It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

The Ancients Series | Part II: Indians

page: 7
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in


posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 01:26 PM
reply to post by undo

Most of the translations available in sacred texts are a huge farce. The gods indra, varuna, vayu are all greek hellenistic gods. When alexander conquered India he established the greek gods by camouflaging it with Indian traditions and cultures. He did that in every place he conquered. Mithra is a Persian/Zoroastrian god whose name has been added in the Vedas. So as you can see the texts have been corrupted over and over again.

That civilization is dead and gone. It ended with the Mahabaratha. After the mahabaratha the vedas were divided into 4 which was infact 1 and should not have been divided. Further with natural calamities, alexander's conquest, Mughal conquest, british rule it has completely disappeared.
So my opinion is go get a life :-)

Civilizations come, civilizations go, religions come and religions go. The grain of sand called earth will in time be lost, just a figment of imagination. So no use beating our brains out trying to find the unfindable!

posted on Dec, 14 2009 @ 10:33 PM
reply to post by CuteAngel

I am not sure where you are getting this from Cuteangel. Indra, Varuna and Mitra are definitely Vedic gods and much older than the Greek gods. They are first mentioned in the Rig Veda, which is the oldest of Indo-European texts(1500BCE, Western date)

Secondly, Alexander never actually invaded India. This is a myth, he headed towards India with a huge army and was able to move in on the outskirts of India and due to to his poor geographical knowledge of India he declared he had entered into India, but he was easily repulsed by the Indian forces and the minor king Porus. The battle was so minor that Indian history did not even record it. The clue is of course that Alexander and his men retreated and were terrified of the Indian army, Alexander suffered heavily from this physically and psychologically and shortly died.

Alexander had no reply to the questions posed by Porus. Instead, with the obstinacy of a bully, he said: ``I shall contend and do battle with you so far that, howsoever obliging you are, you shall not have the better of me.'' But Porus did have the better of Alexander. In the fighting that ensued, the Greeks were so terrified of Indian prowess that they refused to proceed farther, in spite of Alexander's angry urgings and piteous lamentations. Writes Plutarch, the great Greek historian: ``This last combat with Porus took off the edge of the Macedonians' courage and stayed their further progress in India.... Alexander not only offered Porus to govern his own kingdom as satrap under himself but gave him also the additional territory of various independent tribes whom he had subdued.'' Porus emerged from his war with Alexander with his territory doubled and his gold stock augmented. So much for Alexander's ``victory'' over Porus. However, what was to befall him in Sindh, was even worse.

In his wars in Iran. Afghanistan, and north-west India,. Alexander had made so many enemies that he did not dare return home by the same route he had come. He had, therefore, decided to travel via Sindh. But in Multan the Mallas gave him hell.

Jawaharlal Nehru in his book Discovery of India says, " From a military point of view his invasion, was a minor affair. It was more of a raid across the border, and not a very successful raid at that." He met with such stout resistance from a border chieftain that the contemplated advance into the heart of India had to be reconsidered. If a small ruler on the frontier could fight thus, what of the larger and more powerful kingdom further south? Probably this was the main reason why his army refused to march further and insisted on returning."

I think what we need to realise, which has somewhat come up in this thread, that a lot of Indian history is fabricated by British historians for colonial agendas. And it is unfortunate that this has not been put right sooner, but modern scholars and historians are starting to revise the errors. Some common myths we learn in Indian history

1) Aryans, white-skinned people invaded India(dark skinned people) in 1500BCE. This is rubbish. There is no such thing as an Aryan race of people, no evidence whatsoever. Nothing mentioned in literature of this invasion and no archeological evidence. It's completely fabricated and was used as an ideology to justify colonial rule of India.

2) The empire of Chandragupta Mauraya was a contemporary of Alexander the great. This is not true, there were two Chandraguptas: Chandragupta Maurya and Chandragupta Gupta and Chandragupta Gupta was considerably later than Mauraya by at least a millenia according to Indian records. Historians have confused Chandragupta Mauraya with Chandragupta Gupta. Based on that they have derived the date of Buddha as 500BCE. In actual fact, according to Indian records it is 1800BCE.

3) India was a poor and uncivilised country prior to British colonialism. Again this is rubbish. India had a 20% share of the worlds GDP when the East India company was set up, it was a leading producer of goods(cotton, spices, dyes, ships) and it had extensive schools and colleges. It was systematically deindustralized and made poor by the British empire and with engineered famines.

It is going to have to be the job of 21st century scholars and historians to revise the errors of 19th and 20th century colonial historians on India. We know what they have done and we should not let their lies be perpetuated any further.


The real history of India as soon as we correct all the distortions in terms of major dates we find Indian history begins around 7000BCE in the Indus valley and then develops continuously and by 3000BCE it becomes highly urbanized and has global influence with extensive trade networks with many distant parts of the world and this is the period when the Mahabharata war take places and Krishna lives. By 1700BCE there is a decline due to ecological and climate changes and maybe due to the war. At this point we can see evidence of migrations of Indians around the world with the emergence of Zoroastrianism in Persia and kingsdoms in West Asia with Indian names. This is also the period when rival religions form like Buddhism and Jainism in India to challenge the corrupted Brahamanical religion. It is the time when the Mauraya empire is set-up and when Panini writes his Sanskrit grammar. This is the period when Indian philosophy starts to flourish and hence we start to see the beginning of philosophy around this period around the world and by 1000BCE it appears in Greece.

Indian civiilization is therefore alongside Sumeria the oldest civilisation in the world. They also appear to have been rivals. Western historians have deliberately looked for very early dates for Sumeria pushing it back near biblial creation dates(4000BCE) and very late dates for the Indians. And pushing India's literature period(vedic) to 1500BCE. However, we know for a fact that the Indus people were literate and therefore the literature period took place during the Indus period. Moreover, the literature describe an urban India just like what has been found with indus people. It is only a case of putting 2 and 2 together.

So in 3000BCE Indian civilisation was a highly urbanized and literate civilisation with modern-like levels of scientific and philosophical developmet. It is easily the most advanced civilisation of the ancient world.

[edit on 14-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]

posted on Dec, 15 2009 @ 01:44 AM
reply to post by CuteAngel

go back further. the etymology of the hindu gods and similarity to grecian and roman equivalents is not a mistake. they are quite old. they predate alexander and even babylon. further back you must go, grasshopper

posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 08:00 AM
just found this thread. interesting topic

posted on Aug, 26 2016 @ 08:22 AM

originally posted by: serbsta
8 flags and 0 replies?

Eeeek, that makes me uncomfortable.

Why? Its a good thread. I have nothing to add. And I flagged it.

I think alot of people don't get the star and flag thing. There are plenty of very active threads with good discussions that don't have a flag count that matches the activity. I give flags if the thread is thought provoking regardless if I agree with the topic or not.

top topics
<< 4  5  6   >>

log in