Rahul Mehta Gandhinagar LsCandidate

Pls google more on Hemchandra Vikramaditya ---- the story that he was "unlucky" and a stray arrow blinded him, isnt right . He led over 35 battles in front row, and he was 34 times lucky and luck cant favor anyone all the time.
.
We should avoid using word Hemu. It was a derogatroy name , like given by Moguls and later promoted by paid Indian historians like thapar etc. We should use the names such as Hemchandra Vikramaditya, Raja Vikramaditya or just Hemchandra.
.
The story told is that if a stray array had not killed Hemachandra, then it would have been end of Islamist rule in India. Well, consider following facts :-
1. Hemachandra had led over 35 battles from front. One can call it brave, but then one can be lucky all the tie. Luck favored him 34 times, and he was never hit by arrow or spear or a cannonball,. But luck doesnt favor all all the time.
.
2 Hemachandra had to lead from front as he had no dependable hierarchy. He could not create hierarchy or he did not. So his death resulted in fall of his army and empire like house of cards. This didnt happen with Moguls. When Humayun died in accident, Mogul immidiately had a new king, Akbar, and a designated caretaker as new king was just 11 years old. IOW, there was a good common structure to replace the apex.
.
3. Hemachandra depended heavily on Afghans for cannons. So if Hemachandra had defeated Moguls, then he would have anyway lost second round against Afghans as back then very few Hindu has good cannons. This weakness lated till end. Even Maratha didnt have cannons of their own, and depended on Shia and later French for cannons,.
.
My reading is that Afghans could have easily dethroned Hemachandra. But Afghans saw that they cant defeat Moguls. And Afghans needed huge man power to defeat Moguls. Afghans didnt have that much numerical strength, So Afghans decided to let a Hindu Raja be in front, as Hindu Raja would be a better person to motivate Hindus to join infantry in large numbers. All along, it was Hibdus who were running infantry and Afghans who were running cannons i.e. artillery. So had Hemachandra defeated Moguls, then in next round, they would have lost to Afghans, as Afghans had better artillery.
.
So Hemachandra's success was because Hindus dumped other Hindu kinds and followers to Hemachandra, That increased strength of Hemachandra, but didnt increase per head strength of Hindus. Due to several reasons such as inheritance in temples, inheritance in kingship and all positions, usury etc, the Hindus remained weaker. Hemchandra could not, and did not, do anything to get rid of structural weakness. (something which sikh could do 100s of years later).
.
So I request all to google on Hemachandra Vikramaditya and search for answers to following Q.
.
1. Why did Afghans chose Hemachandra as leader?
.
2. Why couldnt/didnt Hemachandra made a common heiarchy below him, which can operate without his presence and can create new apex in case of his death
.
3. When Humayun died, Mogals didnt fall like house of cards. The immidiately took 11 year old Akbar as next king, and took Beharam Khan as his caretaker. But on death of Hemachandra, his Army and Empire collapsed like a house of cards. Why couldnt army of Hemachandra regroup like Moguls?
.
4. Why is that Hemachandra had to lead over 35 battles from front, thereby increasing risk of getting hit? Akbar hardly led any battle from front which increased his safety
.
Also, try to get information on who had better/more cannons. My guess is that Moguls had more/better cannons than Aghans, who had more/better cannons than Hindu kings. The reason why Hemachandra won initial rounds was because a large number of Hindus joined him, which increased his numerical strength. So he won first rounds. But he could never make cannons as good as Moguls. In end, its always weapons which win over crowd. And so Moguls won, as they had better cannons.