Were Indian armies really helpless against Central Asians ?

Chimaji Appa

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2020
Messages
243
Likes
634
It has come to my attention that many people believe that nomadic armies were almost always dominant over sedentary ones. We see proof of this with the Mongols conquering the world, in the Battle of Manizkert, and Mahmud Ghaznis 17 successful raids in India. What is always forgotten, however, is sedentary armies always coming back, like the Byzantines reconquering half of Anatolia, or the Song being able to beat back 2 Mongol campaigns and leading successful re-conquests under the Ming, Yashodharman repulsing the Alkhon Huns or the Hans launching succsesful campaigns into Xiongnu territory.

In India, Central Asian armies did succeed, but not without many failures and repulsions. Indian armies have beaten back many nomadic armies of the Hephtalites, Ghaznavids, Arabs, Ghurids, and the Mughals at the end. Indians were not nomads, which is why they did not go about conquering half the world, but that does not mean that they did not have a strong martial culture. This post is going to be mainly about the successes that the Indians achieved against the Ghaznavids and early Ghurids.

To start Indians have a respectable record against nomadic armies:
1. Guptas under Skandagupta beat back the 1st wave of Huna/Hephtalite invasions, and when the Hunas can finally break through in the late 5th century, they get defeated and driven out by the Guptas and their ex feaudatories led by Yashodharman who nearly destroyed the Huna Empire and reduced it to Gandhara and Panjab.
2. Indian armies repulsed 2 Arab invasions in 726 and 738.
3. The Yaudheyas and other tribal republics successfully gain independence from the Kushans.

Now on to the Ghaznavids, I understand that Mahmud of Ghazni launched successful raids into India, but these were against minor kingdoms like a local Bhatinda Raja, or the declining Pratihara king. Mahmud was no pushover, this man could defeat the Seljuks and repulse them from Nishapur, while scoring several impressive victories over the Hindu Shahis. Mahmud of Ghazni is said to have met some trouble in Kashmir and against the Chandellas, but there is not enough evidence to say that he was decisively defeated in India. He conquered Gandhara, parts of Himachal, Punjab, Haryana, vassalized Delhi and sacked Somnath in Saurashtra, Gujarat. However, in the 1040s, a Hindu coalition led by the king of Delhi (most probably the declining Pratiharas) successfully reconquered Haryana and Himachal (Thanesar, Hasni, Nagarkot, etc..). This coalition would later besiege Lahore, a major Ghaznavid city itself, but would be repulsed. The Later Ghazanvids were much less luckier.

I have compiled a list of Hindu victories before 1192, organized into different kingdoms:

Gahadavalas:
-In the 1090s/Early 1110s, Masud III of Ghazni leads an expedition into India, and captured the Gahadavala king, who is later recovered by a constant war from Govindacandra, who “forces the Hammira to lay aside his emminity”. A treaty was concluded and Govindachandra retakes his kingdom.
-Govindachandra also seems to have repulsed a Ghaznavid invasion as a sovereign, as his courtier states that he killed a Hammira. His wife, Kumaradevi, praises him from “protecting Varanasi against the ‘wicked Tururska’. This is probably a reference to him being vigilant in general against the Turks, who may have fought or the frontier of the kingdom.
-Vijayachandra also seems to have repulsed a Ghaznavid invasion pre- 1164, when Khusrau Malik invaded India with pressure on the western front from the newly formed Ghurids, but was repulsed. Gahdavala records also praise him for this feat.
-Jayachandra Gahadavala fought the Turks at Chandawar, and muslim sources make it clear that he was carrying the day and the Turks were loosing morale, but a straw arrow that hit Jayachandra decided the ultimate fate of UP's history for the next 500 years,
Against the Chahamanas:
-Bahram Shah invades and captures Nagaur, and starts raiding into Chahamana territory, but gets repulsed by Anoraja, as attested by the Prithviraja Vijaya and several other inscriptions.
- Ajayraja fights and routs the Ghaznavids out of Nagaur.
- Prithviraj’s frontier generals repulse several skirmishes of the Ghurids and crush the 1191 invasion.
Solankis:
- Rout the army of Muiz al din/ Muhammad of Ghor near Mt. Abu.

Summary of Indo-Turkic conflicts pre 1192:
Bahram Shah launched multiple “Holy wars” into India (as indicated by 13th century Muslim chronicler Minaj). The first one may have been an attempt at the Indo Gangetic plains, which was repulsed by Govindacandra. The second was probably directed towards the Chahamana kingdom, after achieving some success, they get repulsed completely. Khusrau Malik also attempted another shot at India, following his defeat but he and his Turkic army were repulsed by the Gahadavalas. This would make sense as Bahram Shah was a Seljuk vassal and could focus on extending his domains into India. The Ghurid rebellion and the Ghazanvid loss of Ghazni forced Khusrau Malik to operate out of Lahore, where he tried one last shot or raid in India, but was repulsed by Vijayachandra. In 1186, Muhammad of Ghor finished off the Ghazanvids for good and burned Lahore to the ground; it can be expected that his troops began raiding into Chahamana territory, as the Ghurids were ambitious about conquering India since 1178. While Hindu sources have magnified these raids into large battles, the Muslim sources have chosen to forget about these events altogether.
There are 2 parts to this post, one will be about the victories achieved by Indians, while the other will be about the causes of Turkic success in India.

Sources:
Early Chauhan Dynasties by Dasharatha Sharma
Peter Jackson: The Delhi Sultanate a political and military history
Sailendra Nath Sen: Ancient Indian history and civilization
Mahesh Singh: Bhoja Paramar And his times
R. C. Majumdar: The history and culture of the Indian peoples : The Delhi Sultanates
History of the Gahdavalas by Roma Niyogi and RC Majumdar
Ashok Kumar Majumdar: Chaulukyas of Gujarat
 

Varun2002

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2020
Messages
174
Likes
475
Country flag
K.M Munshi in his book "Somnath the shrine eternal" is pretty certain that Mahmud of Ghazni did suffer a defeat in the Gujarat region against a local powerful king( maybe named Mandalika, I will dig up the book somewhere in my place). Also, it is known that someone from one of many cities Mahmud raided( probably Gujarat again) deliberately guided him and his army out of India through a very difficult route, causing huge losses. That can be counted as a setback to Mahmud as well.
 

Chimaji Appa

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2020
Messages
243
Likes
634
K.M Munshi in his book "Somnath the shrine eternal" is pretty certain that Mahmud of Ghazni did suffer a defeat in the Gujarat region against a local powerful king( maybe named Mandalika, I will dig up the book somewhere in my place). Also, it is known that someone from one of many cities Mahmud raided( probably Gujarat again) deliberately guided him and his army out of India through a very difficult route, causing huge losses. That can be counted as a setback to Mahmud as well.
A naddula Chahamana also claimed victory over Mahmud Ghazni. Dashratha Sharma speculates that he defeated one of his generals, but others claim he was part of some Confederacy that was organized by Bhoja.

It makes me laugh when people bring up Mahmud to show some kind of inferiority as it were priests + some rajputs who kept his army at bay for 3 days in somnath. Imagine what a proper trained army would have done.
 

LurkerBaba

Super Mod
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
7,882
Likes
8,125
Country flag
Slightly OT, but the reason we lost eventually is IMO not a generic "we didn't have good horses". It was mainly the horse archer, standing on metal stirrups which utterly defeated the Elephant. The Mongols pioneered the technique, which their descendants used. Apart from many other benefits, by standing and shooting you negate the height advantage offered by an Elephant. Subcontinental armies never developed effective techniques to counter this and lost. A case of not keeping up with technology :)




@Shaitan @Chimaji Appa is this a fair assessment ?

cc @AmoghaVarsha
 

Shaitan

Zandu Balm all day
Mod
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
4,654
Likes
8,364
Country flag
Slightly OT, but the reason we lost eventually is IMO not a generic "we didn't have good horses". It was mainly the horse archer, standing on metal stirrups which utterly defeated the Elephant. The Mongols pioneered the technique, which their descendants used. Apart from many other benefits, by standing and shooting you negate the height advantage offered by an Elephant. Subcontinental armies never developed effective techniques to counter this and lost. A case of not keeping up with technology :)




@Shaitan @Chimaji Appa is this a fair assessment ?

cc @AmoghaVarsha
Stirrups added on to an already effective horse riding, cavalry culture. Certainly helped armoured cavalry for example. But regardless they were raised early to mount and hunt on horses, their battle methods like feint retreat might have been developed even outside military roles like hunting. Being able to survive on minimum and living a pastoralist life probably produces hardly people. And the constant competition among tribes in the steppe cultures may have elevated men of merit more than other societies as well. These people were some of the most well trained warriors simply due to their way of living, regardless of much state policies. So maybe it's not a surprise these people who were pretty much barbarians managed to continually do so much damage to Europe, Middle East, India, and China.

Horse archers were used effectively against Indian, etc. forces. Alexander's newly hired horse archer auxiliaries for example decimated Porus's chariots, I think this would've been the case regardless of environmental issues. And before the stirrups non-native Indo-Greeks, Sakas, Kushans, Hunas, made significant penetration into India, a completely alien land to them. The Persians regularly subjugated the areas of Pakistan. Huns, Hunas, Xiongnu caused significant harm to Europe, Persia, China, without stirrups as well.

Maybe someone can argue the addition of stirrups helped sedentary cultures against already well adapted equestrian cultures.

Anyway, It's definitely not as simple as not having enough good horses, but to me it was a significant crux for Indian states depending on foreigners who would fleece Indians in this trade.

Supply of war horses was of huge importance to the Han empire for example. Xiongnu reduced the Han empire to unfavorable marriage alliance and humiliation, which lead the Hans to take big risks in conquering parts of Central Asia and securing the same war horses ancient Indians throught were of he best quality.


Han empire also had horse breeding program as well. Where citizens were incentivized to breed horses and supply some of the flock to the state.

Indian states overemphasizing war elephants above infantry and cavalry is another disadvantage in my opinion. Historically they had mixed results, some cases they completely routed the armies they were being used for. I have a feeling the import of horses and the process of finding, training, maintain war elephants was a significant expenditure, which probably relegated the infantry to nothing more than cannon fodder.

Not industrializing armour culture is another thing I cant understand either.
 
Last edited:

Shaitan

Zandu Balm all day
Mod
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
4,654
Likes
8,364
Country flag
Also another thing that baffles my mind how these invaders managed to fight through Indian polities and navigate all the various natural layers of boundaries. Hindu Kush, Khyber Pass, Indus river system, thar, etc.



If you read some of the Timurs early bio, him and his court were stupidly ignorant of India and Indians before deciding to invade.

The logistics and reconnaissance is also something that is rarely mentioned from these armies. Timur had a very effective reconnaissance arms.
 

Shaitan

Zandu Balm all day
Mod
Joined
Aug 3, 2010
Messages
4,654
Likes
8,364
Country flag
1200px-Kulu_vase_drawing.jpg

ksp_3684.jpg

x2307vb51r751.jpg

2nd-1st Century BC

Also the early leather loop, 'foot' support mentioned in the article is from India.

It was a loop for the toe. I dont think it connected to the saddle like a stirrup, but it acted as a early support before stirrups became popular.

However, this wasnt used widely and seems to disappear.

No one knows when the stirrup was first invented, but it was a boon to any military that used it. Even the simplest of stirrups, a leather loop,
 

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top