What's new

What do Indians think of Timurlane?

So now this thread is brought on to Hindus and Muslims by none other than AJTR. Seriously madam, you are expert in creating flame threads. :D
 
@Razpak , I noticed you thanked some posts here and remeber you mentioning yourself as a Jat.

Just curious what your opinions are on below memoirs of Timur:

On the 8th of the month I marched from Ahruni, through the jungle to a village called Tohana. In answer to the inquiries I made about the inhabitants, I learned that they were a robust race, and were called Jats. They were Musulmans only in name and had not their equals in theft and highway robbery. They plundered caravans upon the road, and were a terror to Musulmans and travelers. They had now abandoned the village and had fled to the sugar-cane fields, the [p. 45] valleys, and the jungles.2 When these facts reached my ears I prepared a force which I placed under the direction of Tokal Bahadur, son of the Hindu Karkarra,3 and sent it against the Jats. They accordingly marched into the sugar-canes and jungles. I also sent Maulana Nasiru-d din in pursuit of them. When these forces overtook the Jats they put 200 to the sword and made the rest prisoners. A large stock of cattle was captured, and my soldiers returned to camp.

It was again brought to my knowledge that these turbulent Jats were as numerous as ants or locusts, and that no, traveler or merchant passed unscathed from their hands. They had now taken flight, and had gone into jungles and deserts hard to penetrate. A few of them had been killed, but it was my fixed determination to clear from thieves and robbers every country that I subdued, so that the servants of God, and Musulmans and travellers might be secure from their violence. My great object in invading Hindustan had been to wage a religious war against the infidel Hindus, and it now appeared to me that it was necessary for me to put down these Jats and to deliver travelers from their hands. I consequently placed the care of the baggage and of all the plunder which had been gained in my victories in charge of Amir Sulaiman Shah, to convey it with the heavy baggage to the town of Samana.

On the 9th of the month I despatched the baggage from Tohana, and on the same day I marched into the jungles and wilds, and slew 2,000 demon-like Jats. I made their wives and children captives, and plundered their cattle and property. Thus I delivered the country from the terror it had long suffered at the hands of the marauding Jats. On the same day a party of saiyids, who [p. 46] dwelt in the vicinity, came with courtesy and humility to wait upon me, and were very graciously received. In my reverence for the race of the prophet, I treated their chiefs with great honour. I gave them all valuable robes, and I appointed an officer to go to their abodes and protect them, so that none of my soldiers should do them any injury.
 
Anglos saved indians from their 800 year subjugation under Central Asian conquerors including Timur and descendants, that's why they love 'em :lol:

By that standard , you all should love the Americans and allied forces(UK,France etc). After the rape of Nanking , where the Japanese raped like 300,000 of your people , I'm sure the allied invasion was a welcome break , or the rape would have gone on and on . Btw , could you please expound more on this rape? Did they only rape women , or guys too. If they raped guys , that would be hilarious. :lol:
 
The number remains unknown. Not to my knowledge a survey been taken



If Chinese adore Japanese for Nanking, then there is a chance, Indians may adore Timur.

Of course Nanking is more recent than Timur invasion and has limited effect of Indian populace.

I never lived in china but I know a lot of Chinese that hate the Japanese. The Japanese invasion to China is still quite recent as compare to Timur invasion of India. The Chinese do not seem to dislike the British as compare to Japanese. Even though the Brits were the first to attack Qing China. The Indians here hates China more as compare to British even though it's cause by a minor border war half a century ago. It's understandable as British brought over democracy and created India so Indians are grateful.
 
However, Timurlane was probably dumb and was a religious fanatic.

Please dont make such assumptions if you have no idea what you are talking about..He was really a wise man but very cruel..Except for Alexander, he conquered more than anyone else, more than Chenghis Khan..a dumb person cant do that
 
Please dont make such assumptions if you have no idea what you are talking about..He was really a wise man but very cruel..Except for Alexander, he conquered more than anyone else, more than Chenghis Khan..a dumb person cant do that

He didn't conquer more than Genghis Khan. He wasn't dump in warfare, but he wasn't an educated type man I mean. He had the street smarts. And used it very effectively and became very rich.

Hell, maybe he wasn't just a brute. Idk.
 
Please dont make such assumptions if you have no idea what you are talking about..He was really a wise man but very cruel..Except for Alexander, he conquered more than anyone else, more than Chenghis Khan..a dumb person cant do that
Yeah...even Hitler was quite intelligent. Its about the choices they made, being a rapist, looter and a murderer over-shadowed his intelligence. BTW what intelligence can be assessed about him considering his crimes ?
 
Interesting to see Indian attitudes on invaders.
They seem to forget that their language, much of their religion and their very nature are based on these central Asian invaders.
Amusing to see Pakistani attitudes on their invaders, soaked in identiy crisis and desperate for triumphs against India they seem to credit their invaders for their identity and heroes (naming missile after invaders who destroyed much of pre-Islamic Pakistan) :lol:

They Aryans conquered their land, mind and spirit so much so that Indians get violently upset if you even suggest that they were invaders.
Aryan conquest remains a theory with no scientific evidence or historical records of ever occurring. Only what remains to supports is Linguistic and cultural theories.

The very mention of scientific evidence is going to trigger cognitive dissonance in Rusty, as it challenges his childhood indoctrination on Hinduphobia and religion. :taz:


As for Timur lane, he was good for central Asia but a pest for the rest of the world.
Interestingly, Babur was a decedent of Timur lane and justified his conquest of India by saying it was his right to rule India since his for father Timur lane had already conquered it.

Source for the bolded part?
 
Interesting to see Indian attitudes on invaders.
They seem to forget that their language, much of their religion and their very nature are based on these central Asian invaders. They Aryans conquered their land, mind and spirit so much so that Indians get violently upset if you even suggest that they were invaders.


As for Timur lane, he was good for central Asia but a pest for the rest of the world.
Interestingly, Babur was a decedent of Timur lane and justified his conquest of India by saying it was his right to rule India since his for father Timur lane had already conquered it.

The modern British are also descendent of anglo saxon and Norman invaders. This fact is accepted by the Brits. The Indians get rile up if you mention the aryan invaders and you would be attacked personally.
 
The modern British are also descendent of anglo saxon and Norman invaders. This fact is accepted by the Brits. The Indians get rile up if you mention the aryan invaders and you would be attacked personally.

Most British aren't Anglo-Saxon or Normans.

Normans were the elites who were Franco-Vikings that invaded Saxon ruled England from France.

British are Irish, Scottish, Walsh, Yorkshire, etc also.

English have more Saxon in them then the others.
 
By that standard , you all should love the Americans and allied forces(UK,France etc). After the rape of Nanking , where the Japanese raped like 300,000 of your people , I'm sure the allied invasion was a welcome break , or the rape would have gone on and on . Btw , could you please expound more on this rape? Did they only rape women , or guys too. If they raped guys , that would be hilarious. :lol:
That's nothing compared to 800 years of slavery under Central Asian conquerors ;)

All your language, identity and history were wiped not..... and Indus River Valley was lost forever :lol:

Timur is my favorite conqueror of all time even better than Ghazni, Ghauri and Babur..... can't wait for another Timur to emerge from Mongoloid peoples to finish the job. :)
 
That's nothing compared to 800 years of slavery under Central Asian conquerors

You're ignorant

They held parts of India.

When the North was being taken over. The South was doing fine.

Cholas sent fleets to S.E. Asia when the North was being attacked.

rajendra_map_new.png


It's like saying the British controlled India for 200 years. The British raj(All of India) existed for 90+ years. But the British was in India for 200 years. Mostly in Bengal.
 
Most British aren't Anglo-Saxon or Normans.

Normans were the elites who were Franco-Vikings that invaded Saxon ruled England from France.

British are Irish, Scottish, Walsh, Yorkshire, etc also.

English have more Saxon in them then the others.

Most low land Scottish has Anglo Viking ackground. But highlanders were original Celtic Britain. English are mostly original Britain combine with Anglo Saxon, Normans and Vikings.
 
You're ignorant

They held parts of India.

When the North was being taken over. The South was doing fine.

Cholas sent fleets to S.E. Asia when the North was being attacked.

rajendra_map_new.png


It's like saying the British controlled India for 200 years. The British raj(All of India) existed for 90+ years. But the British was in India for 200 years. Mostly in Bengal.
Yes and that's why the ones with massive inferiority complex are always the northern hindi speaking indians :rofl:


When I was satisfied with the destruction I had dealt out to the infidels, and the land was cleansed from the pollution of their existence, I turned back victorious and triumphant, laden with spoil. On that same day I crossed the Ganges. and said my mid.day prayers in the congregation on the bank of that river. I prostrated myself in humble thanks to God, and afterwards again mounting my horse, marched five miles down the river and then encainped. It now occurred to my mind that I had marched as a conqueror from the river Sind to Dehli, the capital of the kings of India. I had put the infidels to the edge of the sword on both sides of my route, and had scoured the land; I had seized upon the throne of the kings of India; I had defeated Sultan Mahmud, the king of Delhi, and triumphed over him; I had crossed the rivers Ganges and Jumna, and I had sent many of the abominable infidels to hell, and had purified the land from their foul existence. I rendered thanks to Almighty God that I had accomplished my undertaking, and had waged against the infidels that holy war I had resolved upon: then I determined to turn my course towards Samarkand, my capital and paradise. On the 6th of the month I mounted and proceeded towards the heavy baggage, and having travelled several kos, I encamped, and sent some yurutchis (quarter-masters) to go and bring up the baggage.
 
Most low land Scottish has Anglo Viking ackground. But highlanders were original Celtic Britain. English are mostly original Britain combine with Anglo Saxon, Normans and Vikings.

No. In the coastal regions there might be more Scandinavian ancestry. But most British do not have Scandinavian in them. Normans were few invaders. However Saxons-Germanics came in more waves.
 
Back
Top Bottom