which of these 2 civilizations was more technologically advanced in your opinion?

[urmiladuhan]

here are 2 photos of coins from 2 distinct civilizations from the same time period. Only by looking at these coins, can you guess which of the two was more technologically advanced? secondly, which of the 2 civilization would win a war over the other?

photo 1:

16948

photo 2:

16949

[DrRajpalSingh]

here are 2 photos of coins from 2 distinct civilizations from the same time period. Only by looking at these coins, can you guess which of the two was more technologically advanced? secondly, which of the 2 civilization would win a war over the other?

photo 1:

16948

photo 2:

16949

Winner or looser later, first, it would be good if you kindly elaborate who issued them.

Thanks and regards

[urmiladuhan]

No. Not now because that is not the point of this thread.


QUOTE=DrRajpalSingh;352157]Winner or looser later, first, it would be good if you kindly elaborate who issued them.

Thanks and regards[/QUOTE]

[DrRajpalSingh]

No. Not now because that is not the point of this thread.


QUOTE=DrRajpalSingh;352157]Winner or looser later, first, it would be good if you kindly elaborate who issued them.

Thanks and regards[/QUOTE]

Fantastic !

Without dating and mentioning the site of the archaeological find, how one can compare and contrast the two and draw conclusion that they belonged to the same period.

Nonetheless, we have no option but to wait for the appropriate time decided by you when the reply would be posted.

Thanks and regards,

[urmiladuhan]

Rajpal, are you mocking my grasp of the subject of this post? If so, kindly do not indulge in personal attacks, especially you being moderator of the site.
There is a very useful thread going on in the General Talk section on Soft Skills. May I suggest learning something useful for the site from there, so you do not indulge in de railing threads through personal attacks? With folded hands I request you to kindly cooperate and make use of the thread for good and let others also have some fun. This thread,

in my opinion, can draw people towards cultivating interest in history. So, please, please, please... Kindly focus on the topic of the thread and maintain a positive mindset. Thank you and welcome to the thread!






Fantastic !

Without dating and mentioning the site of the archaeological find, how one can compare and contrast the two and draw conclusion that they belonged to the same period.

Nonetheless, we have no option but to wait for the appropriate time decided by you when the reply would be posted.

Thanks and regards,[/QUOTE]

[DrRajpalSingh]

Rajpal, are you mocking my grasp of the subject of this post? If so, kindly do not indulge in personal attacks, especially you being moderator of the site.
There is a very useful thread going on in the General Talk section on Soft Skills. May I suggest learning something useful for the site from there, so you do not indulge in de railing threads through personal attacks? With folded hands I request you to kindly cooperate and make use of the thread for good and let others also have some fun. This thread,

in my opinion, can draw people towards cultivating interest in history. So, please, please, please... Kindly focus on the topic of the thread and maintain a positive mindset. Thank you and welcome to the thread!





Fantastic !

Without dating and mentioning the site of the archaeological find, how one can compare and contrast the two and draw conclusion that they belonged to the same period.

Nonetheless, we have no option but to wait for the appropriate time decided by you when the reply would be posted.

Thanks and regards,[/QUOTE]


Ms. Duhan Ji,

There is neither mocking nor an attempt to derail the topic. Perhaps you mistook my intention in seeking the needed information to carry forward the discussion which I thought was necessary. The word Fantastic was used in the context of your post where you had denied to reply and it stood for 'fantastic reply'. Thanks for guiding me to visit another thread to learn something about 'skills' put on that thread.

As desired by you I will not put questions to you on this thread topic.

Wish you and the thread under reference all success !!

Thanks and regards,

[urmiladuhan]

Dr. Rajpal,

My apologies for any misunderstanding. Kindly participate in the thread by answering the 2 questions in the first post.
Again, please accept my sincere apologies.

Regards,

Urmila.

QUOTE=DrRajpalSingh;352175][/QUOTE]


Ms. Duhan Ji,

There is neither mocking nor an attempt to derail the topic. Perhaps you mistook my intention in seeking the needed information to carry forward the discussion which I thought was necessary. The word Fantastic was used in the context of your post where you had denied to reply and it stood for 'fantastic reply'. Thanks for guiding me to visit another thread to learn something about 'skills' put on that thread.

As desired by you I will not put questions to you on this thread topic.

Wish you and the thread under reference all success !!

Thanks and regards,[/QUOTE]

[swaich]

here are 2 photos of coins from 2 distinct civilizations from the same time period. Only by looking at these coins, can you guess which of the two was more technologically advanced? secondly, which of the 2 civilization would win a war over the other?

photo 1:

16948

photo 2:

16949

I could be wrong, but the first question is a little easier to answer than the second. It does seem like the civilization with the coins in Photo 1, would be the more technologically advanced.

For answer 2, I would have to answer - Can't say. Technological advancement in minting coins, doesn't always translate into victory in military battles. :)

[urmiladuhan]

May I get your attention to the presence of script on coins in one civilization versus no script on the coins from the second civilization.




QUOTE=swaich;352183]I could be wrong, but the first question is a little easier to answer than the second. It does seem like the civilization with the coins in Photo 1, would be the more technologically advanced.

For answer 2, I would have to answer - Can't say. Technological advancement in minting coins, doesn't always translate into victory in military battles. :)[/QUOTE]

[rkumar]

My vote will go for the first one by a good margin. ...

RK^2

[urmiladuhan]

Sometimes the information printed on coins is a source of personal information such as hobbies of kings (a Gupta period coin shows the seated king playing harp).

The first photo in this thread is that of a Greek coin and is about 2700 years old. The second photo is of coins obtained from Indian soil and is dated to the same time period as the Greek coin in photo 1. A few centuries later, Greeks defeated Indian kings. Is it a surprise that the Greeks were successful in their Indian conquests? Just looking at the 2 coins, it is clear that Greeks gave importance to the development and use of text/script, a hallmark of technological mind set, while the Indian counter parts did not in the same vein. Secondly, the Greek coins show attention to detail in drawing the figures on coin (for example, the owl has multiple types of feathers etc). Attention to detail is characteristic of intellectual mind set and thus a progressive outlook. The coin is a small surface to get so many details so clearly. Thirdly, the Greek coin shows the figure of the king while the Indian coin does not. Perhaps this reflects the importance of 'Self' on the Greek coin.

The fact is that the Greeks did win over the Indians. Their coins can tell us why.

The reasons are valid in today's world too, I think.






here are 2 photos of coins from 2 distinct civilizations from the same time period. Only by looking at these coins, can you guess which of the two was more technologically advanced? secondly, which of the 2 civilization would win a war over the other?

photo 1:

16948

photo 2:

16949

[rkumar]

Sometimes the information printed on coins is a source of personal information such as hobbies of kings (a Gupta period coin shows the seated king playing harp).

The first photo in this thread is that of a Greek coin and is about 2700 years old. The second photo is of coins obtained from Indian soil and is dated to the same time period as the Greek coin in photo 1. A few centuries later, Greeks defeated Indian kings. Is it a surprise that the Greeks were successful in their Indian conquests? Just looking at the 2 coins, it is clear that Greeks gave importance to the development and use of text/script, a hallmark of technological mind set, while the Indian counter parts did not in the same vein. Secondly, the Greek coins show attention to detail in drawing the figures on coin (for example, the owl has multiple types of feathers etc). Attention to detail is characteristic of intellectual mind set and thus a progressive outlook. The coin is a small surface to get so many details so clearly. Thirdly, the Greek coin shows the figure of the king while the Indian coin does not. Perhaps this reflects the importance of 'Self' on the Greek coin.

The fact is that the Greeks did win over the Indians. Their coins can tell us why.

The reasons are valid in today's world too, I think.

I will agree only partially with your hypothesis. In war technology do play an important role but not the entire one. Manghols hardly had any modern technology at the time, but expanded their empire far and wide. It was their horse power which tilted the scale. Vietnam and Afghan wars too prove that technology alone did not come handy to decide the outcome of war. There is famous "Birbal story" which sums it so well. One day Akbar asked BIrbal as to which weapon is the best. Birbal replied, " Jo waqt pe kaam aa jaye". By the way Greeks did not win over Indians. At best they won over a small kingdom in north west. Resistance put up was so massive that Alexandra had to retreat back. Greeks had to sign treaties with Chandragupta Maurya.

RK^2

[urmiladuhan]

Weapon forging, training horses, training men, reliance on maps of terrains, weather forecasting, medical care of the injured, etc are part of technology.
The first encounter of the Greeks on Indian soil was many century earlier to Chandergupta Maurya. The Indo Greek rulers of the time of Chandergupta Maurya had declined in power by then.




I will agree only partially with your hypothesis. In war technology do play an important role but not the entire one. Manghols hardly had any modern technology at the time, but expanded their empire far and wide. It was their horse power which tilted the scale. Vietnam and Afghan wars too prove that technology alone did not come handy to decide the outcome of war. There is famous "Birbal story" which sums it so well. One day Akbar asked BIrbal as to which weapon is the best. Birbal replied, " Jo waqt pe kaam aa jaye". By the way Greeks did not win over Indians. At best they won over a small kingdom in north west. Resistance put up was so massive that Alexandra had to retreat back. Greeks had to sign treaties with Chandragupta Maurya.

RK^2

[prashantacmet]

Weapon forging, training horses, training men, reliance on maps of terrains, weather forecasting, medical care of the injured, etc are part of technology.
The first encounter of the Greeks on Indian soil was many century earlier to Chandergupta Maurya. The Indo Greek rulers of the time of Chandergupta Maurya had declined in power by then.

I guess you are talking about alexander attack right?..

alexander attacked on india and defeated few small kings ( porus was one of them) in north west. After that his soldiers denied to move further due to climate conditions and bravery of Indians..Corretc me if wrong but alexander never crossed ganga..

when he returne dback , he appointed Seluces as as successor in india and selcues daughter was married to chanddragupta..so how do you say that "first encounter of greeks on indian soil happened many centures before chandragupta"..??.. who was the greek before alexander who attacked India

[urmiladuhan]

I guess you are talking about alexander attack right?..

alexander attacked on india and defeated few small kings ( porus was one of them) in north west. After that his soldiers denied to move further due to climate conditions and bravery of Indians..Corretc me if wrong but alexander never crossed ganga..

when he returne dback , he appointed Seluces as as successor in india and selcues daughter was married to chanddragupta..so how do you say that "first encounter of greeks on indian soil happened many centures before chandragupta"..??.. who was the greek before alexander who attacked India

My mistake on the Chandragupta Maurya date. It was some time, but after the death of Alexander, that Greek power on Indian soil declined.

However the point of the original post was the association of technology and emphasis of higher mental faculties (i.e., use and development of script) with advanced civilization and therefore with the ease and ability to win wars.

[urmiladuhan]

And another thing that came to my mind when as a layperson I truly got introduced to history through ancient coins was that one must be able to look at them in a non biased way to truly grasp the information on them. If one is mentally steeped in proving that Indian civilization was better than the Greek of that time, then that person will probably look for clues to prove his/her point, disregarding many other vital signs. There are all types of clues on these coins and it is up to the person how he/she wants to look at the information.

In my opinion, culturally it is very much an Indian mindset to lay emphasis on use of women to settle scores. The concept of honor crimes involving women even today in India, are blamed by the media and Indian courts, (and women's groups) due to this type of age old mentality.






QUOTE=urmiladuhan;352377]My mistake on the Chandragupta Maurya date. It was some time, but after the death of Alexander, that Greek power on Indian soil declined.

However the point of the original post was the association of technology and emphasis of higher mental faculties (i.e., use and development of script) with advanced civilization and therefore with the ease and ability to win wars.[/QUOTE]

[rkumar]

............In my opinion, culturally it is very much an Indian mindset to lay emphasis on use of women to settle scores. The concept of honor crimes involving women even today in India, are blamed by the media and Indian courts, (and women's groups) due to this type of age old mentality. ............


No doubt about this. I totally endorse your views . Biggest proof of this is both in Ramayana and Mahabharat. There was tit for tat in Ramayana. Lakshman cuts the nose of Soopnakha and Ravan takes away Sita. In Mahabharat we have the story of Draupdi. I never consider India a safe place for women. Look at our "Galis" , which use most derogatory words for "maa and bahan".. anyway It stinks... Most of work places in India are highly women un-friendly.


RK^2