How long did the Moghul empire last.....

Idéfix wrote:The best answer would be about 160 years, and mostly northern India at that. In the period you mentioned, the Afghans under Sher Shah Suri and his successors ruled Delhi for 15 years, while Humayun took refuge in Persia.

Aurangzeb was the one who really expanded south of the Vindhyas, and even before he died, his gains in the south were already eroding with the rise of Shivaji's Marathas.

Talking about how long each empire lasted, here's an interesting question. Which was the longest lasting dynasty to rule over the northern Indian plains from Punjab to Bihar?

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Idéfix wrote:The best answer would be about 160 years, and mostly northern India at that. In the period you mentioned, the Afghans under Sher Shah Suri and his successors ruled Delhi for 15 years, while Humayun took refuge in Persia.

Aurangzeb was the one who really expanded south of the Vindhyas, and even before he died, his gains in the south were already eroding with the rise of Shivaji's Marathas.

Talking about how long each empire lasted, here's an interesting question. Which was the longest lasting dynasty to rule over the northern Indian plains from Punjab to Bihar?

I think, Kushans. Guptas come second?

Idéfix wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Idéfix wrote:The best answer would be about 160 years, and mostly northern India at that. In the period you mentioned, the Afghans under Sher Shah Suri and his successors ruled Delhi for 15 years, while Humayun took refuge in Persia.

Aurangzeb was the one who really expanded south of the Vindhyas, and even before he died, his gains in the south were already eroding with the rise of Shivaji's Marathas.

Talking about how long each empire lasted, here's an interesting question. Which was the longest lasting dynasty to rule over the northern Indian plains from Punjab to Bihar?

I think, Kushans. Guptas come second?

Yes, the Kushanas, who were invaders from Mongolia by way of Afghanistan, ruled the Indo-Gangetic plains longer than the Guptas, the Mauryas, the Mughals and the British.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:......People talk about Din Ilahi and Jalaluddin as being important for India. Before monomaniacs came to India, Buddhism, Jainism, Zaorashtrians, Jews, atheists, nature worshippers, etc., lived with each other without any problem. Monomaniacs came and disturbed the harmony.....

......How many people were killed at the time of partition? That was evidence enough to suggest that monomaniacs and others in India didn't really get along. There was no such problem before the pieceful came.

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Idéfix wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Idéfix wrote:The best answer would be about 160 years, and mostly northern India at that. In the period you mentioned, the Afghans under Sher Shah Suri and his successors ruled Delhi for 15 years, while Humayun took refuge in Persia.

Aurangzeb was the one who really expanded south of the Vindhyas, and even before he died, his gains in the south were already eroding with the rise of Shivaji's Marathas.

Talking about how long each empire lasted, here's an interesting question. Which was the longest lasting dynasty to rule over the northern Indian plains from Punjab to Bihar?

I think, Kushans. Guptas come second?

Yes, the Kushanas, who were invaders from Mongolia by way of Afghanistan, ruled the Indo-Gangetic plains longer than the Guptas, the Mauryas, the Mughals and the British.

Were Kushans Mongolians?

Idéfix wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:......People talk about Din Ilahi and Jalaluddin as being important for India. Before monomaniacs came to India, Buddhism, Jainism, Zaorashtrians, Jews, atheists, nature worshippers, etc., lived with each other without any problem. Monomaniacs came and disturbed the harmony.....

......How many people were killed at the time of partition? That was evidence enough to suggest that monomaniacs and others in India didn't really get along. There was no such problem before the pieceful came.

Whether you like it or not, Jalaluddin was a hugely influential ruler in India's history. Without him the culture of the Indo-Gangetic plains today would be very different. By the way, the Mughals were not the people who brought Islam in a big way to the region. His policies helped stabilize the culture and develop a relatively more peaceful coexistence after a few centuries of the sorts of things the Muslim invaders did in Iran and other places. Nalanda and Takshashila were destroyed before Babar marched in with his cannons.

Din-i-Ilahi is another story. It had zero influence on the long arc of Indian history.

Idéfix wrote:Here is a map of China from the time when the Yuezhi occupied their ancestral homeland...

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Idéfix wrote:Here is a map of China from the time when the Yuezhi occupied their ancestral homeland...

Interesting. Wonder why they moved to Afghanistan/Pakistan/India. Looks like they were in a prosperous part of China. Never mind - I was looking at the Qin kingdom. Obviously, the Chinese thought of Yuezhis as barbarians.

Idéfix wrote:

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

Idéfix wrote:Here is a map of China from the time when the Yuezhi occupied their ancestral homeland...

Interesting. Wonder why they moved to Afghanistan/Pakistan/India. Looks like they were in a prosperous part of China. Never mind - I was looking at the Qin kingdom. Obviously, the Chinese thought of Yuezhis as barbarians.

Yes, the Chinese thought of all nomadic cultures as barbarians -- like the settled, agricultural Indian societies of the time did with the nomadic tribes of India. Apparently they were defeated by other tribes and forced to move. They kept moving west until they reached Afghanistan which was ruled by Graeco-Bactrians, whom they defeated and settled there.

silvermani wrote:How is Ghiasuddin Ghazi linked to the Mugals?

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:

silvermani wrote:How is Ghiasuddin Ghazi linked to the Mugals?

You must be wondering about the purported relationship between the Nehru family and Ghazi family, right? i don't believe that rumour.

Coming to Kushans & Buddhists in Afghanistan and PakiSatan, the way in which monomaniacs eliminated Buddhists in that area was described by the pieceful themselves. It was an extremely barbaric genocide. It may well be the worst genocide in India's vicinity (apart from what Pakis did to Bangladeshis during the 1971 war). India should publicize it so that the world would know what kind of barbarism was perpetuated by the pieceful on non-violent and decent Buddhists. For monomaniacs to talk about H-M synthesis is extremely disgusting. Hopefully, monomania will die a natural death through education, employment and social development for women........