Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
vayuu1

Prithvi Raj featuring akshay Kumar in title role

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Texy said:

I know nothing of this ...so was he or was not brave & valiant....I guess we have contradicting sources....some say he was inept, some say he was legendary..

He was brave and stupid. This is because the summer before first battle of Tarain, Ghori captured Bhatinda from the Chauhans. He then proceeded to lose the first battle and retreated to Bhatinda, where he stayed for a year before launching his crushing victory at the second battle of Tarain. What do you call a king , who lets his defeated enemy continue occupying a strategic fort of his, which the enemy had conquered before, giving him a decisive information advantage ?? A dumba$$. Prhtiviraj was a brave idiot. 

Edited by Muloghonto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going off on a slight tangent here.  

 

It is interesting, even amusing, to observe how we perceive royalty.  Growing up in a Tamizh family, I took pride in Raja Raja Chozhan's military conquests.  He ruled S. India, parts of N. India, Sri Lanka and extended his kingdom into parts of SE Asia with his incredible military conquests!  Awesome!  Glorious king, he spoke the same language as me, so glory be to him.  But the Muhammads and other Islamic royals who did pretty much the same thing were complete villains in my mind - they looked nothing like me, spoke a foreign language, prayed to a different deity and defeated "my" noble kings by deceit and cruel conquest - woe be upon them!

 

Today, I realize that - for the most part - these "rulers" were Class I a-holes regardless of where they were born.  They were of course intelligent, shrewd,, confident and brave, but also vain, narcissistic and callous enough to put the lives of 10s of 1000s of men in jeopardy so they could wallow in glory.  I have complete disdain for all royalty - past and present.  They were and are just exploiters.  I'd rather glorify scientists, engineers, farmers and architects who actually did something for the welfare of themselves *and* others.  

 

Fire away.

Edited by ExtremeBrainfade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another trashy Masala coming up with ridiculous song/dances depicting a historical figure! :facepalm:

 

Seriously, I would watch up to a 3 hr long Mahabharata motion picture if it was done in a tasteful way minus meaningless song/dances and melodramatic overacting directed in the mold of a serious art film as I feel Mahabharata is the best epic to portray society in pre-Islamic Vedic period in ancient India. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WC2011INDIA said:

52 year old playing 26 year old...de-aging vfx to the rescue? Atleast I hope so...

That sounds about right, after all Aamir Khan was 44 years old playing an 18 year old university student in 3 Idiots.

 

44 - 18 = 26

 

52 - 26 = 26

 

It just shows that Bollywood has had no superstars in the last 15 years to overtake or join the 90s ones in terms of fame. Apart from maybe Hrithik Roshan. Hollywood isn't much better in this regard either.

Edited by Ranvir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ranvir said:

That sounds about right, after all Aamir Khan was 44 years old playing an 18 year old university student in 3 Idiots.

 

44 - 18 = 26

 

52 - 26 = 26

 

It just shows that Bollywood has had no superstars in the last 15 years to overtake or join the 90s ones in terms of fame. Apart from maybe Hrithik Roshan. Hollywood isn't much better in this regard either.

But hollywood is using De-aging technology to portray younger self of actors.

Will bollywood do it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Dude he was an idiot for not following up on first battle of Tarain. That fact is inescapable. Kin worship won’t change the hard truth.

In a way you are right yes but I would rather you use a different word. 

Anyway yes Prithviraj had many flaws. He should have crushed Shahabuddin Ghori in the first battle itself rather he dithered which cost an invaluable amount of time which allowed Ghori to escape with his retinue even though he was grievously injured by a spear thrown by Govind Rai Chauhan(or that's what Minhaj Siraj says). 

 

The siege was extremely embarrassing yeah. Turks despite being numerically smaller managed to hold on to the fort for 13 fookin months! 

It's a sad commentary on the poor military organization and the defective war strategy of the Rajputs that they took so long to get back their own fort from the hands of the Turks who had conquered it from the former in a single sweep a short while ago. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/9/2019 at 11:03 PM, Texy said:

I know nothing of this ...so was he or was not brave & valiant....I guess we have contradicting sources....some say he was inept, some say he was legendary..

He was a valiant general without a doubt as most Rajputs have been. 

But completely clueless when it came to adapting newer war strategies and reorganizing his military tactics to tackle an enemy that fought with completely different styles than those that were vogue in the subcontinent at that time . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rajputs those days displayed amazing feats of bravery and sacrifice, but their war tactics and strategy were appalling to say the least. Kept repeating mistakes again and again, of course no fukc up remotely near the scale of Panipat 1761 but cumulative blunders meant they could never justify their courage and numerical superiority on the results column. 

Edited by Gollum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2019 at 6:20 PM, ExtremeBrainfade said:

It is interesting, even amusing, to observe how we perceive royalty.  Growing up in a Tamizh family, I took pride in Raja Raja Chozhan's military conquests.  He ruled S. India, parts of N. India, Sri Lanka and extended his kingdom into parts of SE Asia with his incredible military conquests!  Awesome!  Glorious king, he spoke the same language as me, so glory be to him.  But the Muhammads and other Islamic royals who did pretty much the same thing were complete villains in my mind - they looked nothing like me, spoke a foreign language, prayed to a different deity and defeated "my" noble kings by deceit and cruel conquest - woe be upon them!

Cholan military conquests in SE Asia are overstated, they had more of an economic and cultural influence on that region.

Don't think they committed genocide in those lands, they didn't make attempts to decimate local culture there. Islamic invaders took persecution and cruelty to a whole new level. And they destroyed our centres of learning, any equivalent by Cholans to what Islamists did in Nalanda, Vikramshila etc. I believe SE Asians never faced the brunt of invaders (except maybe European colonial powers?), even the Muslim ones. They used to assimilate, absorb outside influence like water on sponge. Even today they haven't completely let go off their dharmic past.   

On 9/10/2019 at 6:20 PM, ExtremeBrainfade said:

Today, I realize that - for the most part - these "rulers" were Class I a-holes regardless of where they were born.  They were of course intelligent, shrewd,, confident and brave, but also vain, narcissistic and callous enough to put the lives of 10s of 1000s of men in jeopardy so they could wallow in glory.  I have complete disdain for all royalty - past and present.  They were and are just exploiters.  I'd rather glorify scientists, engineers, farmers and architects who actually did something for the welfare of themselves *and* others.  

Narcissists, selfish, greedy, vain...throw in 100 other expletives and you won't be far off the mark. But some had positive influence on their territories, who patronized culture, architecture and sciences? Who gave some semblance of justice even if flawed? Who ensured food supply for the masses? Who organized defence from outside threats? How else could trade be regulated if not for a supreme overlord? Always need a strong central authority, benefits outweigh the negatives. Even someone as cruel as Aurangzeb, when the central authority withers away the ensuing chaos can put even more lives and livelihoods in danger. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Stradlater said:

OT: Looks like another trash from crapwood. 

 

@Muloghonto I'm gonna throw up if they decide to include that fictional and overused Sanyogita arc in the film for the entertainment of their target audiences. 

 

Is it fictional completely though ? It’s part of Prithviraj Raso, which is one of the primary source material on him. And prima Facie it explains why the Chahamanas didn’t get any support from the Gahadvalas in their war with Ghauri 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Gollum said:

Rajputs those days displayed amazing feats of bravery and sacrifice, but their war tactics and strategy were appalling to say the least. Kept repeating mistakes again and again, of course no fukc up remotely near the scale of Panipat 1761 but cumulative blunders meant they could never justify their courage and numerical superiority on the results column. 

Oh Rajputs did fcuk up on the scale of Panipat 3.

Remember Khanwa 1527? Babar had already comprehensively beaten Afghans by then and even though he had become the master of NW India including Delhi, he could by no means be called the emperor of India. 

 

The biggest threat was posed by the Rajputs under Maharana Sangram Singh of Mewar. The Rana was by far the most powerful ruler of Northern India in those days. He had once vanquished the imperial forces of Ibrahim Lodhi and was desirous of establishing Hindu rule in the country. As luck would have it, he even managed to form a Confederacy of Rajputs under his command. It was probably the first and only time in the Indian history that almost all prominent Rajputs came under a single umbrella to pose a unified challenge to the enemy. 

 

Lane Poole who translated Babarnama says: " In spite of Babar's win at Panipat , there was a panic among his men who had heard many stories of Rajput chivalry and courage. Babar was now called upon to meet warriors of a higher type than he had encountered. The Rajputs, energetic, chivalrous, fond of battle and animated by a strong national spirit were ready to meet face to face boldest veterans of Babar's camp and were at all times prepared to lay down their lives for their honour. 

 

The mood in his camp was so ominous that he declared Jehad against the Kafirs and in a dramatic performance, renounced wine for life, broke all wine pots and declared abolition of stamp duty on all the Muslim subjects of his dominion. 

 

Such was the fear of Hindus in the mind of Babar and his forces. But Rajputs as expected screwed up and India's history changed for ever. 

Edited by Stradlater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Stradlater said:

He was a valiant general without a doubt as most Rajputs have been. 

But completely clueless when it came to adapting newer war strategies and reorganizing his military tactics to tackle an enemy that fought with completely different styles than those that were vogue in the subcontinent at that time . 

This, 10000%.

 

you see the critical fail of the Rajputs, Shahis and several others was that their armies were much slower than the opposition Turks who were mostly fast moving cavalry. Yet the Romans show us what to do if you got a strong but slow military: you pick your spot and wait for the fight and don’t get distracted by sense of honour or protection of people. And that’s where the Indian failure is. They were too proud to consider staying put as a valid strategy instead of cowardice, especially when native villages and cities were getting plundered. So they chased around the enemy. Till the enemy chose their spot and fought a bedraggled and tired adversary and won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Khanwa was an instance where Rajputs couldn't counter Mongolian military tactics. That was sadly the norm those days, we were often tactically busted by the invaders. Panipat-III was more than just a military fukc up, it was an insult to human intelligence. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Is it fictional completely though ? It’s part of Prithviraj Raso, which is one of the primary source material on him. And prima Facie it explains why the Chahamanas didn’t get any support from the Gahadvalas in their war with Ghauri 

Most historians these days consider it as a work of fiction. The reason Purvanchali Rajputs were at odds with him because of the imperial designs of Prithviraj which had alienated a lot of ruling houses from him. 

 

Remember his unprovoked aggression towards Chandels of Mahoba and how he waged a war against Solankis of Gujarat. 

 

Thus unlike Jaypala of HinduShahi dynasty who had received contingents of soldiers from Ajmer, Gwalior and Kalinjar for his protracted struggle against Mahmood of Ghazni, Prithviraj was left alone to defend his frontiers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gollum said:

Khanwa was an instance where Rajputs couldn't counter Mongolian military tactics. That was sadly the norm those days, we were often tactically busted by the invaders. Panipat-III was more than just a military fukc up, it was an insult to human intelligence. 

Bringing your families, servants and others along side to fight a pitched battle in the plains of South Punjab which was a relatively unknown battlefield for Marathas. 

 

Mashallah Indians have always been chewts. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

This, 10000%.

 

you see the critical fail of the Rajputs, Shahis and several others was that their armies were much slower than the opposition Turks who were mostly fast moving cavalry. Yet the Romans show us what to do if you got a strong but slow military: you pick your spot and wait for the fight and don’t get distracted by sense of honour or protection of people. And that’s where the Indian failure is. They were too proud to consider staying put as a valid strategy instead of cowardice, especially when native villages and cities were getting plundered. So they chased around the enemy. Till the enemy chose their spot and fought a bedraggled and tired adversary and won.

Also don't forget the effective use of the flanking manoeuvres of Tulghuma parties which attacked at the undefended rear end. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Gollum said:

Khanwa was an instance where Rajputs couldn't counter Mongolian military tactics. That was sadly the norm those days, we were often tactically busted by the invaders. Panipat-III was more than just a military fukc up, it was an insult to human intelligence. 

Khanwa was ultra stupid. Babur made a wagon fort in the middle and stuck his musketeers behind it while strengthening his flanks and the rajputs charged blindly into it. To compound the problems , Babur had dug a trench to protect his left flank. Ie, Rajputs committed the cardinal sin of tactics: fighting a war, on home territory, while letting the enemy choose the site of battle and entrench themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Muloghonto said:

Khanwa was ultra stupid. Babur made a wagon fort in the middle and stuck his musketeers behind it while strengthening his flanks and the rajputs charged blindly into it. To compound the problems , Babur had dug a trench to protect his left flank. Ie, Rajputs committed the cardinal sin of tactics: fighting a war, on home territory, while letting the enemy choose the site of battle and entrench themselves.

Also Babar had already used similar tactics against Ibrahim Lodhi a year before so it wasn't like they were completely new to the Rajputs. 

But who cares, scew military intelligence and just charge your enemy on horses with a sword in hand baki bad me dekha jayega. 

 

Fookin morons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Stradlater said:

Also Babar had already used similar tactics against Ibrahim Lodhi a year before so it wasn't like they were completely new to the Rajputs. 

But who cares, scew military intelligence and just charge your enemy on horses with a sword in hand baki bad me dekha jayega. 

 

Fookin morons

You’ve come a long way bud. I am glad. You used to hate on me for saying precisely the same thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Gollum said:

Cholan military conquests in SE Asia are overstated, they had more of an economic and cultural influence on that region.

Don't think they committed genocide in those lands, they didn't make attempts to decimate local culture there. Islamic invaders took persecution and cruelty to a whole new level. And they destroyed our centres of learning, any equivalent by Cholans to what Islamists did in Nalanda, Vikramshila etc. I believe SE Asians never faced the brunt of invaders (except maybe European colonial powers?), even the Muslim ones. They used to assimilate, absorb outside influence like water on sponge. Even today they haven't completely let go off their dharmic past.   

Narcissists, selfish, greedy, vain...throw in 100 other expletives and you won't be far off the mark. But some had positive influence on their territories, who patronized culture, architecture and sciences? Who gave some semblance of justice even if flawed? Who ensured food supply for the masses? Who organized defence from outside threats? How else could trade be regulated if not for a supreme overlord? Always need a strong central authority, benefits outweigh the negatives. Even someone as cruel as Aurangzeb, when the central authority withers away the ensuing chaos can put even more lives and livelihoods in danger. 

Great points.  While I am not sure the positives outweighed the negatives, there were some positives.  I think my major beef is against invaders - those who will do anything to expand their influence and wealth, and not just maintain armies to defend their own people.  Secondly, while organization and authority are necessary, it was common for royal dynasties to amass wealth at the expense of their own subjects and going to extremes to enforce collections.  

 

As far as Cholan conquests, even if one takes away the SE Asia "conquests," it is clear that RRC was an invader.  He plundered and pillaged his way to a huge kingdom.  But, the way it was taught, it was all glorious victories.  Why?  Because "my people" were not the victims in those situations.  But, when "my people" became the victims, the invaders were described as despots and tyrants.  I guess we could dismiss these feelings as "human nature."  My question is - can we change human nature to move away from these tribal proclivities?  

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...