Early Mauryan temples discovered in Hardoi

[MAYURA]

You probably meant his mother tongue was some Turkic language, and not Turkish (spoken in present day Turkey).

Also, does lingua materna matter more than lingua franca? During Akbar's rule, wasn't Persian the court language, and also, was he not tolerant towards other languages? How did he compose Din-i-Illahi?

Yes i meant turkic and not turkish which is an oguz dialect. his dialect was chagatai perhaps.


turks, sir, were a barbaric people so when they attacked persia, they were vanquished by the superior persian culture and language.

take a case

the term sipahsalar is a pewrsian meaning commander but turks had only primitive words as they were tribal which meant that they would promote the persian languiage for administration and literature and speak turkic languages in private.

that is what happened with safavids, Ottomans and mughals three turkic empires using persian language in courts. before 1920s, there was not much turkic literature in sciences for this but kemal turk changed all this.


it is better to call akbar a persianized turk.

 

[pmaitra]

Yes i meant turkic and not turkish which is an oguz dialect. his dialect was chagatai perhaps.


turks, sir, were a barbaric people so when they attacked persia, they were vanquished by the superior persian culture and language.

take a case

the term sipahsalar is a pewrsian meaning commander but turks had only primitive words as they were tribal which meant that they would promote the persian languiage for administration and literature and speak turkic languages in private.

that is what happened with safavids, Ottomans and mughals three turkic empires using persian language in courts. before 1920s, there was not much turkic literature in sciences for this but kemal turk changed all this.


it is better to call akbar a persianized turk.

One second, I think there is a confusion.

There are many people in Central Asia, who are predominantly ethnic Mongols but speak a Turkic language or dialect. Mongols and Turks look similar, but they are not the same. Akbar probably had some Turkic and maybe Persian blood, but he was still Mongol. There have been a lot of intermixing between Mongols and Turks, but Mongols and Turks are different. The term Mughal is a Persianized version of the term Mongol.

Now, coming to foreign blood, if a person has foreign blood, but adopts the local culture and tradition, which Akbar tried to do, just as the Seljuk Turks did, or for that matter, Tsarina Catherine did, would you not consider those rulers local?

 

[MAYURA]

No, your point was ruling classes back then were light skinned, eurasian featured, etc, etc, etc. And you can see from the art work commissioned by the king that there isnt that much of a difference between an average Marathi and the ruling classes from that period.

No you are wrong as i am using real life persons rather than unrealistic statues. Vakatakas were brahmins and in their inscriptions were proud of this fact and imposed caste system in maharashtra severely. How can they look like tribals?
The difference is there as we know that brahmins are pure relatively and so it is better to contrast brahmins with tribals to know how the two groups looked like.

 

[MAYURA]

One second, I think there is a confusion.

There are many people in Central Asia, who are predominantly ethnic Mongols but speak a Turkic language or dialect. Mongols and Turks look similar, but they are not the same. Akbar probably had some Turkic and maybe Persian blood, but he was still Mongol. There have been a lot of intermixing between Mongols and Turks, but Mongols and Turks are different. The term Mughal is a Persianized version of the term Mongol.

Now, coming to foreign blood, if a person has foreign blood, but adopts the local culture and tradition, which Akbar tried to do, just as the Seljuk Turks did, or for that matter, Tsarina Catherine did, would you not consider those rulers local?

Yes i would as was the case with scythians from kazakhastan who came into india in 100 bc and became indianized in two centuries.


to give an example, the shakas were horsemen and used to drink wine from skull decapitated of enemy soldiers but in india, they

1.lost their shaka langauge
2. lost their clans and tried to pass as kshatriyas

3. adopted indian names like rudradaman and rudrasena

4. adopted indian religions like jainism and hinduism ( it is very good to see wine drinkers from skull turning into veggies)


did akbar fulfil any criteria? no. he imposed a foreign langauge, foreign religion and foreign arts on indians.

 

[Shaitan]

No you are wrong as i am using real life persons rather than unrealistic statues. Vakatakas were brahmins and in their inscriptions were proud of this fact and imposed caste system in maharashtra severely. How can they look like tribals?
The difference is there as we know that brahmins are pure relatively and so it is better to contrast brahmins with tribals to know how the two groups looked like.

Nope, Im using primarily sources made during that period and commissioned by the ruling classes.

These features like the short face, full lips, etc. are traits shared by many Indians, Nothing unrealistic about it.

 

[pmaitra]

Yes i would as was the case with scythians from kazakhastan who came into india in 100 bc and became indianized in two centuries.


to give an example, the shakas were horsemen and used to drink wine from skull decapitated of enemy soldiers but in india, they

1.lost their shaka langauge
2. lost their clans and tried to pass as kshatriyas

3. adopted indian names like rudradaman and rudrasena

4. adopted indian religions like jainism and hinduism ( it is very good to see wine drinkers from skull turning into veggies)

Agreed.

Please consider how the King of Magadha (Nanda) had Chanak killed and then beheaded and had his head hung from a tree for all to see. Chanak was the father of Vishnu, who later changed him name to Chanakya (i.e. born out of Chanak).

I think India had its fair bit of brutality as well.

I don't even want to go into how Bhima killed Jarasandha, because, that would classify as myth.

did akbar fulfil any criteria? no. he imposed a foreign langauge, foreign religion and foreign arts on indians.

Akbar was actually very fond of Indian customs and religion, and tried to synthesize aspects from many religions, but mainly from Islam and Hinduism. He has temples built, as well as statues, which would be idolatrous to some Muslims. I think he did fulfill quite a few criteria.

 

[MAYURA]

Nope, Im using primarily sources made during that period and commissioned by the ruling classes.

These features like the short face, full lips, etc. are traits shared by many Indians, Nothing unrealistic about it.

OK I give up as if you will show me staue from 1600 years ago saying that southerners looked just like northerners, what can i do?

where are the tribals in these art works?

 

[MAYURA]

Agreed.

Please consider how the King of Magadha had Chanak killed and then beheaded and had his head hung from a tree for all to see. Chanak was the father of Vishnu, who later changed him name to Chanakya (i.e. born out of Chanak).

I think India had its fair bit of brutality as well.

I don't even want to go into how Bhima killed Jarasandha, because, that would classify as myth.



Akbar was actually very fond of Indian customs and religion, and tried to synthesize aspects from many religions, but mainly from Islam and Hinduism. He has temples built, as well as statues, which would be idolatrous to some Muslims. I think he did fulfill quite a few criteria.

Akbar did not leave any legacy as left by shaka rudraman whose sons continued to follow indian customs but anyway this is matter of perspective .

In my view he did not do anything to adopt indian religion, languages or arts into mughal imperial establish ment like manchus did with han chinese.

 

[Shaitan]

OK I give up as if you will show me staue from 1600 years ago saying that southerners looked just like northerners, what can i do?

where are the tribals in these art works?

There are no tribals.


Only thing that's different there are the foreign diplomats.(Iranic)

They made it very apparent. With their light skin, beard, trousers, tonic, long face, etc.

 

[pmaitra]

Akbar did not leave any legacy as left by shaka rudraman whose sons continued to follow indian customs but anyway this is matter of perspective .

In my view he did not do anything to adopt indian religion, languages or arts into mughal imperial establish ment like manchus did with han chinese.

Yes, indeed, it is a matter of perspective.

 

[MAYURA]

There are no tribals.


Only thing that's different there are the foreign diplomats.(Iranic)

They made it very apparent. With their light skin, beard, trousers, tonic, long face, etc.

Iranian women are so charming in comparison to nude and vulgar indians shown in pictures.


and it is a fact that these lighter iranians achieved much than indians.


you fail to realize my superb theory takes into account gradation of people on basis of skin color and since iranians have fair skin than even brahmins , they have left us behind in ;last 2500 years.

 

[Shaitan]

and it is a fact that these lighter iranians achieved much than indians.


you fail to realize my superb theory takes into account gradation of people on basis of skin color and since iranians have fair skin than even brahmins , they have left us behind in ;last 2500 years.

You're pretty delusional. Your "theory" you pick up from other members in other forums isnt supported by history. This is the reality.

The first people who made the most complex civs, religions, laws, etc, etc, etc. are dark skinned people. And the lightest skinned people, Scandinavians, were in limbo for thousands of years before they got their selves together. That alone disprove your light skinned superiority theory.

This isnt something hard to understand.

Most of Europe was slaughtering each other post-Roman period. Similar to parts of Africa today. They weren't inherently superior because of their light skinned. You have to be retarded to think that simply. Europeans like modern Iberians, Britons, Germans had to go through hell before they got to where they are today.

The lightest skinned people are in fact humanities underdog story.

 

[Iamanidiot]

Iranian women are so charming in comparison to nude and vulgar indians shown in pictures.


and it is a fact that these lighter iranians achieved much than indians.


you fail to realize my superb theory takes into account gradation of people on basis of skin color and since iranians have fair skin than even brahmins , they have left us behind in ;last 2500 years.

Did anybody recommend you to a psychiatric institution and a hospice for the mentally sick yet.If not I recommend a visit to the hospice

 

[MAYURA]

You're pretty delusional. Your "theory" you pick up from other members in other forums isnt supported by history. This is the reality.

The first people who made the most complex civs, religions, laws, etc, etc, etc. are dark skinned people. And the lightest skinned people, Scandinavians, were in limbo for thousands of years before they got their selves together. That alone disprove your light skinned superiority theory.

This isnt something hard to understand.

I do not pick up my theory as it is based on research though other people provided me with data.

How tall are you? tell me and then we would proceed ahead.

 

[Iamanidiot]

Stormfront views are not acceptable here @Singh The theory of portugese cherry pippin seems to be credible

 

[MAYURA]

Did anybody recommend you to a psychiatric institution and a hospice for the mentally sick yet.If not I recommend a visit to the hospice

Recommendation rejected with contempt it deserves.

i am not using insulting language so why are you doing it?


are iranian women in photos not charming than breast flashing nude and vulgar indian dark woman?

have iranians not achieved much than us?

 

[Shaitan]

I do not pick up my theory as it is based on research though other people provided me with data.

How tall are you? tell me and then we would proceed ahead.

Why does it matter how tall I am? Lmao, we have an Indian stormfront lurker or something,

Put it like this. I am taller than the averages in these states.

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/politics-society/43775-average-heights-indians-different-states.html

 

[MAYURA]

Why does it matter how tall I am? Lmao, we have an Indian stormfront lurker or something,

Put it like this. I am taller than the averages in these states.

http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/politics-society/43775-average-heights-indians-different-states.html

Have you been shorter than every white man? certainly not so you being taller than many white men proves that indians are taller than americans is it so?

No because exceptions are exceptions discount my theory which is based on average which takes whole european as one group not separate from each other.

now compare white great men of last 2000 years with those of china and and then compare chinese with mid easterners and then we come finally at last position.



How come india behind others who are fairer but ahead of sub saharan africa who are darker than even indians?



look at jungle not trees.

 

[Razor]

Iranian women are so charming in comparison to nude and vulgar indians shown in pictures.


and it is a fact that these lighter iranians achieved much than indians.


you fail to realize my superb theory takes into account gradation of people on basis of skin color and since iranians have fair skin than even brahmins , they have left us behind in ;last 2500 years.

How come india behind others who are fairer but ahead of sub saharan africa who are darker than even indians?



look at jungle not trees.

Assuming that your above statement is factual, your {Quote} superb theory {Unquote} is that, this is because of skin color ?
Interesting.

Anyway, does this mean by bleaching our entire population, we can become a supapowa?
Wow, there you go, so damn easy.

:ranger:

 

[Shaitan]

Have you been shorter than every white man? certainly not so you being taller than many white men proves that indians are taller than americans is it so?

What in the ---- are you talking about? What type of superior Afghan lightskinned weed do you smoke?

now compare white great men of last 2000 years with those of china and and then compare chinese with mid easterners and then we come finally at last position.

No, your original bullshit theory was the lighter you are more superior you are.

This is already proven false historically.

How come india behind others who are fairer but ahead of sub saharan africa who are darker than even indians?

I dont know, how come the lightest segments of your European block were the most primitive through out history?

This is what the most light skinned portion of the Europeans brought humanity in the 8th century AD.