Debate Mansion

   

The greatest king in Indian history? (Page 4)

Post Reply New Post

Page 4 of 9

Page 1 Page 3
Page   of 9
Page 5 Page 9

souro

Moderator

souro

Joined: 27 January 2007

Posts: 13877

Posted: 19 January 2008 at 11:15am | IP Logged
Originally posted by nitasuni

Souro I agree with almost all points by you except one or two.

Firstly,  Krishna was not a king at any time.  Madura was ruled by Ugrasena after the death of Kamsa and Dwaraka was ruled by Balaram. Since Sriram was almost idle campared to Laxman in Ramavatar, it is said that in Krishnavatar they reverse the roles(heard/read in a story related to Bhagavad).

Well I thought he was a king. But that's beside the point as I'm not considering him anyway as his existence can't be verified.

Akbar may be great, but I respect Sivaji and Prithvi Raj Chauhan more because I respect bravory more than so called political soaping such as marrying a neighbours  young daughter at the  mid-age etc.I disagree with the methodes used by the great Indian King to became great.(Do you heard about the famous "Meena Bazaar" during the time of Akbar)

No, I haven't heard of Meena Bazaar. As for the points raised by you, I'll say most soldiers are brave but not all of them are king material. Akbar did what was necessary to maintain political and military supremacy over the neighbouring states, and it was a common practice in those days. Maybe, Shivaji and PRC didn't do it, but did they achieve anything significant, NO. All the emperors I mentioned were responsible in shaping the political history of India in a major way, but not Shivaji or PRC (if you don't consider his defeat to Ghori that is). Shivaji and PRC were kings of a comparatively small area and were in no way an emperor (assuming the title of emperor doesn't make one an emperor). Lastly, Shivaji's successors couldn't maintain whatever he built and the successive Maratha rulers acted more as common bandits, looting, burning and killing common people.

Raja raja Chola of Chola dynasty also have a similar navy and expand his ruling up to overseas(Eastwards).  He  was also called as "Gangaikonda cholan" because he expand his country upto River Ganga.

Yeah, I forgot about the naval exploits of the Southern kings, but as far as I know none of the Southern kings ever ruled North India. They failed to go beyond the Vindhyas in the north-west and Orissa in the north-east.



Edited by souro - 19 January 2008 at 11:34am

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "The greatest king in Indian history? (Page 4)" in Debate Mansion forum. In addition you lose out on the fun interactions with fellow members and other member exclusive features that India-Forums has to offer. Join India's most popular discussion portal on Indian Entertainment. It's FREE and registration is effortless so JOIN NOW!

souro

Moderator

souro

Joined: 27 January 2007

Posts: 13877

Posted: 19 January 2008 at 11:24am | IP Logged
Originally posted by Anu.Rad

Originally posted by souro

Originally posted by Anu.Rad


QTdi, how about Sri Ram Tongue He even sacrificed his married life for the praja.. Ouch

I'm not QTdi but still couldn't help but reply...Tongue

Ram was no way near as a statesman or diplomat in comparison to Shri Krishna. Secondly, I don't think it's a great idea to ask someone to give proof of her purity by jumping in the fire just because your subjects asked for it.Shocked And that too after she was kidnapped and kept in confinement for so many days.Dead He could have handled it better, IMO.



Yes, but he earned the title of "Mahapurush".. He might not be a diplomat, but he was truth speaker something for which he was known and he controlled the people really well who where under him...

But I wonder if he would hv taken a similar step if it was someone from the commons... Was it that only Sita had to give the agnipariksha or was it a rule applicable to every woman Confused

Sorry, but I don't consider honesty as the greatest virtue in a king when dealing with state affairs. Cunning and crookedness are required to maintain supremacy over other kingdoms.

sareg

IF-Dazzler

sareg

Joined: 10 January 2006

Posts: 3976

Posted: 19 January 2008 at 8:14pm | IP Logged
With each of the names listed, Each had a different adversity to deal with.Prithviraj Chauhan and Shivaji had a common enemies in differnt era's. Akbar had different advantages running in his favor

Shivaji laid foundation to a kindgom that later on grew to be the last Hindu empire

What is the defination of a greatest king? that he was the best for his citizens? that he didnt oppress his citizens? or won against the worst of the enemies?

Many a stories associated with most of the kings are more of folklore and seem to be more twisted. So stories about Vikramaditya, Chandragupta, Ashoka have more of a unbeliavalble stories attached to their names. I wont even talk about Shri Ram and Shri Krishna

Personally I feel Prithviraj Chauhan and Shivaji ahead in that respect.

The accounts of history are more provable for Shivaji and the maratha empire. And if you read most of the accounts they seem to be a bit grand, but the facts are verifiable. That is why the death story mentioned here seems to be very far from truth(seems to be the work of some unhappy distortinist of history LOL )

I dont think it is possible to say who was the greatest, since the situations were very different for each and in different adversities different qualities come to front.

souro

Moderator

souro

Joined: 27 January 2007

Posts: 13877

Posted: 19 January 2008 at 9:18pm | IP Logged

Originally posted by sareg


Many a stories associated with most of the kings are more of folklore and seem to be more twisted. So stories about Vikramaditya, Chandragupta, Ashoka have more of a unbeliavalble stories attached to their names. I wont even talk about Shri Ram and Shri Krishna

Personally I feel Prithviraj Chauhan and Shivaji ahead in that respect.

The accounts of history are more provable for Shivaji and the maratha empire. And if you read most of the accounts they seem to be a bit grand, but the facts are verifiable. That is why the death story mentioned here seems to be very far from truth(seems to be the work of some unhappy distortinist of history LOL )

IDK what reasons you used to come to the conclusion that the conquests of others are inadmissible and only PRC and Shivaji's qualify. Maybe the description of the warfares of those emperors were given a glorified or fairytale like make over, but the fact remains that they had to fight and win in order to keep their empire secure. You can't sing praises of a king defeating this and defeating that without the king actually defeating them. Moreover, along with literature, architecture and other relics bears testimony to the extent of their empires.

And I don't know what Hindu empire of Shivaji you are talking about. A kingdom yes, empire no way. An empire is supposed to be way bigger. Shivaji had a kingdom, maybe we can say a medium sized one. But he didn't lay any foundation, with him the kingdom was also lost. Later on there were many Marathas fighting for a piece of that cake and also plundering the neighbouring states but they never succeeded in establishing permanent administrative control over the major centres in India and there was never a single supreme leader at one time like they had in Shivaji.



Edited by souro - 19 January 2008 at 9:40pm

mermaid_QT

IF-Sizzlerz

mermaid_QT

Joined: 25 September 2005

Posts: 11613

Posted: 19 January 2008 at 11:53pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by Anu.Rad

Huh what a debate... But all went over my head.. History has never been for me.. Bahut mushkil se ratta marti thi.. I really cant get those dates and names Confused Confused Confused

QTdi, how about Sri Ram Tongue He even sacrificed his married life for the praja.. Ouch


If I were her, I would be not only a furious wife, but a citizen treated in the most unjust manner..  so zero marks on that oneOuchOuch
LOLLOL

sareg

IF-Dazzler

sareg

Joined: 10 January 2006

Posts: 3976

Posted: 20 January 2008 at 12:00am | IP Logged
Originally posted by souro

Originally posted by sareg


Many a stories associated with most of the kings are more of folklore and seem to be more twisted. So stories about Vikramaditya, Chandragupta, Ashoka have more of a unbeliavalble stories attached to their names. I wont even talk about Shri Ram and Shri Krishna

Personally I feel Prithviraj Chauhan and Shivaji ahead in that respect.

The accounts of history are more provable for Shivaji and the maratha empire. And if you read most of the accounts they seem to be a bit grand, but the facts are verifiable. That is why the death story mentioned here seems to be very far from truth(seems to be the work of some unhappy distortinist of history LOL )

IDK what reasons you used to come to the conclusion that the conquests of others are inadmissible and only PRC and Shivaji's qualify.

I have already stated in my post why

Maybe the description of the warfares of those emperors were given a glorified or fairytale like make over, but the fact remains that they had to fight and win in order to keep their empire secure. You can't sing praises of a king defeating this and defeating that without the king actually defeating them.

Winning wars makes a great king?

Moreover, along with literature, architecture and other relics bears testimony to the extent of their empires.

literature can be art of work, Taj Mahal is an excellent architecture? so is the love story of Shah Jahan, we all know how great a emperor Shah Jahan was

And I don't know what Hindu empire of Shivaji you are talking about. A kingdom yes, empire no way. An empire is supposed to be way bigger. Shivaji had a kingdom, maybe we can say a medium sized one. But he didn't lay any foundation, with him the kingdom was also lost. 

Shivaji was coronated somewhere in the 1670's he died in 1680, the Maratha Empire grew to all corners of the country and met its demise at the hands of the British in the late 1700(that is a decade and half after Shivaji Died), so is it incorrect statement to say he laid a foundation to an empire(anything that encompases more than 2/3rd of the nation can be considered an empire, cant it? well if that is not an empire than basically none of the Indian kings ever had an empireWink)

Later on there were many Marathas fighting for a piece of that cake and also plundering the neighbouring states but they never succeeded in establishing permanent administrative control over the major centres in India and there was never a single supreme leader at one time like they had in Shivaji.

Actually it took three members of his family to get outlast Aurangzeb, In fact the biggest wins of the Maratha empire came after the death of Shivaji. then it was the Peshwa's(means prime minister) who effectively led. The mughal rulers were primarily rubber stamps for much of the duration after Aurangzeb

That population and army throughout the entire period represented India the way it is, it was inclusive of all religions and caste's

Now I havent said that Shivaji or any king was the greatest, there isnt any proven documentation other than the Maratha empire that can be verified against each other. For the Maratha period, the documentation is in Indian historic documents, the British document, the French documents and the Portugese documents.

In general we in India tend to exaggerate great kings and even give them a semi-god status as has happened with a lot of these kings. That is the reason the historic documents need supporting verification, not just a passerby verification but an active verification.

With that criteria I have only two "great monarchies" to compare, the Maratha monarchy and the Nehru Gandhi monarchy. for me that is a no-contest.

The menion of PRC was only b'cos India went into a period just during PRC and was coming out of that period in the Maratha Empire.

Aanandaa

IF-Sizzlerz

Aanandaa

Joined: 07 April 2005

Posts: 13876

Posted: 20 January 2008 at 12:07am | IP Logged
Originally posted by souro

 

Ram was no way near as a statesman or diplomat in comparison to Shri Krishna. Secondly, I don't think it's a great idea to ask someone to give proof of her purity by jumping in the fire just because your subjects asked for it.Shocked And that too after she was kidnapped and kept in confinement for so many days.Dead He could have handled it better, IMO.



Souro, trust me I had similar views until very recently and even today I keep debating with myself on this...But the bottom line is, we do have to consider the times and the circumstances when things happened..You CANNOT use a common yardstick to judge everything...Rightoo???Rama was a king during Threta yuga where the things were done in a different manner... .There are so many Dharma sookshmas that are hidden in all these things, which could be understood by a detailed study and analysis...Its certainly not an arm chair debate IMO...Anyways, that's just my point...

sareg

IF-Dazzler

sareg

Joined: 10 January 2006

Posts: 3976

Posted: 20 January 2008 at 12:19am | IP Logged
Originally posted by raksha.l

Originally posted by souro

 

Ram was no way near as a statesman or diplomat in comparison to Shri Krishna. Secondly, I don't think it's a great idea to ask someone to give proof of her purity by jumping in the fire just because your subjects asked for it.Shocked And that too after she was kidnapped and kept in confinement for so many days.Dead He could have handled it better, IMO.



Souro, trust me I had similar views until very recently and even today I keep debating with myself on this...But the bottom line is, we do have to consider the times and the circumstances when things happened..You CANNOT use a common yardstick to judge everything...Rightoo???Rama was a king during Threta yuga where the things were done in a different manner... .There are so many Dharma sookshmas that are hidden in all these things, which could be understood by a detailed study and analysis...Its certainly not an arm chair debate IMO...Anyways, that's just my point...

sorry for the detour, According to Mr Karunanidhi Sita was Ram's sister(I would not dare say that, but just for the sake of the debate) do all these equations change in that situationWinkLOL

Post Reply New Post

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Topic Starter Replies Views Last Post
Scar being black: was lion king racist?

2 3

jettythegod 18 3314 25 October 2009 at 10:34pm
By jettythegod
Rewriting History?

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10 11

sowmyaa 84 4014 19 December 2008 at 4:21am
By xantia
Parent's phyl/behaviour history is imp? raj5000 8 614 27 March 2008 at 8:06am
By corvette
Bi-weekly Topic- Greatest Speeches Ever!

2

sowmyaa 14 1037 25 February 2007 at 9:36am
By IdeaQueen
TD-Insanity at the Greatest Level

2

sree 14 1200 07 June 2005 at 11:58am
By teenindia_usa

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Debate Mansion Topic Index

Limit search to this Forum only.

 

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.