Originally posted by: Chiillii
That is why I gave the example of Tipu Sultan and Maratha.
The carnage and destruction was always political and not religious. Asoka provided grants to those Brahmins who supported him. Those sangha's who went with his brothers were destroyed.
Just like Hindu Maratha attacked Sringeri Mutt because they corralled public support for Tips Sultan who protected them and gave them money. While he destroyed temples in Malabar as they supported Travancore Kings.
No one is clean in this all kings did that but Islamic invaders were the most ruthless and brutal, simply because they ended up covering an area much larger than any Hindu or Buddhist king could. Starting from Middle East all the way up-to East Asia. So their numbers are much higher than Hindus or Buddhists.
Yes that makes sense now. The kings wanting the public to convert was one part of the agenda. The major thing was to gain maximum support from the masses who was highly influenced by the religious leaders
I however don't think that Islamic rulers were more tyrant just because they ruled bigger areas, they had more religious animosity than those in Indian subcontinent
Auranzeb for example ruled much lesser area than Ashok and did much more blood bath
comment:
p_commentcount