Maharaja Ranjit Singh, the conqueror of Afghanistan

[Sashan]

I stand partially corrected.

I wasnt aware of what you brought out.

However , the areas of SE asia including Indonesia were under Chola Influence not direct rule like Ashoka & Ranjit Singh. Maybe because of non geographical contiguity.

Many kingdoms in South East Asia paid tributes to Chola Kingdom after a naval expedition. While within India, he went upto Ganges.

Having stated that, I was only disputing your statement "After Emperor Ashok, he was the only Indian ruler who carried the sword outside the borders of the Sub Continent." and not about ruling an area.

 

[Bhairava]

And this is the thread title.

Maharaja Ranjit Singh, the conqueror of Afghanistan

While in yr Map you draw the line till Durand line lol

Dont afghans say anything west of Indus is Afghania ?

 

[Marwat Khan Lodhi]

How exactly he was conqourer of afghanistan? He occupied only peshawer and surrounding areas , which were border areas of afghanistan. Another area which he snatched from afghanistan was kashmir, but he was able to do so because local kashmiris betrayed their afghan rulers.
Any how crossing indus to west and defeating afghans was a big deal, ranjeet singh was indeed a greater military stretagist. I think he is the one and only punjabi conqueror.

 

[Sashan]

Sadly they dont read about that in the history books, specially the CBSE/NCERT ones. pages are not enough to glorify the mughals and the delhi sultanates. How come native kings like Raja raja and Rajendra will be mentioned ?

*facepalm*



Actually it was. The Chola Navy played a crucial role in maintaining the hold over those kingdoms and the King's representative held suzerainity over the local kings.

I asked my wife who grew in Delhi whether she read about the Chola dynasty and she said the history books at school barely mentioned about them. It is very unfortunate that many Indians are unware of this great dynasty. A BBC documentary whicb was about India covered Chola dynasty in depth while the Indian books talks only about Maurya, Gupta, Delhi Sultanate and Mughal rule.

 

[EjazR]

IMO, it is only the Cholas who actually had an out of Indian subcontinent influence and rule.

It really depends on how you define "historic India". This basically includes the entire SAARC countries as well as the lower Central Asian countries which have had close ties and migrations into the Indus Valley regions for many centuries and are part of Indian mythology since the time of the Vedas and have major roles in Ramayana and Mahabharta.

All other Indian rulers from the Mauryas, Guptas, Kushans, Mughals, Suris or later the Sikh empires were all recapturing areas that were already part of the Indian subcontinent. It was like the small states in Germany and Italy after the collapse of the Roman Empire who were fighting with each other with one power taking over major territories and eventually unifying for a period of time before a collapse and the cycle repeating again. Even at their height like under Ashoka for the Mauryas or Aurangzeb under Mughals the maximum stretch was till Kabul that was still part of the Indian subcontinent. The Kushans might be credited with some conquests into Iranian territory as well as western China but only slightly and for a short period.

The Cholas were the only dynasty that actually held influence in an area completely outside the Indian subcontinental territories like Indonesia, Malaysia and the Indo China region. Their naval power was unmatched by any other Indian dynasty until ofcourse the British came much later.

 

[third eye]

Many kingdoms in South East Asia paid tributes to Chola Kingdom after a naval expedition. While within India, he went upto Ganges.

Having stated that, I was only disputing your statement "After Emperor Ashok, he was the only Indian ruler who carried the sword outside the borders of the Sub Continent." and not about ruling an area.

Fair enough point taken.

On the point of cholas not being taught in schools in Delhi. I wonder if your wife went to a school that ran a CBSE syllabus. I recall studying of the Cholas back in school in New Delhi many many years ago.

 

[Panjabi Tiger]

And this is the thread title.

Maharaja Ranjit Singh, the conqueror of Afghanistan

While in yr Map you draw the line till Durand line lol

Khan saab,
Peshawar ( North west frontier province, and fatas ) formed part of east Afghanistan, there was no pakistan or british empire before ranjit singh, there was only ahmad shah durrani who founded afghanistan, and peshawar was in afghanistan
But if you are a proud pakistani pashtuns, you can thank's ranjit singh ( and the british who recuperated his conquests of nwfp and fatas )

 

[third eye]

Khan saab,
Peshawar ( North west frontier province, and fatas ) formed part of east Afghanistan, there was no pakistan or british empire before ranjit singh, there was only ahmad shah durrani who founded afghanistan, and peshawar was in afghanistan
But if you are a proud pakistani pashtuns, you can thank's ranjit singh ( and the british who recuperated his conquests of nwfp and fatas )

Valid points.

This was one of the reason why Af did not support the inclusion of Pak in the UN.

 

[third eye]

Thesis by a Pak AF Officer.

Refer page 17.

http://www.google.co.in/url?sa=t&rc...yNiVAw&usg=AFQjCNEzR6Yt-H1Pv_ZTz5zkVuzEZ7THjQ

 

[Panjabi Tiger]

Dont afghans say anything west of Indus is Afghania ?

Exactly, so he conquered east afghania

How exactly he was conqourer of afghanistan? He occupied only peshawer and surrounding areas , which were border areas of afghanistan. Another area which he snatched from afghanistan was kashmir, but he was able to do so because local kashmiris betrayed their afghan rulers.
Any how crossing indus to west and defeating afghans was a big deal, ranjeet singh was indeed a greater military stretagist. I think he is the one and only punjabi conqueror.

Yeah so he conquered east Afghanistan

 

[niaz]

Sikha Shahi has a bad name in Pakistani Punjab. Mainly because Sikhs were fighting against their Muslim overlords and when victorious, Sikhs literally butchered thousands of Muslims including women and children. On this basis Ranjit Singh was without doubt a cruel and anti-Muslim ruler with little respect for Muslim places of worship.

Looking at it from an impartial point of view, one has to appreciate his courage and military prowess and of his generals. Let us look at Ranjit’s achievements:

In 1798 Ranjit Singh was elected as Supreme Commander of the Sikhs Misls. He succeeded in getting Shan Zaman out of Punjab. Like all despotic rulers, his next actions were to subdue other Sikh Misls and make himself the Maharaja. By 1808 he was master of all Punjab except Bahawalpur. However it was not until 818 that Multan was fully under the Sikhs.

He was cunning enough to avoid direct conflict with the British and signed a treaty to accept Sutlej as the boundary with the British Indian domains.

Ranjit Singh defeated Ghurkhas in 1809. His first victory against Afghans was against Weir Fateh Khan around Attock. In 1918 Ranjit Singh captured Peshawar. In 1919 he captured Kashmir from the Afghans. In 1823 he defeated Afghans again at Nowshera. In 1831 Sikh forces under Hari Singh Nalwa defeated Syed Ahmad Brailvi and eliminated the Islamic Emirate created by him in 1827.
Ranjit was a product of his times. His against the Muslims actions were the norm until the 19th Century. Victors had license to treat the conquered in any way they like. I am not condoning Ranjit’s actions, but as a student of history; I find it difficult to totally rubbish the man only because of his anti-Muslim stance.

Since Porus, land of Punjab has not produced and military commander of such note. The fact that British were able to occupy Punjab in 1849, that is within 10 years of Ranjit's death clearly indicates what the difference between him and what he left behind.

 

[IND151]

He wasn't against the muslims and he was secular
Without him, peshawar would not be in pakistan
The british recuperated his conquests

so he won Peshawar after marathas?

 

[Imran Khan]

Sadly they dont read about that in the history books, specially the CBSE/NCERT ones. pages are not enough to glorify the mughals and the delhi sultanates. How come native kings like Raja raja and Rajendra will be mentioned ?

*facepalm*



A

you are wrong here its not such thing we read whatever we find on bookshops .

so he won Peshawar after marathas?

yep khalsa army win Battle of Nowshera and fall peshawer in punjab"s hands in March 1823.

Battle of Nowshera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[DRaisinHerald]

I'm willing to bet this 'Panjabi Tiger' is actually Indian

 

[third eye]

Self Delete..