The Story of 300 In India You Probably Didn't know

[Suriya]

so what you are saying rohilla ditched marathas ( as far i know they were already at war with them) .
.
.
who send lakhs of women and children to a hostile territory like up ?
what a coincidence they all end up in pani pat which is well known battle ground .
sounds like a face saving story .
.
.
marathas are use to of fighting mughals who hire mercenaries , some from here some from there etc in their army.
they underestimated afghans who were hardcore fighters .

In 1761, UP wasn't hostile territory for the Marathas . In fact the Mughal ruler of Delhi was under Marahta protection .

BTW Before Panipat , marathas had reacted Attock in pakistan .

Battle of Attock (1758)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Attock_(1758)


And maratha civilians were going to temples in UP for pilgrimage for years . But It was arrogance on the part of the marathas who didn't take Abdali too seriously and wanted to negotiate with him rather than fight , that's why so many civilains went with the maratha army .

But in panipat , their supplies were cut off and they got tied down too many civilians , when Najib-ud-Daula and more importantly Shuja-ud-Daulah Subedar Nawab of Oudh , who was friendly with the Marahtas switched side .

 

[newb3e]

daily bs fantasy by Mr Suriya!

and on next episode story of indian moon landing and camping before usa!

 

[drunken-monke]

Bad analogy.

The Spartans were fighting a superpower of their time.

The Marathas were fighting the puny Adil Shah in this battle (not Mughals).

What the hell,

Marathas fought Mughals and survived.. Aurangzeb died in Maharashtra while trying to decimate Maratha state. And finally the Mughals were restricted to Delhi.. On the other hand marathas grew till Atok.. Hadn't it been Third battle of Panipat, brits would have never concurred India..

same marathan who lost to 1lakh Afghans in pani pat 3 while they were approximately 7 lakhs.

Exaggerated figures..
Marathas were about 50 to 60 thousand where as Afghans were 100000.. Marathas were winning till afternoon.. Its confusion which costed Marathas the battle.. Durrani had both numeric as well as qualitative superiority over Marathas. The combined Afghan army was much larger than that of Marathas. Though the infantry of Marathas was organized along European lines and their army had some of the best French-made guns of the time, their artillery was static and lacked mobility against the fast-moving Afghan forces. The heavy mounted artillery of Afghans proved much better in the battlefield than the light artillery of Marathas .. Climate was one of the reason.. It was cold in north india for which Abdali and its Army was well equipped, however no so much was the maratha army.

And most importantly, they fought empty stomach.. Thats why they say, "koi Jung Khali Pet nahi jeeti Jati".

 

[Crystal-Clear]

What the hell,

Marathas fought Mughals and survived.. Aurangzeb died in Maharashtra while trying to decimate Maratha state. And finally the Mughals were restricted to Delhi.. On the other hand marathas grew till Atok.. Hadn't it been Third battle of Panipat, brits would have never concurred India..


Exaggerated figures..
Marathas were about 50 to 60 thousand where as Afghans were 100000.. Marathas were winning till afternoon.. Its confusion which costed Marathas the battle.. Durrani had both numeric as well as qualitative superiority over Marathas. The combined Afghan army was much larger than that of Marathas. Though the infantry of Marathas was organized along European lines and their army had some of the best French-made guns of the time, their artillery was static and lacked mobility against the fast-moving Afghan forces. The heavy mounted artillery of Afghans proved much better in the battlefield than the light artillery of Marathas .. Climate was one of the reason.. It was cold in north india for which Abdali and its Army was well equipped, however no so much was the maratha army.

And most importantly, they fought empty stomach.. Thats why they say, "koi Jung Khali Pet nahi jeeti Jati".

dont expect us to belive in indian version of pani pat 3 .
.
who went to fight war ith women and children ?
.
what a coincidence they lost at pani pat (famous battle ground) ....
.
they underestimate afghans .
.
rather are the face saving stories .
.
bhai jab chor bhi pakra jata ha to bahaney banata . ye to 7 lakh pit k ay they. khair .

 

[Mamluk]

What the hell,

Marathas fought Mughals and survived.. Aurangzeb died in Maharashtra while trying to decimate Maratha state. And finally the Mughals were restricted to Delhi.. On the other hand marathas grew till Atok.. Hadn't it been Third battle of Panipat, brits would have never concurred India..

You don't understand English? I am talking about this battle. Read thread title again.

 

[Peshwa]

first of all Shivaji was a Hindu himself and had a traditional Hindu coronation by brahmins .

That does not equate to him being a religious fanatic or favoring Hindus in any way through his rule.
Remember, Religion is a personal thing for most people.

Secondly establishment of his maratha empire stopped the onslaught and weakened Mughal from north and other muslim empires of the south , at a time at a time when Aurangzeb had imposed Jaziya and was on a conversion spree . Mere arrival of maratha power safeguarded Hindu interest from a religious point of view otherwise ambition of Shivaji was basically political rather than religious .

Accurate. So then you're not saying anything different than what I am.
Shivajis aims were political and not religious. The safeguarding of Hindu interests may be an unintended consequence, though I don't see it that way. But to brand Shivaji as a "savior of hindus" is absolutely false. There was no such religious motivation to his ambitions.

And then over the years Maratha rulers contributed to Hindu temples and even rebuild broken temples such as kashi Vishwanath something that was impossible at the height of mughal rule or would have been in hypothetical strengthening and expansion of muslim ruled region in indiain in the absence of maratha power . So as founder of maratha empire Shivaji indirectly contributed in protection Hindu religion.

That can be hypothesized. that's where ill leave it.

dont expect us to belive in indian version of pani pat 3 .
.
who went to fight war ith women and children ?
.
what a coincidence they lost at pani pat (famous battle ground) ....
.
they underestimate afghans .
.
rather are the face saving stories .
.
bhai jab chor bhi pakra jata ha to bahaney banata . ye to 7 lakh pit k ay they. khair .

This is recorded History. Please show us which literature you've been reading/referring to in your denial of these events and we will be happy to discuss this.

Care to put forth any links to research papers denying this fact?

 

[Crystal-Clear]

This is recorded History. Please show us which literature you've been reading/referring to in your denial of these events and we will be happy to discuss this.

Care to put forth any links to research papers denying this fact?

at tht time there were no neutral historians .
.
.
same goes with the case of padmani and khiljis affair .
.
.
could you clearify the source of historians you read ?

 

[Peshwa]

at tht time there were no neutral historians .
.
.
same goes with the case of padmani and khiljis affair .
.
.
could you clearify the source of historians you read ?

What do you mean by neutral historians?! At that time, the people had no idea of an India - Pak conflict or neutrality in terms of history, so they had no reason to be biased.
History was written by the victors.


Either way, here are the references

Rao, V. Raghavendra. "PANIPAT AND THE NIZAM." Proceedings of the Indian History Congress 13 (1950): 204-06.


James Grant Duff "History of the Mahrattas, Vol II (Ch. 5), Printed for Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, and Green, 1826"


Rawlinson, H. G. Cambridge History of India. IV. p. 424

T. S. Shejwalkar, "Panipat 1761" (in Marathi and English) Deccan College Monograph Series. I., Pune (1946)


Your turn. Please present evidence from your citations that show that there were no (non-combatants/civilians) accompanying the Maratha army.

 

[Hamza913]

however I take offense to the fact that this had anything to do with “Hindu” nationalism.

They cut a guys hand off for killing a cow, and built quite a few Hindu temples.

I think it's fair to describe them as Hindu nationalists.

nor was his campaign directed against Islamic rulers.

I guess the Mughals, Durranis and Mysoreans were all Buddhists weren't they?

I’m actually making the claim that Shivaji being portrayed as the protector and savior of Hindu culture and religion (as mentioned in the video) is false.
Prove me wrong.

http://agniveer.com/shivaji-butchered-cow-killer-islamic-state-might-hindu-sword/

https://www.quora.com/How-do-Indian...-and-is-the-inspiration-of-Hindutva-activists

That's correct, nobody was thinking and acting on the basis of religion.

Asalamu Alaikum

Incorrect, many figures from this region clearly acted with religion on their mind, and identified with their religious identity first and foremost, e.g Aurangzeb Alamgir, Sikander Shah Mir, Shahbaz Khan Kamboh, Mahmud Ghaznavi, etc.

Even for those who did not make it so apparent, we can assume they had the same thought process unless proven otherwise, because that was the norm back then.

Even most of the victories which were brought into the accounts of Akbar were won by hindu General of Akbar's army.

Akbar's top general was Shahbaz Khan Kamboh, a Punjabi from Lahore who was a fiercely devout Muslim, growing a long beard and praying regularly. He was so religious that Akbar didn't like him, but only tolerated him because of how excellent of a general he was (he expanded the Mughal Empire, participating in some of its fiercest battles and had put down rebellions in the Bengal).

Don't forget Marathas came back a decade later I believe

You believed wrong, the Marathas were permanently put down by the Durranis.

The huge number on the Maratha side consisted of women, old men and children. The Marathas sustained heavy losses because they tried to protect them as the innocent civilians were targeted by the Afghans

It's their fault for bringing people who cannot fight to a war-zone, you cannot expect soldiers to differentiate during the heat of the moment or when emotions are running high. And it's not as if the Maratha's were free of committing atrocities themselves.

Also, they weren't just Afghans. Plenty of Pashtuns and Baluchis from Pakistan also fought alongside the Durranis, you even had Hindustani Muslims join the Durranis in battle.

 

[axisofevil]

They cut a guys hand off for killing a cow, and built quite a few Hindu temples.

I think it's fair to describe them as Hindu nationalists.





I guess the Mughals, Durranis and Mysoreans were all Buddhists weren't they?



http://agniveer.com/shivaji-butchered-cow-killer-islamic-state-might-hindu-sword/

https://www.quora.com/How-do-Indian...-and-is-the-inspiration-of-Hindutva-activists



Asalamu Alaikum

Incorrect, many figures from this region clearly acted with religion on their mind, and identified with their religious identity first and foremost, e.g Aurangzeb Alamgir, Sikander Shah Mir, Shahbaz Khan Kamboh, Mahmud Ghaznavi, etc.

Even for those who did not make it so apparent, we can assume they had the same thought process unless proven otherwise, because that was the norm back then.



Akbar's top general was Shahbaz Khan Kamboh, a Punjabi from Lahore who was a fiercely devout Muslim, growing a long beard and praying regularly. He was so religious that Akbar didn't like him, but only tolerated him because of how excellent of a general he was (he expanded the Mughal Empire, participating in some of its fiercest battles and had put down rebellions in the Bengal).



You believed wrong, the Marathas were permanently put down by the Durranis.



It's their fault for bringing people who cannot fight to a war-zone, you cannot expect soldiers to differentiate during the heat of the moment or when emotions are running high. And it's not as if the Maratha's were free of committing atrocities themselves.

Also, they weren't just Afghans. Plenty of Pashtuns and Baluchis from Pakistan also fought alongside the Durranis, you even had Hindustani Muslims join the Durranis in battle.

So you're the first to acknowledge the FACT that civilians came along with the Maratha force? They weren't asked to come, these civilians didn't listen to their commands and took it as an opportunity to visits holy sites along the way. The civilians were targeted and being slaughtered. The Marathas were retreating (common tactic) until they saw this happening, turned around to take the brunt of the attack to save innocent lives. Im not sure about what you are referring to when you stated atrocities but look at historically, who started committting atrocities in the first place? Just paid back in kind I guess.... but I thought Shivaji was above that..wasn't he?


Forget about the different muslim groups, Sikhs and Rajputs did not even help the Marathas during the 3rd battle of Panipat. The blame for that lies on the Marathas though...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maratha_conquest_of_North-west_India

Yes I know its wiki, but separate the BS and facts you get to see a clear pic

 

[Hamza913]

So you're the first to acknowledge the FACT that civilians came along with the Maratha force? They weren't asked to come, these civilians didn't listen to their commands and took it as an opportunity to visits holy sites along the way. The civilians were targeted and being slaughtered. The Marathas were retreating (common tactic) until they saw this happening, turned around to take the brunt of the attack to save innocent lives. Im not sure about what you are referring to when you stated atrocities but look at historically, who started committting atrocities in the first place? Just paid back in kind I guess.... but I thought Shivaji was above that..wasn't he?


Forget about the different muslim groups, Sikhs and Rajputs did not even help the Marathas during the 3rd battle of Panipat. The blame for that lies on the Marathas though...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maratha_conquest_of_North-west_India

Yes I know its wiki, but separate the BS and facts you get to see a clear pic

I'm not denying civilians probably did want to run along with the Maratha's, but the Maratha's should have put their foot down and told them to jog on, since they clearly could not protect them.

Loads of atrocities happened, I referenced one in an earlier post.

Historically, Hindus and Muslims were pretty chill with each other until pirates decided to kidnap Muslim woman, and Raja Dahir refused to do anything about it. That opened the doors for numerous Muslim attacks upon the Indian sub-continent. Not to mention how barbaric some of the people were (and still are) in the Indian sub-continent, with the caste system, sati, etc. You also have to remember, if we didn't launch offensive campaigns against you, we would have been subject to endless attacks ourselves. Back in those days, there was no UN, it was conquer or be conquered.

I don't mind if you use Wikipedia, so long as your claims are backed by citations.

 

[Tshering22]

Very inspiring.

This once again proves that mindset is everything. Willpower is everything. Baji Prabhu was confident of his belief, his training and his dedication to his king and that is what made him stand and take blows after blows till he was sure that his king was safe.

More than the king, it was the cause for which he gave his life.

As the line goes in the movie V for Vendetta, "Ideas are bulletproof".

 

[drunken-monke]

dont expect us to belive in indian version of pani pat 3 .
.
who went to fight war ith women and children ?
.
what a coincidence they lost at pani pat (famous battle ground) ....
.
they underestimate afghans .
.
rather are the face saving stories .
.
bhai jab chor bhi pakra jata ha to bahaney banata . ye to 7 lakh pit k ay they. khair .

Whatever feels you happy.. I will stick to the version which is believed by majority of historians..

7 Lakh maratha soldiers, how much was population of Maharashtra?? Any Logic?

 

[Pan-Islamic-Pakistan]

Indian pseudo-history to further inflate their elevated egos.

 

[Islamabad Rulz]

I thinks its just indians/hindues trying to re-write history...