Wtf, your response was to just copy-paste what your fellow Saffron wroteNOOOooo...
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?P.S. I thought that the main reason why Tamils voted for Chola is because he "conquered" foreign territories?
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...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.
Agree with everything except this part. I hate to repeat it but anyway -Akbar is considered great because he built a big empire, followed secular prinicples
Bachchu Ji, that wasn't Man Singh. It was his father Mirza Raja Jai Singh.Even Rajput king Mansingh has cut his army in sizes and force him to come to agra for peace.
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.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.
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.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?
Ridiculous logic. By that case Akbar,Chandragupta Maurya, Ashoka, Tipu also should not have been here. But they are.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 voteI 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.
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.. 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.
Very intelligent post. Good one! :thumb:We call him chatrapati(kshtetra pati) or emperor..
But the thread is about Indian kings, not Lankan kings.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
What is the difference?But the thread is about Indian kings, not Lankan kings.
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.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" ?