- Joined
- Aug 3, 2010
- Messages
- 8,005
- Likes
- 5,758
And may I know where you obtained the info ?Yep. The very same fellow whose songs we learn in Tamil Books
The Greatest Kings in Indian History
- Thread starter Bhoja
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2012
- Messages
- 12,835
- Likes
- 7,762
I read about it first in Wiki, when I was searching about atrocities done by Hinduism
. But then i searched if it was true, since I was shocked to see some one like him to have suggested something like that!!But anyway, here are the few things which I found.
Comments on Kaveriramani, comments on People adorning Vibhoothi in their body will get relief from all sorts of illness. , comments on People adorning Vibhoothi in their body will get relief from all sorts of illness. , comments on General
::Nirra Seer Nedumara Nayanar/Mangayakarasiyar ::
Comments on N K Ravi, comments on What makes Hinduism a unique way of life, comments on What makes Hinduism a unique way of life, comments on General
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2010
- Messages
- 8,005
- Likes
- 5,758
How is it the fault of Sambandar, assuming the whole to be true ?I read about it first in Wiki, when I was searching about atrocities done by Hinduism
But anyway, here are the few things which I found.
Comments on Kaveriramani, comments on People adorning Vibhoothi in their body will get relief from all sorts of illness. , comments on People adorning Vibhoothi in their body will get relief from all sorts of illness. , comments on General
::Nirra Seer Nedumara Nayanar/Mangayakarasiyar ::
Comments on N K Ravi, comments on What makes Hinduism a unique way of life, comments on What makes Hinduism a unique way of life, comments on General
I can't believe that nobody voted for Harsha Vardhan. He was perhaps after Ashoka the greatest king in Indian history.
He deeply cared for his people and like the Gupta kings he also introduced a fair tax system. And
he even held open court to discuss about the problems of his people. All these were confirmed
by the Chinese traveler Xuanzang who was very impressed by the deep care of Harsha Vardhan for the welfare
of his people.
He deeply cared for his people and like the Gupta kings he also introduced a fair tax system. And
he even held open court to discuss about the problems of his people. All these were confirmed
by the Chinese traveler Xuanzang who was very impressed by the deep care of Harsha Vardhan for the welfare
of his people.
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2009
- Messages
- 4,562
- Likes
- 2,572
^^ I added Harsha a while back, along with Kanishka.
commando elite
Regular Member
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2012
- Messages
- 49
- Likes
- 16
the brave rajputs could not detfeat the mughals but the assamese army defeated mughals 17 times
Virendra
Ambassador
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2010
- Messages
- 4,697
- Likes
- 3,041
You don't say such things in one line. Because they cannot be judged in one line, one battle. There is an endless struggle of enmity and uneasy alliances that marks the tracks between Rajputs and Mughals.
Rajputs were next door to Mughal centre of Delhi-Agra from oneside and Afghans from the other side. Assam was far flung and its terrain offered far more difficulties to Mughals who a) hated rainy, humid climate and b) didn't know much about the terrain.
That said, no one can take away the feats of Ahoms and Lachit Barphukan.
I for one can point to the existence of Rajputs intact with their culture and identity after thoroughly biting a millennium of bombarding invasions. Though I don't see those Mughals around here anymore
That is what I count as victory.
Regards,
Virendra
Last edited:
This is a description of 11th century India by the Persian scholar Al-Biruni:
Al-Biruni considered the Hindus to be excellent philosophers, good mathematicians, and sound astrologers. He fully appreciated their mental achievements, and when he came across anything noble in their sciences or practical life he did not fail to praise it. Writing about the great tanks, or reservoirs, at holy places he remarked, "In this they have attained a very high degree of art, so that our people when they see them wonder at them and are unable to describe them, much less to construct anything like them."/4/
[[28]] But while al-Biruni had a sympathetic understanding of the profound achievements of Hindu society, there were Indian attitudes and customs that seemed to him to indicate fundamental weaknesses. The chief of this is summed up in his often-quoted analysis of the tone and temper of contemporary Hindu society: "We can only say that folly is an illness for which there is no medicine, and the Hindus believe that there is no country but theirs, no nation like theirs, no kings like theirs, no religion like theirs, no science like theirs. They are haughty, foolishly vain, self-conceited, and stolid. They are by nature niggardly in communicating that which they know, and they take the greatest possible care to withhold it from men of another caste among their own people, still much more, of course, from any foreigner."/5/
Am I the only one who thinks that this description matches with todays Indian society.
Al-Biruni considered the Hindus to be excellent philosophers, good mathematicians, and sound astrologers. He fully appreciated their mental achievements, and when he came across anything noble in their sciences or practical life he did not fail to praise it. Writing about the great tanks, or reservoirs, at holy places he remarked, "In this they have attained a very high degree of art, so that our people when they see them wonder at them and are unable to describe them, much less to construct anything like them."/4/
[[28]] But while al-Biruni had a sympathetic understanding of the profound achievements of Hindu society, there were Indian attitudes and customs that seemed to him to indicate fundamental weaknesses. The chief of this is summed up in his often-quoted analysis of the tone and temper of contemporary Hindu society: "We can only say that folly is an illness for which there is no medicine, and the Hindus believe that there is no country but theirs, no nation like theirs, no kings like theirs, no religion like theirs, no science like theirs. They are haughty, foolishly vain, self-conceited, and stolid. They are by nature niggardly in communicating that which they know, and they take the greatest possible care to withhold it from men of another caste among their own people, still much more, of course, from any foreigner."/5/
Am I the only one who thinks that this description matches with todays Indian society.
Bhadra
Professional
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2011
- Messages
- 11,991
- Likes
- 23,758
How long would rajputs fight when their Gurus, the Brahmins would join the invaders at the first instance and Baniyas would do their business at the first instance. Rajputs were only a handful soldiers leaders. The society at large failed them.
So they also joined in following Brahmins and Baniyas and peasants who even converted for survival.
One gets surprised to know that the best Persian, Arabic and Urdu scholars in India were brahmins.
Brhmins and Baniyas flocked Durbars of every Muslim King. They deserted their own Rajputs. Then why blame the Rajjputs, Jats, Sikhs etc and etc.
Last edited:
The major reason why the Indian rulers of north India could not defeat the Mughals was because they could not unify against
their common enemy. Even the Italian traveler Niccolao Manucci stated: "If the Rajas of north India were only united
among themselves, the Rana, Rathors, Kashwahas and Bundelas could easily expel Moguls from Hindustan."
The Marathas established the Maratha Empire in the 17th century and were able to destroy the Mughal Empire
because they were united against their enemy.
farooq abdullah is a brahmin who is now cm of jammu and kashmir
It is interesting to point out that Indian literature changed dramatically during the period of 1300 A.D. to 1500 A.D.
Before the 13th century Indian scholars wrote mostly on topics like science, mathematics, poetry and religion.
They also wrote biographies on great Indian kings who deeply cared for their people but they did not acknowledge
kings who were only famous because of their military success.
But in the 13th century this changed because of the Turkic invasion. The Indian scholars started
to celebrate military successful Indian rulers like Rana Kumbha or Bukka Raya who were able to defeat the Turkic invaders
and protect their people. Here is an example:
The poem, Ranamallachanda, is a short ballad, composed about 1400 by Sridhara, celebrating the heroic deeds of the Indian king Ranamalla of Idara.
Ranamalla of Idara, of the Kamadhaja or Rathoda family, was a great warrior. About 1397, he harassed Zafar Khan, the viceroy of Patana, and spread terror among the Mussalman chiefs.
As the army of the Sultan bristled with valour Ranamalla's whiskers flew about with wrath.
The Sultan calls upon him to submit. Ranamalla roars :
If my lotus-like head bows before the Mlechhas' feet, the sun will not rise in the sky. So long as the sun moves in the sky, Kamadhaja will not bow to a block of stone. Even if the flame of the submarine fire is extinguished, I will not yield an inch of land to the Mlechha (foreigner).
A battle ensues between the two armies, and is described in jingling rhymes. The Mussalmans are routed, and in token of submission the not unusual humiliation of being made to eat grass is forced on them. Ranamalla begins to think of world-wide conquest, and he says, "I will bring under my control everything on which the sun shines."
Kanhadadeprabandha (c. 1456) follows a greater literary tradition. It deals with the struggle which Gujarat made for self-preservation after 1297, and breathes the grim and heroic attitude of mind which prevailed among her people during the fourteenth century. The author, Padmanabha of Visalanagara, was the poet-laureate of Akheraja, the Cahamana or Cohana king of Jhalora and a descendant of the hero of the poem. Its language is Old Gujarati, then spoken all over Western Rajasthan including Gujarat.
The poem opens with a prayer, and proceeds to mention Maravada, `the land of nine forts', and the Sonagira Chauhanas `as noble looking as royal swans'. Karnadeva Ghelo ruled in Gujarata. Being enamored of Kesava's wife, he killed the husband and appropriated the wife. The minister Madhava, Kesava's brother, moved by wrath, said, "I shall not taste any food in Gujarata till I bring the Turks here." One this, the poet feelingly laments :
To the place where he worshipped his God and sang His praises; where he performed sacrifices and gave gifts to Brahmanas; where he worshipped the sacred Tulsi plant and Pipala tree, heard recited the Vedas and the Puranas; where all go for pilgrimage; where all sing the Smrtis and the Puranas, there, Madhava brought the Mlechhas.
Ready to betray his country for a private wrong, Madhava goes to Delhi. He approaches Sultan Alla-ud-din with presents and offers to subdue Gujarat if an army is given to him. The sultan consents, and sends a message to Kanhadade, the Cohana king of Jhalora, to let the imperial army pass through his territory on its way to Gujarata. Proudly, Kanhadade replies :
I owe no such duty. They will plunder the villages; take my men prisoners; tear off women's ears. I do not make way for those who oppress the Brahmana and the cow.
But Alla-ud-din, determined to conquer Gujarat, secures a passage through Mevada. Battada of Modasa vainly bars the way of the onrushing hosts.
Pillaging, burning, destroying, the Sultan's army marches towards Patana. The Mussalmans, with Madhava at their head, invest the city. The ex-minister, traitor to the last, advises Karna to escape with his life. The king takes the advice; the queen flees on foot; and the capital falls into the hands of Alafkhan, the general of Alla-ud-din. `And from what once were temples was sounded the muezzin's call to prayers.'
The army then started on a further campaign of conquest and destruction to the south. It carried carnage right up to Surat, Rander, and the sea; returned to Saurashtra, destroyed many of its towns, and proceeded to Prabhasa. The Rajputs mobilised their strength to protect Somanatha, and valiantly fought the enemy. But the fortress fell; and in front of the temple which they had vainly sought to protect, the heroic warriors, after ceremonial bathing and anointment, fell fighting, `surrendered themselves to Somanatha'. Madhava, the cause of all this evil, was also killed.
The temple had fallen into the hands of the enemy. Alafkhan broke open the shrine, shattered the idol to pieces, and carried away the fragments in a cart to Delhi. "We shall make chunam out of it", he said.
The conquering army, the poet proceeds, burnt villages, devastated the land, plundered people's wealth; took Brahmanas, children and women of all castes captive, and flogged them with thongs of raw hide; carried a moving prison with it, and converted the prisoners into obsequious Turks. Alafkhan then turned his attention to Kanhadade, who had declined to give a passage to his army.
When Alafkhan sends a message to Kanhadade, he gets a fitting reply : "A hero never praises himself. He who performs heroic deeds alone wins fame." Alafkhan thereupon continues his march and encamps at Sirana.
Ministers of the Cohana king call on the Khan, who shows them his army and his prisoners. The ministers report the state of things to Kanhadade, who gets ready for battle and the Rajput armies go forward to meet the foe and to rescue his people.
In the battle that follows, the Turks are routed. Alafkhan flees for life. And nine lacs of prisoners are set free. The victory is then celebrated in Jhalora, and the conqueror returns home amidst the rejoicings of his people.
MOD: Nice post. Made some cosmetic corrections. Please quote the source wherever applicable.
Before the 13th century Indian scholars wrote mostly on topics like science, mathematics, poetry and religion.
They also wrote biographies on great Indian kings who deeply cared for their people but they did not acknowledge
kings who were only famous because of their military success.
But in the 13th century this changed because of the Turkic invasion. The Indian scholars started
to celebrate military successful Indian rulers like Rana Kumbha or Bukka Raya who were able to defeat the Turkic invaders
and protect their people. Here is an example:
The poem, Ranamallachanda, is a short ballad, composed about 1400 by Sridhara, celebrating the heroic deeds of the Indian king Ranamalla of Idara.
Ranamalla of Idara, of the Kamadhaja or Rathoda family, was a great warrior. About 1397, he harassed Zafar Khan, the viceroy of Patana, and spread terror among the Mussalman chiefs.
As the army of the Sultan bristled with valour Ranamalla's whiskers flew about with wrath.
The Sultan calls upon him to submit. Ranamalla roars :
If my lotus-like head bows before the Mlechhas' feet, the sun will not rise in the sky. So long as the sun moves in the sky, Kamadhaja will not bow to a block of stone. Even if the flame of the submarine fire is extinguished, I will not yield an inch of land to the Mlechha (foreigner).
A battle ensues between the two armies, and is described in jingling rhymes. The Mussalmans are routed, and in token of submission the not unusual humiliation of being made to eat grass is forced on them. Ranamalla begins to think of world-wide conquest, and he says, "I will bring under my control everything on which the sun shines."
Kanhadadeprabandha (c. 1456) follows a greater literary tradition. It deals with the struggle which Gujarat made for self-preservation after 1297, and breathes the grim and heroic attitude of mind which prevailed among her people during the fourteenth century. The author, Padmanabha of Visalanagara, was the poet-laureate of Akheraja, the Cahamana or Cohana king of Jhalora and a descendant of the hero of the poem. Its language is Old Gujarati, then spoken all over Western Rajasthan including Gujarat.
The poem opens with a prayer, and proceeds to mention Maravada, `the land of nine forts', and the Sonagira Chauhanas `as noble looking as royal swans'. Karnadeva Ghelo ruled in Gujarata. Being enamored of Kesava's wife, he killed the husband and appropriated the wife. The minister Madhava, Kesava's brother, moved by wrath, said, "I shall not taste any food in Gujarata till I bring the Turks here." One this, the poet feelingly laments :
To the place where he worshipped his God and sang His praises; where he performed sacrifices and gave gifts to Brahmanas; where he worshipped the sacred Tulsi plant and Pipala tree, heard recited the Vedas and the Puranas; where all go for pilgrimage; where all sing the Smrtis and the Puranas, there, Madhava brought the Mlechhas.
Ready to betray his country for a private wrong, Madhava goes to Delhi. He approaches Sultan Alla-ud-din with presents and offers to subdue Gujarat if an army is given to him. The sultan consents, and sends a message to Kanhadade, the Cohana king of Jhalora, to let the imperial army pass through his territory on its way to Gujarata. Proudly, Kanhadade replies :
I owe no such duty. They will plunder the villages; take my men prisoners; tear off women's ears. I do not make way for those who oppress the Brahmana and the cow.
But Alla-ud-din, determined to conquer Gujarat, secures a passage through Mevada. Battada of Modasa vainly bars the way of the onrushing hosts.
Pillaging, burning, destroying, the Sultan's army marches towards Patana. The Mussalmans, with Madhava at their head, invest the city. The ex-minister, traitor to the last, advises Karna to escape with his life. The king takes the advice; the queen flees on foot; and the capital falls into the hands of Alafkhan, the general of Alla-ud-din. `And from what once were temples was sounded the muezzin's call to prayers.'
The army then started on a further campaign of conquest and destruction to the south. It carried carnage right up to Surat, Rander, and the sea; returned to Saurashtra, destroyed many of its towns, and proceeded to Prabhasa. The Rajputs mobilised their strength to protect Somanatha, and valiantly fought the enemy. But the fortress fell; and in front of the temple which they had vainly sought to protect, the heroic warriors, after ceremonial bathing and anointment, fell fighting, `surrendered themselves to Somanatha'. Madhava, the cause of all this evil, was also killed.
The temple had fallen into the hands of the enemy. Alafkhan broke open the shrine, shattered the idol to pieces, and carried away the fragments in a cart to Delhi. "We shall make chunam out of it", he said.
The conquering army, the poet proceeds, burnt villages, devastated the land, plundered people's wealth; took Brahmanas, children and women of all castes captive, and flogged them with thongs of raw hide; carried a moving prison with it, and converted the prisoners into obsequious Turks. Alafkhan then turned his attention to Kanhadade, who had declined to give a passage to his army.
When Alafkhan sends a message to Kanhadade, he gets a fitting reply : "A hero never praises himself. He who performs heroic deeds alone wins fame." Alafkhan thereupon continues his march and encamps at Sirana.
Ministers of the Cohana king call on the Khan, who shows them his army and his prisoners. The ministers report the state of things to Kanhadade, who gets ready for battle and the Rajput armies go forward to meet the foe and to rescue his people.
In the battle that follows, the Turks are routed. Alafkhan flees for life. And nine lacs of prisoners are set free. The victory is then celebrated in Jhalora, and the conqueror returns home amidst the rejoicings of his people.
MOD: Nice post. Made some cosmetic corrections. Please quote the source wherever applicable.
Aruni
Regular Member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2010
- Messages
- 47
- Likes
- 37
This is a very good point - how many Kings envisaged the territory they ruled over as a nation, rather than their personal domain? There were some exceptions, sure - I voted for Chandasoka turned Dharmasoka - to show such massive transformation and then go on to be a messenger for peace and yet expand Indian religious and cultural influence to far flung corners of Asia is a truly marvellous feat.
In terms of the greatest visionary ever, well that has to be Mohan Gandhi in my mind.
Akbar IMHO also had a vision for a country in which people could live as equals (removal of the tax on non-Muslims was very progressive indeed). People who say Akbar wasn't Indian - this is why China is where it is, and we are where we are. They have long accepted the great Kings of the Qing dynasty as part of their culture and heritage while we still sweat over who is, and isn't Indian. In my mind it is simple - if someone hankers for a land outside India as his homeland, he is not Indian. Sir Robert Clive was definitely not Indian despite effectively ruling Eastern India for longer than many Indian rulers. Jalaluddin Mohammed Akbar, husband of Jodhabai, colleague of Raja Todar Mal, commander-in-chief of Raja Man Singh, was most definitely Indian.
Virendra
Ambassador
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2010
- Messages
- 4,697
- Likes
- 3,041
I don't think it is wise to judge like that- either of the Rajput or Brahmins or anyone else in isolation.Bhadra said:
I would like to know which cases of desertion you're pointing to and what were the disastrous consequences by such actions.
There are instances where Rajputs went over to Mughal camp. Amber Kachhwahas being the prime case.
There are instances where brahmins, vaishya and others joined Mughal and other invaders Darbars.
There are instances where Jats and Sikhs kept quiet when native and foreign powers collided at their door steps.
If we want to consider Islam's entry in India (the way it has been) as a failure for natives.
The failure was all round and one part of the society cannot be singled out for such sweeping criticism.
Moreover, caste system cannot be blamed for wherever the regular Rajput machinery failed.
It can though be considered a factor for lack of mass resistance once the peripheral defense falls and enemy has swept inside.
Indeed. Now we agree. "Society at large failed itself."Bhadra said:
And how exactly does learning foreign languages become treacherous?Bhadra said:
One of the reasons for Islamic rule in India is that while incoming muslims studied India and its DNA closely.
The Indians to the contrary never made an attempt to study and solve the challenge that Islam and muslims presented.
Look at the medieval history. To every single Indian text written on Islam/muslims there are 10 written by them on Indian and Indians. They studied us better than we did them.
Alberuni says that Indias insularity of outlook and abhorrence of foreign travel figures among reasons of their defeat.
Sounds crazy today but it was considered a sin to cross the ancient Aryavarta (@Iamanidiot - note the national notion?) boundary.
The person would be deemed to have lost his caste/ vedic character and need rituals to re-enter vedic society.
That is just my hazy second hand knowledge on this topic. This rule might have some puranic/brahminic basis.
Probably it was laid down so, because of the relegated un-vedic tribes that fought with their cousins and went westwards.
Example - For the same reason Raja Bhagwant Das was initially reluctant to cross this western boundary to rein in the unruly afghan tribes when Akbar asked him to go on that campaign.
Coming back to the awareness factor. Did you know that Indian rulers had almost no spy system which could have given them knowledge of foreign lands and weaknesses of their foreign opponents.
On the other hand :
"Invaders like Mahmud of Ghazni had a full fledged department of Secret Intelligence known as 'Diwani-i-Shaghul-i-Ashraf-i-Mamlukat' employing both men and women as spies who travelled in disguise collecting vital secret information for their Sultan."
That was just an example.
~Source - "Indian resistance to early muslim invaders upto 1206 A.D." by Ram Gopal Misra
Expecting politically independent and separate Kingdoms to glue together is wishful thinking. It can only be possible if those Kingdoms themselves are states under an imperial centralized power exerting control/rule over the pieces.Bhoja said:
That system ended in 5th century A.D. So the unity that could've stopped invaders at periphery itself, was missing since the post Gupta period of 6th century AD (with exception of Harshavardhan).
I consider it to be a great achievement to still hold out for centuries in front of the onslaught, while other regions in the world fell within months, like a pack of cards.
Another thing to note here is that while the lack of centralization gave holes to the invaders to plung in. It also created too many power centres where the invaders had to run left, right and centre to stamp their authority. And yet they fell short. North India though battered, was still resisting furiously due to this de-centrality and omni present cultural vitality.
Dismal performance and vanishing of Turks is evidence enough - they were running from one fort to another for regular war and at the same time from one mandal to another to quell rebellions.
Combinedly, Rajputs didn't lack anywhere in front of Sultantes or later the Mughals. But war power is not everything. Vision, strategy, technology, amibition and politics - all are essential.
Men like Babur had it all. There was a vaccum of Pan India rulership and invaders like Mughals clenched the opportunity. They made the right moves.
Rajputs didn't lose it at battlefield. They lost it on the chess board.
By the time Babur arrived, Rana Sanga had already won Gwalior, subdued Malwa, invaded Gujrat and had held a Lodi prince captive. He had defeated Lodi's advance, subdued Khanzadas of Mewat and was breathing down Lodi's neck for the latter's core territories. Peela Khal near Agra was his northern boundary now. Delhi, Malwa and Gujrat all three Sulanates were defeated in respective battles.
~Source - "Maharana Sanga" by Har Bilas Sarda
"Sanga's achievements raised him to a position which inspired all his countrymen with hopes that a change of dynasty was about to take place; and they hailed with joy the prospect of a native Government of India" (Note how the regime change is talked about and how it is the central command of north India where Sanga was expected to reach.)
~ pg 469 W Erskine's "History of India"
So instead of putting it as "Kingdoms didn't unite" I would say it like this - "There was no central imperial power to rule an intact union of states."
Nationalism as we know it today is certainly a much later phenomenon and the infighting was a regular thing in the medieval ages throught out the world. And yes that includes our invaders.
Even then there are quite many occassions where alliances were formed between native Kingdoms to fight off the invaders. But in absence of a proper mechanism, these were only momentary and circumstantial arrangements done in face of potential wars with invaders. They did not bring about a permanent synergy or root out any big problems for good.
Related to this ineffectiveness of last moment alliances, come the defects of military organization and feudal basis of native armies.
Numerous feudal levies with no unity of training and organization, would come together at the last moment fighting under their respective leaders cannot be expcted to move professionally as a single military body. While the enemy soldiers (united by hopes of booty and duty of Islam) were just that - one huge military body fighting seemlessly.
We also failed to match them in heavy cavalry and cavalry-archery.
Except Rajputs with their Marwadi and Kathiawadi breeds, there was literally no Indian power employing a decent standing cavalry in the army. The dashing heavy cavalry Invaders were donning best breeds of horses coupled with best armour and highly agile cavalry archers.
The challenge India faced then was spinning one army after the other towards us. Loads of beasts full of a never before zeal. As said already the zeal was fed by lust of war booty and religious adrenaline.
Given that India was no poor country then, it seems the factors prevailing above just didn't cut enough to save us.
Actually some did. I remember reading that Shivaji has quoted "India for Indians" in his correspondences. Will try to dig out the source.Iamanidiot said:
Akbar was as hard handed and extremist as any other invader until he reached old age. Contrary to what people believe, he kept toggling the Jaziya on and off.
He ordered the massacre of 30,000 defense less civilians in an already fallen fort of Chittor.
Quoting from his own letter 'Fatehnama-i-Chittor' compiled in the list of manuscripts called "Munshat-i-Namakin"). Here goes :
Now from Tabaqati-i-Akbari, by Bakshi Nizamuddin Ahmad
Just because he was diplomatic when it suited him and wanted to rule the whole of India doesn't make me respect him as a great King. At the best he was patchy and not much better than his bigoted inheriters like Aurangzeb.
Regards,
Virendra
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2009
- Messages
- 4,562
- Likes
- 2,572
The Marathas did not destroy the Mughal Empire; it was Aurangzeb's own mismanagement and overstretching of the empire which weakened it and the Afghan invasions of the 18th century which dealt the death blow. Besides the fact that the Marathas fought and raided other "Hindus" far more frequently than they did the Mughals ("unity"
), the Marathas even allied with the Mughals and offered protection for them on several occasions (as they did in the 1750s in the face of the Afghan invasions). The Marathas also allied with the Bijapur Sultanate early in their career (Shivaji's ancestors were mercenaries and jagirdars under their employ) and destroyed the remnants of the Vijayanagar Empire, as well as with the Golconda Sultanate in the late 17th century when Aurangzeb invaded the Deccan. Aurangzeb, being an orthodox Sunni, considered the Shia rulers of Golconda to be kafirs, and it was this region of the Deccan (corresponding to present-day Telangana) which actually bore the brunt of Aurangzeb's expansionism. Basically, the Marathas, like other contemporary powers, were political opportunists who were most concerned with expanding their own power and influence. They had no "nationalist", pan-Indian agenda as they are sometimes portrayed as having in modern literature.
Virendra
Ambassador
- Joined
- Oct 16, 2010
- Messages
- 4,697
- Likes
- 3,041
True.The Marathas did not destroy the Mughal Empire; it was Aurangzeb's own mismanagement and overstretching of the empire which weakened it and the Afghan invasions of the 18th century which dealt the death blow. Besides the fact that the Marathas fought and raided other "Hindus" far more frequently than they did the Mughals ("unity"
Delhi-Agra belt was the imperial power center of India then. One who sat there was seen as the ruler of India, even if sitting only symbolically at times.
Marathas knew that a violent dash at Delhi-Agra may result in momentary expulsion of Mughals from there. But it would rally the muslims of entire sub continent against the Marathas.
They did the sensible thing - of subtly and gradually influencing affairs in the Delhi Darbaar.
Till Shivaji the vision was there. Don't know about later Marathas.
What I know from Rajputana perspective, is that they interfered and raided the region indiscriminately; thus alienating the entire Rajputana.
This came back to bite them during the encounter with Abdali.
Sikhs, Jats, Rajputs - for their own unique reasons, none of them rallied alongside Marathas.
Regards,
Virendra
The Marathas were the main reason for the collapse of the Mughal Empire.
Aurangzeb himself lost the Maratha-Mughal war of 27 years. Later the Marathas were able to
conquer the major part of north India. They even captured Delhi and put a puppet ruler on the throne.
Some of the later Maratha rulers like Bajirao had the same dream of Swaraj like Shivaji.
But the successors of Bajirao didn't care about the vision of Shivaji.
Aurangzeb himself lost the Maratha-Mughal war of 27 years. Later the Marathas were able to
conquer the major part of north India. They even captured Delhi and put a puppet ruler on the throne.
Some of the later Maratha rulers like Bajirao had the same dream of Swaraj like Shivaji.
But the successors of Bajirao didn't care about the vision of Shivaji.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2009
- Messages
- 2,626
- Likes
- 1,670
The Maratha period needs to be separated into two blocks: one under Shivaji, and the other under the Peshwas. Shivaji had a grand vision for the unification of India and the attainment of "Swarajya", or self-rule, and the expulsion of foreign monarchs and dynasties. His whole life was spent fighting Aurangzeb and the Mughal empire to attain this goal. Aurangzeb did manage to outlive Shivaji, but he was never able to subdue the small band of devoted Marathas that had organized themselves into a power to be reckoned with under Shivaji.
After Shivaji and his son Sambhaji, the Marathas were primarily led by the Peshwas under Bajirao I and his descendents. Their vision was different from that of Shivaji in the sense that they wanted to expand Maratha power across the subcontinent regardless of who they had to pick a fight against. They saw themselves an an imperial power, and in one famous Peshwa's words, the Maratha empire would extend from "Attock to Cuttack". They were successful in their quest-they expanded the tiny kingdom of Shivaji which covered just a few districts of present day Maharashtra to cover more than half of India.
The Peshwas wanted to replace the Mughals as the pre-eminent power in India. However, they did not pay heed to the growing British power in India and in the process of creating an empire, they picked fights with everybody from the Rajputs to the Sikhs and Tipu Sultan. This in addition to a series of poor military decisions (most notably at Panipat) and internal feuding between the Peshwas is what led to their downfall. The Marathas were the last major power to fall to the British, in 1818.
After Shivaji and his son Sambhaji, the Marathas were primarily led by the Peshwas under Bajirao I and his descendents. Their vision was different from that of Shivaji in the sense that they wanted to expand Maratha power across the subcontinent regardless of who they had to pick a fight against. They saw themselves an an imperial power, and in one famous Peshwa's words, the Maratha empire would extend from "Attock to Cuttack". They were successful in their quest-they expanded the tiny kingdom of Shivaji which covered just a few districts of present day Maharashtra to cover more than half of India.
The Peshwas wanted to replace the Mughals as the pre-eminent power in India. However, they did not pay heed to the growing British power in India and in the process of creating an empire, they picked fights with everybody from the Rajputs to the Sikhs and Tipu Sultan. This in addition to a series of poor military decisions (most notably at Panipat) and internal feuding between the Peshwas is what led to their downfall. The Marathas were the last major power to fall to the British, in 1818.
Last edited:
Here is the English translation of the Indian text Rayavacakamu which was written in 16th century.
It is a polemic work which is directed against the uncivilized behavior of the Turks.
The structure of the text is very interesting. The author of the text tries to prove the inferiority of the Turks
by comparing them with the great Indian kings Krishnadevaraya of the Vijayanagar Empire and Raja Gajapati of Orissa.
Tidings of the King: A Translation and Ethnohistorical Analysis of the ... - Phillip B. Wagoner - Google Books
It is a polemic work which is directed against the uncivilized behavior of the Turks.
The structure of the text is very interesting. The author of the text tries to prove the inferiority of the Turks
by comparing them with the great Indian kings Krishnadevaraya of the Vijayanagar Empire and Raja Gajapati of Orissa.
Tidings of the King: A Translation and Ethnohistorical Analysis of the ... - Phillip B. Wagoner - Google Books
Last edited:
