Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

[Singha]

I should respect desi beasts more! the ones in kaziranga are rarely if ever known to attack humans...probably because no humans except poachers molest them and there's plenty of food to munch on.

the african forest elephant is not extinct. I recall old natgeo issues wherein this reclusive beast is shown feeding in isolated open pools in the dense forest. the "bush elephant" is the right recipe...but as you said, never been tamed, neither the african rhino and the zebra is a very skittish beast...antelopes even more so...unless a thought controller like The Mule can tie them all together into a sensor net and pass "commands" and stitch together their inputs.

small, weak, barely 8ft in max height - a true sdre elephant
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_forest_elephant

[Rahul M]

alexander performed decently as a general no doubt but there are others who can claim more credit for his campaign according to some modern historians. what made the macedonian army unique was all developed by his father, phillip and the army was rigorously trained by him too.

alexander got a ready battle hardened army so to speak. he did display brilliance in the levant for example but the pedestal he is raised to is undeserved IMO. the persian army was by and large a levied peasant army who do not make the best soldiers. they broke after a few setbacks even before the battle was fully decided. darius decision to flee on being charged by cavalry led to widespread rout.

while it is portrayed as a win against heavy odds and only due to alexander's brilliance, it was anything but. the same macedonian army had steamrolled the much more disciplined greek armies without alexander. at the time of gaugamela the army functioned like a well oiled machine by itself.
puru, however small his army was, gave the macedonians the first taste of a fully professional army and they didn't seem to have liked it. the major difference between persian and Indian armies was that Indian armies were by and large standing armies with volunteer soldiers. the state provided the soldier with his equipment and a salary. in greece and rome, the soldiers were middle class farmers who went back to tending their farms after sometime and were led by upper class people who usually formed the cavalry.
both equipment and horses were to be provided by the soldier themselves and payment was usually war booty. a situation not unlike what atilla's huns were used to.
a professional standing army however gives a far better performance since they are under training year round and morale is usually much higher. this concept was to catch on in the west much later, in roman times after the marian reforms.
the concept of compulsory military service does not occur in Indian texts AFAIK. the nearest I've encountered is that of a citizen's militia in order to defend against external aggression.

unless a thought controller like The Mule can tie them all together into a sensor net and pass "commands" and stitch together their inputs.

mule + eagles + mamba =

[tsarkar]

Rahul,

I made a sarcastic comment that we find Greek influences in Indian socio-economic sphere (commerce, Gandhara art) but not vice-versa.

1. Most scribes those days were under the patronage of rulers, and hence tended to write favorable to their masters. We need to be extremely circumspect to sniff out facts from these accounts. This applies to all sides

2. Fully agree Alexander’s army was large. A victor’s army gathers forces keen on looting. For many common soldiers and tribes, these conquests were purely economic reasons. Alexander’s army after Persia was probably his largest. In addition, Alexander’s rested and grew his army during his marriage to Roxanna.

3. Every battle he fought from Balkh to Swat was bloody. His massacres attest to that.

4. Puru’s army was small – 20,000 infantry and 2,000 cavalry. No way a small frontier province could manage a large standing army. Men dont materialize out of this air. The small size of the army is attested by A's soldier's comments during the revolt.

P's army was outnumbered and outranged by the Macedonian + Persian horse archers. Again, had Puru’s cavalry been armoured like cataphracts, or were skilled in horse archery, history may have been different.

5. A’s victory was pyrrhic. And even though P lost the battle, holding P’s domain would have been costly. A's Indian campaign was a looting and revenue generation campaign and things were not turning out as expected.

6. A’s victory was similar to Hannibal’s victories. H won battles in Italy, but could not hold it.

7. Had P won the battle, he would have expanded his domain to Taxila. Land was important those days because it allowed own farmers and grazers more resources and the resultant trade and taxes generated revenue.

8. A turned back from India like H returned from Italy. The turning back can be considered a strategic defeat. Just like Aurungzeb’s deccan campaign and US Vietnam campaign was a strategic defeat. This may be the reason why Persians regard A’s India campaign as failure. For all the material investment, there was no returns either in terms of looted wealth or land tax revenues.

9. No mention of A in Indian lore because he turned back. This is why every invader from Timur to Babur made alliances with the frontier tribes like Janjua and Jarral. The frontier tribes helped them in offence, and later defended them from outside invaders. The moment these frontier tribes turned against the Mughals, the gates of the empire wide open.

Point I’m trying to make is that while Indians equaled or bettered invaders in courage, lack of constant fighting like the invaders resulted in lack of tactics.

Peter is giving lame duck examples trying to prove Indians matched invaders in battlefield tactics and employment, when this is factually incorrect.

On a larger note, as Airavat mentioned, like Rajputs under Turkish yoke threw it off within a few decades, and so did the Marathas rose from the Yadavas, Vijaynagar rose from the Hoysalas, and this is an attestation to our fierce independence. Tactically invaders won strategically they never conquered.

I agree A doesnt deserve the hype, but A was a thinking leader on the battlefield.

I could not find a single description of how armies were to be raised, organized and trained in ancient times. My understanding is that while kings had smaller standing armies in peacetime, maintaining a large standing army would have led to economic collapse. Taxation to maintain armies often led to overthrow such rulers. During war, all able bodied men - and from all sections of society, including peasants - were mustered, with locally made weapons paid for by the king. This may be one reason while sophisticated weapons were not available to general troops.

I read bits and pieces here and there of Muhammad Tughlaq raising an Indian Army to conquer Central Asia. Does anyone have more details?

[tsarkar]

Airavat,

There are certain pivotal battles that have far reaching consequences. And those battles are remembered for multiple reasons, the most common reason being new weapons used or superior battle tactics.

There is difference between tactical victory and strategic loss.

For example, Americans won every battle in Vietnam, but lost the war. Because with after every battle, even if they held the ground, their opponents regrouped and continued the fight.

Napoleon won every battle in Russia, including Borodino, then starved at Moscow and had to return.

Were the Russian BATTLE tactics notable? No, the Russian plan of battle and conduct in battle was infact stupid. But their scorched earth tactics and Cossack attacks on rearguards and stragglers wore out the French strategically. The French won most pitched battles. But Russian sallies on their stragglers and rearguard simply decimated their numbers the French could not replace.

Same applies for Aurungzeb in Deccan. He won most battles but lost the war.

And the same applies to the Turks of Rajasthan.

These Turks were dependent on men from their tribes to replace their casualties. Even if they won multiple battles, they ultimately ended up weakened, and either withdrawing or capitulating.

You are correct in mentioning the large number of invaders in battles. But did all of them stay back to hold occupied lands? We don’t know. Napoleon gathered a large army for Russia, but was he able to replenish attrition? No. Similarly, over the decades of war in Rajasthan, were the Turks able to maintain the numbers of their army to the levels similar to the initial campaign? Seems unlikely. Who could replenish attrition of manpower faster – the local Rajputs or far off Central Asian tribes?

In the Rajput campaigns, and in all examples cited by you, NOT ONE BATTLE IS REMEMBERED for being different than multitude of other battles fought throughout. NOT ONE BATTLE IS REMEMBERED for reasons like Rajputs used new weapons or superior battle tactics.

The absence of records alone should not lead us to claiming that "no remarkable tactics" brought these succession of victories.

It is an incorrect hypothesis you are making that there are no records or memories, but they won, so that automatically means superior battle tactics were used.

Not necessarily. The reasons for victory could be different, including Rajput courage and steadfastness in defending home and hearth.

[Rahul M]

sarkar ji, I agree with most of your points although there are a few comments I want to make

1. Most scribes those days were under the patronage of rulers, and hence tended to write favorable to their masters. We need to be extremely circumspect to sniff out facts from these accounts. This applies to all sides

but since we do not have any Indian account of puru v alexander, we have nothing to balance the greek view.

P's army was outnumbered and outranged by the Macedonian + Persian horse archers. Again, had Puru’s cavalry been armoured like cataphracts, or were skilled in horse archery, history may have been different.

or had there been no rains. which is said to have nullified the archers and the chariots.

5. A’s victory was pyrrhic. And even though P lost the battle, holding P’s domain would have been costly. A's Indian campaign was a looting and revenue generation campaign and things were not turning out as expected.

provided he won in the first place ! it might as well have been a draw or even a close defeat for all we know. the contentious issues are just too many.
if puru had become a vassal why didn't he provide the macedonians with further soldiers and/or tribute. in every other case the greek historians dutifully mention the tributes from surrendered kings, why not in this case if that really happened ?
it is almost unthinkable that a king defeated by alexander, who has been shown to be very vengeful in victory would not only be allowed to keep his territory but expand it as well ! on top of that he provides alexander with no tribute or soldiers as a vassal ! we do know that alexander had a pressing need of both, especially gold.

6. A’s victory was similar to Hannibal’s victories. H won battles in Italy, but could not hold it.

similar in the strategic sense but not in the tactical sense.
hannibal, probably the most brilliant general of that era inflicted crushing defeat upon crushing defeat on the romans with a mostly ragtag army bound together by his charisma, that he lost the war eventually was due to events beyond his control. the carthiginian council refused reinforcements on account of petty infighting.
even the most jingoistic greek commentator however does not claim a crushing victory for alexander at hydapses.

7. Had P won the battle, he would have expanded his domain to Taxila. Land was important those days because it allowed own farmers and grazers more resources and the resultant trade and taxes generated revenue.

well puru did expand his territory to include some of ambhi's from taxila. however I'm not sure why a victory would mean he would get taxila as well.
a successful defence against an aggressor does not translate into a right on the aggressor's territory, unless the defender immediately launches a counter campaign and captures it.

I could not find a single description of how armies were to be raised, organized and trained in ancient times. My understanding is that while kings had smaller standing armies in peacetime, maintaining a large standing army would have led to economic collapse. Taxation to maintain armies often led to overthrow such rulers. During war, all able bodied men - and from all sections of society, including peasants - were mustered, with locally made weapons paid for by the king. This may be one reason while sophisticated weapons were not available to general troops.

this is true for armies outside India but in India itself the population was large enough to raise a large army without enrolling every able bodied men. around 300 BC India's population was around 80 million or about 40% of world population. the need for compulsory service was absent even for kings of smaller kingdoms. from what I could gather, soldiers came from all castes although chanakya advices against using brahmin soldiers as they supposedly not ruthless enough.

chanakya divides armies that can be raised from a king's own territories into 3 categories,
>> maula or standing army
paid for and armed by the state, in peacetime most of this army was used as garrison troops in forts spread around the country. in special cases, f.e when the royal treasury was depleted, sections of the maula was demobilised. it contained a core called the atarvamsikasainya or king's own guards that was never demobilised.

>> bhrita or territorial army
raised from the citizens of the country for campaigns and demobilised thereafter. from comments elsewhere it appears that the same set of soldiers were usually called up or at least the state made an attempt to call-up the veterans of an earlier campaign.
sounds similar to the IDF to me !

>> shreni, literally translated as guild or band or corporate
the translator assumes it means militias but this is strictly my view, the translation as militia over and above the territorial army does not make sense. tribe based bands of soldiers have been described separately. IMO this refers to mercenary soldiers who would presumably form a part of most armies of that era.

with locally made weapons paid for by the king.

also does not apply to India AFAIK, elsewhere chanakya mentions that stockpile of weapons be maintained in good condition for arming the armies raised for war and also advices those to be imprinted with the monarch's insignia.

[Singha]

maybe alaksindr suffered a draw with heavy casualties at end of day and decided not to risk it further. so he withdrew in good order and P with his own outnumbered army(weakened by a day of heavy war) and lack of horse cavalry decided not to pursue either. since alaksindr's prestige would take a body blow if the truth be told, the historians cooked up the story of troops mutiny and narrow victory for H&D reasons and closed that book.

spies and informers would surely have spread word of much worser threats to the east in magadha and the forested terrain and damp soil/rivers/swamps cant have been to his liking. his first contact with a mass of elephant corps didnt go too well either.

if P were smart he would have let alaksindr's spies know of UAA type rhino corps and 10,000 war elephant chanak-e-hind corps waiting for him just beyond the horizon ... and tales of sorcery and wild cannibal tribes who lived in caves and loved to eat horses.

[Lalmohan]

P was supposed to have been fighting on his east before A showed up, therefore he had his eyes on both fronts. IIRC he was fighting a far superior force to his east, and the recon of this force is what gave A the downhill skiing urge. if not him (according to the chroniclers) then his men. who now had come to 'the ends of the earth' and all they could see ahead of them were vast new lands with vast new armies... all with huge elephants. atleast with the persians there had been ageold dushmani to avenge and riches to loot as a bonus, but now... it was all a bit too daunting

it is said that A punished his reluctant army by force marching them across the makran desert, his injuries at multan a function of his frustration leading to recklessness, the end.

P appears to have retained his kingdom afterwards

i guess all these records were wonderfully inscribed in taxila, nalanda and pataliputra and are lost to time when the beardies burned down the great libraries

[Singha]

http://www.pothos.org/content/index.php ... ran-desert

[Singha]

alaksindr's 4 major battles - 3 vs persians, 1 vs indians

http://www.pothos.org/content/index.php ... or-battles

the persians had the advantage of numbers and time and still came up short.
P was a small scale king who still caused enough damage to break the spirit of the enemy and make them abandon all further plans.

P - 10, Persians - 0

[Airavat]

These Turks were dependent on men from their tribes to replace their casualties. Even if they won multiple battles, they ultimately ended up weakened, and either withdrawing or capitulating.

Not at all. The Muslim sultanates in India drew their manpower from three sources:
1) Foreign immigrants (vilayatza).
2) Foreign settlers and their many descendants.
3) Local converts (Malik Kafur, Sultans of Gujarat, Ahmadnagar etc).

Who could replenish attrition of manpower faster – the local Rajputs or far off Central Asian tribes?

Definitely the latter, for the reasons mentioned above. The Rajput clans were limited in numbers to begin with and depended on successive generations growing to manhood and taking up the arms of their fathers. At the impending fall of a fort the Rajputs followed the tactic of jauhar, which denied the invaders local converts, but at the same time extinguished an entire generation of that clan, drastically thinning their numbers while leaving the Turks free to draw on their manpower from the Delhi Sultanate and beyond.

Secondly there was always a conflict among these clans for establishing or growing their separate kingdoms. In the Marwar region the Rathods fought the Bhatis, Parihars, Chauhans, Mohils, at the same time as they battled the Muslim governors of Jalor, Mandor, Nagaur, and Ajmer.

Now if manpower was all it took to win battles shouldn't it have happened in other parts of India as well? The Punjab had plenty of local warlike clans, not yet converted to Islam, yet the Ghaznavid sultanate was established and existed for nearly 200 years. Likewise the warlike clans in Haryana and UP rebelled and fought many times against the Delhi Sultans but could not destroy the sultanate. Similarly there were plenty of Rajput clans in Gujarat and Malwa, and yet these sultanates were established. In North India it was only in Rajasthan that the tide of Islam was held and hurled back in the 14th and 15th centuries, and neither numbers not attrition explains this victory.

In the Rajput campaigns, and in all examples cited by you, NOT ONE BATTLE IS REMEMBERED for being different than multitude of other battles fought throughout. NOT ONE BATTLE IS REMEMBERED for reasons like Rajputs used new weapons or superior battle tactics.

It is an incorrect hypothesis you are making that there are no records or memories, but they won, so that automatically means superior battle tactics were used.

The reasons for victory could be different, including Rajput courage and steadfastness in defending home and hearth.

What do we remember of Samudragupta's campaigns and battles?

NOTHING. Neither tactics, nor any other details. And yet we have no hesitation in regarding him as a great all-conquering ruler simply from all his victories. Likewise I would certainly credit the Rajputs of the 14th century for all their victories over the Turks, and not put it down to attrition or courage. If you credit the Turks for horse-archery and maneuver warfare, their repeated defeats in Rajasthan could not have come without the Rajputs employing similar or superior tactics.

[Rahul M]

The conqueror shall not attack without having reinforcements in the rear, since this are essential for rallying broken ranks. He himself shall remain, with the reinforcements, at a distance of (approximately) 360 metres (behind the main troops).

After setting up the battle formation, the enemy shall be attacked with one or two of the groups in the array - the centre, the wings or the flanks. The rest (shall be kept in reserve) for supporting the attack.

- chanakya on war, arthashastra.

I think it is erroneous to conclude that Indians had no idea of battle reserves, flanking or other battle maneuvers and fought like a herd of rampaging rhinos while these ideas have been applied by even the most primitive tribes elsewhere. even the stupidest general would understand that an enemy is vulnerable when attacked from more than one side.

p.s. LM ji, what is the source of the snippet that puru was fighting elsewhere ?

[tsarkar]

Not at all. The Muslim sultanates in India drew their manpower from three sources:
1) Foreign immigrants (vilayatza).
2) Foreign settlers and their many descendants.
3) Local converts (Malik Kafur, Sultans of Gujarat, Ahmadnagar etc).

Expats and converts were a minor fraction of society, otherwise India today won’t be 90+% Hindu and less than 10% Muslim. If conversion was so high in those days to replenish manpower, then significant percentage of Indian population should have been Muslim. I don’t recollect a plague or genocide on Muslims that suddenly drove their percentage low in modern times. For that matter, even if we add the population of Pakistan and Bangladesh in 1947, the Muslims were still a low percentage of the population.

Secondly there was always a conflict among these clans for establishing or growing their separate kingdoms. In the Marwar region the Rathods fought the Bhatis, Parihars, Chauhans, Mohils, at the same time as they battled the Muslim governors of Jalor, Mandor, Nagaur, and Ajmer.

You mention Rajput attrition during Jauhar and inter-tribe warfare while you ignore that intra-tribe and inter-tribe warfare was much more in Turks and Mongols.

Now if manpower was all it took to win battles shouldn't it have happened in other parts of India as well? The Punjab had plenty of local warlike clans, not yet converted to Islam, yet the Ghaznavid sultanate was established and existed for nearly 200 years. Likewise the warlike clans in Haryana and UP rebelled and fought many times against the Delhi Sultans but could not destroy the sultanate. Similarly there were plenty of Rajput clans in Gujarat and Malwa, and yet these sultanates were established. In North India it was only in Rajasthan that the tide of Islam was held and hurled back in the 14th and 15th centuries, and neither numbers not attrition explains this victory.

This is a very good point, Airavat.

My understanding is that there is a difference in having a population and MOBILIZING it. By mobilizing, I mean MOTIVATING, TRAINING, ARMING across the spectrum of society so that a critical mass like nuclear fusion is achieved to SUSTAIN RESISTANCE across generations. Even after the INITIAL LEADER(S) is no longer available.

The areas that had long standing Muslim Sultanates, like Bengal had sparks like Protapaditya. He was a proud Kshatriya who along with his small band of other Kshatriyas fought and lost. He never bothered to MOBILIZE the masses.

However, the Rajputs were able to mobilize the general population across tribes (Sisodia against Mughal, Rathore against Sher Shah) et al, so that despite losses, a new army was ready in the next generation.

Same for Marathas, they mobilized all sections of society. Even after Sambhaji was captured, the fight continued. Even after generals died, fight continued.

Sikhs - even after Guru Gobind SIngh & sons died, fight continued. Because the populace was mobilized.

In the last two cases, even traditionally lower sections of society like Mahars and Mazhabis were mobilized, when Guru Gobind Singh embraced them. Even today, the Mahar Regiment and Sikh Light Infantry are an important part of Indian Army.

On this note, when contributions of all sections of society to freedom are documented, it extremely angers me when Peter says Jats were peasants and kings of the domain on horses did all the fighting.

Hence Indians always numbered more than the Turks, maybe not during initial invasion. Like Napoleon or Hitler’s forces initially outnumbered the Russians but could not replenish attrition faster than the Russians could mobilize. The states that threw off foreign rule were those who MOBILIZED their masses.

What do we remember of Samudragupta's campaigns and battles? NOTHING. Neither tactics, nor any other details. And yet we have no hesitation in regarding him as a great all-conquering ruler simply from all his victories. Likewise I would certainly credit the Rajputs of the 14th century for all their victories over the Turks, and not put it down to attrition or courage. If you credit the Turks for horse-archery and maneuver warfare, their repeated defeats in Rajasthan could not have come without the Rajputs employing similar or superior tactics.

I had an earlier discussion with Rahul on Vikramaditya/Samudragupta and my point of view was very clear that mythical descriptions should not be used to glorify.

As a humble learner of the art of warfare, I would desist from glorifying either Rajputs or Samudragupta for tactics of which there are NO RECORDS, but SPECULATED to be present because they have won, and the victory could be possibly for many other reasons.

Whether Khanua or Haldighati or Dharmat or Maldeo’s wars against Sher Shah or engagement against Mahadaji Shinde, I find ZERO examples of any notable tactics exhibited by Rajputs.

I am sure if notable tactics were used in the unrecorded wars they won, then WHY WERENT THOSE TACTICS USED in any of these recorded battled? Why did Sanga not use the notable tactics used by Kumbha or Hammir during their wars against the Turks? Or Pratap at Haldighati?

The lesson that comes out of this discussion is that while weapons or tactics may help win battles, they may not win strategic campaigns once other factors kick into play. Like Napoleon and Germans in Russia.

chanakya on war, arthashastra.

I think it is erroneous to conclude that Indians had no idea of battle reserves, flanking or other battle maneuvers and fought like a herd of rampaging rhinos while these ideas have been applied by even the most primitive tribes elsewhere. even the stupidest general would understand that an enemy is vulnerable when attacked from more than one side.

Rahul – Arthashastra is like a manual that says what a ruler COULD or SHOULD do. It is not a record confirming that the practices were ACTUALLY followed. Like there are police manuals on marksmanship training and we know actual police performance vs Kasab & Co, or the naxals.

Hence examples to be quoted are not manuals but records of actual performance.

What usually happened was lack of long periods of warfare dulled studies in warfare, and in the heat of a fast emerging threat from the frontier, these lessons were never recollected.

Simple example - patrolling is basic infantry tactic, and very well documented, however the CRPF battalion at Dantewara did not follow them.

[Lalmohan]

rahulmian - sandhu as always - goes into a lot of deep analysis on hydaspes/jhelum

[Yagnasri]

I defer with you Sarkarji. Chanakya has compiled many schools of ideas and recorded many things that are already prevailing. So to say it is mere manual is not correct. There were some practices and he has recorded them and also gave his ideas.

Further many books, we have are basically literary books which glorify the Heros of the books. They seriously lack the information which people like us like them to have. Just because they do not mention it does not mean that there are no tactics etc used by Indians. Surly we are not so stupid in war not to learn anything for centuries and always done a head on charge. Even the recorded battles (which we mostly lost) are written mostly by Muslim and western historians who have every reason glorify Muslim invaders and discredit/ignore any Indian tactics and give credit to any Indian innovation.

[Lalmohan]

well, we do know that Indian kings fought and held off invaders across the centuries, again and again. And we know quite a bit about how wars were supposed to be fought by Indian kings (arthashastra), we also know from the non Indian historians of the many tactics used by invaders. so, clearly for quite a lot of times we had superior war performance.

sandhu's contention - that indian armies fought very well indeed in conditions and terrain that allowed the core army formations to be maintained and the strength and skill of arms to be exploited. he even mentions a massive victory by rajputs against turushkas near mt abu.

he also proposes that previous emperors had indeed mastered mobile warfare, e.g. the guptas vs the huns (pls forgive me if i have the exact references wrong) but that the static warfare conditions predominant in India led successors to forget (modern day defense cuts, etc.)

his other criticism is that indian armies often selected formations that were suboptimal, e.g. 1 elephant backed by 10horses and 100 men in one fighting unit, arranged side by side or in swan or leopard or whatever formation with similar units. which might have been better as 200 elephants in a core, 3000 horses in the flanks, and 20000 infantry in the centre, i.e. less ritualistic and formalised and more pragmatic

this is more a function of warfare in the period immediately prior to the main muslim invasions since clearly both before and after different tactics had been mastered

the big difference in turushka victories was the ability to deploy cavalry (including horse archers) in a way that allowed the indian formation to break ranks - and then get picked off

infact, alexander did the same at jhelum, when porus' men were preparing to leave the field during the traditional 'end of battle day' time for indian armies and some seeing that porus was leaving the field (his mahout had withdrawn to patch up his wounds) but in traditional indian warfare, when the king is dead, its game over, everyone goes home.

for our invaders, these rules didnt apply

[ParGha]

In its later days the Guptas employed a triad of 1 horseman supported by 2 infantrymen as the basic fighting unit; elephants had been reduced to baggage and ceremonial duties (traditionally Indian emperors began northern campaigns on an elephant and southern ones on a chariot). Horseman carried a mid-sized spear and a long straight-sword; the infantry carried short spears with hooks (like a long ankush) and short swords. I presume the mode of employment was similar to Gothic armies, or by a stretch of imagination modern mechanized formations. This army totally destroyed the Sakas, who had been plagung the borders for centuries. Ironically that created a power vacuum which attracted the Hunas, who in turn destroyed the Guptas.

[Singha]

looks like the precusor of the british 'penny packet' doctrine - spreading their tanks all over.

iirc muhamad won one victory by asking his troops to continue fighting into the night.

some say the concept of war in india was not to annihilate the enemy but fight just enough to prove a point, minimize bloodshed and
establish tribute before parties withdrew. war as a means of continuous pillage accompanied by the killing of all prisoners and civilians was a mongol and later islamic invention in the region. farmers were not harmed and farming could continue in parallel with wars in the indian system.

we cannot ever afford to lose focus again on war.

[Lalmohan]

well, penny packet makes sense if you're dug in and well protected from the flanks and you have to kick the musharraf in front of you... its all a case of picking the right tactics for the right terrain and enemy force deployment

in the rock strewn fields of the deccan, cavalry charges are not going to work, but an elephant supported by its own protection force... much more mobile and potent

[ParGha]

People who make such ritualized rules for war deserve to get their butts kicked and worse, too bad it is the common soldiers and people who really have to suffer the worst consequences over extended periods. Worst of those bassturds are those who lead their people to defeats and then cut deals with the victors to preserve their own privileges/positions. There are many aspects of our culture which appear bad when seen from one angle, but seem justifiable or understandable from a different perspective. The tolerance, nay glorification, of such characters however seems like a purely suicidal tendency in us however one looks at it.

[ParGha]

Singha,
IIRC there were four types of classical Indian warfare: for dharma (for right), for artha (for wealth), rakshasic (to simply destroy) and another type whose name and details have been lost. The second type of war is always a limited war, the first and third can be limited or unlimited, the fourth type is supposedly always unlimited war. So in theory there was the concept of both limited and unlimited wars.

[Singha]

the ruling elites I guess would prefer to cut deals and preserve some power and H&D than risk everything in a all-or-nothing mode.

the shirtless beggars of the mongol steppe or arab wastelands who really had nothing to lose and much to gain would naturally take to unlimited war as a form of wealth gathering or religious wars.

[Lalmohan]

genghis began the mass killings on the logic that he couldn't afford to have a conquered people rise up behind him. they as nomads understood little of agriculture or industry or cities, only men and livestock. if you kill someone, he cant fight you tomorrow. he was astonished to find the chinese raise army after army to fight him despite each one being crushed. it took several decades for the mongols to conquer northern china alone and then his grandson undertook the conquest of southern china. he decided to terrorise the persians into surrender, which he did, the by product being the desertification of much of the northern persian realms and the destruction of ancient irrigation systems

in the indian model, peasants have to be left alone to grow crops, artisans to make goods, traders to make money. kshatriyas would ritually fight kshatriyas and despite mass casualties amongst the non-kshatriya bulk troops, once the war was over, it was back to the status quo and keeping the economy running

[Singha]

we never had our desi chengis and that is good - for all his conquests chengis left behind nothing of value or a enduring high civilization. mongolia is pretty much what it was - a pastoral society kept on life support by russia. today india can *crush* any of these formerly powerful 'raiders' without lifting more than one hand.

in the end - we won. they lost. history and future will be shaped by us.

athens -vs- sparta

[Lalmohan]

the mongols became subsumed by the 'superior cultures' that they conquered. their world split into five by ghenghiz went off in five different directions and became Rus (over Kiev), Yuan China, central asian khanates, mughal India (eventually) and the homeland. the Rus and the Chin took their revenge on the mongols and turned them back into pastoral nomads and converted them to buddhism (with considerable counter slaughter en route). ofcourse, the CAK is where the most chaos ensued... perhaps ROP has a part to play in that

[ParGha]

Why is unlimited warfare only being associated with the savage form practiced by steppe nomads? Settled people as just as capable of waging unlimited warfare. In fact the first historically recorded emperor in India, Ajatashatru, was more known for his crooked warfare than any famous battlefield victories. Subsequent practical Indian emperors would happily practice what we would call nowadays "ethnic cleansing" to dislodge and drive out invaders who settled in India (ex Sakas). They also sought out decisive battlefield victories and unconditional surrender when needed (ex Kalinga). The spirit and ambition for such decisive measures seems to have been dampened later on; perhaps quite rightly the imperium then passed out to those who had it (Mughals, British).

[Airavat]

Expats and converts were a minor fraction of society

I find these sweeping remarks and assumptions to be quite baffling, since there is not a shred of evidence to support them. Converts were in substantial numbers and there was always an underlying hostility between the three segments: foreign immigrants, foreign settlers, and local converts.

Raziya and Altunia had an army of local converts, Gakkhars and Jats, when she tried to recover her throne from the Turk nobles known as 'the forty'. Imad-ud-din Raihan was an Indian Muslim noble ousted by the Turks led by Balban because they detested the idea of a convert rising to high rank in the sultanate. The Gujarati convert, Khusrav Khan and his fellow Indian tribesmen, briefly controlled the Delhi Sultanate till they were ousted by the Turks led by Ghiyasuddin Tughlaq.

The Bahmani sultanate was founded primarily by foreign settlers rebelling against the Tughlaqs. Here too the conflict between foreign immigrants coming by sea from Iran, Arabia, and Ethiopia, and the local settler and converts continued. When the sultanate broke-up, two of the successor states Berar and Ahmadnagar were founded by Hindu converts. And later the Mughal empire also saw shades of this tussle between foreign and Indian Muslims for power and position. So it's not correct to state that converts were less in number.

You mention Rajput attrition during Jauhar and inter-tribe warfare while you ignore that intra-tribe and inter-tribe warfare was much more in Turks and Mongols.

No. Within the sultanates established in India there was NO inter-tribe warfare. The tussle for position between foreigners, settlers, and converts ended when a successful claimant became the amir-ul-momin: commander of the faithful. Under such a leader, whether Iltutmish, Balban, Khaljis or Tughlaqs the unending "war against infidels" was always resumed.

In the previous posts you have made different claims on the reasons for the defeat of the Turks in Rajputana in the period 1300-1350 and beyond:

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 all invaders did was loot Rajastan

The reasons for victory could be different, including Rajput courage and steadfastness in defending home and hearth.

All of these run counter to the known facts of Turk occupation of Rajputana and their eventual defeat. And now you are proposing an entirely different argument:

By mobilizing, I mean MOTIVATING, TRAINING, ARMING across the spectrum of society......
the Rajputs were able to mobilize the general population.

The Kshatriya clans who couldn't form a single united army among themselves, are supposed to have motivated, trained, and armed the rest of the population??? Apart from there not being a shred of supporting evidence, it runs counter to the known facts about the Rajput clan system, and of how the Sesodias and Rathods ousted the Muslim invaders and at the same time subdued the other Rajput clans.

Instead of repeating the same arguments let me talk about a later conflict in the 17th century, when Aurangzeb occupied the Kingdom of Jodhpur, and the Rathods fought for 30 years against the Mughal invaders to free their kingdom. India's greatest military historian Jadunath Sarkar writes: "A generation of time passed in Marwar in ceaseless conflict, captures and recaptures. But the resources of the empire were far superior to those of a small desert province ravaged by perpetual warfare. The imperialists could draw their supplies from other parts of India; the Rathors had no friend or supplier outside their own country. Being a clan only, they could not replenish their ranks thinned by the Mughal sword, famine and pestilence, while the emperor had the manhood of half India to draw upon."

Further Sarkar writes: "The Rathors fought under different captains, group by group, with no central authority and no common plan of action except to attack the Mughals wherever they could.........The numerous eponymous septs into which the Rathor clan was sub-divided, each supplied a ready-made battalion of soldiers, self-contained and organised from birth.......by adopting guerrilla tactics they wore out the Mughals and minimised the disadvantage of their own inferior numbers and equipment."

When in the 17th century there was no mobilization or arming of the rest of the population in Jodhpur, it was impossible to do the same in the 14th century. When your lands are occupied and the invaders are relentlessly advancing to oust you from your remote hideouts and extinguish your race and religion, there is no time to spend in training and arming others. There is only time enough to fight with what you have or die trying.

As a humble learner of the art of warfare, I would desist from glorifying either Rajputs or Samudragupta for tactics of which there are NO RECORDS, but SPECULATED to be present because they have won, and the victory could be possibly for many other reasons.

The "other reasons" have been shown to be not correct in previous posts. I'm baffled by your insistence in attributing simplistic things like numbers or courage to this 14th century victory. Of course you are correct that there would be additional reasons for the Rajput victory including: the increasing importance given to cavalry and horses from the 13th century onwards, gradual development of the Marwari and Kathiawari breeds, looting of Arab and Turk caravans, tactic of jauhar which denied the invaders local converts, guerrilla warfare, and the Turks being drained by rebellions in other parts of India.

But despite all this there was no withdrawal of the Turks from Rajputana. They had to be fought in battle after battle, defeated, and slaughtered. Considering that horse-archery, reserve formations, and pincer movements were the Turki skills, the Rajputs would have found some way of overcoming or matching these to gain complete victory in these battles.

[arnabh]

http://www.india-forum.com/indian_histo ... a-075.html

[arnabh]

deleted.

[Rahul M]

^^ you are supposed to mention why you are posting a link. always add at least a line of description about what's in it.

sarkar ji, I know quite well that arthashastra is a manual, it is however not written by some resident of an ivory tower but by an actual practitioner of the art who helped create the largest Indian empire to date. perhaps it is not unthinkable to assume that he was writing what he practiced and what he learned ?

moreover, you made the point that Indians were complete novices to the ideas of reserve and maneuver warfare, the comment explicitly prove that's not the case isn't it ? the arthasastra was also followed by generations of Indian kings in the millenia following its writing, perhaps at least some could have applied the teachings as they were meant to be ?

surely, from the CRPF example you cannot say that no one in India knows how to do a patrol, can you ?

[tsarkar]

moreover, you made the point that Indians were complete novices to the ideas of reserve and maneuver warfare, the comment explicitly prove that's not the case isn't it?

I am not saying Indians were novices in terms of knowledge, what I am saying is that there is a general lack of initiative to LEARN and PRACTICE to APPLY THAT KNOWLEDGE.

perhaps at least some could have applied the teachings as they were meant to be?

Exactly my point. They COULD but DIDNT.

Our leadership through ages gets so busy in administering that they forget warfare is an essential skill and needs to be learnt and practiced. Even among soldiers and generals, the zest to learn and practice needs to be more. This requires training and continuous exercises to practice.

The lower strata of forces dislike training & continuous practice because it’s exhaustive.

Read the following - its a very important reflection on our forces and society.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 263846.cms

It is clear that Kasab and Co had a free run because our cops were unskillful. Even if we armed every cop with a GMPG or 84mm Carl Gustaf RCL, it would not have made any difference.

Higher strata of forces dislike training because it wears out equipment (type technical life) and procurement is a painful process, and the prohibitive cost of ammunition and fuel and maintenance of equipment.

If the 18 odd Indian Navy destroyers/frigates fired one AShM/SAM/torpedo every month, the expenditure would be a staggering 3x12x18=648 missiles/torpedoes and try getting that past any bureaucrat.

What I am trying to emphasize through these posts is that learning and practicing individual and COLLECTIVE skills was usually not taken seriously by leaders then or now. There were/are exceptions. Manekshaw prepared logistic and trained hard from April to December, and the rest is history.

The news article lays it completely bare. My point is WE KNOW BUT WE FAIL TO LEARN. The same reason broadly applies for many earlier defeats in history.

Cops, Soldiers, Generals and Political/Bureaucrats come from our general populace, and their apathy is a reflection of society apathy at large. All our candlelight marches, patriotic song ringtones and smearing face with tricolour and similar nonsense does not compensate for the HARD and CONTINUOUS work required to defend freedom.

[peter]

.....
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 ?

Evidence exists from the arms of royal families. Here is one such example from House of Mewar, Moti Magri exhibit:
Bows and arrows:


And I would really like you to think about this statement from Airavat:Analysis of Turk/Rajput war 14th century

If you credit the Turks for horse-archery and maneuver warfare, their repeated defeats in Rajasthan could not have come without the Rajputs employing similar or superior tactics.

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'.

Peer reviewed historians are talking about it in their books. You can read about it here.
Baburnama: Battle of Panipat, Artillery not much relevant

Dale, a history professor at Ohio State also does not think that Babur's guns played any role at Panipat:
Dale's Analysis of battle of panipat

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.

You are just upset because we are on the opposite sides of the arguments. I have supplied evidence even in this post from the House of Mewar yet somehow you are considering warning me and not tsarkar who just rambles on and on without much evidence from any source. Is this fair use of administrative powers?

[tsarkar]

Peter - Your picture of bows and arrows, that even Eskimos had, DOES NOT count as evidence of Rajput horse archer columns in a mature forum.

Going by your logic, I too can post pictures of Eskimo bows and arrows and an Eskimo with bows and arrows on a horse and claim Eskimos had horse achers columns for warfighting.

Some Englishman getting infatuated with mythical descriptions of Arjun DOES NOT equalize Indian forces capabilities in those days with Pathian Horse Archer columns.

PROVIDE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF RAJPUT HORSE ARCHER COLUMNS.

Airavat's conclusion is GROSSLY INCORRECT. If Airavat's PoV that Rajputs had learnt to deal with horse archer columns is correct, then let Airavat explain -

WHY DID RANA SANGA NOT USE THE SO CALLED UNDOCUMENTED SUPERIOR BATTLE TACTICS AGAINST HORSE ARCHER COLUMNS SAID TO BE DEVELOPED BY HIS ILLUSTRIOUS ANCESTORS RANA HAMMIR AND RANA KUMBHA AGAINST TURKISH HORSE ARCHER COLUMNS?

Surely had his ancestors developed superior tactics against horse archers, then Sanga would have known them and used at Khanua?

Yet he doesnt and his army suffers from the same fate. The facts remains that there were NO TACTICS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khanwa
Mughal cannon fire caused the elephants in the Rajput army to stampede[1]. Mughal cavalry archers made repeated flanking charges from the left and right of their fortified position. These mounted archers inflicted maximum losses on Rajput ranks, as the latter were not accustomed to these tactics, their center was shaken, the men who were displaced by the attack made in flank on the wings and rear were forced upon the center and crowded together[1]. Still the gallant Rajputs were not appalled. They made repeated desperate attacks on the Emperor's center in hopes of recovering the day but were bravely and steadily received by the Mughals and swept away in great numbers[1].

Read my earlier post, even if someone developed tactics, no effort was made to broadbase that knowledge or hone general skills around that knowledge, the result of which is NO EVIDENCE OF USAGE of such tactics.

[peter]

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.

You are missing the point. Crux of the matter is that can a horse mounted archer shoot to kill a fast moving target and the answer is that if you can kill a wild boar with an arrow, shot from a fast galloping horse, you can surely kill another cavalry or infantry man with the same skill.

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?

Please do read the snippets I have posted and see where does Padmanabha mention infantry archers. And no it is not just a veer ras poem rather a historical document. Do read Dr. Bhatnagar's analysis of this very point.
The reason why KanhadD finally loose is because he ruled a small principality while Khilji employed far greater resources.

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.

Well can you enumerate which Jat Kings ruled India or parts of India before the time of Surajmal (18th century) of Bharatpur? I need references and not hand waving arguments.

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

Scriptures? Did you read the night attack described by Padmanabha?

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.

That is rather unfair criticism of Dr Sharma's work. If you have read it please let me know and we can discuss specific points. If you have not then you are just spreading hearsay. Please be specific in your criticism.

Chauhan army in the second battle of Tarain was attacked at pre dawn in their camps. It was a general slaughter. Prithviraj Chauhan was trying to get away from the battle field because the day was lost and he was killed near the river sarsuti.

Who is giving you the information that his army/descendants did not fight another day? Do you know who Hammir Chauhan of Ranathambor was?

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.

Please read the first page of this thread to see what some others have written about the battle of Hydapses. Even in Russia it was believed that Alexander lost.

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.

This is just the view of alexander apologists. Please do read the first page of this thread.

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

Others who have done more work on this disagree with you and it will suffice to overturn just one more of your fanciful claims,

1:
2:

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.

Well my intellect asks you a question:
Please enumerate battles fought by jats against invaders and then we will see who is, to use your phrase, bullshitting here.

[peter]

Peter - Your picture of bows and arrows, that even Eskimos had, DOES NOT count as evidence of Rajput horse archer columns in a mature forum.

Going by your logic, I too can post pictures of Eskimo bows and arrows and an Eskimo with bows and arrows on a horse and claim Eskimos had horse achers columns for warfighting.

Some Englishman getting infatuated with mythical descriptions of Arjun DOES NOT equalize Indian forces capabilities in those days with Pathian Horse Archer columns.

PROVIDE CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE OF RAJPUT HORSE ARCHER COLUMNS.

Airavat's conclusion is GROSSLY INCORRECT. If Airavat's PoV that Rajputs had learnt to deal with horse archer columns is correct, then let Airavat explain -

WHY DID RANA SANGA NOT USE THE SO CALLED UNDOCUMENTED SUPERIOR BATTLE TACTICS AGAINST HORSE ARCHER COLUMNS SAID TO BE DEVELOPED BY HIS ILLUSTRIOUS ANCESTORS RANA HAMMIR AND RANA KUMBHA AGAINST TURKISH HORSE ARCHER COLUMNS?

Surely had his ancestors developed superior tactics against horse archers, then Sanga would have known them and used at Khanua?

Yet he doesnt and his army suffers from the same fate. The facts remains that there were NO TACTICS.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Khanwa
Mughal cannon fire caused the elephants in the Rajput army to stampede[1]. Mughal cavalry archers made repeated flanking charges from the left and right of their fortified position. These mounted archers inflicted maximum losses on Rajput ranks, as the latter were not accustomed to these tactics, their center was shaken, the men who were displaced by the attack made in flank on the wings and rear were forced upon the center and crowded together[1]. Still the gallant Rajputs were not appalled. They made repeated desperate attacks on the Emperor's center in hopes of recovering the day but were bravely and steadily received by the Mughals and swept away in great numbers[1].

Read my earlier post, even if someone developed tactics, no effort was made to broadbase that knowledge or hone general skills around that knowledge, the result of which is NO EVIDENCE OF USAGE of such tactics.

Look we cant really help you since you have already made up your mind. Airavat has asked you legitimate questions for which you have no answer. You are living in a world created by marxist historians of India and have really no clue about the wars Indians won. Battle of Khanwa description from wiki is utterly wrong.

[tsarkar]

You are missing the point. Crux of the matter is that can a horse mounted archer shoot to kill a fast moving target and the answer is that if you can kill a wild boar with an arrow, shot from a fast galloping horse, you can surely kill another cavalry or infantry man with the same skill.

Individual skill, yes. Collective skills for 120 chaps to form a horse archer company? No. When 120 mongols hunt a hurd down, they gain that collective skill.

That is rather unfair criticism of Dr Sharma's work. Chauhan army in the second battle of Tarain was attacked at pre dawn in their camps. It was a general slaughter. Prithviraj Chauhan was trying to get away from the battle field because the day was lost and he was killed near the river sarsuti.

Then, as per Dr Sharma's work, the Chauhan Army was even more stupid for not posting pickets on access routes to camp and sentries, that are basic techniques. For that matter, in war, like Kargil, soldiers sleep with their personal weapons and wake up at first scream/shout of alarm.

My opinion would be to rate Dr Sharma's poetic opinion of "midnight immoral attack" as stupid. I still respect the Chauhan Army.

Please enumerate battles fought by jats against invaders and then we will see who is, to use your phrase, bullshitting here.

Peter - The Jats are recorded to have given a given a hard time to Mehmud of Ghazni, fought Taimur, Gokula resisted Aurungzed and Suraj Mal's exploits are well known.

Let me remind you that emotional belittling a community is punishable under the Indian constitution, as well as a violation of forum norms.

And for the record, I have elaborately explained to Airavat the concept of mobilization to explain strategic victory despite tactical reverses with loads of examples.

Why dont you answer the following question?

WHY DID RANA SANGA NOT USE THE SO CALLED UNDOCUMENTED SUPERIOR BATTLE TACTICS AGAINST HORSE ARCHER COLUMNS SAID TO BE DEVELOPED BY HIS ILLUSTRIOUS ANCESTORS RANA HAMMIR AND RANA KUMBHA AGAINST TURKISH HORSE ARCHER COLUMNS? Surely had his ancestors developed superior tactics against horse archers, then Sanga would have known them and used at Khanua? Yet he doesnt and his army suffers from the same fate.

[Lalmohan]

time for you guys to chill out on this issue please

[Airavat]

And for the record, I have elaborately explained to Airavat the concept of mobilization to explain strategic victory despite tactical reverses with loads of examples.

And I have explained why this entirely new "mobilization of population" argument does not apply to 14th century Rajasthan. It doesn't even apply to more modern times in that region as documented by India's leading historian Jadunath Sarkar.

I don't agree with Peter on horse-archery, but he has a point on Indian victories being unknown because of the colonial and leftist historians. Our history text books are Delhi-centric and dynasty-centric. For the medieval era they drone on about Khaljis, Tughlaqs, Sayyids, Lodis, and have Babur winning Panipat to establish a new Muslim empire. A footnote follows on the Battle of Khanua, but most people outside of Rajasthan are left wondering who this Rana Sanga fellow was and how did he become strong enough to challenge Babur, while all this time they had been reading only about the Muslim dynasties?

I believe that the period 1350-1550 should be taken out of the Delhi Sultanate era in our text books, and be given the alternative name of "New Indian Kingdoms". Because in this 200 year period the sultanate is dismembered and powerful new kingdoms arise in different parts of India:
1) Mewar and Marwar in Rajasthan.
2) Vijaynagar in southern India.
3) Orissa, Assam, and other principalities in Eastern India.
4) Nepal also emerges as a united kingdom in this period.

Surely had his ancestors developed superior tactics against horse archers, then Sanga would have known them and used at Khanua? Yet he doesnt and his army suffers from the same fate.

One may also ask that when Kanhad Dev defeated Ulugh Khan using a night attack, why didn't he use that same tactic later against the Khaljis? Or why didn't every Rajput army use such night attacks against the Turks? Obviously because Ulugh Khan was returning from the conquest of Gujarat, laden with booty, broken murtis, and a horde of prisoners. And elated with this victory the Turks and converted Mongols became lax in their return march, and even started quarreling over the division of booty. They never expected a small principality like Jalor to come out in the field against them — that is why a night attack on such an army was a resounding success. But the same tactic would not work against a more alert army, unburdened by booty or prisoners.

Strategy and tactics depend to a large degree on the prevailing geopolitical situation. The Rajput armies under Hammir and Kumbha were potent units of cavalry formed of Sesodias, while at Khanua, Sanga was leading a coalition that included other Rajput clans as well as Indian Muslim and Afghan armies. These different and mutually hostile components, particularly the last two, had never fought side by side with the Mewar army before. And when such a diverse coalition is brought together, each component loses the freedom to maneuver and operate in its traditional way, because they are hampered by unfamiliar allies at their flanks and rear.

So that is why Sanga could not have repeated Hammir's or Kumbha's tactics. Or so we assume because we actually don't know the details of the Battle of Khanua from Mewar sources.......thanks to the burning of the great library in Chittor by Akbar half a century later. All that we have are patchy descriptions by Babur. Despite his new weapon of artillery and matchlocks, the defence works of carts and towers, as well as horse-archers, Babur admits that the battle lasted ten hours. And despite all the maneuvers on the battle-field the Mughals failed to take a single prisoner. There was also no pursuit of the defeated army and Babur took an astonishing three days to reach even the nearby fort of Bayana!

And similarly geopolitics also explains Prithivraj's difficulties at Tarain and those of the Marathas at Panipat.

[ramana]

Airavat we need to write a new look at history and print books to get more visibility. The syncretic dogma is killing knowledge.

[niran]

it was the terrain, which made it impossible to deploy out flanking moves,
look at the maps, even in modern day after the natural and man caused
erosion the area is hilly, very unsuitable IMHO. i meant the Battle of Khanua.

[Airavat]

I absolutely agree Ramana, and following from my previous post:

1350-1550 New Indian Kingdoms.

1550-1650 Mughal Empire.

1650-1750 Maratha Supremacy

1750-1850 East India Company

1850- Indian Nationalism

Why only 100 years to the Mughal Empire? Because the real creator of that empire was Akbar (1556-1605) who devised the innovative mansabdari system where Hindu swords would crush Muslim rebellions and vice versa, ended jaziya and pilgrimage taxes on non-Muslims, and took other steps to unite diverse creeds. His two successors were bigots who committed atrocities on non-Muslims but ultimately they did not change these basic principles. With the accession of Aurangzeb (1657-1707) all of this changes and a new phase of Indian History begins.

1650-1750 period is titled "Maratha Supremacy" but it covers many different topics. The reason for calling it by that title is to provide a Peninsular perspective to Indian History covering the following important events:
1) The advance of the Mughal Empire into the south and the decline of the Deccan Sultanates.
2) Rise of Shivaji and consolidation of the scattered Maratha chieftains into his kingdom.
3) Aurangzeb's rule in the south as a prince and his long wars there as emperor.
4) European sea powers, naval battles, and piracy. Revolutionary changes in global trade.
5) The wars in North India were mirrored by events in the Peninsula, including the Rajput War, and the rebellions of the Pashtuns, Sikhs, Bundelas, Jats, Satnamis and others. All leading up to the dismemberment of the Mughal Empire.
6) Consolidation of EIC in the three parts of India, Maratha expansion into Central and North India, Persian and Afghan intrusion into Punjab and Delhi.

it was the terrain, which made it impossible to deploy out flanking moves,
look at the maps, even in modern day after the natural and man caused
erosion the area is hilly, very unsuitable IMHO. i meant the Battle of Khanua.

Niran,
Khanua is on the plain near Agra while the hilly terrain starts with the fort of Bayana.