1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Greatest Dynasty of India?

Discussion in 'World History' started by Huayna Capac357, Jan 19, 2009.

?

What was the greatest Kingdom to rule India?

Poll closed Oct 16, 2011.
  1. Harappans

    3.1%
  2. Aryans

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Maurya

    12.3%
  4. Guptas

    10.8%
  5. Kushans

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. Cholas

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  7. Mughals

    35.4%
  8. British

    18.5%
  9. Modern India/Pakistan/Bangladesh

    3.1%
  10. Other

    3.1%
  11. Radioactive Monkeys

    9.2%
  12. Fifty/Perfection

    4.6%
  1. Sharwood

    Sharwood Rich, doctor nephew

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Messages:
    6,954
    Location:
    A little place outside Atlanta
    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.
     
  2. Bast

    Bast Protector of Cats

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    6,060
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    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:
     
  3. Sharwood

    Sharwood Rich, doctor nephew

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Messages:
    6,954
    Location:
    A little place outside Atlanta
    Only you could bump a two month old thread to somehow make a ridiculous statement about Abraham keepin' a brutha down.
     
  4. Bast

    Bast Protector of Cats

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    6,060
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    I call it like it is. Maybe you should educate yourself on Indian history before the colonial powers before making your decision. :rolleyes:

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

    Sharwood Rich, doctor nephew

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Messages:
    6,954
    Location:
    A little place outside Atlanta
    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.
     
  6. Dachs

    Dachs Hero of the Soviet Union

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    32,588
    Location:
    Moscow
    Ayo I am still the only person who voted 'other'

    Euthydemoi represent dawg
     
  7. Tee Kay

    Tee Kay Silly furry

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2005
    Messages:
    22,006
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Melbourne
    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.
     
  8. Sharwood

    Sharwood Rich, doctor nephew

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Messages:
    6,954
    Location:
    A little place outside Atlanta
    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.
     
  9. Tee Kay

    Tee Kay Silly furry

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2005
    Messages:
    22,006
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Well, they did have some pretty interesting coins.

    Spoiler :


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

    Dachs Hero of the Soviet Union

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    32,588
    Location:
    Moscow
    Elephant-scalp was pretty cool. Ptolemaios, Seleukos, and Alexandros all did it. Signified great conquests. There's also the enormous Eukratides stater, 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.
     
  11. Sharwood

    Sharwood Rich, doctor nephew

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Messages:
    6,954
    Location:
    A little place outside Atlanta
    Much better than a pissy little crown. Not as cool as a stovepipe hat though.
     
  12. Bast

    Bast Protector of Cats

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    6,060
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    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.

    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.
     
  13. flyingchicken

    flyingchicken Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,783
    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!
     
  14. Bast

    Bast Protector of Cats

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    6,060
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    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?
     
  15. flyingchicken

    flyingchicken Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2007
    Messages:
    3,783
    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.
     
  16. Sharwood

    Sharwood Rich, doctor nephew

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Messages:
    6,954
    Location:
    A little place outside Atlanta
    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.
     
  17. vogtmurr

    vogtmurr Emperor

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Messages:
    1,249
    Location:
    my crib
    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.

    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'.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    :lol:
    Dachs, you've been able to dodge this bullet entirely with your fascination in the Indo-Greeks.

    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.

    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.
     
  18. Nordstream

    Nordstream Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    Messages:
    393
    Location:
    Ekaterinburg (Sverdlovsk), Russia
    I am going to take the oppurtinity to post maps. Because I love maps. These are not in order.

    Mauryan Empire



    Nanda Empire



    Satavanah Empire



    Suri Empire



    Gupta Empire



    Sunga Empire



    Pala Empire





    Chalukya Empire



    Delhi Sultanate



    Kingdom of Mysore



    Durrani Empire



    Indo-Scythican Kingdom

    Spoiler :


    Pandyan Kingdom



    British Indian Empire

    Spoiler :


    Rakushtran Empire



    Vijaynagar Empire



    Maratha Empire



    French Indian Empire





    Indo-Greek Kingdom

    Spoiler :


    Kushan Empire (this one is crazy)

    Spoiler :



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



    Majaphit Empire



    Sri Vijaya Empire

    Spoiler :



    Mughal Empire



    Khmer Empire

    Spoiler :



    The total combined extent of all Indian Empires:



    Modern India

     
  19. Dachs

    Dachs Hero of the Soviet Union

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2005
    Messages:
    32,588
    Location:
    Moscow
    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?
     
  20. Masada

    Masada Koi-san!

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2005
    Messages:
    12,534
    Location:
    Osaka
    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.
     

Share This Page