Print Page | Close Window

Prithviraj III and Rajput cavalry

Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: History of the South Asian subcontinent
Forum Discription: The Indian sub-continent and South Central Asia
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=23690
Printed Date: 13-Jul-2020 at 23:29
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Prithviraj III and Rajput cavalry
Posted By: Shogun 144
Subject: Prithviraj III and Rajput cavalry
Date 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



Replies:
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date 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.

-------------


Posted By: ruffian
Date 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?



Posted By: Temujin
Date 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.


-------------


Posted By: ruffian
Date 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.


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date 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.


-------------


Posted By: Temujin
Date 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.


-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date 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.



-------------


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2008 at 19:50
cavalry is cavalry as long as they ride horses.


-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 07-Mar-2008 at 05:16
No. Dismounted Cavalry is basically infantry, heavy cavalry are shock troops, light skirmishers and scouts.

-------------


Posted By: AP Singh
Date 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.


Posted By: ruffian
Date 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?


Posted By: ruffian
Date 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/11200341.html?page=2

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/raja.html?c=y&page=1 - http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/raja.html?c=y&page=1


Posted By: Temujin
Date 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.


-------------


Posted By: ashokharsana
Date 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


Posted By: ashokharsana
Date 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


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2008 at 18:49
oh boy, do you know that this is blacklisted topic? don't force me to take action...

-------------


Posted By: ashokharsana
Date 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."
 


-------------
The Real Ranas, The Real Emperors of India. http://ashokharsana.proboards107.com/index.cgi?board=gurjars


Posted By: ashokharsana
Date 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


Posted By: ashokharsana
Date 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


Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 19-Mar-2008 at 20:48
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?


-------------


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Mar-2008 at 21:34
prithviraj fought invaders on plains of tarain where cavalry would have been more effective than elephants or even infantry which would be more useful on hills.
 
           any ways cavalry would have been introduced in India by afghans as mounted attacks would have more suited raiders like them.


Posted By: Copperknickers
Date Posted: 22-Jun-2008 at 16:51
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?


Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Jul-2008 at 11:43
Right, Sister-in-Law. Thats that.


-------------


Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 12-Jul-2008 at 01:54
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

-------------


Posted By: pikesman
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2008 at 03:30
LOL..this topic is turning into a laugh riot..

-------------
There are three ways to an argument..your way,my way and the right way !!



Print Page | Close Window

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz - http://www.webwizguide.com