Kaushlendra pratap singh
Banned
I read about her, it comes to the knowledge that her humble origin was state secret of Russia, also see come through marriage further no comment .
AHC - Mauryan Empire Implement a Mandate of Heaven in India
- Thread starter Brahman
- Start date
There was nothing called 'CASTE' in Europe. There were classes; Peasants, Clergy and Nobility. Almost all Nobility became so because peasants became prominent clergymen and then became Nobility through the influence they made as Clergymen. Also you will find many whigs and tories were not nobles.
It was very possible for a peasant; if they worked hard enough to become nobility.
Kaushlendra pratap singh
Banned
i am saying in from 1500-to modern age not in ancient history where Shudra Nanda were emperor of Magadh
I dont know, Yuan Shikhai? In China?
The reason why no new modern dynasties arose after the early Modern Era was because after that when Monarchies were deposed, republicanism is brought in; it is kind of hard to become the king of a republican state you know.
Or they used sub branches of the former monarchy like the House of Habsburg-Lorraine and the House of Hanover.
Kaushlendra pratap singh
Banned
and it was possible for Koli to become King in Shivaji court, many Nayak of the south were Shudra origin. the Haider Ali come from humble origin become king. Jat king Surajmal become king in 1740. Hamu Vikramaditya comes from humble origin almost become ruler of Delhi.
Peshwa family were normal clergyman in the court of Behmani kingdom from there they slowly they rose to become ruler of the Maratha empire.
are you trying to debate against my position or support it? Because your points support mine.
Muhammad Ali is also an example. And from what I remember although Peter did try to "legitimise" Catherine and her marriage it was open knowledge in Europe that the daughters of the two weren't "true princesses" as reflected in the French refusing to consider a royal marriage
Now I don't mean to undermine Indian history but like I said, people of normal and poor origins becoming ruling families, and very influential people wasn't anything new to anywhere. Japan, Europe, Eurasia, The Tribes of the Native Americans etc. It happened almost all the time in China and Late Medieval Europe. And it did happen all the time in the tribes of the New World.
Sarthak Bikram Panta
I agree with the assessment that Caste system definently had its benefits in terms of social security and craftsmanship, but the fact it had literally become a part of Hindu culture lead to enormous amounts of social discrimination and a societally weak country
I agree with the assessment that Caste system definently had its benefits in terms of social security and craftsmanship, but the fact it had literally become a part of Hindu culture lead to enormous amounts of social discrimination and a societally weak country
Exactly and there lies the problem. Once the internal rotting of the Caste System comes to be after the first successful generations of it, the whole system is going to come crashing down like with how the Mughals and British literally exploited the Caste System to their advantage. Any foreign invader with a smart enough and cunning leader would utilize it; and if you want this pseudo-Indian Empire to go against the other regional powers then King Amshuverma of Nepala Mandala, the Chinese Empires and the Burmese Empires had loads of such kinds of leaders. You need to make the system involve in such a way it doesnt lead to an internal collapse of society.
This will be a controversial opinion, but I do not think Hinduism will be able to achieve it, Perhaps only an ultra successful Buddhist spread in India can
Perhaps similar to Islamic Caliphate, Buddhist Mauryan empire lasts for a while, successfully converting many core territories in North India, leading to gradual conversion of whole India
Uh the Islamic caliphate lasted centuries longer in India and failed in converting the entire population so that Hindus remain plurality the highest religion. Plus Buddhism doesnt exactly espouse violent conversion so it's going to be even slower. You need to last a long time for it to happen
Yeah, true that, Many Muslims dynasty in India were quite happy to collect the Jizya and play caste and regionsl politics against each other to gain supremacy in south Asia, A long lasting Mauryan empire could convert a significant portion of South Asia
Why does it have to be "organized"?
In England it was a population that clearly used violence in the process of settling their new territories, this much is indisputable. There is no need to demand it being "organized".
This is not the case, genetics have already proven than in India there was a big enough demographic component to the indo-europenization, This is even more so depending on how you interpret the genetic makeup of the original newcomers to have been(already mixed with Central Asia or "pure" Yamnaya/Andronovo-like people? probably the earlier, making the demographic impact even bigger), but even the most conservative estimation would give an impact of more than 20% outside ancestry for most of the Indus and Ganges basin and more so for the northern Indus valley.
You are arguing with 19th century dead scholars, if we strip your caricature of any further meaning and ideologies, we can actually say that Aryan invasion was a process where Indo-Aryan speakers, which if we had to mention were probably lighter than the locals, ended up dominating and assimilating the local populations and the later caste system preserves to this day some differences in the amount of original Aryan ancestry even if ultimately mixing occurred at all levels.
There is essentially nothing false about this, the problem is trying to argue against ideas and theories that go far beyond this simple statement by attacking this unrelated concept.
People making wrong claims about the nature of the caste system, the chronology of the decline of IVC and the coming of the Indo-Aryan speakers etc. doesn't mean that we can pretend that this particular anecdote of human history is one free of violence or that it lays outside what we can call "invasion".
In the entire history of humanity we see so much violence in just about every facet of society, but in this event where an outside groups enters, dominates and ends up becoming a big demographic component of the newly mixed population, there was no violence or coercion? Did the locals somehow elect or voluntary choose the newcomers into power?
Why does prior internal decline of IVC disprove the idea of an invasion? Maybe you are using a very specific meaning of invasion, but honestly to me if there is violence and if there is a political takeover, it's simply an invasion. The fact you also think the Indo-Aryan settlers were mostly male is telling, doesn't it make them more likely to have been armed bands confronting established, albeit declining/collapsed, native societies instead of general migratory groups(like Slavs were north of the Danube) who simply encountered depopulated land?
Last edited:
Depends on where, in some places the nobility was less than 1% of the population, in others it was upwards of 10%.