how did china build its infrastructure ?

[Water Car Engineer]

I'm sure India had it's share of monumental buildings and projects (Taj Mahal can definitely be considered as such) but it was probably never a continuous thing whereas in China, this practice was continued right up to the Qing (forbidden city, summer palace) then continued by the communists under Mao. Mao mobilizes millions and millions in his grand experiment, the great leap forward, it ended in disaster because he didn't understand economics or modern production but still it was building and mobilization on a huge huge scale.

A: Major cultural currents of the prehistorical period, based on archaeological studies. B: Pre-Mauryan Indian routes based on Buddhist sources C: Mauryan network, according to Greek sources and archaeological studies. D: Trade routes at the beginning of the Christian era, based on literary sources. E: The Indian "Z"(Which is the common trend)

It wasn't really a continuous thing, for the most part.

 

[CardSharp]

Large-scale Indian construction took place almost continuously from the Mauryas in 300 B.C. to the Mughals in 1700 C.E.

The present-day Indian incompetence in infrastructure developement has nothing to do with a lack of historical precedent.

Hmmm, am not trying to wound your pride or inflate mine but just giving you my opinion.

The time periods you mention, I seriously doubt that the subcontinent was under centralized control, nevermind be homogeneously called India. As you point out yourself that there is a gap of 250 years 1700-1950 where no such large scale project took place. Lastly what are specific examples of "Large-scale Indian construction", I ask because I don't know Indian history that well.


Still you maybe right, it may have nothing to do with history and it may all be modern problems but we were discussing a possible historical angle to this question before you raised your point.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

Hmmm, am not trying to wound your pride or inflate mine but just giving you my opinion.

The time periods you mention, I seriously doubt that the subcontinent was under centralized control, nevermind be homogeneously called India. As you point out yourself that there is a gap of 250 years 1700-1950 where no such large scale project took place. Lastly what are specific examples of "Large-scale Indian construction", I ask because I don't know Indian history that well.


Still you maybe right, it may have nothing to do with history and it may all be modern problems but we were discussing a possible historical angle to this question before you raised your point.

Mauryans, Guptas, Palas, Mughals, etc were centralized empires.

 

[oct605032048]

found this on youtube.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ps0DSihggio

 

[CardSharp]

Mauryans, Guptas, Palas, Mughals, etc were centralized empires.

I didn't say there weren't any, but what fraction of the "300 B.C. to 1700 C.E" time period do these centralized empire occupy.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

I didn't say there weren't any, but what fraction of the "300 B.C. to 1700 C.E" time period do these centralized empire occupy.

Alright...

Lastly what are specific examples of "Large-scale Indian construction", I ask because I don't know Indian history that well.

One example

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnANjdReAlY

Skip to 3:30 built under the Chola empire.

 

[CardSharp]

From 300 B.C. to 1700 C.E you doubt it was under a centralized control? That was want you said?

Sorry I should have clarified. The subcontinent spend majority of history as a decentralized collection of smaller kingdoms.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

Sorry I should have clarified. The subcontinent spend majority of history as a decentralized collection of smaller kingdoms.

Much of Chinese history was also divided empires and kingdom too, right?

 

[GodlessBastard]

The time periods you mention, I seriously doubt that the subcontinent was under centralized control, nevermind be homogeneously called India.

The largest construction projects obviously took place when the subcontinent was politically unified. India was politically unified only three times during the 2,000 year period I mentioned: under the Mauryas (330-180 B.C.E.), Guptas (320-600 C.E.), and Mughals (1526-1858 C.E.). The Guptas only unified North India under their direct rule, but I included them anyway because this was considered India's "Golden Age" where most of the scientific and technological advances were made, and South India consisted of allies/vassals of the Guptas anyway.

However, plenty of construction projects were also undertaken by smaller, local kingdoms. For example, the Cholas of Tamil Nadu, the Palas of Bengal, and the Kakatiyas of Andhra Pradesh.

As you point out yourself that there is a gap of 250 years 700-1950 where no such large scale project took place.

Under the British rule, numerous railroads were built throughout Indian Subcontinent. Even these were built so that the British could rape India more easily, they still proved an invaluabe infrastructure asset for post-independent India. Even today the British-built railroads are probably the most important part of India's infrastructure grid.

Also, what Chinese infrastructure projects were undertaken between 1700 and 1950? I am asking because I don't know.

Lastly what are specific examples of "Large-scale Indian construction", I ask because I don't know Indian history that well.

I'll try to include examples of a variety of construction projects from different eras.

The Great Kaveri Dam in Tamil Nadu, constructed in the 1st century C.E.

Madurai-Meenkashi Temple Complex, also in Tamil Nadu

The ruined War Elephant Stables in Hampi, ancient capital of the Vijayanagara Empire.

Mehrangarh Fort in Jodhpur

I might post more pics later. There are plenty of large temples all over India which were built thousands of years ago. Modern-day Indian contractors lack a fraction of the skill posessed by their ancient counterparts in terms of managing the division of labor and costs of construction.

 

[CardSharp]

Much of Chinese history was also divided empires and kingdom too, right?

If I had to ballpark it, I'd say around 80-85% of the time was spent under unified rule, the other 15-20% were periods of civil war were mainly periods of civil war where the remnants from the last dynasty were fighting to become the rulers of the dynasty.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

If I had to ballpark it, I'd say around 80-85% of the time was spent under unified rule, the other 15-20% were periods of civil war were mainly periods of civil war where the remnants from the last dynasty were fighting to become the rulers of the dynasty.

What do you considered unified China, geographically?

Han empire?

 

[Speeder 2]

Taj Mahal is a beautiful building. It's almost fit to be a palace.

Monuments like these serve to remind us not to underestimate India irrespective of their current situation.

Taj Mahal is a beautiful building. It looks surreally out of its place in comaparison to its immediate environment.

This is because that Taj Mahal is patently non-Hindu, but a mixture of Persian and Mongol (once their ruling masters) architectural style.

Pity though that the British were a bit late; otherwise we could have seen an English Garden in front of the existing one instead. Yet nonetheless ...

 

[Water Car Engineer]

Taj Mahal is a beautiful building. It looks surreally out of its place in comaparison to its immediate environment.

This is because that Taj Mahal is patently non-Hindu, but a mixture of Persian and Mongol (once their ruling masters) architectural style.

Pity though that the British were a bit late; otherwise we could have seen an English Garden in front of the existing one instead. Yet nonetheless ...

Mongols and Manchurians, once your ruling masters. Persians never took a lot of Hindustan, other then modern Pakistan.

Mughals have rajput(Indian) blood. Pretty much every Mughal emperor after Akbar the Great was half Rajput.

I dont care if its Non-Hindu, its Indian thats what matters to us.

Do they look like Mughals(Mongols) any more? After generations?

 

[Speeder 2]

...

I dont care if its Non-Hindu, its Indian thats what matters to us.

Do they look like Mughals(Mongols) any more? After generation?

Oh, I am sorry, that I've forgotten the footnote, in order to fit into the thread topic:

Persian: "aryans" (europeans), patially at least at acient times

Mogols: East Asians

English: North-of- Alp Europeans.


See? I love it when a plan comes together.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

^^^

Sure..............