Tamil rule in South East Asia. A short history.

[JohnTan]

Eastern Europe was under eastern roman rule centred in constantinople, now renamed as Istanbul. It was never undeveloped until it fell under communism. It was still boisterous under Turkish rule. Cities like Sophia, Budapest, Kiev are all testament to their eminence.

Eastern europe was undeveloped compared to western europe. The renaissance and the industrial revolution did not impact poland, austria, hungary, russia the same way it affected the Atlantic european countries. Kiev was not under turkish rule.

European balkans were under turkish rule, and they were more backward than eastern european powers like the Commonwealth, Russia or Austria. The ottomans were far more interested in waging war than building a wealthy functioning state.

 

[syed putra]

The romans had their fair share of barbarians to deal,with. From the gauls, visigoths, Britons, other germanic tribes, and of course, there was the Persians.
Around 450ad, they were invaded by a "hun". Or maybe it's another "khan"?. Atilla the hun. Same nomadic tribes.same attack on horseback shooting arrows and javelin.from the steppes that lead all the way to Asia. Attila' s advance went all the way to france, decimated Italy, but withdrew due to lack of food.but rome and constantinople survived.

 

[JohnTan]

The romans had their fair share of barbarians to deal,with. From the gauls, visigoths, Britons, other germanic tribes, and of course, there was the Persians.
Around 450ad, they were invaded by a "hun". Or maybe it's another "khan"?. Atilla the hun. Same nomadic tribes.same attack on horseback shooting arrows and javelin.from the steppes that lead all the way to Asia. Attila' s advance went all the way to france, decimated Italy, but withdrew due to lack of food.but rome and constantinople survived.

The Romans were able to deal with all of their enemies that fought primarily on foot and had slower mobility for skirmishing - gauls, britons, italian tribes, greeks. The Romans only face considerable opposition against the parthians, germanic tribes, huns, scots. These enemies were far more mobile or could retreat easily into harsh terrain where rome's disciplined foot soldiers found it difficult to pursue and destroy.

 

[Nice-Gook]

The Romans were able to deal with all of their enemies that fought primarily on foot and had slower mobility for skirmishing - gauls, britons, italian tribes, greeks. The Romans only face considerable opposition against the parthians, germanic tribes, huns, scots. These enemies were far more mobile or could retreat easily into harsh terrain where rome's disciplined foot soldiers found it difficult to pursue and destroy.

are your posts cut and paste thingy ?...how many here knows who are parthians?...wouldn't it help with short explanations instead of arguing for argument sake ?...in these days almost any subject can be searched for any topic ,both for and against to give an appearance of know all but lacks the X factor

Iranian language family is usually divided into three epochs:

I. Old Iranian (e.g. Avestan, Old Persian)
II. Middle Iranian (e.g. Middle Persian, Parthian, Sogdian)
III. New Iranian (e.g. Modern Persian, Kurdish, Pashto)

Well, at best the Parthians were not fully Persian, if your yardstick for “Persian-ness”

The Parthians were somewhat related to the Classical Persians (Achaemenids) as they came from the same racial stock and the same linguistic group, but they arrived in the Persian lands much later and had spent much more time as horsemen in northern Asia than the Achaemenids. A possible comparison in the West might be the relationship between the Macedonians and the Greeks, they spoke similar languages, but the Macedonians were considered uncouth bumpkins compared to the Greeks.

 

[Nice-Gook]

Most asian kingdoms didn't have a standing navy. The only one that had were the Ottomans, but their huge border along the Med made it practical. The Japs only had a decent navy in the 16th century, when they were fighting each other or invading Choseon Korea. The Ming navy during the early 1400 was an odd experiment that ended after 20 years or so. So, it wasn't surprising that the chinks failed to even colonise Taiwan.

how than will you explain this very thread?...that Cholas ransacked the whole of SEA ,known at the time ?

surely ,there were no air force in those days ...if Cholas had no standing navy ,what was used to raid and ransack ?

most importantly how were merchant ships in that era protected?

cut and paste again ?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chola_Navy

 

[syed putra]

Eastern europe was undeveloped compared to western europe. The renaissance and the industrial revolution did not impact poland, austria, hungary, russia the same way it affected the Atlantic european countries. Kiev was not under turkish rule.

Thats probably because eastern European countries had no chance to plunder the Americas. But they were industrialised. They had railroads and factories.

 

[JohnTan]

Thats probably because eastern European countries had no chance to plunder the Americas. But they were industrialised. They had railroads and factories.

moslem sultanates plundered Christian and Hindu territories for centuries. They never made it to industralization.

Railroads and factories did not magically appear. They were invented and need workshops to make their spare parts. No asiatic kingdom came close to industralization even in the medieval or modern age.

 

[JohnTan]

how than will you explain this very thread?...that Cholas ransacked the whole of SEA ,known at the time ?

surely ,there were no air force in those days ...if Cholas had no standing navy ,what was used to raid and ransack ?

most importantly how were merchant ships in that era protected?

cut and paste again ?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chola_Navy

Thanks for sharing about the Chola navy. I learnt something new. I guess the chola keling navy was an exception.

Yet, the wiki link also confirmed my earlier guess about most asian kingdoms not having a standing navy. The chola had somewhat a bluewater navy, but their navel vessels were mostly merchants ships with rudimentary equipment for boarding enemy ships. They did use some form of flame throwers or light catapult.

With regards to pre-modern navies, I was thinking of past navies more like the Roman trieme, where the ship was clearly a vessel of warfare, rather than a merchant ship conveniently used for soldiers during warfare. Other examples of ancient navies could include Venice war galleys, or even the Korean turtleships of the 16th century, but the turtle ships were used during the Imjin Wars and then discarded.

 

[JohnTan]

there are many versions of this ,quite debatable but my understanding is this ...it all has to with Nehru and Mao as a personalities, nothing to do with the people at large ...but that 1962 move by Mao created a permanent scar ,especially with the Indian burecracy who never forgotten it till today

Nehru is said to be a brilliant man ,Oxford educated who came from higher aristocratic society upbringing thus having all the qualities ...but a socialist with a typically Indian psyche of an emotional fool ..rumoured to had Lord Mounbatten's wife as his mistress ..Mao is exactly the opposite ,a hard core communist whose lessons in life was wrought on the roads so as to speak ..hence they saw the border issues with different lenses

another main factor is the quality of their armies as of at that time ...Mao's PLA is battle hardened and was very willing to fight ..The Indian army had split into two ,one Indian and another Pakistan but had within the ranks had highly professional lot ,since 2 millions who had fought the world war 11 ....but Nehru had openly said ,"why do we need an army when we have the police ".hence the Indian army poorly equipped

so ,you can imagine the differences...but Nehru was also playing tough despite Cho En Lai ,the PM of PRC ,peace move who came personally to India for negotiation ...Nehru than initiated what was called the forward move ,meaning their soldiers to move to border areas previously claimed but with no soldiers presence ...the PRC read that as an aggressive signal to fight

what Nehru thought he had all figured out since he was globally respected ...incidentally LKY had expressed his admiration fir him too

suddenly the Chinese troops stormed from the most unexpected terrains ..waves after waves...india rushed reinforcements only to be slaughtered since most Indian troops were not even equipped with the very basic needs such as boots for the snowy terrain ...the chinese covered huge tracks in days quite swift .the Indian commanding general was a political appointee and he did not even use the Indian Air force ,and that would have effectively cut of the Chinese troops from all logistics ...India now woke up to the reality...couple of thing happened

they had a most celeberated and decorated general who fought in both world wars replacing the one in charge ...his first order to his officers were ,there shall be no retreat, be prepared to fight to your last breath

the second scenario was ,there were ethnicities like the Tamils who were fighting for separation from india....all than closed up as 1 United people and ordinary men and women lined up and start donating their jewllaries and blood

so,the Sino indo war had actually united India more than dividing it ...in some respect India should thank china for that

the issue was border..but India and China never shared a common border previously ...but since china walked into Tibet in 1950 ,it now became a matter between china and India..the matter was not a serious one since the border was drawn by a British guy McMahon ...and there was no need to go to a full fledged battle ...but when Dalai Lama fled Tibet India gave refuge and China saw it as future plan to unstabilise china

A nice read about the keling-chink war in the 1960s. Which sides did samsters root for, even though the war is long over?