Hindu Holy War?
- Thread starter Troyer IV
- Start date
Nothing official I'd think, just the generic "they don't believe in what I believe" reason for wars against opposing religions.
Even that I believe was very rare. I'm no expert, but I remember reading about the Shahi having relative difficulty rallying their people to fight off the Ghazvanid invaders on religious grounds. The Ghazvanids, meanwhile, had thousands holy warriors in their armies.
Obviously, there's more going on there - the Ghazvanids could motivate with the opportunity for plunder, but I think it illustrates the point. Outside of the Abrahamic faiths, religious war never really developed. The closest I can think is certain later sects of Buddhism in Japan, and even then there was a lot more to the ideology of say, the Ikko-Ikki than just religion.
Obviously, there's more going on there - the Ghazvanids could motivate with the opportunity for plunder, but I think it illustrates the point. Outside of the Abrahamic faiths, religious war never really developed. The closest I can think is certain later sects of Buddhism in Japan, and even then there was a lot more to the ideology of say, the Ikko-Ikki than just religion.
Dragos Cel Mare
Banned
I seem to remember an earlier post in this forum that said that Hindus did conduct genocidal warfare against each other for worshiping the wrong sets of Gods, while they also persecuted Buddhists.
@Practical Lobster, Buddhism did have a violent side; one of the Four Heavenly Kings was explicitly armed with a lance and cudgel with which to defeat non-believers (Source is John Man's Kublai Khan).
@Practical Lobster, Buddhism did have a violent side; one of the Four Heavenly Kings was explicitly armed with a lance and cudgel with which to defeat non-believers (Source is John Man's Kublai Khan).
Last edited:
You're right, Dragos, however I don't think this is what the OP was asking about. Communal violence and genocide where religion is involved is somewhat universal to humanity. Similarly having a warlike god is common to many pantheons.
Neither necessarily equate to having a doctrine of holy war. Upon further reflection saying "never" was probably too absolutist, but I still would argue that religious war had its origin among the Abrahamic faiths.
Neither necessarily equate to having a doctrine of holy war. Upon further reflection saying "never" was probably too absolutist, but I still would argue that religious war had its origin among the Abrahamic faiths.
Dragos Cel Mare
Banned
Where does 'Communal violence and genocide where religion is involved' differ from 'religious war'?
In Ancient Mesopotamia, there were wars in order to avenge the desecration of a particular God's image, as well as control a Holy City/the approaches to a Holy City. I don't understand the difference between that and Religious War.
Hinduism, while being one faith, was too diverse for something as simple as a Hindu Holy War. You did have individual kingdoms fight others for being more focused towards one God than another; the Vaishnavite kings of Mysore tore down Shaivite temples, for example.
Dragos Cel Mare
Banned
Well, Troyer only asked for something similar to a Crusade and Jihad; perhaps this satisfies the requirement?
Dragos Cel Mare
Banned
Did the Romans express contempt for the Celtic Gods and regard their own as superior?
Or think that the Celtic Gods are robbing focus away from their own?
Last edited:
Cueg
Banned
This is basically an argument over semantics. What does Jihad mean and what were the Crusades?
"In Arabic, the word jihād is a noun meaning "to strive, to apply oneself, to struggle, to persevere."
It was also used as a pretext for perpetual and constant warfare against the Byzantines.
The Crusades's were, initially, conducting in response to a request by Alexios I Komnenos.
Now, is there a theological basis for any of the aforementioned conflicts done in the name of their respective religions? I don't care. We could sit here for hours and argue about about scripture and holy text. Let us instead look at casual relationships if we choose to continue this discussion.
In response to the OP, Hinduism and "holy war" have coexisted quite well. Let us look at Vijayanagar.
"historians agree the founders were supported and inspired by Vidyaranya, a saint at the Sringeri monastery to fight the Muslim invasion of South India"
Nilakanta Sastri 1955, p. 216
Kamath 2001, p. 160
Don't get so caught up on labels. The idea of conflict in the name of religion is not something that's inherently unique to any one faith. It can, and will be used as a means to justify action on a relatively massive scale. The Crusades killed off the pesky knights that frequently took to a life of banditry. The Jihad of the early Caliphates kept their remaining enemy, the Byzantines, from reconquering the lost lands and kept the military elites of Syria and Mesopotamia busy. The medieval empire of Vijayanagar was manifested into being in response to Sultanate incursions into Southern India. After the threat had subsided, so to did the concept of holy war. Centuries later, this was revived in the form of the Marathas. A state dedicated to the irradiation of the Mughals. After the Han overthrew the yoke of the Mongol's they spent centuries wagging a cultural war on all things that weren't Confucian Chinese, and spent blood and treasure building a wall of immense size. Don't think the Ming qualify? The Yongle Emperor would disagree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yongle_Emperor's_campaigns_against_the_Mongols
"In Arabic, the word jihād is a noun meaning "to strive, to apply oneself, to struggle, to persevere."
It was also used as a pretext for perpetual and constant warfare against the Byzantines.
The Crusades's were, initially, conducting in response to a request by Alexios I Komnenos.
Now, is there a theological basis for any of the aforementioned conflicts done in the name of their respective religions? I don't care. We could sit here for hours and argue about about scripture and holy text. Let us instead look at casual relationships if we choose to continue this discussion.
In response to the OP, Hinduism and "holy war" have coexisted quite well. Let us look at Vijayanagar.
"historians agree the founders were supported and inspired by Vidyaranya, a saint at the Sringeri monastery to fight the Muslim invasion of South India"
Nilakanta Sastri 1955, p. 216
Kamath 2001, p. 160
Don't get so caught up on labels. The idea of conflict in the name of religion is not something that's inherently unique to any one faith. It can, and will be used as a means to justify action on a relatively massive scale. The Crusades killed off the pesky knights that frequently took to a life of banditry. The Jihad of the early Caliphates kept their remaining enemy, the Byzantines, from reconquering the lost lands and kept the military elites of Syria and Mesopotamia busy. The medieval empire of Vijayanagar was manifested into being in response to Sultanate incursions into Southern India. After the threat had subsided, so to did the concept of holy war. Centuries later, this was revived in the form of the Marathas. A state dedicated to the irradiation of the Mughals. After the Han overthrew the yoke of the Mongol's they spent centuries wagging a cultural war on all things that weren't Confucian Chinese, and spent blood and treasure building a wall of immense size. Don't think the Ming qualify? The Yongle Emperor would disagree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yongle_Emperor's_campaigns_against_the_Mongols
Dragos Cel Mare
Banned
No, although there were wars and purges of Taoists in China.
Edit: Also, the Crusades were, according to Thomas Asbridge's The First Crusade, a means to resolve the cognitive dissonance between Jesus' teachings (as they were perceived at that time) and the constant warfare conducted by the Knightly Class.
I know it's a typo for eradicate, but still, I would love to read a timeline where the Marathas irradiate the Mughals.
Flocculencio
Donor
Basically this. People have always latched on to various reasons for conflict. Even in modern times- is it right to say the Sinhalese massacres of Jaffna Tamils, or the Burmese massacres of Rohingya are holy wars? Yes and no- looking back at historical conflicts, the situation on the ground might have been indistinguishable from these modern ones. These are conflicts which are caught up in intersections of all sorts of identities (state, national, ethnic, religious etc.).
There is the idea of the Hindu sadhu soldier fighting on behalf of a Hindu religious order starting from the Delhi Sultanate (14thC) onwards, though they became increasingly mercenary as the Mughal period progressed. The Sant (which would eventually spawn Sikhism) and Lingayat traditions in India were particularly prone to generating armed sadhus, with their anti-Brahmanic, egalitarian and self-abnegating ideologies.
That said, Hindu armed sadhus tended to show only true devotion for their sect/guru and would fight each other as much as they did Muslims. Certainly many had no problem serving under the Mughals and the Emperors positioned themselves as 'honest brokers' regulating disputes between the various sadhu bands.