Makes me wonder if there would have been much less internal political violence if these had been kept separate?
I guess the same thing could probably be said of the US..
No no. Someone was always trying to take control over the whole continent all the time. The Mughals were good administrators for most of their era.
Having them take over meant there were less of the ambitious but unimpressive empires acting up every year.
Mughals bought about some stability and really enriched India (and themselves). At a point they held 25% of the worlds GDP!
Its VERY likely that Akbar was the richest man in history too. Just that the difference bw state and personal income we don't know for them and hence can't say for certain.
Akbar helped bring about such stability, because he could always tell if something was a trap.
(Sorry, I'm sure you get tired of Akbar jokes)
At a point they held 25% of the worlds GDP!
That's more likely a thing the British made up to promote East India as a mythical, historical and spiritual place to drive in investments and maybe tourism.
It's also hilarious when Indians use British historians to show pride when they say outlandish good things (mostly unproven) or maps depicting the region and then shut down any arguments when they say bad things calling them invaders and biased and such.
It's almost like you can't trust both.
Gondwana used to be a supercontinent, now reduced to a petty state 🥀
Sooo much happens and changes in India's unbelievably long history that its impossible. Like it'll make China look understandable.
Mughal and east India are the most accessible ones.
I'll still prolly post a few more lol
Very true… One takes for granted how “simple” East and West Rome are compared to Asian history…
Any gateway books for the historically curious surrounding China, India, Brunei, Malaysia…
Then Siam, Dai Nam, to name a few other unfamiliar older empires? There’s so much to be appreciated when peering into humanity’s history 🥲
Where is India in this map?
Ghaznavid and Ghurid Invasions, Delhi Sultanate, and Mughals were from central/western asia, so maybe that's the cultural influence you're referring to? Or are you talking about the British? The British spanned almost across the globe.
The region was multicultural and very much divided until the British forced assimilated most of the region under one banner.
Again thank the British for the ability to call everything in the region, "India's culture".
Makes me wonder if there would have been much less internal political violence if these had been kept separate?
I guess the same thing could probably be said of the US..
No no. Someone was always trying to take control over the whole continent all the time. The Mughals were good administrators for most of their era.
Having them take over meant there were less of the ambitious but unimpressive empires acting up every year.
Mughals bought about some stability and really enriched India (and themselves). At a point they held 25% of the worlds GDP!
Its VERY likely that Akbar was the richest man in history too. Just that the difference bw state and personal income we don't know for them and hence can't say for certain.
Akbar helped bring about such stability, because he could always tell if something was a trap.
(Sorry, I'm sure you get tired of Akbar jokes)
That's more likely a thing the British made up to promote East India as a mythical, historical and spiritual place to drive in investments and maybe tourism.
It's also hilarious when Indians use British historians to show pride when they say outlandish good things (mostly unproven) or maps depicting the region and then shut down any arguments when they say bad things calling them invaders and biased and such.
It's almost like you can't trust both.