# Who was the Greatest Emperor in South Asian History?



## Dark Warrior

*ChandraGupta Maurya*-Established the largest empire ever in the history of the subcontinent.First to unite South Asia.






From "Historical Atlas of India," by Charles Joppen (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1907)

*Ashoka*-One of India's greatest emperors, Ashoka reigned over most of present-day India after a number of military conquests. His empire stretched from the Hindu Kush mountains in Afghanistan to the present-day Bangladesh and the Indian state of Assam in the east, and as far south as northern Kerala and Andhra Pradesh.
In 1992, Ashoka was ranked #53 on Michael H. Hart's list of the most influential figures in history. 


*Akbar*-At the end of his reign in 1605 the Mughal empire covered most of northern and central India. He is most appreciated for having a liberal outlook on all faiths and beliefs and during his era, culture and art reached a zenith as compared to his predecessors.

*Chatrapati Shivaji*-Weakened the Mughals to a point of no recovery.From a small contingent of 2,000 soldiers inherited from his father, he created a formidable force of 100,000 soldiers. He built and restored forts located strategically inland and on seashores for secure lands and coastline.

*
Ranjit Singh-*Created the Sikh Empire,which encompassed entire Punjab ,Kashmir etc.

*Chandragupta Vikramaditya*-is rule spanned c. 380&#8211;413/415 CE, during which the Gupta Empire achieved its zenith, art, architecture, and sculpture flourished, and the cultural development of ancient India reached its climax. The period of prominence of the Gupta dynasty is very often referred to as the Golden Age of India.

*Samudra Gupta*-He is considered to be one of the greatest military geniuses in Indian history according to Historian V. A. Smith.

*Aurangazeb*-Loved by Islamists even though he started the decline of Mughal emperor.

*Rajendra Chola*-One of the greatest South Indian kings. Rajendra&#8217;s territories extended coastal Burma, the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep, Maldives, conquered the kings of Srivijaya (Sumatra, Java and Malay Peninsula in South East Asia) and Pegu islands with his fleet of ships.

*Babur*-Established Mughal rule.Defeated Lodhi.

Please vote for the Emperor whom you think was the greatest.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

I will consider Akbar and Shivaji, both of these men understood well the concept of modern India.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## BRICS

Who was Bharat then???

I thought a king called Bharat was the first to rule entire sub-continent??? Or is that just mythology???

Also, when and why did Bharat pita become Bharat mata??? Isn't Bharat a male name???


----------



## ALOK31

i will choose the great ashoka and akbar.


----------



## Dark Warrior

Poll Added.


----------



## ALOK31

BRICS said:


> Who was Bharat then???
> 
> I thought a king called Bharat was the first to rule entire sub-continent??? Or is that just mythology???
> 
> Also, when and why did Bharat pita become Bharat mata??? Isn't Bharat a male name???



Bharata (emperor) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Prometheus

her majesty........the queen of England

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## INDIC

My choices are:-
1) Chandragupta Maurya
2) Ashok the Great
3) Vikramaditya of Ujjain
4) Vikramditya or Chandragupta II
5) Akbar the Great
6) Rajaraja Chola
7) Maharaja Ranjeet Singh
8)Shivaji Bhosle

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## vsdoc

Chandragupta Maurya and Raja Raja Chola for me.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Bhairava

Atleast Akbar would have been understandable...but Babur and Aurangazeb....Hey bhagwan isko maaf karo *facepalm*

====


Chandragupta, Ashoka, Shivaji Maharaj and Rajaraja Chola would top my list.



> Chatrapati Shivaji-Weakened the Mughals to a point of no recovery.From a small contingent of 2,000 soldiers inherited from his father, he created a formidable force of 100,000 soldiers. He built and restored forts located strategically inland and on seashores for secure lands and coastline.



Not only that, he was the one who awakened the Dharmic spirit of resistance that was dormant for a long time and pioneered the concept of Swarajya. His importance in Indian history cannot be stated more emphatically.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Imran Khan

ashoka - babur - ranjeet singh 

and i will be the next

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Dark Warrior

Looks like Chandragupta is leading the poll.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## shuntmaster

Why is empress Victoria not in the list??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dark Warrior

^Empress Victoria?????????


----------



## Kambojaric

An Emperor whos not even on the list. *Alaudin Khilji*. He saved the subcontinent from the Mongol menace several times whilst Persia, Central Asia And Iraq fell. These regions were devastated to put it mildly by the Mongols. The subcontinent did not suffer the same fate but rather grew and prospered during this period.

Reactions: Like Like:
23


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

Bamxa said:


> An Emperor whos not even on the list. *Alaudin Khilji*. He saved the subcontinent from the Mongol menace several times whilst Persia, Central Asia And Iraq fell. These regions were devastated to put it mildly by the Mongols. The subcontinent did not suffer the same fate but rather grew and prospered during this period.



Problem comes is with his character, which is a trun off to many.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## ajtr

Imran Khan said:


> ashoka - babur - ranjeet singh
> 
> and i will be the next


you cant be great neither all those who are mentioned above coz their wive always over-ruled them

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Rajaraja Chola

Well i will say, its Raja Raja and Rajendra Chola for me  
Cos to unite south Asia, they are the only ones to go out of sub continent, to conquer lands using their navy

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Imran Khan

ajtr said:


> you cant be great neither all those who are mentioned above coz their wive always over-ruled them



i have no wife i am still great

Reactions: Like Like:
10


----------



## Dark Warrior

Rajaraja Chola said:


> Well i will say, its Raja Raja and Rajendra Chola for me
> Cos to unite south Asia, they are the only ones to go out of sub continent, to conquer lands using their navy


Chandragupta Maurya too crossed the Khyber Pass and defeated Seleucus Nicator.

Chola empire was 2.5 million Sq.km at it's height but Mauryan empire was 5 million Sq.km.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rajaraja Chola

Dark Warrior said:


> Chandragupta Maurya too crossed the Khyber Pass and defeated Seleucus Nicator.
> 
> Chola empire was 2.5 million Sq.km at it's height but Mauryan empire was 5 million Sq.km.



Ya but even that areas were considered India or Bharat at that time !!
Chandragupta and Ashoka were two great emperors, no doubt at all mate !! but my favour to cholas, is *that they are among the only ones, to have employed NAVAL POWER to drastic effect and in conquering other territories !! *
But in terms of land territories, Ashoka will be the one

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## kingkobra

Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj..

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ajtr

Imran Khan said:


> i have no wife i am still great


you will have some day to overrule u

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Imran Khan

ajtr said:


> you will have some day to overrule u

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ajtr

Imran Khan said:


>


awe !!! too bad you call the wives as disgrace.and as if pakistani army soldiers are all bachelors.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## pk_baloch

Gigawatt said:


> My choices are:-
> 1) *Chandragupta Maurya
> 2) Ashok the Great
> 3) Vikramaditya of Ujjain
> 4) Vikramditya or Chandragupta II*
> 5) Akbar the Great
> 6)* Rajaraja Chola
> 7) Maharaja Ranjeet Singh
> 8)Shivaji Bhosle*




wat those persons did for u ..they are in the hell now

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Imran Khan

ajtr said:


> awe !!! too bad you call the wives as disgrace.and as if pakistani army soldiers are all bachelors.



wife wali baat mat kery mery sath mujhy is dunya ki sab se bari problem hi marrage lagti hai . if no marriage no corruption on earth after all people do it for there families all problems in our countries because of marriage and wives

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ajtr

Imran Khan said:


> wife wali baat mat kery mery sath mujhy is dunya ki sab se bari problem hi marrage lagti hai . if no marriage no corruption on earth after all people do it for there families all problems in our countries because of marriage and wives


Agar shadi na hoti to tum iss duniya main aate kahan se

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Lonely Hermit

Chandragupta Maurya no doubt he was able to achieve what even Alexander could not achieve.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Imran Khan

ajtr said:


> Agar shadi na hoti to tum iss duniya main aate kahan se



ye kis ne farmaya hai ? shadi zaroori hai bachy ke peda hony main ? 

aag ke gird 7 chaker lagany se ya mullah ke 4 lines kehny se kuch halal haram nhi hota bakwaas hai ye sab .

and BTW yahaan a ker konsa hum khush hai kisi ne hamary ooper ehsaan nhi kiya . its was far far better if i didn't exists

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## ajtr

Imran Khan said:


> ye kis ne farmaya hai ? shadi zaroori hai bachy ke peda hony main ?
> 
> aag ke gird 7 chaker lagany se ya mullah ke 4 lines kehny se kuch halal haram nhi hota bakwaas hai ye sab .
> 
> and BTW yahaan a ker konsa hum khush hai kisi ne hamary ooper ehsaan nhi kiya . its was far far better if i didn't exists


you are truly impossible............



Imran Khan said:


> ye kis ne farmaya hai ? shadi zaroori hai bachy ke peda hony main ?
> 
> aag ke gird 7 chaker lagany se ya mullah ke 4 lines kehny se kuch halal haram nhi hota bakwaas hai ye sab .
> 
> and BTW yahaan a ker konsa hum khush hai kisi ne hamary ooper ehsaan nhi kiya . its was far far better if i didn't exists


you are truly impossible............

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Phoenix89

Why cant i vote  

Mujhe bhi vote karna haiiiii...and i am over 18 years of age, i can vote...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Imran Khan

Phoenix89 said:


> Why cant i vote
> 
> Mujhe bhi vote karna haiiiii...and i am over 18 years of age, i can vote...



were is your birth certificate ? ya phir abu ko sath le ker ao bachy

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## INDIC

mastbalochi said:


> wat those persons did for u ..



LMAO, it seems you need a great dose of isabgul. They were far better than the barbarians you worship.

1) Chandragupta Maurya :- United whole of India and kicked the Greeks out of the subcontinent.
2) Ashoka the Great:- Preached Indian values as far as Japan and Thailand.
3) Vikramaditya of Ujjain:- Defeated Schythians, great ruler and started the current Hindu calender.
4) Vikramditya or Chandragupta II :- Patronized knowledge. Opened Universities and patronized science, mathematics, art, alloying, medicine etc. Gupta Period is known as the golden age of India.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## manofwar

1. Ashoka the Great
2. Chandragupta Maurya
3. Akbar the Great
4. Gupta Clan
5. Rajaraja Chola( not the one we have here in PDF.....)

PS Aurangzeb had a far larger and richer empire than Akbar, but his stupid policies and over spending led to the decay and eventual demise of the Mughal Empire, whereas the mughals had the greatest era of prosperity, stability, peace and growth under Akbar.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## shuntmaster

What about Emperors Harsha & Pulakeshi-II??

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Neuro

IMO Chola's were greatest emperor in south asian history. Larger territories not alone a criterion to become greatest empire .The greatest empire should have significant roles in literature , architecture , trades, administrative systems, secularism , status of people, war tactics and wealth so in that aspects chola's were great.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## INDIC

manofwar said:


> PS Aurangzeb had a far larger and richer empire than Akbar, but his stupid policies and over spending led to the decay and eventual demise of the Mughal Empire, whereas the mughals had the greatest era of prosperity, stability, peace and growth under Akbar.



There is nothing great in Aurangzeb, if Dara Shikoh had been king, history of India would have been quite different. 
1) Aurangzeb made his kingdom bankrupt by his madness for conquering Deccan.
2)He never trusted his own children, imprisoned them.
3)Reintroduction of Jaziya and suppression of non-Musilms further weaken his empire. The Jaats, Sikhs, Marathas, Rajputs all revolted against him.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Phoenix89

Phoenix89 said:


> Why cant i vote
> 
> Mujhe bhi vote karna haiiiii...and i am over 18 years of age, i can vote...



Sirf ek vote ke liye abu ko sath lana padega...kya bhai jaan, abu waise bhi apni job mein busy hai...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## pk_baloch

Gigawatt said:


> LMAO, it seems you need a great dose of isabgul. They were far better than the barbarians you worship.
> 
> 1) Chandragupta Maurya :- United whole of India and kicked the Greeks out of the subcontinent.
> 2) Ashoka the Great:- Preached Indian values as far as Japan and Thailand.
> 3) Vikramaditya of Ujjain:- Defeated Schythians, great ruler and started the current Hindu calender.
> 4) Vikramditya or Chandragupta II :- Patronized knowledge. Opened Universities and patronized science, mathematics, art, alloying, medicine etc. Gupta Period is known as the golden age of India.



we can imagine hindustan before the arabs 
honestly speaking there is no such fascinating history of hindustan before the advent of islam ,most of the ppl including west know hindustan from mughals .........none of them from Chandragupta Maurya to Chandragupta stoped sati burning,caste system....even these ppl were also busy in fightings,,there was no central goverment for the whole country wagera wagera .........what is ur identity that u claim hindustan as ur own ??? ..who were the first *hindu* man and woman of hindustan ???how they born??how they came in the world ?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Phoenix89

mastbalochi said:


> we can imagine hindustan before the arabs
> honestly speaking there is no such fascinating history of hindustan before the advent of islam ,most of the ppl including west know hindustan from mughals .........none of them from Chandragupta Maurya to Chandragupta stoped sati burning,caste system....even these ppl were also busy in fightings,,there was no central goverment for the whole country wagera wagera .........what is ur identity that u claim hindustan as ur own ??? ..who were the first *hindu* man and woman of hindustan ???how they born??how they came in the world ?




Ary par matter ke itna deep mein jake kya karoge.....tention nahi lena ka, phela hindu kaun tha..dusra kaun tha....Apparently there is a pakistani who has developed WaterKit....That's more imp dont u think!!!


----------



## pk_baloch

Phoenix89 said:


> Ary par matter ke itna deep mein jake kya karoge.....tention nahi lena ka, phela hindu kaun tha..dusra kaun tha....Apparently there is a pakistani who has developed WaterKit....That's more imp dont u think!!!




because u ppl also say us that the land which we call pakistan is given by u nd accuse us that our ancestors were hindus not budidsts christans..aisa ho he naee sakta (islamic point of view) .....i personally know who are we ,how we came in the world and were divided!!!but i want to know from u ppl how u claim that hindustan as ur own ?who were first hindu man and women in hindustan?


----------



## Bhairava

Neuro said:


> IMO Chola's were greatest emperor in south asian history. Larger territories not alone a criterion to become greatest empire .The greatest empire should have significant roles in literature , architecture , trades, administrative systems, secularism , status of people, war tactics and wealth so in that aspects chola's were great.



Cholas were anything but secular.

They were hardcore Shaivites, a result of the Bhakti movement, who also indulged in spreading the religion.

Rest I agree.


----------



## jha

Imran Khan said:


> ye kis ne farmaya hai ? shadi zaroori hai bachy ke peda hony main ?
> 
> aag ke gird 7 chaker lagany se ya mullah ke 4 lines kehny se kuch halal haram nhi hota bakwaas hai ye sab .
> 
> and BTW yahaan a ker konsa hum khush hai kisi ne hamary ooper ehsaan nhi kiya . its was far far better if i didn't exists



Liberal fascist Budhdha....


----------



## Bhairava

mastbalochi said:


> because u ppl also say us that the land which we call pakistan is given by u nd accuse us that our ancestors were hindu not budidst christan ..aisa ho he naee sakta (islamic point of view) .....*i personally know who are we ,how we came in the world and were divided!!!*but i want to know from u ppl how u claim that hindustan as ur own ?who were first hindu man and women in hindustan?



Is it a fault we believe in evolution ? ..You certainly make it seem like a fault..lol

BTW I personally know how I came into this world. Thanks mom.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jinxeD_girl

mastbalochi said:


> we can imagine hindustan before the arabs
> honestly speaking there is no such fascinating history of hindustan before the advent of islam ,most of the ppl including west know hindustan from mughals .........none of them from Chandragupta Maurya to Chandragupta stoped sati burning,caste system....even these ppl were also busy in fightings,,there was no central goverment for the whole country wagera wagera .........what is ur identity that u claim hindustan as ur own ??? ..who were the first *hindu* man and woman of hindustan ???how they born??how they came in the world ?


 Chandragupta Maurya
Ashoka
Ranjit Singh
Chandragupta Vikramaditya
Samudra Gupta
Chatrapati Shivaji
Rajendra Chola

Ironic but true! No one knows who they were except perhaps Ranjit Singh, Chandragupta Maurya and Ashoka (only bcoz of that Shahurukh movie). Thre rest I don't even know who they are or were. Gupta I think was from present day Bihar, so it has very little to do with Pakistani history. The rest I don't know, heard their names for the first time. Will do some research on them later.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Uchiha

Genghis Khan!


----------



## jinxeD_girl

mastbalochi said:


> because u ppl also say us that the land which we call pakistan is given by u nd accuse us that our ancestors were hindus not budidsts christans..aisa ho he naee sakta (islamic point of view) .....i personally know who are we ,how we came in the world and were divided!!!but i want to know from u ppl how u claim that hindustan as ur own ?who were first hindu man and women in hindustan?



even if our ancestors were hindu (or buddhist, or zurtushi etc), they were living in Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan, Kashmir etc for thousand of years and later they converted. No one were PRESENT day India gave us anything. They should be proud of their own Bihari, U.P. or South Indian history instead of stealing history from us


----------



## Bhairava

Uchiha said:


> Genghis Khan!



Genghis Khan a South asian ? 

Read the thread title bro


----------



## pk_baloch

jinxeD_girl said:


> Chandragupta Maurya
> Ashoka
> Ranjit Singh
> Chandragupta Vikramaditya
> Samudra Gupta
> Chatrapati Shivaji
> Rajendra Chola
> 
> Ironic but true! No one knows who they were except perhaps Ranjit Singh, Chandragupta Maurya and Ashoka (only bcoz of that Shahurukh movie). Thre rest I don't even know who they are or were. Gupta I think was from present day Bihar, so it has very little to do with Pakistani history. The rest I don't know, heard their names for the first time. Will do some research on them later.



yes i also watched that movie "ASHOKE THE GREAT "then i knew that he was something

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Water Car Engineer

The emperors you don't know are from the Gupta Empire.
























*Samudra Gupta*














*Chandragupta II*


----------



## kobiraaz

i loved the book and became a fan of Babur ! a 13 year boy from a small town of Farghana did wonder!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Armstrong

mastbalochi said:


> yes i also watched that movie "ASHOKE THE GREAT "then i knew that he was something



Is that you in the avatar ?


----------



## kobiraaz

jinxeD_girl said:


> Chandragupta Maurya
> Ashoka
> Ranjit Singh
> Chandragupta Vikramaditya
> Samudra Gupta
> Chatrapati Shivaji
> Rajendra Chola
> 
> Ironic but true! No one knows who they were except perhaps Ranjit Singh, Chandragupta Maurya and Ashoka (only bcoz of that Shahurukh movie). Thre rest I don't even know who they are or were. Gupta I think was from present day Bihar, so it has very little to do with Pakistani history. The rest I don't know, heard their names for the first time. Will do some research on them later.



I knew about Chandragupta Ashoka and Samudragupta! Ahoka is famous in Bengal for spreading Buddhism! who is shibaji and ranjit singh actually??? shame being a south asian, i never heard their name before!!


----------



## Neuro

mastbalochi said:


> we can imagine hindustan before the arabs
> honestly speaking there is no such fascinating history of hindustan before the advent of islam ,most of the *ppl including west know hindustan from mughals* .........none of them from Chandragupta Maurya to Chandragupta stoped sati burning,caste system....even these ppl were also busy in fightings,,there was no central goverment for the whole country wagera wagera .........what is ur identity that u claim hindustan as ur own ??? ..who were the first *hindu* man and woman of hindustan ???how they born??how they came in the world ?



Balochi's are damn stupids like you? actually you people don't know anything about history , madarassa educational need to improve at smaller extent.



Bhairava said:


> Cholas were anything but secular.
> 
> They were hardcore Shaivites, a result of the Bhakti movement, who also indulged in spreading the religion.
> 
> Rest I agree.



Yeah agree, but they never hate other religion eg: lot of Vishnu temples near Tanjavur and Kumbakonam. Chola also encouraged to built Buddha vihar in some places.


----------



## Bhairava

Neuro said:


> Yeah agree, but they never hate other religion eg: lot of Vishnu temples near Tanjavur and Kumbakonam. Chola also encouraged to built Buddha vihar construction.



Well i'll leave it at that...

sozhargalai patri naam ingu avadhuru koora vendam..tamizhagathilirundhu samanan maraindhathirku sozhargale kaaranam

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ALOK31

for me greatest emperor was the great ashoka(greatest and biggest empire in history of the subcontinent and also he spread buddhism outside of indian subcontinent) 






and second rajendra chola he spread indian culture in south-east asia'


----------



## Neuro

Bhairava said:


> Well i'll leave it at that...
> 
> sozhargalai patri naam ingu avadhuru koora vendam..tamizhagathilirundhu samanan maraindhathirku sozhargale kaaranam



solarhalum karanum enbhathai othu kolgiraen , KALUVETRI matrum sirai chedam seidhu kondranar. Annal bowtham , vainavam mathatinai yeduvum seidathaga edvum thiriyavillai. You may call them semi-secular I think .


----------



## Bhairava

^^ Ashoka was born with a silver spoon. It was Chandragupta who has to be given the real credit for the Mauryan empire.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ALOK31

Bhairava said:


> ^^ Ashoka was born with a silver spoon. It was Chandragupta who has to be given the real credit for the Mauryan empire.


ya bro but he also spread buddhism and indian philosophy in out of the subcontinent.


----------



## Phoenix89

mastbalochi said:


> because u ppl also say us that the land which we call pakistan is given by u nd accuse us that our ancestors were hindus not budidsts christans..aisa ho he naee sakta (islamic point of view) .....i personally know who are we ,how we came in the world and were divided!!!but i want to know from u ppl how u claim that hindustan as ur own ?who were first hindu man and women in hindustan?




Hahhaaaa.....U are funny and Innocent....rofl.....

I guess Identity crisis debates has really made a toll on your head....I recommend stop listening to Hasan nisar, this is making you go mad...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnKoYoZVis8


----------



## cloud_9

Dark Warrior said:


> *ChandraGupta Maurya*-Established the *largest empire ever* in the history of the subcontinent.First to unite South Asia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From "Historical Atlas of India," by Charles Joppen (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1907)


It was Asoka who established the largest empire in the sub continent after defeating Kalinga 

Chandragupta Maurya





Asoka





Asoka (Mauryan Dynasty)
Rajendra Chola I(Chola Dynasty)
Dev Pala(Pala Empire)
Kanishka (Kushan Empire)
Shivaji (Maratha Empire)


----------



## REHAN NIAZI FALCON

Aurangzaib , the best emperor..................

Babur too, my favourit ..... he was brave like a loin ....
u need to mention SHER Shah soori too......

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bhairava

^^ Aurangazeb the great had a pretty nasty relation with the Pashtun tribes who revolted against his rule under Kushal khan khattak....and his forefather Babur has some pretty choice things to say about Pathans in his babur nama...


----------



## Indian Tiger

I would like to add a new name here... Apart from the mentioned list, i believe Suryavarman from Tamil Nadu is the greatest king ever to rule south asia. He is the one who built the world renowned Ankorwat in Cambodia. Which is admired, by including the temples image in their country's national flag..

Many names destroyed due to various reasons, his name is one such...

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## ALOK31

cloud_9 said:


> It was Asoka who established the largest empire in the sub continent after defeating Kalinga
> 
> Chandragupta Maurya
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asoka
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asoka (Mauryan Dynasty)
> Rajendra Chola I(Chola Dynasty)
> Dev Pala(Pala Empire)
> Kanishka (Kushan Empire)
> Shivaji (Maratha Empire)


bro u forget Samudragupta(gupta empire) -golden age of indian history


----------



## Bhairava

Indian Tiger said:


> I would like to add a new name here... Apart from the mentioned list, i believe Suryavarman from Tamil Nadu is the greatest king ever to rule south asia. He is the one who built the world renowned Ankorwat in Cambodia. Which is admired, by including the temples image in their country's national flag..
> 
> Many names destroyed due to various reasons, his name is one such...



Suryavarman a Tamil ?


----------



## xyxmt

you need to put Imran in the list


----------



## Indian Tiger

Bhairava said:


> Suryavarman a Tamil ?



yes... no doubt... the name itself demonstrates, isn't??

Tamil's glory was eradicated from the history, by us itself... The founder of Shaolin -Kungfu Bodhidharma(Dhamo) is a tamil, who born in Kanchipuram near chennai. How many know that???

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bhairava

Indian Tiger said:


> yes... no doubt... the name itself demonstrates, isn't??
> 
> Tamil's glory was eradicated from the history, by us itself... The founder of Shaolin -Kungfu Bodhidharma(Dhamo) is tamil, who born in Kanchipuram near chennai. How many know that???




Dudeeeeee..Suryavarman is a sanskrit name and south east is pretty much sanskritized and I dont find name a concrete proof of his ethnicity.

Second 7am arivu exagerated many things

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Indian Tiger

Bhairava said:


> Dudeeeeee..Suryavarman is a sanskrit name and south east is pretty much sanskritized and I dont find name a concrete proof of his ethnicity.
> 
> Second 7am arivu exagerated many things



of course after 7am arivu only many came to know, bodhidharma is atamil, untill that i also dont know genuinely.

If you are a tamil, i am having articles in tamil.. which i can share it with you to clear the doubts on surya varman...


----------



## Bhairava

Indian Tiger said:


> If you are a tamil, i am having articles in tamil.. which i can share it with you to clear the doubts on surya varman...



Ofcourse I am, please share.


----------



## Indian Tiger

Here a video i found for you...


----------



## DESERT FIGHTER

*Mir Chakar Rind


*




Mir Chakar Khan Rind or Meer Chaakar Khan Rind or Chakar-i-Azam (1468  1565[1]) (Persian or Balochi: &#1605;&#1740;&#1585; &#1670;&#1575;&#1705;&#1585; &#1582;&#1575;&#1606; &#1585;&#1606;&#1583 was a Baloch chieftain in the 15th century. He is considered a folk hero of the Baloch people and an important figure in the Baloch epic Hani and Sheh Mureed.
Contents [hide] 
1 History
2 Today
3 References
4 External links
[edit]History

Mir Chakar lived in the hills of Balochistan and became the head of Rind tribe at the age of 18 after the death of his father Mir Shahak Khan. Mir Chakar's fiefdom was short-lived because of a civil war between the Lashari and Rind tribes of Balochistan.[2] Mir Chakar and Mir Gwahram Khan Lashari, head of the Lashari tribe, went to war that resulted in thousands dead, including Mir Chakar's brother. The war and the gallantry of the two tribe leaders continues to be a part of the Baloch peoples' history. After the "Thirty Years' War" against the Lashari Tribe,[3] After the defeating Lashari tribe, Mir Chakar Rind went to war against Afghan King Sher Shah Suri. Mir Chakar Rind was defeated and he left Balochistan and settled in the Punjab region in 1518.
Mir Chakar settled in Satghara in Sahiwal District and gained power and respect in the area. Afghan King Sher Shah Suri approached Mir Chakar to unite with him to consolidate his gains. Mir Chakar appreciated the offer but refused to help Sher Shah Suri and managed to elude Afghan armies. Under the command of his son, Mir Shahzad or Shahdad Khan, his forces instead joined the Mughal army of Emperor Humayun in 1555 after a long exile in Persia. Emperor Humayun came back, recaptured Delhi, and ousted the Suri dynasty in 1556. As a reward, Emperor Humayun conferred a vast Jagir, including horses and slaves, to Mir Chakar. Mir Chakar Rind died in 1565. People who accompanied Mir Chakar to Satghara after leaving Balochistan constructed a tomb for his body.



ALOK31 said:


> bro u forget Samudragupta(gupta empire) -golden age of indian history



Mauryan empire is called the golden era of the subcontinent... there is a whole chapter for it....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bhairava

^^ Actually its the Gupta period that is called as such.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Neuro

Bhairava said:


> Dudeeeeee..*Suryavarman is a sanskrit name and south east is pretty much sanskritized and I dont find name a concrete proof of his ethnicity.*
> 
> Second 7am arivu exagerated many things



If that is case Maravarman sundrara pandian , Jadavarman sundara pandian , Varagnavarman are not tamil kings?  I see


----------



## Bhairava

Neuro said:


> If that is case Maravarman sundrara pandian , Jadavarman sundara pandian , Varagnavarman are not tamil kings?  I see



No I meant "varman" was a common sanskrit name which was present all over India and south east asia and hence we cannot conclusively say that he is a Tamil just from his name.

These guys are Tamil too ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varman_dynasty


----------



## pk_baloch

Neuro said:


> Balochi's are damn stupids like you? actually you people don't know anything about history , madarassa educational need to improve at smaller extent.


u damn nero wat was ur education before the coming of the british


----------



## ALOK31

Neuro said:


> If that is case Maravarman sundrara pandian , Jadavarman sundara pandian , Varagnavarman are not tamil kings?  I see


bro Suryavarman was not a tamil he was south east asian .


----------



## Water Car Engineer

ALOK31 said:


> bro Suryavarman was not a tamil he was south east asian .



I've heard from Cambodians that the first Khmers emperors were Indians. Even if they were, it's not something Indians can claim.


----------



## Indian Tiger

ALOK31 said:


> bro Suryavarman was not a tamil he was south east asian .



There is huge number of Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions in the walls of angkorwat. will that also be written by south east asians??


----------



## Water Car Engineer

Indian Tiger said:


> There is huge number of Tamil-Brahmi inscriptions in the walls of angkorwat. will that also be written by south east asians??




Yes...

South East Asia, except Vietnam was heavily influenced by Indian culture.


Even today in Muslim Indonesia you can find Indonesians with Sanskrit names.


The influence is there not through war, but trade between the two.


----------



## bronxbull

BRICS said:


> Who was Bharat then???
> 
> I thought a king called Bharat was the first to rule entire sub-continent??? Or is that just mythology???
> 
> Also, when and why did Bharat pita become Bharat mata??? Isn't Bharat a male name???


 
The country always existed and was always a motherland,the country got its name of bharat from bharat.



Bamxa said:


> An Emperor whos not even on the list. *Alaudin Khilji*. He saved the subcontinent from the Mongol menace several times whilst Persia, Central Asia And Iraq fell. These regions were devastated to put it mildly by the Mongols. The subcontinent did not suffer the same fate but rather grew and prospered during this period.


 
he was just an abusive king,nothing more.


----------



## Neuro

Bhairava said:


> No I meant "varman" was a common sanskrit name which was present all over India and south east asia and hence we cannot conclusively say that he is a Tamil just from his name.
> 
> These guys are Tamil too ?
> 
> Varman dynasty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Wen I said all varman's are tamils? you told varman is sanskrit word so suryavarman not a tamil king, I replied that some varman's were tamils kings.



ALOK31 said:


> bro Suryavarman was not a tamil he was south east asian .



May be I never said he is a tamil king , I only talked about the surname(Sanskrit) usage among tamil kings.


----------



## bronxbull

Bhairava said:


> Cholas were anything but secular.
> 
> They were hardcore Shaivites, a result of the Bhakti movement, who also indulged in spreading the religion.
> 
> Rest I agree.


 
yes,they revolutionzed the sacred.

The greatest,for sure.

The impact is still there.


----------



## Indian Tiger

Sir LurkaLot said:


> Yes...
> 
> South East Asia, except Vietnam was heavily influenced by Indian culture.
> 
> 
> Even today in Muslim Indonesia you can find Indonesians with Sanskrit names.
> 
> 
> The influence is there not through war, but trade between the two.



why a king has to make inscriptions in ancient tamil-brahmi words?? In combodia everyone knows tamil at that time or used tamil as their ruling language to wrote in tamil?? why they have to wrote the inscriptions in some other language instead of their mother tongue??


----------



## truthseer

Maurya is winning? No way!
The British, hands down


----------



## Bhairava

Neuro said:


> Wen I said all varman's are tamils? you told varman is sanskrit word so suryavarman not a tamil king, I replied that some varman's were tamils kings.
> 
> 
> 
> May be I never said he is a tamil king , I only talked about the surname(Sanskrit) usage among tamil kings.



Bro you need to understand what people say before jumping on them..where did I say Tamil kings never used the "varman" surname ? and in case you did not know other tamil kings with varman surname - mahendravarman, mamallan narasimha varman etc are there.

This is what I said,



> No I meant "varman" was a common sanskrit name which was present *all over India* and south east asia



All over India means Tamil Nadu also. It was not a name unique to Tamil kings and hence we cannot say Suryavarman was a Tamil just based on his name.


----------



## bronxbull

Neuro said:


> Wen I said all varman's are tamils? you told varman is sanskrit word so suryavarman not a tamil king, I replied that some varman's were tamils kings.
> 
> 
> 
> May be I never said he is a tamil king , I only talked about the surname(Sanskrit) usage among tamil kings.




Sanskrit is not alien to Tamil and many tamil words are mixed with sanskrit.


----------



## Neuro

mastbalochi said:


> u damn nero wat was ur education before the coming of the british



Don't speak like stupid you told nobody knows about India till mughals invasion , shed some light on that. Don't try cheap shots.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bhairava

Indian Tiger said:


> why a king has to make inscriptions in ancient tamil-brahmi words?? In combodia everyone knows tamil at that time or used tamil as their ruling language to wrote in tamil?? why they have to wrote the inscriptions in some other language instead of their mother tongue??



There are plenty of arabic inscription by muslim kings all over India..were they arabs ?


----------



## Neuro

bronxbull said:


> Sanskrit is not alien to Tamil and many tamil words are mixed with sanskrit.



Nope .... especially not in our literatures that is why its classical language.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Raja.Pakistani

and what criteria peoples use here to measure the greatness?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bhairava

Neuro said:


> Nope .... especially not in our literatures that is why its classical language.



Thambi....there was much interaction between Sanskrit and Tamil back in those days...they were not growing in a vacuum without contact with each other.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ALOK31

Neuro said:


> Nope .... especially not in our literatures that is why its classical language.


bro u are wrong .


----------



## Indian Tiger

Bhairava said:


> There are plenty of* arabic inscription by muslim kings* all over India..were they arabs ?



why the muslim kings wrote in arab????which Indian muslim king wrote in arab, whose family root is from India??? why here they have to write in tamil???


----------



## ALOK31

Bhairava said:


> Thambi....there was much interaction between Sanskrit and Tamil back in those days...they were growing in a vacuum without contact with each other.


bro one thing is sure tamil were way ahead of rest of india in every area(culture/philosophy/science ) .by the way i love tamil temple .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Neuro

Bhairava said:


> Thambi....there was much interaction between Sanskrit and Tamil back in those days...they were growing in a vacuum without contact with each other.



Anna.... I talked about literatures , Mutharth sangam , Idai sangam , Kadai sangam literatures I am damn sure there is no interactions between those languages. If you have evidences just show it then we analyse its etymology. Wat we speaking is different.



ALOK31 said:


> bro u are wrong .



Do you have evidences?


----------



## bronxbull

Phoenix89 said:


> Hahhaaaa.....U are funny and Innocent....rofl.....
> 
> I guess Identity crisis debates has really made a toll on your head....I recommend stop listening to Hasan nisar, this is making you go mad...
> 
> Hassan Nisar on a moulvi and pak identity crisis - YouTube


 
I love that line,

Abhi tak Gilani,kabhi toh multani ho jao.

This man is amazing,i will pay him and ask him to have an Indian passport.

He ll do some great good in our country,wow what original intellect and balls.

Awesome.


----------



## bronxbull

Neuro said:


> Nope .... especially not in our literatures that is why its classical language.


 
it is so mixed that many words you think are tamil may have come later.

politics over phonetics? this is the weakness of you guys.



Neuro said:


> Anna.... I talked about literatures , Mutharth sangam , Idai sangam , Kadai sangam literatures I am damn sure there is no interactions between those languages. If you have evidences just show it then we analyse its etymology. Wat we speaking is different.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have evidences?


 
The languages in Karnataka/AP & Kerala are very sanskritized and even Tamil has many sankrit words even karunanidhi's name is sanskrit even after he changed it from dakshinamoorthy.

Nobody is saying that the original people had no language,but they are as sanskritized as anyone else.

stop your dravidian bullshit porpoganda.


----------



## trinity

jinxeD_girl said:


> even if our ancestors were hindu (or buddhist, or zurtushi etc), they were living in Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan, Kashmir etc for thousand of years and later they converted. No one were PRESENT day India gave us anything. They should be proud of their own Bihari, U.P. or South Indian history instead of stealing history from us




Stealing what from you exactly? Bollywood? Taliban? Terror? What? Very few converted willingly,


----------



## Imran Khan

jha said:


> Liberal fascist Budhdha....


 
sach ko marchi lagi hoti hai beta jee


----------



## Killuminati




----------



## Raja.Pakistani

No one told me how they define "greatness" of emperor or empire 

I need to know what make a emperor great in order to take part in poll


----------



## Indus Pakistan

^^
My vote is for Ashoka, Babur and Ranjit Singh.

* It appears that Ashoka was a bloodthirsty beast although that does not detract from his military conquests. According to Wiki.

"_Ashoka is said to have been of a wicked nature and bad temper. He submitted his ministers to a test of loyalty and had *500 of them killed*. He also kept a harem of around 500 women. When a few of these women insulted him, he had the whole lot of them *burnt to death*. He also built hell on earth, an elaborate and horrific torture chamber. This torture chamber earned him the name of Chand Ashoka (Sanskrit), meaning Ashoka the Fierce".[5]_

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Raja.Pakistani

Atanz said:


> ^^
> My vote is for Ashoka, Babur and Ranjit Singh.
> 
> * It appears that Ashoka was a bloodthirsty beast although that does not detract from his military conquests. According to Wiki.
> 
> "_Ashoka is said to have been of a wicked nature and bad temper. He submitted his ministers to a test of loyalty and had *500 of them killed*. He also kept a harem of around 500 women. When a few of these women insulted him, he had the whole lot of them *burnt to death*. He also built hell on earth, an elaborate and horrific torture chamber. This torture chamber earned him the name of Chand Ashoka (Sanskrit), meaning Ashoka the Fierce".[5]_



so dude your criteria of greatness is military conquests of Emperor irrespective of how they did it and how they treated to those whom they ruled


----------



## Indus Pakistan

*
Yes. By definition a Emperor is not a elected liberal from the Green Party.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ajtr

Atanz said:


> *
> Yes. By definition a Emperor is not a elected liberal from the Green Party.


Well Asoka did became liberal in later half of his life after the war of kalinga.first half of his life was same as Aurangzaib(both killed brothers to capture the throne).But then similarity lies in the fact that mauryan empire declined after Asoka as like Mughal empire started declining after Aurangzaib.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Water Car Engineer

Killuminati said:


>



The people who spoke the Indo-European languages have created larger empires.



Atanz said:


> ^^
> My vote is for Ashoka, Babur and Ranjit Singh.
> 
> * It appears that Ashoka was a bloodthirsty beast although that does not detract from his military conquests. According to Wiki.
> 
> "_Ashoka is said to have been of a wicked nature and bad temper. He submitted his ministers to a test of loyalty and had *500 of them killed*. He also kept a harem of around 500 women. When a few of these women insulted him, he had the whole lot of them *burnt to death*. He also built hell on earth, an elaborate and horrific torture chamber. This torture chamber earned him the name of Chand Ashoka (Sanskrit), meaning Ashoka the Fierce".[5]_




God damn.... He was a sick mother fer..


----------



## Raja.Pakistani

Atanz said:


> *
> Yes. By definition a Emperor is not a elected liberal from the Green Party.



I know and may be all empire began with a series of wars and bloodshed but atrocities of emperor vary from ruler to ruler..some of them were more ruthless than others


----------



## SherAli

Alauddin Khilji

While I don't think he was the "greatest" emperor in S Asian history, he does deserve to be one of the choices on the poll


----------



## ishaqzaade

Atanz said:


> ^^
> My vote is for Ashoka, Babur and Ranjit Singh.
> 
> * It appears that Ashoka was a bloodthirsty beast although that does not detract from his military conquests. According to Wiki.
> 
> "_Ashoka is said to have been of a wicked nature and bad temper. He submitted his ministers to a test of loyalty and had *500 of them killed*. He also kept a harem of around 500 women. When a few of these women insulted him, he had the whole lot of them *burnt to death*. He also built hell on earth, an elaborate and horrific torture chamber. This torture chamber earned him the name of Chand Ashoka (Sanskrit), meaning Ashoka the Fierce".[5]_


bro so i don't think according to this defination ashoka was great emperopr because mostly part conquered by chandragupta morya not ashoka .and you forget only great emperor (rajendra chola=chola empire) who attack out of the indian subcontinent and capture almost whole south east asia.


----------



## lkozhi

How do you define a great emperor. They should be emperors (conquering multiple countries) and they should be great( people should remember them fondly centuries after they are dead.Not for the skull mountains they created.) 
That i think will reduce the focus to Akbar or Ashoka

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sashan

Rajendra Chola by a far far distance. Both Chandra Gupta Maurya and Rajendra Chola fought against foreign powers outside of South Asia whereas others were frogs in the well. And between these two, I would rate Rajendra Chola as the greatest as he went all the way to Sri Vijaya Kingdom(rated as one of the top 20 greatest kingdoms in another article and was discussed here in the same forum a few months back) and sacked the capital in a show of naval power(and defeated other kingdoms as well) whereas Chandra Gupta Maurya defeated the Greek satraps but made peace later with Seleucus by marrying his daughter.


----------



## A1Kaid

Greatest Emperor in South Asian history


----------



## Raja.Pakistani

A1Kaid said:


> Greatest Emperor in South Asian history




greatest army dictators in south asian history


----------



## Backbencher

Voted for Chandragupta maurya .
I loved his act with chanakya . It was probably the greatest act that i came across.
I loved the KOOTNITI theory


----------



## Dark Warrior

jinxeD_girl said:


> Chandragupta Maurya
> Ashoka
> Ranjit Singh
> Chandragupta Vikramaditya
> Samudra Gupta
> Chatrapati Shivaji
> Rajendra Chola
> 
> Ironic but true! No one knows who they were except perhaps Ranjit Singh, Chandragupta Maurya and Ashoka (only bcoz of that Shahurukh movie). Thre rest I don't even know who they are or were. Gupta I think was from present day Bihar, so it has very little to do with Pakistani history. The rest I don't know, heard their names for the first time. Will do some research on them later.



Even most Pakistanis agree that Chandragupta Maurya ruled over Pakistan:


> The pass itself is a witness to history, and has seen countless invaders and great warriors enter the rich lands of subcontinent to seek their fortunes and build empires. A notable few, like Chandragupta Maurya have also gone the other way, into Afghanistan.
> 
> Beyond the Bab-e-Khyber &#8211; The Express Tribune



BY the way Chandragupta a Jatt.



A1Kaid said:


> Greatest Emperor in South Asian history


Greatest idiot in South Asian history and a loser.


----------



## INDIC

Atanz said:


> ^^
> My vote is for Ashoka, Babur and Ranjit Singh.
> 
> * It appears that Ashoka was a bloodthirsty beast although that does not detract from his military conquests.



Ashoka had a bad reputation in his early days. He killed all of his brothers for the throne. But after seeing the level of violence in "battle of Kalinga" changed his heart and he embraced Buddhism. After that he become a good king caring about his people and spreading the message of Buddhism everywhere.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BelligerentPacifist

Indira Gandhi?


----------



## INDIC

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> Mauryan empire is called the golden era of the subcontinent... there is a whole chapter for it....



Gupta period known for lots of inventions and discoveries, so it is the golden period of India.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dark Warrior

BelligerentPacifist said:


> Indira Gandhi?


The thread is about Emperors not Prime ministers or President's.


----------



## JonAsad

The title should have been-
"Who was the Greatest Hindu Emperor in South Asian History?"-

I hv never seen such a biased poll in my life-


----------



## Dark Warrior

JonAsad said:


> The title should have been-
> "Who was the Greatest Hindu Emperor in South Asian History?"-
> 
> I hv never seen such a biased poll in my life-


Go for a eye checkup.

BTW there are three mughals in the list.


----------



## Android

JonAsad said:


> The title should have been-
> "Who was the Greatest Hindu Emperor in South Asian History?"-
> 
> I hv never seen such a biased poll in my life-


5 out of 10 mentioned are non hindus


----------



## INDIC

mastbalochi said:


> we can imagine hindustan before the arabs
> honestly speaking there is no such fascinating history of hindustan before the advent of islam ,most of the ppl including west know hindustan from mughals .........none of them from Chandragupta Maurya to Chandragupta stoped sati burning,caste system....even these ppl were also busy in fightings,,there was no central goverment for the whole country wagera wagera .........what is
> who were the first *hindu* man and woman of hindustan ???how they born??how they came in the world ?



Our history don't start with Bin Qasim vs Raja Dahir.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KRAIT

JonAsad said:


> The title should have been-
> "Who was the Greatest Hindu Emperor in South Asian History?"-
> 
> I hv never seen such a biased poll in my life-


There is always first time for everything, 

And you never forget your first time. 



mastbalochi said:


> we can imagine hindustan before the arabs
> honestly speaking there is no such fascinating history of hindustan before the advent of islam ,most of the ppl including west know hindustan from mughals .........none of them from Chandragupta Maurya to Chandragupta stoped sati burning,caste system....even these ppl were also busy in fightings,,there was no central goverment for the whole country wagera wagera .........what is ur identity that u claim hindustan as ur own ??? ..who were the first *hindu* man and woman of hindustan ???how they born??how they came in the world ?


O dear, you seriously lack knowledge in history, especially the ancient one. Just look at hindu calendar and you will know. 

First hindu woman and man was created by god and dropped near Ganges.


----------



## Armstrong

Why isn't the name of *Armstrong the Butttt* in that list ?


----------



## ishaqzaade

Voldemort said:


> 5 out of 10 mentioned are non hindus


wrong ,6 out of 10 are non hindus.

Chandragupta Maurya was jain.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Backbencher

Fatima Sultana


----------



## manofwar

mastbalochi said:


> *we can imagine hindustan before the arabs *
> honestly speaking there is no such fascinating history of hindustan before the advent of islam ,most of the ppl including west know hindustan from mughals .........none of them from Chandragupta Maurya to Chandragupta stoped sati burning,caste system....even these ppl were also busy in fightings,,there was no central goverment for the whole country wagera wagera .........what is ur identity that u claim hindustan as ur own ??? ..who were the first *hindu* man and woman of hindustan ???how they born??how they came in the world ?



You obviously know nothing about the history of India.........
India was the world's biggest economy till 1000 AD when the muslims started ruling.........
It was the foremost intellectual power too. Most of the great ideas which the west credits the Arabs were actually Indian. A very strange assumption given that the Arabs were mostly traders and nomads at that time. It is more likely that hey picked up info during their travels to India.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KRAIT

Armstrong said:


> Why isn't the name of *Armstrong the Butttt* in that list ?


Because I kicked your buttt....

Kaisa hai....job ke time PDF khol ke baitha hai...boss aa gaya to...sat ki chutti hai kya ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## JonAsad

Alright i take my words back-

i shall now propose the title of this thread should hv been-

"Who was the Greatest Non- Muslim Emperor in South Asian History?"-


----------



## Armstrong

KRAIT said:


> Because I kicked your buttt....
> 
> Kaisa hai....job ke time PDF khol ke baitha hai...boss aa gaya to...sat ki chutti hai kya ?



Saturday is my day off !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dark Warrior

JonAsad said:


> Alright i take my words back-
> 
> i shall now propose the title of this thread should hv been-
> 
> "Who was the Greatest Non- Muslim Emperor in South Asian History?"-


Was Aurangazeb and Babur non muslims?


----------



## INDIC

Armstrong said:


> Why isn't the name of *Armstrong the Butttt* in that list ?



why four "t" in your name.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Android

Dark Warrior said:


> Was Aurangazeb and Babur non muslims?
> 
> Typical madrassa logic.


what about akbar


----------



## KRAIT

JonAsad said:


> Alright i take my words back-
> 
> i shall now propose the title of this thread should hv been-
> 
> "Who was the Greatest Non- Muslim Emperor in South Asian History?"-


Stop it man, stop suggesting title. Its over now. Lets make a new thread. Who among us will be the greatest ruler of South Asia. Jon Asad, Krait, Armstrong....? 

By the way you can't take back your words, words are like arrow, once used, can't be taken back....

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## angeldude13

i don't know how you people define greatness??
if ashoka is great by your perspective den aurangzaib is great too.i don't see any difference in hindu killing hindu or muslims killing hindu.

i will like to vote for akbar as he was the most secular king in the history of south asia.he united hindus and muslims of subcontinent.
my second favorite is chandraguta maurya.


----------



## Dark Warrior

Voldemort said:


> what about akbar


Islamists don't like Akbar.


----------



## Armstrong

Dark Warrior said:


> Was Aurangazeb and Babur non muslims?
> 
> Typical madrassa logic.



Yaar tou itna ghusaaa kiyun kartaa hai ? Name aur location bhi apni deekh 'Dark Warrior', 'Dark Fortress'....udhar kiyaa bijlee gai hoi hai ?



Gigawatt said:


> why four "t" in your name.



Because they sensor out it otherwise thinking that I'm talking about the human arse instead of my caste !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KRAIT

Armstrong said:


> Yaar tou itna ghusaaa kiyun kartaa hai ? Name aur location bhi apni deekh 'Dark Warrior', 'Dark Fortress'....udhar kiyaa bijlee gai hoi hai ?


Power failure ho gaya hai....inverter bhi kaam nahin kar raha....keyboard bhi nahin dikh raha, isliye bina dekhe gusse wale posts hi likh sakta hai andhere main. Copy Past.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dark Warrior

Armstrong said:


> Yaar tou itna ghusaaa kiyun kartaa hai ? Name aur location bhi apni deekh 'Dark Warrior', 'Dark Fortress'....udhar kiyaa bijlee gai hoi hai ?


Grid Failure.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## INDIC

REHAN NIAZI FALCON said:


> Aurangzaib , the best emperor..................
> \



What is best about him. I am curious to know that.


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Gigawatt said:


> Our history don't start with Bin Qasim vs Raja Dahir.



Yes you are right!! Our history starts with INDUS VALLEY CIVILIZATION which mostly flourished in the present day SINDH


----------



## KRAIT

I think IVC should be copyrighted by Pakistan. Any mention of it should give them royalty. Good for their economy.


----------



## jinxeD_girl

trinity said:


> Stealing what from you exactly? Bollywood? Taliban? Terror? What? Very few converted willingly,



Can you read what I said trini.. I said HISTORY dummy!



KRAIT said:


> I think IVC should be copyrighted by Pakistan. Any mention of it should give them royalty. Good for their economy.



Aap Indians hamien kahien bhi jeeney nahin daitey! If some Pakistanis claim that their history started with Mohammad Bin Qasim, then u Indis claim that how dare you forget your pre-islamic past! And if we take pride in our pre-islamic past and say our recorded history started with IVC, then we get spammy reponses like the one posted by KRAIT above  kahan jaoun, kisko apni dastaan sunaoun!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## INDIC

jinxeD_girl said:


> Yes you are right!! Our history starts with INDUS VALLEY CIVILIZATION which mostly flourished in the present day SINDH



And what was there between IVC and Bin Qasim(poora gol). I expected you will mention Mehargarh before IVC.



jinxeD_girl said:


> Aap Indians hamien kahien bhi jeeney nahin daitey! If some Pakistanis claim that their history started with Mohammad Bin Qasim, then u Indis claim that how dare you forget your pre-islamic past!



Good to know that our Dravidian ancestors gave you IVC.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S_O_C_O_M

KRAIT said:


> I think IVC should be copyrighted by Pakistan. Any mention of it should give them royalty. Good for their economy.



You attempt to ridicule, but what history does india have? domination by Muslims rulers; a majority pagan religion named by the British. Only thing you people can hold on too is the ficticious imaginary nature bollywood presents about indian "culture"  and fabrication distortion of history books NOTHING MORE.


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Neuro said:


> *Balochi's are damn stupids like you? *actually you people don't know anything about history , madarassa educational need to improve at smaller extent..



Yes balochis r stupid, pathans r stupid, kashmiris r stupid, punjabis r stupid, sindhis r stupid!! And all the people residing on the EASTERN side of your border r the most intelligent, logical, smart beings roaming on the planet earth!!



Gigawatt said:


> Good to know that our Dravidian ancestors gave you IVC.



It has not been proven yet that the indigenous people of IVC were Dravidians.


----------



## Dark Warrior

S_O_C_O_M said:


> You attempt to ridicule, but what history does india have? domination by Muslims rulers; a majority pagan religion named by the British. Only thing you people can hold on too is the ficticious imaginary nature bollywood presents about indian "culture"  and fabrication distortion of history books NOTHING MORE.


What history does Pakistan have?
domination by west for four decades,currently dominated by china.Only thing you people can hold onto is the fictious imaginary nature Pak mullahs present about pakistaniyat and crappy history textbook which call qasim a Pakistani.


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Gigawatt said:


> And what was there between IVC and Bin Qasim(poora gol). I expected you will mention Mehargarh before IVC.:



But i am sure about one thing though... majority of what was between IVC AND Moahammad Bin Qasim had very little to do with SOUTH INDIA  - Indo-Greek, Achamenid, Sassanid etc etc


----------



## Armstrong

Dark Warrior said:


> What history does Pakistan have?
> domination by west for four decades,currently dominated by china.Only thing you people can hold onto is the fictious imaginary nature Pak mullahs present about pakistaniyat and *crappy history textbook which call qasim a Pakistani*.



Mind quoting that bit from the same 'crappy history textbooks' !


----------



## INDIC

jinxeD_girl said:


> It has not been proven yet that the indigenous people of IVC were Dravidians.



It is proved they were Dravidians. IVC was known as Meluhha in Mesopotamia, the word is Dravidian in origin.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Dark Warrior said:


> What history does Pakistan have?
> domination by west for four decades,currently dominated by china.Only thing you people can hold onto is the fictious imaginary nature Pak mullahs present about pakistaniyat and crappy history textbook which call qasim a Pakistani.



Really? When I took classes back in Pakistan, they thought that Qasim was Arab and came from Iraq, if I am not mistaken.


----------



## KRAIT

S_O_C_O_M said:


> You attempt to ridicule, but what history does india have? domination by Muslims rulers; a majority pagan religion named by the British. Only thing you people can hold on too is the ficticious imaginary nature bollywood presents about indian "culture"  and fabrication distortion of history books NOTHING MORE.


Yup we will were ruled by Muslims. Happy. Wait a minute, there were no muslims before those people invaded us. So entire Indian subcontinent especially the IVC people and their generation weren't Muslims. So what conclusion should I derive ?

Hold on your horses, when you call fictitious imaginary things and distortion of history books, you are inviting people to question you. And if we have distorted the history, how come you use history that Muslims ruled us. It can be one thing, either the history was distorted or the history is intact. Make up your mind.

Beofre you come and post about someone's origin, values, religion, think twice. Its not good to gain same cheap points.


----------



## S_O_C_O_M

Dark Warrior said:


> What history does Pakistan have?
> domination by west for four decades,currently dominated by china.Only thing you people can hold onto is the fictious imaginary nature Pak mullahs present about pakistaniyat and crappy history textbook which call qasim a Pakistani.



Indian Man Loses it in an Airplane - YouTube


----------



## INDIC

jinxeD_girl said:


> But i am sure about one thing though... majority of what was between IVC AND Moahammad Bin Qasim had very little to do with SOUTH INDIA  - Indo-Greek, Achamenid, Sassanid etc etc



Do you know the name of any famous pre-Islamic Pakistanis.


----------



## KRAIT

jinxeD_girl said:


> Yes balochis r stupid, pathans r stupid, kashmiris r stupid, punjabis r stupid, sindhis r stupid!! And all the people residing on the EASTERN side of your border r the most intelligent, logical, smart beings roaming on the planet earth!!
> 
> 
> 
> It has not been proven yet that the indigenous people of IVC were Dravidians.


I am reporting you for calling balochis, patahns, kashmiris, punjabis and sindhis, stupid. You hurt sentiments of 180 million people.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Gigawatt said:


> Do you know the name of any famous pre-Islamic Pakistanis.



Yes!! The "INDIC" ones or the "IRANIC" ones?



KRAIT said:


> I am reporting you for calling balochis, patahns, kashmiris, punjabis and sindhis, stupid. You hurt sentiments of 180 million people.



Understand the sarcasm in my post dummy!


----------



## KRAIT

S_O_C_O_M said:


> Indian Man Loses it in an Airplane - YouTube


Should I start posting the hundred of videos where Pakistani intellectuals and ministers call each other with vulgar comments, fight on show etc. Youtube that first.

Don't change the topic.



jinxeD_girl said:


> Yes!! The "INDIC" ones or the "IRANIC" ones?
> 
> 
> 
> Understand the sarcasm in my post dummy!


I know buddy, just making funny comment, didn't report you. Laughing alongside with you.


----------



## INDIC

jinxeD_girl said:


> Yes!! The "INDIC" ones or the "IRANIC" ones?



"Pakic" one, not from Iran or India.


----------



## Armstrong

KRAIT said:


> I am reporting you for calling balochis, patahns, kashmiris, punjabis and sindhis, stupid. *You hurt sentiments of 180 million people.*



Haaanh...woh to purana census thaaa now we're closer to the 200 million mark !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## S_O_C_O_M

KRAIT said:


> Yup we will were ruled by Muslims. Happy. Wait a minute, there were no muslims before those people invaded us. So entire Indian subcontinent especially the IVC people and their generation weren't Muslims. So what conclusion should I derive ?
> 
> Hold on your horses, when you call fictitious imaginary things and distortion of history books, you are inviting people to question you. *And if we have distorted the history, how come you use history that Muslims ruled us. It can be one thing, either the history was distorted or the history is intact. Make up your mind*.
> 
> Beofre you come and post about someone's origin, values, religion, think twice. Its not good to gain same cheap points.



Who said your version of your dominance, and humilation by Muslims rulers is being used here? There are many scholarly western sources that can perfectly allude to this.


----------



## ishaqzaade

KRAIT said:


> Should I start posting the hundred of videos where Pakistani intellectuals and ministers call each other with vulgar comments, fight on show etc. Youtube that first.
> 
> Don't change the topic.
> 
> I know buddy, just making funny comment, didn't report you. Laughing alongside with you.


BRO DON'T REPLAY TROLL AND STAY IN TOPIC.


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Gigawatt said:


> "Pakic" one, not from Iran or India.



But Pakistan didn't exist back then sweety boy  King Porus was from present day Punjab.

*King Porus* (from Puru, the latinisation of the Greek &#928;&#8182;&#961;&#959;&#962; - Porus, ultimately from Sanskrit: &#2346;&#2369;&#2352;&#2369;&#2359;&#2379;&#2340;&#2381;&#2340;&#2350; Purushottama) was the King of Paurava, an ancient state within the territory of modern day *Punjab*


----------



## Dark Warrior

jinxeD_girl said:


> Really? When I took classes back in Pakistan, they thought that Qasim was Arab and came from Iraq, if I am not mistaken.


You must have been poor in studies(atleast history)


> History books contain major distortions: SDPI
> 
> By Waqar Gillani
> 
> LAHORE: Pakistani history textbooks contain major distortions that foster an &#8220;artificial identity and ideology&#8221; on the basis that Muslims and Hindus are enemies, the former righteous and the latter conniving, deceptive and cruel, says a report by the Sustainable Development Policy Institute.
> 
> According to a brief of the report - The Subtle Subversion-The State of Curricula and Textbooks in Pakistan - compiled by AH Nayyar and Ahmed Salim, the Pakistan Studies, History, Civics and Urdu textbooks portray Hindus as backward and superstitious, burning their widows and wives. They portray Brahmins as inherently cruel, asserting their power over the weak, especially Muslims and Shuddras.
> 
> In Social Studies classes, students are taught that Islam brought peace, equality, and justice to the subcontinent and only through Islam could the sinister ways of Hindus be held in check. &#8220;In Pakistani textbooks &#8216;Hindu&#8217; rarely appears in a sentence without the use of adjectives &#8216;conniving&#8217; or &#8216;manipulative&#8217;,&#8221; says the report.
> 
> The report gives examples of certain books containing inaccuracies. In &#8216;Social Studies&#8217; for class VIII (Punjab Textbook Board, Lahore), the account of the &#8216;Muslim World&#8217; is not correct historically or geographically. &#8220;The child is quite likely to gather from the phrase &#8216;the Muslim world&#8217; that a particular place in the world is called the Muslim world. The book has chapters titled &#8216;Mountains of the Muslim world&#8217;, *&#8216;Seas of the Muslim world&#8217; ... Muhammad-bin-Qasim is declared the first Pakistani citizen.&#8221;*
> 
> Schoolbooks are &#8220;full of errors and false statements&#8221; about the struggle for independence and the Two Nation Theory, says the report. &#8220;The history in these books is claimed as an unpunctured and smooth fabric and presented in religious terms, ie, Hindus versus Muslims, and no economic, historical, social or political causes given. The Two Nation Theory is justified and all history of mutual co-existence denied. For example, all resistance in 1857 (War of Independence) is claimed for Muslims whereas the Hindus and Sikhs were also a part of it.&#8221;
> 
> The report says Civics textbooks carry on with many of the faults of social studies in that there is no coherent order of the contents. &#8220;The ideological content is immense and throughout, the Two Nation Theory is presented as the basis of Pakistan and the economic and political factors that led to the creation of Pakistan are ignored.&#8221;
> 
> The story of Partition is described with &#8220;self-serving half-truths&#8221;, says the report. &#8220;The authors of Mutala-i-Pakistan (class IX-X, NWFP Textbook Board, Peshawar) state that after the establishment of Pakistan &#8216;the Hindus and Sikhs created a day of doom for the Muslims in East Punjab&#8217;.&#8221;
> 
> The report points out that the Muslims were responsible for similar atrocities against Hindus and the Sikhs in West Punjab and Sindh. &#8220;Communal killing on a large scale took place in Rawalpindi in Feb-March 1947, termed as the rape of Rawalpindi. It was the work of Muslims, the Sikhs being victims. A more recent book repeats it in different words, again omitting the parallel atrocities committed by the Muslims of West Punjab and Sindh on Sikhs and Hindus.&#8221;
> 
> The report notes that the Objectives Resolution of 1949 is presented uncritically, &#8220;even though it took sovereignty away from the people and, quite contrary to (Muhammad Ali) Jinnah&#8217;s views, made a move toward a theocratic state; this should be taught critically and not as &#8216;the truth&#8217;.&#8221;
> 
> The report says there were major themes and ideas omitted from schoolbooks &#8220;since they did not fit the ideological straitjacket in which the young Pakistani mind was sought to be confined. Several authors have identified how the writing of history has been systematically distorted to foster an artificial identity and ideology. The entire focus of this effort is directed towards proving the historical differences, enmities and differences between Muslims and Hindus and the righteousness of the Muslims as opposed to the cunning, deceit and cruelty of Hindus.&#8221;
> 
> &#8220;In his brilliant study on the murder of history in Pakistani textbooks, KK Aziz has provided the reader with the major inaccuracies, distortions, exaggerations and slants to be found in each officially prepared and prescribed textbook and in a representative selection of private commercial publications which are in wide use as textbooks. In his thorough and fascinating post-mortem of 66 Pakistan Studies and History textbooks, he has compiled an extensive list of errors they contained. Rubina Saigol&#8217;s analysis of Pakistani educational policies and curriculum reveals the way in which the nation state&#8217;s ideologies are realised in actual textual practice. In her words, this led to an exploration of the translation of official policies into action at the level of text production. Mubarak Ali, AH Nayyar, Khurshid Hasnain, Pervez Hoodbhoy and Tariq Rahman have also looked upon the enforcement of distortion in History and Social Studies textbooks. For Tariq Rahman, history is mutilated in textbooks to construct a mind-set that serves the broader polities of state.&#8221;
> 
> The reports says Pakistani textbooks during the 1950s and 1960s contained detailed and at times appreciative accounts of the ancient Hindu history and culture. All books started with the ancient civilizations of Moenjodaro, Harappa and Taxila, narrated indigenous mythologies without bias and recounted the grandeur of the early Hindu and Budhist kingdoms. &#8220;Some of them were even occasionally critical of the Muslim heroes also.&#8221;
> 
> According to the SDPI, the process of &#8220;negative change&#8221; had started from day one. &#8220;As early as November 1947, the government held a conference of educationists to lay down guidelines for future educational policies ... even in the life of Jinnah, the resolution of the Pakistan Educational Conference recommended the adoption of Islamic ideology as the basis of education.&#8221;
> 
> The report states that textbooks during the Ayub era were balanced between traditionalists and modernists, but Yahya Khan&#8217;s educational policy was more receptive to Islamic interests.
> 
> &#8220;The curricula and textbooks of Bhutto&#8217;s new Pakistan emerged through the dismemberment of the state. Because the Two-Nation Theory came under attack, there was an over-emphasis on the Two-Nation Theory in the form of the Ideology of Pakistan and on finding the roots of the Pakistani nation in the neighbouring lands to the west, again based on religion. The Ideology of Pakistan was the focal point in the objectives of Bhutto&#8217;s Education Policy.
> 
> &#8220;Zia-ul-Haq started the process of Islamisation in full measure. The textbooks continued to lay even greater stress on the Islamic perspective of historical events. The new education policy was presented as a five-year programme. It listed nine national aims of education. The first four highlighted Zia&#8217;s political agenda of Islam. The phrase &#8216;Ideology of Pakistan&#8217; was installed with vigour and all the textbooks were re-written to reassert the Islamic orientation of Pakistani nationalism according to Gen Zia&#8217;s Socio-political concepts.&#8221;
> 
> According to the report, one of the major problems with this method, &#8220;which relegates the anti-colonial experience as secondary to the communal question,&#8221; is that the Pakistani student never learns the meaning of his colonial past and its vestiges, &#8220;which continue to dominate his life even today in the form of an elite class of civil and military bureaucracy, landlords and comprador capitalists&#8221;.
> 
> The report concludes that the growth of intolerance, fundamentalism and extremism is strengthened by curricula and textbooks in public schools. The public school system has a &#8220;fundamental weakness in that critical thinking, analysis and difference of opinion is not allowed to be developed as a natural activity in learning&#8221;.
> 
> The report is part of the SDPI&#8217;s Civil Society Initiative in Curricula and Textbooks Reform project.
> 
> Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan





Armstrong said:


> Mind quoting that bit from the same 'crappy history textbooks' !


Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KRAIT

Armstrong said:


> Haaanh...woh to purana census that now we're closer to the 200 million mark !


Kambakhat...20 million bad gaye....don't worry we will increase by many millions putting your rate behind. I think its time I should marry and do something for my country.


----------



## jinxeD_girl

KRAIT said:


> Should I start posting the hundred of videos where Pakistani intellectuals and ministers call each other with vulgar comments, fight on show etc. Youtube that first.
> 
> Don't change the topic.
> 
> I know buddy, just making funny comment, didn't report you. Laughing alongside with you.



I was joking too

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ishaqzaade

bro what do you think about Kharavela-Kingdom 








kushan empire


----------



## Android

JonAsad said:


> Alright i take my words back-
> 
> i shall now propose the title of this thread should hv been-
> 
> "Who was the Greatest Non- Muslim Emperor in South Asian History?"-


dude plz except of akbar(whom many of you don't even consider him a muslim) no other muslim ruler came no where close to the greatness of Ashoka, Rajaraja Chola, Chandragupta Maurya, Samudragupta, Vikramaditya etc


----------



## INDIC

jinxeD_girl said:


> But Pakistan didn't exist back then sweety boy  King Porus was from present day Punjab.
> 
> *King Porus* (from Puru, the latinisation of the Greek &#928;&#8182;&#961;&#959;&#962; - Porus, ultimately from Sanskrit: &#2346;&#2369;&#2352;&#2369;&#2359;&#2379;&#2340;&#2381;&#2340;&#2350; Purushottama) was the King of Paurava, an ancient state within the territory of modern day *Punjab*



Just 1.  Do you know anyone else ya poora gol. Do you know the meaning of Purushottama? 

But how come Iranian-Turkish beauty came to claim IVC civilization of our Dravidian ancestors.


----------



## KRAIT

S_O_C_O_M said:


> Who said your version of your dominance, and humilation by Muslims rulers is being used here? There are many scholarly western sources that can perfectly allude to this.


There you go. But one thing I don't understand is why you take credit for those people who came thousands of miles to conquer India. They weren't from IVC. There were no muslims when they came. Its not from our "distorted" history books, its from many scholarly western sources which I think can perfectly allude to this. Aren't the western sources also says that majority of people living in Indian subcontinent especially the muslims are from non-muslim ancestry. 

As I said, make up your mind. Stop taking credits of people like Babur.


----------



## Armstrong

Dark Warrior said:


> You must have been poor in studies(atleast history)
> 
> 
> 
> Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan



I went through the same process and I studied 3 history books as part of our Paksitan Studies course...I can't remember a single line from them where anyone was idolized to that point of calling him/her our 'hero' ! Even Jinnah wasn't given that well deserved place.


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Gigawatt said:


> Just 1.  Do you know anyone else aur poora gol. But how come Iranian-Turkish beauty came to claim civilization of our Dravidian ancestors.  Do you know the meaning of Purushottama?



How come I am turkish? Turkish r turkic ppl, they r not Aryans. hehe How come they r UR ancestors? Genetically, Pakistan still have somewhere around 40% Dravidian component.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Armstrong

KRAIT said:


> Kambakhat...20 million bad gaye....don't worry we will increase by many millions putting your rate behind. *I think its time I should marry and do something for my country*.



About 2 dozen Hannibal Lector Juniors roaming about - Nahin yaaraa marvai ga !

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## explorer9

Alauddin Khilji!!!


----------



## KRAIT

Armstrong said:


> About 2 dozen Hannibal Lector Juniors roaming about - Nahin yaaraa marvai ga !


Abe two dozen, I will marry a woman not mate with a bunny. 

Kuch to soch yaar...24 bache kaise paalunga..

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## newdelhinsa

I have selected Ashoka because the kind of sophisticated governance he established was really great. Also I would like to see great Sher Shah Suri in the list.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## neutral_person

Ashoka and Shivaji were the best. Ashoka for uniting all of India, and Shivaji for winning back India from Turkic foreigners.


----------



## INDIC

jinxeD_girl said:


> How come I am turkish? Turkish r turkic ppl, they r not Aryans. hehe How come they r UR ancestors? Genetically, Pakistan still have somewhere around 40% Dravidian component.



Jab doosre ka maal claim karne ka time aaya to Dravidian se rishta jud gaya.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dark Warrior

Armstrong said:


> I went through the same process and I studied 3 history books as part of our Paksitan Studies course...I can't remember a single line from them where anyone was idolized to that point of calling him/her our 'hero' ! Even Jinnah wasn't given that well deserved place.


Read this:
http://www.tufts.edu/~ajalal01/Articles/conjuring.pdf

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Armstrong

KRAIT said:


> Abe two dozen, I will marry a woman not mate with a bunny.
> 
> Kuch to soch yaar...24 bache kaise paalunga..



Lei...2 dozen pe heee hawaa nikal gai ! Have you heard of that Arab Sheikh whos going on 96-97 bachaaasss ! Bohat disappoint kiya tou ne mujhe...mulk ke liyeee kuch bhi - Keh 2 dozen tou mein pehle saaal mein hee sambhal loon ga !


----------



## jinxeD_girl

KRAIT said:


> There you go. But one thing I don't understand is why you take credit for those people who came thousands of miles to conquer India. They weren't from IVC. There were no muslims when they came. Its not from our "distorted" history books, its from many scholarly western sources which I think can perfectly allude to this. Aren't the western sources also says that majority of people living in Indian subcontinent especially the muslims are from non-muslim ancestry.
> 
> As I said, make up your mind. Stop taking credits of people like Babur.



Not everyone in Pakistan takes credit for those turkic invaders or glorifies them. In my eyez, Babur, Akbar etc were just invaders, there is nothing special about them. 

Syed Zaid Hamid - Frontline with Kamran Shahid - 6-3-2012 - eyesopner - YouTube

Check this video and see for yourself what human right activists and thinkers of Pakistan like Fauziya Saeed and Hassan Nisar have to say about those invaders. She says we were hindus, buddhists, and whatever during our long history and we were not what Zaid Hamid thinks we were, we got invaded by invaders and we accepted their religion. (Just noticed that the part by Fauziya is missing in this video, but you can google it on youtube)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## INDIC

KRAIT said:


> Kambakhat...20 million bad gaye....don't worry we will increase by many millions putting your rate behind.* I think its time I should marry and do something for my country.*



I think you should give five daughters to this country to improve the sex ratio of India.


----------



## neutral_person

Can we please stop discussing ethnicity/religion in this thread. There are other threads for those topics.


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Gigawatt said:


> Jab doosre ka maal claim karne ka time aaya to Dravidian se rishta jud gaya.



I have posted the genetic study before which appeared in American Journal of Human Genetics, go and dig it just like how your buddy Vinod digs my old posts. Pakistan is genetically 60% West Eurasian (Aryan), 35% South Asian (Dravidian) and 5% Mongolian or something like that. I don't have time to post the genetic map of Pakistan again.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KRAIT

Armstrong said:


> Lei...2 dozen pe heee hawaa nikal gai ! Have you heard of that Arab Sheikh whos going on 96-97 bachaaasss ! Bohat disappoint kiya tou ne mujhe...mulk ke liyeee kuch bhi - Keh 2 dozen tou mein pehle saaal mein hee sambhal loon ga !


Yaa to 24 women se shaadi karun aur 24 bache paida hon , yaa fir 1 women se aur 9x24 months....wait....

Chal pehla option try karunga....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Back to the topic.. I don't have any fav South Asian emperor who really impressed me. Not a big fan of Akbar, Babur, Ranjit Singh etc, and don't know much about Samudra, Chatra, Patra etc.


----------



## Armstrong

Dark Warrior said:


> Read this:
> http://www.tufts.edu/~ajalal01/Articles/conjuring.pdf



Thank You ! I went half way through it but so far it comes across as being riddled with the usual half-truths, omissions and out-right lies that most such articles or reasearch papers are. I've got the 3 Pakistan Studies books in front of me right now...should you wish it I can quote you word from word what they said about 'Muhammad bin Qasim' and how the progression of the history of this place has been laid out...nowhere does anyone claim that we've descended from the Arabs or uses the term 'the Muslim World' in a 'Pan-Islamist' context.


----------



## KRAIT

Gigawatt said:


> I think you should give five daughters to this country to improve the sex ratio of India.


Chal hatt...aise India main ladki paida naa hi ho to acha hai...recent news dekh....har waqt tension rahegi....agar ladki hui to India ke bahar jaake rahunga.....kam se kam security to milegi...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kumarkumar1867

Ashoka , Akbar & Shivaji ...For me


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Armstrong said:


> Thank You ! I went half way through it but so far it comes across as being riddled with the usual half-truths, omissions and out-right lies that most such articles or reasearch papers are. I've got the 3 Pakistan Studies books in front of me right now...should you wish it I can quote you word from word what they said about 'Muhammad bin Qasim' and how the progression of the history of this place has been laid out...nowhere does anyone claim that we've descended from the Arabs or uses the term 'the Muslim World' in a 'Pan-Islamist' context.



Majority of Indians here just like to quote words from right wing Pakistanis from shady websites and then use it to bash Pakistan. That is the first time I am hearing that Mohammad Bin Qasim was Pakistani!!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dark Warrior

Armstrong said:


> Thank You ! I went half way through it but so far it comes across as being riddled with the usual half-truths, omissions and out-right lies that most such articles or reasearch papers are. I've got the 3 Pakistan Studies books in front of me right now...should you wish it I can quote you word from word what they said about 'Muhammad bin Qasim' and how the progression of the history of this place has been laid out...nowhere does anyone claim that we've descended from the Arabs or uses the term 'the Muslim World' in a 'Pan-Islamist' context.


I will believe International Journal on Middle East Studies before an internet poster.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Armstrong

Dark Warrior said:


> I will believe International Journal on Middle East Studies before an internet poster.



Suit yourself or you can grab a copy of Pakistan Studies textooks for Grade 8-10 and go through them yourself !


----------



## pk_baloch

jinxeD_girl said:


> Can you read what I said trini.. I said HISTORY dummy!
> 
> 
> 
> Aap Indians hamien kahien bhi jeeney nahin daitey! If some Pakistanis claim that their history started with Mohammad Bin Qasim, then u Indis claim that how dare you forget your pre-islamic past! And if we take pride in our pre-islamic past and say our recorded history started with IVC, then we get spammy reponses like the one posted by KRAIT above  kahan jaoun, kisko apni dastaan sunaoun!!



these indians are also convertor from different religions .....NO one is telling me wat they were before draviadian .....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## INDIC

jinxeD_girl said:


> I have posted the genetic study before which appeared in American Journal of Human Genetics, go and dig it just like how your buddy Vinod digs my old posts. Pakistan is genetically 60% West Eurasian (Aryan), 35% South Asian (Dravidian) and 5% Mongolian or something like that. I don't have time to post the genetic map of Pakistan again.



In all your previous comments you mentioned you are not related to South Indians. IVC aur Tipu Sultan ko claim karne ke liya Dravidian se rishta jud gaya.


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Gigawatt said:


> In all your previous comments you mentioned you are not related to South Indians. IVC aur Tipu Sultan ko claim karne ke liya Dravidian se rishta jud gaya.



I was only talking about MYSELF, duh! Got it now.  



mastbalochi said:


> these indians are also convertor from different religions .....NO one is telling me wat they were before draviadian .....



oh my god!!  hhahaahhhah!


----------



## INDIC

jinxeD_girl said:


> I was only talking about MYSELF, duh! Got it now.



You were talking about every Pakistani Punjabis, Sindhi, Baloch, Pashtuns and Muhajirs who are not Dravidians. 

Please stop claiming the rich heritage of our Dravidian ancestors of Meluhha(IVC).


----------



## Armstrong

mastbalochi said:


> these indians are also convertor from different religions .....NO one is telling me wat they were before draviadian .....



Haaanhaan jokes marti jaanaaa behan par meri sawaal ka jawab na deina ! Is that you in the avatar ?


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Armstrong said:


> Haaanhaan jokes marti jaanaaa behan par meri sawaal ka jawab na deina ! Is that you in the avatar ?



Armstrong, is that YOU in ur profile pic? Cute indeed! 



Gigawatt said:


> You were talking about every Pakistani Punjabis, Sindhi, Baloch, Pashtuns and Muhajirs who are not Dravidians.
> 
> Please stop claiming the rich heritage of our Dravidian ancestors of Meluhha(IVC).



You forgot Kashmiris, the cutest n purest Aryans . I still have a crush on that Kashmiri guy, sigh!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## INDIC

jinxeD_girl said:


> You forgot Kashmiris, the cutest n purest Aryans . I still have a crush on that Kashmiri guy, sigh!



Kashmiri or a Mirpuri.


----------



## pk_baloch

Armstrong said:


> Haaanhaan jokes marti jaanaaa behan par meri sawaal ka jawab na deina ! Is that you in the avatar ?



no im serious that they were something before dravidians


----------



## S_O_C_O_M

KRAIT said:


> There you go. *But one thing I don't understand is why you take credit for those people who came thousands of miles to conquer India.*



Typical indian straw man tactic. My point in previous post made PERFECTLY. 



KRAIT said:


> They weren't from IVC. There were no muslims when they came. Its not from our "distorted" history books, its from many scholarly western sources which I think can perfectly allude to this.



Again you people thrive of purporting what other have posted or said. Its either this or you severly lack discerning skills. 



KRAIT said:


> Aren't the western sources also says that majority of people living in *Indian subcontinent* especially the muslims are from non-muslim ancestry.



Pakistan was apart of the second Islamic Caliphate. You people are still "hindus" ( or whatever you people called yourself at that time because your paganistic religion had no official name of "hinduism" till after the British conqured and gave it to you people as there were several hundred different pagan groups at that time) because umayya shams stopped at present day indian border. 

Indian and Bengali Muslims are majority from "non-muslim ancestry" from indian subcontinent 400 million vs. 170 million. 



KRAIT said:


> As I said, make up your mind. Stop taking credits of people like Babur.



again straw man tactic. the very definition of dignity eludes you.


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Gigawatt said:


> Kashmiri or a Mirpuri.



Kashmiris, Koshur Kashmiris who speak Kashmiri and are only found in Indian held Kashmir, not the Dogras of Jammu, Mirpuri or Pahadi ppl of Azad Kashmir, not the Shina speakers of Gilgit Baltistan. Clear enough?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## JonAsad

mastbalochi said:


> no im serious that they were something before dravidians


 
Yup- that something would be human- -

-

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistanisage

1. Aurangzeb
2. Babur
3. Akbar

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## pk_baloch

Armstrong said:


> Haaanhaan jokes marti jaanaaa behan par meri sawaal ka jawab na deina ! Is that you in the avatar




........... mene kiya kaha tha ..aik baat bate the ....yad naee tumen ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Armstrong

jinxeD_girl said:


> Kashmiris, Koshur Kashmiris who speak Kashmiri and are only found in Indian held Kashmir, not the Dogras of Jammu, Mirpuri or Pahadi ppl of Azad Kashmir, not the Shina speakers of Gilgit Baltistan. Clear enough?



Some of us Koshur Speaking Kashmiris are found here in the Punjab too and we don't seem Koshur anymore...we've assimilated to the extent of intermarrying between the Punjabis and adopting the Punjabi culture and the language (or Urdu) as our mother tongue...!



mastbalochi said:


> ........... mene kiya kaha tha ..aik baat bate the ....yad naee tumen ?



Nahin...! 



Pakistanisage said:


> 1. Aurangzeb
> 2. Babur
> 3. Akbar



What about *Armstrong the Buttttt* ? You're so cruel...!


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Armstrong said:


> Some of us Koshur Speaking Kashmiris are found here in the Punjab too and we don't seem Koshur anymore...we've assimilated to the extent of intermarrying between the Punjabis and adopting the Punjabi culture and the language (or Urdu) as our mother tongue...!
> 
> 
> 
> Nahin...!



But u still look very much Kashmiri... r u B U T T?


----------



## Pakistanisage

mastbalochi said:


> no im serious that *they were something before dravidians *





Cavemen, I think.....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Armstrong

jinxeD_girl said:


> But u still look very much Kashmiri... r u B U T T?



I'm an ethnic Kashmiri born to a Punjabi mother ! Yes...I am Butttt !


----------



## pk_baloch

jinxeD_girl said:


> But u still look very much Kashmiri... r u B U T T?



armstrong ki history mujhe pata he ....muj se poucho ...he is also a handsome boy 



Armstrong said:


> I'm an ethnic Kashmiri born to a Punjabi mother ! Yes...I am Butttt !



yes u r rite

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Pakistanisage

Armstrong said:


> Nahin...!
> 
> 
> 
> What about *Armstrong the Buttttt* ? You're so cruel...!





Don't believe in " No ands , ifs or buttts"

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Armstrong

mastbalochi said:


> armstrong ki history mujhe pata he ....muj se poucho ...he is also a handsome boy
> 
> 
> 
> yes u r rite



 Yeh kisssi aur 'Armstrong' ke baat ho rahee ho ge because I look like a 'tub of buttter' !


----------



## pk_baloch

Pakistanisage said:


> Cavemen, I think.....




they were human being .......



Armstrong said:


> Yeh kisssi aur 'Armstrong' ke baat ho rahee ho ge because I look like a 'tub of buttter' !



kisi aur k bhi "ARM" STRONG hein kiya yahan ?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Armstrong

Pakistanisage said:


> Don't believe in " No ands , ifs or buttts"



What you made a joke out of Us - the Great Butttsss !  

Now you sir have earned yourself a duel ! Meet me on the right side of the Brooklyn Bridge tonight and bring with you your own sword...lohaaa bohat mehngaa ho giyaa hai !


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Armstrong said:


> What you made a joke out of Us - the Great Butttsss !
> 
> Now you sir have earned yourself a duel ! Meet me on the right side of the Brooklyn Bridge tonight and bring with you your own sword...lohaaa bohat mehngaa ho giyaa hai !



I think B U T T came into being from BHATT, which is still used as a last name by Kashmiris (both Hindus and Muslims) on the other side of the border. 

And gigawatt just like you are claiming all the Dravidian ancestors as YOURS (including the ones who created Indus valley Civilization), in the same way I am claiming all Aryans as Mine (including the ones from the other side of the border)

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## pk_baloch

ok im going to have some work !!!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## KRAIT

jinxeD_girl said:


> Not everyone in Pakistan takes credit for those turkic invaders or glorifies them. In my eyez, Babur, Akbar etc were just invaders, there is nothing special about them.
> 
> Syed Zaid Hamid - Frontline with Kamran Shahid - 6-3-2012 - eyesopner - YouTube
> 
> Check this video and see for yourself what human right activists and thinkers of Pakistan like Fauziya Saeed and Hassan Nisar have to say about those invaders. She says we were hindus, buddhists, and whatever during our long history and we were not what Zaid Hamid thinks we were, we got invaded by invaders and we accepted their religion. (Just noticed that the part by Fauziya is missing in this video, but you can google it on youtube)


Problem is these people not getting followed by the local people. The scientists like Abdus Salam and their visions are not followed. Salam Sahab ne Pakistan ka space program start kiya tha jo ki India se pehle tha. Problem yahi hai, aise scientists ko develop hone do, inhe support kiya karo, Hamid jaison ke videos youtube par mat dalo, water car wale logon ko prime time mat do. 

Pakistan ko apne intellectuals ko support karna chahiye. Inhe uthane do naa ki Hamid jaison ko.


----------



## Armstrong

jinxeD_girl said:


> I think B U T T came into being from BHATT, which is still used as a last name by Kashmiris (both Hindus and Muslims) on the other side of the border.
> 
> And gigawatt just like you are claiming all the Dravidian ancestors as YOURS (including the ones who created Indus valley Civilization), in the same way I am claiming all Aryans as Mine (including the ones from the other side of the border)



What exactly is your ethnicity ?


----------



## jinxeD_girl

KRAIT said:


> Problem is these people not getting followed by the local people. The scientists like Abdus Salam and their visions are not followed. Salam Sahab ne Pakistan ka space program start kiya tha jo ki India se pehle tha. Problem yahi hai, aise scientists ko develop hone do, inhe support kiya karo, Hamid jaison ke videos youtube par mat dalo, water car wale logon ko prime time mat do.
> 
> Pakistan ko apne intellectuals ko support karna chahiye. Inhe uthane do naa ki Hamid jaison ko.



I posted this video only to show that not everyone believes blindly on zaid hamid theories. There r lots of liberal ppl n free thinkers in Pakistan including myself!  But you Indians always post the views of Zaid Hamid followers and right wing Pakistanis and use it to bash Pakistan. Remember Pakistan has a population of more than 160 million ppl and it is not a homogenous population, every individual has their own view on history, culture ppl etc. I am sure it is the same in India too right?


----------



## pk_baloch

jinxeD_girl said:


> And *gigawatt just like you are claiming all the Dravidian ancestors as YOURS* (including the ones who created Indus valley Civilization), in the same way I am claiming all Aryans as Mine (including the ones from the other side of the border)




ok phir gigawat should tell the name of the first draviadian (as he is saying that thier history starts from dravidaians)


----------



## Armstrong

mastbalochi said:


> ok im going to have some work !!!!



Jhooot na bolo...rozee mein koi kaaam nahin kartaaaa !


----------



## KRAIT

jinxeD_girl said:


> I posted this video only to show that not everyone believes blindly on zaid hamid theories. There r lots of liberal ppl n free thinkers in Pakistan including myself!  But you Indians always post the views of Zaid Hamid followers and right wing Pakistanis and use it to bash Pakistan. Remember Pakistan has a population of more than 160 million ppl and it is not a homogenous population, every individual has their own view on history, culture ppl etc. I am sure it is the same in India too right?


Me Indian....I watch Nissar and Najam Sethi for serious things and Hamid for comedy. I read about Abdus Salam and why he wasn't given the due credit. There was another scientist whose story was posted on the forum. 

We Indian also have these mental cases but we provide more to our intellectuals. That's the difference. But I don't agree with current support to scientists in India, we should be given more.

Problem is when people on this forum quote what Hamid says like we have ruled India for 1000 years. Problem is these people invite Indians to bash Pakistan.


----------



## Bhairava

Pakistanisage said:


> Cavemen, I think.....



Exactly...

Humans did not suddenly appear one day in a seventh storey of Burj-al-Eden.

It's evolution.


----------



## pk_baloch

jinxeD_girl said:


> I posted this video only to show that not everyone believes blindly on zaid hamid theories. There r lots of liberal ppl n free thinkers in Pakistan including myself!  But you Indians always post the views of Zaid Hamid followers and right wing Pakistanis and use it to bash Pakistan. Remember Pakistan has a population of more than 160 million ppl and it is not a homogenous population, every individual has their own view on history, culture ppl etc. I am sure it is the same in India too right?



liberal ho ya kuch aur unki jab wo history k liye maloom karta he to religion par end hota hen uska........

i was also some thing else before 1 year ,phir mein religiously sochne lage and i got my every answers ......zaid hamid ki baten bulkul naee but kuch saee hoty hein ......khas kar indians k bare mein


----------



## Android

Wow didnt knew chandragupta maurya is so much popular even more than his grandson


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Armstrong said:


> What exactly is your ethnicity ?



Punjabi from Upper Punjab.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Rajaraja Chola

manofwar said:


> 1. Ashoka the Great
> 2. Chandragupta Maurya
> 3. Akbar the Great
> 4. Gupta Clan
> 5. *Rajaraja Chola( not the one we have here in PDF.....)*
> 
> PS Aurangzeb had a far larger and richer empire than Akbar, but his stupid policies and over spending led to the decay and eventual demise of the Mughal Empire, whereas the mughals had the greatest era of prosperity, stability, peace and growth under Akbar.



mate i don like too much publicity


----------



## Killuminati



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## mb444

What about Shah Jahan. During his reign the moguls empire was the height of its glory. Obviously before arungzeb imprisoned him.


----------



## Jade

Chandragupta Maurya


----------



## pk_baloch

Gigawatt said:


> Jab doosre ka maal claim karne ka time aaya to Dravidian se rishta jud gaya.




if i say that dravidian or before the dravidians people were also arabs then wat will u say?? am i wrong?(here im taking it religiously BUT STARTS before the time of hazrat MUHAMMAD S.A.W)..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## zynga

Sachin Tendulkar



jinxeD_girl said:


> I think B U T T came into being from BHATT, which is still used as a last name by Kashmiris (both Hindus and Muslims) on the other side of the border.
> 
> And gigawatt just like you are claiming all the Dravidian ancestors as YOURS (including the ones who created Indus valley Civilization), in the same way I am claiming all Aryans as Mine (including the ones from the other side of the border)


Bhatts are Brahmins. so **** were brahmins. tch tch

all humans came from africa. all african humans evloved from apes.


----------



## Water Car Engineer

Killuminati said:


>




As a guy from Turkey, why would you post this guy?

He only cared about Central Asians. He wasn't good to Anatolians..


----------



## pk_baloch

Pakistani Nationalist said:


> *Mir Chakar Rind
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mir Chakar Khan Rind or Meer Chaakar Khan Rind or Chakar-i-Azam (1468  1565[1]) (Persian or Balochi: &#1605;&#1740;&#1585; &#1670;&#1575;&#1705;&#1585; &#1582;&#1575;&#1606; &#1585;&#1606;&#1583 was a Baloch chieftain in the 15th century. He is considered a folk hero of the Baloch people and an important figure in the Baloch epic Hani and Sheh Mureed.
> Contents [hide]
> 1 History
> 2 Today
> 3 References
> 4 External links
> [edit]History
> 
> Mir Chakar lived in the hills of Balochistan and became the head of Rind tribe at the age of 18 after the death of his father Mir Shahak Khan. Mir Chakar's fiefdom was short-lived because of a civil war between the Lashari and Rind tribes of Balochistan.[2] Mir Chakar and Mir Gwahram Khan Lashari, head of the Lashari tribe, went to war that resulted in thousands dead, including Mir Chakar's brother. The war and the gallantry of the two tribe leaders continues to be a part of the Baloch peoples' history. After the "Thirty Years' War" against the Lashari Tribe,[3] After the defeating Lashari tribe, Mir Chakar Rind went to war against Afghan King Sher Shah Suri. Mir Chakar Rind was defeated and he left Balochistan and settled in the Punjab region in 1518.
> Mir Chakar settled in Satghara in Sahiwal District and gained power and respect in the area. Afghan King Sher Shah Suri approached Mir Chakar to unite with him to consolidate his gains. Mir Chakar appreciated the offer but refused to help Sher Shah Suri and managed to elude Afghan armies. Under the command of his son, Mir Shahzad or Shahdad Khan, his forces instead joined the Mughal army of Emperor Humayun in 1555 after a long exile in Persia. Emperor Humayun came back, recaptured Delhi, and ousted the Suri dynasty in 1556. As a reward, Emperor Humayun conferred a vast Jagir, including horses and slaves, to Mir Chakar. Mir Chakar Rind died in 1565. People who accompanied Mir Chakar to Satghara after leaving Balochistan constructed a tomb for his body.
> 
> 
> 
> Mauryan empire is called the golden era of the subcontinent... there is a whole chapter for it....




apna RIND baloch se kabi panga naee lena chaye


----------



## zynga

mastbalochi said:


> apna RIND baloch se kabi panga naee lena chaye


share 
some prominent balochis in history please


----------



## LaBong

Killuminati said:


>



Didn't he put Ottoman king in a cage, killed people en masse in Baghdad, Peshwar, Delhi etc? How is he relevant in a discussion of greatest emperor in subcontinent? He was typical medieval nomadic Central Asian king.



zynga said:


> Sachin Tendulkar
> 
> 
> Bhatts are Brahmins. so **** were brahmins. tch tch
> 
> all humans came from africa. all african humans evloved from apes.



Why are you taking panga with lady Maula Jatt, let her be.


----------



## Shardul.....the lion

Chandragupt Maurya
Ashoka
Akbar
Raja raja chola
Balaji Bajirao (Maratha empire at its height)


----------



## Pakistanisage

jinxeD_girl said:


> Not everyone in Pakistan takes credit for those turkic invaders or glorifies them. In my eyez, *Babur, Akbar etc were just invaders, there is nothing special about them. *




Excuse me Missy, dont you say anything bad about my ancestors.





mastbalochi said:


> they were human being .......




Cavemen are Human beings......


----------



## ajtr

Pakistanisage said:


> Excuse me Missy, dont you say anything bad about my ancestors.


how you know about ur ancestors did you confirm it with the paternity tests???






Cavemen are Human beings......[/QUOTE]


----------



## zynga

LaBong said:


> Didn't he put Ottoman king in a cage, killed people en masse in Baghdad, Peshwar, Delhi etc? How is he relevant in a discussion of greatest emperor in subcontinent? He was typical medieval nomadic Central Asian king.
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you taking panga with lady Maula Jatt, let her be.


you wanna watch a catfight?


----------



## Pakistanisage

Armstrong said:


> What you made a joke out of Us - the Great Butttsss !
> 
> Now you sir have earned yourself a duel ! Meet me on the right side of the Brooklyn Bridge tonight and bring with you your own sword...lohaaa bohat mehngaa ho giyaa hai !




Come prepared, we will fight with WATER PISTOLS....


----------



## INDIC

Chandragupta Maurya leading the list. 



ajtr said:


> how you know about ur ancestors did you confirm it with the paternity tests???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cavemen are Human beings......


[/QUOTE]

As far I know the last Mughals still live in India in Kolkata and Hyderabad, some are there in Delhi.



jinxeD_girl said:


> Punjabi from Upper Punjab.


 
In one comment you said you are Potohari, in other comment you said you are a Pashtun. What are you?


----------



## ajtr

> As far I know the last Mughals still live in India in Kolkata and Hyderabad, some are there in Delhi.


give me direct ancestory .kisi ke chahca ke mama ke tau ki phoophi ki daadi ki beti ki mausi ka larka nahi.



> In one comment you said you are Potohari, in other comment you said you are a Pashtun. What are you?


cross breed might be..............


----------



## zynga

Gigawatt said:


> Chandragupta Maurya leading the list.


 
As far I know the last Mughals still live in India in Kolkata and Hyderabad, some are there in Delhi.



In one comment you said you are Potohari, in other comment you said you are a Pashtun. What are you?[/QUOTE]
i think one branch is selling chai in kolkata. and another branch in hyderabad. i think indian govt should help those people at least with a job


----------



## MastanKhan

Hi,

I apologize for forgetting my middle school history---indeed it is between Chandra Gupta Maurya and Ashoka---the greatest ruler of hind---.

On a side note---did you people see the pictures of the truck load of statues that the police captured in karachi----.

Did anyone else notice how beautiful the features of the people were that the statues were portraying---shockingly beautiful.


----------



## INDIC

Armstrong said:


> What you made a joke out of Us - the Great Butttsss !
> 
> Now you sir have earned yourself a duel ! Meet me on the right side of the Brooklyn Bridge tonight and bring with you your own sword...lohaaa bohat mehngaa ho giyaa hai !



Batt originated from Bhatt, like the great mathematician Aryabhatt. Our first satellite was named as Aryabhatt.


----------



## ajtr

MastanKhan said:


> Hi,
> 
> I apologize for forgetting my middle school history---indeed it is between Chandra Gupta Maurya and Ashoka---the greatest ruler of hind---.


If remember the only starting and ending of the dynasty then sure you ve forgot the middle school history.



> On a side note---did you people see the pictures of the truck load of statues that the police captured in karachi----.
> 
> Did anyone else notice how beautiful the features of the people were that the statues were portraying---shockingly beautiful.


agar aap post karenge pic to hum sab dekhenge bhi.Ab itane saare to news papers publish hote hain kHI se.outsiders ko kya pata kis newspaper ne chapa hai pics ko.


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Gigawatt said:


> In one comment you said you are Potohari, in other comment you said you are a Pashtun. What are you?



Show me the comment where I said I am Pashtun.



zynga said:


> Sachin Tendulkar
> 
> 
> Bhatts are Brahmins. so **** were brahmins. tch tch
> 
> all humans came from africa. all african humans evloved from apes.



What r u trying to say?  One of the words got deleted in your post, did u use one of the expletives?


----------



## Raja.Pakistani

Gigawatt said:


> Chandragupta Maurya leading the list.
> 
> In one comment you said you are Potohari, in other comment you said you are a Pashtun. What are you?



I am Potwari and its not potohari


----------



## INDIC

jinxeD_girl said:


> Show me the comment where I said I am Pashtun.



I am 100% sure, I was banned at that time, don't know the thread perhaps you were talking to angeldust.



Raja.Pakistani said:


> I am Potwari and its not potohari


Pothohari - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## jinxeD_girl

zynga said:


> all humans came from africa. all african humans evloved from apes.



That is one of the most common fallacies. We didn't evolve from Apes! Apes, Humans, Monkeys etc evolved from a common ancestor which doesn't exist anymore.


----------



## IND151

my choice> Chandragupta Maurya and Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj


----------



## Raja.Pakistani

Gigawatt said:


> I am 100% sure, I was banned at that time, don't know the thread perhaps you were talking to angeldust.
> 
> 
> Pothohari - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Potwari or Pothohari but not potohari


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Gigawatt said:


> I am 100% sure, I was banned at that time, don't know the thread perhaps you were talking to angeldust.
> 
> 
> Pothohari - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



But pothwaris r NOT Pashtuns. What I said was that I am Hindko, a sub-group of Punjabis also known as Punjabi Pashtuns. Do you know about Prithviraj Kapoor and his clan who rules bollywood? The belonged to Hindko ethnicity. Raj Kapoor had blue eyez which is less common among Punjabis and relatively more common among Pashtuns. Hindkos is an overlapping group between Punjabi and Pasthuns and is mostly found in Upper Punjab like Attock, Mianwali etc and bordering NWFP areas like Abottabad etc. But then how would a South Indian would know?  I am sure you know more about the ethnicities of Sri Lanka


----------



## INDIC

jinxeD_girl said:


> But pothwaris r NOT Pashtuns. What I said was that I am Hindko, a sub-group of Punjabis also known as Punjabi Pashtuns. Do you know about Prithviraj Kapoor and his clan who rules bollywood? The belonged to Hindko ethnicity. Raj Kapoor had blue eyez which is less common among Punjabis and relatively more common among Pashtuns. Hindkos is an overlapping group between Punjabi and Pasthuns and is mostly found in Upper Punjab like Attock, Mianwali etc and bordering NWFP areas like Abottabad etc. *But then how would a South Indian would know? * I am sure you know more about the ethnicities of Sri Lanka


 
I have no interest to know.


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Gigawatt said:


> I have no interest to know.



Then why pick on me all the time ?


----------



## INDIC

jinxeD_girl said:


> Then why pick on me all the time ?


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Gigawatt said:


>



Is that your family? cute!


----------



## INDIC

jinxeD_girl said:


> Is that your family? cute!


----------



## Manas

jinxeD_girl said:


> But pothwaris r NOT Pashtuns. What I said was that I am Hindko, a sub-group of Punjabis also known as Punjabi Pashtuns. Do you know about Prithviraj Kapoor and his clan who rules bollywood? The belonged to Hindko ethnicity. Raj Kapoor had blue eyez which is less common among Punjabis and relatively more common among Pashtuns. Hindkos is an overlapping group between Punjabi and Pasthuns and is mostly found in Upper Punjab like Attock, Mianwali etc and bordering NWFP areas like Abottabad etc. B*ut then how would a South Indian would know? * I am sure you know more about the ethnicities of Sri Lanka



You know you'll find many south indian Brahmins with blue/green eyes .

Then again why open up everytime the genealogy of your ethnic group ,we aren't interested. 

If you are that confident ,you can post ur pic so that we'll see ourselves whats so special about you that differentiate from the " south indians " .


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Manas said:


> You know you'll find many south indian *Brahmins *with blue/green eyes .
> 
> Then again why open up everytime the genealogy of your ethnic group ,we aren't interested.
> 
> If you are that confident ,you can post ur pic so that we'll see ourselves whats so special about you that differentiate from the " south indians " .



Brahmin is the keyword... By the way looks like there is a secret conspiracy going on in this forum. An Indian member ask me a question, when I answer him, the other Indian jumps up and say we are not interested in what u have to say. (It happened like several times for the last 3 days). Why didn't u say that to your original tamilian poster who asked the question in the first place who I am or who we are? And I have absolutely no interest in the history of South Indians and Indians, who they were, who they are, or whatever.


----------



## INDIC

jinxeD_girl said:


> Brahmin is the keyword... By the way looks like there is a secret conspiracy going on in this forum. An Indian member ask me a question, when I answer him, the other Indian jumps up and say we are not interested in what u have to say. (It happened like several times for the last 3 days). Why didn't u say that to your original tamilian poster who asked the question in the first place who I am or who we are? And I have absolutely no interest in the history of South Indians and Indians, who they were, who they are, or whatever.



I am still not interested in wannable Iranians.


----------



## Manas

jinxeD_girl said:


> *Brahmin is the keyword.*.. By the way looks like there is a secret conspiracy going on in this forum. An Indian member ask me a question, when I answer him, the other Indian jumps up and say we are not interested in what u have to say. (It happened like several times for the last 3 days). Why didn't u say that to your original tamilian poster who asked the question in the first place who I am or who we are? And I have absolutely no interest in the history of South Indians and Indians, who they were, who they are, or whatever.



See not just brahmins ,people from other castes can and are also fair and blue eyed. The point simply is thia, India is diverse country and* its not as if south indians never see fair and blue/hazel eyed persons among them that you so ignorantly presume.*.






This guy is Sushil kumar Shinde the current home minister *,is a dalit by caste *and south indian from Maharashtra.


----------



## TopCat

Why this guy is excluded in the discussion?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Manas said:


> See not just brahmins ,people from other castes can and are also fair and blue eyed. The point simply is thia, India is diverse country and* its not as if south indians never see fair and blue/hazel eyed persons among them that you so ignorantly presume.*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This guy is Sushil kumar Shinde the current home minister *,is a dalit by caste *and south indian from Maharashtra.



First u said u don't care what I have to say, and then u Indians post pictures to prove a point! 

At the pic! Lovely! Very handsome indeed! Reminds me of a song - Neeli neeli ankhoun mein yeh dil dooba!



Gigawatt said:


> I am still not interested in wannable Iranians.



Oh SHUTUP Indian, please stick to the topic and stop trolling all over!!  

Back to the topic! Who voted for Ranjit Singh?  I see 1 vote cast for him. Must be Paan singh!


----------



## Manas

jinxeD_girl said:


> First u said u don't care what I have to say, and then u Indians post pictures to prove a point!
> 
> At the pic! Lovely! Very handsome indeed! Reminds me of a song - Neeli neeli ankhoun mein yeh dil dooba!



We certainly don't not care for yours posts often filled with racial undertones . But sometime its necessary to correct the misinformation you spread here.

So you find that bald old Indian man handsome .Good.


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Manas said:


> So you find that bald old Indian man handsome .Good.



Haan tou kiya burai hai ismein? Itna sunder neeli neeli ankhoun wala Indian.


----------



## Manas

jinxeD_girl said:


> Haan tou kiya burai hai ismein? Itna sunder neeli neeli ankhoun wala Indian.



He is rich and powerful too . He'll be happy knowing a Pakistani Aryan beauty (pun intended ) finds him handsome at his age.


----------



## jinxeD_girl

Manas said:


> He *is rich and powerful too *. He'll be happy knowing a *Pakistani Aryan beauty *(pun intended ) finds him handsome at his age.



WOW...! I mean just wow!! So, in other words even RICH and POWERFUL blue eyed Indians also need approval from "Pakistani Aryan Beauties" just to make them feel better and happy about themselves? Must be suffering from extremely low self esteems then!!


----------



## angeldude13

people stop trolling.if you want to discuss skin color then open a new thread.


----------



## zynga

jinxeD_girl said:


> Show me the comment where I said I am Pashtun.
> 
> 
> 
> What r u trying to say?  One of the words got deleted in your post, did u use one of the expletives?


I did not know B U T t would be starred out



jinxeD_girl said:


> WOW...! I mean just wow!! So, in other words even *RICH and POWERFUL blue eyed* Indians also need approval from "Pakistani Aryan Beauties" just to make them feel better and happy about themselves? Must be suffering from extremely low self esteems then!!


also add OLD


----------



## Manas

jinxeD_girl said:


> WOW...! I mean just wow!! So, in other words even RICH and POWERFUL blue eyed Indians also need approval from "Pakistani Aryan Beauties" just to make them feel better and happy about themselves? Must be suffering from extremely low self esteems then!!



Don't flatter yourself.

I said the old man would naturally feel happy if beauty like you  find him handsome at his advanced age.


----------



## Killuminati

Sir LurkaLot said:


> As a guy from Turkey, why would you post this guy?
> 
> He only cared about Central Asians. He wasn't good to Anatolians..



Not only Ottomans where Turks. Timur was also a Turk and showed the real power of Turks. He could destroy the whole Ottoman Empire but didnt do it. Why should he? We are people from same race but the reason why he attacked the Ottoman Sultan only was because the instigators from both sides that created a conflict based on lies and arab propaganda,.


----------



## Grand-Vizier

LaBong said:


> Didn't he put Ottoman king in a cage, killed people en masse in Baghdad, Peshwar, Delhi etc? How is he relevant in a discussion of greatest emperor in subcontinent? He was typical medieval nomadic Central Asian king.
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you taking panga with lady Maula Jatt, let her be.



Timur , Turk - Yildirim Bayezit - Turk , after AFAIK they wrote a letters to each other and were very sorry that they thought their own people .






little film showing it



Killuminati said:


> Not only Ottomans where Turks. Timur was also a Turk and showed the real power of Turks. He could destroy the whole Ottoman Empire but didnt do it. Why should he? We are people from same race but the reason why he attacked the Ottoman Sultan only was because the instigators from both sides that created a conflict based on lies and arab propaganda,.



kill- bayezit let his enemies in the empire so timur got angry and they had a war , because of a few people they had war , bayezit should of told them to f off

timur respected beyazit alot aswell

Bayezit allowed .*Kara Yusuf ile Ba&#287;dat Sultan&#305; olan Ahmed Celâyir&#8217;in* these two people in the empire but timur said dont let them in


----------



## Indus Pakistan

Syama Ayas said:


> I will consider Akbar and Shivaji, both of these men understood well the concept of modern India.


Modern India came to existance in 1947 long after the demise of both Akbar of Shavaji. So how can it be that both understood a concept that come into existance centuries later? Was it a case of 'Micheal J. Fox _Back to the Future'_?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Irfan Baloch

Chandragupta Maurya

I am fascinated by this guy. please recommend a good English book on him. that is factual but not boring to death.


----------



## debashish_j20

i belong to maurya aka ashokan blood......


----------



## Water Car Engineer

Killuminati said:


> Not only Ottomans where Turks. Timur was also a Turk and showed the real power of Turks. He could destroy the whole Ottoman Empire but didnt do it. Why should he? We are people from same race but the reason why he attacked the Ottoman Sultan only was because the instigators from both sides that created a conflict based on lies and arab propaganda,.




Saying all of these people are "Turk" is like Persians and the French are a part of the Indo-Europeans.

Anatolians and Turkics in Central Asia are like two completely different people. Just like the French and the Persians are, but they share a linguistic connection. That's it.

Timur is a conqueror. And pretty crazy one at that. He probably doesn't give a ****.

I've even heard Ottomans plans of going deeper into Europe was screwed because of him.


----------



## Al-zakir

Don't know a damn thing about below individuals. Who the hell are they? 



> Chandragupta Maurya
> 
> 
> Chandragupta Vikramaditya
> 
> Samudra Gupta
> 
> Chatrapati Shivaji
> 
> Rajendra Chola


----------



## chairborne ranger

i've always had a weakness towards shivaji..i mean , the guy practically carved an empire all by himself
from onwing a couple of forts, to this 
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-...AH9M/G0tItPg3Iw8/s1600/Maratha_Empire_-99.jpg

but of course, war alone must not account for everything......
akhbar, ashoka, chandragupta maurya were all great rulers


----------



## SherAli

Sir LurkaLot said:


> Saying all of these people are "Turk" is like Persians and the French are a part of the Indo-Europeans.
> 
> Anatolians and Turkics in Central Asia are like two completely different people. Just like the French and the Persians are, but they share a linguistic connection. That's it.
> 
> Timur is a conqueror. And pretty crazy one at that. He probably doesn't give a ****.
> 
> I've even heard Ottomans plans of going deeper into Europe was screwed because of him.



Bayazeed was amidst the siege of Constantinople when Taimur showed up

He just came off destroying the last crusade and conquered Greece and Bulgaria ... the Ottomans were unstoppable in Europe and were almost completely destroyed by Taimur


----------



## pk_baloch

Gigawatt said:


> I am still not interested in wannable Iranians.



giga watt u start the history FROM ...................... IVC .................MEGRAHGRAH ......................MESOPOTAMIA/SASSANIES .  


*OR *....MESOPOTAMIA/SASSNIES .....................MEHRAGRAH ..............IVC..............................HOW WILL U READ ??



AND FROM PAKISTAN AND INDIA (IF GIVEN TO U TO START THE HISTORY ,HOW WILL U READ THE HISTORY ? 

PAKISTAN TO INDIA OR INDIA TO PAKISTAN ?


----------



## vsdoc

jinxeD_girl said:


> At the pic! Lovely! Very handsome indeed! Reminds me of a song - Neeli neeli ankhoun mein yeh dil dooba!



You have a strong streak of a grand(dada)-Electra complex.

Get help.


----------



## jinxeD_girl

vsdoc said:


> You have a strong streak of a grand(dada)-Electra complex.
> 
> Get help.



Did U really think that I am interested in that old Marathi "blue-eyed" Indian? I was being sarcastic dummy!!


----------



## vsdoc

jinxeD_girl said:


> Did U really think that I am interested in that old Marathi "blue-eyed" Indian? I was being sarcastic dummy!!



You find really old (some now dead) guys attractive.

Assuming you're a girl, that points to an Electra complex, at the very least.

I don't even want to go into the alternative.


----------



## jinxeD_girl

vsdoc said:


> You find really old (some now dead) guys attractive.
> 
> Assuming you're a girl, that points to an Electra complex, at the very least.
> 
> I don't even want to go into the alternative.



that is mean!


----------



## vsdoc

jinxeD_girl said:


> that is mean!



Start hitting on guys your own age then.

Or at least keep the difference to a manageable _Cheeni Kum_-ish 20 something years.

P.S. I'm taken.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Harry Potter

MY MY,Chandragupta Maurya secured more than 40% votes.Even some Pakistanis voted for him.

@iajdani Devpala's empire was never half of what is shown in the map.It is a fake map.


----------



## Marwat Khan Lodhi

None of them...if i have to mention one then it would be sher shah suri who did some things for people.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Erhabi

Aurangzeb was a notable expansionist and was also among the wealthiest of the previous Mughal rulers with an annual yearly tribute of £38,624,680 (in the year 1690), during his lifetime victories in the south expanded the Mughal Empire to more than 1.25 million square miles, he ruled over more than 150 million subjects, *constituting nearly one fourth of the world's population*


----------



## Grand-Vizier

Babur Turkish ruler.


----------



## bronxbull

greatest indian emperor was chandra gupta maurya.


----------



## dravidianhero

chandra gupta maurya the great followed by ashoka and shivaji for me.


----------



## tyrant

I would say Akbar


----------



## national_crisis

none was great they all killed innocent people.


----------



## INDIC

Monkey D Luffy said:


> None of them...if i have to mention one then it would be sher shah suri who did some things for people.



His greatest contribution was the grand trunk road, anything else.


----------



## Ayush

BRICS said:


> Who was Bharat then???
> 
> I thought a king called Bharat was the first to rule entire sub-continent??? Or is that just mythology???
> 
> Also, when and why did Bharat pita become Bharat mata??? Isn't Bharat a male name???


bharata was an ancient ruler,from the time of mahabharata.we have not considerd ancient rulers in this poll.or else it would have had numerous more names such as lord rama,krishna yudhishtira etc.
and ya,about the mata-pita thing.i think we have a dual use of that word.when we say bharat only we refer it to the king and our country.but we also use bharat mata to refer to our country and a goddess bharat mata(different from bharata).

chandragupta maurya


----------



## jatt+gutts

Grand-Vizier said:


> Babur Turkish ruler.



turkik not turkish..

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Amolthebest

Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj


----------



## Kambojaric

Gigawatt said:


> His greatest contribution was the grand trunk road, anything else.



His reign was brief and so he cant be the "greatest emperor", but nevertheless he did make some important administrative decisions e.g. by standardizing the currency and making a rupee = the weight of 178 grains, whereas in the past, a rupee was any silver coin no matter the weight. Its a shame his successors were so incompetent, and that the dynasty died away so fast, meaning Sher Shah is rarely remembered today.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BRICS

Ayush Pandey said:


> bharata was an ancient ruler,from the time of mahabharata.we have not considerd ancient rulers in this poll.or else it would have had numerous more names such as lord rama,krishna yudhishtira etc.
> and ya,about the mata-pita thing.i think we have a dual use of that word.when we say bharat only we refer it to the king and our country.but we also use bharat mata to refer to our country and a goddess bharat mata(different from bharata).
> 
> chandragupta maurya



That still doesn't explain the fact that Bharat is a man's name! (I have never heard of a female Bharat, as far as I am aware anyways)


----------



## ajtr

BRICS said:


> That still doesn't explain the fact that Bharat is a man's name! (I have never heard of a female Bharat, as far as I am aware anyways)


its called maa bharati................


----------



## BRICS

Ahh, so Bharati, with i at the end is a girl's name?

People should say Bharati then, not Bharat mata, it's confusing & weird!


----------



## ajtr

BRICS said:


> Ahh, so Bharati, with i at the end is a girl's name?
> 
> People should say Bharati then, not Bharat mata, it's confusing & weird!


bharat had a wife whom you can call as bharati...offsprings of bharat and bharati are called bhartiya.......its all in the family.....


----------



## INDIC

BRICS said:


> Ahh, so Bharati, with i at the end is a girl's name?
> 
> People should say Bharati then, not Bharat mata, it's confusing & weird!



Bhaarat derived from the king's name Bharat. You should know the difference in the pronunciation.


----------



## Water Car Engineer

national_crisis said:


> none was great they all killed innocent people.



Pretty much...

And the regular working class slaved for them.

I don't think I can every relate to those royalties.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Asoka,why is this even a contest.Asoka is considered among the greatest emperors of all human history along with augustus,charlemagne,suleiman,cyrus.
A conqueror will never be the equal of an emperor who raised the living standard of the common people.Many of the above were conqueror's but they all did good for the common man.



jatt+gutts said:


> turkik not turkish..



He's timurid actually.That is central asian.Modern day say uzbek.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Chandragupta maurya is more or less equivalent to samudragupta.A out and out conqueror,so based on that alone he can't be greatest.He also imposed heavy taxation to maintain his enormous mauryan army and was extremely paranoid.Never slept on the same bed twice,had a massive espionage system,had a bodyguard of female amazons because he didn't trust men,had all his food tasted.But he also did much good such as political unity and repulsing foreign greek invasion,also liberated punjab from greeks.And he went out like a true badass,basically giving up ultimate power voluntarily.converting to jainism at the ripe age of 45 and ******* starving himself to death.But still asoka for me.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Bamxa said:


> An Emperor whos not even on the list. *Alaudin Khilji*. He saved the subcontinent from the Mongol menace several times whilst Persia, Central Asia And Iraq fell. These regions were devastated to put it mildly by the Mongols. The subcontinent did not suffer the same fate but rather grew and prospered during this period.



Religious bigots are almost directly excluded from 'greatest ' title because a truly great emperor looks upon the well being of all his subjects equally .Besides he may have saved the subcontinent from mongol devastation ,but made up with devastation caused by himself.He despite being extremely capable was arrogant to the point of being delusional.He was so overwhelmed by his own success that he proclaimed himself 'sikander i sani' or the second alexander and dreamt of conquering the world,also he even thought of starting a new religion with himself as divine head!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BRICS

Gigawatt said:


> Bhaarat derived from the king's name Bharat. You should know the difference in the pronunciation.



Jai Bharat Mata.

Jai Jai jaiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Bharat Maaaataaaa


----------



## ushikra

I always detest when I see "Great" and "Emperor" in the same sentence, However, I was wondering why Harsha Verdhana was not on the list.


----------



## Varunastra

Armstrong said:


> What about *Armstrong the Buttttt* ? You're so cruel...!



i think Salman The Butttt would be a better emperor

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ushikra

And while we are on this subject, how about George V or Edward VII or Queen Victoria. Sure they are not Natives of South Asia, but so is Babur and he's on the list.


----------



## Rusty

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Asoka,why is this even a contest.Asoka is considered among the greatest emperors of all human history along with augustus,charlemagne,suleiman,cyrus.
> A conqueror will never be the equal of an emperor who raised the living standard of the common people.Many of the above were conqueror's but they all did good for the common man.
> 
> 
> 
> He's timurid actually.That is central asian.Modern day say uzbek.




I don't mean to troll but how can a guy who was almost forgotten by history be the "Greatest"?
You have to thank the British for reminding India (forget the world) about his assistance. 


Personally I say Aurangzeb, he brought about the peak of the Mughal empire and provided the strongest government. He was also a model ruler in that it is said that he used to sow topis for his income instead of taking it from the treasury, and had more Hindu noblemen in his courts than even Akbar.


----------



## Bang Galore

ushikra said:


> I always detest when I see "Great" and "Emperor" in the same sentence, However, I was wondering why Harsha Verdhana was not on the list.



Maybe because he got his backside handed to him by Pulakesi II.



AUSTERLITZ said:


> Religious bigots are almost directly excluded from 'greatest ' title because a truly great emperor looks upon the well being of all his subjects equally .Besides he may have saved the subcontinent from mongol devastation ,but made up with devastation caused by himself.He despite being extremely capable was arrogant to the point of being delusional.He was so overwhelmed by his own success that he proclaimed himself 'sikander i sani' or the second alexander and dreamt of conquering the world,also he even thought of starting a new religion with himself as divine head!



Difficult to easily classify Alauddin Khilji as an out & out bigot. True he destroyed some temples but he was equally sharp in putting down the ulema when they asked for more strict islamisation (essentially telling them to stick to religion & to leave politics to him). All _"Great" _kings were arrogant, difficult to see that as factor for exclusion.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## genmirajborgza786

Ashoka, & Barbur were among-st the greatest 
but 
Queen Victoria was the greatest of them all


----------



## RazPaK

Why are Indians upset?


----------



## dollarman

Depends what the criteria is. Ashoka, Chandragupta Maurya and Akbar for me. Of all the rulers to ever rule India, the biggest empire by area was the Mauryan empire under Chandragupta Maurya and Ashoka, even bigger than the the British empire which would probably be number 2.


----------



## Bang Galore

I really don't think this list of the _"Greatest"_ emperors is in any way complete. No *Krishna Deva Raya* of the Vijaynagar Empire and an emperor much before him, _*Govinda III *_of the Rashtrakutas; probably one of the most successful military campaigner in Indian history. _Btw_, the Rashtrakutas get far too little credit in Indian history, even when people go to the Elephanta caves (where credit also goes to _Chalukya Emperor Pulakeshi II_) or to the magnificent Kailashnath Temple in Ellora (_Krishna I)_

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## deepak.chauhan2312

pk_baloch said:


> wat those persons did for u ..they are in the hell now




u r being biased about religion...and Maurya Empire was no doubt greatest empire in history of Indian Subcontinent okay so. this is not about what they did for us. just think about what great are you doing now for generation about 2000 years after today...you are not worthy to be so ill mannered about any of these emperors okay. Akbar, Chandragupta, Asoka were great


----------



## Dushmann

Prometheus said:


> her majesty........the queen of England



And queen of Pakistan till 1956


----------



## Varunastra

Ashoka was the greatest emperor ,there is a reason he is called Ashoka the great

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rehan khan 1

Mehmood Ghaznavi
size of empire doesnt matter. quality of emperer does


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Rehan khan 1 said:


> Mehmood Ghaznavi
> size of empire doesnt matter. quality of emperer does



He never ruled over india,just raided it.Also if conquest and war is the criteria for greatest caesar,alexander,genghis,timur and napoleon say hello.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

genmirajborgza786 said:


> Ashoka, & Barbur were among-st the greatest
> but
> Queen Victoria was the greatest of them all



Victoria was a figurehead without real power.
Babur ruled over mostly northern part of the subcontinent.If he is to be considered then the southern emperors like krishnadevaraya,dhruva,rajendra chola also demand attention.Besides his non military achievments are nil.
Akbar is by far the most balanced and greatest ruler of the mughals.
Illtutumish and alauddin for the sultanate.

To me its asoka,just followed by akbar.



Bang Galore said:


> I really don't think this list of the _"Greatest"_ emperors is in any way complete. No *Krishna Deva Raya* of the Vijaynagar Empire and an emperor much before him, _*Govinda III *_of the Rashtrakutas; probably one of the most successful military campaigner in Indian history. _Btw_, the Rashtrakutas get far too little credit in Indian history, even when people go to the Elephanta caves (where credit also goes to _Chalukya Emperor Pulakeshi II_) or to the magnificent Kailashnath Temple in Ellora (_Krishna I)_



Indeed krishnadevaraya,dhruva,govinda 3,pulakeshin 2,rajendra and rajaraj chola were all great empires.Main problem is they mostly stuck to the south and can't be called in a true sense emperor of the subcontinent except rajendra chola maybe.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Bang Galore said:


> Maybe because he got his backside handed to him by Pulakesi II.
> 
> 
> 
> Difficult to easily classify Alauddin Khilji as an out & out bigot. True he destroyed some temples but he was equally sharp in putting down the ulema when they asked for more strict islamisation (essentially telling them to stick to religion & to leave politics to him). All _"Great" _kings were arrogant, difficult to see that as factor for exclusion.



Pulakeshin did stick it to harsha.
About aluddin personally he wasn't a bigot far from it,he didn't give a **** about religion as long as he could use it as an excuse to advance his own interests ,but the jizya was imposed so that's unequal treatment of subjects which lowers his ratings as a truly great empire.Add to that massive destruction caused by his greed and minimal non military achievements.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Rusty said:


> I don't mean to troll but how can a guy who was almost forgotten by history be the "Greatest"?
> You have to thank the British for reminding India (forget the world) about his assistance.
> 
> 
> Personally I say Aurangzeb, he brought about the peak of the Mughal empire and provided the strongest government. He was also a model ruler in that it is said that he used to sow topis for his income instead of taking it from the treasury, and had more Hindu noblemen in his courts than even Akbar.



Aurangzeb was a rigid religious bigot.
His deccan policy destroyed the mughals.But that said personally he was down to earth,pious,unpretentious and exteremely hard working and courageous.But his flawed policy making nullified these virtues.And as for having more noblemen this was usually in the period of the deccan war ,when jagirs were given to just about any maratha chief willing to defect.Also the main part of the other jagirs were occupied by rajputs.The rajput alliance was a cornerstone of mughal policy since akbar.

About asoka,if there were no written records do u think history would remember most of these emperors.Btw buddhists always remebered asoka as one of the 4 great kings of buddhism.Others being kanishka,menander and harshavardhana.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bang Galore

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Indeed krishnadevaraya,dhruva,govinda 3,pulakeshin 2,rajendra and rajaraj chola were all great empires.Main problem is they mostly stuck to the south and can't be called in a true sense emperor of the subcontinent except rajendra chola maybe.



Not true of Dhruva & his son Govinda. Both defeated the two other main kingdoms of India(then), Gurjara Pratiharas and the Palas of Bengal and Govinda actually seized Kannauj and was pretty much the greatest conqueror from the South into North India. The Rashtrakutas were probably the only dynasty from the South to regularly wage wars deep inside North India & force submission.

If you remove military conquest as an essential criteria, _*Govinda III*_'s son_ *Amoghavarsha I*_ _(Asoka of the South) _was probably one of the greatest emperors, both for an extremely high level of prosperity & peace in his reign, for his patronage of the arts & sciences as well as his own literary genius, probably the only king to have composed major literary pieces in two different languages; Kannada & Sanskrit, both very highly acclaimed.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## selvan33

raja raja chola. the great.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Bang Galore said:


> Not true of Dhruva & his son Govinda. Both defeated the two other main kingdoms of India(then), Gurjara Pratiharas and the Palas of Bengal and Govinda actually seized Kannauj and was pretty much the greatest conqueror from the South into North India. The Rashtrakutas were probably the only dynasty from the South to regularly wage wars deep inside North India & force submission.
> 
> If you remove military conquest as an essential criteria, _*Govinda III*_'s son_ *Amoghavarsha I*_ _(Asoka of the South) _was probably one of the greatest emperors, both for an extremely high level of prosperity & peace in his reign, for his patronage of the arts & sciences as well as his own literary genius, probably the only king to have composed major literary pieces in two different languages; Kannada & Sanskrit, both very highly acclaimed.



Yes both did.Though didn't establish a permanent presence there.Govinda 3 enjoyed supreme respect all over india in his lifetime.


----------



## RescueRanger

Ashoka has always fascinated me as a leader and spiritual person, a part of me likes to think he sure had a bit of sufi in him. 

Fun fact, Mansehra city pays host to the Ashoka Rocks, huge boulders with the 14 edicts of Ashoka:

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Pakistan is a treasure of historical and archaelogical sites,if therew as no terrorism tourism would have been a major business.


----------



## Dushmann

AUSTERLITZ said:


> Pakistan is a treasure of historical and archaelogical sites,if therew as no terrorism tourism would have been a major business.



all the archeological exploration should be stopped in Pakistan and excavated sites should be buried in sand. once Taliban/aurangzeb style Islamists come to power (which is inevitable, we just don't know when) all the archaeological treasure will be destroyed mercilessly.


----------



## trident2010

Chandragupta Maurya the great !!


----------



## DARIUS

Ashoka,Chandragupta and Akbar!!


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Strange chandragupta vikramaditya is getting so much ignorance.Reign called india's golden age in music,arts,science.Defeated the powerful sakas,expanded gupta empire to highest limit.The hero of vikram and vetal.


----------



## SHAMK9

RescueRanger said:


> Ashoka has always fascinated me as a leader and spiritual person, a part of me likes to think he sure had a bit of sufi in him.
> 
> Fun fact,* Mansehra city* pays host to the Ashoka Rocks, huge boulders with the 14 edicts of Ashoka:


My city  my school was right next to the monument.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## hussain0216

Aurengzeb by a mile

the wealth, the power and the amount of people he ruled over alone make him the greatest

great rulers dont have to be good

the only rulers the world knows from the sub contonent are

Ashoka
Babur
Akbar
Shah Jahan
Aurenzeb

the rest are forgotten by the world becauer they are not important

the mughal empire was the richest and most powerfull empire from south asia ruling over 25% of the world population

so the best ruler HAS to be a mughal

personal opinion aside it was probably Akbar who did the most to cement the mughal empire

hence akbar is the greatest ruler because no othrr south asian empire can come closr to it in terms of wealth power and might


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

hussain0216 said:


> Aurengzeb by a mile
> 
> the wealth, the power and the amount of people he ruled over alone make him the greatest
> 
> great rulers dont have to be good
> 
> the only rulers the world knows from the sub contonent are
> 
> Ashoka
> Babur
> Akbar
> Shah Jahan
> Aurenzeb
> 
> the rest are forgotten by the world becauer they are not important
> 
> the mughal empire was the richest and most powerfull empire from south asia ruling over 25% of the world population
> 
> so the best ruler HAS to be a mughal
> 
> personal opinion aside it was probably Akbar who did the most to cement the mughal empire
> 
> hence akbar is the greatest ruler because no othrr south asian empire can come closr to it in terms of wealth power and might



Wealth doesn't mean might.Even with all their wealth the mughals were at a disadvantge against the safavid persians.
Imperial china with all its wealth fell to the dirt poor mongol hordes.
Aurangzeb despite many excellent personal virtues,in the end was a failure who overextended the empire and whose bigoted policies were directly responsible for its disintegration.I mean he alienated everyone,jats,rajputs,sikhs,assamese and marathas.His deccan policy was a outright disaster that broke the mughal financial base.
And not really the mauryan empire at its peak was probably the most powerful and richest of its time.Chandragupta did defeat the seleucids who were the largest and usually considered the most powerful of the hellenestic states covering most of the old persian empire.
What do u mean forgotten,if thats the case mostly only chandragupta,akbar,asoka,samudragupta and babur would be remembered.Shahjahan only for taj mahal.Aurangzeb hasn't done anything of note to be remembered in world history.


----------



## Koovie

shuntmaster said:


> Why is empress Victoria not in the list??



W.....T....F?!


----------



## dravidianhero

I want to vote but seems to be a problem voting thru mobile but will definitely do so thru lap top after recharging my internet balance.It is really surprising to see chandra maurya leading by such a big margin.This being a pakistani forum i though aurangazeb would have more votes but he hardly seems to be even in contest.Glad to know that there are so many people out here who feel CGM as the all time greatest emperor of south asia.


----------



## Rajaraja Chola

selvan33 said:


> raja raja chola. the great.



Were u demanding me?


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

dravidianhero said:


> I want to vote but seems to be a problem voting thru mobile but will definitely do so thru lap top after recharging my internet balance.It is really surprising to see chandra maurya leading by such a big margin.This being a pakistani forum i though aurangazeb would have more votes but he hardly seems to be even in contest.Glad to know that there are so many people out here who feel CGM as the all time greatest emperor of south asia.



Chandragupta has a mysterious aura,the meteoric rise,the meeting with alexander,defeating the greeks,first emperor,enormous conquests,plus super paranoid life with greek and indian female bodyguards and such,plus suddenly left the throne at the height of his power and life,converts to jainism then starves himself to death.Have to agree a most interesting life.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Lyrical Mockery

Ashoka, no doubt about that. It was his efforts that led to the spread of buddism outside the subcontinet. Akbar comes second, IMO


----------



## Doctor Death

Chandragupta Maurya is the clear leader in this poll.


----------



## Gandalf

It is the one and only Chandragupta Maurya.


----------



## Shinigami

Akbar seemed awesome

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w7kf_bR3aE


----------



## Secur

AUSTERLITZ said:


> plus super paranoid life with greek and indian female bodyguards and such



What ? Something mythical about him too ?


----------



## Hellraiser007

Shinigami said:


> Akbar seemed awesome
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-w7kf_bR3aE



Akbar do not look like Hritik Roshan, he might have looked close to Northern Afgans and Mongolids.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Secur said:


> What ? Something mythical about him too ?



Chandragupta was extremely paranoid,had all his food tasted.Kept his standing army just outside the capital city so he wouldn't be surprised by anyone like dhanananda was by chandragupta himself,he never slept on the same bed.He literally had hundreds of beds and never used the same one twice.He also had an all female bodyguard of indian and greek women because he didn't trust men.Add to that chanakya and a massive empire wide spy network,yeah he was paranoid to the core lol.


----------



## jbond197

No other king in the history of India could have the kind of control Chandragupta Maurya had all over his empire.. No one can doubt it as Chanakya was the brain behind it!! Most of the invasion in his times were repulsed. He confronted a Macedonian invasion force led by Seleucus I in 305 BC and forced Seleucus to cede Gandhara and Arachosia (centered around ancient Kandahar) and areas south of Bagram (corresponding to the extreme south-east of modern Afghanistan). He is said to have introduced Buddhism in Afghanistan..

Next to him can only be Ashoka - Another great warrior king!!


----------



## naseem shah

mera bhi name daal do sath me likh dai na future king of india


----------



## neehar

there are some more great rulers in our history like harshavardahna, pulikesin2, sri krishnadevaraya and hyder ali few of the rulers who are more than victorious in their campaigns..


----------



## True pakistani 22

Babar Founder of Mughal empire


----------



## Android

WTF Chandragupta Vikramaditya has only 2 votes I mean his era was said to be golden era in Indian history right


----------



## INDIC

Android said:


> WTF Chandragupta Vikramaditya has only 2 votes I mean his era was said to be golden era in Indian history right



I think people had to make hard choice between Chandragupta Maurya and Chandragupta Vikramaditya. Both are greatest Indian kings.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Contrarian

Chandragupta Maurya and Akbar

IMO opinion both have been the greatest emperors of South Asia.


----------



## Vinod2070

Chandragupta Morya for me as well. Followed by Chola kings and Ashoka in no particular order.



Bamxa said:


> An Emperor whos not even on the list. *Alaudin Khilji*. He saved the subcontinent from the Mongol menace several times whilst Persia, Central Asia And Iraq fell. These regions were devastated to put it mildly by the Mongols. The subcontinent did not suffer the same fate but rather grew and prospered during this period.



He was himself a barbaric invader as far as we are concerned. He is identified with trying to rape the queen of Chittorgarh that resulted in the death of thousands of brave Rajput women.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ShahidT

where is tipu sultan, sher shah suri in the poll? 

though i have to say, ashoka and ranjit singh were also great leaders for different reasons. dont know much about chandragupta though, haven't read enough about the ancient kings to have an informed opinion about them.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ashok321

pehgaam e mohabbat said:


> where is tipu sultan, sher shah suri in the poll?
> 
> though i have to say, ashoka and ranjit singh were also great leaders for different reasons. dont know much about chandragupta though, haven't read enough about the ancient kings to have an informed opinion about them.



There is a difference between a ruler and a emperor...


----------



## asad71

In my view there is a tie among Sher Shah Suri, Aurangzeb Alamgir and Queen Victoria.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dubious

title of the thread should be INDIAN history...coz there are MANY Moghul and Chinese emperors who were also great!!


----------



## Android

Talon said:


> title of the thread should be INDIAN history...coz there are MANY Moghul and Chinese emperors who were also great!!


never knew Chinese ruled South Asia

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ShahidT

going through this thread some replies were quite bemusing. talking about dravidians were arabs before being dravidian and other interesting things. ive explained this in another thread at greater length, search the one on 'scythians'.

but @pk_baloch, for your convenience i'll just summarize.

the first anatomically modern human beings (homo sapiens) were in east africa approximately 100,000-110,000 years ago.

in the first wave of migration around 80,000 years before present (ybp), some of these humans travelled north through sudan, egypt and populated the middle east region, settling over time near major rivers (nile, tigris, etc).

second wave of migration occurred around 60,000 y.b.p. from east africa, by some early predecessor of the log boat across arabian sea to southern tip of the subcontinent. 

most of those stayed back in the subcontinent, referred to as the proto-dravidians. however, some of them continued to travel by water again (around 40,000-50,000 y.b.p) through the extremely shallow, almost land bridge-like route across oceanic islands and ended up in australia to become the aboriginals.

proto dravidians soon began to diverge in terms of population, those who settled in the north around indo-gangetic plains developed slightly different features and skin tone because they were further from the equator near himalayas. over thousands of years their genetic variation was grouped as 'Ancestral North Indians', whilst those that remained in south were 'Ancestral South Indians' in anthropology and genetics parlance.

so yes, we all had common ancestors from east africa. the first people to settle around the indus were descendants of these proto-dravidians, but it's not established whether they were Ancestral north indians or Ancestral south indians, though most likely a mix of both according to circumstantial and inferrable genetic evidence. 

discoveries have shown that the indic inhabitants of indus valley/ghaggar hakra traded with their 'cousins' in mesopotamia about 4,500 y.b.p. The demise of it was likely due to floods or environmental disaster forcing most of the surviving inhabitants to migrate eastward, where another civilization emerged near yamuna, ganges. 

there's a number of western studies on the origins of south asians. they show the genetic make-up of the subcontinent to be consistent for past 35,000-40,000 years and no external influence worth mentioning to the gene pool, with iranic people arriving and settling near the banks of indus only over the past 2,000 years or so, and mongolic people in north east migrating here even after that.

the point is, learn history from a scientific point of view (archaeology and genetic markers) if you're that interested in our collective origins. it's a humbling experience and leaves no room for complexes of any sort.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## kurup

Talon said:


> title of the thread should be INDIAN history...coz there are MANY Moghul and Chinese emperors who were also great!!



Moghul ..............Either you are implying mughals or mongols .

China in south asia .....

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dubious

Android said:


> never knew Chinese ruled South Asia


 @Android they are SOUTH of Asia...They managed to become members of in ASEAN + 3 



kurup said:


> Moghul ..............Either you are implying *mughals or mongols* .
> 
> China in south asia .....


 @kurup not sure how that is funny...


----------



## Contrarian

asad71 said:


> In my view there is a tie among Sher Shah Suri, Aurangzeb Alamgir and Queen Victoria.



You have got to be joking. Sher Shah Suri does not even come close to the Akbar or Chandragupta Maurya or Aurangzeb.

And Aurangzeb cannot be counted because he was the reason for the downfall of the Mughal Empire. While Akbar is the sole reason that Mughal Empire survived as long as it did.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dubious

WELL....If YOU want to include the Mongol Empire too


----------



## Contrarian

pehgaam e mohabbat said:


> where is tipu sultan, sher shah suri in the poll?
> 
> though i have to say, ashoka and ranjit singh were also great leaders for different reasons. dont know much about chandragupta though, haven't read enough about the ancient kings to have an informed opinion about them.



Tipu would have made the cut as well among the greatest but his kingdom was very very small compared to the rest.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Echo_419

Talon said:


> WELL....If YOU want to include the Mongol Empire too



The map is wrong Mongols never ruled south india


----------



## kurup

Talon said:


> @kurup not sure how that is funny...



Never said funny but cannot understand what you implied .

But looks like you implied , mughals .Then there are 3 of them in the list - babur , akbar and aurangzeb

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dubious

Echo_419 said:


> The map is wrong Mongols never ruled south india


 @Echo_419 1 of the other members @kurup brought Mongols when I said Moghuls 



kurup said:


> Never said funny but cannot understand what you implied .
> 
> But looks like you implied , mughals .Then there are 3 of them in the list - *babur , akbar and aurangzeb*


 @kurup oopss sorry missed that

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Alpha1

Talon said:


> WELL....If YOU want to include the Mongol Empire too



mongols never ruled india! But the Mongol empire at its greatest extent , was the most awesome empire ever created!
Mongols destroyed any resistance they faced and were notorious for making skull mountains!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dubious

Alpha1 said:


> mongols never ruled india! But the Mongol empire at its greatest extent , was the most awesome empire ever created!
> Mongols destroyed any resistance they faced and were notorious for making skull mountains!


 @Alpha1 I know I was joking coz @kurup thought Moghul was a joke...for Mongol


----------



## Alpha1

@pak-marine
please sir delete your post otherwise it will become a troll fest!



Talon said:


> @Alpha1 I know I was joking coz @kurup thought Moghul was a joke...for Mongol


Mughuls are considered the descendents of mongols btw..


----------



## kurup

Talon said:


> WELL....If YOU want to include the Mongol Empire too



This map looks like a false one .AFAIK , Mongols never conquered India Majority of the map shows the below as extent of mongol empire.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dubious

kurup said:


> This map looks like a false one .AFAIK , Mongols never conquered India Majority of the map shows the below as extent of mongol empire.


 @kurup I know  Next time dont troll me and you wont be trolled

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kurup

Talon said:


> @Alpha1 I know I was joking coz @kurup thought Moghul was a joke...for Mongol

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## INDIC

@Talon where you got that funny map.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Calendar

.................

Empire Mongols were neither South Asian nor Muslims ....................


----------



## Alpha1

Gigawatt said:


> @Talon where you got that funny map.


 @Talon did u draw it yourself 



Calendar said:


> .................
> 
> Empire Mongols were neither South Asian nor Muslims ....................


but their descendents were mughuls i.e. Muslims


----------



## Dubious

Gigawatt said:


> @Talon where you got that funny map.


 @Gigawatt google search 



Calendar said:


> .................
> 
> Empire Mongols were neither South Asian nor Muslims ....................


 @Calendar go introduce yourself and no one mentioned Islam here..


----------



## BDforever

*DO YOU KNOW WHO IS THE GREATEST EMPEROR OF ALL TIME ?*

*ITS HIM ! !*





*
OVER THOUSAND OF YEARS ALL OVER THE WORLD ! ! *

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Calendar

Alpha1 said:


> @Talon did u draw it yourself
> 
> 
> but their descendents were mughuls i.e. Muslims



Mughuls were some hybrid race not exactly Mongol who took their name . they don't have any similarities . Hazara of Afghanistan were Mongols . Afghan(pathan) , Mughal just stole their name for glory .

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dubious

BDforever said:


> *DO YOU KNOW WHO IS THE GREATEST EMPEROR OF ALL TIME ?*
> 
> *ITS HIM ! !*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> OVER THOUSAND OF YEARS ALL OVER THE WORLD ! ! *


 @BDforever tussi cha giyea!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## INDIC

Alpha1 said:


> @Talon did u draw it yourself
> 
> 
> but their descendents were mughuls i.e. Muslims



Mughals initially spoke Chughtai Turkish.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## asad71

Contrarian said:


> You have got to be joking. Sher Shah Suri does not even come close to the Akbar or Chandragupta Maurya or Aurangzeb.
> 
> And Aurangzeb cannot be counted because he was the reason for the downfall of the Mughal Empire. While Akbar is the sole reason that Mughal Empire survived as long as it did.



1. The Afghan, Sher Shah Suri was our hero and emperor. The administrative system, land reforms, military set up and state infrastructure built by him were followed by the Mughuls. The British also adopted the same with changes required for colonial / commercial exploitation.

2. Aurangzeb had begun cleansing the administration and the ruling family of the degeneration and lethargy that had set in. The Army had become rusty and the Emperor had made it ship shape. The later Mughals brought down the empire because they had diverted from the course Aurangzeb had set.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ShahidT

BDforever said:


> *DO YOU KNOW WHO IS THE GREATEST EMPEROR OF ALL TIME ?*
> 
> *ITS HIM ! !*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> OVER THOUSAND OF YEARS ALL OVER THE WORLD ! ! *



no, aurangzeb neither lived nor ruled for thousands of years. by the way how did you find such an accurate portrait of him?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## BDforever

pehgaam e mohabbat said:


> no, aurangzeb neither lived nor ruled for thousands of years. by the way *how did you find such an accurate portrait of him?*



google barah cheese hay


----------



## INDIC

asad71 said:


> 1. The Afghan, Sher Shah Suri was our hero and emperor. The administrative system, land reforms, military set up and state infrastructure built by him were followed by the Mughuls. The British also adopted the same with changes required for colonial / commercial exploitation.
> 
> 2. Aurangzeb had begun cleansing the administration and the ruling family of the degeneration and lethargy that had set in. The Army had become rusty and the Emperor had made it ship shape. The later Mughals brought down the empire because they had diverted from the course Aurangzeb had set.



Aurangzeb was the destroyer of Mughal dynasty.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Axa-

Timur Lenk.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Matrixx

Zardari

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Hellraiser007

Axa- said:


> Timur Lenk.



He is a looter not an Emperor. He came to Delhi burned it, looted it and went away.

Reactions: Like Like:

2


----------



## Gandhi G in da house

Axa- said:


> Timur Lenk.



Timur hardly ruled any part of India. He just massacred, looted , plundered and ran back.


----------



## Hermione G

Me... End of the story... On the serious note i think Babar was good...



Matrixx said:


> Zardari



well he z THE best... no match....


----------



## khanboy007

what about *sher shah suri* !!!! i dont see his name  

Sher Shah Suri - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

During his five year rule from 1540 to 1545, *he set up a new civic and military administration, issued the first Rupee and re-organised the postal system of India.* He further developed Humayun's Dina-panah city and named it Shergarh and revived the historical city of Pataliputra as Patna which had been in decline since the 7th century CE.[11] He is also famously remembered for killing a fully grown tiger with his bare hands in a jungle of Bihar.[4][9] He extended the *Grand Trunk Road* from Chittagong in Bangladesh to Kabul in Afghanistan.

the rupee

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Axa-

Hellraiser007 said:


> He is a looter not an Emperor. He came to Delhi burned it, looted it and went away.



That's what they teach you at Indian schools?

He is not that kind of person it is all propaganda.. anti-Turkic propaganda.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hellraiser007

Axa- said:


> That's what they teach you at Indian schools?
> 
> He is not that kind of person it is all propaganda.. anti-Turkic propaganda.



We read correct history, But only time he came to India is for looting, then he left so he cannot be considered a South Asian emperor may be for Central Asia.


----------



## Axa-

Hellraiser007 said:


> We read correct history, But only time he came to India is for looting, then he left so he cannot be considered a South Asian emperor may be for Central Asia.



I dont want to derail this wonderful thread or sound as a troll but when Timur came down to South Asia there was no power who can stand against him, same in Central Asia same other areas, where were these 'Emperors' when Timur was around the ones that dared to test his power got beaten one by one, Timur Conguerors/gets anything he wishes and there is no 'Emperor' who could stop it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Hellraiser007

Axa- said:


> I dont want to derail this wonderful thread or sound as a troll but when Timur came down to South Asia there was no power who can stand against him, same in Central Asia same other areas, where were these 'Emperors' when Timur was around the ones that dared to test his power got beaten one by one, Timur Conguerors/gets anything he wishes and there is no 'Emperor' who could stop it.



But he never ruled S.Asia so he is not in the list, got it??


----------



## Joe Shearer

asad71 said:


> 1. The Afghan, Sher Shah Suri was our hero and emperor. The administrative system, land reforms, military set up and state infrastructure built by him were followed by the Mughuls. The British also adopted the same with changes required for colonial / commercial exploitation.
> 
> 2. Aurangzeb had begun cleansing the administration and the ruling family of the degeneration and lethargy that had set in. The Army had become rusty and the Emperor had made it ship shape. The later Mughals brought down the empire because they had diverted from the course Aurangzeb had set.



Typical.

A hero and an emperor whom the people of Bengal never saw. Wonderful and illustrative. 

Like the Sylheti peasant asked to name his favourite fruit, who replies without a blink, "The dates of Baghdad".



Axa- said:


> I dont want to derail this wonderful thread or sound as a troll but when Timur came down to South Asia there was no power who can stand against him, same in Central Asia same other areas, where were these 'Emperors' when Timur was around the ones that dared to test his power got beaten one by one, Timur Conguerors/gets anything he wishes and there is no 'Emperor' who could stop it.



Sadly, you managed to sound like a troll. This thread was not about who was the greatest military leader of south Asia, but who was the greatest emperor. Would you, by the same token, agree that Alexander III the Great was the greatest emperor of Anatolia?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Hellraiser007

Joe Shearer said:


> Typical.
> 
> A hero and an emperor whom the people of Bengal never saw. Wonderful and illustrative.
> 
> Like the Sylheti peasant asked to name his favourite fruit, who replies without a blink, "*The dates of Baghdad*".


----------



## Axa-

Hellraiser007 said:


> But he never ruled S.Asia so he is not in the list, got it??



I already got it. My point is these 'rulers' were nowhere to be found when Timur came but you are still calling them ''Emperors'' I think that is a little bit embarrasing


----------



## ShahidT

Axa- said:


> I dont want to derail this wonderful thread or sound as a troll but when Timur came down to South Asia there was no power who can stand against him, same in Central Asia same other areas, where were these 'Emperors' when Timur was around the ones that dared to test his power got beaten one by one, Timur Conguerors/gets anything he wishes and there is no 'Emperor' who could stop it.



he was alien to this land. if you are so proud of turkic and say they are the best, then they should have stayed in those 'wonderful' turkic regions and not come to the subcontinent. first timur built mounds from the heads of hindus in delhi, and then babur built bigger mountain from the skulls of pashtuns. your people don't belong here stay in your barren lands of central asia and mongolia where you belong. didn't contribute anything but murder of innocents, taking away wealth and leaving rivers of blood in south asia. definition of barbarian insects.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Imran Khan

WTF man cheap guys with cheap comments on a very good thread


----------



## Hellraiser007

Axa- said:


> I already got it. My point is these 'rulers' were nowhere to be found when Timur came but you are still calling them ''Emperors'' I think that is a little bit embarrasing



May be you are referring Mughals when they stayed in India due to Timur. But there are emperors like Chadragupta Mourya who ruled India including Afghanistan for close to 400 years.

Timur relied on hit and run tactics using bow and arrow which is very difficult for a traditional army to fight that kind of battle. Mongols and Timur got the latest and deadly tactics with advancements of cavalry archery and so they won.

Just like British ruled this world with the invention and mastery of gun powder.

The list is not confined to one period and the emperor will be judged based on victories, valour, administration, scientific adavncements, arts, etc etc .....


----------



## genmirajborgza786

Akbar & Ashoka were the among the greatest ruler's of south Asia but with out a doubt "Queen Victoria" was the greatest ruler of south Asia end of story. 

_the Empress her legacy, her rule, & her "Empire"_

http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/m...6/8947463-victoria-memorial-kolkata-india.jpg



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ning_victoria.jpg/220px-Dronning_victoria.jpg

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Axa-

> Sadly, you managed to sound like a troll. This thread was not about who was the greatest military leader of south Asia, but who was the greatest emperor. Would you, by the same token, agree that Alexander III the Great was the greatest emperor of Anatolia?



Alexander was a 'nothing' compared to Turkic Khan's.. He was king, emperor, master etc, untill Turks came in the neighbourhood .. We sacked his mighty empire to the ground.. Byzantines, Romans, Greeks'and what not? all got humiliated!!..


----------



## asad71

Joe Shearer said:


> Typical.
> 
> A hero and an emperor whom the people of Bengal never saw. Wonderful and illustrative.
> 
> Like the Sylheti peasant asked to name his favourite fruit, who replies without a blink, "The dates of Baghdad".
> 
> 
> 
> ?



FYI, the Arab dates are now grown in BD. Even saplings from the date plants planted by the Holy Prophet (pbuh) himself have been brought here and grown. They are already bearing fruits.


----------



## kurup

Axa- said:


> I already got it. My point is these 'rulers' were nowhere to be found when Timur came but you are still calling them ''Emperors'' I think that is a little bit embarrasing



The empires in the listing span from 400 BC to 1700 AD .Timur's attack of Delhi was in 1398 and Delhi then was ruled by a weakened Tughlaq dynasty.

Your assertion that none of them were seen during Timur's conquest is rather stupid.How can an empire from 400BC be seen around circa 1400 AD

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Sashan

All the emperors except one listed above are sub-continental tigers just like our cricketers  - the one player who scored a century outside of subcontinent is Rajendra Chola while doing well within the subcontinent as well - So hands down he is the greatest emperor

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Bang Galore

genmirajborgza786 said:


> Akbar & Ashoka were the among the greatest ruler's of south Asia




Akbar was undoubtedly great but Asoka wasn't, atleast not in the meaning of what commonly goes as great. He had probably the greatest impact_ (more than Akbar or that of his illustrious grandfather Chandragupta Maurya)_ but by the end of his life, the Mauryan kingdom was already going downhill with Asoka having emptied the state treasuries & weakened the power of the empire. Not much is known of his old age but all available indicators are that he died a disillusioned man having no power with his courtiers actually refusing to honour an imperial decree to give away all the wealth of the treasury to Buddhist monasteries. The empire didn't survive much after him and the reason is accepted to be his losing control of it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## MST

Bang Galore said:


> Akbar was undoubtedly great but Asoka wasn't, atleast not in the meaning of what commonly goes as great. He had probably the greatest impact_ (more than Akbar or that of his illustrious grandfather Chandragupta Maurya)_ but by the end of his life, the Mauryan kingdom was already going downhill with Asoka having emptied the state treasuries & weakened the power of the empire. Not much is known of his old age but all available indicators are that he died a disillusioned man having no power with his courtiers actually refusing to honour an imperial decree to give away all the wealth of the treasury to Buddhist monasteries. The empire didn't survive much after him and the reason is accepted to be his losing control of it.



Ashoka was way ahead of his time as a King and Emperor. In 268 BCE he became the emperor of Magadha. Compared to Akbar whose coronation happened in 1556. That is some 1824 years later. While Akbar's claim to fame is all about his religious tolerance something that can be challenged as Jazia was imposed on Hindus Ashoka talked about not just religious tolerence but Human rights, Animal rights, preservation of forests and natural habitat. His edicts had messages that was beyond anything the world will see more 2000 years later until the UN charter. Akbar though Great in his own way doesn't stand anywhere near Ashoka. That is the reason why our founding fathers looked at his principles while laying the foundation for this country. 

I am not debating that Ashoka at his death left his kingdom weakened. This is quite possible. We don't really know because the only reason we know about Ashoka is through his edicts and they don't mention what happened in his later live. So later part of history is derived through other sources. But even then Kings in India have always been celebrated for being Just, righteous and true rather than their Valour and their ability to wage war. So may be by international standards you can say he may not be great but from Indian standards Ashoka was nothing but Great.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Bang Galore

MST said:


> Ashoka was way ahead of his time as a King and Emperor. In 268 BCE he became the emperor of Magadha. Compared to Akbar whose coronation happened in 1556. That is some 1824 years later. While Akbar's claim to fame is all about his religious tolerance something that can be challenged as Jazia was imposed on Hindus Ashoka talked about not just religious tolerence but Human rights, Animal rights, preservation of forests and natural habitat. His edicts had messages that was beyond anything the world will see more 2000 years later until the UN charter. Akbar though Great in his own way doesn't stand anywhere near Ashoka. That is the reason why our founding fathers looked at his principles while laying the foundation for this country.
> 
> I am not debating that Ashoka at his death left his kingdom weakened. This is quite possible. We don't really know because the only reason we know about Ashoka is through his edicts and they don't mention what happened in his later live. So later part of history is derived through other sources. But even then Kings in India have always been celebrated for being Just, righteous and true rather than their Valour and their ability to wage war. So may be by international standards you can say he may not be great but from Indian standards Ashoka was nothing but Great.




You make very valid points.* My only observation was that when looked through the conventional lens, Asoka was not "great". *However I guess when you consider that some 2300 years after his death, his imperial symbols fly high as the official symbols of the Republic of India, that probably qualifies for a whole new level of greatness.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Silverblaze

Greatest in terms of what?

Lets rate them in 

kindness - none

generosity - none

tolerant - none 

Powerful - all

conquerors - all 

imperialists - all.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Joe Shearer

Axa- said:


> I already got it. My point is these 'rulers' were nowhere to be found when Timur came but you are still calling them ''Emperors'' I think that is a little bit embarrasing



Perhaps there is a little misunderstanding.

Were you expecting Chandragupta Maurya to be reborn to face Timur? Has it occurred to you that nobody is proposing one of Timur's contemporaries as a great Indian emperor? 

I think your repeatedly bringing Timur in, into a list of south Asian emperors, is a little embarrassing.



Axa- said:


> Alexander was a 'nothing' compared to Turkic Khan's.. He was king, emperor, master etc, untill Turks came in the neighbourhood .. We sacked his mighty empire to the ground.. Byzantines, Romans, Greeks'and what not? all got humiliated!!..



A juvenile, schoolboy remark.


Neither Alexander nor his empire were around when the Turks showed up on the stage. Byzantines were not Alexander's empire, they were a succession to the Roman Empire. Several hundred years separate the two.

Would you like to refresh yourself with some basic history before commenting further?



asad71 said:


> FYI, the Arab dates are now grown in BD. Even saplings from the date plants planted by the Holy Prophet (pbuh) himself have been brought here and grown. They are already bearing fruits.



Oh, good. That now proves that Sher Shah was a Bangladeshi king. Now we can all go home.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Vinod2070

Axa- said:


> I already got it. My point is these 'rulers' were nowhere to be found when Timur came but you are still calling them ''Emperors'' I think that is a little bit embarrasing





Axa- said:


> I dont want to derail this wonderful thread or sound as a troll but when Timur came down to South Asia there was no power who can stand against him, same in Central Asia same other areas, where were these 'Emperors' when Timur was around the ones that dared to test his power got beaten one by one, Timur Conguerors/gets anything he wishes and there is no 'Emperor' who could stop it.



Timue was a fil.thy lump of shyt.

One of the worst genocidal maniac of all times.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ExtraOdinary

Chandragupta Maurya anyday. I am surprised aurangzeb got so many votes, that guy was just a short sighted religious fanatic.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Omya

Shivaji n gupta


----------



## Slayer786

The person who started this thread should put correct info. During Aurangzeb's time, Mughal empire was at its zenith. Only when he died, did the Mughal empire start to decline. It was only after his death did the small kings like Shivaji and ranjit singh manage to get some lands. Although both the kingdom were finished by the time Mughal era ended by the British in 1857.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rusty

Slayer786 said:


> The person who started this thread should put correct info. During Aurangzeb's time, Mughal empire was at its zenith. Only when he died, did the Mughal empire start to decline. It was only after his death did the small kings like Shivaji and ranjit singh manage to get some lands. Although both the kingdom were finished by the time Mughal era ended by the British in 1857.



Yep, The OP is very biased and not presenting all the leaders mentioned in an objective and fair manner. 
Either way, he/she is banned so who really cares.


----------



## Android

Slayer786 said:


> Only when he died, did the Mughal empire start to decline. It was only after his death did the small kings like Shivaji manage to get some lands.



seriously is quality of history taught in Pakistani schools are that bad???


----------



## Rusty

Android said:


> seriously is quality of history taught in Pakistani schools are that bad???



Are you denying that during Arungzeb's rein the Mughal empire was at it's peak?
Are you denying that major disintegration only happened after his death?
Maybe you should be looking at improving your education so you don't make yourself look like a fool in Public.


----------



## Android

Rusty said:


> Are you denying that during Arungzeb's rein the Mughal empire was at it's peak?
> Are you denying that major disintegration only happened after his death?
> Maybe you should be looking at improving your education so you don't make yourself look like a fool in Public.


No I am not denying those but yes he kind of did laid the foundation which would eventually led to disintegration of his empir
PS look at the line I quoted "only after aurangzeb's death did the small kings like Shivaji manage to get some lands."


----------



## Sashan

Slayer786 said:


> The person who started this thread should put correct info. During Aurangzeb's time, Mughal empire was at its zenith. Only when he died, did the Mughal empire start to decline. It was only after his death did the small kings like Shivaji and ranjit singh manage to get some lands. Although both the kingdom were finished by the time Mughal era ended by the British in 1857.



Shivaji was long dead before Aurangzeb and he died only after he left behind an empire - Maratha empire.


----------



## Rusty

Android said:


> No I am not denying those but yes he kind of did laid the foundation which would eventually led to disintegration of his empir
> PS look at the line I quoted "only after aurangzeb's death did the small kings like Shivaji manage to get some lands."



By that logic the Republic of India has laid down the ground for for it's destruction too, by merely existing. 
What is it with you people and your Indian logic?
And just to show you how dumb you sound, Arungzeb actually tired to change the way his sons would get in power so that they did not have to kill each other to do it. It failed, but you can't blame Aurangzeb for trying.


----------



## INDIC

Rusty said:


> By that logic the Republic of India has laid down the ground for for it's destruction too, by merely existing.
> What is it with you people and your Indian logic?
> And just to show you how dumb you sound, Arungzeb actually tired to change the way his sons would get in power so that they did not have to kill each other to do it. It failed, but you can't blame Aurangzeb for trying.



Keeping aside your bs, Aurangzeb himself realized that he screwed up the Mughal Empire and he never trusted his kids.


----------



## Rusty

Gigawatt said:


> Keeping aside your bs, Aurangzeb himself realized that he screwed up the Mughal Empire and he never trusted his kids.



Yep, Indian education at work right here. 
So much hatred and bias that is taught in your schools against Aurangzeb.


----------



## INDIC

Rusty said:


> Yep, Indian education at work right here.
> So much hatred and bias that is taught in your schools against Aurangzeb.



Hey Rusty, you trying to portray him as a Demigod,  typical to Pakistani textbook mentality.


----------



## Icewolf

Aurangzeb actually strengthened Mughal empire which was ruined by pathetic people building money wasters for their wives...

Only after Aurangzeb died did the Mughal start to decline, rusty is right.zz

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Water Car Engineer

Aurangzeb was a strong emperor, but he left the empire drained from war and left groups all over India pissed off at the Mughals.


----------



## Rusty

Gigawatt said:


> Hey Rusty, you trying to portray him as a Demigod,  typical to Pakistani textbook mentality.



I can't do it
It's like arguing with a chimp.... no that's an insult to a chimp, it's like arguing with a rock.

Are you seriously this retarded?


----------



## INDIC

Rusty said:


> I can't do it
> It's like arguing with a chimp.... no that's an insult to a chimp, it's like arguing with a rock.
> 
> Are you seriously this retarded?



I can realize what's in your mind.


----------



## ExtraOdinary

Uncle Aurangzeb bankrupted the empire in useless wars, the Deccan campaign was to the Mughal empire what Afghanistan was to the Soviets, Marathas were just too good in guerrilla warfare.

Uncle Aurangzeb bankrupted the empire in useless wars, the Deccan campaign was to the Mughal empire what Afghanistan was to the Soviets, Marathas were just too good in guerrilla warfare.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LURKER

Aurangzeb laid the foundaion of decline of Mughal empire by his religious fantaticism and wreckless wars , but ofcourse some of our neighbouring friends will see a hero in any fanatic that persecutes people on their religion .

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Pboy

Chandragupta Maurya winning the voting

Never read his history, will do now.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jayron

ExtraOdinary said:


> Chandragupta Maurya anyday. I am surprised aurangzeb got so many votes, that guy was just a short sighted religious fanatic.



That's probably why he got so many votes.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Slayer786

To the Indian who mostly are hindus(nothing against your religion), Aurangzeb would always be seen in a negative light. He was not like Akbar who was considered liberal among the hindu population of India. 
But during Aurangzeb rule, Mughl empire was at its peak and only after he died, did the Mughal power start to decline. Thats why for muslims he is considered more powerful and effective leader than Akbar or anyone else. 
There is no point in arguing, because the hindus will always be against it. But here is what history tell us of the great man.

Abul Muzaffar Muhi u'd-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb (4 November 1618 - 3 March 1707) is commonly known as Aurangzeb, and by his imperial title Alamgir ("world-seizer"), he was the sixth Mughal Emperor and ruled over *most of the Indian subcontinent*. His reign lasted for 49 years from 1658 until his death in 1707. Aurangzeb was a notable expansionist and was among the wealthiest of the Mughal rulers with an annual yearly tribute of £38,624,680 (in 1690). *During his lifetime, victories in the south expanded the Mughal Empire to more than 3.2 million square kilometres and he ruled over a population estimated as being in the range of 100-150 million subjects.
*He was a pious Muslim, and his policies partly abandoned the religious toleration of his predecessors, which remains a very controversial aspect of his reign. *He was a strong and effective ruler, but with his death the great period of the Mughal dynasty came to an end, and central control of the sub-continent declined rapidly*.


Source: Wikileaks

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ghaja

Top 9 Emperors of India:
Chandragupta Maurya of the Maurya Empire: 4th century BC

Emperor Ashoka of the Maurya Empire: 3rd century BC

Chandragupta Vikramaditya of the Gupta Empire: 5th century

Harsha Vardhana: 7th century

Amoghavarsha of the Rashtrakuta Empire: 9th century

Dharmapala of the Pala Dynasty: 8th century

Rajendra Chola of the Chola Empire: 11th century

Akbar of the Mughal Empire: 16th century

Chhatrapati Shahu of the Maratha Empire: 18th century

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## niaz

ghaja said:


> Top 9 Emperors of India:
> Chandragupta Maurya of the Maurya Empire: 4th century BC
> 
> Emperor Ashoka of the Maurya Empire: 3rd century BC
> 
> Chandragupta Vikramaditya of the Gupta Empire: 5th century
> 
> Harsha Vardhana: 7th century
> 
> Amoghavarsha of the Rashtrakuta Empire: 9th century
> 
> Dharmapala of the Pala Dynasty: 8th century
> 
> Rajendra Chola of the Chola Empire: 11th century
> 
> Akbar of the Mughal Empire: 16th century
> 
> Chhatrapati Shahu of the Maratha Empire: 18th century




I have only two comments. 

1.	Grandson of Shivaji &#8216;Shahu&#8217; aka Shivaji II was no doubt a very able Maratha ruler but to compare him with the likes of Asoka, Akbar or Chandragupta Maurya tantamount to insulting those great rulers of India. 

Firstly, Maratha Empire was not really an empire in the classical sense; it was loosely governed and was closer to a Federation or a Confederation. Naturally everyone has his own likes & dislike. In my book two Maratha names stand out. Shivaji who probably introduced the guerrilla style of fighting in India. Second is Balaji Baji Rao under whose reign Maratha rule reached at its peak. However I wouldn&#8217;t rate them great primarily because Shivaji lost to Aurangzeb&#8217;s General Jai Singh and was imprisoned. Balaji Baii Rao's army, though vastly superior in number was defeated by Ahmad Shah Abdali in January 1761 at the battle of Panipat.

2.	It is all subjective and you are welcome to call anyone &#8220;Great&#8221;. Historians have however added &#8220;the Great&#8221; to only two of the names; Asoka the great & Akbar the great.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Vinod2070

Slayer786 said:


> To the Indian who mostly are hindus(nothing against your religion), Aurangzeb would always be seen in a negative light. He was not like Akbar who was considered liberal among the hindu population of India.
> But during Aurangzeb rule, Mughl empire was at its peak and only after he died, did the Mughal power start to decline. Thats why for muslims he is considered more powerful and effective leader than Akbar or anyone else.
> There is no point in arguing, because the hindus will always be against it. But here is what history tell us of the great man.
> 
> Abul Muzaffar Muhi u'd-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb (4 November 1618 - 3 March 1707) is commonly known as Aurangzeb, and by his imperial title Alamgir ("world-seizer"), he was the sixth Mughal Emperor and ruled over *most of the Indian subcontinent*. His reign lasted for 49 years from 1658 until his death in 1707. Aurangzeb was a notable expansionist and was among the wealthiest of the Mughal rulers with an annual yearly tribute of £38,624,680 (in 1690). *During his lifetime, victories in the south expanded the Mughal Empire to more than 3.2 million square kilometres and he ruled over a population estimated as being in the range of 100-150 million subjects.
> *He was a pious Muslim, and his policies partly abandoned the religious toleration of his predecessors, which remains a very controversial aspect of his reign. *He was a strong and effective ruler, but with his death the great period of the Mughal dynasty came to an end, and central control of the sub-continent declined rapidly*.
> 
> 
> Source: Wikileaks



The Mughal power had substantially decline during Aurangzeb's time and what happened afterwards was just inevitable.

The Mughals had become paupers in the end due to his wars in the Deccan. Some contemporary foreigners have commented on the poor condition of his war carvan versus in earlier times (like Jehangir).

They didn't even have proper utensils and shoes during the latter part of the Deccan campaign.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Kyusuibu Honbu

Slayer786 said:


> To the Indian who mostly are hindus(nothing against your religion), Aurangzeb would always be seen in a negative light. He was not like Akbar who was considered liberal among the hindu population of India.
> But during Aurangzeb rule, Mughl empire was at its peak and only after he died, did the Mughal power start to decline. Thats why for muslims he is considered more powerful and effective leader than Akbar or anyone else.
> There is no point in arguing, because the hindus will always be against it. But here is what history tell us of the great man.
> 
> Abul Muzaffar Muhi u'd-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb (4 November 1618 - 3 March 1707) is commonly known as Aurangzeb, and by his imperial title Alamgir ("world-seizer"), he was the sixth Mughal Emperor and ruled over *most of the Indian subcontinent*. His reign lasted for 49 years from 1658 until his death in 1707. Aurangzeb was a notable expansionist and was among the wealthiest of the Mughal rulers with an annual yearly tribute of £38,624,680 (in 1690). *During his lifetime, victories in the south expanded the Mughal Empire to more than 3.2 million square kilometres and he ruled over a population estimated as being in the range of 100-150 million subjects.
> *He was a pious Muslim, and his policies partly abandoned the religious toleration of his predecessors, which remains a very controversial aspect of his reign. *He was a strong and effective ruler, but with his death the great period of the Mughal dynasty came to an end, and central control of the sub-continent declined rapidly*.
> 
> 
> Source: *Wikileaks*



I went through wikileaks cables, could find any of the above.

Please provide the link


----------



## ExtraOdinary

Slayer786 said:


> To the Indian who mostly are hindus(nothing against your religion), Aurangzeb would always be seen in a negative light. He was not like Akbar who was considered liberal among the hindu population of India.
> But during Aurangzeb rule, Mughl empire was at its peak and only after he died, did the Mughal power start to decline. Thats why for muslims he is considered more powerful and effective leader than Akbar or anyone else.
> There is no point in arguing, because the hindus will always be against it. But here is what history tell us of the great man.
> 
> Abul Muzaffar Muhi u'd-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb (4 November 1618 - 3 March 1707) is commonly known as Aurangzeb, and by his imperial title Alamgir ("world-seizer"), he was the sixth Mughal Emperor and ruled over *most of the Indian subcontinent*. His reign lasted for 49 years from 1658 until his death in 1707. Aurangzeb was a notable expansionist and was among the wealthiest of the Mughal rulers with an annual yearly tribute of £38,624,680 (in 1690). *During his lifetime, victories in the south expanded the Mughal Empire to more than 3.2 million square kilometres and he ruled over a population estimated as being in the range of 100-150 million subjects.
> *He was a pious Muslim, and his policies partly abandoned the religious toleration of his predecessors, which remains a very controversial aspect of his reign. *He was a strong and effective ruler, but with his death the great period of the Mughal dynasty came to an end, and central control of the sub-continent declined rapidly*.
> 
> 
> Source: Wikileaks



Being a *pious muslim* or a *conqueror* does'nt make someone a great emperor. An emperor becomes great when he is respected by his subjects (irrespective of religion) and by his enemies. That is what determines how the history remembers him.
There is a reason why Sher Shah Suri is also widely revered in India.


----------



## Contrarian

Slayer786 said:


> To the Indian who mostly are hindus(nothing against your religion), Aurangzeb would always be seen in a negative light. He was not like Akbar who was considered liberal among the hindu population of India.
> But during Aurangzeb rule, Mughl empire was at its peak and only after he died, did the Mughal power start to decline. Thats why for muslims he is considered more powerful and effective leader than Akbar or anyone else.
> There is no point in arguing, because the hindus will always be against it. But here is what history tell us of the great man.
> 
> Abul Muzaffar Muhi u'd-Din Muhammad Aurangzeb (4 November 1618 - 3 March 1707) is commonly known as Aurangzeb, and by his imperial title Alamgir ("world-seizer"), he was the sixth Mughal Emperor and ruled over *most of the Indian subcontinent*. His reign lasted for 49 years from 1658 until his death in 1707. Aurangzeb was a notable expansionist and was among the wealthiest of the Mughal rulers with an annual yearly tribute of £38,624,680 (in 1690). *During his lifetime, victories in the south expanded the Mughal Empire to more than 3.2 million square kilometres and he ruled over a population estimated as being in the range of 100-150 million subjects.
> *He was a pious Muslim, and his policies partly abandoned the religious toleration of his predecessors, which remains a very controversial aspect of his reign. *He was a strong and effective ruler, but with his death the great period of the Mughal dynasty came to an end, and central control of the sub-continent declined rapidly*.
> 
> 
> Source: Wikileaks



It was because of Aurangzeb that the Mughal dynasty ended. He sowed the seeds of destruction.
He was given in his hand a strong empire with a great army and great finances.

He overstretched his army, made enemies where peace could be made. Those enemies among others literally bankrupted his empire.
He died leaving a shadow of the glory that the Mughal Empire was - in terms of territory it was big, but it was hollow.

He can not even begin to be compared with Akbar, the reason why Mughal empire lasted as long as it did. He struck the alliances, the administrative machinery, the control mechanisms, the financial systems that made Mughal empire entrenched in India.

Aurangzeb does not even come close to Akbar.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ExtraOdinary

I recently read Discovery of India by Nehru in which he states that though the Marathas were fiercely nationalistic, they were somewhat ignorant of the happenings around the world and lacked vision. They also harrassed the rajputs and the sikhs hence losing potential allies.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Contrarian

niaz said:


> I have only two comments.
> 
> 1.	Grandson of Shivaji &#8216;Shahu&#8217; aka Shivaji II was no doubt a very able Maratha ruler but to compare him with the likes of Asoka, Akbar or Chandragupta Maurya tantamount to insulting those great rulers of India.
> 
> Firstly, Maratha Empire was not really an empire in the classical sense; it was loosely governed and was closer to a Federation or a Confederation. Naturally everyone has his own likes & dislike. In my book two Maratha names stand out. Shivaji who probably introduced the guerrilla style of fighting in India. Second is Balaji Baji Rao under whose reign Maratha rule reached at its peak. However I wouldn&#8217;t rate them great primarily because Shivaji lost to Aurangzeb&#8217;s General Jai Singh and was imprisoned. Balaji Baii Rao's army, though vastly superior in number was defeated by Ahmad Shah Abdali in January 1761 at the battle of Panipat.
> 
> 2.	It is all subjective and you are welcome to call anyone &#8220;Great&#8221;. Historians have however added &#8220;the Great&#8221; to only two of the names; Asoka the great & Akbar the great.



Completely agree with each of the statements. However I would personally vote for Chandragupta Maurya simply because he ran such a huge empire hundreds of years before the others, when technology was crude.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ghaja

niaz said:


> I have only two comments.
> 
> 1.	Grandson of Shivaji &#8216;Shahu&#8217; aka Shivaji II was no doubt a very able Maratha ruler but to compare him with the likes of Asoka, Akbar or Chandragupta Maurya tantamount to insulting those great rulers of India.
> 
> Firstly, Maratha Empire was not really an empire in the classical sense; it was loosely governed and was closer to a Federation or a Confederation. Naturally everyone has his own likes & dislike. In my book two Maratha names stand out. Shivaji who probably introduced the guerrilla style of fighting in India. Second is Balaji Baji Rao under whose reign Maratha rule reached at its peak. However I wouldn&#8217;t rate them great primarily because Shivaji lost to Aurangzeb&#8217;s General Jai Singh and was imprisoned. Balaji Baii Rao's army, though vastly superior in number was defeated by Ahmad Shah Abdali in January 1761 at the battle of Panipat.
> 
> 2.	It is all subjective and you are welcome to call anyone &#8220;Great&#8221;. Historians have however added &#8220;the Great&#8221; to only two of the names; Asoka the great & Akbar the great.



Actually the Afghan army had the superior number and thats the reason why they were able to
defeat the Maratha army. But the Marathas recovered after the battle of Panipat and 
reconquered the major part of northern India under Shinde and Madhavrao.
I chose Shahu because he was a great ruler. He selected his generals because of their ability and
not based on origin or caste. A lot of his generals were from the lower caste like Shinde or Holkar.


----------



## Joe Shearer

niaz said:


> I have only two comments.
> 
> 1.	Grandson of Shivaji &#8216;Shahu&#8217; aka Shivaji II was no doubt a very able Maratha ruler but to compare him with the likes of Asoka, Akbar or Chandragupta Maurya tantamount to insulting those great rulers of India.
> 
> Firstly, Maratha Empire was not really an empire in the classical sense; it was loosely governed and was closer to a Federation or a Confederation. Naturally everyone has his own likes & dislike. In my book two Maratha names stand out. Shivaji who probably introduced the guerrilla style of fighting in India. Second is Balaji Baji Rao under whose reign Maratha rule reached at its peak. However I wouldn&#8217;t rate them great primarily because Shivaji lost to Aurangzeb&#8217;s General Jai Singh and was imprisoned. Balaji Baii Rao's army, though vastly superior in number was defeated by Ahmad Shah Abdali in January 1761 at the battle of Panipat.
> 
> 2.	It is all subjective and you are welcome to call anyone &#8220;Great&#8221;. Historians have however added &#8220;the Great&#8221; to only two of the names; Asoka the great & Akbar the great.



Thank you for your usual very balanced summation. It is always a pleasure to read your posts.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Joe Shearer

ghaja said:


> Top 9 Emperors of India:
> Chandragupta Maurya of the Maurya Empire: 4th century BC
> 
> Emperor Ashoka of the Maurya Empire: 3rd century BC
> 
> Chandragupta Vikramaditya of the Gupta Empire: 5th century
> 
> Harsha Vardhana: 7th century
> 
> Amoghavarsha of the Rashtrakuta Empire: 9th century
> 
> Dharmapala of the Pala Dynasty: 8th century
> 
> Rajendra Chola of the Chola Empire: 11th century
> 
> Akbar of the Mughal Empire: 16th century
> 
> Chhatrapati Shahu of the Maratha Empire: 18th century



If I might pick up from where @niaz Sahib stopped, and if I might partially respond to @Slayer786, there is one simple criterion in Indian history which discriminates very effectively between the great rulers and the merely powerful.

The criterion is inclusiveness.

Those who sought to reach out to the widest possible section and imbue them with a sense of common purpose stand out. This includes Chandragupta Maurya, Asoka the Great, three of the first few Gupta emperors, Chandragupta, Samudragupta and Chandragupta II Vikramaditya, Rajarajendra Chola and in late mediaeval times, Sher Shah Suri and Akbar the Great.

Those who sought to elevate some and exclude others are generally seen to be less than the quality of the one's named above, even if they had been better military leaders. These exclusivists include Pulakesin, the Sunga successors of the Mauryas, the Bactrian Greeks, the Sakas, the Kushanas, the Maukharis, the Rastrakutas, the Palas, the Gurjara Pratiharas, the Chalukya, the Kakatiyas, the Vakataka, the Haiheya, the southern Pallavas, the Cheras and the Turks, the Khalji, the Tughlaqs, the Lodis, and most of the other Mughals, including Babar and Aurangzeb. Not to forget the Marathas.

I believe that the Vijaynagar kings suffer because of the strong northern orientation of our history. They qualify in all respects to be considered at a far higher level than many others listed. Perhaps they ought to be excluded, not for being insufficiently inclusive - they were inclusive to a marked degree - but for relative lack of extent of empire.

I mention this because of the raging political debate in our countries today, centred around a choice between inclusiveness and exclusiveness.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## niaz

Joe Shearer said:


> If I might pick up from where @niaz Sahib stopped, and if I might partially respond to @Slayer786, there is one simple criterion in Indian history which discriminates very effectively between the great rulers and the merely powerful.
> 
> The criterion is inclusiveness.
> 
> Those who sought to reach out to the widest possible section and imbue them with a sense of common purpose stand out. This includes Chandragupta Maurya, Asoka the Great, three of the first few Gupta emperors, Chandragupta, Samudragupta and Chandragupta II Vikramaditya, Rajarajendra Chola and in late mediaeval times, Sher Shah Suri and Akbar the Great.
> 
> Those who sought to elevate some and exclude others are generally seen to be less than the quality of the one's named above, even if they had been better military leaders. These exclusivists include Pulakesin, the Sunga successors of the Mauryas, the Bactrian Greeks, the Sakas, the Kushanas, the Maukharis, the Rastrakutas, the Palas, the Gurjara Pratiharas, the Chalukya, the Kakatiyas, the Vakataka, the Haiheya, the southern Pallavas, the Cheras and the Turks, the Khalji, the Tughlaqs, the Lodis, and most of the other Mughals, including Babar and Aurangzeb. Not to forget the Marathas.
> 
> I believe that the Vijaynagar kings suffer because of the strong northern orientation of our history. They qualify in all respects to be considered at a far higher level than many others listed. Perhaps they ought to be excluded, not for being insufficiently inclusive - they were inclusive to a marked degree - but for relative lack of extent of empire.
> 
> I mention this because of the raging political debate in our countries today, centred around a choice between inclusiveness and exclusiveness.




I wouldn&#8217;t dare to improve on a very informative post. However, if I may, I would like to add name of Kanishka of the Kushans to your list of one the most able rulers of subcontinent. His empire was vast, immensely wealthy and very well governed.

I also agree with you 100% that history books of the subcontinent are heavily biased towards North Indian dynasties and Chola colonization of the South East kingdoms is largely glossed over.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Joe Shearer

niaz said:


> I wouldn&#8217;t dare to improve on a very informative post. However, if I may, I would like to add name of Kanishka of the Kushans to your list of one the most able rulers of subcontinent. His empire was vast, immensely wealthy and very well governed.
> 
> I also agree with you 100% that history books of the subcontinent are heavily biased towards North Indian dynasties and Chola colonization of the South East kingdoms is largely glossed over.



Dear @niaz Sahib, I agree with your correction. Kanishka, pulling in the Buddhists and Hindus under the umbrella of Kushan rule, was quite clearly an inclusive emperor. And a true emperor, considering the breadth and scope of his dominion.

Thank you for the observation.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## niaz

As a student of history I don&#8217;t care much Aurangzeb either. It has nothing to do with religion. Aurangzeb was greedy and a ruthless man.

Aurangzeb imprisoned his father, fought and killed his two elder brothers who had greater right to the Mughal throne. I don&#8217;t buy the nonsense that simply because Aurangzeb was better Muslim he was better suited to rule.

Most people are totally ignorant of the fact that primarily because Rajput contingent of the Dara / Shah Jahan&#8217;s army under General Jai Singh defected to Aurangzeb; he was able to defeat Dara&#8217;s army. Aurangzeb then turned on his ally and younger brother Murad Bakhsh and had him eliminated.

There has to be a good reason as to why the Mughal empire that encompassed most of the subcontinent at the time of his death in 1707 sank like holed boat and by 1757, a mere 50 years later, was reduced to Delhi and her surroundings. Following the battle of Buxor in 1764, Mughal emperor Shah Alam II depended upon, Oudh Nawabs, East India Company and the Marathas ( in that order) to sit on the Delhi throne. Subsequently Abdul Qadir Rohilla blinded him and raped Moghal princesses.

Aurnagzeb chewed more than he could digest during his wars in Deccan. His victories in the South were pyrrhic victories at best and in my book Aurangzeb is responsible for the fall of the Muslim rule over India in the same way that Zia ul Haq is responsible for the rise of extremism in Pakistan.

However if people insist on loving a king who usurps his father&#8217;s throne & imprisons him and murders his three brothers in his greed for power; simply because he was ostensibly a good Muslim, they are welcome.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## Srinivas

Sathavahans should also be included into that list, they ruled entire south India along with Maharastra.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Srinivas said:


> Sathavahans should also be included into that list, they ruled entire south India along with Maharastra.



By any chance, did you have an opportunity to read that long and boring post at #452? or did you start reading it and gave up halfway because it was so boring?


----------



## Srinivas

Joe Shearer said:


> By any chance, did you have an opportunity to read that long and boring post at #452? or did you start reading it and gave up halfway because it was so boring?



No mention of Sathavahanas in that post by name.


----------



## angeldude13

niaz said:


> I have only two comments.
> 
> 1.	Grandson of Shivaji &#8216;Shahu&#8217; aka Shivaji II was no doubt a very able Maratha ruler but to compare him with the likes of Asoka, Akbar or Chandragupta Maurya tantamount to insulting those great rulers of India.
> 
> Firstly, Maratha Empire was not really an empire in the classical sense; it was loosely governed and was closer to a Federation or a Confederation. Naturally everyone has his own likes & dislike. In my book two Maratha names stand out. Shivaji who probably introduced the guerrilla style of fighting in India. Second is Balaji Baji Rao under whose reign Maratha rule reached at its peak. However I wouldn&#8217;t rate them great primarily because Shivaji lost to Aurangzeb&#8217;s General Jai Singh and was imprisoned. Balaji Baii Rao's army, though vastly superior in number was defeated by Ahmad Shah Abdali in January 1761 at the battle of Panipat.
> 
> 2.	It is all subjective and you are welcome to call anyone &#8220;Great&#8221;. Historians have however added &#8220;the Great&#8221; to only two of the names; *Asoka the great* & Akbar the great.


sir,can you please elaborate on the terms and conditions on which historians called ashoka THE GREAT.
imo ashoka is comparable to aurangzeb. only exception is that he did few right things after he got his a$$ handed to him by the warriors of kalinga.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Srinivas said:


> No mention of Sathavahanas in that post by name.



Are you sure?


----------



## r3alist

> all humans came from africa. all african humans evloved from apes.Source:*http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...ror-south-asian-history-17.html#ixzz2PmLAsZ8c



This has been disproven apparently. But not widely reported.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19566


----------



## Kambojaric

niaz said:


> As a student of history I don&#8217;t care much Aurangzeb either. It has nothing to do with religion. Aurangzeb was greedy and a ruthless man.
> 
> Aurangzeb imprisoned his father, fought and killed his two elder brothers who had greater right to the Mughal throne. I don&#8217;t buy the nonsense that simply because Aurangzeb was better Muslim he was better suited to rule.
> 
> Most people are totally ignorant of the fact that primarily because Rajput contingent of the Dara / Shah Jahan&#8217;s army under General Jai Singh defected to Aurangzeb; he was able to defeat Dara&#8217;s army. Aurangzeb then turned on his ally and younger brother Murad Bakhsh and had him eliminated.
> 
> There has to be a good reason as to why the Mughal empire that encompassed most of the subcontinent at the time of his death in 1707 sank like holed boat and by 1757, a mere 50 years later, was reduced to Delhi and her surroundings. Following the battle of Buxor in 1764, Mughal emperor Shah Alam II depended upon, Oudh Nawabs, East India Company and the Marathas ( in that order) to sit on the Delhi throne. Subsequently Abdul Qadir Rohilla blinded him and raped Moghal princesses.
> 
> Aurnagzeb chewed more than he could digest during his wars in Deccan. His victories in the South were pyrrhic victories at best and in my book Aurangzeb is responsible for the fall of the Muslim rule over India in the same way that Zia ul Haq is responsible for the rise of extremism in Pakistan.
> 
> However if people insist on loving a king who usurps his father&#8217;s throne & imprisons him and murders his three brothers in his greed of power; simply because he was ostensibly a good Muslim, they are welcome.



I am not a fan of Aurengzeb either but it must also be said that usurpation and fratricide no matter how distasteful we find it in todays time was not out of the norm back then. In fact not being ruthless could have been seen as a sign of weakness (compare for example how Humayuns consistent pardons to his brothers were replied by them with one rebellion after the other). As Yavuz Sultan said "A carpet is large enough to accommodate two sufis, but the world is not large enough for two Kings". Further again whilst its true that Aurengzeb indirectly had a large part to play in the eventual decline of the Mughal Empire it must also be remembered that due to having lived to a very old age (88) his successor Shah Alam was already in his mid 60s when he ascended to the throne and thus arguably incapable of reversing any of Aurengzebs policies. After Shah Alam the power of the nobles increased drastically and this eventually lead to the complete decline in the power of the "Emperors" thanks to the Sayyid brothers. Old age and incompetent successors thus must also go hand in hand with Aurengzebs expensive and non futile policies to be seen as the causes for the decline of the Mughal Empire.


----------



## Joe Shearer

Bamxa said:


> I am not a fan of Aurengzeb either but it must also be said that usurpation and fratricide no matter how distasteful we find it in todays time was not out of the norm back then. In fact not being ruthless could have been seen as a sign of weakness (compare for example how Humayuns consistent pardons to his brothers were replied by them with one rebellion after the other). As Yavuz Sultan said "A carpet is large enough to accommodate two sufis, but the world is not large enough for two Kings". Further again whilst its true that Aurengzeb indirectly had a large part to play in the eventual decline of the Mughal Empire it must also be remembered that due to having lived to a very old age (88) his successor Shah Alam was already in his mid 60s when he ascended to the throne and thus arguably incapable of reversing any of Aurengzebs policies. After Shah Alam the power of the nobles increased drastically and this eventually lead to the complete decline in the power of the "Emperors" thanks to the Sayyid brothers. Old age and incompetent successors thus must also go hand in hand with Aurengzebs expensive and non futile policies to be seen as the causes for the decline of the Mughal Empire.



Your point is well taken, but is vulnerable to attack on the grounds of realpolitik, rather than relative morality and an imposition of today's standards of public and private life to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

At the commencement of his reign, Aurangzeb already faced an empire in danger of fragmenting due to its own weight. You will recall that he himself had been assigned Balkh and Badakshan as early as 28. His tenure was not entirely successful, as he could not recover Kandahar from the Safavids. It also needs to be remembered that he was in the Deccan long before coming to the throne; he was there from 1632 to 1644, between the ages of 18 and 26, and again between 1652 and 1658, sent there after his failure at Kandahar.

The point is that he never recognised that the empire had grown beyond governable size, never took steps to set limits to the boundaries and grow institutions that could defend the Borders. In the same circumstances, even ebullient and militarist Roman emperors like Hadrian and Trajan pulled back; they, and later emperors of later empires, such as the Carolingians, set up border commands to defend segments of the imperial Borders, as did kings of England, setting up the Marcher Lords in Wales, for instance, and the Percy clan in Northumberland.

Aurangzeb need not be faulted on the grounds of the killing of his brothers, arguing if we wish that such were the dealings of that day among imperial princes; we may grant him the latitude for the fact that he lived so long that his successor could hardly do anything original or worthwhile. On the second point, the question arises: is it that he never understood that the system of inheritance by battle was a hindrance to the stability of the empire? Why did he not anticipate events and place Bahadur Shah I In a position of power earlier? If the answer is that under those circumstances, no seventeenth Mughal dared to build up a potential rival, again the question arises: what then was Aurangzeb thinking about the succession? Or did he not think about it at all?

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## niaz

Bamxa said:


> I am not a fan of Aurengzeb either but it must also be said that usurpation and fratricide no matter how distasteful we find it in todays time was not out of the norm back then. In fact not being ruthless could have been seen as a sign of weakness (compare for example how Humayuns consistent pardons to his brothers were replied by them with one rebellion after the other). As Yavuz Sultan said "A carpet is large enough to accommodate two sufis, but the world is not large enough for two Kings". Further again whilst its true that Aurengzeb indirectly had a large part to play in the eventual decline of the Mughal Empire it must also be remembered that due to having lived to a very old age (88) his successor Shah Alam was already in his mid 60s when he ascended to the throne and thus arguably incapable of reversing any of Aurengzebs policies. After Shah Alam the power of the nobles increased drastically and this eventually lead to the complete decline in the power of the "Emperors" thanks to the Sayyid brothers. Old age and incompetent successors thus must also go hand in hand with Aurengzebs expensive and non futile policies to be seen as the causes for the decline of the Mughal Empire.



My dislike of Aurangzeb is not due his long reign or age. It is to do with his lack of foresight. 
Aurangzeb military action against Bijapur and Golconda was an error. These two kingdoms provided a bulwark against the troublesome Marathas. With the Adil Shahi & Qutub Shahi states gone, Marathas had freedom of movement and gave a tough time to the Mughal army. He was fighting Marathas on their terms, something that any intelligent general should avoid.

Aurangzeb arrived in the South in 1986 and to the best my knowledge never spent much time in his Capital since then. These wars not only bankrupted the Mughal Empire, long absence of the ruler from his Capital gave rise to the ambitious nobles such as Rohillas, Nawabs of Oudh and the Syed brothers. You can&#8217;t run a shop successfully spending 20 years away from it, how can you run an Empire?

As I have stated before, history is very subjective and depends upon how you look at it. I stand by my assertion that Aurangzeb is responsible for the decline of Mughal Empire and rise of the Sikhs & of Marathas which ended the Muslim rule over major part of India. If some people insist on looking at his reign through wrong end of the telescope, it is their business.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Slayer786

Contrarian said:


> It was because of Aurangzeb that the Mughal dynasty ended. He sowed the seeds of destruction.
> He was given in his hand a strong empire with a great army and great finances.
> 
> He overstretched his army, made enemies where peace could be made. Those enemies among others literally bankrupted his empire.
> He died leaving a shadow of the glory that the Mughal Empire was - in terms of territory it was big, but it was hollow.
> 
> He can not even begin to be compared with Akbar, the reason why Mughal empire lasted as long as it did. He struck the alliances, the administrative machinery, the control mechanisms, the financial systems that made Mughal empire entrenched in India.
> 
> Aurangzeb does not even come close to Akbar.



As I had written earlier, Indians will always prefer Akbar over the other Mughals. But for majority of muslims Aurangzeb was a better ruler. It is a waste of time to argue.


----------



## RangerPK

After reading the list, I realise what a mess this region has been.


----------



## Cherokee

Great Addition to This Thread by @niaz and @Joe Shearer . By and large i find post by you guys very enlightening .


----------



## Joe Shearer

Cherokee said:


> Great Addition to This Thread by @niaz and @Joe Shearer . By and large i find post by you guys very enlightening .




Niaz Sahib is one of our doyens. His posts are the essence of wisdom and humanistic tolerance.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## RazPaK

Why are the british not on the list?

Also there were greek administrators left by Alexander.

I don't think this thread will be able to find such an answer.


----------



## Contrarian

Slayer786 said:


> As I had written earlier, Indians will always prefer Akbar over the other Mughals. But for majority of muslims Aurangzeb was a better ruler. It is a waste of time to argue.


I am simply talking of aurangzebs performance as an emperor. He is practically the reason for the mughal downfall. His performance ranks helow that of akbar.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Rocky25

Finding it hard to believe that Stupid and cruel Aurangzeb has double digit where as Akbar the great has only single digit % in the poll!


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Alauddin khilji should be on the list.I have no love for the megalomaniac,but his achievements are very impressive.
Largest standing army.Crushing of mongol invasions.First incursions into south india,most powerful sultan of the delhi sultanate,destroyed power of both the nobility and the ulema,efficient economic and market control policy that made price of goods very cheap and allowed for a huge standing army.
Against these goes brutal pillager,ultra megalomaniac,no respect for human life and enormous taxation.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## jaunty

Rocky25 said:


> *Finding it hard to believe* that Stupid and cruel Aurangzeb has double digit where as Akbar the great has only single digit % in the poll!



Shouldn't that be obvious on a Pakistani forum?


----------



## Kompromat

It has to, be Alao'ddin Khilji,for saving us from the slaughter by the barbarian mongols.


----------



## A1Kaid

Aeronaut said:


> It has to, be Alao'ddin Khilji,for saving us from the slaughter by the barbarian mongols.




His two notable generals Gen. Gazi Malik and Malik Kafur were also remarkable. In Battle of Amroha, the invading Mongol army was ambushed and crushed by both Gen. Gazi Malik and Gen. Malik Kafur, they took many of the Mongol soldiers alive including the Mongol Generals taken captive alive. They then took the Mongol generals brought them back to Alauddin Khilji and A.Khilji had the Mongol generals trampled by elephants.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## AirDefence

I think ASHOKA was and will be great.........but AKBAR was also a good leader who walked on the footsteps of ASKOKA..


----------



## Yogi

IMO nobody comes close to Ashoka the Great. Not only he was able to unite n ruler such a vast empire streaching from Afghanistan n Iran to Southern most parts of India, he was also one of the main reasons for spreading Buddhism n creating knowledge centres in the Subcontinent.

Then i would put Chadragupta on 2nd spot for estabishing such a powerful empire at such young age n that too from scratch, however i think its Chanakya who deserves the real credit for his success.

Lastly, i would say its Akbar who deserves recognition for establishing tolerance in the Subcontinent n laying the true foundation of the longest n one of the largest empires in the history of the Subcontinent.


----------



## Ehsan Riaz

Aurangzeb was the best emperor in history of india. he lived a simple and humble life and gave his people all the rights they deserve


----------



## Android

why isn't Harshvardhana in the list


----------



## INDIC

Ehsan Riaz said:


> Aurangzeb was the best emperor in history of india. he lived a simple and humble life and *gave his people all the rights they deserve*


----------



## Ehsan Riaz

you indians have reservation toward him because he was true muslim not like akbar who didn't follow the religion just to please the hindus.he built mosques which pinch the hearts of hindu(baniyas)

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## sms

Ehsan Riaz said:


> Aurangzeb was the best emperor in history of india. he lived a simple and humble life and gave his people all the rights they deserve



He was truely enlightened soul he knew the death is the truth of life. Being an king he was the most eligible person and had right to see the truth but the great emperor sacrificed his chance to see ultimate truth. He allowed people to face it first he brought it to their doorsteps.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Ehsan Riaz said:


> you indians have reservation toward him because he was true muslim not like akbar who didn't follow the religion just to please the hindus.he built mosques which pinch the hearts of hindu(baniyas)



The reservations are for his actions,not his beliefs.In any case he paid for them,watching his proud empire crumble around him and dying a broken man fleeing back from the deccan.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## INDIC

Ehsan Riaz said:


> you indians have reservation toward him because he was true muslim not like akbar who didn't follow the religion just to please the hindus.he built mosques which pinch the hearts of hindu(baniyas)



I can't expect anything from a bigot. 


What a delusion that Aurangzeb cared for the people of his empire.


----------



## Slayer786

Ehsan Riaz said:


> you indians have reservation toward him because he was true muslim not like akbar who didn't follow the religion just to please the hindus.he built mosques which pinch the hearts of hindu(baniyas)



bro it is pointless to argue with the indians, they hate Aurangzeb because he was ruthless to them. And love Akbar because he was kind to them. So no point in arguing. All of us are biased here and this is a useless thread now and should be closed.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Android said:


> why isn't Harshvardhana in the list



Harsha had severe problems,he couldn't stop increasing feudal structure of the administration,nor social rigidity of the caste system and was repulsed by pulakeshin.


----------



## AUSTERLITZ

Slayer786 said:


> bro it is pointless to argue with the indians, they hate Aurangzeb because he was ruthless to them. And love Akbar because he was kind to them. So no point in arguing. All of us are biased here and this is a useless thread now and should be closed.



If he was ruthless he was paid back in his own coin.Dying a broken man he himself said-'my life has been a failure'.
Don't have to ask any indian-ask any neutral foreign historian akbar is always the greater ruler.
Vincent smith says-'Aurangzeb as a ruler must be pronounced as a failure'.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Slayer786

AUSTERLITZ said:


> If he was ruthless he was paid back in his own coin.Dying a broken man he himself said-'my life has been a failure'.
> Don't have to ask any indian-ask any neutral foreign historian akbar is always the greater ruler.
> Vincent smith says-'Aurangzeb as a ruler must be pronounced as a failure'.



LOL. Let it go. As I wrote earlier you indians will always hate him and will even resort to gora writers to justify it. But u all fail to understand we like Aurangzeb for the very things that u guys hate. kaapish?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Gandhi G in da house

Slayer786 said:


> LOL. Let it go. As I wrote earlier you indians will always hate him and will even resort to gora writers to justify it. But u all fail to understand we like Aurangzeb for the very things that u guys hate. kaapish?



You like him for his bigotry towards Hindus and Sikhs ? Or the fact that he killed his own brother and jailed his own father to die there only for his hunger for power ?

Or do you like him for the fact that his bigoted actions were one of the main reasons why the Mughal empire crumbled so rapidly in the early 18th century ?

Oh you like him because he was a devout muslim .That's all ? nothing else matters to Pakistanis ? No wonder things are the way they are.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Slayer786

nick_indian said:


> You like him for his bigotry towards Hindus and Sikhs ? Or the fact that he killed his own brother and jailed his own father to die there only for his hunger for power ?
> 
> Or do you like him for the fact that his bigoted actions were one of the main reasons why the Mughal empire crumbled so rapidly in the early 18th century ?
> 
> Oh you like him because he was a devout muslim .That's all ? nothing else matters to Pakistanis ? No wonder things are the way they are.



Well I like him for many reasons.

One of the best rulers of India who was pious, scholarly, saintly, un-biased, liberal, magnanimous, tolerant, competent, and far-sighted.

Just read this article below. Ofcourse, there is a high chance that because of years of hatred towards him, indians would want to ignore this article and still keep on believing their prejudices. For that I cannot do anything, but it really is frustrating to keep arguing with ignorant people.



> Of all the Muslim rulers who ruled vast territories of India from 712 to 1857 CE, probably no one has received as much condemnation from Western and Hindu writers as Aurangzeb. He has been castigated as a religious Muslim who was anti-Hindu, who taxed them, who tried to convert them, who discriminated against them in awarding high administrative positions, and who interfered in their religious matters. This view has been heavily promoted in the government approved textbooks in schools and colleges across post-partition India (i.e., after 1947).
> 
> Fortunately, in recent years *quite a few Hindu historians have come out in the open disputing those allegations*. For example, *historian Babu Nagendranath Banerjee *rejected the accusation of forced conversion of Hindus by Muslim rulers by stating that if that was their intention then in India today there would not be nearly four times as many Hindus compared to Muslims, despite the fact that Muslims had ruled for nearly a thousand years.
> 
> Banerjee challenged the Hindu hypothesis that Aurangzeb was anti-Hindu by reasoning that if the latter were truly guilty of such bigotry, *how could he appoint a Hindu as his military commander-in-chief?* Surely, he could have afforded to appoint a competent Muslim general in that position. *Banerjee further stated: "No one should accuse Aurangzeb of being communal minded. In his administration, the state policy was formulated by Hindus. Two Hindus held the highest position in the State Treasury.*
> 
> Some *prejudiced Muslims even questioned the merit of his decision to appoint non-Muslims to such high offices*. The *Emperor refuted that by stating that he had been following the dictates of the Shariah (Islamic Law) which demands appointing right persons in right positions.*" *During Aurangzeb's long reign of fifty years, many Hindus, notably Jaswant Singh, Raja Rajrup, Kabir Singh, Arghanath Singh, Prem Dev Singh, Dilip Roy, and Rasik Lal Crory, held very high administrative positions. Two of the highest ranked generals in Aurangzeb's administration, Jaswant Singh and Jaya Singh, were Hindus. Other notable Hindu generals who commanded a garrison of two to five thousand soldiers were Raja Vim Singh of Udaypur, Indra Singh, Achalaji and Arjuji. One wonders if Aurangzeb was hostile to Hindus, why would he position all these Hindus to high positions of authority, especially in the military, who could have mutinied against him and removed him from his throne?*
> 
> Most Hindus like Akbar over Aurangzeb for his multi-ethnic court where Hindus were favored. *Historian Shri Sharma states that while Emperor Akbar had fourteen Hindu Mansabdars (high officials) in his court, Aurangzeb actually had 148 Hindu high officials in his court. (Ref: Mughal Government) But this fact is somewhat less known. *
> 
> Some of the Hindu historians have accused Aurangzeb of demolishing Hindu Temples. How factual is this accusation against a man, who has been known to be a saintly man, a strict adherent of Islam? *The Qur'an prohibits any Muslim to impose his will on a non-Muslim by stating that "There is no compulsion in religion." (surah al-Baqarah 2:256). The surah al-Kafirun clearly states: "To you is your religion and to me is mine." *It would be totally unbecoming of a learned scholar of Islam of his caliber, as Aurangzeb was known to be, to do things that are contrary to the dictates of the Qur'an.
> 
> Interestingly, t*he 1946 edition of the history textbook Etihash Parichaya (Introduction to History) used in Bengal for the 5th and 6th graders states: "If Aurangzeb had the intention of demolishing temples to make way for mosques, there would not have been a single temple standing erect in India. On the contrary, Aurangzeb donated huge estates for use as Temple sites and support thereof in Benares, Kashmir and elsewhere. The official documentations for these land grants are still extan*t."
> 
> *A stone inscription in the historic Balaji or Vishnu Temple, located north of Chitrakut Balaghat, still shows that it was commissioned by the Emperor himself. The proof of Aurangzeb's land grant for famous Hindu religious sites in Kasi, Varanasi can easily be verified from the deed records extant at those sites.* The same textbook reads: "During the fifty year reign of Aurangzeb, not a single Hindu was forced to embrace Islam. He did not interfere with any Hindu religious activities." (p. 138) *Alexander Hamilton, a British historian, toured India towards the end of Aurangzeb's fifty year reign and observed that every one was free to serve and worship God in his own way.*
> 
> It is true that jizya was lifted during the reign of Akbar and Jahangir and that Aurangzeb later reinstated this. Before I delve into the subject of Aurangzeb's jizya tax, or taxing the non-Muslims, *it is worthwhile to point out that jizya is nothing more than a war tax which was collected only from able-bodied young non-Muslim male citizens living in a Muslim country who did not want to volunteer for the defense of the country.* *That is, no such tax was collected from non-Muslims who volunteered to defend the country.* This tax was not collected from women, and neither from immature males nor from disabled or old male citizens. For payment of such taxes, it became incumbent upon the Muslim government to protect the life, property and wealth of its non-Muslim citizens. If for any reason the government failed to protect its citizens, especially during a war, the taxable amount was returned.
> 
> It should be pointed out here that zakat (2.5% of savings) and ushr (10% of agricultural products) were collected from all Muslims, who owned some wealth (beyond a certain minimum, called nisab). They also paid sadaqah, fitrah, and khums. None of these were collected from any non-Muslim.* As a matter of fact, the per capita collection from Muslims was several fold that of non-Muslims. Further to Auranzeb's credit is his abolition of a lot of taxes, although this fact is not usually mentioned. In his book Mughal Administration, Sir Jadunath Sarkar, foremost historian on the Mughal dynasty, mentions that during Aurangzeb's reign in power, nearly sixty-five types of taxes were abolished, which resulted in a yearly revenue loss of fifty million rupees from the state treasury.*
> 
> While some Hindu historians are retracting the lies, the textbooks and historic accounts in Western countries have yet to admit their error and set the record straight.
> 
> Source:By Dr. Habib Siddiqui
> Posted: 9 Jamad-ul-awwal 1427, 5 June 2006
> Albalgh.net

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## pk_baloch

Slayer786 said:


> LOL. Let it go. As I wrote earlier you indians will always hate him and will even resort to gora writers to justify it. But u all fail to understand we like Aurangzeb for the very things that u guys hate. kaapish?



ye thread abhi tak chal raha he kiya .........

u know wat indian comes up with fake stories and want us to hate our own invaders and praise their own hindu empires ........mein to aik kaan se inke baat sunti hun nd nikal datu hun ........

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Slayer786

pk_baloch said:


> ye thread abhi tak chal raha he kiya .........
> 
> u know wat indian comes up with fake stories and want us to hate our own invaders and praise their own hindu empires ........mein to aik kaan se inke baat sunti hun nd nikal datu hun ........



bohot dheet hain. Even when they are wrong they dont want to admit it. U r right brother. Will now ignore them for this thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dushmann

why are you people fighting over aurangzeb? you can not convince each other over aurangzeb just as you cannot convince each others over kashmir, two nation theory, concept of freedom etc. it is natural that people who shower a murderer of a governor of a state with flowers will admire aurangzeb. their definitions of good and evil are different.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## ShahidT

the intestinal virus of a cockroach isn't as bad as aurangzeb. that disgusting abomination.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ayush

pk_baloch said:


> ye thread abhi tak chal raha he kiya .........
> 
> u know wat indian comes up with fake stories and want us to hate *our own invaders *and praise their own hindu empires ........mein to aik kaan se inke baat sunti hun nd nikal datu hun ........



???? from afghanistan??


----------



## nana41

Ranjeet Sing was by no means a "EMPROR",he was nothing more than succesful Daku of punjab in and around punjab.the real empror is BABA NANAK,who created a nation called sikh and left them with acountry called khalistan.


----------



## Dushmann

nana41 said:


> Ranjeet Sing was by no means a "EMPROR",he was nothing more than succesful Daku of punjab in and around punjab.the real empror is BABA NANAK,who created a nation called sikh and left them with acountry called khalistan.



Ok let us create Khalistan with Lahore as capital. It can be a bridge between India and Afghanistan.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## aakash_2410

Discussions about the greatest emperors of South Asia is quite relative and the circumstances in the subcontinent haven't been consistent.

For example, Akbar the great didn't face the same problems as faced by Chandragupta Maurya who had to *ESTABLISH* the empire. Nor, Chandragupta Maurya faced the same problems as Akbar who had to deal with Rajput kings' uprising.

This is not an absolute comparison. Better way would be to compare the Empires rather than Emperors based on what their subjects' achieved and how were they doing economically, socially compared to rest of the world.


----------



## A1Kaid

Chandragupta Maurya is over glorified in Indian history textbooks and schools hence mass number of the Indians on this forum who have swamped us voted for him. In my opinion, I really don't know if there is a greatest emperor of South Asia there are candidates, but it's hard to say which is the all time greatest emperor of the region.


----------



## Bang Galore

niaz said:


> Aurangzeb arrived in the South in* 1986* and to the best my knowledge never spent much time in his Capital since then.



I do know that travel wasn't exactly quick those days but that long.....?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## naveen mishra

Srivijaya (also written Sri Vijaya, Indonesian: Sriwijaya, Thai: &#3624;&#3619;&#3637;&#3623;&#3636;&#3594;&#3633;&#3618; or &#7778;&#772;r&#299; wich&#7841;y , RTGS: Siwichai) was a powerful ancient thalassocratic Malay empire based on the island of Sumatra, modern day Indonesia, which influenced much of Southeast Asia.[1] Srivijaya was an important centre for Buddhist expansion in the 8th to 12th centuries. In Sanskrit, sri (&#2358;&#2381;&#2352;&#2368 means "fortunate", "prosperous", or "happy" and vijaya (&#2357;&#2367;&#2332;&#2351 means "victorious" or "excellence".[2]
The earliest evidence of its existence dates from the 7th century; a Chinese monk, Yijing, wrote that he visited Srivijaya in 671 for 6 months.[3][4] The first inscription in which the name Srivijaya appears also dates from the 7th century, namely the Kedukan Bukit Inscription around Palembang in Sumatra, dated 16 June 682.[5] Between late 7th to early 11th century Srivijaya rose to become hegemon in Southeast Asia, involved in close interactions &#8212; often rivalries &#8212; with neighboring Java, Kambuja and Champa. Srivijaya's main foreign interest was nurturing lucrative trading rights with China spanned from Tang to Song era. Srivijaya also had religious, cultural and trading links with the Buddhist Pala Empire of Bengal, also having relations with Islamic Caliphate in the Middle East. The kingdom ceased to exist in the 13th century due to various factors, including the expansion of the Javanese Majapahit empire.[1]
After Srivijaya fell, it was largely forgotten and historians had not even considered that a large united kingdom could have been present in Southeast Asia. The existence of Srivijaya was only formally suspected in 1918, when French historian George Coedès of the École française d'Extrême-Orient postulated its existence.[2] The aerial photograph taken in 1984 revealed the remnants of man-made ancient canals, moats, ponds, and artificial islands in Karanganyar site in Palembang suggested the location as Srivijaya urban center. Several artifacts such as fragments of inscription, Buddhist statues, beads, pottery and Chinese ceramics were found, confirming that the area was once a dense human habitation.[6] By 1993, Pierre-Yves Manguin had proven that the centre of Srivijaya was along the Musi River between Bukit Seguntang and Sabokingking (situated in what is now Palembang, South Sumatra, Indonesia).[2]

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## abhinav.mehrotra

BRICS said:


> Who was Bharat then???
> 
> I thought a king called Bharat was the first to rule entire sub-continent??? Or is that just mythology???
> 
> Also, when and why did Bharat pita become Bharat mata??? Isn't Bharat a male name???




The King Bharat ( prononunced as Bh - a - rat) was of Lunar Dynasty and is the first king ,to become digvijayi meaning one who has conquered one and all, after Lord Ram. 

He conquered the entire Indian sub continent of the time. India before him was refered to as Aryavarta . After him it was known as Bharat ( prononunced as Bha - a - rat) .

I think the confusion is because of the pronounciation. Donot confuse a name of man to that of a nation. And nations are all ways female after all a man cannot give birth. 

This is most certainly not a mythology. Thses evvents happened some 5000+ years back.



nana41 said:


> Ranjeet Sing was by no means a "EMPROR",he was nothing more than succesful Daku of punjab in and around punjab.the real empror is BABA NANAK,who created a nation called sikh and left them with acountry called khalistan.




Historically there is no country called Khalistan... not even in Guru Nanak's time just like there was no pakistan before 1947. Stop twisting history to your whims. A great pakistani has said and i quote " Jo kaumein tareekh ko maskh karti hain , tareekh unhe maskh kar deti hai"


----------



## ghaja

I can't believe that great rulers like Harsha(7th century), Dharmapala(8th century), Govindachandra(12th century), Bhimdev(13th century), Krishna Devaraya(16th century), Tipu Sultan(18th century), and Yashwantrao Holkar(18th century) weren't even mentioned in this poll.


----------



## Mrityunjay Rai

Samudragupt and Sherry Shah Suri..


----------



## Sashan

naveen mishra said:


> Srivijaya (also written Sri Vijaya, Indonesian: Sriwijaya, Thai: &#3624;&#3619;&#3637;&#3623;&#3636;&#3594;&#3633;&#3618; or &#7778;&#772;r&#299; wich&#7841;y , RTGS: Siwichai) was a powerful ancient thalassocratic Malay empire based on the island of Sumatra, modern day Indonesia, which influenced much of Southeast Asia.[1] Srivijaya was an important centre for Buddhist expansion in the 8th to 12th centuries. In Sanskrit, sri (&#2358;&#2381;&#2352;&#2368 means "fortunate", "prosperous", or "happy" and vijaya (&#2357;&#2367;&#2332;&#2351 means "victorious" or "excellence".[2]
> The earliest evidence of its existence dates from the 7th century; a Chinese monk, Yijing, wrote that he visited Srivijaya in 671 for 6 months.[3][4] The first inscription in which the name Srivijaya appears also dates from the 7th century, namely the Kedukan Bukit Inscription around Palembang in Sumatra, dated 16 June 682.[5] Between late 7th to early 11th century Srivijaya rose to become hegemon in Southeast Asia, involved in close interactions &#8212; often rivalries &#8212; with neighboring Java, Kambuja and Champa. Srivijaya's main foreign interest was nurturing lucrative trading rights with China spanned from Tang to Song era. Srivijaya also had religious, cultural and trading links with the Buddhist Pala Empire of Bengal, also having relations with Islamic Caliphate in the Middle East. The kingdom ceased to exist in the 13th century due to various factors, including the expansion of the Javanese Majapahit empire.[1]
> After Srivijaya fell, it was largely forgotten and historians had not even considered that a large united kingdom could have been present in Southeast Asia. The existence of Srivijaya was only formally suspected in 1918, when French historian George Coedès of the École française d'Extrême-Orient postulated its existence.[2] The aerial photograph taken in 1984 revealed the remnants of man-made ancient canals, moats, ponds, and artificial islands in Karanganyar site in Palembang suggested the location as Srivijaya urban center. Several artifacts such as fragments of inscription, Buddhist statues, beads, pottery and Chinese ceramics were found, confirming that the area was once a dense human habitation.[6] By 1993, Pierre-Yves Manguin had proven that the centre of Srivijaya was along the Musi River between Bukit Seguntang and Sabokingking (situated in what is now Palembang, South Sumatra, Indonesia).[2]




And this is the same empire which the great Rajendra Chola defeated and ransacked the capital after coming all the way from India - a huge feat at that time but the Indian books largely ignore this fact while eulogising empires like Mughal.


----------



## ghaja

Mahadji Shinde and Tipu Sultan were the greatest rulers of India in the 18th century.
They should be mentioned in the poll.

Mahadji Shinde https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahadaji_Shinde






Tipu Sultan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipu_Sultan


----------



## upriver

Aurangzeb....the Mughal Empire was a strictly north Indian phenomenon until Aurangzeb moved south. And again, his time was the peak in prosperity of the Mughal Empire.


----------



## nana41

Dushmann said:


> Ok let us create Khalistan with Lahore as capital. It can be a bridge between India and Afghanistan.


Nankana would be better.


----------



## Jaanbaz

Ashoka the Great.


----------

