The Legacy of Chatrapathi Shivaji Maharaj!

[ssanjinika]

Nice work Surya. Eager to read more. My history is kind of messed up here.For instance I was also under the impression that Ghori was before Ghazni.

There is a place in Madurai called 'Ghoripaalayam'. Unreliable sources say it was named so by Malik Kafur (btw what's so special about him ?).

Ok I don't want to jump the gun, pl. continue chronologically.
Carry On

I def seem to remember that Mhud Gazni was the first looter to loot the sub continent.He was to return 16 more times to kill and rob the country.

[Surya]

Nice work Surya. Eager to read more. My history is kind of messed up here.For instance I was also under the impression that Ghori was before Ghazni.

There is a place in Madurai called 'Ghoripaalayam'. Unreliable sources say it was named so by Malik Kafur (btw what's so special about him ?).

Ok I don't want to jump the gun, pl. continue chronologically.
Carry On

I def seem to remember that Mhud Gazni was the first looter to loot the sub continent.He was to return 16 more times to kill and rob the country.

Great to see u guys here!

He was the first, Gori was later.

Malik Kafur. I'll get to him soon. Like u said Chronologically.

[Sudhaama]

Sudhamma, Raghu, Sandeep, Niro, and Lord,
Thank you all very much for coming to the thread.

am sure your intention behind opening this Thread is Quite Healthy, duly conforming to the Scope of this Historical- Section meant for.

I appreciate your way of presentation .. the GLORIOUS REMINISCENSES of our Great Nation India, one of the Prides of Healthy Global-Culture.

Thanks for the incouragement Mr. Sudhamma.

I also want to thank the admin and the mods for not disturbing the thread.

But Surya,

The failure of Indian rulers at that time has to be attributed to their weaknesses. The Rajputs where able to successfully defend themselves (though at great cost) against Mahmud, and I am sure as the chapters go by, you will sure tell us of the great Indian rulers who defended their Kingdoms. It was the lack of unity among Indian rulers and also not investing time, money and effort in creating a powerful defense system that lead to demise of Indian subcontinent. As you mentioned India was Spiritually one but was Politically divided largely because of the vested interests of the rulers (Well we see that even today).

Very True. Yes, I will mention the great Rajputs, and also Mahaveer Pritviraj Maharaj, who united most of the Rajputs to fight against the invader that Lord and Niro mentioned. Muhamad Gori.

We as Indians had everything to defend ourselves, except unity. We had exceptionally brave Kings, we had astonishing war strategies (from the atharvena or Yajur veda I forget which one), but all this was a waste when we didn't have unity. As u will see later on, it was the vengence for small fueds etc that caused India to loose to the Invaders.

Second would be our complesency about everything. I am sure our forefathers would have given a deadly fight where Muhamad came but once he left they would have come back to the easy life. Result he looted us 16 or 17 times.

Exactly! If only our forefather had united and gone after Mahmud to Ghazni he wouldn't have looted us at all. We had an army that made the world's best army at the time (Alexander) cower back! Alexander's army came up to Porus's (Purushothaman) kingdom, and retreated because we were too good. When we could make Alexander the Great's army cower back, why weren't we able to do that with invading tyrants? Did we have unity back then, which later on deteriated in our system?

The gilded lingam of Somnath was broken into pieces, and the stone fragments were carted back to Ghazni, where they were incorporated into the steps of the city's new Jami Masjid.

It was a Masjid? Thank you for correcting me. I had stated that it was a Palace.

In my history books, I thought I read it as Muhammad Ghaur, who had invaded the Indian sub-continent the 1st time, by way of the Khyber Pass!

Muhammad Ghaur, or Gori was another invader, who came after Ghazni. His death will be met by an arrow shot by Mahaveer Pritviraj Maharaj! We will get to him in the upcoming chapters.

Lord,
Quiet Goary indeed. But like I said, the later Invaders would make Ghazni look like a mild invader.
I could get into Thymore, who is one of the worst that bharath has ever seen, he was a turk as well.

Well... I appreciate the active participation by several Friends in a Thought-provoking manner. Yes please continue in the same Trend. of History... as it occurred...

... without adding any Personal Negative-comments nor Provocative statements against any section of Society,or Culture, Faith and so on... by generalising the sense.. generating heat and mutual hatred ..

... which only are Objectionable... Such Negative-attitude we the Common-minded Healthy-hearted Hubbers too will object... irrespective of the Administartors and Moderators

So far OK..

Let us all keep in mind.... the Outspoken Observations by our Great President Mr. Abdul-Kalam...

" It is a Truth of History... that we Indians, especially our Ancestors had suffered under the Dominating Hands of Muslim- Aggressors like Babar, Gajini and Gaori-Mohammad.... Not only our Land and Properties had been looted by these Invaders, but also OUR ANCIENT CULTURE. & HERITAGE..

No Muslim or Hindu or of any Religion should take sides with them... or feel one with such Cruel Entity..

.. Criminal is a Criminal... Aggressor is an Aggressor..WHOEVER HE OR SHE MAY BE... We should not personally think Beyond."

What a SENSIBLE AND HEALTHY OUTLOOK... of our Honourable President... with a Humanitarian-Sense.!!

Let us not transgress from the Topic on Shivaji.. too far. We can just awhile drift away from the Main subject but not miss the Thread.

[Surya]

Yes Sudhamma ji,

So far no one has said anything against any community in India. Mainly because the hubbers participating here do have that sort of outlook. And we will keep it that way.

[Sandeep]

Sorry for breaking the chronology. Just wanted to put some perspective

Rajput supremacy in north India was between the 7th to the 12th centuries.

Before Ghazni two other rulers had raided India

1) Mohalib was an Arab general who made the first raids into South Asia in 664 CE (7th century).

2) 21 year old Syrian Muslim chieftain named Muhammad bin Qasim (for whom Karachi's 2nd port is named). The expedition went as far north as Multan, which at that time was known as the "city of gold," within which was the Sun Mandir (no idea if any remains are found today)

However, the first two rulers didn't at this time come to conquer, seeming only to make explorations.

Then comes Ghazi..

An image I stumbled upon



Now back to you Surya...

[aravindhan]

When we could make Alexander the Great's army cower back, why weren't we able to do that with invading tyrants? Did we have unity back then, which later on deteriated in our system?

I think you are looking at ancient India through today's eyes. Ancient India was not united. It presents a sharp contrast with ancient Greece in this regard. Greece was divided into a number of city states, which constantly fought each other, yet, when things came to a crunch, they were clear that they were all Hellenes, and as such united against outsiders. The history of the Greek wars against Persia speaks for itself.

I don't think ancient India ever had anything even remotely approaching this sentiment - there was no all-encompassing sense of "Indianess", or of owing loyalty to one civilisation or culture. Sure, there was a sense of a shared culture, but that did not translate to a feeling of loyalty to something greater than oneself.

You can see this from its effects. As we all know, Alexander was welcomed with open arms by the king of Taxila who hoped to use him as an ally to fight his enemies. When his soldiers joined the people of the city states who opposed Alexander, the king helped Alexander find and kill the rebellious soldiers. When popular philosophers condemned the kings who joined Alexander and urged the free kingdoms to fight him, the Indian ruling classes rounded up the philosophers and handed them over to Alexander to be put to death. Even Porus eventually became one of Alexander's governors. It was much the same at the time of Ghaznavi's invasion. Ghaznavi was ably assisted by his vazir's secretary, one Tilak, the son of Jai Sen. And Tilak was by no means the only native to join the invaders.

The reason why the kingdoms of the day could eventually beat Alexander was that you had in those days individual powerful kingdoms such as Gandara. Historians such as Plutarch are quite clear in that the rumours of Gandara's armies were enough to cause Alexander's army to mutiny and refuse to march further, thus forcing Alexander to stop his advance.

In Ghaznavi's day, there was no single kingdoms in the north which were that large or powerful. The south had kingdoms which were sufficiently strong (the imperial Cholas were then at the peak of their strength), but they were utterly disinterested in the affairs of the North. Many of the kingdoms of the North (including Ujjain, Gwalior, Bhatiya, Kanauj, and Delhi) did unite against Ghaznavi on one of his early invasions, but there was nothing like the sort of unity the Greeks displayed against the Persians. On the contrary, there was so much expectation of betrayal, that when the king of Bhatiya's elephant stampeded and fled the battlefield after being wounded by an arrow, the other kings thought this was a deliberate action and also retreated, turning victory into defeat.

No, unity, in the Indian context, is something very new, which is why we still seem to have so many problems with it. Personal and regional interests still take precedence in all too many ways.

Sorry for this digression - it will be interesting to see what you have to say about Shivaji. He seems to have been fairly successful in overcoming this syndrome, at least as far as Maharashtra was concerned.

[Surya]

But after Alexander faced failure with Porus (Purushothaman) (Because his army was used to fighting with horses, etc, but they had seen something that they hadn't before, they saw elephants: According to the History Channel) he went down south to fight another Hindu Kingdom. In that battle he was shot by a Poison arrow, his troops retreat taking Alex with them, and then Alex dies a few months later. When was Porus one of Alex's gonveners?

My knoledge isn't very vivid in that time period. I only know about the time period of and after Ghajini. So if I'm wrong, (and there is a good possiblility that I am.) please correct me.

Thanks.

[aravindhan]

But after Alexander faced failure with Porus (Purushothaman) (Because his army was used to fighting with horses, etc, but they had seen something that they hadn't before, they saw elephants: According to the History Channel)

According to contemporary historians, Alexander came perilously close to losing because of the elephants; however, his soldiers were instructed to attack the elephants' mahouts, and they eventually managed to beat Porus. You then had the famous Alexander-Porus conversation, at the end of which Porus was appointed Alexander's satrap over his former kingdom and 15 other provinces. Later, after Alexander's death, Taxila conspired with the local Greek commanders to have Porus murdered. As a result, the region rebelled and invited Chandragupta to invade and liberate it from Greek rule.

In the 1960s, Pakistani historians challenged this version of history. They claimed that Ferdowsi's Persian work Shahnameh said that Alexander had been defeated by Porus, and that the Western accounts should not be believed. These claims were brought to India by Buddha Prakash, who published a book in English repeating them, and the idea that Porus beat Alexander has now gained some currency in popular circles. Most historians, however, reject it, because the Shahnameh is quite unreliable about Alexander - among other things, it makes him the illegitimate son of a Persian emperor, which is absolutely unhistorical.

he went down south to fight another Hindu Kingdom. In that battle he was shot by a Poison arrow, his troops retreat taking Alex with them, and then Alex dies a few months later. When was Porus one of Alex's gonveners?

Alexander fought Porus in 326 BC, and Porus became his governor immediately after the war and remaind so until his (i.e. Porus's) death.

After the war, Alexander had wanted to advance onto the Gangetic valley, but his troops mutinied. They had had a hard enough time beating Porus, and they now faced Gandhara and Magadha, who were much more powerful. Alexander very reluctantly abandoned his plans, and proceeded southwards along the Indus, where he conquered the kingdom of Mallia. During this battle, he was shot by a poisoned arrow, which brought him close to death and left him quite weak, but the traditional histories say that he ultimately won the war. In any event, he lived for another three years during which he conducted a number of further campaigns. He took violently ill in 323 BC, and died after a short illness. There were some rumours at the time that he was poisoned, but there is nothing conclusive either way. It is certainly possible that the poisoned arrow had weakened him greatly, and therefore contributed to his early death, however it does not appear to have been the immediate cause of his death.

[Sudhaama]

Very Nice and Interesting Posting by Mr. ARAVINDHAN. ...

There are a few Hubbers... on whom I am so impressed culminating in a high Image on them in my mind... and whenever I see their NAMES anywhere in the postings under any Thread...

...I used to curiously enter and read through... whichever may be the Topic... and whatever may be its length by content...

... and ENJOY READING ... with a sense of appeasement at the end.
.
One such dignitary is Mr. Aravindhan... I am lucky to have him here... along with such other Elites..

Yes...Mr Aravindhan.... Please Go ahead further and .. feed us with more and more similar rich Foods for our Thoughts and Anxiety to Know the Truth of Wisdom- Sparks.

Thank You very much.

[Surya]

Mr. Aravindhan,

WOW!! U learn something new everyday in this hub!!

But I am still puzzled over what to believe. After reading this, I googled on it, and found most websites saying that Porus defeated Alex. But then again like you said...

the idea that Porus beat Alexander has now gained some currency in popular circles.

Also,
This might be Conservative propaganda, but I've read spmewhere that Alex died due to some sort of STD, since he was homosexual. Though I have a hard time believing it, it's another theory.

Regards.