Were Ancient Vaishya Kings better than Kshatriya Kings

[Shahmir]

Practically all of the large economically powerful imperial Indian empires were from Eastern India.

NW was constantly being harassed, and not doing nothing about it.

NW part of south asia was always multi-racial and multi-ethnical without any particular sense of belonging to eastern parts of South asia.

 

[dil_dil]

Hindu Shahis were the ancestors of the Suri Pashtun Clan. Many historians agree that Suris where the only Hindus in the region of Khorasan.

Again you need to brush up your history little bit, there was no such a thing as Suri Pashtuns hindus. Hindu shahis were punjabi kashtriyas.

Pashtuns were never hindus, though they assimilated many converts.

 

[Foot12]

Statues can be build anywhere, we are talking about people here. As i said Pakistan is starting point for anything hindu which was adopted by Ganga land. So i don't see anypoint in posting pictures. Do we agree with Rig Vedic people going to Ganga land or not?

The first great Empire in South Asian history was the Maurya Empire of Eastern India which conquered Pakistan after defeating the Greek invaders. The eastern Indian writing system and architecture was introduced to Pakistan by the Maurya kings and the succeeding kingdoms which ruled Pakistan copied the writing system and architecture of eastern India. Thats the reason why Buddhist stupas and monasteries were built in Pakistan only after the Maurya invasion. After the invasion of the Gupta Dynasty of Pakistan the kingdoms of Pakistan started to build Hindu temples like the eastern Indian Gupta Dynasty.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

NW part of south asia was always multi-racial and multi-ethnical without any particular sense of belonging to eastern parts of South asia.

More so the Central Asia Iranic tribes. They still belong stylistically to Iranian civilizations.

 

[RealityRa]

Again you need to brush up your history little bit, there was no such a thing as Suri Pashtuns hindus. Hindu shahis were punjabi kashtriyas.

Pashtuns were never hindus, though they assimilated many converts.

Suri Pashtuns were Hindu:
"It was also the last stronghold of an ancient religion professed by the inhabitants when all their neighbors had become Muslim. In the 11th century AD Mahmud of Ghazni defeated the prince of Ghor Ibn –I-Suri, and made him prisoner in a severely-contested engagement in the valley of Ahingaran. Ibn-I-Suri is called a Hindu by the author, who has recorded his overthrow; it does not follow that he was one by religion or by race, but merely that he was not Muhammadan".

 

[dil_dil]

The first great Empire in South Asian history was the Maurya Empire of Eastern India which conquered Pakistan after defeating the Greek invaders. The eastern Indian writing system and architecture was introduced to Pakistan by the Maurya kings and the succeeding kingdoms which ruled Pakistan copied the writing system and architecture of eastern India. Thats the reason why Buddhist stupas and monasteries were built in Pakistan only after the Maurya invasion. After the invasion of the Gupta Dynasty of Pakistan the kingdoms of Pakistan started to build Hindu temples like the eastern Indian Gupta Dynasty.

As i said Maurya ancestry is debatble.... Gupta empire indeed was completly Indian.

 

[RealityRa]

As i said Maurya ancestry is debatble.... Gupta empire indeed was completly Indian.

I think we've previously established the Mauryas ancestry isn't debatable at all with only Chankayas birthplace in any doubt.

 

[dil_dil]

I think we've previously established the Mauryas ancestry isn't debatable at all with only Chankayas birthplace in any doubt.

Hardly anything established when it comes to Maurya birth place.

Suri Pashtuns were Hindu:
"It was also the last stronghold of an ancient religion professed by the inhabitants when all their neighbors had become Muslim. In the 11th century AD Mahmud of Ghazni defeated the prince of Ghor Ibn –I-Suri, and made him prisoner in a severely-contested engagement in the valley of Ahingaran. Ibn-I-Suri is called a Hindu by the author, who has recorded his overthrow; it does not follow that he was one by religion or by race, but merely that he was not Muhammadan".

They had nothing to do with Suri Pashtuns.

 

[RealityRa]

Hardly anything established when it comes to Maurya birth place.



They had nothing to do with Suri Pashtuns.

Every single source has said so and every major architectural remnant has remained in Pataliputra. Not to mention various edicts and absolutely none of them being based in Punjab. Anyway, if you can provide a source from the time that says anything about Mauryas origin then please do.

@Marwat Khan Lodhi has mentioned the Suri's before.

 

[Shahmir]

Suri Pashtuns were Hindu:
"It was also the last stronghold of an ancient religion professed by the inhabitants when all their neighbors had become Muslim. In the 11th century AD Mahmud of Ghazni defeated the prince of Ghor Ibn –I-Suri, and made him prisoner in a severely-contested engagement in the valley of Ahingaran. Ibn-I-Suri is called a Hindu by the author, who has recorded his overthrow; it does not follow that he was one by religion or by race, but merely that he was not Muhammadan".

I think Al-beruni made a mistake here in his judgement. Most probably Suris and many pashtun tribes were polytheistic proto indo-aryan religion like that practied by Kalash today.

 

[dil_dil]

Every single source has said so and every major architectural remnant has remained in Pataliputra. Not to mention various edicts and absolutely none of them being based in Punjab. Anyway, if you can provide a source from the time that says anything about Mauryas origin then please do.

@Marwat Khan Lodhi has mentioned the Suri's before.

Again as i said pashtuns assimilated many converts but they were never hindus themselves. There is difference. Read up more about who were Hindu Shahis.

I already have explained many times about Maurya. Sher Shah Suri for exemple was born in Haryana. It does not make any difference. Hindu punjabi have explained well origins of Maurya.

 

[RealityRa]

I think Al-beruni made a mistake here in his judgement. Most probably Suris and many pashtun tribes were polytheistic proto indo-aryan religion like that practied by Kalash today.

He did also mention a Hindu temple:
"Sultan Mahumud now went to fight with the Ghorians, who were infidels at that time. Suri, their chief, was killed in this war, and his son was taken prisoner; but he killed himself by sucking poison which he had kept under the stone of his ring. The country of Ghor was annexed to that of the Sultan, and the population thereof converted to Islam. He now attacked the fort of Bhim, where was a temple of the Hindus."
Anyway this is off topic.

 

[Shahmir]

He did also mention a Hindu temple:
"Sultan Mahumud now went to fight with the Ghorians, who were infidels at that time. Suri, their chief, was killed in this war, and his son was taken prisoner; but he killed himself by sucking poison which he had kept under the stone of his ring. The country of Ghor was annexed to that of the Sultan, and the population thereof converted to Islam. He now attacked the fort of Bhim, where was a temple of the Hindus."
Anyway this is off topic.

This looks now some solid evidence , I think Bhim was some hindu prince in Mahabharat epic of hindus if I am not wrong. If anything with name of Bhim existed in Ghor in reference to any fort or temple then there may be some truth to "hindu" origin of Suris and other Ghori tribes. So Al-beruni probably got it right then. What I don't understand is that why wikipedia then says that later emerging Ghori muslims dynasty was "tajik" when historical documents just a 100 years before the emergence of Ghoris back on the power horizon never mention anything called "tajik" about residents of Ghor.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

Again as i said pashtuns assimilated many converts but they were never hindus themselves. There is difference. Read up more about who were Hindu Shahis.

I already have explained many times about Maurya. Sher Shah Suri for exemple was born in Haryana. It does not make any difference. Hindu punjabi have explained well origins of Maurya.

No they didnt, at all.

@Water Car Engineer
Tamil influence in SE Asia:
View attachment 41590

That was just a raid. Indian influence from other parts of Indian and TN was happening much before the Cholas.

 

[dil_dil]

No they didnt, at all.
.

Yes he did, it was logical explanation and historically correct. He didn't have any sinister motives, he was hindu himself.