Mughal influence in India and Indian history

[utraash]

Whether you like it or not both the Mughals and the British contributed to South Asia.



Kurukshetra War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nothing ... Some rag tag building or cuisine doesn't represent the contribution .....
We already had many advancement in many fields ... Check the trade contributions of India of that time .... The only field that we were behind was mindless barbarism....
Hindus kings also fought among themselves but they never encouraged massacring the local populace except few incident, even ppl were let to have pilgrims in rivals or enemy land without any problem.....

 

[hussain0216]

The mughals were the greatest dynasty and empire of South Asia

They stand alongside the great conquerors of the world from the Romans to the Ottomans

 

[Indian Patriot]

The mughals were the greatest dynasty and empire of South Asia

They stand alongside the great conquerors of the world from the Romans to the Ottomans

The Mughals were stronger than the ottomans at their peak. The Mughal army under Akbar was said to be the most powerful in the world that time. The Mughals, Safavids and Ottomans formed the first gunpowder empire.

 

[Makaramarma]

Nothing ... Some rag tag building or cuisine doesn't represent the contribution .....
We already had many advancement in many fields ... Check the trade contributions of India of that time .... The only field that we were behind was mindless barbarism....
Hindus kings also fought among themselves but they never encouraged massacring the local populace except few incident, even ppl were let to have pilgrims in rivals or enemy land without any problem.....

what buildings ? They destroyed FAR more buildings than they ever created or stole and renamed as muslim structures.

The Mughals were stronger than the ottomans at their peak. The Mughal army under Akbar was said to be the most powerful in the world that time. The Mughals, Safavids and Ottomans formed the first gunpowder empire.

Yet Aurangzeb's empire was bigger

 

[hussain0216]

what buildings ? They destroyed FAR more buildings than they ever created or stole and renamed as muslim structures.

They were conquerors thats what conquerors do, dominate the vanquished

From the Romans to Alexander, from the Ottomans to the Persians, from British empire to french empire

Your getting butt hurt at history

 

[Makaramarma]

They were conquerors thats what conquerors do, dominate the vanquished

From the Romans to Alexander, from the Ottomans to the Persians, from British empire to french empire

Your getting butt hurt at history

They were Jihadis, not conquerors. Much hated Jihadis who tried to destroy Hindu civilization.

Akbar's Tower of Heads,

 

[hussain0216]

The Mughals were stronger than the ottomans at their peak. The Mughal army under Akbar was said to be the most powerful in the world that time. The Mughals, Safavids and Ottomans formed the first gunpowder empire.

Absolutely


The hindus getting butt hurt about the Mughals is like britons getting butt hurt about the Roman empire conquering their ancestors


The hindus hurt egos compel them to then rewrite history and give a excuse for every hindu defeat and collaboration with their muslim lords


A muslim army never defeated the hindus it was only because of some sort of twist or bad luck or bollywood plot line

They were Jihadis, not conquerors. Much hated Jihadis who tried to destroy Hindu civilization.

There is no difference moron, when you conquer something you become a conqueror especially if its for a extended period

This is your personal hindu ego problem that Romans are conquerors, Ottomans are conquerors but suddenly Mughals become jihadis because they slaughtered hindus


In the middle ages this us what happened, you couls not be weak, you had to crush, kill, brutalise and dominate


Just like the europeans accepted that the Romans who abused, raped and ruled them were a great empire regardless of tgeir ruthless ways you need to get over your hindu ego and accept the same

 

[Makaramarma]

There is no difference moron, when you conquer something you become a conqueror especially if its for a extended period

This is your personal hindu ego problem that Romans are conquerors, Ottomans are conquerors but suddenly Mughals become jihadis because they slaughtered hindus

In the middle ages this us what happened, you couls not be weak, you had to crush, kill, brutalise and dominate

Just like the europeans accepted that the Romans who abused, raped and ruled them were a great empire regardless of tgeir ruthless ways you need to get over your hindu ego and accept the same

Piss off pakistani. I though you were an Indian.

 

[hussain0216]

They were Jihadis, not conquerors. Much hated Jihadis who tried to destroy Hindu civilization.

Akbar's Tower of Heads,

Horrible, I get it

But this is how you conquer
this is how you sow fear in your enemy and mark your territory


Look into the histories of the Romans, Ottomans, Egyptians, Persians, British etc and you will find many similar actions of domination

Piss off pakistani. I though you were an Indian.

This is a Pakistani forum dick head

 

[Indian Patriot]

Absolutely


The hindus getting butt hurt about the Mughals is like britons getting butt hurt about the Roman empire conquering their ancestors


The hindus hurt egos compel them to then rewrite history and give a excuse for every hindu defeat and collaboration with their muslim lords


A muslim army never defeated the hindus it was only because of some sort of twist or bad luck or bollywood plot line

Things were not black and white like some people here try to make it sound. There was no proper Hindu Muslim conflict except in the case of Vijayangar vs Deccani Sultanate alliance. Or in the early stages of Mughal Maratha war.

Prithviraj Chauhan was not assisted by other Hindu kingdoms against Ghori because they feared and hated him. Chauhan was the most powerful north Indian ruler at that time and was hegemonistic by nature. His abduction of a neighbouring princess - later romanticized as a love story - also did not help matters. The other Hindu rulers wanted Prithviraj to be deposed.

It was Rana Sanga who invited Babur to attack Lodhi and defeat him, hoping to capture Delhi after Babur departs with the loot and plunder. The short-sighted fellow did not count for what would happen if Babur would stay behind.

Many rajput kings allied themselves with mughals against other Hindu kings and even fellow rajputs.

Among the muslims the Mughals and Pathans had a snake-mongoose relationship. Hindu kings would side against Mughals and some against pathans depending on where their interests lies.

It was a complex political structure where every kingdom was looking to consolidate their own interests.

 

[utraash]

He did not answer any questions he created his own fake version of history. The Mughals were actively supported in all their battles against Indian Hindu kings by the hindu rajput rajas. So next time you curse the mughals be sure you also cure the ones who helped them all along.

Oh... You have attained the supreme prophetic acumen to attribute who is real or fake.....
I have no shame to accept our shortcomings.....

 

[hussain0216]

Things were not black and white like some people here try to make it sound. There was no proper Hindu Muslim conflict except in the case of Vijayangar vs Deccani Sultanate alliance. Or in the early stages of Mughal Maratha war.

Prithviraj Chauhan was not assisted by other Hindu kingdoms against Ghori because they feared and hated him. Chauhan was the most powerful north Indian ruler at that time and was hegemonistic by nature. His abduction of a neighbouring princess - later romanticized as a love story - also did not help matters. The other Hindu rulers wanted Prithviraj to be deposed.

It was Rana Sanga who invited Babur to attack Lodhi and defeat him, hoping to capture Delhi after Babur departs with the loot and plunder. The short-sighted fellow did not count for what would happen if Babur would stay behind.

Many rajput kings allied themselves with mughals against other Hindu kings and even fellow rajputs.

Among the muslims the Mughals and Pathans had a snake-mongoose relationship. Hindu kings would side against Mughals and some against pathans depending on where their interests lies.

It was a complex political structure where every kingdom was looking to consolidate their own interests.

Once again 100% agreed, this is what happened

There was NO india it was different groups, kings etc and some jumped at the chance to ally with the big mughal power to dominate others

 

[mooppan]

There are a few notable exceptions.

And also we have few Muslim families of maldivean ancestry living around Trivandrum city...
Btw-Its not fair to tag all Indian Muslims as forced converts...Islam reached South India,specially in Kerala and Tamilnadu through peaceful means(barring some forced conversion during Tipu's reign)...

 

[Makaramarma]

Things were not black and white like some people here try to make it sound. There was no proper Hindu Muslim conflict except in the case of Vijayangar vs Deccani Sultanate alliance. Or in the early stages of Mughal Maratha war.

Prithviraj Chauhan was not assisted by other Hindu kingdoms against Ghori because they feared and hated him. Chauhan was the most powerful north Indian ruler at that time and was hegemonistic by nature. His abduction of a neighbouring princess - later romanticized as a love story - also did not help matters. The other Hindu rulers wanted Prithviraj to be deposed.

It was Rana Sanga who invited Babur to attack Lodhi and defeat him, hoping to capture Delhi after Babur departs with the loot and plunder. The short-sighted fellow did not count for what would happen if Babur would stay behind.

Many rajput kings allied themselves with mughals against other Hindu kings and even fellow rajputs.

Among the muslims the Mughals and Pathans had a snake-mongoose relationship. Hindu kings would side against Mughals and some against pathans depending on where their interests lies.

It was a complex political structure where every kingdom was looking to consolidate their own interests.

Rubbish,

It was always a Hindu muslim conflict. Let me remind you what Akbar said after he captured Chitor, killed 30000 men and enslaved the surviving women (of the 8000 who burnt themselves ALIVE so that they do not become Slaves under Muslim soldiers)

“I am in no mood to listen to the sound of good words.My ears are at present attuned to enjoy the clang of sword. Leave me alone. I am in communication with Amir ( Timur). Send me a good reciter. Let him read to me in loud voice chapters seven to twelve of shahnama… Blood, not nectar, holds the key to the success of a sovereign. Give me war. Peace is of no avail to me….”

“The omnipotent one who enjoined the task of destroying the wicked infidels on the dutiful mujahids through the blows of their thunder like scimitars laid down…. Fight them, Allah will chastise them at your hands and he will lay them low and give you victory over them….”

“We spend our precious time to the best of our ability in war and jihad and with the the help of allah.. we are busy in subjugating the localities, habitations, forts, and towns, which are under the possession of infidels. May eternalAllah forsake and annihilate all of them, and thus raising the standard of Islam everywhere and removing the darkness of polytheism. by the use of sword. We destroy the places of worship of idols in those places and other parts of India….”


He did it in the name of ISLAM. And to think Akbar was the MOST non religions of the Mughals


No amount of LIES can white wash the Truth.

 

[Indian Patriot]

Oh... You have attained the supreme prophetic acumen to attribute who is real or fake.....
I have no shame to accept our shortcomings.....

A moron who claimed rajputs ruled India for 1200 years is by logic fake.