Excellent piece on 4 key events in Indian History

[surajmal]

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:

mughal's was a confederacy. Not an empire. Anyways, Ashoka legacy is more about him being an exceptional administrator than a military leader (although if he wanted, he could've gone after the persians but pacifism is a b!t chy thing.) Ashoka, for all intents and purposes, was the first tree hugger among many other things that liberals proudly claim to be their domain.

[surajmal]

Neither Alexander nor his generals turned back because of the might of Indian armies' date='[b'] 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.

do you know how retarded this line is? Kalinga's was not Ashoka's greatest victory, numbnuts. He killed every woman, child and invalid in that war which made him turn towards buddhism. That is why it is a considered an important episode in Ashoka's life.

[KhanSaab]

do you know how retarded this line is? Kalinga's was not Ashoka's greatest victory, numbnuts. He killed every woman, child and invalid in that war which made him turn towards buddhism. That is why it is a considered an important episode in Ashoka's life.

Arre aap tu emotional ho gaye :haha: Clearly I need explaining, please expound further. I am all ears.

[KhanSaab]

Quite clearly it is not possible to convince you . Believe what you will.

I am not sure you understand the legacy left behind by the roman empire. Pretty much everything we see in the western world today from religion, literature, law, architecture, language etc can be directly or indirectly attributed to the roman empire. Comparing Ashoka's legacy to that of the romans is like bringing a knife to an artillery battle. Here read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_of_the_Roman_Empire

[KhanSaab]

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.

Valid points. However, he didnt need a navy to get out of the subcontinent. He could have pushed into the Seleucid empire, completely controlled south india etc but chose not to, whatever his reasons might have been. Also I am not sure what you mean by nobody at that time had a navy. Lots of rulers had navies even before Ashoka's time. Phoenicians, greeks, persians etc etc.

[surajmal]

You are such a troll that I must applaud you for your efforts. Now if you want to learn about ancient history, read a book or two and stop with Wikipedia posts. If one of goals of any conquest is to win hearts and minds of the enemy state's general population, then, as a patron of Buddhism, Ashoka managed to conquer entire East Asia (south east asia eventually came under Hindu influence due to Chola dynasty), without firing a single arrow. Expansion of any empire needs a reason. Now what reason would Ashoka have to leave the friendly confines of Subcontinent to a desert shithole like middle east? Hes (and the population of his empire) got everything he needs in the subcontinent. Unless he was being threatened on his western flank (which didn't happened until the arabs in the 8th century and turks in the 13th century), He'll sit back and govern his own people. But then Ignorance is bliss. Especially with your kind. PS: the size and might of the empire isn't measured by the land area (even in that case subcontinent comes second to only Roman Empire in ancient times) but the population and resources. In both of this cases, Subcontinent has been #1 since the first man walked out of African plains (china only took over in the early 19th century population wise. While industrial revolution rendered the agrarian economy useless in the 18th century).

[Prakat]

I am not sure you understand the legacy left behind by the roman empire. Pretty much everything we see in the western world today from religion, literature, law, architecture, language etc can be directly or indirectly attributed to the roman empire. Comparing Ashoka's legacy to that of the romans is like bringing a knife to an artillery battle. Here read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_of_the_Roman_Empire

The Romans carried forward what they found in the Greek lands they took over. All modern western ideas from the arts to scientific thinking can be traced back to Classical Greece, from Politics: Democracy, Art : Ideas about tragedy, comedy and drama were first crystallized in the Poetics of Aristotle, Culture : Pretty much everything that is considered the 'western' way of life had its origins in the Hellenic State, to Philosophy : Socrates, Aristotle, Plato form the basis of modern Western Philosophy, Mathematics: Pythagoras, Archimedes, Euclid created the bedrock of what is taught as basic maths pretty much all over the world, Architecture: Ionic, Corinthian, Doric, columns that signify elegance, solidity and gravitas in Banks, Colleges and Government buildings all over the world and even the rudiments of dialogue, interlocution, oration, argument, discussion, grammar, irony, rhetoric, hyperbole and all the other means of written communication that enriches ICF even till date were first codified, you guessed it, in Greece.

[Yoda-esque]

I am not sure you understand the legacy left behind by the roman empire. Pretty much everything we see in the western world today from religion, literature, law, architecture, language etc can be directly or indirectly attributed to the roman empire. Comparing Ashoka's legacy to that of the romans is like bringing a knife to an artillery battle. Here read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legacy_of_the_Roman_Empire

The answer lies in the fact that empires built on wars and cruelty seldom expand after their demise but those built on spirituality keep growing. Ever thought of why these empires fragmanted into different countries while India stayed almost the same?Think about it... http://theinterfaithobserver.org/journal-articles/2011/10/14/reclaiming-ashoka-an-iron-age-interfaith-exemplar.html

[surajmal]

Just want to say this, If ever in the history of mankind, there was a benevolent dictator then Ashoka was it (his Buddhist Years).

[KhanSaab]

The Romans carried forward what they found in the Greek lands they took over. All modern western ideas from the arts to scientific thinking can be traced back to Classical Greece, from Politics: Democracy, Art : Ideas about tragedy, comedy and drama were first crystallized in the Poetics of Aristotle, Culture : Pretty much everything that is considered the 'western' way of life had its origins in the Hellenic State, to Philosophy : Socrates, Aristotle, Plato form the basis of modern Western Philosophy, Mathematics: Pythagoras, Archimedes, Euclid created the bedrock of what is taught as basic maths pretty much all over the world, Architecture: Ionic, Corinthian, Doric, columns that signify elegance, solidity and gravitas in Banks, Colleges and Government buildings all over the world and even the rudiments of dialogue, interlocution, oration, argument, discussion, grammar, irony, rhetoric, hyperbole and all the other means of written communication that enriches ICF even till date were first codified, you guessed it, in Greece.

Which is why I didnt claim the romans invented all that. However, without the romans it is doubtful we would have come across it all as they are the ones who through their long and successful reign over europe imbued it in the general consciousness of the masses hence its roman legacy. Kind of like christianity which obviously wasnt started by romans but without their support and patronization would probably have been a mere footnote in history and is therefore considered a roman legacy.

[KhanSaab]

The answer lies in the fact that empires built on wars and cruelty seldom expand after their demise but those built on spirituality keep growing. Ever thought of why these empires fragmanted into different countries while India stayed almost the same?Think about it... http://theinterfaithobserver.org/journal-articles/2011/10/14/reclaiming-ashoka-an-iron-age-interfaith-exemplar.html

Hmm I am not sure I agree. Lots of empires expanded through war eventually solidified and even expanded as a single country. Take China for example. Several different warring kingdoms united by a megalomaniac and it turns into a single country with a united identity. There are plenty of other examples. And arent you hobnobbing with both sides of the argument? The only reason we are even talking about Ashoka is because he expanded his kingdom through merciless slaughter and aggression which gave him a large enough platform to espouse his later beliefs. If Ashoka had followed his later non violent principals from the start we probably never even would have known about him. Who is to say there werent any non violent kings prior to him but without a big and prosperous kingdom expanded through war and bloodshed they could very well be just lost to history.

[surajmal]

Hmm I am not sure I agree. Lots of empires expanded through war eventually solidified and even expanded as a single country. Take China for example. Several different warring kingdoms united by a megalomaniac and it turns into a single country with a united identity. There are plenty of other examples. And arent you hobnobbing with both sides of the argument? The only reason we are even talking about Ashoka is because he expanded his kingdom through merciless slaughter and aggression which gave him a large enough platform to espouse his later beliefs. If Ashoka had followed his later non violent principals from the start we probably never even would have known about him. Who is to say there werent any non violent kings prior to him but without a big and prosperous kingdom expanded through war and bloodshed they could very well be just lost to history.

other than kalinga, they wasn't much other expansion he did. Size of mauryan empire under ashoka and chandragupta (his grandfather) was pretty much the same. Again I repeat, trolling is a great business, if the troll is knowledgeable.

[KhanSaab]

You are such a troll that I must applaud you for your efforts. Now if you want to learn about ancient history, read a book or two and stop with Wikipedia posts. If one of goals of any conquest is to win hearts and minds of the enemy state's general population, then, as a patron of Buddhism, Ashoka managed to conquer entire East Asia (south east asia eventually came under Hindu influence due to Chola dynasty), without firing a single arrow. Expansion of any empire needs a reason. Now what reason would Ashoka have to leave the friendly confines of Subcontinent to a desert shithole like middle east? Hes (and the population of his empire) got everything he needs in the subcontinent. Unless he was being threatened on his western flank (which didn't happened until the arabs in the 8th century and turks in the 13th century), He'll sit back and govern his own people. But then Ignorance is bliss. Especially with your kind. PS: the size and might of the empire isn't measured by the land area (even in that case subcontinent comes second to only Roman Empire in ancient times) but the population and resources. In both of this cases, Subcontinent has been #1 since the first man walked out of African plains (china only took over in the early 19th century population wise. While industrial revolution rendered the agrarian economy useless in the 18th century).

It amuses me that you are so emotionally invested in this thread.:winky: Now that you have conveniently forgotten my original question to you regarding Alexander the great's return after defeating Porus lets focus on what you did talk about. As to why he should have gone to Iran, well the same reason he went to southern afghanistan which is no garden of eden, mind you :winky: And Indian subcontinent being number 1 for population and resources since man walked out of africa, well that is beyond the scope of this thread. Open a seperate discussion and we can indulge in some more banter.:cantstop:

[surajmal]

And you've proven my point.

[KhanSaab]

other than kalinga, they wasn't much other expansion he did. Size of mauryan empire under ashoka and chandragupta (his grandfather) was pretty much the same. Again I repeat, trolling is a great business, if the troll is knowledgeable.

You are forgetting all the bloodshed he indulged in to keep his father's and later his kingdom intact. Putting down revolts and such. Read up on it perhaps?

[surajmal]

You are forgetting all the bloodshed he indulged in to keep his father's and later his kingdom intact. Putting down revolts and such. Read up on it perhaps?

what are you getting at?

[Raghav_12]

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.

Source tdigi shared in other post. I too have some doubts about the veracity of this depiction. I might be wrong but in the year mentioned (1690), Marathas covered some part of Maharashtra (or was their resistance was broken tempoararily after Shivaji's death in 1680). Also their was Bijaput sultanate in south india, which owed allegiance to Delhi, but had maintained their own independence. But whatever was the size of his empire, Aurangzab eventually caused downfall of Mughal empire. Also if area of influence/indirect control is measure, then Maratha's too had almost whole india covered, just before Panipat's third war (sigh).

[Prakat]

Which is why I didnt claim the romans invented all that. However, without the romans it is doubtful we would have come across it all as they are the ones who through their long and successful reign over europe imbued it in the general consciousness of the masses hence its roman legacy.

The Roman Empire was greatly informed by Classical Greece. The fact that the Romans took this influence with them in their northern conquests is still not to their credit, it had to happen, didn't it?

Kind of like christianity which obviously wasnt started by romans but without their support and patronization would probably have been a mere footnote in history and is therefore considered a roman legacy.

Not really. Unlike other empires of the region and period, Christianity was not "adopted" by the Roman Empire. In fact, Christianity spread by gradual, often surreptitious conversions across the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire actually actively persecuted these christians because they didn't accept the emperor as their lord and supreme ruler. "Feeding the Christians to the Lions" was a phrase that was coined in the Roman Empire. You would hardly be right, then, in calling "Christianity" a Roman legacy.

[hari504504]

Neither Alexander nor his generals turned back because of the might of Indian armies' date= 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.

Yeah sure :haha: , battle hardened generals begin to miss mommy when gold laden temples and immeasurable precious stones lay right in front of them - The very reason that brought them to India in the first place. The very next empire waiting for him in his path were the Nandas ruling the Kingdom of Magadh..who had one of the largest standing armies in the world at at that time. It was clear that Alexander could not accept defeat and return without being overthrown by his generals - he feared defeat and he very well could have walked into a slaughter house if he had faced the armies of Magadh. No wonder the generals started feeling homesick without as much as getting a glimpse of the vast riches of ancient India. Arrian, the Roman biographer of Alexander, says the only ‘victory’ celebration by Alexander’s troops was after the battle with Puru. Surprising – that Alexander’s troops did not celebrate any victory, till the very end of the campaign. Was it, instead, a celebration that they had escaped with their lives? The Greek retreat from India shows clear signs of a defeated force. Indeed, if the Greek and Macedonian soldiers were really that tired of fighting, as western historians claim, then the ‘triumphant’ troops should have returned via the same route they arrived. But instead they preferred to trek south through unknown and hostile lands in Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan. The only explanation is that they didn’t want to face the mountain kingdoms again.

[akshayxyz]

Yeah sure :haha: ' date=' [b']battle hardened generals begin to miss mommy when gold laden temples and immeasurable precious stones lay right in front of them - The very reason that brought them to India in the first place. The very next empire waiting for him in his path were the Nandas ruling the Kingdom of Magadh..who had one of the largest standing armies in the world at at that time. It was clear that Alexander could not accept defeat and return without being overthrown by his generals - he feared defeat and he very well could have walked into a slaughter house if he had faced the armies of Magadh. No wonder the generals started feeling homesick without as much as getting a glimpse of the vast riches of ancient India.

:haha: check mate.