Who was the Greatest Emperor in South Asian History?

[Joe Shearer]

I have only two comments.

1. Grandson of Shivaji ‘Shahu’ aka Shivaji II was no doubt a very able Maratha ruler but to compare him with the likes of Asoka, Akbar or Chandragupta Maurya tantamount to insulting those great rulers of India.

Firstly, Maratha Empire was not really an empire in the classical sense; it was loosely governed and was closer to a Federation or a Confederation. Naturally everyone has his own likes & dislike. In my book two Maratha names stand out. Shivaji who probably introduced the guerrilla style of fighting in India. Second is Balaji Baji Rao under whose reign Maratha rule reached at its peak. However I wouldn’t rate them great primarily because Shivaji lost to Aurangzeb’s General Jai Singh and was imprisoned. Balaji Baii Rao's army, though vastly superior in number was defeated by Ahmad Shah Abdali in January 1761 at the battle of Panipat.

2. It is all subjective and you are welcome to call anyone “Great”. Historians have however added “the Great” to only two of the names; Asoka the great & Akbar the great.

Thank you for your usual very balanced summation. It is always a pleasure to read your posts.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Top 9 Emperors of India:
Chandragupta Maurya of the Maurya Empire: 4th century BC

Emperor Ashoka of the Maurya Empire: 3rd century BC

Chandragupta Vikramaditya of the Gupta Empire: 5th century

Harsha Vardhana: 7th century

Amoghavarsha of the Rashtrakuta Empire: 9th century

Dharmapala of the Pala Dynasty: 8th century

Rajendra Chola of the Chola Empire: 11th century

Akbar of the Mughal Empire: 16th century

Chhatrapati Shahu of the Maratha Empire: 18th century

If I might pick up from where @niaz Sahib stopped, and if I might partially respond to @Slayer786, there is one simple criterion in Indian history which discriminates very effectively between the great rulers and the merely powerful.

The criterion is inclusiveness.

Those who sought to reach out to the widest possible section and imbue them with a sense of common purpose stand out. This includes Chandragupta Maurya, Asoka the Great, three of the first few Gupta emperors, Chandragupta, Samudragupta and Chandragupta II Vikramaditya, Rajarajendra Chola and in late mediaeval times, Sher Shah Suri and Akbar the Great.

Those who sought to elevate some and exclude others are generally seen to be less than the quality of the one's named above, even if they had been better military leaders. These exclusivists include Pulakesin, the Sunga successors of the Mauryas, the Bactrian Greeks, the Sakas, the Kushanas, the Maukharis, the Rastrakutas, the Palas, the Gurjara Pratiharas, the Chalukya, the Kakatiyas, the Vakataka, the Haiheya, the southern Pallavas, the Cheras and the Turks, the Khalji, the Tughlaqs, the Lodis, and most of the other Mughals, including Babar and Aurangzeb. Not to forget the Marathas.

I believe that the Vijaynagar kings suffer because of the strong northern orientation of our history. They qualify in all respects to be considered at a far higher level than many others listed. Perhaps they ought to be excluded, not for being insufficiently inclusive - they were inclusive to a marked degree - but for relative lack of extent of empire.

I mention this because of the raging political debate in our countries today, centred around a choice between inclusiveness and exclusiveness.

 

[niaz]

If I might pick up from where @niaz Sahib stopped, and if I might partially respond to @Slayer786, there is one simple criterion in Indian history which discriminates very effectively between the great rulers and the merely powerful.

The criterion is inclusiveness.

Those who sought to reach out to the widest possible section and imbue them with a sense of common purpose stand out. This includes Chandragupta Maurya, Asoka the Great, three of the first few Gupta emperors, Chandragupta, Samudragupta and Chandragupta II Vikramaditya, Rajarajendra Chola and in late mediaeval times, Sher Shah Suri and Akbar the Great.

Those who sought to elevate some and exclude others are generally seen to be less than the quality of the one's named above, even if they had been better military leaders. These exclusivists include Pulakesin, the Sunga successors of the Mauryas, the Bactrian Greeks, the Sakas, the Kushanas, the Maukharis, the Rastrakutas, the Palas, the Gurjara Pratiharas, the Chalukya, the Kakatiyas, the Vakataka, the Haiheya, the southern Pallavas, the Cheras and the Turks, the Khalji, the Tughlaqs, the Lodis, and most of the other Mughals, including Babar and Aurangzeb. Not to forget the Marathas.

I believe that the Vijaynagar kings suffer because of the strong northern orientation of our history. They qualify in all respects to be considered at a far higher level than many others listed. Perhaps they ought to be excluded, not for being insufficiently inclusive - they were inclusive to a marked degree - but for relative lack of extent of empire.

I mention this because of the raging political debate in our countries today, centred around a choice between inclusiveness and exclusiveness.

I wouldn’t dare to improve on a very informative post. However, if I may, I would like to add name of Kanishka of the Kushans to your list of one the most able rulers of subcontinent. His empire was vast, immensely wealthy and very well governed.

I also agree with you 100% that history books of the subcontinent are heavily biased towards North Indian dynasties and Chola colonization of the South East kingdoms is largely glossed over.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I wouldn’t dare to improve on a very informative post. However, if I may, I would like to add name of Kanishka of the Kushans to your list of one the most able rulers of subcontinent. His empire was vast, immensely wealthy and very well governed.

I also agree with you 100% that history books of the subcontinent are heavily biased towards North Indian dynasties and Chola colonization of the South East kingdoms is largely glossed over.

Dear @niaz Sahib, I agree with your correction. Kanishka, pulling in the Buddhists and Hindus under the umbrella of Kushan rule, was quite clearly an inclusive emperor. And a true emperor, considering the breadth and scope of his dominion.

Thank you for the observation.

 

[niaz]

As a student of history I don’t care much Aurangzeb either. It has nothing to do with religion. Aurangzeb was greedy and a ruthless man.

Aurangzeb imprisoned his father, fought and killed his two elder brothers who had greater right to the Mughal throne. I don’t buy the nonsense that simply because Aurangzeb was better Muslim he was better suited to rule.

Most people are totally ignorant of the fact that primarily because Rajput contingent of the Dara / Shah Jahan’s army under General Jai Singh defected to Aurangzeb; he was able to defeat Dara’s army. Aurangzeb then turned on his ally and younger brother Murad Bakhsh and had him eliminated.

There has to be a good reason as to why the Mughal empire that encompassed most of the subcontinent at the time of his death in 1707 sank like holed boat and by 1757, a mere 50 years later, was reduced to Delhi and her surroundings. Following the battle of Buxor in 1764, Mughal emperor Shah Alam II depended upon, Oudh Nawabs, East India Company and the Marathas ( in that order) to sit on the Delhi throne. Subsequently Abdul Qadir Rohilla blinded him and raped Moghal princesses.

Aurnagzeb chewed more than he could digest during his wars in Deccan. His victories in the South were pyrrhic victories at best and in my book Aurangzeb is responsible for the fall of the Muslim rule over India in the same way that Zia ul Haq is responsible for the rise of extremism in Pakistan.

However if people insist on loving a king who usurps his father’s throne & imprisons him and murders his three brothers in his greed for power; simply because he was ostensibly a good Muslim, they are welcome.

 

[Srinivas]

Sathavahans should also be included into that list, they ruled entire south India along with Maharastra.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Sathavahans should also be included into that list, they ruled entire south India along with Maharastra.

By any chance, did you have an opportunity to read that long and boring post at #452? or did you start reading it and gave up halfway because it was so boring?

 

[Srinivas]

By any chance, did you have an opportunity to read that long and boring post at #452? or did you start reading it and gave up halfway because it was so boring?

No mention of Sathavahanas in that post by name.

 

[angeldude13]

I have only two comments.

1. Grandson of Shivaji ‘Shahu’ aka Shivaji II was no doubt a very able Maratha ruler but to compare him with the likes of Asoka, Akbar or Chandragupta Maurya tantamount to insulting those great rulers of India.

Firstly, Maratha Empire was not really an empire in the classical sense; it was loosely governed and was closer to a Federation or a Confederation. Naturally everyone has his own likes & dislike. In my book two Maratha names stand out. Shivaji who probably introduced the guerrilla style of fighting in India. Second is Balaji Baji Rao under whose reign Maratha rule reached at its peak. However I wouldn’t rate them great primarily because Shivaji lost to Aurangzeb’s General Jai Singh and was imprisoned. Balaji Baii Rao's army, though vastly superior in number was defeated by Ahmad Shah Abdali in January 1761 at the battle of Panipat.

2. It is all subjective and you are welcome to call anyone “Great”. Historians have however added “the Great” to only two of the names; Asoka the great & Akbar the great.

sir,can you please elaborate on the terms and conditions on which historians called ashoka THE GREAT.
imo ashoka is comparable to aurangzeb. only exception is that he did few right things after he got his a$$ handed to him by the warriors of kalinga.

 

[Joe Shearer]

No mention of Sathavahanas in that post by name.

Are you sure?

 

[r3alist]

all humans came from africa. all african humans evloved from apes.Source:*http://www.defence.pk/forums/milita...ror-south-asian-history-17.html#ixzz2PmLAsZ8c

This has been disproven apparently. But not widely reported.
http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=19566

 

[Kambojaric]

As a student of history I don’t care much Aurangzeb either. It has nothing to do with religion. Aurangzeb was greedy and a ruthless man.

Aurangzeb imprisoned his father, fought and killed his two elder brothers who had greater right to the Mughal throne. I don’t buy the nonsense that simply because Aurangzeb was better Muslim he was better suited to rule.

Most people are totally ignorant of the fact that primarily because Rajput contingent of the Dara / Shah Jahan’s army under General Jai Singh defected to Aurangzeb; he was able to defeat Dara’s army. Aurangzeb then turned on his ally and younger brother Murad Bakhsh and had him eliminated.

There has to be a good reason as to why the Mughal empire that encompassed most of the subcontinent at the time of his death in 1707 sank like holed boat and by 1757, a mere 50 years later, was reduced to Delhi and her surroundings. Following the battle of Buxor in 1764, Mughal emperor Shah Alam II depended upon, Oudh Nawabs, East India Company and the Marathas ( in that order) to sit on the Delhi throne. Subsequently Abdul Qadir Rohilla blinded him and raped Moghal princesses.

Aurnagzeb chewed more than he could digest during his wars in Deccan. His victories in the South were pyrrhic victories at best and in my book Aurangzeb is responsible for the fall of the Muslim rule over India in the same way that Zia ul Haq is responsible for the rise of extremism in Pakistan.

However if people insist on loving a king who usurps his father’s throne & imprisons him and murders his three brothers in his greed of power; simply because he was ostensibly a good Muslim, they are welcome.

I am not a fan of Aurengzeb either but it must also be said that usurpation and fratricide no matter how distasteful we find it in todays time was not out of the norm back then. In fact not being ruthless could have been seen as a sign of weakness (compare for example how Humayuns consistent pardons to his brothers were replied by them with one rebellion after the other). As Yavuz Sultan said "A carpet is large enough to accommodate two sufis, but the world is not large enough for two Kings". Further again whilst its true that Aurengzeb indirectly had a large part to play in the eventual decline of the Mughal Empire it must also be remembered that due to having lived to a very old age (88) his successor Shah Alam was already in his mid 60s when he ascended to the throne and thus arguably incapable of reversing any of Aurengzebs policies. After Shah Alam the power of the nobles increased drastically and this eventually lead to the complete decline in the power of the "Emperors" thanks to the Sayyid brothers. Old age and incompetent successors thus must also go hand in hand with Aurengzebs expensive and non futile policies to be seen as the causes for the decline of the Mughal Empire.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I am not a fan of Aurengzeb either but it must also be said that usurpation and fratricide no matter how distasteful we find it in todays time was not out of the norm back then. In fact not being ruthless could have been seen as a sign of weakness (compare for example how Humayuns consistent pardons to his brothers were replied by them with one rebellion after the other). As Yavuz Sultan said "A carpet is large enough to accommodate two sufis, but the world is not large enough for two Kings". Further again whilst its true that Aurengzeb indirectly had a large part to play in the eventual decline of the Mughal Empire it must also be remembered that due to having lived to a very old age (88) his successor Shah Alam was already in his mid 60s when he ascended to the throne and thus arguably incapable of reversing any of Aurengzebs policies. After Shah Alam the power of the nobles increased drastically and this eventually lead to the complete decline in the power of the "Emperors" thanks to the Sayyid brothers. Old age and incompetent successors thus must also go hand in hand with Aurengzebs expensive and non futile policies to be seen as the causes for the decline of the Mughal Empire.

Your point is well taken, but is vulnerable to attack on the grounds of realpolitik, rather than relative morality and an imposition of today's standards of public and private life to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

At the commencement of his reign, Aurangzeb already faced an empire in danger of fragmenting due to its own weight. You will recall that he himself had been assigned Balkh and Badakshan as early as 28. His tenure was not entirely successful, as he could not recover Kandahar from the Safavids. It also needs to be remembered that he was in the Deccan long before coming to the throne; he was there from 1632 to 1644, between the ages of 18 and 26, and again between 1652 and 1658, sent there after his failure at Kandahar.

The point is that he never recognised that the empire had grown beyond governable size, never took steps to set limits to the boundaries and grow institutions that could defend the Borders. In the same circumstances, even ebullient and militarist Roman emperors like Hadrian and Trajan pulled back; they, and later emperors of later empires, such as the Carolingians, set up border commands to defend segments of the imperial Borders, as did kings of England, setting up the Marcher Lords in Wales, for instance, and the Percy clan in Northumberland.

Aurangzeb need not be faulted on the grounds of the killing of his brothers, arguing if we wish that such were the dealings of that day among imperial princes; we may grant him the latitude for the fact that he lived so long that his successor could hardly do anything original or worthwhile. On the second point, the question arises: is it that he never understood that the system of inheritance by battle was a hindrance to the stability of the empire? Why did he not anticipate events and place Bahadur Shah I In a position of power earlier? If the answer is that under those circumstances, no seventeenth Mughal dared to build up a potential rival, again the question arises: what then was Aurangzeb thinking about the succession? Or did he not think about it at all?

 

[niaz]

I am not a fan of Aurengzeb either but it must also be said that usurpation and fratricide no matter how distasteful we find it in todays time was not out of the norm back then. In fact not being ruthless could have been seen as a sign of weakness (compare for example how Humayuns consistent pardons to his brothers were replied by them with one rebellion after the other). As Yavuz Sultan said "A carpet is large enough to accommodate two sufis, but the world is not large enough for two Kings". Further again whilst its true that Aurengzeb indirectly had a large part to play in the eventual decline of the Mughal Empire it must also be remembered that due to having lived to a very old age (88) his successor Shah Alam was already in his mid 60s when he ascended to the throne and thus arguably incapable of reversing any of Aurengzebs policies. After Shah Alam the power of the nobles increased drastically and this eventually lead to the complete decline in the power of the "Emperors" thanks to the Sayyid brothers. Old age and incompetent successors thus must also go hand in hand with Aurengzebs expensive and non futile policies to be seen as the causes for the decline of the Mughal Empire.

My dislike of Aurangzeb is not due his long reign or age. It is to do with his lack of foresight.
Aurangzeb military action against Bijapur and Golconda was an error. These two kingdoms provided a bulwark against the troublesome Marathas. With the Adil Shahi & Qutub Shahi states gone, Marathas had freedom of movement and gave a tough time to the Mughal army. He was fighting Marathas on their terms, something that any intelligent general should avoid.

Aurangzeb arrived in the South in 1986 and to the best my knowledge never spent much time in his Capital since then. These wars not only bankrupted the Mughal Empire, long absence of the ruler from his Capital gave rise to the ambitious nobles such as Rohillas, Nawabs of Oudh and the Syed brothers. You can’t run a shop successfully spending 20 years away from it, how can you run an Empire?

As I have stated before, history is very subjective and depends upon how you look at it. I stand by my assertion that Aurangzeb is responsible for the decline of Mughal Empire and rise of the Sikhs & of Marathas which ended the Muslim rule over major part of India. If some people insist on looking at his reign through wrong end of the telescope, it is their business.

 

[Slayer786]

It was because of Aurangzeb that the Mughal dynasty ended. He sowed the seeds of destruction.
He was given in his hand a strong empire with a great army and great finances.

He overstretched his army, made enemies where peace could be made. Those enemies among others literally bankrupted his empire.
He died leaving a shadow of the glory that the Mughal Empire was - in terms of territory it was big, but it was hollow.

He can not even begin to be compared with Akbar, the reason why Mughal empire lasted as long as it did. He struck the alliances, the administrative machinery, the control mechanisms, the financial systems that made Mughal empire entrenched in India.

Aurangzeb does not even come close to Akbar.

As I had written earlier, Indians will always prefer Akbar over the other Mughals. But for majority of muslims Aurangzeb was a better ruler. It is a waste of time to argue.