Mahmud of Ghazni vs Rajendra Chola

[Shark2]

The thread was talking from 11th century onwards.The Rashtrakutas were probably the most powerful empire in india at that time. For some peculiar reason the north Indians do not appreciate the greatness of south Indian history.

Vijaynagar was not the most powerful empire in "India" but it surely was wealthy and powerful in the deccan peninsula.

The Marathas were not a dynasty but a confederacy. Shivaji's descendents did not rule the Marathas empire, his son Sambhaji was killed and their was no dynasty as such after that. It was the Maratha Peshwas who build the Maratha empire. They had the largest "Hindu" empire in medieval history.

The Vijayanagar Empire was the most powerful Empire in India in the 15th century and early 16th century
before the arrival of the Mughals which is confimred by foreign travelers.
At that time north India was divided into several Kingdoms and the Vijayanagar Empire defeated
the Bahmani Sultanate and the Kingdom of Kalinga.
The Italian traveler Niccolo de Conti called the ruler of the Vijayanagar Empire the most powerful Emperor
of India in the 15th century.
Even Babur called the Vijayanagar Empire the most powerful force of India in the early 16th century.

 

[Shark2]

I have read some sources on the campaigns of Ghazni and it seems that he used a rather small army in
his invasions against northwestern India. According to one source his largest invasion consisted
of only 30 000 cavalry units.
Rajendra Chola had a much larger army than Ghazni which is certainly an advantage.

 

[anonymus]

Mahmud Ghaznavi was one of the very few leaders who were never defeated in a battlefield. and is considered one of the greatest conqueror of the world. Professor Sharma is of the view that, “Mahmud was a seasoned soldier. Fear did not find any place in his heart. His army won against the rulers of India ‘like comb through a poll of hair.” It was no small achievement to “develop a small mountain principality of Ghazni into a large and prosperous empire by sheer force of arms.

The map of extent of his vast empire

View attachment 221430

Even in India itself, he lost two battles. One against Bhimpala in Kashmir, and another against Chandellas of Khajuraho.

I am sure that there must be more battles that he lost in Central Asia and Middle East.

Against Bhimpala: Bhimapala the Sahi king sheltered in Kashmir. There a fort Loharkot stood and Ghazni besieged that. It seems that Ghazni was defeated by a sally and even Feristah ( who is very biased and talks of only Muslim victories against Hindus) admits that this was 'first disaster Sultan faced in India'. He went to capital with great difficulty.

Against Chandellas: Vidyadhar Chandella had to face invasion of Ghazni around 1020 AD and while court poets of ghazni have tried to paint it as victory, the fact that he returned without achieving his objective and then later day 16th century Muslim historian Nizamuddin Ahmad describing events shows that Ghazni's army was defeated.This is what he writes about Ghazni seeing Chandella army

"Then when he saw what a vast host it was, he repented of his coming and, placing the forehead of supplication on the ground of submission and humility, prayed for victory"

Not only this, an inscription of same time which unfortunately is not published in Epigarhia Indica series tells us that Vidyadhar 'churned the army of Hammira' Hammira is sanskrit of Amir which was title used by Mahmud.


These are his defeats in India itself. There must be more elsewhere.


Knowing that you are a Pashtun nationalist, I do not understand your love for Ghazni. He was as much Pashtun as Babur was Indian.

Mahmud's father was 'Subuk Tegin' and he was a pagan before being converted to islam. Tegin is distinct Turkish name and there is simply no debate. Ghazanavids are by all accounts Turks who destroyed Tajiks(Samanids) and enslaved Pashtuns.

Ghazni was neither Pashtun nor tajik he was a Turk as was his dynasty. Ghurids( Muhammad Ghori) were Tajiks. Slave dynasty, Khiljis, Tughlaqs were again Turks. Lodis and Surs were Afghans. Mughals again were Turks.

From 1000 to 1700s, Turks dominated other ethnicities even within Islamic world.

 

[Shark2]

Even in India itself, he lost two battles. One against Bhimpala in Kashmir, and another against Chandellas of Khajuraho.

I am sure that there must be more battles that he lost in Central Asia and Middle East.

Against Bhimpala: Bhimapala the Sahi king sheltered in Kashmir. There a fort Loharkot stood and Ghazni besieged that. It seems that Ghazni was defeated by a sally and even Feristah ( who is very biased and talks of only Muslim victories against Hindus) admits that this was 'first disaster Sultan faced in India'. He went to capital with great difficulty.

Against Chandellas: Vidyadhar Chandella had to face invasion of Ghazni around 1020 AD and while court poets of ghazni have tried to paint it as victory, the fact that he returned without achieving his objective and then later day 16th century Muslim historian Nizamuddin Ahmad describing events shows that Ghazni's army was defeated.This is what he writes about Ghazni seeing Chandella army

"Then when he saw what a vast host it was, he repented of his coming and, placing the forehead of supplication on the ground of submission and humility, prayed for victory"

Not only this, an inscription of same time which unfortunately is not published in Epigarhia Indica series tells us that Vidyadhar 'churned the army of Hammira' Hammira is sanskrit of Amir which was title used by Mahmud.


These are his defeats in India itself. There must be more elsewhere.


Knowing that you are a Pashtun nationalist, I do not understand your love for Ghazni. He was as much Pashtun as Babur was Indian.

Mahmud's father was 'Subuk Tegin' and he was a pagan before being converted to islam. Tegin is distinct Turkish name and there is simply no debate. Ghazanavids are by all accounts Turks who destroyed Tajiks(Samanids) and enslaved Pashtuns.

Ghazni was neither Pashtun nor tajik he was a Turk as was his dynasty. Ghurids( Muhammad Ghori) were Tajiks. Slave dynasty, Khiljis, Tughlaqs were again Turks. Lodis and Surs were Afghans. Mughals again were Turks.

From 1000 to 1700s, Turks dominated other ethnicities even within Islamic world.

I read that Raja Bhoj of Malwa attacked Mahmud Ghazni during his invasion of Somnath and that
Mahmud fled to Ghazni because he feared the large army of Raja Bhoj of Malwa.
This also seems to be his last Indian campaign.

 

[Moon]

I have read some sources on the campaigns of Ghazni and it seems that he used a rather small army in
his invasions against northwestern India. According to one source his largest invasion consisted
of only 30 000 cavalry units.
Rajendra Chola had a much larger army than Ghazni which is certainly an advantage.

Errrrr... No, in those times large lumbering armies were slaughtered by small ones, primarily because small armies were more quick and easily deploy able, furthermore they were more easy to administer. Throughout history smaller armies have nearly always remained victorious. A famous example is the battle of Qadisiya, I suggest you read about it, it shows that faster and smaller armies can deal a much more damage against larger ones.

 

[Samandri]

E


Knowing that you are a Pashtun nationalist, I do not understand your love for Ghazni. He was as much Pashtun as Babur was Indian.

Mahmud's father was 'Subuk Tegin' and he was a pagan before being converted to islam. Tegin is distinct Turkish name and there is simply no debate. Ghazanavids are by all accounts Turks who destroyed Tajiks(Samanids) and enslaved Pashtuns.

.

You are a Hindu and you are forgetting that Mahmud Ghaznavi was a Muslim.......from where you are getting the ideas that he could be a Pashtun?....He was a Turk from Khorasan and his army army consisted of Turks, Khorasanis (Tajiks) and Afghans (Pashtuns)..............He smashed Hindus and we admire him for that , it doesnt matter how much cruel he was to you people. Pashtun mercenaries benefited from his military campaigns and also his destruction of Hindus in modern day KPK, allowed our people to colonized the empty area. DIlzaks got settled in KPK in his times and provided troops to his army. Ghaznavids and Ghorids paved the way for spread of Islam in India, we admire them , their ethnicity is irrelevant as they were multicultural dynasties.

 

[ganesh177]

 

[Indian Patriot]

Mahmud fled to Ghazni because he feared the large army of Raja Bhoj of Malwa.

Re-writing of history.

The raids of Mahmud terrorised north India. So much that for the first and probably the last time the Hindu kings of the region cast aside their differences and enmity to form a joint alliance against Mahmud. It was said to be a monumental effort, people donated money and jewellery for the war effort and a force of more than 50,000 Ghokhars were assembled to face the invaders. It was said that in numbers the Indian forces easily dwarfed the invading army.

Problem was these people were not organised or used to fighting under a unified command. Confusion and chaos led to Mahmud triumphing over the allied army.

 

[anonymus]

I have read some sources on the campaigns of Ghazni and it seems that he used a rather small army in
his invasions against northwestern India. According to one source his largest invasion consisted
of only 30 000 cavalry units.
Rajendra Chola had a much larger army than Ghazni which is certainly an advantage.

Ghazni has an advantage in mobility, hence he could outflank his Enemies, and even if he lose a battle, he could easily withdrew.

It should be noticed that Ghazni raided India 17 times, not that he succeed in a conventional invasion where you hold ground and build an empire, in India. Most of his raids were lightning raids , and he steadfastly avoided giving battles, unless they became necessary. After looting Somnath, he decided to flee through Thar desert rather than risk a fight with "Padshah Parmar Dev" either Chaulukya Bhimadeva I of Gujarat or Paramara Bhoja of Malwa.

Chola may have a larger Army, but that Army could not have been everywhere.He would have faced same issues of mobility as Rajput armies of their heyday faced.There is not much difference that Cholas could have made in a defensive war, though with their Army of 50,000 War elephants, they could have expelled Ghaznavids from Punjab Plains (Yaduhedya territory).

It is a true but counterintutive fact, but older Indian Armies, that of Gujara-Pratihara fielding four Armies of 900,000 men each and 120,000 Cavalry, or even older Gupta or Mauryan type Archer heavy Army would have been much more effective against a cavalry heavy Army of Ghaznavi , than even Chola's army which was Elephant heavy. Longbow Archer army were developed and used successfully by England in 100 Year war against France. This tactics was invented to overcome inferiority of English in Cavalry. Battle of Agincourt is a testament to this.

Cavalry armies are best countered by Cavalry itself, or by Pike armies as fielded by Swiss, or Longbow Armies. Of course I am not counting gunpowder armies in this.

 

[Indian Patriot]

I read that Raja Bhoj of Malwa attacked Mahmud Ghazni during his invasion of Somnath

I don't know what you read but Mahmud had no problems in Somnath invasion, in fact it was one of his most celebrated raids. It was a complete success for him.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

According to Malaysians the Srivijaya Dynasty was a Malaysian Dynasty and the Majapahit Dynasty
was an Indonesian Dynasty.

No. Sri Vijaya is Indonesian empire. Mahapajit empire is also theirs.

 

[Shark2]

I don't know what you read but Mahmud had no problems in Somnath invasion, in fact it was one of his most celebrated raids. It was a complete success for him.

Yes the Somnath invasion was a success but after the invasion he heard that Raja Bhoj of Malwa had assembled
a huge army with the help of some other rulers and Ghazni avoided a clash with this huge army by
fleeing through the desert.

 

[utraash]

My vote for chola...

 

[Indian Patriot]

Yes the Somnath invasion was a success but after the invasion he heard that Raja Bhoj of Malwa had assembled
a huge army with the help of some other rulers and Ghazni avoided a clash with this huge army by
fleeing through the desert.

Nothing like that happened. Mahmud not only took a lot of wealth but he also took away tens of thousands of slaves with him after the raid. I don't remember the exact figures but the amount of gold, jewel, precious stones he took with him would give the Arab Sheikhs a cardiac arrest. The loot was astronomical in its monetary worth. So vast was the wealth that his subjects did not have to pay any tax for three straight years.

Mahmud or any body at that time cannot flee through the desert taking so much wealth and slaves with them. Any pursuing party would catch up with them within days.

Thing is many people are revising history to make themselves or their regional rulers look better. Mahmud was unopposed in all his campaigns.

 

[ghoul]

Mahmud would have destroyed the Cholas. Mahmud was of a Turkic clan, with ferocity of the steppe people. He defeated the might Hindu Shahis of Punjab and Kabul in all the battles he fought with them, with one(battle of Chaach) being a major fluke though, where 30,000 Khokhars of Hindu Shahi army killed 4000 members of Ghaznavid cavalry in a single charge, but Anandpal's elephant going mast leading to a general retreat. Hindu Shahis were a highly capable people, probably even more so than these Cholas. They managed to invade much of eastern Afghanistan, which isn't an easy feat. On one occasion, when Hindhu Shahis were busy with fighting of Mahmud's raids, an opportunist named Raja Bharat of Lahore attacked hindu shahis from behind, but the opportunist was easily defeated proving hindu shahi's mettle in warfare.

If Mahmud was able to defeat the Hindhu shahi dynasty in their hilly homeland and fortresses built on mountain edges, he would have beaten cholas too. Mahmud also had horse mounted archers, which was a highly efficient weapon against slow moving war elephants, the sub-continent kings and generals were obsessed with. I'd bet my money on Mahmud, if such a fight occurred.