What's new

Ancient Pakistan the Defense Wall of India

Aug 19, 2017
3,310
-7
3,336
Country
India
Location
Germany
We are proud of muslim history. We are so glad our ancestors changed their religion. They made our language food culture etc... and i was referring to your oral language hindi which is more commonly spoken especially in bollywood cricket armed forces etc.
The british indeed drew the map but they also created you. They unified regions under one india. India was never one entity but bunch of many different kingdoms or what ever u want to call it or they were majoritally controlled by muslim empires. Without british and muslim empire there would be NO India what it is today.

Marathas secured most Hindu majority lands before the British....Sikhs did the rest...without Sikh Empire, Khyber Pakhtunwa would still be under Afghanistan


Our oral spoken language is Hindi in parts of North India and not Urdu...
 

Myth_buster_1

ELITE MEMBER
Mar 17, 2008
8,849
-1
8,589
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Marathas secured most Hindu majority lands before the British....Sikhs did the rest...without Sikh Empire, Khyber Pakhtunwa would still be under Afghanistan


Our oral spoken language is Hindi in parts of North India and not Urdu...
Like i said, geography of india today would not be the same had british empire not unified these territories under india.
We pakistanis under stand that without the creation of india, pakistan would not have been created either since both nations are product of british empire... however indians think that india today would have been possible without muslim and british empires intervention. So your thread title does not really suite your case since india was never one entinty.

The muslim empire gave you oral hindi and it was not your native oral language.
 
Aug 19, 2017
3,310
-7
3,336
Country
India
Location
Germany
Like i said, geography of india today would not be the same had british empire not unified these territories under india.
We pakistanis under stand that without the creation of india, pakistan would not have been created either since both nations are product of british empire... however indians think that india today would have been possible without muslim and british empires intervention. So your thread title does not really suite your case since india was never one entinty.

The muslim empire gave you oral hindi and it was not your native oral language.

Hindi is not even spoken by majority of India...and Hindi grammar is not Perso arabic grammar,....Itis Indian grammar...THis is why an Indo Aryan language speaker can understand Hindi..but people from Muslim nations in the middle east cannot


and how is oral hindi and written hindi different?
 

Myth_buster_1

ELITE MEMBER
Mar 17, 2008
8,849
-1
8,589
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Hindi is not even spoken by majority of India...and Hindi grammar is not Perso arabic grammar,....Itis Indian grammar...THis is why an Indo Aryan language speaker can understand Hindi..but people from Muslim nations in the middle east cannot


and how is oral hindi and written hindi different?
Hindi and english are the main languages in india. Both are invaders languages.
Your bollywood cricket armed forces etc primaliry uses these two languages. And i wont be surprised some of your ancient languages traces back to pakistani indus civilization.
Hindi oral may have adopted some vocabulary from local languages but the main structure was created by muslim invaders.
Btw did you learn your lesson today that india was never one entity and without foreigner invaders india would be nothing today?
 
Aug 19, 2017
3,310
-7
3,336
Country
India
Location
Germany
Hindi and english are the main languages in india. Both are invaders languages.
Your bollywood cricket armed forces etc primaliry uses these two languages. And i wont be surprised some of your ancient languages traces back to pakistani indus civilization.
Hindi oral may have adopted some vocabulary from local languages but the main structure was created by muslim invaders.
Btw did you learn your lesson today that india was never one entity and without foreigner invaders india would be nothing today?

I did learn that Pakistanis have zero knowledge about India...Bollywood is not the only film industry in India....and Hindi doesnot follow the grammar or strucire of Turkic, Turco-Mongol invader languages...
 

khanmubashir

FULL MEMBER
Aug 13, 2014
1,894
0
1,639
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
peacock density in India far outstrips anywhere else, which means Mauryas were more likely to have been in India...peaacock range of Pakstan is not oven 0.1% of the overall peacock range
So you are imposing current wildlife population distribution on 2500 years ago era sonny do you even have common sense


Babar reported hunting tigers in present day kpk area and that was still 1000+ years after Maurya times my child :)
 

Myth_buster_1

ELITE MEMBER
Mar 17, 2008
8,849
-1
8,589
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
I did learn that Pakistanis have zero knowledge about India...Bollywood is not the only film industry in India....and Hindi doesnot follow the grammar or strucire of Turkic, Turco-Mongol invader languages...
Bollywood is the most popular movie industry in india.. u dont even know ur own country or u lack common sense.
Hindi has its origin in sanskrit... sanskrit originated in Syria and later evolved in indus. In around 17 18th century.... mughal empire modified hindi oral and incorporated their own structures not just limiting to some words. So techinally u guys are using historic pakistani languages and religion.
 

Titanium100

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 1, 2019
4,506
-7
4,096
Country
Denmark
Location
Denmark
I did learn that Pakistanis have zero knowledge about India...Bollywood is not the only film industry in India....and Hindi doesnot follow the grammar or strucire of Turkic, Turco-Mongol invader languages...
Didn't these also started speaking Hindi after the 2 generations and this was the case of all these turkics they adopted to the local tongue just after 1 generation everywhere they went
 

LeGenD

MODERATOR
Aug 28, 2006
12,332
70
14,500
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Losing a war doesnt mean that every men will be culled, thats what retreat looks like, you cut your loses and make a run from battlefield.

You have to understand the odds stacked against Porus, who was not more then a landlord and had an hurriedly army mostly of peasants, against the well oiled machine like army of Alexander, super power of that time. Alexender army outnumbered Porus by some margin. Porus was defending his ground, he stood his ground and not let an inch go to the Greeks, which eventually cut their loses and made the retreat down the Indus. Infact Porus added more territory to his lands after the battle, hardly an act of defeated man. The accounts you see from western sources, they are all based on Greek historians who wrote the account of this war after 300 years after the event. Clearly the silence of 300 years says it all. And then this narrative that Alexander give away Porus his land back as mark of respect towards his bravery are utter non sense. Just before facing Porus in Jhelum (Pakistan), Bessus of Bactria (Afghanistan) fought Alexender tooth and nail but when he lost, Alexander cut his nose and ears to dishonour him first and then crucified him ordering his men not to let vultures eat his body. Then ofcourse, the treachery to the people of Swat (Pakistan) who also fought bravely against this foreign invader, after coming to a truce with people of Swat, he butchered them in the night when they were unexpecting. And here we are with Porus army inflecting heaviest casualties and sufferings ever received by Greek Army under Alexander, in all wars he fought, and he will honour him by given him his lands back! You can call it a BS, a figment of imagination by western historians.

Alexander was a general, he didnt fight the wars, rather rode his famous black horse Bucephalus in all his Asian campaign including conquest of Persia, surrounded by his bodygaurds, overseeing the battlefield. Here is the interesting thing, Bucephalus died in battle of Hadaspes. You dont have to be rocket scientist to come to conclusion that Alexander protective circle was uprooted, and when his horse was brought down, you can only imagine the fate of the rider.

Indeed Porus son died, defending his and his father lands. Here is the interesting thing from history. You know Mangla? Mangla Dam, Mangla fort, Mangla garrison ? They are named after Porus daughter, Mangla. Some legacy of a defeated man!!


According to marshal Zhukov, man who oversaw Nazi retreat from Russia, Alexandra fate was actually worse then Napoleon here in these lands of ancient Pakistan.
Thanks for your insightful response.

Please study following article: https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2019/11/17/did-king-porus-defeat-alexander-the-great/

- and let me know what you think. :)

Alexander needed Satraps to maintain/manage/govern conquered territory for his Empire. He had some Persian Satraps* working for him as well. Therefore, it is not a stretch to assume that he found somebody worthy enough of becoming a Satrap in ancient Punjab.

*For reference:

The Persian policies of Alexander the Great: from 330-323 BC


Porus (Puru) made his mark in history by impressing Alexander unlike Darius III because Porus was not a coward.

Porus also had an impressive army at his disposal with war elephants and chariots in the mix. The war elephants were much like main battle tanks and could intimidate as well as crush men and even horses. This was the first time Alexander and his men had to deal with war elephants in a battle. You can imagine the shock factor of it. Ancient Indians/Punjabi also practised "archery." Now factor-in complications created by the Indus river and heavy rainfall at the time. Porus was well-equipped to fight any foe emerging from the West in theory. He was also keeping an eye on Mauryans.

Alexander might have learned much more about regional kingdoms from Porus and/or his exploits in ancient Pakistan as a whole (i.e. The Mallian Campaign). One must also be mindful of the environmental factors as well as logistics challenges of conquests much further from home. Due to Mutiny Episode on the banks of Hyphasis river in 326 BC, it would make sense to consolidate gains in the region instead of pressing forward yet further. Alexander decided to create a Fresh army to continue with his conquests of distant lands as well but he would have to return to his homeland to do this. He never had the opportunity to do this due to his death at young age however.
 

Taimoor Khan

ELITE MEMBER
Jan 20, 2016
13,398
4
20,487
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Thanks for your insightful response.

Please study following article: https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2019/11/17/did-king-porus-defeat-alexander-the-great/

- and let me know what you think. :)

Alexander needed Satraps to maintain/manage/govern conquered territory for his Empire. He had some Persian Satraps* working for him as well. Therefore, it is not a stretch to assume that he found somebody worthy enough of becoming a Satrap in ancient Punjab.

*For reference:

The Persian policies of Alexander the Great: from 330-323 BC


Porus (Puru) made his mark in history by impressing Alexander unlike Darius III because Porus was not a coward.

Porus also had an impressive army at his disposal with war elephants and chariots in the mix. The war elephants were much like main battle tanks and could intimidate as well as crush men and even horses. This was the first time Alexander and his men had to deal with war elephants in a battle. You can imagine the shock factor of it. Ancient Indians/Punjabi also practised "archery." Now factor-in complications created by the Indus river and heavy rainfall at the time. Porus was well-equipped to fight any foe emerging from the West in theory. He was also keeping an eye on Mauryans.

Alexander might have learned much more about regional kingdoms from Porus and/or his exploits in ancient Pakistan as a whole (i.e. The Mallian Campaign). One must also be mindful of the environmental factors as well as logistics challenges of conquests much further from home. Due to Mutiny Episode on the banks of Hyphasis river in 326 BC, it would make sense to consolidate gains in the region instead of pressing forward yet further. Alexander decided to create a Fresh army to continue with his conquests of distant lands as well but he would have to return to his homeland to do this. He never had the opportunity to do this due to his death at young age however.

What is frustrating about all this, that while western historians narrative building around this battle is a desperate attempt to save the image of their demi god Alexander, the mental slavery of Pakistanis , not to honour their ancients who defended their lands, worse, allow the Indians to hijack this defense of Ancient Pakistan as if it's got anything to do with these rats in east, is absolutely pathetic. Even in this day and age, Pakistanis take an Invader Alexander as a hero!! And hardly anyone know a local hero who defended these lands. Our history books are in need of a revamp.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom