Top 10 Most Significant Battles in the History of the Subcontinent

[misterme2]

Why do you Indians fail to realize that Islam first established itself in the subcontinent in Kerala peacefully! Another important battle I think (not war) is Raja Pazhassi of Kottayam against Tipu Sultan. The King and his people beat Tipu not once or twice but three times. At the end, the British finally destroyed defeated me forever.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Why do you Indians fail to realize that Islam first established itself in the subcontinent in Kerala peacefully! Another important battle I think (not war) is Raja Pazhassi of Kottayam against Tipu Sultan. The King and his people beat Tipu not once or twice but three times. At the end, the British finally destroyed defeated me forever.

Don't generalise so glibly . I have pointed out myself that the first mosques built in India were in the Kerala-Konkan belt, and drawn attention to the age-old traditions of both the Kerala Muslims, including the Moplahs, and the Bearys, a little to the north.

 

[AUSTERLITZ]

I agree whole heartedly with godlessbastard's orginial list....very reasonable and logical.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I agree whole heartedly with godlessbastard's orginial list....very reasonable and logical.

Dang! There goes the discussion - killed at birth.

 

[lkozhi]

why india pak wars not in list?

 

[Joe Shearer]

why india pak wars not in list?

Two-week long skirmishes, led by bacon-brained generals, encounters about which Major Amin said it all when he said that the side with the stupider generals lost?

Please tell me you're joking. Please, please.

 

[GodlessBastard]

Sir, thank you for taking the time to reply to my thread.

Except for Kalinga, Talikota, Plassey and Diu, there is a strong north-west orientation, which has been the traditional orientation of Indian history. In my opinion, that is wrong.

Indeed, I too have noticed the North-West bias while compiling this list. Making such a list in the first place is a difficult task, considering how large and diverse the subcontinent is. But wouldn't you agree that the Northwest has, traditionally, been the gateway through which new ideas and people arrived in India? The Greeks, the Sakas, the Hunas, the Arabs, the Turks - they all came from the northwest, and they all changed the India of their times.

I'll be honest, and admit that I don't know much about the history of Northeast India. If I had, I might have included some important battles from this region.

The Battle of Saraighat in 1671 between Ahoms (victorious) and the Mughals set the limits of Mughal power in the east. By leaving Assam alone under its independent Ahom kings, this battle had a seminal effect on the future of India-that-is-Bharat that succeeded British India in 47. It allowed the Assam kings to maintain their loose and relaxed hold on their hills subjects, and their attitude of friendly indifference to Tibet. It was this relaxed attitude that the British sought to correct on their conquest of Assam, and it was this that finally led to the McMahon Line, which is such a bone of contention with China today.

Thank for mentioning this. I have heard of the Mughal-Ahom Wars but they slipped my mind when I made the list. I think Saraighat is definitely a strong candidate for the list, considering its strong impact even today (w.r.t Sino-Indian relations).

Which battle do you think I should replace in my list with Saraighat? I'm thinking Pratapgarh.

The Battle of Buxar in 1764, between the British under Sir Hector Munro (victors) against the coalition of Shah Alam II, Shuja-ud-daulah and Mir Qasim, was the real battle for establishment of British power in the east, and not the highly-publicised, perhaps over-publicised, Battle of Panipat. At Buxar, the British showed their true military strength over the rapidly-weakening war-fighting skills of the north Indian princes. This battle was the first solid step in the expansion of the British in the Gangetic valley.

Do you mean the Battle of Plassey? Battle of Panipat did not directly involve the British.

I had always assumed that Plassey was the decisive battle that gave the Brits their permament footing in the subcontinent.

Do you think Buxar should replace Plassey in my list?

The Battle of Chushul, 1742, between the Dogra-Ladakhi garrison of Leh (victors) and the Tibetan troops, was the keystone for border negotiations between the Jammu-based Dogra king, Gulab Singh, and the joint representation of the Chinese Court and the Dalai Lama. This border was not set very accurately, giving space for an ambitious British officer to draw a boundary line along the Kuen-Lun Mountains. The PRC took no notice of this whatsoever, nor of the far more conservative intentions of the Treaty of Chushul, but that is another war and another story.

Another important battle for sure, but I'm not sure if it is significant enough to be on the list. I say this because it affected a very small and isolated portion of the subcontinent.


Also, which battle would you say is the most decisive in the history of the subcontinent? I am asking you because you have extensive knowledge on history, and your opinion is highly valued

 

[Alternative]

My list:

10. The Kalinga War (261 B.C.)
Belligerents: Maurya Empire vs. Kingdom of Kalinga
Victor: Maurya Empire
Rationale: We don't know much about this legendary war, besides that many people supposedly died and Emperor Ashoka supposedly felt great guilt after the bloodshed. From a purely scholarly standpoint, I have good reasons to label both "facts" as fabrications, or at least exaggerations, but that is a story for another day. The importance of this conflict is two-fold. First, it marked the first time that the subcontinent was politically united under a single government, a feat that would not be repeated until the 19th century, with British India. Secondly, it indirectly marked the rise of Buddhism as a major religion and philosophy in Asia. Ashoka was catapulted into eternal fame as he sought to build the world's first empire based on dharma following the war, and his great efforts at spreading Buddhism started a revolution. Buddhism, which was previously confined to Bihar, spread across the subcontinent and across Asia. Today, some 500 million people identify themselves as Buddhists.
The Kalinga War is by far the most ancient of the conflicts described here, occurring over 2,200 years ago. Despite its golden legacy and broad influence, much of what we actually know is based on shaky history. For this reason, I have placed the Kalinga War in last place.

Good Thread, and a very relevant one. The exact numbering from 1 to 10 would be quit subjective, but we may all have consensus lol at 10 most significant.
As I understand, Maureya empire, had already expanded considerably, except for a minor glitch, Kalinga, which was taken care off by Asoka.
The reason that I can think of for inclusion in top 10, is the effect generated it on Asoka, not the battle itself, which resulted in the spread of Buddhism, which had far reaching effects on sub-continent for centuries to follow.

A good choice indeed, albeit, numerous doubts expressed by GB himself.

Now some pinching statements;
.... that the subcontinent was politically united under a single government... what is this 'politically united under a single government?...or firstly.. what was 'government' 2200 years ago in subcontinent?...

....a 'feat' that would not be repeated until the 19th century, with British India....., the 'feat' had no parallel in the history of sub-continent, moreover, subjugation of major portions of subcontinent by a power was repeated few times.

Battle of Pratapgarh (1659)
Belligerents: Marathas vs. Adilshahis
Victor: Marathas
Rationale: This was the battle that marked the rise of the Maratha Empire as a major player. .................the Marathas, other Hindu states, Islamic sultanates, the decaying Mughal Empire, and restless Afghan tribes would greatly weaken India as a whole, making it ripe for European colonization.

Again, a very good choice. And again a statement, hard to understand;
What is meant by India in the statement? For example, Marathas gaining power would weaken Mughal empire, ok, but how it would weaken India?

8. Battle of Diu (1509)

Belligerents: Portuguese Empire vs. Gujarati-Mamluk-Ottoman Coalition
Victor: Portuguese
Rationale: Europeans had been trying for centuries to exploit the riches of India, but it would be the Portuguese who would get the first piece of the pie. After a string of earlier setbacks, the Portuguese achieved a decisive victory in 1509 against a combined coalition of various powers. The Portuguese victory at Diu gave them their first permanent holdings in India, which wouldn't be liberated until the 1961 Indo-Portuguese War. The Battle of Diu has a certain degree of global significance for being one of the first "modern" naval battles, in which technologically superior Portuguese gunships were able to triumph against a much larger fleet of obsolete dhows. In addition to its global importance, the battle is important in the regional context because it marked the first time a European power made inroads into the subcontinent, foreshadowing much greater things to come.

All thing were happening on the eastern and western coasts, whether the battle of Diu, one of the many, is entitled to top 10 of sub-continent slot, my empathic reply would be 'no'.

Portuguese already had strong presence, constructed forts, had treaties, fought battles etc. Whatever would had been the outcome, Portuguese (being a sound naval power of that time) would not had left that areas alone. With a long history and much longer list of battles, Battle of Diu is out of place here.

7. Muhammad bin Qasim's Invasion of Sind (712)

Belligerents: Umayyads vs. Jats and Native Kingdoms of Sind
Victor: Umayyads
Rationale: This should be a familiar one for most people. Although Muhammad bin Qasim's famous conquest of Sind had little immediate impact, it was extremely important because it introduced Islam to the subcontinent; over the next millennium, Islam would shape the culture and sociopolitical atmosphere of the subcontinent more than any other factor. The destruction that the Umayyad invasion left in its path, such as pillaged riches and sacked temples, and the relative inaction of the native rulers to counter this new threat, would be a precursor for much greater things to come. Like the Battle of Diu eight centuries later, this fateful episode in history marked the beginning of a brand new age.

Sorry, not a top 10 item. As for red highlighted part,it was not a precursor to any thing. Ghaznavi or Ghauri invasions had nothing to it.
Islam was already introduced in the sub-continent.
The mark, i.e., the state, left was insignificant, one among many in sub-continent.

6. First Battle of Panipat (1526)

Belligerents: Mughals vs. Delhi Sultanate
Victor: Mughals
Rationale: From the 13th through the early 16th centuries, the Delhi Sultanate was the dominant power in the Indian subcontinent. In addition to espousing a unique Indo-Islamic culture, the Delhi Sultanate maintained a certain degree of stability in the subcontinent, especially in North India. However, this stability was shattered in 1526 when an ambitious conqueror by the name of Babur crushed the armies of the Lodi Dynasty at the fields of Panipat, creating one of the largest power vacuums in Indian history. Here, India's history could have diverged spectacularly, as different factions competed for the spoils. Ultimately, it would be Babur's grandson Akbar who would emerge triumphant and consolidate Mughal power.

Now, this is difficult, to decide which was more significant First battle of panipat or battle of Khanwa. Ibrahim Lodi was largely detested by his own amirs, some of them also invited the Babur to invade. In this situation, demise of Ibrahim Lodhi was certain, but only prompted by Babur, but question remained then was, Is Babur capable enough to sustain the combine forces of northern India and convert an opportunity into success?

5.Battle of Talikota (1565)
Belligerents: Vijayanagar Empire vs. Deccan Sultanates
Victor: Deccan Sultanates
Rationale: This battle is not very well known, despite its tremendous significance. While North India succumbed to numerous Islamic invasions from Central Asia, South India remained a firm bastion of Hindu culture. This was solidified in the 14th century, when the various Hindu states of the South became unified under the powerful and prosperous Vijayanagar Empire. The existence of such an empire effectively checked the advance of Islam south of the Godavari. However, the situation changed when the Deccan Sultanates overcame their differences and united in force against Vijayanagar, dealing a decisive blow at Talikota. The collapse of the Vijayanagar Empire following the Battle of Talikota meant the fall of the last great Hindu empire in India, and opened South India to Islam.

Is't the decan sultanates, Golconda, Bijapur, Bidar etc were not situated south of Godavari river? how it contributed in the spread of Islam in south?
After battle, Deccan Sultanates resorted to their old habits, quarrels and infightings, nothing much changed for them; and weakened Vijayanagar continue for next 7 or 8 decades, then finally conquered by Bijapur etc and disintergarated into many small kingdoms, states etc.
Nevertheless, a befitting candidate of top 10.

4. Second Battle of Panipat (1556)

Belligerents: Mughals vs. Hemu Vikramaditya
Victor: Mughals
Rationale: Babur's decisive victory in the First Battle of Panipat resulted in enormous political upheaval in North India, with various factions vying to fill the power vacuum created by the collapse of the Delhi Sultanate. Having died just five years after this great victory, Babur was unable to consolidate his conquests. His successor Humayun also failed, facing enormous competition from the Suri dynasty. In this chaotic environment rose the Hindu emperor Hemu Vikramaditya, who in 1556 attempted to recreate a Hindu empire in North India. Had he succeeded, it would have been the first of its kind in over six centuries. However, he was not alone in his ambitions; Babur's grandson Akbar rose to the challenge and decisively defeated Hemu, thus consolidating the Mughal Empire. Over the next five decades, Akbar would establish the fundamental groundwork of the empire (which his successors would haplessly abuse), making India one of the most powerful and prosperous nations of its time.

Not a top 10 item, in my opinion, reason being, Hemu failed.
The failed adventure left no mark or significant mark, that would had affected the state of affairs in sub-continent for any length of time.

3.Second Battle of Tarain (1192)

Belligerents: Ghorids vs. Rajputs
Victor: Ghorids
Rationale: This was the battle in which the famed Prithviraj Chauhan was defeated. The Rajput defeat allowed Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghauri to easily subdue most of North India, establishing the first Islamic empire in the subcontinent. Although Islam had been introduced to India four and a half centuries prior by Muhammad bin Qasim, it wasn't until Ghauri's time that Islam became a "game changer" and a major sociopolitical force in the subcontinent. It is very important to note that, after the Battle of Tarain, Muslim rulers have continuously ruled India (especially the North) until the British era.

Spot on, among top 10.

2. Battle of Plassey (1757)

Belligerents: British East India Co. vs. Bengal and French allies
Victor: British East India Co.
Rationale: Another commonly-known battle, and for good reason. The Battle of Plassey gave the British a permanent presence in India, and marked the end of French dreams of empire in the subcontinent. In the global context, this battle can be considered part of the Seven Years' War, a series of global conflicts involving Britain, France, and their respective allies. From their base in Bengal, the British would eventually exert their control over the entire subcontinent by the early 19th century. In time, India would become the most valuable possession of the British Empire, the "Jewel in the Crown". The British period of rule had huge effects on India, which I am sure you all are well aware of.

Same issue here, which is more significant, Battle of Plassy or Battle of Buxer.

1. Third Battle of Panipat (1761)

Belligerents: Marathas vs. Durranis and various allies
Victor: Durranis
Rationale: The Third Battle of Panipat, like the First, created a huge power vacuum in India. The battle marked the beginning of the decline of the Marathas, who would be progressively weakened in three devastating wars against the British. However, the battle was very costly for both sides, and weakened the Durranis as well as the Marathas. It also marked, very importantly, the last time two South Asian powers fought a major battle.

Alright, this is not a top 10 item may be 11th in number, in my opinion, but again amazing statements have been made. Like, Power vaccum?? there was not any vaccum, instead arena was teeming with power players, choking each other, trying to extend their sway over as much land as possible.
No permanent damage to the supermacy of Maratha was done by this battle, like the majority of the races of India, Marathas were their own worst enemies.
I am completely lost as to why this can be termed as the most significant battle in the history of sub-continent.

In my opinion, the weakening of India's largest powers in this battle was more crucial to the overall British success in India than the Battle of Plassey itself. After 1761, conflicts in India would almost exclusively involve the British.

Antagonists of East India Company, for example Nawabs of Bengal, were not that weak, but were butchered in the battle fields of Plassy and Buxser, why?

Moreover, the Third Battle of Panipat set in stone a distinct cultural gap in the subcontinent. For most of history, the area corresponding to modern-day Afghanistan and Pakistan's tribal areas were considered the "natural frontiers" of India. Unsurprisingly, Indian empires with their base of power in the Indo-Gangetic Plain had their political frontiers in those regions, and the people of the frontiers were considered to be highly Indianized. This changed in the 18th century, when the collapse of the Mughal Empire, coupled with the rise of tribal Afghan dynasties like the Durranis, permanently pulled the frontier regions out of the cultural orbit of the Gangetic states. The repercussions of this highly significant development can still be felt today.

Cultural gap .... ?
natural frontier? political frontier?......
Gangetic Plain? Gangetic states? I have read many a times the term, Gangetic Plains or valley, but Gangetic States, dont know what it means.?
Cultual orbit of Gangetic states?
What are you trying to say?

PS: I will try to add my choice of top 10 in next post.

 

[lkozhi]

Two-week long skirmishes, led by bacon-brained generals, encounters about which Major Amin said it all when he said that the side with the stupider generals lost?

Please tell me you're joking. Please, please.

so which of these wars in the list was fought between two top generals who were both wise?

 

[Joe Shearer]

so which of these wars in the list was fought between two top generals who were both wise?

Not a single one is a 'war', these are 'battles'. Do you know the difference?

If you do, and that is a big If, you are ready to go to the next step.

 

[lkozhi]

Not a single one is a 'war', these are 'battles'. Do you know the difference?

If you do, and that is a big If, you are ready to go to the next step.

joe u could have argued avoiding the big if for it removed all respect i had for you.

Since u gave me a stick let me beat u up with it The topic starts with 10. kalinga war ...not kalinga battle..
or may be Muhammad bin Qasim's Invasion of Sind the battle...

I didn't know i was facing an english teacher.

It is not the first time i come across pompous know it alls...but you just came across someone who ensures to shove it back up...

Question I had was whether any of these wars/battles as u intelligent people call it was fought between two equally good or brilliant generals.
Wars are mostly fought between stupid generals. My point of argument was that we should consider india - pak as we are discussing significant ones not ones with best strategy. just significant . I guess dividing a nation in half is significant. That is my point.

Now if u want to go back to defining war and battle please spare my time i had done that in school.

- just a low iq bird brain.

 

[Joe Shearer]

joe u could have argued avoiding the big if for it removed all respect i had for you.


So sad; so I've lost a fan. I suppose the sky will fall on my head next.

Since u gave me a stick let me beat u up with it The topic starts with 10. kalinga war ...not kalinga battle..
or may be Muhammad bin Qasim's Invasion of Sind the battle...

I didn't know i was facing an english teacher.

Now you do.


It is not the first time i come across pompous know it alls...but you just came across someone who ensures to shove it back up...

Take a number and join the queue.


Question I had was whether any of these wars/battles as u intelligent people call it was fought between two equally good or brilliant generals.
Wars are mostly fought between stupid generals. My point of argument was that we should consider india - pak as we are discussing significant ones not ones with best strategy. just significant . I guess dividing a nation in half is significant. That is my point.

Now if u want to go back to defining war and battle please spare my time i had done that in school.

How come you didn't pick up very much there? Maybe a return would be useful.


- just a low iq bird brain.

I don't post for the approbation of others, totally unknown others who may or may not have spotted the points being made. So losing such approbation means absolutely nothing, it is a matter of the greatest indifference to me. There are those whose comments and whose responses mean an enormous lot; they either in my assessment know as much as I, or more; or at any rate, a healthy level close to me. When they write that I've made a mistake, I sit up and pay attention.

As far as you are concerned, you fall within the category of one-line zen masters. If you want to comment, read up, compose your comment, and say what you have to, and spare us the epigrammatic one-liners. Don't expect people to scrabble around getting answers because your puissance wants dem dose answers.

This is the last response you will get; your post was an opportunity to set the record clear on what I objected to most in some posters, and it served its purpose. It has no value to me beyond that.

 

[baker]

Battle of Colachel

The Battle of Colachel (or Battle of Kulachal) was fought on 10 August 1741 [O.S. 31 July 1741] [1] between forces of the Indian kingdom of Travancore and the Dutch East India Company, during the Travancore-Dutch War. It was the first major defeat of a European military force by one from South Asia. The Dutch never recovered from the defeat and no longer posed a large colonial threat to India.

Battle of Colachel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Tameem]

Does Sino-India war of 1962 have any significant in the history of subcontinent?

 

[Joe Shearer]

Does Sino-India war of 1962 have any significant in the history of subcontinent?

Yes, of course, it is not insignificant. It is about as significant as the India-Pakistan conflict of 1971.