The Greatest Kings in Indian History

[k murali]

Ashoka indeed aimed for TN,Kerala and SL.But those kings already accepted superiority of Mauryan King and so blood shed avoid.

You do not seem to know Tamil Nadu history.. Kerala did not exist as such in Asokan's time. It was part of Tamil Nadu in the Cheran kingdom. People spoke Tamil at that timne.

Tamil Nadu never accepted Mauryan superiority. Tamil kings lined their armies against Asokan at the northern perimeteter and Asokan turned back his army and went home without engaging in war.

 

[SrNair]

You do not seem to know Tamil Nadu history.. Kerala did not exist as such in Asokan's time. It was part of Tamil Nadu in the Cheran kingdom. People spoke Tamil at that timne.

Tamil Nadu never accepted Mauryan superiority. Tamil kings lined their armies against Asokan at the northern perimeteter and Asokan turned back his army and went home without engaging in war.

Chera dynasty , Chera Chola war ,all these historic events showed that both Keralites and TN are different .
Tamil with some Sanskrit influence that was our language ,Now it is evolved as Malayalam .

That is why Ashokan's edicts called Keralites as Kerala putras ,but Pandya,Chola for Tamils.
Mauryan empire during Ashoka's time was a total superpower spanning from Iranian border to Assam and Kanyakumari to Tajikistan .
Slaughtering entire Tamils was just a kids play for Mauryan King if he want .He wouldnt hesitate for that considering his ascension was through bloody fraticide .
Kalinga war changed his behaviour .

 

[k murali]

Chera Chola war ,all these historic events showed that both Keralites and TN are different .

Cherans and Pandyans allied against Cholans in some wars. Learn history before posting.

 

[k murali]

Mauryan empire during Ashoka's time was a total superpower spanning from Iranian border to Assam and Kanyakumari to Tajikistan .

Asokan never rulee below Kalingam (part of modern day Orissa). He turned back at Kalingam as the arm,ies of the Tamil kings stood guard at the northern border

 

[Kharavela]

Got confused about this part :-

"(L. 10) And in the tenth year (he), following (the threefold policy) of chastisement, alliance and conciliation sends out an expedition against Bharatavasa (and) brings about the conquest of the land (or, country) ........ and obtains jewels and precious things of the (kings) attacked."


He sent an expedition against Bharatvarsa meaning Kalinga was considered outside Bharatvarsa or is it the way they have translated it in English ?

You are right. The english translation to be blamed. Emperor Kharavela set out for "Bharat Vijay" not against "Bharatvarsh". He was instrumental in bringing entire Bharatvarsh under one rule.

 

[Panjab47]

Effects of meat & other food are already listed in Ayurveda go read it.

Simple thing is those who fight should eat it, those who don't should abstain.

This TN independent guy is very funny twists & turns to deny that he speaks mostly Sanskrit.

Similar to Khalistanis who have stroke when mentioning name Ram in Adi Granth Sahib.

Greatest Kings are Bharat & Guru Sahib.

 

[Kharavela]

@Kharavela Kalinga had attacked south Magadha, the Greek King Demetrius at the same time attacked western Magadha. Kharavela abandoned his campaign against Magadha and first drove out the Greeks.

Yes. I've read that. Demetrius ran from the battlefield like a dog with fire in his ass. Kalinga Army kicked Greek army upto Uttarapath & took rest at Mathura while returning. King of Mathura accepted Aira Kharavela as Emperor & got security cover of Kalinga Empire.

 

[SrNair]

Cherans and Pandyans allied against Cholans in some wars. Learn history before posting.

Then you answered your own query .Means Cherans were different at that time.

 

[SrNair]

Asokan never rulee below Kalingam (part of modern day Orissa). He turned back at Kalingam as the arm,ies of the Tamil kings stood guard at the northern border

Funny,Mauryan Army under the Emperor Ashoka slaughtered entire Kalinga people during that war .
Kalinga's Army strength was just aove1 lakhs and they had their own people support because Kalinga at that time was sometype of quasi democracy.
Mauryan Army with 7 lakhs soldiers and weapons created a great bloodshed in there.
South Indian kings conceded his supeirority ,combined with non violence mode after Kalinga war ,he didnt interested another bloodshed in here.
But if he was that same ruthless king before kalinga ,he wouldnt be hesitate for another bloodshed in South India.

 

[k murali]

No. Asokan turned back for whatever reason-real or imaginary. He never entered or ruled or overlorded Tamil Nadu

 

[k murali]

Then you answered your own query .Means Cherans were different at that time.

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

 

[archie]

yeah and these three were busy fighting amongst each other to even be interested in what was happening in the rest of the country..

You read ramayan and ashwameda yagna which is practically calling yourself the king of kings and many kings had alliances and accepted mutual respect and its not overlord as you expect from western perspective..

would you stop looking at Indian history through the western instigated Tamil supremacy and look at Indian history from Indian point of view

 

[k murali]

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.

 

[pmaitra]

Funny,Mauryan Army under the Emperor Ashoka slaughtered entire Kalinga people during that war .
Kalinga's Army strength was just aove1 lakhs and they had their own people support because Kalinga at that time was sometype of quasi democracy.
Mauryan Army with 7 lakhs soldiers and weapons created a great bloodshed in there.
South Indian kings conceded his supeirority ,combined with non violence mode after Kalinga war ,he didnt interested another bloodshed in here.
But if he was that same ruthless king before kalinga ,he wouldnt be hesitate for another bloodshed in South India.

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.

 

[pmaitra]

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.

Ok, and what if UK held plebiscite in different parts of India? The subcontinent would have been a fragmented jumble of nations, and would have been defeated one by one, like various Indian kings have been defeated by invaders over our long history. India has to remain united if it has to survive foreign invasions.

 

[k murali]

If Singapore, Malaysia, Sri Lanka (all with less population, resources oe economic strength than Tamil Nadu) can survive, why not Tamil Nadu or Maharashtra (for example)?

 

[pmaitra]

If Singapore, Malaysia, Sri Lanka (all with less population, resources oe economic strength than Tamil Nadu) can survive, why not Tamil Nadu or Maharashtra (for example)?

Historically, most of the invasions have happened from the North. So, the northern states will get pummeled if there is an invasion.

Now, from that angle, Tamil Nadu or Maharashtra might look relatively safe. Said that, once Uncle Sam decides to park a couple of aircraft carriers and associated battle-groups off the coast of Tamil Nadu or Maharashtra and begins to spread "democracy," it's game over.

India has to stay united. If it doesn't, history will repeat itself.

 

[k murali]

I have no fer of invasion of an independent Tamil Nadu.

 

[pmaitra]

I have no fer of invasion of an independent Tamil Nadu.

We come across "fearless" people all the time.

Spoiler: Man bothers lioness

OT:
Your name is K Murali. Are you by any chance Murali Kumar?

Spoiler: Murali Kumar

 

[Panjab47]

@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.