09-09-2006, 01:14 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-09-2006, 01:22 AM by Bharatvarsh.)
The following is an interesting extract which shows that Hindus were aware of the differences between the way battles were fought by Hindus and Muslims but they failed to adopt it:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->When (Ayyana Malaka) had related what he had known,
Ankusa Ravu and Jagadeva Ravu said.......''What the Musslaman
Ravu(?) had said is correct. The Muhammadans never compare
their strength with that of the enemy, when they meet him on
the battle-field. If the enemy breaks, unable to resist their
fierce onset, they cut him to pieces pursuing him wherever he
may go. On the other hand, if the opponents face them boldly,
they beseech them afterwards. When the nobles and ministers
at the palace who know these affairs ask them to retire (from
the battle-field) they do so at once; and do not face (the enemy)
having no regard for the loss of prestige to the government
which their retirement from the battle-field without showing
fight might involve. Therefore, when a battle is unavoidable,
the Karnatakas who are skilful in fight, discriminate between
good and evil, and offering battle, cut (the enemy) to pieces.
They have prabhusakti $, and so the foot-soldiers and attendants
are useful".
Further Sources Of Vijayanagara History, K.A.Nilakanta Sastry, Pg 130.
http://dli.iiit.ac.in/cgi-bin/Browse/scrip...e=2020010027355<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The character of Bahmanis as described by a contemporary Hindu:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The great ministers, Dondo Pandit, Miiddo Pandit and
Dado Pandit understood the meaning (of Brahmayya). As
they served under masters who were given to drunkenness and
cow-slaughter and had no faith in the Gods and the Brahmans,
they spoke us becoming the servants of such masters with pride
and want of foresight. They felt that Brahma Pandit
had spoken the truth.
Further Sources Of Vijayanagara History, K.A.Nilakanta Sastry, Pg 131-132.
http://dli.iiit.ac.in/cgi-bin/Browse/scrip...e=2020010027355<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->When (Ayyana Malaka) had related what he had known,
Ankusa Ravu and Jagadeva Ravu said.......''What the Musslaman
Ravu(?) had said is correct. The Muhammadans never compare
their strength with that of the enemy, when they meet him on
the battle-field. If the enemy breaks, unable to resist their
fierce onset, they cut him to pieces pursuing him wherever he
may go. On the other hand, if the opponents face them boldly,
they beseech them afterwards. When the nobles and ministers
at the palace who know these affairs ask them to retire (from
the battle-field) they do so at once; and do not face (the enemy)
having no regard for the loss of prestige to the government
which their retirement from the battle-field without showing
fight might involve. Therefore, when a battle is unavoidable,
the Karnatakas who are skilful in fight, discriminate between
good and evil, and offering battle, cut (the enemy) to pieces.
They have prabhusakti $, and so the foot-soldiers and attendants
are useful".
Further Sources Of Vijayanagara History, K.A.Nilakanta Sastry, Pg 130.
http://dli.iiit.ac.in/cgi-bin/Browse/scrip...e=2020010027355<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The character of Bahmanis as described by a contemporary Hindu:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The great ministers, Dondo Pandit, Miiddo Pandit and
Dado Pandit understood the meaning (of Brahmayya). As
they served under masters who were given to drunkenness and
cow-slaughter and had no faith in the Gods and the Brahmans,
they spoke us becoming the servants of such masters with pride
and want of foresight. They felt that Brahma Pandit
had spoken the truth.
Further Sources Of Vijayanagara History, K.A.Nilakanta Sastry, Pg 131-132.
http://dli.iiit.ac.in/cgi-bin/Browse/scrip...e=2020010027355<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->