohilkhand and Sindh, were granted to Marathas by Mughals stepwise. This would have worked if Peshwas were blessed with health life. Unfortunately for India, the house of Peshwas had Tuberculosis as a hereditary disease. Balaji Vishwanath (40), Nanasaheb (40), Madhavrao (28), Chimaji appa (39) all died of TB at the ages indicated in bracket. Bajirao-1 (40), Sadashivrao Bhau (32), Vishwasrao (17), Narayanrao (16), Sawai Madhavrao (5) died unnatural death either assassination OR sudden inexplicable death OR death on field while fighting.

The problem of "confederacy" used to decrease after 6-7 years of stable rule by any Peshwa from Pune. The longest feud was during 1740 to 1750 when the confederacy arose, was between Peshwa and Bhonsala of Nagpur over rights of Bengal. However, Nanasaheb was in the process of ironing out the differences while he died. Same is the case with Madhavrao-1. The threat of Bajirao-1 did not allow any such differences to arise in first place. Hence if we indulge in extrapolation, we come to conclusion that the "confederacy" was due to early deaths of Peshwas and not due to any policy OR lack of it from Marathas.

@Sarkar ji,

Shivaji was one of the first hindu kings in medieval India to start a professional army working on a fixed salary in cash. He introduced these reforms while laying low after escape from Agra. There are plenty of other land reforms wherein he abolished the Mansabdari system of Akbar and redistributed the land amongst peasants while it was hoarded by big jahagirdars. During his initial days of fighting against Adilshah, the army which was fighting for him was not the one who came out of his personal charishma. He was 15 when he started his movement. It was the men of his father who helped him. It is only after 1660-64 (after sack of Surat) that his individual standing started to raise in Maharashtra. He was a just and good king before that, but he did yet yet possess the "mythical power" of inspiring people to fight till their deaths yet. The army which fought for Shivaji against Adil shah was mixture of professional battalions supplied by Shahaji mixed with local populace. The local people were unskilled fighters who were part-time peasants.

They lacked the temperament required to fight in lines and withstand the attack of a cavalry charge on open field. We cannot call them conscripted soldiers because they came voluntarily (simply because they were pissed off a lot). It is something similar to Mukti-Bahini of BD. Since they used to run away with increase in pressure from enemy, Shahaji developed the novel technique of guerilla warfare which was further perfected by Shivaji. While his regular divisions of cavalry and infantry which were professionally trained indulged in open warfare (battle of Kolhapur), his irregular troops were indulging prominently in geurilla warfare.

He exposed different battalions of irregulars to open warfare and various battalions of professionally trained soldiers to guerilla warfare (battle of umbarkhind) so that overall the skill level of entire army increased. The latter battle is particularly interesting for study although hugely underplayed and unpopular. In this battle, for the first time, Maratha intelligence, Maratha artillery (professionally trained and mounted on trees), Musketeer battalion (professionally trained), cavalry (professionally trained), and infantry (mostly irregulras, forming almost half of the total forces of 1000 men fighting off the Mughal army of 25000. In this operation, we see overlap of professional troops fighting with the "irregular volunteers" to impart them experience and skill in both forms of warfare.

In other such example of joint action is Battle of Salher in February 1672. For the first time, it was a open battle against 50,000-60,000 mughal army besieging fort of Salher. Moropant Pingale Peshwa, Suryaji Kakde and Prataprao Gujar with 25,000 men (10,000 light cavalry and 15,000 light infantry, few pieces of artillery, but bulk of artillery and missile cover provided by the Marathas trapped in fort) attacked and outflanked Mughal army and defeated them. This particular battle is my personal favourite.

Various such expeditions involving joint operations by various branches of armed forces, both professionally trained and irregulars and navy were undertaken. Various sieges to the sea-fort of Murud-janjira, Construction of Sindhudurga sea-fort while continuously fighting Portuguese of Goa on land and at sea while construction was on. Similar joint operations are seen while construction of Khanderi-Underi sea-forts near Mumbai against British. The attack on Basnoor was expedition and raising of a regiment of "Maratha Marines" for indulging in sea-warfare. Navy also assisted in second sack of Surat carrying bulk of his loot via sea.

There are many such instances which show professionally trained army fighting under Shivaji since earlier days. However, there always was a large section of irregulars who joined the forces for various reasons like job and hunger, anger against Muslim rulers, winning side. This is just the case of Shivaji's regime. There are many such examples under the regimes of subsequent Marathas.

[Airavat]

It mentions horsemen with bows, and it mentions archers shooting Turks. No where does it describe horse archer columns. Kanhadde Prabandh is a poetic work in veer ras. If Kanhadev was so skillful and his troops so well versed, why did the Jalore Army lose finally?

And if the Turks were so skillful in "maneuver warfare" how did they lose finally in Rajputana in the period 1300-1350? How were they defeated and expelled from fort after fort, and town after town, despite spreading their rule in other parts of India at that same time?

Hammir – respected for courage, but strategy? Sending Ranmal to negotiate with Khilji?

Hammir Sesodia of Chittor is different from Hammir Chauhan of Ranthambhor. Hammir Sesodia captured Chittor, defeated a Turk army sent for its recovery, liberated the greater part of Mewar from the Turks, and ruled independently from 1314-1378. Despite all their power and horse-archery the Turks made no further attempt to challenge him in battle.

Kumbha – brave warrior and notable for forging successful alliances. No records of any remarkable battle tactics used.

That's the key. The great library at Chittor, containing thousands of documents prepared in the reign of each Maharana, was burnt after the fall of Chittor in 1568 by Akbar. Therefore the history of Mewar, and its victories over the Turks, is compiled from single-line inscriptions and corroborated from the oral histories of the bards. For example Hammir's victory over the Turks is recorded in a 1438 inscription at a Jain temple.

Ironically Kumbha was not notable for forging alliances at all! In the early part of his reign there was a conflict with the neighboring Rajput rulers of Marwar, the Rathods. At the same time Mewar was battling against three Sultanates: Gujarat, Malwa, and Nagaur. Kumbha forced the Turks of Nagaur to pay tribute while defeating the armies of Gujarat and Malwa. The absence of records alone should not lead us to claiming that "no remarkable tactics" brought these succession of victories.

Pratap – Legendary bravery, but not a single victory.

Maharana Pratap lost almost the whole of Mewar to the Mughals, but by practicing guerrilla warfare he recovered it inch by inch. The Sesodia clan and its sub-clans were like self-contained battalions which operated independently in different parts of Mewar, making hit and run attacks, and sapping the resources of the Mughal invaders. Pratap captured Kumbalgarh and slaughtered the Mughal garrison, and in the same bloody manner recovered the other 84 forts of Mewar, except Chittor and Mandalgarh. Now you will surely claim that the Mughals only had small garrisons holding all these forts, but when a fort is besieged, a battle is fought, and the garrison is slaughtered or driven away, it IS a victory.

Particularly because Pratap's own resources were limited. After the main Sesodia army was destroyed at Chittor in 1568, Pratap only had 3000 cavalry to field at Haldhighati eight years later. And in the course of the guerrilla warfare that followed scattered units of a few hundred battled against the manpower of Mughal India. Pratap's main victories came after 1580, when Akbar was battling against the Islamic rebellion, and a new generation of Sesodia warriors had grown to manhood after losing their fathers at Chittor twelve years earlier.

By the end of the Mughal-Mewar conflict it was Pratap who was leading cavalry raids into the Mughal domains and armies had to be posted on the Mewar frontier to guard against him. Mewar resistance continued into the next generation under his son Amar Singh.

[Singha]

UAA scenario -vs- some roman/greek type legions:

1st echelon:
BRBR alternately for a 3km front - alternate buffalo(unmanned), rhino (unmanned) in a V shape to envelop the edges
2nd echelon:
RRRRR...manned rhinos with nigerian/ghanian warriors wielding long swords and shields
GGGG...great apes of the kerchak/bolgani mentality with armour and swinging large clubs
ZZZZZZ....lines of zebra cavalry
ZZZZZZ

1st and 2nd echelon would break the phlanaxs and charge right through, before turning around for another murderous sweep from
the rear. this would also disrupt the roman/greek reserve cavalry and standard bearers generally held in the rear.
special "assassin" leopards and lions charging in select packets in this horde would be unleashed on the fat roman leaders sitting
on their horses in the rear, while main troop turns 180s and hammers the phalanxes from the rear before splitting off to the side.

just as the romans are picking themselves up from this double blow, the 3rd echelon advances and hits them.


3rd echelon with gaps
foot infantry with long shields , in the gaps - zebra cavalry

4th echelon with gaps -
foot infantry with swords, javelins, bows and ample reloads of the same, in the gaps - elephant mounted archers each elephant 2 archers .
these would not advance but continue to rain javelins and arrows wherever they can over the heads of
the third echelon, elephant archers will advance and target centurions and leaders.

outflanking forces - zebra cavalry

scouting forces - thought guided hawks, eagles, cheetahs and antelope reporting back to the big chief's elephant hq.

corps HQ reserve of more zebra cavalry and foot soldiers.

preliminary air attack launched by 1000s of trained eagles who carry and release a couple 1000 black mamba snakes over the heads of
the massed roman squares.

[Rahul M]

Not quite. Humans beings are supposed to be learning animals. If we assume that mounted archers caused the defeat of medieveal Hindus in every war they fought with the invaders then do you really think that people who could shoot arrows accurately on horseback to hunt game would not have deployed cavarly archer units?
It is a thought experiment. History requires some deduction and logic.

now you go on to invent a few more strawman statements to support your fantasy hypothesis.
again, for all your comments about thinking and deduction, you have avoided both.
there is no need for me or anyone to go to absurd lengths to imagine various things. for one, it does not logically follow that the practice of horseback hunting by nobility would translate to a capability to field a dedicated mounted archery unit.
it's unfortunate you can't see this huge gap in your 'logic and deduction'.
moreover, if it was actually present why is there no evidence of it in any source from the period ? whether paintings, lore or the arms maintained by the royal families ?

the quote you provide again says absolutely NOTHING about mounted archery.

Really? Please read about Parthian horsemen here and then figure out why does Wilson compare hindus to Parthians?

yes, really. I know quite well what parthian archers were. FYI, they had a strong foot archer tradition as well.
let's check once again what wilson says

The matchlock has long since supplanted the bow and arrow in India; and no traces are left of that dexterity in the use of the latter, in which the Hindus seem to have rivalled their neighbours, the Parthians.

he simply says that hindus were as able in archery as the parthians, that does not mean that they used identical practices. to give a dumbed down example, when people say that a lara rivals a tendulkar in batting skills, it does not follow that lara is a right handed batsman.
your inability to grasp this simple logic is indeed depressing.

what exactly are you doing here ? trying to recreate history based on your fantasies ?
a board like BR functions on the unsaid assumption that people will be bound by a certain level of logic, if you insist on violating that I may have to warn you.

This is a bit odd. I have busted the long held belief that cannon and artillery of first mughals pulverised the hindu forces. Evidence upon evidence was supplied. Then I presented evidence from primary Indian sources that *all* cavalry men carried bows and arrows in the Jalore army. Also presented evidence that bows and arrows were used to kill mongols. Further the same evidence said no infantry in the jalore army. I do not know how you can call this as fantasy? These are hard facts from my vantage point.

this is now starting to sound a little like satish chandra. http://satishchandracurriculumvitae.blogspot.com/

FYI, I haven't followed the cannon discussion in its entirety but none of the other participants, at least one of whom has significant domain knowledge seems to be impressed by your 'evidence upon evidence'.
regarding the horse archer issue, which I have followed, this claim is downright hilarious. you do seem to live in your own world. that by itself is not a problem but once you try to foster the same view upon people here, it becomes my problem.
be warned that this is my final warning, do not continue posting your pet theories without adequate evidence, any further violation would be considered trolling and warnings will be issued.

kindly assume that you are not alone in being privy to that bit of information. many regions have names even if they are not an unified political entity.

But that is exactly the point. Why would you expect rajasthan to have a name earlier? There were many kingdoms like ballabhi, ajaymeru, mewar etc....

so in your opinion India shouldn't have had the name bharatvarsha or aryavarta since it was not an unified political entity for much of its history ? do you even read what you yourself write ? you say that's exactly the point and then write something opposite ?
_______________________________

In India the closest equivalent would be the long metal javelin also called "ballam" or "bhala".

not quite, ballam or bhalla is a throwing javelin, what singha ji speaks of is a spear.
the Indian spear was known as the tomar. the name lives on as surnames of descendants of tomar wielding soldiers.
singha ji, the long spear of the western world has its origins in the macedonian sarissa, wielded by the phalanx units, introduced by alexander's father phillip.

Ah, indeed, could you provide any facts that Porus defeated Alexander? Coins are found in India with Greek inscriptions coined by the Greek/Indo Greek rulers. No one found coins IN GREECE with Hindu inscriptions coined by Hindu rulers.

sarkar ji, that comment is a little facetious. if puru defeated alexander it does not imply that he conquered greece as well.
coins of the greek rulers are either from outside India(bactria) or from post mauryan period.
coming to the battle of hydapses river, there are many contentious issues.

a) none of the historical sources agree about the order of battle but the size of puru's army decreases, closer the historian is to the event in terms of time. the most realistic one (plutarch IIRC) puts puru's infantry at a little more than half of alexander's while alexander had a significant advantage in cavalry, more than thrice that of puru and all battle hardened in addition to 1000 persian horse archers. even so, all sources agree that the battle was a very hard fought one, even those that claim laughably small casualties for the macedonians for a hard fought battle.

b) it is most unlikely for whatever reasons to install an Indian satrap alienating his greek generals. all his other satraps, the diadochi were greeks. even when he accepted persian princes in his army he didn't make them satraps

c) alexander's behaviour before and after the so-called 'treat me as a king' episode bear no resemblance. as a person who reneged a peace treaty to massacre the defenceless common population of a city, chronologically just after this event, the behaviour in the two events appear worlds apart. what are the chances that a boodthirsty despot who considered the foreigners as little more than animals both before and after the event suddenly gets moved by a single courageous comment from the king of these same people ?

d) alexander is completely ignored in Indian literary tradition, while the indo-greeks who did have an impact, menander or milinda for example, was not.

c) there are local lores f.e in persia that say that alexander was defeated in India.

[negi]

not quite, ballam or bhalla is a throwing javelin, what singha ji speaks of is a spear.
the Indian spear was known as the tomar. the name lives on as surnames of descendants of tomar wielding soldiers.
singha ji, the long spear of the western world has its origins in the macedonian sarissa, wielded by the phalanx units, introduced by alexander's father phillip.

Interesting , any pics ?

So the staff with a broad arrow head they show in Mahabharata is in fact a 'spear' (something similar to the ones of in use with Naga tribes) where as the ballam/bhala would be very much like a modern javelin i.e. a slender tip and not a arrow head

[Rahul M]

not quite, ballam or bhalla is a throwing javelin, what singha ji speaks of is a spear.
the Indian spear was known as the tomar. the name lives on as surnames of descendants of tomar wielding soldiers.
singha ji, the long spear of the western world has its origins in the macedonian sarissa, wielded by the phalanx units, introduced by alexander's father phillip.

Interesting , any pics ?

So the staff with a broad arrow head they show in Mahabharata is in fact a 'spear' (something similar to the ones of in use with Naga tribes) where as the ballam/bhala would be very much like a modern javelin i.e. a slender tip and not a arrow head

tomar or tomara, mind this is only an artist's impression from description available.


as for ballam, I've seen read many variations, some are as you describe some indeed look like tomar, only smaller.

[Singha]

alaksindr never faced a large unitary army between darius and porus did he? a succession of small states and tribes were defeated in the march to punjab, then a mutiny after presumably heavy losses vs porus, a messy retreat with tail between legs down the indus (and nobody was pursueing him and city states resisted piecemeal with small forces, and made him sweat in multan), tricked by baluchi guides and losing most of his land comp in makran desert (while jarnail sailed by ship).

not sure how chankian and brilliant he was against darius but after that its not a creditable record except the man's megalomania and ability to motivate his veterans with promises of loot/conquest/xyz. darius to his credit kept fighting despite defeats and was murdered by paid off traitors iirc.

in unfamiliar, rainy and humid upper gangetic region, the magadhans would probably have let him advance into wetlands past the dry fields of
haryana and then chewed him up piece by piece once his cavalry started to feel the effects of weather and heat. and there were always military tribes lurking in the punjab region to spot any weakness and rip people apart.

[Rahul M]

singha ji, couple of points,

>> Indian rhino is about double the size of the black rhino and of similar wize and weight to the white rhino. moreover, its hide is much thicker. Indian rhino is as close to bullet proof as you get in nature. even vanilla elephant guns couldn't pierce rhino skin and special rounds had to be used. it's not a very docile animal too, as compared to its african cousin. in a nutshell it will better the white rhino as war-rhino anyday of the week !

>> the african elephants used in the ancient world which raised such havoc, by carthaginians for example were much smaller than Indian elephants. that breed, called african forest elephant is now extinct and is possibly related to the pygmy elephant now found in central africa. the bush elephant we see on animal planet hasn't been tamed ever. there are many instances of Indian elephants facing african elephants in battle, especially in the wars of the diadochi, in every instance the african elephants fled on the sight of their Indian cousins. all the historians describe the Indian elephant as much bigger and fiercer. interestingly, all armies that employed Indian elephants even as far as epirus used Indian mahouts, so much so that elephant drivers were just called Indians.

enjoyed your fantasy scenario a lot btw !
_____________________
as for infantry successes against cavalry, the romans had a number of them against germanic tribes and persian factions. though they did have their share of defeat as well, carrhae for example.