Comparison between Maratha and Rajput warriors---by Elphinstone

ashdoc

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
2,969
Likes
3,570
Country flag
Though the Marathas had never appeared in history as a nation,
they had as strongly marked a character as if they had always formed
a united commonwealth. Though more like to the lower orders in
Hindostan than to their southern neighbours in Kanaru and Telingana,
they could never for a moment be confounded with either. They are
small sturdy men, well made, though not handsome. They are all active,
laborious, hardy, and persevering. If they have none of the pride and
dignity of the Rajputs, they have none of their indolence or want of
worldly wisdom. A Rajput warrior, as long as he does not dishonour
his race, seems almost indifferent to the result of any contest he is
engaged in. A Maratha thinks of nothing but the result, and cares little
for the means, if he can attain his object. For this purpose he will strain
his wits, renounce his pleasures, and hazard his person ; but he has not
a conception of sacrificing his life, or even his interest, for a point of honour.
This difference of sentiment affects the outward appearance of the two
nations ; there is something noble in the carriage even of an ordinary
Rajput, and something vulgar in that of the most distinguished Maratha.!!!


The Rajput is the most worthy antagonist — the Maratha the most
formidable enemy ; for he will not fail in boldness and enterprise when
they are indispensable, and will always support them, or supply their
place, by stratagem, activity, and perseverance. All this applies chiefly
to the soldiery, to whom more bad qualities might fairly be ascribed.
The mere husbandmen are sober, frugal, and industrious, and, though they
have a dash of the national cunning, are neither turbulent nor insincere.

The chiefs, in those days, were men of families who had for generations
filled the old Hindu offices of heads of villages or functionaries of districts,
and had often been employed as partisans under the governments of
Ahmadnagar and Bijapur. They were all Sudras, of the same cast with
their people, though some tried to raise their consequence by claiming
an infusion of Rajput blood.
 
Last edited:

dhananjay1

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2013
Messages
3,291
Likes
5,530
Rajputs and Marathas come from different social structures and the points of their maximum power fall into different centuries and different technological paradigms. Also Brits had a special hatred of Marathas for obvious reasons.
 

pankaj nema

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
6,355
Likes
11,529
Country flag
Forget about looks and appearances

What they did to each other is more important


Marathas especially Shivaji Maharaj appealed to Rajputs ie Raja Jai SIngh who had
come to destroy the fledgling Maratha kingdom to instead help them
in their fight with Aurangzeb

But the Rajputs rebuffed them

Later Marathas were struggling to keep their independence ie in the
27 year war with Aurangzeb

In this war also Rajputs participated because Rajput soldiers and princes
were an integral part of the Mughal army

The Marathas never forgave Rajputs for this They could Never accept that
Rajputs who were proud Hindus did not help them

Marathas defeated the Mughals on their own in the 27 year war which ended
with the defeat and death of Aurangzeb and the Mughal empire crumbled after that
 
Last edited:

pankaj nema

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
6,355
Likes
11,529
Country flag
After 1707 Marathas became the dominant power in India and
specifically Marked out the Rajputs for revenge

Rajputs were looking to restablish themselves after Aurangzeb's death
but Marathas defeated them and imposed very heavy taxes on them
thus prevented the Rajputs from becoming a major power again

Marathas also interfered in the internal political matters of various Rajput states

Now The Rajputs ( along with others )refused to help the Marathas in Third battle of Panipat
as a retaliation
 

pankaj nema

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
6,355
Likes
11,529
Country flag
The Maratha Rajput skirmeshes continued even after Panipat debacle

But it helped neither of them

It only helped the British to gain and consolidate their power in India

That is the story of India

First Rajputs fought AMONGST themselves and the Islamists gained

Then Rajputs ;Marathas and other Indian kingdoms fought with each other and the Brits gained
 

Maharaj

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2013
Messages
26
Likes
24
Forget about looks and appearances

What they did to each other is more important


Marathas especially Shivaji Maharaj appealed to Rajputs ie Raja Jai SIngh who had
come to destroy the fledgling Maratha kingdom to instead help them
in their fight with Aurangzeb

But the Rajputs rebuffed them

Later Marathas were struggling to keep their independence ie in the
27 year war with Aurangzeb

In this war also Rajputs participated because Rajput soldiers and princes
were an integral part of the Mughal army

The Marathas never forgave Rajputs for this They could Never accept that
Rajputs who were proud Hindus did not help them

Marathas defeated the Mughals on their own in the 27 year war which ended
with the defeat and death of Aurangzeb and the Mughal empire crumbled after that
Why should the Rajputs support the Marathas?
When north India was invaded by the Arab invaders in the 8th century it was the the Pratihara rulers
of north india who defeated the Arab invaders and protected north india. But the Rashtrakuta rulers of southern
India never supported the Pratihara rulers against the Arabs. In fact the Rashtrakuta rulers of southern India
took advantage of the Pratihara-Arab war and invaded northern india several times and even weakened
the power the Pratihara Dynasty.
In the 11th and 12th century northern India had to face several Turkic invasions but the southern Dynasties like
the Western Chalukya Empire and Chola Empire did nothing to prevent this. Instead Rajendra Chola of the Chola Empire
even invaded northern India in the 11th century.
 

rock127

Maulana Rockullah
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 12, 2009
Messages
9,752
Likes
16,352
Country flag
The Maratha Rajput skirmeshes continued even after Panipat debacle

But it helped neither of them

It only helped the British to gain and consolidate their power in India

That is the story of India

First Rajputs fought AMONGST themselves and the Islamists gained

Then Rajputs ;Marathas and other Indian kingdoms fought with each other and the Brits gained
Don't forget Sikh Rajputs... The Hill Rajputs allied/conspired along Moguls to fight Sikhs. :tsk:

A allied Maratha+Rajput+Sikhs would mean no outsider thinking of attacking India.Instead they would conquor foreign land far on both east and west borders.
 

ALBY

Section Moderator
Mod
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
2,577
Likes
2,713
Country flag
Don't forget Sikh Rajputs... The Hill Rajputs allied/conspired along Moguls to fight Sikhs. :tsk:

A allied Maratha+Rajput+Sikhs would mean no outsider thinking of attacking India.Instead they would conquor foreign land far on both east and west borders.
The fact is that no assholee had ever tried to think about any alliance and every one had sought the help of foreign powers to settle their local scores.These above mentioned marathas had allied behind brits to defeat Tipu and hyder.And Rajputs done nothing when mughals had beaten the lodhis.Also some of them had sided with muughals to defeat the forces under Rana Pratap.
 

ALBY

Section Moderator
Mod
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
2,577
Likes
2,713
Country flag
The heroism of all the indian kingdoms except Mauryas or guptas are extremely over rated and in the last 1000 years no one hhad ever won a major battle against any invading force:p
 

Maharaj

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2013
Messages
26
Likes
24
The heroism of all the indian kingdoms except Mauryas or guptas are extremely over rated and in the last 1000 years no one hhad ever won a major battle against any invading force:p
This is not true.
The Pratihara and Chalukya rulers defeated the Arab invaders.
The Rajput rulers defeated the turkic invaders in the 11th and 12th century.
The Vijayanagar rulers protected southern India against the Turkic invaders.
The Marathas defeated the Mughals and the Portuguese.
The Sikhs defeated the Afghans.
 

Tolaha

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
2,158
Likes
1,411
Forget about looks and appearances

What they did to each other is more important


Marathas especially Shivaji Maharaj appealed to Rajputs ie Raja Jai SIngh who had
come to destroy the fledgling Maratha kingdom to instead help them
in their fight with Aurangzeb

But the Rajputs rebuffed them

Later Marathas were struggling to keep their independence ie in the
27 year war with Aurangzeb

In this war also Rajputs participated because Rajput soldiers and princes
were an integral part of the Mughal army

The Marathas never forgave Rajputs for this They could Never accept that
Rajputs who were proud Hindus did not help them

Marathas defeated the Mughals on their own in the 27 year war which ended
with the defeat and death of Aurangzeb and the Mughal empire crumbled after that
Marathas assisted Muslim kingdoms in defeating "Hindu" kings as well as European colonists in defeating native Indian kingdoms. Rajputs were not a single entity, so the action Raja Jai Singh siding with the Mughals has to be seen against the political dynamics of those days. Marathas did not finish off the Mughals. On the contrary, they did their best to support the Mughals against entities who wanted to finish the Mughals. Do these facts help you with your narrative?

After 1707 Marathas became the dominant power in India and
specifically Marked out the Rajputs for revenge

Rajputs were looking to restablish themselves after Aurangzeb's death
but Marathas defeated them and imposed very heavy taxes on them
thus prevented the Rajputs from becoming a major power again

Marathas also interfered in the internal political matters of various Rajput states

Now The Rajputs ( along with others )refused to help the Marathas in Third battle of Panipat
as a retaliation
I think @Virendra had posted quite a detailed description on why Marathas were left with no allies/friends in the sub-continent during their meteoric rise to power. As for the Rajputs, they had seen the Afghans and the Marathas and concluded that neither of them were any good for them. Can you blame them for looking after themselves instead of siding with the Marathas (who were coincidentally/naturally looking after themselves as well)?

The Maratha Rajput skirmeshes continued even after Panipat debacle

But it helped neither of them

It only helped the British to gain and consolidate their power in India

That is the story of India

First Rajputs fought AMONGST themselves and the Islamists gained

Then Rajputs ;Marathas and other Indian kingdoms fought with each other and the Brits gained
The Rajputs fought amongst themselves. The Marathas fought amongst themselves. We Indians still continue to fight amongst ourselves. I cant see any one particular community in India that is basking in glory at the end of it all!

Why should the Rajputs support the Marathas?
When north India was invaded by the Arab invaders in the 8th century it was the the Pratihara rulers
of north india who defeated the Arab invaders and protected north india. But the Rashtrakuta rulers of southern
India never supported the Pratihara rulers against the Arabs. In fact the Rashtrakuta rulers of southern India
took advantage of the Pratihara-Arab war and invaded northern india several times and even weakened
the power the Pratihara Dynasty.
In the 11th and 12th century northern India had to face several Turkic invasions but the southern Dynasties like
the Western Chalukya Empire and Chola Empire did nothing to prevent this. Instead Rajendra Chola of the Chola Empire
even invaded northern India in the 11th century.
Did you for a moment consider the possibility that the Pratiharas and the Chalukyas/Rashtrakutas might have been both, fighting with another as well as fighting with the Arabs?

The Pratiharas going down had as much to do with the "south Indians" as much as it has to do with the "east Indians", "central Indians" (Rajputs btw) and then ofcourse, the Turks. But still, how can you use this argument for the Rajputs not supporting the Marathas; aren't Marathas "west Indians"? :troll:
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Maharaj

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2013
Messages
26
Likes
24
The Pratiharas going down had as much to do with the "south Indians" as much as it has to do with the "east Indians", "central Indians" (Rajputs btw) and then ofcourse, the Turks. But still, how can you use this argument for the Rajputs not supporting the Marathas; aren't Marathas "west Indians"? :troll:
The Narmada river forms the traditional boundary between North India and South India.
So the territories south of the Narmada river is "Southi land":p
The Rashtrakuta Dynasty was the main reason for the decline of the Pratihara Dynasty
which led to the Turkic invasion of northern India in the 11th century.
There were barely any battles between the Pratihara Dynasty and Pala Dynasty of eastern India.
The Rajput rulers of central india like the Chandela and Paramara rulers were loyal to the Pratihara rulers.
But the Rashtrakuta rulers invaded northern India several times. Even the Arab scholars stated that the
Pratihara rulers and Rashtrakuta rulers were natural enemies.
 

Tolaha

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2009
Messages
2,158
Likes
1,411
The Narmada river forms the traditional boundary between North India and South India.
So the territories south of the Narmada river is "Southi land":p
I do keep telling these Gujjus and Maharashtrains that they are Southies but they refuse to comply! :D

The Rashtrakuta Dynasty was the main reason for the decline of the Pratihara Dynasty
which led to the Turkic invasion of northern India in the 11th century.
Yes, Rashtrakutas were one of the reason for the decline but the Turks/Afghans/Arabs/Mlecchas have been attacking the western frontiers of India before/after the Pratiharas!

There were barely any battles between the Pratihara Dynasty and Pala Dynasty of eastern India.
Pratiharas and the Palas were in continuous battle for control of the Gangetic plains. Probably, depending on who amongst Palas and Prathiharas were left stronger after being attacked by Rashtrakutas, would attack the other! :p

The Rajput rulers of central india like the Chandela and Paramara rulers were loyal to the Pratihara rulers.
Chandelas, formerly vassals, took over the territories from the Pratiharas, didn't they?


But the Rashtrakuta rulers invaded northern India several times. Even the Arab scholars stated that the
Pratihara rulers and Rashtrakuta rulers were natural enemies.
Yes, Pratiharas and Rashtrakutas were natural enemies, along with Palas, due to the power structure of those times. But when the Arabs appeared, they seem to have temporarily set aside their enmity and ensured that Arabs stayed at the other side of the Indus. And even those Arabs were supplanted by native rulers in some time. Basically saying that Indians had a pretty good track record against the Arabs!
 

nirranj

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
928
Likes
790
Country flag
I was wondering Why the different Kingdoms of India never took up a Crusade like expedition against the Invading Arabs, Turks and Mongols. Apart from Internal Conflicts, Wasn't the common faiths and culture a wake up call?? The Invading forces were completely alien to our Culture, this crusade could have been a measure to safeguard the culture from foriegn invasion. If the Muslim powers were denied a foothold In India, the Europeans would never had a chance to colonise India.

I was thinking, Why didn't Rajendra Chola march westwards instead of Going Eastwards and take on the Mohd of Gazni instead of taking on the Pala's.

Was this Nation never bound by a common Religion? and a common culture? If not what is the basic fabric that is holding the Modern India together?

Any points in this reagrd.
 

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,699
Likes
3,025
Country flag
I was wondering Why the different Kingdoms of India never took up a Crusade like expedition against the Invading Arabs, Turks and Mongols. Apart from Internal Conflicts, Wasn't the common faiths and culture a wake up call??
Socio-cultural bond cannot provide for standing armies. In a loose colony like medieval India, that comes only from Politico-Military centralization. Which as we know was missing.

If the Muslim powers were denied a foothold In India, the Europeans would never had a chance to colonise India.
We can always second guess from the hindsight now. But that part may have or may not have been true.


I was thinking, Why didn't Rajendra Chola march westwards instead of Going Eastwards and take on the Mohd of Gazni instead of taking on the Pala's.

Was this Nation never bound by a common Religion? and a common culture? If not what is the basic fabric that is holding the Modern India together?
Any points in this reagrd.
Apart from the often repeated fact that no centralized imperial power existed and there was only a fragmented polity of autonomous warring middle sized Kingdoms ... there are other reasons to why it didn't happen.
Reasons owing to natives militaries' methods, philosophy and technologies. Please see here
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...jasthan-arabs-lost-indians-12.html#post791966

Regards,
Virendra
 

ALBY

Section Moderator
Mod
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
2,577
Likes
2,713
Country flag
This is not true.
The Pratihara and Chalukya rulers defeated the Arab invaders.
The Rajput rulers defeated the turkic invaders in the 11th and 12th century.
The Vijayanagar rulers protected southern India against the Turkic invaders.
The Marathas defeated the Mughals and the Portuguese.
The Sikhs defeated the Afghans.
They could have won many battles,but none of them won a war against any invader.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top