Greatest Indian Empire

Mar 2019
1,535
KL
mauryan empire
mughal empire
nanda empire

satavahana empire from south india

mauryan empire for its amazing arts and expansive territory, still there are mauryan statues which shine like glass, mughal empire because of their refined arts, they even have a cuisine named after them, nanda empire sowed seeds of empire making in india and the most archaic and have been mentioned in one indian inscription from 2nd BC which proves the extent of their empire, old sri harsha calendar was followed until al beruni's time. Satavahanas are even mentioned as andhras in mahabharatha, so they were pretty big deal in india. Some how they were also indo aryan which means they migrated from north and established themselves in south india.

a lot of indian history is shrouded in mystery, kalingas were the ones who initiated SEA contact (indians were historically called kalingas in SEA) but history hasn't survived, nandas probably were very big deal since they are loathed very much, but again, history didn't survive, indians were not known for recording history very well.

regards
 
Last edited:
Oct 2018
1,547
Sydney
How do Indians today feel about the Mauryan Empire? How much does its association with Jainism and Buddhism govern opinions, in the same way that the Muslim empires are sometimes dismissed? I've seen the Bollywood movie on Ashoka with Shah Rukh Khan, and so I presume the Mauryans capture the popular imagination to some extent.
 
Mar 2019
1,535
KL
indians predominantly hindu today feel more about probably maratha empire which they think was the last true hindu empire, i think indians seldom care about maurya even gupta empire which promoted hinduism a lot because of their archaic nature. mauryan empire's capital is featured as indian emblem. i even heard one orissa guy cursing mauryans because they conquered orissa couple of thousand years ago :lol:

most indians feel patriotic toward their respective local empires such as maratha in maharashtra, khalsa in punjab, vijayanagar probably in karnataka or hoysala or mysore, chola in tamil nadu etc.

mauryans probably are hailed because of indian nationalism and being representative of present justification of indian geography but i still do think that indians may less like mauryans because of their affiliation with non hindu religions but hindus do try to own buddhism jainism etc

regards
 
Feb 2019
345
California
As an American who is very knowledgeable about Western history but only knows what Will Durant wrote about Eastern history, I will provide two responses: one before I check Wiki, and one after (I find this subject quite interesting now that you "mention" it).

I am only aware of two great Indian Emperors, both of whose names I will spell wrong here: Ashoka and Chandragupta. My top of the head answer will be Ashoka, because he not only was a great conqueror, but also (allegedly) played a key role in the spread of Buddhism -- obviously a big deal.

If I recall correctly,* Chandragupta was more of a bad-ass, but Ashoka was also quite the conqueror until he turned "influencer."

I'll be back in a bit after consulting almighty Wikipedia to confess all the above-stated errors...please forgive me for any misspellings no disrespect is intended.

*I read the entire Durant series six times but the last time was 20 years ago.
 
Mar 2019
1,535
KL
i recommend reading this guy' initial philosophy on pre historic societies leading upto changes in philosophy in historical era, this seriously cracked me up.

regards
 

kandal

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,783
USA
To be honest, the greatest empire that ever existed in the India subcontinent was the 'British India'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aelfwine

civfanatic

Ad Honorem
Oct 2012
3,318
Des Moines, Iowa
How do Indians today feel about the Mauryan Empire? How much does its association with Jainism and Buddhism govern opinions, in the same way that the Muslim empires are sometimes dismissed? I've seen the Bollywood movie on Ashoka with Shah Rukh Khan, and so I presume the Mauryans capture the popular imagination to some extent.
Indians had no idea what the "Mauryan empire" was before the 19th century, when British philologists and archaeologists surveyed and deciphered the Ashokan edicts. Since the early 20th century, the Mauryas have been hailed as the first empire that "unified" the subcontinent, and have been treated by Indian nationalists as some kind of ancient precursor to the modern Indian state. When India became an independent state, Indian nationalists adopted symbols from the Mauryan period and recast them as national symbols of India. Most notably, the State Emblem of India contains an adaptation of the Ashokan Lion Capital at Sarnath, and the National Flag of India contains an Ashoka Chakra in its center.

Of course, this is all romanticism. There is no real political continuity between the Mauryan empire and the modern Indian state. The two empires which had the most decisive influence on forming the modern subcontinent were those of the Mughals and the British.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rajeev and Aelfwine
Mar 2019
1,535
KL
Indians had no idea what the "Mauryan empire" was before the 19th century, when British philologists and archaeologists surveyed and deciphered the Ashokan edicts. Since the early 20th century, the Mauryas have been hailed as the first empire that "unified" the subcontinent, and have been treated by Indian nationalists as some kind of ancient precursor to the modern Indian state. When India became an independent state, Indian nationalists adopted symbols from the Mauryan period and recast them as national symbols of India. Most notably, the State Emblem of India contains an adaptation of the Ashokan Lion Capital at Sarnath, and the National Flag of India contains an Ashoka Chakra in its center.

Of course, this is all romanticism. There is no real political continuity between the Mauryan empire and the modern Indian state. The two empires which had the most decisive influence on forming the modern subcontinent were those of the Mughals and the British.
That is colonial notion that indians didn't know about mauryas or even the nandas or the kings of shungas or satavahanas, how did the british deciphered chronology of the nandas for instance is there any archaeological record of their chronology?, the same notion that indians didn't know about their own vedas and british translated it for them.

The british only messed around with the time periods or chronology, which i have heard, nandas were pushed back from 450 BC to 350 BC, the buddhist parinirvana was pushed back from 550 to 480 BC and now the new revision states 400 BC etc

secondly which nation displayed sense of philology before the colonial archaeological era, did ancient egyptian know about the names of their phroahs? did mesopotamians know about their kings names? did persians know about cyrus, was he mentioned in shahnameh? does it really mean that cyrus cannot be owned by persians or their owning represents ''persian blind nationalism'', phroahs are no longer egyptians, mesopotamian kingdoms are no longer mesopotamian and only part of british history? epic of gilgamesh is also a british epic since it was rediscovered by the british archaeologists?

regards
 
Dec 2009
578
Well, to answer the question it really depends on how you define the term great. But it also depends on point of the view of the different users and generally the people and their background. There are so many different languages and cultures in India that every person will have his own personal taste and preference.
Marathi people will say that the Maratha Empire was the greatest,. Tamil people will say that the Chola Dynasty was the greatest.
The Kannada people will say that the Vijayanagar Empire or Western Chalukya Empire are the greatest.
North Indians will say that the Mughal or Maurya Empires are the greatest.

And for these people it probably makes sense considering the fact how these Empires are remembered and the kind of influence these Empires had
to them