Any Indian kingdom that could have been a colonising invading power

Rosi

Historum Emeritas
Jul 2008
6,242
so you started to think you were "pan-Indian" right. That's sounds quite irritating, as if non central employees sons were not Indian as you. And I think that's the source of my rants against people like you. When you guys speak English or Hindi you think you were above all.:sick:
That's a very strange interpretation of what Manas Teja said.

We Indians
will teach you one or two lessons my friend.:)
Out of curiosity, what kind of lessons would that be?
 
Jun 2011
1,812
São Tomé de Meliapore
so you started to think you were "pan-Indian" right. That's sounds quite irritating, as if non central employees sons were not Indian as you. And I think that's the source of my rants against people like you. When you guys speak English or Hindi you think you were above all.:sick: We Indians will teach you one or two lessons my friend.:)
Cool Down. You have misunderstood Manas.
 
Nov 2012
3,848
Some contradictions in the posts in this thread

1 Palas=Rashtrakutas
2 Palas became a tributary to Rashtrakutas for sometime
3 Palas had interest in South East Asia


If they were equal to Rashtrakutas they could not have become their tributaries. Now when they were the only ones who showed interest in South East Asia then how can Rashtrakutas be equal to them since Palas end up being a more ambitious and stronger power with such a drive. If that is true then why would Palas become tributaries to Rashtrakutas.


All the above 3 statements, could have been made by different posters, but I am only trying to assimilate and integrate them into one common larger narrative. So kindly help me reach a conclusion by clarifying on how all these statements should be taken in perspective. I believe it could have some contexts, just that I didnt get them. Thanks.
 

Jinit

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
5,274
India
actualy they could have if by chance they could control present day balochistan they could have easily launched an attack into oman
Rashtrakutas could never reach to balochistan. And the Gurjara pratihara capable of doing so never had any powerful navy to do as such.
 

Jinit

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
5,274
India
1 Palas=Rashtrakutas
2 Palas became a tributary to Rashtrakutas for sometime
3 Palas had interest in South East Asia


If they were equal to Rashtrakutas they could not have become their tributaries. Now when they were the only ones who showed interest in South East Asia then how can Rashtrakutas be equal to them since Palas end up being a more ambitious and stronger power with such a drive. If that is true then why would Palas become tributaries to Rashtrakutas.


All the above 3 statements, could have been made by different posters, but I am only trying to assimilate and integrate them into one common larger narrative. So kindly help me reach a conclusion by clarifying on how all these statements should be taken in perspective. I believe it could have some contexts, just that I didnt get them. Thanks.

All 3 were equally powerful. If anyone of them would have been more powerful than two, other two would have been completely anhilited by the powerful one. Throught the struggle they had setbacks and gains on each other. But in conclusion all 3 were equal in strength. (this is just my opinion)
 

Jinit

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
5,274
India
I do not know the reason , but the Gurjara-Pratiharas were one of the most undermined empires of the India [ along with Palas ].

That is totally true. they are most undermined. Even if forget the millitary history their achievement in the fields of art and literature, religion, architecture is impressive. However IMO most of the pre Islamic Indian history is very much undermined by majority of people (both Indians and non Indians) forget about the 9th century India. :D

In a military perspective [ who fended off the foreign invasions] , the Pratiharas were as important as the Mauryas , the Satavahanas , the Guptas
That is right. Afterall it isn't minor achievement to guard the frontiers for almost 300 years, particularly against the enemy which conquered the Persia, knocking the doors of constantinopole and reached at the border of France within just few decades!!!

I guess the Indians did not attribute much greatness to the wasting resources in the name of glory , but India had exceptions too :D
Obviously Ashoka himself might have been such exception if his heart wouldn't have changed after Kalinga war. :D
 
Last edited:
South Indian kingdoms were definitely stronger even if they were defeated by the Sultanate. The defeats were not as quick as up north and were generally lost due to feuds between major South Indian powers unlike in North India where even larger kingdoms could not stop the invader onslaught.

Even when the invaders conquered South Indian kingdoms, their hold was weak and the local lords like Reddys, Nayaks,Marathas etc. kept coming back. It was rare that any part of South India could survive for an extended period of time under Muslim rule. From Hoysala, Vijaynagar,Marathas,Nayaks, Southern Kalinga etc. parts put up a stronger fight. Infact even in Mauryan era Tamil Country was untouched despite their not being a natural barrier for an invasion.
How many temples prior to 10th century survive in North India, compare that with the hundreds that survive down south.

The impetus to Bhakti movement came from down South. Shankara, Ramanuja, Vallabha, Nimbaraka and Madhava all were from down south. Ramanand and Kabir were disciples of Ramanuja. It was from south India that Hinduism revived and inspired Hinduism in the north which had been weakened due to attack on institutions and temples by prolonged Muslim rule.



In my the technological advancements,culture, literature etc. South India benefited apart from strong naval base making it a centre for trade, exchange of ideas and use of modern technology.

That doesnt take away from the North though which too made immense development but it was always behind in the game due to lack of stability due to repeated invasions and palace coups. The Sultanate itself kept breaking down into newer families and clans coming to the throne, many times princes deposed when their fathers were ill. Succession issues added to the instability. Only after the arrival of Mughals was there some break with this. Here too places like Bengal and Rajasthan virtually remained autonomous. Assam held out much well. But the possibility of a threat and fall was always looming.
During the ancient period northern India under the Gupta and Maurya Empires dominated India with
with its cultural and military achievements. But during medieval period southern India had
the upper hand under the Rashtrakuta, Chola, Vijayanagar and Maratha Empires. Ancient period
was the golden age of northern Indian mathematics but the medieval period was the golden
age of southern Indian mathematics.
 

Jinit

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
5,274
India
During the ancient period northern India under the Gupta and Maurya Empires dominated India with
with its cultural and military achievements. But during medieval period southern India had
the upper hand under the Rashtrakuta, Chola, Vijayanagar and Maratha Empires. Ancient period
was the golden age of northern Indian mathematics but the medieval period was the golden
age of southern Indian mathematics.

Thats is absolutely true. A civilization flourished in the north and that legacy was carried forward by the south which not only protacted it but also polished it by adding their own aliments. Indian civilization is incomplete without the contribution of either of them.
 

Similar History Discussions