7 x headed serpent + Man bags

Post Reply New Topic

Not sure if you know much about India. But prior to the muslim invasions there were no palaces or houses. the largest building in any village was the temple. Common people lived in mud brick with thatched roofing.

tiled rooves and clay bricks, mausoleums and palaces were only introduced from Mughal times 1500AD and became more widespread after European influence. It had nothing to do with being Euro-centric, India is hot tropical and these types of structures were unnecessary when its warm 12 months of the year.

the temple you posted is not uncommon and is a product of local hindu empires who paid homage to their religion. It involves sacred design and construction for religious reasons but (for the purposes of this silly argument) was not designed for houses or palaces. In ancient times Hindu kings lived in wooden structures not in giant palaces. Hindu palaces was not a thing until after the muslim invasions.

Oh and one more point. In hindu belief no building could exceed the height of a temple, therefore hindu kings could not build palaces. In addition it was more practical in the tropics to build structures out of wood and mud brick.

Do you care to cite anything to support your claims. If they're true it should be easy to find support for them.

From https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Mohenjo-daro:

So they had fortifications even if no city walls.

For what it's worth, we have no city walls where I live but it certainly has a periphery.

I can, I just need to locate some sources and I'll share them.

It's been well established that people whom the city dwellers were protecting themselves against behind the walls were the semi-nomadic pastoralist Indo-European speaking (the ancestors of the modern sanskrit/Hindi language speakers) who divided their time between cattle herding and raiding (a practice all Indo-European horse tribes engaged in which explains their sudden and widespread dispersal conquering lands and murdering people from the border of China all the way to the Atlantic ocean and south the Vindhaya mountains of India,

the Rigveda hymns of these beef eating, alcohol swilling pastoralists hail the sacking and destruction of fortifications of their enemies. Quite clearly hinduism wasn't something they bought to India.

Please do, because some of what you're claiming would make India completely out of step with the entire rest of Eurasia, including much of the world that was influenced by India, as well as the entire rest of the Indo-European world.

Simply from a logical standpoint, it's unlikely that it wouldn't have been until the Muslims arrived that a typical Indo-European society would have emerged (you know, with a distinct warrior caste and elites tied to the warrior and priestly castes).

Even if IVC was especially egalitarian, there's no reason to assume a monoculture within the area they controlled, and even less so as you cross through the periphery and into regions they could not exert control over.

Even if there was a monoculture, it's unlikely it would have survived the entire ~2800 year period you're suggesting India remained basically stagnant (until the arrival of the Mughals). Remember, India was repeatedly invaded in that period as well as having plenty of internal conflicts.

Mohenjo-daro might have been a remarkably large city, but when I read it sounds like between 1 and 5 million people actually lived under the IVC at it's peak. The 30-60k living in Mohenjo-daro and Harappa are only a small fraction of the total number. To suggest that they were all roughly equal in standard of living seems far-fetched.

Wait, what? I never said muslims bought an IE society?
I said they introduced brick buildings for palaces and houses, not because they were advanced, but because this form of building/architecture is suited to colder climes.

this why the brick constructions of the IVC is so interesting in that it predates the rise of what is India by thousands of years.

Prior to the Mughals. the tribes who invaded India came through the Khyber pass and were predominantly nomads who didn't have any technology of note.

Might and could means its only speculation. In addition 11,600 year old Gobleke tepe archaelogists are at great pains to claim the population must have lived on the periphery and label them as "hunter gatherers"