Who was the Greatest Emperor in South Asian History?

[Axa-]

But he never ruled S.Asia so he is not in the list, got it??

I already got it. My point is these 'rulers' were nowhere to be found when Timur came but you are still calling them ''Emperors'' I think that is a little bit embarrasing

 

[ShahidT]

I dont want to derail this wonderful thread or sound as a troll but when Timur came down to South Asia there was no power who can stand against him, same in Central Asia same other areas, where were these 'Emperors' when Timur was around the ones that dared to test his power got beaten one by one, Timur Conguerors/gets anything he wishes and there is no 'Emperor' who could stop it.

he was alien to this land. if you are so proud of turkic and say they are the best, then they should have stayed in those 'wonderful' turkic regions and not come to the subcontinent. first timur built mounds from the heads of hindus in delhi, and then babur built bigger mountain from the skulls of pashtuns. your people don't belong here stay in your barren lands of central asia and mongolia where you belong. didn't contribute anything but murder of innocents, taking away wealth and leaving rivers of blood in south asia. definition of barbarian insects.

 

[Imran Khan]

WTF man cheap guys with cheap comments on a very good thread

 

[Hellraiser007]

I already got it. My point is these 'rulers' were nowhere to be found when Timur came but you are still calling them ''Emperors'' I think that is a little bit embarrasing

May be you are referring Mughals when they stayed in India due to Timur. But there are emperors like Chadragupta Mourya who ruled India including Afghanistan for close to 400 years.

Timur relied on hit and run tactics using bow and arrow which is very difficult for a traditional army to fight that kind of battle. Mongols and Timur got the latest and deadly tactics with advancements of cavalry archery and so they won.

Just like British ruled this world with the invention and mastery of gun powder.

The list is not confined to one period and the emperor will be judged based on victories, valour, administration, scientific adavncements, arts, etc etc .....

 

[genmirajborgza786]

Akbar & Ashoka were the among the greatest ruler's of south Asia but with out a doubt "Queen Victoria" was the greatest ruler of south Asia end of story.

the Empress her legacy, her rule, & her "Empire"

http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/m...6/8947463-victoria-memorial-kolkata-india.jpg



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ning_victoria.jpg/220px-Dronning_victoria.jpg

 

[Axa-]

Sadly, you managed to sound like a troll. This thread was not about who was the greatest military leader of south Asia, but who was the greatest emperor. Would you, by the same token, agree that Alexander III the Great was the greatest emperor of Anatolia?

Alexander was a 'nothing' compared to Turkic Khan's.. He was king, emperor, master etc, untill Turks came in the neighbourhood .. We sacked his mighty empire to the ground.. Byzantines, Romans, Greeks'and what not? all got humiliated!!..

 

[asad71]

Typical.

A hero and an emperor whom the people of Bengal never saw. Wonderful and illustrative.

Like the Sylheti peasant asked to name his favourite fruit, who replies without a blink, "The dates of Baghdad".



?

FYI, the Arab dates are now grown in BD. Even saplings from the date plants planted by the Holy Prophet (pbuh) himself have been brought here and grown. They are already bearing fruits.

 

[kurup]

I already got it. My point is these 'rulers' were nowhere to be found when Timur came but you are still calling them ''Emperors'' I think that is a little bit embarrasing

The empires in the listing span from 400 BC to 1700 AD .Timur's attack of Delhi was in 1398 and Delhi then was ruled by a weakened Tughlaq dynasty.

Your assertion that none of them were seen during Timur's conquest is rather stupid.How can an empire from 400BC be seen around circa 1400 AD

 

[Sashan]

All the emperors except one listed above are sub-continental tigers just like our cricketers - the one player who scored a century outside of subcontinent is Rajendra Chola while doing well within the subcontinent as well - So hands down he is the greatest emperor

 

[Bang Galore]

Akbar & Ashoka were the among the greatest ruler's of south Asia

Akbar was undoubtedly great but Asoka wasn't, atleast not in the meaning of what commonly goes as great. He had probably the greatest impact (more than Akbar or that of his illustrious grandfather Chandragupta Maurya) but by the end of his life, the Mauryan kingdom was already going downhill with Asoka having emptied the state treasuries & weakened the power of the empire. Not much is known of his old age but all available indicators are that he died a disillusioned man having no power with his courtiers actually refusing to honour an imperial decree to give away all the wealth of the treasury to Buddhist monasteries. The empire didn't survive much after him and the reason is accepted to be his losing control of it.

 

[MST]

Akbar was undoubtedly great but Asoka wasn't, atleast not in the meaning of what commonly goes as great. He had probably the greatest impact (more than Akbar or that of his illustrious grandfather Chandragupta Maurya) but by the end of his life, the Mauryan kingdom was already going downhill with Asoka having emptied the state treasuries & weakened the power of the empire. Not much is known of his old age but all available indicators are that he died a disillusioned man having no power with his courtiers actually refusing to honour an imperial decree to give away all the wealth of the treasury to Buddhist monasteries. The empire didn't survive much after him and the reason is accepted to be his losing control of it.

Ashoka was way ahead of his time as a King and Emperor. In 268 BCE he became the emperor of Magadha. Compared to Akbar whose coronation happened in 1556. That is some 1824 years later. While Akbar's claim to fame is all about his religious tolerance something that can be challenged as Jazia was imposed on Hindus Ashoka talked about not just religious tolerence but Human rights, Animal rights, preservation of forests and natural habitat. His edicts had messages that was beyond anything the world will see more 2000 years later until the UN charter. Akbar though Great in his own way doesn't stand anywhere near Ashoka. That is the reason why our founding fathers looked at his principles while laying the foundation for this country.

I am not debating that Ashoka at his death left his kingdom weakened. This is quite possible. We don't really know because the only reason we know about Ashoka is through his edicts and they don't mention what happened in his later live. So later part of history is derived through other sources. But even then Kings in India have always been celebrated for being Just, righteous and true rather than their Valour and their ability to wage war. So may be by international standards you can say he may not be great but from Indian standards Ashoka was nothing but Great.

 

[Bang Galore]

Ashoka was way ahead of his time as a King and Emperor. In 268 BCE he became the emperor of Magadha. Compared to Akbar whose coronation happened in 1556. That is some 1824 years later. While Akbar's claim to fame is all about his religious tolerance something that can be challenged as Jazia was imposed on Hindus Ashoka talked about not just religious tolerence but Human rights, Animal rights, preservation of forests and natural habitat. His edicts had messages that was beyond anything the world will see more 2000 years later until the UN charter. Akbar though Great in his own way doesn't stand anywhere near Ashoka. That is the reason why our founding fathers looked at his principles while laying the foundation for this country.

I am not debating that Ashoka at his death left his kingdom weakened. This is quite possible. We don't really know because the only reason we know about Ashoka is through his edicts and they don't mention what happened in his later live. So later part of history is derived through other sources. But even then Kings in India have always been celebrated for being Just, righteous and true rather than their Valour and their ability to wage war. So may be by international standards you can say he may not be great but from Indian standards Ashoka was nothing but Great.

You make very valid points. My only observation was that when looked through the conventional lens, Asoka was not "great". However I guess when you consider that some 2300 years after his death, his imperial symbols fly high as the official symbols of the Republic of India, that probably qualifies for a whole new level of greatness.

 

[Silverblaze]

Greatest in terms of what?

Lets rate them in

kindness - none

generosity - none

tolerant - none

Powerful - all

conquerors - all

imperialists - all.

 

[Joe Shearer]

I already got it. My point is these 'rulers' were nowhere to be found when Timur came but you are still calling them ''Emperors'' I think that is a little bit embarrasing

Perhaps there is a little misunderstanding.

Were you expecting Chandragupta Maurya to be reborn to face Timur? Has it occurred to you that nobody is proposing one of Timur's contemporaries as a great Indian emperor?

I think your repeatedly bringing Timur in, into a list of south Asian emperors, is a little embarrassing.

Alexander was a 'nothing' compared to Turkic Khan's.. He was king, emperor, master etc, untill Turks came in the neighbourhood .. We sacked his mighty empire to the ground.. Byzantines, Romans, Greeks'and what not? all got humiliated!!..

A juvenile, schoolboy remark.


Neither Alexander nor his empire were around when the Turks showed up on the stage. Byzantines were not Alexander's empire, they were a succession to the Roman Empire. Several hundred years separate the two.

Would you like to refresh yourself with some basic history before commenting further?

FYI, the Arab dates are now grown in BD. Even saplings from the date plants planted by the Holy Prophet (pbuh) himself have been brought here and grown. They are already bearing fruits.

Oh, good. That now proves that Sher Shah was a Bangladeshi king. Now we can all go home.

 

[Vinod2070]

I already got it. My point is these 'rulers' were nowhere to be found when Timur came but you are still calling them ''Emperors'' I think that is a little bit embarrasing

I dont want to derail this wonderful thread or sound as a troll but when Timur came down to South Asia there was no power who can stand against him, same in Central Asia same other areas, where were these 'Emperors' when Timur was around the ones that dared to test his power got beaten one by one, Timur Conguerors/gets anything he wishes and there is no 'Emperor' who could stop it.

Timue was a fil.thy lump of shyt.

One of the worst genocidal maniac of all times.