The most powerful region in South Asian history was the southern part of India?

[rohit.gr77]

if all kshatriyas are your belongings, please take them back and spare us of your bullshit.

--

On a serious note: Chola, Chera and Pandyans were undeniably native Tamils. Kadamba founder was a Brahman, Chalukyans claimed Kadamba ancestry. Vijayanagar founders Hakka and Bukka were either Badagas or Kurubas, again natives of the south. Chatrapati Shivaji was a Brahman. Varna system didn't get implemented the same way in the south as it originated in the north. Also, during the spread of Vedic system in the south, the natives were taken into the system. So most of the Brahmans were native converts.

U are mistaken I suppose. What makes you think so??

 

[pulikesi]

U are mistaken I suppose. What makes you think so??

I appreciate such healthy discussion. I was wrong about Shivaji. Got confused with the Peshwas.

Edit: It's interesting Chatrapati was not a kshatriya either. Supports my rebuttal.

 

[rohit.gr77]

I appreciate such healthy discussion. I was wrong about Shivaji. Got confused with the Peshwas.

Edit: It's interesting Chatrapati was not a kshatriya either. Supports my rebuttal.

That is the matter of another debate, but most of the Marathas consider him as a Kshatriya.

 

[pulikesi]

That is the matter of another debate, but most of the Marathas consider him as a Kshatriya.

Yes. That's the greatness. Varna system was very lose beyond the Vindhyas. Hence everyone was able serve their motherland. Reddys were neither Shudra nor Kshatriya. But they ruled as kings. It was not a hegemony of particular caste or lineage.

That is the matter of another debate,

Edit: True. Let's not divert from the topic of the thread.

 

[pulikesi]

If I was to answer the question:

The most powerful region in South Asian history was the southern part of India?

For a particular time period, Yes. At other times No. Most of the time equally strong powers ruled their regions. Hence the equilibrium / stalemate.

 

[Dreamhunter]

Why did you forget nanda?

And as I said every empire has a time line.. Once even soils of current Iran was ancient India, now it is not.

Where are those great Pharaohs? They once ruled but then later it collapsed ..

To answer the question which region was the most powerful in the past you have to count the number of powerful Dynasties which every region produced. The southern part of India(Deccan and south India) produced the highest number of powerful Dynasties during ancient and medieval period and won more victories against foreign invaders than north India. On the other hand north India only produced 2 powerful native Dynasties which were the Gupta and Maurya Dynasties from eastern India.

 

[pulikesi]

To answer the question which region was the most powerful in the past you have to count the number of powerful Dynasties which every region produced. The southern part of India(Deccan and south India) produced the highest number of powerful Dynasties during ancient and medieval period and won more victories against foreign invaders than north India. On the other hand north India only produced 2 powerful native Dynasties which were the Gupta and Maurya Dynasties from eastern India.

Count doesn't matter, it's the years of stable ruling. Kushanas were a great dynasty too.

 

[Dreamhunter]

Count doesn't matter, it's the years of stable ruling. Kushanas were a great dynasty too.

All these Dynasties togther established for a longer time a stable rule while north India was mostly divided into several small Kingdoms which is one of the main reasons why north India was for a much longer time under foreign rule.
The Kushanas were foreign invaders.

 

[pulikesi]

The Kushanas were foreign invaders.

Kushanas may have their origin beyond Hindu kush. But they gave a strong Indian-Buddhist rule. You can't combine them with Greek governors or Arabs.

 

[Dreamhunter]

Kushanas may have their origin beyond Hindu kush. But they gave a strong Indian-Buddhist rule. You can't combine them with Greek governors or Arabs.

The Kushanas were not much different to the Shakas. The rulers of the Satavahana Dynasty called the Shakas as barbarians and they were very proud for having defeated the Shakas as they called themselves protectors of the south. For the Indians the Kushanas were like the Shakas, nothing else than foreign barbarians. According to your logic we should also celebrate the Delhi Sultanate as a great Dynasty of north India.

 

[pulikesi]

According to your logic we should also celebrate the Delhi Sultanate as a great Dynasty of north India.

Whether they were great or evil, depends on your POV. But they were strong military power, even you've accepted this (when you said the southern dynasties resisted the strongest army of the world).

 

[Dreamhunter]

Whether they were great or evil, depends on your POV. But they were strong military power, even you've accepted this (when you said the southern dynasties resisted the strongest army of the world).

The Delhi Sultanate was a great military power and nobody denies that. But there is no reason for Indians to be proud of this Dynasty. The Delhi Sultanate not only discriminated based on religion but also based on race. Even Indian Muslims were treated like second class citizens as the Delhi Sultanate prefered Turks and Persians.

I read the text Maduravijayam which was written during the reign of the famous Emperor Bukka Raya of the Vijayanagar Empire. The text deals with the battles and victories of Bukka Raya against the Turkic invaders.
But the text also describes the atrocities that were caused by the Turkic invaders and their barbaric customs.
The text was written by a woman who literally begs Bukka Raya to slaughter the evil Turks and to free the world from the barbaric Turks.
Instead of glorifying rulers like Akbar we should appreciate the achievements of great heroes like Bukka Raya who liberated a huge part of southern India from Turkic rule.

 

[rohit.gr77]

None of the Kings had their origins in the north. The Vijayanagar, Chalukya and Rashtrakuta were the greatest patrons of Kannada literature. And the Cholas were patrons of Tamil. The Maratha Empire was established by the Marathas from the Deccan. The reason why the Vijayanagar Emperors were so successful was because they were able to unify all the warrior communities from the south like the Nayaks against the Turks.
On the other hand the Rajputs were not able to unify and thats why they failed to liberate north India from Turkic rule.

Good point raised by you, the Rajputs from Rajputana region mostly kept their own personal interest above the interest of the community. Maharana Pratap being the obvious exception. This was the reason they were never a force against the Muslim rulers of Delhi. Rather they were amongst the first to accept the Mughal suzerainty and after the Mughal, British suzerainty.

 

[Dreamhunter]

Good point raised by you, the Rajputs from Rajputana region mostly kept their own personal interest above the interest of the community. Maharana Pratap being the obvious exception. This was the reason they were never a force against the Muslim rulers of Delhi. Rather they were amongst the first to accept the Mughal suzerainty and after the Mughal, British suzerainty.

Yes, the Rajputs failed and accepted Turkic, Mughal and Maratha rule because they were divided among themselves. It is also interesting that the Rajput records do not mention anything about previous Dynasties which ruled in north India like Maurya or Gupta. It seems that the Rajputs did not know that there were great Dynasties in the ancient past like Maurya which were able to unify whole north India. Perhaps this was also one reason why the Rajputs failed to unify north India because they didnt have a legitimate claim to unify north India.

On the other hand the Vijayanagar Emperors not only claimed to be protectors of the south against the Turks but they also claimed to be successors of the Chalukya Empire and Chola Empire which had unified southern India several centuries before the establishment of the Vijayanagar Empire. This means that the Vijayanagar Emperors had a better understanding of the past than the Rajputs. Adding to that the Vijayanagar Emperors also had a better administration than the Rajputs and they were able to motivate and unify the warrior castes from southern India against the Turks. These are the main reasons why the Vijayanagar Empire succeeded

 

[pulikesi]

which had unified southern India several centuries before the establishment of the Vijayanagar Empire.

no one before Vijayanagar had ruled the entire south. Chalukyans and Cholas were fighting each other the whole time. But what they succeeded in is to convince the cause of Hinduism. They were deeply conscious of what happened in Kafur's raid. No other kingdom before them was formed for such a cause. It also helped them that Kafur's raid had left no kingdom strong enough to challenge Vijayanagar expansion. Only Shivaji did this again with his idea of "Haindavi Swaraj". In the north Sikhs did the same, again with higher goal of protecting Hinduism. They all rose above petty interests.

 

[Dreamhunter]

no one before Vijayanagar had ruled the entire south. Chalukyans and Cholas were fighting each other the whole time. But what they succeeded in is to convince the cause of Hinduism. They were deeply conscious of what happened in Kafur's raid. No other kingdom before them was formed for such a cause. It also helped them that Kafur's raid had left no kingdom strong enough to challenge Vijayanagar expansion. Only Shivaji did this again with his idea of "Haindavi Swaraj". In the north Sikhs did the same, again with higher goal of protecting Hinduism. They all rose above petty interests.

The Western Chalukya Empire unified the Deccan and the Chola Empire unified south India. The Vijayanagar Emperors claimed to be successors of these 2 Dynasties to legitimate their own rule in the Deccan and south India and because the Chalukya and Chola Empires were the most powerful Dynasties of 11th and 12th century India.
The Vijayanagar Emperors had a better understanding of the past than the Rajputs who claimed ancestry from the mythology

 

[pulikesi]

The Vijayanagar Emperors claimed to be successors of these 2 Dynasties to legitimate their own rule in the Deccan and south India

I'd like to see references to this, because I haven't come across it before. My understanding is they simply claimed to be the protectors of Hinduism from the Sultanates, which was accepted in the light of what had happened.

 

[Dreamhunter]

I'd like to see references to this, because I haven't come across it before. My understanding is they simply claimed to be the protectors of Hinduism from the Sultanates.

Almost all the scholars and poets of the Vijayanagar Empire make these claims.
Read the book "A Social History of the Deccan, 1300-1761: Eight Indian Lives by Richard M. Eaton"
There are a lot of references in this book

 

[Dreamhunter]

Only Shivaji did this again with his idea of "Haindavi Swaraj". In the north Sikhs did the same, again with higher goal of protecting Hinduism. They all rose above petty interests.

The Marathas were great warriors who established the Maratha Empire and who defeated the Mughals.
They flew the flag of the Deccan from Bengal in the east to Pakistan in the west.
But the Sikhs are like the Rajputs overrated. The Sikhs were only able to establish an independent kingdom after the valiant Marathas had defeated the Mughals and after the battle of Panipat which led to the death of thousands of Afghans and which led to the decline of the Afghan power in the northwest.

 

[pulikesi]

But the Sikhs are like the Rajputs overrated. The Sikhs were only able to establish an independent kingdom after the valiant Marathas had defeated the Mughals

You have to see the context in which the Sikhs operated. It's one thing fighting someone away and other fighting them in their backyard. Even if they failed, their intentions were higher, unlike the selfish.