India is about to spend a ridiculous $530 million on a statue in the middle of the Arabian sea

sandeep · January 6, 2017

Mulo, while I don't agree with the guy(s) you are having a cage match with, but its clear that you are being a bit skewed in putting a big halo around Ashoka, while doing the opposite with Shivaji. No historical figure will come through unscathed when viewed centuries down the line. Whether its Ashoka from millenia ago, or Shivaji from a few centuries ago. Both were creatures of their time, and had their respective pros and cons.

Its good that you feel so great about Ashoka's forward thinking policies at the time - the environmentalism etc, but to claim that there's more "evidence" left by Ashoka from 2000 years ago, and Shivaji didn't leave enough "archaeological evidence" - what does that even mean? Sure Shivaji and the Maratha were super-feudal in their admin structure, and no, their policies were not super benevolent when they conquered territory - but that's par for the course considering the context - does not reduce his historical stature as much as you are claiming. That's just bomb-throwing for the sake of debate.

To deny that, absent Shivaji's opposition and organization, a fundamentalist emperor like Aurangzeb would have had a much more islamicizing impact on the sub-continent is just intellectual dishonesty. Not saying that he was amazing and awesome and all that, but no need to dismiss him as a marauder either. He had a major impact on Indian history, and played a significant role in preserving the "hindustani" ethos of the heartland.

sandeep · January 6, 2017

I still think this statue thing is a boondoggle and a case of misplaced priorities. How many universities could we have funded with this money? How many roads and trains? And the fact the damn thing will be built outside India is maddening as well. Couldn't they figure out a way to source it locally? Should have been more important than the scale of it, IMHO.

randomGuy · January 6, 2017

On 25/12/2016 at 0:23 AM, Rohit S. Ambani said:

Ajmal bhai how do you know so much about Hindu Kings.

Haha..Sur-ajmal...Nice one.

randomGuy · January 6, 2017

36 minutes ago, sandeep said:

I still think this statue thing is a boondoggle and a case of misplaced priorities. How many universities could we have funded with this money? How many roads and trains? And the fact the damn thing will be built outside India is maddening as well. Couldn't they figure out a way to source it locally? Should have been more important than the scale of it, IMHO.

Symbolism is very important. Shivaji is a symbol of Hindu unity and of Hindu culture. And money is never an issue.

sandeep · January 6, 2017

14 minutes ago, randomGuy said:

Symbolism is very important. Shivaji is a symbol of Hindu unity and of Hindu culture. And money is never an issue.

If symbolism is so important, what about the symbolism in the fact that the statue has to be imported from China to glorify a son of the soil?

randomGuy · January 6, 2017

29 minutes ago, sandeep said:

If symbolism is so important, what about the symbolism in the fact that the statue has to be imported from China to glorify a son of the soil?

Yaar kya farak padta hai? As it is, all electronics were made initially in China and now since Foxconn (Taiwanese co.) and many Chinese co. opened operations in India, 80% of smartphones sold in India are manufactured in India. The world in near future may well start using made in India products of a Taiwanese or Chinese co.

I don't think it matters where the statue is made.

mishra · January 6, 2017

Vaise hi jaise omlette khaane ka man karataa hai to murgi khareed kar osake ande dene ka intezaar nahi karate.

Muloghonto · January 6, 2017

4 hours ago, sandeep said:

Mulo, while I don't agree with the guy(s) you are having a cage match with, but its clear that you are being a bit skewed in putting a big halo around Ashoka, while doing the opposite with Shivaji. No historical figure will come through unscathed when viewed centuries down the line. Whether its Ashoka from millenia ago, or Shivaji from a few centuries ago. Both were creatures of their time, and had their respective pros and cons.

Its good that you feel so great about Ashoka's forward thinking policies at the time - the environmentalism etc, but to claim that there's more "evidence" left by Ashoka from 2000 years ago, and Shivaji didn't leave enough "archaeological evidence" - what does that even mean? Sure Shivaji and the Maratha were super-feudal in their admin structure, and no, their policies were not super benevolent when they conquered territory - but that's par for the course considering the context - does not reduce his historical stature as much as you are claiming. That's just bomb-throwing for the sake of debate.

To deny that, absent Shivaji's opposition and organization, a fundamentalist emperor like Aurangzeb would have had a much more islamicizing impact on the sub-continent is just intellectual dishonesty. Not saying that he was amazing and awesome and all that, but no need to dismiss him as a marauder either. He had a major impact on Indian history, and played a significant role in preserving the "hindustani" ethos of the heartland.

1. I don't consider Ashoka to be a saint. He killed soldiers in war, conquered areas and civilians died in consequence. He also enslaved many. But I do consider him the greatest Indian emperor ever.

Why ?

a). He is the strongest policy maker from Indian past. We do not have an emperor who's done as much infrastructural spending, government provided services as Ashoka.

b ). He is the first one in the world to designate protected species and protected forests. If that he is ahead of rest of the world by 2200 years !

c) He massively expanded trade and foreign relations by being the first Indian emperor to send diplomatic missions a far away as Greece , Syria and Egypt.

2. We know more about Ashoka from his time than we know of Shivaji from his time. And Shivaji was only 400 years ago while Ashoka was 2250 years ago. What we know of Shivaji, like vast majority of rulers, is from 2nd hand sources written after he died. What we know of Ashoka is directly from him, from his own day and age. Of that certainty of information, Ashoka is one of the few in the world who can boast of records from his lifetime.

3. Shivaji didn't make a difference to Hindu Muslim demographics. Maharashtra was ruled for 500 years by Muslims. The demographic change happened in the early years of Bahamani sultanate and remained constant.

Tamil and Telegu lands remained the same, mostly under Hindu rule and again, Shivaji didn't make a demographic impact there.

Most importantly , the population center of India is the Indo-Gangetic plains and again, Shivaji had no power there. So how did Shivaji make a demographic change ?

Tibarn · January 6, 2017

On 1/4/2017 at 11:33 PM, Muloghonto said:

The null is civilians killed are collateral damage (which as you said happens in every battle). 150K transported, does not imply he is a mass-murderer, which is the statement of yours i am disputing.

150,000 civilians transported without attacking villages. I'm sure when he came to the villages to take 150,000 slaves the villagers were thinking let's all succumb to the Yugpurush-Ashoka without a fight.

The collateral damage is funny, Shivaji is a marauder for attacking villages in enemy territory, not targeting civilians, and obviously causing collateral damage. Ashoka is a yugpurush, top 3 administrator for his causing collateral damage and attacking a small kingdom. Why the double standards?

Megasthenes claims the Kalinga army is around 62,000. The problem is the remaining 38,000

On 1/4/2017 at 11:33 PM, Muloghonto said:

Nobody denied that he deported/enslaved captives. I disputed that he is a mass-murderer. As he said, 150K were deported. Deportation != mass murder. 100K killed + many more died from other causes implies 100K killed in battle, many more are collateral damage.

And no, even if 3 people died, that doesn't make him a mass murderer, since there is ALWAYS collateral damage in war. if that makes Ashoka mass murderer, then Shivaji too is a mass murderer, since you said you are not naive enough to think no civilians died in Shivaji's war activities.

Let's do some math, but first, let me provide another source, something you still refuse to do:

Via RK. Mookerjie's Chandra Gupta Maurya and His Times, a direct screenshot from his book:

Read the portion on page 39, "many times that number dead from the wounds received."

What does that particular sentence mean? : some multiple of 100,000 people were killed directly caused by wounds, at minimum many

Let's use a minimal multiplier for many, 2 or 3 --> 200-300,000 additional people killed from wounds

Now let's take the dictionary.com definition for wound

Quote

noun

1.
an injury, usually involving division of tissue or rupture of the integument or mucous membrane, due to external violence or somemechanical agency rather than disease.

So, somewhere between 200-300,000 (at minimum) were killed due to damage breaking skin caused by external violence related to the war.

On to the math:

: 100,000 were killed and 150,000 were taken as slaves, and, using the lowest possible number: 200,000 we get that at minimum 300,000 were killed, as a low-bar number . ~62,000 (61,700 to be exact) was the size of the Kalinga army. Where do the other 238,000 dead come from?

From the deliberate vocabulary, one can discern that these are two distinct categories of violence. One group was actively killed and the other group was actively wounded, which led to their death.

How many of those dead were Ashokan soldiers? There are no sources that state his exact army size, but, as the inheritor of the Mauryan Empire, we can guess that his army was of somewhat similar size to Chandragupta''s, which Mookerjie numbers at one point around 600,000:

So, he had a potential 600,000 men vs some small kingdom of 61,000 troops. Even if 1 soldier died on each side, that would leave Ashoka with over 529,000 soldiers. That is being generous, as war isn't a boxing match of 1 vs 1 bouts. It's far more likely that the sheer scale of difference between the armies would lead an actual rational person to assume that the death ratio was larger on the Kalingan side. If the number was 1 to 1 or the Kalingans managed to killed significantly more Ashokans than vice versa, that speaks to the "greatest" administrator's incompetence. This incompetence could also be hypothetically argued as negligence homicide or at minimum negligent manslaughter.

Having written the previous paragraph, and using the 1 to 1 ratio of deaths, along with the generous, low-ball number of 229,000 dead, one finds that at minimum another 87,000. Were killed via wounding, an active process of damage. That 87,000, at least to someone with a rational mind, could not possibly have been all his soldier only, especially with 150,000 additional, clear civilians who were enslaved.

To add to this, there is no evidence that Ashoka had a policy to not attack villages. He wasn't Hindu at the time of Kalinga, and, despite the supposed "peacefulness" of Buddhism, there were no clear Buddhist war laws, and there clearly aren't any now. He declared war as a Buddhist; the assumption that he followed Hindu war law, is baseless.

You are left with multiple assumptions to defend his actions in Kalinga as not a mass murder:

1) A Buddhist warlord would follow Hindu war law to avoid killing civilians

2) He was such an incompetent king that a small kingdom with a military force a fraction of his force's size was able to fight on par with his army

3) Those people actively wounded were somehow not civilians, once again showing the incompetence of the "Top 3" administrator.

4) The 150,000 people who were deported as slaves, who are clearly civilians, somehow put up no resistance to seizure of their persons. This would mean literally no people would have resisted being taken like livestock by an invading army. If even a few struggled and died rather than being enslaved, that constitutes murder of innocent people.

4.1) The assumption that any death that occurred during the slaving process, was of no fault of Ashoka's. This would mean that he didn't give slaving orders or didn't authorize violence while enslaving 150,000 people, right after invading the kingdom.

4.2) The assumption that the slaving process, during the transportation of slaves, didn't lead to multiple death of slaves during transport to the target destination. Ashoka ordering the seizure of 150,000 slaves, who would clearly be unarmed, places him responsible for any deaths that occur due to transporting 150,000 slaves 800+ km from Kalinga to the Bihar heartland.

4.2.1)For reference, from Kalinga Nagar in Odhisa to the Bihar border, today, along NH19 and N16 takes 16 hours by car and 142 hours by foot. I'm sure the enslaved were traveling by car and none of them died (sarcasm)

4.2.2) Ashoka had to enslave people. He couldn't leave 150,000 people in Kalinga, since he apparently ruled it post war anyway.

4.2.3) Assumption that there were quality roads on which to transport. Without roads at the quality level of NH 19/16, the travel time would take even longer, and the journey would be even more arduous

4.2.4) That he provided food for slaves while transporting them. Clearly someone who enslaves 150K people doesn't particularly care about their well being. What is the basis to assume that he even fed the slaves?

5) Assumption that the low ball number of 300,000 total dead is accurate rather than 400k, 500k, etc. With each increasing magnitude, the likelihood that the dead were Ashokan soldiers continues to decline.

6) Assumption that RK Mookerji doesn't understand the words he uses.

That's quite a list of assumptions to support. :winky:

The numbers are pretty clear. Ashoka was a mass murder at Kalinga, at worst by direct commands, and at best through negligence and incompetence.

To answer your false equivalency between Buddhist Aurangzeb and Shivaji on collateral damage. There is nothing to indicate that those over 200k wounded were collateral damage. Think before you speak, 200K minimum collateral damage, 150k transported 800 km on foot as slaves, and a total army size of Kalinga less than 71k. I'm sure no civilian was directly killed. :rolleyes:

There is also no evidence that Ashoka followed any war laws, let alone Hindu war laws. Shivaji didn't target civilians, as part of policy. This is highlighted by even enemy historians.

There is also the case of the Ashokavadana. After he supposedly became peaceful, he had people of different religions to his own murdered. That is a mass murderer. Whether you think the 18,000 in a single day is embellished or not, is based only on your opinion. The fact is this book's essential purpose is to glorify Ashoka and Buddhism. The fact that they see it as something admirable to slaughter 18,000 Ajivikas, in a single day, already implies what kind of behavior is acceptable in both their minds. The fact that he was Buddhist even before invading Kalinga betrays the myth that he was suddenly "peaceful" after Kalinga and a conversion. What about their own ideas that slaughtering 18,000 civilians of a different religion is an admirable, legendary task lead to the assumption that he asked soldiers to not attack noncombatants during Kalinga?

Your move; I expect some sources by the way. :winky:

On 1/4/2017 at 11:33 PM, Muloghonto said:

Oh heavens no! i am off by 10K. Did you forget the fact that you questioned that 100K dying cannot surely be soldiers and i pointed out that Hannibal killed 100K in ONE DAY, ALL soldiers, with Kalinga being a 3-5 year long war ? So i was off by 10K. But my point still stands- if you can kill 90K in one day of battle in 200 BC Italy, you can kill 100K soldiers over months/years in Orissa.

The fact is, you don't even have the integrity to provide sources. All your mental gymnastics can't save you from that. You were at best ignorant and arrogant and at worst lazy and a liar. You didn't even read the rest of the post before rushing to post even more nonsense. 90k people didn't get killed in one day? Read the source provided. Silly old man, you're losing it. Not unexpected.

Where do you get that Kalinga war was 3-5 years? I only see 622 to 621 BCE mentioned anywhere, and even that is unreliable. Source please.

For a supposed "scientist" with a Masters of Engineering, presenting a >10% overshot of a number, you should know that such inaccuracies would lead to invalidity. How much longer are you going to persist with this charade?

On 1/4/2017 at 11:33 PM, Muloghonto said:

Actually Dipavamsa says that Ashoka was banished to Central India (Dakshina Kosala), when Bimbisara died and Sashimi assumed the throne, who suspected the nobles wanted Ashoka instead (he was correct) and tried to assassinate him, with support from the royal family. Shortly after the failed assassination attempt, the nobles arrived, promised to support Ashoka and Ashoka went and seized the throne. So i don't see whats so bloody psychopathic about that - if i am out of the picture, banished and my brothers still tried to assassinate me without cause, i am not the unhinged one for getting rid of them.

Please give me the page number or a screenshot, I would rather see that for myself. Someone with your low-caliber in regards to providing evidence is not to be taken at face value. :two_thumbs_up:

However, here are screenshots from both, which confirm that he murdered dozens of his brothers. Mass murdering even his own family :cry1:

Dipavamsa

Mahavamsa

On 1/4/2017 at 11:33 PM, Muloghonto said:

Threatening to invade tribals if they don't follow his rules makes him a tyrant ? Ok then, every single ruler is a tyrant, since every single ruler by default has/would invade tribals in the periphery who are not going to abide by the rule.

This actually is far more pragmatic than countless rulers who go stomping into forests chasing tribals only to get bogged down- this is getting what you want (same result as invasion- its not like tribals are going to pay taxes, its purely pacification invasions) without risking your army getting mired in jungle.

Nice try, but no. You can't save Buddhist Aurangzeb. Definition of a tyrant:

Quote

noun

1.
a sovereign or other ruler who uses power oppressively or unjustly.

Where is the justice in invading poor, hapless tribals, somewhere outside one's jurisdiction? The only basis of invading them is them not following his religious dogma. Despite what you and other Buddhist Auragzeb sympathizers think, it's not a crime to follow another religion aside from Buddhism. That sounds like a religious fundamentalist to anyone objective. I'm sure it's okay for ISIS to invade neighboring countries and sell women as sex slaves in your world view. :sick:

As for the rest. You realize you made the first assertions about Shivaji. Now you want me to provide proof before you. Textbook shifting the burden of proof. Shame Shame, Gappu. Shame, Shame :nono: Tibarn 9 - Canada 0 Coming up :dance: :cheer5: :aha:

Quote

The 3 claims were:

1) Shivaji was a jumped up marauder who wanted a subcontinent sized personal fief

2) Shivaji did nothing/ next to nothing for Indians

3) That SCB, Gandhi, Tilak, Naoroji, Tagore, Ramanujan, etc, etc did more for India and Indians than Shivaji.

Don't worry, you can even "research" Wikipedia to show your great "empiricism."

In the mean time

I'm starting to resemble you while waiting for sources :tee:

Edited January 7, 2017 by Tibarn

Muloghonto · January 6, 2017

3 hours ago, Tibarn said:

150,000 civilians transported without attacking villages. I'm sure when he came to the villages to take 150,000 slaves the villagers were thinking let's all succumb to the Yugpurush-Ashoka without a fight.

The collateral damage is funny, Shivaji is a marauder for attacking villages in enemy territory, not targeting civilians, and obviously causing collateral damage. Ashoka is a yugpurush, top 3 administrator for his causing collateral damage and attacking a small kingdom. Why the double standards?

1. You yourself said that if so much as 3 civillians die due to warfare, its mass-murder. And that you are not naive enough to think no civilians died during Shivaji's conquests. So therefore, Shivaji too is a mass-murderer by your standards.

2. Administrator is about administration. Not about war. One can be an excellent warrior and poor administrator (e.g.: Alexander the Great) or vice versa ( Ashoka).

Quote

Megasthenes claims the Kalinga army is around 62,000. The problem is the remaining 38,000

Quote

100,000 were killed and 150,000 were taken as slaves, and, using the lowest possible number: 200,000 we get that at minimum 300,000 were killed, as a low-bar number . ~62,000 (61,700 to be exact) was the size of the Kalinga army. Where do the other 238,000 dead come from?

From the deliberate vocabulary, one can discern that these are two distinct categories of violence. One group was actively killed and the other group was actively wounded, which led to their death.

How many of those dead were Ashokan soldiers? There are no sources that state his exact army size, but, as the inheritor of the Mauryan Empire, we can guess that his army was of somewhat similar size to Chandragupta''s, which Mookerjie numbers at one point around 600,000:

Megasthene's embassy was during the reign of Chandragupta Maurya. Ashoka's grandfather. Since Bindusara is known to've tried to annex Kalinga and failed, one can reasonably assume that:

a) Kalinga was powerful

b) Kalinga had expanded its army due to repeated aggression.

Furthermore, the war lasted two years. As i have shown you, in Cannae, Romans mobilized 86K and got 53-75k killed off in one day. The total casualty of that battle was another 6K from Hannibal's side.

Therefore, it is fair to assume that in a two year war, its not just one battle and then done. Considering the final battle was close to the Kalinga capital and Kalinga began in northern Orissa/Southern Jharkhand, for the war to've lasted two years, it'd involve multiple battles, sieges and thus the total bodycount of 300-400K dead ( 100K KIA, 200-300K WIA).

Quote

So, he had a potential 600,000 men vs some small kingdom of 71,000 troops. Even if 1 soldier died on each side, that would leave Ashoka with over 529,000 soldiers. That is being generous, as war isn't a boxing match of 1 vs 1 bouts. It's far more likely that the sheer scale of difference between the armies would lead an actual rational person to assume that the death ratio was larger on the Kalingan side. If the number was 1 to 1 or the Kalingans managed to killed significantly more Ashokans than vice versa, that speaks to the "greatest" administrator's incompetence. This incompetence could also be hypothetically argued as negligence homicide or at minimum negligent manslaughter.

Spoken like someone ignorant in history. For most of history, when a nation is conquered, the conqueror ends up losing more men than the defender. There are several generals through history who've said the standard rule of thumb is 10:1 for a seiging army to successfully defeat a besieged army. I suppose the 10x factor is for people to cheer on and sit on the sidelines eh ?

It is almost certain that Ashoka took more casualties than he caused on the Kalinga side, given thats where the historical odds are.

Quote

2) He was such an incompetent king that a small kingdom with a military force a fraction of his force's size was able to fight on par with his army

Incompetent GENERAL. A king's duty is to administer. And as i said, if losing more men in an aggressive war makes you incompetent, why do more people die storming a castle than defenders ?

Also, i never claimed that ashoka was an exponential general. He was not. He was an exponent of a king, thanks to his peerless policy-making resume by Indian standards.

Quote

4) The 150,000 people who were deported as slaves, who are clearly civilians, somehow put up no resistance to seizure of their persons. This would mean literally no people would have resisted being taken like livestock by an invading army. If even a few struggled and died rather than being enslaved, that constitutes murder of innocent people.

Then Shivaji too is guilty of murder of innocent people, as per your quote that killing even 5 people make it mass murder as per your quote here:

Quote

but even if he killed an arbitrary number such as 5 it qualifies as mass murder.

Quote

4.2) The assumption that the slaving process, during the transportation of slaves, didn't lead to multiple death of slaves during transport to the target destination. Ashoka ordering the seizure of 150,000 slaves, who would clearly be unarmed, places him responsible for any deaths that occur due to transporting 150,000 slaves 800+ km from Kalinga to the Bihar heartland.

Then any people who died due to shortage of food in war-torn countryside of Maharashstra during Shivaji's campaigns, too is on Shivaji's head.

Quote

4.2.4) That he provided food for slaves while transporting them. Clearly someone who enslaves 150K people doesn't particularly care about their well being. What is the basis to assume that he even fed the slaves?

Considering that slave are valued property, if one feeds cows before selling them, why would someone not feed slaves before selling them ?

Asking proof that slaves were fed, despite the fact that hungry, starving slaves as as useless as a hungry, starving cow, is as asinine as saying prove that Shivaji fed his troops. So go ahead, prove to us Shivaji fed his troops and they didnt resort to thuggery to feed themselves.

Quote

There is also the case of the Ashokavadana. After he supposedly became peaceful, he had people of different religions to his own murdered. That is a mass murderer. Whether you think the 18,000 in a single day is embellished or not, is based only on your opinion. The fact is this book's essential purpose is to glorify Ashoka and Buddhism.

I don't care if Ashokavadana was written to glorify him or vilify him, the fact that Ashokavadana is unreliable is uncontested. A book written 300-400 years after Ashoka in a foreign place (Sri Lanka), replete with errors, is not worth anything more than a rough cultural window of that time. FYI, archaeological evidence shows us that not only did he not kill Ajivaks, he actually donated cave-complexes/monasteries for them. Archaeology also shows us that he showed support to Buddhists as well as Brahmins.

Quote

The fact that he was Buddhist even before invading Kalinga betrays the myth that he was suddenly "peaceful" after Kalinga and a conversion.

That is not a fact,as demonstrated by Ashoka's 13th major Rock edict, he adopted Dharma AFTER the Kalinga battle. On this, even most Buddhist sources are convergent.

Quote

The fact is, you don't even have the integrity to provide sources. All your mental gymnastics can't save you from that. You were at best ignorant and arrogant and at worst lazy and a liar. You didn't even read the rest of the post before rushing to post even more nonsense. 90k people didn't get killed in one day? Read the source provided. Silly old man, you're losing it. Not unexpected.

Where do you get that Kalinga war was 3-5 years? I only see 622 to 621 BCE mentioned anywhere, and even that is unreliable. Source please.

Ok, so roughly 60-80K soldiers died in one day (including both sides). Regardless,my point remains - you asked how is it possible to kill 100K and wound 200-300K soldiers ? I pointed out that if 100K (actual number 60-80K) die in ONE day in Cannae, in 3rd century BC Italy, 100K killed, 200-300K dead from wounds in a two year war in 3rd century BCE India is very much possible.

Oh and the date for Kalinga war is 262-261 BC, not 622-621 BC.

Quote

Please give me the page number or a screenshot, I would rather see that for myself. Someone with your low-caliber in regards to providing evidence is not to be taken at face value.

However, here are screenshots from both, which confirm that he murdered dozens of his brothers. Mass murdering even his own family

Dipavamsa

The Dipavamsa is not reliable in detail, predominantly because it confuses between Ashoka and Kakavarna Kalasoka, who was the son of Shishunaga from about 150-200 years prior to Ashoka himself.

Kalasoka is the name given to Shishunaga's son in Sinhala chronicles (Dipavamsa, Mahavamsa), which is the same guy named as Kakavarna in Puranic literature

Source : https://books.google.ca/books?id=i-y6ZUheQH8C&redir_esc=y

Quote

Where is the justice in invading poor, hapless tribals, somewhere outside one's jurisdiction? The only basis of invading them is them not following his religious dogma.

Actually no, the only basis of invading poor tribals is to weaken their numbers so they don't raid the civilized territorries, which tribals are known to do. Look up Bhils, they are also tribal forest people, who have been repeatedly invaded by Solankis (Gujjus), Rashtrakutas as well as Mughals, Delhi Sultans, etc. simply to keep their numbers in check and prevent inter-tribal unity. because once tribals were united in pre-modern times, they'd raid civilization.

Also note that Ashoka didnt invade tribals, he threatened to. Which is astute.

Quote

As for the rest. You realize you made the first assertions about Shivaji. Now you want me to provide proof before you. Textbook shifting the burden of proof.

I have said before. Once you can prove YOUR opinion, i will prove mine. So go ahead, and prove to us that Shivaji saved us from turning into a middle-eastern-esque shithole, despite being nothing more than blip in Indian history. 123 years after Shivaji, the Marathas were nothing more than British minions. Some 'saving' he did for us.

:phehe: :phehe:

Edited January 6, 2017 by Muloghonto

Tibarn · January 7, 2017

18 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

1. You yourself said that if so much as 3 civillians die due to warfare, its mass-murder. And that you are not naive enough to think no civilians died during Shivaji's conquests. So therefore, Shivaji too is a mass-murderer by your standards.

I like how you don't read who you quote and what you reference. Not unexpected from the clown who once post 3 studies that went against his own argument, in an attempt to support his argument. :phehe:

On 1/4/2017 at 1:32 AM, Tibarn said:

And yet the primary sources say that Shivaji didn't attack civilians, even those from his enemies. He is one of the most beloved figures in Surat, a place he supposedly plundered. The fact is that it was Maratha policy under Shivaji to not kill civilians, women, children. That doesn't mean civilians never died or were never attacked. Unlike you, I'm not naive. If you want to call Shivaji a marauder because villages were hit during war, you must apply the same standard to everyone and every war in history. The Bargi attacks didn't start to happen until after almost 60 yrs from his death.

21 hours ago, Tibarn said:

To answer your false equivalency between Buddhist Aurangzeb and Shivaji on collateral damage. There is nothing to indicate that those over 200k wounded were collateral damage. Think before you speak, 200K minimum collateral damage, 150k transported 800 km on foot as slaves, and a total army size of Kalinga less than 71k. I'm sure no civilian was directly killed.

There is also no evidence that Ashoka followed any war laws, let alone Hindu war laws. Shivaji didn't target civilians, as part of policy. This is highlighted by even enemy historians.

No one is blaming Ashoka for collateral damage. The fact is he targeted civilians. One doesn't wound several hundred thousand noncombatants and enslave another 150k without targeting them. Nice try Gappu :giggle:

18 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

2. Administrator is about administration. Not about war. One can be an excellent warrior and poor administrator (e.g.: Alexander the Great) or vice versa ( Ashoka).

Quote

ad·min·is·tra·tor

ədˈminəˌstrādər/

noun

a person responsible for running a business, organization, etc.

synonyms: manager, director, executive, controller, head, chief, leader, governor, superintendent, supervisor;

informalboss

Your attempts to weasel out are failing repeatedly. As the head of the army, he is responsible for the army's administration: ie it's success and failure.

I'm still waiting for a source that shows Ashoka was a "top 3" administrator and "greatest administrator in Indian history." Kya gayab hua?

Before you attempt to peddle the nonsense rock edicts as evidence of great administration, here is a argument from Lahiri

It looks like the great "empiricist-scientist-engineer" lacks critical thinking skills. :nono: Lahiri and Sanyal are RSS/VHP demagogues as well :phehe:

Where is the evidence that any of his "great" edicts were implemented? The only sources that make Ashoka look great are Buddhist chronicles that also show him as a mass murderer, religious zealot, and numerous other horrible traits.

The only evidence of his policy is that he had things written on rocks about himself, yet the great empiricist is assuming they were implemented and that this makes him a "top 3" administrator in history. I thought empiricism was based on evidence. Let me check a dictionary to reaffirm what empirical means:

Quote

1.
derived from or guided by experience or experiment.

2.
depending upon experience or observation alone, without usingscientific method or theory, especially as in medicine.

3.
provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

It looks like Mr. Polymath jumped to conclusions. If we follow the old man's logic, this would be true of Kim Jong-Il

Quote

1. Kim Jong-il had a supernatural birth

Move over Jesus. Based on Kim Jong-iI’s official biography, he was born on Korea’s most sacred mountain, Mt. Baekdu. At the moment of his birth, a new star formed and illuminated the sky -- the seasons suddenly changed from winter to spring and a double rainbow appeared. Beautiful but Soviet records paint a far more boring picture. Kim Jong-iI seems to have been born in 1941, in the Siberian village of Vyatskoye.

2. Kim Jong-il is a fashion icon

In 2010, the North Korean media decided that Kim Jong-il’s fashion had taken the world by storm. The rest of the world knows that this never happened.

3. The world loved Kim Jong-il

North Korea has a particularly bad reputation in the world, but the North Koreans are oblivious of that fact. They are made to believe that North Korea is a phenomenally important country, and that Kim Jong il was the world’s most powerful leader. Every country celebrated Kim Jong-il ‘s birthday, didn’t you know?

4. Kim Jong-Il Invented The Hamburger

Minju Joson, the North Korean publication, credit Kim Jong-il with creating the hamburger. According to the paper, the leader invented a brand new sandwich and named it, “double bread with meat.” The new food was meant to supply quality nutrition to teachers and students. Next, a plant was set up for mass “double bread with meat” production.

5. Kim Jong-il was a master golfer

According to his biography, Kim Jong-il first picked up a golf club in 1994, at North Korea's only golf course. He shot a 38-under par round that included no fewer than 11 holes in one. Clap clap!

6. Kim Jong-il never used a toilet

Seriously, his biography states that the leader never used a toilet -- he apparently didn’t need to urinate or defecate. Oh and to add to the supernatural abilities, he could control the weather too.

7. The Japanese stole time

North Koreans believe that during the occupation by Japanese “imperialists” in 1919, time was stollen. In 2015, Kim Jong-un decided enough is enough. North Korea set its clock back by 30 minutes on August 15th. VICTORY!!!

8. Aids, Ebola, MERS And SARS are all easily curable

The cures haven’t been revealed, but fret not, North Korea has them.

9. The Americans are b*******

Is that not a fact?

10. There is no internet

Only government officials in North Korea have access to the internet. The best part is the explanation for why the internet is denied: North Koreans are made to believe that the reason that they don’t have access to the internet is because government officials would like to protect the West’s reputation. Okay then.

Knowing you, I know you agree with #9, but I think you're smart enough to know that that's just an opinion. :p:

Further here is a reference to another historian, Nayanjot Lahiri, that points out the same thing:

It looks like you and Chacha Nehru may have both bought his propaganda. At least you have enough brains to correct your error, Nehru never had them in the first place. :angel:

18 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Megasthene's embassy was during the reign of Chandragupta Maurya. Ashoka's grandfather. Since Bindusara is known to've tried to annex Kalinga and failed, one can reasonably assume that:

a) Kalinga was powerful

b) Kalinga had expanded its army due to repeated aggression.

Once again sources needed.

Sanjeev Sanyal notes in Ocean of Churn:

Quote

We know that the Nandas, who preceeded the Mauryas, had already conquered Kalinga and, therefore, it is likely that it became part of the Mauryan empire when Chandragupta took over the Nanda kingdom. In any case, it seems odd that a large and expansionist empire like that of the Mauryas would have tolerated an independent state so close to its capital Pataliputra and its main port at Tamralipti. In other words, Kalinga would not have been an entirely independent kingdom under Bindusara – it was either a province or a close vassal. Something obviously changed during the early years of Ashoka’s reign and my guess is that it had either sided with Ashoka’s rivals during the battle for succession and/or declared itself independent in the confusion.

Further in that regard from the same source

and furthermore, same book:

So he may have invaded Kalinga as a result of his power struggle with brothers, the same brothers every source claims he murdered. To add to that, the city wasn't exactly Troy or Great Britain in terms of difficulty of invasion.

19 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Furthermore, the war lasted two years. As i have shown you, in Cannae, Romans mobilized 86K and got 53-75k killed off in one day. The total casualty of that battle was another 6K from Hannibal's side.

Therefore, it is fair to assume that in a two year war, its not just one battle and then done. Considering the final battle was close to the Kalinga capital and Kalinga began in northern Orissa/Southern Jharkhand, for the war to've lasted two years, it'd involve multiple battles, sieges and thus the total bodycount of 300-400K dead ( 100K KIA, 200-300K WIA).

Source for the bolded, first you stated 3-5 years now you state 2 yrs. The only number I've seen is 622-621 BCE. Until otherwise one can't say whether it was fully 2 years.

Canae: 87k Roman Soldiers available, 48k killed; I showed you that. Don't use made up numbers without a source like 75K, even though it is less than the 100k you originally claimed. That's called overstating, and it won't fly with me.

You forgot to mention it is a low-ball body-count, their is no reason to assume 200-300k, it just a well could have been 500k wounded.

Once again: 62,000 is the size of the Kalingan army. As I showed, Ashoka's army was 600k +, if we use the estimation based on Chandragupta's army. I will provide another source to corroborate this. Although it is a less reliable source, it is more reliable than what is being provided in opposition, ie nothing:

Via the New World Encyclopedia.

Quote

Ashoka's later edicts say that about 100,000 people were killed on the Kalinga side along with ten thousand from Ashoka's army; thousands of men and women were deported. At the time, Ashoka possessed the largest standing army of his day—600,000 infantry, 30,000 cavalry, and nine thousand war elephants.

Ashoka's army size was around 640k, similar to the 600k I estimated based on Chandragupta's, when one takes into account the empire's expansion. As you can see in bold, supposedly only 10,000 Ashokan soldier died in Kalinga.

Further from the same source.

Quote

The Pali Version

As the legend goes, one day after the war was over, Ashoka ventured out to roam the city and all he could see were burnt houses and scattered corpses. This sight made him sick and he cried the famous quotation, "What have I done?" The brutality of the conquest led him to adopt Buddhism and he used his position to propagate the relatively new philosophy far and wide, sending missionaries as far as ancient Rome and to Alexandria in Egypt. The fact that Buddhist missionaries reached Egypt has even led to speculation that similarity between Jesus' teaching and Buddha's may be due to Jesus' having encountered these monks (see discussion in Bennett 2001, 67-68; 207-208; 322; 339-340). It has been suggested that the pre-Christian ascetics, known as the Therapeutae derived their name from Therevada. From that point Ashoka, who had been described as "the cruel Ashoka" (Chandashoka), started to be described as "the pious Ashoka" (Dharmashoka). He made Buddhism his state religion around 260 B.C.E. He propagated the Vibhajyavada school of Buddhism (from Vibhaajja, “analysis”; and vada, the precursor of Therevada Buddhism) discussion and preached it within his domain and worldwide from about 250 B.C.E. Some sources indicate that he had actually called himself a Buddhist two years before the war.

Buddhist legends themselves confirm that there were burnt houses and scattered corpses throughout the city.

Archaeologists also confirm this

Notice where it says that the city was riddled with arrows.

So the Ashoka rained a blizzard of arrows onto a poorly designed city, in regards to defense. He also razed the city while taking it. :argh:

Sanjeey Sanyal also notes this in OoC:

Apparently whatever regret he had, didn't last long. What a psychopath. :afraid:

He was made to regret it however:

Looks like Ashoka shouldn't have spent so much money needlessly.

So, what one sees is that:

100k Kalingans died in battle, 150K Kalingans were enslaved, somewhere over 200K were wounded, houses were burnt, the city was razed, and 10k Ashokan soldiers died.

One can see that the Kalingan army was 62k and another 38k died fighting the Ashokan tyrant. The other 38k were probably militiamen who tried to defend their homes and families from the tyrant.

The only one naive enough to say that he didn't purposely attack civilians is you. Furthermore you don't provide a source/citation for this contention.

21 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

That is not a fact,as demonstrated by Ashoka's 13th major Rock edict, he adopted Dharma AFTER the Kalinga battle. On this, even most Buddhist sources are convergent.

Charles Allen, a noted Ashoka eulogist, in his Ashoka the search for India's Lost Emperor:

Quote

There is evidence that he was a nominal convert even before the battle of Kalinga, but the suffering he caused at that battle shocked him deeply.

Sanjeev Sanyal's Ocean of Churn

New World Encylopedia

Quote

Some sources indicate that he had actually called himself a Buddhist two years before the war.

There is no evidence he was a Hindu before the war. There is no reason to believe he followed Hindu war law. Evidence suggests he was already Buddhist. The 13th edict doesn't refute that. It only says that he became serious about religion afterwards. Please show he was Hindu before and during Kalinga, if that is your contention. At best you could say he was atheist/non-believer. Even that requires proof. As long as he wasn't Hindu, there is no reason to assume he followed Hindu war law.

21 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Ok, so roughly 60-80K soldiers died in one day (including both sides). Regardless,my point remains - you asked how is it possible to kill 100K and wound 200-300K soldiers ? I pointed out that if 100K (actual number 60-80K) die in ONE day in Cannae, in 3rd century BC Italy, 100K killed, 200-300K dead from wounds in a two year war in 3rd century BCE India is very much possible.

Oh and the date for Kalinga war is 262-261 BC, not 622-621 BC.

Thanks for pointing out my typo :two_thumbs_up: .

Still, 262-261 isn't necessarily 2 years, without the months mentioned. It's certainly not the 3-5 years you claimed originally. Were you ignorant of the dates or purposefully lying? :blink:

I will repost this:

100k Kalingans died in battle, 150K Kalingans were enslaved, somewhere over 200K were wounded, houses were burnt, the city was razed, and 10k Ashokan soldiers died.

There were only 62K Kaligan soldiers in their standing army. There were likely 600-640k soldiers in Ashoka's army (including the mounted units). That is roughly 10 to 1 difference in size of forces. If we add a hypothetical 38K militia men, to make the numbers of 100k Kalingans dead in battle add up, then the death count from battle is:

100K Kalingans to 10k Ashokans => 10 to 1

Funny how it all works out, the size of the army and the death ratio corresponds. :shock:

21 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

The Dipavamsa is not reliable in detail, predominantly because it confuses between Ashoka and Kakavarna Kalasoka, who was the son of Shishunaga from about 150-200 years prior to Ashoka himself.

Kalasoka is the name given to Shishunaga's son in Sinhala chronicles (Dipavamsa, Mahavamsa), which is the same guy named as Kakavarna in Puranic literature

Source : https://books.google.ca/books?id=i-y6ZUheQH8C&redir_esc=y

Good, you are improving by providing a source. I'm proud of you. :angel:

Again, if the Dipavamsa, Mahavamsa, and Ashokavarrdana are all to be thrown out, the 3 texts which the majority of Ashoka's history is based on, then, I will quote Sanjeev Sanyal's Ocean of Churn again, since you seemed to have ignored it when I said it:

Why not apply the same skepticism to all the claims about Ashoka, or are us poor Yindoos not allowed to? :((

22 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Also note that Ashoka didnt invade tribals, he threatened to. Which is astute.

Last sentence first: We don't know if he invaded them or not. Especially on your end as you want to disregard Dipavamsa, Mahavamsa, and Ashokavarrdana, the basis of his history. We know he was okay with war based on Dhamma, at least what Buddhists interpret about it. That itself can be seen in the edicts. He also doesn't forbid his progeny from invading on those grounds. That doesn't show Pacifism. It says that if you don't follow the rules and customs that I believe are correct based on my religon and apply to my citizens, then I will invade you and, given his previous history and lack of remorse, would involve bloody conquest, dead civilians, and thousands of slaves.

To further show Ashoka as the religious zealot he was:

Even before he was a Buddhist, he did this:

Quote

As per Charles Allen,

The Northern tradition speaks of both Ashoka and his queen as heretics who attempted to destroy the Bodhi tree, with Ashoka using his troops to destroy other sites associated with the Buddha. This seems unlikely for a man whose first wife was a Buddhist, but it may represent his indifference to his senior queen’s overt hostility towards Buddhism.

From Ashoka, The Great by M. H. Syed

Yuan Chwang records the tradition of Ashoka and his Queen, in succession, making determined efforts to destroy the Bodhi Tree.

Essentially Ashoka made attempts to destroy the Bodhi Tree and other Buddhist shrines. This corroborates his fanatical behavior even pre-conversion. It's not surprising that he was a bigot before and after conversion.

He remained a bigot after conversion as well, which I remind you likely happened before Kalinga.

Ashoka also banned various Hindu yajnas, ceremonies, and festivals.

MAJOR ROCK EDICT I

Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, has caused this Dhamma edict to be written.Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice. Nor should festivals be held, for Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, sees much to object to in such festivals, although there are some festivals that Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, does approve of.

Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always. And in time, not even these three creatures will be killed.

Of course there is also archaeological evidence of his execution chamber, Ashoka's Hell, as well:

Quote

The Chinese travelers Fa Hein and Xuanzang both report having visited the ruins of the execution chamber, and there still exist ruins that are identified as the remains of Ashoka’s Hell.

This supports what the Ashokavardana says about how he had many people executed, enough to be down as Ashoka the Terrible, Chandashoka. It also lends credence to the existance of Girika, his pet psychopath, who took over execution duties from Ashoka himself. That's right, Ashokavardana says he would personally execute people, so much so that his ministers had to advise against it. Textbook psychopath.

We know that Buddhists of the time thought genocide and murder on the basis of religion were legendary and admirable traits. Otherwise, the three historical texts that apply to Ashoka, which have the dual purpose of glorifying Buddhism and Ashoka, wouldn't show that Ashoka murdered his 99 brothers, killed 18,000 Ajivikas in a single day, exchanged gold coins for the head of Jain monks, etc. That fits his own beliefs and behavior throughout his life.

Another bizarre crime of Ashoka from an interview about Charles Allen's Asoka:

Quote

Your book says that Ashoka was a short man with rough skin, susceptible to fainting spells, who would have his concubines burnt if they didn't like his rough skin. How did you discover these facts?
Lost sources. In the Ashokavardana, his bad skin is ascribed to his meeting the Buddha in a previous existence and making him an offering of earth. At the South Gateway in Sanchi, he is de-Ashoka is known primarily from his edicts, but we also have three important literary sources: the Mahavamsa from Sri Lanka written in Pali, the Ashokavardana from China, originally written in Sanskrit, and the accounts of the Chinese travellers Faxian and Xuanzang that draw on other picted as a short, fat man with a bloated face

It looks like he was so insecure about his skin that he burnt prostitutes. What a pathetic person. :no:

22 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Actually no, the only basis of invading poor tribals is to weaken their numbers so they don't raid the civilized territorries, which tribals are known to do. Look up Bhils, they are also tribal forest people, who have been repeatedly invaded by Solankis (Gujjus), Rashtrakutas as well as Mughals, Delhi Sultans, etc. simply to keep their numbers in check and prevent inter-tribal unity. because once tribals were united in pre-modern times, they'd raid civilization.

Them being known to do it, doesn't mean that this was the reason he would have invaded the tribals. You are attributing motivation to him without a source. On the other hand, the 13th Rock Edict he himself had engraved says,

Quote

13

Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, conquered the Kalingas eight years after his coronation.[25] One hundred and fifty thousand were deported, one hundred thousand were killed and many more died (from other causes). After the Kalingas had been conquered, Beloved-of-the-Gods came to feel a strong inclination towards the Dhamma, a love for the Dhamma and for instruction in Dhamma. Now Beloved-of-the-Gods feels deep remorse for having conquered the Kalingas.

Indeed, Beloved-of-the-Gods is deeply pained by the killing, dying and deportation that take place when an unconquered country is conquered. But Beloved-of-the-Gods is pained even more by this -- that Brahmans, ascetics, and householders of different religions who live in those countries, and who are respectful to superiors, to mother and father, to elders, and who behave properly and have strong loyalty towards friends, acquaintances, companions, relatives, servants and employees -- that they are injured, killed or separated from their loved ones. Even those who are not affected (by all this) suffer when they see friends, acquaintances, companions and relatives affected. These misfortunes befall all (as a result of war), and this pains Beloved-of-the-Gods.

There is no country, except among the Greeks, where these two groups, Brahmans and ascetics, are not found, and there is no country where people are not devoted to one or another religion.[26] Therefore the killing, death or deportation of a hundredth, or even a thousandth part of those who died during the conquest of Kalinga now pains Beloved-of-the-Gods. Now Beloved-of-the-Gods thinks that even those who do wrong should be forgiven where forgiveness is possible.

Even the forest people, who live in Beloved-of-the-Gods' domain, are entreated and reasoned with to act properly. They are told that despite his remorse Beloved-of-the-Gods has the power to punish them if necessary, so that they should be ashamed of their wrong and not be killed. Truly, Beloved-of-the-Gods desires non-injury, restraint and impartiality to all beings, even where wrong has been done.

Now it is conquest by Dhamma that Beloved-of-the-Gods considers to be the best conquest.[27] And it (conquest by Dhamma) has been won here, on the borders, even six hundred yojanas away, where the Greek king Antiochos rules, beyond there where the four kings named Ptolemy, Antigonos, Magas and Alexander rule, likewise in the south among the Cholas, the Pandyas, and as far as Tamraparni.[28] Here in the king's domain among the Greeks, the Kambojas, the Nabhakas, the Nabhapamkits, the Bhojas, the Pitinikas, the Andhras and the Palidas, everywhere people are following Beloved-of-the-Gods' instructions in Dhamma. Even where Beloved-of-the-Gods' envoys have not been, these people too, having heard of the practice of Dhamma and the ordinances and instructions in Dhamma given by Beloved-of-the-Gods, are following it and will continue to do so. This conquest has been won everywhere, and it gives great joy -- the joy which only conquest by Dhamma can give. But even this joy is of little consequence. Beloved-of-the-Gods considers the great fruit to be experienced in the next world to be more important.

I have had this Dhamma edict written so that my sons and great-grandsons may not consider making new conquests, or that if military conquests are made, that they be done with forbearance and light punishment, or better still, that they consider making conquest by Dhamma only, for that bears fruit in this world and the next. May all their intense devotion be given to this which has a result in this world and the next.

Highlighting the relevant portions in red.

Nothing in the edict suggests Defensive Offense is what he has in mind when he authorizes conquest for himself and his progeny. He clearly makes a threat based on their behavior/customs. This is corroborated with how he banned Hindu festivals/rituals/yagnas when he didn't like them. What you claimed as the basis of invasion is without source.

23 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

I have said before. Once you can prove YOUR opinion, i will prove mine.

"Gather around o' villagers of ICF, a tale is to be told. A tale of empiricism and evidence against the fanatical forces of fundamentalism and propaganda. Once there was an old coward who couldn't back up his claims. He couldn't back up the ridiculous assertions he made. He tried to shift the burden of proof, whenever possible, because he knew he had once again got caught with his pants down. He pretended to have evidence, but his charade was easily seen through. For during that time, like 8 other times before that, he had rushed into battle with a young, noble hero. The young hero always provided sources for his claims, for the young hero was trained in the empirical arts. The old coward too claimed to be a master of empiricism. He claimed to have learned the arts in the mleccha lands outside of Bharat, yet there was a flaw. The old coward, foolish as he was, could neither gather sources nor discern between the reliability of sources. There are even tales of the old coward where he said to have attempted to use the scrolls of WebMD as a weapon of empiricism. That did not work for the old coward, as his opponent was the same young hero he challenged in this tale. This time the old coward, as dastardly as ever, insulted the lands of the Hindis, Marathis, and Gujaratis, and the great king of Bharat, Shivaji, for the old coward was of the tribe of Ashoka, the Buddhist Aurangzeb. Ashoka, was a small, ugly man. He delighted in the slaughter of those of a different Dharma. As all the scrolls passed through the ages revealed, the man, known to his own people as Ashoka the Terrible, he slaughtered hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children of the Kingdom of Kalinga, a proud, noble kingdom.

Luckily, even the terrible Ashokan tribesmen, though superficially imposing, lacked the mental capacity to combat our young hero. Each time the fiend brought up unsubstantiated claims, our young hero, with the wit and wiliness of a seasoned empiricist, refuted him. There were times when the old coward brought up sources, but they were few and far between. This was to be expected, as 8 times before the old coward had attempted the same. Each time the old coward was left with egg on his face. This time as well, our young, hero was armed with sources upon sources. There legends that the young hero has at his disposal thousands of sources, spanning every topic the young hero is interested in. The majority of those sources, rumored to be in the possession of our young hero, dear ICF, are said to be forged by the various councils of peer-review throughout the world. The Councils of Peer-Review, a network that spans the seven seas, across kingdoms, is the pinnacle of research. It is said that what is forged by the empiricists on the councils of peer-review, are the backbone of rational warfare. The noble, young hero, having always been humble, is said to have obtained these weapons of truth after hours of questioning and researching. I inform you dear villagers of ICF, the tales were true. Even today the young hero mans the ramparts of ICF, armed with those gifts presented to him by the elders from various Councils of Peer-Review spread across the churning oceans.

The old coward, I reassure you dear brothers and sisters of ICF, was outmatched. As with the 8 times before, the old coward was found to be impotent. The arguments he hurled, in this rational battle between the empiricism of the young hero and the fanaticism of the old coward, were sparsely backed by sources. The young hero, champion of empiricism, fearlessly tore the old coward's fanatical assertions apart. The lack of effort required by the young hero, saddened him and filled him with sympathy. For the young hero, hailing from the of the Kingdom of Gujarat and son of the Land of Bharat, was loyal to the one True King, Chattrapati Shivaji. The Dharam Raj Shivaji, instilled in his humble soldier the values of Dharma. The poor Ashokan tribesman couldn't fight the noble, young hero, not with the baseless Assertions of Ashoka and the general Adharma with which the old coward did rational battle. Having brought the old coward to his knees for a 9th time, our young hero, his heart filled with sympathy for the old coward, made a gracious declaration to the old coward,

"O old coward, foolish man of the Land of Maple Leaves and Polar Bears, that land which is ruled by the male stripper known as Justin Trudeau and where man lay with beast, as sanctioned to be just by the highest Council of Justice of the Land of Maple Leaves and Polar Bears, lay down your arms. I, a true son of Bharat, with the grace and teachings of the First Maratha King, Liberator of Goa, Maharashtra, and Surat, Avenger of Vijayanagar, Guru of King Chattrasal of Bundelkhand, Master of Seas, Bane of Aurangzeb and all who, not of the Land of Bharat, loot and persecute Mother Bharat's Sons and Daughters, First of Name and the One True King of Bharat, will show you forgiveness, as the One True King of Bharat did to those whom he defeated. Apologize for breaking the Dharma of Rational debate with me, characterizing me as a blind fanatic and questioning my knowledge, solely based on what you have heard of my age. This unilateral act of betrayal, against the Dharma of rational debate cannot and should not go unpunished. However, keeping in mind our first set of battles, numbering 3 in total, where you, in accordance with the behavior expected of your many years, my brave, hard heart, that of an Intellectual Kshatriya, forged in the trenches of rational battle, melts with sympathy. You, once of the Land of Rasgulla, most Eastern of major territories of Bharat, now of the Land of Maple Leaves and Polar Bears, are deserving of lenience. The 9 defeats you suffered and 9 retreats for which you bore humiliation, have satisfied the lust for blood coursing through these veins. If you take this advice, old man , once of the Land of Rasgula, shall have all your sins against this Warrior of Empiricism, he who stands here with a sword to your throat, forgiven. This Champion, will offer you cordiality and respectful discourse in future rational battles, but this is the only time this boon of forgiveness shall be extended. For, as the Great Maratha showed, a betrayal, like that of Afzal Khan, can only be met with a painful death. Failure to accept this boon, will lead to your continued defeat and retreat at my hands. "

Thus spoke our young hero. The magnanimity the here showed should serve as a lesson to you citizens of ICF. It is not known whether the old man accepted the terms of surrender, but rest assured, all of you who gathered. The terror of Ashoka will not go unchallenged so long as the young hero watches over ICF.

On 1/6/2017 at 5:47 PM, Muloghonto said:

I have said before. Once you can prove YOUR opinion, i will prove mine. So go ahead, and prove to us that Shivaji saved us from turning into a middle-eastern-esque shithole, despite being nothing more than blip in Indian history. 123 years after Shivaji, the Marathas were nothing more than British minions. Some 'saving' he did for us.

Shifting the burden of proof logical fallacy. :nono: No matter how many times you repeat it, I will continue to point it out.

Quote

The 3 claims were:

1) Shivaji was a jumped up marauder who wanted a subcontinent sized personal fief

2) Shivaji did nothing/ next to nothing for Indians

3) That SCB, Gandhi, Tilak, Naoroji, Tagore, Ramanujan, etc, etc did more for India and Indians than Shivaji.

Muloghonto · January 7, 2017

Quote

I'm still waiting for a source that shows Ashoka was a "top 3" administrator and "greatest administrator in Indian history." Kya gayab hua?

I already posted FIRST HAND, ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE of his policy -making that makes him the greatest administrator in Indian history. When you can find another ruler who can compare to Ashoka on policy-making on the basis of FIRST HAND, ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE, then you can talk.

Quote

Shifting the burden of proof logical fallacy. No matter how many times you repeat it, I will continue to point it out.

And no matter how many times you try to run away from trying to peddle your opinion as a fact, Bacchu, I will ask you to PROVE YOUR CLAIM THAT WITHOUT SHIVAJI, India would be a middle eastern-esque shit hole.

Quote

Quote

"O old coward, foolish man of the Land of Maple Leaves and Polar Bears, that land which is ruled by the male stripper known as Justin Trudeau and where man lay with beast, as sanctioned to be just by the highest Council of Justice of the Land of Maple Leaves and Polar Bears, lay down your arms. I, a true son of Bharat, with the grace and teachings of the First Maratha King, Liberator of Goa, Maharashtra, and Surat, Avenger of Vijayanagar, Guru of King Chattrasal of Bundelkhand, Master of Seas, Bane of Aurangzeb and all who, not of the Land of Bharat, loot and persecute Mother Bharat's Sons and Daughters, First of Name and the One True King of Bharat, will show you forgiveness, as the One True King of Bharat did to those whom he defeated.

:phehe: :phehe: :phehe:

Dont kid yourself Bacchu. you are a product of western education, brought forth by westerners to Enlighten India. In which, they succeeded and its because of westerners we are not a middle-eastern esque shithole.

You are what you are, because of learning things discovered by Europeans. I am old enough to accept that, you are too young to accept that truth.

Quote

Highlighting the relevant portions in red.

Nothing in the edict suggests Defensive Offense is what he has in mind when he authorizes conquest for himself and his progeny. He clearly makes a threat based on their behavior/customs. This is corroborated with how he banned Hindu festivals/rituals/yagnas when he didn't like them. What you claimed as the basis of invasion is without source.

1. I am glad he banned festivals/rituals that required animal sacrifice. Thats called being progressive and not barbaric.

2. Given that he uses the term 'dharma', which is analogous to 'way of life/customs/rule/law' and that he mentions respect for both Brahmins and Sramanas (Buddhists), it is a fair assessment that he warned the tribals to obey his laws or be invaded. Which is acceptable by any standards.

Quote

We know that Buddhists of the time thought genocide and murder on the basis of religion were legendary and admirable traits. Otherwise, the three historical texts that apply to Ashoka, which have the dual purpose of glorifying Buddhism and Ashoka, wouldn't show that Ashoka murdered his 99 brothers, killed 18,000 Ajivikas in a single day, exchanged gold coins for the head of Jain monks, etc. That fits his own beliefs and behavior throughout his life.

Nothing more than hindu-mullah-giri here. Ashokavadana, Divyavadana is designed to contrast an 'evil to amazing' transformation, who loved the Buddha so much that the only times he goes 'insane with bloodlust' is when the Buddha is insulted. This type of black-and-white contrast story is a common archetype in many religions, not just Buddhism.

Quote

Especially on your end as you want to disregard Dipavamsa, Mahavamsa, and Ashokavarrdana, the basis of his history.

The basis of history in the past is irrelevant. What mattes NOW is the archaeological evidence, now that we know for sure that Devanampriya Piyadassi is Ashoka.

Quote

There is no evidence he was a Hindu before the war. There is no reason to believe he followed Hindu war law. Evidence suggests he was already Buddhist. The 13th edict doesn't refute that. It only says that he became serious about religion afterwards. Please show he was Hindu before and during Kalinga, if that is your contention. At best you could say he was atheist/non-believer. Even that requires proof. As long as he wasn't Hindu, there is no reason to assume he followed Hindu war law.

Strawman. There was no 'hindu' back then. Nobody uses that word. There were nastiks (believers in Vedas) and Anastiks. Given that Ashoka's father was an Ajivak and his Grandfather was a Jain, chances are high that he wasn't a Vedic follower anyways.

And since the Kalinga pillar shows that he took his conversion seriously only AFTER the Kalinga war, claiming that he was Buddhist before has no merit. Especially given that bulk majority of sources are unanimous on this.

Quote

No one is blaming Ashoka for collateral damage. The fact is he targeted civilians. One doesn't wound several hundred thousand noncombatants and enslave another 150k without targeting them. Nice try Gappu

Targetting civillians for slavery does not make one a mass murderer. Your claim was mass murderer- of that we have no evidence.

Quote

It looks like the great "empiricist-scientist-engineer" lacks critical thinking skills. Lahiri and Sanyal are RSS/VHP demagogues as well

Except Lahiri and Sanyal are wrong when they claim that the edicts were placed out of the way- we find his edicts in Vaishali, Pataliputra, Lumbini, Kosambi, Dhauli, Girnar- all MAJOR population centres of his time.

Chances are, major population centres existed where he put his pillars, given the fact that most of his inscriptions discovered were at historical population centres.

Quote

Still, 262-261 isn't necessarily 2 years, without the months mentioned.

Without any other additional data provided, 262-261 BCE is two years.

Quote

The only evidence of his policy is that he had things written on rocks about himself, yet the great empiricist is assuming they were implemented and that this makes him a "top 3" administrator in history. I thought empiricism was based on evidence. Let me check a dictionary to reaffirm what empirical means:

His edicts satisfy criteria #2 of empiricism.

Quote

I will repost this:

100k Kalingans died in battle, 150K Kalingans were enslaved, somewhere over 200K were wounded, houses were burnt, the city was razed, and 10k Ashokan soldiers died.

FALSE.
You can keep repeating falsehood as much as you want, but the FACT remains Ashoka mentions how many died, not just how many Kalingans died. Therefore, it includes his troop numbers as well.

When a ruler says 'X number of people died in this war', without any qualifier, the null is the number includes BOTH sides.

Quote

There were only 62K Kaligan soldiers in their standing army.

Nearly 40 years ago, in the time of Chandragupta Maurya. Those numbers of Megasthenes are from Chandragupta's time, not Ashoka's.

And even if Kalinga had a standing army of 62K, it most probably raised multiple armies just like EVERY SINGLE DEFEATED KINGDOM OVER LONG PERIODS OF WAR DO.

Quote

Again, if the Dipavamsa, Mahavamsa, and Ashokavarrdana are all to be thrown out, the 3 texts which the majority of Ashoka's history is based on, then, I will quote Sanjeev Sanyal's Ocean of Churn again, since you seemed to have ignored it when I said it:

Because Sanjeev Sanyal's comments are irrelevant if one throws out Dipavamsa, Mahavamsa, Ashokavadana, etc. because if we throw those sources out, we are left with first hand, archaeological inscriptions.

Quote

the First Maratha King, Liberator of Goa, Maharashtra, and Surat, Avenger of Vijayanagar, Guru of King Chattrasal of Bundelkhand, Master of Seas, Bane of Aurangzeb and all who, not of the Land of Bharat, loot and persecute Mother Bharat's Sons and Daughters, First of Name and the One True King of Bharat, will show you forgiveness, as the One True King of Bharat did to those whom he defeated

Shivaji the ONE true king of Bharat ? :phehe: :phehe:

You must have some Maratha in you for such a ludicrous comment. For there have been plenty of greater kings of Bharat than Shivaji - hindu or otherwise.

Since you are a hinduvta who will slander & hate any non-Hindu king of India, I see your Shivaji, i raise you a Rajendra Chola & Samudragupta.

Both infinitely greater kings than Shivaji.

PS: Aurangzeb was the 17th century Hitler, but he was an Indian. His father, i.e., Shah Jahan, was 3/4th Indian by blood. I am sure i don't need to explain that to a so-called biologist, not unless you come from the class of hinduvta where women don't matter, science don't matter and descent is only from the male.

Edited January 8, 2017 by Muloghonto

Stuge · January 8, 2017

Dunno how many crores must have been spent on the inauguration done by PM

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3003 using Tapatalk

Tibarn · January 9, 2017

19 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

I already posted FIRST HAND, ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE of his policy -making that makes him the greatest administrator in Indian history. When you can find another ruler who can compare to Ashoka on policy-making on the basis of FIRST HAND, ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE, then you can talk.

You didn't prove that those policies were implemented, that the policies were good, or that the policies were not propaganda. Too bad Gappu.

I need sources, oh great empiricist. :nono:

19 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

And no matter how many times you try to run away from trying to peddle your opinion as a fact, Bacchu, I will ask you to PROVE YOUR CLAIM THAT WITHOUT SHIVAJI, India would be a middle eastern-esque shit hole.

Why so afraid, old coward? Can't back up your nonsense. You know the burden is with you, unless you admit that you were talking out of your arse, there is no need for me to prove anything to win the debate. Poor old coward.

19 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Dont kid yourself Bacchu. you are a product of western education, brought forth by westerners to Enlighten India. In which, they succeeded and its because of westerners we are not a middle-eastern esque shithole.

You are what you are, because of learning things discovered by Europeans. I am old enough to accept that, you are too young to accept that truth.

Nope, you are an uneducated, pseudoscientist, and an old coward who spends more time with hookers than proving anything he claims. As I said, your cowardice and inability to provide sources betray you for the pathetic specimen you really are. I'm surprised that you still show your face around me. 9-0 :phehe: Get ready to bhaag like the 8 other times. Let's see some sources Gappu.

Also prove that I am a product of "Western education" and the existence of "Western" Education. Prove that it impacted India by enlightening the citizens. If not, it is once again your weak opinion.

19 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

1. I am glad he banned festivals/rituals that required animal sacrifice. Thats called being progressive and not barbaric.

2. Given that he uses the term 'dharma', which is analogous to 'way of life/customs/rule/law' and that he mentions respect for both Brahmins and Sramanas (Buddhists), it is a fair assessment that he warned the tribals to obey his laws or be invaded. Which is acceptable by any standards.

1) Prove it is progress to ban animal sacrifice and what was before was barbaric. Let me guess, you are passing your opinion off as proof. Nice try retard. So much for the empiricism that you claim to value. You are such a bigot :nono:

2) Nope, your continuous double standards are hilarious. It's not surprising coming from someone who is so weak at logic and tries to play tag with the burden of proof. If ISIS warned India that if we all don't cover all Indian women in Burkhas, then they will invade and slaughter Indians, you would call them fundamentalists, but Ashoka gets a different standard. :facepalm:

Still there are no sources. Are you lying again? 100 K in one day, quite the empiricist we have here. :hysterical:

19 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Nothing more than hindu-mullah-giri here. Ashokavadana, Divyavadana is designed to contrast an 'evil to amazing' transformation, who loved the Buddha so much that the only times he goes 'insane with bloodlust' is when the Buddha is insulted. This type of black-and-white contrast story is a common archetype in many religions, not just Buddhism.

Nope, let's see a source. Scientists back assertions with sources and citations. :wink:

You need to prove that claim that this is common to religions. Obviously you can't. :hysterical:

Killing 18,000 wasn't because of insulting Buddha. Personally executing people wasn't because of insulting Buddha. Setting prostitutes afire isn't because of insulting Buddha. That's once again your assumption, not backed with proof. :yahoo:

The fact is that Buddhists themselves wrote it, as a legendary attribute. It's no surprise that fundamentalist Buddhists have been among the most brutal mass murderers historically. :((

Poor "Atheist" "Buddhist" "Scientist" fundamentalist can't provide proof or sources. It's almost as if he is arguing out of his ass. Old man is loosing his mind. That's what happens when you learn history from Canadian street hookers. :hysterical:

19 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

The basis of history in the past is irrelevant. What mattes NOW is the archaeological evidence, now that we know for sure that Devanampriya Piyadassi is Ashoka.

Archaeological data that confirm many of the tales in the trio of Buddhist sources apply as well. Evidence for the torture chamber for example, but you apparently have the memory of a goldfish and didn't remember that from my post. :((

By the way, which archaeological data shows that Ashoka was a Top 3 administrator of all time?

Also, which Archaeological data shows that those policies were implemented?

Also which Archaeological data shows those policies were beneficial?

It seems the "Archaeological data", which you won't provide, don't seem to answer any of those, yet the great "Scientist" makes these claims. Double standards, jumping to conclusions, or just an idiot? :thinking:

You don't get to decide what is irrelevant. The fact is that Historians view those three texts as valid sources of history. No amount of obfuscation on your part will change that. Unlike you clowns who think reading Wikipedia is the basis of history, those who are actually objective and try to learn things out of field, concepts like POV, adaptation, embellishment etc. Those with enough integrity would actually take the time to understand how trained historians treat religious texts, in historical research, hint hint, they don't discard them. Only wannabe internet "intellectuals" cum propagandists cum genocide deniers think a text is invalidated by a few embellished claims. (You are attempting a form of composition fallacy, congratulations, that is a new one for you :wink: )

If you think they are so unreliable, provide Historians and sources where those historians augment your argument, otherwise lol :rofl:

Pro-Tip Gappu, the world doesn't work by the rules you set yourself. Try to experience the real world sometime, it will do you some good. :two_thumbs_up:

20 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Strawman. There was no 'hindu' back then. Nobody uses that word. There were nastiks (believers in Vedas) and Anastiks. Given that Ashoka's father was an Ajivak and his Grandfather was a Jain, chances are high that he wasn't a Vedic follower anyways.

And since the Kalinga pillar shows that he took his conversion seriously only AFTER the Kalinga war, claiming that he was Buddhist before has no merit. Especially given that bulk majority of sources are unanimous on this.

Incorrect use of strawman fallacy, instead you are using the rhetorical device known as deflection. Here is another first time for you. I am happy to learn that you are expanding your repertoire of irrationality, usually you only use strawmen and ad hominems. My dear, sweet Gappu is growing up, I'm so proud :((

Chances according to what statistical analysis? What are the chances, 50%, 3.3%, what? Another "empirical" claim by the "Scientist". You disregard that he could be an atheist/non-believer as well. Anyway, this is a strawman, I never claimed that he wasn't Hindu, I claimed that he wasn't Hindu during the Kalinga War. That is supported by sources that I provided.

Mr Scientist, regarding the bold, that isn't a given. Jumping to conclusions fallacy. This is like your famous "legions of university research", which you followed with WebMD. Let's see those sources, oh wait. The sources provided clearly state that he likely converted before the war, at least nominally. Either way, there is no support for your assertion, the sources say otherwise, especially considering one of the historians is Ashoka's renowned eulogist. He'd make you look objective in comparison. :giggle:

20 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Targetting civillians for slavery does not make one a mass murderer. Your claim was mass murderer- of that we have no evidence.

Strawman, back to your old circus tricks I see, not unexpected from such an outclassed old fool. Disregarding the sub clauses, and not answering them, is not done Gappu :nono: It looks like you are getting lazy. The fact is, slaving doesn't occur without violence unless all of these subclauses are true. Don't try to weasel out now.

Quote

4) The 150,000 people who were deported as slaves, who are clearly civilians, somehow put up no resistance to seizure of their persons. This would mean literally no people would have resisted being taken like livestock by an invading army. If even a few struggled and died rather than being enslaved, that constitutes murder of innocent people.

4.1) The assumption that any death that occurred during the slaving process, was of no fault of Ashoka's. This would mean that he didn't give slaving orders or didn't authorize violence while enslaving 150,000 people, right after invading the kingdom.

4.2) The assumption that the slaving process, during the transportation of slaves, didn't lead to multiple death of slaves during transport to the target destination. Ashoka ordering the seizure of 150,000 slaves, who would clearly be unarmed, places him responsible for any deaths that occur due to transporting 150,000 slaves 800+ km from Kalinga to the Bihar heartland.

4.2.1)For reference, from Kalinga Nagar in Odhisa to the Bihar border, today, along NH19 and N16 takes 16 hours by car and 142 hours by foot. I'm sure the enslaved were traveling by car and none of them died (sarcasm)

4.2.2) Ashoka had to enslave people. He couldn't leave 150,000 people in Kalinga, since he apparently ruled it post war anyway.

4.2.3) Assumption that there were quality roads on which to transport. Without roads at the quality level of NH 19/16, the travel time would take even longer, and the journey would be even more arduous

4.2.4) That he provided food for slaves while transporting them. Clearly someone who enslaves 150K people doesn't particularly care about their well being. What is the basis to assume that he even fed the slaves?

In Red, except there is historical evidence. You provide no refutation for it. You are simply committing multiple composition fallacies, jumping to conclusions fallacies, and cherry-picking fallacies. Shame Shame, Gappu, Shame Shame :nono:

20 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Except Lahiri and Sanyal are wrong when they claim that the edicts were placed out of the way- we find his edicts in Vaishali, Pataliputra, Lumbini, Kosambi, Dhauli, Girnar- all MAJOR population centres of his time.

Chances are, major population centres existed where he put his pillars, given the fact that most of his inscriptions discovered were at historical population centres.

Proof to back it up? Lahiri and Sanyal have both went to such edicts. Unless you have yourself, your word is of no value without sources. Sanyal mentions how they are out of the way, such as at high elevation. Feel free to paint him as a "Hindutva".

Chances according to an Ashokan fundamentalist maybe, but, real empiricism requires proof/sources. None of which you have. The chances you speak of are only your wishful thinking. Assumptions don't cut it. :angel:

20 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Without any other additional data provided, 262-261 BCE is two years.

Nope, that is an assertion. The rational assumption is that it took somewhere between 1 day and 2 years. Anything else requires proof. :aha:

Luckily I have another source: Bankston's Ancient India and the Maurya Empire

Looks like it was about a year. Please provide a counter source, otherwise, :phehe:

20 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

FALSE.
You can keep repeating falsehood as much as you want, but the FACT remains Ashoka mentions how many died, not just how many Kalingans died. Therefore, it includes his troop numbers as well.

When a ruler says 'X number of people died in this war', without any qualifier, the null is the number includes BOTH sides.

Red: False. Please show me a precedent which states that this is the case, otherwise that is your assumption. There is nothing in the edict you posted that implies it includes his soldiers. Historians, which I quoted as sources, supply the 10k number as separate quantity. Although this is really irrelevant, as it doesn't change the math of what he did. :phehe:

By the way, if you know what parallelism is, you would see that logically the "a hundred thousand were killed" portion couldn't refer to both, unless you would argue that the 150k deported and many x100k wounded also applies to both. If you are going to argue he enslaved his own soldier, then :rofl:

Quote

When he had been consecrated eight years the Beloved of the Gods, the king Piyadassi, conquered Kalinga. A hundred and fifty thousand people were deported, a hundred thousand were killed and many times that number wounded.

More from Bankston:

It looks like another Historian agrees that with the 10k figure dead. He also agrees women and children were killed. He's bias as well. Where does this 10k number come from, it certainly wasn't invented by me. :afraid:

The fact is that multiple Historians accept this number: they may have used an incorrect translation or maybe not. If the 10k number is just a myth, it doesn't really matter to me, as my point doesn't rely on 10k people here or there in terms of categories.

22 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Nearly 40 years ago, in the time of Chandragupta Maurya. Those numbers of Megasthenes are from Chandragupta's time, not Ashoka's.

And even if Kalinga had a standing army of 62K, it most probably raised multiple armies just like EVERY SINGLE DEFEATED KINGDOM OVER LONG PERIODS OF WAR DO

Red: If one uses the numbers of the Mauryas as static, then the same should be done for the Kalingans. If adjusts Kalingan estimates up, one must also adjust Ashokan up.

Using the newer Ashokan number I sourced, which is 640K, leading to a 7% growth rate in army size from Chandragupta's 600k. Using the same 7% for Kalinga, 62K becomes 66.34K. The ratio remains virtually the same, around 10 to 1, 640K vs 66.34K.

Bold: The war was basically a year, as my source shows. Multiple armies being raised relies on a high population, usually growing. Unless you have population data of Kalinga that is your assumption. Not likely for a small kingdom with poor defenses which is being razed, as my other sources argued. Being under total war conditions isn't something that facilitates an expanding population or economy. The length of the war being roughly one year implies that Kalinga would not have limited time to replenish an entire 66.34K fighting force and adequately equip them. These all require sources. Otherwise, you are doing baseless speculation. War isn't a computer game where cities under siege can spawn more soldier to defend themselves.

To actually bring more sources, Via Kaushik Roy's Militaries, Manpower, and Warfare in S Asia

Ashoka changed the policies of his fore-fathers. There is no way one can spin raining a blizzard of arrows onto a poorly defended city with 1/10th of the military size as doing utmost to protect peasants during war. Buddhist Aurangzeb truly was a chewt. :rofl:

On 1/7/2017 at 6:31 PM, Muloghonto said:

Because Sanjeev Sanyal's comments are irrelevant if one throws out Dipavamsa, Mahavamsa, Ashokavadana, etc. because if we throw those sources out, we are left with first hand, archaeological inscriptions.

And your comments are irrelevant if one actually uses sources, isn't that funny? You use a composition fallacy to try to discredit accepted sources of history, rather than understanding even religious texts can have historic value as long as one has a critical mind. This betrays your ignorance of the study of history.By your own flawed logic, I can discredit all of the edicts/inscriptions by finding one mistake, as one untruth would put into question the entire source, Ashoka himself.

Let's play that game:

Is killing animals wrong?

Is attending festivals wrong?

Quote

1st Major Rock Edict

For the Beloved of the Gods, the king Piyadassi, sees much evil in festivals, though there are some of which the Beloved of the Gods, the king Piyadassi, approves.

Formerly in the kitchens of the Beloved of the Gods, the king Piyadassi, many hundreds of thousands of living animals were killed daily for meat. But now, at the time of writing this inscription on Dhamma, only three animals are killed, two peacocks and a deer, and the deer not invariably. Even these three animal will not be killed in future.

If you think that eating meat is wrong, then much of the world is wrong. If you ever eat animals, even products made from gelatin or eggs, you are a sinner. If eating those products are okay, for anyone in the world, then Ashoka is wrong and his edicts are false.

If it is okay to ban ceremonies, because someone sees evil in them, with no qualifiers like animal sacrifice, then any festival that Ashoka doesn't approve of is a crime. If you celebrate any of those, it invalidates the edicts.

Are aryuveda and medicinal herbs effective?

Quote

2nd Major Rock Edict

Medicinal herbs whether useful to man or to beast, have been brought and planted wherever they did not grow;

If you don't think so, then all the edicts are invalid.

Do you think Ashoka's children are ruling and "instructing in the law" or that they are qualified to.

Quote

4th Major Rock Edict

The Beloved of the Gods, the king Piyadassi, his sons, his grandsons and his great grandsons will advance the practice of Dhamma, until the end of the world and will instruct in the law, standing firm in Dhamma. For this, the instruction in the law, is the most valuable activity.

If either of those two are wrong, all his edicts are wrong.

Do you consider slavery as wrong?

Quote

9th Major Rock Edict

This ceremony includes, regard for slaves and servants, respect for teachers, restrained behaviour towards living being and donations to sramanas and brahmans -- these and similar practices are called the ceremony of Dhamma.

It doesn't look like yugpurush thought slavery was wrong and didn't abolish it. If you think slavery is wrong, all the edicts are wrong.

This is fun, but one more and I will stop,

Is this true?

Quote

13th Major Rock Edict

Except among the Greeks, there is no land where the religious orders of brahmanas and sramanasare not to be found, and there is no land anywhere where men do not support one sect or another.

No, it is not, as there were no Brahmanas and sramanasare in the Americas. This definitely invalidates all the edicts by your own logic to discredit the other three sources. :hysterical:

Why the double standards? You can invalidate any source that doesn't fit your propaganda, but can use another source also filled with mistrusts and immoralities if it suits your agenda. The edicts are ridiculous and invalid as well and are certainly invalid if one follows your logic for invalidating the A, D, and M.

You have 2 choices:

1) All the sources are accurate, to varying degrees, which ultimately shows that Ashoka mas a mass murderer. He set prostitutes on fire, beheaded Jains, massacred ajivikas, slaughtered his brothers, and he personally executed so many people that he was known as Ashoka the Terrible.

2) None of the sources are valid and Ashoka is a mythical figure of whose cult you are a member. :hysterical:

For a self proclaimed empiricist to reduce the argument to some stone edicts, all of which you assume to be true, is not a flattering look for you Gappu. Not a very good critical thinker are we? Think about these questions:

1) Were all his edicts implemented? If yes, what is the evidence?

2) If these edicts were so good for people, why was his name in the dustbin of history until rediscovered by Nehru and his pet commies as a great leader.

3) You claimed that Ashoka made all sorts of great infrastructure, specifically mentioning roads, where is the evidence of that? The only mention of roads in the edicts says that he built wells along roads, not that he built roads. On the other hand, there actually is evidence that Chandragupta did such things. Where is the evidence?

On 1/7/2017 at 6:31 PM, Muloghonto said:

For there have been plenty of greater kings of Bharat than Shivaji

... I see your Shivaji, i raise you a Rajendra Chola & Samudragupta.

Both infinitely greater kings than Shivaji.

Bold: Strawman Gappu, I never said he was the greatest. I'm not a blind fanatic like you. I have actually read, and know what were the wrong things that Shivaji did. In fact, earlier in this thread I stated this:

Quote

Shivaji is up there with the greatest sons of Bharat of all time, with the likes of the Cholas, Chandragupta, Bajirao, etc. Most, if not all, of the people you mentioned aren't even in the same stratosphere.

Red: Looks like another assertion the enumerate clown can't back up

Also, why don't you quit shifting the burden of proof (another logical fallacy) and answer your original claim about Shivaji? Kya hua, *, tumse nahi ho payega?

Quote

The 3 claims were:

1) Shivaji was a jumped up marauder who wanted a subcontinent sized personal fief

2) Shivaji did nothing/ next to nothing for Indians

3) That SCB, Gandhi, Tilak, Naoroji, Tagore, Ramanujan, etc, etc did more for India and Indians than Shivaji.

Looks like your memory is falling to the low levels of your logic, or lack there of, and character with your advanced old age. It's okay, I'm sure you can beat one of your famous Canadian street hookers with your shitty logic(note you have made 10+ logical fallacies in single post :hysterical: ).

Quote

Since you are a hinduvta

One can't be a Hindutva you idiot. Hindutva means "Hinduness". You literally said Since you are Hinduness . You're the ch*tiya who claims to be "culturally Hindu", which is literally the RSS interpretation of Hindutva. :hysterical:

Quote

hindu or otherwise.

Name them and prove your claim. The only good kings were Hindu/Sikh/Jain and maybe a few Buddhists(not your mass murdering guru Ashoka), all others were as shit as your logic :finger:

Let me guess: Akbar :hysterical: . The fact of the matter is the only reason your borderline retarded self thinks Ashoka, let alone Akbar, is great is because you were brainwashed by your dear Chacha Nehru. It no wonder clowns like Amartya Sen and the commie gandus claim those two are the "greatest kings in Indian History" and "Hindus have nothing to be proud about." For someone who claims to dislike commies, you sure do seem to consistently agree with them . :thefinger:

On 1/7/2017 at 6:31 PM, Muloghonto said:

You must have some Maratha in you for such a ludicrous comment.

I don't know, Marathas are Marathi Shudras and I am a Gujarati Shudra, and many of them seem to seem to have BattraKali as a Kuladevi like my family does. So maybe that is this case.

However, I'm sure you have some 1) Bangladeshi and some 2) British in you.:

Bangladeshi:

1) You make the same arguments as Islamic extremists and Islamo-fascist apologists. Everyone who doesn't support, celebrate, make excuses for a mass murderer like Tipu/Auragzeb/Ashoka "Hindutva"/Communal/Sanghi. You sound more and more like that Outsider fellow.

2) Much like Bangladeshis are experts at pole-vaulting, you are good at all sorts of mental gymnastics and contorted ideas of logic, proof, and evidence.

3) You cling you the one piece of evidence you like, the Edicts in your case and, for an example, the Koran in a madrasa educated Bangladeshi Jihadi's case, and claim everything that doesn't support your view is invalid.

4) You claim to be a scientist, much like Zakir Naik claims as such, an influential extremist speaker in Bangladesh, yet are able to discern between science and opinions/beliefs.

5) You make assertions much like a Bangladeshi Islamist preacher, but are unable to provide any sources for your arguments.

6) I can smell you through the computer screen

7) You appear to have inbreeding-IQ depression.

British

1) You support British occupation of India, British looting of India, and British genocide of millions of Indians during occupation but, at the same time, claim to be a fan of Netaji. Cognitive dissonance born out of being a mutt?

2) You sure like to chaat whenever a firang thooks.

3) You think you're way more important than you are, just like Brits do today thinking they are in the colonial days.

4) Just like your angrezi ancestors, you celebrate a mass-murderer. Brits: Churchill and You: Ashoka. It looks like it runs in the genes

It looks like we both learned about our ancestors today. I for one find it really interesting that you are an Anglo-Bangladeshi. What, did your ancestors pole-vault over to this side of the border in 1947, and then when you "grew up" you got into "engineering" on an Anglo quota, thinking you are smarter than you are. That's an interesting life story.

On 1/7/2017 at 6:31 PM, Muloghonto said:

who will slander

You really should use a dictionary,

Quote

slander

n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm thereputation of the person defamed.

There is no defamation going on here. I am providing source after source. You are repeating rhetoric ad nauseum, hoping it will become true. Not to mention Ashoka isn't alive right now. The only one "slandering" anyone is you with Shivaji. You won't back up the ludicrous claims you originally made about him, and now you are trying to shift the burden of proof to me.

On 1/7/2017 at 6:31 PM, Muloghonto said:

PS: Aurangzeb was the 17th century Hitler, but he was an Indian. His father, i.e., Shah Jahan, was 3/4th Indian by blood. I am sure i don't need to explain that to a so-called biologist, not unless you come from the class of hinduvta where women don't matter, science don't matter and descent is only from the male.

Bold: Anglo-Bangladeshi Mutts don't get to decide who is Indian.

Red: I don't know bro, I need some random Sumerian parchment to confirm.

Blue:

1st Pic You

2nd Pic Me

Also I was wondering about these pictures below, I think @surajmal will appreciate this:

Are you Buddhist on Odd days

And Atheist on Even?

:thinking:

Religious fundamentalist using the mask of atheism while supporting a mass murderer. :phehe:

What's funnier is that you claim you can't be an extremist because you don't believe in "religion". Let me guess, in your warped mind, Buddhism isn't a religion or maybe a Buddhist can't be a religious nutter. That sounds like "a terrorist can't be a Muslim". :agree:

By the way, I am still waiting for some economics paper that your ridiculous claims, and no...

...Isn't an economic policy.

I expect you are too much of an old coward and a mendacious malcontent to provide sources which support your claims.

Muloghonto · January 9, 2017

2 hours ago, Tibarn said:

You didn't prove that those policies were implemented, that the policies were good, or that the policies were not propaganda. Too bad Gappu.

Thats not how history works. If someone makes an inscription declaring their accomplishments, it is taken to be true. That is the historical standard.

Otherwise, prove to us that any of the anti-hindu policies by Aurangzeb, Babur, Mohammed of Ghor, Mehmoud of Ghazni were implemented.

Quote

Why so afraid, old coward? Can't back up your nonsense. You know the burden is with you, unless you admit that you were talking out of your arse, there is no need for me to prove anything to win the debate. Poor old coward.

You have to prove your claim that without Shivaji India would be a middle-eastern-esque shithole.

Quote

Nope, you are an uneducated, pseudoscientist, and an old coward who spends more time with hookers than proving anything he claims. As I said, your cowardice and inability to provide sources betray you for the pathetic specimen you really are. I'm surprised that you still show your face around me. 9-0 Get ready to bhaag like the 8 other times. Let's see some sources Gappu.

Yes, Pappu. Claim whatever you like. Obviously it burned you that you claimed to be a 'son of hindu sanskriti' but are actually a western educated boy. Everything you know, everything you are going to earn your living based on, is thanks to the westerners, not your precious Hinduvta garbage.

Quote

Also prove that I am a product of "Western education" and the existence of "Western" Education. Prove that it impacted India by enlightening the citizens. If not, it is once again your weak opinion.

considering the ENTIRE post graduate syllabus of universities is thanks to western discoveries, your education is a western one, done in a western country.

Quote

1) Prove it is progress to ban animal sacrifice and what was before was barbaric. Let me guess, you are passing your opinion off as proof. Nice try retard. So much for the empiricism that you claim to value. You are such a bigot

Killing animals to appease your non-evidential God may be progressive to Hindu fundies like you, but killing anything in the name of a non-existent God is killing creatures on an ideological hypothesis. Which any sane person would oppose.

Quote

2) Nope, your continuous double standards are hilarious. It's not surprising coming from someone who is so weak at logic and tries to play tag with the burden of proof. If ISIS warned India that if we all don't cover all Indian women in Burkhas, then they will invade and slaughter Indians, you would call them fundamentalists, but Ashoka gets a different standard

You saying nope doest;t make it so Bacchu. Ashoka clearly says he is spreading Dharma and he asks his subjects to respect the Brahmin and the Sramana (Buddhist)- indicating that his message was not exclusively Buddhist.

Quote

Killing 18,000 wasn't because of insulting Buddha. Personally executing people wasn't because of insulting Buddha. Setting prostitutes afire isn't because of insulting Buddha. That's once again your assumption, not backed with proof.

Considering all those claims are contradicted by first hand archaeological evidence, its nothing more than myth-building and irrelevant.

Quote

The fact is that Buddhists themselves wrote it, as a legendary attribute. It's no surprise that fundamentalist Buddhists have been among the most brutal mass murderers historically.

Prove your hindu-mullah claim Kiddo.

Quote

Archaeological data that confirm many of the tales in the trio of Buddhist sources apply as well. Evidence for the torture chamber for example, but you apparently have the memory of a goldfish and didn't remember that from my post.

Having a torture-chamber proves nothing. Every country performed torture till 50 years ago and even now, most countries perform torture to prisoners.

Quote

The fact is that Historians view those three texts as valid sources of history.

Those are opinions. Not facts. historians change their opinions all the time. I don't care for opinions. Fact is, archaeological data proves that Ashoka did more things for his people than your precious Shivaji.

Quote

nlike you clowns who think reading Wikipedia is the basis of history, those who are actually objective and try to learn things out of field, concepts like POV, adaptation, embellishment etc. Those with enough integrity would actually take the time to understand how trained historians treat religious texts, in historical research, hint hint, they don't discard them. Only wannabe internet "intellectuals" cum propagandists cum genocide deniers think a text is invalidated by a few embellished claims.

Too bad for you, i've already provided several direct quotes from those very same trained historians who don't consider Ashokavadana to be reliable.

Game, set and match there, Bacchu.

Quote

Pro-Tip Gappu, the world doesn't work by the rules you set yourself. Try to experience the real world sometime, it will do you some good

When you can earn your own money in the real world, which means outside of student jobs in the lab that are glorified paid research projects, then you can lecture someone old enough to be your father on real world, samjhey Kiddo ?

Quote

You disregard that he could be an atheist/non-believer as well.

Learn to read Bacchu. Saying 'chances are high he was not a vedic follower' does not rule out him being an atheist. Perhaps you should've spent more time taking ESL.

Quote

The fact is, slaving doesn't occur without violence unless all of these subclauses are true. Don't try to weasel out now.

That isn't a fact. That is an opinion. Unless you'd care to 'prove' such a fact. Prove to us, that each and every instant of slavery involved mass murder.

Quote

Proof to back it up? Lahiri and Sanyal have both went to such edicts. Unless you have yourself, your word is of no value without sources. Sanyal mentions how they are out of the way, such as at high elevation. Feel free to paint him as a "Hindutva".

Chances according to an Ashokan fundamentalist maybe, but, real empiricism requires proof/sources. None of which you have. The chances you speak of are only your wishful thinking. Assumptions don't cut it.

Given that those old cities do not exist anymore, but that Ashokan pillar & rock inscriptions occur mostly close to the old Centers of population, it refutes the claim that he placed them away from population centres.

Quote

Looks like it was about a year. Please provide a counter source, otherwise,

Thank you for proving my claim that he was attacked several times, thus by several armies of Kalinga, not just one army, given that he beat them several times (thus declaring victory several times) and therefore, your number analysis is nothing more than Hindu-fundie nonsense and the figures of dead in Kalinga + wounded are quite concievably that of soldiers form both sides.

Quote

Red: False. Please show me a precedent which states that this is the case, otherwise that is your assumption. There is nothing in the edict you posted that implies it includes his soldiers. Historians, which I quoted as sources, supply the 10k number as separate quantity. Although this is really irrelevant, as it doesn't change the math of what he did.

You saying false doesnt make it so Bacchu. If i claim X number of people died in a war, without any qualifier, it means including both sides.

Again, take some ESL courses to improve your English comprehension if you cannot grasp such a basic facet of the English language.

Quote

Red: If one uses the numbers of the Mauryas as static, then the same should be done for the Kalingans. If adjusts Kalingan estimates up, one must also adjust Ashokan up.

Using the newer Ashokan number I sourced, which is 640K, leading to a 7% growth rate in army size from Chandragupta's 600k. Using the same 7% for Kalinga, 62K becomes 66.34K. The ratio remains virtually the same, around 10 to 1, 640K vs 66.34K.

Baseless speculation.

Quote

Multiple armies being raised relies on a high population, usually growing. Unless you have population data of Kalinga that is your assumption. Not likely for a small kingdom with poor defenses which is being razed, as my other sources argued. Being under total war conditions isn't something that facilitates an expanding population or economy. The length of the war being roughly one year implies that Kalinga would not have limited time to replenish an entire 66.34K fighting force and adequately equip them. These all require sources. Otherwise, you are doing baseless speculation. War isn't a computer game where cities under siege can spawn more soldier to defend themselves.

As YOUR OWN SOURCE shows, Ashoka fought multiple times, proclaimed victory multiple times. Meaning, multiple battles. Obviously raising multiple armies in 1 year is not going to make a well skilled or supplied army. But matters not. They are still soldiers who showed up to war multiple times, got beaten multiple times.

Therefore, your standing army numbers are irrelevant.

We have several examples of multiple armies being raised by a small kingdom inside 1 year. Such As Rome versus Hannibal. In that period, central & southern Italy, where the Romans soldiers were raised from, is roughly the same size as Kalinga. So prove to us that roman population was expanding at that time to back your claim.

Quote

There is no way one can spin raining a blizzard of arrows onto a poorly defended city with 1/10th of the military size as doing utmost to protect peasants during war. Buddhist Aurangzeb truly was a chewt.

No more of a chewt than Shivaji attacking a fortress with inhabitants inside it either.

Quote

And your comments are irrelevant if one actually uses sources, isn't that funny? You use a composition fallacy to try to discredit accepted sources of history, rather than understanding even religious texts can have historic value as long as one has a critical mind. This betrays your ignorance of the study of history.By your own flawed logic, I can discredit all of the edicts/inscriptions by finding one mistake, as one untruth would put into question the entire source, Ashoka himself.

Sorry thats not how history works. First hand sources are universally treated as true. That is the null position of history. Only counter evidence of first hand nature can disprove it. Not a text riddled with inaccuracies written hundreds of years later, in lands thousands of kms away.

Yes, even religious texts can have historical value- as in a window to the culture of that time. but a text as flawed as Ashokavadana has no quantitative value and i have already shown you many historians who think that.

Quote

For a self proclaimed empiricist to reduce the argument to some stone edicts, all of which you assume to be true, is not a flattering look for you Gappu. Not a very good critical thinker are we?

As i showed you, there are plenty of historians who don't consider Ashokavadana to be accurate or even worth taking at face-value. So game, set & match to me, Pappu.

Quote

Also, why don't you quit shifting the burden of proof (another logical fallacy) and answer your original claim about Shivaji? Kya hua, *, tumse nahi ho payega?

Jab tere se proof ho payega ki 'Shivaji saved us from turning into a middle-eastern-esque shithole', tab tujhe proof milega. Maine already 3-4 bar kaha hai. Ankhey khol, bachchey.

Quote

One can't be a Hindutva you idiot. Hindutva means "Hinduness". You literally said Since you are Hinduness . You're the ch*tiya who claims to be "culturally Hindu", which is literally the RSS interpretation of Hindutva.

:phehe:

When RSS will say that Krishna, Rama etc. are not Gods/avatars, there is no proof for them, then they can call themselves culturally hindu. Otherwise, its a label they are misrepresenting.

Quote

. It no wonder clowns like Amartya Sen and the commie gandus claim those two are the "greatest kings in Indian History" and "Hindus have nothing to be proud about." For someone who claims to dislike commies, you sure do seem to consistently agree with them

Amartya Sen has a nobel prize. you got nothing, Pappu. And neither does your RSS/VHP/Hinduvta chaddi-dals. Hindus have a lot to be proud of. But it doesnt change the fact that based on 1st hand evidence, the most accomplished Indian policymaker before modern times is Ashoka, the Marathas were a feudal disgrace to the 18th century and there are plenty of Indians- Hindus, Buddhists & Jains greater than Shivaji or any of the feudal, backwards Marathas.

Quote

There is no defamation going on here. I am providing source after source.

You are providing opinion. Not facts. Too bad a psuedo-educated kid like you cannot tell the difference.

Quote

Bold: Anglo-Bangladeshi Mutts don't get to decide who is Indian.

Neither do HInduva idiots like yourself. Akbar's wife was Rajput. THEIR son was Jahangir. Thus Jahangir is 50% Indian. His son is Shah Jahan, who's son is Aurangzeb. Therefore, Aurangzeb is also Indian.

Quote

Religious fundamentalist using the mask of atheism while supporting a mass murderer.

1. Buddhism is not a religion.

2. I identify with a lot of Buddhist principles- but not all of them. So I am not a Buddhist. However, i don't believe in your ram-leila or any God nonsense, so that makes me, by definition, an Atheist.

Quote

I expect you are too much of an old coward and a mendacious malcontent to provide sources which support your claims.

You can whine as much as you want, but until evidence i asked for are provided by you, you won't get any from me either, kiddo.

sandeep · January 9, 2017

7 hours ago, Muloghonto said:

Thats not how history works. If someone makes an inscription declaring their accomplishments, it is taken to be true. That is the historical standard.

Really? So a 1000 years from now, someone digs up a Nazi Concentration camp site and finds a SS propaganda inscription describing employment and housing for jews, it should be taken as truth.

Banjo Mulo, for a smart guy, you are indulging in some foolish debate - your opinions and interpretations are gospel, because its the "standard", whatever you don't agree with, has to be supported with overwhelming proof. What bakwaas.

Vilander · January 9, 2017

On 1/4/2017 at 9:14 PM, Tibarn said:

The null is that both were killed, not that only soldiers were killed. A vanilla statement mentioning 100,000 with no qualifiers doesn't mean only soldiers were killed. I like how you ignored the 150,000 transported. Looks like the weasel doesn't change it's character . Where did they come from, all the fields you fertilize with the bullsh*t you post as fact? You are making an assumption that his army was solely involved based on no evidence. Looks like the Fedex-Kinko's that Master's degree came from didn't even teach what a null hypothesis was.

Let's reproduce the relevant portion of his Rock Edict at Girnar. As I stated, I won't let you weasel out, via Colorado State:

https://www.cs.colostate.edu/~malaiya/ashoka.html

So the red states that 150,000 were deported. The blue states that 100,000 were killed. The green states that many more died from other causes.

So who were the 150,000 deported? Not even Buddhist Aurangzeb would be dumb enough to deport his own troops, so they must be denizens of Kalinga. That is, unless you think he lacks the ability to produce coherent thoughts and was referring to somewhere else. The many more that died, if the number was even a grand total of 3 and were civilians, would and does show ole Ashoka to be a mass murderer. What were the other causes which were not direct executions? Likely famine, disease, etc stemming from his brutal military campaign that lasted almost a year. Especially in terms of famine, this also shows Ashoka to be what you accuse Shivaji of being, a marauder who attacked and damaged villages.

Next portion of the edict:

According to you this red portion implies only soldiers and according to you the blue portion, which mentions how the hardships of war affect all related to a war. Yeah civilians clearly weren't involved (sarcasm)

A later portion

Here he threatens to kill the forest people if they don't follow his rules, despite them not being in the boundaries of his territory. This clearly shows a pacifist-yugpurush who wasn't a mass murderer, yeah right

The great pacifist didn't even forbid his sons from continuing conquest.

My dear, sweet Gappu (I bothered), it looks like you didn't include a source here either. I shall fix it for you, your BAAP Tibarn is always there to clean up your mess, after all, Baap Baap hota hai.

All sources related to the Battle of Cannae are from Roman and Greek sources, so there is no reason to question Roman sources. Not to mention I have studied Latin as well. Having said that, let's dive into the sources:

Polybius (Greek, c. 204-122 BC) Universal History, books 3-1

https://web.archive.org/web/20050407172948/http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/ancient/polybius-cannae.html

Looks like you were off 10,000 men.

Wait, there's more

Livy (Roman, 59 BC-17 AD): History of Rome from its Foundation, books 21-3

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/txt/ah/Livy/Livy22.html

12,800 men off this time.  By the way, here is a second portion you would do well to read:

Not only did you get the size of the army wrong, but the amount of Romans dead as well. No wonder you didn't want me to check your claim

Back to the Buddhist Aurangzeb:

A quick summary of all the major, important sources pertaining to Ashoka, just to make sure my dear pet weasel doesn't try any circus tricks.

1) Ashoka-vadana

2) Dipavamsa

3) Mahavamsa

Sources 2) and 3) both state that Ashoka murdered his 99 brothers. He also murdered his eldest brother, after his father's death, to seize the throne. They state that he was known as Chandashoka (~Ashoka the terrible).

If you want to disregard those 3, all that is left is essentially his rock edicts. In the same rock edicts, it is clearly implied that Kalinga is devastated by his invasion. It's only your wishful thinking that says that only soldiers were killed.  The same rock edicts also show him threatening to invade forest people who are outside of his territorial boundaries, if they don't follow his beliefs and rules. If that doesn't show he was a tyrant, I don't know what does. You can play ignorant, or maybe you are indeed stupid enough to not see what's right there, but that's your prerogative.

The most damning fact is that none of the 4 sources about Ashoka are written by antagonists. All 4 are written either by his own sympathizers or himself, in the case of the rock edicts. And all 4 depict him as the mass murderer he was.

You will not provide any sources for your fantastic claims, but that is to be expected from a Buddhist Supremacist.

Now back to what you are avoiding:

Looks like you soiled yourself , like the other 8 times you blindly charged into battle with me, bereft of sources for anything you claim. I expect you to back up these fantastic claims you made or run away like you usually do.

Also, I noticed you still didn't provide an Economics paper that support your economic theories. Too much for the great polymath to provide a source? Just copy Scandinavia bro,

@Muloghonto @Tibarn

how do you guys honestly spend so much time researching for posts as exhaustive as this. I know you guys are in a war or sorts but i really like both your posting histories( no pun). What field does each of you work in History professor match professor types ?

zen · January 9, 2017

@Tibarn @Muloghonto

Some good points made by both of you. However, there are a few things you could agree upon to move the debate forward. For e.g.

Numbers and Dates: In stead of focusing on accuracy of numbers and dates, may be you could both agree that a "large" number of people died in some specified period
Conversion of Ashoka: Common sense would suggest that one would not convert or accept a religion on the spur of the moment so Ashoka is likely to have some sort of understanding of Buddhism (or be a Buddhist) before Kalinga. One needs to know what to convert into to convert .... May be after Kalinga, he decided to get more serious about it (implementation)
Mass Murder vs Slavery: May be slavery for many is as good as being dead

Below are a few points from Muloghanto that may need to be addressed properly by him:

Quote

Akbar's wife was Rajput. THEIR son was Jahangir. Thus Jahangir is 50% Indian. His son is Shah Jahan, who's son is Aurangzeb. Therefore, Aurangzeb is also Indian.

Technically, it may be correct but not in terms of evaluating family tree. For e.g. Karishma-Saif's son would be following Islam. Though technically, he could be 50% Muslim and 50% Hindu. Even Saif can be said to be a 50/50 (Tiger-Sharmila), but he appears to be following Islam and therefore a Muslim .... Also note that Jahangir (Mirza Nur-ud-din Beig Mohammad Khan Salim) did not market himself as a Rajput

IMO, Lineage is based on how a family "markets" itself. The key point here would be what Akbar thought he was - "Indian" or something else

Quote

Thats not how history works. If someone makes an inscription declaring their accomplishments, it is taken to be true. That is the historical standard.

May be. But would you trust every billboard that you read?

Quote

you claimed to be a 'son of hindu sanskriti' but are actually a western educated boy. Everything you know, everything you are going to earn your living based on, is thanks to the westerners, not your precious Hinduvta garbage.

As you may know, many years of Jesus Christ's life are unaccounted for. Many say, he was in India learning about religion. If this were correct, can we assume that Christianity should be thankful to Hinduism? .... And Buddhism originated in Ind so can we draw such implications on countries practicing Buddhism?

Also to be noted is that there are various forms of education. One learns from his family, friends, schools, colleges, etc. Learning the ability to add 2+2 is one form of education. Learning the ability to do something that creates the 2 and further add another 2 to it is another form of education

Ambani brothers have degrees from Stanford and Wharton. Let's not give too much credit to these institutions for Ambani brothers' success

Edited January 9, 2017 by zen

Muloghonto · January 9, 2017

4 hours ago, sandeep said:

Really? So a 1000 years from now, someone digs up a Nazi Concentration camp site and finds a SS propaganda inscription describing employment and housing for jews, it should be taken as truth.

Banjo Mulo, for a smart guy, you are indulging in some foolish debate - your opinions and interpretations are gospel, because its the "standard", whatever you don't agree with, has to be supported with overwhelming proof. What bakwaas.

I am simply saying how historians see history. When we see stelae of Egyptian kings and Assyrian emperors, they don't go 'hmm, who knows if it was implemented or not', they see it as 'if it didn't happen and is just a crock of lies, why didn't people deface it over the years ?'.

If you start questioning archaeological evidence, then whole history falls apart. Jews were not massacred & deported by the Assyrians then, Egyptian kings didnt build the pyramids - they just 'claimed glory for it', etc etc.

See how slippery that slope is ?

Muloghonto · January 9, 2017

2 hours ago, zen said:

Below are a few points from Muloghanto that may need to be addressed properly by him:

Technically, it may be correct but not in terms of evaluating family tree. For e.g. Karishma-Saif's son would be following Islam. Though technically, he could be 50% Muslim and 50% Hindu. Even Saif can be said to be a 50/50 (Tiger-Sharmila), but he appears to be following Islam and therefore a Muslim .... Also note that Jahangir (Mirza Nur-ud-din Beig Mohammad Khan Salim) did not market himself as a Rajput

IMO, Lineage is based on how a family "markets" itself. The key point here would be what Akbar thought he was - "Indian" or something else

That may be how families/certain cultures see things, i am simply saying what is/isnt from a scientific perspective, where there is no ambiguity.
One can ignore their maternal or paternal side. There are people who ignore both those things and go by 'what do I feel like ?' too. Notice, I didnt say anything about being Hindu/Muslim, i said about being Indian. Since the Mughals mixed DNA with the Rajputs, they are Indian after that point. If one wishes to claim that Akbar, Humyun, Babur are not Indian, that would be 100% correct. Their DNA is Turkic & mongol. But Jahangir onwards, there is Indian DNA present, so Jahangir onwards, they are Indians too.

Quote

May be. But would you trust every billboard that you read?

I am stating what is considered historical standard. Historians see inscriptions like the Ashokan Pillars, Assyrian victory carvings, Egyptian pyramid writings, etc. as true by default. Because they see it as, 'how do you get away with carving lies/tall tales on a rock close to a populated city, over time' ? Like, these carvings i am giving examples of, are not form 20 years ago. They are from 2000+ years ago. Thats a lot of kings/people to go through to keep a big, bad lie alive.

If we question archeological writings as 'well, we don't know if it was a lie or not', we can apply that even more towards books written 100s of years later pre-printing press. If I can question archaeology, then i can easily say ' Pre- Printing press, anyone could write anything they wanted, store it in a monastery & nobody would know except the people who wrote it, there is no pressure of exposure, test of time to books compared to pillars/carvings near a city, a book from 2000 years ago is like a private fictional story kids write, where you can say anything you want'.

Then, all history collapses, except for civilizational trends that can be deduced from material trends.

The standard order of evidence in history is:
Archaeology(inscriptions/legends on coins, etc) >> First hand accounts (i.e., book written by the claimant) >> Second hand accounts (i.e., written during their lifetimes by someone else) >> third hand accounts ( i.e., written long time after they are dead, by someone else) >> Folk legend. In standard historical procedure, when there is a conflict of data, the hierarchy wins.

What this means, is in terms of evidence, history ranks these fellows in this order of certainty:

Ashoka >>Babur >>Chandragupta Maurya >> Rana Sanga >> Bappa Rawal

Quote

As you may know, many years of Jesus Christ's life are unaccounted for. Many say, he was in India learning about religion. If this were correct, can we assume that Christianity should be thankful to Hinduism? .... And Buddhism originated in Ind so can we draw such implications on countries practicing Buddhism?

Also to be noted is that there are various forms of education. One learns from his family, friends, schools, colleges, etc. Learning the ability to add 2+2 is one form of education. Learning the ability to do something that creates the 2 and further add another 2 to it is another form of education

Ambani brothers have degrees from Stanford and Wharton. Let's not give too much credit to these institutions for Ambani brothers' success

I am simply pointing out to our over-preening Hinduvta early 20-something kid, that when he puts his degree to use and does something worthwhile, 99% of the concepts in his field are invented by non-Indians, so there goes his 'i am Hinduvta, product of my culture' crap.

Edited January 9, 2017 by Muloghonto

Sign In

India is about to spend a ridiculous $530 million on a statue in the middle of the Arabian sea

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

The Pali Version

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

1st Major Rock Edict

2nd Major Rock Edict

Medicinal herbs whether useful to man or to beast, have been brought and planted wherever they did not grow;

4th Major Rock Edict

The Beloved of the Gods, the king Piyadassi, his sons, his grandsons and his great grandsons will advance the practice of Dhamma, until the end of the world and will instruct in the law, standing firm in Dhamma. For this, the instruction in the law, is the most valuable activity.

9th Major Rock Edict

13th Major Rock Edict

Except among the Greeks, there is no land where the religious orders of brahmanas and sramanasare not to be found, and there is no land anywhere where men do not support one sect or another.

slander

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Polybius (Greek, c. 204-122 BC) Universal History, books 3-1

Livy (Roman, 59 BC-17 AD): History of Rome from its Foundation, books 21-3

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites