Why was there no Oda Nobunaga of India? why no Qin Shi Huang?

Why was there no Oda Nobunaga of India? why no Qin Shi Huang?

Stratton Oakmont Wolf of Wall Street Shirt $21.68

The Kind of Tired That Sleep Won’t Fix Shirt $21.68

Stratton Oakmont Wolf of Wall Street Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    India has never had internal rulers, they always get conquered by tiny foreign bands who establish themselves as such and then they form a super minority that eventually gets conquered by a different small band.
    India also has never had native record keeping so no history of their own, just what outsiders wrote. Even their religious traditions were first written by Persians

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Ironic given that we know of ancient Persia mostly from Greek sources

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Babylonian too

  2. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >why no Qin Shi Huang
    the equivalent of emperor Qin would probably be Ashoka. Although he never managed to exercise such a lasting legacy of unified state control over the entire subcontinent, he was of the same universal empire-building Caesarian figure than Qin shi huang was.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Shit take.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        better than having nothing to say at all except whining like a baby about others' takes, homosexual.

  3. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    why those two figures exactly

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      They were unifiers. Both united a land ruled by disparate warlords through brutal conquest, and both formed a legacy that lasted long after their death, which causes the modern states of China and Japan to regard them as essentially the father of the unified country. QSH invented China as we know it. Oda Nobunaga crushed the ambitions of the daimyo beneath his heel and laid the ground work for what Hideyoshi and Ieyasu would build.

  4. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Why did you edit out "Ghurid" Sultanate and replace it with "Delhi" Sultanate?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Why did you edit out "Ghurid" Sultanate and replace it with "Delhi" Sultanate?

  5. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Chandragupta Maurya and Ashoka come to mind, Ashoka did do more than pretty much any other indigenous ruler.

    India did conquer Persian lands for a time, see the Kushan empire.

    Also, the southern tip of India, filled with wealthy port cities profiting from trade and agriculture fueled by great monsoons, pretty much never got conquered. They were smart enough to make deals with colonial powers as well.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Indian here, Akbar probably fits the list too.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >India did conquer Persian lands for a time, see the Kushan empire
      Kushans were Yuezhi

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Mauryans had Iran's baluchi province entirely

        Which is why most Baluchis share Indian blood. No persian ever ruled India

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          Mauryan poojeets didn't even control Pakistan, let alone Iran.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Ashoka Maurya
      Erm, that's a good opinion... unfortunately, another anon called it a "shit take" without elaborating so I have to dismiss it.

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      Kushans weren't Indian and never conquered Iran. Numerous Iranian dynasties conquered India.

  6. 1 week ago
    Anonymous
  7. 1 week ago
    Anonymous
  8. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    genetic disposition to slave mentality

  9. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    too vast and populated since prehistory to control in totality unlike japan which is just islands and china which should really only be seen as portions of its eastern half, which has been genetically homogenous since prehistory as well because yellow river farmer bug people were so good at massacring

    south asia has always existed culturally, politically, and genetically on a cline; its regions should be viewed as we view the regions of europe, which (since rome, arguably) no one has been able to conquer and hold a major portion of

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      yea I don't think it's possible
      Even when they lost the wars, the decentralised systems more or less stayed intact and when the person in charge stepped over the line they got ousted

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        would be better if they all just spoke english imo

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          it would be better if a sanskrit renaissance happened, the upper class is definitely trying
          english has been poisoned by ebonics, it's useful for paperwork but it might be poisonous culturally speaking

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >japan which is just islands
      Speaking of, OP brought up Oda Nobunaga but he didn't even conquer the main island, let alone the other ones. It was Toyotomi Hideyoshi who conquered Kyushu and Shikoku and crushed the Hojos and made the north bow.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >Unites it in fricking 16th century

        India did this in 200 BCE when we were nuking greeks from South Asia

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        bump

  10. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    there was, his name is Robert Clive.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      I miss him.
      Also Warren Hastings, if we ewant to keep the shitpost train going.

      too vast and populated since prehistory to control in totality unlike japan which is just islands and china which should really only be seen as portions of its eastern half, which has been genetically homogenous since prehistory as well because yellow river farmer bug people were so good at massacring

      south asia has always existed culturally, politically, and genetically on a cline; its regions should be viewed as we view the regions of europe, which (since rome, arguably) no one has been able to conquer and hold a major portion of

      I believe the reason they were stuck in an eternal cycle of big empire > Collapse >Anarchy>Big empire is because they had very populated central region (Indo-gangetic plain) but the geography of everywhere else was not suit for a long term imperial occupation, nor was the empire.

      • 6 days ago
        Anonymous

        Hastings was an Indiaboo who actually tried his best in a bad environment surrounded by political hostiles (and eventually was the victim of a smear campaign because of it) while Clive was a cold blooded win-at-all-costs psychopath of a man who had no qualms cheating his friends or bribing his enemies in the Bengal campaigns. The two are on opposite ends of the British Raj's rulers.

  11. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Too many elephants that went prööt

  12. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    When they were born they took one look around them and decided to reincarnate as a cow.

  13. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Oda Nobunaga
    >Qin Shi Huang
    No idea who those are, any way i googled it and found out these guys were unifiers?

    Your telling me India never had unifiers?
    Chandragupta Maurya?
    Samudragupta?

  14. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    There was. Anglos possessing more Vedic Aryan DNA than any Indian not only unified India, but also Pakistan and Burma, accomplishing more than even India's most legendary Kings and conquerors. They brought a technological revolution. For the first time Indians could learn about the universe, euclidean geometry, calculus and all manner of sciences unbeknownst to even their most wisest sages, they could gaze through a telescope at the stars and experiment with chemistry and electricity, with this knowledge they had the potential to lift themselves out of poverty and want. The Anglo also brought Christian morality, ending brutal practices like Sati (widow burning) and British ideals of liberty. When naturally caused famine struck the British rendered food aid, unlike the Mughals who cruelly and deliberately orchestrated famine as means of waging warfare. It was the greatest thing to ever happen to India.

    However all of this was in vain, when an Indian finds prosperity, he has 8 kids instead of 2, and within one generation his wealth is squandered and his children returned to squalor and poverty. This is best exemplified by the masses of Indians clinging to trains whose technology was developed overwhelmingly by aryan men on railroads first laid down by the British. Despite modern wealth and prosperity they still find a way to be poor. According to Anglo intellectual Thomas Malthus this will lead to a Malthusian catastrophe when the bloated system and 1.4 billion Indians can no longer be supported by their betters. It is pointless to assist them as you merely delay the inevitable and create an even bigger disaster.

    India will suffer terribly in the future and there is nothing that can be done. Remember this, 40 years from now we will have all witnessed it at some point, and when it happens do not let those 1.4 billion enter your country as "climate refugees" or somesuch. Your country will simply end up like India.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Anglos
      Great Britain is a result thousands of ethnics from various parts of Europe buckbreaking them

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      >when an Indian finds prosperity, he has 8 kids instead of 2
      India's birth rates have significantly declined since its independence in 1947.

  15. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    India was united several times, the Delhi Sultanate, Mughals, and Mauryans all at various points controlled effectively all of India, at least more of India than Oda controlled of Japan.

    Also India is a hell of a lot bigger than Japan with a much much much wider range of cultures and religions, plus it had no unifying factor.

    Really when it comes to expansive continued empires China is the odd one out, everyone from Germany to Russia to Turkey to Bulgaria claimed to be the Roman Empire but none of them reclaimed even half of the former Roman Empire, the Mauryans conquered essentially all of India but nobody after them saw India as anything resembling a single cohesive country, the Mauryan Empire was like the Neo-Assyrian Empire, a large empire, but ultimately just a collection of subjects.

    Perhaps the only other example is the Persian Empire with the Parthians, Sassanids, Safavids, and Ashfarids controlling at their peaks roughly the same territory and treating it as properly Persian and not simply a subjugated region. Granted today Iran only controls about half of historical Persia, lacking control of Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, and Iraq.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *