Military of Ancient India

[13 kumaon]

so, did modern farsi derive from "ancient indian sanskrit" or did sanskrit derive from older farsi??

sanskrit/prakrit came into india approx 1000 bc max... only seven hundred years before the actually living alexander the great... others call him sikandar-e-azam and iskandar...

i ask anyone to disprove me.



the only worthwhile civilization in real ancient india was "indus valley"... their city planning resembles nothing to any later "indian" village or "city" like varanasi... why didn't the planning techniques carry over... where did they get lost...

iraq and syria really have buildings quite old... does "ancient india" have any such??



why messy... let's call upon people like kancha ilaih.



"ancient and traditional indian military" lost to all "non indian" conquerors, from older great ones like alexander and muhammad bin qasim to newer ones like mughals, tipu sultan and the europeans.

----------------

all it needs is common sense to separate myths from history.

common man talk with some sense,you are saying Sanskrit is as old as 1000 B.C and even equating Sanskrit with prakrit language contemporary to Buddha.


Get your facts right 1000 A.D period of LATER vedic period whereas rig vedic Sanskrit is as old as 1700 B.C and compared with Iranian Avesta.

so plz don't compare that shitty farsi with Sanskrit coz farsi was popularized in India by mughals and not even Delhi sultanate.

 

[jamahir]

And for these 2 statements you want the thread closed??
See the whole context of this article. Its well written in my opinion.
I am sure it must 've took some time and effort on OP's part to pen down an article so long.

well, what i will say is that the writer is a cultural nationalist, and that messes up true understanding of history... he or she should rewrite the article to appeal to all other cultures and careful political allegiances.

maybe lord zen can rewrite.

as for myself, someone ( eastern bloc ) should post on urban warfare... i would be quite interested in that.

 

[Gufi]

Too lengthy for anybody to read at one stretch. And I'm feeling too lazy to post more about the topic.

dude a thread which is mature is never too long

plus one who does not to read tons of debates can just read the whole article

 

[Lord ZeN]

well, what i will say is that the writer is a cultural nationalist, so that messes up true understanding of history... he or she should rewrite the article to appeal to all other cultures and careful political allegiances.
maybe lord zen can rewrite.
as for myself, someone ( eastern bloc ) should post on urban warfare... i would be quite interested in that.

the only worthwhile civilization in real ancient india was "indus valley"... their city planning resembles nothing to any later "indian" village or "city" like varanasi... why didn't the planning techniques carry over... where did they get lost...
iraq and syria really have buildings quite old... does "ancient india" have any such??

Well i also thought about editing age of Indian civilization from 7000 to 5900-6000 year to be exact. The date of Indus Valley Civilization which spread around N-W India was estimated to be 3800 BC to be exact.
But there is a conflicting view among the historians. Some suggesting that Harappan artifacts dates as back as 6500 BC to 5900 BC which may or may not be accurate. So never thought there was a need to change the date.
So It's proved beyond doubt that India is at least 5900-6000 year old civilization. And you were not able to prove the inaccuracy of fact 2.

 

[Echo_419]

that is just a bunch of religion mythology... sanskrit is as foreign and recent as arabic, only a 1400+ years older.

the two native most prevalent races were the central indian tribes and the dravidans... rest are all invaders, and in the case of "indus valley", settlers, mostly from iraq region.

@waz @Jungibaaz @Oscar @Horus

i request lock of this thread and also request never to allow religious mythologies to be presented.

sorry, @Lord Zen ... you didn't select the proper article.

Oh so commies are gonna teach us about history,of all the BS you just typed every single damn thing is wrong
For starters there is not such thing as Aryan invasion theory you nimrod it was Brit propaganda to divide us

Jamahir, what's it about the OP that you think is vacuous that you want the thread closed?
we 're discussing Mauryan empire, use of elephants, arrow and bows. Whats so objectionable about it?

Nothing Communism encourages to destroy the native history & make people feel like everything was horrible before communism arrived

 

[jamahir]

The date of Indus Valley Civilization which spread around N-W India was estimated to be 3800 BC to be exact.

1. how is "indus valley culture/civilization" even related to current india??

2. what are the methods to understand the spread??

But there is a conflicting view among the historians. Some suggesting that Harappan artifacts dates as back as 6500 BC to 5900 BC which may or may not be accurate.

so point# 2, previous.

So It's proved beyond doubt that India is at least 5900-6000 year old civilization.

sorry but it is not proved at all.

Nothing Communism encourages to destroy the native history & make people feel like everything was horrible before communism arrived

socialism only questions the wrongs of society, whether newly created or whether traditional... no socialist in russia will insult alexander pushkin even though he lived before 1917.

 

[Lord ZeN]

1. how is "indus valley culture/civilization" even related to current india??
2. what are the methods to understand the spread??

Inconsequential from a historic point of view on whether the civilization had any effect on the present day country.
But Indus valley culture/civilization in reality had unimaginable impacts on India. But that not the point of discussion here.

sorry but it is not proved at all.

According to eminent Historians & ASI ( Archaeological survey of India) . The actual period of start of Indian civilization is 3800- 3900 BC which are based on adequate proofs. So the age of Indian civilization is at-least 5900 -6000 years. It's a widely excepted fact.

 

[Lord ZeN]

For starters there is not such thing as Aryan invasion theory you nimrod it was Brit propaganda to divide us

Well there was certainly a massive emigration from the Persian plateau to N-W India which boarders with Persia. Most of these immigrants/ invaders got mixed with people already living there. These Indo- Iranians again spread to Northern & Central India. British and Max Muller twisted these facts into something which defies logic. He even included unrelated people like Germans into it.

 

[Fattyacids]

Inconsequential from a historic point of view on whether the civilization had any effect on the present day country.
But Indus valley culture/civilization in reality had unimaginable impacts on India. But that not the point of discussion here.

According to eminent Historians & ASI ( Archaeological survey of India) . The actual period of start of Indian civilization is 3800- 3900 BC which are based on adequate proofs. So the age of Indian civilization is at-least 5900 -6000 years. It's a widely excepted fact.

Indian civilization begins with Vedic Sanskrit around 1500BC. Indus valley civilization was long dead. Its language couldn't be deciphered until today, so it's certainly not Sanskrit or Tamil. The dwelling and sewage system are also not replicated else in Indian subcontinent. International academia couldn't tell conclusively who inhabited the area, though some artifacts excavated are linked to Sumerians. Indian team claimed it's dravidian but nothing is proven.

 

[Echo_419]

Well there was certainly a massive emigration from the Persian plateau to N-W India which boarders with Persia. Most of these immigrants/ invaders got mixed with people already living there. These Indo- Iranians again spread to Northern & Central India. British and Max Muller twisted these facts into something which defies logic. He even included unrelated people like Germans into it.

Like I said

 

[Lord ZeN]

Indian civilization begins with Vedic Sanskrit around 1500BC.

Vedic Sanskrit is a language. How can history of any particular region / country begin with a language ?

Indus valley civilization was long dead. Its language couldn't be deciphered until today, so it's certainly not Sanskrit or Tamil.

Like many other civilization the Indus valley civilization is also long gone. It's doesn't mean that it was not an Indian civilization. Yes we all know that languages used in IVC was not either Sanskrit or Tamil. Again what's your point here ?

 

[Fattyacids]

Vedic Sanskrit is a language. How can history of any particular region / country begin with a language ?

Civilization, not history. Language denotes civilization.

Like many other civilization the Indus valley civilization is also long gone. It's doesn't mean that it was not an Indian civilization. Yes we all know that languages used in IVC was not either Sanskrit or Tamil. Again what's your point here ?

Indian civilization traced back to vedic Sanskrit 1000-1500BC, not 6000 yrs. Indus valley was long dead. Language unknown, inhabitants unknown.

 

[haviZsultan]

Yup then came along the Anti Tanks in the form of disciplined men who showed their skill in the downfall of Prithvi Raj.

The use of elephants is not restricted to the Indians btw, Mughals, Ghilzais, Suris also used them.

 

[Lord ZeN]

Civilization, not history. Language denotes civilization.

Not really

Indian civilization traced back to vedic Sanskrit 1000-1500BC, not 6000 yrs. Indus valley was long dead. Language unknown, inhabitants unknown.

It doesn't really matter. Indus Script until now is not clearly translated because of it's complicated written language with 600 different written symbols.

 

[Kabira]

Civilization, not history. Language denotes civilization.



Indian civilization traced back to vedic Sanskrit 1000-1500BC, not 6000 yrs. Indus valley was long dead. Language unknown, inhabitants unknown.

Hindu civilization in true sense only started around 500BC when aryans started to spread out all over current day India.