This thread will be gradually appended with short clips of information on the famous Chauhan King Prithviraj III.
These are taken from the recent sessions done with Sangam Talks and Shri Kshatriya Yuvak Sangh.
Why History?
Civilizations and History. Their innate interlinking.
Does focus on History steer us away from orientation toward future. Is history just a macro subject which doesn’t have use cases for individuals.
Varying clientele of History. Part 1
Is history just a macro subject which doesn’t have use cases for individuals. Varying clientele of History. Point 2.
Why to pay attention to the Prithviraj era? How were its effects so far reaching. Prithviraj's extreme portrayal/profiling in various camps.
Why to pay attention to the Prithviraj era? New propaganda and the need to cut it.
Clans and their role in politico-military configuration of medieval India.
Etymology, Chahamana to Chauhan, Inscriptions and Apabhramsha. Pardon me for explaining well-known terminology like inscriptions.
Many folks don’t know, had to ensure everybody understood the content.
History of Chahamana, the progenitor of Chauhan clan - part 1
History of Chahamana, the progenitor of Chauhan clan - part 2
Sambhar/Ajmer based Chauhans' Sapadalaksha Kingdom, its continuous geographical identity.
Ancient Kshatriya lineage of the Chauhans, their lebensraum and expansion.
Close of peripheral/background topics. Will add for Prithviraj Chauhan soon.
Introduction to an immortal name in the annals of Indian history - Prithviraj Chauhan III
Are the Chauhans Agnivanshi?
Was Anangpal Tomar the grandfather of Prithviraj and the contemporary Delhi King who handed the kingdom over to latter.
12th century AD expansion of Ajmer Kingdom's borders by pre-decessors of Prithviraj Chauhan.
Maximum extent and changes in Ajmer Kingdom's borders during the reign of Prithviraj Chauhan.
Was the Chauhan King lacking deviousness. Were the Chauhans sticking to obsolete ancient politico-military ethics & practices in the age of simmering Islamic threats?
One, two, seven, seventeen, twenty five? Just how many times did Prithviraj and Ghori clash - part 1
How many times did Prithviraj and Ghori clash - part 2
What about the assertion that Prithviraj defeated Ghori multiple times and yet pardoned to let him live? - part 1
What about the assertion that Prithviraj defeated Ghori multiple times and yet pardoned to let him live? - part 2
What were the mistakes or shortcomings of Prithviraj/Chauhans specifically? - part 1. Confederation
What were the mistakes of Prithviraj/Chauhans specifically? - part 2. Not surmounting geographical disadvantage.
What were the mistakes of Prithviraj/Chauhans specifically?- part 3. Horses.
Side note: We've seen people claiming that in medieval India we didn’t have any native horse breeds and battleworthy cavalries to collide with the Turks man 2 man. That's false & will be debunked in...
...separate content later.
What were the mistakes of Prithviraj/Chauhans specifically? - part 4. Horses.
What were the mistakes of Prithviraj/Chauhans specifically? - part 5. Espionage.
How and where did Prithviraj Chauhan die - part 1
How and where did Prithviraj Chauhan die - part 2
How and where did Prithviraj Chauhan die - part 3
Ghori was let lose only once. In the battle of Sutlej 1182-83 AD. With the payment of war indemnities and the condition of future tribute payments, as stated previously.
Broader reasons for Indian failures, of which Tarain was just an instance. Part - 1
Broader reasons for Indian failures, of which Tarain was just an instance. Part - 2
Prithviraj, the leader, the personality. Insights based on his actions - part 1. Awareness of Rashtra.
Prithviraj, the leader, the personality. Insights based on his actions - part 2. Awareness of Rashtra.
Prithviraj, the leader, the personality. Insights based on his actions - part 3. Awareness of Dharma
Prithviraj, the leader, the personality. Insights based on his actions - part 4. Awareness of Neeti
Did Jaichandra Gahadavala invite Ghori to fight against Prithviraj Chauhan? - part 1
Did Jaichandra Gahadavala invite Ghori to fight against Prithviraj Chauhan? - part 2
A whole chapter was dedicated in the book regarding the frivolous debate on ancestry of Prithviraj Chauhan.
We now cover some points that couldn't be included in the book's chapter. Part 1
On the debate over ancestry of Prithviraj Chauhan - part 2. Key of unlocking the truth.
On the debate over ancestry of Prithviraj Chauhan - part 3. PrithvirajVijaya, identifying the Marubhoomi & GurjaraBhoomi.
On the debate over ancestry of Prithviraj Chauhan - part 4. Proliferation of claims.
On the debate over ancestry of Prithviraj Chauhan - part 5. Earliest known occurrence of the term Gurjara.
On the debate over ancestry of Prithviraj Chauhan - part 6. Testimony of Brahmagupta and Vanaraja Chavda.
On the debate over ancestry of Prithviraj Chauhan - part 7. PrithvirajVijaya - Paramara Udayaditya.
Also visit quoted thread -
Blog version at - agrippedsoul.wordpress.com/2021/06/04/und…
An article recently published at Op India in the context of Panipat 1761 AD, Marathas and Hindu politics says that:
For the Rohillas(Najib) and Shias(Shuja) it wasn’t time to save Islam, but to save their own political independence and Kingdoms. To this real and main reason the author eventually tumbles:
“and protect their extensive jagirs in north India”
Comparing Islam and Hinduism's political applications is the same old apple and orange delusion. The difference in civilizations that these two have bred is an important aspect to understand why.
हम सभी ने सुना है, माना है कि महाराजा जय सिंह का शिवाजी के विरुद्ध अभियान जब शुरू हुआ था तब शिवाजी ने उन्हें एक पत्र लिखा था। कुछ समय पूर्व तक मैं भी यही सोचता था। किन्तु समीक्षा करने बैठा तो तथ्यों की पटरी कहीं और ही जा रही थी।
पत्र में शिवजी ने व्यंग और कटाक्ष का प्रयोग करते हुए जय सिंह जी से इस्लामी शक्तियों को छोड़कर साथ आने को कहा, हिन्दू एकता के लिए और मुस्लिम शासन से स्वतंत्रता के लिए।
तथ्य इस प्रकार हैं कि प्रथम तो इस पत्र की सबसे पुरानी उपलब्ध या मूल प्रति मिलती है 1922 ईस्वी की, जिसकी पुष्टि स्वयं माननीय सरदेसाई जी करते हैं| इस प्रति के आधार का केवल उल्लेख मात्र मिलता है जो कुछ दशक पीछे 1892 ईस्वी यानि 19वीं सदी के अंत तक जाता है।
Jai Singh didn’t defect. There was no reasonable side left to fight for. It was game over. Dara & Jaswant Singh ji were defeated. Murad and Shahjahan were jailed. Agra & Delhi were in Aurangzeb’s hands. All the commanders were 1 by 1 joining Aurangzeb.
But no, for some reason it is the urging need of the hour to pick and vilify one Jai Singh.
Shivaji had repeatedly boasted to Mughals of his strong hills, forts, guerrilla warriors.
But when the Imperial Army went into his country he wasn’t to be found.
There was a dispute in a Hindu family A.
Someone in the family calls an outsider (Hindu) from another family B for help. What help? Counselling? Guidance? Mediation?
No, help was a mercenary who would sit in the camp of the highest bidder.
So, he is hired with money, purely to do the bidding of the side who paid (or so it was supposed to be anyway).
Then another person in the family A pulls someone else from family B, obviously he also had to pay. And so on it happens.
Then the fights take place. Family B's mercenaries would often switch sides to whoever paid more, often plunder in the house of family A when demands of money were not met. Demands would go up and ways to squeeze dirtier as mercenaries got more & more entrenched.
This chhanda (#613) is from the large recension of Raso completed in the early 18th century. The copy it belongs to was edited by Mohanlal Vishnulal Pandya Ji and published by Nāgari Pracharini Sabha. 1/n
The chhanda doesn’t exist in another well-circulated large recension copy edited by Kaviraj Mohan Singh. It doesn’t exist in the smaller recensions either. The less said about large recension’s credibility, the better. 2/n
The line actually says– Brave Someshwara held sway over
Gurjara territory as its King (claiming Chauhan influence in south Rajasthan territories of original Gurjaradesha). It then says that Someshwara’s sword (khagga) cuts the Mālwā King’s head. 3/n
Chucking the acquisition of means of self defence, is a symptom of willful abdication of one's own fundamental right to life, liberty and honour. The only ones to actively abet that are lazy, short-sighted societies.
Such head-in-sand societies want to falsely believe that they can somehow circumvent violence forever & everywhere. Guess what, you can't. There is literally no way to completely prevent or circumvent violence ever. Neither in wildlife nor in human societies.
The issue runs deeper than just Arms acts or availability of weapons. It is of an escapist human psyche that keeps yearning for an excuse to outsource the ab initio responsibility of self protection. It has never worked and never will. You have to accept it,