Third Battle of Panipat- A New Film

[Nikhil]

reasons for maratha lose
◆squabbling among maratha generals.
◆death of baji rao & no strong charismatic leadership after that.
◆not fortifying punjab after its capture.
◆not dealing with UP mullas first.
◆ego , overconfidence, casteist attitude, nepotism etc.

 

[smestarz]

During this Era most of the HINDU kings were divided and with mistrust, further they were not supportive of the progress of the other.
The muslim kings were also not supportive of each other but this was in a way taken by the Muslim then as a religious war where the entire muslim kings ruling north India came together.
Marathas did not have the experience of ruling such a big area with different languages customs etc, Collecting Chauth was a good idea as due to that they could put their regional satraps in power and fund them with this Chauth and these were the first Line of defence.
Maratha empire was a regional empire and it had everything to do with keeping Maharashtra independent, they did not have the policy to interfere in other areas.,
Rajputs were once powerful but after the battles against Akbar they were all but subdued, they were not the power that they were before, Also they would not be playing supporting roles to Marathas, thus the Rajputs neither had the power to lead, nor they had the desire to fight with the Marathas , had the Marathas been victorious, perhaps the Rajputs would have to be part of Maratha empire.

The history does show that the Hindu kings were not united, and the Muslim kings were very much like the political scenario at present when we hear of 26 party grand alliance against Modi

Marathas were reluctant kings and lacked the ability to be the real kings of India inspite of being ferocious warriors. While Peshwa Bajirao created regional satraps like Gaikwads, Scindhias & Holkars, they lacked the vision to unify India. They defeated Rajput kings and forced them to pay the same chowth and hafta for protection and never tried to bring them within the fold of Maratha empire while Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj and Holkars called them themselves to be descendants of Mewar dynasty. They could have easily given Khud Mukhtari and be a regional satrap who would contribute troops for their war campaigns while being a part of extended Hindu Maratha empire. The imposition of such hge taxes on the Rajput kings resulted in exploitation of hindu farmers who had to pay much higher part of their produce to their kings to make up for the demands of Marathas.
When the battlelines were drawn for third battle of Panipat, marathas went to Rajput kings, asking for help in the battle. They put a condition that you need to give us freedom to rule our kingdom and reduce the chowth, Marathas refused. The Rajput kings refused to join them in battle and agreed to continue to pay them chowth. Jaats under maharaja Surajmal Joined the war effort and the Jaats had the finest cavalry of all times as they were medium cavalry with the finest horses looted from Mongol armies which used to transit between Delhi and Deccan. Those horse were also *censored* and Jaats had the most ferocious war fighting capability compared to even rajput armies of the day. The Rajput kings had put a condition to support Marathas in the battle which was rejected by the regional satraps like Scindhias and Gaikwads.
Only people who wanted to replace Mongols as kings of India were the Jaats under Maharaja Surajmal and their army was led by one of my ancestors.
However Malharrao, entered into a secret understanding with Najib Khan who was the most hated and most targeted person by Jaat rulers. Maharaja Surajmal wanted to be placed against the front occupied by Najib Khan to kill him but Malharrao intervened and called Maharaja Surajmal unreliable resulting in him being declared a person non grata and jaat forces were to be finished off next day by marathas. In the middle of the night, Maharaja Surajmal and his forces left the Maratha camp and returned to faridabad with Holkars in hot pursuit. No son of a bitch can ever deny this as my own family stopped Holkars under the Kalkaji Temple in Delhi and forced them to withdraw who were chasing Jaat forces. My family had crowned Maharaja Surajmal as the King of Delhi before this battle.

 

[smestarz]

Nobody wanted to fight under the Marathas, not the Jats etc, Its same today when the North India cannot accept a PM candidate from Mahrashtra.

reasons for maratha lose
◆squabbling among maratha generals.
◆death of baji rao & no strong charismatic leadership after that.
◆not fortifying punjab after its capture.
◆not dealing with UP mullas first.
◆ego , overconfidence, casteist attitude, nepotism etc.

 

[vsdoc]

At least the Muslims converted a third of the native populace to Islam.

The British were a company that took over the continent. Using Hindus to defeat the only Hindu military force.

Let's keep skirting all around the prime issue for Panipat in our vain attempts to soothe our historical buttburn.

Cheers, Doc

 

[NewtonS]

At least the Muslims converted a third of the native populace to Islam.

The British were a company that took over the continent. Using Hindus to defeat the only Hindu military force.

Let's keep skirting all around the prime issue for Panipat in our vain attempts to soothe our historical buttburn.

Cheers, Doc

Hi @vsdoc bold part is pride or shame? usually people don't discuss shame. How do you see those converted populace and followers are being thrashed, killed and humiliated everyday across the globe by their own brothers, with pride? (intention is not to pick hole, is just highlight such thing exist in every community/religion. We still have flaws to dealt with internal and external enemies, so every country had, but few survived, few become endangered or migrated to other country and others become history.
"A people without the knowledge of their past history, origin and culture is like a tree without roots by Marcus Garvey". We learn from history not to repeat mistakes.

Whos empire were snatched by British Company (second bold part)? And who were the foot soldiers fighting under Britishers, does it hurt or soothe, I will leave it to you to decide.

 

[vsdoc]

usually people don't discuss shame.

Funny you should say that here.

This whole thread is about inherited shame.

Cheers, Doc

 

[vsdoc]

Whos empire were snatched by British Company (second bold part)? And who were the foot soldiers fighting under Britishers, does it hurt or soothe, I will leave it to you to decide.

It is clear who the East India Company wrested control of India from. And who they used as foot soldiers to do it.

It is a matter of pride or shame depending on who you are. And which side your ancestors fought on. And against whom.

Cheers, Doc

 

[Notsuperstitious]

Nobody wanted to fight under the Marathas, not the Jats etc, Its same today when the North India cannot accept a PM candidate from Mahrashtra.

Modi from Gujrat? So makes no sense, unless u imply some historical butthurt. But even that does not make sense. Vasundhara in Rajasthan, despite her poor government results?

 

[NewtonS]

Funny you should say that here. (in war either you participate or stay away, if You fight (Its pride), 2. You don't fight (choice)) .... 3rd angle You get converted what it would as per your opinion defiantly not Pride so what is left?

This whole thread is about inherited shame.

Cheers, Doc

According to whom? Don't see any rationale to shame upon as a Hindu do you see?

 

[vsdoc]

According to whom? Don't see any rationale to shame upon as a Hindu do you see?

As I said, the shame or pride depends on who you are.

Cheers, Doc

 

[NewtonS]

It is clear who the East India Company wrested control of India from. And who they used as foot soldiers to do it.

It is a matter of pride or shame depending on who you are. And which side your ancestors fought on. And against whom.

Cheers, Doc

From Confident to Question quite big achievement @vsdoc isn't

 

[NewtonS]

As I said, the shame or pride depends on who you are.

Cheers, Doc

Irrelevant and wrong perception to the context, however it is very subjective based on individual opinion and understanding of the subject.

 

[smestarz]

The British were company only for name., They were a Mercenary force. Most of the British East india company were Captains, Lords etc etc.
Also when there was a revolution in 1857, The Indians vs East India company, why did Britain interfere? It is because East India company was in a way proxy of British empire. By floating the East India company, Britain followed dual policy of allowing this company to do trade and for which the British empire was paid royalty, Also due to this Britain had zero accountability. Its very same as Privateers or Pirates, they were promoted by the Crown to do their bidding and raiding Portuguese and Spanish fleets and if they complained, they would "punish" a few
IF the East india company had a revolution in India, why did the British empire send its Army and navy? It is because the East India was proxy of British empire and After the 1857 revolution, the British empire simply annexed India

At least the Muslims converted a third of the native populace to Islam.

The British were a company that took over the continent. Using Hindus to defeat the only Hindu military force.

Let's keep skirting all around the prime issue for Panipat in our vain attempts to soothe our historical buttburn.

Cheers, Doc

 

[smestarz]

The Brits, the portugues and the Dutch were also converting. How else Kerala Mangalore and Goa became Christian?
The East India company had small but disciplined force and they felt that keeping one king fighting with the other king gave them benefit where they could have inlfuence and the king would pay for their protection. And it worked

At least the Muslims converted a third of the native populace to Islam.

The British were a company that took over the continent. Using Hindus to defeat the only Hindu military force.

Let's keep skirting all around the prime issue for Panipat in our vain attempts to soothe our historical buttburn.

Cheers, Doc

 

[smestarz]

Marathas wanted to play safe within their territory or an area where they could be within a week,
Being in Delhi was really stressing their supply lines.

Maratha army was combined of various families which were rivals, the Shindes of Gwalior were dead against Holkars of Ujjain etc
Till Bajirao who was the warrior and lead fearlessly, these families were small and went well with Bajirao, but on death of Bajirao and Chimajiappa, there was one capable General that was Raghunathrao, but his ability to administer was suspect. Madhavrao was a good administratrator but was sick (Tuberculosis) So the people who went from Peshwas were Vishwasrao and Sadashivrao,. During these times the Shindes and Holkars established themselves and rather started to be the local Satraps and becoming more powerful and not willing to be commanded by other warring family

Marathas had earlier rode and won till Attock, but since it was far from their territory, they wisely came back within their territory. Maratha force was a strong force, but being in panipat had stretched their resources to the limit, Also they had travelled a large distance where as the enemy was well rested and had good idea about the geography.

The Maratha army was huge but perhaps they went by brute force into action rather than plan and fight the battle at your advantages and not to the enemies advantages

reasons for maratha lose
◆squabbling among maratha generals.
◆death of baji rao & no strong charismatic leadership after that.
◆not fortifying punjab after its capture.
◆not dealing with UP mullas first.
◆ego , overconfidence, casteist attitude, nepotism etc.

 

[screambowl]

Most of the north east+ Uttaranchal + Nepal remained out of Mughal or Muslim reach forever.
For britishers it took almost 180 years to take over the above that too with very heavy toll and a treaty. This is why britishers termed them as Martial race.

No one makes movie on these kingdoms.. Such a shame..

 

[screambowl]

The Queen Who Cut Off Mughal Noses

A little known story of Indian history is that of Rani Karnavati of Garhwal (1631-1640), called “Nak kati Rani” by the Mughal emperor Shah Jahan, and numerous Mughal chroniclers like Manucci, Bernier, Tavernier and Shahnawaz Khan.

The small hill kingdom of Garhwal shot into prominence in Mughal imagination when a Mughal invading force was trapped in the mountain defiles by the troops of Rani Karnavati. Forced to surrender, they were not killed but allowed to go albeit with their noses cut off.

The small hill kingdom of Garhwal shot into prominence in Mughal imagination when a Mughal invading force was trapped in the mountain defiles by the troops of Rani Karnavati. Forced to surrender, they were not killed but allowed to go albeit with their noses cut off.

 

[vsdoc]

The British were company only for name., They were a Mercenary force. Most of the British East india company were Captains, Lords etc etc.
Also when there was a revolution in 1857, The Indians vs East India company, why did Britain interfere? It is because East India company was in a way proxy of British empire. By floating the East India company, Britain followed dual policy of allowing this company to do trade and for which the British empire was paid royalty, Also due to this Britain had zero accountability. Its very same as Privateers or Pirates, they were promoted by the Crown to do their bidding and raiding Portuguese and Spanish fleets and if they complained, they would "punish" a few
IF the East india company had a revolution in India, why did the British empire send its Army and navy? It is because the East India was proxy of British empire and After the 1857 revolution, the British empire simply annexed India

You did not get my point, in trying to explain the obvious.

A Victorian Blackwater came here. Hired locals. And took over a subcontinent.

Using local muscle.

The big guns came in only a century later.

Cheers, Doc

 

[smestarz]

Not really, The British came to India with few benefits of their own
1. Better ships of the line with cannons
2. Guns that could fire much of the distance
3. Well disciplined army that would not panic when faced against numbers,

YES, of course the locals did help due to their internal politics., At the Battle of plassey, it was Siraj ud daulah vs the East india company, and then Mir Qasim the general of Siraj ud daulah, just went over to the british and became the new king of Bengal, everyone had their aspirations but the true aspirations of the british were not known by many. After all East India was just a company which was into doing business and the Army that it had was for its own protection against the French, the dutch and others. They had no local aspirations.. this was the view of the local population and kings and so the kings readily confided in these foreigners because they could get guns and if need be then this foreign force could be used to their benefit. Maybe it was this way for the East India company, but soon they saw themselves that they were managing disputes of many kings and that made them king maker, and they realised it and everything changed.

Most of the time, it was one king against another and the british supporting them and in return getting various advantages and lands for setting up their forts and bases and thus setting up the foundation for their own future empire

You did not get my point, in trying to explain the obvious.

A Victorian Blackwater came here. Hired locals. And took over a subcontinent.

Using local muscle.

The big guns came in only a century later.

Cheers, Doc

 

[vsdoc]

Not really, The British came to India with few benefits of their own
1. Better ships of the line with cannons
2. Guns that could fire much of the distance
3. Well disciplined army that would not panic when faced against numbers,

YES, of course the locals did help due to their internal politics., At the Battle of plassey, it was Siraj ud daulah vs the East india company, and then Mir Qasim the general of Siraj ud daulah, just went over to the british and became the new king of Bengal, everyone had their aspirations but the true aspirations of the british were not known by many. After all East India was just a company which was into doing business and the Army that it had was for its own protection against the French, the dutch and others. They had no local aspirations.. this was the view of the local population and kings and so the kings readily confided in these foreigners because they could get guns and if need be then this foreign force could be used to their benefit. Maybe it was this way for the East India company, but soon they saw themselves that they were managing disputes of many kings and that made them king maker, and they realised it and everything changed.

Most of the time, it was one king against another and the british supporting them and in return getting various advantages and lands for setting up their forts and bases and thus setting up the foundation for their own future empire

A couple of years ago I read this humungous tome on Chin at the turn of the last century.

Unlike India, which was colonised, the British controlled China via their gunship and military presence in just three port cities.

In the rest of the country, the populace and it's war chiefs and their internal power struggles remain wholly unouched.

In effect over essentially the same lenth of time, in an equally huge landmass and alien populace, the British barely left a footprint beyond the coast and river mouths.

Cheers, Doc