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 8th, 2012, 04:04 AM   #71

1991sudarshan's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2011
From: São Tomé de Meliapore
Posts: 1,738

Quote:
Originally Posted by avantivarman View Post
there is nothing to doubt you sir.

i am placing a unique fact before you

indians in 300 bc ( 60 percent of them ) had one language and there was not much difference between dialects at that time.

apart from language, india was always united culturally and this language thing was there with dravidians only meaning the south indian people.


one thing i wonder is why people from peshawar to mumbai spoke one langauge in 300 bc to 600 ad, and yet could not form empires like chinese.
I think you answer would be "Sanskrit" right ? Sanskrit was the language of elites. If every one spoke Sanskrit from 300 BC to 600AD why did it become extinct? Sanskrit was never spoken in public. That is why Buddhist took up the language of the common man the language is Pali.
1991sudarshan is offline  
Remove Ads
Old December 8th, 2012, 04:06 AM   #72

Linschoten's Avatar
nonpareil
 
Joined: Aug 2010
From: Wessex
Posts: 10,216
Blog Entries: 11

Quote:
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.
Many of the architects and craftsmen who worked on the English Gothic Cathedrals had also come from abroad; but I recognize there is an essential difference in the fact that they all belonged to a common Christian culture, while Mughal architecture was a form of Islamic architecture in a land where indigenous religious traditions were different.
Linschoten is online now  
Old December 8th, 2012, 04:39 AM   #73
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: varanasi uttar pradesh, india
Posts: 1,610

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1991sudarshan View Post
I think you answer would be "Sanskrit" right ? Sanskrit was the language of elites. If every one spoke Sanskrit from 300 BC to 600AD why did it become extinct? Sanskrit was never spoken in public. That is why Buddhist took up the language of the common man the language is Pali.
You have no means to know my answer and since you are an atheist so you do not believe in astrology, my question is how you knew what i would answer?


Vedic sanskrit was spoken by public but by time of buddha it ceased to be language of common man .

anyway, everyone spoke prakrits in that period including Orissa and bengal area.

it was only dravidian south that did not speak same langauge.

I have extreme respect for your rational stance on many topics but i see you judge me too harshly.


with all humility, please prove me wrong by telling maharashti prakrit was different from prakrits spoken in peshawar region in 200 ad as much as kannada differs from tamil these days.

check the inscriptions of Satvahanas with those of kings of gandhara.
avantivarman is offline  
Old December 8th, 2012, 04:42 AM   #74
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: varanasi uttar pradesh, india
Posts: 1,610

Quote:
Originally Posted by ib-issi View Post
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
I can understand the spirit of your comment but having medium sized empires cost us dearly as we were repeatedly defeated by invaders from abroad.
avantivarman is offline  
Old December 8th, 2012, 04:47 AM   #75

1991sudarshan's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2011
From: São Tomé de Meliapore
Posts: 1,738

Quote:
Originally Posted by avantivarman View Post
now this is not correct.

the southern areas were " indianized " progressively and it was complete by 200 ad.

and the fact remains that our medium sized empires were also not greater than other middle sized kingdoms in middle east and east asia like korea and japan.
Define Indianized. Do you mean the the term India Indianization starts from the North? Some times your post are quite pointless? Just because the people in the south Borrowed the technology, that doesn't mean that south borrowed everything.
1991sudarshan is offline  
Old December 8th, 2012, 04:54 AM   #76
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: varanasi uttar pradesh, india
Posts: 1,610

Quote:
Originally Posted by Linschoten View Post
Many of the architects and craftsmen who worked on the English Gothic Cathedrals had also come from abroad; but I recognize there is an essential difference in the fact that they all belonged to a common Christian culture, while Mughal architecture was a form of Islamic architecture in a land where indigenous religious traditions were different.
The earliest islamic buildings were designed in 1190 ad approximately and Taj Mahal was designed in 1633 and even then foreign designers were brought in.

I do not think after 2-3 centuries at most , french designers were sought as by that time Gothic style must have been well Anglicized.
avantivarman is offline  
Old December 8th, 2012, 04:59 AM   #77
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: varanasi uttar pradesh, india
Posts: 1,610

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1991sudarshan View Post
Define Indianized. Do you mean the the term India Indianization starts from the North? Some times your post are quite pointless? Just because the people in the south Borrowed the technology, that doesn't mean that south borrowed everything.

define sinicization and then you would get your answer.

BTW, please keep this north south away as i promise you that after my exams, i would prove my stance on north-south as completely correct.
avantivarman is offline  
Old December 8th, 2012, 05:07 AM   #78

Jinit's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: India
Posts: 3,541
Blog Entries: 1

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?
Well Indian temple architecture and Islamic architecture are little bit contradicting to each other. Indian temple architecture is full of scuptures and carvings while Islamic traditions didn't allow the use of living images.

However still I don't agree with Avantivarman that Indian Islamic architecture is more persian and less Indian.

Look at some of this buildings.

Click the image to open in full size.

Click the image to open in full size.


Also you will most probably find Chatri (posted below) in Indo Islamic buildings of India, which is uncommon in Persian architecture. (you can see that even in the picture posted by avantivarman)

Click the image to open in full size.


IMO its hard to make generalize staement. Some of the buildings of Mughal era looks more persian while the others as I posted above looks more like fusion.

Last edited by Jinit; December 8th, 2012 at 05:38 AM.
Jinit is offline  
Old December 8th, 2012, 05:14 AM   #79

Jinit's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jun 2012
From: India
Posts: 3,541
Blog Entries: 1

Also the buildings commisioned by Local muslim rulers are more like a fusion than the Mughal buildings as the local rulers hired native architectures in comparision to the Mughal emperors.

For eg take a llok at the Buildings of Gujarat sultanate era.

1. Rani Rupmati mosque

Click the image to open in full size.
look at the windows on both the sides and the main pillars.


Click the image to open in full size.
Infact if I would have posted only this photo alone , I bet that people would have surely thaught it as a part of some temple.


2. Jama masjid (it was the biggest mosque in the indian subcontinent when it was built)

Click the image to open in full size.
Most probably the upper part of two main minarets fell off during the eartquake in early part of 19th century)

Click the image to open in full size.


Click the image to open in full size.
Look at the dome. Isn't it similar to that of delvara temple or Ranakpur temple?


Click the image to open in full size.


3. Shaking minarates. (althaugh they shaked only once. During the earthquake of 2001 )

Click the image to open in full size.

Click the image to open in full size.

Click the image to open in full size.
Again looks more like a part of temple rather than mosque!!!
Jinit is offline  
Old December 8th, 2012, 05:15 AM   #80
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: varanasi uttar pradesh, india
Posts: 1,610

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinit View Post
Well Indian temple architecture and Islamic architecture are little bit contradicting to each other. Indian temple architecture is full of scuptures and carvings while Islamic traditions didn't allow the use of living images.

However still I don't agree with Avantivarman that Indian Islamic architecture is more persian and less Indian.

Look at some of this buildings.

Click the image to open in full size.

Click the image to open in full size.


Also you will most probably find Chatri (posted below) in Indo Islamic buildings of India, which is uncommon in Persian architecture. (you can see that even in the picture posted by avantivarman)

Click the image to open in full size.


IMO its hard to make generalize staement. Some of the buildings of Mughal era were looks more persian while the others as I posted above looks more like fusion.
what you got was some insignificant buildings of mughal architecture and were designed for hindu courtiers of Akbar.

do you really believe that humayun's tomb and taj mahal are " indian " in style ?

the only thing indian about them is that they are in india.
avantivarman 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 06:01 AM
China and India Thessalonian Asian History 15 September 22nd, 2011 11:00 AM
India - China Lord Keviv Asian History 2 September 21st, 2011 02:27 AM
China Vs. India Isoroku295 Speculative History 25 August 31st, 2011 06:34 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.