This thing is, there are numerous instances from other parts of the world where peasant armies did fight against forces of heavy cavalry, and sometimes quite successfully. The Chinese revolt against Mongol rule in the 14th century is one of the best examples where a peasant army overthrow a cavalry-based imperial power and established a new state.
I think it's the other way around. Modern governments with high-tech weaponry are much more capable of fighting against rebel/insurgent groups than they were in ancient or medieval times. But even then, we have see plenty of cases where peasant-based ,armed guerilla movements triumphed against modern armies with advanced weaponry. The Cuban Revolution led by Fidel Castro and the Viet Minh's triumph against the French are just two examples.
I am sure that the Turkic cavalrymen were fierce, but I really doubt they were more destructive than a fighter-bomber or modern tank.
a) The threshold was not reached for such furious and vast rebellions that you referenced. Turks were holding middle size Kingdoms and mostly limited themselvse to the safety behind their forts and cities.
b) Country farmers were largely left alone till they paid the revenue.
c) A commoner, a farmer who has to till the land in scorching heat all day long throughout the year, is not bothered very much about who the ruler is, till her remains just that - a revenue collecting ruler. It is only when crooks like Aurangzeb break limits of tax burden and start dictating the terms of personal life, that the villager's patience cracks up.
Turks couldn't manage to suppress the countryside so much, that the people would really lose their minds and rush madly to bite them out.
By comparison Turks weren't as overwhelming and imposing on large areas on regular basis - as the Mongols would.
In all these cases you mentioned, there were unprecedented excesses on a vast scale that broke the thresholds of civilian patience.
Why do you think Anna movement couldn't take things to a conclusion? Thresholds are yet to be broken.
Even the British did not leave India just because their was a Quit India movement.They had their own reasons.
I think the main reason for this was the frequent infighting among the Turkish nobles and tendency of the Turkic governors to declare independence as soon as some weakness in Delhi was detected.
Infighting was a regular thing in the medieval ages throughtout the world. It doesn't hamper Turks anymore than it hampers the native States.
From the 15th century, the Delhi Sultanate had been succeeded by various regional states totally independent of Delhi, and the rulers of Delhi themselves were not even Turks but Afghans (Lodis). So I don't think that the statement of "3 centuries" is entirely accurate.
Three centuries is not the zenith of Turkish rule. My point was to mention the stretch between when they first got foothold in India and when they got booted out of India. In all that time, they never got close to what Mughals achieved.
Ofcourse they augmented Afghans but Lodis were still also employing the same old Turkish lines whom their predecessors had.
Regards,
Virendra
.............
