Talk:Jayachandra

Requested move 21 October 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move. Cúchullain t/ c 14:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Jaichand of Kannauj → Jaichand – Unnecessary disambiguation -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs · [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Capankajsmilyo&project=en.wikipedia.org count])  04:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. There are no other articles with Jaichand in title. utcursch &#124; talk 16:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Gahadavalas are not Rajputs
Gahadavalas are not Rajputs. The identity of Rajputs did not even exist at that time. In fact, the term "Rajput" has also been used as an anachronistic designation for leading martial lineages of 11th and 12th centuries that confronted the Ghaznavid and Ghurid invaders such as the Pratiharas, the Chahamanas (of Shakambhari, Nadol and Jalor), the Tomaras, the Chaulukyas, the Paramaras, the Gahadavalas, and the Chandelas. However, the Rajputs only started existing in the 16th century, and it was only then claimed that Rajputs descended from these lineages. This is part of the wider process of Rajputization. Rajputization was when a budding low caste caste warrior or king wants to cement his social status, so he employs Brahmins or charans to fabricate genealogies leading back to a great Kshatriya dynasty of the past. In fact, historians agree that Rajputs mainly originate from Shudras and tribals. But anyways, Jayachandra was a Gahadavala, but Gahadavalas were not Rajputs, because Rajputs didn't exist at that time, and it is anachronisticlly claimed that they were Rajputs.Chariotrider555 (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

What are U Upto Idiot ?????? This is not relevant to mention About Gahadavals Here, Also Read Gopinath Sharma book on History of Rajasthan and U will found More Proofs of Same Next Rathores also have claimed descendents from Rasthtrakutas Empire of 8th Century So this is also need to be mentioned Neither it was relevant here to mention. More relevant on Gahadavals Main page Unnesccsary Hatred please wrote on Blogs Not Wikipedia. Next thing is Despite the disputed Origin All Historians Classified Gahadavals as Rajputs whether Satish Chandra,Romila Thapar,Jadunath Sarkar,Irfan Habib,Dasrath Sharma or so on As far as Rajput identity Not existing during that Time is another disputed Claim The Masscare of Mewati Rajputs by Balban Is well Known and Recorded Fact in 13th Century, The Katoch clan Is ruling Kashmir from 5th century Which was a Rajput clan, Rathores are dominant in Pali from a long time Its just Rajput identity became more promiment with Time.

Jadunath Sarkar a Notable historian too wrote about Rajput as a Caste emerging in 12th century around Ghorid invasions Also kachwaha clan of Rajputs migrated to region around the Same Time.

Next Irfan Habib also wrote on Same book u quoted about That Rajput as a race probably emerge in 12th Century Itself. Stop Hate Write blogs for Hate not Wikipedia pages. 2409:4051:2E96:C9BD:4A07:978D:D813:DD55 (talk) 05:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 02:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Please provide a source.Chariotrider555 (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

What source Bullshit U are Just crying Over establish Facts Here giving Link to Legendary Satish Chandra Book On Medieval India Open Ur eyes Read It From Page number 18 to 25. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=L5eFzeyjBTQC&redir_esc=y — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4051:2E96:C9BD:4A07:978D:D813:DD55 (talk) 06:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Read it With eyes 2409:4051:2E96:C9BD:4A07:978D:D813:DD55 (talk) 06:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Here is Link about The Masscare of Rajputs By Balban Well known and Recorded Fact in 13th Century https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Vdv7AQAAQBAJ&pg=PA280&dq=Balban+massacred+100,000+Hindus+south+of+Delhi&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Balban%20massacred%20100%2C000%20Hindus%20south%20of%20Delhi&f=false 2409:4051:2E96:C9BD:4A07:978D:D813:DD55 (talk) 06:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Romila Thapar book states itself Rajput emerge in prominence in 8th and 9th Century iself Goo fetch Page 418 and so On
 * 2409:4051:2E96:C9BD:4A07:978D:D813:DD55 (talk) 06:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

About Migration Of Kachwaha Rajputs in 12th century From Sarkar book

Here Sarkar Clearly mention About Rajput as a Caste emerged in Indian social Structure around Ghorid Invasions Of India And Sarkar he was Only Historian to use Rajput sources while writting History. And his Authenticity is Undisputed and Idiot Chahamans and Chauhans Like Garhwar and Gahadavalas Are Same with diff pronuntation in Vernacular Legenda Such People Are Accomodating Wikipedia history section Already Shows what is level of Wikipedia today.
 * Anyway Here is Link ,And i known Just Like my accounts I will be blocked again As wikipedia itself wants to only add those source which suites there ageneda. Cheers Bye 2409:4051:2E96:C9BD:4A07:978D:D813:DD55 (talk) 06:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 02:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Ok, so these sources state that Gahadavalas and etc. are Rajputs, and that Rajputs existed prior to the 16th century, correct? If that is the case, then that has huge ramifications. The Wikipedia article on Rajputs states "The term "Rajput" acquired its present meaning only in the 16th century, although it is also anachronistically used to describe the earlier lineages that emerged in northern India from the sixth century onwards.", and provides various sources later in the article. If you want to state that Rajputs existed prior to the 16th century and that the earlier lineages were indeed Rajputs, then it should be discussed there, because they came to a consensus that Rajputs date to that time and the earlier lineages are not Rajputs. It is not suitable to discuss this for a specific ruler, but should be discussed on the general Rajput talk page as there are a variety of dynasties who some historians claim to have been Rajputs prior to the 16th century, and it is not feasible to have a discussion on ever single one of those talk pages. Otherwise if you do not wish to move the discussion to the Rajput talk page, we must listen to the consensus that was previously established there that the Rajputs date to the 16th century and that the earlier lineages are not Rajputs.Chariotrider555 (talk) 06:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I am Not Intersted In These Crap called Wikipedia Anyway I am Regular Reader of Much Reliable Enclyopedia Brittanica Also on other Pages it is written that Word Rajput used in 11th and 12th century For several Hindu dynasties that confront Various Muslim Invader Not like there were no rajputs and with time it became a Separate Caste If u have Mind u would have get that a Lot Easier Anachronism itself is related to Chronology. As for Rajput Page i have no interst in Your Dog Shit Consensus As I Said already These days noone refer wikipedia anyway for Reliable findings. Continue to Publish more Cooked up Stories and reduce Rajputs to Further 21st Century Itself. Atleast Dont Pollute Articles Further Genius, And Lastly Again i got no interset In Improving Wikipedia I have been blocked Already and Advice to u Too To Stop refreing this Shit. Thanks i wont revert ur edits further u can add whatever u want,Even Rajputs dont exist even before 21st century. Cheers. 😊😊😊😊 2409:4051:2E96:C9BD:4A07:978D:D813:DD55 (talk) 06:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 02:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Ok, I will take that as a consensus has been established.Chariotrider555 (talk) 07:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * By the way, Wikipedia considers tertiary sources like Encyclopedia Britannica to be on a lower tier of reliability than a secondary published source.Chariotrider555 (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Lol, Common Sense is So Uncommon These days isn't it and Who Consider Wikipedia relaible anway 🤣🤣🤣 Editor who dont know Garhwar or Gahadvala or Chahamans or Chauhan are Same with diff pronouns in Vernacular legends And They are controling Wikipedia so how will be Quality Of Content is open To Question. As far As Secondary Sources Already Given Sources from Romila Thapar,Jadunath Sarkar,Satish Chandra,RS Chaurasia Books and can give Plenty more But again at end of day U establish only those changes which suit ur Own Way. And For Ur Kind Information Brittanica is still one of better sources And Wikipedia reliablity has became a joke In recent years with editors Like u who dont know Even Basic Of History. Next it was not a Consensus I already gave tons of Sources Just i dont want These Talk with A@sholes like U. Byee Establish next Change that Rajput will emerge after 21nd Century. Lol.🤣 2409:4051:2E0C:D192:EBD2:685D:8304:2DE6 (talk) 09:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock

Nonsense Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 05:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Al masudi in his travels clearly mentioned khandar as country of rajputs in 947 AD Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 05:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Here gaharwar rajput - https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.100795/page/n50/mode/1up?q=gaharwar

Also see this https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.100795/page/n52/mode/1up?q=gaharwar Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 05:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 02:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Leader of the Ghurid army against Jayachandra
Regarding this edit: A Ghurid slave wasn't same as an African-American slave in status - the slave generals were among the king's most trusted men, and led armies even before they were manumitted. The sources that you have cited are not specialized works on Gahadavala history. When they make statements like "Jaichandra was defeated and killed by Muhammad Ghauri at Chandawar", they are talking in general terms and mean that Jayachandra was killed by the forces of Muhammad Ghauri.

As noted in more specialized works like Roma Niyogi's book, which cover the topic in detail, the primary sources (quotes below) indicate it was Qutb-ul-din who led the Ghurid forces against Jayachandra. Even many general reference works (which you can preview on Google Books) mention this detail.

Tarikh-i Firishta:

Taju-l Ma’asir:

utcursch &#124; talk 16:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this on talk page as edit summaries are too vague to discuss something in detail. I myself thought of doing this but was quite busy today, so a lazy revert.


 * I definitely seconds you on this that Ghurid slaves were not ill-treated like it was done in Europe. I made a separate section on his cordial relations with his slaves and upbringing of Qabacha like a son (see Muhammad of Ghor) - that was not what I want to convey, let me elaborate better (as said that was lazy edit summary on my part)
 * Mohammad Habib journal is specialised work on Muhammad Ghori's career (1960) - he is also citing original Tajul Masir of Hasan Nizami. Niyogi doesn't know Persian at all and is citing contentious translations by Elliot and Raverty or Biggs. Shouldn't we prefer secondary source over a primary source ? Iqtidar Alam Khan though made a bit short reference to it as it's a scholarly dictionary in brief about the events where expanded details are neither possible nor needed. Khan is perhaps best authority on Persian chronicles who is left now as most historians these days just cite dated translations from Colonial era.
 * Satish Chandra is clearly referring to Muhammad Ghori's leading the army in person and is citing from Minhaj or Nizami (or a latee Firishta) - even though not explicitly on Gahadavals still these professional historians won't make vague reference to something without confirming that from a primary source.
 * Please see R.S Tripathi work as well (which you cited) few hours earlier

History of Kanauj To the Moslem Conquest (pp:-328-329)

Note- It's possible though that Muhammad sent Aybak for initial attack (advance guard) before he could join him as Habib is refering to, although Rajputs were routed by Aybak advance guard itself before Muhamad could arrive in (see here) and the rest orgy of rapine, massacre, and desecration of temples in Kashi were pursued by Muhammad himself (which Niyogi referred wrongly to Aybak as well along with some other historians)

PS:- Niyogi completely omitted Muhammad of Ghor's part from it is quite clearly not a collaborative version among scholars regarding it:- Majumdar and Saran as well on it (pp:- 118 ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 17:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Muhammad of Ghor indeed treated his Turkish slave well, though those infidels whom he enslaved in Ajmer, here in Kashi, then again in Bayana (1196) were treated with same bigotry and were sold in Baghdad. (a hughe number of Hindu slaves were exported by the Ghurids from Firuzokh to Middle east)

Suggestion:- I think it would be better to simply mention that both Aybak and Muhammad routed him with brief backdrop of Muhammad marching with 50,000 cavalry forces from Ghazni - something like it. Thanks. ∆ P&#38;t ♀√ (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)