# When coterminous Pakistan fought Alexander the Great and almost brought him down to his knees.



## Indus Pakistan

In 326BC Alexander the Great with his Greek and Macedonian army invaded coterminous Pakistan. Our anscestors fought like lions and almost killed him in what is now Multan. By the time he left our land large part of his army was destroyed. So this thread is to celebrate our ancestors who fought to protect our sacred Indus region and also the brave Alexander. It was the first meeting of coterminous Pakistan with the West. In the subsequent centuries Greek culture and civilization took root in Gandhara region of coterminous of Pakistan which is modern North West Pakistan. I was pleasently surprised to find that Pakistan Army Museum celebrates Alexander and Porus and the Battle of Hydaspes. Image below.









One of histories greatest conquerors certainly left coterminous Pakistan with respect for ancestors fighting abilities. Not many people can claim in to have tangled with Alexander the Great and given him rough time like we did. What is so unique about Alexander's campaign in coterminous Pakistan is that it touched almost all our people. Every province and most districts of Pakikstan felt the force of the Greek Army. Some of us joined him. Some of us fought against him but either way it was making of history. Books are still being written about it over 2000 years later.

For the first time coterminous Pakistan fortified by the mighty River Indus was joined to a vast empire that connected us with Greece and all countries in between.








Look at the map below and see if your district in Pakistan was involved in one of histories greatest moments. The route map of Alexander the Great is approximate.








The approximate route of invasion was Khyber Pass, Peshawar, cross the Indus near Attock, Taxila/Islamabad, Jhelum where Porus fought Alexander on the banks of River Jhelum or what the Greeks called Hydaspes. He then moved east to near Lahore crossing the border near Amritsar but then the Greeks turned back into coterminous Pakistan. This is proximate to the GT road axis. Returning back to Jhelum they sailed down the river to Multan where the fierce Mallians almost killed Alexander the Great.

Then sailing down into Sindh near Karachi Alexander had one of his generals survey mouth of the Indus River. He himself then marched along what is now the Mekran Highway past Gwadar into Iran.


Monument to Battle of Hydaspes. Jalalpur Sharif, Jhelum, Pakistan.
































@Chinese-Dragon Please let your Chinese members know about this part of Ancient Pakistan's history. Thanks @AUSTERLITZ @Magnum Opus @KediKesenFare @HAKIKAT @EgyptianAmerican @xenon54 etc


https://tribune.com.pk/story/1502658/army-museum-opens-doors-public-lahore/

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
44


----------



## Indus Pakistan

If you want to see whether your district was involved in the making of history and fighting Alexander the Great. Refer to the district map of Pakistan below with major cities marked along the route Alexander took. Obviously the route is "best guess" and to be only taken as a educated guess. We can't of course know the exact path taken after over 2000 years but this does give you fairly good idea. So have a look. Did *your* ancestors take on the Greeks/Macedonians of Alexander and fought like lions?

Reactions: Like Like:
14


----------



## Azadkashmir

Most western people dont know this they get shocked when they hear about alexander in modern pak.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## TMA

Kaptaan said:


> edited


Did not some of Pakistani's ancestors fight on the Greek/Macedonian side? As some modern day Pakistanis have some Greek in them?

Most Pakistanis don't have a clue, at least in the UK.


Azadkashmir said:


> Most western people dont know this they get shocked when they hear about alexander in modern pak.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Azadkashmir

TMA said:


> Did not some of Pakistani's ancestors fight on the Greek/Macedonian side? As some modern day Pakistanis have some Greek in them?
> 
> Most Pakistanis don't have a clue, at least in the UK.



well most uk paks care about going out with mates to restaurant to eat kebabs and cinema. 
history is not priority.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## xyxmt

My Daughter's Greek class mate told her that her father have so much respect for Pakistanis, my daughter asked me why do you think he does so I told her this is why.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

A small Kingdom on the Indus almost managed to bring the mightiest and largest empire in it's time to it's knees. Unfortunately, the various kingdoms of the Indus were very fractured and weakened from constant warfare. Many of them joined Alexander and fought against their rivals. Had just a couple of them united to face this foreign invasion, the results would have been much different. 

It is important to mention, that Porus was not the only hero; many tribes and Kingdoms held up in their forts and fought to the last man - unfortunately they have mostly been lost to history, and we do not know much about them.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

Porus's army numbered around 20,000 - 40,000 and were mostly made up of hastened conscripts and not professional soldiers as compared to Alexander. His manpower was also drained by the endless conflict with Taxila, another Indus Kingdom which joined Alexander against Porus.

Due to the hastiness of the situation, Porus had little time to prepare and most likely had to rely almost completely on conscripts to form his infantry. These conscripts were armed with mostly cheap spears, bows and farming tools and carried long wicker shields easily penetrated by Macedonian pikes. 

It was with their bravery that they managed to inflict substantial damage and hold up against a much more trained, experienced, professional, disciplined and organized army. Much respect to our ancestors.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## -blitzkrieg-

Pakistanis killed Alexander; the poisoned arrow tip that punctured his lung was the cause of Alexander's illness and eventual death.
The poisonous plant (strychnine) predicted as per his symptoms is rare along Alexander’s route of march and could be harvested only in high elevation regions of the subcontinent (modern Pakistan).

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Taimoor Khan

I wrote this a while back on now defunct Pakistani defense forum.

http://forum.********************/index.php?showtopic=91310




About time state should recognize Porus and his contributions towards protect the sovereignty of our lands. He should be to us Pakistanis as what Leonidas is in ancient Greek history. Infact his stature should be much much higher as he was not only fighting the world greatest army against all odds, but other regions as well who conspired against him while siding with the Greeks. 

Who kicked whose arse can be understood by the fact the Greek historian went quite about this war only to mention about it 300 years after the event, that is three centuries, completely twisting facts and realities. 

Standing at 7 foot tall, what a personality and man he would be, leading his small army against the super power of the time. Someone needs to make another 300 but this time around with the Greeks on the receiving end.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Taimoor Khan

For those who dont know, The Mangla garrison, the dam, they are all named after the daughter of Porus. 

Porus lost his son during the battle.

Reactions: Like Like:
 7


----------



## Indus Pakistan

First I want to thank everybody for their contribution. Secondly rather surprised that we have not had any *Gangas* jumping in and trying to claim it was they who fought Aexander's army to it's knees. Just want to clarify that I am using the term "*coterminous Pakistan*". Coterminous means having the same space or boundaries in time. In other words the land and geography that is today Pakistan. Or the Indus River region.

*coterminous*
_kəʊˈtəːmɪnəs/
adjective
adjective: *coterminous*
having the same boundaries or extent in space, time, or meaning.
_
Thirdly, we must understand that Greece was the unrivalled superpower of it's time. It had just defeated the mighty Persian Empire and nothing stood in way of Alexander to be "conquerer of the known world". He and his army then rolled into coterminous Pakistan. Divided we we were. Indeed probably split like the district map I posted above. Just like today we had some traitors. But we also had heroes.

It must have been a strange sight. The mighty Greek army with Alexander now behaving like he was god marched through our lands. I can imagine our people leaving their farms and heading to fight the world conquerer from afar. Porus whose kingdom is only slightly larger than modern day Jhelum District fought Alexander and his Greeks on the banks of Jhelum River in what history records as Battle of Hydaspes 326BCE. Any of you members from Jhelum district should feel proud. The battle is still studied in military academies across the world. Porus fought bravely but was defeated but the battle is recorded as very difficult by greek historians.

Along the entire coterminous Pakistan the Greeks found our ancestors - from tiny kingdoms to just tribes fighting them at every turn. The Greeks often through frustration and what was common in those days massacred the defeated. This is what happened in Multan or what was then known as Mali. The Mallians after having almost killed Alexander were killed indiscrimnately. However by the time the Greeks left our land we would forever be recorded as a difficult, divided but defiant fighters. Coterminous Pakistan would become a Greek Satrap in a huge empire stretching from Europe to Pakistan.

I ask Pakistani members to look at this map and see if they can place their location on the route Alexander took and or the Porus Kingdom marked green proximating to modern Jhelum District and regions adjacent. I encourage any personal accounts, stories or anything that you can add to this thread - in partcular from districts that lay on Alexander armies route.








I think it is high time Pakistan built statues to Porus and other fighters including our enemy Alexander. Over 2000 years we should not bear any bad blood with the Greeks but recognize the warriors that once made world history on our soil. Not many people can say they took on the superpower of it';s time with gusto like we did.

Next time you drive over the Jhelum River take few seconds to reflect on the momentous battle that took place so many centuries ago on it's banks.

And I am glad Pakistan Army Museum has embraced the Battle of Hydaspes and Porus in it's collection. A fitting inheritor of the valour shown by Porus over 2000 years ago.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## El Sidd

River Indus is too strong a challenge for west to cross as history tells us.


----------



## Trango Towers

TMA said:


> Did not some of Pakistani's ancestors fight on the Greek/Macedonian side? As some modern day Pakistanis have some Greek in them?
> 
> Most Pakistanis don't have a clue, at least in the UK.


Illiterate people have no clue anywhere but those of us that read know very well


----------



## defence_analyst

Kaptaan said:


> First I want to thank everybody for their contribution. Secondly rather surprised that we have not had any *Gangas* jumping in and trying to claim it was they who fought Aexander's army to it's knees. Just want to clarify that I am using the term "*coterminous Pakistan*". Coterminous means having the same space or boundaries in time. In other words the land and geography that is today Pakistan. Or the Indus River region.
> 
> *coterminous*
> _kəʊˈtəːmɪnəs/
> adjective
> adjective: *coterminous*
> having the same boundaries or extent in space, time, or meaning.
> _
> Thirdly, we must understand that Greece was the unrivalled superpower of it's time. It had just defeated the mighty Persian Empire and nothing stood in way of Alexander to be "conquerer of the known world". He and his army then rolled into coterminous Pakistan. Divided we we were. Indeed probably split like the district map I posted above. Just like today we had some traitors. But we also had heroes.
> 
> It must have been a strange sight. The mighty Greek army with Alexander now behaving like he was god marched through our lands. I can imagine our people leaving their farms and heading to fight the world conquerer from afar. Porus whose kingdom is only slightly larger than modern day Jhelum District fought Alexander and his Greeks on the banks of Jhelum River in what history records as Battle of Hydaspes 326BCE. Any of you members from Jhelum district should feel proud. The battle is still studied in military academies across the world. Porus fought bravely but was defeated but the battle is recorded as very difficult by greek historians.
> 
> Along the entire coterminous Pakistan the Greeks found our ancestors - from tiny kingdoms to just tribes fighting them at every turn. The Greeks often through frustration and what was common in those days massacred the defeated. This is what happened in Multan or what was then known as Mali. The Mallians after having almost killed Alexander were killed indiscrimnately. However by the time the Greeks left our land we would forever be recorded as a difficult, divided but defiant fighters. Coterminous Pakistan would become a Greek Satrap in a huge empire stretching from Europe to Pakistan.
> 
> I ask Pakistani members to look at this map and see if they can place their location on the route Alexander took and or the Porus Kingdom marked green proximating to modern Jhelum District and regions adjacent. I encourage any personal accounts, stories or anything that you can add to this thread - in partcular from districts that lay on Alexander armies route.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is high time Pakistan built statues to Porus and other fighters including our enemy Alexander. Over 2000 years we should not bear any bad blood with the Greeks but recognize the warriors that once made world history on our soil. Not many people can say they took on the superpower of it';s time with gusto like we did.
> 
> Next time you drive over the Jhelum River take few seconds to reflect on the momentous battle that took place so many centuries ago on it's banks.
> 
> And I am glad Pakistan Army Museum has embraced the Battle of Hydaspes and Porus in it's collection. A fitting inheritor of the valour shown by Porus over 2000 years ago.



Sir Jhelum district was not part of Porus kingdom. Ambhi which ruled Jhelum district allied with Alexander. But your map of Porus Kingdom is correct which are coterminous (learned new word today) Gujrat and Mandi Bahauddin districts and in near future Kharian district after population census maybe. Confusion is because of river name and district are same.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Indus Pakistan

bacho said:


> Sir Jhelum district was not part of Porus kingdom. Ambhi which ruled Jhelum district allied with Alexander. But your map of Porus Kingdom is correct which are coterminous (learned new word today) Gujrat and Mandi Bahauddin districts and in near future Kharian district after population census maybe. Confusion is because of river name and district are same.


Yes, thank you for that correction. The map is however correct. And the term *coterminous* allows us to use Pakistan retrospectively.

So if I say "Alexander invaded Pakistan" that could be challanged [Pakistan was not there pre 1947] by those who love to be pedantic because of their own agenda. However if I say "_*Alexander invaded coterminous Pakistan*_" that statement is above challange. So we can say the people of coterminous Pakistan fought valiantly against Alexander the Great but despite their efforts they were defeated.

So no more rubbish about "Oh there was no Pakistan" etc etc. The word "*coterminous*" provides us a way out of the pedantic knot and is perfect immunity to the rubbish we get from members of a certain country.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Taimur Khurram

We halted his expansion. His own troops threatened to launch a mutiny if they didn't turn back and leave the dreaded Indus.

However, it's distasteful to claim this as Pakistanis vs Greeks. Many Pakistanis are descended from the Greeks.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## TMA

Kaptaan said:


> Yes, thank you for that correction. The map is however correct. And the term *coterminous* allows us to use Pakistan retrospectively.
> 
> So if I say "Alexander invaded Pakistan" that could be challanged [Pakistan was not there pre 1947] by those who love to be pedantic because of their own agenda. However if I say "_*Alexander invaded coterminous Pakistan*_" that statement is above challange. So we can say the people of coterminous Pakistan fought valiantly against Alexander the Great but despite their efforts they were defeated.
> 
> So no more rubbish about "Oh there was no Pakistan" etc etc. The word "*coterminous*" provides us a way out of the pedantic knot and is perfect immunity to the rubbish we get from members of a certain country.


Beautiful. Beautiful I say. Bravo!

I always disliked it when they would say Pakistan did not exist back then as if Bharat (as a state) existed. My usual challenge would be did Italy exist in the time of Galileo or Leonardo but both are considered Italians? 
But your stance is more appropriate.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Indus Pakistan

TMA said:


> Beautiful. Beautiful I say. Bravo!
> 
> I always disliked it when they would say Pakistan did not exist back then as if Bharat (as a state) existed. My usual challenge would be did Italy exist in the time of Galileo or Leonardo but both are considered Italians?But your stance is more appropriate.


Well I have had my lights punched out by Indians who drive you crazy like little children with their infantile "Pakistan did not exist before 1947" when they know neither did India. It came into existence the same day as Pakistan. Then they play on the "India" as in sub-continent as way to thieve our heritage. That is as absurd as a new country called "Asia" using that term to own the heritage of the entire continent of Asia. Or as obsurd as Romania telling Italians they have no claim on Roman empire - because Italy did not exist then and their name is Roman-ia. Of course the problem is you can't spend hours playing awkward games with people who are intentionally being abtuse. So therefore the term "coterminous" provides one bullet for one mothafuka of annoyance.

So from now on use Pakistan for events even going back 10,000 or hell even 1 million years ago. Just remember use the prefix "*coterminous*". It will save you having to have long drawn out discussion with some deluded Indian who thinks the name "Indian" is a licence to claim all of South Asian history. Even when it had sweet f**k to do with him.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## WreckingBall

Kaptaan said:


> We don't need history lessons from Ganga dwellers. Neither do we need validation from Gangas. Suggestion. Go worship your holy Ganga.



Thank you for your suggestion. I enjoy reading about history - so thank you for your informative post as well.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Imran Khan

multani kisi ko bhi mar sakty hain

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indus Pakistan

WreckingBall said:


> Thank you for your suggestion.


My apologies. I had you for another obtuse irritant. History can be a facinating subject.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

are there anymore wild elephants in Pakistan? great post...pre-islamic History of Pakistan

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## WreckingBall

Kaptaan said:


> My apologies. I had you for another obtuse irritant. History can be a facinating subject.


Indeed it is and I come here only to learn, read, interact and observe. No apology needed - I've noticed a lot of friction between members - but I am not here to drive any hyper nationalist narrative. I hope I don't disrespect your country or its history.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## ashok mourya

Just name a missile on Puru which will be great tribute to him.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> are there anymore wild elephants in Pakistan? great post...pre-islamic History of Pakistan


Pakistan is not a natural habitat to elephants. It is *too *dry. Elephants need too much pasture and water to be native to Pakistan. Without doubt the elephants would have been traded or brought from the east - the moist Ganga Basin.
_
"Keeping a body that massive moving requires many football-fields-full of vegetation. It also takes huge amounts of water. Wild elephants spend most of their time either looking for food or eating it once they find it. 
Elephants can drink as much as 50 gallons (~190 liters) of water in a single day. Because they drink so often and so much, in the wild they are never far from water, though they may live in a variety of habitats, from thick jungle to open savannas."
_
Despite them being exotic to Indus they could have been kept in limited numbers by royalty adjacent to major rivers.






_
_

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## WreckingBall

ashok mourya said:


> Just name a missile on Puru which will be great tribute to him.


In our country a few days ago, a Chief Minister was claiming that we should not promote the Taj Mahal as much as we do. And a lot of Indians cheered. Perhaps we must also embrace our history and our monuments and figures with fervor. If we are selective, can we really blame others?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Kaptaan said:


> Pakistan is not a natural habitat to elephants. It is *too *dry. Elephants need too much pasture and water to be native to Pakistan. Without doubt the elephants would have been traded or brought from the east - the moist Ganga Basin.
> _
> "Keeping a body that massive moving requires many football-fields-full of vegetation. It also takes huge amounts of water. Wild elephants spend most of their time either looking for food or eating it once they find it.
> Elephants can drink as much as 50 gallons (~190 liters) of water in a single day. Because they drink so often and so much, in the wild they are never far from water, though they may live in a variety of habitats, from thick jungle to open savannas."
> _
> Despite them being exototic to Indus they could have been kept in limited numbers by royalty adjacent to major rivers.



Are you in a position to do a write-up of pros and cons of Elephants in warfare? I wonder why didnot Porous use camels? Did the dromedary camel still not arrive there or was it still not bred to perfection for warfare purposes? Quite frankly Porous should have stocked up on more cavalry...if the Bactrian/Sogdian people had not accompanied Alexander, he would have been basically toast stuck on the ivory teeth of Porous' elephants


----------



## ashok mourya




----------



## CHACHA"G"

This thread will create the greatest buthurtt of this week.............................. 
Our History is very Rich ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pakistan , the land of the civilizations , The land of Indus ,,,,,,, 
Heaters going to hate let them ................

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Suriya

@Kaptaan How will coterminous Pakistan stop india from doing this ??
A famous song from the movie Sikandar-E-Azam sang by Mohd. Rafi born in coterminous Pakistan .


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Are you in a position to do a write-up of pros and cons of Elephants in warfare?


Elephants in my opinion are useless against a determined and organized foe. They are more of *show* then anything else. From military point of view they are too slow, too cumbersome and need massive amount of food anmd water to sustain them reducing their operational areas even more. The horse is unmatched as cavalry. It has speed, mobility and wide range ability. I actually don't believe the Greek accounts a to number of soldiers porus had or number of elephants. I think they exaggerated them to make their victory look awesome. However elephants do catch the popular imagination and have resonated through history. In the real world horse cavalry dominated the battlfield until the tank came along.



Suriya said:


> stop india from doing this


There is *no* cure for delusion. Sorry.

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

exactly one of the biggest things that separate modern India and Pakistan is the non availability of two of the most iconic animals of India in Pakistan even far back in history------------Tiger and Elephant 

and only a small pocket of Pak-Punjab hosted rhinos in medieval times while in contrast whole of North Indian plains used to host them 

There is a medium level distinction between India and Pakistan...the clues are there for everybody to pick up

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Corona

If anyone wants to learn a bit more about Alexander's conquests and battles, you could try this guy's videos. He covered Europe and Persia so far. He hasn't gotten to South Asia yet but still interesting.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## 313ghazi

@Kaptaan great topic.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## .

Great read .........Thanks OP.
How did he manage to cross modern day dir district ,I travel through both upper and lower dir to chitral my hometown and find it hard to believe you could not get lost midst those many mountain belts.





Most likely his army entered Pakistan through Khyber Pass.


Guys don't fool yourself Pakstanis don't have any Greek blood ,Even the Kailash were rumored to be but DNA tests in 2007 and 2004 proved them to be more diverse race than predominately greek.


----------



## Rafi

Kaptaan said:


> In 326BC Alexander the Great with his Greek and Macedonian army invaded coterminous Pakistan. Our anscestors fought like lions and almost killed him in what is now Multan. By the time he left our land large part of his army was destroyed. So this thread is to celebrate our ancestors who fought to protect our sacred Indus region and also the brave Alexander. It was the first meeting of coterminous Pakistan with the West. In the subsequent centuries Greek culture and civilization took root in Gandhara region of coterminous of Pakistan which is modern North West Pakistan. I was pleasently surprised to find that Pakistan Army Museum celebrates Alexander and Porus and the Battle of Hydaspes. Image below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of histories greatest conquerors certainly left coterminous Pakistan with respect for ancestors fighting abilities. Not many people can claim in to have tangled with Alexander the Great and given him rough time like we did. What is so unique about Alexander's campaign in coterminous Pakistan is that it touched almost all our people. Every province and most districts of Pakikstan felt the force of the Greek Army. Some of us joined him. Some of us fought against him but either way it was making of history. Books are still being written about it over 2000 years later.
> 
> For the first time coterminous Pakistan fortified by the mighty River Indus was joined to a vast empire that connected us with Greece and all countries in between.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the map below and see if your district in Pakistan was involved in one of histories greatest moments. The route map of Alexander the Great is approximate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The approximate route of invasion was Khyber Pass, Peshawar, cross the Indus near Attock, Taxila/Islamabad, Jhelum where Porus fought Alexander on the banks of River Jhelum or what the Greeks called Hydaspes. He then moved east to near Lahore crossing the border near Amritsar but then the Greeks turned back into coterminous Pakistan. This is proximate to the GT road axis. Returning back to Jhelum they sailed down the river to Multan where the fierce Mallians almost killed Alexander the Great.
> 
> Then sailing down into Sindh near Karachi Alexander had one of his generals survey mouth of the Indus River. He himself then marched along what is now the Mekran Highway past Gwadar into Iran.
> 
> 
> Monument to Battle of Hydaspes. Jalalpur Sharif, Jhelum, Pakistan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @Chinese-Dragon Please let your Chinese members know about this part of Ancient Pakistan's history. Thanks @AUSTERLITZ @Magnum Opus @KediKesenFare @HAKIKAT @EgyptianAmerican @xenon54 etc
> 
> 
> https://tribune.com.pk/story/1502658/army-museum-opens-doors-public-lahore/



Brother a subject close to my heart, my ancestor Manga was a cavalry commander in Porus's Army. My people take great inspiration from him, and invoke his spirit of bravery and martial aptitude, of duty to nation and honor in fighting and if necessary dying in its honor.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Are you in a position to do a write-up of pros and cons of Elephants in warfare? I wonder why didnot Porous use camels? Did the dromedary camel still not arrive there or was it still not bred to perfection for warfare purposes? Quite frankly Porous should have stocked up on more cavalry...if the Bactrian/Sogdian people had not accompanied Alexander, he would have been basically toast stuck on the ivory teeth of Porous' elephants


Elephants were not really effective against the Macedonians who had encountered them before and had come up with various tactics and methods to take down these beasts.


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Northern said:


> Most likely his army entered Pakistan through Khyber Pass.


Alexander split his force into *two* portion. One element went through the Khyber Pass to coterminous Pakistan and the other went north along the Kunar valley and then passed over into Bajaur/Dir or maybe even Chitral and then moved south along Swat down to Indus and then joined rest of the Greeks near Hund to cross the Indus River on to Taxila near present day Islamabad. Of course there is no way of knowing exactly the routes the Greeks took.



Rafi said:


> My people


Thanks for that. Are you from Jhelum area?



Juggernaut_is_here said:


> exactly one of the biggest things that separate modern India and Pakistan is the non availability of two of the most iconic animals of India in Pakistan


The biggest factor here that people overlook is climate. Temperature and rain. Rain or lack of rain will create entirely *differant* environments. Most of Pakistan is semi- arid or desert and that makes the differance in climate, flora and fauna.



Talwar e Pakistan said:


> Elephants were not really effective


Elephants were not effective against most conquerers from the West. Like I said before they are more of a *show* and grab the popular imagination. They have *limited *military efficacy as history tells us.

And thanks to all for the positive comments. Although this [below] was posted before but I think it belongs here as well.


*Pakistan unearths city defeated by Alexander the Great*
PPPI
September 05, 2016
AMAZING






*KARACHI/ROME: Pakistan has unearthed the city defeated by Alexander the Great.*

The ruins that Italian archaeologists have unearthed in modern-day Barikot, in Pakistan´s Swat valley, once belonged to Bazira, the city conquered by Alexander the Great.

The finding, of which AGI news agency is giving a preview, was confirmed by the tests that have just been carried out.

In short, Italian archaeologists working in the Italian-Pakistani excavations in the Swat valley did not go on vacation this summer.

The Italian Archaeological Mission (renamed ISMEO), founded by Giuseppe Tucci in the Swat District in 1955, has been excavating in Barikot since 1984. The ISMEO has continued to be operational and has celebrated its 60th year of activity last November with a cycle of conferences and exhibitions in China, a Country very close to Pakistan.

Since 2011 the excavations at Barikot, the ancient Bazira (12 hectares including the acropolis) have concentrated on approximately one hectare in the south-western quadrant of the city. The excavations, which are conducted by ISMEO in partnership with Directorate of Archaeology and Museums of the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Province, are financed through the ACT Project under the debt conversion agreement between Italy and Pakistan.

Bazira is mentioned in classical sources as having been put under siege and conquered by the Macedonians led by Alexander the Great towards the end of the 4th Century BC. Up to now there had been no trace of this ancient city. Archaeologists had dated the city at the Indo-Greek period of King Menander, the Greek King of Buddhist faith who ruled almost two centuries after Alexander and whose coins were found in the excavation site.

During the last few weeks, an analysis of the materials conducted with the help of the CIRCE team headed by Prof Filippo Terrasi (Napoli2 University, Department of Mathematics and Physics) revealed that the pre Indo-Greek city levels can be dated with absolute certainty at the middle of the 3rd Century BC, one century prior to the city walls, which means in the middle of the Mauryan period. And that´s not all: the protohistoric village unveiled by the trench foundations outside the city walls dates back to 1100-1000 BC.

"Today it is clear that the Indo-Greeks fortified a city that already existed and that, in order to build the city walls, they destroyed most of the stratigraphy and exposed extremely ancient structures through extended and deep terracing work. We used to think that the city lays on nothing more than a late protohistoric settlement. Today we know that it was already a city and that the ruins at the foot of the walls are 800 years older than we had originally thought," said the Mission Director, Luca M. Olivieri.
https://www.geo.tv/latest/113633-Pakistan-unearths-city-defeated-by-Alexander-the-Great

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## saurav jha

Nice read


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

It seems there might have been a degeneration of civilization in the Frontier Province and Chitral from 300 BC to Middle Ages and concurrently an explosion of high culture in the plains of Punjab and Sindh in the same time...you see big castles, mosques in Lahore or Sindh...but Peshawar seems to have seen little building since the demise of the Kushanas..and that goes for rest of NWFP and Chitral as well....


----------



## Rafi

Kaptaan said:


> Alexander split his force into *two* portion. One element went through the Khyber Pass to coterminous Pakistan and the other went north along the Kunar valley and then passed over into Bajaur/Dir or maybe even Chitral and then moved south along Swat down to Indus and then joined rest of the Greeks near Hund to cross the Indus River on to Taxila near present day Islamabad. Of course there is no way of knowing exactly the routes the Greeks took.
> 
> Thanks for that. Are you from Jhelum area?
> 
> The biggest factor here that people overlook is climate. Temperature and rain. Rain or lack of rain will create entirely *differant* environments. Most of Pakistan is semi- arid or desert and that makes the differance in climate, flora and fauna.
> 
> Elephants were not effective against most conquerers from the West. Like I said before they are more of a *show* and grab the popular imagination. They have *limited *military efficacy as history tells us.
> 
> And thanks to all for the positive comments. Although this [below] was posted before but I think it belongs here as well.
> 
> 
> *Pakistan unearths city defeated by Alexander the Great*
> PPPI
> September 05, 2016
> AMAZING
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *KARACHI/ROME: Pakistan has unearthed the city defeated by Alexander the Great.*
> 
> The ruins that Italian archaeologists have unearthed in modern-day Barikot, in Pakistan´s Swat valley, once belonged to Bazira, the city conquered by Alexander the Great.
> 
> The finding, of which AGI news agency is giving a preview, was confirmed by the tests that have just been carried out.
> 
> In short, Italian archaeologists working in the Italian-Pakistani excavations in the Swat valley did not go on vacation this summer.
> 
> The Italian Archaeological Mission (renamed ISMEO), founded by Giuseppe Tucci in the Swat District in 1955, has been excavating in Barikot since 1984. The ISMEO has continued to be operational and has celebrated its 60th year of activity last November with a cycle of conferences and exhibitions in China, a Country very close to Pakistan.
> 
> Since 2011 the excavations at Barikot, the ancient Bazira (12 hectares including the acropolis) have concentrated on approximately one hectare in the south-western quadrant of the city. The excavations, which are conducted by ISMEO in partnership with Directorate of Archaeology and Museums of the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa Province, are financed through the ACT Project under the debt conversion agreement between Italy and Pakistan.
> 
> Bazira is mentioned in classical sources as having been put under siege and conquered by the Macedonians led by Alexander the Great towards the end of the 4th Century BC. Up to now there had been no trace of this ancient city. Archaeologists had dated the city at the Indo-Greek period of King Menander, the Greek King of Buddhist faith who ruled almost two centuries after Alexander and whose coins were found in the excavation site.
> 
> During the last few weeks, an analysis of the materials conducted with the help of the CIRCE team headed by Prof Filippo Terrasi (Napoli2 University, Department of Mathematics and Physics) revealed that the pre Indo-Greek city levels can be dated with absolute certainty at the middle of the 3rd Century BC, one century prior to the city walls, which means in the middle of the Mauryan period. And that´s not all: the protohistoric village unveiled by the trench foundations outside the city walls dates back to 1100-1000 BC.
> 
> "Today it is clear that the Indo-Greeks fortified a city that already existed and that, in order to build the city walls, they destroyed most of the stratigraphy and exposed extremely ancient structures through extended and deep terracing work. We used to think that the city lays on nothing more than a late protohistoric settlement. Today we know that it was already a city and that the ruins at the foot of the walls are 800 years older than we had originally thought," said the Mission Director, Luca M. Olivieri.
> https://www.geo.tv/latest/113633-Pakistan-unearths-city-defeated-by-Alexander-the-Great



Yes my Clan is from Jhelum, my people have been in the Armed Forces, for hundreds of years. Manga and the Sufi Saint that converted us, is what we pay homage to when we start our career of service.

I have a thread which is a few years old, where we discussed the monument that features in your first post.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## New World

WreckingBall said:


> In our country a few days ago, a Chief Minister was claiming that we should not promote the Taj Mahal as much as we do. And a lot of Indians cheered. Perhaps we must also embrace our history and our monuments and figures with fervor. If we are selective, can we really blame others?


the process has already being started to Degrade, Disregard and Disown things which were either made by Mughal kings or their names are given to things..
1st Aurangzeb road, 2nd Akbar road and now taj mahal..


----------



## xyxmt

Taimoor Khan said:


> I wrote this a while back on now defunct Pakistani defense forum.
> 
> http://forum.********************/index.php?showtopic=91310
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About time state should recognize Porus and his contributions towards protect the sovereignty of our lands. He should be to us Pakistanis as what Leonidas is in ancient Greek history. Infact his stature should be much much higher as he was not only fighting the world greatest army against all odds, but other regions as well who conspired against him while siding with the Greeks.
> 
> Who kicked whose arse can be understood by the fact the Greek historian went quite about this war only to mention about it 300 years after the event, that is three centuries, completely twisting facts and realities.
> 
> Standing at 7 foot tall, what a personality and man he would be, leading his small army against the super power of the time. Someone needs to make another 300 but this time around with the Greeks on the receiving end.



History is about to repeat itself with same people lined up to destroy yet another "shupa pawa"
I say same people because people from same area are majority in Pakistan army


----------



## defence_analyst

Rafi said:


> Yes my Clan is from Jhelum, my people have been in the Armed Forces, for hundreds of years. Manga and the Sufi Saint that converted us, is what we pay homage to when we start our career of service.
> 
> I have a thread which is a few years old, where we discussed the monument that features in your first post.



Bro your people allied with Alexander, didn't fight him. I'm here to take care of wrong history. Look up map and where Porus kingdom is located and where Ambhi kingdom was.


----------



## Hellraiser007

King Ambi sided with Alexander an invader and Hindu king Purushottam fought Alexander and almost defeated him.

Through out the Alexander 's conquest, Indian Emperors in Gangetic planes are helping Persians and Indian kings in Indus region.

The chariots used by Darius against Alexander in Gaugemela were sent by Indians in support of Persians.

Alexander almost lost the battle, saw lakhs of army waiting for him on Gangetic plains and decided to return to his home land.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## wiseone2

Talwar e Pakistan said:


> A small Kingdom on the Indus almost managed to bring the mightiest and largest empire in it's time to it's knees. Unfortunately, the various kingdoms of the Indus were very fractured and weakened from constant warfare. Many of them joined Alexander and fought against their rivals. Had just a couple of them united to face this foreign invasion, the results would have been much different.
> 
> It is important to mention, that Porus was not the only hero; many tribes and Kingdoms held up in their forts and fought to the last man - unfortunately they have mostly been lost to history, and we do not know much about them.



alexander army was tired and worn out. they wanted to go home after 10 years of fighting. who wouldn't ?


----------



## Rafi

bacho said:


> Bro your people allied with Alexander, didn't fight him. I'm here to take care of wrong history. Look up map and where Porus kingdom is located and where Ambhi kingdom was.



No we fought with Porus against Alexander, we are spread throughout the region and especially the Salt Range. This is our country's history.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Armstrong

Rafi said:


> No we fought with Porus against Alexander, we are spread throughout the region and especially the Salt Range. This is our country's history.



If you only had my military genius; Porus aka Pervez Janjua would've won!

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Chhatrapati

This is a good read. Excluding some Kaptaan remarks later tsk tsk. 

Some points you might have missed if my learning is correct, most of the history of Alexander invasion of India was written in favor of Alexander the not so great after-all. Alexander had to pay 25 tons of gold to King Ambhika of Takshashila (Taxila) to help defeat Purushottama (Porus) of Paurava Dynasty. the battle was so fearsome that Alexander barely survived the onslaught. 

As the Greek Historian Diodorus Siculus mentioned 
"Upon this the elephants, applying to good use their prodigious size and strength, killed some of the enemy by trampling under their feet, and crushing their armor and their bones, while upon other they inflicted a terrible death, for they first lifted them aloft with their trunks, which they and twisted round their bodies and then dashed them down with great violence to the ground. Many others they deprived in a moment of life by goring then through and through with their tusks"


Here the inaccuracies starts, why would Alexander return the Kingdom after Paying a hefty sum to King Ambhika and return almost empty handed. Alexander also lost his beloved horse Bucephalus, killed by one of Purushottama's son, it is written as "_known to excel all others for they are immortal. Poseidon gave them to my father Peleus, who in his turn gave them to me". Why would he spare a Kingdom which killed his beloved horse."




_


There is another theory again put forward by the historians that, his soldiers were tired of constant war which is not true, because the old soldiers were sent back with enough gold and slaves and new soldiers kept coming to fill in. 

The exact reason may be, after defeating Purushottama, he realized he can't go any further with this, considering his health and coming Nanda empire, which is even stronger having 200000 foot soldiers, 6000 war elephants, 80000 cavalry, 8000 war chariots. 

And to add something to the remarks made, as Ganga worshippers, the rulers who ruled in Pakistan at the time were all Ganga worshippers, the King Purushottam traces his dynasty back to Hastinapur in the Gagetic plains. They lost their land due to continuous floods, and to constant power tussle between the Mahajanapada's.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## WreckingBall

New World said:


> the process has already being started to Degrade, Disregard and Disown things which were either made by Mughal kings or their names are given to things..
> 1st Aurangzeb road, 2nd Akbar road and now taj mahal..


I have not heard anything about Akbar Road but Aurangzeb is pretty reviled in India. I am all for embracing our history and culture but being selective based on religion is not kosher. Now that even they are feeling the economic pains of haphazard policies, a lot of Bhakts have gone silent as well.


----------



## defence_analyst

Rafi said:


> No we fought with Porus against Alexander, we are spread throughout the region and especially the Salt Range. This is our country's history.



Yes our country history but historically speaking Jhelum district ruler Ambhi allied with Alexander instead of fighting him. People who fought him were from Porus kingdom located between Chenab and Jhelum river, look at the map posted above. No need to make up fake history based on lies.



SOUTHie said:


> And to add something to the remarks made, as Ganga worshippers, the rulers who ruled in Pakistan at the time were all Ganga worshippers, the King Purushottam traces his dynasty back to Hastinapur in the Gagetic plains. They lost their land due to continuous floods, and to constant power tussle between the Mahajanapada's.



This thread isn’t about fictional maha bharat written by gangu telis. Next you will tell me about OIT.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Chhatrapati

Talwar e Pakistan said:


> Elephants were not really effective against the Macedonians who had encountered them before and had come up with various tactics and methods to take down these beasts.


Alexander never faced such fearsome battle. The Greek historian have descried the elephants are well trained and controlled. And they were battle hardened that, none of their actions were effective to take down elephants which teared through the battle formations. It got more and more angry as the soldiers attacked them, with the rider inflicting more and more damage with spear.
Elephants are not effective, but a taimed and well trained are effective, and are put to use since a long time. Many of the armed forces at the time had elephants. They were kept well fed knowing their strategic importance. And no, they are not very slow, they can easily outrun a human. So, you can imagine how a person can run when he wears all the armors. Moreover, elephants are well armored with plates covering the weak spots.



bacho said:


> This thread isn’t about fictional maha bharat written by gangu telis. Next you will tell me about OIT.


Making a shoddy History that suits your narrative doesn't change the written facts at the time. You region was literally the Punching bag at the time which was under constant invasion. That's one reason why you never had a collective large Kingdom, while the Ganga's had strong Kingdoms away from the Hindukush ranges. Even the Genghis Khan couldn't penetrate Gangetic heartland.



bacho said:


> This thread isn’t about fictional maha bharat written by gangu telis. Next you will tell me about OIT.


King Purushottam (porus) didn't fall from sky to Indus region as you claim. And your History don't start with IVC then blank, then Porus again Blank and then Arabs.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Hellraiser007

Armstrong said:


> If you only had my military genius; Porus aka Pervez Janjua would've won!


----------



## Pakistani E

Hellraiser007 said:


> Alexander almost lost the battle, saw lakhs of army waiting for him on Gangetic plains and decided to return to his home land.



I would turn back too if I saw hundreds of thousands of Ganga dwellers gathered together in a mass orgy of street shitfest.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Suriya

Sher Shah Awan said:


> I would turn back too if I saw hundreds of thousands of Ganga dwellers gathered together in a mass orgy of street shitfest.


So Alexander did his shitfest in coterminous Pakistan and went back .


----------



## Indus Pakistan

The BrOkEn HeArT said:


> I thought Pakistan came into existence in 1947


Please. Buy some spectacles. Buy a dictionary. Now read the darned thread title -

*"Coterminous Pakistan"*

**coterminous*
_kəʊˈtəːmɪnəs/_
_adjective_
_adjective: coterminous_
*having the same boundaries or extent in space, time, or meaning.*


*And you get a negative for obviously ignoring the thread title and playing dumb. The history of coterminous Pakistan means the history of the* geography* or *region* or the* area* or the *land *or the* peoples *within the boundary that is presently occupied by Pakistan. It does not claim that the political state existed before 1947 as much as Indian state did not exit before 1947.

Reactions: Like Like:
12


----------



## .

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> It seems there might have been a degeneration of civilization in the Frontier Province and Chitral from 300 BC to Middle Ages and concurrently an explosion of high culture in the plains of Punjab and Sindh in the same time...you see big castles, mosques in Lahore or Sindh...but Peshawar seems to have seen little building since the demise of the Kushanas..and that goes for rest of NWFP and Chitral as well....


Well during the early modern period ,My great grandfather restored the now famous Chitral fort Which is believed to have been built during the middle ages and subsequently destroyed ..
I have a documented family history going back almost half a millennia ,The reason for that is very simple.
Invaders often destroyed what was left of their enemies in the region and very little was spared during siege of cities in these areas.




This was built by my great great granfather ,Shah Nadir Raees ,The first of my family Mirraees.
In 2015 Alongside my cousin during the summer heat of July we sat some distance away from the fort ,The water was so cold you couldn't resist it for 5 minutes and it was in the middle of july.
The fort is built in such a strategic position nobody can lay siege to it by land throughout the year.
So yes ,Alongside the path to Chitral one can find quite few castles and other things in Dir district or elsewhere in Periods of late middle ages or modern history (French revolution) so you are quite right.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Northern said:


> Well during the early modern period ,My great grandfather restored the now famous Chitral fort Which is believed to have been built during the middle ages and subsequently destroyed ..
> I have a documented family history going back almost half a millennia ,The reason for that is very simple.
> Invaders often destroyed what was left of their enemies in the region and very little was spared during siege of cities in these areas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was built by my great great granfather ,Shah Nadir Raees ,The first of my family Mirraees.
> In 2015 Alongside my cousin during the summer heat of July we sat some distance away from the fort ,The water was so cold you couldn't resist it for 5 minutes and it was in the middle of july.
> The fort is built in such a strategic position nobody can lay siege to it by land throughout the year.
> So yes ,Alongside the path to Chitral one can find quite few castles and other things in Dir district or elsewhere in Periods of late middle ages or modern history (French revolution) so you are quite right.






Cannot thank you enough for this post...Your family history truly fascinating....This pic of yours along with the other mountain valley pic that @Kaptaan posted, truly captures the imposing Central Asian/Pamiri flavour of beauty of Northern Pakistan....It is a sad thing that Indians fail to understand just how diverse and utterly foreign some parts of Pakistan can be to the Indian mind...the other side of Sindh is veritably foreign country

But going by Alexander's accounts, each of these fortified mountain strongholds provided fierce and feisty opposition to his marching armies ----so their military and civilizational level were quite high for contemporary late Iron Age...

So what happened? I surmise the high IQ and high testosterone elite of the North and Frontier would go down to the plains of Punjab every second generation and establish their fiefs there and thereby constructing forts, embankments etc.....this continued till the Mughals swept in from Uzbekistan

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## .

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Cannot thank you enough for this post...Your family history truly fascinating....This pic of yours along with the other mountain valley pic that @Kaptaan posted, truly captures the imposing Central Asian/Pamiri flavour of beauty of Northern Pakistan....It is a sad thing that Indians fail to understand just how diverse and utterly foreign some parts of Pakistan can be to the Indian mind...the other side of Sindh is veritably foreign country
> 
> But going by Alexander's accounts, each of these fortified mountain strongholds provided fierce and feisty opposition to his marching armies ----so their military and civilizational level were quite high for contemporary late Iron Age...
> 
> So what happened? I surmise the high IQ and high testosterone elite of the North and Frontier would go down to the plains of Punjab every second generation and establish their fiefs there and thereby constructing forts, embankments etc.....this continued till the Mughals swept in from Uzbekistan



Thank you  I must say I'm particularly proud of the fact many of my family members were active in philantrophy and we didn't practice feudalism like the supposed certain elite folks in chitral do nowadays. 
Anyways The height of the Power in chitral was also during the rule of Nadir Raees ,whose empire stretched from badakshan corridor (from where our family migrated and ruled) in the middle ages eastern turkistan to all the way to Gilgit.
The contest was very much restricted to regional levels across these boundaries in coterminous Pakistan hence there was very little development in surrounding area....
Chitral was ruled by the archaemenid empire at the time of Alexander the Great and his campaigns against the persians and the locals practiced a very similar persian socio-religious lifestyle since the empire stretched all the way......

This is a famous Zoroastrian singer in Pakistan and she sings in a place where Zoroastrianism was practiced back when alexander invaded in 300bc at the time first persian empire later dissolved in 330bc.




@Mentee @Signalian bro check tis thread out.......... its awesome.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Mentee

Northern said:


> Thank you  I must say I'm particularly proud of the fact many of my family members were active in philantrophy and we didn't practice feudalism like the supposed certain elite folks in chitral do nowadays.
> Anyways The height of the Power in chitral was also during the rule of Nadir Raees ,whose empire stretched from badakshan corridor (from where our family migrated and ruled) in the middle ages eastern turkistan to all the way to Gilgit.
> The contest was very much restricted to regional levels across these boundaries in coterminous Pakistan hence there was very little development in surrounding area....
> Chitral was ruled by the archaemenid empire at the time of Alexander the Great and his campaigns against the persians and the locals practiced a very similar persian socio-religious lifestyle since the empire stretched all the way......
> 
> This is a famous Zoroastrian singer in Pakistan and she sings in a place where Zoroastrianism was practiced back when alexander invaded in 300bc at the time first persian empire later dissolved in 330bc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @Mentee @Signalian bro check tis thread out.......... its awesome.


let's restore the previous pomp and might of chitral by remaining with in the constitutional limits. I'd be preforming my duties as the p.m of chitral under the patronage of his majesty northern the wizard but , with a heavy heart. Sigh!

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## .

Mentee said:


> let's restore the previous pomp and might of chitral by remaining with in the constitutional limits. I'd be preforming my duties as the p.m of chitral under the patronage of his majesty northern the wizard but , with a heavy heart. Sigh!


HAHAHAHAHA no m8 .Nothing controversial around chitral ,Its all good

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rafi

Armstrong said:


> If you only had my military genius; Porus aka Pervez Janjua would've won!



Nice to see you back. Where you been. Remind me of the old days.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## django

@Kaptaan Congrats bro your thread has made it to

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/916536106086273027 and surprise surprise guess who seems to be claiming Porus , they shamefully just never give up.Kudos

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Indus Pakistan

django said:


> Congrats bro


Thank you. Brother. The appreciation of people from my country of origin is what inspires me to do these write ups. If I had known it was going to end on Twitter I would have placed more effort. Thanks to all including @Horus and @WebMaster

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## django

Kaptaan said:


> The appreciation of people from my country of origin is what inspires me to do these write ups


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

This Iron Age pre-Mauryan Map of the subcontinent shows that the Northwest and the South being seperate areas from the culturally contiguous areas of Aryavarta

Thought it might be relevant here...Only North Bengal can be considered part of Aryavarta , with Kajangala and Bardhaman forming the eastern most borders

@Kaptaan You might find this interesting....this is from the start of recorded history of the subcontinent (including Gandhara)....the first disciples of Buddha passed through Gandhara on the way to Magadha


non-coloured places are forests,wilderness and jungle tribes and at best rural civilizations


----------



## Chhatrapati

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Thought it might be relevant here...Only North Bengal can be considered part of Aryavarta , with Kajangala and Bardhaman forming the eastern most borders


You missed some at the time of mahajapadas

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

SOUTHie said:


> You missed some at the time of mahajapadas
> View attachment 430070




Yaudheyas post date the Janapadas of Buddha's time..My cut off date is strictly Buddha..and only the 16 major ones have been noted


----------



## Chhatrapati

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Yaudheyas post date the Janapadas of Buddha's time..My cut off date is strictly Buddha


Yes, but they were present at the time of Mahajanapadas, although in a declining state.


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

SOUTHie said:


> Yes, but they were present at the time of Mahajanapadas, although in a declining state.




Nope their zenith comes at a much much later time than the Mahajanapadas...they hit their peak after the collapse of the Mauryan Empire...else the knowledgeable Buddhist suttas would have reported on it...they report on the 16 major and some minor ones, and that is it...all of them have been mentioned in my map along with the area under their control

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Can you gentleman not gunk this thread with padas, majas etc please. This is about region *coterminous* to Pakistan [centred around the Indus River] or something that has strict, *direct* relevance with the subject of this thread. The annotated map below makes it clear. Please avoid conflating Ganga with Indus. The two are entirely separate river basins.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Suriya

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> ...
> 
> So what happened? *I surmise the high IQ and high testosterone elite of the North and Frontier would go down to the plains of Punjab every second generation and establish their fiefs there* and thereby constructing forts, embankments etc.....this continued till the Mughals swept in from Uzbekistan


@Juggernaut_is_here

What does it have to do with *high IQ and high testosterone ?? 
*
It has more to do with riches of the plain of Punjab down to north India that attracted marauding hordes from the barren cold mountains of Afghanistan and central Asia from the beginning and Punjabis remember this innate fact very well .

*You surely throw some crazy theories around .*

On the other day , i was reading one of your post on Chinese cultural revolution and You couldn't stop gushing how domination of *Atheism in China *by the rule of by atheist communist has ushered in the stunning growth development and prospertiy we see in China today .

But you simply ignored or probably unaware of the fact that while atheist communist started ruling over China from Mid 40s and Chinese cultural revolution took place from 1966 to 1977 , the speed economy and pace of development in China remained at same space and speed of India who also had adopted communist style Nehruvian socialism ,in all these intervening period till Deng Xiaoping discarded Maoist economy and embraced Market Economy in 1980 .

*Even 10 years after adoption of Market Economy and 45 years straight communist rule in china dipped in stringent Atheist values , u'll find it hard to believe Indian GDP was nearly equal to Chinese GDP in the year 1990 . *Yes as recent as the year 1990 . So much for your strong belief that only *atheism* can bring prosperity , economic and scientific growth .
*
http://statisticstimes.com/economy/china-vs-india-gdp.php
*
@Chinese-Dragon


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

people from cold weather (but densely populated) areas tend to have higher IQ than people from warm weather...........Germans (the white ones) have higher IQ than Nigerians....The Brain has been subjected to tens of thousands of years of evolution in different parts of the world under different selective pressures..and these selective pressures were much severe in the Global North as well as in the mountainous areas during the Last Glacial Maximum...about China...Nope China had marginally better GDP per capita from 1950 onwards...and from 1979 onwards they just chugged past India...scientific temper of mind is highly important for a good economy (unless you have oil) and atheism contributes to that...but Chinese atheism is a bit of a dogmatic atheism , Western people tend to have much better critical thinking...Indians outside of the top 3-5% have neither atheism nor critical rational thinking


It is also perfectly possible that Babur had higher IQ than Lodhi coming in from super-cold Uzbekistan ....Babur showed way higher battle IQ than any commander in the Indo-Pak area..be it Hindu or Muslim


A perfect blend of IQ and testosterone wins battles


People from barren cold mountains overcame the people of the plains because of their superior military culture and battle tactics---both of them are functions of Intelligence/IQ


----------



## axisofevil

No such thing as Pakistan. These were Hindu and Buddhist kingdoms and that fought Alexander. No islm and no muslims involved. So sorry to burst your BS history



Juggernaut_is_here said:


> people from cold weather (but densely populated) areas tend to have higher IQ than people from warm weather...........Germans (the white ones) have higher IQ than Nigerians....The Brain has been subjected to tens of thousands of years of evolution in different parts of the world under different selective pressures..and these selective pressures were much severe in the Global North as well as in the mountainous areas during the Last Glacial Maximum...about China...Nope China had marginally better GDP per capita from 1950 onwards...and from 1979 onwards they just chugged past India...scientific temper of mind is highly important for a good economy (unless you have oil) and atheism contributes to that...but Chinese atheism is a bit of a dogmatic atheism , Western people tend to have much better critical thinking...Indians outside of the top 3-5% have neither atheism nor critical rational thinking
> 
> 
> It is also perfectly possible that Babur had higher IQ than Lodhi coming in from super-cold Uzbekistan ....Babur showed way higher battle IQ than any commander in the Indo-Pak area..be it Hindu or Muslim
> 
> 
> A perfect blend of IQ and testosterone wins battles
> 
> 
> People from barren cold mountains overcame the people of the plains because of their superior military culture and battle tactics---both of them are functions of Intelligence/IQ




BS...what about Tamils? Cold weather had no effect on IQ


Or perhaps the Kings had it so good for a long time, they let their training deteriorate


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

axisofevil said:


> No such thing as Pakistan. These were Hindu and Buddhist kingdoms and that fought Alexander. No islm and no muslims involved. So sorry to burst your BS history
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BS...what about Tamils? Cold weather had no effect on IQ
> 
> 
> Or perhaps the Kings had it so good for a long time, they let their training deteriorate



when I say Pakistan, I mean coterminous Pakistan as used by @Kaptaan

The Brahmins in Tamil culture have Avg IQ of probably 100....same as North Indian Brahmins ..perhaps a bit higher...the non-Brahmin component of Tamil IQ is quite low..most probably 2 points lower than the Indian average ..so circa 80

The Brahmins having retained the most of their Aryan genes among all the Aryan groups have an advantage in IQ...and Aryans have been living in warm climate only the last 3,500 years...

Most of the Software Moguls in India are Brahmins or Persians or Perso-Shia Muslims or Khatris...perfectly underscoring my point of race and IQ

Most of India's Nobel Prize winners in the sciences are either Brahmins or Khatris ..the ones with the highest ANI gene percentages...............

14 of the 18 scientists in Operation Smiling Buddha were Tamil Brahmins





PS: I have firm reasons to believe in Aryan Migration Theory...please donot try to debate me on this here...I offer my theories regarding intelligence based on this theory


----------



## axisofevil

WreckingBall said:


> I have not heard anything about Akbar Road but Aurangzeb is pretty reviled in India. I am all for embracing our history and culture but being selective based on religion is not kosher. Now that even they are feeling the economic pains of haphazard policies, a lot of Bhakts have gone silent as well.




I aint a bhakt but you're clueless if you think economics is haphazard in India. I guess you trust Rahul and Sinha over the IMF president ....Whether you agree or not.....Congress has one more harm to India than anyone can imagine. Why the f-k you think Pakistani's and Chinese are happy when Congress is in power?


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

@Suriya

India had $84 GDP per capita nominal in 1960 and China $92...this is when China was going through its worst famines....Mao already had started his atheist purge..but it would not be complete till 1976

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_and_projected_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita


----------



## axisofevil

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> when I say Pakistan, I mean coterminous Pakistan as used by @Kaptaan
> 
> The Brahmins in Tamil culture have Avg IQ of probably 100....same as North Indian Brahmins ..perhaps a bit higher...the non-Brahmin component of Tamil IQ is quite low..most probably 2 points lower than the Indian average ..so circa 80
> 
> The Brahmins having retained the most of their Aryan genes among all the Aryan groups have an advantage in IQ...and Aryans have been living in warm climate only the last 3,500 years...
> 
> Most of the Software Moguls in India are Brahmins or Persians or Perso-Shia Muslims or Khatris...perfectly underscoring my point of race and IQ
> 
> Most of India's Nobel Prize winners in the sciences are either Brahmins or Khatris ..the ones with the highest ANI gene percentages...............
> 
> 14 of the 18 scientists in Operation Smiling Buddha were Tamil Brahmins
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PS: I have firm reasons to believe in Aryan Migration Theory...please donot try to debate me on this here...I offer my theories regarding intelligence based on this theory





Brahmin and Persians have access to money....that a really big factor as well. Tamils Brahmins aren't Aryan?



Juggernaut_is_here said:


> @Suriya
> 
> India had $84 GDP per capita nominal in 1960 and China $92...this is when China was going through its worst famines....Mao already had started his atheist purge..but it would not be complete till 1976





Please don't compare apples to oranges. Congress supporters blindly fail to acknowledge what happen. 


China reset their population and undertook massive time and reeducation efforts to start afresh.


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

axisofevil said:


> Brahmin and Persians have access to money....that a really big factor as well. Tamils Brahmins aren't Aryan?




of course Tam Brams are Aryan....but no other group in Tamil Nadu are Aryan.....see Muslims with Persian Heritage manage to rise in high tech sectors in India...but ghetto converted Indian Muslims continue to rot..this inspite of a mild anathema to Muslims India-wide...IQ can overcome anything


it is because of IQ that Ben Carson could overcome the racism of Republicans and almost win Republican nomination..IQ explains the human condition more than even God


----------



## axisofevil

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> of course Tam Brams are Aryan....but no other group in Tamil Nadu are Aryan.....see Muslims with Persian Heritage manage to rise in high tech sectors in India...but ghetto converted Indian Muslims continue to rot..this inspite of a mild anathema to Muslims India-wide...IQ can overcome anything
> 
> 
> it is because of IQ that Ben Carson could overcome the racism of Republicans and almost win Republican nomination..IQ explains the human condition more than even God





There are holed to your theory. I digress you are quite adamant in believing this pseudo fluff.

Like I said access to money is a huge factor. Upbringing is another. 

Ben Carson was given a chance thought he proved he was smart enough. But what about the role of affirmative action.


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

axisofevil said:


> There are holed to your theory. I digress you are quite adamant in believing this pseudo fluff.
> 
> Like I said access to money is a huge factor. Upbringing is another.
> 
> Ben Carson was given a chance thought he proved he was smart enough. But what about the role of affirmative action.




Affirmative action may give you a place in Harvard but won't make you the best neurosurgeon in the world..Carson's mother was an illiterate..whatever he did, he did purely under the force and momentum generated by his big beautiful brain 


races that lived in the North and in the high mountains during the last Ice Age would eventually produce higher IQ descendants in contemporary times compared to say the ones who lived in warm equatorial climate in Last Ice Age---like Sub-saharan Bantu Africans,Pygmies, Australoids of India, Abos of Australia, Sentinelese and Jarawas of Andamans 

some of these latter groups have still not invented fire.....most Sub-Saharan Africans never saw the wheel before being introduced to it by Indian traders or Arab slavers....


----------



## axisofevil

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Affirmative action may give you a place in Harvard but won't make you the best neurosurgeon in the world..Carson's mother was an illiterate..whatever he did, he did purely under the force and momentum generated by his big beautiful brain
> 
> 
> races that lived in the North and in the high mountains during the last Ice Age would eventually produce higher IQ descendants in contemporary times compared to say the ones who lived in warm equatorial climate in Last Ice Age---like Sub-saharan Bantu Africans,Pygmies, Australoids of India, Abos of Australia, Sentinelese and Jarawas of Andamans
> 
> some of these latter groups have still not invented fire.....most Sub-Saharan Africans never saw the wheel before being introduced to it by Indian traders or Arab slavers....[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> But it doesn't explain India's contribution to the sciences. IQ is a standard developed in the modern western world. Hard to apply it to a 3rd world country


----------



## Suriya

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> @Suriya
> 
> India had $84 GDP per capita nominal in 1960 and China $92...this is when China was going through its worst famines....Mao already had started his atheist purge..but it would not be complete till 1976
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_and_projected_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita



Look at this graph and position of China and India's economy in as recent as the year 1991. Stop bluffing. .








> 14 of the 18 scientists in Operation Smiling Buddha were Tamil Brahmins



Are not these Tamil Brahmins from hot climate of southern india and furthermost from central asia , supposed to have the least amount of ANI genes among all brahmins of india ?? By your logic , ISRO and DRDO , BARC should have lot more north Indian pure Aryan brhamin than south indians semi Aryan one than their current proportion in these institute of Science and tech ??



axisofevil said:


> Brahmin and Persians have access to money....that a really big factor as well. Tamils Brahmins aren't Aryan?



No , not just aryan , Ramanujan was an Eskimo , the one with the coolest head .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Firstly there was no Pakistan , the areas he captured belonged to Persian empire and civilization and the names of thes regions is clearly visible in old maps in western world

I am quite amazed how Alexander the Great managed to launch such a fruitful campaign on foot for such long distances he literally was walking or riding across whole Pakistan / Iran / Afghnan/ iraq

Division of Empire between his generals watch guards over his domain











One can only scratch our heads how he managed to take over so much land and lay claim to it and setup administration over the land while keep going forward with ambition to lay claim to land as far as his eyes could see







The land of Arabia had no value as it was a barren desert most countries and civilizations had minimum interest to invade a land so barren as Land of Arabia

However Persian land was of high value , farms and fruits and pistacios and all sort of stakes and food
















The Shield was a valuable asset protecting vital organs of soldier and arm and wrist were all well protected and the soldier's helmet provided good protection from brute strikes or if someone throws something towards you from distance 

Combined with the Phalanx / Long range weapons and spears , the small group of army was able to defeat other group of soldiers

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

IQ has a predictive power unmatched by anyother element in psychiatry.....so IQ is a relevant topic..of course we cannot give an IQ test to the ancients, but we can make educated guesses

http://www.unz.com/akarlin/ancient-greeks-not-geniuses/

India did give some important contributions to the world scientific heritage..But I would say India's contribution was more in mathematics than in Science...Mathematics is more rational, while Science is more empirical..there is a qualitative difference between the two...

Anyways most of India's contribution was done by Brahmins --again the group with the highest Aryan component...so that just buttresses my theory that you need genes that were cooked in the cold climes of the Last Ice Age to give you an advantage in Intelligence or scientific pursuits


and India's contribution to the world of knowledge pales in comparison to what the West has achieved since the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment (1589-1687 the former) and (1700-1751 the latter)



Tamil Brahmins have been forced into science and academia because of loss of land holdings....the elite among Brahmins in the North still can have comfortable lives without going into academia...Tam Brahms have been forced to adapt like the Jews


----------



## axisofevil

Suriya said:


> Look at this graph and position of China and India's economy in as recent as the year 1991. Stop bluffing. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are not these Tamil Brahmins from hot climate of southern india and furthermost from central asia , supposed to have the least amount of ANI genes among all brahmins of india ?? By your logic , ISRO and DRDO , BARC should have lot more north Indian pure Aryan brhamin than south indians semi Aryan one than their current proportion in these institute of Science and tech ??
> 
> 
> 
> No , not just aryan , Ramanujan was an Eskimo , the one with the coolest head .




I swear bro...These clueless Pakistani's are unbelieveable.


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

axisofevil said:


> I swear bro...These clueless Pakistani's are unbelieveable.




I gave proper sourced data from World Bank...what's the source of his data?

Fact is China was higher GDP per capita than India even by 1960...which only shows how incompetent Congress was, as it could not keep up with a starving China


okay My Bad

between 1961 and 1979 India was ahead of China..during the purge years...once China had internalized the atheistic scientific temper, it rocketed ahead...


The pain years of Mao were necessary for China to be porsperous now..else it would have been just as India----people brimming with superstitions and non-scientific attitude

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## defence_analyst

SOUTHie said:


> Making a shoddy History that suits your narrative doesn't change the written facts at the time. You region was literally the Punching bag at the time which was under constant invasion. That's one reason why you never had a collective large Kingdom, while the Ganga's had strong Kingdoms away from the Hindukush ranges. Even the Genghis Khan couldn't penetrate Gangetic heartland.
> 
> King Purushottam (porus) didn't fall from sky to Indus region as you claim. And your History don't start with IVC then blank, then Porus again Blank and then Arabs.



This isn't mahabharat, there is little connection of Porus with any mythical history of gangu telis. What we are sure of though is that people from this region moved to Gangetic plains and ruled it with iron fist, now come again with OIT.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Chhatrapati

bacho said:


> This isn't mahabharat, there is little connection of Porus with any mythical history of gangu telis. What we are sure of though is that people from this region moved to Gangetic plains and ruled it with iron fist, now come again with OIT.


What is Mahaharat?  

And please, educate yourself. Your knowledge of History is not par. Porus is not Parvez Janjua as a TT said. 

OIT? Anyway, my citation is from the book, Indian Buddhism by A K Warder. Which mentions the ruling kings and dynasties. Do you have anything against it? Here is your own historians account of King of Paurava clan.
https://tribune.com.pk/story/110581/raja-paurava/

What you got against? Rhetoric? Save it.


----------



## WreckingBall

axisofevil said:


> I aint a bhakt but you're clueless if you think economics is haphazard in India. I guess you trust Rahul and Sinha over the IMF president ....Whether you agree or not.....Congress has one more harm to India than anyone can imagine. Why the f-k you think Pakistani's and Chinese are happy when Congress is in power?


One needs to distinguish between foreign policy and economic policy. How can you link how Chinese and Pakistanis feel about Congress in power to the economic policies of the Modi Government? Let me know the economic successes of the Modi Government - 1. Tell me about "Make in India" - how has it been a success? 2. How many jobs have been generated? 3. How much "black money" has been brought back? 4. How has demonitization been a success? I am happy to be corrected.


----------



## Wasim Baloch

the reality is Porus never lived in India ... His name is Greece His culture was not Indians... He was in present day pakistan and battle was fought on bank of river Jhelum in Present day pakistan and one more thing he was defeated by Alexander the Great... if you consider that Greek Historian are wrong then why do you accept all Greek History from Macedonia to Babylon .. if you consider Porus was not defeated than consider Alexander was a lie and a myth there was no Alexander simple... Indians always take credit of every foreign invader by themselves from Kushan to Porus... Indian mentality....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## zain41

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> people from cold weather (but densely populated) areas tend to have higher IQ than people from warm weather...........Germans (the white ones) have higher IQ than Nigerians....The Brain has been subjected to tens of thousands of years of evolution in different parts of the world under different selective pressures..and these selective pressures were much severe in the Global North as well as in the mountainous areas during the Last Glacial Maximum...about China...Nope China had marginally better GDP per capita from 1950 onwards...and from 1979 onwards they just chugged past India...scientific temper of mind is highly important for a good economy (unless you have oil) and atheism contributes to that...but Chinese atheism is a bit of a dogmatic atheism , Western people tend to have much better critical thinking...Indians outside of the top 3-5% have neither atheism nor critical rational thinking
> 
> 
> It is also perfectly possible that Babur had higher IQ than Lodhi coming in from super-cold Uzbekistan ....Babur showed way higher battle IQ than any commander in the Indo-Pak area..be it Hindu or Muslim
> 
> 
> A perfect blend of IQ and testosterone wins battles
> 
> 
> People from barren cold mountains overcame the people of the plains because of their superior military culture and battle tactics---both of them are functions of Intelligence/IQ



So the colder it gets the smarter humans get is the dumbest logic I've heard..


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

https://psmag.com/education/a-compensation-for-cold-weather-higher-iqs-25414


----------



## Wasim Baloch

In Short India is a slave nation... from Aryans to British Every Famous nation on Earth made Indians their Slaves... Bitter Truth... and Indians still in delusion that they are world power and strongest Economy... when you are coward your millions of army and many advanced weapons does not count... Proof Taliban vs USA and USSR

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

In short every nation on Earth has been made slave by hunter gatherers from Africa


Both USSR and USA can wipe out the Taliban by dropping nukes on them and Taliban can do jackshit..it is only because of worlöd reactions they hold back...If a Chingiss Khan was in command of USA or USSR army, Taliban problem would have been solved in 6 months...but USA and USSR are politically correct...but Taliban still belives in primitive tactics


----------



## django

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> IQ has a predictive power unmatched by anyother element in psychiatry.....so IQ is a relevant topic..of course we cannot give an IQ test to the ancients, but we can make educated guesses
> 
> http://www.unz.com/akarlin/ancient-greeks-not-geniuses/
> 
> India did give some important contributions to the world scientific heritage..But I would say India's contribution was more in mathematics than in Science...Mathematics is more rational, while Science is more empirical..there is a qualitative difference between the two...
> 
> Anyways most of India's contribution was done by Brahmins --again the group with the highest Aryan component...so that just buttresses my theory that you need genes that were cooked in the cold climes of the Last Ice Age to give you an advantage in Intelligence or scientific pursuits
> 
> 
> and India's contribution to the world of knowledge pales in comparison to what the West has achieved since the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment (1589-1687 the former) and (1700-1751 the latter)
> 
> 
> 
> Tamil Brahmins have been forced into science and academia because of loss of land holdings....the elite among Brahmins in the North still can have comfortable lives without going into academia...Tam Brahms have been forced to adapt like the Jews


And Chinese, Koreans ,Japanese trounce whites in IQ scores, however I think the extra testosterone of whites may give perhaps an extra drive to fulfill a life long dream/ambition to create/invent something, hence more contributions from whites in the last few centuries, only my supposition lol, I do agree with you that northerners may have more intellect than southerners, it could all come down to cranial size, as I have noticed men from the south tend to have very small heads which indicates a much higher chance of dementia in old age.Kudos sir

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

django said:


> And Chinese, Koreans ,Japanese trounce whites in IQ scores, however I think the extra testosterone of whites may give perhaps an extra drive to fulfill a life long dream/ambition to create/invent something, hence more contributions from whites in the last few centuries, only my supposition lol, I do agree with you that northerners may have more intellect than southerners, it could all come down to cranial size, as I have noticed men from the south tend to have very small heads which indicates a much higher chance of dementia in old age.Kudos sir




You are EXACTLY RIGHT...the much higher testosterone levels of whites negate the 2-5 point advantage that North East Asians (Chinese,Koreans,Japanese) have on whites..this higher testosterone combined with relatively high IQ levels give them an overwhelming advantage, as well as ambition, creativity.....Scientists are now coming up with another unit of measurement to track human achievement..its known as curiosity index..I surmise curiosity index is nothing but a function of both IQ and testosterone...........


The best example of High IQ as well as High testosterone are Ashkenazi Jews....(Jews used to world boxing champions when they were still poor in US)



In the subcontinental context we have to research the battle tactics and IQ of Central Asians as well as Afghan Pashtuns vis-a-vis the settled warrior class of the subcontinent

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## axisofevil

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> I gave proper sourced data from World Bank...what's the source of his data?
> 
> Fact is China was higher GDP per capita than India even by 1960...which only shows how incompetent Congress was, as it could not keep up with a starving China
> 
> 
> okay My Bad
> 
> between 1961 and 1979 India was ahead of China..during the purge years...once China had internalized the atheistic scientific temper, it rocketed ahead...
> 
> 
> The pain years of Mao were necessary for China to be porsperous now..else it would have been just as India----people brimming with superstitions and non-scientific attitude





I agree to some degree but not completely though



WreckingBall said:


> One needs to distinguish between foreign policy and economic policy. How can you link how Chinese and Pakistanis feel about Congress in power to the economic policies of the Modi Government? Let me know the economic successes of the Modi Government - 1. Tell me about "Make in India" - how has it been a success? 2. How many jobs have been generated? 3. How much "black money" has been brought back? 4. How has demonitization been a success? I am happy to be corrected.




Tell me what the hell do you expect since Modi took over versus 60 yrs of Congress rule? Be realistic and be humble. The guy is doing more than nay other shitty political or shitty political party has done so far in India. Don't be blinded by your hatred for the right wing ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## WreckingBall

axisofevil said:


> I agree to some degree but not completely though
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tell me what the hell do you expect since Modi took over versus 60 yrs of Congress rule? Be realistic and be humble. The guy is doing more than nay other shitty political or shitty political party has done so far in India. Don't be blinded by your hatred for the right wing ...


I have been realistic and humble - I don't think I have adopted a harsh tone or resorted to abusive language. I expect Modi to deliver or at least move in the direction of delivering his election promises. I don't hate him or his Government. Anyhow, you have made up your mind and that is your right. Peace.


----------



## axisofevil

Wasim Baloch said:


> In Short India is a slave nation... from Aryans to British Every Famous nation on Earth made Indians their Slaves... Bitter Truth... and Indians still in delusion that they are world power and strongest Economy... when you are coward your millions of army and many advanced weapons does not count... Proof Taliban vs USA and USSR[/QUOTE
> 
> 
> I continously see a pattern that typical pakistani's use to portray India or Indians as weak or inferior... i.e. "Slaves"..... dont play yourself..... we still around .....whopping splitting your .... fill in the blanks


----------



## PatriotLover

Kaptaan’s type of thinking makes me fear for our future. Our past and future lies in Islam. We take our strength from it. Trying to add to our history reaks of someones personal complex. We are a great nation which follows Islam and its tradition. Trying to add Indian elements to it helps hindu ghar vapasi propaganda.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Winter Soldier

Kaptaan said:


> In 326BC Alexander the Great with his Greek and Macedonian army invaded coterminous Pakistan. Our anscestors fought like lions and almost killed him in what is now Multan. By the time he left our land large part of his army was destroyed. So this thread is to celebrate our ancestors who fought to protect our sacred Indus region and also the brave Alexander. It was the first meeting of coterminous Pakistan with the West. In the subsequent centuries Greek culture and civilization took root in Gandhara region of coterminous of Pakistan which is modern North West Pakistan. I was pleasently surprised to find that Pakistan Army Museum celebrates Alexander and Porus and the Battle of Hydaspes. Image below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of histories greatest conquerors certainly left coterminous Pakistan with respect for ancestors fighting abilities. Not many people can claim in to have tangled with Alexander the Great and given him rough time like we did. What is so unique about Alexander's campaign in coterminous Pakistan is that it touched almost all our people. Every province and most districts of Pakikstan felt the force of the Greek Army. Some of us joined him. Some of us fought against him but either way it was making of history. Books are still being written about it over 2000 years later.
> 
> For the first time coterminous Pakistan fortified by the mighty River Indus was joined to a vast empire that connected us with Greece and all countries in between.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Look at the map below and see if your district in Pakistan was involved in one of histories greatest moments. The route map of Alexander the Great is approximate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The approximate route of invasion was Khyber Pass, Peshawar, cross the Indus near Attock, Taxila/Islamabad, Jhelum where Porus fought Alexander on the banks of River Jhelum or what the Greeks called Hydaspes. He then moved east to near Lahore crossing the border near Amritsar but then the Greeks turned back into coterminous Pakistan. This is proximate to the GT road axis. Returning back to Jhelum they sailed down the river to Multan where the fierce Mallians almost killed Alexander the Great.
> 
> Then sailing down into Sindh near Karachi Alexander had one of his generals survey mouth of the Indus River. He himself then marched along what is now the Mekran Highway past Gwadar into Iran.
> 
> 
> Monument to Battle of Hydaspes. Jalalpur Sharif, Jhelum, Pakistan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @Chinese-Dragon Please let your Chinese members know about this part of Ancient Pakistan's history. Thanks @AUSTERLITZ @Magnum Opus @KediKesenFare @HAKIKAT @EgyptianAmerican @xenon54 etc
> 
> 
> https://tribune.com.pk/story/1502658/army-museum-opens-doors-public-lahore/



there was no such thing as pakistan and islam back then, stop lying.



Kaptaan said:


> First I want to thank everybody for their contribution. Secondly rather surprised that we have not had any *Gangas* jumping in and trying to claim it was they who fought Aexander's army to it's knees. Just want to clarify that I am using the term "*coterminous Pakistan*". Coterminous means having the same space or boundaries in time. In other words the land and geography that is today Pakistan. Or the Indus River region.
> 
> *coterminous*
> _kəʊˈtəːmɪnəs/
> adjective
> adjective: *coterminous*
> having the same boundaries or extent in space, time, or meaning.
> _
> Thirdly, we must understand that Greece was the unrivalled superpower of it's time. It had just defeated the mighty Persian Empire and nothing stood in way of Alexander to be "conquerer of the known world". He and his army then rolled into coterminous Pakistan. Divided we we were. Indeed probably split like the district map I posted above. Just like today we had some traitors. But we also had heroes.
> 
> It must have been a strange sight. The mighty Greek army with Alexander now behaving like he was god marched through our lands. I can imagine our people leaving their farms and heading to fight the world conquerer from afar. Porus whose kingdom is only slightly larger than modern day Jhelum District fought Alexander and his Greeks on the banks of Jhelum River in what history records as Battle of Hydaspes 326BCE. Any of you members from Jhelum district should feel proud. The battle is still studied in military academies across the world. Porus fought bravely but was defeated but the battle is recorded as very difficult by greek historians.
> 
> Along the entire coterminous Pakistan the Greeks found our ancestors - from tiny kingdoms to just tribes fighting them at every turn. The Greeks often through frustration and what was common in those days massacred the defeated. This is what happened in Multan or what was then known as Mali. The Mallians after having almost killed Alexander were killed indiscrimnately. However by the time the Greeks left our land we would forever be recorded as a difficult, divided but defiant fighters. Coterminous Pakistan would become a Greek Satrap in a huge empire stretching from Europe to Pakistan.
> 
> I ask Pakistani members to look at this map and see if they can place their location on the route Alexander took and or the Porus Kingdom marked green proximating to modern Jhelum District and regions adjacent. I encourage any personal accounts, stories or anything that you can add to this thread - in partcular from districts that lay on Alexander armies route.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is high time Pakistan built statues to Porus and other fighters including our enemy Alexander. Over 2000 years we should not bear any bad blood with the Greeks but recognize the warriors that once made world history on our soil. Not many people can say they took on the superpower of it';s time with gusto like we did.
> 
> Next time you drive over the Jhelum River take few seconds to reflect on the momentous battle that took place so many centuries ago on it's banks.
> 
> And I am glad Pakistan Army Museum has embraced the Battle of Hydaspes and Porus in it's collection. A fitting inheritor of the valour shown by Porus over 2000 years ago.



you pakistanis are getting more and more ridiculous these days, where did pakistan or islam come from in 326 bc? neither do you have any claims over the indus valley civilization. so stop lying already.

to all the pakistanis, the world doesn't share your views. they believe it was India and Indians only and not pakisatains

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## gangsta_rap

There's a really strong sense of pride (albeit false pride) among the Multan public that they were able to kill off Alexander with a poisoned arrow.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Winter Soldier said:


> there was no such thing as pakistan and islam back then, stop lying.


Who the f* told you there was Pakistan or Islam back then. There was no Chrisianity, UK, France, Germany, Italy, USA, Japan etc eithier.

And I never said there was Pakistan or Islam back then. I said "*coterminous* *Pakistan*". The* land *and our* ancestors*. Read and understand before you mouth off.


Have a look at these maps and *educate* yourslf instead of eing delusional.






















The world knows the *facts*.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Politico

Pakistan as a title, name and identity was conjured up on the doctrine of an Islamic state. Without the Islamic identity, Pakistan would be non existent. After the battle of Hydaspes, the Islamic advent began and the majority of Hindu/Buddhist/Sikh kingdoms of current day Pakistan and Afghanistan yielded to and embraced Islam. Hypothetically, if Islam was not promoted in the Indian sub-continent, then Pakistan at least, if not Pakistan and Afghanistan would have become part of current day India after the Anglo-Portuguese invasion of the sub-continent. The cultures and the religions would have assimilated to become one in a fight against the Europeans, in a similar fashion to that which Alexander faced. Historically we know that Muslims refused to remain under the rule of a majority Hindu/Sikh/Buddhist regime and the concept of Pakistan was born. It is shirk/blasphemous to try and mingle the identity of a Hindu king Porus with the concept of Pakistan, whether coterminous or current day. It is beyond belief and reason.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## WreckingBall

PatriotLover said:


> Kaptaan’s type of thinking makes me fear for our future. Our past and future lies in Islam. We take our strength from it. Trying to add to our history reaks of someones personal complex. We are a great nation which follows Islam and its tradition. Trying to add Indian elements to it helps hindu ghar vapasi propaganda.


Should the Egyptians forget their past or should the Romans? You can obviously direct how your future lies but you can't cherry pick your own past. You should be proud of all your heroes and your history. The Hindu ghar wapsi thing is a minor blip within Indian borders.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hussain0216

Winter Soldier said:


> there was no such thing as pakistan and islam back then, stop lying.
> 
> 
> 
> you pakistanis are getting more and more ridiculous these days, where did pakistan or islam come from in 326 bc? neither do you have any claims over the indus valley civilization. so stop lying already.
> 
> to all the pakistanis, the world doesn't share your views. they believe it was India and Indians only and not pakisatains



There was no india 

Your black neo African ganga *** is not connected to the people of our land


----------



## El Sidd

Politico said:


> Pakistan as a title, name and identity was conjured up on the doctrine of an Islamic state. Without the Islamic identity, Pakistan would be non existent. After the battle of Hydaspes, the Islamic advent began and the majority of Hindu/Buddhist/Sikh kingdoms of current day Pakistan and Afghanistan yielded to and embraced Islam. Hypothetically, if Islam was not promoted in the Indian sub-continent, then Pakistan at least, if not Pakistan and Afghanistan would have become part of current day India after the Anglo-Portuguese invasion of the sub-continent. The cultures and the religions would have assimilated to become one in a fight against the Europeans, in a similar fashion to that which Alexander faced. Historically we know that Muslims refused to remain under the rule of a majority Hindu/Sikh/Buddhist regime and the concept of Pakistan was born. It is shirk/blasphemous to try and mingle the identity of a Hindu king Porus with the concept of Pakistan, whether coterminous or current day. It is beyond belief and reason.



Top of the morning to you Mr Lyal,

This is quite extreme to be honest. Porus was one of the kings of the region who managed to form an alliance to counter the Macedonian push past the last geographical border between the hills of the Hindu Kush and the plains of Punjab. 

This has more to do with Archeology than identity and I have seen countless documentaries and contributed to where they say 'now situtated in modern day Pakistan'. 

The Pakistani identity is something different. It is the concept of two separate nations living side by side in the sub continent who have different moral ethical and social infrastructure and a different legal system which is based in the fundamentals of Islam the religion.


----------



## Zen0

Didn't chandra Gupta defeat Alexander and made a peace treaty with him, most/all of Pakistan was already conquered. So how exactly did Pakistan defeat him ?
?
?

Gupta empire is a "Hindustani" kingdom , this was the golden age of India.


----------



## hussain0216

Zen0 said:


> Didn't chandra Gupta defeat Alexander and made a peace treaty with him, most/all of Pakistan was already conquered. So how exactly did Pakistan defeat him ?
> ?
> ?
> 
> Gupta empire is a "Hindustani" kingdom , this was the golden age of India.



There was no golden age of india, its a myth, these a short lived empires that fell long ago.

The people of this land have nothing in common, nor connection to the dark ganga types in india


----------



## Zen0

hussain0216 said:


> There was no golden age of india, its a myth,



Considering your post history , you will deny it even if you time travelled you back. 

Here are bob indian sources 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007yzd0
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ahistoryoftheworld/about/transcripts/episode42/

http://www.ushistory.org/civ/8e.asp

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-worldhistory/


http://www.ancient-origins.net/hist...a-maurya-and-golden-age-mauryan-empire-002277

http://www.history4kids.co/2013/07/the-golden-age-of-india.html?m=1



> these a short lived empires that fell long ago.



Short lived ?

Gupta empire lasted for 250 years that's more than the British rule in India.


> The people of this land have nothing in common, nor connection to the dark ganga types in india



Another racist comment , the last thing I want is to be associated with racists like yourself . I really don't care weather you want to forget about your roots, believe you are Arab aliens from mars for all I care.


----------



## Chhatrapati

hussain0216 said:


> There was no golden age of india, its a myth, these a short lived empires that fell long ago.
> 
> The people of this land have nothing in common, nor connection to the dark ganga types in india



Lol!!


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Zen0 said:


> Didn't chandra Gupta defeat Alexander


Which history have you been reading? Gupta never fought Alexander. Please refer to maps of Alexander's campain in coterminous Pakistan. Or else please* cite* me a source that mentions Guptas and Alexander even breathing the same air?

And I have no idea why some are bringing up Islam or issues attendant to faith. That is for today. We are talking of over 2,000 years even before Christianity saw light of the day.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## lastofthepatriots

Kaptaan said:


> Which history have you been reading? Gupta never fought Alexander. Please refer to maps of Alexander's campain in coterminous Pakistan. Or else please* cite* me a source that mentions Guptas and Alexander even breathing the same air?



He most definitely did. After your surrender monkey thread, you should be the first one to recognize Indian achievements in Asia.


----------



## Indus Pakistan

lastofthepatriots said:


> He most definitely did.


Source please?




> After your surrender monkey thread, you should be the first one to recognize Indian achievements in Asia.


What exactly are you on about?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lastofthepatriots

Kaptaan said:


> Source please?
> 
> 
> What exactly are you on about?



Out of respect for your age, I am not going to say anything. Please continue.


----------



## Indus Pakistan

lastofthepatriots said:


> Out of respect for your age,


Don't. Trust me I probably look younger than you and probably can jog as fast and as far as you can. So feel free to say what you want, please.



Zen0 said:


> Gupta empire is a "Hindustani" kingdom


While I don't agree with the exact extent of these boundaries but without a doubt this was a achievement down to a Ganga/India based empire.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lastofthepatriots

Kaptaan said:


> Don't. Trust me I probably look younger than you and probably can jog as fast and as far as you can. So feel free to say what you want, please.
> 
> While I don't agree with the exact extent of these boundaries but without a doubt this was a achievement down to a Ganga/India based empire.



I've seen your picture, so I'd have to disagree.

The map that you've shown looks like utter and complete bullshit. Thar desert is now under Indian control? I mean honestly, there has been no one that has ever controlled those bad lands. At best, today there are markers that differentiate the border. Other than that, that was actually a natural buffer zone between Indians and those of modern day Sindh and then the Saraikis of the North. But Okay. You are the expert here. What do I know?


----------



## Indus Pakistan

lastofthepatriots said:


> I've seen your picture, so I'd have to disagree.


Okay. But age does not give me any especial rights so please feel free to say what you want to. Many young people grow to be to old fools so age is no surity of anything.



lastofthepatriots said:


> The map that you've shown looks like utter and complete bullshit.


Which map? And what "monkey thread?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lastofthepatriots

Kaptaan said:


> Okay. But age does not give me any especial rights so please feel free to say what you want to. Many young people grow to be to old fools so age is no surity of anything.
> 
> Which map? And what "monkey thread?




In Pakistani society, age warrants you much respect. Not in liberal and secular UK society though.

The map that I quoted from your post looks fabricated based on the wishes of someone with an agenda. It doesn't even make sense in a topographical sense.

Regarding the 'surrender monkey' thread, it was the was the one you opened begging to cease hostilities with the Indians and begging for their friendship. I found it disgusting.

@Kaptaan

I'm not sure where your origin lies in Pakistan, but I'm pretty sick of pseudo-experts on forums announcing things about Pakistan based on what they read. I am personally from Bahawalpur, which is close to the Indian border, but then again the border is nothing but desert. We have more Pathans/Baluch/Sindhis/Punjabis than 'Indian people' especially when one looks at the indigenous Saraiki population. But all of a sudden you experts on Pakistan start writing shit from things you read and come up with theories that you claim to be true whether they are or not.

This is the current culture on PDF that really pisses me off.

Take care.


----------



## Indus Pakistan

lastofthepatriots said:


> In Pakistani society, age warrants you much respect. Not in liberal and secular UK society though.


Yes, I hate to blow your assumptions but age is given more accordance in UK then in Pakistan. In Pakistan you get lots, lots, lots of freakin hot air. In UK they give no "hot air" but focus on the the actual "substance". Result. Pakistan is all talk but no real substance. That though is a subject that can be explored in another thread.



lastofthepatriots said:


> it was the was the one you opened begging to cease hostilities


I never beg. Never will. That was a invitation to explore the possibilities of peace. Keeping open mind and being pragmatic is a neccessary part of any nations collective intellect. It was a exploration of intellectual discussion. Not surrender of any kind.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lastofthepatriots

Kaptaan said:


> Yes, I hate to blow your assumptions but age is given more accordance in UK then in Pakistan. In Pakistan you get lots, lots, lots of freakin hot air. In UK they give no "hot air" but focus on the the actual "substance". Result. Pakistan is all talk but no real substance. That though is a subject that can be explored in another thread.
> 
> I never beg. Never will. That was a invitation to explore the possibilities of peace. Keeping open mind and being pragmatic is a neccessary part of any nations collective intellect. It was a exploration of intellectual discussion. Not surrender of any kind.




Anyone that disregards experience is an absolute fool. This is something that Pakistanis learn when growing up. There is no hot air about this, just simply fact.

Again sir, I must apologize for being an uncouth savage, but after the APS attacks or Peshawar School attacks, any resolution with the Indians is beyond me. It is apparent that they are out for our blood, and I am not going to bow down. Peace? Do they deserve it?


After looking at the extent of what they are willing to do to, I have not become a pacifist in any sense of the word. Again, maybe I am crazy, and people like you are sane. Perhaps I am even unable to dispute that. But from all honesty of my heart, I hold a grudge and it will never go away.

Look at it however you want.

Take care


----------



## agamdilawari

*PORUS*

The only information available on Porus is from Greek sources. Historians however have reasoned that based on his name and the location of his domain, Porus was likely to have been a descendant of the Puru tribe mentioned in the Rig Veda.[1][2]

The historian, Ishwari Prasad, noted that Porus might have been a Yaduvanshi Shoorsaini. He argued that Porus' vanguard soldiers carried a banner of Herakles whom Megasthenes—who travelled to India after Porus had been supplanted by Chandragupta—explicitly identified with the Shoorsainis of Mathura. This Herakles of Megasthenes and Arrian has been identified by some scholars as Krishna and by others as his elder brother Baladeva, who were both the ancestors and patron deities of Shoorsainis.[8][9][10][11] Iswhari Prashad and others, following his lead, found further support of this conclusion in the fact that a section of Shoorsainis were supposed to have migrated westwards to Punjab and modern Afghanistan from Mathura and Dvārakā, after Krishna's demise and had established new kingdoms there.[12][13]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porus


P*AURAVAS
*
Pauravas (Sanskrit: पौरव) was an ancient kingdom in the northwest Indian subcontinent, dating from at least 890 BC to 322 BC. The history of the Pauravas is contained in Hindu historical and religious texts.

In the 8th century BCE, the capital Hastinapur, was destroyed by a severe flood and King _Nikasu_ built a new capital, Kosambi. With the rise of the Mahajanapada powers, the state fell into a steady decline during 5th and 4th centuries BCE.[1]

The origin of the Pauravas royals is quite ancient and pre-dates the Hindu epic, Mahabharata, which documents and is a main source of much of its history. The Hindu kings who descended from the Hindu God Chandra ("moon") were called Chandravanshi (or "of the lunar dynasty"). Yayati was a Chandravanshi king, with Puru and Yadu as two of his many sons. They were the founders of two main branches of the Chandravamsha; the Yadus, or Yadavas, were descendants of Yadu, and Pauravas were descendants of Puru.

The Pauravas had also existed earlier in the Vedic Ages. They were led by King Sudas, who fought off Persian invaders at the Battle of the Ten Kings.

The Pauravas were situated on or near the Indus river, where their monarchs grew rich and prosperous through trade. The Persian kings Darius and Xerxes claimed suzerainty over many of the Pauravas, but this claim was loose at best.The most powerful royal families, led by Ambhi and Porus, were conquered by the Greek Emperor Alexander the Great in 326 BC. Porus fought a fierce last stand against Alexander at the Battle of the Hydaspes. Alexander was not able to conquer the entire area due to his army refusing to fight the Nanda Empire further east. By 322 BCE, the region had been conquered by Chandragupta Maurya, a teenage adventurer from taxila, Gandhara and student of chanakya who later conquered the Nanda Empire and founded the Indian Maurya Empirewhich covered and stretched from the whole of present day Afghanistan, Pakistan, across to Bangladesh and northern Burma.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauravas

Conteminous PAKISTAN

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Hammad Arshad Qureshi

We have the warrior blood inside us. And it's not only Greeks we have resisted. Our Pakistani ancestors have resisted Greeks, Mongols, British and all the super powers of the time. Every super power of the time somehow messed with our ancestors like now a days USA is trying to mess with us. And previously it was Soviet Union not long ago. It's in our blood to resist the Super powers , defend our land and never bow in front of our enemies no matter how strong they are. Something which India needs to understand clearly

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Haryanvi Jat

Hammad Arshad Qureshi said:


> We have the warrior blood inside us. And it's not only Greeks we have resisted. Our Pakistani ancestors have resisted Greeks, Mongols, British and all the super powers of the time. Every super power of the time somehow messed with our ancestors like now a days USA is trying to mess with us. And previously it was Soviet Union not long ago. It's in our blood to resist the Super powers , defend our land and never bow in front of our enemies no matter how strong they are. Something which India needs to understand clearly


That moment when every Pakistani start pretending like they are Superhuman.[emoji38]

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hammad Arshad Qureshi

Haryanvi Jat said:


> That moment when every Pakistani start pretending like they are Superhuman.[emoji38]


Well Indians always feel they are invincible . But in reality we find that Moghuls ruled India for 800 years, British ruled India for 100 years, Greeks almost ruled India (if it wasn't for our ancestors another hononary title of conqueror would had been added), Ghori humiliated prithiviraj, Mahmoud Glazi completely destroyed the most scared temple in somnath. So I am not sure what you Indians are proud of?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimoor Khan

agamdilawari said:


> *PORUS*
> 
> The only information available on Porus is from Greek sources. Historians however have reasoned that based on his name and the location of his domain, Porus was likely to have been a descendant of the Puru tribe mentioned in the Rig Veda.[1][2]
> 
> The historian, Ishwari Prasad, noted that Porus might have been a Yaduvanshi Shoorsaini. He argued that Porus' vanguard soldiers carried a banner of Herakles whom Megasthenes—who travelled to India after Porus had been supplanted by Chandragupta—explicitly identified with the Shoorsainis of Mathura. This Herakles of Megasthenes and Arrian has been identified by some scholars as Krishna and by others as his elder brother Baladeva, who were both the ancestors and patron deities of Shoorsainis.[8][9][10][11] Iswhari Prashad and others, following his lead, found further support of this conclusion in the fact that a section of Shoorsainis were supposed to have migrated westwards to Punjab and modern Afghanistan from Mathura and Dvārakā, after Krishna's demise and had established new kingdoms there.[12][13]
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porus
> 
> 
> P*AURAVAS
> *
> Pauravas (Sanskrit: पौरव) was an ancient kingdom in the northwest Indian subcontinent, dating from at least 890 BC to 322 BC. The history of the Pauravas is contained in Hindu historical and religious texts.
> 
> In the 8th century BCE, the capital Hastinapur, was destroyed by a severe flood and King _Nikasu_ built a new capital, Kosambi. With the rise of the Mahajanapada powers, the state fell into a steady decline during 5th and 4th centuries BCE.[1]
> 
> The origin of the Pauravas royals is quite ancient and pre-dates the Hindu epic, Mahabharata, which documents and is a main source of much of its history. The Hindu kings who descended from the Hindu God Chandra ("moon") were called Chandravanshi (or "of the lunar dynasty"). Yayati was a Chandravanshi king, with Puru and Yadu as two of his many sons. They were the founders of two main branches of the Chandravamsha; the Yadus, or Yadavas, were descendants of Yadu, and Pauravas were descendants of Puru.
> 
> The Pauravas had also existed earlier in the Vedic Ages. They were led by King Sudas, who fought off Persian invaders at the Battle of the Ten Kings.
> 
> The Pauravas were situated on or near the Indus river, where their monarchs grew rich and prosperous through trade. The Persian kings Darius and Xerxes claimed suzerainty over many of the Pauravas, but this claim was loose at best.The most powerful royal families, led by Ambhi and Porus, were conquered by the Greek Emperor Alexander the Great in 326 BC. Porus fought a fierce last stand against Alexander at the Battle of the Hydaspes. Alexander was not able to conquer the entire area due to his army refusing to fight the Nanda Empire further east. By 322 BCE, the region had been conquered by Chandragupta Maurya, a teenage adventurer from taxila, Gandhara and student of chanakya who later conquered the Nanda Empire and founded the Indian Maurya Empirewhich covered and stretched from the whole of present day Afghanistan, Pakistan, across to Bangladesh and northern Burma.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauravas
> 
> Conteminous PAKISTAN





Take you vedic history and shove it in your backside, mate.


He was an ancient Punjabi from the lands which to date still form the major chunk of Pakistan Army personal. Its in the blood as they say. A continuation of Indus , ancient Pakistan. 

You gangiyates better off finding your miserable beginning around your ganga basin. No harm in owing something, how awful or miserable it might be, coz it is yours. 


On the topic. There seems to be confusion , as people are still in the awe of this darling of west, the blonde poster boy, Alexender "the great". 

Let get some facts straight as to what happened.


1) Alexander and his armies only manage to come in the heartlands of ancient Pakistan when the ruler of Texilla Ambi, in his sheer anamosity and hatred for Porus, made a pack with Alexdener to destroy Porus in partnership. Ambi allowed Alexander the safe passage via Taxilla to reach river Jehlum. (This problem of trachery run deeps and still exist in modern day Pakistanis)

2) The depictions by Curtius, Justin, Diodorus, Arrian and Plutarch are quite consistent and reliable in concluding that Alexander was defeated by Porus and had to make a treaty with him to
save his and his soldiers` lives. He was a broken man at his return from his mis-adventures.

3) Mr E.A.W. Badge has included an account of "The Life and Exploits of Alexander" where he writes inter alia the following:

"In the battle of Jhelum a large majority of Alexander`s cavalry was killed. Alexander realized that if he were to continue fighting he would be completely ruined. He requested Porus to stop fighting. Porus was true to traditions and did not kill the surrendered enemy. After this both signed treaty, Alexander then helped him in annexing other territories to his kingdom".

Mr Badge further writes that the soldiers of Alexander were grief-stricken and they began to bewail the loss of their compatriots. They threw off their weapons. They expressed their strong desire to
surrender. They had no desire to fight. Alexander asked them to give up fighting and himself said,
"Porus, please pardon me. I have realized your bravery and strength. Now I cannot bear these agonies. WIth a sad heart I am planning to put an end to my life. I do not desire that my soldiers should also be ruined like me. I am that culprit who has thrust them into the jaw of death. It
does not become a king to thrust his soldiers into the jaws of death."

These expressions of `Alexander, The Great!` do not indicate from any stretch of imagination his victory over Porus? Can such words be uttered by a `World Conquerer"?


4) Alexnder is known to be a cruel man in history. He was neither a noble man nor did
he have a heart of gold. He had meted out very cruel and harsh treatment to his earlier enemies. Basus of Bactria fought tooth and nail with Alexander to defend the freedom of his motherland. When he was brought before Alexander as a prisoner, Alexander ordered his servants to whip
him and then cut off his nose and ears. He then killed him. Many Persian generals were killed by him.
The murder of Kalasthenese, nephew of Aristotle, was committed by Alexander because he criticised Alexander for foolishly imitating the Persian emperors. Alexander also murdered his friend Clytus in anger. His father`s trusted lieutenant Parmenian was also murdered by Alexander.

Considering above, its foolish to assume that Alexander just handover the lands of a "defeated" king and actually help him expand his rule. These are more of less, conditions imposed by Porus on Alexander until the later was given a safe passage down the indus towards the arabian sea, the easiest route back home for Alexander and his armies.

5) Alexander died of injuries later, sustained during this epic battle.

6) The events that followed this battle, clearly showed that the acts of Greek army was of one with tails firmly tucked between their legs and of a defeated army. They only stuck to the indus in their retreat, did not follow the same path where they came from i.e. Afghanistan, their path to Arabian sea without venturing out on lands. Thoughout their journey down indus, they were picked off. I was watching a documentary long time ago in which a historian was tracing the track of so called "victorious Alexander army". They were showing the skeleton of the Greek army Littered around the coast of Pakistan, which btw can still be found. They presented those as the ones died of "thrust" and "hunger". That is laughable. how can a victorious army die of hunger and thrist?? It more like a case of being "picked off" what remained of it.


7) Here we got the "world conquer" the destroyer of mighty persian empire, who headed to sub-continent to plunder its wealth and resources (as obvious from the letter exchanges between him and porus), yet for some very strange reason his charge to world dominance came to a grinding halt and he will make hasty exit through Indus downstream. Also, there are some other issues as well. Alexander was always protected by his elite bodyguards during the battles. Yet its a know fact that the horse he always used to ride, Bucephalus, died during the battle, so what about the rider? It is also known that Porus infact knock Alexander off his ride during battle which lead to his fatal injuries which also may have killed Bucephalus. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucephalus
_






Arrian states, with Onesicritus as his source, that Bucephalus died at the age of thirty, a good age for a horse even today. Other sources, however, give as the *cause of death not old age or weariness, but fatal injuries at the Battle of the Hydaspes (June 326 BC),
The modern-day town of Jalalpur Sharif, outside Jhelum, is said to be where Bucephalus is buried.
*_

So again question is, if the horse got killed, what happened to the rider? If that is not too close for comfort for a Greek general and world conquerer then what it is? 


8) What the elite somatophylax (bodyguards) of Alexander were doing when Porus was showboating and toying with Alexender?? Or were they just simply knocked out by Porus men? One can easily draw a consulion that no one could reach Alexdener without passing protection of his bodygaurds. Killing of Bucephalus is a clear indication as to what state Alexender and his army was in during the battle. 

9) Another most intriguing side of this whole thing is, that before the battle, the Persian queen cum wife of Alexander, Roxanne, went to Porus personally and begged him for not to slay her husband during battle. Perhaps the reason why Alexender was "spared". 

10) Greek historians went silent about this battle and its only after 300 years have gone by, when the bones of Alexder and Porus went to dust, they wrote the account of battle on how the "gracious" Alexdener give Porus his lands back admiring his bravery!! Anceint Pakistan was his last and fatal campaign where his juggernaut was brought to a rather rude and brutal stop. 


There should be no question in Pakistani minds that our ancestors uprooted the tyrant and super power of that time. We did the same in recent past, and we are doing the same as we speak. Its is in our blood, and perhaps the reason why Almighty created us.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Haryanvi Jat

Hammad Arshad Qureshi said:


> Well Indians always feel they are invincible . But in reality we find that Moghuls ruled India for 800 years, British ruled India for 100 years, Greeks almost ruled India (if it wasn't for our ancestors another hononary title of conqueror would had been added), Ghori humiliated prithiviraj, Mahmoud Glazi completely destroyed the most scared temple in somnath. So I am not sure what you Indians are proud of?



Let me Guess, Mughals were not your ancestors, British were not your ancestors, Greeks were not your ancestors. You are probably of same stock as of many NI and NWI. Your ancestors probably converted to Islam because of fear of death. So what are you proud of? Now taking about myself. My ancestors killed those Nawabs who used to rule small parts of United Punjab, because they were very cruel. If you go more deep into history, my ancestors used to rule Lahore. Now that's why I am proud.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chhatrapati

Taimoor Khan said:


> He was an ancient Punjabi from the lands which to date still form the major chunk of Pakistan Army personal.



And I got his name. 



Armstrong said:


> *Porus aka Pervez Janjua* would've won!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimoor Khan

SOUTHie said:


> And I got his name.



And like the rest of your kind, you are a wannabe.


----------



## Chhatrapati

Taimoor Khan said:


> And like the rest of your kind, you are a wannabe.


Wannabe What?


----------



## Taimoor Khan

SOUTHie said:


> Wannabe What?



Glory hunters.


----------



## Chhatrapati

Taimoor Khan said:


> Glory hunters.


I don't hunt for any glory. My ancestors are neither Aryans nor IVC's.

And just read the comments man. Your own fellas denounced your history, and started calling the OP as some Hindu apologist historian. 

The glory hunters are those who bend the history on their own will. King Purushottam (Porus) was a great warrior of his time. He defended his land and he lost. It has nothing to do with Pakistan, and the former Kings who ruled around the this subcontinent has nothing to do with any of the regions. They were just one in millions or reasons for what what it is now different nations in the region and they left stories and monuments that tells a lot of stories. We can learn and follow rather than fighting for right to bear the lamp.


----------



## Taimoor Khan

SOUTHie said:


> I don't hunt for any glory. My ancestors are neither Aryans nor IVC's.
> 
> And just read the comments man. Your own fellas denounced your history, and started calling the OP as some Hindu apologist historian.
> 
> The glory hunters are those who bend the history on their own will. King Purushottam (Porus) was a great warrior of his time. He defended his land and he lost. It has nothing to do with Pakistan, and the former Kings who ruled around the this subcontinent has nothing to do with any of the regions. They were just one in millions or reasons for what what it is now different nations in the region and they left stories and monuments that tells a lot of stories. We can learn and follow rather than fighting for right to bear the lamp.



Its quite funny to read the vedic history and its fanboys try to find the similarities, if there any, in the names, words, expressions and somehow link to their own ancestry. Porus = Purushottam, nice try !

Since the Syrians or the Jews will not owe the Egyptian civilization because, though, their lands were once subject of Egyptian/Nile rule, they were end of the day, the subjects. If you can understand this fact, you will also understand your relationship with the land of Indus (aka Pakistan). You were the subjects of Indus or its product, if you happen to be in current western India. your relationship with it is by occupation, geographical expansion, while the inhibitants of Indus are the onces who build it , and governed it. Porus like many others was son of soil, and you gangiyates can take your inspirations from him like that spartan king Leonidas, but, you dont owe him.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chhatrapati

Taimoor Khan said:


> Its quite funny to read the vedic history and its fanboys try to find the similarities, if there any, in the names, words, expressions and somehow link to their own ancestry. Porus = Purushottam, nice try !


I don't know vedas. And I'm not Hindu. I'm just making up an alias for Parvez.
So, what's the story of King Porus?

Mind you, Porus is a Hindu King with a greek name.



Taimoor Khan said:


> Since the Syrians or the Jews will not owe the Egyptian civilization because, though, their lands were once subject of Egyptian/Nile rule, they were end of the day, the subjects. If you can understand this fact, you will also understand your relationship with the land of Indus (aka Pakistan). You were the subjects of Indus or its product, if you happen to be in current western India. your relationship with it is by occupation, geographical expansion, while the inhibitants of Indus are the onces who build it , and governed it. Porus like many others was son of soil, and you gangiyates can take your inspirations from him like that spartan king Leonidas, but, you dont owe him.



Why are you talking about owing something. We didn't ask anyone to owe us anything neither we owe anything. And we are not products of Indus, by making self contradictory statements doesn't prove we are. In your own comment you called us Gangites (North perhaps). And how can that be son of Indus? Like I said before, Porus was a great King, he was not the greatest the subcontinent has produced. We have had many great rulers, from Gupta's, Mauryas, Rajputs, Karakota's , (quite a lot) and the sultanates to Mughals to Marathas.

What Indus has contributed is a name for a civilization that is spread across the sub continent.


----------



## Taimoor Khan

SOUTHie said:


> I don't know vedas. And I'm not Hindu. I'm just making up an alias for Parvez.
> So, what's the story of King Porus?
> 
> Mind you, Porus is a Hindu King with a greek name.



Whatever his name was, he wasnt your kind, which your kind is desperately and rather shamelessly trying to prove.




SOUTHie said:


> Why are you talking about owing something. We didn't ask anyone to owe us anything neither we owe anything. And we are not products of Indus, by making self contradictory statements doesn't prove we are. In your own comment you called us Gangites (North perhaps). And how can that be son of Indus? Like I said before, Porus was a great King, he was not the greatest the subcontinent has produced. We have had many great rulers, from Gupta's, Mauryas, Rajputs, Karakota's , (quite a lot) and the sultanates to Mughals to Marathas.
> 
> What Indus has contributed is a name for a civilization that is spread across the sub continent.



I am not talking French mate. Simply disassociating your kind with Porus.

He maybe not the greatest in term of his kingdom and resources but what he achieved was indeed the greatest. That is why there can be a comparison drawn between him and the spartan king Leonidas, while the later got killed, Porus lived on cherishing his victory against all odds.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Chhatrapati

Taimoor Khan said:


> Whatever his name was, he wasnt your kind, which your kind is desperately and rather shamelessly trying to prove.


You are desperately trying to prove he was not Indian. Neither of them are trying to Prove he was, as far as I see the comments made by Indians.

Also, by whatever you just prove your mentality. Just some ad hominem in the name of someone, you people mostly despise. Many of your compatriots are saying the history of Pakistan is islamic. Well, I agree with them. You made your country because you don't want to co-exist with the Hindu India.


Taimoor Khan said:


> I am not talking French mate. Simply disassociating your kind with Porus.
> 
> He maybe not the greatest in term of his kingdom and resources but what he achieved was indeed the greatest. That is why there can be a comparison drawn between him and the spartan king Leonidas, while the later got killed, Porus lived on cherishing his victory against all odds.


Porus is Hindu King who lived in Indian subcontinent. Whatever that kind be. An Aryan by blood, if Aryan invasion theory is true. Just like other Kings around the subcontinent at the time. Now you can interpret further and further how he is not my Kind. I didn't claim he was.


Taimoor Khan said:


> He maybe not the greatest in term of his kingdom and resources but what he achieved was indeed the greatest. That is why there can be a comparison drawn between him and the spartan king Leonidas, while the later got killed, Porus lived on cherishing his victory against all odds.


Yeah, he was your greatest. Not our, since Mr. Alexander ran away before facing Nanda's. The reason being, sheer strength of the Nanda empire.
Following the victorious battle of the Hydaspes River, Alexander's army marched until the Hyphasis river (modern day Beas river). It was at that point where his army mutinied unwilling to face the army of the vast Nanda Empire laying to the east and demanding from the king to finally take the long way home.


----------



## Indus Pakistan

agamdilawari said:


> *northwest Indian *subcontinent


You mean *coterminous Pakistan* or the northern part of it.

* And i am supposed to be packing and leaving PDF. However I keep getting drawn back. In particular when tagged/or subjects close to my heart. May I need to give my handle away to somebody here and they can keep it "warm" for me.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimoor Khan

SOUTHie said:


> You are desperately trying to prove he was not Indian. *Neither of them are trying to Prove he was, as far as I see the comments made by Indians.*
> 
> Also, by whatever you just prove your mentality. Just some ad hominem in the name of someone, you people mostly despise. Many of your compatriots are saying the history of Pakistan is islamic. Well, I agree with them. You made your country because you don't want to co-exist with the Hindu India.





SOUTHie said:


> *Porus is Hindu King who lived in Indian subcontinent*. Whatever that kind be. An Aryan by blood, if Aryan invasion theory is true. Just like other Kings around the subcontinent at the time. Now you can interpret further and further how he is not my Kind. I didn't claim he was.



These are just plain simple facts, where is the desperation came in?

Just highlighted the bold part to underline what I have been saying. Desperation you said?


NOW, Those who say Pakistan history is Islamic, if by that you mean 1400 years old, this argument is born out of ignorance. Islam is not 1400 years old, it started from Adam and completed on Mohammad (PBUH). Our civilization in Pakistan is the oldest, so in that sense, our history is indeed as old as Islam.

There is nothing like Indian subcontinent. The term India itself was invented by colonials, has no relevance to history, let alone ancient history.



SOUTHie said:


> Yeah, he was your greatest. Not our, since Mr. Alexander ran away before facing Nanda's. The reason being, sheer strength of the Nanda empire.
> Following the victorious battle of the Hydaspes River, Alexander's army marched until the Hyphasis river (modern day Beas river). It was at that point where his army mutinied unwilling to face the army of the vast Nanda Empire laying to the east and demanding from the king to finally take the long way home.



https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/when...-down-to-his-knees.521716/page-9#post-9929395

Go through it and educate yourself. Any Kingdom east of Indus basin historically neither have deterred the foreign armies neither they have put up the fight. 1000 years of Muslim occupation of the lands which is now India is a testimony of that. Anyway, your arguments are irrelevant as Alexander was thoroughly beaten by ancients Pakistanis.


----------



## Zen0

Kaptaan said:


> You mean *coterminous Pakistan* or the northern part of it.



Gupta empire defeated Alexander, Gupta empire was a indian kingdom that stretches till south India.


----------



## Chhatrapati

Taimoor Khan said:


> These are just plain simple facts, where is the desperation came in?
> 
> Just highlighted the bold part to underline what I have been saying. Desperation you said?
> 
> 
> NOW, Those who say Pakistan history is Islamic, if by that you mean 1400 years old, this argument is born out of ignorance. Islam is not 1400 years old, it started from Adam and completed on Mohammad (PBUH). Our civilization in Pakistan is the oldest, so in that sense, our history is indeed as old as Islam.
> 
> There is nothing like Indian subcontinent. The term India itself was invented by colonials, has to relevance to history, let alone ancient history.


I disagree with that. Islam came first, then came states. Later the followers of Muhammad (SAW) came into our place, showed the people, their purpose. IMO my ancestors were the first to follow the truth. I understand being first or last has no real value (not in a tone of holier than thou), just saying.

And no matter how hard it is to mention, the people up north were pagans at the time. Including Porus. That's why many of your compatriots finds it hard to accept them.



Taimoor Khan said:


> Go through it and educate yourself. Any Kingdom east of Indus basin historically neither have deterred the foreign armies neither they have put up the fight.



Please.... if you don't know, don't throw random BS threads.. Just read an educate from open internet. The Alexander who conquered some regions of Pakistan, left his generals to rule these regions. One was Seleucid (ever heard of the guy? he was your King for a while) who invaded regions held by Chandragupta Maurya. He was defeated and later frormed an alliance through which daughter of Seleucid was married to Chandragupta. Also he ceded few territories (afghan region) to the Maurya king, in return he gifted hundreds of elephants later he used them in the battle of Ipsus.

Now, like I said, Pakistan was literally the Punching bag for invasions. The initial invasion of the Caliphates were also unsuccessful to penetrate the Indian heartlands, I need to look it up for the events followed. If you want I'll detail them.


There was Huna's who were central asian tribes, who made huge inroads into the subcontinent only to be defeated and send back by Guptas.

Because of constant invasion, western regions couldn't contribute much to the arts, science and literature. And mainly because of these invasions, many of the sources were destroyed, one such being the burning of Takshasila university. I read the library burned for many days. But the Ganga's had many mathematicians and astronomers, great doctors that's because we had stable Kingdoms.


Taimoor Khan said:


> 1000 years of Muslim occupation of the lands which is now India is a testimony of that. Anyway, your arguments are irrelevant as Alexander was thoroughly beaten by ancients Pakistanis.


Yeah, you guys always take the Mega Jump to 1000 years of Islamic rule. Those invaders could rule majority of the land in India, for a few hundred years. They were pushed back within that time. Or they fight among themselves and give opportunities to Indian kings. Mind you, they even fought among themselves for women.

My region was never ruled by an Islamic invader my ancestors converted willingly.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## maravan91

At the end of day Porus Was defeated kinģ, 
Hope Pakistanis also honour rajah dahir, who is true son of soil of pakistan.


----------



## Taimoor Khan

SOUTHie said:


> I disagree with that. Islam came first, then came states. Later the followers of Muhammad (SAW) came into our place, showed the people, their purpose. IMO my ancestors were the first to follow the truth. I understand being first or last has no real value (not in a tone of holier than thou), just saying.
> 
> And no matter how hard it is to mention, the people up north were pagans at the time. Including Porus. That's why many of your compatriots finds it hard to accept them.



I dont know your faith, neither is my concern, but according to Islamic faith, all prophets from Adam, down to Noah, to Abraham to Moses to Jesus to finally Mohammah (SAW), were Muslims. Quran mention them all as such. So if you are not believer in Islam, you are not Muslim. They all preached nothing but Islam. Only difference was their Shariah changed due to the environment and people they were send to. BUT the religion of Islam was the same. Message was the same. On Prophet Mohammad (SAW) Islam was completed and sealed. 

With this background, with known 1 lack 24 thousands prophets send to humanity, with many ancients ones being send to this land of Indus civilization, Pakistani history is indeed as old as Islam. Its another debate on how many reverted back in ancient times and how many rebelled. Destruction of IVC gives the clues. 




SOUTHie said:


> Please  if you don't know, don't throw random BS threads.. Just read an educate from open internet. The Alexander who conquered some regions of Pakistan, left his generals to rule these regions. One was Seleucid (ever heard of the guy? he was your King for a while) who invaded regions held by Chandragupta Maurya. He was defeated and later frormed an alliance through which daughter of Seleucid was married to Chandragupta. Also he ceded few territories (afghan region) to the Maurya king, in return he gifted hundreds of elephants later he used them in the battle of Ipsus.
> 
> Now, like I said, Pakistan was literally the Punching bag for invasions. The initial invasion of the Caliphates were also unsuccessful to penetrate the Indian heartlands, I need to look it up for the events followed. If you want I'll detail them.
> 
> 
> There was Huna's who were central asian tribes, who made huge inroads into the subcontinent only to be defeated and send back by Guptas.
> 
> Because of constant invasion, western regions couldn't contribute much to the arts, science and literature. And mainly because of these invasions, many of the sources were destroyed, one such being the burning of Takshasila university. I read the library burned for many days. But the Ganga's had many mathematicians and astronomers, great doctors that's because we had stable Kingdoms.



Thats what I said, READ the link I posted above, It will clear your mind. By all accounts , Alexander backside was handed overt to him on the platter by ancient Pakistanis. 

I dont like to keep on repeating myself, but the history you are indoctrinated with was written 300 years after the battle of hydespas by none other then Greeks themselves. You gullible Indians are easy to manipulate. 

Indus is the civilization which "civilized" the lands around it, including present day India, or atleast majority of its western side. Your rants are laughable. 



SOUTHie said:


> Yeah, you guys always take the Mega Jump to 1000 years of Islamic rule. Those invaders could rule majority of the land in India, for a few hundred years. They were pushed back within that time. Or they fight among themselves and give opportunities to Indian kings.  Mind you, they even fought among themselves for women.
> 
> My region was never ruled by an Islamic invader my ancestors converted willingly.




You think 1000 years is not a long time? Those who tried to resist among your kind, the inhibitant of gangaland, the present day India, their heads were chopped off in thousands. not saying its a good or bad things, but resistance was futile. I dont have to tell you what happened to the best of warrior kind among you, the marhattas. 

Glad your ancestors reverted, good for you.


----------



## maravan91

Taimoor Khan said:


> I dont know your faith, neither is my concern, but according to Islamic faith, all prophets from Adam, down to Noah, to Abraham to Moses to Jesus to finally Mohammah (SAW), were Muslims. Quran mention them all as such. So if you are not believer in Islam, you are not Muslim. They all preached nothing but Islam. Only difference was their Shariah changed due to the environment and people they were send to. BUT the religion of Islam was the same. Message was the same. On Prophet Mohammad (SAW) Islam was completed and sealed.
> 
> With this background, with known 1 lack 24 thousands prophets send to humanity, with many ancients ones being send to this land of Indus civilization, Pakistani history is indeed as old as Islam. Its another debate on how many reverted back in ancient times and how many rebelled. Destruction of IVC gives the clues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats what I said, READ the link I posted above, It will clear your mind. By all accounts , Alexander backside was handed overt to him on the platter by ancient Pakistanis.
> 
> I dont like to keep on repeating myself, but the history you are indoctrinated with was written 300 years after the battle of hydespas by none other then Greeks themselves. You gullible Indians are easy to manipulate.
> 
> Indus is the civilization which "civilized" the lands around it, including present day India, or atleast majority of its western side. Your rants are laughable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think 1000 years is not a long time? Those who tried to resist among your kind, the inhibitant of gangaland, the present day India, their heads were chopped off in thousands. not saying its a good or bad things, but resistance was futile. I dont have to tell you what happened to the best of warrior kind among you, the marhattas.
> 
> Glad your ancestors reverted, good for you.



Lol your ancestors like porus and rajah dahir were defeated kings.


----------



## Taimoor Khan

maravan91 said:


> Lol your ancestors like porus and rajah dahir were defeated kings.



Really???


----------



## maravan91

Taimoor Khan said:


> Really???



Porus and rajah dahir both bought bravely against invaders. But at the end of day both were defeated. So history will remember them as losers.


----------



## Taimoor Khan

maravan91 said:


> Porus and rajah dahir both bought bravely against invaders. But at the end of day both were defeated. So history will remember them as losers.



Right!! I didnt know that. thanks for your valueable one and two line contributions.


----------



## maravan91

Taimoor Khan said:


> Right!! I didnt know that. thanks for your valueable one and two line contributions.



You can write essays about porus and rajadahir and their brave resistance against invaders. But that can't change their defeat


----------



## Taimoor Khan

maravan91 said:


> You can write essays about porus and rajadahir and their brave resistance against invaders. But that can't change their defeat




https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/when...-down-to-his-knees.521716/page-9#post-9929395

Read.


----------



## maravan91

Taimoor Khan said:


> https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/when...-down-to-his-knees.521716/page-9#post-9929395
> 
> Read.



As i said you can proud of your ancestors both porus and rajah dahir. And their resistance against mighty greeks and arabs. For outside world both rajah dahir and porus r defeated kings


----------



## Chhatrapati

Taimoor Khan said:


> I dont like to keep on repeating myself, *but the history you are indoctrinated with was written 300 years after the battle of hydespas by none other then Greeks themselves*. You gullible Indians are easy to manipulate.


Gullible who?  The whole thread is based on Greek historians accounts. Even the name Porus is Greek. 


Taimoor Khan said:


> Indus is the civilization which "civilized" the lands around it, including present day India, or atleast majority of its western side. Your rants are laughable.


Man IVC died down may be due to the invasion or droughts. Actually it's the culture of Aryans that is followed by the subcontinent. Don't make inaccurate statements. If Ayan invasion theory is true, then IVC has nothing to do with the advancements made in civilization. IVC is not a continuing civilization.


Taimoor Khan said:


> Thats what I said, READ the link I posted above, It will clear your mind. By all accounts


Yeah, I read that with quite a lot of inaccuracies. Anyway, Alexander didn't die from injuries sustained during the war against Porus. He died nearly two years after the battle. They say, he was poisoned by a women. Or drank strong wine and the strong booze killed him.



Taimoor Khan said:


> You think 1000 years is not a long time? Those who tried to resist among your kind, the inhibitant of gangaland, the present day India, their heads were chopped off in thousands. not saying its a good or bad things, but resistance was futile. I dont have to tell you what happened to the best of warrior kind among you, the marhattas.
> 
> Glad your ancestors reverted, good for you.



Thousand year is a myth.. Fed by your education system. Conquering a few regions and later losing them cannot be considered as ruling for thousand years over India. If majority of regions came under the rule for a thousand years, yeah I can call it a thousand years of rule. Those foreigners were great people. They fought among themselves too. Raping, killing innocent civilians, forceful conversions. About the decapitation, I think Sikh's have vivid accounts of these. As their Gurus were tortured and killed by Mughals. If you happen to read their books, there are some hush hush stuffs directly against Islam.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Being nice to you, @Kaptaan, old bean.



Kaptaan said:


> First I want to thank everybody for their contribution. Secondly rather surprised that we have not had any *Gangas* jumping in and trying to claim it was they who fought Aexander's army to it's knees. Just want to clarify that I am using the term "*coterminous Pakistan*". Coterminous means having the same space or boundaries in time. In other words the land and geography that is today Pakistan. Or the Indus River region.
> 
> *coterminous*
> _kəʊˈtəːmɪnəs/
> adjective
> adjective: *coterminous*
> having the same boundaries or extent in space, time, or meaning.
> _
> Thirdly, we must understand that Greece was the unrivalled superpower of it's time. It had just defeated the mighty Persian Empire and nothing stood in way of Alexander to be "conquerer of the known world". He and his army then rolled into coterminous Pakistan. Divided we we were. Indeed probably split like the district map I posted above. Just like today we had some traitors. But we also had heroes.
> 
> It must have been a strange sight. The mighty Greek army with Alexander now behaving like he was god marched through our lands. I can imagine our people leaving their farms and heading to fight the world conquerer from afar. Porus whose kingdom is only slightly larger than modern day Jhelum District fought Alexander and his Greeks on the banks of Jhelum River in what history records as Battle of Hydaspes 326BCE. Any of you members from Jhelum district should feel proud. The battle is still studied in military academies across the world. Porus fought bravely but was defeated but the battle is recorded as very difficult by greek historians.
> 
> Along the entire coterminous Pakistan the Greeks found our ancestors - from tiny kingdoms to just tribes fighting them at every turn. The Greeks often through frustration and what was common in those days massacred the defeated. This is what happened in Multan or what was then known as Mali. The Mallians after having almost killed Alexander were killed indiscrimnately. However by the time the Greeks left our land we would forever be recorded as a difficult, divided but defiant fighters. Coterminous Pakistan would become a Greek Satrap in a huge empire stretching from Europe to Pakistan.
> 
> I ask Pakistani members to look at this map and see if they can place their location on the route Alexander took and or the Porus Kingdom marked green proximating to modern Jhelum District and regions adjacent. I encourage any personal accounts, stories or anything that you can add to this thread - in partcular from districts that lay on Alexander armies route.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is high time Pakistan built statues to Porus and other fighters including our enemy Alexander. Over 2000 years we should not bear any bad blood with the Greeks but recognize the warriors that once made world history on our soil. Not many people can say they took on the superpower of it';s time with gusto like we did.
> 
> Next time you drive over the Jhelum River take few seconds to reflect on the momentous battle that took place so many centuries ago on it's banks.
> 
> And I am glad Pakistan Army Museum has embraced the Battle of Hydaspes and Porus in it's collection. A fitting inheritor of the valour shown by Porus over 2000 years ago.


----------



## WhyCry

"*coterminous Pakistan*" .

I am happy to learn that these arabs fought the alexander and rather turning christian turned muslims.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Kaptaan said:


> Pakistan is not a natural habitat to elephants. It is *too *dry. Elephants need too much pasture and water to be native to Pakistan. Without doubt the elephants would have been traded or brought from the east - the moist Ganga Basin.
> _
> "Keeping a body that massive moving requires many football-fields-full of vegetation. It also takes huge amounts of water. Wild elephants spend most of their time either looking for food or eating it once they find it.
> Elephants can drink as much as 50 gallons (~190 liters) of water in a single day. Because they drink so often and so much, in the wild they are never far from water, though they may live in a variety of habitats, from thick jungle to open savannas."
> _
> Despite them being exotic to Indus they could have been kept in limited numbers by royalty adjacent to major rivers.



If you would pardon


Kaptaan said:


> Pakistan is not a natural habitat to elephants. It is *too *dry. Elephants need too much pasture and water to be native to Pakistan. Without doubt the elephants would have been traded or brought from the east - the moist Ganga Basin.
> _
> "Keeping a body that massive moving requires many football-fields-full of vegetation. It also takes huge amounts of water. Wild elephants spend most of their time either looking for food or eating it once they find it.
> Elephants can drink as much as 50 gallons (~190 liters) of water in a single day. Because they drink so often and so much, in the wild they are never far from water, though they may live in a variety of habitats, from thick jungle to open savannas."
> _
> Despite them being exotic to Indus they could have been kept in limited numbers by royalty adjacent to major rivers.


Pardon the interruption, but both elephants and rhinos are on the Indus Valley seals (as you probably already know). Rhinos were certainly native to the locale. They were around till very late in the day; Babur hunted rhinos. The entire topography has dried out considerably over the centuries, and noticeably even during the last six centuries.

Now back all those miles to the Ganges (the Musi, really).


----------



## Taimoor Khan

maravan91 said:


> As i said you can proud of your ancestors both porus and rajah dahir. And their resistance against mighty greeks and arabs. For outside world both rajah dahir and porus r defeated kings



Outside world doesnt matter. Its our soil, our region, we define what is history. not outsiders.


----------



## maravan91

Taimoor Khan said:


> Outside world doesnt matter. Its our soil, our region, we define what is history. not outsiders.



I am not degrading porus or rajah dahir. Both r son of soil. You can proud of their resistance against arabs and greeks.


----------



## Taimoor Khan

SOUTHie said:


> Gullible who?  The whole thread is based on Greek historians accounts. Even the name Porus is Greek.



What is in the name? It is to do the narrative, build by the Greeks on how their poster boy, the blonde chap defeated the son of the soil and somehow handed over his land back to him. What a utter load of BS. LOL. You are not getting it do you? Its imperative for the west to keep the narrative and image of Alexdendar "the great" , the undefeated one, alive and kicking. For your gullible lot, it makes sense. 



SOUTHie said:


> Man IVC died down may be due to the invasion or droughts. Actually it's the culture of Aryans that is followed by the subcontinent. Don't make inaccurate statements. If Ayan invasion theory is true, then IVC has nothing to do with the advancements made in civilization. IVC is not a continuing civilization.




Aryan theory of invasion is the thing of past my gullible Indian, invented by the colonials to keep the people confused about the history of this region. Get out of it. If there was anything like Aryans, it was the people of Indus themselves. Nazi Germans were looking for their roots here and they were no mugs. Aryan invasion theory is so fked up and for it to lived out all these years has to be one hell of biggest propaganda in the history. Some random nomads from central Asia will just turn up and challange the biggest empire/civilization of its time stretching all the way to Turkmenistan, with them having no trace of their own civilization/infrastructure in central asia!! Who would believe this BS?? IVC was the humanity first civilization/empire/one governing unit. Rest came off it. 

You lot were civilized by the original people, the elites, you should be proud if it. 



SOUTHie said:


> Yeah, I read that with quite a lot of inaccuracies. Anyway, Alexander didn't die from injuries sustained during the war against Porus. He died nearly two years after the battle. They say, he was poisoned by a women. Or drank strong wine and the strong booze killed him.



Right! a midget who actually never fought the battles on the ground one to one , and was always protected by his bodygaurds, getting his favorite horse killed in the battle which he was riding, with his bodyguards no where to be seen. You need to wake up and smell the coffee. 



SOUTHie said:


> Thousand year is a myth.. Fed by your education system. Conquering a few regions and later losing them cannot be considered as ruling for thousand years over India. If majority of regions came under the rule for a thousand years, yeah I can call it a thousand years of rule. Those foreigners were great people. They fought among themselves too. Raping, killing innocent civilians, forceful conversions. About the decapitation, I think Sikh's have vivid accounts of these. As their Gurus were tortured and killed by Mughals. If you happen to read their books, there are some hush hush stuffs directly against Islam.



The only major resistance was put by marhattas and they were sorted in Panipat, thousands were killed, pursed even after the defeat, and their heads where chopped off. And marhattas are considered to be the "warrior" kind of gangiyates. You lot are not warrior kind. Focus on what you are good at, being a banya. 



maravan91 said:


> I am not degrading porus or rajah dahir. Both r son of soil. You can proud of their resistance against arabs and greeks.



I am proud of Porus , the son of soil , kicking the hell out of the tyrant and arrogant of his time.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Are you in a position to do a write-up of pros and cons of Elephants in warfare? I wonder why didnot Porous use camels? Did the dromedary camel still not arrive there or was it still not bred to perfection for warfare purposes? Quite frankly Porous should have stocked up on more cavalry...if the Bactrian/Sogdian people had not accompanied Alexander, he would have been basically toast stuck on the ivory teeth of Porous' elephants



Interesting thoughts. 

You might like to look up the impact of elephants in European warfare, from Alexander onwards (strangely enough, his enemies, the Achaemenids, never used them against the Greeks). 

One of the peace settlement articles between Seleucus and 'Sandracottus', a non-coterminous non-Pakistani, was the provision of elephants to Seleucus. You might like to read up on the devastating effect that these had in the wars of the Diadochi, Alexander's successors, the generals of his army. As some might notice, coterminous Pakistan inherited a lot of political ideas from Alexander and his successors.
Hannibal was the next to use elephants, and he used them to tremendous effect against the Romans. Whether these were Indian elephants or African is not really certain; there is a view among animal trainers that African elephants are not really trainable.
Pyrrhus of Epirus (he of the Pyrrhic victory fame), a distant descendant of Alexander, was another effective user of elephants. His battle-craft was of a high order and he gave the Romans no end of trouble.
Coming to camels, other than the battles of the Arabs, in Arabia and in the Sahara, there is no record of the use of camels in warfare. I am not aware of any such use outside the Arabs and their emulative adversaries, very loosely slubbering the Berbers among the Arabs, which is strictly wrong. In India, there was some desultory use in the Thar Desert. It is true that Babur used them in Panipat I. Perhaps @AUSTERLITZ can tell you about more such uses.

Finally, about cavalry: why do you think Porus had insufficient cavalry? That last line of your comment was confusing. Are you making the mistake of thinking that the Greeks, actually, the Macedonians, were an infantry force? The whole point of Philip II's reforms and of Alexander's battles was the use of cavalry, light infantry and heavy infantry (the Macedonian phalanx, a modification of the Theban phalanx) in a tightly coordinated manner. Alexander won major battles; Granicus, for instance, was almost entirely a cavalry battle, turned inside out, because the breakthrough was by cavalry, the exploitation by infantry, not, as usual, the other way around. Issus, too, was a significant cavalry victory; the oblique charge by Alexander opened up the Persian centre, Darius fled, and the 'Greek' cavalry wheeled left and crashed into the back of the Greek mercenaries fighting for the Persians and broke them. This time, the exploitation was by cavalry, and caused mass slaughter. 

At Gaugamela, tactically the most interesting battle of the three, Alexander was again mounted, and beat the Persians by first pinning their infantry with his own infantry in the left and centre, while he drew the large Persian cavalry forces way off into the right, fought them to a standstill and then broke through. However, even as he broke through, he had to disengage to rescue his left wing, isolated and under severe attack by the Persian cavalry - now wait for this - mainly, at that place, the best of the Persians, the Indians and the Parthians. 

I hope you get the point. 

I hope you also recall that Porus' son led the frantic cavalry dash to stop the 'Greeks' at the river bank, where they had crossed the Hydaspes far up-river and caught Porus' army off guard.

Both Granicus and Issus involved the 'Greeks' crossing a river to fight the Persians; Hydaspes was the third of Alexander's four major battles to be cross-river.

I don't think there was much lacking in cavalry tactics among the 'Greeks', though they were admittedly depleted by the long and exhausting campaign across the length of the Persian Empire.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Chhatrapati

Taimoor Khan said:


> Aryan theory of invasion is the thing of past my gullible Indian, invented by the colonials to keep the people confused about the history of this region. Get out of it. If there was anything like Aryans, it was the people of Indus themselves. Nazi Germans were looking for their roots here and they were no mugs. Aryan invasion theory is so fked up and for it to lived out all these years has to be one hell of biggest propaganda in the history. Some random nomads from central Asia will just turn up and challange the biggest empire/civilization of its time stretching all the way to Turkmenistan, with them having no trace of their own civilization/infrastructure in central asia!! Who would believe this BS?? IVC was the humanity first civilization/empire/one governing unit. Rest came off it.
> 
> You lot were civilized by the original people, the elites, you should be proud if it.


ahaha.... great, you should ask this to kaptaan who vehemently support this theory. The aryans don't affect me. I'm not one. And TBH I don't believe in Aryan invasion. What you said are the theories used by todays Sanghi. 
Let's not go into that discussion.


Taimoor Khan said:


> Right! a midget who actually never fought the battles on the ground one to one , and was always protected by his bodygaurds, getting his favorite horse killed in the battle which he was riding, with his bodyguards no where to be seen. You need to wake up and smell the coffee.


Lol, what. Don't put words into my mouth. i never claimed he was great and powerful warriors. We have nothing to go forward than historical accounts of these historians about how he died. So far, it looks credible.


Taimoor Khan said:


> The only major resistance was put by marhattas and they were sorted in Panipat, thousands were killed, pursed even after the defeat, and their heads where chopped off. And marhattas are considered to be the "warrior" kind of gangiyates. You lot are not warrior kind. Focus on what you are good at, being a banya.


Yeah, here you go. Your own historical inaccuracies and ignorance. The Maratha's were not the warrior kind. It was the Rajputs and Jats, Haryanvis. And todays Sikh. Marathas led a good campaign against the Mughals and destroyed their Kingdom. 

Yeah, many unspeakable things were committed by those rulers. May be you take pride in that. Not us. 
Banya is a cast in hundreds of other casts. I think I should stop, thought you had some knowledge of any historical accounts but just few rhetoric and half read facts. 



Taimoor Khan said:


> I am proud of Porus , the son of soil , kicking the hell out of the tyrant and arrogant of his time.


Yeah, a great worshiper of Ganga. The irony.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## itsanufy

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> when I say Pakistan, I mean coterminous Pakistan as used by @Kaptaan
> 
> The Brahmins in Tamil culture have Avg IQ of probably 100....same as North Indian Brahmins ..perhaps a bit higher...the non-Brahmin component of Tamil IQ is quite low..most probably 2 points lower than the Indian average ..so circa 80
> 
> The Brahmins having retained the most of their Aryan genes among all the Aryan groups have an advantage in IQ...and Aryans have been living in warm climate only the last 3,500 years...
> 
> Most of the Software Moguls in India are Brahmins or Persians or Perso-Shia Muslims or Khatris...perfectly underscoring my point of race and IQ
> 
> Most of India's Nobel Prize winners in the sciences are either Brahmins or Khatris ..the ones with the highest ANI gene percentages...............
> 
> 14 of the 18 scientists in Operation Smiling Buddha were Tamil Brahmins
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PS: I have firm reasons to believe in Aryan Migration Theory...please donot try to debate me on this here...I offer my theories regarding intelligence based on this theory


Two greatest scientific minds of India from your state I can think were not Brahmins (2 Bose)


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

itsanufy said:


> Two greatest scientific minds of India from your state I can think were not Brahmins (2 Bose)




they were Kayasthas...quite close to Brahmins and forward caste..and Bengal is a firmly Indo-Aryan state..meaning the percentage of Aryan genes much higher among the non-Brahmin high castes than in the southern states


and its not as if those with no Aryan genes in India cannot throw up high caliber scientists, its just that the frequency will be extremely low 

Just as no blacks have won the Nobel Prize in the sciences inspite of living in millions of numbers in developed countries for well over 200 years (over 50-100 years with good rights)

but only a few hundred thousand Indians or Chinese or Japanese in the West manage to win Nobel Prizes in the sciences with amazing alacrity


but these same blacks have been heavyweight boxing and UFC champions in the world 
but in the past 100 years or even in the next 100, Indians and Chinese in the West wont be able to win a single heavyweight fighting title 


But in wars Indians and Chinese have been vicious through out history, as wars are mor dependent on unit cohesion, strategy,tactics, supply line management etc......all of them again more function of IQ than pure individual physical strength which blacks have more 


Light cavalry horse archers of the Mongols used to weigh only 60 kg on average 

their heavy cavalry men used to weigh around 80 kg on average.....that is way less than today's middleweight in boxing and UFC


----------



## Pakistani E

@Kaptaan Interesting isn't it, the ones who seem to be arguing with Pakistanis most virulently look to be from further away than the region of North-west Subcontinent. Yet they are so eager to tell us that the history of our land is nothing to do with us. I honestly don't know how you manage to still converse with these folks, I lose my patience and have to go outside for fresh air whenever I discuss this topic with Indians. I've never had an Indian talk to me personally the way these guardians of the Indus region do on this forum.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## itsanufy

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> they were Kayasthas...quite close to Brahmins and forward caste..and Bengal is a firmly Indo-Aryan state..meaning the percentage of Aryan genes much higher among the non-Brahmin high castes than in the southern states
> 
> 
> and its not as if those with no Aryan genes in India cannot throw up high caliber scientists, its just that the frequency will be extremely low
> 
> Just as no blacks have won the Nobel Prize in the sciences inspite of living in millions of numbers in developed countries for well over 200 years (over 50-100 years with good rights)
> 
> but only a few hundred thousand Indians or Chinese or Japanese in the West manage to win Nobel Prizes in the sciences with amazing alacrity
> 
> 
> but these same blacks have been heavyweight boxing and UFC champions in the world
> but in the past 100 years or even in the next 100, Indians and Chinese in the West wont be able to win a single heavyweight fighting title
> 
> 
> But in wars Indians and Chinese have been vicious through out history, as wars are mor dependent on unit cohesion, strategy,tactics, supply line management etc......all of them again more function of IQ than pure individual physical strength which blacks have more
> 
> 
> Light cavalry horse archers of the Mongols used to weigh only 60 kg on average
> 
> their heavy cavalry men used to weigh around 80 kg on average.....that is way less than today's middleweight in boxing and UFC


I do accept, all of the famous Bengali s are either Brahmin or Kayaatha. 
On another note, Jews have their origin in the mid of desert. But managed more than 50 percentage of novel. How the cold/densely populated theory comes true?


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

itsanufy said:


> I do accept, all of the famous Bengali s are either Brahmin or Kayaatha.
> On another note, Jews have their origin in the mid of desert. But managed more than 50 percentage of novel. How the cold/densely populated theory comes true?


its only Ashkenazi Jews who are High IQ Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews are below white average ..its because of selection pressure in Europe where Ashkenazi (European) Jews were not allowed any jobs other than banking and book keeping...this meant only the High IQ of the Jews were able to hold down jobs or get rich and poor/low-IQ Jews would either be persecuted by the Christians or die Childless..these High IQ jews would marry and have lors of children...within a 1000 years Jews had 10-15 point advantage on whites..it was just unplanned eugenics 

The mystery of high IQ of European Jews is a problem that has been completely solved a while back..look at Harvard Jewish scientist Steven Pinker ..as well as the Scandanavian series on race and IQ Brainwashed on Youtube 



on the Indian front..If I am made a dictator who ensures only the top 3-4 percent of India reproduces and rest are sterilzed, then within 25-40 years you would be looking at the Greatest country on Earth that has ever existed 


But the question is: are you, me or others ready to put up with that level of sacrifice?

but in the end we would end up with a country with as much average IQ as the Jews in USA..ca 115

and population will fall dramatically to stabilize at 50-100 million...I would rather live my last years in a country like that, in an India like that...100 crore Indians are drag on India....the rest 20 crores are somewhat okay


----------



## Joe Shearer

There have been bad posts by some members, some really embarrassing moments, but this one must be among the top three that I've read over the years, eight years.



Taimoor Khan said:


> What is in the name? It is to do the narrative, build by the Greeks on how their poster boy, the blonde chap defeated the son of the soil and somehow handed over his land back to him. What a utter load of BS. LOL. You are not getting it do you? Its imperative for the west to keep the narrative and image of Alexdendar "the great" , the undefeated one, alive and kicking. For your gullible lot, it makes sense.



It is really surprising that this cavalier sneer, not even a comment, just a rank amateur's completely inept assessment of an acknowledged military genius, even sees the light of day. Only an utterly arrogant and self-obsessed personality could come out with this. 

Alexander fought four important land battles, set pieces. There is little to distinguish this from the others, other than the lack of movement. It boiled down, on a wet, muddy battlefield, to a slugging match, and it ended with a clear 'Greek' victory. If the idiot view that the Indian - sorry, @Kaptaan , the coterminous Pakistan side - had won, there would have been no 'Greek' army marching down and facing off the numerous tribes that they faced on their march to the sea. They would have been smashed on the battlefield, and rolled over by the elephants and cavalry that Porus had in full measure. 

For the 'gullible', who are not swayed by a retrograde need to prove their identity as unconquerable warriors (other than the Bactrian Greeks less than a generation later, the Scythians, their Pahlava allies, the Kushans, the Ephthalites or White Huns, the Turks, the Afghans, the Mongols, the Turks again), the facts are clear. There are accounts all tending to the same conclusion, there are the circumstances, of a supposedly beaten army making settlements on the ground that persisted until the successor empire walked on, marching down the Indus, fighting fierce battles and winning every one, and then facing a death march across the Makran coast, ending up an exhausted band of survivors in Babylon. All this after a defeat at the Hydaspes? 



> Aryan theory of invasion is the thing of past my gullible Indian, invented by the colonials to keep the people confused about the history of this region. Get out of it. If there was anything like Aryans, it was the people of Indus themselves. Nazi Germans were looking for their roots here and they were no mugs. Aryan invasion theory is so fked up and for it to lived out all these years has to be one hell of biggest propaganda in the history. Some random nomads from central Asia will just turn up and challange the biggest empire/civilization of its time stretching all the way to Turkmenistan, with them having no trace of their own civilization/infrastructure in central asia!! Who would believe this BS?? IVC was the humanity first civilization/empire/one governing unit. Rest came off it.



Yeah, right. 

It is interesting that the right wing morons (not you; you don't qualify, I would NEVER say that you are as bright as a moron, that would be rude to one of you) on both sides of the border have almost identical views; both based on an inarticulate, incoherent, purple-faced hatred of foreigners, hatred of the humiliation of having been subdued, for the umpteenth time (yes, it happened), and the need to deny anything and everything that the foreigner represents, or, and this is it, what YOU think they represent. In this case, your linguistic heritage.

Your linguistic heritage would have been Brahui, except that some scruffy, beaten-up losers stepped through the passes, pushed out by winners in a sectarian scuffle (yes, that was part of the heritage, too, for coterminous Pakistan: recognise the modern version?), and making their sorry way into the plains down past the hills. The civilisation that coterminous Pakistan loves so dearly was decaying to the point where people built in the earlier cities' well-regulated streets. So much for the civilisation stretching all the way to Turkmenistan. Which, by the way, is another inept, ill-read, ill-informed comment: a river civilisation stretching all the way to Turkmenistan? Really? A few beads, a few seals, a few artifacts, and we suddenly have coterminous Turkestan (the name given to five former Soviet republics now independent and desperately searching for an identity - odd situation, innit?) becoming part of coterminous Pakistan (yes, the name exists). 



> You lot were civilized by the original people, the elites, you should be proud if it.



Oh, absolutely. No civilisation, no cities, no towns, only forest dwellers and small agricultural villages producing a kind of pottery very similar to the last days of the great civilisation that marked the end of civilisation in coterminous Pakistan. These original elites composed the Vedas, did the philosophical bits of the Brahmanas, the Aranyakas and the Upanishads (terms, please note, that roll smoothly off the tongues of the original coterminous elites).



> Right! a midget who actually never fought the battles on the ground one to one , and was always protected by his bodygaurds, getting his favorite horse killed in the battle which he was riding, with his bodyguards no where to be seen. You need to wake up and smell the coffee.



Have you slipped the coca leaves in yet? 

Alexander fought every battle at the head of his troops. Known to any half-read student of history. To be half-read is of course a reach for some of us. 

At Granicus, he led his troops, personally, at the head of the Bodyguards, at the tip of the wedge. So much for the fighting the battles on the ground; in a cavalry charge, that would truly be a curious situation to be in. But then that comes in the second half of the history lesson, the half that we didn't get to do. He was injured by Rhoisakes, and Spithridates sought to kill him when he was half-stunned, and Alexander (never actually fighting on the ground, one to one, according to our military history genius) was saved by Cleitus the Black, who swung at the extended sword arm and severed it. Quite an exciting day in the life of a never actually fought the battles on the ground. 

At Issus, the 'Greeks' were faced by a large Persian army led by the emperor himself barring the way back to Greece (it was still assumed that the Greeks were looking for significant defeats of the Persians and would ultimately return to Greece; nobody suspected that Alexander was looking to overthrown the Achaemenids and take over the empire himself). Alexander led the charge leading the 'hinge' soldiers, the Hypaspists, who formed the 'hinge' between the solid, immovable phalanx and the light infantry and cavalry that formed the mobile element of a Macedonian army, struck the Persian elite infantry, the Cardaces, and broke them, and then got back on horseback and led the Companions in a charge through the disorganised Persian centre towards the emperor, who fled. Fairly good going for one who, according to the local resident coterminous not-a-moron, never fought his battles on the ground one to one, and was always surrounded by his bodyguards. In this battle, he fought both on foot and on horseback. 

I really dislike instant experts with tumescent opinions and no reading, no knowledge, no information.



> The only major resistance was put by marhattas and they were sorted in Panipat, thousands were killed, pursed even after the defeat, and their heads where chopped off. And marhattas are considered to be the "warrior" kind of gangiyates. You lot are not warrior kind. Focus on what you are good at, being a banya.



The Marathas were the warrior kind? What are you smoking? They were light cavalry and never fought pitched battles if they could help it, until they were in very large numbers against very small and isolated forces. The Rajputs, the Jats, the Sikhs, much later on; the Marathas sliced up the unwieldy Mughal armies of their times, and salami-sliced their way through the over-expanded empire, until they faced their first major challenge from an effective cavalry force, completely isolated from their supply lines, half-starved and cut off from their bases. And their game was up. 



> I am proud of Porus , the son of soil , kicking the hell out of the tyrant and arrogant of his time.



Sublime in his arrogance and ignorance. What an exhibition.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Joe Shearer said:


> Interesting thoughts.
> 
> You might like to look up the impact of elephants in European warfare, from Alexander onwards (strangely enough, his enemies, the Achaemenids, never used them against the Greeks).
> 
> One of the peace settlement articles between Seleucus and 'Sandracottus', a non-coterminous non-Pakistani, was the provision of elephants to Seleucus. You might like to read up on the devastating effect that these had in the wars of the Diadochi, Alexander's successors, the generals of his army. As some might notice, coterminous Pakistan inherited a lot of political ideas from Alexander and his successors.
> Hannibal was the next to use elephants, and he used them to tremendous effect against the Romans. Whether these were Indian elephants or African is not really certain; there is a view among animal trainers that African elephants are not really trainable.
> Pyrrhus of Epirus (he of the Pyrrhic victory fame), a distant descendant of Alexander, was another effective user of elephants. His battle-craft was of a high order and he gave the Romans no end of trouble.
> Coming to camels, other than the battles of the Arabs, in Arabia and in the Sahara, there is no record of the use of camels in warfare. I am not aware of any such use outside the Arabs and their emulative adversaries, very loosely slubbering the Berbers among the Arabs, which is strictly wrong. In India, there was some desultory use in the Thar Desert. It is true that Babur used them in Panipat I. Perhaps @AUSTERLITZ can tell you about more such uses.
> 
> *Finally, about cavalry: why do you think Porus had insufficient cavalry? That last line of your comment was confusing. Are you making the mistake of thinking that the Greeks, actually, the Macedonians, were an infantry force? *The whole point of Philip II's reforms and of Alexander's battles was the use of cavalry, light infantry and heavy infantry (the Macedonian phalanx, a modification of the Theban phalanx) in a tightly coordinated manner. Alexander won major battles; Granicus, for instance, was almost entirely a cavalry battle, turned inside out, because the breakthrough was by cavalry, the exploitation by infantry, not, as usual, the other way around. Issus, too, was a significant cavalry victory; the oblique charge by Alexander opened up the Persian centre, Darius fled, and the 'Greek' cavalry wheeled left and crashed into the back of the Greek mercenaries fighting for the Persians and broke them. This time, the exploitation was by cavalry, and caused mass slaughter.
> 
> At Gaugamela, tactically the most interesting battle of the three, Alexander was again mounted, and beat the Persians by first pinning their infantry with his own infantry in the left and centre, while he drew the large Persian cavalry forces way off into the right, fought them to a standstill and then broke through. However, even as he broke through, he had to disengage to rescue his left wing, isolated and under severe attack by the Persian cavalry - now wait for this - mainly, at that place, the best of the Persians, the Indians and the Parthians.
> 
> I hope you get the point.
> 
> I hope you also recall that Porus' son led the frantic cavalry dash to stop the 'Greeks' at the river bank, where they had crossed the Hydaspes far up-river and caught Porus' army off guard.
> 
> Both Granicus and Issus involved the 'Greeks' crossing a river to fight the Persians; Hydaspes was the third of Alexander's four major battles to be cross-river.
> 
> I don't think there was much lacking in cavalry tactics among the 'Greeks', though they were admittedly depleted by the long and exhausting campaign across the length of the Persian Empire.




As great as the cavalry units of settled civilized populations are, history has shown us again and again that they are no match for the real cavalry of the eternal Eurasian steppe races, who practically live their whole life on horses

So yes if the Hydapses Battle was a strict confrontation between purely Macedonian cavalry vs purely Indo-Aryan cavalry of Porus (with a bit more increased numbers of course) , then Porus would have been victorious

The Steppe component of Alexander's army was the game changer

Will be posting within the hour on the Kshatriya Holocaust thread Sir, with my reasoned speculations

@Joe Shearer ..Weren't the pre-Buddhist Upanishads composed in the Western UP and Northern Bihar region? There is a mention of an incident in Gandhara in Brihadarayanaka Upanishad, but the main action happens in King Janaka's court in Northern Bihar


----------



## Joe Shearer

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> As great as the cavalry units of settled civilized populations are, history has shown us again and again that they are no match for the real cavalry of the eternal Eurasian steppe races, who practically live their whole life on horses
> 
> So yes if the Hydapses Battle was a strict confrontation between purely Macedonian cavalry vs purely Indo-Aryan cavalry of Porus (with a bit more increased numbers of course) , then Porus would have been victorious
> 
> The Steppe component of Alexander's army was the game changer
> 
> Will be posting within the hour on the Kshatriya Holocaust thread Sir, with my reasoned speculations
> 
> @Joe Shearer ..Weren't the pre-Buddhist Upanishads composed in the Western UP and Northern Bihar region? There is a mention of an incident in Gandhara in Brihadarayanaka Upanishad, but the main action happens in King Janaka's court in Northern Bihar



Actually, the Upanishads are being composed even today; there is no theoretical limitation to their time span. But yes, the pre-Buddhist Upanishads were, some of them, composed in Mithila and in Kosala.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Joe Shearer said:


> Actually, the Upanishads are being composed even today; there is no theoretical limitation to their time span. But yes, the pre-Buddhist Upanishads were, some of them, composed in Mithila and in Kosala.



All Upanishads post the Maitrayani Upanishads are pure Horse-manure par excellence...have lost hundreds of hours of my life trying to wade through them and trying to decipher their ponderous nature..and this goes for the Yoga Sutras too (including the Bhasyha)..hours I will not get back..actually All Upanishads other than Brihadarayanaka,Chandogya and may be Jaiminiya Upanishad Brahmana are pure horse manure...

A level of metaphysical speculation is edifying for the intellect, take it too much and it loses connection with reality......which is what modern Hinduism really is...A tumble-weed with no connection with human and physical reality...and all this because of heavy emphasis on the Puranas and Epics, which are really children's fables 

I feel Mahabharata may have some value as it is a folk retelling of the very real historical battle known as the Battle of Ten Kings...what do you think about that,Sir?


----------



## Joe Shearer

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> All Upanishads post the Maitrayani Upanishads are pure Horse-manure par excellence...have lost hundreds of hours of my life trying to wade through them and trying to decipher their ponderous nature..and this goes for the Yoga Sutras too (including the Bhasyha)..hours I will not get back..actually All Upanishads other than Brihadarayanaka,Chandogya and may be Jaiminiya Upanishad Brahmana are pure horse manure...
> 
> A level of metaphysical speculation is edifying for the intellect, take it too much and it loses connection with reality......which is what modern Hinduism really is...A tumble-weed with no connection with human and physical reality...and all this because of heavy emphasis on the Puranas and Epics, which are really children's fables
> 
> I feel Mahabharata may have some value as it is a folk retelling of the very real historical battle known as the Battle of Ten Kings...what do you think about that,Sir?



Yes, yes, you may be right about the Mahabharata, but I am far more interested in your summation of the Upanishads. 

[Later] No, not necessarily, there is much more geographical spread in the Mahabharata than there is in the Battle of Ten Kings.

You will argue, of course, that those additional geographical mentions in the Mahabharata are due to the growth of the living space of the Indo-Aryan settlers to include more of the Gangetic Plain. Possibly, but I am not sure, either of the facts, or of the dates.

I am not too sure that Patanjali is horse-manure. Although some of his most ardent western fans are right-wing revisionists, his teaching bobs up through a lot of ancient Indian literature.


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Joe Shearer said:


> Yes, yes, you may be right about the Mahabharata, but I am far more interested in your summation of the Upanishads.
> 
> [Later] No, not necessarily, there is much more geographical spread in the Mahabharata than there is in the Battle of Ten Kings.
> 
> You will argue, of course, that those additional geographical mentions in the Mahabharata are due to the growth of the living space of the Indo-Aryan settlers to include more of the Gangetic Plain. Possibly, but I am not sure, either of the facts, or of the dates.
> 
> I am not too sure that Patanjali is horse-manure. Although some of his most ardent western fans are right-wing revisionists, his teaching bobs up through a lot of ancient Indian literature.




Okay then I will make a detailed personal observation why the Upanishads (the Principle 12-13) oare worth going through and as well as are not worth going through

Patanjali the Grammarian is absolutely indispensable in our understanding of Indian History

Now the question is whether Patanjali the Grammarian is same as Patanjali the the careful compiler of various Yogic secrets into 200 bullet points

There are sparks of brilliance in Patanjali, I would admit that....but I tend fly off the handle when Indian texts talk about wielding supernormal powers as if its like making another round of morning tea

I tend to frown upon texts which are heavy on supernormal/supernatural miracles, as I principally believe they are just not possible

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please hear me out on this:

Many people would argue for the existence of supernormal powers among yogic adepts by pointing out that quantum mechanics allows for such miracles and we still have not figured out Dark Energy etc...

I counter to that point is that quantum mechanics are certainly true but only for tiny scales that are not relevant for everyday human experience.....and Dark Energy exert their influence on scales so huge that they are beyond the comprehension of the mind in everyday logical sense, (but not in the mathematical sense, just as n-dimensions are beyond human comprehension in the logical sense but not in the mathematical sense)

The scales that are relevant for everyday human experience range from 1mm to a few thousand kilometres

In that scale of length, area and volume---Physics is completely well understood and it doesnot leave any room for supernormal miracles that defy the laws of Physics..the Quantum level has no effect on this scale.. Schrödinger's cat may come in and out of existence at the sub-atomic level, but it won't come in and out of existence at the Cat-size level ...THIS ALSO MEANS Ghosts are not possible
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now that doesnot mean that I donot believe there is an underlying unified spiritual reality shadowing all of existence, but I am extremely conservative as to how that shadow can interplay with the material world..I am as conservative as the earliest Vedic Aryans

I feel that the earliest Upanishadic sages, Yajnavalkya et al., had genuine insights into the nature of Reality and understood that all of this reality is ultimately ensconced in Nothing, and the purest identity of Being is nothing...They stared into the Great Abyss and came back to tell the tale...not unlike the observations and insights of Nietzsche, Heidegger,Satre but a few orders of magnitude more intense and profound.............


This shook the later Upanishadic sages to the core, frightened the daylights out of them, and since then these later Upanishadic sages (post Buddha and pre-Mauryan collapse) were trying to construct things/entitities out of Nothing, or sub-dividing Nothing.....You can clearly see that Katha Upanishad onwards...This fright also meant that Upanishads start out atheistic/agnostic/non-theistic and become theistic within 3-4 centuries of Yajnavalkya




okay Final Closing thoughts:

Indo-European spirituality wherever it went resisted vigorously the incursion of supernormal miracles and magical events at the human level...They had to, as IE sprituality is very close connected with proto-warrior mentality, cattle raids,loot and occupation of lands and grazing fields...That's why their spirituality could not afford to completely lose connection with the real world and the limitations of physics


But pre IE sprituality of the subcontinent had a strong magical element, a worldview that allowed supernormal miracles to happen..you see the first incursion of this worldview in the Kesin Sukta.......by the time first Puranas were being composed , this supremely magical spritual worldview of pre-Aryans of India had completely displaced the much more austere spirituality of Aryans (which more concerned with welath,power and strength in this life--an inner-worldly asceticism of Max Weber if you will)

@Joe Shearer Thank you again for these amazing conversations,Sir

@Joe Shearer I think my observations on the Hydapses Battle were immature..rereading through your posts

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Okay then I will make a detailed personal observation why the Upanishads (the Principle 12-13) oare worth going through and as well as are not worth going through
> 
> Patanjali the Grammarian is absolutely indispensable in our understanding of Indian History
> 
> Now the question is whether Patanjali the Grammarian is same as Patanjali the the careful compiler of various Yogic secrets into 200 bullet points
> 
> There are sparks of brilliance in Patanjali, I would admit that....but I tend fly off the handle when Indian texts talk about wielding supernormal powers as if its like making another round of morning tea
> 
> I tend to frown upon texts which are heavy on supernormal/supernatural miracles, as I principally believe they are just not possible
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Please hear me out on this:
> 
> Many people would argue for the existence of supernormal powers among yogic adepts by pointing out that quantum mechanics allows for such miracles and we still have not figured out Dark Energy etc...
> 
> I counter to that point is that quantum mechanics are certainly true but only for tiny scales that are not relevant for everyday human experience.....and Dark Energy exert their influence on scales so huge that they are beyond the comprehension of the mind in everyday logical sense, (but not in the mathematical sense, just as n-dimensions are beyond human comprehension in the logical sense but not in the mathematical sense)
> 
> The scales that are relevant for everyday human experience range from 1mm to a few thousand kilometres
> 
> In that scale of length, area and volume---Physics is completely well understood and it doesnot leave any room for supernormal miracles that defy the laws of Physics..the Quantum level has no effect on this scale.. Schrödinger's cat may come in and out of existence at the sub-atomic level, but it won't come in and out of existence at the Cat-size level ...THIS ALSO MEANS Ghosts are not possible
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Now that doesnot mean that I donot believe there is an underlying unified spiritual reality shadowing all of existence, but I am extremely conservative as to how that shadow can interplay with the material world..I am as conservative as the earliest Vedic Aryans
> 
> I feel that the earliest Upanishadic sages, Yajnavalkya et al., had genuine insights into the nature of Reality and understood that all of this reality is ultimately ensconced in Nothing, and the purest identity of Being is nothing...They stared into the Great Abyss and came back to tell the tale...not unlike the observations and insights of Nietzsche, Heidegger,Satre but a few orders of magnitude more intense and profound.............
> 
> 
> This shook the later Upanishadic sages to the core, frightened the daylights out of them, and since then these later Upanishadic sages (post Buddha and pre-Mauryan collapse) were trying to construct things/entitities out of Nothing, or sub-dividing Nothing.....You can clearly see that Katha Upanishad onwards...This fright also meant that Upanishads start out atheistic/agnostic/non-theistic and become theistic within 3-4 centuries of Yajnavalkya
> 
> 
> 
> 
> okay Final Closing thoughts:
> 
> Indo-European spirituality wherever it went resisted vigorously the incursion of supernormal miracles and magical events at the human level...They had to, as IE sprituality is very close connected with proto-warrior mentality, cattle raids,loot and occupation of lands and grazing fields...That's why their spirituality could not afford to completely lose connection with the real world and the limitations of physics
> 
> 
> But pre IE sprituality of the subcontinent had a strong magical element, a worldview that allowed supernormal miracles to happen..you see the first incursion of this worldview in the Kesin Sukta.......by the time first Puranas were being composed , this supremely magical spritual worldview of pre-Aryans of India had completely displaced the much more austere spirituality of Aryans (which more concerned with welath,power and strength in this life--an inner-worldly asceticism of Max Weber if you will)
> 
> @Joe Shearer Thank you again for these amazing conversations,Sir
> 
> @Joe Shearer I think my observations on the Hydapses Battle were immature..rereading through your posts



Aah, so very deeply satisfying.

Thank you very much. I shall return to this to think about what you have written. Your grip on the proto-historical has to be developed further, for the benefit of us all.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## defence_analyst

@Juggernaut_is_here why do you think ancestors of mongols and turks utterly dominated steppe warfare and forced IE speakers to migrate elsewhere? Do they have higher level of testosterone? IE speakers from steppe basically overwhelmed sedentary population in south central asia, Greece, Iran, coterminous Pakistan and coterminous India which wasn't that big of a deal looking at their life style.


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

bacho said:


> @Juggernaut_is_here why do you think ancestors of mongols and turks utterly dominated steppe warfare and forced IE speakers to migrate elsewhere? Do they have higher level of testosterone? IE speakers from steppe basically overwhelmed sedentary population in south central asia, Greece, Iran, coterminous Pakistan and coterminous India which wasn't that big of a deal looking at their life style.




The ancestors of Mongols and Turks came of Age post-400 AD...The last great Indo-European Steppe Warrior empire was that of the Hepthalites..which fizzled out by 562 AD.....please keep these dates in your mind


It basically comes down to the fact that horses were being bred systematically since 4000 BC till this time and beyond to be be useful in warfare...and by 400 AD cavalry hit a sweet spot and was decisively better than any combination of Infantry...and also there is the issue of stirrups becoming widespread 350 AD onwards in the steppes ...Horses went from small donkey size to the magnificent beasts you see today

and during this period Ancestors of Mongols and Turks happened to be in control of the steppes, and therefore were supremely poised to attack neighbouring settled civilizations

only Indo-European nomadic confederacies that held promise during this time were the Hepthalites in various forms , but they were wiped out by Sassanid and *Göktürks* and were also simultaneously driven out of India


Another reason I feel is that the Indo-European soul is not that agreeable to authority..and the Indo-European soul has a much more daring inquisitive nature...This is also the reason why Indo-European Pakistan and Iran lead other Islamic nations in scientific accomplishments inspite of being much poorer than the top Muslim nations
This is also the reason why dictatorships are much harder to pull off in Indo-European lands than in other cultures...Remember the Greeks ´gave us Democracy......A paltry number of 78 deaths in Indo-European Iran in 2009 drew much harsher outcry than the persecutions in the Arab world....

But the downside of this individualistic mindset among Indo-Europeans mean that an Indo-European warlord has to be far more charismatic and much more of an übermensch in order to raise the same number of warriors as a middling Turkic or Mongol warlord can...

This is exactly the reason why Alexander is studied in much greater detail in military colleges than Chinggis Khan ever will be

and also means Hepthalites may not have had the sufficient number of warriors to counter the Göktürks



regarding testosterone I am not sure Turks have anymore than the best of Indo-Europeans
even the poorer Indo-Europeans like Iran and India are highly competitive in fight sports against the Turkic nations

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Taimoor Khan

Joe Shearer said:


> It is really surprising that this cavalier sneer, not even a comment, just a rank amateur's completely inept assessment of an acknowledged military genius, even sees the light of day. Only an utterly arrogant and self-obsessed personality could come out with this.
> 
> Alexander fought four important land battles, set pieces. There is little to distinguish this from the others, other than the lack of movement. It boiled down, on a wet, muddy battlefield, to a slugging match, and it ended with a clear 'Greek' victory. If the idiot view that the Indian - sorry, @Kaptaan , the coterminous Pakistan side - had won, there would have been no 'Greek' army marching down and facing off the numerous tribes that they faced on their march to the sea. They would have been smashed on the battlefield, and rolled over by the elephants and cavalry that Porus had in full measure.
> 
> For the 'gullible', who are not swayed by a retrograde need to prove their identity as unconquerable warriors (other than the Bactrian Greeks less than a generation later, the Scythians, their Pahlava allies, the Kushans, the Ephthalites or White Huns, the Turks, the Afghans, the Mongols, the Turks again), the facts are clear. There are accounts all tending to the same conclusion, there are the circumstances, of a supposedly beaten army making settlements on the ground that persisted until the successor empire walked on, marching down the Indus, fighting fierce battles and winning every one, and then facing a death march across the Makran coast, ending up an exhausted band of survivors in Babylon. All this after a defeat at the Hydaspes?



1) The depictions by Curtius, Justin, Diodorus, Arrian and Plutarch are quite consistent and reliable in concluding that Alexander was defeated by Porus and had to make a treaty with him to
save his and his soldiers` lives. He was a broken man at his return from his mis-adventures.

2) Mr E.A.W. Badge has included an account of "The Life and Exploits of Alexander" where he writes inter alia the following:

"In the battle of Jhelum a large majority of Alexander`s cavalry was killed. Alexander realized that if he were to continue fighting he would be completely ruined. He requested Porus to stop fighting. Porus was true to traditions and did not kill the surrendered enemy. After this both signed treaty, Alexander then helped him in annexing other territories to his kingdom".

Mr Badge further writes that the soldiers of Alexander were grief-stricken and they began to bewail the loss of their compatriots. They threw off their weapons. They expressed their strong desire to
surrender. They had no desire to fight. Alexander asked them to give up fighting and himself said,
"Porus, please pardon me. I have realized your bravery and strength. Now I cannot bear these agonies. WIth a sad heart I am planning to put an end to my life. I do not desire that my soldiers should also be ruined like me. I am that culprit who has thrust them into the jaw of death. It
does not become a king to thrust his soldiers into the jaws of death."


3) Alexnder is known to be a cruel man in history. He was neither a noble man nor did
he have a heart of gold. He had meted out very cruel and harsh treatment to his earlier enemies. Basus of Bactria fought tooth and nail with Alexander to defend the freedom of his motherland. When he was brought before Alexander as a prisoner, Alexander ordered his servants to whip
him and then cut off his nose and ears. He then killed him. Many Persian generals were killed by him. The murder of Kalasthenese, nephew of Aristotle, was committed by Alexander because he criticised Alexander for foolishly imitating the Persian emperors. Alexander also murdered his friend Clytus in anger. His father`s trusted lieutenant Parmenian was also murdered by Alexander.
These facts emerge from most historical accounts. 1. Alexander encountered stiff resistance; 2. Porus retained his kingdom and remained its king after the battle. In fact, Alexander even ceded some territory to him.

Gifting back a "defeated" Porus back his kingdom to honor his bravery after losing plenty of Greek soldiers in the battle!! Whats the expression? Kiss my arse??

4) The events that followed this battle, clearly showed that the acts of Greek army was of one with tails firmly tucked between their legs and of a defeated army. They only stuck to the indus in their retreat, did not follow the same path where they came from i.e. Afghanistan, their path to Arabian sea without venturing out on lands. Thoughout their journey down indus, they were picked off. I was watching a documentary long time ago in which a historian was tracing the track of so called "victorious Alexander army". They were showing the skeleton of the Greek army Littered around the coast of Pakistan, which btw can still be found. They presented those as the ones died of "thrust" and "hunger". That is laughable. how can a victorious army die of hunger and thrist?? It more like a case of being "picked off" what remained of it.


5) Another most intriguing side of this whole thing is, that before the battle, the Persian queen cum wife of Alexander, Roxanne, went to Porus personally and begged him for not to slay her husband during battle. Perhaps the reason why Alexender was "spared". Some "persuasion" it was . lol

6) Greek historians went silent about this battle and its only after 300 years have gone by, when the bones of Alexder and Porus went to dust, they wrote the account of battle on how the "gracious" Alexdener give Porus his lands back admiring his bravery!! Anceint Pakistan was his last and fatal campaign where his juggernaut was brought to a rather rude and brutal stop. Have a moment , think hard, reflect on how long is 300 years. Its a case of embarrassment to die down with time and when on one is left to challange, bring the narrative of mighty undefeated Alexander.

7) Handing victory to Alexander is like describing Hitler as the conqueror of Russia because the Germans advanced up to Stalingrad. According to Marshal Gregory Zhukov, the largely Macedonian army suffered a fate worse than Napoleon in Russia. So if Zhukov was comparing Alexander’s campaign in Indus to Napoleon’s disaster, the Macedonians and Greeks must have retreated in an equally ignominious fashion. Zhukov would know a fleeing force if he saw one; he had chased the German Army over 2000 km from Stalingrad to Berlin.


8) In the first charge, Porus’s brother Amar killed Alexander’s favourite horse Bucephalus, forcing Alexander to dismount. This was a big deal. In other battles the elite Macedonian bodyguards had not allowed a single enemy soldier to deliver so much as a scratch on their king's body, let alone slay his mount. Yet in this battle Porus troops not only broke into Alexander’s inner cordon, they also killed Nicaea, one of his leading commanders.

9) According to the Roman historian Marcus Justinus, Porus challenged Alexander, who charged him on horseback. In the ensuing duel, Alexander fell off his horse and was at the mercy of the Porus spear. But Porus dithered for a second and Alexander’s bodyguards rushed in to save their king.

10) On its way south towards the sea, Alexander's army was constantly harried by partisans, republics and kingdoms.

In a campaign at Sangala in Punjab, the attack was so ferocious it completely destroyed the Greek cavalry, forcing Alexander to attack on foot. In the next battle, against the Malavs of Multan, he was felled by an warrior whose arrow pierced the Macedonian’s breastplate and ribs.

Says Military History magazine: “Although there was more fighting, Alexander’s wound put an end to any more personal exploits. Lung tissue never fully recovers, and the thick scarring in its place made every breath cut like a knife.”

Alexander never recovered and died at the age of 33.

11) Plutarch wrote his biography over two hundred years after Alexander’s death using oral legends as his source. It is possible that he may also have had access to a personal diary kept by Alexander’s physician, but that is about it. Plutarch wrote the biography of Alexander as part of a series of biographies that contrasted the different styles of great Greek leaders, and in his view, Alexander was possibly the greatest of the greats, flawed only by youthful indiscretions. But otherwise, the tale came from legends spread by Alexander’s friends after he came back from Indus and died.So the story of how Alexander met and defeated the Porus and released him because Porus asked to be “treated like a king” in defeat did not come from any documented source. It was a legend.
The story, then, of Alexander’s triumphant march into subcontinent, finally only giving up at the urging of his soldiers who were tired after years of fighting and who wanted to return to their loved ones (in Persia?); the odyssey down the Indus, defeating various kingdoms but sustaining a deadly wound; and, finally splitting his army in two so that they would have a better chance of returning with the news in case of further conflicts; returning with a fraction of his army to the seat of his empire in Persepolis and his death from his wounds; all based on legend. No documents, no sources, just myth.So did Alexander really venture successfully into subcontinent and turn back at the urging of his men? spin?




Joe Shearer said:


> Yeah, right.
> 
> It is interesting that the right wing morons (not you; you don't qualify, I would NEVER say that you are as bright as a moron, that would be rude to one of you) on both sides of the border have almost identical views; both based on an inarticulate, incoherent, purple-faced hatred of foreigners, hatred of the humiliation of having been subdued, for the umpteenth time (yes, it happened), and the need to deny anything and everything that the foreigner represents, or, and this is it, what YOU think they represent. In this case, your linguistic heritage.
> 
> Your linguistic heritage would have been Brahui, except that some scruffy, beaten-up losers stepped through the passes, pushed out by winners in a sectarian scuffle (yes, that was part of the heritage, too, for coterminous Pakistan: recognise the modern version?), and making their sorry way into the plains down past the hills. The civilisation that coterminous Pakistan loves so dearly was decaying to the point where people built in the earlier cities' well-regulated streets. So much for the civilisation stretching all the way to Turkmenistan. Which, by the way, is another inept, ill-read, ill-informed comment: a river civilisation stretching all the way to Turkmenistan? Really? A few beads, a few seals, a few artifacts, and we suddenly have coterminous Turkestan (the name given to five former Soviet republics now independent and desperately searching for an identity - odd situation, innit?) becoming part of coterminous Pakistan (yes, the name exists).




Your right wingers, liberals or whoever, not my problem neither I am interested in their diatribes. What is the connection here you loud fart? Your shit belongs to you, keep it to yourself. Non of my concern.

Humiliation is for you gangiyates, dont share your pain and agony with us. We just look down upon you, nuisance , like pest invading your home, uninvited guests , claiming history and men who got no relevance to you, cringeworthy certified glory hunters.

We do curse ourselves however that our ancestors didnt keep their stuff tucked in their pants and gave birth to your "elite class" which went on to rule which is now India. Self inflicted damage.

Your ignorance is not my issue. However its amusing to observe your insistence upon it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shortugai

*Shortugai* (Shortughai) was an Indus civilization trading colony established around 2000 BC on the Oxus river near the lapis mines in northern Afghanistan.[1][2] According to Sergent, "*not one of the standard characteristics of the Harappan cultural complex is missing from it*".[




I sincerely hope you didnt miss your geography classes. Pardon my efforts, its the best I can do, hope you got your reading glasses on and can spot its location on the map? Do you know where Turkmenistan is? and how far this outpost is from the "river"? River civilzation? Fking dickhead, has it not dawned upon you that all mighty civilizations of ancient were centered, originated, governed from the main river system basin? Indus, Euphratus, Nile, Yangtze , they are not the names of continents or regions. Your lout farts are stinking this whole forum mate, have some self control.

Indus was three times bigger then contemporary Babylon and Egypt, COMBINED. Have a ponder over it. 



Joe Shearer said:


> Oh, absolutely. No civilisation, no cities, no towns, only forest dwellers and small agricultural villages producing a kind of pottery very similar to the last days of the great civilisation that marked the end of civilisation in coterminous Pakistan. These original elites composed the Vedas, did the philosophical bits of the Brahmanas, the Aranyakas and the Upanishads (terms, please note, that roll smoothly off the tongues of the original coterminous elites).




I already conceded graciously the mistake of Pakistani ancients. They didnt keep their manhood under control and result was your elites, the barhamans. Its was a mistake which is not only coming back to haunt us but caused so much misery and subjucation to the original inhabitants of gangaland. As per Advani when he visited his place of birth in karachi, "Hum apki hi aulad hain".




Joe Shearer said:


> Have you slipped the coca leaves in yet?
> 
> Alexander fought every battle at the head of his troops. Known to any half-read student of history. To be half-read is of course a reach for some of us.
> 
> At Granicus, he led his troops, personally, at the head of the Bodyguards, at the tip of the wedge. So much for the fighting the battles on the ground; in a cavalry charge, that would truly be a curious situation to be in. But then that comes in the second half of the history lesson, the half that we didn't get to do. He was injured by Rhoisakes, and Spithridates sought to kill him when he was half-stunned, and Alexander (never actually fighting on the ground, one to one, according to our military history genius) was saved by Cleitus the Black, who swung at the extended sword arm and severed it. Quite an exciting day in the life of a never actually fought the battles on the ground.
> 
> At Issus, the 'Greeks' were faced by a large Persian army led by the emperor himself barring the way back to Greece (it was still assumed that the Greeks were looking for significant defeats of the Persians and would ultimately return to Greece; nobody suspected that Alexander was looking to overthrown the Achaemenids and take over the empire himself). Alexander led the charge leading the 'hinge' soldiers, the Hypaspists, who formed the 'hinge' between the solid, immovable phalanx and the light infantry and cavalry that formed the mobile element of a Macedonian army, struck the Persian elite infantry, the Cardaces, and broke them, and then got back on horseback and led the Companions in a charge through the disorganised Persian centre towards the emperor, who fled. Fairly good going for one who, according to the local resident coterminous not-a-moron, never fought his battles on the ground one to one, and was always surrounded by his bodyguards. In this battle, he fought both on foot and on horseback.
> 
> I really dislike instant experts with tumescent opinions and no reading, no knowledge, no information.




Depends on which version of history you are reading and indoctrinated to. I have said many times, and I will repeat here again, History is a concubine at the hands of those who wrote it. 


Alexdaner was a general. He may have faught some early skirmishes and conflicts in his life but certainly not later in his conquest, it will not make sense for him to put his life under risk when the bigger goal was conquer the known earth. And like all general before, he planned, conspired, observed the battlefield from distance, protected by somatophylax, his personal bodyguards. If he was that brave and reckless, he wouldnt need the bodyguards didnt he? You gonna enter the battlefield surrounded by your bodyguards? It reminds me the wadayras or feudals we got in Pakistan with army of bodyguards bearing AK47s, you should see the arrogance these people exhibit. 

So cut the crap, and stop kissing your gaylord Alexender butt. And yea, he exhibited gay tendencies as well. You are not gay by any chance are you? Apologies if I have hurt your feelings.




Joe Shearer said:


> Sublime in his arrogance and ignorance. What an exhibition.




I dont suffer trolls, they follow me, unfortunately. Its a shame.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## trident2010

Pakistan at 326 BC 

It was mighty Indians / Hindu kings fought and defeated Alexander

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## defence_analyst

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> only Indo-European nomadic confederacies that held promise during this time were the Hepthalites in various forms , but they were wiped out by Sassanid and *Göktürks* and were also simultaneously driven out of India
> 
> 
> Another reason I feel is that the Indo-European soul is not that agreeable to authority..and the Indo-European soul has a much more daring inquisitive nature...This is also the reason why Indo-European Pakistan and Iran lead other Islamic nations in scientific accomplishments inspite of being much poorer than the top Muslim nations
> This is also the reason why dictatorships are much harder to pull off in Indo-European lands than in other cultures...Remember the Greeks ´gave us Democracy......A paltry number of 78 deaths in Indo-European Iran in 2009 drew much harsher outcry than the persecutions in the Arab world....
> 
> But the downside of this individualistic mindset among Indo-Europeans mean that an Indo-European warlord has to be far more charismatic and much more of an übermensch in order to raise the same number of warriors as a middling Turkic or Mongol warlord can...
> 
> This is exactly the reason why Alexander is studied in much greater detail in military colleges than Chinggis Khan ever will be
> 
> and also means Hepthalites may not have had the sufficient number of warriors to counter the Göktürks



Interesting, you are right to extent. It was much easier for mongol/turks to rise large army. Though Khilji was Turk and large numbers of Afghans who are IE eventually fought under Turks for centuries. Alexander will always get more attention because he is European. That's why Porus despite being king of small kingdom which literally just consist of 2 districts out of 36 is more well known then anyone else from our part of the world.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## UnitedPak

trident2010 said:


> Pakistan at 326 BC
> 
> It was mighty Indians / Hindu kings fought and defeated Alexander



People of the Indus, i.e Pakistani ancestors. 

Perhaps you should focus on the people of Ganges or Deccan plateau where you are actually from?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Indians why don't you get it, that you guys have Kalibangan, Lothal and Rakhigarhi to call your own civilization while Pakistanis have Harappa and Mohenjo-daro....both of us should be happy with the heritage we have

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## zain41

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> its only Ashkenazi Jews who are High IQ Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews are below white average ..its because of selection pressure in Europe where Ashkenazi (European) Jews were not allowed any jobs other than banking and book keeping...this meant only the High IQ of the Jews were able to hold down jobs or get rich and poor/low-IQ Jews would either be persecuted by the Christians or die Childless..these High IQ jews would marry and have lors of children...within a 1000 years Jews had 10-15 point advantage on whites..it was just unplanned eugenics
> 
> The mystery of high IQ of European Jews is a problem that has been completely solved a while back..look at Harvard Jewish scientist Steven Pinker ..as well as the Scandanavian series on race and IQ Brainwashed on Youtube
> 
> 
> 
> on the Indian front..If I am made a dictator who ensures only the top 3-4 percent of India reproduces and rest are sterilzed, then within 25-40 years you would be looking at the Greatest country on Earth that has ever existed
> 
> 
> But the question is: are you, me or others ready to put up with that level of sacrifice?
> 
> but in the end we would end up with a country with as much average IQ as the Jews in USA..ca 115
> 
> and population will fall dramatically to stabilize at 50-100 million...I would rather live my last years in a country like that, in an India like that...100 crore Indians are drag on India....the rest 20 crores are somewhat okay[/Quote
> 
> You sound like hitler


----------



## Joe Shearer

bacho said:


> @Juggernaut_is_here why do you think ancestors of mongols and turks utterly dominated steppe warfare and forced IE speakers to migrate elsewhere? Do they have higher level of testosterone? IE speakers from steppe basically overwhelmed sedentary population in south central asia, Greece, Iran, coterminous Pakistan and coterminous India which wasn't that big of a deal looking at their life style.



The ancestors of the Mongols and the Turks were nowhere on the scene around the time of the IE speakers. We are speaking about the fifth century BC down to the third century AD; the Mongols formed themselves under Genghis Khan long afterwards, and until that conqueror's campaigns remained confined to Mongolia. 

You may be referring to the Hiung Nu; they attacked the Kushana, who in turn attacked the Scythians and the Pahlavi, both speakers of eastern Iranian, and drove them out of Tajikistan and Kazakhstan into Bactria, or Balkh, where they inter alia destroyed the Bactrian Greek kingdoms. 

What is south Central Asia?

Your reference to IE speakers overwhelming sedentary populations in Greece, Iran, and India is confusing. These occurred around a thousand years before the Scythians and Pahlevi were driven out, not by the Proto-Mongols or the Proto-Turks, but by the Kushana, who also spoke a variety of IE. 

If the point was that proto-Mongols and proto-Turks had 'more testosterone' than IE speakers, it is a curious point, and made with facts that pay little or no regard to time-lines. There have been better posts on better subjects.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Taimoor Khan

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Indians why don't you get it, that you guys have Kalibangan, Lothal and Rakhigarhi to call your own civilization while Pakistanis have Harappa and Mohenjo-daro....both of us should be happy with the heritage we have



The sites you mentioned were all Indus settlements and outposts. Looking at them with current border markings is meaningless. They were all build by the people of Indus and shows the expansion of their empire/civilization in east from Indus river. Just like Egyptian civilization expanded from Nile going east towards what is now called holly lands. 

Indians will be better off looking into Ganges river basin to find their own civilization which they can claim their own.


----------



## Haryanvi Jat

Taimoor Khan said:


> The sites you mentioned were all Indus settlements and outposts. Looking at them with current border markings is meaningless. They were all build by the people of Indus and shows the expansion of their empire/civilization in east from Indus river. Just like Egyptian civilization expanded from Nile going east towards what is now called holly lands.
> 
> Indians will be better off looking into Ganges river basin to find their own civilization which they can claim their own.


Those sited were not established due to expansion. They were established when the whole IVC was established. They are their since the beginning of IVC. You can see it even in this video. You really need to put down others to feel superior?? Lol. There are more IVC sites in India then in Pakistan. Which mean most of IVC people lived in India instead of Pakistan. Saying that Most of IVC people were so called 'contemporary Pakistani' because most of IVC area is under Pakistan is like saying that Most of Russians are Asians because most of Russia falls under Asia. But we all know that most of Russians lives in European side of Russia. So majority of them are Europeans. IVC can be called a Northern Subcontinental Civilization instead of just Pakistani Civilization. Just like Russia is called Eurasian country.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indus_Valley_Civilisation_sites


----------



## Taimoor Khan

Haryanvi Jat said:


> Those sited were not established due to expansion. They were established when the whole IVC was established. They are their since the beginning of IVC. You can see it even in this video. You really need to put down others to feel superior?? Lol. There are more IVC sites in India then in Pakistan. Which mean most of IVC people lived in India instead of Pakistan. Saying that Most of IVC people were so called 'contemporary Pakistani' because most of IVC area is under Pakistan is like saying that Most of Russians are Asians because most of Russia falls under Asia. But we all know that most of Russians lives in European side of Russia. So majority of them are Europeans. IVC can be called a Northern Subcontinental Civilization instead of just Pakistani Civilization. Just like Russia is called Eurasian country.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indus_Valley_Civilisation_sites




There is a clear evolution of IVC starting from "western" banks of Indus river with Mehrgarh in Baluchistan considered to the be the first human settlement. It then moved to the "eastern" banks with the likes of Mohengodaro , harrapa and other sites appearing including the ones which are now in present day north western India. To say they all appeared at the same time is frankly speaking, is bordering between ignorance and idiocy. There is a clear expansion of Indus going both east towards what is now India and west towards what is now Iran, Afghanistan and Southern Turkmenistan. In nutshell, Pakistan was the heartland, whereas north west India, Iran and Afghanistan were the hinterlands. Going furthest away from Indus river to the known IVC site both in east and west direction, the land between, is the domain of the Indus, by default.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Haryanvi Jat

Taimoor Khan said:


> There is a clear evolution of IVC starting from "western" banks of Indus river with Mehrgarh in Baluchistan considered to the be the first human settlement. It then moved to the "eastern" banks with the likes of Mohengodaro , harrapa and other sites appearing including the ones which are now in present day north western India. To say they all appeared at the same time is frankly speaking, is bordering between ignorance and idiocy. There is a clear expansion of Indus going both east towards what is now India and west towards what is now Iran, Afghanistan and Southern Turkmenistan. In nutshell, Pakistan was the heartland, whereas north west India, Iran and Afghanistan were the hinterlands. Going furthest away from Indus river to the known IVC site both in east and west direction, the land between, is the domain of the Indus, by default.



So it means that IVC people of the Mehrgarh moved to Northwest India. Which means present Day NWI and NI people are of same stock as IVC. Now, according to Pakistanis, No Indian have connection with IVC, So no Indian should claim IVC. But this is clearly not the case. Right?


----------



## Taimoor Khan

Haryanvi Jat said:


> So it means that IVC people of the Mehrgarh moved to Northwest India. Which means present Day NWI and NI people are of same stock as IVC. Now, according to Pakistanis, No Indian have connection with IVC, So no Indian should claim IVC. But this is not clearly the case. Right?



They didnt move, they expanded and created new settlements and outposts as their numbers and empire grew. 

You wont hear the Syrians, Jordanians and Israelis laying claim to Egyptian civilization do you? even though their lands were for thousands of years part of Egyptian civilization, governed by the people of Nile. Ofcourse there are people who are now in present day India who can be classed as Childern of Indus, like Sikhs, but they are the periphery , not really the original people of Indus. That is the sole domain of Pakistanis.


----------



## Haryanvi Jat

Taimoor Khan said:


> They didnt move, they expanded and created new settlements and outposts as their numbers and empire grew.
> 
> You wont hear the Syrians, Jordanians and Israelis laying claim to Egyptian civilization do you? even though their lands were for thousands of years part of Egyptian civilization, governed by the people of Nile. Ofcourse there are people who are now in present day India who can be classed as Childern of Indus, like Sikhs, but they are the periphery , not really the original people of Indus. That is the sole domain of Pakistanis.



Ohhhhh, so people having same genetics are not same and have less claims on their heritage as compared to their relatives just because they live on the edge of the territory. [emoji122][emoji122][emoji122][emoji122]
Don't forget people in India have IVC ancestory and From Punjab to Haryana, Rajasthan to Gujarat, there are IVC sites. In fact more IVC sites than Pakistan. You have no ******* right to call others lesser sons of Indus.


----------



## Taimoor Khan

Haryanvi Jat said:


> Ohhhhh, so people having same genetics are not same and have less claims on their heritage as their relatives just because they live on the edge of the territory. [emoji122][emoji122][emoji122][emoji122]
> Don't forget people in India have IVC ancestory and From Punjab to Haryana, Rajasthan to Gujarat, there are IVC sites. In fact more IVC sites than Pakistan. You have no ******* right to call others lesser sons of Indus.



Without giving allegiance to motherland you are claiming association with IVC? Pakistan is the motherland , you cannot argue with the archeology. Its there right infront of everyone. My example of Syria, Jordan and Israel and their relation with Egyptian civilization holds. If Egyptians ruled their lands for thousands of years and build their own infra there, doesnt make Syrians, Jordanians and Isrealies , the custodians of Egyptian civilization.


----------



## Haryanvi Jat

Taimoor Khan said:


> Without giving allegiance to motherland you are claiming association with IVC? Pakistan is the motherland , you cannot argue with the archeology. Its there right infront of everyone. My example of Syria, Jordan and Israel and their relation with Egyptian civilization holds. If Egyptians ruled their lands for thousands of years and build their own infra there, doesnt make Syrians, Jordanians and Isrealies , the custodians of Egyptian civilization.


Pakistan is motherland???? There are no history written text that says so. If IVC really started at Mehrgarh, then by your logic, people from Baluchistan, Eastern region of Pak Punjab, Sindh, Northern part of Pakistan have no link with Indus because other parts of IVC were just expansion. Do you know why you are saying that Pakistan is motherland??? just because sites like Mohenjo-Daro were discovered first. But the Largest city of IVC is situated in Haryana, India. IVC is Classified as the area which are irrigated by Indus river and its tributaries of Indus and that time, Sarasvati and Ghaggar-Hakra rivers were also tributaries of Indus. Pakistan is a concept and IVC is a Civilization and Culture. I don't need to show love for Pakistan to show love to IVC and claim my own heritage. You are as pathetic as your Logic.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Taimoor Khan said:


> 1) The depictions by Curtius, Justin, Diodorus, Arrian and Plutarch are quite consistent and reliable in concluding that Alexander was defeated by Porus and had to make a treaty with him to
> save his and his soldiers` lives. He was a broken man at his return from his mis-adventures.



The depictions by Curtius, Justin, Diodorus, Arrian and Plutarch are precisely the ones that have led to a general agreement by academics other than scholars in residence in PDF to conclude that Alexander won over Porus, and retained sufficient military strength to battle his way down the Indus Valley in a series of sanguinary sieges, each being fought to the death by the defendants.

That he was a broken man on his return is to be attributed not to military defeat or to the attrition due to battle but to the ravages of the passage along the Makran desert to Babylon, which is uniformly described as an ordeal as severe as the passage of the Grand Army on its return from Moscow. The expedition still had the energy left to found the city of Alexandria Arachosia, which some of these resident scholars in PDF might recognise by their modern names. Some achievements for a broken man.



> 2) Mr E.A.W. Badge has included an account of "The Life and Exploits of Alexander" where he writes inter alia the following:
> 
> "In the battle of Jhelum a large majority of Alexander`s cavalry was killed. Alexander realized that if he were to continue fighting he would be completely ruined. He requested Porus to stop fighting. Porus was true to traditions and did not kill the surrendered enemy. After this both signed treaty, Alexander then helped him in annexing other territories to his kingdom".
> 
> Mr Badge further writes that the soldiers of Alexander were grief-stricken and they began to bewail the loss of their compatriots. They threw off their weapons. They expressed their strong desire to
> surrender. They had no desire to fight. Alexander asked them to give up fighting and himself said,
> "Porus, please pardon me. I have realized your bravery and strength. Now I cannot bear these agonies. WIth a sad heart I am planning to put an end to my life. I do not desire that my soldiers should also be ruined like me. I am that culprit who has thrust them into the jaw of death. It
> does not become a king to thrust his soldiers into the jaws of death."



LOL.

So now, setting aside the original sources cited, the grand assembly of Curtius, Justin, Diodorus, Arrian and Plutarch, we stumble into

the peculiar, very Indian phraseology of
an Indian revisionist account of
a European professor's translation of
one of the Alexander Romances.
Wait for the rest of the story.


----------



## Taimoor Khan

Haryanvi Jat said:


> Pakistan is motherland???? There are no history written text that says so. If IVC really started at Mehrgarh, then by your logic, people from Baluchistan, Eastern region of Pak Punjab, Sindh, Northern part of Pakistan have no link with Indus because other parts of IVC were just expansion. Do you know why you are saying that Pakistan is motherland??? just because sites like Mohenjo-Daro were discovered first. But the Largest city of IVC is situated in Haryana, India. IVC is Classified as the area which are irrigated by Indus river and its tributaries of Indus and that time, Sarasvati and Ghaggar-Hakra rivers were also tributaries of Indus. Pakistan is a concept and IVC is a Civilization and Culture. I don't need to show love for Pakistan to show love to IVC and claim my own heritage. You are as pathetic as your Logic.



Your rants do not stand against the archeological facts. Mehrgarh, Mohengodaro, Harrapa, they are all within immediate Indus river basin. Indus flows through the heart of Pakistan. Hell, our map even follow the flow of Indus. If the archeological proven expansion of IVC, originating from Merhrgarh going in all directions, is not going through your thick skull, I cant really help you I am afraid.

We in Pakistan owe Indus as its custodian by Geography, sons of soil, the original people. You on the other hands, your claims are only by association. Your mythical Srasvati river RSS bullshit is really a holding by straws kind of argument. Pakistan is the governing unit which the people of Indus refer to in this time and age, their own prerogative. Just like Egypt was not called "Egypt" thousands of years ago, neither they spoke Arabic or classed as Arabs, yet even today, the people of Nile basin are the custodian of their civilization, Pakistanis in similar fashion are the original custodian of our civilization, the Indus.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## MultaniGuy

Haryanvi Jat said:


> Pakistan is motherland???? There are no history written text that says so. If IVC really started at Mehrgarh, then by your logic, people from Baluchistan, Eastern region of Pak Punjab, Sindh, Northern part of Pakistan have no link with Indus because other parts of IVC were just expansion. Do you know why you are saying that Pakistan is motherland??? just because sites like Mohenjo-Daro were discovered first. But the Largest city of IVC is situated in Haryana, India. IVC is Classified as the area which are irrigated by Indus river and its tributaries of Indus and that time, Sarasvati and Ghaggar-Hakra rivers were also tributaries of Indus. Pakistan is a concept and IVC is a Civilization and Culture. I don't need to show love for Pakistan to show love to IVC and claim my own heritage. You are as pathetic as your Logic.


bullshit.

India has nothing to do with IVC. It is Pakistan which is the heir to IVC civilziation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Haryanvi Jat

Taimoor Khan said:


> Your rants do not stand against the archeological facts. Mehrgarh, Mohengodaro, Harrapa, they are all within immediate Indus river basin. Indus flows through the heart of Pakistan. Hell, our map even follow the flow of Indus. If the archeological proven expansion of IVC, originating from Merhrgarh going in all directions, is not going through your thick skull, I cant really help you I am afraid.
> 
> We in Pakistan owe Indus as its custodian by Geography, sons of soil, the original people. You on the other hands, your claims are only by association. Your mythical Srasvati river RSS bullshit is really a holding by straws kind of argument. Pakistan is the governing unit which the people of Indus refer to in this time and age, their own prerogative. Just like Egypt was not called "Egypt" thousands of years ago, neither they spoke Arabic or classed as Arabs, yet even today, the people of Nile basin are the custodian of their civilization, Pakistanis in similar fashion are the original custodian of our civilization, the Indus.



Sadly, You didn't got what I wanted to say. I think a few good reads of my comments over and over again will make you realise what I was saying. RSS is a Hindu organization and I am not a Hindu. About Saraswati, it has been proved by archeologists that Saraswati was one of the tributaries of Indus. So until you agree with archeologists that IVC was started in Mehrgarh, you can't disagree that Saraswati was a tributary of Indus because it is an archeological fact. I never said Pakistanis have no relation with Indus. But saying NW Indians and N Indians have no relation with Indus is utter Foolishness. At last I would like to remind you again, that India have more IVC sites that Pak, and the Largest city of IVC lies in India.


----------



## Haryanvi Jat

Iqbal Ali said:


> bullshit.
> 
> India has nothing to do with IVC. It is Pakistan which is the heir to IVC civilziation.


I suggest you to look at this list and then comment.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indus_Valley_Civilisation_sites


----------



## MultaniGuy

Haryanvi Jat said:


> Sadly, You didn't got what I wanted to say. I think a few good reads of my comments over and over again will make you realise what I was saying. RSS is a Hindu organization and I am not a Hindu. About Saraswati, it has been proved by archeologists that Saraswati was one of the tributaries of Indus. So until you agree with archeologists that IVC was started in Mehrgarh, you can't disagree that Saraswati was a tributary of Indus because it is an archeological fact. I never said Pakistanis have no relation with Indus. But saying NW Indians and N Indians have no relation with Indus is utter Foolishness. At last I would like to remind you again, that India have more IVC sites that Pak, and the Largest city of IVC lies in India.


LOL WHAT BULLSHIT.

India has more IVC sites than Pakistan? What nonsense. Do you want to get banned?

It is Pakistan that has way more IVC sites than India ! 

Go check the IVC map on Wikipedia.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Haryanvi Jat

Iqbal Ali said:


> LOL WHAT BULLSHIT.
> 
> India has more IVC sites than Pakistan? What nonsense. Do you want to get banned?
> 
> It is Pakistan that has way more IVC sites than India ! [emoji38]
> 
> Go check the IVC map on Wikipedia.


I already gave you a link, and it's a wikipedia link. Go figure.


----------



## MultaniGuy

Haryanvi Jat said:


> I already gave you a link, and it's a wikipedia link. Go figure.


You link is biased and rubbish. There are more IVC sites in Pakistan than in India.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Haryanvi Jat

Iqbal Ali said:


> You link is biased and rubbish. There are more IVC sites in Pakistan than in India.


I saw your images. It says -
Major IVC sites in Pakistan - 5(from first IMG), (8 from 2nd IMG)
Major IVC sites in India - 5(from first IMG), 6(from 2nd IMG)

Moreover, most of the minor sites of India is not shown.
Now why don't you tell me how are my sources Biased. Didn't you told me to check on Wiki. These sources are from Wiki.


----------



## MultaniGuy

Haryanvi Jat said:


> I saw your images. It says -
> Major IVC sites in Pakistan - 5(from first IMG), (8 from 2nd IMG)
> Major IVC sites in India - 5(from first IMG), 6(from 2nd IMG)
> 
> Moreover, most of the minor sited of India is not shown.
> Now why don't you tell me how are my sources Biased. Didn't you told me to check on Wiki. These sources are from Wiki.


Listen troll, according to the maps Pakistan has more IVC sites than India.


----------



## Taimoor Khan

Joe Shearer said:


> The depictions by Curtius, Justin, Diodorus, Arrian and Plutarch are precisely the ones that have led to a general agreement by academics other than scholars in residence in PDF to conclude that Alexander won over Porus, and retained sufficient military strength to battle his way down the Indus Valley in a series of sanguinary sieges, each being fought to the death by the defendants.
> 
> That he was a broken man on his return is to be attributed not to military defeat or to the attrition due to battle but to the ravages of the passage along the Makran desert to Babylon, which is uniformly described as an ordeal as severe as the passage of the Grand Army on its return from Moscow. The expedition still had the energy left to found the city of Alexandria Arachosia, which some of these resident scholars in PDF might recognise by their modern names. Some achievements for a broken man.



Their accounts are the reason why its been confirmed that indeed Alexander was handed his arse on platter by ancient Pakistanis. Too many inconsistencies and no non Greek sources like they were there in his earlier exploits in Persia and lands before that. I have already explained to you, majority of accounts mentioned by greeks are myths, self glorification and preservation of the image that build around the "undefeated" Alexander the "great". 

The narrative that even though he won against Porus yet his army rebelled against Marching further east due to heavy toll taken in battle of hydespas and bigger enemies they had to face in their path is, frankly speaking hilarious. Then why head south down the Indus? Were there lesser enemies down south? Heading into uncharted territories when your men are refusing to go further east, what made south lesser of a challange, when he knew that towards west in texilla and bectria, the lands under his command and control, taking the path he came from was not followed. WHY???

A school boy error by biggest general in history where he nearly lost all his soldiers eventually taking his journey south? No, these were the conditions imposed by Porus on defeated Alexender, in return for sparing his life and his army, they will help him to expand his Kingdom by merging the Taxilla which was then ruled by Ambi. After that, Porus not only retained his kingdom but expanded it, with path to taxilla back to Persia no longer available, Alexander has no choice but to head south down Indus towards Arabia sea to retreat back to Babylon. 

I have been to taxilla many times, there are touts near taxilla archeological sites who sell the "fake greek" coin that they claim are from the times when Alexander came in that part of Pakistan. No where else you see the relics of this "misadventure". Consistence with the facts and ground realities. 




Joe Shearer said:


> LOL.
> 
> So now, setting aside the original sources cited, the grand assembly of Curtius, Justin, Diodorus, Arrian and Plutarch, we stumble into
> 
> the peculiar, very Indian phraseology of
> an Indian revisionist account of
> a European professor's translation of
> one of the Alexander Romances.
> Wait for the rest of the story.




If you can somehow manage to stick your nose out of your white master arse crack, sniffing all that come from it and taking it as musk, maybe, just maybe you can start to think more rationally. Colonial scar run deep, you are a prefect specimen of this sorry state of mind.

Reactions: Negative Rating Negative Rating:
1 | Like Like:
1


----------



## Haryanvi Jat

Iqbal Ali said:


> Listen troll, according to the maps Pakistan has more IVC sites than India.


A troll calling others troll???? 
On a serious note, as I already said, most of the minor IVC sites in India are not shown. And still the difference is not much. And can you tell me how are my sources Biased. Just because it doesn't match your view?? In fact, you yourselves told me to check Wiki.


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Taimoor Khan said:


> The sites you mentioned were all Indus settlements and outposts. Looking at them with current border markings is meaningless. They were all build by the people of Indus and shows the expansion of their empire/civilization in east from Indus river. Just like Egyptian civilization expanded from Nile going east towards what is now called holly lands.
> 
> Indians will be better off looking into Ganges river basin to find their own civilization which they can claim their own.




The sites are equally large..morover dur to lack of funds the Pakistani sites will dissappear by 2030..this is what Pakistani scientists are claiming..I am saying what is on our territory is ouir civilization, what is on your territory is your civilization..India and Pakistan are completely two different civilizations


----------



## MultaniGuy

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> The sites are equally large..morover dur to lack of funds the Pakistani sites will dissappear by 2030..this is what Pakistani scientists are claiming..I am saying what is on our territory is ouir civilization, what is on your territory is your civilization..India and Pakistan are completely two different civilizations


Agreed Pakistan and India are completely different. We have no similarities.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## trident2010

UnitedPak said:


> People of the Indus, i.e Pakistani ancestors.



Indians are the people of Indus and deccan and ganges. So according to you pakistanis are Hindu Indians converted to muslims. Good with me 

Most of pakistanis here denies their Indian heritage


----------



## MultaniGuy

trident2010 said:


> Indians are the people of Indus and deccan and ganges. So according to you pakistanis are Hindu Indians converted to muslims. Good with me
> 
> Most of pakistanis here denies their Indian heritage


nice try.
Pakistanis are the children of the Indus river valley, not Indians.


----------



## Taimoor Khan

Haryanvi Jat said:


> Sadly, You didn't got what I wanted to say. I think a few good reads of my comments over and over again will make you realise what I was saying. RSS is a Hindu organization and I am not a Hindu. About Saraswati, it has been proved by archeologists that Saraswati was one of the tributaries of Indus. So until you agree with archeologists that IVC was started in Mehrgarh, you can't disagree that Saraswati was a tributary of Indus because it is an archeological fact. I never said Pakistanis have no relation with Indus. But saying NW Indians and N Indians have no relation with Indus is utter Foolishness. At last I would like to remind you again, that India have more IVC sites that Pak, and the Largest city of IVC lies in India.




Saraswati is a mythical river whose needs arose among Indian academics to somehow shift the center of IVC from River Indus towards within the borders of India to give it more "Indian stamp". Its nothing but a hogwash. 

Pakistanis as a whole bunch are custodians of Indus civilization, Iraqis the Euphrates, and Egyptians the Nile, these are geographical facts, not by association. You while being Indian, where majority of you lot dont even have any connection of IVC, its pathetic attempt to link your country, your state, with IVC. Iran and Afghanistan in their entirety where once part of IVC, yet we dont hear them claiming their lineage with IVC do we? Its a double edge sword, if you as a certain ethnic group in India claim your lineage to IVC, then you should also accept that Pakistanis are your eventual grandaddies. It all come back to us.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Haryanvi Jat

Taimoor Khan said:


> Saraswati is a mythical river whose needs arose among Indian academics to somehow shift the center of IVC from River Indus towards within the borders of India to give it more "Indian stamp". Its nothing but a hogwash.
> 
> Pakistanis as a whole bunch are custodians of Indus civilization, Iraqis the Euphrates, and Egyptians the Nile, these are geographical facts, not by association. You while being Indian, where majority of you lot dont even have any connection of IVC, its pathetic attempt to link your country, your state, with IVC. Iran and Afghanistan in their entirety where once part of IVC, yet we dont hear them claiming their lineage with IVC do we? Its a double edge sword, if you as a certain ethnic group in India claim your lineage to IVC, then you should also accept that Pakistanis are your eventual grandaddies. It all come back to us.


You are kidding right???? Saraswati used to flow, and there are archeological evidences. Skeletons of fishes are found in a long stretch in Haryana, the place where there is no river in the present time. There are only moonson rivers which depend on rain.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghaggar-Hakra_River


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Upstream Indus is completely controlled by Indians...Indians and Pakistanis are completely different there is no relation between the two..One of us might well be Burundi and another Burgundy

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Taimoor Khan said:


> Their accounts are the reason why its been confirmed that indeed Alexander was handed his arse on platter by ancient Pakistanis. Too many inconsistencies and no non Greek sources like they were there in his earlier exploits in Persia and lands before that. I have already explained to you, majority of accounts mentioned by greeks are myths, self glorification and preservation of the image that build around the "undefeated" Alexander the "great".



It is merely amusing and nothing more to see that the lack of non-Greek sources leads to a conclusion that the missing evidence proves your illusory case. You say that the majority of accounts mentioned by the Greeks are this, that or the other; when did the Greeks monopolise the narration? It may, or may not, have come to your notice that there is a mix of Greek and non-Greek sources in these histories; you mention Curtius, Justin, Diodorus, Arrian and Plutarch; let's see what that gives us:

Curtius: Quintus Curtius Rufus - Roman, probably 1st century, about 400 years after Alexander; only book was his book on Alexander, originally in ten books, but available in badly patched up form, in nine books, each of which was in further incomplete, damaged condition; to draw conclusions about Hydaspes and its aftermath from his account is to look at the blanks and fill them up with one's own imagination. Roughly an approximation of your approach. His sources are not clear; since he mentions Cleitarchus (an historian in the Macedonian camp), Ptolemy and Timagenes, there is some speculation that he may have used their eye-witness accounts, since lost.
Justin: Marcus Junianus Justinus Frontinus - Roman, 2nd century (one analyst says 4th century) therefore either 500 or 700 years after Alexander; his book was an excerpt of another book, by Gnaeus Pompeius Trogus, an earlier historian, from whose work he made excerpts. Not very accurate excerpts; he used the opportunity to moralise, rather than sticking to an excerpt. The original was a history of the Macedonian kings, not of Alexander alone.
Diodorus: Diodorus Siculus (of Sicily) - Greek, 1st century BC, some 200 years after Alexander. He wrote a history of the world in 40 'books' (chapters). The history of Alexander is in the sections (chapters) 7 to 17, of which only 11 to 17 survive; so we have most of Alexander's life and times contained in this surviving section. He used a _number_ of sources.
Arrian: Arrianos, Arrian of Nicomedia, Romanised as Lucus Flavius Arrianus - Greek, 2nd century (probably around the time of Justin, if the traditional thoughts about his dates are accepted). He was a military officer himself, and that makes his accounts of Alexander more attractive. Generally, historians have taken Arrian the most seriously of the whole lot. He wrote a most attractive collection of books: on Alexander, modelling it on the famous Anabasis of Xenophon; a work on India, based on Megasthenes and on Nearchos the sailor; on hunting dogs, specifically a type of hound, and its characteristics and uses; on cavalry training; on a campaign against the Alans, which he won with the two legions at his command, and in which he describes the post-battle exploitation to be used, in terms of how the Greeks had used it in their time. Used to be considered the best account surviving.
Plutarch: Ploutarchos, Romanised as a Roman citizen to Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus - Greek, 1st century, around 400 years after Alexander. Probably the most anecdotal, and the least useful from the point of view of concrete fact and evidence.
Is the point clear? It was not the Greeks, it was a collection of sources on which these accounts rest. Of the set that are usually cited, three are Greek, all Romanised Greeks, meaning, no Greeks that were writing in times when Greek cities were independent; two are Roman.



> The narrative that even though he won against Porus yet his army rebelled against Marching further east due to heavy toll taken in battle of hydespas and bigger enemies they had to face in their path is, frankly speaking hilarious. Then why head south down the Indus? Were there lesser enemies down south? Heading into uncharted territories when your men are refusing to go further east, what made south lesser of a challange, when he knew that towards west in texilla and bectria, the lands under his command and control, taking the path he came from was not followed. WHY???



If you read the accounts, the passages through the mountains were not simple; there was every reason to believe that by reaching the sea, the army would have a safe and assured passage back home. Before marching down, and actually encountering enemies that they did encounter, they had no idea that some of the biggest challenges were still ahead.

That they headed south willingly was precisely the reason that it becomes clear that Alexander's army was not disinclined to fight, was not defeated and discouraged, but were willing to march through the plains and get to the sea.

You may like to read The Anabasis, where, when the inland-bound Greeks finally saw the Black Sea from an elevation, they broke into shouts,"Thalassa! Thalassa!" It needs more than a querulous, skimpy knowledge of history, twisted to form a self-serving account, to understand this campaign or what happened. If you could break away from your strenuous effort to prove that the people in the location of the present Pakistani Punjab defeated the world-conquering army of their times, you might make better sense.



> A school boy error by biggest general in history where he nearly lost all his soldiers eventually taking his journey south? No, these were the conditions imposed by Porus on defeated Alexender, in return for sparing his life and his army, they will help him to expand his Kingdom by merging the Taxilla which was then ruled by Ambi. After that, Porus not only retained his kingdom but expanded it, with path to taxilla back to Persia no longer available, Alexander has no choice but to head south down Indus towards Arabia sea to retreat back to Babylon.



This is what I meant by a querulous and skimpy knowledge of history. Look up the governance of the Taxila region after Alexander departed, down to the point where Seleukos explicitly handed over the territory to the Mauryas. Please do not hallucinate in a vacuum; if you at least hallucinate over existing facts, it is bearable. This wholesale wild imagination of a hypothetical alternative history is really alarming.



> I have been to taxilla many times, there are touts near taxilla archeological sites who sell the "fake greek" coin that they claim are from the times when Alexander came in that part of Pakistan. No where else you see the relics of this "misadventure". Consistence with the facts and ground realities.



If you can tear yourself away from your personal voyage of discovery, we can discuss history. Where else do you expect to see the relics of this 'misadventure'? Do you think that because touts do not sell you fake coins elsewhere in the Indus that the passage of the army was imaginary? Are there any more 'facts' like that you would like us to suffer?



> If you can somehow manage to stick your nose out of your white master arse crack, sniffing all that come from it and taking it as musk, maybe, just maybe you can start to think more rationally. Colonial scar run deep, you are a prefect specimen of this sorry state of mind.



Don't be coarse.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimoor Khan

Haryanvi Jat said:


> You are kidding right???? Saraswati used to flow, and there are archeological evidences. Skeletons of fishes are found in a long stretch in Haryana, the place where there is no river in the present time. There are only moonson rivers which depend on rain.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghaggar-Hakra_River




If you call a "barsati nalla" a river, then good luck. I used to catch fishes in such barsati nalla during monsoon season.

Reactions: Like Like:

1


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Pakistanis eat fish? I thought they only enjoyed meat of ungalates


----------



## Haryanvi Jat

Taimoor Khan said:


> If you call a "barsati nalla" a river, then good luck. I used to catch fishes in such barsati nalla during monsoon season.


Are you Dumb???? [emoji53][emoji53] I said Saraswati was a river. Saraswati's origin dried and it became a seasonal river.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Readers who are bemused by the bizarre theories being trotted out may take comfort from my friend's blog:

https://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/parthian-shot/will-you-brand-mir-jafar-a-hero/


----------



## Taimoor Khan

Joe Shearer said:


> It is merely amusing and nothing more to see that the lack of non-Greek sources leads to a conclusion that the missing evidence proves your illusory case. You say that the majority of accounts mentioned by the Greeks are this, that or the other; when did the Greeks monopolise the narration? It may, or may not, have come to your notice that there is a mix of Greek and non-Greek sources in these histories; you mention Curtius, Justin, Diodorus, Arrian and Plutarch; let's see what that gives us:
> 
> Curtius: Quintus Curtius Rufus - Roman, probably 1st century, about 400 years after Alexander; only book was his book on Alexander, originally in ten books, but available in badly patched up form, in nine books, each of which was in further incomplete, damaged condition; to draw conclusions about Hydaspes and its aftermath from his account is to look at the blanks and fill them up with one's own imagination. Roughly an approximation of your approach. His sources are not clear; since he mentions Cleitarchus (an historian in the Macedonian camp), Ptolemy and Timagenes, there is some speculation that he may have used their eye-witness accounts, since lost.
> Justin: Marcus Junianus Justinus Frontinus - Roman, 2nd century (one analyst says 4th century) therefore either 500 or 700 years after Alexander; his book was an excerpt of another book, by Gnaeus Pompeius Trogus, an earlier historian, from whose work he made excerpts. Not very accurate excerpts; he used the opportunity to moralise, rather than sticking to an excerpt. The original was a history of the Macedonian kings, not of Alexander alone.
> Diodorus: Diodorus Siculus (of Sicily) - Greek, 1st century BC, some 200 years after Alexander. He wrote a history of the world in 40 'books' (chapters). The history of Alexander is in the sections (chapters) 7 to 17, of which only 11 to 17 survive; so we have most of Alexander's life and times contained in this surviving section. He used a _number_ of sources.
> Arrian: Arrianos, Arrian of Nicomedia, Romanised as Lucus Flavius Arrianus - Greek, 2nd century (probably around the time of Justin, if the traditional thoughts about his dates are accepted). He was a military officer himself, and that makes his accounts of Alexander more attractive. Generally, historians have taken Arrian the most seriously of the whole lot. He wrote a most attractive collection of books: on Alexander, modelling it on the famous Anabasis of Xenophon; a work on India, based on Megasthenes and on Nearchos the sailor; on hunting dogs, specifically a type of hound, and its characteristics and uses; on cavalry training; on a campaign against the Alans, which he won with the two legions at his command, and in which he describes the post-battle exploitation to be used, in terms of how the Greeks had used it in their time. Used to be considered the best account surviving.
> Plutarch: Ploutarchos, Romanised as a Roman citizen to Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus - Greek, 1st century, around 400 years after Alexander. Probably the most anecdotal, and the least useful from the point of view of concrete fact and evidence.
> Is the point clear? It was not the Greeks, it was a collection of sources on which these accounts rest. Of the set that are usually cited, three are Greek, all Romanised Greeks, meaning, no Greeks that were writing in times when Greek cities were independent; two are Roman.




Read what you wrote here and come back to me after having a reflection. Your pathetic attempts are actually proving my point. The narrative of Alexander winning this battle are all hearsay, legends, a crude attempts to preserve his status as undefeated white blonde boy. 




Joe Shearer said:


> If you read the accounts, the passages through the mountains were not simple; there was every reason to believe that by reaching the sea, the army would have a safe and assured passage back home. Before marching down, and actually encountering enemies that they did encounter, they had no idea that some of the biggest challenges were still ahead.
> 
> That they headed south willingly was precisely the reason that it becomes clear that Alexander's army was not disinclined to fight, was not defeated and discouraged, but were willing to march through the plains and get to the sea.
> 
> You may like to read The Anabasis, where, when the inland-bound Greeks finally saw the Black Sea from an elevation, they broke into shouts,"Thalassa! Thalassa!" It needs more than a querulous, skimpy knowledge of history, twisted to form a self-serving account, to understand this campaign or what happened. If you could break away from your strenuous effort to prove that the people in the location of the present Pakistani Punjab defeated the world-conquering army of their times, you might make better sense.



OK, take a deep breath, relax and READ again. I will try to be concise as possible here to make it easy for you to understand.

Alexender came to subcontinent to plunder its wealth and expand its empire. For him not to go further east into what is now India, does not make any sense what so ever , as the lands and its wealth have always been the prime reason for the foreign invaders to control this region, right down to the Britishers. 

I dont have to speak with you in eight different languages to get some simple facts across.

Lets assume for argument sake that he won battle of Hydespas, why didnt he march further down east? after all that was his direction of moment coming from bactria into Indus plains. 

When you say that Nandas on east were more powerful and Alexenader army after taking heavy toll in battle of hydespas simply didnt want walk into more trouble , that implies that they knew what lies ahead, in military terms, they had the intelligence. On this basis it will be foolish to assume that the Greeks did not have the same information of on what challenges lies in south going downstream Indus. If the movement towards east was not made due to challenges there, its plain stupid to assume that Greek army will simply walk into more trouble, considering all the loses they incurred. Mind you, battle of hydespas was the most bloody war fought by Alexander. 

For once leave what the history says, just war game this. Ask yourself, after the battle of Jehlum, why Alexander didnt march further east and leave his main goal of plundering and expanding his empire in subcontinent? We are told that his army were "home sick" and tired , wanted to go back home. Even if we take that as truth, why venture into hostile and uncharted territory down south when knowing that the most safest passage is where he came from, as the lands were his own domain, Taxilla and bactria. The arugment that mountain terrain going back towards west was difficult is quite frankly pathetic when the circumstances were as they were. What Alexender was trying to achieve going towards Arabian sea? There was no floatia that was accompanying him that will be waiting for him on makran coast to ferry back to Babylon. 


As it has been said:

"Handing victory to Alexander is like describing Hitler as the conqueror of Russia because the Germans advanced up to Stalingrad"



Haryanvi Jat said:


> Are you Dumb???? [emoji53][emoji53] I said Saraswati was a river. Saraswati's origin dried and it became a seasonal river.




That is what we call barsati nalla.



Juggernaut_is_here said:


> The sites are equally large..morover dur to lack of funds the Pakistani sites will dissappear by 2030..this is what Pakistani scientists are claiming..I am saying what is on our territory is ouir civilization, what is on your territory is your civilization..India and Pakistan are completely two different civilizations




Yes we are two different civilization and those sites you mentioned are part of our, Pakistani civilization, not Indian civilization. Do not be confused by current maps and borders. Indian civlization can be traced into ganges plains.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

@Taimoor Khan If that was the case people of NorthWest India would have readily accepted Islam to differentiate themselves from the Gangetic plain...on the contrary people of North West India (Jammu till Northern edge of Maharashtra) are even more vigorously Hindu than Gangetic plain ..they are way more vegetarian..if anything the elite class of the North West have a soft corner for Buddhism....look at how much both Nehru and Modi promote Buddhism at the expense of Hinduism ...(Modi wines and dines Asians leaders at old Buddhist monasteries in his state, names every second new train after Buddhist personalities aka "Mahanama" express)


But the funny thing is Buddhism is an innovation of the Gangadesh


and your statement is like saying Karachi is an outpost of Lahore..both Karachi and Lahore are great cities in their own right, and are not outposts of the other

We are completely different people..Lothal is completely different from Harappa

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MultaniGuy

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> @Taimoor Khan If that was the case people of NorthWest India would have readily accepted Islam to differentiate themselves from the Gangetic plain...on the contrary people of North West India (Jammu till Northern edge of Maharashtra) are even more vigorously Hindu than Gangetic plain ..they are way more vegetarian..if anything the elite class of the North West have a soft corner for Buddhism....look at how much both Nehru and Modi promote Buddhism at the expense of Hinduism ...(Modi wines and dines Asians leaders at old Buddhist monasteries in his state, names every second new train after Buddhist personalities aka "Mahanama" express)
> 
> 
> But the funny thing is Buddhism is an innovation of the Gangadesh
> 
> 
> and your statement is like saying Karachi is an outpost of Lahore..both Karachi and Lahore are great cities in their own right, and are not outposts of the other
> 
> We are completely different people..Lothal is completely different from Harappa


Glad you agree that Pakistan and India have nothing in common.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Iqbal Ali said:


> Glad you agree that Pakistan and India have nothing in common.




But people whose ancestors have been in India for half a century to a century are Indians


----------



## MultaniGuy

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> But people whose ancestors have been in India for half a century to a century are Indians


I do not understand your post.


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Iqbal Ali said:


> I do not understand your post.




Look at Machurians who invaded in conquered China..they were a nomadic people or at least more similiar to nomadic Mongols by their own account than the farming Chinese....They invaded Ming China in 1644...Their emperors were afraid that Manchus would lose their nomadic warrior ways and would become soft like Chinese...so Manchu emperors reintroduced Manchu Shamanism among the Manchu soldiers to differentiate themselves from Chinese Confucianism and Taoism...Manchu emperors insituted the royal imperial hunt for Manchu soldiers and other nomadic soldiers annually in Central Asia/steppes...Chinese soldiers were not allowed...but even all these measures could not stop Manchus from becoming Chinese...by 1771 Manchu emperors stopped their royal hunt and started following Chinese spirituality instead of their shamanism..and then started Manchu downfall and the Century of Humiliation 


I am saying many Afghan people (semi-nomadic or nomadic culture) came to India and settled in Rohilkhand and Bundelkhand...but because they were among farming Indians, they slowly became Indians...their old ways , customs and lifestyles were lost to Indian farming

even when they returned to Pakistan after Parition, they were looked at, thought of , identified as Indians only...or more pejoratively Gangoos


----------



## MultaniGuy

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Look at Machurians who invaded in conquered China..they were a nomadic people or at least more similiar to nomadic Mongols by their own account than the farming Chinese....They invaded Ming China in 1644...Their emperors were afraid that Manchus would lose their nomadic warrior ways and would become soft like Chinese...so Manchu emperors reintroduced Manchu Shamanism among the Manchu soldiers to differentiate themselves from Chinese Confucianism and Taoism...Manchu emperors insituted the royal imperial hunt for Manchu soldiers and other nomadic soldiers annually in Central Asia/steppes...Chinese soldiers were not allowed...but even all these measures could not stop Manchus from becoming Chinese...by 1771 Manchu emperors stopped their royal hunt and started following Chinese spirituality instead of their shamanism..and then started Manchu downfall and the Century of Humiliation
> 
> 
> I am saying many Afghan people (semi-nomadic or nomadic culture) came to India and settled in Rohilkhand and Bundelkhand...but because they were among farming Indians, they slowly became Indians...their old ways , customs and lifestyles were lost to Indian farming
> 
> even when they returned to Pakistan after Parition, they were looked at, thought of , identified as Indians only...or more pejoratively Gangoos


Those who live in India are Indians.

Those who live in Pakistan are Pakistanis.


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Iqbal Ali said:


> Those who live in India are Indians.
> 
> Those who live in Pakistan are Pakistanis.



But what about those Pakistanis who have their roots in India?


A lot of Muslim Indians dearly want to be Pakistanis though...


----------



## MultaniGuy

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> But what about those Pakistanis who have their roots in India?
> 
> 
> A lot of Muslim Indians dearly want to be Pakistanis though...


They are no longer Indians.

Once they live in Pakistan, they are Pakistanis.


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Haryanvi Jat said:


> I said Saraswati was a river. Saraswati's origin dried and it became a seasonal river.


Please read this thread. The Saraswati myth has been "busted".

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-fraud-of-saraswati-river-hindu-myth-busted.419558/




Joe Shearer said:


> friend's blog


I would love to ask the Karnatka Minister Mr Kageri how would it be possible for *Albanians* to swell with pride over the achievements of far away *Swedes* - who are some 1,000 miles away? Possibly by playing the "European" denominator but that would be gasping for air. That is exactly what it looks if you place the sub-continent on top of Europe. Porus' kingdom falls around Sweden. Karnatka falls in Albania.









And here is the South Asian *context*.








I love use these maps/infographics as they convey the facts better than 5,000 words could do. Just think Albanians bragging about how some Swedish warrior king fought some invader. And if anybody uses the "continent" as a common denominator do note so is Europe a continent with a shared history/culture etc.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Taimoor Khan said:


> Read what you wrote here and come back to me after having a reflection. Your pathetic attempts are actually proving my point. The narrative of Alexander winning this battle are all hearsay, legends, a crude attempts to preserve his status as undefeated white blonde boy.



And against this hearsay, these legends, these crude attempts to preserve his status as undefeated white blond boy, what do you oppose?

Unwritten history, interpolations into the record to read what has not been explicitly denied, quotations from blog-sites, including, the most laughable instance, Indian Defence blog sites, the polar opposites of PDF? 

You don't even know whom you are citing: there is no historian named Badge.

Do you even understand that I am a formal student of history, that Alexander's campaign was studied at great depth, that I was a kind of unpaid assistant to a presentation that sought to prove in the 60s that Hydaspes was not such an outright victory as it was made out to be, to an audience that included an appreciative but unconvinced R. C. Majumdar? And you oppose these vague sites, and their totally spurious narrations to this? 



> OK, take a deep breath, relax and READ again. I will try to be concise as possible here to make it easy for you to understand.



If we could only interpret conciseness as absence, it would be so intellectually appealing.



> Alexender came to subcontinent to plunder its wealth and expand its empire. For him not to go further east into what is now India, does not make any sense what so ever , as the lands and its wealth have always been the prime reason for the foreign invaders to control this region, right down to the Britishers.



He was more than willing; what gave you the impression that Alexander did not want to go further? 

And since you claim to be so learned in this matter, are you even aware that there was a reason other than the lands and their wealth for Alexander to seek to go further east in the first place? Think about it; you know nothing about the campaign and about the happenings except whatever shallow knowledge exists on the web.



> I dont have to speak with you in eight different languages to get some simple facts across.



Speaking logically in one language would suffice. Unfortunately, in the absence of that, even eighty languages will not do.



> Lets assume for argument sake that he won battle of Hydespas, why didnt he march further down east? after all that was his direction of moment coming from bactria into Indus plains.



Because his soldiers didn't want to go on.



> When you say that Nandas on east were more powerful and Alexenader army after taking heavy toll in battle of hydespas simply didnt want walk into more trouble , that implies that they knew what lies ahead, in military terms, they had the intelligence.



It implies NOTHING, except that you don't know your subject.

The description of the territory and its armament further east were explicitly mentioned as coming from specific sources; there was no implication, that is not a term needed if you knew Jack Squat about the sources.

Read: 

<general comment by R. S. Tripathi, in History of Ancient India> During their progress towards the Hyphasis Alexander's troops had heard all sorts of alarming rumours that beyond it there were extensive and uninviting deserts, impetuous and unfathomable rivers, and, what was more disquieting, powerful and wealthy nations maintaining huge armies.

Tripathi cites two original sources:

<Curtius> Curtius represents Phegeus (Phegelis?), identified with Bhagala, as giving the following information to Alexander: the further bank of the Ganges was inhabited by two nations, the Gangaridae and the Prasii, whose king Agrammes kept in the field for guarding the approaches to his country 20,000 cavalry and 200,000 infantry, besides 2,000 four-horsed chariots, and what was most formidable force of all, a troop of elephants, which ran up to the number of 3,000. 

<Plutarch> Similarly Plutarch says that the kings of the Gangaritai and Prasiai were reported to be waiting for him with an army of 80,000 horse and 200,000 foot, 8,000 war chariots and 6,000 fighting elephants.

For the information of those not like @Taimoor Khan, born as latter-day Jowetts, who knew all about everything from birth, Gangaridae is an obvious derivation from Ganga, Prasii is only the nominative of Prachya, eastern. 

More later: @Kaptaan has posted, and I need to attend. Don't forget your medication.



> On this basis it will be foolish to assume that the Greeks did not have the same information of on what challenges lies in south going downstream Indus. If the movement towards east was not made due to challenges there, its plain stupid to assume that Greek army will simply walk into more trouble, considering all the loses they incurred. Mind you, battle of hydespas was the most bloody war fought by Alexander.
> 
> For once leave what the history says, just war game this. Ask yourself, after the battle of Jehlum, why Alexander didnt march further east and leave his main goal of plundering and expanding his empire in subcontinent? We are told that his army were "home sick" and tired , wanted to go back home. Even if we take that as truth, why venture into hostile and uncharted territory down south when knowing that the most safest passage is where he came from, as the lands were his own domain, Taxilla and bactria. The arugment that mountain terrain going back towards west was difficult is quite frankly pathetic when the circumstances were as they were. What Alexender was trying to achieve going towards Arabian sea? There was no floatia that was accompanying him that will be waiting for him on makran coast to ferry back to Babylon.
> 
> 
> As it has been said:
> 
> "Handing victory to Alexander is like describing Hitler as the conqueror of Russia because the Germans advanced up to Stalingrad"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what we call barsati nalla.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we are two different civilization and those sites you mentioned are part of our, Pakistani civilization, not Indian civilization. Do not be confused by current maps and borders. Indian civlization can be traced into ganges plains.





Taimoor Khan said:


> Read what you wrote here and come back to me after having a reflection. Your pathetic attempts are actually proving my point. The narrative of Alexander winning this battle are all hearsay, legends, a crude attempts to preserve his status as undefeated white blonde boy.



...against which you oppose unwritten history? You put up all that has not been explicitly denied? 

Are you serious?



> OK, take a deep breath, relax and READ again. I will try to be concise as possible here to make it easy for you to understand.
> 
> Alexender came to subcontinent to plunder its wealth and expand its empire. For him not to go further east into what is now India, does not make any sense what so ever , as the lands and its wealth have always been the prime reason for the foreign invaders to control this region, right down to the Britishers.
> 
> I dont have to speak with you in eight different languages to get some simple facts across.
> 
> Lets assume for argument sake that he won battle of Hydespas, why didnt he march further down east? after all that was his direction of moment coming from bactria into Indus plains.
> 
> When you say that Nandas on east were more powerful and Alexenader army after taking heavy toll in battle of hydespas simply didnt want walk into more trouble , that implies that they knew what lies ahead, in military terms, they had the intelligence.
> 
> On this basis it will be foolish to assume that the Greeks did not have the same information of on what challenges lies in south going downstream Indus. If the movement towards east was not made due to challenges there, its plain stupid to assume that Greek army will simply walk into more trouble, considering all the loses they incurred. Mind you, battle of hydespas was the most bloody war fought by Alexander.
> 
> For once leave what the history says, just war game this. Ask yourself, after the battle of Jehlum, why Alexander didnt march further east and leave his main goal of plundering and expanding his empire in subcontinent? We are told that his army were "home sick" and tired , wanted to go back home. Even if we take that as truth, why venture into hostile and uncharted territory down south when knowing that the most safest passage is where he came from, as the lands were his own domain, Taxilla and bactria. The arugment that mountain terrain going back towards west was difficult is quite frankly pathetic when the circumstances were as they were. What Alexender was trying to achieve going towards Arabian sea? There was no floatia that was accompanying him that will be waiting for him on makran coast to ferry back to Babylon.
> 
> 
> As it has been said:
> 
> "Handing victory to Alexander is like describing Hitler as the conqueror of Russia because the Germans advanced up to Stalingrad"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is what we call barsati nalla.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we are two different civilization and those sites you mentioned are part of our, Pakistani civilization, not Indian civilization. Do not be confused by current maps and borders. Indian civlization can be traced into ganges plains.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

@Joe Shearer would you consider RC Mazumder the best among nationalist historians? the most level headed ?

and who is better Mazumder or DD Kosambi?

I will not interrupt this thread anymore as long as you and @Kaptaan are conversing

best wishes to both of you


----------



## UnitedPak

trident2010 said:


> Indians are the people of Indus and deccan and ganges. So according to you pakistanis are Hindu Indians converted to muslims. Good with me
> 
> Most of pakistanis here denies their Indian heritage



This is what happens when you use a misnomer to identify your country. I am yet to find a place that's somehow not "Indian". Grow up.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MultaniGuy

UnitedPak said:


> This is what happens when you use a misnomer to identify your country. I am yet to find a place that's somehow not "Indian". Grow up.



Pakistanis have nothing to do with India.

We have a completely different culture from India's.


----------



## UnitedPak

Iqbal Ali said:


> Pakistanis have nothing to do with India.
> 
> We have a completely different culture from India's.



True, but "India" seems to mean something entirely different to our Indian members. Closer to the British Raj plus areas of Afghanistan too.


----------



## MultaniGuy

UnitedPak said:


> True, but "India" seems to mean something entirely different to our Indian members. Closer to the British Raj plus areas of Afghanistan too.


India means "Republic of India"

India does not mean South Asia, or the subcontinent, or British Raj.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Kaptaan said:


> Please read this thread. The Saraswati myth has been "busted".
> 
> https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-fraud-of-saraswati-river-hindu-myth-busted.419558/
> 
> 
> I would love to ask the Karnatka Minister Mr Kageri how would it be possible for *Albanians* to swell with pride over the achievements of far away *Swedes* - who are some 1,000 miles away? Possibly by playing the "European" denominator but that would be gasping for air. That is exactly what it looks if you place the sub-continent on top of Europe. Porus' kingdom falls around Sweden. Karnatka falls in Albania.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here is the South Asian *context*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love use these maps/infographics as they convey the facts better than 5,000 words could do. Just think Albanians bragging about how some Swedish warrior king fought some invader. And if anybody uses the "continent" as a common denominator do note so is Europe a continent with a shared history/culture etc.



Chief, please consider the following:

We don't teach regional histories in the Indian curriculum at undergrad level; there is a school of thought that we ought to get away from the North India heavy histories of the current style and concentrate on histories of our own region. But these are not well-developed, except for the history of Bengal, due to the specification in Calcutta University that three papers in Indian history at the undergraduate level should be with particular emphasis on the history of Bengal;
Just to add to the bewilderment, the standard history of Bengal was the History of Bengal in 3 volumes published by Dacca University (now, presumably, Dhaka University); in our college days, old, pre-partition copies sold at a huge premium, and with the coming of Bangladesh, this bubble was burst;

back to the point: not only is Indian history taught without emphasis on regions, it is taught without regard to region, and a standard history jumps from one incident in one part of India to another in another part with only the time sequence to govern the general pattern.
The most confusing bits are south Indian histories; they began only with a monumental effort by Nilakanta Sastri, before which there was nothing called a history of south India. When one goes deep into the history of south India, the same problem arises that arises with the study of the history of north India. Being taught as the history of a composite region (co-terminous south India, if you like, or co-terminous Andhra Pradesh, co-terminous Tamil Nadu and any one of the present-day Indian states could be substituted) makes things very confusing. To explain things through a parallel, we effectively jump from bin Qasim's annexation of Sindh to the expeditions of Mahmud of Ghazni, with nothing to connect the two.
The reference to which we are inviting your attention has nothing to do with all this; instead, we are asking people to see that some very weird reasons are emerging for the motivational teaching of history. According to this 'motivational' historiography, history should not be neutral. Clio should now be a skimpily clad cheerleader for the team. History should get involved; it should cheer up and enthuse the people, and give them pride in their nation-state, in their state within the Indian Union, in their linguistic group, and so on. It is considered permissible to twist the facts a little in order to create a joyful feeling and a positive feeling towards the state on the part of young students.
It is this last point that we were making, this time about bozos who have a skimpy amount of superficial knowledge, and re-colour history to suit a nationalist purpose.



Iqbal Ali said:


> India means "Republic of India"
> 
> India does not mean South Asia, or the subcontinent, or British Raj.



The world of academe thinks otherwise. Who are we to fight that rooted belief?


----------



## MultaniGuy

Joe Shearer said:


> Chief, please consider the following:
> 
> We don't teach regional histories in the Indian curriculum at undergrad level; there is a school of thought that we ought to get away from the North India heavy histories of the current style and concentrate on histories of our own region. But these are not well-developed, except for the history of Bengal, due to the specification in Calcutta University that three papers in Indian history at the undergraduate level should be with particular emphasis on the history of Bengal;
> Just to add to the bewilderment, the standard history of Bengal was the History of Bengal in 3 volumes published by Dacca University (now, presumably, Dhaka University); in our college days, old, pre-partition copies sold at a huge premium, and with the coming of Bangladesh, this bubble was burst;
> 
> back to the point: not only is Indian history taught without emphasis on regions, it is taught without regard to region, and a standard history jumps from one incident in one part of India to another in another part with only the time sequence to govern the general pattern.
> The most confusing bits are south Indian histories; they began only with a monumental effort by Nilakanta Sastri, before which there was nothing called a history of south India. When one goes deep into the history of south India, the same problem arises that arises with the study of the history of north India. Being taught as the history of a composite region (co-terminous south India, if you like, or co-terminous Andhra Pradesh, co-terminous Tamil Nadu and any one of the present-day Indian states could be substituted) makes things very confusing. To explain things through a parallel, we effectively jump from bin Qasim's annexation of Sindh to the expeditions of Mahmud of Ghazni, with nothing to connect the two.
> The reference to which we are inviting your attention has nothing to do with all this; instead, we are asking people to see that some very weird reasons are emerging for the motivational teaching of history. According to this 'motivational' historiography, history should not be neutral. Clio should now be a skimpily clad cheerleader for the team. History should get involved; it should cheer up and enthuse the people, and give them pride in their nation-state, in their state within the Indian Union, in their linguistic group, and so on. It is considered permissible to twist the facts a little in order to create a joyful feeling and a positive feeling towards the state on the part of young students.
> It is this last point that we were making, this time about bozos who have a skimpy amount of superficial knowledge, and re-colour history to suit a nationalist purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> The world of academe thinks otherwise. Who are we to fight that rooted belief?


BULLSHIT.

Nobody calls Pakistan "India" or Nepal "India."

People only call Republic of India "India."

Stop saying garbage.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> @Joe Shearer would you consider RC Mazumder the best among nationalist historians? the most level headed ?
> 
> and who is better Mazumder or DD Kosambi?
> 
> I will not interrupt this thread anymore as long as you and @Kaptaan are conversing
> 
> best wishes to both of you



R. C. Majumdar (not Mazumder) was my chachi's chacha, and related to us in various other ways. He was a nice man, and liked my father because of his own thorough knowledge of history, as well as the academic connections. Having said that, he was too right-wing for my personal taste, which is closer to my academic guru's guru, Sushobhan Sarkar, father of Sumit Sarkar. But even Sumit is not my personal choice of 'nationalist' historians (he was emphatically not a 'nationalist'); it is Jadunath Sarkar (no relation to the other two), who, with his thorough knowledge of Urdu and Persian, brought a great deal of original research to his studies of the Mughals, the Marathas, the Rajputs and of Indian history in general. It is surprising that more emphasis is not given to a study of these, as well as to Sanskrit for the study of ancient and early mediaeval India.

Among non-aligned, that is, non-'nationalist' historians, it is Kosambi head and shoulders over anybody else, with only Irfan Habib, and, to a lesser extent, Romila Thapar to challenge him.



Iqbal Ali said:


> BULLSHIT.
> 
> Nobody calls Pakistan "India" or Nepal "India."
> 
> People only call Republic of India "India."
> 
> Stop saying garbage.



Please.

You are a nice person, I'm sure. Worthy and all that. Please stay out of subjects that you don't understand and never will. And don't be abusive; this is a bad habit that has been noticed and commented upon before, and you really need to do something about it. Bad temper and bad language is unfortunately not a substitute for genuine learning.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## wiseone2

Iqbal Ali said:


> Pakistanis have nothing to do with India.
> 
> We have a completely different culture from India's.



That would be fine in a fantasy world of yours


----------



## Mugwop

Great Thread!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MultaniGuy

Joe Shearer said:


> R. C. Majumdar (not Mazumder) was my chachi's chacha, and related to us in various other ways. He was a nice man, and liked my father because of his own thorough knowledge of history, as well as the academic connections. Having said that, he was too right-wing for my personal taste, which is closer to my academic guru's guru, Sushobhan Sarkar, father of Sumit Sarkar. But even Sumit is not my personal choice of 'nationalist' historians (he was emphatically not a 'nationalist'); it is Jadunath Sarkar (no relation to the other two), who, with his thorough knowledge of Urdu and Persian, brought a great deal of original research to his studies of the Mughals, the Marathas, the Rajputs and of Indian history in general. It is surprising that more emphasis is not given to a study of these, as well as to Sanskrit for the study of ancient and early mediaeval India.
> 
> Among non-aligned, that is, non-'nationalist' historians, it is Kosambi head and shoulders over anybody else, with only Irfan Habib, and, to a lesser extent, Romila Thapar to challenge him.
> 
> 
> 
> Please.
> 
> You are a nice person, I'm sure. Worthy and all that. Please stay out of subjects that you don't understand and never will. And don't be abusive; this is a bad habit that has been noticed and commented upon before, and you really need to do something about it. Bad temper and bad language is unfortunately not a substitute for genuine learning.



Yeah okay, you are nice too.

But listen nobody calls all of Subcontinent "India." It is just Republic of India which is called "India."

India is no longer a geographical expression. It is a name of a country.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Joe Shearer said:


> R. C. Majumdar (not Mazumder) was my chachi's chacha, and related to us in various other ways. He was a nice man, and liked my father because of his own thorough knowledge of history, as well as the academic connections. Having said that, he was too right-wing for my personal taste, which is closer to my academic guru's guru, Sushobhan Sarkar, father of Sumit Sarkar. But even Sumit is not my personal choice of 'nationalist' historians (he was emphatically not a 'nationalist'); it is Jadunath Sarkar (no relation to the other two), who, with his thorough knowledge of Urdu and Persian, brought a great deal of original research to his studies of the Mughals, the Marathas, the Rajputs and of Indian history in general. It is surprising that more emphasis is not given to a study of these, as well as to Sanskrit for the study of ancient and early mediaeval India.
> 
> Among non-aligned, that is, non-'nationalist' historians, it is Kosambi head and shoulders over anybody else, with only Irfan Habib, and, to a lesser extent, Romila Thapar to challenge him.




Wow I am interacting with the royalty of Indian Historiography! Did Majumder come from old money or humble beginnings? He certainly was kind of aristrocratic /"Bonedi" by the end of his life...Jadunath Sarkar----I have to read more about his works

half-a-decade ago when I first came across Kosambi, my eyes were opened...His way of analyzing history was something out of the ordinary...the way he charted out the development and evolution of various spiritual ideas, shattered all pre-conceived notions in me...That along with interest in New Atheism/Indian Rationalists, confirmed to my mind that ancient Yogis and Indian warriors were not wielding any sort of supernormal powers

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Iqbal Ali said:


> Yeah okay, you are nice too.
> 
> But listen nobody calls all of Subcontinent "India." It is just Republic of India which is called "India."
> 
> India is no longer a geographical expression. It is a name of a country.



I have to keep doing this every six months to a year: India is a geographical expression, a sociological aggregate and a political unit/entity, and the three of them do not have identical boundaries.

Yes, the Republic of India is India.

Yes, India was a geographical expression and continues to be a geographical expression. That is distinct from the political entity of India.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> Wow I am interacting with the royalty of Indian Historiography! Did Majumder come from old money or humble beginnings? He certainly was kind of aristrocratic /"Bonedi" by the end of his life...Jadunath Sarkar----I have to read more about his works
> 
> half-a-decade ago when I first came across Kosambi, my eyes were opened...His way of analyzing history was something out of the ordinary...the way he charted out the development and evolution of various spiritual ideas, shattered all pre-conceived notions in me...That along with interest in New Atheism/Indian Rationalists, confirmed to my mind that ancient Yogis and Indian warriors were not wielding any sort of supernormal powers



Pretty ordinary middle class folks; most of our clan were like that, not rich, not poor. Kanungo was also related. My guru-parampara is Kuruvilla Zachariah -> Sushobhan Sarkar -> Ashin DasGupta. My father was Sushobhan's favourite; he is the only one to have contributed to the old man's Festschrift who wasn't a famous historian.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MultaniGuy

Joe Shearer said:


> I have to keep doing this every six months to a year: India is a geographical expression, a sociological aggregate and a political unit/entity, and the three of them do not have identical boundaries.
> 
> Yes, the Republic of India is India.
> 
> Yes, India was a geographical expression and continues to be a geographical expression. That is distinct from the political entity of India.


India is no longer a geographical expression.

This is where I disagree with you.

It is now South Asia or subcontinent, but the region of South Asia is not "India."

I have proven to you with logic and proof.

The rest is up to you.

"India" is not a geographical expression anymore. India is "Republic of India" which was created in 1947.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Iqbal Ali said:


> India is no longer a geographical expression.
> 
> This is where I disagree with you.
> 
> It is now South Asia or subcontinent, but the region of South Asia is not "India."
> 
> I have proven to you with logic and proof.
> 
> The rest is up to you.
> 
> "India" is not a geographical expression anymore. India is "Republic of India" which was created in 1947.



Chill.

Go and find a Sanghi and fight with him. You'll have fun; he'll have fun; you will neither of you feel hurt and troubled.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Let's end this debate once and for all

Below is the most important map from Joseph E.Schwartzberg's "A Historical Atlas of South Asia"

It shows the strength of each politico-cultural boundary through out subcontinent's history

India the Nation-state covers around 86-90% of India the Geographical expression...that's way better than even Germany

@Joe Shearer


----------



## Joe Shearer

I have a mixed reaction to this.

If you notice, there is a clear demarcation of the present-day portions that form Pakistan. They have a point when they say that they are distinct, although they are also distinct from each other. To my thinking, and this is personal, one leg of the justification for Pakistan is their ancient homogeneity of each constituent portion. When these portions came together and decided to form a state, they became a state, by being loyal to it for seventy years. There is no need for anyone else to poke and pry and to disturb their desire to be together.

It is within the older cultural boundaries of India, but when they chose to be together, they chose for themselves. 

My second (amusing) sidelight is to you, @Juggernaut_is_here . Have you noticed that only one zone is not marked as stable, subject to instability or isolated?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Joe Shearer said:


> I have a mixed reaction to this.
> 
> If you notice, there is a clear demarcation of the present-day portions that form Pakistan. They have a point when they say that they are distinct, although they are also distinct from each other. To my thinking, and this is personal, one leg of the justification for Pakistan is their ancient homogeneity of each constituent portion. When these portions came together and decided to form a state, they became a state, by being loyal to it for seventy years. There is no need for anyone else to poke and pry and to disturb their desire to be together.
> 
> It is within the older cultural boundaries of India, but when they chose to be together, they chose for themselves.
> 
> My second (amusing) sidelight is to you, @Juggernaut_is_here . Have you noticed that only one zone is not marked as stable, subject to instability or isolated?




You mean eastern Bangladesh and Tripura? The question of history of the Bangladesh region vexed me since late teenagehood...I mean how come Bangladesh is Muslim without being contiguous with Muslim majority parts of the subcontinent? There is a greater chance that areas around the Mughal core could have been Muslim than BD.....

All those questions were answered when I came across Richard Eaton Maxwell's book "The rise of Islam and the Bengal frontier, 1204-1760" 

Eastern Bengal has come much more recently under the plough and it has hosted settled civilized population way more recently..discounting the hallmarks of civilization in Northern Bengal 

I mean Western part of Bengal has much more solid documented history since the Guptas and Shashanka....

That the history of the subcontinent is varied and different parts saw different speeds of development completely baffles the Hindu Nationalist

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MultaniGuy

Joe Shearer said:


> I have a mixed reaction to this.
> 
> If you notice, there is a clear demarcation of the present-day portions that form Pakistan. They have a point when they say that they are distinct, although they are also distinct from each other. To my thinking, and this is personal, one leg of the justification for Pakistan is their ancient homogeneity of each constituent portion. When these portions came together and decided to form a state, they became a state, by being loyal to it for seventy years. There is no need for anyone else to poke and pry and to disturb their desire to be together.
> 
> It is within the older cultural boundaries of India, but when they chose to be together, they chose for themselves.
> 
> My second (amusing) sidelight is to you, @Juggernaut_is_here . Have you noticed that only one zone is not marked as stable, subject to instability or isolated?


Not just for seventy years, but for much more years to come obviously.

Pakistan is country with a very large history going back to Indus River Valley Civilization.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Iqbal Ali said:


> Not just for seventy years, but for much more years to come obviously.
> 
> Pakistan is country with a very large history going back to Indus River Valley Civilization.



Pakistan is indeed a country, whose constituent provinces have a very LONG history going back to the Indus Valley Civilisation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MultaniGuy

Joe Shearer said:


> Pakistan is indeed a country, whose constituent provinces have a very LONG history going back to the Indus Valley Civilisation.


The same logic can be applied to Republic of India, the provinces have a long history dating back to the old gangetic days to now.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Iqbal Ali said:


> The same logic can be applied to Republic of India, the provinces have a long history dating back to the old gangetic days to now.



Of course. You are partly right, as usual. If you want to discuss something with me, do try to read, and do try to understand the whole thing. If I show you why you are partly right and not wholly so, will you go away and stop bothering me?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pangu

Thank you for setting the record straight Kaptaan, I've always thought Alexander fought the ancient Indians... Congrats on this formidable & victorious event of your people, I am impressed!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Haryanvi Jat

Kaptaan said:


> Please read this thread. The Saraswati myth has been "busted".
> 
> https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-fraud-of-saraswati-river-hindu-myth-busted.419558/



I would rather believe Indian archaeologist than believing your sources.


----------



## MultaniGuy

Pangu said:


> Thank you for setting the record straight Kaptaan, I've always thought Alexander fought the ancient Indians... Congrats on this formidable & victorious event of your people's, I am impressed!


I sure it was a fierce fight with Alexander the Great.


----------



## krash

PatriotLover said:


> Kaptaan’s type of thinking makes me fear for our future. Our past and future lies in Islam. We take our strength from it. Trying to add to our history reaks of someones personal complex. We are a great nation which follows Islam and its tradition. Trying to add Indian elements to it helps hindu ghar vapasi propaganda.



This archaic mentality is what has brought us to nowhere. You have no clue what Islam is, have no clue what you are and you definitely have no clue what academic thought or its benefits are. The stupidity with which you display your empty rhetoric and reason-less statements is exactly why we must learn and teach who we are and where we come from.

What reeks right now is the hypocrisy of our people who want us to discard/not acknowledge anything and everything that is/was our's but not Islam's and yet not against Islam, and still choose to adopt foreign homelands whose ways stand directly against Islam. Don't rejoice yet, I do not see a problem with them adopting those foreign lands, I see a problem with them making no sense what so ever in their statements.

We are a nation whose history pre-dates Islam. Complex-ed is the one who refuses to acknowledge this. Moronic is the one who wilfully forfeits it to the Indians.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Joe Shearer

krash said:


> This archaic mentality is what has brought us to nowhere. You have no clue what Islam is, have no clue what you are and you definitely have no clue what academic thought or its benefits are. The stupidity with which you display your empty rhetoric and reason-less statements is exactly why we must learn and teach who we are and where we come from.
> 
> What reeks right now is the hypocrisy of our people who want us to discard/not acknowledge anything and everything that is/was our's but not Islam's and yet not against Islam, and still choose to adopt foreign homelands whose ways stand directly against Islam. Don't rejoice yet, I do not see a problem with them adopting those foreign lands, I see a problem with them making no sense what so ever in their statements.
> 
> We are a nation whose history pre-dates Islam. Complex-ed is the one who refuses to acknowledge this. Moronic is the one who wilfully forfeits it to the Indians.



This is a discussion where someone who is not himself (or herself) Pakistani cannot speak with the frank and forthright manner that a Pakistani might adopt. However we are involved in the conversation, and I would like an opportunity to respond to it. Not to contradict it, but to clarify matters regarding a specific point.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## krash

Joe Shearer said:


> This is a discussion where someone who is not himself (or herself) Pakistani cannot speak with the frank and forthright manner that a Pakistani might adopt. However we are involved in the conversation, and I would like an opportunity to respond to it. Not to contradict it, but to clarify matters regarding a specific point.



By all means.


----------



## Joe Shearer

krash said:


> By all means.



Forfeiting it to the Indians needs a fool on one side and a knave on the other. I ask you to consider two reasonable people instead. Since nothing hinges on this request but some thought to be spent on your part, do think about that imaginary situation. It might not be a zero sum game after all, as far too many people have feared.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimoor Khan

Joe Shearer said:


> And against this hearsay, these legends, these crude attempts to preserve his status as undefeated white blond boy, what do you oppose?
> 
> Unwritten history, interpolations into the record to read what has not been explicitly denied, quotations from blog-sites, including, the most laughable instance, Indian Defence blog sites, the polar opposites of PDF?
> 
> You don't even know whom you are citing: there is no historian named Badge.
> 
> Do you even understand that I am a formal student of history, that Alexander's campaign was studied at great depth, that I was a kind of unpaid assistant to a presentation that sought to prove in the 60s that Hydaspes was not such an outright victory as it was made out to be, to an audience that included an appreciative but unconvinced R. C. Majumdar? And you oppose these vague sites, and their totally spurious narrations to this?



What I propose? I am not proposing anything , just stating facts and circumsential evidences which go against this myth created around the unfeated, darling of west , the mighty Alexander. Every dog has its days. He had it. World needs to move on and except the realities. Those who heads are burried deep in their white masters behind, cannot, will not be able to think rationally as the coconut inside wont let them. Slaves minds are worst form of slavery.

Unwritten history?? The history that was written about this battle got more holes in it then swizz cheese. I dont have to keep on repeating myself here.

You can be a janitor, polishing Earl Gray shoes , you can be the Queen of England. Do you see me give a f***??? 




Joe Shearer said:


> He was more than willing; what gave you the impression that Alexander did not want to go further?
> 
> And since you claim to be so learned in this matter, are you even aware that there was a reason other than the lands and their wealth for Alexander to seek to go further east in the first place? Think about it; you know nothing about the campaign and about the happenings except whatever shallow knowledge exists on the web.




So why did he stop? More of the case, being made to stop.

Seems you are a "phoopa" of Alexander. But as history goes, he has to be worst foreign invader of sub continent. The Nomad Babur created his own legacy and dynasty in the region, and he was nobody when compared to the Alexender, "the great". 




Joe Shearer said:


> Speaking logically in one language would suffice. Unfortunately, in the absence of that, even eighty languages will not do.



If you can get your head out of your behind, maybe it will all start to make sense. In sha Allah.




Joe Shearer said:


> Because his soldiers didn't want to go on.



beaten? lethargic? tired? heavy toll? mutiny? leadership losing control? 


Think loud mouth think.




Joe Shearer said:


> It implies NOTHING, except that you don't know your subject.
> 
> The description of the territory and its armament further east were explicitly mentioned as coming from specific sources; there was no implication, that is not a term needed if you knew Jack Squat about the sources.
> 
> Read:
> 
> <general comment by R. S. Tripathi, in History of Ancient India> During their progress towards the Hyphasis Alexander's troops had heard all sorts of alarming rumours that beyond it there were extensive and uninviting deserts, impetuous and unfathomable rivers, and, what was more disquieting, powerful and wealthy nations maintaining huge armies.
> 
> Tripathi cites two original sources:
> 
> <Curtius> Curtius represents Phegeus (Phegelis?), identified with Bhagala, as giving the following information to Alexander: the further bank of the Ganges was inhabited by two nations, the Gangaridae and the Prasii, whose king Agrammes kept in the field for guarding the approaches to his country 20,000 cavalry and 200,000 infantry, besides 2,000 four-horsed chariots, and what was most formidable force of all, a troop of elephants, which ran up to the number of 3,000.
> 
> <Plutarch> Similarly Plutarch says that the kings of the Gangaritai and Prasiai were reported to be waiting for him with an army of 80,000 horse and 200,000 foot, 8,000 war chariots and 6,000 fighting elephants.
> 
> For the information of those not like @Taimoor Khan, born as latter-day Jowetts, who knew all about everything from birth, Gangaridae is an obvious derivation from Ganga, Prasii is only the nominative of Prachya, eastern.
> 
> More later: @Kaptaan has posted, and I need to attend. Don't forget your medication.




Its implies EXACTLY what I said. He knew what lies ahead. In military terms he had the INTELLIGENCE, to be precise HUMINT, of the challenges that he might have to face if he move forward. You are honking rubbish, as usual.

For him to be completely oblivious of what lies south is out of question, considering that the midget actually died of the wounds received in the battle of Multan, all subsequent actions and path taken are of the defeated army. You said his troops didnt want to move ahead, then why not take the safe passage back to Bactria???




Joe Shearer said:


> ...against which you oppose unwritten history? You put up all that has not been explicitly denied?
> 
> Are you serious?




You dont accept the existence of Noah and Adam, mentioned extensively in the written history, from all over the world, different accounts, different races, ethinicities, and here you are pathetically defending a clearly BIASED and hogwash of history written by non other then greeks themselves, defending them shamelessly and rather unsuccessfully. 

Have some mercy on yourself.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Taimoor Khan said:


> What I propose? I am not proposing anything , just stating facts and circumsential evidences which go against this myth created around the unfeated, darling of west , the mighty Alexander. Every dog has its days. He had it. World needs to move on and except the realities. Those who heads are burried deep in their white masters behind, cannot, will not be able to think rationally as the coconut inside wont let them. Slaves minds are worst form of slavery



You haven't cited a single fact. Isn't that surprising?



> Unwritten history?? The history that was written about this battle got more holes in it then swizz cheese. I dont have to keep on repeating myself here.



Perhaps, but that doesn't give you liberty to manufacture your own version without the support of something. You have nothing.



> You can be a janitor, polishing Earl Gray shoes , you can be the Queen of England. Do you see me give a f***???



No. That is clear, that facts do not bother you, only your own opinion does.



> So why did he stop? More of the case, being made to stop.



I thought with your mastery of the case and the circumstances, if not the facts, it would have come to your attention that the soldiers didn't want to go on. 



> Seems you are a "phoopa" of Alexander. But as history goes, he has to be worst foreign invader of sub continent. The Nomad Babur created his own legacy and dynasty in the region, and he was nobody when compared to the Alexender, "the great".



So it's the religion that determines whether or not X, Y or Z is militarily competent. I am glad you acknowledged it.



> If you can get your head out of your behind, maybe it will all start to make sense. In sha Allah.



Apart from vulgarity and abuse, we are still waiting for a single fact, for a single source.



> beaten? lethargic? tired? heavy toll? mutiny? leadership losing control?



They refused to follow him east. You are free to use any words you want; how does that affect the situation?



> Think loud mouth think.



I have some late-breaking news for you.

Scientists have discovered that you do not need your mouth to think. So now you can stop 'thinking' and try using your brains instead. LOL.



> Its implies EXACTLY what I said. He knew what lies ahead. In military terms he had the INTELLIGENCE, to be precise HUMINT, of the challenges that he might have to face if he move forward. You are honking rubbish, as usual.





> For him to be completely oblivious of what lies south is out of question, considering that the midget actually died of the wounds received in the battle of Multan, all subsequent actions and path taken are of the defeated army.



Ah, yes, of course, a defeated army picks a new and untested, unsecured route for its retreat. Have you taught military theory to your officers already, or are you getting into shape for that assignment?



> You said his troops didnt want to move ahead, then why not take the safe passage back to Bactria???



Because they said they would follow him in all else, and for three reasons, heading south seemed like a good idea:

Porus had persuaded him to secure his adjacent kingdom, ruled over by his own nephew; 
A march over the plains seems preferable to anybody, and should have been obvious even to you, than a march over high mountains;
The territories abutted those under Achaemenid rule, and it added 'strategic depth' to the Alexandrian border to annex them. 



> You dont accept the existence of Noah and Adam, mentioned extensively in the written history, from all over the world, different accounts, different races, ethinicities, and here you are pathetically defending a clearly BIASED and hogwash of history written by non other then greeks themselves, defending them shamelessly and rather unsuccessfully.



No, I don't. There is no historical evidence for them, other than mentions in the Old Testament.



> Have some mercy on yourself.



But you haven't stopped.


----------



## Taimoor Khan

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> @Taimoor Khan If that was the case people of NorthWest India would have readily accepted Islam to differentiate themselves from the Gangetic plain...on the contrary people of North West India (Jammu till Northern edge of Maharashtra) are even more vigorously Hindu than Gangetic plain ..they are way more vegetarian..if anything the elite class of the North West have a soft corner for Buddhism....look at how much both Nehru and Modi promote Buddhism at the expense of Hinduism ...(Modi wines and dines Asians leaders at old Buddhist monasteries in his state, names every second new train after Buddhist personalities aka "Mahanama" express)
> 
> 
> But the funny thing is Buddhism is an innovation of the Gangadesh
> 
> 
> and your statement is like saying Karachi is an outpost of Lahore..both Karachi and Lahore are great cities in their own right, and are not outposts of the other
> 
> We are completely different people..Lothal is completely different from Harappa



There are many Sindhis in interior Sindh who are Hindus. Your point is?


And correct me if I am wrong, dont the north western Indians already differentiate themselves with the rest of Indians like the ones in South? 

Lothal is 100% certified Indus settlement. Harrapa was also Indus town. As for Hinduism, it came much later after IVC vanished. First trace of Vedas was 1500 years after Indus was already 10 feet underground.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Awan68

Kaptaan said:


> Elephants in my opinion are useless against a determined and organized foe. They are more of *show* then anything else. From military point of view they are too slow, too cumbersome and need massive amount of food anmd water to sustain them reducing their operational areas even more. The horse is unmatched as cavalry. It has speed, mobility and wide range ability. I actually don't believe the Greek accounts a to number of soldiers porus had or number of elephants. I think they exaggerated them to make their victory look awesome. However elephants do catch the popular imagination and have resonated through history. In the real world horse cavalry dominated the battlfield until the tank came along.
> 
> There is *no* cure for delusion. Sorry.


Caesar made short work of the opposition elephants just by whim n grit at thapsus...at one moment elephants were charging at scared legioners and the next second after caesar's motivational charge it was the legioneres rushing at the elephants shrieking madly, cato and scipio watched shocked as their own elephants ran wild scared back into their own army, shattering it..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

Taimoor Khan said:


> There are many Sindhis in interior Sindh who are Hindus. Your point is?
> 
> 
> And correct me if I am wrong, dont the north western Indians already differentiate themselves with the rest of Indians like the ones in South?
> 
> Lothal is 100% certified Indus settlement. Harrapa was also Indus town. As for Hinduism, it came much later after IVC vanished. First trace of Vedas was 1500 years after Indus was already 10 feet underground.




Well Indus seals show a King or God of animals meditating like Hindus, it has statues of women using sindoor and saree...Saree is Indian civilization..the much whiter Pakistani civilization is mostly salwar kameez for women..ask Kaptaan how he hates sarees as a symbol of Indian civilization


But the first scriptures of Hindus are from 1500 BC well after IVC but the spiritual practices of Hindus stem from that time....I am claiming only the those cities that are Indian..you can have the Pakistani cities bro..I donot want them and I am teaching other Indians not to covet them...you can also do the same...we arecompletely different people with no connection to each other


I am saying adopting a different religion is a way people differentiate themselves from people they donot like....most of Pakistan chose a different religion primarily to show Indians that Pakistanis are different and better than them , and donot want to be associated with Indians and are now currently following a more correct philosophy ..Indians said fair enough..the Pakistanis who remained Hindus didnot feel any compulsion to differentiate themselves from Indians........and that's why many of them went to India on partition as they felt kinship towards India...on the other hand many Indians used to hate their own identities and chose a different religion to differentiate themselves from Indians..they are Indian Muslims..they felt a kinship with Pakistanis and the richer ones among them moved to Pakistan and were welcomed with tears and open arms eventhough they were Indians..the bitch poor Indian Muslims didnot move and stayed back in India but hated and differentiated themselves from, the Indian identity all the same


----------



## Taimoor Khan

Joe Shearer said:


> You haven't cited a single fact. Isn't that surprising?



LOL



Joe Shearer said:


> Perhaps, but that doesn't give you liberty to manufacture your own version without the support of something. You have nothing.



I am not manufacturing anything, I am pointing to the holes in cheese. infact running my finger through them. 




Joe Shearer said:


> No. That is clear, that facts do not bother you, only your own opinion does.



Which facts? 




Joe Shearer said:


> So it's the religion that determines whether or not X, Y or Z is militarily competent. I am glad you acknowledged it.



Ufff. Touchy!! When did I bring religion into this? Having Hallucination my dear? You might be past our bed time. 



Joe Shearer said:


> They refused to follow him east. You are free to use any words you want; how does that affect the situation?



What kind of general was he? His soldiers refused his orders? He was a ruthless c***, thats what made him reach as far he did from Macedonia. He killed his own people who questioned him. Pathetic excuse. 



Joe Shearer said:


> I have some late-breaking news for you.
> 
> Scientists have discovered that you do not need your mouth to think. So now you can stop 'thinking' and try using your brains instead. LOL.



Since you dont think from your upper chamber neither talk from your mouth, I was pointing down below. 



Joe Shearer said:


> Ah, yes, of course, a defeated army picks a new and untested, unsecured route for its retreat. Have you taught military theory to your officers already, or are you getting into shape for that assignment?



How many times I have to repeat myself here? The route back to Bactria was shut as the aftermath of Porus winning the war, imposing his conditions on defeated Greek army and expanding his Kingdom, there was no way back expect to go South and face more sufferings and death, which lead to his own demise. Listen to what Marshal Gregory Zhukov said, Macedonian army suffered a fate worse than Napoleon in Russia. He did see off the Nazis all the way to Berlin. I think he knew a thing or two about retreating armies I suppose! But hey Allama Joe (dont know your real name) know better!




Joe Shearer said:


> Because they said they would follow him in all else, and for three reasons, heading south seemed like a good idea:
> 
> Porus had persuaded him to secure his adjacent kingdom, ruled over by his own nephew;
> A march over the plains seems preferable to anybody, and should have been obvious even to you, than a march over high mountains;
> The territories abutted those under Achaemenid rule, and it added 'strategic depth' to the Alexandrian border to annex them.



HAHA, they will follow him but refuse his order to march on towards gangaland where plenty of dosh was. Bravo!! 

Porus persuaded him? Was this done over a "Jhola" on one fine evening over a cup of tea with biscuits served? Like Modi was giving to Xi? HAHA. He just slayed his armies, his generals, his favorite horse and what not, gave him the most bloody battle he ever faced. As for Alexander , he bloody slayed villages in swat just before battle of Hydespas who refused to budge, thats after coming into peace treaty with them, culling women childern leaving none alive. 

You would take the safest route possible under the circumstances not the shortest or otherwise. Southern route was not even the shortest one. 

Take your beauty sleep sunshine. Alice and wonderland would make more sense. 





Joe Shearer said:


> No, I don't. There is no historical evidence for them, other than mentions in the Old Testament.



That is what we call "history". Recorded by many nations, civilizations, races, ethnicities, INCLUDING yours. UNBIASED and consistent. 



Joe Shearer said:


> But you haven't stopped.



You like to be abused and humiliated?



Juggernaut_is_here said:


> *Well Indus seals show a King or God of animals meditating like Hindus, it has statues of women using sindoor and saree*...Saree is Indian civilization..the much whiter Pakistani civilization is mostly salwar kameez for women..ask Kaptaan how he hates sarees as a symbol of Indian civilization
> 
> 
> But the first scriptures of Hindus are from 1500 BC well after IVC but the spiritual practices of Hindus stem from that time....I am claiming only the those cities that are Indian..you can have the Pakistani cities bro..I donot want them and I am teaching other Indians not to covet them...you can also do the same...we arecompletely different people with no connection to each other
> 
> 
> I am saying adopting a different religion is a way people differentiate themselves from people they donot like....most of Pakistan chose a different religion primarily to show Indians that Pakistanis are different and better than them , and donot want to be associated with Indians and are now currently following a more correct philosophy ..Indians said fair enough..the Pakistanis who remained Hindus didnot feel any compulsion to differentiate themselves from Indians........and that's why many of them went to India on partition as they felt kinship towards India...on the other hand many Indians used to hate their own identities and chose a different religion to differentiate themselves from Indians..they are Indian Muslims..they felt a kinship with Pakistanis and the richer ones among them moved to Pakistan and were welcomed with tears and open arms eventhough they were Indians..the bitch poor Indian Muslims didnot move and stayed back in India but hated and differentiated themselves from, the Indian identity all the same




That men is not the Hindu god , there is not evidence to prove as such. Indus people were proper omnivor, they used to bury their dead. There is not a single temple ever discovered in Indus which confuse the archologist about their beleif system. More like Pagans then anything else. I have not come acorss a saree or sindur wearing woman artifact in IVC. Archologist have dismissed IVC connection with hinduism. Its only the Indian desparados who try to find what is not there.

I completely agree we are different people altogether. But what i will not allow is some foreigner to hijack my ancestors civilization. having said that, I also believe that my ancestors were proper tyrants of their time and had to be destroyed by non other then god himself. But thats is all part of our legacy and its our burden. 

We didnt choose Islam to look different from gangiyates. Thats the first I have heard.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

If your ancestors were destroyed, how do you exist?

Our Civilization is Dholavira,Lothal,Kalibangan, Rakhigarhi

as well as Painted Greyware culture, Northern black polished ware culture and black-redware culture 


We are perfectly comfortable with who we are..we are that part of the Indian subcontinent where there are Tigers,Elephants--not found in Pakistan 

We are completely different people from Pakistanis , have nothing common with them 


Some Pakistanis call us black skinned and themselves white-skinned, that's okay we donot mind...but please donot claim what is ours in our soil..and we donot claim what is yours in your soil..Indian Indus Valley People also buried their dead...like in Rakhigarhi..where 22 skeletons were found and their DNA analysis is being done in South Korea and Hyderabad 


you do research and protect what is on your side of the border and we do ours 


Your civilization is that of the Badshahi Mosque 
Our civilization is that of the Taj Mahal


----------



## MultaniGuy

Juggernaut_is_here said:


> If your ancestors were destroyed, how do you exist?
> 
> Our Civilization is Dholavira,Lothal,Kalibangan, Rakhigarhi
> 
> as well as Painted Greyware culture, Northern black polished ware culture and black-redware culture
> 
> 
> We are perfectly comfortable with who we are..we are that part of the Indian subcontinent where there are Tigers,Elephants--not found in Pakistan
> 
> We are completely different people from Pakistanis , have nothing common with them
> 
> 
> Some Pakistanis call us black skinned and themselves white-skinned, that's okay we donot mind...but please donot claim what is ours in our soil..and we donot claim what is yours in your soil..Indian Indus Valley People also buried their dead...like in Rakhigarhi..where 22 skeletons were found and their DNA analysis is being done in South Korea and Hyderabad
> 
> 
> you do research and protect what is on your side of the border and we do ours
> 
> 
> Your civilization is that of the Badshahi Mosque
> Our civilization is that of the Taj Mahal


Agreed Pakistan and India have nothing in common.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8

we tend not to appreciate the Iron Age era of India (1200 BC--500 BC)...this is from 600 BC , magnificent Gangoo Empire strikes back!!!


----------



## Nilgiri

django said:


> And Chinese, Koreans ,Japanese trounce whites in IQ scores, however I think the extra testosterone of whites may give perhaps an extra drive to fulfill a life long dream/ambition to create/invent something, hence more contributions from whites in the last few centuries, only my supposition lol, I do agree with you that northerners may have more intellect than southerners, it could all come down to cranial size, as I have noticed men from the south tend to have very small heads which indicates a much higher chance of dementia in old age.Kudos sir



Low cranial Vishy Anand vs whole of high cranial Pakistan in a chess game.....who wins?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## TheNoob

the title is highly cringe worthy...


----------



## django

Nilgiri said:


> Low cranial Vishy Anand vs whole of high cranial Pakistan in a chess game.....who wins?


I guess you have "check mated" me on this one bhai.Kudos

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Trango Towers

TMA said:


> Did not some of Pakistani's ancestors fight on the Greek/Macedonian side? As some modern day Pakistanis have some Greek in them?
> 
> Most Pakistanis don't have a clue, at least in the UK.


Change friends. Get educated ones. They know.. I grew up in the UK and I knew


----------



## Nilgiri

django said:


> I guess you have "check mated" me on this one bhai.Kudos



Hehe...its all in good fun buddy.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TMA

snow lake said:


> Change friends. Get educated ones. They know.. I grew up in the UK and I knew


I suppose it depends on one's definition of educated...


----------



## my2cents

ashok mourya said:


> Just name a missile on Puru which will be great tribute to him.



I second that. That is least they can do for a great warrior that CP produced.


----------



## my2cents

Taimoor Khan said:


> Whatever his name was, he wasnt your kind, which your kind is desperately and rather shamelessly trying to prove.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not talking French mate. Simply disassociating your kind with Porus.
> 
> He maybe not the greatest in term of his kingdom and resources but what he achieved was indeed the greatest. That is why there can be a comparison drawn between him and the spartan king Leonidas, while the later got killed, Porus lived on cherishing his victory against all odds.



Why not name some of your streets and your missile after King Porus. Your stance will be vindicated.



maravan91 said:


> At the end of day Porus Was defeated kinģ,
> Hope Pakistanis also honour rajah dahir, who is true son of soil of pakistan.



I just hope they honor all the great kings of their past who ruled their region. Conterminous Pakistan means accepting their hindu and Buddhist past and beyond.


----------



## django

my2cents said:


> I just hope they honor all the great kings of their past who ruled their region. Conterminous Pakistan means *accepting their hindu *and Buddhist past and beyond.


I am sure by now you must be aware that* Hindu *as a religion is a British concocted word, the fact is their in no such religion as river Sindhu PERIOD.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Taimur Khurram

my2cents said:


> I second that. That is least they can do for a great warrior that CP produced.



Why would we name our missile after someone you also respect? 

The point of naming our missiles is to not only name them after our heroes, but to also trigger Hindustan or have some sort of symbolism. 

Porus doesn't trigger you, and I fail to see any positive symbolism that naming a missile after him would have.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## my2cents

dsr478 said:


> Why would we name our missile after someone you also respect?
> 
> The point of naming our missiles is to not only name them after our heroes, but to also trigger Hindustan or have some sort of symbolism.
> 
> Porus doesn't trigger you, and I fail to see any positive symbolism that naming a missile after him would have.



Forget missiles, how about naming some road or a building after him??? You don't it for our sake but what he did for your people.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimur Khurram

my2cents said:


> Forget missiles, how about naming some road or a building after him??? You don't it for our sake but what he did for your people.



Maybe someday that'll happen.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indus Pakistan

dsr478 said:


> Maybe someday that'll happen.


It will. A good example is USA. In 1800 they carried out a genocide against the native Apache, Mohawk peoples. Today they name this beast "Apache".







But either way it is has nothing to do with Indians. It is our choice. And we will make it.





A tomahawk is a type of single-handed axe from North America, traditionally resembling a hatchet with a straight shaft. The name came into the English language in the 17th century as an adaptation of the * Powhatan* word. Today they use it to name thier missile.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Chhatrapati

dsr478 said:


> The point of naming our missiles is to not only name them *after our heroes*


Babur? Abdali? Foreign heroes. Mughal and Durrani.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Kaptaan said:


> It will. A good example is USA. In 1800 they carried out a genocide against the native Apache, Mohawk peoples. Today they name this beast "Apache".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But either way it is has nothing to do with Indians. It is our choice. And we will make it.
> 
> 
> View attachment 479512
> 
> 
> A tomahawk is a type of single-handed axe from North America, traditionally resembling a hatchet with a straight shaft. The name came into the English language in the 17th century as an adaptation of the * Powhatan* word. Today they use it to name thier missile.



So are the Hindustanis going to say the Yanks have an inferiority complex for naming their weapons after the Natives who they're not related to? Oh, sorry. They only do that for us Pakistanis. 

The best part is those idiots don't realise that the Durranis are a major tribe in Pakistan, that Abdali came from Multan, that the Ghurids were Pashtuns (Pakistan has the most Pashtuns in the world), that KPK/FATA/Baluchistan (and at some points even the whole Indus Valley) were historically associated with Afghanistan, that these Islamic invaders had many Pakistanis work for them (and reach high positions too), that for most of these Islamic empires Lahore was one of their biggest cities, and that many Pakistanis are descended from people who migrated to the area during these Islamic invasions.

Compare that to the Americans who not only actively fought against the Natives but are also (mostly) not related to them, and one wonders where the noble RSS brigade is to make Americans appreciate their pre-modern history.



SOUTHie said:


> Babur? Abdali? Foreign heroes. Mughal and Durrani.



Read my above post, as well as some of the other ones I've gotten positive ratings for.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Durrani's make a major contribution to Pakistan Army. Examples are Gen. Asad Durrani of the ISI fame and of course Gen. Mahmud Durrani.

_Durrani was born in 1941 in Abbottabad, which is in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province (formerly North-West Frontier Province) of Pakistan. He is an ethnic Pashtun from the Durrani tribe. After graduating from Pakistan Military Academy in 1961 in the 24th PMA Long Course (same batch as General Jehangir Karamat who later became the Army chief) and winning the sword of honour,[4] he served in various command, staff and instructional posts for about 16 years. From 1977 to 1982 he was Pakistani Armed Forces attaché in Washington, D.C. He then served as military secretary to the president of Pakistan until 1986.

_
Durrani Empire
_




_

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Chhatrapati

dsr478 said:


> Read my above post, as well as some of the other ones I've gotten positive ratings for.


They are not Pakistani tribe. Abdali believed to be born towards North West Afghanistan and considering you lot take potshots at Afghanistan from Time to time and claim their history too is a bit shady. Also, having few urban centers of a great empire like Mughal means nothing. That's all you got. Few regions which were part of some empires. Ruled over and tossed over.


----------



## Indus Pakistan

SOUTHie said:


> Ruled over and tossed over.


Says a Gangadeshi who have virtually spent the entire history being roded by outsiders only finally getting their own India with a pucca Gandoo called Gandh/Nehru at the helm.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Kaptaan said:


> Durrani's make a major contribution to Pakistan Army. Examples are Gen. Asad Durrani of the ISI fame and of course Gen. Mahmud Durrani.
> 
> _Durrani was born in 1941 in Abbottabad, which is in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province (formerly North-West Frontier Province) of Pakistan. He is an ethnic Pashtun from the Durrani tribe. After graduating from Pakistan Military Academy in 1961 in the 24th PMA Long Course (same batch as General Jehangir Karamat who later became the Army chief) and winning the sword of honour,[4] he served in various command, staff and instructional posts for about 16 years. From 1977 to 1982 he was Pakistani Armed Forces attaché in Washington, D.C. He then served as military secretary to the president of Pakistan until 1986.
> 
> _
> Durrani Empire
> _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _



Shhhhh you're using facts, namak haram and RSS brigade doesn't like that.



SOUTHie said:


> They are not Pakistani tribe. Abdali believed to be born towards North West Afghanistan and considering you lot take potshots at Afghanistan from Time to time and claim their history too is a bit shady. Also, having few urban centers of a great empire like Mughal means nothing. That's all you got. Few regions which were part of some empires. Ruled over and tossed over.



Abdali was born in Multan, KPK/FATA/Baluchistan were historically associated with Afghanistan, many Pakistanis worked and fought alongside these empires (attaining high ranks too, e.g Shahrullah Khan was a Punjabi Mughal general) and Lahore has more Mughal monuments than any city in Hindustan. We also have many Pakistanis related to both groups.

Anyway, this is rich coming from you since you love Tipu Sultan even though his grandfather was Punjabi.

As for that part about getting tossed over, please. We've been kicking your a55 for most of history, from the Vedic people to Abdali. You have no history of your own, which is why you try to steal ours (IVC, Porus, Panini, Kanishka, etc).

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Indus Pakistan

SOUTHie said:


> considering you lot take potshots at Afghanistan


Sometimes brothers can have the most intense hatred. Did you know that one of the names considered for NWFP was "Afghania" with finally Khyber Pakhtunkwa being the winner? And did you know that the name "Pakistan" has "a" derived from "Afghania?








https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_Declaration

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Kaptaan said:


> Sometimes brothers can have the most intense hatred. Did you know that one of the names considered for NWFP was "Afghania" with finally Khyber Pakhtunkwa being the winner? And did you know that the name "Pakistan" has "a" derived from "Afghania?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_Declaration



The best part is the word Afghanistan means land of the Pashtuns, and yet Pakistan has almost as many Pashtuns as there are people in Afghanistan. If anything, we are the real Afghanistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Chhatrapati

Kaptaan said:


> Says a Gangadeshi who have virtually spent the entire history being roded by outsiders only finally getting their own India with a pucca Gandoo called Gandh/Nehru at the helm.


Yeah, but there are not many foreign genes in me. Nor we weren't the punching bag of the subcontinent. Arabs, Turks, Bactrians, Romans, Mongols. Also, starts a thread for a guy who lost against the Romans and went on to be a subjugate of the Romans after losing the battle, only to be murdered by another Roman. 
All these loses could've been avoided if conterminous Pakistan could do something as basic as win the wars fought in its history (Not just Romans).


----------



## Indus Pakistan

*NOW OR NEVER 
Are we to live or perish for ever?*

3, Humberstone Road, 
Cambridge, England. 
28th January, 1933

Dear Sir or Madam,

_I am enclosing herewith an appeal on behalf of the thirty million Muslims of *PAKISTAN*, who live in the five Northern Units of India--Punjab,* North-West Frontier (Afghan) Province*, Kashmir, Sind, and Baluchistan. It embodies their demand for the recognition of their national status, as distinct from the other inhabitants of India, by the grant to Pakistan of a separate Federal Constitution on religious, social and historical grounds. 


I shall be pleased if you will kindly acquaint me with your valuable opinion on the proposed solution of the great Hindu-Muslim problem. I trust that, vitally interested as you are in a just and permanent solution of that complex problem, the objects outlined in the appeal wiIl meet with your fullest approval and active support. _

Yours truly, 
Rahmat Ali (Choudhary). (Founder, Pakiistan National Movement) 
First issued 1933; reissued 1934 

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_rahmatali_1933.html

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Taimur Khurram

SOUTHie said:


> Yeah, but there are not many foreign genes in me. Nor we weren't the punching bag of the subcontinent. Arabs, Turks, Bactrians, Romans, Mongols. Also, starts a thread for a guy who lost against the Romans and went on to be a subjugate of the Romans after losing the battle, only to be murdered by another Roman.
> All these loses could've been avoided if conterminous Pakistan could do something as basic as win the wars fought in its history (Not just Romans).



If we have foreign genes in us, that makes US the conquerors as well dumbass. 

The Kushans and Huns were Bactrians and they molested Hindustan multiple times, but in all fairness some Rajput clans and Gujjars are descended from them.

The Khilijis were Turks who assimilated into Pashtun culture, the Mughals were also Turks who assimilated into Indo-Aryan culture, the Ghaznavids were Turks who assimilated into Persian culture, etc. Turks have attacked Hindustan, and unless you are Muslim, you are unlikely to have anything to do with them.

Are you kidding me? You want to talk about war? How many times have Pashtuns (2nd largest Pakistani ethnic group) come and taken a massive dump on your country? What about the Vedic people, they came from the Punjab/Sindh and forcefully converted you lot to Hinduism whilst imposing a rigid caste system. How about Kanishka? He was from Peshawar and conquered large portions of Hindustan. Akbar was also from Sindh, Shah Jahan was from Lahore, Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan were Punjabi, etc. Ever heard of Sikander Shah Mir or Mir Chakar Rind? They were Kashmiri and Baluchi Sultans respectively who waged war against Hindustan. 

You have no legs to stand on when it comes to critiquing our fighting ability.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Indus Pakistan

SOUTHie said:


> conterminous Pakistan could do something as basic as win the wars


We did. It is you pussies hiding in the jungles of Ganga that were useless. It is we and when I say "we" I mean all the peoples of South Asia who form the westen flank or region formed by Indus River as the backbone [shown as green diamond in map below]. It is we who faced every mothafer invaders from Alexander Greeks, Scythians, Huns, Kushans etc etc. Despite our region being in low population as either it is desert, semi-desert or mountains it was us who faced every invader. You wussies in Ganga [oval white in map below] only faced the British who came from the east along the Ganga. Even then Khyber Paktunkwa gave the British most grief.

For instance when Alexander came where was the entirety of Ganga? No where to be seen. Did Ganga mobilize and send mass number of men to help us? like fcuk you. You just shagged and made more swamp babies ...

Below is a simplified map of what history threw at us. It was we who faced all the invaders and took the toll. You pussies were hiding behind are back in the dense Ganga jungles. If you fire a high velocity bullet at ten guys standing behind each other the guys at fron are going to take the kinetic impact. the wussies at back will get away with recieving the 'full punch" which will have been spenty by the time it goes trhrough the guys in front by tearing them apart.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Mirza Jatt

These fantasies can only be found on PDF. But glad to see Pakistanis finally accepting that they are sons of Pauravas, Nandas and Guptas.

Pados ke Gupta uncle khush toh bahut honge aaj


----------



## Chhatrapati

Kaptaan said:


> We did. It is you pussies hiding in the jungles of Ganga that were useless. It is we and when I say "we" I mean all the peoples of South Asia who form the westen flank or region formed by Indus River as the backbone. It is we who faced every mfer invader from Alexander Greeks, Scythians, Huns, Kushans etc etc. Despite our region being in low population as either it is desert. semi-desert or mountains it was us who faced every invader. You wussies only faced the British who came from the east along the Ganga. Even then Khyber Paktunkwa gave the British most grief.


Again, we didn't have to send any help as you were not friendly Kingdoms. Neither you were any threat as you were weak and irrelevant due to lack of enough fertile lands and hence wealth. True that, Semi desert or desert saved you from most of the invasions from many of Indian Kingdoms. But that didn't stop foreign invasion which was eyeing at wealthy Indian Kingdoms.



Kaptaan said:


> For instance when Alexander came where was the entirety of Ganga? No where to be seen. *Did Ganga mobilize and send mass number of men to help us? like fcuk you. You just shagged and made more swamp babies ..*.


Alexander didn't pursue India because they have to face the great Nanda empire which was a magnified version of the Porus. The Romans did try to invade after winning weak Punjab. But had to face Chandragupta Maurya and lost, formed an alliance through marriage with Mauryans. I guess King Nanda let the Porus take the beating while giving enough time to prepare for a war.

The great region which fought against Alexander later fell into the hands of mere Savages called Hunas. And the Gangas (as you call) defeated them decisively. So much for mighty and powerful descendants of Porus.


----------



## Rusty

Kaptaan said:


> We did. It is you pussies hiding in the jungles of Ganga that were useless. It is we and when I say "we" I mean all the peoples of South Asia who form the westen flank or region formed by Indus River as the backbone [shown as green diamond in map below]. It is we who faced every mothafer invaders from Alexander Greeks, Scythians, Huns, Kushans etc etc. Despite our region being in low population as either it is desert, semi-desert or mountains it was us who faced every invader. You wussies in Ganga [oval white in map below] only faced the British who came from the east along the Ganga. Even then Khyber Paktunkwa gave the British most grief.
> 
> For instance when Alexander came where was the entirety of Ganga? No where to be seen. Did Ganga mobilize and send mass number of men to help us? like fcuk you. You just shagged and made more swamp babies ...
> 
> Below is a simplified map of what history threw at us. It was we who faced all the invaders and took the toll. You pussies were hiding behind are back in the dense Ganga jungles. If you fire a high velocity bullet at ten guys standing behind each other the guys at fron are going to take the kinetic impact. the wussies at back will get away with recieving the 'full punch" which will have been spenty by the time it goes trhrough the guys in front by tearing them apart.


I wish this could be posted every time Gangaland wussies accuse Pakistanis of sub-coming to invaders. 
We took the brunt of every single invasion with the exception of the British. Who came from the east and the Ganagas didn't even put up a fight. At least Punjabi and Pashtoons fought the British before being conquered.

Pakistan is different from India in that our history has been fighting invaders and absorbing them into our culture. 

Indians in the mean time were squatting in mud huts made of cow dung.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Brahmanic

dsr478 said:


> If we have foreign genes in us, that makes US the conquerors as well dumbass.
> 
> The Kushans and Huns were Bactrians and they molested Hindustan multiple times, but in all fairness some Rajput clans and Gujjars are descended from them.
> 
> The Khilijis were Turks who assimilated into Pashtun culture, the Mughals were also Turks who assimilated into Indo-Aryan culture, the Ghaznavids were Turks who assimilated into Persian culture, etc. Turks have attacked Hindustan, and unless you are Muslim, you are unlikely to have anything to do with them.
> 
> Are you kidding me? You want to talk about war? How many times have Pashtuns (2nd largest Pakistani ethnic group) come and taken a massive dump on your country? What about the Vedic people, they came from the Punjab/Sindh and forcefully converted you lot to Hinduism whilst imposing a rigid caste system. How about Kanishka? He was from Peshawar and conquered large portions of Hindustan. Akbar was also from Sindh, Shah Jahan was from Lahore, Hyder Ali and Tipu Sultan were Punjabi, etc. Ever heard of Sikander Shah Mir or Mir Chakar Rind? They were Kashmiri and Baluchi Sultans respectively who waged war against Hindustan.
> 
> You have no legs to stand on when it comes to critiquing our fighting ability.



The Vedic people were from Central Asia(Russia originally).We are the people who destroyed indus valley civilization and imposed our religion and culture on majority of South Asians.

There is a reason majority of south asian speaks bastard languages of our Sanskrit.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Brahmanic said:


> The Vedic people were from Central Asia(Russia originally).We are the people who destroyed indus valley civilization and imposed our religion and culture on majority of South Asians.
> 
> There is a reason majority of south asian speaks bastard languages of our Sanskrit.



Right, but they settled in Punjab and Sindh before going elsewhere. There's a reason Brahmins have more genetically in common with Punjabis and Sindhis than other Hindustanis.



SOUTHie said:


> Again, we didn't have to send any help as you were not friendly Kingdoms. Neither you were any threat as you were weak and irrelevant due to lack of enough fertile lands and hence wealth. True that, Semi desert or desert saved you from most of the invasions from many of Indian Kingdoms. But that didn't stop foreign invasion which was eyeing at wealthy Indian Kingdoms.
> 
> 
> Alexander didn't pursue India because they have to face the great Nanda empire which was a magnified version of the Porus. The Romans did try to invade after winning weak Punjab. But had to face Chandragupta Maurya and lost, formed an alliance through marriage with Mauryans. I guess King Nanda let the Porus take the beating while giving enough time to prepare for a war.
> 
> The great region which fought against Alexander later fell into the hands of mere Savages called Hunas. And the Gangas (as you call) defeated them decisively. So much for mighty and powerful descendants of Porus.



The Mauryans were originally from KPK, talk about an own goal.

Are you joking? The Huns ravaged Hindustan, they are the main reason the Gupta Empire went into decline (you guys should thank them, they ended Bengali imperialism that was imposed upon your people).

The mighty descendents of Porus made up large portions of their army and intermarried with them. Some Rajput, Jat and Gujjar clans as well as the Durranis are descended from them.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Chhatrapati

dsr478 said:


> *Are you kidding me?* You want to talk about war? How many times have Pashtuns (2nd largest Pakistani ethnic group) come and taken a massive dump on your country? What about the Vedic people, they came from the Punjab/Sindh and forcefully converted you lot to Hinduism whilst imposing a rigid caste system.


Yes I'm kidding you. Pashtuns are Iran-Afghan groups. So, they are more Iran-Afghan people. Now you claim Afghanistan as your own out of convenience to back your pathetic attempts to have an identity. Afghans would disagree with you though. Speaking of Vedic people. As a Muslim, I would care much less about ethnicities or identities. But since you lot seem to have an inferiority complex and an identity crisis which is quite natural as your country still has an ethnic divide.
Also, since you don't know anything about caste system or Veda as you are ignorant and refuse to read how can you possibly say it was invented by you lot?  As far as I know, the caste system was based on what you do rather than what tribe you were born. Until the early 200CE, the caste divide wasn't evident (based on birth right) i.e after some 1000 years since the composition of Vedas.



dsr478 said:


> Right, but they settled in Punjab and Sindh before going elsewhere. There's a reason Brahmins have more genetically in common with Punjabis and Sindhis than other Hindustanis.


There wasn't Brahmins when they settled in Indus region after destroying IVC. Brahmins are relatively newer than the Vedas. (Maybe the RSS would disagree with me lol pun intended) Go read something before spouting stupidity.



dsr478 said:


> *The Mauryans were originally from KPK*, talk about an own goal.


hahaha, I thought Islamabad, son of a Altaf Hussain. 

Since when Bihar is in KPK?



dsr478 said:


> Are you joking? The Huns ravaged Hindustan, they are the main reason the Gupta Empire went into decline (you guys should thank them, they ended Bengali imperialism that was imposed upon your people).


Wrong again, the Gupta Empire declined only after the defeat of Toramana the Hun. And later Mihirakula who was ruling the regions including Kashmir and was defeated by Bhanugupta with the help of Malwa empire was driven out of Indian subcontinent. Thereby coming to the aid of Conterminous but weak) Pakistan. (Again pun intended).


dsr478 said:


> The mighty descendents of Porus made up large portions of their army and intermarried with them. Some Rajput, Jat and Gujjar clans as well as the Durranis are descended from them.


Not much of King Porus is known, not even of his Origins or successor. How can he be the Alfa gene for Jat, Rajput or Gujjars?


----------



## Brahmanic

dsr478 said:


> Right, but they settled in Punjab and Sindh before going elsewhere. There's a reason Brahmins have more genetically in common with Punjabis and Sindhis than other Hindustanis.
> 
> 
> 
> The Mauryans were originally from KPK, talk about an own goal.
> 
> Are you joking? The Huns ravaged Hindustan, they are the main reason the Gupta Empire went into decline (you guys should thank them, they ended Bengali imperialism that was imposed upon your people).
> 
> The mighty descendents of Porus made up large portions of their army and intermarried with them. Some Rajput, Jat and Gujjar clans as well as the Durranis are descended from them.



We are south Asians as well we are in many ways similar to all south asian communities simce its been over 5000 years since we left Central Asia. But in modern world we are migrating out of india due to human rights abuse against us.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservation_in_India


My cousins are marrying into European genepool as well since they are living in UK and US since British ruled south asia.

My one sister is a Brahmin-British mix and she looks completely different from me. She have standard blue eyes and Pale skin (i had but turned brown when i was 8) which is common in my small brahmin community (kashmiri-Pahadi) but she have reddish brown hair and very British features. (Yet we love each other and we celebrate rakhi each year togetheras well)

I think we are like jews, both are gods chosen people, both gave birth to different civilizations, both had to leave their lands and mix with other communities. I guess they will be asknazi brahmins in future.

Do you have any mix siblings @waz ? Many pakistanis in uk have mixed with Bosnians and Turks. One couple near my uncles house is Pakistani-Pomak mix. Apparently there are some Slavic Muslims of bulgaria called Pomaks who had to leave theor land for UK due to some reasons.



SOUTHie said:


> Yes I'm kidding you. Pashtuns are Iran-Afghan groups. So, they are more Iran-Afghan people. Now you claim Afghanistan as your own out of convenience to back your pathetic attempts to have an identity. Afghans would disagree with you though. Speaking of Vedic people. As a Muslim, I would care much less about ethnicities or identities. But since you lot seem to have an inferiority complex and an identity crisis which is quite natural as your country still has an ethnic divide.
> Also, since you don't know anything about caste system or Veda as you are ignorant and refuse to read how can you possibly say it was invented by you lot?  As far as I know, the caste system was based on what you do rather than what tribe you were born. Until the early 200CE, the caste divide was evident i.e after some 1000 years since the composition of Vedas.
> 
> 
> There wasn't Brahmins when they settled in Indus region after destroying IVC. Brahmins are relatively newer than the Vedas. (Maybe the RSS would disagree with me lol pun intended) Go read something before spouting stupidity.
> 
> 
> hahaha, I thought Islamabad, son of a Altaf Hussain.
> 
> Since when Bihar is in KPK?
> 
> 
> Wrong again, the Gupta Empire declined only after the defeat of Toramana the Hun. And later Mihirakula who was ruling the regions including Kashmir and was defeated by Bhanugupta with the help of Malwa empire was driven out of Indian subcontinent. Thereby coming to the aid of Conterminous but weak) Pakistan. (Again pun intended).
> 
> Not much of King Porus is known, not even of his Origins or successor. How can he be the Alfa gene for Jat, Rajput or Gujjars?


Actually we brahmins converted mihir kula to Shivite hinduism and he liked lord Shiva as well due to his destructive powers as well.

He literally wipe out buddhism from north west India and Afghanistan for hinduosm and built massive shiva temples there. 

Respect to great mihirkula .

@dsr478

Majority of Punjabis and Warrior-Nomadic clans and tribes who adopted brahmanic teaching and culture used to (still) worship Shiva because hes the god.

Strong, Muscular, Powerful, destructive, Angry, the supreme god, cannabis and Liqar (aryans fave thing) is attracted these powerful nomads like Turks(Hindu), East Iranic Afghan tribes, Kshatriyas, Marathas, Peshwa brahmins like bajirao, Hussini brahmins, Rajputs, Gujars, other Vedic tribes etc to him.

Even today the Warrior clans worship Lord Shiva like Brahmins more while Baniya, minor brahmin clans and other merchant clans worship Krishna more.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## waz

Brahmanic said:


> Do you have any mix siblings @waz ? Many pakistanis in uk have mixed with Bosnians and Turks. One couple near my uncles house is Pakistani-Pomak mix. Apparently there are some Slavic Muslims of bulgaria called Pomaks who had to leave theor land for UK due to some reasons.



No mate, not in our young generations. My grandmother is the only one non-rajput stock.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Brahmanic

waz said:


> No mate, not in our young generations. My grandmother is the only one non-rajput stock.


Oh you are a Rajput ? What kind of rajput ? I guess you must be a Pahari Rajput from kashmiri region.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chhatrapati

Brahmanic said:


> Actually we brahmins converted mihir kula to Shivite hinduism and he liked lord Shiva as well due to his destructive powers as well.
> 
> He literally wipe out buddhism from north west India and Afghanistan for hinduosm and built massive shiva temples there.


hmm. How is that relevant? Anyway, I heard Toramana converted to be Jains. Not sure if it's accurate.


----------



## waz

Brahmanic said:


> Oh you are a Rajput ? What kind of rajput ? I guess you must be a Pahari Rajput from kashmiri region.



Yes, Bhatti if you want to know the tribe. I get on very well with my counterparts from India whenever I meet them.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Taimur Khurram

SOUTHie said:


> Yes I'm kidding you. Pashtuns are Iran-Afghan groups. So, they are more Iran-Afghan people. Now you claim Afghanistan as your own out of convenience to back your pathetic attempts to have an identity. Afghans would disagree with you though. Speaking of Vedic people. As a Muslim, I would care much less about ethnicities or identities. But since you lot seem to have an inferiority complex and an identity crisis which is quite natural as your country still has an ethnic divide.
> Also, since you don't know anything about caste system or Veda as you are ignorant and refuse to read how can you possibly say it was invented by you lot?  As far as I know, the caste system was based on what you do rather than what tribe you were born. Until the early 200CE, the caste divide wasn't evident (based on birth right) i.e after some 1000 years since the composition of Vedas.
> 
> 
> There wasn't Brahmins when they settled in Indus region after destroying IVC. Brahmins are relatively newer than the Vedas. (Maybe the RSS would disagree with me lol pun intended) Go read something before spouting stupidity.
> 
> 
> hahaha, I thought Islamabad, son of a Altaf Hussain.
> 
> Since when Bihar is in KPK?
> 
> 
> Wrong again, the Gupta Empire declined only after the defeat of Toramana the Hun. And later Mihirakula who was ruling the regions including Kashmir and was defeated by Bhanugupta with the help of Malwa empire was driven out of Indian subcontinent. Thereby coming to the aid of Conterminous but weak) Pakistan. (Again pun intended).
> 
> Not much of King Porus is known, not even of his Origins or successor. How can he be the Alfa gene for Jat, Rajput or Gujjars?



They are Iranic, but genetically speaking Pashtuns are pretty similar to other Pakistanis:






You certainly seem to care about ethnicities since you think Muslim Pakistanis can't take Muslim Mughals or Muslim Durranis as their heroes (but even by your petty standard you flop as proven earlier).

The division has been there from pretty early on, despite what you may think. 

Google it, the ancestors of the Mauryans came from KPK, they were known as the Mor tribe before they moved to Hindustan. 

The Huns were defeated but they still caused the decline of the Gupta Empire and beat them a good few times before losing. 

You didn't come to our aid, we embraced these people with open arms and they assimilated into our fold, why else do you think that there is a clan among the Gujjars, Rajputs and Jats that is named after Toramana (Google the Tomar clan), or the Durranis were called the Abdalis (the Huns were literally called Abdalites)? There has never been a point in history where most of Pakistan was ruled by Hindustanis. 

Porus would obviously be related to the tribes that live around the area of Jhelum, this includes Rajputs, Jats and Gujjars.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Rusty said:


> I wish this could be posted every time Gangaland wussies accuse Pakistanis of sub-coming to invaders. We took the brunt of every single invasion with the exception of the British.


Well said and it is for us to us to debunk the claims that Gangalanders make.



Rusty said:


> Pakistan is different from India in that our history has been fighting invaders and absorbing them into our culture.


True. Rather similar to how British fought Vikings, Norse, Normans, Saxons but in time became what they are today - a polyglot heritage.




Rusty said:


> At least Punjabi and Pashtoons fought the British before being conquered.


Bravo. And don't forget Baloch/Sindhi. They fought like lions in 1843 Battle of Miani against the British.











Rusty said:


> Indians in the mean time were squatting in mud huts made of cow dung.


And open air shatting.









Above is a simplified map showing the route followed by Alexander's Greeks. As you can see we fought that Greek from the Khyber to Taxila to Jhelum[Porus] to Malli [Multan] to Patala [Sindh]Gedrosia [Balochistan]. Gangalanders as you can see were busy in Kama Sutra activities and hiding under their women's Sarees. Least Ganga could have mobilized the teeming millions and sent them to help us. Oh no they stayed well clear. And now they talk big !!!

And all provinces of what is now Pakistan played a role. Less or more. Today Gangalanders want to take the credit. The facts are there on the map - loud and clear.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Taimur Khurram

SOUTHie said:


> hmm. How is that relevant? Anyway, I heard the Huns converted to be Jains. Not sure if it's accurate.



No, they became Hindus.


----------



## Sugarcane

Kaptaan said:


> *NOW OR NEVER
> Are we to live or perish for ever?*
> 
> 3, Humberstone Road,
> Cambridge, England.
> 28th January, 1933
> 
> Dear Sir or Madam,
> 
> _I am enclosing herewith an appeal on behalf of the thirty million Muslims of *PAKISTAN*, who live in the five Northern Units of India--Punjab,* North-West Frontier (Afghan) Province*, Kashmir, Sind, and Baluchistan. It embodies their demand for the recognition of their national status, as distinct from the other inhabitants of India, by the grant to Pakistan of a separate Federal Constitution on religious, social and historical grounds.
> 
> 
> I shall be pleased if you will kindly acquaint me with your valuable opinion on the proposed solution of the great Hindu-Muslim problem. I trust that, vitally interested as you are in a just and permanent solution of that complex problem, the objects outlined in the appeal wiIl meet with your fullest approval and active support. _
> 
> Yours truly,
> Rahmat Ali (Choudhary). (Founder, Pakiistan National Movement)
> First issued 1933; reissued 1934
> 
> http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_rahmatali_1933.html



Good find

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Brahmanic

SOUTHie said:


> hmm. How is that relevant? Anyway, I heard the Huns converted to be Jains. Not sure if it's accurate.


I dont think so man, huns were warriors who plundered Afghanistan and north west India many times.

he's quite Famous in India as Destroyer of Buddhism. he destroyed many Buddhist Temples and monasteries. at first he even expelled Brahmins from his empire but later he patronized Shiva and become his follower (some sources claim that he worshiped lord Shiva because he was in awe/impressed by him power of destruction.) later he invited Brahmins from all parts of North India back to his empire an gave them large land grants.

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=...page&q&f=false

we Brahmins consider him a Warrior of Dharma for his Service to Hinduism, despite him being a turk. you should know that Many Turks like him who ruled Afghanistan were Stunch Hindu who built Temples and invited Brahmins and kshatriyas from all over India to their kingdoms and granted Villages and productive lands to them. Turki Shahis were lat hindu turk kings of Afghanistan who lost their power to Brahmin shahis who ruled Afghanistan for 500 years and lost their kingdom to Kshatriya families.

Coin of Mihirkula with Trident(Trishul) and Bull(nandi) of Lord Shiva.






@dsr478 @waz @Panzerfaust 3



waz said:


> Yes, Bhatti if you want to know the tribe. I get on very well with my counterparts from India whenever I meet them.



Nice Hindu bhatti claim to be from Lonar Dynasty and worship mainly Shiva aswell.

You should join rajput memes on FB, you will find many hindu muslim sikh rajputs there.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## indianfighter1999

doesnt matter shit now what happened 2000 years earlier who were those people we only have theories... gottaa tell you one thing I have gone through plenty of published papers on history not just Indian but from rest of world.. all papers come to this conclusion only... human has factual history from past 100-150 years only .. even 500 years is a strech ... we r talking about a 1000-2000 years here...
all those history papers those history junkies from all their travels and research only base their facts on some inscriptions they cant understand the roads, just go through any paper published on road construction beyond 500 years ... 
we r stupid here to discuss what alexandar or nandas were or did...

trust me you couldn’t agree historians on anything.. even mauryas which are dated as per english historians based on their 1930s research are purely wrong... the dates are pretty messed up by their accounts...
the mauryas kings as per Indian gotra records cant be in same age when romans were there... some Indian historians say maurya were around 2000bc ...I dont beleive any shit what britishers told is on so called aryan invasion theory this was their age old tactic Divide and rule to sect Indians and they still using this through church propoganda..
so guys dont get serious history specially written by our so called colonial masters with superiority concept and early 1900s mentality amounts to nothing

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sugarcane

Kaptaan said:


> Well said and it is for us to us to debunk the claims that Gangalanders make.
> 
> True. Rather similar to how British fought Vikings, Norse, Normans, Saxons but in time became what they are today - a polyglot heritage.
> 
> 
> Bravo. And don't forget Baloch/Sindhi. They fought like lions in 1843 Battle of Miani against the British.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And open air shatting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Above is a simplified map showing the route followed by Alexander's Greeks. As you can see we fought that Greek from the Khyber to Taxila to Jhelum[Porus] to Malli [Multan] to Patala [Sindh]Gedrosia [Balochistan]. Gangalanders as you can see were busy in Kama Sutra activities and hiding under their women's Sarees. Least Ganga could have mobilized the teeming millions and sent them to help us. Oh no they stayed well clear. And now they talk big !!!
> 
> And all provinces of what is now Pakistan played a role. Less or more. Today Gangalanders want to take the credit. The facts are there on the map - loud and clear.



The fact that any invader who succeeded to over run us went on to rule gangadeshis from Delhi is also there to prove the point.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Reichsmarschall

SOUTHie said:


> They are not Pakistani tribe. Abdali believed to be born towards North West Afghanistan and considering you lot take potshots at Afghanistan from Time to time and claim their history too is a bit shady. Also, having few urban centers of a great empire like Mughal means nothing. That's all you got. Few regions which were part of some empires. Ruled over and tossed over.


how many missiles and weapons system are named after mughals in India?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## waz

Brahmanic said:


> @dsr478 @waz @Panzerfaust 3
> 
> 
> 
> Nice Hindu bhatti claim to be from Lonar Dynasty and worship mainly Shiva aswell.
> 
> You should join rajput memes on FB, you will find many hindu muslim sikh rajputs there.



Yes and all the Hindu temples in my ancestral region were dedicated to Shiva as well, and the Rajputs of the region (AJK) had shiva as their primary deity. For example the great temple of Khatas Raj is devoted to Shiva.
I'm not on social media lol, being a teacher it is discouraged in the profession.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Chhatrapati

dsr478 said:


> Google it, the ancestors of the Mauryans came from KPK, they were known as the Mor tribe before they moved to Hindustan.


Or you can share a link. The Maurya empire was founded by Chandragupta Maurya. Stories say he was not of any Royal origins. His origins was unknown apart from the fact that Chanakya picked him from Nanda empire. 


dsr478 said:


> The Huns were defeated but they still caused the decline of the Gupta Empire and beat them a good few times before losing.


Nice you have read something at least now. And what may or may not have contributed is not the matter, the point is Guptas were responsible for the end of Hunas invasion. i.e a large empire was defeated by a relatively small Kingdom like the Guptas. 


dsr478 said:


> You didn't come to our aid, we embraced these people with open arms and they assimilated into our fold, why else do you think that there is a clan among the Gujjars, Rajputs and Jats that is named after Toramana (Google the Tomar clan)


Do you even talk consistently at least sometimes? How are Toramana now connected to Gujjars and Rajputs when you claimed they were from King Porus lol. Recent google knowledge? These claims are not validated but intuitions of some writers (i.e historians). 
Also, the Huns were tribesman rather than Kingdoms (Hence I referred to them as savages). They attacked with the strength of numbers and not by strategy. 



dsr478 said:


> Porus would obviously be related to the tribes that live around the area of Jhelum, this includes Rajputs, Jats and Gujjars.


You must write a book based on your findings.



Reichsmarschall said:


> how many missiles and weapons system are named after mughals in India?


India usually doesn't name missiles after Kings. 

But there are Choppers named as Hind - Akbar, then again Akbar means great.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Reichsmarschall

Brahmanic said:


> We are south Asians as well we are in many ways similar to all south asian communities simce its been over 5000 years since we left Central Asia. But in modern world we are migrating out of india due to human rights abuse against us.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservation_in_India
> 
> 
> My cousins are marrying into European genepool as well since they are living in UK and US since British ruled south asia.
> 
> My one sister is a Brahmin-British mix and she looks completely different from me. She have standard blue eyes and Pale skin (i had but turned brown when i was 8) which is common in my small brahmin community (kashmiri-Pahadi) but she have reddish brown hair and very British features. (Yet we love each other and we celebrate rakhi each year togetheras well)
> 
> I think we are like jews, both are gods chosen people, both gave birth to different civilizations, both had to leave their lands and mix with other communities. I guess they will be asknazi brahmins in future.
> 
> Do you have any mix siblings @waz ? Many pakistanis in uk have mixed with Bosnians and Turks. One couple near my uncles house is Pakistani-Pomak mix. Apparently there are some Slavic Muslims of bulgaria called Pomaks who had to leave theor land for UK due to some reasons.
> 
> 
> Actually we brahmins converted mihir kula to Shivite hinduism and he liked lord Shiva as well due to his destructive powers as well.
> 
> He literally wipe out buddhism from north west India and Afghanistan for hinduosm and built massive shiva temples there.
> 
> Respect to great mihirkula .
> 
> @dsr478
> 
> Majority of Punjabis and Warrior-Nomadic clans and tribes who adopted brahmanic teaching and culture used to (still) worship Shiva because hes the god.
> 
> Strong, Muscular, Powerful, destructive, Angry, the supreme god, cannabis and Liqar (aryans fave thing) is attracted these powerful nomads like Turks(Hindu), East Iranic Afghan tribes, Kshatriyas, Marathas, Peshwa brahmins like bajirao, Hussini brahmins, Rajputs, Gujars, other Vedic tribes etc to him.
> 
> Even today the Warrior clans worship Lord Shiva like Brahmins more while Baniya, minor brahmin clans and other merchant clans worship Krishna more.


can you post pictures of some "Strong, Muscular, Powerful, destructive, Angry, the supreme god, cannabis " 
i have no Idea how they look


----------



## django

Brahmanic said:


> The Vedic people were from Central Asia(Russia originally).We are the people who destroyed indus valley civilization and imposed our religion and culture on majority of South Asians.
> 
> There is a reason majority of south asian speaks bastard languages of our Sanskrit.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Brahmanic

Reichsmarschall said:


> can you post pictures of some "Strong, Muscular, Powerful, destructive, Angry, the supreme god, cannabis "
> i have no Idea how they look



I was referring to Shiva. Google Mahakaal, Kaala bhairava, Shiva for more.


----------



## Reichsmarschall

Brahmanic said:


> I was referring to Shiva. Google Mahakaal, Kaala bhairava, Shiva for more.


i meant pictures of some famous Indian brahmins


----------



## Brahmanic

waz said:


> Yes and all the Hindu temples in my ancestral region were dedicated to Shiva as well, and the Rajputs of the region (AJK) had shiva as their primary deity. For example the great temple of Khatas Raj is devoted to Shiva.
> I'm not on social media lol, being a teacher it is discouraged in the profession.



Nice , do you visit those sites or temples ?

Good to see that you are a teacher. Teachers are seen as higher beings in brahmanic culture. Education is must for any brahmin, my great grandpa was 10th pass, my grandpa is 12th pass, my dad is a Company secretary and i am completing my MBA this year and going to Canada for PhD.

Education is the key that preserves amd boosts our elitists world famous Culture.



Reichsmarschall said:


> i meant pictures of some famous Indian brahmins


Sunjay dutt etc.

We are brahmins, gods chosen people. We dont have to do anything or be anything since god protects us.

We are oldest community in the world with history of 5000+ years. 

Those who respected us are mastars of the region (Rajputs/Kshatriya, Baniyas) Whoever tried to harm us have bitten the dust amd became part of it be it.


----------



## django

Brahmanic said:


> Brahmin shahis who ruled Afghanistan for 500 years


Brahimin Shahis did not rule Afghanistan for 500 years lol BTW those folks from the Ghandara had nothing in common with a Marathi like yourself, Brahmin is just a generic term like Rajput, even if you are from a so-called Brahmin family, you will have as much in common with those Ghnadaran priests as a Bangla rajput has with a Gahkkar from Abottabad in other words ZILCH, stop comparing yourself to your superiors from Ghandara!!!!! Mr Vishvamtra.
@Horus @WebMaster this viscerally anti Pakistan clown is back, has about hundred ids and an obsession with wanting to look like Iranic, he is a deeply disturbed individual.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## AbuzarIlyas

Imran Khan said:


> multani kisi ko bhi mar sakty hain


Here is one infront of you


----------



## waz

Brahmanic said:


> Nice , do you visit those sites or temples ?
> 
> Good to see that you are a teacher. Teachers are seen as higher beings in brahmanic culture. Education is must for any brahmin, my great grandpa was 10th pass, my grandpa is 12th pass, my dad is a Company secretary and i am completing my MBA this year and going to Canada for PhD.
> 
> Education is the key that preserves amd boosts our elitists world famous Culture.
> 
> 
> Sunjay dutt



Yes I have visited many times, it's Pakistan's and the region's great heritage. 
Indeed I am a teacher and it's interesting to see the prominence it has in Brahmin culture.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Mirza Jatt

Reichsmarschall said:


> can you post pictures of some "Strong, Muscular, Powerful, destructive, Angry, the supreme god, cannabis "
> i have no Idea how they look



That's Lord Shiva, the coolest God I have ever known. He is the most badass.. he's on weeds all the time, stays in snow of mount Kailash, wild animals are his buddies , worshipped by demons... and the best of all he's a good hearted guy whom you cant mess with or try to mess with his creations (the world). have a look at 'THE DESTROYER'

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimur Khurram

SOUTHie said:


> Or you can share a link. The Maurya empire was founded by Chandragupta Maurya. Stories say he was not of any Royal origins. His origins was unknown apart from the fact that Chanakya picked him from Nanda empire.
> 
> Nice you have read something at least now. And what may or may not have contributed is not the matter, the point is Guptas were responsible for the end of Hunas invasion. i.e a large empire was defeated by a relatively small Kingdom like the Guptas.
> 
> Do you even talk consistently at least sometimes? How are Toramana now connected to Gujjars and Rajputs when you claimed they were from King Porus lol. Recent google knowledge? These claims are not validated but intuitions of some writers (i.e historians).
> Also, the Huns were tribesman rather than Kingdoms (Hence I referred to them as savages). They attacked with the strength of numbers and not by strategy.
> 
> 
> You must write a book based on your findings.
> 
> 
> India usually doesn't name missiles after Kings.
> 
> But there are Choppers named as Hind - Akbar, then again Akbar means great.



Unfortunately I cannot find it online anywhere but Wikipedia (I read it in a book, not online). You can check the references for yourself, check the section of other theories:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestry_of_Chandragupta_Maurya

The Guptas were not at all tiny:

http://www.indmaps.com/thematic-map/empire-of-gupta-map.html

You do realise people have ancestry from multiple sources right? Also, I never said all Gujjars, Jats and Rajputs come from the Huns, I said certain clans among us come from the Huns as evident by their names. The Huns didn't magically disappear, they have to have descendents somewhere. I also said Porus would be related only to those Gujjars, Jats and Rajputs around Jhelum because that was where he was from. Use your head.


----------



## Mirza Jatt

dsr478 said:


> Unfortunately I cannot find it online anywhere but Wikipedia (I read it in a book, not online). You can check the references for yourself, check the section of other theories:
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestry_of_Chandragupta_Maurya
> 
> The Guptas were not at all tiny:
> 
> http://www.indmaps.com/thematic-map/empire-of-gupta-map.html
> 
> You do realise people have ancestry from multiple sources right? Also, I never said a Gujjars, Jats and Rajputs come from the Huns, I said certain clans among us come from the Huns as evident by their names. The Huns didn't magically disappear, they have to have descendents somewhere. I also said Porus would be related only to those Gujjars, Jats and Rajputs around Jhelum because that was where he was from. Use your head.




Mauryan Empire was founded in the plains of Ganges. That's beyond any doubts or dispute. There might be some who may claim it to be from modern day UP but almost every historian agrees it to be from Pataliputra (Modern day Bihar).

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chhatrapati

^^^ Is the answer to that. 


dsr478 said:


> Unfortunately I cannot find it online anywhere but Wikipedia (I read it in a book, not online). You can check the references for yourself, check the section of other theories:
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestry_of_Chandragupta_Maurya





dsr478 said:


> The Guptas were not at all tiny:


A selective map. This shows how big they were compared to the Guptas towards the time they were driven out. 







dsr478 said:


> You do realise people have ancestry from multiple sources right? Also, I never said a Gujjars, Jats and Rajputs come from the Huns, I said certain clans among us come from the Huns as evident by their names. The Huns didn't magically disappear, they have to have descendents somewhere. I also said Porus would be related only to those Gujjars, Jats and Rajputs around Jhelum because that was where he was from. Use your head.


Do you claim the ancestry of Romans too? There are blue-eyed Indians. Again, I said, nothing can be decisively said about Porus. As Django said, like rajputs which are a mix of different people which may or may not include Hunas. And if a few thousand people are related to Hunas or even Porus doesn't mean they are. And people of that times has nothing to do with people from Pakistan (considering you solely claim IVC as your own). Use your head more because you seem to have selective amnesia.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

SOUTHie said:


> ^^^ Is the answer to that.
> 
> 
> 
> A selective map. This shows how big they were compared to the Guptas towards the time they were driven out.
> View attachment 479532
> 
> 
> 
> Do you claim the ancestry of Romans too? There are blue-eyed Indians. Again, I said, nothing can be decisively said about Porus. As Django said, like rajputs which are a mix of different people which may or may not include Hunas. And if a few thousand people are related to Hunas or even Porus doesn't mean they are. And people of that times has nothing to do with people from Pakistan (considering you solely claim IVC as your own). Use your head more because you seem to have selective amnesia.



Even by that map, the Guptas are still pretty big. Also, the Huns were tackling the Persians along with the Guptas, and for a long time were kicking both their a55es. That's far more impressive than the Guptas taking on a weakened Hun state and only beating them after several attempts. 

You mean the Greeks? A lot of Pakistanis and even some Hindustanis come from them too (Greek DNA has been found among Pashtuns and Punjabis). 

They have everything to do with Pakistan, they are part of our history and assimilated into our culture. 

Anyway, I don't see why you care. This is Pakistani history and as a result none of your business.



Mirza Jatt said:


> Mauryan Empire was founded in the plains of Ganges. That's beyond any doubts or dispute. There might be some who may claim it to be from modern day UP but almost every historian agrees it to be from Pataliputra (Modern day Bihar).



Right, but they are descended from migrants who were originally from KPK.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chhatrapati

dsr478 said:


> A lot of Pakistanis and even some Hindustanis come from them too (Greek DNA has been found among Pashtuns and Punjabis).


That doesn't mean you can claim their history. (Greek/Romans)


dsr478 said:


> They have everything to do with Pakistan, they are part of our history and assimilated into our culture.
> 
> Anyway, I don't see why you care. This is Pakistani history and as a result none of your business.


Based on what it is Pakistans history? Funny you claim Mughal history, Durrani, Irani, even Turkik and Mongols. Sometimes your claim is based on regions, at times on gene. Also, how can you claim it as your history when today's Punjab is a region that's shared between both India and Pakistan. 



dsr478 said:


> Right, but they are descended from migrants who were originally from KPK.


No, they are not. There are no claims of any such yet.


----------



## Mirza Jatt

dsr478 said:


> Right, but they are descended from migrants who were originally from KPK.



No sir. That's utter BS. Sadly im my view, You are not eligible for this debate since this is most basic of history even a 4th grader should know. Sadly in Pakistan you have never been taught these hence cant blame you. Porus's origin itself is debatable.. that's the max you can go. Every ruler who conquered North west India ..from Nandas to Chandragupta were absolutely from the Gangetic plains. (Not counting the Islamic invaders here who were foreigners who came years later)


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Mirza Jatt said:


> No sir. That's utter BS. Sadly im my view, You are not eligible for this debate since this is most basic of history even a 4th grader should know. Sadly in Pakistan you have never been taught these hence cant blame you. Porus's origin itself is debatable.. that's the max you can go. Every ruler who conquered North west India ..from Nandas to Chandragupta were absolutely from the Gangetic plains. (Not counting the Islamic invaders here who were foreigners who came years later)



Incorrect, you can read the evidence provided for my claim in my previous posts.

Porus came from Jhelum, stop stealing our history.



SOUTHie said:


> That doesn't mean you can claim their history. (Greek/Romans)
> 
> Based on what it is Pakistans history? Funny you claim Mughal history, Durrani, Irani, even Turkik and Mongols. Sometimes your claim is based on regions, at times on gene. Also, how can you claim it as your history when today's Punjab is a region that's shared between both India and Pakistan.
> 
> 
> No, they are not. There are no claims of any such yet.



It means we can claim history of the indo-Greeks who settled in the region, but not anything beyond that. 

We claim the history of those who came and assimilated into our culture, because many of us are descended from them. 

Hindustani Punjabis can claim Punjabi history if they wish, but not anybody else from Hindustan. 

I already gave you the evidence, not my fault if you ignore it.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Chhatrapati

dsr478 said:


> It means we can claim history of the indo-Greeks who settled in the region, but not anything beyond that.





dsr478 said:


> *our culture*,


And that is Islamic or Pagan? 


dsr478 said:


> Hindustani Punjabis can claim Punjabi history if they wish, but not anybody else from Hindustan.


Well, by your logic, you can't claim IVC. Because it also extends from Rajasthan to UP, Punjab (Indian side) Jammu&Kashmir, Haryana. I'm not claiming their history either. But this place is a mix of multi ethnic people. We can't figure who inherited what. As far as I see, Hindus inherited the old relics of Vedic civilizations. We inherited the ME culture. That's my identity. And I don't claim to be from any ethnicity. My identity is that I'm Muslim. 



dsr478 said:


> I already gave you the evidence, not my fault if you ignore it.


From your own source. I couldn't find anything that directs me to Pakistan. Mauryas as Mors ,are described only in some Puranas it is a Hindu mythology. I wouldn't base my proof on mythologies.
As the initial quotes in your source said.
*There are several theories about his origin. Little is known about Chandragupta Maurya's origins.
*
Where is KPK ?


----------



## Taimur Khurram

SOUTHie said:


> And that is Islamic or Pagan?
> 
> Well, by your logic, you can't claim IVC. Because it also extends from Rajasthan to UP, Punjab (Indian side) Jammu&Kashmir, Haryana. I'm not claiming their history either. But this place is a mix of multi ethnic people. We can't figure who inherited what. As far as I see, Hindus inherited the old relics of Vedic civilizations. We inherited the ME culture. That's my identity. And I don't claim to be from any ethnicity. My identity is that I'm Muslim.
> 
> 
> From your own source. I couldn't find anything that directs me to Pakistan. Mauryas as Mors ,are described only in some Puranas it is a Hindu mythology. I wouldn't base my proof on mythologies.
> As the initial quotes in your source said.
> *There are several theories about his origin. Little is known about Chandragupta Maurya's origins.
> *
> Where is KPK ?



Islamic, but that doesn't change our pre-Islamic past. 

Yes I can, because IVC started in southern Pakistan.

We can easily figure out who inherited what based on common knowledge, which you seem to be lacking.

Good to see we agree on one thing (being Muslim first), but I'm sceptical of your version of Islam given your previous posts made about the religion, as well as the fact that you don't like us taking the Muslim Ghurids or Durranis as our heroes (even though Pashtuns are the 2nd largest ethnic group in Pakistan and they were pious Muslims). 

Read my sources properly, then get back to me.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

SOUTHie said:


> A selective map. This shows how big they were compared to the Guptas towards the time they were driven out.


Territorially yes, population-wise; hell no. The latter matters more.



SOUTHie said:


> Well, by your logic, you can't claim IVC. Because it also extends from Rajasthan to UP, Punjab (Indian side) Jammu&Kashmir, Haryana. I'm not claiming their history either. But this place is a mix of multi ethnic people. We can't figure who inherited what. As far as I see, Hindus inherited the old relics of Vedic civilizations. We inherited the ME culture. That's my identity. And I don't claim to be from any ethnicity. My identity is that I'm Muslim.


Ethnic groups within the Indus region can lay some claim to the IVC.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Chhatrapati

dsr478 said:


> Islamic, but that doesn't change our pre-Islamic past.


It doesn't. Just that, a lot of things are grey in pre-Islamic past.



dsr478 said:


> We can easily figure out who inherited what based on common knowledge, which you seem to be lacking.
> 
> Good to see we agree on one thing (being Muslim first), but I'm sceptical of your version of Islam given your previous posts made about the religion, as well as the fact that you don't like us taking the Muslim Ghurids or Durranis as our heroes (even though Pashtuns are the 2nd largest ethnic group in Pakistan and they were pious Muslims).
> 
> Read my sources properly, then get back to me.


My point still stands.

And only that matters. The identity. Also, there are no versions of Islam that's a stupid thing to say. I don't care if you take any of the histories. I just showed the self-contradictions in your own arguments which are quite natural for people suffering from identity crisis. Outside PDF I don't see any attempts made, rather I see and hear your own people defacing and destroying centuries-old temples and statues. (I can figure why). Also, yes Pashtuns can claim it as much as Indo-Greeks can claim the history of their ancestors from Greeks or Romans. Or Punjabis who can claim Porus. And the fact that, Afghanis are the true claimants of Abdali. Same as greeks to Alexander. And I see them as Afghani heroes (Abdali, Ghazni). Because that's the place they were born and reigned. And yes, they are Great Muslim emperors. Also, I didn't question the beliefs of Pashtuns or any tribes in Pakistan for that matter.

Give at least one source which claims the Mauryas has something to do with modern-day Pakistan? Apart from of course the Chanakya. I know you claim it because it is historically the largest empire in the subcontinent.


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

Mirza Jatt said:


> Every ruler who conquered North west India ..from Nandas to Chandragupta were absolutely from the Gangetic plains.


In the 10,000 year-long history of the Indus region; *COMBINED *Gangetic "rule" over some parts of the Indus region only lasted around 200 years and that too in a very fragile and loose state. Mauryans were the only ones that successfully "conquered" whole of the Indus but they did not last long and were eventually driven out. 



Mirza Jatt said:


> Sadly in Pakistan you have never been taught these hence cant blame you.


Oh please, don't get me started on what Indians are taught.



dsr478 said:


> No, they became Hindus.


Huns, like other migrators/invaders, most likely adopted and contributed to the local folk religions of the ancient Indus region.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Mentee

SOUTHie said:


> Also, how can you claim it as your history when today's Punjab is a region that's shared between both India and Pakistan.


Punjab is to India what Hawaii is to u.s! A tiny fraction of the british India union post 1947.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

SOUTHie said:


> It doesn't. Just that, a lot of things are grey in pre-Islamic past.
> 
> 
> My point still stands.
> 
> And only that matters. The identity. Also, there are no versions of Islam that's a stupid thing to say. I don't care if you take any of the histories. I just showed the self-contradictions in your own arguments which are quite natural for people suffering from identity crisis. Outside PDF I don't see any attempts made, rather I see and hear your own people defacing and destroying centuries-old temples and statues. (I can figure why). Also, yes Pashtuns can claim it as much as Indo-Greeks can claim the history of their ancestors from Greeks or Romans. Or Punjabis who can claim Porus. And the fact that, Afghanis are the true claimants of Abdali. Same as greeks to Alexander. And I see them as Afghani heroes (Abdali, Ghazni). Because that's the place they were born and reigned. And yes, they are Great Muslim emperors. Also, I didn't question the beliefs of Pashtuns or any tribes in Pakistan for that matter.
> 
> Give at least one source which claims the Mauryas has something to do with modern-day Pakistan? Apart from of course the Chanakya. I know you claim it because it is historically the largest empire in the subcontinent.



Pakistan contains 70% of the global Pukhtoon population, so that will show you who are the real descendants of Ahmad Shah Abdali Baba and Mahmud e Ghazni. The fact is Mahmud e Ghazni moved his capital to Lahore, ruling from both Ghazni and there. The Mughals made Lahore their capital multiple times and it remains the greatest living treasure of Mughal architecture (after the British and Hindus burned down Dilli aka Old Delhi.)

Modern-day Pakistanis’ ancestors were an integral part of the expansion of Islam into Hindustan and the continued defense of Muslim rulers.

I don’t know why you are arguing here. As a Muslim, you have every right to claim that glorious past for yourself as well. I’m sure your ancestors had great parts to play in Muslim empires in Hindustan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

SOUTHie said:


> Nice you have read something at least now. And what may or may not have contributed is not the matter, the point is Guptas were responsible for the end of Hunas invasion. i.e a large empire was defeated by a relatively small Kingdom like the Guptas.


Gupta's did not defeat them entirely, they only managed to "subjugate" them as tributary states and it wasn't long till the Hunas and other tribes managed to break free. Guptas controlled some of the most populous regions in the world at that time such as Bengal and the Gangetic plains, so in no sense would the Guptas be considered a "small Kingdom".

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ahmad Sajjad Paracha

Ahmad shah abdali was born in modern pakistan not afghanistan

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Ahmad Sajjad Paracha

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Pakistan contains 70% of the global Pukhtoon population, so that will show you who are the real descendants of Ahmad Shah Abdali Baba and Mahmud e Ghazni. The fact is Mahmud e Ghazni moved his capital to Lahore, ruling from both Ghazni and there. The Mughals made Lahore their capital multiple times and it remains the greatest living treasure of Mughal architecture (after the British and Hindus burned down Dilli aka Old Delhi.)
> 
> Modern-day Pakistanis’ ancestors were an integral part of the expansion of Islam into Hindustan and the continued defense of Muslim rulers.
> 
> I don’t know why you are arguing here. As a Muslim, you have every right to claim that glorious past for yourself as well. I’m sure your ancestors had great parts to play in Muslim empires in Hindustan.





Ahmad Sajjad Paracha said:


> Ahmad shah abdali was born in modern pakistan not afghanistan

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimur Khurram

SOUTHie said:


> It doesn't. Just that, a lot of things are grey in pre-Islamic past.
> 
> 
> My point still stands.
> 
> And only that matters. The identity. Also, there are no versions of Islam that's a stupid thing to say. I don't care if you take any of the histories. I just showed the self-contradictions in your own arguments which are quite natural for people suffering from identity crisis. Outside PDF I don't see any attempts made, rather I see and hear your own people defacing and destroying centuries-old temples and statues. (I can figure why). Also, yes Pashtuns can claim it as much as Indo-Greeks can claim the history of their ancestors from Greeks or Romans. Or Punjabis who can claim Porus. And the fact that, Afghanis are the true claimants of Abdali. Same as greeks to Alexander. And I see them as Afghani heroes (Abdali, Ghazni). Because that's the place they were born and reigned. And yes, they are Great Muslim emperors. Also, I didn't question the beliefs of Pashtuns or any tribes in Pakistan for that matter.
> 
> Give at least one source which claims the Mauryas has something to do with modern-day Pakistan? Apart from of course the Chanakya. I know you claim it because it is historically the largest empire in the subcontinent.



No, your point doesn't stand at all.

What identity crisis? You're the ones naming your country after our national river and acting like IVC, Porus and Panini were Hindustani when they clearly weren't. I know my identity, but you clearly don't since you are a Muslim who supports not defacing or destroying idols. 

No, they aren't. Abdali came from 
Multan and his army was filled with Pakistanis. He belongs to us. They can take pride in him if they wish but that doesn't detract from our claim of him.

They reigned in Pakistan too you idiot, Lahore was Ghaznavi's 2nd largest city, same goes for Ghori. Not to mention so many Pakistanis are descended from people who migrated here during these Islamic conquests, and many Pakistanis (including Punjabis) worked in their military and administration. Muhammad Ghor is also buried in Pakistan.

I already did, not my fault you choose not to read it. 

I don't value the Mauryans at all, what I do value is Hindustanis thinking that they conquered the Indus when you did no such thing in your entire history, it has only ever been the reverse.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Chhatrapati

dsr478 said:


> What identity crisis? You're the ones naming your country after our national river and acting like IVC, Porus and Panini were Hindustani when they clearly weren't. I know my identity, but you clearly don't since you are a Muslim who supports not defacing or destroying idols.


Your national river flows through India first and originates in Tibet. So much for the national river. Porus and Panini were neither Pakistani. They were two different people who are alien to what is today's Pakistan. And I don't want to deface or destroy idols of another community living close by. Neither should I deface any idols that are not linked to any communities but may have very important historical significance. You lot do that I couldn't care any less.


dsr478 said:


> No, they aren't. Abdali came from
> Multan and his army was filled with Pakistanis. He belongs to us. They can take pride in him if they wish but that doesn't detract from our claim of him.


Abdali is as much as Pakistani as Panini is Hindustani.  



dsr478 said:


> They reigned in Pakistan too you idiot, Lahore was Ghaznavi's 2nd largest city, same goes for Ghori. Not to mention so many Pakistanis are descended from people who migrated here during these Islamic conquests, and many Pakistanis (including Punjabis) worked in their military and administration. Muhammad Ghor is also buried in Pakistan.


Lol! Your claims are funny, on one hand, you claim based on place of birth and on the other you claim based on where he ruled and if he had a capital somewhere for a while. Like you claim Mughals and the Mysore sultans. 



dsr478 said:


> I already did, not my fault you choose not to read it.
> 
> I don't value the Mauryans at all, what I do value is Hindustanis thinking that they conquered the Indus when you did no such thing in your entire history, it has only ever been the reverse.


If you did read then why you are not quoting it and asking me to read? Man up and quote me so that I can read the authentic source. Maybe because it's something that's non-existent? 
Also, you missed the Marathas who conquered Indus region, now did they come from Karachi or Pindi?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimur Khurram

SOUTHie said:


> Your national river flows through India first and originates in Tibet. So much for the national river. Porus and Panini were neither Pakistani. They were two different people who are alien to what is today's Pakistan. And I don't want to deface or destroy idols of another community living close by. Neither should I deface any idols that are not linked to any communities but may have very important historical significance. You lot do that I couldn't care any less.
> 
> Abdali is as much as Pakistani as Panini is Hindustani.
> 
> 
> Lol! Your claims are funny, on one hand, you claim based on place of birth and on the other you claim based on where he ruled and if he had a capital somewhere for a while. Like you claim Mughals and the Mysore sultans.
> 
> 
> If you did read then why you are not quoting it and asking me to read? Man up and quote me so that I can read the authentic source. Maybe because it's something that's non-existent?
> Also, you missed the Marathas who conquered Indus region, now did they come from Karachi or Pindi?



Almost all of the river exists in Pakistan. It's Pakistani. 

Porus and Panini were born and lived in Pakistan, they are nothing but Pakistani.

No, that's not true at all. Abdali was born in Pakistan, where as Panini wasn't born in Hindustan.

Mysore Sultans were originally from the Punjab. Being born and raised in southern Hindustan for only a couple of generations doesn't magically make them Tamils, they preferred Urdu, Arabic and Farsi over local languages and sought alliances with Durranis and the Ottomans. If you want to claim them, fine, but that doesn't detract from the fact that they were Punjabi.

Akbar and Shah Jahan were both born in Pakistan, but I wouldn't expect you to know that.

The Marathas never conquered most of Pakistan. Come back to me when you find a dynasty purely from Hindustan that did.

I literally told you where to find it, but since you're so incapable:

Meri may have been another political centre of the _Mor_ (Meros) people. The name "Moriya" (or Maurya) may have come from _Mor_ (_Koh-i-Mor_; "Mor hill), the ancient _Meros_ of classical literature in the Paropamisade region between the Kunar and Swat Rivers in the land of Ashvakas. (This name, refers to the Meru mountain of Chitral, Tirich Mir; there is also a Deva-Meru in modern Diamar). It is claimed that since Chandragupta Maurya could have belonged to Mor, he "was called Moriya or Maurya after his motherland".[29][29][30][31] Spooner observes, "After Alexander's death, when Chandragupta marched on Magadha, it was with largely the Persian army (_Shaka-Yavana-Kamboja-Parasika-Bahlika_) that he won the throne of India. The testimony of the Mudrarakshasa is explicit on this point, and we have no reason to doubt its accuracy in matter of this kind".[32

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Chhatrapati

dsr478 said:


> Meri may have been another political centre of the _Mor_ (Meros) people. The name "Moriya" (or Maurya) may have come from _Mor_ (_Koh-i-Mor_; "Mor hill),


_Other literary traditions imply that Chandragupta was raised by peacock-tamers (Sanskrit: Mayura-Poshakha), which earned him the Maurya epithet. Buddhist and Jain traditions attest the connection between the Moriya (Maurya) and Mora, or Mayura (Peacock). While Buddhist tradition describes him as the son of the chief of the peacock clan (Moriya kshatriya), Jain tradition refers to him as the maternal grandson of the headman of the village of peacock tamers (Moraposaga).[14] This view suggests a humble background for Chandragupta; the same tradition also describes Nanda as the son of a barber and a courtesan. The pillar of Ashoka in Nandangarh has the figure of a peacock (repeated in many sculptures of Ashoka at Sanchi) on its bottom.[15] According to Turnour,[16] Buddhist tradition also attests a connection between Moriya and Mora (or Mayura, or peacock). Aelianinforms us that tame peacocks were kept in the parks of the Maurya palace at Pataliputra._

Nice try. But those are only theories like these.


dsr478 said:


> Akbar and Shah Jahan were both born in Pakistan, but I wouldn't expect you to know that.


As irrelevant as it is. Both were not of local origins. Akbar is nothing but of Persian origin and Shah Jahan a mix of Persian Rajput origin. I guess you don't know that, neither I expect you to. Since you are too eager to claim everything as yours. But in reality, you were nothing but an entrance to vast empires. And nobody centers an empire towards Pakistan. Name one powerful empire that is centered at Pakistan? Which ruled over without shifting their capital to Delhi or further east or west. Your location is weak and subject to continuous invasion. Strategically a weak location.



dsr478 said:


> Porus and Panini were born and lived in Pakistan, they are nothing but Pakistani.


No. They are of Gandharan and Porus Kingdom. Pakistan born in 1947.



dsr478 said:


> Mysore Sultans were originally from the Punjab.


Based on more assumptions. Mysore Sultans has nothing to do with Punjab, maybe their forefathers might have been from the region but no conclusive evidence was found. Mysore Sultans are of Mysore origin.



dsr478 said:


> Being born and raised in southern Hindustan for only a couple of generations doesn't magically make them Tamils, they preferred Urdu, Arabic and Farsi over local languages and sought alliances with Durranis and the Ottomans.


How come Urdu is Pakistani language lol. And Mysore is not in Tamil Nadu stupid. Also, the language they speak doesn't make them non-Mysore origin.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

SOUTHie said:


> _Other literary traditions imply that Chandragupta was raised by peacock-tamers (Sanskrit: Mayura-Poshakha), which earned him the Maurya epithet. Buddhist and Jain traditions attest the connection between the Moriya (Maurya) and Mora, or Mayura (Peacock). While Buddhist tradition describes him as the son of the chief of the peacock clan (Moriya kshatriya), Jain tradition refers to him as the maternal grandson of the headman of the village of peacock tamers (Moraposaga).[14] This view suggests a humble background for Chandragupta; the same tradition also describes Nanda as the son of a barber and a courtesan. The pillar of Ashoka in Nandangarh has the figure of a peacock (repeated in many sculptures of Ashoka at Sanchi) on its bottom.[15] According to Turnour,[16] Buddhist tradition also attests a connection between Moriya and Mora (or Mayura, or peacock). Aelianinforms us that tame peacocks were kept in the parks of the Maurya palace at Pataliputra._
> 
> Nice try. But those are only theories like these.
> 
> As irrelevant as it is. Both were not of local origins. Akbar is nothing but of Persian origin and Shah Jahan a mix of Persian Rajput origin. I guess you don't know that, neither I expect you to. Since you are too eager to claim everything as yours. But in reality, you were nothing but an entrance to vast empires. And nobody centers an empire towards Pakistan. Name one powerful empire that is centered at Pakistan? Which ruled over without shifting their capital to Delhi or further east or west. Your location is weak and subject to continuous invasion. Strategically a weak location.
> 
> 
> No. They are of Gandharan and Porus Kingdom. Pakistan born in 1947.
> 
> 
> Based on more assumptions. Mysore Sultans has nothing to do with Punjab, maybe their forefathers might have been from the region but no conclusive evidence was found. Mysore Sultans are of Mysore origin.
> 
> 
> How come Urdu is Pakistani language lol. And Mysore is not in Tamil Nadu stupid. Also, the language they speak doesn't make them non-Mysore origin.



Didn't you say not to accept folklore? Yet you use it yourself? Ironic to say the least.

And as I've stated and proven numerous times before, Muslims from our region are descended from these foreigners who migrated here during the Islamic conquests.

I also find it interesting that you consider Ghaznavi an Afghan but you don't consider Akbar or Shah Jahan Pakistani. Ghaznavi's father was from Kyrgyzstan. Another major hole in your already pathetic argument.

Empires didn't stay in Pakistan because Hindustan was too easy to invade, it reflects poorly on you rather than on us. 

Anyway, the Sikhs were centred around Pakistan. Would you like me to name another empire/dynasty?

That's the stupidest argument I've ever heard. Hindustan was born in 1947 as well dumbass, just because you named yourselves after us doesn't make our history yours. You guys are literally the FYROM of South Asia, thinking your name gives you ownership of your neighbours history. Anyway, even if we play that game, where is Gandhara? It's in Pakistan, not Hindustan.

Not assumptions. Tipu Sultan's grandfather was a Punjabi. This is fact. He's as Mysorean as Shah Jahan is Pakistani, so if you want to claim Tipu, you cannot turn around and deny us of Shah Jahan.

Urdu is the language of Muslims of South Asia. Therefore, yes it is a Pakistani language since we are a nation literally made for South Asian Muslims.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chhatrapati

dsr478 said:


> Didn't you say not to accept folklore? Yet you use it yourself? Ironic to say the least.


haha, no. I said in my previous comment that, from the evidence so far he is from Bihar. Others are just theories and assumption. I showed another assumption from the source you provided. You select one that suits you.

Because the Mauryans ruled over what's today's Pakistan until Afghanistan and parts of Persia. Appreciate your attempts. But, lacks conclusive evidence. A mere nomenclature of Maurya which has multiple meanings will not suffice your claim.



dsr478 said:


> And as I've stated and proven numerous times before, Muslims from our region are descended from these foreigners who migrated here during the Islamic conquests.


In that case, you can claim everything under the sun. Based on migration theories and so and so...


dsr478 said:


> I also find it interesting that you consider Ghaznavi an Afghan but you don't consider Akbar or Shah Jahan Pakistani. Ghaznavi's father was from Kyrgyzstan. Another major hole in your already pathetic argument.


Lol! What's that major hole? Ghaznavids are of Turkey-Persian origin. Slave dynasty they were. What I may consider them Afghani or not, it only shows your pathetic attempt to claim that history too.
Also, they were centered around Ghazni of Afghanistan for the most part.



dsr478 said:


> Empires didn't stay in Pakistan because Hindustan was too easy to invade, it reflects poorly on you rather than on us.


In other words, you had no wealth. Your Kingdoms were dirt poor due to continuous invasions and geography containing semi-desert or full desert.
As for easiness, guess who defeated the Ghengiz Khan, Hunas, Greeks. Also, you missed the Ummayad Khaliphate which conquered Sindh with ease. Tried to enter the Subcontinent through Gurjara (Todays Gujarat) and was decimated by the Gurjara Pratihara dynasty. The defeat was worse that, they never came back. And for at least 300 years there wasn't another conquest attempt from West Asia. So much for conterminous Pakistan.


dsr478 said:


> Not assumptions. Tipu Sultan's grandfather was a Punjabi. This is fact. He's as Mysorean as Shah Jahan is Pakistani, so if you want to claim Tipu, you cannot turn around and deny us of Shah Jahan.


This is what I found about him. "At an early age he served as a commander of 50 men in the Rocket artillery of the army of the Nawab of Carnatic," By that he may be a Tamil. Who knows.

*It is believed that he served alongside *Zulfiqar Ali Khan the first Nawab of the Carnatic during the Siege of Jinji
That's what's called an assumption.


dsr478 said:


> That's the stupidest argument I've ever heard. Hindustan was born in 1947 as well dumbass, just because you named yourselves after us doesn't make our history yours. You guys are literally the FYROM of South Asia, thinking your name gives you ownership of your neighbours history. Anyway, even if we play that game, where is Gandhara? It's in Pakistan, not Hindustan.


Lol! Why should I care when India was born? Hindustan as far as I see is the region beyond Sindh as the persians described it, it extends to Assam and great sea to the south. Sindhu river as the boundary in west.



dsr478 said:


> Urdu is the language of Muslims of South Asia. Therefore, yes it is a Pakistani language since we are a nation literally made for South Asian Muslims.


Wrong, because you made it national language doesn't make the language yours. As for South Asians Muslims, Majority of them live outside Pakistan. With the majority of Urdu speakers living in India.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

SOUTHie said:


> haha, no. I said in my previous comment that, from the evidence so far he is from Bihar. Others are just theories and assumption. I showed another assumption from the source you provided. You select one that suits you.
> 
> Because the Mauryans ruled over what's today's Pakistan until Afghanistan and parts of Persia. Appreciate your attempts. But, lacks conclusive evidence. A mere nomenclature of Maurya which has multiple meanings will not suffice your claim.
> 
> 
> In that case, you can claim everything under the sun. Based on migration theories and so and so...
> 
> Lol! What's that major hole? Ghaznavids are of Turkey-Persian origin. Slave dynasty they were. What I may consider them Afghani or not, it only shows your pathetic attempt to claim that history too.
> Also, they were centered around Ghazni of Afghanistan for the most part.
> 
> 
> In other words, you had no wealth. Your Kingdoms were dirt poor due to continuous invasions and geography containing semi-desert or full desert.
> As for easiness, guess who defeated the Ghengiz Khan, Hunas, Greeks. Also, you missed the Ummayad Khaliphate which conquered Sindh with ease. Tried to enter the Subcontinent through Gurjara (Todays Gujarat) and was decimated by the Gurjara Pratihara dynasty. The defeat was worse that, they never came back. And for at least 300 years there wasn't another conquest attempt from West Asia. So much for conterminous Pakistan.
> 
> This is what I found about him. "At an early age he served as a commander of 50 men in the Rocket artillery of the army of the Nawab of Carnatic," By that he may be a Tamil. Who knows.
> 
> *It is believed that he served alongside *Zulfiqar Ali Khan the first Nawab of the Carnatic during the Siege of Jinji
> That's what's called an assumption.
> 
> Lol! Why should I care when India was born? Hindustan as far as I see is the region beyond Sindh as the persians described it, it extends to Assam and great sea to the south. Sindhu river as the boundary in west.
> 
> 
> Wrong, because you made it national language doesn't make the language yours. As for South Asians Muslims, Majority of them live outside Pakistan. With the majority of Urdu speakers living in India.



If you want to believe that, fine, go ahead. 

It shows how stupid you are by claiming the Mughals aren't Pakistani, but the Ghaznavids are magically Afghans. They were centred around Ghazni and Lahore, Lahore even acted as the winter capital. When the empire went into decline, they became centred only around Lahore.

The Mongols were defeated by the Khiliji Pashtuns, with a lot of their soldiers consisting of people from parts of Pakistan. And again, they were Muslims. 

The Greeks were defeated by the Scythians and as said I before, the Huns were still kicking your a55 for a long time. Also, the Guptas were Bengali. I thought you disapproved of taking foreign heroes?

So much for being a Muslim, you seem to support the pagan Pratiharas over the Khilafah. Also, I hope you realise that Qasim's army swelled with defectors from Pakistan who hated Dahir right? Along with mercenaries from other parts of Pakistan? And that literally so many Pakistanis are descended from these guys (Qureshis, Ansaris, Hashmis, etc)?

Doesn't disprove Tipu's Punjabi ancestry at all.

You're confusing a region for a country, they are not the same. By your logic, if we name ourselves Europe, does that mean Europe's history now belongs to us as well? 

Pakistan has more Muslims than any country in South Asia. Look it up, we have the 2nd largest Muslim population after Indonesia.

It's ours because the best Urdu poets came from Pakistan, it was made by Muslims, and it's our national language.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Chhatrapati

dsr478 said:


> If you want to believe that, fine, go ahead.


Until any solid discoveries relating the origin of Mauryas yeah.


dsr478 said:


> It shows how stupid you are by claiming the Mughals aren't Pakistani, but the Ghaznavids are magically Afghans. They were centred around Ghazni and Lahore, Lahore even acted as the winter capital. When the empire went into decline, they became centred only around Lahore.


Self-contradictions. Mughals are in no way Pakistanis or Lahoris. Their empire, for the most part, was centered around Delhi. The capital of most of the powerful empires. Simply because of the location which is away from punching bag of subcontinent towards the west. Also not surrounded by wealthy regions like in the case of Delhi.


dsr478 said:


> The Greeks were defeated by the Scythians and as said I before, the Huns were still kicking your a55 for a long time. Also, the Guptas were Bengali. I thought you disapproved of taking foreign heroes?


Pataliputra is not in Bengal. And at the time of Gupta, Samatatas were ruling what is today's Bangladesh. Under the suzerainty of Guptas and Samudra Gupta formed an alliance with them through marriage. So, that pathetic attempt hereby fails again.
And who kicked out the Huns? Not you, the Guptas and Malwas


dsr478 said:


> So much for being a Muslim, you seem to support the pagan Pratiharas over the Khilafah. Also, I hope you realise that Qasim's army swelled with defectors from Pakistan who hated Dahir right? Along with mercenaries from other parts of Pakistan? And that literally so many Pakistanis are descended from these guys (Qureshis, Ansaris, Hashmis, etc)?


Lol! My ancestors are not a product of invasion.  So, I don't get my emos up on hearing Akbar (A Mughal turd) or any Gazni or Ghoris. Neither Tipu amuse me. As for, Qasim's army losing out. There can be a hundred reasons for the loss. That's not the point of discussion.
And speaking of me supporting pagans over Caliphate, I'm neither proud nor sad about losing. Did our Mohammed (SAW) hide the story of ghazwat unuhud? 


dsr478 said:


> Doesn't disprove Tipu's Punjabi ancestry at all.


Neither it proves.


dsr478 said:


> Pakistan has more Muslims than any country in South Asia. Look it up, we have the 2nd largest Muslim population after Indonesia.


Can't you read and comprehend properly?


> As for South Asians Muslims, Majority of them live outside Pakistan.


And Urdu has 3 times more speakers in India than Pakistan.


dsr478 said:


> *It's ours because the best Urdu poets came from Pakistan*, it was made by Muslims, and it's our national language.


 Ok. Nice try again though.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

SOUTHie said:


> Until any solid discoveries relating the origin of Mauryas yeah.
> 
> Self-contradictions. Mughals are in no way Pakistanis or Lahoris. Their empire, for the most part, was centered around Delhi. The capital of most of the powerful empires. Simply because of the location which is away from punching bag of subcontinent towards the west. Also not surrounded by wealthy regions like in the case of Delhi.
> 
> Pataliputra is not in Bengal. And at the time of Gupta, Samatatas were ruling what is today's Bangladesh. Under the suzerainty of Guptas and Samudra Gupta formed an alliance with them through marriage. So, that pathetic attempt hereby fails again.
> And who kicked out the Huns? Not you, the Guptas and Malwas
> 
> Lol! My ancestors are not a product of invasion.  So, I don't get my emos up on hearing Akbar (A Mughal turd) or any Gazni or Ghoris. Neither Tipu amuse me. As for, Qasim's army losing out. There can be a hundred reasons for the loss. That's not the point of discussion.
> And speaking of me supporting pagans over Caliphate, I'm neither proud nor sad about losing. Did our Mohammed (SAW) hide the story of ghazwat unuhud?
> 
> Neither it proves.
> 
> Can't you read and comprehend properly?
> 
> And Urdu has 3 times more speakers in India than Pakistan.
> 
> Ok. Nice try again though.



If that's not solid enough for you, fine, bury your head in the sand.

Please, you've been invaded plenty of times but what makes it even sadder is most of you aren't descended from these conquerors where as we are.

If your land was so great and wealthy, IVC would have started in your country and not ours.

Hindustan hasn't ever managed to produce a single empire, dynasty or individual that has managed to sucessfully conquer most of Pakistan.

No, the Guptas were Bengali, you can find evidence of this easily. Here's just one example:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Gupta

I already told you, the Huns didn't get kicked out, they assimilated into Pakistani society. They do not count as oppressors, they are the home team. We are a multi-ethnic society and we are proud of this.

If you were born a Muslim, odds are at least one of your ancestors came with these conquerors. Accept it and move on.

You can find sources proving Tipu was Punjabi. Here is just one:

https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...nd-tumakuru-district/articleshow/61574823.cms

Can you?

That's because you breed like rats.

Allama Iqbal and Faiz Ahmed Faiz are the best Urdu poets in history, there's no disputing this.

Unless you've got anything intelligent to add, I think this discussion is over.


----------



## Taimoor Khan

my2cents said:


> Why not name some of your streets and your missile after King Porus. Your stance will be vindicated.



Porus is a Greek name. We might never know his real name.

However I am all up for putting his name in Pakistani history books where our young ones will be taught as to how an ancient Pakistani fought against all odds, and came out victorious.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

SOUTHie said:


> Your national river flows through India first and originates in Tibet. So much for the national river.


The Nile is undoubtedly associated with Egypt, Egypt's many Kingdoms and civilizations were centred on the river. Today it continues to provide life and sustenance to the country. The Nile being only being 1/5th Egyptian and having an outside course does not void the Nile being a famously associated part of Egypt.

Compare that to the Indus, where over 90% of the River is in Pakistan - the rest of which flows through an internationally disputed territory.









SOUTHie said:


> Porus and Panini were neither Pakistani. They were two different people who are alien to what is today's Pakistan.


Panini was from Gandhara, a country that is mentioned as foreign by Vedic texts and grouped along the Bahlikas. Porus came from a country known as Bahlika (made up most of the Indus Kingdoms), which literally means "outsider". They ate meat, buried their dead, rejected Brahminism, were hostile to Vedic Hindus and were feared warriors.

Here is what your Vedic sources say about Sagala, capital of Porus's Kingdom. (Vahika here is just another name for Bahlika).
_I remember from the days of my youth that a slaughter-ground for kine and a space for storing intoxicating spirits always distinguish the entrances of the abodes of the (Vahika) kings. On some very secret mission I had to live among the Vahikas. In consequence of such residence the conduct of these people is well known to me. There is a town of the name of *Sakala* (modern day Sialkote), a river of the name of Apaga, and a clan of the Vahikas known by the name of the *Jarttikas*. The practices of these people are very censurable. They drink the *liquor called Gauda*, and eat *fried barley* with it. They also eat *beef with garlic*. They also eat *cakes of flour mixed with meat*, and *boiled rice* that is bought from others. Of righteous practices they have none. (8,44)_



SOUTHie said:


> Also, you missed the Marathas who conquered Indus region, now did they come from Karachi or Pindi?


How long were they in the Indus before their asses were humiliatingly booted out? *One year*. Over a hundred thousand Marathas were killed in the Indus and the descendants of Maratha prisoners can still be found throughout Pakistan. The Marathas were never able to recover from the thrashing they recieved in the Indus.



dsr478 said:


> it was with largely the Persian army (_Shaka-Yavana-Kamboja-Parasika-Bahlika_)


That's interesting. All of the people mentioned made up the primary ethnic groups of ancient Pakistan during that time.



SOUTHie said:


> Name one powerful empire that is centered at Pakistan? Which ruled over without shifting their capital to Delhi or further east or west.


lol... don't even get me started.



SOUTHie said:


> No. They are of Gandharan and Porus Kingdom. Pakistan born in 1947.


and where the hell did the descendants of Pakistan come from? Did they come from Mars to populate Pakistan in 1947?
The name Pakistan itself is just an acronym for regions that make up the Indus; *P*unjab, *A*fghania, *K*ashmir, *S*indh, Balochis*TAN*. The cultures, languages and the various peoples of these regions have been here for thousands and thousands of years.



SOUTHie said:


> Because the Mauryans ruled over what's today's Pakistan until Afghanistan and parts of Persia. Appreciate your attempts. But, lacks conclusive evidence. A mere nomenclature of Maurya which has multiple meanings will not suffice your claim.


Mauryans enjoyed loosed control over the Indus before also being kicked out.



SOUTHie said:


> Also, they were centered around Ghazni of Afghanistan for the most part.


Ghaznavids shifted towards Lahore and eventually declared Lahore as it's capital.



SOUTHie said:


> In other words, you had no wealth. Your Kingdoms were dirt poor due to continuous invasions and geography containing semi-desert or full desert.


This comment really shows me that you have very little credibility and knowledge to say anything about history. You would have better luck spewing garbage in Indian history forums which claim that "Bharat civilization" once spread from Syria to Indonesia and that ancient Indians fought nuclear space battles.

Ancient Pakistan was a bread basket zone and one of the richest regions in the world.



SOUTHie said:


> As for easiness, guess who defeated the Ghengiz Khan, Hunas, Greeks.





SOUTHie said:


> Ghengiz Khan


If you meant the Mongols then it was a coalition of Punjab, Sindh, Kashmir, Peshawar, the salt range tribes and the Punjabi-Pashtun rulers of the Delhi Sultanate that defeated them.









SOUTHie said:


> Hunas


They were temporarily defeated and became tributary states to the Gupta Empire and it wasn't long before they got independence. The Hunas eventually fused with the local peoples and tribes.



SOUTHie said:


> Greeks


Greeks were defeated by the Sakas, a people that are predecessors to the Jatts, Rajputs and Gujjars of the Indus region who also most likely mixed with the Hunas as evidenced by their clan names.

Reactions: Positive Rating Positive Rating:
1 | Like Like:
4


----------



## Chhatrapati

dsr478 said:


> If that's not solid enough for you, fine, bury your head in the sand.


Lol! Guess anything that doesn't suit your narrative is wrong. Good luck chum.


dsr478 said:


> Please, you've been invaded plenty of times but what makes it even sadder is most of you aren't descended from these conquerors where as we are.


Blaa. I'm glad I'm not some descendants of some mamluks.


dsr478 said:


> If your land was so great and wealthy, IVC would have started in your country and not ours.


Since IVC there wasn't many wealthy empires. Why IVC died off may be the reason why you are not wealthy. i.e loss of agrarian lands may be because of rivers going dry or invasion. Either way, Ghurids invaded India for wealth. And they weren't aiming for what's today's Pakistan.


dsr478 said:


> No, the Guptas were Bengali, you can find evidence of this easily. Here's just one example:
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Gupta


Sorry, your link says they are from Present day Uttar Pradesh.

Also here it says, _But very likely they were initially a family of landowners who acquired political control in the region of Magadha and parts of eastern Uttar Pradesh. Uttar Pradesh seems to have been a more important province for the Guptas than Bihar, because early Gupta coins and inscriptions have been mainly found in that region._
http://www.ensyklopedia.com/maharaja-sri-gupta-founder-of-gupta-dynasty-240-ad-280-ad/
http://www.historydiscussion.net/empires/history-of-the-gupta-empire-indian-history/600

Bengal?  Want more "examples"?


dsr478 said:


> I already told you, the Huns didn't get kicked out, they assimilated into Pakistani society. They do not count as oppressors, they are the home team. We are a multi-ethnic society and we are proud of this.
> 
> If you were born a Muslim, odds are at least one of your ancestors came with these conquerors. Accept it and move on.
> 
> You can find sources proving Tipu was Punjabi. Here is just one:


I didn't say the Hunas were killed off. I only meant the king was ousted. If the Hunas assimilated into India and Pakistan, they might have been spared. I don't know.

No, I can trace my family tree further south of India and it isn't going towards North. Which only mean I wasn't from invader rather Muslims in my area aren't from invaders but traders who were given land and area by the Travancore kings for doing business. History of Kerala Muslim, for the most part, is different compared to North.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheraman_Juma_Mosque
We even pray in a different posture compared to others. No need to go further into it. Anyway, coming to Tipu.
_Tipu Sultan belongs to the Sayyid lineage, meaning direct descendents of Prophet Mohammad _
Stopped reading from there. Any more stupid claims?
https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...nd-tumakuru-district/articleshow/61574823.cms


dsr478 said:


> That's because you breed like rats.


Hmm. Let's see, the Fertility rate of Muslims in India is 2.6? and you lot. 3.55....

Again what's breeding like rats? (Talk about self-goal).


dsr478 said:


> Allama Iqbal and Faiz Ahmed Faiz are the best Urdu poets in history, there's no disputing this.
> 
> Unless you've got anything *intelligent to add*, I think this discussion is over.


I just saw your level of intelligence.

Not denying they are anything. But it's stupid to claim something based on few good poets or being national language. A bastardized version of Hindustani is Urdu after all like Hindi.

All you do is hide behind rhetorics and skip questions.


----------



## Chhatrapati

Talwar e Pakistan said:


> Bahlikas. Porus came from a country known as Bahlika (made up most of the Indus Kingdoms), which literally means *"outsider"*._I remember from the days of my youth that a slaughter-ground for kine and a space for storing intoxicating spirits always distinguish the entrances of the abodes of the (Vahika) kings. On some very secret mission I had to live among the Vahikas. In consequence of such residence the conduct of these people is well known to me. There is a town of the name of *Sakala* (modern day Sialkote), a river of the name of Apaga, and a clan of the Vahikas known by the name of the *Jarttikas*. The practices of these people are very censurable. They drink the *liquor called Gauda*, and eat *fried barley* with it. They also eat *beef with garlic*. They also eat *cakes of flour mixed with meat*, and *boiled rice* that is bought from others. Of righteous practices they have none._


Are you saying Porus was an outsider?

Sorry, you are referring to (Bahlikas) Bactrians. When you read a source, read it fully. 


Talwar e Pakistan said:


> The name Pakistan itself is just an acronym for regions that make up the Indus; *P*unjab, *A*fghania, *K*ashmir, *S*indh, Balochis*TAN*.





Talwar e Pakistan said:


> *Ghengiz Khan never stepped foot in South Asia*,


Some level of stupidity. Nah, you are wasting my time. 


Talwar e Pakistan said:


> Greeks were defeated by the Sakas, a people that are predecessors to the Jatts, Rajputs and Gujjars of the Indus region who also most likely mixed with the Hunas as evidenced by their clan names.


Facepalm. 

Any idea what we were talking about?


----------



## Mirza Jatt

Talwar e Pakistan said:


> In the 10,000 year-long history of the Indus region; *COMBINED *Gangetic "rule" over some parts of the Indus region only lasted around 200 years and that too in a very fragile and loose state. Mauryans were the only ones that successfully "conquered" whole of the Indus but they did not last long and were eventually driven out.



Mauryans may have ruled for approx. 200 years but modern day Pakistan was ruled by indo-greek rulers for years to come since in the Ashoka period, the empire was facing resistance from shungas. Honestly its funny how you people now are trying to taka share of cake that's not even yours. Someone started this thread claiming Pakistanis almost brought Alexander down on his knees.. I mean really ? Oh Your friends also claims Mauryans were from KPK, like really.




> please, don't get me started on what Indians are taught.



Lol.. look who is trying to boast on history. When it comes to history, you should ask your historians some serious question and then come and do chest thumping you.. your kids are not even aware of Pauravas and understandably so.. cause accepting that Porus was a Hindu king was acceptable to your forefathers. Forget that.. your kids are not even aware of independence struggle properly. So when it come to comparing teaching history in schools, please keep your ego under the carpets.[/QUOTE]



dsr478 said:


> Incorrect, you can read the evidence provided for my claim in my previous posts.
> 
> Porus came from Jhelum, stop stealing our history .



No. I am not debating the fact the he was from the land that is modern day Pakistan. But he was a Paurava. Pakistan never existed then, the land was ruled by Hindu Kings. At max you can say your fore fathers were Hindu kings who resisted Alexander, but you cant say they were Pakistanis.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Mirza Jatt said:


> .
> No. I am not debating the fact the he was from the land that is modern day Pakistan. But he was a Paurava. Pakistan never existed then, the land was ruled by Hindu Kings. At max you can say your fore fathers were Hindu kings who resisted Alexander, but you cant say they were Pakistanis.



No, they are Pakistani since the land is called Pakistan and if they were born today they would be considered Pakistani. 

The title of Pakistani is far more appropriate than Hindustani, your nation only came into existence in 1947 too you know.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mirza Jatt

dsr478 said:


> No, they are Pakistani since the land is called Pakistan and if they were born today they would be considered Pakistani.
> 
> The title of Pakistani is far more appropriate than Hindustani, your nation only came into existence in 1947 too you know.


Hindustani the term itself is wrong. Please help.me understand where it came from. Call it India, or Bharatvarsh...both of which existed way before the term Hindustani.

There was never an identity called Pakistan in that era. It was India. Calling Porus Pakistani because he existed from the modern, newly created term Pakistan (you can't even compare to the antiquity of the term India with the word Pakistan .. lol). then, Manmohan Singh is a Pakistani and and Musharraf is an Indian since they came from Pakistan and India respectively..lol. That's your logic. 

Don't try to compare the term Pakistan (created few decades back) with the term Hindustan to save your argument...compare it with India (created thousand of years ago).

Porus was a Hindu king so saying he was a Pakistani, makes your forefather Hindus who gave a huge fight to Alexander.


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Prophet Muhammad saws referred to modern-day Pakistan as Sindh and modern-day India as Hind when he prophesied that Islam would reach to as far as Sindh wal Hind.

Not to mention the stories of Sinbad was about 2 Sind-ibadis in Basra discussing their adventures.

We have had relations with Arabia, Babylon, Persia, and Central Asia since antiquity due to our geographical location.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mirza Jatt

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Prophet Muhammad saws referred to modern-day Pakistan as Sindh and modern-day India as Hind when he prophesied that Islam would reach to as far as Sindh wal Hind.
> 
> Not to mention the stories of Sinbad was about 2 Sind-ibadis in Basra discussing their adventures.
> 
> We have had relations with Arabia, Babylon, Persia, and Central Asia since antiquity due to our geographical location.



Is that how you call it Hindustan ? well sorry to say your history might starts from Islamic history...for the rest of the world it doesn't.. no one even referes to India as Hindustan.. the term is relatively modern compared to the terms India and Bharatvarsh. Even if purely for the sake of argument if I take it as true... still, see the antiquity between the word Hindustan and the term Pakistan. Just no comparison and even a kid can say which is older. But anyhow, the word Hindustan itself is invalid, in terms of Modern India as well as from the historical facts.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Mirza Jatt said:


> Hindustani the term itself is wrong. Please help.me understand where it came from. Call it India, or Bharatvarsh...both of which existed way before the term Hindustani.
> 
> There was never an identity called Pakistan in that era. It was India. Calling Porus Pakistani because he existed from the modern, newly created term Pakistan (you can't even compare to the antiquity of the term India with the word Pakistan .. lol). then, Manmohan Singh is a Pakistani and and Musharraf is an Indian since they came from Pakistan and India respectively..lol. That's your logic.
> 
> Don't try to compare the term Pakistan (created few decades back) with the term Hindustan to save your argument...compare it with India (created thousand of years ago).
> 
> Porus was a Hindu king so saying he was a Pakistani, makes your forefather Hindus who gave a huge fight to Alexander.



The term India comes from the Indus River. I will not call Hindustan that because the term doesn't apply to you, you are not from the Indus. 

Just because we changed our name doesn't mean we popped into existence out of nowhere, and just because you named yourselves after us doesn't make our history yours. 

Musharraf was born into a Muslim family and Pakistan was literally made as a state for South Asian Muslims, he's Pakistani. So is that Singh guy (if he really was born in Pakistan).

The term India is not yours, the Indus almost entirely exists in our lands. 

Our forefathers would be mixed, Pakistan has been at the crossroads of many great civilisations.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Mirza Jatt

dsr478 said:


> The term India comes from the Indus River. I will not call Hindustan that because the term doesn't apply to you, you are not from the Indus.
> 
> Just because we changed our name doesn't mean we popped into existence out of nowhere, and just because you named yourselves after us doesn't make our history yours.
> 
> Musharraf was born into a Muslim family and Pakistan was literally made as a state for South Asian Muslims, he's Pakistani. So is that Singh guy (if he really was born in Pakistan).
> 
> The term India is not yours, the Indus almost entirely exists in our lands.
> 
> Our forefathers would be mixed, Pakistan has been at the crossroads of many great civilisations.



Lol.. let me educate you...the term India was coined from Indika, not Indus.. its your Islamic history that uses Indus to name it Hindustan (again your history, not the rest of the world, who knew to refer India after the word Indika)

And lol..no..you never changed your name..you did not even had a word to call the current Pakistani region separately.. as much it might hurt your ego, it was called India (even the britishers called it India although they never vistied India earlier..you think that's because of Indus river? No. Megasthenes was popular and so was the term India even before you had any concentration of Islamic followers in the Indus valley region. Does that ring any bell? Thanks to the him, we still can claim what's ours, or else the way you people are trying to call every Hindu heritage as yours, you may have even called everything under the sky as Pakistani. 

Oh did we.name.ourselves after Indus? Lol.. again..read what I wrote above.

Your 4th para - Hell no..you can't get funnier than that. Indus has been a Hindu land until Islamic invasion, please follow your fellow Pakistani members atleast. India was coined after Indika ..though I agree that it may have been named after Indus, its funny , you claim it to be not a part of India. Well i don't blame you after you tried links after links tried to prove all the established historians in the planet as wrong after claiming Mauryans as Pakistani. (you can learn feom your fellow poster who understands he was from Bihar). Also can't blame your historians to have taught you because of the allergy you have from everything Indian and thus you are not even taught in your books about these events. Your history starts from Mohammed Bin Qasim. Hell you are even taught a shorter version of (or tell me if you are taught at all) all Indian freedom fighters. Your heroes are only the Islamic conquerors who invaded your region, and thanks to you people, you have not been able to resist them and we saw Islamic invasion. 

Infact about almost entire freedom struggle. Your kids are not even taught about Bhagat singh who was from current Pakistan and was proudly calling himself Indian (He would have died again if he knew that coming from that part of India would mean everything including him is a Pakistani.) Lmao.

3rd Para - yes I agree with you that being born in Pakistan doesn't make him Pakistani, or being born in India doesn't make Musharraf Indian. Please apply the same thing for Porus and other Hindu kings who existed on the current side of Pakistan. Infact those Hindu Kings were the first to have resisted Alexander even before Porus (the Hindu King) , and after he failed it was the fear of Nandas that stopped Alexander. Just to give you a hint -Porus used elephants in the battles. But am sure you wont even undwrstand what I am saying. These things come from basics, which unfortunately you have missed in your Pakistani school and all your theories are based on your Google (thank google please)but am sure your searched hasn't reached to that point while you will be stuck to Huns.


----------



## xyxmt

Pakistan has also kicked asses of some other "greats" too
and pre-empted 2030 great already

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Mirza Jatt said:


> Is that how you call it Hindustan ? well sorry to say your history might starts from Islamic history...for the rest of the world it doesn't.. no one even referes to India as Hindustan.. the term is relatively modern compared to the terms India and Bharatvarsh. Even if purely for the sake of argument if I take it as true... still, see the antiquity between the word Hindustan and the term Pakistan. Just no comparison and even a kid can say which is older. But anyhow, the word Hindustan itself is invalid, in terms of Modern India as well as from the historical facts.



This is the language used by the pre-Islamic Arab society in which Prophet Muhammad grew up. Arabs in that time were sea-farers and traders who had extensive networks in Sindh and Hind.

There has always been a dichotomy of Indus and Gangetic civilization.

The fact we embraced Paganism akin to Babylon, then Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, and finally found permanence in Islam proves our different cultural outlook.

While you in India are insular, protectionist, and revisionist about your culture, language, city names, and history, We Pakistanis were never averse to borrowing what is good from other cultures.

Whether Babylonian culture, Greek science, Persian philosophy, Arab religion, or Turkish military.

You forget that we were important parts of the Greek, Persian, Abdali/Hepthalite, Scythian/Saka, Parthian, Arab empires which India never was.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Mirza Jatt said:


> Lol.. let me educate you...the term India was coined from Indika, not Indus.. its your Islamic history that uses Indus to name it Hindustan (again your history, not the rest of the world, who knew to refer India after the word Indika)
> 
> And lol..no..you never changed your name..you did not even had a word to call the current Pakistani region separately.. as much it might hurt your ego, it was called India (even the britishers called it India although they never vistied India earlier..you think that's because of Indus river? No. Megasthenes was popular and so was the term India even before you had any concentration of Islamic followers in the Indus valley region. Does that ring any bell? Thanks to the him, we still can claim what's ours, or else the way you people are trying to call every Hindu heritage as yours, you may have even called everything under the sky as Pakistani.
> 
> Oh did we.name.ourselves after Indus? Lol.. again..read what I wrote above.
> 
> Your 4th para - Hell no..you can't get funnier than that. Indus has been a Hindu land until Islamic invasion, please follow your fellow Pakistani members atleast. India was coined after Indika ..though I agree that it may have been named after Indus, its funny , you claim it to be not a part of India. Well i don't blame you after you tried links after links tried to prove all the established historians in the planet as wrong after claiming Mauryans as Pakistani. (you can learn feom your fellow poster who understands he was from Bihar). Also can't blame your historians to have taught you because of the allergy you have from everything Indian and thus you are not even taught in your books about these events. Your history starts from Mohammed Bin Qasim. Hell you are even taught a shorter version of (or tell me if you are taught at all) all Indian freedom fighters. Your heroes are only the Islamic conquerors who invaded your region, and thanks to you people, you have not been able to resist them and we saw Islamic invasion.
> 
> Infact about almost entire freedom struggle. Your kids are not even taught about Bhagat singh who was from current Pakistan and was proudly calling himself Indian (He would have died again if he knew that coming from that part of India would mean everything including him is a Pakistani.) Lmao.
> 
> 3rd Para - yes I agree with you that being born in Pakistan doesn't make him Pakistani, or being born in India doesn't make Musharraf Indian. Please apply the same thing for Porus and other Hindu kings who existed on the current side of Pakistan. Infact those Hindu Kings were the first to have resisted Alexander even before Porus (the Hindu King) , and after he failed it was the fear of Nandas that stopped Alexander. Just to give you a hint -Porus used elephants in the battles. But am sure you wont even undwrstand what I am saying. These things come from basics, which unfortunately you have missed in your Pakistani school and all your theories are based on your Google (thank google please)but am sure your searched hasn't reached to that point while you will be stuck to Huns.



You also call yourselves Hindustan. What do you think HAL stands for?

Yes we did, it was called the Indus Valley. it was only part of the same region of Hindustan (and even then, that's only the eastern half, the western half was considered part of the same region as Afghanistan). As @Talwar e Pakistan showed before, your Gangadeshi ancestors considered us as aliens. 

It's not our fault that IVC, Panini, Porus, etc come from Pakistan. Them being Hindu can at best mean they only belong to Pakistani Hindus, but certainly not Gangadeshis. 

No, the Indus followed a variety of religions, and was in fact a major centre for Buddhism. 

Of course we support the Islamic invasions, our nation exists because of them. Why would we oppose the invaders? We are descended from them as well as people who fought with them, and not all of them were foreign (you had Pashtuns like Muhammad Ghor, Allaudin Khiliji, Ahmed Shah Durrani and Sher Shah Suri, Punjabis like Hyder Ali, Tipu Sultan and Shahrullah Khan, Kashmiris like Sikander Shah Mir, Baluchis like Mir Chakar Rind, etc). 

Why would we teach about those idiots who thought they were the same as people in Tamil Nadu or Bangalore? 

You didn't read my last paragraph right.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mirza Jatt

dsr478 said:


> You also call yourselves Hindustan. What do you think HAL stands for?
> 
> Yes we did, it was called the Indus Valley. it was only part of the same region of Hindustan (and even then, that's only the eastern half, the western half was considered part of the same region as Afghanistan). As @Talwar e Pakistan showed before, your Gangadeshi ancestors considered us as aliens.
> 
> It's not our fault that IVC, Panini, Porus, etc come from Pakistan. Them being Hindu can at best mean they only belong to Pakistani Hindus, but certainly not Gangadeshis.
> 
> No, the Indus followed a variety of religions, and was in fact a major centre for Buddhism.
> 
> Of course we support the Islamic invasions, our nation exists because of them. Why would we oppose the invaders? We are descended from them as well as people who fought with them, and not all of them were foreign (you had Pashtuns like Muhammad Ghor, Allaudin Khiliji, Ahmed Shah Durrani and Sher Shah Suri, Punjabis like Hyder Ali, Tipu Sultan and Shahrullah Khan, Kashmiris like Sikander Shah Mir, Baluchis like Mir Chakar Rind, etc).
> 
> Why would we teach about those idiots who thought they were the same as people in Tamil Nadu or Bangalore?
> 
> You didn't read my last paragraph right.



1st Para - HAL does stand for Hindustan..now how does that mean it came into being before the term India or how is Pakistan older than Hindustan? Lol.. it simply means Pakistan is a modern term and not even comparable to your own invented term call Hindustan, forget about the actual word India. Again thanks to Indus and Indika... the word India is older than there was any term Islam in Indus valley...should not even talk about the term Pakistan, which is carved on the principles of Islam Itself.

2nd para - Indus valley was never used as a region for Muslims. If there was any term invented at all after the concentration of Muslims in the Hindu region of Indus Valley it was Pakistan. Also ask your older generation if the region was ever called as Indus Valley before partition ? They simply didn't have any teem to use other than Hindustan Or India (for the england returned educated population.like Nehru and Jinnah ). That will give you enough clue. 

3rd para - Of course they are Hindus (thanks for accepting, it will be easier henceforth ). As I said, calling them Pakistanis is like Calling Bhagat Singh Pakistani just because he was born there. They fought for a land that was 'Never Islamic' but being a Hindu, it was their motherland. And Dharti mata or Soil Goddess( and you are aliens to that concepts). The fact that you had to abolish everything Non Islamic and choose purely Islamic heroes, tell us a great deal, how your Hindu ancestry is accepted. The fact that Porus a Hindu king and ALL other Hindu kings (yes they existed ) in indus valley civilisation resisted invasions should be enough to tell you, you guys can either claim to be is descendent's (which you refuse) or tell us that you came from the Islamists (non Hindus). Now if you claim the first , it makes sense, but if you claim to have come either from India (1947) or to have to have genes of those islamic invaders .. then even a kid can understand the equation , thart you didn't stop Alexander (as you were simply not present ). Tell me if you still didn't get it. I can repeat.

4th Para - I so agree with you. This is the only accepted historical fact that you are talking about. Yes Multi religion did exist . Those 200 odd years of Maurya empire played the most Imoortant role to spread them. I can even name them fir your education.. and guess what the list does not contain Islam. Infact all those religion suffered the most due to Islamic invasion your proud of but now to save your theory of cultural Pakistan 
, You are willing to accept those religions as your. Very Hypocritical.

5th Para - Now this is the best thing you have written so far. Yes you don't oppose Islamic Invasion and your entire existence exists becahse of those invaders who were 'Not the part of land'. You used the word 'also' which means you are ready to agree that Porus was part of your ancestry. Now see this - From your own arguments :- Porus who fought Alexander were hindus and a large chunk of them later converted to Islam. The remaining chunk who are part of the invaders did not even fight Alexander. there is another chunk from india of course. Hence you do have a mixed race and none of them fought Alexander.

6th Para - Again.. we are so synced and are in agreement now . Yes ..thanks for accepting you are not taught about them, and that should be the clue how history in Pakistan is subject to edition according to the principles of Islam. You might have a rich past, but your Islamic principles don't allow your kids to read about them. so I don't expect you people to even know properly about pre Islamic Insdus history and your arguments are jus reflective of that. I am still laughing on Maurya na were from Pakistan.

6th Para - I might have missed it. Running fever and am using a mobile to type. Very uncomfortable.. kindly post it again..I will surely answer.


----------



## Mirza Jatt

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> This is the language used by the pre-Islamic Arab society in which Prophet Muhammad grew up. Arabs in that time were sea-farers and traders who had extensive networks in Sindh and Hind.
> 
> There has always been a dichotomy of Indus and Gangetic civilization.
> 
> The fact we embraced Paganism akin to Babylon, then Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, and finally found permanence in Islam proves our different cultural outlook.
> 
> While you in India are insular, protectionist, and revisionist about your culture, language, city names, and history, We Pakistanis were never averse to borrowing what is good from other cultures.
> 
> Whether Babylonian culture, Greek science, Persian philosophy, Arab religion, or Turkish military.
> 
> You forget that we were important parts of the Greek, Persian, Abdali/Hepthalite, Scythian/Saka, Parthian, Arab empires which India never was.


Agreed. That's a term used by Islamic followers and not by anyone in the world except the people who are aware of local.language. 

Invaders were fought before they lost bro..and then the conversion happened. People who were brave , resisted and got killed and their idols broken. It was a bloody forceful spread bro..don't tell me you don't know that. Ir might be peacefulater on, but the penetration was bloody. I being a sikh also can relate to it. (Different era though.)

Open to new ideas ? I dnt want to talk about it bro. I might end up sounding very offending. On a different topic, I can te you that you should realise that you are talking to a Sikh, which was started by Khatri Hindus. Enough prove dor you to know how open Indians were to new thoughts. Infact even Islam found many appreciated in historic as well as modern India., So your argument go for a toss here...oh I should also tell you Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism all were started by the people who belong to Hindus because they were open to ideas..you argument is absolutely not valid.

Yes you did come from partly from those invaders.. agreed. That tells you that chunk didn't existe when Alexander was here.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Mirza Jatt said:


> I being a sikh also can relate to it. (Different era though.)



Still crying about Jahangir and Durrani I see.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pan-Islamic-Pakistan

Much of what we know today about the Vikings, Slavs, Pagan Turks, Pakistan ancestors, and Indian ancestors is because of Arab travelers like Al Biruni or Muslim conquerors like Babur.

Hinduism itself evolved over time as a result of contact with Islam. Kabir was raised by Muslim foster parents and wanted to bring monotheism, set of laws to Hinduism to better be able to come to equality with Islam.

How much of Hinduism today is a result of borrowing from Islamic philosophy, ethics, afterlife, and culture of the Muslims?

As for Sikhs, Guru Nanak was a devout Muslim who made Hajj. Sikhism also changed a lot over time due to new Gurus and relations with the Mughals, Afghans, and British. Only in your recent history have you become similar to Hindus.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Mirza Jatt said:


> 1st Para - HAL does stand for Hindustan..now how does that mean it came into being before the term India or how is Pakistan older than Hindustan? Lol.. it simply means Pakistan is a modern term and not even comparable to your own invented term call Hindustan, forget about the actual word India. Again thanks to Indus and Indika... the word India is older than there was any term Islam in Indus valley...should not even talk about the term Pakistan, which is carved on the principles of Islam Itself.
> 
> 2nd para - Indus valley was never used as a region for Muslims. If there was any term invented at all after the concentration of Muslims in the Hindu region of Indus Valley it was Pakistan. Also ask your older generation if the region was ever called as Indus Valley before partition ? They simply didn't have any teem to use other than Hindustan Or India (for the england returned educated population.like Nehru and Jinnah ). That will give you enough clue.
> 
> 3rd para - Of course they are Hindus (thanks for accepting, it will be easier henceforth ). As I said, calling them Pakistanis is like Calling Bhagat Singh Pakistani just because he was born there. They fought for a land that was 'Never Islamic' but being a Hindu, it was their motherland. And Dharti mata or Soil Goddess( and you are aliens to that concepts). The fact that you had to abolish everything Non Islamic and choose purely Islamic heroes, tell us a great deal, how your Hindu ancestry is accepted. The fact that Porus a Hindu king and ALL other Hindu kings (yes they existed ) in indus valley civilisation resisted invasions should be enough to tell you, you guys can either claim to be is descendent's (which you refuse) or tell us that you came from the Islamists (non Hindus). Now if you claim the first , it makes sense, but if you claim to have come either from India (1947) or to have to have genes of those islamic invaders .. then even a kid can understand the equation , thart you didn't stop Alexander (as you were simply not present ). Tell me if you still didn't get it. I can repeat.
> 
> 4th Para - I so agree with you. This is the only accepted historical fact that you are talking about. Yes Multi religion did exist . Those 200 odd years of Maurya empire played the most Imoortant role to spread them. I can even name them fir your education.. and guess what the list does not contain Islam. Infact all those religion suffered the most due to Islamic invasion your proud of but now to save your theory of cultural Pakistan
> , You are willing to accept those religions as your. Very Hypocritical.
> 
> 5th Para - Now this is the best thing you have written so far. Yes you don't oppose Islamic Invasion and your entire existence exists becahse of those invaders who were 'Not the part of land'. You used the word 'also' which means you are ready to agree that Porus was part of your ancestry. Now see this - From your own arguments :- Porus who fought Alexander were hindus and a large chunk of them later converted to Islam. The remaining chunk who are part of the invaders did not even fight Alexander. there is another chunk from india of course. Hence you do have a mixed race and none of them fought Alexander.
> 
> 6th Para - Again.. we are so synced and are in agreement now . Yes ..thanks for accepting you are not taught about them, and that should be the clue how history in Pakistan is subject to edition according to the principles of Islam. You might have a rich past, but your Islamic principles don't allow your kids to read about them. so I don't expect you people to even know properly about pre Islamic Insdus history and your arguments are jus reflective of that. I am still laughing on Maurya na were from Pakistan.
> 
> 6th Para - I might have missed it. Running fever and am using a mobile to type. Very uncomfortable.. kindly post it again..I will surely answer.



We could be called decepticons for all I care, names mean nothing. IVC, Porus and Panini among others still belong to us. We are a mixed people descended from various places, but our main identities are our Islamic and Indus identities because they have influenced us the most.

The Pakistani history curriculum teaches pre-Islamic as well as Islamic history, it only focuses more on the Islamic part since we identify with it more.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mirza Jatt

dsr478 said:


> We could be called decepticons for all I care, names mean nothing. IVC, Porus and Panini among others still belong to us. We are a mixed people descended from various places, but our main identities are our Islamic and Indus identities because they have influenced us the most.
> 
> The Pakistani history curriculum teaches pre-Islamic as well as Islamic history, it only focuses more on the Islamic part since we identify with it more.


So I guess you don't have any single optuon to choose from the options I gave you, to choose to help it easier to come to a conclusion. So am I supposed togo back without an answer ? Ok. I rest it here then. Do quote me whenever you come up with it.



Again.I have to agree with you in last part . But sadly the pre Islamic history is vast and ignoring it has jus resulted in twisted beliefs in young minds in your schools. Cant blame you though. If I was a Pakistani historian, I would advocate for more openness to history, irrespective of my religious principles. 

Can't be awake since down with fever...do quote me..might answer it tomorrow noon. It was a nice discussion. See ya.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Mirza Jatt

dsr478 said:


> Still crying about Jahangir and Durrani I see.


Ah missed this one..

Is that what your take away point is from that long post? That I am crying about Jahangir ? Trust me I have no words to thank my Gurus for Sikhism. But alas, I will never be able to convey my feelings about my religion and the goodness through any number if post. This I guess is true to all religion whether Islam or hinduism or Sikhism. Let's not get religious here.. I somehow end up offending people when it comes to religion.. so please don't quote me on this topic. Good night.


----------



## Mirza Jatt

Pan-Islamic-Pakistan said:


> Much of what we know today about the Vikings, Slavs, Pagan Turks, Pakistan ancestors, and Indian ancestors is because of Arab travelers like Al Biruni or Muslim conquerors like Babur.
> 
> Hinduism itself evolved over time as a result of contact with Islam. Kabir was raised by Muslim foster parents and wanted to bring monotheism, set of laws to Hinduism to better be able to come to equality with Islam.
> 
> How much of Hinduism today is a result of borrowing from Islamic philosophy, ethics, afterlife, and culture of the Muslims?
> 
> As for Sikhs, Guru Nanak was a devout Muslim who made Hajj. Sikhism also changed a lot over time due to new Gurus and relations with the Mughals, Afghans, and British. Only in your recent history have you become similar to Hindus.


No sir. am afraid.. all your point are so so invalid. I can refute them point by point like a cake walk.Also Guru Nanak was a Muslim? I have no qualms in accepting that. But I too might have conditions...anyway..am.not keeping well so will carry on this discussion with you tomorrow if am well. Good night.


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

Mirza Jatt said:


> These fantasies can only be found on PDF. But glad to see Pakistanis finally accepting that they are sons of Pauravas, Nandas and Guptas.
> 
> Pados ke Gupta uncle khush toh bahut honge aaj


Guptas never maintained full control over the Indus Valley, they only managed to gain tributary states there and it wasn't long before these states stopped paying tribute to them and gain full independence. 

Nandas hardly controlled the far frontiers of Eastern Punjab, we don't even know if they stepped into Punjab and even if they did; their control there would've been extremely brief. 

Pauravas, on the other hand, were smack-dab in the middle of Punjab and modern-day Pakistan; hence we consider them a part of our native history and people.


----------



## Mirza Jatt

Talwar e Pakistan said:


> Guptas never maintained full control over the Indus Valley, they only managed to gain tributary states there and it wasn't long before these states stopped paying tribute to them and gain full independence.
> 
> Nandas hardly controlled the far frontiers of Eastern Punjab, we don't even know if they stepped into Punjab and even if they did; their control there would've been extremely brief.
> 
> Pauravas, on the other hand, were smack-dab in the middle of Punjab and modern-day Pakistan; hence we consider them a part of our native history and people.


Ok so Hindu Pauravas are your real ancestors...cool.


----------



## Talwar e Pakistan

SOUTHie said:


> Sorry, you are referring to (Bahlikas) Bactrians. When you read a source, read it fully.


Here is what you're own Hindu sources have to say about the location of Bahlikas.

_“that (region) where these five rivers, emerging from the mountains flow, this Aratta (country) is called Balhika where the Arya should not stay even for two days”.

“Aratta is the name of the country. Balhika is the name of the people and are generally abused as Vasatis, *Sindhus*, and Sauviras”
_
Notice how they were also called *Sindhus*, meaning inhabitants of Sindh (Indus), similiarly Greeks and Persians called them _Hindhus_ or _Indoos_ as well.



SOUTHie said:


>


Instead of using emojis to dodge refutations, please continue your debate with factual evidence.



Mirza Jatt said:


> cause accepting that Porus was a Hindu king was acceptable to your forefathers





Mirza Jatt said:


> Pakistan never existed then, the land was ruled by Hindu Kings.





Mirza Jatt said:


> Porus was a Hindu king so saying he was a Pakistani, makes your forefather Hindus who gave a huge fight to Alexander.





Mirza Jatt said:


> Indus has been a Hindu land until Islamic invasion, please follow your fellow Pakistani members atleast.


You keep claiming Porus was a Hindu without providing any evidence at all because there is none. He would've most likely followed a form of religion that is known today as _Punjabi Folk Religion_ or also previously known as Nastadharam (destroyed religion) by the Hindus as described in Hindu texts regarding the religion of the Indus people.

Indus was not a Hindu land even though you guys are taught that everyone was Hindu until "evel moozlims" came and forcefully converted everyone. The Indus region was always religiously diverse but shared core beliefs (such as ancestor worship), Hinduism was hardly ever dominant due to cultural incompatibility.

Prior to the birth of Islam; Sindh, parts of Punjab and Gandhara (KPK) mainly practised a form of Buddhism, Zoroastrianism was also a major religion. Multan (South Punjab) mainly practised a fusion of Zoroastrianism and local religions while North Punjab mainly practised folk religions but also had some Hindu and Buddhist Rajas rulers. Gilgit Baltistan mainly followed Buddhism, Bon and local religions. 

Our ancestors ate meat and buried their dead as loathingly recorded in Hindu texts.



> _"I remember from the days of my youth that a slaughter-ground for kine and a space for storing intoxicating spirits always distinguish the entrances of the abodes of the (Vahika) kings. On some very secret mission I had to live among the Vahikas. In consequence of such residence the conduct of these people is well known to me. There is a town of the name of *Sakala* (modern day Sialkote), a river of the name of Apaga, and a clan of the Vahikas known by the name of the *Jarttikas*. The practices of these people are very censurable. They drink the *liquor called Gauda*, and eat *fried barley* with it. They also eat *beef with garlic*. They also eat *cakes of flour mixed with meat*, and *boiled rice* that is bought from others. Of righteous practices they have none." (8,44)_



Here are excerpts of a Book written by a very renowned and famed Indian historian and Indologist Malati J. Shendge, one of the few Indian historians left that do not let nationalism blur actual history. @Kaptaan, you may find this interesting.

















Mirza Jatt said:


> There was never an identity called Pakistan in that era. It was India.





Mirza Jatt said:


> Don't try to compare the term Pakistan (created few decades back) with the term Hindustan to save your argument...compare it with India (created thousand of years ago).





Mirza Jatt said:


> Lol.. let me educate you...the term India was coined from Indika, not Indus.. its your Islamic history that uses Indus to name it Hindustan (again your history, not the rest of the world, who knew to refer India after the word Indika)





Mirza Jatt said:


> And lol..no..you never changed your name..you did not even had a word to call the current Pakistani region separately.. as much it might hurt your ego, it was called India (even the britishers called it India although they never vistied India earlier..you think that's because of Indus river? No. Megasthenes was popular and so was the term India even before you had any concentration of Islamic followers in the Indus valley region. Does that ring any bell? Thanks to the him, we still can claim what's ours, or else the way you people are trying to call every Hindu heritage as yours, you may have even called everything under the sky as Pakistani.



I will answer all of this with a previous post of mine.



> Both the name Hindustan and (latin) India comes from the Persian word _Hindhu _which comes from the word _Sindhu_, the name of the Indus River. People living on the Indus River were thus called _Hindus_ by the Persians while they were called _Sindhus_ by the Indians in their vedic texts (_Sindhus are referred to as a foreign people)_.
> 
> Neither the Persians nor the Greeks had substantial knowledge of what was East to the Indus River.
> 
> For example; if you look at the most accurate map of that time; map of Herodotus - Modern-day India is not even a part of the map.
> 
> Due to a lack of information, the land East of the Indus was also referred to as Indika (by the Greeks) and Hindhu (by the Persians), they thought that if they kept going East of the Indus, they would shortly reach the Caspian Sea, Central Asia or even the end of the world.
> 
> As knowledge of the area grew, the name had already stuck.
> 
> (Notice the tribes labelled on the Indus River are all Iranic/Central Asian)





Mirza Jatt said:


> Invaders were fought before they lost bro..and then the conversion happened. People who were brave , resisted and got killed and their idols broken. It was a bloody forceful spread bro..don't tell me you don't know that. Ir might be peacefulater on, but the penetration was bloody. I being a sikh also can relate to it. (Different era though.)


Invaders came here to loot, settle and plunder just as their predecessors from Central Asia did, the only difference being that this time they converted to Islam. They did not come here to convert anyone. The first "Muslim Invaders" of South Asia; the Umayyads, actually discouraged conversion to Islam.

Islam was mostly spread by Sufi missionaries, almost every clan/tribe can trace their conversion back to a specific Sufi saint whom they overly venerate (a pre-Islamic practise of Punjab). Islam's spread was also caused by many Hindu/Buddhist Kings converting to Islam. Rinchana was a Buddhist King of Kashmir and voluntarily converted to Islam, shifting most of his people towards Islam in the process.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## UnitedPak

Mirza Jatt said:


> Ok so Hindu Pauravas are your real ancestors...cool.



All Muslims have non-Muslim ancestors. Religion doesn't define ancestry. I will bet you think you are making a point, but it seems you have no understanding of how heritage works. And you seem obsessed with religion in what is a geo-ethnic discussion.

Please stop embarrassing yourself.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## padamchen

Porus was a Persian satrap leading Indian troops.

Fact.

Cheers, Doc


----------



## Taimur Khurram

padamchen said:


> Porus was a Persian satrap *leading Indian troops.*



Wrong, the overwhelming majority of his troops would have been from the Potohar Plateau like he was. Maybe a few of them would have been mercenaries from the same region as the modern day Republic of Hindustan, but not most of them.

Also, do you have any proof he was a Persian satrap?


----------



## Jaanbaz

Don't know why Indians and Pakistanis fighting, Alexander took down the world power(Perisa) down but almost got himself killed by a small Tribal King from Punjab. I think had he crossed Indus he would have perished along with all of his Macedonian invaders. 

This is Jehlum......


----------



## BHarwana

....


----------



## padamchen

dsr478 said:


> Wrong, the overwhelming majority of his troops would have been from the Potohar Plateau like he was. Maybe a few of them would have been mercenaries from the same region as the modern day Republic of Hindustan, but not most of them.
> 
> Also, do you have any proof he was a Persian satrap?



Please read.

The entire Puru thing only comes from subcontinental sources.

Cheers, Doc


----------



## Taimur Khurram

padamchen said:


> Please read.



I have, AFAIK he was descended from the Puru tribe of the Vedic people and he ruled over northern Punjab, with his territory mostly in Pakistan. 

Also, sub-continental sources aren't the most reliable.


----------



## padamchen

dsr478 said:


> Also, sub-continental sources aren't the most reliable.



Exactly.

Have you ever heard of a Hindu called Porus?

Porus (and its Old Avestan more formal version Porushasp) have been Persian boy names for closing on 3500 years now.

Even today there are many Porus Parsi males. One in my family.

Have you ever heard of a Hindu Porus?

Why?

Should they not be naming their boys after arguably their only international military hero?

Please read Greek and Roman sources. Arrian being the most widely accepted and quoted. They are the most accurate. As they were the adversaries.

Read John D Clare.

Cheers, Doc

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Taimur Khurram

padamchen said:


> Exactly.
> 
> Have you ever heard of a Hindu called Porus?
> 
> Porus (and its Old Avestan more formal version Porushasp) have been Persian boy names for closing on 3500 years now.
> 
> Even today there are many Porus Parsi males. One in my family.
> 
> Have you ever heard of a Hindu Porus?
> 
> Why?
> 
> Should they not be naming their boys after arguably their only international military hero?
> 
> Please read Greek and Roman sources. They are the most accurate. As they were the adversaries.
> 
> Cheers, Doc



Except Puru was the name of a Vedic tribe, Porus could easily be related to them.


----------



## padamchen

dsr478 said:


> Except Puru was the name of a Vedic tribe, Porus could easily be related to them.



Read Arrian.

Read John D Clare.

The troops and elephants were Indian no doubt.

Cheers, Doc


----------



## Taimur Khurram

padamchen said:


> Read Arrian.
> 
> Read John D Clare.
> 
> The troops and elephants were Indian no doubt.
> 
> Cheers, Doc



Maybe, if I get the time.

Troops were Pothwari, but yes the elephants would have been Hindustani (elephants are not native to Pakistan AFAIK).


----------



## padamchen

dsr478 said:


> Maybe, if I get the time.
> 
> Troops were Pothwari, but yes the elephants would have been Hindustani (elephants are not native to Pakistan AFAIK).



Baba in those days there were two mega civilizations abutting each other.

The Hindu civilization. The Persian civilization.

The Indus Valley Civilization itself was an amalgam of highland Iranic people coming down and mingling with Indic plains dwellers and herdsmen.

This is now borne out by recent genetic studies.

Persian satrapy extended significantly into what is now Pakistan.

The Vedic Puru tribe itself are close cousins of the early Avestan Aryans.

The Mahabharata for all intents and purposes speaks of the later continuum of the schism between the two. The Ahura (Asura) worshippers and the Deva (Daeva) worshippers. Even though the account is primarily Indic (The War of the Ten Kings).

Cheers, Doc

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimur Khurram

padamchen said:


> Baba in those days there were two mega civilizations abutting each other.
> 
> The Hindu civilization. The Persian civilization.
> 
> The Indus Valley Civilization itself was an amalgam of highland Iranic people coming down and mingling with Indic plains dwellers and herdsmen.
> 
> This is now borne out by recent genetic studies.
> 
> Persian satrapy extended significantly into what is now Pakistan.
> 
> The Vedic Puru tribe itself are close cousins of the early Avestan Aryans.
> 
> The Mahabharata for all intents and purposes speaks of the later continuum of the schism between the two. The Ahura (Asura) worshippers and the Deva (Daeva) worshippers. Even though the account is primarily Indic (The War of the Ten Kings).
> 
> Cheers, Doc



Please don't call me Baba, I'm almost certain I'm younger than you.

We don't know the ethno-linguistic group of IVC, but they were not Indo-Aryans (they came about during the Vedic migrations) nor Iranic people (they came about during other Aryan migrations). They could have been related to the ancestors of many Iranic people though and were almost certainly the ancestors of many Indo-Aryan people today.

I'd like to see those genetic studies. 

Yes, the early Vedic people were related to the nearby Iranic people. In fact, Sanskrit was pretty similar to Avestan.


----------



## padamchen

dsr478 said:


> Please don't call me Baba, I'm almost certain I'm younger than you.
> 
> We don't know the ethno-linguistic group of IVC, but they were not Indo-Aryans (they came about during the Vedic migrations) nor Iranic people (they came about during other Aryan migrations). They could have been related to the ancestors of many Iranic people though and were almost certainly the ancestors of many Indo-Aryan people today.
> 
> I'd like to see those genetic studies.
> 
> Yes, the early Vedic people were related to the nearby Iranic people. In fact, Sanskrit was pretty similar to Avestan.



Baba is what we call little boys.

Cultural thing.

The IVC thing was a discussion I had with Joe recently.

Personally, I believe that the IVC was more bronze age Iranic than Indic. The bull. The priest. The open air burial pits. Joe disagreed (partially) and pulled some back for his own team. I respect Joe and his grasp of history, so ...

@Joe Shearer

Cheers, Doc

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Pakistani E

padamchen said:


> Indian no doubt.



Glad you have no doubts. I am guessing you had their birth certificates and NADRA cards checked?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## padamchen

Sher Shah Awan said:


> Glad you have no doubts. I am guessing you had their birth certificates and NADRA cards checked?



Stupid post. Out of character.

Cheers, Doc


----------



## Pakistani E

padamchen said:


> *Stupid* post



Just a mirror then...


----------



## Indus Priest King

padamchen said:


> Baba in those days there were two mega civilizations abutting each other.* The Hindu civilization. The Persian civilization.*



Which "Hindu" civilization are you referring to? The Persian Zoroastrian Civilization and the Indus Vedic Civilization were not abutting each other, they got along just fine because both faiths were essentially from a common religion and culture from Central Asia.

The problem was with the Puranic Hindus of the Ganges Plain and the Bharatas who abandoned the Indus Valley and Vedic faith to create their own religion, from which the Puranas, Manusmirti, Ramayana, Mahabharata were written. These are all Gangetic texts and the faith they created (modern Hinduism/Brahmanism) has nothing to do with the Vedic faith whatsoever. Rather it's a mix of Vedic and indigenous Dravidian religions, which is what today Hinduism is dominated by. They hated the Indus Vedics...called them Mlecha and called the Indus Valley "Vahika Desa"....the Indus was considered "unholy land" according to the Puranic Hindus. Similarly, the Rig Veda held similar injunctions against the Ganges....referring to those people as Dasyus and the land Dasyuvarta.

This is why I laugh when Puranic Hindus talk about "Aryavarta"...a mythical land that never existed, just like Akhand Bharat.

If the Vedic people were still around today and visited India, they'd probably get lynched by Hindutava mobs. Vedics ate beef, buried their dead and had a non-hierarchical caste system. The Vedic faith and Zorastrian faith were very common...if anything the Avestans of Persia and Vedics of the Indus were cousins.



> The Indus Valley Civilization itself was an amalgam of highland Iranic people coming down and mingling with Indic plains dwellers and herdsmen.



"Indic" is linguistic...the term you should be using is INDUS...and that's right, the early ancient Iranians migrated east and their ancestors founded Mehrgarh, which eventually formed the Indus Valley (Harappan) Civilization.



> Persian satrapy extended significantly into what is now Pakistan.



There is no such thing as "Persian Satrapy". The term Satrapy refers to Province...there were 5 Satrapy in the Indus Valley.

~Gandhara Satrapy~
Established: 518 BC
Capital: Pushkalavati (Charsadda)
Gandhara Satrapy was established in the general region of the old Gandhara Vedic Kingdom (modern-day northern Khyber Pakhtunkhwa). During Achaemenid rule, the Kharosthi alphabet, derived from the one used for Aramaic (the official language of Achaemenids), developed here and remained the national script of Gandhara until 200 AD.

~Hindush Satrapy~
Established: 518 BC
Capital: Taxila
Hindush Satrapy was established in upper Punjab (presumably in the Potohar plateau).

~Arachosia Satrapy~
Established: 517 BC
Capital: Kandahar
Arachosia Satrapy was one of the larger provinces covering much of lower Punjab, southern Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Helmand.The inhabitants of Arachosia referred to as Paktyans by ethnicity, and that name may have been in reference to the ethnic Pax̌tūn (Pashtun) tribes.

~Sattagydia Satrapy~
Established: 516 BC
Capital: Unknown
Modern day regions: Sindh
Sattagydia is mentioned for the first time in the Behistun inscription of Darius the Great as one of the provinces in revolt while the king was in Babylon. The revolt was presumably suppressed in 515 BC. The satrapy disappears from sources after 480 BC, possible being mentioned by another name or included with other regions.

~Gedrosia (or Maka) Satrapy~
Established: 542 BC
Capital: Unknown
Gedrosia Satrapy (or Maka Satrapy) covered the Makran coast of southern Balochistan. It had been conquered much earlier by Cyrus The Great during the 1st attempt takeover the Indus Valley.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## kalakaar

*Purshottam the Great* , what is Porus? Calling him Porus is an insult to Purshottam the Great. People should address him by his real name.


----------



## Indus Priest King

We call him Porus. Foreign names are not needed. Paorsohomishoeosho whatever is probably from some Gangetic Trash text.


----------



## El Sidd

padamchen said:


> Indian



Is a british slur

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hold up

Indus Priest King said:


> We call him Porus. Foreign names are not needed. Paorsohomishoeosho whatever is probably from some Gangetic Trash text.


Your user-id is stupid.



padamchen said:


> Baba in those days there were two mega civilizations abutting each other.
> 
> The Hindu civilization. The Persian civilization.





dsr478 said:


> Please don't call me Baba, I'm almost certain I'm younger than you.
> 
> We don't know the ethno-linguistic group of IVC, but they were not Indo-Aryans (they came about during the Vedic migrations) nor Iranic people (they came about during other Aryan migrations). They could have been related to the ancestors of many Iranic people though and were almost certainly the ancestors of many Indo-Aryan people today.
> 
> I'd like to see those genetic studies.
> 
> Yes, the early Vedic people were related to the nearby Iranic people. In fact, Sanskrit was pretty similar to Avestan.


Nobody cares about your fking civilizations.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Hold up said:


> Nobody cares about your fking civilizations.



Clearly you guys do, since you love to claim them as your own.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hold up

dsr478 said:


> Clearly you guys do, since you love to claim them as your own.


I don't. There's nothing special about it, just a bunch of rocks and stones.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Hold up said:


> I don't. There's nothing special about it, just a bunch of rocks and stones.



Shame the rest of your comrades aren't exactly like that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hold up

dsr478 said:


> Shame the rest of your comrades aren't exactly like that.


They should get a life then.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Hold up said:


> They should get a life then.



Nothing wrong with taking an interest in history, but it looks silly when one tries to appropriate others history as their own.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hold up

dsr478 said:


> Nothing wrong with taking an interest in history, but it looks silly when one tries to appropriate others history as their own.


They do a lot of weird stuff like claiming Mecca wuz Hindu temple and shit. Ignore them silly plonkers.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## padamchen

dsr478 said:


> Clearly you guys do, since you love to claim them as your own.



He's a Muslim PIO with a chip on his shoulder the size of bhendi bazaar.

Don't mind him.

Cheers, Doc


----------



## Hold up

padamchen said:


> He's a Muslim PIO with a chip on his shoulder the size of bhendi bazaar.
> 
> Don't mind him.
> 
> Cheers, Doc


Says a crazy Parsi wannabe with self-esteem issues.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## padamchen

Hold up said:


> Says a crazy Parsi wannabe with self-esteem issues.



Lol

Parsis do come to Pala galli and Bisti mohalla.

Just to see how the other side live. A little bit like a smelly zoo.

Cheers, Doc


----------



## Hold up

padamchen said:


> Lol
> 
> Parsis do come to Pala galli and Bisti mohalla.
> 
> Just to see how the other side live. A little bit like a smelly zoo.
> 
> Cheers, Doc


Where the fk's that? What you on about? Smelly cunt.


----------



## kalakaar

I am really wishing Pakistanis to start praising to Lord Agni 

Veda says
asya shriye samidhanasya vrishno vasoranikam dum a ruroch
rushdvasanah srudhishikroop shritinar raya puruvaro adyhota!


----------



## Hold up

kalakaar said:


> I am really wishing Pakistanis to start praising to Lord Agni
> 
> Veda says
> asya shriye samidhanasya vrishno vasoranikam dum a ruroch
> rushdvasanah srudhishikroop shritinar raya puruvaro adyhota!


Who's that? Sounds like a cool dude.


----------



## kalakaar

Hold up said:


> Who's that? Sounds like a cool dude.



Indeed it's our beloved Agni dev, the fire God, insulted by Islamic invaders because they say Praise Only Allah. They destroyed our culture and tradition in the region now called as Pakistan.  And the rest of the people who remained there got forcefully converted. Sad!


----------



## Hold up

kalakaar said:


> Indeed it's our beloved Agni dev, the fire God, insulted by Islamic invaders because they say Praise Only Allah. They destroyed our culture and tradition in the region now called as Pakistan.  And the rest of the people who remained there got forcefully converted. Sad!


I am atheist but it sounds cool, vulcan and shit.


----------



## kalakaar

Hold up said:


> I am atheist but it sounds cool, vulcan and shit.



There is provision for athiest also in Vedas. 

"Milk consumed by snakes increases their poison. Similarly, advice given to fools make them even more furious instead of pacifying them.'' Rig veda

implies on you

have a nice day

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hold up

kalakaar said:


> There is provision for athiest also in Vedas.
> 
> "Milk consumed by snakes increases their poison. Similarly, advice given to fools make them even more furious instead of pacifying them.'' Rig veda
> 
> implies on you
> 
> have a nice day


Okay .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dalai Lama

All this recent hoopla about the Indus Valley stems from the fact that Pakistan is currently ranked 20th on the Fragile States index. They have no recent accomplishments be proud of. The word Pakistan is pretty much synonymous with the word terrorism in today's World so it's only natural for them to resort to revisionist history in order to feel some false sense of pride.

20 years ago, the Pakistanis couldn't have cared less about the IVC.

Reactions: Negative Rating Negative Rating:
1 | Like Like:
1


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Vorenus said:


> 20 years ago, the Pakistanis couldn't have cared less about the IVC.



Don't want to talk about IVC? Okay. 

We can bring up the Islamic conquests of Hindustan instead, where hundreds of millions of you were slaughtered and made our slaves for a thousand years.


----------



## Dalai Lama

dsr478 said:


> Don't want to talk about IVC? Okay.
> 
> We can bring up the Islamic conquests of Hindustan instead, where hundreds of millions of you were slaughtered and made our slaves for a thousand years.



Same thing again. You are the direct result of Islamic expansion in the Indian subcontinent, *not* the cause, no matter how much you'd like to be. It's not something to be ashamed of. Likewise, both India and Pakistan were ruled by the British colonialists for 2 centuries and as humiliating it might be to your fragile ego, this is a fact which must be accepted and reconciled with in order to progress.

Like I said before:


Vorenus said:


> The word Pakistan is pretty much synonymous with the word terrorism in today's World so it's only natural for them to resort to revisionist history in order to feel some false sense of pride.



---

Btw, the state I hail from (Karnataka) celebrates the victories of Tipu Sultan against the colonialists. It doesn't matter to us that he was Muslim because he was a son of the lands he fought for.


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Vorenus said:


> Same thing again. You are the direct result of Islamic expansion in the Indian subcontinent, *not* the cause, no matter how much you'd like to be.
> 
> Btw, the state I hail from (Karnataka) celebrates the victories of Tipu Sultan against the colonialists. It doesn't matter to us that he was Muslim because he was a son of the lands he fought for.



Wrong, we are descended from the Islamic conquerors (but most of our ancestry is from other sources):







https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3163234

*"The study showed that the Muslim Gujjars differ significantly from their counterpart, the Hindu Gujjars"*

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20067368

*"we observed a certain degree of genetic contribution from Iran to both Muslim populations"*

Many local Muslim converts were also directly involved in the Islamic conquests:

Khilijis, Durranis, Suri's and Ghurids - Pashtuns (2nd largest ethnic group in Pakistan, Ahmed Shah Durrani and Sher Shah Suri were also born in Pakistani Punjab, they conquered large portions of Hindustan)

http://www.pashtunforums.com/pashtun-history-/38336-ghuri-pashtun-persian.html
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Khalji-dynasty
http://pakteahouse.net/2009/11/25/ahmad-shah-durrani-a-king-of-high-rank/
http://historypak.com/sher-shah-suri/

Mysoreans - Tipu Sultan's grandfather was Punjabi (they defeated the Maratha's and fought bravely against the British)

https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...nd-tumakuru-district/articleshow/61574823.cms

Rind dynasty - Baluchis (at one point they sacked Delhi)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir_Chakar_Rind
https://real-politique.blogspot.com/2009/12/mir-chakar-khan-rind-warrior-hero-of.html

Shah Mir dynasty - Gujjars from Swat (they almost completely wiped out Hinduism/Buddhism from Kashmir, with one ruler even earning the title of iconoclast for the number of idols he destroyed)

http://lostkashmirihistory.com/sultan-sikandar-man-myth/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shah_Mir_dynasty
https://jktribals.page.tl/History-of-Gujjars.htm

Lodi dynasty - Half Pashtun half Punjabi dynasty (ruled over eastern Pakistan and northern Hindustan)

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Lodi-dynasty
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikandar_Lodi

Aurangzeb Alamgir - Was born in the Indus Valley

http://lostislamichistory.com/aurangzeb-and-islamic-rule-in-india/

Shah Jahan - Came from Lahore

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Shah-Jahan

Muhammad Bin Qasim utilised Gujjar and Baluchi mercenaries:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_bin_Qasim#The_campaign

Mahmud Ghaznavi had large numbers of Indo-Aryans fight in his army:

http://www.barmazid.com/2016/11/ghaznavids-had-large-number-of-hindus.html

Babur employed Punjabis into his military:

http://firdosh101.blogspot.com/2009/05/history-of-gakhars.html

Shahbaz Khan was a Punjabi and one of the Mughal Empire's greatest generals during Akbar's reign:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahbaz_Khan_Kamboh

It should matter, back then Muslims considered themselves closer to Muslims of other ethnic groups than Kafirs of their own ethnic group (many still feel the same way today). It's one of the primary reasons why the Muslim Empire's were so ethnically diverse, and why Muslims to this day take pride in the achievements of Muslims of other ethnic groups. This concept is simply non-existent among most communities of other faiths or exists at a significantly weaker degree, the only faith with a comparable type of brotherhood is the Jews.

It's better to think of Islam as a country rather than a religion, and being a practising Muslim as a nationality rather than a reflection someone's personal religion.



Vorenus said:


> Likewise, both India and Pakistan were ruled by the British colonialists for 2 centuries and as humiliating it might be to your fragile ego, this is a fact which must be accepted and reconciled with in order to progress.



Wrong, the majority of Hindustan was ruled by the British for 150 hundred years whilst the majority of the region of Pakistan was ruled by the British for 100 years.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## HariPrasad

And Alexander got a lesson that what would happened if any one tries to mess with Islamic country.

Reactions: Negative Rating Negative Rating:
1 | Like Like:
3


----------



## Dalai Lama

Muhammad Bin Qasim predates all of the rulers you mentioned and he was an Umayyad general who conquered parts of present day Pakistan, namely Sindh and Multan. Before that, the ruler of Sindh was Raja Dahir; the last Hindu ruler of Sindh. The inescapable fact is that you are not an Arab, your ancestors were Hindus who converted to Islam.

The people of the IVC were not Muslim as it predates the advent of Islam.

You guys spend a lot of time thinking about the past instead of building your country, that's why your economy is the state that it's in. You would do well to start thinking about the future of your country. The need for dwelling on the past will diminish as you will have current day achievements which you can feel proud of.

Reactions: Negative Rating Negative Rating:
1 | Like Like:
2


----------



## UnitedPak

HariPrasad said:


> And Alexander got a lesson that what would happened if any one tries to mess with Islamic country.





Vorenus said:


> Muhammad Bin Qasim predates all of the rulers you mentioned and he was an Umayyad general who conquered parts of present day Pakistan, namely Sindh and Multan. Before that, the ruler of Sindh was Raja Dahir; the last Hindu ruler of Sindh. The inescapable fact is that you are not an Arab, your ancestors were Hindus who converted to Islam.
> 
> The people of the IVC were not Muslim as it predates the advent of Islam.
> 
> You guys spend a lot of time thinking about the past instead of building your country, that's why your economy is the state that it's in. You would do well to start thinking about the future of your country. The need for dwelling on the past will diminish as you will have current day achievements which you can feel proud of.



Two more Gangas rise up from their swamp bleating on about religion and obsession with Islam.

We are discussing Pakistani history and Pakistani ancestors here. Keep derailing this thread with your obsession with religion and you will end up with bans.



Vorenus said:


> Btw, the state I hail from (Karnataka) celebrates the victories of Tipu Sultan against the colonialists. It doesn't matter to us that he was Muslim because he was a son of the lands he fought for



By the same token, Indus Valley is our history and heritage. No amount of gangetic tears will change this.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Taimur Khurram

Vorenus said:


> Muhammad Bin Qasim predates all of the rulers you mentioned and he was an Umayyad general who conquered parts of present day Pakistan, namely Sindh and Multan. Before that, the ruler of Sindh was Raja Dahir; the last Hindu ruler of Sindh. The inescapable fact is that you are not an Arab, your ancestors were Hindus who converted to Islam.
> 
> The people of the IVC were not Muslim as it predates the advent of Islam.
> 
> You guys spend a lot of time thinking about the past instead of building your country, that's why your economy is the state that it's in. You would do well to start thinking about the future of your country. The need for dwelling on the past will diminish as you will have current day achievements which you can feel proud of.



Did you read my post? I clearly showed that yes we are descended from people who migrated here during the Islamic conquests, that many Pakistanis fought under Qasim's leadership, and that as Muslims our religion comes before our ethnicity, so we will take heroes based on whether or not they fought for Islam first and foremost (it's literally haram to do otherwise, some even consider it kufr). This is your first and final warning, read what I write or don't bother responding. Pakistan literally exists because of these Islamic conquests and we are Muslim just like these conquerors, why would we not consider conquerors like Qasim as one of our own?

Large portions of Pakistan was Buddhist at the time. In fact, it's one of the principle reasons Qasim had such success, they didn't like their Hindu ruler and defected to the Caliphate. 

Funny, don't you lot say Pakistan didn't exist prior to 1947? Stay consistent with your rhetoric.

They weren't Hindu either since they predate the advent of Hinduism. 

Post 1947, for most of our history our economy and country as a whole was doing far better than yours. Even now, the gap in GDP per capita (PPP) isn't that large, and with our economy growing rapidly the gap will decrease and we will go back to having a higher GDP per capita (PPP) than you (as is our natural position). 

Even now, you are still inferior to us in many aspects:

https://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2010/07/20/india-could-use-pakistans-infrastructure/

https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-05...emains-huge-problem-worst-all-women-and-girls

https://iq-research.info/en/average-iq-by-country

https://www.businesstoday.in/curren...low-poverty-line-world-bank/story/238085.html

https://tribune.com.pk/story/1576953/2-pakistan-set-outdo-india-introducing-5g-internet-pta/

https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...ears-of-21st-century/articleshow/56296213.cms

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## El Sidd

We mostly forget a big factor when discussing history. 

Weather.

Porus had weather on his side. Alex could come as far as he could but needed a defeat to realise how far he was away from Home.

Alexander had by then took Afghan light infantry as well.

I personally believe that stalemate theory is a Western Propaganda


----------



## Joe Shearer

padamchen said:


> Baba is what we call little boys.
> 
> Cultural thing.
> 
> The IVC thing was a discussion I had with Joe recently.
> 
> Personally, I believe that the IVC was more bronze age Iranic than Indic. The bull. The priest. The open air burial pits. Joe disagreed (partially) and pulled some back for his own team. I respect Joe and his grasp of history, so ...
> 
> @Joe Shearer
> 
> Cheers, Doc



You were right in a way, in locating their origins (one set of them) in geographical Iran. As for the cultural attributes, I'm not sure who got what from whom. Did you know that the wheel on the lion capitol was a borrowing from Persia? It gets as fundamental as that, on all sides. There was no dominating cultural printing block.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## jetray

UnitedPak said:


> Two more Gangas rise up from their swamp bleating on about religion and obsession with Islam.
> 
> We are discussing Pakistani history and Pakistani ancestors here. Keep derailing this thread with your obsession with religion and you will end up with bans.
> 
> 
> 
> By the same token, Indus Valley is our history and heritage. No amount of gangetic tears will change this.


only on PDF, where facts are unicorn.


----------



## El Sidd

jetray said:


> only on PDF, where facts are unicorn.



What is your Obsession with this thread


----------



## jetray

El Sidd said:


> What is your Obsession with this thread


obsession ? where ? how? 
As I said facts are unicorn. Next time post facts.


----------



## El Sidd

jetray said:


> obsession ? where ? how?
> As I said facts are unicorn. Next time post facts.



Fact is Alexander Met defeat in area now what is known as Pakistan. 

Unicorn remains a myth. Some say Alexanders historians mistook the Indian rhino as the mythical unicorn.


----------



## jetray

El Sidd said:


> Fact is Alexander Met defeat in area now what is known as Pakistan.
> 
> Unicorn remains a myth. Some say Alexanders historians mistook the Indian rhino as the mythical unicorn.


lol, "now known as pak....." meaning *earlier it was not *so you agree with the fact. 

You said I was obsessed with thread but failed to prove how ? ppl who are obsessed with masking the truth opened this thread. Why should some one need to spend time fighting for the truth, after all its the truth rt?

So what you known about Pauravas ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## El Sidd

jetray said:


> lol, "now known as pak....." meaning *earlier it was not *so you agree with the fact.
> 
> You said I was obsessed with thread but failed to prove how ? ppl who are obsessed with masking the truth opened this thread. Why should some one need to spend time fighting for the truth, after all its the truth rt?
> 
> So what you known about Pauravas ?



Yeah whats the Big deal then?

Most probably he was a tribal King in the region dictating strategic trade route back then.


----------



## AbdulRehman Qureshi

dsr478 said:


> Maybe, if I get the time.
> 
> Troops were Pothwari, but yes the elephants would have been Hindustani (elephants are not native to Pakistan AFAIK).



I’m agreed with you.


----------



## kalakaar

So raja Purshottam was a Pakistani?  I thought he belonged to some Ganga background hailing from cities near Ayodhya near Ganga 



El Sidd said:


> Fact is Alexander Met defeat in area now what is known as Pakistan.
> 
> Unicorn remains a myth. Some say Alexanders historians mistook the Indian rhino as the mythical unicorn.



And you are pure breed syed who grew near the Zam Zam


----------



## El Sidd

kalakaar said:


> And you are pure breed syed who grew near the Zam Zam



?


----------

