Greatest Dynasty of India?

What was the greatest Kingdom to rule India?


  • Total voters
    65
  • Poll closed .

Sharwood

Rich, doctor nephew
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
6,954
Location
A little place outside Atlanta
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.
 

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:
 

Sharwood

Rich, doctor nephew
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
6,954
Location
A little place outside Atlanta
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.
 

Bast

Protector of Cats
Joined
Jun 9, 2004
Messages
6,060
Location
Sydney, Australia

Sharwood

Rich, doctor nephew
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
6,954
Location
A little place outside Atlanta
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.
 

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
 

Tee Kay

Silly furry
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
22,103
Location
Melbourne
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.
 

Sharwood

Rich, doctor nephew
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
6,954
Location
A little place outside Atlanta
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.
 

Tee Kay

Silly furry
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Messages
22,103
Location
Melbourne
Well, they did have some pretty interesting coins.

Spoiler :


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

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.
 

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.
 

Bast

Protector of Cats
Joined
Jun 9, 2004
Messages
6,060
Location
Sydney, Australia
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.
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Messages
3,783
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!
 

Bast

Protector of Cats
Joined
Jun 9, 2004
Messages
6,060
Location
Sydney, Australia
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?
 
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.
 

Sharwood

Rich, doctor nephew
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
6,954
Location
A little place outside Atlanta
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.
 

vogtmurr

Emperor
Joined
Dec 31, 2008
Messages
1,250
Location
my crib
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, 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.
 

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

 

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.
vogtmurr said:
Dachs, you've been able to dodge this bullet entirely with your fascination in the Indo-Greeks.
lolwut...what bullet? I'm confused.
vogtmurr said:
Too bad they can't really be considered 'Indian' either.
Why?
 

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.
 
Top Bottom