Is it true or superstitious???
  • Hi all,

    I am very curious about this topic for long time.

    I think most of us would have listened or read or saw lot of "War-related" stories(incidents).

    Even in our own PS there are kings who have got hundreds of wound in their body but still fought hard to kill some dozens of enemies.

    When I listen these stories I just really cant believe these incidents blindly just because it has been written in some stone.

    These stories are very much like giving a mass buildup for their kings to get wealth as gift from their kings at that time.

    I think some of them would have saw telugu movie "Maghadeera". like hero kills 100 people single-handedly

    Like there are lot of stories telling us about various kings telling those similar lines..That he is a one-man army or something like that.even kalki also followed it.

    How u guys believe these stories just for a reason that it is written in some stone??

    What are the probabilities that it would have been a build-up??

    If not how u came to that conclusion??

    I am expecting active replies and answers for my query???
  • Dear Jeevan,

    War and its after effects were already so much discussed in our Group relation to ::

    Parantaka I wars.
    Rajaraja wars - (look for Godification of RRC from archieves)
    Rajendra I war ( put Huttoor - Ganges expedition you will find more)
    Malik gafur invasion (put malik gafur and search).

    We have also discussed War and Peace..

    We have drawn reference to Kaa Pa Appadurai's THENNAATTU PORKALANGAL ..

    I will furnish a small reference ::

    Rajendra I's Army chief went to Hattur (Near Raichur ) with about 900000 ( Nine lakhs Warriors) and proportionate elephants and horses and armour .. almost about 1000 years back (in about 1006 AD).

    Nine lakhs warriors movement on surface ..

    Imagine its food supply - accommodation and infrastrcture needs.

    You can find out its impact from any Defence expert.

    I recall Dr. Jaybee opened a thread on this.... and quite a few mails flew about 5 years back.

    warm regards / sps


    thanks and regards / sps

  • hi jeevan
    check for ref in mahabaratha for maharathi and athirathi
  • Again same question arises for me!!!


    How do you believe that sir??

    Since because someone have written in some book??

    I don't think there was term "9,00,000" at 1000AD

    its like in news channels they telecast party meets as telling"Lathatirkum
    adigamanoor pangetranar"

    Can't you see the over build up here???

  • Now you have to answer yourself dear Jeevan -

    Let us take only Rajendra for the moment ::

    how could Rajendra control almost from Kalyan Mumbai to Trivandrum - Lanka - and at least establish very friendly ties with neighbouring ( ??) Far - East friends like Malaysia - Indosina etc., and safely passed through upto Bengal and returned - left residues in all these places and could send emissery to the Emperor China - upon knowing which Srivijayam sends counter emissary (like India PM visiting the USA and Pak President visiting the same immediately after) - and several remains of inscriptions / temples found all around and a Monumental example of the World's Largest Hindu temple (till Aksharadam) could established in Cambodia !

    with about 90000 armymen ?


  • Whatever you have said is Business or Trade

    emissary or transfer of culture

    all these are because of trade and good relation they had between

    otherwise if temples are in indonesia because of rajendra's army.

    then what about mosques in india???

    Is it because of some other terrifying ruler in muslim nation??

    Its all because of transfer of culture

    Sir,one simple comparison to ur 9,00,000 army

    Great Alexander army considered only 5,000 cavalrymen and 30,000

    then the 9,00,000 whatever is told is true Rajendra should have won whole
    India atleast..

    and one more thing..was there any other big ruler at the same time rajendra
    was in rule in the places like bengal or mumbai???

    when good ruler is not there...its enough to have 1000 soldiers and the
    enemy will surrender to you..

    Lot of chances for that also.

    Plz don't think i am arguementing!!

    I am just curious how you people who know more then me can believe these
    stories and miss this simple logic.

  • Dear Jeevan,

    Let us zero on single query ::

    Rajendra moved towards Raichur with 900000 warriors !

    This is inscribed.

    This is highlighted in KAN Sastri's the Colas.

    This is also counter-agreed by Historians around that area ..

    Now what is your dispute ?

    A certificate from whom - stating that I evidence that Rajendra I was heading about 9 lakh warriors ?

    And how are we going to accept to that Certificate also ?

    Just because our mind does not accept several things... does not mean they do not happen .. lot of things are happening around us ..

    I quoted an evidence as to how earth looks like from Moon as per Tamil book published 300 years back !!

    There are two ways open to these postulates :

    one :: further queries .. and on

    other :: or looking into what has been putforth so far and analysing ...

    that is why i said : the more we know - we realise we know less of the same ..

    warm regards / sps
  • dear jeevan

    "I am just curious how you people who know more then me can believe these
    stories and miss this simple logic."

    We are all here to learn. so please bear with us.

    just throwing a few more:

    Taxation policies during pallava rule

    Import duty and basis of its calculation in pallava ports

    Land taxation during chola rule - how many officials would be required to
    accurate do a land survey

    Coming to your questions on number of men - normally we seek proofs from the
    ` other side'. Trust you aware of the dating of south indian history by Gaja
    bahu synchronisation. what is the most important feat of this Gaja Bahu. .
  • Hi Jeevan,

    Despite my minimum knowledge on the Indian history, kindly allow me to state a few points.

    Correct me if I'm wrong but from your recent posts, I believe you've concluded that having 9,00,000 army is impossible and a fictitious tale merely to exaggerate the strength of one's army. When you've concluded as such, I wonder why you need to pose questions on whether these facts are true or superstitious. Because at the end of the day, you'll still fall back on your belief...that these are fictitious.

    Nevertheless, just out of curiosity, why do you believe that having 9,00,000 army is fictitious? Because Rajendra I wasn't able to win the whole of India despite having that large an army? Just because Alexander was able to conquer the entire Persian empire with a smaller army, it does not mean that one with a larger set of army should be able to conquer a larger empire. Ever heard of Hannibal, the Catharginian commander who despite having an army consisting of about 20,000 foot soldiers and 3,000 horsemen, defeated the relatively larger Roman army in the Battle of Trebia? That was possible due to the military tactics practiced by Hannibal.
  • Ya that I accept!!!

    More we know..its less we know on the whole!!!

    Anyhow I ll accept to ur answers!!!

    Thanks for the replies!!!
  • But one thing,I donno whether you will accept or not

    I have no disrespect by saying this!!

    If rajendra was really having 9,00,000 men as u said!!

    Then he s very very less effecient when compared to alexander or ghengis
    khan or even hitler u can compare

    Rajendra wasted his army...That is true

    Because above said names had half of rajendra's arrmy strength and ruled the

    Again,I dont have any disrespect here!!!

  • Sorry, I made a mistake..the population of Madras Presidency according to 1901 census was one crore odd. Where did RRC have 9,00,000 troops?
    My argument still holds.
    R Narasimhan
  • To inject a small amount of statistics from elsewhere in the world (source

    The Romans generally maintained an army of about 200000 to about 400000.
    Remember, this was their _standing_ army, and they recruited local forces
    every now and then also.

    I don't find it especially impossible for RRC or RJC to have an army
    numbering in the lakhs, especially if this is the size of the _total_ army.
    Remember, the very fact that they constructed and maintained such a massive
    empire points to some advanced logistics...

    Entirely believable, in my opinion...

  • Hi Jeevan Santosh,

    It is win-win .. Clever ??!!

    against no reply yesterday -

    you got all the replies today ??!!

    as if you dont know !! cherish.


  • Dear Jeevan,



  • Philip of Macedon was pretty famous in his own right.
    Father of Alexander.
  • Ta.

    Talakkotta war - Fall of Vijayanagar
    Vijayanagar side - 1.4 Lakh infantry, 10000 Cavalry
    Bamini side - 80000 infantry, 30000 cavalry
    Innumerable elephants on both side. Lot of support services.
    This itself 3 lakhs.
    The population must have been  very high and constantly suffered wars and femine from 1000 onwards.
    The volume tripled in 80 years from Bharathiyars 30 crore to 100 crore in 2000. It may be 120 in 2010. Bharathi's 30 crore included Pak and Bangla. Now we are much higher w.o those territories.
    The population might be higher in old madras and could have come down due to war, mortality and femine.
  • people,

    Thank you all for replies

    and few of them are supporting my point!! thats great!!

    As gayathri mam said..Cannibal and others won because of military tactics.

    Is it mean we lacked it???

    Its mean she is accepting my point!!

    As Divakar sir said,

    army man means they do war along with farming and all other works!!

    So Mr.Rajendra just gathered men to show Mass!!!

    And don't think that i am adamant here.

    9,00,000 is too much would have been the entire population of
    south India.

    why cant you people get my point.

    even that Aurangaseeb army of 5,00,000 itself is some one
    quoted our entire population by 1901 itslef is 1 crore.

    then how can these things to be believed.

    again,as I have stated earlier..Its like crowd in Eden Gardens cricket

    Anyone see it on first go will tell it is more then a lakh or something.But
    never it is.

    Again no offense or disrespect in my statements!!!


    On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Katherine Brobeck
  • when good ruler is not there...its enough to have 1000 soldiers and the enemy will surrender to you

    I seriously doubt it.

    Alexandar's army fought in territories that did not require large plain fields, more mountainous and forest areas.
    Its practically the same strategy as guerrilla warfare.

    Even chera's never commanded such a large army, the landscape offered enough guarantee for their security.

    In front of a 10,000 personal army with same type of weaponry even Hercules cannot stand a chance.

    Remember Babar, he won over Lodhi's one lakh massive army with 12K men, not by captaincy, but by canon fire - which caused havoc among Lodhi's giants!

    Alexander was master of strategy in territories that did not require a straight fight.

    While Rajendra's 900K men may not have been his own, it would have been associates of kings who stood with him.
    Without that sort of brute force, he could not have taken India then, it was not just a system of warring tribes like how Ashoka trooped.

    - R
  • >Sorry, I made a mistake..the population of Madras Presidency according to >1901 census was one crore odd. Where did RRC have 9,00,000 troops?
    >My argument still holds.
    >R Narasimhan

    I think it is not necessary the population has always increased. The world might have had more population at some point of time and then decreased due to natural calamities, break and spread of diseases like cholera, Blake,Pox etc. After population decreased at some stage, might have again started increasing due to better medical facilities.

    Now we estimate due to birth control world population may stablize at some year like 2050 and then may even start decreasing. I think countries like Norway, sweden witness negative population growth even now
  • Jeevan

    You are also missing some points on the argument right, please note that 9L people not necessarily were Rajendra's own men and they were not just warriors (Farmers / black smiths etc).

    Also, Cholas focussed more on Naval than Land fare. It makes geographical sense, ruling the world via the naval route from Nagai makes more sense than the land route up north being in a peninsula.
    Also navy was purely Rajendra's men vs the land tirade.

    While Ashoka and Alexander had fewer options hence they had to use the Land route, even Akhbar the great had not gone beyond India via seas.

    Ruling most of india and the seas is NO joke, if you feel that is a less accomplishment, I guess none of us here have an answer.

    Yes he could have but probably it did not make sense. Also - Chola rule's success was due to central administration policy, it would be practically impossible to do that with a very large territory for the longer term. While Naval options they act more as a 'trade' circuit than a subordinate country it made sense to amass wealth that way.

    Does it apply anyway now?

    - R
  • Also the far eastern kingdoms were stronger and it is equally tough to lord over/keep them in check.

    Rajendra accompalished both, peninsular and far east/lanka
  • Honestly SPS sir, they didn't.

    Alexander's son was a minor (or not even born, I think) when Alexander died,
    and the empire got split up between his generals - Selucus, Ptolemy and
    others. In the end, I don't think any of Philip's dynasty actually survived
    to rule even in their home territories of Macedon and Greece after that.

    His empire was a one-king wonder!

    On the other hand, the Selucids and Ptolemies ruled in Asia and Egypt for
    centuries - at least, the Ptolemies rules right upto Julius Caesar's time,
    when the last of the Ptolemies became Caesar's mistress, in pretty much
    every sense of the word! ;)
  • THANK YOU SO MUCH DEAR SHASHWATH ... (sps will do)



    kind regards / sps
  • Jeevan,

    You are free to brush aside everything as myth....

    But in Mahabaratha war, the army formation is counted in 'Akshauhini'.
    Pandavas had, i think, 7 Akshauhini's and Kaurava's had 11.

    Please refer the links for the count of Akshauhini...

    You may very well argue that these are mere myths...but everything in nature
    is a cycle. Phylosophically, its said that Krishna could have easily avoided
    the war, but the population has to be controlled and hence the war. At the
    end 39,36,600 humans and 15,74,640 animals were killed (refer link above).

    Out of this huge number, only 12 survived the war. the five Pandavas,
    Krishna, Satyaki, Ashwatthama, Kripacharya, Yuyutsu, Vrishakethu and

    This number is only the people who participated in the war. Then think about
    the population of the coutnries involved (women, children, old men, men who
    are not soldiers or in the support service, the army that has to take care
    of the country when the kings are fighting at kurukshetra..etc etc.

    If we can see a growth of population from 30 crore to 120 crores in just 70
    years, the same 120 crore to 30 crore is very much possibile in half a
    century to one century.
  • Dear Jeevan

    Pardon my ignorance...what are you getting at?

    Is it the number? Is it the achievement?Is it the maritime achievent? what is it you do not believe?

    You can sight GenchizKhan Timurlane Alexander Hannibal as examples...did they sustain their achievements are leave things behind for eternity?

    The Chola architecture, mettulurgy, local administration, irrigation and land reforms are still admired by experts not to mention their maritime achievements...

    So I think you are getting things a bit muddled here


    If I can stop one heart from breaking,I shall not live in vain;
    If I can ease one life the aching,Or cool one pain,
    Or help one fainting robin, Into his nest again,
    I shall not live in vain.
    Emily Dickinson

  • Incidentally ChndraGupta Maurya is said to have fielded

    Chandragupta fielded an army of 600,000 men and 9,000 war elephants (Pliny, Natural History VI, 22.4 against Selucus Nikator

    so the man power was not an issue


    If I can stop one heart from breaking,I shall not live in vain;
    If I can ease one life the aching,Or cool one pain,
    Or help one fainting robin, Into his nest again,
    I shall not live in vain.
    Emily Dickinson

  • Dear Narasmihan

    We cannot compare the Madras Presidency of 1901's population to RJCs empire.

    The demographics were different there was polygamy people had more children as they knew they would die in battles and diseases


    If I can stop one heart from breaking,I shall not live in vain;
    If I can ease one life the aching,Or cool one pain,
    Or help one fainting robin, Into his nest again,
    I shall not live in vain.
    Emily Dickinson


Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Top Posters