Nosuperstition wrote:Yohan wrote:Nosuperstition wrote:After the third battle of Panipat , the Marathas were defeated by Ahmed Shah Abdali , the Afghan ruler.He granted permission to those men who lost their dear relatives in the war with Marathas , the right to rape defenceless Maratha women.After the rapes, many Maratha women are said to have jumped into wells and committed suicide.
So even the Marathas were at the receiving end of rapacious warfares.
In medieval warfare, if pre-war negotiations failed and an ultimatum to surrender was not honored, the victor got the right to a few days (usually 3- 5) of rape and plunder after the war. That was the practice all over the world. Soldiers got paid only a pittance and they looked forward to bonus rewards after a hard fought and won war in the form of loot, captured women and slaves. If they didn't receive such rewards they could revolt, and kill their leaders. Ordinary folks fled to far off places before the war started, but those unlucky enough to be stuck in the surrounded cities awaited their fate. After the plunder, order was established with the new ruler in charge. Ordinary people then slowly returned.
The situation with Hindu Marathas was different. They couldn't establish a stable kingdom/empire, when they were able to, especially when the Muslim power waned in India. In stead, they turned into mauraders and plunderers with a wide reach across the subcontinent and created permanent havoc. That was also the reason why they lost to Afghans. Proper order was established only when the British conquered the Marathas.
One can understand why Hindus take pride in the achievements of the Marathas in challenging the Muslims. That's because they have no other rulers to take such pride with (Rajputs were in Kahoots with the Muslim rulers). But that doesn't erase the fact that Hindu Marathas failed to live upto the standards people expected as they degenerated into robbers. All that takes one to this Thackeray guy who took much pride in his Maratha ancestors. Was he any different from his lawless ancestors? Weren't he and his army of thugs modern day versions of the maurading Marathas of yesterday?Vijaynagar, was the first Hindu kingdom which gave up the Hindu practice of not molesting non-combatants. Thus they started paying the Muslims with the same token. Whenever the armies of Vijaynagar overran any Bahamani town or village they torched it. With this they put the fear of death into Muslim minds and soon, the Adilshahi and Nizamshahi sultans sued for a treaty with Vijaynagar that would proscribe the killing of civilians by either side.
If the monarchs really have the will they can impose rules of chivalry on their soldiers even if they belonged to the medieval period.Marathas had their centre of power in Maharashtra where the land is not as fertile as the Gangetic plain which is the seat of power of both the Delhi Sultanates and the Moghuls.Naturally their habitat does not allow them to give much leeway to their opponents.The situation is similiar to the Arabs indulging heavily in slave trade right upto modern times in order to survive.
It is another matter that if there is overpopulation and in situations such as those of droughts and famines,slave trade once again raises its ugly head even if the land is fertile.
agnostic Emperor Akbar issued decrees proclaiming that whoever harms/lays his hands on the civilians will have their hands and feet cut.
If the rulers really want to they can force their will on their soldiers even if they belong to the medieval period.