Just putting my opinion below and am welcome to be corrected
From what I have read from history, in the medival period the concept of India was pretty loose. There were many kingdoms, some strong, some weak. Allauddin was the first king after the 7th century to go deep south and deep east and bring it under one banner. Even Prithviraj Chauhan had control only over Ajmer and Delhi + some areas up north that's it. There were far more kingdoms in east/south/central powerful than Prithviraj's kingdom but they could not be bothered about fighting Ghori. Ghori was defeated in the later battles within India with the Chandelas (who gave us the Khajuraho temples)
Well, thanks for the information. But if that's the case, then still I don't understand why other kingdoms like south and central ones didn't help Prithviraj in the first place. Why wait till he looted north? But may be now if I come to think of it, there were distance constraints too in those times. We didnt have facilities like mobile phones, cars to pass the news quickly.
I know that in those times, every other kingdom apart from your own was mainly like enemy, but I feel bad that they couldnt think of India as a nation and fight for it.
Also the Afghans/Central Asians had far more better tactics (probably having fought many wars) and better seige/offensive weapons. Babur who came later won in Panipat and Khanwa (against Rana Sanga) primarily on the strength of his artillery. Artillery and guns were unknown in India before Babur came. So this also points to the fact that our weapons were outdated, tactics were poor and this led to our repeated defeats against the invaders.
hmm thats interesting and totally different point of view. However, I am not equipped with that much knowledge on this issue to comment on it. But I still feel that mugals won cause of their fraudulent strategies and indian kings never lost grip on their own rules
