3 ms·
Indian Empire is older than Roman Empire if i'm not wrong and even America had emires before Europeans colonized. You need to read more history
by gsky 3y ago
Indian Empire is older than Roman Empire if i'm not wrong and even America had emires before Europeans colonized. You need to read more history
- cncovyvysi 3y agoHe's comparing countries to ancient empires. Not locations.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- mminer237 3y ago??? What is the "Indian Empire"? The Mughal Empire? That lasted like 300 years.
- supriyo-biswas 3y agoI guess if we're talking about the Indus Valley Civilization[1] we're looking at a range of 700-2000 years based on how you define the start and end, but even that cannot be considered as equivalent to "India" which was formed as the union of multiple princely states around the general region after the end of colonial rule. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilisation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilisation
- gsky 3y agoMughals were invaders just like europeans
- nindalf 3y agoAt no point was all of modern India under one administrative entity until modern India. Even British India wasn’t one state, it was a patchwork of provinces governed by the British and Princely States. Modern India only came into being in 1948, when the Princes were gently persuaded to take a hike. But you’re right in the broader sense, that Indian people feel that India has been around for longer even if it hasn’t. That is arguably more important to keeping the nation together than anything else.
- archon1410 3y agoThat's not true? Maurya and Gupta empires spanned nearly all of the Indian subcontinent.
- saagarjha 3y agoExcept for the southern part of India, of course.
- ithkuil 3y agoThe Maurya empire lasted 137 years and the Gupta empire for 148 years and their reigns were not one after the other but were 500 years apart. Now depending how you're counting, and your definition of empire the Roman empire had a continuous history (with radical transformations over time but nevertheless continuous) for 2000 years. But hey, it all depends on how you define things. Undoubtedly the Indian subcontinent produced an incredibly deep and rich cultural history that spanned thousands of years. It was just slightly more fractured and dynamic. The Romans objectively held their firm (and often brutal) hold on a lot of land for a lot of time with a continuous identity, in a way that is not just to say that the same common culture continued on across various political arrangements that changed over time. Because I'd that's what we're talking about we could say that the whole of Europe has a kind of cultural union (fostered by the shared religion) that continued on till today. But the details of how you define things matter of course. Today you wouldn't consider the byzantine empire to be the Roman empire, but ask somebody from the 1300s living somewhere in the aegean see or anatolia and they will tell you they were Romans.
- nindalf 3y agoNot the South of India. And they held areas in the North West that aren’t part of modern India.
- archon1410 3y agoThat's also not really true. It included large parts of south India, including present day states of Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh etc. It only did not include the southern tip.