The Glory of the Mughal Empire

[kalu_miah]

On the issue of temple destruction by Aurangzeb, described by well known history scholar Richard Eaton:
http://ftp.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_eaton_temples1.pdf
http://ftp.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00islamlinks/txt_eaton_temples2.pdf

‘It’s a myth that Muslim rulers destroyed thousands of temples’ | Tehelka.com
"You also examined at length the destruction of temples in this period. What did you find?
The temple discourse is huge in India and this is something that needs to be historicised. We need to look at the contemporary evidence. What do the inscriptions and contemporary chronicles say? What was so striking to me when I went into that project after the destruction of the Babri Masjid was that nobody had actually looked at the contemporary evidence. People were just saying all sorts of things about thousands of temples being destroyed by medieval Muslim kings. I looked at inscriptions, chronicles and foreign observers’ accounts from the 12th century up to the 18th century across South Asia to see what was destroyed and why. The big temples that were politically irrelevant were never harmed. Those that were politically relevant — patronised by an enemy king or a formerly loyal king who becomes a rebel — only those temples are wiped out. Because in the territory that is annexed to the State, all the property is considered to be under the protection of the State. The total number of temples that were destroyed across those six centuries was 80, not many thousands as is sometimes conjectured by various people. No one has contested that and I wrote that article 10 years ago."

Hindutva nationalists cannot stomach facts and calling Eaton a liar because of what he said above:
Hindu temple destructions a myth: Richard Eaton - India FactsIndia Facts
Richard Eaton's negation of Islamic Fanaticism

Niccolao Manucci - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Manucci (1639–1717) a 17th century Italian with all his contemporary biases cannot be a neutral source. Storia do Mogor has many inconsistencies:
"Controversy
Manucci spent almost his entire life in India. He would then send home the manuscript for "Storia do Mogor" which was lent to the French historian François Catrou in 1707. Catrou wrote another version as Histoire générale de l’empire du Mogul in 1715. The original then emerged in Berlin in 1915 and was written in three different languages. This version was translated and then published. Among those who have doubted Manucci's authenticity are the famous British historian Stanley Lane-Poole and Ali Sadiq.

There are some popular events that are so misinterpreted that it is very hard to believe in the veracity of this authors work especially his work "Storia do Mogor". Some major examples are: 1) On page 120 on this book, Manucci writes that Akbar (3rd mughal ruler) was born in Persia. It is a very well known fact that has been confirmed by many independent authors that Akbar was born in Sindh (in modern day Pakistan) and not Persia.

2) On page 122 Manucci writes about the confrontation between Chand Bibi (regent of Bijapur) and Akbar. It is mentioned by Manucci that Akbar forces defeated Chand Bibi's forces and Akbar fell in love with her and moved her to his own palace. This event is again wrongly portrayed by Manucci, Akbar forces were able to defeat Chand Bibi's forces (they lost once) but Chand Bibi was in fact killed by her own troops and never by Akbar (almost all historians agree on this).

3) Again on page 123 comes a completely flawed story about Akbar. Manucci mentioned that Akbar forces attacked Chittor fort and by deceit Akbar took 'Jaimal' a prisoner and asked his wife 'Rani Padmini' to marry Akbar and join his harem or else he will kill Jaimal. Then Manucci expounds in great detail about how Rani Padmini played a trick on Akbar and assured the release of her husband Jaimal (Jai Mall) from Akbars fort. While this event is true but it completely out of time. This event happened in early 1300 AD, almost 250 years before Akbar was born or 350 years before Manucci was born. It was Alauddin khilji, sultan (king) of Delhi at that time who attacked chittor and not Akbar. Rana Rattan Singh was husband of Padmini while Manucci writes Padmini's husband as Jaimal, Jaimal was commander of Chittor forces in 1567 battle. This incident is widely recorded in Indian history through many paintings and writings and there is not even an iota of doubt that Manucci's work here is not representing history correctly.

There are numerous other incidents in this book which are completely flawed, this raises very big concerns about the veracity of Manucci's work, especially his writings about initial Mughal rulers Humayun, Babar and Akbar."

 

[mughal arslan shah mirza]

Oh,it's interesting,are you descendant of the emperors or the people came into Hindustan with Babur,because you use mirza in your ID,so I'm very interested to know

What's fascinating is that Mughals were multiple tribes when they came to India. Interestingly there's been different waves so to speak of 'mughals' . After the initial conquerors had come to the area and made the area secure, more and more people from Central Asia came and merged so to speak. We had Aibak Turks and Uzbeks coming in till pretty late into the empire's history. To answer your question, I'm from the richer/well-connected sections. The more 'commoner' soldier-class didn't retain their titles as much.
Interestingly I see a similiarity with the Tungistic groups that came to China. I would presume that there were multiple groups that kept coming in multiple waves and kept merging till late. I don't know how 'exclusive' this identity would be but I would presume that there would be rising awareness about it.

 

[Aepsilons]

What's fascinating is that Mughals were multiple tribes when they came to India. Interestingly there's been different waves so to speak of 'mughals' . After the initial conquerors had come to the area and made the area secure, more and more people from Central Asia came and merged so to speak. We had Aibak Turks and Uzbeks coming in till pretty late into the empire's history. To answer your question, I'm from the richer/well-connected sections. The more 'commoner' soldier-class didn't retain their titles as much.
Interestingly I see a similiarity with the Tungistic groups that came to China. I would presume that there were multiple groups that kept coming in multiple waves and kept merging till late. I don't know how 'exclusive' this identity would be but I would presume that there would be rising awareness about it.

Its impressive that you still retain a strong understanding and appreciation of your proud ancestral background @mughal arslan shah mirza !

 

[sahaliyan]

What's fascinating is that Mughals were multiple tribes when they came to India. Interestingly there's been different waves so to speak of 'mughals' . After the initial conquerors had come to the area and made the area secure, more and more people from Central Asia came and merged so to speak. We had Aibak Turks and Uzbeks coming in till pretty late into the empire's history. To answer your question, I'm from the richer/well-connected sections. The more 'commoner' soldier-class didn't retain their titles as much.
Interestingly I see a similiarity with the Tungistic groups that came to China. I would presume that there were multiple groups that kept coming in multiple waves and kept merging till late. I don't know how 'exclusive' this identity would be but I would presume that there would be rising awareness about it.

The Manchus in Qing dynasty were bannermen,we were not Chinese before the 1644,and before 1644,the Aisin gioro family already collected nearly all the Manchu-Tungusic tribes and clans,brought them into the banner system,then they conquered some Mongols,brought them into the system as well,and Aisin gioros conquered Liaodong,all the Han Chinese from Liaodong became bannermen.That's the history before 1644
After 1644,the Manchus crossed the great wall,and conquer China.In Qing dynasty,the Beijing was divided into innner and outer city,the inner city only allowed the bannermen to live(thus known as the tatary city by the westerners).It's recorded in the end of Qing dynasty.60% of the residents of Beijing were Bannermen.Their descendants still live in Beijing

 

[Aepsilons]

The Manchus in Qing dynasty were bannermen,we were not Chinese before the 1644,and before 1644,the Aisin gioro family already collected nearly all the Manchu-Tungusic tribes and clans,brought them into the banner system,then they conquered some Mongols,brought them into the system as well,and Aisin gioros conquered Liaodong,all the Han Chinese from Liaodong became bannermen.That's the history before 1644
After 1644,the Manchus crossed the great wall,and conquer China.In Qing dynasty,the Beijing was divided into innner and outer city,the inner city only allowed the bannermen to live(thus known as the tatary city by the westerners).It's recorded in the end of Qing dynasty.60% of the residents of Beijing were Bannermen.Their descendants still live in Beijing

@sahaliyan ,

Does this explains the rather unique Northern Chinese phenotype as compared to some Southern Han ? Interesting.

 

[Ajatashatru]

According to that, among their homelands was the hapta həndu (Sapta Sindhu).

Sapta sindhu-according to many historians-does not necessarily refer to any fixed set of seven rivers in the Indian subcontinent. When the Indo-Iranian people got divided into Indic and Iranian people and settled in different areas, they named different rivers in those areas as their seven holy rivers. So the Hapta Hendu of Iranians may not be the same as Sapta Sindhu of Indians.

 

[mughal arslan shah mirza]

The Manchus in Qing dynasty were bannermen,we were not Chinese before the 1644,and before 1644,the Aisin gioro family already collected nearly all the Manchu-Tungusic tribes and clans,brought them into the banner system,then they conquered some Mongols,brought them into the system as well,and Aisin gioros conquered Liaodong,all the Han Chinese from Liaodong became bannermen.That's the history before 1644
After 1644,the Manchus crossed the great wall,and conquer China.In Qing dynasty,the Beijing was divided into innner and outer city,the inner city only allowed the bannermen to live(thus known as the tatary city by the westerners).It's recorded in the end of Qing dynasty.60% of the residents of Beijing were Bannermen.Their descendants still live in Beijing

Thanks for the informative post bro. I've read some where that parts of the establishment allowed the manchus to come in after 1644 because there were peasant rebellions going on and they wanted help to quell them. It's said that the political establishment wasn't sure about their decision. I don't know if it's accurate or not.

@Nihonjin1051
Thanks for that bro. Tell us about your Ainu side. I read somewhere that there were some ethnic biases in Japan against Ainu people. Is this over-blown, propaganda? Interestingly there's confusion about the origin of Ainu. Do you think they were Asiatic fully , as in the current definition of 'East Asiatic'? I find it interesting that in China we have multiple groups that came together and merged recently and same's the case with Japan

 

[sahaliyan]

The Aisin gioro family from 1 man(Dudu Fuman in 16th century) to the end of Qing dynasty,they have 80000 males.The reason for the population increase is as the royal family,they can have more wives.And they can afford more children,their children have more chances to survive than ordinary families(In anciet,the death rate of children is very high).
After the Qing dynasty,their birth rate and death rate should be same as other people.The population of China from 1910s increased 3 times,so I think today their are 240000 aisin gioro males.
What about the descendants of Mughal emperors?Do anyone know their population?

 

[mughal arslan shah mirza]

@sahaliyan

Ah I see. About the numbers, I'm not sure at all

 

[kalu_miah]

@sahaliyan and @mughal arslan shah mirza ,

What is interesting about the Manchus is that sometimes history incorrectly does not give them credit for their civilization. Historians usually claim that they only rose to preeminence in the late 16th century and during the early 17th century during the waning years of the Ming Dynasty, which would be replaced by the Qing Dynasty (a Manchu Imperial Dynasty). However, that's not the case. In fact, the Manchu are a Tunguisic people, and are descendents of the Jurchen peoples. The Jurchens were actually the overloards of the Mongols; the biographers of Genghis Khan mention this so. The Jurchens, who are the same ethnic group as the Manchus, were the ones that established the Jin Dynasty, and thus had already adopted some court life rituals as well as agricultural trademarks from neighboring powers. These people (Jurchen / Manchu) were in heavy contacts with Gogoryeo (a Korean kingdom in present day North Korea) , as well as with Chinese dynasties further to the south. What i also find interesting is that the Manchus used the now-extinct Khitan language script, which was used by the Jurchens and other Tunguisic peoples of North East Asia. The later Manchus eventually adopted the Manchu alphabet, which are also closely related to Mongolian alphabet. That said, Manchus were an active civilization as early as the 12th to 13th century AD, but largely operated in North East Asia, alongsides with the Korean kingdoms and the Mongols. It was much later when the Manchus would expand further than their traditional spheres of influence, and create designs for the entire China , and other nations in the west and south.

That said, @sahaliyan ,

I no doubt have supreme awe and respect for history of all Tunguisic peoples: Jurchen, Manchu, and Mongols. These indigenous inhabitants of North East Asia would have the greatest impact in civilizations throughout Asia , Middle East and Europe. Out of them, would be birthed the greatest empires and military machines the world has ever seen.

1) Jin Dynasty
2) Yuan Dynasty of Chinese Empire
3) Golden Horde
4) Safavid Empire
5) Timurid Dynasty
6) Mughal Empire
7) Qing Dynasty of Chinese Empire

and the list continue on..

You may want to look at this:
Altaic languages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tungusic and Mongolic are slightly different but related language family under the larger Altaic group. So 1 and 7 would be Tungusic, 2, 3, 5 and 6 would be Mongolic (or Turko-Mongol) and 4 would be Turkic. Long before Mongol tribes unified under Chinggis and took that name, Xiongnu defeated the earlier Indo-European/Iranian Scythians/Saka nomads and the mixture of these two groups gave rise to Turkics, if I am not mistaken. I think proto-Turks were more like Yakuts ancestors (Dingling?) and proto-Tungusics were like todays Evenks, but their mixture with their southern neighbors gave rise to Mongols and possibly Jurchens/Jins:

Xiongnu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dingling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tungusic peoples - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mohe people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Heishui Mohe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mongolic languages - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The origins of the Yakuts – Gene Expression

 

[sahaliyan]

Thanks for the informative post bro. I've read some where that parts of the establishment allowed the manchus to come in after 1644 because there were peasant rebellions going on and they wanted help to quell them. It's said that the political establishment wasn't sure about their decision. I don't know if it's accurate or not.

@Nihonjin1051
Thanks for that bro. Tell us about your Ainu side. I read somewhere that there were some ethnic biases in Japan against Ainu people. Is this over-blown, propaganda? Interestingly there's confusion about the origin of Ainu. Do you think they were Asiatic fully , as in the current definition of 'East Asiatic'? I find it interesting that in China we have multiple groups that came together and merged recently and same's the case with Japan

The map of Qing Beijing,you can find the inner city(内城）and outer city(外城),the non-bannermen were forbidden to live in the inner city.And you will find the Imperial city(皇城）where the emperors live.

 

[mughal arslan shah mirza]

Fascinating. They must have been really brave and well-organized to take such a big area . There must be some good movie with english sub-titles that deals with that period of history.

 

[Aepsilons]

@Nihonjin1051
Thanks for that bro. Tell us about your Ainu side. I read somewhere that there were some ethnic biases in Japan against Ainu people. Is this over-blown, propaganda? Interestingly there's confusion about the origin of Ainu. Do you think they were Asiatic fully , as in the current definition of 'East Asiatic'? I find it interesting that in China we have multiple groups that came together and merged recently and same's the case with Japan

There are around 200,000 Ainus in Japan, most of them are in the Northern Japanese island of Hokkaido. Thus number does not reflect the Japanese with Ainu ancestral heritage; which would be most of the Japanese in Hokkaido, especially in Sapporo. I personally am 1/4th Ainu, since my mother's father is Ainu. A lot of Japanese in the southern islands have a limited understanding of the Ainu , and most of the things they know are based on social studies text book. Recently there has been a re-awakening of Ainu cultural appreciation.

Yes there are a lot of discussion on the Ainu , there are anthropologists that claim they were proto-mongoloids, and there are those who believe that they are some kind of Caucasoid ethnics. For me, I believe that they are some form of Caucasoid due to the facial features and physical appearance. Ainu look completely different from Yamato phenotype. Per se, they are much taller, they have deep eye sockets, very prominent nasal bridges, greater amount of body and facial hair and very obvious caucasoid facial features:

----

Some facial , phenotypic characteristics of the Ainu People:

Ainu woman

Ainu man

Ainu man

Northern Japanese man, with Ainu ancestry

Northern Japanese male

Northern Japanese

.
Northern Japanese

 

[Aepsilons]

@mughal arslan shah mirza ,

Compare Northern Japanese phenotype with Yamato ancestry of Japan:

 

[sahaliyan]

The inner city divided by banners
Accord to Wu Tingkui's book,in 1910,there are 900000 bannermen in Beijing,include the Mongol bannermen 110645 people（22129 families),and the Han bannermen 129540 people(25908 families).
But it's strange now in Beijing the Manchu population only 250000 people,lower than 1910,so it's clearly some Manchus reported themselves as Hans,as we know,after the Qing dynasty,the Manchus didn't move out of Beijing.And the population should increase to 2 million(include the Mongol and Han bannermen),and in 2012,there are 22 million people live in Beijing,so the descendants of bannermen make uo 1/10 of Beijing's population.Based on what I seen in Beijing,it's a realiable number,I cuurent live in Beijing
据吴廷燮等纂《北京市志稿·民政志》卷一“户口”记，宣统二年（1910年）民政部调查京师户口时，京城二十四旗共有正户118783户，其中八旗蒙古共22129户，八旗汉军为25908户，其余为八旗满洲共70746户。另外还有内务府三旗共4571户，京营四郊19处旗人56536户。如果也按每丁眷属为5人推算，应该有旗人人口90万人左右