Was there local support for invaders?

AnantS

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
5,594
Likes
14,927
Country flag
Country is a new concept or started in Europe in 17th century and then spread across the world in 20th century before that people blindly followed King-doms/Clan-Caste-leaders.

The difference with the Indic/Hindu people is ''our Kings are not considered as Humans they are GOD'S''. That is why so many people blindly worship the leaders in Indian subcontinent even today.
Nope country word is new but its concept is not new or unknown to Indian subcontinent. The kingdoms in India existed after due recognition and semi autonomy was given to tribal leaders in their areas by the Kings. Kings were considered God or "Vishnu" or Rather projected so that people revere them unquestionably. Quite similar to Greek, Rome or Egyptian kingdoms.(OT It was very funny to read one of such religious ceremony performed for IIRC Raja of Patiala in 1800's described an European)

Nothing much has changed. Caste/Tribe politics still decide who holds power. The solution is intermingling of population via immigration to achieve more homogeneity. But for that every part of India needs to have equal job opportunities and industrialization level.
 

Project Dharma

meh
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2016
Messages
4,836
Likes
10,862
Country flag
Nope country word is new but its concept is not new or unknown to Indian subcontinent. The kingdoms in India existed after due recognition and semi autonomy was given to tribal leaders in their areas by the Kings. Kings were considered God or "Vishnu" or Rather projected so that people revere them unquestionably. Quite similar to Greek, Rome or Egyptian kingdoms.(OT It was very funny to read one of such religious ceremony performed for IIRC Raja of Patiala in 1800's described an European)

Nothing much has changed. Caste/Tribe politics still decide who holds power. The solution is intermingling of population via immigration to achieve more homogeneity. But for that every part of India needs to have equal job opportunities and industrialization level.
Intermingling produces a wussified bunch of politically correct libtards like the citizens of EU.
 

AnantS

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
5,594
Likes
14,927
Country flag
Intermingling produces a wussified bunch of politically correct libtards like the citizens of EU.
Nope intermingling is not new to India. According to latest news every third Indian is an immigrant. Libtards are having roots in 18th century christianity. If you look at Liberalism and Dhimmitude that India adopted after Jain and Budhism became popular in india before Islam, you will find similarities. And Liberalism is a phase, a part of the usual time cycle that every society undergoes.

PS: Liberlaism is a reason for US flag under your name :). Otherwise in America, Bible thumpers would have ruled the roost making it west's Saudi Arabia
 
Last edited:

Peter

Pratik Maitra
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2014
Messages
2,938
Likes
3,341
Country flag
Can anybody recommend a good detailed book about the third battle of Panipat?

@AnantS @India22
@AnantS
I have not read any book about the battle though I have learnt about it from the net. Personally I do not find the battle very interesting. If the Sikhs and Rajputs had formed a more decisive coalition with the Marathas then things may have been different.
 
Last edited:

Project Dharma

meh
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2016
Messages
4,836
Likes
10,862
Country flag
I have not read any book about the battle though I have learnt about it from the net. Personally I do not find the battle very interesting. If the Sikhs and Rajputs had formed a more decisive coalition with the Marathas then things may have been different.
I'm more interested in the social effect of the battle. How were captured men and women treated? What was the mood in the Maratha camp? Were they intimidated by the invaders or were they confident of victory (even overconfident). Conversely, how did Abdali motivate his troops? Did he use the concept of jihad or were the Afghans mere mercenaries motivated to loot and plunder?
 

Peter

Pratik Maitra
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2014
Messages
2,938
Likes
3,341
Country flag
I'm more interested in the social effect of the battle. How were captured men and women treated? What was the mood in the Maratha camp? Were they intimidated by the invaders or were they confident of victory (even overconfident). Conversely, how did Abdali motivate his troops? Did he use the concept of jihad or were the Afghans mere mercenaries motivated to loot and plunder?
The greatest problem is that we have very poor knowledge about what exactly happened in the battle. Most of what we read about Indian battles is merely guesswork by our historians. We never managed to preserve historical records of battles properly. Most Asian generals never wrote in detail about their strategy. This is in stark contrast to European generals like Nelson,Washington,Napoleon who would put down every detail of their battles. This was a major reason they would continuously improvise their tactics and manage to defeat a larger foe with a smaller one.
https://www.quora.com/Does-India-lack-a-tradition-of-recording-history

Now coming to your question about the battle this is what I learned from the wiki.

1. Afghan hordes were mostly plunderers and rapists with no trace of civility in them. So I do not expect the captured men and women to have been treated properly by them. The worst atrocities were committed upon them probably.

2. The Marathas were not intimidated or overconfident. Instead the greatest problem for them was to safeguard the numerous pilgrims as well as fight the battle without the support of Rajputs and Sikhs.

3. Abdali did use the call of jihad to motivate the troops. Note the official reason for the battle was to reinstate the Mughal(Muslim) rule in Delhi. However the real reason for him to come to Panipat was to plunder India`s wealth. He was just like Tamarlane or Timur who only used jihad to mask his greed for loot and plunder. I would like to add most of Islamic rulers of the subcontinet used to drink wine,take opium etc,things which are considered haram in Islam. From Babur to the Nawabs of Bengal every ruler only used religion when it suited them.

Please check out quora in addition to Wikipedia.

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

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-Marathas-lose-the-third-battle-of-Panipat

https://www.quora.com/Was-the-Third...der-it-one-of-the-deadliest-wars-in-the-world

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-...is-have-regarding-the-Third-Battle-of-Panipat
 

Peter

Pratik Maitra
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2014
Messages
2,938
Likes
3,341
Country flag
The greatest problem is that we have very poor knowledge about what exactly happened in the battle. Most of what we read about Indian battles is merely guesswork by our historians. We never managed to preserve historical records of battles properly. Most Asian generals never wrote in detail about their strategy. This is in stark contrast to European generals like Nelson,Washington,Napoleon who would put down every detail of their battles. This was a major reason they would continuously improvise their tactics and manage to defeat a larger foe with a smaller one.
https://www.quora.com/Does-India-lack-a-tradition-of-recording-history

Now coming to your question about the battle this is what I learned from the wiki.

1. Afghan hordes were mostly plunderers and rapists with no trace of civility in them. So I do not expect the captured men and women to have been treated properly by them. The worst atrocities were committed upon them probably.

2. The Marathas were not intimidated or overconfident. Instead the greatest problem for them was to safeguard the numerous pilgrims as well as fight the battle without the support of Rajputs and Sikhs.

3. Abdali did use the call of jihad to motivate the troops. Note the official reason for the battle was to reinstate the Mughal(Muslim) rule in Delhi. However the real reason for him to come to Panipat was to plunder India`s wealth. He was just like Tamarlane or Timur who only used jihad to mask his greed for loot and plunder. I would like to add most of Islamic rulers of the subcontinet used to drink wine,take opium etc,things which are considered haram in Islam. From Babur to the Nawabs of Bengal every ruler only used religion when it suited them.

Please check out quora in addition to Wikipedia.

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

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-Marathas-lose-the-third-battle-of-Panipat

https://www.quora.com/Was-the-Third...der-it-one-of-the-deadliest-wars-in-the-world

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-...is-have-regarding-the-Third-Battle-of-Panipat
I made a mistake here, it seems Abdali did not fight for the Mughals but for territorial expansion.
 

AnantS

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
5,594
Likes
14,927
Country flag
@AnantS
I have not read any book about the battle though I have learnt about it from the net. Personally I do not find the battle very interesting. If the Sikhs and Rajputs had formed a more decisive coalition with the Marathas then things may have been different.
Sikhs were at war with Rajputs(Pahari). Sikh Maratha relations are interesting to study, but hardly much material is available:
https://www.thesikhencyclopedia.com/the-sikh-empire-1799-1839/maratha-sikh-relations
 

Project Dharma

meh
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2016
Messages
4,836
Likes
10,862
Country flag

AnantS

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2013
Messages
5,594
Likes
14,927
Country flag
Rajputs themselves were not unified as one so I think its more accurate to say that Sikhs were at war with some Pahari Rajas who happened to be Rajputs.
correct! actually sikhs were aligned with some and fought with others. However, khali propahgandus try to portray all pahari as evil hindu baniyas who fought against sikhs hence they use it as an example to prove hindus were against the sikh panth :crazy:
 
Last edited:

SilentKiller

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2013
Messages
799
Likes
377
Country flag
all invaders in india were helped by locals.
few examples -
  1. Daulat Khan Lodi invites Babur to attack and rule of delhi and Rajput ruler Rana Sanga had sent an ambassador to Babur at Kabul, offering to join in Babur's attack on Sultan Ibrahim Lodi of Delhi.
  2. Battle of Khanwa, rajupt kings Raja Shiladitya (30,000 defected), switched sides and aided Baur to defeat Rana Sanga, Rana Sanga died in Chittor, apparently poisoned by his own chiefs.
  3. Battle of Plassey - Mir Jafar, Rai Durlabh, Yar Lutuf Khan defected to british, so a forces of 3000 defeated a force of 75000 as 15000 + defected. only 750 british soldiers
  4. Battle of Tarain - Every one knows why Prithvi raj lost - one beacuse of his short sightedness and 2nd becoz of backstabbing from few hindu kings. King Vijayaraja of jammu aided Gauri invasion.
  5. 1857 war got failed as simple as that few parts there was no support for that + 1857 should eb describes as rebel sepoys fought against royal sepoys of britsh raj under british offiers.
We are divided on religious , case, creed, language etc, so its very easy for invaders or our enemies to divide us, we ourself are culprit too, like see whole communities as bad or good for some good or bad by few. in short we like to make gods among ordinary men or women.
British raj in india was successful - reason british paid indians to help them rule over them...many indian served as british stick for oppressing british rule in places inside india + oust side india too, like in Hong kong, Singapore etc.
One might not like Gandhi but he should be respected as he is our father of nation..any thing that describes india should be respected, symbol of independent india should be respected..2nd point is one cannot force nationalism, making rules to stand before film etc aren't helpful. nationalism comes from within..
In india, we easily point any one as anti-national, we like giving nationalism certificates and usually most timid and worst people are forefront to give nationalism certificates in india.
 

raja696

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
1,020
Likes
1,468
Even Marathas Had Cannons And they even got Some Howitzers afghans won only because of foolishness of the Marathas
Even in the start rana sanga invited and encouraged mongolian babur (who took refuge in neighbouring area) to take over ibrahim lodi sultanate .

But unfortunately babur after winning attacked and inavaded rana sanga and later his prime minister in another war.

Then immediately after winning babur attacked ibrahim lodi brother and won all together establishing mughal rule.

I would regard Rana sangha as a traitor for selfish reasons he compromised northwest gates in to central India.

Rana sanga is lost because he has same mind set of todays leftists pleasing Indian enemies for there idealogies of selfish goals.
 

Hemu Vikram Aditya

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2017
Messages
1,107
Likes
968
Country flag
Even in the start rana sanga invited and encouraged mongolian babur (who took refuge in neighbouring area) to take over ibrahim lodi sultanate .

But unfortunately babur after winning attacked and inavaded rana sanga and later his prime minister in another war.

Then immediately after winning babur attacked ibrahim lodi brother and won all together establishing mughal rule.

I would regard Rana sangha as a traitor for selfish reasons he compromised northwest gates in to central India.

Rana sanga is lost because he has same mind set of todays leftists pleasing Indian enemies for there idealogies of selfish goals.
Rana Sangha lost because of his genrals that were assholes
However I Agree that Rana Sangha Even Captured Agra and would have captured Delhi if he had not Invited babur
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top