HISTORICAL BATTLES #5 - Tarain 1191-92

Bhadra

Professional
Joined
Jul 11, 2011
Messages
11,991
Likes
23,758
Country flag
Broad Chronology of Events/ Campaigns / attacks.

Sind Campaign of Muhammad bin Qasim commenced in 710.
Muhammad Ghazani's Campaign in Punjab 1001
About 30 campaigns of Ghazani ( 994 -1028 (35 years - 30 campaigns)
Capture of Multan - 1175
Capture of Lahore - 1186
First Battle of Tarain -1191
Second Battle of Tarain- 1192


If study of history is not related to present context, then that study is dead and of no use.

Could some wise member try and reply :

What were the reasons of Islamic Forces Staying confined to Sindh for almost 300 years. How did Indian kings of the frontier provinces stop constant Arabic assaults.

What were the effects of Muhammad Ghazani's 30 odd campaigns in frontiers areas between 994 to 1028 - in a period of 35 years - almost one attack every year ? How those attacks facilitated the ultimate victory of Muhammad of Ghor in 1992 ?

Does this has any bearing on present day Pakistani strategy of keeping the frontier provinces of India, J&K and Punjab in a turmoil, constantly keeping those areas under terrorist attacks ? It has been continuing after 1983 -Punjab insurgency and post 1989 J&k insurgencies and terrorism ?

Does that somehow translates to thousand cuts - the strategy somewhat adopted by Islamic forces between 710 and 1192 ?

What should be the counter strategy to be adopted by India.
 

Bleh

Laughing member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
6,199
Likes
25,943
Country flag
Actually Indians were able to find countermeasures against the Turkic invaders considering the fact that the Vijayanagar Empire, the Gajapati Dynasty and the Mewar Kingdom defeated the Turkic invaders from the 14th to 16th century. At a time when the Turkic people had already conquered Persia, Anatolia, North Africa, large parts of East Europe. In fact the Indians and the West Europeans were the only people at that time who had not yet surrendered to the Turkic invaders.
They survived because they were too far from north-western India, unlike war-torn Central Asia, open from all sides & it was difficult for early turks to sustain a proper campaign. By Kumbha's time the horse archer cavalry were assimilated. For example: Pratap used 5000 alfgan mercs in Saraighati. But that's not called counter to horse-archers... This is, that broke Atilla:
IMG_20190515_225044_698.jpg

Indian rulers we far too minor during that period of time to maintanence this disciplined heavy infantry.
Also big population make lifes cheap... soldiers were treated as arrow-fodders & rulers just tended to recruit more rabble, both India & China suffered from this syndrome throughout history.

I didn't indulge in it further when i saw him switching to "India stronk, but big bad western pepul do propaganda" mode.
 

AUSTERLITZ

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2013
Messages
484
Likes
1,745
Country flag
They survived because they were too far from north-western India, unlike war-torn Central Asia, open from all sides & it was difficult for early turks to sustain a proper campaign. By Kumbha's time the horse archer cavalry were assimilated. For example: Pratap used 5000 alfgan mercs in Saraighati. But that's not called counter to horse-archers... This is, that broke Atilla:
View attachment 35839
Indian rulers we far too minor during that period of time to maintanence this disciplined heavy infantry.
Also big population make lifes cheap... soldiers were treated as arrow-fodders & rulers just tended to recruit more rabble, both India & China suffered from this syndrome throughout history.

I didn't indulge in it further when i saw him switching to "India stronk, but big bad western pepul do propaganda" mode.
Actually afghans were mostly heavy shock cavalry.This is why both rajpu and aghan cavalry were defeated by mughal central asian horse archers at the 2 battles of panipat.Ser shah won most of his battles with ambushes or surprise attacks.
Attila was defeated by the charge of the visigoth cavalry into an open flank at chalons,not by infantry.Roman infantry had become barbarized and almost defunct by then.After adrianopole,roman infantry standards collapsed in the west.
About maintainence problem with small kingdoms you are absolutely correct.Infantry itself except for musketeers were treated as second class cannon fodder in indian armies.
 

AUSTERLITZ

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2013
Messages
484
Likes
1,745
Country flag
Broad Chronology of Events/ Campaigns / attacks.

Sind Campaign of Muhammad bin Qasim commenced in 710.
Muhammad Ghazani's Campaign in Punjab 1001
About 30 campaigns of Ghazani ( 994 -1028 (35 years - 30 campaigns)
Capture of Multan - 1175
Capture of Lahore - 1186
First Battle of Tarain -1191
Second Battle of Tarain- 1192


If study of history is not related to present context, then that study is dead and of no use.

Could some wise member try and reply :

What were the reasons of Islamic Forces Staying confined to Sindh for almost 300 years. How did Indian kings of the frontier provinces stop constant Arabic assaults.

What were the effects of Muhammad Ghazani's 30 odd campaigns in frontiers areas between 994 to 1028 - in a period of 35 years - almost one attack every year ? How those attacks facilitated the ultimate victory of Muhammad of Ghor in 1992 ?

Does this has any bearing on present day Pakistani strategy of keeping the frontier provinces of India, J&K and Punjab in a turmoil, constantly keeping those areas under terrorist attacks ? It has been continuing after 1983 -Punjab insurgency and post 1989 J&k insurgencies and terrorism ?

Does that somehow translates to thousand cuts - the strategy somewhat adopted by Islamic forces between 710 and 1192 ?

What should be the counter strategy to be adopted by India.

They were unable to defeat the Gurjara pratiharas.Gurjara partihara were an united proto rajput empire -one of the 3 great powers of india at that time along with palas of bengal and rastrakutas of the deccan.The arab invasions accross the indus were crushed in the battle of rajasthan by gurjaras under nagbhatta and chalukya-rasytrakutas seperately.Bappa rawal - gurjar feudatory and founder of sisodia dynasty of mewar is said to be a major commander in this war.

Main effect of ghazni's raids is the collapse of the frontier buffer(roughly modern pakistan).Once the turkish cavalry was able to push the frontier to the plains of north india,having crossed the mountainous fringe -they became extremely difficult to defeat.The 200 year gap between ghazni and ghori is marked by constnat skirmishes and raids which were repeatedly defeated by the rajputs who even managed to push back in punjab.In these 200 years areas conquered by ghazni were also substantially islamized,providing cheap fodder to support turkish ghulam cavalry.

There is no equivalence between 1000 cuts .The rajputs were not defeated by 1000 cuts.They were defeated due to disunity,inferior tactical system,inferior horses in both breed and cavalry technology,outdated moral ethos and inability to adapt.Ghori fought 4 major battles with rajput kingdoms.Won 2 and lost 2.But once the rajputs lost the land revenue and manpower of gangetic valley they couldnt make a comeback as their tactical system and technology was already inferior.They were reliant on greater resources and desperate valour.
 

Bleh

Laughing member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
6,199
Likes
25,943
Country flag
Actually afghans were mostly heavy shock cavalry.This is why both rajpu and aghan cavalry were defeated by mughal central asian horse archers at the 2 battles of panipat.Ser shah won most of his battles with ambushes or surprise attacks.
Attila was defeated by the charge of the visigoth cavalry into an open flank at chalons,not by infantry.Roman infantry had become barbarized and almost defunct by then.After adrianopole,roman infantry standards collapsed in the west.
About maintainence problem with small kingdoms you are absolutely correct.Infantry itself except for musketeers were treated as second class cannon fodder in indian armies.
The later Roman infantry still stood against Attila, or else it wouldn't come to the Visigothic charge. They were less successful in general, not only because it was inferior, but the opponents were superior. Most barbarians (merely neighbouring kingdoms with same history & former Roman provinces at this point) served as auxiliaries of Roman at some point & picked up the basic tactics. Lack of better discipline & regular training among Romans made them qualitatively equal or sometimes inferior, making the numerically superior more likely to win.

Later Roman Foulkon, cousin of Saxon/Scandinavian shieldwall (Byzantine's elite Varangians troops were Christianity converted Norsemen themselves) & in future franko-Norman Crusader's was still effective against Saracen horse archers;
INFANT-1.JPG


Indeed i was wrong about that one, mistook for Byzantine era campaigns against Turkic hordes...
Marco Antonio contra las tropas de Octavio.jpg

That's from the Roman campaign of Parthia, where they took a beating but then changed tactics & went on to secure the Mesopotamian front with victory after victory after victory! (Another good analysis here; How did crusaders counter Saracen horse archers?)
IMG_20190803_135945_359.jpg

Although the Romans retreated during the first contact, the horse archers never dominated as crushingly as they did against Indians. Parthians kept manoeuvring around out of reach while ineffectively peppering them with arrows, which the Roman infantry shields endured & then took the heavy cataphract charge which would have ripped a softened formation.

This is later, inferior Persian version of the same.
the-persian-army-part-ii-weapons-and-warfare.jpg

Guerreros.persas.jpg


By the time early cannons or muskets came in, the Muslim forces were soundly beaten & horse-archery was already made obsolete in Europe...
medival-warlords-blandford-warriors-taborite-infantryman-oldhammer.jpg
...while Babur was still beating both Hindus & Muslims of India (every army had plenty of both) with his house-archers, more than 500 years after Indians' first contact with them!!!
 
Last edited:

AUSTERLITZ

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2013
Messages
484
Likes
1,745
Country flag
The later Roman infantry still stood against Attila, or else it wouldn't come to the Visigothic charge. They were less successful in general, not only because it was inferior, but the opponents were superior. Most barbarians (merely neighbouring kingdoms with same history & former Roman provinces at this point) served as auxiliaries of Roman at some point & picked up the basic tactics. Lack of better discipline & regular training among Romans made them qualitatively equal or sometimes inferior, making the numerically superior more likely to win.

Later Roman Foulkon, cousin of Saxon/Scandinavian shieldwall (Byzantine's elite Varangians troops were Christianity converted Norsemen themselves) & in future franko-Norman Crusader's was still effective against Saracen horse archers;
View attachment 36483

Indeed i was wrong about that one, mistook for Byzantine era campaigns against Turkic hordes...
View attachment 36486
That's from the Roman campaign of Parthia, where they took a beating but then changed tactics & went on to secure the Mesopotamian front with victory after victory after victory! (Another good analysis here; How did crusaders counter Saracen horse archers?)
View attachment 36487
Although the Romans retreated during the first contact, the horse archers never dominated as crushingly as they did against Indians. Parthians kept manoeuvring around out of reach while ineffectively peppering them with arrows, which the Roman infantry shields endured & then took the heavy cataphract charge which would have ripped a softened formation.

This is later, inferior Persian version of the same.
View attachment 36482
View attachment 36479

By the time early cannons or muskets came in, the Muslim forces were soundly beaten & horse-archery was already made obsolete in Europe...
View attachment 36488...while Babur was still beating both Hindus & Muslims of India (every army had plenty of both) with his house-archers, more than 500 years after Indians' first contact with them!!!
There is is one very big difference between roman times and medieval times...medieval horse archers and heavy cavalry used iron stirrups and well developed saddle.Far more stability,balance and shock power.Also medieval age saw proliferation of huge number of battlehorses.Ancient age only thessalian/ macedonian and persian nisean horses could be called proper battlehorses.But special breeding and evolution changed that,to the detriment of settled socities.
 

AUSTERLITZ

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2013
Messages
484
Likes
1,745
Country flag
Also horse archery was only made obsolete in europe due to development of plate armour.Before that mongols crushed europeans,same for early ottomans.Plate armour didnt truly develop in india due to brutal tropical climate and open plains requiring mobility.
Baburs wagon tactics came from his ottoman gunners who learned it from hungarians who learned it from the hussites.
 

indiatester

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
5,846
Likes
20,242
Country flag
BATTLES OF TARAIN 1191 -92

(The Tripartite Contest)
BACKGROUND :

INDIA - EVOLUTION OF THE POLITICAL LANDSCAPE

The Imperial guptas represented the last great long standing centralized empire in India that dominated the subcontinent of the pre-islamic period.Gupta power was however fading by the 6th century and the early half of the 7th century in India was dominated by Harshavardhana's empire in North India and the Chalukya emperor Pulakeshin in South India.By the 8th century,the political landscape had changed again - 3 great powers came to rule the subcontinent.The Gurjara Pratiharas of Western India based in Gujarat and Rajasthan,the Palas of Eastern India based in Bengal and the Rashtrakutas who replaced the Chalukyas as the greatest power of South India ,with their power base in the Deccan.

An important event of this time was the first encounter of Indian Kingdoms with the warriors of Islam - in form of the Arab invaders of the Umayyad Caliphate. The muslim arabs having annexed large parts of the byzantine empire and completely overrun the Persian Sassanid empire ,had began intrusions on a small scale by the end of the 7th century into the westernmost reaches of the subcontinent.Between 711-715 AD the arabs conquered Sind.But further attempts to extend their rule to the East of the Indus failed.In 738-39 AD in a series of battles collectively known as the Battle of Rajasthan,the arab forces were decisively routed by an alliance of the ascendant Gurjara Pratiharas and the Chalukyas (whose most powerful feudatories would shortly establish the Rashtrakuta dynasty) supported by the Guhilot and Chauhan Rajput clans(feudatories of pratiharas).Hereafter the arab threat gradually receded and the kingdom of sind had over time become tributaries of the powerful pratiharas.

The next 150 years in Indian history is dominated by what is called the 'Tripartite Struggle' between the 3 great empires of India over Harshavardhana's capital -Kannauj,which had replaced Pataliputra as the symbolic seat of imperial power in India( later replaced by Delhi).Each empire had brief periods of supremacy ,though eventually the pratiharas were left in control of Kannauj.The rashtrakutas were the strongest overall,and generally when they appeared in force in the North they had their way over the other two - but they lacked any staying power.After one and a half century of pyrrhic warfare, the Rashtrakutas devastated Kannauj in a final attack to try and break the deadlock.The long struggle ultimately proved to be the bane of all 3 empires - which broke up within a remarkably short time of each other in the early 10th century into smaller kingdoms.This would have security implications for the Western frontier of India where the Pratiharas had for 2 centuries stood as a powerful bulwark against invasion.



Rise of the Rajputs -
After the Rashtrakutas we do not see major interventions in the North from any Southern empire, and the politics of North and South largely drifted into their own orbits.Political mastery in North India was taken up by the Rajputs,who established their own kingdoms.Rajputs are a loose grouping of 36 patrilineal clans found in the Indian sub-continent who enter historical records from around the 6th century AD ,after the decline of the Gupta empire.It is generally thought that the rise of the decentralized 'Samanta' system in what has been called 'Indian Feudalism' created this group.The later Guptas unable to maintain salaried standing armies due to financial crisis( loss of western trade,White hun invasions) initiated the process of land grants in lieu of salary to their military officials(mostly kshatriya caste),this practice was extended in scope under Harsha and reached its peak during the Tripartite struggle era,by which time coinage had become sparse.Thus a centralized power with a standing army and bureaucracy was replaced first by a network of vassals or feudatories,and as central power collapsed altogether these curved out their own spheres of influence and grew into new powers.Another theory of Rajputs being the result of assimilation of huns into Indian society has not found favour in genetic studies.By 1000 AD with the disintegration of the Pratihara empire,their former feudatories gradually established power bases all over Western and Central India.The most prominent were the Chalukya Solankis in Gujarat,the Chauhans in Ajaymeru(Ajmer),the Tomars in Delhi,Parmars and Chandellas in central India.The Eastern Rajputs established themselves in the gangetic basin under the Gahadvalas(who would come to control Kannauj eventually) and Kalachuris.The Shahi dynasty of the Kabul valley was under Janjua Rajputs.Even as the Rajput kingdoms established their supremacy in North India,wider developments were taking place in Central Asia and the Middle East which would eventually be felt in the subcontinent.The most important of these was the ascendancy of the Turks in the Islamic world.


(Rise of the Turks)

ASCENDANCY OF TURKISH POWER :
The turks (Turushkas in Sanskrit) in medieval history refer to a broad array of nomadic peoples of Central asian origin.The earliest mention is from Chinese sources where the Turks were a part of the Xiongnu (usually equated with the greater Huns)Confederation.After the breakup of the greater Xiongnu ,the turks as a political entity first emerge in the 6th century under the Gokturk Empire -a great confederation of turkic peoples of central asia(map top left).Gokturk Khaganate gradually collapsed by the 7th century owing to civil war and Chinese Tang Dynasty pressure. From the 8th century they came in contact with the Arabs who were probing into central asia and began to convert to Islam.The turkic mastery as horse warriors was not unnoticed by the Arab Caliphates which from the 9th century onwards instituted the Ghulam system.Under this system young turkish boys were bought from central asia by the Sultan and trained for warfare as personal slave-soldiers of the ruler and loyal only to him.This practice spread rapidly and these Mamluks or Ghulams replaced the arabs as the military elite of the islamic world.After the breakup of the Abbasids into smaller emirates/sultanates these troops emerged as the kingmakers and kingbreakers.Thus a strong turkish military elite caste already existed by the turn of the millenium in the islamic world and would gradually usurp political power in many areas as well.The Turks of central asia also broke out into Persia and would between the 11th and 12th centuries under the Seljuk sultans conquered most of the islamic world.They also suceeded in breaking through the Byzantine defensive frontier in Anatolia which had held against the might of the arab caliphates at their peak for 400 years.(after the byzantine debacle at Manzikert 1071).A breakaway emirate of the greater seljuks in anatolia would eventually evolve into the Ottoman empire.


(Ghaznavids -greatest extent)
Ghaznavids -

One of the first Turkic sultanates was founded in Ghazni,where a former mamluk general of the Iranian Samanid empire Alptigin broke away.His son in law Sabuktigin founded the Ghaznavid dynasty and began the initial confrontations with the Shahi dynasty.It was under Mahmud ,his son that the Ghaznavids became a great power - they overran the Shahis after inflicting a series of battlefield defeats and the turks penetrated into the Indian heartland for the first time.Mahmud launched 17 large scale raids (generally targeting the wealthy religious centres which would both amass loot and gain fame for mahmud in the wider islamic world as a 'ghazi')into 'Hindustan' causing widespread death and devastation and carrying off huge amounts of plunder.However there was no bid at permanent conquest,and the rajputs recovered relatively quickly.A legacy of Mahmud's attacks however was that Western Punjab with Multan and Lahore passed under muslim rule .After Mahmud's death, the Ghaznavids declined gradually owing to defeats at the hands of the seljuks.

Rajput Responses -

The period between 1000-1200 has been termed the 'Age of conflict' as they witnessed constant battles between the rajputs and the turks.Ghaznavi's last attack came in 1025 AD.Between 1025 and the rise of the ghorid power in the 1170s culminating in the twin battles at Tarain in 1191 and 1192, there were numerous engagements between the succesors of Ghazni looking to follow through on his successes and the Rajput Kingdoms.The Parmars under Bhoja in the first half of the 11th century and the Gahadavalas under Govindacharya (2nd half of 11th century) repulsed major ghaznavid attacks.By the 12th century the Chauhans were the rising power in Western India. Ajayraj Chauhan founded Ajay-meru(Ajay's hill) in probably 1113 AD which became the Chauhan capital of Ajmer.His successor Arnoraraja,grandfather of Prithviraj won a major victory over the turks near Ajmer.His son Vigraharaja made an alliance with the Tomar rajputs of Delhi who became their vassals.Chauhan power reached its peak under Prithviraj II (1178-1192) who expanded his kingdom and warred with all his neighbours- particularly the Chandellas and the Solankis.He also had a rivalry with Jaichandra,the Gahadavala ruler of Kannauj and the breach became irrepairable when prithviraj supposedly abducted jaichandra's daughter from her wedding ceremony(of her own will) and married her - a well known romantic folktale.At the time of Muhammad ghori's invasions, North India was thus divided into 3 main power centres - Solanki Chalukyas of Gujarat,the Prithviraj Chauhan of Ajmer and Delhi and the Gahadavalas under Jaichandra at Kannauj.However due to the politics of the day,these 3 powers were mutually antagonistic towards one another.


(Prithviraj Chauhan)


Ghurids-

The region of Ghor in Afghanisthan converted to Islam from buddhism during its conquest under Mahmud.The local rulers wer the Ghurid Dunasty of Tajik ancestry,.Initially vassals of the Ghaznavids they grew in power as the region was a reknowned centre for ironworking and horsebreeding.As Ghaznavid power decreased they gradually asserted themselves, in 1149 they sacked and burned Ghazni and became independent.From 1163 they came to be ruled by the brothers Ghiyath al Din and Muizz -al- din,under whom the empire would reach its zenith.Ghiyath -al Din concentrated on the Western domains campaigning in Central Asia against the Khwarezmian empire ,while Muizz -al din (Mohammad Ghori) after helping his brother secure the West turned his eyes Eastwards.


(Muhammad Ghori)

Ghurid Invasions (1173 -1191) -

Unlike Mahmud,Ghori from the beginning aimed at creating a permanent empire in Hindustan any Westward expansion being blocked by the powerful Khwarezmids.In 1175 he took Multan and Unch from the Ismailis and expanded his control over Sindh.Gujarat now appeared a ripe target for him .In 1178 he offered Prithviraj to provide him passage and divide up the Chalukya Solanki kingdom between themselves.This was rebuffed ,but Prithviraj didn't send any aid to the Solankis either.Undeterred Ghori marched his army on a circuitous route through the Thar desert into the fringes of Chalukya territory.Here the turkish army found itself unexpectedly opposed by the chalukya army led by Queen regent Naikidevi drawn up in battle formation on the valley of Gadarghata.Ghori's army tired and thirsty from the journey and unable to use the mobility of its cavalry in the closed valley properly was forced into a set-piece frontal battle by the rajputs and routed.However the fleeing turks were not pursued by the chalukyas in any serious capacity owing to the rajput customs of the time and thus escaped annihilation.

Ghori however didn't give up.He rebuilt his forces and having been repulsed in Gujarat now sought to enter Hindustan via Punjab.In the next decade he methodically took Peshawar ,then Sialkot and in 1187 ended the last remnant of the Ghaznavids by conquering Lahore.This now brought the borders of the Ghurid empire in contact with the Prithviraj's domains.Between 1187-90 there were several small to mid sized turkish incursions,but these were rebuffed by the chauhans.Things came to a head in the winter of 1190 when Ghori took Bhatinda - a important border fortress.This finally galvanized Prithviraj into action ,who amassed a large army and marched towards the Ghurid forces.The 2 armies met on the fields of Tarain(Taraori) in 1191 in the first of two fateful battles fought on this battlefield.
Don't know how I missed this. Thanks from bringing in your quality posts here @AUSTERLITZ
 

Bleh

Laughing member
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2017
Messages
6,199
Likes
25,943
Country flag
There is is one very big difference between roman times and medieval times...medieval horse archers and heavy cavalry used iron stirrups and well developed saddle.Far more stability,balance and shock power.Also medieval age saw proliferation of huge number of battlehorses.Ancient age only thessalian/ macedonian and persian nisean horses could be called proper battlehorses.But special breeding and evolution changed that,to the detriment of settled socities.
Yes shit gets better over the years. Still, pre-medieval house-archers weren't less deadly a menace, just needed more skill or were uncomfortable to shoot, maybe slightly less accurate & more clumsy! Bigger medieval warhorses could carry heavily armoured men-at-arms, but not catch up to faster steppe horses. Result...
Also horse archery was only made obsolete in europe due to development of plate armour.Before that mongols crushed europeans,same for early ottomans.
...Mongols defeated Polish & Hungarian chivalry the same way they did Rajput & Afghans. Medieval European infantries were also much smaller in size than Roman era, due to the culture of training & equipped the men decently, but the smaller kingdoms having much less resources/finances. Mongols simple swarmed them after destroying the cavalry.
crusaders10kt8ni7.jpg

Mongols left Europe by 1350AD & never returned
. Coincidentally(?) that time was the beginning of domination of heavily armored & well trained infantry over cavalry. Combination of plate armour, pavice shields, war wagons brought horse-archery down together... not by itself. Persians wouldn't use the modified Roman techniques if that had no effect (& it clearly isn't anti-infantry or heavy cavalry, would crumble immediately on contact).

And post-1000AD Indians had an aversion to anything new, clinging on to the old technology & tactics of yore, let some thinking ahead (the mentality still isn't gone). There is literally no difference between 14th century & 17th century Indian armours, both Hindus & Muslims.
Some developments were on the weaponry front but that too mostly during Akbar's era & half of them imported, decades behind. Still nothing compared to the full on arms race going on in European & Ottomans world.
 
Last edited:

amit1119

New Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2020
Messages
3
Likes
1
Country flag


SECOND BATTLE OF TARAIN :
As the two armies camped facing each other at Tarain,Ghori replied to Prithviraj's offer with a ruse to lull him into a false sense of security.He wrote that he had no authority to withdraw and needed time to ask for the permission of his elder brother,meanwhile he proposed a truce.He continued his preparations and reconnoitered the rajput camp with his light cavalry constantly to assess their state of preparedness.After a fortnight of this standoff,the Ghorid army left the camp in secret one night leaving its campfires burning so as to give the impression that all was as usual.They marched in the night and before dawn had taken up position behind the Rajput camp.Then before daybreak as the rajputs were just waking to perform their early morning rituals and relieve themselves,the turkish cavalry struck them from the rear of the camp.Rajputs were caught completely unprepared,as night attacks were taboo in their military culture.There were few if any sentries and Prithviraj was caught sleeping in his tent.The turkish cavalry caused carnage ,inflicting heavy casualities and neutralizing several of the elephants.The rajputs however recovered relatively quickly and counterattacked with their own cavalry which was usually concentrated in the middle of the camp.The turkish cavalry now disengaged and withdrew .The Chauhan army took time to redress their ranks and followed them into the plains where they found the ghurid army deployed and waiting for them.

Ghori deployed his army in a particular formation,instead of a static battle line he divided his cavalry into 5 divisions to conduct a fluid battle which would maximize the mobility of his cavalry . 4 divisions each of 10,000 men were to act as mounted archers ,behind these on the edge of the plain was Ghoris' final reserve of 12,000 elite ghulam mailed lancers.He may have possibly employed caltrops to prevent an elephant charge though it is unknown exactly how.Prithviraj deployed his army in the traditional manner with 2 wings and a strong centre and the remaining elephants in front.


1.Ghori begins the battle by sending forward 2 of his flank divisions of horse archers to attack the Rajput left flank.They are given strict instructions to engage solely in ranged harassment and to not engage in close combat with the rajput cavalry.
2.The turkish horse archers attack the rajput lines with their lethal composite bows using caracole tactics ,their accurate archery causing mounting losses in the rajput frontlines.
3.The Rajput cavalry surges forward to engage their assailants and the unwieldy Rajput left and left centre tries to change frontage to meet the flank attack.Reinforcements are sent from the centre.

As the Rajput cavalry closes to enagage,the turkish cavalry breaks off its attack and retreats firing as it does in Parthian fashion causing further casualities.The indian horses are unable to catch up to the faster turkish horses and the disorganized rajput cavalry gives up the chase after a while ,wary of overextending and thinking of having driven off the attackers.



Ghori now attacks the Rajput right flank with his other 2 divisions in the same manner and the same sequence of events follow.Rajputs take significant casualities and their battle line is disrupted while being unable to come to grips with the mounted horse archers.(On the map diagram the solid larger green blocks behind the smaller boxes denoting skirmishing ghurid hosre archers are the reserve line ,which acts as reinforcing point and as the forward lines become tired , fresh horsemen from this line are rotated into the front line to keep up a relentless barrage).


Ghori again attacks Prithviraj's flanks in turn with his horse archer divisions.Their devastating archery continues to inflict a steady stream of casualities.The Rajput army is forced to shift frontage repeatedly losing all cohesion(being an army composed of contingents of 150 chiefs) and is steadily whittled down by archery fire. Prithviraj reinforces his flanks with troops from the centre as they are attacked and the Chauhan centre is being steadily denuded.This process continues throughout the whole day and ghori attacked the rajput army a total of 4 times in this manner .With mounting casualities and confusion ,demoralized at being unable to fight back against this new tactic the less reliable forces of the confederate army begin to desert.


After causing heavy attrition among the rajput army ,and seeing their battle lines in confusion Ghori launches a final attack with all of his divisions.
1.The flank divisions now move to engage the Chauhan flanks ,but this time they do not withdraw but intend to pin them down.
2.The Rajput cavalry moves engage the oncoming ghurids,and desperate fighting takes place on the flanks.This draws away final rajput reserves from the centre.
3-4 .Ghori with his final reserve of 12,000 mailed lancers charges Prithviraj's weakened centre and breaks through.
5.The ghulams then swing and attack the engaged rajputs from flank and rear.The Chauhan army disintegrates, some chiefs fleeing while the more committed ones stand their ground and fight on till death as per rajput custom.Govind Rai is killed in the battle ,Prithviraj was captured and executed during the pursuit.

AFTERMATH :

The Chauhan confederacy lost the bulk of its army and leadership in the battle,while the ghurids only suffered serious casualities in the final stages.After his victory at Tarain ,Ghori was able to conquer Prithviraj's domains with relative ease. Jaichandra who had stood aloof then faced his turn and was defeated in 1194.The turks were able to in a short span of time overrun the entire gangetic plain area upto Bengal.Rajput power in Gujarat was able to successfully resist for another century until the reign of Alauddin Khilji. The remnants of the Chauhan clan established their new stronghold in Ranthambore and continued to resist the new Delhi sultanate. Ghori was assasinated by a vengeful Jat tribesman in 1206 ,and was succeeded in power by his mamluk general Qutb-uddin Aibak who founded the Slave dynasty of the Delhi sultanate . Tarain was a decisive battle in that it laid the foundations of what has been called the muslim period in Indian history.

After Tarain,the Rajput position in North India declined dramatically in a very short period.Within a less than a decade ,the turks were able to bring under their control the gangetic heartland.With the revenue resources of both the Indus valley and the Gangetic valley - two of the most prosperous agricultural regions in the world at their disposal the Delhi sultanate was able to mobilize huge armies .The Rajputs thus lost the quantitative superiority they had generally enjoyed until Tarain,a position they would never recover.Unable to properly face the mobile turkish cavalry on the open plains and lacking in numbers they turned to static defense around forts( thus we see heavily contested sieges at Jaislamer, Chittor, Jalore, Siwana, Ranthambore etc) and withdrew into the more defensible deserts and hills of Rajasthan proper,which became the centre of Rajput resistance. The Delhi sultanate was never able to subdue Rajput power in Rajasthan despite numerous expeditions and they remained a hostile force throughout.Rajput power rose again significantly during the late sultanate era,rallying around the Sisodias of Mewar,but the particular nature of their clan based organization prevented their unification as a political entity.The last attempt at a renewed Rajput confederacy to dominate North India was made under Rana Sanga of Mewar.

The turks continued to dominate the affairs at Delhi atleast until the time of the Tughluqs.But their power was in decline from the mid sultanate era.The Mongol invasion and devastation of Central Asia and the Islamic world brought a huge influx of initial refugees,but after the Mongols had established themselves in Central Asia and Persia the inflow of fresh turks from the region(on which the military power the Sultanate depended to a large extent)dried up,the Sultans had to make do local converts and depend more and more on Afghan military manpower(whom they consequently settled in the Gangetic valley in numbers).The afghans thus by the late sultanate era became the dominant element in the army which lost its turkish character and eventually captured power in Delhi.
Can you please let me know the source of the information?
 

amit1119

New Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2020
Messages
3
Likes
1
Country flag
I must say that both your article and maps are amazing. I am in the process of writing a book on the subject. Can I use some of your illustrations in my book? I will give the proper citation.

Thanks in advance.
 

AUSTERLITZ

Regular Member
Joined
May 25, 2013
Messages
484
Likes
1,745
Country flag
I must say that both your article and maps are amazing. I am in the process of writing a book on the subject. Can I use some of your illustrations in my book? I will give the proper citation.

Thanks in advance.
Certainly.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top