Romans used 'Caesar'. Russians used Czar.Kaiser is German?
So why Holy Roman Empire used that?
Are you saying habsburg were Germens?
Wilhelm II, German Emperor - Wikipedia
Romans used 'Caesar'. Russians used Czar.Kaiser is German?
So why Holy Roman Empire used that?
Are you saying habsburg were Germens?
All the more time for the money to be invested and grow into ill-gotten gains. This is the same theory Indians use about British looting is it not?Bro, are you trying to look stupid or you are?
Cholas are of 10th century, Ashoka was in BC.
Dude you implied that the Romans invaded the British Isles in the 3rd century BC, which is incorrect, deal with it. And banging on a stone is an extremely minimalist attempt to record history. Stonehenge was constructed as early as 3000BC. It's now 2018AD and you haven't even managed to construct a toilet in some places.Yes, I made assertion because you answered so to my question about English history with Rome.
Wait, is that because there is history before 43 AD?
So why not Anglo Saxons/Irish use Kaiser/Ceaser as they are Romans?
All the more time for the money to be invested and grow into ill-gotten gains. This is the same theory Indians use about British looting is it not?
'King' comes from the Anglo-Saxon term 'cyning.' 'Queen' comes from 'cwen.'So why not Anglo Saxons/Irish use Kaiser/Ceaser as they are Romans?
I think, you think only Kaiser was Wilhelm, improve your European history.
So, Anglo-Saxons are not Romans?'King' comes from the Anglo-Saxon term 'cyning'.
They both looted from their invaded territories. You owe these countries compensation.So Cholas looted Malaysia and Indonesia in 10th century, while Ashoka enriched with it in 300 BC?
Great timeline you got there. Must be Brirish version of timeline.
So, the British Isles has been invaded several times, we just don't complain about it and say that people owe compensation like complete dumbasses would. In the end we just defeated all our invaders in war later on. Trafalgar, Waterloo, WWI, WWII.So, Anglo-Saxons are not Romans?
Then why stating they were Romans?
What are they? Germans? Definetely Germens.
When Ashoka invaded Malaysia or Indonesia? Or you creating your own history?They both looted from their invaded territories. You owe these countries compensation.
Where I am saying that.So, the British Isles has been invaded several times, we just don't complain about it and say that people owe compensation like complete dumbasses would.
I re-direct you to an earlier quote by one of your colleagues.When Ashoka invaded Malaysia or Indonesia? Or you creating your own history?
As for Chola, please provide evidence that they looted Malaysia. Or they are the one of the first one who established huge human population there?
There is no story from the other side because they were incapable of recording history.
After defeating an alliance of the Pandya & Ceylon kings, and after further conducting raid on Lanka, he is described as ” Maduraiyum Elamum Konda Parakesarivarman” – Parakesarivarman who conquered Madurai and Sri Lanka. He utilized his war loot to cover the roof of the celebrated Shiva Temple at Chidambaram to be covered with Gold, for this he is described as “Thillaiyambalathhukku pon koorai veiyntha thevan”. See Note 3 as well.
The Chola-Chalukya wars -a series of battles fought from 992 CE to 1120 CE -resulted in the winning Cholas looting the Chalukaya kingdom. Spencer argues that the Cholas needed to engage in these plundering campaigns to let them maintain the flow of resources into their states and strengthen their hold over their local chieftains.
The Archaeological Survey of India, for example, includes reference to inscriptions at various Hindu temples built with the wealth looted from lands conquered by Raja Raja 1. These inscriptions list the names of lands he conquered and refers to the island we today call Sri Lanka as ‘Ila-Mandalam’.
Of late, some researchers [1] have started throwing doubt on the overseas expedition of Rajaraja Chola through Rajendra Chola on the plea that the Parasasti / Meikkirti could have been written with poetic fantasy rather than the factual accuracy. Even, had Rajendra Cholan gone there, it could have been only a raid to loot and not to set foot as a conqueror!
Are you such dimwit to not even check what was territory of Chalukya.I re-direct you to an earlier quote by one of your colleagues.
Opinion - Battle of Saragarhi : When 21 Sikhs Faced Over 10,000 Pashtuns at Saragarhi And Won
Aside from that, empires always looted you dummy. Do you seriously expect the world to believe that Indian medieval empires just happened to be an exception to the rule.
The titles used by the Cholas; An Examination (Part-I)
The Times Group
Raja Raja Chola 1 And The Quicksand Of Tamil Chauvinism
The Shipping Technology of the Cholas
Like I said, you owe compensation.
Others on this forum make a big deal of Britain owing compensation to India, so I'm just trolling.Where I am saying that.
All the things you saying, you saying you are Roman.
Nice try, the Chola empire extended well beyond India. Or would you have people believe the Cholas only looted regions that just happened to be inside present-day India?Are you such dimwit to not even check what was territory of India.
Chalukya Kingdom was in India.
So you want India to pay herself for compensation.
Consider it done.
Nice try, the Chola empire extended well beyond India. Or would you have people believe the Cholas only looted regions that just happened to be inside present-day India?
Are you saying you are a martial race?Others on this forum make a big deal of Britain owing compensation to India, so I'm just trolling.
We are Anglo-Roman-Saxon-Norman-Vikings. This would probably explain why we are good at war.
She has said that another reason why the Cholas are not remembered as well as the Mughals is because the historical texts available for the Cholas are far lesser. “Since they existed centuries before the Mughals, we have fewer surviving texts about the Cholas produced outside of India. Records within India tend to be inscriptions, the study of which is left to the specialists.”
No, it was an Indian empire that looted outside India.Are you saying Chola Empire was not subcontinental empire, but a outsider that looting India?
So you automatically consider by this Cholas as colonial power?