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

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
Saala bar bar har topic religion pe aake atak jaata hai.

Why people take religion so seriously to the point of madness I don't understand. Regardless of any religion. Morning evening night, ghar ho ya bahar, religion. Culture and religion too gets mixed up. Grrrrr
 

agentperry

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
3,022
Likes
690
Mughals were not natives that's why they are not in the list.

What's difference between Native rulers and Mughals ?

Mughals killed Millions of Hindus, Converted into Islam forcefully, Destroyed 10,000 of religious temples, etc. started kingdom against our culture and based on religious discrimination.

What our King did ? All king wanted to expand their kingdom. Few did discrimination also but no one destroyed our temples and killed people just because they were from other religion.

What if There wasn't any Central Asia invasion ? Today, There won't be Pakistan or Bangladesh. 8)

Those Invaders destroyed our Culture/Tradition/religion from Kashmir to Sindhe. U.P. to Bangladesh. Kerala to Indonesia. Punjab to Kandhar.
this is the radicalization. muslims came to india ok. many things came to india like zorastrian and jew.

why are you trying to recollect every thing prior to muslim era. its a part of our history. akbar din e ilahi cant be forgotten. its mughals who devised rupiya. the stone carving came to india from italy thru muslims only.
 

A chauhan

"अहिंसा परमो धर्मः धर्म हिंसा तथैव च: l"
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2009
Messages
9,513
Likes
22,526
Country flag
Saar, they didn't encroach, they owned the land by conquering it. There is a difference in that.
IMO the way in which Muslims invaded and conquered, can not be called Owning,owners do not inflict damages to their own property,and so they were encroachers... whatever you may call it, but native Indians still had privileges as compared to Mughals.
 

Adux

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2009
Messages
4,022
Likes
1,707
Country flag
IMO as Hindus were native people, they had the right to impose discriminatory restrictions, but on the other hand Mughals didn't.
You must not be from the discriminated class, because they certainly didnt think it was funny or justifiable.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
IMO the way in which Muslims invaded and conquered, can not be called Owning,owners do not inflict damages to their own property,and so they were encroachers... whatever you may call it, but native Indians still had privileges as compared to Mughals.
So the native can screw up as much as he wants but the outsider is a tyrant? Kya logic hai?
 

Adux

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2009
Messages
4,022
Likes
1,707
Country flag
I would disagree. Most of the other civilized kingdoms either became one with the foreign occupation i.e lost their original traditions or assimilated that culture within themselves
Fact of the matter is, wether they lost or not. Europe, Central Asia and China is full of good examples; They all had ground up support from the people. In the Indian context, the King's never recieved any such support, simply because they were more discriminatory and zealots than the invading loons.
 

Adux

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2009
Messages
4,022
Likes
1,707
Country flag
So the native can screw up as much as he wants but the outsider is a tyrant? Kya logic hai?
Logic of the people who must have a history of screwing up the people, but not the people who got screwed.
 

LurkerBaba

Super Mod
Joined
Jul 2, 2010
Messages
7,882
Likes
8,125
Country flag
Fact of the matter is, wether they lost or not. Europe, Central Asia and China is full of good examples; They all had ground up support from the people. In the Indian context, the King's never recieved any such support, simply because they were more discriminatory and zealots than the invading loons.
Let's take China's case, they were ruled by outsiders (Mongols and Machus) right upto Mao's revolution ! They discriminanted against the 'people' and yet ruled for hundreds of years !
 

Galaxy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
7,086
Likes
3,934
Country flag
this is the radicalization. muslims came to india ok. many things came to india like zorastrian and jew.

why are you trying to recollect every thing prior to muslim era. its a part of our history. akbar din e ilahi cant be forgotten. its mughals who devised rupiya. the stone carving came to india from italy thru muslims only.
Zoroastrian and Jew living in India for many many centuries, may be before Islam came into existence. They were not involved in any kind of discrimination. Even King Ashoka adopted Buddhism by keeping Hinduism, But He was Indian, follower of Bharatvarsha and was never indulge in kind of anti-culture. We do respect King Ashoka as one of the greatest King of Ancient India.

As far as Akbar, It is debatable topic. Akbar slaughtered 30000 people at Chiotthor after it fell. in 1585 authorized to demolish Vishwanath Temple in Varanasi. Akbar at last stage adopted din-e-ilahi but that is irrelevant. He was indulge in many autocrats against Indian culture. Many like him because his secularism, But It was too late and too little.

Stone carving started many thousand years back and Our currency was most flourished currency during Mauryas too.
 

agentperry

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
3,022
Likes
690
Let's take China's case, they were ruled by outsiders (Mongols and Machus) right upto Mao's revolution ! They discriminanted against the 'people' and yet ruled for hundreds of years !
chinese rulers never thought of people. what china is today is exactly what it was since starting of civilization. 300000 workers arranged back then to make great wall of china and dam on yellow river when mega cities were 50000 people only.

and i know when they fall too!!!!
 

agentperry

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
3,022
Likes
690
Zoroastrian and Jew living in India for many many centuries, may be before Islam came into existence. They were not involved in any kind of discrimination. Even King Ashoka adopted Buddhism by keeping Hinduism, But He was Indian, follower of Bharatvarsha and was never indulge in kind of anti-culture. We do respect King Ashoka as one of the greatest King of Ancient India.

As far as Akbar, It is debatable topic. Akbar slaughtered 30000 people at Chiotthor after it fell. in 1585 authorized to demolish Vishwanath Temple in Varanasi. Akbar at last stage adopted din-e-ilahi but that is irrelevant. He was indulge in many autocrats against Indian culture. Many like him because his secularism, But It was too late and too little.

Stone carving started many thousand years back and Our currency was most flourished currency during Mauryas too.
so what should we do accept muslim era as a dark age for country or for hindus.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
Aya ya ya ya. Ashoka did the massacre of Kalinga before bs became a Buddhist. How does that make him any good? Don't mix religion with what the King achieved. Look at it from the military, political angle. Religion angle does not help.

Mughal children were offsprings of Rajputs. So I don't know how they were not "Indian". There was no India then anyway.
 

Adux

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2009
Messages
4,022
Likes
1,707
Country flag
Let's take China's case, they were ruled by outsiders (Mongols and Machus) right upto Mao's revolution ! They discriminanted against the 'people' and yet ruled for hundreds of years !
Question is, did the chinese kings and elite's discriminate against it own people, if it did, then why would the people care who comes to power?
 

Adux

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2009
Messages
4,022
Likes
1,707
Country flag
There are a lot of cases, of Hindu's killing Buddhist, and vice versa. The domination of Hinduism over Buddhism didnt come peacefully.
 

Galaxy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
7,086
Likes
3,934
Country flag
so what should we do accept muslim era as a dark age for country or for hindus.
We don't need to do anything. It's all about History. We can't change History but no harm knowing our ancient culture and civilization.

Muslims of Indian subcontinent are Indians. You know why ? Because they are not Uzbek or Taji. But Indian born in India, Religion changed but ancestors can never change.

We are not Paki who will be proud of Babur, Akbar and Ghauri. They are coward people. We should be proud of our all culture which starts from Birth of Lord Krishna to Shivaji. Few things were not good like (Mughals), But no harm knowing all the facts.
 

S.A.T.A

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2009
Messages
2,569
Likes
1,560
The contention that India never existed as a historical entity is lamentable misreading of history,this take on history is myopic in its outlook,because it generates the vision of a nationhood in its geographical,social and cultural isolation.The idea of Indian as nation,like any other nation, is a historical and ideological construct.This construction of Indian nationhood was not begun today,yesterday or in the centuries bygone,its a perpetual exercise whose foundation is the very foundation of our civilization and we,the India of today,are not the sum total of this exercise,but merely a recent appendage in the grand old narrative.

Even a short perusal of the history of the Indian nationalist movement of the late 19th and 20th century will tells us how our vision of sovereign nationhood can be traced back to the history of a different age.The Indian nationalist movement is often to referred to as the nations political response to its failed military venture,i.e the war of 1857-58, to evict the alien colonialists.The 1857 uprising itself,taking to considerations the broad sweep of the geographical and political centers of the uprising,was a last ditch effort by the Maratha political leadership to reverse their political fortunes which had been so brutally crushed during the third Anglo-Maratha war of 1818.Some historians have gone so far as to call the 1857 revolt a 'fourth Anglo-Maratha war.

So when the Indian national congress were being held in Pune and Bombay and the chants of self rule or 'Swarajya' was being bandied about,its political-historical connotation was not lost on the British rulers and the Indian nationalist.The slogan of Swarajya' championed by early leaders like Tilak,was distinct throw back to the 'Hindu Swarajya' of Chatrapathi Shivaji,which was the banner under which Shivaji organized the various clans of Marathas,to wage a war of independence against the Mughal and Deccan sultanates.It then follows that the Swarajya of Tilak and indian nationalism cannot be seen isolation from Shivaji's Swarajya,even though the political context in which they operated may have varied.What it served to provide was a sound ideological and historical grounding for inspiring the vision of a sovereign and independent nationhood.

If India today exists as a political realization of a sovereign nation state,its because such a nation state had a historical and civilizational basis.The Kings and queens and other political leadership of the bygone days,who helped conceive and nurture this nationhood,where not stunted in their political vision,they just did not have the clairvoyance to peek into the unknown future to see the vindications or denouements to their collective deeds.
 

A chauhan

"अहिंसा परमो धर्मः धर्म हिंसा तथैव च: l"
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2009
Messages
9,513
Likes
22,526
Country flag
So the native can screw up as much as he wants but the outsider is a tyrant? Kya logic hai?
At least they didn't killed/forcefully converted/kicked them out of the country (they still showed mercy) they didn't behave like tyrants... for example if you go inside any lion's cave and capture him in a cage, you won't become the owner of that cave, as soon as the lion frees himself he will kill you, now your acts against that lion can not be justified, but on the other hand acts of that lion can be justified no matter how brute he behaves. I am just supporting the innocent who lost their innocence due to those encroachments.

You misunderstood me...i do not support discrimination. Discrimination is always wrong but in exceptional cases it ought to be done... and what those Hindu kings done was right to defend their cultural heritage...
 

agentperry

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2010
Messages
3,022
Likes
690
many hindus got converted- by both reasons, force and seeking state privileges. being muslim then was a passport for many state funded activities. today's eg-muslim world. may got converted like healthy and wealthy rajputs so that they can rise to power level in muslim courtyards. many hindu rajputs converted their subjects into muslim so that they can show their loyalty to crown. many ills from both sides.

why fight for it now
 

Galaxy

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
7,086
Likes
3,934
Country flag
Aya ya ya ya. Ashoka did the massacre of Kalinga before bs became a Buddhist. How does that make him any good? Don't mix religion with what the King achieved. Look at it from the military, political angle. Religion angle does not help.

Mughal children were offsprings of Rajputs. So I don't know how they were not "Indian". There was no India then anyway.
Yes, Ashoka destroyed Kalinga. It was war between 2 Kingdom. War was never good, mostly brutal in ancient time. But why Ashoka did ? It was because of politician and economical reason. But after Kaling war, The kingdom was always part of overall Ashoka and later kingdom. Military and religion angel it was helpful. No Invaders came later in that Kalinga area (Orissa of Today)

There were many internal fight/war but it was not against the culture/religion, It was due to political and economical reason. Yes, some discrimination happened. But it existed in every civilization from Persian to Han.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
Yes, Ashoka destroyed Kalinga. It was war between 2 Kingdom. War is/was never good, mostly brutal in ancient time. But why Ashoka did ? It was because of politician and economical reason. But after Kaling war.
Good. Now you get it. Wars during those times were between individual who wanted power, kingdoms. They used everything including religion to further their cause.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top