Check the map from Ghazni to Somnath, see what is the distance between the two, if you have got any army knowledge ( which i highly doubt) then attacking Somnath was not one of the best ideas on the table. He could have gathered ten time more gold then from somnath by taking less risks.
But i totally Understand you calling him a looter and all your Raja and Maharaja cannot resist a looter,their armies falls against a mere looter.. shame on those raja and maha rajas and rajpoots who couldn't stop a army of looters.. who couldn't launch an attack on the state of Ghazni to kill or capture the looter...
May be he would have converted your ancestors with force or..
May be he would have converted your ancestors with force or..
The ancestors of most Pakistanis were hindus. My ancestors were also probably hindus.
But i am forever thankful to the glorious moghuls for converting us to the true great religion of islam.
Big up Ghauri, ghaznavi, aurangzeb, Babur and abdali. They are my heroes.
Memhmod ghaznavi and all those who followed in his footsteps later on is the best that could ever happen to those petty lawless kingdoms that existed in the modern day india and terrorized sri lankans on a daily basis and were the worst pirates ever disrupting sea trade routes.
The rulers of these kingdoms were worse then animals following insane primitive practices such as setting widows on fire,impaling and skinning one another a practice that still prevails in many parts of india.
There was an instance where two royal traders from the court of Mahmood Ghaznavi were captured and killed by ruler of bhopal and thats what probably triggered Mehmood Ghaznavi's response according to historians and authorities on history.
The stories regarding his looting etc etc are all a bunch of lies and mere bogus propoganda.
Well he did no better or worse than any other ruler at that time in history.
You have to remember that in Eastern and Southern India there was at that time an equally massive campaign of expansion with wars that would today be classed as ethnic cleansing.
Likewise in Europe and central Asia we had the Viking age and soon the Turks and Tartars would be replaced by even more savage Mongols.
Compared to any other empires of that time Mahmood was no worse and considerably better. Unlike Ghengish Khan who came some two centuries later or Timur who ravaged India another two cenuties afterwards much of Mahmoods conquests were very short raids with no long term damage. Note all the temples were rebuilt and much of the common peoples were not massacred but left alone in his expeditions.
Compare that with the subsequent Invasions that left entire states as wasteland even till todays modern age. Likewise India has it's own iconoclast to speak for Chandragupta Mauryan and his empire was built after totally wiping out many smaller peacefull nations.
This is taken from an outside source so bear with me in reading the excerpts:
Though he was interested in extending his empire toward Central Asia, the maneuverings of the Hindu rulers of Punjab forced him to invade South Asia. He came to South Asia seventeen times and went back to Ghazni every time with a great victory. He fought against the strong forces of Jaipal, Annadpal, Tarnochalpal, Kramta and the joint forces of Hindu Rajas and Maharajas but all of them were forced to flee away from the battlefield due to Mahmood’s war strategy as a general. After the conquest of Multan and Lahore, Mahmood made Punjab a part of his empire in 1021.
Unlike other great conquerors like Alexander and Chengez Khan, Mahmood did not leave the areas conquered to the mercy of his soldiers. After becoming the first Muslim ruler to conquer Northern Punjab, he consolidated his rule in the area and established his provincial headquarters at Lahore. He established law and order in the areas that he ruled, giving special attention to the people he ruled. The department of police and post were efficient. His judicial system was very good as everybody was equal before the law and justice was the order of the day.
akbar,the great emperor established the din e elahi sect .it was a secular religion taking all the good aspects of all the religion.he would have been very disturbed seeing the present state of pakistan.
Sultan Mahmood Ghaznavi (RA) was a just ruler and a brave warrior.
No matter how much you indians hate him like you hate Tipu, like Jews/ Christians hate Salahuddin Ayubi and Sultan Muhammad Fateh and many others (rehmatullah alayehem), they all are and will always remain our heroes. Period.
dance all you islam haters can, its not gonna change anything.
Aye but Akbar the great set the fuse for the end of Mughal rule in India… perhaps not his greatest moment giving the Farangi a foothold for trade.
Furthermore on Mahmood Ghaznavi he may not have been perfect but compared to any other ruler of the time he was indeed outstanding. Besides are not many empires built by looters if you want we can open a thread on Chandragupta Muaryan or even Ashoka the great… both of whom were much biger looters than Mahmood ever was.
People call Alexander "the Great," despite his many war crimes. Genghis Khan is so admired that his last name is associated with leadership, authority and power. I doubt their victims would be so willingly to praise them as such.
History is replete with such characters. Ultimately, its all subjective. One mans hero is anothers villain. It just depends on which side of the fence your on.
Its important to remember that no man is perfect. There are shades of gray in all. No one can ever be universally loved by all, or satisfy everyone's expectations.
Quite disappointed to read that people take pride in somebody invading lands and killing people.. regardless of what religion caste breed race either of the parties are.
Quite disappointed to read that people take pride in somebody invading lands and killing people.. regardless of what religion caste breed race either of the parties are.
Disappointed but not surprised.
A hero of one is terrorist of another, it all depends on which side of the fence you are.
Quite disappointed to read that people take pride in somebody invading lands and killing people.. regardless of what religion caste breed race either of the parties are. Disappointed but not surprised.
Put it this way friend I'd rather be led by a man who loots the enemy than his own... Mahmood of Ghazni is much more preferable to Zardari.
A hero of one is terrorist of another, it all depends on which side of the fence you are.
Aye and on that footnote I suggest we close this thread before it becomes a hate slogging match.
