Comparison between Maratha and Rajput warriors---by Elphinstone

Discussion in 'Military History' started by ashdoc, Jun 14, 2013.

  1. ashdoc

    ashdoc Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2010
    Messages:
    1,768
    Likes Received:
    965
    Though the Marathas had never appeared in history as a nation,
    they had as strongly marked a character as if they had always formed
    a united commonwealth. Though more like to the lower orders in
    Hindostan than to their southern neighbours in Kanaru and Telingana,
    they could never for a moment be confounded with either. They are
    small sturdy men, well made, though not handsome. They are all active,
    laborious, hardy, and persevering. If they have none of the pride and
    dignity of the Rajputs, they have none of their indolence or want of
    worldly wisdom. A Rajput warrior, as long as he does not dishonour
    his race, seems almost indifferent to the result of any contest he is
    engaged in. A Maratha thinks of nothing but the result, and cares little
    for the means, if he can attain his object. For this purpose he will strain
    his wits, renounce his pleasures, and hazard his person ; but he has not
    a conception of sacrificing his life, or even his interest, for a point of honour.
    This difference of sentiment affects the outward appearance of the two
    nations ; there is something noble in the carriage even of an ordinary
    Rajput, and something vulgar in that of the most distinguished Maratha.!!!


    The Rajput is the most worthy antagonist — the Maratha the most
    formidable enemy ; for he will not fail in boldness and enterprise when
    they are indispensable, and will always support them, or supply their
    place, by stratagem, activity, and perseverance. All this applies chiefly
    to the soldiery, to whom more bad qualities might fairly be ascribed.
    The mere husbandmen are sober, frugal, and industrious, and, though they
    have a dash of the national cunning, are neither turbulent nor insincere.

    The chiefs, in those days, were men of families who had for generations
    filled the old Hindu offices of heads of villages or functionaries of districts,
    and had often been employed as partisans under the governments of
    Ahmadnagar and Bijapur. They were all Sudras, of the same cast with
    their people, though some tried to raise their consequence by claiming
    an infusion of Rajput blood.
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2013
  2.  
  3. ashdoc

    ashdoc Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2010
    Messages:
    1,768
    Likes Received:
    965
  4. ninja85

    ninja85 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2013
    Messages:
    830
    Likes Received:
    342
    Location:
    MS
    rajputs are overrated. :nod:
     
  5. The Messiah

    The Messiah Bow Before Me! Elite Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2010
    Messages:
    10,788
    Likes Received:
    4,552
    agreed :yey:
     
    Kaalapani and angeldude13 like this.
  6. angeldude13

    angeldude13 Lestat De Lioncourt Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    1,754
    Likes Received:
    1,303
    And why do you feel that way???
     
  7. dhananjay1

    dhananjay1 Regular Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2013
    Messages:
    972
    Likes Received:
    912
    Location:
    india
    Rajputs and Marathas come from different social structures and the points of their maximum power fall into different centuries and different technological paradigms. Also Brits had a special hatred of Marathas for obvious reasons.
     
    nirranj and TrueSpirit like this.
  8. pankaj nema

    pankaj nema Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,454
    Likes Received:
    1,410
    Forget about looks and appearances

    What they did to each other is more important


    Marathas especially Shivaji Maharaj appealed to Rajputs ie Raja Jai SIngh who had
    come to destroy the fledgling Maratha kingdom to instead help them
    in their fight with Aurangzeb

    But the Rajputs rebuffed them

    Later Marathas were struggling to keep their independence ie in the
    27 year war with Aurangzeb

    In this war also Rajputs participated because Rajput soldiers and princes
    were an integral part of the Mughal army

    The Marathas never forgave Rajputs for this They could Never accept that
    Rajputs who were proud Hindus did not help them

    Marathas defeated the Mughals on their own in the 27 year war which ended
    with the defeat and death of Aurangzeb and the Mughal empire crumbled after that
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2013
    ganesh177, TrueSpirit1 and nirranj like this.
  9. pankaj nema

    pankaj nema Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,454
    Likes Received:
    1,410
    After 1707 Marathas became the dominant power in India and
    specifically Marked out the Rajputs for revenge

    Rajputs were looking to restablish themselves after Aurangzeb's death
    but Marathas defeated them and imposed very heavy taxes on them
    thus prevented the Rajputs from becoming a major power again

    Marathas also interfered in the internal political matters of various Rajput states

    Now The Rajputs ( along with others )refused to help the Marathas in Third battle of Panipat
    as a retaliation
     
    TrueSpirit1 likes this.
  10. pankaj nema

    pankaj nema Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2009
    Messages:
    3,454
    Likes Received:
    1,410
    The Maratha Rajput skirmeshes continued even after Panipat debacle

    But it helped neither of them

    It only helped the British to gain and consolidate their power in India

    That is the story of India

    First Rajputs fought AMONGST themselves and the Islamists gained

    Then Rajputs ;Marathas and other Indian kingdoms fought with each other and the Brits gained
     
    TrueSpirit1 and nirranj like this.
  11. Maharaj

    Maharaj Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2013
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    24
    Location:
    India
    Why should the Rajputs support the Marathas?
    When north India was invaded by the Arab invaders in the 8th century it was the the Pratihara rulers
    of north india who defeated the Arab invaders and protected north india. But the Rashtrakuta rulers of southern
    India never supported the Pratihara rulers against the Arabs. In fact the Rashtrakuta rulers of southern India
    took advantage of the Pratihara-Arab war and invaded northern india several times and even weakened
    the power the Pratihara Dynasty.
    In the 11th and 12th century northern India had to face several Turkic invasions but the southern Dynasties like
    the Western Chalukya Empire and Chola Empire did nothing to prevent this. Instead Rajendra Chola of the Chola Empire
    even invaded northern India in the 11th century.
     
    TrueSpirit1 likes this.
  12. rock127

    rock127 Maulana Rockullah Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2009
    Messages:
    8,945
    Likes Received:
    10,326
    Location:
    India
    Don't forget Sikh Rajputs... The Hill Rajputs allied/conspired along Moguls to fight Sikhs. :tsk:

    A allied Maratha+Rajput+Sikhs would mean no outsider thinking of attacking India.Instead they would conquor foreign land far on both east and west borders.
     
  13. ALBY

    ALBY Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    1,990
    Likes Received:
    1,490
    Location:
    KOTTAYAM,KERALA
    The fact is that no assholee had ever tried to think about any alliance and every one had sought the help of foreign powers to settle their local scores.These above mentioned marathas had allied behind brits to defeat Tipu and hyder.And Rajputs done nothing when mughals had beaten the lodhis.Also some of them had sided with muughals to defeat the forces under Rana Pratap.
     
    TrueSpirit1 likes this.
  14. ALBY

    ALBY Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    1,990
    Likes Received:
    1,490
    Location:
    KOTTAYAM,KERALA
    The heroism of all the indian kingdoms except Mauryas or guptas are extremely over rated and in the last 1000 years no one hhad ever won a major battle against any invading force:p
     
    Kaalapani likes this.
  15. Maharaj

    Maharaj Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2013
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    24
    Location:
    India
    This is not true.
    The Pratihara and Chalukya rulers defeated the Arab invaders.
    The Rajput rulers defeated the turkic invaders in the 11th and 12th century.
    The Vijayanagar rulers protected southern India against the Turkic invaders.
    The Marathas defeated the Mughals and the Portuguese.
    The Sikhs defeated the Afghans.
     
    RajputPride and TrueSpirit1 like this.
  16. Tolaha

    Tolaha Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2009
    Messages:
    2,158
    Likes Received:
    1,404
    Location:
    Bengaluru
    Marathas assisted Muslim kingdoms in defeating "Hindu" kings as well as European colonists in defeating native Indian kingdoms. Rajputs were not a single entity, so the action Raja Jai Singh siding with the Mughals has to be seen against the political dynamics of those days. Marathas did not finish off the Mughals. On the contrary, they did their best to support the Mughals against entities who wanted to finish the Mughals. Do these facts help you with your narrative?

    I think @Virendra had posted quite a detailed description on why Marathas were left with no allies/friends in the sub-continent during their meteoric rise to power. As for the Rajputs, they had seen the Afghans and the Marathas and concluded that neither of them were any good for them. Can you blame them for looking after themselves instead of siding with the Marathas (who were coincidentally/naturally looking after themselves as well)?

    The Rajputs fought amongst themselves. The Marathas fought amongst themselves. We Indians still continue to fight amongst ourselves. I cant see any one particular community in India that is basking in glory at the end of it all!

    Did you for a moment consider the possibility that the Pratiharas and the Chalukyas/Rashtrakutas might have been both, fighting with another as well as fighting with the Arabs?

    The Pratiharas going down had as much to do with the "south Indians" as much as it has to do with the "east Indians", "central Indians" (Rajputs btw) and then ofcourse, the Turks. But still, how can you use this argument for the Rajputs not supporting the Marathas; aren't Marathas "west Indians"? :troll:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 10, 2015
    ALBY and TrueSpirit1 like this.
  17. Maharaj

    Maharaj Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2013
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    24
    Location:
    India
    The Narmada river forms the traditional boundary between North India and South India.
    So the territories south of the Narmada river is "Southi land":p
    The Rashtrakuta Dynasty was the main reason for the decline of the Pratihara Dynasty
    which led to the Turkic invasion of northern India in the 11th century.
    There were barely any battles between the Pratihara Dynasty and Pala Dynasty of eastern India.
    The Rajput rulers of central india like the Chandela and Paramara rulers were loyal to the Pratihara rulers.
    But the Rashtrakuta rulers invaded northern India several times. Even the Arab scholars stated that the
    Pratihara rulers and Rashtrakuta rulers were natural enemies.
     
    TrueSpirit1 likes this.
  18. Tolaha

    Tolaha Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2009
    Messages:
    2,158
    Likes Received:
    1,404
    Location:
    Bengaluru
    I do keep telling these Gujjus and Maharashtrains that they are Southies but they refuse to comply! :D

    Yes, Rashtrakutas were one of the reason for the decline but the Turks/Afghans/Arabs/Mlecchas have been attacking the western frontiers of India before/after the Pratiharas!

    Pratiharas and the Palas were in continuous battle for control of the Gangetic plains. Probably, depending on who amongst Palas and Prathiharas were left stronger after being attacked by Rashtrakutas, would attack the other! :p

    Chandelas, formerly vassals, took over the territories from the Pratiharas, didn't they?


    Yes, Pratiharas and Rashtrakutas were natural enemies, along with Palas, due to the power structure of those times. But when the Arabs appeared, they seem to have temporarily set aside their enmity and ensured that Arabs stayed at the other side of the Indus. And even those Arabs were supplanted by native rulers in some time. Basically saying that Indians had a pretty good track record against the Arabs!
     
    TrueSpirit likes this.
  19. nirranj

    nirranj Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2013
    Messages:
    910
    Likes Received:
    776
    Location:
    Bangalore
    I was wondering Why the different Kingdoms of India never took up a Crusade like expedition against the Invading Arabs, Turks and Mongols. Apart from Internal Conflicts, Wasn't the common faiths and culture a wake up call?? The Invading forces were completely alien to our Culture, this crusade could have been a measure to safeguard the culture from foriegn invasion. If the Muslim powers were denied a foothold In India, the Europeans would never had a chance to colonise India.

    I was thinking, Why didn't Rajendra Chola march westwards instead of Going Eastwards and take on the Mohd of Gazni instead of taking on the Pala's.

    Was this Nation never bound by a common Religion? and a common culture? If not what is the basic fabric that is holding the Modern India together?

    Any points in this reagrd.
     
    TrueSpirit1 and Waffen SS like this.
  20. Virendra

    Virendra Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2010
    Messages:
    4,674
    Likes Received:
    2,923
    Location:
    Delhi, India, India
    Socio-cultural bond cannot provide for standing armies. In a loose colony like medieval India, that comes only from Politico-Military centralization. Which as we know was missing.

    We can always second guess from the hindsight now. But that part may have or may not have been true.


    Apart from the often repeated fact that no centralized imperial power existed and there was only a fragmented polity of autonomous warring middle sized Kingdoms ... there are other reasons to why it didn't happen.
    Reasons owing to natives militaries' methods, philosophy and technologies. Please see here
    http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...jasthan-arabs-lost-indians-12.html#post791966

    Regards,
    Virendra
     
    TrueSpirit1 likes this.
  21. ALBY

    ALBY Elite Member Elite Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    Messages:
    1,990
    Likes Received:
    1,490
    Location:
    KOTTAYAM,KERALA
    They could have won many battles,but none of them won a war against any invader.
     

Share This Page