What's new

Did Ancient Pakistanis Defeated The Mighty Alexander The Great.,

Status
Not open for further replies.
What in the name of god is MUMBAI.???

First time the word MUMBAI was ever used in 1992.

There was no MUMBAI before 1992-3 so all the history,traditions,Culture,Traditions and remaining belongs to the ANCIENT BOMBAY.

There was no MUMBAI before 1993,So history of MUMBAI starts from 1993.

The City of Mumbai have no ancestors.

All the history is of other AnCIENT city BOMBAY





How does it sounds??? :azn:

the term Mumbai has been used for hundreds of years..even before Bombay was used..you did not reasearch on itbefore posting that. Its the local name of Bombay. ..bombay was the name given by the britishers..whereas mumbai was its original name..which is back in use after the locals protested in 1993
 
What in the name of god is MUMBAI.???

First time the word MUMBAI was ever used in 1992.

There was no MUMBAI before 1992-3 so all the history,traditions,Culture,Traditions and remaining belongs to the ANCIENT BOMBAY.

There was no MUMBAI before 1993,So history of MUMBAI starts from 1993.

The City of Mumbai have no ancestors.

All the history is of other AnCIENT city BOMBAY





How does it sounds??? :azn:

Free advice: Speaking about things you know nothing of only makes you look like a fool. Read on:

Toponymy of Mumbai

The name Mumbai is an eponym, derived from Mumba or Maha-Amba—the name of the Koli goddess Mumbadevi—and Aai, "mother" in Marathi.[12]

The oldest known names for the city are Kakamuchee and Galajunkja; these are sometimes still used.[13][14] Ali Muhammad Khan, in the Mirat-i-Ahmedi (1507) referred to the city as Manbai.[15] In 1508, Portuguese writer Gaspar Correia used the name Bombaim, in his Lendas da Índia ("Legends of India").[16][17] This name possibly originated as the Old Portuguese phrase bom baim, meaning "good little bay",[18] and Bombaim is still commonly used in Portuguese.[19] In 1516, Portuguese explorer Duarte Barbosa used the name Tana-Maiambu: Tana appears to refer to the adjoining town of Thane and Maiambu to Mumbadevi.[20]
The temple of local Hindu goddess Mumbadevi, after whom the city of Mumbai derives its name.

Other variations recorded in the 16th and the 17th centuries include: Mombayn (1525), Bombay (1538), Bombain (1552), Bombaym (1552), Monbaym (1554), Mombaim (1563), Mombaym (1644), Bambaye (1666), Bombaiim (1666), Bombeye (1676), and Boon Bay (1690).[19][21] After the British gained possession of the city in the 17th century, the Portuguese name was officially anglicised as Bombay.[22]

By the late 20th century, the city was known as Mumbai or Mambai to Marathi speakers and as Bambai in Hindi, Persian and Urdu. The English name was officially changed to Mumbai in November 1995.[23] This came at the insistence of the Marathi nationalist Shiv Sena party that had just won the Maharashtra state elections and mirrored similar name changes across the country. A theory was proposed suggesting that “Bombay” was a corrupted English version of “Mumbai” and an unwanted legacy of British colonial rule. The push to rename Bombay was part of a larger movement to strengthen Marathi identity in the Maharashtra region. However, the city is still referred to as Bombay by some of its residents and Indians from other regions as well.[24] However, mentions of the city by the name other than Mumbai have been controversial, resulting emotional outbursts and violently political.[25][26]

A widespread popular etymology of Bombay holds that it was derived from a Portuguese name meaning "good bay". This is based on the facts that bom is Portuguese for "good" and baía (or the archaic spelling bahia) means "bay". However, this literal translation would have been incorrect in grammatical gender, as bom is masculine, while baia is feminine; a correct Portuguese rendering of "good bay" would be boa ba(h)ia. In case, baim is an archaic, masculine word for "little bay".[18]

Portuguese scholar José Pedro Machado in his Dicionário Onomástico Etimológico da Língua Portuguesa (1981; "Portuguese Dictionary of Onomastics and Etymology"), seems to reject the "Bom Bahia" hypothesis, suggesting that the presence of a bay was a coincidence (rather than a basis of the toponym) and led to a misconception, that the noun (bahia; "bay") was an integral part of the Portuguese name.[27]

Mumbai - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Curious position taken by our Indian friends - who suggest that the histories of all that comprise Pakistan are not those of Pakistan - They say Pakistan was born 60 something years ago -

Its more to do with people's confusion here with the terms :nation,country ,state.

No doubt, but so was "India", a word the English gave them, is this not so?

India is a latin term,it was not the English who gave us.
Its the name we chose for our nation............why?thats another topic.

No, they argue, because Peoples who never saw themselves as anything other than a caste membership can now be claimed as Indian -- and yet the same does not apply to Pakistan??

Its a very good point you have brought here.

Its important to lay stress on the word saw.Yes we do accept we were caste membership back then,

and who wasn't ? any feudal society at that time had this hierarchy.

Ex:Britian :Nobles>Monks>Traders>Peasants

But however,its your country men who still stick to this feudal practice of discriminating the Dhimis,kafirs.
 
Last edited:
What in the name of god is MUMBAI.???

First time the word MUMBAI was ever used in 1992.

There was no MUMBAI before 1992-3 so all the history,traditions,Culture,Traditions and remaining belongs to the ANCIENT BOMBAY.

There was no MUMBAI before 1993,So history of MUMBAI starts from 1993.

The City of Mumbai have no ancestors.

All the history is of other AnCIENT city BOMBAY





How does it sounds??? :azn:

actually it was "mumbai" initially and local used to call it by this name only... but Britishers distorted this name to "bombay" nothing else

and its not the talk of name... as you can not call the history of MUMBAI as history of DELHI....

similarly you cant call the histoy of India as history of Pakistan

Did you get my point?????

NOW tell me, How does it sounds??? :azn:
 
No... Pakistan emerged from India that dosent mean India born at the same time....
just like bangladesh emerged from pakistan but you can't say pakistan was not present before 71.. or pakistan also born in 71...

no offence!!

So you are saying that India and British India are the same nation?

Pakistanis and Indians do have shared history. This includes Maurya Empire, British Indian empire and some others. These are the only examples that can be compared to the Persian empire, where all countries involved can trace back their history.

However in our case, most of history the region was scattered with smaller kingdoms and empires. These cannot be "shared" if only the people of specific regions can trace back to them, i.e Indus Valley, Gandhara, Kushans, Porus, Punjab, Sindh etc. You cant use the subcontinent excuse to claim common ancestors with regions that have nothing to do with your people.

The 1947 excuse is getting old. History is defined by the people.
 
Bombensturm said:
India is a latin term

Fun fact:

Did you know that 'China' is a Sanskrit term (at-least in one of the theories) ? :azn:
The word "China"[nb 1] is derived from Cin (چین), a Persian name for China popularized in Europe by Marco Polo.[13][14] In early usage, "china" as a term for porcelain was spelled differently from the name of the country, the two words being derived from separate Persian words.[15] Both these words are derived from the Sanskrit word Cīna (चीन)
 
Acoording to SOME AUTHORS.Not all.


Mohammed bin qasim is a part of our history not start of our history.

What a logic presented by indians :rolleyes:

I brought that logic because its your nation which was formed based on the concept: of uniting Muslims of the India.
 
Last edited:
No... Pakistan emerged from India that dosent mean India born at the same time....
just like bangladesh emerged from pakistan but you can't say pakistan was not present before 71.. or pakistan also born in 71...

no offence!!

india wasnt even a country until 1947.....funny to see people like you claim otherwise
 
I admit that we are confused nation regarding our history.

But now the time has come;

"We are clearly saying that we are the people who were world's earliest civilization dating back to 5000 years.

Our Ancestors Build the cities of mohenjodaro and harrippa,so far words first ever modern cities.

The territories our ancestors occupying were the Indus valley delta.

It just happened 800 years before that a Muslim Invader MBQ arrived on our sea ports.

He brought the religion of Islam,We liked the religion and our ancestors fore fathers adopted the Religion Islam.

But before that our Ancestors were HINDUS,IDOL WORSHIPPERS.

But those hindus were our ancestors our fore fathers.Thier History is our history,Their culture tradition is our tradition.(Except for those who coincides with teachings of islam)".

Bravo!:tup:

If only every Pakistani was clear as you were.
 
india wasnt even a country until 1947.....funny to see people like you claim otherwise

India might not have been a modern nation state, but historians have referred to India and documented India, from thousands of years. There have been innumerable empires, referred to in all history books and documented by all historians as Indian. Columbus set sail to discover India, Alexander the great dreamt of conquering India, and so on. India has been known for thousands of years.

Carry on with presenting 'ancient Pakistani history', but frankly, everyone in the world will ask the same questions that we are asking on this thread.
 
Ok let me try explaining it in simple words

Once upon a time, there existed a large portion of land called India, which even colombus searched but reached Northamaerica and called the people Red Indians thinking he has reached India , which was the name in 15th century.

Ok lets consider India as a big Pizza

images



Then bad guys after bad guys from dutch to french and to English came here seeing its rich wealth.. and English boy was successful

They tried to take a piece of our pizza


stockphotopro_5521746YCL_no_title.jpg


But already the poor Pizza was divided into states and kingdoms..

pizza.jpg


But they revolted and seeked freedom..

So a guy named radcliff came and cut it into 2.. and made it 2 free pieces

pizza-pro-3000-2.jpg



Story over.. go and sleep now.. :lazy::lazy:
 
Yes there was (and there is).

Remeber 'Indika' ? Name of the book that Megasthenes wrote when he visited the Mauryan emperor in Patliputra. I'm sure it doesn't refer to Pakistan

The word "India", "Indika" and all references given to india containing IND terms are derived from the word INDUS which place is now in Pakistan.

Do you know what does it means? :azn:

It means that if going realistically the Other parts of South asia apart of Indus valley,All are reffered as a PART of Indus valley with remaining Sub continent having no specific refference or Identity.

Because IVC was the most ancient Land in south asia ever known to people thats why refferences of Remaining SC are given to them by deriving them from Indus.

It Implies that The history,Tradition,culture of Indus is the real History and the reamining SB dont have its own specific culture and history.

Now the IVC is the part of PAKISTAN it means that Pakistan is real civilization of SB,The Original Race of SA and ancestors of INDIa,bhutan,Nepal,Bangladesh civilization.

Going by this Its actually Pakistan who should claim all the history,Culture and Tradition of south asia.


But I know that it will hurt you and as a person i will not claim it
Because
I want you to accept my history and my claim on the history of the land in which i am living and i want you to accept the history of the land in which you are living.


And we should share the mutual history of our as part of both like sikh invasion on parts of IndiaPakistan.That history is mutual of both of us.For people Living in PAK the ancestors of that history and the people in InDIA the ancestors of that history.

and remember History and Ancestor ship has nothing to do with religion.
 
According to all of recorded history Porus was clearly defeated ...and without being demeaning to any one here ......

It was claimed by sources both Indian and Greek , that if he( Alexander ) had advanced upto Magadha (against Dhana Nanda) , he would have certainly subjugated and conquered it.

As was often said " A man who destroyed the army of Darius the great of persia ..and who in a year traversed the distance from Greece across Asia minor , to the very boundaries of the subcontinent, could not withdraw being apprehensive of a single king...."

the reasons for his withdrawal are myriad .....with many claims and counterclaims .....

No actually, meesengers informed Alexander about the vast armies of the Nandas and the Gangaridai kings that had converged on the banks of the Ganges and that coupled with near mutiny among the ranks of his soldiers,Alexander was forced to turn back.
As for the Macedonians, however, their struggle with Porus blunted their courage and stayed their further advance into India. For having had all they could do to repulse an enemy who mustered only twenty thousand infantry and two thousand horse, they violently opposed Alexander when he insisted on crossing the river Ganges also, the width of which, as they learned, was thirty-two furlongs, its depth a hundred fathoms, while its banks on the further side were covered with multitudes of men-at-arms and horsemen and elephants. For they were told that the kings of the Ganderites and Praesii were awaiting them with eighty thousand horsemen, two hundred thousand footmen, eight thousand chariots, and six thousand war elephants - Plutarch, Alexander, 62
 
india wasnt even a country until 1947.....funny to see people like you claim otherwise


Correction: "Republic of India" did not exist prior to 1947.

Depends on how you define a country

1)a geographical region considered to be the physical territory of a sovereign state, or of a smaller, or former, political division within a geographical region.

2)by establishment of state on the land.

3)By establishment of state of the nation
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom