Jump to content

The Myth of Thousand Years Rule


Stradlater

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Gollum said:

 

And even if your 3rd and 1st scenarios (esp the 3rd because that would have nipped the bud of Islamic rule in India) played out in the favor of our side did the Hindu rulers have it in them to consolidate an empire? Let us focus on Chauhan stopping Ghori here because by the time Khanwa happened Islamic rule had already spread to many places like Bengal, Kashmir, Bihar, Deccan etc. We were under constant attack from Mongols (esp from 13th to 16th century) and even had the Rajputs established an empire in North India, how long could they have defended before falling over? They used to squabble a lot and tbh weren't exactly visionaries...very short sighted people. Even assuming had we minimized damage against Ilkhanate and Chagatai Khanate, who would have stopped Timur? I am struggling to think of any force that could have stopped someone like Timur laying plunder across North India. Sources say Delhi was a ghost town for 100 years because of Timur, that is why under the Sayyids and early Lodis, Delhi had nothing to show in terms of culture. Timur was comparatively lenient with us because we were ruled by Muslims, imagine if he had to come against an infidel Maharaja.....probably a complete holocaust like his great predecessor Hulagu Khan did with Baghdad. Mongols changed their religion under Timur but they were the same bloodthirsty barbaric intolerant race, those genes were intact. Hulagu was a Christian who butchered the others (Muslims) in Persia.....think of Hulagu multiplied by 100 and you get the notorious Timur. After subjugation and complete destruction of India all Timur would have done is placed a deputy to rule and strike coins and read khutbas in Timur's name....conquest complete. In fact that is what he did by appointing Khizr Khan but he left many of the Muslim warlords alive because of religion, especially the Afghans from among whom the Lodis emerged. Now ofc the Lodis were too weak courtesy after effect of Timur's invasion and before they could consolidate in came Babur. At this point I wonder whether it would have made a difference as to who would rule Delhi, Hindus or Muslims or someones else. We were too weak and ripe for pickings and Babur did exactly that. 

 

What strikes me about our medieval history is how backwards and outdated we locals were militarily. All our invaders had better weapons technology and more modern warfare strategy. Even tulghuma was an alien concept for Ibrahim Lodi's soldiers in spite of it being standard technique in all wars in Central Asia. Our people stopped innovating and transfer of knowledge had halted during these 700 odd years. That is why whenever we faced invaders we were outmatched. Invaders would invade, settle down, fight local wars and get gradually dumbed down therefore being bali ka bakra for the next set of invasions from the north west...almost like Delhi crown was draining all creativity, innovation, knowledge and common sense. I know we had relatively peaceful reigns now and then but our N.W. frontier was a constant source of trouble for majority of the time. Nothing exemplifies our mental bankruptcy more than Nadir Shah and Abdali's invasions. The 3rd battle of Panipat was brutal, probably should make a book about it and give the title 'How not to fight', it should find a permanent shelf in military school libraries across the world. 

Lol this cracked me up so bad :cantstop: only history buffs like us would totally agreee with your point. Sometimes I am like, how dumb were we. Koi bhi aake hamari Ghanti baja jaata tha. It’s like we didn’t know how to fight. We had numbers with. Big numbers, still we lost most battles. 

 

If I have to summarize why most Hindu kings lost most battles against Muslims ( Dahir,Prithvi, Hemu, Sanga, Udai, Pratap, Shivaji, Sambhaji, VishwasRao)you probably won’t agree but I akways believed religion played the biggest role in our defeats. It’s easy to go in a battle when you are being told by the holy book that you will go to heaven when you kill or get killed by an infidel. Vs Hindus where human life comes after 84 crores life cycles and you don’t want to loose that life in a battle for some money. Hindu soldiers fought for money or maybe the king but Muslim soldiers fought for a cause. 

 

 

People, my family, my friends tell me whats the Use of reading hinstory. There ia a reason why there is a India. If it wasn’t for all the lessons we learnt from our history, there would Be no India. Thanks to last 1000 years of history, we learnt that it’s good to be together. 

Edited by rahulrulezz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, rahulrulezz said:

Lol this cracked me up so bad :cantstop: only history buffs like us would totally agreee with your point. Sometimes I am like, how dumb were we. Koi bhi aake hamari Ghanti baja jaata tha. It’s like we didn’t know how to fight. We had numbers with. Big numbers, still we lost most battles. 

 

If I have summarize why we lost and why we would keeping battles against Muslims, you probably won’t agree but I akways believed religion played the biggest role in our defeats. It’s easy to go in a battle when you are being told by the holy book that you will go to heaven when you kill or get killed by an infidel. Vs Hindus where human life comes after 84 crores life cycles and you don’t want to loose that life in a battle for some money. Hindu soldiers fought for money or maybe the king but Muslim soldiers fought for a cause. 

 

 

People, my family, my friends tell me whats the Use of reading hinstory. There ia a reason why there is a India. If it wasn’t for all the lessons we learnt from our history, there would Be no India. Thanks to last 1000 years of history, we learnt that it’s good to be together. 

Fighting for money, is often a far better motivator than fighting for 'cause'. because money is real but cause can change on a dime.

The problem is, WHAT was the method of payment. 

This is where, Rome, uniquely, created the first truly professional army that was the best of its era : they didnt pay you much in terms of gold (yes, it was a job, you got paid and your family were lower-middle class unless you were officers) but their real hook was this - serve for 15 years and you will retire with a big bag of gold AND 4 acres of land. 

As Rome shows, professional armies, led by professional, methodic commanders, can overcome any amount of adversity. 
Heck, as rome demonstrates, you dont need to be a great fighter, to be a great soldier. 
The Roman-Germanic/Gallic wars follow a consistent pattern: Rome crushes everyone. But inside that pattern is another pattern: Romans are inferior warriors, who only pretty much know how to hide behind their shields, stab with their short sword and stay in formation. Every single time their formation gets destroyed, they are utterly annihilated in single combat with far better warriors of the Gauls/Germans. But every single time their formation remains intact, the Romans achieve crushing victory. 

Being sedentary is no excuse- lacking a military system is the big problem. 


India desperately needed a professional army, which could've been provided from the south. but it never came, except for brief period of Rashtrakuta rule. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Gollum said:

@rahulrulezz what makes you think that even had Hemu won history would have taken a different turn? His army was comprised of mostly Afghan Muslims (Suri forces). What makes you think the Muslims would have been loyal to him? May be he would have survived a few years as Delhi overlord but I can't imagine a situation 20 years down the line where he would still be King. He would have been assassinated, betrayed, or maybe his children killed....somehow I am unable to reconcile myself with a Hindu King commanding Muslim soldiers and surrounded by Muslim nobles. Right from Delhi Sultanate times you must have seen how common treachery is, even among kith and kin, FFS even Humayun had to go through hell with his brothers, it is pure luck that he survived once Sher Shah assumed charge. 

 

And even if your 3rd and 1st scenarios (esp the 3rd because that would have nipped the bud of Islamic rule in India) played out in the favor of our side did the Hindu rulers have it in them to consolidate an empire? Let us focus on Chauhan stopping Ghori here because by the time Khanwa happened Islamic rule had already spread to many places like Bengal, Kashmir, Bihar, Deccan etc. We were under constant attack from Mongols (esp from 13th to 16th century) and even had the Rajputs established an empire in North India, how long could they have defended before falling over? They used to squabble a lot and tbh weren't exactly visionaries...very short sighted people. Even assuming had we minimized damage against Ilkhanate and Chagatai Khanate, who would have stopped Timur? I am struggling to think of any force that could have stopped someone like Timur laying plunder across North India. Sources say Delhi was a ghost town for 100 years because of Timur, that is why under the Sayyids and early Lodis, Delhi had nothing to show in terms of culture. Timur was comparatively lenient with us because we were ruled by Muslims, imagine if he had to come against an infidel Maharaja.....probably a complete holocaust like his great predecessor Hulagu Khan did with Baghdad. Mongols changed their religion under Timur but they were the same bloodthirsty barbaric intolerant race, those genes were intact. Hulagu was a Christian who butchered the others (Muslims) in Persia.....think of Hulagu multiplied by 100 and you get the notorious Timur. After subjugation and complete destruction of India all Timur would have done is placed a deputy to rule and strike coins and read khutbas in Timur's name....conquest complete. In fact that is what he did by appointing Khizr Khan but he left many of the Muslim warlords alive because of religion, especially the Afghans from among whom the Lodis emerged. Now ofc the Lodis were too weak courtesy after effect of Timur's invasion and before they could consolidate in came Babur. At this point I wonder whether it would have made a difference as to who would rule Delhi, Hindus or Muslims or someones else. We were too weak and ripe for pickings and Babur did exactly that. 

 

What strikes me about our medieval history is how backwards and outdated we locals were militarily. All our invaders had better weapons technology and more modern warfare strategy. Even tulghuma was an alien concept for Ibrahim Lodi's soldiers in spite of it being standard technique in all wars in Central Asia. Our people stopped innovating and transfer of knowledge had halted during these 700 odd years. That is why whenever we faced invaders we were outmatched. Invaders would invade, settle down, fight local wars and get gradually dumbed down therefore being bali ka bakra for the next set of invasions from the north west...almost like Delhi crown was draining all creativity, innovation, knowledge and common sense. I know we had relatively peaceful reigns now and then but our N.W. frontier was a constant source of trouble for majority of the time. Nothing exemplifies our mental bankruptcy more than Nadir Shah and Abdali's invasions. The 3rd battle of Panipat was brutal, probably should make a book about it and give the title 'How not to fight', it should find a permanent shelf in military school libraries across the world. 

The mongols and barbarians (who destroyed Roman empire) probably had same ancestors in huns, a violent race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Gollum said:

Great post @Muloghonto, wish I could upvote your post more than once. From where do you acquire so much knowledge about medieval military matters? Are you a chess enthusiast because I don't think you are a military general? I can't imagine even full time historians analyzing the military aspects like you do, and history is just your hobby !!!

 

@Stradlater is it ok if we can merge this thread with the original mega thread on Indian history because then we can have all history posts consolidated in one place, easier for future references and will eliminate the need to repeat points. If you say yes maybe some mod can do the needful. 

 

 

 

 

 

No issues. It's better we have all History relevant threads on one place @beetle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, rahulrulezz said:

1) you get my point. I don’t want to get into the specific details. Most Rajputs were still together till this point. It was not the case later till Rana Sanga

 

2) he was smart in a way that he was the first Hindu lord who thought of actually uniting India. He also defeated 17 other war lords before winning Delhi.  After Humayun and Sher Shah, he realized there was a potential for him to rule India. Which no Hindu never thought from 1200. Rana Sanga was still fixated about Delhi not whole of India. Yes Panipat was a blunder. 

 

3) yes Ghouri. Thanks for pointing. I was busy When I wrote this post and wasn’t fully focussed. Somehow that movie Ghajini was stuck in mind when I was writing the post. :hysterical:

1) Mulo is right. Prithvi had support of very few Rajputs thanks to his Imperial ambitions which alienated a lot of powerful Rajput clans such as Chandels(Alha Udhal story), Solankis of Gujarat, Gahadwals of Kannauj etc to name a few.

He was a young, reckless king typical of Rajput rulers at that time.Should have finished Gouri after the first battle in itself but made a huge blunder of not pursuing him thinking he was just another one of Invaders in Ghaznavi's line with a sole aim to loot India. Unfortunately unbeknownst to him, Shahbuddin had other ideas in mind and wanted to first Muslim sovereign of Delhi.

Result: Great Prithviraj perished a year later and slave dynasty was established in Delhi.

 

2) I'm sorry but you are woefully wrong about Hemu. He was a one match wonder with luck on his side considering all the great powers in North India were scattered at that time and there wasn't anyone really to challenge him and thus the first time he faced a competitive enemy, he lost.

Besides He Wasn't even a king in his capacity. He was simply commander in chief of Sur army who was temporarily given orders to look after the throne by the actual Sur ruler. 

On whose support he was supposed to consolidate his position on Delhi? He was a lowly ranked clerk who rose through the ranks of Sur administrative hierarchy. He was no King. Besides You have to remember that 90 percent of his army was made up of Afghans. And if you have read the history of Pashtuns, you would know that they would have never tolerated a Hindu King as their Sardar esp the one who had no extra military support on his side ala Rajputs. Hemu had no chance really. It was all pure luck.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, MechEng said:

The mongols and barbarians (who destroyed Roman empire) probably had same ancestors in huns, a violent race.

Central Asia is tough place. You have to be cruel, hard and rusty to survive the rugged plains of that region. No wonder most Invaders from that area were barbaric.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Green Monster said:

source buddy, you make millions of unsourced claims per/day, I can't be expected to fact check.org your Trumpian claims!!!

As soon as you provide source for your initial opinion that Bharatis think Mughals made India 'sone ki chiriya'. Since i am on record producing more sources than you, you will have to catch up to your end of the sourcing before i provide further, for identical stuff you don't provide yourself when specifically asked. 

 

In this case, i already pointed to the source. Dr. Angus Maddison. 

 

Edited by Muloghonto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, rahulrulezz said:

If I have to summarize why most Hindu kings lost most battles against Muslims ( Dahir,Prithvi, Hemu, Sanga, Udai, Pratap, Shivaji, Sambhaji, VishwasRao)you probably won’t agree but I akways believed religion played the biggest role in our defeats. It’s easy to go in a battle when you are being told by the holy book that you will go to heaven when you kill or get killed by an infidel. Vs Hindus where human life comes after 84 crores life cycles and you don’t want to loose that life in a battle for some money. Hindu soldiers fought for money or maybe the king but Muslim soldiers fought for a cause. 

I agree with you 100% that religion made a huge impact in the various tussles we had with them. Even before Battle of Khanwa to raise the morale of his troops Babur rallied them in the name of Islam and declared jihad on the infidel Rajputs. Fighting for a greater cause always magnifies one's strength and it was no different in medieval India. I have to side with you and not mulo on this one, IMO cause was a greater motivation than money. This helped the Muslims win unwinnable wars and have that ruthless killer instinct that we Hindus lacked. Ofc it was just one of many reasons they whacked us repeatedly but still a perfectly valid one. Outdated military system, poor tactics/strategy, inferior weapons technology, decadent civilization, disunity, poor quality of political leadership, no greater cause.....all contributed to our defeat. You are spot on about the 84 crore life cycles part :phehe:, I think dharmic concepts like karma, niyati, vasudeva kutumbakam, tolerance etc royally screwed with our heads especially on the fields of battles against super motivated bloodthirsty adversaries. Our lack of killer instinct has been a recurring feature for centuries now, be it sheltering Afghan POWs in Maratha camps amidst 1000s of unarmed, untrained, weak devotees in 3rd battle of Panipat or the abject release of 93000 Pakistani POWs in 1971 without extracting our pound of flesh. 

 

This may be a controversial opinion on ICF but I will extend your assertion even to the sporting field, especially cricket and hockey where we have big rivalries with Pakistan. What you saw in the medieval battlefield, you can also see in our cricket/hockey matches. Pakistani players rally in the name of religion which came out in the open in Shoaib Malik's speech post 2007 WT20 final. When they were better than us in the 80s and 90s they absolutely hammered us in these 2 sports, no mercy. But when we became better post 2000s the H2H is fairly even despite the huge difference in quality between the 2 sides. Our big players either under perform or play just to their potential but their inferior players raise their game by 2 notches when it comes to India, eg Aaqib Javed, Salman Butt, Shoaib Malik, Ijaz Ahmed, Saleem Malik, Fakhar Zaman, Junaid Khan and many others. Their ordinary players play like crap whole year and when it comes to India it is like jihad on the cricket field. Imran Khan used to introduce unknown players against us in the 80s and out of nowhere those guys would obliterate our ATG players like Gavaskar, Kapil. Just seeing us on the other side makes them more organized, disciplined, super charged and the former 2 aren't characteristic traits of their  cricket team. Even look at the margins of defeats they often win big against us while we beat them narrowly even when the opportunity presents itself before us to give them a hiding. Same story repeats itself in hockey, but the rivalry is even more lopsided. At least in cricket we can bring in excuses like ball tampering, umpiring, fixing etc. In hockey even in the 60s and early 70s when we were an ATG team we would regularly lose to a far inferior Pak team all across the world. In the 80s and 90s when they were better they massacred us (1982 Delhi Asian Games final we lost 1-7 to them and PM Indira Gandhi and entire cabinet was in attendance, after the massacre our humiliated players wailed like babies on the turf and Pak players repeatedly mocked our crowds and VIP box with their gestures...one of the most painful sporting moments for India) and in the 21st century they lead the H2H in spite of having a poor quality team, poor funding/coaching, almost nil sponsorship, no league with European players, no home game etc. How shameful is that? We have lost all the test series' against them in the 2000s and I have seen their amateur rookies run circles around our superstars. Even in the recent Commonwealth Games their * team held the 2nd seed India to a 2-2 draw after struggling to a draw against the bottom seed Wales the previous day. We led 2-0 at half time and dominated the game, 2nd half they came to the turf possessed while we played like cowardly chickens confined to our own half and made zero shots on their goalpost, which is very very very rare at that level. Sadly the result wasn't the disappointment, it was how our players conducted themselves on the field. The body language of our boys was so bad in the 2nd half, that too against the 2nd worst team of the tournament, can't imagine the converse if a superior Pak leads 2-0 at half time against an inferior Indian team. 

 

I know that we can't totally equate this Indo-Pak sporting dynamic to our medieval history (no matter how much they scream, modern day Pakistanis aren't the descendants of erstwhile invaders). But there are parallels in the sense that one side plays fanatically for a cause and the other side is more chilled out. Raising the banner of jihad or fighting for Islam lifted our enemies whilst also striking a psychological blow on our side. In the lead up to the battle of Khanwa, the Mongols were scared of the Rajputs and were reluctant to fight the battle against a numerically superior, brave, united Rajput confederacy...until Babur stepped in. Babur broke all his wine cups and jars, raised the banner of jihad and suddenly his soldiers had a mental switch. Watching them in battle, esp their zeal and ruthlessness even had a psychological effect on our soldiers, Silhadi of Malwa switched over to Babur camp and by the end of the battle the shaken Rajputs including top leadership had to flee for dear life. The generals were so scarred from that battle that when the great Rana Sanga started making plans for renewing the fight with Babur, his own chiefs assassinated him because they were that scared of the Mongols. I feel for Rana Sanga here, a lone brave Hindu King who took the battle to the Mongols, betrayed and poisoned by his own men just because they were wusses. 

Edited by Gollum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Nope, they were never really that together. The Gurjars briefly held overlordship over all the Rajputs but once they got crushed repeatedly by the Rashtrakutas, the Gurjar power declined due to the rajputs resorting to their tried and tested clannism. 

 

By Prthviraj's time, the Kalachuris were at war with the Gahadvalas, who had an uneasy peace with the Tomars, Prithvraj himself is recorded to've waged multiple war against his Rajput bretheren. 

 

I would suggest using the clan name Pratiaharas instead of the more general term Gurjar which they used so as to specify the area they belonged to which in those times was known as Gurjara.

Here in northern India Gujjars these days are a different community which have no relations with the Pratiharas who were some of the early Rajput clans along with Chauhans, Parmars and Solankis.

While the similar sounding 'Gujjars' in the past have Mostly been nomadic herders though these days live a settled life thanks to newly acquired riches.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Gollum said:

I agree with you 100% that religion made a huge impact in the various tussles we had with them. Even before Battle of Khanwa to raise the morale of his troops Babur rallied them in the name of Islam and declared jihad on the infidel Rajputs. Fighting for a greater cause always magnifies one's strength and it was no different in medieval India. I have to side with you and not mulo on this one, IMO cause was a greater motivation than money. This helped the Muslims win unwinnable wars and have that ruthless killer instinct that we Hindus lacked. Ofc it was just one of many reasons they whacked us repeatedly but still a perfectly valid one. Outdated military system, poor tactics/strategy, inferior weapons technology, decadent civilization, disunity, poor quality of political leadership, no greater cause.....all contributed to our defeat. You are spot on about the 84 crore life cycles part :phehe:, I think dharmic concepts like karma, niyati, vasudeva kutumbakam, tolerance etc royally screwed with our heads especially on the fields of battles against super motivated bloodthirsty adversaries. Our lack of killer instinct has been a recurring feature for centuries now, be it sheltering Afghan POWs in Maratha camps amidst 1000s of unarmed, untrained, weak devotees in 3rd battle of Panipat or the abject release of 93000 Pakistani POWs in 1971 without extracting our pound of flesh. 

 

This may be a controversial opinion on ICF but I will extend your assertion even to the sporting field, especially cricket and hockey where we have big rivalries with Pakistan. What you saw in the medieval battlefield, you can also see in our cricket/hockey matches. Pakistani players rally in the name of religion which came out in the open in Shoaib Malik's speech post 2007 WT20 final. When they were better than us in the 80s and 90s they absolutely hammered us in these 2 sports, no mercy. But when we became better post 2000s the H2H is fairly even despite the huge difference in quality between the 2 sides. Our big players either under perform or play just to their potential but their inferior players raise their game by 2 notches when it comes to India, eg Aaqib Javed, Salman Butt, Shoaib Malik, Ijaz Ahmed, Saleem Malik, Fakhar Zaman, Junaid Khan and many others. Their ordinary players play like crap whole year and when it comes to India it is like jihad on the cricket field. Imran Khan used to introduce unknown players against us in the 80s and out of nowhere those guys would obliterate our ATG players like Gavaskar, Kapil. Just seeing us on the other side makes them more organized, disciplined, super charged and the former 2 aren't characteristic traits of their  cricket team. Even look at the margins of defeats they often win big against us while we beat them narrowly even when the opportunity presents itself before us to give them a hiding. Same story repeats itself in hockey, but the rivalry is even more lopsided. At least in cricket we can bring in excuses like ball tampering, umpiring, fixing etc. In hockey even in the 60s and early 70s when we were an ATG team we would regularly lose to a far inferior Pak team all across the world. In the 80s and 90s when they were better they massacred us (1982 Delhi Asian Games final we lost 1-7 to them and PM Indira Gandhi and entire cabinet was in attendance, after the massacre our humiliated players wailed like babies on the turf and Pak players repeatedly mocked our crowds and VIP box with their gestures...one of the most painful sporting moments for India) and in the 21st century they lead the H2H in spite of having a poor quality team, poor funding/coaching, almost nil sponsorship, no league with European players, no home game etc. How shameful is that? We have lost all the test series' against them in the 2000s and I have seen their amateur rookies run circles around our superstars. Even in the recent Commonwealth Games their * team held the 2nd seed India to a 2-2 draw after struggling to a draw against the bottom seed Wales the previous day. We led 2-0 at half time and dominated the game, 2nd half they came to the turf possessed while we played like cowardly chickens confined to our own half and made zero shots on their goalpost, which is very very very rare at that level. Sadly the result wasn't the disappointment, it was how our players conducted themselves on the field. The body language of our boys was so bad in the 2nd half, that too against the 2nd worst team of the tournament, can't imagine the converse if a superior Pak leads 2-0 at half time against an inferior Indian team. 

 

I know that we can't totally equate this Indo-Pak sporting dynamic to our medieval history (no matter how much they scream, modern day Pakistanis aren't the descendants of erstwhile invaders). But there are parallels in the sense that one side plays fanatically for a cause and the other side is more chilled out. Raising the banner of jihad or fighting for Islam lifted our enemies whilst also striking a psychological blow on our side. In the lead up to the battle of Khanwa, the Mongols were scared of the Rajputs and were reluctant to fight the battle against a numerically superior, brave, united Rajput confederacy...until Babur stepped in. Babur broke all his wine cups and jars, raised the banner of jihad and suddenly his soldiers had a mental switch. Watching them in battle, esp their zeal and ruthlessness even had a psychological effect on our soldiers, Silhadi of Malwa switched over to Babur camp and by the end of the battle the shaken Rajputs including top leadership had to flee for dear life. The generals were so scarred from that battle that when the great Rana Sanga started making plans for renewing the fight with Babur, his own chiefs assassinated him because they were that scared of the Mongols. I feel for Rana Sanga here, a lone brave Hindu King who took the battle to the Mongols, betrayed and poisoned by his own men just because they were wusses. 

His Generals did what  they felt right in the end. Shock of Khanwa was too much for Sangha to digest and in the heat of moment he was considering sacrificing his entire battered army to a strengthened Mughal force.

It was a suicidal mission. It's not a cricket match that one man come and start hitting sixes to snatch the game away from the opposition. His Sardars needed time and energy to regroup and attack while he was adamant on doing that at that moment only.

Doesn't make them wusses as much we would like to think with the advantage of retrospect with us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Stradlater said:

His Generals did what  they felt right in the end. Shock of Khanwa was too much for Sangha to digest and in the heat of moment he was considering sacrificing his entire battered army to a strengthened Mughal force.

It was a suicidal mission. It's not a cricket match that one man come and start hitting sixes to snatch the game away from the opposition. His Sardars needed time and energy to regroup and attack while he was adamant on doing that at that moment only.

Doesn't make them wusses as much we would like to think with the advantage of retrospect with us.

May be you are right. I got carried away, sad at Rana Sanga's fate. But killing him was not the right thing to do, may be should have convinced him to regroup 1st. But with passing time even Mughals were getting tougher, initially Babur didn't want to stay in India as his heart was still beating for Fergana and Samarkand. He primarily came to India because Kabul wasn't fetching him enough revenue, he wanted to plunder India of her riches and head back home. Staying in India was an afterthought. He hated India, her climate, food, wildlife everything. He was fascinated by our country but never wanted to settle down here, besides his common grouse was there was no ice cream in India, he longed for ice cream of his native place :p:. May be if we could have pushed him out there would have been no Mughal empire, instead Rajputs and Bihari Afghans would have contested the Delhi/Agra crown for the next century. I see that as an opportunity missed, always nip a problem in the bud and don't wait for it to grow into a 10 headed hydra. In hindsight saying these things are easy no doubt, but we can always ponder as to what might have been. Sanga's son Udai Singh and grandson Maharana Pratap were bravehearts but by this time Mughals had consolidated their power and tougher to dislodge. Also I agree with @rahulrulezz about the kind of attention Maharana Pratap gets, over rated IMO and I mean no disrespect. Rana Sanga is mentioned fleetingly in our history books while his grandson gets a full chapter, that is somewhat unfair. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What annoys me most is Rajputs fighting among themselves all the while, right from pre Delhi Sultanate period with the real enemy waiting and watching gleefully a perceptible threat implode from within. How thick can you be to not notice that the foreign barbaric Muslim invaders are the real threat and not another Rajput clan that shares your religion/caste/region? Rajputs were brave no doubt but they lacked intelligence, long term planning...hence they could never be empire builders. You lose a battle against invaders, get half your troops massacred, lose significant territories  and wealth, yet plot further coups/usurpations and assassinations of kith and kin rather than figuring out how to tackle the real menace.......story of medieval Rajputs. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Gollum said:

May be you are right. I got carried away, sad at Rana Sanga's fate. But killing him was not the right thing to do, may be should have convinced him to regroup 1st. But with passing time even Mughals were getting tougher, initially Babur didn't want to stay in India as his heart was still beating for Fergana and Samarkand. He primarily came to India because Kabul wasn't fetching him enough revenue, he wanted to plunder India of her riches and head back home. Staying in India was an afterthought. He hated India, her climate, food, wildlife everything. He was fascinated by our country but never wanted to settle down here, besides his common grouse was there was no ice cream in India, he longed for ice cream of his native place :p:. May be if we could have pushed him out there would have been no Mughal empire, instead Rajputs and Bihari Afghans would have contested the Delhi/Agra crown for the next century. I see that as an opportunity missed, always nip a problem in the bud and don't wait for it to grow into a 10 headed hydra. In hindsight saying these things are easy no doubt, but we can always ponder as to what might have been. Sanga's son Udai Singh and grandson Maharana Pratap were bravehearts but by this time Mughals had consolidated their power and tougher to dislodge. Also I agree with @rahulrulezz about the kind of attention Maharana Pratap gets, over rated IMO and I mean no disrespect. Rana Sanga is mentioned fleetingly in our history books while his grandson gets a full chapter, that is somewhat unfair. 

Agreed with your post except on the part about Maharana Pratap .

The sole reason why Maharana gets so much respect enjoyed by no other Monarch in India is because of his relentless and continuous struggle against an enemy which was much much powerful and resourceful than him. Even despite all these odds, he never caved in to Akbar's entices and refused to bow to him. Heck Akbar was even agreed to give him full autonomy, all he had to do was go to Agra and prostrate at the Mughal Shanshah's feet which he refused as his zameer didn't allow him to do it.

This was unprecedented in the history of India and later on even a great king like Shivaji(who Interestingly was his descendent) found it unavoidable and had to personally go to Mughal darbar to pay his respects to Aurangzeb.

This is precisely the reason why the Maharana holds a special position of eminence in Medieval Indian history. He stayed true to his principles and his matrubhumi. Call him overrated but the man was a true descendent of the royal House of Mewar which produced legends such as Bappa Rawal, Ratan Singh, Hammir, Kumbha and Sangha.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Gollum said:

What annoys me most is Rajputs fighting among themselves all the while, right from pre Delhi Sultanate period with the real enemy waiting and watching gleefully a perceptible threat implode from within. How thick can you be to not notice that the foreign barbaric Muslim invaders are the real threat and not another Rajput clan that shares your religion/caste/region? Rajputs were brave no doubt but they lacked intelligence, long term planning...hence they could never be empire builders. You lose a battle against invaders, get half your troops massacred, lose significant territories  and wealth, yet plot further coups/usurpations and assassinations of kith and kin rather than figuring out how to tackle the real menace.......story of medieval Rajputs. 

Rajputs were idiots. The tribal clannish mentality was so strong in the blood of even a common lowly Rajput soldier that uniting them was quite a task in itself.

 

IMO their bravery on the field could never be matched by any other group in the history but if we gloss over that, they were nothing but brainless ninjas who treated war as sport and thus lost.

 

It's funny that you mention it but yesterday only I was reading the military history of India by Jadunath Sarkar(My favorite Indian historian) which had a chapter solely dedicated to Haldighati .

 

Jadunath has described the events of the battle quite beautifully and you almost feel as if you are standing in the battlefield itself. In there he mentioned something which I found really amusing. Basically the Mughal Harwal was led by Kachhwaha Rajputs under Man Singh who were pitted against their Sisodia brethren.

The Mughals deliberately employed Kachhwahas at the vanguard so that even if their side suffered losses, it was the Hindu kufr blood that was lost. Such was the mentality of those barbarians. If only those morons fighting against each other could comprehend that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Fighting for money, is often a far better motivator than fighting for 'cause'. because money is real but cause can change on a dime.

The problem is, WHAT was the method of payment. 

This is where, Rome, uniquely, created the first truly professional army that was the best of its era : they didnt pay you much in terms of gold (yes, it was a job, you got paid and your family were lower-middle class unless you were officers) but their real hook was this - serve for 15 years and you will retire with a big bag of gold AND 4 acres of land. 

As Rome shows, professional armies, led by professional, methodic commanders, can overcome any amount of adversity. 
Heck, as rome demonstrates, you dont need to be a great fighter, to be a great soldier. 
The Roman-Germanic/Gallic wars follow a consistent pattern: Rome crushes everyone. But inside that pattern is another pattern: Romans are inferior warriors, who only pretty much know how to hide behind their shields, stab with their short sword and stay in formation. Every single time their formation gets destroyed, they are utterly annihilated in single combat with far better warriors of the Gauls/Germans. But every single time their formation remains intact, the Romans achieve crushing victory. 

Being sedentary is no excuse- lacking a military system is the big problem. 


India desperately needed a professional army, which could've been provided from the south. but it never came, except for brief period of Rashtrakuta rule. 

No way I am killing myself for some money. Never EVER!

 

Mulo I completely disagree with you on this. COMPLETELY!!

 Religion was the most important factor. Sadly our Cbse/NCERT books will never say this openely!!!!

 

Look at all the sucide bombers, terrorists, how are they motivated to kill themselves. Purely cuz of the holy book. Hindus in general believe that human life the most important cycle and they would not easily kill someone or themselves for some king. 

 

Rajput or Hindu soldiers or even the praja (ordinary citizens) were never committed unlike Muslim citizens and soldiers. Hindu soldiers or citizens knew they could live their life under a new Muslim king but Muslims soldiers or citizens would never live under a Hindu Raja. (Reminds you of Kashmir, Palestine, Chechanya no?)

 

regardless, I am not going to argue over this. I am very very strongview on this point. 

Edited by rahulrulezz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Gollum said:

I agree with you 100% that religion made a huge impact in the various tussles we had with them. Even before Battle of Khanwa to raise the morale of his troops Babur rallied them in the name of Islam and declared jihad on the infidel Rajputs. Fighting for a greater cause always magnifies one's strength and it was no different in medieval India. I have to side with you and not mulo on this one, IMO cause was a greater motivation than money. This helped the Muslims win unwinnable wars and have that ruthless killer instinct that we Hindus lacked. Ofc it was just one of many reasons they whacked us repeatedly but still a perfectly valid one. Outdated military system, poor tactics/strategy, inferior weapons technology, decadent civilization, disunity, poor quality of political leadership, no greater cause.....all contributed to our defeat. You are spot on about the 84 crore life cycles part :phehe:, I think dharmic concepts like karma, niyati, vasudeva kutumbakam, tolerance etc royally screwed with our heads especially on the fields of battles against super motivated bloodthirsty adversaries. Our lack of killer instinct has been a recurring feature for centuries now, be it sheltering Afghan POWs in Maratha camps amidst 1000s of unarmed, untrained, weak devotees in 3rd battle of Panipat or the abject release of 93000 Pakistani POWs in 1971 without extracting our pound of flesh. 

 

This may be a controversial opinion on ICF but I will extend your assertion even to the sporting field, especially cricket and hockey where we have big rivalries with Pakistan. What you saw in the medieval battlefield, you can also see in our cricket/hockey matches. Pakistani players rally in the name of religion which came out in the open in Shoaib Malik's speech post 2007 WT20 final. When they were better than us in the 80s and 90s they absolutely hammered us in these 2 sports, no mercy. But when we became better post 2000s the H2H is fairly even despite the huge difference in quality between the 2 sides. Our big players either under perform or play just to their potential but their inferior players raise their game by 2 notches when it comes to India, eg Aaqib Javed, Salman Butt, Shoaib Malik, Ijaz Ahmed, Saleem Malik, Fakhar Zaman, Junaid Khan and many others. Their ordinary players play like crap whole year and when it comes to India it is like jihad on the cricket field. Imran Khan used to introduce unknown players against us in the 80s and out of nowhere those guys would obliterate our ATG players like Gavaskar, Kapil. Just seeing us on the other side makes them more organized, disciplined, super charged and the former 2 aren't characteristic traits of their  cricket team. Even look at the margins of defeats they often win big against us while we beat them narrowly even when the opportunity presents itself before us to give them a hiding. Same story repeats itself in hockey, but the rivalry is even more lopsided. At least in cricket we can bring in excuses like ball tampering, umpiring, fixing etc. In hockey even in the 60s and early 70s when we were an ATG team we would regularly lose to a far inferior Pak team all across the world. In the 80s and 90s when they were better they massacred us (1982 Delhi Asian Games final we lost 1-7 to them and PM Indira Gandhi and entire cabinet was in attendance, after the massacre our humiliated players wailed like babies on the turf and Pak players repeatedly mocked our crowds and VIP box with their gestures...one of the most painful sporting moments for India) and in the 21st century they lead the H2H in spite of having a poor quality team, poor funding/coaching, almost nil sponsorship, no league with European players, no home game etc. How shameful is that? We have lost all the test series' against them in the 2000s and I have seen their amateur rookies run circles around our superstars. Even in the recent Commonwealth Games their * team held the 2nd seed India to a 2-2 draw after struggling to a draw against the bottom seed Wales the previous day. We led 2-0 at half time and dominated the game, 2nd half they came to the turf possessed while we played like cowardly chickens confined to our own half and made zero shots on their goalpost, which is very very very rare at that level. Sadly the result wasn't the disappointment, it was how our players conducted themselves on the field. The body language of our boys was so bad in the 2nd half, that too against the 2nd worst team of the tournament, can't imagine the converse if a superior Pak leads 2-0 at half time against an inferior Indian team. 

 

I know that we can't totally equate this Indo-Pak sporting dynamic to our medieval history (no matter how much they scream, modern day Pakistanis aren't the descendants of erstwhile invaders). But there are parallels in the sense that one side plays fanatically for a cause and the other side is more chilled out. Raising the banner of jihad or fighting for Islam lifted our enemies whilst also striking a psychological blow on our side. In the lead up to the battle of Khanwa, the Mongols were scared of the Rajputs and were reluctant to fight the battle against a numerically superior, brave, united Rajput confederacy...until Babur stepped in. Babur broke all his wine cups and jars, raised the banner of jihad and suddenly his soldiers had a mental switch. Watching them in battle, esp their zeal and ruthlessness even had a psychological effect on our soldiers, Silhadi of Malwa switched over to Babur camp and by the end of the battle the shaken Rajputs including top leadership had to flee for dear life. The generals were so scarred from that battle that when the great Rana Sanga started making plans for renewing the fight with Babur, his own chiefs assassinated him because they were that scared of the Mongols. I feel for Rana Sanga here, a lone brave Hindu King who took the battle to the Mongols, betrayed and poisoned by his own men just because they were wusses. 

This post needs to be read 100 times if someone wants answer on why Islamic rulers were able to rule India for long (mind you Islam is a very young religion)

 

 

Your examples on how their behaviour has extended to even sports and armies against us is totally correct.  I totally agree with your examples and view points!! 

 

Great post @Gollum

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Green Monster said:

sure man, I won't use any words like bhagoda in this thread, but what is wrong in asking this other poster to backup what he says???

 

i am not so in awe of his nonsense that i accept everything he says without being critical/asking for backup his statements, no???

There is nothing wrong in asking for back up and you don’t need to be in awe of him. But no need to make personal remarks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...