Comparison between Maratha and Rajput warriors---by Elphinstone

Peter

Pratik Maitra
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2014
Messages
2,938
Likes
3,341
Country flag
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.
Well this is a bit late.
Anyway the fact whether socio-cultural bonds are good enough for standing armies is a debatable one. If you look at the crusades that @nirranj is talking about then you would see that the crusading party was a mish-mash of people and nations belonging to various cultures who had only one thing in common-Christianity(more of catholic variety even though the orthodox Byzantines first asked for help from the Pope). Yet they made up an army that fought against their so called infidels. Even warring nations like France and England(well England had been recently conquered by the French Norman duke of Normandy so maybe the culture of nobility was same-French.However they were enemies in 1066) answered the call for crusades.

To be said quite frankly bitter enemies fought together for a piece of land that was not even a part of their nation or patrimony. Even after the successful Crusades they continued protecting their christian kingdoms there. They did all of this because of the Pope`s call for freedom of the Holy Land of Jerusalem.

I think the Crusades type thing never worked here because there was no central religious authority in India back then. There was no Pope or Caliph who could rally all Hindus under one banner. Also the religious unity was also not there. I have heard that there was Buddhism and Jainism in some parts of India. Often the Buddhists and Jain would aid Muslim invaders as the Hindu rulers were quite tyrannical to them. That of course did not save the Jains or Buddhists as they would found the consequences of their treachery later. If India had a religious head things might have been different(also having better horses might have helped)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
Well this is a bit late.
Anyway the fact whether socio-cultural bonds are good enough for standing armies is a debatable one. If you look at the crusades that @nirranj is talking about then you would see that the crusading party was a mish-mash of people and nations belonging to various cultures who had only one thing in common-Christianity(more of catholic variety even though the orthodox Byzantines first asked for help from the Pope). Yet they made up an army that fought against their so called infidels. Even warring nations like France and England(well England had been recently conquered by the French Norman duke of Normandy so maybe the culture of nobility was same-French.However they were enemies in 1066) answered the call for crusades.

To be said quite frankly bitter enemies fought together for a piece of land that was not even a part of their nation or patrimony. Even after the successful Crusades they continued protecting their christian kingdoms there. They did all of this because of the Pope`s call for freedom of the Holy Land of Jerusalem.

I think the Crusades type thing never worked here because there was no central religious authority in India back then. There was no Pope or Caliph who could rally all Hindus under one banner. Also the religious unity was also not there. I have heard that there was Buddhism and Jainism in some parts of India. Often the Buddhists and Jain would aid Muslim invaders as the Hindu rulers were quite tyrannical to them. That of course did not save the Jains or Buddhists as they would found the consequences of their treachery later. If India had a religious head things might have been different(also having better horses might have helped)
It was not Christianity alone.
There was a social bond between leaders and the people. The bond was an agreement that people would rally with the leaders for territorial expansion, imperialism and all kinds of exploitation of foreign.
In return, the leaders would undertake ventures that will be materialistically fruitful and the spoils be distributed.
This co-ordinated drive is what fueled Imperialism, the related raids/jihads/crusades or whatever you call it.
It is the lure of territory, money, booty etc.
There's nothing so dazzling and unprecedentedly great about abrahmic religions that masses would move at the drop of a hat.
The complete masala package that was offered, was irrefutable.The unity that you see was for plunder. If Christianity offers it, so be it. Same goes for Islam.
Indians OTOH weren't of that disposition. We have medieval ballads singing of 14 year old boys signing into armies for the wage of few kilo Millet.
People related more to their Clan & State. That is what drove them. That is why our resistance was fragmented, decentralized into multiple midsize pockets.
Unlike Abrahmics, Indian religion (which isn't a typical religion as such) is not a macro phenomenon.
It is a pervasive but micro phenomenon that almost every Indian individual practised whole heartedly in his daily life.
Moreover, a caste divided agrarian civilization like India would be less disposed to have motivated masses for crusades.
Different societies and civilizations get insipred by different ideas/objectives.

Regards,
Virendra
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ajesh

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2014
Messages
325
Likes
159
Yet Another attempt by a Brit Historian to divide Bharat. Comparing Rajputs and Marathas.
 

Ajesh

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2014
Messages
325
Likes
159
Marathas, Rajputs are all Kshatriyas who are defined by their Role to Protect their Motherland, fight for the Right, Fight for what is right, fight for Dharma, That is all what they are made for.
 

ITBP

Regular Member
Joined
May 14, 2014
Messages
338
Likes
137
Rajputs parat from battle of Anhilwara and 1st battle of Terain did not win any other important battle. Despite being most powerful they could not shake foundation of Muslim rule, mean while Marathas within just 60 years, shook Mughal foundation.

Maratha Army was better, clever, brave and FAST, Rajputs were brave indeed but fools.
 

Simple_Guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
938
Likes
578
Yet Another attempt by a Brit Historian to divide Bharat. Comparing Rajputs and Marathas.
Absolutely.

Real comparison would be Rajputs vs Delhi sultanate and Marathas vs Mughal empire.

Very different time periods but the end result was the same. Rajasthan proved to be the graveyard of the Delhi sultans, whose empire shattered into diff kingdoms, and Maharashtra was the death of Mughals, their empire again broken into many kingdoms.

But ironically the remains of both were given the death blow by a foreign invader. Timur in 1398 destroyed the little Delhi kingdom and Nadir Shah in 1739 destroyed the Mughals.
 

Simple_Guy

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2013
Messages
938
Likes
578
Basically history text books don't give equal time to Rajputs as they do to Muslims in the same region.

For example, fall of Chittor in 1303 is shown as a great achievement by Muslims. But the liberation of Chittor in 1326, and defeat of Muslims by Rajputs is not given any importance.
 

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
Basically history text books don't give equal time to Rajputs as they do to Muslims in the same region.

For example, fall of Chittor in 1303 is shown as a great achievement by Muslims. But the liberation of Chittor in 1326, and defeat of Muslims by Rajputs is not given any importance.
That is a common mistake of perspective. A defender defending 99 times doesn't show up in records but the one time when invader broke in is what becomes history.
One might call it unfair but that is how it is. Besides, you wou;d've heard of "History is always written by the victor."
Well may be not always, but yes most of the times narrative is dominated that way.

Real comparison would be Rajputs vs Delhi sultanate and Marathas vs Mughal empire.
Actually Rajputs have been covered slightly better in mainstream history, after Mughals arrived. Partly because majority of Rajput Kingdoms were a part of the Empire.

Very different time periods but the end result was the same. Rajasthan proved to be the graveyard of the Delhi sultans, whose empire shattered into diff kingdoms, and Maharashtra was the death of Mughals, their empire again broken into many kingdoms.
Indeed. Sikhs, Rajputs and Marathas had no overlap in their respective prime times. Another often overlooked fact.

But ironically the remains of both were given the death blow by a foreign invader. Timur in 1398 destroyed the little Delhi kingdom and Nadir Shah in 1739 destroyed the Mughals.
Delhi Sultanate was killed by Babur in 1526 A.D. It was on its last legs anyway and Rana Sanga would've done the job eventually, if Babur was not on the scene.

That being said, I find such comparison between Indian communities really sick. We can't say anything to the foreigners who did it (could be bias or unawareness).
But sadly even Indians across various internet forums start swearing at Indians with such short tempered swiftness; that I lose hope of whether they'd ever really find courage to stand up to real enemies.
Its like being a miao in front of the street bully and beating one's wife/children at home instead. Pathetic.
Then we wonder .. "hey howcome we're not a superpower if we're so great a civilization and all".

Regards,
Virendra
 

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
Rajputs parat from battle of Anhilwara and 1st battle of Terain did not win any other important battle. Despite being most powerful they could not shake foundation of Muslim rule, mean while Marathas within just 60 years, shook Mughal foundation.

Maratha Army was better, clever, brave and FAST, Rajputs were brave indeed but fools.
Ponder on why the Turks were beaten to pulp by Rajputs again and again till they eventually vanished.
Reason - For most of the time Turks were divided in a number of Sultanates - Malwa, Gujarat, Delhi and few minors like Nagor.
Because they were fragmented like this, Mewar could pick them one by one and punish them. This happened multiple times.
During those times not only Mewar was a strong state but, had more allies (due to the strength) and thus it could stamp on the Turks any time it wanted.

Now, contrast this with Mughal era. There were no multiple Mughal Kingdoms in India. Power was centralized.
However at the time when Mughals were developing in India, Mewar was going through a series of weak and/or unpopular rulers, succession disputes etc instead.
Amber was a small state in northeast Rajputana (first spot when you approach from Delhi-Agra region) without the geographical depth (forests/mountain ranges etc) of Mewar. In the decade post Panipat war Amber also was drowned in weak.unpopular rulers, succession disputes etc.

Till Mewar was powerful and stable (upto 1527 AD) Amber was fighting under the former's banner and reciprocal protection. It was fine, worked for everyone.
The moment Mewar weakened, Amber was the most exposed pillar of Rajputana for Mughals. Nobody would save Amber from Mughals or Sher Shah Suri etc now. After 1527 AD whenever Amber was attacked it did not receive any help from Mewar.
What followed was the obvious political choice of Amber as well as Mughals (who were still only a regional force).

I will dwell into the wars won later, but for the Marathas cleverness, it goes only as deep as antagonizing Rajputs, Jats, Sikhs with the unending raids in the middle of drought stricken periods.

Regards,
Virendra
 

ALBY

Section Moderator
Mod
Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
3,511
Likes
6,768
Country flag
Off topic:Its very sad too find out that in many posts these mughals and other sultanates are being viewed as foreigners were unlike mangols or europeans they settled down in india and become part of india.Duee respect shuld be given to them as they were more brave than rajputs or any other kingdom at that time.It was the inability of hindu kingdoms in both military operations and civil governing caused the crumbling of hindu kingdoms under the muslim invading forces from central asia.
Considering rajputs and marathas much of their reputation is over rated by the hindu protagonists.Noo disrespect for the individual bravery of those men and fierce leaders liike Rana SANGA And Rana Pratap.The military doctrine and tactics of rajputs were nothing but bullshit compared with mughals or mangols.That is evident from battles of khanuwa,tarain and second battle of panipat.In all the three battles rajputs had numerical superiority.Yet they sucked in the end.It could be attributed solely to the bad tactics and lack of professionalism and lack of proper chain oof command.
Just take the case of battle of panipat.Hemus army was clearly winning the battle when he was captured by a cavalry archer unit of mughals.By seeing this rajput lines crumbled and as a result of it all of the top eadershipp including mahipal,ramaiyya and shardi khan were killed with hemu.If there was proper chain of command or professionalismthat wouldn't have happened.
IIn khanwa too rajputs numbers were many times bigger than mughals yet they were slaughterd like lambs.
In the battle of tarain rajputs were heavy in number bbut with inferior cavalry .And war elephants which were suppoosedd to become an asset turned to be a mass murderer of own forces.
Considering the casee of marathas ,they were good in guerilla war fare but they were nothing compared to the armies of abdali and rohillas .
 

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
Off topic:Its very sad too find out that in many posts these mughals and other sultanates are being viewed as foreigners.
Well, they were isn't it?

were unlike mangols or europeans they settled down in india and become part of india.
Sorry to break it to you but they never became part of India. Physically settling down in India and become a son of the soil by bonding with the people are two different things.

Duee respect shuld be given to them as they were more brave than rajputs or any other kingdom at that time.
Please do enlighten me on how they were more brave. By the way, aren't you counting the chivalrous, unprofessional attitude of Rajputs as a weakness in the same post? :D

It was the inability of hindu kingdoms in both military operations and civil governing caused the crumbling of hindu kingdoms under the muslim invading forces from central asia.
If you face constant invasions for centuries and then get fouled for partially capitulating, I would then have you comment on this "civil governing" again. Bring out specific points as such generic suggestions don't add value to a debate.
In military operations Mughals armies were often led by Rajput generals, so far as Mirza Raja Jai Singh officiating for the Mughal Emperor from Delhi while the latter was in pursuit of Shah Shuja. As for civil governing, Mughals again used Hindu officials for this.
From Afghans and Mughals side, other than Sher Shah Suri, Akbar to some extent nobody else stands out in that respect.

Considering rajputs and marathas much of their reputation is over rated by the hindu protagonists.Noo disrespect for the individual bravery of those men and fierce leaders liike Rana SANGA And Rana Pratap.The military doctrine and tactics of rajputs were nothing but bullshit compared with mughals or mangols.That is evident from battles of khanuwa,tarain and second battle of panipat.In all the three battles rajputs had numerical superiority.
False. Also, as far as tactics go, PrithviRaj Chauhan had history of leading night attacks on his enemy. So no, they didn't shout 'kumbaya' and start running madly toward the enemy.

Yet they sucked in the end.It could be attributed solely to the bad tactics and lack of professionalism and lack of proper chain oof command.
Not solely to those reasons. I can go into details for each of the battles if you want. For now the point is, there are many other reasons.

Just take the case of battle of panipat.Hemus army was clearly winning the battle when he was captured by a cavalry archer unit of mughals.By seeing this rajput lines crumbled and as a result of it all of the top leadershipp including mahipal,ramaiyya and shardi khan were killed with hemu.If there was proper chain of command or professionalismthat wouldn't have happened.
When the leader falls, it has happened with many seasoned armies. At Tarain-I the Ghorid army fled away immediately, once Muhammed Ghori got injured and fell off his horse.
If a Khalji trooper hadn't identified and carried him away, he was done for sure in Tarain-I itself.
When all of Sanga's allies fled from the Khanwa battlefield & Maharana fainted out of head injury, another noble took his place and Mewari army still fought to the end.

In khanwa too rajputs numbers were many times bigger than mughals yet they were slaughterd like lambs.
Wrong. Sanga's core Mewari Army was not more than 25-30 thousand and with allies (who turned back in ongoing battle) it swells at best to 50-60 thousand.
Babur's army consists of 20-25 thousand troops which doesn not include his matchlockmen and archers.
But this battle was not just about numbers and I think most of the people who study history know that.
This was the battle where use of Gunpowder by Babur prevailed on Rajput cavalry. Swords can't fight bullets, regardless of numeric superiority.
Khanwa was the watershed moment in the history of Military Technology in India. Military Technology proved crucial in changing the course of history on many occasions. During the months long Chittor siege of 1568 A.D. when Akbar's attempts hadn't yielded much yet, it was his Matchlock shot which killed the Fort's garrison leader Jaimal Rathore and dealt the final blow to the hopes of defending combatants - leading them to final fight to the death and women to funeral pyres of Jauhar. One bullet !

In the battle of tarain rajputs were heavy in number but with inferior cavalry. And war elephants which were supposed to become an asset turned to be a mass murderer of own forces.
Wrong again. In Tarain-II PrithviRaj Chauhan had a much smaller force compared to Tarain-I.
His generals like Skanda, Udayaraja, and Bhuvanik Malla were absent. These were capable leaders who individually commanded substantial forces.
Moreoverm his brother Hariraj Chauhan and many other Chauhan chieftains counter attacking Ghorids tells us that a large part of Chauhan force was not present in Tarain-II. Which is why PrithviRajChauhan tried to buy time by negotiating with Ghori so that his army could be bolstered by others joining in (which never happened).
Ghori's cavalry consisted of 52,000 troops (divided in 5 units) and figures for camels, infantry, elephants etc are unknown as Muslim sources seldom mention these ranks.
As PrithviRaj's army was not augmented by the forces under his generals, even if we add minor chieftains contributions the total hovers around 30,000 where the all important cavalry is merely 10-15 thousand.
Now that PrithviRaj could not envelop the heavily outnumbering enemy by frontal cavalry charge (like Tarain-I), Ghori unleashed cavalry archers to harrass and exhaust the Chauhan army. Indian armies did not have proper divisions of cavalry archers (used aptly & heavily in nomadic Central Asian geography) to answer this.

Considering the case of marathas ,they were good in guerilla war fare but they were nothing compared to the armies of abdali and rohillas.
If you will write generic rhetoric like this instead of specific points, discussing anything is impossible.

Indian defeats are as much caused by differences of Military Technology as by other reasons.

Mughals were smarter in respect that they used divide and rule, force, deceit .. almost everything to keep native Kingdoms in check and attained Imperial status for themselves .. sort of a prequel to British.
Their doing so, trampling the Indian people and prosperity of India in the process, is what makes them a foreign power dug into the country; not an Indian power ruling as Imperials.
If they were such good administrators, we won't be seeing constant revolts against them, so much that Jahangir, Aurangzeb etc would lament it.
If you want me to respect Turks, Mughals as foreign enemies who bettered the Indians in military strategem and canniving deceit, I do.
If you want me to respect Turks, Mughals as Indian powers more brave than others & capable administrators who proved better for people, I don't because that isn't the case.

Regards,
Virendra
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top