16th Century Battle: Krishna Devaraya vs Babur

[Dreamhunter]

Who would win a battle between the 2 most powerful rulers of early 16th century South Asia who were also some of the most powerful rulers in the world in the 16th century.
Both rulers ruled during the same period in the early 16th century. Krishnadevaraya (1471-1529) was the greatest ruler of the Vijayanagar Empire in southern India.
Babur (1483-1530) was the founder of the Mughal Empire of north India. Both rulers not only used powerful medieval weapons but they even had access to cannons and guns.

 

[Srinivas_K]

Who would win a battle between the 2 most powerful rulers of early 16th century South Asia who were also some of the most powerful rulers in the world in the 16th century.
Both rulers ruled during the same period in the early 16th century. Krishnadevaraya (1471-1529) was the greatest ruler of the Vijayanagar Empire in southern India.
Babur (1483-1530) was the founder of the Mughal Empire of north India. Both rulers not only used powerful medieval weapons but they even had access to cannons and guns.

Depends on the place where they meet. If babur comes down the south It will be Krishna devaraya who will win.

 

[Bornubus]

Babur had better cavalry and artillery Krishna devaraya had better Archers but i wish Rana Sanga and other Rajputs would've made an greater alliance to defeat Mughals.This never happened.

They prefer to fight among each other be it north or south.

 

[south block]

Babur would win,central asian cavalry & artillery

 

[Dreamhunter]

Krishna Devaraya has a good chance to win this battle. Unlike any north Indian rulers he used cannons
and guns. He also had a much larger army than Babur and he also had a high number of heavy
cavalry units. And he also had the experience to fight Turkic armies as he had defeated all the Deccan
Sultans.

 

[Indianking]

Babur only succeeded because of his artillery in Northern India but unlike the Northern Indian states
the Vijayanagar Empire possessed heavy artillery. Krishna Devaraya would win the battle in India.
Even Babur describes the Vijayanagar as the most powerful native state.

And foreign travelers like Italians and Portuguese described the Vijayanagar Empire as the most powerful Empire in India in the 15th and early 16th century

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Babur had better cavalry and artillery Krishna devaraya had better Archers but i wish Rana Sanga and other Rajputs would've made an greater alliance to defeat Mughals.This never happened.

They prefer to fight among each other be it north or south.

Bajirao defeated Nizam's five time bigger army in with artillery in one day. Strategy and leadership matters.

 

[Indrajit]

Bajirao defeated Nizam's five time bigger army in with artillery in one day. Strategy and leadership matters.

Correct. While as they say, quantity has its own quality , indian history is replete with wars where a numerically superior force was defeated by a smaller army with superior strategy and weapons . A little bit of luck also helps.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

Babur had better cavalry and artillery Krishna devaraya had better Archers but i wish Rana Sanga and other Rajputs would've made an greater alliance to defeat Mughals.This never happened.

They prefer to fight among each other be it north or south.

Sanga led a rajput confederacy..one of the few times rajputs were fairly united.If not for gunpowder he would have won at khanua..sanga had defeated lodis several times.But his weakness was siege warfare.The rajputs were at their strongest during pratihara empire.

 

[Indrajit]

The rajputs were at their strongest during pratihara empire.

Only when they were not fighting with the Rashtrakutas. :biggrin2:

 

[ashdoc]

Krishnadevaraya had an army of 9 lakh soldiers. Maybe he would have overwhelmed babur by sheer numbers.

 

[ashdoc]

Who would have won if chola king had met mahmud of ghazni in battle?

 

[Indianking]

Who would have won if chola king had met mahmud of ghazni in battle?

Rajendra Chola would win the battle against Ghazni as long as the battle is in South Asia.
The Chola Dynasty was superior to the Ghazni state as it had more resources and a more developed administration than the Ghazni state. While the Chola state was able to preserve its power for a very long time from the reign of Raja Chola in the 10th century until the 12th century under Kulothunga Chola, the Ghazni state only rose during the reign of Mahmud and declined after his death which is a typical sign of a tribal confederacy.

 

[Jameson Emoni]

There is no such thing as South Asia. The correct term is Indian Subcontinent. The term South Asia was coined by Pakistanese and then later propagated by Pakistan sympathizing think tanks.