Answer Writing Practice
Paper I: 15. The Thirteenth Century:
Question 5
Assess the causes of the defeat of Northern Indian States against the Turkish invasion. [20 Marks]
#Medieval #TurkishInvasion #Ghori #Ghazni #Rajput #AnswerWritingPractice
@nikhilhistoryoptional
Paper I: 15. The Thirteenth Century:
Question 5
Assess the causes of the defeat of Northern Indian States against the Turkish invasion. [20 Marks]
#Medieval #TurkishInvasion #Ghori #Ghazni #Rajput #AnswerWritingPractice
@nikhilhistoryoptional
Answer Writing Practice
Paper I: 15. The Thirteenth Century:
Answer 5
Some absurd/outdated/illogical points: (Don’t use them in the answer)
1. Invaders came from cold mountainous ranges and were hardy people while Indians living in semi-tropical sweltering climate and in the plains were no match for them.
2. Invaders ate non-veg, had more proteins and thus were powerful while Indians were largely vegetarian and thus weaker.
3. Rajputs were follower of Dharmic code of warfare, and used to think of war as chivalrous sport.
4. Indians were pacifist with not much training in military while the invaders were war-like.
——————————————
Historiography of the causes
(Points to be used in the answer)
1. Jadunath Sarkar – Turkish people had zeal of new converts which gave them Ghazi spirit in the name of Allah. They had a sense of Islamic brotherhood, and they didn’t drink alcohol. All of this provided strong bond of unity and sense of mission.
2. Muhammad Habib – Hindus were backward, caste-ridden, internally divided, and socially fragmented. It all impaired their military effectiveness. (caste division in 10-11th c – cite Al Beruni). Hindus were insular from the developments in the world at that time.
3. Tactical reasons
a. Turkish military tactics and technology were superior. Eg. Iron-stirrup, crossbow, good breed of horses
b. Greater emphasis on mobility on part of Turks
4. Lack of strategic perspective of Rajputs
a. Not thinking of scientific border of India at Kabul-Kandahar but limiting to Ganga valley or Punjab plains
b. Internal disunity against the foreign invader. No all India common front formed.
5. Satish Chandra – Socio-political system of Rajputs was not upto the mark. Rajputs didn’t lack number or training or weapons or intent but they lacked proper organization and leadership. Feudal irregular and poorly organized levies of Rajputs were no match for centralized and iqta based loyal military organization of Sultans. Also, there was better scope for upward social mobility for talent and merit in Turks (eg slave generals).
———————————
PS
You can add many more scholars like Peter Jackson and Andre Wink. Their viewpoints are really interesting. However, you have to be cautious about the word limit as well. Therefore, try to learn the skill of answer writing. If you are preparing for 2023, write one or two answers everyday till December/January. It helps immensely.
#Medieval #TurkishInvasion #Ghori #Ghazni #Rajput #AnswerWritingPractice
@nikhilhistoryoptional
Paper I: 15. The Thirteenth Century:
Answer 5
Some absurd/outdated/illogical points: (Don’t use them in the answer)
1. Invaders came from cold mountainous ranges and were hardy people while Indians living in semi-tropical sweltering climate and in the plains were no match for them.
2. Invaders ate non-veg, had more proteins and thus were powerful while Indians were largely vegetarian and thus weaker.
3. Rajputs were follower of Dharmic code of warfare, and used to think of war as chivalrous sport.
4. Indians were pacifist with not much training in military while the invaders were war-like.
——————————————
Historiography of the causes
(Points to be used in the answer)
1. Jadunath Sarkar – Turkish people had zeal of new converts which gave them Ghazi spirit in the name of Allah. They had a sense of Islamic brotherhood, and they didn’t drink alcohol. All of this provided strong bond of unity and sense of mission.
2. Muhammad Habib – Hindus were backward, caste-ridden, internally divided, and socially fragmented. It all impaired their military effectiveness. (caste division in 10-11th c – cite Al Beruni). Hindus were insular from the developments in the world at that time.
3. Tactical reasons
a. Turkish military tactics and technology were superior. Eg. Iron-stirrup, crossbow, good breed of horses
b. Greater emphasis on mobility on part of Turks
4. Lack of strategic perspective of Rajputs
a. Not thinking of scientific border of India at Kabul-Kandahar but limiting to Ganga valley or Punjab plains
b. Internal disunity against the foreign invader. No all India common front formed.
5. Satish Chandra – Socio-political system of Rajputs was not upto the mark. Rajputs didn’t lack number or training or weapons or intent but they lacked proper organization and leadership. Feudal irregular and poorly organized levies of Rajputs were no match for centralized and iqta based loyal military organization of Sultans. Also, there was better scope for upward social mobility for talent and merit in Turks (eg slave generals).
———————————
PS
You can add many more scholars like Peter Jackson and Andre Wink. Their viewpoints are really interesting. However, you have to be cautious about the word limit as well. Therefore, try to learn the skill of answer writing. If you are preparing for 2023, write one or two answers everyday till December/January. It helps immensely.
#Medieval #TurkishInvasion #Ghori #Ghazni #Rajput #AnswerWritingPractice
@nikhilhistoryoptional