Alexander the Great Invades India

Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,785
Likes
48,227
Country flag
Alexander the Great and the Rain of Burning Sand


Alexander the Great and the Rain of Burning Sand





In 332 BC Alexander the Great and his Macedonian army suffered the effects of a fiendish chemical incendiary that caused horrendous casualties. During Alexander's seven-month siege of the Phoenician city of Tyre (now Lebanon), the Phoenicians realized that they needed a powerful antipersonnel weapon to "conquer such a courageous enemy." They devised "an ingenious and horrible torment which even the bravest could not deflect." The ancient Greek historian Diodorus described the battle.

The Phoenicians heated fine sand in enormous shallow bronze bowls. Then they either poured or catapulted the red-hot sand over Alexander's soldiers. The sand rained down on "those who were fighting most boldly, bringing them utter misery." There was no escape for anyone within range, says Diodorus, as the molten grains of sand "sifted down" on the Macedonians, "searing their skin with intense heat, inflicting terrible pain." Diodorus tells how the victims writhed, trying to shake off the sand, "shrieking like those under torture." In "excruciating agony," Diodorus continued, many of Alexander's men "went mad and died."

The account of the rain of burning sand at Tyre, created two millennia ago, bears an uncanny resemblance to the effects of a modern chemical incendiary, white phosphorus. Like the burning grains of sand deployed by the Phoenicians, the hot metallic embers of white phosphorus cause clothing and other materials to combust. When white phosphorus bombshells burst, the explosion showers white-hot shrapnel that sticks to the skin and burns through flesh to the bone, causing severe deep burns or death. Wounds continue to smolder even after dressings are applied. Much like the Phoenicians' heated sand, the tiny intensely hot flakes of phosphorus continue to burn as they penetrate deeply through skin and flesh, causing severe burns or death.

White phosphorus clearly has all of the horrific features of a chemical weapon. It is widely dispersed with no means of precise delivery to targets, inevitably blanketing civilians within range, causing extreme suffering to anyone it touches. Currently, white phosphorus is not classified or banned as a chemical weapon. It seems that history's lessons should be enough to convince us that no government can justify deploying chemical armaments or any substance that behaves like one. Yet numerous reports allege that white phosphorus antipersonnel weapons have been used in the past few decades in the Middle East and Central Asia (Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Chechen, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Gaza). Such claims are usually denied, with rationalizations that the phosphorus is used only for nighttime illumination or to create dense smoke cover for advancing troops.

Chemical weapons are generally assumed to be modern inventions, but their roots are very ancient. It is sadly ironic that an ancient precursor to phosphorus incendiaries was reported more than two millennia ago in this same historically war-torn corner of the world.
 

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
Anyway, I don't understand what you are saying Indian states should have done. Do you think they just allowed foreign invaders to pass through their lands, without any resistance? There were probably numerous battles fought around the Khyber Pass throughout history. But numerous times, the invaders were able to break through. If any Indian state or a coalition of Indian states gathered enough forces to repel an invading force at the Khyber Pass, or at any other key strategic pass like the Bolan Pass, it would be just a temporary victory. All states and nations rise and decline; sooner or later a new Central Asian horde would emerge and defeat the weakening Indian states or coalition of states. Since Central Asian peoples are nomadic in nature, populations on India's NW frontier were always in flux and the frontier was seldom stable.
Also the Central Asian nomads economies were war driven, as compared to Indian which was a sedentary agrarian civilization.

Probably because India itself was divided into numerous states. Only a centralized pan-Indian empire with unquestioned dominance over the subcontinent could afford to look towards Central Asia. But throughout Indian history, there have been few of those. Only the Mauryas and Mughals ruled over what is now Afghanistan, and both attempted to expand their influence into Central Asia through various means, with varying degrees of success.
I completely agree. But there's another side to this. Having a too centralized Imperial power means that when that power get defeated, there is nothing standing between the invaders and the general public. Perhaps a balance of the two would be ideal. I know that is not how history has turned out usually. Just thinkiing out loud.

Regards,
Virendra
 

pkroyal

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2013
Messages
545
Likes
721
@ Virendra "Perhaps a balance of the two would be ideal. I know that is not how history has turned out usually. Just thinkiing out loud".

Let us learn from History

Ideal would be that all volunteer Able Bodied Youth ( ABY :male/ female) in the villages in our country should be put through a 03 week training capsule of military training every year. Instructors could be a training team headed by serving soldier from the nearest unit ( based on a demarcated grid pattern with clear responsibility) and assisting him in the trg team some retired soldiers from army/bsf/crpf/police.

Initially to arouse interest commence with one week of trg. Food & shelter should be PPP ( Cent Govt/ state/ village)
weapons could be obsolete weapons captured from Naxals etc. Once the idea catches on go for full fledged three weeks.
I dare say, no insane ,drug induced, alcohol dependent pickled brain will ever think of a misadventure on our sacred land.
Aim is to resist at every level, so that we wear out the enemy & blunt the attack. army / def forces should come in to annihilate / rout the enemy.

A sure recipe for an emerging superpower like India existing in a dangerous neighbourhood

Note :India has about one lac villages with varying population .(70 % of India lives in villages),assume average 7000 people / village. In a village of population 7000 an average 1000 ABY would be present atleast 10% would volunteer , say 100( M/F) in one lac villages we would have a volunteer force of one crore fighters, 20 weapons per village for training means only 20 lac weapons ( once our SLR's are obsolete army itself will be able to hand over 11 lac weapons)

For the city dweller NCC is an option, have other ways of reaching out to train people in their own setting.
 
Last edited:

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
@ Virendra "Perhaps a balance of the two would be ideal. I know that is not how history has turned out usually. Just thinkiing out loud".

Let us learn from History

Ideal would be that all volunteer Able Bodied Youth ( ABY :male/ female) in the villages in our country should be put through a 03 week training capsule of military training every year. Instructors could be a training team headed by serving soldier from the nearest unit ( based on a demarcated grid pattern with clear responsibility) and assisting him in the trg team some retired soldiers from army/bsf/crpf/police.

Initially to arouse interest commence with one week of trg. Food & shelter should be PPP ( Cent Govt/ state/ village)
weapons could be obsolete weapons captured from Naxals etc. Once the idea catches on go for full fledged three weeks.
I dare say, no insane ,drug induced, alcohol dependent pickled brain will ever think of a misadventure on our sacred land.
Aim is to resist at every level, so that we wear out the enemy & blunt the attack. army / def forces should come in to annihilate / rout the enemy.

A sure recipe for an emerging superpower like India existing in a dangerous neighbourhood

Note :India has about one lac villages with varying population .(70 % of India lives in villages),assume average 7000 people / village. In a village of population 7000 an average 1000 ABY would be present atleast 10% would volunteer , say 100( M/F) in one lac villages we would have a volunteer force of one crore fighters, 20 weapons per village for training means only 20 lac weapons ( once our SLR's are obsolete army itself will be able to hand over 11 lac weapons)

For the city dweller NCC is an option, have other ways of reaching out to train people in their own setting.
We are a sickular soft power, not a military State. Civilians touching Guns is a recipe for disaster.
Don't you know that you need to prove a "considerable threat to life" even to get a fire-arm license in this country :D
Pardon my sarcasm, you touched a few raw nerves there.
Passing note: We might be going OT over here.
 

pkroyal

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2013
Messages
545
Likes
721
We are a sickular soft power, not a military State. Civilians touching Guns is a recipe for disaster.
Don't you know that you need to prove a "considerable threat to life" even to get a fire-arm license in this country :D
Pardon my sarcasm, you touched a few raw nerves there.
Passing note: We might be going OT over here.
I am sure you were a civilian before joining any of the academies
& once you left the fauj you again became one ( civilian)
i am sure you handled guns right from your childhood ( i surely did from the age of 11)
how much of a disaster have we become, pardon the acerbity, I am not going over the top , may be you are!
training youth to acquire discipline & military temper even at a scale that I am mentioning is worth its while as the future will unravel.
 

TrueSpirit1

The Nobody
Banned
Joined
Nov 5, 2013
Messages
1,575
Likes
1,024
I am sure you were a civilian before joining any of the academies
& once you left the fauj you again became one ( civilian)
i am sure you handled guns right from your childhood ( i surely did from the age of 11)
how much of a disaster have we become, pardon the acerbity, I am not going over the top , may be you are!
training youth to acquire discipline & military temper even at a scale that I am mentioning is worth its while as the future will unravel.
You missed the sarcasm in his post. He is apparently perturbed at this no-guns-for-civilians system in India.
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
I completely agree. But there's another side to this. Having a too centralized Imperial power means that when that power get defeated, there is nothing standing between the invaders and the general public. Perhaps a balance of the two would be ideal. I know that is not how history has turned out usually. Just thinkiing out loud.
I'm not sure what you mean by "there is nothing standing between the invaders and the general public". Please elaborate on that. Also, when a centralized imperial power gets defeated by a hostile invading force, often times you see smaller, more localized centers of power emerge in more remote/defensible areas. For example, following the Arab conquest of the Sassanian Empire there emerged independent, local dynasties in the northern parts of Iran, like the Bavand dynasty.
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
@ Virendra "Perhaps a balance of the two would be ideal. I know that is not how history has turned out usually. Just thinkiing out loud".

Let us learn from History

Ideal would be that all volunteer Able Bodied Youth ( ABY :male/ female) in the villages in our country should be put through a 03 week training capsule of military training every year. Instructors could be a training team headed by serving soldier from the nearest unit ( based on a demarcated grid pattern with clear responsibility) and assisting him in the trg team some retired soldiers from army/bsf/crpf/police.

Initially to arouse interest commence with one week of trg. Food & shelter should be PPP ( Cent Govt/ state/ village)
weapons could be obsolete weapons captured from Naxals etc. Once the idea catches on go for full fledged three weeks.
I dare say, no insane ,drug induced, alcohol dependent pickled brain will ever think of a misadventure on our sacred land.
Aim is to resist at every level, so that we wear out the enemy & blunt the attack. army / def forces should come in to annihilate / rout the enemy.

A sure recipe for an emerging superpower like India existing in a dangerous neighbourhood

Note :India has about one lac villages with varying population .(70 % of India lives in villages),assume average 7000 people / village. In a village of population 7000 an average 1000 ABY would be present atleast 10% would volunteer , say 100( M/F) in one lac villages we would have a volunteer force of one crore fighters, 20 weapons per village for training means only 20 lac weapons ( once our SLR's are obsolete army itself will be able to hand over 11 lac weapons)

For the city dweller NCC is an option, have other ways of reaching out to train people in their own setting.
Indian states never practiced mass conscription so they were never able to utilize the great population of India as a military resource. At least in North India, warfare was monopolized by military castes (kshatriyas) and professional groups who soldiered for a living. The peasant masses were not militarized and often were not even allowed to bear arms or fight. Thus, you get the famous description of ancient Indian warfare by people like Megasthenes, who states that soldiers could be killing each other in one field while some peasants carry on their work in a neighboring field.

Even in modern times, the Indian public at large has never fought any wars. All the wars that the Indian Republic fought against Pakistan were waged by full-time professionals (Indian Army), not by the Indian public. Even though India retains the option for conscription, it has never exercised it and probably never will. Anyway, modern warfare decisively favors small, professional armies over large, conscript armies, so the situation is not entirely comparable to ancient or medieval times.

No one can conquer India in modern times, because we have nukes.
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
And what if we want to conquer others ? Nuking the land we want to conquer wouldn't be logical.
We would rely on the Indian Army, Navy, and Air Force just like we did in 1961 when we recaptured Goa, or in 1971 (we could have hypothetically conquered Bangladesh during that time). Though I think the era of conquering/annexing other territories has more or less passed.
 

PredictablyMalicious

Punjabi
Banned
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
1,715
Likes
648
We would rely on the Indian Army, Navy, and Air Force just like we did in 1961 when we recaptured Goa, or in 1971 (we could have hypothetically conquered Bangladesh during that time). Though I think the era of conquering/annexing other territories has more or less passed.
African nations can still be easily conquered. The French just marched right through Mali. If they wanted they could have conquered it and other neighbouring countries too.
 

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
I'm not sure what you mean by "there is nothing standing between the invaders and the general public". Please elaborate on that. Also, when a centralized imperial power gets defeated by a hostile invading force, often times you see smaller, more localized centers of power emerge in more remote/defensible areas. For example, following the Arab conquest of the Sassanian Empire there emerged independent, local dynasties in the northern parts of Iran, like the Bavand dynasty.
I meant 'Organization of Defense'. When all the resources of a country are invested in an over centralized setup under an Imperial power; it is not easy to build a second line of defense at local levels on the fly, when the country is already overrun by an invader past the vanquished Imperials.
Second line of defense is organizable only if the social hierarchy supports it (like clan armies in Rajasthan).
Majority of Iran was overrun by Arabs and converted.

A de-centralized setup deals with this situation better. That is why the native Kingdoms were able to retain themselves in one form or the other and resisted the foreign invasions constantly. A centralized setup when defeated, might lead to the country's total domination by the foreign power (depending upon the latter's strength, agenda and strategy).

That is not to say that de-centralized setup is better than the centralized one; because contrary to 20th century sense of nationalism, it shows the symptoms of small state mindedness and clan specific loyalties. Thus an intruder in one part of the country (another's Kingdom) doesn't bother the other part/Kingdom. Thus invader has partial success in this setup, but since local defense is strong the rate of conversions wsa also not high.
When Sanga came to face Babur in Khanwa, his army was a last minute collaboration of various clans and small Kingdoms. There wasn't a proper cohesion of common strategy and style of battle. The same armies would fight better individually in their own backyard. But when they were brought together at the last minute, desirable results were not achieved. De-centralized setup.

A strong centre means the states are rendered weaker and strong states are a symptom of weak centre.
An equilibrium would be ideal. What kind of equilibrium and how it can be achieved is something I don't have clarity on.

Regards,
Virendra
 

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
Even in modern times, the Indian public at large has never fought any wars. All the wars that the Indian Republic fought against Pakistan were waged by full-time professionals (Indian Army), not by the Indian public. Even though India retains the option for conscription, it has never exercised it and probably never will.
I read somewhere that GOI had setup local defense communities and distributed weapons in civilians during the 1962 China war. Last line of Defense?
Even if true, that was an exception.
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
I meant 'Organization of Defense'. When all the resources of a country are invested in an over centralized setup under an Imperial power; it is not easy to build a second line of defense at local levels on the fly, when the country is already overrun by an invader past the vanquished Imperials.
Second line of defense is organizable only if the social hierarchy supports it (like clan armies in Rajasthan).
Majority of Iran was overrun by Arabs and converted.
If the Rajput armies were the second line of defense, then what was the "first" in India's case? Also, where does the "general public" come in? Rajput clans do not represent the general Indian public.

I don't think you understood my example. The defeat of a centralized, imperial state does not result in the total domination of that state, unless the conquering power is willing to carry on the political traditions of the defeated state. More often than not, this means that the conquering power needs to adopt elements of the local culture, language, and possibly even religion. Otherwise, the new rule would be perceived as alien and hostile by the existing political elites, and you might see independent, local states emerge under provincial governors who oppose the foreign rule. This is what happened in Iran following the Arab conquests; the Arabs were initially unwilling to share any power with local political elites or respect their customs, and as a result they could not effectively control Iran. Arab rule lasted for less than two centuries before it was overthrown, and even during that time there were independent Iranian states in the more remote parts of the country. The bottom line is that it is possible for a decentralized setup to emerge on the ruins of a centralized setup when the conquering power cannot effectively rule the country for whatever reason; being a centralized empire before some foreigners invade, does not mean all the provincial governors/administrators will instantly bow to the new authority. Especially not if the new authority is perceived as hostile.

The majority of conversions to Islam in Iran and modern-day east Afghanistan took place under under native dynasties and not under Arabs. The most remote parts like Ghor did not convert to Islam until the 12th century, i.e. 500 years after the Arab invasions. That's one reason why dynasties like the Ghorids were so zealous when they began expanding into North India; they were recent converts who had become Muslims just a few decades before the Battles of Tarain.
 

W.G.Ewald

Defence Professionals/ DFI member of 2
Professional
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
14,139
Likes
8,594
I read somewhere that GOI had setup local defense communities and distributed weapons in civilians during the 1962 China war. Last line of Defense?
Even if true, that was an exception.
There is a thread on DFI showing IA personnel training civilians recently with Lee-Enfields, if I recall correctly. The effort was linked to counter-terror defense.
 

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
If the Rajput armies were the second line of defense, then what was the "first" in India's case?
Nothing by the time Islamic invasions were happening. Before that there were Imperial powers.

Also, where does the "general public" come in? Rajput clans do not represent the general Indian public.
First, General Public in India was divided in castes where most were not trained for any form of organized warfare.
Putting such people in front of invading hordes would only give latter more fodder to chew.
Second, Rajput clans definitely represent the general public because Rajputs have been a community themselves for centuries and their bonds with other communities in the society are one of the reasons they could resist Turks and Mughals to sustain local sovereignty.
Not all the clansmen were princes. A rajput Army is not an army made of Princes and Kings. Majority of the clansmen owned small pieces of land and some even did farming themselves.

I don't think you understood my example. The defeat of a centralized, imperial state does not result in the total domination of that state, unless the conquering power is willing to carry on the political traditions of the defeated state. More often than not, this means that the conquering power needs to adopt elements of the local culture, language, and possibly even religion. Otherwise, the new rule would be perceived as alien and hostile by the existing political elites, and you might see independent, local states emerge under provincial governors who oppose the foreign rule. This is what happened in Iran following the Arab conquests; the Arabs were initially unwilling to share any power with local political elites or respect their customs, and as a result they could not effectively control Iran. Arab rule lasted for less than two centuries before it was overthrown, and even during that time there were independent Iranian states in the more remote parts of the country. The bottom line is that it is possible for a decentralized setup to emerge on the ruins of a centralized setup when the conquering power cannot effectively rule the country for whatever reason; being a centralized empire before some foreigners invade, does not mean all the provincial governors/administrators will instantly bow to the new authority. Especially not if the new authority is perceived as hostile.
Possible but not easy, unless the invaders themselves facilitate it.

The majority of conversions to Islam in Iran and modern-day east Afghanistan took place under under native dynasties and not under Arabs.
Which means that the politico-military elite had already converted. If Arabs were perceived as enemies why did the natives convert under local dynasties?

The most remote parts like Ghor did not convert to Islam until the 12th century, i.e. 500 years after the Arab invasions. That's one reason why dynasties like the Ghorids were so zealous when they began expanding into North India; they were recent converts who had become Muslims just a few decades before the Battles of Tarain.
Thanks for the info. But we're going so OT. :cry: I'm going to shut up.
 

PredictablyMalicious

Punjabi
Banned
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
1,715
Likes
648
If the Rajput armies were the second line of defense, then what was the "first" in India's case? Also, where does the "general public" come in? Rajput clans do not represent the general Indian public.

I don't think you understood my example. The defeat of a centralized, imperial state does not result in the total domination of that state, unless the conquering power is willing to carry on the political traditions of the defeated state. More often than not, this means that the conquering power needs to adopt elements of the local culture, language, and possibly even religion. Otherwise, the new rule would be perceived as alien and hostile by the existing political elites, and you might see independent, local states emerge under provincial governors who oppose the foreign rule. This is what happened in Iran following the Arab conquests; the Arabs were initially unwilling to share any power with local political elites or respect their customs, and as a result they could not effectively control Iran. Arab rule lasted for less than two centuries before it was overthrown, and even during that time there were independent Iranian states in the more remote parts of the country. The bottom line is that it is possible for a decentralized setup to emerge on the ruins of a centralized setup when the conquering power cannot effectively rule the country for whatever reason; being a centralized empire before some foreigners invade, does not mean all the provincial governors/administrators will instantly bow to the new authority. Especially not if the new authority is perceived as hostile.

The majority of conversions to Islam in Iran and modern-day east Afghanistan took place under under native dynasties and not under Arabs. The most remote parts like Ghor did not convert to Islam until the 12th century, i.e. 500 years after the Arab invasions. That's one reason why dynasties like the Ghorids were so zealous when they began expanding into North India; they were recent converts who had become Muslims just a few decades before the Battles of Tarain.
I will only address the bolded part of your response. The problem I see is that you are looking at history with a modern perspective. There was no centralized state called India in those times. It can be said for territories that had a majority rajput people that the fighting rajput clans represented the general public of those territories. For kingdoms that lacked significant rajput presence, other caste groups fought battles. It also isn't true that Rajputs were the only warriors in the geographical entity of modern India (different from the political union of India). Just because the Rajputs had a reputation across the region as formidable warriors does not mean they were the only warriors. Also, an additional argument can be made, which is a philosophical one. The armies of a nation are never representative of the "general public", at least not completely. Historically, women were completely absent from the battlefield, hence, the armies only represented 50 % of the general public, if gender demographics are taken to be a definition feature of the "general public". There are numerous other characteristics one can assign to the general public and then determine to what extent the proportion of these salient features in the armies match the proportion in the general public. One will always find that the armies are never completely representative of the general public.
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
First, General Public in India was divided in castes where most were not trained for any form of organized warfare.
Putting such people in front of invading hordes would only give latter more fodder to chew.
Second, Rajput clans definitely represent the general public because Rajputs have been a community themselves for centuries and their bonds with other communities in the society are one of the reasons they could resist Turks and Mughals to sustain local sovereignty.
Not all the clansmen were princes. A rajput Army is not an army made of Princes and Kings. Majority of the clansmen owned small pieces of land and some even did farming themselves.
No, Rajputs are not representative of the Indian public and never were. In large parts of India, like East India and South India, Rajputs (and even kshatriyas in general, in South India's case) don't even exist in any appreciable numbers. The very term "Rajput" itself indicates that they are not representative of the Indian public, along with the fact that they claim divine descent from Agni/Surya/Chandra to differentiate themselves from the Indian masses. In fact, no upper-caste Indian can be considered a "representative" of the general Indian public (at least in the historical sense). They were military, political, and/or social elites in one sense or another.

You are right though that the general public of India was divided into castes and thus could not resist foreign invasions (and more importantly, foreign domination). It was not possible to mobilize the Indian masses when only certain communities held a monopoly on the conduct of warfare - which again indicates that such communities are not representative of the general Indian public.


Possible but not easy, unless the invaders themselves facilitate it.
What does that mean?


Which means that the politico-military elite had already converted. If Arabs were perceived as enemies why did the natives convert under local dynasties?
The masses of Iran converted after Islam had been Persianized/localized to suit local culture. The Islamic Iranian dynasties continued to speak Persian rather than Arabic, used pre-Islamic titles like Shahanshah, and even claimed descent from pre-Islamic Iranian nobility rather than Arabs. Even the family of Mohammed Ghori claimed descent from the pre-Islamic Sassanians.

The reason why the politico-military elites converted in the first place was due to political opportunism. They saw that Islam was a rising force and wanted to take advantage of it, without comprising their own cultural/linguistic identity. They succeeded, and showed that Islamization does not equate to domination by Arabs or Arabization (like it did in Iraq, Egypt, Syria, and North Africa).
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
I will only address the bolded part of your response. The problem I see is that you are looking at history with a modern perspective. There was no centralized state called India in those times. It can be said for territories that had a majority rajput people that the fighting rajput clans represented the general public of those territories. For kingdoms that lacked significant rajput presence, other caste groups fought battles. It also isn't true that Rajputs were the only warriors in the geographical entity of modern India (different from the political union of India). Just because the Rajputs had a reputation across the region as formidable warriors does not mean they were the only warriors. Also, an additional argument can be made, which is a philosophical one. The armies of a nation are never representative of the "general public", at least not completely. Historically, women were completely absent from the battlefield, hence, the armies only represented 50 % of the general public, if gender demographics are taken to be a definition feature of the "general public". There are numerous other characteristics one can assign to the general public and then determine to what extent the proportion of these salient features in the armies match the proportion in the general public. One will always find that the armies are never completely representative of the general public.
No, I am not looking at Indian history from a modern perspective. And please tell me which territories had a majority Rajput population. Does even modern Rajasthan have a majority Rajput population?

Armies can never be representative of the general public in a caste society, where warfare is monopolized by certain communities. However, in large conscript armies they can be representative of the general public. The armies that fought in World War II for example were representative of the general public of those nations. I am obviously talking about the male population when I mean "general public", since women have never fought in large numbers, except in very exceptional circumstances (like the Soviet female partisans in WWII).
 

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
No, Rajputs are not representative of the Indian public and never were. In large parts of India, like East India and South India, Rajputs (and even kshatriyas in general, in South India's case) don't even exist in any appreciable numbers.
The numbers don't imply anything on the status. There are a lot of groups that are minority in the society. Not all of them are royal.
The very term "Rajput" itself indicates that they are not representative of the Indian public, along with the fact that they claim divine descent from Agni/Surya/Chandra to differentiate themselves from the Indian masses. In fact, no upper-caste Indian can be considered a "representative" of the general Indian public (at least in the historical sense). They were military, political, and/or social elites in one sense or another.
The term may mean anything. Term and the community are not one and the same. Term initially came out of the upper cream of Kshatriyas in north India. But in later centuries their progeny expanded into an entire community. Not each and every one of them is a prince/King.
So yes there were a large number of people with humble lifestyle among the Rajputs. I don't know about other upper caste Indians, but you are invited to visit Rajasthan and research how the people perceive Rajputs here. You'll get to know who is representative of what. These bonds are not known by reading books.

You are right though that the general public of India was divided into castes and thus could not resist foreign invasions (and more importantly, foreign domination). It was not possible to mobilize the Indian masses when only certain communities held a monopoly on the conduct of warfare - which again indicates that such communities are not representative of the general Indian public.
By and large there was no prohibition. It is not like the farmers were dying to fight and the fighting class said No you are not allowed.
Its just that everyone's jobs were defined in the society and they stuck to that; like in my team the developer develops the code and the tester test it.
A vice versa is not perceived as a good idea barring exceptional cases.
When shit hits the fan, of course the other castes are also involved in fighting. Mewari armies configuration would be a good example of that.

What does that mean?
It means that after the Imperial Army and Politicians have been destroyed, it is not easy for an alternate setup to emerge and challenge the dominating invaders. You need social structures (clannish Rajputana) to support that and you need standing armies that are well equipped, well trained. In the centralized setup, these resources are used, managed and controlled by the Imperials. If the Imperials are gone, it becomes very difficult to raise an organized resistance against an enemy already deep inside your territory. Like I said before, neither of the setups is a total flop and there are too many factors involved. But it is my opinion that a balance between the two is ideal.That is all.

The masses of Iran converted after Islam had been Persianized/localized to suit local culture. The Islamic Iranian dynasties continued to speak Persian rather than Arabic, used pre-Islamic titles like Shahanshah, and even claimed descent from pre-Islamic Iranian nobility rather than Arabs. Even the family of Mohammed Ghori claimed descent from the pre-Islamic Sassanians.

The reason why the politico-military elites converted in the first place was due to political opportunism. They saw that Islam was a rising force and wanted to take advantage of it, without comprising their own cultural/linguistic identity. They succeeded, and showed that Islamization does not equate to domination by Arabs or Arabization (like it did in Iraq, Egypt, Syria, and North Africa).
I'm not inclined in derailing this thread any further. Adios :)
 

Global Defence

Articles

Top