Greatest Dynasty of India?

[Huayna Capac357]

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?

 

[LightSpectra]

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

 

[Virote_Considon]

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

 

[Dachs]

I voted 'other' and went with the Euthydemids.

 

[SeleucusNicator]

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.

 

[Bast]

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

 

[Dachs]

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).

 

[silver 2039]

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?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

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

 

[silver 2039]

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

I require justification.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

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.

 

[silver 2039]

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.

 

[Disenfrancised]

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 . 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...

 

[biggamer132]

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.

 

[holy king]

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

 

[carmen510]

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

 

[Godwynn]

The British.

 

[Agent327]

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.

 

[Japanrocks12]

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

 

[Dachs]

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