abhi_the _gr8_maratha
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2014
- Messages
- 2,193
- Likes
- 609
wasn't portuguese were invader?They could have won many battles,but none of them won a war against any invader.
wasn't portuguese were invader?They could have won many battles,but none of them won a war against any invader.
Well this is a bit late.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.
It was not Christianity alone.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)
Absolutely.Yet Another attempt by a Brit Historian to divide Bharat. Comparing Rajputs and Marathas.
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.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.
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.Real comparison would be Rajputs vs Delhi sultanate and Marathas vs Mughal empire.
Indeed. Sikhs, Rajputs and Marathas had no overlap in their respective prime times. Another often overlooked fact.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.
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.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.
Ponder on why the Turks were beaten to pulp by Rajputs again and again till they eventually vanished.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.
Well, they were isn't it?Off topic:Its very sad too find out that in many posts these mughals and other sultanates are being viewed as foreigners.
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.were unlike mangols or europeans they settled down in india and become part of india.
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?Duee respect shuld be given to them as they were more brave than rajputs or any other kingdom at that time.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.In khanwa too rajputs numbers were many times bigger than mughals yet they were slaughterd like lambs.
Wrong again. In Tarain-II PrithviRaj Chauhan had a much smaller force compared to Tarain-I.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.
If you will write generic rhetoric like this instead of specific points, discussing anything is impossible.Considering the case of marathas ,they were good in guerilla war fare but they were nothing compared to the armies of abdali and rohillas.