The Greatest Kings in Indian History

[pmaitra]

Chandragupta Maurya FTW!

 

[mppglobal]

Wow..........Great Thread post!!
I really like this post very much.Chandergupt maureya is great King of India and student of Chankeya GURU.
Thank you share this Brilliant post............

 

[civfanatic]

NOOOooo...

Wtf, your response was to just copy-paste what your fellow Saffron wrote

Raja Raja Chola is only known to Tamils, while Ashoka is known throughout Asia, indeed throughout the whole world.

Also, everything that S.A.T.A wrote about Raja Raja and Tamil culture also holds true if you replace Raja Raja with Ashoka and Tamil culture with Sri Lankan culture. Indeed it was from the Lankan records that the British researchers first discovered the glory of Ashoka.

 

[Tolaha]

P.S. I thought that the main reason why Tamils voted for Chola is because he "conquered" foreign territories?

Assuming that you have used those double quotes because you contest that claim. For sure there were raids and there were battles that were won. But are there any real evidence of conquests?

 

[ptltejas]

Great to know the same. well in india we are only learn the history started from muslim kings attack and over on english independent the country. Hence our kids have narrow mind that such history can not create any self respect in the mind of indians. It is required to create such books that kids proud on india, we believe in vyaktipuja and hence we just give respect to some people of gandhi family rather to country. The role of gandhi family is not more than many citizens do for country either as a soldiar or scientist or any other.

we are in many elite group.
India is one of the largest country its 7th in area
India is one of the few countries able to build super computer
India is one of the few countries able to build its own satelits
India is one of the few countries able to built its own Rockets
India is one of the few countries able to built Missiles, and defence products
India is one of the few countries able to send satelite at moon
more over even European countries have same skin (white) same religion (Christian) same currency (Euro) they are not united like Indians having different skins, religions, languages, culture, etc. its miracle might be indians don't know but world know it better way and hence they make films like 'slum dog millioniare' on Indians. they feel jealous on the same.

 

[warriorextreme]

I wonder why Shivaji got major votes , He was a guerrilla-fighter ( or monkey of mountains ,as other king call him by this name)not a king , Even Rajput king Mansingh has cut his army in sizes and force him to come to agra for peace.

A king becomes a king only because of support of his subjects and we are his loyal subjects even though we are not born in his period...
He started with guerrilla warfare because my friend you can not build huge armies in one day but he indeed did build huge army later on...this is why he was also a great visionary..
He became king because he conquered regions....
Maratha empire in 1680

He built numerous forts to keep control of his empire...

We call him chatrapati(kshtetra pati) or emperor..

 

[devgupt]

Not only Shivaji built a big empire from scratch, he such an inspirational figure that the Marathas very quickly built a pan Indian empire and the reconquista of Bharatvarsha looked nearly complete.On top of that , he was not anti-Islamic and ensured that honor of Muslim Women is not compromised-an example followed by later Marathas.

A King is great not only by the landmass he rules but also what is his legacy for the future genrations. If landmass is the only criteria then the greatest Mughal would have been Aurangzeb. But no historian would support that. Akbar is considered great because he built a big empire, followed secular prinicples and by Mansabdari and other administrative reforms ensured that roots of Mughal empire become strong and survive long after his death.

Similarly Shivaji is an iconic figure for people from all parts of India because the legacy he left.
Jai Bhawani, Jai Shivaji

 

[Virendra]

Akbar is considered great because he built a big empire, followed secular prinicples

Agree with everything except this part. I hate to repeat it but anyway -
He was as hard handed and extremist as any other invader until he reached old age. Contrary to what people believe, he kept toggling the Jaziya on and off. He ordered the massacre of 30,000 defense less civilians in an already fallen fort of Chittor. (as quoted already from his own letter 'Fatehnama-i-Chittor' compiled in the list of manuscripts called "Munshat-i-Namakin"). Just because he was diplomatic when it suited him and wanted to rule the whole of India doesn't make me respect him as a great King. At the best he was patchy and not much better than his bigoted inheriters like Aurangzeb.

Even Rajput king Mansingh has cut his army in sizes and force him to come to agra for peace.

Bachchu Ji, that wasn't Man Singh. It was his father Mirza Raja Jai Singh.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[Tolaha]

On top of that , he was not anti-Islamic and ensured that honor of Muslim Women is not compromised-an example followed by later Marathas.

True. He was not anti-islamic, he was a realist. He vanquished the remnants of the so-called "Hindu" Vijayanagar empire on behalf of the Bijapur Sultans.

 

[civfanatic]

Assuming that you have used those double quotes because you contest that claim. For sure there were raids and there were battles that were won. But are there any real evidence of conquests?

First of all, what is a 'conquest'? In the political context, a 'conquest' refers to the subjugation of an enemy and the incorporation of people/territory under the rule of the conquering power. This should be differentiated from an 'invasion', which is simply the hostile entry of an enemy force. While most conquests are the results of invasions, not all invasions result in conquests. Although Chola armies campaigned as far as Bengal, they made no attempt to establish their rule over the territories that they invaded, which would have been quite unfeasible to say the least. Actual Chola rule was limited to the territory of what is now Tamil Nadu and Kerala, as well as parts of northern Lanka; the Cholas did not even rule over the Deccan, let alone Southeast Asia.

On the point of the Chola invasions in Southeast Asia, our information about these military exploits comes almost exclusively from a single inscription at the Rajarajeshwara Temple in Thanjavur. This temple inscription contains a list of locations that were 'captured' by the Cholas, including Kedaram (Kedah in what is now northern Malaysia) and Sri Vijaya (located in modern-day Indonesia). While it is certainly feasible that the Cholas carried out invasions of these distant territories, it is unlikely that any sort of lasting Chola rule or influence was established, due to geographic and technological constraints. The Chola invasions were nothing more than opportunistic excursions aimed at acquiring booty and increasing the prestige of the dynasty; the Rajarajeshwara inscription talks mainly of the riches that were plundered from Kedaram and Sri Vijaya, reinforcing this theory. A comparison can be drawn with the Ghaznavids, who were invading North India during this time (Mahmud of Ghazni was an exact contemporary of Raja Raja Chola); both dynasties were based on plundering other states and both dynasties engaged in extensive brutality, including rape, massacres, and wanton destruction, but neither dynasty made focused attempts to incorporate the territory that they invaded into their empires.


And in the time between your post and my response, it seems one more person has voted for Raja Chola.

 

[Adux]

This Shivaji cult is so dumb, especially by non-maratha's, He basically went bezerk through Karnataka, making the mughals look like innocent lambs in comparison.

I wonder there is less talk about Ranjith Singh and Nalwa? Oh, He wasnt a Hindu. His conquest and war fighting abilities is something that should be emulated.

 

[KS]

I wonder there is less talk about Ranjith Singh and Nalwa? Oh, He wasnt a Hindu. His conquest and war fighting abilities is something that should be emulated.

Ridiculous logic. By that case Akbar,Chandragupta Maurya, Ashoka, Tipu also should not have been here. But they are.

BTW Hari Singh Nalwa is not even a king for him to be listed.

 

[devgupt]

I wonder there is less talk about Ranjith Singh and Nalwa? Oh, He wasnt a Hindu. His conquest and war fighting abilities is something that should be emulated.

One man, One vote

 

[KS]

. A comparison can be drawn with the Ghaznavids, who were invading North India during this time (Mahmud of Ghazni was an exact contemporary of Raja Raja Chola); both dynasties were based on plundering other states and both dynasties engaged in extensive brutality, including rape, massacres, and wanton destruction, but neither dynasty made focused attempts to incorporate the territory that they invaded into their empires.

Total BS. Comparing an emperor, a visionary who planned and built one of the massive yet finest temple in whole of India, a veritable scholar to a rapist invader is a massive facepalm in itself.

You say that the only information about the Chola's exploits come from a single inscription in Brahadeeswara Temple. And yet proceed to mention about rapes, massacres, wanton destructions supposedly perperated by the Cholas. I just cant imagine a cultured victor like Raja Raja would inscribe about rapes, massacres, brutality in a temple inscription that exclusively speaks about the greatness, kindness of the king and the sophisticated culture of the then Chola kingdom .


And the Chola kingdom was comprised of only Tamil Nadu and Kerala..? What a load of BS ! Raja raja himself defeated the Western Chalukyas and then proceeded to crush their distant cousins the Eastern Chalukyas (Vengi) who would then sue for peace by giving their princess in marriage to make alliance with the Cholas. He then defeated the Kalingas too and brought them under his suzerainity and the Kalingas were to remain in the Chola kingdom atleast till the demise of Kulothunga Chola I. Not to mention the comprehensive defeat of the Lankans which were further consolidated under his son.

Moreover why the Cholas invaded and subdued the Sri Vijaya empire was because the Sri Vijayas were interfering with the lucrative China trade route as they were controlling the Malaccas and were harassing the flourishing Chola-China trade relations. It was to secure that trade route which was the primary intention of the invasions and not looting or raping as you allege. The riches got were not plundered, but which were given as tributes by the conquered Sri Vijaya empire who were reduced to the status as feudatories of Chola empire.

http://www.mayyam.com/talk/viewlite.php?t=9381

The Cholas were by far the most successful Indian empire in projecting power beyond shores , in regions not traditionally recognized as a part of the Indian subcontinent and that only through Navy..a far cry from the other kingdoms that were then getting battered by the invaders from outside.

 

[KS]

Apart from his military exploits he also proceeded to recover the Shaivite works of the Nayanmars which was lost and was rotting in the Nataraja Temple . For that he enlisted the help of Nambi andar Nambi and even though the priests of Natarajar temple opposed that he went ahead and completed the mission thus restoring the magnificient works of the great Nayanmars - Appar, Sundarar, Maanick vasagar and Thirugnana Sambandar which were all but lost. They were arranged into the Shaivite epics Thevaram,Thiruvasagam, Thiruvandathi and Thirumandiram.

The noble work he started ultimately culminated into the Shaivite magnum opus Periya puranam by Sekkizhaar which comprised the holy works of Shaivites called Thirumurai.

Yeah now you can compare him to Ghazni.... Talk about revisionist history.

 

[pmaitra]

We call him chatrapati(kshtetra pati) or emperor..

Very intelligent post. Good one! :thumb:

Kshetra in Sanskrit means territory. Anyone in charge of protecting or governing that territory is a Kshatriya in Sanskrit, Chatrapati in Prakrit or a regional derivative thereof, and Satrapi in Hellenic Greek!

 

[KS]

Also, everything that S.A.T.A wrote about Raja Raja and Tamil culture also holds true if you replace Raja Raja with Ashoka and Tamil culture with Sri Lankan culture. Indeed it was from the Lankan records that the British researchers first discovered the glory of Ashoka.

But the thread is about Indian kings, not Lankan kings.

And oh, what a shame ! One has to learn about supposedly the greatest Indian king from Lankan sources though the works of the British. Perhaps that great king was completely erased from Indian memory that the British had to look at Lankan records to "reconstruct" him. ? Is there any chance they did exaggerate a bit on his "glory" ?

There was no such need for Rajaraja, or for that matter any other king listed in the poll...Rajaraja has always continued (and will continue) to exist as one of the high points of Tamil culture and did not need the help of British to "reconstruct" him from some foreign records.

 

[civfanatic]

Total BS. Comparing an emperor, a visionary who planned and built one of the massive yet finest temple in whole of India, a veritable scholar to a rapist invader is a massive facepalm in itself.

Even Mahmud of Ghazni was an avid patron of the arts; some of the most influential Persian scholars like Ferdowsi and Al-Biruni were sponsored under his reign. He was famous for the beautiful mosques that he built in Ghazni, which were of course built using plundered treasure from India (similar to how the Cholas used sacked treasure from other states to build their own temples -- Raja Raja himself in his own inscriptions boasts of the huge quantity of gold, silver, and jewels that he plundered and then distributed to the temples). Indeed, although from an objective viewpoint Mahmud was a brutal barbarian, his legacy is viewed quite positively in Afghanistan today since he was from that region, similar to how modern-day Tamils idealize the Cholas despite the objective facts showing a not-so-endearing picture of that dynasty.

You say that the only information about the Chola's exploits come from a single inscription in Brahadeeswara Temple. And yet proceed to mention about rapes, massacres, wanton destructions supposedly perperated by the Cholas. I just cant imagine a cultured victor like Raja Raja would inscribe about rapes, massacres, brutality in a temple inscription that exclusively speaks about the greatness, kindness of the king and the sophisticated culture of the then Chola kingdom which at that time comprised everything under the Tungabhadra, Vengi and even extended upto Kalinga.

Don't get ahead of yourself. What makes you think the rapes, massacres, and wanton destruction that I mentioned refers to the Cholas' Southeast Asian excursions? I was referring to the barbarism demonstrated by the Cholas during their campaigns against the Western Chalukyas. Not only was the ancient capital of Manyakheta sacked and plundered, the Cholas broke all laws of ethical conduct and engaged in wholesale slaughter of women, children, and brahmans alike, as well as the wholesale rape of high-caste girls. Similar actions of plunder and destruction took place during the Chola invasions of Sri Lanka in the reigns of both Raja Raja and his successor Rajendra; the ancient Lankan capital of Anuradhapura was ravaged along with its Buddhist stupas of priceless antiquity. Southeast Asia probably suffered similar crimes at the hands of the Cholas, but we do not have sufficient details since, as I had mentioned earlier, our evidence for Chola campaigns in that region comes almost entirely from a single source.

Moreover why the Cholas invaded and subdued the Sri Vijaya empire was because the Sri Vijayas were interfering with the lucrative China trade route as they were controlling the Malaccas and were harassing the flourishing Chola-China trade relations. It was to secure that trade route which was the primary intention of the invasions and not looting or raping as you allege.

We can only speculate on the exact reasons why the Cholas invaded Sri Vijaya. The Rajarajeshwara inscription makes no mention of controlling trade routes, only of the booty that was plundered from the region which subsequently lined Chola temples. It is not proper scholarship to create claims out of thin air while dismissing the facts that are present before you.

The riches got were not plundered, but which were given as tributes by the conquered Sri Vijaya empire who were reduced to the status as feudatories of Chola empire.

I like this argument. Ghaznavi didn't plunder any Indian states, he just strongly persuaded the defeated Hindus to hand over their treasure as tribute.

 

[KS]

These two links along with the one given in post 1014 are a good read.

The Medieval Chola Empire and it's relations with Malaysia, Indonesia & Thailand - P1


The Medieval Chola Empire and it's relations with Malaysia, Indonesia & Thailand - P3

 

[civfanatic]

But the thread is about Indian kings, not Lankan kings.

What is the difference?

And oh, what a shame ! One has to learn about supposedly the greatest Indian king from Lankan sources though the works of the British. Perhaps that great king was completely erased from Indian memory that the British had to look at Lankan records to "reconstruct" him. ? Is there any chance they did exaggerate a bit on his "glory" ?

Ashoka was over 2,000 years old and Buddhism had been extinct for longer than a millennium. So yes he was forgotten in mainland Brahmanist India.

But there was no need to "reconstruct" his glory. Ashoka's pillars still stand, and since the Brahmi script has been deciphered, it is easy for anyone today to get a first-hand glimpse of Ashoka's greatness.