Pre-modern Warfare:India And Elsewhere

[Guest]

-delete-

[Guest]

Dear Leong Kit Meng/Liang Jieming,

Congratulations on your book.

One question/concern.

In your book, you are refering to India not as India but South Asia. Why?

Under "Siege Weapon Types in Other Cultures" Section, you have listed:

Mahaashilaakantaka 5th century B.C.
Sarvatobhadra ??? century B.C.
Yantra ??? century B.C.

The above are grouped under "South Asian" Seige weapons. Why not "Indian"?

Unlike other collective groups you have mentioned there: European, Greco-Roman, Middle-Eastern etc, India is very much a living single nation and civilization, just like China and Japan. I think you must call it India as it is, rather than South Asia which is misleading.

Regards

[Guest]

I agree with Bodhi.

You should call it Indian not "South Asian".

Are you trying to insult Indians by trying to put down our identity?

What is a "South Asian" anyway?

After all the help you took from this website the least you can do is call it Indian.

[Guest]

-deleted-

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The development of catapults in the Indian subcontinent was a collective effort by all the various groupings and kingdoms which arose in and around the area, including parts of what are now within Pakistan.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

I have noticed you Chinese always try to dismiss India and lump it under some generic "South Asian" category.

There was no Pakistan before 1947. It is only India we are talking about.
All three are Sanskrit words and Sanskrit is an Indian language.

Don't try to fool me with your lectures.

[Guest]

Sigh. So be it.

Very well then. I've deleted my posts which are obviously offending nationalist sensibilities.

I'll perhaps take out the entire section and not mention any South Asian catapults from my book in the next reprint. Hardly anything is known of them anyway, so they won't be missed.

I nevertheless, as stated in my previous deleted post, still want to thank all those wonderful people who'd help me with sanskrit translations and information on pre-islamic invasions catapults.

Good day.

[Guest]

So touchy! Nobody said your posts were offending anyone! Also nobody is asking you to not have that information in your book!

We are just suggesting, use word 'Indian' rather than 'South Asian'. or justify why not. We are all matured people here. Nobody will be 'hurt'. so go on tell us about it.

Please, at least attempt to justify why you avoided word 'Indian' - (now you use word 'South Asian' capapults in your last post).

At least answer this much.

[Guest]

Mitradena, others...let him justify. We can debate very well without using strong words.

[Guest]

<!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai
Current terminology for that CHINDIA.
Similarly, let us accept the facts of life
v r clubbed as SouthAsians in USA.
When there are stalls etc, u may find BanglaDeshi stall for India, Pak and BanglaDesh.
A cursory gaze at Geopolitics will tell you that as far as asserting Independent Policy is concerned, China is way ahead of us.

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Sep 13 2006, 09:17 PM-->QUOTE(Bodhi @ Sep 13 2006, 09:17 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->So touchy!  Nobody said your posts were offending anyone!  Also nobody is asking you to not have that information in your book!

We are just suggesting, use word 'Indian' rather than 'South Asian'. or justify why not.  We are all matured people here.  Nobody will be 'hurt'. so go on tell us about it.

Please, at least attempt to justify why you avoided word 'Indian' - (now you use word 'South Asian' capapults in your last post). 

At least answer this much.
[right][snapback]57266[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very well, I'll repost my last deleted post.

<i>In my book, South Asia includes Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan etc. because source texts I use refer to the use of Yantras not just in India but also elsewhere like in Sri Lankan fortresses as well. The Buddhist texts which contain references to the Yantras are from the northern parts, and the Buddhists place the birth of Gautama Buddha in, if I'm not mistaken, what is now Nepal. The development of catapults in the Indian subcontinent was a collective effort by all the various groupings and kingdoms which arose in and around the area, including parts of what are now within southeastern Pakistan.

I have used it to denote an area, much as I've lumped the whole of the Americas into just America, Europe into just European, Islamic as just Islamic with only two exceptions, the Greco-Romans as they span civilisational boundaries, and Japan where they took a differing evolutionary path to catapult development with the rest of East Asia. China stands alone as is obvious since the whole book is on Chinese catapults.</i>

Further more, the Vedic Aryans during the period of the Rigveda is currently believed to have ranged from Uttar Pradesh in India to as far as southern Afghanistan. Moreover, when Alexander the Great fought his way east, he penetrated as far as the Beas River which is in Punjab and joins the Sutlej River, through to the Indus. The Beas is acknowledged as the eastern most line of Alexander's advance which means that he fought most of his eastern battles not in India but in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. The Greek accounts which record the "catapults" faced by Alexander's army do not state clearly the locations of the battles and I cannot in good conscience lump everything under "India".

[agnivayu]

Use Indian subcontinent then instead of South Asia. That's very accurate.





<!--QuoteBegin-Liang Jieming+Sep 13 2006, 08:18 PM-->QUOTE(Liang Jieming @ Sep 13 2006, 08:18 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-Bodhi+Sep 13 2006, 09:17 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Bodhi @ Sep 13 2006, 09:17 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->So touchy!  Nobody said your posts were offending anyone!  Also nobody is asking you to not have that information in your book!

We are just suggesting, use word 'Indian' rather than 'South Asian'. or justify why not.  We are all matured people here.  Nobody will be 'hurt'. so go on tell us about it.

Please, at least attempt to justify why you avoided word 'Indian' - (now you use word 'South Asian' capapults in your last post). 

At least answer this much.
[right][snapback]57266[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Very well, I'll repost my last deleted post.

<i>In my book, South Asia includes Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan etc. because source texts I use refer to the use of Yantras not just in India but also elsewhere like in Sri Lankan fortresses as well. The Buddhist texts which contain references to the Yantras are from the northern parts, and the Buddhists place the birth of Gautama Buddha in, if I'm not mistaken, what is now Nepal. The development of catapults in the Indian subcontinent was a collective effort by all the various groupings and kingdoms which arose in and around the area, including parts of what are now within southeastern Pakistan.

I have used it to denote an area, much as I've lumped the whole of the Americas into just America, Europe into just European, Islamic as just Islamic with only two exceptions, the Greco-Romans as they span civilisational boundaries, and Japan where they took a differing evolutionary path to catapult development with the rest of East Asia. China stands alone as is obvious since the whole book is on Chinese catapults.</i>

Further more, the Vedic Aryans during the period of the Rigveda is currently believed to have ranged from Uttar Pradesh in India to as far as southern Afghanistan. Moreover, when Alexander the Great fought his way east, he penetrated as far as the Beas River which is in Punjab and joins the Sutlej River, through to the Indus. The Beas is acknowledged as the eastern most line of Alexander's advance which means that he fought most of his eastern battles not in India but in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. The Greek accounts which record the "catapults" faced by Alexander's army do not state clearly the locations of the battles and I cannot in good conscience lump everything under "India".
[right][snapback]57269[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

[Guest]

I have tried to show that your civilisation too aided in the global development of siege technology in order to present as balanced a picture as possible.

In my book I've shown that catapult technology did not come to the Indian subcontinent via the Islamic invasions, but that indigenious designs were already flourishing and were in fact already in existence for at least a millenia prior to it. I've also shown how independant Indian armies were already using rockets and gunpowder weapons in their wars against the British expansions. All this was done to try and present a picture not limited to civilisational boundaries.

However, if nationalists persist in defining this along narrow nationalist lines, then I'd rather avoid all such references altogether and remove them from further editions of my book and leave you to your own interpretations.

I leave you with a quote talking about the 7-8th century "Islamic Invasions", from a website on "The History of Pakistan".

"Islam was first brought in by Arabs in early eighth century. At that time, the religion itself was only about a century old. In 711 AD Mohammad Bin Qasam, a brilliant 19 year-old Arab general from Basra (Iraq) marched into Pakistan by way of Persia and Balochistan with the army of 60,000 men. He employed a method of warfare never before seen in the subcontinent - large carriage-drawn catapults capable of hurling heavy stones and missiles across the distances of about 200 yards. He marched all the way to Nerun (Hyderabad) where he engaged Raja Dahir, the local Hindu ruler and his massive army of 20,000 infantry and 5,000 cavalry. Mohammad Bin Qasim defeated Raja Dahir with contemptuous ease."

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-Liang Jieming+Sep 13 2006, 09:45 PM-->QUOTE(Liang Jieming @ Sep 13 2006, 09:45 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->I have tried to show that your civilisation too aided in the global development of siege technology in order to present as balanced a picture as possible.

In my book I've shown that catapult technology did not come to the Indian subcontinent via the Islamic invasions, but that indigenious designs were already flourishing and were in fact already in existence for at least a millenia prior to it.  I've also shown how independant Indian armies were already using rockets and gunpowder weapons in their wars against the British expansions.  All this was done to try and present a picture not limited to civilisational boundaries.

However, if nationalists persist in defining this along narrow nationalist lines, then I'd rather avoid all such references altogether and remove them from further editions of my book and leave you to your own interpretations.

I leave you with a quote talking about the 7-8th century "Islamic Invasions", from a website on "The History of Pakistan".

"Islam was first brought in by Arabs in early eighth century. At that time, the religion itself was only about a century old. In 711 AD Mohammad Bin Qasam, a brilliant 19 year-old Arab general from Basra (Iraq) marched into Pakistan by way of Persia and Balochistan with the army of 60,000 men. He employed a method of warfare never before seen in the subcontinent - large carriage-drawn catapults capable of hurling heavy stones and missiles across the distances of about 200 yards. He marched all the way to Nerun (Hyderabad) where he engaged Raja Dahir, the local Hindu ruler and his massive army of 20,000 infantry and 5,000 cavalry. Mohammad Bin Qasim defeated Raja Dahir with contemptuous ease."
[right][snapback]57274[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Liang,

There is no "nationalistic sensibilities" in mentioning India. Do remember that there was no Nepal or Sri Lanka or Pakistan back then. Sinhal Dweep was ancient Sri Lanka and Indian kings held sway. Similarly Nepal was part of ancient India. Gautam Buddha was born at Lumbini which is in modern Nepal but was part of India when Buddha was born.

So the correct phrase should be ancient India though Pakistanis would hate you if you were to use this phrase.

Lastly India unlike, the entire middle east, Iran, Iraq etc was not easily converted to Islam because Hindus kept fighting for there religion. And regarding Bin Qasim , read here: (He was defeated when he attacked Chittor and defeat was so decisive that the caliphate had no major success for next 300 years.

http://hindurajput.blogspot.com/#Bappa_Rawal

-Digvijay

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-Liang Jieming+Sep 13 2006, 10:48 AM-->QUOTE(Liang Jieming @ Sep 13 2006, 10:48 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Very well, I'll repost my last deleted post.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Good start. Appreciate it.

<!--QuoteBegin-Liang Jieming+Sep 13 2006, 10:48 AM-->QUOTE(Liang Jieming @ Sep 13 2006, 10:48 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><i>In my book, South Asia includes Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan etc.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Yes, geographically speaking, you are right. But your topic is not geographical, it is historical, cultural, civilizational.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->because source texts I use refer to the use of Yantras not just in India but also elsewhere like in Sri Lankan fortresses as well. 
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Interesting. out of context probably but which source? Please specify the one mentioning 'Yantra' in Sri Lankan fortress.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Buddhist texts which contain references to the Yantras are from the northern parts, and the Buddhists place the birth of Gautama Buddha in, if I'm not mistaken, what is now Nepal. 
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

You are correct. Lumbini is in Nepal. But when Siddharth Gautam was born, Nepal was not a political entity like it is today, and who knows, after 1000 years, what will be the description of that political entity. This is dynamism of history.

So birth place of Gautam is very much part of 'political' Nepal, but 'cultural' and 'Historical' India. Understand this, because your topic is cultural, historical, civilizational. Cultural, Historical, civilizational India spreads beyond multiple political segmentations of yesterday, today, and maybe tomorrow.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The development of catapults in the Indian subcontinent was a collective effort by all the various groupings and kingdoms which arose in and around the area, including parts of what are now within southeastern Pakistan.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Absolutely. Once again it depends upon what you are intending to mention - whether the political entities (like Magadh, Koshal, Gandhar) or civilizational entities (like Greece, Rome, Chinese, Egyptian)? For others you have mentioned civilizational entities, so why insist upon Indians to be mentioned in terms of political entities?

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I have used it to denote an area, much as I've lumped the whole of the Americas into just America, Europe into just European, Islamic as just Islamic with only two exceptions, the Greco-Romans as they span civilisational boundaries, and Japan where they took a differing evolutionary path to catapult development with the rest of East Asia.  China stands alone as is obvious since the whole book is on Chinese catapults.</i>
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Exactly. You are writing on historical-cultural topic, not geographic-political topic. So, please be consistent. You are rightly referring to ancient civilizations where possible, and falling back upon geographic areas where you can not help it. Good approach and I agree. Since even the title of that section of your book suggests your focus is on civilizations, you are right in mentioning them : 'Islamic', 'Greco','Romans', and when there isnt a single one, you fall back on geographical grouping (Americas, Europe - which were not 'a' civilization)- this is a good approach.

But please be consistent when it comes to India.

Unlike Americas and Europe, India is very much a civilization in the same class as that of Chinese, Egyptian, Greek, Roman. Please respect that fact, and use the word 'Indian' when referring to that civilization. All catapults you mentioned are rightly at home if you mention it by that name. Not calling that civilization 'Indian', is denying a fact of history not georaphy.

If one is interested in making geographical reference, then it is a cultural convention of historians to referring that region using references from within and not without. What do I mean? There are two ways in which you can define a large and dynamic politico-geographic region. Either define that group with suggested references to the attributes 'internal' to the area - which is defining from 'within', or using attributes excluding that area - which is defining from 'without'.

Example. The countries of Norway, Sweden and Finland can be referred to as 'Scandenavia' - which will be one way to refer to the whole region, or the second way to refer : 'North Europe' meaning 'that part of Europe which is in the North'. When referring to in terms to civilization, and ancient history, it would be wise to use 'Scandenavia', and when referring to things geographic, we commonly use term 'North Europe', and when referring to the region for political references, we use specific political references - Sweden, Norway, Finland.

This way if you really needed to refer to geography, the phrase always used is 'Indian Subcontinent' which geographically contains different political entities into it.

When you talk about study of populations, statistics, economy, you are free to use this term 'South Asia'

But that term is not consistent for historical-civilizational descriptions, considering the dynamism of history. When it comes to civilization, the name is 'Indian Civilization', or 'Hindu Culture'. Not calling that civilization 'Indian', is denying a fact of history, not georaphy.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Moreover, when Alexander the Great fought his way east, he penetrated as far as the Beas River which is in Punjab and joins the Sutlej River, through to the Indus. 
The Beas is acknowledged as the eastern most line of Alexander's advance which means that he fought most of his eastern battles not in India but in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

You answer your own question. Alexendar never really reached political 'India' of today. Right. But he still used the term 'India' to denote the country he was invading. And the political-cultural movement that started as a result of his invasion included the whole civilization of then-India.

Therefore according to you, should we start saying Alexander invaded Pakistan, Afghanistan and not India? Just proves what I mentioned above.

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->I cannot in good conscience lump everything under "India".
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Hmmm? Depends again. Your concern is history or geo-politics? Calling that civilization 'India' is a fact of history, not georaphy. Cultural, not political.

[Guest]

added later:

Nothing to do with political - nationalism here. Just a concern of accuracy of historical literaturism.

Also, most of Indians respect China and its civilization, and actually look forward to a friendship and brotherhood. But Chinese scholars should respect India the civilization too, and help it gain what it is struggling for today. Chinese were struggling for the same thing a few decades back - rightful place is the history of civilizations.

[Guest]

<!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo--> <span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-family:Optima'>Pl correct me if I am mistaken. Poras who fought against Alexander and in fact, defeated him; was King of Bihar.</span></span>

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-Capt Manmohan Kumar+Sep 13 2006, 11:17 PM-->QUOTE(Capt Manmohan Kumar @ Sep 13 2006, 11:17 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tongue.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tongue.gif' /><!--endemo--> <span style='font-size:21pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-family:Optima'>Pl correct me if I am mistaken. Poras who fought against Alexander and in fact, defeated him; was King of Bihar.</span></span>
[right][snapback]57278[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Hello Captain,
Purshottama was the king of a kingdom whose length was just 60 Km long. He was known as Porus to Greeks. He was a vassal of Nanda dynasty of Magadha. He was not in Bihar.

Marshall Zhukov, the Russian General who defeated Nazis and was the first to enter German capital, was keynote speaker at IMA few decades back and he told the graduating class that Indian army under Porus had stopped Alexander in his tracks and they should be proud of it.

Similar thing was actually recorded by E.A.W Badge who translated some texts that were apparently written by Alexander's contempraries. Badge writes in ''The Life and Exploits of Alexander''

<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->In the battle of Jhelum a large majority of Alexander's cavalry was killed. Alexander realized that if he were to continue fighting he would be completely ruined. He requested Porus to stop fighting. Porus was true to Indian traditions and did not kill the surrendered enemy.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->


E. A. Wallis Badge, ''Life and Exploits of Alexander the Great'', Publisher: Kessinger Publishing Company ISBN 1417947837

-Digvijay

[Guest]

<!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo--> <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-family:Optima'>The Magadha kingdom arose in south Bihar in the 4 th century BC. Bimbisara was the fifth king of this kingdom. He contributed extending his dominions by the conquest of Anga the modern Bhagalpur ...

www.hrih.info/glossaryM.html </span></span>

[Guest]

<!--QuoteBegin-Capt Manmohan Kumar+Sep 13 2006, 11:51 PM-->QUOTE(Capt Manmohan Kumar @ Sep 13 2006, 11:51 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif' /><!--endemo--> <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'><span style='font-family:Optima'>The Magadha kingdom arose in south Bihar in the 4 th century BC. Bimbisara was the fifth king of this kingdom. He contributed extending his dominions by the conquest of Anga the modern Bhagalpur ...

www.hrih.info/glossaryM.html </span></span>
[right][snapback]57280[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Hello Captain,
Porus was on the north west frontier of the magadha empire and he was a satrap.

-Digvijay

[agnivayu]

BTW guys I will be writing a book on the Greater East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere. I will have a chapter on how 200,000 Mongols ruled over China.