Did the British Raj represent Greater India?

[Arrian]

Originally posted by aneeshm


I'm the lawyer for the prosecution, you're the lawyers for the defence. Let's wait for the jury verdict, shall we?

You misunderstand me, sir. I'm a juror, not a defense attorney.

-Arrian

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Arrian
So the Islamic invasions of Europe didn't happen, I suppose.

-Arrian

They never got a chance to consolidate, and you never had to bear with their rule in any real sense. How long was the Vatican under Muslim control?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Arrian


The reason for thinking that Aryan invasion theory might've been advanced by Europeans is basically that such a theory was pretty useful in justifying the British Raj.

How exactly would it justify it? The upper castes are descended from advanced Aryan invaders, so having knocked off the Moghuls the logical thing to do would be to leave, and let the heirs of the noble aryans take over.

Cmon, the Brits had plenty of other justifications that worked for them (these guys cant govern, theyre mainly illiterate, and we need to bring them up, etc, etc - note Im NOT saying I agree with those justifications)

They did however need a theory that would kinda explain the fairly obvious (or are folks debating that) connections between Sanskrit, Latin, Greek, Old English, etc. The theory of a common Indo-European root language is about the most solid idea in historical linguistics IIUC. And analysis based on Proto-IE words seems to point to the Steppes, which fits pretty well with archaelogy, IIUC, and the horse-conqueror thing. And it fits in with SEVERAL ancient texts, including Homer, as well as the Vedas. BTW, if you want examples of texts that in historic times had to be copied perfectly, but that its widely accepted evolved over time anyway, I give you the Hebrew Scriptures. The point being that the absolute taboos on changing the text may not go all the way back to the first writing of the text.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by aneeshm


They never got a chance to consolidate, and you never had to bear with their rule in any real sense. How long was the Vatican under Muslim control?

The balkans were under Ottoman control for hundreds of years. OTOH the guys who took over India sound much nastier than the Ottomans, who tended to take over a few churches as Mosques, and left most of the rest alone.

[Arrian]

I'm not questioning the linguistic similiarity, really - I'll leave anything like that to someone who really knows what they're talking about. I was simply saying that in the context of 18th/19th/20th century Europe, a theory of badass light-skins taking down backwards dark-skins would be easy to believe, even if the evidence wasn't all that great.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

Originally posted by aneeshm

They never got a chance to consolidate, and you never had to bear with their rule in any real sense. How long was the Vatican under Muslim control?

The Muslim invasions were indeed turned back - with the exception of Spain (roughly 1/2 of it in Muslim hands until the 15th century) and the Balkans.

Further, Roman influence in Europe is strong, but by no means is it the sole basis. The Angles, Saxons, Jutes, etc - the Germanic tribes were most certainly not part of the Roman tradition. Indeed they were in direct conflict with it.

Ever heard of the Fall of the Roman Empire?

Out of the mixture of Roman culture and Germanic culture came Europe as you know it (more than that, but those are two big ones). I don't see it as a bad thing, nor do I lament 1066 (from the standpoint of my English heritage). One could argue that 1066 resulted in the "freezing" of Anglo-Saxon literature and development and the loss of much that once was. Tolkein certainly felt that way. But I don't.

-Arrian

[Barnabas]

Spain was only around half islamoc till the XIII century, the small muslim kingdom of Granada was allowed to survive 2 centuries more by Castile, because it was such a nice tribute paying *****.

[Barnabas]

Originally posted by Arrian


The Muslim invasions were indeed turned back - with the exception of Spain (roughly 1/2 of it in Muslim hands until the 15th century) and the Balkans.

Further, Roman influence in Europe is strong, but by no means is it the sole basis. The Angles, Saxons, Jutes, etc - the Germanic tribes were most certainly not part of the Roman tradition. Indeed they were in direct conflict with it.

Ever heard of the Fall of the Roman Empire?

Out of the mixture of Roman culture and Germanic culture came Europe as you know it (more than that, but those are two big ones). I don't see it as a bad thing, nor do I lament 1066 (from the standpoint of my English heritage). One could argue that 1066 resulted in the "freezing" of Anglo-Saxon literature and development and the loss of much that once was. Tolkein certainly felt that way. But I don't.

-Arrian

I think christianity also had something to do with europe

[Arrian]

I stand corrected. The final reconquista was in 1492, but they'd been chipping away for a while.

-Arrian

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by aneeshm
The central idea of the AIT proponents is that the Vedas describe a fight or struggle between the Aryans and Dravidians.

Not really. At its core, all it says is that the Aryans came later, and from outside. There may not have been much of a struggle at all; the Dravidians may have been in decline already.

In any case, the "Aryan invasion" is misleading in that it suggests a monolithic Aryan entity, when it is more likely that it happened over time, involving different, and often competing, warrior clans.

Originally posted by aneeshm
But the most likely and common-sense explanation, which seems not to have found much currency with either side, is that the Vedas are simply stories or myths, compendiums of tribal or racial memory, with no real historical significance, and thus we should not base our view of history on them.

It's very likely that they're based on myth and tribal memory, memory based on the origins of the Aryans in Central Asia. That would explain the Vedic knowledge of India as well as acknowledge C. Asian roots. By the "Vedic period" the Aryan nobility was already well-established, and the distinction between Aryan and Dravidian was partially dissolved.

Originally posted by aneeshm
Have you considered the possibility that it was the Indus valley people who were the original Aryans, who were forced to migrate further into south when the basis of their civilisation, the River Saraswati, dried up? That is another very plausible explanation.

Unlikely; Indus civilisation was non-monarchic, non-nomadic, non-pastoral, settled, and urban. There is no evidence of standing armies or martial prowess of which the Vedas speak.

[Zkribbler]

Although IIRC, only the nobility was Muslim. They premitted their commoners to remain Christian.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride


I think christianity also had something to do with europe

Clearly. I was thinking of groups of people/civilizations, which is why I didn't bring it up.

-Arrian

[Sandman]

Originally posted by aneeshm


You have no idea what is going on in India, do you? The movement is slow, but it is sure. Sanskrit is returning. Very, very slowly, but very, very surely. Link. Wiki Link.

I'll be happy in my fifties, maybe. But happy I will be in my lifetime.

It will take more than an organisation with a cheap ugly website and a shoddy Wikipedia article to bring a language back to life. The reasons given to learn Sanskit are either nationalist gibberish ("A Sanskrit Scholar understands the world better than most others") or entirely unconvincing ("a scientist's paradise"). Meanwhile, in the real world, India continues to lag an embarassing distance behind China.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by LordShiva


Not really. At its core, all it says is that the Aryans came later, and from outside. There may not have been much of a struggle at all; the Dravidians may have been in decline already.

In any case, the "Aryan invasion" is misleading in that it suggests a monolithic Aryan entity, when it is more likely that it happened over time, involving different, and often competing, warrior clans.

So now, a bunch of unsettled, barbarian warrior clans somehow defeat a highly settled and urban civilisation, and manage to do it all while fighting within themselves. And on top of that, the drying up of the main river of the settled civilisation has absolutely NOTHING to do with it, even though this river is mentioned REPEATEDLY in the "barbarian" texts?

Somehow, Shiva, it doesn't add up.

Originally posted by LordShiva

It's very likely that they're based on myth and tribal memory, memory based on the origins of the Aryans in Central Asia. That would explain the Vedic knowledge of India as well as acknowledge C. Asian roots. By the "Vedic period" the Aryan nobility was already well-established, and the distinction between Aryan and Dravidian was partially dissolved.

Would this myth and tribal memory have the sea as an all-pervading presence if they were in landlocked Central Asia? Would not the sea be simply something mentioned in passing rather than the elephant in the room it is now?

Originally posted by LordShiva

Unlikely; Indus civilisation was non-monarchic, non-nomadic, non-pastoral, settled, and urban. There is no evidence of standing armies or martial prowess of which the Vedas speak.

The problem, my dear man, is that we know very very little about the Indus valley. It is quite possible that the huge fortress-like structures which were there in every city actually WERE fortresses, which housed a standing army.

[Arrian]

So now, a bunch of unsettled, barbarian warrior clans somehow defeat a highly settled and urban civilisation, and manage to do it all while fighting within themselves.

Do the Mongols ring any bells with you?

-Arrian