The inferior cavalry of the Rajput was not the only cause of their food at the hands of turko Afghan and the mughals comment
Answers
Answer:
The success of turko, Afghans and Mughals was the consumption of a process which extended till the establishment of Mughal Empire rather than the inferior cavalry of the Rajputs.
There was a basic lack of consciousness of the need for defense. A conjoint effort of various Indian rulers was not made through the centuries, to defend the north-west passes.
The conquest of Afghanistan and Punjab by Mahmud Ghazni breached the outer defence of India. It enabled hostile forces to stage their forces in the area, and not to make forays into vital areas of India at will. Thus, India was tactically put on the defensive. It is to be noted that during the entire period, the Rajput states of the area showed a singular lack of understanding or strategic insight. Thus no effort was made by them to join together to oust the Ghaznavids from Punjab even after the death of Mahmud, when the outbreak of internal struggle among his successors took place.
The lack of strategic consciousness may be explained by the lack of political unity, or by the absence of dominant power in north-west India. It was not because they did not have enough economic or human resources. In terms of size and resources many of the Rajput principalities of the time were superior, both in terms of population and revenue resources, to almost any of the successors of the Abasid Empire. The tract under the control of the Rajputs, outside Rajasthan and Bundelkhand, were very fertile and productive.
The Rajput forces were not inferior in numbers or in the quality of their mounts and weapons but they were definitely inferior in terms of Social organization and leadership. The growth of feudalism, i.e. rise of the local landed elements and chiefs had weakened the administrative structure and military organization of the Indian states.
The large Rajput armies which faced the Turko-Afghans and Mughals did not have a unified command, being brought to the field and led by their own feudatory rulers. It was difficult to manoeuvre such heterogenous forces. Moreover, the Rajputs gave greater weight to man than to mobility.
The Turko-Afghan and Mughals were reputed to be the most skillful horseman in the world. Also, they were used to manoeuvre together because their rulers were accustomed to maintaining large standing armies. Their tribal structure and the growth of the iqta and khalisa systoms enabled them to maintain large standing armies which could be kept in the field for long times. The Rajput armies rarely acted in coordination, and quickly dispersed to their areas after battle.
The Turko-Afghan and Mughal warriors were used to quick movements, of rapid advance and retreat, and of shooting arrows while mounting. Whereas the Rajput forces tended to be a very slow moving mass centered on their elephants. They were beaten by swift cavalry forces which attacked their flanks and rear. While elephants themselves were not a source of weakness, what mattered was how they were used. They provided stability and were most effective when combined with skilled and highly mobile cavalry.
Answer:
The success of turko, Afghans and Mughals was the consumption of a process which extended till the establishment of Mughal Empire rather than the inferior cavalry of the Rajputs.
There was a basic lack of consciousness of the need for defense. A conjoint effort of various Indian rulers was not made through the centuries, to defend the north-west passes.
The conquest of Afghanistan and Punjab by Mahmud Ghazni breached the outer defence of India. It enabled hostile forces to stage their forces in the area, and not to make forays into vital areas of India at will. Thus, India was tactically put on the defensive. It is to be noted that during the entire period, the Rajput states of the area showed a singular lack of understanding or strategic insight. Thus no effort was made by them to join together to oust the Ghaznavids from Punjab even after the death of Mahmud, when the outbreak of internal struggle among his successors took place.
The lack of strategic consciousness may be explained by the lack of political unity, or by the absence of dominant power in north-west India. It was not because they did not have enough economic or human resources. In terms of size and resources many of the Rajput principalities of the time were superior, both in terms of population and revenue resources, to almost any of the successors of the Abasid Empire. The tract under the control of the Rajputs, outside Rajasthan and Bundelkhand, were very fertile and productive.
The Rajput forces were not inferior in numbers or in the quality of their mounts and weapons but they were definitely inferior in terms of Social organization and leadership. The growth of feudalism, i.e. rise of the local landed elements and chiefs had weakened the administrative structure and military organization of the Indian states.
The large Rajput armies which faced the Turko-Afghans and Mughals did not have a unified command, being brought to the field and led by their own feudatory rulers. It was difficult to manoeuvre such heterogenous forces. Moreover, the Rajputs gave greater weight to man than to mobility.
The Turko-Afghan and Mughals were reputed to be the most skillful horseman in the world. Also, they were used to manoeuvre together because their rulers were accustomed to maintaining large standing armies. Their tribal structure and the growth of the iqta and khalisa systoms enabled them to maintain large standing armies which could be kept in the field for long times. The Rajput armies rarely acted in coordination, and quickly dispersed to their areas after battle.
The Turko-Afghan and Mughal warriors were used to quick movements, of rapid advance and retreat, and of shooting arrows while mounting. Whereas the Rajput forces tended to be a very slow moving mass centered on their elephants. They were beaten by swift cavalry forces which attacked their flanks and rear. While elephants themselves were not a source of weakness, what mattered was how they were used. They provided stability and were most effective when combined with skilled and highly mobile cavalry.
There's one other factor that contributed substantially to Rajput defeats: the opium habit. Taking opium was established practice among Rajputs in any case, but they considerably upped the quantity they consumed when going into battle.