Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Master1
Immortal Guard
Joined: 02-Jun-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Greatest Buddhist and Hindu Dynasties of India? Posted: 02-Jun-2012 at 13:35 |
There were several great Buddhist, Hindu and Jain Dynasties in Indian history. But which was the greatest in terms of cultural achievements or military success.
Magadha Dynasty: 6th - 4th century BC
Maurya Empire: 4th - 2nd century BC
Satavahana Dynasty: 230 BC - 3rd century
Kushan Empire: 2nd century
Gupta Empire: 4th - 6th century
Rashtrakuta Empire: 8th - 10th century
Pratihara Dynasty: 8th - 11th century
Pala Dynasty: 8th - 12th century
Western Chalukya Empire: 10th - 12th century
Chola Empire: 9th - 13th century
Vijayanagara Empire: 14th - 16th century
Maratha Empire: 17th - 19th century
|
|
Nick1986
Emperor
Mighty Slayer of Trolls
Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 02-Jun-2012 at 20:14 |
The Mahrattas were pretty badass. They controlled most of south India and restored Hindu rule until they were defeated by the East India Co
|
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
|
|
Nick1986
Emperor
Mighty Slayer of Trolls
Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 03-Jun-2012 at 19:03 |
|
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
|
|
oxydracae
Samurai
Joined: 26-Feb-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 107
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Jun-2012 at 07:29 |
Mahratta Empire was defeated badly by the Afghan Empire in 1761 at the third battle of Panipat. By the time East India Co arrived Mahratta Empire was like a loose confederation with very little co-ordination among the States.
|
|
Nick1986
Emperor
Mighty Slayer of Trolls
Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Jun-2012 at 19:37 |
What about Maurya emperor Ashoka who conquered Pakistan and Afghanistan in the name of Buddhism during the second century BC?
|
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
|
|
oxydracae
Samurai
Joined: 26-Feb-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 107
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Jun-2012 at 03:44 |
Actually as per some new researchs Mauryans were originally from modern Afghanistan. They started their empire from modern Pakistan and then started expanding eastwards. As per many resources (like Megasthenes) it was the first Mauryan Emperor Chandragupta (Greek: Sandrocottus), who established his suzerainity over the entire Sub-Continent. Asoka is bit over-rated. As far as Buddhism is concerned he did a lot, but when it comes to the military expeditions, Battle of Kalinga was the only one that he carried out.
Edited by oxydracae - 08-Jun-2012 at 03:45
|
|
Master1
Immortal Guard
Joined: 02-Jun-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Jun-2012 at 14:40 |
This is very doubtful. At first Chandragupta defeated the Nanda Dynasty and established the Maurya empire in Eastern India and then he started the conquests of Northwestern India.
|
|
Master1
Immortal Guard
Joined: 02-Jun-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Jun-2012 at 15:07 |
In terms of military achievements the Maratha Dynasty was one of the greatest in Indian history. Their military successes against the Mughals and the Portuguese were incredible.
|
|
oxydracae
Samurai
Joined: 26-Feb-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 107
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Jun-2012 at 02:40 |
Originally posted by Master1
This is very doubtful. At first Chandragupta defeated the Nanda Dynasty and establishedthe Maurya empire in Eastern India and then he started the conquests of Northwestern India.
|
in 321 BC: After the death of Taxiles (Alexander's Governor) in Taxila, with the help of King Porus, Chandragupta (or Sandrocottus) established his empire in modern Punjab (in North Pakistan). in 320 BC: Chandragupta defeated Magadhan Empire under Nanda Dynasty and established himself as an Emperor of Magadha.
in 316 BC: Chandragupta captured modern Sindh (in South Pakistan) from Greek Governor Peithon.
in 305 BC: Chandragupta defeated Seleucus and got Arachosia and Paropamisadae (modern Southern and eastern Afghanistan).
Chandragupta's conquest in South India is highly doubtful.
|
|
Master1
Immortal Guard
Joined: 02-Jun-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Jun-2012 at 12:03 |
Originally posted by oxydracae
Originally posted by Master1
This is very doubtful. At first Chandragupta defeated the Nanda Dynasty and establishedthe Maurya empire in Eastern India and then he started the conquests of Northwestern India.
|
in 321 BC: After the death of Taxiles (Alexander's Governor) in Taxila, with the help of King Porus, Chandragupta (or Sandrocottus) established his empire in modern Punjab (in North Pakistan). in 320 BC: Chandragupta defeated Magadhan Empire under Nanda Dynasty and established himself as an Emperor of Magadha.
in 316 BC: Chandragupta captured modern Sindh (in South Pakistan) from Greek Governor Peithon.
in 305 BC: Chandragupta defeated Seleucus and got Arachosia and Paropamisadae (modern Southern and eastern Afghanistan).
Chandragupta's conquest in South India is highly doubtful.
|
In 321 BC he conquered the Nanda Dynasty in North East India then in 317 BC and 316 BC he defeated the Greek rulers of the Punjab and started to reconquer the territories of North Western India. By the way the Punjab was ruled by the Greek ruler Eudemus until 316 BC.
|
|
Master1
Immortal Guard
Joined: 02-Jun-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Jun-2012 at 12:15 |
Even in the records of Seleucus it is stated that Chandragupta ruled east from the Indus river until the battle between Chandragupta and Seleucus in 305 BC
|
|
Nick1986
Emperor
Mighty Slayer of Trolls
Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jun-2012 at 19:30 |
Does the "greatest Buddhist dynasty" include the Buddha himself? He was a prince before his quest for enlightenment, as was his son Rahula
|
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
|
|
Master1
Immortal Guard
Joined: 02-Jun-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jul-2012 at 17:25 |
Originally posted by Nick1986
Does the "greatest Buddhist dynasty" include the Buddha himself? He was a prince before his quest for enlightenment, as was his son Rahula
|
Buddha had a son?
|
|
Centrix Vigilis
Emperor
Joined: 18-Aug-2006
Location: The Llano
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7392
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jul-2012 at 18:05 |
Yup. As Nick alludes to... Siddhartha Gautama did indeed have a son named Rahula. Now whether you attribute that as a fact after he became the 'Buddha' is up to you. There will always be those of the aesthetic, purist or fanatic vein who will say that no.... as the Buddha he had no children. But I am not aware he ever denied his existence...perhaps with his transformation and new found convictions he felt that his calling was now above 'earthly' concerns to include familial association... tho it appears he was in contact with them. I can not adequately address that. Nor offer an opinion. ''At the age of 29, Siddhartha came to realize that he could not be happy living
as he had been. He had discovered suffering, and wanted more than anything to
discover how one might overcome suffering. After kissing his sleeping wife and
newborn son Rahula goodbye, he snuck out of the palace with his squire Chandara
and his favorite horse Kanthaka. He gave away his rich clothing, cut his long
hair, and gave the horse to Chandara and told him to return to the palace. He
studied for a while with two famous gurus of the day, but found their practices
lacking.''
Edited by Centrix Vigilis - 20-Jul-2012 at 18:12
|
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
S. T. Friedman
Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'
|
|
Nick1986
Emperor
Mighty Slayer of Trolls
Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Jul-2012 at 19:47 |
Buddha's son also became a monk: an inheritance his father saw as more precious than material wealth or kingship
|
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
|
|
oxydracae
Samurai
Joined: 26-Feb-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 107
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Jul-2012 at 06:13 |
Originally posted by Nick1986
Does the "greatest Buddhist dynasty" include the Buddha himself? He was a prince before his quest for enlightenment, as was his son Rahula |
He was the prince of small tribal Republic, which was later absorbed by Kosala Mahajanapada. Then which 'Great Buddhist Dynasty' are we talking about ?
Edited by oxydracae - 21-Jul-2012 at 06:19
|
|
SuryaVajra
Samurai
Joined: 05-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 124
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Jul-2012 at 08:56 |
Originally posted by oxydracae
He was the prince of small tribal Republic, |
Would you explain why an Urban society with metallurgical, literary, religious , cultural and philosophical sophistication is reduced to the status of a "Tribe"????? The Mahajanapadas were advanced Iron age states. They were not tribes. To quote Steve Muhlberge,
Long ago Jayaswal rightly protested against the use of these terms: "The
evidence does not warrant our calling [republics] 'clans.' Indian republics of
the seventh [sic] and sixth centuries B.C...had long passed the tribal stage of
society. They were states, Ganas and Samghas, though many of them likely had a
national or tribal basis, as every state, ancient or modern, must necessarily
have."
He was equally correct when he pointed out that "Every state in ancient
Rome and Greece was 'tribal' in the last analysis, but no constitutional
historian would think of calling the republics of Rome and Greece mere tribal
organizations."
Yet the phrases
"clan-" and "tribal-republic" are still routinely used today
in the Indian context, and it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that they are
being used perjoratively. In both common and scholarly usage, to label a
people's institutions or culture as tribal is to dismiss them from serious
consideration. "Tribespeople" are historical dead-ends, and their
suppression or absorption by more advanced cultures (usually those ruled by
centralizing governments) is taken for granted.The terminology of even Indian historians demonstrates the survival of an
ancient but inappropriate prejudice in the general evaluation of Indian
republicanism.
Once that
prejudice is overcome, Indian republicanism gains a strong claim on the
attention of historians, especially those with an interest in comparative or
world history.
It is
especially remarkable that, during the near-millenium between 500 B.C. and 400
A.D., we find republics almost anywhere in India that our sources allow us to
examine society in any detail. Unless those sources, not least our Greek
sources, are extremely deceptive, the republics of India were very likely more
extensive and populous than the poleis of the Greeks.
One cannot help wondering how in many other parts of Eurasia republican and
democratic states may have co-existed with the royal dynasties that are a staple
of both ancient and modern chronology and conceptualization. This may well be an
unanswerable question, but so far no one has even tried to investigate it. If an
investigation is made, we may discover things that are as surprising to us as
the republics of India originally were.
Edited by SuryaVajra - 21-Jul-2012 at 14:23
|
|
Nick1986
Emperor
Mighty Slayer of Trolls
Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 21-Jul-2012 at 19:54 |
Originally posted by oxydracae
Originally posted by Nick1986
Does the "greatest Buddhist dynasty" include the Buddha himself? He was a prince before his quest for enlightenment, as was his son Rahula |
He was the prince of small tribal Republic, which was later absorbed by Kosala Mahajanapada. Then which 'Great Buddhist Dynasty' are we talking about ? |
Greatness doesn't neccessarily have to be innovation, political reforms or military conquest. Buddha could have been a powerful warrior king like his father, but he gave it all up for the life of an ascetic
|
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
|
|
SuryaVajra
Samurai
Joined: 05-Jul-2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 124
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Jul-2012 at 02:04 |
Ruins of Vaishali, capital of the Confederate Republic of Videha, 600 BC -- 490 BC. It was a confederacy of 9 Republics who joined hands to fight Monarchies , especially Magadha. The Pool, called Pushkarani, was a coronation tank for the ceremony. A council of 7707 members who elected the president to Power.(BY Jain accounts). Executive and Judiciary seperate
No Slavery. No segregation. A Buddhist society. The Videhans almost wiped out Monarchy from North India. But Magadha defeated it in 491 BC, under Emperer Ajatashatru. Ajatashatru had to invent the Schythed chariot , a catapult and a covered chariot with swinging mace that has been compared to a Tank. Ajatashatru defeated the 36 Republics around his kingdom after over a decade of Civili war. He attacked Vaishali with 5,70,000 troops. The first war between Freedom and Monarchy was fought in India between 500 and 490 BC.Even after defeating the Republics, he had to permit them to have autonomy within his "Empire". The Republics survived until around 400 AD. If Ajatashatru had lost, human political history would have been very different. Oxydracae, Tribes dont built cities and maintain organized Armies and States.. I hope you have changed your mind, though I dont get a response.
Edited by SuryaVajra - 24-Jul-2012 at 04:16
|
|
Nick1986
Emperor
Mighty Slayer of Trolls
Joined: 22-Mar-2011
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7940
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 24-Jul-2012 at 19:23 |
Those columns look Grecian, yet the civilisation existed over 300 years before Alexander. What were its origins?
|
Me Grimlock not nice Dino! Me bash brains!
|
|