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?
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?
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.
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 !!
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.
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
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.
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.
Why were the Mughals able to control larger land mass for a longer time than say Chola or Vijayangar Empire?
Hi
larger yes but not longer
cholas ruled for a 100 years more than the mughals
cholas 848- 1279- in varying strengths- 431 years
mughals 1526- 1857- once again in varying strengths- 331 years
mughals had a better weaponory and the religious divide certainly helped them. central location made them advance from bengal to afganistan.
but finally their empire too was only in the shadows of redfort like the cholas in the shadows of the tanjore fort walls
last three kings of mughals ruled for a century or 98 years precisely
last three kings of cholas ruled for a century 101 years precisely
lethargy had set in
amazing co incidences but i think this is worth a phd thesis if you compare these two fabulous dynasties.
venketesh
> > 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. > > regards, > GRS >
Precisely, that is the reason why I put the word :: FRANCHISING.
As we are well aware it denotes COMMERCIAL Transaction.
Re Moghuls - it was related to TAX Collction ..
They followed almost the same revenue system which existed prior to them ... But gave more thrust on TAX collection..
There were Taluk-wise Chiefs who appointed Village-wise tax collectors - who were known as PAIMASHs.
They allocated numbers to various smaller segement of lands..
That was known as PAIMASH NUMBER... !
When Survey was conducted in Independent India - in about 1960 - these paimash numbers and Survey numbers were Co-related.
Incidentally this Survey consequent upon Abolishing Zamindari system - who also adopted the same PAIMASH numbers !
Means even during Vijayanagaram - Nayak - Sarfoji rules these numbers continued ! and the British - through Zamindars - also followed the same !
The control over territory was more by threat & conversion too !
Thus it appeared Moghuls covered larger extent .. But even during AKBAR rule - indpendent Kurunila mannargal ruled in parallel - mostly by paying for Peace.
Guess it should be with all the dynasties. Taking Mugals, you could see the alternate kings were very powerful.
Babur, Humayun, Akbar, Jehangir, Shajahan, Aurangazeeb... - here too the exception is Akbar and Jehangir. In Madan's Vandargal Vendrargal, he would mentioned that historians say Humayan as a small , between two of the greatest kings of the the Mugal dynasty.
> Guess it should be with all the dynasties. Taking Mugals, you could see the > alternate kings were very powerful. > > Babur, Humayun, Akbar, Jehangir, Shajahan, Aurangazeeb... - here too the > exception is Akbar and Jehangir. In Madan's Vandargal Vendrargal, he would > mentioned that historians say Humayan as a small , between two of the > greatest kings of the the Mugal dynasty.
Hi
humayun lost his kingdom and won it back in his lifetime.
there is a bias on who is the greatest
aurangazeb was the pinnacle. shah jahan to aurangazeb is perhaps their golden period. culturally and politically.
Another way to slice and dice this subject is to conclude the vast territories were possible because Mughals had 4 great Emperors and Cholas had only 2 great Emperors.
first Parakesari : " Mathiriyum Eazhamum konda .. "
This is also prelude to meykeerthis.
He Treated Saivam and Vaishnavam equally.
His wife Kokkizanadigal constructed Thirunavalur (sundarar) temple. His another wife of Chera Origin VEERANARAYANI motivated him to conduct Hiranyagarpam & Thulabaram in Srirangam temple.
He renovated Veeranarayana perumal Vinnagaram - constructed Udayarkudi anantheeswara siva temple - caused creation of Veeranam lake. About 45 years Rule..
Parantaka at lotus feet of Purantaka describe Tvlgdu copper plates. My best bet is He was the role model to RRC.
2nd 100 years :: We have RRC and Rj C.
1070 - Kulothunga I son through RjC daughter another Giant. Very impressive.
Kulothunga II - caused Periyapuranam is also no less. but not as impressive data as Kulothunga I.
I think their objective is different unlike tamil kings.
Their aggression over converting people to their religion...
Creating maximum wealth by tax and looting...
no ethics, no values for human beings, no respect for other religions & local cultures, etc.
Had great aggression (like a dialogue in batsha movie: raththam, naadi narambellam kurooram nirainjavanunga)
But our Tamil Kings (not only Chozha's) had always a soft corner in their mind for the people of other religions and cultures etc. In war of course they were also aggressive, they looted a lot but when we read history after the war they behaved good with the local peoples and created good amenities for those who agreed to stay under their ruling umbrella. I think this soft corner didnt allow them to expand their territory on the north further where the people's culture difference was huge compared with south people. Also the agreement and mutual understandings with the kings in north.
But their thirst for sea travel and commerce & trade persuaded them to conquer the south east lands.
(i thing their policy was - vambu sandaiku pogamaattoam, aana sandaiku vanthaa vidamaattoam)
This is my opinion experts can correct me and add their views.
Sateesh: Ah....some time back I had argued on similar lines here. In fact I started a thread about Chola invaders vs Muslim invaders. IIRC, I just got lectured out. People said (paraphrasing my memory): killing is killing, looting is looting, raping women is raping women; the motivation does not matter.
Thanks for the kind summary. So why are Mughals more popular than say any of the other dynasties - Chola or the Chalukyas? It is it because Britishers (almost) took over them, that more focus is bestowed on them?
I use the word almost because, there is one school of historians who believe Mughals were already on the decline when East India Company came to India. While another school of historians believe Britishers transplanted Mughals from the power.
Also, at a national level in India the Mughals are more known or popular than the others. Is it because of the impact? If yes what were the impact?
Well, then how do you answer for the Turkic forces, or the Mughals? Mughal Empire which is considered to be the largest after the Gupta Empire (thousands of years ago); had multiple ethnicity in its population. Be it then or now, be it Cholas or Mughals they had developed varying concepts of a central and local forms of government. The communication barrier would have been greatly reduced.
One reason I read elsewhere about say why the Indian Kings themselves did not go far (for example compared to Alexander) was because the Indian sub-continent in itself is so huge, plus the richness was far greater than the Central Asian or Turkic/Greek regions.
So was this geography? Geography helped Cholas in that they were along the Oceans and it allowed them to go as far as S.E.Asia. But the geography pushed them so far down the tip of the peninsula that it made it tough (logistics wise) for them to go past Vindhyas in a meaningful way?
But then how did Alexander travel so far? He would have had communication barrier too right?
On Wednesday 11 Nov 2009 7:59:16 pm intellisurfer wrote: > 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?
One reason is the Vindhyas - you can possibly send an expedition or two past them, but there's pretty much no way to actually maintain a hold on the other side for any really considerable amount of time. The communication barrier is just too large.
We succeed at it because of modern technology, but the Cholas and other didn't have our luxury of daily flights from Chennai to Delhi, a railway system that tunnels through the Vindhyas and Satpuras at various locations, a telephone and television network, to say nothing of the Internet.
But then again, modern India is all of a hundred years old, and the Cholas ruled for 400+ years. Who's to say that our current "empire" will last as long?
> I use the word almost because, there is one school of historians who believe Mughals were already on the decline when East India Company came to India. While another school of historians believe Britishers transplanted Mughals from the power.
the first was true. the arch enemies of mughals like sikhs and marattas were at the mughals doorsteps before the british the maratta king scindia was the ' protector of the mughal emperor" a position the english grabbed after the anglo maratta wars. but then the earliest british coins were done int he mughal's name.
venketesh
> > Also, at a national level in India the Mughals are more known or popular than the others. Is it because of the impact? If yes what were the impact? > > thanks > GRS > >
> > But then how did Alexander travel so far? He would have had communication barrier too right?
the factor of human resourses come into play. a person like alexander is orn once in a couple of millineiums
one small example
alexanders threat alarmed the persian ing who offered half his vast empire and his daughter's hand in marriage to the macedonian, alexanders gfeneral advised him to take the offer
" I would accept it if I were Alexander. said paremenio
> > > Chola empire was 3.6 Million Sq Km which was not including the sea and ocean. So if sea and ocean counts then it was larger than Mughal empire. > > Chola empire had a naval force and Mughals didn't. > >]]
at the height of their power around 1700, mughals controlled most of the Indian Subcontinent extending from Bengal in the east to Balochistan in the west, Kashmir in the north to the Kaveri basin in the south. Its population at that time has been estimated as between 110 and 130 million, over a territory of over 4 million km
the mughals had a navy and there are records of its activities but not too much.
in fact most mughal kings would not have even seen the sea. there is an interesting anectode about bahadur shah seeing the see for the first time when he was exiled to burma.
In terms of longevity, geographical cover, annexation and hold Turkish Ottoman Empire was one of the greatest dominant powers in the annals of world history. Three continents, seven centuries of rule,control of economic, cultural, architectural and trade, Ottoman had such overriding presence in Historyimitating the Roman empire of the previous millennium. Alexander wasone man army literally and his conquests lived and died with him.
On Saturday 14 Nov 2009 1:47:51 am intellisurfer wrote: > Well, then how do you answer for the Turkic forces, or the Mughals? Mughal > Empire which is considered to be the largest after the Gupta Empire > (thousands of years ago); had multiple ethnicity in its population. Be it > then or now, be it Cholas or Mughals they had developed varying concepts > of a central and local forms of government. The communication barrier > would have been greatly reduced.
If by Turkic forces, you mean the Malik Kafur invasion, yes they crossed the Vindhyas, but the "conquest" lasted only for a short period (about 70 years, as I recall). Again, they couldn't secure a foothold for a significant period of time.
The Mughals on the other hand, had a reasonably secure empire in the North, and their invasion of the South lasted a little longer, but not by much. Only the British managed to actually _hold_ both North and South for more than a century (from about the 1780s or so to 1947), and in a way, we're just succeeding them.
> One reason I read elsewhere about say why the Indian Kings themselves did > not go far (for example compared to Alexander) was because the Indian > sub-continent in itself is so huge, plus the richness was far greater than > the Central Asian or Turkic/Greek regions.
Possible.
> So was this geography? Geography helped Cholas in that they were along the > Oceans and it allowed them to go as far as S.E.Asia. But the geography > pushed them so far down the tip of the peninsula that it made it tough > (logistics wise) for them to go past Vindhyas in a meaningful way?
They expanded towards the oceans, and around where the Vindhyas are weakest (Orissa). It's an almost perfect geographic limitation. And remember, their rule of S.E. Asia lasted not more than one generation (if that).
> But then how did Alexander travel so far? He would have had communication > barrier too right?
I'm making a distinction between _conquering_ and _ruling_. Alexander conquered lots of rulers. Or more correctly, he _defeated_ lots of local rulers, and put his own generals on their thrones. But his "empire" lasted until he died - at a young age at that! Same with the Mongols - their empire fragmented (pretty much by design) after Ghengis, with sons and grandsons taking control of different parts of it, and in a few generations, it became several different empires.
What I'm saying here is that it was quite possible for a king to go conquering - or to go a-viking as the Norse would say. But that's just loot and plunder. But that does not an empire make. Many of the more successful empires were geographically limited (defining success as longevity and prosperity). I would suggest that apart from a few adventures in the North and across the ocean, this includes the Cholas. After all, as we've been discussing, they _did_ rule for over 400 years in their own geographically limited area, and the rulers whom they replaced (Pallavas), and who replaced them (Pandyas, Hoysalas), essentially constituted one continuous civilization. There was no societal collapse before their rise or following their demise as a dynasty. This was (is) a very stable civilization, apart from Malik Kafur's invasion.
I don't think they would have been as accomplished or as good for the country if they'd been conquerors like Alexander or like the Afghans. Such adventures only tax the core of the nation, after a point.
On Saturday 14 Nov 2009 1:36:32 am intellisurfer wrote: > Thanks for the kind summary. So why are Mughals more popular than say any > of the other dynasties - Chola or the Chalukyas? It is it because > Britishers (almost) took over them, that more focus is bestowed on them?
They're more tangible, because they were among the last. Pretty much nothing else.
For that matter, what about the Delhi Sultanate, which pretty much ruled the North for 500 years before the Mughals came on the scene? Or the Palas, the Solankis, the Rashtrakutas...
Most people only remember the last. Only those who are interested in history remember the ones that came before.
In fact, now that I think of it, this applies to Presidents and Prime Ministers as much as to kings and emperors... ;-)
> I use the word almost because, there is one school of historians who > believe Mughals were already on the decline when East India Company came > to India. While another school of historians believe Britishers > transplanted Mughals from the power. > > Also, at a national level in India the Mughals are more known or popular > than the others. Is it because of the impact? If yes what were the impact?
I agree :-) Actually vaithueruchal. I was schooled in Kendriya Vidyalaya, and not much about South was taught way back when I did my schooling. Hopefully things have changed.
Moreover when there was an exhibition that was being organized about Aurangazeb (and his atrocities), there was protest about it.
Neenga solra maadhiri, only people with interest have to dig and find the details.
Popular sentiment is a big thing, that always influences decision making.
Hi Kathie chennai itself was mughal territory. arcot nawab came up in aurangazebs time
gingee had its fascination for all.
vijaynagar, bijapur, mughals, marattas and perhaps even the only rajput territory in tamilnadu.raja jaisingh( a popular icon here as raja desingu) arajput from bundelkand in up, mp ruled here.
After the death of Raja Swarup Singh he renewed the demand for the arrears of revenue with his son Raja De Singh. This lead to a battle between the two, which unfortunately ended in the death of the young and valiant Rajput, Desingh on 3 October 1714. The gallantry displayed by Desingh at the young age of 22, against the powerful Nawab Sadatulla Khan of Arcot in a struggle that was hopeless from the outset (Desingh's army consisted of only 350 horses and 500 troopers, while the Nawab's army had 8,000 horsemen and 10,000 sepoys) has made us remember him forever. The ballets are sung in and around Gingee till date about his bravery. However, the fortress of Gingee lost its pre-eminent position and political importance within a few years of the extinction of the Rajput rule.
I believe he was originally meant to be a Polish noble angry with the Russians, but then Verne and his publisher decided that doing that would anger the Russians, so they targeted the British instead...
Thanks for ur reply, i will rephrase my question, did any muslim kings invaded tamilnadu at the time of rrc or rjc or there were any loss during there rjc and rjc because of muslim kings, after these two kings ,there was alot of invasions and ended with british, so whats ur comment about this.