The Greatest Kings in Indian History

[pmaitra]

@pmaitra the thing about renouncing violence due to losing men doesn't make sense.

The other stuff, long term it's arguable whether being part of a secular democracy is beneficial. When you have a state which actively assists anti Hindu groups then how can that state be called Hindustan?

For now, it's not a considerable question. In time, it will be.

I am not advocating renouncing violence. I believe in violence, but only as a matter of retaliation or self-defense. I am against initiating violence.

Regarding the rest of your comment, it is more like, what we should do going into the future. This thread is about the greatest kings in India's history, i.e. past.

 

[Kharavela]

There is no Indianmp0erspective because there is no country, language or ethnicity common to the geographical area called India.

The country caLLed India was created by west (UK) but for that there would never have been a India.

The biigest mistake or injustice UK made was not to hold plebiscites in the different countries asking them id=f they want to be part of India or want to be independent. For that I blame UK..

But for the British conquest of south Asia there would never have been a country called India.

What are you smoking mate ? Your history understanding seems to be at par with Bakistani Lal Topi.

For millennia, Bharat & her financial, military & scientific prowess has been recognized by thousands of research scholars.

Who said you that British united Bharat ?
They left us with 565 independent states having their own King.

It was unrelenting efforts of Sardar Patel resulting in present geographical shape of India.

Go read history first before advertising your ignorance here.

 

[SrNair]

Chera dynasty was a Tamil dynasty. Tamil literature repeatedly refer to Chera, Chola, Pandya kings as Mooventhar (3 kings). No other kings were included.

And Cherans were different in their approach .Same old Tamil language wouldnt worked as a bonding between them .
So war between them happened .A Chola king challenged Cherans with a century long war .

 

[SrNair]

It depends upon which historian you read.

While it is true that the Mauryan Army defeated the Kalinga Army, it was no easy victory. Rather, it was a Pyrrhic victory. The Kalinga warriors fought bravely, and did not yield one inch without a fight. The Mauryan Army was so badly mauled, that Ashoka has little option but to renounce violence altogether.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalinga_War

Of Course .It was the sheer size of the Mauryan Army that helped them to annex Kalinga .
People in the kalinga totally supported their nation ,that approach caused a lots of casuality in Mauryan lines .
But still couldnt repulse them .
Ashoka renounced violence because of the sheer brutality in the field not because of the casuality of Mauryan Army .That war caused so much destruction
I think same might had happen to Tamils if they goes for the same.

 

[archie]

There is no Indianmp0erspective because there is no country, language or ethnicity common to the geographical area called India.

The country caLLed India was created by west (UK) but for that there would never have been a India.

The biigest mistake or injustice UK made was not to hold plebiscites in the different countries asking them id=f they want to be part of India or want to be independent. For that I blame UK..

But for the British conquest of south Asia there would never have been a country called India.

There you go again with tamil separatism...

You want to sell tamil nadu to DMK and its cronies??? who by the way are only interested in their own Families and are worth more than 6000 Crores?? You think tamil nadu will survive a monarch system like that??

Tell me what is that you do in USA?? Your part of the missionaries there to spread some Shit??

You can take it for granted there a quite a lot of people like me who would like to stay united as we are of the same culture and which is unique in the whole world and would like to see this civilization survive... Tamil is JUST a language and the more shitty people like you campaign for it it will be lost... If your really interested in survival of a language you will propagate its widespread use and not separatism like this...

FYI tamil as is spoken today is not the language that is spoken 20 years back ... first start with revitalizing tamil ... Go and look at the pathetic state of Tamil in programs like Neeya nana and how degraded the language is in common use

 

[Panjab47]

@k murali Yea, & the pandyans descent is from Pandavas. What's your point?

You're from Rishi Agastya you paki troll.

 

[Panjab47]

@pmaitra the whole world was once Dharmic, so any violence against abrahamics is in self-defence. Beside, it's for their benefit as we are purifying them. Do you hate your fellow abrahamic man so much, that you want him to die impure with bad karma?

Even if they violently resist it, it's the same as the child who won't eat his vegetables. As men of higher birth & caliber, we must do what's in the greater good.

Else everyone will be like @apple

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

And Cherans were different in their approach .Same old Tamil language wouldnt worked as a bonding between them .
So war between them happened .A Chola king challenged Cherans with a century long war .

Actually race was never an bonding between Cheras Cholas Pandyas and Pallavas. They were hell bent of proving best among themselves in a way, that they pardoned other kingdoms, but not the tamil ones. If Tamilakkam had been one or 2 empires, they would have created atleast one big empire spanning entire India.
But there was always infight among tamil clans.

 

[VaghaDeva]

Is anyone here a monarchist by any chance? You know you can't practice and believe in Sanatana Dharma and not be a monarchist.

Bharat Samrajya not Bharat Ganarajya Jai Hind
let us have a Wodeyar or Bhonsle, Mewar whatever the fuck

stya

 

[pmaitra]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalinga_War

Of Course .It was the sheer size of the Mauryan Army that helped them to annex Kalinga .
People in the kalinga totally supported their nation ,that approach caused a lots of casuality in Mauryan lines .
But still couldnt repulse them .
Ashoka renounced violence because of the sheer brutality in the field not because of the casuality of Mauryan Army .That war caused so much destruction
I think same might had happen to Tamils if they goes for the same.

I have a different take on this. Ashoka renounced violence because of the casualty of Mauryan Army, not because of the sheer brutality in the field. I say this because, Kalinga war wasn't Ashoka's first war, and war is always brutal.

I also don't think the same would have happened with the Tamils. Before conquering the Tamils, he'd have had to conquer those in the way, and Kalinga was in the way. He tried to annex Kalinga, and regardless of his victory, he lost the enthusiasm and/or the practical means to continue further down and conquer the Tamils. No Empire, no matter how big, is immune to war weariness and over-stretching.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

I have a different take on this. Ashoka renounced violence because of the casualty of Mauryan Army, not because of the sheer brutality in the field. I say this because, Kalinga war wasn't Ashoka's first war, and war is always brutal.

I also don't think the same would have happened with the Tamils. Before conquering the Tamils, he'd have had to conquer those in the way, and Kalinga was in the way. He tried to annex Kalinga, and regardless of his victory, he lost the enthusiasm and/or the practical means to continue further down and conquer the Tamils. No Empire, no matter how big, is immune to war weariness and over-stretching.

No. I think Kalinga War was the first war Ashoka took part directly in.

 

[SrNair]

I have a different take on this. Ashoka renounced violence because of the casualty of Mauryan Army, not because of the sheer brutality in the field. I say this because, Kalinga war wasn't Ashoka's first war, and war is always brutal.

I also don't think the same would have happened with the Tamils. Before conquering the Tamils, he'd have had to conquer those in the way, and Kalinga was in the way. He tried to annex Kalinga, and regardless of his victory, he lost the enthusiasm and/or the practical means to continue further down and conquer the Tamils. No Empire, no matter how big, is immune to war weariness and over-stretching.

Well I have a different opinion.Kalinga War was the first one that Ashoka created after his ascension to the Mauryan Throne .He had a nick name name as 'fierce warrior' due to his ruthless nature in battle field when he was just a General of Bindusara .Perhaps he might be repulsed by kalingas during his father reign.
When this war happened Mauryan already had the control of almost all subcontinent .Means he might be able to sustain a war with Tamils for long time .
Whether he can hold on that or not ,that is diffferent question .But if he had that same ruthless nature even after Kalinga another bloodshed would have been happened in South India.

 

[AnantS]

Well I have a different opinion.Kalinga War was the first one that Ashoka created after his ascension to the Mauryan Throne .He had a nick name name as 'fierce warrior' due to his ruthless nature in battle field when he was just a General of Bindusara .Perhaps he might be repulsed by kalingas during his father reign.
When this war happened Mauryan already had the control of almost all subcontinent .Means he might be able to sustain a war with Tamils for long time .
Whether he can hold on that or not ,that is diffferent question .But if he had that same ruthless nature even after Kalinga another bloodshed would have been happened in South India.

Actually another study says that Kalinga never toned down Asoka's expansion lust. But he did gravitate more and more towards Buddhism.

 

[pmaitra]

No. I think Kalinga War was the first war Ashoka took part directly in.

From what I could dig up, Ashoka's first campaign was crushing a rebellion in Avanti.

Well I have a different opinion.Kalinga War was the first one that Ashoka created after his ascension to the Mauryan Throne .He had a nick name name as 'fierce warrior' due to his ruthless nature in battle field when he was just a General of Bindusara .Perhaps he might be repulsed by kalingas during his father reign.
When this war happened Mauryan already had the control of almost all subcontinent .Means he might be able to sustain a war with Tamils for long time .
Whether he can hold on that or not ,that is diffferent question .But if he had that same ruthless nature even after Kalinga another bloodshed would have been happened in South India.

Precisely my point. It depends upon which historian you read. There is no dispute that between Pataliputra and whatever was Tamil Nadu then, there lies Kalinga. This geographical fact is undisputed.

 

[Dreamhunter]

There were only 2 Empires in the history of India which dominated the major part of India for more than 200 years.
These were the Maurya Empire and the Rashtrakuta Empire.
Based on this fact the 2 greatest Emperors in Indian history were Ashoka of the Maurya Empire and Amoghavarsha of the Rashtrakuta Empire.

 

[pmaitra]

There were only 2 Empires in the history of India which dominated the major part of India for more than 200 years.
These were the Maurya Empire and the Rashtrakuta Empire.
Based on this fact the 2 greatest Emperors in Indian history were Ashoka of the Maurya Empire and Amoghavarsha of the Rashtrakuta Empire.

The greatest empires w.r.t. how much territory they covered are these:

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires_that_existed_in_India

 

[Dreamhunter]

The greatest empires w.r.t. how much territory they covered are these:

View attachment 8475
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_empires_that_existed_in_India

No you are wrong. The Gupta, Mughal, Delhi Sultanate and Harshas Empire mostly ruled northern India.
The Mughals were only able to keep their territories in the Deccan region for less than 20 years.
On the other hand the Rashtrakuta Dynasty dominated the major part of India for 200 years.

 

[Tamil TigerWoods]

1) Raja Raja Cholan (bias)
2) Rajendra Cholan (also bias)
3) Gadadhar Singha/Supatphaa
4) Chandragupta Maurya
5) Krishnadevaraya
6) Shivaji Bhosle
7) Marthanda Varma
8) Peshwa Baji Rao
9) Abbakka Chowta
10) Maharajah Ranjith Singh

 

[I am otm shank]

Ï think Ashoka was the greatest because he made a vast empire but he had a worldliness to him by sending missionaries and diplomats far beyond his lands to spread understanding. his empire was developed, organised and fair


my favourite is shivaji because his lore and chivalry in battle is inspiring. He was kind while being a warrior and even more was a progressive ruler. He had so much loyalty from friends and the populace. It would have been so much easier for him to stoop to the level of Islamic barbarism and act with brutality but he chose peace and integration.

A close second would be raja Chola. progressive prosperous and extended indian influence far beyond bharat Mata in a more tangible way than the two I mention before

 

[IndianHawk]

No you are wrong. The Gupta, Mughal, Delhi Sultanate and Harshas Empire mostly ruled northern India.
The Mughals were only able to keep their territories in the Deccan region for less than 20 years.
On the other hand the Rashtrakuta Dynasty dominated the major part of India for 200 years.

He is not wrong it's just that northern India then also include land of Pakistan and Afghanistan. So geographically area was much much larger than southern part.

Mughal were at peak at 1600s . After that they fizzled .
Maratha empire at its peak was indirectly controlling mughal emperor.