Rajputs in medieval age - battles and discussions

[India22]

You may not know this Marathas Used Muskets In large Numbers Too form the help from French and about good quality horse Are you fucking kidding me they used imported horses
And army was only not united when there was british

I know about Gardi Infantry and later de Boigne's infantry. Except it was not dominant feature of Maratha army. Cant even understand the other part. Maratha army was not united. Even during Shivaji's time I think local Maratha lords helped him by sending soldiers.

 

[India22]

Laughable.


The army which ruled most of the Indian subcontinent as far as Peshawar (for some time) did it without any Economic base ?

Even though later Mughal "emperor" was their puppet and pensioner.

Their NW offensive was a failure they could not build an administration. Marathas lacked economic base.

https://books.google.co.in/books?id...nepage&q=Maratha soldiers without pay&f=false

Marathas mostly relied on irregular soldiers.

 

[India22]

Of course IAM talking about Chandragupta Maury a Indians were great in catapult too India used longbows which was the best in the world Indian metal technology was par

Duh then. Chandragupta had 600,000 infantry, 30000 horse, 9000 elephants and hundreds of chariots.

 

[armyofhind]

For your info recurve bows were of short range.

Recurve bows had intermediate range but greater draw weight hence greater penetration power.
And the mongols preference for it was due to the fact that they provided good power in a smaller size, neede on horseback.

Similar to Rajput horse archers. And archers in Rajput infantry used longbows.

Did Indians have mobile warfare? I am not trolling I actually read multiple books.

I seriously doubt that. Else you wouldnt be making senseless points like the marathas having a weak economic base.

Even still, just reading books wont give you the full picture. Especially books by Indian historians wherein the achievements of Indians in military and warfare have been obfuscated on purpose to prevent the cultivation of sense of pride within the masses which is what Congress has always wanted to tighten its grip on the masses.

Go visit a few museums in the Rajputana and look at the preserved weapons and accounts of court historians. Only then can you get the full picture.

 

[India22]

The catapults ,longbows were called by other names I suggest you should read a book about it bro

Catapult was Mahashilakantak and it was not used in any other war probably. Longbows were good as Megasthenes describes. Indians had another machine Rathamushala. But overall Indian armies were lightly armed, armoured and elephant centric.

 

[India22]

Recurve bows had intermediate range but greater draw weight hence greater penetration power.
And the mongols preference for it was due to the fact that they provided good power in a smaller size, neede on horseback.

Similar to Rajput horse archers. And archers in Rajput infantry used longbows.

I seriously doubt that. Else you wouldnt be making senseless points like the marathas having a weak economic base.

Even still, just reading books wont give you the full picture. Especially books by Indian historians wherein the achievements of Indians in military and warfare have been obfuscated on purpose to prevent the cultivation of sense of pride within the masses which is what Congress has always wanted to tighten its grip on the masses.

Go visit a few museums in the Rajputana and look at the preserved weapons and accounts of court historians. Only then can you get the full picture.

That's why longbows were not good in countering enemy always. Why do you think Indian armies with longbows could not defeat horse archers of Central Asian armies?

Your 2nd point is irrelevant. You said Indians did not need crossbows as Mongols in their mobile warfare did not have them. Then I asked you did Indians have mobile kind of warfare? You said you doubt. Maraths haing weak economy is established fact. Many times Maratha soldiers were without pay, many times, at crucial moments Maratha Generals did not fight.

 

[armyofhind]

That's why longbows were not good in countering enemy always. Why do you think Indian armies with longbows could not defeat horse archers of Central Asian armies?

Your 2nd point is irrelevant. You said Indians did not need crossbows as Mongols in their mobile warfare did not have them. Then I asked you did Indians have mobile kind of warfare? You said you doubt. Maraths haing weak economy is established fact. Many times Maratha soldiers were without pay, many times, at crucial moments Maratha Generals did not fight.

Bhai tu rehne de.
You think you are an intellectual whereas actually you're pretty stupid to suggest that horse archers will be countered by other archers. That itself reflects your poor knowledge.

So do me a favour and stop quoting me. I dont want to waste my time discussing military equipment and tactics with a self hating troll.

 

[India22]

Lol irregulars they had the power to even defeat nadir shah and mughal combined(Mughals were very weak) during bajiraos time and India was Prospering zunder Marathas India was the richest country in Asia better Than even Qing empire
You are really becoming a annoying person

When did Marathas defeat Nadir Shah? You seriously need to study history.

https://books.google.co.in/books?id...nepage&q=Maratha soldiers without pay&f=false

https://books.google.co.in/books?id...nepage&q=Maratha soldiers without pay&f=false

Maratha Empire was not a prosperous Empire.

 

[India22]

Bhai tu rehne de.
You think you are an intellectual whereas actually you're pretty stupid to suggest that horse archers will be countered by other archers. That itself reflects your poor knowledge.

So do me a favour and stop quoting me. I dont want to waste my time discussing military equipment and tactics with a self hating troll.

Do you even read? I said longbows were not that good so Indians needed crossbows. Indians since they lacked horses did not have good cavalry either.

Read some books like Kaushik Roy or Pradip Barua, download writings of others. If you wish I can give you links.

 

[armyofhind]

Do you even read? I said longbows were not that good so Indians needed crossbows. Indians since they lacked horses did not have good cavalry either.

Read some books like Kaushik Roy or Pradip Barua, download writings of others. If you wish I can give you links.

Indians lacked horses and did not have good cavalry?????????????????????????????????? What shit have you been smoking?

Like I said you need to read books NOT written by leftists/communists or Musalman historian.

 

[armyofhind]

This is a coat of Armour worn by Rajput soldiers.
Chain mail of 10,000 links topped by plate armor along with greaves and thigh protection, and leather padding for shock absorption and flexibility.

Do you think the guy who wore this was lightly armored?

 

[India22]

I said they had the fucking power to defeat nadir shah Marathas defeated the portuguese
Before the British( in chhatrapatisambhaji era)

Nah, Marathas did not have. Nadir Shah or overall Persian army was already better than Mughal army. See Kandahar Conflict between Mughal Empire and Safavid Warfare. Marathas defeated Portuguese and most time Portuguese won.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Battle_of_Calicut_(1752)

 

[Krusty]

I actually know History. Do you know Indians were not familiar with the use of naptha? We did not have crossbows? Catapults? Our average soldier was lightly armed? We did not even have armoured horsemen? mounted archers except Gupta Period?

We were always behind of West, Persia and China. Persia's Achaemenid Empire could capture NW India but they could not subdue ancient Greek city states, Chinese had thousands of cavalry when we at best had 30,000. We neither had access to good horse nor a centralized state.

My apologies, its getting late here. But before I proceed to make my case, Do you know how much research has been done on the Roman history and their historical literature? The Greeks? The Babylonians? The Egyptians? How many universities teach them, how many movies made, how many people know... That being said, how much research has been done on our own history and our historical texts? I bet you have developed most of your historical knowledge form Western sources. You probably know what the roman footman armor was made of or how it was shaped. what kind of weapons they used and the tactics and battle formations. Do you know what the average Mauryan armor was made of? What about the soldier in Maghada empire? Any substantial evidence that there were no horsemen during the Mauryan empire? Do you know what materials they used for armor? Do you know all the military strategies, tactics and formations mentioned in the Arthasashtra or even the Ramayana or Mahabharatha? I suppose you know all these and concluded that the west had better tactics and equipment at the same time period. The west has a unique way of making their history look superior and as for us, we don't care a damn about ours. they have a way of subtly lying and changing history to make themselves superior which doesn't seem very apparent. Case in point, one of the greatest generals to have walked this earth, Alexander the great. Western historians claim Alexander the great defeated Porus (Romanized name) and somehow a seasoned warrior and battle hardened general 'got impressed and gave back the kingdom, along with some novelties'. Do you think that's actually true? Considering Ambhi was already allied to Alexander on the condition that he would be given the Kingdom? Not to mention Dharmayuddha which was followed by all Indian kings. Porus would have never accepted his kingdom if he was defeated. So magically the battle hardened Alexander the Great and his troops got homesick and returned just after his war with Porus? The actual account that we know of Alexander the Greats fight with Porus comes from Arrian, the Greek historian who lived centuries after the war actually happened. Who was probably biased towards Alexander the Great. But the whole world today, believes his version word for word. well, most atleast. now, since you made the claim that Indian empires were lagging behind at that time period compared to the Romans. please put your case forward with credible evidence for both sides and I will take it apart brick by brick.

 

[India22]

They Had great Cavallry
And lol kaushik roy another intellectual (who thought that only Chauth was important for the Marathas)
The Ganges plain and other areas farther north were excellent for breeding mounts for the cavalry.
Source :https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2015/11/10/the-mauryan-empire-military/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mobei

See the number of Han Cavalry.

 

[India22]

Indians lacked horses and did not have good cavalry?????????????????????????????????? What shit have you been smoking?

Like I said you need to read books NOT written by leftists/communists or Musalman historian.

Yes, if you have historical source then please provide. Chinese had over 800,000 cavalry in ancient period. We had only 30,000.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mobei

Please read the number of Han Cavalry and compare it to Mauryan cavalry. If you think still Mauryans had more cavalry please provide a historical source.

View attachment 12420

This is a coat of Armour worn by Rajput soldiers.
Chain mail of 10,000 links topped by plate armor along with greaves and thigh protection, and leather padding for shock absorption and flexibility.

Do you think the guy who wore this was lightly armored?

I was talking to strictly Ancient India that Indian armies were lightly equipped.

 

[India22]

To you all see this

At the start of Emperor Wu's reign, the Han empire had a standing army comprising 400,000 troops, which included 80,000 to 100,000 cavalrymen, essential to the future campaigns against the Xiongnu.[121] However, by 124 BC, that number had grown to a total of 600,000 to 700,000 troops, including 200,000 to 250,000 cavalrymen.[121] In order to sustain the military expeditions against the Xiongnu and its resulting conquests, Emperor Wu and his economic advisors undertook many economic and financial reforms, which proved to be highly successful.[121]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han–Xiongnu_War#Military

https://books.google.co.in/books?id...age&q=China horse breeding ground Han&f=false

Now kindly give me a name in which I find Indian Empires had over 100,000 cavalry.

 

[Krusty]

Lol China had a large numbers of untrained soldiers
Han Empire and Marathas Are Diffrent

Actually Alexander was poisned by arrow in India I can Explain It To You Too

Please sir, go ahead. Am always happy to learn.

 

[India22]

My apologies, its getting late here. But before I proceed to make my case, Do you know how much research has been done on the Roman history and their historical literature? The Greeks? The Babylonians? The Egyptians? How many universities teach them, how many movies made, how many people know... That being said, how much research has been done on our own history and our historical texts? I bet you have developed most of your historical knowledge form Western sources. You probably know what the roman footman armor was made of or how it was shaped. what kind of weapons they used and the tactics and battle formations. Do you know what the average Mauryan armor was made of? What about the soldier in Maghada empire? Any substantial evidence that there were no horsemen during the Mauryan empire? Do you know what materials they used for armor? Do you know all the military strategies, tactics and formations mentioned in the Arthasashtra or even the Ramayana or Mahabharatha? I suppose you know all these and concluded that the west had better tactics and equipment at the same time period. The west has a unique way of making their history look superior and as for us, we don't care a damn about ours. they have a way of subtly lying and changing history to make themselves superior which doesn't seem very apparent. Case in point, one of the greatest generals to have walked this earth, Alexander the great. Western historians claim Alexander the great defeated Porus (Romanized name) and somehow a seasoned warrior and battle hardened general 'got impressed and gave back the kingdom, along with some novelties'. Do you think that's actually true? Considering Ambhi was already allied to Alexander on the condition that he would be given the Kingdom? Not to mention Dharmayuddha which was followed by all Indian kings. Porus would have never accepted his kingdom if he was defeated. So magically the battle hardened Alexander the Great and his troops got homesick and returned just after his war with Porus? The actual account that we know of Alexander the Greats fight with Porus comes from Arrian, the Greek historian who lived centuries after the war actually happened. Who was probably biased towards Alexander the Great. But the whole world today, believes his version word for word. well, most atleast. now, since you made the claim that Indian empires were lagging behind at that time period compared to the Romans. please put your case forward with credible evidence for both sides and I will take it apart brick by brick.

First of all you need to read my posts I never said Mauryans never had cavalry(if you have evidence please give).

Ancient Indian soldiers were not given any armour. See Pradip Barua.

The figure I gave that Mauryans had 30000 cavalry comes from Pliny.

Alexander defeated Purus, if you dont accept that please read some basic books. It was Soviet General Zhukov's claim that Alexander was defeated in India, Greek writers while their writing is biased cant be ruled out. For your info Purus later was killed by rebels after Alexander left India. If you have a single source that Alexander was defeated then please give it.

 

[Krusty]

First of all you need to read my posts I never said Mauryans never had cavalry(if you have evidence please give).

Ancient Indian soldiers were not given any armour. See Pradip Barua.

The figure I gave that Mauryans had 30000 cavalry comes from Pliny.

Alexander defeated Purus, if you dont accept that please read some basic books. It was Soviet General Zhukov's claim that Alexander was defeated in India, Greek writers while their writing is biased cant be ruled out. For your info Purus later was killed by rebels after Alexander left India. If you have a single source that Alexander was defeated then please give it.

I'm not entirely sure you read my post. I AM SAYING that the recorded history that we have says Porus was defeated by Alexander. I AM SAYING that what we know now comes from western historians and their versions. this is exactly my point. What shapes our brain is the western historians and media. FYI, Pliny was born many centuries AFTER the decline of the Mauryan empire. Exactly how did he know? The Mauryan empire was long gone by the time Pliny was even born. And again, its the same case with Arrian who lived many centuries AFTER Alexander. We are so ready to believe Arrian or Pliny that we don't even use basic logic? Now please, read my post again and answer very specifically to the points I have made. I have taken the time to post it. and you just reply with 3 sentences? come on! So am I a credible source for Akbar? I am only a few centuries behind..... its ok right?

 

[F-14B]

Pours and other Hindu Kings used poison in their arrows Alexander's was hit by one arrow
This is from the movie Alexander bradd Pitt is the actor
In this video he was shot by arrow but in real life he was shot by arrow infected with poison while besieging a city in India

To add to DA's point he was actually besieging what is now peshawar also known as purushapuram kindly refer to the BBC programme aired in 2000 called in the path of Alexander