Lunatock

Actually your wrong in saying he's the average madrassah spawn. IMO he is unique in being anti-Indian, and having a Persian supremist slant. Persian women are quite lovely and interesting I'll admit...but the idea of Iranians being a "master race", and Indians being the scourge of mankind is exclusively his thinking.

And currently he's in the crosshairs, trigger is halfway pulled...

Sameer

Iranian masterrace?

Goodness

Iranians have a great history and culture and yes they have amazing women but they are no master race. They were dominated by many an invader for many years too, how the heck did they become Muslims then lol. Then the Russians had influence in the north and in the south the Brits etc etc etc, they were as screwed as we Indians were.

Today of course the Iranian economy run by the mullahs the kings of the masterrace is pathetic.

Alamgir

This doesnt make sense. You think Aurangzeb was a 'tyrant' or whatever and not Shah Jahan but it was Shah Jahan who took a hardline stance against the indians by destroying their places of worship that had been built during the period of the Mughals and those that were currently being built. Only your places of worship that had been there before the Mughal occupation of india were spared by Shah Jahan.

I think you are confusing Shah Jahan with Jahangir. Check any work on the Mughals. The most peace and stability in their empire was during time of Jahangir. Shah Jahan's reign was also back to fighting wars against indians and wars with his sons.

Aurangzeb did what he had to do to teach the indians a lesson they would never forget. And that is exactly what had happened. He was a great man of principles and knowledge who could admit all of his short-comings.

The Mughals were bound to lose india since they were anyway a foreign power who were occupying a huge population with their foreign army and government.

Alamgir

Im not anti-india im just defending the truth about the great Mughals who were not indians. If anyone was anti-indians it was the Mughals, just read what they had to say about india and indian people and you'll know how much they despised them.

And i never once said anything about Persian supremacy. But yes Persians are far more cultured, advanced and more civilized than the subcontinent and subcontinent people have borrowed (learned/taken) much of Persian culture. They even taken so many Persian words in their languages and still use the Persian names the Mughals gave to cities and other locations in their place.

Thats just the truth of things.

lemontree

That I agree his personal habits were exceptional and he was beyond doubt the best administrator, it was only the missionary zeal that created the rebellions and wars. Had he not been so harsh to hindus, the mughal empire would have been strong for a 150 years more atleast. Nadir Shah would have been made to sweep the streets of Lahore.
That is correct, Badur was'nt very pleased tp see the poverty in the villages. But he was greedy for the wealth that did not exist in Persia.
Who was more cultured and civilized is quite a debatable matter. For example when ancient India was experimenting in plastic surgery most of the world was still stone dumb.
Yes Indians did adopt many aspects of persian culture in their language that formed Urdu, it was a means of communicating with the rulers.

__________________

Cheers!...on the rocks!!

Jay

Who was an Indian in 1800? no body. Now if people who lived, ruled and died Hindustan are not Hindustanis, then who are they? Zombies?? Martians??

Yeah, pretty please read Akbarnama and let us all know.

Yeah, thats called persian supremacy. Now, if you are so great in everything, how come still women are supposed to wear burqua and toil?? Ever heard of Harappa, Mohenjadaro and Lothal??

That doesnt prove squat. India/Pakistan is a mixture of various culture and religions.So saying that only persians helped in this regard is pretty stupid. Pakistanis here can give a lot of info about the greek, mongolian similartities they have.

yeah, except it BS to start with.

__________________
A grain of wheat eclipsed the sun of Adam !!

Raj K Warrior

The empress of Hindusthan....a concubine ?? So Alamgir...is your mother your father's wife or your father's concubine ?

vivi

why not qin of china?

merced12

i vote british empire but i want to ask a question why isnt the ottomans turks in their list ottoman is very strong nad large empire in their time.ottomans bigger than some empire in list

Praxus

Chinese armies were peasant armies, very much like the Persians in the sense that they lacked significant ammounts of heavy infantry. We all know what happened to the Persians when they faced a concentrated force of heavy infantry. Not well.

Sure they had some nice inventions, but it doesn't compare to inventions of the Greeks and Romans: Formal Logic, Philosophy, Specific Sciences (phusis, et al), Republican and Democratic Form of Government (res publica and demokratia/isegoria respectively), Consensual Government (politeia), Concept of Freedom of Speech (parrhesia), Concept of a Citizen (polites, civis), etc. Not to mention the fact that they also invented numerous gizmos, important and not, like the Chinese did.

The Republican Romans and Greek Athenians were the most economically free peoples ever to exist up until the Renaissance.

So may I ask, by what standard do you judge the Qin of China supperior?

gunnut

Chinese did invent lots of stuff, and ideas too. The problem was the Chinese were a very closed off people. They regard civilization ended at their border. Everything outside their gates were deemed inferior and not worth their time. Hence they never bothered to spread their ideas and their culture beyond Southeast Asia.

I voted for the Roman Empire because it was light years ahead of their rivals at that time. It remained for centuries. It was humble enough to adopt someone else's ideas, namely Greek, and spread them throughout the known world. It was the foundation of the western world we have today.

The Romans were conquerers. The Chinese were not.

The Mongols were conquerers, but unlike the Romans they had very little cultural influence on the rest of the world. They took over China in the 13th century but remained there for less than a century. Without their own culture, they were either kicked out or absorbed by the Han Chinese.

Officer of Engineers

You could've fooled alot of China's neighbours. Present day China includes territories (Southern China once belonged to Vietnam, large sways of NE China once belonged to Korea, Inner Mongolia was ... well, Mongol, Tibet, and even Taiwan.

The Ming extended her reach as far as Afghanistan.

There is now evidence that the Great Admiral Zheng Hei manned a military and not an exploratory expedition.

__________________
Chimo

Karna

Alamgir, do you have the koran up your dick hole or something?

gunnut

Really? I did not know that.

I know China had controlled Korea on and off. China did conquer Southeast Asia and went as far as Burma I believe, in the Ching dynasty. I didn't know the Ming dynasty had fought all the way to present day Afghanistan. I always though Ming was more or less a dynasty too corrupt to do anything other than quell its own opposition.

I suppose if you want to look at China's origin as the small kingdom of Chin, then yes, I concede the Chinese were conquerers. I just don't see their influence as great as the Roman Empire was to the world, or even the British Empire.

Officer of Engineers

The perspective is vastly different in Asia. The written languages alone would have told you Chinese influence is without parallel in that part of the world.