Discussion in 'Military History' started by 171K, Aug 23, 2010.
Both the Mughals and Rajputs were warrior dynasties. Both observed & respected the valor in each other.
For Mughals it was too costly to suffer losses in fighting Rajputs while they had bigger plans for the entire Indian sub continent. Their approach towards Rajputs was massively different than to any other Indian province then. Not only for the stiffest resistance they feared but also probably because areas held by Rajputs weren't rich in resources. It was more of a checkpoint/passage rather than a destination. They didn't want any trouble at the passage and hence adopted different strategies.
More over the Rajputs never had the political stature or inclination to rule over the entire or even half of India. They had enough of infighting and looters raids from north west to care about.
So Mughals didn't see it inevitable to fight Rajputs for cutting into the rest of India. Basically it wasn't a case of deadlocks decided by survival of one and complete destruction of the other.
For Rajputs, it was different with Mughals, contrary to the earlier incomers in Indian direction because:
-- Mughals didn't come like a ruthless caravan of marauders to sweep across, loot and rape.
-- Mughals were more political and consistent.
-- They integrated into, rather than marauding the Indian mainstream.
While Mughals didn't challenge the Rajputs directly for obvious reasons, consequently Rajputs also didn't see too many reasons to counter them. Two facts come to my mind:
1.Rajputs weren't politically bonded so well with other communities of India at that time to try and stop Mughals.
2. After Mughals entered the Indian frame, Rajputs cohesive strength had come down to disable them from deciding any more for whether a power from Indus-Panipat region would be able to influence Indian subcontinent south-southeast or not.
rajputs did try to counter them........under rana sanga...........but they were defeated in the battle of khanua by babar's artillery........a weapon unknown to indians.
rajputs only reluctantly accepted akbar's domination because they had to give their daughters in marriage to him .
even today ,the protests against jodha-akbar film were because the rajputs were reminded of their humiliation at mughal hands.........of their daughters being married to mughals.
the sisodia dynasty's ( rana pratap )main claim to pre-eminence among the rajputs is the fact that they never gave their daughters to mughals in marriage ,and acceptance of this pre-eminence by rajputs is proof that they hold this sensitive issue close to their hearts.
The only warrior clans who were successful in driving these invaders to near extinction were Marathas and Gurkhas. Gurkha warriors drove the invading Turkic and Pakhtoon tribes from eastern India till Afghanistan and returned victorious. This is the reason why Nepal has never been conquered militarily (except by our own ancient kings).
Gurkha people never came down to plane. How did they drove the invaders to Afghanistan???
Marathas too did not succeed in what you have mentioned. During the weakening period of Mughals the Marathas become a dominant power in north and west India for a brief period. But their lost to Ahmad shah Abdali became a set back. Later the British blocked their growth completely.
Even Shivaji- the real founder of Maratha empire had to surrender two-third of his 35 forts to the Mughals according to the treaty of Purander. Last strong Mughal Empire Aurangajeb out lived Shivaji. It is only after death of Aurangajeb Mughal empire started falling apart. During British era they were busy with the British and Nizam to uproot Haider Ali and Tipu Sultan. They faught three wars with the British but first two of them originated from their internal problems for power and siding of the British with one group and the third war started because of their support for the Pindaris. You will surprise to know this Pindari groups had many pathans alongside the locals who used to work for the Muslim nobles - like Mughals or other groups from west Asia.
It is believed Babur was invited by Rana Sanga and other Rajput chief to get rid of a evil name Ibrahim Lodi. Babur with his l5000 soldiers annihilated large force of the Lodis thanks to his canons and matchlocks. But Babur chose to to stay in India instead of going back to kabul and that lead to clash him with Rana Sanga and other Rajputs in Khanwa.
Mughal-Rajput alliance did not end in Jodhabai,..... Bhagwan Das and Raja Mansingha acted as Mughal generals during Akbar's Era, even after hundred years Rja Jai Singh from same family defeated Shivaji leading the Mughal army.
The protest about to movie has nothing to do with what you have claimed, I saw the interview of the leader of protesters. As per their legend Jodha was married to Akbar's son not with Akbar. And some historians too supported their view.
Anyone interested to read 'Baburnama'- autobiography of Babur? It is a book worth reading. English version is available online. You can pick one that suits you.
You forgot SIKHS, never forget them as Warriors because they are the only people out of Hindus who were born only to defend and fight.
shivaji may have had to surrender 23 out of 35 ( not 35 forts as you claim ) forts to aurangzeb , but you deliberately decided to omit the fact that this was a temporary setback ...........shivaji recovered all his forts back ......
aurangzeb may have outlived shivaji ,but the marathas outwitted him and kept him pinned in the deccan fighting a hopeless war for 25 years.........
.......'' the deccan became the grave of his ambitions as well as his body ''--he died a unhappy death in khuldabad in maharashtra ( i have been to his grave )regreting his campaign to conquer marathas.
yes ,the defeat of panipat to abdally was a greater setback , but the marathas recovered form it under mahadji scindia ( ancestor of madhavrao and jyotiraditya scindia ) to recapture delhi and keep the mughal emperor as puppet .
the grandson of the ruler who had brought abdally into india ( najib khan rohilla ) ,known as ghulam qadir rohillla ,was blinded and killed in revenge for panipat by mahadji.
the central asian turko -afghan invaders were not able to drive the marathas out of north india.....it was the british who did.
yes , but analysts have discerned the real motives behind the protests .
even though the protesters are claiming that the opposition is on the grounds of jodha being akbar's sons wife ,the real fact is that they dont want a movie showing rajput women being married to mughals being shown.
I agreed to your points....But Success of Maratha took place during a time when Mughals had weakened due to their internal power struggles and these north Indian rulers were Indianized thorough a period of 500 years. They were no more an invader. It could have been more pleasing if they could defeat Abdali was an invader in real terms. And Maratha strength in North India survived maximum half a century. Rather it is Mararaja Ranjit Singh who subdued much stronger opponents in the frontier.
Shivaji started recovering his lost ground after l670 and coroneted himself in l674. But his death in l680 lead to war of succession among Marathas. Sambhaji was executed by Aurangajeb for giving shelter to his rebellious son Akber. Leaving that l0 years of Shivaji, the Maratha could not repel the Mughals ; rather it remained a deadlock. It is only in l7l9 Shahuji was released by the Mughal Emperor. During Bajirao I, and later during Mahadji scindia and Madhav Rao who gained strength in North India. But by then the British had got their footstep in India.
May be...........But for that they had to blame only their ancestors............Such protests do not change the course of history.
Honestly saying Mahadji Scindia became my child hood hero during the TV show " The Great Maratha". He became a king maker in North Indian politics up to first Anglo-Maratha war. But it is a fact the Marathas could not repel any of their three powerful opponent (barring some brief period of deadlock)- Aurangajeb, Abdali and the British. If you consider the Delhi Sultans as Indians (as they settled in India and defending it) they did much better job against the Mongols. Ranjit Singh I have already mentioned.
mughals were weakened not by internal power struggle ,but by the marathas themselves.
a historian has rightly remarked that the deccan ulcer ruined aurangzeb .........he wasted 25 years ,and his entire treasury accumulated by his ancestors in trying to conquer the marathas.......at his death , the treasury was empty ,and his empire had lost central direction and control due to the emperor being absent from the capital for 25 years.
if it was a deadlock between the marathas and mughals ( in fact it was not ) ,then the marathas were the ones who benefitted from it .......their predatory powers increased.
the eighteenth century has rightly been called the age of maratha supremacy.........maratha power began to increase in north india from 1720 onwards ,and lasted upto 1802 ,when the british defeated them.
but jaswantrao holkar remained undefeated in malwa ,gaikwad in gujrat ,and scindia continued to rule bundelkhand upto 1818 ,when the british finally conquered them .
so maratha supremacy lasted nearly a century.
read about mahadji scindia ........the TV serial is inaccurate.
in fact after the first anglo-maratha war ,the british gained only the island of salsette near bombay ,and scindia regained delhi ,agra and the ganga-yamuna doab.
his greatness ,in fact lay in the future ,when he would control the delhi emperor ,and kill ghulam qadir rohilla.
the marathas certainly repelled aurangzeb ........remember he had come down to invade maharashtra ,and end maratha independence , but he failed.
during aurangzeb's time maratha power was in its infancy ,and did not have ambitions in northern parts of india........so it is not correct to say marathas could not repel aurangzeb , the fact that marathas were independent after his death shows that it was he who could not repel marathas .
as far as abdally is concerned ,even though he won at panipat ,his losses at panipat were considerable , and weakened his authority in panjab .
the sikhs were able to take advantage of this ,and gain punjab's independence.
remember that before panipat the sikhs were not so important , but suddenly gained in prominence after it ........they were taking advantage of the weakening of abdally's miltary machine after panipat.
british were however unbeatable in that era ,as they had completely new technology ,and no nation on earth really could resist them.
Then my friend, you don't know about Gurkhas correctly. Go on, ask any serving Gurkha about their retaliation of Persian/Turkic tribes during the weakening of Mughal empire. They will tell you about it blow by blow.
The world's most devastating weapon of mass destruction is a Gurkha and his rifle :angry_1:
Sorry I can not take the risk of challenging a Gurkha about the authenticity of his account.
So you tell about that please. There have been good contribution from Ashdoc.....
The Marathas were the biggest enemies of the Mughals .They stood in the way of Spread of the Mughal empire in the south and west India
The Marathas are the real cause of the weakening and destruction of the evil Mughal empire
The 27 year war between Aurang zeb and the Marathas in the Deccan from 1681 to 1707 ie right till Aurang zeb's death resulted in 5 lakh mughal soldiers being killed and 2 lakh maratha soldiers killed.
This war completely weakened the Mughals.
The Sikhs and Jats got their independence because Mughals had been weakened .And thereafter The Rajputs finally broke off their ties with the Mughals
The Mughal empire was after 1750 just remained in and around Delhi
Corrections.........The world's most devastating weapon of mass destruction is a Gurkha and his "KHUKRI".
Separate names with a comma.