Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedPrithviraj III and Rajput cavalry

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Shogun 144 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 21-Jun-2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0
Direct Link To This Post Topic: Prithviraj III and Rajput cavalry
    Posted: 03-Mar-2008 at 19:13
Hey Everyone!

Well I need some info, and I am relativly new to Indian studies, so I figured I would ask here. What I need is some info about the part that the Chauhan raja Prithviraj III played in the rise of the importance of cavalry among the Rajputs. From what I understand from prior research the Rajputs were not fond of horses originally and were more oriented to elephant warfare and infantry battles. They started using cavalry due to the influence of Mahmud of Ghazni. But mounted warfare really didn't become popular with them until Prithviraj, who used large amounts of cavalry against Muhammad of Ghor. At least that is what I think happened, but I need some help from someone more knowledgeable.

 Thanks in Advance,
Shogun 144
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 05:18
I can't answer your question precisely, but I would guess that cavalry was becoming increasingly powerful, and therefore popular, since the beginning of last millennium. Prithviraj probably doesn't deserve too much credit.
Back to Top
ruffian View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 28-Jan-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 62
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 15:13
Tradition of cavalry in India seems to be there from ancient times. From Rothermnd's India's history:



As an aside why would Pliny call Shatavahanas Andrae?

Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Mar-2008 at 21:14
yeah cavalry was nothing new to India, the question is particularly about the Rajputs adaption of primarily mounted warfare.
Back to Top
ruffian View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 28-Jan-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 62
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Mar-2008 at 04:27
Originally posted by Temujin

yeah cavalry was nothing new to India, the question is particularly about the Rajputs adaption of primarily mounted warfare.


Hmmm. Then should'nt the question be when was the use of cavalry discontinued in India and what were the reasons? Because in BC cavalry, chariots etc were in vogue.
Back to Top
Omar al Hashim View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 05-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5697
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Mar-2008 at 07:22
I think the difference is between infantry based armies with a cavalry & elephant component (100,000 infantry vs 30,000 cavalry), to a nearly completely cavalry based army.

This was the trend in most places during the early middle ages, and I don't see the Rajputs being any different.
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Mar-2008 at 19:24
Originally posted by Omar al Hashim


This was the trend in most places during the early middle ages, and I don't see the Rajputs being any different.


no, but they were different to most other people on the subcontinent. arguably the Rajputs are considered the best cavalrymen or am i wrong? ok, there were also Mahrattas and Sikhs but still.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Mar-2008 at 19:44

Cavalry is a bit if a catch all term here for mounted troops whose roles was very different, the Afghan cavalry for instance was light and more used to skirmishing etc, whole a lot of the Cavalry from N India was quite heavy and used for shock action. A more speific question., A lot of the Mughal cavalry fought dismounted esp troops recruited from what is now Pakistan. So a few more specific will be needed.

Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Mar-2008 at 19:50
cavalry is cavalry as long as they ride horses.
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Mar-2008 at 05:16
No. Dismounted Cavalry is basically infantry, heavy cavalry are shock troops, light skirmishers and scouts.
Back to Top
AP Singh View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 05-Sep-2006
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 283
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Mar-2008 at 10:24
Was Prithvi Raj Chauhan a Rajput? I read many original historical records and could not find this word even in Babar Nama which is a historical record written 400 years after the death of Prithviraj Chauhan.In translation work of British regime this word was inserted deliberately to confuse all the Indians to prove that since time immemorials no native tribe of India ruled India and hence support the British Regime for the same reason as being them outsider. If you believe the historians of British regime ( Not to confuse with the British scholars who were honest but their work might have been locked as classified information) after the transformation of man from the monkeys no ruler of India was a native of this place. Present Indian history is written by Thanedars (Police Inspectors) of British regime and one can imagine even today how many cases in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan ( the individed India) from police stations can be considered as authentic information.


Edited by AP Singh - 07-Mar-2008 at 10:34
Back to Top
ruffian View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 28-Jan-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 62
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Mar-2008 at 12:54
Originally posted by Sparten

No. Dismounted Cavalry is basically infantry, heavy cavalry are shock troops, light skirmishers and scouts.


Are you sure? From the perspective of the king he would need to provide for the upkeep of the horse and would have to count "dismounted cavalry" as cavalry won't he?

What is dismounted cavalry anyway? who controls the horse when it is dismounted?


Edited by ruffian - 07-Mar-2008 at 12:55
Back to Top
ruffian View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 28-Jan-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 62
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Mar-2008 at 13:02
Originally posted by Temujin

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim


This was the trend in most places during the early middle ages, and I don't see the Rajputs being any different.


no, but they were different to most other people on the subcontinent. arguably the Rajputs are considered the best cavalrymen or am i wrong? ok, there were also Mahrattas and Sikhs but still.


You may be right:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/11200341.html?page=2

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/raja.html?c=y&page=1
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Mar-2008 at 19:39
Originally posted by Sparten

No. Dismounted Cavalry is basically infantry, heavy cavalry are shock troops, light skirmishers and scouts.


no, not true they are still cavalrymen. a cavalryman is not determined by the way he fights but how he marches. an artilleryman without gun doesn't suddenly morph into an infantryman. the training for all three branches is different. cavalrymans drill includes horsecare. a cvaalryman can mount and dismount as he likes but an infantryman can't.
Back to Top
ashokharsana View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 05-Aug-2006
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 342
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Mar-2008 at 18:25
Originally posted by Temujin

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim


This was the trend in most places during the early middle ages, and I don't see the Rajputs being any different.


no, but they were different to most other people on the subcontinent. arguably the Rajputs are considered the best cavalrymen or am i wrong? ok, there were also Mahrattas and Sikhs but still.
 
 
Ooops u forgot Moderator...Rajputs were never a caste or community....It was a group of several ruling clans..(Gujjars being the majority)... So do u mean Gujjars were the best cavalrymen in northwest india.....???
 
 
The Real Ranas, The Real Emperors of India. http://ashokharsana.proboards107.com/index.cgi?board=gurjars
Back to Top
ashokharsana View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 05-Aug-2006
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 342
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Mar-2008 at 18:30
Originally posted by AP Singh

Was Prithvi Raj Chauhan a Rajput? I read many original historical records and could not find this word even in Babar Nama which is a historical record written 400 years after the death of Prithviraj Chauhan.In translation work of British regime this word was inserted deliberately to confuse all the Indians to prove that since time immemorials no native tribe of India ruled India and hence support the British Regime for the same reason as being them outsider. If you believe the historians of British regime ( Not to confuse with the British scholars who were honest but their work might have been locked as classified information) after the transformation of man from the monkeys no ruler of India was a native of this place. Present Indian history is written by Thanedars (Police Inspectors) of British regime and one can imagine even today how many cases in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan ( the individed India) from police stations can be considered as authentic information.
 
Yeah even  I know that Famous pakistani writer Rana Ali hassan chauhan (writer of a short history of gujjars) was the 37th descendent to Prthviraj chauhan and he also wrote the route which the chauhans took after they were defeated by Ghori in 1192. Every village or town falling on that route belongs to chauhan gujjars.... Rajputs apeared in the indian policitcal scenerio only after 1398 AD when Temur lang described them as a community of fighters...
The Real Ranas, The Real Emperors of India. http://ashokharsana.proboards107.com/index.cgi?board=gurjars
Back to Top
Temujin View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Sirdar Bahadur

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Eurasia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5221
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Mar-2008 at 18:49
oh boy, do you know that this is blacklisted topic? don't force me to take action...
Back to Top
ashokharsana View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 05-Aug-2006
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 342
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Mar-2008 at 02:02
Originally posted by Temujin

oh boy, do you know that this is blacklisted topic? don't force me to take action...
 
Dear Mod,
 
Is it not the right of any person to speak the truth?
Is it not the right of the readers of this thread to know the truth?
Do u want to carry forward the mistakes in history?
 
When after intense debate I proved that the Rulers who were ruling north western india prior to Moghals were only Gurjars (except a few of them). And even most of the websites and authentic sources agree with me, then i dont understand why dont you suggest the members to rightly use the word 'Gujjar' instead of 'Rajput'?
 
Is it not your responsibility to uncover the truth
(or do i need to approach discovery channel for the same..Tongue)?????????????
 
One last thing Mods, with my knowledge you may know a lot of amazing and factual things about Indian history . But ALAS I was forced to indulge in useless arguements and mud slinging debates so I could not contribute to this glorious forum. 
 
Otherwise on your forum i had a good chance of solving the most confusing and the most interesting topic of indian(Asian) history.
Which was the  main reason of joining your forum:
 
The relation of "Rourans (Juan-Juans), avars, Huns, hepthalites, Chionites, Yuchees, Tokharians,  Gok-Turks, Scythians, khajars and  Messgette" with
"Gurjars, Jats and Rajputs."
 


Edited by ashokharsana - 19-Mar-2008 at 02:45
The Real Ranas, The Real Emperors of India. http://ashokharsana.proboards107.com/index.cgi?board=gurjars
Back to Top
ashokharsana View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 05-Aug-2006
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 342
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Mar-2008 at 02:23
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland By Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1
 
Page 3
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Page 5
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Page 8
 
 
 
 
Page 13
 
 
 
 
Page 14
 
 
 
 
Vincent Smith
 
 
 
The Real Ranas, The Real Emperors of India. http://ashokharsana.proboards107.com/index.cgi?board=gurjars
Back to Top
ashokharsana View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 05-Aug-2006
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 342
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Mar-2008 at 02:33
The Rajputs are also requested to expalin the origin of the Six most celebrated Rajput(?) clans Chauhans, Chalukyas, Pratihars, Parmars,Tomaras and Guhilots. I solved all the questions very easily becasue I believd that none of them was known as a Rajput tribe before the invasion of Moghals. If one tries to find out their actual origins he has to believe the first and most important fact that all of them were Gurjars.
 
I asked this question (about the origin of these six clans) to many of my Rajput friends but none cuold answer this most important question...I dont know WHY??
The Real Ranas, The Real Emperors of India. http://ashokharsana.proboards107.com/index.cgi?board=gurjars
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.