Warriors of Gujarat

[civfanatic]

There would be no Hindu in India had it not been for the Rajputs who successfully defended India from 738 AD to 1192 AD (nearly 500 years) & continued to mount a fierce resistance against Arabs as well as mighty Turks-who ruled from Vienna to Dacca (& whom the Rajputs eventually defeated & expelled from their lands).

Complete and utter nonsense, with zero basis in fact.

They continued doing so throughout the history of India until they were subdued by the Marathas (who were the de-facto rulers of Indian sub-continent even after 3rd battle of Panipat; think Mahadji Scindhia).

You conveniently ignored the two centuries of Rajput cooperation with the Mughals, when Rajput armies campaigned everywhere from Afghanistan to Assam in the name of the Mughal padishah.

Anyway, Vijaynagar was obliterated by 1565 (within 200 years) while the Rajputs & others continued to hold their own, & eventually subdue the Muslim opposition. They came too late & were exterminated, too early. Unlike the Rajputs.

Vijayanagar did not end with the Battle of Talikota. It survived for another century, albeit in a much weaker state and with a different capital.

You also forgot to mention that the Rajputs were subjugated in the late 16th century by Akbar, within a few years.

Overall, the 3 main powers that we owe our civilizational continuity & existence to are : Rajputs, Marathas & Sikhs.

Vijaynagar comes a very distant fourth for obvious reasons.

Babur in his memoirs explicitly says that the Raja of Vijayanagar was the most powerful of the Hindu rulers, and he rated Rana Sanga of Mewar as second.

These five, mentioned above, were the great Musalman rulers, honoured in Hindustan, many-legioned, and broad-landed. Of the Pagans the greater both in territory and army, is the Raja of Bijanagar.
The second is Rana Sanga who in these latter days had grown great by his own valour and sword.

Link: http://ia700202.us.archive.org/5/items/baburnama017152mbp/baburnama017152mbp.pdf

The opinion of Babur is much more consequential than the opinions of 21st century fanboys.

Denying the indisputable contribution of Rajputs & Sikhs two, & proclaiming that only Vijayanagar mattered, is delusional.

The Rajputs and Sikhs had nothing to do with defending South India. The only Rajputs who fought south of the Godavari, were those in the service of the Mughals.

The rest of your post is totally irrelevant.

 

[civfanatic]

IMHO Rajputs, Sikhs and Marathas were what saved N India from capitulating to foreign invasions and that includes Rajputs of Gujarat

And insulated S India from much mayhem.

If the Rajputs did such a great job in defending N India, there would have been no Muslim invasions of South India in the first place.

South India was not "insulated" from anything, except perhaps the very far south (Kerala and TN). The Turks overran the Indo-Gangetic Plain in a matter of years, and by the late 1200s were consolidated enough in N. India that they could venture across the Vindhyas.

The story of medieval and early modern India is one of North Indian kshatriyas failing in their one important duty of national defence (with the honorable exception of the Sikhs), and South Indian/Deccani shudras taking up duties that were not even theirs to do. That's the uncomfortable truth.

 

[civfanatic]

This is absolutely true. However, in medieval India, certain communities were more warlike than others due to various factors. Similarly, some were more into commerce & trading. Some communities were scribes, accountants, translators & record-owners, etc. etc. Just stating the obvious.

Gujaratis have been famous for trade and commerce since ancient times. In medieval India, besides Vijayanagar, the largest and most prosperous cities were in Gujarat. Ahmedabad and Surat in particular were major medieval cities. And before them, Broach/Barygaza and Khambhat were major centers of trade.

In terms of politics, however, Gujaratis were irrelevant until the 20th century, and Gujarat as a regional entity was important only as a prize for conquerors.

 

[civfanatic]

@civfanatic hates all North indians. That is what I've found. He is always hating on my people. He has insulted my people repeatedly even though I've never said anything negative about his ethnicity.

I don't understand how any of my posts are "anti-North Indian". I am simply telling the truth as is apparent from facts.

I have great respect for Sikhs, both their religion/ideology and their martial traditions, as well as Gurkhas. But I have no respect for whiny wannabes.

 

[PredictablyMalicious]

I don't understand how any of my posts are "anti-North Indian". I am simply telling the truth as is apparent from facts.

I have great respect for Sikhs, both their religion/ideology and their martial traditions, as well as Gurkhas. But I have no respect for whiny wannabes.

Dogras were great warriors. Read up and and talk less, I would suggest. Even most punjabis/sikhs would admit that dogras were one of the best warriors. You never heard of Zorawar Singh.

 

[civfanatic]

Dogras were great warriors. Read up and and talk less, I would suggest. Even most punjabis/sikhs would admit that dogras were one of the best warriors. You never heard of Zorawar Singh.

This thread is not about Dogras. If you want you can make a separate thread about Dogras, since many people have not even heard of them. At least in South India, everyone knows about Sikhs, but most people have no idea what a Dogra is.

 

[PredictablyMalicious]

This thread is not about Dogras. If you want you can make a separate thread about Dogras, since many people have not even heard of Dogras. At least in South India, everyone knows about Sikhs, but most people have no idea what a Dogra is.

You keep insulting my ethnicity without knowing who we are? Is that right? What does that make you? Hint it starts with an I and ends in e.

 

[civfanatic]

You keep insulting my ethnicity without knowing who we are? Is that right? What does that make you? Hint it starts with an I and ends in e.

I'm talking about other people, not me. I know how Dogras were vassals of Panjabis and bought their kingdom from the British.

Again, this thread isn't about you. Go start another thread, and stop trolling in this one. Any more OT posts will be deleted.

 

[Simple_Guy]

A thread is made with the title "Warriors of Gujarat", when most of the people mentioned simply lived and ruled in Gujarat. By the same logic, people like Rudradaman and Mahmud Begarha could also be called "Warriors of Gujarat" with equal accuracy.

No they won't for the same reason that Nizams of Hyderabad cannot be Andhra warriors nor Sultans of Ahmadnagar be Marathi warriors.

Rudradaman would be a foreign Saka warrior and Begraha would be a Muslim warrior. If India had been completely converted to Islam then all these sultans nawabs nizams could be called Indian warriors.

But India did not succumb unlike those useless Persians :taunt1:. If only the Persians had defended their ancestral religion, like the Rajputs did in India, without caring for their lives.

 

[civfanatic]

Rudradaman would be a foreign Saka warrior and Begraha would be a Muslim warrior. If India had been completely converted to Islam then all these sultans nawabs nizams could be called Indian warriors.

And these kings mentioned in the thread would be Gurjar warriors from Rajasthan, who invaded or migrated to Gujarat.

But India did not succumb unlike those useless Persians :taunt1:. If only the Persians had defended their ancestral religion, like the Rajputs did in India, without caring for their lives.

Persia had only a small fraction of the population and resources of India, and was exhausted at the time of the Arab invasions due to wars with the Romans. But they benefited from the Arab invasions, insofar as they made Islam a tool for exporting Persian culture and power. They only adopted the Islamic religion, while retaining their Persian language and culture. In fact, it was under the Persian Muslim dynasties that Persian civilization reached its greatest spread and influence. Persian was a prestige language everywhere from Kazakhstan to South India and Bengal. India has produced more examples of Persian literature and architecture than Persia itself.

 

[Simple_Guy]

And these kings mentioned in the thread would be Gurjar warriors from Rajasthan, who invaded or migrated to Gujarat.

No they would be Rajput warriors who arose from the common territory of Guj-Rajasthan-MP.

Persia had only a small fraction of the population and resources of India

Rajasthan had much fewer population and resources than Indo-Gangetic plains, or South India, and yet they defeated Islam. So don't make excuses.

Indians from all regions were better than Persians at resisting Islam....except the pakistanis

 

[civfanatic]

No they would be Rajput warriors who arose from the common territory of Guj-Rajasthan-MP.

There was no such "common territory". It would be like me saying Chalukyas were from a "common territory" of Karnataka/Telangana/Andhra, and since a branch of Chalukyas ruled Andhra, they are actually indigenous to the region.

Rajasthan had much fewer population and resources than Indo-Gangetic plains, or South India, and yet they defeated Islam. So don't make excuses.

They didn't defeat Islam. Eventually they actually helped spread it by serving under the Mughals for two centuries.

Indians from all regions were better than Persians at resisting Islam....except the pakistanis

Persians themselves have ruled many parts of India during the medieval period.

 

[civfanatic]

BTW, the founder of the Muzaffarid dynasty of Gujarat, which ruled from 1391-1583, was himself the son of a Rajput who had converted to Islam. So if these Hindu Rajputs can be called "Warriors of Gujarat", then why not the Muzaffarids?

The real title of this thread should be "Hindu Rajput rulers of Gujarat".

 

[Simple_Guy]

No sultanate ruled over Rajasthan but sultanates were formed in Indo-Gangetic plains, Maharasthra, Karnantaka, Andhra, Bengal. The Rajput rulers were the first to defeat the Arabs in Sindh.......the other regions merely repulsed Arab invaders into their lands. It was only after the Pratihar Rajputs and their confederates defeated them that Arab power was broken and they never again attempted to invade from Sindh.

The only "expansion" of an identity in India has been of the Rajputs. Wherever the Rajputs have migrated from Western India, whether north into Himachal, or east into Orissa, or south into Chattisgarh, the local warriors have clamoured to be accepted into the Rajput identity.

The migrations of other dynasties, whether north to south, or south to north, or others, have not resulted in such an expansion of identity.

 

[Simple_Guy]

BTW, the founder of the Muzaffarid dynasty of Gujarat, which ruled from 1391-1583, was himself the son of a Rajput

No. He belonged to the "Tank" tribe which is Jat in some places and Khatri in other places. Since his daddy was from Punjab and employed under the Sultans of Delhi in the revenue department, he was probly a Khatri. And once converted his main identity would be Muslim.

 

[parijataka]

@civfanatic - I'd agree with Simple_Guy about Western India not having Sultanates the way East and South.

The bravery of Rajputs is legendary and their sacrifices as the entry point to India staved off Islamic conquest for few centuries.

 

[Simple_Guy]

@parijataka let me add that there are negative things about every community. Marathas serving under Deccan sultans, destroying Vijayanagar, Ranjit Singh despite his large army refusing to fight the British, Rajputs serving under Mughals, Vijayanagar happily trading with Arabs/persians and recruiting Muslims, and on top of that fighting the Hindus of Orissa despite the threat of Islam looming over them.

But this guy is only interested in bashing others and not looking within. He really got ants in his pants when the Persians were exposed as weaklings and cowards.

 

[civfanatic]

No sultanate ruled over Rajasthan but sultanates were formed in Indo-Gangetic plains, Maharasthra, Karnantaka, Andhra, Bengal.

The Khaljis, Tughluqs, and Mughals all ruled most of Rajasthan. Between 1301 and 1311, Alauddin Khalji conquered Ranthambore, Chittor, Siwana, and Jalor. A Rajput named Maldeo loyally served Alauddin with 5,000 cavalry, and in 1313 he was made governor of Chittor. In fact, in his policy of conciliating the Rajput rajas and co-opting them into his administration and military after defeating them, Alauddin somewhat anticipated the much later policies of Akbar.

The Rajput rulers were the first to defeat the Arabs in Sindh.......the other regions merely repulsed Arab invaders into their lands.

When did the Rajputs defeat Arabs in Sindh? As far as I know, the region was ruled continuously by Muslims since the initial Arab invasions. When Mahmud of Ghazni invaded Sindh, he fought other Muslims and not Hindus.

The migrations of other dynasties, whether north to south, or south to north, or others, have not resulted in such an expansion of identity.

There was a proliferation of dynasties all across India that called themselves "Chalukya", after the original in Karnataka. The Rashtrakutas also left a litter of offshoots across North India following their incursions into the Indo-Gangetic basin.

 

[Simple_Guy]

Keep whining and crying all you want but there was no Sultanate of Chittor, no Sultanate of Jaisalmer, no Sultanate of Siwana, etc. All these places the invaders were ultimately defeated and driven out by the Rajputs.

Unlike you I don't pit one Indian community against another. So in all cases, all Indian regions and communities resisted Islam. Much better than the third-rate Persians who shamelessly converted.

Life is for living like a lion and die fighting on the battlefield...not convert to foreign ideologies.

 

[civfanatic]

No. He belonged to the "Tank" tribe which is Jat in some places and Khatri in other places. Since his daddy was from Punjab and employed under the Sultans of Delhi in the revenue department, he was probly a Khatri. And once converted his main identity would be Muslim.

What is your source for this?

Mine says quite clearly that he was a Rajput:
Medieval India: From Sultanat to the Mughals-Delhi Sultanat (1206-1526 ... - Satish Chandra - Google Books

Vijayanagar happily trading with Arabs/persians and recruiting Muslims, and on top of that fighting the Hindus of Orissa despite the threat of Islam looming over them.

What's wrong with any of that? Vijayanagar was not an anti-Islamic state, but a universal, secular one. There were people of all communities and religions living within its borders and serving in its army and administration. The trade with Western Asia was vital for Vijayanagar's security, because it was the only available source for quality war horses, which were not found in South India. As for the wars with Orissa, they were primarily undertaken in self-defence, as the Gajapatis had tried to invade coastal Andhra.