The Deadliest Warrior: Rajput vs Roman?

MAYURA

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
888
Likes
250
This comparison is not very fruitful as I've learned.
Basically, both the powers belong to very different geographies, timelines and military technologies.
Comparing them won't do any good.
For argument sake, I'd say Rajputs strength was close combat after galloping with a frontal cavalry charge.
They're likely to prevail in close combat only.



Regards,
Virendra
They can prevail if if they have equal numbers and the combat is done on horseback but if it is infantry based combat and fighting is done on land, Rajputs or for that matter anyone will be thrashed by romans, Roman legions were invincible on three accounts

1. Superior training


2. Central organizational advantages like defeat of tens of thousands of warriors was easily replenished due to great organization of roman army

3. Physique and tactics were core of their strength. No one less than 5 feet 10 inches was recruited and the discipline exhibited by the romans can be seen at battle of Carrhea where they lost heavily but initially even cavalry of Parthians( the predecessor of turk cavalry which was so dreadful for us) failed to break their ranks despite furious onslaughts.

It was only the retreat tactic which led to thrashing of romans. Rajputs stand no chance even with their cavalry as I do not think rajput cavalry was as heavy as persians and persians too had a hard time in breaking ranks of romans.

However, elephants and archers could play a role but these are not traditional rajput strength but the mainstay of clasical ancient indian kshatriyas. If Skandagupta could defeat hunas, it was through his longbow type archers armed with bows over 6 feet. If you employ them against Roman in thousands and in case of their attack shower them with arrows, it may be useful but alas rajputs did not possess archers in tens of thousands and so I think they have little chance against Romans.
 

Singh

Phat Cat
Super Mod
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
20,311
Likes
8,403
Country flag
What is this? The onus is not on me as i am not making any claim.
Look up Bandi Chor Divas.

We'll find, our oral history has been verified to be mostly correct though. We don't really need to lie, we have stuff like aurangzeb's spy converting and giving his last report after seeing guru ji kill and bring 5 men back to life.

Chamkaur, Saragari, Muktsar speak for themselves.

I've just seen you being 'difficult' towards my brother about Guru Tegh Bahadur ji, our dada as well.
He says all of Sikh history is false, because he has not come across a source that proves otherwise. And any source you will throw at him he will probably discredit.

He should know better, Sikhs are no liars.

Although, I find it hard to believe and don't mean to disparage that he is readily able to believe texts supposedly written many millenia ago and which are infact disputed, but Sikh history despite being a few centuries old is full of lies and exaggerations.
 

TrueSpirit

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
1,893
Likes
841
I am replying to very old post.

Thats untrue. Punjab and its various Sikh kingdoms were the last to fall, so it were not the Sikhs who were helping the British expand, rather, the British had already taken out the Marathas and all the other smaller kingdoms of the subcontinent before the Anglo-Sikh wars took place. Infact, the Maratha empire had capitulated to the British 30 years before the British were able to take Punjab; and it were Bengali, Marathi and various other Indian soldiers which the British employed against the Khalsa armies in Punjab. This bitterness was one of the reasons that the Sikhs remained loyal to the British against the Indian wars of independence. Sikh kingdom was a lost cause, and they would rather have the British rule as the unifying force in Punjab rather than have other "foriegn" Indian kings ruling the land, especially since the others put the Mughal king as their leader.
That's 100% true.

The same Mughals which had become tributaries to the Sikh Empire.
Could you please elaborate this a bit ?
 

TrueSpirit

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
1,893
Likes
841
@Singh: Read it. I had no previous knowledge about this incident. You are really well read, I must say.

However, the article does not quote the sources that Major-Gen Kulwant Singh must have used. Some parts of it (towards the end) sounded as if relying on hearsay & folklore. Leaving Red fort immediately after conquering it, despite having enough numbers to consolidate their position & replenish their supplies (relative closeness to their bases) does not sound very convincing. So, there should be more to it than what meets the eye.

But as I said, I don't have much of an idea about his incident.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Tronic

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
1,915
Likes
1,282
Could you please elaborate this a bit ?
Mughals were given a mauling when one of the Sikh Misls invaded Delhi, captured the Red Fort, and built up all the historic Gurudwaras you see in Delhi today.




Singh has posted the link above about the Karor Singhia misl capturing Delhi.



From his link:
By early 1783, the Sikhs commenced preparations for the capture of the Red Fort. A force of 60,000 under the leadership of Sardar Jassa Singh Ahluwalia and Sardar Baghel Singh assembled at Ghaziabad, continuing their attacks and capturing rich towns around Delhi. Enormous booty was collected by Sikhs, which was sent to Punjab with an escort of 20,000 soldiers. One-tenth of this booty was sent to the Golden Temple as offering to the Guru.

On March 8 the Sikhs captured Malka Ganj and Sabzi Mandi. Prince Mirza Shikoh, on orders from the Emperor, tried to stop the invaders but suffered defeat, and fled. On March 9 they captured Ajmeri Gate. There was a panic in the city; many took shelter in the fort. Jassa Singh Ramgarhia joined the Sikh forces at the last moment with 10,000 soldiers. As many as 30,000 Sikh horsemen of Baghel Singh's army were camping at a place now known as Tees Hazari, location of the Delhi High Court.

The Sikhs attacked the Red Fort on March 11,1783. The Emperor and all his guards, in fact every one in the fort, hid themselves. The story goes that an insider informed Sikhs of a weak spot in the wall of the fort, where the soldiers made a hole by ramming it with wooden logs; the place is named as Mori Gate, the location of Inter State Bus terminus (ISBT).

The Sikhs entered the Red Fort, hoisted the kesri Nishan Sahib, and occupied Diwan-e-aam, a key location in the fort, where the Emperor, sitting on the throne, used to have audience with the public. In a symbolic gesture, Jassa Singh Ahluwalia was made to sit on the throne, which made him the Emperor. His old rival and his name-sake, Jassa Singh Ramgarhia, joined by some other chiefs, opposed Ahluwalia's sitting on the throne. Before the event took an ugly turn, Jassa Singh Ahluwalia gracefully vacated the throne and, thus, avoided a controversy amongst the chiefs at a critical moment.

The Emperor was quick to reconcile with the Sikhs; he offered a treaty and accepted their terms. The Emperor was to pay Rs 3 lakh as nazrana. The kotwali area was to remain the property of the Sikhs. Baghel Singh was allowed to construct gurdwaras on all sites connected with Sikh history. Baghel Singh was to retain 4,000 soldiers till his task was completed; the Emperor was to pay all expenses. The Sikh army left the fort after the treaty.
 

Singh

Phat Cat
Super Mod
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
20,311
Likes
8,403
Country flag
Mughals were given a mauling when one of the Sikh Misls invaded Delhi, captured the Red Fort, and built up all the historic Gurudwaras you see in Delhi today.




Singh has posted the link above about the Karor Singhia misl capturing Delhi.



From his link:
The Mughals had martyred Sikh Gurus, Sahibzade and others for not bowing into their demands and within a century the Mughals were bowing before the Sikhs in their capital.
 

Tronic

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2009
Messages
1,915
Likes
1,282
@Singh: Read it. I had no previous knowledge about this incident. You are really well read, I must say.

However, the article does not quote the sources that Major-Gen Kulwant Singh must have used. Some parts of it (towards the end) sounded as if relying on hearsay & folklore. Leaving Red fort immediately after conquering it, despite having enough numbers to consolidate their position & replenish their supplies (relative closeness to their bases) does not sound very convincing. So, there should be more to it than what meets the eye.

But as I said, I don't have much of an idea about his incident.
Both of these books discuss the campaigns of the Karor Singhia misl:

History of the Punjab: Amazon.ca: Syed Mohammad Latif: Books
History of the Sikh People (1469-1988): Gopal Singh, Dr. Gopal Singh: 9788170231394: Amazon.com: Books

Also, another link describing the same: Unknown Fact of History: How the Sikhs Conquered Delhi 1773
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SinghSher1984

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
May 31, 2013
Messages
109
Likes
13
This comparison is not very fruitful as I've learned.
Basically, both the powers belong to very different geographies, timelines and military technologies.
Comparing them won't do any good.
For argument sake, I'd say Rajputs strength was close combat after galloping with a frontal cavalry charge.

Regards,
Virendra
I think two and a half strikes would break any army. If sikhs esp. Nihangs had continued to use in second war well, no India or Pak today.
They can prevail if if they have equal numbers and the combat is done on horseback but if it is infantry based combat and fighting is done on land, Rajputs or for that matter anyone will be thrashed by romans, Roman legions were invincible on three accounts

2. Central organizational advantages like defeat of tens of thousands of warriors was easily replenished due to great organization of roman army

3. Physique and tactics were core of their strength. No one less than 5 feet 10 inches was recruited and the discipline exhibited by the romans

It was only the retreat tactic which led to thrashing of romans. Rajputs stand no chance even with their cavalry as I do not think rajput cavalry was as heavy as persians and persians too had a hard time in breaking ranks of romans.

However, elephants and archers could play a role but these are not traditional rajput strength but the mainstay of clasical ancient indian kshatriyas. If Skandagupta could defeat hunas, it was through his longbow type archers armed with bows over 6 feet. If you employ them against Roman in thousands and in case of their attack shower them with arrows, it may be useful but alas rajputs did not possess archers in tens of thousands and so I think they have little chance against Romans.
Not true, gladius is made for shorter man to fight taller romans were 5 4 -6 even white people mid ages 5 4 ish was average. Furthermore, in ancient combat most of the casualites were when other army ran with a sword and shield it is very hard to hit another person. Look all this up, simple fact is if we lure them into our jungles and fight to the death, well if the sun doesn't cook them, the aghoris will. :p
Look up Bandi Chor Divas.

He says all of Sikh history is false, because he has not come across a source that proves otherwise. And any source you will throw at him he will probably discredit.

He should know better, Sikhs are no liars.

Although, I find it hard to believe and don't mean to disparage that he is readily able to believe texts supposedly written many millenia ago and which are infact disputed, but Sikh history despite being a few centuries old is full of lies and exaggerations.
I think only proof of sikh history we need is to go to mughal emperors tombs and see their soiled undergarments. :hail:
@Singh: Read it. I had no previous knowledge about this incident. You are really well read, I must say.

However, the article does not quote the sources that Major-Gen Kulwant Singh must have used. Some parts of it (towards the end) sounded as if relying on hearsay & folklore. Leaving Red fort immediately after conquering it, despite having enough numbers to consolidate their position & replenish their supplies (relative closeness to their bases) does not sound very convincing. So, there should be more to it than what meets the eye.

But as I said, I don't have much of an idea about his incident.
There are other points to war as well, as next post addressed. 6th and 10th patsah never conquered terrirotry were fighting to show truth and justice.
Mughals were given a mauling when one of the Sikh Misls invaded Delhi, captured the Red Fort, and built up all the historic Gurudwaras you see in Delhi today.




Singh has posted the link above about the Karor Singhia misl capturing Delhi.



From his link:
Here's another funny thing, Pakis and Afghanis still wear Salwar to hide from Sikhs. :p:namaste:

VJKVJF||

And yo Singh, learn to be literate in Gurmukhi bro. :p

"The Mughals had martyred Sikh Gurus, Sahibzade and others for not bowing into their demands and within a century the Mughals were bowing before the Sikhs in their capital. "

http://voiceofdharma.org/books/siii/ch8.htm

They never could fight well, dozens of invasions before success. I'd say fatal flaw of ours, is recognizing tyrants as kings and not killing them. True, you shouldn't kill a true king but a ghazi, babbar, etc. type selling slaves and writing about their crushes on little boys are not men, nor kings.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Singh

Phat Cat
Super Mod
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
20,311
Likes
8,403
Country flag
They can prevail if if they have equal numbers and the combat is done on horseback but if it is infantry based combat and fighting is done on land, Rajputs or for that matter anyone will be thrashed by romans, Roman legions were invincible on three accounts

1. Superior training


2. Central organizational advantages like defeat of tens of thousands of warriors was easily replenished due to great organization of roman army

3. Physique and tactics were core of their strength. No one less than 5 feet 10 inches was recruited and the discipline exhibited by the romans can be seen at battle of Carrhea where they lost heavily but initially even cavalry of Parthians( the predecessor of turk cavalry which was so dreadful for us) failed to break their ranks despite furious onslaughts.

It was only the retreat tactic which led to thrashing of romans. Rajputs stand no chance even with their cavalry as I do not think rajput cavalry was as heavy as persians and persians too had a hard time in breaking ranks of romans.

However, elephants and archers could play a role but these are not traditional rajput strength but the mainstay of clasical ancient indian kshatriyas. If Skandagupta could defeat hunas, it was through his longbow type archers armed with bows over 6 feet. If you employ them against Roman in thousands and in case of their attack shower them with arrows, it may be useful but alas rajputs did not possess archers in tens of thousands and so I think they have little chance against Romans.
Hannibal and his mercenaries raped the Romans.

More than a fourth of Roman males died fighting Hannibal.
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
While the Rajput and the Roman are fighting, a Turk suddenly appears, kills them both, and takes their bling and bitches.

:truestory:
 

Bhadra

Professional
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
11,991
Likes
23,758
Country flag
Pathetic !

Another Rajput bashing thread...
 

MAYURA

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
888
Likes
250
Hannibal and his mercenaries raped the Romans.

More than a fourth of Roman males died fighting Hannibal.
After that battle , Rome not only survived but has left us monuments in thousands and i assure you not one of such class is found in india of that time.

There are some brickwalls surviving from Carthage though. Romans were invincible when it came on endurance.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top