Mahmud of Ghazni vs Rajendra Chola

[Shark2]

Mahmud of Ghazni and Rajendra Chola were the most powerful rulers in South Asia in the
11th century. Both rulers were contemporaries who ruled in the first half of the 11th century.
Mahmud of Ghazni was the greatest ruler of the Ghaznavid Dynasty which covered during
his reign parts of what is modern Afghanistan and Pakistan. He became famous as he launched
several military campaigns in northwestern Indian Subcontinent.
Rajendra Chola was the most powerful ruler of the Chola Dynasty. He conquered southern India and
Sri Lanka and he successfully invaded huge parts of Southeast Asia and northeastern India.
But who of the 2 Kings would prevail in a clash of the titans.

 

[Samandri]

What are military achievements of Rajendra chola?, his military career, list of battles, prominent victories?

 

[Shark2]

What are military achievements of Rajendra chola?, his military career, list of battles, prominent victories?

He defeated the Western Chalukya Dynasty of the Deccan, he invaded Odisha and Bengal and
defeated the rulers of the Pala Dynasty, Chandra Dynasty and Kamboja Pala Dynasty.
He conquered major parts of Sri Lanka and captured the King of Sri Lanka.
He invaded the Srivijaya Dynasty of Southeast Asia, which ruled what is modern Malaysia, Thailand
and Indonesia, and captured the Malaysian King of the Srivijaya Dynasty.

 

[Goenitz]

man though i don't know much about central asian kings but for those you mentioned of south india or central india, I have no clue. I think not many Pakistanis would knw taht...

 

[bsruzm]

I don't know how right such a comparison is but Mahmud of Ghazni, his father Alp Tigin's rise to power through Karakhanid victory on Samanids is an interesting part of history. Mahmud's course, work and influence still remains in a wide region where he reigned.

 

[Indos]

He defeated the Western Chalukya Dynasty of the Deccan, he invaded Odisha and Bengal and
defeated the rulers of the Pala Dynasty, Chandra Dynasty and Kamboja Pala Dynasty.
He conquered major parts of Sri Lanka and captured the King of Sri Lanka.
He invaded the Srivijaya Dynasty of Southeast Asia, which ruled what is modern Malaysia, Thailand
and Indonesia, and captured the Malaysian King of the Srivijaya Dynasty.

Srivijaya Dynasty is an Indonesian Kingdom.........

Srivijaya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Srivijaya (also written Sri Vijaya, Sanskrit: श्रीविजय Indonesian/Malay: Sriwijaya, Thai: ศรีวิชัย or Ṣ̄rī wichạy, rtgs: Siwichai) was a dominant thalassocratic city-state based on the island of Sumatra, Indonesia, which influenced much of Southeast Asia.[1]Srivijaya was an important centre for the expansion of Buddhism from the 8th to the 12th century. In Sanskrit, sri (श्री) means "fortunate", "prosperous", or "happy" and vijaya (विजय) means "victorious" or "excellence".[2]

The earliest evidence of its existence dates from the 7th century: a Chinese monk, Yijing, wrote that he visited Srivijaya in 671 for 6 months.[3][4] The earliest known inscription in which the name Srivijaya appears also dates from the 7th century, i.e., theKedukan Bukit inscription found near Palembang, Sumatra, dated 16 June 682.[5] Between the late 7th to early 11th century Srivijaya rose to become a hegemon in Southeast Asia, involved in close interactions — often rivalries — with neighboring Java,Kambuja and Champa. Srivijaya's main foreign interest was nurturing lucrative trade agreements with China which continued from the Tang Dynasty to the Song era. Srivijaya had religious, cultural and trade links with the Buddhist Pala Empire of Bengal, as well as with the Islamic Caliphate in the Middle East. The kingdom ceased to exist in the 13th century due to various factors, including the expansion of the Javanese, Singhasari, and Majapahit empires.[1]

 

[Shark2]

Srivijaya Dynasty is an Indonesian Kingdom.........

Srivijaya - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Srivijaya (also written Sri Vijaya, Sanskrit: श्रीविजय Indonesian/Malay: Sriwijaya, Thai: ศรีวิชัย or Ṣ̄rī wichạy, rtgs: Siwichai) was a dominant thalassocratic city-state based on the island of Sumatra, Indonesia, which influenced much of Southeast Asia.[1]Srivijaya was an important centre for the expansion of Buddhism from the 8th to the 12th century. In Sanskrit, sri (श्री) means "fortunate", "prosperous", or "happy" and vijaya (विजय) means "victorious" or "excellence".[2]

The earliest evidence of its existence dates from the 7th century: a Chinese monk, Yijing, wrote that he visited Srivijaya in 671 for 6 months.[3][4] The earliest known inscription in which the name Srivijaya appears also dates from the 7th century, i.e., theKedukan Bukit inscription found near Palembang, Sumatra, dated 16 June 682.[5] Between the late 7th to early 11th century Srivijaya rose to become a hegemon in Southeast Asia, involved in close interactions — often rivalries — with neighboring Java,Kambuja and Champa. Srivijaya's main foreign interest was nurturing lucrative trade agreements with China which continued from the Tang Dynasty to the Song era. Srivijaya had religious, cultural and trade links with the Buddhist Pala Empire of Bengal, as well as with the Islamic Caliphate in the Middle East. The kingdom ceased to exist in the 13th century due to various factors, including the expansion of the Javanese, Singhasari, and Majapahit empires.[1]

According to Malaysians the Srivijaya Dynasty was a Malaysian Dynasty and the Majapahit Dynasty
was an Indonesian Dynasty.

 

[Indos]

According to Malaysians the Srivijaya Dynasty was a Malaysian Dynasty and the Majapahit Dynasty
was an Indonesian Dynasty.

The area includes Malaysia and Thailand in the past, but the kingdom was in Sumatra, Palembang Province, Sumatra island, Indonesia. Dont talk to common Malaysian. I am a Sumatran, we know our history well, Majapahit originated from Java island, so Malaysian cannot fool you too much.

 

[Shark2]

Does anyone know how large the army of Mahmud Ghazni was?

 

[Guynextdoor2]

 

[Sulman Badshah]

i have a little or no knowledge about major hindu dynasties of india .... nice thread

 

[Indian Patriot]

Chola did not capture north east India. He however had an overseas empire. People who comment India never attacked anybody in past 10,000 years and bla bla need to read up on proper history. The SEA countries propbably saw India as the same invaders as Indians viewed Ghaznavi.

i have a little or no knowledge about major hindu dynasties of india .... nice thread

There really were never any major "Hindu" dynasties in medieval India.

1. The Cholas were possibly the most powerful.

2. The Vijaynagar empire was well known for its wealth and power.

3. The Ahoms of north-east had the longest ruling dynasty in India, 600 years.

4. The Marathas had the largest "Hindu" empire in medieval period.

Other than the Marathas the rest of the "Hindu" empires are not depicted properly or at all in popular media.

The people of Manipur too had their own independent kingdom. They were not Hindu in the strictest sense of term but they had religious practices which was common with Hinduism. They were not an "empire" but had their own sovereign kingdom and were one of the last to fall to British.

 

[Samandri]

Mahmud Ghaznavi was one of the very few leaders who were never defeated in a battlefield. and is considered one of the greatest conqueror of the world. Professor Sharma is of the view that, “Mahmud was a seasoned soldier. Fear did not find any place in his heart. His army won against the rulers of India ‘like comb through a poll of hair.” It was no small achievement to “develop a small mountain principality of Ghazni into a large and prosperous empire by sheer force of arms.

The map of extent of his vast empire

 

[Shark2]

Chola did not capture north east India. He however had an overseas empire. People who comment India never attacked anybody in past 10,000 years and bla bla need to read up on proper history. The SEA countries propbably saw India as the same invaders as Indians viewed Ghaznavi.



There really were never any major "Hindu" dynasties in medieval India.

1. The Cholas were possibly the most powerful.

2. The Vijaynagar empire was well known for its wealth and power.

3. The Ahoms of north-east had the longest ruling dynasty in India, 600 years.

4. The Marathas had the largest "Hindu" empire in medieval period.

Other than the Marathas the rest of the "Hindu" empires are not depicted properly or at all in popular media.

The people of Manipur too had their own independent kingdom. They were not Hindu in the strictest sense of term but they had religious practices which was common with Hinduism. They were not an "empire" but had their own sovereign kingdom and were one of the last to fall to British.

There were certainly major Hindu Dynasties during the medieval period. In almost every century there were
1 or 2 Dynasties which were greater than the other Dynasties.

The Rashtrakuta Empire was the greatest Empire in South Asia from the 8th to 10th century.
From the 11th to 12th century the Chola Dynasty and the Western Chalukya Empire were
the most powerful Empires.
In the 15th and early 16th century the Vijayanagar Empire was the most powerful Empire
in India.
And the Maratha Empire was the most powerful force in India in the 18th century.

 

[Indian Patriot]

There were certainly major Hindu Dynasties during the medieval period. In almost every century there were
1 or 2 Dynasties which were greater than the other Dynasties.

The Rashtrakuta Empire was the greatest Empire in South Asia from the 8th to 10th century.
From the 11th to 12th century the Chola Dynasty and the Western Chalukya Empire were
the most powerful Empires.
In the 15th and early 16th century the Vijayanagar Empire was the most powerful Empire
in India.
And the Maratha Empire was the most powerful force in India in the 18th century.

The thread was talking from 11th century onwards.The Rashtrakutas were probably the most powerful empire in india at that time. For some peculiar reason the north Indians do not appreciate the greatness of south Indian history.

Vijaynagar was not the most powerful empire in "India" but it surely was wealthy and powerful in the deccan peninsula.

The Marathas were not a dynasty but a confederacy. Shivaji's descendents did not rule the Marathas empire, his son Sambhaji was killed and their was no dynasty as such after that. It was the Maratha Peshwas who build the Maratha empire. They had the largest "Hindu" empire in medieval history.