I am trying to find why Vira Pandya lost to Malik Kafur. I know the Pandya princes were fighting with each other. But I thought the Pandya Princes had mightier army and they were fighting in their own territory. Malik Kafur came to the lion's den so to speak. So the Pandya Princes knew the territory and in all likely hood the local population must have supported them as well. They would not have had issues with supplies and logistics. Malik Kafur would have had to rely on the Hoysala and other local alliances - which could have easily turned sour.
I am looking for some war information. Like the strength of army and such. Was the Pandya army less trained? Did Kafur have better resources and weapons? If Kafur took 500 elephants and 20,000 horses, then it shows that we had plenty of things. And looking at the loot, it is not that the Pandyas could not afford to pay salary to their army or have the best, latest and greatest, in those times, for the army.
Bad tactics? Bad strategy? Or did the Hindus get totally scared of the Muslim brutalities?
Just one point from my side: We have many examples of such invaders who were quite successful in their missions, like Alexander, Babur, nadir Shah, Muhhamed Ghauri and the latest probably was Napoleon etc etc. A major factor in all such victories was the passion towards your goal. I am not saying that their goals were correct or wrong but they were dedicated towards this. Now what I feel about the loss of Pandyas, or in that case any other Indian dynasty, was the lack of aggravation and strategy to defend the kingdom instead of attacking from the front. When your strategy is only to defend then your army does not get experience of attacking war tactics and that probably put those down. Just a thought without any substantial support. May be I can say little more when I read about the Pandyas.
historical accounts can be very confusing at the time of maliks invasion one of the 2 major pandyas was ruling from uyyakondan in trichy wheras a hoysala branch was ruling from kannanur or samayapuram. how is it that the hoysalas had moved so much into chola land when the pandyas were claiming all lands - even upto kanchi
This obviously has more fiction than fact i spent researching these crucial periods for nearly 2 years and information from any source was frustratingly less. most of this period was reconstructed by the accounts the turkish historians gave. i believe the route was first chidambaram then srirangam and then madurai, i also feel the royal opposition was little and the idols of gods were saved by the common man. for example we know that veerapandiyan and sundarapandyan were step brothers but each account difffers on who was illegimate
As the discussion is focussed on Veerapandiyan and Sundarapandiyan I have a few
details to write. I am working as a Manager in Canara Bank in Chennai city and I spent
three years in my posting in Thiruppunavasal village branch in Avudayarkoil Taluk,
Pudukkottai district. There is an ancient temple in this village, dedicated to Lord Shiva,
which, as per legends, was constructed during the Sundarapandiyan period viz. a
1000 years or so. The priest used to tell lot of things about this temple.
As you all may be knowing Bharanitharan was writing serials in Ananda Vikatan like
Aalaya Makimai, Aalaya Dharisanam etc. at the time of concluding one of these serials,
[ I don't know which one] he met Sri Chandrasekara Saraswati, the senior pontiff of Sankara Mutt and informed him that he had visited all the shrines in Tamilnadu and concluding the serial. Then it seems the Swamigal enquired him whether he was sure that he visited all the temples and Bharanitharan knodded "yes". Swamigal immediately asked him whether you visited Thirupunavasal ? Bharanitharan was blinking as he did
not know that place. It seems then Swamigal guided him the route of this temple and advised him to visit this temple and conclude the serial. He had also said that this
particular temple was so sacred that he would not wear his chappals whenever he visited this temple as THOUSANDS OF SHIVA IDOLS WERE STILL BURIED THERE.
Inside this temple near Kaliamman sannadhi, there is a big hall like structure [mandapam] looks like buried which can be seen even today !
So whatever our friend Mr Venkatesh says, falls in place, as this temple was built by Sundarapandiyan. There is also a village [now inhabited by muslims] about 3 kms from this temple called "Sundarapandiyan Pattinam". This is a coastal village from where
across Bay of Bengal Mannar, Sri Lanka , is just 30 kms / half an hour journey ! It might interest historians who wish to excavate ! It might throw some light on the present discussion.
Yes, Mr Venkatesh, you are right. I used to know that gentleman SP.PL from Devakottai,
is a big shot and an estate owner I believe ! Very simple and unassuming person ! The Bank
Manager will have his honours in the temple on the 5th day of theAnnual Festival of the temple ! I was fortunae and blessed that I had the honours continuously for 3 years during my stay there in 2002-2005 ! They give some "kaalaanji" [coconut prasadam] in a silver cup or so besides putting a silk shaw around your head [parivattam] and a garland !
Very interesting formalities of the olden days followedin the temples in that part of Tamilnadu !
Well, I think the last regime of Tamilnadu banned this practice in the temples.
If the Pandyan Princes had defeated all the other local chiefs and Kings in the area, they must have control over the area. So Kafur comes all the way from the North; meets the lions in their den and yet manages to defeat them? Sorry to use the same lion's den metaphor, in colloquial tamil it is like "avan namba pettaikku vandhu nambalaye pottu thalikurkaan" :-)))) He must have had something going for him - superior forces, superior tactics or strategy. Moreover, he must have had support from all the Chiefs and Kings he defeated on his journey.
GRS ps: Pity that our people aided an outsider. It has been party of our history. So is the case of millions of Indian soldiers in the British Indian Army.
Losing because of supplies is valid; but quite shameful if you consider the territory where they lost - i.e. their own territory. If the Pandyas had gone to Tibet and failed because of supplies that I would agree. But near Cauvery river? Sheesh, whoever was leading the armies must have been very incompetent.
Hi the pandyans had not fought a real battle for decades when malik came along( except between themselves) i remember that vikrama the brother of kulasekara raised the standard of rebellion just like his grand uncle a couple of generations back. while there is evidence that thuklaks invasion( the third) used flame throwers and catapults, there is little evidence that malik used them in fact wassaf the historian accompanying malik notes madurai was deserted when malik reached it
maliks greatest asset was his speed. and of course the support by the hoysalas. venketesh
I think there is some validity in the reason that the soldiers did not have enough experience fighting. If one notices, the way America operates, it constantly is engaged in fighting over several continents - it has soldiers spread across several bases, and there is constantly something or the other going on. But then the Military-Establishment controls some amount of foreign policy. War is beneficial to the weapons manufacturers.
The Islamic invaders were constantly involved in attacks; just like the Mongol warriors. I am tempted to say Genghiz probably waged war all the time, probably there was not one year where he did not fight. It keeps the soldiers on toes, but then they would also get burned out quickly.
So how did our Kings keep their soldiers motivated and trained?
> ps: Pity that our people aided an outsider. It has been party of our history. So is the case of millions of Indian soldiers in the British Indian Army.
darymples last emperor makes a wonderful study of this. how maratas the deadly enemies of mughals support them against the sikhs who fight for the british to avenge the death of their gurus.
there is very little known about malik before the salve markets of khambayat. his firstr name was malik hazardinari. for a lot of time people confused him with the ethiopian habsi malik ambar and assume he was coloured. venketesh
Hi lethargy sets at the end of great empires. and surprisingly long reigns of the kings contribute to the demise the last three cholas ruled for a century. last three mughals too, should check out on the pandyas. but unlike the other two pandyas were crushed when they were in their pinnacle.
> Complacency and arrogance are clear signs about the impending change in regime, everywhere. > small changes in technology too. i would strongly recommend people to read RIVERGOD by wilbursmith. where the all powerful egyptians are subdued by a group of grazers just because the latter( hittites) used the wheel. the egyptians in the story are stunned by ships that sail on the land( charriots)
> All Empires have collapsed. Only the Indic Civilization, which is not an empire, even managed to have a continuous history. Roman, Greek, Aztek, Mayan, Egyptian, Chinese all have succumbed. Chinese might be the closest to us who did not fully collapsed. > > On reason why our Hindu rulers failed at the hands of Muslim invaders were the reason and way both sides fought. > > GRS >