Greek Diplomat Megasthenes: There existed NO slavery in ancient India

[Muloghonto]

 

34 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

There are plenty of proofs in Hindu Religious Books which I already presented before in other thread and already discussed it and presented our arguments. 

While I had to open this thread for Megasthenes and his stories. 

This is specific to lack of slavery and Megasthenes specifically saying indians didn’t have slavery.

 

this is easy to believe because :

I-Tsing, Faxian, Heliodorus,ALL say India is free of slaves and there is zero mention of Ashoka ending slavery in Buddhist or his Edicts.

 

not one edict of his says he outlawed slave markets. He does say he outlawed martkets pertaining to certain animals FYI. 

 

Not a single Buddhist chronicle says he is ended slavery.

 

all this means Megasthenes was correct when he noted India had no slavery   

[Muloghonto]

India is also not the only place on the planet to have no slavery. Most of Asia east of India also had little or no slavery like the  westerners.  

 

The most slave friendly settled culture easy of the  Indus are the Chinese and even they didn’t have actual slave markets like the Romans Greeks or Arabs 

[Muloghonto]

Infact Megasthenes saying the Greek gods are the ones who civilized India is perfectly consistent with all ancient Greco-Roman authors views of the foreign civilization they are interacting. Julius Caesar said the same , so did Herodotus etc because it is a well known fact that the Greeks and then Romans specifically were unique in the ancient world in thinking they were more civilized than rest of the world. Nobody else did this- Assyrians Egyptians Persians Chinese etc all saw their Gods as being on their side and happy with them and that’s why they won or why they Rule.

 

 

him catering to a Greek superiority complex yet being blown away by the sophistication of Indic civilization is near identical to the later British Indologists.

 

 

[Alam_dar]

31 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Motive. He had zero motive to lie about things.

Ok. Those guys didn’t go to India. Megasthenes did. Diodotus Siculus makes fun of Strabo for saying that’s btw because he specifically stated that Strabo does not differentiate on sources who are first hand or second hand:

Diodotus Siculus did Fyi.

This is wrong because Ctesias is older than Megasthenes and already calls India unconquerable due to kings of Praesii and Gangaridai during Alexander’s time itself.

 

ignorant speculations of such are easily dismissed which is why nobody takes this guy seriously.

This books preface ITSELF says that not everythint in it is from Indika but later references to Indika and Indika is a lost work.

Democratic states in India are ALSO mentioned in our PURANAS as ganarajyas 

 

No because as I said, observation of objective society does not rely on how you think this observation came around.

 

because just like with Marco Polo or Caesar or any other ancient or medieval writer, serious modern historians take the OBSERVATIONS as a separate issue to theory of these guys on how or why those observstions came true.

 

Proving the  AMT wrong doesn’t mean observstions of how Indians lived in 1800s  by historians who believed in AMT is false.

same applies to Megasthenes 

 

Because you don’t need shudras to think the cast system is restrictive in theory

Nobody cares about manusmriti-most Hindus don’t, it’s a minor book.

PLEASE specify what these texts say about Shudras. 

You cannot prove a negative when it comes to material history.

there is zero material evidence to slavery ever being present in the Indian subcontinent prior to Muslims.

 

As I said earlier that it is an insult to human intelligence to answer such conjectures. You are making yourself a laughing stock by writing it. 

 

Only one more thing that along with such conjectures, you also made another type of mistake, when you wrote:

 

Quote

by Muloghonto:
Diodotus Siculus makes fun of Strabo for saying that’s btw because he specifically stated that Strabo does not differentiate on sources who are first hand or second hand:

Quote

 

by Alamdar:

Contrary to Megasthenes, nobody ever called Strabo a lair. All consider him reliable historian.

 

 Diodotus Siculus did Fyi.

 

 

Diodotus Siculus could not make fun of Strabo, or call him a lair while:

 

(1) It was not "Diodotus Siculus", but "Diodorus Siculus"

(2) Secondly, this "Diodorus Siculus" existed before Strabo. 

 

Diodorus Siculus was born in 90 BC and died in 30 BC at age of 60 (link). 

 

While Strabo was born only in 63 BC and died in 24 AD (link). And first edition of his book Geographica was published in 7 BC and a final edition no later than 23 AD, in the last year of Strabo's life (link).  Therefore, Diodorus Siculus never got the chance to read his book Geographica and thus could never blame Strabo for being a lair and make fun of him.  That is why you wrote all this stuff without providing any evidence. 

 

Same type of wrong claim you also made earlier when you wrote that Megasthenes lived a full 100 years prior to the stoics.  You are not only making up conjectures, but also whole false stories. 

 

 

[Alam_dar]

Hindu sacred books used word "Dasa" for slavery. But zealous Hindu apologists deceive by claiming that "Dasa" does not mean slave, but it means "servant". But the laws associated with "Dasa" in Hindu sacred books, are the rules of clear slavery.

 

Slavery in Rigveda:

Rigveda shows that horde of female Dasis were given away like animals to the relatives.

 

Rigveda 8:19:36 (link): 

36 A gift of fifty female slaves hath Trasadasyu given me, Purukutsa's son,
Most liberal, kind, lord of the brave.

 

Damsels (young virgin girls) as gifts
Rig veda 6:27:8 Two wagon-teams, with damsels (young virgin girls), twenty oxen, O Agni, Abhydvartin Cayamdna,The liberal Sovran, giveth me.This guerdon of Prthu’s seed is hard to win from others.”

 

Rigveda Verse 1.92.8 (link): 

Dawn, may I gain that wealth, renowned and ample, in brave sons, troops of slaves, far-famed for horses.

 

Rigveda Verse 1.158.5 : 
5 The most maternal streams, wherein the Dāsas cast me securely bound, have not devoured me.
When Traitana would cleave my head asunder, the Dāsa wounded his own breast and shoulders.

 

Rigveda Verse 10.62.10 (link):
Yadu and Turva, too, have given two Dāsas, well-disposed, to serve, Together with great store of kine.

 

Slavery in Mahabharata:

 

Mahabharata (link): 

"Human beings enslaved by human beings, are exploited by them; Tortured, shackled and incarcerated, are forced to work day and night, Though they (who do this) themselves know, the agony evoked by torture and chains!"

 

Mahabharata (link):

"Virata said, 'My female slaves and kine, my gold and whatsoever other wealth I have, nothing of all this shall thou be able to protect today even if I do not gamble.'

 

1000 Young Virgin Girls for personal services
Mahabharata 1:CCXXII And he of eyes like lotus-petals also gave unto them a thousand damsels (young virgin girls) well-skilled in assisting at bathing and at drinking, young in years and virgins all before their first-season, well-attired and of excellent complexion, each wearing a hundred pieces of gold around her neck, of skins perfectly polished, decked with every ornament, and well-skilled in every kind of personal service.

 

Women can be won in a dice game & enslaved
Mahabharata 2:LXVI (p.128)…But Dussasana dragging Draupadi forcibly by her black locks while she was praying piteously unto Krishna and Vishnu who were Narayana and Nara (on earth), said unto her–‘Whether thy season hath come or not, whether thou art attired in one piece of cloth or entirely naked, when thou hast been won at dice and made our slave, thou art to live amongst our serving-women as thou pleasest.”

 

 In fact, this whole chapter of Mahabharata has several more references to the slavery (Link): 

 

Slavery in Manusmriti:

 

Manusmriti, Verse 8.415:
There are seven kinds of slaves—(1) captured under a banner (war), (2) slave on food, (3) born in the house, (4) bought, (5) presented, (6) hereditary, and (7) slave by punishment.

Commentary of this verse by Medhātithi (link):

The term ‘Dhvajā’ ‘banner’ stands for the chariot; hence ‘Dhvajinī’ means the army; ho who is captured ‘under the banner’ is the captive of war, who is made a slave ...

‘Slave on food’—he who has accepted slavery for obtaining food.

‘Born in the house’—i.e., born of a slave-girl.

‘Bought’—from the former master, for a price.

‘Presented’—given to one, either through love, or for the purpose of acquiring spiritual merit.

‘Hereditary’—who has belonged to the family through a line of ancestors.

“What is the difference between this last and the slave born in the house?”

The latter is one born of a slave-girl that may have been acquired by the master himself, while the other is hereditary.

The "slave born in the house" is the worst type of slavery. In this master is raping his slave girl, and if child is born, then master makes his own child his slave. 

 

Manusmriti, Verse 8.416:

The wive, the son and the slave,—these three are declared to have no property; whatever they acquire is the property of him to whom they belong.—(416)

 

The deception by religious Hindus is unfortunately is this that they have been constantly trying to confuse people in the issue of translation of word Dasa. But the rulings in these texts are clear that whatever name you give to it, but these rules are associated with slavery.  

 

* You could never give servants as gifts like animals to the relatives

* You could never win female servants in a dice game, and ask them to serve you even in one cloth or naked.

* You could never ask female servants to provide you the service to your personal parts.

* You could never ask female servants to be only like damsels (young virgins) and with excellent complexion in order to provide you with the personal services

 

All these rules are associated with slaves and not with servants. 

 

Online book upon Slavery in India:

 

Title:	Slavery in early medieval India
Researcher:	Singh, Yasvir
Guide(s):	Kumar, Vijay

https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/113757/7/07_chapter 2.pdf

 

In the Rig-Veda also there are numerous references which talk of the
struggle between the dasas and the Aryans. The non Aryans who were
subjugated in tribal warfares were most probably reduced to slaves.
The same references throw light that slaves were given as gift like 
animals and were presented to relatives2 3. With the continuation of this
tradition in the later Vedic period also, one may get information that
some persons who could not clear their debts or those who could not
maintain their livelihood at their own, offered themselves to work as
slave. From the early Buddhist works we know that slavery was
prevalent from c.600-300 B.C in India as Vinayapitaka mentions three
kinds of slaves were available in the then society namely- children
born of female slaves, persons imprisoned in wars, persons purchased
by payment of money. The Dirghanikaya adds fourth kind of slaves to
the list namely those who at their own accord got transferred to slaves
in order to maintain their livelihood . In the Mauryan period the types
of slaves increased as testified in Arthasastra of Kautilaya along with the following eight categories of slaves4:

 

(1) Born of a female slave (grhajata)
(2) Inherited from father (dayagava)
(3) Presented by some other person (labdha)
(4) Purchased by paying a sum of money (krita)
(5) Imprisoned in war (dhvajahrta)
(6) One who sales himself as a slave (atmavikraya)
(7) Mortgaged for loan (ahitaka)
(8) Reduced to slavery as punishment for some grave offence
(danda-pranita)

 

The Mahabharata and the early Buddihist literature mention the following four categories of slaves5.

1. Imprisoned in war (dhvajhrta)
2. After losing in gambling
3. Given as gifts (datrim or labdha)
4. Purchased (krit)

 

The Manu Smrti (C. 200 B.C to 200 A.D) mentions following seven categories of slaves6:

1. Won in a stake or won in war (dhawajahrita)
2. One who sold himself for the sake of food in famine
(bhaktadasa)
3. Born of a female slave (grhaja)
4. Purchased (krit)
5. Given by relatives as a present (datrim)
6. Inherited from father (daya)
7. Reduced to slavery in lieu of punishment (danda-dasa)

 

The Narada Smrti (100 AD to 500 AD) describes the following fifteen categories ofslaves7:

1. Born of a female slave {grhaja)
2. Acquiredby purchase {krit)
3. Obtained through inheritance {daya)
4. Won in a stake {partyajit)
5. Captured in war
6. given on pledge
7. Those who failed to reply debts
8. Those who were maintained during famines,
9. Those who served for a stipulated period
10. Those who sold themselves
11. Those who lapsed from monastic life
12. Those who accepted voluntary slavery
13. Those who offered themselves either owing to the love of
a female slave.
14. For the sake of maintenance.
15. Received through gift

 

The increasing number in the categories of slaves mentioned by Vijaneshvara’s commentary on Yajnavalkaya in 12th A,D. wherein a
list of following fifteen kinds of slaves finds place9, perhaps leaves no iota of doubt that the institution of slavery not only gained momentum but also expended its area during the period under study.

1. Born of a female slave (garhajat)
2. Purchased (krit)
3. One obtained by acceptance of gift (labdha)
4. Inherited (daya dupagat)
5. One who accepted slavery during famines
(akalbhart)
6. One who has pledged himself against the loans (ahit)
7. Given in repayment of debt (rina dasa)
8. War prisoners (yudhaprapta)
9. One who won in gamble (panejit)
10. One who has come forward declaring “I am Slave”
(upagat)
11. An apostle from ascepticism (parvarjyavatis)
12. One who is enslaved for a stipulated period (kart)
13. One who accepted slavery for maintenance (bhakta
dasa)
14. One who has married with a female slave and thus
reduced to the status of a slave (vadavahart)

 

[Muloghonto]

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

 

As I said earlier that it is an insult to human intelligence to answer such conjectures. You are making yourself a laughing stock by writing it. 

Sorry but if talking about magical creatures disqualified people from noting how rules and customs of a certain people are, then all classical history is rejected, including Julius Caesar. 

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

Only one more thing that along with such conjectures, you also made another type of mistake, when you wrote:

 

 

Diodotus Siculus could not make fun of Strabo, or call him a lair while:

 

(1) It was not "Diodotus Siculus", but "Diodorus Siculus"

(2) Secondly, this "Diodorus Siculus" existed before Strabo. 

Ok my mistake. Strabo is made fun of by plenty other historians, your wiki-giri won’t change the fact. As I said, you are just making up nonsense reasons to reject an oft cited source in first hand history because you have an unsubstantiated belief that your ancestors practiced slavery. They didn’t, not until they got raped and became Muslims.

 

1 hour ago, Alam_dar said:

Same type of wrong claim you also made earlier when you wrote that Megasthenes lived a full 100 years prior to the stoics.  You are not only making up conjectures, but also whole false stories. 

 

 

You are the one throwing around 2nd century BCE tag for Stoics- that makes Megasthenes 1 century prior and he has no reason to lie about Indians, especially since Ctesias ALREADY mentions that Alexander ran away in fear of Gangaridaii and Praesii kings. Seleucus didn’t need to invent reasons to get owned by Chandragupta when the Greeks themselves already admitted that their much vaunted Alex and Seleucus’s boss ran away !!!  

[Muloghonto]

50 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Hindu sacred books used word "Dasa" for slavery. But zealous Hindu apologists deceive by claiming that "Dasa" does not mean slave, but it means "servant". But the laws associated with "Dasa" in Hindu sacred books, are the rules of clear slavery.

sorry but dasa is a servant and always has been used as such.

50 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Slavery in Rigveda:

Rigveda shows that horde of female Dasis were given away like animals to the relatives.

 

Rigveda 8:19:36 (link): 

36 A gift of fifty female slaves hath Trasadasyu given me, Purukutsa's son,
Most liberal, kind, lord of the brave.

 

Damsels (young virgin girls) as gifts
Rig veda 6:27:8 Two wagon-teams, with damsels (young virgin girls), twenty oxen, O Agni, Abhydvartin Cayamdna,The liberal Sovran, giveth me.This guerdon of Prthu’s seed is hard to win from others.”

 

Rigveda Verse 1.92.8 (link): 

Dawn, may I gain that wealth, renowned and ample, in brave sons, troops of slaves, far-famed for horses.

None of these imply slavery. We have physical proof of European royals exchanging servants in 1890s much after their societies had outlawed slavery. 

 

50 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Slavery in Mahabharata:

 

Mahabharata (link): 

"Human beings enslaved by human beings, are exploited by them; Tortured, shackled and incarcerated, are forced to work day and night, Though they (who do this) themselves know, the agony evoked by torture and chains!"

 

Mahabharata (link):

"Virata said, 'My female slaves and kine, my gold and whatsoever other wealth I have, nothing of all this shall thou be able to protect today even if I do not gamble.'

Wrong translation of the word das.

 

50 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Women can be won in a dice game & enslaved
Mahabharata 2:LXVI (p.128)…But Dussasana dragging Draupadi forcibly by her black locks while she was praying piteously unto Krishna and Vishnu who were Narayana and Nara (on earth), said unto her–‘Whether thy season hath come or not, whether thou art attired in one piece of cloth or entirely naked, when thou hast been won at dice and made our slave, thou art to live amongst our serving-women as thou pleasest.”

Sorry this happened specifically only once in an extraordinary circumstance.

50 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 In fact, this whole chapter of Mahabharata has several more references to the slavery (Link): 

 

Slavery in Manusmriti:

 

Manusmriti, Verse 8.415:
There are seven kinds of slaves—(1) captured under a banner (war), (2) slave on food, (3) born in the house, (4) bought, (5) presented, (6) hereditary, and (7) slave by punishment.

Commentary of this verse by Medhātithi (link):

The term ‘Dhvajā’ ‘banner’ stands for the chariot; hence ‘Dhvajinī’ means the army; ho who is captured ‘under the banner’ is the captive of war, who is made a slave ...

‘Slave on food’—he who has accepted slavery for obtaining food.

‘Born in the house’—i.e., born of a slave-girl.

‘Bought’—from the former master, for a price.

‘Presented’—given to one, either through love, or for the purpose of acquiring spiritual merit.

‘Hereditary’—who has belonged to the family through a line of ancestors.

“What is the difference between this last and the slave born in the house?”

The latter is one born of a slave-girl that may have been acquired by the master himself, while the other is hereditary.

The "slave born in the house" is the worst type of slavery. In this master is raping his slave girl, and if child is born, then master makes his own child his slave. 

 

Manusmriti, Verse 8.416:

The wive, the son and the slave,—these three are declared to have no property; whatever they acquire is the property of him to whom they belong.—(416)

 

The deception by religious Hindus is unfortunately is this that they have been constantly trying to confuse people in the issue of translation of word Dasa. But the rulings in these texts are clear that whatever name you give to it, but these rules are associated with slavery.  

 

* You could never give servants as gifts like animals to the relatives

* You could never win female servants in a dice game, and ask them to serve you even in one cloth or naked.

* You could never ask female servants to provide you the service to your personal parts.

* You could never ask female servants to be only like damsels (young virgins) and with excellent complexion in order to provide you with the personal services

 

All these rules are associated with slaves and not with servants. 

We don’t care about a random book of no import called manusmriti. Manusmriti is a smriti and in name itself is outranked by about 100 books. Most Hindus don’t care for it, don’t follow it and never have followed it.

it only became important during the British era to britishers because they saw parallels to Noah’s story in it and saw it as validation of the biblical story. 

50 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

Online book upon Slavery in India:

 

Title:	Slavery in early medieval India
Researcher:	Singh, Yasvir
Guide(s):	Kumar, Vijay

https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/113757/7/07_chapter 2.pdf

 

In the Rig-Veda also there are numerous references which talk of the
struggle between the dasas and the Aryans. The non Aryans who were
subjugated in tribal warfares were most probably reduced to slaves.
The same references throw light that slaves were given as gift like 
animals and were presented to relatives2 3. With the continuation of this
tradition in the later Vedic period also, one may get information that
some persons who could not clear their debts or those who could not
maintain their livelihood at their own, offered themselves to work as
slave. From the early Buddhist works we know that slavery was
prevalent from c.600-300 B.C in India as Vinayapitaka mentions three
kinds of slaves were available in the then society namely- children
born of female slaves, persons imprisoned in wars, persons purchased
by payment of money. The Dirghanikaya adds fourth kind of slaves to
the list namely those who at their own accord got transferred to slaves
in order to maintain their livelihood . In the Mauryan period the types
of slaves increased as testified in Arthasastra of Kautilaya along with the following eight categories of slaves4:

 

(1) Born of a female slave (grhajata)
(2) Inherited from father (dayagava)
(3) Presented by some other person (labdha)
(4) Purchased by paying a sum of money (krita)
(5) Imprisoned in war (dhvajahrta)
(6) One who sales himself as a slave (atmavikraya)
(7) Mortgaged for loan (ahitaka)
(8) Reduced to slavery as punishment for some grave offence
(danda-pranita)

None of these talk of slavery because all of them talk of bonded contract. Ie, all of them are indentured labourer or war captives. 

 

50 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

The increasing number in the categories of slaves mentioned by Vijaneshvara’s commentary on Yajnavalkaya in 12th A,D. wherein a
list of following fifteen kinds of slaves finds place9, perhaps leaves no iota of doubt that the institution of slavery not only gained momentum but also expended its area during the period under study.

1. Born of a female slave (garhajat)
2. Purchased (krit)
3. One obtained by acceptance of gift (labdha)
4. Inherited (daya dupagat)
5. One who accepted slavery during famines
(akalbhart)
6. One who has pledged himself against the loans (ahit)
7. Given in repayment of debt (rina dasa)
8. War prisoners (yudhaprapta)
9. One who won in gamble (panejit)
10. One who has come forward declaring “I am Slave”
(upagat)
11. An apostle from ascepticism (parvarjyavatis)
12. One who is enslaved for a stipulated period (kart)
13. One who accepted slavery for maintenance (bhakta
dasa)
14. One who has married with a female slave and thus
reduced to the status of a slave (vadavahart)

 

Yes we do see proliferation of slaves and slavery once the Islamists arrive. 

[Muloghonto]

Hey @Alam_dar : no matter how much you dodge, these facts cannot be disputed:

 

1. No material evidence of slavery ever being present in India: none. 

 

2. Specific reference to no slavery by all foreign literate visitors like Megasthenes, I-Tsing, Faxian, Xuanzeng. 

 

3. No reference to Ashoka ending slavery in any of his edicts. Not one

 

4. No reference to Ashoka ending slavery in any Buddhist works.

 

therefore, IF slavery existed, it was most definitely done away much prior to 300s BCE. 

 

5. Megasthenes mentions lack of slavery and his record of Indian customs and geography is highly accurate ( he accurately describes the Indian military diet on campaign as a type of payesam- rice pottage- that we see in much later armies as well).

 

just because he calls a One horned Rhino a unicorn or repeats a few Greek creationist legends, is irrelevant to the fact that we have physical proof from 300BCE-600AD of slavery being specifically absent in India and no physical proof that Ashoka ended it 

[Muloghonto]

Besides, the entire mention of slavery in Mahabharata is specifically also pointed out as Bhishma ended and outlawed slavery. 

 

Jains note no slavery prevailing in India outside of specific war captives, which is the only form of slavery ever associated with India in first hand records. 

 

Books that are thousands of years old may have it, sure, especially much older Hindu texts. Even then Hinduism never sanctions slavery and its approval of slavery is much less than that of any organized religion of the desert barbarians.

[coffee_rules]

Ok there is a Bhakti tradition in kannada and the literature is called Dasasahitya  or dasa literature. Purandaradasa, kanakadasa, vijayadasa are some famous proponents. Lame duck here will use it to call it slave literature and proof of slave culture in medieval India. Such is the level of debate with this nut case, waste of time and space.

[Alam_dar]

I am ending this discussion on the topic from my side as Truth is completely self evident now. 

 

My Observation: 
Unfortunately either these are the apologists of religions of deserts, or these are the apologists with superiority complex of glorious religion, there is hardly any difference in their apologetic behaviour. Both become the masters of presenting the lame excuses for the wrong-doings of their respective religions against the humanity.  

[MechEng]

@Alam_dar Slavery is not evil. It is the dirty treatment given out to slaves in the past that gave a bad name to slavery.

[MechEng]

@Alam_dar You may find this interesting - https://www.moltensulfur.com/post/2017/09/19/pliny-elephants-vs-dragons

[Muloghonto]

2 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

I am ending this discussion on the topic from my side as Truth is completely self evident now. 

Yes it’s self evident that India didn’t have slavery in recorded history. Greek writers of 309 BCE who visited India said there was no slavery, Chinese writers who came a few centuries said there’s no slavery and there is no edict of Ashoka that says Ashoka ended slavery, nor any Buddhist texts that say Ashoka ended slavery.

 

you made those claims and ran away from them as usual when exposed for peddling nonsense 

2 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

My Observation: 
Unfortunately either these are the apologists of religions of deserts, or these are the apologists with superiority complex of glorious religion, there is hardly any difference in their apologetic behaviour. Both become the masters of presenting the lame excuses for the wrong-doings of their respective religions against the humanity.  

Except there is no excuses being made for lack of slavery, we are noting it as fact by second half of 1st millennium BCE because there is zero evidence for it in written history of India. 

 

You lied when when you said Buddhism ended slavery in India. Nowhere does Ashoka make that claim.  And we have first hand account of Greeks who say there is no slavery, the same Greeks who were accurate in many things re: India

[Alam_dar]

4 hours ago, MechEng said:

@Alam_dar You may find this interesting - https://www.moltensulfur.com/post/2017/09/19/pliny-elephants-vs-dragons

Thanks. 

Actually Pliny too took information about India from Megasthenes, and then he criticised him.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megasthenes

Assessment[edit]

Among the ancient writers, Arrian (2nd century CE) is the only one who speaks favorably of Megasthenes. Diodorus (1st century BCE) quotes Megasthenes by omitting some parts of his narratives. Other writers explicitly criticize Megasthenes:^[12]

• Eratosthenes (2nd century BCE) accuses Megasthenes of engaging in falsehood, although he apparently borrowed much of his content about India from Megasthenes.^[12]
• Strabo (1st century CE) calls Megasthenes a liar for writing fabulous stories about India; he also brands as liars the other earlier writers on India, including Deimachus, Onesicritus, Nearchus.^[12] According to Strabo, "no faith whatever can be placed in Deimachos and Megasthenes".^[13]
• Pliny the Elder (1st century CE) criticizes Megasthenes's description of the fabulous races of India, and his account of Herakles and Dionysus.^[12]

[Alam_dar]

4 hours ago, MechEng said:

@Alam_dar Slavery is not evil. It is the dirty treatment given out to slaves in the past that gave a bad name to slavery.

It may be true if Masters were kindhearted people.

 

Nevertheless, I feel that most "Basic" human rights were always usurped in slavery. 

 

As compared to slavery, it seems that "Serfdom" was perhaps a little better system. 

 

[Muloghonto]

9 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Thanks. 

Actually Pliny too took information about India from Megasthenes, and then he criticised him.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megasthenes

Assessment[edit]

Among the ancient writers, Arrian (2nd century CE) is the only one who speaks favorably of Megasthenes. Diodorus (1st century BCE) quotes Megasthenes by omitting some parts of his narratives. Other writers explicitly criticize Megasthenes:^[12]

• Eratosthenes (2nd century BCE) accuses Megasthenes of engaging in falsehood, although he apparently borrowed much of his content about India from Megasthenes.^[12]
• Strabo (1st century CE) calls Megasthenes a liar for writing fabulous stories about India; he also brands as liars the other earlier writers on India, including Deimachus, Onesicritus, Nearchus.^[12] According to Strabo, "no faith whatever can be placed in Deimachos and Megasthenes".^[13]
• Pliny the Elder (1st century CE) criticizes Megasthenes's description of the fabulous races of India, and his account of Herakles and Dionysus.^[12]

Irrelevant. These ancient historians most of them never travelled and prior to the Internet age, were largely reliant on their own sensibilities for what they consider accurate or not. This doesn’t matter to us, since we know that Megasthenes was very accurate in his DESCRIPTIONS of geography, custom, lands etc.

 

he very accurately gave the distance of journey ( both in terms of data taken and actual distance) between Pataliputra and Qandahar. He accurately noted the locations of the Andhras, the Mallas, the kambojas etc. He also described Pataliputra’s dimensions accurately and has been corroborated to Indic Puranas in its shape and size.

 

He described Rhinos pretty well as unicorns: single horned, majestic four legged beasts of great speed that only the Gods could dare ride. 

 

Here is your gold digging ants- something he mentioned along with the older Herodotus re: India. Turns out it’s a marmot and the translation of marmot in Persian was confused as ‘mountain ant’ by Herodotus, who himself didn’t know Persian :

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalayan_marmot

 

 

i see no reason to break with Megasthenes’ first hand testimony when most of his observations have been accurate. The only thing he got wrong so far we can tell is, he thought India had no writing because Indians of that era didn’t use written notifications for legal tender or declarations. 

Edited February 25, 2020 by Muloghonto

[MechEng]

9 hours ago, Alam_dar said:

Thanks. 

Actually Pliny too took information about India from Megasthenes, and then he criticised him.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megasthenes

Assessment[edit]

Among the ancient writers, Arrian (2nd century CE) is the only one who speaks favorably of Megasthenes. Diodorus (1st century BCE) quotes Megasthenes by omitting some parts of his narratives. Other writers explicitly criticize Megasthenes:^[12]

• Eratosthenes (2nd century BCE) accuses Megasthenes of engaging in falsehood, although he apparently borrowed much of his content about India from Megasthenes.^[12]
• Strabo (1st century CE) calls Megasthenes a liar for writing fabulous stories about India; he also brands as liars the other earlier writers on India, including Deimachus, Onesicritus, Nearchus.^[12] According to Strabo, "no faith whatever can be placed in Deimachos and Megasthenes".^[13]
• Pliny the Elder (1st century CE) criticizes Megasthenes's description of the fabulous races of India, and his account of Herakles and Dionysus.^[12]

Do read:

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101029132924.htm

 

 

Air quality was very good before industries came 200 years ago, now here we are talking about Megasthenes which is more than 2 millennia ago, so you can visualize how good air quality was back then.

 

Better air quality = More oxygen rich air = high possibility of large insects and reptiles.

 

Those ancient Greeks were talking sense probably.

Edited February 25, 2020 by MechEng

[Alam_dar]

47 minutes ago, MechEng said:

Do read:

 

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101029132924.htm

 

 

Air quality was very good before industries came 200 years ago, now here we are talking about Megasthenes which is more than 2 millennia ago, so you can visualize how good air quality was back then.

 

Better air quality = More oxygen rich air = high possibility of large insects and reptiles.

 

Those ancient Greeks were talking sense probably.

 

I am sure that Indian Sub-Continent in the era of Megasthenes was like a paradise and one of the most beautiful place in the world, with ideal conditions to live for human beings. 

 

It was so sorry to read today that 14 out of 20 most populated cities belong to India. 

 

In another news, it was told that wild birds are becoming extinct in India. 

 

We humans should learn the lesson soon, till it is too late. 

[Muloghonto]

53 minutes ago, Alam_dar said:

 

I am sure that Indian Sub-Continent in the era of Megasthenes was like a paradise and one of the most beautiful place in the world, with ideal conditions to live for human beings. 

 

It was so sorry to read today that 14 out of 20 most populated cities belong to India. 

 

In another news, it was told that wild birds are becoming extinct in India. 

 

We humans should learn the lesson soon, till it is too late. 

There is nothing to be sorry about that India has some of the most populated cities on the planet- we have always been home to most of humanity and infact before the industrial era, we accounted for 25-30% of the world’s population, since Industrial era its been 15-20% for the Indian subcontinent.

 

and yes, we were a paradise. I-tsing doesn’t bother much with social commentary- he mostly noted where he visited, which Abbott he spoke to and studied under etc but one of the very few social observations he made, was how mobile the classes in society were (comparable to China itself he said and China always had least socially restrictive class system) but stunned at having no death penalty in India for crimes !!