Why rajputs lost

Pre-Mughal and Mughal architecture is well preserved in the palace chambers linked to the hotel by a corridor ; the Akbari Mahal, built to commemorate the visit of the Emperor Akbar in , has some original floral murals, while the Hadi Rani Mahal houses some 16th-century murals in shades of green depicting daily and courtly scenes.

The rest of the day is at leisure. Overnight Nagaur. Nagaur, Jodhpur. Drive through the desert to Jodhpur. The capital of one the largest Rajput states in western Rajasthan is presided over by the magnificent Mehrangarh Fort. First of two nights in Jodhpur. The visit to Mehrangarh Fort examines the painting tradition of the Marwari Rajputs, with special admission to the gallery led by the curator. The buildings of the lively Old City are painted in a variety of blues, originally the colour denoting the homes of Brahmins and a convenient insect repellent.

Overnight Jodhpur. Jodhpur, Delhi. Fly to Delhi Jet Airways. Overnight Delhi Gurgaon. Day Delhi. Car transfers to Delhi airport can be arranged for your onward journey. Arrival and departure airport transfers; flights with Jet Airways: Jodhpur to Delhi; travel by private air-conditioned coach and people carriers; accommodation as described below breakfasts, 8 lunches and 11 dinners with wine or beer, water and coffee; all admissions; all tips; the services of the lecturer, tour manager and local guides.

Flights from London to Delhi are not included in the price of the tour. We will send the recommended flight options when they come into range December and ask that you make your own flight reservation. Please ensure you have travel insurance that protects you in the unlikely event that the tour is cancelled. Required for most British nationals, and not included in the tour price. We will advise all participants of the process. The Taj Mahal Hotel , New Delhi: a modern and comfortable hotel with an attractive garden and swimming pool.

Trident Hotel , Agra: comfortable, well-run, modern 4-star close to the main sites with a spacious garden. Trident Hotel , Jaipur: a modern 4-star hotel on the outskirts of the city. Ranvas , Nagaur: a 17th-century palace converted into a luxury hotel. There are no twin-bedded rooms. I have read and will read , but the fact remain Rajputs lost against muslim invaders , this fact is not going to be changed.

Mughals too lost in 18th century badly but I have not seen muslims getting angry on that. Rajputs had Glorious history and they managed to kept islam out of India upto Ghaznavi , but after that they lost , which is fact and that is not going to change.

What's really interesting is how you've convinced yourself of your own horseshit. Despite it being such a patent load of bollocks that no one has even ever claimed it before. Loads of Sikh texts even old ones speak of the 'merging of 4 varans' with the event of the Khalsa but you go make this crap up to get around the failure of Ksyhatriya society to do what they were apparently created for.

Btw it wasn't just Rajputs who lost battles to Mughals. Other Muslim rulers of the time also lost battle to the Mughals. This is how we lost India to the Mughals in the first place. It wasn't the Rajputs, it was other Muslims that Mughals were fighting at the start. Ibrahim Lodi, an Afghani and Muslim ruler, who was ruling India around the time when Guru Nanak was running the modi khana , he lost Delhi to Babur, despite having an advantage in numbers and elephants. If there are 2 societies with people each , A and B.

Society A only allow its warrior caste whose numbers are 20 people to fight , while the society B just accept anybody on the basis of merit. One don't need rocket science to accept that in conflict Society B has huge advantage.

So I will willingly read why those muslim rulers lost , what's wrong in analsys. One point that comes in my mind is that India always made people more Araam pasand rather keeping upto date with war strategies and innovations. My reply to this is too long to post here and it's off-topic.

So new thread below. Go read it. I await your response. Maybe but sometimes wars were won because one general outsmarted the other or had superior technology. Babur funneled Lodi's elephants through a narrow passage and blew them up with his superior artillery and severed Lodi's numbers and elephant advantage.

Alexander defeated Purushotam not because he was better but because at that time of battle, it rained heavily. Purushotam had already arrived with his chariots and elephants, who along with the mounted archers were the core of his army. Long story short, Alexander kicked his ass because the core of Purushotam's army could not function on that new rain-created terrain.

What about all the ones that persevered, and maintained their culture and dignity right up to 20th century. Koi It actually really simple. Back then certain names were exclusive to certain castes.

This is still true nowadays to a some extent. For example, we know Mangal Pandey is from a Brahmin clan, we know this because the surname - Pandey - that is unique to Brahmin community.

Now Pandey is easy to see - it means Pandit. I give this example specifically because it is easy to see how such a name would not be used by non-pandit clans. The original surnames of our Panj Pyarey - Das, Ram, Chand - indicate that they belonged to Kshatriya clans but were involved with different professions at the time.

Considering the fact that the Rajputs were great warriors, it seems a little strange that they were defeated by the Muslims. Habibullah admits that in individal fighting, the Rajput surpassed the Turks. The view of Elphinstone, Lane-Poole and V. Smith was that the success of the Muslims was due to the fact that they came from cold climate and were non vegetarians.

That view is no longer accepted. The soldierly qualities of the Hindus are admitted even by their enemies and consequently that could not be a factor responsible for their failure.

It is also not true that non-vegetarians are better fighters than the vegetarians. Moreover, there were a large number of Hindus who were non-vegetarians at the time when the Hindus and Muslims fought against one another. The real causes must be found somewhere else. There was no one paramount power in the country at that time which could fight against the Muslims. India at that time was a congeries of states. Various parts of the country were ruled by individual rulers.

There were mutual jealousies and dissensions among the Rajput Chiefs. It is true that the Rajputs were good warriors but there was too much of a clannish spirit among them.

The Rajput soldiers owed their allegiance to their petty chief and were prepared to fight against other Rajput soldiers under another Rajput Chief. It was in this way that they frittered away their energy. There was no national consciousness among them. The various Rajput princes could not and did not think in terms of India as a whole. They were not prepared to sink their differences in the higher interests of the country and put up a united front against the Muslim invaders.

The result was that they were defeated one by one and all their bravery was of no avail. The Rajput armies were ill-organized and ill-equipped.

The trouble with the Hindus was that they were satisfied with what they had. They did not try to keep themselves in touch with the latest developments in military organization and methods of fighting. The result was that they were defeated by the Muslims who were ahead of them in these matters. The Indians divided their armies into three parts; the right, centre and the left.

They almost invariably made a frontal attack on the enemy. The Muslim armies, on the other hand, were divided into five parts. In addition to the right centre and left, they had the Advance Guard and the Reserve. The Reserve was always ready to come to the help of any part of the army which was in difficulty or to give the final blow when the enemy was about to collapse. Moreover, the Hindus put too much reliance on elephants. These "mountain-like elephants" could not stand against the mobile Turkish cavalry.

Once the elephants were frightened, they trampled their own men under their feet and thus proved themselves to be a greater than an asset. The Rajputs fought mainly with their swords while the Muslims were good archers.

The Muslims archers from their horses were more than a match for the Rajputs who fought with their swords. Nizami rightly points out that mobility was the key-note of Turkish military organisation at that time. It was the age of the horse. A well-equipped cavalry with tremendous mobility was the great need of the time. Indian military strategy gave greater importance to weight than to mobility.

The Rajputs believed in crushing rather than moving rapidly and striking. When the Indian armies headed by elephants came into the battle-field, they were bound to be defeated by swift and easy-moving cavalry of the Muslims. Sir Jadunath Sarkar also points out that the element of mobility was totally absent from the Indian armies. To quote him, "The arms and horses of these trans-border invaders gave them indisputable military superiority over the Indians. Their provisions also were carried by fast trotting camels which required no fodder for themselves but fed on the roots and leaves of the way-side, while the Banjara pack-oxen of the Hindu commissariat were slow and burdensome.

That was not the case with their enemies. They did not find themselves fettered by any rules of the game. They believed that all was fair in war. They were prepared to adopt any tactics which could bring them victory.

They believed that end justifies the means and they did not care for the consequences of their actions. They were prepared to defile a tank or a river from which their enemies got their water-supply. They were prepared to divert the course of a channel to stop the water-supply to the enemy and thereby bring about their surrender.

They were prepared to destroy the whole of the neighbouring territory so that the enemy may be starved to submission.

Yet, the question hardly ever comes up. When it does, the usual explanation is that the Rajputs faced Muslim invaders whose fanaticism was their strength. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Muslim rulers did use the language of faith to energise their troops, but commitment is only the first step to victory. The Rajputs themselves never lacked commitment, and their courage invariably drew the praise of their enemies. Even a historian as fundamentalist as Badayuni rhapsodised about Rajput valour. What remains is discipline, technical and technological prowess, and tactical acumen. In each of these departments, the Rajputs were found wanting. Their opponents, usually Turkic, used a complex battle plan involving up to five different divisions.

Fleet, mounted archers would harry opponents at the start, and often make a strategic retreat, inducing their enemy to charge into an ambush.

Behind these stood the central division and two flanks. Prithviraj chauhan i agree is a tad overrated due to the romance factor. Alauddin with an army that defeated mongols struggled at ranthambor and chittor.

Rajputs under hammir singh took back chittor,drove out the khiljis and then tughlaqs. His son retook ajmer. Rana kumbha of this dynasty who built kumbhalgarh fort and tower of victory in chittor defeated malwa and gujarat sultanates. Rana sanga had defeated ibrahim lodi at khatoli and was only defeated by babur due to gunpowder weapons. Akbar did what no other sultan had been able to do-with deft combination carrot and stick he did finally subdue the rajputs. But that doesnt mean all gave up.

Rathore cavalry saved the mughal army's central asian campaign,and jai singh was also the only mughal commander who was successful against the marathas where diler khan,mahabat khan,shaista khan,afzal khan,zulfiqar khan and aurangzeb himself failed.

Rana pratap is well known. Mewar's successful victory and independence raj singh allied with durgadas rathore is less so.

By the time of the british they were exhausted and impoverished. This is mainly because rajput revenues depended not on agricultureal land revenue but taxinf the trade routes between the central north indian urban centres and ports of western india.

As central power centres declined in prosperity in 18th century and british took control of trade routes and realigned them,rajputana economic power was badly affected. In independent india rajputs have won 5 param vir chakra ,more than any others. Even in pakistan they have won 7 nishan. Overall greatest contribution of rajputs in their history holding the line between to thus delaying the islamic invasions for years. And then fiercely resisting the sultanate for more years preventing the complete eclipse of hindu civilization in north india even as vijayanagara was protecting the south.

Without Rajputs in the north and vijayanagara in the south,and the bhakti movement amongst the masses i can assure you indian civilization would have been wiped long before the marathas and the sikhs rose to power to begin a counterattack. The handle also claims Jaichand was not at fault of the Ghori blunder.

Don't know why I always thought there must be some reason Jaichand was so bitter against Prithviraj inspite of the controversial marriage of his daughter. Jaichand would've been a hero today if not for that stray arrow that stuck him in his battle with Ghori.

History is too much twisted. You must log in or register to reply here. Arun Prakash's continuous rebuttals. Similar threads. Googling the Rebuttal. May 7, Apr 13, Outlook's Shame: refuses to publish Adm. Aug 14,