Naswarville

[al-Hasani]

An overview of all Indian Empires
Read.
And do note the size of the empires.

From what I can quickly see none of them held any significant areas outside of the Indian Subcontinent. Was the most famous "Indian" empire not the Mughal empire which were foreign Muslim (Mongol) conquerors? How are they Indian in the traditional word? Don't you Northern Indians, that are the dominating people in India, not always claim ancestry from outside of India?

India is less than 70 years old. A country that has 100's of different ethnic groups, speaking different languages etc. That was in reality a combination of various princely states that often fought with each other and in many instances had nothing to do with each other, other than living on the same Subcontinent. Is that not the reality?

 

[Contrarian]

From what I can quickly see none of them held any significant areas outside of the Indian Subcontinent.

Indian subcontinent is huge. There is a reason why its called subcontinent.

Asking about whether there were any areas outside of the subcontinent is like asking which country has USA captured outside of Americas. We never needed to. Our empires and kingdoms were very big as it is.

That is the reason I said read the size of the empire in absolute terms of square kilometers. Compare the size in absolute terms with other empires if you wish.

Was the most famous "Indian" empire not the Mughal empire which were foreign Muslim (Mongol) conquerors? How are they Indian in the traditional word? Don't you Northern Indians, that are the dominating people in India, not always claim ancestry from outside of India?

The most famous Indian empire is called Mughal because it is the last great Indian empire. The others were too far back in history. Mughals were the most recent.

Mughal empire is considered Indian as while the founder of the empire was Turkic, subsequently they settled down here and put down roots here. They married Indian women and had Indian kids. After a couple of generations, they became completely Indian.

The biggest Indian empire however - Maurya - was by East Indians.

Post edited. Please read again.

 

[p(-)0ENiX]

What a wonderful suggestion! No it still has a great advantage that i don't have to fry my brains over reading some unwanted posts

That shouldn't be an issue because you won't get notified of their posts, & if you do come across their posts, scroll down as fast as you can to avoid reading them.

 

[Srinivas]

From what I can quickly see none of them held any significant areas outside of the Indian Subcontinent. Was the most famous "Indian" empire not the Mughal empire which were foreign Muslim (Mongol) conquerors? How are they Indian in the traditional word? Don't you Northern Indians, that are the dominating people in India, not always claim ancestry from outside of India?

India is less than 70 years old. A country that has 100's of different ethnic groups, speaking different languages etc. That was in reality a combination of various princely states that often fought with each other and in many instances had nothing to do with each other, other than living on the same Subcontinent. Is that not the reality?

There are no rules for a country to exist, anything is possible when a strong central power is there to administer. Ottman empire consists of various ethnic groups and languages still it is called an empire. India is like a empire.

Did Saudi Arabia consist of single ethnic group???

India is vast and so there are more number of ethnic groups and languages.

USA consists of various ethic groups and called as a country.

 

[Contrarian]

India is less than 70 years old. A country that has 100's of different ethnic groups, speaking different languages etc. That was in reality a combination of various princely states that often fought with each other and in many instances had nothing to do with each other, other than living on the same Subcontinent. Is that not the reality?

That is true. We have hundreds of different ethnic groups with dozens of languages. With many a kings fighting each other.

However, it is also true, that from time to time, these differing small kingdoms were united under a particular leader/conqueror. These were called Empires.

The size of these empires is what has been listed on that thread.

 

[al-Hasani]

Indian subcontinent is huge. There is a reason why its called subcontinent.

Asking about whether there were any areas outside of the subcontinent is like asking which country has USA captured outside of Americas.

That is the reason I said read the size of the empire. Compare the size in absolute terms with other empires if you wish.


The most famous Indian empire is called Mughal because it is the last great Indian empire. The others were too far back in history.

The biggest Indian empire - Maurya - was by East Indians.

The Indian subcontinent is 3 times smaller than the Arab world. So not sure if HUGE is the right word. The Arabian Peninsula for instance is bigger than India. Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are tiny areas. Than there is Pakistan, which is distinct part of the Subcontinent. From what I am aware of then Nepal is not the Subcontinent.

There is nothing special about conquering your own house (subcontinent). All those empires gained power after fighting between each other. Not any outsiders. Arabs on the other hand controlled land in 3 continents. The ancient Middle East from where they emerged and where its center was always, to half of Africa, parts of Southern Europe and all of West Asia. So I don't see any valuable comparison….

No it is not. USA is less than 300 years old. It was formed by European and later African (slaves) migrants. Since WW2 people from the whole world has arrived, including 3.5 million Arabs and an unknown number of Indians (don't remember how many American-Indians there are).

On the other hand India is way older than that and you are the native people. The native people of the Americas, Indians, never had any real big empires aside from a few. Aztec, Incas etc.

Eh, the Mughals are not the most famous "Indian" empire because it was the latest one but because it was the most powerful one. Once again, how INdian was the Mughal empire in reality? The founders were outsiders that murdered many Indian Hindus, Muslims and in general they oppressed the Hindus and native Indians. Maybe that is where the hatred for Muslims and Islam comes from? It has nothing to do with Arabs….The Mughal empire did not control any areas outside of the Subcontinent either.

 

[sarthak]

Firstly I am not from Yemen, clown. Your people are originally from the Arabian Peninsula. Go read about human migrations a bit.

Oh, what great achievement of a nation having 1.2 BILLION people, LOL. Last time I checked you face a lot of problems and are not even a match for China - the only country that you can compared yourself to considering your huge population.

Did you forget that your country has the highest number of impoverished people that do not even have access to toilettes? There is very little that you can brag about. We have MILLIONS of Indians in our part of the world. I don't see one single Arab emigrating to India to work there. Don't get ahead of yourself and forget your history.

The first humans evolved in Africa and spread around the world , so that doesn't mean you are from Africa , dumbass. Every person in the world is from some tribe that migrated from somewhere else across the globe. So just because some of my people might have lived in the Arabian peninsula thousands of years ago doesn't mean I'm from the Arabia. Besides , majority of the population of the Indian subcontinent evolved from the Indus valley civilization which evolved around the Indus river, not anywhere close to the Arabian peninsula.

And talking of population. There are several European countries with a population less than that of Saudis who have made tremendous strides in technology. What do you have to brag about besides creating Osama bin Laden who was a brilliant terrorist by all means. I can see a dozen Indians in the list of nobel prize winners , yet not a single Saudi or arab. I can see a dozen indian names who founded successful silicon valley startups , yet not a single saudi or arab. And how is launching a probe to mars not a big achievement ? Launching a rocket into space isn't as easy a riding a camel , son. Your country won't get the technology to do that in the next 50 years. Your country hasn't even managed to build a rocket to launch something as light as a feather into space , let alone a satellite or a probe.

And yes , no one has forgotten that India has millions of impoverished people , many without toilets. You see not everyone has the luck of finding crude oil beneath their feet. Before the discovery of oil , arabs including saudis were living in conditions way worse than Indians. i doubt they even knew what a toilet was. And also , there are MILLIONS of arabs living in Europe , North America and other parts of the world. Other than the GCC states , most arab countries are poor and are effectively failed states with civil war- Syria, Egypt, Yemen , Iraq, Morocco , Algeria etc etc. So you don't get ahead of yourself. The development that your country has made is not a result of your peoples' intelligence or hard work. Is is literally , liquid luck of finding millions of barrels of crude oil and gas beneath the surface.

 

[MohitV]

@al-Hasani bro its alryt calm down.......yeah it was a bit rude from ur side that just bcoz of some guy farooq u r abusing a whole religion which is not at all related with him, but yeah now its over........dun spoil your mood any further...it will only cause more hatred....just dont generalize plzzz







P.S. there were many indian vessel state in the region of further south east asia.....like in cambodia, fiji, thailand,etc etc

and yeah nepal is a part of subcontinent

 

[al-Hasani]

There are no rules for a country to exist, anything is possible when a strong central power is there to administer. Ottman empire consists of various ethnic groups and languages still it is called an empire. India is like a empire.

Did Saudi Arabia consist of single ethnic group???

India is vast and so there are more number of ethnic groups and languages.

USA consists of various ethic groups and called as a country.

India is nothing like an empire. What are you talking about? Do you know the word of an empire? India is smaller than the Arabian Peninsula. Having a lot of people does not make you an empire nor is it any achievement whatsoever. By your logic then Bangladesh should be more powerful than UK and Germany put together since they have a bigger population than those two countries. That is not how the world operates.

Yes, Saudi Arabia is inhabited by Arabs. Only 10% are Afro-Arabs and the rest are new arrivals. Indians on the other hand are not an ethnic group but a nationality consisting of 100's of different people with little in common other than a recently shaped identity… What binds you together is Hinduism though.

Nobody is talking about India not being a country or that countries cannot have many different ethnic groups etc. living in its borders. Read what I have written.

 

[Alpha1]

Please keep politics out of this thread

 

[Srinivas]

The Indian subcontinent is 3 times smaller than the Arab world. So not sure if HUGE is the right word. The Arabian Peninsula for instance is bigger than India. Bangladesh and Sri Lanka are tiny areas. Than there is Pakistan, which is distinct part of the Subcontinent. From what I am aware of then Nepal is not the Subcontinent.

Arabian peninisula is a desert, only coastal areas close to Makkah and Madina are inhibited. The population of Saudi is close to a small state in India. No need to compare India which is huge 1.2 Billion and has potential to Saudi which is tiny country which depends on Oil exports.

There is nothing special about conquering your own house (subcontinent). All those empires gained power after fighting between each other. Not any outsiders. Arabs on the other hand controlled land in 3 continents. The ancient Middle East from where they emerged and where its center was always, to half of Africa, parts of Southern Europe and all of West Asia. So I don't see any valuable comparison….
No it is not. USA is less than 300 years old. It was formed by European and later African (slaves) migrants. Since WW2 people from the whole world has arrived, including 3.5 million Arabs and an unknown number of Indians (don't remember how many American-Indians there are).

On the other hand India is way older than that and you are the native people. The native people of the Americas, Indians, never had any real big empires aside from a few. Aztec, Incas etc.

Eh, the Mughals are not the most famous "Indian" empire because it was the latest one but because it was the most powerful one. Once again, how INdian was the Mughal empire in reality? The founders were outsiders that murdered many Indian Hindus, Muslims and in general they oppressed the Hindus and native Indians. Maybe that is where the hatred for Muslims and Islam comes from? It has nothing to do with Arabs….The Mughal empire did not control any areas outside of the Subcontinent either.

What is there for the conqueror to get by conquering Arabian peninsula, a desert??

why would any one conquer a desert???

It is Islam and oil that made Saudi significant in the world map.

 

[Aamna14]

That shouldn't be an issue because you won't get notified of their posts, & if you do come across their posts, scroll down as fast as you can to avoid reading them.

I really wished it worked like that indeed. Its like somedays it gets better and i am getting the notifications while on other days i don't. But the mentions from ignore members i always get hope it gets fixed soon.

 

[Alpha1]

That shouldn't be an issue because you won't get notified of their posts, & if you do come across their posts, scroll down as fast as you can to avoid reading them.

@Aamna14 i think you get the alerts but the posts are invisible right?

 

[Srinivas]

India is nothing like an empire. What are you talking about? Do you know the word of an empire? India is smaller than the Arabian Peninsula. Having a lot of people does not make you an empire nor is it any achievement whatsoever. By your logic then Bangladesh should be more powerful than UK and Germany put together since they have a bigger population than those two countries. That is not how the world operates.

Yes, Saudi Arabia is inhabited by Arabs. Only 10% are Afro-Arabs and the rest are new arrivals. Indians on the other hand are not an ethnic group but a nationality consisting of 100's of different people with little in common other than a recently shaped identity… What binds you together is Hinduism though.

Nobody is talking about India not being a country or that countries cannot have many different ethnic groups etc. living in its borders. Read what I have written.

No need to compare a desert country to a country like India, you will find people in Saudi close to coastal areas.

 

[Aamna14]

@Aamna14 i think you get the alerts but the posts are invisible right?

No, the posts in which i am mentioned aren't even invisible. Otherwise if i am not mentioned, the posts of an ignored member stay invisible.