India and China are the sources of the greatest civilizations in Eastern and Southern Asia. Their rulers saw themselves as universal monarchs, thereby matching the pretensions of the Roman Emperors in the West. The only drawbacks to their historical priority were that India suffered a setback, when the Indus Valley Civilization collapsed (for disputed reasons), and China got started later than the Middle Eastern civilizations. By the time India recovered, it was a contemporary of Greece, rather than Sumeria, with many parallel cultural developments, like philosophy. And, curiously, China reached a philosophical stage of development in the same era, the "axial age," 800 to 400 BC. Later, when the West, India, and China all had contact with each other, it was at first India that had the most influence on China, through the introduction of Buddhism. Indian influence on the West, though likely through the skepticism of Pyrrho, and possibly evident in the halos of Christian saints (borrowed from Buddhist iconography), did not extend to anything more substantial. While China then made Buddhism its own, India later endured the advent of Islâm, which introduced deep cultural and then political divisions into the Subcontinent. The only comparable development in China was the application of Marxism by the Communist government that came to power in 1949. While China has now embraced a more liberal economic vision and has outgrown India, it retains the political dictatorship of Communism. India, with a successful history as a democracy, has found its growth hampered by socialist expectations and regulations (the stifling "Licence Raj"), with some, but not enough, economic liberalization in the 1990's.
The 
idea that there are "Three Kingdoms" (Sangoku -- we might call it the 
, "India, China, Japan") is a Japanese conceit, placing those peripheral islands on equal standing with the great centers of civilization, India and China. Until the 20th century, there would not have been a shadow of justification for that, except perhaps in subjective judgments about the creativity or originality of Japanese culture, which I am sure would be disputed by Koreans and Vietnamese. However, after a process of self-transformation sparked by American intervention, Japan leapt to the status of a Great Power by defeating Russia in 1905. The Empire then spent the next 40 years throwing its weight around, occupying Korea and invading China, ultimately taking on the United States in a disastrous bid for hegemony (1941-1945). Catastrophic defeat slowed Japan down a little, but by the 1980's, the country had vaulted to the highest per capita income in the world, with wealth and economic power that deeply frightened many, even in the United States. Japan remains the only Great Power, in economic terms (as the Japanese military establishment remains low profile), not directly derived from European civilization. Now, even after a decade of economic stagnation, Japan remains the second largest economy in the world (about 40% the size of the United States, more than 1.7 times the size of Germany, and finally reviving a bit in 2004), although in per capita terms declining from 3rd in the world in 2003 to 11th in 2007 [The Economist Pocket World in Figures, 2007 Edition]. This all might be thought to justify the Japanese view of themselves as unique, or at least special, certainly geopolitically important, giving us some motivation for the inclusion of Japan in a "Sangoku" page.
Index
Emperors of India
India has had less of a 
tradition of political unity than China or Japan. Indeed, most of the names for India ("India," "Hindustân") are not even Indian. As Yule & Burnell say in their classic A Glossary of Colloquial Anglo-Indian Words and Phrases ["Hobson-Jobson," Curzon Press, 1886, 1985, p. 433]:
It is not easy, if it be possible, to find a truly native (i.e. Hindu) name for the whole country which we call India; but the conception certainly existed from an early date. Bhâratavarsha is used apparently in the Purânas with something like this conception.
Bhâratavars.a meant the "division of the world" (vars.a) of the Bhâratas -- the heroes of the great Mahâbhârata epic. An independent India in 1947 decided to officially become Bhârat (the short final "a" not being pronounced in Hindi). Probably India did not have a clear local name earlier because, like China, it seemed to be the principal portion of the entire world, and so simply "the world" (vars.a) itself.
In Chinese, we get various ways of referring to India. The modern form, 
, renders the name phonetically with characters of no particular semantic significance ("print, stamp, or seal" and "a rule, law, measure, degree"). This rendering, of course, is based on a name from Greek or Arabic that would have been unknown in China until modern times. The older practice, however, was dedicated characters that might have a larger meaning. Thus, we get 
or 
, in which can be a kind of bamboo but otherwise is just used for India. Semantically stronger is , where is primarily used for the Indian god Brahmâ (
) and then for compounds involving India or Buddhism. Thus we get expressions like 
, "Sanskrit," 
, "Sanskrit writing," and 
, "Sanskrit characters." In Japan, India was sometimes called the Yüehchih, 
, the "Moon Tribe." This appealed because of the contrast with Japan, the 
, "Sun Source." The Japanese knew from Chinese histories that the Yüehchih were in the West, and since they were a bit vague about what was in the West, but they knew that India was also, the connection got made. They might not have known that the Yüehchih actually did enter India as the Kushans
When a unified state has occurred in Indian history, it has had varying religious, political, and even linguistic bases: e.g. Hindu, Buddhist, Islâmic, and foreign. The rule of the Sult.âns of Delhi and the Moghul Emperors was at once Islâmic and foreign, since most of them were Turkish or Afghani, and the Moghul dynasty was founded directly by incursion from Afghanistan. The supremely foreign unification of India, of course, was from the British, under whom India achieved its greatest unity, although that was lost upon independence to the religious division between India and Pakistan. The Moghuls and British, of course, called India by its name in their own languages (i.e. "Hindustân" and "India").
With a unified state in India a rare phenomenon, often under foreign influence, and with only a derivative indigenous name for the country as a whole, one might wonder if the term "Emperor," with its implications of unique and universal monarchy, is aptly applied to Indian rulers. However, from an early date there was a notion of such monarchy, which depended only on a conception of the world, whether India itself was clearly conceived or not. The universal monarch 
was the Cakravartin, "Who Turns the Wheel of Dominion." Thus, the prophecy was that Siddhartha Gautama might have become the Buddha, or a Cakravartin, a world ruler. The word was ambiguous, since the term can mean simply a sovereign, but its use is paralleled by the Latin word Imperator, which simply means "Commander" and grew, by usage, into a term for a unique and universal monarch. As it happened, many of the monarchs who began to claim ruler over all of India did usually use titles that were translations or importations of foreign words. Thus, the Kushans used titles like Râjatirâjâ, "King of Kings," and Mahârâjâ, "Great King," which appear to be translations from older Middle Eastern titles. While the original "Great King" long retained its uniqueness, thanks to the durability of the Persian monarchy, the title in India experienced a kind of grade inflation, so that eventually there were many, many Mahârâjâs. With Islâm came a whole raft of new titles. One was Sult.ân, which originally was an Arabic title of universal rule itself but had already experienced its own grade inflation. Persian titles, like Pâdeshâh, centuries after the Achaemenids, were now borrowed rather than translated. With the Moghuls, however, the names of the Emperors, more than their titles, reflected their pretensions: like Persian Jahângir, "Seize (gir) the world (jahân)." The most remarkable title borrowed from the West is probably Kaisar, but the Latin title itself arrived with Queen Victoria, IND IMP, Indiae Imperatrix, in 1876. The last Indiae Imperator was King George VI, until 1947.
In addition to these complications, Indian history is also less well known and dated than that of China or Japan. Classical Indian literature displays little interest in history proper, which must be reconstructed from coins, monumental inscriptions, and foreign references. As Jan Nattier has said recently [A Few Good Men, The Bodhisattva Path According to the Inquiry of Ugra (Ugraparipr.cchâ), University of Hawai'i Press, 2003]:
...the writing of history in the strict sense does not begin in India until the 12th century, with the composition of Kalhan.a's Râjataran.gin.î. [p.68]
Because of this, even the dating of the Mauryas and the Guptas, the best known pre-Islâmic periods, displays small uncertainties. The rulers and dates for them here are from Stanley Wolpert's A New History of India [Oxford University Press, 1989], the Oxford Dynasties of the World by John E. Morby [Oxford University Press, 1989, 2002], and Bruce R. Gordon's Regnal Chronologies. Gordon had the only full lists I'd ever seen for the Mauryas, Kushans, and Guptas until I found the Oxford Dynasties, which has the Mauryas and Guptas but nothing else until the Sultanate of Delhi. The Mauryas and Guptas can now also be found in the Facts On File Encyclopedia of World History [George Philip Ltd., 2000, p.520]. Besides Wolpert, another concise recent history of India is A History of India by Peter Robb [Palgrave, 2002]. It is becoming annoying to me that scholarly histories like these are almost always but poorly supplemented with maps and lists of rulers, let alone genealogies (where these are known). Both Wolpert and Robb devote much more space to modern India than to the ancient or mediaeval country, and this preference seems to go beyond the paucity of sources for the earlier periods.
The "Saka Era," as the Indian historical era, significantly starts rather late (79 AD) in relation to the antiquity of Indian civilization. Indeed, like Greece (c.1200-800 BC) and Britain (c.400-800 AD), India experienced a "Dark Ages" period, c.1500-800 BC, in which literacy was lost and the civilization vanished from history altogether. Such twilight periods may enhance the vividness of quasi-historical mythology like the Iliad, the Arthurian legends, and the Mahâbhârata. The earliest history of India is covered separately at "The Earliest Civilizations" and "The Spread of Indo-European and Turkish Peoples off the Steppe." The affinities of Indian languages are also covered at "Greek, Sanskrit, and Closely Related Languages."
Readers should treat with caution some scholarship and a great deal of the material on the internet about the Indus Valley Civilization and its relationship to Classical Indian civilization, or all of civilization. The claims have progressed to the point now where not only are all of Indian civilization and all of its languages regarded as autochthonous (with Indo-European languages said to originate in India, and derived from Dravidian languages, rather than arriving from elsewhere and unrelated to Dravidian), but the civilization itself is said to extend back to the Pleistocene Epoch (before 10,000 BC), with any ruins or artifacts conveniently covered by rising sea levels. The urge towards inflated nationalistic claims is familiar. Particular claims about India are treated here in several places but especially in "Strange Claims about the Greeks, and about India."
| THE MAURYAS, c.322-184 BC | |
|---|---|
| Chandragupta (Gk. Sandrokotos) | c.322-301 |
| Bindusâra | 301-269 |
| Ashoka | 269-232 |
| Kunala ? | 232-225 |
| Dasharatha | 232-225 |
| Samprati | 225-215 |
| Shâlishuka | 215-202 |
| Devadharma/ Devavarman | 202-195 |
| Shatamdhanu/ Shatadhanvan | 195-187 |
| Br.hadratha | 187-185 |
the greatest king of the Dynasty, Ashoka, commemorated himself with monumental inscriptions, especially on a series of pillars erected around India. The most famous of these is at Sarnath, where the Buddha began preaching. The lion capital of the pillar at Sarnath is now used as the official crest of modern India, with the Wheel of the Law (Dharmachakra) on it (as at right) on the flag of India. Indeed, Ashoka is the most famous for converting to Buddhism and sending missionaries abroad. He can be rather well dated because he sent letters to the contemporary Hellenistic monarchs, Antigonus II Gonatas (Antikini) of Macedonia , Antiochus II Theos (Anityoka) of the Seleucid Kingdom, Ptolemy II Philadelphus (Turamaya) of Egypt, Alexander II (Alikasudara) of Eprius, and Magas (Maga) of Cyrene, urging them to convert to Buddhism themselves. Greek history contains no record of these requests. There is also an attested eclipse in 249 dated with a regal year date. Ashoka's reign is used to date the life of the Buddha, since tradition in Sri Lanka (Ceylon) is that the Buddha died 218 years before Ashoka came to the throne. That would put his death in 487 BC, which is close to the generally used date. The Ceylonese chronology is sometimes questioned.
| MACEDONIAN KINGS OF BACTRIA 256-c.55 BC |
|---|
The decline of the Mauryas coincided with the rise of a neighboring Greek Kingdom in Bactria. This was also important for the history of Buddhism, as the Kings became converts. A classic of Buddhist literature, the "Questions of Milinda," (Milindapañha) records the conversion of one King in particular, Menander Soter Dikaios (Milinda, 155-130). This is part of the history of India, but the kingdom is listed with other Hellenistic monarchies. It now seems like one of the oddest things in history that there was once a kingdom of Greek Buddhists in Afghanistan. There are no Greeks or Buddhists in Afghanistan now. The Greek rulers then survive well into the period of the Sakas and Parthians, as follows.
| THE SAKAS, c.130 BC | |
|---|---|
| Maues | 97-58 BC |
| Vonones | |
| Spalyris | |
| Spalagademes | |
| Spalirises | |
| Azes I | c.30 BC |
| Azilises | |
| Azes II | |
| THE PARTHIANS/SUREN | |
| Pakores | |
| Orthagnes | |
| Gudnaphar (Gondophernes) | c.19-45 AD |
| Abdagases | |
| Sasas | |
| Arsaces Theos | |
| Nahapa | 119-124 AD |
| THE SAKA ERA, THE INDIAN HISTORICAL ERA | 79 AD |
|---|---|
| 2000 AD - 78 = 1922 Annô Sakidae | |
Simultaneously with the descent of Sakas into India, Parthians (Pahlavas) or Suren appear from the west, and some of them become established in India independent (or not) of the Parthian King. The Parthians spoke a "North-Western" Iranian language, though its origin was far south of the Scythians. The sources are sometimes confused about which Indian rulers are Sakas and which are Parthians, since they are never attested as which. Gudnaphar (Greek Gondophernes), who traditionally is supposed to have welcomed the Apostle Thomas to India, seems to have been Parthian. The legend of the mission of Thomas to India is now of renewed interest because of the discovery of the text of the Gospel of Thomas, one of the Gnostic Gospels, in Egypt in 1945.
| THE KUSHANS | |
|---|---|
| Kujula Kadphises | c.20 BC-c.30/64 AD |
| Wima/Welma Taktu | c.30-c.80 |
| Welma Kadphises | c.80-c.103 |
| Kanishka I | c.103-c.127 AD |
| Vasishka I | c.127-c.131 |
| Huvishka I | c.130-c.162 |
| Vasudeva I | c.162-c.200 |
| Kanishka II | c.200-c.220 |
| Vasishka II | c.220-c.230 |
| Kanishka III | c.230-c.240 |
| Vasudeva II | c.240-c.260 |
| Vasu | late 3rd century |
| Chhu | late 3rd century |
| Shaka | 3-4th century |
| Kipanada | 4th century |
, the "Moon Tribe." They seem to have been a group who moved far east on the steppe very early, speaking a language with many archaic features. By attacking the Hsiung-nu, 
, probably the later Huns, the Chinese of the Han Dynasty drove them back into the Yuèzhi, who then migrated (170 BC) into the Tarim Basin (the Lesser Yüeh-chih, 
) and Transoxania (the Greater Yüeh-chih, 
), areas which they dominated c.100 BC-300 AD. The language of the Lesser Yüeh-chih is attested in Buddhist texts in two dialects of "Tocharian" (A and B). The Greater Yüeh-chih, as the Kushans, followed other steppe people down into India. Some small uncertainty continues over the identification of the Yüeh-chih with the Kushans and the writers of Tocharian, but the recent discovery of well-preserved, European-looking mummies along the Silk Road serves to affirm the Indo-European bona fides of the still illiterate (from a period long before Tocharian) local culture. Unfortunately, the Tocharian texts do not include historical works, which might have removed uncertainties and added an invaluable framework for understanding the area.Although the dates are still very uncertain, historical information in India is rather better than for the preceding period. Of special importance is King Kanishka, under whom the Fourth Great Buddhist Council is supposed to have been held, as the Third was under Ashoka. Kanishka is said to have been converted to Buddhism by the playwright Ashvaghosha. The earliest actual images of Buddhas and Boddhisattvas date from his reign. Also of interest are the Kushan royal titles, Maharaja Rajatiraja Devaputra Kushâna. Rajatiraja, "King of Kings," is very familiar from Middle Eastern history, since monarchs from the Assyrians to the Parthians had used it. Maharaja, "Great King," is very familiar from later India but at this early date betrays its Middle Eastern inspiration, since it was originally used by the Persian Kings. Devaputra, "Son of God," sounds like the Kushans claiming some sort of Christ-like status, which is always possible, 
but it may actually just be an Sanskrit version of a title of the Chinese Emperor, "Son of Heaven."
The Roman trading posts in Kushan India bespeak a great deal of trade and contact, about which we get the occasional notice in Greek and Roman writers, but which do not become a source of any extensive knowledge of India or its history recorded by either. Something else overlooked by Classical historians nevertheless turns up in Chinese history. That is, a Roman Embassy made its way by way of India by sea to the China of the Later Han Dynasty. It is recorded that in the year 166 AD an embassy arrived in Lo-Yang from a ruler of 
, "Great Ch'in," named Andun, which looks like a rendering of Antoninus. The year 166 was in the early days of Marcus Aurelius (Antoninus). Since we know, besides the presence of Romans in India, that there were well traveled sea routes to China (see the voyage of Fa-Hsien below), this Roman Embassy easily passes the test of credibility. It is a shame that such a project, like the letters written by Ashoka to Hellenistic monarchs, escaped the notice of Greek and Roman historians.
While the imperial maps here until 1701 are based on Stanley Wolpert's A New History of India [Oxford University Press, 1989], the map for the Kushans is based on the The Anchor Atlas of World History, Volume I [1974, Hermann Kinder, Werner Hilgemann, Ernest A. Menze, and Harald and Ruth Bukor, p.42], which now has been reissued in identical form as The Penguin Atlas of World History, Volume I [Penguin Books, 1978, 2003].
The rule of the Guptas was one of the classic ages of Indian history, for whose culture we have a rather full description by the Chinese Buddhist pilgrim Fa-Hsien, who was in India between 399 and 414 (see map below), in the time of Chandra Gupta II. This was the last time that the North of India would be united by a culturally indigenous power. The Guptas patronized the Hindu, Buddhist, and Jain religions equally.
| THE GUPTAS, c.320-551 AD | |
|---|---|
| Gupta | 275-300 |
| Ghat.otkacha | 300-320 |
| Chandra Gupta I | 320-335 |
| Samudra Gupta | 335-370 |
| Rama Gupta ? | 370-375 |
| Chandra Gupta II | 375-415 |
| Kumâra Gupta I | 415-455 |
| Skanda Gupta | 455-467 |
| Kumâra Gupta II | 467-477 |
| Budha Gupta | 477-496 |
| Chandra Gupta III ? | 496-500 |
| Vainya Gupta | 500-515 |
| Narasimha Gupta | 510-530 |
| Kumâra Gupta III | 530-540 |
| Vishn.u Gupta | 540-551 |
| The Later Guptas, of Magadha, c.550-700 AD | |
| Kumâragupta | c.550-560 |
| Dâmodaragupta | c.560-562 |
| Mahâsenagupta | c.562-601 |
| vassals of Kâlachuris, 595/6-c.601 | |
| Mâdhavagupta | c.601-655 |
| Âdityasena | c.655-680 |
| Devagupta | c.680-700 |
| overthrown by Yashovarman of Kanauj, 725-730 | |
Towards the end of the period, the Guptas began to experience inroads from the Huns (Huna), the next steppe people, whose appearance in Europe (it is supposed that these are the same people), of course, pressured German tribes to move into the Roman Empire. By 500, Huns controlled the Punjab and in short order extended their rule down the Ganges. They don't seem to have founded any sort of durable state and eventually suffered defeats. The Huns were the last non-Islamic steppe people to invade India.
| Vardhanas of Thanesar | |
|---|---|
| Naravardhana? | c. 500-? |
| Rajyavardhana I? | |
| Pushyabhûti | |
| Adityasena Vardhana | c.555-580 |
| Prabhakaravardhana | c.580-c.605 |
| nephew of Mahâsenagupta | |
| Rajyavardhana (II) | c.605-606 |
| Harsha Vardhana | 606-647 |
While the name of Chandragupta, the founder of the Mauryas, is usually given as one word, the "Gupta" ("guarded, protected") element in names of the Gupta dynasty is usually, but not always, written as a separate word. The Oxford Dynasties writes them together.
The following period might very well be called the Warring States Period of India, on analogy with that of China. Unlike China, however, it would be brought to an end only by foreign invasion and conquest. In the political fragmentation of the era, we still have some Guptas, the "Later Guptas," but these are evidently former vassals, not relatives, of the Imperial Guptas, in Magadha on the lower Ganges. They are players, but not dominant ones. Harsha Vardhana, from Thanesar, north of Delhi, was one ruler who for a while united most of the North of India again, and, as luck would have it, we have the account of Hsüan-tsang (Xuánzang, 600-664), another Chinese Buddhist pilgrim, who went to India between 629 and 645, during his time. This follows an account we have from the other direction, that of a Greek sailor, Cosmas Indicopleustes, who visited India, Ceylon, and even Axumite Ethiopia some time before 550 AD, during the reign of the Roman Emperor Justinian. Unfortunately, Cosmas was a bit of a crackpot who seemed just as concerned with proving, despite widely accepted evidence (recounted in detail by Aristotle), that the Earth was flat rather than spherical. Thus, we can imagine that Cosmas, whose book was the Christian Topography, was hostile to a round earth for much the same (religious) reasons that contemporary anti-Darwinians are hostile to Evolution.
Harsha enjoyed a long reign but, when he attempted to expand south into the Deccan, he was defeated by Pulakeshin II of Vâtâpi (or Badami). Subsequently, we get dynasties whose power occasionally spans the country, but none are able to secure hegemony for long.
Indian Buddhism, although patronized by Harsha, already seemed to be in decline to Hsüan-tsang, and some important Buddhist sites were already neglected or abandoned. Indeed, I think the contemporary development of Tantrism was obscuring the differences between Hinduism and Buddhism. It was also during this period that we begin to get identifiable individual Indian philosophers, like Shankara (c.780-820), from whom we have a classic formulation of the doctrine of the Vedanta School. With the period of the Classical Empires over, it is striking that only now do individuals appear in the light of history in Indian philosophy. There is speculation that Shankara already represents a reaction to the arrival of Islâm on the borders of India.
| the Deccan, the Carnatic, & Maharashtra | |
|---|---|
| Châlukyas of Vâtâpi | |
| Pulakeshin I | c.543-566 |
| Kîrtivarman I | c.567-597 |
| Mangalesha | c.597-609 |
| Pulakeshin II | c.609-642 |
| overthrows Kâlachuris, c.620; killed in battle by Narasimha Varman I of Pallava, 642; interregnum, 642-655; Arab attacks, 644 | |
| Vikramâditya I | 654/5-681 |
| Arab attacks, 677 | |
| Vinayâditya | c.680-696 |
| defeats Later Gupta Devagupta, 695 | |
| Vijayâditya | c.696-733/4 |
| Vikramâditya II | c.733-744/5 |
| defeat and explusion of Arabs from India, 737 | |
| Kirtivarman II | 744/5-753 |
| Râs.t.rakût.as of Ellora & Malkhed | |
| Dantidurga | c.735-744 |
| Krishna I | c.755-772 |
| Dhruva Dhârâvarsha | c.780-793 |
| defeats Gangetic powers but abandons North | |
| Govinda III | c.793-814 |
| occupies North again, height of Râs.t.rakût.a power | |
| Amoghavarsha | c.814-880 |
| Krishna II | c.878-914 |
| Indra III | c.914-928 |
| Amoghavarsha II | c.928-929 |
| Govinda IV | c.930-935 |
| Amoghavarsha III | c.936-939 |
| Krishna III | c.939-967 |
| Khot.t.iga | c.967-972 |
| Karkka II (Amoghhavarsha IV) | c.972-973 |
| Châlukyas of Kalyân.î | |
| Taila II Ahavamalla | 973-997 |
| Satyasraya Irivabedanga | 997-1008 |
| invasions of Mahmud of Ghaza, 1001-1024 | |
| Vikramaditya I | 1008-1014 |
| Ayyana | 1014-1015 |
| Jayasimha | 1015-1042 |
| Somesvara I | 1042-1068 |
| Somesvara II | 1068-1076 |
| Vikramaditya II | 1076-1127 |
| Somesvara III | 1127-1138 |
| Jagadekamalla | 1138-1151 |
| Tailapa | 1151-1156 |
| Kâlachuris | |
| Bijjala | 1156-1168 |
| Somesvara | 1168-1177 |
| Sankama | 1177-1180 |
| Ahavamalla | 1180-1183 |
| Singhana | 1183-1184 |
| Châlukyas | |
| Somesvara IV | 1184-1200 |
| Yâdavas | |
| Singhana | 1200-1247 |
| Krishna | 1247-1261 |
| Mahadeva | 1261-1271 |
| Amana | 1271 |
| Ramachandra | 1271-1311 |
| Sankaradeva | 1311-1313 |
| Harapaladeva | 1313-1317 |
| To Delhi, 1317-1336; then Vijayanagar, 1336 | |
Initial invasions by the Arab Ommayad Caliphs, starting in 644, were repulsed by 737, after episodes of the Arabs slaughtering local populations or deporting them as slaves. The following period, then, is the calm before the full force of Islâm burst on the country with the invasions of Mah.mûd of Ghazna, from 1001 to 1024. While Shankara's views were later criticized as too influenced by Buddhism, they are more faithful to the Upanishads than the theism of the critics, who themselves seem increasingly influenced by the monotheism of Islâm. There also appears to be a decisive influence from Islâm on Indian dress. 
While in Classical India women are typically shown bare breasted, as at left, the rigors of the Middle Eastern nudity taboo came into full force in modern India, at least for women. I am not aware just when this transition occurs. By the 19th century Krishna's lover Radha is shown in a full shoulder to floor woven dress. Someone could easily chronicle the transition by cataloguing such sculpture.
My source for the list of the rulers from the fall of the Guptas (551) to the dominance of the Sultanate of Delhi (1211), beginning with the line of the Châlukyas, was originally from Bruce R. Gordon's Regnal Chronologies. I took details of the period are from Stanley Wolpert's A New History of India [Oxford, 2000, pp.95-103]. There was clearly uncertainty about the dates, since Wolpert has Krishna I Râs.t.rakût.a, patron of the remarkable Kailasanatha temple to Shiva, reigning 756-775, while Gordon has 768-783. This is, of course, not too surprising, given the problems with Indian historiography. Now, however, I have found a much more thorough treatment of the period in Ronald M. Davidson's Indian Esoteric Buddhism, A Social History of the Tantric Movement [Columbia University Press, 2002], which has an extensive summary of the whole period [pp.25-62], with maps and lists of many of the rulers. Here we find Krishna I with the dates c.755-772, in much closer agreement with Wolpert, but still, of course, residual uncertainties.
Pulakeshin II ruled from the Deccan Plateau, which now emerges as a force that often intrudes into the North of India. Wolpert [p.101] introduces the subject by mentioning the territory of Mahârâshtra ("Great country"). We are left with the implication that the Châlukya Dynasty, which ruled the area, was of Maharashtran origin. However, Wolpert mentions that the Châlukya capital was Badami (Davidson says Vâtâpi), "just south of the River Krishna." This is not in the modern state of Mahârâshtra, but in Karnâtaka. These modern states are drawn with linguistic boundaries. The language of Maharashtra is Marathi, while that of Karnataka is Kannada (or Kanarese). As it happens, the inscriptions of the Vâtâpi Châlukyas are in Kannada, and a correspondent drew my attention to the problem that it would be a confusion to associate them with Maharashtra or the Marathas. On the other hand, as Davidson notes, the meaning of expressions like "Maharashtra" was previously rather vague had more to do with geography than with language. Wolpert was continuing to reflect that circumstance.
| Kârkot.as of Kashmir | |
|---|---|
| Candrâpîd.a | c.711-720 |
| asks for alliance with China, 713 | |
| Târâpîd.a | c.720-725 |
| Lalitâditya Muktâpîd.a | c.725-756 |
| overthrows Yashovarman of Kanauj, 733; secures Ganges Valley, 747; dies in Tarim Basin | |
| Kuvalayâpîd.a | ? |
| Vajrâditya | ? |
| Prthivyâpîd.a | ? |
| Samgrâmâpîd.a | ? |
| Jayâpîd.a Vinayâdirya | c.779-810 |
More importantly, the history of India in this period is not the national history of linguistic communities. It is dynastic history, and dynasties like the Châlukya were much more interested in territory, anywhere, than in national origins, homelands, or languages. Thus, Châlukyas ruled elsewhere, without much regard for the local language, with branches of the dynasty in what is now Andhra Pradesh (Telugu speakers) and Gujarat (Gujarati). When the Vâtâpi Châlukyas were overthrown by their vassals, the Râs.t.rakût.as of Ellora, this was a dynasty definitely seated in a Marathi speaking area of Maharashtra, though they subsequently moved their capital to Malkhed, virtually at the border between Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. The Râs.t.rakût.as were in time displaced by a branch of the Châlukyas again, who in turn fell to the Kâlachuris, a dynasty from a region in modern Madhya Pradesh that now speaks Hindi. Thus, the language of their domain was not nearly as important to all these rulers as the possession of dominion.
| The Gurjara-Pratîhâras of Ujjain & Dantidurga | |
|---|---|
| Nâgabhat.a I | c.725-760 |
| helps defeat Arabs, 725 | |
| Devarâja | c.750-? |
| Vatsarâja | ?-c.790 |
| Nâgabhat.a II | c.790-833 |
| occupies Kanauj and middle Ganges, 815 | |
| Râmabhadra | c.833-836 |
| Mihira Bhoja | c.836-885 |
| Mahendrapâla I | c.890-910 |
| Mahîpâla | c.910-? |
| Bhoja II | ?-914 |
| Vinâyakapâla I | c.930-945 |
| Mahendrapâla II | c.945-950 |
| Vinâyakapâla II | c.950-959 |
| Vijayapâla | c.960-1018 |
| invasions of Mahmud of Ghaza, 1001-1024 | |
| Râjyapâla | c.1018-1019 |
| Trilocanapâla | c.1019-1017 |
| Mahendrapâla III | ? |
As the Châlukyas moved, they could also take a geographical name with them. The British rendering of "Karnataka" was as the "Carnatic" (much like the word in Hindi, where a short final "a" would not be pronounced). The name "Carnatic" migrated south and south-east, with the movements of the Châlukya dynasts. On the Bay of Bengal, the Eastern Châlukyas became established, and we also find the name "Carnatic" applied there. That eastern "Carnatic" then also came to be associated with the large Vijayanagara realm, which straddled the modern states of Karnataka, Tamil Nâdu (the language is Tamil), and Andhra Pradesh. Thus, on old maps of India, the name "Carnatic" can sometimes be found adjacent to the west coast, and on others along the south-eastern coast. The name disappeared altogether for a while between Maharashtra to the north and the later state of Mysore to the south. The modern Indian state of Karantaka was originally itself called "Mysore," but this was changed in 1973 to "Karnâtaka" to reflect its linguistic character.
Pulakeshin II, who was also visited by Hsüan-tsang, declared himself "Lord of the Eastern and Western Waters." Although the Châlukyas never united the north or dominated the country like the Guptas or Harsha, they would appear there, and I have focused on them and their successors as the best sequence to span the period down to the Sult.âns of Delhi. There were many other states of similar size and power during this era, several often called "Empires." Now I include lists for Kashmir and for the Gurjara-Pratîhâras, whose realm centered on Ujjain in the western part of the modern Madhya Pradesh. All of these states contended at one time or another for the Ganges Valley and thus were candidates for achieving a North Indian hegemony. Their successes proved only temporary, often because of rebellions in their rear.
The Châlukya dynasty suffered a severe reverse when Pulakeshin II was killed in battle by Narasimha Varman I of Pallava, and Vâtâpi occupied. After reestablishing themselves, they most importantly planted cadet lines in the East and in Gujarat, which would eventually provide for the restoration of the dynasty. The Râs.t.rakût.as appeared in force in the Ganges Valley more than once, but they were never able to retain a grip on the region. The restoration of the Châlukyas was followed by their overthrow in turn by the Kâlachuris and then the Yâdavas. This merry-go-ground of power in the center of India did no good with the new Islamic powers of the Ghaznawids and Ghûrids just over the horizon, forcing their way into India. There would be no unity of force such as repelled the Arabs in 737.
| SULT.ÂNS OF DELHI (DILHÎ) | |
|---|---|
| Mu'izzî or Shamsî Slave Kings | |
| Aybak Qut.b adDîn | Malik in Lahore for Ghûrids, 1206-1210 |
| Ârâm Shâh | 1210-1211 |
| Iltutmish Shams adDîn | Sult.ân in Delhi, 1211-1236 |
| Fîrûz Shâh I | 1236 |
| Rad.iyya Begum | Sult.âna, 1236-1240 |
| Bahrâm Shâh | 1240-1242 |
| Mas'ûd Shâh | 1242-1246 |
| Mah.mud Shâh I | 1246-1266 |
| Balban Ulugh Khân | viceroy since 1246 |
| 1266-1287 | |
| Kay Qubâdh | 1287-1290 |
| Kayûmarth | 1290 |
| Khaljîs | |
| Fîrûz Shâh II Khaljî | 1290-1296 |
| Ibrâhîm Shâh I Qadïr Khân | 1296 |
| Muh.ammad Shâh I 'Alî Garshâsp | 1296-1316 |
| 'Umar Shâh | 1316 |
| Mubârak Shâh | 1316-1320 |
| Khusraw Khân Barwârî | 1320 |
| Tughluqids | |
| Tughluq Shâh I | 1320-1325 |
| Muh.ammad Shâh II | 1325-1351 |
| Fîrûz Shâh III | 1351-1388 |
| Tughluq Shâh II | 1388-1389 |
| Abû Bakr Shâh | 1389-1391 |
| Muh.ammad Shâh III | 1389-1394 |
| Sikandar Shâh I | 1394 |
| Mah.mûd Shâh II | 1394-1395, 1401-1412 |
| Nus.rat Shâh | 1395-1399 |
| Dawlat Khân Lôdî | 1412-1414 |
| Sayyids | |
| Khid.r Khân | 1414-1421 |
| Mubârak Shâh II | 1421-1434 |
| Muh.ammad Shâh IV | 1434-1443 |
| 'Âlam Shâh | 1443-1451 |
| Lôdîs | |
| Bahlûl | 1451-1489 |
| Sikandar II Niz.âm Khân | 1489-1517 |
| Ibrâhîm II | 1517-1526 |
| Moghul Rule, 1526-1540 | |
| Sûrîs | |
| Shîr Shâh Sûr | 1540-1545 |
| Islâm Shâh Sûr | 1545-1554 |
| Muh.ammad V Mubâriz Khân | 1554 |
| Ibrâhîm III Khân | 1554-1555 |
| Ah.mad Khân Sikandar Shâh III | 1555 |
| Râjâs of Mysore | |
|---|---|
| Ballala I | 1100-1110 |
| Vishnuvardhana | 1110-1152 |
| Narasimha I | 1152-1173 |
| Ballala II | 1173-1220 |
| Narasimha II | 1220-1238 |
| Somesvara | 1233-1267 |
| Narasimha III | 1254-1292 |
| Ballala III | 1291-1342 |
| Vijayanagara rule after 1336 | |
| Virupaksha Ballala IV | 1342-1346 |
| Vacant, 1346-1399 | |
| Wadiyar, Wodeyar Dynasty | |
| Yadu Raya | 1399-1423 |
| Hiriya Bettada Chamaraja I | 1423-1459 |
| Timmaraja I | 1459-1478 |
| Hiriya Chamaraja II | 1478-1513 |
| Hiriya Bettada Chamaraja III | 1513-1553 |
| Timmaraja II | 1553-1572 |
| Vijayanagara broken up by Moghuls, 1565 | |
| Bola Chamaraja IV | 1572-1576 |
| Bettada Devaraja | 1576-1578 |
| Raja Wadiyar | 1578-1617 |
| Chamaraja V | 1617-1637 |
| Immadi Raja | 1637-1638 |
| effective independence, 1637 | |
| Kanthirava Narasaraja I | 1638-1659 |
| Kempa Devaraja | 1659-1673 |
| Chikkadevaraja | 1673-1704 |
| Kanthirava Narasaraja II | 1704-1714 |
| Krishnaraja I | 1714-1732 |
| Chamaraja VI | 1732-1734 |
| Krishnaraja II | 1734-1766 |
| Muslim H.aydarids | |
| H.aydar 'Alî Khân Bahâdur | 1762-1782 |
| First Anglo-Mysore War, 1766-1769; Second Anglo-Mysore War, 1780-1784 | |
| Wodeyar figureheads for H.aydarids | |
| Nanjaraja | 1766-1770 |
| Bettada Chamaraja VII | 1770-1776 |
| Khasa Chamaraja VIII | 1776-1796 |
| Tîpû Sult.ân | 1782-1799 |
| Third Anglo-Mysore War, 1789-1792; Fourth Anglo-Mysore War, 1798-1799 | |
| restoration of the Wodeyars | |
| Krishnaraja III | 1799-1831 |
| British rule, 1831-1881 | |
| Chamaraja IX | 1881-1894 |
| Krishnaraja IV | 1894-1940 |
| Jayachamarajendra Bahadur | 1940-1949 |
| Annexation to India, 1947 | |
Islâm came to India in great measure in the person of Mah.mûd of Ghazna, who began raiding the country at the turn of the Millennium. This progressed to permanent occupation under his successors, the Ghurids, whose slave viceroys became independent at the beginning of the 13th century, founding the Sult.ânate of Delhi. This began an Islâmic domination of India that lasted until the advent of the British.
The consequences of the Islâmic conquest of India can hardly be underestimated. Up to a quarter of all Indians ended up converting to Islâm. Buddhism disappeared. Some of the greatest monuments of Indian architecture, like the Taj Mahal, really reflect Persian and Central Asian civilization rather than Indian. Indian Moslems became accustomed, as was their right under Islâmic Law, to be ruled by a Moslem power. In practical terms, that meant that they did not want to be ruled by Hindus, when and if India should become independent. Today, the separation of Pakistan and Bangladesh from the Republic of India, with ongoing strife between them, and the occasional riot between Hindus and Moslems in India itself, are all the result of this.
Mysore (Mahisur, Maysûr, Mahishûru, Mysuru) began as a dependancy of the rulers of the Deccan to the North. In 1100, in the days of the Châlukyas of Kalyân.î, Mysore became independent under the dynasty that had been in place since the 6th or 7th century. However, Mysore then became a dependency of the Vijayanagara Empire that was established in 1336. The Wodeyar Dynasty was a cadet line of Vijayanagara. The subordination of Mysore was broken up after Vijayanagara was defeated by the Moghuls in 1565. Moghul rule, such as it was, seems to have ebbed and flowed in presence and affectiveness. The domination by Aurangzeb was certainly a brief one, after which Mysore was independent.
Mysore lost its traditional Hindu rule and became a center of conflict when its own general, H.aydar Alî, who had defeated the Marathans, seized power in his own right. The Râjâs were retained as figureheads until deposed in 1796 by H.aydar's son, the celebrated Tîpû. The rule of these Muslim warriors quickly led to repeated conflict with the British. H.aydar Alî became an active ally of the French in the War of American Independence, 1778-1783 (the Second Anglo-Mysore War, 1780-1784), but his invasion of Madras, with some French troops, was defeated. However, after his death (1782), Tîpû crushed a British force of 2000, killing 500 and taking the rest prisoner. This made him the "Tiger of Mysore." Tîpû amused himself with a six-foot long mechanical figure of a tiger gnawing at the throat of an Englishman and snarling at the turn of a crank.
Continuing with the enemies of his enemy, Tîpû entered into relations with Revolutionary France, whose rationalists, deists, and atheists curiously found a kindred spirit in a fanatical and tyrannical Muslim -- a dynamic we may see today in the affinity of the Left for Islamic Fascism. When Napoleon landed in Egypt in 1798, it looked like help might be on the way; but there really wasn't much that the French Republic could do for "Citizen Tipu." The British whittled away at Tîpû's realm until he was killed in 1799. The Wodeyar Râjâs were restored, doubtless with some relief to Hindus who had undergone forced conversion and circumcision by Tîpû.
On the map of India in 1236, the kingdoms indicated in the South are the result of the earlier states being broken up by Delhi, which was then unable to remain dominant in the area. Zheng He was the Chinese admiral who led seven great voyages of exploration, trade, and military intervention during the early days of the Ming Dynasty, from 1405 to 1433. The military intervention became less a factor the further West we get. It was intense in Indonesia, where considerable battles were fought and kings were made -- or sent back to China for execution. A Chinese base was established and fortified at Malacca. In Ceylon, we still get some intervention, with King Vira Alakeshvara of Raigama (1397-1411) captured and sent back to China. But the Emperor apologized for this, and returned the King to Ceylon (though not, apparently, to his throne). Further West, trade and embassies seem to have been the rule. All this stopped abruptly in 1433, as China withdrew from foreign contact. When the Portuguese arrived in 1498, the Chinese were long gone.
| Sikh Gurûs | ||
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Nânak | 1469-1539 |
| 2 | An.gad | 1539-1552 |
| 3 | Amar Dâs | 1552-1574 |
| 4 | Râm Dâs Sod.hi | 1574-1581 |
| 5 | Arjun Mal | 1581-1606 |
| 6 | Hargobind | 1606-1644 |
| 7 | Har Râi | 1644-1661 |
| 8 | Hari Krishen | 1661-1664 |
| 9 | Tegh Bahâdur | 1664-1675 |
| 10 | Gobind Râi Singh | 1675-1708 |
| Khâlsâ, 1699 | ||
| Bandâ Singh Bahâdur | 1708-1716 | |
| Khâlsâ Râj, Punjab, 1761 | ||
| Ranjît Singh | 1780-1839 | |
| Kharak Singh | 1839-1840 | |
| Nao Nehal Singh | 1840 | |
Chand Kaur  | 1840-1841 | |
| Sher Singh | 1841-1843 | |
| Duleep Singh | 1843-1849, d. 1893 | |
| First Sikh War, 1845-1846; Second Sikh War, 1848-1849; annexed by British, 1849 | ||
At first this transformation did not seem to improve things much. Gobind Singh and his temporal successor, Bandâ Singh Bahâdur, both died violent deaths, and the community fragmented. But with the decline of Moghul power, opportunity knocked. The Khâlsâ was soon again unified and installed in Lahore, under Ranjît Singh, who became Mahârâjâ of the Punjab. Henceforth the Sikhs, although never more than a minority, were the greatest military power in northern India. The death of Ranjît, however, led to a chaotic succession and conflict among his heirs. Two sharp wars with the British led to the annexation of the Punjab, after which Sikh warlike ambitions could be directed through membership in the British Indian Army, where the Sikhs stood out with their characteristic turbans and beards.
In modern India a movement began for Sikh independence from India, with the Indian Punjab becoming Khâlistân. Led by Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindrânwale, this led to a catastrophic showdown in 1984 when the Golden Temple in Armitsar, the fortified center of the Sikh Faith, was stormed by the Indian Army, and Bhindrânwale killed. When Prime Minister Indria Gandhi was assassinated later the same year by Sikh bodyguards, few doubted that this was an act of revenge. Sikh nationalism continues to trouble India.
| MOGHUL EMPERORS | |
|---|---|
| Great Moghuls | |
| Bâbur | 1498-1500, 1500-1501 in Transoxania |
| 1526-1530 | |
| Humâyûn | 1530-1540, 1555-1556 |
| Akbar I | 1556-1605 |
| Jahângîr | 1605-1627 |
| Dâwar Bakhsh | 1627-1628 |
| Shâh Jahân I Khusraw | 1628-1657, d. 1666 |
| Awrangzîb 'Âlamgîr I | 1658-1707 |
| Shâh 'Âlam I Bahâdur | 1707-1712 |
| Jahândâr Mu'izz adDîn | 1712-1713 |
| Farrukh-siyar | 1713-1719 |
| Shams adDîn Râfi' adDarajât | 1719 |
| Shâh Jahân II Râfi' adDawla | 1719 |
| Nîkû-siyar Muh.ammad | 1719 |
| Muh.ammad Shâh Nâs.ir adDîn | 1719-1748 |
| Looting of Delhi by Nâdir Shâh, 1739 | |
| Ah.mad Bahâdur Shâh I | 1748-1754 |
| 'Azîz adDîn 'Âlamgîr II | 1754-1759 |
| Shâh Jahân III | 1759 |
| Shâh 'Âlam II | 1759-1788, 1788-1806 |
| Bîdâr-bakht | 1788 |
| Mu'în adDîn Akbar II | 1806-1837 |
| Moghul authority replaced by Britain, 1827; English replaces Persian, 1828; Suttee illegal, 1829; suppression of Thugee launched, 1836 | |
| Sirâj adDîn Bahâdur Shâh II | 1837-1858, d.1862 |
| Great Sepoy Mutiny, 1857-1858; British Rule, 1858-1947 | |
Pretensions to universal rule, which figure in Indian mythology, in Persian imperial tradition, and in the titles of earlier Indian rulers, are reflected in many of the actual names of Moghul emperors. "Akbar" in Arabic is "Greatest." "Jahângir" in Persian means to "seize" (gir) the "world" (jahân). "Shâh Jahân" is also Persian for "World King." "'Âlamgir" and "Shah 'Âlam" both simply substitute the Arabic word for "world," 'âlam, for the Persian word. As the Moghul state decays in the 18th century, of course, these names and pretentions become increasingly farcical.
Almost from the first, Moghul policy was to tolerate and win the cooperation of Hindus, especially the warriors of Rajasthan. With Akbar this approached a policy of positive toleration and religious syncretism, which earned Akbar the disfavor of Moslem clerics but, like Ashoka, the esteem of modern liberal opinion. Akbar even toyed with the idea of a universal syncretistic religion, to be called the Din-e Allâh, the "Religion of God." This was rather like what the Sikhs has originally been trying to do. But while Hinduism was always open to various kinds of syncretism, Islâm certainly was not.
Even the most basic elements of Moghul policy, however, were reversed by the fanatical Awrangzîb (or Aurangzeb), who briefly brought the Empire to its greatest extent but whose measures against Hindus and Sikhs (the execution of the ninth Sikh Gurû) fatally weakened the state. Non-Moslems no longer had any reason to support the Moghuls, and in short order the Empire was only a shell of its former strength and vigor, with the Persians sacking Delhi itself (1739), under the Emperor, Muh.ammad Shâh, who had done somewhat well at maintaining things.
Henceforth, the shell of Moghul authority would stand just until a new conquering power would appear. After a surge of French influence under their brilliant governor Joseph Dupleix (d.1763), that turned out to be the British, who, however, only gradually conceived the notion of actually replacing nominal Moghul authority with an explicit British Dominion in India. Although the last Moghul was deposed in 1858, the full process was not complete until Queen Victoria was proclaimed Empress of Indian in 1876. The British Râj would then last exactly 71 more years -- testimony to the rapidity of modern events after the 332 years of the Moghuls. How durable the British heritage will be is a good question. The form of government in India, which has in general remained democratic, is far more British than that of other former British possessions. And English, with its own distinctive Indian accent and vocabulary, remains the only official language of the country that does not provoke communal conflict.
The maps of Moghul India begin to feature European colonial possessions. Portugal is first, and for a good while they have the scene to themselves. Goa is the center of the operation, which then would extend all the way to China and Japan. St. Francis Xavier (d.1552) entered Japan and learned Japanese, and his reportedly incorrupt body is now still enshrined at Goa. Although nearly lost among the billion people of India, a fair number of Catholics survive from Portuguese missionary activity, often with Portuguese names, like D'Souza. Famous Portuguese missionaries in China, like Matteo Ricci (d.1610), also passed through Goa. The Kingdom of Kandy in Ceylon came to be in a rebellion against the Portuguese (1590) and then would survive in the mountains all through the Dutch tenure on the island, until the British took over (1815).
Until this point the maps of Imperial domains in India are based on Stanley Wolpert's A New History of India [Oxford University Press, 1989]. Now, however, they are largely based on the The Anchor Atlas of World History, Volume I [1974, Hermann Kinder, Werner Hilgemann, Ernest A. Menze, and Harald and Ruth Bukor] and Volume II [1978], and the Historical Atlas of the World [Barnes & Noble, 1972].
A century after Akbar, as the Moghul Empire totters a moment before falling, things are getting a bit crowded, with Britain, the Dutch, the French, and even the Danes piling on. One of the earliest British toeholds was Bombay, which was actually a gift from Portugal in the dowry of Catherine of Braganza when she married Charles II of England in 1664. In 1701, it looks like the Dutch have the strongest hold, but as the 18th century progressed, and the Moghul domain crumbled, France and Britain would become the principal rivals for hegemony.
The genealogy of the Moghuls is entirely from The New Islamic Dynasties, by Clifford Edmund Bosworth [Edinburgh University Press, 1996]. Some brief reigns given by Bosworth, which are so ephemeral as not to figure in most lists of the Moghuls, including the table above, are marked as "disputed." Otherwise, the title, Pâdishâh, "Emperor," and an imperial crown are given. The most memorable monument of the Moghuls is the Tâj Mahal, "Crown Palace." Shâh Jahân built this mausoleum in tribute to his favorite wife, Mumtâz-i-Mahal, "Select of the Palace" (in Persian, this would be pronounced Momtâz-e-Mahal -- mumtâz is Arabic [root myz] and can mean "distinguished," "exquisite," "select," "excellent," etc.), the mother of Aurangzeb. He lies there now with her, but his reign did not end well. He became ill and his sons then fell out among themselves, until Aurangzeb, the last of the Great Moghuls, gained control -- and imprisoned Shâh Jahân for the rest of his life. One might say that Aurangzeb ruled with such force that the Empire shattered in his hands. For a good while, as the realm broke up, the Throne was passed between brothers and cousins. Some stability was achieved when it no longer made much difference. The last, aging Moghul, Bahâdur Shâh II, threw his lot with the Mutineers and was deposed by the British.
| Maratha (Mahratta) Confederacy/Empire | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Chattrapatis, Kings | |||
| Sivaji I the Great | 1674-1680 | ||
| Shambhuji I | 1680-1689 | ||
| Rajaram I | 1689-1700 | defeat and occupation by the Moghuls, 1700 | |
| Tara Bai | regent, 1700-1708 | ||
| Chattrapatis, Kings | Peshwas, Ministers | ||
| Shahu I | 1708-1749 | Balaji Vishvanath | 1713-1720 |
| Baji Rao I | 1720-1740 | ||
| Balaji Baji Rao | 1740-1761 | ||
| Ramaraja II | 1749-1777 | Madhava Rao Ballal | 1761-1772 |
| Narayan Rao | 1772-1773 | ||
| Raghunath Rao | 1773-1774 | ||
| Madhava Rao Narayan | 1774-1796 | ||
| Shahu II | 1777-1808 | Chimnaji Appa | 1796 |
| Baji Rao II | 1796-1818 | ||
| Pratap Singh | 1808-1839 | ||
| Shahji Raja | 1839-1848 | ||
With the Marathans astride the sub-continent in 1756, we are at the moment of the maximum influence of the French, who had greatly extended their possessons and influence under Joseph François Dupleix (d.1763). However, Dupleix had just been recalled, in 1754, and his policies repudiated. This was ill considered, as the Seven Years War (1756-1763) was about to begin, and France would need as strong a position as possible in India. She wasn't going to have it, and the British would be just as victorious in the war in India as in the Americas. When Robert Clive defeated the Nawwâb of Bengal at Plassey in 1757, this resulted in Bengal and Bihar being delivered into the rule of the British East India Company -- usually regarded as the beginning of British rule in India.
| Nawwâbs & Kings of Oudh (Awadh), 1722-1856 | |
|---|---|
| Sa'âdat Khân Burhân alMulk | 1722-1739 |
| Abû Mans.ûr Khân S.afdâr Jang | 1739-1754 |
| H.aydar Shujâ' adDawla | 1754-1775 |
| Âs.af adDawla | 1775-1797 |
| Wazîr 'Alî | 1797-1798, d. 1817 |
| Sa'âdat 'Alî Khân | 1798-1814 |
| H.aydar I Ghâzî adDîn | 1814-1827; King, 1819 |
| H.aydar II Sulaymân Jâh | 1827-1837 |
| Muh.ammad 'Alî Mu'în adDîn | 1837-1842 |
| Amjad 'Alî Thurayyâ Jâh | 1842-1847 |
| Wâjid 'Alî | 1847-1856; d. 1887 |
| Deposed by British, Oudh annexed to British India, 1856; Great Sepoy Mutiny, 1857-1858 | |
| Barjîs Qadïr | 1857, during the Mutiny |
| British Rule, 1858-1947 | |
Oudh was a Moghul province that drifted into independence. The growth of British influence after 1764 led to a treaty in 1801 that required "sound government." British judgment that there wasn't such government became the pretext for deposing the king and imposing direct British rule in 1856. This and other resentments over British rule in India helped spark the Great Mutiny of British Sepoy (i.e. Indian) troups in 1857-1858. Oudh was a center of the rebellion. The British were besieged in Cawnpore and Lucknow. The siege of Cawnpore ended in a massacre of the whole British garrison, women and children included -- to which the British retaliated with their own massacre later. The siege of Lucknow ended better. One relief force simply joined the besieged, then another rescued the garrison but abandoned the city. Finally the city was retaken in 1858. This all led to a transformation of British rule in India, with the East India Company being disbanded and the Royal Government taking responsibility for the country.
| Niz.âms of Hyderabad, (Haydarâbâd) 1720-1948 | |
|---|---|
| Chin Qïlïch Khân Niz.âm alMulk | 1720-1748 |
| Nâs.ir Jang | 1748-1751 |
| Muz.affar Jang | 1751-1752 |
| S.alâbat Jang | 1752-1762 |
| Niz.âm 'Alî Khân | 1762-1803 |
| Farkhanda 'Alî Khân Nâs.ir adDawla | 1829-1857 |
| Mîr Mah.bûb 'Ali I Afd.al adDawla | 1857-1869 |
| Mîr Mah.bûb 'Ali II | 1869-1911 |
| Mîr 'Uthmân 'Alî Khân Bahâdur Fath. Jang | 1911-1948 |
| Annexation by Dominion of India, 1948 | |
Hyderabad, originally most of the Deccan plateau, was another Moghul province (under a s.ûbadâr) that drifted into independence. Despite the collapse of Moghul power, becoming surrounded by the British, and becoming allies of the British against states like Mysore, the Niz.âms still listed the Moghul Emperors on their coins all the way until the end of the line in 1858. British sovereignty was not acknowledged until 1926. Although Hyderabad was relatively improverished compared to the surrounding British territories, the last Niz.âm eventually accumulated enough wealth to be considered the richest man in the world. He did not outlive British rule by long. When India was partitioned, the Moslem Niz.âm chose to go with Pakistan, from whose other parts he was separated by hundreds of miles. Since Hyderabad was overwhelmingly Hindu, the new Dominion of India, ironically with King George VI of England still as official Head of State, already fighting with Pakistan over Kashmir, soon invaded and attached Hyderabad to India by force.
| Nawwâbs of Bengal, 1704-1765 | |
|---|---|
| Murshid Qulî Khân 'Alâ' adDawla | 1704-1725 |
| Shujâ' Khân Shujâ' adDawla | 1725-1739 |
| Sarfarâz Khân 'Alâ' adDawla | 1739-1740 |
| 'Alîwirdî Khân Hâshim adDawla | 1740-1756 |
| Mîrzâ Mah.mûd Sirâj adDawla | 1756-1757 |
| Defeated & dethroned by Robert Clive, Battle of Plassey, 1757 | |
| Mîr Ja'far Muh.ammad Khân Hâshim adDawla | 1757-1760 1763-1765 |
| Mîr Qâsim 'Alî | 1760-1763 |
| British East India Company Rule, 1765-1858, Presidency of Calcutta | |
| Robert Clive | Governor, 1755-1760, 1764-1767 |
| First Anglo-Mysore War, 1766-1769 | |
| Henry Verelst | 1767-1770 |
| Cartier | 1770-1772 |
Bengal became one of the three "Presidencies" through which direct British rule in India was effected (with different arrangements for the Princely States, which remained nominally under local rule). The others were Bombay and Madras. However, Bengal was also the seat of general British authority; and when the Governor of Bengal became the actual Governor-General of India, his seat continued to be in Calcutta. The capital of India was not moved to Delhi until rather late in British rule, in 1912. New Delhi became the capital in 1931.
The British conquest of India was the first that progressed up rather than down the Ganges. Previous invasions had all come from Central Asia over the Hindu Kush and the Khyber Pass. This had happened so often, beginning with the Arya in the 2nd millennium BC, that is rather difficult to say just how many such invasions were there. The British, however, like all the European powers, had come by sea. Where the Persians or the Afghans, most recently, would head straight for Delhi, the British were coming up all the way from Calcutta. They wouldn't get to Delhi until 1803.
| British Governors-General of India | |
|---|---|
| Warren Hastings | Governor-General 1772-1785 |
| First Anglo-Maratha War, 1776-1782; Second Anglo-Mysore War, 1780-1784 | |
| John MacPherson | 1785-1786 |
| Lord Cornwallis | 1786-1793 & 1805 |
| Third Anglo-Mysore War, 1789-1792 | |
| Sir John Shore | 1793-1798 |
| Lord Mornington | 1798-1805 |
| Fourth Anglo-Mysore War, 1798–1799; Second Anglo-Maratha War, 1803-1805 | |
| Sir G. Barlow | 1805-1807 |
| Lord Minto | 1807-1813 |
| Lord Moira (Lord Hastings) | 1813-1823 |
| Gurkha War, 1814-1816; Third Anglo-Maratha War, 1817-1818 | |
| Lord Amherst | 1823-1828 |
| First Burmese War, 1824-1826; Moghul authority replaced by Britain, 1827 | |
| Lord Bentinick | 1828-1835 |
| English replaces Persian, 1828; Suttee illegal, 1829; name of Moghul Emperor removed from coinage, 1835 | |
| Lord Metcalfe | 1835-1836 |
| Lord Auckland | 1836-1842 |
| suppression of Thugee launched, 1836; First Afghan War, 1839-1842 | |
| Earl of Ellenborough | 1842-1844 |
| Lord Hardinge | 1844-1848 |
| First Sikh War, 1845-1846 | |
| Earl of Dalhousie | 1848-1856 |
| Second Sikh War, 1848-1849; Punjab annexed, 1849; Second Burmese War, 1852; Oudh annexed, 1856 | |
| Lord Canning | 1856-1858 |
| Viceroy, 1858-1862 | |
| Great Sepoy Mutiny, 1857-1858; British Rule, 1858-1947 | |
The slow progress of claims to sovereignty may indicate the ambivalent nature of the British presence in India. They really were there just to make some money; and the very idea that the British would rule in India like Ashoka or Akbar was something that was both foreign and repugnant to a great deal of British public opinion. The Whigs and their successors, the Liberals, were never happy about British "imperialism." In this era an interesting example of the controversy was the impeachment (1787) prosecution (1788-1795) of Warren Hastings, the first formal Governor-General of India, after his return home. This was led by Edmund Burke and other Whig leaders, charging that Hastings had been a corrupt tyrant exploiting and victimizing the people of India. While many would now think of the whole British sojourn in India as of that nature, and there is no doubt that in the 1770's and '80's there was a bit of a Wild West feel to many who wanted to make their fortune in the country, Hastings himself actually seems to have been relatively conscientious and benevolent. The fury of Burke's attacks and the extraordinary length of the trial may have helped generate positive sympathy for Hastings. The whole business, however, exposes such uncertainties as can never have troubled the likes of Mahmud of Ghazna or Bâbur the Great Moghul.
Two remarkable undertakings in this period were the suppression of Suttee and of Thugee. Suttee was the burning of widows on the pyres of their husbands. This was supposed to be voluntary, as an act of devotion, as Sita did for her husband Rama in the Epic Ramayana (though a correspondent has denied this), but it mainly became an act of murder, by which the husband's family could rid themselves of an unwanted daughter-in-law (now I hear the claim that it was only done to protect widows from rape by British soldiers -- though the murder of daughters-in-law and widows is not unheard of in recent India). The Thugs were devotees of the goddess Kali, who murdered and then robbed in her name (the practice of Thugee). Since the Thugs were a secret society, exposing and arresting them was a more difficult and protracted process. That these practices were worthy of suppression provides an interesting subject for arguments about cultural relativism. At the time they did raise fears that the British intended to replace native religion with Christianity, which helped provoke the Great Mutiny.
Besides Oudh, the Princely State of Hyderabad is also distinguished by color on the map. A striking microcosm of the effect of British rule was the difference between the economic development of Hyderabad and that of the adjacent coast, under direct British rule. Although these encompassed the same Telugu speaking Hindu people and were included in the same state of Andhra Pradesh on independence, the greater economic development of the British area resulted in complaints from Hyderabadis that they were being taken over, exploited, etc. by migrants from the coast. The result was political moves to create preferential policies for the natives of Hyderabad. [See Thomas Sowell, Preferential Policies, An International Perspective, "Andhra Pradesh," pp.65-69, William Morrow & Co., 1990.]
The map shows the growth of British India from 1805 to the time of the Mutiny in 1858. At first, direct British rule already extends from Bengal all the way up the Ganges to Delhi (where a fiction of Moghul sovereignty persists) and down the East coast to Ceylon. By 1858, extensive areas have been added, notably the Punjab and into Burma. Oudh is also a recent acquisition, distinguished for its importance in the Mutiny. The yellow areas contain Princely States that are British dependents by treaty. Most would remain so until the end of British rule, a reluctance for further annexations having overcome the British after the Mutiny. However, on the eve of Indian Independence, the Princes would be rather bluntly informed that their territories were indeed going to be annexed, either to India or Pakistan. Their existence had become an anachronism. Such government was all that existed in the 18th century, but the British, by leaving them in place, had inadvertently managed to preserve them as living fossils into a very different age. Some people began to think that the British kept them in place just to make fun of them. Fossils or not, their actions were not always without contemporary consequences. The choice of the Hindu ruler of the majority Muslim Kashmir to go with India led to wars, tensions, and terrorism that persist until today.
| BRITISH EMPERORS OF INDIA | Viceroys & Governors- General of India | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Victoria | Queen, 1858-1901 | Lord Elgin | 1862-1863 |
| Lord Lawrence | 1863-1869 | ||
| Duar War, with Bhutan, 1864-1865 | |||
| Lord May | 1869-1872 | ||
| Lord Northbrook | 1872-1876 | ||
| Empress, 1876-1901 | Lord Lytton | 1876-1880 | |
| Second Afghan War, 1878-1881 | |||
| Lord Rippon | 1880-1884 | ||
| Lord Dufferin | 1884-1888 | ||
| Lord Landsdowne | 1888-1894 | ||
| Third Burmese War, 1885 | |||
| Lord Elgin | 1894-1899 | ||
| Lord Curzon | 1899-1905 | ||
| Edward (VII) | 1901-1910 | ||
| Lord Minto | 1905-1910 | ||
| George (V) | 1910-1936 | Lord Hardinge | 1910-1916 |
| Capital moved from Calcutta to Delhi, 1912, to New Delhi, 1931 | |||
| Lord Chelmsford | 1916-1921 | ||
| Third Afghan War, 1919 | |||
| Lord Reading | 1921-1926 | ||
| Lord Irwin (Lord Halifax) | 1926-1931 | ||
| Lord Willingdon | 1931-1936 | ||
The list of British Viceroys was originally compiled from The British Conquest and Dominion of India, Sir Penderel Moon [Duckworth, Indiana University Press, 1989]. Lord Reading was actually Jewish, probably the highest ranking Jew in the history of the British Empire, where the Viceroy of India, always raised to the Peerage for his office, held the highest Office of State next to the Throne itself.
When India became independent in 1947, it legally became a British Dominion, which means that the King of England was still the formal Head of State. Lord Mountbatten, the last Viceroy, was asked by Jawaharlal Nehru, the new Prime Minister, to stay on as Governor-General of the Dominion. There was then only one Indian Governor-General before the country was declared a Republic in 1950. The first Governor-General of Pakistan, which similarly became a Dominion, was the Moslem nationalist leader, Mohammad Ali Jinnah. Jinnah died of cancer in 1948, and there were several Pakistani Governors-General before the country became a Republic in 1956.
What the British heritage in India tends to stand for is something democratic, unifying, fair, and evenhanded -- a plus for India and a tribute to the British. One accusation against British evenhandedness was what seemed their preference for Muslims, which may have led to unnecessary haste in deciding to partition the country. However, it has always been the policy of every imperial power to use the services of minorities who dislike or fear the prospect of government by the majority communities. When minorities are subsequently oppressed, expelled, or massacred afterways, the majority community tends to justify the matter as retribution for cooperation with the occupiers. However, if the minorities had been oppressed before the arrival of the imperial power, this rationalization rings a little hollow. In India, Islam arrived with the imperial power of Ghazna, the Ghurids, and the Moghuls, and Muslims had never lived under a Hindu majority government. For reasons both rational and irrational, the movement arose to avoid this. Whether or not the British, who certainly included Islamophiles like Sir Richard Burton, favored Muslims, we are now familiar enough with the cultural dynamic of Islâm to see that very little favor indeed, if any, was necessary to produce the nationalism of Mohammad Ali Jinnah. Even if the British had granted independence to India in 1919 or 1930, before Jinnah's movement began, it is not difficult to see a certainty of the emergence of something much like it, whose consequence would have been civil war rather than quick and simple Partition.
On the map we see the final form of British India, with Burma thrown in for good measure. The special North West Frontier Province and the imposition of direct British rule along the southern border of Afghanistan both bespeak increasing British concern about the advance of the Russians in Central Asia. The espionage and diplomatic maneuvering associated with Russian actions and intentions were often called the "Great Game." In retrospect, not much seems to have come of it all; but at the time, Russia, actually with the largest economy in the world, seemed more powerful and aggressive than it looks now. We forget that Russia was at the time conquering Central Asia, and the British remembered well the hard fight of the Crimean War (1853-1856). The principle consequence of the Russian approach was British intervention in Afghanistan, either to attach the kingdom to the Empire, or at least preserve it as a buffer state. The First Afghan War (1839-1842) was a famous catastrophy, with, after intitial successes, the entire British force wiped out in retreat from Kabul. The Second Afghan War (1878-1881) at least accomplished the task of rendering Afghanistan under British protection as a buffer against the Russians, just as the Russians actually were arriving in the mountains to the north. The most famous casualty of this war is the fictional John H. Watson, M.D., whose wound and small income led to him to find a roommate in the person of one Sherlock Holmes. The rest is, after a fashion, history. The practical end of the Great Game may have come in 1905, when the Wakhan salient was attached to Afghanistan to separate India from Russia. It still gives Afghanistan a small border with China. The Third Afghan War (1919), led to full formal Afghan independence in 1921. The Russians eventually arrived after all in 1979 but in the end probably wished that they had not bothered, with the Soviet Union itself collapsing shortly after the Russian occupation ended in 1989. Now, however, after Afghanistan began harboring Islamist terrorists, an American and NATO military presence (2001) has mainly succeeded in chasing the radicals and their allies into the mountains within the Pakistani border. This region, shown as annexed by the British in 1890 and 1893, is a primitive tribal area that was never very much under British control. The Pakistanis have not done markedly better with the place, which is still protected by the fearsome terrain, the resolute anarchy of the inhabitants, and now by the political problem of Islamist and pro-terrorist sentiment within Pakistan itself, which makes a sustained crackdown unpopular. La plus ça change...
Although many Indians preserve an ideological or nationalistic animus towards the British (which they may or may not have, for instance, towards the Moghuls), believing that the British exploited India and inhibited its development, there is the striking circumstance that on independence in 1947, the Indian economy was twice the size of that of China. That advantage was lost by 1990, and the Chinese economy by 2003 was more than twice the size of India's. Thus, it seems to be that the British promoted Indian development more than otherwise and that the socialist and autarkic policies instituted by Nehru, and later his daughter Indira Gandhi, have done more damage than can ever be blamed on the British (unless it be on the influence of British socialists). Fortunately, these policies began to be reversed in the 1990's and great improvement has occurred, as discussed elsewhere. Today, an American calling a customer service number for an American company may well find themselves speaking to somebody in India. Some resent this, but it is really rather marvelous and would seem to bespeak a handsome kinship between two different subjects of the former British imperium.
| BRITISH EMPERORS & KINGS | Viceroys & Governors-General of India | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Edward (VIII) | 1936 | Lord Linlithgow | 1936-1943 | ||
| George (VI) | Emperor, 1936-1947 | ||||
| Lord Wavell | 1943-1947 | ||||
| Lord Mountbatten | 1947 | ||||
| King;
India 1947-1950, Pakistan 1947-1952 | Governor- General of India, 1947-1948 | Mohammad Ali Jinnah | Governor- General of Pakistan, 1947-1948 | ||
| Chakravarti, Rajagopalachari | Governor- General of India, 1948-1950 | Khwaja Nazimuddin | Governor- General of Pakistan, 1948-1951 | ||
| India becomes a Republic, 1950 | |||||
| Elizabeth (II) | Queen,
Pakistan, 1952-1956 |   | Ghulam Mohammad | Governor- General of Pakistan, 1951-1955 | |
| Iskander Mirza | Governor- General of Pakistan, 1955-1956 | ||||
| Pakistan becomes a Republic, 1956 | |||||
The Caste System and the Stages of Life in Hinduism
British Coinage of India, 1835-1947
The Sun Never Set on the British Empire
The Kings of England, Scotland, & Ireland
British Coins before the Florin, Compared to French Coins of the Ancien Régime
The list of Chinese Emperors here was originally as given in Mathews' Chinese-English Dictionary [Harvard University Press, 1972, pp. 1165-1175]. Now most of the names and dates are from A Short History of the Chinese People by L. Carrington Goodrich [Harper Torchbooks, 1943, 1963], The Horizon History of China by C.P. Fitzgerald [American Heritage Publishing, 1969], The Chinese Calendar and the Julian Day Number, a pamphlet by O.L. Harvey [1977, based on Chronological Tables of Chinese History by Tung Tso-pin, Hong Kong University Press, 1960], The Glory and Fall of the Ming Dynasty by Albert Chan [U. of Oklahoma Press, 1982], The Southern Ming, 1644-1662 by Lynn A. Struve [Yale University Pres, 1984], A History of Chinese Civilization by Jacques Gernet [translated by J.R. Foster, Cambridge University Press, 1972, 1982, 1990], the Chronicle of the Chinese Emperors by Ann Paludan [Thames & Hudson, London, 1998], the Records of the Grand Historian by Sima Qian [3 volumes, Qin, Han I, & Han II, Columbia University Press, 1993], The Cambridge History of Ancient China, from the Origins of Civilization to 221 B.C. edited by Michael Loewe & Edward L. Shaughnessy 
[Cambridge U. Press, 1999], A Concise History of China by J.A.G. Roberts [Harvard University Press, 1999], Chinese History, A Manual by Endymion Wilkinson [Harvard-Yenching Institute Monograph Series, 52, Harvard U. Press, 2000], the Oxford Dynasties of the World by John E. Morby [Oxford University Press, 1989, 2002, pp.215-221], Historical Records of the Five Dynasties, by Ouyang Xiu [translated by Richard L. Davis, Columbia U. Press, 2004], China, A New History by John King Fairbank & Merle Goldman [Belknap Press of Harvard U. Press, 2006], The Nihon Kodaishi Daijiten, or Dictionary of Ancient Japanese History, on CD-ROM [Yamato Shobô, 2006], and some other books and websites that are referenced at various points below.
The traditional Chinese dates for the Emperors are usually for the first full year of the reign, which is also the first year of the appropriate Era. This can be a little confusing, and sources on Chinese history do not always seem consistent (or we run afoul of when the Chinese calendar year starts -- or I have gotten confused!). The convention is even applied to the Chinese Republic, which is often said to have begun in 1912, even though the Ch'ing Dynasty was overthrown in 1911 -- although in this case the Republic was actually not formally proclaimed until January 1, 1912; so the history was arranged to match the chronology. (But then the Emperor did not abdicate until March 1912.) The convention also makes it possible that Emperors who do not survive beyond their initial calendar year may not even be counted, which is the case, creating some confusion, with a couple of the Mongols. Other Emperors are not listed in Chinese sources as unworthy for other reasons. In Mathews', only the first year of a reign is ordinarily given. Here, for the Ming and Ch'ing Dynasties, this year corresponds to the first Era given with the reign. All other Era names, from the Han up to and including the Yüan, are given on a popup page -- or it may be opened in the current window.
Wade-Giles writings are usually used, consistent with the older sources. But Pinyin versions are occasionally given, especially for the dynasties, and also exclusively with images of characters. Superscript numbers are given for the tones in Pinyin, when HTML codes are not available for them (i.e. the lst & 3rd tones). Note that Wade-Giles "ho" and "he" can both be found for Pinyin "he" -- as other writings sometimes reflect older Mandarin pronunciations (e.g. "Peking" itself). While newer sources use Pinyin exclusively, I think this is improper. As a denial of history, it is like teaching Chinese with only the "simplified" characters. Simplified characters themselves are not given here because they are (1) ugly, (2) ahistorical, (3) not used in older sources, and (4) not used in Taiwan or by many or most overseas Chinese communities (though, I understand, this is changing). It may be too late to stop the simplified character bandwagon, but the attempt should be made. While the idea was that simplified characters would make literacy easier, it actually makes larger literacy more difficult when traditional characters must be learned anyway to read older books, historical inscriptions, overseas Chinese, or Japanese kambun (
), i.e. written Chinese from Japanese writers who didn't actually speak Chinese (a similar phenomenon was formerly found in Korea and Vietnam). A break with the past was certainly one motivation for the simplification -- though Mao Tse-tung (Zedong) then published his own poetry in traditional characters! Curiously, The Pinyin Chinese-English Dictionary [Editor-in-chief Wu Jingrong, The Commercial Press, Beijing, Hong Kong, & John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1979, 1985], which gives the simplified character for in the text [p.266] and in the Chinese Foreword [p.2], nevertheless has the traditional character on the front of the book and on the title page. Indeed, newer dictionaries in Pinyin do a better job of giving the traditional characters along with the simplified ones. And when an edition was prepared of the 24 Standard Dynastic Histories, the Ershisishi [241 volumes, Zhonghua, 1962-1975], at the personal direction of Chairman Mao, it was all in traditional, "complex" characters.
| THE CHINESE HISTORICAL ERA, short count | 2637 BC |
|---|---|
| 1998 AD + 2637 = 4635 Annô Sinarum | |
| THE CHINESE HISTORICAL ERA, long count | 2852 BC |
| 1998 AD + 2852 = 4850 Annô Sinarum | |
| The Legendary Period, Age of the Five Rulers | 647 years |
Hsia,  , Dynasty | 1962-1523 (2205-1766) |
The maps are based on L. Carrington Goodrich, A Short History of the Chinese People [Harper Torchbooks, The University Library, 1963], The Anchor Atlas of World History, Volume I [Hermann Kinder, Werner Hilgemann, Ernest A. Menze, and Harald and Ruth Bukor, 1974], Michael Prawdin, The Mongol Empire, its Rise and Legacy [Free Press, 1961], The [London] Times Concise Atlas of World History, edited by Geoffrey Barraclough [Times Books Ltd, Hammond Inc., 1988], The Cambridge History of Ancient China, from the Origins of Civilization to 221 B.C. edited by Michael Loewe & Edward L. Shaughnessy [Cambridge U. Press, 1999], and a few other sources I've lost track of. Paludan's Chronicle of the Chinese Emperors, although an excellent book in every other way, is suspiciously deficient in maps, with a glaring mistake on one that is given -- the absence of the trans-Amur Maritime Province, later lost to Russia, on the map of the Ch'ing Empire [p.11]. There seem to be considerable uncertainties, or at least disagreements, about the boundaries in many periods, even well documented ones, like the T'ang and Ming.
The Thought Police are hereby informed that the color yellow 
is used for the tables and maps for China, not because China is the racial "Yellow Peril," but because the color yellow is associated with the element
 |
) at the center. Thus, China can even be called 
, "Middle Earth." At least from the Ming Dynasty, yellow tiles were reserved for use on the roofs of Imperial palaces, and so the color came to mean the Emperor himself.
China can also be called the 
, "Middle Glorious," with used for "Chinese" in many expressions (almost interchangeably with 
and 
), e.g. 
or 
for "Chinese People," or 
for "Chinese labor (abroad)," or , "Chinese language."
While the "Middle Kingdom" or "Middle Earth" give China a central place in the world, another locution, 
, "Under Heaven," can mean both China and the entire World -- all under heaven. Since the title
The situation in India in 1780 was with the British poised for conquest. At that point, wars had already been fought with Mysore and with the Marathans. More would come. The Punjab, in the distance, would be a project for some years later. Meanwhile, The French would shortly be down to four cities, which they would surrender to the newly independent India in 1947. The Portuguese, from their former hegemony, were reduced to three possessions, which they would retain until forcibly taken by India in 1961. The two Danish cities were sold to Britain in 1845. The British were unwilling to pay for the Danish Nicobar Islands, but then, after the Danes had left in 1837, they complained about piracy there. The Danes returned 1845-1848. After Denmark renounced sovereignty in 1868, the British occupied the islands.){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}