09-10-2006, 11:23 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
IIRC Dharampal mentions about the economic aspects too. In terms of revenue collection the hindu state extracted much less compared to the invading kingdoms. Other guroos can comment on this but in his opinion Brits were the biggest - close to 50% taxation, followed by muslims (Aurangzeb was worst - 20-25% ?). I havent seen any detailed analysis of this factor. Can somebody please post if such an analysis has been done ?
---
Vaguely remember that Vijayanagara collected higher taxes (dont remember how much) and MDS only allows for 1/6th.
IIRC Dharampal mentions about the economic aspects too. In terms of revenue collection the hindu state extracted much less compared to the invading kingdoms. Other guroos can comment on this but in his opinion Brits were the biggest - close to 50% taxation, followed by muslims (Aurangzeb was worst - 20-25% ?). I havent seen any detailed analysis of this factor. Can somebody please post if such an analysis has been done ?
---
Vaguely remember that Vijayanagara collected higher taxes (dont remember how much) and MDS only allows for 1/6th.