Comments by "Mint" (@mint8648) on "MasterofRoflness"
channel.
-
58
-
56
-
47
-
36
-
30
-
29
-
24
-
22
-
20
-
20
-
19
-
18
-
16
-
14
-
14
-
14
-
13
-
12
-
11
-
11
-
11
-
10
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@kmmmsyr9883 Susan Bayly, an anthropologist, notes that "caste is not and never has been a fixed fact of Indian life" and the caste system as we know it today, as a "ritualised scheme of social stratification," developed in two stages during the post-Mughal period, in 18th and early 19th century. Three sets of value played an important role in this development: priestly hierarchy, kingship, and armed ascetics.
Michael Wood affirms the same for the ancient period, caste before the early modern period was never what we think of it today.
About Vijayanagara:
The Hindu caste system was prevalent and it influenced daily life in the empire. The rulers who occupied the top of this hierarchy assumed the honorific Varnasramadharma (lit, "helpers of the four castes"). According to Talbot, caste was more importantly determined by occupation or the professional community people belonged to, although the family lineage (Gotra) and the broad distinction described in sacred Hindu texts (the four Varnas; namely the Brahmin or priestly, the Kshatriya or warrior, the Vaishya or merchant and the Shudra or artisan) were also factors. The structure also contained sub-castes (Jati) and caste clusters.[90] According to Vanina, caste as a social identity was not fixed and was constantly changed for reasons including polity, trade and commerce, and was usually determined by context.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@fieldagent7170 The afghans living in afghanistan are the same ones as the people who lived there four thousand years ago. They were always iranic peoples even when hindu. And what makes you think the franks, anglo saxons, visigoths, rus, seljuk turks aren’t invaders but the ghazanavids and ghurids and americans are? there’s literally no difference between these invaders that you can use to victimize india and only india instead of the other countries. and japan was as chinese as afghanistan was indian. meaning, afghanistan wasn’t all that indian anyways, it was always inhabited iranic peoples. japan was always inhabited by japanese, they just shared chinese style buddhism and confucianism, unless, of course, you want to claim japan is a part of india since they are buddhist.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@rafaelglopezroman1110 the mughal empire before 1707 was centralized. absolutist prussia and france are small footnotes in history. for much of european history, the kingdoms were extremely decentralized, and nobility mattered a lot. spain, austria, england, the holy roman empire, nor the kingdom of italy were nowhere near as centralized as france, for instance. And absolutist france didn’t abolish feudalism, that was done by french revolutionaries. And the nation state you are talking about is hindustan, hindustan was the closest thing to an official name for the Mughal empire, it had been in use since the delhi sultanate. Outsiders like nader shah also called the mughal empire hindustan even though they did not rule all of india at the time. This is because hindustan sometimes only meant the gangetic plain, as opposed to all of india. So when mughal empire collapsed, the mughals still ruled most of the gangetic plain, they had a smaller and less diverse empire and their people in delhi were very loyal until the very end of the sepoy mutiny.
1
-
1
-
@jupe2001 what you say is simply not true. the maratha empire was anything but centralized. tax collection was completely random depedning on the province, unlike the mughal empire, which had an efficient administration. otherwisee, how was it able to suck up 20% of india’s gdp for the court. the coinage was also established and standardized, unlike in the maratha empire. in general, living in the maratha empire would be more chaotic than in the mughal one; maratha empire depended somewhat on the plunder of enemy territories; notice how they repeatedly but sporadically raided bengal. the only territory directly ruled by the marathas was pune or maharashtra. the only territory indirectly ruled by the mughals was rajasthan. notice how most mughal territories were collectively called subahs or provinces, while marathas were a collection of vassals made up of maratha clans; nagpur, holkars, indores to name a few. there’s a reason the marathas were called the maratha confederacy, mughals were never called the mughal confederacy. and the fact that mughals used persian or turkic administrators proves that the mughal empire was centralized because it can use foreigners to directly rule its territories and didn’t need to depend on locals for administrators, like in a decentralized empire.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Uzun Hasan's conquest of most of mainland Iran shifted the seat of power to the east, where the Aq Qoyunlu adopted Iranian customs for administration and culture. In the Iranian areas, Uzun Hasan preserved the previous bureaucratic structure along with its secretaries, who belonged to families that had in a number of instances served under different dynasties for several generations.[3] The four top civil posts of the Aq Qoyunlu were all occupied by Iranians, which under Uzun Hasan included; the vizier, who led the great council (divan); the mostawfi al-mamalek, high-ranking financial accountants; the mohrdar, who affixed the state seal; and the marakur "stable master", who supervised the royal court.[3]
Culture flourished under the Aq Qoyunlu, who, although of coming from a Turkic background, sponsored Iranian culture. Uzun Hasan himself adopted it and ruled in the style of an Iranian king. Despite his Turkoman background, he was proud of being an Iranian.[44] At his new capital, Tabriz, he managed a refined Persian court. There he utilized the trappings of pre-Islamic Persian royalty and bureaucrats taken from several earlier Iranian regimes. Through the use of his increasing revenue, Uzun Hasan was able to buy the approval of the ulama (clergy) and the mainly Iranian urban elite, while also taking care of the impoverished rural inhabitants.[43]
In letters from the Ottoman Sultans, when addressing the kings of Aq Qoyunlu, such titles as Arabic: ملك الملوك الأيرانية "King of Iranian Kings", Arabic: سلطان السلاطين الإيرانية "Sultan of Iranian Sultans", Persian: شاهنشاه ایران خدیو عجم Shāhanshāh-e Irān Khadiv-e Ajam "Shahanshah of Iran and Ruler of Persia", Jamshid shawkat va Fereydun rāyat va Dārā derāyat "Powerful like Jamshid, flag of Fereydun and wise like Darius" have been used.[45] Uzun Hassan also held the title Padishah-i Irān "Padishah of Iran", which was re-adopted by his distaff grandson Ismail I, founder of the Safavid Empire.[46]
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1