If Raja Raja Chola helped the Rajputs defeat Mahmud of Ghazni

Would Raja Raja Chola have defeated Ghazni ?


  • Total voters
    35

Das ka das

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 21, 2012
Messages
895
Likes
456
I thought Prithviraj captured Mahmud 17 times and let him go due to Kshatriya honor code.
 

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
^^
What are your views on Prithviraj, In history he's either heavily romanticized or heavily villanised by either side, there doesn't appear to be any neutral view on him. What are your views on him as a commander? I think leaving Mahmud to raid the country 17 times without seriously challenging him seem to suggest lackluster leadership. I always believed if the Rajputs had a better king then they could have crushed Mahmud by themselves, like they did with the Arabs earlier.
This is off topic so about the 17 battles myth, I can only point you here - http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...xander-great-invades-india-19.html#post513879
Lets not pursue PRC on this thread at least.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Against Anandpala Shahi at Waihind in 1008 A.D, Mahmud had to withdraw from the thick of the fight, so that he might stop the battle for that day.
~Tarikh-i-Ferishta (Elliott and Dowson Vol II pg447)

He had to wage multiple expeditions into Kashmir, many of which met with failure.
In his mission of 1015 A.D he laid siege to the fort of Loh-Kot (gateway of Kashmir). Ferishta says that the weather worsened and defenders got reinforcements.
Mahmud retreated and lost not only his way back but also many of his soldiers, much like Alexander's or Aurangzeb's disastrous retreats.

In Center-North (present MP+UP) he attempted twice to defeat the Chandella ruler Vidyadhara (Bida in Arabic sources) around 1018-19 and 1022 A.D respectively.
In first attempt of Mahmud, Vidyadhara staged an alliance with Trilochanpala (his son was called 'Nidar Bhima) and other Kings to check his advance.
After a day long battle, both sides retreated under the cover of night.
In second attempt, Mahmud first attacked Gwalior fort for four days and nights. With no victory in sight, he settled for peaceful negotiation and set towards Kalinjar.
Here again, the Kalinjar fort could not be climbed by his forces.Finally Vidyadhara and Mahmud negotiated peace where Vidyadhara wrote a praising verse on Mahmud and the latter gave 15 forts to him. Vidyadhara also gifted some Elephants to Mahmud after which he returned.
Source - Abu Sa'id 'Abd al-Hayy ibn al-Dahhak ibn Mahmud Gardizi pg30
Later the Arab historians tried to show this as a tribute but evidently Mahmud had to satisfy himself with a verse and some Elephants.

Next in 1026 A.D. he came after Somnath via surprise route. According to Ibn Asir's work 'Kamil-ut-Tawarikh - he was challenged at Modhera 18 miles south of Anhilwara by a small yet urgently gathered force.
As testified by inscription of Modhera temple built soon after, this force fought till it was cut to pieces
After gruesome destruction at Somnath, Mahmud beat a hasty retreat from fighting the federated armies of Paramdeo (Raja Parmar Bhoja / Chalukya Prince Bhima).
A K Majumdar mentions in 'Chalukyas of Gujarat' that Bhima took his main army near Jaisalmer investing into Mahmud's return.
Gardizi states "Mahmud now returned. For Paramdev, badshah of Hindus stood in his way, disputing his path.
Mahmud decided therefore to leave the right road back to Ghazni from fear lest this great victory of his should turn into defeat.
He left by way of Mansura to Multan. His soldiers suffered many hardships partly on account of water and partly due to the Jats of Sindh.
Many of the soldiers of Islam lost their lives on the way."
When Mahmud was trying to find an alternate ruote for his return, two Hindus came forward and offered themselves as guides.
They deliberately led astray Mahmud and his Army in the desert, where there was no water and food in sight.

Mahmud's last advance into India was against the same Jats who had molested him during his return from Somnath.
It appears from Kamil-ut-Tawarikh that the Jats had invaded his principality of Mansura and forced its Amir to abjure his religion.
Mahmud army's short in and out rally is recorded by the then historians with loads of sugarcoating. First they say that Mahmud brought a flotilla of boats against the Jats, whereas his veteran land armies were the obvious and more effective choice.
Then they mention that Mahmud's boats with projected spikes overturned the Jats boats. Later historians again find that difficult to swallow how someone can overturn the other's boats like this, without overturning their own.
According to Ghardizi,after the river boat conflict the Mahmud army looted a camp of refugee families and "from there the muslim army left with flying colours for Ghazni."
Thus ends his last expedition in India.


Regards,
Virendra
 

devgupt

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2009
Messages
581
Likes
296
Country flag
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Against Anandpala Shahi at Waihind in 1008 A.D, Mahmud had to withdraw from the thick of the fight, so that he might stop the battle for that day.
~Tarikh-i-Ferishta (Elliott and Dowson Vol II pg447)
What I have read is that Mahmud was faring badly against the forces of Anand Sahi, and was thinking of calling for peace.Somehow the elephants in the Sahi army panicked and trampled their own soldiers creating confusion.Sensing an opening Mahmud lauched another assault and was successful.
 

spikey360

Crusader
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
3,436
Likes
6,339
Country flag
A Hindu conquerer any day, any age over a Muslim tyrant. Shame on those who even dare think that this is/should be an option.
 

bharata

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
55
Likes
10
In order for cholas to reach north[or Gazni reaching south] they had to pass the deccan first which was ruled by chalukyas then.
 

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
I thought Prithviraj captured Mahmud 17 times and let him go due to Kshatriya honor code.
That was Mohammed Ghori of Ghor, not the Mahmud Ghazni.
Rest, I have covered the '17 times' exaggeration in previous posts.
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
In order for cholas to reach north[or Gazni reaching south] they had to pass the deccan first which was ruled by chalukyas then.
Yep. Despite the hype around the Cholas, they are unable to fully subdue even their immediate neighbors. In 1052 C.E., just 8 years after the death of Rajendra Chola, the Western Chalukya king Somesvara I led a successful expedition into the Chola homeland, and was able to capture Kanchipuram. The Cholas, who just a couple decades ago had sent expeditions into distant Southeast Asia, were unable to protect their own core territories! This shows how impermanent and transient the nature of Chola power was.
 

Bhoja

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
129
Likes
184
Yep. Despite the hype around the Cholas, they are unable to fully subdue even their immediate neighbors. In 1052 C.E., just 8 years after the death of Rajendra Chola, the Western Chalukya king Somesvara I led a successful expedition into the Chola homeland, and was able to capture Kanchipuram. The Cholas, who just a couple decades ago had sent expeditions into distant Southeast Asia, were unable to protect their own core territories! This shows how impermanent and transient the nature of Chola power was.
This is interesting. I wonder why the Chalukya Dynasty and the Chola Dynasty were never able to make an alliance which
was beneficial for both. The main goal of the Chola Dynasty was to safeguard their trading posts in southeast asia and the main target of the Chalukya Dynasty was the conquest of Malwa. Both dynasties could have used all their resources to reach their goals without being attacked by the main enemy.
Do you know whether the solanki kingdom of Gujarat was a branch of the Chalukya Dynasty?
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
This is interesting. I wonder why the Chalukya Dynasty and the Chola Dynasty were never able to make an alliance which
was beneficial for both. The main goal of the Chola Dynasty was to safeguard their trading posts in southeast asia and the main target of the Chalukya Dynasty was the conquest of Malwa. Both dynasties could have used all their resources to reach their goals without being attacked by the main enemy.
To understand the struggle between the Chalukyas and Cholas, one must understand the geopolitical climate of India at the time. The whole of India during this time was embroiled in political anarchy - matsya-nyaya - caused by the lack of any powerful central authority. Neighboring Indian kingdoms were rivals or enemies more often than not, and were firm followers of the aphorism "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". A good example of this would be the alliance formed by King Bhoj of Malwa with Rajendra Chola, to surround his arch-rivals the Chalukyas on both their northern and southern flanks. In addition, there was a long-standing rivalry between the kingdoms of the Deccan and the Tamil country, dating back to the Chalukya-Pallava conflict in the 6th century C.E. The conflict between the Chalukyas and Cholas in the 10th-12th centuries was the latest incarnation of this struggle.

Moreover, the Cholas were very aggressive and expansionist when compared to other Indian dynasties, and would not have been content with merely controlling trade routes. It is unlikely that they would have tolerated such a powerful kingdom right in their backyard, hence the frequent attempts by Chola monarchs to reduce Chalukya power.


Do you know whether the solanki kingdom of Gujarat was a branch of the Chalukya Dynasty?
The name Solanki is indeed derived from '"Chalukya", but I am not sure of the exact relationship between the Solankis of Gujarat and the original Chalukya dynasty that was established by Pulakesi I in the 6th century. It is known that Gujarat in the 8th century was governed by Jayasimha Varman, the brother of the Chalukya emperor Vikramaditya II (r.733-746 C.E.). It was Avanijanashraya Pulakesi, the son of Jayasimha Varman, who defeated the Arabs that attempted to invade Gujarat during this time. It is possible that the Chalukya governors of Gujarat became de facto independent kings after the fall of central Chalukya power in 753 C.E. at the hands of of the rising Rashtrakuta dynasty, and that the Solanki kings of Gujarat were descended from the earlier Chalukya governors.
 

Waffen SS

New Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2013
Messages
492
Likes
348
Sadly it is truth.

Then Indian emperors lacked foresight.
Thinking Raja Raja Chola would help to defeat Ghory is ridiculous.
He was king of South India,and Ghory attacked North India,so how could he send troops to defeat Ghory from long distance of South India?!

Even Rastrakutas who were almost in border area of North India and South India,they did not send help.

Lack of Foresight helped a lot for invaders from Arabia and Central Asia.
 

Mr.Ryu

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2011
Messages
806
Likes
348
Country flag
What north India south India ?

There was no INDIA as a whole it's like different country all together ruled by different people.
 

Mr.Ryu

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2011
Messages
806
Likes
348
Country flag
Yep. Despite the hype around the Cholas, they are unable to fully subdue even their immediate neighbors. In 1052 C.E., just 8 years after the death of Rajendra Chola, the Western Chalukya king Somesvara I led a successful expedition into the Chola homeland, and was able to capture Kanchipuram. The Cholas, who just a couple decades ago had sent expeditions into distant Southeast Asia, were unable to protect their own core territories! This shows how impermanent and transient the nature of Chola power was.
That shows how TIGERS fail when led by sheep nothing more,

WAR is won by strategy than power of sword and to lay a strategy far superior than our enemy LEADERSHIP is the key.
 

HeinzGud

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
2,558
Likes
1,070
Country flag
Re: Emperor Raja Raja Cholan I birthday

When the Cholas invaded Sri Lanka, they did loot and destroy Buddhist monasteries and built Shiva temples over their ruins (some of these Shiva temples built by Cholas still survive today). Remind of you anything?
This is not exactly true. Cholas didn't destroy Buddhist monasteries and built Shiva temples over them. But yes they looted.
 

pankaj nema

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
10,023
Likes
37,269
Country flag
Why are we even asking this impossible thing

My question is WHAT IF THE RAJPUTS themselves were united

The bitter rivalries amongst the Rajputs made them weak and ultimately all invaders succeeded
by using this Internal feuds amongst the Rajputs
 

HeinzGud

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2011
Messages
2,558
Likes
1,070
Country flag
Why are we even asking this impossible thing

My question is WHAT IF THE RAJPUTS themselves were united

The bitter rivalries amongst the Rajputs made them weak and ultimately all invaders succeeded
by using this Internal feuds amongst the Rajputs
I think we all should thank the Rajputs of Rajasthan. Because even though they were not united as a single entity they stalled the Muslim advance into the greater Indian. Otherwise god only knows what might have happened.
 

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
Why are we even asking this impossible thing

My question is WHAT IF THE RAJPUTS themselves were united

The bitter rivalries amongst the Rajputs made them weak and ultimately all invaders succeeded
by using this Internal feuds amongst the Rajputs
Have been through this so many times.

Entire India was politically fragmented. Cherry picking one part in all these WHAT IFs is not going to help analyze.
Rajputs have done their share of chewing invasions for more than milennia.
They were always regional players and remained so till India became a democratic republic.
War and power is not simply about what hardware displays on the field.
Strategies, doctrines and classic Chessboard movements have the juice to alter the course of history.

There was no INDIA as a whole it's like different country all together ruled by different people.
India was united as one nation but only socio-culturally, not politically.
 

pankaj nema

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
10,023
Likes
37,269
Country flag
Have been through this so many times.

Entire India was politically fragmented. Cherry picking one part in all these WHAT IFs is not going to help analyze.
Rajputs have done their share of chewing invasions for more than milennia.
They were always regional players and remained so till India became a democratic republic.
War and power is not simply about what hardware displays on the field.
Strategies, doctrines and classic Chessboard movements have the juice to alter the course of history.


India was united as one nation but only socio-culturally, not politically.
Mate I am sorry if I have hurt your feelings BUT the fact remains that After Ghazni
invasions and destruction of Somnath AND the conquest of West Punjab and Sindh by Islamists
Rajputs SHOULD Have understood the Nature of the BEAST that they were up against

And they should given up their internal rivalries But this never happened

The Rajputs were India's first line of defence and yet they were busy infighting
 

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
Mate I am sorry if I have hurt your feelings BUT the fact remains that After Ghazni
invasions and destruction of Somnath AND the conquest of West Punjab and Sindh by Islamists
Rajputs SHOULD Have understood the Nature of the BEAST that they were up against

And they should given up their internal rivalries But this never happened
Mark my words. Centuries later our future generations wold be cursing us to have understood the evil of Pakistan and Chinese hegemony in time and to have done something about it.
When we look at history from where we stand today, the advantage of hindsight easily allows us to preach "should have done this, should have done that".
But reality is - that we don't know in full detail what happened, how it happened, why it happened, why it couldn't be stopped. Only those who went through it, would know.
What we have is history written by victors in bits and pieces, with obvious biases in play.
Thats all I'm saying.

The Rajputs were India's first line of defence and yet they were busy infighting
That is so contradictory. On one hand we say India was no single country and then the next moment we want Rajputs to defend it like it were so :D .. :tsk:
And you can relax you haven't hurt my feelings. We're debating decently :)
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

Articles

Top