Medieval History

[ramana]

A few posts from BRF x-posted here...

I wonder if all those so called invasions by Ghazni and Ghori were razas and not true invasions. It was only when Prithviraj Chauhan was captured that they thought of sending governor(Aibek) to Dilli and thus transformed a raid inot a conquest.

<b>Ghazni's invasions in other parts of India were raids but his war against the Hindu Shahis was for territory in Punjab where his descendants established a kingdom. Ghori's campaigns were meant for creating an empire.</b> In both cases the raids accumulated money, which financed further raids and expansion.

<b>Reverse raids by Hindu Kingdoms were not possible because there was nothing to loot in the barren lands across the Sindhu</b>.

The economic wealth in India came from agriculture, industry, and trade, all of which meant flourishing cities and a widely dispersed dense population in numerous villages. <b>By contrast lands across the Sindhu were barren, thinly populated, and with few cities. What this meant was that an army from outside found plenty to loot in India, but an Indian army had to make extensive preparations for sustaining its forces in those barrern enemy lands.</b>

And the 12th century Hindu Kingdoms were not alone in this experience. <b>Even the Mughal Empire, when it attempted a conquest of Central Asia under Shah Jahan, failed miserably because of financial reasons. There wasn't enough by way of captured wealth to finance the expedition and no productive lands to persuade the Indian generals to live in Central Asia....they preferred the wealthy lifestyle in India to the mean subsistence on grasslands and icy rivers, and the huge Mughal army returned after spending crores and with no material gains.</b>

<b>The British Empire in the 19th century had the same problem. This is why they ended by establishing military bases along the frontier on a large scale, connected by an extensive road and rail network, and continuously supplied with men and munitions.</b> Something similar could have happened in the 12th century, but for that <b>an <i>empire</i> had to be established first within India, which the Guptas had done in the 4th century and the Pratihars had done in the 8th century against the Arabs.</b>

The Chauhan clan starting from their base in Sambhar district, had by the time of Prithviraj III a large kingdom, but <b>needed some more time to assimilate rival kingdoms like the Chalukyas in Gujarat and Chandellas in Bundelkhand to form an empire like that of the Pratihars.</b>

But they never got that time and had to die fighting against the Turks; <b>their remnants continued that resistance from forts like Ranthambhor for one full century, before another kingdom like Mewar and others rose to defeat and expel the Turks from Rajasthan in the 14th century.</b>

<b>added later</b>:

<b>The Sikh conquest of Peshawar, Kashmir, Multan, etc is rightly regarded as an important achievement, but this would not have been possible without the Treaty of Amritsar (1809),</b> between the Raja of Lahore (as Ranjit Singh is called in that document) and the EIC.

<b>By this treaty Ranjit Singh gave up his claims on Sikh lands south of the Sutlej, and in return the British promised not to intervene or help any other chiefs north of that river</b>. This gave Ranjit Singh a free hand to expand into the north and the west; he did not need to keep any large troop formations to watch the southern border. Indeed the treaty actually barred him from doing so.

While some regard this treaty as a setback to the Sikhs, given all the circumstances it was a wise decision by Ranjit Singh to be on friendly terms with the EIC.

Ghazni's invasions in other parts of India were raids but his war against the Hindu Shahis was for territory in Punjab where his descendants established a kingdom. Ghori's campaigns were meant for creating an empire. In both cases the raids accumulated money, which financed further raids and expansion.

<b>Mahmud</b> could have been motivated from several factors (1) he is known to have been literate in Islamic theology, so possibly taken seriously/used for justification the Hadithic injunction of "Ghazwa-e-Hind", and there are numismatic evidence of his posing as a champion of the Khaliphate's expansionist program - so <b>not a simple raid/territorial expansion only </b>(2) pressure from newer Turks who however ultimately moved west - it is significant to note that his descendants were restricted more and more to the south-eastern parts into Indian Multan after the sack of Ghazni by Ghori and complete burning and looting of the capital built at a cost of 17 million dirhams from the loot of India extracted by Mahmud. There also appears to be lot of discrepancy in the figures for the number of raids or campaigns and archaeological claims of defeating the Islamic hordes by "Hindu" kings - <b>it is possible that the Islamic chroniclers simply do not record the numerous defeats or reversals.</b>

Reverse raids by Hindu Kingdoms were not possible because there was nothing to loot in the barren lands across the Sindhu.
The economic wealth in India came from agriculture, industry, and trade, all of which meant flourishing cities and a widely dispersed dense population in numerous villages. By contrast lands across the Sindhu were barren, thinly populated, and with few cities. What this meant was that an army from outside found plenty to loot in India, but an Indian army had to make extensive preparations for sustaining its forces in those barrern enemy lands.

Well, in that case Alexander should not have chased Darius into Guagamela, or crossed into central Asian extensions of the Persian empire, or returned to Susa by the most punishing routes after leaving Sind. <b>The Indians were thinking in terms of only land campaigns - and there is evidence that they had started neglecting the naval warfare angle. The Chinese and Islamic chroniclers do notice that the Indian ships were getting behind in speed, strength and "class" compared to the Arabs, the Ceylonese and the Chinese.</b> A campaign like that of Alexander which kept its troops supplied from the sea with a strong navy <b>could have taken out Baghdad - the seat of political militancy and planning of campaigns against India by the Caliphate. The Indian maritime dominance of the Arabian sea would have also solved the "loss of trade" problem that appears to have created a lot of "boot licking" among the Indian "princes" to curry favour with the Islamic "hordes". </b>

The British Empire in the 19th century had the same problem. This is why they ended by establishing military bases along the frontier on a large scale, connected by an extensive road and rail network, and continuously supplied with men and munitions. Something similar could have happened in the 12th century, but for that an empire had to be established first within India, which the Guptas had done in the 4th century and the Pratihars had done in the 8th century against the Arabs.

Is it possible that the strength of the Buddhist and Jaina moralism had prevented the formation of ruthless military practices or strategic thinking? <b>Empire formation needed a degree of ruthlessness and lack of scruples which were strongly discouraged by the existing moral climate - such moves by a king could have had very negative repercussions on the legitimacy of the ruler among the populace as well as powerful networks of temples/akharas/matts/viharas</b>.

Is it possible that the strength of the Buddhist and Jaina moralism had prevented the formation of ruthless military practices or strategic thinking? Empire formation needed a degree of ruthlessness and lack of scruples which were strongly discouraged by the existing moral climate - such moves by a king could have had very negative repercussions on the legitimacy of the ruler among the populace as well as powerful networks of temples/akharas/maths/viharas.

AFAIK buddhism was already on the wane during the islamic campaign on India.
while the influence of its thought was still great I think the pacifist effects of buddhism has been over-hyped to some extent.

the bengal palas for example were buddhists but they were very active in conquests and warfare.
they certainly exibited no pacifism when it came to administration.

reluctance of Indians to "hot pursuit" is perhaps better ascribed to <i>kupamanduk</i> behaviour, one that STILL afflicts us today.
serious lack of understanding of the enemy's motive is the hallmark of this mentality.
add to that "they don't have anything I want" and you have the classic "turtle" military mentality.

Brihaspati, Have you looked at Ghazni's kingdom thru Middle Eastern history prespective. It was the time the Seljuk Turks were advancing and takingover the runing of the Calipate. Ghazni was a frontier outpost for them and became a center for expanding the Islamic power into Indian sub-continent. About 60 years after the second Battle of Terain (1192) the Baghdad caliphate was sacked by Mongols and ended.

If the Chauhans were building a successor empire to stop the Islamic incursions that would have happened only at cost of the local kingdoms and that would explain their lack of support to Prithivi Raj and in some cases outright hostility which made them support the invaders.

AFAIK buddhism was already on the wane during the islamic campaign on India.
while the influence of its thought was still great I think the pacifist effects of buddhism has been over-hyped to some extent.

the bengal palas for example were buddhists but they were very active in conquests and warfare.
they certainly exibited no pacifism when it came to administration.

The Islamic campaigns started in the late 600's, and the first significant inroads were by Muhammad, (son-in-law of Hajjaj) in 713-714 against Dahir in Sind. The Palas had not become a significant imperial power at this stage. The breach made in Multan by Muhammad was maintained in Multan and Mansura through the 800's and the 900's leading to the more famous campaigns of Mahmud. But if you think of it the earlier parts of the Islamic campaign comes in the immediate aftermath of the Buddhist revival under Harsha, and the increasingly thriving Buddhist townships of learning centres like Odantapuri and Nalanda in exactly this period may not actually indicate waning Buddhist influence. The Jaina traditions also indicate a moralistic restrictive attitude towards exploration and military ruthlessness.

Accepting that the Palas appear to have favoured "Buddhism" over other faiths, and still waged war does not detract from the possible influence of Buddhist morals on waging war under "niti" - same could be apparent in the various central-northern Indian princes under Jaina influence - the indications of "magnanimity" or principled stand in waging war against the Muslims by the north-Indian princes shows up a weakness not seen in the Arthasastra or the legendary tactical exploits of Ashoka. The matching of Islamic tactics by ruthless deception and everything aimed at liquidation and erasure of the "enemy" was absent - time and time again we find the enemy allowed to escape, not pursued, allowed to recover, not tortured to death, not enslaved, - no enjoyment of the Sadistic torture or treatment of relatives and dependants as part of psychological warfare - no - all these are present on the Islamic side, present in theory in Arthasastra, but noweher present in the behaviour of the Indian princes. I think this is a clear indication of Buddhist and Jaina morals that modified and restricted strategic and tactical flexibility in warfare from the Indian side.

If the Chauhans were building a successor empire to stop the Islamic incrusions that would have happened only at cost of the local kingdoms and that would explain their lack of support to Prithivi Raj and in some cases outright hostility which made them support the invaders.

I agree, and the Seljuk Turks really caused the Ghaznavid empire a lot of sleepless nights. However, Prithviraj was not entirely alone as far as we can reconstruct in the first battle of Tarain. There does appear to be repeated alliances between the princes to face the common threat of Islamic invasions. <b>The major problem seems to be with Jayachand only.</b> An early opportunity to patch up with the Chalukyas was lost due to the advice of the minister of an younger and inexperienced Prithviraj - and not necessarily a fault of the "other" - the Chalukyas. The very fact that the possibility of such coordination rose against Ghori's early expeditions prove that such coordination proposals did come up in reality.

Two aspects that we are perhaps not analyzing that much are (1) whether the prevailing philosophies and religions prevented the Indian leadership from realizing the true danger of Islam, and therefore the need for rising above narrow regional or clan loyalties - something that had happened historically facing the threat of disruptive foreign incursions for at least the two known "great empires" based in India - the Mauryas against Persian/Greek and the Guptas against the Shakas/Hunas (2) <b>the possible effects of cyclical natural "catastrophes" like El Nino or other cyclical periods of drought and non-productivity. One cycle that could be important is a 1500 year cycle that appears to be prominent in all major historical civilizations simultaneously - 2300 BCE (Egypts pyramid-dynasty declines with known records of drought and devastation lasting 200 years - similar records exist for the middle and near east and the north-Indian riverine civilizations of the late Harappa period) - 800 BCE - and finally 700 C.E. We do hear increasing incidence of droughts in this period in India, but we do not have very serious studies of this question for India. If a drought lasting 100-200 years really ravaged the country at this time, that could explain a lot of the inability of the princes to defend their country as well as increasing raids by the hungry hordes from even drier and less productive central-west Asia</b>.

taking the 2300BCE date can you forward project the 1500 year cycle and see where that lands us. And then <b>we can look at the body of Sanskrit literature post-Harshavardhana and pre-Islamic to see if there are whines/laments about drought and failing rains etc</b>.

Ramanaji,
thank you for pointing this out. As calculated in my earlier post - this should come to 700 CE. I looked up in my older notes just now - here is my quick survey:

<b>Famines in this period - seem to be rather common: </b>
(1) Ganjam (Russelkonda plates) of Nettabhanja, Epigraphia Indica vol 28,
(2) Prabandhachintamani
(3) Samayamatrika
(4) Uktivyaktiprakarana.

The Brihannaradyia Purana placed approximately in this period, says in describing typical condition of Kali age as "people will be gravely distressed by famine and will migrate to countries rich in wheat and barley". Trisastislalakapurushacharita refers to famines "terrible with universal destruction". <b>Aparajitaprccha talsk about the tremendous losses brought about by famines- under stress of famine dharma declines, and the subjects and rulers suffer alike. Prabandhachintamani and Kathakosha refer to famines lasting for 12 or more years at a stretch.</b> I find several references in Lekhapaddhati. Prabandhachintamani refers to a massive famine in Gujarat during Chalukya king Bhima, another happened during Vishaladeva as mentioned in Jagaducharita. Rajatarangini refers to two disastrous famines in Kashmir in 917-16 during Partha and another under Harsha in 1099-1011.

<b>Prabandhachintamani does refer explicitly to droughts as causes of famine in this period.</b> Aparajitaprchha calims this to be the most important cause. Brihannaradyia also thinks so. <b>However there are other texts which seem to attach importance to additional causes like unexpected and excessive flooding - Kathakosa, Agni Purana, Visesha-sataka of Shyamsundar Ganin etc. There appears also to be reference to political tension resultimg from inability of the kings to extract taxes or their attempts to continue to do so (Kalhana compares the people to old bullocks loaded with boulders - in reference to Partha and Harsha's activities). </b>

<b>A characteristic of this long-period El-Nino cycles is in fact prolonged periods of general drought, with intensive patches, and occasional catastrophic rainfall and flooding.</b> El Nino's effects were in fact first noticed by studying Indian monsoon rainfall patterns and their connection to fluctuations in sea-surface temperature in the Pacific, in 19th century. It would be great, if others could give more historical references.

By Jupiter you got it! 8)

<b>Now turn this into a paper ASAP before the johlawalas steal it.</b>And better yet hot foot it to the history seminar to be held in jan 9, 09 in Delhi by kaushal.

I guess I should become an adviser or research director who points out where to beat the bushes!
----------------

Some thing to mull over

El Nino Southern Oscillation

In the bible they talk of the story of Joseph and his multi-colored coat fame. He interprets a dream that the Pharoh has of seven years of plenty and seven years of drought and is appointed as vizier to mitigate the after effects. So this would be of the aftermath of the 2300 BCE date.

-------------------------------------------
Can we add to this line of thought? The thesis is that El Nino type severe weather cycles caused the jahliya that broke down the trading system and led to weakening of the Indian kigdoms and was a factor in the islamic conquest.


Btw the 1500 years cycle will repeat in 700+1500= 2200 AD ie is 200 years from now!