READERS, PLEASE IGNORE THIS POST UNTIL THIS NOTICE IS TAKEN AWAY. AS A RESULT OF THE LARGE NUMBER OF SUB-DIVISIONS, WHOSE SUBJECTS ACTUALLY RUN INTO EACH OTHER RATHER THAN RUNNING SEPARATELY, IT HAS BECOME NECESSARY TO COMBINE EVERYTHING INTO ONE MONSTER DOCUMENT, WHICH THEN HAS TO BE SORTED, LABELLED AND ANSWERED. THIS COULD HAVE BEEN DONE OFF-LINE, BUT THEN IT IS NO LONGER POSSIBLE TO CHECK THE APPEARANCE OF THE SUBMISSION, AND MAKE CORRECTIONS FOR BETTER READILITY IN THE LINE OF THE RESULTS OF SUCH CHECKS. THEREFORE THIS HUGE BLOT ON THE PAGES.
Here we have the refusal of rules of engagement. Between a view that holds that history and military history are essentially different, and a view that holds both are the same, it is difficult to find a meeting place.
Here my justification is that we are, in fact, not considering people, culture, economy, etc., etc., but are considering, within the context of a battle the appreciation of one commander's position, options and intentions.
Original Post By Joe Shearer
There is no refusal on my part; discussion had broadened to include caste and other matters, and you pointed out the these are not a part of Military history.... so my was that if we are discussing an issue then what if it is little bit off topic (Mods, please have little patience)
The second problem still remains for your attention: there is no further evidence, so what would you like to do? And here, let us willingly agree that 'absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence'.
Because there is nothing to discuss, no evidence? Oh, right, evidence doesn't matter, absence of evidence, etc.; the discussion does.
If that is what you want, by all means let us. You go first.
By Joe Shearer
I raised a question, few hypothesis were presented and discussed, few including me persisted with question, interesting info exchanged, most, probably knew that a concrete answer would not be forthcoming. You, somehow don't seem to like the question itself. OK Fine.
But a preliminary hymn to an inebriated Clio:
Oh, The grand old Duke of York,
He had ten thousand men;
He marched them up to the top of the hill,
And he marched them down again.
And when they were up, they were up,
And when they were down, they were down,
And when they were only half-way up,
They were neither up nor down.
By Joe Shearer
Not again.......
This has all the freshness and appeal of Ground Hog Day. In principle, good. In practice, bad. It is not at all clear that the practices of 2,200 years ago required a differentiation of the birth rites, maturity rituals and death and burial rites of a human being, depending on his or her race or caste, except for the upper three castes being different from the fourth, the Sudra. Any further differentiation seen toda This is a comparatively recent development, and extrapolating it backwards into historical times is bad history. At that
By Joe Shearer
In Porus's time, there was no Sudra or such.
Caste differentiation was there,then, and conversely, how could you surely say that caste would not effects on daily life?
I maintain that caste differences were there, and rites 'would be' different for sure as can be evidenced empirically.
In short, caste was factor, significant enough to be considered now, unfortunately we are unable to determine that, if it could be done, may be we could solve the mystery of "Kshatriya".
..... Just remember, he's probably not a Jat, not a Rajput. The overwhelming indirect evidence is that he was a Kshatriya, but this is indirect evidence, it is generic evidence relating to the Vedic and Puranic ages, and does not take into account the plethora of contrary examples in the east of the Gangetic basin. Perhaps rightly, considering the attenuation of the acculturation process as it spread down the Ganges, considering that the old ways were freshest in the Punjab itself, as well as in the upper reaches of the Yamuna-Ganga Doab.
This is the post that I was looking for and would request for further elaboration "plethora of contrary examples in the east of Gangetic basin............"
One'=Alexander III of Macedon, part-Illyrian, part-Macedonian king of Macedon, son of Philip II and Olympia;
'Other'=A king of a small tribe in the doaba of the Hydaspes and Hyphasis.
'One' had it all and 'Other' don't even have a proper noun.
...... a blank response. The question is whether they move on, or return to this one, in a kind of fated, doomed return.
One would move on and other would ask question and try to find the answer, this is how the History move on.
But I thought that the archery example was invalid, because the text quoted, the Dhanurveda, dealt with the recurved bow, and is a very late text besides?
And I thought sticking to history was the least common denominator. We had agreed on history being the discipline to be used.
Apparently I was wrong on basics! :-(
Original Post By Joe Shearer
Recurve or straight bow don't matter, what matter in this example is age of text. The paddhati is a very late text, but is was based on Siva Dhanurveda Samhita (Gupta age..?). This make it a worthy example.
Discussion, it seems has taken new dimensions.
You have a point. But that itself supports mine: our practices have not kept pace.
By Joe Shearer
Here you are very soft........considerate, but this is not that simple.
I don't know, and I believe this will divert us from the topic.
By Joe Shearer
Sure will.
Yes, on reading Yasser Latif Hamdani's rave reviews, and that it was better than Harry Potter. Like hell it was! I want my money back!!
By Joe Shearer
I am sorry for your loss, may be your money was spent on a better cause.
Tilism-e-Hoshruba is considered the pinnacle of Urdu prose (i.e., in Urdu) as such never replicated in its beauty, fullness and expression of language. Second best is the Fasana Azad by Ratan Nath Sarshar.
Now this response of yours either means that we are reading different accounts, or that we are speaking about the same thing in different terms.
First, Greek accounts give a fairly full description, as I thought the records made clear, of all weaponry; secondly, they are the only descriptions that we have. To discard them in favour of literary records, merely because the literary records have some mention of topics that we wish to discuss, is to discard the proven tested historical record in favour of the unproven. We might just as well depend on a poem for historical evidence. Not that this has not been done, in a manner that distresses historians but about which they are relatively helpless, except to wring their hands and wail - more or less what I'm doing.
Original Post By Joe Shearer
Greek accounts of Hydaspes mention Chariots, but do they mention its size/description....two wheelers or four wheelers (I know I am stretching it a bit)? how many persons manned it with what weapons...... one, with javelins? or two ... one driver,other with bow or javelins, or five.... one driver, two with bows or javelins and two with shields?
Similarly, Cavalry, whether heavily armored or lightly or if had any at all, carried lances(what size) or javelins or bows or else.
Infantry, it had long bows, what else, what armor if any.
I will not talk further about the fabled sources, already made my point many time of critical analysis.
Er... Second?.... missing
Third, the Dhanurveda that I read described a recurved bow, and while that is not exclusively a horseman's bow, the difference is more or less that. Foot archers tend to use straight bows; that is what the Welsh and then the English archers used in the mediaeval wars, and that is what I believe the Indian myths say were used in mythical accounts; in other words, there is no record of a curved bow, and I assume that it was the simpler version.
Presumably, Turks and Mongols also used their bows dismounted, so for a foot-soldier to use a recurved bow is not as far-fetched as I might seem to have implied earlier. In the Dhanurveda, however, a recurved bow is exclusively mentioned, and from the account that we have, a recurved bow of a height greater than the height of the archer implies a pull-weight well beyond the strength of any but a Titan to wield. You might like to speculate that it may have been precisely this very high pull-weight that was symbolised in the unstringable bows occurring in both the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, but in the absence of evidence, this must remain with the straight bow.
By Joe Shearer
Here you are mixing shape of the bow with construction technique.
Paddhati of Sarngadhara describes a horn-bow, a composite bow, Ok, but was it recurved, is pure speculation on your part.
Welsh/English used single material, straight (yew) long bows in medieval age, correct, but bows of Indian myths were, whether,straight or curved, what type of construction, is an open debate, unsettled one..........Agni Purana etc. tell the materials(wood, horn and steel) used in bow making but don't tell about the shape and technique of manufacture.
(I know how, presumably, ancient Indian bows were made, but won't tell, you will ask for a historical reference, which I don't have any).
Between single piece construction bows could be recurved to increase power.
You might like to speculate that it may have been precisely this very high pull-weight that was symbolised in the unstringable bows occurring in both the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, but in the absence of evidence, .......
By Joe Shearer
A valid point indeed,.... an empirical evidence.
Fourth, the Dhanurveda mentioned that Brahmins should be taught the bow, Kshatriyas the sword, Vaisyas the lance, and Sudras the mace. It does sound like a bit of brahmanical nonsense, rather than a serious weapons manual.
Critical analysis, Critical analysis, Critical analysis, Critical analysis, ............
I thought I had sent out a detailed response, but it appears that the gremlins of the Internet have got me.
This is truly confusing.
What is it precisely, that the Greek histories do not share with us? What additional material were you expecting, that you have failed to get?
Original Post By Joe Shearer
Explained in previous posts.
Again, before we go further, the reality check needed is to ask you which Dhanurveda you are looking at. Then we can sort out why our perceptions are so vastly different. We can examine the common text, once we know what it is..
By Joe Shearer
Srangadhara Paddhati, which in turn was largely based on Siva Dhanurveda Samhita, mentioned many times.
Reason of confusion is that you are mixing the shape of bow to that of construction technique.
Now last response, in your cascading style adopted in your previous posts;
Tell me, which aspect of the Battle of Hydaspes has been covered by legendary accounts? The chariots? Were the chariots driven the same way, did they contain the same type of warrior, fighting the same way as in the Mahabharata? The archers? Any prior record? In either the Mahabharata or the Ramayana? Or perhaps in the Dhanurveda? Leave aside the fact that this dealt with the horn-bow, not the single-curved bow of the classic accounts, neither Arjuna nor Karna would have qualified to learn it; none other than Dronacharya, Kripacharya and Aswatthama, actually, out of all the protagonists in the battle of Kurukshetra.
By Joe Shearer
Kshtriyas were not qualified, but the Brahmans were?...please tell me how or why?
Or, this has some thing to do with 'immortality' thing, chiranjeevani, you have presumed that in Mahabharata time no horn-bow production technology known and only single curve bows were available, and above three could only out lived that period?..... very funny.
By Alternative
This is from the Dhanurved. More you cite it, the better it is.
By Joe Shearer
This is the correct order and self explanatory.
Too many intervening posts, I agree, with you PM, you may take the initiative for the direction of thread.