Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Runs

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Time Online

    50d 16h 17m 3s

Everything posted by Muloghonto

  1. Thommo - how quick was he?'

    Your bias is noted against experts, but you simply saying ALL experts are biassed, doesn't make it so. It makes YOU crazy, to allege every single cricket professional out there is exgaggerating and using hyperbole. Poor batsmanship exgaggerated pace, for professionals who's JOB is to negotiate fast deliveries, but YOU, an armchair critic, who hasn't faced any of them, can tell from a 2d image, with zero depth perception, how fast the bowlers were. Sorry, we are not falling for your egotistic nonsense. Whenever people claim ALL experts are wrong and they are right, it usually means two things : a) they are narcissitic egotists and b) they are bat-$hit crazy.
  2. Thommo - how quick was he?'

    If it is against Physics, i will 100% tell you what you CANNOT do. What you CANNOT do, is tell speeds of a bowler from a 'batsman-facing bowler' angle. Period. All the cricketing knowledge and analytical skills won't compensate for your eyes being unable to tell depth in a front-on view of TV. And whats rich, is you think YOU, an arm-chair critic, sitting in front of a TV, which doesn't show depth accurately in front on-view, with cameras set 100m from the action (i.e., by the boundary), can tell if a bowler is bowling 140kph or not, but people who have FACED the said bowlers, day in, day out, cannot. That is 100% BS. So take your nonsense about telling speeds from TV somewhere else, where fools with zero knowledge of physics and optical illusions reside.
  3. Thommo - how quick was he?'

  4. Thommo - how quick was he?'

    Look, you simply cannot hold the above view and think you can tell how fast someone is, on tv. If bunch of people with great eyesight (and almost all batsmen have had great eyesight compared to human average), facing bowlers in real life, for tens of thousands of time, cannot tell how fast a ball is travelling, then it stands to reason, a bunch of arm-chair critics watching a ball being bowled on tv can tell how fast the ball is. Period. Stop running away from this fairly elementary piece of fact and logic. I think one CAN tell how fast a ball is travelling, in comparison to another ball, just fine, in real life. They cannot tell, from front-on/batsmen-on camera angle, because that camera angle fundamentally distorts the motion of the ball to create an optical illusion of speed. Ie, on tv, particular angles can make a ball look faster or not (i.e., angle of trajectory), because of the way this is mapped on a 3d->2d mapping.
  5. Thommo - how quick was he?'

    i am talking to a guy who thinks he can see a front-on view on tv and tell if a bowler is bowling 140ph or 120kph,but professional batsmen who actually face said bowlers, cannot. THAT is what i am pointing out, is laughably absurd.
  6. Ancient, Medieval and Modern History of India Thread

    Wow ! Kudos, its a very well thought out post and quite convincing. You've managed to change my opinion of Tipu. Though i must say, my detailed analysis of Indian political history does not include near-modern Indian history (partly because i am never that interested in politics and these events- from Plassey to WWII- still play a big part in our political shenanigans/worldview). I usually focus on ancient & medieval history (thats my interest focus), as i find history of the last 300-400 years too detailed and too complicated to follow, compared to the ones of distant past.
  7. Ancient, Medieval and Modern History of India Thread

    1. The Bolan and Gomal pass didn't really matter for invasion routes, as most invaders came through the Khyber. Only two invaders came from the Bolan/Gomal pass : The Arabs ( Bin Qasim) and the Scythians ( Northern & Western Kshatrapas) . 2. Bolan and Gomal pass are also very difficult to hold from India, because : a) Unlike the Khyber, the Bolan and Gomal are west of Indus after Indus widens significantly, this makes crossing the Indus back and forth opposite of Bolan or Gomal pass, virtually impossible. On the other hand, Indus is narrow around Attock and the traditional crossing point. b) The Gomal and Bolan pass are in the Suleiman range, a region that has been mostly lawless, for most of its history. Nobody controlled these areas directly, not even the Mughals or Nader Shah. 3. Indian empires that are based out of the north, tend to get mired with Deccan empires/kingdoms as they get big, because of two reasons: a) Deccan kingdoms start seeing a mega-empire in the north as a threat vice versa and b) Northern Empires start seeing the riches of the Deccan as higher priority of conquest than barren but strategic lands in the NW subcontinent. I will however, point out, that the two Indian empires that established a lasting hegemony over the north and completely dominated the Deccan - Mauryas and Guptas - did prioritize control of the Khyber. Mauryas definitely concentrated forces in Takshashila, specifically for the Khyber pass and Guptas had their boundary at Takshashila, just miles from Peshawar. Only reason they did not conquer Peshawar and make it directly under their control, is because the Sassanids and Guptas were allies and Sassanids had conquered Peshawar from the Kushans first. However, when Sassanids started to lose control of Peshawar-Kabul region in early 400s AD, under the Chionite expansion, Chandragupta Vikramaditya went ahead and whacked the heck out of the region. But except these two empires, no other Northern empire formed a complete hegemony over the north,beyond the lifetime of 1 conqueror, so i'd say it was rarely the case that a Northern empire could extend all the way to the Khyber without getting mired in the south. 4. The areas immediately beyond Indus were an immense logistical challenge for Indian rulers. Predominantly because of elephants: our warfare was dependent on elephants being the apex war unit but elephants usually need nearly half a tonne of plant matter and 200 litres of water per elephant per day. This, is extremely hard to provide in the barren lands west of the Indus and without competent cavalry, we couldn't face the cavalry based forces based in Afghan regions easily. We could've faced cavalry without their elephants, if India had heavy infantry-like the Romans/Greeks, but India is not where heavy infantry evolved/is the place for it to evolve. Panipat I and II are completely justified where they were. I will point out, Panipat is close to where most of the major, historic battles for India have occurred. Tarain is pretty close and the Guptas too, likely fought the Alchon Huns ( Hepthalites who invaded India) in the plains of Punjab, likely between Attock and Delhi. This is because of their reliance on war elephants. When you have so many war elephants on the march/fielded, you need two things: a) You *MUST* be close to a major water source and b) You should seek a big flat land, where you can unleash your war elephants with full effect. We also used chariots until pretty late (Pal Empire was the last empire in the world to use chariots), because in the vast Indo-gangetic plains, which are also very flat, chariots can be a viable option (chariots are useless over broken/hilly ground, hence abandoned very quickly in the middle east, where most wars used to involve fighting in the mountains ringing Iraq, Turkey etc). Panipat III was just all-round case of stupids. Marathas should not have fought there but then again in this case, probably the proximity to Delhi played a 'comforting factor' as a fall-back/supply option.
  8. Thommo - how quick was he?'

    As i said, its completely hypocritical and egotistic to say YOU can gauge speed of a bowler from head-on view on tv with zero depth, but professionals who ACTUALLY FACE the said bowler cannot tell how fast they are. Actually correct. You cannot gauge how fast they are from head-on view.
  9. Ancient, Medieval and Modern History of India Thread

    An interesting note, on horses and stirrups: What we had for cavalry, prior to the 'true heavy cavalry', aka lancers (who had swords of course as secondary weapons),were mostly horse archers, chariot riders and cavalrymen relying on swords. However, cavalry warfare did have some wielding spears, a pseudo version of early lancers. IIRC, its what Alexander's cavalry was originally of ( Systophori or something like that) : they had spears, but these were smaller, balanced spears, used for stabbing. The idea was, to wade into infantry or engage other cavalry by repeated stabbing motion, with a 8 foot or so spear (any bigger and the spear is too heavy for repeated stabbing or too unwieldily for it). This you could accomplish, because while the ancients did not have stirrups, they were not total nincompoops: they had long since invented saddles that would keep you seated, while allowing you to thrust and absorb force. Look up the Roman 4-point saddle, thats typically how ancients everywhere rode. You just couldn't absorb the force of a horse running full tilt while you were skewering a target. These cavalry-men, could stab with a spear repeatedly or engage with their sword. But that is not true heavy cavalry- true heavy cavalry relies on fixed point lancers : where you 'fix' a long pole (lance) to your chest/shoulder/saddle etc. and deliver killing force blow by using the momentum of the horse. Ie, a lancer does not 'stab' with his lance, he keeps it steady and still, letting the horse do the work. Everywhere, except Iran. Iran, sometime around 200 AD, came up with true heavy cavalry, despite not having stirrups. They are called the Savaran ( probably from where the word 'sawari'/'ghor-sawar' comes from. It was these guys : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aswaran#/media/File:Taq-e_Bostan_-_equestrian_statue.jpg Notice, the legs. There are no stirrups depicted (and legs won't make that angle with stirrups anyways) but the guy is a full blown 'old school European knight', covered in plate mail from head to toe, riding a very heavily armoured horse. What the Persians did, was invent the special, Persian saddle. They simply solved the problem of weight transfer, by fixing the legs of the riders, with clamps that came up from the saddle, to lock you in place. This enabled the Persians, to field the first true feudal style heavy cavalry the world has ever seen. Unfortunately, it came with a huge problem (and probably why this model didn't survive the advent of stirrups) : by locking the rider's legs in place, the rider often went down with the horse and had no chance to fall off or jump off the horse if the horse was killed in combat, thus exacting a very heavy price on the rider. This is why, we see from Roman and Byzantine accounts, Sassanids used their cavalry meticulously and the first evidence of 'cavalry formation warfare' : by keeping the cavalry tightly knit and emphasizing formation, one could reduce the chances of riders being isolated and thus, being brought down with their horse. Anyways, back to Indian history now. PS: "locking your foot in", is not 'my theory', its common knowledge in equestrian persuits. It was so important, that this is why we actually have high heels. Look at this picture of Shah Abbbas : Or this picture of Louis : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_XIV_of_France#/media/File:Louis_XIV_of_France.jpg Notice the high heels. Its so that riders could 'lock' their foot with the stirrup platform and weight transfer. Over time, it became a symbol of nobility (because only noblemen could afford horses, thus horse-shoes) and a status symbol, their daintiness in walking, slowly becoming a fashion symbol of the fairer sex.
  10. Ancient, Medieval and Modern History of India Thread

    I wish i was a professor- too bad, it means either making $0 as a job or be 100% dedicated to teaching or arguing petty $hit with other history professors, almost all who lack a fundamental understanding of science and technology and don't understand over-arching, big picture of it anyways. (I don't claim to either, btw). As the brilliant line from Shawshank Redemption says : "Thats all it takes really. Pressure and time. Pressure. And time". I've been reading history in my spare time for close to 20 years now. Did a few courses on it, happened to get a minor in it. Its easy, in the west , to turn pursue a life-long passion/hobby into something of that nature. So i'd say, i am much the same as you. But i don't restrict myself to any history. The only thing i can say, both from studying history in university setting as well as reading on my own, 99% of people-even history professors- tend to see history through tunnel vision. Its natural, because kinship interests people in history most of the time and most people read about their kin's history (thats also how you get a lot of crazy conspiracy theorists/superiorists/nutbags in history. People who read too much about 'their own' and practically nothing about everyone else). But reality is, all history is more or less connected. Sure its ok to have focuses/be more interested in one region than others, but don't ignore other regions totally. I will make no qualms saying my big 'hole' in history, is native american history & sub saharan African history, except Mali. Especially, in good ol Eurasia. What happened in China at 250 BC, ultimately affected India in 100 BC. What happened in Arabia in 500AD, affected, in very short time, people thousands of miles away in Kabul. Whatever migrations happened, there are knock on effects. So don't restrict yourself to 'our history/this history/that history'. History is history. Ofcourse its natural to have interests and focuses, but one should try to see things in terms of 'this very interesting thing happened in this part of the world at X date. I wonder, what was going on in another part of the world, far away but linked, because of trade routes and travel, around the same time?'. If you realize, that the entire old world is basically linked together by people (Africa-Eurasia), with only two major bottlenecks of isolation : the Siberian north & east, beyond the lakes Baykal, the polar regions and sub-saharan Eastern, Central Africa and beyond, where the choke point was the Sahara and the nile river the only connection. All the way back to probably 8,000-6,000 years ago. People may not have known of China in Egypt or England in India, but information trickled down, technologies travelled and incidents of huge consequence at one end of this landmass, often ended up affecting things at the other end. Lastly, for the saddle and stirrup bit - i am an engineer originally, so my interest in history has always been primarily materials history. I got into history by my fascination of 'how did they build XYZ' and as an adult, that has long since moved on from just architecture, to history of metallurgy, pottery, etc. Admittedly, i am much more familiar about metallurgic history than pottery ( easier for my chemistry background to grasp metallurgy i suppose). In order to know how technology shaped mankind, one has to also look into technological history of mankind, in the true sense of the word. Political history is something i truly got into around 10 years ago, because with less alone time, its an easier topic to follow and enjoy.
  11. Ancient, Medieval and Modern History of India Thread

    I have no idea, to be honest. Its not like there are 0 rapists and Chors amongst Rajputs either, so could be. Either way, rightly or wrongly accused, it became a hindu king vs muslim people issue and the Ulema acted. It kind of puts Sher Shah in a 'no choice unless you want a lot of strife from muslims at you' position. I don't think Sher Shah was being fair or unfair, i simply think that he was put in an impossible situation: remember, he does not have a huge dynasty behind him, he is the start- and i highly doubt he could've survived the optics of 'muslim who lets hindu raja rape muslims' stigma, whether right or wrong. These kind of situations make it rife for someone close to him- maybe one of his sons- to murder him. As it is, Suri dynasty fell apart pretty much immediately after him, precisely because they chose to kill each other over who gets to be king. I see where you are coming from, but i think its telling that Sher Shah at first, still chose to side with Puran Mal, despite the complaints of the muslim civilians. Also, it just doesn't fit in Sher Shah's MO. He was an extremely unique 'subcontinental muslim ruler', in the sense that he was one of the very few (i think there was a Nizam, forget who), who was the complete package. Brilliant at war, pretty even-keeled in conquest brilliant in strategy : his fort at Rohtas was an example of Sher Khan understanding the overall geo-strategy of his situation. He also seemed to be quite brilliant in governance- not only investing heavily in the grand trunk road (ancient Uttarpath), he also standardized coinage and came up with a much more advanced and even taxation system. Infact, Mughal success owes its big part to them not tampering too much with the taxation system that Akbar put in place, straight-lifting some of Sher Shah's policies and such.
  12. Ancient, Medieval and Modern History of India Thread

    ^^ Whoops, my bad. I mixed up Puran Mal with Maldeo. In Maldeo's case, Sher shah sowed misinformation, that Maldeo's commanders were about to betray him, so he went home and Sher shah won at Sammel. But from what we know, the disturbance in Malwa happened when Sher Shah went after Puran Mal. Puran Mal, instead of surrendering, he instructed his troops to follow him into standard Rajput suicide mission and all the women and children to do jauhar.
  13. Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh

    PS: Mods, would you guys mind moving all the history-related posts to the history thread ? good to have it all in one place.
  14. Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh

    I thought that was common knowledge ?? In either case, i don't think necrophilia was the cause of Jauhar, since if the women didn't kill themselves, they'd end up as sex slaves, not dead and corpse rape. In anycase, i see Jauhar as a coward's way out. Its a lot easier to kill oneself than live with dishonour to avenge the injustices. Death is easy. Surviving is hard. And instead of living to fight another day, most Rajputs took the easy way out.
  15. Ancient, Medieval and Modern History of India Thread

    Slight bit of nitpick here - Sher Shah didn't start a jihad to conquer Rajputs, he did a normal, standard military campaign and didn't engage in loot and pillage. Infact, Sher Shah is astonishing in how his troops did not loot and pillage almost everywhere he went. The way he treated Maldeo, i believe anyone in his place would've done that. Sher Shah was put in an impossible situation - he gave his word of protection to Maldeo, but muslims in Malwa alleged that Maldeo raped muslim women and murdered their husbands. They went to the Ulema in Delhi and Sher Shah still didn't renege on his word. But when the Ulema issued a fatwa, stating that on judgement day, the victims will call out his name for protecting an unjust kaffir, denying him resurrection, did Sher Shah cave in and deal with Maldeo. As such, i find his position 'stuck between a rock and a hard place' but the very fact that he stuck to his word of protection towards a hindu, despite allegations of rape and murder of muslims against him, shows, that man was so not a religious or a fundamentalist man.
  16. Thommo - how quick was he?'

    So a 2-d representation of 3-d motion from an angle you can't tell depth from, is right. But what professionals say, who've actually faced Clarke (and you haven't), don't matter. Where do you come up with such nonsense ??
  17. Thommo - how quick was he?'

    Because thinking you know more accurately, how fast someone is, despite lacking any first hand experience of facing them, but elite professionals, who are a 1000 times better than you in every aspect of cricket- including gauging speed of a ball- cannot tell who was the faster bowler, is the very definition of ego. You are claiming your inferior experience = superior knowledge than people with far superior experience than you = definition of egotistic nonsense.
  18. Ancient, Medieval and Modern History of India Thread

    It used to exit in Jstor. I-tsing i only mention, because he mentioned 'the great city of the Indian emperors'. Mostly, I-tsing talks about Buddhism and people's demeanour. He notes that all Indians were generous, gentle people, trying to out-do each other in practice of dharma and capital punishment was not present in Gupta empire. He also notes, that Guptas had a highly advanced taxation system, which was later resurrected by Sher Shah : Back in those days, tax revenue wasn't always paid in coin, it was paid in produce, especially by farmers. However, as basic as it may sound, the concept of 'you pay X % of your yield as tax' is a relatively new concept- being around for somewhere in the last 2000 years and Guptas were one of the first practitioners of it. Because in the ancient world, the standard methodology, from Rome to China, was based on land size : 'your land is X acres big, X acres pay Y amount of grain as tax' - which gave a lot of uncertainty to farmers, as you well know, farm yields vary vastly from year to year subject to weather conditions. But beyond that, I-Tsing talks mostly about buddhism and buddhist books. Xuanzong is a much better read, though he sometimes gets a bit too flowery.
  19. Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh

    Well because the entire history of Rajputs is one of them fighting each other and fracturing, i simply do not see how or why they'd have held together after Sanga. They'd have gone the same way as they did after Nagabhatta or Mihir Bhoj- fracture. I am highly doubtful that they'd have gone on to Delhi, because in typical Rajput fashion, once 'Rajputana was safe', they'd go back their squabbling. But as you say, its speculative and we won't know for sure. I am also not sure, even if the Rajputs were united, they'd be able to prevent the rise of the next muslim overlord in North India. Only difference would be, he'd either be Afghan or Turk, not Mughal. It was Babur, who came up with the idea of 'Ghazwa-e-Hindh'. Because Babur was desperate. You see, Babur didn't come to India because he wanted to conquer India. He came to India, because he was about to be killed by the Uzbeks and Safavids,already having lost to the extremely powerful Uzbek warlord Mohammed Shaybani. Shaybani is the guy who evicted Babur from his ancestral homeland in Ferghana, upon which, Babur fled to Kabul. To show, how powerful Shaybani was and how utterly helpless Babur was, when he conquered Samarkand from Babur, he gave Babur only two options : death or exile, contingent ONLY upon Babur agreeing to the marriage of his sister, Khanzada Begum, with Shaybani. He carved out a kingdom in Kabul and for a time being, was protected by the Safavid-Uzbek strife, with them both occupied with each other. He tried to capture Ferghana again, after Shaybani died, with help of Shah Ismail of Persia (the first Safavid monarch) but ultimately failed and it caused enough friction between him and Shah Ismael (due to failed joint expedition), that he fled to India. Hence Babur comes across as so extreme in terms of motivating his soldiers - he had nowhere else to go. Only Timur, who also used religion and called himself ' sword of Islam', relied on the frenzied power of religion, to motivate his troops as much. Lastly, Ram Singh had way, way more supplies than Borpukhan. True, Aurangzeb made life hard for Ram Singh, but he most definitely didnt lose because of standard supply issues. He was better supplied than Borpukhan and he was an extremely meticulous planner. But Borpukhan was brilliant during Saraighati and thats why he won. IIRC, Saraighati was studied in Indian army & navy, as a case-study of how to win despite being inferior in every which way to your opponent...dont know if they still do it.
  20. Ancient, Medieval and Modern History of India Thread

    1. Don't go into Aryan invasion theory. Because of two reasons : a) It isn't conclusive either way, whether Aryans came to India or Aryans are from India. I've been there, talking endlessly of the possibilities, but at this point, thats all they are. b) Aryans, whether they came to India or left India is ultimately irrelevant to us. Too much focus is given on this topic, due to religious & ethnic ideologies ( latter, from both side, former, from Hindu side) and leads to complete side-track and ignoring of our actual history. In my experience, every history thread that talks about Aryans, gets quagmired in the endless possibilities of Aryan theory and ignores all the rest of history. The Pallavas, Cholas, Cheras,Senas, Gujjars, Solankis- ALL of them and many many more- are far more relevant to our history than whether the Aryans came or went. I personally lean towards 'Aryans are either from India or middle east' option but as i said, its a lean, its not a hardline position. 2. Notice the pattern of invasions ? Except for Hepthalite (Abdal/Huns) invasion, EVERY SINGLE INVASION comes against a broken Northern India, lacking an empire or an empire already falling. Achaemenids, Greeks, Parthians, Sassanids, Kushans, Ghaznavi, Bin Qasim, Ghori, Babur, Timur - all of them succeeded against small kingdoms, not against an empire. Hepthalites are the only ones who invaded and won against an empire (Gupta) spanning the North. The reason is simple : India sucks for horses and from ancient times, we've been importing horses from Bactria (Balkh). Our literature calls the people living around Bactria-Badakhshan as 'Kamboja' and further mentions their clans : Ashvaka and Ashvakayana ( Ashvaka is the genesis of the name Afghan btw). So how did we compensate for lacking horses ? Elephants. Unfortunately, elephants cost cr@p ton of money. This is why, when we see major empires around - like Pal, Magadh dynasties, Shungas etc. had 5,000-15,000 war elephants, but tiny kingdoms like Porus, Hindu Shahis, etc. had 100-200 elephants. Sometime before 500s AD, humanity invented stirrups and stirrups changed warfare. This is because now, with stirrups, you can 'lock your foot in' and weight transfer, thus making lancers a viable option. Prior to that, you couldn't barge into something full speed on a horse, because without stirrups, you'd fly off your saddle. Notice all the frescoes and coins of ancient rulers, nobody is resting his foot on a stirrup in all the horse imagery, till this timeframe. IIRC, its a Kushan seal that shows the first stirrup. So without stirrups, horses could not be used to counter elephants- because you cannot 'sword fight' with someone sitting on top of an elephant while you are on a horse- there is like 3 feet height disadvantage for the horseman. But after stirrups, you could atleast hope to put blinkers on your horse, run it full speed and barge into an elephant formation, poking them with 20 foot pointy sticks (lances). So this makes elephants an 'unsurmountable battle problem' for our enemies, when we could field them by the thousands. This is why Alexander turned around and left. The popular story is his soldiers rebelled. Not WHY they rebelled. The myth is, all of a sudden, war-vets got tired of war and wanted to go home. But Greek sources themselves state, that when Alexander heard of 'the kings of Praesii & Gangaridai'( Greek transformation of the term Kashi and Ganga-hridaya- referring to either Magadh or Bengal) was marching with over 200,000 troops that included 5,000 war elephants, he promptly crapped his briefs and left. 3. Not all invaders were bad or even harmful for us. Take for example the Kushans. They were Indo-European by stock, came in and conquered whole of north India. At one point, Kushan Empire was the 'central empire' of the world, because its boundaries touched the Chinese empire (in Tarim Basin) and almost touched the Roman Empire (Rome's eastern-most outpost was around the black sea coast, Kushan's western-most reach was the Aral Sea). They made India insanely rich and we have Roman writers like Pliny lamenting how much Roman silver is flowing into India because Roman nobility was addicted to cotton & spices. (Fun fact : All the togas you see in hollywood for Roman senators - they were the dress of the upper class. And all togas were made from cotton - imported from the only place in the world that grew cotton in those times : India). Furthermore, they wholesale adopted Indian religions & culture. Early Kushans, like Kajala Kadaphises, were sun-worshippers ( same as the Magi tradition of the Iranians) but from then on, they adopted either Buddhism or Hinduism. Kanishka was a Buddhist and the last 'great Kushan' was named 'Bazdeo' in his seals - which is Kushan corruption of the word 'Vasudeva'....and he was a devotee of...Vasudeva Krishna. I have no problem calling these people Indians, as they effectively became Indians in every sense of the word. 4. The muslims kicked over a dying and decaying Indian civilization, committing countless atrocities. But the start of the insane murder, genocide and destruction was done right when Gupta Empire fell - at the hands of the Hepthalites. Hepthalites are noted in Iranic sources as staunchly sun-worshippers and categoric haters of Buddhism. Mihirkula is also demonized in Indian literature (in the Kashmiri written Rajatarangini) as an insane butcher of the Buddhists. They are also the reason why Pataliputra was abandoned, because Mihirkula or his father, Toramanna, razed Pataliputra to the ground. A 100 years before Mihirkula, I-Tsing came though India and though he didnt talk specifically about Indian cities by name, he exalted the 'mighty capital of the emperors, historic capital of India' (which can only be Pataliputra). Yet, 100 years after Hepthalites, when Xuanzong visited Harsha, he noted how Pataliputra, the ancient capital, was in 'ruins'. Its also the Hepthalites, that utterly annihilated Gandhara and the Takshashila tradition of learning. Currently, the mounds of Taxila, Sirkap, Sagala all show evidence of tremendous damage around 500 AD and the Hepthalites are known to've broken through the Gupta defences sometime after 470 AD but evicted from India, by Malwa king Yashodharman and Gupta emperor Baladitya, sometime before 525 AD. But people don't know how much of a centre of learning and culture Takshashila was. We have several Chinese pilgrims, wonder-struck by the famous 'Kanishka Stupa' and the 'library of enlightenment' that greeted the the moment they crossed the Khyber into India. We currently have the base remains of Kanishka's stupa and it'd have been the second largest stupa standing today, after Jetavanaramaya stupa in Sri Lanka. But whats more wonder-some, is beside it, stood a wooden built library tower (similar to the Chinese tower pagodas - here's an interesting side-note : Chinese Pagoda style architecture is actually Himalayan style architecture, adopted by the Chinese around 200 AD, with transmission of Buddhism into China). The height noted varies, but all of them mention it being atleast 200 feet tall (that would make it a 20 storey building) and being repeatedly hit by lightning (also makes sense for a one-of-a-kind tower being a lightning rod). This was ancient Takshashila. by 500 AD, nothing remained, except the foundation stones of the city of Takshashila.
  21. Ancient, Medieval and Modern History of India Thread

    Good idea. Tyrant. He was in it, all just for himself and had no problems bowling over anyone who was in the way- including his own people. Tough to do. 5-6 may be too short a list. Extent of empire : 1. Ashoka 2. Chandragupta Vikramaditya 3. Rajendra Chola 4. Kanishka 5. Indra III Military : 1. Ashoka/Chandragupta Maurya 2. Chandragupta Vikramaditya 3. Indra III 4. Vikramaditya III 5. Mahapadma Nanda Economy: too hard, because in absolute terms, the Guptas were richer than the Magadh empires, but in relative terms (to rest of the world), Magadh empire was richer. Also, a more fuzzy area, since we've had large empires that were not so rich (e.g.: Pratiharas) and tiny kingdoms who were super-rich (Maitrakas) Administration : I wouldn't rate any of them very highly, because they all failed to create institutions and Chanakya-niti is actually the downfall of Indian politics. But Gupta era and previous, the administration was on a sound footing, as far as structure goes. Also goes for the Cholas. Contribution to culture and arts : 1. Samudragupta/Chandragupta Vikramaditya 2. Rajaraja/Rajendra Chola 5. Amoghavarsha 4. Krishna Deva Raya 5. Agnimitra Short answer: yes. Cholas are the first ever recorded trans-oceanic empire in the world, when Rajendra chola made vassals in Malay Peninsula, Sumatra and Java. Another overlooked empire: Satavahanas. They were also excellent organizers, administrators and excellent builders. Yes. Sher Shah comes to mind. Akbar hogs all the limelight, but its Sher Shah who i think showed the most secular de-facto attitude. Sounds good.
  22. Supreme Court Bans Diwali. Rofl Hindus, go fly a kite.

    Is this BJP though or is this the judiciary ? If its the judiciary, then BJP can't do jack $hit until they control the Rajya Sabha too...much like Kashmir...
  23. Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh

    You mean Hemu wasn't an angry kid ( Joffrey Baratheon reference from GoT), who literally got angry and contorted his face at sight of his enemy, as if a bunch of elephants just stomped in his rice field and ate all his rice ? You don't say. (Yeah, that was the most ridiculous part of the movie. Where Hemu says 'akraman' and sounds like he is hunting pests in his ranch).
  24. Padmavati trailer- Wahhhhhhhhh

    +1 Yep. As i said, if there was a top 10 list on 'if you fight a war this way, even Ethiopia will win against USA', Panipat III would rank highly in that list. Just about everything that could be done wrong, was done wrong. The reason i don't rate Khanwa so highly, because I don't think winning Khanwa would've changed anything for the Rajputs beyond the lifetime of Rana Sanga. I will draw a parallel - Mihir Bhoj. True,he wasn't a 'rajput' - he was a Pratihara- but Pratiharas are ancestors to the Rajputs. In anycase, Mihir Bhoj crushed the Pals and crushed Junayd. What happened ? He ruled as 'samrat' for another 20-25 years, then died and it was back to the old BS of 'divide his empire between his sons, some sons not listening to the paramount overlord and everything falling apart within 30 years'. So, i see Khanwa was ultimately inconsequential to India. had the Rajputs won, they most likely would've done what all Rajputs/Pratiharas did before them - sit back, enjoy the glory and glorify their own name as Paramavallabha or such epithets. I highly doubt Sanga would've moved against the Afghan noblemen in India (the ones who still formed the bedrock of Delhi Sultanate, Sher Shah's empire and were extremely relevant in North Indian affairs until the zenith of Akbar's time). Sure, it would've changed Indian history a lot, as in there would be no Mughal empire, but it most likely would've meant another Turki/Afghan overlord rising, just as they rose before and after Khanwa. It wouldn't have made overall existential difference to Islamization of Indian subcontinent, which i feel would be required, for me to rate Khanwa higher than say Tarain or the battle of Laghman. Bhai mere, when Saraighat happened, it was mostly Bengali soldiers that died. But i rate Saraighati highly, because in history of Indian warfare, a significantly weaker side hasn't beaten a massively stronger side, purely from tactical brilliance, before it. Atleast, not on record. Mughals were superior to the Ahoms in every which way - more troops, better armour, better supply train, more cash. Ram Singh was meticulous in his logistics preparation and he still lost, because of tactical brilliance of Borpukhan.
  25. Thommo - how quick was he?'

    except you literally have no way to tell which was the quicker ball from watching it on tv. you have no frame of reference, especialy from a front/back-on view. If it was side on view, you would still be guessing wildly but atleast you would be in the right ball-park. Don't make me get out my physics formulas out, or else i will start demanding they ban your misleading rear-end for my efforts. infact, i am willing to put you to the test, by modifying youtube videos so you don't see the bowler's face to form a pre-concieved notion and watch you fail horribly. And as i said, the irony is, a guy like you, who is claiming you can tell speed from tv (which you cannot), thinks pros who have faced those same bowlers, know less than you do. Ego ki bhi hadh hoti haye...

Guest, sign in to access all features.