The Rajputs were horrible at war

Second Battle of Tarain: The last stand of Rajputs against Muhammadans.

[17 November 2017] This has been so oft repeated that in a Gobbeslian twist, it has become the de facto truth, but this stems from a shallow a priori analysis of history.

Take this oft shared write up, I will use this as a basis to debunk this calumny.

The exchange of Rajput Princesses into the Mughal Harems (as a barter against their lost privileges)

It starts of with a baseless assertion. Across history, marital alliances are very common. The only unique thing in India are cross religious marriages.

Women being married into even pagan (but powerful) dynasties was a trademark of Chinese / Byzantine diplomacy. Even if not pagan, what these civilizations considered barbarian.

There is nothing cowardly about this.

When Muslim rulers tried to invade the territories of India, be it the Delhi Sultans or the Mughals – the Rajputs, the fiery Indian warriors in spite of showing enormous valor, always ended up in the losing end. Whether it was the defeat of Prithvi Raj Chauhan against Mohammad Ghori in the battle of Tarain or the attacks of Akbar against Rana Pratap, the Rajputs were always crushed by the Muslim invaders

Absolute rubbish. Rajput tribes have been fighting Muslim invasions from the time of Bappa Rawal. While his exact name is in doubt, his historicity is not. From around 750 AD till 1707, the Rajputs have been fighting Muslim invaders and Muslim rulers. That is a 1000 bloody long years of resistance. Cherry picking a few battles and saying Rajputs suck at war is disingenuous to say the least. This is like taking Pearl Harbour, Chinese spring offensive in Korea, Battle of Ong Thanh in Vietnam and coming to the conclusion that the US sucks at war.

Take Prithiviraj Chauhan for instance (referred to here), the article does not mention that he won the first battle of Tarain handily and the famous Ghori (who even Nehru considers some military genius, so not some random Joe) almost lost his life.

The problem was structural, the Rajput armies (like many other nomadic, cavalry based armies) had a serious issue with siege techniques, and this is what made the difference. Ghori left a general named Zia-ud-din Tuglagi in the fort of Tabrindh, with some 3k men. The Rajputs who had no knowledge of siege techniques (even the early Mongols, the Huns or even the early Ottomans and a whole host of cavalry based armies lacked this, does it make them shit at war?) spent the better part of a year trying to reduce this fort, which gave Ghori enough time to regroup and attack again.

The second battle of Tarain, Ghori did showcase his genius by launching a spirited night attack, Rajputs back then did not fight at night and were caught off guard and by day break had suffered serious morale losses and men as well.

The second battle of Tarain was a clear case of superior tactics and much better C&C of the Ghorids carrying the day and this cannot be disputed.

The main issue was doctrinal though - Ghori had learnt from the first battle of Tarain and replaced his line infantry and heavy cavalry with light archer cavalry, and like in the battle of Carrahe, they stood at bow range and simply decimated Rajput lines with arrows.

Again, this was the first time any Indian army was facing these type of mobile archer cavalry driven units, so you can't really blame them for not being prepared now can you?

It is like if some foe armed with a long range laser gun arrived at your door step (the composite bow did give the Turks a spectacular tech edge) ,and then you get thulped, does it mean you suck at war?

As the rest of the article was garbage and not even worth debunking, let us do this troll.in one.

A thousand years ago, Rajput kings ruled much of North India.

Wrong, the Rajputs never commanded any presence outside of what is today Gujarat and Rajasthan. The key empires during the first Muslim invasions were the Chalukyans, Pala and Pratihara, these combined dominated pretty much all of the North + West + East with a little of the south Indian land mass.

Brits hardly count since the Rajputs were a spent force by the time Akbar was done with them.

Wut? Seriously, troll.in should be ashamed of writing garbage like this. If they were a spent force in 1550, who rebelled against Alamgir? And who ran the 30 year long bloody insurgency / rebellion? Akbar in fact recognised what his stupid, bigoted progeny did not - that it is better to co-opt the Rajputs by giving them territorial grants, right to farm land and revenue, inter marriage (which admittedly was only one way) than fight an endless war.

Let me repeat, despite having been "spent", the Rajputs somehow launched a bloody 30 year old war of resistance against Aurangazeb!

A fascinating account of this particular rebellion, I strongly suggest you read it, it is a good and well written (as opposed to the usual dry shit found in texbooks) historical account.

Prithviraj Chauhan was captured while bolting and executed after the second battle of Tarain in 1192 CE, 

This shit makes me unreasonably angry - so did Ghori, he literally ran for his life, so? So many many leaders and generals have faced defeat and cut and run for their lives, so what?

as did Rana Pratap after the battle of Haldighati in 1576

Pathetic! Troll.in refuses to or does not want to mention that Rana Pratap went on to run a successful guerrilla campaign and recovered almost all his lost territory except Chittor. Just like Caesar and his Gaulish auxiliaries, the bulk of the cavalry in Akbar's army was in itself Rajput, so Rajputs were brave capable warriors and shit warriors in the same battle?

Am going to take a break here, will come back with part 2, and instead of dissecting this shit tier article, I will do a brief piece on Rajput military tactics - no, it was not just a frontal charge as is commonly alleged.

Yes, in the first century of warfare with the Muslim states (post Ghori that is, not the period 700-1000 AD), Rajputs did resort to frontal charges and unsophisticated techniques, but they also evolved and adapted over time.

I am going to repeat myself, the Rajputs ran a 1000 bloody year campaign of resistance (both overt and covert) against the Muslim invaders and Muslim empires, that by itself should make them anything but failures.

Will add sources in part 2

Original post by user RajaRajaC on indianews.reddit.com