What is the greatest dynasty ever to rule India? History books say the Gupta, but the Maurya, Chola, and Mughals, as well as others, may have a claim to the title. What do you think?

Mauryas. They were the largest dynasty to rule India and Pakistan, and became a superpower with many advancements in science and mathematics.

I dunno if I wanna pick the Mauryans or the Mughals!

I voted 'other' and went with the Euthydemids. :rolleyes:

Mughals are a clear #1. The interesting question is who is #2. The Cholas have a strong claim I think, if you could their non-Indian possessions.

Mauryans.. hands down! Close the thread, end of discussion.

Mauryans.. hands down! Close the thread, end of discussion.
They didn't last very long, unless you count Demetrius and his Euthydemid successors like Menander as their successors by marriage (a hypothesis first advanced in Tarn but never effectively proven, IIRC).

The Gupta. They had tremendous leaps in science, philosophy, art, and architecture and the period of Gupta rule was a golden age for India and the Gupta are pretty much the classical Indian dynasty. The Mauryan's are much overrated in my opinion sort of like the Qin in China yes they were important and big but not the greatest. The Gupta are more similar to the Tang in comparison.

The Mughals were great too of course and long lasting but so cliched. They tire me.

Also you missed a great many dynasty's. Where is the Suri dynasty, the Maratha's, the Pala's the Gujara-Prathiara's, the Vakata, the Hoysala, Vijaynagra, Harsha, and countless others?

I'm going to go against the grain and say the British Raj, anti-imperialist though I may be.

I'm going to go against the grain and say the British Raj, anti-imperialist though I may be.

I require justification.

I require justification.

Once British rule over the subcontinent was complete (and the first to achieve such total domination), myriad problems were fixed. Banditry practically ceased to exist, so trade flourished. British printers in Bengal helped to codify and standardize the Bengali language, and did so with other Indian languages as well, which, when they started printing classic stories in those languages, helped revitalize what was quickly becoming lost parts of their culture. They built thousands of miles of roads, railroads, and telegraph wires across some of the most difficult terrain on earth, and linked the country like never before. After the series of famines in the late 19th century, it was the British who helped organize a system of grain reserves and a way to get them to places in hunger, which effectively ended the large-scale famines that plagued India almost routinely since the dawn of civilization, with the important exception of the 1943-1944 famine. British-built schools and universities provided myriad opportunities for education for greater numbers of Indians than ever before, even if they had to learn it in English sometimes. Yes I'm aware of the drain of wealth from India to Britain, and the rest of the things that came with imperialism, but to pretend the British did nothing good is incredibly false. The simple fact is that they did more to unite, modernize, pacify, and better India than any previous empire ever had.

You give the British far, far far too much credit. Many of their great achievements would have happened without them. Their role is unifying India is significant of course the British civil service formed the basis of modern India so I'll give you that however its not as if India lacked any dynasties that served as unification templates. The British in particular borrowed extensively from the Mughal Empire's administration and civil service. The Mughals had the most sophisticated taxation system in the world and I believe somehwere around 85% of the population was taxed numbers unrivaled until the modern era. The British borrowed the the Zamindar system from the Mughals with the fedual landlords. Furthermore infastructure is something carried out by a numvber of Indian dynasties. THe Grand Truk ROad was built by Sher Shah Suri of Bengal, various irrigation projects and other infastructure developments were carried out extensively by many INdian empires.

Furthermore you attirbute the British as forming a template. I would say that the Mughals have equal if not greater iomportance in this since they ruled India much longer, and much more effectively. Note the 1857 rebellion in which the rebels rallied around the Mughal Emperor as their figurehead. There was a reason for this, it was because the Mughals were seen as representatives of a united India, the rebels had a concept of what India consisted of and the fact they chose the Mughal Emperor as their figurehead shoows the powerful impact of the Mughals on Indian unification. Grain reserves are mentioned in the Arthashthra 2000 years ago dating to the Mauryan Empire which is the required reading for any Indian ruler. Grain was stored by almost every Indian kingdom and dynasty. In fact the British had the worst famines in the entire history of India. THe famine in Bengal the British responded entirely ineffectively with their relief program and often made the famine worse because their relief consisted of making emanciated people do hard labor. The death toll was 20 milion I believe. Great accomplishment that. Furthermore local economies were destroyed by the British so they could grow cash crops rather than food whicjh contriubted to the starvation. The famines didn't end until India gained independence and with the advent of the Green Reveloution. Clearly the British weren't all that capable.

This is in addition to the loss of GDP at one point India has a vast portion of the % of the world GDP by the end of British rule it was a mere fraction of a percent. That's a fall in absloute GDP not relative might I point out. THen the destruction of local economy in particular Indian mining, industry, weaving, and manufacturing were all destroyed so the British could reduce INdia to an agrarian resource colony so they wouldn't have to compete with it for manufacturing. India had a developed and sophisticated industry which was purposefully and systamatically eradicated for the benefit of Britian. The caste of miners, weavers, were all extinguished, and it was stated policy of the British to do this because they wanted to break the power of rthe local kingdoms who were able to use their vast mineral wealth to resist the British.

I don't deney Britian's contribuations but to call it the greatest indian dynasty is ridicilous. They weren't even Indian and overall I would say their impact on India was worse than it was good.

This is a stupid thread title - China had dynasties, definable as the rulers of the Han core of China who used a common civil service and ideological underpinnings. India had nations, states and empires of a bewildering variety - Who was the greatest hegemon of the Indian subcontinent is a better name ;).

You give the British far, far far too much credit.

I agree that Cheezy is rather overpraising the British, however...

Many of their great achievements would have happened without them. Their role is unifying India is significant of course the British civil service formed the basis of modern India so I'll give you that however its not as if India lacked any dynasties that served as unification templates. The British in particular borrowed extensively from the Mughal Empire's administration and civil service. The Mughals had the most sophisticated taxation system in the world and I believe somehwere around 85% of the population was taxed numbers unrivaled until the modern era. The British borrowed the the Zamindar system from the Mughals with the fedual landlords. Furthermore infastructure is something carried out by a numvber of Indian dynasties. THe Grand Truk ROad was built by Sher Shah Suri of Bengal, various irrigation projects and other infastructure developments were carried out extensively by many INdian empires.
Furthermore you attirbute the British as forming a template. I would say that the Mughals have equal if not greater iomportance in this since they ruled India much longer, and much more effectively. Note the 1857 rebellion in which the rebels rallied around the Mughal Emperor as their figurehead. There was a reason for this, it was because the Mughals were seen as representatives of a united India, the rebels had a concept of what India consisted of and the fact they chose the Mughal Emperor as their figurehead shoows the powerful impact of the Mughals on Indian unification.


No the rebels chose the Mughals as a figurehead, which is so odd considering how the heart of the Mutiny took place in the old core of the Mughal Empire, rather than pan-India :rolleyes:. Though of course that all the factions and religions in those regions wanted the Mughals back is an enormous recommendation for that Dynasties tolerance.

And of course the British borrowed extensively from the Mughals, since the takeover of India was more a slow and tortuous hostile buyout of the Mughal Empire than a military invasion. Anyway the talk of 'British' a single entity is silly as the EIC and the Empire managed the subcontinent with very different goals. The Mughal-British transition is much harder to draw than the Mughal invasion. As for infrastructure, each hegemony invested in era-appropriate stuff, so its more off a non-score all round eh?

Grain reserves are mentioned in the Arthashthra 2000 years ago dating to the Mauryan Empire which is the required reading for any Indian ruler. Grain was stored by almost every Indian kingdom and dynasty. In fact the British had the worst famines in the entire history of India. THe famine in Bengal the British responded entirely ineffectively with their relief program and often made the famine worse because their relief consisted of making emanciated people do hard labor. The death toll was 20 milion I believe. Great accomplishment that. Furthermore local economies were destroyed by the British so they could grow cash crops rather than food whicjh contriubted to the starvation. The famines didn't end until India gained independence and with the advent of the Green Reveloution. Clearly the British weren't all that capable.


20 million is a terrible number (and a dubious one, 15 million seems to be upper estimate elsewhere), but competence at famine aversion should be measured in percentage of population lost, and famines with whole provinces being depopulated have occurred in the past. Older methods often can't cope with tremendous increases in population, and though the EIC and the Empire certainly exacerbated some famines, saying that a native state would have done massively better is doubtful


This is in addition to the loss of GDP at one point India has a vast portion of the % of the world GDP by the end of British rule it was a mere fraction of a percent. That's a fall in absloute GDP not relative might I point out.

Whut? During British rule the economy never dropped down to less than a fraction of a percent, in 1913 it was still over 12% and 5% in the 40s. Starting from 1820, the non-British ruled China dropped from 32% to 4.5% in 1950, whilst India went from 16% to 4.5% (the great relative decline of India began as the Mughals dissipated, long before Clive). The massive booms in Europe and America meant some considerable relative decline was inevitable.

THen the destruction of local economy in particular Indian mining, industry, weaving, and manufacturing were all destroyed so the British could reduce INdia to an agrarian resource colony so they wouldn't have to compete with it for manufacturing. India had a developed and sophisticated industry which was purposefully and systamatically eradicated for the benefit of Britian. The caste of miners, weavers, were all extinguished, and it was stated policy of the British to do this because they wanted to break the power of rthe local kingdoms who were able to use their vast mineral wealth to resist the British.


Yeah that was a horrible thing to do, but what would have another central authority done to bring the local kingdoms to heel?


I don't deney Britian's contribuations but to call it the greatest indian dynasty is ridicilous. They weren't even Indian and overall I would say their impact on India was worse than it was good.

Half the dynasties on the list didn't originate in India, and while I certainly agree with not calling British rule the 'greatest' time for India, I really don't see any native state doing that even a slightly better job post-Aurengzeb's devastation (the Marathas were pretty awesome, but didn't innovate anywhere but militarily, and were tied to a sub-national unit). I mean, look at China's fun times 1800-1950...

I said the Mauryans, mostly because of territorial extent and the fact that Chandragupta and Ashoka were two of the more influential rulers in Indian history, despite the dynasty's rather speedy demise.

the mughals, just because their name means "rich guy" in some european languages now.

Tie between Mauryas and Guptas, so I will abstain for now.

The British.

I'd have to go with either the Maurya or the Mughals; historically speaking any later rule will build on previous achievements - which definitely excludes the British -, so I'm gonna go with the Maurya, whose leaders Bimbisara and Asoka set the examples to be followed.

I'm a fan of Mysore, but I think I have to agree with Cheezy about the British.

The lack of an angry denunciation of the choice of the Euthydemids by anyone else is somewhat surprising.

The lack of an angry denunciation of the choice of the Euthydemids by anyone else is somewhat surprising.
LOLWUT!?

THE EUTHYDEMIDS ARE NOT THE GREATEST DYNASTY TO EVER RULE INDIA YOU FOOL! HOW COULD YOU SAY SOMETHING SO STUPID?!

Better now?

Given that I possess only general knowledge of Indian history prior to the Mughals, I'm gonna have to go with the Mughals. Wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if they're not.

Mughals and the British leading the poll? What a joke. :rolleyes:

How about true Indians like Mauryans or Guptas. But no, of course not. We must bow down to the "Abrahamic superiority". What a joke! :rolleyes:

Mughals and the British leading the poll? What a joke. :rolleyes:

How about true Indians like Mauryans or Guptas. But no, of course not. We must bow down to the "Abrahamic superiority". What a joke! :rolleyes:
Only you could bump a two month old thread to somehow make a ridiculous statement about Abraham keepin' a brutha down.

Only you could bump a two month old thread to somehow make a ridiculous statement about Abraham keepin' a brutha down.
I call it like it is. Maybe you should educate yourself on Indian history before the colonial powers before making your decision. :rolleyes:

Infraction for flaming. - KD

I call it like it is. Maybe you should educate yourself on Indian history before the colonial powers before making your decision. :rolleyes:
Maybe you should not jump to ridiculous, bullcrap conclusions? You clearly entered this thread with an agenda. Instead of trolling, how about giving an actual opinion. You do have a reasoned, well-thought out opinion on the subject?

Come on Bast, you're always making statements and not backing them up, while simultaneously deriding the views of others. Now that you're actually in a thread, make your argument. Don't run away or scream I" DON'T CARE!" Convince me. See my post above yours, it is more than possible for you to do so, if you actually know what you're talking about.

I have studied Indian culture at university in the Mughal and colonial periods, as well as a bit of contemporary stuff. I make no claims to being an expert. So convince me and everyone else in this thread that the British and Mughals don't deserve to be in front. It shouldn't be hard, you are a trained historian, are you not? I've been convinced of the wrongness of my opinions by many such people in the past. So show me what you've got, give me an argument.

Ayo I am still the only person who voted 'other'

Euthydemoi represent dawg

Mughals and the British leading the poll? What a joke. :rolleyes:

How about true Indians like Mauryans or Guptas. But no, of course not. We must bow down to the "Abrahamic superiority". What a joke! :rolleyes:

As I understand it is a poll about the greatest Indian dynasty, not the best religion. The Mughal Empire and the British Raj are part of India's history just as the Mauryans or the Guptas.

As I understand it is a poll about the greatest Indian dynasty, not the best religion. The Mughal Empire and the British Raj are part of India's history just as the Mauryans or the Guptas.
Remember when there was an OT poll on "Best Religion?" That was frigging awesome.

@Dachs:LOLWUT!?

THE EUTHYDEMIDS ARE NOT THE GREATEST DYNASTY TO EVER RULE INDIA YOU FOOL! HOW COULD YOU SAY SOMETHING SO STUPID?!

With absolutely no knowledge on the subject, I stand by this statement with all the tenacity of a politician looking for an issue to pretend to care about.

Well, they did have some pretty interesting coins.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/AgathoklesCoinOfDemetriusAniketos.JPG

Greek Buddhist King wearing an elephant's head as a hat. wth?

Elephant-scalp was pretty cool. Ptolemaios, Seleukos, and Alexandros all did it. Signified great conquests. There's also the enormous Eukratides stater (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/40/EucratidesStatere.jpg/300px-EucratidesStatere.jpg), minted by a man who was called 'the Great' for destroying the Baktrian Empire. Way to go jerkwad. Also one of the biggest coins in existence.

Much better than a pissy little crown. Not as cool as a stovepipe hat though.

Maybe you should not jump to ridiculous, bullcrap conclusions? You clearly entered this thread with an agenda. Instead of trolling, how about giving an actual opinion. You do have a reasoned, well-thought out opinion on the subject?

Come on Bast, you're always making statements and not backing them up, while simultaneously deriding the views of others. Now that you're actually in a thread, make your argument. Don't run away or scream I" DON'T CARE!" Convince me. See my post above yours, it is more than possible for you to do so, if you actually know what you're talking about.

I have studied Indian culture at university in the Mughal and colonial periods, as well as a bit of contemporary stuff. I make no claims to being an expert. So convince me and everyone else in this thread that the British and Mughals don't deserve to be in front. It shouldn't be hard, you are a trained historian, are you not? I've been convinced of the wrongness of my opinions by many such people in the past. So show me what you've got, give me an argument.

What's there to even argue about? Mughals were Muslim foreigners who conquered India and the British were Christian foreigners who conquered India. Are they really Indian dynasties? No. But let's say they should be in as "Indian dynasties", you who have studied them should tell us what they did that made India great? The onus is on you considering you choose to ignore indigenous Indian achievements and pick foreign colonizers.

As for the Guptas, they were not only truly Indian and it was during their time that India led the world in areas such as science and maths.

Gupta astronomers also made many advances in astronomy by using their mathematical breakthroughs. It was during this empire that philosophers in India first proposed that the earth was not flat but was instead round and rotated on an axis by viewing a lunar eclipses. They also made discoveries about gravity and the planets of the solar system, which they used to tell the horoscopes. Chess originated in Gupta India,[7] where its early form in the 6th century was known as caturaṅga, which translates as "four divisions [of the military]" – infantry, cavalry, elephants, and chariotry, represented by the pieces that would evolve into the modern pawn, knight, bishop, and rook, respectively. Doctors also invented several medical instruments, and even performed operations. The Indian numerals which is the first positional base 10 numeral systems in the world have originated from Gupta India. Kama Sutra the ancient Gupta text is widely considered to be the standard work on human sexual behavior in Sanskrit literature written by the Indian scholar Vatsyayana. These ideas spread throughout the world through trade. The Gupta reign was certainly the "Golden Age" of north India.

As for the Mauryans, it's more a personal vote because of Buddhism. But considering that it is the Asokachakra that is on the Indian flag and I would it has to count for something at least in the eyes of Indians.

What's there to even argue about? Mughals were Muslim foreigners who conquered India and the British were Christian foreigners who conquered India. Are they really Indian dynasties? No. But let's say they should be in as "Indian dynasties", you who have studied them should tell us what they did that made India great? The onus is on you considering you choose to ignore indigenous Indian achievements and pick foreign colonizers.Yeah, clearly the homogeneous population of India can only count fellow Indians when choosing a "dynasty." Also, the homogeneous Chinese are silly in and their corruption of "dynasty" by having the foreign Yuan and the Qing. "Dynasty" must remain pure and true to its meaning, whatever it may be!

Yeah, clearly the homogeneous population of India can only count fellow Indians when choosing a "dynasty." Also, the homogeneous Chinese are silly in and their corruption of "dynasty" by having the foreign Yuan and the Qing. "Dynasty" must remain pure and true to its meaning, whatever it may be!
I don't know anything about Chinese history but that's not the topic here.

What exactly did the Mughals and the British achieve in India that made them the greatest as opposed to say the Mauryan and Gupta achievements?

Whoops, I misread you! :lol:

Anyway, I didn't vote, so I can't answer that, and someone who did should. You could build up the case for Mauryans and Guptas in the meantime, ya know.

What's there to even argue about? Mughals were Muslim foreigners who conquered India and the British were Christian foreigners who conquered India. Are they really Indian dynasties? No. But let's say they should be in as "Indian dynasties", you who have studied them should tell us what they did that made India great? The onus is on you considering you choose to ignore indigenous Indian achievements and pick foreign colonizers.
They ruled India, therefore they are Indian dynasties. That's pretty damn simple and straightforward, and is the accepted meaning of the term. The Yuan and Qing were Chinese dynasties, despite being foreign invaders, and the Norman and Anglo-Saxon dynasties are English, despite being foreign invaders, etc. Don't change the meaning of a term just because you don't have an alternative argument. And the fact that you have yet to make one would seem to indicate that you don't have any other than - "They be foreigners, y'all!"

And the onus is not on me, but on you, since YOU are the one making the claim that the Mauryans - whom I know a little about, not much - and the Guptas - whom I know nothing about - are the greatest Indian dynasties. My sole claim is that the Mughals are greater than the British, which is one I can make as I know the history of both periods. I make no claims as to the relative greatness of these two dynasties to other Indian dynasties. You do. Therefore, it is up to YOU to prove your claim, not me to disprove it. As a qualified, trained historian, you should know this.

As for the Guptas, they were not only truly Indian and it was during their time that India led the world in areas such as science and maths.
Define "truly Indian." Do true Indians commit sexual assaults, or do only untrue ones do so. There's a rather famous fallacy you're introducing there. Quite a few of the dynasties throughout history have been imposed upon a nation from the outside, not from within - I've already mentioned some earlier. Are the Aryans true Indians? What about Pakistanis? Is Sikkim truly Indian?

Good argument about the Guptas being good at science and maths, but there's a lot more to a dynasties greatness than that. Athens was the Mediterranean centre of philosophy, didn't stop it from being defeated and almost destroyed by Sparta. Also, funnily enough, you didn't tell me anything about the Gupta I didn't already know, which considering you're an 'expert' and I'm not, isn't very impressive.

As for the Mauryans, it's more a personal vote because of Buddhism. But considering that it is the Asokachakra that is on the Indian flag and I would it has to count for something at least in the eyes of Indians.
So far as I know it counts as the first dynasty from India to unite the majority of the sub-continent under a single ruler. Asoka was also seen as a great spiritual as well as temporal leader.

I just gave a better argument for something you're supposed to be arguing than you yourself. Give me an argument in favour of the Guptas or Mauryans Bast, not "I like them better." Besides, the Mauryans didn't establish Buddhism, their leader simply converted - after bruatlly subjugating said sub-continent.

Yes I'm aware of the drain of wealth from India to Britain, and the rest of the things that came with imperialism, but to pretend the British did nothing good is incredibly false. The simple fact is that they did more to unite, modernize, pacify, and better India than any previous empire ever had.

I wouldn't suspect Cheezy of wanting to exaggerate this, though in the last statement it's fair to say that Britain and India went through momentous changes together. British workers were often an 'exploited' lot too. It should be obvious that the degree of technology and organization which Britain clearly benefited from at the time, would also benefit her overseas colonial subjects. They created wealth together in a global market. But it was also able administration, that trumped over the rivalries of native states. Look at Africa pre-colonial and post independence, but somehow that gets blamed on 'colonialism' too.

. The British in particular borrowed extensively from the Mughal Empire's administration and civil service. The Mughals had the most sophisticated taxation system in the world and I believe somehwere around 85% of the population was taxed numbers unrivaled until the modern era. The British borrowed the the Zamindar system from the Mughals with the fedual landlords. Furthermore infastructure is something carried out by a numvber of Indian dynasties. THe Grand Truk ROad was built by Sher Shah Suri of Bengal, various irrigation projects and other infastructure developments were carried out extensively by many INdian empires.

You're giving credit to the British for knowing how to build upon the systems that the native dynasties had in place, they had a talent for that in colonial administration, and they used it to their advantage. That is better than destroying it isn't it ? Since you favor 'Indian' and especially Mughal history, of course they have great achievements over 300 years you can list. But in their first 150 years, I wonder if the majority of Indians considered Mughals 'Indians' ? The explorer/linguist Richard Francis Burton, for example supervised the reorganization of irrigation in the Indus Valley of the Sindh, work where he often got his hands dirty, before it was an official British 'protectorate'.

. Note the 1857 rebellion in which the rebels rallied around the Mughal Emperor as their figurehead. There was a reason for this, it was because the Mughals were seen as representatives of a united India, the rebels had a concept of what India consisted of and the fact they chose the Mughal Emperor as their figurehead shoows the powerful impact of the Mughals on Indian unification.

Maybe, in that unfortunate rebellion driven by a combination of caste privilege, and regional disparities, and triggered by the mistaken belief they were being forced to chew fat.
Wiki: On January 27 Colonel Richard Birch (the Military Secretary) ordered that all cartridges issued from depots were to be free from grease, and that Sepoys could grease them themselves using whatever mixture ‘they may prefer’.[20] This however, merely caused many Sepoys to be convinced that the rumours were true and that their fears were justified.
Anyway, it wasn't the Mughals that unified India or led its independence movement.

. Furthermore local economies were destroyed by the British so they could grow cash crops rather than food whicjh contriubted to the starvation. The famines didn't end until India gained independence and with the advent of the Green Reveloution. Clearly the British weren't all that capable.

This is in addition to the loss of GDP at one point India has a vast portion of the % of the world GDP by the end of British rule it was a mere fraction of a percent. That's a fall in absloute GDP not relative might I point out.

Comparing a relative share of the world's GDP from indeterminate different ages is invalid without considering what was going on in the world in general. A fall in absolute GDP from before to after the British ? I doubt it - prove it. I won't try to paint a picture that the British were there just to make life better in India, anymore than I would expect the Mughals were. Replacing one crop with another, more profitable one does not indicate an attempt to destroy economies, or cause famines. But in times of crisis, like a drought, it could lead to problems, for sure.

. THen the destruction of local economy in particular Indian mining, industry, weaving, and manufacturing were all destroyed so the British could reduce INdia to an agrarian resource colony so they wouldn't have to compete with it for manufacturing. India had a developed and sophisticated industry which was purposefully and systamatically eradicated for the benefit of Britian. The caste of miners, weavers, were all extinguished, and it was stated policy of the British to do this because they wanted to break the power of rthe local kingdoms who were able to use their vast mineral wealth to resist the British.


I have to say I wonder if the British controlled all sources of labour to that degree, or in fact was the Indian labour force making its own choices adopting to a new model. Who in fact, gets the credit for extinguishing the caste system ? With the Industrial Revolution India was much more than an agragrian economy, it had one of the biggest railway systems in the world, steel mills, shipyards, textile plants, and certainly, mines. But read to the end before you answer me.

Anyway the talk of 'British' a single entity is silly as the EIC and the Empire managed the subcontinent with very different goals.

Yes, and it is relevant that the rule of the EIC ended immediately after the Sepoy Rebellion, 150 years ago. In a way, it was the beginning of recognition of India's rights and priveleges as citizens of the British Empire.

Half the dynasties on the list didn't originate in India, and while I certainly agree with not calling British rule the 'greatest' time for India, I really don't see any native state doing that even a slightly better job...I mean, look at China's fun times 1800-1950...

Yeah, I guess fundamentally a lot of people can't accept the British as an Indian dynasty. If it was my nationality I probably wouldn't call it the greatest time either, but things could certainly have been worse.

The lack of an angry denunciation of the choice of the Euthydemids by anyone else is somewhat surprising.
Descendants of Greeks and Hellenized Indians took up the standard of Buddhism (which originated in India btw) and won the approval of the remnants of Mauryan culture when they conquered or liberated nearly half of India - dynastly lasted till the time of Christ. Too bad they can't really be considered 'Indian' either.

Elephant-scalp was pretty cool. Ptolemaios, Seleukos, and Alexandros all did it. Signified great conquests. There's also the enormous Eukratides stater (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/40/EucratidesStatere.jpg/300px-EucratidesStatere.jpg), minted by a man who was called 'the Great' for destroying the Baktrian Empire. Way to go jerkwad. Also one of the biggest coins in existence.
:lol:
Dachs, you've been able to dodge this bullet entirely with your fascination in the Indo-Greeks.

What's there to even argue about? Mughals were Muslim foreigners who conquered India and the British were Christian foreigners who conquered India. Are they really Indian dynasties? No. But let's say they should be in as "Indian dynasties", you who have studied them should tell us what they did that made India great? The onus is on you considering you choose to ignore indigenous Indian achievements and pick foreign colonizers.

There is nothing wrong with praising the indigenous dynasties of India, the Harappan culture certainly had it on the ball, but after that it gets dicier determining who the indigenous dynasty is. I'm not saying that's the case here, but I'm finding it a prevalent mood to emphasize the virtues of original pre-colonization native cultures as if they should have remained in stasis forever. It seems to be driven by resentment at being 'colonized' and a need to overcome some inferiority complex, fueled by the play on controversy in the mass-media, and 20/20 hindsight centuries in to the past.

Yeah, clearly the homogeneous population of India can only count fellow Indians when choosing a "dynasty." Also, the homogeneous Chinese are silly in and their corruption of "dynasty" by having the foreign Yuan and the Qing. "Dynasty" must remain pure and true to its meaning, whatever it may be!

I chose the modern Indian state as the most successful dynasty. It is the world's largest functioning democracy despite the enormous diversity in language, religion, and cultures, and has achieved relative prosperity despite the enormous growing population (which could pose problems in the future, as elsewhere in the world) as well as high literacy and a skilled labor force. I think fellow Indians can be proud of that fact, but also able to acknowledge that some good things must have rubbed off during the long British stay.

I am going to take the oppurtinity to post maps. Because I love maps. These are not in order.

Mauryan Empire

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Mauryan_Empire_Map.gif

Nanda Empire

http://pagesperso-orange.fr/miltiade/Empire_Nanda.gif

Satavanah Empire

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c8/SatavahanaMap.jpg/250px-SatavahanaMap.jpg

Suri Empire

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b4/Sher_Shah%27s_empire.png/250px-Sher_Shah%27s_empire.png

Gupta Empire

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c9/IndiaGuptaEmpire.jpg

Sunga Empire

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c7/SungaEmpireMap.jpg/500px-SungaEmpireMap.jpg

Pala Empire

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/18/Pala_Empire_(Dharmapala).gif

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Devapala.jpg

Chalukya Empire

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/39/Chalukya_territories_lg.png

Delhi Sultanate

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/30/Delhi_History_Map.png/800px-Delhi_History_Map.png

Kingdom of Mysore

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c4/Indian_Mysore_Kingdom_1784_map.svg/250px-Indian_Mysore_Kingdom_1784_map.svg.png

Durrani Empire

http://usuarios.lycos.es/superjulio/IMPERIOS%20DE%20ASIA%20CENTRAL%20(SUR%20DE%20RUSIA ,%20KAZAJISTAN,%20MONGOLIA,%20CHINA%20OCCIDENTAL,% 20KIRGUISTAN,%20TAYIKISTAN,%20TURKMENISTAN,%20UZBE KISTAN,%20AFGANISTAN)/Mapas%20Imperiales%20Imperio%20Durrani1.jpg

Indo-Scythican Kingdom

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Indo-ScythiansMap.jpg

Pandyan Kingdom

http://www.tamilnation.org/images/heritage/pandya/Pandya_Kingdom.gif

British Indian Empire

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/46/BritishIndianEmpireandEnvirons2.jpg

Rakushtran Empire

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/Indian_Rashtrakuta_Empire_map.svg/530px-Indian_Rashtrakuta_Empire_map.svg.png

Vijaynagar Empire

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bd/Vijayanagara-empire-map.svg/250px-Vijayanagara-empire-map.svg.png

Maratha Empire

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/Marathas.GIF

French Indian Empire

http://www2.pictures.zimbio.com/img/602b/moinansari/381c.jpg



Indo-Greek Kingdom

http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/History/IndogreekKingdomMap.jpg

Kushan Empire (this one is crazy)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/KushanEmpireMap.jpg


Chola Empire (this is an interesting one its the only Indian colonial empire)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Rajendra_territories_cl.png

Majaphit Empire

http://nurdayat.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/majapahit-empire.jpg

Sri Vijaya Empire

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/99/Srivijaya_Empire_Map.jpg


Mughal Empire

http://www.wwnorton.com/college/history/ralph/ralimage/map21ind.jpg

Khmer Empire

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/Carte_Empire-Khmer.png


The total combined extent of all Indian Empires:

http://www.geocities.com/raqta24/Pictures/SriVijaya.gif

Modern India

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/maps/india.new.delhi.jpg

Haha, the map of the kingdom of Demetrios I is wrong. But that's hardly a standout failure because most atlas-makers know dick about the Indo-Greeks.
Dachs, you've been able to dodge this bullet entirely with your fascination in the Indo-Greeks.
lolwut...what bullet? I'm confused.
Too bad they can't really be considered 'Indian' either.
Why?

Your Chola Empire map is so wrong it hurts, it raided Srivijaya it never conquered or held its territory, I also refuse to believe your god awful Srivijaya map for the following reason:

1. Srivijaya was not Indian, it was Indianized, and even the earliest scholarship van Leur, O.H Wolters, Coedes call bull on the notion of colonization or contact beyond specific adoption of Hindu and Buddhist notions of Kingship. It is manifestly not Indian, or if it is its about as Indian as China was after parts of the population adopted Buddhism;
2. As to the map christened 'Sri Viajaya', its utterly totally wrong, Srivijaya was a city state which began in Palembang, then shifted over to Jambi four or so centuries later, at its height it controlled most of the Malayan Peninsula, the Sunda Strait, the Straits of Malacca, and had a very tenuous hold in Eastern Java for awhile through the Saliendra's (a Javanese dynasty which may have been setup by Srivijaya to rule an area it had taken over, and which would later rule Srivijaya itself). It never had influence over the Moluccas, or any further east than Java (and even then for a period of less than a 100 years), and may have briefly held something near former Funan. It was also manifestly not an Empire, it was a coalition of city-states which owed fealty to the largest economic unit in the coalition, typically Palembang or Jambi (Srivijaya was just the name of the dominant polity).
4. To continue that general debunking... the Dai Viet were heavily influenced by the Chinese, even Funan which was 'Indianized' wasn't a carbon copy of India... or even necessarily all that influenced by it (snake cults ftw).
3. That map of Majapahit I'm fairly sure comes from an Indonesian textbook which lets face it, is about as reliable as a nationalist paean can be. Majapahit certainly controlled some of those areas through vassals, 'vassals', governors and 'governors' but it never during the century listed on the text held them all.

The Sri Vijaya Empire map is a shameless piece of nationalistic idiocy. I was surprised the author didn't include Xinjiang and Tibet but thought Oman and Papua should be included. :crazyeye:

The map claimed to show the greatest extent of India. No, greatest extent of Indian cultural influence perhaps (actually, not quite that either), but India is a nation-state created in 1947 out of a part of the so-called British Raj. Before this there was no one "India".

I also disagree with the Chola map, insofar as it seems to treat the lands of the Eastern Chalukya kings as core Chola territory when they were in fact a protectorate. It's similar to that lunacy counting the Bosporos of the Kimmerioi as 'Roman Imperial' territory.

They ruled India, therefore they are Indian dynasties. That's pretty damn simple and straightforward, and is the accepted meaning of the term. The Yuan and Qing were Chinese dynasties, despite being foreign invaders, and the Norman and Anglo-Saxon dynasties are English, despite being foreign invaders, etc. Don't change the meaning of a term just because you don't have an alternative argument. And the fact that you have yet to make one would seem to indicate that you don't have any other than - "They be foreigners, y'all!"

And the onus is not on me, but on you, since YOU are the one making the claim that the Mauryans - whom I know a little about, not much - and the Guptas - whom I know nothing about - are the greatest Indian dynasties. My sole claim is that the Mughals are greater than the British, which is one I can make as I know the history of both periods. I make no claims as to the relative greatness of these two dynasties to other Indian dynasties. You do. Therefore, it is up to YOU to prove your claim, not me to disprove it. As a qualified, trained historian, you should know this.


Define "truly Indian." Do true Indians commit sexual assaults, or do only untrue ones do so. There's a rather famous fallacy you're introducing there. Quite a few of the dynasties throughout history have been imposed upon a nation from the outside, not from within - I've already mentioned some earlier. Are the Aryans true Indians? What about Pakistanis? Is Sikkim truly Indian?

Good argument about the Guptas being good at science and maths, but there's a lot more to a dynasties greatness than that. Athens was the Mediterranean centre of philosophy, didn't stop it from being defeated and almost destroyed by Sparta. Also, funnily enough, you didn't tell me anything about the Gupta I didn't already know, which considering you're an 'expert' and I'm not, isn't very impressive.


So far as I know it counts as the first dynasty from India to unite the majority of the sub-continent under a single ruler. Asoka was also seen as a great spiritual as well as temporal leader.

I just gave a better argument for something you're supposed to be arguing than you yourself. Give me an argument in favour of the Guptas or Mauryans Bast, not "I like them better." Besides, the Mauryans didn't establish Buddhism, their leader simply converted - after bruatlly subjugating said sub-continent.

First of all, you responded to my post. My post was about the idiocy of the general voters here putting the Mughals and the British ahead of the Mauryans and Guptas. You think the Mughals are better than the British? Yeah, like I really care. I never said the Mauryans should be put as No. 1 simply because I like them better. My reasons for voting for them were for the role they played in spreading Buddhism. Yeah Sherlock, you know Mauryans didn't establish Buddhism. Give yourself a prize.

Infraction for trolling general voters. - KD

Anyway, I didn't come into this thread to lecture people. I don't post here to lecture people. It should be up to people to educate themselves. But I call things like it is. If I see idiocy, I'll call it out. Thinking that the Mughals and British should be ahead of Mauryans and Guptas is like thinking that the Seljuks or Pahlavis should be ahead of the Achaemenids and Sassassians in Persian history.

Like in the Bollywood thread, you've yet shown again how little you know about other cultures and yet you love to stick your head in as an expert.

A white Australian lecturing the rest of us about brutal subjugation. Rich. :lol:

Flaming. Infraction per above. - KD

Anyway, I didn't come into this thread to lecture people. I don't post here to lecture people. It should be up to people to educate themselves. But I call things like it is. If I see idiocy, I'll call it out. Thinking that the Mughals and British should be ahead of Mauryans and Guptas is like thinking that the Seljuks or Pahlavis should be ahead of the Achaemenids and Sassassians in Persian history.

You're just trying to avoid debate. You keep going on about colonial subjugation while conveniently side-step answering the question of what is "truly Indian". You say Mughals and British leading the poll is idiocy but you never really justified your viewpoint except saying they're un-Indian colonialist bastards and therefore they don't deserve the title of "greatest Indian dynasty". So I'd really like to hear your definition of "Indian". Were the Kushans an "Indian" dynasty? The Sakas? The Mauryans were descendants of Aryan migrants - do they count as Indian? Remember, there's no such thing as an "Indian" nationality before the British Raj came along. To quote Sharwood (the bit you must have skipped over): "They ruled India, therefore they are Indian dynasties.".

You're just trying to avoid debate. You keep going on about colonial subjugation while conveniently side-step answering the question of what is "truly Indian". You say Mughals and British leading the poll is idiocy but you never really justified your viewpoint except saying they're un-Indian colonialist bastards and therefore they don't deserve the title of "greatest Indian dynasty". So I'd really like to hear your definition of "Indian". Were the Kushans an "Indian" dynasty? The Sakas? The Mauryans were descendants of Aryan migrants - do they count as Indian? Remember, there's no such thing as an "Indian" nationality before the British Raj came along. To quote Sharwood (the bit you must have skipped over): "They ruled India, therefore they are Indian dynasties.".

Descendants of Aryan migrants. :lol: Just goes to show how much you know.

You can believe whatever you want to believe.

Do you understand what imperialism is? If you do, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Infraction for flaming. - KD

There is nothing wrong with praising the indigenous dynasties of India, the Harappan culture certainly had it on the ball, but after that it gets dicier determining who the indigenous dynasty is. I'm not saying that's the case here, but I'm finding it a prevalent mood to emphasize the virtues of original pre-colonization native cultures as if they should have remained in stasis forever. It seems to be driven by resentment at being 'colonized' and a need to overcome some inferiority complex, fueled by the play on controversy in the mass-media, and 20/20 hindsight centuries in to the past.


As opposed to what, the white Australians here descended from convicts? :lol:

Infraction for trolling. - KD

Descendants of Aryan migrants. Just goes to show how much you know.

Bast is likely right in this, Chandragupta Maurya was most probably an illegitimate son of a Nanda Prince, the Nanda's were descendants apparently of the Shudra Caste, which is not an Indo-Aryan caste it was composed of Dravidians. Although he could have been of Kshatriya Caste birth, which would have make him an Aryan. Where exactly he was from is unknown, but its I think the previaling scholarly opinion that he was the illegitimate son of a Nanda prince by a courtesan.

@Bast

Double posting is a crime punishable by death. :mischief:

Descendants of Aryan migrants. :lol: Just goes to show how much you know.

You can believe whatever you want to believe.

Do you understand what imperialism is? If you do, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The theory is that many North Indians are descendants of migrants from the north, who arrived in India after the decline of the Harappan civilization (another thing, are the Harappans Indian? Most of their cities are in Pakistan now, are they Indian?). It is of course just a theory, but it goes to show how blurred the distinction between "indigenous" and "migrant" can be.

Are the Mughals any less of an "Indian" dynasty than, say, the Mauryans or the Guptas, because they were established by a migrant people? If you think India = Hindu, Buddhist, then are Indian Muslims or Indian Christians somehow less Indian than Indian Hindus? I see you dragged the Achemenids and the Pahlavis into this debate as well. Are the Pahlavis any less of an Iranian dynasty than the Achaemenids because it was established by people descended from Arab conquerors? Is the current Islamic Republic un-Iranian? If so, what can be classified as "indigenous" culture and what "foreign" or "colonialist"? You still have yet to answer this question.

The irony is, before the coming of the British Raj, there was no strong "Indian" identity. There was no "India" - only competing dynasties. These dynasties are formed by a certain group of people seeking to impose their will other groups of people by force if necessary. That is imperialism. You said the British Raj and the Mughals were imperialists - so were the Mauryans, Guptas, Hoysalas, Cholas. These dynasties were indigenous to the region of India they arose - it's more debatable whether they were indigenous to India taken as a whole. The Marathas were as native to Bengal as were the Mughals.

Bast is likely right in this, Chandragupta Maurya was most probably an illegitimate son of a Nanda Prince, the Nanda's were descendants apparently of the Shudra Caste, which is not an Indo-Aryan caste it was composed of Dravidians. Although he could have been of Kshatriya Caste birth, which would have make him an Aryan. Where exactly he was from is unknown, but its I think the previaling scholarly opinion that he was the illegitimate son of a Nanda prince by a courtesan.

Goes to show how the distinction between native and foreign can be blurred. Dynasties were founded by both Indo-Aryan and Dravidians. So should those founded by Indo-Aryans be considered un-Indian, just as dynasties founded by Muslims?

This debate over what is truly "Indian" is ultimately pointless in my view. The world changes, new people come on the scene - doesn't mean that part of history somehow deserves less attention than the part that came before.

Bast is likely right in this, Chandragupta Maurya was most probably an illegitimate son of a Nanda Prince, the Nanda's were descendants apparently of the Shudra Caste, which is not an Indo-Aryan caste it was composed of Dravidians. Although he could have been of Kshatriya Caste birth, which would have make him an Aryan. Where exactly he was from is unknown, but its I think the previaling scholarly opinion that he was the illegitimate son of a Nanda prince by a courtesan.

@Bast

Double posting is a crime punishable by death. :mischief:
Also, it's hilarious that some people are comparing prehistoric migrations with imperialism. I mean really.

The theory is that many North Indians are descendants of migrants from the north, who arrived in India after the decline of the Harappan civilization (another thing, are the Harappans Indian? Most of their cities are in Pakistan now, are they Indian?). It is of course just a theory, but it goes to show how blurred the distinction between "indigenous" and "migrant" can be.

Are the Mughals any less of an "Indian" dynasty than, say, the Mauryans or the Guptas, because they were established by a migrant people? If you think India = Hindu, Buddhist, then are Indian Muslims or Indian Christians somehow less Indian than Indian Hindus? I see you dragged the Achemenids and the Pahlavis into this debate as well. Are the Pahlavis any less of an Iranian dynasty than the Achaemenids because it was established by people descended from Arab conquerors? Is the current Islamic Republic un-Iranian? If so, what can be classified as "indigenous" culture and what "foreign" or "colonialist"? You still have yet to answer this question.

The irony is, before the coming of the British Raj, there was no strong "Indian" identity. There was no "India" - only competing dynasties. These dynasties are formed by a certain group of people seeking to impose their will other groups of people by force if necessary. That is imperialism. You said the British Raj and the Mughals were imperialists - so were the Mauryans, Guptas, Hoysalas, Cholas. These dynasties were indigenous to the region of India they arose - it's more debatable whether they were indigenous to India taken as a whole. The Marathas were as native to Bengal as were the Mughals.

Rather than dwelling upon religion and nationality, why don't you look at the scientific, artistic and other achievements of Guptas?

You asked the question:

are Indian Muslims or Indian Christians somehow less Indian than Indian Hindus?

And my answer is: NO.

If that's how you're construing my comment then you're misunderstanding me.

My point was that people with limited knowledge of India i.e. only the last few centuries would pick the Mughals and the British. They would do that because they don't know about the achievements of the indigenous Indian dynasties who actually exported their culture and technologies to the rest of the world through trade. It was India's contribution of the world. Not the colonialists' contributions.

It's hilarious that someone - not you another poster - who claims to be against imperialism and the likes would argue for the greatness of an imperial power. :lol:

I guess those said people will probably say that the White Australia Policy is the greatest period in Australian history too.

Infraction for trolling. - KD

It's hilarious that someone - not you another poster - who claims to be against imperialism and the likes would argue for the greatness of an imperial power. :lol:

I guess those said people will probably say that the White Australia Policy is the greatest period in Australian history too.

You don't have to support French rule of Europe to argue that Napoleon was a brilliant general.

Strictly speaking, the Mauryan Empire was an imperial power.

Rather than dwelling upon religion and nationality, why don't you look at the scientific, artistic and other achievements of Guptas?

Allow me to quote Sharwood.

Good argument about the Guptas being good at science and maths, but there's a lot more to a dynasties greatness than that. Athens was the Mediterranean centre of philosophy, didn't stop it from being defeated and almost destroyed by Sparta.

If there was an option to vote for second place, I would've go for the Guptas myself. I voted the Mughals due to several things: their administration, their military organisation, architecture, and for that too-brief period of history, relative peace and cooperation between Hindus and Muslims.

I'm not saying the Mughals don't have their faults. They failed at substantially raising the living standard for the poor, failed at controlling succession wars, and failed at paying enough attention to the seas and the Europeans, among other things.

And my answer is: NO.

Then how about explaining this previous statement in a little more detail. (One liners about them being dirty imperialists doesn't count)

Mughals and the British leading the poll? What a joke.

How about true Indians like Mauryans or Guptas. But no, of course not. We must bow down to the "Abrahamic superiority". What a joke!

Then how about explaining this previous statement in a little more detail. (One liners about them being dirty imperialists doesn't count)

Explain what? Did they not conquer India as foreigners?

Anyway, what's your point? That I'm a Muslim or British hater or that that's my agenda? Would be a funny place voice that opinion. In a thread about India history. Wouldn't it be easier for me to just start a thread bashing those said people? :lol:

Like I said you can believe whatever you want to believe.

Explain what? Did they not conquer India as foreigners?

The Khitans, Jurchens, Mongols and Manchus conquered China as foreigners. Their dynasties were the Liao, Jin, Yuan and Qing respectively. Their rule in China are recognised and their dynasties are considered Chinese dynasties. Why can't the same be applied to the Delhi Sultanate or the Mughal Empire?

The Khitans, Jurchens, Mongols and Manchus conquered China as foreigners. Their dynasties were the Liao, Jin, Yuan and Qing respectively. Their rule in China are recognised and their dynasties are considered Chinese dynasties. Why can't the same be applied to the Delhi Sultanate or the Mughal Empire?

Are we talking about China? No.

Anyway, if I had to pick the greatest Chinese dynasty I'd go for one that wasn't an imperial power like the Mongols. Doesn't mean they're less Chinese. But I'd pick one that's indigenous to China and one where Chinese culture flourished. Something like the Qin Dynasty.


---

This kind of thing reminds me of how white people portray Egyptians like:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_YRZwNH4YytE/RokgU0K-RCI/AAAAAAAAAI8/NuhWgSNkGm0/s320/cleopatra.jpg

And then suddenly Ancient Egypt was built by WHITE people. This is how ignorance starts.

Well, Cleopatra was Greek. :)

Please, Qin Shi Huang was a ruthless paranoid proto-Mao who killed scholars and used forced labour, but let's not get off track.

where Chinese culture flourished. Something like the Qin Dynasty.


:lol:

...

Wait, you were serious.

:lol:

Also, the ancient Egyptians may very well have been Mediterranean-skinned, and frequently clashed with their southern, darker, Nubian neighbors.

Well, Cleopatra was Greek. :)

Please, Qin Shi Huang was a ruthless paranoid proto-Mao who killed scholars and used forced labour, but let's not get off track.

:lol:

...

Wait, you were serious.

:lol:

Also, the ancient Egyptians may very well have been Mediterranean-skinned, and frequently clashed with their southern, darker, Nubian neighbors.

Well it was the period when the Great Wall was started and China was unified. Okay, so I was wrong about the culture side but like I said I don't know a lot about Chinese history.

Don't blame me for the maps. It was a combination of google image search and wikipedia.

And my opinion on the greatest one is the Gupta because of they ruled during what was an golden age of scientific, cultural, philosophical, advancement. And they were pretty big too. Not as big as the Mauryans or Mughals I suppose. But still pretty big.

Haha, the map of the kingdom of Demetrios I is wrong. But that's hardly a standout failure because most atlas-makers know dick about the Indo-Greeks.

lolwut...what bullet? I'm confused.

Why?

As you said - you were surprised nobody took you to task for electing the Euthydemids. I think most know little about them - all the more need for you to do a quick bio on Demetrios and Menander. ;)
- plus you were able to avoid this heated Mughal-British controversy completely, which unnecessarily, I took upon myself.

To the last part - I was being facetious. Of course they would be considered Indians in my books, but according to the more purist thought on this subject, they were foreign invaders, rather than indigineous, well, Indians. I should have added the sarcastic smiley or something.

Regarding the maps btw - take a good look at the Mauryan Empire, and overlay it on the Indo-Greek one, and you will see what I was talking about earlier. I realize they are not the same resolution or necessarily precise, but that, and some other references to Greek colonists who became subjects of the Mauryan Empire is what led me to believe there must have been a 'Mauryan interlude' for the Greeks in Bactria, which would explain their adoption of Buddhism.

This kind of thing reminds me of how white people portray Egyptians like:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_YRZwNH4YytE/RokgU0K-RCI/AAAAAAAAAI8/NuhWgSNkGm0/s320/cleopatra.jpg
And then suddenly Ancient Egypt was built by WHITE people. This is how ignorance starts.


well, the Greeks in Egypt fairly seamlessly integrated their culture and religion with that of the millenia old ancient Egyptian culture. They never had to wage a war of bloody conquest, or try to stamp out their culture - one of the reasons this Hellenistic monarchy was so successful. It was the last surviving successor state of Alexander's empire, and it gave us two wonders; the Great Lighthouse, and the Library of Alexandria.

besides, she was pretty hot. ;)

well, the Greeks in Egypt fairly seamlessly integrated their culture and religion with that of the millenia old ancient Egyptian culture. They never had to wage a war of bloody conquest, or try to stamp out their culture - one of the reasons this Hellenistic monarchy was so successful. It was the last surviving successor state of Alexander's empire, and it gave us two wonders; the Great Lighthouse, and the Library of Alexandria.

besides, she was pretty hot. ;)
She's pretty hot, yeah. But the Macedonians established a separate ruling class, they didn't really integrate.

LOL, so Bast thinks Cleopatra and Amenhtorep were kissing cuzins!

Clearly the British Empire was the greatest Kingdom to rule India, it being the greatest empire man has ever known.

Whether or not that period was best for India is another debate!

As you said - you were surprised nobody took you to task for electing the Euthydemids. I think most know little about them - all the more need for you to do a quick bio on Demetrios and Menander. ;)
mumble mumble mumble work
Regarding the maps btw - take a good look at the Mauryan Empire, and overlay it on the Indo-Greek one, and you will see what I was talking about earlier. I realize they are not the same resolution or necessarily precise, but that, and some other references to Greek colonists who became subjects of the Mauryan Empire is what led me to believe there must have been a 'Mauryan interlude' for the Greeks in Bactria, which would explain their adoption of Buddhism.
Alternatively you could be looking at the wet dream of Indian nationalists who want to try to kinda ignore that the Chandragupta-cession was over the Paropamisadai at most, not the Baktrian valley. Looking at the history of Diodotos I and Diodotos II, it simply makes no sense for them to have been even under nominal Mauryan control, from the sources. Justin clearly states that the Baktrians broke off from the 'Macedonians'. If you're talking about Pal's lunacy, that Diodotos was Ashoka, then how to explain the revolt of Euthydemos at all, or even the existence of Diodotos II? Or how, according to that formula, Ashoka would be satrap and vassal of the Seleukidai, which is clearly unsupportable.

Looking at the history of Diodotos I and Diodotos II, it simply makes no sense for them to have been even under nominal Mauryan control, from the sources. Justin clearly states that the Baktrians broke off from the 'Macedonians'. If you're talking about Pal's lunacy, that Diodotos was Ashoka.

No - I knew nothing about that alternative theory (I also greatly doubt - trying to pose a Greek as Asoka the Great ? That would go over well here :rolleyes:). I didn't find it hard to believe that the Mauryan Empire, which included the Greek cities in the Indus, would not also have temporary hegemony over the isolated Greek colonies in neighbouring Afghanistan and other parts of central Asia, especially if they later broke off from the Macedonians and Seleukids. It is alluded to in Wiki, sort of;

"Though no accounts of the conflict remain, it is clear that Seleucus fared poorly against the Indian Emperor as he failed in conquering any territory, and in fact, was forced to surrender much that was already his. Regardless, Seleucus and Chandragupta ultimately reached a settlement and through a treaty sealed in 305 BCE, Seleucus, according to Strabo, ceded a number of territories to Chandragupta, including southern Afghanistan and parts of Persia."

I thought it may actually explain a few gaps. If you say it creates irreconcilable differences with what you know, then I believe you. This might settle it, it shows the extend of Asoka's edicts:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/AiKhanoumAndIndia.jpg

Clearly Bactra isn't included :D EDIT: Its actually in Tajikstan or Turkmenistan. It was Chandragupta who may have temporarily penetrated that far north-west, that I wondered about. :mischief: He was the greater conqueror, and a good candidate for the list of greatest military leaders.

And the more I read about Asoka's empire I have to say I am quite impressed, it really was a golden age, and included respect for the environment (Chandragupta was a Jain). It was won by the sword before Asoka became a Budhist, but he also maintained a very powerful army for 40 years. It was like the Roman Peace, but also with a philosophical and cultural ethic that was rare for this, or any time. A degree of unity and tolerance that he did not have to deal with major ethnic revolts in his reign.

Closed for review.

Edit : Reopened.