Indian Defence Forum -
Page 14 of 34 FirstFirst ... 491011121314151617181924 ... LastLast
Results 196 to 210 of 502
Like Tree224Likes

Alexander the Great Invades India

  1. #196
    Moderator LETHALFORCE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    17,656
    Liked
    3887 times
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by pmaitra View Post
    Great post LF. However, certain details are still debated. For example, this matrimonial alliance was a result of Seleucus' defeat to CGM and that Seleucus gave up Gandhara province not out of affection but out of compulsion. To maintain royal decorum, CGM gifted Seleucus with war elephants with which he travelled westward and fought other battles. Some also dispute the age at which CGM married.

    The records are so old, we can only go down to a certain detail, not more.
    The facts are clear:
    1)winners do not give their Daughter to the loser
    2)the marriage was a peace treaty-why was a peace treaty needed if there was victory by selucus??
    3)CGM gained territory from selecus again losers do not get this
    4) after marriage CGM gifted war 500 elephants which selucus used with great success in his meditarrean campaigns
    5)Helen must have been a good wife and mother looking out for her husband's interest her son was Bindusara and her Grandson was Ashoka the Great both went on to greatly expand the Mauryan empire.


    › See More: Alexander the Great Invades India

  2. #197
    pmaitra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    22,153
    Liked
    10416 times
    India
    Quote Originally Posted by LETHALFORCE View Post
    The facts are clear:
    1)winners do not give their Daughter to the loser
    2)the marriage was a peace treaty-why was a peace treaty needed if there was victory by selucus??
    3)CGM gained territory from selecus again losers do not get this
    4) after marriage CGM gifted war 500 elephants which selucus used with great success in his meditarrean campaigns
    5)Helen must have been a good wife and mother looking out for her husband's interest her son was Bindusara and her Grandson was Ashoka the Great both went on to expand the Mauryan empire.
    Correct. Winners do not give their daughters or territories to losers. That matrimonial alliance was indeed a peace treaty. Those 500 war elephants were probably a mark of dowry, if you will.

    Was CGM in love with Helen or was it a plan of Chanakya or a political alliance? This is debated.
    No individual ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb individual die for his country. - Gen. George S. Patton Jr.

  3. #198
    Moderator LETHALFORCE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    17,656
    Liked
    3887 times
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by pmaitra View Post
    Correct. Winners do not give their daughters or territories to losers. That matrimonial alliance was indeed a peace treaty. Those 500 war elephants were probably a mark of dowry, if you will.

    Was CGM in love with Helen or was it a plan of Chanakya or a political alliance? This is debated.
    It was a brilliant move by Chanakya solidifying CGM's position and directing Selucus's focus westward, now that the Eastern side was covered. Meanwhile CGM focused on expansion.
    pmaitra likes this.

  4. #199
    Senior Member S.A.T.A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,804
    Liked
    412 times
    India
    ^
    Accoring to jain accounts chronicling the life of Chandragupta Maurya,Emperor Maurya's chief queen and the mother of his son and successor Bindusara,was Durdhara,a daugher of one of Maurya's maternal uncles,hence she was also of Mauryan descent.
    LETHALFORCE likes this.

  5. #200
    Moderator LETHALFORCE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    17,656
    Liked
    3887 times
    United States
    Stories passed down claim that Bindusara mother Durdhara had died during child birth. When Bindusara was older he was told that Chanakya had posioned his mother and he ordered a death sentence which, had chanakya flee into a life of sanyas ending his political career and his ties to the Mauriyan empire. The truth was revealed later to Bindusara that Chanakya was not responsible but chanakya refused to come back.

  6. #201
    Retired civfanatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    తెలంగాణ
    Posts
    4,563
    Liked
    2453 times
    India
    Did Chandragupta have any children with Helen?

    Or is it possible that Helen and Durdhara are one and the same (I doubt Indian records would call her "Helen", just as Greek records used the name "Sandrocottos" to refer to Chandragupta)?
    "The spectacle of what is called religion, or at any rate organised religion, in India and elsewhere has filled me with horror, and I have frequently condemned it and wished to make a clean sweep of it. Almost always it seems to stand for blind belief and reaction, dogma and bigotry, superstition and exploitation, and the preservation of vested interests."

    -- Jawaharlal Nehru

  7. #202
    DFI Buddha Godless-Kafir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    5,809
    Liked
    1766 times
    India
    Quote Originally Posted by civfanatic View Post
    Did Chandragupta have any children with Helen?

    Or is it possible that Helen and Durdhara are one and the same (I doubt Indian records would call her "Helen", just as Greek records used the name "Sandrocottos" to refer to Chandragupta)?
    Yes, the people at RSS use that as an famous analogy towards Rahul and Sonia. Legend goes that Chanakya the then Prime Minister of Maurya and mentor of Chandragupta claimed that the off-spring with an Greek can not become King or claim to the highest power because his loyalties will be split between Greece and India just as his blood would 50% Indian and 50% Greek, not even the next generation would have be eligible because he would be 75% Indian and 25% Greek and it is only the 4th generation that would be eligible as he would have become more Indian than Greek.

    These are the many examples from History that they use to justify their dislike of Sonia and Rahul and rightly so. Even in the US an immigrant can not aspire to become President. That would mean an easy entry to an foreigner to rule the country.
    Last edited by Godless-Kafir; 11-06-11 at 11:18 PM.
    LOOK AT ALL THE FUKS I GIVE.

  8. #203
    Moderator LETHALFORCE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    17,656
    Liked
    3887 times
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Godless-Kafir View Post

    These are the many examples from History that they use to justify their dislike of Sonia and Rahul and rightly so. Even in the US an immigrant can not aspire to become President. That would mean an easy entry to an foreigner to rule the country.
    In US only born citizens can become President. India in this regard is more flexible allowing foreign born Sonia to become Prime minister .

  9. #204
    Moderator LETHALFORCE's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    17,656
    Liked
    3887 times
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by Godless-Kafir View Post
    Yes, the people at RSS use that as an famous analogy towards Rahul and Sonia. Legend goes that Chanakya the then Prime Minister of Maurya and mentor of Chandragupta claimed that the off-spring with an Greek can not become King or claim to the highest power because his loyalties will be split between Greece and India just as his blood would 50% Indian and 50% Greek, not even the next generation would have be eligible because he would be 75% Indian and 25% Greek and it is only the 4th generation that would be eligible as he would have become more Indian than Greek.
    This seems to have ended when Mughal rule started??

  10. #205
    Retired civfanatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    తెలంగాణ
    Posts
    4,563
    Liked
    2453 times
    India
    Quote Originally Posted by Godless-Kafir View Post
    Yes, the people at RSS use that as an famous analogy towards Rahul and Sonia. Legend goes that Chanakya the then Prime Minister of Maurya and mentor of Chandragupta claimed that the off-spring with an Greek can not become King or claim to the highest power because his loyalties will be split between Greece and India just as his blood would 50% Indian and 50% Greek, not even the next generation would have be eligible because he would be 75% Indian and 25% Greek and it is only the 4th generation that would be eligible as he would have become more Indian than Greek.

    These are the many examples from History that they use to justify their dislike of Sonia and Rahul and rightly so. Even in the US an immigrant can not aspire to become President. That would mean an easy entry to an foreigner to rule the country.
    Interesting. I don't quite understand the analogy, but interesting that the RSS chums have to go so far back in history to justify their dislike for someone as inept as Rahul.
    "The spectacle of what is called religion, or at any rate organised religion, in India and elsewhere has filled me with horror, and I have frequently condemned it and wished to make a clean sweep of it. Almost always it seems to stand for blind belief and reaction, dogma and bigotry, superstition and exploitation, and the preservation of vested interests."

    -- Jawaharlal Nehru

  11. #206
    Retired civfanatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    తెలంగాణ
    Posts
    4,563
    Liked
    2453 times
    India
    Quote Originally Posted by LETHALFORCE View Post
    This seems to have ended when Mughal rule started??
    Mauryan rule was ended by an Indian brahmin named Pusyamitra, under whose rule Orthodox Hinduism and caste discrimination/brahman superiority (as prescribed in the Laws of Manu) first came into play.

    Honestly, I would prefer Ashoka and his tolerant Buddhism, even if he was 25% Greek.
    "The spectacle of what is called religion, or at any rate organised religion, in India and elsewhere has filled me with horror, and I have frequently condemned it and wished to make a clean sweep of it. Almost always it seems to stand for blind belief and reaction, dogma and bigotry, superstition and exploitation, and the preservation of vested interests."

    -- Jawaharlal Nehru

  12. #207
    DFI Buddha Godless-Kafir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    5,809
    Liked
    1766 times
    India
    Quote Originally Posted by civfanatic View Post
    Interesting. I don't quite understand the analogy, but interesting that the RSS chums have to go so far back in history to justify their dislike for someone as inept as Rahul.
    Nationalism is born out of an deep attachment to culture and history and it is no surprise they use analogy from their glorious history. For me Nationality is just glorified tribalism and which creates xenophobia to people who follow that very seriously. However i do think it is necessary to keep an eye out. I think i have some psychological scares in me that evoke fear of being dominated and destroyed after i had conversations with Kashmir separatists. However hard i rationalize to let go of silly narrow piss marks on paper, back of my mind i am terrified that such people exist and we need to guard the gates. I dont know if that makes sense!
    LOOK AT ALL THE FUKS I GIVE.

  13. #208
    Retired civfanatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    తెలంగాణ
    Posts
    4,563
    Liked
    2453 times
    India
    Quote Originally Posted by Godless-Kafir View Post
    Nationalism is born out of an deep attachment to culture and history and it is no surprise they use analogy from their glorious history. For me Nationality is just glorified tribalism and which creates xenophobia to people who follow that very seriously.
    It is true that nationalism is just glorified tribalism. But is that a bad thing? Humans are social creatures. Our natural habitat is in larger groups, whether they be families, tribes, or nations. All human individuals require a sense of belonging and an identity of some sort.

    I could define myself as many things. I am a Telugu speaker. I belong to the Velama caste. I am a Rao. I was born in a strict Hindu family, though I am now atheist.

    But all those things are irrelevant, because I choose to define myself as one thing and one thing only: an Indian. That definition is what gives me the greatest peace of mind, and greatest satisfaction.


    However i do think it is necessary to keep an eye out. I think i have some psychological scares in me that evoke fear of being dominated and destroyed after i had conversations with Kashmir separatists. However hard i rationalize to let go of silly narrow piss marks on paper, back of my mind i am terrified that such people exist and we need to guard the gates. I dont know if that makes sense!
    It is part of human nature to associate with people who are similar to you and be afraid of people who are different. There's nothing wrong with that either, nor is that necessarily "xenophobia". We fear what we do not know, or what is different from ourselves.
    Last edited by civfanatic; 11-06-11 at 11:48 PM.
    "The spectacle of what is called religion, or at any rate organised religion, in India and elsewhere has filled me with horror, and I have frequently condemned it and wished to make a clean sweep of it. Almost always it seems to stand for blind belief and reaction, dogma and bigotry, superstition and exploitation, and the preservation of vested interests."

    -- Jawaharlal Nehru

  14. #209
    DFI Buddha Godless-Kafir's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    5,809
    Liked
    1766 times
    India
    Quote Originally Posted by civfanatic View Post
    It is true that nationalism is just glorified tribalism. But is that a bad thing? Humans are social creatures. Our natural habitat is in larger groups, whether they be families, tribes, or nations. All human individuals require a sense of belonging and an identity of some sort.
    Thats what primitive animals do, dogs piss on trees and sent mark their territory and if another dog comes in they fight. Then are we doomed to such mindless territoriality? Animals cant think and if we humans claim we have gone beyond then are we no better than dogs?

    It is part of human nature to associate with people who are similar to you and be afraid of people who are different. There's nothing wrong with that either.

    It was part of human nature, we have evolved to go beyond the animals in every way, cant we go beyond in this? After all we have invented the atomic bomb and WMDs to defend our tribal spheres, so all these so called advancements have been born out of mere animal instinct to chest thump. So would it not be good to go beyond that fallacy, now that we can see the errors and communicate those errors to others? As long as our higher intelligence is imprisoned by lower instinct like fear we will be merely a cave man who killed his neighbor with the jaw bone of an ass. If we are to go beyond the cave man and so far we have not(mentally) then we need to study ourself more than we study the outside world.
    Last edited by Godless-Kafir; 11-06-11 at 11:55 PM.
    LOOK AT ALL THE FUKS I GIVE.

  15. #210
    Retired civfanatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    తెలంగాణ
    Posts
    4,563
    Liked
    2453 times
    India
    Thats what premetive animals do, dogs piss on trees and sent mark their territory and if another dog comes in they fight. Then are we doomed to such mindless territoriality? Animals cant think and if we humans claim we have gone beyond then are we no better than dog?
    Humans are no different than other animals. Our base desires are still the same. All the inventions we have created cannot change nature.

    And who said other animals can't think?


    Quote Originally Posted by Godless-Kafir View Post
    It was part of human nature, we have evolved to go beyond the animals in every way, cant we go beyond in this? After all we have invented the atomic bomb and WMDs to defend our tribal spheres, so all these so called advancements have been born out of mere animal instinct to chest thump and would be good to go beyond that fallacy now that we can see the errors and communicate those errors to others?
    We will see the folly of our ways only when we are on the verge of extinction.
    "The spectacle of what is called religion, or at any rate organised religion, in India and elsewhere has filled me with horror, and I have frequently condemned it and wished to make a clean sweep of it. Almost always it seems to stand for blind belief and reaction, dogma and bigotry, superstition and exploitation, and the preservation of vested interests."

    -- Jawaharlal Nehru


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Alexander the Great Invades India
    By LETHALFORCE in forum Defence & Strategic Issues
    Replies: 254
    Last Post: 17-01-12, 07:55 PM
  2. PLA invades US——Red Dawn 2010
    By nimo_cn in forum General Multimedia
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 19-05-11, 12:53 PM
  3. Russia Invades AfghanistanAgain
    By bhramos in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-04-10, 12:02 AM
  4. In the Foot steps of Alexander
    By Daredevil in forum Defence & Strategic Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-06-09, 03:23 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •