Babur vs Krishnadevaraya in 16th century

[eastwatch]

why would he do that?

a barren stretch called Deccan plateau?

why would he leave the lush green forests and great places of south India for central India?

People here are proposing a hypothetical war between Babur and Krishnadev Narayan. How it would have been possible without the latter not moving his troops to attack Babur? Babur's policy was to get control of that part of Hindustan that was ruled by Ibrahim Lodi. He was successful in this respect.

Since Babur was not after a land in South far away from his own dominion, he was not probably interested in that. In such a situation Krishnadev Narayan had to invade the north, which, I believe, was not possible for him.

In Delhi the Sultan changed from Ibrahim Lodi to Babur, but the Sultanate itself did not change. Babur would have been supported by the entire north had Krishnadev dared to attack north.

Rather, it would have been between two contending forces. Another point, Babur was a newcomer in 1526, but other Muslims of foreign origin were already in Hindustan after 1190 when Kutubuddin Ibek was coronated in Delhi. So, many of the then Indian Muslims would have supported Babur.

 

[bronxbull]

It is a hypothetical scenario.and if rana sangha got the support of Krishna dev raya(not narayan). Then Babur may not have happened. So, the point is baburs victory was by treachery. Ibrahim Lodi was a great Pashtun king and warrior. Unlike the punjabi converts who pussied out,ibrahim Lodi was a true Pathan.

He was betrayed by his uncle,else rana sangha and ibrahim are much better than the opium addict Babur.

 

[bronxbull]

We are talking about Babur and not Timur. Babur forged a new empire in Hindustan with his high class war machine. It was 1520s and he used the most famous Mongolian-developed compound bows that could throw arrows and pierce through a cow skin shield. It was his greatest weapon, though I am not demeaning his first use of cannons in wars both in north and east.

Rana Sangha (we call him Rana Sangram Singh), the most famous King, was also defeated by Babur in the battle of Khanua. He was the strongest after the defeat of Ibrahim Lodi.

Why dont u talk about the betrayal by sihaldi and the raja has an khan mewatpatti.anyway the rajputs still exist,where are the Mughals

 

[ghaja]

Why dont u talk about the betrayal by sihaldi and the raja has an khan mewatpatti.anyway the rajputs still exist,where are the Mughals

The Mughals were destroyed by the Marathas.

 

[eastwatch]

Why dont u talk about the betrayal by sihaldi and the raja has an khan mewatpatti.anyway the rajputs still exist,where are the Mughals

Rajputs are clannish, so they exist as rajputs. Mughals were Muslims who have mingled with other muslims, and being deprived of their political power by the betrayal by the Punjabis in 1857, they became destitute like many other Muslims. Remained at the tops were the rajputs and a few Nawabs of then India including Nizam of Hyderabad.

Traitors retained their positions and you are here to praise them. Were the Mughals or the Muslims your enemy? Muslims contributed much to Hindustan.

 

[Umair Nawaz]

Probably Babur. He defeated the greatest kings in India at the time. He beat the whole Pathan army at the first battle of Panipat and if that wasn't enough he then went on to defeat the combined Rajput army in the battle of Khanwa which also included thousands of Lodi soldiers. In both of these epic battles Babur was outnumbered.

The battle against Ibrahim Lodhi;;;;

Would u believe Babur had just 12000 men against atleast 1 million Ibrahim Lodhi's men but still beaten him!!!!!!!!


Tactically and Military wise Babur was the best Mughal if not in all of Ancient India's Military Generals.

 

[Umair Nawaz]

Well, we know even less about the Yemenese tribal history.

But then we don't claim to do that either.

Babur to me was a primitive barbarian, making minarets of skulls in several places.

The first skull minarets (like the other fil.th from the primitive barbaric place he came from) he made were of Pushtuns. This is what he mentions about the Pakistani Pushtuns (Afghans in those times):

Against the all round assault, they could not even fight; a hundred or two were taken, some were brought in alive but of most, the heads only were brought. We had been told that when Afghans are powerless to resist, they go before their foe with grass between their teeth, this being as much as to say, " I am your cow." Here we saw this custom ; Afghans unable to make resistance, came before us with grass between their teeth. Those our men had brought in as prisoners were ordered to be beheaded and a pillar of their heads was set up in our camp.

I don't give a flying f*** if he was "brave", to me he was just a primitive barbarian from a primitive barbaric place.

None of any Muslim General was more Cruel then ''the Great'' Ashoka........

And it was Taimur who is known to have done what u have claimed! But again Rumors no proof.

And it cant be proved too because none of us were alive in those times nor anyone of them is alive today to tell the tail.

Well, we know even less about the Yemenese tribal history.

But then we don't claim to do that either.

Babur to me was a primitive barbarian, making minarets of skulls in several places.

The first skull minarets (like the other fil.th from the primitive barbaric place he came from) he made were of Pushtuns. This is what he mentions about the Pakistani Pushtuns (Afghans in those times):

Against the all round assault, they could not even fight; a hundred or two were taken, some were brought in alive but of most, the heads only were brought. We had been told that when Afghans are powerless to resist, they go before their foe with grass between their teeth, this being as much as to say, " I am your cow." Here we saw this custom ; Afghans unable to make resistance, came before us with grass between their teeth. Those our men had brought in as prisoners were ordered to be beheaded and a pillar of their heads was set up in our camp.

I don't give a flying f*** if he was "brave", to me he was just a primitive barbarian from a primitive barbaric place.

None of any Muslim General was more Cruel then ''the Great'' Ashoka........

And it was Taimur who is known to have done what u have claimed! But again Rumors no proof.

And it cant be proved too because none of us were alive in those times nor anyone of them is alive today to tell the tail.

Anyways such discussions r useless mostly.

First,Babur's advantage in any battle was his cannon..sometimes mounted and guarded these cannons worked for himm..in the battle of Panipat against Lodi,his success was simply luck..

in both battle,it was sound of cannon that made war elephants stampede their own man and in both cases,the abandon of ally caused them to loose the battle..

Krishnadevaraya had a huge army...example..only in the campaign against Raichur, it is said that 703,000 foot soldiers, 32,600 cavalry and 551 elephants were used..

with this kind of brute force,he captured whole Deccan...

I'd say,both Babur and Krishnadevaraya would won in their home turf...

Babur was From Samarkand and Bukhara, both at that time were in persian empire and today's Uzbekistan.

 

[bronxbull]

Rajputs are clannish, so they exist as rajputs. Mughals were Muslims who have mingled with other muslims, and being deprived of their political power by the betrayal by the Punjabis in 1857, they became destitute like many other Muslims. Remained at the tops were the rajputs and a few Nawabs of then India including Nizam of Hyderabad.

Traitors retained their positions and you are here to praise them. Were the Mughals or the Muslims your enemy? Muslims contributed much to Hindustan.

Muslim contribution to India is bad unhealthy food and lousy unsophisticated buildings. Exactly India is filled with clans and the clans exist. People like Mughals exit because nobody likes them.

 

[Shardul.....the lion]

People again talking BS of 1000 year old rule should check history and their claim has been refuted many times.

Vijayanagar empire existed till 1600s and Marathas started to rule around 1640s, atleast Maharashtra might have muslim rule for max 100-200 years.

 

[Vinod2070]

None of any Muslim General was more Cruel then ''the Great'' Ashoka........

And it was Taimur who is known to have done what u have claimed! But again Rumors no proof.

It is from his own book. You need to read up on it.

And it cant be proved too because none of us were alive in those times nor anyone of them is alive today to tell the tail.

This is really an amazing argument.

 

[SwatCat]

People here are proposing a hypothetical war between Babur and Krishnadev Narayan. How it would have been possible without the latter not moving his troops to attack Babur? Babur's policy was to get control of that part of Hindustan that was ruled by Ibrahim Lodi. He was successful in this respect.

Since Babur was not after a land in South far away from his own dominion, he was not probably interested in that. In such a situation Krishnadev Narayan had to invade the north, which, I believe, was not possible for him.

In Delhi the Sultan changed from Ibrahim Lodi to Babur, but the Sultanate itself did not change. Babur would have been supported by the entire north had Krishnadev dared to attack north.

Rather, it would have been between two contending forces. Another point, Babur was a newcomer in 1526, but other Muslims of foreign origin were already in Hindustan after 1190 when Kutubuddin Ibek was coronated in Delhi. So, many of the then Indian Muslims would have supported Babur.

No Babur is seen as an invader from outside, he was opposed by Rajputs and kingdoms in the north. It was not muslim brotherhood that helped Babur but power struggle for Delhi.

Babur ran away from Timurids, He never ventured into his favourite and loved place called Afghanistan since it was not possible for him to conquer.

Mean while in India struggle between the kingdoms in north made it possible for mughals to get a grip in India

 

[Vinod2070]

Rajputs are clannish, so they exist as rajputs. Mughals were Muslims who have mingled with other muslims, and being deprived of their political power by the betrayal by the Punjabis in 1857, they became destitute like many other Muslims. Remained at the tops were the rajputs and a few Nawabs of then India including Nizam of Hyderabad.

Mughals had no power for alomost 150 years before 1857. They were surviving at the mercy of Jats and Marathas for a very long time.

Traitors retained their positions and you are here to praise them. Were the Mughals or the Muslims your enemy? Muslims contributed much to Hindustan.

For us, Mughals (and other Islamic invaders) were foreign invaders just as the British. Also because they were so uncivilized and primitive and cruel and carried out so many atrocities on the people of this land, we have only contempt for them.

No patriots of any religion are our enemies.

Those who hero worship the barbaric invaders are traitors for us.

 

[Umair Nawaz]

It is from his own book. You need to read up on it.



This is really an amazing argument.

LOL and what is the name of the book?

 

[bronxbull]

Baburnama. Surprised you don't know of it.

 

[eastwatch]

No Babur is seen as an invader from outside, he was opposed by Rajputs and kingdoms in the north. It was not muslim brotherhood that helped Babur but power struggle for Delhi.

Babur ran away from Timurids, He never ventured into his favourite and loved place called Afghanistan since it was not possible for him to conquer.

Mean while in India struggle between the kingdoms in north made it possible for mughals to get a grip in India

No, Afghanistan (or at least the eastern part) was under Babur. As far as I know he was buried in Kabul. The height of the main entrance there has been made low so that a visitor bows his head before entering.

I think, you are talking about Samarkand. Yes, he could not take it back. Some of his descendants, probably Jahangir, tried to get it back into his family possession, but it was repulsed.

Whatever it may be, Babur was an Indian King, but was born in another country. There is nothing unnatural about this kind of thing. Napolean Bonaparte was born in Cicily, Hitler in Australia, Barack Obama from Keniya and Queen Elizabeth's family from Germany. History is full of all these happenings that cannot be changed.