Did you know Taimoor in school? - Page 8

I don't think it's just about conquering and wars, but rather the intention and follow up action that decides how the king/ emperor is viewed by posterity. Almost all kings and emperors used to go on campaigns to expand their kingdom/ empire. It's the intention that decides who gets vilified and who is not. If the conquered kingdom was being ruled by an incompetent ruler and the subjects were not prosperous, another king conquering their land and bringing stability will not evoke any negative sentiment. If after conquering the people are treated fairly and they are granted autonomy, they won't resent it. There are numerous examples of such warfare and nobody really pays much attention, because it's just a victory of a more competent army over a less competent army. The king who conquered had the desire to administer the newly conquered territory in the same way as his original kingdom, treat the people fairly and with respect, didn't discriminate and apart from some tax for himself, reinvested the rest of the tax in that country itself.

But if a prosperous country is captured and looted, the conqueror won't be admired by the people of that country. An example is Ashoka and his Kalinga campaign. Even though Ashoka is regarded as a great ruler in Indian history, people of Orissa don't regard him that highly because Kalinga was a prosperous kingdom which he destroyed, plundered the whole kingdom, killed many, enslaved even more, and for all the big talks about his change of heart, he didn't try to restore Kalinga to its former prosperity, neither did he release those he enslaved. Modern examples are the colonial empires, who conquered prosperous countries, oppressed the conquered people, discriminated against them, aimed to suck dry the conquered land to nourish their motherland.

Worst is a king/ emperor who conquer another country with the sole aim to destroy, persecute and annihilate entire populations, they are hated the most. Examples are some of the barbarians, whose aim was more to destroy rather than nurture the newly conquered territories. The Roman Empire itself was a big culprit as is evident with its annihilation of Carthage, but people romanticise Roman Empire era so much, they fail to see such unsavoury details. Initial Islamic invaders to Indian subcontinent also belonged to the same group. Their primary aim seems to be to destroy temples, loot the treasures, kill as many people as they can, and spread chaos in general rather than establish a stable kingdom.

So on. These words are mentioned with lot of respect today but it doesn't remove, delete the past.

Ideologically we still relate Jews with Germany, Hitler. US with slaves, Civil War. Britain with colonization. Association stays.

Alexander , might be a great leader for many but he has people who despise him as well. Indians live in the history where some "Indian" stopped his juggernaut and they take a moral victory about it.

Taimur's whole run was based on an ideology which resonates even now. Eliminating non-Muslims even if it meant destroying Muslim leaders with non-Muslim populations. Not just in India, in some parts of Iraq , he is still despised. His name has been associated with this ideology because for many , he spread the destruction of non-Muslims as a way of God. He is revered in a section of society for his ideology- isn't that an association too.

A city was destroyed in 3 days, which resonated.

People may admire him for warfare but will they defend his ideology now or even then. His name has become symbolic for many for those reasons.

If people say a name is a name then why do we bother with it's meaning? Why is it said it means strong, strength..whatever, that too is an association.

Positive , Negative association.

Again, juvenile to troll a child for it but then celebs use sns by spreading the name on sns by using a hashtag..opens up a lot of possibilities.