who was more ambitious, ferocious, better commander...AK or RJC.
Had AK not been assasinated would the chola empire spread faster, expanded more under him, assisted by RRC and then by RJC.Or would his bloody means brought out the downfall of the cholas.
the first born of the clan seem to be more ferocious - AK and RJC. how would you draw up a character sketch of RJC and AK ...
But, RjC indeed fight agaist Gazni, in his way back to GKC after vanquishing Pala's and Kosala's.
Creating something is tough, but sustaining it is more tough, thats where all kingdoms, went down. Name it, Cholas, Cheras, or Pandyas. This needs Valour, values and genius. Cholas lacked valour in Raja Raja III, which proved fatal. Veera Pandian and his brother lacked ingenuity, as they invited the terror on to themselves and the great tamil nation, which was disasterous.
After reading through KAN 'Colas' I am somehow convinced that we have given short change to the Chola kings who followed RJC. While RRC/RJC may be the greatest of Cholas, I strongly doubt whether RJC may have been able to maintain an empire without the aid of Rajadhiraja. Rajadhiraja, to me atleast, seems a great warrior king in the moulds of greate empire builders across the world. When I read about the battle of Koppam, the heroics of Rajadhiraja and Rajendra II shows that they are the Cholas without whom the line/empire would have perished then and there. Just the number of battles he has fought during RJCs lifetime and his own kingship attest to the problems of a great empire and I strongly doubt even under the most favorable scenario, it would've been possible for Cholas to stop the moghal invasion. After all, they couldn't subdue the W.Chalukyas even after all the fighting and the rise of the Hoysalas. My reasoning being while the entire N.India from Rajasthan to Bihar can be looked on as a single entity in terms of language and culture and therefore, easier to conquer militarily and keep it at peace by a benign soverign (as is the case from Ashoka to Harsha to Akbar) whereas the deccan had too many entities (telugus, kannadigas, kerals) who identified themselves as seperate nations. This single factor bodes ill for any empire that sprang from the south and is true for the Cholas as well as the Vijayanagar empire a half century later. But after all, we are talking about a 'What might have been' scenario and we can as well state that the Cholas might have been the dynasty which reversed the invasion route and invaded the persian empire itself!
Very true...every system tends towards instability. Nothing is more permanent than change itself - it would call for great flair and governance to keep together a kingdom of such size and complexity. We are talking of kings holding together people under their rule for century's together...On the flip side - imagine the power and absolute power at that..no wonder the princes were tutored by eminent gurus and kings advised by illustrious ministers to let them not stray from the right path - when democratic governments cannot deliver theirs and people lose faith within even their elected terms..
the need for a king - as advised by the great beeshma:
"Beeshma said: Neither kingship nor king was there in the beginning, neither scepter nor the bearer of the scepter. All people protected one another another by means of righteous conduct (dharma). Thus, while protecting one another by means of righteous conduct, O Bharata, men eventually fell into a state of spiritual lassitude [weariness]. Then delusion overcame them their sense of righteous conduct was lost. When understanding was lost, all men became victims of greed."
Later the god Vishnu chooses " that one person among mortals who alone is worthy of high eminence." A man named Virajas is brought forth and he becomes the first king.
Did RJC encounter Ghazni's forces on his way back from the Gangetic plains? Or did they miss each other? A true picture from historical facts would clear the doubt.
the central part of india from m.p onwards to even kanyakumari is a raised structure. includes deccan plateu and the ghats very difficult logisticaly for armies to cross.(people did but at great strain) it was easier to conquer along the coastal plains. infact ghazni took the coastal plain route to saurastra. rjc must have taken the eastern plains upto ganges. very remote chances that they ever met taking into consideration the distance from bengal to saurastra( india gets wider at that spot)
1023: Gwalior, Seige of Kalinjar, Western Uttar Pradesh: Mahmud of Ghazni's army is defeated in western Uttar Pradesh by the armies of Rajendra Chola of the Chola Empire (Chola prescence here is doubtful!!) .
When one travels around India today, one sees mainly Muslims' . Alberuni (AD 973 - 1048), a Muslim scholar, mathematician and master of Greek and Hindu system astrology, wrote twenty books. In his
Chinese traveller and chronicler Chau Ju-kua, who travelled in the Chola country c 1178 gives the following account of the Chola army:
This [Chola] country is at war with the kingdom of the [west] of India. The government owns sixty thousand war elephants, every one seven or eight feet high. When fighting these elephants carry on their backs houses, and these houses are full of soldiers who shoot arrows at long range, and fight with spears at close quarters.....we were fighting among ourselves...despite the bitter experiances from ghazni's invasions - our guys still didnt get the picture and were fighting amoung themselves - with all this might we still lost because of internal squables
It is interesting to note that the gold looted by Muhammad Gauri and Muhammad Gajni was later confiscated from the Afghans by Maharaja Ranjeet Singh, the Lion of Punjab. He wanted to return the gold to the Somnath temple but since the temple was still very vulnerable to attacks, the priests of Somnath temple requested the maharaja to retain the gold with himself. The benevolent Maharaja then put the gold on the domes of the golden temple and installed the golden gates of Somnath around the Golden Temple in Amritsar.