Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh

[KeyboardWarrior]

1 minute ago, maniac said:

I have no idea about her...pretty insignificant...Probably a footnote somewhere in history class that I have no clue about because the focus like every Indian kid was on Math and Science.Is she a big deal in Pak?

 

nope. 

but looks like shes the big deal in india. 

shes got two movies on her name and one big tv series. 

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0152148/

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381528/

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razia_Sultan_(TV_series)

 

[maniac]

3 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

LOL. ask baba ji Molughunto, somehow everyone's ancestors gt raped at some point. he knows more thn you. 

i was loling on your abusing. 

Well Muslim invaders rape and pillage is pretty well documented...now not every Muslim

person in subcontinent can claim to be a descendant can they?

 

I don't think I have heard stories of Buddhists,Sikhs and Hindus raping and converting by sword..if there is a chapter in Pak textbooks really curious can you post an excerpt...would be really amusing.

[rahulrulezz]

5 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

LOL. ask baba ji Molughunto, somehow everyone's ancestors gt raped at some point. he knows more thn you. 

i was loling on your abusing. 

My apologies for the abusive words! Sorry bud

[maniac]

Just now, KeyboardWarrior said:

nope. 

but looks like shes the big deal in india. 

shes got two movies on her name and one big tv series. 

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0152148/

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381528/

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razia_Sultan_(TV_series)

 

Exactly..I had no idea about it.you lot are the target audience for crap like that and that's what most of my posts are alluding to

 

Congratulations and Thanks for proving my point

 

[rahulrulezz]

6 minutes ago, maniac said:

Well Muslim invaders rape and pillage is pretty well documented...now not every Muslim

person in subcontinent can claim to be a descendant can they?

 

I don't think I have heard stories of Buddhists,Sikhs and Hindus raping and converting by sword..if there is a chapter in Pak textbooks really curious can you post an excerpt...would be really amusing.

Wasim Raza, Waqar Younis, Saqlain Muushtaq, Wahab Riaz countless Pakistani cricketers are documented Rajputs . 

 

Guys like Imad Wasim, Shoaib Malik are your typical Rajput faces you see at the india side of border.  

Edited October 10, 2017 by rahulrulezz

[KeyboardWarrior]

2 minutes ago, maniac said:

Well Muslim invaders rape and pillage is pretty well documented...now not every Muslim

person in subcontinent can claim to be a descendant can they?

 

I don't think I have heard stories of Buddhists,Sikhs and Hindus raping and converting by sword..if there is a chapter in Pak textbooks really curious can you post an excerpt...would be really amusing.

in text book of social studies/urdu/sindhi , nothing about buddhists, sikhs, or hindus. mostly chapter on independence and migration part. some of political figures, sir sayyed ahmed khan, maulana mohammad ali jauhar , rana liaquat ali khan, fatima jinnah etc 

and mostly chapter on saints like baba bulleh shah, abdul latif bhittai , sachal sarmast etc. 

even romantic stories of umar marvi, noori jam tamachi etc 

[KeyboardWarrior]

14 minutes ago, rahulrulezz said:

My apologies for the abusive words! Sorry bud

well, its fine. 

[Muloghonto]

23 minutes ago, rahulrulezz said:

Firstly, a good post and valid points. 

 

However I want to elaborate a bit more and might want to correct the context

 

1) you just put 1450 to 1850 in your first bullet point. The reason they split into Scidias, Bhonsles later in 1700s was because they were all family members and they wanted to share power with everyone. There was no concept of killing your cousins (forget about killing blood brothers) for power. Your point about selling to Bite was way after in early1800s when concept of Monarchy system was too late against advanced Brits

Its ok to not have concept of not killing your kin. You think every Chinese emperor in the last 1000 years killed his own kin ? ( I don't mean the Mongol or Manchu overlords, i mean their natives). Nope. It was a dead-set system they came up with, where succession followed certain laws, no if and or but. If you fight,its you vs the entire empire and good luck, except in few 'ripe' situations. 

Much better,overall system, if you ask me. That is where the Maratha leadership failed. Mughals let go Shahu and everything fell apart for their leadership from then on. 
Very poor and i must point out, its not a flaw that the likes of Vijayanagar had (perpetual succession crisis), in the same catastrophic sense the Marathas did. 

23 minutes ago, rahulrulezz said:

2) they tried but Mughals never let them. Gurella warfsre is the first step to create a imperial state. But Akbar to Aurengzeb were severely brutal against Marathas and never let them have a sniff. Eventually they did set up state in middle of 1700. Problem was, it was too early in the game fir them to fight against Abdali as they didn't know the art of creating alliances. Plus on top and most importantly , they were Hindus and were not brutal.

Also, Hindus don't have the concept of brotherhood which IMO was the biggest reason why noone helped each other. 

Yes, but Marathas had no business not adapting AFTER Panipat. Sure, their leadership was fractured and thats what was the ultimate problem, but after getting crushed in Panipat, they had no business just doing 'more of the same'. Especially when they had knowledge what company troops can/cannot do, because they were around when Portugal tried to mess around with the Mughals and saw the power of the Euros 50 years ago. Their military system, right from the get-go, fails to adapt from an offensive, conqusitional force to a force that can fight pitched battles and win versus most opposition.  

these two things - failure to provide successful centralized admin and reform the military from a semi-guerrilla force of large numbers of light cavalry & infantry backed up by excellent cannonry- will go down as the prime failure of the Marathas in my books. 

 

23 minutes ago, rahulrulezz said:

On your last point, Bollywood is based in Mumbai so it's normal to see the portyals of Marathas. 

 

 

What I am disappointed in are the Rajputs. If they together and educated about war planing and long term vision from 1350s to 1700, Mughlon main itni takkat nahi thi ki woh Rajputton se jeeten

 

PS I am aware that Marathas are eventually also Rajputs. 

Rajputs dropped the ball, but the ball was dropped a long time before the Rajputs came around. I just see Rajputs as the 'orcs' of India. You are morons to fight them, because they are the honey-badger who will always do more damage than it should, resist than it should. But beyond that, they never did much of any note. Even before the Rajputs were Rajputs, their Pratihara ancestors suffered from the same problem of 'perpetual division of feudal fiefs between clans and semi-independence when a weak ruler shows up'.

This has been a fatal flaw of feudal architecture of western & Central India since the last 1500 years.

[KeyboardWarrior]

14 minutes ago, maniac said:

Exactly..I had no idea about it.you lot are the target audience for crap like that and that's what most of my posts are alluding to

 

Congratulations and Thanks for proving my point

 

well, you have audience of one billion people and we are the target audience ? that doesnt make any sense. 

well, i have never heard about her till i saw the trailer on Youtube of Tv series of Razia sultan. thn i googled her, thn i know lit bit about her. thats all.

 

[Muloghonto]

24 minutes ago, maniac said:

I have no idea about her...pretty insignificant...Probably a footnote somewhere in history class that I have no clue about because the focus like every Indian kid was on Math and Science.Is she a big deal in Pak?

 

She was as successful as the next military President of Pakistan would be, if he came out as gay. Thats the long and short (and its really short) of it, for dear little Razia. 

[Muloghonto]

44 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

Maan, you are twisting your words according to the situation, changing goal posts here and there, i am not intrested to play with you .... i told you two name already ....

How am i twisting words, when you said 'name one', (i named more than one) and then also told you 'why its always the muslims'. Whats being twisted ?!

[maniac]

2 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

well, you have audience of one billion people and we are the target audience ? that doesnt make any sense. 

well, i have never heard about her till i saw the trailer on Youtube of Tv series of Razia sultan. thn i googled her, thn i know lit bit about her. thats all.

 

Pakistani,Arabs are a pretty big market  hence the pandering.

 

Even a flop Bollywood movie will be seen in Pak

[rahulrulezz]

3 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

nope. 

but looks like shes the big deal in india. 

shes got two movies on her name and one big tv series. 

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0152148/

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381528/

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razia_Sultan_(TV_series)

 

India can't ignore its history and unlike Pakistan, India doesn't shy away from the fact that India was ruled by Mughals

 

But you can't make villains out of all invaders (as we have 15% Muslim population), we had to choose some heros and, in Razia sultan case, heroins. 

 

Razia Sultan was the only major female emperor in Hindi belt which is why India is proud of her and shows her as a heroin. 

 

Ps I have seen her tomb in Kaithal(there are supposed to conflict on her tomb, 3 tombs)

Edited October 11, 2017 by rahulrulezz

[maniac]

Anyway @KeyboardWarrior My original

question was why do you guys revere people who were known to be blood thirsty people who infact by all accounts left a bloody trail especially in what is 100% modern day Pakistan and maybe 40% of modern day India max..and you started about Akbar and Razia Begum

etc.

 

 

Edited October 10, 2017 by maniac

[rahulrulezz]

10 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Its ok to not have concept of not killing your kin. You think every Chinese emperor in the last 1000 years killed his own kin ? ( I don't mean the Mongol or Manchu overlords, i mean their natives). Nope. It was a dead-set system they came up with, where succession followed certain laws, no if and or but. If you fight,its you vs the entire empire and good luck, except in few 'ripe' situations. 

Much better,overall system, if you ask me. That is where the Maratha leadership failed. Mughals let go Shahu and everything fell apart for their leadership from then on. 
Very poor and i must point out, its not a flaw that the likes of Vijayanagar had (perpetual succession crisis), in the same catastrophic sense the Marathas did. 

Yes, but Marathas had no business not adapting AFTER Panipat. Sure, their leadership was fractured and thats what was the ultimate problem, but after getting crushed in Panipat, they had no business just doing 'more of the same'. Especially when they had knowledge what company troops can/cannot do, because they were around when Portugal tried to mess around with the Mughals and saw the power of the Euros 50 years ago. Their military system, right from the get-go, fails to adapt from an offensive, conqusitional force to a force that can fight pitched battles and win versus most opposition.  

these two things - failure to provide successful centralized admin and reform the military from a semi-guerrilla force of large numbers of light cavalry & infantry backed up by excellent cannonry- will go down as the prime failure of the Marathas in my books. 

 

Rajputs dropped the ball, but the ball was dropped a long time before the Rajputs came around. I just see Rajputs as the 'orcs' of India. You are morons to fight them, because they are the honey-badger who will always do more damage than it should, resist than it should. But beyond that, they never did much of any note. Even before the Rajputs were Rajputs, their Pratihara ancestors suffered from the same problem of 'perpetual division of feudal fiefs between clans and semi-independence when a weak ruler shows up'.

This has been a fatal flaw of feudal architecture of western & Central India since the last 1500 years.

1) you are right, they could have done a better centralized system. And TBH they did have a decent centralized system before third battle of Panipat as they all reported to Nana saheb in pune

But you are ignoring the fact that Marathas were no longer the same after Panipat

 

they lost their elite force in Panipat and almost lost half of thier military and almost quarter of Maratha male youth. That's a big setback and no wonder they never made it

 

2) agreed. I wish they had vision and edcuation. Also, even a leader to unite them. Also, you can't win a battle with elephants,Swords, Arrows and bows. They implemented old school warfare initially against Babur, and once Babur defeated them at Khanwa, Rajputs were never the same. 

I always believed that Battle of Khanwa was on the most important battle in Indian history. Offcourse 2nd battle of Panipat was important too. By third battle of Panipat, it was too late. 

[KeyboardWarrior]

2 minutes ago, maniac said:

Anyway @KeyboardWarrior My original

question was why do you guys revere people who were known to be blood thirsty people who infact by all accounts left a bloody trail especially in what is 100% modern day Pakistan and maybe 40% of modern day India max..and you started about Akbar and Razia Begum

etc.

 

thats a bit generalization. but i dont think its in our text books, not atleast in current curriculum.

and i was talking about my childhood. todays mostly kids go to private schools where the mostly curriculum is from oxford uni press. 

 

 

[Muloghonto]

17 minutes ago, rahulrulezz said:

1) you are right, they could have done a better centralized system. And TBH they did have a decent centralized system before third battle of Panipat as they all reported to Nana saheb in pune

But you are ignoring the fact that Marathas were no longer the same after Panipat

Yeah. If there was ever a total, utter failure and 'manual on how NOT to fight a war, even with an inferior enemy', Panipat III should be the ultimate headline. Zero effort to make allies and categorically pissing off the few allies they did have, taking a humongous pilgrim train that they feel obligated to protect along, fighting a slow but sure tactically losing strategy.

 

Its absurd how much hand-wringing Panipat III gets, when Panipat III would make the top-10 worst FAIL of a battle i can think of, but Saraighat gets like...zero air time. 

 

Quote

they lost their elite force in Panipat and almost lost half of thier military and almost quarter of Maratha male youth. That's a big setback and no wonder they never made it

Indeed. If they had a 'Frederick/Peter the Great', they'd have taken a defensive, aggressive posture, centralized more, got the peasantry up on their feet and create a standing army that would frighten anyone for sheer size. If Marathas had a leader like that, we could have gone the way of China with imperial powers ( i.e., the Brits and rest would've expanded their trade posts and held their superiority over us no doubt, but we'd not be straight-up conquered by them). 

 

Quote

2) agreed. I wish they had vision and edcuation. Also, even a leader to unite them. Also, you can't win a battle with elephants,Swords, Arrows and bows. They implemented old school warfare initially against Babur, and once Babur defeated them at Khanwa, Rajputs were never the same. 

I always believed that Battle of Khanwa was on the most important battle in Indian history. Offcourse 2nd battle of Panipat was important too. By third battle of Panipat, it was too late. 

The odds were against the Marathas after Panipat debacle, true. But others have been in worse positions and lucked out with a strong, effective leader. Look no further than Russia - before Peter the Great's vigorous rule, Russia came within an inch of becoming Poland (as ridiculous as it sounds, its true). It could've been saved if their polity wasn't so short-sighted. 

 

I don't see Khanwa as such important, because i do not see defeat of Babur as defeat of Muslims in India. I see it as a potential to've been a successful Rajput rebellion/resitance of invader but Rajputs were in no position to take the Muslim strong-holds in Delhi-PUnjab  region. 

Edited October 10, 2017 by Muloghonto

[Texan]

This will be yet another cr@ppy film from a highly overrated filmmaker. SLB only really made two good films - and both of them happened to be his first 2 films (Khamoshi and Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam). After that, he just rehashed the same formula across all his other films. No imagination, no plot, just put some expansive costumes and create some lavish sets and create some slick promos. That's all.

 

Highly overrated filmmaker with a monotonous pattern of filmmaking.

[maniac]

1 hour ago, KeyboardWarrior said:

thats a bit generalization. but i dont think its in our text books, not atleast in current curriculum.

and i was talking about my childhood. todays mostly kids go to private schools where the mostly curriculum is from oxford uni press. 

 

 

Yeah your country names their missiles after Ghazini and Ghori and you have a problem with me generalizing lol

[rahulrulezz]

 

2 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Yeah. If there was ever a total, utter failure and 'manual on how NOT to fight a war, even with an inferior enemy', Panipat III should be the ultimate headline. Zero effort to make allies and categorically pissing off the few allies they did have, taking a humongous pilgrim train that they feel obligated to protect along, fighting a slow but sure tactically losing strategy.

 

Its absurd how much hand-wringing Panipat III gets, when Panipat III would make the top-10 worst FAIL of a battle i can think of, but Saraighat gets like...zero air time. 

 

Indeed. If they had a 'Frederick/Peter the Great', they'd have taken a defensive, aggressive posture, centralized more, got the peasantry up on their feet and create a standing army that would frighten anyone for sheer size. If Marathas had a leader like that, we could have gone the way of China with imperial powers ( i.e., the Brits and rest would've expanded their trade posts and held their superiority over us no doubt, but we'd not be straight-up conquered by them). 

 

The odds were against the Marathas after Panipat debacle, true. But others have been in worse positions and lucked out with a strong, effective leader. Look no further than Russia - before Peter the Great's vigorous rule, Russia came within an inch of becoming Poland (as ridiculous as it sounds, its true). It could've been saved if their polity wasn't so short-sighted. 

 

I don't see Khanwa as such important, because i do not see defeat of Babur as defeat of Muslims in India. I see it as a potential to've been a successful Rajput rebellion/resitance of invader but Rajputs were in no position to take the Muslim strong-holds in Delhi-PUnjab  region. 

Agreed about Panipat 3. I personally feel that  Vishwas Rao(I hope I got the name right) was super cocky and over confident about this war. He fought and won small battles in south and thought Panipat was going to be same. Plus there was too much family politics between the women in the Maratha family which is why Vishwas Rao got the commander role in Panipat even though Raghunath Rao deserved it. Regardless, as you suggested, taking 100,000 pilgrims in  battlefield was just stupid. 

 

I am suprirsed people don't know a main event from Panipat3.  In an earlier battle in delhi before Panipat 3, Marathas got Muslim POWs but didn't kill them. Vishwas Rao stupidly gave those same bloody POW to take care of pilgrims and women in the camp. It wasn't actually Abdali soldiers who raped and killed pilgrims and Maratha women, it was those Muslims POWs who did that when they heard first time about Abdali chances of winning. If he had killed those muSlim POWs like the invaders, Holkar and his infantry wouldn't have to retreat from the war to save the pilgrims and women

 

 

 

About your thoughts on Battle of Khanwa, I am surprised you don't think that was a historic event. Why I feel that was an important event. 

 

1.That was first time Mughals came to India. If Rana had defeated them, imagine no Aurangzeb, No Akbar etc etc

 

2. Babur army was already tired cuz of first battle of Panipat, plus Delhi heat etc etc, They were at all time low, best chance to defeat them

 

3. That was the first and only time all Rajputs were one unit. Okay ignore Raja Silhadi(I hope I got the name right, this bastard defected at last second and switched sides). Only once in the history of Rajputana

 

4. Rajputs had higher number of soldiers, were fresh, and were more closer to their kingdom

 

5. They lost close to 100,000 soldiers and Rajputs were never the same. 

 

6 Babur created the tower of heads for the first time in india, and literally shook all the kings to Not fight against Babur

 

7 Rana IMO was probably the strongest and the smartest Rajput leader ever. Rajputs were never the same. 

 

8) if Rajputs had won, i personally feel India would have been totally different 

 

9) your points about strong muSlim presence in Punjab reason, Babur defeated the sultanate and local Muslim kings in less than 1 day. There was no way Rana would be worried of them if he had won the battle. 

So these are my points why I feel Battle of Khanwa was one of the most historic war for india. Hope my points changed your view

 

 

 

Also, talking by Saraighat, I know you

have a slight bias because you are from Bengal and I totally understand that. But let's face it, it was mostly a Naval battle and almost a gurella war. It wasn't a big battle and was a limited war ranging over a decade ending at Saraighat. Also, Aurangzeb sent Ram SINGH, and we all know Aurengzeb was biased against Ram Singh because of Shivajis episode. Regardless, it was a good victory and I am not doubting Ahoms kingdoms credibility. Atleast they stood up and fought. 

 

 

 

Edited October 11, 2017 by rahulrulezz