A Brief History of The Warrior Rajputs

[A Town]

Some of them did obviously not in large numbers although I recommend you read the book I mentioned specifically the chapter on India.

Cheers mate, I don't read much but will probably give it a look. You are a good poster but I always see you get in loads of beef lol.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

Rigveda don't considers Indus as the most important river.

Yes it is, followed by mythical Saraswati which may not even exist now.

 

[INDIC]

Yes it is, followed by mythical Saraswati which may not even exist now.

Most of sites are in Haryana and Bahawalpur region around the dried beds of Ghaggar-Hakra river, you once posted some map to validate that. Indus river was the outskirt of Vedic culture and not the most important river in the Rigvedic period.

 

[Android]

most people who write about Buddhism in India say the decline was due to Brahmins targetting Buddhist

Oh please we Brahmins are falsely blamed for all the social evils in Indian society since time immemorial. Truth is our job was mostly perform and preach religious duties and were too less in number to actually have significant impact of political and other affairs of state except of ones involving religion. The main power wielders were Kshatriya(kings/nobles/warriors/military commanders ) and Vaishyas(Traders, Landlords, Artists etc) who were the one on position to exploit extremely lower caste shudras(peasants, labourers, infantrymen, domestic workers)

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

Most of sites are in Haryana and Bahawalpur region around the dried beds of Ghaggar-Hakra river, you once posted some map to validate that. Indus river was the outskirt of Vedic culture and not the most important river in the Rigvedic period.

Again it was most important, expansion to India happened in later phases even in Vedic times. It has been one way traffic. Majority of Ghaggar-Hakra also fall in pakistan.

 

[Truth Finder]

Full of shit, you forget to ad Afghanistan and Iran. Maharashtra? Lets ad Bengal, Bihar and Tamil Nadu as well.

IVC started in Pakistan along Indus and expanded in later phases to North West India. Same with Rig Vedic. Calling it Gangetic Civilization is bs nothing more. Rig Vedic era started 1500 BCE along side Indus river once again. After 500 BCE these people expanded to Ganga and all over India. And gave birth to Ganga Hindusism which hindus follow today.

I did not bother to answer him because I found it funny. These people will find a mud hut in Tamil Nadu and call it an IVC site LOL.

1) keep your bs on ivc to your self.
List of Indus Valley Civilization sites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2) Vedic civilization reached its zenith in the planes of Ganges between 1500 to 500 B.C. before that aryans were vagabonds.
Science, civilization and society
3) by 500 B.C. there was imperial power In India named 16 mahajanapadas already.

Full of shit, you forget to ad Afghanistan and Iran. Maharashtra? Lets ad Bengal, Bihar and Tamil Nadu as well.

IVC started in Pakistan along Indus and expanded in later phases to North West India. Same with Rig Vedic. Calling it Gangetic Civilization is bs nothing more. Rig Vedic era started 1500 BCE along side Indus river once again. After 500 BCE these people expanded to Ganga and all over India. And gave birth to Ganga Hindusism which hindus follow today.

 

[Charon 2]

You are mixing up Mughal and Turkic, Ghilzais are Turkics not Mughals. Mughal is persian rendition of Mongol, Mongols are distantly related to Turkics like Jews to Arabs.

He is not mixing up Mughals with Turkic. The Mughals WERE predominantly Turkic. The mother tongue of Babur was Chagatai Turkic. Neither he nor his great grandfather Timur could speak Mongolic. They were bilingual in Turki and Persian. However after Babur his descendants only spoke Persian and then they got completely Indianized.

Ghilzais were once a mixed Pashtun-Turkic tribe but then they got completely Pashtunized in language and habits so that they became the fully Pashtuns as we know them today

The origin of Ghurids was always disputed but the vast majority of scholars today seem to agree that they were Iranian Tajiks.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

He is not mixing up Mughals with Turkic. The Mughals WERE predominantly Turkic. The mother tongue of Babur was Chagatai Turkic. Neither he nor his great grandfather Timur could speak Mongolic. They were bilingual in Turki and Persian. However after Babur his descendants only spoke Persian and then they got completely Indianized.

Ghilzais were once a mixed Pashtun-Turkic tribe but then they got completely Pashtunized in language and habits so that they became the fully Pashtuns as we know them today

The origin of Ghurids was always disputed but the vast majority of scholars today seem to agree that they were Iranian Tajiks.

Ghilzai call themselves Turkic pashtuns, not mughal pathans like Multani was claiming.

1) keep your bs on ivc to your self.
List of Indus Valley Civilization sites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2) Vedic civilization reached its zenith in the planes of Ganges between 1500 to 500 B.C. before that aryans were vagabonds.
Science, civilization and society
3) by 500 B.C. there was imperial power In India named 16 mahajanapadas already.

Yeah no, first it was OIT and now calling Rig Vedic a Gangetic civilization. Lol

 

[KingMamba]

Cheers mate, I don't read much but will probably give it a look. You are a good poster but I always see you get in loads of beef lol.

Thanks mate and only if your side starts I respond in defense sometimes it gets out of hand I admit.

Oh please we Brahmins are falsely blamed for all the social evils in Indian society since time immemorial. Truth is our job was mostly perform and preach religious duties and were too less in number to actually have significant impact of political and other affairs of state except of ones involving religion. The main power wielders were Kshatriya(kings/nobles/warriors/military commanders ) and Vaishyas(Traders, Landlords, Artists etc) who were the one on position to exploit extremely lower caste shudras(peasants, labourers, infantrymen, domestic workers)

Idk mate the historians talking about Buddhism decline specifically say Brahmins were involved in trying to assimilate or wipe out the Buddhists.

1) keep your bs on ivc to your self.
List of Indus Valley Civilization sites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2) Vedic civilization reached its zenith in the planes of Ganges between 1500 to 500 B.C. before that aryans were vagabonds.
Science, civilization and society
3) by 500 B.C. there was imperial power In India named 16 mahajanapadas already.

I know the sites and I know which were the important centers and which were minor sites. Answer this where did IVC start and did it then expand east or west?

LOL Aryans were migrants but the term as it is used in South asia does not denote their race rather their social standing as "nobles". They were hardly vagabonds in fact they influenced the culture by mixing with the locals and the end result was vedic civilization. (Although in Iran the same term denotes an ethnic group)

You must not know what an imperial power is then as most historians consider the Mauryas the first South Asian imperial power those others were localized kingdoms and do not count as Imperial.

He is not mixing up Mughals with Turkic. The Mughals WERE predominantly Turkic. The mother tongue of Babur was Chagatai Turkic. Neither he nor his great grandfather Timur could speak Mongolic. They were bilingual in Turki and Persian. However after Babur his descendants only spoke Persian and then they got completely Indianized.

Ghilzais were once a mixed Pashtun-Turkic tribe but then they got completely Pashtunized in language and habits so that they became the fully Pashtuns as we know them today

The origin of Ghurids was always disputed but the vast majority of scholars today seem to agree that they were Iranian Tajiks.

Mughals spoke chagatai Turkish but their origin is from the Barlas tribe of the Mongols. Yes later they spoke Persian and inter married with Rajputs of South Asia hence their latest descendants were completely "Indianized".

Yes I know about Ghilzais. No some still say they were Turkics it is split down the middle.

 

[Charon 2]

Ghilzai call themselves Turkic pashtuns, not mughal pathans like Multani was claiming.



Yeah no, first it was OIT and now calling Rig Vedic a Gangetic civilization. Lol

The Ghilzai call themselves what they are : Pashtuns

There is no difference between Ghilzais and Durranis at least not genetically and also culturally as both tribes practice the Pashtunwali. If the Ghilzai would be predominantly Turkic then they would also genetically cluster with Turkic peoples from CA or Afghanistan but they don't because they cluster the closest with Durrani Pashtuns in genetical tests. I know a Ghilzai Pashtun and he calls himself at first a Muslim and then Pashtun. He is not even aware of the partially Turkic origins of Ghilzais. If some Ghilzais want to see themselves as Turkic then they can do it. I don't have anything against it.

 

[KingMamba]

Interesting quote here:
19th-century British ethnologist James Cowles Prichard (Researches Into the Physical History of Mankind, p. 238-239) says (speaking of the Rajputs from Rajasthan): "Of the Rajputs of Rajast'han.—The Rajputs possess all the open and best cultivated country in Rajast'han, and their fortresses crown the summits of its hills. They are distinguished from all the other inhabitants by their manners and physical characters. They are tall in stature, stout and handsome, with hooked noses and arched eye-brows. Their complexion is well known to be comparatively fair."

Anyway you may never read that book so I will tell you what it says about Rajputs, it says that when the British arrived many of the Hindu rajputs were actually following parts of Islam which included the prayers, they venerated Muslim saints and he states that if Muslims had another century of rule the Rajputs would have become entirely Muslim that is how much they were ingraining Islamic rituals into their lifestyle. Rajputs were amongst the greatest Hindu warriors but to say that made them in open opposition to Islam is historically inaccurate and much of the "hate" is due to later politics which the British themselves instigated using their divide and conquer method.

He also mentions different ethnic groups in the subcontinent not to mention the rest of the world (this was just the chapter on South Asia) and he mentions the instances when forced conversions happened so it is a pretty accurate neutral book at least imo. I just thought you would find the Rajput part interesting.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

The Ghilzai call themselves what they are : Pashtuns

There is no difference between Ghilzais and Durranis at least not genetically and also culturally as both tribes practice the Pashtunwali. If the Ghilzai would be predominantly Turkic then they would also genetically cluster with Turkic peoples from CA or Afghanistan but they don't because they cluster the closest with Durrani Pashtuns in genetical tests. I know a Ghilzai Pashtun and he calls himself at first a Muslim and then Pashtun. He is not even aware of the partially Turkic origins of Ghilzais. If some Ghilzais want to see themselves as Turkic then they can do it. I don't have anything against it.

What i meant to say Ghilzai have turkic origin, though some people believe turkic most have some mongloid in them. But i don't see that in any Ghilzai i have seen. They probably adapted Turkic culture? Resident @ghilzai should know better.

Yes they are pashtuns and not mughals, thats what i was getting at.

 

[KingMamba]

You better watch some maps.

Been through this.

The Ghilzai call themselves what they are : Pashtuns

There is no difference between Ghilzais and Durranis at least not genetically and also culturally as both tribes practice the Pashtunwali. If the Ghilzai would be predominantly Turkic then they would also genetically cluster with Turkic peoples from CA or Afghanistan but they don't because they cluster the closest with Durrani Pashtuns in genetical tests. I know a Ghilzai Pashtun and he calls himself at first a Muslim and then Pashtun. He is not even aware of the partially Turkic origins of Ghilzais. If some Ghilzais want to see themselves as Turkic then they can do it. I don't have anything against it.

Yeah they call themselves Pakhtun but they recognize their Turkic roots although they no longer speak any dialect of Turkish.

No Durranis are considered to be descended from the Scythians and are related distantly to Rajputs of South Asia who some say have the same ancestral relation.

Sarbans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Sarbans include many Pashtun tribes, among whom the most numerous are the Durrani, Shinwari, Yusufzai, Mohmand, Kasi, Khalil, Tareen, Miani and Ormur tribes.

The name Saraban is evidently a corrupted, or perhaps a natural variant form of Suryabans the solar or royal race now represented in India by the Rajput. Similarly the names of the Saraban's sons Khrishyiin and Sharjyun, and of his grandson Sheorani, are clearly changed forms of the common Rajput and Brahman proper names Krishan, Surjan, and Shivaram or Sheoram [6]

The name itself is similar (or identical) with the name of an historical tribe on Caucasus that was also named Sarbani (the Caucasian tribe was recorded under this name in the 10th century). According to some opinions, these Caucasian Sarbani are identified with Serbs .[7][8][9][10] Pashtuns are believed to be of Scythian descent[11] and their language is classified as East Scythian[12] (Sarmatian language is also grouped within Scythian branch).

@A Town you will find this interesting as well as it includes one rajput origin theory.

Although I think most genetics show most Afghans as Eastern Iranics except those who claim Turkic origin like the Ghilzais.

 

[Charon 2]

Thanks mate and only if your side starts I respond in defense sometimes it gets out of hand I admit.



Idk mate the historians talking about Buddhism decline specifically say Brahmins were involved in trying to assimilate or wipe out the Buddhists.



I know the sites and I know which were the important centers and which were minor sites. Answer this where did IVC start and did it then expand east or west?

LOL Aryans were migrants but the term as it is used in South asia does not denote their race rather their social standing as "nobles". They were hardly vagabonds in fact they influenced the culture by mixing with the locals and the end result was vedic civilization. (Although in Iran the same term denotes an ethnic group)

You must not know what an imperial power is then as most historians consider the Mauryas the first South Asian imperial power those others were localized kingdoms and do not count as Imperial.



Mughals spoke chagatai Turkish but their origin is from the Barlas tribe of the Mongols. Yes later they spoke Persian and inter married with Rajputs of South Asia hence their latest descendants were completely "Indianized".

Yes I know about Ghilzais. No some still say they were Turkics it is split down the middle.

Thanks mate and only if your side starts I respond in defense sometimes it gets out of hand I admit.



Idk mate the historians talking about Buddhism decline specifically say Brahmins were involved in trying to assimilate or wipe out the Buddhists.



I know the sites and I know which were the important centers and which were minor sites. Answer this where did IVC start and did it then expand east or west?

LOL Aryans were migrants but the term as it is used in South asia does not denote their race rather their social standing as "nobles". They were hardly vagabonds in fact they influenced the culture by mixing with the locals and the end result was vedic civilization. (Although in Iran the same term denotes an ethnic group)

You must not know what an imperial power is then as most historians consider the Mauryas the first South Asian imperial power those others were localized kingdoms and do not count as Imperial.



Mughals spoke chagatai Turkish but their origin is from the Barlas tribe of the Mongols. Yes later they spoke Persian and inter married with Rajputs of South Asia hence their latest descendants were completely "Indianized".

Yes I know about Ghilzais. No some still say they were Turkics it is split down the middle.

In Pashtun forums Ghilzais seem to be proud of being Pashtuns only. There are also many Ghilzais who reject any Turkic influences on them because they don't look Mongoloid. At least that was my experience. I know only one member here who is a Ghilzai and connects themselves with Turkic peoples.

 

[KingMamba]

In most Pashtun forums the Ghilzai are quite proud of being Pashtuns

In Pashtun forums Ghilzais seem to be proud of being Pashtuns only. There are also many Ghilzais who reject any Turkic influences on them because they don't look Mongoloid. At least that was my experience. I know only one member here who is a Ghilzai and connects themselves with Turkic peoples.

Nothing wrong with that Pashtun has become a distinct culture on its own. Although looking Mongoloid is not the only criteria for being Turkic lol most of you Turks in Turkey look Caucasian not Mongoloid.