DOTW- Why historians hate prithvi? - Page 2

Originally posted by: lakshmim_84

Naa nish, i feel Indira Gandhi was the best ruler of India... In 2day's scenario.. v cannot afford to have a king or a ruler who is kind hearted n noble (to his enemies) like prithvi..

What?

u are comparing PRC with indira gandhi rather u are calling her the better ruler

Strangeeeee😕

Originally posted by: lakshmim_84

Naa nish, i feel Indira Gandhi was the best ruler of India... In 2day's scenario.. v cannot afford to have a king or a ruler who is kind hearted n noble (to his enemies) like prithvi..

i dont think we can compare indira gandhi and prithviraj chauhan..both ruled the country differently and in a different form. prithviraj chauhan ruled india when it was a kingdom and indira gandhi ruled it as a democracy..both of them had different statuses..and different issues to deal with..so dun think we can should or can compare them 😊

Originally posted by: sonali13

i dont think we can compare indira gandhi and prithviraj chauhan..both ruled the country differently and in a different form. prithviraj chauhan ruled india when it was a kingdom and indira gandhi ruled it as a democracy..both of them had different statuses..and different issues to deal with..so dun think we can should or can compare them 😊

No comparisons at all,it is very much unjustified.My point is that no body is digging the grave of Indira Gandhi and no historian is studying her form of leadership,even though she was killed because of one of her moves towards Punjab's golden temple.On the contrary we start praising the person too much inspite of his/her shortcomings once he/she is dead,Then why is PRC being targetted so much,is it just because there is nobody to talk on his behalf or to protect his legacy?I think it is a bit unfair.Sorry if hurts somebody's sentiments it is totally my view😊

Originally posted by: nishkala

No comparisons at all,it is very much unjustified.My point is that no body is digging the grave of Indira Gandhi and no historian is studying her form of leadership,even though she was killed because of one of her moves towards Punjab's golden temple.On the contrary we start praising the person too much inspite of his/her shortcomings once he/she is dead,Then why is PRC being targetted so much,is it just because there is nobody to talk on his behalf or to protect his legacy?I think it is a bit unfair.Sorry if hurts somebody's sentiments it is totally my view😊

I know it is unfair.. but lets face it.. history always favours the winner.. India has suffered 1000 yrs of slavery.. Now that is deep wound for every indian. No matter how much v say "chodo kal ki batein, kal ki baat purani", no one will ever forget this.. Now when people think what was the reason for this slavery, everyone will think abt the battle that made these invaders enter india.. n unfortunately for prithvi, the most popular battle was battle of tarrain in which prithvi lost.
Anywhere u search, it is said prithvi was the last hindu ruler of india.. just see the hidden meaning.. prithvi lost india to foreigners. So people with this hurt in mind try to spread the negative characters of prithvi than positive...
Yes i agree... this is totally wrong.. n i am happy with sagars bcos they r trying to show the people the positive characters of prithvi.. Just imagine if sagars had not brought out this serial.. no one would have bothered abt a king called prithviraj chauhan. He was famous in north india.. near rajastan, punjab delhi etc... but not outside that.. Now thanks to sagars.. entire india is singing his praise.

Originally posted by: lakshmim_84

I know it is unfair.. but lets face it.. history always favours the winner.. India has suffered 1000 yrs of slavery.. Now that is deep wound for every indian. No matter how much v say "chodo kal ki batein, kal ki baat purani", no one will ever forget this.. Now when people think what was the reason for this slavery, everyone will think abt the battle that made these invaders enter india.. n unfortunately for prithvi, the most popular battle was battle of tarrain in which prithvi lost.
Anywhere u search, it is said prithvi was the last hindu ruler of india.. just see the hidden meaning.. prithvi lost india to foreigners. So people with this hurt in mind try to spread the negative characters of prithvi than positive...
Yes i agree... this is totally wrong.. n i am happy with sagars bcos they r trying to show the people the positive characters of prithvi.. Just imagine if sagars had not brought out this serial.. no one would have bothered abt a king called prithviraj chauhan. He was famous in north india.. near rajastan, punjab delhi etc... but not outside that.. Now thanks to sagars.. entire india is singing his praise.

no laks prithvi alone cannot be blamed for foreigners invading our country...
there were other kings too...who could have sent them back...
but u r right...even i think prithvi had some negative characters ,but the way sagars have brought out this character makes him a perfect king... every king made a mistake which cost them a lot..whether its bhim dev or someshwar or prithvi...
they were human beings too...we cannot expect them to be perfect.. its just bad time

Originally posted by: kirantarani2007

Last week we got hist assignment to make a project on any topic of our choice,,,, no prizes for guessing what my topic is. But I am very disappointed there is so little +ve articles on prithvi available. Why do all historians hate prithvi so much.

1. He lost one war against ghori…..ok it was coz of his carelessness…but was it such a big crime that it eclipses all his other achievements and good qualities. He had just defeated his enemy in a long drawn and gruesome battle, The battle of Tarain 1, his enemy had been defeated and he had accepted Prithvis friendship and promised to remove his armies frm the neighboring kingdoms. Prithvi who was an honorable man himself accepted his enemies words and promise at its face value and became lax. This was his mistake. But was it not a typical human reaction. After having fought a long and gruesome battle he now wanted to enjoy his victory and relax and chill out for some time.
2. They say after the first battle he shd hv kept a closer look on his enemy n they r right in this. Prithvi after the first battle spent a lot of time with his wife sanyo and neglected his duties. Ok accepted. But why do they forget that it was partially prithvis fault for not keeping a closer watch on ghori,,,,,,,,,,but ghori was planning the second battle behind his back. In those days the kings depended on their spy network to inform abt them of these deve....but ghori did all this in such a way that his spies never came to know abt these deve n ghori attacked him suddenly and in the night. Same thing BD did to Someshwar…….even then Someshwar was not aware of the attack coz his spies had not infm him abt this. Someshwar was not neglecting his duties and spending time with his wife still a cunning king cld plan such an attack in those times.
3. They say he liked a good life and had married many princes. Ok accepted. But they all forget that he was burdened with such big responsibilities just at the age on 13, when he was still not ready to accept them. At the age of 15 he was also given the responsibility of Delhi. During his reign he consolidated the whole of North India……his ppl were supposed to be very well taken care of . His kingdom was a prosperous one. So doesn't it show that he did manage most of his duties nicely. So once in a while he wanted to escape from all of this is it so bad.
4. At just the age of 13 he declared and won the war against Bhimdev, who was a cunning king of a big province, had a big and powerful army. Is this feat not a big thing. Its just mentioned at some places………most everywhere its glossed over. He consolidated the whole of North India by his dig vijay…..all the other kings were also brave and had large armies………but he defeated them all.
5. They say he shd not hv let ghori go after the first war. But doesn't this also show that he was a very honorable and kind hearted king. He didn't treat ghori as a prisoner of war but afforded him the respect of a king although he had won the war against him. Coz he wanted peace. This is not a fault…..its a commendable act. Ghori by treating prithvi in that derogatory manner after he is taken prisoner just made himself appear so small infornt of prithvi. He treated prithvi that way coz he was afraid of prithvi……..
6. His friends were ready to die for him and they did so. If prithvi was not such an honorable and brave king wld his frnds have so much love and respect for him. Sanjam gave himself to the vultures to save prithvi. His other two frnds died in the war. Chander was saved, but he left his family behind and went all the way to ghazni to help his frnd……….Is there friendship not even deserving a mention in the histories. Forget abt foreign historians our own Indian historians also don't consider these very Indian qualities of Bravery, Kindness, Friendship, Honor, Loyalty in one person a reason to praise him.😕

kiran they are people after all....mass always praises u as long as u r successful.. they cannot accept failure.. whether its country or cricket... 😆..
u r right he did millions of noble things..but his one failure will remembered and pointed more than the good things he did😊

Originally posted by: chaitra86

kiran they are people after all....mass always praises u as long as u r successful.. they cannot accept failure.. whether its country or cricket... 😆..
u r right he did millions of noble things..but his one failure will remembered and pointed more than the good things he did😊

exactly.. thats what i have been trying to say : history favours the winner

haila kuch naye points de do bache ko 😊

yeh political discussion of prithvi vs indira gandhi is very good par mujhe prithvi par project banana hai 😆

Originally posted by: kirantarani2007

Last week we got hist assignment to make a project on any topic of our choice,,,, no prizes for guessing what my topic is. But I am very disappointed there is so little +ve articles on prithvi available. Why do all historians hate prithvi so much.

He lost one war against ghori…..ok it was coz of his carelessness…but was it such a big crime that it eclipses all his other achievements and good qualities. He had just defeated his enemy in a long drawn and gruesome battle, The battle of Tarain 1, his enemy had been defeated and he had accepted Prithvis friendship and promised to remove his armies frm the neighboring kingdoms. Prithvi who was an honorable man himself accepted his enemies words and promise at its face value and became lax. This was his mistake. But was it not a typical human reaction. After having fought a long and gruesome battle he now wanted to enjoy his victory and relax and chill out for some time. They say after the first battle he shd hv kept a closer look on his enemy n they r right in this. Prithvi after the first battle spent a lot of time with his wife sanyo and neglected his duties. Ok accepted. But why do they forget that it was partially prithvis fault for not keeping a closer watch on ghori,,,,,,,,,,but ghori was planning the second battle behind his back. In those days the kings depended on their spy network to inform abt them of these deve....but ghori did all this in such a way that his spies never came to know abt these deve n ghori attacked him suddenly and in the night. Same thing BD did to Someshwar…….even then Someshwar was not aware of the attack coz his spies had not infm him abt this. Someshwar was not neglecting his duties and spending time with his wife still a cunning king cld plan such an attack in those times. They say he liked a good life and had married many princes. Ok accepted. But they all forget that he was burdened with such big responsibilities just at the age on 13, when he was still not ready to accept them. At the age of 15 he was also given the responsibility of Delhi. During his reign he consolidated the whole of North India……his ppl were supposed to be very well taken care of . His kingdom was a prosperous one. So doesn't it show that he did manage most of his duties nicely. So once in a while he wanted to escape from all of this is it so bad. At just the age of 13 he declared and won the war against Bhimdev, who was a cunning king of a big province, had a big and powerful army. Is this feat not a big thing. Its just mentioned at some places………most everywhere its glossed over. He consolidated the whole of North India by his dig vijay…..all the other kings were also brave and had large armies………but he defeated them all. They say he shd not hv let ghori go after the first war. But doesn't this also show that he was a very honorable and kind hearted king. He didn't treat ghori as a prisoner of war but afforded him the respect of a king although he had won the war against him. Coz he wanted peace. This is not a fault…..its a commendable act. Ghori by treating prithvi in that derogatory manner after he is taken prisoner just made himself appear so small infornt of prithvi. He treated prithvi that way coz he was afraid of prithvi……..
1. His friends were ready to die for him and they did so. If prithvi was not such an honorable and brave king wld his frnds have so much love and respect for him. Sanjam gave himself to the vultures to save prithvi. His other two frnds died in the war. Chander was saved, but he left his family behind and went all the way to ghazni to help his frnd……….Is there friendship not even deserving a mention in the histories. Forget abt foreign historians our own Indian historians also don't consider these very Indian qualities of Bravery, Kindness, Friendship, Honor, Loyalty in one person a reason to praise him.😕

Kiran I dont know where exactly u have searched for PRC......But its not true that historians hate PRC........I have read some books on ancient indian history which contains a through analysis of PRC's life & political power……& in those books the power & good quality of PRC is highly acclaimed……No doubt that the fall down of PRC had a strong historical impact……With PRC's fall down India was open for the invaders……If u go through some book on medieval India u will come to know the torture & insecurity that the common Indian had to face at that time was beyond of our thought……I am not telling that It was all PRC's fault……PRC himself suffered extreme tragic ending…….but yes if he could protect his kingdom at that time then we would be the having a different India today……

Originally posted by: saswatisett

Kiran I dont know where exactly u have searched for PRC......But its not true that historians hate PRC........I have read some books on ancient indian history which contains a through analysis of PRC's life & political power……& in those books the power & good quality of PRC is highly acclaimed……No doubt that the fall down of PRC had a strong historical impact……With PRC's fall down India was open for the invaders……If u go through some book on medieval India u will come to know the torture & insecurity that the common Indian had to face at that time was beyond of our thought……I am not telling that It was all PRC's fault……PRC himself suffered extreme tragic ending…….but yes if he could protect his kingdom at that time then we would be the having a different India today……

I completely agree with you saswatisett.. well said... ..