Saka and Jauhar, the sole reason for the repeated defeats and downfall of Rajputs?

[Jackdaws]

Those were short lived splinter states, but the vast majority of Muslim empires were governed and run by people native to the region.

You must be right. In any case, such people, in Pakistan, are a small minority and could never gain political ascendancy, as has happened in India. In my opinion, bashing Gandhi and independence era INC has drastically increased in India, with increasing success of BJP and other extreme political outfits.

True. Sadly, most of it is not based on facts. And Congress by becoming utterly and thoroughly corrupt has done itself no favors. As late as 2009 they got 206 seats in the Lok sabha. How they fettered it all away in 5 years is mind boggling.

 

[vostok]

Lets not forget the use of psychological warfare from the Mongols, Turks and the Huns. If they are gonna make people surrender and submit you gotta be brutal and ruthlessness.

Nomads were always on the move hence why their element of speed and surprised their enemies.

Abbassids were actually shocked when the Mongols came knocking down into Baghdad many thought they would not survive the harsh terrain. Abbassids actually thought it would take months for the Mongols to reach them which meant they had enough time to prepare.

Nomadic armies also weakened many places through raiding. These raids weakened settlements not to mention sucked up manpower too if you think about it.

In the end civilsation was too strong.

It also matters that the Mongolian horses were much more enduring than the European horses. At the same time, they ate 2-3 times less food than European horses.

 

[Nein]

It also matters that the Mongolian horses were much more enduring than the European horses. At the same time, they ate 2-3 times less food than European horses.

Yeah thats true too.

 

[magician2]

Ok so I've been divided on this practice previously. While it made sense to preserve the honor from women's perspective in dire situations.
It was also the very reason almost all Rajput battles will end up in loss for the one's defending their home, because the fate for women and children was already known. The men will be demoralized from the get go and the moment there is a "possibility of loss", the jauhar would have already taken place, this ensuring the loss.
While if we look at the history there are so many times where a loss was converted to victory through tactics and military genius.

Not to forget this kind of practice had more to do with manly ego and their control over women (who were considered lesser beings), and thus attaching their honor with the women. The men will ensure the jauhar takes place (forcing their women into it at occasions) before they embark on saka and not a side by side thingy as movies will have people believe.

Here is one account of the event from a first hand witness.

One account of jauhar comes from a person we can be certain saw its aftermath within a few hours of the ritual’s completion. This is from the Baburnama, composed by the emperor himself. After defeating Rana Sanga in 1527, Babur set out consolidating and recapturing territories that had been part of the sultanate. Among the foes he overcame was Medini Rao, who held the fort of Chanderi in Central India. On January 29, 1528, Babur’s forces attacked the well-guarded fort. After his artillery made no impression on the citadel’s stone walls, he concentrated on a vulnerable spot where a conduit had been constructed to supply water to the fort. Once this location was taken, Rajput resistance melted away. Babur writes:

“The reason so many were hastening from the ramparts was that they had realised they were going to lose and, having put their wives and womenfolk to the sword and resigning themselves to death, came out stripped to fight... Two or three hundred infidels entered Medini Rao’s quarters where they killed each other almost to the last one by having one man hold the sword while the others willingly bent their necks. And thus most of them went to hell. Through God’s grace such a famous fortress was conquered within two or three gharis without standards or drums and without any fighting in earnest.”


Personally, I would rather have those women trained in Archery and warfare and either have them as active participants in the battle, provided they would die if their men lose anyway, or escape the field and live to fight back and carry the legacy.
I know some of them were trained, but what was the point of it when the end was to jump into fire instead of being able to use that learning.

Interesting input. Yes you could argue weather it would not have been better to appoint these women as soldiers. But I highly doubt that this would have made a difference in this particular battle between Sangha and Babur.

At the end Babur won because of his matchlocks and superior artillery and nothing else.
A few decades before Rana Kumbha was easily able to defeat the Delhi Sultanate and the Gujarat Sultanate as the Sultanates did not have this advantage

And in the south Krishna Deva Raya of the Vijayanagar Empire easily destroyed the Bahmani Sultanate as he had access to gun powder and cannons unlike the Rajput rulers of the north.
So no the Jauhar certainly does not have much to do with the defeat of Rana Sangha

 

[W.11]

the downfall of rajputs may have been many of their personal beliefs and flaws, for instance even muslim writers write about their rule of not fighting at night as part of their weakness, the rajputs were sincerely not the only ones who got defeated by the turks, the arabs did, the persians did, the mongols defeated china twice and ruled over them as well, the yuans and the manchus, rajputs did have a narrow opportunity to defeat the turks during lodhi dynasty, but they failed, it would take marathas and nadir shah to weaken turk rule in IS and bring back the native rule.

regards

the downfall of rajputs may have been many of their personal beliefs and flaws, for instance even muslim writers write about their rule of not fighting at night as part of their weakness, the rajputs were sincerely not the only ones who got defeated by the turks, the arabs did, the persians did, the mongols defeated china twice and ruled over them as well, the yuans and the manchus, rajputs did have a narrow opportunity to defeat the turks during lodhi dynasty, but they failed, it would take marathas and nadir shah to weaken turk rule in IS and bring back the native rule.

regards

 

[magician2]

the downfall of rajputs may have been many of their personal beliefs and flaws, for instance even muslim writers write about their rule of not fighting at night as part of their weakness, the rajputs were sincerely not the only ones who got defeated by the turks, the arabs did, the persians did, the mongols defeated china twice and ruled over them as well, the yuans and the manchus, rajputs did have a narrow opportunity to defeat the turks during lodhi dynasty, but they failed, it would take marathas and nadir shah to weaken turk rule in IS and bring back the native rule.

regards

the downfall of rajputs may have been many of their personal beliefs and flaws, for instance even muslim writers write about their rule of not fighting at night as part of their weakness, the rajputs were sincerely not the only ones who got defeated by the turks, the arabs did, the persians did, the mongols defeated china twice and ruled over them as well, the yuans and the manchus, rajputs did have a narrow opportunity to defeat the turks during lodhi dynasty, but they failed, it would take marathas and nadir shah to weaken turk rule in IS and bring back the native rule.

regards

The main flaw of the Rajputs was the fact that they were not able to establish a stable Empire or Dynasty or more precisely they did not master the art of statecraft unlike the Hindu counterpart from the south the Vijayanagar Empire. While the Vijayanagar Empire established a stable rule for almost 300 years covering a region which had 6 major languages in the form of Kannada, Telugu, Marathi, Tamil, Malayalam and Singhalese as the Vijayanagar rulers got regular tributes from Sri Lanka, the Rajputs failed to even come to an understanding with people who spoke the same language. The Vijayanagar Emperors implemented the famous Nayak system which allowed anyone from any class or caste who had the skills to be appointed as a provincial governor. The Vijayanagar rulers heavily invested in the state structure and sent a huge number of officials to all parts of south India to make sure that the revenues flow to their direction.

On the other hand the Rajputs heavily relied upon their local nobility who ruled there for generations and therefore did not have much loyalty towards their overlord. Apart from infighting the Rajputs even under their greatest leader Rana Sangha were only able to create a confederacy and not a real Empire which is why the confederacy fell apart after his death. Thats a typical example of tribal lordship which are only held together by the skills of the ruler and not by a state structure. This is also the reason why the Ghaznavids and Durranis declined after the death of their greatest ruler Ghazni and Abdali as these were also more similar to tribal states.