Who is greater ? - Page 2

As there is no definite basis for greatness, I guess the votes here are based purely on personal favorites.

In that case, I vote for Akbar.

The reason being simple, I've read more about him than the other two so naturally admire Jalal more.

But that doesn't make Ashoka or Chandragupta any less great. This debate on greatness can go on and on, provided that the people debating have ample knowledge about all rulers in question.

Originally posted by: sanju15k

Well,its nice to see, people are voting... but they should also gice reasons too... what they like about their chosen one?...because I can sense, people are voting on the basis of the serials only... well guys, its not anout the show... I m talking about in real, according to history🤔

actually its silly question all three are great their own place because

Originally posted by: Shanak_Fan

Then u have to remove Rajat and Sid's pics and add the pics of real Akbar,Chandragupt and Ashok in ur main post.

U will find lot of paintings of these 3 on the internet.

99% members are JA fans so they will obviously vote for Akbar

Plus,I feel one needs to do more research on these people before judging their greatness.

For me,all 3 were great rulers of this country.

@bold -vo to mene bas yuhi thoda cool..aur bhara bhara sa post dikhane ke liye dala the...aur kuch nhi😃...nhi to pheeka sa lag raha tha post ...

Originally posted by: Susan.Dsouza

actually its silly question all three are great their own place because

they have their own achievement

their own history

agar tum show ke basis se puchoge my fav is Akbar and now iam living chandra too

well, me to unke history , achievements ke basis pe hi puch raha hun ... i mean...sabne alag alag cheezo me contribution diya hai ..to tum logo ko kya pasand aya , yahi janna chahta tha...isiliye to yeh likha tha mene ki reason bhi batana , par koi bata hi nhi raha ...sab ya to tuka ya fiir show ke basis pe bata rahe hain😊

Originally posted by: myviewprem

It depends on what criteria

If its based on warrior and admin

1) Chandra -- because he won from scratch and had no bairam khan, man singh etc to go on battles like akbar, his opponents included alexander army, nanda army very big army compared to akbar and ashoka

2) Akbar

3) Ashoka - had kingdom served on platter by dad and grand dad

If its reforms

1) Ashoka

2) Akbar

3) Chandra

But you must see how many years each got also to choose reforms. Chandra became king at 31 years of age and left for meditation at age 54 (23 years) Akbar ruled 49 years and Ashoka 40+ years.

Here also chandra gupta was too busy consolidating the empire and setting up administration, he did not get 40-50 years like a akbar and ashoka to do reforms etc

Once you annex large kingdoms and set up admin you need to time for it to consolidate to start reforms like akbar, ashoka did. Chandra never got that time at all and had much greater enemies also at that time who were more cruel be it nanda or an alexander army who were huge and battle hardened.

Second akbar and ashoka faced indian kings and soldiers, chandra had to face greeks, persian and afghan warriors who are battle hardened and more cruel. Indian kings and soldiers are more considerate and not intimidating like greek, persian and afghans

So i think chandra is greatest emperor than ashoka and akbar

Finally , koi to apne choice ko reason ke sath justify kar raha hai ...nice👏, i agree with your points..par @bold - yeh to Akbar ko bhi mila tha...main baat hai ki vo kindom ka use kese karte hain ...kunki Ashoka ke pass almost pura india tha uske under , par uske bete to kuch nhi kar paye koi mahan cheez , balki batwara aur kar diya , jo itni mushkil se united kiya tha😊.

Originally posted by: sanju15k

Finally , koi to apne choice ko reason ke sath justify kar raha hai ...nice👏, i agree with your points..par @bold - yeh to Akbar ko bhi mila tha...main baat hai ki vo kindom ka use kese karte hain ...kunki Ashoka ke pass almost pura india tha uske under , par uske bete to kuch nhi kar paye koi mahan cheez , balki batwara aur kar diya , jo itni mushkil se united kiya tha😊.

.

.

well ek doubt mene kahin padha tha ki Chandra 20 ya 21 ki age me king of magadh bana tha...?🤔

Originally posted by: myviewprem

As per history chandra defeated nand when he was 31 years old

Ekta writers are wrong, chandra was not 20-21 while becoming emperor or defeating padmanand

just like chandra married dhananand daughter not padmananad's

May be to show love story they made chandra so young

Otherwise practically no one can win huge sub continent at age of 21 years when he is not royal and did not inherit any kingdom at all. It takes time

well, me show ke basis pe nhi keh raha tha...is show ke chandra ko chandra nhi manta , na chanakya ko chankya , aur na magadh .🤣..cartoon show hai yeh mere liye😆..

Someone wrote the Magadh kingdom was served on a platter to Ashok.

Originally posted by: Shanak_Fan

Someone wrote the Magadh kingdom was served on a platter to Ashok.

I don't agree with this.

Bindusar was biased towards his first wife Charumitra and his eldest son Sushim. He wanted Sushim to succeed him after his death even though Ashok was more deserving than him.Ashok tried his best to prove to his father that he is the best by conquering kingdoms but still his father never acknowledged his victories.

Finally after Bindusar's death,Ashok had to use unfair means and became the king.

I agree usne galat tarike se emperor bana par he too had to struggle a lot.Bindusar ne usko kabhi nahi bola,"Beta,mere baad tu raja banega."

Chakravartin Ashok Samrat mein jo bhi dikhaya woh sab galat tha.

well, budhist monks kehte hai ki , ashoka ne apne sare bhaiyo ko markar throne hasil kiya tha, kya yeh sach hai?🤔