The India Thread

[Patine]

Another point for a Tamil civ, since they are the longest-lasting kingdoms in world history.

No, Ancient Egypt in the Traditional Monarchical reckoning (the numbered dynasties and the ritual that surrounded them), Denmark, and, by certain claimed origin points, Japan, are. That being said I too have supported one of the Tamil Dynasties. I am just unsure how to tackle the rest, at this point.

 

[Evie]

Provided you assume the Chola and other Tamil neighbors of Ahsoka's empires listed on proclamations from Ahskoa's time are the same as the Tamil dynasties of the medieval period a thousand years later. A debatable assumption.

Denmark at best has the longest continuous recorded history, and Japan's early years is an unholy mess of mytho-history with almost no independent sources (as the Ahskoa texts are for the Tamil).

 

[Patine]

Provided you assume the Chola and other Tamil neighbors of Ahsoka's empires listed on proclamations from Ahskoa's time are the same as the Tamil dynasties of the medieval period a thousand years later. A debatable assumption.

Denmark at best has the longest continuous recorded history, and Japan's early years is an unholy mess of mytho-history with almost no independent sources (as the Ahskoa texts are for the Tamil).

Consideringing the Cholas and their neightbours, at times held different territory, and warred with each other as separate nations do - not in succession war style - the claim of all Tamil monarchies being the same one with different dynasties becomes dubious. They didn't even have an official, "Mandate of Heaven," notion to legiitmize the issue.

 

[Evie]

I don't believe that's the claim.

The claim is that the monarchies, plural, of the Tamil civilization are the oldest in the worlds. As in, not a single united Tamil monarchy but rather the cluster of distinct Tamil monarchies many of which can be traced from the time of Ahskoa's edict all the way to the medieval era at least.

As to calling it a Tamil civilization rather than inflicting granularity on the individual kingdom, there is firm precedent for interrelated groups with a related cultural identity being presented as one civilization despite lack of political unity, and that precedent is right - Sparta and Athens (and Themes and the rest) are polities, but it is Greek civilization, and likewise here.

 

[Patine]

I don't believe that's the claim.

The claim is that the monarchies, plural, of the Tamil civilization are the oldest in the worlds. As in, not a single united Tamil monarchy but rather the cluster of distinct Tamil monarchies many of which can be traced from the time of Ahskoa's edict all the way to the medieval era at least.

As to calling it a Tamil civilization rather than inflicting granularity on the individual kingdom, there is firm precedent for interrelated groups with a related cultural identity being presented as one civilization despite lack of political unity, and that precedent is right - Sparta and Athens (and Themes and the rest) are polities, but it is Greek civilization, and likewise here.

Sketchy definition, in my opinion, and subject to easy historiographical abuse, in any case using similar standards, especially by Nationalists.

 

[Evie]

Okay, let me try this again.

Two major Tamil polities - Chola, and Pandyan - are mentioned in the written records left behind by Ashoka's empire.
The same two major Tamil polities (or polities ruled by Tamil dynasties of those names) are amply documented to have both been major Tamil empire in the early second millenium CE, with their history well documented for a number of centuries before that.

It appears accepted as plausible that the Chola and Pandyan of Ashoka's time are, in fact, directly connected with the medieval Chola and Pandyan. If they are so, then the Chola dynasy (fell in 1279 CE) can claim nearly 1600 years of existence, and the Pandyan (fell in 1618 CE) falls less than a century short of the full two millenia. That would put each of these two Tamil kingdoms, individually, in the run for the longest-lived kingdoms, ahead of Denmark and, in Pandyan's case, ahead of the most generous estimates for Japan that do not include the legendary emperors.

There's no combining of states, other than to state that the group, the Tamil monarchies, include states that, individually, are each the oldest or among the oldest monarchies in the world.

 

[Patine]

Okay, let me try this again.

Two major Tamil polities - Chola, and Pandyan - are mentioned in the written records left behind by Ashoka's empire.
The same two major Tamil polities (or polities ruled by Tamil dynasties of those names) are amply documented to have both been major Tamil empire in the early second millenium CE, with their history well documented for a number of centuries before that.

It appears accepted as plausible that the Chola and Pandyan of Ashoka's time are, in fact, directly connected with the medieval Chola and Pandyan. If they are so, then the Chola dynasy (fell in 1279 CE) can claim nearly 1600 years of existence, and the Pandyan (fell in 1618 CE) falls less than a century short of the full two millenia. That would put each of these two Tamil kingdoms, individually, in the run for the longest-lived kingdoms, ahead of Denmark and, in Pandyan's case, ahead of the most generous estimates for Japan that do not include the legendary emperors.

There's no combining of states, other than to state that the group, the Tamil monarchies, include states that, individually, are each the oldest or among the oldest monarchies in the world.

Of course, Ancient Egypt (which I also mentioned along with Denmark and Japan, but it seemed to get brushed aside in the argument), as it's traditional view of a kingdom was viewed by themselves (historiographical divisions into Old, Middle, and New Kingdoms and Intermediary Periods by 19th, 20th, and 21st Century Egyptologists, aside), more or less stood from Menes' unification of Upper and Lower Egypt until it was turned to an Iranian Satrapy (and then conquered after that by the Macedonians, and then made into a Roman Province, etc.) could easily stand at 2500 years, or so. Plus, Ancient Egyptians records go back quite a bit further than Dravidian records.

 

[Evie]

…yeah I don’t know how we all forgot ancient Egypt here.

Although phrased as longest *dynasties*, there might be a solid case, as Egypt was decidedly not one dynasty.

 

[Patine]

…yeah I don’t know how we all forgot ancient Egypt here.

Although phrased as longest *dynasties*, there might be a solid case, as Egypt was decidedly not one dynasty.

But do we REALLY know the Cholas and Pandya were REALLY a continuous dynasty, or just declared such by contemporary chroniclers for legitimacy after some tumultuous, internal power shift or other, at some point, like the Japanese Emperors were at several points, despite the Shinto line of, "127 Emperors in unbroken succession from father to eldest son," which has already proven not to be true? I think that THAT would be VERY difficult to accurately discern.

 

[Evie]

By that standard, even our knowledge of medieval Europe is sketchy at best, and any attempt at proclaiming a longest-running dynasty is a farcical waste of time.

We have multiple records of dynasties of those names both internal and external, some of which are contemporary to the BCE - something we empathically do not have for the 127 emperors list of Japan (and indeed a lot of those 127 emperor are considered legendary by modern scholarship). It appears at the least highly plausible that there is a single dynasty of that name that managed to maintain power for a long time. Is it certain? No. Is anythign certain going for any kind of history that holds? Also, no. We do our best with flawed sources - but we do not reject them out of hand unless their claims are too implausible not to require secondary verification.

The idea of a single ruling family with a particularly extended existence is not that implausible. Japan is a case in point: while the 127 emperors unbroken line includes multiple mythological rulers at the start, there is a general consensus that the same house or family (including nephews et al) has held power since the first emperor whose existence can be documented. Even if the precise dates of his reign are up in the air, estimates still put his reign at over 1500 years ago - so long-lived dynasties are not an unreasonable claim.

(Also, I'm sorry, what's that about the Japanese emperor list claiming unbroken father to son succession? Putting aside the eight empresses on the list, since I assume you're using father and son in a generic sense, the nihon-shoki and kojiki outright list uncle-to-nephew succession even among the legendary emperors. I find the claim that the Japanese shinto list claim unbroken father-son succession a little questionable...).

 

[Patine]

(Also, I'm sorry, what's that about the Japanese emperor list claiming unbroken father to son succession?

That's from a claim from a Shinto book of scripture called the Nihon Shoki, first published in the 8th Century, but updated every centruy or so (the last time in the Showa Period, shortly before WW2), and that was officially taught (the Imperial claim, that is) in Japnese history classes until the '70's. Hirohito was the 125th, by that reckoning, but Akhihito and Niruhito would logically be 126 and 127.

 

[Evie]

I’m familiar with the nihon shoki, as I’ve mentioned it multiple times in my previous posts today.

But as best as I know it the claim that is somewhat questioned (for one emperor) is that all emperor were *descendants* of previous emperors, not sons/childrens of their immediate predecessor, as the traditional list outright contains uncle-nephew inheritance.

And even that one emperor is dated back to c. 1500 years ago; succession by descendants after him does not seem significantly questioned.

 

[Henri Christophe]

There have been quite a few mainline pokemon games with no Pikachu.

Black and White and their sequels were the only (mostly) Pikachu-less mainline games - one generation and two games out of eight generations and nineteen games (counting the pairs as a single game). So, not exactly a frequent thing.

Pikachu is a proeminent character in the Anime, but it isn't in the game itself.
Okay, in the first game it's a early game possible catch in the florest of Viridian.
But already in second game is a post game pokémon when you already have almost 16 badges to find and it come at Lv. 3, totally useless.
On third game Pikachu just appear on Safari Zone and in the 4th game I don't have idea where to catch a Pikachu.
The 5th game is Black White, as Evie said about and don't have Pikachu at all.



Said all that, Gandhi should be gone from civ7.