[merve_extreme]

double post...........

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by merve_extreme

British came to india even before Napolean was born.so they were not afraid of Napolean.

Alright, this is really scary. I was never in an argument where the opponent kept giving references supporting my arguments.

Let me revisit the statement I made...

Originally Posted by Samurai

IF British didn't come to India, they couldn't have defended against Napolean.

Well, Napolean was the most powerful general/emperor of his time, even more powerful than the British. The spanish, prussians, germans, I mean all the major european powers except russia was under him and their soldiers were fighting his battles.

Nepolean's military power was so immense, he could have overrun entire England many times over IF (big IF) he could have gotten his soldiers across the English channel. But he couldn't.

Meanwhile British had money power, they had developed the most powerful Navy the world had ever seen, because they wanted to protect their trade ships (read East India Company's) from pirates and other hostile powers. They could build such a Navy because of the riches looted from India since 1757 (thanks for the date, I didn't remember). By the time Napolean captured most of Europe and became the most powerful general of his time, British had the most powerful Navy in the world, financed by India.

If Napolean's army had managed to cross the English channel, England would have been toast. However, the British knew this and therefore used their advantage brilliantly. They maintained seige over every French sea port and every sea port in Europe that was under French control. In other words, Napolean just couldn't get a single war-ship or trade ship safely out of his sea ports. Therefore, he could never transport his huge army across the tiny English Channel. This seige was maintained for more than a decade until Napolean was defeated. They got this naval power thanks to the trading/looting they did since 1757...

Go ahead, use your worldbook and disprove my argument...

[merve_extreme]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Alright, this is really scary. I was never in an argument where the opponent kept giving references supporting my arguments.

Let me revisit the statement I made...

Well, Napolean was the most powerful general/emperor of his time, even more powerful than the British. The spanish, prussians, germans, I mean all the major european powers except russia was under him and their soldiers were fighting his battles.

so u are telling now that britan knew 150 years ago that a man called Napolean was going to be born and hence they came to india,stole our wealth and build a navy to protect their land against napolean.

and from where did u get that britan stole our money and built their navy.they could have used american treasures.or is there a financial report on this that u dont want to refer to.

it was just a coincidence that britan had a strong navy when he was trying to conquer europe.and that navy was built by britan to protect its colonies and ships from any of its rivals or pirates and not france alone.

and what was france doing.they had also gained many colonies so why did they not built their navy.Even the greatest ruler in human history Alexander,the great was defeted in india,not because he had a small ineffecient army(infact he had a huge one),but because he could not fight elephant mounted soilders and engage in battles around forests.it was not that india has purposely used elephants to defeat him.

[v1p3r]

Ummm...Alexander was not defeated in India. He kinda whupped Porus/Puru's butt, but his troops threw up their arms and asked to go home.

[merve_extreme]

Originally Posted by v1p3r

Ummm...Alexander was not defeated in India. He kinda whupped Porus/Puru's butt, but his troops threw up their arms and asked to go home.

yes he was not actually defeated in war.he did defeat porus,but he lost so many troops because his troops were not trained to fight in the indian style.this coupled with the fact that his troops had grown home sick made him withdraw from india.but the elephants and forest proved very difficult for alexander.

porus was a bacha in front of alexander's might.

[v1p3r]

Just my 2+ cents...

The British obviously didn't have the welfare of us brownies and blackies in mind. BUT we do get to use a lot of their systems. And we should be grateful, even if it pure accident. Not grateful to them, but to God, who created some happy coincidences.

Take for example our forum. It runs on a British legacy. English. We all speak it. It's why we can go abroad to universities and do so well. It's why we have a huge outsourcing advantage. I doubt Bhojpuri would have helped.

There are so many others, from the railways to the postal service, to the babudom(should we be grateful?!), to the system of government and democracy, that we certainly wouldn't have in present form without the British.

And you must admit that the British were pretty nice about the independence deal. They could have just upped and left. Instead they stuck around, broke their heads for a few years, all to set up a working system of governance from which they would derive NOTHING.

No doubt there were atrocities. But what would you call Bhagalpur? Gujarat? Punjab? These are all state-sponsored acts of terror. By our very own government. Elected by you and me. So why single out someone who didn't even pretend to be serving our interest?

I'm sure I have already offended so many people. Flames will pour in. But I just had to speak up.

One more thing...please do not negate Mahatma Gandhi's contribution to India. It may be fashionable today, in the age of Gadar and Shaheed Bhagat Singh Bollycrap, to disparage or belittle his contribution, but what he did takes some *****. He pretty much turned ahimsa into a national concept, which worked. Civil disobedience laid the foundation for freedom. And the Mahatma started it all. There was a time when a half-naked fakir made the most powerful man in the world bow to his wishes.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win"

[adya33]

There are so many others, from the railways to the postal service, to the babudom(should we be grateful?!), to the system of government and democracy, that we certainly wouldn't have in present form without the British.

don't forget the MIDDLE CLASS

One more thing...please do not negate Mahatma Gandhi's contribution to India. It may be fashionable today, in the age of Gadar and Shaheed Bhagat Singh Bollycrap, to disparage or belittle his contribution, but what he did takes some *****. He pretty much turned ahimsa into a national concept, which worked. Civil disobedience laid the foundation for freedom. And the Mahatma started it all.

It was Lokmanya Tilak who started it all. After Lokmanya Tilak's death Mahatma Gandhi picked it up.

M Gandhi character is pretty debatable in history, just like the topic currently going.
He did a LOT for the country but at the same time there were some very wrong/incorrect moves.
And also don't forget the fact that it has been potrated for years as the Gandhi to be the only man because of whom we have got freedom (which is a complete bullsh*t if you ask me)

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by merve_extreme

so u are telling now that britan knew 150 years ago that a man called Napolean was going to be born and hence they came to india,stole our wealth and build a navy to protect their land against napolean.

Now you are trying to put words into my mouth. I never said that. Well, show me where I said that, which message number, which line? By the time Napolean become so powerful, British had built the most powerful Navy until then. It was a coincidence. They didn't do it for Napolean, they did it to protect their trade routes.

Originally Posted by merve_extreme

and from where did u get that britan stole our money and built their navy.they could have used american treasures.or is there a financial report on this that u dont want to refer to.

American treasures? Exactly what were they? Please do refer to your world book and let me know. All my years in USA, I never heard of British looting the American treasure. You mean trinkets from the native americans?

Originally Posted by merve_extreme

it was just a coincidence that britan had a strong navy when he was trying to conquer europe.and that navy was built by britan to protect its colonies and ships from any of its rivals or pirates and not france alone.

Yeah, exactly. Good, now you are agreeing with me.

Originally Posted by merve_extreme

and what was france doing.they had also gained many colonies so why did they not built their navy.

Napolean was a great army general, but he concentrated mostly on land conquests. Besides, Brits had much superior navy even before Napolean rose to power. And British never let Napolean to build his naval power. They even had superior technology. For example, the british ships could fire much faster than french ships even when they had same number of canons.

Originally Posted by merve_extreme

Even the greatest ruler in human history Alexander,the great was defeted in india,not because he had a small ineffecient army(infact he had a huge one),but because he could not fight elephant mounted soilders and engage in battles around forests.it was not that india has purposely used elephants to defeat him.

This is one more very controversial topic. It is only in India that I have heard that Alexlander was defeated by Indian elephants or what have you. According to western historians, he faced revolt from his generals and common soldiers who hadn't seen home for more than a decade. When they heard of Chandra Gupta Mourya's huge army, many of his generals just wanted to return home. It is said that's why Alexlander turned back. Now I don't know which version is true, I mean how can we know? Whom do we believe?

[v1p3r]

Not too well informed on the origins of Ahimsa. If it is Tilak, you are better informed than me. But you must admit, he did popularise it, which is what I said actually.

I do NOT mean the Mahatma was India's sole reason for freedom. To say so would be to do a grave injustice to all those who fought, from Tilak and Patel, to Mangal Pandey and my grandfather (yup!). But he was probably the single largest factor. Can you honestly say that we would have gained independence without him, in the same manner that we did?

Merve and Samurai: The race for this thread doesn't seem to have a finish line either! Please do NOT unsheath anything more than your keyboards!

[merve_extreme]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Now you are trying to put words into my mouth. I never said that. Well, show me where I said that, which message number, which line? By the time Napolean become so powerful, British had built the most powerful Navy until then. It was a coincidence. They didn't do it for Napolean, they did it to protect their trade routes.

so what is ur point of bringing napolean.

and do u think wealth is only in terms or gold.natuaral resources is one big wealth.ok if not america they may used the wealth taken from SA.

and atleast i have some reliable sources(books) telling me about history.u just flash bang something and then change ur argument 100 times to justify ur mistakes.

about alexander,i think u should have read my next post.any for the elephant bits i suggest u spend a whole day in a history library.
elephants are huge animals and they could just crush alexanders cavalary because of their size,cavalary was a important part of alexanders army tactics.

look at ur arguments regaring my worldbooks.why dont u accept it that u simply didn't know what worldooks were.do u always have to ridicule others.
this is a very childish mentality from a person claiming to have great experience because of this older age.if u have gone to US that doesnt means americans will post signs on roads telling from where british got their wealth.

if u want to prove that british built their navy using indian wealth,just provide a refrence to such a information.why do u have to make other statements.

ok taking v13rp's advice i will end my argument here.

[adya33]

Not too well informed on the origins of Ahimsa. If it is Tilak, you are better informed than me.

though in history it says its M Gandhi (in India) but if you read between the lines it was Tilak who started it by writting into new papers, the one who started gathering people & made people realise the power of group without voilence
so we can say that Tilak started the concept which was developed by M Gandhi

Can you honestly say that we would have gained independence without him, in the same manner that we did?

Like I have said previously in this same topic that in history there is no place for IF & MAYBE
so now we can not say it. but somewhere in my heart I belive that we would have infact got freedom earlier than 1947 had everyone been on Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose's side. Just my personal opinion. Feel free to bash

BUT THEN AGAIN WE CAN NOT SAY WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED, AS IT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED. SO LETS NOT DEBATE ON THIS POINT.

[v1p3r]

I've heard wiper, vipe, wipe, and once I thought someone called me Vaibhav! But NEVER have I been called v13rp!!!

Arre merve yaar, I know v1... isn't too easy. I curse myself everytime I log on. Just say viper if you want!

adya33: I know there are no Ifs and Buts in history, but Gandhi not around would mean a much longer wait to freedom to me. Just my personal opinion. I respect your opinion. No need to bash!

Let's not debate on anything here anymore! Wasn't the thread something about Mangal Pandey originally?!

[merve_extreme]

Originally Posted by v1p3r

I've heard wiper, vipe, wipe, and once I thought someone called me Vaibhav! But NEVER have I been called v13rp!!!

Arre merve yaar, I know v1... isn't too easy. I curse myself everytime I log on. Just say viper if you want!

sorry!that is a pure typo. i thought it must be viper but then v1p3r dosent pronounce like one.maybe it looks like one.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by merve_extreme

so what is ur point of bringing napolean.

Simple, if British were not financed by India, they couldn't have stopped Napolean from crossing the channel. Then history would have taken another turn altogether.

Originally Posted by merve_extreme

and do u think wealth is only in terms or gold.natuaral resources is one big wealth.ok if not america they may used the wealth taken from SA.

You mean from the next century. C'mon man, brits didn't get a foot hold in SA until 19th century.

Originally Posted by merve_extreme

and atleast i have some reliable sources(books) telling me about history.u just flash bang something and then change ur argument 100 times to justify ur mistakes.

I changed my argument 100 times, really! I think I'll just let the Team-BHPians make that judgement based on this thread.

Originally Posted by merve_extreme

about alexander,i think u should have read my next post.any for the elephant bits i suggest u spend a whole day in a history library.
elephants are huge animals and they could just crush alexanders cavalary because of their size,cavalary was a important part of alexanders army tactics.

It may have suprised Alexander, but didn't really stop him or defeat him.

Originally Posted by merve_extreme

look at ur arguments regaring my worldbooks.why dont u accept it that u simply didn't know what worldooks were.do u always have to ridicule others.
this is a very childish mentality from a person claiming to have great experience because of this older age.

Sorry, I don't want to make personal comments. I am indeed ignorant about worldbooks, I simply used a different set of sources for my history studies over 25 years. When I was growing up I didn't have television until 15, I did most of reading in city central library.

Originally Posted by merve_extreme

if u want to prove that british built their navy using indian wealth,just provide a refrence to such a information.why do u have to make other statements.

No, I will not try to prove it, I don't think I can convince you, you don't appear to believe any statement I make. I'd like to make heated but healthy arguments without making personal comments, since you don't want to reciprocate that, I prefer not to continue this discussion.

Originally Posted by merve_extreme

ok taking v13rp's advice i will end my argument here.

That, I'll agree with you.

[RX135]

Originally Posted by adya33

though in history it says its M Gandhi (in India) but if you read between the lines it was Tilak who started it by writting into new papers, the one who started gathering people & made people realise the power of group without voilence
so we can say that Tilak started the concept which was developed by M Gandhi

No, Ahimsa was not Tilak's passion. He was not averse to use force, if it was going to earn him independence. In his youth, he did trade path of using weapons, but he realized that weapons are no match to superior and far better organized military strength of British. In fact, he advised the same to Veer Savarkar (I guess, and only guess, that SMG keely follows Savarkar thoughts), but Savarkar had other thoughts.

As I said earlier, he was the man to take battle onto masses from elite courtrooms and councils. Tilak was probably the first mass leader (along with Lala Lajpatray, Chittaranjan das et al). Gandhiji carried on and ably filled in vaccum created by Tilak's death.

And yes, I used to ridicule Gandhiji before I read literature about him/Tilak/Bose.