Also can you please bring up some real historical reference about Ghori begging for his life and all the war tactics that you have described? Anything by an unbiased historian before will suffice I believe. I think this talk is not about comparing the ruling styles of Hindu and Muslim Kings of India and we shall keep it this way. But this is an encyclopedia article can we all accept an account of this man's life that is perhaps unexciting and certainly not titillating, but contains the facts as they are generally known, without bias or speculation? Įach of these versions may contain kernels of truth we can't know for sure. A third version paints both men as sex-obsessed, with Prithviraj as a lazy philanderer, and Muhammad as a cruel rapist.
Īnother version paints Prithviraj as a lazy oppressor of Muslims, and Muhammad as their noble liberator. One version paints Pritiviraj as a saintly figure who is, like all Rajputs, completely invincible in battle unless deceived by the dirty tricks of the unscrupulous and cruel Muslims. This article has alternated back and forth over the past few months with several versions that paint very different pictures of Prithviraj III and his adversary, Muhammad of Ghor. However, their love marriage was shortlived, as soon after that, the Muslim invader Muhammed of Ghori again challenged Prithviraj and completely defeated him. There are numerous poems and scriptures written about the passion of their romance. She was the most beautiful Queen in the world then. Prithviraj had a huge very large army Sanyogita, the princess of Kanauj, married Rajput king Prithviraj Chauhan after he won the first battle of Tarain against Muhammed of Ghori.
Napoleon99 talk25 July UTC He was a great king for millions of Hindus who could not survive from being butchered by Muslims led by Muhammed Ghori, the Great. A complete revamp, citing historical sources is required, removing anecdotal stories. The usage of words like "Muslim treachery", "patented Muslim subterfuge" and a bunch of adjectives are unnecessary and makes the article look like a propaganda pamphlet. No historical evidence has the details mentioned here, minute by minute account of the war that occurred in seems like a page out of popular mythology, without any credible historical reference and source. Overall article, particularly the last four sections are clearly biased without any historical reference.