The Brave Warrior - Prithviraj Chauhan - 1149-1192 AD

Peter

Pratik Maitra
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2014
Messages
2,938
Likes
3,341
Country flag
Was Caste system Culprit ?

In the eleventh and the twelfth centuries war was not, in any part of the world, a matter of popular concern .Thus the caste system does not seem to have played any large part in weakening the resistance that could have been offered to the invaders. Nor could the existence of several states, big and small by itself have provided a 'Cause for the defeat of the home forces. It is arguable that that invaders might have found it difficult to establish themselves if the whole country had been under the sway of a single ruler. But the story of the Mongol Invasions
of the thirteenth and the fourteenth century easily disproves the contention that a central government of Dehli would have necessarily defended the country any better.
A central govt that of Allaudin Khilji did stop Mongol invasions. Do check out about Allaudin khilji.
 

Bhadra

Professional
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
11,991
Likes
23,758
Country flag
A central govt that of Allaudin Khilji did stop Mongol invasions. Do check out about Allaudin khilji.
Oh! that way Prithviraj also stopped Muhamad Ghori at first battle of Tarain. And that is what the author is trying to say .
 

Peter

Pratik Maitra
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2014
Messages
2,938
Likes
3,341
Country flag
Oh! that way Prithviraj also stopped Muhamad Ghori at first battle of Tarain. And that is what the author is trying to say .
Well Allaudin managed to stop the Mongols. India was not conquered by Genghis Khan`s mongols. Well the Mughals come close but not in that sense.
 

Bhadra

Professional
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
11,991
Likes
23,758
Country flag
Alleged disunion and even treachery among the rulers In India



Another cause to which the 'easy' success of the invaders has been ascribed is the alleged disunion and even treachery among the rulers In India There is some evidence of such acts occasionally, they do not however, figure as a major factor. In these engagements The classic
example of a feud between Prithviraj and Jai Chand and the later's invitation to Shlhab-ud- Muhammad Ghori stands discredited now. There may have been some bad blood between the rulers of Ajmer and Kanauj but the contemporary Muslim account do not bear out the story
as told in the Prithviraj Raso. Shabab-oud-Din Ghori left Ghazni without tell1ng his soldiers where he was leading them. This would have been impossible had an emissary of Jai Chand been leading them to India. The interval between the first and the second battles of Tarori is not
enough to have allowed all that is alleged to have taken place therein - Samyukta's search for a husband from among the assembled guests of her father, Prithviraj's marriage to her, Jai Chand's discomfiture and sending of an emissary to Gazhani to invite Shlhab-ud-Din Ghori to
India. Nor does the subsequent invasion of Kanuaj by Shzhab-ud..Dln bear out any previous aniity between him and Jai Chand . Instead of disunity in the ranks of the Indian rulers,we find that in the eleventh and twelfth centuries they very often offered organised resistance to the invaders. Mahmud had to deal with a confederacy of Indian rulers when be attacked the Punjab In 1008. Mubammad Ghori was similarly opposed in the battles of Taraori in 1191 and 1192, at Ajmer 10 1197 and near Abu later on. It was a cheap generalisation which tried to account for the defeat of Indian arms by the alleged treachery in Indian ranks.
 

Bhadra

Professional
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
11,991
Likes
23,758
Country flag
The Lazy Bums ??

It bas some times been suggested that Indian rulers were slow to recognize the foreign danger and waited patiently to be attacked in their capital Cities rather than venture forth boldly to meet the enemy on the the frontiers .Critics forget that news of an invading army could not then be speedily received. By the time a ruler learnt that an invader had entered his dominions. he had little time to venture forth to his frontiers and fight the enemy . But Indian rulers did not always wait for their enemies to advance into their territory. Jai Pal attacked Subaktgin in his own dominions, Prithviraj met Shibab ud Din Ghori at Taraori nearer to the frontiers of Ghazanvid kings of the Punjab than to his own. Bhim of Gujrat challenged Aibak and Muhammad Ghori at Ajmer and Abu.

It should however be remembered that the way of an established ruler at Delhi or elsewhere was not as smooth as it is sometimes supposed to be. When during the Sultanate Mongol tried invading India through Kandahar, very often the rulers of Delhi met their armies in the Interior rather than at their own frontiers. Even such a wide awake ruler as Ala-ud-Din Khilaji had to meet them once at least, outside the walls of Delhi. It seems difficult for us today to realize how defective and difficult the means of communication were in the medieval times in India or elsewhere.
 

Bhadra

Professional
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
11,991
Likes
23,758
Country flag
One Momin is Equal to Ten Hindus ??

Was that oft repeated belief or propaganda cliché amongst the Muslim Armies true ? That idea is held even today by the Armies of the Faithful - Paki Army, though proved wrong many times over ??

The writer says :


A detailed study of the battles fought In the middle ages In India proves that neither the Indian rulers nor the Indian soldiers deemed themselves in any way inferior to the foreigners who invaded the country. Mahmud had to fight against the rulers of the Punjab four times in
a decade before he could occupy the Punjab. Muhammad Ghori's success at Taraori did not give him access to Delhi. Here again fierce battle raged for about ten years before the Ghoris could settle down in security at Delhi. At Ajmer again there was no tame submission to the enemy, repeated risings in the area went on for a decade here as well. The Indian rulers never considered themselves soundly beaten when fortunes of battle went against them. They were almost always eager to stake the fortune again and did not easily give in.
 

Bhadra

Professional
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
11,991
Likes
23,758
Country flag
Is The Flag Flying ?

In the centuries we are dealing with, battles were trials of strength between the leaders of the opposing armies. In India as elsewhere, the disappearance or death of the leader would bring an engagement to an end. When Muhammad Ghori was defeated, his army ran away and did not draw rein for forty miles. When Prithviraj or Jai Chand was killed on the battlefield, his armies acknowledged defeat. Sihab-ud-din Ghori's slave could bear his wounded master off the field, but no Ghori commander could reorganize the army for trying fresh conclusions with the Rajputs.
 

Bhadra

Professional
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
11,991
Likes
23,758
Country flag
Then what Made The Difference ??




It is usually the difference in the leadership and therefore the strategy and tactics employed on the battlefield, that plays the decisive part in these engagements. Mahmud Ghazanvi and Muhammad Ghori were great military leaders, as successful in their campaigns outside India as in India. They displayed a method of warfare different very largely from the traditional methods of fighting prevalent among Indian rulers. This (Indians) visualized an engagement of a duel between the soldiers of the two armies under well recognized rules of sport. The outsiders (Turks) knew no rules, or if they did, they were different. Sudden attacks, feints, shamming defeat and flight and keeping a considerable part of the army in reserve for use at critical moments took the Indian armies by surprise and Vitiated their value as fighting machines They were too slow to learn new tricks of trade. The Rajput chivalry usually disclaimed running away from the battle-field in order to fight another day. They took a battle as a ritual wherein jauhar played its due part, men flinging themselves on the enemy in order to meet certain death and women preferring death to the horrors of anticipated dishonor. They shouted a foul whenever the strategy and the tactics employed by their opponents took them in. There were no referees however disqualifying their opponents who fought on as before. It is wrong to hold that the invaders had always their way. They had to fight for every square inch of the territory they cared to occupy.
 
Last edited:

Bhadra

Professional
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
11,991
Likes
23,758
Country flag
Influence of Religious Beliefs


Much has been said about the religious beliefs of the opposing armies playing a part in the engagements that were fought. The Muslim submission to God's Will may be claimed to have influenced the conduct of the soldiers on the battlefield; it does not however seem to have restrained Muhammad Ghori's soldiers at the first battle of Taroari. The Hindu belief in astrology does, however, seem to have played its part occasionally in bringing about their discomfiture. Dahar lost the first battle of Sind when a missile struck the flag staff of the temple of the protecting deity of the City. His son, Jaisingh lost his country finally to the enemy when his astrologers told him not to fight as the stars in the sky were against him. Bakhtiar Khilji's task of conquering Gaur was made easier, it is said, because the astrologers had told Lakshman Sen that he was destined to lose his state when strange looking, garlic smelling strangers entered the capital. The common belief that, if fighting to the last, one fell into the hands of the enemy, one would ceased to be Hindu, might have played a part in making the soldiers play safe. It would thus, be considered safer to run away from the battlefield as soon as the fortune of war showed any sign of deserting one's side.

 

Ajesh

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2014
Messages
325
Likes
159
On the Eve before his last Battle with Ghauri, Chauhan's Cavalry was stationed near one of Ajmer's Lake. And then the so Called Peaceful Saint, Mohinuddin Chisti's followers poisoned the lake and which resulted in dying or not being on their best behaviour of his Cavalry.

That was one of the main Factor of Chauhan's defeat. But these thing no "Wikipedia" or General Historian will say.
 

ITBP

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2014
Messages
338
Likes
137
On the Eve before his last Battle with Ghauri, Chauhan's Cavalry was stationed near one of Ajmer's Lake. And then the so Called Peaceful Saint, Mohinuddin Chisti's followers poisoned the lake and which resulted in dying or not being on their best behaviour of his Cavalry.

That was one of the main Factor of Chauhan's defeat. But these thing no "Wikipedia" or General Historian will say.
I did not know this. Muslim missionaries are like Christian Missionaries are full of trash. Muslims Sufis converted some Hindus and later these traitors acted as 5th column of Muslims.

West Asia should return to their Pagan and Zoroastrianism and Europe to ancient Pagan believes.

The real mistake was elsewhere,

To Hindus war meant only fighting on battlefield. Hindu leaders failed to realize real problem is elsewhere. Hindus needed to a reconquesta to eradicate all signs of Islam, either convert to Hinduism or leave or die.

These way Spain and Portugal repelled Arab barbarians. Hindus should have used religious conversion as method of warfare.
 

Simple_Guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
938
Likes
578
On the Eve before his last Battle with Ghauri, Chauhan's Cavalry was stationed near one of Ajmer's Lake. And then the so Called Peaceful Saint, Mohinuddin Chisti's followers poisoned the lake and which resulted in dying or not being on their best behaviour of his Cavalry.
So the poisoned horses galloped from Ajmer, hundreds of kilometers north to the battlefield in Punjab?

It's a BS story. Prithviraj never allowed any sufi-poofi to settle in his kingdom. They only came afterward and have just made up stories.
 

Bornubus

Chodi Bhakt & BJPig Hunter
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2015
Messages
7,494
Likes
17,196
Time will tell if it was right to take surrender of Gen Niazi and his 90, 000 soldiers and men in Bangladesh or they should have been gassed in a chamber

Time will tell if it was right for Indian conscience to honourably hand over bodies of Pakistani soldiers un-mutilated in Kargil or we should have exhibited the same barbarianism as the Pakistani mullah Army did with Saurabh kalia..

Decide.. these are things which decide the civilizational values and national ethos one would like to cherish..
Indian Army did mutilated and beheaded some Pakis in the last phase of Kargil war.
 

Bornubus

Chodi Bhakt & BJPig Hunter
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2015
Messages
7,494
Likes
17,196
Some retarded comments and rape of history by some members in this thread is hilarious.Believing this gay history that PRC defeated Ghauri so many times and ultimately killed him makes us as brainwashed as pakis while doing injustice to the great man PRC who died in the field with honor.

Plz stop quoting Chandrabardai as reliable source,even present day generation of chauhans and rajputs would jerk off on his distorted history.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top