 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / Ancient History / June 2004Alexander in the Punjab
In the second half I visited Pakistan "in the footsteps of Alexander". In this message, I describe some observations and conclusions that may (or may not) interest the readers of this newsgroup. 1: Peshawar Nice city. Never visited by Alexander, but it has a very interesting museum with splendid Gandara (= Graeco-Buddhist) art. 2: Peukelaotis The site of Peukelaotis ("lotus city"), the capital (?) of the Persian satrapy of Gandara, occupied by Hephaestion and Perdiccas in the spring of 326. It is identified with modern Charsadda, in Antiquity the confluence of Swat and Kabul. The site consists of two rocky plateaus. I was unable to identify anything, but the agile Pathan boys scaling the rocks and looking for birds' nests with eggs were impressive athletes. 3: Massaga Massaga was probably situated near the confluence of the Swat and Wuch. It is an open country and I was unable to identify the site. However, it is interesting to note that there is a place called "Churchill's Picket" (indeed, founded by Sir Winston, in 1898 or so), built to control the Pathans in both river valleys. From this point, one can see the site of Bazira (below), and I bet that the Macedonians occupied this strategic position too. Alexander, besieging Massaga, and Coenus, besieging Bazira, could send fire signals via Churchill's picket. 4: Swat (general) The lower Swat valley is lovely and reminded me of the valley of the Ladon in Greece. Comparisons with Switzerland, often made by Pakistani tourist organizations, failed to convince me. The area is very, very green and very, very fertile. It is easy to believe that it was called The Garden in ancient Indian texts. 5: Bazira Bazira is situated at modern Bir-Kot. The ancient fort, first identified by Aurel Stein, is on a large rock, a real landmark, of about 150 meters high. It is situated on the southern bank of the Swat and commands a crossing point. Really impressive. Stein discovered catapult stones, and I believe I saw them too. 6: Ora Even more impressive are the ruins of Ora, south of modern Udegram, on the foothills of Mount Ilam, 600 meters high. I first did not see the fortress because I had not expected it to be so very big. The walls are really immense. I do not understand why Arrian states that Alexander was able to overcome Ora without much difficulty. Between the fortress and modern Udegram, the market area has been excavated, but the ancient stones have been used by the villagers as grave stones on the nearby cemetery. 7: Shang-La The Shang-La pass connects the valley of the Swat with the Indus valley. The road is about 120 kilometers and leads through a narrow, green valley. From the summit of the pass, one can see the Himalayas range, which resembles a wall. There is no direct evidence that Alexander used this pass, but it is the direct road. 8: the Indus I was surprised that the Indus was incredibly grey. The river contains much sand, which is deposited in the many meanders. Because of the gray color, I first though that it was a concrete floor. The river is very swift, but swimming is possible. People who tried to escape from Alexander's soldiers may have been able to cross into Kashmir. 9: Aornus Aornus -or, as it is called nowadays, Pir-Sar- is a giant rock, about 1500 meters high. Here, Alexander attacked a group of refugees, as was to become his custom. I wanted to climb the rock but people told me that in the Pathan village on top of it, two German tourists had almost been raped and a Pakistani general had been kidnapped and killed. This was sufficient to deter me. Click here for the story by someone who had more luck: http://www.pothos.org/alexander.asp?ParaID=97#pakistan. Note that the author expresses his doubts because he had found no source on the platform. I spoke to someone who had visited Aornus as well. Although he was unable to state that there was a source, he said that there were little brooks. Arrian mentions that Alexander encountered SNOW when he besieged this rock in April/May. I was there at the same time and I did not see any snow; people told me that snow had usually disappeared by late March. I take this as additional evidence that there was something seriously wrong with the climate in the age of Alexander - there is C14-evidence as well (INTCAL98 series); the grain prices mentioned in the astronomical diaries suggest the same; and there is also some unusual dendrochronological evidence. I should add that from literary sources, we know that Greece suffered from repeated bad harvests (Alexander ordered the satrap of Egypt to increase the price of grain). The Macedonians encountered snow in April 330 in Persis and in the spring of 327 in Sogdia; the monsoon was early in 326 and absent in 325. There was something seriously wrong with the climate. 10: Taxila Taxila (http://www.livius.org/ta-td/taxila/taxila.htm; new pictures to be added) was the capital of a raja named Ambhi and became Alexander's capital in the western Punjab. In 1998-2001, there was a new excavation at Bir mound (the oldest part, visited by Alexander) which brought to light remains from the Achaemenid period. That Darius the Great had conquered the Punjab somewhere between 520 and 515 was already known from inscriptions, but the Persian occupation is now also an archaeological fact. I was particularly impressed by the site called Jandial, which is an entirely Greek temple, Ionian in style, second century BCE. It is also mentioned in the Vita Apollonii by Philostratus. According to Taxila's excavator, John Marshall, the second building phase (called Sirkap) matches the description by Philostratus. I am not really convinced, but there are some striking parallels indeed. The Taxila museum contains beautiful Gandara art, but the most impressive piece -a skinny, meditating Buddha- is at Lahore. 11: the battle at the Hydaspes Modern literature suggests two sites for the battle at the Hydaspes (the modern Jhelum river): Jhelum city and Haranpur. The latter is impossible because palaeohydrological research has convincingly shown that the river changed its course considerably and Haranpur was not situated near the river until ca.1000 CE. Besides, Buddhist literature mentions the two cities founded by Alexander (Bucephala and Nicaea) near Jhelum city, where the Grand Trunk Road crosses the Jhelum river. The Indian names are Adirajya ("king's city") and Bhadrasva ("horse's city"). I did not find any indications that the battle did not take place near Jhelum, and I was satisfied that the two most important sites -the place of Alexander's camp and his crossing of the river- are currently also guarded by the Pakistan army as important strategic points, Fort Rhotas and Fort Mangla. Alexander was able to cross the river because he (or better, his officer Coenus) was able to bring the ships he had used to cross the Indus to the Hydaspes. The distance is 200 kilometers, and a large part of the road (between modern Mandra and Dina) is intersected by ravines. It must have been a really hard job! 12: The Acesines Alexander must have crossed the Acesines (Chenab) between modern Gujrat and Sialkot. (BTW, Sialkot is the place where underpaid children produce the balls used during the European Championship Soccer.) The river is indeed, as Arrian says, swift, full of rocks and very large. More to the southwest, I found no places that suited the descriptions. According to geologists, the river did not really change its course. 13: The Hydraotes The crossing of the Hydraotes (Ravi) is said to have taken place near modern Nainakot. I was unable to reach this place because it is close to the Indian border and even though our car had a government license number, the area was not accessible. 14: Lahore Alexander never visited Lahore (although adherents of the Hydaspes-battlefield = Haranpur - theory have claimed so). Yet, a visit to the museum is recommended. There is lovely Gandara art, including the skinny Buddha of Taxila. Even more interesting is a map that shows the extent of Alexander's conquests, EXCLUDING the Punjab and Sind. I was surprised, but according to the curious book I bought at the museum's bookshop (B. Prakash, *Poros the Great*, 1994 Lahore), the battle at the Hydaspes was a Macedonian defeat. I can not deny that I was surprised... 15: Kamalia When Alexander moved to the south, the Macedonians left their ships and attacked unguarded Mallian towns after a days' march through a waterless plain between the Hydraotes (Ravi) and Acesines (Chenab - by then a bit more to the east than today). This waterless area is hard to imagine today, because there are canals and it is now a fertile country. I suppose that Alexander left his ships near modern Jhang, that the waterless area was near modern Toba Tek Singh, and that the massacre of the refugees described by Arrian took place near the bridge south of Kamalia. The town of the Brahmans may have been near Harappa; from here, Alexander went to the west, to receive his almost mortal wound at Multan. Not every scholar agrees to the identification of the city of Alexander's wound with Multan, but (a) the site suites the description, (b) was occupied and had a famous Hindu sanctuary, and (c) "Multan" seems derived from Indian Malava, "Mallians". 16: Multan Multan has the reputation to be Pakistan's most dusty and hottest city. To the second point, I agree - we were welcomed by a hotel owner who congratulated us with the fact that temperature was just 46 degrees (ca. 120 Fahrenheit). Earlier that week, temperatures had been higher. Yet, it is a nice city, and the remains of the ancient Hindu shrine, dedicated to Vishnu, can still be seen. The walls are more recent, but seem to be build over an older wall. I was unable to evaluate this. 17: Uch This is the site of one of the many Alexandrias - but there is nothing left. The Acesines/Chenab has destroyed half the site. Yet, our visit to the shrine of Eman Ali belongs to my best Pakistan memories. 18: Final note For non-Muslim westerners, travel in Pakistan involves some minor problems. I am not talking about the heat or the dangerous traffic -obstacles that can be overcome- or the hotels (which are excellent). But it appears that there is really something changing in the Sunna attitude towards westerners. At Rothas, people threw stones towards our jeep, although they stopped when I stepped out of the car. In one of the mosques at Uch, people spat at us. Worst of all, in Peshawar, I was denied access to a mosque, a kind of unhospitality that I have never experienced before in an islamic country and found shocking. Even in the holy city of the Iranian Shi'a, Qom, I was courteously allowed to visit the tomb of Fatima and could talk to an ayatollah. Yet, I do not want to end this message with this negative note, and add that I have met many friendly and kind people, and I hope I will one day be able to return to Pakistan. Jona  SignatureJona Lendering http://www.livius.org Could you please clarify as to why Alexander did not finally cross into the mainland India. What held him up? arganjoo > Could you please clarify as to why Alexander did not finally cross > into the mainland India. What held him up? The immediate cause was the army mutiney because the men had had enough. You can see their point, they had marched a long way, had been away from home for many years and were now rich men. Heading east merely offered them more hard fighting, for little real personal gain. The fighting in what they thought of as India had already been hard, and the armies to the south and east were reputed to be larger and tougher than those they had met, so the men seem to have decided that enough was enough and it was time to go home.Alexander sulked but gave in and concentrated on producing some sort of viable frontier that his allies could hold in his absence. Jim Webster > > Could you please clarify as to why Alexander did not finally cross > > into the mainland India. What held him up? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > those they had met> > Jim Webster was the mutiny a result of the army"s view that they would face an imminent defeat at the hands of mainland inidan army which was considered to be very strong at that point of time. note that Alexander had tough time defeating some very small kings on the outskirts of India. could you clarify that if he had invaded India, a strong cultural exchange would have happened given the fact that India had a rich culture at that time. a r ganjoo > > > Could you please clarify as to why Alexander did not finally cross > > > into the mainland India. What held him up? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Alexander had tough time defeating some very small kings on the > outskirts of India. Arrian has the old soldier Coenus put forward the soldiers case (arrian book 5.) Basically the men had campaigned long enough, they wanted to see their families (parents, wives and children). They wanted Alexander to go home so they, the survivors, could spend the wealth and live in dignity. It was suggested that if Alexander wanted he could easily enough raise a new army and campaign once again. Coenus actually says that "assuredly for a commander like yourself, with an army like ours, there is nothing to fear from any enemy." The fact that India was rich and powerful actually attracted Alexander to invade, while to the other ranks it wasn't so much a specific fear of India, but of the fact that another challenge would merely 'set him off again'. For the men of Alexanders army, they most wanted to see a vast ocean that even Alexander would not think of crossing. > could you clarify that if he had invaded India, a strong cultural > exchange would have happened given the fact that India had a rich > culture at that time. There is always cultural exchange, India would have taken things from the Greeks just as she did from the Muslims and British. But equally it is never a one way traffic, the Greeks would have adopted many Indian things, just as others have since Jim Webster "Jim Webster" <Jim@zerogespam.ook.net> on 12 Jun 2004 posted >> "Jim Webster" <Jim@zerogespam.ook.net> wrote in message > news:<cacfeu$i1t$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>... [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >> imminent defeat at the hands of mainland inidan army which was >> considered to be very strong at that point of time. Because the Persians weren't the biggest empire in existence previously and darius was a pushover... snip > Arrian has the old soldier Coenus put forward the soldiers case > (arrian book 5.) Basically the men had campaigned long enough, they [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Coenus actually says that "assuredly for a commander like yourself, > with an army like ours, there is nothing to fear from any enemy." I woiuld think that monsoons and malaria must've made going too far into india less than appealing also. Wouldn't be much fun to look at all your trophies at home while in ternate. > The fact that India was rich and powerful actually attracted Alexander > to invade, while to the other ranks it wasn't so much a specific fear > of India, but of the fact that another challenge would merely 'set him > off again'. For the men of Alexanders army, they most wanted to see a > vast ocean that even Alexander would not think of crossing. The one of which the caspian was but a gulf no? >> could you clarify that if he had invaded India, a strong cultural >> exchange would have happened given the fact that India had a rich [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > it is never a one way traffic, the Greeks would have adopted many > Indian things, just as others have since [cough/] greek bactria[cough\] A truly stupendous 'what-if' to consider, it india and macedonia had been under the same administration. Tho alexander was something of an orientalizer no? Either way, a hellenized india is almost too mind boggling to contemplate. Perhaps it would've been somethign like kerala tho, they had lots of contacts with 'classical' civilization. > Because the Persians weren't the biggest empire in existence previously > and darius was a pushover... Remember that had been years of tough fighting after Darius's death Jim Webster > was the mutiny a result of the army"s view that they would face an > imminent defeat at the hands of mainland inidan army which was > considered to be very strong at that point of time. Our sources (Diodorus, Curtius Rufus, Plutarch, Arrian) stress two factors: the soldiers were tired and reports of the power of the kingdom of Magadha, i.e., the Ganges plain. Actually, these factors are essentially the same. When they invaded the Punjab, the Macedonians believed they were close to the edge of the world, and Alexander was actually *surprised* when radja Phegeus told him, at the Hyphasis, that there was still so much distance between Alexander and the Ocean. After the battle at the Hydaspes, Alexander had already ordered ships to be build for the return voyage to the west; the soldiers believed they would go back soon; at the Hyphasis, they understood that this was not to be the case. You can call it tiredness, you can call it fear of another enemy - but the common point is that they wanted to go back. Please note that the reports mention that the king of Magadha commanded several tens of thousands of warriors. THIS number was not to impress the Macedonians, because they had already overcome bigger armies (or believed they had). > note that > Alexander had tough time defeating some very small kings on the > outskirts of India. This is incorrect. Resistance was stubborn, there was a lot of fighting, but the Macedonian professionals did not really have a tough time conquering kingdoms that had only just reached the iron age. Alexander needed only a third of his army to conquer the Swat valley; even less to besiege Aornus; Taxila had already surrendered; Porus was defeated by only a sixth of the Macedonian army; Sangala was taken after a protracted but easy siege. The conquest of the southern Punjab and Sind was essentially the same story. The Indians put up a brave and gallant resistance, but it was futile. The Macedonians had better equipment, were usually in the majority and -even more important- were absolutely ruthless. The Mallian campaign is a case in point. This was not war, it was sheer terror; Alexander developed a habit to attack refugees first, and armies later. > could you clarify that if he had invaded India, a strong cultural > exchange would have happened given the fact that India had a rich > culture at that time. Yes and no. The Macedonians were perfectly capable of ignoring local cultures. One of the Indians mentioned in our sources is called Calanus, 'hello'. Even after a stay in the Indus valley of more than a year, the Macedonians still believed that there was no slavery. So much for real interest. On the other hand: after a few generations, a mixed culture was indeed created. The museums of Peshawar, Taxila and Lahore have the most beautiful Gandara art, which combines Greek, Iranian and Buddhist traditions. If Alexander had invaded Magadha, a similar art might have been created after some time. Jona SignatureJona Lendering http://www.livius.org > > was the mutiny a result of the army"s view that they would face an > > imminent defeat at the hands of mainland inidan army which was [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > you can call it fear of another enemy - but the common point is that > they wanted to go back. No by saying they wanted to go back is saying that there was no fear of the enemy which was described as being bigger and more formidably organized. So it is quite idiotic to say that all of a sudden the army of Alexander simply wanted to quit because they were tired. The Mauryas proved that the Gangetic plains army was superior by making Alexander's top General Seleucid and the remaining Greek army retreat beyond the Hindu Kush --- Afghanistan and it's trading passes were major strategic point that fell into the hands of the Indians under the Mauryas. > Please note that the reports mention that the king of Magadha commanded > several tens of thousands of warriors. THIS number was not to impress > the Macedonians, because they had already overcome bigger armies (or > believed they had). So what made the historians state that they were afraid of the better organized army to the east? > > note that > > Alexander had tough time defeating some very small kings on the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > only a sixth of the Macedonian army; Sangala was taken after a > protracted but easy siege. So if they had not tough times, then they certainly would've wanted to go further... The fact is the elephant warfare did scare the heebie jeebies out of them, that is why even the Greeks took Indian elephants upon Seleucid's defeat. The knowledge that the Magadhans had even more elephants and were an organized kingdom probably had more to do with Alexander's retreat than the western historians would like to admit. > The conquest of the southern Punjab and Sind was essentially the same > story. The Indians put up a brave and gallant resistance, but it was [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Macedonians still believed that there was no slavery. So much for real > interest. There was no slavery, or relatively little in India. Most communities in India had their own communities and practices. Greeks were also correct in Identifying India as not slaughtering women, children and common folk during warfare, whereas the same could NOT be said of the Greeks who did slaughter women and children upon being attacked. > On the other hand: after a few generations, a mixed culture was indeed > created. The museums of Peshawar, Taxila and Lahore have the most > beautiful Gandara art, which combines Greek, Iranian and Buddhist > traditions. If Alexander had invaded Magadha, a similar > art might have been created after some time. Strange. India had a lot to do with Greek "culture". In fact, Socrates himself was said to have met with an Indian sage with whom he had a discussion, and strangely enough later, his pupil Plato believed that the caste system is the best system of human development. Luckily, it seems Indian yogis were knowledgeable enough to know that they won't fall off the earth if the went to Greece. Alexander's top General Seleucid was defeated by the Magadhans with the Magadhans taking away from the Greeks the most strategic trade cross roads in Afghanistan. I think the fear the Greeks had of the Magadhans was quite appropriate in turning back the Greeks from their conquests in India. > Jona >> > was the mutiny a result of the army"s view that they would face an >> > imminent defeat at the hands of mainland inidan army which was [quoted text clipped - 98 lines] > >> Jona Your general point is a good one, but there is a small error. Paurava, who held Alexander to a draw, was not part of the Maurya Empire. The point was, that there were a hell of a lot more troops further East, and the Greeks could have been dumped if they had taken them on. ******Martin Edwards.****** Come on! Nobody's going to ride that lousy freeway when they can take the Red Car for a nickel. Eddy Valiant. www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/1955/ > > > was the mutiny a result of the army"s view that they would face an > > > imminent defeat at the hands of mainland inidan army which was [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > were major strategic point that fell into the hands of the Indians > under the Mauryas. actually Alexanders 'top general' was at the time a junior partner and the main war was going on elsewhere. When you look at the troops he could bring to the last big battle of the successors when Antigonus was defeated he had few Macedonians, not many greeks and a lot of elephants and eastern cavalry. Comparing him to Alexander is unwise. He traded India for the elephants that enabled him to play a part in the big battle. Being on the winning side meant that he got his hands on Greek and Macedonian infantry and was then a player to be taken seriously > > Please note that the reports mention that the king of Magadha commanded > > several tens of thousands of warriors. THIS number was not to impress [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So what made the historians state that they were afraid of the better > organized army to the east? no, if you read the historians, the better organised state to the East attracted Alexander, it was worth taking. His men were depressed because they wanted to go home and knew that the new challenge would draw him on > > > note that > > > Alexander had tough time defeating some very small kings on the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > elephants and were an organized kingdom probably had more to do with > Alexander's retreat than the western historians would like to admit. Alexander had a fair elephant corps by the time he had to face the mutiney, and also fielded considerable numbers of loyal Indian troops. With his Iranians as well as his Macedonian and Thessalians he undoubtedly had an unmatchable cavalry superiority. His Infantry was as good as anything that India could produce and he had Good Indian infantry as well. He probably had no doubts that he could recruit more allies as he headed east. Jim Webster THE_RITEOUS@hotmail.com (kalratri) on 14 Jun 2004 posted snip > The fact is the elephant warfare did scare the heebie jeebies out of > them, that is why even the Greeks took Indian elephants upon > Seleucid's defeat. The knowledge that the Magadhans had even more > elephants and were an organized kingdom probably had more to do with > Alexander's retreat than the western historians would like to admit. I thought that the elephants were frightening but not super effective. Once that had been stuck enough they were driven into such rages that they were wantonly destructive and uncontrollable? >> The conquest of the southern Punjab and Sind was essentially the same >> story. The Indians put up a brave and gallant resistance, but it was [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > There was no slavery, or relatively little in India. really? it was inhabited by aliens from beyond? Almost every human society has had slavery. I guess when you have a caste of people to do slave work you might be tempted to not forcebly take slaves. Better to convince them that they should do it themselves. snip > Strange. India had a lot to do with Greek "culture". In fact, > Socrates himself was said to have met with an Indian sage with whom he > had a discussion, and strangely enough later, his pupil Plato believed > that the caste system is the best system of human development. Yer talking about the republic no? snip > THE_RITEOUS@hotmail.com (kalratri) on 14 Jun 2004 posted > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Once that had been stuck enough they were driven into such rages that > they were wantonly destructive and uncontrollable? The only reason the elephants got stuck in the mud was that Alexander got lucky, it rained. Otherwise they were quite terrifying - which is why Seleucid took a whole lot of elephants to fight in the west. And the dude your Alexander defeated was hardly a major king, rather a small time king who probably didn't even have the best trained elephants. This was not the case in the eastern Magadhan empire... The Greeks were told that their were far more elephants and it was a well organized fighting force unlike the little kings. > >> The conquest of the southern Punjab and Sind was essentially the same > >> story. The Indians put up a brave and gallant resistance, but it was [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > tempted to not forcebly take slaves. Better to convince them that they > should do it themselves. No, slavery is forced labor where you have a master who can do whatever he wants with you. You might complain all you want, but the caste system was far more fluid and probably the friendliest ancient system of division of labor. AND IT WAS NOT SLAVERY, you could decide who you worked for and when to leave. The Indians worked with an Aryan system of warfare, where the enemy was simply driven out and told never to come back...slavery was not an option, you will not find warfare slavery in India in any of it's texts. The Greeks also noticed that while the warriors were fighting, the rest of Indian society went on with business...the Aryan system of warfare only allowed warfare between warriors --- civilians were not to be touched. Greeks proved their barbarity in their attacks on women and children, I heard they didn't even spare them. The caste system protected all non-caste members from being involved in the business of other castes, that included warriors. The caste system was meant to allow groups of people to specialize and perfect their art and pass that knowledge on to future generations of their family. The Greeks were comparitively barbarian. Anything to win attitude probably started with them. For Aryan warriors, the act of fighting itself was an art, he must win for the Dharma NOT for himself. THE_RITEOUS@hotmail.com (kalratri) on 15 Jun 2004 posted >> THE_RITEOUS@hotmail.com (kalratri) on 14 Jun 2004 posted >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > The only reason the elephants got stuck in the mud was that Alexander > got lucky, it rained. No, by stuck i ment stuck with big pointy things. The elephants were indeed terrifying to any footsoldier, but they were said to be driven mad by being repeatedly stabbed, afterhich point they would kill everyone around them, including the army that equiped them. They weren't useless, by far, but I am saying that they were so difficult to control that they certainly weren't adopted the world over, like say horses, which have been domesticated and breed to do what they are told. Elephants haven't been domesticated and other cultures that didn't have them in their native habitat didn't import them for war. And quite obviously elephants aren't some sort of catch all. The didn't guarentee victory for hannibal anymore than anyone else. > Otherwise they were quite terrifying - which is why Seleucid took a > whole lot of elephants to fight in the west. And the dude your > Alexander Why are you calling alexander the great my alexander? Taking this a little personal are we? Bit of an inferiority complex or something? >defeated was hardly a major king, rather a small time king > who probably didn't even have the best trained elephants. This was > not the case in the eastern Magadhan empire... > The Greeks were told that their were far more elephants and it was a > well organized fighting force unlike the little kings. Its rather obvious that the macedonians and levys in alexander the great's army were not going to be afraid of anyone anywhere or anything. They -destroyed- persia's army. the marched from macedonia across asia minor into egypt back thru the levant and then thru the persian empire destroying everyone the resisted them, came out the other end of that empire and -continued to destroy everyone who resisted them. Finally they stoped. If you really need to pretend that they were terrified at having to fight some king they never heard of who only had elephants, an animal that they had probably cooked up for steaks the week before, to throw at them then i guess you must need that. I don't doubt that there were many who must've though 'when the hell is this going to end'. But if they were so terrified then they'd've mutineed. They wouldn't have asked alexander to save their skins and let them go home, they'd've said 'we are leaving'. And they certainly wouldn't have been able to get back without their being any reprisals for mutiny. >> >> The conquest of the southern Punjab and Sind was essentially the >> >> same story. The Indians put up a brave and gallant resistance, but [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > No, slavery is forced labor where you have a master who can do > whatever he wants with you. I am quite well aware of what slavery is and how it differs from the caste system. > You might complain all you want, complain about what? I siad that almost every human society on the face of the earth has kept slaves. its what humans do. If the indians didn't keep slaves then 'jolly good' for them but i highly doubt it. > but the > caste system was far more fluid and probably the friendliest ancient > system of division of labor. What? Are you mad? the caste system was and most certainly -is- a horrible, terrible, near evil system whereby one set of people oppress and control another. Its a terrible racist system. > AND IT WAS NOT SLAVERY, you could decide > who you worked for and when to leave. Your definition of slavery above is hardly absolute and there have been times where even slaves were afforded the protection of law from the capriciousness of their masters. All i said in the above was that if you have an entire group of people who have it in their heads that they are literally lower than the leaders of the society and polluted then you won't really ahve much of a need for forcing people to do slave type labour, would you? They'd accept doing that work as their station in life. > The Indians worked with an Aryan system of warfare, where the enemy > was simply driven out and told never to come back driven out eh? That'd be a nice way of putting it if the enemy was allways an invader, but the enemy wasn't, was it. The various indian states and cities and kingdoms fought eachother ruthlessly. If by driven out you mean that a people killed and the survivors were forced off their own property then yeah, sure they were driven out. And they 'asked them to not come back' eh? Wow. How understanding of the invading horde. So they just took them to the county line and said 'now stay on that side' eh? >...slavery was not an > option, you will not find warfare slavery in India in any of it's > texts. What do you mean by warefare slavery? You mean the taking of enemy soldiers as slaves? > The Greeks also noticed that while the warriors were fighting, the > rest of Indian society went on with business...the Aryan system of > warfare only allowed warfare between warriors --- civilians were not > to be touched. So cities were never laid seige to eh? And when a particular community had had all its 'warriors' killed, they just said, 'ah well, guess we're on their side now'. Nice little system by the way. Its so nice that another group of people (not the ones limited to unpleasant labour, another set) were designated, by virtue of the accident of birth, to be the ones who get to go out and die. Oh well, at least no 'civilians' are dying too. Yeah right. > Greeks proved their barbarity in their attacks on > women and children, I heard they didn't even spare them. I'd say you heard right. The seemed to have been quite wanton in their destruction at times. > The caste > system protected all non-caste members from being involved in the > business of other castes, that included warriors. Thats a nice system. To bad it doesn't exist. You must be pretty far out of reality to even think that only hindu warriors kill other people, and then its only other hindu warriors that they kill. Again, were cities ever laid seige to? What happened after an army was defeated, the losers just gave up? The caste system > was meant to allow groups of people to specialize and perfect their > art and pass that knowledge on to future generations of their family. Give me a break. To perfect what, the art of obideient little robots? The art of being subservient to the master castes? Whats next, the slaves in america were treated nicely because they were being taught how to process textiles. yeesh. > The Greeks were comparitively barbarian. Yeah, those nastly little bastards let the community vote on issues. and who can forget such highlights of civilization as we get from http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Agora/4229/in11.html "Hindu husbands cut off the ears and nose of their wives if they left the house without their prior permission" or " The Manu Smrti, the most authoritative Hindu law-book, states ` When a woman, proud of her relations [or abilities] deceives her husband (with another man ), then the king should [ensure that] she be torn apart by dogs in place much frequented by people ' [Manu Smrti 8:371] ` And the evil man should be burnt in a bed of red-hot iron ' " And just wtf is so civilized about settee anyway? > Anything to win attitude > probably started with them. I think the 'anything to win' attitude, quite obviously, started with the winners, duh. >For Aryan warriors, the act of fighting > itself was an art, he must win for the Dharma NOT for himself. I'm sure thats very nice, and I am also sure that thats completely meaningless on a battlefield. Hell people could say the same about the phalanx-men, or the knights of the middle ages. Chivalry was certainly practiced. Pretending that the indians didn't have slaves and never killed civilians is complete fantasy. What about the Arthashastra then eh? Some of it was quoted above, and it deals with laws about slaves. Not only that, but it distinguishes between high and low caste slaves. So how did these high caste slaves come about eh? Surely a high caste person isn't going to want to be a slave, what else but the threat of violence and death can make them do it? http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_ 1/arthashastra.html And i suppose you just pretend that chandragupta never existed then? Or that he united most of the country by only killing warriors, dedicated to the warrior ideal then eh? Ancient india had its abu garabs, just like everyone else who ventured into war. > Elephants haven't > been domesticated /African/ elephants haven't been domesticated. Asian elephants have. SignatureJohn W. Kennedy "...when you're trying to build a house of cards, the last thing you should do is blow hard and wave your hands like a madman." -- Rupert Goodwins > THE_RITEOUS@hotmail.com (kalratri) on 15 Jun 2004 posted > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > And quite obviously elephants aren't some sort of catch all. The didn't > guarentee victory for hannibal anymore than anyone else. As I said, REAL armies were well aware. Horses too were specially trained for war, because they too can become afraid or irritated and go crazy on the battle field. Indian elephants( and I gather the ones given to Seleucid were the specially trained ones), too can be trained like horses to resist the flee and stomp everyone in your site. However that requires REAL training. Which is what I mean when I said Alexander was only fighting petty kings in modern day Pakistan. Only untrained or poorly trained elephants go crazy in battle. Seleucid did pretty well with those Mauryan elephants and pretty much did conquer the other Greek kingdoms left by Alexander. > > Otherwise they were quite terrifying - which is why Seleucid took a > > whole lot of elephants to fight in the west. And the dude your > > Alexander > > Why are you calling alexander the great my alexander? Taking this a > little personal are we? Bit of an inferiority complex or something? No, actually a superiority complex. I can't imagine how the west likes thinking of Alexander as Great. 1) these guys were openly gay or Bisexual -- they ought be known as Alexander's "poof brigade" ;), I mean I think only NAMBLA should think Alexander and his poof brigade to be Great. > >defeated was hardly a major king, rather a small time king > > who probably didn't even have the best trained elephants. This was [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > 'we are leaving'. And they certainly wouldn't have been able to get back > without their being any reprisals for mutiny. Who are the Levys in Alexander poof brigade? Were they poofs, or non-poofs willing to be poofs for Alexander's army? i.e. were they mercenery soldiers after being conquered by Alexander's gay brigade? Alexander just got lucky. Ancient homophobia drove all the heterosexual kings of Asia to defeat :) > >> >> The conquest of the southern Punjab and Sind was essentially the > >> >> same story. The Indians put up a brave and gallant resistance, but [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > horrible, terrible, near evil system whereby one set of people oppress > and control another. Its a terrible racist system. What? Are you stupid? There is NO race based system in the caste system. That's like saying the Jewish caste system is race based. Were the Israelites who were considered unclean to enter the Temple a different race? The caste system was similar, it was based on ritual cleanliness and uncleanliness nothing more and nothing less. You obviously don't know crap about the caste system. Now I guess, Plato was a sick racist who thought the caste system was just dandy. > > AND IT WAS NOT SLAVERY, you could decide > > who you worked for and when to leave. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > labour, would you? They'd accept doing that work as their station in > life. That's ridiculous and historically false. You obviously mean the "untouchables". Strangely enough, you find more "untouchable" sages writing sanskrit works than the so called "upper castes'. must be because they didn't allow mobility. > > The Indians worked with an Aryan system of warfare, where the enemy > > was simply driven out and told never to come back [quoted text clipped - 106 lines] > Ancient india had its abu garabs, just like everyone else who ventured > into war. THE_RITEOUS@hotmail.com (kalratri) on 16 Jun 2004 posted >> THE_RITEOUS@hotmail.com (kalratri) on 15 Jun 2004 posted >> >> >> THE_RITEOUS@hotmail.com (kalratri) on 14 Jun 2004 posted snip homophobia, keeping in mind that studies on homophobia have shown that homophobes get aroused when looking at homoerotica, while non- homophobe heterosexuals don't >> > but the >> > caste system was far more fluid and probably the friendliest [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > What? Are you stupid? There is NO race based system in the caste > system. Any system wherein attributes are given to a person by reason of their birth and especially where its given to a veritable population of people is a racist system. >That's like saying the Jewish caste system is race based. > Were the Israelites who were considered unclean to enter the Temple a > different race? Obviously not since their uncleanliness could be cleasened before hand. The clean/unclean system is not a caste system, people aren't born clean or unclean with the hebrews. > The caste system was similar, it was based on ritual > cleanliness and uncleanliness nothing more and nothing less. The caste system is a -caste- system, people are born into it. A child from the lowest caste is in that caste no matter what they do. I suppose a person could 'marry up' a level or two, but thats not really the same thing. Sure the low/high attributes had connotations of pollution and cleanliness, especially insofar as a high caste person comming into physical contact with a low caste person, even tho they hadn't done anything to make themselves unclean, would be seen as a pollution of the high caste person. Its a racist system, its a system whereby lineages of people and entire populations of people are made inferior to those in control. Since - races- don't exist -anyway-, if the word is to have any meaning then the caste system obviously has to be included. > You obviously don't know crap about the caste system. Now I guess, > Plato was a sick racist who thought the caste system was just dandy. Plato's three caste system would've been quite racist if it had been followed thru yes yer right. Eventually the bronze or tin people would become an underpopulation, subjected to and dominated by a super- population, governed by different laws and forced to associate in different places. Any system that puts restriction on intermarriage between populations is well on its way to being a racist system, obviously. >> > AND IT WAS NOT SLAVERY, you could decide >> > who you worked for and when to leave. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > writing sanskrit works than the so called "upper castes'. must be > because they didn't allow mobility. If the system were as mobile as you are trying to present it as then it wouldn't even exist now would it? And why are these untouchables who are sages untouchables then anyway? Hell if they are writting more religious works than the preistly caste then why aren't they infact the preistly caste? In a way this sounds like 'I don't discriminate, I have lots of black friends' or chris rock's bit about people's reaction to collin powell , 'he speaks so well'... this page was interesting: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ramendra_nath/hindu.html "A standard defense of varna-vyavastha is to say that it is a system of division of labor. It is easy to grant that division of labor is essential for any complex society, but it is equally easy to see that varna-vyavastha is not a system of division of labor based on aptitude and capability. It is a system of division of labor based on birth . Besides, it has other associated features such as feeling of superiority and inferiority, inequality before law, denial of equal access to knowledge and prohibition against inter-marriage. What have these features to do with the division of labor?" and this page also includes a wuote from a defense for the system: "I regard Varnashrama as a healthy division of work based on birth. The present ideas of caste are a perversion of the original. There is no question with me of superiority or inferiority. It is purely a question of duty. I have indeed stated that varna is based on birth. But I have also said that it is possible for a shudra, for instance, to become a vaishya. But in order to perform the duty of vaishya he does not need the label of a vaishya. He who performs the duty of a brahman will easily become one in the next incarnation." Awww, thats nice. YOu can stay an untermenchen your whole life, and your kids will too, but don't worry, according to the religious system we've also devised, you'll be rewarded....after you die!" And whats the reward, paradise? Nirvana? Sublimation of the ego? No, you get to be...one of the people you spent your whole life schleping for. The same people who considered themselves preist by virtue of their own birth even if you did more preist-like things than them. Wow, thats really wonderful. Just wait until yer dead, and until then mind your place. Waitaminute, that -is- civlized. Man, those greeks were sure stupid to call their slaves slaves. snip >> Pretending that the indians didn't have slaves and never killed >> civilians is complete fantasy. What about the Arthashastra then eh? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> high caste person isn't going to want to be a slave, what else but >> the threat of violence and death can make them do it? I am curious as to why you don't address this? The main thrust of your arguement was that hindus don't kill non-soldiers, ever, and that india didn't and doesn't have slaves. >> http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_ >> 1/arthashastra.html [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> Ancient india had its abu garabs, just like everyone else who >> ventured into war. > Plato's three caste system would've been quite racist if it had been > followed thru yes yer right. Eventually the bronze or tin people would > become an underpopulation, subjected to and dominated by a super- > population, governed by different laws and forced to associate in > different places. Actually, Plato's Republic doesn't describe a caste system. In it, there are three social classes, and citizens are assigned to them *not* on the basis of birth, but because the Guardians take special care over the educational process and assign the kids to the class best suited to their native talents, as those talents become clear over time. The bronze/silver/gold bit is a "noble lie", a fiction that the rulers tell the citizens, because Plato didn't think the ordinary person would tolerate a system in which children weren't automatically assigned to the same class as their parents. Thomas Yes that was the original caste system. The current one is slightly perverted. The original one was based on moral and spiritual purity not heredity. > > Plato's three caste system would've been quite racist if it had been > > followed thru yes yer right. Eventually the bronze or tin people would [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Thomas > Yes that was the original caste system. The current one is slightly > perverted. The original one was based on moral and spiritual purity > not heredity. The "original one" had nothing to do with Plato's descriptions in the Republic, so the Republic was not "the original caste system". There is no evidence of a non-hereditary caste system anyhow. tb+usenet@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) on 16 Jun 2004 posted >> Plato's three caste system would've been quite racist if it had been >> followed thru yes yer right. Eventually the bronze or tin people would [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Actually, Plato's Republic doesn't describe a caste system. I suspected as much, i read it a reall long time ago, but didn't think that the knob was worth looking up a reference.... > In it, there are three social classes, and citizens are assigned to > them *not* on the basis of birth, but because the Guardians take [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > would tolerate a system in which children weren't automatically > assigned to the same class as their parents. Shite, don't remember that part. I guess i cut off my nose to spite my face on that one. > Any system wherein attributes are given to a person by reason of their > birth and especially where its given to a veritable population of people > is a racist system. Now, now, I can't accept that. To call, ee.g., either European or Japanese feudalism "racist" is simply to rob the word of all meaning. And it's unnecessary to the current argument, since the Aryan-imposed caste system /was/ racist in the most obvious and direct sense. SignatureJohn W. Kennedy "...when you're trying to build a house of cards, the last thing you should do is blow hard and wave your hands like a madman." -- Rupert Goodwins > Now, now, I can't accept that. To call, ee.g., either European or > Japanese feudalism "racist" is simply to rob the word of all > meaning. And it's unnecessary to the current argument, since the > Aryan-imposed caste system /was/ racist in the most obvious and direct > sense. I enjoy reading the Pali scriptures (in English, alas, for I do not have Pali) and one of the delights therein is the interplay between the Buddhist community and the nascent caste structure. Any romantic halcyon image of the caste structure is easy broken when you consider that there were *alternatives* of a more egalitarian stripe, which were rejected. Thomas Oh you know sooo much about the caste system do you? The true caste system was based on moral and spiritual purity NOT BIRTH. Please look up the hereditary caste system of the jews, christians and Islam founded by Moses, I just posted it in soc.history.ancient. > > Any system wherein attributes are given to a person by reason of their > > birth and especially where its given to a veritable population of people [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And it's unnecessary to the current argument, since the Aryan-imposed > caste system /was/ racist in the most obvious and direct sense. "John W. Kennedy" <jwkenne@attglobal.net> on 17 Jun 2004 posted >> Any system wherein attributes are given to a person by reason of >> their birth and especially where its given to a veritable population [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And it's unnecessary to the current argument, since the Aryan-imposed > caste system /was/ racist in the most obvious and direct sense. I'm going to stick with the idea that subverting one population under another is inherently racist. Might be too black and white for the gray world (poor pun intended) but it seems worthwhile to be consistent in this matter. Why do you feel that the hindu caste system is more deserving of the term racist tho, leaving my akward definition aside for the moment? > I'm going to stick with the idea that subverting one population under > another is inherently racist. Might be too black and white for the gray > world (poor pun intended) but it seems worthwhile to be consistent in this > matter. > Why do you feel that the hindu caste system is more deserving of the term > racist tho, leaving my akward definition aside for the moment? Because it actually relates to something that can be called "race". SignatureJohn W. Kennedy "Those in the seat of power oft forget their failings and seek only the obeisance of others! Thus is bad government born! Hold in your heart that you and the people are one, human beings all, and good government shall arise of its own accord! Such is the path of virtue!" -- Kazuo Koike. "Lone Wolf and Cub: Thirteen Strings" (tr. Dana Lewis) > > I'm going to stick with the idea that subverting one population under > > another is inherently racist. Might be too black and white for the gray [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Because it actually relates to something that can be called "race". Who, I mean, what are the components? How are they more of a race than the people in a hereditary feudal system? >>>I'm going to stick with the idea that subverting one population under >>>another is inherently racist. Might be too black and white for the gray [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Who, I mean, what are the components? How are they more of a race > than the people in a hereditary feudal system? When the Aryans (in other words, Indo-Europeans, in other words, Hindus, in other words, whites) conquered India in late prehistoric times, they set up the caste system to protect themselves from the indigenes -- Dravidians and various other groups. SignatureJohn W. Kennedy "You can, if you wish, class all science-fiction together; but it is about as perceptive as classing the works of Ballantyne, Conrad and W. W. Jacobs together as the 'sea-story' and then criticizing _that_." -- C. S. Lewis. "An Experiment in Criticism" "John W. Kennedy" <jwkenne@attglobal.net> on 18 Jun 2004 posted >>>>I'm going to stick with the idea that subverting one population >>>>under another is inherently racist. Might be too black and white [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > times, they set up the caste system to protect themselves from the > indigenes -- Dravidians and various other groups. I don't think its at all settled that the aryan IE connection is strong. The hindu upper castes tho do seem to be of a lineage that is associated with central asiatic peoples tho. But realistically, the difference between 'aryans' and 'dravidians' and that between say 'barons' and 'serfs' or whatever is one of degree, not of kind. Dravidians and Aryans perhaps have a greater amount of genetic 'distance' from one another than Barons and Serfs did, but essentially they're all interbreeding populations (tho hindu stricture would -say- thats a no no, people often don't practice what they preach). True, IE speaking peoples were probably invasive to india, and as such the two populations had had their own history til then, afterwards they seemed to have meshed into just one larger population. Not to say that 'low caste' people are universally looked upon as brothers in india or anything like that. There are obvious, significant problems. > THE_RITEOUS@hotmail.com (kalratri) on 16 Jun 2004 posted > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > The clean/unclean system is not a caste system, people aren't born clean > or unclean with the hebrews. Oh really, lying Jew again? Aaron priesthood and Levis are completely by heredity. So is the line of David. Who are you lying to? > > The caste system was similar, it was based on ritual > > cleanliness and uncleanliness nothing more and nothing less. > > The caste system is a -caste- system, people are born into it. No, unlike your sick Hebrew system which states ONLY AARON's sons can be priests, in Hinduism all castes are open to all. Heredity is a large part, but many of the holiest books were written by "low castes" who became brahmins. > Its a racist system, its a system whereby lineages of people and entire > populations of people are made inferior to those in control. Since - > races- don't exist -anyway-, if the word is to have any meaning then the > caste system obviously has to be included. Again than admit Your false moon God Yhwh is forcing his hereditary, racist system on the Jews. > > You obviously don't know crap about the caste system. Now I guess, > > Plato was a sick racist who thought the caste system was just dandy. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > wouldn't even exist now would it? And why are these untouchables who are > sages untouchables then anyway? They are not, they became brahmins, but they leave their initial lineage for others. Hell if they are writting more religious > works than the preistly caste then why aren't they infact the preistly > caste? In a way this sounds like 'I don't discriminate, I have lots of [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > kids will too, but don't worry, according to the religious system we've > also devised, you'll be rewarded....after you die!" aww, that's nice maybe if your a low caste Israelite you'll have your head cut off if you enter the temple, don't dare to dream to become a Cohanim, there is no other life. Pretty bad religion you have. You sure have convinced your low caste Israelites to be good servants to the priests. And whats the > reward, paradise? Nirvana? Sublimation of the ego? No, you get to > be...one of the people you spent your whole life schleping for. The same [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > arguement was that hindus don't kill non-soldiers, ever, and that india > didn't and doesn't have slaves. Chandragupta Maurya came after the Greeks and the term is indentured labor (loans) you know usury, you should happen to know about that being a Jew. I b believe homosexuality started to come into Afghan culture as well as there art. Even today Greek looking Afghans like having little boy toys dress up. > >> http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_ > >> 1/arthashastra.html > >> > >> And i suppose you just pretend that chandragupta never existed then? > >> Or that he united most of the country by only killing warriors, > >> dedicated to the warrior ideal then eh? Chandragupta was not a Kshatriya, in other words he was unitiated and was marked as a shudra king. You should understand it as A lowly Israelite who somehow tried to take the mantle of David's hereditary kingship. And notice that after Ashoka saw the death and destruction he forbade warfare. Nothing a Greek ever did. D > >> A > >> Ancient india had its abu garabs, just like everyone else who > >> ventured into war. THE_RITEOUS@hotmail.com (kalratri) on 17 Jun 2004 posted >> THE_RITEOUS@hotmail.com (kalratri) on 16 Jun 2004 posted >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Oh really, lying Jew again? Wtf are you talking about? > Aaron priesthood and Levis are completely > by heredity. So is the line of David. Who are you lying to? Thats like saying a system in which the population has family names is a caste system, because the family names are inherited. As others have pointed out the levite preisthood didn't contain prohibitions against 'intermarriage' with non levites. So, if that is true, then its not a caste system. And like I said elsewhere I thought you were refering to the jewish clean/unclean concept, something liek 'kosher' where a person, no matter what their heredity, is considered unclean or polluted if they say, eat pig, or have dairy and meat on the same plate, or have sex with a menstruating woman. All of which types of 'pollution' can be ritually cleaned. Obviously thats not hereditary. >> > The caste system was similar, it was based on ritual >> > cleanliness and uncleanliness nothing more and nothing less. >> >> The caste system is a -caste- system, people are born into it. > > No, unlike your sick Hebrew system Its my system now? >which states ONLY AARON's sons can > be priests, in Hinduism all castes are open to all. Heredity is a > large part, but many of the holiest books were written by "low castes" > who became brahmins. If 'low caste' people are becoming 'high caste' people then its not a caste system, its a class system. Learn the difference. Castes are entirely hereditary. A person is born into a caste and dies in it, short of i suppose divine intervention or possibly marriage. In which case I would suspect that higher caste men marry lower caste women and the resulting children are in the fathers caste, or in some 'qualified' subset of it. As for the woman's standing I have no idea. >> Its a racist system, its a system whereby lineages of people and >> entire populations of people are made inferior to those in control. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Again than admit Your false moon God Yhwh is forcing his hereditary, > racist system on the Jews. I'll gladly say that the jews of ancient times were pretty god-damned racist, even if they didn't have intermarriage prohibitions between the levite presithood and non-levites, and even if they did. Hell they treated samaritans pretty poorly back then also, and they were a tribe unto themselves so i'd say that qualifies as racist also. Why did you think I would be hesitant to admit that? >> > You obviously don't know crap about the caste system. Now I guess, >> > Plato was a sick racist who thought the caste system was just [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > They are not, they became brahmins, but they leave their initial > lineage for others. Then its not really a caste system in the first place. If sudras and dalits or whatever can write a book and become brahmins and whatnot then how can you say its a hereditary caste system where function is assigned in accordance with birth? If function is not hereditary or they are not even, because of their linage, subjected to a seperate set of laws, then it is simply not a caste system. Its a class system. > >Hell if they are writting more religious >> works than the preistly caste then why aren't they infact the [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > sure have convinced your low caste Israelites to be good servants to > the priests. Obviously the jews didn't convince the lower members of their society to be good servants, since they had a multitude of slaves. > > And whats the >> reward, paradise? Nirvana? Sublimation of the ego? No, you get to [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > culture as well as there art. Even today Greek looking Afghans like > having little boy toys dress up. Wow, you're a stupid little toad. You know that, what with the way the world is becomming more and more sexually permissive and promiscuous that eventually some of you descendants are going to be part of the all- f.cking generation no? I mean, stuff that was considerd positively sick a few hundred years ago is on public television now, not to mention what people are actually doing. SO you can imagine that lots of your 'grandkids', assuming the governement allows/allowed you to breed and hasn't forcibly sterilized you in an anti-retard campaign, are going to be wearing dresses and smearing lipstick on certain parts of those 'greek looking' afghans eh? Hell, you probably like the idea, you little pervernt. >> >> http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_ >> >> 1/arthashastra.html [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Israelite who somehow tried to take the mantle of David's hereditary > kingship. Oh, so sometimes warriors kill non-warriors. Or rather, before they are comfortable with killing someone, they convince themselves that they're a warrior. > And notice that after Ashoka saw the death and destruction he forbade > warfare. And the indians really listened to it didn't they? > Nothing a Greek ever did. You think that ther are no pacifists in greece? You like to pretned you have a 'superiority complex', which is funny because that sort of megalomania is usually indicative of just the opposite. Anyone who is as upset as you are about being beaten by alexander the great a few thousand years ago and hates jews as much as you do must have some real problems. >> >> Ancient india had its abu garabs, just like everyone else who >> >> ventured into war. LOL > THE_RITEOUS@hotmail.com (kalratri) on 17 Jun 2004 posted > [quoted text clipped - 247 lines] >>> >> Ancient india had its abu garabs, just like everyone else who >>> >> ventured into war. > No, actually a superiority complex. I can't imagine how the west > likes thinking of Alexander as Great. > 1) these guys were openly gay or Bisexual -- they ought be known as > Alexander's "poof brigade" ;), > I mean I think only NAMBLA should think Alexander and his poof brigade > to be Great. Somebody open a window -- the stereotypes are beginning to stink. In a radically misogynistic society, such as ancient Greece, homosexuality inevitably becomes associated with manliness. "Macho, macho man! I wanna be a macho man!" > What? Are you stupid? There is NO race based system in the caste > system. That's like saying the Jewish caste system is race based. > Were the Israelites who were considered unclean to enter the Temple a > different race? The caste system was similar, it was based on ritual > cleanliness and uncleanliness nothing more and nothing less. Oh please. It was based on whether or not you were an Aryan. SignatureJohn W. Kennedy "Never try to take over the international economy based on a radical feminist agenda if you're not sure your leader isn't a transvestite." -- David Misch: "She-Spies", "While You Were Out" > In a radically misogynistic society, such as ancient Greece, > homosexuality inevitably becomes associated with manliness. "Macho, > macho man! I wanna be a macho man!" In hindsight, I should have qualified that by adding "absent a strong religious prohibition". SignatureJohn W. Kennedy Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated! http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Double%20Falshood.html No, Arya is defined as a spiritual term, it meant spiritually noble. There was no Aryan race. I guess that's why many dumb europeans (many of the spiritual ones fought long and hard against it)got converted and received "dog" status from the Jews and became the Christians -- they hardly ever understood religion. > > No, actually a superiority complex. I can't imagine how the west > > likes thinking of Alexander as Great. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Oh please. It was based on whether or not you were an Aryan. > No, Arya is defined as a spiritual term, it meant spiritually noble. > There was no Aryan race. You just can't say anything without lying, can you? *PLONK* I'm not Irish, I don't lie oh son of Danu, the demon goddess. An Arya is one who hails from a noble family, of gentle behavior and demeanor, good-natured and of righteous conduct. And the great epic Ramayana has a singularly eloquent expression describing Rama as: arya sarva samascaiva sadaiva priyadarsanah - Arya, who worked for the equality of all and was dear to everyone . The Rig Veda also uses the word Arya something like thirty six times, but never to mean a race. The nearest to a definition that one can find in the Rigveda is probably: praja arya jyotiragrah ... Children of Arya are led by light - Rig Veda, VII. 33.17 > > No, Arya is defined as a spiritual term, it meant spiritually noble. > > There was no Aryan race. > > You just can't say anything without lying, can you? > > *PLONK* Jona Lendering <ADSL294196@tiscali.nl> on 12 Jun 2004 posted snip >The Macedonians were perfectly capable of ignoring local > cultures. One of the Indians mentioned in our sources is called Calanus, > 'hello'. 'iahoy there on land, what's the name of your country' 'whatthefuck are you saying?' "they said this is the land of whatthefuck' snip great comments. very interesting. > Jona Lendering <ADSL294196@tiscali.nl> on 12 Jun 2004 posted > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > "they said this is the land of whatthefuck' > snip hkaplan1@hotmail.com (B Kaplenn) on 16 Jun 2004 posted [top posting corrected] you post was insightful and to the point. >> Jona Lendering <ADSL294196@tiscali.nl> on 12 Jun 2004 posted >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> "they said this is the land of whatthefuck' >> snip > great comments. very interesting. I have posted my Punjab pictures at http://www.livius.org/a/pakistan.html. They are all more or less related to Alexander's invasion of ancient Pakistan; I still have to add some photos dealing with Buddhist history. Jona SignatureJona Lendering http://www.livius.org |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.