Excellent piece on 4 key events in Indian History

[KhanSaab]

Now you are showing up your awareness

In the year 185 BC, about fifty years after Ashoka's death, the last Maurya ruler, Brhadrata, was assassinated by the commander-in-chief of the Mauryan armed forces, Pusyamitra Sunga, while he was taking the Guard of Honor of his forces. Pusyamitra Sunga founded the Sunga dynasty (185 BC-78 BC) and ruled just a fragmented part of the Mauryan Empire. Many of the northwestern territories of the Mauryan Empire (modern-day Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan) became the Indo-Greek Kingdom. Now you are showing your lack of awareness

[hari504504]

Ofcourse they dont use these revolutionary super secret tactics against any other kingdom either lest they reveal them to someone like Alexander. :winky:

yeah guess Alexander didn't watch too much of BBC which showed the tactics Indian Kings used while fighitng with each other.. serves him right.

Oh yes he sent his best generals home after 6 months for a little R & R. Where are you getting this from?

Nope..he rewards them by marching them through the desert in hostile territory

Well I still havent heard your explanation. Is it because balochistan had el dorado in it? :haha:

He wanted them to get a good tan.. look good when they return home ..

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.

Then why'd he march east if he really had enough gold ? .. greed was unheard of at that time wasn't it.. I said he had nothing to show for the Indian leg of his conquest... it was a failed invasion.. Maybe all he wanted to do was defeat the magnificent emperor Porus..and then unfurled the 'mission accomplished' banner to return home.

[KhanSaab]

yeah guess Alexander didn't watch too much of BBC which showed the tactics Indian Kings used while fighitng with each other.. serves him right.

And no one has seen that BBC program to this day. Such revolutionary super secret tactics, have yet to be revealed. I hear that is Obama's top priority for his next term.:hysterical:

Then why'd he march east if he really had enough gold ? .. greed was unheard of at that time wasn't it.. I said he had nothing to show for the Indian leg of his conquest... it was a failed invasion..

Ofcourse it was a failed invasion. He failed to find the balochistani el dorado :hysterical:

[Vijay.Sharma]

In the year 185 BC' date= about fifty years after Ashoka's death, the last Maurya ruler, Brhadrata, was assassinated by the commander-in-chief of the Mauryan armed forces, Pusyamitra Sunga, while he was taking the Guard of Honor of his forces. Pusyamitra Sunga founded the Sunga dynasty (185 BC-78 BC) and ruled just a fragmented part of the Mauryan Empire. Many of the northwestern territories of the Mauryan Empire (modern-day Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan) became the Indo-Greek Kingdom. Now you are showing your lack of awareness

Tch tch tch.... are you quoting these dates from what you learned in school? Sweetness, there are proper Historians in this world wo go beyond European Indologist version of History and have documented proper History. Even the European Indologists themselves could not agree on the dates of various kingdoms in India. Here is the Mauryan empire for you - SN Name Years Calendar 1 Chandragupta Maurya 34 1534-1500 B.C. 2 Bindusara 28 1500-1472 B.C. 3 Asoka 36 1472-1436 B.C. (I got my dates wrong in an earlier post) 4 Supersva or Suyasa (Kunala or Kusala) 8 1436-1428 B.C. 5 Dasaratha or Bandhu Palitha 8 1428-I420 B.C. 6 Indrapalita 70 1420-1350 B.C 7 Harshavardhana 8 1350-1342 B.C. 8 Sangata 9 1342-1333 B.C. 9 Salisuka 13 1333-132O B.C. 10 Soma Sarma or Deva Sarma 7 1320-1313 B.C. 11 Satadhanva 8 1313-1305 B.C. 12 Brihadradha or Brihadaswa 87 1305-1218 B.C. For the dynasties before and after the Mauryas - Before - Bharata Kings : 3138 BC - 2132 BC http://trueindianhistory-kvchelam.blogspot.in/2009/08/magadha-empire-after-mahabharata-war-in.html Pradyota Dynasty : 2132 BC - 1994 BC http://trueindianhistory-kvchelam.blogspot.in/2009/08/magadha-empire-after-mahabharata-war-in.html Sisunaga Dynasty : 1994 to 1634 BC http://trueindianhistory-kvchelam.blogspot.in/2009/08/saisunaga-dynasty-third-dynasty-of.html Nanda dynasty : 1634 BC - 1534 BC http://trueindianhistory-kvchelam.blogspot.in/2009/08/nanda-dynasty-fourth-dynasty-of-magadha.html After - Sunga Dynasty : 1218 to 918 BC http://trueindianhistory-kvchelam.blogspot.in/2009/09/kings-of-sunga-dynastythe-sixth-dynasty.html Kanva Dynasty : 918 BC to 833 BC http://trueindianhistory-kvchelam.blogspot.in/2009/09/kanva-dynasty-seventh-dynasty-of.html Andhra (i.e Satavahana) Dynasty : 833 BC to 327 BC http://trueindianhistory-kvchelam.blogspot.in/2009/09/aandhrasaatavahana-or-saatakarni.html Gupta Dynasty : 327 BC to 82 BC http://trueindianhistory-kvchelam.blogspot.in/2009/09/pataliputra-empire-gupta-emporers-part.html If you'd care to learn the reason for the discrepancy in dates just search for "confusion between chandragupta maurya and chandragupta gupta contemporary of Alexander" in google and you can study thru the links. Or you can also study thru the links posted above (its a blog site). More importantly, with your school textbook knowledge of Indian History do not come trumpeting. There are so many things that are not taught in schools and so many facts that NCERT does not know (or chooses not to know for political reasons). But there are many Historians including ppl from as far as Japan and Norway and Bwlgium and Brazil who along with local Historians have researched Indian History a zillion times more professionally than 18th century European Indologists.

[KhanSaab]

Tch tch tch.... are you quoting these dates from what you learned in school? Sweetness, there are proper Historians in this world wo go beyond European Indologist version of History and have documented proper History. Even the European Indologists themselves could not agree on the dates of various kingdoms in India. Here is the Mauryan empire for you - SN Name Years Calendar 1 Chandragupta Maurya 34 1534-1500 B.C. 2 Bindusara 28 1500-1472 B.C. 3 Asoka 36 1472-1436 B.C. (I got my dates wrong in an earlier post) 4 Supersva or Suyasa (Kunala or Kusala) 8 1436-1428 B.C. 5 Dasaratha or Bandhu Palitha 8 1428-I420 B.C. 6 Indrapalita 70 1420-1350 B.C 7 Harshavardhana 8 1350-1342 B.C. 8 Sangata 9 1342-1333 B.C. 9 Salisuka 13 1333-132O B.C. 10 Soma Sarma or Deva Sarma 7 1320-1313 B.C. 11 Satadhanva 8 1313-1305 B.C. 12 Brihadradha or Brihadaswa 87 1305-1218 B.C. For the dynasties before and after the Mauryas - Before - Bharata Kings : 3138 BC - 2132 BC http://trueindianhistory-kvchelam.blogspot.in/2009/08/magadha-empire-after-mahabharata-war-in.html Pradyota Dynasty : 2132 BC - 1994 BC http://trueindianhistory-kvchelam.blogspot.in/2009/08/magadha-empire-after-mahabharata-war-in.html Sisunaga Dynasty : 1994 to 1634 BC http://trueindianhistory-kvchelam.blogspot.in/2009/08/saisunaga-dynasty-third-dynasty-of.html Nanda dynasty : 1634 BC - 1534 BC http://trueindianhistory-kvchelam.blogspot.in/2009/08/nanda-dynasty-fourth-dynasty-of-magadha.html After - Sunga Dynasty : 1218 to 918 BC http://trueindianhistory-kvchelam.blogspot.in/2009/09/kings-of-sunga-dynastythe-sixth-dynasty.html Kanva Dynasty : 918 BC to 833 BC http://trueindianhistory-kvchelam.blogspot.in/2009/09/kanva-dynasty-seventh-dynasty-of.html Andhra (i.e Satavahana) Dynasty : 833 BC to 327 BC http://trueindianhistory-kvchelam.blogspot.in/2009/09/aandhrasaatavahana-or-saatakarni.html Gupta Dynasty : 327 BC to 82 BC http://trueindianhistory-kvchelam.blogspot.in/2009/09/pataliputra-empire-gupta-emporers-part.html If you'd care to learn the reason for the discrepancy in dates just search for "confusion between chandragupta maurya and chandragupta gupta contemporary of Alexander" in google and you can study thru the links. Or you can also study thru the links posted above (its a blog site). More importantly, with your school textbook knowledge of Indian History do not come trumpeting. There are so many things that are not taught in schools and so many facts that NCERT does not know (or chooses not to know for political reasons). But there are many Historians including ppl from as far as Japan and Norway and Bwlgium and Brazil who along with local Historians have researched Indian History a zillion times more professionally than 18th century European Indologists.

Another self taught historian :cantstop: trueindianhistory.com, sounds legit yaar

[Vijay.Sharma]

Ofcourse it was a failed invasion. He failed to find the balochistani el dorado :hysterical:

What exactly did Alexander have to show for his invasion on India, mister?

[KhanSaab]

What exactly did Alexander have to show for his invasion on India' date=' mister?[/quote'] He got a good tan, didnt he?

[Vijay.Sharma]

Another self taught historian :cantstop: trueindianhistory.com, sounds legit yaar

Listen dude, if you have proper scientific evidence to back your claims then why don't you provide them? Remember the History of India remained what I had quoted until the 18th century. The European Indologists changed it. Now you would expect them to have some scientific evidences to change it, right? Why not tell us what they were?

[KhanSaab]

Listen dude, if you have proper scientific evidence to back your claims then why don't you provide them? Remember the History of India remained what I had quoted until the 18th century. The European Indologists changed it. Now you would expect them to have some scientific evidences to change it, right? Why not tell us what they were?

I stand corrected janab. Your blog site has convinced me of the veracity of your argument. I have just binned my NCERT And CBSE textbooks. Lead on brother.

[Vijay.Sharma]

He got a good tan' date=' didnt he?[/quote']So you think you are being very witty now? Why do you come to a debate when you do not have enough knowledge and tat the end of it instead of humbly learning from ppl who have more knowledge than you, you wanna escape away with witty statements.

[KhanSaab]

So you think you are being very witty now? Why do you come to a debate when you do not have enough knowledge and tat the end of it instead of humbly learning from ppl who have more knowledge than you' date=' you wanna escape away with witty statements.[/quote'] Read above post kind sir.

[Vijay.Sharma]

Read above post kind sir.

And you read my response to that

[Vijay.Sharma]

Khansaab, I would like you to know that my tempestuous reaction had just one reason behind it - you were trashing away arguments from others not with facts but with troll like comments. You were turning this discussion into a oneupmanship when it actually was a legit sharing of ideas. You started the troll like comments and ridiculing others. If at least you had the knowledge to back it up it would have possibly worked. But you did not. And hence I reacted the way I did. Sorry for the harsh words. But please remember never to ridicule others when you yourself do not have any decent knowledge about the subject. You are not a silly teen right, so why can't you keep to the discussion instead of trolling?

[surajmal]

[Vijay.Sharma]

And in order to "replace her old and ancient culture" what did the mother fu

"It is, I believe, no exaggeration to say, that all the historical information which has been collected from all the books written in the Sanscrit language is less valuable than what may be found in the most paltry abridgments used at preparatory schools in England." "We have to educate a people who cannot at present be educated by means of their mother-tongue. We must teach them some foreign language. The claims of our own language it is hardly necessary to recapitulate. It stands pre-eminent even among the languages of the west."

Source - http://www.english.ucsb.edu/faculty/rraley/research/english/macaulay.html ps - for Khansaab - look carefully the source of the text is the British archives.

[KhanSaab]

Sir' date=' 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.[/quote'] Invention is not always considered legacy. Perhaps thats where the misunderstanding lies.According to merriam webster: legacy : something transmitted by or received from an ancestor or predecessor or from the past I must say even the most optimistic accounts I have read do not ascribe to majority christian population in the roman empire at constantine's time. May I ask what the source of this information is?

[KhanSaab]

Khansaab, I would like you to know that my tempestuous reaction had just one reason behind it - you were trashing away arguments from others not with facts but with troll like comments. You were turning this discussion into a oneupmanship when it actually was a legit sharing of ideas. You started the troll like comments and ridiculing others. If at least you had the knowledge to back it up it would have possibly worked. But you did not. And hence I reacted the way I did. Sorry for the harsh words. But please remember never to ridicule others when you yourself do not have any decent knowledge about the subject. You are not a silly teen right, so why can't you keep to the discussion instead of trolling?

I am sure Hari can hold an online conversation by himself without any help from his idiot cousin :hysterical: But thanks for playing

[KhanSaab]

And in order to "replace her old and ancient culture" what did the mother fuhttp://www.english.ucsb.edu/faculty/rraley/research/english/macaulay.html ps - for Khansaab - look carefully the source of the text is the British archives.

All of a sudden you are a big believer in western sources. :hysterical:

[Vijay.Sharma]

All of a sudden you are a big believer in western sources. :hysterical:

There! There! That is your uneducated mind. Now if your mind had some intelligence it would have known the context of the source quoted, and why the source in question given the context of its use in the discussion would be the first 'proper' source to know about what Macaulay said and his motive behind establishing the school system that he did in India. Your logic seems a lot like the brown man's. You seem to be interested in oneupmanship than understanding truth. Listen, it is ok to get things wrong - we are all human and we get things wrong. If you continue to use ridicule as a line of argument then I am forced to show up your intellect.

[ganeshran]

This thread is getting out of hand. Locking it till tempers cool down. EDIT: Reopening the thread. Please keep the discussion civil and dont abuse/insult other posters.