Timur's invasion of India, 1398 : Kings & Generals

[waz]

Hunas, Scythians and a huge chunk of Kushans did become Hindu...anyways LoL at Timur...the man who singlehandedly killed more Muslims than all of the CRusades combined...raped the Queen of Ottoman Sultan Bayezid...defeated 4 Muslim superpowers and never took out any Hindu,Christian or Chinese power

You do realise it was sheer blind chance that China wasn't invaded right? He died whilst massive preparations were being made for the capture of Ming China.
Christian power, you need to read about what he did to the Greek Christian city of Smyrna, it was destroyed with the entire population slaughtered. It was defended by none other than the Knights Hospitaliers i.e. one of military crusading orders and a major heart of Christian power. Yes he had friendly relations with Europe, but in light of this how long do you think they would have held, not long it seems. He wanted it all.

There is no account of him raping any of Beyezid's wives or concubines. The accounts from some historians of one wife, the Serbian princess Despina, having to serve wine naked in his court, or in other accounts she was a handmaiden of a slave girl, are false and stemmed from a play by the 16th century English playwright Christopher Marlowe, in his play Tamburlaine the Great, which included his apparent suicide. He to got the story from Arabshah.
But then saying he was treated well is also not accurate as the Arab sage Sharaf ad-din Ali Yazdi writes in his accounts.
The truth was in the middle. He wasn't mistreated nor did he live a luxury life. He did die in captivity. There was one thing that was done to humiliate him was that his harerm was bought out before him and he was reminded of his remarks about Tamerlane's harem and wives. They were then told to leave no harm done to them i.e. I could do this but I won't.

 

[El Sidd]

Nothing has changed from 1398.

Muslims are fighting Muslims for India still.

 

[Cuirassier]

Admire the prowess of a military force or commander - regardless of nation, religion etc.

 

[Pakistani Fighter]

Again, who else was he supposed to kill? There is no point judging the guy through some distorted prism of temporal relativism. He had to kill Muslims because that was his path of conquest.

Timur's justifications for establishment of cassus belli were interesting at times. He regarded himself as a ghazi of sorts, warring against Muslim rulers whom he declared too sedate and not expansionist enough or ambitious enough.

One invasion of the Indian subcontinent was justified by Timur because the local Tughlaq Muslim rulers were too lenient on Hindu subjects.

"For instance, when he was about to invade India, he declared that the Tughlaq rulers of that country were tolerant to Hinduism and therefore it was obligatory on Taimur’s army to punish them. What he achieved in the two years of his Indian adventure was a holocaust of the Indian population in Northern India, irrespective of religion. "

But he did nothing substantial against Hindus

 

[masterchief_mirza]

But he did nothing substantial against Hindus

No he didn't because there were no Hindu empires in his path at the time. He can only play against what is sent out onto the pitch to face him.

 

[El Sidd]

Admire the prowess of a military force or commander - regardless of nation, religion etc.

Its still a sitting duck

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

No he didn't because there were no Hindu empires in his path at the time. He can only play against what is sent out onto the pitch to face him.

There were Rajput kingdoms in the South who he might have gone after.

 

[El Sidd]

There were Rajput kingdoms in the South who he might have gone after.

too hot for a military campaign

 

[Naofumi]

But he did nothing substantial against Hindus

No he didn't because there were no Hindu empires in his path at the time. He can only play against what is sent out onto the pitch to face him.

He selectively killed Hindus and even converted Muslims.

https://www.ibiblio.org/britishraj/Jackson5/chapter09.html

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

He didn't massacre anyone's ancestors. Because massacred people can't reproduce

He could have massacred the parents and elderly but have spared the children?

 

[Naofumi]

He could have massacred the parents and elderly but have spared the children?

Or parents could have sacrificed themselves to save/hide their children.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

He selectively killed Hindus and even converted Muslims.
View attachment 635470
View attachment 635469

View attachment 635472
https://www.ibiblio.org/britishraj/Jackson5/chapter09.html

I'm talking about leaders of empires or city states. Obviously he killed loads of civilians of all faiths.

 

[El Sidd]

Timur is the name of Pakistan's Global SurpriseDay!

Time it to Saif's sons birthday

 

[Naofumi]

I'm talking about leaders of empires or city states. Obviously he killed loads of civilians of all faiths.

He killed only Hindu prisoners before coming to Delhi and while plundering Delhi, he said "sayyids (or lineal descendants of the Prophet), shaikhs, and learned Mussulmans should be preserved", so there was an overall bias.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

I was saying he killed people but those massacred people were not ancestors of present Indians or Pakistanis. Jo Mar gaye unki nasal wahin ruk gayi jo bach gaye wo ancestors hain.

You are technically wrong. As I said earlier, he might have spared the young. So it's not like the whole ancestry is dead. Or even some members of family might have escaped but other might be spared. For example, among 4 brother 2 might have been killed and 2 might have escaped.