Greatest Dynasty of India?

Bast said:

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


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

Click to expand...

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.

vogtmurr said:

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.

Click to expand...

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!

vogtmurr said:

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.

Click to expand...

mumble mumble mumble work

vogtmurr said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Dachs said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 ). 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:


Clearly Bactra isn't included EDIT: Its actually in Tajikstan or Turkmenistan. It was Chandragupta who may have temporarily penetrated that far north-west, that I wondered about. 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.

India is a VERRRRRY diverse country. For foreigners this statement might be odd but being an "Indian" can mean ur either:
Hindi
Bengali
Tamil
Telugu
Marathi
Gujrati
Punjabi
and the list goes on.

Then the two major outside invaders Mughals and British brought us much pain but also good legacies.
Mughals: Architecture, Taj Mahal
British: Railroads, Modernization of armies, technology, and a common enemy.

Frankly then there are quite a lot of foreigners who call India home.
These can be some British, descendants of Mughals, Mongols, Europeans, and various refugees.

The answer to the question: Modern India. It unites most of the territory. It gives a somewhat stable democracy system with a good amount of national identity. Has a pretty good amount of secularism. We still have our crises and all but we have the fourth largest military behind US, Russia, and China. One of the strongest economics growths today, lots, lots, and lots of educated and powerful citizenry with strong connections abroad, and a general love for the arts, humanities, culture, and dance.

I don't study history for a living so feel free to disagree, just do it politely.

KD should have left the thread closed. A four-year bump isn't nearly as bad as some that I've seen.

Modern-India seems to be doing fairly well, actually, but they are well-behind even China on many areas. Their living standards are terrible, for example, and their crime-rate is apparently through the roof. Obviously the sexual violence there has been widely-reported lately; I think it has the second-highest rape-to-population ration after South Africa? There's also very poor infrastructure, as I can see in the news report on my television right at this instant, about a flood in northern India.

What's that word Masada used for Indonesia... "organised chaos"? Probably applies to the Republic of India too, except maybe less organised and more chaos.

Mughals, no doubt. also Delhi Sultanate was great too.

technically india was never united under one name and one government(or governor) until the british empire took over. so british dynasty?!?

There were many great dynasties in India (yes they were mostly Turkic and Mongol) but british wasn't one of them.

Mughals united most of india under one flag.


also Delhi Sultanate too

The greatest Dynasties in indian history were obviously the Maurya Empire(3rd century BC)
Gupta Empire(4th century), Pala Empire(8th century), Rashtrakuta Empire(9th century)
Chola Empire(11th century), Vijayanagar Empire(16th century), Mughal Empire(16th century)
and Maratha Empire(18th century


Maurya Empire



Gupta Empire


Pala Empire


Rashtrakuta Empire


Chola Empire


Mughal Empire


Maratha Empire

It seems universally accepted that the greatest Indian Empire was the Indo-Greek one

I wonder how many indians answered this poll . If anything it shows how few Indians there are on this forum

(another thing, are the Harappans Indian? Most of their cities are in Pakistan now, are they Indian?).

Click to expand...

Pakistan + India + Bangladesh + Nepal + Bhutan = Indian subcontinent.

I'm an Indian-American, so I'm not sure if I count but I agree- modern India. Outsiders look at India and say, "Look at all of this poverty."
But it also has one of the most vigorous democracies in the world. People participate at high rates, especially on the local level. And I am not going to say it doesn't have its fair share of conquest and subjugation- Hyderabad wasn't taken without a fight. But these conquered provinces have become semi autonomous states within the government, wielding a lot more authority than US states do.