Talk:Prithviraj Chauhan

Archives (Index)

1 2 3 4

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2019

Ronak kyada (talk) 09:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

the prithviraj chauhan was death in Afghanistan..not in Ajmer , he was last hindu king, and he is related ajmer chauhan house, but his death place in Afghanistan.At last hi is a muhammad ghori prisoner,and ghori tack him of Afghanistan,and king prithviraj death in same place mains death in Afghanistan not in ajmer ,,,,,,so please correct your information and mistake......

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 10:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2020

He was a Gurjar king. which is given in prithvi raj raso and rajput identity was not at that time. Preetamsinghgurjar769100 (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

We'll not let you play with our history. Prithviraj Chauhan was a rajput emperor. Don't change your fathers. Abhishek Singh III (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Rajput Identity AT THAT TIME

There was no any word like Rajput at the time of prithviraj chauhan is true. Because at that time Rajput was called "Rajputra". Abhishek Singh III (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

We are already discussing this in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Prithviraj_Chauhan#Rajput_as_an_identity_has_existed_since_the_times_of_ramayana brother Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Rajput as an identity has existed since the times of ramayana

"although the Rajput identity did not exist during his time." This statement is false and misleading rajput as an identity has existed since the times Mahabharata

in Mahabharata 3.266.61 (Ramopakhyana), lord Rama and Lakshmana are called rAjaputras when they bid farewell to vānara rāja Sugreeva:

राजपुत्रौ कुशिलनौ भरातरौ रामल मणौ सवशाखा मृगेद्रेण सुग्रीवेणािभपािलतौ And also The Prashnopanishad (dated 1st century BCE or earlier) has the following words for rajaputra of Kosala country. भगवि हर यनाभः कौस यो राजपुत्रो मामुपे यैतं प्र नमपृ छतShankaracharya in his commentary of this Upanishad has explained it as ‘a Kshatriya born in Kosala’, probably because it doesn’t read as ‘Kosala Rajaputrah’ for it to be called ‘Prince of Kosala’. The phrase used by Shankaracharya is: कौस यो राजपुत्रो जािततः ित्रयो i.e. a Rajaputra of Kosala who was kshatriya by birth.

This proves that this statement is false and should be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sungpeshwe9 (talk • contribs) 07:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Al Masudi from Arabia visits India in mid 10th century and mentions in his work dated 953 AD that – Kandhar was the country of Rahbuts i.e. Rajputs.

Muruj ad Dhahab wa ma’adin al jawahar i.e. Meadows of Gold and Mines of Gems, Pg 381

Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Heres the archive.org link to al masudis work mentioning rajputs https://archive.org/details/elmasdshistoric00unkngoog/page/n460/mode/1up Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 07:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Heres googlebooks link to Ramopakhyana (3.266.61) https://books.google.co.in/books?id=lfoJBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA514&lpg=PA514&dq=Mahabharata+3.266.61&source=bl&ots=lmC2yx09_e&sig=ACfU3U1jJGaiM5ilNWmAtimTu7s5YoNIHg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj68YuQrLbtAhV4yTgGHW7SD8IQ6AEwC3oECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=Mahabharata%203.266.61&f=false Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 07:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

@Sungpeshwe9: I have no strong feelings regarding whether the statement in question is included in the article lead. However, I think it's worth noting that the question here isn't whether a Rajput identity existed at that point, but rather whether what we now consider to be the Rajput identity existed and what it meant. The text referenced in the article, The Last Hindu Emperor · Prithviraj Chauhan and the Indian Past, 1200–2000 by Cynthia Talbot, cited a number of reputable historians when discussing this issue:

I believe the Rāso contributed to the consolidation of an aristocratic Rajput identity beginning in the late sixteenth century. What the term Rajput meant prior to the Mughal period is a contentious issue, for scholars disagree about how far back we can trace the existence of the Rajputs as a community… Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya suggests that rājaputra was applied to a larger group of high-ranking men who also bore titles such as rāuta, rāvala, and rānaka… In contrast, Michael Bednar's examination of inscriptions from western and central India during the eleventh through fourteenth centuries indicates that thakkura, rāuta, and rājaputra were titles of rank that generally denoted official positions and were often not passed on from father to son. Chattopadhyaya may therefore, be somewhat premature in his assertion that Rajput identity existed in the twelfth or thirteenth centuries… Arguing in a different vein than Chattopadhyaya, Dirk H. A. Kolff claims that the label Rajput had previously denoted an open status identity that any successful warrior could acquire. During the Mughal period, however, the Rajputs closed ranks to form an aristocratic class whose membership was strictly circumscribed by birth… In any case, Rajput was not a term that figured in Indo-Persian texts prior to the sixteenth century, according to Peter Jackson, supporting the view that there was some change in the meaning of the term… As Rajput chiefs were increasingly co-opted into the Mughal system, a sharper line was drawn between them and the other, less elite, fighting men of India. One way of doing this was through acknowledging the kshatriya status of Rajputs… The repeated conflation of Rajput with kshatriya hat can be witnessed in Prthvīrāj Rāso is thus part of a larger early modern trend of stressing the elite nature of Rajputs

This changing in the meaning of the term "Rajput" is also shown in the example that you yourself have provided from the Prashnopanishad, given that being a "Rajaputra of Kosala" is no longer a requirement for being a Rajput.
Alivardi (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

See al masudis work too it mentions khandar as a country of rajputs al masudi lived 150yrs beofre pritihvi raj Chauhan hence the rajput identity existed then so pls dont revert it Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The reliable sources state that what is now considered Rajput did not even exist at that time. Chariotrider555 (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

What reliable source? Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 05:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

https://books.google.co.in/books?redir_esc=y&id=XG76DwAAQBAJ&q=Rajput#v=snippet&q=Rajput&f=false

Prithviraja vijaya composed around 1191-1192 CE by Jayanaka, a Kashmiri poet-historian in the court of Prithviraja mentioned prithviraja as a rajput Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 06:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=Zcyho16xzWEC&q=Rajput#v=snippet&q=Rajput&f=false Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 07:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

This book mentions rajput become prominent in 11th-12th century then how can you say rajput identity didn't existed during his time? Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

https://archive.org/details/HistoryOfEarlyIndiaFromTheOriginsToAD1300Thapar/page/n464/mode/1up

Romila thappars work also mentioned chauhans as rajputs during the time of Prithviraja Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 07:07, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Please properly cite your sources and give page numbers first. Read WP:CS. Chariotrider555 (talk) 15:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

https://books.google.co.in/books?redir_esc=y&id=XG76DwAAQBAJ&q=Prithviraja-vijaya#v=onepage&q=Rajput&f=false Chariotrider555 (talk · contribs) Sungpeshwe9 (talk) 17:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)