General History Thread

[Swesh]

Mishmi people - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[ezsasa]

in 1961 a murican major thought general zorawar singh's campaign was a myth like ramayana.
======
When GENERAL ZORAWAR SINGH was discussed at DEFENSE SERVICES STAFF COLLEGE, at Wellington in 1961 between an Indian and an American Army Officer.

 

[Vamsi]

 

[Love Charger]

Most importantly do they even belong to a cell of what porus was or the Hindus or Indians who were ruling there
No they don't have any right to claim the achievements or legendary personalities or inventions or anything else which were done by Hindus and Bharatiya living and ruling there
Getting a piece land doesn't provide the heritage of land
U porkies are none other than converted eternally raped by foreign invaders and disgusting piece of shit
U have no right of culture and heritage of that land it always belonged true locals who were Hindus but these are impure mixed breed of every sort of invaders
And worship invaders

Yes all that is valid but porus is not worthy of hero worship
1) he didn't defeat alexander.
2) he only killed his horse.
3) he became a vassal.
Punjab has no, absolutely no worthy military history before maharaja ranjit singh and sikhs.
Before that it's either empires from ganga Or folks from central Asia ravaging it

 

[The Juggernaut]

Yes all that is valid but porus is not worthy of hero worship
1) he didn't defeat alexander.
2) he only killed his horse.
3) he became a vassal.
Punjab has no, absolutely no worthy military history before maharaja ranjit singh and sikhs.
Before that it's either empires from ganga Or folks from central Asia ravaging it

I believe other thing. alexander never defeat porus. He was sent wayward back, he gave kingdom of ambhis back to porus. His horse died. His army was defeated and could fight against Hindus. Greek historians fabricated alexendar win. In truth, he was such a minor character that Indian didn't even record his encounter.

 

[Love Charger]

I believe other thing. alexander never defeat porus. He was sent wayward back, he gave kingdom of ambhis back to porus. His horse died. His army was defeated and could fight against Hindus. Greek historians fabricated alexendar win. In truth, he was such a minor character that Indian didn't even record his encounter.

There are very less indian sources in fact no indian sources here..
Sorry, iam not a western apologist etc but people like alexander are born once or twice in many millenia.
He was phenomenal.
From the battle of granicus till battle of persian gates, he literally defeated an world superpower called Achemenid persia.
He won fort after fort, siege after siege
Although it was in India where he started to find truly fanatical folks hence he wisely went away.

 

[Tactical Doge]

There are very less indian sources in fact no indian sources here..
Sorry, iam not a western apologist etc but people like alexander are born once or twice in many millenia.
He was phenomenal.
From the battle of granicus till battle of persian gates, he literally defeated an world superpower called Achemenid persia.
He won fort after fort, siege after siege
Although it was in India where he started to find truly fanatical folks hence he wisely went away.

Sources regarding Alexander is not seen in India, because the first readable source of anything in India are the Ashokan pillars
This trend of not properly documenting history continues well into the pre-medieval age
(Alexander is mentioned in both Rajatarangini by Kalhana and Harshacharita, life chronicle of Pushyabhuti Emperor harshavardhan)


Maybe the ASI being underfunded As fukc is also a reason less Indian sources mention the same

 

[nongaddarliberal]

Sources regarding Alexander is not seen in India, because the first readable source of anything in India are the Ashokan pillars
This trend of not properly documenting history continues well into the pre-medieval age
(Alexander is mentioned in both Rajatarangini by Kalhana and Harshacharita, life chronicle of Pushyabhuti Emperor harshavardhan)


Maybe the ASI being underfunded As fukc is also a reason less Indian sources mention the same

Indian civilization has always had a problem with recording real world events. Most written texts from ancient India are of philosophy, religion, poetry or mathematics. Indian kingdoms didn't have a tradition of recording the details of events happening around them or passing on this knowledge for some reason. This is in contrast to the Romans and Egyptians who obsessively recorded every minor event and political change around them, plus added a lot of their own propaganda spins. The famous stories of Carthaginians sacrificing children to their deity Ba'al has been proven by modern historians to be completely false propaganda from the Romans, since Rome was at war with Carthage.

Many travellers to India during those times also complained of the lack of historical records of events. Indians lacked a sense of historicity, i.e analysing and knowing about historical details of their own land. A Rajput in the medieval era would have had no clue about the Mauryan empire. A Maratha would have had no clue about the Gupta era.

 

[ezsasa]

Indian civilization has always had a problem with recording real world events. Most written texts from ancient India are of philosophy, religion, poetry or mathematics. Indian kingdoms didn't have a tradition of recording the details of events happening around them or passing on this knowledge for some reason. This is in contrast to the Romans and Egyptians who obsessively recorded every minor event and political change around them, plus added a lot of their own propaganda spins. The famous stories of Carthaginians sacrificing children to their deity Ba'al has been proven by modern historians to be completely false propaganda from the Romans, since Rome was at war with Carthage.

Many travellers to India during those times also complained of the lack of historical records of events. Indians lacked a sense of historicity, i.e analysing and knowing about historical details of their own land. A Rajput in the medieval era would have had no clue about the Mauryan empire. A Maratha would have had no clue about the Gupta era.

all royal courts recorded everything, it's their job.

in our case it is better to assume, what ever was recorded was not preserved or lost.
and on top of this we had double whammy of establishment Indologists who were more interested in erasing and whitewashing history. who knows how much they destroyed, just by using neglect as a weapon.

saying this because my family a few decades ago had found almost two centuries of records by chance, my grandfather at that time employed a writer to copy those records by hand, and now i made a digital copy of those records last year.

 

[Tactical Doge]

Indian civilization has always had a problem with recording real world events. Most written texts from ancient India are of philosophy, religion, poetry or mathematics. Indian kingdoms didn't have a tradition of recording the details of events happening around them or passing on this knowledge for some reason. This is in contrast to the Romans and Egyptians who obsessively recorded every minor event and political change around them, plus added a lot of their own propaganda spins. The famous stories of Carthaginians sacrificing children to their deity Ba'al has been proven by modern historians to be completely false propaganda from the Romans, since Rome was at war with Carthage.

Many travellers to India during those times also complained of the lack of historical records of events. Indians lacked a sense of historicity, i.e analysing and knowing about historical details of their own land. A Rajput in the medieval era would have had no clue about the Mauryan empire. A Maratha would have had no clue about the Gupta era.

I would attribute it to ASI being underfunded as well

So many ancient cities have modern correspondants which have not been excavated

Even excavations at Patliputra was mostly limited to what britshiters did

all royal courts recorded everything, it's their job.

in our case it is better to assume, what ever was recorded was not preserved or lost.
and on top of this we had double whammy of establishment Indologists who were more interested in erasing and whitewashing history. who knows how much they destroyed, just by using neglect as a weapon.

saying this because my family a few decades ago had found almost two centuries of records by chance, my grandfather at that time employed a writer to copy those records by hand, and now i made a digital copy of those records last year.

Indian records used to be written in Birch, which has a shelf life of 50-70 years

Similar to Chinese who wrote in Bamboo, and terracotta and stuff like that

Chinese history is better preserved due to the tremendous amount of effort the present Chinese government has put in
They use it as a means for Chinese national pride and promoting a twisted Han ethnic nationlism

 

[Swesh]

 

[Love Charger]

Sources regarding Alexander is not seen in India, because the first readable source of anything in India are the Ashokan pillars
This trend of not properly documenting history continues well into the pre-medieval age
(Alexander is mentioned in both Rajatarangini by Kalhana and Harshacharita, life chronicle of Pushyabhuti Emperor harshavardhan)


Maybe the ASI being underfunded As fukc is also a reason less Indian sources mention the same

Asi is criminally underfunded.
Also countless times retards in form of farmers and laborers etc when they find any thing buried they simply melt it away.
Bayana hoard in Rajasthan was found and villagers did start to melt it.
It was large no of gold coins more than 2000 nos of gupta era.
Only 1700 coins could be saves

 

[WarmongerLSK]

public nahi he

 

[Swesh]

public nahi he

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

 

[Love Charger]

Sources regarding Alexander is not seen in India, because the first readable source of anything in India are the Ashokan pillars
This trend of not properly documenting history continues well into the pre-medieval age
(Alexander is mentioned in both Rajatarangini by Kalhana and Harshacharita, life chronicle of Pushyabhuti Emperor harshavardhan)


Maybe the ASI being underfunded As fukc is also a reason less Indian sources mention the same

Heck even the discovery at sanauli could have been lost again due to a pharmer being his usual ass self.
That retard was about to melt some bronze swords thinking these were gold.
Sala koi itna chutiya kaise ho sakta hai.
Gold pe kab oxidation hota hai?

 

[Swesh]

public nahi he

 

[shade]

I believe other thing. alexander never defeat porus. He was sent wayward back, he gave kingdom of ambhis back to porus. His horse died. His army was defeated and could fight against Hindus. Greek historians fabricated alexendar win. In truth, he was such a minor character that Indian didn't even record his encounter.

He did win, "porus" did become his vassal and was assassinated later by some Greek gandu once news spread that Alexander had conked off.
He was a minor character since Poonjaub was bending the knee to the Achaeminid Persian Empire before Alexander Mlecch is Mlecch, one wears skirt, others wear pants, all speak barbaric languages, i see no difference

There's the other matter of mullahs burning and destroying everything "kaffir", even if there were records they were destroyed by some imported peacefulites in 1000 years of invasions

 

[Swesh]

@WarmongerLSK @Vamsi this book is first archilogical publication on dwarka

http://surl.li/gnywo

 

[Swesh]

https://drs.nio.org/drs/bitstream/handle/2264/3290/Recent_Adv_Mar_Archaeol_Proc_1991_51.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y

 

[iNorthernerOn9]

A Rajput in the medieval era would have had no clue about the Mauryan empire. A Maratha would have had no clue about the Gupta era.

Arey bhai... you have taken a big gap... let me tell you about a small time gap

I have read whatsoever is available on Prithviraj chauhan & his times...

& let me tell you on authority: "Prithviraj Chauhan(1146-1192) was unaware of Mahmud Ghazni who raided India 17 times between 1000-1025"... just 125-150 yrs difference... & so when Muhammad Ghori moved towards India all Rajputs were in deep slumber"

All available records of the 1191-1192 time frame depict "confusion" in rajput camp

The only ruler who decisively halted Ghori's March towards his territory was "Mularaj solanki" of Gujarat... perhaps memory of Ghazni's Somnath raids were fresh in their minds... (Ghori 1st tried to enter India through Gujarat around 1186)