The Dark Horse Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 TBH, South India would have been no different had Aurangzeb come down south. Dude, read that link which i have posted in this thread. If the tanjore big temple is not an example of architectural brilliance then nothing is. It had been built even before even his ancestor genghis khan was born:laugh: And there are many other instances which disprove his theories. Im sure there were many good things in north india as well.
Yoda-esque Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 Dude, read that link which i have posted in this thread. If the tanjore big temple is not an example of architectural brilliance then nothing is. It had been built even before even his ancestor genghis khan was born:laugh: And there are many other instances which disprove his theories. Im sure there were many good things in north india as well. Of course, it was built a long time back. The point I am underlining is that the Indian Vedic civilization was past its zenith by the time Babur came.What was remaining was destroyed by the Mughals themselves. Nobody is disputing that South Indian architecture was not great.
The Dark Horse Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 May be, but his opinions on india were biased, going by the words quoted here whether you agree or not.
Yoda-esque Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 May be' date=' but his opinions on india were biased, going by the words quoted here whether you agree or not.[/quote'] Me agreeing or not agreeing doesnt mean anything.It is his observation..biased or unbiased is your opinion.
akshayxyz Posted February 5, 2012 Author Posted February 5, 2012 There was not concept of India when he came in..Hindustan generally meant the area up until the Gangetic belt. TBH, South India would have been no different had Aurangzeb come down south. ++ [My knowledge of history is poor.] But IIRC no hindu-southie ruler was known for his military prowess/conqueror-age..
Lurker Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 ^ Then may be he should have come down south and seen. Can't generalize the whole country based on one or two cities Really? You are now gonna go this route of Ancient South Indian architecture >> North Indian architecture? Often a person's opinion is just that, his own opinion. No need to read more or less to this. No different to what Said Qutab's opinion of coming to US and chastising the nation and its culture. Babar is known as a reluctant Indian emperor who longed to be in Afganistan. This is a human aspect much more than civilizational aspect. Lets leave it at that.
The Dark Horse Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 ^ Im not going that route. Since yodaesque had stated that the whole of north was plundered and there was nothing special there(which even i dont approve of), I said that.
hari504504 Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 ++ [My knowledge of history is poor.] But IIRC no hindu-southie ruler was known for his military prowess/conqueror-age.. The empire of the Cholas stretched as far as Indonesia.. it had a legendary naval fleet Rajaraja Chola was one of the greatest kings of this southern dynasty. He had been appointed heir apparent during his fatherÃÔ life time and was an experienced administrator and military general. This mighty conqueror ascended the throne in 985 AD. He defeated the neighbouring south Indian kingdoms of the Cheras and the Pandyas. He annihilated the Chera navy at Trivandrum and took the key port of Quilon in the Chera kingdom (corresponding to modern day Kerala). His next conquest was Madurai which had belonged to the Pandyas. Despite his victories he was constantly at war with them as he had to maintain his superiority. He annexed parts of north-western Karnataka known as the Ganga region and subjugated Vengi which lay on the Andhra coast. He invaded Sri Lanka and added the northern half of that country to his kingdom. Another achievement of his was the conquest of the Maldive Islands. He followed a policy of conquest because he wished to control the trade routes to South East Asia. Business with this region was carried on through the important centres at the Coromandel Coast and Malabar. Rajaraja Chola ruled till 1014 AD. His son Rajendra1 succeeded him in that year. Rajendra1 was also a great conqueror. He marched northwards, crossed Kalinga (corresponding to modern Orissa) and Bengal. During this campaign, he crossed the River Ganga and defeated two local kings there in the year 1022. He celebrated this victory by taking the title, Ũangaikondachola or the Chola conqueror of the River Ganga. Rajendra 1 built a new capital near the mouth of the River Kaveri in south-west India and named it Ũangaikondacholapuram or the city of the Chola conqueror of the Ganga. Another feat of Rajendra 1 was his victory over the Sri Vijaya Empire that extended over the Malay Peninsula and the neighbouring islands in South-east Asia. Friendly relations had earlier existed between the Cholas and the Sailendra ruler of the Sri Vijaya Empire. However a breach developed between the Cholas and this empire as Rajendra1 was very eager to establish trade relations with China. The Sri Vijaya Empire controlled the overseas trade route to China and this proved to be main obstacle to his efforts to initiate trade with the Chinese . Inevitably war broke out between the erstwhile friends. Rajendra 1 conquered a number of places in the Malay Peninsula and Sumatra. The conflict ended in victory for the Cholas and their dominance over the area. The Bay of Bengal was monopolized by the Chola navy. Like his father, Rajendra 1 was determined to establish Chola control over the trade routes leading to South East Asia. His rule lasted till 1044 AD. The main rivals of the Cholas were the Pallavas who ruled over the area now corresponding to present-day Maharashtra. There was a struggle between these two dynasties over the Deccan Peninsula. The Cholas emerged victorious from this long and bitter war with the Pallavas. They destroyed the Pallava cities and massacred the population. The Chola Empire now extended over large parts of the Indian peninsula. They also destroyed Anuradhapur, the ancient capital of Sri Lanka. http://www.gatewayforindia.com/articles/cholas.shtml
Lurker Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 ++ [My knowledge of history is poor.] But IIRC no hindu-southie ruler was known for his military prowess/conqueror-age.. Kya baat karte ho boss? There have been some great Southie rulers.:facepalm:
hari504504 Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 Kya baat karte ho boss? There have been some great Southie rulers.:facepalm: Especially the likes of Tiger of Mysore Tipu Sultan and Hyder Ali ... pioneers in military use of Rockets.. http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/15072002/1507200234.htm Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam's Wings of Fire says that Tipu Sultan is respected in USA also and his experiments are remembered in NASA (National Aeronautics of Space Administration (or Agency). He said that once when he had gone to a flight centre in Virginia which is the hub of NASAÃÔ rocket programmes, he saw a portrait in the lobby which contained a battle scene with rockets flying in the background. What caught his attention was that those who were firing rockets were not white men but brownish people whose facial features were like South Asians
akshayxyz Posted February 5, 2012 Author Posted February 5, 2012 The empire of the Cholas stretched as far as Indonesia.. it had a legendary naval fleet http://www.gatewayforindia.com/articles/cholas.shtml Kya baat karte ho boss? There have been some great Southie rulers.:facepalm: I told you, my history knowledge is poor.. btw my actual view is that, by the time mongols/mughals entered India ( north or south).. most of the Indian kingdoms had entered the comfort zone...and the nomads from above were more desperate to win/loot, more ruthless... southie kings around that era would have stood any chance either - as put against mongols/mughals.
Lurker Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 I told you, my history is poor.. btw my actual view is that, by the time mongols/mughals entered India ( north or south).. most of the Indian kingdoms had entered the comfort zone...and the nomads from above were more desperate to win/loot, more ruthless... southie kings around that era would have stood any chance either - as put against mongols/mughals. Thats one way to look at it. The other way to look at this is Indian civilization was by and large one of the most prosperous in the world. Greek civilization, considered in the West to be one of the greatest ever, suffered hugely in terms of balance of trade with Indian countries back then (note countries and not country). You can look up many of their scholars warning how all their gold was making to India. Point being if a country is extremely well-off is there a reason to go outside? People flock to US from other parts of the world today, not the other way around isnt it? Even Chinese civilzation owes a lot to Indian. So yeah too often Indian kings didnt care about conquering outside world. What was the incentive really? xxx
Yoda-esque Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 ^ Im not going that route. Since yodaesque had stated that the whole of north was plundered and there was nothing special there(which even i dont approve of)' date= I said that. You are misquoting me..I meant to say that it was not at its former glory having been plundered by the Delhi Sultanate.Whatever remained, the Moghuls destroyed
Yoda-esque Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 Thats one way to look at it. The other way to look at this is Indian civilization was by and large one of the most prosperous in the world. Greek civilization, considered in the West to be one of the greatest ever, suffered hugely in terms of balance of trade with Indian countries back then (note countries and not country). You can look up many of their scholars warning how all their gold was making to India. Point being if a country is extremely well-off is there a reason to go outside? People flock to US from other parts of the world today, not the other way around isnt it? Even Chinese civilzation owes a lot to Indian. So yeah too often Indian kings didnt care about conquering outside world. What was the incentive really? xxx Asoka turning to Buddhism had a lot to do with that. A lot of history before that was bloodied.
KhanSaab Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 Even at his peak pre-buddhism Asoka was not some great warrior king. He did gobble up some smaller indian kingdoms but he couldnt hold a candle to the other great warrior kings on a global scale. For whatever reason, Indian kings had trouble breaking out of their traditional strongholds on the subcontinent. The argument that they were very prosperous can be used both ways. Throughout history other countries have relied on their prosperity to drive their political ambitions and not sit idle, content in holding on to what they have rather than expanding further.
hari504504 Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 Even at his peak pre-buddhism Asoka was not some great warrior king. He did gobble up some smaller indian kingdoms but he couldnt hold a candle to the other great warrior kings on a global scale. For whatever reason, Indian kings had trouble breaking out of their traditional strongholds on the subcontinent. The argument that they were very prosperous can be used both ways. Throughout history other countries have relied on their prosperity to drive their political ambitions and not sit idle, content in holding on to what they have rather than expanding further. And I repeat... Rajaraja Chola was one of the greatest kings of this southern dynasty. He had been appointed heir apparent during his fatherÃÔ life time and was an experienced administrator and military general. This mighty conqueror ascended the throne in 985 AD. He defeated the neighbouring south Indian kingdoms of the Cheras and the Pandyas. He annihilated the Chera navy at Trivandrum and took the key port of Quilon in the Chera kingdom (corresponding to modern day Kerala). His next conquest was Madurai which had belonged to the Pandyas. Despite his victories he was constantly at war with them as he had to maintain his superiority. He annexed parts of north-western Karnataka known as the Ganga region and subjugated Vengi which lay on the Andhra coast. He invaded Sri Lanka and added the northern half of that country to his kingdom. Another achievement of his was the conquest of the Maldive Islands. He followed a policy of conquest because he wished to control the trade routes to South East Asia. Business with this region was carried on through the important centres at the Coromandel Coast and Malabar. Rajaraja Chola ruled till 1014 AD. His son Rajendra1 succeeded him in that year. Rajendra1 was also a great conqueror. He marched northwards, crossed Kalinga (corresponding to modern Orissa) and Bengal. During this campaign, he crossed the River Ganga and defeated two local kings there in the year 1022. He celebrated this victory by taking the title, Ũangaikondachola or the Chola conqueror of the River Ganga. Rajendra 1 built a new capital near the mouth of the River Kaveri in south-west India and named it Ũangaikondacholapuram or the city of the Chola conqueror of the Ganga. Another feat of Rajendra 1 was his victory over the Sri Vijaya Empire that extended over the Malay Peninsula and the neighbouring islands in South-east Asia. Friendly relations had earlier existed between the Cholas and the Sailendra ruler of the Sri Vijaya Empire. However a breach developed between the Cholas and this empire as Rajendra1 was very eager to establish trade relations with China. The Sri Vijaya Empire controlled the overseas trade route to China and this proved to be main obstacle to his efforts to initiate trade with the Chinese . Inevitably war broke out between the erstwhile friends. Rajendra 1 conquered a number of places in the Malay Peninsula and Sumatra. The conflict ended in victory for the Cholas and their dominance over the area. The Bay of Bengal was monopolized by the Chola navy. Like his father, Rajendra 1 was determined to establish Chola control over the trade routes leading to South East Asia. His rule lasted till 1044 AD. The main rivals of the Cholas were the Pallavas who ruled over the area now corresponding to present-day Maharashtra. There was a struggle between these two dynasties over the Deccan Peninsula. The Cholas emerged victorious from this long and bitter war with the Pallavas. They destroyed the Pallava cities and massacred the population. The Chola Empire now extended over large parts of the Indian peninsula. They also destroyed Anuradhapur, the ancient capital of Sri Lanka.
hari504504 Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 Even at his peak pre-buddhism Asoka was not some great warrior king. He did gobble up some smaller indian kingdoms but he couldnt hold a candle to the other great warrior kings on a global scale. For whatever reason, Indian kings had trouble breaking out of their traditional strongholds on the subcontinent. The argument that they were very prosperous can be used both ways. Throughout history other countries have relied on their prosperity to drive their political ambitions and not sit idle, content in holding on to what they have rather than expanding further. Ashoka's Maurya Empire doesn't seem all that small
KhanSaab Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 Regarding chola chola I was speaking generally. For you to be able to find only one kingdom out of thousands just proves my point even further. As for Ashoka's empire again I was comparing it to huge empires on a global scale. That empire is pretty much what the mughals had give or take a few regions.
The Dark Horse Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 You are misquoting me..I meant to say that it was not at its former glory having been plundered by the Delhi Sultanate.Whatever remained' date=' the Moghuls destroyed[/quote'] I meant the same..
hari504504 Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 Regarding chola chola I was speaking generally. For you to be able to find only one kingdom out of thousands just proves my point even further. As for Ashoka's empire again I was comparing it to huge empires on a global scale. That empire is pretty much what the mughals had give or take a few regions. I still don't see the point actually, Mauryan empire was one of the greatest 1.Achaemenid Persian Empire - 7.5 million kmŽ² or 2.9 million miŽ² (under Darius the Great) 2.Han Empire - 6 million kmŽ² or 2.32 million miŽ² 3.Roman Empire - 5.7 million kmŽ² or 2.2 million miŽ² (under Emperor Trajan) 4.Macedonian Empire - 5.4 million kmŽ² or 2.08 million miŽ² (under Alexander the Great) 5.Maurya Empire - 5 million kmŽ² or 1.93 million miŽ² (under Ashoka the Great) 6.Hunnic Empire - 4 million kmŽ² or 1.54 million miŽ² (under Attila the Hun in 441) 7.Seleucid Empire - 3.9 million kmŽ² or 1.51 million miŽ² 8.Gupta Empire - 3.5 million kmŽ² or 1.35 million miŽ² (under Chandragupta II in 400) 9.Sassanid Persian Empire - 3.5 million kmŽ² or 1.35 million miŽ² (under Khosrau II in 626) 10.Parthian Empire - 2.84 million kmŽ² or 1.1 million miŽ² (under Mithridates II 123?8 B.C.) http://www.thejournal.org/studylibrary/maps/what-are-the-greatest-empires-in-history.html
Recommended Posts