The truely great have creations that stand the test of time.
Yes I agree with this view. However not all the figures in the Roman, Umayad or even the Ottoman Caliphate were great, when speaking for Empires it's often a few who gain from others laurels Washington was a bad example as he was not as important as he is made out to be since much of what America is today would be utterly different to what Washington stood for... Empires change with time but proving one figure was instrumental to an Empire is difficuilt indeed.
Yes I agree with this view. However not all the figures in the Roman, Umayad or even the Ottoman Caliphate were great, when speaking for Empires it's often a few who gain from others laurels Washington was a bad example as he was not as important as he is made out to be since much of what America is today would be utterly different to what Washington stood for... Empires change with time but proving one figure was instrumental to an Empire is difficuilt indeed.
However, I'm not saying that everyone in those nations was great. I mean that their founders were great because they were able to both master both sword (to forge their nation) and pen (to create it in a way that endures and met the challenge of the future for centuries.
Genghiz Khan made the biggest empire in history, but it was completely hollow at its core and collapsed on his death. By contrast, Washingston created the nation that he wanted, but in a way that enabled it to change as it desired without falling apart.
However, I'm not saying that everyone in those nations was great. I mean that their founders were great because they were able to both master both sword (to forge their nation) and pen (to create it in a way that endures and met the challenge of the future for centuries.
Great we share the same view then... :)
Genghiz Khan made the biggest empire in history, but it was completely hollow at its core and collapsed on his death. By contrast, Washingston created the nation that he wanted, but in a way that enabled it to change as it desired without falling apart.
Slight correction Chingiz Khan's Empire as we call it actually continued to grow well after his demise. In fact it was still expanding rapidly by the time of his great Grandsons, and there werer several reasons why it eventually collapsed. Unlike the much shorter Sikh Empire the Mongol Empire was never really meant to be an Empire to begin with. It faced much more than one or two threats and really it was the victim of it's own success as it expanded it made more contact with enemies. It eventually fragmented not by enemies beating it on the battlefield but when internal powerstruggles took over.
However it's a myth to say that the Mongols collapsed after Ghengis as in fact they were still expanding by Hulagus time a couple of generations later, what really led to the disintegration of the Mongol Empire was civilisation there was no way they could sustain themselves in luxury unless they settled down, they obviously chose to settle down rather than eke out in the Wilderness but then as they settled they became weak so that by Kubilais time they were finished.
I doubt the real Chingiz really had any desire to conquer as far as he did but thats perhaps a story for a different thread.
Still all is good and its great to share different viewpoints. :)
Well I reckon the Mongolian Empire didn't last long either. By most historical accounts, it collapsed under two centuries. There was a legacy, just as with other empires but sadly the same story over and over again, heirs and successors who didn't possess the necessary skill and infighting.
Well I reckon the Mongolian Empire didn't last long either. By most historical accounts, it collapsed under two centuries. There was a legacy, just as with other empires but sadly the same story over and over again, heirs and successors who didn't possess the necessary skill and infighting.
Hmmm depends though very much on which branch of thier Empire one speaks of becuase after the split many portions continued to build and expand thier domains in other regions, but thats perhaps a topic for a different thread.
While one can argue that Empires like the Khanates continued for some generations Ranjit Singh and the Sikh Empire pretty much came to an end after 1840's as unlike other Empires the Sikhs had no escape routes and were tied down to Punjab so there was nowhere to run for them and hence thier domains collapsed in just two campaigns.
Hmmm depends though very much on which branch of thier Empire one speaks of becuase after the split many portions continued to build and expand thier domains in other regions, but thats perhaps a topic for a different thread.
While one can argue that Empires like the Khanates continued for some generations Ranjit Singh and the Sikh Empire pretty much came to an end after 1840's as unlike other Empires the Sikhs had no escape routes and were tied down to Punjab so there was nowhere to run for them and hence thier domains collapsed in just two campaigns.
Agreed. I mean one can sort of look at Taimur (Tamarlane) as a successful offshoot of the Mongol Empire, carrying to Babur and the Mughals.
The thing that really ruined the Sikhs was thier position and their Army as well. Rajit Singh had alway made a strong central force, true it was drilled in the European fashion and everything but under Ranjit Singh the Khalsa looked only to the Soveriegn for it's orders.
After Ranjit Singh the Army was the perfect Democracy, with Panchayat system of elected spokesmen making all the big decisions, as an effective Army it was still powerfull but without the strong leadership and Central authority discipline broke down and the Army was betrayed by the Politicians and left to fend for itself.
The other trouble for the Sikhs was they had always been the buffer zone between Muslim dominated Afghanistan and Hindu dominated India, after the campaigns of Ranjit Singh made the Sikhs enemies on both sides they became isolated and this is a lesson for both modern Pakistan and India.
Becuase the Sikhs became dependant on the British more than the British depended on them the Punjabs fate was sealed.
This empire was supported by Britishers because Mughals were still there and they wanted to see Delhi more weak.
Later they need end of this empire.
Its first capital was Gujranwala.
An important event during his period was struggle of Syed Ahmed Shaheed of Braily.
If you all kindly allow me to write in Urdu because it is very hard for me to say about this in English.
Thanks for the Info feel free to continue sharing with us and as far as i am concerned okay you can write in Urdu if you want, be it Roman Urdu or Urdu script I will do my best to translate what you write. :)
maharaja ranjit singh was good king, i still wont keep him in great king league, a great king inspires coming generations and historians for years to come. maharaja simply doesn't qualify.
most important point while ruling is the foreign policy of state that determines the future of empire, continuous fighting with pashtoons had made it clear that as soon as khalsa weakens it would be overrun by either Pustoon or british. hyder ali had small kingdom but he never allowed two enemies to combine through his better policy a point where despite better education and training Tipu failed and finally got eliminated.
He had better generals, likes of hari singh nalwa, but regular death of generals plus poor leadership in not installing a right heir to the throne was biggest mistake, he didn't show his imaginary leadership in crucial point of time. his rule was stable, progressive but no future planning lead to its demise. mahraja shivaji was fighting against much disciplined and organized army under the command of rajputs and aurangzeb was very good general but still shivaji got his kingdom and his son who ruled after him was never defeated by mughal force till he was captured alive, despite so many stumbling block they finally overran mughal kingdom, even though they lost to abdali in panipat they reduced abdalis forces and he didnt invade rest of india. and finally marathas fought in war of independence as leaders. maharaja shivaji still inspires many through is social work and gallantry, to me he is a great king, maharaja ranjeet singh was just a good king
I read somewhere that Ranjeet Singh's battles were primarily directed against Pashtuns. Just wondering whom we would have supported today. Muslim Pashtuns or Sikh Punjabis?
I read somewhere that Ranjeet Singh's battles were primarily directed against Pashtuns. Just wondering whom we would have supported today. Muslim Pashtuns or Sikh Punjabis?
Pashtoons were nuisance creators, and maharaja's generals, especially Nalwa was against them, Pashtoon invasion of lahore must have caused massacre of punjabis. so they secured NWFP, i think fort of saragarhi and two other near khyber paas was constructed under Nalwa's command thus restricted Pastoons considerably in their Afghanistan
and Khalsa and Pashtoon standoff remained even in british rule and last one was Battle of Saragarhi by 36th sikh regiment
for today, support whoever is more in support of pakistan. Sikhs are maati ke laal, jiska khate hai uski ka saath nibhate hain, but may be ground conditions might be different in pakistan, I am not aware of their political support to concept of Islamic republic of pakistan, but do let me know:)
The 27 years of Sikh rule followed by the 100 years of Dogra rule were a period considered to be the biggest calamity ever to befall the people of Kashmir. Although the majority of the population was muslim many mosques were closed, cow slaughter was prohibited and an immense tax burden was placed on the people. Ranjit Singh even taxed the poor people something which had never happened before under muslim rule. Muslim’s were denied access to basic education, were banned from carrying arms and were not admitted to the armed services. The result was mass emigration of Kashmiri’s to the muslim areas of the Punjab where they were granted refuge, education and employment in military service.
Sikhs harbored lot of prejudice against muslim Punjabis till 80s when the faced the wrath of hindus. It was due to the cruelties of Sikhs that Punjabi muslims wanted separation from them.
Sikhs harbored lot of prejudice against muslim Punjabis till 80s when the faced the wrath of hindus. It was due to the cruelties of Sikhs that Punjabi muslims wanted separation from them.
iam not much expert about khalsa warriors.but from my sikh friends i hear about what mughals did to them.there is always two sides to the coin.
lol about hindu wrath,there is no such problem right now,you may here from some NRI sikhs from uk and australia blah blah khalistan.it's about the sikh in punjab what they think.84 riots is definitely black mark in history,what they want is justice brought down on criminals
punjab right now is one of the richest state in india along with southern states :)
iam not much expert about khalsa warriors.but from my sikh friends i hear about what mughals did to them.there is always two sides to the coin.
l***ol about hindu wrath,there is no such problem right now,you may here from some NRI sikhs from uk and australia blah blah khalistan.it's about the sikh in punjab what they think.84 riots is definitely black mark in history,what they want is justice brought down on criminals*
**
punjab right now is one of the richest state in india along with southern states :)
Only a very marginal number of Sikhs are supporting the call for Khalistan. Over the years their number has gone down drastically and nowadays nobody is interested in that.Moreover a strategic position of Khalistan was totally Nil even at the height of Punjab extremism.I am opening another thread on that.
