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

[Naofumi]

Refer to my earlier comment on judging medieval rulers through the lens of temporal relativism. He opposed anyone who stood in his way to power and immortality, Muslim or otherwise. Many Muslims he regarded as unworthy or undeserving of stewardship over their empires. Many Muslims he had personal beefs with or felt insulted by some troll exchange about females (this is at least part of the story with Bayezid). The guy was a reasonably straightforward warlord, who produced very impressive results and didn't do anything "immoral" that contemporaries in Europe and elsewhere didn't do.

The inferiority complex is quietly seeping into this thread, which is a shame, since it's a great historical discussion. What's next? Shall we dredge up Saif Ali Khan and his kid? Some of the vitriol directed at his baby on Twitter was downright terrifying and is rooted in the same inferiority complex about medieval history that I refer to. It's the 21st century and folks wished death and zika virus upon a baby because his name was Timur.

The fact is, Timur was the precursor and direct ancestor of the Mughals. He gave rise to one of the greatest and most artistically influential empires Asia ever did see. Timur himself was somewhat one dimensional but he spawned the builders of a unified, independent and strong Hindustani nation.

I think Timur should be REVERED in India and not villified, the same way as emotionally stable populations in Europe revere and respect their equally brutal precursors and forefathers (Romans, Greeks, Saxons, Celts, Vikings etc). Take England for example. Celts, Romans and Vikings literally butchered entire cities including children and females without any problem whatsoever. Yet I can guarantee you, no modern Brit will curse a baby named after Harald Hadrada or Claudius of Rome.

I agree with you that it's stupid to bother over someone's name but why should he be revered? He's not even "forefather"..

It's like celebrating Robert Clive and British who united "Hindustan" but yes, at the same time "Robert" name shouldn't be a taboo.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

I agree with you that it's stupid to bother over someone's name but why should he be revered? He's not even "forefather"..

Fair enough, that's an equally reasonable position to hold.

T

It's like celebrating Robert Clive and British who united "Hindustan" but yes, at the same time "Robert" name shouldn't be a taboo.

This is precisely the problem. Robert won't attract such attention in India. But Timur?? All hell breaks loose. How about the Aryans themselves, brutal invaders from central Asia who pillaged north India (the similarities with Timur are intriguing in arbitrary terms), yet the Aryans are literally quasi-worshipped and Timur is some object of nightmares.

 

[Salahuddin Ayyubi]

Erm. He was surrounded by Muslim powers at the time. He certainly didn't discriminate on the basis of religion, because he couldn't until he had ploughed a way through other Muslims first. He actually attacked and annihilated a number of Christian armies in the middle east. As someone mentioned, he was close to a major Chinese campaign at the time of his death. Timur actually regarded himself as the "sword of Islam".

Non-Muslim and Muslim empires alike were rightly afraid of him.

Tamarlane is possibly one of the greatest military generals of all time. He surpassed Genghis Khan.

@Salahuddin Ayyubi a thread that may interest you

I actually watched the video a few minutes after it was uploaded. I intentionally chose not to make a thread about the video on this forum due to personal reasons. I've had a great disgust for Timur ever since I was young and started learning about central Asian history from my parents. He was an opportunist and a tyrannical genocidal maniac.
My middle name was Timur and I had it legally removed when I was 21 simply because i didn't want to be associated with his legacy and replaced it with my mother's maiden name Odinaev.
He was a complicated individual, there's no doubt he was a great military commander and a superb tactician.
indeed, Tamerlane described himself as the “Sword of Islam,” and he became increasingly sadistic in his conversion methods. He slaughtered Hindus in India and Pakistan and demanded the severed heads of Christians in Iraq, Syria, and Georgia. this isn't even mentioning how many Muslims he killed in his rampage conquest of power. In all, his army killed upward of 17 million people, roughly 5 percent of the world’s population.

 

[Mad Scientist 2.0]

That was for a historical fact only, I don't derive political truths from it.


Haha, then bring it on.

Dear, I just happened to read it, so I presented it here.

You are way too biased against Islam as a whole, Focusing on particular point while leaving the rest is a sign of intellectual dishonesty. As far as I read a few soldiers were attacked during his presence in Delhi and this enraged him so much that he ordered killing of everyone and anyone regardless of religion caste and creed. He was not particularly fond of anybody. Like other rulers he used religion to suit his narratives.

And another link to refresh your memory on Forgotten Hyderabad Massacre as I have seen the mentioning of it.

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24159594

 

[masterchief_mirza]

I actually watched the video a few minutes after it was uploaded. I intentionally chose not to make a thread about the video on this forum due to personal reasons. I've had a great disgust for Timur ever since I was young and started learning about central Asian history from my parents. He was an opportunist and a tyrannical genocidal maniac.
My middle name was Timur and I had it legally removed when I was 21 simply because i didn't want to be associated with his legacy and replaced it with my mother's maiden name Odinaev.
He was a complicated individual, there's no doubt he was a great military commander and a superb tactician.
indeed, Tamerlane described himself as the “Sword of Islam,” and he became increasingly sadistic in his conversion methods. He slaughtered Hindus in India and Pakistan and demanded the severed heads of Christians in Iraq, Syria, and Georgia. this isn't even mentioning how many Muslims he killed in his rampage conquest of power. In all, his army killed upward of 17 million people, roughly 5 percent of the world’s population.

Yep, no denying his battlefield excellence, he left a major mark on many Asiatic empires and all religions who got in the way of a warlord's conquest. An interesting and evidently a profoundly considered personal perspective as well - thanks for explaining.

 

[Mad Scientist 2.0]

Might have but Shivaji Maharaj had a strict policy against rape and destruction of mosques. In fact, many times Marathas in the early years used to spare enemy soldiers and used to give them the option to fight in their army. If they refused the option, they were sent off after extracting some monetary payment. Many even used to switch sides and join the Marathas.


I never said Marathas were angels. I'm just pointing out a few things. Anyway, this is going away from the topic.

I also have high regard for Shivaji Maharaj .He did not let a Quran burn wherever he conquered cannot say the same for later Marathas who destroyed temples ,killed and raped people.

 

[TheGreatMaratha]

cannot say the same for later Marathas who destroyed temples ,killed and raped people.

The later Marathas didn't destroy temples. I know you are talking about the raid when Maratha Pindaris attacked the Sringeri Math. But it wasn't in any way sanctioned by the Marathas. Pindaris were irregulars of the Maratha army. The Marathas later apologized for that act.

Anyway, just based on that 1 incident you can't say that Marathas destroyed temples. How can they destroy temples when they didn't even destroy mosques?

Of course, I wouldn't support the looting part though.

 

[Naofumi]

You are way too biased against Islam as a whole, Focusing on particular point while leaving the rest is a sign of intellectual dishonesty. As far as I read a few soldiers were attacked during his presence in Delhi and this enraged him so much that he ordered killing of everyone and anyone regardless of religion caste and creed. He was not particularly fond of anybody. Like other rulers he used religion to suit his narratives.

And another link to refresh your memory on Forgotten Hyderabad Massacre as I have seen the mentioning of it.

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24159594

Dear, it's your problem if you see it like that. I have quoted his own words that he leaved Sayyids, Shaikhs, Qazi unharmed but yes, he slaughtered Afghans, Turkic elite and converted Muslims too. And why do you think I am oblivious to the rest of the history?

I don't think there have been any cases of violence in Hyderabad except 1947 but that was North sponsored.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1206066475234209792