on mahmud ghaznavi's expeditions

[out of place]

hello friends,

Following are a few questions regarding the expeditions of sultan mahmud:
1) what was mahmud's last i-e 17th expedition and in which year was it carried out 1026 or 1027???
2) what was the route followed by mahmud while going towards somnath. Did mahmud conquer Anhalwara on his way to somnath and also on the way back did sultan punish the ruler of Anhalwara for supporting somnath people??? I mean what can you tell us about mahmud's involvement in anhalwara???
3) I read somewhere that mahmud also conquered Benares...so during which expedition did mahmud invade Benares???and if benares was conquered, i believe, this becomes the farthest east that mahmud went?? is it so??

friends,,,plz enlighten....

[Arbab.Danish]

The last expedition (1027) was undertaken against the Jats who had molested the Muslim Army on its return from Somnath.The jats were defeated and many of them were put to death. (Source and wording K Ali)

Ghaznavi passed through Multan and the desert of rajputana, he stood before the gates of somnath on the 9th january 1026.
(I dont think that there was any adventure before somnath and that Ghaznavi did punish Jats who attacked muslim army returning from somnath as told in first part..Sorry i got no mention about anhalwara from internet or K Ali)

The last about Banaras, the same i could't find any clue about Mahemood's invasion of banaras.U may check this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varanasi

And as far as i found the farthest east ward invasion of Ghaznavi was in Nepal Nagarkot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagarkot

or Kanauj

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kannauj

[out of place]

Thank u for such comprehensive answer.
Yes, K.Ali doesnt talk abt Anhalwara experience but Tariq Awan's book and stanley lane-poole do. and the anhalwara adventure happened on the way to somnath.

Anyways, 2 more questions regarding ghaznavids:

1) who was mahmud? A Turk or Persian,,,or is it that both are mutually inclusive???!! Was yamini dynasty a turkish dynasty???

2) who was first muslim to attack india from North-west frontier..??? i-e who was the first muslim to show the right way to muslims to attack india???



Plz enlighten

[Arbab.Danish]

Answer 1
Sabuktigin (father of Mahmood) belonged to the Iranian Royal family but early in life was sold as a slave to Alptigin (who himself was A Turkish Slave in early life)
This shows sabuktigin belongin to Iranian royal family hence by race Mahmood was Persian, although habitually Afghani, but not Turkish at least.,
2nd part
Mahmood secured his position by obtaning the formal recognitionhis soverignity from the Abbasid Khalifah, al-Qadir Billah, who also conferred upon him the title of Yamin-ul-dawlah, hence his dynasty is known as yamini dynasty.
So yamini dynasty in no way had any connection with Turkish state.
Although it was in a way descendent from Abbasid state but it was a Sovereign state.

ANswer 2.

It was no doubt Mahmood Ghaznavi. and no other who invaded India on 1000 A.D and details you all know.

and about anhalwara here a wikipedia link and still no mention about mahmood's invasion.
although they mentioned about muhammad's invasion.
so there's a great chance mahmood was not involved in anhalwara.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patan,_Gujarat

[out of place]

hello every1;

I want to make two points:

- Before Mahmud, sabugtigin had attacked india from north-west frontier. Sabaktugin had advanced against raja jaipal of hindushahi kingdom and both the armies met at plains near Peshawar. This makes sabuktigin the first muslim to invade india from north-west frontier passes.

- Ghaznavids were originally Turks,,,,,wikipedia says,"Due to the political and cultural influence of their predecessors - that of the Persian Samanid Empire - the originally Turkic Ghaznavids became thoroughly Persianized "

ok now time for another question:

Q: why did mahmud ghaznavi only annex Punjab to his empire and nothing else in india??

[Arbab.Danish]

Wikipedia is not reliable source. and especially in cases where no reference is given and sometimes i even checked the references given they were just of some survey works and not official. So always be careful while getting knowledge from wikipedia.

And about your question Why Mahmood only annexed Punjab.
It was nearer, and hence easy to control, could be made base camp for attacking northern, central and southern India.It was a fertile area so could fulfill needs of Aghanistan.

It was hard or impossible to annex and keep in empire other areas on India in his Empire because of remoteness and vastness of the Empire.

[out of place]

More on mahmud;

Q: mahmud, it is generally believed, had face to the west and back to the east and thus heeded less towards making an empire in sub-continent?(2005)


opinion::::Mahmud never aimed at making an empire in sub-continent. he was actually interested in making a central asian empire, and his indian invasions were means to it...


wat say?!

[Arbab.Danish]

Let me tell you one useful thing. Always try to avoid circular explanation.
Circular explanation is one in which you mix the cause and effect , and by changing the words of the original problem you explain it.
Example of circular explanation is like.
Why didn't he build an empire in or annex India.? if you answer because he didn't aim to build an empire in India and wanted to build an empire in Central Asia.
this is circular explanation..
In fact Examiner might be interested in knowing why he didn't AIM to to build an empire in India.
So we have to avoid such explanation.

you should mention that he aimed to build an empire in Central Asia, and used India's wealth for constructing his own empire. But the main explanation should be more detailed and deep.

Its just my opinion and any one has the right to dis agree..
and also I'm not yet expert in Indo-Pak history because i just started it and planning for 2011.

Regards

[out of place]

yes, rightly said....

lets dilate little more on the same subject;

what was difference in the case of punjab?? In other states, mahmud came, sacked the cities, defeated the rulers, plundered and went back to ghazni with the treasure....and did not install his own men in the helm of the affairs.
Whereas, in Punjab, Mahmud did all that and followed it up with installing his own governor to look after the affairs of the state.. That's how Punjab remained annexed to Ghazni... Correct me if i am wrong.

[Arbab.Danish]

Originally Posted by out of place

yes, rightly said....


what was difference in the case of punjab?? In other states, mahmud came, sacked the cities, defeated the rulers, plundered and went back to ghazni with the treasure.

I guess i already answered this point in previous post.

And about your question Why Mahmood only annexed Punjab.
It was nearer, and hence easy to control, could be made base camp for attacking northern, central and southern India.It was a fertile area so could fulfill needs of Aghanistan.