Greatest Dynasty of India?

Tee Kay · Mar 25, 2009

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".

Dachs · Mar 25, 2009

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.

Bast · Mar 25, 2009

Sharwood said:
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.

Moderator Action: Infraction for trolling general voters. - KD
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

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:

Moderator Action: Flaming. Infraction per above. - KD
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Tee Kay · Mar 25, 2009

Bast said:
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.".

Bast · Mar 25, 2009

taillesskangaru said:
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.

Moderator Action: Infraction for flaming. - KD
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Bast · Mar 25, 2009

vogtmurr said:
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:

Moderator Action: Infraction for trolling. - KD
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Masada · Mar 25, 2009

Bast said:
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:

Tee Kay · Mar 25, 2009

Bast said:
Descendants of Aryan migrants. 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.

Masada said:
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 · Mar 25, 2009

Masada said:
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.

Also, it's hilarious that some people are comparing prehistoric migrations with imperialism. I mean really.

Bast · Mar 25, 2009

taillesskangaru said:
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.

Moderator Action: Infraction for trolling. - KD
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Kraznaya · Mar 25, 2009

Bast said:
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.

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.

Tee Kay · Mar 25, 2009

Strictly speaking, the Mauryan Empire was an imperial power.

Bast said:
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.

Sharwood said:
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.

Bast said:
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!

Bast · Mar 25, 2009

taillesskangaru said:
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.

Tee Kay · Mar 25, 2009

Bast said:
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?

Bast · Mar 25, 2009

taillesskangaru said:
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:

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

Tee Kay · Mar 25, 2009

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.

Kraznaya · Mar 25, 2009

Bast said:
where Chinese culture flourished. Something like the Qin Dynasty.

...

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.

Bast · Mar 25, 2009

taillesskangaru said:
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.

Kraznaya said:
...

Wait, you were serious.

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.

Nordstream · Mar 25, 2009

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.

vogtmurr · Mar 25, 2009

Dachs said:
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.

Greatest Dynasty of India?

What was the greatest Kingdom to rule India?

Harappans

Aryans

Maurya

Guptas

Kushans

Cholas

Mughals

British

Modern India/Pakistan/Bangladesh

Other

Radioactive Monkeys

Fifty/Perfection

Three days sober

Hero of the Soviet Union

Protector of Cats

Three days sober

Protector of Cats

Protector of Cats

Koi-san!

Three days sober

Protector of Cats

Protector of Cats

Princeps

Three days sober

Protector of Cats

Three days sober

Protector of Cats

Three days sober

Princeps

Protector of Cats

Prince

Emperor

Similar threads