- Joined
- Oct 21, 2012
- Messages
- 895
- Likes
- 456
I thought Prithviraj captured Mahmud 17 times and let him go due to Kshatriya honor code.
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^^
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.
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.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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)
That was Mohammed Ghori of Ghor, not the Mahmud Ghazni.I thought Prithviraj captured Mahmud 17 times and let him go due to Kshatriya honor code.
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.In order for cholas to reach north[or Gazni reaching south] they had to pass the deccan first which was ruled by chalukyas then.
This is interesting. I wonder why the Chalukya Dynasty and the Chola Dynasty were never able to make an alliance whichYep. 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.
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.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.
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.Do you know whether the solanki kingdom of Gujarat was a branch of the Chalukya Dynasty?
That shows how TIGERS fail when led by sheep nothing more,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 not exactly true. Cholas didn't destroy Buddhist monasteries and built Shiva temples over them. But yes they looted.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?
Reminds of me a mural of Polonnaruwa era. (Polonnaruwa era was ushered right after the defeat of the Cholas.)
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.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.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
India was united as one nation but only socio-culturally, not politically.There was no INDIA as a whole it's like different country all together ruled by different people.
Mate I am sorry if I have hurt your feelings BUT the fact remains that After GhazniHave 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.
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.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
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 ..The Rajputs were India's first line of defence and yet they were busy infighting