The Great?

This may seem a contentious post but really speaking it is a 'thinking aloud' post. I am not sitting on judgment on any character discussed here and request you also not to do the same on me ;-) However, would love to hear your views and am sure to leave the thread with some learnings from you all.

Based on my limited knowledge of history and based on what my heart says, here's my view on the The Greats - Alexander the great, Ashoka the great and Akbar the great.

Before that, first I would like to define to myself what would be 'great' to me - exceptionally skilled or exceptionaly achieved in an area and 'the great' is one with none to surpass in the said area, be it on physical or mental capabilities . So, there can be many 'greats' and 'the great' obviously in different areas, for each area.

Alexander was the great warrior of his time and so was Akbar the great warrior, strategist of his time, so was Ashoka. They owned the maximum expanse of land of their time. I am specifically saying time, as it is always relative. For instance, Manu was the ruler of the entire world once, likewise King Ambarish or even King Ravana and likewise, later the British Colony etc. And, these leaders of our topic have shown in their greatness in some other qualities also. But these greats, were they greats' in all' sphere? Also, are the the greatest? Simple question otherwise would be, why would they bow down in front of anyone else then - be it the Sufis or the Saints. Obviously, one bows down to one whom one acknowledges as superior; in other words, bows in front of whom one considers oneself and one's achievement's small. Also, there is a difference between Akbar talking about the glory of Jaimal & Patta and me, isn't it?

This now brings us to the question - Then who is the greatest or the greater than the great or 'THE great? Well, immediate answer would be God, Who is the zenith of any great quality and Who is forever unsurpassed. But, we are talking in mortal terms now, and let us stick to that. And the above question also leaves us wondering if anybody can be really called 'The great' in an all-encompassing manner or specifically called great for their specific achievements, for example, a great warrior, a great poet etc.

Now, my second thought...

I would like to go back to my definition of great'. Can the definition be exceptionally skilled or exceptionally achieved alone? In that case, why is Hiranyakashipu of the yester time or the Hitler of the recent times not called great? Or the ones like Jallianwalabagh massacre not called acts of glory? So many were incapacitated and brought under control anyway right? So, there is a qualifier to the definition - greatness' achieved in a great' manner. And what is that great manner, any normal human would know 'the right way in accordance to the situation', more importantly, 'the right intent'. So, more than what was achieved, how it was achieved is more important, and more than that, why it was achieved is much more important?

With this in mind, if we look at the intent of Alexander's conquest and thereby the epithet The great'...well, am not sure. Yes, he is 'The great' military commander of his time and I admire his abilities as the greatest warrior then. But, the intent behind this epithet received, leaves a distaste in my mouth, I must say. All this, for just one person's individual ambition, the pride of ruling the entire world, period. And what not did this not cost? So many, many, many lives of innocent brave soldiers, families, innocents and what not? So, I cannot help but think if this was a well-deserved epithet in that sense. He went on pursuing his selfish goal, not sure if he had the time to look after his own subjects let alone the subjects of the lands he amassed. What use is of such a king or value is such an unprecented vitory or the ttle 'The great'? Here our Akbar may score well.in taking care of his subjects. But Akbar also makes me think about it...his attitude of imperialism again. Yes, he was very smart and he knew he had to win the heart of the locals for a successful administration and he did that. He got into alliance with such sorts, whom he knows will never betray him once on his side, unlike his own generals. He was an amazing strategist and a warrior, no doubt. Still, the chittor massacre, how could he justify that? Again, so much blood shed for his belief in imperialism. Wonder if it is in a way revelation of true colours? I cannot help but sit back and think if the epithet 'The great' is duly due. Well, the world may say so, but does my heart say so is all matters to me and my question remains. They may be great in certain spheres, but to put them on a pedestal with the 'THE great' tag? In the case of Ashoka also, what kind of blood shed? But, he is a transformed soul later. He made course correction. It does not matter whether it is innate or acquired. The fact that the transformation has set in is good enough. The post Kalinga effect - He did not ignore it, but thought about it and importantly acted on it too. Well, I may not be in agreement to a total ahimsa rule, as a King can never shed his weapons, he needs to use it to protect the land, but not to amass land though. For a true King, it is his people before himself. Akbar too may qualify for the welfare schemes, but not sure about any regret of his gory past. The selfishness still continued in my view (request Abhay to clarify on any transformation in Akbar). This is not to pit one against the other, but just thoughts on where each stand in my own humble view.

Now, coming to Maharana Pratap, the sensation of this forum. Maharana does not have an open epithet 'The Great', but he is viewed as great by many. And, this, though he was defeated by Akbar, the great. Because, his was a glorious defeat and it is any day more praiseworthy than a distasteful victory. This whole thought series triggered off after reading Abhay's post on Jaimal and Patta. Maharana and his great generals, comrades and all his soldiers, have acted to their best in the limiting situation, in the righteous manner with only the pure intent of saving their motherland, not to plunder anyone or earn a name. This is a holy war indeed. As my friend Rati had shared, it is not unnecessary bloodshed in this case, the land got sanctified even more by this bloodshed. Each of the soldiers may not be the best in wielding their weapons, still they are the great ones of the day as they gave their lives unhesitatingly to protect their mother. No wealth, no power, nothing, just nothing could lure them, they stood by their values and faith. Maharana's was a lone battle even after Chittor fell. Literally, the entire nation, with all its wealth and resources were against him or pitted against him. His own Rajput brothers, even his own family turned against him and waged war on him. Still, there was no compromise. To me, this guts and bravery looks tall even in front of Alexander's! And, he fought to save his motherland and reclaim her glory, not to annex more and more to it. No wonder he won the heart of The great' and great many.

Good Day!

Kaana,
Finally adding my views, today..Please bear with this long post...Though, these words are nothing compared to the deep philosophical insights which you have beautifully kneaded here with a paste of history.

This topic of greatness is a bit conflicting for me because there are many ways to look at it. The Great Man theory has been reduced to mere pages of history, but its allure continues to mystify one and all. When we talk about greatness, normally before deciding, we make an assumption that, the man, in fact i must say, the right man " it is often assumed to be a right man only " for when the time comes, will take control of the most dire situations, will come out almost magically from all the tragic events, and always emerge a winner, often he is projected as a super hero, a super man of sorts, who can drive all the things on his own, all alone. This is what is the general image of a GREAT man, most often. But, we should see that it is RARE to find a GREAT man withOUT a fault..!

OR.

One can analyze it in philosophical terms as well. We can call GREATness is a state of superiority. It can be said to be a natural ability to be better than all others. Like an implication that the person, when compared to others of "similar types", has clear advantage over others. In some cases the perceived "greatness" of a person, might be agreed upon by many, but this does not necessarily finishes the debate, as the perception of "greatness" may be both fiercely contested and is highly individual.

With such disclaimers , i now, start my post.. :-P

There are not only Akbar, Ashoka and Alexander who are called great. Peter of Russia is also called GREAT. Then we have Pompey - The Great (Roman Emperor Julius Caeser died at his statue. Remember?) . We have the Turkish Suleiman - The 'Magnificent'. Shah of Persia, Abbas , who was a contemporary of Mughal Emperor Akbar, is also called GREAT. Likewise, there are many other monarchs called Great.

In Present discussion , i am restricting myself to Akbar, Ashoka, Alexander ; and your topic of Maharana Pratap, the ONLY Rana to have the prefix of 'Maha', meaning GREAT. I presume we know about Akbar and Ashoka, mostly. So, i am adding a few lines about Alexander here, to give a brief BG, since you mentioned him also...

Coming to Alexander. People like him are RARE. He is one of history's most famous conquerors and a legend of "almost divine status" in his lifetime. He belongs to the elite category of individuals who changed the history of civilisation and shaped the world as we know it today. More than 50 cities are still named after him, after more than 2000 years of his death. No doubt he brought forth the destruction of many a beautiful cities during his conquest, for that reason he is loathed, at some places. But still he is acknowledged as a GREAT monarch at many places. His name runs from Babylon to the Pyramids of Cairo to the vicinity of the Sands of Thar.!

From a leadership perspective, Alexander was without peer. He could be magnanimous toward defeated enemies and loyal toward his friends, and as a general he led by example, literally from the front. He died more than 2,000 years ago, but his life offers important lessons even today. We can not compare him with Akbar or any other monarch. His time was different, his method was different, his area of rule was different. Though, one can compare "individual" acts of these "great" people, and can debate , but overall "objective comparison" of greatness among them is not possible.

Alexander set the example of excellence with his leadership style, which involved sharing his soldiers' triumphs and woes alike. When his troops went hungry or thirsty, he went hungry or thirsty. When their horses died beneath them and they had to walk, he did the same. This accessibility changed only when he succumbed to the luxury of court life, and that was the beginning of the end for Alexander.!!

As i said in the starting, it is RARE to find GREAT men withOUT a FAULT. Just like the Chittor is a blot on Akbar, Alexander also carries the blot of wiping out large scale populations from their native land during his conquests..Alexander is also criticized for continuous warfare instead of taking out time for consolidation. He was violent in temper and at times some of his best friends became victim of his temper by losing their lives.. He is also criticized as he was almost worshipped by the people in his own lifetime.

Akbar is great, certainly not because of his Empire. I say this line because if you talk about the extent of empire, then Aurangzeb and Shah Jahan had a bigger empire than Akbar. I already talked about the land Alexander won in his life. Even Chandragupta Maurya and Samudragupta had a bigger empire. Samudgragupta is also termed - The Indian Alexander by historian Vincent Smith. Going down South, one can not forget the might of the Raja Raja Chola, who even had the capacity to subjugate Lanka and eyed the Spice Islands. Nonetheless, Ashoka was a "warrior reformer" as far as i have read him. His Empire, spans the reign upto Kandhar beyond the Hindukush and in South goes right deep upto Sravenbelgola.!! Akbar is great because of his reforms and brilliant strategies which he incorporated to keep his empire stable for a long time, which he brought in this land, a land which was divided on the basis of religions. We had a ruthless conqueror in Akbar in the intial period of his life who wanted to win the HIND at any cost. A determined monarch with fierce strategies. There is a difference between THAT Akbar who brought these reforms and THAT Akbar who was expanding his Empire in "initial" period of his life. Later, he had shown shown by his acts that he was tolerant and "accomodating" by his reforms, but he had ALSO shown that he could be a devil to those who did not accept him as their master. Who can forget Chittor ? . It is TRUE that Akbar brought all those reforms, after stabilizing his empire; he brought those changes when his empire was safeguarded from all sides. Right TIME and Right OPPORTUNITY is something which is required for talking such watershed reforms. It was possible for Akbar, because he had that URGE and that poltical muscle to bring on daring experiments. Looking from the perspective of Abul Fazl, Akbar is almost given a divine status, he has been compared to Alexander in battling prowess by his chroniclers.

You raised a good point, why don't we call Hitler - The Great ? Afterall, he was fighting for the "cause" of German RACE and wanted to avenge the humiliation of Ist WW. There was a time in Germany when Hitler's book Mein Kampf was sold to all the newly married couples, to profess his doctrine. Also, why don't we call Napolean - The Great ? Infact, Napolean brought some good changes for his nation. Kaana, as i said in the starting, GREATness is a term which we decide as per our thinking. Different people will have different criterias to set greatness.

Finally, coming to MP. We can not compare MP with Alexander, as far as "extent" of political empire is concerned, but certain individual acts i would like to point out. Like Alexander, he too led from front, MP's wars were fought by him, "in person". He may not have that many resources with him as Alexander, Ashoka and Akbar, but nonetheless, he was second TO NONE when it came to IDEALS and PRINCIPLES. He never bartered his independence no matter what . Come what may, he faced it all. Hunted from forest after forest, and cave after cave, still he refused to submit.

Single-handed, for a quarter of a century [1572-97] he withstood the combined efforts of the mightiest empire of his times under one of the mightiest sovereigns to have ever walked this earth. The story of the struggle between Maharana Pratap and Mughal Emperor Akbar, which is crowded and too replete with incidents, produces the impression that it was a prolonged struggle and involved the Mughals in useless sweat and toil.

Great warrior as Pratap was, it is to be admitted that Akbar was a master strategist who brought almost everyone into his fold whatever may be the means, except Pratap. Pratap's remaining aloof from that hold was an impediment to his task(as Abu'l Fazl says). Had Pratap joined the service of Akbar, his country could have been saved from the plunder, continuous destruction and ruin. But Pratap's name is immortal in the history of this land as a great soldier of liberty who concentrated his attention on this moral aspect of the struggle he had to wage without caring for material advantage or losses involved. He upheld the pride of his race and as long as this race lives, it will cherish with pride the memory of one who staked his all in a fight against the person "who wanted to imperialize him". As a great warrior of liberty, a devoted lover of noble cause and a hero of moral character, his name is to millions of men even today, a cloud of hope by the day and a pillar of fire by the night..

I again say one thing, GreatNess of any person is seen in context of what is the benchmark we set.

For some, it is the MORALS, PRINCIPALS, heroism, of Pratap which make him GREAT. There were times, when he had nothing to eat, when he lived in forests, feeding his family on wild fruits and water.!!. His family slept on an empty stomach. Pratap was a person who was born in a Royal House, who ancestors ruled Chittor right from 734 AD, under Bappa Rawal. Was he destined to lead a life like this.?? He could have easily accepted the suzerainty of Mughal Emperor, and led a life of comforts in the palace, but look, he rejected all of this, for what ?? IDEALS and FREEDOM. He was a man was refused to act under orders of anyone.! Just like Akbar was NOT accustomed to see anyone disregarding his orders, in the same manner Pratap was NOT used to take orders from anyone, except his own SELF.

Are / Aren't some of these qualities sufficient to concede a THOUGHT about Pratap - The ONLY 'Maha'rana among all the Ranas ??

For some, it may be the amount of land won by Alexander which make him GREAT. For some, the reforms of Emperor Akbar are the things which make him GREAT. Ashoka is called GREAT, not for Kalinga massacre but the reforms he undertook after that. Even Pompey, Caesar, Abbas, Suleiman are 'GREAT' and 'Magnificent' in their countries. Just like Newton's laws are applicable in some " FRAME of REFERENCE " and they change their meaning from one frame to another, same is the case of GREATness...

Interestingly, most of the time, i find it hard to explain, how can i like both Akbar and MP, who happen to be MOST FIERCE RIVALS of each other during their lifetime. As much as i admire and salute Maharana for his courage, principles & never say die spirit ; i also admire Akbar for taking the field against the orthodoxy and bringing reforms in a time when it was BLASPHEMOUS against one own religion.

Kaana and those who are reading this - Hope you won't make any "judgement" on this post of mine. This is mostly written about Pratap, as your topic was more about Maharana. I am going to play a devil's advocate in this topic. And, you have chosen 2 people whom i admire a lot - "Emperor Akbar and Maha Rana Pratap", both of whom happen to be of the different sides of the same coin. This is going to be interesting.! :-P

PS :

I have also posted a separate writeup on a thread, which contains slightly more details. Link

And, on my blog too. LINK

Unres at page 3...

I am not very informed in general on the topic of history, but I do have a family member who lives and breathes history. All the figures you mentioned, he has studied them all. His personal favorite great historical figure of all time is ... Genghis Khan. Why, You might ask. I just asked him for a quick brief and this is what he told me.

Genghis Khan was the greatest emperor that ever lived. He won over great amount of land. He was the greatest military planner and strategist. He was a great judge of character. He was a great administrator. He respected all religions. He never had a goal of expansion. He had a general policy of only fighting those who wronged him. But if anyone did wrong him, he did not spare them. Except for his very early days, he never lost a war. He had such a great personality that once someone came with him, they never ever went against him or betrayed him. There was peace in any area that he ever controlled. He was a man of peace who was forced into fighting any war he ever fought. He started with nothing and was a self made man.

PS. Mongols did attack and invade India, 19 times to be exact. But none of these invasions were during Genghis Khan's time. It was his descendents that did that.

PPS. This family member has the utmost respect for Maharan Pratap. He also loves Chanakya.