Battle for Chitor: Storming the Last Hindu Fortress in 1567

[bhangi bava]

found this video on you tube

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

Indians are quite weird. First they say Mughals are foreigners that should have been kicked out but then run to claim Mughal heritage. Stockholm syndrome or what? Confused lot. A thousand years of being ruled as servants does tend to produce an inferior complex, can't blame them.

Dont tell me that u guys ruled

 

[haviZsultan]

An unwanted comment in a irrevelant situation...

I admire Hindus btw. They had their own gallant empires and nations like the Chola, Pala, Dharamshala, Sashanka, Palavas, Pandyas and many others. This is part of the subcontinents rich history. By the way like your username, Rajaraja Chola the ruler of the Chola Empire. Not many know about him.

 

[Indian Patriot]

The south Indian empire is underrated.

 

[Levina]

This was the alternative. Does not prove he was overflowing with tolerance. But yes, he was better than the rest of the Mughals.

well we are discussing Akbar here.
He for one, was impressed by the chivalry and faithfulness of the Rajputs and he realized that the support of Rajputs was necessary to establish a large and stable empire, so Rajputs were treated with honour and equality. In return Rajputs were allowed to hold their ancestral territories, but ofcourse, they 'd to acknowledge the Mughal sovereignty and supply troops when required. Symbiosis!!!

Rajputs failed most of the times fighting the invaders.

They also have no good strategy of empire building. Also at that time these guys are limited to their small kingdoms and fought with each other.

I agree but Rajput were our first line of defense, from their childhood they were trained for a war. So Rajputs, excelled in combat when they spread out to fight 1 on 1, they even surpassed the turks. Slightly over rated but rajputana made the enemy piddle in fear.
Yes they had disadvantages, they failed to form an empire,they were ill-organized and ill-equipped,heavy reliance on elephants, and followed rules of the game till the end while mughals believed all was fair in war.
I wish Marathas and rajputs had not fought among themselves, instead they should 've fought against the Mughals.

 

[Indian Patriot]

The turkish archers were the best fighters of their time, they were undefeated and certainly feared none. And what srinivas has said is partially true.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

I admire Hindus btw. They had their own gallant empires and nations like the Chola, Pala, Dharamshala, Sashanka, Palavas, Pandyas and many others. This is part of the subcontinents rich history. By the way like your username, Rajaraja Chola the ruler of the Chola Empire. Not many know about him.

Haha thanks. I had browsed the forum for quite long before signing up in quite 2010. At those times, people were randomly discussing Northern, Western, Central Asian empires only. I took up this name to spread a awareness about the southern empires in general. Other than the Cholas, Vijaynagara Empire is my favourite, considering the Golden age associated with it and my early attraction to tales regarding Tenali Raman and the King. Which makes me realise, what we learn in our childhood is for the rest of the life. And now with lot more members, many are aware indeed

I believe history is for learning things which we shouldnt repeat in future. Hate the usage of "if" and "buts". Learn from it, apply in current life.

 

[haviZsultan]

Haha thanks. I had browsed the forum for quite long before signing up in quite 2010. At those times, people were randomly discussing Northern, Western, Central Asian empires only. I took up this name to spread a awareness about the southern empires in general. Other than the Cholas, Vijaynagara Empire is my favourite, considering the Golden age associated with it and my early attraction to tales regarding Tenali Raman and the King. Which makes me realise, what we learn in our childhood is for the rest of the life. And now with lot more members, many are aware indeed

I believe history is for learning things which we shouldnt repeat in future. Hate the usage of "if" and "buts". Learn from it, apply in current life.

I think both India and Pakistan have murdered the other religions history in their respective countries. You wouldn't believe how difficult it is to find a book on Hindu maharajas and kingdoms, particularly which are from the Hindu point of view. I guess its the same problem in India. My cousins in Lucknow know nothing of the Durranis Lodhis samanids, banu ilyas, Ghaznavids, Ghorids Samna kingdom and soomra kingdom (though very few in Pakistan too know the latter two-partly because its ethnic history).

I believe there are always 2 or more opinions on history. For example Babur may be a hero for many muslims but a villain for most Hindus. We should not argue on whether he was a tyrant or a munifecent leader as that just proves how bigoted we are. We should record the views of both sides or all sides and then let the student of history make up his own mind. I think history courses in our colleges and schools can greatly be improved if we follow these guidelines.

 

[Viking 63]

good historical read, keep it that way.

 

[Kabira]

well we are discussing Akbar here.
He for one, was impressed by the chivalry and faithfulness of the Rajputs and he realized that the support of Rajputs was necessary to establish a large and stable empire, so Rajputs were treated with honour and equality. In return Rajputs were allowed to hold their ancestral territories, but ofcourse, they 'd to acknowledge the Mughal sovereignty and supply troops when required. Symbiosis!!!



I agree but Rajput were our first line of defense, from their childhood they were trained for a war. So Rajputs, excelled in combat when they spread out to fight 1 on 1, they even surpassed the turks. Slightly over rated but rajputana made the enemy piddle in fear.
Yes they had disadvantages, they failed to form an empire,they were ill-organized and ill-equipped,heavy reliance on elephants, and followed rules of the game till the end while mughals believed all was fair in war.
I wish Marathas and rajputs had not fought among themselves, instead they should 've fought against the Mughals.

Why are you writing bs?, central asian Turks were superior in 1+1 fight. No comparision there what so ever.

Rajputs failed most of the times fighting the invaders.

They also have no good strategy of empire building. Also at that time these guys are limited to their small kingdoms and fought with each other.

As if India ever was single entity, no need to blame rajputs for failed defence. And as far as fighting between themselves, thats how they become rulers of small kingdoms to begin with! Nothing was offered on plate, at least fighting between themselves meant they were preparad for invasions.

Since no one was ready to share anything, end result was always war.

 

[Levina]

Why are you writing bs?, central asian Turks were superior in 1+1 fight. No comparision there what so ever.

FYI- The Turkish archers shooting arrows from their horses had an advantage over the Rajput soldiers with their swords which could become effective only if they could reach close to the enemy. Turks, if faced the rajputs, with their swords would have been decapitated.

 

[Srinivas]

Why are you writing bs?, central asian Turks were superior in 1+1 fight. No comparision there what so ever.

I think you lack the historic facts. Mongols who are physically weak conquered every thing they came across, forged the largest empire humans have ever seen.

As if India ever was single entity, no need to blame rajputs for failed defence.

Why not blame these guys when they were given higher status in society and it is their responsibility to defend?
The phrase "India is not a single entity" is not even Pakistani, it was coined by British and also most of the ideology of Pakistanis came from Cambridge Britain.
Do not tell us what India is and what India should be, you are uttering borrowed words, like puppets.

And as far as fighting between themselves, thats how they become rulers of small kingdoms to begin with!

And there is no one between 12th to 19th century to rise and unite or forge an empire, are they even kings or rulers?

Nothing was offered on plate, at least fighting between themselves meant they were preparad for invasions.

What do you mean by nothing is offered in plate?
Nothing is offered in plate and that is how things work.

Since no one was ready to share anything, end result was always war.

They are made ruling class what more these guys want?
And these guys do not even have the thing called unity and helping nature between themselves.
Add to that stupid arrogance and pathetic assumptions.

 

[Kabira]

I think you lack the historic facts. Mongols who are physically weak conquered every thing they came across, forged the largest empire humans have ever seen.


Why not blame these guys when they were given higher status in society and it is their responsibility to defend?
The phrase "India is not a single entity" is not even Pakistani, it was coined by British and also most of the ideology of Pakistanis came from Cambridge Britain.
Do not tell us what India is and what India should be, you are uttering borrowed words, like puppets.


And there is no one between 12th to 19th century to rise and unite or forge an empire, are they even kings or rulers?


What do you mean by nothing is offered in plate?
Nothing is offered in plate and that is how things work.

They are made ruling class what more these guys want?
And these guys do not even have the thing called unity and helping nature between themselves.
Add to that stupid arrogance and pathetic assumptions.

In OP it says rajputs were invaders who established themselves in Hindustan. So they were not given higher status, they earned it initially. You are assuming rajputs were made ruling class by native Indians to fight invaders which is bs.

 

[Srinivas]

In OP it says rajputs were invaders who established themselves in Hindustan. So they were not given higher status, they earned it initially. You are assuming rajputs were made ruling class by native Indians to fight invaders which is bs.

Yes they were given status after their invasion of some weak kingdoms in North west India.
The issue is they have not lived upto the title. I think the status after the lost is not necessary.

 

[Kabira]

Yes they were given status after their invasion of some weak kingdoms in North west India.
The issue is they have not lived upto the title. I think the status after the lost is not necessary.

So they were invaders who established themselves and then they were expected to defend hindustan from another set of invaders? You know what Timur though before invading Hindustan?

"Some of the nobles said “By the favour of Almighty God we may conquer India, but if we establish ourselves permanently therein, our race will degenerate and our children will become like the natives of those regions, and in a few generations their strength and valour will diminish.”

Malfuzat