09-10-2006, 11:06 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+Sep 9 2006, 01:14 AM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Sep 9 2006, 01:14 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->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:.........
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bharatvarsh,
It is mostly monday morning quarterbacking when these authors try to portray the "strategy failures" and "lack of learning" on the part of Indians.
Let us look at an example: Ghori is considered a millitary genius. Historians talk about his "brilliant cavalry" and organization!.
Ghori was routed in the first war at Kayadara by rajputs of Gujarat.
In the first war of Taraori it was a contest between the two cavalries. Rajput cavalry charge was so ferocious that both flanks of Ghori's cavalry broke and ran away. This is completely overlooked by historians, who wrongly think that Indians only fought on elephants! This is really absurd logic.
From time immemorial horses have been the mainstay of Indian armies. Breeds like Marwari are completely indegenous and are extremely suited for warfare because they are very temperamental (i.e very agressive).
The biggest reasons for our major defeats were not bad strategy, caste system or lack of cavalry it was because we followed the ancient kshatriya code of not killing a prostrate enemy. Going back to Ghori's example, he could have been killed in Gujarat but was allowed to leave. Similarly he begged Prithviraj Chauhan, who also allowed him to go back.
Secondly a lack of central kingdom meant that individual king's resources were less compared to say the king of delhi. As a consequence gathering large armies became tough. E.g Maharana Pratap, Durgadas, Hammir Dev Chauhan, Kanhad Dev Songara, Surtan Deora, Rao Chandrasen Rathore etc. all fought with almost an order of magnitude men less then the opposing muslims.
For example if Shivaji, Chittor, Jai Singh (Amber) and Jaswant Singh(Marwar) had combined Aurang the rat could have been nailed. But lack of a central leader did not let this happen.
BTW this last point is still relevant today in India. We have different voices which sometimes tend to pull India in different directions w.r.t security matters. I just cannot understand the reasons behind this.
I have heard people like Singhvi (spokesman of congress), ofcourse muslims and some Hindus like Mahesh Bhatt etc that there is NOTHING that India can do on this war of terror being unleashed within the borders of India. If there is no will to fight then THERE IS NO WAY we will win. So does it mean we have wrong people at the helm?
-Digvijay
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Bharatvarsh,
It is mostly monday morning quarterbacking when these authors try to portray the "strategy failures" and "lack of learning" on the part of Indians.
Let us look at an example: Ghori is considered a millitary genius. Historians talk about his "brilliant cavalry" and organization!.
Ghori was routed in the first war at Kayadara by rajputs of Gujarat.
In the first war of Taraori it was a contest between the two cavalries. Rajput cavalry charge was so ferocious that both flanks of Ghori's cavalry broke and ran away. This is completely overlooked by historians, who wrongly think that Indians only fought on elephants! This is really absurd logic.
From time immemorial horses have been the mainstay of Indian armies. Breeds like Marwari are completely indegenous and are extremely suited for warfare because they are very temperamental (i.e very agressive).
The biggest reasons for our major defeats were not bad strategy, caste system or lack of cavalry it was because we followed the ancient kshatriya code of not killing a prostrate enemy. Going back to Ghori's example, he could have been killed in Gujarat but was allowed to leave. Similarly he begged Prithviraj Chauhan, who also allowed him to go back.
Secondly a lack of central kingdom meant that individual king's resources were less compared to say the king of delhi. As a consequence gathering large armies became tough. E.g Maharana Pratap, Durgadas, Hammir Dev Chauhan, Kanhad Dev Songara, Surtan Deora, Rao Chandrasen Rathore etc. all fought with almost an order of magnitude men less then the opposing muslims.
For example if Shivaji, Chittor, Jai Singh (Amber) and Jaswant Singh(Marwar) had combined Aurang the rat could have been nailed. But lack of a central leader did not let this happen.
BTW this last point is still relevant today in India. We have different voices which sometimes tend to pull India in different directions w.r.t security matters. I just cannot understand the reasons behind this.
I have heard people like Singhvi (spokesman of congress), ofcourse muslims and some Hindus like Mahesh Bhatt etc that there is NOTHING that India can do on this war of terror being unleashed within the borders of India. If there is no will to fight then THERE IS NO WAY we will win. So does it mean we have wrong people at the helm?
-Digvijay