Prithviraj III and Rajput cavalry

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

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?

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.

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.

cavalry is cavalry as long as they ride horses.

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

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

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.

oh boy, do you know that this is blacklisted topic? don't force me to take action...