PDA

View Full Version : The Legacy of Chatrapathi Shivaji Maharaj!



Surya
12th October 2005, 09:00 PM
[tscii:4639f832a3]N[/tscii:4639f832a3]ote to The Admin/Moderators and Hubbers:

This thread wasn't created to offend anyone in any way shape or form. This is just another Chapter in India's History as is Ramayan or Mahabharath. This thread shouldn't offend the people of any community. I am not creating this thread with any malicious idea to defame any community or it's people. There will be no derogatory references directed at any community in this thread. Every word in this thread is clearly factual and nothing is opinionated. Please let this thread stand.

After All the discription of this section does say: Indian History & Culture: for discussing various aspects of history of our country and people. :)

The Title: The Legacy of Chatrapathy Shivaji Maharaj!

Before we get into Chatrapathi Shivaji, we should also analyze the root for the cause, and the Era before Shivaji, which led him to do the things he did. We will start with a glance of Bharath before Islamic or British influence, and the Kings before the Chatrapathi. Starting with an overview of India, and Mohamud of Ghazni, the first Invader in thousands of years.

Chapter 1: A Start of an Era.

Key Dates for this chapter:
AD 998 – Mohamud is crowned the King of Ghazni.
AD 1000 – 1027 Invasions of Mahmud of Ghazni.

Chapter 1A: Bharathavarsha, and her Glorious Culture – a Glance:

The people of Bharath (Present day India) had lived in various parts of the Subcontinent under various Kings. They practiced a religion knows as Sanatan Dharm, which is now known as Hinduism. The religion, which laid emphasis on truth and tolerance, became a way of life with the people who followed the scriptures and the various rituals prescribed in them. They came to accept their present lot that they ascribed to their good or bad deeds of their previous birth and firmly believed that their future depended on their sins of commission and omission of the present life. (Karma.) The fertile lands yielded plenty of produce and there was peace and prosperity in the country. It was also a time when Communications were not at all developed. News traveled slowly; if it did. What reached the listener was not necessarily an account of what actually happened. It was what the various people who heard it thought might have occurred. With such a state of communications, it was to be expected that the Indian sub-continent was too large a landmass to be ruled centrally by one authority and follow one set of laws. The population should have been practicing different religions, customs and traditions. But it was not so. Despite long distances separating the people, difficulties of terrain and variations of Climate, the country was considered as one not only geographically, but also culturally and spiritually. Spiritually it was one land, it was the land of the inhabitants who were knows as Hindus. After the name of the river Sindhi-the Indus. The Hindus made it a point to visit numerous places of pilgrimage all over the sub-continent. The religion of the people had its base in the 4 Vedas which were written much before 1500 BC. Vedic hymns sang the praises of truth, beauty and the eternal law. They were intensely religious and yet rhythmic and melodious. The fundamental laws of religion as enunciated by the hymns were truth, eternal order, consecration, austerity, prayer and ritual. To get more on Hinduism, and its philosophies, and the culture of the Indians you can take a quick glance at some of the other threads in this section.
Philosophy had also prospered greatly in Bharath. The earliest Greek thinkers are traced to the sixth century BC. Pythagoras lived during this period. Socrates died in BC 399. Philosophy was then in its infancy in the west. By this time it had fully matured in India. The Hindu who was taught to worship idols since the ancient times came to accept the divinity of God that he worshipped as also the God or Gods worshipped by men of other denominations. For the Gita told him that sincere devotees of other God in fact worshipped his God – Lord Krishna. Thus he became extremely tolerant of other religions and other forms of worship.
Upto 1000 AD, there were a few foreign invasions of the subcontinent. But they were not such consequence as to make a permanent impact on the culture of the people. The Hunas come in the 6 th century, and were thrown out. The Arabs conquered Sindh in the 8th century but this was a frontier episode. They were soon overrun and whosoever was left became part and parcel of the land.
The peaceful, prosperous life of the inhabitants of India was given a rude Jolt in 1000 AD. This is where Mahmud of Ghazni enters play.

Chapter 1B: Mahmud of Ghazni – A glance:

Mahmud was crowned as King in 998 AD, in Ghazni. He was a Turk and the first to raid India. In many kingdoms in the Middle Eastern region, one of the most repeated things people hear about is the wonder of India, her culture, and most of all…her wealth. When described about India's wealth, Mahmud didn't waste any time. He gathered his humongous army and headed for India. He crawled through the Khyber Pass (as the later invaders would) and headed for India. He wrecked such havoc and destruction as had never been known before. The destroyed and murdered not caring if they were warriors, Kings, civilians, men, women or children. His men raped women, forced unwilling marriages on many and committed barbarities that defy description. He burnt and looted whole cities, captured or killed hundreds, turned thousands to slaves, and enforced his religion on them back in Ghazni. The Turks fought through unlawful acts, which the Hindus had not seen before. The Hindus only fought according to the just laws of warfare, which was instructed in their religious texts. The new tactics of total barbarity, total destruction, and unethical murder of defenseless Civilians was new to the Indians. Mahmud of Ghazni destroyed numerous holy temples including those at Mathura, and Somnath, which need special notice.
The Pilgrimage for Lord Shiva at Somnath was held in the hearts of the Hindus as one of the most important Pilgrimages in the world. According to Al Kasnivi, an Arab Historian 10,000 villages belonged to the temple, A mountain of wealth was inside which consisted of gold, diamonds, rubies, and jems. These were the offerings from the civilians, and did not include the ones from the Kings! The temple hired 1000 priests who chanted Vedic hymns 60 minutes an hour, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and year round. 500 singers and dancers were employed by the temple to entertain the devotees. 1000's of valuable gold statues (Vigrahas) rested inside the temple walls. Early writers describe the temple tower (Gopuram) as touching the skies. A Temple of this magnitude located on the shoreline of Gujarat seemed like a piece of heaven, and drastically boosted the spiritual devotion of it's visitors. During auspicious days, one hundred thousand Hindus (1 lakh) visited the temple with ecstatic devotion from all over the subcontinent. Note: this was a thousand years ago, when the population of Bharath wasn't nearly what it is now . The wealth of the Somnath temple had reached the ears of the Mahmud. He headed to Southern Gujarat with his terrifying; ruthless army thinking it was going to be as easy as taking candy from a baby. When he got there, he said, "So this is the rich temple?" and continued forward to be astonished by the number of people who opposed him. Mahmud looked at his Officers. "Hurry up and get rid of these jokers." He said as his army shot off with their weapons, at the crowed like and unleashed army of hyenas running at a group of defenseless cows. They hacked and they hacked and they hacked. But the people just kept coming. Note: These people are not warriors, these people are not kings, these people are just defenseless civilians who have not received any sort of training in combat, who don't have any weapons to fight with. Early writers claim that the civilians were using broomsticks, and tree branches as weapons, to fight the barbaric army, which were riding on cavalry, heavily armored, well equipped, and also well trained . The Turk army continued to murder, as new waves of people gave their lives. Swords dug into the chest of defenseless Hindu men, and women. Children were no exception either. After several hours of massacre, the Turk army stood with nothing in their way to satisfy their greed. Al Kasvini, an Arab Historian, describes that the Ocean had turned red from the unthinkable bloody massacre at Somanthapuram, Gujarat. The death toll of Hindus in this massacre is more than the unbelievable toll of 50,000. Mahmud of Ghazni raced into the temple walls to find the wealth, which mesmerized him, and took him almost to insanity. He ran from one place to another, with his eyes wide open, and his smile from one ear to the other, not being able to digest the amount of gold, diamonds, and Rubies, he eyes were seeing. After a few minutes of greed driving him insane, he ordered his army to start looting. As his army ran to the mountains of gold, and diamonds. Mahmud's vision was inside the alter, (Gharbagraha) where a Shiva lingam was seen standing in mid air, with no foundation to sit it on. He was mesmerized, and confused. He grabbed a wooden spear and walked into the alter with his eyes fixed on the lingam. He raised his spear and waved it under the lingam…nothing. He waved it above and around the lingam to see if it was somehow tied to the pillars surrounding it…nothing. After a few minutes of utter disarray, his confusion swiftly became anger. "Ahh!!" he yelled as he strikes the lingam with his spear. The lingam doesn't move. Frustrated by his helplessness, he orders his army to do whatever it takes to get the lingam down. The soldiers do everything they can, but fail. One soldier strikes the North East pillar with his spear until it collapses, when it does, the NE side of the Lingam lowers down. Everyone stops. Mahmud stares at the lingam as he approaches it. “Demolish this pillar!” He orders pointing to the North Western pillar. The soldiers do as their told. The NW side of the lingam lowers down as well. Mahmud now flabbergasted order for all pillars surrounding the lingam to be brought down. The Indians had used magnetic pillars to make the lingam stand in mid air, knowledge of this magnitude to completely new to barbaric invaders. After all of the pillars were destroyed, the lingham landed on the stone floor with a thud! Mahmud of Ghazni picks it up with the help of a few of his soldiers and carries it out. When they bring the Magnetic Lingam out, he breaks it open into pieces in curiosity, to see if there was anything in it to make it float in mid air. After his disappointment, Mahmud hauls it home along with thousands of diamonds, gems, and 8 tons of Gold ALONE! This doesn't include the diamonds, and the rubies which he stole also. A battleship, which is also known as a floating city weighs only 85 tons. And the amount of gold stolen from Somanath Shiva Temple weighed 8 tons!! You can imagine the magnitude of stolen goods he took back to his home land. The lingam which had taken thousands of Abhishegams, and grand pujas, which had Sacred Vedic Hymns chanted to it every second of the day, now, today rests as a series stepping stones for a Palace in Afghanistan. If anyone wants to get into the tourist site, they have to step on the Lingam from the grandest Shivan temple at Somanathapuram.

After Mahmud of Ghazni left, life continued on in Bharath. But no one forgets the bloddy massacre of 50,000 hindus in Somanathapuram. Sadly, Ghazni would be looked on as a mild invader, when compared to the unthinkably barbaric future that Bharath will come to suffer from future invasions.

To Be Continued…

Sudhaama
13th October 2005, 05:40 AM
Well-done Mr Surya...!!

I am sure your intention behind opening this Thread is Quite Healthy, duly conforming to the Scope of this Historical- Section meant for.

I appreciate your way of presentation .. the GLORIOUS REMINISCENSES of our Great Nation India, one of the Prides of Healthy Global-Culture.

Yes please... Go ahead.. I am anxious further on the matter.

Sandeep
13th October 2005, 12:47 PM
Gory details!!!

Let me add some more to it.

Mahmud of Ghazni had carried out 16 to 17 raids into northern India and Gujarat. He progressively looted and destroyed temple towns, including Thanesar (1012), Mathura and Kanauj (1018), and finally Somnath (1026). After Mahmud's raids on the cities of Varanasi, Ujjain, Maheshwar, Jwalamukhi, and Dwarka, not one temple survived intact.

The gilded lingam of Somnath was broken into pieces, and the stone fragments were carted back to Ghazni, where they were incorporated into the steps of the city's new Jami Masjid.




The Turks fought through unlawful acts, which the Hindus had not seen before. The Hindus only fought according to the just laws of warfare, which was instructed in their religious texts. The new tactics of total barbarity, total destruction, and unethical murder of defenseless Civilians was new to the Indians.

But Surya,

The failure of Indian rulers at that time has to be attributed to their weaknesses. The Rajputs where able to successfully defend themselves (though at great cost) against Mahmud, and I am sure as the chapters go by, you will sure tell us of the great Indian rulers who defended their Kingdoms.

It was the lack of unity among Indian rulers and also not investing time, money and effort in creating a powerful defense system that lead to demise of Indian subcontinent.

As you mentioned India was Spiritually one but was Politically divided largely because of the vested interests of the rulers (Well we see that even today).

Lessons to be learned

1) We where/are divided amoung ourselves on base of language, region, race, customs, religion and caste. That was/is our primary weakness.
2) Second would be our complesency about everything. I am sure our forefathers would have given a deadly fight where Muhamad came but once he left they would have come back to the easy life. Result he looted us 16 or 17 times.

Raghu
13th October 2005, 12:56 PM
Oh bob oh boy, I am going to learn a lot from this thread, well done surya :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

nirosha sen
13th October 2005, 07:03 PM
Good thread Surya!! Good to learn so much history, albeit ahem.... a bit romanticised on your part, abt the Hindu rulers! But to tell the truth, this is the 1st time I'm hearing of Mahmud of Ghazni!

In my history books, I thought I read it as Muhammad Ghaur, who had invaded the Indian sub-continent the 1st time, by way of the Khyber Pass! :shock:

But please, Surya and Sandeep, continue to enlighten us!! This is real good history, Pa!! :D

lordstanher
13th October 2005, 09:24 PM
In my history books, I thought I read it as Muhammad Ghaur, who had invaded the Indian sub-continent the 1st time, by way of the Khyber Pass!
Um.......I think u mean Muhammad Ghori? I rem. reading abt him too in my history books at school......this also brings another memory- I wud make fun of the name Ghori as 'Gori' (= girl in Hindi :wink: ) whenever I read it in my text bk! :D


But please, Surya and Sandeep, continue to enlighten us!! This is real good history, Pa!! :D
No doubt it is.......altho IMO u'd need a strong heart to go thru all these gory details......phew! :shock:

Surya
13th October 2005, 10:18 PM
Sudhamma, Raghu, Sandeep, Niro, and Lord, :D :D :D
Thank you all very much for coming to the thread. :D



am sure your intention behind opening this Thread is Quite Healthy, duly conforming to the Scope of this Historical- Section meant for.

I appreciate your way of presentation .. the GLORIOUS REMINISCENSES of our Great Nation India, one of the Prides of Healthy Global-Culture.

Thanks for the incouragement Mr. Sudhamma.

I also want to thank the admin and the mods for not disturbing the thread. :D



But Surya,

The failure of Indian rulers at that time has to be attributed to their weaknesses. The Rajputs where able to successfully defend themselves (though at great cost) against Mahmud, and I am sure as the chapters go by, you will sure tell us of the great Indian rulers who defended their Kingdoms. It was the lack of unity among Indian rulers and also not investing time, money and effort in creating a powerful defense system that lead to demise of Indian subcontinent. As you mentioned India was Spiritually one but was Politically divided largely because of the vested interests of the rulers (Well we see that even today).

Very True. Yes, I will mention the great Rajputs, and also Mahaveer Pritviraj Maharaj, who united most of the Rajputs to fight against the invader that Lord and Niro mentioned. Muhamad Gori.

We as Indians had everything to defend ourselves, except unity. We had exceptionally brave Kings, we had astonishing war strategies (from the atharvena or Yajur veda I forget which one), but all this was a waste when we didn't have unity. As u will see later on, it was the vengence for small fueds etc that caused India to loose to the Invaders.


Second would be our complesency about everything. I am sure our forefathers would have given a deadly fight where Muhamad came but once he left they would have come back to the easy life. Result he looted us 16 or 17 times.

Exactly! If only our forefather had united and gone after Mahmud to Ghazni he wouldn't have looted us at all. We had an army that made the world's best army at the time (Alexander) cower back! Alexander's army came up to Porus's (Purushothaman) kingdom, and retreated because we were too good. When we could make Alexander the Great's army cower back, why weren't we able to do that with invading tyrants? Did we have unity back then, which later on deteriated in our system?



The gilded lingam of Somnath was broken into pieces, and the stone fragments were carted back to Ghazni, where they were incorporated into the steps of the city's new Jami Masjid.

It was a Masjid? Thank you for correcting me. :D I had stated that it was a Palace.



In my history books, I thought I read it as Muhammad Ghaur, who had invaded the Indian sub-continent the 1st time, by way of the Khyber Pass!

Muhammad Ghaur, or Gori was another invader, who came after Ghazni. His death will be met by an arrow shot by Mahaveer Pritviraj Maharaj! We will get to him in the upcoming chapters. 8-)

Lord, :D
Quiet Goary indeed. But like I said, the later Invaders would make Ghazni look like a mild invader.
I could get into Thymore, who is one of the worst that bharath has ever seen, he was a turk as well. :cry:

lordstanher
13th October 2005, 10:59 PM
As u will see later on, it was the vengence for small fueds etc that caused India to loose to the Invaders.
Or the fact tat we in general, were over-confident abt our skills/know-how etc., taking them for granted? (I daresay we still do!)

I could get into Thymore, who is one of the worst that bharath has ever seen, he was a turk as well. :cry:
I thot tats actually Taimur (a.k.a. Tamarlane), as mentioned in my 7th class ICSE history book!
Or maybe u mention an 'anglicised' pronounciation of the name? :wink: :D
Yup I rem. reading a lot of evil stuff tat this dude did as well......now I recall tat was also when I 1st learnt the word "massacre"....!

P_R
14th October 2005, 12:57 AM
Nice work Surya. Eager to read more. My history is kind of messed up here.For instance I was also under the impression that Ghori was before Ghazni.

There is a place in Madurai called 'Ghoripaalayam'. Unreliable sources say it was named so by Malik Kafur (btw what's so special about him ?).

Ok I don't want to jump the gun, pl. continue chronologically.
Carry On :smile2:

P_R
14th October 2005, 12:58 AM
I also want to thank the admin and the mods for not disturbing the thread. Very Happy :lol: Very thoughtful of you.

ssanjinika
14th October 2005, 01:16 AM
Nice work Surya. Eager to read more. My history is kind of messed up here.For instance I was also under the impression that Ghori was before Ghazni.

There is a place in Madurai called 'Ghoripaalayam'. Unreliable sources say it was named so by Malik Kafur (btw what's so special about him ?).

Ok I don't want to jump the gun, pl. continue chronologically.
Carry On :smile2:

I def seem to remember that Mhud Gazni was the first looter to loot the sub continent.He was to return 16 more times to kill and rob the country.

Surya
14th October 2005, 03:17 AM
Nice work Surya. Eager to read more. My history is kind of messed up here.For instance I was also under the impression that Ghori was before Ghazni.

There is a place in Madurai called 'Ghoripaalayam'. Unreliable sources say it was named so by Malik Kafur (btw what's so special about him ?).

Ok I don't want to jump the gun, pl. continue chronologically.
Carry On :smile2:

I def seem to remember that Mhud Gazni was the first looter to loot the sub continent.He was to return 16 more times to kill and rob the country.

Great to see u guys here! :D

He was the first, Gori was later.

Malik Kafur. I'll get to him soon. Like u said Chronologically. :D

Sudhaama
14th October 2005, 03:38 AM
Sudhamma, Raghu, Sandeep, Niro, and Lord, :D :D :D
Thank you all very much for coming to the thread. :D



am sure your intention behind opening this Thread is Quite Healthy, duly conforming to the Scope of this Historical- Section meant for.

I appreciate your way of presentation .. the GLORIOUS REMINISCENSES of our Great Nation India, one of the Prides of Healthy Global-Culture.

Thanks for the incouragement Mr. Sudhamma.

I also want to thank the admin and the mods for not disturbing the thread. :D



But Surya,

The failure of Indian rulers at that time has to be attributed to their weaknesses. The Rajputs where able to successfully defend themselves (though at great cost) against Mahmud, and I am sure as the chapters go by, you will sure tell us of the great Indian rulers who defended their Kingdoms. It was the lack of unity among Indian rulers and also not investing time, money and effort in creating a powerful defense system that lead to demise of Indian subcontinent. As you mentioned India was Spiritually one but was Politically divided largely because of the vested interests of the rulers (Well we see that even today).

Very True. Yes, I will mention the great Rajputs, and also Mahaveer Pritviraj Maharaj, who united most of the Rajputs to fight against the invader that Lord and Niro mentioned. Muhamad Gori.

We as Indians had everything to defend ourselves, except unity. We had exceptionally brave Kings, we had astonishing war strategies (from the atharvena or Yajur veda I forget which one), but all this was a waste when we didn't have unity. As u will see later on, it was the vengence for small fueds etc that caused India to loose to the Invaders.


Second would be our complesency about everything. I am sure our forefathers would have given a deadly fight where Muhamad came but once he left they would have come back to the easy life. Result he looted us 16 or 17 times.

Exactly! If only our forefather had united and gone after Mahmud to Ghazni he wouldn't have looted us at all. We had an army that made the world's best army at the time (Alexander) cower back! Alexander's army came up to Porus's (Purushothaman) kingdom, and retreated because we were too good. When we could make Alexander the Great's army cower back, why weren't we able to do that with invading tyrants? Did we have unity back then, which later on deteriated in our system?



The gilded lingam of Somnath was broken into pieces, and the stone fragments were carted back to Ghazni, where they were incorporated into the steps of the city's new Jami Masjid.

It was a Masjid? Thank you for correcting me. :D I had stated that it was a Palace.



In my history books, I thought I read it as Muhammad Ghaur, who had invaded the Indian sub-continent the 1st time, by way of the Khyber Pass!

Muhammad Ghaur, or Gori was another invader, who came after Ghazni. His death will be met by an arrow shot by Mahaveer Pritviraj Maharaj! We will get to him in the upcoming chapters. 8-)

Lord, :D
Quiet Goary indeed. But like I said, the later Invaders would make Ghazni look like a mild invader.
I could get into Thymore, who is one of the worst that bharath has ever seen, he was a turk as well. :cry:

Well... I appreciate the active participation by several Friends in a Thought-provoking manner. Yes please continue in the same Trend. of History... as it occurred...

... without adding any Personal Negative-comments nor Provocative statements against any section of Society,or Culture, Faith and so on... by generalising the sense.. generating heat and mutual hatred ..

... which only are Objectionable... Such Negative-attitude we the Common-minded Healthy-hearted Hubbers too will object... irrespective of the Administartors and Moderators

So far OK..

Let us all keep in mind.... the Outspoken Observations by our Great President Mr. Abdul-Kalam...

" It is a Truth of History... that we Indians, especially our Ancestors had suffered under the Dominating Hands of Muslim- Aggressors like Babar, Gajini and Gaori-Mohammad.... Not only our Land and Properties had been looted by these Invaders, but also OUR ANCIENT CULTURE. & HERITAGE..

No Muslim or Hindu or of any Religion should take sides with them... or feel one with such Cruel Entity..

.. Criminal is a Criminal... Aggressor is an Aggressor..WHOEVER HE OR SHE MAY BE... We should not personally think Beyond."

What a SENSIBLE AND HEALTHY OUTLOOK... of our Honourable President... with a Humanitarian-Sense.!!

Let us not transgress from the Topic on Shivaji.. too far. We can just awhile drift away from the Main subject but not miss the Thread.

Surya
14th October 2005, 05:12 AM
Yes Sudhamma ji, :D

So far no one has said anything against any community in India. Mainly because the hubbers participating here do have that sort of outlook. And we will keep it that way. :thumbsup:

Sandeep
14th October 2005, 09:01 AM
Sorry for breaking the chronology. Just wanted to put some perspective

Rajput supremacy in north India was between the 7th to the 12th centuries.

Before Ghazni two other rulers had raided India

1) Mohalib was an Arab general who made the first raids into South Asia in 664 CE (7th century).

2) 21 year old Syrian Muslim chieftain named Muhammad bin Qasim (for whom Karachi's 2nd port is named). The expedition went as far north as Multan, which at that time was known as the "city of gold," within which was the Sun Mandir (no idea if any remains are found today)

However, the first two rulers didn't at this time come to conquer, seeming only to make explorations.

Then comes Ghazi..

An image I stumbled upon

http://s5.imagesubmit.com/conquests_of_mahmud_of_ghaznavi.jpg (http://www.imagesubmit.com/)

Now back to you Surya...

aravindhan
14th October 2005, 09:28 PM
When we could make Alexander the Great's army cower back, why weren't we able to do that with invading tyrants? Did we have unity back then, which later on deteriated in our system?

I think you are looking at ancient India through today's eyes. Ancient India was not united. It presents a sharp contrast with ancient Greece in this regard. Greece was divided into a number of city states, which constantly fought each other, yet, when things came to a crunch, they were clear that they were all Hellenes, and as such united against outsiders. The history of the Greek wars against Persia speaks for itself.

I don't think ancient India ever had anything even remotely approaching this sentiment - there was no all-encompassing sense of "Indianess", or of owing loyalty to one civilisation or culture. Sure, there was a sense of a shared culture, but that did not translate to a feeling of loyalty to something greater than oneself.

You can see this from its effects. As we all know, Alexander was welcomed with open arms by the king of Taxila who hoped to use him as an ally to fight his enemies. When his soldiers joined the people of the city states who opposed Alexander, the king helped Alexander find and kill the rebellious soldiers. When popular philosophers condemned the kings who joined Alexander and urged the free kingdoms to fight him, the Indian ruling classes rounded up the philosophers and handed them over to Alexander to be put to death. Even Porus eventually became one of Alexander's governors. It was much the same at the time of Ghaznavi's invasion. Ghaznavi was ably assisted by his vazir's secretary, one Tilak, the son of Jai Sen. And Tilak was by no means the only native to join the invaders.

The reason why the kingdoms of the day could eventually beat Alexander was that you had in those days individual powerful kingdoms such as Gandara. Historians such as Plutarch are quite clear in that the rumours of Gandara's armies were enough to cause Alexander's army to mutiny and refuse to march further, thus forcing Alexander to stop his advance.

In Ghaznavi's day, there was no single kingdoms in the north which were that large or powerful. The south had kingdoms which were sufficiently strong (the imperial Cholas were then at the peak of their strength), but they were utterly disinterested in the affairs of the North. Many of the kingdoms of the North (including Ujjain, Gwalior, Bhatiya, Kanauj, and Delhi) did unite against Ghaznavi on one of his early invasions, but there was nothing like the sort of unity the Greeks displayed against the Persians. On the contrary, there was so much expectation of betrayal, that when the king of Bhatiya's elephant stampeded and fled the battlefield after being wounded by an arrow, the other kings thought this was a deliberate action and also retreated, turning victory into defeat.

No, unity, in the Indian context, is something very new, which is why we still seem to have so many problems with it. Personal and regional interests still take precedence in all too many ways.

Sorry for this digression - it will be interesting to see what you have to say about Shivaji. He seems to have been fairly successful in overcoming this syndrome, at least as far as Maharashtra was concerned.

Surya
14th October 2005, 11:43 PM
But after Alexander faced failure with Porus (Purushothaman) (Because his army was used to fighting with horses, etc, but they had seen something that they hadn't before, they saw elephants: According to the History Channel) he went down south to fight another Hindu Kingdom. In that battle he was shot by a Poison arrow, his troops retreat taking Alex with them, and then Alex dies a few months later. When was Porus one of Alex's gonveners?

My knoledge isn't very vivid in that time period. I only know about the time period of and after Ghajini. So if I'm wrong, (and there is a good possiblility that I am.) please correct me. :)

Thanks. 8-)

aravindhan
15th October 2005, 12:28 AM
But after Alexander faced failure with Porus (Purushothaman) (Because his army was used to fighting with horses, etc, but they had seen something that they hadn't before, they saw elephants: According to the History Channel)
According to contemporary historians, Alexander came perilously close to losing because of the elephants; however, his soldiers were instructed to attack the elephants' mahouts, and they eventually managed to beat Porus. You then had the famous Alexander-Porus conversation, at the end of which Porus was appointed Alexander's satrap over his former kingdom and 15 other provinces. Later, after Alexander's death, Taxila conspired with the local Greek commanders to have Porus murdered. As a result, the region rebelled and invited Chandragupta to invade and liberate it from Greek rule.

In the 1960s, Pakistani historians challenged this version of history. They claimed that Ferdowsi's Persian work Shahnameh said that Alexander had been defeated by Porus, and that the Western accounts should not be believed. These claims were brought to India by Buddha Prakash, who published a book in English repeating them, and the idea that Porus beat Alexander has now gained some currency in popular circles. Most historians, however, reject it, because the Shahnameh is quite unreliable about Alexander - among other things, it makes him the illegitimate son of a Persian emperor, which is absolutely unhistorical.


he went down south to fight another Hindu Kingdom. In that battle he was shot by a Poison arrow, his troops retreat taking Alex with them, and then Alex dies a few months later. When was Porus one of Alex's gonveners?

Alexander fought Porus in 326 BC, and Porus became his governor immediately after the war and remaind so until his (i.e. Porus's) death.

After the war, Alexander had wanted to advance onto the Gangetic valley, but his troops mutinied. They had had a hard enough time beating Porus, and they now faced Gandhara and Magadha, who were much more powerful. Alexander very reluctantly abandoned his plans, and proceeded southwards along the Indus, where he conquered the kingdom of Mallia. During this battle, he was shot by a poisoned arrow, which brought him close to death and left him quite weak, but the traditional histories say that he ultimately won the war. In any event, he lived for another three years during which he conducted a number of further campaigns. He took violently ill in 323 BC, and died after a short illness. There were some rumours at the time that he was poisoned, but there is nothing conclusive either way. It is certainly possible that the poisoned arrow had weakened him greatly, and therefore contributed to his early death, however it does not appear to have been the immediate cause of his death.

Sudhaama
15th October 2005, 12:43 AM
Very Nice and Interesting Posting by Mr. ARAVINDHAN. ...

There are a few Hubbers... on whom I am so impressed culminating in a high Image on them in my mind... and whenever I see their NAMES anywhere in the postings under any Thread...

...I used to curiously enter and read through... whichever may be the Topic... and whatever may be its length by content...

... and ENJOY READING ... with a sense of appeasement at the end.
.
One such dignitary is Mr. Aravindhan... I am lucky to have him here... along with such other Elites..

Yes...Mr Aravindhan.... Please Go ahead further and .. feed us with more and more similar rich Foods for our Thoughts and Anxiety to Know the Truth of Wisdom- Sparks.

Thank You very much.

Surya
15th October 2005, 05:59 AM
Mr. Aravindhan,

:shock: WOW!! U learn something new everyday in this hub!! :D

But I am still puzzled over what to believe. :? After reading this, I googled on it, and found most websites saying that Porus defeated Alex. But then again like you said...
the idea that Porus beat Alexander has now gained some currency in popular circles.

Also,
This might be Conservative propaganda, but I've read spmewhere that Alex died due to some sort of STD, since he was homosexual. Though I have a hard time believing it, it's another theory.

Regards. 8-)

Shakthiprabha.
21st October 2005, 09:21 PM
Wow What a thread! I remember always lacking interest in history from examination point of view.

Now there are no exams here, just infos pushed to us.

What more is needed..


THIS THREAD IS A TREAT....

What happ to "to be continued" part of surya post?
Is it yet to be done?

Mr.Aravindhan's post is extremely interesting. I also remmber reading that porus defeated alexander.

Its sad.. such massive empires all thro india, failing to adhere to the needs of fellow countrymen.

But Did INDIAN concept PREVAIL THOSE DAYS? Like mentioned by Mr. Aravindhan its quite a new concept I suppose.

All we had in common was the religion and more or less similar culture. The diffrences or unconcern of other emperors shows there was ACTUALLY nothing common except for practices.

Bharat was coincidence.
India is arrangement.

Waiting more from surya.

Sanskritist
28th December 2005, 07:27 PM
* deleted *


Mod msg: Ban warning!

sundararaj
1st January 2007, 05:43 PM
Great wealth of information. Thanks for all the contributors.

mmcholan
10th May 2007, 04:48 PM
Sivaji was one of the greatest indians.

Sudhaama
10th May 2007, 07:37 PM
.
.Unparallel PIONEER EMPEROR.. in Social-Equanimity.!

Shivaji was the ideal Fore-Runner to show other Kings... how the Caste-divisions on the basis of birth was FOOLISH...

.. Suicidal and DETRIMENTAL to the Unity of the Subjects / People...

...which was the most VULNERABLE factor for the Muslim- Invaders to pick up and create Traitors...

...as well as Internal Turmoil... and Mutiny within the erstwhile Hindu Kingdoms... by those Foreigners... prior to their easy Invasions

...just because of Social discrimination by Caste... Advantageous point for the Enemy.

On the advice of his Guruji, Samartha Ramdas... Shivaji learnt that it is radically wrong to say that the Hindu Religion advocates and authorises the Kings to segregate people on the basis of Castes by birth...

... meting out Non-uniform Laws in dealing with the Crimes of the People... which is UNETHICAL... as also Sinful according to Vedic stipulations..

..Nor it was advantageous to maintain constantly such a Social-strata of highly varying Knowledge and Financial mights... amongst the people

So he made a New Law of SOCIAL EQUANIMITY of Uniform and Wide-Opportunities for each and everybody...

...which spark of approach, developed into the tremendous UNITY and SOCIAL MIGHT amongst his people...

... causing NO MORE TRAITORS... which was the Great Strength of the erstwhile Muslim Invaders...

...alongside a WEAK-POINT for Self-defence by other Hindu-Kings

So Mr. C.N. Annadurai was much enthused to write a Tamil drama named "Shivaji kanda Hindu Saamraajyam"...

...only because of such a Novel approach of HUMAN-VALUES...

...in those days of Hindu RELIGIOUS VULNERABILITY....

...artificially created by the Foolish Kings... attracting the Invaders.!!
.

nemesis786
14th May 2007, 11:16 PM
http://www.rajashivaji.com/

The largest website made on an individual it seems! I am looking forward to learn more about this brave king :P