The greatest king in Indian history? - Page 3

Originally posted by: Anu.Rad

QTdi, how about Sri Ram 😛 He even sacrificed his married life for the praja..

I'm not QTdi but still couldn't help but reply...😛

Ram was no way near as a statesman or diplomat in comparison to Shri Krishna. Secondly, I don't think it's a great idea to ask someone to give proof of her purity by jumping in the fire just because your subjects asked for it.😲 And that too after she was kidnapped and kept in confinement for so many days.🤢 He could have handled it better, IMO.

Originally posted by: souro

I'm not QTdi but still couldn't help but reply...😛

Ram was no way near as a statesman or diplomat in comparison to Shri Krishna. Secondly, I don't think it's a great idea to ask someone to give proof of her purity by jumping in the fire just because your subjects asked for it.😲 And that too after she was kidnapped and kept in confinement for so many days.🤢 He could have handled it better, IMO.

Originally posted by: souro

I so agree with you on this. Only thing is there is no definite proof that he was a historical character.👏👏👏

If I have to choose from the historically documented emperors of India, then I'll choose Samudragupta, because he was a good general, a good administrator and statesman, encouraged arts and also had a powerful army & navy to command the respect of the neighbouring countries. To have a strong navy was not that common among ancient Indian kings and they rarely dared to cross the natural boundaries (the Himalayas or the oceans). Samudragupta was at least successful to some extent in doing that.

Though the very same things can be said about Vikramaditya and Ashoka but because of a few reasons I consider Samudragupta just a li'l above them.

Firsty, Samudragupta expanded the Gupta empire to a vast one which Samudragupta inherited. It was Samudragupta who was a proponent of art and education which was again emulated by Vikramaditya.

Secondly, the Gupta empire continued to flourish even after the death of Samudragupta, because he was successful in building a strong base. The same can't be said about Ashoka who infact weakened the base a bit by adopting a non-violent policy, and his successors couldn't maintain the influence of the Mauryan empire and it came crashing down.

Another, emperor who can be regarded in the same league is Akbar. Though it was about 1200 yrs later and I think more could have been achieved by him considering the advancement in technologies that must have been made in that time.

And, some of the kings included in that list like, Shivaji and Prithviraj Chauhan, I don't think they were major kings. Maybe, kings with some adventurous stories attached to them but certainly not great.

Souro I agree with almost all points by you except one or two.

Firstly, Krishna was not a king at any time. Madura was ruled by Ugrasena after the death of Kamsa and Dwaraka was ruled by Balaram. Since Sriram was almost idle campared to Laxman in Ramavatar, it is said that in Krishnavatar they reverse the roles(heard/read in a story related to Bhagavad).

Akbar may be great, but I respect Sivaji and Prithvi Raj Chauhan more because I respect bravory more than so called political soaping such as marrying a neighbours young daughter at the mid-age etc.I disagree with the methodes used by the great Indian King to became great.(Do you heard about the famous "Meena Bazaar" during the time of Akbar)

Raja raja Chola of Chola dynasty also have a similar navy and expand his ruling up to overseas(Eastwards). He was also called as "Gangaikonda cholan" because he expand his country upto River Ganga.

Originally posted by: minnie2308

No Neha .you have definitely not offended me.

However, I did feel some emotional outburst there 😕

But I was truly shocked when you said "Asoka, Chandragupta, Sivaji…..etc. weren't idiots" Did you really believe that I considered them idiots? In that case I'd really like to know where? I am actually awed by them………. And feel they were superheroes who walked the earth.

When I talked about putting PRC in league…. I definitely meant on the bravery part…… someone who faces his enemies and also intimidates them deserves a pride of place amongst the brave rulers……….the very first statement in my post which u deleted while quoting. You said you disagree with me……but I realized you have almost at all points agreed with me😆 all except FEW

And about cricket analogy..... I actually meant the no of overs decided by the almighty for PRC and for the others.

And yes I firmly believe that he killed Ghori before killing himself.

@bhuvana ... Yeah i have also heard about the confusing mystery around Shivaji's death...... personally I would prefer a warriors death.

neha, You also did not mention Asoka....... my personal favourite. who's entry into the hall of fame stems not from fighting and winning wars, which his ancestors aslo did pretty well, but from establishing Asoka dhamma....... the intricate details of which are beyond the scope of current debate

@ bold And to the end of a powerful Kingdom and mishaps among its people..

Originally posted by: Anu.Rad

Yes, but he earned the title of "Mahapurush".. He might not be a diplomat, but he was truth speaker something for which he was known and he controlled the people really well who where under him...

But I wonder if he would hv taken a similar step if it was someone from the commons... Was it that only Sita had to give the agnipariksha or was it a rule applicable to every woman 😕

Sorry, but I don't consider honesty as the greatest virtue in a king when dealing with state affairs. Cunning and crookedness are required to maintain supremacy over other kingdoms.

Originally posted by: sareg

Many a stories associated with most of the kings are more of folklore and seem to be more twisted. So stories about Vikramaditya, Chandragupta, Ashoka have more of a unbeliavalble stories attached to their names. I wont even talk about Shri Ram and Shri Krishna

Personally I feel Prithviraj Chauhan and Shivaji ahead in that respect.

The accounts of history are more provable for Shivaji and the maratha empire. And if you read most of the accounts they seem to be a bit grand, but the facts are verifiable. That is why the death story mentioned here seems to be very far from truth(seems to be the work of some unhappy distortinist of history 😆 )

IDK what reasons you used to come to the conclusion that the conquests of others are inadmissible and only PRC and Shivaji's qualify. Maybe the description of the warfares of those emperors were given a glorified or fairytale like make over, but the fact remains that they had to fight and win in order to keep their empire secure. You can't sing praises of a king defeating this and defeating that without the king actually defeating them. Moreover, along with literature, architecture and other relics bears testimony to the extent of their empires.

And I don't know what Hindu empire of Shivaji you are talking about. A kingdom yes, empire no way. An empire is supposed to be way bigger. Shivaji had a kingdom, maybe we can say a medium sized one. But he didn't lay any foundation, with him the kingdom was also lost. Later on there were many Marathas fighting for a piece of that cake and also plundering the neighbouring states but they never succeeded in establishing permanent administrative control over the major centres in India and there was never a single supreme leader at one time like they had in Shivaji.

Originally posted by: Anu.Rad

Huh what a debate... But all went over my head.. History has never been for me.. Bahut mushkil se ratta marti thi.. I really cant get those dates and names 😕 😕 😕

QTdi, how about Sri Ram 😛 He even sacrificed his married life for the praja..

Originally posted by: souro

IDK what reasons you used to come to the conclusion that the conquests of others are inadmissible and only PRC and Shivaji's qualify.

I have already stated in my post why

Maybe the description of the warfares of those emperors were given a glorified or fairytale like make over, but the fact remains that they had to fight and win in order to keep their empire secure. You can't sing praises of a king defeating this and defeating that without the king actually defeating them.

Winning wars makes a great king?

Moreover, along with literature, architecture and other relics bears testimony to the extent of their empires.

literature can be art of work, Taj Mahal is an excellent architecture? so is the love story of Shah Jahan, we all know how great a emperor Shah Jahan was

And I don't know what Hindu empire of Shivaji you are talking about. A kingdom yes, empire no way. An empire is supposed to be way bigger. Shivaji had a kingdom, maybe we can say a medium sized one. But he didn't lay any foundation, with him the kingdom was also lost.

Shivaji was coronated somewhere in the 1670's he died in 1680, the Maratha Empire grew to all corners of the country and met its demise at the hands of the British in the late 1700(that is a decade and half after Shivaji Died), so is it incorrect statement to say he laid a foundation to an empire(anything that encompases more than 2/3rd of the nation can be considered an empire, cant it? well if that is not an empire than basically none of the Indian kings ever had an empire😉)

Later on there were many Marathas fighting for a piece of that cake and also plundering the neighbouring states but they never succeeded in establishing permanent administrative control over the major centres in India and there was never a single supreme leader at one time like they had in Shivaji.

Actually it took three members of his family to get outlast Aurangzeb, In fact the biggest wins of the Maratha empire came after the death of Shivaji. then it was the Peshwa's(means prime minister) who effectively led. The mughal rulers were primarily rubber stamps for much of the duration after Aurangzeb

That population and army throughout the entire period represented India the way it is, it was inclusive of all religions and caste's

Now I havent said that Shivaji or any king was the greatest, there isnt any proven documentation other than the Maratha empire that can be verified against each other. For the Maratha period, the documentation is in Indian historic documents, the British document, the French documents and the Portugese documents.

In general we in India tend to exaggerate great kings and even give them a semi-god status as has happened with a lot of these kings. That is the reason the historic documents need supporting verification, not just a passerby verification but an active verification.

With that criteria I have only two "great monarchies" to compare, the Maratha monarchy and the Nehru Gandhi monarchy. for me that is a no-contest.

The menion of PRC was only b'cos India went into a period just during PRC and was coming out of that period in the Maratha Empire.

Originally posted by: souro

Ram was no way near as a statesman or diplomat in comparison to Shri Krishna. Secondly, I don't think it's a great idea to ask someone to give proof of her purity by jumping in the fire just because your subjects asked for it.😲 And that too after she was kidnapped and kept in confinement for so many days.🤢 He could have handled it better, IMO.