5 ms·

That's incorrect IMHO. The Mughals had ruled over an area greater than India's current area. The Marathas too had almost replaced Mughals after their downfall,

by jvsg 8y ago

That's incorrect IMHO. The Mughals had ruled over an area greater than India's current area. The Marathas too had almost replaced Mughals after their downfall, and the British replaced Marathas. There was infighting in a few kingdoms towards the south and the east, and that's where the British gained their initial territory. There was a concept of a united India/Hindustan/Bharat/Aryavart in Ancient times.

sachdevap 8y ago
You can read about the disintegration of the Mughal empire after Aurangzeb here: http://www.historydiscussion.net/empires/later-mughals-and-disintegration-of-the-mughal-empire-in-india/598 http://www.historydiscussion.net/empires/later-mughals-and-d... The Marathas never controlled an "undivided India" given the extent of their empire at it's peak: https://www.mapsofindia.com/history/maratha-empire.html https://www.mapsofindia.com/history/maratha-empire.html Not to mention, even Akbar did not have the North east and the southernmost parts of India. The rise of the Sikh empire, and the Deccan sultanate also limited the extent of the later Mughal and Maratha kingdoms. I did not question that these empires had their time. But the notion of undivided India as united as one under the Mughals at the time right before the British arrived is wrong. Ancient times do not affect contemporary affairs, or in this case affairs of 1750s are not affected by the Maurya dynasty's claim on some version of modern day India/Pakistan/Bangladesh.
- nonamechicken 8y ago
  I don't know much about the history of India. But this video shows a huge part of present day India and Pakistan being part of the Mughal empire in 1705. Video: https://youtu.be/QN41DJLQmPk?t=628 https://youtu.be/QN41DJLQmPk?t=628 (at 10:28). Some other interesting time lines from a union of India perspective from this video: Maurya Empire: 270 BCE (at 2:01, https://youtu.be/QN41DJLQmPk?t=122 https://youtu.be/QN41DJLQmPk?t=122) Delhi Sultanate: 1344 (at 8:44 https://youtu.be/QN41DJLQmPk?t=524 https://youtu.be/QN41DJLQmPk?t=524) Edit: Found another video that matches with the above video regarding Mughal Empire: https://youtu.be/wYu2jyVTSc8?t=76 https://youtu.be/wYu2jyVTSc8?t=76 (at 1:16).
  - iguy 8y ago
    The analogous list is to point to the Romans in 100AD, and Charlemagne in 800, and Napoleon in 1800, and conclude that clearly the EU has always been a united super-state. The peaks were quite short-lived, often only one ruler's lifespan (natural or otherwise). There were long gaps between. There were many competing powers. And that's OK! I mean, are we sure that the world in which some Aurangzeb figure won, and created a united (persian-speaking, 100% sunni) subcontinent, is a better place?

by jvsg 8y ago

sachdevap 8y ago

You can read about the disintegration of the Mughal empire after Aurangzeb here: http://www.historydiscussion.net/empires/later-mughals-and-disintegration-of-the-mughal-empire-in-india/598 http://www.historydiscussion.net/empires/later-mughals-and-d... The Marathas never controlled an "undivided India" given the extent of their empire at it's peak: https://www.mapsofindia.com/history/maratha-empire.html https://www.mapsofindia.com/history/maratha-empire.html Not to mention, even Akbar did not have the North east and the southernmost parts of India. The rise of the Sikh empire, and the Deccan sultanate also limited the extent of the later Mughal and Maratha kingdoms. I did not question that these empires had their time. But the notion of undivided India as united as one under the Mughals at the time right before the British arrived is wrong. Ancient times do not affect contemporary affairs, or in this case affairs of 1750s are not affected by the Maurya dynasty's claim on some version of modern day India/Pakistan/Bangladesh.

nonamechicken 8y ago
I don't know much about the history of India. But this video shows a huge part of present day India and Pakistan being part of the Mughal empire in 1705. Video: https://youtu.be/QN41DJLQmPk?t=628 https://youtu.be/QN41DJLQmPk?t=628 (at 10:28). Some other interesting time lines from a union of India perspective from this video: Maurya Empire: 270 BCE (at 2:01, https://youtu.be/QN41DJLQmPk?t=122 https://youtu.be/QN41DJLQmPk?t=122) Delhi Sultanate: 1344 (at 8:44 https://youtu.be/QN41DJLQmPk?t=524 https://youtu.be/QN41DJLQmPk?t=524) Edit: Found another video that matches with the above video regarding Mughal Empire: https://youtu.be/wYu2jyVTSc8?t=76 https://youtu.be/wYu2jyVTSc8?t=76 (at 1:16).
- iguy 8y ago
  The analogous list is to point to the Romans in 100AD, and Charlemagne in 800, and Napoleon in 1800, and conclude that clearly the EU has always been a united super-state. The peaks were quite short-lived, often only one ruler's lifespan (natural or otherwise). There were long gaps between. There were many competing powers. And that's OK! I mean, are we sure that the world in which some Aurangzeb figure won, and created a united (persian-speaking, 100% sunni) subcontinent, is a better place?