Motivations behind selecting the name 'India' in 1947

[TOPGUN]

Haha u guys are so funny with this silly topic or perhaps it has changed to something else!! lol

 

[DarkStar]

Haha u guys are so funny with this silly topic or perhaps it has changed to something else!! lol

huh???

 

[TOPGUN]

huh???

Boss i was laughing in the snese u guys were going back and forth ! u guys were getting our indian friends pissed !

 

[Flintlock]

Like I said before, this was before he ascended the throne. Which campaign did he undertake afterwards?

He certainly extended it, but conquered wouldn't be the right word. If you must know, it was Seleucus who invaded Nanda territory in 305 BCE, and is assumed to have been defeated. The territory ceded to Chandragupta in exchange for 500 elephants was territory that had been previously under Seleucus' control, but was always a troublesome area for him, since he had more pressing engagements in the west. A bit fortuitous for Chandragupta, if you ask me.

That's simply your interpretation of it, not that it matters anyway. Empires are not built by military conquest alone. Ask the British. More of their empire was built on treaties and concessions.

Only as far as Nanda rule. There is no evidence for a seperate campaign to unite the south. There is evidence of some gains in the south in the time of Ashoka Maurya, but that is not what we are discussing now.

Oddly enough, the fact that Chandragupta migrated south with a group of Jain Monks to Shravanabelagola is cited as proof that his empire did extend upto there, in India: A history.

 

[DarkStar]

That's simply your interpretation of it, not that it matters anyway. Empires are not built by military conquest alone. Ask the British. More of their empire was built on treaties and concessions.

Could the British empire have been built without the battle of Plassey? It was an offensive campaign, and opened the way for future conquest. And I did not interpret it any which way, the facts speak for themselves. AFter assuming power, Chandragupta is not credited with any conquests. He might have done, for all we know. But we don't have anything tangible to go by, and evidence suggests that he didn't.

Oddly enough, the fact that Chandragupta migrated south with a group of Jain Monks to Shravanabelagola is cited as proof that his empire did extend upto there, in India: A history.

It is cited as proof that the empire 'may' have extended that far south, or that it was somewhere near teh border areas. But on this very page the author also says that the southern extent of Chandragupta's empire is unkown and a matter for speculation. There is nothing concrete that we know about its supposed southern dominions.

Chandragupta's travelling to the south is not "irrevocible" proof that he must have ruled there.

 

[DarkStar]

although i am glad that you are referring to India A history, and excellent book and a must read.

 

[Flintlock]

It is cited as proof that the empire 'may' have extended that far south, or that it was somewhere near teh border areas. But on this very page the author also says that the southern extent of Chandragupta's empire is unkown and a matter for speculation. There is nothing concrete that we know about its supposed southern dominions.

Chandragupta's travelling to the south is not "irrevocible" proof that he must have ruled there.

In any case, I'd consider it a positive that he did not build his empire by conquest alone.

That book is just one source, there are many sources which do consider southern Karnataka as the extent of his empire.

 

[DarkStar]

any 'source' must also furnish some archealogical or documented proof. There is none for Chandragupta Maurya. Assertions by Bharatiya and other Historians are just not enough.

 

[Flintlock]

any 'source' must also furnish some archealogical or documented proof. There is none for Chandragupta Maurya. Assertions by Bharatiya and other Historians are just not enough.

Well I'm sure that the word of a historian is worth more than yours or mine, so lets leave it at that.

You have your reasons to disagree with sources which extend his empire deep into South India, and I have my reasons to agree with those same sources.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Well I'm sure that the word of a historian is worth more than yours or mine, so lets leave it at that.

You have your reasons to disagree with sources which extend his empire deep into South India, and I have my reasons to agree with those same sources.

See, this is similar to my criticism of the authors or 'Historians' that claim the Pakistani Army 'raped and killed millions' in East Pakistan.

What is the basis of their claims? What evidence can they furnish to back up those claims? Just because a 'historian' says it is so, does not make it the word of God. As readers with a brain, we must uses it, and analyze what evidence and arguments any author advances before we simply take his work as gospel.

 

[Flintlock]

See, this is similar to my criticism of the authors or 'Historians' that claim the Pakistani Army 'raped and killed millions' in East Pakistan.

What is the basis of their claims? What evidence can they furnish to back up those claims? Just because a 'historian' says it is so, does not make it the word of God. As readers with a brain, we must uses it, and analyze what evidence and arguments any author advances before we simply take his work as gospel.

Ah well, there are a number of Bharatiya historians who have written on the topic, as well as a number of foreign authors. Perhaps you might consider making a list of various sources to decide which might be the most credible.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Ah well, there are a number of Bharatiya historians who have written on the topic, as well as a number of foreign authors. Perhaps you might consider making a list of various sources to decide which might be the most credible.

It depends on what the evidence behind the argument is.

 

[DarkStar]

Well I'm sure that the word of a historian is worth more than yours or mine, so lets leave it at that.

You have your reasons to disagree with sources which extend his empire deep into South India, and I have my reasons to agree with those same sources.

Any historian worth his weight, must always give some sort of proof of his statements.

This can come in a variety of ways. Evidence from archaelogocial finds, evidence from eye witness accounts, or like you said, from other Historians (but in this case, the original Historians references will be checked, to see whether any of the above proofs are used by the said Historian).

How can anyone accept the word of a Historian writing in the 20th century, about events that happened in 300 BCE, without referring to any ancient inscriptions, coins, buildings, palaces, or documentary evidence from that time?

We know the Harappans were in Harappa, Mohenjo daro, and other places due to the tangible remains of the cities they had built, the pottery they had created, the statuettes that they made and the cotton fabrics that they had worn.

Sadly, no such evidence exists of Chandragupta's reign in peninsular INdia, so how can one possibly accept speculative claims that are based more on hope than reailty?

Like I said, without such evidence, the words of a 20th century Historian can not be taken as 'truth'.

 

[Flintlock]

Any historian worth his weight, must always give some sort of proof of his statements.

This can come in a variety of ways. Evidence from archaelogocial finds, evidence from eye witness accounts, or like you said, from other Historians (but in this case, the original Historians references will be checked, to see whether any of the above proofs are used by the said Historian).

How can anyone accept the word of a Historian writing in the 20th century, about events that happened in 300 BCE, without referring to any ancient inscriptions, coins, buildings, palaces, or documentary evidence from that time?

We know the Harappans were in Harappa, Mohenjo daro, and other places due to the tangible remains of the cities they had built, the pottery they had created, the statuettes that they made and the cotton fabrics that they had worn.

Sadly, no such evidence exists of Chandragupta's reign in peninsular INdia, so how can one possibly accept speculative claims that are based more on hope than reailty?

Like I said, without such evidence, the words of a 20th century Historian can not be taken as 'truth'.

Now I haven't read too many history books, perhaps a couple, but I am pretty sure that no historian bases his research on pure hearsay.

If a certain claim is made, there is obviously some sort of evidence - either literary or epigraphic, or archaeological.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

but I am pretty sure that no historian bases his research on pure hearsay.

If a certain claim is made, there is obviously some sort of evidence - either literary or epigraphic, or archaeological.

That is not necessarily true - if a Pakistani historian were to make claims you disagreed with, you would be sure to ask how he/she arrived at their conclusions. It would be completely appropriate to question their sources and evidence, so why shouldn't that yardstick be applied to other contentious issues?

I believe that Indian and some Bangladeshi historians have an agenda when they talk about, IMO, highly inflated casulaties resulting from events of 1971. Hence my insistence on the methodology and evidence used to arrive at their numbers. Other historians could have similar biases, agenda's, omissions etc.