Greatest Buddhist & Hindu Dynasties in Indian history Options

[Perseusstar]

There were many buddhist and hindu dynasties in Indian History but which dynasty was the greatest in terms of military
strength,cultural achievements and legacy.I have made a small list of dynasties which could match the conditions.
What do you think?Which dynasty was the greatest?


This post has been edited by Perseusstar: Sep 24 2010, 10:45 AM

[YiTao]

Ashoka the Great


King Asoka, the third monarch of the Indian Mauryan dynasty, has come to be regarded as one of the most exemplary rulers in world history. The British historian H.G. Wells has written: "Amidst the tens of thousands of names of monarchs that crowd the columns of history ... the name of Asoka shines, and shines almost alone, a star." Although Buddhist literature preserved the legend of this ruler -- the story of a cruel and ruthless king who converted to Buddhism and thereafter established a reign of virtue -- definitive historical records of his reign were lacking. Then in the nineteenth century there came to light a large number of edicts, in India, Nepal, Pakistan and Afghanistan. These edicts, inscribed on rocks and pillars, proclaim Asoka's reforms and policies and promulgate his advice to his subjects. The present rendering of these edicts, based on earlier translations, offers us insights into a powerful and capable ruler's attempt to establish an empire on the foundation of righteousness, a reign which makes the moral and spiritual welfare of his subjects its primary concern. The Australian bhikkhu Ven. S. Dhammika, the compiler of the present work, is the spiritual director of the Buddha Dhamma Mandala Society in Singapore.

[KraterosHellas]

i vaguely remember coming across that name asoka.

isn't gupta muslim/iranian? gupta is like the golden age of indian literature, i believe.

[Hugham]

Maurya Empire is the best.

[Perseusstar]

i vaguely remember coming across that name asoka.

isn't gupta muslim/iranian? gupta is like the golden age of indian literature, i believe.

No,the Gupta Dynasty was a hindu Dynasty or at least the Gupta kings were hindus who also patronized Buddhism
and they also patronized the famous Nalanda University that was more or less a Buddhist University.

[Jagger]

My list would probably be something like:

1. Maurya Empire
-The largest empire in the world during its time, it remains the largest in South Asian history and was instrumental in the spread of Buddhism beyond the Indian subcontinent under Ashoka the Great, who is considered the most pious ruler of the ancient world alongside Cyrus the Great.

2. Gupta Empire
-Considered the "Golden Age of India" or "Golden Age of Hinduism", for its major cultural contributions in the Indian arts, philosophy and sciences, which later had a worldwide influence following its transmission to China and the Islamic world.

3. Pala Empire
-The last major Buddhist empire in India, it was the largest Indian empire since the Maurya Empire, is considered the "Golden Age of Bengal", and was instrumental in the spread of Buddhism to Tibet.

4. Chola Empire
-This Hindu empire was the largest maritime empire in Indian history, with its power extending into Southeast Asia at its height, and it is considered the "Golden Age of Tamil culture" or "Golden Age of South India".


This post has been edited by Jagger: Apr 24 2010, 11:56 AM

[Perseusstar]

My list would probably be something like:

1. Maurya Empire
-The largest empire in the world during its time, it remains the largest in South Asian history and was instrumental in the spread of Buddhism beyond the Indian subcontinent under Ashoka the Great, who is considered the most pious ruler of the ancient world alongside Cyrus the Great.

2. Gupta Empire
-Considered the "Golden Age of India" or "Golden Age of Hinduism", for its major cultural contributions in the Indian arts, philosophy and sciences, which later had a worldwide influence following its transmission to China and the Islamic world.

3. Pala Empire
-The last major Buddhist empire in India, it was the largest Indian empire since the Maurya Empire, is considered the "Golden Age of Bengal", and was instrumental in the spread of Buddhism to Tibet.

4. Chola Empire
-This Hindu empire was the largest maritime empire in Indian history, with its power extending into Southeast Asia at its height, and it is considered the "Golden Age of Tamil culture" or "Golden Age of South India".

Perhaps you are right but we should not forget the Maratha Empire that had one of the strongest and toughest armies
in Indian history.The kings of the Maratha Empire were perhaps the only ones who were able to combine modern weapons
like cannons with medieval weapons in an effective way.

[PearlJam]

Maurya Empire.

[starsiege]

My list would probably be something like:

1. Maurya Empire
-The largest empire in the world during its time, it remains the largest in South Asian history and was instrumental in the spread of Buddhism beyond the Indian subcontinent under Ashoka the Great, who is considered the most pious ruler of the ancient world alongside Cyrus the Great.

2. Gupta Empire
-Considered the "Golden Age of India" or "Golden Age of Hinduism", for its major cultural contributions in the Indian arts, philosophy and sciences, which later had a worldwide influence following its transmission to China and the Islamic world.

3. Pala Empire
-The last major Buddhist empire in India, it was the largest Indian empire since the Maurya Empire, is considered the "Golden Age of Bengal", and was instrumental in the spread of Buddhism to Tibet.

4. Chola Empire
-This Hindu empire was the largest maritime empire in Indian history, with its power extending into Southeast Asia at its height, and it is considered the "Golden Age of Tamil culture" or "Golden Age of South India".

If I rem correctly, the Cholas had the biggest empire(territory wise) of any Indian Kingdoms..in fact its probably the only Indian Empire to hold sway over the South East Asian islands. Needless to say, they were also the only Indian Empire to project power over such vast distances.


Ps: Lol code geass ^^ ur avatar pic

This post has been edited by starsiege: May 3 2010, 08:41 PM

[Jagger]

If I rem correctly, the Cholas had the biggest empire(territory wise) of any Indian Kingdoms..in fact its probably the only Indian Empire to hold sway over the South East Asian islands. Needless to say, they were also the only Indian Empire to project power over such vast distances.


Ps: Lol code geass ^^ ur avatar pic

Like I said, the Chola Empire was "the largest maritime empire in Indian history", because of its vast overseas conquests in Southeast Asia:

Chola Empire


However, in terms of total land area conquered, the Maurya and Pala empires were slightly larger, as they unified most of Southern Asia and extended into Central Asia to the west and Burma to the east:

Maurya Empire


Pala Empire


The Chola Empire might appear larger because it extended across seas, and you could say the same for maritime empires in general. For example, the British and Mongol empires were almost the same size, and yet the British Empire seems larger because it was a maritime empire extending across seas, while the Mongol Empire was a land empire.

[Perseusstar]

At the peak of its power the Maratha Empire was also one of the biggest Empires in Indian history.

[Jagger]

Perhaps you are right but we should not forget the Maratha Empire that had one of the strongest and toughest armies
in Indian history.The kings of the Maratha Empire were perhaps the only ones who were able to combine modern weapons
like cannons with medieval weapons in an effective way.

Yes, the Maratha Empire was also the most powerful in its time. However, I was only focusing on the four largest empires, i.e. half of the list. I would say the Maratha Empire is probably the fifth largest from that list though.

[Mid-Night_Sun]

Like I said, the Chola Empire was "the largest maritime empire in Indian history", because of its vast overseas conquests in Southeast Asia:

Chola Empire

could you elaborate or add to this? i always wondered whether the Indian influence in SEA was by their choice or not.

also, what date is that for the map?

[Jagger]

could you elaborate or add to this? i always wondered whether the Indian influence in SEA was by their choice or not.

also, what date is that for the map?

That was during the 11th century, which was long after Indianized kingdoms were established in Southeast Asia. As far as I know, the Chola Empire was the only Indian kingdom to colonize parts of Southeast Asia (with the exception of Burma, since its borders often overlapped with India, hence Indian and Burmese kingdoms sometimes overlapped). After relations between the Chola Empire, a Hindu Tamil kingdom of South India, and the Srivijaya Empire, a Hindu Malay kingdom of SEA, turned sour, the Cholas invaded and captured most of Srivijaya's territories in SEA in the early 11th century. The Cholas eventually ended their occupation after establishing tribute from the Srivijayans in the late 11th century.


This post has been edited by Jagger: May 11 2010, 08:52 PM

[Mid-Night_Sun]

That was during the 11th century, which was long after Indianized kingdoms were established in Southeast Asia. As far as I know, the Chola Empire was the only Indian kingdom to colonize parts of Southeast Asia (with the exception of Burma, since its borders often overlapped with India, hence Indian and Burmese kingdoms sometimes overlapped). After relations between the Chola Empire, a Hindu Tamil kingdom of South India, and the Srivijaya Empire, a Hindu Malay kingdom of SEA, turned sour, the Cholas invaded and captured most of Srivijaya's territories in SEA in the early 11th century. The Cholas eventually ended their occupation after establishing tribute from the Srivijayans in the late 11th century.

so most of that land was Srivijaya Empires?

do you know if they had conflict with any others in SEA? Lan Xang? Sukhothai? Khmer?

[Jagger]

so most of that land was Srivijaya Empires?

do you know if they had conflict with any others in SEA? Lan Xang? Sukhothai? Khmer?

The Lan Xang and Sukhothai kingdoms were not yet established in the 11th century. Prior to the Chola expedition in Southeast Asia, most of mainland SEA was ruled by the Khmer Empire, most of maritime SEA was ruled by the Srivijaya Empire, while the Malay peninsula was ruled by the Tambralinga kingdom between them. In the early 11th century, large parts of all three kingdoms were occupied by the Chola emperor Rajendra Chola, who had also occupied large parts of the Pala Empire, a Bengali empire of eastern India, just shortly before his expeditions in SEA.

It seems the Chola conquests in SEA began due to a conflict in mainland Southeast Asia. At the beginning of the 11th century, the Khmer Empire had a civil war which led to the empire being divided between two kings, Suryavarman and Jayaviravarman. Suryavarman was successful in taking control of the Khmer capital city of Angkor Wat, which Jayaviravarman attempted to invade several times. At the same time, Angkor Wat came into conflict with the Tambralinga kingdom of the Malay peninsula. In other words, there was a three-way conflict in mainland Southeast Asia. After surviving several invasions from both his enemies, Suryavarman requested aid from the powerful Chola emperor Rajendra Chola. After learning of Suryavarman's alliance with Rajendra Chola, the Tambralinga kingdom requested aid from the Srivijaya emperor Sangrama Vijayatungavarman. This eventually led to the Chola Empire coming into conflict with the Srivijiya Empire.

Rajendra's father Rajaraja Chola was previously on friendly terms with the Srivijaya Empire, probably because the Srivijayas dominated the trade routes between SEA and China, and so the Srivijayas were like the "middle man" between the Chola and Song empires. After relations turned sour during Rajendra Chola's reign, possibly due to the Khmer conflict, he took advantage of the situation and launched invasions into the Srivijaya Empire itself in order to end their dominance over the SEA-China trade routes (thus cutting off the need for a "middle man"). The war ended with a victory for the Chola Empire and Angkor Wat, and major losses for the Srivijaya Empire, the Tambralinga kingdom, and Jayaviravarman's kingdom. The Chola Empire made the most gains overall, occupying the Srivijaya Empire, Tambralinga kingdom, and Jayaviravarman's kingdom, though the main purpose behind these conquests was to establish Chola dominance over the trade routes between India, SEA and China. The methods used by Rajendra Chola in order to achieve this almost resembles the "divide and conquer" strategy later used by the European colonial maritime empires (i.e. playing various local kingdoms against one another).

Sources:
-R. C. Majumdar (1961), "The Overseas Expeditions of King Rājendra Cola", Artibus Asiae 24 (3/4), pp. 338-342, Artibus Asiae Publishers
-Kenneth R. Hall (October 1975), "Khmer Commercial Development and Foreign Contacts under Sūryavarman I", Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 18 (3), pp. 318-336, Brill Publishers

This post has been edited by Jagger: Jul 5 2010, 12:49 PM

[Mid-Night_Sun]

The Lan Xang and Sukhothai kingdoms were not yet established in the 11th century. Prior to the Chola expedition in Southeast Asia, most of mainland SEA was ruled by the Khmer Empire, most of maritime SEA was ruled by the Srivijaya Empire, while the Malay peninsula was ruled by the Tambralinga kingdom between them. In the early 11th century, large parts of all three kingdoms were occupied by the Chola emperor Rajendra Chola, who had also occupied large parts of the Pala Empire, a Bengali empire of eastern India, just shortly before his expeditions in SEA.

It seems the Chola conquests in SEA began due to a conflict in mainland Southeast Asia. At the beginning of the 11th century, the Khmer Empire had a civil war which led to the empire being divided between two kings, Suryavarman and Jayaviravarman. Suryavarman was successful in taking control of the Khmer capital city of Angkor Wat, which Jayaviravarman attempted to invade several times. At the same time, Angkor Wat came into conflict the Tambralinga kingdom of the Malay peninsula. In other words, there was a three-way conflict in mainland Southeast Asia. After surviving several invasions from both his enemies, Suryavarman requested aid from the powerful Chola emperor Rajendra Chola. After learning of Suryavarman's alliance with Rajendra Chola, the Tambralinga kingdom requested aid from the Srivijaya emperor Sangrama Vijayatungavarman. This eventually led to the Chola Empire coming into conflict with the Srivijiya Empire.

Rajendra's father Rajaraja Chola was previously on friendly terms with the Srivijaya Empire, probably because the Srivijayas dominated the trade routes between SEA and China, and so the Srivijayas were like the "middle man" between the Chola and Song empires. After relations turned sour during Rajendra Chola's reign, possibly due to the Khmer conflict, he took advantage of the situation and launched invasions into the Srivijaya Empire itself in order to end their dominance over the SEA-China trade routes (thus cutting off the need for a "middle man"). The war ended with a victory for the Chola Empire and Angkor Wat, and major losses for the Srivijaya Empire, the Tambralinga kingdom, and Jayaviravarman's kingdom. The Chola Empire made the most gains overall, occupying the Srivijaya Empire, Tambralinga kingdom, and Jayaviravarman's kingdom, though the main purpose behind these conquests was to establish Chola dominance over the trade routes between India, SEA and China. The methods used by Rajendra Chola in order to achieve this almost resembles the "divide and conquer" strategy later used by the European colonial maritime empires (i.e. playing various local kingdoms against one another).

Sources:
-R. C. Majumdar (1961), "The Overseas Expeditions of King Rājendra Cola", Artibus Asiae 24 (3/4), pp. 338-342, Artibus Asiae Publishers
-Kenneth R. Hall (October 1975), "Khmer Commercial Development and Foreign Contacts under Sūryavarman I", Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 18 (3), pp. 318-336, Brill Publishers

fascinating. thanks i think this is what is lacking on AF in regards to history. its rare to hear about specifics on India and SEA. most of the time i just read that most of SEA culture and stuff was Indian influenced and thats it. rarely do i hear about which Indian entity did what with who.



would it be too much to ask if you could summarize or list some interesting things on the interaction of each of the listed Indian Kingdoms/Empires and SEA?

This post has been edited by Mid-Night_Sun: May 12 2010, 08:14 PM

[starsiege]

fascinating. thanks i think this is what is lacking on AF in regards to history. its rare to hear about specifics

I second this, Jagger did an awesome job with the details. Devoid of the usual bias one sees on forums posts oh so often. Furthermore, posts with citations always carry much weight!

Thanks Jagger

Like I said, the Chola Empire was "the largest maritime empire in Indian history", because of its vast overseas conquests in Southeast Asia:

The Chola Empire might appear larger because it extended across seas, and you could say the same for maritime empires in general. For example, the British and Mongol empires were almost the same size, and yet the British Empire seems larger because it was a maritime empire extending across seas, while the Mongol Empire was a land empire.

True. I agree
I guess the SEA sea to the Cholas was like the Mare Nostrum to the Romans.

This post has been edited by starsiege: May 13 2010, 12:38 PM

[Jagger]

http://www.asiafinest.com/forum/index.php?...24&t=230102

fascinating. thanks i think this is what is lacking on AF in regards to history. its rare to hear about specifics on India and SEA. most of the time i just read that most of SEA culture and stuff was Indian influenced and thats it. rarely do i hear about which Indian entity did what with who.

would it be too much to ask if you could summarize or list some interesting things on the interaction of each of the listed Indian Kingdoms/Empires and SEA?

The Indian influence in Southeast Asia was mostly due to independent Indian traders, merchants, missionaries, princes, scholars and statesmen rather than any Indian empires invading SEA. For example, the early Khmer kingdom of Funan was reportedly founded by an Indian prince fleeing from India. Later SEA states continued to frequently employ Indian statesmen, administrators and scholars to help run their kingdoms. It was for reasons such as these that Indianized kingdoms arose in SEA.

Initially, the early Indian influence in SEA mainly came from Eastern India, which was the seat of major empires like the Maurya, Gupta and Pala empires, each of which had extensive trade relations with SEA. However, the Chola Empire's military occupations in SEA introduced Tamil styles of South Indian art and architecture. This might be one of the reasons why the Hindu and Buddhist architecture across much of SEA today more closely resembles Southern Indian styles rather than Northern Indian styles.

If I had to summarize Indian-SEA relations during each of those Indian empires:

Maurya Empire
-During the reign of Ashoka the Great, relations with SEA were initially of a military nature, due to Ashoka being a war-like military general in his younger days. His eastward expansion extended up to Burma, where he forced local kingdoms to become tributary states. However, after Ashoka converted to Buddhism in his older days around ~250 BC, he became peaceful and redirected his ambitions towards spreading Buddhism peacefully to the rest of the world. He sent Buddhist missionaries westwards to the Middle East and Europe, northwards to Central Asia and Northwest China, and eastwards to Indochina. Ashoka was responsible for initiating the spread of Buddhism beyond India, thus he is often considered the most influential figure in the history of Buddhism after the Buddha himself.

Gupta Empire
-Much like the Maurya Empire before it, it looks like the Gupta Empire's eastward expansion also extended up to Burma, where local kingdoms had become tributary states. However, the Gupta Empire's relations with SEA in general was mostly cultural rather than military. Gupta relations with Indochina and the Malay Archipelago were generally peaceful. Through trade relations with Indochinese and Malay kingdoms, the Gupta Empire had a profound cultural influence on the Hindu kingdoms of SEA, influencing the arts, philosophies and sciences of the region during the 4th-6th centuries.

Rashtrakuta & Mewar Empires
-While these empires exerted a large amount of influence within the Indian subcontinent itself, I haven't yet found anything on their relations with SEA. Maybe someone with more knowledge on these empires could fill us in on their relations with SEA?

Pala Empire
-It looks like this Buddhist Bengali empire also extended eastwards up to Burma, though only the regions bordering India, at its height in the 9th century. Besides neighbouring Burma, the Palas also had extensive trade relations with other SEA kingdoms. Through trade relations, it had a lasting influence on the art and architecture of several SEA kingdoms, especially the Sailendra Empire, a Buddhist Malay empire that rivalled the Hindu Srivijaya Empire in the 9th century. Though the Pala Empire was the last Buddhist empire in India itself, it played an important role in the rise of Buddhism in SEA, which was previously a mostly Hindu region.

Vijayanagara Empire
-The Vijayanagara Empire of South India had extensive trade relations with several SEA kingdoms, particularly those located on the Malay Archipelago, and especially the island of Java. SEA also served as a trade route for relations between the Vijayanagara and Ming Chinese empires. For example, the Hui Chinese admiral Zheng He made a visit to the Vijayanagara Empire, after travelling through the SEA route.

Maratha Empire
-The Maratha Empire's relations with SEA was mainly due to relations with the Portuguese and British empires, both of which colonized parts of SEA and India. Since the Marathas were usually not friendly towards the Brits and Portuguese, we can assume Maratha relations with British and Portuguese colonies in SEA was also of an unfriendly nature.

I second this, Jagger did an awesome job with the details. Devoid of the usual bias one sees on forums posts oh so often. Furthermore, posts with citations always carry much weight!

Thanks Jagger

True. I agree
I guess the SEA sea to the Cholas was like the Mare Nostrum to the Romans.

Well, the Cholas didn't rule the Indian Ocean for nearly as long as the Romans ruled the Mediterranean Sea. The Chola occupation in SEA lasted less than a century, or maybe even half a century, whereas the Romans ruled the Mediterranean for several centuries, so I wouldn't say the Cholas saw the Indian Ocean as their "Mare Nostrum" ("Our Sea" in Latin). Of course, the Indian Ocean is a lot more expansive (and deeper) than the Mediterranean Sea, so it would have been more difficult to rule large parts of the Indian Ocean for an extended period of time. For example, the Arab Empire conquered most of the Mediterranean Sea in a matter of decades and ruled it for several centuries, and yet the Arabs didn't even attempt to invade the Indian Ocean despite frequently visiting the region.

This post has been edited by Jagger: May 14 2010, 06:05 AM

[Mid-Night_Sun]

very informative. thanks