Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 7th, 2012, 09:50 PM   #61

Wenge's Avatar
American
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: The True Capital of China
Posts: 7,593

The original post contains this statement.

2. they created largest empires of humanity in pre modern age whereas india lacked such super large empires "

I was like the thread originator to clarify this statement.
Wenge is online now  
Remove Ads
Old December 7th, 2012, 10:56 PM   #62
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: varanasi uttar pradesh, india
Posts: 1,610

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wenge View Post
The original post contains this statement.

2. they created largest empires of humanity in pre modern age whereas india lacked such super large empires "

I was like the thread originator to clarify this statement.
first nice to meet you as you resemble Mortimer Wheeler as per me in his quality of words. ( posts shorter in words but very precise.)


first by pre modern age I mean before 1500 ad .

now it is a fact that tang , song and ming empires were largest empires of world in terms of

1.population

all these had more than 60 million people a mark touched by only roman empire and it was in antiquity and could not continue after 500 ad to same degree.

2. Military

though numbers are not very great to determine the efficiency but ibn those ages it mattered a lot and all these had more than half a million soldiers.

ming and song had nearly million armymen a figure we indians touched in post 1947 india.

the largest we got was 6,90,0000 during maurya times and it was way long back in 300 bc.

3. wealth

song empire was richest empire in its time and so was ming empire.

they were like one fifth of world economy.





now, when i say indians lacked super large empires, i mean that indian population was same ( from 60-100 million in this era ) yet we do not see any empire touching 30 milion mark in last 2 millenia except gupta empire which lasted effectively from 350 ad to 470 ad a period of 120 years compared with thousand years of chinese empires.


most of empires you see of india were confined to a part of country and were loosely administered.( not that administration was less efficient but that they were decentralized )


infact, we have a contemporary comparison made by an arab traveller and since he was an arab of ninth century , he had best chance to compare coming from an area which had robust contact with all parts of " civilized world "
he ranked world empires as under

1. abbasids

2. tangs

3. Rashtrakutas ( indian empire ruling over 15 million people)

4. byzantines.


tangs ruled over 60-70 million people whereas rashtrakutas were confined to one fifth of that population meaning lesser production and wealth.


hope i clarified my statement.
avantivarman is offline  
Old December 7th, 2012, 11:30 PM   #63

Wenge's Avatar
American
 
Joined: Apr 2011
From: The True Capital of China
Posts: 7,593

Quote:
Originally Posted by avantivarman View Post
first nice to meet you as you resemble Mortimer Wheeler as per me in his quality of words. ( posts shorter in words but very precise.)


first by pre modern age I mean before 1500 ad .

now it is a fact that tang , song and ming empires were largest empires of world in terms of

1.population

all these had more than 60 million people a mark touched by only roman empire and it was in antiquity and could not continue after 500 ad to same degree.

2. Military

though numbers are not very great to determine the efficiency but ibn those ages it mattered a lot and all these had more than half a million soldiers.

ming and song had nearly million armymen a figure we indians touched in post 1947 india.

the largest we got was 6,90,0000 during maurya times and it was way long back in 300 bc.

3. wealth

song empire was richest empire in its time and so was ming empire.

they were like one fifth of world economy.





now, when i say indians lacked super large empires, i mean that indian population was same ( from 60-100 million in this era ) yet we do not see any empire touching 30 milion mark in last 2 millenia except gupta empire which lasted effectively from 350 ad to 470 ad a period of 120 years compared with thousand years of chinese empires.


most of empires you see of india were confined to a part of country and were loosely administered.( not that administration was less efficient but that they were decentralized )


infact, we have a contemporary comparison made by an arab traveller and since he was an arab of ninth century , he had best chance to compare coming from an area which had robust contact with all parts of " civilized world "
he ranked world empires as under

1. abbasids

2. tangs

3. Rashtrakutas ( indian empire ruling over 15 million people)

4. byzantines.


tangs ruled over 60-70 million people whereas rashtrakutas were confined to one fifth of that population meaning lesser production and wealth.


hope i clarified my statement.
You did a fine job. Thank you very much.
Wenge is online now  
Old December 8th, 2012, 12:20 AM   #64
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: varanasi uttar pradesh, india
Posts: 1,610

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wenge View Post
You did a fine job. Thank you very much.
now this should prepare ground for analysis of why indians lacked.
avantivarman is offline  
Old December 8th, 2012, 01:42 AM   #65

Linschoten's Avatar
nonpareil
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wessex
Posts: 9,651
Blog Entries: 11

Quote:
sir, this is not correct to say but it is fact that mughal architecture is nothing but persian architecture.

the differences between indian mughal architecture and pre existing indian architecture are too great.

let us look at them .
Thank you for the pictures. I was of course aware that Mughal architecture was based on traditions that originated outside India, and that India had indigenous architectural traditions that were entirely different; but as with other aspects of Mughal culture, surely this led to the development of artistic traditions that became in some sense Indian, partly because they developed in their own distinctive way in India, and partly because Indian elements were absorbed into them. That is clearly the case with Mughal painting, which was of Persian origin, but became very distinctively Indian; and likewise with fabrics and the decorative arts. If one can distinguish elements in Indian culture that are purely Indian, does that mean that everything that has been introduced into India from abroad has remained entirely foreign?
Linschoten is offline  
Old December 8th, 2012, 02:20 AM   #66
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: varanasi uttar pradesh, india
Posts: 1,610

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linschoten View Post
Thank you for the pictures. I was of course aware that Mughal architecture was based on traditions that originated outside India, and that India had indigenous architectural traditions that were entirely different; but as with other aspects of Mughal culture, surely this led to the development of artistic traditions that became in some sense Indian, partly because they developed in their own distinctive way in India, and partly because Indian elements were absorbed into them. That is clearly the case with Mughal painting, which was of Persian origin, but became very distinctively Indian; and likewise with fabrics and the decorative arts. If one can distinguish elements in Indian culture that are purely Indian, does that mean that everything that has been introduced into India from abroad has remained entirely foreign?
With all respect to you, my points are

1. can you point out significant elements in mughal architecture that are " indian " even when you take any building which was built after 100 years of mughal rule like taj mahal to start with.

all buildings are different and you can not expect replica but can we distinguish taj mahal with any persian building on basis of style ?


2. this is natural and do you think i should call the remaining pillars in Vollubilis as Moroccan architecture instead of roman simply because they are built in morrocco?


3. nothing is pure but then even english is an indian language as indian english is technically different from its birth place and our pronunciation is quite different from most of european people due to english being non native.


What i mean by all this is that if some foreign element comes to another country, it remains foreign until its identity has either been adopted by that people or it has been changed to local needs.

for instance, Sanskrit an Indian language has been used as an administrative language in vietnam for 700 years , so what is your take on this ?

should vietnamese call sanskrit an ancient vietnamese language ?


on painting i know less but after 10 -12 days i may devote attention to that also.
avantivarman is offline  
Old December 8th, 2012, 02:37 AM   #67

1991sudarshan's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2011
From: São Tomé de Meliapore
Posts: 1,690

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake10 View Post
I honestly haven't studied India enough to say for sure, but the impression I get of India is that of a divided nation. China was united through text as far back as the Qin dynasty. There was a central government which dictated units of measurement, national projects and a unifying culture existed. When did India become united this way?
Right during the mid night of 15th August!
1991sudarshan is offline  
Old December 8th, 2012, 02:38 AM   #68

Linschoten's Avatar
nonpareil
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wessex
Posts: 9,651
Blog Entries: 11

Quote:
1. can you point out significant elements in mughal architecture that are " indian " even when you take any building which was built after 100 years of mughal rule like taj mahal to start with.

all buildings are different and you can not expect replica but can we distinguish taj mahal with any persian building on basis of style ?
I don't know enough about this matter to be able to give an informed reply to this (and I have really been visiting this thread more to ask questions, and learn, than to provide any answers). Now it would seem to me that this form of architecture could not borrow features of basic design from earlier Indian architecture, but I don't know about, say, the decorative motifs, whether there are specifically Indian elements in them, as one finds in the Mughal decorative arts. But there is another way of looking at this. Gothic Cathedral architecture originated in France, but was introduced to England (among other places). So the architecture of the early Gothic cathedrals in England is foreign, but it soon acquires distinctively 'English' characteristics (the great English cathedrals feel quite different from French ones of the same period), and later on, styles of Gothic architecture developed in England that are different from anything to be found in France (notably the 'perpendicular style'). So did something of that kind happen with Persian Muslim architecture when it was introduced to India? Did a distinctively Indian style develop which has a feel of its own (even if it did not take over elements directly from the indigenous architecture)?
Linschoten is offline  
Old December 8th, 2012, 02:44 AM   #69
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: varanasi uttar pradesh, india
Posts: 1,610

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linschoten View Post
I don't know enough about this matter to be able to give an informed reply to this (and I have really been visiting this thread more to ask questions, and learn, than to provide any answers). Now it would seem to me that this form of architecture could not borrow features of basic design from earlier Indian architecture, but I don't know about, say, the decorative motifs, whether there are specifically Indian elements in them, as one finds in the Mughal decorative arts. But there is another way of looking at this. Gothic Cathedral architecture originated in France, but was introduced to England (among other places). So the architecture of the early Gothic cathedrals in England is foreign, but it soon acquires distinctively 'English' characteristics (the great English cathedrals feel quite different from French ones of the same period), and later on, styles of Gothic architecture developed in England that are different from anything to be found in France (notably the 'perpendicular style'). So did something of that kind happen with Persian Muslim architecture when it was introduced to India? Did a distinctively Indian style develop which has a feel of its own (even if it did not take over elements directly from the indigenous architecture)?
I have asked this question to many and they have never replied in substantial manner but I would like to add that in Gujarat some decorative motifs of islamic architecture have indian elements.



and as regards english and french cathedrals, my answer is nothing of that sort happened because even later buildings were designed by persian immigrants like Taj was designed and executed by a persian man Muhammad Essa.
avantivarman is offline  
Old December 8th, 2012, 02:55 AM   #70

ib-issi's Avatar
>>Its Just Passing Time<<
 
Joined: Mar 2011
From: just sitting here
Posts: 3,005

What was the prevailing philosophy , i would be proud to know if my country had a philosophy that we would defend our territory to the last man , but we would not go to war ,just to take someone elses land or resources......dont necessarily look down on your country because they did not have an empire......it may be the proof of a much more moral soceity , at least at the heirarchy end of the nation, as us plebs generally didnt know what we were fighting for anyway
ib-issi is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
2200, china, india, outsmarted


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
india china avantivarman Asian History 147 October 25th, 2012 05:01 AM
China and India Thessalonian Asian History 15 September 22nd, 2011 10:00 AM
India - China Lord Keviv Asian History 2 September 21st, 2011 01:27 AM
China Vs. India Isoroku295 Speculative History 25 August 31st, 2011 05:34 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.