The Greatest Empire

**Samudra** · 20 Aug 05, 07:26

Alamgir

May we also talk of the lesser glorious days of the Mughal Empire ?
Like how some Mughal Princes were beaten, abused and whatnot in their own Red Fort ?

Alamgir Aurangazeb , in anybodys opinion , was a pukka moron.He led a reign of Genocide , but where are its results today ? The Green flag is yet to fly on the Red Fort and Hindustan is as Hindu as it was before the Mughals.

Better still , his sons were the moronic of all princes ancient India had ever seen.What father is he who knows not the art of raising kids ?

PS : I have a faint idea of a banned Faujs location now.

**Jay** · 20 Aug 05, 08:11

Originally Posted by Alamgir

In conclusion, the Mughals were a Central Asian and foreign power that kicked the crap out of the indians and ruled their country for hundreds of years, bringing with them their own Central Asian traditions and institutions.

In conculsion Mughals were assimilated with Hindustan, they lived, ruled and died in Hindustan, which makes them Hindustanis than Persians. A second generation Indian, Pakistani or Iranian in America call themselves as American, not as Indian or Pakistani or Iranian.

Mughals were later Persianized after a few generations culturally and linguistically. Evidence is from the recordes kept in the memoirs of the Mughals themselves and from the court scribes.

Just coz they spoke Persian doesnt mean that they are Persians, heck all of us write and speak in English, does that make us Englishmen??

Therefore, the Mughals were not indians but yer they were the ruler of the indians for over 300 years.

Therefore Mughals are hindustanis.

indians could not do anything but become servants for the Mughals and work for them in whatever eay the Mughals saw fit Lol. But even that wasnt good enough which is why fresh blood kept coming in from Central Asia and Iran.

Mughals were hindustanis. Since they ruled then hindustan they enjoyed the luxeries. Mughals intermarried with then hindustanis.

Clearly, the Mughals didnt want you or consider themselves to be one of you. That is why they smashed every indian place and people they could

Clearly Mughals wanted to assimilate in hindustan, hence they ruled, lived and died and got buried in hindustan. Akbar even tried to have a faith of his own, just to cover the differences between hindus and muslims.

The end.

THE END

Now repeat with me, mugahls are hindustanis.

**lemontree** · 20 Aug 05, 08:50

Originally Posted by Alamgir

Wrong. Shivaji even had attended one of the sessions at Aurangzeb's court where Aurangzeb had refused to acknowledge the presence of Shivaji even though he was the one who had sent him the invite.

That is correct. That was in 1666 when Aurangzeb sent one of his generals' Jai Singh with a huge army that defeated the Marathas. For the peace treaty Shivaji had to travel to Delhi, where he was made to stand with the commoners. This infuriated Shivaji and he stormed out only to be arrested. His subsequent escape back to Pune and continous fight regained all that he had lost in 6 months time.

Right, so there was an insurgency. But you had said earlier that Aurangzeb was defeated in the Panjab when that is NOT true. Aurangzeb was never defeated there, he spent the last 2 decades of his rule in the south of india fighting wars there.

Error on my part. Aurangzeb spent the last 26 years fighting the Marathas in the Deccan and parts of present day eastern Maharashtra. It was this insurgency that drained the Mughal treasury and created the fissures for its demise. Aurangzeb died a disillusioned man, as even his sons were against him and sided with the Marathas.

A few villages? That counts for nothing.

Maybe, they are remanents of the traders/soldiers of that era.

What a shame for them that the Mughal history is well known outside of subcontinent enough that we all know about them and where they came from, what they did and so on.

That I don't agree. Outside the sub-continent they teach very little about medevial Indian history.
Auranzeb is always remain a great man for the Muslims. But for the non-muslims (including buddhists), he remains a tyrant. The greatness of the Mughals for the non-muslims of the sub-continent means only Akbar and Shahjahan.

**shakari** · 20 Aug 05, 09:11

A bit belated in a heated debate................
EAST OR WEST MONGOLS WERE THE BEST.................
Their origin from the dust, and their reducing the empires to the dust........
Khan of the Khans the best soldier and general the known world history has ever seen.

**~~Alamgir~~** · 20 Aug 05, 14:33

Originally Posted by Sameer

I do not know if your repetitive posts are a product of the madrassah that you attended or the fact that you may be a good advertisement for a birth control pill but i never once claimed that \babur was \indian, him being the FIRST MUGHAL TO COME FROM CENTRAL ASIA ..... never mind, my post from the begining had been about Akbar onWARDS AND I HAVE PROVEN TO YOU THAT#

You havent proven anything other than you are a complete jackass Lol and a stupid indian who wish he was Central Asian. You can dream on.

1) MOST OF THE MARY WAS COMPRISED OF INDIAN TROOPS. IDIOT

Lol

2) THE GENERAL OF THE ARMY IN MANY BATTLES WERE INDIANS IDIOT

Lol. This is the ultimate insult to the Mughal army. A few treacherous indians here and there who sided with the Mughals in slaughtering your ancestors and you are happy by this? hahah

3) MOGUL KINGS FROM JEHANGIR ONWARDS HAD INDIAN BLOOD IN THEM DUE TO A CERTAIN HINDU PRINCESS IDIOT AND MANY A MUGHAL EMPEROR ADOPTED INDIAN CUSTOMS.

Point of origin is from the fathers line. A few ugly indian women getting banged by Mughal men does not account for anything. Lol, No Mughals adopted your crappy customs, it is you indians who were forced to adopt theirs.

#4) ALL ALL ALL READ ALL IDIOT MINUS MADRASSAHS WILL PUT THE MUGHAL EMPIRE UNDER INDIAN EMPIRE, CAN YOU NOT READ ENGLISH. NOONE IS SAYING THAT THE MUGHALS DID NOT COME FROM CENTRAL ASIA, IT WAS SAID THAT THEY WERE INDIANIZED, NOW I UNDERSTAND THAT ENGLISH MAY NOT BE YOUR FORTE, I SUGGEST THAT YOU STICK TO YOUR USUAL PAKISTANI BS IN KARACHI RATHER THAN A FORUM.

You need to be told again, clearly. Mughals, were a foreign power that were made up of Turko-Mongols and Persians who ruled the indians for hundreds of years, smashed your places of worship and your petty barbarian kingdoms and slaughtered your ancestors. And here you are trying to claim that the great Mughals were indians, the people they beat black and blue and made servants of Lol Slave mentality.

**~~Alamgir~~** · 20 Aug 05, 14:43

Originally Posted by lemontree

That is correct. That was in 1666 when Aurangzeb sent one of his generals' Jai Singh with a huge army that defeated the Marathas. For the peace treaty Shivaji had to travel to Delhi, where he was made to stand with the commoners. This infuriated Shivaji and he stormed out only to be arrested. His subsequent escape back to Pune and continous fight regained all that he had lost in 6 months time.

Shivaji was summoned to Agra by Aurangzeb not Delhi. Maybe you are talking about a different incident.

Aurangzeb died a disillusioned man, as even his sons were against him and sided with the Marathas.

Lol, almost all of the Mughals sons went against them, so what? Aurangzeb admitted all of his short comings, another sign that he was indeed, a great man.

That I don't agree. Outside the sub-continent they teach very little about medevial Indian history.
Auranzeb is always remain a great man for the Muslims. But for the non-muslims (including buddhists), he remains a tyrant. The greatness of the Mughals for the non-muslims of the sub-continent means only Akbar and Shahjahan.

Whether Mughal history is taught or not is another matter, but people have an interest in history no matter where they live and you can find lots of material on the great Mughals anywhere. Aurangzeb you can call a tyrant if you want, i dont care, but then why call Shah Jahan great when it was Shah Jahan policy against the indians that Aurangzeb only followed on from? If you are talking about smashing indian peoples temples and reintroducing jaziya and fighting wars against indian chieftains then all of this was done by Shah Jahan before Aurangzeb.

Akbar was not great it was his mistake to allow indians into the durbar and become soft on them. Thankfully Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb took a tough line on this and reversed this mistake of Akbar.

**Samudra** · 20 Aug 05, 17:51

A few ugly indian women getting banged by Mughal men does not account for anything. Lol, No Mughals adopted your crappy customs, it is you indians who were forced to adopt theirs.

Is that the best you can write ?

**~~Sameer~~** · 20 Aug 05, 18:10

Originally Posted by Samudra

Is that the best you can write ?

Did you ever expect the madrassah educated to have a more sophisticated form of conversation?

**scotsboyuk** · 20 Aug 05, 21:50

The truly great empires adopted aspects of their colonies and subjects. To continue with India, Britain has adopted a great deal of Indian cultural aspects just as India adopted various aspects of British culture. It's a two way street.

**Jay** · 21 Aug 05, 11:58

Originally Posted by Alamgir

You need to be told again, clearly. Mughals, were a foreign power that were made up of Turko-Mongols and Persians who ruled the indians for hundreds of years, smashed your places of worship and your petty barbarian kingdoms and slaughtered your ancestors. And here you are trying to claim that the great Mughals were indians, the people they beat black and blue and made servants of Lol Slave mentality.

Wrong, Mughals were hindustanis and yeah you suck

**lemontree** · 22 Aug 05, 05:00

Originally Posted by Alamgir

Shivaji was summoned to Agra by Aurangzeb not Delhi. Maybe you are talking about a different incident.

Delhi or Agra whichever! That was the only time he was summoned by Aurangzeb after a crushing defeat. There is no other incident of Shivaji being summoned by Aurangzeb.

Aurangzeb admitted all of his short comings, another sign that he was indeed, a great man.

As I said its in the eyes of the beholder.

Aurangzeb you can call a tyrant if you want, i dont care, but then why call Shah Jahan great when it was Shah Jahan policy against the indians that Aurangzeb only followed on from? If you are talking about smashing indian peoples temples and reintroducing jaziya and fighting wars against indian chieftains then all of this was done by Shah Jahan before Aurangzeb.

The jaziya system existed before Akbar's time, but he never enforced it. Jahangir enforced it for some time, but with the advice of his wazirs or ministers discontinued it. Shahjahan can never be blamed as a tyrant, infact he was a developer and builder. The legacy of his achivements are what dot the tourist map of India (excluding the Taj).

Akbar was not great it was his mistake to allow indians into the durbar and become soft on them. Thankfully Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb took a tough line on this and reversed this mistake of Akbar.

You are again wrong. You are viewing it from a "Muslim-bashing-non muslims" prespective.
During Akbar and Shajahans' era there was peace and prosperity, since there was equality for all individuals. While Aurangzeb's rule is maked with rebellion and discontent and wars.
You said it yourself, Aurangzeb spent the last 26 years fighting an insurgency that he could not win. It was this insurgency that broke the Mughal empire. This is a sign of failure in governance. This was not the case during Akbar and Shajahans' era.

**akash** · 22 Aug 05, 14:50

Originally Posted by Alamgir

Shivaji was summoned to Agra by Aurangzeb not Delhi. Maybe you are talking about a different incident.

Lol, almost all of the Mughals sons went against them, so what? Aurangzeb admitted all of his short comings, another sign that he was indeed, a great man.

Whether Mughal history is taught or not is another matter, but people have an interest in history no matter where they live and you can find lots of material on the great Mughals anywhere. Aurangzeb you can call a tyrant if you want, i dont care, but then why call Shah Jahan great when it was Shah Jahan policy against the indians that Aurangzeb only followed on from? If you are talking about smashing indian peoples temples and reintroducing jaziya and fighting wars against indian chieftains then all of this was done by Shah Jahan before Aurangzeb.

Akbar was not great it was his mistake to allow indians into the durbar and become soft on them. Thankfully Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb took a tough line on this and reversed this mistake of Akbar.

YOu are going to fit in perfectly with the jackasses at PDF. LOL

**~~Sameer~~** · 23 Aug 05, 01:02

It is sad to see that we have spent so much time responding to some 10 year old Islamic fundamentalist kid like Almagir. It is sad to see that we have forgotten about one of the greatest civs of all time because of it. The ancient Chinese.

tsk tsk tsk

down with madrassah education

**Proud Indian** · 23 Aug 05, 11:53

Originally Posted by Samudra

Is that the best you can write ?

Yeah true

India's culture can be reflected every where in the world (now this gonna b funny)
i had my year 11 social on 18th aug

app. 14 chicks were dressed in sari and lehengas and stuff
just shows how influencial v r.
and yes mughals were iNDIAns Read history ! Akbar Was indian so were his decendents.

**~~Sameer~~** · 23 Aug 05, 16:55

I think that the USA can be viewed as the greatest empire of all time as well. They are the only superpower, no other nation has ever had such a clear cut advantage in economics and millitary. They are the heart of the world economy. American culture can be found anywhere in the world today.

View Poll Results: Which of these do you consider to be the greatest?

Thread: The Greatest Empire

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Rate This Thread

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

Greatest Western empire in history

Greatest Turkish Empires

Mullah, Mosque & State

Geographic Catalysts for Secularization in Western Europe

The Greatest empire in History

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions