Prithviraj III and Rajput cavalry

well i'm really in no modd to move this topic to the minefield and i kindly ask you to stop any argument about Gurjjar-Rajput relations whatsoever. this topic is about the emergence of Rajput cavalry and nothing else, what you wrote so far was off topic and i'm not tolerating it since i'm interested in the topic myself. if you still need to argue anything in this direction, send me a personal message with your request so i can open a topic over at the minefield for you where you can talk until the end of eternity about your issue.

understood?

Originally posted by Temujin cavalry is cavalry as long as they ride horses.

I know that is from about 2 pages ago but it raises a good point.

Who exactly was it that had these horses in India? In europe, it was mainly landowners who could afford them along with good armour, and they were the knights, shock troops that ploughed any peasant in their path, no matter how outnumbered they were (not that they ever were, as to my knowledge most kings had a conscription of all landowners that meant that apart from in special cases, most armies were made up 75% or so of mounted and dismounted knights, along with other professional and reasonably wealthy soldiers).

The mongols' horses were a fact of life, they needed them for their nomadic lifestyle and they needed their bows for hunting, so it stood to reason they fought as mounted archers, every able bodied man of them. This was of course completely different from the elite shock function of the knights.

So who had the horses in India, nomadic tribesmen from the hills, or wealthy Kshatriya nobles or what?

Rajput-Gujjar discussions are blacklisted due to their ability to quickly devolve into mud-slinging flame wars.

Any posts that are controversial enough to raise an eyebrow on the subject will result in your banning from the forum.

But please, feel free to discuss anything that isn't controversial enough