Psst .. The Delhi Sultanate, the Lodhi Dynasty, the Khilji Dynasties? Research how they got established and how they expanded. Your standards of success seem to be in sync with our national standards of development and progress!
Looking Through Broken Glass: Rajput Victories In Indian History
- Thread starter RATHORE
- Start date
Psst .. The Delhi Sultanate, the Lodhi Dynasty, the Khilji Dynasties? Research how they got established and how they expanded. Your standards of success seem to be in sync with our national standards of development and progress!
It depends what you call "South" Maharashtra, AP and Karnataka was under the Mughals and the Sultans of Bijapur, Berar, Bidar Golconda and Ahmednagar. They were called the Deccan Sultans,
Later Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka were under the Islamic rule Nizam of Hyderabad, (which came into prominence after the Maratha decline) Also the Hindu kingdom of Wodeyar was usurped by Tipu Sultan and his Father
Deccan sultanates - Wikipedia
Later Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka were under the Islamic rule Nizam of Hyderabad, (which came into prominence after the Maratha decline) Also the Hindu kingdom of Wodeyar was usurped by Tipu Sultan and his Father
Deccan sultanates - Wikipedia
Guys, whichever clan resisted to whatever extent over the past 1400 years, since 650 AD, it has been defended and fought with GREAT VALOR. The door for invasion was from Gujarat, Rajasthan, Punjab and Kashmir. And the main people who led the battles and wars here were the KSHATRIYAS - the Rajputs, the Khukhrains, and the Sikhs. Once the invaders entered India, they were still resisted with the same group along with the Marathas.
If Shivaji, Rana Pratap, Prithvi Raj Chouhan, Guru Gobind Singh and their contemporaries would not have existed, Hindu civilization would have vanished from India like the original cultures vanished from Iran, Iraq, Egypt and other civilizations. @vstol Jockey would be Vasim Javed, @_Anonymous_ would be Anwar, @RATHORE would be Rizwan, @Vishwamitra would have been Wajahuddeen and @Golden_Rule would be Ghori Rehman. So chill out guys. Whatever our ancestors did, we SALUTE them and are very Grateful and Thankful to our pitrs.
Jai Hind! Jai Bharat! Har Har Mahadev!
thats right.
Religion first, Nation and Castes second.
I too know of some such incidents wherein a person goes into a kind of trance just before his death and starts talking of an era with which we can't connect with. let anyone believe it or not. I believe you.That is pretty interesting.
Based on similar facts that I collected, I have something similar to narrate. My dad passed away when he was 80, and on the morning he passed away, he was talking to his eldest brother's daughter-in-law who was visiting him from Jalandhar then. Suddenly, he started talking of Mahmud of Ghazni and Mohammad Ghauri, the destruction they did and the battles about them.
Same night he passed away. When I visited Haridwar to perform his last rites, after completing it, we were directed to the pandit who kept records belonging to different gotras. This is the only one thing honest about Haridwar, that you are not cheated on the records. I gave him the Gotra and last name and place where my Dad's ancestor lived; he could dig out past 6 generations (since 1884) of his family tree. This I confirmed with my Dad's older brother and he confirmed at least past four generations. And then the pandit said that we are Khukhrains, panjo-jaati. I didnt know what it meant, so I asked him what it means. He said that the panjo-jaatis - Anand,stories i Bhasin, Chaddha, Sahani, Suri were the main rulers/Kings of Punjab, originally started in the Jhelum-Chenab Doab region and then expanded, now in Pakistan.
I did some research and found that interestingly Biji Rai was the Khukhrain King around the time of Ghazni and my dad's name was Vijay. This is the extent to where I could connect. But I am not deriving any conclusions out of this
That is possibly the reason of my DNA - the store of subtle drives and memories from past, and why I sometimes go wild on the forum which gets no mercy from our respected secular Mods
I dont know about others ; But I am sure that In my Previous Births
I have fought with these barbarians and died
Some things you can just feel in your Soul ; they are so deeply Ingrained ; the passion and emotions that this topic generates in you is not without any reason
And even now I am ever ready to Fight again for my country
As an avid student of the military history, I can merely guffaw at your attempt to twist the contention I had posted to, and to which you have replied -- the need to post a counter-narrative to give a balanced approach to the attempt here itself.
The succession of events of collusion and defeats that have pre-dominantly been the characteristic of the Rajput history and which is recorded as a fact. Wonder why is there an attempt at painting an alternative history then? Perhaps an image makeover?
Why not list these facts and your facts and let the information be left as such, for each to draw their own conclusion? Wonder how, when the Rajputs ruled over the territories of present day Iran-Afghanistan and Pakistan, did Muslim rule get established? Wonder why, if Rajputs indeed won so many victories, did they lose (as historically) to every Muslim ruler who captured Delhi?
What allowed the invading Muslim armies to sustain sieges for months in inhospitable climate and terrain, with long drawn out supply lines through what is essentially considered Rajput territory? (Recall that Chandels (chandelas) ruled over this territory with Khajurao as the capital)
Will be blessed to have your insights
As I've said before, I don't find myself owing you any explanations - you're here with preconceived opinions and notions to make statements in the guise of long winding questions, not to ask questions; so go ahead and make a thread of your own. Why pretend to ask questions/want insights when we both know you're here to make a certain point which you believe to be true?
Last edited:
Of course ; I am a hard core Hindu ;
Stephen Cohen is a Brilliant US writer who I just admire and respect
I wish I could Write like him
Stephen P. Cohen - Wikipedia
John D Clare says:
"Alexander Rules His Empire
After his escape from the Gedrosian (Makran) desert, Alexander and the remnants of his army recovered at Susa (324bc).
The events of the year which followed are important for historians for it was in this time that Alexander stopped being a general (336-324bc) and started being the ruler of an empire (324-323bc).
1. Purge of the Satraps
As he had conquered each satrapy in the years up to 324bc, Alexander had taken control of the treasury and the army, and often left a Macedonian garrison in place but, generally, he had been prepared to re-appoint Persian rulers who surrendered to him (e.g. Mazaeus, Atropates, Abulites, Tiridates, Oxyarchus, Porus). This may have been to encourage other rulers to come over to his side without fight, but it probably was also connected to the fact that he was continually marching and fighting and did not have time to organise an empire.
Returning to Susa, Alexander found that these arrangements had not worked successfully. Believing that Alexander would not return, Arrian says, they had committed offences relating to ‘temples, graves and the subjects themselves’. The word he uses for ‘offences’ also means ‘playing out of tune’, so how much the satraps had been indulging in criminal activity, and how much it was simply that Alexander now wished to place his own stamp upon the government of the empire, we will never know.
About a dozen men (including Abulites and his son Ozathres) were executed, ‘in order to inspire others who might be left as viceroys, governors, or prefects of provinces with the fear of suffering equal penalties with them if they swerved from the path of duty; this was one of the chief means by which Alexander kept in subordination the nations which he had conquered in war...’ (Arrian 6.27).
This is significant because, in their places – although he did keep some Persian satraps, such as the brilliant Atropates – Alexander generally appointed Macedonians. At the time of Alexander’s death, 15 of the 24 satraps and 21 of the 24 garrison commanders were Macedonian; Alexander’s empire was overwhelmingly a ‘Macedonian Empire’."
Cheers, Doc
"Alexander Rules His Empire
After his escape from the Gedrosian (Makran) desert, Alexander and the remnants of his army recovered at Susa (324bc).
The events of the year which followed are important for historians for it was in this time that Alexander stopped being a general (336-324bc) and started being the ruler of an empire (324-323bc).
1. Purge of the Satraps
As he had conquered each satrapy in the years up to 324bc, Alexander had taken control of the treasury and the army, and often left a Macedonian garrison in place but, generally, he had been prepared to re-appoint Persian rulers who surrendered to him (e.g. Mazaeus, Atropates, Abulites, Tiridates, Oxyarchus, Porus). This may have been to encourage other rulers to come over to his side without fight, but it probably was also connected to the fact that he was continually marching and fighting and did not have time to organise an empire.
Returning to Susa, Alexander found that these arrangements had not worked successfully. Believing that Alexander would not return, Arrian says, they had committed offences relating to ‘temples, graves and the subjects themselves’. The word he uses for ‘offences’ also means ‘playing out of tune’, so how much the satraps had been indulging in criminal activity, and how much it was simply that Alexander now wished to place his own stamp upon the government of the empire, we will never know.
About a dozen men (including Abulites and his son Ozathres) were executed, ‘in order to inspire others who might be left as viceroys, governors, or prefects of provinces with the fear of suffering equal penalties with them if they swerved from the path of duty; this was one of the chief means by which Alexander kept in subordination the nations which he had conquered in war...’ (Arrian 6.27).
This is significant because, in their places – although he did keep some Persian satraps, such as the brilliant Atropates – Alexander generally appointed Macedonians. At the time of Alexander’s death, 15 of the 24 satraps and 21 of the 24 garrison commanders were Macedonian; Alexander’s empire was overwhelmingly a ‘Macedonian Empire’."
Cheers, Doc
Whatever the historians may have said, the key here is the word used to define the Alexander's appointees - the Satrap. It is derived from the word Kshatriya, the one who manages the Kshetra, also known as Kshetrapal, thus deformed into Satrap. The fact that Satrap vocabulary was so prevalent from Punjab to Greece speaks of the fact that Hindu rulers were far spread before and after Alexander.
Please define success and failure . Once we reach some sort of an agreement on that definition we can proceed. Does failure to stop invaders imply loss of territory or loss of faith or both ?
Satrap is a Persian governance construct.
Not a Hindu one.
Yes, I've seen the linguistic jugglery.
The Hindus did not need satraps. Each Hindu king in effect was a satrap in terms of span of control. Hugely fragmented as the land was.
The Satraps were needed by Persian emperors to govern and control an empire. An empire than spanned continents.
The Greeks used it extensively too.
Cheers, Doc
Treasure.
Just check who is squealing to find out who were the culprits who now feel exposed.
You were late for the shitstorm. All sanitized now.
Somewhere along the way Zoroastrians got dragged in, as transparent deflection, and it became yet another "lets 1 billion of us play with the 60,000 refugees" thread.
Cheers, Doc
Utter rubbish. Read Herodotus. Satraps are mentioned there, in Asia Minor.
Nice, but not good enough. The conclusion that Porus was Persian is very very tenuous. None of the original sources mentions this startling fact.
Disagree with you on that, as you will read the debate that Black's post was part of, but something interesting caught my eyes just now.
I thought (read) that Alexander's sacking of Persia was revenge for the same that was done to them by Xerxes in 4-something BC.
How did he then become a successor of Darius?
@BlackOpsIndia
Cheers, Doc