Worst War Defeat - Your opinion!

[communismforindia]

defeat if mughal tyrannt by shivaji ....

 

[communismforindia]

Afzhal khan defeated without even fighting a war ....

 

[communismforindia]

Battle of Haldighati - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Battle of Haldighati, where Maharana pratap defeated mughal army that vastky outnumbered the army of rajput (4:1) within a few hours... and reclaimed a major portion of the land

 

[communismforindia]

Rani Lakshmibai - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Maharani Jhansi ki Rani (Lakshmi Bai), led a successful rebellion in 1857 against the oppressive and racist east Indian company

Source: Wikipedia

 

[communismforindia]

Battle of Kalinga lead by the great emperor Ashoka
Kalinga War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ALBY]

Battle of Haldighati - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Battle of Haldighati, where Maharana pratap defeated mughal army that vastky outnumbered the army of rajput (4:1) within a few hours... and reclaimed a major portion of the land

ma dear communismforindia you better refer some 9th or 10th standard history text book before posting something here.where did you got the info that in battle of haldighatti Maharana pratap was the jubilant winner? only you would have heard of that news in india. its true that rana displayed a huge valor and cut down thousands of mughals more than his losses but in the end mughals with their overwhelming numbers forced rajputs to retreat.

 

[W.G.Ewald]

Perhaps the worst defeat was that of Germany in Great War. Because of that defeat and the actions of the Allies afterwards, the Nazi regime superceded the Weimar Republic,

 

[mayfair]

ma dear communismforindia you better refer some 9th or 10th standard history text book before posting something here.where did you got the info that in battle of haldighatti Maharana pratap was the jubilant winner? only you would have heard of that news in india. its true that rana displayed a huge valor and cut down thousands of mughals more than his losses but in the end mughals with their overwhelming numbers forced rajputs to retreat.

While I do not entirely dispute your point, please refer to a source more substantial than the NCERT/CBSE history books. It has been recognised that these texts strongly reflect the ideological slants and bias of the "historians" who compiled them. And of course, Pratap being betrayed by an insider had a huge role to play in his retreat.

Perhaps DFI should have a thread to discuss the ideological leanings, historical inaccuracies and obfuscation of facts in our official history texts.

 

[civfanatic]

In India's context won of the worst defeats was the quashing of the Sepoy Rebellion and the subsequent transfer of political power from the East India Trading Company to the British Crown.

 

[lemontree]

Rani Lakshmibai - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Maharani Jhansi ki Rani (Lakshmi Bai), led a successful rebellion in 1857 against the oppressive and racist east Indian company

The Rani's rebellion was not successful, she was defeated and failed in all her military and political objectives.

 

[lemontree]

In India's context won of the worst defeats was the quashing of the Sepoy Rebellion and the subsequent transfer of political power from the East India Trading Company to the British Crown.

Actually it was as blessing in disguise. The country was united under a single political entity. Prior to 1857 the country was made up of over 550 small and big kingdoms and each one was a separate nation.

BTW, after the 1857 mutiny, the EIC stocks fell and the company never recovered after that and finally disolved in 1874.

 

[Singh]

what are you smoking these days pakiboy??

pure afghan hashish canuck piece of shyt :taunt1:

 

[Koovie]

Undoubtly..... WW2 for hitler. No one as ever seen such a fast and overhelming rise and at the same time such a disastrous defeat like in those 6 years....


EDIT: one question: what was the biggest surrender in history on one day? perhaps the pak surrender in east pak with 90000 soldiers or in the end of ww2?

 

[civfanatic]

Actually it was as blessing in disguise. The country was united under a single political entity. Prior to 1857 the country was made up of over 550 small and big kingdoms and each one was a separate nation.

No, even before the Raj the small and big states of India were united under larger entities. Before the 19th century there was the Maratha Confederacy which covered most of India and before them there was the Mughal Empire. In fact one of the objectives of the Sepoy Rebellion was to unite the Indian states by reinstating Mughal rule.

I fail to understand how the British victory in the 1857 Rebellion was a 'blessing in disguise' when for the remainder of the century India would be systematically deindustrialised and reduced to a producer of raw materials for British companies (rather than a leading manufacturer as it was before), and just a couple decades after the Rebellion India would suffer one of the worst famines in her history caused by British malpractice, leading to the death of millions.

 

[lemontree]

No, even before the Raj the small and big states of India were united under larger entities. Before the 19th century there was the Maratha Confederacy which covered most of India and before them there was the Mughal Empire. In fact one of the objectives of the Sepoy Rebellion was to unite the Indian states by reinstating Mughal rule.

(a) The Maratha Confederacy was just a confederacy of Maratha States ruled by different Peshwas - Gaekwads in Baroda , Holkar in Indore, Gwalior had the Scindias, and Bhonsales in Nagpur. The areas ruled by them does not constitute the whole of India. They were like an association or bloc like NATO.

(b) The Mughals were a different story - the empire was held together by the sword and from it broke off the Sikhs, Marathas and the Nizam of Hyderabad. In the India of that time, there was no affinity between the Sikhs/Punjabi in the north and the Maratha in the south, between the Awadhi/ Bundelkandi or the Bengali. There was no national spirit.

I fail to understand how the British victory in the 1857 Rebellion was a 'blessing in disguise' when for the remainder of the century India would be systematically deindustrialised and reduced to a producer of raw materials for British companies (rather than a leading manufacturer as it was before), and just a couple decades after the Rebellion India would suffer one of the worst famines in her history caused by British malpractice, leading to the death of millions.

After 1857, India came under the British crown and was not ruled by a company, as was happening under the EIC. There was a single national currency, a communications system (railways & postal) and an army. True that all these were for keeping the British Empire together, but they also binded the nation into one united entity. Prior to that, each kingdom was a separate "muluk".

Here I am talking of conversion of hundreds of kingdoms into one single nation. That is the blessing that I am talking about. The destruction or Indian industry and village economy is what we had to suffer as a result of colonialism.

 

[civfanatic]

(a) The Maratha Confederacy was just a confederacy of Maratha States ruled by different Peshwas - Gaekwads in Baroda , Holkar in Indore, Gwalior had the Scindias, and Bhonsales in Nagpur. The areas ruled by them does not constitute the whole of India. They were like an association or bloc like NATO.

(b) The Mughals were a different story - the empire was held together by the sword and from it broke off the Sikhs, Marathas and the Nizam of Hyderabad. In the India of that time, there was no affinity between the Sikhs/Punjabi in the north and the Maratha in the south, between the Awadhi/ Bundelkandi or the Bengali. There was no national spirit.


After 1857, India came under the British crown and was not ruled by a company, as was happening under the EIC. There was a single national currency, a communications system (railways & postal) and an army. True that all these were for keeping the British Empire together, but they also binded the nation into one united entity. Prior to that, each kingdom was a separate "muluk".

Here I am talking of conversion of hundreds of kingdoms into one single nation. That is the blessing that I am talking about. The destruction or Indian industry and village economy is what we had to suffer as a result of colonialism.

Even under the British Raj many of the territories/kingdoms were not under direct British rule. Many of the kingdoms like Mysore and Hyderabad were almost entirely independent in their internal affairs and merely recognised British suzerainty over foreign affairs and defence (Hyderabad also refused to integrate peacefully into the Union and had to be annexed via Operation Polo in 1948 ). In fact, the largest British-ruled province in the Raj was Burma. The British did play a major role in in national integration by indirectly building a spirit of nationalism among the peoples of India. But even in the 1940s it was not guaranteed that the princely states would accede to the Union of India. Here the efforts of people like Sardar Vallabhai Patel and V.P. Menon should be particularly applauded for their efforts in national integration.

I do not believe that the political benefits of British rule outweigh the socioeconomic disasters that it brought. I am of the opinion that, if India had avoided colonialism (say, as a result of Maratha victories in the Anglo-Maratha Wars), we would have inevitably pursued a policy of national integration and political centralisation. During the 19th century nationalism was spreading throughout the world, and it would have been very possible that events in India would unfold in similar manner, with the Maratha Confederacy playing a role similar to that played by Sardinia-Piedmont and Prussia in the national integration of Italy and Germany, respectively. With the accompanying political centralisation and associated reforms, it might also be possible for India to have embarked on a nation-wide economic modernization similar to that pursued by Meiji Japan in the late 19th century.

But of course these are all just historical "what ifs?".

 

[Rahul M]

for unlikely victories, lachit borphukan's ahom army defeating the mughals led by ramsingh at the battle of saraighat would rank among the very top. like a tragic hero he died with the news of the triumph.

lemontree, the british left us with about 600 independent kingdoms, how's that for unification ? I would have to agree with civfanatic, we would most likely have united on our own.

OT. @ civfanatic. fortuna orbis has been released.

 

[IBSA]

One humiliating defeat I think was the arabs in the '67 Six Days War, where the small israeli state defeated in a week 5 countries at same time and doubled its territory size.

I'm not a Israel fan, but I recognize this israeli full victory

 

[W.G.Ewald]

One humiliating defeat I think was the arabs in the '67 Six Days War, where the small israeli state defeated in a week 5 countries at same time and doubled its territory size.

I'm not a Israel fan, but I recognize this israeli full victory

The USS Liberty incident was an attack on a United States Navy technical research ship, USS Liberty, by Israeli Air Force jet fighter aircraft and Israeli Navy torpedo boats, on June 8, 1967, during the Six-Day War.[2] The combined air and sea attack killed 34 crew members (naval officers, seamen, two Marines, and one civilian), wounded 170 crew members, and severely damaged the ship.[3] At the time, the ship was in international waters north of the Sinai Peninsula, about 25.5 nmi (29.3 mi; 47.2 km) northwest from the Egyptian city of Arish.[1][4]

USS Liberty incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[lemontree]

Even under the British Raj many of the territories/kingdoms were not under direct British rule. Many of the kingdoms like Mysore and Hyderabad were almost entirely independent in their internal affairs and merely recognised British suzerainty over foreign affairs and defence (Hyderabad also refused to integrate peacefully into the Union and had to be annexed via Operation Polo in 1948 ). In fact, the largest British-ruled province in the Raj was Burma. The British did play a major role in in national integration by indirectly building a spirit of nationalism among the peoples of India. But even in the 1940s it was not guaranteed that the princely states would accede to the Union of India. Here the efforts of people like Sardar Vallabhai Patel and V.P. Menon should be particularly applauded for their efforts in national integration.

Nevertheless, the many kingdoms were under one nation called "India".

I do not believe that the political benefits of British rule outweigh the socioeconomic disasters that it brought. I am of the opinion that, if India had avoided colonialism (say, as a result of Maratha victories in the Anglo-Maratha Wars), we would have inevitably pursued a policy of national integration and political centralisation.

The Marathas had no affinity with the areas west of Beas, with Delhi or Bengal. The Deccan was under the Nizam. Each one was fiercly independant. The Marathas could not see eye-to-eye among themselves so how would they unit the nation as one unit?

During the 19th century nationalism was spreading throughout the world, and it would have been very possible that events in India would unfold in similar manner, with the Maratha Confederacy playing a role similar to that played by Sardinia-Piedmont and Prussia in the national integration of Italy and Germany, respectively. With the accompanying political centralisation and associated reforms, it might also be possible for India to have embarked on a nation-wide economic modernization similar to that pursued by Meiji Japan in the late 19th century.

The Marathas conferdaracy was an association made of teh rulers of Baroda, Indore, Gwalior and Pune. Each one would not let the other peshwa get ahead of himself. In fact the reason the Maratha insurgency defeated the Mughals was the disunity amongst the Marathas. The Mughals were fighting multiple kings, when one fell, the others kept fighting. This exhausted the Mughal army.

Meiji Japan was under one ruler, we were under 600.