KhanSaab Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 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 Are you sure about those numbers? Mauryan empire almost as big as Alexander the great's empire which stretched from europe to india? Doesnt make sense
KhanSaab Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 Also using the link you provided this is what the list for largest land empires looks like Largest Land Empires by total land 1 British Empire - 36.6 million kmŽ² or 14.13 million miŽ² (under King George V in 1922) 2 Mongol Empire - 33.2 million kmŽ² or 12.82 million miŽ² (under Khublai Khan in 1268) 3 Russian Empire - 22.8 million kmŽ² or 8.8 million miŽ² (under Nicholas II in 1895) 4 Spanish Empire - 19 million kmŽ² or 7.33 million miŽ² (under King Charles III r. 1759-1788) 5 Umayyad Arab Empire - 13.2 million kmŽ² or 5.1 million miŽ² (under Hisham ibn Abd al-Malik r. 723-743) 6 French Empire - 12.5 million kmŽ² or 4.82 million miŽ² (under President Albert Lebrun in 1938) 7 Qing Empire - 12 million kmŽ² or 4.63 million miŽ² (under Emperor Qianlong) 8 Portuguese Empire - 10.4 million kmŽ² or 4.02 million miŽ² 9 American Empire - 10 million kmŽ² or 3.86 million miŽ² (1898-1934) 10 Rashidun Arab Empire - 9 million kmŽ² or 3.47 million miŽ² (under Caliph Uthman Ibn Affan r. 644-656)
Lurker Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 Are you sure about those numbers? Mauryan empire almost as big as Alexander the great's empire which stretched from europe to india? Doesnt make sense Perhaps that doesnt make sense because you have not heard of Mauryan empire that much? Maybe the fault isnt with the numbers here? Just as some may have issue with Persian empire sitting atop the list ahead of many others prominent conquerors???
hari504504 Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 Are you sure about those numbers? Mauryan empire almost as big as Alexander the great's empire which stretched from europe to india? Doesnt make sense I certainly felt that too It could probably be because we underestimate the size of the subcontinent. Thats Alexander's empire. If you really put them side by side and compare.. doesn't seem like too big a diff b/w them
KhanSaab Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 Perhaps that doesnt make sense because you have not heard of Mauryan empire that much? Maybe the fault isnt with the numbers here? Just as some may have issue with Persian empire sitting atop the list ahead of many others prominent conquerors??? Its hard not to have heard of the mauryan empire if you have studied in india. Ashoka and his battle with orissa his conversion to buddhism, his pillar in delhi, I think this is all common knowledge for indian students, if anything its alexander the great who is under represented in indian history books, understandably so.
Lurker Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 Its hard not to have heard of the mauryan empire if you have studied in india. Ashoka and his battle with orissa his conversion to buddhism' date=' his pillar in delhi, I think this is all common knowledge for indian students, if anything its alexander the great who is under represented in indian history books, understandably so.[/quote'] So then whats the issue? His being ranked amongst the top ancient civilization should be beyond question. You seem to think otherwise. Why?
KhanSaab Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 So then whats the issue? His being ranked amongst the top ancient civilization should be beyond question. You seem to think otherwise. Why? Why should it be ranked amongst the top? Which powerful kingdom did he defeat? Did he find a kingdom that stood the test of time? Did he fundamentally change methods of warfare, administration etc. I dont find him to be that remarkable in those aspects, perhaps others can correct me.
Lurker Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 Why should it be ranked amongst the top? Which powerful kingdom did he defeat? Did he find a kingdom that stood the test of time? Did he fundamentally change methods of warfare' date=' administration etc. I dont find him to be that remarkable in those aspects, perhaps others can correct me.[/quote'] Its rather simple. He was the most powerful king in a vast and prosperous empire. Simply put from Pakistan to Bangladesh to Kerela. You have not heard of powerful empire during his time because he defeated them lol. Kalinga for example. It is not his fault that you would be convinced only if he matched his wits against Ghenghis Khan. Most of what he built stands today after 2000 years. Thats more than how long Islam, Christianity, Jewism has been in existence. If thats not evidence enough...well I cant convince you. :winky:
KhanSaab Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 Its rather simple. He was the most powerful king in a vast and prosperous empire. Simply put from Pakistan to Bangladesh to Kerela. You have not heard of powerful empire during his time because he defeated them lol. Kalinga for example. It is not his fault that you would be convinced only if he matched his wits against Ghenghis Khan. Most of what he built stands today after 2000 years. Thats more than how long Islam, Christianity, Jewism has been in existence. If thats not evidence enough...well I cant convince you. :winky: He was on the doorstep of the Persian empire but for whatever reason chose not to push forward. Kalinga was not some powerful kingdom, very minor compared to the kingdoms alexander routinely defeated. Anyways, perhaps I am being harsh on him. Also Judaism is much older than Ashoka
Raghav_12 Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 For that matter even Aurangazeb's empire look comparable in size with Ashoka's. Anyone can give exact numbers for that? Having said that, I don't think that greatness of an empire can be measured by the size of empire. Not necessarily all great emperors were interested in capturing territories and plundering.
hari504504 Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 He was on the doorstep of the Persian empire but for whatever reason chose not to push forward. Kalinga was not some powerful kingdom' date= very minor compared to the kingdoms alexander routinely defeated. Anyways, perhaps I am being harsh on him. Also Judaism is much older than Ashoka Alexander didn't really come that much into India... his generals refused to move forward as they were spooked about the prowess of the armies in the subcontinent especially after witnessing the elephants that Porus fielded... he barely managed to defeat Porus who was nothing but a small king compared to the ones further along the proposed invasion route.. Infact it can be argued that the war with Porus broke him down..and led him to his eventual death So your line of reasoning can be used to say Alexander was not that great a conqueror for he fled after a skirmish and victory over one of our small kings at the outskirts of Punjab...
Yoda-esque Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 Why should it be ranked amongst the top? Which powerful kingdom did he defeat? Did he find a kingdom that stood the test of time? Did he fundamentally change methods of warfare, administration etc. I dont find him to be that remarkable in those aspects, perhaps others can correct me. He founded the kingdom that has only stood the test of time.He is known as a great king not for the wars he won or the size of his empire but for the way that he re-shaped Indian civilization. Tolerance,Vegetarianism and respect for animals found their way into Indian culture after the edicts and stupas that he ordered to respect all life forms Modern India has all the marks of his rule and legacy.Thats where his greatness lies. In fact I would question the legacy of other bloodthirsty civilizations.Where are Mongolia,Rome,Afghanistan,Iran now?
hari504504 Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 For that matter even Aurangazeb's empire look comparable in size with Ashoka's. Anyone can give exact numbers for that? Having said that, I don't think that greatness of an empire can be measured by the size of empire. Not necessarily all great emperors were interested in capturing territories and plundering. In that age it was all about territories...greatness of a ruler was measured in terms of how much land he was in control of...
Yoda-esque Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 For that matter even Aurangazeb's empire look comparable in size with Ashoka's. Anyone can give exact numbers for that? Having said that, I don't think that greatness of an empire can be measured by the size of empire. Not necessarily all great emperors were interested in capturing territories and plundering. Can you give me the source for this Raghav? That does not seem to be an empire,more of a confederacy. Aurangzeb never could go below the Deccan.The proof of that is that he is buried in Maharashtra and not Delhi.
Nova Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 Can you give me the source for this Raghav? Mughal Empire map based on sheet o A 16 A of Irfan Habib's "An Atlas of Mughal Empire", Oxford Univ. Press, Delhi. (1982) http://www.aurangzeb.info/2008/06/exhibit-no_1814.html
KhanSaab Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 He founded the kingdom that has only stood the test of time.He is known as a great king not for the wars he won or the size of his empire but for the way that he re-shaped Indian civilization. Tolerance,Vegetarianism and respect for animals found their way into Indian culture after the edicts and stupas that he ordered to respect all life forms Modern India has all the marks of his rule and legacy.Thats where his greatness lies. In fact I would question the legacy of other bloodthirsty civilizations.Where are Mongolia,Rome,Afghanistan,Iran now? Actually it didnt stand the test of time. It faltered within 50 or so years of his death. And are you claiminng his legacy on today's world is greater than the legacy left behind by the romans etc? Surely you jest.
KhanSaab Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 Alexander didn't really come that much into India... his generals refused to move forward as they were spooked about the prowess of the armies in the subcontinent especially after witnessing the elephants that Porus fielded... he barely managed to defeat Porus who was nothing but a small king compared to the ones further along the proposed invasion route.. Infact it can be argued that the war with Porus broke him down..and led him to his eventual death So your line of reasoning can be used to say Alexander was not that great a conqueror for he fled after a skirmish and victory over one of our small kings at the outskirts of Punjab... Neither Alexander nor his generals turned back because of the might of Indian armies, they just wanted to get back home. Besides the point I was making was that if Kalinga was Ashoka's greatest victory then surely he cant be mentioned along the ranks of Ghenghis and Alexander who defeated far stronger kingdoms in far easier manner.
KhanSaab Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 Mughal Empire map based on sheet o A 16 A of Irfan Habib's "An Atlas of Mughal Empire", Oxford Univ. Press, Delhi. (1982) http://www.aurangzeb.info/2008/06/exhibit-no_1814.html I said this earlier in the thread. Ashoka's kingdom is very comparable to mughals kingdoms give or take a few regions but was conveniently ignored :winky:
Yoda-esque Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 Actually it didnt stand the test of time. It faltered within 50 or so years of his death. And are you claiminng his legacy on today's world is greater than the legacy left behind by the romans etc? Surely you jest. Quite clearly it is not possible to convince you . Believe what you will.
anotherhawkeye Posted February 5, 2012 Posted February 5, 2012 I said this earlier in the thread. Ashoka's kingdom is very comparable to mughals kingdoms give or take a few regions but was conveniently ignored :winky: I was reading many (but not all, so pardon if it has been addressed before) of your posts in the thread, but you seem to compare an ancient empire, established 1000 years before the mughals to the mughals and modern empires (british empire, really? They were barbarians in 200 BC). You complain that he didn't get out of the subcontinent when NO ONE in the planet had a NAVY. You can compare Mughals to only raja raja chola, even that is few centuries before their time. You can't make apples to apples comparison when two empires didn't coexist at the same time. Its like comparing bradman and srt. Its a futile.
Recommended Posts