Historical Battles in Ancient & Medieval Bharat

[Airavat]

Mughal campaign in Central Asia 1646-48: Jadunath Sarkar

That rebels from Afghanistan were harboured in Balkh could not have been a cause of war, because it has always been recognised among eastern kings as a sacred duty to give asylum to suppliants. The Afghan frontier was exposed to private raids by Nazar Muhammad's subjects, but these could not have extended far, and must have been looked upon as common incidents in that debateable land from time immemorial. The Court historian Abdul Hamid is, therefore, right when he says that Shah Jahan determined to conquer Balkh and Badakhshan, " because they were the heritage of Babar and also lay in the way to Samarqand, the capital of Timur, the founder of the Mughal dynasty." The civil war in Balkh supplied him with an opportunity for carrying out his long-cherished scheme. But if Shah Jahan really hoped to conquer and rule Central Asia with a force from India, we must conclude that the prosperity of his reign and the flattery of his courtiers had turned his head, and that he was dreaming the vainest of vain dreams. The Indian troops detested service in that far-off land of hill and desert, which could supply no rich booty, no fertile fief, and no decent house to live in. The occupation of that poor inhospitable and savage country meant only banishment from home and comfort and ceaseless fight and watching against a tireless and slippery enemy. The finest troops might be worn out and the richest treasury exhausted in the attempt to keep hold of such a country, and no gain either in glory or wealth was to be expected.

The Prince met with no opposition and entered the city of Balkh on 2nd July, 1646. The natives gazed with wonder at the Indian army with its huge elephants covered with cloth of gold and silver plates, steeds with bridles set with precious metals, troopers clad in cuirass embossed with gold and gems, endless columns of musketeers and sappers, and gorgeous standards and drums.' Such a display of wealth and pomp they had never seen before. Shah Jahan had written to Nazar Muhammad Khan offering to leave Balkh to him if he remained friendly. The Khan had answered by professing submission. But on Murad's arrival at Balkh he doubted the Emperor's sincerity, feared a stratagem, and at night took his flight from his capital towards Persia.

After a three days' halt at Balkh, Aurangzib left his baggage there in charge of his eldest son, and set out with light kit towards Aqcha to meet the assembled Uzbaks. The artillery supported by foot musketeers cleared the line of advance. The Uzbaks as usual hovered round the marching army and kept up a running fight. Thanks to their superior mobility, they could attack or retreat as they chose. Leaving screens at safe distances on the Right and Left, their massed troops fell on the Van, but only to be shattered by the Mughal artillery. The same tactics were repeated against the Rear, but with no better success. The march continued, the enemy seizing every disorder or weakness to come closer and gall the Imperialists with showers of arrows. Day after day a strenuous fight had to be maintained against the tireless and mobile enemy, while hunger raged in the Imperial ranks. The soldiers were ever on the move, and food could be cooked only on the backs of the marching elephants! Bread sold at one rupee or even two rupees a piece and water was equally dear.

Evil as was the plight of the Mughal army, the enemy were worse off. The Bukhara king could no longer pay and keep his vast host together. The hope of an easy plunder of the imperialists had brought his men together. That design having failed they were eager to return home. The Turkomans in particular sold their horses to the Imperial army and decamped across the Oxus. The war was now practically over, at least for a season. But a settlement was still far off. Shah Jahan had no doubt decided to give the country back to Nazar Muhammad Khan, but that king must first offer submission and beg pardon before Imperial prestige could be satisfied. Meantime in the Mughal army officers and men alike were sick of their exile and longed to return home. High commanders like Bahadur Khan secretly thwarted Aurangzib, fearing that if they captured the king of Bukhara, the Emperor would annex Transoxiana and leave the Indian troops in permanent garrison there, while the failure of the expedition would lead to their speedy return home! The country had been devastated by the Turkoman freebooters, the crops burnt, and the peasantry robbed or dragged away. Aurangzib, therefore, wrote to his father that he could do no good by staying there. The passes of the Hindu Kush would be soon closed by snow. His army was faced with starvation, as grain was selling in Balkh at ten rupees a maund. They had no winter quarters in that poor and desolate country. So at last, on 1st October 1647, he formally delivered the city and fort of Balkh to Nazar Muhammad's grandsons.

Thus ended Shah Jahan's fatuous war in Balkh, — a war in which the Indian treasury spent four krores of rupees in two years and realised from the conquered country a revenue of 22½ lakhs only. Not an inch of territor was annexed, no dynasty changed, and no enemy replaced by an ally on the throne of Balkh. The grain stored in Balkh fort, worth 5 lakhs, and the provisions in other forts as well, were all abandoned to the Bukharians, besides Rs. 50,000 in cash presented to Nazar Muhammad's grandsons and Rs. 22,500 to envoys. Five hundred soldiers fell in battle and ten times that number (including camp followers) was slain by cold and snow on the mountains.

[vishvak]

Sri Krishna Deva Raya also built the Rajagopuram at Srikalahasthi and the foundation for such huge structure is said to be 11/2 feet only and it stood for 500 years. Fell down when our useless fellows failed to take care of it last year. Many said that it will indicate bad time to come and here we are one year after that.

I am going to Srikalahasthi today to perform Rahukala Puja tomorrow. It is performed during Rahukalam on a Sunday and quite good for us. I did it once with my wife about 3 years back.

Just adding some info from http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes ... m-boulders

"But this massive structure which stood for 484 years was raised on an 18-inch foundation layer speaks volumes about the engineering expertise of those days," archaeologist from ASI-Bangalore K Muni Rathnam Reddy told TOI. To construct a two-storeyed house, a foundation of minimum 5-7 ft is dug up. "In that sense, the longevity and sustainability of the 'rajagopuram' standing on a very small foundation in the midst of vagaries of weather is truly amazing," Reddy said. He said the historic 221-ft high Brihadishwara temple in Thanjavur built by Chola king Raja Raja Cholan in 1010 AD was built on a 3-ft foundation only. The temple is celebrating its millennium year.

According to senior artist and sculptor Siva Prasad, during excavation after the collapse of the 'rajagopuram' they came across interesting anecdotes that support the theory of centre of gravity. "We know that when the basement is parallel and when there is perfect centre of gravity, even an egg can bear the weight of an elephant. The craftsmen used this principle to perfection to construct the massive 'rajagopuram,'" he said. Though they used boulders and stones weighing 28 tonnes, the foundation could withstand the weight because of precision and centre of gravity.

However, historian Kiran Kranth Chowdary said the experts were jumping the gun even before drawing conclusive evidence.

"In those days every structure's foundation had five layers with basement including big boulders, followed by small boulders, 'narikela' (coconut size) stones, lemon-sized stones and a layer of sand," he recalled. Though the archaelogoists were claiming that there were only big boulders and sand at the 'maha rajagopuram' foundation site, they should check for the other layers of foundation, Chowdary felt, while stressing the need for more studies.

This is perhaps why the technology is made to disappear. If the technology is understood, how will the corrupt benefit? The technology will rather remain as a memory and in details of ASI notes, with perhaps even a Gora/Chinki mimicking it where the corrupt won't obstruct it.

The above online report is perhaps more detailed than an average builder could want to say and do.

[vishvak]

I think it all boils down to training - a standing army of a settled empire can be equally effective if given the right tools and training and led with proper C3I, not a hastily thrown together cobble of warlord armies and a committee of inept nobles as the leadership.

the invaders mostly had the advantage of having fought a bunch of battles before even reaching india and learnt to work together, being led by single autocratic personalities and ofcourse mobility which is already mentioned.

Sajjan,

I do completely agree with all this. What we are missing here is any mention of how army of warlords even with good nobles and full of the most cunning may have some deficiencies. I can list 5:

For example, no one, from the Pakistan & towards north pole, would like to stand in the middle of a desert.

A big horde of warmonger may be suffering from Dysentery-in-rain or worse for all we may not know. Plus being harassed in foren dharmic lands could lead to low morale and break in logistics

Weakness for some things, like diamonds for which they may could be led to the middle of a desert.

Fear of wasting life after watching settled people i.e. even after winning and looting wine, they may see nothing wrong with people they invaded and so pity ownselves in different manners, etc. that they could had rather form an alliance for mutual benefits and not mess with people unnecessary.

Returning even after winning to place where all they could see is people wasting the loot after realizing that there is better way to live.

There could be whole type of psyops reflecting on invaders exactly the way we pity ourselves.

[Rahul M]

trained to the saddle from their childhood, as became a nomad race. They were also capital archers, accustomed to shoot from the saddle and fight while fleeing.

Not to mean disrespect, but the narrative takes for granted that once a culture settles down, fitness becomes optional. That nomads are naturally fit (correct), 'and also fitter'.

So is fitness and balanced lifestyle an option to the civilized? It looks like it is made an option, which it is not. Did the nomads and barbarians own right to be 'fitter than others'?

I do not find any portion in the section that says fitness becomes optional when a culture settles down. in fact the word or idea of fitness does not even occur in it. you are in effect creating a strawman to knock down.

what he says is quite easy to understand, that central asian nomadic races literally lived on horses and hence were proficient in horse riding. and secondly since hunting with bow and arrow was a big source of their diet they were good archers as well. is any of this untrue ?
while lamenting about Indian civilization defensiveness and what not, give a thought to why the other civilizations that bore the brunt of turco-mongol invasions, the egyptians, the arabs, the iranians, the chinese, the russians, the byzantines, none of them attempted to 'take the fight to the enemy' by capturing central asia.

[Rahul M]

on horses, India had two good light horse breeds, the marwari and the kathiawari and an 'adequate' breed in the deccani horse. none of these were available in large numbers. the rest of India was bad horse country, where healthy horses became ill and dropped by the dozens, forget raising horses there.

we had no horse breed that could support heavily armoured horsemen. most such breeds are central asian or persian in origin from ancient times and had to be imported. clearly, it was much more difficult for Indian kingdoms to raise armies with enough mobility because of cost. having enough to launch an invasion was economically out of the question.

[Klaus]

not sure if people like the nabateans of jordan enjoyed a much greener and rainy env then.

to my knowledge we have not found the dead courses of major rivers like tigris or euphrates in the arab peninsula and no ruins of major pre-historic cities on the banks.

at one time it had huge forests and green cover hence all the oil.

During the last ice age, the area currently under Persian gulf was a large inland oasis, with the Tigris and Euphrates emptying into this region. Possibly a vast woodland delta without mangroves supported civilisation here. Once this went under water, only the higher desert lands remained. Possibly the reason why there is not even a trace of ruins in the desertified areas.

The map shown in the link below indicates that the modern desert areas in Arabia were the same even during the ice age, IOW desertification occured prior to the Younger Dryas.

Link

The oil dates from the carboniferous era, one needs to look for peat deposits on the seabed of the Persian gulf for direct evidence of such a civilisation.

[csharma]

Can someone highlight why the Mughals could not handle the Maratha horse? Especially from say 1700-1707.Was it the mobility that made them dangerous? Battle of Palkhed for example.

[Rahul M]

could not handle ? in what way ?
did the maratha cavalry destroy the nizam's forces in a frontal war at palkhed ? not so AFAIK.
the maratha strategy relied on refusing battle and exerting pressure on the supply lines. this is how they campaigned at palkhed as well.
also, to make up for their lack of heavy cavalry they employed afghan heavy cavalry.

[bmallick]

on horses, India had two good light horse breeds, the marwari and the kathiawari and an 'adequate' breed in the deccani horse. none of these were available in large numbers. the rest of India was bad horse country, where healthy horses became ill and dropped by the dozens, forget raising horses there.

we had no horse breed that could support heavily armoured horsemen. most such breeds are central asian or persian in origin from ancient times and had to be imported. clearly, it was much more difficult for Indian kingdoms to raise armies with enough mobility because of cost. having enough to launch an invasion was economically out of the question.

Throughout Indian history we see a greater emphasis on heavy cavalry and cavalry change. Now of course the charge was the greatest shock weapon at that time, but even in a successful charge there would have been good number of casualty among the horses, thus an expensive replenishment cycle after the charge would have been the norm.

Considering the economics of maintaining a cavalry was enormous wouldn't it have been more prudent to go for a infantry based army. With only small amount of light cavalry mainly for recon and skirmish. One would think that innovations which would make the infantry the decisive weapons should have been taken a front seat. Any kingdom in India which could have developed such innovations like lighter small arms, pikes, small light canons/arquebuses, heavy long range bows, infantry drills etc, would have developed into a great power. Thus there must have been good ecnomic and military incentive for doing the same, however what we see is a complete lack/adoption of the same in the Indian sub-continent, with such innovations being the norm elsewhere. This is very surprising or am I missing something.

[Airavat]

In Europe cavalry formations were defeated by infantry even without the aid of modern firearms, like the English archers defeating the French cavalry at Agincourt, or the Scottish pikemen beating the English cavalry at Bannockburn, or the Swiss infantry repulsing Austrian cavalry at Morgarten and Laupen. These examples tell us that cavalry in Europe did not have the maneuver abilities, which the Turks or Mongols had in Asia, and infantry developments came in those parts of Europe that were geographically shielded from such superior cavalry forces.

No part of India was immune to the Turk cavalry. So in India developments in infantry could only occur in conjunction with developments in firearms late in the 18th century.

[bmallick]

Western European heavy knight based cavalry, definitely relied less on maneuver and more on brute shock & awe. How different was the cavalry based force usage vis-e-vis India. Wasn't the heavy Rajput cavalry predominantly reliant on frontal shock attack to break enemy formation. Turko-Mongol cavalry usage was entirely different. For them it was always usage of the maneuvering ability of the cavalry that was important, hence feign retreat, horse archer and other tactics. Hence my contention that mostly cavalry in india was used for shock frontal attack to break enemy formation against which infantry tactics could have been developed to counter the same.

The then indian forces placed great emphasis on the cavalry. It was relying on expensive, glamorous, difficult to maintain & replenish imported equipment to build your forces rather than cheaper homemade, less glamorous, easy to replenish & maintain innovative solutions to carry the flag around. Rings a bell even now doesn't it? Are we still making the same mistakes.

[csharma]

RahulM,

This is from the book called History of Marathas by Kincaid.

These continual disasters broke the spirit of the imperial
soldiery. Worn out by twenty years of war, they
could only, if led by Zulfikar Khan, be made to face the
Maratha horse.

That is why I asked what was it about the Maratha horse that Mughals were reluctant to take on them.

[Rahul M]

on horses, India had two good light horse breeds, the marwari and the kathiawari and an 'adequate' breed in the deccani horse. none of these were available in large numbers. the rest of India was bad horse country, where healthy horses became ill and dropped by the dozens, forget raising horses there.

we had no horse breed that could support heavily armoured horsemen. most such breeds are central asian or persian in origin from ancient times and had to be imported. clearly, it was much more difficult for Indian kingdoms to raise armies with enough mobility because of cost. having enough to launch an invasion was economically out of the question.

Throughout Indian history we see a greater emphasis on heavy cavalry and cavalry change. Now of course the charge was the greatest shock weapon at that time, but even in a successful charge there would have been good number of casualty among the horses, thus an expensive replenishment cycle after the charge would have been the norm.

wrt the bolded part, not at all !!
other than the sole example of rajput cavalry no Indian army was known for emphasis on heavy cavalry.
also, although we love to think of cavalry charges as horses just riding into lines of men, intelligent animals like horses were loathe to do it, for good reasons. frontal charge on armoured infantry that held its line was an effective way of committing mass suicide. cavalry charges had to come from the unprotected flanks or behind. if a frontal charge was effected it was against light infantry with no armour or spear type weapons.
very rarely a frontal charge was effectively used as a psychological weapon, intimidating infantry into panicking and breaking their ranks, which made them easy targets. if a disciplined infantry held its line, even well armoured cavalry used to stop well short (unless commanded by a moron) and try their luck another time.

Considering the economics of maintaining a cavalry was enormous wouldn't it have been more prudent to go for a infantry based army. With only small amount of light cavalry mainly for recon and skirmish.

you are in effect describing what most Indian armies looked like through the ages, primarily infantry based, with a large number of missile troops with a small amount of cavalry and elephants.
unfortunately, as dozens of military historians have opined, this form of army lacks mobility and especially against horse based armies, that means you surrender the initiative totally to the enemy. he decides when, where and if to attack, all you can do is react.

at the tactical level, the cavalry armies employed a large number of horse archers (some heavily armoured) to harass the enemy and a smaller contingent of heavy cavalry to finish him off. while it was not impossible to defeat this type of army with an infantry based army, it required a very high level of generalship, a share of luck and cohesiveness of the army that was not always easy to find. in contrast, a general of a cavalry based army would be assured of victory most of the time by simply avoiding silly mistakes.

[Rahul M]

RahulM,

This is from the book called History of Marathas by Kincaid.

These continual disasters broke the spirit of the imperial
soldiery. Worn out by twenty years of war, they
could only, if led by Zulfikar Khan, be made to face the
Maratha horse.

That is why I asked what was it about the Maratha horse that Mughals were reluctant to take on them.

sorry, there is too little information here. I do not remember the context.
my guesstimate will be they were simply tired of chasing a ghost, an enemy that could appear and disappear almost at will.

Western European heavy knight based cavalry, definitely relied less on maneuver and more on brute shock & awe. How different was the cavalry based force usage vis-e-vis India. Wasn't the heavy Rajput cavalry predominantly reliant on frontal shock attack to break enemy formation. Turko-Mongol cavalry usage was entirely different. For them it was always usage of the maneuvering ability of the cavalry that was important, hence feign retreat, horse archer and other tactics. Hence my contention that mostly cavalry in india was used for shock frontal attack to break enemy formation against which infantry tactics could have been developed to counter the same.

The then indian forces placed great emphasis on the cavalry. It was relying on expensive, glamorous, difficult to maintain & replenish imported equipment to build your forces rather than cheaper homemade, less glamorous, easy to replenish & maintain innovative solutions to carry the flag around. Rings a bell even now doesn't it? Are we still making the same mistakes.

the analysis is a little suspect because the assertions are not borne out by historical facts.

only the rajputs employed cavalry in that way and given their smaller number they were quite successful.
nor was the turco-mongol cavalry just a bunch of horse archers, they had a heavily armoured cavalry contingent as well.



throughout history, unless central asian cavalry armies committed mistakes it has been very difficult to defeat them with infantry armies. why not check out how the tactics of the roman (and later byzantine) armies changed to counter the cavalry based sassanids.

[ArmenT]

on horses, India had two good light horse breeds, the marwari and the kathiawari and an 'adequate' breed in the deccani horse. none of these were available in large numbers. the rest of India was bad horse country, where healthy horses became ill and dropped by the dozens, forget raising horses there.

we had no horse breed that could support heavily armoured horsemen. most such breeds are central asian or persian in origin from ancient times and had to be imported. clearly, it was much more difficult for Indian kingdoms to raise armies with enough mobility because of cost. having enough to launch an invasion was economically out of the question.

Not quite sir. Horses are pretty hardy creatures in general and most of India is actually pretty good horse country. We wouldn't have so many stories involving horses and chariots otherwise. The real reason is that most parts of India weren't inclined towards breeding programs of any sort (not just horses, compare dogs and cattle as well).

The Marwari and Kathiawari breeds were bred for the environment that they were in (i.e.) some other horse breeds would have had trouble growing up in those harsh environmental conditions. That doesn't mean that they were outstanding horses in all environments. Other breeds were faster and sturdier and had more endurance, which is why there wasn't much demand for the Marwari and Kathiawari breeds in the other parts of India, which weren't such harsh environments. This is why, during the British Raj, they actually forbade cross-breeding with Marwari and Kathiawari horses, as they didn't have the endurance or speeds of other breeds. Lest some firebrand jingos pop up saying "British eeevil onlee, blocking native breeds from ahem-ahem ", let me point out that:
(a) The Brits heavily encouraged breeding of polo ponies which were primarily of Manipuri and Himalayan stock. This was because of their endurance characteristics.
(b) When the British were colonizing Australia and decided to import some Arabian horses to Oz, they actually sent many "Arabian" horses that were born and bred from India, instead of sending from the Gulf or Egypt regions. Why? Because the SDRE Indian strain was deemed to be better than the ones from Arab lands. Note that Indian Arabians consisted of "Arabian" stallions mated with SDRE mares, so there's a huge amount of SDRE genes in them. One of these SDRE horses (Old Hector) is an ancestor of several Australian thoroughbreds today.

[Rahul M]

Armen, rest of India was NOT good horse country, many central asian armies faced massive losses in horse numbers because they could not stand the weather and diseases of sub tropical India. even akbar, who introduced a major horse breeding program could not create breeds that were perfectly adapted to Indian climate. in fact there are few, if any horse breeds that are adapted to this type of climate. injured and sick horses had to be sent to afghanistan to recover !
the mughals continued to import horses in spite of massive attempts at breeding.

barring the marwari/kathiawari, the rest of India had ponies which simply didn't have the characteristics of war horses, breeding or no breeding. chariots in fact point to weak horse breeds, it took a strong horse breed to carry people on its back, weak horses were instead used for chariots and carts.
we had so many stories about chariots and charioteers because in that era those were gamechanging weapons and ridden by the kings and leaders.

That doesn't mean that they were outstanding horses in all environments. Other breeds were faster and sturdier and had more endurance

the marwari was noted for its endurance ! the british forbade interbreeding because the touching ears was considered un-aesthetic.

you are wrong about the cattle part though, there are many indigenous cattle varieties that were bred to be perfectly adapted to Indian climate and requirements. they are are now used in the numerous modern breeding programs. dog breeding never took off because they were never a large part of life in India.

[ManjaM]

Not quite sir. Horses are pretty hardy creatures in general and most of India is actually pretty good horse country. We wouldn't have so many stories involving horses and chariots otherwise. The real reason is that most parts of India weren't inclined towards breeding programs of any sort (not just horses, compare dogs and cattle as well).

Cattle seems like one area where we have developed a lot of breeds. Since its OT here, i have posted a link in the OT thread listing the various breeds.
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 6#p1151066

[ArmenT]

^^^
How many are historical breeds and how many are 19th century+ developments.
Would love to see references of "cattle from <certain area> are reknown for <blah>" from some ancient texts.

[ManjaM]

Saheb, I know for a fact that Malenadu Gidda is native to West Karnataka area for a very long time.
Amrit Mahal bulls were extensively used by the Wodeyars as draught animals for armies back in the day.
Above 2 are anecdotal and I dont have references.
It only makes sense that a country where cattle was used extensively for both draught and produce purpose will have a wide variety of specialised animal breeds. In fact the diversity in breeds is said to have reduced over the years due to interbreeding and the introduction of imported breeds. Many gaushalas of maths across Karnataka have started conservation programs to promote research and presere the breeds.

Amrith Mahal - http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/catt ... /index.htm
Here is an excellent link for further research - http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/cattle/

Gurus might be able to pull up scriptural/historical text references to special breeds.

[Airavat]

Wasn't the heavy Rajput cavalry predominantly reliant on frontal shock attack to break enemy formation. Turko-Mongol cavalry usage was entirely different. For them it was always usage of the maneuvering ability of the cavalry that was important, hence feign retreat, horse archer and other tactics. Hence my contention that mostly cavalry in india was used for shock frontal attack to break enemy formation against which infantry tactics could have been developed to counter the same.

Rajput cavalry was not rampaging through India, they barely had enough horses for their own armies, and they had to make rules forbidding the use of the Marwari horse by any other community for non-military purposes. It was the Turk cavalry that was the norm in the rest of India. The other thing is that Rajput cavalry was not heavy as such. In the words of Jadunath Sarkar: "The tumultuous rush of a horde of Rajput desperadoes or a regular charge by the heavy armour-clad Mughal cavalry, used to sweep away every obstacle from before them."

This is why, during the British Raj, they actually forbade cross-breeding with Marwari and Kathiawari horses, as they didn't have the endurance or speeds of other breeds.

British rule began from TN and Bengal, not Rajasthan or Gujarat, and the horses that the Brits first encountered were in the armies of the local Muslim nawabs who imported Turki or Arab horses, or locally bred inferior versions of these. The British did not require large numbers of horses that the Mughals needed, and their initial policy was to rely purely on thoroughbreds imported from England. To save cost they experimented with crossing these thoroughbreds with the inferior horses found in British India:

The number of Remounts required for horse and field artillery, British and native cavalry, amount, on the average, to 4,630, including a reserve of 1,000 horses, each year. It may be observed that the officers in charge of the Indian horse-breeding operations have peculiar difficulties to contend against. The native disinclination to castrate had to be overcome to prevent the excessive use of weedy sires ; in a country whose fields are unfenced, and where horse- stealing is (in some regions) common, the natives could not give their young stock the degree of liberty necessary for their full development.

After referring to the prejudice with which these horses were first regarded by men accustomed only to the Thoroughbred and Arab, Colonel Hallen said : " The practical results of horse-breeding that have obtained and are obtaining in India, indicate that such horses (horses capable of doing good work by having bleed, bone, and power to enable them to carry and draw the heavy weights of British cavalry and artillery) cannot be produced from the present country-bred mares by mating them with Thoroughbred or Arab stock...I have now to confess that on visiting, three years ago, one of the best breeding districts in the Bombay Presidency, and attending an annual horse show held there, I found the stock resulting from the use of these sires, though very handsome in top and pretty in carriage of head and tail, lamentably deficient in bone and sinew of limb."

This is as far as British India is concerned. Next come the horses bred in Indian States:

The most important point that invites attention, however, is this : in certain States of India there exists breeds of horses which are pure, which the natives strive to maintain pure, and are, in the judgment of the Commissioners, well worth preserving in their purity. They say : " The Kathiawari, Marwari, Baluchi and Unmool breeds are pure, and may be used as safely and hopefully as Arabs." The Commissioners, in the body of their report, urge that the peoples of Kathiawar, Marwar, Baluchistan, and the Northern Punjaub should be encouraged to breed horses, and that the Indian Government should purchase the best stallions of these breeds for stud purposes. And here, as I venture to think, they indicate the line of policy which the Indian Government should adopt. The mistake — one mistake — has been, as Sir John Watson points out, the system of treating all the different Indian breeds of horse as one, ignoring the fact which the Commissioners now emphasise, that there is excellent material to our hand in certain parts of the country, if only we use it in the right way.

These Kathiawari, Marwari, Baluchi and Unmool breeds offer sources of supply which, all the best authorities are agreed, would furnish the mounted arms in India with horses of the kind required, and that as Nature designed them, without the admixture of Thoroughbred blood, which has proved, during recent years at all events, of very doubtful advantage.

However this line of thinking was not followed, as the Indian army today continues to use Thoroughbreds. In any case the requirement of horses declined from the 1920s onwards.

[Airavat]

From the Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 1893:

In former days, when every man's hand was against his brother's, and each petty Raja or Chief made war on his fellow at his own sweet will and pleasure, a good sword and a good horse were considered a very sufficient outfit for any smart young fellow. The most important part of the forces employed in these petty wars that raged interminably throughout the land consisted of horsemen, hence all the warlike tribes took the greatest interest in the breeding and rearing of the horse. With the advent of a settled Government under British supremacy these turbulent days passed away, and the need for large numbers of horses in every petty state passed away with them. The taste rapidly decreased, and we now find a very large proportion of natives utterly indifferent to, if not disliking, the noble animal. The extension of railways has helped also in still further rendering the horse less useful to our native fellow-subjects. It must be borne in mind too, that the zemindar never uses horses for agricultural purposes. In the old days of course they were wanted for military work, and now the custom of using bullocks is much too deeply rooted to be overset by anything we can teach him for the next century.

But in spite of all these disadvantages, there are many districts in India where the zamindars are fond of horses, and, if encouraged judiciously, will continue to own mares and breed stock. Chief amongst these are the Rajputs who make the best owners and breeders of all. Mussalmans in the NWP (Uttar Pradesh), though fond of riding and sport, do not, in my experience, pay sufficient attention to their dams and stock, and often feed them insufficiently. Amongst the Goojurs we get many successful breeders, but the lowest class Chumars, etc., are almost invariably bad owners. Many Sikhs and Punjabi Mussulman are keen and do well; and of course the Wuziris, Brohois, and other Afghan tribes are born horseman and know as much about practical equine matters in their own way as we do. In Bombay the Mahrattas, judging from their history, ought to be good men, but my experience of them in connection with breeding is very limited.

As already mentioned, when speaking of waste and pasture land, the export of wheat and cotton have increased enormously of late years. This has militated considerably against breeding in many districts. Formerly where one might easily find fifteen or twenty mares in a village, now none or only one or two exist ; the reason being that more money is to be made out of grain, cotton, etc, than out of horse rearing.

In most parts of India then horse-breeding went out of fashion and breeds vanished altogether. The last refuge of the Indian horse were the Princely States in Rajasthan and Gujarat, and here one final blow to the horses were land reforms. A single horse requires 20 or 30 acres, both for its natural pasture and area to exercise in, for optimum development.

[peter]

Interesting discussion on cavalry etc. but are'nt we just saying things based on hearsay? What evidence do we have from the Indian sub-continent for the thesis presented above?

W.r.t horses the problem with Arabian horse was that its legs were too slender compared to the native breeds and they used to break very often on Indian terrain. Consequently this horse was not the trump card in India.

BTW the same is true for cattle. Indic breeds such as Sahiwal or Tharparkar have the highest fat content and are amazingly disease resistant.

Vishvak,

Have you pondered what other country besides India has withstood the onslaught of invaders without giving up its own culture/religion/tradition? What could be the reason for it?

Is it too easy for us to say this or that should have been done but it would be good if you can help us answer the question.

[peter]

Also Muhammad Bin Tughlaq raised a very large army and sent it to fight in Central Asia. He lost quite a large number of soldiers. Akbar sent his son and Birbal to recover Blakh and Badakshan. Birbal lost his life. So its not that no attempts were made but they were not successful.

Do you reckon Birbal was a poor general? Same Afghans were throttled by Nalwa repeatedly. Even Jodhpur contingent stationed at Jamrud during Aurangzeb's time was just 2500 horses and never could Afghans get to the leader of Jodhpur army.

Also what about the role of the weather in central asia? For a plain dwelling army could they acclimatise to snowy conditions easily? At all?

[peter]

It can only happen in India where ashoka will return all the kingdom he won...is there any instance of such an act?

Well if you believe Greek historians then Alexander gave Porus his kingdom back. (I personally don't subscribe to this thesis)

[peter]

aka Ghori whose was spared 17 times

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

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

[vishvak]

Vishvak,

Have you pondered what other country besides India has withstood the onslaught of invaders without giving up its own culture/religion/tradition? What could be the reason for it?

Is it too easy for us to say this or that should have been done but it would be good if you can help us answer the question.

First of all, it is the unity in Desh that has held the traditions together.

An example of strength of unity could be "eighty thousand horses & eight thousand chariots", along with six thousand war elephants & two hundred thousand footmen - that formed part of defenses of Gandhar and Gangapradesh when Alex invaded, or later complete route of the Seleucus at Punjab in 305 BC. It is indeed strange that slow moving 'Indian' elephants gifted to Greeks later proved valuable in their own lands in battle of Ipsus. (from Seleucid Invasion)

[peter]

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

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

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

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

[peter]

Vishvak,

Have you pondered what other country besides India has withstood the onslaught of invaders without giving up its own culture/religion/tradition? What could be the reason for it?

Is it too easy for us to say this or that should have been done but it would be good if you can help us answer the question.

First of all, it is the unity in Desh that has held the traditions together.

An example of strength of unity could be "eighty thousand horses & eight thousand chariots", along with six thousand war elephants & two hundred thousand footmen - that formed part of defenses of Gandhar and Gangapradesh when Alex invaded, or later complete route of the Seleucus at Punjab in 305 BC. It is indeed strange that slow moving 'Indian' elephants gifted to Greeks later proved valuable in their own lands in battle of Ipsus. (from Seleucid Invasion)

I don't understand your response. I thought you were saying Indians did not do a good job in defending their country and they should have resorted to a better strategy.

[vishvak]

I don't understand your response. I thought you were saying Indians did not do a good job in defending their country and they should have resorted to a better strategy.

I am saying that if Indians were united, Indians could definitely have done a better job. It is in the absence of unity that invaders could conquer.

[peter]

I don't understand your response. I thought you were saying Indians did not do a good job in defending their country and they should have resorted to a better strategy.

I am saying that if Indians were united, Indians could definitely have done a better job. It is in the absence of unity that invaders could conquer.

Ok. Then what about countries like Balkh, Iran, Egypt which had a centralized form of governance and yet were conquered by Arabs? Even Spain.

In these countries the original culture/religion/traditions were largely supplanted by the invaders. Why did'nt the same thing happen in India?

[vishvak]

Ok. Then what about countries like Balkh, Iran, Egypt which had a centralized form of governance and yet were conquered by Arabs? Even Spain.

In these countries the original culture/religion/traditions were largely supplanted by the invaders. Why did'nt the same thing happen in India?

I will read about it later, I do not know a lot about it at all. All I can say right now is that it would have been much better that these countries were able to defeat conquerors, in one go or by parts.

[Rahul M]

vishvak, please do not take this otherwise but you do need to read more. one can't draw any useful conclusion without knowing the facts.

[ArmenT]

W.r.t horses the problem with Arabian horse was that its legs were too slender compared to the native breeds and they used to break very often on Indian terrain. Consequently this horse was not the trump card in India.

The true thoroughbred has small hooves compared to the body also. Indian-bred Arabians (i.e. those which were cross-bred with native Indian mares) were considered a bit more hardy than pure Arabians for this reason too. A bunch of them were exported to Oz to start their horse breeding industry and the Aussies later developed a breed called the New South Waler (a.k.a. Australian Waler) which is a mixture of primarily Thoroughbred and Indian Arab, with a little South African Cape pony and Clydesdale thrown in. The Waler was later exported back to India, especially in the early 20th century and the horses that the Indian army and police forces use now is Waler + Kathiawari + thoroughbred mix.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Half-Bred has details.

[Atri]

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

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

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

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

Cash is one major reason. The trade routes were controlled by Europeans, by the time Mughals were defeated and Pune started framing India's policies. Shivaji began to raise navy after gap of about 650 years. Meanwhile, the ship-building tradition had almost vanished from "hindus". Along with it vanished the tradition of naval warfare. Mughals and Islamic kings gave no importance to navy and neglected the traditional hold of India (and Indian powers) on Indian ocean. In those 650 years, the necessity of Europe to reach out to India grew dire and in that process they developed tools to reach India some way or the another. One of those tools were better ships loaded with better guns.

Marathas had to reinvent the wheel completely. While they were the ones who started meddling with european powers, their navy was essentially a brown-water navy (which is still the case in modern republic of India, who is successor of maratha India). With this navy they did conquer bases like Andaman and other islands, they could not encourage Indic mercantile ventures to go out and trade with rest of the world under the aegis and protection of Maratha navy (something which even modern Indian state isn't doing much).

There are various reasons for this, one of them being by that time Hinduism had acquired many negative self-flagellant attributes, one of them being "Sindhu-Bandi" (First of the seven legendary "prohibitions" on Hindus). Sindhu-Bandi prohibited Hindus from crossing Indus river and Indian ocean. The Vaishya-class of India was more of less following this norm.

The process which "generates surplus wealth" is trade. One who controls trade-routes, has access to surplus resources which he can use at his disposal. While agriculture and taxation also contribute towards "sustenance", they cannot create impetus for growth.

The predecessor of Maratha-India (Mughal-India and Sultanate-India) had lost this control. Hence policy makers of Maratha India were perpetually cash-strapped, even when the taxation of the territories ruled by them was quite efficient. They were not much indulgent rulers, nor did they spend money on private or public construction projects, except religious revival (all temples destroyed by muslims were rebuilt in Maratha-India).

Shivaji had abolished the mansabdari system and started paying fixed salary to all his soldiers and employees with a calibrated pay-scale. However, when Aurangzeb invaded deccan, he started luring the deccan satraps by offering them Mansabs and jaagirs (fiefdoms). To prevent this attrition of men, the third Maratha king (Rajaram) abolished the reform brought in by his father (Shivaji) and implemented by his elder brother (Sambhaji) in spite of adverse conditions and started offering Jaagirs to Maratha chiefs. He decentralized Maratha resistance (which is why they could outfight Mughals for 27 years and emerge victorious thereafter). This decentralization implied Maratha chiefs could win territories from Mughal occupied India and could extract the chauth (25% revenue) to sustain themselves. They would not receive any assistance from Maratha state, except authorization.

This school of thought sustained after Mughals died out and marathas retook India. War and expansion require revenues. With no access to trade and revenue generated therein, the options left in hand was agriculture, taxation or loot. The output of war-ravaged country in form of taxation and agriculture is very less (it takes time for farmers to come back and confidently till their lands).

Rajputs had allied themselves with Mughals since days of Akbar. many of the Rajput kings were intimately linked with Mughals (mother of Aurangzeb was a Rajput princess, if I remember correctly). Hence the wealth was intact in Rajputana. While Rajputs showed no tendency to regroup and expand outside Rajputana (akin to Marathas), they were sitting on pool of wealth, part of which had escaped Mughal retribution for at least 100 years prior to expansion of Marathas. Furthermore, Marwadi people had knack of trading and accumulating wealth (in fact, Peshwas encouraged Marwadis to migrate to Maharashtra and start their ventures there). This Marwad region too is in Rajputana.

Marathas which emerged out victorious, belonged to the school of Rajaram and not Shivaji and Sambhaji. Hindu society was not yet ready to venture out to trade. To do so, they had to depend on Europeans and Indians had lost the technology to build ships which could compete and outmatch europeans due to negligence of 600 years. These cash-strapped expanding Hindus needed money to fuel their expansion. Territory controlled by Rajputs had that money stored in their coffers. Marathas had no qualms in looting or asking for 25% chauth, in fact it was righteous thing to do as that would fund their expansion and temple-rebuilding ventures. Furthermore, Rajputs were divided, hence comparatively easier to cherry-pick. They belonged to "Hindu" side (and hence kafir side) of Mughal network, so attacking them won't provoke Indian "Ummah" to give a clarion call for Abdali-like Jihad again (which resulted in Panipat), hence attacking Rajput was more "politically convenient". There are many other factors (like Shinde-Holkar-Peshwa triangle which emerged after 1745, entanglement of Marathas in politics of Ganga-valley and few more). All these factors resulted in Maratha-Rajput relations. Similar other region was Bengal, something similar happened there from 1740 to 1751.

The Indian national identity was very much present. There are numerous letters from period of Shivaji to later Peshwas (until 1802) where "India for Indians" sentiment is spoken and acted upon time and again. Panipat campaign is pinnacle of this sentiment. So we cannot attribute it to "lack of national identity" in Marathas. Marathas, after 1715, were "India", just like from Samudragupta onwards, Guptas were "India".

Nor can it be attributed to vengeance. Most Maratha-clans claim their Rajput ancestory (Shivaji came from Sisodiya clan). Marathas did not even avenge the Jaipur Massacre of 1748 by Madho Singh, when they were at their peak, forget the Mughal invasion of Raja Jaisingh century earlier in 1660s. They had not yet consolidated Ganga-plains yet to profit from agricultural revenue. They could not profit from trade revenues for reasons mentioned above. Taxation can do only so much. They were in process of consolidating and eventually controlling two agriculturally most productive regions of India (Ganga Valley and Punjab). For doing so, they needed to keep armies. For that they needed cash. and hence whenever they needed cash, they turned towards Rajputana.

whatever they did, whether it was right or wrong, I dare not venture there. History is for learning. The mistakes of Marathas are known to everyone. Why did they commit them? What were the reasons which forced them to choose this style of governance? Few of those reasons are elucidated above. We have discussed many other "mistakes" in this thread and in GDF forum in detail. Modern republic of India will be facing exactly similar choices as Maratha India in near future. They have committed few mistakes akin to Marathas, without learning from them. But the "Panipat" of modern ROI is yet to happen, they moves have started. Abdali is mustering armies in Northwest and indigenous najibs and Shujas and Holkars have begun showing their cards and playing their moves. ROI must embrace Maratha legacy and not shun and shy away from it. Whether they like it or not, they are the "Hindu successor iteration" of India. They should draw their ideological inspiration and legacy of power from Marathas and not from British and Mughals.

Did Marathas have choice of allying with Jats, Rajputs, Sikhs against Muslims? Was it really a "Hindu Vs Muslim" conflict? No, IMHO. It was more of "Dharma Vs. Islam" conflict. This again does not imply that all actions of marathas were Dharmiks. But what they were aiming for, were fighting and dying for since the oath of 14-year old Shivaji in 1645, was idea of Dharmik India ruled by Indians (Hindavi Swarajya and Surajya).

The vision of "Dharma" or the "End game" was clear in Maratha minds.. Is it clear in the minds of their current successor? What is the reason of existence of Republic of India? Have they defined and answered this question yet?

[anupmisra]

Not sure where to link this. Mods, if there is a better thread, please move it there. Dwarka, India - 12,000 Year Old City.
This is more than the discovery of Dwarka; It talks about the age of Vedas to precede even the Harrapan civilization.

[Klaus]

^^^ Please x-post in Epics, Treatises and Kathas thread in gdf.

[uddu]

^^^It can stay here. It's about archeological findings of the Dwaraka city.

[Rahul M]

it has been x-posted in history and archelogy thread which is the correct place. this thread is for military history.

[ramana]

To add to Atri's post. The Silk trade route was still in play in those days before steam ships.

[Atri]

To add to Atri's post. The Silk trade route was still in play in those days before steam ships.

the predecessors of maratha india (i.e. Mughal India) were privileged to have access to central asian trade-route. Hence they afforded to neglect the sea lanes. Mughal downfall started when Aurangzeb lost control over Afghanistan. He accelerated that downfall by venturing into deccan and staying there for 27 years.. the enmity of entrenched Pathan lobby and "foreigner" mughals is something I have written about previously. Marathas in their expansive phase emerged from non-productive region of India (Maharashtra is quite barren, as compared to ganga-valley, indus valley, kaveri valley and lower godavari valley. Narmada valley is not very fertile due to geography). They did not have access to sea-lanes due to lack of technology. They did not have access to central-asian routes because they did not reach Khyber (well, occupation of 19 months does not count) to control the trade there.

the point is, their initial sanskaaras were that of thriftiness. they stuck and they never were in position to show magnanimity since there was no stable inflow of cash for reasons described above.