Sal, Thanks for refreshing my memory of Indian history. In fact, I like your history series. I am more aware of the world around me. You are some man for one man Sal. Thank you.
Everytime I heard story about India and conquest of Alexander they say, Alexander retreat his Army. Alexander's army were tired after being away from home. He let the indian region as it is. But, why can't people simply say he was badly defeated in the battle. The guy who conquered everything on his way simply left India untouched is a flat lie to believe. There was a battle between two armies were Alexander was badly defeated before he retreat his army. History must be told truthfully.
Alexander hadn't the courage to enter even India................It was his cowardness. You have only one Alexander and you europeans are dancing for him. We hindus have great great fathers of Alexander and then also, we are not in overpride for it........................
some more points for interested students - Dhamma is pali language word for sanskrit word - Dharma. Pali was the vernacular langauge in those times. Ashoka's daughter Sangamitra was sent to Sri Lanka to spread the message of Buddha and today Srilanka is buddhist major country. Also Ashoka is credited to have created world's first ever secular state because in his eddicts he wanted goverance of peaceful co-existence of hindusm and buddhism
Gangaridai or Nanda empire: indian empire in 300 BC the only one which Alexander the Great did not chose to fight because of the thousands of strong elephants and his soldier's exhustion and willingness to return home.
Ashoka has a empire till afganistan because James Princep in early 18 find the last writen script piller in afganistan and connect the devnam priyadasi is name of ashok
Amrutkar Saurabh Your're the one who is brainwashed, you think Islam is bad and Muslims are your enemy. And btw, we Afghans ruled you not the other way around.
@@TheAfghan72 bro we are descendents of mauryan empire of magadha . Which ruled afghanistan in around 2nd or 3rd century BC. Go and read on the internet.Try to accept the truth.
satyam jha No Indian has never ruled past the Indus, you were ruled by Afghans with countless different empires which is why North Indian culture has Afghan and Mughal influence. The Maryuans empire's boundary is seriously debated, i don't think they got past Gujrat.
Niko Bellic Nanda Empire wasnt from Odessa. They were considered 'bandits' that raided Pataliputra and claimed Magdha. They never conquered Kalinga... Plus you are a fool if you believe the Mauryans were evil, they were the first human civilization to establish concrete human and animal rights. Additionally they were the first to ban slavery, something the Muslim slave (Mamaluke) dynasties, colonial Empires, and America would practice millenniums later.
@@jesussleptwithhismamaandga2497 The Mauryan Empire was Jain then Buddhist, neither enforces cast or class system. Try not to undermine slavery by equating it to a feudal system....
8:12 Get your facts right. Ashoka was already a Buddhist before Kalinga war. In that statement which you just read "Beloved of the Gods came to feel a strong inclination towards the Dhamma", he is not saying that he has changed his philosophy or faith, it simply means that he was not serious before, but now he is. Most of the people take this point as conversion but it is not true. He built 84,000 Buddhist stupas, sent Buddhist monks as far as Egypt but the memory of these events faded over the time. But in the eastern countries, we can see its effects. Today Theravada Buddhism exists in Thailand, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Laos and Cambodia only because of him.
Abhishek Maurya nope it's even debatable if he took buddhism let alone being already buddhist and there is no proof of him being buddhist no one in his family was one why would he take it
Yea his writings indicate that he gravitated towards what was always known to him and not something he discovered freshly. Anyways, Maurya sahab, are you a direct decendent of the Mauryas by any chance? (or even of Ashoka)
Some of the characters from star wars and some of the stories are inspired by Indian history and mythology .Lucas was heavily influenced by Joseph Campbell, the famed mythologist was a friend of lucas who's work was primarly eastern mythology.
@@ajaysarathythee 1) Porus did become Alexander's satrap. 2) Alexander troops wanted to stop before India, it was just a convenient place to stop. "Hail our king Porush" He's not "your" king, he lived in Pakistan.
raghav joshi Chandragupta first conquered the Nanda Empire, the entity that Alexander's army refused to fight. He then conquered the Macedonians in the Seleucid-Mauryan War. Alexander retreated and died before before Chandragupta was born.
Alexander lost to minor king Porus(purushottam) of india who don't even get much mention in indian history.... Alexander would have easily lost to Chandragupt or Ashoka if he had faced them in their time..👍
@@sunnyjoseph558 Not when it comes to names in the language of their Origin. Buddha is a name with Sanskrit origins, So Sanskrit Pronounciation is the accurate one.
Always excellent video! I appreciate your works! The recent archaeological excavation suggest that Buddha might had born before it's imagined, perhaps 6th century BCE.
@@tasnubarahman6068 what is "they"???? Alexander never fought with nanda. You don't know even that. So what we can expect from such a guy who don't know even this???? Porus's real name was Purushottam.... Alexander was great until he fought with king Purushottam.... There were other kingdoms too in India ffom which Alexander never fought. There is no proof of Alexander's victory in battle of hydaspes.😎😎😎😎😎
@@taslimakhan9476 Lol..... here we are talking about ancient dynasties... not religon like you guys. Nanda dynasty was the most powerful dynasty of its time.... We are talking about the time when even christianity didn't existed. Have you ever tried to find out that what was the military size of Dhanananda? Do you think ancient writers who were contemporary time of Alexander will write he was scared of Nanda? Do macedonians wanted to insult themselves by writing such things? RIP your logic!!!!!!!!
@@taslimakhan9476 No, he is actually right. Alexander told about an Indian empire in east with 200k infantry and 6000 war elephants. He was written by Curtius, Diodorus, Plutarch. Alexander returned after stiff resistance that they had met in north-western India and hearing about a further powerful indian empire in east waiting for his exhausted army
@@dustudent1637 No, he is actually right. Alexander told about an Indian empire in east with 200k infantry and 6000 war elephants. He was written by Greek writer like Curtius, Diodorus, Plutarch about nanda strength Alexander returned after stiff resistance that they had met in north-western India and hearing about a further powerful indian empire in east waiting for his exhausted army
Dear Dong Jiang , don't ask reason about everything from Indians because Turks , Afghani and Mughals had destroyed Takshila University , Vikramshila University , Nalanda University of india and in these University library everything about history ,ved ,aayurved , war strategies and defence arts and economy managements , metallurgy , chemistry, phyiscs, mathematics, statistics , numerology , astronomy books are there which was burnt down into ashes . Few manuscripts are left though . It is my believe that Patliputra name was derived from any great king of history which was born in that place and Patli must be his mother's / father's name because it is an Indian tradition to call son's/daughter's by their mother's name or father's name . Thankyou 🙏
Iran Afganistan Pakistan Nepal India Bangladesh Bhutan Srilanka Verma/Myanmar Tibet Thailand Indonesia North Korea South Korea Japan Laos Vietnam Cambodia Magnolia Chinese Buddhist States Malaysia Philippines etc. were the kingdoms ruled under the empire of Chakravarti Samrat Ashoka Maurya (Magadha Empire) The Great Emperor Ashoka ordered those kingdoms to accept and declared Buddhism their State's religion and all accepted it, then Emperor Ashoka told them they were running as their kingdoms by their own ways but under the unseen Empireship of The Great Samrat Ashoka... The Maurya Empire.
Alexander was quite great, as his empire stretched from east Europe, north Africa, and all of middle east. When a empire becomes a giant, it becomes hard to maintain especially with different races of people/tribes, cultures, languages, and their religions. Since, Hind only had a main religion, Hinduism, that other religions rooted from like Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and etc, the empire in Hind would be easier maintain since people practiced the same religion and the culture was quite identical. Also, the ruler wouldn't have any issues communicating because they will have servants whom would have a role of CM for each of their respective states. The mistake that Alexander did was that he didn't have much trust with influential people in his empire that they have conquered, so they can be CM but only having Greeks to rule them. That's why this large empire crumbled.
@@GhulamMustafa-pn2xi there was no Sikhism back then but I get what your saying. I think Alexander is great because the war with Porus was massively devastated. He almost lost,but he managed to defeat porus. At the end he captured Porus and asked him "What should I do with you" and porus replied,"you do what a king does to another king". After that statement Alexander was shocked and became friends and give him more land to his kingdom. Thats way I think he's great. To add on. Alexander's commander seleculus assissnated Porus while he was sleeping so that shows how coward the people were. To back to the point, my reason why Alexander is great is different than yours. A real great general and king is Chandragupta Muarya and Ashoka. I recommend looking those two up
@@dustudent1637 What a stupid statement. He did not run away and neither did Puru. It's not a joke to conquer the Persian Empire, else others would have done it.
don't you think why Persian Empire ( one of the strongest empire of that era ) adjacent to india never try to invade it . Also in Alexander biography it is written by Greeks themselves that they defeated porus but Alexander army quit to fight with Dhanand ( strongest king of that era of india ) , Magadh kingdom , thereafter he withdraw his army so why they attack other nations after india if they become kind towards porus and wants no more war
ऋषभ जी ठीक लिखे हैं। उच्चारण सुधार लें, अंग्रेजों की नकल करने से ज्यादा जरूरी भारतीय श्रोताओं से अपने को जोड़ने की है: ये पटालीपुत्रा, नन्दा, मोरिया क्या हैं, बिन दूसरा कौन हैं? नकल की भी इंतहा हो गईं।
Things depicted here as Indian history is as always from European sources. There is no true evidence that the English and european source of Indian history is true. In fact the Aadi Sankaracharya is said to be born during 6 to 7 century as per English historians . But Kanchi Matt can easily trace back the birth of Aadi Sankara to BCE (before common era). And Chandragupta Maurya was never the contemporary of Alexander. Magadhans were never mauryans. Mauryas and Magadhans are different dynasties. Actually what we learn as history is rubbish.
heliyindia is there any other source? if there is, its terribly terribly preserved. For those of us curious enough, the british or western accounts are enough to feel some sense of pride in our ancient ancestors at least.
Chandragupta was not a contemporary of Alexander. He was a contemporary of Seleucus. Idk what are you smoking. No European historian has said what you stated.
Are u mad.. U don't have any record of ancient history.. It was Britishers who found indus valley civilisation, it was Britishers who decoded the language of Gupta period and Ashoka period.. Just U were interested in writing about superman and batsman like Ram or krishna
As per true chronology of ancient India, *Maurya empire" Chandragupta Maurya and Bindusara ruled for 24 and 25 yrs respectively from 999 to 950BC Ashoka 950 - 913BC Decline of Mauryas 864BC *Sungas and Kanvas* 864 to 807BC *Satavahanas* ruled for about 450 yrs With the first invasion of India by Persians and Sakas between 600 and 350BC *Gupta Empire* Chandra Gupta I 320 - 310BC Samudra Gupta 310 - 265BC Chandra Gupta II 264 - 226BC and so on
Ur topic on Aryan invasion theory is wrong boz it was strategy of British to divide Indian into Aryan and Dravidian go and check expose of the theory by Dr Rajiv malhotra
Rajiv Malhotra is not the gospel. And it's not an invasion theory as stated by the British. After research done post the British era upto recent times, it has been proved to be an Aryan migration. Migrations have occurred throughout human history.
Languages chance and evolve, sanskrit was not the first language, the language it cam from is called "Indoeuropean" by linguists, because from it most language in europe and India come from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_family
hello sir, i want to know that are all 14 edicts contains same contents from 1-14 ? or are they contains edicts individually for different region? like Kandahar edict contains 12-13 and Girnar, Gujarat edict contains 14?
It's interesting how in the comment section of a video talking about Chandragupta and Ashoka many statements concern how Alexander wasn't all that great. I guess I'm adding to it with my own opinion by saying that I also think that Alexander of Macedon is a tremendously overrated individual in world history. The one thing he was really good at was seizing opportunities and leading by example. That's how he defeated the Persian Empire and became it's new emperor and the Pharaoh of Egypt. But he was terrible at pretty much anything else that is required to rule anything resembling a state. He wasn't a great politician and he didn't care much for economics. Even as a general his abilities were more limited than people tend to realize. And thus, his empire which was in essence a merging of different civilizations was doomed from the beginning. As it was built on top of what amounted to one huge ponzi scheme. He kept those who followed him from battle to battle in line only by rewarding them with the recently won "spoils of war" and the newly conquered people were likewise recruited into Alexander's warmachine by the promise of the spoils of war of battles which were still to come. That's why Alexander kept expanding further and further eastward. To keep the pyramid scheme running. But the further he went the more desparate his bids for power had to be to make up for all the promises he had given to all the people who followed him. Sooner or later it would have broken down anyway. Not even remaining victorious in every battle would have been able to save his "empire". Thus he was lucky to suffer defeat at some point and have people on the second rung of his empire's hierarchy ladder, which were very ambitious. Because these circumstances allow us to be fooled into thinking that Alexander had some sort of plan lined out by which his empire could have survived his demise. Both assumptions are wrong. He had no real plan and even if he had had one, it wouldn't have sufficed to save him or his empire. Hence, get over Alexander the Great. It's probably not worth your time debating how he was or wasn't great.
![แข่งเพิ่มน้ำหนักใน 24 ชั่วโมง!! [Ver 2025]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/20xn0g6k-ec/mqdefault.jpg)
Sal, Thanks for refreshing my memory of Indian history. In fact, I like your history series. I am more aware of the world around me. You are some man for one man Sal. Thank you.
Everytime I heard story about India and conquest of Alexander they say, Alexander retreat his Army. Alexander's army were tired after being away from home. He let the indian region as it is. But, why can't people simply say he was badly defeated in the battle. The guy who conquered everything on his way simply left India untouched is a flat lie to believe. There was a battle between two armies were Alexander was badly defeated before he retreat his army. History must be told truthfully.
Alexander hadn't the courage to enter even India................It was his cowardness.
You have only one Alexander and you europeans are dancing for him.
We hindus have great great fathers of Alexander and then also, we are not in overpride for it........................
He was scared after war with Porus, king of Punjab
some more points for interested students - Dhamma is pali language word for sanskrit word - Dharma. Pali was the vernacular langauge in those times. Ashoka's daughter Sangamitra was sent to Sri Lanka to spread the message of Buddha and today Srilanka is buddhist major country. Also Ashoka is credited to have created world's first ever secular state because in his eddicts he wanted goverance of peaceful co-existence of hindusm and buddhism
Without 1 man named kautilya Chanakya this story is not complete
chankaya is basturd person
chankaya is a selfish man who only used Chandra in order to settle his grudge
_akhii 99 he also wanted to unite the sub Continent to make it strong
@@pravinsalunke...1762 chutiye
@@warriorbrahmin7679 दिखादि ना अपनी औकात चुतिया बोलके
Incredibly interesting. Thank you for taking the time and energy to create this and educate us.
Sal, I watched more than 2,000 of your videos which helped me a lot; one billion thanks to you!
吴艳辉 me 2 trillion
Gangaridai or Nanda empire: indian empire in 300 BC the only one which Alexander the Great did not chose to fight because of the thousands of strong elephants and his soldier's exhustion and willingness to return home.
@Akhil Raghuram Iyer nice joke mr dravidian.
@@мувн-ш4ы Bro no abuses.
Yes he signed a peace treaty with Dhana Nanda as he became sick after his fight with Porus. He was also afraid of the elephants of Dhana Nanda
India was super power From 1st century to 15th century
Dumb statement. Bharat was not as united, after the Mauryan Empire, for centuries.
@@jonsnow1055 Mauryan,Gupta and Cholas made India Superpower
Cholas ruled South-East Asia
@@bhanupratap1063 Only Mauryan Empire united India. No one else. After than Mughals under Aurangzeb and then the British.
Ashoka has a empire till afganistan
because James Princep in early 18 find the last writen script piller in afganistan
and connect the devnam priyadasi is name of ashok
Keep dreaming, this empire never reached Afghanistan. Afghans haven't even heard of the Maryuan empire.
Afghan Lion that's because you guy's have been brainwashed for more than 1000 years but evidences don't lie.
Amrutkar Saurabh Your're the one who is brainwashed, you think Islam is bad and Muslims are your enemy. And btw, we Afghans ruled you not the other way around.
@@TheAfghan72 bro we are descendents of mauryan empire of magadha . Which ruled afghanistan in around 2nd or 3rd century BC. Go and read on the internet.Try to accept the truth.
satyam jha No Indian has never ruled past the Indus, you were ruled by Afghans with countless different empires which is why North Indian culture has Afghan and Mughal influence.
The Maryuans empire's boundary is seriously debated, i don't think they got past Gujrat.
King Ashoka was more mature , humane and modern than modern day leaders...
nepaliman yeah killing my brave odia (kaligas) ppl as n NANDA I prefer my surname the NANDA EMPIRE
nepaliman maybe that's why he raped,looted n killed many odias? N maybe that's why he was called chandashok?....
Niko Bellic Nanda Empire wasnt from Odessa. They were considered 'bandits' that raided Pataliputra and claimed Magdha. They never conquered Kalinga... Plus you are a fool if you believe the Mauryans were evil, they were the first human civilization to establish concrete human and animal rights. Additionally they were the first to ban slavery, something the Muslim slave (Mamaluke) dynasties, colonial Empires, and America would practice millenniums later.
@@TheKingkaushik if they banned slavery what do you call the low caste dalits and shudras
@@jesussleptwithhismamaandga2497 The Mauryan Empire was Jain then Buddhist, neither enforces cast or class system. Try not to undermine slavery by equating it to a feudal system....
Pakistan,Nepal,India,Sri Lanka,Bangladesh and Bhutan all was part of Akhand Bharat of Mauryan empire.
Kartikey Singh you wrong budy... please you must study history
Not sri lanka
A J Sri Lanka accepted it's dominance
South India Nd srilanka not part of akhand Barath of mouryan empire
Afganistan and parts of iran too
8:12 Get your facts right. Ashoka was already a Buddhist before Kalinga war. In that statement which you just read "Beloved of the Gods came to feel a strong inclination towards the Dhamma", he is not saying that he has changed his philosophy or faith, it simply means that he was not serious before, but now he is. Most of the people take this point as conversion but it is not true. He built 84,000 Buddhist stupas, sent Buddhist monks as far as Egypt but the memory of these events faded over the time. But in the eastern countries, we can see its effects. Today Theravada Buddhism exists in Thailand, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Laos and Cambodia only because of him.
Abhishek Maurya nope it's even debatable if he took buddhism let alone being already buddhist and there is no proof of him being buddhist no one in his family was one why would he take it
panda in a bambo You must have studied a lot about him that you came to this conclusion, could you tell me what did you study exactly? 😂
Yea his writings indicate that he gravitated towards what was always known to him and not something he discovered freshly. Anyways, Maurya sahab, are you a direct decendent of the Mauryas by any chance? (or even of Ashoka)
But why in India Buddhists are less now ?
@@NatrajChaturvedi No man😂. He can't prove that. They are from the same clan possibly or maybe they just took this name.
Ahsoka Tano was a Jedi Padawan with interesting parallels.
Some of the characters from star wars and some of the stories are inspired by Indian history and mythology .Lucas was heavily influenced by Joseph Campbell, the famed mythologist was a friend of lucas who's work was primarly eastern mythology.
the concept of nation state was established during this period
please elucidate and cite your sources.
Alexander the great never defeat indian king porus
They make a deal
No he won and showed his mercy
@@g-rexsaurus794 nope wrong history
@@ViratKohli-jj3wj hey are you real viral kohli
@@dustudent1637 The only joke here is you upvoting your own comments
@@ajaysarathythee 1) Porus did become Alexander's satrap.
2) Alexander troops wanted to stop before India, it was just a convenient place to stop.
"Hail our king Porush"
He's not "your" king, he lived in Pakistan.
Alexander was defeated...
Ugh no?
raghav joshi strategically yes, tactically no
He just never made it home.
raghav joshi Chandragupta first conquered the Nanda Empire, the entity that Alexander's army refused to fight. He then conquered the Macedonians in the Seleucid-Mauryan War. Alexander retreated and died before before Chandragupta was born.
Alexander lost to minor king Porus(purushottam) of india who don't even get much mention in indian history.... Alexander would have easily lost to Chandragupt or Ashoka if he had faced them in their time..👍
u must mention chanakya(kautilya)
great tutorial all under one roof
hit like if you are from south east asia primarily india
alexander dd not conquer. he just equalled a satrap porus. hit by arrows and feverish gets back and dies on way back
yep actually the fact is European historian never admit about their defeat.
Actually Alexander was afraid to fight with the nanda empire because they have 4x army
He did not die on his way back, he survived and died FOR OTHER REASONS
@@g-rexsaurus794 yes he died returning to Babylon. ...injured by a arrow hit on him
@@jakharkartik1152 No he died IN Babylon, after some time he spent staying there.
He had time to organize and execute large scale mass marriages too.
Super story 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
the way he pronounced Buddha is the real way to pronounce it
It differs from person to person. It's called accent. You would be familiar with it.
@@sunnyjoseph558 Did you mean accent?
@@ericbateman1649 yeah. But sometimes we do mistakes.
@@sunnyjoseph558 Not when it comes to names in the language of their Origin.
Buddha is a name with Sanskrit origins, So Sanskrit Pronounciation is the accurate one.
Hey let's not judge someone's accent
Always excellent video! I appreciate your works! The recent archaeological excavation suggest that Buddha might had born before it's imagined, perhaps 6th century BCE.
Only Samraat Ashok Mahaan is Great.
Yeah
Chandragupt maurya is greatest ruler of india
terror noob haha then all chola kings must above them 😂😂
@@ஞமலிவளவன்
This means you are more intelligent than Albert Einstein.
Hahahahahahahahahahhahaha.
@@ஞமலிவளவன் cholas had best market selling and best Navy so he decided not to attack them
MOST PEACEFUL & MOST KIND , and good quality people & GREAT RULERS OF HINDUSTANI NATION.
LOVE ALL HINDUSTANI PEOPLE.
RAFI MAINE USA
That was a wonderful lecture. Thank you.
Wow this video is very interesting
Thanks for the review!
Baap of all king 👑👑👑 jai ashok mhan🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳🚩🚩🚩
thank you Mr khan , i believe you are having so much trouble to stay unbiased ... cause you dont want to start another youtube comment war ... :D
nepaliman 😂
Nanda was more powerful than the Alexander
Even king Purushottam was much better than Alexander.
@@dustudent1637 they are defeated by alexzander
@@tasnubarahman6068
In your imagination
@@tasnubarahman6068 what is "they"????
Alexander never fought with nanda.
You don't know even that.
So what we can expect from such a guy who don't know even this????
Porus's real name was Purushottam....
Alexander was great until he fought with king Purushottam....
There were other kingdoms too in India ffom which Alexander never fought.
There is no proof of Alexander's victory in battle of hydaspes.😎😎😎😎😎
I saw this empire in the imperator: rome game and want to know the history of this gaint empire.
That's good for me.
You are presenting a wrong map as modern day Iran and Afghanistan were also the part of Ashokas empire
No alexander conquered that...
porus shattered his coinfidence
Yes.
That is why, I am proud to be an indian and hindu.
Alexander was scared of Nanda empire. This is a simple fact.
Source: trust me bro
Alexander came and told u na..nice
@@taslimakhan9476
Lol..... here we are talking about ancient dynasties... not religon like you guys.
Nanda dynasty was the most powerful dynasty of its time....
We are talking about the time when even christianity didn't existed.
Have you ever tried to find out that what was the military size of Dhanananda?
Do you think ancient writers who were contemporary time of Alexander will write he was scared of Nanda?
Do macedonians wanted to insult themselves by writing such things?
RIP your logic!!!!!!!!
@@taslimakhan9476 No, he is actually right.
Alexander told about an Indian empire in east with 200k infantry and 6000 war elephants.
He was written by Curtius, Diodorus, Plutarch.
Alexander returned after stiff resistance that they had met in north-western India and hearing about a further powerful indian empire in east waiting for his exhausted army
@@dustudent1637 No, he is actually right.
Alexander told about an Indian empire in east with 200k infantry and 6000 war elephants.
He was written by Greek writer like Curtius, Diodorus, Plutarch about nanda strength
Alexander returned after stiff resistance that they had met in north-western India and hearing about a further powerful indian empire in east waiting for his exhausted army
@@reddragon100
?
very clear.thank you
I just have to write 10 facts I learned from here... honestly these comments help lol
Ashoka was great king.
Good # Uma Wisdom
Good history lesson but why not you mentioned about charkhaya and its codes of laws.
Whitout chanakya, talking about mauryan empire is not complete.
Who established mauryan empire, he trained Chandragupta, who was just poor child
Well explained ❤️💕
This is very important for us
So, Ashoka has PTSD. Sort of.
When Khan Academy talks about Anakin's padawan…
The Sudanese also tell stories of a king called Asoka, but there ia less traces of him
Cheryl Blandin interesting is there more info
Good touch showing a map and explanation.
old school memories😑😑
Interesting...
I live in Patna(patliputra)
Patna Pirates. Putra means son if I understand correctly. So who is Patli?
@@djmuscovy7525 yes putra means son but don't know name connection with city
Dear Dong Jiang , don't ask reason about everything from Indians because Turks , Afghani and Mughals had destroyed Takshila University , Vikramshila University , Nalanda University of india and in these University library everything about history ,ved ,aayurved , war strategies and defence arts and economy managements , metallurgy , chemistry, phyiscs, mathematics, statistics , numerology , astronomy books are there which was burnt down into ashes . Few manuscripts are left though . It is my believe that Patliputra name was derived from any great king of history which was born in that place and Patli must be his mother's / father's name because it is an Indian tradition to call son's/daughter's by their mother's name or father's name . Thankyou 🙏
Iran Afganistan Pakistan Nepal India Bangladesh Bhutan Srilanka Verma/Myanmar Tibet Thailand Indonesia North Korea South Korea Japan Laos Vietnam Cambodia Magnolia Chinese Buddhist States Malaysia Philippines etc. were the kingdoms ruled under the empire of Chakravarti Samrat Ashoka Maurya (Magadha Empire) The Great Emperor Ashoka ordered those kingdoms to accept and declared Buddhism their State's religion and all accepted it, then Emperor Ashoka told them they were running as their kingdoms by their own ways but under the unseen Empireship of The Great Samrat Ashoka... The Maurya Empire.
Not in iran and other countries
watching this for the AP world exam tomorrow. good luck everybody
Alexander not the great.
I know this is a year old but still but I'm with you. The man named Porus is a forgotten name. The man who stop Alexander the not great
Alexander was quite great, as his empire stretched from east Europe, north Africa, and all of middle east. When a empire becomes a giant, it becomes hard to maintain especially with different races of people/tribes, cultures, languages, and their religions. Since, Hind only had a main religion, Hinduism, that other religions rooted from like Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and etc, the empire in Hind would be easier maintain since people practiced the same religion and the culture was quite identical. Also, the ruler wouldn't have any issues communicating because they will have servants whom would have a role of CM for each of their respective states. The mistake that Alexander did was that he didn't have much trust with influential people in his empire that they have conquered, so they can be CM but only having Greeks to rule them. That's why this large empire crumbled.
@@GhulamMustafa-pn2xi thats true, but that's not what happened with Alexander. Search up porus and mauryan empire.
@@GhulamMustafa-pn2xi there was no Sikhism back then but I get what your saying. I think Alexander is great because the war with Porus was massively devastated. He almost lost,but he managed to defeat porus. At the end he captured Porus and asked him "What should I do with you" and porus replied,"you do what a king does to another king". After that statement Alexander was shocked and became friends and give him more land to his kingdom. Thats way I think he's great. To add on. Alexander's commander seleculus assissnated Porus while he was sleeping so that shows how coward the people were. To back to the point, my reason why Alexander is great is different than yours. A real great general and king is Chandragupta Muarya and Ashoka. I recommend looking those two up
@@vengeancecreed217 Porus lost to Alexander, but the later was great enough not to kill him or remove him from power
U should mention about kautilya
8:56 that is NOT 50% larger bro hahaha no way, maybe like 10-20% since its missing a chunk in the south plus in the east
Finally we have accurate pronunciations!
Live classes
Its not pataaliputra. It's Patliputra ( pronounciation )
Han ok
can you do some school grade accountancy fundamentals and business studies? appreciate the works 👍
Life of peace after he killed millions
yea its called consolidation
Akbar did the same. Very similar to Ashoka.
NIce video
Alexzender was a great king he was just and adult and conquered so many kingdoms
He only fought with cowards.
When he was faced with king Purushottam, he ran away by wearing his underwear.
@@dustudent1637 What a stupid statement. He did not run away and neither did Puru. It's not a joke to conquer the Persian Empire, else others would have done it.
@@jonsnow1055
You are wrong.
It's not joke to conquer Indian empires in reality.
Read history of India.
don't you think why Persian Empire ( one of the strongest empire of that era ) adjacent to india never try to invade it . Also in Alexander biography it is written by Greeks themselves that they defeated porus but Alexander army quit to fight with Dhanand ( strongest king of that era of india ) , Magadh kingdom , thereafter he withdraw his army so why they attack other nations after india if they become kind towards porus and wants no more war
a sleepy story but nice for ISCE kids
ऋषभ जी ठीक लिखे हैं। उच्चारण सुधार लें, अंग्रेजों की नकल करने से ज्यादा जरूरी भारतीय श्रोताओं से अपने को जोड़ने की है:
ये पटालीपुत्रा, नन्दा, मोरिया क्या हैं, बिन दूसरा कौन हैं?
नकल की भी इंतहा हो गईं।
Nice video
khan ,can u give us time lapse of empires around the world.
just to get the full picture with reference of the linked vid.
Al-Ikram Chowdory yeah that would be an amazing video
Asho kha the great.
He killed 100 of his brothers to attain throne.
Not 100 but 6. And that also due to depression.
Buddhist texts lies for it, to prove Buddhism as great.
Ashoka united India
Things depicted here as Indian history is as always from European sources. There is no true evidence that the English and european source of Indian history is true. In fact the Aadi Sankaracharya is said to be born during 6 to 7 century as per English historians . But Kanchi Matt can easily trace back the birth of Aadi Sankara to BCE (before common era). And Chandragupta Maurya was never the contemporary of Alexander. Magadhans were never mauryans. Mauryas and Magadhans are different dynasties. Actually what we learn as history is rubbish.
heliyindia is there any other source? if there is, its terribly terribly preserved. For those of us curious enough, the british or western accounts are enough to feel some sense of pride in our ancient ancestors at least.
Chandragupta was not a contemporary of Alexander. He was a contemporary of Seleucus. Idk what are you smoking. No European historian has said what you stated.
Are u mad.. U don't have any record of ancient history..
It was Britishers who found indus valley civilisation, it was Britishers who decoded the language of Gupta period and Ashoka period..
Just U were interested in writing about superman and batsman like Ram or krishna
How is his accent soooo good omg
Wow😆😆😆😆
Sir dpf please
It was much bigger in west it reached till Iran and Central Asia
What happened after Ashoka?
As per true chronology of ancient India,
*Maurya empire"
Chandragupta Maurya and Bindusara ruled for 24 and 25 yrs respectively from 999 to 950BC
Ashoka 950 - 913BC
Decline of Mauryas 864BC
*Sungas and Kanvas* 864 to 807BC
*Satavahanas* ruled for about 450 yrs
With the first invasion of India by
Persians and Sakas between 600 and 350BC
*Gupta Empire*
Chandra Gupta I 320 - 310BC
Samudra Gupta 310 - 265BC
Chandra Gupta II 264 - 226BC
and so on
east india (bihar bengal and orisa) were birth of indian civilizations. today they are racially attacked by other indians.
I am sorry some Indians racially attack them.
add uttar pradesh as well.
@@abhishekkj9664 uttar pradesh can be included in this list as well
who else watching 1 day before history exam making notes?
only me? kk lmao
Me 😂
The best is Gupta Empire
If u agree
Shaukat khan 786
The great king of india
Alexander the fake lost
distracting how this narrator says Biddah and swallows into the mic
Anyone else think of Star Wars?
Ashok Chakravarti is Real
Ur topic on Aryan invasion theory is wrong boz it was strategy of British to divide Indian into Aryan and Dravidian go and check expose of the theory by Dr Rajiv malhotra
Rajiv Malhotra is not the gospel. And it's not an invasion theory as stated by the British. After research done post the British era upto recent times, it has been proved to be an Aryan migration. Migrations have occurred throughout human history.
The Maur Jatts of Northern India are the direct clan descendants of the Mauryan Empire.
Idiot he wasn't a jatt , he was intelligent
Get more visuals than lots of talks n lecture like storytelling
tasyashila nalnda and Vikram all history the great samrat Ashok empayer
No second map is inappropriate
great video, but a pain in the ears with that pronunciation of places and kings
where is bindusara
It is not king 'piyadasi' it is 'priyedershi' means very handsome.And hindi meaning of 'beloved of the god' is devpriye or devanpriye.
Ashoka 🛞
chukra not chaakraa
why does Sal pronounce Buddhism like that?, is that the pronunciation in Bangladesh?
I was with you until sanskrit being the oldest language in the world, it is pretty old but it comes from Indoeuropean
Languages chance and evolve, sanskrit was not the first language, the language it cam from is called "Indoeuropean" by linguists, because from it most language in europe and India come from
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_family
Sanskrit is the oldest language still spoken, but there are languages that are 1000-1500 years older (at least) than it it.
@@falnica it is the oldest surviving language
Thats a Mauryan Empire.
hello sir, i want to know that are all 14 edicts contains same contents from 1-14 ? or are they contains edicts individually for different region? like Kandahar edict contains 12-13 and Girnar, Gujarat edict contains 14?
It's interesting how in the comment section of a video talking about Chandragupta and Ashoka many statements concern how Alexander wasn't all that great. I guess I'm adding to it with my own opinion by saying that I also think that Alexander of Macedon is a tremendously overrated individual in world history. The one thing he was really good at was seizing opportunities and leading by example. That's how he defeated the Persian Empire and became it's new emperor and the Pharaoh of Egypt. But he was terrible at pretty much anything else that is required to rule anything resembling a state. He wasn't a great politician and he didn't care much for economics. Even as a general his abilities were more limited than people tend to realize.
And thus, his empire which was in essence a merging of different civilizations was doomed from the beginning. As it was built on top of what amounted to one huge ponzi scheme. He kept those who followed him from battle to battle in line only by rewarding them with the recently won "spoils of war" and the newly conquered people were likewise recruited into Alexander's warmachine by the promise of the spoils of war of battles which were still to come.
That's why Alexander kept expanding further and further eastward. To keep the pyramid scheme running. But the further he went the more desparate his bids for power had to be to make up for all the promises he had given to all the people who followed him.
Sooner or later it would have broken down anyway. Not even remaining victorious in every battle would have been able to save his "empire". Thus he was lucky to suffer defeat at some point and have people on the second rung of his empire's hierarchy ladder, which were very ambitious. Because these circumstances allow us to be fooled into thinking that Alexander had some sort of plan lined out by which his empire could have survived his demise. Both assumptions are wrong. He had no real plan and even if he had had one, it wouldn't have sufficed to save him or his empire.
Hence, get over Alexander the Great. It's probably not worth your time debating how he was or wasn't great.
Firangi tone kahan se aayi.indian accent me baat karo.ias india ka banna hai,england ka nahi
Amit Kumar 😂😂😂😂
Ab India ki history angrej padhayenge
C'était mieux avant.