Muloghonto Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 Just now, rahulrulezz said: Fkc off Islam just came roughly 1300 years back. And we are comparing the world after. Even Alexander didn't go around converting people. Heck he even spared life or Porus and asked him to rule under him. Compare that to your Baburs, Ghouri, Qasims etc Alexander was better educated, in 330 BC, than almost any muslim ruler has been, in history of Islam. Most people don't know this, but Alexander's actual teacher (his direct,living Guru) was Aristotle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surajmal Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 Hopefully, movie ends at the jauhar scene. Should be a timely reminder for all the fence sitting hindus. rahulrulezz 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeyboardWarrior Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 2 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: And i specifically said, entire reason why Europe is the maibaap of the world, is because almost no Euro king in history promptly annihilated cities and forced people to convert. I said from the data we have, it becomes apparent, that MOST non-muslim kings, do not genocide the losers. You challenged that - on what basis ? on the top of my mind, i can tell you two, Alexander & Genghis Khan , now dont tell me that you dont have the data for thre genocide conquest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 3 minutes ago, surajmal said: Hopefully, movie ends at the jauhar scene. Should be a timely reminder for all the fence sitting hindus. Hindus need a reminder, but the jauhar sends the wrong message IMO. We shouldn't be like the Rajputs - talk about unity and fail (which we are inching towards), then go on suicide mission while all civilians kill themselves. Then we all die. We die = we lose. End of story. There are other examples to follow. Perhaps not Indian, but that shouldn't stop us from doing whats best for us. sandeep 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeyboardWarrior Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 13 minutes ago, rahulrulezz said: Fkc off Islam just came roughly 1300 years back. And we are comparing the world after. Even Alexander didn't go around converting people. Heck he even spared life or Porus and asked him to rule under him. Compare that to your Baburs, Ghouri, Qasims etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 1 minute ago, KeyboardWarrior said: on the top of my mind, i can tell you two, Alexander & Genghis Khan , now dont tell me that you dont have the data for thre genocide conquest. Sure. And I agree. My point still stands : I said most, not all. Your point is still incorrect : You said, and i quote: " tell me one king in the world who didnt do all this ? why everyone pick only muslims ?" To which, i answered your question. I told you of not one, but MANY kings who did not do this, even with power to do so. I also said, why people pick on the Muslims - because what we know of history shows, that in the last 2000 years, more Muslim kings - almost everywhere in the world (with SE Asia perhaps the only exception), are more prone to a little bit of genocide than not, while for rest of the world, barring a couple of cultural exceptions here and there (nomad steppe Indo-European/Turkic/Mongol cultures for e.g.), most kings in position to do so did not genocide a city and/or convert its population. I don't seem to see what the problem is, for you to continue this discussion forward and address what i just said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
surajmal Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 3 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: Hindus need a reminder, but the jauhar sends the wrong message IMO. We shouldn't be like the Rajputs - talk about unity and fail (which we are inching towards), then go on suicide mission while all civilians kill themselves. Then we all die. We die = we lose. End of story. There are other examples to follow. Perhaps not Indian, but that shouldn't stop us from doing whats best for us. Thats what I mean. Ignoring/not doing anything equals suicide ala Rajputs. Time to take the initiative. Muloghonto 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeyboardWarrior Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 2 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: Sure. And I agree. My point still stands : I said most, not all. Your point is still incorrect : You said, and i quote: " tell me one king in the world who didnt do all this ? why everyone pick only muslims ?" To which, i answered your question. I told you of not one, but MANY kings who did not do this, even with power to do so. I also said, why people pick on the Muslims - because what we know of history shows, that in the last 2000 years, more Muslim kings - almost everywhere in the world (with SE Asia perhaps the only exception), are more prone to a little bit of genocide than not, while for rest of the world, barring a couple of cultural exceptions here and there (nomad steppe Indo-European/Turkic/Mongol cultures for e.g.), most kings in position to do so did not genocide a city and/or convert its population. I don't seem to see what the problem is, for you to continue this discussion forward and address what i just said. Maan, you are twisting your words according to the situation, changing goal posts here and there, i am not intrested to play with you .... i told you two name already .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rahulrulezz Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 1 hour ago, Muloghonto said: ^^ Though i agree the Marathas were far superior in statecraft to the Rajputs, even they suffered from the critical flaw of confederacy. It becomes apparent that the reason Marathas came close to being a great power and failed are two fold: 1. Like rajputs, they could not devise a successful, long term plan of imperialism, they fractured in Scindhias, Bhonsales and such, with the Peshwa running to the Brits and selling off the future of the Maratha empire, just to protect himself against the other major clans !! They were not as bad as rajputs, but their confederate nature was fully exploited by the British 2. Marathas came to power as a guerrilla army. By guerrilla warfare, they brought a major world power (Mughal Empire) to its knees. And then it became, for a 30-50 year period, a major world power. But they forgot, that they are no longer guerrilla rebels, its THEY who are the empire. And as such, failed to reform their military system. The Pindaris work great, when you are raiding a state power and inflicting 'death by a thousand cuts, will run away when you try to challenge me, until i meet you on MY terms'. But what the heck do Pindaris do when THEY are the state power, when THEY have to protect their domain and fight pitched battles ? Be useless and die. That is not to say, India didn't have good statecraft polities. Vijayanagara was our last, non-muslim polity who had a clear plan, were united, had great long term picture, etc. So were the Cholas, Palas, Rashtrakutas, Guptas and the Magadh dynasties. but the people who get all the limelight today- Rajputs and the Marathas - they were an embarrassment for the big picture in the long term. Rajputs more so than Marathas. Firstly, a good post and valid points. However I want to elaborate a bit more and might want to correct the context 1) you just put 1450 to 1850 in your first bullet point. The reason they split into Scidias, Bhonsles later in 1700s was because they were all family members and they wanted to share power with everyone. There was no concept of killing your cousins (forget about killing blood brothers) for power. Your point about selling to Bite was way after in early1800s when concept of Monarchy system was too late against advanced Brits 2) they tried but Mughals never let them. Gurella warfsre is the first step to create a imperial state. But Akbar to Aurengzeb were severely brutal against Marathas and never let them have a sniff. Eventually they did set up state in middle of 1700. Problem was, it was too early in the game fir them to fight against Abdali as they didn't know the art of creating alliances. Plus on top and most importantly , they were Hindus and were not brutal. Also, Hindus don't have the concept of brotherhood which IMO was the biggest reason why noone helped each other. On your last point, Bollywood is based in Mumbai so it's normal to see the portyals of Marathas. What I am disappointed in are the Rajputs. If they together and educated about war planing and long term vision from 1350s to 1700, Mughlon main itni takkat nahi thi ki woh Rajputton se jeeten PS I am aware that Marathas are eventually also Rajputs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maniac Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 4 hours ago, KeyboardWarrior said: so Akbar considered as the saint in india ? No he is not. What was the point of your counter question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeyboardWarrior Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, maniac said: No he is not. What was the point of your counter question? thn why your media and mostly indian people praises him ? akbar and khilji, both of them re same for me. Edited October 10, 2017 by KeyboardWarrior Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maniac Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 Bollywood is thrash ....Glorifying these idiots... will we see Hollywood ever make a love story about Hitler and his mistress? only in India especially Bollywood we glorify these tyrants.,,don't get the obsession with Akbar etc. Atleast Pakistani have the Zia Ul Haq revisionist history and Stockholm syndrome excuse...what is ours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maniac Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 1 minute ago, KeyboardWarrior said: thn why your media and mostly indian people praises him ? akbar and khilji, both of them re same for me. To me too...Akbar was a tyrant as well but he did have a couple of redeeming qualities like abolishing Jizya tax etc...so pretty much we had to make someone a poster boy for the dark ages. Goes to show how much of a tyrants the rest were. rahulrulezz 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maniac Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 7 minutes ago, rahulrulezz said: Firstly, a good post and valid points. However I want to elaborate a bit more and might want to correct the context 1) you just put 1450 to 1850 in your first bullet point. The reason they split into Scidias, Bhonsles later in 1700s was because they were all family members and they wanted to share power with everyone. There was no concept of killing your cousins (forget about killing blood brothers) for power. Your point about selling to Bite was way after in early1800s when concept of Monarchy system was too late against advanced Brits 2) they tried but Mughals never let them. Gurella warfsre is the first step to create a imperial state. But Akbar to Aurengzeb were severely brutal against Marathas and never let them have a sniff. Eventually they did set up state in middle of 1700. Problem was, it was too early in the game fir them to fight against Abdali as they didn't know the art of creating alliances. Plus on top and most importantly , they were Hindus and were not brutal. Also, Hindus don't have the concept of brotherhood which IMO was the biggest reason why noone helped each other. On your last point, Bollywood is based in Mumbai so it's normal to see the portyals of Marathas. What I am disappointed in are the Rajputs. If they together and educated about war planing and long term vision from 1350s to 1700, Mughlon main itni takkat nahi thi ki woh Rajputton se jeeten PS I am aware that Marathas are eventually also Rajputs. Whatever happened in history is history....I am more upset with Bollywood idiots glorifying either these Barbaric rulers or likes of Dawood and co to make a quick buck. rahulrulezz 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeyboardWarrior Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 2 minutes ago, maniac said: To me too...Akbar was a tyrant as well but he did have a couple of redeeming qualities like abolishing Jizya tax etc...so pretty much we had to make someone a poster boy for the dark ages. Goes to show how much of a tyrants the rest were. what about razia sultan ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rahulrulezz Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 24 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said: ?? its ok. Even I would go in this mode if I know what happened to my ancestors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maniac Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 This shortcut Bollywood takes doesn't make any sense to me by casting Pakistani actors,having Sufi songs or glorifying Arabic invaders etc just to make a quick buck. 2 of the highest grossing Indian films of all time Dangal and Baahubali 2 had absolutely no pandering whatsoever and people still lapped it up. Really disgusting thrash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maniac Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 (edited) 4 minutes ago, KeyboardWarrior said: what about razia sultan ? I have no idea about her...pretty insignificant...Probably a footnote somewhere in history class that I have no clue about because the focus like every Indian kid was on Math and Science.Is she a big deal in Pak? Edited October 10, 2017 by maniac tweaker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeyboardWarrior Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 Just now, rahulrulezz said: ?? its ok. Even I would go in this mode if I know what happened to my ancestors LOL. ask baba ji Molughunto, somehow everyone's ancestors gt raped at some point. he knows more thn you. i was loling on your abusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rahulrulezz Posted October 10, 2017 Share Posted October 10, 2017 6 minutes ago, maniac said: To me too...Akbar was a tyrant as well but he did have a couple of redeeming qualities like abolishing Jizya tax etc...so pretty much we had to make someone a poster boy for the dark ages. Goes to show how much of a tyrants the rest were. This. As they say, Andhon main kaana raja the guy was brutal too but probably not much as much as others. The fact that he wanted to make his own sect of religion shows that the guy was open to others later in his life. But his massacres in Rajputsna and South empire are famous and he ordered so many rapes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts