David Nicole on the Mughal Warfare (part of 1)

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 история.


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)
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

55 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. parusnik 18 February 2016 07: 46 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Thank you, I look forward to continuing with interest ..
  2. venaya 18 February 2016 07: 52 New
    • 8
    • 0
    +8
    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’s true about the Persians, the Turks could also be present, but about the Afghans and even the Mongols, there are reasonable doubts here. The fact is that there could be no Afghanistan or Mongolia and, accordingly, such peoples in those days, 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’s better not to refer to the not always accurate TSB but to the current research of specialized specialist comrade
    1. Mangel olys 18 February 2016 07: 59 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      In the "bullseye", Vyacheslav. "+".
    2. kalibr 18 February 2016 11: 29 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      By definition, they were ...
    3. Glot 18 February 2016 12: 33 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      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. ver_ 18 February 2016 16: 21 New
        • -4
        • 0
        -4
        ... Genghis Khan = Caesar Khan = Gaius Julius Caesar = Yuri George Dolgoruky = St. George = George the Victorious - this is all one person .. George's hands "reached" to Italy ... Therefore, he and Dolgoruky ... Stop looking for heroes in in foreign countries, turn to the roots of your country .. Before Christ (Andrei Bogolyubsky), the Komnins dynasty ruled, before the Comneny rules Gustomysl (Novgorod) ..., his grandson Khan John Rurik Varyag Troyanets was invited to rule in Russia, because Troy (the capital Empire fell and was destroyed) after the mediocre reign of Christ ...
        1. Nagaibak 18 February 2016 19: 41 New
          • 4
          • 1
          +3
          = ver _ ".. Genghis Khan = Caesar Khan = Gaius Julius Caesar = Yuri George Dolgoruky = St. George = George the Victorious - it's all one man."

          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. Hurray 19 February 2016 20: 28 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Dear venaya, you are again for yours, the Mongols are still there.
    6. Hurray 19 February 2016 21: 00 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      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. Hurray 20 February 2016 08: 43 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      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. Sweles 18 February 2016 07: 59 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Babur KHAN looked like this ...
    1. Nagaibak 18 February 2016 18: 59 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      From the wiki. "Full throne title: as-Sultan al-Azam wa-l-Hakan al-Mukarram Zahir ad-din Muhammad Jalal ad-din Babur, Padshah-i-Gazi."
      He was not a khan. And not the fact that this is what he looked like.)))
      1. Sweles 18 February 2016 19: 20 New
        • -1
        • 0
        -1
        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. Nagaibak 18 February 2016 19: 22 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          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. Sweles 18 February 2016 19: 47 New
            • -1
            • 0
            -1
            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. Nagaibak 18 February 2016 21: 21 New
              • 3
              • 1
              +2
              Sveles "how to read, for example, there is an image of the TARTARIAN EMPEROR, where further the great boor ie those who compiled the catalogs of portraits in my French, they clearly tried to belittle the status of Tartaria ..."
              Yes, yes, the emperor of Tartaria is depicted near his plague.)))
        2. Hurray 19 February 2016 20: 31 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          Only men of Genghis could have this title if they were on the throne. That is why the Turks had sultans, etc.
  4. Riv
    Riv 18 February 2016 08: 10 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    The article contains a reproduction of a miniature from the Babur manuscript. Battle scene. However, Islam forbids portraying living things. "Every creator of the image will be on Fire, and every creature created by him 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 the Sunni - definitely. Shiit is also highly unlikely. Sunni Islam was spreading in India. Shiism was very limited there, and Shiites usually also 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. kalibr 18 February 2016 11: 21 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      I could get you a picture with a Muslim "fuck", where the shah has a "fuck" and at the same time shoots from a bow! And all in Persian and text calls to Allah! As for fakes, you are in vain. It is still in the 17 century that came to Europe from the then merchants and travelers. And no one in the British Library holds fakes, it’s such a bad idea that there’s nothing to say. The expertise department is one of the most advanced in the country. Climb onto their website and read how they zealously cherish their brand. But the "fuck" and people in the manuscripts say that the ban is a ban, but I want to draw. Saladin was also a Muslim, but it is known that he drank both wine and meat directly in Ramadan. And nothing - Saladin!
      1. Villon 18 February 2016 13: 51 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        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.

        The fact that "the British Library does not keep fakes" is itself what needs to be proved. This is proved using the following logical conclusion:
        "all the exhibits of the British Library, including the Shah, are genuine, therefore, they do not keep fakes in the British Library."
        But you can reason like this using inverse logic:
        "The British Library does not keep fakes, 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 Moveton: this is bad form. Firstly, the fear of being accused of bad taste does not oblige much, and there is something to talk about. Then, it’s bad form to fake and be caught on fake, but it’s not bad form to keep fake, especially with clauses appropriate to the case and place, such as “dating is uncertain,” “there are certain doubts about dating,” “the author’s ethnicity is unknown,” and things like that. Recall how many Rembrandts are in museums around the world. Are they all genuine?
        1. kalibr 18 February 2016 14: 13 New
          • 1
          • 1
          0
          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
            Riv 18 February 2016 15: 07 New
            • 4
            • 0
            +4
            “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. 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 highly trusted (verified and double-checked) readers with academic specialties.

            The Chinese “antique” manuscripts in question here were purchased for considerable taxpayer money from the Chinese Chengduo Ling, who was considered a very serious collector, and from his heirs. It turned out, however, that all of these manuscripts were produced at the Ling family firm, starting in 1911. After the death of the famous “collector” in 1935, who had made most of the fake Chinese antique manuscripts with his own hands, his work was continued by eight sons who were promptly trained by the 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. kalibr 18 February 2016 15: 29 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              What are you talking about? The main thing is FOUND and DISCLOSED. Didn’t they begin to hide? That is, no one is interested in "building a house on the sand." I wrote that work is underway. And you yourself write that they received them from 1911 of the year. 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 researched and proved that ...
              1. Villon 18 February 2016 21: 53 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                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."

                Perhaps they are not interested in “building on the sand”. But when they have already built it in the sand, they may be interested in protecting the "house in the sand" in every way and putting all kinds of temporary supports for it. This often happens in history.
            2. Sweles 18 February 2016 16: 12 New
              • 2
              • 0
              +2
              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
                Riv 18 February 2016 16: 55 New
                • 5
                • 0
                +5
                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. Villon 18 February 2016 21: 08 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            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 adhere to the logic that “if the artifact belongs to the library, then it is therefore genuine,” they would not even try to expose them at all. And now keep in mind that those who expose fakes are high-class specialists. And they adhere to logic that is different from yours, the very one that you "do not give a damn about."
        2. Sweles 18 February 2016 16: 03 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          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. Nagaibak 18 February 2016 19: 37 New
            • -2
            • 1
            -3
            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. Sweles 18 February 2016 20: 03 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              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. Nagaibak 18 February 2016 21: 18 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                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. Sweles 19 February 2016 10: 18 New
                  • 2
                  • 0
                  +2
                  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. Glot 18 February 2016 12: 36 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      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
        Riv 18 February 2016 14: 18 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        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. Glot 18 February 2016 14: 45 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          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 still had and simply with the inscription "Iban" (Ivan) in Arabic. Bilingual coins, a common thing for medieval Russia, at the initial stage of formation.
          1. Riv
            Riv 18 February 2016 15: 10 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            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. Glot 18 February 2016 15: 27 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              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 do not agree. This option can be scanned only by some Fomenko and a similar “scientist” like him.
              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.
              You can look at Ivan’s tighter money from any side but, if it’s somewhere “on the block” and among those who are not in the subject. And the person in the subject will come across, immediately dot all the "i".
              Numismatics, an interesting thing. With its help, often pseudotheories are easily broken. As admissible theories of the 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. kalibr 18 February 2016 15: 35 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Here you are right, of course. But nobody builds sensations and theories on one coin. In the Eastern books, as in ours, it was indicated who the scribe was and in what year he copied it. And the writing technique, and paper, and paints, and drawings, all this betray their era. There is a card for all rare editions. It says who, when, where it came from. If suspected, check. And - most importantly, you can fake, yes, but why? To sell? Now, without examination, no one will buy such a book expensively. And at that time? A fake of that time, today IS ALSO A SOURCE! In addition, many books were donated through diplomatic channels. For example, this happened with the "Matsievsky Bible", which appeared at the Persian Shah, and from him in the Pirpont Morgan Library.
              1. Riv
                Riv 18 February 2016 16: 58 New
                • 1
                • 0
                +1
                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. Glot 18 February 2016 18: 41 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  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. Sweles 18 February 2016 15: 57 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Glot
            He still had and simply with the inscription "Iban" (Ivan) in Arabic.


            maybe persian? Persia will be closer to Russia, Iban, as it sounds bad, invented it yourself?
            1. Glot 18 February 2016 16: 38 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              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. Sweles 18 February 2016 16: 42 New
                • 3
                • 0
                +3
                Quote: Glot
                further explain about you, wasting time. XNUMX


                you can’t find anything, so you’re chatting ...
                1. Glot 18 February 2016 18: 43 New
                  • -1
                  • 0
                  -1
                  you can’t find anything, so you’re chatting ...


                  Yes, actually I already found everything, and said. Listen carefully, study.
                  Probably about “Ibana” and stuff just now it just heard from me. Come on, whose book to find, I wrote to you. Learn, if you are ours, Russian history is interesting. smile
                  1. Sweles 18 February 2016 18: 59 New
                    • 0
                    • 0
                    0
                    Quote: Glot
                    Probably about “Ibana” and stuff just now it just heard from me. Come on, whose book to find, I wrote to you.


                    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. kalibr 18 February 2016 15: 48 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Is the name of the author Zahir ad-Din Muhammad a Hindu?
    5. ver_ 18 February 2016 16: 40 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      ... Islam arose in the 15th century as a result of the "Baptism of Russia", it was then that Orthodoxy split into Christianity and Islam ... - for some reason everyone is trying to "forget" that our ancestors were pagans (there were many gods) an example - Gods of Olympus Zeus , Apollo ... or the Scandinavian version -One, Thor ... The Semites stubbornly planted Christ, because Jesus (Andrei Bogolyubsky) was half-breed, his mother was Jewish ... So they got what they received - the Jewish god .., who diligently beat the brow on the floor ..
    6. Hurray 19 February 2016 20: 33 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Muslim nomads have never been distinguished by religious fanaticism.
  5. Bashibuzuk 18 February 2016 08: 37 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    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
      Riv 18 February 2016 10: 21 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      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. Bashibuzuk 18 February 2016 11: 02 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        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
          Riv 18 February 2016 15: 17 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Well, this is nothing ... We with our Joseph Vissarionovich and Lavrenty Palych also still can not really figure it out.
  6. Velizariy 18 February 2016 08: 51 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Riv
    The article contains a reproduction of a miniature from the Babur manuscript. Battle scene. However, Islam forbids portraying living things. "Every creator of the image will be on Fire, and every creature created by him 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 the Sunni - definitely. Shiit is also highly unlikely. Sunni Islam was spreading in India. Shiism was very limited there, and Shiites usually also 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
      Riv 18 February 2016 10: 12 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The Slavs, of course, also came from the Türks, but Babur was a Russian - like a neighbor’s fence, cousin wattle.
  7. Kadex 18 February 2016 08: 51 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    "Do you know exactly what the Mughal Empire should write? Maybe the Mongols? ..."
    Our history is so confused that a simple layman often has to identify 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 the language different from the one that the Mongols speak now. Our languages ​​are different.
    "Babur did not like being called a Mongol and preferred to be known as a Turk, the name" Mughal "" stuck "to the rulers of his family, and subsequent representatives of the dynasty became known in Europe exactly as the Great Mughals."
    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. Hurray 19 February 2016 20: 40 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      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. Vadim ragozin 18 February 2016 12: 03 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    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. Mangel olys 18 February 2016 12: 17 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      But they find it from Altai to the Danube ...
      1. Hurray 19 February 2016 20: 42 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Probably only in Russian understand.
    2. Hurray 19 February 2016 20: 41 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Have you ever been there?
  9. engineer 18 February 2016 12: 40 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    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
      Riv 18 February 2016 14: 02 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      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. Hurray 19 February 2016 20: 49 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Genghis Khan ordered his direct descendants to bear the name of the Mongols. In Asia, the orders of the elders, let alone those ancestors, dared not disobey. Think about why then the modern "true descendants" of Genghis Khan bear any kind of self-designation, but not the Mongols?
    2. kalibr 18 February 2016 15: 37 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      They are looking in both directions!
    3. Hurray 19 February 2016 20: 43 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      The Chinese probably know better and remember from whom they fenced off.
  10. Balagan 18 February 2016 13: 44 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    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. kalibr 18 February 2016 18: 14 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      You're right. Read the article "Anyone Has Fornication" in the journal Homeland. Well, in the past everyone was a believer, for which in Europe heads were chopped off for sodomy (the Dutch staff was chopped off after a regular examination of men for prediction) and ... they fucked anyway! As soon as the Russian Orthodox Church did not fight against sects and schisms, there were eunuchs and Pentecostals, and ... who wasn’t! And again ... the flesh was tortured, and as it comes to "this" - so come on! Everything is as it is now!
  11. and why 18 February 2016 23: 36 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    The article is interesting, interesting primarily because it tells about an interesting person, Babur. But the article omitted, or rather, boldly outlined important points. Babur was expelled from Central Asia from his "native" khanate and then lived in Afghanistan as a guest, from where he managed to invade India, capture it and create an empire. The second interesting point, especially for a European, is the widespread use of handguns in Babur’s army, and this is at the beginning of the 17th century. If for interest you look at the thumbnails not placed in the article, then in almost every one where there are weapons, a musket flickers, as the author writes (but I think it's more like an arquebus). Even there is a miniature "hunting for a crocodile", so there this poor crocodile is not only showered with arrows, but also with lead. Another important point is the interesting anti-cavalry use of artillery by Babur. The guns were interconnected by chains. It reminds me of the tactics of Czech Hussites, who fought well with the knights. And all this advanced for that time was used in the eastern army of the exile from his city. I can’t understand what’s the matter. Either he was a military genius, or someone helped him.
    1. Riv
      Riv 19 February 2016 07: 17 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      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. Warrior2015 20 February 2016 02: 04 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    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 where possible, including inviting doctors, engineers and military advisers from Europe. And the artillery "gadgets" - this is basically not Persian borrowing, namely, 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 aim can we talk about? but of course the crowd of wild Asians made an impression. And when a handful of (tiny, within 1-2 thousand) European soldiers arrived, it all ended quickly - neither tens of thousands of horsemen, nor hundreds of guns on camels and elephants helped ...

    PSV sovrem.angl. meaning "oligarch" has the word "nabob" \ "nawab", yes, yes, from the same epoch of the conquest of India, and the word "mugal" (well, such as the Great Mogul) is more used in terms of the designation of "fucking rich eastern dictator", well like "saudi prince".