1961 Indo-Portuguese War

[GodlessBastard]

Whatever may be the strength of these Indian empires, none projected their strength outside its own domain. So, how any of these can be called a super power?

Notice how I never used the word "superpower", but rather "global power". The modern definition of "superpower" is a country which can extend its force and influence outside its boundaries; in ancient times, it was not possible to exert military force across long distances due to limits in technology. However, a "global power" is a country which a) represents a large proportion of the world's population, economy, and military strength, and b) has considerable cultural and economic influence outside of its boundaries.

Both were true in regards to these Indian empires. Under empires like the Mauryas and Guptas, Indian culture spread Greece to Southeast Asia in the form of Buddhist missionaries, technological innovations, and scientific concepts. Take, for example, the modern numeral system, which was developed during the Gupta Empire and is now used by every person in the world.

Ancient India was also a dominant economic power. It made of one-third of the world's trade and economic output. Thanks to its monopoly on valuable goods like spices, war elephants, and cotton, Indian merchants could be find anywhere from the ports of Rome to Jayapura (present-day Indonesia).

Evidence? South India has one of the world's largest hoards of Roman coins.

 

[LeGenD]

Notice how I never used the word "superpower", but rather "global power". The modern definition of "superpower" is a country which can extend its force and influence outside its boundaries; in ancient times, it was not possible to exert military force across long distances due to limits in technology. However, a "global power" is a country which a) represents a large proportion of the world's population, economy, and military strength, and b) has considerable cultural and economic influence outside of its boundaries.

Both were true in regards to these Indian empires. Under empires like the Mauryas and Guptas, Indian culture spread Greece to Southeast Asia in the form of Buddhist missionaries, technological innovations, and scientific concepts. Take, for example, the modern numeral system, which was developed during the Gupta Empire and is now used by every person in the world.

Ancient India was also a dominant economic power. It made of one-third of the world's trade and economic output. Thanks to its monopoly on valuable goods like spices, war elephants, and cotton, Indian merchants could be find anywhere from the ports of Rome to Jayapura (present-day Indonesia).

Evidence? South India has one of the world's largest hoards of Roman coins.

Using the term 'regional power' would be more appropriate for the Indian empires you mentioned. Trade relations is not an indication of being a world power. Their had been many regional powers in history with strong economy, strong military, unique culture, and large population.

The concept of world power is such that an empire or kingdom exerts its influence in different parts of the world (i.e. domination over different cultures and kingdoms) and not just in the the neighbourhood.

Some examples:

Greekish empire under Alexander's rule, spread in to Europe, Africa, and large parts of Asia.

Similarly, Roman empire at its peak spread in to Europe, Africa, and Asia.

Islamic empire at its peak also spread in to parts of Europe, Africa, and Asia (and also covered the entire subcontinent).

Some other examples of world powers are Persian and Mongolian empires.

The concept of superpower emerged with the British empire after industrial revolution. It was the first empire to exert its influence at true GLOBAL scale.

After the World Wars, USA and USSR became superpowers.

And after the Cold War, USA has been labelled as hyperpower (the sole superpower).

 

[GodlessBastard]

Using the term 'regional power' would be more appropriate for the Indian empires you mentioned. Trade relations is not an indication of being a world power. Their had been many regional powers in history with strong economy, strong military, unique culture, and large population.

The concept of world power is such that an empire or kingdom exerts its influence in different parts of the world (i.e. domination over different cultures and kingdoms) and not just in the the neighbourhood.

Some examples:

Greekish empire under Alexander's rule, spread in to Europe, Africa, and large parts of Asia.

Similarly, Roman empire at its peak spread in to Europe, Africa, and Asia.

Islamic empire at its peak also spread in to parts of Europe, Africa, and Asia (and also covered the entire subcontinent).

Some other examples of world powers are Persian and Mongolian empires.

Defining power in purely geographical terms is a flawed approach, but if you wish to define it in that manner, note that the Indian Subcontinent is no small entity. In terms of geographic area and population, the Mauryan Empire, for example, was about the same size as the Roman and Macedonian empires. India, as you know, is also home to many diverse cultures, and unifying those into a single entity is no easy task.

There were also instances of Indian states launching military invasions outside of the subcontinent. A prime example is of the Cholas, who at one point dominated most of Southeast Asia.

Even today, Indic culture and Indic place-names persist in SE Asia, largely due to the legacy left behind by the Cholas.

However, Indian empires tended to stick to the subcontinent, and the Cholas were the exception rather than the rule. India itself had so many resources and riches and the neighboring lands had little in comparison, so there was no motivation for external conquest. Even the Cholas invaded SE Asia to control the vital sea lanes in the Malacca Straits and to monopolize their trade with China, not to conquer the people living there.

Power itself comes in two distinct flavors: 'hard' and 'soft'. Hard power refers to the military strength and resources at the disposal of states, while soft power refers to the more subtle instruments of influence, such as culture and trade. Although there were many Indian states in history with plenty of 'hard' power, ancient India is notable mostly for its 'soft' power. India's long-lasting 'conquests' were made in the form of cultural influences on its neighbors and around the world, which last to this day.

History shows us that of the two types of power, 'soft' power is the more permanent and therefore more effective of the two. The most successful empires in history, such as the Romans and British, understood the importance of both types of power. The Mongols, despite having tremendous 'hard' power and building one of the largest empires in history, had almost no 'soft' power, which is why the Mongol conquests had almost no long-term impact. The Mongols, at one point, conquered Iran, but you would never know it by visiting Iran today; Persian culture and 'soft' power won out over Mongol 'hard' power, and the Il-Khan Empire which ruled Persia in the 14th century following the Mongol conquets was essentially a traditional Persian state with a Mongoloid ruler. By the 16th century, all vestiges of Mongol rule in Persia had dissappeared.

It is for these reasons, among others, that it is not always accurate to classify states as "global" or "regional" powers based on geographic criteria alone. China, as an example, seldom had influence outside of its boundaries. Most of China's military history was spent fighting amongst itself and against northern barbarians, as in India. Other than the occasional expression of suzerainty over neighboring states like Korea and Tibet, Chinese empires like the Tang and Song mostly stuck to themselves. By your definition they too would be considered "regional" powers. However, I would still define these Chinese empires as "great" if not "global" powers, due to the tremendous military and economic strength possessed by them and their relatively small but still highly significant cultural influences to the Western world vis-a-vis the Silk Road.

 

[LeGenD]

Defining power in purely geographical terms is a flawed approach, but if you wish to define it in that manner, note that the Indian Subcontinent is no small entity. In terms of geographic area and population, the Mauryan Empire, for example, was about the same size as the Roman and Macedonian empires. India, as you know, is also home to many diverse cultures, and unifying those into a single entity is no easy task.

There were also instances of Indian states launching military invasions outside of the subcontinent. A prime example is of the Cholas, who at one point dominated most of Southeast Asia.

Even today, Indic culture and Indic place-names persist in SE Asia, largely due to the legacy left behind by the Cholas.

However, Indian empires tended to stick to the subcontinent, and the Cholas were the exception rather than the rule. India itself had so many resources and riches and the neighboring lands had little in comparison, so there was no motivation for external conquest. Even the Cholas invaded SE Asia to control the vital sea lanes in the Malacca Straits and to monopolize their trade with China, not to conquer the people living there.

Power itself comes in two distinct flavors: 'hard' and 'soft'. Hard power refers to the military strength and resources at the disposal of states, while soft power refers to the more subtle instruments of influence, such as culture and trade. Although there were many Indian states in history with plenty of 'hard' power, ancient India is notable mostly for its 'soft' power. India's long-lasting 'conquests' were made in the form of cultural influences on its neighbors and around the world, which last to this day.

History shows us that of the two types of power, 'soft' power is the more permanent and therefore more effective of the two. The most successful empires in history, such as the Romans and British, understood the importance of both types of power. The Mongols, despite having tremendous 'hard' power and building one of the largest empires in history, had almost no 'soft' power, which is why the Mongol conquests had almost no long-term impact. The Mongols, at one point, conquered Iran, but you would never know it by visiting Iran today; Persian culture and 'soft' power won out over Mongol 'hard' power, and the Il-Khan Empire which ruled Persia in the 14th century following the Mongol conquets was essentially a traditional Persian state with a Mongoloid ruler. By the 16th century, all vestiges of Mongol rule in Persia had dissappeared.

It is for these reasons, among others, that it is not always accurate to classify states as "global" or "regional" powers based on geographic criteria alone. China, as an example, seldom had influence outside of its boundaries. Most of China's military history was spent fighting amongst itself and against northern barbarians, as in India. Other than the occasional expression of suzerainty over neighboring states like Korea and Tibet, Chinese empires like the Tang and Song mostly stuck to themselves. By your definition they too would be considered "regional" powers. However, I would still define these Chinese empires as "great" if not "global" powers, due to the tremendous military and economic strength possessed by them and their relatively small but still highly significant cultural influences to the Western world vis-a-vis the Silk Road.

Here is a simple definition of world power: A state powerful enough to influence events throughout the world.

None of the Indian empires you mentioned fall within the definition of the world power or even come close to its scope. They never managed to project power or influence events out side of Asia. They were regional powers at best.

In contrast, Roman, Greek, Mongol, Persian, Islamic, and British empires projected power and influenced events in several continents. In each case, objective was to influence events in many parts of the world.

For example: Did Pakistan posed a threat to Alexander? Yet Alexander was willing to establish the writ of his empire in regions far away from Macedonia itself and not just in its neighbours.

Cultural domination is not a criteria to determine a world power. It cannot be shoved down the throats of the people. It is rather adopted.

The 'hard power' is one of the most important tools of a world power. If an enemy state is not willing to be influenced by a world power; it is punished by the world power via occupation. Such events can have a great psychological impact on other states which are not willing to fight the world power and thus bend on its whim.

 

[GodlessBastard]

Here is a simple definition of world power: A state powerful enough to influence events throughout the world.

That is the modern definition of power. It is not applicable in the ancient world, where technology did not allow such power projection.

The first state to employ the modern definition of global power was Portugal in the 16th century, due to advances in navigation technology allowing the first blue-water navies.

None of the Indian empires you mentioned fall within the definition of the world power or even come close to its scope. They never managed to project power or influence events out side of Asia. They were regional powers at best.

In contrast, Roman, Greek, Mongol, Persian, Islamic, and British empires projected power and influenced events in several continents. In each case, objective was to influence events in many parts of the world.

Continents themselves mean nothing in determining power; they are geographic expressions and nothing more. Rome, Greece, and Persia were able to influence three different continents because they were located right next to three continents (Europe, Asia, Africa). Roman influence in Asia never extended past the Euphrates and Persian influence in Europe never extended past Thrace and Greece. Rome never influenced the Congo and Persia never influenced ancient Germany.

Consider this: the distance from India to Indonesia is about the same as the distance from one end of Alexander's empire to the other. In ancient times ~5,000-6,000 km was the maximum distance that any nation could exert direct influence, whether it be Rome, Greece, Persia, India, or China. As I have stated many times before, the size of ancient Indian empires were more or less the same size as the ancient Roman and Macedonian empires.

For example: Did Pakistan posed a threat to Alexander? Yet Alexander was willing to establish the writ of his empire in regions far away from Macedonia itself and not just in its neighbours.

Gandhara did not pose a threat to Chandragupta, nor did Srivijaya pose a threat to Rajendra Cholan. Both conquests were made with imperialistic designs in mind, and both were as far away from their respective rulers' base of power as Persia was from Macedonia.

Cultural domination is not a criteria to determine a world power. It cannot be shoved down the throats of the people. It is rather adopted.

Yes it is, absolutely. Read some history. Cultural supremacy defeats military supremacy every time. The Roman Empire was able to control Spain and France for so long because they effectively Latinized the people living there; even today the French and Spanish speak languages that are based on Latin. In comparison, the Huns were able to control Europe for less than a century, because they were unable to replace the strong cultural legacy of the Romans.

When a culturally superior civilization is invaded by a culturally inferior one, the superior absorbs the inferior. It is called assimilation, and it is how nations and peoples rise and fall. Show me one instance in history where this is not true.

Culture shapes how people act, how people live, how people think and view the world. It is the essence of civilization and the essence of power.

 

[LeGenD]

That is the modern definition of power. It is not applicable in the ancient world, where technology did not allow such power projection.

You have a point here but you are not looking at the big picture. Even in ancient times; some rulers had ambitions for world domination.

Such rulers had ventured in to regions far away from their homelands for domination and greater glory. They would challenge other kingdoms to either submit to their demands or prepare to be forcibly annexed. Such rulers were trying to influence events in as many regions as possible for them. The objective of such rulers was to establish their empires as the most powerful and dominant ones in the world.

For example: Alexander (a macedon native) managed to extend the boundaries of his empire up to India. Now Macedonia was in Europe, so why he wanted to influence events in regions far away from his homeland? You probably know the answer.

Similarly, Cyrus of Iran, literally expanded the boundaries of his empire in to Europe, Africa, and large parts of Asia. The Achaemind empire is one of the largest that ever existed.

Then again, Mongols also vastly expanded their empire and annexed lots of kingdoms. They extended their writ to Europe and even in parts of Africa. Their ambitions were not hindered by the size of the territory. It was all about world domination.

The largest Islamic empires (caliphates) also spanned in to several continents.

Later on, world witnessed colonial empires with global aspirations.

The Russian empire of the 18th century was also huge; it covered parts of Europe and even America.

So contrary to all of the above cited examples; the Indian rulers, in general, did not had ambitions for world domination. They established their writ within the neigbourhood but not beyond that.

The first state to employ the modern definition of global power was Portugal in the 16th century, due to advances in navigation technology allowing the first blue-water navies.

Yes! Portugese empire is regarded as the first 'global empire' in recorded history by western sources.

However, this may not be the case.

An interesting (and very ancient) example is of cultural similarities between Egyptian and Mayan civilizations. Both of these civilizations existed in different continents; yet their cultures are interrelated. A mystery?

Continents themselves mean nothing in determining power; they are geographic expressions and nothing more. Rome, Greece, and Persia were able to influence three different continents because they were located right next to three continents (Europe, Asia, Africa). Roman influence in Asia never extended past the Euphrates and Persian influence in Europe never extended past Thrace and Greece. Rome never influenced the Congo and Persia never influenced ancient Germany.

Continents mean a lot under the defintion of world power. If an empire spanned in to several continents, it was percieved an example of being a world power in ancient times. Controlling territories in different continents was a complex and difficult job. These empires incorporated different civilizations within them, and also had indirect influence over events in unoccupied regions too. These empires also have a history of immense power projection. The famous rulers of these empires managed to subdue powerful and famous kingdoms and annexed them. Within the subject of ancient super-civilizations, empires like these are most well known and famous. The reasons are obvious.

From the pre-colonial era; Mongol, Islamic (Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates), Persian (Achaemind), Greek (Macedon), and Roman empires were all not just larger in size then the Maurya empire but they also spanned in to several continents. They also had a history of greater power projection.

One can argue that Romans had leverage of territory but Roman empire also have a history of great power projection and influence over events in unoccupied regions. Its fame alone speaks volumes about the scale of its influence in ancient times.

Consider this: the distance from India to Indonesia is about the same as the distance from one end of Alexander's empire to the other. In ancient times ~5,000-6,000 km was the maximum distance that any nation could exert direct influence, whether it be Rome, Greece, Persia, India, or China. As I have stated many times before, the size of ancient Indian empires were more or less the same size as the ancient Roman and Macedonian empires.

It is not just about size or distance. Power projection and conquests are also essential factors to consider. These are the complexities that differentiate a world power from regional power.

In case of size, lot of empires trump even the largest known ancient Indian empires. How these empires extended to such immense sizes? What was the agenda? It was all about expansionism and world dominance.

Maurya empire at one time had expansionist designs but Ashoka changed this. If it had extended in to Europe or even Africa, it could be regarded as a world power of its time but this was not the case.

Gandhara did not pose a threat to Chandragupta, nor did Srivijaya pose a threat to Rajendra Cholan. Both conquests were made with imperialistic designs in mind, and both were as far away from their respective rulers' base of power as Persia was from Macedonia.

Covered above already.

Yes it is, absolutely. Read some history. Cultural supremacy defeats military supremacy every time. The Roman Empire was able to control Spain and France for so long because they effectively Latinized the people living there; even today the French and Spanish speak languages that are based on Latin. In comparison, the Huns were able to control Europe for less than a century, because they were unable to replace the strong cultural legacy of the Romans.

When a culturally superior civilization is invaded by a culturally inferior one, the superior absorbs the inferior. It is called assimilation, and it is how nations and peoples rise and fall. Show me one instance in history where this is not true.

Culture shapes how people act, how people live, how people think and view the world. It is the essence of civilization and the essence of power.

The assimilation argument sounds convincing but it does not works in every case. I can provide examples;

Spain and portugal under occupation of Islamic empires for a long time; Yet insignificant cultural influence upon them of the culture of its ancient occupants.

Mongolian occupations; no significant cultural influence.

Russian empire; no significant cultural influence.

United States; Defeated the ideology of communism and has a history of utilizing various forms of soft power (e.g. democracy, imperialism, and propaganda) to influence events in many parts of the world. However, the intensity of its cultural influence upon nations under its influence is not similar among them.

The phenomenon of world power rests upon the capability to influence the events around the world. Cultural assimilation is just a part of the game, and not a major criteria.

 

[SQ8]

Not at such relevant to the thread..
But there is talk of holding a goa themed party here..
a lot of goanese contributed to Karachi.. many of them are still here..
And there is an effort ongoing to collect data on the culture they bought with them.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

Not at such relevant to the thread..
But there is talk of holding a goa themed party here..
a lot of goanese contributed to Karachi.. many of them are still here..
And there is an effort ongoing to collect data on the culture they bought with them.

Yes i'd met a few in Karachi. Goans migrated in search of work all around the Arabian Sea littoral area and the Persian Gulf. To countries afar as Kenya, Tanzania and South Africa.
Another thing that was revealed during conversations with some of them, was that many of them were stowaways on ships or people who took passage as irregular crew members or lascars.

 

[GodlessBastard]

So contrary to all of the above cited examples; the Indian rulers, in general, did not had ambitions for world domination. They established their writ within the neigbourhood but not beyond that.

Yes, I agree. From a military standpoint there was little desire or reasons to expand beyond India.

However, when I am talking about global powers in the ancient context, I am talking about states who have had a huge long-term cultural influence on the world, played a dominant role in the world economy (this is still part of the modern definition of global powers), and were military and demographic powerhouses (meaning they controlled a large portion of the world's military might and population). I exclude the modern requirement of power projection because it was not possible in those days. Having big ambitions doesn't equal actual influence.

Yes! Portugese empire is regarded as the first 'global empire' in recorded history by western sources.

However, this may not be the case.

An interesting (and very ancient) example is of cultural similarities between Egyptian and Mayan civilizations. Both of these civilizations existed in different continents; yet their cultures are interrelated. A mystery?

Well, the classical Maya civilization existed thousands of years after the classical Egyptian civilization. There were many similarities between the two, but each had their own distinct "flavor", and they most likely developed similar concepts independently.

Continents mean a lot under the defintion of world power. If an empire spanned in to several continents, it was percieved an example of being a world power in ancient times. Controlling territories in different continents was a complex and difficult job. These empires incorporated different civilizations within them, and also had indirect influence over events in unoccupied regions too. These empires also have a history of immense power projection. The famous rulers of these empires managed to subdue powerful and famous kingdoms and annexed them. Within the subject of ancient super-civilizations, empires like these are most well known and famous. The reasons are obvious.

That's not the point. I was talking about the geography. Strictly speaking, Greece, Egypt, and Turkey are part of three different continents, but they are located very close to each other. Controlling all three of those territories does not make you more influential than a larger empire on a single continent.

From the pre-colonial era; Mongol, Islamic (Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates), Persian (Achaemind), Greek (Macedon), and Roman empires were all not just larger in size then the Maurya empire but they also spanned in to several continents. They also had a history of greater power projection.

See, that is a misconception that is not true. The Mauryan Empire is estimated to have controlled a territory of 5 million sq km. This is the same size of the Achaemenid and Macedonian empires, and not too far from the size of the Roman Empire.

One can argue that Romans had leverage of territory but Roman empire also have a history of great power projection and influence over events in unoccupied regions. Its fame alone speaks volumes about the scale of its influence in ancient times.

Rome is so famous because the Western historians make it so famous.

It is not just about size or distance. Power projection and conquests are also essential factors to consider. These are the complexities that differentiate a world power from regional power.

What devices of power projection did the Romans, Greeks, or Persians possess that the Mauryas, Guptas, Kushanas, Mughals, etc. didn't?

It is about the size and distance, which is what you yourself were talking about. You said that the Mauryas had less power projection because they controlled less territory and they could not influence events over as large a distance; I have refuted both points by bringing up the objective facts.

And obviously, the Mauryan Empire had its own share of extensive conquests; how did it grow to such large size? The Mauryans were a Magadhan dynasty. Their home territory was Magadha, in present-day Bihar. It was under Chandragupta (who brought North India, the Indus, and Central Asia under his rule), Bindusara (South India), and Ashoka (Kalinga/the East) that the empire reached its vast size.

Spain and portugal under occupation of Islamic empires for a long time; Yet insignificant cultural influence upon them of the culture of its ancient occupants.

Both Spain and Portugal already had strong cultural foundations in the form of Latin culture, but the Arabs also had a strong culture, so in this case it was a purely military contest. The Arabs had tremendous cultural influences on the Spanish and Portuguese, especially in architecture and language. The entire southern region of Spain reflects Middle Eastern architectural styles. I am studying Spanish right now, and there are many words that are derived from Arabic and Arab phrases. For example, the Spanish phrase Ojalá, which means "I hope/I pray", is derived from "Allah".

If the Arabs did not have such a strong culture, they would not have been able to rule Spain for 800 years. Similarly, if the Spanish did not have such a strong culture, the Reconquista would not have succeeded.

Mongolian occupations; no significant cultural influence.

As stated before in one of my examples, the Mongols were assimilated by the peoples they conquered, whether it be in China, Russia, or Persia.

Russian empire; no significant cultural influence.

Wrong, the Russian empire had a huge cultural influence over the peoples that came under its rule. In fact, in Russia we have two different terms for "Russians". One is "Rossiyu" (Росси&#1102, which refers to ethnic Russians; sometimes the term "Great Russian" (Velikii Russki, Великий русски&#1081 is also used to avoid confusion. However, there is also the term "Rossiskaya" (Российска&#1103, which also translates to "Russian" in English but specifically means someone who speaks Russian and is part of Russian culture, but is not an ethnic Russian. This term is used to describe the peoples of Siberia, Caucasus, Volga, etc. who were slowly assimilated into Russian culture over many centuries. The cultural assimilation of ethnic minorites during the Russian Empire, and to an extent under the USSR, was a conscious, national policy. This is why almost everyone in Russia today speaks Russian and follows Russian customs, even if they are not ethnic Russians.

Even if you travel to the Central Asian states, which were formerly part of the Russian Empire and USSR, you will observe a high degree of Russianization and Europeanization. The people are ethnically similar to Afghans and Turks but the culture is a distinct mix, and most speak Russian as a first or second language. This is especially true in the cities; travel to Tashkent or Astana and you will feel like you're in Europe, vibrant night life and all. But Afghanistan is right next door!

he phenomenon of world power rests upon the capability to influence the events around the world. Cultural assimilation is just a part of the game, and not a major criteria.

True. Cultural assimilation is a gradual, long-term process, and is not useful in the context of "here-and-now" geopolitics.

I am speaking in the historical context only.

 

[LeGenD]

Yes, I agree. From a military standpoint there was little desire or reasons to expand beyond India.

This is the point: The lack of desire to influence events in other kingdoms outside neighbourhood.

Cultural influence is not a valid argument. It was not forced upon others by Indians.

However, when I am talking about global powers in the ancient context, I am talking about states who have had a huge long-term cultural influence on the world, played a dominant role in the world economy (this is still part of the modern definition of global powers), and were military and demographic powerhouses (meaning they controlled a large portion of the world's military might and population). I exclude the modern requirement of power projection because it was not possible in those days. Having big ambitions doesn't equal actual influence.

You seem to be confused between the concepts of regional power and world power.

A regional power can have all the capabilities of a world power but unless it acts like one; it wont be regarded as one.

Also, examples of power projection in ancient times do exist;

Alexander -> invaded Pakistan (he projected power in a region far away from his homeland and neighbourhood)

Mongols -> invaded Europe

Russians -> invaded America

Cyrus > invaded Europe and Africa

Islamic caliphates -> invaded Europe and Indian sub-continent

Why do you keep ignorning these examples?

Well, the classical Maya civilization existed thousands of years after the classical Egyptian civilization. There were many similarities between the two, but each had their own distinct "flavor", and they most likely developed similar concepts independently.

Mayan civilization (2500 BC - AD 250) came in to existence during the reign of Egyptian civilization (3150 - 31 BC). A 'human connection' has been proposed between these two, though not all agree. If true, then Egyptian civilization presents one of the earliest examples of an empire with global agenda.

That's not the point. I was talking about the geography. Strictly speaking, Greece, Egypt, and Turkey are part of three different continents, but they are located very close to each other. Controlling all three of those territories does not make you more influential than a larger empire on a single continent.

See these maps;

Achaemenid empire

Origination point is modern age Iran.

Macoedonian empire

Origination point in Europe (near Greece)

Islamic caliphate

Origination point in modern age Saudi Arabia.

Mongol empire (Here is more detailed map)

Origination point in modern age Mongolia.

Do you still think that these empires were confined to neighbourhood?

See, that is a misconception that is not true. The Mauryan Empire is estimated to have controlled a territory of 5 million sq km. This is the same size of the Achaemenid and Macedonian empires, and not too far from the size of the Roman Empire.

Really?

Achaemenid empire: 8.0 million sq km

Roman empire: 5.5 million sq km

Macedonian empire: 5.2 million sq km

Now when you confine the concept of world power to size of territory, this is where you are committing an error.

India itself is big territory wise. However, it is still regarded as one region. Similarly, China itself is big territory wise, but it is still regarded as one region.

These regions under control of a single social order would definitely represent gigantic regional powers.

However, world powers are not confined to a particular region or just neighbourhood. The scope of their power projection always had been greater. The above mentioned empires spanned in to different continents and projected power in different civilizations. This is the key part.

Rome is so famous because the Western historians make it so famous.

Romans had trade relations with distant civilizations. Its popularity was obvious. They had trade relations even with Chinese civilizations of their time.

What devices of power projection did the Romans, Greeks, or Persians possess that the Mauryas, Guptas, Kushanas, Mughals, etc. didn't?

The Indian empires might have had powerful armies but they projected power to what degree of historical significance?

We evaluate the power projection capabilities of a civilization on the basis of its notable conquests, which have great historical significance.

Some examples;

• Romans defeated Carthage (another great power and rival).
• Macedonians defeated Achaemenids (another great power and rival).

Again! A regional power can possess all the traits of a world power but unless it influences events in other regions, it does not meets the criteria of the world power.

It is about the size and distance, which is what you yourself were talking about. You said that the Mauryas had less power projection because they controlled less territory and they could not influence events over as large a distance; I have refuted both points by bringing up the objective facts.

You are confused between the concepts of world power and regional power.

My friend; notable ancient Indian and Chinese empires were more like regional powers.

And obviously, the Mauryan Empire had its own share of extensive conquests; how did it grow to such large size? The Mauryans were a Magadhan dynasty. Their home territory was Magadha, in present-day Bihar. It was under Chandragupta (who brought North India, the Indus, and Central Asia under his rule), Bindusara (South India), and Ashoka (Kalinga/the East) that the empire reached its vast size.

Cyrus began from Persia (present day Iran), conquered many civilizations, and founded the first Persian empire.

Alexander started from macedonia and overcame neighbouring rivalries and kingdoms before his plans for greater glory.

Romans started from Italy and overcame neighbouring rivalries before plans for greater glory.

Genghis Khan started from Mongolian Borjigin clan and united neighbouring clans and kingdoms before his plans for greater glory.

In each case; the story is similar. However the expansionist ambitions is the differentiating factor.

Both Spain and Portugal already had strong cultural foundations in the form of Latin culture, but the Arabs also had a strong culture, so in this case it was a purely military contest. The Arabs had tremendous cultural influences on the Spanish and Portuguese, especially in architecture and language. The entire southern region of Spain reflects Middle Eastern architectural styles. I am studying Spanish right now, and there are many words that are derived from Arabic and Arab phrases. For example, the Spanish phrase Ojalá, which means "I hope/I pray", is derived from "Allah".

Indeed, some degree of cultural influence always remains in the conquered regions. This is unavoidable aspect.

However, muslim populations are minimal in these two nations even after centuries of occupation.

If the Arabs did not have such a strong culture, they would not have been able to rule Spain for 800 years. Similarly, if the Spanish did not have such a strong culture, the Reconquista would not have succeeded.

The ruling part is primarily determined by hard power. Those were occupied lands. As long as Islamic empires were militarily strong, they had firm foothold in these conquered lands.

Later on, Portugese (christians) became powerful and evicted the muslim invaders from their homeland. This movement is termed as reconquista. Similar example was repeated by Spanish.

As stated before in one of my examples, the Mongols were assimilated by the peoples they conquered, whether it be in China, Russia, or Persia.

Indeed. However, Mongols were immensely militarily strong and influenced events in lots of civilizations. Cultural assimilation was by choice in their case.

Wrong, the Russian empire had a huge cultural influence over the peoples that came under its rule. In fact, in Russia we have two different terms for "Russians". One is "Rossiyu" (Росси&#1102, which refers to ethnic Russians; sometimes the term "Great Russian" (Velikii Russki, Великий русски&#1081 is also used to avoid confusion. However, there is also the term "Rossiskaya" (Российска&#1103, which also translates to "Russian" in English but specifically means someone who speaks Russian and is part of Russian culture, but is not an ethnic Russian. This term is used to describe the peoples of Siberia, Caucasus, Volga, etc. who were slowly assimilated into Russian culture over many centuries. The cultural assimilation of ethnic minorites during the Russian Empire, and to an extent under the USSR, was a conscious, national policy. This is why almost everyone in Russia today speaks Russian and follows Russian customs, even if they are not ethnic Russians.

By the 19th century, Russia was already the largest nation in the world. However, its empire extended in to Europe and North America. So how much those regions have been culturally influenced by the Russians?

Culture is a very broad phenomenon in meaning.

Even if you travel to the Central Asian states, which were formerly part of the Russian Empire and USSR, you will observe a high degree of Russianization and Europeanization. The people are ethnically similar to Afghans and Turks but the culture is a distinct mix, and most speak Russian as a first or second language. This is especially true in the cities; travel to Tashkent or Astana and you will feel like you're in Europe, vibrant night life and all. But Afghanistan is right next door!

These states were once under control of a superpower (USSR), so I am not surprised.

True. Cultural assimilation is a gradual, long-term process, and is not useful in the context of "here-and-now" geopolitics.

I am speaking in the historical context only.

Even in the historical context, we have to see that which examples are most compatible with the definiton of world power.

 

[KS]

Just my two cents :

One reason why Indian Empire did not extend beyond the traditional boundaries of the Mountains (there are exceptions) is that there is very little incentive for Indian Empires in the faraway lands.

For example - Take the Lands beyond the traditional boundaries of the subcontinent -

Himalayas - nothing worthwhile in going beyond that or can be simply not possible to cross those mountains in those time when even today we are struggling.

Iran/Afghanistan - Arid deserts with little or no natural resources (Oil wasn't precious back then) compared to the unimaginably fertile riverbasins of the Indus and the Ganges.

South East Asia - Dense tropical jungles inhabited by tribes. Again of little use.

So I dont know why any sane Indian emperor would even contemplate going beyond these as everything important those days (water,fertile soil,spices,gold,manpower ) was available in plenty in the Indian subcontinent itself.

Also another major incentive for invasions - religion. Until and unless Islam came into the subcontinent there was little or no religion motivated wars and neither of the three - Hinduism, Jainism or Buddhism advocate spreading of religion by conquest.

In summary, the absence of any Indian Empire on the scale of the Roman or Greek (not in size, but in 'cross boundary') is not due to the incapability of the sub-continental rulers, but rather due to the lack of incentive in going on an invasion.

 

[GodlessBastard]

First of all, I would like to apologize for my late response. I was busy with other things.

This is the point: The lack of desire to influence events in other kingdoms outside neighbourhood.

Cultural influence is not a valid argument. It was not forced upon others by Indians.

I don't think you have a comprehensive understanding of "power". Power does not need to be "forced" upon others, I don't know where you got that concept. You do not need to be an agressive nation to exert influence.

Here is an article which might give you a better understanding of power. It is in the context of modern India, but the information is still relevant for our discussion:
http://www.twq.com/04winter/docs/04winter_perkovich.pdf

You are placing too much emphasis on hard power as the sole pathway for influence. A huge variety of factors are taken into consideration when calculating power, with territorial extent being just one of many considerations.

You seem to be confused between the concepts of regional power and world power.

A regional power can have all the capabilities of a world power but unless it acts like one; it wont be regarded as one.

Strictly speaking, there were no such thing as global powers in ancient times. All nations in ancient times could be considered 'regional powers' by today's standards, even the greatest of empires.

If you wish, you do not have to consider the Mauryas or Guptas or any other Indian state of antiquity to be a "global power". I am not going to spend my time trying to convince you, because technically you would not be wrong. But it would be a logical fallacy to consider other ancient powers as "global powers" while dismissing Indian empires as mere "regional powers".

Also, examples of power projection in ancient times do exist

No they do not. At least not how "power projection" is defined by today's terms.

Alexander -> invaded Pakistan (he projected power in a region far away from his homeland and neighbourhood)

Mongols -> invaded Europe

Russians -> invaded America

Cyrus > invaded Europe and Africa

Islamic caliphates -> invaded Europe and Indian sub-continent

Why do you keep ignorning these examples?

I have not ignored any examples. I have repeatedly stated that the territorial extent of Indian empires (and thus, level of influence) like the Mauryas and Guptas was on par with contemporary powers like Macedon and Rome.

I don't understand why you keep ignoring that basic fact.

Mayan civilization (2500 BC - AD 250) came in to existence during the reign of Egyptian civilization (3150 - 31 BC). A 'human connection' has been proposed between these two, though not all agree. If true, then Egyptian civilization presents one of the earliest examples of an empire with global agenda.

The classic period of Maya civilization, which is when their civilization truly came into being, lasted from 250 A.D. - 900 A.D. The Mayan and Egyptian civilizations reached their prime in completely different eras. To propose a "human connection" between them is fanicful to say the least.

See these maps;

Achaemenid empire

Origination point is modern age Iran.

Macoedonian empire

Origination point in Europe (near Greece)

Islamic caliphate

Origination point in modern age Saudi Arabia.

Mongol empire (Here is more detailed map)

Origination point in modern age Mongolia.

Do you still think that these empires were confined to neighbourhood?

What is a "neighborhood"? Do you consider Italy and Greece to be seperate regions, but India as a single one?

Italy and Greece are only a fraction of India's size.

When judging the power of nations you need to use objective criteria only.

Achaemenid empire: 8.0 million sq km

Roman empire: 5.5 million sq km

Macedonian empire: 5.2 million sq km

Where did you get the number for the Achaemind Persians? They should be around 5 million sq km as well. The Macedonian Empire (5.2mil) was basically the Achaemenid Empire plus Greece and Macedon.

Considering the Mauryans controlled the Indian subcontinent (India+Pak+Nepal+Bhutan+Banglaedesh), Afghanistan, and parts of Central Asia, their territorial extent should be somewhere around 5-5.5 million sq km - approximately the same size as the Roman, Persian, and Macedonian Empires.

Now when you confine the concept of world power to size of territory, this is where you are committing an error.

India itself is big territory wise. However, it is still regarded as one region. Similarly, China itself is big territory wise, but it is still regarded as one region.

You are using subjective criteria. If India can be regarded as one region, why can't I regard all of Europe as one region?
After all, the people of India are far more diverse, and India is almost as large as well.

However, world powers are not confined to a particular region or just neighbourhood. The scope of their power projection always had been greater. The above mentioned empires spanned in to different continents and projected power in different civilizations. This is the key part.

Yes, and India spread its civilization to all corners of Asia.

Romans had trade relations with distant civilizations. Its popularity was obvious. They had trade relations even with Chinese civilizations of their time.

Rome was not popular. Chinese silk and Indian spices were incredibly popular with the Roman upper class, which is what drove the trade.

Rome itself had nothing to offer to either India or China, besides gold and silver.

The Indian empires might have had powerful armies but they projected power to what degree of historical significance?

Military might was not the preferred mode of expanding influence. The preferred mode was through trade and prosletyzation.

You may not consider those to be modes of power projection, but the end result is ultimately the same (India's influence spreads througout the world).

We evaluate the power projection capabilities of a civilization on the basis of its notable conquests, which have great historical significance.
Some examples;

• Romans defeated Carthage (another great power and rival).
• Macedonians defeated Achaemenids (another great power and rival).

What were the long-term consequences of these campaigns? Do Iranians today speak Greek, or Libyans Latin?

India too had its military moments in "raw" power projection.
Examples:
1) Cholas conquered Srivijaya Empire of Indonesia (3,000 km away)
2) Chandragupta Maurya defeated the Seleucid Empire and conquered western Afghanistan (over 2,000 km away from Bihar/Magadha)
3) Kushanas invaded present-day Kazakhstan and northwest China from their capital at Mathura in North India (over 2,000 km away)

These conquests/invasions undoubtedly increased Indian influence, but it was not the preferred mode of power projection. India, historically, is not a militaristic nation.

Cyrus began from Persia (present day Iran), conquered many civilizations, and founded the first Persian empire.

Alexander started from macedonia and overcame neighbouring rivalries and kingdoms before his plans for greater glory.

Romans started from Italy and overcame neighbouring rivalries before plans for greater glory.

Genghis Khan started from Mongolian Borjigin clan and united neighbouring clans and kingdoms before his plans for greater glory.

And how are these fundamentally different from the similar story of Chandragupta Maurya, and his plans for greater glory?
He was the first man to unite most of India under his rule. He obviously had no shortage of ambition.

However, muslim populations are minimal in these two nations even after centuries of occupation.

Yes, that is because the Spanish Reconquista was not just a military reconquest but a comprehensive cultural conquest. But the fact that some Arabic influence remains even after such puritanical methods by the Spaniards shows the extent of Arab soft power.

The ruling part is primarily determined by hard power. Those were occupied lands. As long as Islamic empires were militarily strong, they had firm foothold in these conquered lands.

Hard power is what keeps nations together in the short-term; soft power is what keeps nations together in the long-term. This is why Rome ruled for 1000 years and the Mongols for less than 100.

Indeed. However, Mongols were immensely militarily strong and influenced events in lots of civilizations. Cultural assimilation was by choice in their case.

The Mongols were nomadic conquerors. They did not understand civilization, administration, and the sedentary way of life. In order to govern their realms they had to adopt local culture and administrative modes, and by doing so, they slowly lost their identity as Mongols.

By the 19th century, Russia was already the largest nation in the world. However, its empire extended in to Europe and North America. So how much those regions have been culturally influenced by the Russians?

All European and Asian regions of the former Russian Empire have a very strong Russian influence.

Russian influence does not exist in North America because Russian presence was very minimal there. And besides, Alaska has been under American control for over 150 years. There might have been a small amount of Russian influence in Alaska in the early 1800s, but after it was sold off that too disappeared.

---------- Post added at 06:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:04 PM ----------

Just my two cents :

One reason why Indian Empire did not extend beyond the traditional boundaries of the Mountains (there are exceptions) is that there is very little incentive for Indian Empires in the faraway lands.

For example - Take the Lands beyond the traditional boundaries of the subcontinent -

Himalayas - nothing worthwhile in going beyond that or can be simply not possible to cross those mountains in those time when even today we are struggling.

Iran/Afghanistan - Arid deserts with little or no natural resources (Oil wasn't precious back then) compared to the unimaginably fertile riverbasins of the Indus and the Ganges.

South East Asia - Dense tropical jungles inhabited by tribes. Again of little use.

So I dont know why any sane Indian emperor would even contemplate going beyond these as everything important those days (water,fertile soil,spices,gold,manpower ) was available in plenty in the Indian subcontinent itself.

Also another major incentive for invasions - religion. Until and unless Islam came into the subcontinent there was little or no religion motivated wars and neither of the three - Hinduism, Jainism or Buddhism advocate spreading of religion by conquest.

In summary, the absence of any Indian Empire on the scale of the Roman or Greek (not in size, but in 'cross boundary') is not due to the incapability of the sub-continental rulers, but rather due to the lack of incentive in going on an invasion.

Good and accurate points.

 

[T90TankGuy]

None.

The Goa, Daman and Diu Official Language Act, 1987 makes Konkani in the Devanagari script the sole official language of Goa, but provides that Marathi may also be used "for all or any of the official purposes". The Government also has a policy of replying in Marathi to correspondence received in Marathi. Whilst there have been demands for according Marathi and Konkani in Roman script co-equal status in the state, As of October 2008, Konkani remained the sole official language.

Konkani is spoken as a native language by about 61.21% of the people in the state. Other linguistic minorities in the state as of 1991 are Marathi (27.12%), Kannada (3.41%), Urdu (2.81%), and Hindi (2.09%).

https://www.goa.gov.in/portalweb/login/index.jsp

GB

i believe he was asking if Portuguese is still spoken in Goa , and it is . a lot of the older people do it also the culture is still there in almost all homes of Christians there to a certain extent.