What is the best civ?

[Knight-Dragon]

Originally posted by allhailIndia
Isn't a political ideology a thought which has evolved from your culture??

Good question.

But I prefer to group the Chinese methods of governance away fr the Chinese cultural forms and practises, for simplicity. Though in many ways, they're different sides of the same coin.

That is where you are wrong. The Hindu rulers of Central and Western India joined hands with the remnants of the Mughal Empire to try and uproot the British during the Sepoy mutiny/First War of Independence.

And what does that mean? It means it took the emergence of a foreign power that's conquering India, to unite whatever remained of the diverse factions to fight against the invaders.

As it is, the Mutiny was disorganised, random, sporadic and failed ultimately. And the Indian princes waited too long, before joining the Sepoys, if at all. IIRC many remained loyal to the Raj.

The Marathas had beaten the English and French in the Deccan Wars of the 1700's and were capable of uniting India until the made the mistake of trying to expand too fast. In fact they had succeeded in bringing most of the South and Centre under their control and were levying taxes and trubites from the rulers in this region.

Conquering a land does not quite equate creating a unified nation for the ages. India was already too divided; I don't doubt that as soon as Marathan military power weakened, the local rulers would break ranks.

I don't recall the British or French losing to any Indian princedoms during their march into India... Any comments fr the others?

BTW, it was the British who split Hindu-Muslim unity during their rule by doing everything possible to separate us into different communities and areas, (i.e, ghettoization) .

Aye, the divide-and-rule concept - they practised it over in Malaysia too, or rather Malaya.

 

[allhailIndia]

Originally posted by XIII
Good question.

But I prefer to group the Chinese methods of governance away fr the Chinese cultural forms and practises, for simplicity. Though in many ways, they're different sides of the same coin.

And what does that mean? It means it took the emergence of a foreign power that's conquering India, to unite whatever remained of the diverse factions to fight against the invaders.

As it is, the Mutiny was disorganised, random, sporadic and failed ultimately. And the Indian princes waited too long, before joining the Sepoys, if at all. IIRC many remained loyal to the Raj.

Conquering a land does not quite equate creating a unified nation for the ages. India was already too divided; I don't doubt that as soon as Marathan military power weakened, the local rulers would break ranks.

But, it did not have religious overtones as is being made out now.
Granted they were unorganised and undisciplined, but there was no distinction made that only Hindus or only Muslims fought for or against the British. Besides, some of the most famous Mughal courtiers like Birbal and Tansen were Hindus, in the service of a Mughal king

Originally posted by XIII
I don't recall the British or French losing to any Indian princedoms during their march into India... Any comments fr the others?

Have'nt heard of the Mysore Wars and the Maratha Wars. There were 3 or 4 of each and the Brits got whipped the first couple of times, before they made use of their superior technology, (and a little betrayal:rolleeyes to win in the end.