Afzal khan and treachery of Shivaji

[Jaggu]

Both,he knew afzal would try to kill him but also that if he killed afzal it would demoralize enemy army who could then be pounced upon by waiting maratha soldiers.Both self defense and potential gain.

That could be one contributing factor to attacking and killing a leader like Afzal Khan or atleast. The way wars were fought during those times, even if an army was bigger stronger and winning the war, but if the leader was killed, that bigger, stronger army would feel so demoralized that they would flea in panic. This has happened in many battles and wars in history where the winning side loses because it's leader unexpectedly dies. Such was the case during the 2nd battle of Panipat where Hemu was winning against the Mughals. But because Hemu's eye was struck with an arrow he fell unconscious and his army panicked and ran away in confusion.

Shivaji was very daring. He was a small man but he didn't let that hold him back. He brought the war directly to the leaders with his surgical strikes with his hand picked men(who were like commandos of the modern era). He was a very practical person and knew how to win battles.

 

[hussain0216]

How cowardly

 

[asad71]

1.As the Rajputs are a valiant, honorable and chivalrous race so are the Marathas treacherous. The Marathas have always been treacherous, faithless and fickle,striking from the rear being their favorite tactics.

2. Shivaji was nothing more than a brigand. The rising Hindu fundamentalists needed a hero. And they created that in this dacoit.

 

[ExtraOdinary]

1.As the Rajputs area valiant, honorable and chivalrous race so are the Marathas treacherous. The Maraths have always been treacherous, faithless and fickle,striking from the rear being their favorite tactics.

2. Shivaji was nothing more than a brigand. The rising Hindu fundamentalists needed a hero. And they created that in this dacoit.

Understandable you are mad, he kicked your fundamentalist *** .

And yes we Indians have our own local heroes from Shivaji to Rana Pratap, we don't worship a.k.a kiss *** of foreign invaders like you do

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

1.As the Rajputs are a valiant, honorable and chivalrous race so are the Marathas treacherous. The Marathas have always been treacherous, faithless and fickle,striking from the rear being their favorite tactics.

2. Shivaji was nothing more than a brigand. The rising Hindu fundamentalists needed a hero. And they created that in this dacoit.

And what did Muhammad Ghori of Afghanistan do to the chivalrous and honourable Rajput Prithviraj who set Ghori , a war prisoner free after defeating him in the First Battle of Tarain ?

He came back a year later with a larger army , defeated the Rajputs , took him to Afghanistan and killed him there. This was how he returned the Rajput chivalry and honour.

What happened to Afzal Khan was well deserved. I guess by the 17th century Hindus had understood that these invaders do not understand the language of honour and chivalry.

@Pak-one

As a well wisher bro , let me just make a point that Pashtuns/Afghans need to start looking into the future. A lot of things happened in the past for all peoples and civilisations but we have to move on. This is especially true for educated Afghans like you.

Afghan economy in growing rapidly and your homeland just had a massively successful and peaceful elections despite all the odds. These are the things that Afghans should be proud of rather than some invasions or related events that happened centuries ago.

Best of luck to you and all Afghans for a better and more prosperous future.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

And what did Muhammad Ghori of Afghanistan do to the chivalrous and honourable Rajput Prithviraj who set Ghori , a war prisoner free after defeating him in the First Battle of Tarain ?

He came back a year later with a larger army , defeated the Rajputs , took him to Afghanistan and killed him there. This was how he returned the Rajput chivalry and honour.

What happened to Afzal Khan was well deserved. I guess by the 17th century Hindus had understood that these invaders do not understand the language of honour and chivalry.

Prithviraj never captured ghori,ghori was carried off the battlefield by a loyal guard after his army was defeated.Prithviraj lazily allowed him to regroup.This is a common misinformation spread by revisionist overnationalism based on the fictional exxaggerations of chand bardai's romantic poetry,who was court poet of prithviraj.
And ghorids were east iranian tajik descent.
What happened to afzal was indeed well deserved.

 

[Jaggu]

Prithviraj never captured ghori,ghori was carried off the battlefield by a loyal guard after his army was defeated.Prithviraj lazily allowed him to regroup.This is a common misinformation spread by revisionist overnationalism based on the fictional exxaggerations of chand bardai's romantic poetry,who was court poet of prithviraj.
And ghorids were east iranian tajik descent.
What happened to afzal was indeed well deserved.

Chand Bardai was an eye witness to all that happened. And It's not hard to believe that story had indeed occurred. Ancient Kshatriya honour codes were such that if an enemy leader was caught as a POW, he was never killed or mistreated. Usually he was set free. That is why when Raja Porus was in front of Alexander, the Raja expected as per the Kshatriya traditions he grew up in that he would be set free and Alexander too was deeply impressed by Porus that he also did not kill him even though Alexander did not follow such chivalrous traditions himself as seen from his conduct with the Persians.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

Prithviraj never captured ghori,ghori was carried off the battlefield by a loyal guard after his army was defeated.Prithviraj lazily allowed him to regroup.This is a common misinformation spread by revisionist overnationalism based on the fictional exxaggerations of chand bardai's romantic poetry,who was court poet of prithviraj.
And ghorids were east iranian tajik descent.
What happened to afzal was indeed well deserved.

Thanks I have read this version of history as well. Wasn't sure which one was true.

As for Ghorids being Tajiks there is no consensus among historians about their ethnic background. There as many other sources that put them under Pashtuns or Turks. Anyway, they were from the territory of modern day Afghanistan. That we know for sure.

 

[INDIC]

Thanks I have read this version of history as well. Wasn't sure which one was true.

As for Ghorids being Tajiks there is no consensus among historians about their ethnic background. There as many other sources that put them under Pashtuns or Turks. Anyway, they were from the territory of modern day Afghanistan. That we know for sure.

Ghori was a Turk and that's why Turks were his descendants. The names like Aebak, Iltutmish are Turkish names.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

Ghori was a Turk and that's why Turks were his descendants. The names like Aebak, Iltutmish are Turkish names.

Qutb ud din Aibak was not his descendant, he was his Turkic slave. We don't know the Ghorid's ethnicity. Not sure at least. Could be Turk/Pashtun/Tajik.

 

[INDIC]

Qutb ud din Aibak was not his descendant, he was his Turkic slave. We don't know the Ghorid's ethnicity. Not sure at least. Could be Turk/Pashtun/Tajik.

I meant successors, Since Qutub ud din Aibek was a Turk, it higly likely he was too a Turk.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

I meant successors, Since Qutub ud din Aibek was a Turk, it higly likely he was too a Turk.

No man. Qutb ud din was Ghori's slave. That is why his dynasty was called the Slave dynasty. It's not necessary that a Turk's master had to be a Turk only. Could be anybody else like a Tajik or Pashtun. There is no consensus among historians.

 

[Charon 2]

I

Qutb ud din Aibak was not his descendant, he was his Turkic slave. We don't know the Ghorid's ethnicity. Not sure at least. Could be Turk/Pashtun/Tajik.

I think that Ghori could be a mixed Turko-Iranian like Mahmud Ghaznavi but I think that the was either a Tajik or a Pashtun because he has a poetry where he says that the has no sons but thousand of Turkic slaves whom he consider as his sons. Aibak and Iltutmish were definitely Turkic

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

I


I think that Ghori could be a mixed Turko-Iranian like Mahmud Ghaznavi but I think that the was either a Tajik or a Pashtun because he has a poetry where he says that the has no sons but thousand of Turkic slaves whom he consider as his sons. Aibak and Iltutmish were definitely Turkic

People can only guess since there is no historical consensus.

And Ghaznavids are referred to as Turks only. Never heard of Turko-Iranian.

 

[MilSpec]

1.As the Rajputs are a valiant, honorable and chivalrous race so are the Marathas treacherous. The Marathas have always been treacherous, faithless and fickle,striking from the rear being their favorite tactics.

2. Shivaji was nothing more than a brigand. The rising Hindu fundamentalists needed a hero. And they created that in this dacoit.

Please educate yourself, and by doing so you would be doing everyone on the forum a favor....