David Nicole on the Mughal Warfare (part of 1)

55
Oh, the West is the West, the East is the East, and they will not come down from the ground,
Until Heaven and Earth appear on the Last Judgment.
But there is no East, and the West does not exist, that the tribe, the motherland, the family,
If a strong man with a strong face to face at the edge of the earth gets up?
("The Ballad of the West and the East". R. Kipling)


In 1987, in the publishing house “Polymya” in Belarus, I published my first book: “From all that is at hand”. Its circulation was 87 thousand copies and, nevertheless, it sold out in two weeks! It was a pleasure to work with the editor, but due to her engineering education she sometimes asked me rather strange questions. For example, “Do you know exactly what to write the empire of the Great Moguls? Maybe - the Mongols? Where to check? ”I replied that it was over in TSB and that was all over, especially since who they are, I knew. But I wanted to know more about them than what TSB and the textbooks of that time reported. And it turned out that I later became acquainted with the English historian David Nicholas, who specialized in Eastern culture, and he presented me his book “Mughul India 1504 - 1761 (Osprey, MAA-263,1993), from which I learned a lot of interesting things. I hope that what is stated in it will be interesting for readers of VO.


He begins with an explanation of the term and writes that often the word "Mongol" is written in English as "Mughal" or "Mogul", and it also today means ... an oligarch. But this is, in fact, their name in Persian, and this transliteration has got into English. As for Babur, the founder of the Mogul dynasty, he was of Turkic-Mongolian origin from the clan Timur-i-Lenk (Tamerlane) by the father and Genghis Khan on the mother’s side. Although Babur did not like it when he was called Mongol and preferred to be known as a Turk, the name “Mughals” “stuck” to the rulers of his family and subsequent members of the dynasty became known in Europe as the Great Mughals.

David Nicole on the Mughal Warfare (part of 1)

Indian helmet from the province of Dean, XVII. Metropolitan Museum, New York.

The Mughal rule in India was not always favored by historians. During English rule in India, the Mughal period was often depicted as barbaric. Some modern Indian historians also criticize the Mughals for trying to keep India from the British conquest, that is, from progress and civilization. But why is this so clear. After all, they, in turn, were foreign conquerors, and were a Muslim minority among the dominant Hindu majority of the population of India for many centuries.

In fact, the spread of Islam in India occurred long before Babur’s invasion of this subcontinent. Muslims were part of the ruling elite in northwestern India for almost a thousand years. In northern and central India, many members of the local military aristocracy also belonged to Persians, Afghans, or were of Mongolian origin. India had close ties not only with neighboring Afghanistan, but also with western Iran, Iraq, and even eastern Turkey.


Babur Detail of a miniature 1605 - 1615. British Museum, London.

The troops who met the Mughals in northern India were armed and manned in much the same way as the neighboring Muslim states. Moreover, by the beginning of the 16 century, Turkish influence was particularly strong in the army of Gujarat, a coastal region that had particularly strong trade relations with the Middle East, from which it received firearms. weapon.


Indian (Muslim) armor from the province of Dean, XVII. Metropolitan Museum, New York.

The situation in South India was different, for here the Muslim conquest took place relatively late. The indigenous population here was strictly divided into military and non-military castes, but the conversion to Islam opened up the possibility of career growth for all. Even in the Muslim states of the Dean, only a small part of the ruling elite was actually Muslim. Hindu Mughal subjects quickly took advantage of the situation and managed to get to the very top.

Great Mogul State

At the end of the 15 century, Babur, who had previously fought for power in Samarkand, by coincidence, was forced to send his military aspirations to the south, where he achieved success. In the battles of Panipat in April 1526 and under Khanua in 1527, Babur, using cannons and guns, defeated the local rulers and, having achieved success, moved the center of the new power to Agra.

The Mogul rulers, however, adopted many aspects of the life of the Hindu kingdom, in particular, the extraordinary ritualization of court life. Mughal palaces and costumes amazed not only Europeans with their magnificence, but even the rulers of neighboring Iran and the Ottoman Empire - who, at least, were not poorer.

Paradoxically, the indigenous peoples of India lived better in the hands of these alien Mongols than in the hands of the local Hindu rulers. Of course, they enslaved many Dravidian forest tribes, but the Hindu Marathi would simply have killed them. As for the army, at first it was based on the traditions of the Timurid, but after they established their state in India, the Muslim and Hindu military traditions in it were very mixed. In particular, the number of mercenaries from paid professional warriors has significantly increased.


Miniature from the manuscript Zahir ad-Din Muhammad "Babur". The final scene of the Battle of Kandahar. Walters Museum.

The decline of the Mughal state began when the padishah Jahangir rebelled against his father Akbar, and the son of Jahangir subsequently rebelled against himself. The Muslim-Sikh hatred, which continues to this day, also began in the era of Jahangir. The rule of Shah Jahan was magnificent, but under this magnificence hid many serious problems of the Mughal Empire. Under his successor Aurangzeba, the northern and western parts of Afghanistan fell away from her, as they were too far from Delhi to receive proper support by military force. For five years after his death, the empire collapsed into the abyss of civil war, rebellion and collapse. Nevertheless, the prestige of the Great Moguls was so high that it endured for a long time their real power and authority.

At the beginning of the 18 century, the Delhi Moguls waged war on Afghans from the west and Hindu Marathas from the south. The followers of the new religion, the Sikhs, also claimed military rule. More and more local independent princes were becoming, having their own armies. Well, then what remained of the Mughal empire was under British protection; but as they say, this is a completely different story.


Miniature from the manuscript Zahir ad-Din Muhammad "Babur". The scene of the Battle of Panipat. Walters Museum.

Babur seemed obscure to his contemporaries because he had no specific national affections, but attractive: a bold, funny, poet, writer, he had much in common with the Renaissance Italian condottieries, but if it was clear to us Europeans, then than unusual.

The first troops of Babur were small and consisted of Turkish, Mongolian, Iranian and Afghan troops. Babur's cavalry was organized according to the Mongolian pattern, that is, it consisted of tumenov led by tumandars — a structure that has changed little since the times of the Mongol armies of Genghis Khan.


Indian mail and plate armor 1632 - 1633 Weight 10.7 kg. Metropolitan Museum.

The main strength of Babur’s army was the excellent discipline and tactics that he had learned from his first Uzbek enemies. Babur could increase discipline with ferocious punishments, but he rarely used it in practice. In his detailed autobiography of Baburname (literally “Book of Babur”), he gives interesting details about what his army was. The elite, of course, was the cavalry, which used horse armor. Wick muskets were widely used, of which they fired, hiding behind wooden shields on props.

He won some victories using horse archers to pursue the enemy in the traditional way. Baburname also describes the sending of messages by spies from the camp of the enemy, which they attached to arrows and sent at night to their own. During the siege, Babur's warriors could feed the leaves mixed with wet shavings - a technique unknown to him.

Reforms Akbar

The son of the padishah Humayun (son of Babur) Akbar was probably the greatest Mughal ruler. He was distinguished by tolerance and even tried to unite Islam and Hinduism in the new religion of his own composition, which he called “Divine Faith”. Akbar also reorganized the army. He decided that now she would consist of professionals, paid directly from the treasury. The land had to be divided in such a way that the land holding would support the new military structure. First of all, Akbar decided to streamline officer ranks. Well, the main idea that the increase in rank will depend on merit, and not on nobility. But the reforms were difficult. During the invasion of the Dean in 1599, for example, the army almost rebelled, because the money did not reach it, and the soldiers almost had to starve.

Officer ranks

In accordance with the new structure of Akbar's army, there were 33 officer ranks in it. All were manzabdars, but the highest were manzabdars 10000, 8000 and 7000 (rank designation), appointed by the ruler himself. In this case, the three eldest were of the princely family. The rest went from higher to lower, and it is clear that a man with a low rank could not command where a man with a higher status had to do. Each status had to be maintained by a certain number of horses and other animals: so 5000 manzabdar, for example, had to have 340 horses, 90 elephants, 80 camels, 20 mules and 160 carts. Manzabdar 10 was supposed to have four horses.


Humayun (son of Babur) teaches young Akbara to fire a rifle. Akbarman 1602 - 1604 British Library, London

To further confuse the issue of titles, a second number was added, giving an idea of ​​the actual military obligations of this officer: this could be a man known as 4000 / 2000 or 3000 / 3000 manzabdar. The first figure was his zat or original military status, the second savard - a figure indicating his true obligations.

During the reign of Akbar, all manzabdars of 500 and above were called worlds, from the Arab emir. Some worlds had specific duties, such as Mir Bakhshi, who acted as a quartermaster general at the head of the army, paid money to the troops. Another important boss was Mir Saman, who oversaw all military arsenals, workshops and warehouses.

Akbar also introduced a complex system of rotation, in accordance with which the army was divided into 12 units, each of which was at the court year. One part of the 12 other parts for one month each year carried a security service. Finally, there was another level: the four main units of the army were divided into seven small units, each of which was responsible for the guard at the palace one day a week. Senior officers were to be regularly present at the court, and when the emperor was in the army, they should appear at his headquarters every morning and evening. Thus, he hoped to avoid a conspiracy, because it was very difficult to raise a soldier to speak with such a system.

One of the most fundamental changes introduced by Akbar was the payment of salaries. Theoretically, all manzabdars could receive their money directly from the central treasury. In fact, the system was very complex, and there were many factors influencing how much each person received. So the top-class officer Manzabdar 5000 received 30.000 rupees per month. Accordingly, the lower ranks received less, but many senior officers had ikta estates, which, however, were not inherited. The salary of an ordinary rider was based on what horses he had, that is, what the thoroughbred was a horse, the higher the salary. All ranks, including manzabdars, could receive allowances to salaries or cash prizes for good behavior. Accordingly, for each title a document was issued that was kept in the archives of the palace, and its copy was handed to the officer.

Interestingly, in the Mughal army, the size of the military contingents was determined by the rank of manzabdars, and who had a higher rank, he led more troops. About the youngest of the soldiers it is known that among them were "rider of one horse", "rider of two horses" and "three horses".

The Mughal Army also consisted of provincial and auxiliary units. The empire itself consisted of large provinces of suba, subdivided into many small areas of Sarka, where there were local law enforcement forces whose chiefs were appointed from Delhi. Each Sarkar consisted of small pargan or mahal areas, from which taxes were collected. The cumaks were local police forces that were recruited from people of different backgrounds.

As for the size of the Mughal army, it is very difficult to calculate. For example, Babur’s army in Afghanistan in 1507 had no more than 2000 people. By the time of Babur’s fifth invasion of India, this number may have grown to 15,000 or even 20,000. By the end of the 17 century, Aurangzeb might have had 200 000 cavalry. But the number of manzabdars can be determined with great accuracy, because they were all recorded. In 1596, they were 1803, and in 1690, no less than 14449. In the 1648 year Shah Jahan discovered that his army was - on paper - of men 440000, 200000 including cavalry, and ordinary manzabdarov 8000, 7000 elite Ahadith, 40000 infantry and artillery, as well as a contingent of riders 185000 different princes and nobles.

(To be continued)
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

55 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +2
    18 February 2016 07: 46
    Thank you, I look forward to continuing with interest ..
  2. +8
    18 February 2016 07: 52
    This topic has special significance for our country, we read:
    "many representatives of the local military aristocracy also belonged to the Persians, Afghans or were of Mongolian origin"- it is true about the Persians, the Turks could also be present, but about the Afghans and even the Mongols, then there are reasonable doubts. The fact is that neither Afghanistan nor Mongolia and, accordingly, there could be no such peoples at that time, by definition, because they were formed much later.The term “Great Mogul” has a right to exist in our language, because it even has its own meaning and can be translated as “mighty.” So it is better to refer not to the not always accurate TSB, but to the currently available research of profile specialists.
    1. +1
      18 February 2016 07: 59
      The bull's-eye, Vyacheslav. "+".
    2. -1
      18 February 2016 11: 29
      By definition, they were ...
    3. +1
      18 February 2016 12: 33
      The fact is that neither Afghanistan, nor Mongolia and, accordingly, such peoples in those days could not be, by definition, because they were formed much later.


      Once there was such a country - Bactria, it was also called in Antiquity - the Country of a thousand cities (although of course there were only a dozen or two smile ) but not the essence, was. And there lived, there were people, peoples.
      This country occupied the territory of southern Tajikistan, the north and central regions of Afghanistan.
      Actually, this is what was later called Afghanistan. Almost that.
      And these nations have already been.
      Then there was the Kushan Empire, which came from the Sogdiana (modern Uzbekistan and part of Tajikistan) later the Sassanid Empire, even later we come close to Genghis Khan and his Empire, where these regions and peoples entered.
      So there, the history of countries and peoples living in them is traced quite evenly and clearly. There are darkened areas, such as the Yuezhi tribes transformed into Kushan and something else, but in general, everything is clear and obvious.
      So there were peoples and countries. And the peoples of those countries are not one thousand years old.
      1. -4
        18 February 2016 16: 21
        ... Genghis Khan = Caesar Khan = Gaius Julius Caesar = Yuri George Dolgoruky = Saint George = George the Victorious is all one person .. George's hands "reached" to Italy ... Therefore he and Dolgoruky ... Stop looking for heroes in foreign countries - return to the roots of your country .. Before Christ (Andrei Bogolyubsky) the Komnen dynasty ruled, before the Komneni ruled Gustomysl (Novgorod) ..., his grandson Khan Ioann Rurik Varyag was a Trojan and was invited to Russia to rule, because Troy (the capital empire fell and was destroyed) after the mediocre reign of Christ ...
        1. +3
          18 February 2016 19: 41
          = ver _ ".. Genghis Khan = Caesar Khan = Gaius Julius Caesar = Yuri George Dolgoruky = Saint George = George the Victorious is all one person."

          It is powerful. Add = Peter 1, Pavel1, Suvorov, Kutuzov, Yudenich, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Brezhnev, Gorbachev and Yeltsin with Putin are also all one person.)))
    4. The comment was deleted.
    5. 0
      19 February 2016 20: 28
      Dear venaya, you are again for yours, the Mongols are still there.
    6. +1
      19 February 2016 21: 00
      In passing, the name Afghanistan has not yet been disclosed. Until the end of the 19th century, the majority of the population were rebellious Hazaras. Through the efforts of the British, Abdurahman defeated them. The self-name of the Khazar comes from the name of the younger brother of Genghis Khan Khasar. In the Secret History of the Mongols, there are references to 4000 soldiers allocated to him. The Mongol word avga - paternal uncle (avgan - uncle) puts everything in its place.
    7. 0
      20 February 2016 08: 43
      In passing, the name Afghanistan has not yet been disclosed. Until the end of the 19th century, the majority of the population were rebellious Hazaras. Through the efforts of the British, Abdurahman defeated them. The self-name of the Khazar comes from the name of the younger brother of Genghis Khan Khasar. In the Secret History of the Mongols, there are references to 4000 soldiers allocated to him. The Mongol word avga - paternal uncle (avgan - uncle) puts everything in its place.
  3. 0
    18 February 2016 07: 59
    Babur KHAN looked like this ...
    1. +2
      18 February 2016 18: 59
      From the wiki. "Full throne titulature: as-Sultan al-Azam wa-l-Hakan al-Mukarram Zahir ad-din Muhammad Jalal ad-din Babur, Padshah-i-Ghazi."
      He was not a khan. And not the fact that this is what he looked like.)))
      1. -1
        18 February 2016 19: 20
        Quote: Nagaibak
        He was not a khan. And not the fact that he looked like that


        on what basis is he not a khan if Khan is written?
        1. 0
          18 February 2016 19: 22
          In the image that you posted is written-check. The title of the word khan is also not in the title because he is not Genghisid.
          1. The comment was deleted.
          2. -1
            18 February 2016 19: 47
            Quote: Nagaibak
            In the image that you posted is written-check. The title of the word khan is also not in the title because he is not Genghisid.


            how to read, for example, there is an image of the TARTARIAN EMPEROR, where further the great boor i.e. those who made the catalogs of portraits in my French, they clearly tried to belittle the status of Tartaria ...
            1. +2
              18 February 2016 21: 21
              Sveles "how to read, for example, there is an image of the EMPEROR OF TARTARIAN, where is the great boor, ie those who compiled catalogs of portraits in my French, they obviously tried to belittle the status of Tartary ..."
              Yes, yes, the emperor of Tartaria is depicted near his plague.)))
        2. 0
          19 February 2016 20: 31
          Only men of Genghis could have this title if they were on the throne. That is why the Turks had sultans, etc.
  4. Riv
    +4
    18 February 2016 08: 10
    The article contains a reproduction of a miniature from the "Babur" manuscript. Battle scene. However, Islam forbids depicting living beings. "Everyone who creates images will be in Fire, and each image he creates will be given a soul that will torment him in Hell." In fact, this manuscript in this form could hardly have been written by a Muslim. At least a Sunni - definitely. Shiite - also extremely unlikely. In India, Sunni Islam was spreading. Shiism there spread extremely limited and Shiites also usually accept a ban on images.
    Either the author is a Hindu (which is extremely unlikely with his name), or it is simply a fake.

    The portrait of Babur is the same discrepancy: the ban on images. If Babur were a true Muslim, he would have been indignant. So maybe the author exaggerates the spread of Islam in the then India?
    1. +1
      18 February 2016 11: 21
      I could get you pictures with a Muslim "fuck", where the shah has a "fuck" and at the same time shoots from a bow! And everything is in Persian and in the text calls to Allah! As for fakes, you are in vain. It still came to Europe in the 17th century from the then merchants and travelers. And no one in the British Library keeps forgeries, this is such bad manners that there is nothing to say. Their examination department is one of the most advanced in the country. Climb up on their website and read how they jealously cherish their brand. But "fuck" and people in manuscripts say that a ban is a prohibition, but you want to draw. Saladin was also a Muslim, but it is known for sure that he drank wine and ate meat right in Ramadan. And nothing - Saladin!
      1. +2
        18 February 2016 13: 51
        Quote: kalibr
        And all in Persian and text calls to Allah!

        There may be an inscription in Persian and in the text appeals to Allah to be, but this does not mean that the author is Muslim.

        Quote: kalibr
        As for fakes, you are in vain. It still in the 17th century came to Europe from the then merchants and travelers.

        And what, in the 17th century there were no fakes?

        Quote: kalibr
        And no one in the British Library holds fakes, it’s such a bad idea that there’s nothing to say.

        That "there are no forgeries in the British Library" is itself what needs to be proven. This is proved using the following logical inference:
        "All the exhibits of the British Library, including the Shah, are genuine, therefore, they do not keep forgeries in the British Library."
        But you can reason like this using inverse logic:
        "The British Library does not keep forgeries, therefore, all exhibits, including the shah, are genuine."
        The second way of reasoning is similar to yours.
        Is it possible to deduce the authenticity of library exhibits from its reputation when its very reputation should be deduced from the authenticity of its exhibits? If we do this, then we come to the conclusion that we deduce the provision on the authenticity of exhibits from ourselves, and this is a vicious circle in logic.

        As for bad manners: this is bad form. Firstly, the fear of being accused of bad taste does not oblige much, and there is something to talk about here. Then, it is bad form to forge and be caught on a fake, but it is not bad form to keep a fake, especially with reservations befitting the occasion and place, such as "dating is uncertain", "there are certain doubts about the dating", "ethnicity of the author is unknown" and the like. Take a look at how many Rembrandts there are in the museums of the world. Are they all genuine?
        1. 0
          18 February 2016 14: 13
          You know, I don’t give a damn about your logic and logic in general, when it comes to specific works that are dated by specialists who aren’t yours, recognized in the scientific world, where you don’t enter at all, and your doubts are typical of people who are ignorant of what they specifically doubt. This is the misfortune of our country, unfortunately, in which there are a lot of people who have heard about something, but certainly do not know anything. And yes, there are many fakes, but they are constantly exposed. And I would also accept your doubts if you were the author of works on Farsi, Persian miniature and oriental historiography. Is this not there? Not! Well ... and then like this we usually have in Russian in driver's circles. I have not yet spent time arguing with ...
          1. Riv
            +4
            18 February 2016 15: 07
            "In the spring of 1997, the British National Library informed the astonished world that in its collection of Chinese manuscripts, which passed the category of antiquities, about six hundred of them (I repeat: not one, not two, but about 600) are forgeries. In the catalogs of the National Library they occupied honorary places of manuscripts of the IV-XI centuries, which are handed out only in the reading room of rare manuscripts and only to very trusted (verified and rechecked) readers with academic specialties.

            The Chinese "antique" manuscripts referred to here were purchased for a lot of taxpayers' money from the Chinese Chengduo Ling, who was considered a very serious collector, and from his heirs. It transpired, however, that all of these manuscripts had been produced by the Ling family firm beginning in 1911. After the death of the famous "collector" in 1935, who produced most of the counterfeit Chinese antique manuscripts with his own hand, his work was continued by as many as eight sons, who were promptly trained by their father in the "antique" craft. The process of making "antique" manuscripts continued until the 60s of the XX century. "

            I will not remember in the daylight who the author is. But really? ;)
            1. 0
              18 February 2016 15: 29
              What are you talking about? The main thing was FOUND and DISCOVERED. They didn't hide, did they? That is, no one is interested in "building a house on the sand". I wrote that the work was in progress. And you yourself write that they received them since 1911. Then it was more difficult to distinguish fakes. People trusted the "name", the concept of "honor" was not an empty phrase. But the manuscripts, including those from the Walters Museum, have a very long history, they have long been studied and proven that ...
              1. +3
                18 February 2016 21: 53
                Quote: kalibr
                What are you talking about? The main thing is FOUND and DISCLOSED. Didn’t they begin to hide?

                The main thing is not what they did not hide (maybe they could not hide), but what they held.

                Quote: kalibr
                That is, no one is interested in "building a house on the sand".

                Maybe they are not interested in "building on the sand". But when they have already built it on the sand, they may be interested in protecting the “house on the sand” in every possible way and putting all kinds of temporary supports on it. This is often the case in history.
            2. +2
              18 February 2016 16: 12
              Quote: Riv
              In the spring of 1997, the British National Library informed the astonished world that in its collection of Chinese manuscripts, which were classified as ancient, about six hundred of them (I repeat: not one, not two, but about 600) are fakes.

              PRAVDA.RU
              Aug 01, 2006 at 13:34
              Scandal in the Hermitage: originals or copies?
              CULTURE »HISTORY OF CULTURE» MUSEUM CASE

              two Jewish women, lit suckers ...
              1. Riv
                +5
                18 February 2016 16: 55
                Well it is more like Yes. Still, there are no absolutely infallible experts. One conclusion about the authenticity, two, nine ... And the tenth takes and refutes them to hell. And horseradish you argue.

                Who will guarantee that tomorrow they still will not expose something? And after all museums also do not benefit from such scandals. Reputation suffers. So what about one exposure we are aware of, and how many of them quietly passed?
          2. 0
            18 February 2016 21: 08
            Quote: kalibr
            You know, I don’t give a damn about your logic and logic in general when it comes to specific works that are dated by specialists

            You don't give a damn. No people. In general, logic is a sign of respect for the reader.

            Quote: kalibr
            Your doubts are typical of people who are unaware of what they specifically doubt.

            In this case, I had no doubt. I drew your attention to the inadmissibility of drawing a conclusion about the authenticity of an artifact from its belonging to the library.

            Quote: kalibr
            And yes, there are many fakes, but they are constantly exposed.

            You yourself confirm that the fakes are kept in the library. And if those who expose them adhered to the logic that “if an artifact belongs to the library, then it is, therefore, genuine”, they would not even try to expose it. Now, consider that those who expose the forgeries are high-class specialists. And they adhere to a logic that is different from yours, the one that you "do not care about".
        2. +2
          18 February 2016 16: 03
          Quote: Villon
          Recall how many Rembrandts are in museums around the world.

          a portrait of a noble Slav Rembrant, a classy Slav in a turban from the Russian - a man, with a Crescent on his chest, perhaps the governor of the western lands of the empire ...
          1. -3
            18 February 2016 19: 37
            He liked to write dudes in high hats.))) There is an opinion that there is not a Slav and his dad is depicted.))) In the picture I presented, the man too painfully looks like your Slav.)))
            1. +1
              18 February 2016 20: 03
              Quote: Nagaibak
              It is believed that there is not a Slav but his dad


              your opinion does not interest anyone since it is always wrong, why did you bring this picture?
              1. -1
                18 February 2016 21: 18
                Yes, then, to show that you are popping the bullshit here. And cheap. And my opinion is not mine. Whoever would say about the always fallacy of my opinion. A man repeating like a butt someone's nonsense?))) I wrote an opinion. We must carefully read, and not just anyone.))) Rembrandt first wrote one portrait so, then a second portrait of the same man and called him a Slav.))) And you seriously discuss this, and even bring your crazy ideas under it.) )))
                1. +2
                  19 February 2016 10: 18
                  Quote: Nagaibak
                  Rembrandt first wrote one portrait he called so, then a second portrait of the same man and called him a Slav.

                  you have a headache fool
    2. +2
      18 February 2016 12: 36
      However, Islam forbids portraying living things


      However, they were portrayed. Not everywhere but, there were images of both people and animals. Even on Islamic coins. There were.
      1. Riv
        +3
        18 February 2016 14: 18
        And this is a separate issue. I am not good at numismatics, but I saw a Moscow penny with an inscription in Tatar (at that time - the same Arabic). On a penny, a rider on a horse, as expected. Find her in the Arab treasure one who has no idea about Russia - and here is a scientific discovery for you. :)
        1. +1
          18 February 2016 14: 45
          And this is a separate issue. I am not good at numismatics, but I saw a Moscow penny with an inscription in Tatar (at that time - the same Arabic). On a penny, a rider on a horse, as expected. Find her in the Arab treasure one who has no idea about Russia - and here is a scientific discovery for you. :)


          There will be no sensation. Because numismatics. smile
          This is the Moscow money of Ivan III bilingual. There, in addition to the Tatar legend, there is also a Russian that they say this coin is the Prince of Great Ivan Vasilyevich. smile He also had it just with the inscription "Iban" (Ivan) in Arabic. Bilingual coins, a common thing in medieval Russia, at the initial stage of formation.
          1. Riv
            +1
            18 February 2016 15: 10
            Well ... And let's say that you are a British scientist and suggested that this money was squeezed somewhere in Damascus. A version is ready that the Russians already then bombed something in Syria, and they were paid with specially minted coins.

            In general, what am I talking about? Each such coin has its own story and it can be extremely far from the generally accepted version.
            1. 0
              18 February 2016 15: 27
              Well ... And let's say that you are a British scientist and suggested that this money was squeezed somewhere in Damascus. A version is ready that the Russians already then bombed something in Syria, and they were paid with specially minted coins.

              In general, what am I talking about? Each such coin has its own story and it can be extremely far from the generally accepted version.


              No, I disagree. This option can only work with some kind of Fomenko and a similar "scientist".
              Since besides British scientists, there are others. And they are all components of one whole - world historical science. And if any British counterpart of our Fomenko will express such a version, it will be easily broken by his British, as well as our and eastern colleagues.
              This is science. It’s not that easy a sensation.
              It is possible to consider Ivan's money from any side, but if it is somewhere "on the heap" and among those who are not in the subject. And if a person falls into the subject, he will immediately dot the "i".
              Numismatics is an interesting thing. With its help, pseudo-theories are often easily broken. How can we admit the theories of new chronologists with their "impossibility of Rome", since the Romans were such bastards laughing that dated their coins. laughing
              Or vice versa, with its help, a whole huge kingdom of Antiquity was discovered, comparable to China, Rome, which no one knew about before the XNUMXth century ... And it all started with the finds of simple copper coins, and it was revealed about what they still argue and still have not fully opened, not dug up and have not set all the points.
              So it’s not so simple.
            2. The comment was deleted.
            3. +1
              18 February 2016 15: 35
              Here you are right, of course. But no one builds sensations and theories on one coin. In the books of the East, as in ours, it was indicated who the scribe was and in what year he copied it. And the technique of writing and paper, and paints, and drawings, all of this betray their era. There is a card for all rare editions. It says who, when, where it came from. If you suspect, check. And - most importantly, you can fake it, yes, but why? Sell? Now, no one will buy such a book at a high price without expertise. And at that time? Fake of that time, today IS THE SOURCE! In addition, many books were donated through diplomatic channels. For example, this happened with the "Bible of Matsievsky", which ended up in the possession of the Persian Shah, and from him in the Pierpont Morgan Library.
              1. Riv
                +1
                18 February 2016 16: 58
                Hood ... Suppose, in the same treasure there is an icon with a salary, on which there are inscriptions in Tatar? Those are available. Weapons, also with Cyrillic inscriptions, but in Tatar.
                Nobody, speak? :))) Those who wish would be found. Yes, even the same Fomenko!
                1. 0
                  18 February 2016 18: 41
                  Those interested would be found. Yes, even the same Fomenko!


                  This one is yes. They already played on this, on bilingual coins DD. laughing
                  But, we are still talking about scientists and not about charlatans. And they will make charlatans out of banana keravin. laughing
          2. 0
            18 February 2016 15: 57
            Quote: Glot
            He also had it just with the inscription "Iban" (Ivan) in Arabic.


            maybe persian? Persia will be closer to Russia, Iban, as it sounds bad, invented it yourself?
            1. -1
              18 February 2016 16: 38
              maybe persian? Persia will be closer to Russia, Iban, as it sounds bad, invented it yourself?


              It’s only you who invents it, and your friends are fomenoid. laughing
              Take it and read at least Zaitsev. He has a good monograph on the coins of Ivan III. But he himself is not the best special.
              IBAN exactly, although it was assumed - IVAN. Error, on purpose or not.
              In general, the usual thing. Often come across, since the carvers were Russian.
              But you further explain, wasting time. You’ll find it and read it yourself. No - you will remain ignorant and further. laughing
              1. +3
                18 February 2016 16: 42
                Quote: Glot
                further explain about you, wasting time. XNUMX


                you can’t find anything, so you’re chatting ...
                1. -1
                  18 February 2016 18: 43
                  you can’t find anything, so you’re chatting ...


                  Yes, actually I already found everything, and said. Listen carefully, study.
                  Probably about "Ibana" and so on, only now heard from me. Here come on, whose book I wrote you to find. Learn if our Russian history is interesting to you. smile
                  1. 0
                    18 February 2016 18: 59
                    Quote: Glot
                    Probably about "Ibana" and so on, only now heard from me. Here come on, whose book I wrote you to find.


                    I suppose he regretted that he had blabbed too much? there’s one - we won’t say who, although it was -abracacadabra already demanded money from me for what, in his opinion, was telling me different secrets, even traders got through it ...

                    Quote: Glot
                    Learn if you need ours


                    what do you learn? do you really know something?
            2. The comment was deleted.
        2. The comment was deleted.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. 0
      18 February 2016 15: 48
      Is the name of the author Zahir ad-Din Muhammad a Hindu?
    5. +1
      18 February 2016 16: 40
      ... Islam arose in the 15th century as a result of the "Baptism of Rus", it was then that the split of Orthodoxy into Christianity and Islam occurred ... - for some reason everyone tries to "forget" that our ancestors were pagans (there were many gods) example - the Gods of Olympus Zeus , Apollo ... or the Scandinavian version -One, Thor ... The Semites persistently implanted Christ, because Jesus (Andrei Bogolyubsky) was a half-blood - his mother was Jewish ... So they got what they got - a Jewish god .., whom we diligently bang on the floor ..
    6. 0
      19 February 2016 20: 33
      Muslim nomads have never been distinguished by religious fanaticism.
  5. +1
    18 February 2016 08: 37
    Here, perhaps, is such a publication where I ... are not tormented by doubts.
    Babur, Zahir ad-Din, a real person. The real book written by him. In person or with help, it doesn't matter.
    Descendant of Timur. And, like Timur, he writes about the fight against the Uzbeks .... although he himself came from a dynasty of rulers and rulers of Kokand, Ferghana, Andijan, Tashkent, Samarkand.
    At the same time, he actively rejects the Mongol heritage in the blood.
    Who is he then? How is Timur from the Barlas family? And who are the barases, the Turks?
    The question is - then who are the UZBEKS? Just followers of Uzbek Khan?
    ...
    The rebellious fate of a wanderer didn’t hold on in Central Asia, it didn’t hold on in Afghanistan either (well, no one else holds it there except his own), and he got to India - and was founded already fundamentally.
    ...
    Good stuff.
    1. Riv
      0
      18 February 2016 10: 21
      The approach is not entirely correct. Uzbeks are Uzbeks. It is clear that they did not appear from scratch, but from someone came from, in this case, from the Turks. But many have descended from the Turks. This does not abolish the right of Uzbeks to be called people.
      1. +1
        18 February 2016 11: 02
        Yes, I, like be ... and did not cancel anything.
        I bought a book during the revelry of glasnost and democracy in Tashkent - Timur, memories and thoughts (Tipo. I don’t remember the exact name).
        So, I began to read.
        And literally killed me was the eighth roofing felts, the seventh chapter roofing felts - How I fought with the Uzbeks.
        ...
        The tower I demolished specifically.
        In the square of Karl Marx, which was demolished and instead installed a statue of Timur ....
        ...
        and here it’s like.
        1. Riv
          +2
          18 February 2016 15: 17
          Well, this is nothing ... We with our Joseph Vissarionovich and Lavrenty Palych also still can not really figure it out.
  6. +1
    18 February 2016 08: 51
    Quote: Riv
    The article contains a reproduction of a miniature from the "Babur" manuscript. Battle scene. However, Islam forbids depicting living beings. "Everyone who creates images will be in Fire, and each image he creates will be given a soul that will torment him in Hell." In fact, this manuscript in this form could hardly have been written by a Muslim. At least a Sunni - definitely. Shiite - also extremely unlikely. In India, Sunni Islam was spreading. Shiism there spread extremely limited and Shiites also usually accept a ban on images.
    Either the author is a Hindu (which is extremely unlikely with his name), or it is simply a fake.

    The portrait of Babur is the same discrepancy: the ban on images. If Babur were a true Muslim, he would have been indignant. So maybe the author exaggerates the spread of Islam in the then India?

    Well, why did you strike the man so ideally? He is sure that Babur is Russian, although not, he is a Slavic Türkic-Tartarian, well, and Babur is Baburov, not from the 16th century, but much more ancient ... Did you see the shadow of the bird-print imprinted on the statue?
    1. Riv
      0
      18 February 2016 10: 12
      The Slavs, of course, also came from the Türks, but Babur was a Russian - like a neighbor’s fence, cousin wattle.
  7. +1
    18 February 2016 08: 51
    "Do you know exactly what to write about the empire of the Great Mughals? Maybe - the Mongols? ..."
    Our history is so confused that the common man often has to identify the modern Mongols with those Mongols of the Great Steppe. But they have nothing to do with them. That tribe of "Mongols" was one of the many Turkic tribes, and they spoke a different language than the one spoken by the Mongols now. Our languages ​​are different.
    "Babur did not like when he was called Mongol and preferred to be known as a Turk, the name" Mughals "stuck to the rulers of his family and the subsequent representatives of the dynasty became known in Europe as the Great Moguls."
    Another evidence is a totem. The totem animal of the Turk is a wolf, the totem of the Mongols is a deer and other inhabitants of the forest. And this is the answer, where did the modern Mongols come from.
    By the way, an interesting fact, horse polo - a game of nobility and aristocracy, who came to England from India, appeared during the reign of this dynasty ...
    1. 0
      19 February 2016 20: 40
      Well, why are you like that. The Mongols have an absolute cult of the wolf. According to legend, the Türks come from the she-wolf, and the Mongols from the wolf.
  8. +2
    18 February 2016 12: 03
    The most interesting thing is that on the territory of Mongolia itself, nothing related to the legendary Mongols of the Middle Ages can be found
    1. 0
      18 February 2016 12: 17
      But they find it from Altai to the Danube ...
      1. 0
        19 February 2016 20: 42
        Probably only in Russian understand.
    2. 0
      19 February 2016 20: 41
      Have you ever been there?
  9. +3
    18 February 2016 12: 40
    modern Mongolia has no relation to the Mongols of Genghis Khan and Batu. Those Mongols are China. Turkmenistan. Uzbekistan. Kyrgyzstan. Kazakhstan and Russia in modern times. the Great Wall of China runs 600 km from Beijing and 1000 km from the border of modern Mongolia. and loopholes look at Beijing. not to Mongolia. who defended from whom?
    1. Riv
      +1
      18 February 2016 14: 02
      But nothing that these Chinese walls are not alone? There are not even a dozen of them and they stretch in a variety of directions. They even exist on the territory of Russia, they only click on our beaks - what a tourist attraction you could think of! The grave of Genghis Khan in the same place somewhere to attach ...
      1. +1
        19 February 2016 20: 49
        Genghis Khan ordered his direct descendants to bear the name of the Mongols. In Asia, no one dared to disobey the orders of the elders, especially those ancestors. Think, why then the modern "true descendants" of Genghis Khan bear any self-names, but not the Mongols?
    2. 0
      18 February 2016 15: 37
      They are looking in both directions!
    3. -1
      19 February 2016 20: 43
      The Chinese probably know better and remember from whom they fenced off.
  10. +1
    18 February 2016 13: 44
    To some comments. Do not think that people then were different from people now. Modern people from those then differ only in technical bells and whistles and duration of education. And in terms of various troubles - we have been the same for a very long time, otherwise the commandments that were proclaimed 2 - 2,5 thousand years ago would not have been relevant.
    1. +1
      18 February 2016 18: 14
      You're right. Read the article "Any fornication" in Rodina magazine. For what in the past were all believers, for which in Europe they chopped off their heads for sodomy (the stadtholder of Holland was chopped off after regular examination of men for predication) and ... they fucked all the same! As soon as the ROC did not fight against sects and schisms, but there were eunuchs, and Pentecostals, and ... whoever was not! And again ... they tortured the flesh, but when it comes to "this" - so go ahead! Everything is as it is now!
  11. 0
    18 February 2016 23: 36
    The article is interesting, interesting primarily because it tells about an interesting person, Babur. But the article omitted, or rather not boldly outlined, important points. Babur was expelled from Central Asia from his "native" khanate and lived after that in Afghanistan as a guest, from where he managed to invade India, seize it and create an empire. The second interesting point, especially for a European, is the widespread use of hand firearms in Babur's army, and this is at the beginning of the 17th century. If for interest you look at the miniatures unplaced in the article, then in almost every where there is a weapon, a musket flashes, as the author writes (but I think that it is more of an arquebus). There is even a miniature "hunting for a crocodile", so there this poor crocodile is showered not only with arrows, but also with lead. Another important point is Babur's interesting anti-cavalry use of artillery. The cannons were linked by chains. It reminds me of the tactics of the Czech Hussites, who fought well with the knights. And all this advanced for that time was used in the eastern army of an exiled from his city. I can't understand what the matter is. Either he was a military genius, or someone helped him.
    1. Riv
      +1
      19 February 2016 07: 17
      Well, let's say Babur was not a guest in Afghanistan. He captured Kabul with battle. Guests do not behave like that. The Persians helped him, there is also no secret. Babur had an alliance with them against Sheybani.

      And then the stroller suddenly got lucky. I went on a trip to Delhi, apparently a pure rob. He was caught hot during the Panipat. And at the most severe moment, when everyone in his army had already said goodbye to everyone, he managed to draw an ace out of the deck. The enemy shah was demolished by the buckshot from the elephant, the first volley. Babur himself later wrote that if Ibrahim had survived for another half an hour and the battle would have been lost.
  12. +1
    20 February 2016 02: 04
    As the saying goes, load nails with barrels ... 2 \ 3 discussing an excellent article that raises rare material - this is some kind of nonsense and attempts to refute it ... Then to the Mongols from the Great Moguls, then to the Uzbeks of the Timur era, who did not modern Uzbeks and so on ...

    Another important point is that in the considered era of the Persian Safavid dynasty, the art of painting was not considered sinful in the newly considered power - I hope this will drastically clarify the situation.

    And to top it off, just one fact - the depicted Dean's helmet on 90% (except for the absence of a turban image on the hemisphere in the Polish version) is identical to one of the variants of the winged hussars of the Rzeczpospolita. Also 17 century. I wonder who copied from whom?

    Well, to top it off, the Mughal empire very often took everything from wherever possible, including inviting doctors, engineers and military advisers from Europe. And the artillery "gadgets" are mostly not Persian borrowing, but thanks to the Europeans. But a lot of things were just stupid: small guns on camels, medium guns on bull sleds, guns on elephants ... well, what kind of aiming can we talk about? but the crowd of wild Asians certainly impressed. And when handfuls (tiny, within 1-2 thousand) of European soldiers came - everything ended quickly - neither tens of thousands of horsemen, nor hundreds of guns on camels and elephants helped ...

    PS In modern English the meaning of "oligarch" has the word "nabob" \ "nawab", yes, yes, from the same era of conquest of India, and the word "moogal" (well, like the Great Mogul) is more used in terms of designating "awesome rich eastern dictator", well type "Saudi prince".

"Right Sector" (banned in Russia), "Ukrainian Insurgent Army" (UPA) (banned in Russia), ISIS (banned in Russia), "Jabhat Fatah al-Sham" formerly "Jabhat al-Nusra" (banned in Russia) , Taliban (banned in Russia), Al-Qaeda (banned in Russia), Anti-Corruption Foundation (banned in Russia), Navalny Headquarters (banned in Russia), Facebook (banned in Russia), Instagram (banned in Russia), Meta (banned in Russia), Misanthropic Division (banned in Russia), Azov (banned in Russia), Muslim Brotherhood (banned in Russia), Aum Shinrikyo (banned in Russia), AUE (banned in Russia), UNA-UNSO (banned in Russia), Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People (banned in Russia), Legion “Freedom of Russia” (armed formation, recognized as terrorist in the Russian Federation and banned)

“Non-profit organizations, unregistered public associations or individuals performing the functions of a foreign agent,” as well as media outlets performing the functions of a foreign agent: “Medusa”; "Voice of America"; "Realities"; "Present time"; "Radio Freedom"; Ponomarev; Savitskaya; Markelov; Kamalyagin; Apakhonchich; Makarevich; Dud; Gordon; Zhdanov; Medvedev; Fedorov; "Owl"; "Alliance of Doctors"; "RKK" "Levada Center"; "Memorial"; "Voice"; "Person and law"; "Rain"; "Mediazone"; "Deutsche Welle"; QMS "Caucasian Knot"; "Insider"; "New Newspaper"