The most powerful region in South Asian history was the southern part of India?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Screambowl

Ghanta Senior Member?
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2015
Messages
7,950
Likes
7,908
Country flag
North indian kingdoms did not fight the Turks. The Turkic invader Mahmud Ghazni invaded and plundered north India 17 times but none of the north Indian rulers were able to defeat him. In fact some north Indian rulers even surrendered without a fight like cowards. When Ghazni invaded Gujarat the ruler of Gujarat fled instead of fighting like a real warrior and betrayed his subjects.

But why did Ghazni never lead any military campaigns into the Deccan and south India?
The answer is obvious. The 2 most powerful Dynasties of South Asia ruled at that time in the Deccan and south India which were the Western Chalukya Empire and Chola Empire. Ghazni knew that he did not stand a chance against these powerful Dynasties which had a high number of great warriors.
during that time , of course southern empires were powerful.

Ghazni came and looted because Rajputs were busy fighting each other.

it depends time to time. Every empire had their peaks and downs.

in BC era it was Nanda empire, Mauryan empire Gupta empire?

Alexander was defeated in north India. Who once defeated the empires from where Ghazni came. So that means North Indian empires are the most powerful isn't it.

It depends in which time era which empire was powerful.
 

pulikesi

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2015
Messages
32
Likes
7
North indian kingdoms did not fight the Turks.
Prithviraj Chauhan. I rest my case.

The Turkic invader Mahmud Ghazni invaded and plundered north India 17 times but none of the north Indian rulers were able to defeat him.
Mallik Kaffur and many generals plundered south too. Just like Ghazni they too invaded not with intention of ruling but to loot the treasures. Mallik Kaffur's campaign wiped off every Hindu kingdom. That's why Hoysalas supported Vijayanagaar and merged with them.
 

Dreamhunter

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2014
Messages
149
Likes
154
Country flag
Prithviraj Chauhan. I rest my case.



Mallik Kaffur and many generals plundered south too. Just like Ghazni they too invaded not with intention of ruling but to loot the treasures. Mallik Kaffur's campaign wiped off every Hindu kingdom. That's why Hoysalas supported Vijayanagaar and merged with them. Let's not exaggerate Western Chalukya's, they lost to Kalachuris!
The Western Chalukya Empire and the Chola Empire were the most powerful Dynasties in South Asia in the 11th and early 12th century. The Western Chalukya ruled the Deccan and led successful military campaigns into Bengal and Malwa. Even the Vijayanagar Emperors admired the Chalukya Empire and claimed to be successors of them.
Malik Kafur invaded southern India with one of the largest armies in the world but he failed to establish Delhi Sultanate rule because of the valiant resistance of the Vijayanagar Empire and the Nayak warriors.
 

pulikesi

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2015
Messages
32
Likes
7
but he failed to establish Delhi Sultanate rule because of the valiant resistance of the Vijayanagar Empire and the Nayak warriors.
Vijayanagar was established after Mallik Kafur's campaign. The Nayaks were feudatory to Vijayanagar, again who came later. And these generals had no intention of ruling the south, hence no argument why they failed to establish Delhi sultanate. They definitely knew they can't handle rebellion from every part of the country. So they ruled what they could and looted from rest of the places.
 

Dreamhunter

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2014
Messages
149
Likes
154
Country flag
Vijayanagar was established after Mallik Kafur's campaign. The Nayaks were feudatory to Vijayanagar, again who came later. And these generals had no intention of ruling the south, hence no argument why they failed to establish Delhi sultanate. They definitely knew they can't handle rebellion from every part of the country. So they ruled what they could and looted from rest of the places.
Initially the Delhi Sultanate conquered Warangal and Madurai and established their rule there.
Both cities were liberated by the Telugu Nayaks and the Vijayanagara Empire.
 

Dreamhunter

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2014
Messages
149
Likes
154
Country flag
during that time , of course southern empires were powerful.

Ghazni came and looted because Rajputs were busy fighting each other.

it depends time to time. Every empire had their peaks and downs.

in BC era it was Nanda empire, Mauryan empire Gupta empire?

Alexander was defeated in north India. Who once defeated the empires from where Ghazni came. So that means North Indian empires are the most powerful isn't it.

It depends in which time era which empire was powerful.
The Maurya Empire was a great military power but the Gupta Dynasty was a cultural power and not a
military power.
 

pulikesi

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2015
Messages
32
Likes
7
the result of those campaigns was devastating. they brought down Pandyans in Madurai, Kakatiyas in Warangal. Hoysalas survived but couldn't continue. then the governors of Madurai and Warangal claimed independence. even if Muslim governors can't be kept loyal, how can you expect Hindu feudatories to be rule by Delhi. This practical problem was reason why Delhi didn't rule South, but in the end Muslims did rule parts of South. Then again we saw rise of Vijayanagara, so that stopped the deccan sultanates getting rest of the south.
 

Screambowl

Ghanta Senior Member?
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2015
Messages
7,950
Likes
7,908
Country flag
The Maurya Empire was a great military power but the Gupta Dynasty was a cultural power and not a
military power.
that was in BC era dude.

first you have to tell us which era are you talking about.
 

Dreamhunter

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2014
Messages
149
Likes
154
Country flag
that was in BC era dude.

first you have to tell us which era are you talking about.
The whole period before the beginning of modern period. The written history of India starts with the establishment of the Maurya Dynasty and the modern history of India starts after the collapse of the Maratha Empire.
 

Screambowl

Ghanta Senior Member?
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2015
Messages
7,950
Likes
7,908
Country flag
The whole period before the beginning of modern period. The written history of India starts with the establishment of the Maurya Dynasty and the modern history of India starts after the collapse of the Maratha Empire.
so you want to say, Mauryan empire did not fight with arabs. very well
 

Screambowl

Ghanta Senior Member?
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2015
Messages
7,950
Likes
7,908
Country flag
The whole period before the beginning of modern period. The written history of India starts with the establishment of the Maurya Dynasty and the modern history of India starts after the collapse of the Maratha Empire.
Rani Karnavati of Garhwal
There is also a mention of Rani Karnavati of Garhwal Kingdom, who was the wife of Mahipat Shah who ascended to throne in 1622, though died young in 1631,[5] after his death his Rani Karnavati, ruled the kingdom of the behalf of her young son, Prithvi Pat Shah. She even fought with the Mughals in 1640 AD, and defeated their troops, over time she earned the nickname 'Nakti Rani' (Nak-Kati-Rani) as she had the habit of cutting the noses of the invaders.[6] Monuments erected by her still exist in Dehradun district at Nawada,[7] she is also credited with the construction of the Rajpur Canal, the earliest of all the Dun canals, which starts from the Rispana river and brings its waters till the city ofDehradun.[8][9]
 

Screambowl

Ghanta Senior Member?
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2015
Messages
7,950
Likes
7,908
Country flag
Sikh rule[edit] taking back kashmir

Raja Lal Singh led the Sikh forces against the British in the First Anglo-Sikh War (1845–46) and was defeated in the Battle of Sobraon on 10 February 1846. Under the terms of the Treaty of Lahore, Lal Singh surrender Kashmir which the British sold to the Dogra ruler of Jamu, Raja Gulab Singh, an ally of the British, at a nominal price.
In 1819, the Kashmir valley passed from the control of the Durrani Empire of Afghanistan, and four centuries of Muslim rule under the Mughals and the Afghans, to the conquering armies of theSikhs under Ranjit Singh of Lahore.[25] As the Kashmiris had suffered under the Afghans, they initially welcomed the new Sikh rulers.[26] However, the Sikh governors turned out to be hard taskmasters, and Sikh rule was generally considered oppressive,[27] protected perhaps by the remoteness of Kashmir from the capital of the Sikh empire in Lahore.[28] The Sikhs enacted a number of anti-Muslim laws,[28] which included handing out death sentences for cow slaughter,[26]closing down the Jamia Masjid in Srinagar,[28] and banning the azaan, the public Muslim call to prayer.[28] Kashmir had also now begun to attract European visitors, several of whom wrote of the abject poverty of the vast Muslim peasantry and of the exorbitant taxes under the Sikhs.[26] High taxes, according to some contemporary accounts, had depopulated large tracts of the countryside, allowing only one-sixteenth of the cultivable land to be cultivated.[26] However, after a famine in 1832, the Sikhs reduced the land tax to half the produce of the land and also began to offer interest-free loans to farmers;[28] Kashmir became the second highest revenue earner for the Sikh empire.[28] During this time Kashmiri shawls became known worldwide, attracting many buyers, especially in the West.[28]

Earlier, in 1780, after the death of Ranjit Deo[citation needed], the Raja of Jammu, the kingdom of Jammu (to the south of the Kashmir valley) was also captured by the Sikhs and afterwards, until 1846, became a tributary to Sikh power.[25] Ranjit Deo's grandnephew, Gulab Singh, subsequently sought service at the court of Ranjit Singh, distinguished himself in later campaigns, especially the annexation of the Kashmir valley, and, for his services, was appointed governor of Jammu in 1820. With the help of his officer, Zorawar Singh, Gulab Singh soon captured for the Sikhs the lands of Ladakh and Baltistan to the east and north-east, respectively, of Jammu.[25]
 

Screambowl

Ghanta Senior Member?
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2015
Messages
7,950
Likes
7,908
Country flag
First Battle of Tarain[edit]

A sign post in Sohawa pointing towards the direction of Mu'izz's Tomb
Main article: First Battle of Tarain
In 1191, Mu'izz proceeded towards Hindustan through the Khyber Pass in modern day Pakistan and was successful in reaching Punjab. Mu'izz captured a fortress, Bathinda in present-day Punjab state on the northwestern frontier of Prithvīrāj Chauhān's kingdom. After appointing a Qazi Zia-ud-Din as governor of the fortress,[10] he received the news that Prithviraj's army, led by his vassal prince Govind Tai were on their way to besiege the fortress. The two armies eventually met near the town of Tarain, 14 miles from Thanesar in present-day Haryana. The battle was marked by the initial attack of mounted Mamluk archers in which Prithviraj responds by counter-attacking from three sides and dominates the battle. Mu'izz mortally wounded Govind Tai in personal combat and himself was wounded, whereupon his army retreated.[11]


Second Battle of Tarain[edit]
Main article: Second Battle of Tarain
On his return to Ghazni, Mu'izz made preparations to avenge the defeat. According to Firishta, the Rajput army consisted of 3,000 elephants, 300,000 cavalry and infantry, most likely a gross exaggeration.[12] Minhaj-i-Siraj, stated Mu'izz brought 120,000 fully armored men to the battle in 1192.[13]

Prithviraj had called his banners but hoped to buy time as his banners (other Rajputs under him or his allies) had not arrived. Before the next day, Mu'izz attacked the Rajput army before dawn. Rajputs had a tradition of fighting from sunrise to sunset. Although they were able to quickly form formations, they suffered losses due to surprise attack before sunrise. Rajput army was eventually defeated and Prithviraj was taken prisoner and subsequently executed
 

Screambowl

Ghanta Senior Member?
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2015
Messages
7,950
Likes
7,908
Country flag
Invasion of Gujarat and the neighboring regions (Muhammad Ghori)
Mu'izz's campaign against the Ismaili rulers of Multan in 1175 had ended in victory.[7][8] He turned south, and led his army from Multan to Uch and then across the desert towards the Gujarat capital of Anhilwara (modern Patan). In 1178, Muizz suffered a defeat at the battle of Kayadara (Gujarat), during his first campaign against an Indian ruler in India.[9]

Gujarat was ruled by the young Indian ruler Bhimdev Solanki II (ruled 1178–1241), although the age of the Raja meant that the army was commanded by his mother Naikidevi. Mu'izz's army had suffered greatly during the march across the desert, and Naikidevi inflicted a major defeat on him at the village of Kayadara (near to Mount Abu, about forty miles to the north-east of Anhilwara).[9] The invading army suffered heavy casualties during the battle, and also in the retreat back across the desert to Multan.[9]

Mu'izz shortly returned to Ghor, and along with the rulers of Bamiyan and Sistan, aided his brother Ghiyath in defeating the forces of Sultan Shah at Merv in 1190. He also annexed most of the latter's territories in Khorasan.
 

Screambowl

Ghanta Senior Member?
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2015
Messages
7,950
Likes
7,908
Country flag
Mahmud of Ghazni started his invasions at a time when Rajput power had declined for two reasons:
  1. The empires of the Gurjar-Pratiharas and the Rashtrakutas had both declined into a bunch of smaller kingdoms. The Pratiharas are often credited with stopping the Caliphate so their fall was a blow.
  2. The Rajputs had broken up into small feudal states called Samanthas. These states valued their independence more than the solidarity they shared with each other. So for one it was harder to get these armies together than it was for the Turkic Sultans with "slave" armies like Mahmud's (note the word slave is in quotes). Then when they did get together they fought as separate armies. This problem would plague the Rajputs well into the Mughal era, until their eventual decline into irrelevance during the Maratha period.
 

Screambowl

Ghanta Senior Member?
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2015
Messages
7,950
Likes
7,908
Country flag
  1. Mahmud Ghazni always raided and went away with the loot before the local kings could retaliate unitedly against him. His nephew Saiyyad Salar Masud made the mistake of staying in india after raiding. His entire army was exterminated in Battle of Bahraich.
  2. Rajputs have code of conduct like fighting from sunrise to sunset, go bare backed as enemies wont attack from behind. It is naiveness to expect the same from foreigners.
  3. The muslim kings do not directly fight in war. When hindu kings who fight in war get injured, the war is lost even when hindu's have superior army. This happened when Mahmud Ghazni was fighting Anandapala. History repeated itself when Abkar fought with Hemu in second battle of panipat.
  4. Mahmud did not win in all the 17 raids. Some of the indian kings were successful in defending their kingdoms.
 

Screambowl

Ghanta Senior Member?
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2015
Messages
7,950
Likes
7,908
Country flag
A BRIEF HISTORY OF GARHWAL

The rulers of Garhwal remained independent and repeatedly expelled the attacks of the Mughal rulers of Delhi. During the rule of Shah Jahan, the Emperor of India in the 17th century, Rajamata Karanwati of Garhwal, the mother and regent of her minor son, Prithiviraj Shah, humiliated Emperor Jahangir by not only defeating his forces but also returning the survivors with their noses lopped off. Later when Raja Prithivi Pati Shah became the ruler of Garhwal, he gave shelter to the bothers of Emperor Aurangzeb in the end of the 17th century. The use of the suffix "Shah" after the name came to be used around this time instead of the "Pal". This was similar to the Mughul rulers use of the title "Shah" to denote their kingly status. The Garhwal rulers assumed the "Shah" title alongside their name indicating their position of being kings over and independent state.

The only blemish in the history of Garhwal is the was with the Gurhkas during the reign of Pradyumna Shah. During the turn of the 19th century, the Gurkhas attacked Garhwal and drove the rulers of Garhwal down to the plains (Rishikesh, Haridwar, DehraDun). Pradyumna Shah died in fighting at the battle of Khurbura. Thereafter the rulers of Garhwal took the help of the British forces in India and regained their kingdom. The rulers of Garhwal gave away 60% of their kingdom for the support the British gave them in driving back the Gurhkas.

Gurkhas Garhwali, Kumaonis , are of same origin only. There is only Political difference nothing else. More over this British tried to weaken the Kumaon region so that Gurkhas could take over after 20 defeats. And later British took many regions of Nepal and Uttaranchal.


But our Pahari Kingdoms never came under any Mughal or Muslims rule... they thrashed them back!! Be it Gurkha, Kumaon, or Garhwalis..
 

Screambowl

Ghanta Senior Member?
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2015
Messages
7,950
Likes
7,908
Country flag
or phir kuch log yahan akar bakwas karte hai ... jinko history ka abc nahi ata .. idiots.

India what today is due to those who believed in an ideology. Not because of east west south north
 

punjab47

महाबलामहावीर्यामहासत्यपराक्रमासर्वाग्रेक्षत्रियाजट
Banned
Joined
Jul 31, 2015
Messages
1,059
Likes
598
First what is gujurat? Fact is there is gujurat & there is saurastra. Gujurat is core part of rajputana, go look up pre 55 state map.

Sakas failed at khyber so they went through Balochistan which was mostly empty. I don't see abnormality about that.

Mostly they were past Sindhu, yes peshawar has changed hands many times since ashoka. Otherwise if you study them or indo Greeks they did not come past jhelum for few decades over centuries of warfare.

India was 15% muslim in 1880s, it was mostly demographic expansion allowed b western medicine & support that gave them Pakistan. Before, it was not uncommon for Sikhs & Rajputs to give them Desi medicine in order to keep numbers down.

--
Yadhuvanshi dynasty is is Chandravanshi dynasty, as Krishna Ji was of royal blood but raised by a Yadav.

Cholas & others were naagvanshis I'm no joking about that. Naagvanshis were the expansion arm, they had kingdoms past Indus as well. I.e my friend is a Takhar & there is a Takhar province in Afghanistan.

Yes Vema Reddy Ji had his own dynasty, if you knew history of reddy though i.e after all the ksytrias were killed bramins had kids with shudra women to create reddy & gave them that function.

The Aryas come from Gandhar basically Sindhu river. Even the Parsis admit this much,

So I don't see the controversy, Budh Ji was Shakya Muni not Saka Muni. Sakas were our vassals but had become melech by time of Mahabharata.

Yes, Shiva Ji was there but Samarth Ramdas JI was follower of Sixth Guru Sahib.

My only point is, yes be proud of South & South culture. But fact is Sapt Sindhu is origin of the civilization & same Tribes were ruling South as well from before. Along with same vedic republican system, in which Ksytrias were rulers, bramins administrators.

Leaving thread now, you either follow varnasharam dharam or you're a christian.

Ghazni basically raided up to Ravi river, & fact is Similar to Gurus 3 generations gave their heads to protect khyber.

Kabul Shahi Kings Jayapal Anandpal Trilochanpal all fought till end, & after losing became shudras & moved further inland.

Ghazni came up to Yamuna & was defeated at Battle of Bairaich. Anyone saying 'north indians' never fought melech would never say it off the Internet.

Sindhu Ganga Doab has strategic depth, it's not always best strategy to engage head on, when you can attack enemy supply lines after they pass few dozen kos ahead of you.

Indian muslims have never been a big factor militarily, they always relied on turks afghans etc for core of army.

It's obvious makers of thread, don't understand warfare. It's obvious they don't realize Vedas were written in Sapt Sindhu, Mahabharata happened there, Pandav Ji banwas happened there, Krishna Ji born there, etc.

That region up to Ganga now still feeds them since Saraswati Ji dried.

Just bunch of Namak Haramis, Army put congress in line in 2010/12 whose turn is it next?
 

SPIEZ

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
3,508
Likes
1,021
Country flag
I have made my points, if you cannot understand them ... that is not my problem.

The thread is a B.S ..... I would like to see where this discussion leads .... this is interesting for sure.
How mature that you can't debate your own point. Now why would you call this thread a BS, is it because you find the points too hard to swallow
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top