KhanSaab Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 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' date=' it had to happen, didn't it?[/quote'] Well we can sit here and argue about that till we are blue in the face. The fact is the romans were the agent that brought a lot of it to other parts of europe and near east. Christianity was indeed adopted by the roman empire under Theodosius and pretty much all subsequent roman emperors. Infact it was made the official state religion and people were encouraged to convert to it. Its true the first christians in roman lands were persecuted but that didnt last for too long. Infact christianity as we know it today is largely because of the romans. The catholic church, pope, vatican are all really roman institutions and the Bible as we know it today was codified by the romans.
KhanSaab Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 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. Oh there is so much wrong in the above statement. So you think these same battle hardened generals who defeated the world superpower of its time Persia with an army that was much smaller than the persian imperial army, actually shat their togas after witnessing Porus. :hysterical: The aim of his army was to destroy their arch enemy Persia which they did. Everything after that, Alexander had to cajole out of his army. There were several disagreements with his Generals after he decided to keep going further east through Afghanistan etc and eventually the army revolted when he urged them to keep going further into India. The army had left Macedonia years earlier thinking they would be back by harvest time instead they were still fighting. This is what his generals told him Alexander tried to persuade his soldiers to march further but his general Coenus pleaded with him to change his opinion and return; the men, he said, "longed to again see their parents, their wives and children, their homeland". Alexander eventually agreed and turned south, marching along the Indus. Along the way his army conquered the Malli clans (in modern day Multan), and other Indian tribes. The Greek retreat from India shows clear signs of a defeated force. Indeed' date=' if the Greek and Macedonian soldiers were really that tired of fighting, as western historians claim, then the ÃÕriumphant 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 didnÃÕ want to face the mountain kingdoms again.[/quote'] No they sailed down the Indus which is you know easier than marching over the mountains. However then Alexander made them march through Balochistan and southern afghanistan because historians believe he wanted his army to suffer for revolting against him. Your argument that he did this because he wanted more gold etc is ridiculous because the macedonians already knew this area was a desert. Also dont tell me you are one those people who claim any historian who disagrees with your point of view is a biased "western historian". Aapko shobha nahin deta yeh sab.:hysterical:
Prakat Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 Well we can sit here and argue about that till we are blue in the face. The fact is the romans were the agent that brought a lot of it to other parts of europe and near east. The fact that they were the deliverers is not being debated. But that does not make it their legacy. It's the equivalent of the pizza boy claiming your order as his own. Christianity was indeed adopted by the roman empire under Theodosius and pretty much all subsequent roman emperors. Infact it was made the official state religion and people were encouraged to convert to it. Its true the first christians in roman lands were persecuted but that didnt last for too long. Infact christianity as we know it today is largely because of the romans. The catholic church, pope, vatican are all really roman institutions and the Bible as we know it today was codified by the romans. I presume you are not discussing this with me assuming that I am not aware of the pope and the vatican. these were later developments. Your claim that the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as a newborn religion was untrue. It faced a lot of resistance from the Empire while it spread inspite of the Empire's efforts. By the time it was made the state religion it was just a political move (read about the internal strife caused by civil wars during this period) aimed at calming the masses.
KhanSaab Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 The fact that they were the deliverers is not being debated. But that does not make it their legacy. It's the equivalent of the pizza boy claiming your order as his own. Your analogy is off the mark, since I already knew about the existence of pizza and used that information to place my order. However, if the pizza boy had shown up unannounced at my door with the pizza and I had no knowledge of such a food existing until that moment then yes that pizza is a legacy of that pizza boy. Gotta be careful with analogies :cantstop: I presume you are not discussing this with me assuming that I am not aware of the pope and the vatican. these were later developments. Your claim that the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as a newborn religion was untrue. It faced a lot of resistance from the Empire while it spread inspite of the Empire's efforts. By the time it was made the state religion it was just a political move (read about the internal strife caused by civil wars during this period) aimed at calming the masses. When Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman empire majority of the population was not christian. Once the Roman empire disintegrated several centuries later the people were overwhelmingly christian. Not just that, the bible they followed, the church they were part of, the pope they looked up to were all Roman creations. I am not sure what other evidence I can present to convince you that christianity in most of the world is a roman legacy.
Prakat Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 Your analogy is off the mark, since I already knew about the existence of pizza and used that information to place my order. However, if the pizza boy had shown up unannounced at my door with the pizza and I had no knowledge of such a food existing until that moment then yes that pizza is a legacy of that pizza boy. Gotta be careful with analogies :cantstop: Oh God. This is where we are at then. :facepalm: So if a pizza guy shows up, say with a misplaced order, and he delivers it to you, and you believe that it is the pizza boy's legacy, it doesn't make it true. The fact remains that it is a legacy of the person who placed the order in the first place. Your ignorance of the existence of the order doesn't change the fact that it belongs to the person who placed the order. When Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman empire majority of the population was not christian. Once the Roman empire disintegrated several centuries later the people were overwhelmingly christian. Not just that, the bible they followed, the church they were part of, the pope they looked up to were all Roman creations. I am not sure what other evidence I can present to convince you that christianity in most of the world is a roman legacy. Wrong. A sizeable portion of the empire were christians (as everywhere else. christianity spread by embracing the lowest strata of society and in the Roman Empire, vast areas were populated by slaves and peasants. Only city-dwellers for the most part were considered Roman people - hence the word Citizen from that period - which means being a part of a country now but its origins point to someone being the resident of the city, when it meant the one and the same thing. Read up on history and how the slaves had converted to christianity throughout the Roman Empire. The form of christianity that was put together (council of nice etc.) in the empire was exported with the roman rule northwards. If you think that the Roman empire's not being a part of the early adopters of the religion and in fact even the state driven persecution of the early converts is immaterial. Then we can just as well not give any credence to Roman influence as well and saw that the French took Christianity to most of Europe and Far-East Asia, the British brought it to the Subcontinent and China and the Spanish to Latin America. Why should the Romans get any credit for it if you are unwilling to accept that christianity had its roots well entrenched well before the Roman Empire made it the State Religion.
hari504504 Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 Oh there is so much wrong in the above statement. So you think these same battle hardened generals who defeated the world superpower of its time Persia with an army that was much smaller than the persian imperial army, actually shat their togas after witnessing Porus. :hysterical: The aim of his army was to destroy their arch enemy Persia which they did. Everything after that, Alexander had to cajole out of his army. : They marched East not to find a good picnic spot.. but to ransack the treasures of the east, the accounts for which were given to him by the travellers and traders. So they fought all the way to Puru Kingdom..got nearly canned by the tactics used by the armies in the subcontinent which totally shook them up, and suddenly decided they miss their families too much now. Sounds too much of a coincidence - especially considering that they had yet to see any of the returns that the trip had promised them. Something tells me that warriors who are used to wiping out entire cities - are not that big into familie ties and what not. Anyway, The Greek armies used a rotation policy very much akin to the modern tactics used by armies around the world, soldiers get rotated with tired ones going back home and fresh ones coming in from conquered lands. There were several disagreements with his Generals after he decided to keep going further east through Afghanistan etc and eventually the army revolted when he urged them to keep going further into India. The army had left Macedonia years earlier thinking they would be back by harvest time instead they were still fighting. This is what his generals told him I agree with the disagreement part - what caused the disagreement is the question , longing for mom's homemade food or the presence ahead of the biggest standing armies in the world using tactics the greeks had never seen before. They were fighting for a reason - not cause of the love for Alexander.. but for a share of the treasures. Alexander tried to persuade his soldiers to march further but his general Coenus pleaded with him to change his opinion and return; the men, he said, "longed to again see their parents, their wives and children, their homeland". Alexander eventually agreed and turned south, marching along the Indus. Along the way his army conquered the Malli clans (in modern day Multan), and other Indian tribes. Sure, they 'conquered the Punjabi warriors... the same battle where Alexander wasa fatally wounded and was in the battlefield for the last time. No they sailed down the Indus which is you know easier than marching over the mountains. However then Alexander made them march through Balochistan and southern afghanistan because historians believe he wanted his army to suffer for revolting against him. Your argument that he did this because he wanted more gold etc is ridiculous because the macedonians already knew this area was a desert. Yeah sure..a route through the desert taking them through some of the fertile lands in the subcontinent - Punjab... jeez what a strange decision ! You really think a king would make his army 'suffer'..as in make them tired ?... the very guys who are protecting his ass from being barbecued by the guerillas whose attacks they were being subject to along their entire return journey ?.. :haha:.. Historians indeed. Also dont tell me you are one those people who claim any historian who disagrees with your point of view is a biased "western historian". Aapko shobha nahin deta yeh sab.:hysterical: I don't lap up what anyone tells me without thinking about it. I don't buy the 'homesick' reason one bit, he 'knew' what lay ahead of him and his generals were not willing to risk the unknown even though the rewards far outweighed the risks. They faced the Persian armies with confidence as they knew their battlefield tactics inside out... the Indians were a different flavor altogether . Their morale was low after the war with Porus which they only won because King Ambi sided with him to teach his 'rival' a lesson ( precursor to how the British were able to establish themselves in the subcontinent)
KhanSaab Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 Oh God. This is where we are at then. :facepalm: So if a pizza guy shows up, say with a misplaced order, and he delivers it to you, and you believe that it is the pizza boy's legacy, it doesn't make it true. The fact remains that it is a legacy of the person who placed the order in the first place. Your ignorance of the existence of the order doesn't change the fact that it belongs to the person who placed the order. You are forgetting that I had no idea that something called a pizza existed until this pizza boy showed up and force fed me this pizza. Then yes the pizza is a legacy of the pizza boy. Wrong. A sizeable portion of the empire were christians I used the word "majority". Are you really arguing that majority of the people in the roman empire before constantine's rule were christians? The form of christianity that was put together (council of nice etc.) in the empire was exported with the roman rule northwards. If you think that the Roman empire's not being a part of the early adopters of the religion and in fact even the state driven persecution of the early converts is immaterial. Then we can just as well not give any credence to Roman influence as well and saw that the French took Christianity to most of Europe and Far-East Asia, the British brought it to the Subcontinent and China and the Spanish to Latin America. Why should the Romans get any credit for it if you are unwilling to accept that christianity had its roots well entrenched well before the Roman Empire made it the State Religion. The Roman empire encouraged christian conversion, persecuted non christians, founded all the important christian institutions, codified the bible at the council of niacea, further spread the religion to all parts of europe from where it was further exported to the rest of the world. All this is why it is considered a roman legacy. This is why catholicism is bigger than the armenian church and the coptic church. However, if you still dont think its a roman legacy you are more than welcome to believe so.
KhanSaab Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 They marched East not to find a good picnic spot.. but to ransack the treasures of the east, the accounts for which were given to him by the travellers and traders. So they fought all the way to Puru Kingdom..got nearly canned by the tactics used by the armies in the subcontinent which totally shook them up, Yeah they heard all these accounts about the treasures of the east but didnt hear anything about the tactics of subcontinent armies :winky: Something tells me that warriors who are used to wiping out entire cities - are not that big into familie ties and what not. Anyway, The Greek armies used a rotation policy very much akin to the modern tactics used by armies around the world, soldiers get rotated with tired ones going back home and fresh ones coming in from conquered lands. No his best troops and generals never left his side. He couldnt afford to transfer them without suffering on the battlefront. As for missing family, its more than that, its missing your home, getting tired of fighting, marching, fighting and marching some more. They did this for years. No matter how tough you are you get tired of it all. Even the modern US army seldom leaves somebody on the battlefield for more than a year. Its not considered good for morale. Yeah sure..a route through the desert taking them through some of the fertile lands in the subcontinent - Punjab... jeez what a strange decision ! Either you misread what i wrote or your understanding of the geography of the area is shaky. He had to go through punjab if he was going down the Indus and he had to pass by Multan which is along the indus. The desert bit comes later, further south before the indus meets the arabian sea. You really think a king would make his army 'suffer'..as in make them tired ?... the very guys who are protecting his ass from being barbecued by the guerillas whose attacks they were being subject to along their entire return journey ?.. :haha:.. Historians indeed. Then please tell me why he made them march through the desert? Looking for el dorado? :hysterical: I don't lap up what anyone tells me without thinking about it. Ofcourse not. So if lets say for argument's sake Alexander had attacked and defeated the Indian kingdoms and then turned back for Macedonia would it have been because he was scared of the armies of Myanmar, Thailand and their superior tactics? :hysterical: The point is he had to stop somewhere and it happened to be the Indus unless ofcourse you expected him to march all the way to the south china sea.
hari504504 Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 Yeah they heard all these accounts about the treasures of the east but didnt hear anything about the tactics of subcontinent armies :winky: Yeah ofcourse..how can I forget.. Indian kings greet foreign travellers and traders on the first day with a demonstration of all their battlefield tactics including the strategic use of elephants to scatter the lines.. No his best troops and generals never left his side. He couldnt afford to transfer them without suffering on the battlefront. As for missing family, its more than that, its missing your home, getting tired of fighting, marching, fighting and marching some more. They did this for years. No matter how tough you are you get tired of it all. Even the modern US army seldom leaves somebody on the battlefield for more than a year. Its not considered good for morale. Another good one !... why would his best troops bother being loyal to him if all they get is continuous tour of duty without break while the inferior soldiers are rotated back home ? Either you misread what i wrote or your understanding of the geography of the area is shaky. He had to go through punjab if he was going down the Indus and he had to pass by Multan which is along the indus. The desert bit comes later, further south before the indus meets the arabian sea. Then please tell me why he made them march through the desert? Looking for el dorado? :hysterical: Yups, he made them march through the desert so that they are all weak enough so that they can repusle enemy attacks... that makes a lot of sense now when I said it 10 times over... he might as well could have punched himself in the face... Nice, You conveniently forgot your argument, that they decided not to risk looking for El-dorado -esque temples in India cause they missed their mom's chicken soup recipe.. Ofcourse not. So if lets say for argument's sake Alexander had attacked and defeated the Indian kingdoms and then turned back for Macedonia would it have been because he was scared of the armies of Myanmar, Thailand and their superior tactics? :hysterical: The point is he had to stop somewhere and it happened to be the Indus unless ofcourse you expected him to march all the way to the south china sea. Atleast if he had the balls to do that and loot the bigger empires in the country, he would have something to take home to show what he gained for the loss of thousands of his soliders.. but ofcourse not, he had bigger plans in mind..brighter plans.. to march his soldiers through a desert so that they are all 'punished' as well as have a good tan so that they look good when they walk the ramp in Greece.
Prakat Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 You are forgetting that I had no idea that something called a pizza existed until this pizza boy showed up and force fed me this pizza. Then yes the pizza is a legacy of the pizza boy. Sir, if you read my previous post you will find the fallacy in your reasoning. The fact that you did't know about pizza and therefore think that the pizza boy invented it and then brought it to your doorstep doesn't make what you think true. "The fact remains that it is a legacy of the person who placed the order in the first place. Your ignorance of the existence of the order doesn't change the fact that it belongs to the person who placed the order." I used the word "majority". Are you really arguing that majority of the people in the roman empire before constantine's rule were christians? Yes. FYI Constantine's mother was a christian. He was baptized much later in life when it became politically useful. The Roman empire encouraged christian conversion, persecuted non christians, founded all the important christian institutions, codified the bible at the council of niacea, further spread the religion to all parts of europe from where it was further exported to the rest of the world. All this is why it is considered a roman legacy. This is why catholicism is bigger than the armenian church and the coptic church. However, if you still dont think its a roman legacy you are more than welcome to believe so. These are accounts of the Roman Empire from different time periods. The persecutions of early christians at the hands of the Roman Empire is indisputable. The adoption of christianity, for geopolitical compulsions, later down the road does not change this very crucial piece of historical fact. You are welcome to consider christianity a roman legacy as long as you wish. :hatsoff:
Vijay.Sharma Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 ^ Then may be he should have come down south and seen. Can't generalize the whole country based on one or two citiesGood the bastard did not come down south. Otherwise imagine other civilizations from the south getting destroyed by these uneducated scoundrels
Vijay.Sharma Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 ++ [My knowledge of history is poor.] But IIRC no hindu-southie ruler was known for his military prowess/conqueror-age..Well you need to become more aware then. The Pallavas, The Chalukyas (Pullakesi defeated even Harshavardhana), the Cholas whose hegemony extended as far as Indonesia. Did you know that the Cholas are possibly the longest ever kingdom in the whole world? They started in 3rd century BC and ended in 12th century AD. How about the Vijaynagar Empire? Like the OP sez, there are so many things about Indian History since the Guptas and till the Islamic jehadis that has been cramped up in one chapter that it is not at all surprising that many well read people are hardly aware of it. It's actually a joke to say that the Cholas were not militarily great. They were the first kingdom in the world to have a completely independent Defense unit called Navy. They had fleets the size of which even the Spanish Armada could not muster up. The map of the Choola kindom from the same blog -
Vijay.Sharma Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 Asoka turning to Buddhism had a lot to do with that. A lot of history before that was bloodied.There were two Asokas who turned to Buddhism and the history we are taught in school sez Asoka of the Mauryas was the guy who tried to make Buddhism popular through peace. The facts are that the Maurya Asoka was a war mongering fellow who did not change thru out his life and made Buddhism his state religion. Whereas Asokavardhana of the Gupta dynasty was the peaceful Buddhist who sent peaceful missionaries around the world in the second century BC. Of course it may come as a surprise and it will take time for you to get over the wrong history taught in school (as it did for me).
Vijay.Sharma Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 Ashoka's Maurya Empire doesn't seem all that small The date to be changed to 1474 BC - 1435 BC
surajmal Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 As I say the red and green brigade in India have succeeded in their grand plan of suppressing the real history of India. I don't know the importance of presenting an accurate portrayal of Indian History. But I know this, Renaissance wouldn't have happened if European scholars didn't get their hands on the arabic translations of greek and roman works. Edit: And Vijay Sharma mucks it up as I'm agreeing with him. :facepalm:
Vijay.Sharma Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 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.Seriously? The Mughals did not conquer half the expanse of Asoka's empire. Provide evidence to argue. Besides, if you had one empire that was very strong in a whole region for ages together whu would you need many more empires?
Vijay.Sharma Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 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.Now you are showing up your awareness
KhanSaab Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 Yeah ofcourse..how can I forget.. Indian kings greet foreign travellers and traders on the first day with a demonstration of all their battlefield tactics including the strategic use of elephants to scatter the lines.. Ofcourse they dont use these revolutionary super secret tactics against any other kingdom either lest they reveal them to someone like Alexander. :winky: Another good one !... why would his best troops bother being loyal to him if all they get is continuous tour of duty without break while the inferior soldiers are rotated back home ? Oh yes he sent his best generals home after 6 months for a little R & R. Where are you getting this from? Yups, he made them march through the desert so that they are all weak enough so that they can repusle enemy attacks... that makes a lot of sense now when I said it 10 times over... he might as well could have punched himself in the face... Nice, You conveniently forgot your argument, that they decided not to risk looking for El-dorado -esque temples in India cause they missed their mom's chicken soup recipe.. Well I still havent heard your explanation. Is it because balochistan had el dorado in it? :haha: Atleast if he had the balls to do that and loot the bigger empires in the country, he would have something to take home to show what he gained for the loss of thousands of his soliders.. Oh Alexander had no balls. Conquering most of the known world without balls, thats quite an accomplishment. Oh and he had nothing to show for all his conquests?? Some 2500 tonnes of gold and silver were looted from Persepolis alone. It is widely considered to be the richest city of its time.
surajmal Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 If Mughals had conquered the entirety of subcontinent, like the green brigade often claims, there would be no hindus in the world today. People need to get that through their thick skulls.
KhanSaab Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 Seriously? The Mughals did not conquer half the expanse of Asoka's empire. Provide evidence to argue. Maps have been provided earlier in the thread. Refer to them please.
Recommended Posts