Ghaznavids had large number of Hindus and Turks as slaves in their army

[Samandri]

The core of the Ghaznavid army was the slave force (ghilman). The slave army of Ghaznavids consisted of Indians/Hindus, Turks and some Tajiks. The Indians/Hindus in the army resembled the Turks in their lack of home ties , lack of local connections. Like Arabs and Kurds, the Indians/Hindus had their own commander, the "Sipahsalar-i-Hinduyan" , and had their own quarters in Ghazni. Religion was not bar to their employment , and the anonymous historian of Sistan (in Tarikh-i-Sistan) complains bitterly of the slaughter and violence to the Muslims and Christians of Zarang in 1003 AD by Mahmud's pagan Indian troops.

The Turks predominated in the slave army but Hindu soldiers formed a counterweight to the Turk soldiers. When the Turkish commander of the army in India, Ahmad Inaltegin , proved rebellious , Sultan Masud have this important post to a Hindu ghulam , one Tilak , formerly an official translator in the administration. The Indian campaigns of Ghaznavids provided constant supply of the Indian ghulams. In one of the campaign, 53,000 captives were carried off from Qannauj , and those slaves could be bought for two to ten dirhams in Ghazni.

Hindu soldiers were generally more reliable and loyal than Turks. When the brief reign of Muhammad bin Mahmud Ghaznavi was collapsing and many if his troops were defecting to his elder brother Masud, it was Muhammad's Hindu soldiers under their commander Suvendhray who remained loyal.

Reference: "Ghaznaved military organization" by C.E.Bosworth

[Kakar-Wardak]

Did he have Pashtuns in his army?

[Samandri]

Did he have Pashtuns in his army?

Yes. Afghans/Pashtuns and Khilji nomads were free non-regular mercenaries in their armies, recruited on the occasion of the campaigns......while the Turks and Hindus had slave status. There were also Arab cavalry in Ghaznavid army. The Hindu soldiers in the contemporary sources have been clearly called "ghilman" and "mamalik", meaning slaves. They were slave soldiers like Central Asian Turks. In contrast local Khiljis and Afghans were recruited as free non-regular mercenaries on the occasion of campaigns.

[Firdousi]

The core of the Ghaznavid army was the slave force (ghilman). The slave army of Ghaznavids consisted of Indians/Hindus, Turks and some Tajiks. The Indians/Hindus in the army resembled the Turks in their lack of home ties , lack of local connections. Like Arabs and Kurds, the Indians/Hindus had their own commander, the "Sipahsalar-i-Hinduyan" , and had their own quarters in Ghazni. Religion was not bar to their employment , and the anonymous historian of Sistan (in Tarikh-i-Sistan) complains bitterly of the slaughter and violence to the Muslims and Christians of Zarang in 1003 AD by Mahmud's pagan Indian troops.

The Turks predominated in the slave army but Hindu soldiers formed a counterweight to the Turk soldiers. When the Turkish commander of the army in India, Ahmad Inaltegin , proved rebellious , Sultan Masud have this important post to a Hindu ghulam , one Tilak , formerly an official translator in the administration. The Indian campaigns of Ghaznavids provided constant supply of the Indian ghulams. In one of the campaign, 53,000 captives were carried off from Qannauj , and those slaves could be bought for two to ten dirhams in Ghazni.

Hindu soldiers were generally more reliable and loyal than Turks. When the brief reign of Muhammad bin Mahmud Ghaznavi was collapsing and many if his troops were defecting to his elder brother Masud, it was Muhammad's Hindu soldiers under their commander Suvendhray who remained loyal.

Reference: "Ghaznaved military organization" by C.E.Bosworth

Thanks for sharing, Samandri. Please, can you share about more info about Tajiks role in the Ghaznawid army.

[Karachi]

The core of the Ghaznavid army was the slave force (ghilman). The slave army of Ghaznavids consisted of Indians/Hindus, Turks and some Tajiks. The Indians/Hindus in the army resembled the Turks in their lack of home ties , lack of local connections. Like Arabs and Kurds, the Indians/Hindus had their own commander, the "Sipahsalar-i-Hinduyan" , and had their own quarters in Ghazni. Religion was not bar to their employment , and the anonymous historian of Sistan (in Tarikh-i-Sistan) complains bitterly of the slaughter and violence to the Muslims and Christians of Zarang in 1003 AD by Mahmud's pagan Indian troops.

The Turks predominated in the slave army but Hindu soldiers formed a counterweight to the Turk soldiers. When the Turkish commander of the army in India, Ahmad Inaltegin , proved rebellious , Sultan Masud have this important post to a Hindu ghulam , one Tilak , formerly an official translator in the administration. The Indian campaigns of Ghaznavids provided constant supply of the Indian ghulams. In one of the campaign, 53,000 captives were carried off from Qannauj , and those slaves could be bought for two to ten dirhams in Ghazni.

Hindu soldiers were generally more reliable and loyal than Turks. When the brief reign of Muhammad bin Mahmud Ghaznavi was collapsing and many if his troops were defecting to his elder brother Masud, it was Muhammad's Hindu soldiers under their commander Suvendhray who remained loyal.

Reference: "Ghaznaved military organization" by C.E.Bosworth

Did these hindus marry in to Pashtun women?????

[Iblis_Efreetzai]

Did these hindus marry in to Pashtun women?????

So your Pashtun-wannabe fantasies can come true?

[Samandri]

Did these hindus marry in to Pashtun women?????

They were captives from the Indian campaigns of Sultan Mahmud, family members of your ancestors (Kannauj mentioned in the article is in your U.P), sold from 2 to 10 dirhims in the market of Ghazni...

It seems the etymology of Hindukush is correct after all.....tens of thousands of slaves from India must have died while being transported across Hindukush

[mungojerry]

Did he have Pashtuns in his army?

no becos they were busy doing bacha baazi.

[mungojerry]

They were captives from the Indian campaigns of Sultan Mahmud, family members of your ancestors (Kannauj mentioned in the article is in your U.P), sold from 2 to 10 dirhims in the market of Ghazni...

It seems the etymology of Hindukush is correct after all.....tens of thousands of slaves from India must have died while being transported across Hindukush

why he had so many puny Indians in his army?

Hindukush coming from Hindu Khush. it means 'Hindu happy' ("Indians happy"...to see beautiful mountains), or it comes fram "Hindu Koh" (Indian mountains).

[Elite Pakhtun]

it means 'Hindu happy' ("Indians happy"...to see beautiful mountains)

Hilarious.

[Samandri]

Most probably Rajputs and other Kshatriya among the slaves were enlisted as soldiers while the rest were sold into slave markets of central Asia and Iran.............

[Karachi]

They were captives from the Indian campaigns of Sultan Mahmud, family members of your ancestors (Kannauj mentioned in the article is in your U.P), sold from 2 to 10 dirhims in the market of Ghazni...

It seems the etymology of Hindukush is correct after all.....tens of thousands of slaves from India must have died while being transported across Hindukush

The name hindu kush comes from the Kushan empire, which makes much more sense, the other theory is complete bs, which has no basis in history, it is more like myth created by muslims because of their hatred for hindus. If hindus can easily survive in the Himalayas, I am sure they could easily survive in the Hindu Kush too

[Samandri]

The earliest source in which word Hindu Kush word appears, is Ibn-i-Batuta's safarnama of 1334 AD, and he clearly says that it means 'Hindu killer'.........He says ;

"“.....Another motive for our journey was fear of the snow, for in the middle of this route there is a mountain called Hindu Kush, meaning ‘Hindu-killer’, because many of the male and female slaves transported from India die in these mountains because of the violent cold and the quantity of snow.”

[Karachi]

They were not living in the mountains.. they were slaves. Keep in mind that you are a slave. You will always be our slave. Even if we don't rule over your land we will rule over your minds basically because you Indian people, whether Pakistanis or Indians, you guys would kill your mothers in order to look like us and get our approval.

Its a master-slave relationship and it will always will be so. You can't change 4000 years of domination. :D

lol, get your facts right, it is you people who are our slaves, you are the ones doing all servile menial jobs in Pakistan for us, not us for you. Pashtuns in Pakistan for example are willing to die for Punjabis

[Karachi]

Ibn Batuta was not from the region, what would he know? all these travelers got many things wrong and you think Himalayas are hot, where hindus live?