Debate Mansion

   

The greatest king in Indian history? (Page 7)

Post Reply New Post

Page 7 of 9

Page 1 Page 6
Page   of 9
Page 8 Page 9

nitasuni

Senior Member

nitasuni

Joined: 08 August 2007

Posts: 850

Posted: 21 January 2008 at 9:28am | IP Logged
Originally posted by souro

Originally posted by sareg

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)

The area coloured yellow is the extent of Maratha 'empire' in 1760. Honestly does it qualify as an empire, that too in 1760. And does it appear from any angle to constitute 2/3 of the whole country, when an empire is supposed to have several foreign nations.

Source Wikipedia:

Definitely, it is an Empire since they fought against the mughals and then against mighty English who had all novel equipements and guns.  The formation of Maratha empire make a rivival of Hinduism, which is downtroden during the Mughal rule.

In my childhood, I grow up hearing the brave stories of  Samrat Sivaji, Mharana Pratap, PRC and Raja Mansingh of Jaisalvar etc, from my grandma. Then from books.  By hearing the stories from grandma they  become very dear to me as my own relatives.  No other anecient Emperors other than Krishnadeva rayar of Vjayanagara Empire make such feelings.    Only Subhash ChandraBose, Bhagat Singh and Azad  make that feeling.

I am  selfish, my these relatives were much greater than all others.



Edited by nitasuni - 21 January 2008 at 9:31am

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 7)" 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!

IdeaQueen

IF-Dazzler

IdeaQueen

Joined: 23 August 2006

Posts: 3152

Posted: 21 January 2008 at 9:46am | IP Logged
@ Nice post Deepak Clap souro Clap

souro

Moderator

souro

Joined: 27 January 2007

Posts: 13879

Posted: 21 January 2008 at 10:11am | IP Logged
Originally posted by nitasuni

Originally posted by souro

Originally posted by sareg

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)

The area coloured yellow is the extent of Maratha 'empire' in 1760. Honestly does it qualify as an empire, that too in 1760. And does it appear from any angle to constitute 2/3 of the whole country, when an empire is supposed to have several foreign nations.

Source Wikipedia:

Definitely, it is an Empire since they fought against the mughals and then against mighty English who had all novel equipements and guns.  The formation of Maratha empire make a rivival of Hinduism, which is downtroden during the Mughal rule.

In my childhood, I grow up hearing the brave stories of  Samrat Sivaji, Mharana Pratap, PRC and Raja Mansingh of Jaisalvar etc, from my grandma. Then from books.  By hearing the stories from grandma they  become very dear to me as my own relatives.  No other anecient Emperors other than Krishnadeva rayar of Vjayanagara Empire make such feelings.    Only Subhash ChandraBose, Bhagat Singh and Azad  make that feeling.

I am  selfish, my these relatives were much greater than all others.

Fighting the Mughals and the mighty British in 1760.Shocked

Sunitaji you seem to forget that there was not a Mughal emperor worth mentioning after Aurangzeb (during whose time the Marathas achieved li'l) and the British had just won the Battle of Palassey in 1757 and was still in its nascent stage. If they were so great, they would've unified the whole of India and also successfully driven out the British. Why did they fail (that too when there was not much of an opposition from other rulers)??Confused And why was it necessary for them to ruthlessly sack other parts of the country for more than two decades (1740s-1760s) without actually trying to establish administrative control.Ouch



Edited by souro - 21 January 2008 at 10:13am

sareg

IF-Dazzler

sareg

Joined: 10 January 2006

Posts: 3976

Posted: 21 January 2008 at 6:50pm | IP Logged

what it meant was a ruler on paper as posted in maps and wiki may actually not be the real ruler, and that was the case of India back then. Even the East India company retained kings as rulers but they did rule the entire India

hope that explainsWink

sareg

IF-Dazzler

sareg

Joined: 10 January 2006

Posts: 3976

Posted: 21 January 2008 at 7:05pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by souro

Originally posted by nitasuni

Originally posted by souro

Originally posted by sareg

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)

The area coloured yellow is the extent of Maratha 'empire' in 1760. Honestly does it qualify as an empire, that too in 1760. And does it appear from any angle to constitute 2/3 of the whole country, when an empire is supposed to have several foreign nations.

Source Wikipedia:

Definitely, it is an Empire since they fought against the mughals and then against mighty English who had all novel equipements and guns.  The formation of Maratha empire make a rivival of Hinduism, which is downtroden during the Mughal rule.

In my childhood, I grow up hearing the brave stories of  Samrat Sivaji, Mharana Pratap, PRC and Raja Mansingh of Jaisalvar etc, from my grandma. Then from books.  By hearing the stories from grandma they  become very dear to me as my own relatives.  No other anecient Emperors other than Krishnadeva rayar of Vjayanagara Empire make such feelings.    Only Subhash ChandraBose, Bhagat Singh and Azad  make that feeling.

I am  selfish, my these relatives were much greater than all others.

Fighting the Mughals and the mighty British in 1760.Shocked

Sunitaji you seem to forget that there was not a Mughal emperor worth mentioning after Aurangzeb (during whose time the Marathas achieved li'l)

read the history, Aurangzeb entered the Deccan shortly after Shivaji's death to annahilate the Maratha kings, he never won a single fort for a large period of time and eventually lost his clout in there

 and the British had just won the Battle of Palassey in 1757 and was still in its nascent stage. If they were so great, they would've unified the whole of India and also successfully driven out the British. Why did they fail (that too when there was not much of an opposition from other rulers)??Confused 

B'cos India has had a single enemy all thru the times of Prithviraj to current times, members of the family turn against each other  truested people turn against you and join forces with sworn enemies. Around 1760 they lost the major battle at Panipat, after that each Sardar took over a territory and ruled by themselves, and guess what divided we fall, and fall they did

And why was it necessary for them to ruthlessly sack other parts of the country for more than two decades (1740s-1760s) without actually trying to establish administrative control.Ouch

During 1740-1760 was the time of Nanasaheb Peshwa and most of the control was actually in Pune and only towards the end of it with the loss of the Panipat battle did the control break away

lighthouse

IF-Dazzler

lighthouse

Joined: 18 January 2006

Posts: 2842

Posted: 21 January 2008 at 7:32pm | IP Logged

Originally posted by mythili_Kiran

@ Nice post Deepak Clap souro Clap

 Agree with you Myth and Anu.. ClapExcellent thread and am enjoying it although history is way over my head nevertheless am finding Souro's and Sareg's posts interesting, . never could remember those dates.  

sareg

IF-Dazzler

sareg

Joined: 10 January 2006

Posts: 3976

Posted: 21 January 2008 at 7:46pm | IP Logged
I think we are debating on the wrong line, I still dont know what is the greatest king

Is he the winner of a large battle? Is he the ruler of the biggest land? is he the most just ruler? is it during his tenure his citizens were the happiest? Did he fight most battles for the right cause of his nation?

From the flow of the thread, it seems we are concentrating on how long he ruled, how much land did he rule

Vinzy

IF-Stunnerz

Vinzy

Joined: 03 December 2005

Posts: 26779

Posted: 22 January 2008 at 12:05am | IP Logged

What about the King Asoka...A ruthless king become a peaceful king...Embarrassed

Tipu Sulthan

Tippu Sultan was a learned man and an able soldier. He was reputed to be a good poet. He was a devout Muslim, but was also appreciative of other religions. At the request of the French, for instance, he built a church, the first in Mysore. He was proficient in the languages he spoke [1]. He helped his father Haidar Ali defeat the British in the Second Mysore War, and negotiated the Treaty of Mangalore with them. However, he was defeated in the Third Anglo-Mysore War and in the Fourth Anglo-Mysore War by the combined forces of the British East India Company, the Nizam of Hyderabad, the Mahratta Confederacy, and to a lesser extent, Travancore. Tippu Sultan died defending his capital Srirangapattana, on May 4, 1799.

Tippu Sultan's treasurer was Krishna Rao, Shamya Iangar was his Minister of Post and Police, his brother Ranga Iyengar was also an officer and Purnaiya held the very important post of "Mir Asaf". Moolchand and Sujan Rai were his chief agents at the Mughal court, and his chief "Peshkar", Suba Rao, was also a Hindu.He was called the Tiger of Mysore because of the following story. Once, while hunting in the forest with a French friend Tippu Sultan came face to face with a tiger. His gun did not work, and his dagger fell to the ground as the tiger jumped on him. He reached for the dagger, picked it up, and killed the tiger with it. That earned him the name "the Tiger of Mysore".

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 3333 25 October 2009 at 10:34pm
By jettythegod
Rewriting History?

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10 11

sowmyaa 84 4034 19 December 2008 at 4:21am
By xantia
Parent's phyl/behaviour history is imp? raj5000 8 619 27 March 2008 at 8:06am
By corvette
Bi-weekly Topic- Greatest Speeches Ever!

2

sowmyaa 14 1044 25 February 2007 at 9:36am
By IdeaQueen
TD-Insanity at the Greatest Level

2

sree 14 1206 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.