What's new

Top 10 Most Significant Battles in the History of the Subcontinent

GodlessBastard

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Oct 29, 2010
Messages
613
Reaction score
0
I was inspired by the thread called "20 most Decisive Battles" by Austerlitz to create a similar thread which deals exclusively with the Indian subcontinent. Here, I will rank the Top 10 military encounters which I feel have had the greatest impact on South Asia. Tactical brilliance, or lack thereof, is not taken into account.

My list:

10. The Kalinga War (261 B.C.)
emperorasoka.jpg

Belligerents: Maurya Empire vs. Kingdom of Kalinga
Victor: Maurya Empire
Rationale: We don't know much about this legendary war, besides that many people supposedly died and Emperor Ashoka supposedly felt great guilt after the bloodshed. From a purely scholarly standpoint, I have good reasons to label both "facts" as fabrications, or at least exaggerations, but that is a story for another day. The importance of this conflict is two-fold. First, it marked the first time that the subcontinent was politically united under a single government, a feat that would not be repeated until the 19th century, with British India. Secondly, it indirectly marked the rise of Buddhism as a major religion and philosophy in Asia. Ashoka was catapulted into eternal fame as he sought to build the world's first empire based on dharma following the war, and his great efforts at spreading Buddhism started a revolution. Buddhism, which was previously confined to Bihar, spread across the subcontinent and across Asia. Today, some 500 million people identify themselves as Buddhists.
The Kalinga War is by far the most ancient of the conflicts described here, occurring over 2,200 years ago. Despite its golden legacy and broad influence, much of what we actually know is based on shaky history. For this reason, I have placed the Kalinga War in last place.


9. Battle of Pratapgarh (1659)
Belligerents: Marathas vs. Adilshahis
Victor: Marathas
Rationale: This was the battle that marked the rise of the Maratha Empire as a major player. Following the stunning victory at Pratapgarh, Shivaji and his successors would wage a series of campaigns that would make the Marathas the first Hindu empire in well over 600 years to have a considerable influence across the subcontinent. At the same time, however, the constant fighting between the Marathas, other Hindu states, Islamic sultanates, the decaying Mughal Empire, and restless Afghan tribes would greatly weaken India as a whole, making it ripe for European colonization.


8. Battle of Diu (1509)
Battle_of_Diu_1509.jpg

Belligerents: Portuguese Empire vs. Gujarati-Mamluk-Ottoman Coalition
Victor: Portuguese
Rationale: Europeans had been trying for centuries to exploit the riches of India, but it would be the Portuguese who would get the first piece of the pie. After a string of earlier setbacks, the Portuguese achieved a decisive victory in 1509 against a combined coalition of various powers. The Portuguese victory at Diu gave them their first permanent holdings in India, which wouldn't be liberated until the 1961 Indo-Portuguese War. The Battle of Diu has a certain degree of global significance for being one of the first "modern" naval battles, in which technologically superior Portuguese gunships were able to triumph against a much larger fleet of obsolete dhows. In addition to its global importance, the battle is important in the regional context because it marked the first time a European power made inroads into the subcontinent, foreshadowing much greater things to come.


7. Muhammad bin Qasim's Invasion of Sind (712)
Mbq.jpg

Belligerents: Umayyads vs. Jats and Native Kingdoms of Sind
Victor: Umayyads
Rationale: This should be a familiar one for most people. Although Muhammad bin Qasim's famous conquest of Sind had little immediate impact, it was extremely important because it introduced Islam to the subcontinent; over the next millennium, Islam would shape the culture and sociopolitical atmosphere of the subcontinent more than any other factor. The destruction that the Umayyad invasion left in its path, such as pillaged riches and sacked temples, and the relative inaction of the native rulers to counter this new threat, would be a precursor for much greater things to come. Like the Battle of Diu eight centuries later, this fateful episode in history marked the beginning of a brand new age.


6. First Battle of Panipat (1526)
babur_1.jpg

Belligerents: Mughals vs. Delhi Sultanate
Victor: Mughals
Rationale: From the 13th through the early 16th centuries, the Delhi Sultanate was the dominant power in the Indian subcontinent. In addition to espousing a unique Indo-Islamic culture, the Delhi Sultanate maintained a certain degree of stability in the subcontinent, especially in North India. However, this stability was shattered in 1526 when an ambitious conqueror by the name of Babur crushed the armies of the Lodi Dynasty at the fields of Panipat, creating one of the largest power vacuums in Indian history. Here, India's history could have diverged spectacularly, as different factions competed for the spoils. Ultimately, it would be Babur's grandson Akbar who would emerge triumphant and consolidate Mughal power.


5. Battle of Talikota (1565)
Belligerents: Vijayanagar Empire vs. Deccan Sultanates
Victor: Deccan Sultanates
Rationale: This battle is not very well known, despite its tremendous significance. While North India succumbed to numerous Islamic invasions from Central Asia, South India remained a firm bastion of Hindu culture. This was solidified in the 14th century, when the various Hindu states of the South became unified under the powerful and prosperous Vijayanagar Empire. The existence of such an empire effectively checked the advance of Islam south of the Godavari. However, the situation changed when the Deccan Sultanates overcame their differences and united in force against Vijayanagar, dealing a decisive blow at Talikota. The collapse of the Vijayanagar Empire following the Battle of Talikota meant the fall of the last great Hindu empire in India, and opened South India to Islam.


4. Second Battle of Panipat (1556)
panipat%20battle%201556.jpg

Belligerents: Mughals vs. Hemu Vikramaditya
Victor: Mughals
Rationale: Babur's decisive victory in the First Battle of Panipat resulted in enormous political upheaval in North India, with various factions vying to fill the power vacuum created by the collapse of the Delhi Sultanate. Having died just five years after this great victory, Babur was unable to consolidate his conquests. His successor Humayun also failed, facing enormous competition from the Suri dynasty. In this chaotic environment rose the Hindu emperor Hemu Vikramaditya, who in 1556 attempted to recreate a Hindu empire in North India. Had he succeeded, it would have been the first of its kind in over six centuries. However, he was not alone in his ambitions; Babur's grandson Akbar rose to the challenge and decisively defeated Hemu, thus consolidating the Mughal Empire. Over the next five decades, Akbar would establish the fundamental groundwork of the empire (which his successors would haplessly abuse), making India one of the most powerful and prosperous nations of its time.


3. Second Battle of Tarain (1192)
22641511212366908.jpg

Belligerents: Ghorids vs. Rajputs
Victor: Ghorids
Rationale: This was the battle in which the famed Prithviraj Chauhan was defeated. The Rajput defeat allowed Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghauri to easily subdue most of North India, establishing the first Islamic empire in the subcontinent. Although Islam had been introduced to India four and a half centuries prior by Muhammad bin Qasim, it wasn't until Ghauri's time that Islam became a "game changer" and a major sociopolitical force in the subcontinent. It is very important to note that, after the Battle of Tarain, Muslim rulers have continuously ruled India (especially the North) until the British era.


2. Battle of Plassey (1757)
150662_f496.jpg

Belligerents: British East India Co. vs. Bengal and French allies
Victor: British East India Co.
Rationale: Another commonly-known battle, and for good reason. The Battle of Plassey gave the British a permanent presence in India, and marked the end of French dreams of empire in the subcontinent. In the global context, this battle can be considered part of the Seven Years' War, a series of global conflicts involving Britain, France, and their respective allies. From their base in Bengal, the British would eventually exert their control over the entire subcontinent by the early 19th century. In time, India would become the most valuable possession of the British Empire, the "Jewel in the Crown". The British period of rule had huge effects on India, which I am sure you all are well aware of.


1. Third Battle of Panipat (1761)
3610505018_1c347fe9c2.jpg

Belligerents: Marathas vs. Durranis and various allies
Victor: Durranis
Rationale: The Third Battle of Panipat, like the First, created a huge power vacuum in India. The battle marked the beginning of the decline of the Marathas, who would be progressively weakened in three devastating wars against the British. However, the battle was very costly for both sides, and weakened the Durranis as well as the Marathas. It also marked, very importantly, the last time two South Asian powers fought a major battle. In my opinion, the weakening of India's largest powers in this battle was more crucial to the overall British success in India than the Battle of Plassey itself. After 1761, conflicts in India would almost exclusively involve the British.
Moreover, the Third Battle of Panipat set in stone a distinct cultural gap in the subcontinent. For most of history, the area corresponding to modern-day Afghanistan and Pakistan's tribal areas were considered the "natural frontiers" of India. Unsurprisingly, Indian empires with their base of power in the Indo-Gangetic Plain had their political frontiers in those regions, and the people of the frontiers were considered to be highly Indianized. This changed in the 18th century, when the collapse of the Mughal Empire, coupled with the rise of tribal Afghan dynasties like the Durranis, permanently pulled the frontier regions out of the cultural orbit of the Gangetic states. The repercussions of this highly significant development can still be felt today.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

That concludes my list. Comments are both welcome and highly appreciated.

If you feel another battle should be added, or a battle already on the list shouldn't be removed, feel free to post your concerns with a strong rationale.

I am open to editing my list if people more intelligent than me provide compelling cases to do so.
 
1. Third Battle of Panipat (1761)

Belligerents: Marathas vs. Durranis and various allies
Victor: Durranis

Durranis? not Mughals?
 
Durranis? not Mughals?

Yes, Durranis. Marathas went inroad and took most of the Mughal territory. Mughals were pretty much left with Dehli area.

modern-day Afghanistan and Pakistan's tribal areas were considered the "natural frontiers" of India. Unsurprisingly, Indian empires with their base of power in the Indo-Gangetic Plain had their political frontiers in those regions, and the people of the frontiers were considered to be highly Indianized.

I am pretty sure the people that practiced Dharmic religions in Afghanistan and Pakistan was still a minority well before Durranis.. Afghanistan was considered a "natural frontiers" or buffer zone by the Mughals because of the tribes and mostly the terrain that was there was hostile.

There are countless more important battles that are just said but with little detail by empires like the Guptas, Greek Kingdoms in the subcontinent, Sakas, etc, etc, etc but we will never know what really happened.

I do not think Third Battle of Panipat should be number one.
 
There are countless more important battles that are just said but with little detail


I will give you examples of these epic battles that happened, but very little details remains.

When the "white huns" invaded an already disintegrating Gupta empire, and made inroad into India, a Hindu coalition formed by the Guptas gave a last push to drive out the Huns in the 530s.. Huns collapsed soon after also. But we dont know that battles that happened, everything is lost..

Asia_500ad.jpg

Hephthalites500.png


Also another is Battle of Rajasthan..

When the Rajputs coalition formed by Gurjara Pratihara, Chauhans, and Guhilots fought off the much larger Umayyad Caliphate from their invasion of India. But very little details remain..

Junaid, the successor of Qasim, finally subdued the Hindu resistance within Sindh. Taking advantage of the conditions in Western India, which at that time was covered with several small states, Junaid led a large army into the region in early 738 CE. Dividing this force into two he plundered several cities in southern Rajasthan, western Malwa, and Gujarat. The Arab chroniclers claim that he acquired immense wealth, slaughtered large numbers of infidels, and returned.
Indian inscriptions confirm this invasion but record the Arab success only against the smaller states in Gujarat. They also record the defeat of the Arabs at two places. The southern army moving south into Gujarat was repulsed at Navsari by the Solankis and Rashtrakutas. The army that went east, after sacking several places, reached Avanti whose ruler Nagabhatta (Gurjar Pratihara) trounced the invaders and forced them to flee. After his victory Nagabhatta took advantage of the disturbed conditions to acquire control over the numerous small states up to the border of Sindh.
Junaid probably died from the wounds inflicted in the battle with the Gurjara Pratihara. His successor Tamin organized a fresh army and attempted to avenge Junaid’s defeat towards the close of the year 738 CE. But this time Nagabhatta, with his Chauhan and Guhilot feudatories, met the Muslim army before it could leave the borders of Sindh. The battle resulted in the complete rout of the Arabs who fled broken into Sindh with the Gurjar pratiharas close behind them.
In the words of the Arab chronicler, a place of refuge to which the Muslims might flee was not to be found. The Arabs crossed over to the other side of the River Indus, abandoning all their lands to the victorious Hindus. The local chieftains took advantage of these conditions to re-establish their independence. Subsequently the Arabs constructed the city of Mansurah on the other side of the wide and deep Indus, which was safe from attack. This became their new capital in Sindh. Thus began the reign of the Imperial Gurjar-Pratiharas.
In the Gwalior inscription it is recorded that Gurjar King Nagabhatta crushed the large army of the powerful Mlechcha king. This large army consisted of cavalry, infantry, siege artillery, and probably a force of camels. Since Tamin was a new governor he had a force of Syrian cavalry from Damascus, local Arab contingents, converted Hindus of Sindh, and foreign mercenaries like the Turks. All together the invading army may have had anywhere between 10–15,000 cavalry, 5000 infantry, and 2000 camels.
The Arab chronicler Sulaiman describes the army of the Imperial Pratiharas as it stood in 851 CE, The king of Gurjars maintains numerous forces and no other Indian prince has so fine a cavalry. He is unfriendly to the Arabs, still he acknowledges that the king of the Arabs is the greatest of kings. Among the princes of India there is no greater foe of the Islamic faith than he. He has got riches, and his camels and horses are numerous.
But at the time of the Battle of Rajasthan the Gurjar Pratihars had only just risen to power. In fact Nagabhatta was their first prominent ruler. But the composition of his army, which was predominantly cavalry, is clear from the description. There are other anecdotal references to the Indian kings and commanders riding elephants to have a clear view of the battlefield. The infantry stood behind the elephants and the cavalry formed the wings and advanced guard.
At the time of the battle the Gurjar Pratihara may have had up to 5000 cavalry, while their Guhilot and Chauhan feudatories may have had 2000 horsemen each, added to which we may include infantry, camels, and elephants. So all told the Hindu and Muslim armies were evenly matched with the better cavalry in the former.

Later events
Following their victory the Gurjar Pratiharas spread their rule over North India. The Guhilots under their leader Bappa Rawal captured Chittor and the Chauhans established a kingdom in North Rajasthan. Along with their Pratihar overlords these clans formed a recognized clan hierarchy (miscalled feudalism), and a hereditary ownership of lands and forts.
The Arabs in Sindh took a long time to recover from their defeat. In the early 9th Century the governor Bashar attempted an invasion of India but was defeated by Nagabhatta II and his subordinates, Govindraja Chauhan and Khommana II Guhilot.After this the Arab chroniclers admit that the Caliph Mahdi, “gave up the project of conquering any part of India.”
The Arabs in Sindh lost all power and broke up into two warring states of Mansurah and Multan, both of which paid tribute to the Gurjar Pratiharas. The local resistance in Sindh, which had not yet died out and was inspired by the victories of Pratiharas manifested itself when the foreign rulers were overthrown and Sindh came under its own half-converted Hindu dynasties like the Sumras and Sammas.

umayyad.gif
 
I am pretty sure the people that practiced Dharmic religions in Afghanistan and Pakistan was still a minority well before Durranis.. Afghanistan was considered a "natural frontiers" or buffer zone by the Mughals because of the tribes and mostly the terrain that was there was hostile.

It wasn't so much the practice of Dharmic religions (Muslims can also be "Indianized"), it was the fact that they were politically ruled from the Indo-Gangetic Plain, thus resulting in a high degree of cultural influence and exchange. The Mughals, for example, ruled Afghanistan from Agra, which was on the Indo-Gangetic Plain. As did the Ghorids and Delhi Sultanate from Delhi, and the Palas and Guptas from Pataliputra.

But after the Durranis, that changed. Afghanistan and the tribal frontier was never reincorporated into a central subcontinental political system, and slowly it lost its cultural as well as political connections.

However, I would agree that a general trend towards the seperation of Indic and Afghan cultural spheres was under way well before the Durranis, probably starting with the Ghaznavids. The Durranis, however, made it final.


There are countless more important battles that are just said but with little detail by empires like the Guptas, Greek Kingdoms in the subcontinent, Sakas, etc, etc, etc but we will never know what really happened.

I have taken into account many of those as well, and have concluded that their long-term influence did not match the ones in this list.


I do not think Third Battle of Panipat should be number one.

I knew it would be a controversial decision.

What do you think should be in its place?
 
But after the Durranis, that changed. Afghanistan and the tribal frontier was never reincorporated into a central subcontinental political system, and slowly it lost its cultural as well as political connections.


After Afghanistan lost Buddhism, it began losing its cultural connection with India.

Example

Architecture and culture changed from this

buddha_image.jpg


art1.jpg


Buddhism.jpg


To this

4041814375_dd257f8aa4.jpg


I knew it would be a controversial decision.

What do you think should be in its place?


I think wars like

Second Battle of Tarain
Battle of Plassey
Second Battle of Panipat
etc
etc
and other u named are more important..

These are major events that would completely change Indian history,culture,etc,etc,etc.That will bring in new cultures, Ideas, religions, languages, ethnic groups into a complete alien culture/country. Marathas vs. Durranis in the third battle Panipat just doesnt doesnt have the same after after. Marathas just stopped expending north west.
 
Third Battle of Panipat did not involve Mughals.

Mughals were reduced to a minor power by this time.

At the time of the battle, an agent of Sadashivrau Bhau was actually camped in Delhi, extorting money from the helpless Mughal Court.
 
SO help me connect the dots -- Durrani is a label for a confederation of Afghan tribes -- and this confederation comes into being after the assassination of Nasir in Iran and the marginalization of the Hoti -- do I have this right? See, this is why I am skeptical about this Durrani claim - please do help me understand better
 
@GB:

Agreed with your list except the positions of the Second and the Third Battles of Panipat. They could be interchanged.

The reason being that while you had said:

In my opinion, the weakening of India's largest powers in this battle was more crucial to the overall British success in India than the Battle of Plassey itself. After 1761, conflicts in India would almost exclusively involve the British.

Though I can agree that this battle played a role in the sucess of the British later on ; it was not a decisive role as you have assumed. The British won Plassey on account of their strategies and then there is Mir Jafar and his coterie.


Moreover, the Third Battle of Panipat set in stone a distinct cultural gap in the subcontinent.

Not so great as to be called a decisive impact ; just reinforced what was already there.

My contention for the Second Battle of Panipat deserving a first place is that this battle was going in favour of Hemchandra until the sheer unluck of having to stop a wayward arrow with his eye did him in. If the Mughals had been routed in that battle and Hemchandra firmly established his rule over much of Northern India, I cannot even imagine what modern India would have looked like.

Meanwhile even the Battle of Plassey/Battle of Buxar could be a contender for the top spot along with the Second Battle of Panipat for obvious reasons.
 
<snip>
I think wars battleslike

Second Battle of Tarain
Battle of Plassey
Second Battle of Panipat
etc
etc
and other u named are more important..

These are major events that would completely change Indian history,culture,etc,etc,etc.That will bring in new cultures, Ideas, religions, languages, ethnic groups into a complete alien culture/country. Marathas vs. Durranis in the third battle Panipat just doesnt doesnt have the same after after. Marathas just stopped expending north west.

A general comment, and one which I am unable to dwell on, as GodlessBastard has stipulated:

Except for Kalinga, Talikota, Plassey and Diu, there is a strong north-west orientation, which has been the traditional orientation of Indian history. In my opinion, that is wrong. There were other stage-setting battles and campaigns which ought to be borne in mind, of course, without confusing battle and campaign.

The Battle of Saraighat in 1671 between Ahoms (victorious) and the Mughals set the limits of Mughal power in the east. By leaving Assam alone under its independent Ahom kings, this battle had a seminal effect on the future of India-that-is-Bharat that succeeded British India in 47. It allowed the Assam kings to maintain their loose and relaxed hold on their hills subjects, and their attitude of friendly indifference to Tibet. It was this relaxed attitude that the British sought to correct on their conquest of Assam, and it was this that finally led to the McMahon Line, which is such a bone of contention with China today.

The Battle of Buxar in 1764, between the British under Sir Hector Munro (victors) against the coalition of Shah Alam II, Shuja-ud-daulah and Mir Qasim, was the real battle for establishment of British power in the east, and not the highly-publicised, perhaps over-publicised, Battle of Panipat. At Buxar, the British showed their true military strength over the rapidly-weakening war-fighting skills of the north Indian princes. This battle was the first solid step in the expansion of the British in the Gangetic valley.

The Battle of Chushul, 1742, between the Dogra-Ladakhi garrison of Leh (victors) and the Tibetan troops, was the keystone for border negotiations between the Jammu-based Dogra king, Gulab Singh, and the joint representation of the Chinese Court and the Dalai Lama. This border was not set very accurately, giving space for an ambitious British officer to draw a boundary line along the Kuen-Lun Mountains. The PRC took no notice of this whatsoever, nor of the far more conservative intentions of the Treaty of Chushul, but that is another war and another story.

I draw the attention of readers to these, with the thought that there were several more Burmese battles fought by the British that determined frontiers and frontier conditions on the east.
 
SO help me connect the dots -- Durrani is a label for a confederation of Afghan tribes -- and this confederation comes into being after the assassination of Nasir in Iran and the marginalization of the Hoti -- do I have this right? See, this is why I am skeptical about this Durrani claim - please do help me understand better

You mean Nadir Shah, I presume? Nadir Shah employed Ahmad Shah Abdali, at that time, Ahmad Khan Abdali, in his military service, and he was the king's trusted leader of the bodyguard. When the king was assassinated, this bodyguard swept in and killed all the assassins, obviously too late to be of any earthly use to the king. Nadir Shah had called Ahmad 'Durr-i-Durran', which I am told by literate friends means pearl of pearls, and it is from this date that he took the name Durrani. It was after him that his tribe too began calling themselves Durrani, though they were originally Abdali. I understand that the two terms are used interchangeably even now. I am also told by Pathan friends that Ahmad Shah, who soon seized power in the vacuum following Nadir Shah's death, belonged to the Sadozai clan, a part of the Popalzai, and that Ahmad Shah's descendants were soon replaced by Popalzai cousins.

It was Ahmad Shah who tried to keep control of the remnants of the Afghan holding in the Punjab, but in the aftermath of Panipat III, he was wholly unable to do much about the rising Sikh power. By the end of his reign, the Sikhs had more or less come to dominate Punjab.

This is a sketchy note from memory; if you want researched details, please let me know. It will take a little time, as I am busy typing in matter for the Hydaspes thread.
 
I agree.

No general in the world is comparable to Muhammad Bin qasim
 
I agree.

No general in the world is comparable to Muhammad Bin qasim

Muhammad Bin Qasim was tortured to death by the Caliph, because the Caliph suspected him of raping the kidnapped daughters of Raja Dahir of Sindh, instead of delivering them to the Caliph. The Caliph had a strong desire to be the first person to rape the girls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_bin_Qasim#Death

The successors of Muhammad bin Qasim were later crushed by the Hindu Rajputs in the battle of Rajasthan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rajasthan
 
Back
Top Bottom