What's new

Between surging dragon and suspicious sacred cow Sri Lanka’s choices

Greek has Herodotus, China has Sima Qian and more. India has no historian. (The account of Chinese travellers are Chinese archive, India kept no record)

View attachment 413498
Rome and India: Aspects of Universal History during the Principate," by Walter Schmitthenner; The Journal of Roman Studies https://www.jstor.org/stable/299062?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents



I meant projected increase of Christians population.

What you are saying is that India has no written "history". There is plenty of historical writing, written records etc. Sanskrit and Tamil are Indian languages that have not changed much in 2000+ years

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Indian_historians_by_century
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Indian_Muslim_historians_of_Islam
 
.
What you are saying is that India has no written "history". There is plenty of historical writing, written records etc. Sanskrit and Tamil are Indian languages that have not changed much in 2000+ years

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Indian_historians_by_century
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Indian_Muslim_historians_of_Islam

From 1500 BC to year 1200 AD, which Indian historian? which history book?
It's academically established that India has no written record.

Historiography that began in the last 800 years or so were written by foreigner rulers, Persian and other Muslims, who ruled parts of India. Prior to that, India have no written history of its own.

Wiki not entirely a credible source. That list counted poet and guru as historian. But it got one thing right, there's no Indian historian before 1200 AD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Indian_historians_by_century

(Sanskrit is oral language, written form varies. Tamil have changed a lot. It's different topic)
 
.
From 1500 BC to year 1200 AD, which Indian historian? which history book?
It's academically established that India has no written record.

Historiography that began in the last 800 years or so were written by foreigner rulers, Persian and other Muslims, who ruled parts of India. Prior to that, India have no written history of its own.

Wiki not entirely a credible source. That list counted poet and guru as historian. But it got one thing right, there's no Indian historian before 1200 AD. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Indian_historians_by_century

(Sanskrit is oral language, written form varies. Tamil have changed a lot. It's different topic)

There are plenty of written records for ancient history. How do you think we know about the existence of Buddha, Asoka, Guptas and other emperors.

We have 2 languages that are pretty much the same for the 2000+ years.

What do you mean Tamil changed a lot ? Students in Tamilnadu read 2000+ year old verses called Thirukural.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tirukkuṛaḷ
 
.
There are plenty of written records for ancient history. How do you think we know about the existence of Buddha, Asoka, Guptas and other emperors.

We have 2 languages that are pretty much the same for the 2000+ years.

What do you mean Tamil changed a lot ? Students in Tamilnadu read 2000+ year old verses called Thirukural.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tirukkuṛaḷ

Do you understand the meaning of historiography? Religious text is not history book. Indian history prior to Muslim era was reconstructed/discovered by foreign indologist in 19th century. Much of Muaryan was mostly from Greece account, Guptas from Chinese.

Even your Wiki says there's no Indian historian before 1200.

Sanskrit is an oral language with no written form, different region uses different script, it has deviated greatly. It's dead anyway. Old Tamil is unintelligible to Tamil today. The old script which is based on Brahmi has also changed.
 
.
Do you understand the meaning of historiography? Religious text is not history book. Indian history prior to Muslim era was reconstructed/discovered by foreign indologist in 19th century. Much of Muaryan was mostly from Greece account, Guptas from Chinese.

Even your Wiki says there's no Indian historian before 1200.

Sanskrit is an oral language with no written form, different region uses different script, it has deviated greatly. It's dead anyway. Old Tamil is unintelligible to Tamil today. The old script which is based on Brahmi has also changed.

It is irrelevant the languages changed. It is like saying Old English is not same as modern English. We have literary works that date back 2000+ years.

We cannot write our history books without historical records. There are million of historical records that survived centuries of invasions and destruction. There is equally large amount that got destroyed especially in North India.
 
.
It is irrelevant the languages changed. It is like saying Old English is not same as modern English. We have literary works that date back 2000+ years.

We cannot write our history books without historical records. There are million of historical records that survived centuries of invasions and destruction. There is equally large amount that got destroyed especially in North India.
What he is trying to say is there is no such entity known as India. A Chinese guy like me can read a text almost 1500 years ago easily. The script and meaning didn't change much.
 
.
In an interview, Mahindra Rajapakse told that India is like a brother and China, a friend. The writer of the article should have been aware of the fact that such friendship costed him his throne and a sound balance between India and China, not any prejudice against India would be the best policy for Shrilanka.
 
.
What he is trying to say is there is no such entity known as India. A Chinese guy like me can read a text almost 1500 years ago easily. The script and meaning didn't change much.

It is true that India was divided into numerous kingdoms. A lot of historical Indian languages are extinct.

If you look at the ancient world a lot of historical groups are extinct. Some of them have morphed into completely different. In that sense Hindu civilization in India has some resemblance in culture to what existed 2000 years ago. China has been more intact than India thanks to geography (Siberia and Western China is not easy to traverse)
 
.
It is true that India was divided into numerous kingdoms. A lot of historical Indian languages are extinct.

If you look at the ancient world a lot of historical groups are extinct. Some of them have morphed into completely different. In that sense Hindu civilization in India has some resemblance in culture to what existed 2000 years ago. China has been more intact than India thanks to geography (Siberia and Western China is not easy to traverse)
You need to understand the largest most disruptive nomadic invasion force was living just next to China. Mongolia. We still stayed intact after a Mongol invasion, a Manchu invasion and yes even the Arabs were near our borders in Xinjiang. The ancestors of the Turks were living in Xinjiang and constantly attacked us. China stayed unified despite all of these threats, unlike the Indians, we built a wall.
 
.
You need to understand the largest most disruptive nomadic invasion force was living just next to China. Mongolia. We still stayed intact after a Mongol invasion, a Manchu invasion and yes even the Arabs were near our borders in Xinjiang. The ancestors of the Turks were living in Xinjiang and constantly attacked us. China stayed unified despite all of these threats, unlike the Indians, we built a wall.

the wall helps ...
 
.
the wall helps ...
It did help for the first few centuries, the Hun/Proto Mongolians were forced to migrate to the steppes and eventually threatening Europe because of it. Later stages, Northern tribes couldn't penetrate it until 1644 when a Han General opened the gate because the Ming Emperor had already died in Beijing due to rebellion.
 
.
It did help for the first few centuries, the Hun/Proto Mongolians were forced to migrate to the steppes and eventually threatening Europe because of it. Later stages, Northern tribes couldn't penetrate it until 1644 when a Han General opened the gate because the Ming Emperor had already died in Beijing due to rebellion.
i assume with gunpowder the wall was symbolic
 
.
i assume with gunpowder the wall was symbolic
Gunpowder warfare was only predominant in the 1500/1600s, before that the wall was an important defense structure defending Han China from barbarians, the fall of the Roman empire could be attributed to steppe nomads migrating to Europe instead of China due to the wall. The Huns kept on moving westward and finally gave up attacking China until the Mongol period in the 1200s, even then the Mongols came from the West side instead of directly attacking China.
 
.
It is irrelevant the languages changed. It is like saying Old English is not same as modern English. We have literary works that date back 2000+ years.

We cannot write our history books without historical records. There are million of historical records that survived centuries of invasions and destruction. There is equally large amount that got destroyed especially in North India.

It's relevant in refuting your claim that the languages didn't change. The only 2000+ year writing you can find is Ashoka edict. Most literary work are religious texts written down only in 8th or 9th century.

India never had a tradition of keeping historical record. Not that it was destroyed, every region went thru war and invasion. It would be re-complied if you had such a tradition. You wouldn't need foreign archive and indologists to reconstruct thousand years of Indian history late in the 19th century.
 
.
not any prejudice against India

There's no prejudice against India by any Lankans simply because every one of them have first hand experience of Indian role in the island over decades after independence and even before historically through the centuries by Dravidian threats emanating from Southern parts of the sub continent

Prejudice is preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience, In the case of India it's based on actual experience and very good reason as i mentioned above

That's not to say Lankans are going around in mobs shouting death to India, On the contrary cultural and religious ties remain close

But they have huge apprehensions when it comes to closer ties in security and economic matters, That with valid reasons.. So yeah in the context of this thread and subject matter vast majority of Sri Lankans prefer Chinese involvement than Indian specially in investment revolving around sensitive area's like ports and other infrastructure like power generation
 
.
Back
Top Bottom