Invasion of Mahmud Ghazni, Ghori and Timur

Mahmud was an extraordinary victor and he never confronted any loss in his 17 intrusions of India. Then again, Ghori needed to confront various losses. Not just this he lost his life on account of his adversary in India and didn't arrive at his realm of Ghazni. Indeed, even in Central Asia, Mahmud was more fruitful and Ghori needed to confront rout.

Mahmud didn't attempt to set up his domain in India. He was keener on ravaging the abundance of India. Mahmud was all the more a devotee who needed to spread Islam in India. He annihilated sanctuaries and symbols of Hindu divine beings. His assaults were for the most part coordinated on the strict spots of the Hindus. Ghori then again coordinated his assaults on significant towns and fortifications.

At the point when we think about the tactical characteristics of Mahmud and Ghori, we can say that Ghori is a dark figure and he stands no examination with Mahmud. Additionally, regarding spreading Islam, Mahmud was more forceful and he annihilated a few spots of love of the Hindus, broke their objects of worship, and changed them over to Islam. So as an aficionado Muslim, Mahmud surpasses Ghori. Mahmud's level-headed in attacking India, as per the contemporary history specialist Utabi was to spread Islam. He was given the title of 'Symbol Breaker'.

However such cases are questioned by a few present-day history specialists, yet to his contemporary Muslim antiquarians, "Mahmud was without a doubt an extraordinary Ghazi and the best ruler of his age." For a long time, he has been viewed as the 'most exceedingly terrible looter of sanctuaries' by the Hindus overall.