Downfall of Chola Dynasty (58 posts)

  • Profile picture of intellisurfer intellisurfer said 2 years, 6 months ago:

    I am trying to find the reasons that led to the downfall of Chola dynasty. I am trying to understand the Whys and Hows of the downfall. Did the Empire go through the phases of an Empire described by Glubb Pasha? I heard that the Satavahanas had one of the longest running Empires. How far is this true?

    | #
  • Profile picture of abhivencat abhivencat said 2 years, 6 months ago:

    Hi

    like the mughals the last chola kings had extremely long reigns. might be lethargy. we have a comparitive picture somewhere in the old mails

    the other factor was koperunchikan who held the entire chola court captive for a couple of years. the cholas lost respect after that.

    perhaps the ‘telugu’isation of the chola lineage might have cost them the loyalty of the tamil sitrasarkal

    and of course as Dr.Jaybee would often say the indomitable pandyas were on the rise.there was space only for one tamil king on the plains.

    venketesh

    | #
  • Profile picture of intellisurfer intellisurfer said 2 years, 6 months ago:

    Venkatesh:
    Thanks. But why did they not keep marching past Central India into the Northern Plains; and importantly hold those regions for a long time? Where Rajaraja Chola and Rajendra Chola flash in the pans? Like in every Empire, one or two people shine, was that the case with Cholas too?

    | #
  • Profile picture of abhivencat abhivencat said 2 years, 6 months ago:

    But why did they not keep marching past Central India into the Northern Plains; and importantly hold those regions for a long time?

    hi grs

    sure rajendra might have gone up north. but no records of continued rule seem to exist.

    the cholas too were like most dynasties.
    started as feudatories of pallavas. became kings. then real emperors and like everybody else detiorated.
    true rajendras time was the pinnacle. perhaps a plateau and then a down slide.

    venketrsh

    >

    | #
  • Profile picture of sps10142004 sps10142004 said 2 years, 6 months ago:

    Dear GRS,

    http://www.tamilnation.org/diaspora/tamilnadu/timeline.htm

    The Velirs -and later inner Groups as ” Kurunila Mannars” supported the Moovenders and the Thondaimandala Pallavas mostly depending on regional affliations and mtrimonial alliances did play vital role in retaining their support among the Power Centres.

    Thus emerged Imperial Chola dynastry in about 850 AD after Vijayalaya was accorded independent King status – moved from Pazhayarai to Thanjai – conquered Mutharayas over there – and controled the belt – hopefully Thanjai – trichy and Thanjai – kudanthai – Thiruvarur – Nagai belt.

    His successors expanded towards North and the West. North thondai mandalam. West Chera Kingdom. the expansion towards South lead to Supremacy over Pandya Kingdom. Around Nagerkoil – Kanyakumari and Trivandum ( TILL DATE) the political SENSITIVITY exists !

    Nageroil / Suseendram Strong Chola base. KK Pandya. Trivandrum / Vizhignam – Chera. Hardly in a span of about 40 Miles or about 60 Kms. Lanka was closer.

    Obviously the one controled the Tip of Southern India – controled the relationship with Lanka.

    Supreme Emperor with subordinate Supportive Chieftans lead to expansion of Chola Empire – say about 100 years span in about 970 to 1060 – then Kuylothungas spell – say another 100 years – in about 850 – 1200 AD !

    Supportive Chieftans dictating terms to the King – prior to Sundara Chola and post Kulothunga II.

    That lead to fall of the dyansty.

    Such Supportive Chieftans through their weight behind Sundara Pandya.. but then was a very short spell !!

    With Moghul invasion – Traditional Tamil Rule came to end in TN ..without any Supreme Kingdom..

    Southern States were revived with entry of Vijayanagara Empire !!

    sps

    | #
  • Profile picture of abhivencat abhivencat said 2 years, 6 months ago:

    Hi

    strong kings are always followed by weak kings.
    the rare exceptions include rrc and rjc
    so perhaps it was a flash in the pan
    venketesh

    | #
  • Profile picture of aprilfool_75 aprilfool_75 said 2 years, 6 months ago:

    Is it applicable to Cholas or all? How about Guptas Mugals

    | #
  • Profile picture of intellisurfer intellisurfer said 2 years, 6 months ago:

    Dear SPS:
    Thanks. I found one more link that has some info about that period. Though does not touch upon my interest area.

    http://www.corporatesquare.com/15_aug/millennium_pages/1000.htm

    | #
  • Profile picture of intellisurfer intellisurfer said 2 years, 6 months ago:

    Dear SPS:
    Am I correct in my understanding that the supporting Chieftans/Kings were responsible for the rise and fall of Chola Empire? If yes, did the Mughals follow a different ruling model? Why were the Mughals able to control larger land mass for a longer time than say Chola or Vijayangar Empire?

    Surely Chola Kings did some great ambitions. While I understand the simple rule – anything that goes up will come down one day. I am trying to understand why Cholas did not control the entire sub-continent like the Maurayas.

    | #
  • Profile picture of nicholasprabhu nicholasprabhu said 2 years, 6 months ago:

    Nice one .

    | #
  • Profile picture of veegopalji veegopalji said 2 years, 6 months ago:

    Hi:
    If I am not wrong the reason must be – the language viz. Tamil and Tamilnadu unlike kings of north india where we have the unifying language hindi which is also a fact even today!For the Tamil population, the Chera, Chola and Pandya emperors may be mighty but fromthe geographical point of view they may not be more than a small area in the Asianregion like what is Sri Lanka to Tamilnadu maybe Tamiladu to the World ! Further, thenumbers are also not in our favour considering the land area!
    veegopalji

    | #
  • Profile picture of sps10142004 sps10142004 said 2 years, 6 months ago:

    Dear Mr. GRS,

    Who said Mauriyas controlled the entire sub-continent ?

    When was TN – south of Venkadam under Northern Rule ?

    Simple explanation can be ::

    Amolgamation or Control over larger extent of various Kingdoms can be Empire.

    Like present day FRANCHISING..

    Between Emperor – Chieftans – Royal representative controls or collects benefits in proportion and mutally helpful to each other.

    sps

    | #
  • Profile picture of intellisurfer intellisurfer said 2 years, 6 months ago:

    Dear SPS:
    Thanks for catching it. I just got lazy to write the word “almost” and qualify the words “entire sub-continent”. I agree the southern most portions were never under control of the invaders.

    | #
  • Profile picture of intellisurfer intellisurfer said 2 years, 6 months ago:

    Language: Hindi was not a unifying language. In fact over a period of centuries different dialects were combine to make the present Hindi. So thousands of years back, a person from Punjab area would have tough time understanding a person from Orissa just like today.

    Numbers: Kingdoms fought against each other using alliances and captured soldiers, no? So would the number really have been a problem? I don’t know.

    | #
  • Profile picture of sps10142004 sps10142004 said 2 years, 6 months ago:

    How beautiful of your dear GRS ?.

    How knaive of me for having missed it!

    But the subject did generate more thoughts in me..

    and found the answers in Shane Warne comparing Dhoni and Aussy Cpatain… observing Dhoni LACKED THAT KILLER INSTINCT to WRAP VICTORY AFTER VICTORY !

    regards/
    sps

    =================

    | #
  • If you like this topic please share it with