From 1501 to 1505 Sikandar Lodi sacked Dholpur, a dependency of Gwalior, so thoroughly that trees and orchards extending to fourteen miles around wer… - Sikandar Khan Lodi
" "From 1501 to 1505 Sikandar Lodi sacked Dholpur, a dependency of Gwalior, so thoroughly that trees and orchards extending to fourteen miles around were “torn up from roots”. Houses and temples were destroyed and mosques built with their debris.”’ (57)
About Sikandar Khan Lodi
Sikandar Khan Lodi (Persian: سکندر لودی; died 21 November 1517), born Nizam Khan (Persian: نظام خان), was Sultan of the Delhi Sultanate between 1489 and 1517. He became ruler of the Lodi dynasty after the death of his father Bahlul Khan Lodi in July 1489. The second and most successful ruler of the Lodi dynasty of the Delhi sultanate, he was also a poet of the Persian language and prepared a diwan of 9000 verses. He made an effort to recover the lost territories which once were a part of the Delhi Sultanate and was able to expand the territory controlled by the Lodi Dynasty.
Related quotes. More quotes will automatically load as you scroll down, or you can use the load more buttons.
Additional quotes by Sikandar Khan Lodi
He got the temples of the infidels destroyed. No trace of infidelity was left at the place in Mathura where the infidels used to take bath. He got caravanserais constructed so that people could stay there, and also the shops of various professionals such as the butchers, bawarchis, nanbais and sweetmeatsellers. If a Hindu went there for bathing even by mistake, he was made to lose his limbs and punished severely. No Hindu could get shaved at that place. No barber would go near a Hindu, whatever be the payment offered.
Advanced Search Filters
Filter search results by source, date, and more with our premium search tools.
These differences are generally sought to be explained away or minimised, and even eminent scholars demur to pointed references to the oppressive acts of bigoted Muslim rulers like Firuz Tughluq and Sikandar Lodi even though proved by the unimpeachable testimony of their own confessions. Such an attitude may be due to praiseworthy motives, but is entirely out of place in historical writings. (xxxi)