The Greatest Kings in Indian History

Who is the Greatest King in Indian History?

  • Chandragupta Maurya

    Votes: 115 33.7%
  • Ashoka

    Votes: 45 13.2%
  • Raja Chola

    Votes: 34 10.0%
  • Akbar

    Votes: 16 4.7%
  • Sri Krishna Devaraya

    Votes: 18 5.3%
  • Chatrapati Shivaji

    Votes: 58 17.0%
  • Tipu Sultan

    Votes: 9 2.6%
  • Ranjith Singh

    Votes: 10 2.9%
  • Samudra Gupta

    Votes: 11 3.2%
  • Chandragupta Vikramaditya

    Votes: 20 5.9%
  • Harsha

    Votes: 1 0.3%
  • Kanishka

    Votes: 4 1.2%

  • Total voters
    341

Bhoja

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
129
Likes
184
mods
Is it possible to include the Indian rulers Raja Bhoj of Malwa and Bajirao in the poll?
Raja Bhoj was one of the greatest patrons of literature of medieval India
and Bajirao was perhaps the greatest ruler of 18th century India which was also confirmed by British reports.
 

panduranghari

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
1,786
Likes
1,245
mods
Is it possible to include the Indian rulers Raja Bhoj of Malwa and Bajirao in the poll?
Raja Bhoj was one of the greatest patrons of literature of medieval India
and Bajirao was perhaps the greatest ruler of 18th century India which was also confirmed by British reports.
Bhoja ji,

We have been lucky with many many great kings and nobles. But we have never been taught. Bajirao 1 is one among 3 generals in the world who never lost a single battle. He was on the front line for most of his life and died at a war camp. He became a Peshwa (prime minister) at the age of 19.

Attock was an important point for the defence of India and Marathas recognised this. So even when the Maratha empire was disintegrating, the Marathas kept a few garrisons at Attock to prevent islamic invasions.

Raja Chatrasal who always was a thorn in Mughals side by not submitting to Mughals when asked Bajirao for help against Mohd. Bangash said this
jo gati bhayi gajendra ki, wahi gati hamri aaj
baaji jaat bundel ki baaji raakhiyo laaj


Jadunath Sarkar wrote this about Bajirao Peshwa
Bajirao was a heaven born cavalry leader. In the long and distinguished galaxy of Peshwas, Bajirao Ballal was unequalled for the daring and originality of his genius and the volume and value of his achievements. He was truly a Cavalry Hero as king- or rather as a Man of action.' If Sir Robert Walpole created the unchallengeable position of the Prime Minister in the unwritten constitution of England, Bajirao created the same institution in the Maratha Raj at exactly the same time.

Importance of Attock
 
Last edited:

Bhoja

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
129
Likes
184
Bhoja ji,

We have been lucky with many many great kings and nobles. But we have never been taught. Bajirao 1 is one among 3 generals in the world who never lost a single battle. He was on the front line for most of his life and died at a war camp. He became a Peshwa (prime minister) at the age of 19.

Attock was an important point for the defence of India and Marathas recognised this. So even when the Maratha empire was disintegrating, the Marathas kept a few garrisons at Attock to prevent islamic invasions.

Raja Chatrasal who always was a thorn in Mughals side by not submitting to Mughals when asked Bajirao for help against Mohd. Bangash said this
jo gati bhayi gajendra ki, wahi gati hamri aaj
baaji jaat bundel ki baaji raakhiyo laaj


Jadunath Sarkar wrote this about Bajirao Peshwa
Bajirao was a heaven born cavalry leader. In the long and distinguished galaxy of Peshwas, Bajirao Ballal was unequalled for the daring and originality of his genius and the volume and value of his achievements. He was truly a Cavalry Hero as king- or rather as a Man of action.' If Sir Robert Walpole created the unchallengeable position of the Prime Minister in the unwritten constitution of England, Bajirao created the same institution in the Maratha Raj at exactly the same time.

Importance of Attock
I agree with you. Despite of the fact that India was divided in the past India was able to produce some of the greatest scholars, kings and dynasties in world history. And this is the real tragedy of Bharat. Today India struggles to produce even one great political leader. The hope and the future of our people lies in the hands of clowns and jokers who call themselves as so called politicians. They are more interested in hiding their black money than to care about the welfare of their people.
 

Rage

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,419
Likes
1,001
Chandragupta Maurya- for Unifying the Republic.


Were it not for him, we would have no indigenous agency to claim ourselves a unified polity.
 

Rage

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,419
Likes
1,001
Basically, the Marathas, like other contemporary powers, were political opportunists who were most concerned with expanding their own power and influence. They had no "nationalist", pan-Indian agenda as they are sometimes portrayed as having in modern literature.
True. But who among India's ancient (or for that matter, modern) rulers did?

In their own territorialist ambitions, the Marathas performed an important service for India:- they rid the country of a cruel and external invader, one who despised the native form of worship, extorted irreconcilable taxes, set the first communal schisms and suppressed all forms of native art and culture. In evicting him, the Marathas surely supplanted one ruler for another, but they did so with a ruler not half as cruel as the previous one. Remember also, that the Marathas fought the 27-Year War of Independence, the longest recorded military engagement in Indian history- and they did so at great peril to both themselves and their homeland. Their motives might not have been altogether altruistic, but in discharging their duties, they performed a service that was vital to the sociopolitical cohesion of India as a future nation-state.
 
Last edited:

Bhoja

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
129
Likes
184
Chandragupta Maurya- for Unifying the Republic.


Were it not for him, we would have no indigenous agency to claim ourselves a unified polity.
Ashoka was the one who unified India by conquering Orissa in 3rd century BC.
 

Rage

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,419
Likes
1,001
Ashoka was the one who unified India by conquering Orissa in 3rd century BC.

Yeah, Ashoka's conquests covered much of peninsular India. But wasn't it Chandragupta before him, who by defeating Dhana Nanda, really set the stage for a unified polity? Ashoka, in fact, inherited much of his kingdom from Bindu Sara, his father who in turn inherited it from Chandragupta and expanded it further southward toward Mysore and the southern states, all except Kalinga. Ashoka's reign, as well, was so bloodthirsty, up until his much touted conversion to Buddhism, that any image of a benevolent king toward his subjects is all but wiped out. I'd put him at par with a lot of the foreign invaders that came subsequently.
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
Yeah, Ashoka's conquests covered much of peninsular India. But wasn't it Chandragupta before him, who by defeating Dhana Nanda, really set the stage for a unified polity? Ashoka, in fact, inherited much of his kingdom from Bindu Sara, his father who in turn inherited it from Chandragupta and expanded it further southward toward Mysore and the southern states, all except Kalinga. Ashoka's reign, as well, was so bloodthirsty, up until his much touted conversion to Buddhism, that any image of a benevolent king toward his subjects is all but wiped out. I'd put him at par with a lot of the foreign invaders that came subsequently.
Ashok inherited nothing. The legitimate heir to the Maurya Empire was Susima, who was Bindusara's eldest son. Ashok, conspiring with ministers in Pataliputra, had Susima killed, as well as most of his other brothers, and seized (not inherited) the imperial throne after a brutal civil war lasting four years. He then restored Maurya rule in the volatile Northwest by crushing a revolt in Taxila with great brutality, followed by his well-known campaign to subdue Kalinga, which had slipped outside of Magadhan rule at some point (it was known to have been under the suzerainty of the Nandas). There were very likely many other instances of opposition to Ashok's illegitimate rule, which have disappeared from the historical record.

Of course, the reason why Ashok is famous in history is not because of the heavy-handed measures that he used to secure power early in his reign, but because of his administrative genius and exceptionally enlightened rule which followed. Ashok's reign could be compared to that of a strict, disciplinarian father who nonetheless greatly loves his children and desires only the best for them, as Ashok himself states in his inscriptions that he considers all his subjects as his children. Such paternalistic authoritarianism may not be acceptable by today's standards, but by the standards of his time (as well as much, much later), it would not be an exaggeration to say that Ashok was one of the greatest kings not only in Indian history, but in the history of the entire human race.
 

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
Of course, the reason why Ashok is famous in history is not because of the heavy-handed measures that he used to secure power early in his reign, but because of his administrative genius and exceptionally enlightened rule which followed. Ashok's reign could be compared to that of a strict, disciplinarian father who nonetheless greatly loves his children and desires only the best for them, as Ashok himself states in his inscriptions that he considers all his subjects as his children. Such paternalistic authoritarianism may not be acceptable by today's standards, but by the standards of his time (as well as much, much later), it would not be an exaggeration to say that Ashok was one of the greatest kings not only in Indian history, but in the history of the entire human race.
I don't know about the love and equality part but Indeed strict he was.
Following is an account from "Ashokavadana" (acts of Ashoka) a 2nd century B.C. record on Ashoka.
""¦.an incident occurred which greatly enraged the king. A follower of the Nirgrantha (Mahavira) painted a picture, showing Buddha prostrating himself at the feet of the Nirgrantha. Ashoka ordered all the Ajivikas of Pundravardhana (North Bengal) to be killed. In one day, eighteen thousand Ajivikas lost their lives. A similar kind of incident took place in the town of Pataliputra. A man who painted such a picture was burnt alive with his family. It was announced that whoever would bring the king the head of a Nirgrantha would be rewarded with a dinara (a gold coin). As a result of this, thousands of Nirgranthas lost their lives."
Only when Vitashoka, Ashoka's favourite Arhat (an enlightened monk, a Theravada-Buddhist saint), was mistaken for a Nirgran tha and killed by a man desirous of the reward, did Ashoka revoke the order.

Regards,
Virendra
 

Rage

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,419
Likes
1,001
Ashok inherited nothing. The legitimate heir to the Maurya Empire was Susima, who was Bindusara's eldest son. Ashok, conspiring with ministers in Pataliputra, had Susima killed, as well as most of his other brothers, and seized (not inherited) the imperial throne after a brutal civil war lasting four years. He then restored Maurya rule in the volatile Northwest by crushing a revolt in Taxila with great brutality, followed by his well-known campaign to subdue Kalinga, which had slipped outside of Magadhan rule at some point (it was known to have been under the suzerainty of the Nandas). There were very likely many other instances of opposition to Ashok's illegitimate rule, which have disappeared from the historical record.
Exactly, he seized power through cunning and treachery (not implying a moral proselytization here). Much like Brutus, who with the aid of some of Rome's patricians, took to stab Ceaser on the floor of the Senate and then seized Consulship from his cold, dead hands. But who is it that is remembered in the history books, for expanding Rome's dominion as far as the Gallic lands, Brutus or Caeser?

What Ashoka did at that time was both necessary and standard op practice. His reign after his 'enlightenment' may have been no less than benevolently patriarchal either, although many would dispute that it simply did not make up for his excesses. But when we talk about greatness, I think the stature of one who conquered all of the vast northern plains through military conquest, who evicted from the subcontinent the military generals and governors of a foreign power, who extended the purlieus of that domain to the very footsteps of one of Alexander's finest in a region known for its hostile armies, continuous warring and military prowess, who defeated through conquest the only other sovereign worthy of challenging his rule in that physiographic region, takes precedence, I think, over one who acquired the great bounty of his territory through deviousness and cunning (again not proselytizing). Because, a great part of 'greatness', I think, is valor. And Chandragupta Maurya demonstrated the greater part of it, not embellished in any way by cunning or treachery, which tends to detract from it.

Of course, the reason why Ashok is famous in history is not because of the heavy-handed measures that he used to secure power early in his reign, but because of his administrative genius and exceptionally enlightened rule which followed. Ashok's reign could be compared to that of a strict, disciplinarian father who nonetheless greatly loves his children and desires only the best for them, as Ashok himself states in his inscriptions that he considers all his subjects as his children. Such paternalistic authoritarianism may not be acceptable by today's standards, but by the standards of his time (as well as much, much later), it would not be an exaggeration to say that Ashok was one of the greatest kings not only in Indian history, but in the history of the entire human race.
His fame owes much to the diffused knowledge of his edicts which, in turn, owe themselves to the continental spread of Buddhism. His reign may have certainly be enlightened post conversion, but can we ignore his brutal governance and bloodthirsty acts before?
 

Virendra

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
4,697
Likes
3,041
Country flag
I think both were different kind of rulers. We should not compare them. They will have their own strengths and mistakes.
If Ashoka didn't achieve as much as ChandraGupta in military/territory terms relatively, from where he started ...
Then Chandragupta didn't administer and facilitate as famously as Ashoka did?

His reign may have certainly be enlightened post conversion, but can we ignore his brutal governance and bloodthirsty acts before?
This is after his conversion - http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...atest-kings-indian-history-76.html#post596316
 

Phenom

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
878
Likes
406
This is after his conversion

I know there was strong Jain and Hindu presence in India at that time, Could this be the reason for the decline of the Mauryan Empire, they lasted only a few decades after Asoka.
 

Phenom

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Messages
878
Likes
406
Interesting theory, If I have understood you correctly, you are saying that Asoka of the Mauryan Empire lived 1200 years earlier than what's mentioned in the history books and what we consider Mauryan empire was actually the Gupta dynasty. Is there any books or evidence to suggest the same.
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
I don't know about the love and equality part but Indeed strict he was.
Following is an account from "Ashokavadana" (acts of Ashoka) a 2nd century B.C. record on Ashoka.

Only when Vitashoka, Ashoka's favourite Arhat (an enlightened monk, a Theravada-Buddhist saint), was mistaken for a Nirgran tha and killed by a man desirous of the reward, did Ashoka revoke the order.
The Ashokavadana is not exactly an accurate source of Ashok's life, and is full of exaggerations (the story of Ashoka killing 99 of his brothers and sparing just one, for example, is an obvious concoction, though some fratricide very likely took place). It is written from a staunch Buddhist standpoint and hence tries to emphasize the impact of Buddhism on Ashok's life, by comparing Ashok's life before and after "conversion". It is from the Ashokavadana that the paradigm of Ashok's transformation from the so-called "Chandashok" to "Dharmashok" emerged, though this hardly paints an accurate picture of Ashok's life and reign based on what we know of him from other (more reliable) sources.

The Ashokavadana also portrays Ashok as an extremely pious Buddhist, but if we look at Ashok's own inscriptions, it is clear that he is strongly anti-sectarian and advocates unity and tolerance of all sects and schools of thought. It is unlikely that the Ashok as represented by his inscriptions would indulge in the acts that he is credited of doing in the Ashokavadana, as it would be counter-intuitive to his own vision for imperial cohesion.

Also, the text dates from the 2nd century C.E. and not B.C.E., which makes it far more removed from the time of Ashok's own reign, with a corresponding decline in credibility and accuracy. The same text also famously accuses the brahmanical king Pusyamitra Sunga (successor of the Mauryas) of indulging in widespread atrocities against Buddhists and the Buddhist sanga, which are also likely to be exaggerations of of the actual events.
 

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
Exactly, he seized power through cunning and treachery (not implying a moral proselytization here). Much like Brutus, who with the aid of some of Rome's patricians, took to stab Ceaser on the floor of the Senate and then seized Consulship from his cold, dead hands. But who is it that is remembered in the history books, for expanding Rome's dominion as far as the Gallic lands, Brutus or Caeser?
Brutus, who was killed just two years after assassinating Caesar and made no name for himself in history (besides being the assassin of a man far greater than himself), can hardly be compared to Ashok. A better comparison would be between Caesar and Augustus, the first Emperor of Rome. And in that case, I would argue that Augustus was indeed a far greater statesman and leader than Caesar. Though Caesar was a greater general and conqueror, it was Augustus who consolidated Rome into a stable polity and gave it the enduring legacy that it has today. Similarly, Ashok gave India an enduring legacy by being its first and only chakravartin, and by spreading dhamma throughout Asia, where it continues to shape the lives of people today. Ashok's legacy was so great that even kings of countries as far away as Laos claimed descent from him and adopted his symbols. Can anything similar be said of Chandragupta Maurya, who left nothing behind for us to evaluate his reign or legacy?


And Chandragupta Maurya demonstrated the greater part of it, not embellished in any way by cunning or treachery, which tends to detract from it.
The problem is that we know very little about Chandragupta Maurya's life or personality, especially when compared to his illustrious grandson, and he therefore tends to be romanticized (as is apparent by the votes on this thread). If he was at all influenced by Chanakya and the Arthashastra, which he must have been, than he was likely no less cunning or treacherous than Ashok, if not more. Not that there is anything "wrong" with being cunning or treacherous, I'm just not sure how you came to the conclusion that Chandragupta Maurya was more "valorous" than his successors, based on the (extremely) limited information available to us.


His fame owes much to the diffused knowledge of his edicts which, in turn, owe themselves to the continental spread of Buddhism. His reign may have certainly be enlightened post conversion, but can we ignore his brutal governance and bloodthirsty acts before?
In order to understand and try to evaluate Ashok's reign, we must not look at it from the paradigm of "Chandashok before conversion" and "Dharmashok after conversion". Rather, we must look at his reign as a dynamic whole, and examine Ashok's support of Buddhism and his imperial ideology as reflected in his Edicts in the context of contemporary politics and surviving sources of the period (including the Arthashastra).

Ashok's pillar edicts and the ideals inscribed on them are truly magnificent regardless of all other variables, a worthy symbol of the modern Republic of India. I will post more on this fascinating subject when I get the time.
 

panduranghari

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2012
Messages
1,786
Likes
1,245
I agree Augustus was a far better administrator than earlier Romans. He was after all the first Emperor of Rome.

Digressing slightly when you state,'Can anything similar be said of Chandragupta Maurya, who left nothing behind for us to evaluate his reign or legacy? '

I wonder why does one need to leave behind anything to be evaluated. Why do we not see many monuments in India like the Pyramids in Egypt? There was never enough money for personal grandiose projects to show the world. The king in earlier times after all never was really in control of the money in his kingdom. That perhaps changed with Ashok and we can see the similar tendency expressing in the rest of the country. Most of the expense was building temples and some of the very old temples standing in India are beautiful and were dedicated to the deity. The name of the king was unimportant. If you look at what Ashok achieved was perhaps purely for personal glory hence there are many of his emblems still seen. Perhaps many were destroyed by Islamic rulers and may be by Brits. But still some remain for us to see. Just think how many could have been made to ensure the legacy survived.

But saying that the legacy of Chandragupt was the first Empire of India.
 

Rage

DFI TEAM
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2009
Messages
5,419
Likes
1,001
@civfanatic,


Well put. In the absence of more evidence, I'll let the argument rest. Statecraft in the olden days, was indeed a game of blood, treachery and deceit. But a historical vacuum is no reason for us to assume that Chandragupt was as bloodthirsty as Ashoka, just as it is no reason for us to presume that he was any more valorous than his successors. On the other hand, some remnants of information are bound to have been passed down if he was indeed as bloodthirsty as Ashoka. Prior to his catharsis, Ashoka was, by all accounts, one of the bloodiest Kings to grace the subcontinent- and for that reason alone, I reject him as being the greatest Indian king.

Not failing to mention- being the first to unify most of the subcontinent and kicking out a very efficacious foreign king are my principle reasons for elevating Chandragupt to that status.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

civfanatic

Retired
Ambassador
Joined
Sep 8, 2009
Messages
4,562
Likes
2,570
@civfanatic,


Well put. In the absence of more evidence, I'll let the argument rest. Statecraft in the olden days, was indeed a game of blood, treachery and deceit. But a historical vacuum is no reason for us to assume that Chandragupt was as bloodthirsty as Ashoka, just as it is no reason for us to presume that he was any more valorous than his successors. On the other hand, some remnants of information are bound to have been passed down if he was indeed as bloodthirsty as Ashoka. Prior to his catharsis, Ashoka was, by all accounts, one of the bloodiest Kings to grace the subcontinent- and for that reason alone, I reject him as being the greatest Indian king.
It's interesting how you dislike Ashoka for being too bloodthirsty. Most people who have a negative view of him think he was too naive and pacifistic and led to India's decline as a civilization; in fact, Ashok has even been blamed by certain people for the Islamic invasions that occurred 1500 years after his reign :)scared2:). But your basis for rejecting Ashok is much more in tune with reality and the extant facts, so I can appreciate that.

Not failing to mention- being the first to unify most of the subcontinent and kicking out a very efficacious foreign king are my principle reasons for elevating Chandragupt to that status.
Indeed, his victories over the Macedonians and Seleucids were certainly laud-worthy. I wish we had more information about Chandragupta's encounters with the Greeks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top