Islam’s War of Annihilation Against Hindus

[anonymus]

it is not you who invaded. You were also invaded by the islamic invaders. So stop praising those who invaded us both.

Pakistan was under Muslim invaders for the longest period of time. So most of the population there and other Indian areas under Muslim rule for longer periods of time had to convert. But a normal person would rather convert then see his family being harmed. It is not the fault of those who converted under pressure. The Indian Kingdoms of those times should have come together to defend against the invaders.

At the same time, it doesnt condone the barbarism of the invading forces and their killings and conversions by force of the peaceful people of Hindustan.


Yes I mean there was not enough United Manpower to defend.

Indian rulers lacked mounted cavalry which put them at disadvantage compared to muslims from central asia. Elephant cavalry is not highly effective against mobile forces.

Goa was a very important port because it was the sole point for import of horses in south India. Portugese played one local ruler against other by controlling horse trade.

Whenever India's cavalry wing was strong, it had effectively repelled external invasion like in battle of rajasthen which put an end to Arab challenge to India.

 

[timetravel]

Indian rulers lacked mounted cavalry which put them at disadvantage compared to muslims from central asia. Elephant cavalry is not highly effective against mobile forces.

Goa was a very important port because it was the sole point for import of horses in south India. Portugese played one local ruler against other by controlling horse trade.

Whenever India's cavalry wing was strong, it had effectively repelled external invasion like in battle of rajasthen which put an end to Arab challenge to India.

but still if the Indian Kingdoms had shown a united military front I am sure the Islamic invaders would not have succeeded at all.

Together they would have managed to put together mounted cavalry also. India was rich and lot more resources then the invading forces specially as the Indian Kingdoms were fighting at home. Just that the resources were divided and could never be put together to fight the invaders.

 

[anonymus]

but still if the Indian Kingdoms had shown a united military front I am sure the Islamic invaders would not have succeeded at all.

Together they would have managed to put together cavalry also.

The central problem with cavalry was that, good quality horses were not bred in India so unless there is a route open to import them, which India lost after defeat of hindushahi rulers at the hand of ghaznavi, the source of good quality horse was cut off.

After the war with arabs has ended, even relations with them became normal ( they mounted no further invasions in India ) and were biggest supplier of horses to India.

India could have won only under exceptional generalship or when terrain favored them.

 

[Hobo1]

Partition 2.0 is just round the corner. Secular India keep

 

[SURYA-1]

The central problem with cavalry was that, good quality horses were not bred in India so unless there is a route open to import them, which India lost after defeat of hindushahi rulers at the hand of ghaznavi, the source of good quality horse was cut off.

After the war with arabs has ended, even relations with them became normal ( they mounted no further invasions in India ) and were biggest supplier of horses to India.

India could have won only under exceptional generalship or when terrain favored them.

But Prithvi Raj Chauhan defeated ghazni 16 times.Why didn't he killed him ?? 16 times is way too much.

 

[timetravel]

Partition 2.0 is just round the corner. Secular India keep

Not happening bro. dont worry. The demographics not that bad as of now. Need to keep a eye on the future though.

 

[anonymus]

But Prithvi Raj Chauhan defeated ghazni 16 times.Why didn't he killed him ?? 16 times is way too much.

Prithvi raj chauhan and ghazni are of different time period . No battle took place between them.

Ghazni is from 1000 AD and prithviraj from ~1200 AD. that is 200 year difference.

Prithviraj fought with Ghauri and defeated him in first battle of tarain in 1192 but did not pushed to punjab which was gauri's base and was relatively undefended. This gave him a chance to regroup and attack again after equipping his army with better armor.

Ghazni faced resistance from hindushahi rulers which used elephant cavalry and this was an important reason for their defeat as elephant has a uncanny characteristic of turning on their own armies.

 

[timetravel]

Prithvi raj chauhan and ghazni are of different time period . No battle took place between them.

Ghazni is from 1000 AD and prithviraj from ~1200 AD. that is 200 year difference.

Prithviraj fought with Ghauri and defeated him in first battle of tarain in 1192 but did not pushed to punjab which was gauri's base and was relatively undefended. This gave him a chance to regroup and attack again after equipping his army with better armor.

Ghazni faced resistance from hindushahi rulers which used elephant cavalry and this was an important reason for their defeat as elephant has a uncanny characteristic of turning on their own armies.

So we lost because we had Elephants and Invaders won because they had horses...

 

[anonymus]

So we lost because we had Elephants and Invaders won because they had horses...

Invaders won because they have horses, true but we did not lose because of elephants. I was talking about this particular battle.

At this point, Raja Jayapala of the Kabul Shahi dynasty attempted to gain revenge for an earlier military defeat at the hands of Mahmud's father, who had controlled Ghazni in the late 980s and had cost Jayapala extensive territory. His son Anandapala succeeded him and continued the struggle to avenge his father's suicide. He assembled a powerful confederacy which faced defeat as his elephant turned back from the battle in a crucial moment, turning the tide into Mahmud's favor once more at Lahore in 1008 bringing Mahmud into control of the Hindu Shahi dominions of Updhanpura

Elephants had a role in Indian battles. Even mughals employed them. They were effective against infantry but not against cavalry.

 

[HongWu]

Most Hindus were left unharmed after Muslim invasion... If Muslims wanted they could have converted and enslaved all you Hindus.. But they didnt, because they knew you Hindus will never come out of stone age mentality & culture of throwing your widows into fire or discriminating between colors.

Now the Hindus think they are powerful cuz they defeated Mughal with Most help of British, which later British enslaved them, did more harm to them than what Mughal did, and basically left the rich and prosperious Hindustan, to the $hit, third world dump called India.

Yes the Hindus backstabbed their benevolent Muslim rulers who had mercy on them instead of killing them. After backstabbing with British help they begin to worship Westerners and today they are third world India, plotting evil against their neighbors and begging to ally with USA.

 

[anonymus]

Yes the Hindus backstabbed their benevolent Muslim rulers who had mercy on them instead of killing them. After backstabbing with British help they begin to worship Westerners and today they are third world India, plotting evil against their neighbors and begging to ally with USA.

Idiot,

Muslim rule for all practical purpose ended in 1707 with the death of muhamad shah,heir of Aurengzeb.

British defeated Marathas (hindu) which were dominant power in India from 1700's onward in second anglo-maratha war along with some assorted small kingdoms like Sikh's, Bengal, Hyderabad and Mysore.

 

[Kompromat]

lol lol lol..do you guys really believe that ? the whole religion of peace thing ?

One chooses to troll and post stupid one liners, only after knowing that he has no arguments. Your amusement rather depicts your ignorance than your self presumed status of the beacon of knowledge over the under discussion topic, just don't expect people to believe that.