Ghaznavids had large number of Hindus in their army

[halupridol]

interesting thread,,lol martial slaves

 

[!eon]

What is wrong? This is a fact that not many know, and that is why it seems unlikely. Please consult the sources.

My tribe is among the first of the Afghans, which crossed HinduKush. They were spearheading force of Sultan.
The land, on which my tribe lives in Pakistan was a gift from Sultan.
You might know who tribes in Pakistan preserve and transfer their history to next generations. I got better sources about Ghaznavids.

 

[Attila the Hun]

That's how 100% pure BS looks like

That is exactly what it is. 100% bs

 

[halupridol]

Poor Hindus of that part whose bravery was reduced to either change of faith or enslavement.... All hail to bravery of mass murderers ....

What r u on about,,what mass murderers,,they allowed these pagan martial slaves to live n practice thr religion,didnt they?
pashtuns were strong n brave,unlike the incompetent poor cowards living around indus.which is why,They got humiliated n conquered time after time by almost every invading force.
Yaa those poor,so called martial ppl were slaughtered enmasse n got a mountain named after thr humiliation,,but thn again price for eternal cowardice has to be paid in grand

 

[Attila the Hun]

Ghaznavids were 100% TURKS. nothing else, they did not need to recruit any Hindus, for gods sake.
Please stop the trolling .

What is wrong? This is a fact that not many know, and that is why it seems unlikely. Please consult the sources.

It's a fact that Ghaznavids were Turks, the ARMY were TURKS too. with a little bit of Afghans.

Really an abominable post.
Please don't let your prejudices interfere with the evidence. Look up Kanauj.

He is right. The Ghaznavids would never have recruited any Hindus. Stop inventing imaginary evidence. We know our history a lot more than you do.
Give this a negative rating if it would make you happy

 

[Attila the Hun]

Dont insult your pakistani brothers.

Where did I insult Pakistanis??

 

[Attila the Hun]

The erstwhile hindus were taking some pride in being part of invading forces.

Bloody hilarious, Ghaznavids did not let anyone else in the army. that is how it was.
I am waiting for these "evidence" to prove me wrong though.

 

[Attila the Hun]

I never wanted to prove you wrong, infact you are most probably right.

Its just those enslaved and humiliated are trying to salvage some pride by linking them to be part of ruling army who are unfortunately current pakistani erstwhile hindus.

The same people see these foreign forces as heroes and cry of foreign occupation even if considered as equals and given respect.

I agree with you.
The Turkic dynasties back then didn't recruit much non-Turks, that is why it was successful IMO.

 

[Attila the Hun]

Ghaznavids had a little bit of Afghan and Pakistanis....No where does it state it had Hindus.

 

[Braith]

Ghaznavids had a little bit of Afghan and Pakistanis....No where does it state it had Hindus.

Mr.Ottoman, no nation by name of Pakistan existed in 10th and 11th centuries AD. The famous historian C.E.Bosworth has consulted following contemporary sources of the Ghaznavid period for the content from which i have taken extracts ;

1- "Kitab-al-Yamini" whose author Utbi was court historian of Mahmud Ghaznavi

2- "Zain-ul-Akhbar" whose author Abdu Said Gardezi was contemporary of Mahmud Ghaznavi

3- "Tarikh-i-Al-sebuktegin" by Baihaqi who was court historian of Masud Ghaznavi (son of Mahmud Ghaznavi)

4- "Siyasat-nama" by Nizam-ul-mulk whose father was an official in the service of Sultan Mahmud and Masud.

According to Baihaqi (page-52) on one occasion (in 1031) Sultan Masud Ghaznavi's escort to capital comprised of 300 Indian cavalry and 200 Indian infantry and was provided with three Indian ghulams as his personal servants. (original word used is 'Hindu', translator has 'Indian' in english)

According to Utbi (page- 84), in 1008 AD, Sultan Mahmud faced the Qarakhanids with a mixed army of "Indians (Hindus), Afghans, Oghuz, Khalaj and local troops from Ghazna"

@Joe Shearer
@!eon
@Kambojaric
@xxx[{::::::::::::::::::>

 

[Kambojaric]

Apart from the primary question that you put, which can be answered separately, the Kamboh is a very interesting ethnic group. They date back to very ancient times, and can be identified with the Scythians. No time now to digress on this, but even a cursory examination will be fascinating.

An interesting people especially because they seem to flip flop between the iranic and indic worlds. The parama kamboja kingdom is said to have existed around modern day Tajikistan, Uzbekistan. And on the other side some Kamboh/Kamboj are said to have migrated as far East as Sri Lanka and Cambodia!

I doubt that. The Hindus in Ghaznavid army are clearly mentioned as "ghilman" and "mamalik", meaning slaves......and they were captives from Indian campaigns of Ghaznavids, including Peshawar and Punjab. The free mercenaries in Ghazni's army were either Afghans or Khiljis from the environs of Ghazni. While the free regular corps (other than slave corps) mostly consisted of Arabs, Kurds and Khorasanians. The contemporary sources are that of Utbi, Bayhaiqi and Gardezi.

The Komboh nawab claiming to be wazir of Mahmud Ghaznavi, is a false one not corroborated by any contemporary or near contemporary source. Such claims have been made by several such nawabs in India to make their genealogy and history illustrious.

Indeed, I have tried looking for some other sources but can't seem to find much on that wazir. Btw slave soldiers were a common feature in Turkic armies so people who are laughing at this notion as fantastical need to know that sebuktigin, the father of Mahmud was also a slave. (Slave has a very negative connotation in the modern era, but the mediaeval Islamic slave soldiers were accorded a high status, and many times gained so much influence they could actually overthrow ruling dynastiss, examples being the Mamluk dynasties in Egypt and of course in the Delhi sultunate as well, Qutbuddin Aibek being another example).

 

[Joe Shearer]

My tribe is among the first of the Afghans, which crossed HinduKush. They were spearheading force of Sultan.
The land, on which my tribe lives in Pakistan was a gift from Sultan.
You might know who tribes in Pakistan preserve and transfer their history to next generations. I got better sources about Ghaznavids.

Oral history and tribal tradition is fine, but I prefer historical evidence. What you have mentioned is not historical evidence.

Ghaznavids were 100% TURKS. nothing else, they did not need to recruit any Hindus, for gods sake.
Please stop the trolling .



It's a fact that Ghaznavids were Turks, the ARMY were TURKS too. with a little bit of Afghans.



He is right. The Ghaznavids would never have recruited any Hindus. Stop inventing imaginary evidence. We know our history a lot more than you do.
Give this a negative rating if it would make you happy

Buffalos and bigots have thick hides. No point in taking a stick to them; they are content to wallow in comfort in their ignorance.

An interesting people especially because they seem to flip flop between the iranic and indic worlds. The parama kamboja kingdom is said to have existed around modern day Tajikistan, Uzbekistan. And on the other side some Kamboh/Kamboj are said to have migrated as far East as Sri Lanka and Cambodia!

Well, you seem to be well up on this! A pleasant surprise; thank you very much!

The Kamboh/Kamboja migration to the east is of course tenuous; it is thought that they passed through Tibet in their journey. Very slim, especially as there are no traces, physical or cultural, of their passage. On the other hand, the story of the Ahoms makes us pause and step back from rejecting this theory about the Kambohs outright.

Indeed, I have tried looking for some other sources but can't seem to find much on that wazir. Btw slave soldiers were a common feature in Turkic armies so people who are laughing at this notion as fantastical need to know that sebuktigin, the father of Mahmud was also a slave. (Slave has a very negative connotation in the modern era, but the mediaeval Islamic slave soldiers were accorded a high status, and many times gained so much influence they could actually overthrow ruling dynastiss, examples being the Mamluk dynasties in Egypt and of course in the Delhi sultunate as well, Qutbuddin Aibek being another example).

....not to forget the Janissaries.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

Why are people here so butt-hurt about this?

Many of these empires fought Indian kingdoms by allying with local kingdoms, no brainer they had local populations in their army.

Only major difference being nobility and ruling class was purely Turk only i.e no Afghans or subcontinent Muslims allowed.

Perhaps the first noticeable change in this practice was Alahuddin Khilji's appointment of Malik Kafur (a local Muslim) as a general.

It was the later Mughals who went on with diversification, though subcontinent's Muslims were still mocked in the courts.

 

[haviZsultan]

Whats the problem if the army had hindus in it. It only proves the inclusive and unorthodox nature of our Islamic ancestors and their secular model perhaps puts todays Islamic chauvinists to shame. Secularism and equal treatment won us the world, not senseless killing. The Ghaznavids are not the only Islamic nation to have treated non-muslims well.

 

[Attila the Hun]

Why are people here so butt-hurt about this?

Many of these empires fought Indian kingdoms by allying with local kingdoms, no brainer they had local populations in their army.

Only major difference being nobility and ruling class was purely Turk only i.e no Afghans or subcontinent Muslims allowed.

Perhaps the first noticeable change in this practice was Alahuddin Khilji's appointment of Malik Kafur (a local Muslim) as a general.

It was the later Mughals who went on with diversification, though subcontinent's Muslims were still mocked in the courts.

That's the thing, they had no non Turks in the army. Well, if they did it was very small in number, not even worth mentioning
People might bring up Ottomans and the Janissaries but, they were mostly Turks too.
Anyways, like I said, chances are hardly any Hindus in the Ghaznavids. Afghans maybe yeah, and Pakistanis i suppose. that is it.

Whats the problem if the army had hindus in it. It only proves the inclusive and unorthodox nature of our Islamic ancestors and their secular model perhaps puts todays Islamic chauvinists to shame. Secularism and equal treatment won us the world, not senseless killing. The Ghaznavids are not the only Islamic nation to have treated non-muslims well.

Nothing wrong with it, come on now, who says there's anything wrong with having Hindus in the medieval Turkic armies?

Mr.Ottoman, no nation by name of Pakistan existed in 10th and 11th centuries AD. The famous historian C.E.Bosworth has consulted following contemporary sources of the Ghaznavid period for the content from which i have taken extracts ;

1- "Kitab-al-Yamini" whose author Utbi was court historian of Mahmud Ghaznavi

2- "Zain-ul-Akhbar" whose author Abdu Said Gardezi was contemporary of Mahmud Ghaznavi

3- "Tarikh-i-Al-sebuktegin" by Baihaqi who was court historian of Masud Ghaznavi (son of Mahmud Ghaznavi)

4- "Siyasat-nama" by Nizam-ul-mulk whose father was an official in the service of Sultan Mahmud and Masud.

According to Baihaqi (page-52) on one occasion (in 1031) Sultan Masud Ghaznavi's escort to capital comprised of 300 Indian cavalry and 200 Indian infantry and was provided with three Indian ghulams as his personal servants. (original word used is 'Hindu', translator has 'Indian' in english)

According to Utbi (page- 84), in 1008 AD, Sultan Mahmud faced the Qarakhanids with a mixed army of "Indians (Hindus), Afghans, Oghuz, Khalaj and local troops from Ghazna"

@Joe Shearer
@!eon
@Kambojaric
@xxx[{::::::::::::::::::>

Busy now, will reply to all that soon.