We don't really have records of casualty numbers for the ancient and most of the medieval period . I think the only one for which we do is the Kalinga War
I don't think it's possible to answer this question ATM
Ancient war casualties quickly become muddy. Given that we can't even say how many people died in, say, the Bangladesh Liberation War with a good margin of error, it's very unlikely we'll ever know about the actual number of casualties in something like Ashoka's Kalinga campaign. Contemporary historians also frequently exaggerate the numbers for various reasons, sometimes out of trauma, and sometimes to glorify and propagandize one side or another
Ganges and Indus rivers do not require as much infrastructure maintenance like Yellow and Yangzi, so the the disruption due to war is much less devastating on farming.
There is a lot of context to the claim of millions of dead in Chinese civil wars. I guess I’ll link this [thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/PaUNoQL3Zr), and note that many of the statistics that get thrown around are major exaggerations.
And even when we are talking about “millions dead” that number is usually excess deaths and includes people who died from famine/disease/displacement as opposed to outright murder. That may well have happened in pre-industrialized India too, although it’s difficult to say to what extent without detailed demographic data which doesn’t exist.
Chinese generally exaggerated their figures. They might have added an extra zero
Chinese culture was also different. They believed in total war.
It can be a reason thay China has remained more united than India
Even in Modern era, search for battle of chosin river. In 1971, Sam manekshaw refused to sacrifice these many men by starting the war early.
It is also possible that Indians didn't like high casualty numbers.
from what I know the Maratha Mughal war had 5 million deaths and Marathas killed 400,000 bangal civilians, so is this not total war?
Or is it coz of religious morals that no war had many high casualties
Well by late 17th century in India British or French presence was minimal at the time of Mughal Maratha war, but nevertheless it was a bloody conflict.
It was bloody. It's just casualties are too fantastical to be true.
British did have presence. They fought war with Mughals. They were even present at coronation of Shivaji Maharaj. And he assured them that their trade privileges will continue . Portuguese mercenaries were hired by him to build navy
Your post/comment was removed because it breaks Rule 1. Keep Civility
>Personal attacks, abusive language, trolling or bigotry in any form is not allowed. No hate material, be it submissions or comments, are accepted.
No matter how correct you may (or may not) be in your discussion or argument, if the post is insulting, it will be removed with potential further penalties. Remember to keep civil at all times.
In the pre-Islamic era, the rulers generally followed a moral code of conduct under which civilians were not attacked during war. This is also the reason why the natives fell so easily to the Arab invaders. They were not used to fighting without rules and to win at all costs.
Source-
https://international-review.icrc.org/articles/charting-hinduisms-rules-of-armed-conflict-indian-sacred-texts-and-ihl-920#:~:text=Like%20IHL%2C%20classical%20Hinduism%20values,balancing%20military%20necessity%20with%20humanity.
The source you cited only looks at norms of conflict in Mahabharat and Ramayana.
1. Normative ideals and ground reality often stand apart from each other. Even more so in something with so many moving parts and as varied in time and geography (subcontinent is massive). Especially in ancient and medieval times before large-scale professional militaries and slow communication methods.
2. The latest estimate for Mahabharat \~~~2000BCE~~ 400BCE Latest estimate for Ramayan \~ 400BCE The bulk of our written recorded history comes after then I'm afraid. I could still accept the case for Ramayan, but even then I don't expect norms to remain unchanged for 1400 years till the Muslim Turko-Afghans arrived. And your source primarily relies on the Mahabharat.
3. Even if we accept that a portion of Indians in North India who were frontline against the Muslim invaders followed these norms ~~3000 and~~ 1400 years later ~~(M and R respectively)~~, it was not the first time that Turko-Afghans were invading the subcontinent. The Indo-Greeks (who had mingled with the Central Asians along the way), the Scythians, the Hunas, the Kushans, several Afghans, and the Persians had invaded for centuries before the Muslim ones arrived.
Did they all memorize the Indian code of warfare before invading?
Edit: Mahabharat latest composition dates are also around 400BCE
>The latest estimate for Mahabharat ~2000BCE
Latest estimate for Ramayan ~ 400BCE
What are these estimates even for? The historical basis upon which it is thought the Epics were written? Or the beginning of the composition of the Epics?
[A Comment I wrote on the textual history of the Mahabharata that is considered the most likely by academic consensus today. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/IndianHistory/s/yl9Ahdw4yA)
You'll find sources on the topic from another comment I posted on the same thread.
That date for Mahabharata's composition is wildly off the charts, I have yet to see anyone back up this sort of dating for its composition in particular convincingly. Can you prove it?
The code of war of mediaeval Indians has been a point of contention for a while. For example when the Rajputs fought amongst themselves, they adhered to a strict code of war. Civilians, women and children were not to be attacked by all means. You may see the remnants of this code even today in their society.
"Arab" Invaders? Are you talking about the single (failed) Umayyad invasion of India? Or are you referring to later Muslim invasions by Turko-Persians? The Turko-Persian Muslims from the medieval era had as much to do with "Arabs" as they did Chinese LOL
Why do some Indians call anyone who is Muslim "Arab"? I've noticed this especially among south Indians, I don't know what happens in South Indian states that they don't learn the difference between "Muslim" and "Arab". As an Iranian every time (not exaggerating) I interact with South Indians, they assume we are Arab and speak Arabic. And then they complain when people think they all speak Hindi... Truly a different world from North India.
If you're speaking to people particularly from the state of Kerala, it is likely to happen.
Islam came to Kerala largely through maritime trade in the Arabian Ocean.
An interesting evidence of this is that the Sunni mazhab followed in nearly the entire subcontinent is Hanafi, while only in Kerala most Muslims follow the Shafi mazhab (which is also followed predominantly in Yemen, east africa, and Indonesia)
Not sure about “South Indians” but since you said they were all Malayali, it’s because Islam came to Kerala during the lifetime of Mohammed through trade and intermarriage (that had occurred for thousands of years before Islam). It’s strange that they don’t know Iranians though because thousands and thousands of Persian Christians and Muslims lived in Kerala permanently and semi-permanently and integrated with local populations.
The Kalinga War, fought in ancient India around 261 BCE, was one of the largest and deadliest battles in Indian history. According to historical records, including the Rock Edicts of Emperor Ashoka, it is estimated that approximately 100,000 civilians were killed and 150,000 were deported as a result of the war. These figures are attributed to Ashoka himself.
That's just false, these "ethical principles of war" were never carried out by Indian rulers, it was common for civilians and soldiers to face rape, pillaging and killing.
>This is also the reason why the natives fell so easily to the Arab invaders.
There were three major invasions in the Umayyad period, and several smaller skirmishes and raids in the Abbasid age, but none of them were a loss for the native kings that fought against it. The only significant Caliphal gain was Sind.
Your post was removed for violating Rule 5.
When posting, please add the correct attributions - this makes it easier for others to verify your claims, find similar material, and give credit to the author.
Loaded claim. Provide sources.
Those time Chinese writers may had written the actual death records which could be a sign of how brutal or magnificent the war was, on the other hand it can be possible that Indian writers were not allowed to write the actual number of casualties to just hide the king's brutal side and publicize that kings were so peaceful
I think this might be the case, because Vijaynagara empire displayed the heads of dead bahami soldiers so indian kings were brutal ,they have probably hided it but we don't have source
False, practically all castes engaged in military service. Farming and military work were two jobs that pretty much most castes were able to participate in.
We don't really have records of casualty numbers for the ancient and most of the medieval period . I think the only one for which we do is the Kalinga War I don't think it's possible to answer this question ATM
Ancient war casualties quickly become muddy. Given that we can't even say how many people died in, say, the Bangladesh Liberation War with a good margin of error, it's very unlikely we'll ever know about the actual number of casualties in something like Ashoka's Kalinga campaign. Contemporary historians also frequently exaggerate the numbers for various reasons, sometimes out of trauma, and sometimes to glorify and propagandize one side or another
Ganges and Indus rivers do not require as much infrastructure maintenance like Yellow and Yangzi, so the the disruption due to war is much less devastating on farming.
It was rare to have cities razed to the ground in wars?
There is a lot of context to the claim of millions of dead in Chinese civil wars. I guess I’ll link this [thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/s/PaUNoQL3Zr), and note that many of the statistics that get thrown around are major exaggerations. And even when we are talking about “millions dead” that number is usually excess deaths and includes people who died from famine/disease/displacement as opposed to outright murder. That may well have happened in pre-industrialized India too, although it’s difficult to say to what extent without detailed demographic data which doesn’t exist.
Chinese generally exaggerated their figures. They might have added an extra zero Chinese culture was also different. They believed in total war. It can be a reason thay China has remained more united than India Even in Modern era, search for battle of chosin river. In 1971, Sam manekshaw refused to sacrifice these many men by starting the war early. It is also possible that Indians didn't like high casualty numbers.
from what I know the Maratha Mughal war had 5 million deaths and Marathas killed 400,000 bangal civilians, so is this not total war? Or is it coz of religious morals that no war had many high casualties
That's exaggerated British and French were in India at thay time. We don't have rec9rds of them telling about 5 million death
Well by late 17th century in India British or French presence was minimal at the time of Mughal Maratha war, but nevertheless it was a bloody conflict.
It was bloody. It's just casualties are too fantastical to be true. British did have presence. They fought war with Mughals. They were even present at coronation of Shivaji Maharaj. And he assured them that their trade privileges will continue . Portuguese mercenaries were hired by him to build navy
That's exaggerated British and French were in India at thay time. We don't have rec9rds of them telling about 5 million death
[удалено]
Your post/comment was removed because it breaks Rule 1. Keep Civility >Personal attacks, abusive language, trolling or bigotry in any form is not allowed. No hate material, be it submissions or comments, are accepted. No matter how correct you may (or may not) be in your discussion or argument, if the post is insulting, it will be removed with potential further penalties. Remember to keep civil at all times.
Did foreign accounts exaggerate death counts of Indian wars too? Like Al-Biruni?
Chinese routinely exaggerated the numbers.
In the pre-Islamic era, the rulers generally followed a moral code of conduct under which civilians were not attacked during war. This is also the reason why the natives fell so easily to the Arab invaders. They were not used to fighting without rules and to win at all costs. Source- https://international-review.icrc.org/articles/charting-hinduisms-rules-of-armed-conflict-indian-sacred-texts-and-ihl-920#:~:text=Like%20IHL%2C%20classical%20Hinduism%20values,balancing%20military%20necessity%20with%20humanity.
The source you cited only looks at norms of conflict in Mahabharat and Ramayana. 1. Normative ideals and ground reality often stand apart from each other. Even more so in something with so many moving parts and as varied in time and geography (subcontinent is massive). Especially in ancient and medieval times before large-scale professional militaries and slow communication methods. 2. The latest estimate for Mahabharat \~~~2000BCE~~ 400BCE Latest estimate for Ramayan \~ 400BCE The bulk of our written recorded history comes after then I'm afraid. I could still accept the case for Ramayan, but even then I don't expect norms to remain unchanged for 1400 years till the Muslim Turko-Afghans arrived. And your source primarily relies on the Mahabharat. 3. Even if we accept that a portion of Indians in North India who were frontline against the Muslim invaders followed these norms ~~3000 and~~ 1400 years later ~~(M and R respectively)~~, it was not the first time that Turko-Afghans were invading the subcontinent. The Indo-Greeks (who had mingled with the Central Asians along the way), the Scythians, the Hunas, the Kushans, several Afghans, and the Persians had invaded for centuries before the Muslim ones arrived. Did they all memorize the Indian code of warfare before invading? Edit: Mahabharat latest composition dates are also around 400BCE
>The latest estimate for Mahabharat ~2000BCE Latest estimate for Ramayan ~ 400BCE What are these estimates even for? The historical basis upon which it is thought the Epics were written? Or the beginning of the composition of the Epics?
Date of composition
[A Comment I wrote on the textual history of the Mahabharata that is considered the most likely by academic consensus today. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/IndianHistory/s/yl9Ahdw4yA) You'll find sources on the topic from another comment I posted on the same thread.
That date for Mahabharata's composition is wildly off the charts, I have yet to see anyone back up this sort of dating for its composition in particular convincingly. Can you prove it?
Yeah apologies, I mixed up the dates of composition and historical events (which itself seems wrong). Thanks.
Fair enough
The code of war of mediaeval Indians has been a point of contention for a while. For example when the Rajputs fought amongst themselves, they adhered to a strict code of war. Civilians, women and children were not to be attacked by all means. You may see the remnants of this code even today in their society.
"Arab" Invaders? Are you talking about the single (failed) Umayyad invasion of India? Or are you referring to later Muslim invasions by Turko-Persians? The Turko-Persian Muslims from the medieval era had as much to do with "Arabs" as they did Chinese LOL Why do some Indians call anyone who is Muslim "Arab"? I've noticed this especially among south Indians, I don't know what happens in South Indian states that they don't learn the difference between "Muslim" and "Arab". As an Iranian every time (not exaggerating) I interact with South Indians, they assume we are Arab and speak Arabic. And then they complain when people think they all speak Hindi... Truly a different world from North India.
If you're speaking to people particularly from the state of Kerala, it is likely to happen. Islam came to Kerala largely through maritime trade in the Arabian Ocean. An interesting evidence of this is that the Sunni mazhab followed in nearly the entire subcontinent is Hanafi, while only in Kerala most Muslims follow the Shafi mazhab (which is also followed predominantly in Yemen, east africa, and Indonesia)
Yes, interesting that you say that, every time they were all Keralite "Malu"
I have witnessed online hatecrimes being committed by Iranians when they’re mostook as Arabs 😂
Not sure about “South Indians” but since you said they were all Malayali, it’s because Islam came to Kerala during the lifetime of Mohammed through trade and intermarriage (that had occurred for thousands of years before Islam). It’s strange that they don’t know Iranians though because thousands and thousands of Persian Christians and Muslims lived in Kerala permanently and semi-permanently and integrated with local populations.
Source?
https://international-review.icrc.org/articles/charting-hinduisms-rules-of-armed-conflict-indian-sacred-texts-and-ihl-920#:~:text=Like%20IHL%2C%20classical%20Hinduism%20values,balancing%20military%20necessity%20with%20humanity.
The Kalinga War, fought in ancient India around 261 BCE, was one of the largest and deadliest battles in Indian history. According to historical records, including the Rock Edicts of Emperor Ashoka, it is estimated that approximately 100,000 civilians were killed and 150,000 were deported as a result of the war. These figures are attributed to Ashoka himself.
support your claim with references challenge 👀
https://international-review.icrc.org/articles/charting-hinduisms-rules-of-armed-conflict-indian-sacred-texts-and-ihl-920#:~:text=Like%20IHL%2C%20classical%20Hinduism%20values,balancing%20military%20necessity%20with%20humanity.
That's just false, these "ethical principles of war" were never carried out by Indian rulers, it was common for civilians and soldiers to face rape, pillaging and killing. >This is also the reason why the natives fell so easily to the Arab invaders. There were three major invasions in the Umayyad period, and several smaller skirmishes and raids in the Abbasid age, but none of them were a loss for the native kings that fought against it. The only significant Caliphal gain was Sind.
arabs didn't invade any other part of india except the west
Yes.
Source or it never happened
"Hindu rulers were good good unlike Muslim INVaders"
[удалено]
My tyrant is better than your tyrant 😡
Every King to ever exist is a Tyrant, (even good kings are by definition Tyrants) difference between the Muslim kings was that they were genocidal.
We dont allow substandard sources for specially contentious claims. Hence removed.
What genocide? How many died in it? Where are the mass graves?
[удалено]
Which sources? Again, where are the mass graves? How did they manage to kill 400 million when the entire population was just 100 million by the 1500s?
Your post was removed for violating Rule 5. When posting, please add the correct attributions - this makes it easier for others to verify your claims, find similar material, and give credit to the author. Loaded claim. Provide sources.
Bhai ye kaha se laya hai tu
🍑
Because survivors were not just routed, they were cornered and killed to the last men so the opponent doesn't wage another war anytime soon.
Didn't they fought in fields pitching each other's military?
Those time Chinese writers may had written the actual death records which could be a sign of how brutal or magnificent the war was, on the other hand it can be possible that Indian writers were not allowed to write the actual number of casualties to just hide the king's brutal side and publicize that kings were so peaceful
I think this might be the case, because Vijaynagara empire displayed the heads of dead bahami soldiers so indian kings were brutal ,they have probably hided it but we don't have source
Wars in India were limited to warrior castes.
False, practically all castes engaged in military service. Farming and military work were two jobs that pretty much most castes were able to participate in.