PDA

View Full Version : King Alexander the Great of Macedonia



Anvilanthony
06 Feb 04,, 03:50
I want this thread to be comprised of everything about his accomplishments in his military carrer, no other man in the history of the world has conquered as much land as fast as he did in such a short amount of time.

This is all the land he conquered from South Eastern Europe all the way to South Asia in 7 years.
http://1stmuse.com/frames/empire.gif

Officer of Engineers
06 Feb 04,, 04:30
Not a fair comparison. His opposition was not as numerous, well organized, or as determined as later conquerors found.

Officer of Engineers
06 Feb 04,, 04:52
There are accounts from India that Alexander didn't fared as well as his propaganda machine painted out to be. He won some battle but ran when superior forces came to bear.

Anvilanthony
07 Feb 04,, 02:34
Originally posted by Officer of Engineers
Not a fair comparison. His opposition was not as numerous, well organized, or as determined as later conquerors found.

What are you talking about, he defeated the Persian Empire which stood at 300,000 men while he had only 40,000.

Officer of Engineers
07 Feb 04,, 02:53
Sorry, don't believe a word of it. While academic historians peg those numbers, those of us who had wore a uniform cannot imagine how do you support and co-ordinate a 400,000 man army using horse and wagon.

Also, take a look at the battlefields. Few could have supported those numbers.

Blademaster
07 Feb 04,, 07:31
Most likely the "400,000 soldiers" figure were the total tally of soldiers that the Greeks fought.

I strongly bet that most of them were peasants conscripted into the army as fodder. Only few of them were well trained and can be considered as soldiers or battle units. The rest, well, they were crap in fighting as a unit.

Ironduke
16 Feb 04,, 05:16
no other man in the history of the world has conquered as much land as fast as he did in such a short amount of time.
The Mongols.

smilingassassin
16 Feb 04,, 20:12
Would the mongols be considered a single man? Who led the mongols to conquer more territory?

Ironduke
16 Feb 04,, 20:22
Here's a map of the Mongol Empire at Genghis Khan's death.

Anvilanthony
22 Feb 04,, 06:59
Originally posted by Ironman
Here's a map of the Mongol Empire at Genghis Khan's death.

That's the land I conquered....

I also read in some history books that Alexander the Great was only 5'1".

I mean Stalin was 5'3" and Hitler was 5'4".

The french emperor(forgot his name) was also 5'3" or shorter. Actually he wasn't french he was italian but it comes as no surprise that the first great french leader wasn't french.

s_qwert63
22 Feb 04,, 14:34
Napoleon wasn't Italian, he was Corsican.

And about Alexander, he only had 2 serious opponents, the Persians and the Indians.
After the battle on the river Rubikon and teh consequent battle at Gaugamelles (sp?) when he destroyed a Persian/Greek army of 90, 000 men with his 47, 000 he simply rolled through the rest of the Persian Empire unopposed. The reason why he successfully crushed the Indians was because their Radjas opposed one another and he gained the support of some of them and used their troops to crush the opposing Radjas.

Ghengis Khan achieved much more than Alexander.
He sculpted the Mongol army into the most efficient military machine in the world at that time, he did it himself while Alexander got his armies from his father Philipp II.

Blademaster
23 Feb 04,, 02:09
s_qwerty,

your statements about the Indians show your lack of understanding the history. Alexander won several skirmishes and then the one battle that proved to be so costly for Alexander that he sued for peace with the Rajputs. In exchange for leaving India unmolested, Alexander agreed to to give several of his daughters up for marriage to Rajputs princes.

At no way, was Alexander able to conquer India, yet alone threaten it seriously.

s_qwert63
23 Feb 04,, 02:26
As far as I can remember from my reading, he reached the Hindus river. Look at the map in the first post and tell me, are the green areas not a part of India?

PS: Where did I say that he conquered India?

Ironduke
23 Feb 04,, 02:51
Originally posted by s_qwert63
As far as I can remember from my reading, he reached the Hindus river. Look at the map in the first post and tell me, are the green areas not a part of India?

PS: Where did I say that he conquered India?

The green areas on the map all lie on the western side of the Indus River. The green areas are almost entirely in modern day Pakistan.

Anvilanthony
23 Feb 04,, 07:02
Ironman where did you get tha map of the mongol conquered territory?

I got mine of Alexanders conquered territory from http://www.1stmuse.com/frames/ in case if you wanted to look at his history also.

I'm very interested in reading about ancient civilizations.

Ironduke
23 Feb 04,, 13:26
Originally posted by Anvilanthony
Ironman where did you get tha map of the mongol conquered territory?

I got mine of Alexanders conquered territory from http://www.1stmuse.com/frames/ in case if you wanted to look at his history also.

I'm very interested in reading about ancient civilizations.
The URL is on the picture.

s_qwert63
23 Feb 04,, 13:49
Originally posted by Ironman
The green areas on the map all lie on the western side of the Indus River. The green areas are almost entirely in modern day Pakistan.

But Pakistan was a part of India until 1948 as far as I know and in those times I think the area was considered Indian territory.

Anvilanthony
23 Feb 04,, 16:02
Originally posted by Ironman
The URL is on the picture.

Oh I didn't notice, maybe if I had the eyes of an eagle or at least a microscope that could tune into 2,000 times normal magnification it would've been different.

Blademaster
23 Feb 04,, 17:25
You said the Rajputs could not win against Alexander and the Greeks. We showed you otherwise. The present day Pakistan was originally Baluchis(sp?) When the greeks came, The Rajputs came to the rescue of the Baluchis and drove them out of present day Pakistan.

Anvilanthony
24 Feb 04,, 01:38
Who are the Rajputs?

What civilization?

Blademaster
24 Feb 04,, 05:26
Rajputs are a warrior enthnic group in present day state of Rajasthan in India They are renowned for their combat prowess and warrior mentality. They repelled many invaders including Mongols for a time. They were one of the few who successfully resisted the British rule.

Aryan
02 May 04,, 21:18
But Pakistan was a part of India until 1948 as far as I know and in those times I think the area was considered Indian territory.

Uff

Jay
02 May 04,, 21:42
Other than Baluchistan, Alexandar didnt conquer anything big in the Indus valley region. Not to mention that most (3/4) of his army didnt return back to Greece after the campaign.

Aryan,
Like it or not, anything with Indus is always associated with India. Cant change the history or geography for your pleasure!!

Aryan
02 May 04,, 22:16
India is a term used by outsiders to describe a geographic region, it has never been a political concept. There is no historical usage of the term India by people native to the subcontinent.

I would agree with irondukes usage, Pakistan is the more appropriate term to describe the region.

Jay
02 May 04,, 22:31
I would agree, but the people in sub-continent tend to call as Bharat Varsha (no i'm not talking about the revival of Hinduism). Atleast thats how sub-continent is termed in Ramayana and Mahabharata. And both these are written for the sub-continent people, by sub-continent people.

Thats why Republic of India is still called as Bharat Ganarajya!!All those territories were under bharat kings. The first known major kingdom of Bharat - Mauryan had all those regions encompassed. It was the same case throught out the history, all those territories were admistered from Delhi time and again untill the split of Pakistan.

Aryan
02 May 04,, 22:40
What basis can you put the indus valley civilisation as Indian? They were geographically located in Pakistan....even the original definition of India - west of the river sindh.

Bharatiya Varsha :biggrin: you seriously think that has support outside India, even outisde the hindi speaking belt of India

Sorry to disappoint you but the Indus valley civilisation is about as Indian as a chicken tikka masala :) :) :)

Jay
02 May 04,, 22:53
I'm not hindi speaking and I'm not even a brahmin. All I said was India then was collectively called as Bharat Varsha. May be Pakistani history books omitted it I dont know and I dont care. We know that Mahabharata was written some time around 300 BC and the regions are collectively called Bharat Varsha.

Indus Valley civilization was not just west of Indus, it existed till Gujarat. So just the east of Indus is just not Indus civilization. It so happened that the latter become Pakistan. I would still say, its comical to say Indus valley as Pakistani civilization! I never said its just Indian, I said India is associated with Indus civilization. Indus valley is as Indian as Yoga, dunno about Tikka masala.

Aryan
02 May 04,, 23:01
I'm not hindi speaking and I'm not even a brahmin. All I said was India then was collectively called as Bharat Varsha. May be Pakistani history books omitted it I dont know and I dont care. We know that Mahabharata was written some time around 300 BC and the regions are collectively called Bharat Varsha.

Indus Valley civilization was not just west of Indus, it existed till Gujarat. So just the east of Indus is just not Indus civilization. It so happened that the latter become Pakistan. I would still say, its comical to say Indus valley as Pakistani civilization! I never said its just Indian, I said India is associated with Indus civilization. Indus valley is as Indian as Yoga, dunno about Tikka masala.

Another ridiculous claim, the civilisation was called Indus valley, sure, part of it extended into India but does that make it Indian? When we refer to regions societies of the past inhabited we seldom use the regions they described. We call the Roman Empire an Italian empire, Fredrick Barbarrosa was called a German king, and this was before Germany existed. So why do you make an exception with the Indus Valley civilisation?

Okay so Hindu scriptures were written 300 BC, assuming you are hindu I'll take your work for it, but what came before Hinduism? Isn't Hinduism just a religion, or is it the inheritance of so-called Indian history?

Aryan
02 May 04,, 23:06
btw which one is Ray and which is Jay, I was reading a thread you both contributed to and it got a bit confusing :) :)

Jay
02 May 04,, 23:13
Another ridiculous claim, the civilisation was called Indus valley, sure, part of it extended into India but does that make it Indian?
I said India is associated with Indus not the other way around.



Okay so Hindu scriptures were written 300 BC, assuming you are hindu I'll take your work for it, but what came before Hinduism? Isn't Hinduism just a religion, or is it the inheritance of so-called Indian history?
Hinduism is just not a single unified religion, the faith itself is just a part of ancient/medivel/modern day Indian history. Ancient Indian history (incld Indus) is mentioned in Vedas. Ancients followed the vedas and the vedas are supposed to be the pillars of hinduism. So you can say that ancient histrory of India is closely related to hinduism. Most of the past history is learnt from these religious scriptures, not to mention the rock edicts from the hindu temples. So religion and history are inter-migled in this part of the world.

And you dont need to take a "hindu's" word for it, "google" all the way, there are far more resources that can say a lot about these epics.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/intro2.shtml

If you still have problems understanding what I said do visit these links,
http://harappa.com/har/har1.html



The Indus Valley was home to the largest of the four ancient urban civilizations of Egypt, Mesopotamia, India and China. It was not discovered until the 1920's. Most of its ruins, including major cities, remain to be excavated. Its script has not been deciphered. Basic questions about the people who created this highly complex culture are unanswered.

In fact, there seems to have been another large river which parallel and west of the Indus in the third and fourth millenium B.C. This was the ancient Ghaggra-Hakra River or Sarasvati of the Rig Veda. Its lost banks are slowly being laid out by researchers. Along its bed, a whole new set of ancient towns and cities have been discovered.

Indus Valley culture seems to have moved from west to east, with sites towards central and southern India flourishing after Harappa and Mohenjodaro had declined. The drying up of the ancient Sarasvati or Ghaggar-Hakra river, east of and parallel to the Indus, may also have affected the civilization. There seem to be numerous Indus Valley sites along that river bed.

Is the Hariyupiyah mentioned in this Hymn from the Rig Veda (XXVII, 5) the Harappa of the Indus Valley? The Vedas contain the oldest recorded history of the subcontinent. The gap between the demise of Harappa and Vedic history has been traditionally estimated at 1,000 years. Yet new work suggests that the Vedas could be much older.

One cannot say if Hariyupiyah refers to Harappa. The place is never again mentioned in the Rig Veda. According to some commentators, it may refer to a river. Varasikha and the Vrcvans are not mentioned again either.

Nevertheless, the Rig Veda presents much relevant information for understanding the Indus Valley. A number of other ancient texts, from Mesopotamia, China and Greece, will also be used to help shed light on what happened to the Harappans.


Ironman, can you seprate the Indus valley posts in to seperate thread? I dont want this thread to follow this way!!

Aryan
02 May 04,, 23:28
I said India is associated with Indus not the other way around

Is Indus "associated" to India today? If yes then what is your stance on Pakistani soverignity? If no then why not?

Please answer it'll be interesting..


Hinduism is just not a single unified religion, the faith itself is just a part of ancient/medivel/modern day Indian history. Ancient Indian history (incld Indus) is mentioned in Vedas. Ancients followed the vedas and the vedas are supposed to be the pillars of hinduism. So you can say that ancient histrory of India is closely related to hinduism. Most of the past history is learnt from these religious scriptures, not to mention the rock edicts from the hindu temples. So religion and history are inter-migled in this part of the world.

I'll admit most of what I know about Hinduism is from Hindu friends the odd website. I understand Hinduism was a term again coined by foreigners to designate a group of relgious practices with similarities. But please let me correct if I'm wrong on anything :)

Jay
02 May 04,, 23:34
Is Indus "associated" to India today? If yes then what is your stance on Pakistani soverignity? If no then why not?
Indus valley culture can still be associated with India, we still share a lot of similarities,but I dont think you can do that with Pakistan. Present day Pakistan's culture has been influnced by external forces for a long time now,so there are prolly no similarities left. If you are talking about specifics like Harappa and Mohenjadaro, then definetely they are under Pakistan's sovreignity, we dont claim them to be "Indian".

Knowledge is wealth, its about learning from each other. Not that I'm an authority in hinduism or indus valley civilization. I just coined out what I know.

Aryan
02 May 04,, 23:52
Indus valley culture can still be associated with India, we still share a lot of similarities,but I dont think you can do that with Pakistan. Present day Pakistan's culture has been influnced by external forces for a long time now,so there are prolly no similarities left. If you are talking about specifics like Harappa and Mohenjadaro, then definetely they are under Pakistan's sovreignity, we dont claim them to be "Indian".

Hang on there, does an actual Indian culture exist? Isn't there not a diversity of cultures, religions and languages, some with similarities to others, but some very alien indeed. Can the same not be said about Pakistan?


Knowledge is wealth, its about learning from each other. Not that I'm an authority in hinduism or indus valley civilization. I just coined out what I know.

You've gotta remember indus valley civilization were among the first known civilisations, the concepts we use India and Pakistan were alien to them, as were Indian and Pakistani "culture", the only valid classification left is a geographical premise.

Jay
03 May 04,, 00:03
Hang on there, does an actual Indian culture exist? Isn't there not a diversity of cultures, religions and languages, some with similarities to others, but some very alien indeed. Can the same not be said about Pakistan?
Yes it does exist. The base culture in India is still the same. Even Indian muslims, Chrisians are all a part of that culture. They still follow the long followed traditions. Everything is so diverse, yet there exists this similarity among the population, it may be religion, language or culture or a combination of all.

Jay
03 May 04,, 00:06
the concepts we use India and Pakistan were alien to them, as were Indian and Pakistani "culture", the only valid classification left is a geographical premise.
May be. Present day Indians still have those traditional ancient history mixed with their daily activities, in their language, the way they pray their gods, their gods et all. Such similarities are absent in Pakistan.

Aryan
03 May 04,, 01:06
May be. Present day Indians still have those traditional ancient history mixed with their daily activities, in their language, the way they pray their gods, their gods et all. Such similarities are absent in Pakistan.

Present day Indians share traditional history with a region geographically different culture? These assertions do need to be backed with evidence, or else they are baseless statements.

Indus Valley customs are extinct

Jay
03 May 04,, 01:56
Present day Indians share traditional history with a region geographically different culture?
Yes, Pre-Islamic Pakistan had much in similar with east of Indus, from language to arts and culture. This is not totally impossible, just read some history books.

From the same Harappan site read about Indus valley worship. In India, hindus still worship certain animals and idols same as Indus valley.

In South India and Srilanka people use the same musical instruments that were used in Indus valley.

Even though there is still uncertainity in deciphering Indus valley scripts, one of the best Indologists Paupola translated quite a few Indus symbols using present day South Indian dravidian languages (Tamil), the other one has translated some more seals in Sanskrit (Sanskrit it still practices in India).

I've shown you religion, arts and language similarities.So can you tell me how Indus valley customs are extinct?

Aryan
03 May 04,, 10:59
From the same Harappan site read about Indus valley worship. In India, hindus still worship certain animals and idols same as Indus valley.

Sorry? Because they worship animals they became hindus?


The people of the Indus Civilization apparently regarded buffalo horns and pipal trees as sacred. Depictions on some seals and tablets of men wearing horned headdresses decorated with pipal leaves may have represented religious as well as secular leaders. Perhaps these men wore the unique ornaments made of gold and semi-precious stones found at Indus sites. Of these ornaments, carnelian beads with bleached (etched) white designs treated with alkaline solution were an Indus specialty, exported as far as the Persian Gulf and Mesopotamia.

This is certainly distinct from modern Indian hinduism.


In South India and Srilanka people use the same musical instruments that were used in Indus valley.

Thats a poor analogy. Pakistan share similar musical traditions to areas of India, does that make Pakistan Indian, or vice versa?

Jay
03 May 04,, 16:26
Sorry? Because they worship animals they became hindus?
Do you have comprehensive reading problems?? I was talking about the similarities, I havent said Indus valley people are hindus. WE DONT HAVE ANY STANDARD BOOK THAT BOUND US. If you go by Rig Veda and Saraswadi combination the early settlers may be hindus. It depends on the definition of Hindus. Also tell me any other religion or sub-sect who worship animals??


The people of the Indus Civilization apparently regarded buffalo horns and pipal trees as sacred.
Your source is some what fishy. Based on Harappa.com Indus valley had a lot of Bull seals, not buffalo's. Peepal tree/Pipal.Bo tree is still sacred for hindus/buddhists, Mahabharatha is said to be written under a Peepul tree. There is whole analogy in Gita/Mahabharata equating Universe with the Pipul tree. There is a seperate farmer festival (Pongal/Sankranthi) which is exclusively for farm animals (cow, buffalo and bull) and all the 5 forces of nature.

Thats a poor analogy. Pakistan share similar musical traditions to areas of India, does that make Pakistan Indian, or vice versa?


From Harappa.com
I was born in Central India, and I had seen this kind of dance. Not with tabla, tabla is a later comer in our country. It at once reminded me that we have got this dholak in the Indus Valley Civilization. I don't know about the dance, but at least the dholak we know. We have not stringed instruments in Indus Valley Civiliztion. We have got the flute, we have got cymbals, we have got the dholak. Exactly the same musical instrruments are played today in Sri Lanka and South India. So I would like to correct myself: to say that nothing is surviving in South India [is wrong]; this is the only instrument which is surviving there according to me from the Indus Civilization.
So I consider your post as poorly researched one. See you gotta problem, Pakistan was an entity created from British India, so ofcourse they share some of the traditions with modern day India. Pakistan is not an alien land seddenly got created in 1947.

Did you read the other linguistic source I gave you. Most of the Indus valley researchers agreed that Indus Valley script is agglunative and the only region with those language in present day is South India (except a small pocket in Pakistan - Bruhui). They deciphered the scripts using dravidian languages (Tamil, Kannada). Even if its controversial coz of AIT/AMT, others have found out the similarities between sanskrit and indus valley scripts.

Islamic Pakistan has lost all of these identities.

Officer of Engineers
03 May 04,, 18:22
Jay,

I see alot of similarities between your arguement and those of the Chinese who claimed Mongol history as part of their own. They are not. In fact, both Genghis Khan and Tammerlane never considered themselves to be Chinese and was at constant war with actual China. However, there is no doubt that inner Mongolia is part of China today and I do make that distinction for historic accuracy and understanding.

So, the question is that within the historical context, is it fair to claim everybody in the region to be part of India?

Jay
03 May 04,, 19:02
Colonel,
No I didnt say ancient Indus valley civilization is Indian. I said the present Indian culture has a lot of similarities with then Indus valley culture than modern Islamic Pakistan.

A lot of hindu culture and religion is based on 5 Vedas. Rig Veda - one of the ancient sub-continental scriptures, incidentally one of the important knowledge base for hindus talks extensively Saraswathi valley civilization (part of Indus). Even after 2000-3000 years we still have the same. Nothing is changed. We still pray animals, we still have idols.

Not to mention that the indologists are deciphering the script using modern dravidian languages from South India.

So all I'm saying is India can be associated/ is associated with the culture coz we have so much in common. The archealogical surveys suggest that the civilization extended from west to east well inside modern day India (From North to Central India). I've mentioned all those similarities in my above posts.

And Islamization of Pakistan has destroyed all the cultural connections and similarities that existed before.

I'm not contending that only India SHOULD be associated with Indus Valley and not Pakistan. Again I'm not talking about the "origins of Aryans", invasion or migration theory.

Aryan
04 May 04,, 19:20
Colonel,
No I didnt say ancient Indus valley civilization is Indian.

Lie


Indus valley is as Indian as Yoga



I said the present Indian culture has a lot of similarities with then Indus valley culture than modern Islamic Pakistan.

Islamic Pakistan? There are muslims in Pakistan, but there are Hindu and Christian cultures as well. Irrespective of this, Pakistan exists as a geographical entity.


A lot of hindu culture and religion is based on 5 Vedas. Rig Veda - one of the ancient sub-continental scriptures, incidentally one of the important knowledge base for hindus talks extensively Saraswathi valley civilization (part of Indus). Even after 2000-3000 years we still have the same. Nothing is changed. We still pray animals, we still have idols.

Ridiculous statement, animal worship was a common practice in the ancient world, do all these parts become Indian?


Not to mention that the indologists are deciphering the script using modern dravidian languages from South India.

Language does not necessarily equal origin - by your logic an American speaking French would become French.


So all I'm saying is India can be associated/ is associated with the culture coz we have so much in common. The archealogical surveys suggest that the civilization extended from west to east well inside modern day India (From North to Central India). I've mentioned all those similarities in my above posts.

What? Worshipping animals? btw a Hindu friend once told me hindus do not worship cows, they only 'pay respect' to them. I'm very sure the religion of the Indus people was very different to Hinduism.


And Islamization of Pakistan has destroyed all the cultural connections and similarities that existed before.

I don't believe Pakistan had many cultural similarities before the 80's islamisation period. I also don't think this affects Pakistani claim to the Indus civilisation, afterall what do modern greeks have in common with ancient greece?

Jay
04 May 04,, 21:16
Indus valley is as Indian as Yoga
that was in response to your comment...

Sorry to disappoint you but the Indus valley civilisation is about as Indian as a chicken tikka masala


Islamic Pakistan? There are muslims in Pakistan, but there are Hindu and Christian cultures as well. .
pfff...can you post the % population of Christians and Hindus from Pakistan ??
With out Christians and Hindus, who's gonna follow their culture...muslims??
Also can you also look for the % of hindus in pre-indepence Pakistani areas??
That will prove my point how much islamization affected the old culture, its been in the decline from 10th Century...Again I'm not complaining its not there, all I'm saying is it has no similarities with the ancient civilization.


Irrespective of this, Pakistan exists as a geographical entity
gee really?? did I ever say that its a part of Iran??


Ridiculous statement, animal worship was a common practice in the ancient world, do all these parts become Indian?
whew...you gotta nice sense of skewed logic...arent we talking about Indus valley civilization in the sub-continent and its similarities with modern India. Indus valley is not all over the world, its in Indian sub-continent.


Language does not necessarily equal origin - by your logic an American speaking French would become French.
Arent we talking about cultural similarities here?? A french born american will still have his french cultural roots, like wise a dead ancient language, if it can be deciphered by a modern language means both have same or similar roots.
Or may be talk to the jewish americans, or irish americans, anglo saxon americans they still have their cultural differences and practices even though all of em live in America. Visit a St.Patricks day march in Chicago, you'll know the difference!!
http://www.ancientscripts.com/indus.html


What? Worshipping animals? btw a Hindu friend once told me hindus do not worship cows, they only 'pay respect' to them. I'm very sure the religion of the Indus people was very different to Hinduism.
pff....yeah and my grandma said Pakistanis are from Mars. Can you please stop spreading rumours? If you can substantiate any of your claims, do so.

If you are so sure, just prove it. I gave credible sources to all my claims, whether right or wrong. Your word is not gospel here.
Some more to prove my point....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_civilization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_civilization#Overview

I don't believe Pakistan had many cultural similarities before the 80's islamisation period.
eh?? really?? may be talk to the east and west Punjabis. Or may be talk to the mohajir's who still have their roots in India. They all become so different after Aug 14 1947 midnight?? Wahabism in Pakistan destroyed all other identities that Pakistan had.

I also don't think this affects Pakistani claim to the Indus civilisation,
Pakistan may/may not claim Indus civilization, I dont care. But islamic Pakistan has no similarities with the earlier one...
http://asnic.utexas.edu/asnic/subject/peoplesandlanguages.html

All I said is India is associated with Indus valley civilization, read on any resource, they'll certainly associate it with India. And you havent proved me wrong yet, that modern day India still has those cultural similarities.


afterall what do modern greeks have in common with ancient greece?
May be thier religion, language changed so much, that they cant identify themself with the ancients except the tall standing statues.

But in this case I've proved the dravidian/sanskrit connection, as well the traditional customs that are still followed in this side!

Aryan
04 May 04,, 23:36
that was in response to your comment...

It was your opinion, whether it was in response to me or not is irrelevant.


[QUOTE]pfff...can you post the % population of Christians and Hindus from Pakistan ??

Yes, 3% or 4.5million, plus established communities of Sikhs and Parsi.


With out Christians and Hindus, who's gonna follow their culture...muslims??
Pardon? I don;t know where you pulled that from, Pakistan has Hindus and Muslim.


Also can you also look for the % of hindus in pre-indepence Pakistani areas??
Not unless you tell me its relavance to what we are discussing.


its been in the decline from 10th Century...Again I'm not complaining its not there, all I'm saying is it has no similarities with the ancient civilization.
Cultures evolve over time, the Scandinavians maintain very little viking culture today, does that mean vikings are no longer Scandinavian? Again I dont see how this is relevant.


whew...you gotta nice sense of skewed logic...arent we talking about Indus valley civilization in the sub-continent and its similarities with modern India. Indus valley is not all over the world, its in Indian sub-continent.

Well your premises seem to be
1. Indus Valley Civilisation worshipped animals.
2. Hindus today worship animals.
3. Hindus are Indian (?)

Ergo,
Indus Valley Civilisation are Indian.

All I pointed out was that animal worship was a common feature of ancient society, so reliance on that alone makes weak conclusions.


Arent we talking about cultural similarities here??
Culture? We were talking lingual similarities between the Indus Valley and the dravidian language.


A french born american will still have his french cultural roots, like wise a dead ancient language, if it can be deciphered by a modern language means both have same or similar roots.
Or may be talk to the jewish americans, or irish americans, anglo saxon americans they still have their cultural differences and practices even though all of em live in America. Visit a St.Patricks day march in Chicago, you'll know the difference!!

Ridiculous, immigration to America is all recent historically speaking, all other older examples prove the reverse of what you say. Both Vikings and Norman settled in England centuries ago, do we see Norman/Nordic culture being practiced in England today? No, the immigrant populace assimilated with mainstream society, the phenomena is known as admixturation. I believe the same is happening in America, eventually the immigrant culture will be diluted by the mainstream.



If you are so sure, just prove it. I gave credible sources to all my claims, whether right or wrong. Your word is not gospel here.
Some more to prove my point....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_civilization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_civilization#Overview

Wikipedia is a decent source, whether it concurs with your opinion, well you've changed it so much I'm not sure what you viewpoint is to be honest.


eh?? really?? may be talk to the east and west Punjabis. Or may be talk to the mohajir's who still have their roots in India. They all become so different after Aug 14 1947 midnight??
I was referring to cultural differences between ancient Indus and modern Pakistan, sorry for not being specific.


Wahabism in Pakistan destroyed all other identities that Pakistan had.
Wahabism is alien to Pakistani culture, as for the distruction of other cultures, well islamisation period of Zia is long gone and a variety of identities persist in Pakistan - for instance there are a number of sufi schools of thought thriving in Pakistan today.


Pakistan may/may not claim Indus civilization, I dont care. But islamic Pakistan has no similarities with the earlier one...
Well people change, again, my point about the ancient Greeks.


All I said is India is associated with Indus valley civilization, read on any resource, they'll certainly associate it with India. And you havent proved me wrong yet, that modern day India still has those cultural similarities.

I disagree with you on all but two points, and even on those I am fairly sceptical. The religion of the ancient Indus 'may' have contributed to the origins of hinduism. This does not suggest anything to do with India, purportedly a secular state.
Second point we may agree on is the language. The language of the indus civilisation 'may' have links with dravidian language, although this is more uncertain as the religion. Not many specimen of Indus language remain, and despite numerous attempts to decipher it, it is not fully understood. You seem to be so certain its roots lie in India, I wonder what qualifies you to make that statement.

Everything else you have said is speculatory.


read on any resource, they'll certainly associate it with India
Only when in reference to the Indian subcontinent in general, or in papers written pre-partition. I can assure you, when you put this to an archeologist, there is no way he will claim the Indus Valley to be part of "Modern" Indian history, ie what we call India today.


May be thier religion, language changed so much, that they cant identify themself with the ancients except the tall standing statues.

But in this case I've proved the dravidian/sanskrit connection, as well the traditional customs that are still followed in this side!

No you haven't, you did quite the opposite in fact.

MODS: I hate to continue hijacking this thread any further, could this please be split into a separate thread? Cheers.

Jay
05 May 04,, 07:24
Yes, 3% or 4.5million, plus established communities of Sikhs and Parsi. Pardon? I don;t know where you pulled that from, Pakistan has Hindus and Muslim. Not unless you tell me its relavance to what we are discussing.
You said Pakistan has hindu and christian cultures and Pakistan itself is very diverse. If you have 10 in a 1000 I dont think they'll have their culture and diversity intact. They will have to assimilate with the main group, so most prob you wont have any diversity.
Also I asked the % of hindus, coz Islamic Pakistan has lost its earlier cultural identity, most of the Indian hindus still have those cultural similarities. As far as I read, before partition hindus were a part of vibrant diverse community in what is called as modern Pakistan now.

Thats the relevance!!


Cultures evolve over time, the Scandinavians maintain very little viking culture today, does that mean vikings are no longer Scandinavian? Again I dont see how this is relevant.
And whats the relevance?? I said you dont have similarities like we do. There is no source that claims that Indus valley evolved and gave out present day Pakistani culture, present Pakistani culture is totally islamised.



Well your premises seem to be
1. Indus Valley Civilisation worshipped animals.
2. Hindus today worship animals.
3. Hindus are Indian
Ergo,Indus Valley Civilisation are Indian.
All I pointed out was that animal worship was a common feature of ancient society, so reliance on that alone makes weak conclusions.

Its just not that, its also the geographical LOCATION of Indus valley and present day India. we have recorded history from the period of vedas, incidentally which were wrote during later part of Indus-Sarawathi valley civilization. Vedas are also the pillars of hindusim. Hindus for the most part still follow the same practices and customs all these centuries, so doesnt that make the culture very similar??

AFAIK Hindus are Indian or Indian origin, with the exception of Nepal, BD, SL, PAK and Bali in Indonesia. But the # of hindus outside India is negligible when compared to India and they look India as their spiritual guide.


Culture? We were talking lingual similarities between the Indus Valley and the dravidian language.

You tend to forget the other points I used to substantiate that the cultures are similar.I gave you proofs for religion, language, customs and arts. I dont know what else is considered as culture and I dont want to go through it again and again.



Ridiculous, immigration to America is all recent historically speaking, all other older examples prove the reverse of what you say. Both Vikings and Norman settled in England centuries ago, do we see Norman/Nordic culture being practiced in England today? No, the immigrant populace assimilated with mainstream society, the phenomena is known as admixturation. I believe the same is happening in America, eventually the immigrant culture will be diluted by the mainstream.
Gosh, thats exactly what I'm saying! Simply put Islamic Pakistan lost all its earlier cultural identity!


Wikipedia is a decent source, whether it concurs with your opinion, well you've changed it so much I'm not sure what you viewpoint is to be honest.
pff, you have been just switching back and forth by giving some dead beat analogies that has no relevance at all!
My view point is present day Indian culture has similarities with Indus valley. Archealogists for the most part tend to associate Indian (culture) when they talk about Indus Valley civilization and its culture. Just dont bring the geographic location again, coz I aint talkin about it, ofcourse Pakistan is a sovreign islamic republic and i'm not contending that!!


I was referring to cultural differences between ancient Indus and modern Pakistan, sorry for not being specific.
dude, if Pakistanis had their share of hindus (again I'm not complaining), they wudve followed the same culture and may be the diversity wud've been preserved. Now simply put, the #'s arent that positive.


Well people change, again, my point about the ancient Greeks.
All I said was present day Pakistan doesnt have any cultural similarities to the ancient past. I take that you agree that. Rest all other details are irrelevant!!


I disagree with you on all but two points, and even on those I am fairly sceptical. The religion of the ancient Indus 'may' have contributed to the origins of hinduism. This does not suggest anything to do with India, purportedly a secular state.
I dont what you are disagreeing with me!
All I said was modern Pakistan doesnt have any cultural similarities with Indus valley. Archealogists tend to associate India with Indus valley, they just dont coin the modern Pakistan, even if they do , its just for geographic reasons.
Hindus (80% of Indians) still have a lot of similarities with Indus valley culture, coz of their relgion, customs, language.

India is secular state, but Indian people aint aethist. 80% of people are hindus and so people say Indian customs they are for the most part talking about hinduism and its customs. Hence it has everything to do with India as a country and Indians as people. As I said even the converted muslims and christians share some of the beliefs and customs of the mainstream hindus and vice versa.


Only when in reference to the Indian subcontinent in general, or in papers written pre-partition. I can assure you, when you put this to an archeologist, there is no way he will claim the Indus Valley to be part of "Modern" Indian history, ie what we call India today.
Most of the sources I gave you are fairly new, some as new as late 80's and 90's.Go read about Indian history in any site, you'll see Indus valley civilization under it.


Second point we may agree on is the language. The language of the indus civilisation 'may' have links with dravidian language, although this is more uncertain as the religion. Not many specimen of Indus language remain, and despite numerous attempts to decipher it, it is not fully understood. You seem to be so certain its roots lie in India, I wonder what qualifies you to make that statement.
I didnt say its certain. I say the word "similar" time and again, but you fail to understand it. Go read the links posted, linguists are assuming that the language is dravidian. Except Brauhi (which is very impure) in Pakistan, rest of all the major dravidian languages are spoken in South India. Languages like Tamizh (purest of all, with out a lot of sanskrit loaner words) has a recorded history of about 2000-3000 years of un-broken history, which puts it after the demise of the Indus valley civilization. Ancient south India had lot of trade connections with Mesopotomia, China, Greece and Rome. These are very similar to that of Indus valley, again thats one of the valid reasons to believe indoligist theories. All these just turns the arguement in my favour. Again researchers used modern computer aided techniques and came to this conclusion. They didnt throw out half baked theories just like that.


But in this case I've proved the dravidian/sanskrit connection, as well the traditional customs that are still followed in this side!

No you haven't, you did quite the opposite in fact.
pffff!! may be read all the posts again!!

Aryan
06 May 04,, 00:50
You said Pakistan has hindu and christian cultures and Pakistan itself is very diverse. If you have 10 in a 1000 I dont think they'll have their culture and diversity intact.

What relevance does this have with what we are discussing? Pakistan is a diverse country, both in religious faith and cultures, what the cultural / religious make up of a future Pakistan will be is purely speculatory.


Also I asked the % of hindus, coz Islamic Pakistan has lost its earlier cultural identity, most of the Indian hindus still have those cultural similarities. As far as I read, before partition hindus were a part of vibrant diverse community in what is called as modern Pakistan now.

Thats the relevance!!

Some hindus left, but many stayed and are as Pakistani as any Muslim or any other religion. Again, a fact you don't seem to accept, a country does not need to maintain the cultural and religious traditions of the past to claim it as part of its history. See the ancient greeks.


And whats the relevance?? I said you dont have similarities like we do. There is no source that claims that Indus valley evolved and gave out present day Pakistani culture, present Pakistani culture is totally islamised.

Its relevance is that a nations history is usually defined by the landmass it occupies, having a link


Its just not that, its also the geographical LOCATION of Indus valley and present day India.

Some of the later Indus settlements extended slightly into india, this doesn't make them Indian, did the Mongols become Chinese when they began expansion into China?


we have recorded history from the period of vedas, incidentally which were wrote during later part of Indus-Sarawathi valley civilization. Vedas are also the pillars of hindusim. Hindus for the most part still follow the same practices and customs all these centuries, so doesnt that make the culture very similar??

Hinduism "may" have its origin with the religon of the Indus, but Hinduism is not the property of India. It may be that Hinduism had its origins in ancient Pakistan :biggrin: I'm sure RSS and BJP would love it if that were true :)


AFAIK Hindus are Indian or Indian origin, with the exception of Nepal, BD, SL, PAK and Bali in Indonesia. But the # of hindus outside India is negligible when compared to India and they look India as their spiritual guide.

Hinduism is a religon, and India is a nationality. I have met many hindus who certainly don't look towards India for "spritual guidance", I'm not quite sure what it is about India you think is so HIndu. Bangladesh has a 20% hindu population, I hear they certainly do not look towards India for guidance.


You tend to forget the other points I used to substantiate that the cultures are similar.I gave you proofs for religion, language, customs and arts. I dont know what else is considered as culture and I dont want to go through it again and again.

You tend to forget that culture, language etc do not change a nation's history. INdia has a number of cultures, some of them involve worshipping animals, but that does not allow India to claim any ancient civilisation that had rituals involving animals.


Gosh, thats exactly what I'm saying! Simply put Islamic Pakistan lost all its earlier cultural identity!

Then why post an example that contradicts your point?


My view point is present day Indian culture has similarities with Indus valley. Archealogists for the most part tend to associate Indian (culture) when they talk about Indus Valley civilization and its culture.

Sorry, Indus had a very distinct culture, it does not exist, hinduism exists sure, dravidian languages exist sure, both these exist in India, but they also exist in Pakistan. So again you don't


Just dont bring the geographic location again, coz I aint talkin about it, ofcourse Pakistan is a sovreign islamic republic and i'm not contending that!!

Why not? That is what people use to define their past, the people who occupied the land they lived in.


dude, if Pakistanis had their share of hindus (again I'm not complaining), they wudve followed the same culture and may be the diversity wud've been preserved. Now simply put, the #'s arent that positive.

Pakistan does have hindus....You do not do yourself justice by stating this again and again.


All I said was present day Pakistan doesnt have any cultural similarities to the ancient past. I take that you agree that. Rest all other details are irrelevant!!

No you didn't, you said the Indus Valley civilisation was as Indian as yoga.



I dont what you are disagreeing with me!
All I said was modern Pakistan doesnt have any cultural similarities with Indus valley. Archealogists tend to associate India with Indus valley, they just dont coin the modern Pakistan, even if they do , its just for geographic reasons.
Hindus (80% of Indians) still have a lot of similarities with Indus valley culture, coz of their relgion, customs, language.

You are seriously getting annoying...
People change, language changes, sometimes completely. That doesn't mean a nation's history becomes irrelevant to them, or goes up for sale to the highest bidder. History is history and you can't change it, RSS/BJP changing Indian textbooks doesn't make fiction fact.

visioninthedark
08 May 04,, 01:44
But Pakistan was a part of India until 1948 as far as I know and in those times I think the area was considered Indian territory.

Pakistan was NEVER a part of India THROUGHT history since TIME IMMEMORIAL ... all those who say otherwise are spreading lies and an Indian myth ...

please consider the following HISTORICAL FACTS ....


Pakistan from 3000 BC to the present:

1. Indus Valley Civilization: 3000-1500 B.C. i.e. about 1500 yrs. Independent, separate from India.

2. Aryan period: 1500-522 B.C. i.e. about 978 yrs. Independent, separate from India.

3. Small semi-independent states: 522-326 B.C. i.e. about 196 yrs. Under the suzerainty of Iran's Kayani (Achaemenian) Empire.

4. Conquered by Alexander and remained under his successor: 326-300 B.C. i.e. about 26 yrs. Under Greek rulers, not part of India.

5. Province of Mauryan Empire which included Afghanistan: 300-200 B.C. i.e. about 100 yrs. Part of India, mostly Buddhist rule.

6. Graeco-Bactrian period: 200-100 B.C. i.e. about 100 yrs. Independent, not part of India.

7. Saka-Parthian period: 100 B.C.- 70 A.D. i.e. about 170 yrs. Independent, separate from India.

8. Kushan rule (1st phase): 70-250 A.D. i.e. about 180 yrs. Pakistan-based kingdom ruled over major portion of north India.

9. Kushan rule (2nd phase): 250-450 A.D. i.e. about 200 yrs. Independent, separate from India.

10. White Huns and allied tribes (1st phase): 450-650 A.D. i.e. about 200 yrs. Pakistan-based kingdoms ruled over parts of north India.

11. White Huns (2nd phase--- mixed with other races): 650-1010 A.D. i.e. about 360 yrs. Independent Rajput-Brahmin Kingdoms, not part of India.

12. Ghaznavids: 1010-1187 A.D. i.e. 177 yrs. Part of Ghaznavid empire, separate from India.

13. Ghorid and Qubacha periods: 1187-1227 A.D. i.e. about 40 yrs. Independent, not part of India.

14. Muslim period (Slave dynasty, Khiljis, Tughlaqs, Syeds, Lodhis, Suris and Mughals): 1227-1739 A.D. i.e. about 512 yrs. Under north India based MUSLIM govts.

15. Nadir Shah and Abdali periods: 1739-1800 A.D. i.e. about 61 yrs. Iranian and Afghan suzerainty, not part of India.

16. Sikh rule (in Punjab, NWFP and Kashmir), Talpur rule in Sind, Khanate of Kalat in Baluchistan: 1800-1848 A.D. i.e. about 48 yrs. Independent states, not part of India.

17. British rule: 1848-1947 A.D. i.e. about 99 yrs (1843-1947 in Sind). Part of India under FOREIGN rule.

18. Muslim rule under the nomenclature of Pakistan: 1947-present. Independent, not part of India.


The above table reveals that during the 5000 years of Pakistan's known history, this country was part of India for a total period of 711 yrs of which 512 yrs were covered by the MUSLIM period and about 100 years each by the Mauryan (mostly BUDDHIST) and British (CHRISTIAN) periods. Can anybody agree with the Indian 'claim' that Pakistan was part of India and that partition was unnatural? It hardly needs much intelligence to understand that Pakistan always had her back towards India and face towards the countries on her west. This is true both commercially and culturally.

Ironduke
08 May 04,, 03:03
Well, maybe not part of India of modern-time, the nation-state of India, but Pakistan was once Indian like England was once Celtic.

Blademaster
08 May 04,, 07:46
Vision,

Bullshit!

Major portions of present day was part of India through several Rajput kingdoms and Sikh kingdoms. They were even part of the Mughal Empire.

What you are doing is nothing short of revisionist history completed with the burning of ancient hindu materials and temples that would prove counter to the Muslim claims that Pakistan was part of the pan Islam empire or the Middle East solidiarity.

Land all the way to the bank of Indus River was considered as part of India. The other bank and the land over there was considered as part of Persia or was something else.

Vision and aryan, your so called facts are bullshit.

Aryan
08 May 04,, 11:01
Land all the way to the bank of Indus River was considered as part of India. The other bank and the land over there was considered as part of Persia or was something else.


Considered part of India by whom? Where did you pull this from?


Vision and aryan, your so called facts are bullshit.

Whats bullshit...please be specific

Aryan
08 May 04,, 11:07
Well, maybe not part of India of modern-time, the nation-state of India, but Pakistan was once Indian like England was once Celtic.

Depends in which context you use the word. That might be correct if you use the broader "Indian subcontient" definition, but then present Pakistan could be still classified as "Indian".

Like just because Macedonia calls itself Macedonian, doesn't give it a claim to Alexander the Great (hey, I brought it right back to the topic)

visioninthedark
08 May 04,, 15:31
Well, maybe not part of India of modern-time, the nation-state of India, but Pakistan was once Indian like England was once Celtic.

Not true ....

you see ... even the name "INDIA" in a historic context is derived from the word for the INDUS RIVER which is entirely a Pakistani river except for a tiny fraction that originates near the Chinese border in Ladakh ...

and so the OLD NAME for the land that is today called Pakistan was INDIA ... where as the lands further EAST were NEVER REFFERED TO AS INDIA ....

when Pakistan adopted a NEW NAME FOR ITS ANCIENT LAND .... those to our east USURPED A NAME ... "INDIA" ... and used it as if it referred to them in a HISTORIC CONTEXT ... which it did NOT ....

You see. the INDIA of today is NOT THE LAND REFERRED TO IN GREEK TIMES AS "INDICA" .... that would be EXCLUSIVELY referring to what is today Pakistan ....

so when this ancient land choose a new name ... Pakistan .... the old name was left unused and was grabbed upon by those east of Pakistan who were NEVER HISTORICALLY REFFERED TO IN ANCIENT TIMES AS "INDICA" ...

this was done .... and by doing this they claim to be the heirs of all things referred to as INDIAN IN ANCIENT HISTORY ....

THEY NOT ONLY USURPED A NAME ... THEY USURPED OUR HISTORY TOO ...

Today ... when people talk about India they think it is the automatic continuum of the ANCIENT LAND OF INDIA ... which is NOT TRUE ....

what is today called INDIA was NEVER CALLED OR REFERRED TO AS INDIA or "INDICA" by ancient historians ....

when ancient historians refered to "INDICA" they were talking about the land and people who in todays modern world are called Pakistanis ....

So Indians stole our IDENTITY ...

visioninthedark
08 May 04,, 15:35
Vision,

What you are doing is nothing short of revisionist history completed with the burning of ancient hindu materials and temples that would prove counter to the Muslim claims that Pakistan was part of the pan Islam empire or the Middle East solidiarity.



NOT A SINGLE HINDU TEXT OR TEMPLE WAS EVER BURNED OR ATTACKED IN PAKISTAN ... SINCE INDEPENDENCE FROM BRITAIN ....

I CHALLENGE YOU TO SHOW ME ONE FACTUAL POST THAT SHOWS THAT HINDUS, TEMPLES, TEXTS OR PEOPLE WERE ATTACKED IN PAKISTAN ... EVER ...

UNLIKE THE THOUSANDS OF CHRISTIANS, SIKHS, MUSLIMS AND OTHER LOW-CASTE HINDUS WHO ARE REGULARLY AND ANNUALLY MASSACRED AND BUTCHERED ALL OVER INDIA IN THE THOUSANDS SINCE INDEPENDENCE FROM BRITAIN ....

WAKE UP TO REALITY .... !!!

Ironduke
08 May 04,, 17:17
It may have not referred to eastern India or southern India, but it did refer to the dominant parts of what are today Pakistan and India -- Punjab, Sindh, Rajputana, Delhi area, Haryana, eastern Uttar Pradesh etc.

Of course, India is merely a western name for the subcontinent. Africa was originally just a Roman province in North Africa, later extended to the whole continent, and Asia was originally a small province in Anatolia, later extended to the whole continent.

visioninthedark
08 May 04,, 17:44
It may have not referred to eastern India or southern India, but it did refer to the dominant parts of what are today Pakistan and India -- Punjab, Sindh, Rajputana, Delhi area, Haryana, eastern Uttar Pradesh etc.

Of course, India is merely a western name for the subcontinent. Africa was originally just a Roman province in North Africa, later extended to the whole continent, and Asia was originally a small province in Anatolia, later extended to the whole continent.

If I accept your point of view .... even then .... this means that when the Romans were talking about African Culture ... they were implying ONLY North African culture ... and not the culture of the Bantu in Southern Africa .... and when the Europeans were talking about Asian culture ... they were NOT refering to the culture of the Japanese ....

in the same way ... when ancient historians talked about "INDIAN" culture .... they were actually refering to the land and peoples who today comprise Pakistan .... and NOT those who make up today's "India" ....

Aryan
08 May 04,, 19:33
Finally, some sanity in this thread...

Aryan
08 May 04,, 19:45
Ironduke

But you do accept that Jay's argument was wrong...

Jay
09 May 04,, 04:47
What relevance does this have with what we are discussing? Pakistan is a diverse country, both in religious faith and cultures, what the cultural / religious make up of a future Pakistan will be is purely speculatory.
Either you have to be blind or plain stupid. The whole arguement is about culture and people of present day India and Pakistan with respect to Indus valley.

Indologits always associate India with Indus valley culture. They do it bcoz Indian still has some of them left in bits and pieces. Muslims in Pakistan have nothing in common with Indus valley culture, and hence the the talk about religion and thats the relevance.


Some hindus left, but many stayed and are as Pakistani as any Muslim or any other religion. Again, a fact you don't seem to accept, a country does not need to maintain the cultural and religious traditions of the past to claim it as part of its history. See the ancient greeks.

Lets see, to me it sounds like a 2nd generation Pakistani immigrant in USA ranting about Columbus. Just becoz he's in America now, it doesnt mean that he can claim that part of history and legacy.


Some of the later Indus settlements extended slightly into india, this doesn't make them Indian, did the Mongols become Chinese when they began expansion into China?

ha ha....Indus valley extended to North East (Ganges) to Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat (East and Central India). Check Harappa.com which says that the Indus valley people moved IN TO modern day India towards Gangestic plains slowly which lead to the demise of Indus valley all together. So is Pakistani land mass bigger than this land mass area?? :biggrin:


Hinduism "may" have its origin with the religon of the Indus, but Hinduism is not the property of India. It may be that Hinduism had its origins in ancient Pakistan I'm sure RSS and BJP would love it if that were true

Hinduism is not a property of India, but India is as much to hindusim as Mecca and Arabia is to muslims. And again I havent heard any land mass thats called ancient Pakistan. Are you referring ancient Bharat??


Hinduism is a religon, and India is a nationality. I have met many hindus who certainly don't look towards India for "spritual guidance",
I'm not quite sure what it is about India you think is so HIndu. Bangladesh has a 20% hindu population, I hear they certainly do not look towards India for guidance.
Yep BD has 20% hindus and Mars has 50% muslims. The meagre hindus in BD, do look for India, its about time that you read some neutral sources. Its just not BD look from Malaysia to Fiji, Africa to America, India is to hindus like Mecca is to muslims.


You tend to forget that culture, language etc do not change a nation's history. INdia has a number of cultures, some of them involve worshipping animals, but that does not allow India to claim any ancient civilisation that had rituals involving animals.

pfff....culture, language is a part of history and for the most part it is history. Ancient history doesnt mean just the landmass or the geographic location.Any civilizational history almost always talks about the inhabitants, their language and culture. Again, you are just talking about worship, which indeed is a part of culture and history.




Gosh, thats exactly what I'm saying! Simply put Islamic Pakistan lost all its earlier cultural identity!
Then why post an example that contradicts your point?
wtf are you talking about??


Sorry, Indus had a very distinct culture, it does not exist, hinduism exists sure, dravidian languages exist sure, both these exist in India, but they also exist in Pakistan. So again you don't
Indus had a distinct culture. Agreed. I just showed you proof that hindusim pretty much had its origin from Indus valley, which makes it a direct descendant. All of the Dravidian languages exist in India, not anywhere else except Brahui, which is almost extinct. So now what ??


Why not? That is what people use to define their past, the people who occupied the land they lived in.

Sure if we just talk about people and location then everything is African. Migration is an important aspect along with culture and people. Just having the physical location doesnt mean that you have inherited their past. Same american immigrant story wud fit in here. Except the location present day Pakistan has nothing related while present day India has both of them.And thats why India is assocaited with Indus.


Pakistan does have hindus....You do not do yourself justice by stating this again and again.

phew...you gotta buy some reading glass. I didnt say pakistan didnt have hindus. go back and read...All I said is Pakistan had its own share of culture thats similar to Indus valley which was lost after the partition and islamazation. Prove me wrong :tongue:


No you didn't, you said the Indus Valley civilisation was as Indian as yoga.

Yeah, and I'm still saying that. But it doesnt mean that people on the east side of Indus cant claim the heritage. All I said was modern day India's similarity to the Indus culture and the way indoligists always associate India with Indus. Just read all the Indus sources, they invariably term is as ancient Indian.


You are seriously getting annoying...
why?? Are you running out of arguements??


People change, language changes, sometimes completely. That doesn't mean a nation's history becomes irrelevant to them, or goes up for sale to the highest bidder. History is history and you can't change it, RSS/BJP changing Indian textbooks doesn't make fiction fact.

People change and migrate and assimilate. The discussion is about the cultural similarity, and it doesnt exist in Pakistan now. Say, migrants and immigrants cannot claim some part of history. Cry what you want, you dont have it.
You didnt have a nation 56 years back, the whole area was collectively referred as Indian. So yes, you do have a part in ancient India's history, coz there aint no ancient Pakistan.

And yeah talking about changing history books, may be lets take a look at Pakistan. Do you want to ? so next time instead side tracking the arguement, learn to stay with in.

Jay
09 May 04,, 04:51
Pakistan was NEVER a part of India THROUGHT history since TIME IMMEMORIAL ... all those who say otherwise are spreading lies and an Indian myth ...

So true, no body's arguing against that! Pakistan was formed in 1947 from erst while British INDIA.


The above table reveals that during the 5000 years of Pakistan's known history
5000 years of Pakistan history? :biggrin:


You see. the INDIA of today is NOT THE LAND REFERRED TO IN GREEK TIMES AS "INDICA" .... that would be EXCLUSIVELY referring to what is today Pakistan ....
First you see it, Greek, Roman, Chinese, Arabs all coined the whole land mass. From Fa Hien to Alberuni, from Pliny to Hiuen-Tsiang they called it as India.
What Pakistan now is just a fraction.



so when this ancient land choose a new name ... Pakistan .... the old name was left unused and was grabbed upon by those east of Pakistan who were NEVER HISTORICALLY REFFERED TO IN ANCIENT TIMES AS "INDICA" ...

Who got independence first?? eh??


this was done .... and by doing this they claim to be the heirs of all things referred to as INDIAN IN ANCIENT HISTORY ....
THEY NOT ONLY USURPED A NAME ... THEY USURPED OUR HISTORY TOO ...
Oh puhleez, you dont even have a single Pakistani name for any of your missiles :biggrin: You even chose Tippu, a ruler from deep down south India, how pathetic can this be!! Ghazni and Gauri are aint from Pakistan either, if we go by your logic!!

Jay
09 May 04,, 05:10
in the same way ... when ancient historians talked about "INDIAN" culture .... they were actually refering to the land and peoples who today comprise Pakistan .... and NOT those who make up today's "India" ....

Wrong, India was Modern India + Modern Pakistan. Romans, Greeks, Chinese all who came to India either through Persia or through South Indian ports, they almost always collectively called it India.

Modern Pakistan is just a small part of the ancient Indian land mass, about 1/4 of the size.

http://nabataea.net/india.html
http://ragz-international.com/india3.htm
http://our_legacy.pitas.com/
http://depts.washington.edu/uwch/silkroad/exhibit/rome/essay.html

Jay
09 May 04,, 05:20
one more... :biggrin:
Even though people still are confused about AIT/AMT, i'm just posting this so that some people will learn to accept some facts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Are the ancient Vedic references to the Sarasvati River purely mythological? We are in the realm of conjecture. According to comparative linguistics the Indo-Europeans who arrived in India were related to other peoples who migrated to the Middle East and Europe during the same period; all these peoples brought with them a patriarchal polytheistic religion related with Norse mythology and Greek mythology. In India, these beliefs evolved into the sophisticated religious tradition, Hinduism, which looks to the most ancient Vedas as a source of legitimacy. It is clear that the Indus civilization's legacy contributed to Hinduism's development. As several archaeologists have noted, there is something ineffably "Indian" about the Indus valley civilization. Judging from the abundant figurines depicting female fertility that they left behind, Indus civilization people -- like modern Hindus -- may have held a special place in their worship for a mother goddess and the life-affirming principles she represents (see Shakti and Kali). Their seals depict animals in a way that seems to suggest veneration, perhaps presaging Hindu convictions regarding the sacredness of cattle. Like Hindus today, Indus civilization people seemed to have placed a high value on bathing, personal cleanliness, and residing with one's extended family.

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Indus%20Valley%20Civilisation

This exactly is what I'm talking about, not the location, but the culture, people and civilization wrt modern days.

Indus valley civilization maps:
http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/images/riv-vall.gif

Officer of Engineers
09 May 04,, 05:39
Lets see, to me it sounds like a 2nd generation Pakistani immigrant in USA ranting about Columbus. Just becoz he's in America now, it doesnt mean that he can claim that part of history and legacy.

Yes, he can. That has been given to him by all those in Arlington Cemetary. I'm second generation Chinese and I claim all those battle honours of my regiment and the heritage of Canada. Too many people died giving me that right not for me to respect it. And I've seen too much blood in too much mud to have earned that right to call Canadian history my very own.

Jay
09 May 04,, 05:58
Sorry colonel, I wouldnt agree that here for this situation. Herritage of Canada is different from the current discussion we have here (culture).

Ofcourse you can claim all of that Canadian history, being a citizen of Canada, but you cannot claim the legacy of Vikings and the Graenlendinga Saga!!

Officer of Engineers
09 May 04,, 06:11
Sorry colonel, I wouldnt agree that here for this situation. Herritage of Canada is different from the current discussion we have here (culture).

Ofcourse you can claim all of that Canadian history, being a citizen of Canada, but you cannot claim the legacy of Vikings and the Graenlendinga Saga!!


Why not? And what do you mean by culture? The rituals? The thinking? I am ethnic Chinese but my regiment is British, at least British originated, and yet, I claim all those rituals and beliefs as my own. I also grew up Canadian. Do I not claim Bobby Orr or Frank Malvhovlich (hockey players) as my own? The Vikings left Canada and hence, I do not know how revelent that could be but the Brits and French stayed. I speak both English and French (as well as Mandarin and Cantonese). My wife is French-American-Scott decent and my daughter inherits sblood from the Song/Manchu bloodlines as well. Unless you count birth of a specific race as the sole legitimate heir to a culture, then how could you eliminate how I grew up even if my original blood is not Canadian?

Further more, I would point out to you that both Pakistani and Indian bloodlines share a common heritage from the Indian subcontinent. 100% of Pakistani bloodlines cannot possibly be from the Moguls unless they slaughtered everyone in Pakistan and populated the area by outside population and even here, most Moguls were Persians (common bloodlines again), not Mongols.

Jay
09 May 04,, 06:22
Colonel,
Lets for a minute come back to the original discussion,

The main discussion here is the cultural similarities of modern day Indian culture. And yes that includes religion, rituals, langauge, people. All these form a civilization. Present day Pakistan has nothing in common except location. The people seems to have changed a lot, so it maynot be a constant factor to be included.

So just based on these, researchers are terming it as ancient Indian civilization. And yes Pakistan was a part of ancient Indian civilization, but there was no seperate ancient Pakistan civilization. This is what we are arguing here.

Now, are you disagreeing with the above??

Officer of Engineers
09 May 04,, 06:26
Colonel,
The main discussion here are the cultural similarities. And yes that includes religion, rituals, langauge, people. All these form a civilization. Present day Pakistan has nothing in common except location and ever changing people, are you disagreeing with this part??

I'm trying to understand your arguement. Are you saying that the Pakistanis have abandon everything from the past - just like modern day Eygptians have nothing to do with the Pryamids and the Pharohs? If that's the case, are you saying that the modern day Eygptian have no claims to the Pryamids and the Pharohs?

Blademaster
09 May 04,, 06:31
I'm trying to understand your arguement. Are you saying that the Pakistanis have abandon everything from the past - just like modern day Eygptians have nothing to do with the Pryamids and the Pharohs? If that's the case, are you saying that the modern day Eygptian have no claims to the Pryamids and the Pharohs?


Well that's what the Pakistanis are trying to do. Just like the Taliban teared down teh Balyiman statues down, the Pakistanis destroy any hindu temple or artifacts or structures that prove counter to Pakistan's claims of being descended from the Middle east or pan Islam civilization or such.

They even rewrite their history books to say that Arabs came to Pakistan and settled there or such. I don't know what crap they write over there but i have seen enough to tell that its mostly revisionist crap.

Jay
09 May 04,, 06:34
I'm trying to understand your arguement. Are you saying that the Pakistanis have abandon everything from the past - just like modern day Eygptians have nothing to do with the Pryamids and the Pharohs?
For the most part, Yes. I dont think they have anything to do with it. Its toally islamiized now.

If that's the case, are you saying that the modern day Eygptian have no claims to the Pryamids and the Pharohs?
Culturally speaking, yes. They have totally changed, its a totally different new culture.They dont have anything incommon with Pyramids and Pharohs. But again here, we dont have another group of people still following similar traditions and stuff, like the discussion we have here. If then people would associate this group of people instead of the whole population.

Officer of Engineers
09 May 04,, 06:41
Culturally speaking, yes. They have totally changed, its a totally different new culture.They dont have anything incommon with Pyramids and Pharohs. But again here, we dont have another group of people still following similar traditions and stuff, like the discussion we have here. If then people would associate this group of people instead of the whole population.

Counter-argument then (or at least, I'm trying to figure this out), then even non-indigenious peoples who embraced the past as their own could claim that heritage as their own. Again, using my own example, I speak better English and French better than Mandarin and Cantonese - hell, from the way my parents are dolting over my daughter, she'll speak better Mandarin and Cantonese than I ever did (Grandparents!!!!!!! ARGGHHHHHHH!!!!!), am I not culturally Canadian civilain wise and British militarily wise?

Jay
09 May 04,, 06:53
Counter-argument then (or at least, I'm trying to figure this out), then even non-indigenious peoples who embraced the past as their own could claim that heritage as their own.
Yes they could. But in Indian perspective, I'll give you an example, it may be stupid or rigid, but thats how it is. You cannot change your caste. So there is a slim chance that you can fake it.


Again, using my own example, I speak better English and French better than Mandarin and Cantonese - am I not culturally Canadian civilain wise and British militarily wise?
I'll turn the tables on the other side, you said you already embraced Canadian/British culture.So can you claim that you are Chinese just based on the culture? No, you cannot. You are Canadian Chinese (Chinese here is just the race). Can you claim the Chinese heritage? I doubt you can. You dont have anything is common with them except the way you look.

Officer of Engineers
09 May 04,, 07:10
Yes they could. But in Indian perspective, I'll give you an example, it may be stupid or rigid, but thats how it is. You cannot change your caste. So there is a slim chance that you can fake it.

I will not even pretend to understand. I'll take you at your word.


I'll turn the tables on the other side, you said you already embraced Canadian/British culture.So can you claim that you are Chinese just based on the culture? No, you cannot. You are Canadian Chinese (Chinese here is just the race). Can you claim the Chinese heritage? I doubt you can. You dont have anything is common with them except the way you look.

Well, I have NOTHING in common with the Asian Chinese (wherever they are from Asia). However, I am very in touch with my father's community (ie, the first generation Chinese who came before the Asian boom), I speak the language and share alot of their thinking and hard work ethic. Don't know if it's the environment or the culture.

To the rest of you, allow me to explain. My father immigrated from China with my mother. I was borned in Canada. He spoke very little English and did the only job that could earned his family a living - Chinese restuarants - more specifically Canadian/American-Chinese food - aka Chop Suey houses. We lived in communities with very small Chinese populations. Naturally, most of our family friends are non-Chinese.

So much so that my family adopted my baby sister who's a blond bitch who knows she was pretty and then got two new big brothers to protect her (upon threat of Chinese mothers). I love my baby sis and since we've gotten older and got families of own, those days when I came home with black eyes protecting my baby sis's honours have faded somewhat.

This being said, when the Asian boom did happen and alot of Hong Kong Chinese started coming over to Canada, I've really noticed how lazy these guys are, even during my days in university (my Masters was during the time of the Asian boom) and how resentful they were that I wore a Canadian uniform instead of a Chinese one but the older generation (ie my father's) really respected me for finding a way to get my education.

So, you tell me.

Jay
09 May 04,, 07:18
Sir,

Well, I have NOTHING in common with the Asian Chinese (wherever they are from Asia).
I said the same. When you adopt a new culture, you cannot claim your old heritage.Becoz if you follow the new one, you have to force forget the old one to fit in.



This being said, when the Asian boom did happen and alot of Hong Kong Chinese started coming over to Canada, I've really noticed how lazy these guys are, even during my days in university (my Masters was during the time of the Asian boom) and how resentful they were that I wore a Canadian uniform instead of a Chinese

Sir, I think its a gross mis-generalization. I happen to know lots of Chinese from mainland, HK who are as hard working as an ant. Yes, younger people tend to resent, becoz to them you are just a runaway from their glorious land, but the reality is, your dad emigratted to give you all a better life, which lot of them might not understand.

Officer of Engineers
09 May 04,, 07:55
My thanks, Jay, for explaining yourself.

I don't know if I agree 100% but at least I can understand your arguement.

Jay
09 May 04,, 08:04
Sir,
I know it may be hard to understand.


Further more, I would point out to you that both Pakistani and Indian bloodlines share a common heritage from the Indian subcontinent. 100% of Pakistani bloodlines cannot possibly be from the Moguls unless they slaughtered everyone in Pakistan and populated the area by outside population and even here, most Moguls were Persians (common bloodlines again), not Mongols.
Even from this thread you can distinctly see that "Aryan" claimed that pre-islamic pakistan had nothing in common with India. Vision couple days back talked about fair skin, tall Aryan's gaurding the borders of Pakistan, while we are dark skinned this side. So do you still think we have a common blood line?? Pakistanis seem to disagree that.

Most of the researchers seem to think that Indus valley is not aryan, so how can these "Aryans" claim the heritage of Indus valley civilization?

Officer of Engineers
09 May 04,, 08:24
Sir,
I know it may be hard to understand.


Even from this thread you can distinctly see that "Aryan" claimed that pre-islamic pakistan had nothing in common with India. Vision couple days back talked about fair skin, tall Aryan's gaurding the borders of Pakistan, while we are dark skinned this side. So do you still think we have a common blood line?? Pakistanis seem to disagree that.

Most of the researchers seem to think that Indus valley is not aryan, so how can these "Aryans" claim the heritage of Indus valley civilization?

WOE, THAT'S NEWS TO ME!

Aryan
09 May 04,, 13:35
Either you have to be blind or plain stupid. The whole arguement is about culture and people of present day India and Pakistan with respect to Indus valley.

Its actually about whether Indus is Pakistani or not, I believe culture evolves and changes, to the point where it becomes irrelevant in comparison to modern cultures and practices.


Indologits always associate India with Indus valley culture. They do it bcoz Indian still has some of them left in bits and pieces. Muslims in Pakistan have nothing in common with Indus valley culture, and hence the the talk about religion and thats the relevance.

Again, this "muslims in Pakistan" thing. It doesn't matter what religion is prevalent in Pakistan, or what government policies have been enacted in the past. Just think for a moment, is Pakistan any more "islamic" than the egyptians? The Muslims in Egypt claim the ancient Egyptians to be their own, solely because of geographical reasons.



Lets see, to me it sounds like a 2nd generation Pakistani immigrant in USA ranting about Columbus. Just becoz he's in America now, it doesnt mean that he can claim that part of history and legacy.

I think I'll agree with Officer here. An individual when emmigrating may be absorbed into the mainstream, and take up the cause of his nationality.



ha ha....Indus valley extended to North East (Ganges) to Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat (East and Central India). Check Harappa.com which says that the Indus valley people moved IN TO modern day India towards Gangestic plains slowly which lead to the demise of Indus valley all together. So is Pakistani land mass bigger than this land mass area?? :biggrin:

Indus valley would have been Pakistani even if they conquered the whole of the subcontinent, and expanded into Africa. Just like the mongols.


Hinduism is not a property of India, but India is as much to hindusim as Mecca and Arabia is to muslims. And again I havent heard any land mass thats called ancient Pakistan. Are you referring ancient Bharat??

But then you contradict yourself. Mecca is a holy city for muslims, I don't see how an entire nation can claim this previledge. There may be holy sites in India, but there probably are many in Pakistan too. I'll find out for you though...


Yep BD has 20% hindus and Mars has 50% muslims. The meagre hindus in BD, do look for India, its about time that you read some neutral sources. Its just not BD look from Malaysia to Fiji, Africa to America, India is to hindus like Mecca is to muslims.




pfff....culture, language is a part of history and for the most part it is history. Ancient history doesnt mean just the landmass or the geographic location.Any civilizational history almost always talks about the inhabitants, their language and culture. Again, you are just talking about worship, which indeed is a part of culture and history.

By your definition the Mughals would become a Pakistani civilisation, do you also believe this?

wtf are you talking about??


Indus had a distinct culture. Agreed. I just showed you proof that hindusim pretty much had its origin from Indus valley, which makes it a direct descendant. All of the Dravidian languages exist in India, not anywhere else
except Brahui, which is almost extinct. So now what ??

Well I think that hinduism came from the INdus people, but to me all that would mean is that hinduism had its origins in a once Pakistani religion.


Sure if we just talk about people and location then everything is African.

Many anthropologists may agree with that :)


Migration is an important aspect along with culture and people. Just having the physical location doesnt mean that you have inherited their past.

Isn't Moorish Spain considered Spanish? The saxon invaders of England Anglo Saxon? What about the Scots, they were from Ireland originally, what is your view on that?

Invaders who decide to settle in a land tend to lose their original identity (over a period of time) but usually also contribute to the culture of the mainstream. We see that in Pakistan, its a mixture of Mongolian, Persian, Greaco-Roman, Indus and a few others.



phew...you gotta buy some reading glass. I didnt say pakistan didnt have hindus. go back and read...All I said is Pakistan had its own share of culture thats similar to Indus valley which was lost after the partition and islamazation. Prove me wrong :tongue:

India lost (some) muslims during partition, does that mean India loses all its muslim roots? The same is with Pakistan.



Just read all the Indus sources, they invariably term is as ancient Indian.

Only because of the ancient connotations associated with the word "India". If modern India decided to call itself Hindustan or whatever the BJP are planning on calling it, I can assure you no archeologist would refer to it as 'ancient hindustan'


why?? Are you running out of arguements??

No, because you are repeatedly dodging and skirting issues.



People change and migrate and assimilate. The discussion is about the cultural similarity, and it doesnt exist in Pakistan now. Say, migrants and immigrants cannot claim some part of history. Cry what you want, you dont have it.


Migrants and immigrants? What happened to the ancient people of the Indus? Did they just all disappear, or did they just wait and claim Indian passports and migrate to holy Bharatiya in 1947?


You didnt have a nation 56 years back, the whole area was collectively referred as Indian.

Neither did you then.



And yeah talking about changing history books, may be lets take a look at Pakistan. Do you want to ? so next time instead side tracking the arguement, learn to stay with in.

I support changing history books when it reflects the truth and can be backed up with evidence. I'm not against INdians changing their history books to make their race appear to be superior, which they have attempted. Just don't accept it to have any credibility outside India.

Aryan
09 May 04,, 13:45
Well that's what the Pakistanis are trying to do. Just like the Taliban teared down teh Balyiman statues down, the Pakistanis destroy any hindu temple or artifacts or structures that prove counter to Pakistan's claims of being descended from the Middle east or pan Islam civilization or such.

They even rewrite their history books to say that Arabs came to Pakistan and settled there or such. I don't know what crap they write over there but i have seen enough to tell that its mostly revisionist crap.

That is acutally what Indians are doing under the BJP. Ancient Indians invented nuclear weapons, calcutta was founded by an Indian. And then the destruction of Muslim mosques and and the tombs of muslim saints. Pakistani government is acting to preserve its religious minorities. Sikh temples and holy sites have been maintained by funding. Unlike in India where Sikh and muslim site are being "hinduised" and/or destroyed.

Aryan
09 May 04,, 13:48
For the most part, Yes. I dont think they have anything to do with it. Its toally islamiized now.


Culturally speaking, yes. They have totally changed, its a totally different new culture.They dont have anything incommon with Pyramids and Pharohs. But again here, we dont have another group of people still following similar traditions and stuff, like the discussion we have here. If then people would associate this group of people instead of the whole population.[/QUOTE]

Doesn't culture always change? I dont know about India, but in Pakistan, culture changed significantly in the time I lived there. In the UK, where I live now, the same story is in action. Its ridiculous to assert that culture can be preserved over a century let alone from the INdus valley to modern times, well over 2000 years.

Aryan
09 May 04,, 14:15
Even from this thread you can distinctly see that "Aryan" claimed that pre-islamic pakistan had nothing in common with India. Vision couple days back talked about fair skin, tall Aryan's gaurding the borders of Pakistan, while we are dark skinned this side. So do you still think we have a common blood line?? Pakistanis seem to disagree that.

I don't believe INdians and Pakistanis all share similar bloodlines, I don't even believe all Indians or all Pakistanis share similar blood. I do believe however, the some indians, share racial similarities with some people of Pakistan, the prime example is Indian and Pakistani Punjab.


Most of the researchers seem to think that Indus valley is not aryan, so how can these "Aryans" claim the heritage of Indus valley civilization?

Aryans were the guys who brought an end to Indus civilisation (exactly what happened is under dispute), and settled there. Some accounts say they massacred everyone in sight, others suggest they just replaced INdus civilisation, which was already unstable.

visioninthedark
09 May 04,, 16:49
Well that's what the Pakistanis are trying to do. Just like the Taliban teared down teh Balyiman statues down, the Pakistanis destroy any hindu temple or artifacts or structures that prove counter to Pakistan's claims of being descended from the Middle east or pan Islam civilization or such.

They even rewrite their history books to say that Arabs came to Pakistan and settled there or such. I don't know what crap they write over there but i have seen enough to tell that its mostly revisionist crap.

Not true at all ....

pure Indian wishful thinking ....

Jay
09 May 04,, 21:40
Its actually about whether Indus is Pakistani or not, I believe culture evolves and changes, to the point where it becomes irrelevant in comparison to modern cultures and practices.
wrong, there was no Pakistan then!

The land that is now Pakistan was originally part of Afghanistan and India.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan



Again, this "muslims in Pakistan" thing. It doesn't matter what religion is prevalent in Pakistan, or what government policies have been enacted in the past. Just think for a moment, is Pakistan any more "islamic" than the egyptians? The Muslims in Egypt claim the ancient Egyptians to be their own, solely because of geographical reasons.
already answered that question to Colonel!



I think I'll agree with Officer here. An individual when emmigrating may be absorbed into the mainstream, and take up the cause of his nationality.

They didnt have a nation back then!



Indus valley would have been Pakistani even if they conquered the whole of the subcontinent, and expanded into Africa. Just like the mongols.
History and Geography is just not supporting your theory! Look at the Indus valley map I posted!


India lost (some) muslims during partition, does that mean India loses all its muslim roots? The same is with Pakistan.
But Pakistan almost lost all the hindus, hence the loss in culture and practices! Remember India till the 90's prolly, had more muslims than Pakistan.
So we didnt loose anything.


By your definition the Mughals would become a Pakistani civilisation, do you also believe this?
wrong, Mughals are from Afghanistan and there was no Pakistan then. If you go back in history then, these areas were first ruled by Maurya's and prolly Guptas. So doesnt that make it Indian?? even then they were ruled by Gandharara (Kushans) and then by Persians. Where does Pakistan or Pakistani comes in to this, just becoz Peshawar is in present day Pakistan??
Again Mughals lived in present day India and ruled from India from Delhi. So you are contradicting yourself here.



Indus valley would have been Pakistani even if they conquered the whole of the subcontinent, and expanded into Africa. Just like the mongols.
sorry, look at the map!



But then you contradict yourself. Mecca is a holy city for muslims, I don't see how an entire nation can claim this previledge. There may be holy sites in India, but there probably are many in Pakistan too. I'll find out for you though...
Hinduism didnt origin from a single person, so we dont have a single site. It's actually scattered all over India. From Varanasi to Ramanathapuram, from Manasarovar to Thirupathi its through the length and breadth of India. Thats why the whole of India is like mecca for hindus.



Only because of the ancient connotations associated with the word "India". If modern India decided to call itself Hindustan or whatever the BJP are planning on calling it, I can assure you no archeologist would refer to it as 'ancient hindustan'
its you who's "assuming" stuff here. just read the first post int his page or may be wikipedia source.



Migrants and immigrants? What happened to the ancient people of the Indus? Did they just all disappear, or did they just wait and claim Indian passports and migrate to holy Bharatiya in 1947?
for once open your eyes and read the history!! Archealogists say that they moved in to India towards Ganges after the end of Sarawathi river! So that makes them they moved out from islamic pakistan for some reasons.



I don't believe INdians and Pakistanis all share similar bloodlines, I don't even believe all Indians or all Pakistanis share similar blood. I do believe however, the some indians, share racial similarities with some people of Pakistan, the prime example is Indian and Pakistani Punjab.
May be or may not be. But more than 50% Indians have similar DNA structurte wrt Pakistanis. The rest are all scattered. Gene wise there are 3 distinct groups in India.



I support changing history books when it reflects the truth and can be backed up with evidence. I'm not against INdians changing their history books to make their race appear to be superior, which they have attempted. Just don't accept it to have any credibility outside India.
May be you might be intrested in reading these articles then,
Eat your words, now


The reports says Pakistani textbooks during the 1950s and 1960s contained detailed and at times appreciative accounts of the ancient Hindu history and culture. All books started with the ancient civilizations of Moenjodaro, Harappa and Taxila, narrated indigenous mythologies without bias and recounted the grandeur of the early Hindu and Budhist kingdoms. “Some of them were even occasionally critical of the Muslim heroes also.”

According to the SDPI, the process of “negative change” had started from day one. “As early as November 1947, the government held a conference of educationists to lay down guidelines for future educational policies ... even in the life of Jinnah, the resolution of the Pakistan Educational Conference recommended the adoption of Islamic ideology as the basis of education.”

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_30-3-2004_pg7_16

So alltogether 3 generation people in Pakistan studied propoganda all through your lives, which shows up right here in these discussions! BJP and RSS are a recent phenomenon in the Indian political scene and they havent changed the State syllabus. They were changing the central syllabus which was even shot down by lot other states.



Aryans were the guys who brought an end to Indus civilisation (exactly what happened is under dispute), and settled there. Some accounts say they massacred everyone in sight, others suggest they just replaced INdus civilisation, which was already unstable.
its still not proved! If I go by your claim, then you mean to say that Indus valley is Dravidian?? If so, dravidians form around 30% (300 Million) of population in India, there are no indigenious dravidians out side of India, except a small pocket in Pakistan numbering in 1000's. So how can the land of pure "Aryans" take credit of a civilization they just crushed/replaced/what ever? heh??


pure Indian wishful thinking ....
yeah, If not how come they portray Ghazavi as first Pakistani citizen in yur text books??

Samudra
09 Sep 04,, 09:09
Now Now , Alexander was indeed a great king.

As for Alexanders Invasion of India , indeed india was even then in the form of many small kingdoms.Now for today , i know so much that Ambhi , the ruler of Taxila pleaded peace with him and was considerd "won over".However there was this King called Porus.

As for his "kingdom" i dont remember now , gotta refer.

Now Alexander invited him to a meeting of some sort.Porus was glad at alexanders call and accepted his invitation.Adding casually that a appropriate meeting place could be the battlefeild.

Battle over , porus taken prisoner.He was asked about how he wanted to be treated.Porus , replied "Like a King ! ".And that made him famous not only among Indians , but even greecians.Sigh i think i posted this in PDF some time back.

Patriotism apart , i think Alexander could have invaded India had his men consented.Many generals were tired of this war buisness so were soldiers.
Alexander , texts say thought over it for three days and a sacrifice too brought bad omens.So he decided to turn over , but he wanted(?) to sail down the Indus, during which he had to fight many petty kings and tribes.During one of the encounters , he was hit and had his lung damaged.

PS : Chandra Gupta Maurya ,Ashokas grand pa and founder of Mauryan Dynasty seems to have met Alexander personally :cool:.Albeit we cannot confirm these things to the last detail.Sad that this thread had to go down this way with the usual India vs Pakistan fights here too.

Blademaster
09 Sep 04,, 21:50
I will not even pretend to understand. I'll take you at your word.

So much so that my family adopted my baby sister who's a blond bitch who knows she was pretty and then got two new big brothers to protect her (upon threat of Chinese mothers). I love my baby sis and since we've gotten older and got families of own, those days when I came home with black eyes protecting my baby sis's honours have faded somewhat.



:eek: :biggrin: Can you introduce me to that fine bitch, ahem.... lady?

:biggrin:

Jay
09 Sep 04,, 22:25
Ah...too late Blade, and Colonel is/was her protector, so you cant expect him to introduce you :biggrin: !!

Blademaster
10 Sep 04,, 02:18
Ah...too late Blade, and Colonel is/was her protector, so you cant expect him to introduce you :biggrin: !!

But I am a good person and a friend of OOE. Surely he can make exceptions for someone like me. :biggrin:

Officer of Engineers
10 Sep 04,, 03:07
But I am a good person and a friend of OOE. Surely he can make exceptions for someone like me. :biggrin:

Hitesh, I don't hate you enough to introduce you. Besides, she's Married ... With Children.

Samudra
14 Sep 04,, 04:18
Does any body have the numbers of the Greek forces when Alexander started from his home ?

Bergrom
24 Dec 04,, 19:50
deleted and reposted below with grammar and spelling corrections.

Bill
24 Dec 04,, 19:54
"Was Alexander Great?"

Not sure, but he was definitely gay...

Bergrom
24 Dec 04,, 19:58
The "Greatness" of Alexander stemmed largely from his own imagination that ensured he saw himself exalted for victories both real and imagined. Alexander was always very much aware that image was as important as substance when leading a nation or an empire.

That said, Alexander does deserve a great deal of the acclaim history has handed him.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Defeat of the Persian Empire and Other Conquests

First off, he was a man of vision. The Greeks and Persians first squared off against each other in the 5th Century BCE as described by Herodotus of Hallicarnassus in The Histories. In the end, the Persians were defeated and Greece fell under the liberal domination of Athens. As Athenian power waxed, so too did its demands on its allies and trading partners. The result saw the rise of Sparta and the ensuing Peloponnesian Wars (431-404 BCE) as related by Thucydides. During the wars between Athens, Sparta, and their respective allies, Persian continues to play a role although generally limiting itself to playing the two sides off against each other. Still, Persia maintained its designs on Greek lands.

Alexander was able to accomplish a dream long held among the Greeks but never accomplished. Defeating Persian invasions of Greece would only buy temporary reprieve. Only the defeat and subjugation of Persia would ensure a Greece free of Eastern rule. This Alexander did and spectacularly so. He did this in 334 BCE at the age of only 22 years. He later subdued Egypt as well parts of Iran and India.

Those that claim he was fortunate to have faced such an inferior general as Darius miss an essential point. One of the hallmarks of great leaders and generals is that they are almost to a man considered lucky. Men will often follow a lucky idiot before they will follow and unlucky but competent one.

Further, the Hellenistic kingdoms he left after his death played a profound role in how the 21st Century finds itself arrayed.

------------------------------

Economic and Cultural Revitalization of Greece and the Mediterranean

Alexander's conquests made him immeasurably rich. However, it enriched many others as well. New trade lanes were opened up, old barriers were destroyed, and the Hellenization of Alexander’s empire gave rise to a common trade language based on Greek that further boosted trade. In the West, we still feel the reverberations of his cultural and educational impact. Rome and the Hebrews of Judea were influenced by Greek ideals. In the teachings of Jesus, we see those ideals further refined but presented in many cases (especially the Pauline Epistles) in a very Greek fashion. Because the Macedonians were not considered to be "real Greeks" by their southern neighbors, Alexander sought to 'out-Greek the Greeks." As in his military accomplishments, he did so with a flamboyant style.

-------------------------

Alexander the Leader

As a king, Alexander could only rate poorly. After all, he was only home for the first two years of his reign. However, as a martial leader, he had to be quite charismatic. Remember that he led an army to the far ends of the earth beyond all previously known boundaries. When the men began to grumble and the threat of mutiny very real, Alexander was always able to quell the rising tide of resentment

A word is probably needed on mutiny from the perspective of the Greeks. The men of Attica and the Pelloponnese were an outspoken breed. While hearty and disciplined fighters, men spoke their mind with little regard to rank or birthright. To read the accounts of the Iliad, Xenophon's Ten Thousand, or Thucydides is to see men who felt it their natural right to speak their mind. Dissent was not insubordination but a form of ensuring the accountability of the leaders. Having said all that, the refusal of the Macedonian army to follow orders at the Hyphasis River (326 BCE) and Opis (324 BCE) certainly qualifies at least as insubordination.

Nevertheless, most troops would truly have mutinied and left a dead Alexander in a distant ditch had they endured the march the Gedrosian desert or routinely been forced to fight outnumbered with only lightly held flanks. The Macedonians never rebelled.

Another aspect of his leadership that must be considered was his logistical support. While Alexander sometimes made mistakes in that regard, it was no mean feat to march a professional army from Greece to India. This army lived partly off the land but also was regularly resupplied. Only the logistical problems facing British and Germans warring across the deserts of North Africa can really be compared to Alexander’s feat of supply.

--------------------------------

The Dark Side of Alexander

The brilliance of Alexander's career (intellectually and in terms of glory) often hides his darker and more sinister side. Alexander was, in many ways, closer to Adolph Hitler than Julius Caesar. He brutally sacked cities and razed them to the ground. Prisoners were executed if they could not be ransomed. He was suspected of killing rivals and those he viewed as opposing his will. In many ways, he was less a king than the leader of a horde of marauders - very disciplined marauders. As the ways of the East took greater hold on him, his personality became unhinged. Having always considered himself a child of the gods, he had himself proclaimed a god.

The Hellenization of the East may well have spread Greek culture and jump started trade opportunities but it had a disruptive effect on local culture as well. Additionally, it may be fairly stated that Alexander introduced in a dramatic way Eastern ideas to Greek life and politics. After all, the commerce of ideas generally travels both ways.

----------------------------

Was Alexander Great?

After all is said and done, the answer is a qualified yes. The historical Alexander is a much less glorious and worthy individual than most have been led to believe. He was certainly not a "great" friend or ally. Yet, even accounting for the embellishment of his accomplishments, Alexander's deeds of conquest are worthy of historical note.

Ultimately, the "greatness" of Alexander hinges upon the impact he made upon the world we live in today. By that measure, Alexander's merit is unquestioned. He shaped empires and cultures, redistributed vast wealth, and revolutionized the tactics of Western war by tightly integrating a combined arms approach to fighting. The passage of Alexander of Macedon still sends ripples through the very tapestry of the times in which we live and sets the standard for all who would remake the world.

Bergrom
24 Dec 04,, 20:14
Ah, sniper. Good to see you again.

Remember, there was no "Don't ask, don't tell" policy back then. Of course, back in the late 80's and early 90's there were was no such policy then either!

Victor Davis Hanson has an extensive chapter on Alexander in his book Wars of the Ancient Greeks. It addressed this issue and many others. The impression you are left with is that Hanson does not particularly care for Alexander on a personal level but thinks he deserves most (but not all) of the respect history has laid on the boy conqueror.

Hanson also recently wrote a column concerning this matter although part of his goal was to criticize the Oliver Stone movie recently released. Nevertheless, it provides some info that people might want to consider when addressing Alexander's sexuality. The essay was entitled, "Gay Old Times."

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson121804.html

His main point was that Alexander was nominally bisexual and probably asexual in general. More importantly, Hanson contends homosexuality in ancient times (particularly Greece) was something rather different than today.

I should not have to defend my sexuality but no doubt someone (not M21sniper) will launch an attack so I might as well act preemptively. I am wholeheartedly and happily heterosexual. :)

Bergrom
24 Dec 04,, 20:31
Does any body have the numbers of the Greek forces when Alexander started from his home ?


According to http://pothos.org/, a web site devoted to Alexander the Great.

"For Alexander's army their numbers are assumed to have been one servant or slave for every cavalry man and one for every ten infantry men. In India Alexander's entire entourage is said to have included 120,000 but his standing army at the Hydaspes is still estimated to have been approximately 40,000 strong - about the same number as he started out with in 334 BC.

Some probable army sizes

Macedonian invasion force of 334 BC - 36,000
Macedonians at Issus - 30,000
Macedonians at Gaugamela - 47,000
Macedonians at the Hydaspes - 41,000
Persians at the Granicus - 25,000
Persians at Issus - 100,000
Persians at Gaugamela - 90,000
Indians at the Hydaspes - 30,000"


I would check Hanson as well but I lent my copy of Wars of the Ancient Greeks to a young man who is friend of my son.

Micah Greenbaum's student essay on the composition of Alexander the Great's army puts the number between 25,000 and 36,000 men when he first headed east to take on the Persians. Unfortunately, the link has the bibliography but not the footnotes. LOL, neither do we know the grade the paper received. http://www.skidmore.edu/academics/classics/courses/2003spring/hi361f/greenbaum.doc

I may obtain a book by de Souza soon on the Greek Wars. If so, I will edit this entry with info from it was well.

Bill
24 Dec 04,, 20:33
"Ah, sniper. Good to see you again.

Remember, there was no "Don't ask, don't tell" policy back then. Of course, back in the late 80's and early 90's there were was no such policy then either!"

There most certainly was not. Us NCOs were EXPECTED to turn in troops we thought were gay.

Today's military is a social experiment gone terribly, terribly wrong.

"I should not have to defend my sexuality but no doubt someone (not M21sniper) will launch an attack so I might as well act preemptively. I am wholeheartedly and happily heterosexual. "

I actually don't begrudge anyone their sexuality. If a guy wants to handle his buddies package that's on him, i just have two reasonable requests.

1) Don't tell me.
2) Don't join the military

Bergrom
24 Dec 04,, 20:45
LOL, I'm with you, bro.

I only addressed it since that seems to be the only aspect to Alexander's life anyone seems to care about today.

Bill
24 Dec 04,, 21:10
He was a great man, he should've just been more discrete is all. ;)

Samudra
29 Dec 04,, 13:16
Thanks bergrom.
That helped.

Alexander
21 Apr 05,, 06:16
"Was Alexander Great?"
Not sure, but he was definitely gay...

He was a great man, he should've just been more discrete is all.

Calling Alexander the great a 'gay' is blasphemy. It is indeed a reflection of the degradation of the male race that one of its best heroes is being labelled as 'gay' today.

Gay refers to a negative form of 'third gender' --- a result of heterosexualisation of the modern society. Although third gender males (whether they like women or men or other third gender people) are by no means inferior they are certainly different than (straight/ masculine) men. Alexander was the opposite of 'gay'. He was the epitome of masculinity --- an alpha male. Probably, the greatest alpha male that this world has known.

There has always been a 'special' kind of person equivalent of today's homosexual, eversince the Greek times who was extremely feminine and exclusively sought passive anal sex.

No one in the history has ever called Alexander or the Greeks in general 'gay' or 'homosexual'. Indeed the whole concept of 'homosexuality' or even 'sexual orientation' is a recent western phenomenon. The concept of sexual orientation or homosexuality is relevant only if male-male eroticism was something that only a small minority could feel, a condition which is (at least superficially) has been artificially achieved by the western heterosexual society by drastically changing the rules of masculinity.

Of course Alexander loved a man. Additionally he may not have much interest in women. (both are typical male attitudes). However, in the ancient world loving another man was not a wayward, feminine or 'minority' thing that the term 'gay' suggests. On the contrary, it was the most common and natural thing that every straight man took part in. In fact it would have been a wayward thing to bond with a woman. It was something that only third gender males participated in. Straight men did marry after they reached 30, but that was because of the social duty to raise children (an attitude which straight men typically exhibited till recent times). Indeed, men considered women to be dispensable but for procreation. Men in fact hoped that if men could give birth they will not need women at all.

This is in keeping with the nature of the mammalian male. In the wild the mammalian males mate only for reproduction. There is never a bonding or equivalent of love between opposite sexes. Any real intimate and committed bonding takes place only between animals who are not only the same-sex but also the same-gender. The opposite-sex mating takes place only once a year and not all males participate. Alpha males often mate only a few times in their lives or even not mate at all.

The only mammalian males that bond with females are the equivalent of the third gender human males --- as observed in the case of sheep and the sea lion. These males don't live in the 'male' pack but live with and bond with females as one of them.

The heterosexual society is a sham. It is an anti-male society that seeks to break men apart from each other in order to demasculinise them and make them forever subservient to and dependant on women. Straight men are never naturally heterosexual. They only pretend to be heterosexual --- or have been trained to be so by a society that requires heterosexuality as a proof of their manhood (straighthood), is hostile to male-male intimacy and propagates it as a third gender 'homosexual' stuff. Bonding with women does not come naturally to men. Indeed the institution of marriage has always been a pain in the neck for straight men and the society has had to compensate them and threaten them in a number of ways to make them marry women. However, marriage till recently did not mean 'bonding' with women, and most interaction with wives were limited to either sex or 'family' matters. Straight men formed any meaningful bonds only with other straight men. Indeed the idea of love marriage was rare and looked down upon in non-western societies.

The entire heterosexual social order ----- it's institutions, it's concepts, it's values, it's science, media, social categories and even it's language is designed to perpetuate this heterosexual agenda. By making essentially a third gender trait into a compulsory 'straight' thing, the heterosexual society has effectively disempowered, demasculated and subdued men.

The only people to benefit from this unnatural social order (apart from aggressive women) are the heterosexuals (who are actually either feminine or lesser males) and the homosexuals (i.e. feminine males who seek men as females). Heterosexuals, because getting 'manhood' has becomes as easy as fucking or bonding with women (unlike in the past). And homosexuals because it gives them the reign over male-male intimacy. The irony is that both the groups are in a minority. The one's to suffer are the straight men --- who try their best to pass off as heterosexual.




Us NCOs were EXPECTED to turn in troops we thought were gay.

I actually don't begrudge anyone their sexuality. If a guy wants to handle his buddies package that's on him, i just have two reasonable requests.

It is ironical that a heterosexual man asks 'gays' (although he uses the word 'gay', he apparently includes straight men who openly desire males) to keep out of the military. Well, of course the true homosexuals (i.e. the feminine males) should stay out of the military. Third gender males will not care much for the military anyways. But, military is where the straight (masculine) men belong. Just as much as loving another man is THE natural thing for them to do. Indeed, if anyone should stay away from the military (apart from the real homosexuals) are the real heterosexuals. Heterosexual men have no appreciation for, understanding or use of masculinity. They should rather be with women, form families and raise children --- something that they are naturally suited for. Military is not a place for them.

In the end it would be apt for me to include a quote from the well known heterosexual Buddhist scholar and author, the late Alan Watts:

"If they (young and unrealised men who desire men, who affect machismo, ultramasculinity, and who constitute the hard core of our military-industrial-police-mafia-combine) would go **** each other (and I use that word in its most positive and appreciative sense) the world would be vastly improved. They make it with women only to brag about it, but are actually far happier in the barracks than in boudiors. This is, perhaps, the real meaning of "make love, not war". We may be destroying ourselves through the repression of male-male bonds."

Cowboykiller
29 May 05,, 11:39
Napoleon wasn't Italian, he was Corsican.

And about Alexander, he only had 2 serious opponents, the Persians and the Indians.
After the battle on the river Rubikon and teh consequent battle at Gaugamelles (sp?) when he destroyed a Persian/Greek army of 90, 000 men with his 47, 000 he simply rolled through the rest of the Persian Empire unopposed. The reason why he successfully crushed the Indians was because their Radjas opposed one another and he gained the support of some of them and used their troops to crush the opposing Radjas.

Ghengis Khan achieved much more than Alexander.
He sculpted the Mongol army into the most efficient military machine in the world at that time, he did it himself while Alexander got his armies from his father Philipp II.


I was about to say that about Philipp II. Didn't Alexander hate his father? I know Philipp's wife hated him.

Alexander wasn't a fairy. The guy screwed some ex-Indian queen who bore him a son.

Alexander
14 Oct 05,, 20:16
Alexander wasn't a fairy. The guy screwed some ex-Indian queen who bore him a son.

I would like to know if by Alexander’s time the pressure on men to procreate had taken the shape of making it mandatory for men to mate with women in order to qualify for social manhood. They would have had some kind of pressure mechanism developed otherwise few men would care to do it. But definitely the pressure was limited to producing a child (son) and one did not need to have any romantic (or even sexual) interest in women at all. You could just do it as a social duty. And most certainly, one of the things that would make a man a fairy in those days would be to have a tendency to bond with women instead of men (i.e. heterosexuality, which is absurdly celebrated as masculine in the modern west). Another would be to be a homosexual, i.e., a feminine male or eunuch who treats his anus as a vagina. And Alexander certainly wasn’t one.

Coming back to the question of whether we can say that Alexander the great practised ‘homosexuality’: Homosexuality is the negative form of male-male bonds --- the marginalised, feminised and minoritised version. It is the remanant that reamains when you submit the society to specific artificial processess whereby the natural tendency of men to bond with men (including sexual/ emotional bonds) is suppressed in the mainstream community and allowed only in third sex/ third gender circles.

This process was certainly unimagniable in the times of Alexander. In fact homosexuality happens only in modern heterosexual societies --- and is a direct result of heterosexualisation. In other words it is one of the innumerable harmful waste products that the heterosexualisation of a society produces.

In fact, it is wrong to use the word homosexuality for sexual attraction between two masculine/ straight/ regular men. For all practical terms, homosexuality refers to the sexual attraction of a meterosexual/ transgendered man for another meterosexual/ transexual man or even for straight men.

Therefore it is stupid to even suggest that Alexander was ‘gay’ because he loved men. It is equally stupid to suggest that he was saved from being a fairy on account of mating occasionally. Because a truly masculine man does not need to serve women sexually in order to qualify socially as a man.

In any case, a warrior does not need to empty himself into a vagina to prove he is a man. It is the lesser men who need to do that.There is just no competition between a warrior (esp. of Alexander’s stature) and a hetero-metero woman-chaser.

Praxus
15 Oct 05,, 16:05
"Was Alexander Great?"

Not sure, but he was definitely gay...

Not a single historical book of the time refers to him as a homosexual, nor do they recount any instances of homosexuality. They extracted from a very close friendship he had with a man; that he was somehow homosexual.

I agree with Alexander, in this respect, the Greeks did not have a negative view of homosexual acts or homosexuality in general. The Theben Sacred Band was said to have been 150 homosexual couples. At the battle of Chaeronea against Phillip II and Alexander these men not only fought bravely, but fought and died where they stood. There was no connection between masculinity and homosexuality in the ancient world (prior to Christianization).

The Romans however, were a little different, homosexuality was not looked in as a positive light as the Greeks did. This can be shown by the fact that of the two crimes that you could be executed for as a soldier: abandoning your post and commiting homosexual acts (with other soldiers). Although this is more of a matter of discipline, then a hate of homosexuality.

Monk
15 Oct 05,, 16:13
There is too much nonsense on this thread, what was it about to begin with? How did India get into all this?

Praxus
15 Oct 05,, 16:23
I was about to say that about Philipp II. Didn't Alexander hate his father? I know Philipp's wife hated him.

Alexander wasn't a fairy. The guy screwed some ex-Indian queen who bore him a son.

I believe she was Persian. I don't think he hated his father. I hope you are not taking the movie Alexander, as a recount of historical fact.

DC Katoch
17 Oct 05,, 07:05
How did India get into all this?

From the very first post...when Anvilanthony claimed that Alexander conquered land from south-eastern Europe to "South Asia".

The Indian and other postors disputed that and presented facts in support of their position.

And, as we all know, wherever Indians go Pakistanis follow! ;)

The latter were pained at being ignored by history and the thread degenarated into a India-Pakistan tu-tu main-main (you-you I-I).

Ironduke
17 Oct 05,, 22:59
That's the land I conquered....

I also read in some history books that Alexander the Great was only 5'1".

I mean Stalin was 5'3" and Hitler was 5'4".

The french emperor(forgot his name) was also 5'3" or shorter. Actually he wasn't french he was italian but it comes as no surprise that the first great french leader wasn't french.
Hitler was 5'8", Stalin 5'6", Napoleon 5'6 1/2".

Alexander
18 Oct 05,, 12:59
I agree with Alexander, in this respect, the Greeks did not have a negative view of homosexual acts or homosexuality in general..

What I said is actually very simple. That you want to ignore the truth is another matter. There is no question of 'homosexuality' being there in the ancient times --- it's a modern western phenomenon, faciliated by Christianity's hostility towards male-male sexual bonds. Christiantiy had its own reasons.


Not a single historical book of the time refers to him as a homosexual, nor do they recount any instances of homosexuality. They extracted from a very close friendship he had with a man; that he was somehow homosexual.

Naturally, because the entire concept of homosexuality is new. People who are bent on making a homosexual out of Alexander have their own motives ----- they are those who gain from the heterosexualisation of the soicety --- and they include heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. This is an attempt to heterosexualise history.

But to say that he only had a close relationship with his lover is to avoid the truth again. Of course the accounts have not dwelt on it. What do you want them to write about --- about what they did in bed? In any case, the accounts were written well after the Greek civilsation was over --- and are a lot tainted.

It is possible that being of the same age, his lover was not socially acceptable as lover -- as only relationships between older men and younger guys were acceptable ---, and hence Alexander did not 'wed' his lover formally --- like was probably the custom during youth in his time.


The Romans however, were a little different, homosexuality was not looked in as a positive light as the Greeks did. This can be shown by the fact that of the two crimes that you could be executed for as a soldier: abandoning your post and commiting homosexual acts (with other soldiers). Although this is more of a matter of discipline, then a hate of homosexuality.

Relationships between men have seemed to take a back seat during the Roman times --- but it seems they were still practiced amongst the nobility as almost all emperors had male lovers. The Christian type of hatred that involves killing men for having sex with men does not seem to predate Christianity --- even amongst the Romans. The execution of Roman soldiers for having sex could not have come before Christianity.

Also, we must take the records with caution since most of these accounts were written well after Christianity was established as the authoritative religion. Christians have always been relentless about destroying all evidences that go against their dogma. They also changed many of the accounts written earlier during the Greek or Roman times, while interpretting past events in their own way. They dealt with all instances of positive and glorified male-male love in the following way:
- they destroyed it, failing which,
- belittled it, failing which
- fraternised (made the partners into just close friends) it, failing which,
- homosexualised/ feminised/ minoritised it, failing which
- ignored it.

They have dealt with Jesus Christ in a similar fashion.


There was no connection between masculinity and homosexuality in the ancient world (prior to Christianization).

That is a blatant distortion of recorded facts --- as well as of human nature. The Greek civilisation encouraged relationships between men during the youth because it was supposed to benefit the state by developing and channelising masculinity --- especially amongst the soldiers. Such bonds helped men to cultivate and develop their masculinity in gyms, through sports and the army. The society apparently worshipped masculine qualities in all its forms --- including physical and psychological. And sexual bonds between men were a part and parcel of it. It was not for nothing that the Greek called love between men the purest form of love.

Contrast this with today's heterosexual society's treatment of masculinity and you will see the difference. The heterosexual society worships, empowers and masculnises women, while makes second class citizens out of men, takes away their rights and feminises them. Meterosexuality had to be in vogue in a heterosexual society.

All through history romantic association with women have been considered a feminsing factor for men, and all masculine traditions have required their men to keep away from women. This is hard to brush aside.

Praxus
18 Oct 05,, 20:27
I don't really understand what your trying to say. It seems to be a partially coherent jumble.

Are you trying to say that homosexuality did not exist then? That it was a non-issue? That it was encouraged?

Also, define what you mean by homosexual, and how it is different from loving a man.

Because honestly, I have no idea what your talking about.

Alexander
19 Oct 05,, 14:02
I’ll take it that you have not read my previous posts --- although I agree they would confuse many people in the beginning. I should tell you that I work on issues around masculinity and my research interest is the oppression of men. I am especially studying how the politics of identities is being used to muddle the truth to keep men enchained.

Please don't mind the long post. No information goes waste.

The words ‘homosexual’, ‘homosexuality’, ‘sexual orientation’, ‘heterosexuality’, ‘heterosexuals’, etc. are great in muddling the truth about human gender and sexual nature. They have been devised by the western civilisation for exactly the same purpose. Because in this era religion has lost the power to keep sexual bonds between men in check. Someone who has grown up in a non-western, non heterosexual and non-christian set up can easily see the anomalies if exposed to the western culture.

The basic assumption behind classifying acts, people or desires on the basis of sexual orientation is the belief that:
- most people have either one or the other sexual need.
- That the majority of men have a sexual need for women, while a minority is sexually attracted to men.
- That masculine (straight) men tend to be attracted to women, while femininity in men makes them desire men. A heterosexual society is based strictly on ‘opposites attract’ --- even in cases of sexual desire between men.

Anyone who lives in a non-western(ised) society knows this is not true. Sexual need for another man is an integral part of being a man biologically. In fact, for long term bonding men, under natural conditions, will prefer other men, while preferring women for short term flings.

At one point in the development of human civilisation, when humans started settling in far flung isolated areas, they needed to increase their population more than was possible naturally. Because, men like other mammals mated with women only occasionally, most mated a few times in their lives and many preferring not to mate at all. This is the reason why a social mechanism was introduced that sought to bind men into social contracts with women (the marriage institution). Men were given several sops, which in due course of time, included ownership of ‘wife’ and ‘children’ (lineage) and easy social manhood. Marriage was also linked with competition between men thus increasing the importance of male-female bonds in a man’s life. Then there were several punishments for not ‘marrying’ without a socially acceptable reason. This came to include depriving the man of social manhood which meant barring him from the male community and throwing him together with lesser men, which soon came to also include the third sex/ gender (which earlier was a respectable male gender).

Sexual bonds between men were a great hindrance, because (a) it stopped men from diverting their sexual energy towards women, and (b) such bonds made men powerful, and prone to being rebels/ nuisance in enforcing the marriage institution. This heralded efforts to reign in such bonds.By the time of the Greeks, male bonds were celebrated and institutionalised but only for a certain time in a man’s life. He had to perform his social duty of procreation and raising of children in the other half of his life. But the life for men was still balanced between natural needs and social duty.

Christianity (and later Islam) changed the course of human civilisation by making man’s spiritual needs into a matter of social identity (much like what the west has done with his sexual needs today), in order to consolidate the powers that came from people’s faith in God. They needed to expand and rule the world ](addition: and thus needed to grow their population), [/I] and sexual bonds between men which were too common and acceptable in their era were a great annoyance. So they played their most potent card and brought in God to rule ‘sex between men’ as one of the gravest sins punishable by death. Earlier cultures were content with restricting male-male bonds, they did need to wipe them off totally from the mainstream male society. By using people’s blind faith, religion now blatantly used violence to kill men till sexual bonds between men went totally underground or was restricted to a few.

But even then the society did not make a distinction between sexual desire for men and sexual desire for women, nor did it think that men who have sexual desire for men are different (addition: and seperate) than those who have sexual desire for women. Or that most men are not capabable of sexual desire for other men. In fact, they knew too well that men in general have a tendency to get sexually attached with other men. Old timers still say that if the society talks about ‘homosexuality’ (sic) positively, everyone will become a ‘homosexual’ (sic).

No other society before the modern west had any terms for sexual desire for men and sexual desire for women or to distinguish those who have sexual desire for men from those who have sexual desire for women. If these were indeed different people, then these highly advanced societies would definitely have found words for them. At the same time these traditional societies distinguished between men and third gender/ sex males.

The modern west changed all that. It all started as religion started loosing its influence and sceince took over. Religious power could no longer be used to keep men from bonding with other men. Indeed, the ancient social mechanism of male oppression had given extraordinary powers/ benefits to a section of the society (including some men and women), and they sought to consolidate this power in the new age through a process called ‘heterosexualisation’ of the society.

The heterosexualisation of a society includes the following:

- abolishing all male-only spaces and making them mixed gender spaces with heterosexual values.

- Abolishing all social customs that may facilitate disguised/ behind the scenes bonding between men and enforcing heterosexual customs like dating, mixed-sex dancing, male-female social kissing, etc. Thus while man and woman can walk hand in hand in public, kiss publicly and even share a bed without eyebrows being raised, in many parts of the heterosexual world two men walking hand in hand may attract hostile cries of ‘homo’ or ‘fags’.

- Glorifying male-female casual sex, and freeing it from the burden of procreation/ marriage.

- Throwing all other human relations in the back ground: Male female sexual desire becomes the supreme human quality upon which the entire society is hinged. The right of the male-female couple is the supreme, superceding that even of one’s parents and siblings. Divorces and single parenthood become common as marriages are now based on shaky male-female romance rather than the social duty to raise children.

- Homosexualisation of male-male love: The heat on male-male love is intensified, making it an unmanly quality that robs a man of his social manhood and power, and throwing it into the feminised/queer/marginalised homosexual space. Introducing the concept of ‘sexual orientation’ was one of the important tools to isolate men who still bonded with men. They abolished the traditional and natural division of men based on their gender and introduced an ‘unnatural’ division based on ‘sexual orientation’.

- Breaking men from men: Creating a social condition where men just can’t bond with each other apart from superficially. Man stops relating with other men and is trained from the beginning to relate with women. Heterosexualisation creates a wall between men.

- Feminising and disempowering men: Taking away men’s rights, and increasing his social masculinity pressures.

Homosexuality
Thus the terms homosexuality/homosexual/heterosexuality etc. are relevant only in a heterosexualised society. Heterosexual societies are a product of modern, industrialised west and is removed from how nature made humans. Men in traditional societies don’t understand these terms because they have not lived in heterosexual societies. E.g. straight men who have sex with men in oriental countries do not see themselves as homosexuals. Only third gender/feminine/queer males are seen as homosexuals. Only transgendered/ queer/ feminine males relate with the ‘homosexual’ identity in these cultures.

We cannot call Alexander homosexual because he did not live in a heterosexual society --- which was unthinkable in his era. He was a naturally straight man (meaning regular/ masculine man as opposed to feminine/ queer man) and was recognised by his society as such.

But even in Alexander’s times there was a special category of males --- the third sex (eunuchs/ transexuals) and the third gender (queer/feminine males) who sought receptive anal sex from men treating their anus as their vagina. These can be called ‘homosexuals’ in their true sense. They even had a special name for such males --- a ‘catamite’. Therefore homosexuality for all practical purposes refers to a feminine males sexual desire for men, and it is wrong to use the word for straight men outside western societies.

There are several differnces between a homosexual’s sexual desire for a man/ homosexual and a straight man’s desire for another man (even if the straight man has no sexual interest in women). One of them is that a homosexual desires a man thinking of himself as woman or feminine --- to various degrees. While straight men desire men as men. Homosexual men think of themselves as being different from men from early childhood. Straight men feel no difference on account of natural gender. (addition: This is why homosexual men welcome a seperate homosexual identity and straight men are horrified of the idea. Striahgt men go to great extents to avoid the 'homosexual' identity. This includes hating, suppressing and hiding their sexual needs for men. When straight men are forced to leave the 'straight' space and join the gay space --- the transition is always traumatic for them, and they are always a misfit in the gay community) Homosexual men are promiscous while straight men tend to bond in committed, faithful bonds with another man (of course if allowed by the society as a straight thing!). Homosexual men basically look for active or passive anal sex while straight men don’t think much of penetrative sex (with men) --- either anal or oral.

At the same time there are a lot of similarities between homosexuals and those who can truly be described as ‘heterosexuals’ (and not those who have taken on a heterosexual identity for it’s social masculinity). They are both meterosexuals. They both benefit from the heterosexualisation of the society. They both think highly of penetrative sex. They both believe in “opposites attract”. They both find femininity in men and masculinity in women attractive. They both lack a capability to bond with straight men.

Praxus
19 Oct 05,, 15:54
So basically your saying that the modern world has created a false-dichotomy, when in reality there are different options, a natural option, where men can love men, without being effeminate, and without being homosexual.

That makes sense, I don't know enough about the subject to make any final judgement.

Alexander
20 Oct 05,, 06:10
So basically your saying that the modern world has created a false-dichotomy, when in reality there are different options, a natural option, where men can love men, without being effeminate, and without being homosexual.

That makes sense, I don't know enough about the subject to make any final judgement.


Without meaning to further dwell on the topic, let me just add that if it were just the matter of sacrificing one's sexual need for men, most straight men can ignore the issue --- because 'they can also do it with women' and thus divert their sexual/ emotional needs exclusively towards women (even if it is at a cost!). But it is not as simple. It is a part of the overall oppression of men --- all shades of men --- which although is silent and unacknowledged is no less than that of women. Unless men realise this important connection and stand up for their rights things are going to get really bad for them.

Reclaiming their power to bond and relate with men is an important first step. This is where an historical icon like Alexander becomes important (whether he was great or not!) as he shatters -- at one go -- the heterosexual + homosexual propaganda that a sexual need for other men is essentially feminine. (Notwithstanding the slandering by Oliver stone who portrayed him as a feminine/queer guy). If the sexual need of a straight man for another is accepted by the society as masculine (as it rightfully is) the biggest hurdle for straight men in reclaiming it will be gone. However, the vested interests who are in power will try their best not to let this happen.

Note: I have made some additions in the long post above. The additions have been put in a bracket, in bold and italic forms as follows:
(addition: ......)

EPA
23 Oct 05,, 05:53
Napoleon wasn't Italian, he was Corsican.

And about Alexander, he only had 2 serious opponents, the Persians and the Indians.
After the battle on the river Rubikon and teh consequent battle at Gaugamelles (sp?) when he destroyed a Persian/Greek army of 90, 000 men with his 47, 000 he simply rolled through the rest of the Persian Empire unopposed. The reason why he successfully crushed the Indians was because their Radjas opposed one another and he gained the support of some of them and used their troops to crush the opposing Radjas.

Ghengis Khan achieved much more than Alexander.
He sculpted the Mongol army into the most efficient military machine in the world at that time, he did it himself while Alexander got his armies from his father Philipp II.

Basically, I think Alexander had more luck and I don't think he was that great. He defeated the Pesians at Gaugamelles the odds were against him. But, the Pesians had been defeated by Greek armies before, and at worse odds, at Marathon. Plus, his father philipp fought and beat the greek city states. So i guess that means Macedonians were supior fighters to those that fought at Marathon. They were only about 200 years apart.

Praxus
23 Oct 05,, 22:09
Basically, I think Alexander had more luck and I don't think he was that great. He defeated the Pesians at Gaugamelles the odds were against him. But, the Pesians had been defeated by Greek armies before, and at worse odds, at Marathon. Plus, his father philipp fought and beat the greek city states. So i guess that means Macedonians were supior fighters to those that fought at Marathon. They were only about 200 years apart.

I think you should stop commenting on that which you know little about. The Greeks that showed up to fight at Chaeronea where a completely different breed from those that showed up to fight at Marathon, Salamis, and Thermopolyae. Between the end of the Persian war and Phillips invasion of Greece the Greeks fought a 20+ year war against each other. For over 20 years the Greeks knew nothing but constant warfare. The Athenians also experienced a plague that whipped out a huge chunk of their city (something like 80,000 people). Though the Lacadaemonians were victorious, in the end they were utterly depleted by the war. After the Peloponnession war there was a war fought between the Thebens (under Epaminondas) and the Spartans. The Thebens utterly whipped the Spartans, and on top of that freed the Helots (slaves that farmed while the Spartiates trained for war). So Sparta no longer existed as a viable military force that could be used to defend Greece. At the battle of Chaeronea the two major powers there were Athens and Thebes. If my memory isn't mistaken, Thebes put up the greater fight. In fact the Theben Sacred Band fought to the last man.

You also fail to take into account how effeminate the Athenians (the main power in southern Greece at the time) had become. They had this false view that the more money you had, the less you had to be prepared for war. That you could just send mercenaries to do the fighting for you. The Athenians were utterly unprepared for the rustic army from Macedonia, who wanted to fight, and wanted to win.