General History Thread - India : News , Updates & Discussions .

[SKC]

Continued:


Socotra is 2000 kilometers from Indian coastline. Paleographic analysis confirms the Hoq inscriptions were written in different decades, different centuries. Numerous ships must have come to Socotra between 100 BC–600 AD.

C-6: Ancient Hindus were seasoned in ship building, sailing, trading with Ethiopians, Syrians, Greeks, etc (since the cave has non-Indian inscriptions).

Hoq cave is 1000+ feet above sea level, over a long hike (takes about 2.5 hours from shore). Cave is big, beautiful, 2+ kilometers deep. After the first few hundred feet, the cave is pitch dark inside. Full of stalactites, stalagmites, few small water pools. Ancient visitors must have brought a fire torch with them. To write, they used nearby mud, burnt charcoal, and broken stalagmite. Natural barriers & darkness make it difficult to find & reach the deepest point of the cave. But ancient Hindus+Buddhists reached it, left inscriptions.

C-7: Ancient Hindus were explorers with a sense of creative adventure. We see something similar with Hindu Sanskrit inscriptions found in many parts of southeast Asia. These likely came from visitors from ports in modern Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Odisha, Bengal (Kalinga+Tamils).

 

[tommy]

Vengi is the region between the godavari and krishna delta. This territory, for its size, was the richest region of India in the past 2000 years, because like ganga plains, it is a very fertile ( though tiny) part of India, but also served as entryport to the interior Vidharba and Telengana region ( the region of Dakshin Kaushal) and to top it off, until early 1800s, was the ONLY source ( yes the only source) of diamonds in the world.

This relatively small but extremely rich region saw development of local dynasties of significant power ( such as Vengi Chalukyas ( eastern chalukyas, who ruled the region from 600s to early 1000s CE), Andhra Ikshvakus, who ruled for a century and half after fall of Satavahanas, etc. But it was surrounded by 4 main powers - Kalinga, Dakshin Kaushal, Tamilakkam and the Central Maharashtra-north karnataka region.
Typically, Vengi grew strong enough to rule its own territory, but not strong enough to contest the main powers of the Kannada region and Tamil region and typically served as vassals to one or the other. It typically had more even contests with Kalinga ( a slightly bigger food-basket region but poorer due to lacking the 2 secondary points) and the only power it didnt much get into tussles with directly, is Dakshin Kaushal.
However, the main arc of South Indian history is tamilakkam based power bashing heads with power based between Godavari & Tungabhadra and everyone else coming along for the ride, because neither side was strong enough to completely crush the other or control the other for long ( whenever Cholas won vs Western Chalukyas and installed their puppet maharaja, that chap got murdered and his bro took over and vice versa) and Vengi was often the cause of conflict, because ' he who controls vengi, controls south india' was the logic of the big-2. And indeed, that was sound logic, because periods in South Indian history where there has been absolute utter dominance of South by 1 empire, such as Satavahanas, Rashtrakutas and Cholas, its *ALWAYS* been the scenario if ' its one of the big-2 of tamilakkam and maratha-kannada who holds vengi as vassal/direct lands' axiom.

The period of post Satavahana power, aka 250s CE, to the period of around 1050 CE saw by far the most wars in India over Vengi. There are stretches between Badami Chalukya-Pallava, W.Chalukya-Chola wars over Vengi that are pretty much every year for a 10 year period, peace for 10 years, restart yearly war for another 5-10 years, etc. that is extraordinary amount of warfare by Indian standards.

Let's continue this discussion here. What was the army composition of these kingdoms, were they primarily infantry based which I guess due to absence of horses? I remember reading somewhere that lot of wars in India would have been won just by buying out the some part of the army, what's your opinion about his?

And what would be the other 4 most fought places in India?

 

[Miss Firing]

https://swarajyamag.com/ideas/dravidianist-celebration-of-john-marshall-is-a-case-of-internalised-colonialism-not-pride-in-indian-history

Dravidianist Celebration Of John Marshall Is A Case Of Internalised Colonialism, Not Pride In Indian History​

 

[GaudaNaresh]

Let's continue this discussion here. What was the army composition of these kingdoms, were they primarily infantry based which I guess due to absence of horses? I remember reading somewhere that lot of wars in India would have been won just by buying out the some part of the army, what's your opinion about his?

And what would be the other 4 most fought places in India?

These are difficult questions to answer, as warfare in pre-gun powder era wasn't static and developed significantly in the 300s BC-500s AD period and further, altering compositions and such.

For southern Armies, horses were a bigger luxury than northern armies, because south imported horses from Arabia, while north imported horses from Bactria/Kamboja lands and typically horses didnt last long in India due to climate ( Khilji records show, they imported tens of thousands of horses from afghanistan region during their reign and on average a horse died in 2 years, usually of disease). Ironically, the Indian horse breeds like Kathiawari & marwari, have stronger arabian genetic component than central asian horse genes.

So to answer your question in short, it would depend on period. Generally speaking, the armies were infantry & elephant dominant, with Chola-W.Chalukya armies peaking at ~500,000 mobilized, of which 10,000-25,000 were war elephants and anywhere from 1000-5000 cavalry, usually in the upper realms.

Its important to note, that Southern Indian warfare is vastly different in nature than Northern Indian warfare, the terrain favouring a much more Rome-esque infantry formations with cavalry's job being to protect the flanks and not be direct main combat units like later medieval periods of europe for eg or iran/central asian fighting model, which sometimes the North Indian empires also imitated to a bigger degree than the south.

As for wars being won by bribing armies - they were not a thing in the pre 1000s CE period , because up to this time in Indian history, corporations were extremely strong players in Indian politics and military ( Srenis, look them up) and often played a critical role as part of the military system and had court presence.
Often, big conflicts were a hybrid of imperial military+corporate guild military model, such as seen during the first ever trans-oceanic war in human history : Chola-Srivijaya wars - the war saw thousands of soldiers from certain Srenis in Tamilakkam.

The Sreni system got destroyed around 1000 CE, with the fall of the Chola empire, as Islamic commerce systematically outcompeted Indian guilds in the Arabian sea trade region and with fall of Chola empire, the Indian sreni system began to die out ( it was dead by the time Muhammad of Ghor arrived for eg) and you see a more familiar scenario of ' king with generals where generals betray king/get bought out etc' being present in Indian warfare.

 

[Vinash]

View: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/GggwJmXXTqs

 

[Anonymous Bharata]

Yhwh is Kali purusha

View: https://x.com/KGBPurana/status/1840299038144401912

 

[SlayingHell]

These are difficult questions to answer, as warfare in pre-gun powder era wasn't static and developed significantly in the 300s BC-500s AD period and further, altering compositions and such.

For southern Armies, horses were a bigger luxury than northern armies, because south imported horses from Arabia, while north imported horses from Bactria/Kamboja lands and typically horses didnt last long in India due to climate ( Khilji records show, they imported tens of thousands of horses from afghanistan region during their reign and on average a horse died in 2 years, usually of disease). Ironically, the Indian horse breeds like Kathiawari & marwari, have stronger arabian genetic component than central asian horse genes.

So to answer your question in short, it would depend on period. Generally speaking, the armies were infantry & elephant dominant, with Chola-W.Chalukya armies peaking at ~500,000 mobilized, of which 10,000-25,000 were war elephants and anywhere from 1000-5000 cavalry, usually in the upper realms.

Its important to note, that Southern Indian warfare is vastly different in nature than Northern Indian warfare, the terrain favouring a much more Rome-esque infantry formations with cavalry's job being to protect the flanks and not be direct main combat units like later medieval periods of europe for eg or iran/central asian fighting model, which sometimes the North Indian empires also imitated to a bigger degree than the south.

As for wars being won by bribing armies - they were not a thing in the pre 1000s CE period , because up to this time in Indian history, corporations were extremely strong players in Indian politics and military ( Srenis, look them up) and often played a critical role as part of the military system and had court presence.
Often, big conflicts were a hybrid of imperial military+corporate guild military model, such as seen during the first ever trans-oceanic war in human history : Chola-Srivijaya wars - the war saw thousands of soldiers from certain Srenis in Tamilakkam.

The Sreni system got destroyed around 1000 CE, with the fall of the Chola empire, as Islamic commerce systematically outcompeted Indian guilds in the Arabian sea trade region and with fall of Chola empire, the Indian sreni system began to die out ( it was dead by the time Muhammad of Ghor arrived for eg) and you see a more familiar scenario of ' king with generals where generals betray king/get bought out etc' being present in Indian warfare.

So I watched a lot of videos in Youtube where we prospered when behind the curtains were the Indian Merchant Class. Whatever they did atleast that prospered the Civilization, and later India was like purely a bunch of scattered directionless and purposeless kingdoms fell apart due to too much ethnic or clan or caste kool-aid that weakened India and gave rise to invasions.

 

[Anants]

So I watched a lot of videos in Youtube where we prospered when behind the curtains were the Indian Merchant Class. Whatever they did atleast that prospered the Civilization, and later India was like purely a bunch of scattered directionless and purposeless kingdoms fell apart due to too much ethnic or clan or caste kool-aid that weakened India and gave rise to invasions.

What weakened India can be understood by what is weaking western civilization right now. Same decadency had started to hollow Indian culture. Dharma had vanished from majority slowly and Only Arth and Kama remained.

 

[GaudaNaresh]

So I watched a lot of videos in Youtube where we prospered when behind the curtains were the Indian Merchant Class. Whatever they did atleast that prospered the Civilization, and later India was like purely a bunch of scattered directionless and purposeless kingdoms fell apart due to too much ethnic or clan or caste kool-aid that weakened India and gave rise to invasions.

That is bit of an oversimplification but also a kernel of truth.
Indian civilization stagnates around the late Kannauj triangle period, aka 900 CE and by 1100 CE when India finally falls to turki invasions, its no longer at cutting edge of military tech.
What happens by 900 CE ? Total and complete dominance of muslim trader class over the Arabian sea & Iranian plateau trade network, which negatively impacted BOTH the main trading class of the India-Europe-Middle east trade: Byzantine christians and Indian pagans. Both civilizations started to stagnate at this period (though byzantines got to compensate for losing technical edge by hiring mass amounts of Varangian guards- norsemen & anglo-saxons- who were fierce fighters for shit tons of gold).

The loss of these trade routes definitely impacted us, in terms of depriving us of eyes and ears in their lands to warn us of impending invasions, while their presence of traders in India alerted them to situations when local kingdom were weak and underoging some sort of succession crisis to invade.

The main weakness of North India - and we see this repeatedly through classical Indian history- is the lack of horses.
As in, the climate isnt suitable for horses and in ancient times horses brought to india survived about a year and half before dying of disease on average.
As such, a vast plain terrain, which topographically is hugely suited for cavalry warfare, is at severe disadvantage to invasions from Afghanistan/Iranian plateau- a region rich in horses, particularly war horses, as invasion campaigns lasted less than a year and thats not enough time for you to lose your cavalry to disease in India either, before you crush the local powers to set up base.
This is what the Shakas, Kushans, Parthavas, Yeopthal Huns, etc. did before the moozies.

However, India is the only land blessed with a hard counter to horses : war elephants, who are even more of a counter to war horses than phalanx coz unlike phanalx, horses are actually SCARED shitless of an angry elephant (natural animal instinct kicks in at that time and no amount of training will make a horse charge an elephant when the elephant is ALSO going shit-crazy and trumpeting and stomping around displaying aggression).

Hence, you see, whenever North India is under a powerful empire, it is not to be fucked with by the outside Iranian plateau based powers- not Magadh empire, not Guptas, Pratiharas, harsha, Pals - nobody, except the ' slash and burn and run away' landscape destruction of the Huns against Guptas ( the only exception to the rule).
Why ? because when you bring 5000-10,000 war elephants on the battlefield and i only have horses, its game over.
However, the elephant cavalry hard counter comes with a huge downside - cost. Elephant cavalry is a massively expensive item to maintain and this is why Belgium or Holland sized kingdoms like Puru and such had 100-200 war elephants- a force that you still cant kill, but CAN manuever around the battlefield and ignore, when battlefield involves 50,000 people trying to kill each other.

And sure enough, when does the Indo-Greek, Parthava, Shaka, Kushan, Ghori, Ghaznavi etc. invasions happen ? when North India has no big empire or big empire just had succession crisis and is in civil war ( like Magadh empire during Maurya to Shunga transition).

 

[SlayingHell]

That is bit of an oversimplification but also a kernel of truth.
Indian civilization stagnates around the late Kannauj triangle period, aka 900 CE and by 1100 CE when India finally falls to turki invasions, its no longer at cutting edge of military tech.
What happens by 900 CE ? Total and complete dominance of muslim trader class over the Arabian sea & Iranian plateau trade network, which negatively impacted BOTH the main trading class of the India-Europe-Middle east trade: Byzantine christians and Indian pagans. Both civilizations started to stagnate at this period (though byzantines got to compensate for losing technical edge by hiring mass amounts of Varangian guards- norsemen & anglo-saxons- who were fierce fighters for shit tons of gold).

The loss of these trade routes definitely impacted us, in terms of depriving us of eyes and ears in their lands to warn us of impending invasions, while their presence of traders in India alerted them to situations when local kingdom were weak and underoging some sort of succession crisis to invade.

The main weakness of North India - and we see this repeatedly through classical Indian history- is the lack of horses.
As in, the climate isnt suitable for horses and in ancient times horses brought to india survived about a year and half before dying of disease on average.
As such, a vast plain terrain, which topographically is hugely suited for cavalry warfare, is at severe disadvantage to invasions from Afghanistan/Iranian plateau- a region rich in horses, particularly war horses, as invasion campaigns lasted less than a year and thats not enough time for you to lose your cavalry to disease in India either, before you crush the local powers to set up base.
This is what the Shakas, Kushans, Parthavas, Yeopthal Huns, etc. did before the moozies.

However, India is the only land blessed with a hard counter to horses : war elephants, who are even more of a counter to war horses than phalanx coz unlike phanalx, horses are actually SCARED shitless of an angry elephant (natural animal instinct kicks in at that time and no amount of training will make a horse charge an elephant when the elephant is ALSO going shit-crazy and trumpeting and stomping around displaying aggression).

Hence, you see, whenever North India is under a powerful empire, it is not to be fucked with by the outside Iranian plateau based powers- not Magadh empire, not Guptas, Pratiharas, harsha, Pals - nobody, except the ' slash and burn and run away' landscape destruction of the Huns against Guptas ( the only exception to the rule).
Why ? because when you bring 5000-10,000 war elephants on the battlefield and i only have horses, its game over.
However, the elephant cavalry hard counter comes with a huge downside - cost. Elephant cavalry is a massively expensive item to maintain and this is why Belgium or Holland sized kingdoms like Puru and such had 100-200 war elephants- a force that you still cant kill, but CAN manuever around the battlefield and ignore, when battlefield involves 50,000 people trying to kill each other.

And sure enough, when does the Indo-Greek, Parthava, Shaka, Kushan, Ghori, Ghaznavi etc. invasions happen ? when North India has no big empire or big empire just had succession crisis and is in civil war ( like Magadh empire during Maurya to Shunga transition).

A lot of contemplation after, I arrived at conclusion that Hinduism being Multi-Theistic resulted in fragmentation of groups unlike Abrahamics. A profound impact of Hinduism being tolerant and Multi-Theistic not even taking folklore is that every 2-bit king and his dog had to chime in. Its like our present day 1-acre farmer who would rather be uncertain and poor with his piss poor farm yield on his 1-acre farm unlike a 100 1-acre farmers coming together and forming a collective. In my opinion, faith originating in India taken too far without centralized control gave birth to ego and self-determination Kool-Aid for every wanker that led to loss of collective strength.