I never knew india had this many beautiful buildings
India has the best architecture in the world
- Thread starter killerxsmoke
- Start date
They're all Hindu temples or holy sites from their Ancient times. All pagan/polytheist peoples went big on their temples....Take a look at ancient Greek or Roman temples.....They were a thing to behold and many still stand to this day, thousands of years after their construction.
Paganism/Polytheism holds that their temples be of grandiose stature, to awe and lull the simpletons into the bullshit.
Paganism/Polytheism holds that their temples be of grandiose stature, to awe and lull the simpletons into the bullshit.
@killerxsmoke i didn’t know you were girl I always thought you male
India's iconic architecture and design encompass a rich legacy that stretches from the magnificent Taj Mahal to the splendid British-built Mumbai Station. Tho thus far, no post-colonial architecture has emerged with a design that can rival them. Modern Indian architecture often lacks originality, sustainability, and cultural integration due to hasty development, imitating global trends, and inadequate urban planning, plus European gothic architecture beats Indian architecture anytime any day. architecture wise India is not top 5
i am a guy lol
My bad this profile pic had me confused.
Why will you pick the most feminine pic for your profile? Ninyaho
i like the pic. it looks so peaceful
It's kinda wild how influential Turkic speaking folks were at one point. Just think about the fact that the ruling dynasties of the three wealthiest entities other than China before the west really took off were all ruled by Turkic speaking dynasties:
That alongside the spread of Indo-European in pre-medieval Eurasia and the sucesss of the Mongols is just weird to think about. Steppe nomads be stronk, wallahi. It's incredible how much nomadic peoples shaped the civilizations they neighbored.
mohammdov
Nabadshe
This is something I did not understand. noomads often establish empires. Why did this not happen in the Horn of Africa or SSA?It's kinda wild how influential Turkic speaking folks were at one point. Just think about the fact that the ruling dynasties of the three wealthiest entities other than China before the west really took off were all ruled by Turkic speaking dynasties:
That alongside the spread of Indo-European in pre-medieval Eurasia and the sucesss of the Mongols is just weird to think about. Steppe nomads be stronk, wallahi. It's incredible how much nomadic peoples shaped the civilizations they neighbored.
The nomads in Africa did plenty of conquering and establishing states themselves. As far as I know, this sort of thing happened over and over in Sudan with successive waves of more nomadic types conquering and changing the cultural landscape. Other than that you have the Fula Jihads, the Kanem-Bornu, the Oromo migrations and the massive effect they had on the Horn and the fact that actually powerful dynasties did surface from it, and not to mention the Tutsis' consistent dominance over their parts of SE and Central Africa. Also, it's not like Somalis didn't establish sizeable Sultanates and confederacies. It's just unfortunate that no one managed to conquer and unite all of the Somali tribes into one entity like in Arabia during the 7th century.
But Africa is a different animal, saaxiib. For starters, across much of the continent before the modern era you couldn't even really get that far below the equator with animals like horses and camels due to issues like the tsetse fly. Also, the fact that there were not many vast empires to be found in Africa is probably another reason why the nomadic groups in Africa didn't form empires themselves.
In the western steppes the nomads there remained largely splintered and relied more on extortion, raids and managing trade routes and never really formed vast empires. Why? Because eastern Europe was fragmentary, weak and mostly lacked vast empires so why form a large nomadic bloc to counter them? This professor goes into this a bit:
Africa's too big, geographically and climatically diverse for something like the Chinese dynasties to pop up and prompt such a united front from nomads. If the Xabashi empire was more solid, powerful and vast maybe Somalis would have been more prompted to unite and conquer but as it stood there was no real need or true threat. Those saaxiibs couldn't even conquer beyond areas like Saylac and whenever they did it didn't take long to lose ground. Menelik tried his luck with Koonfur and miserably failed:
"The British, Italians, and Ethiopians partitioned Greater Somalia into spheres of influence, cutting into the previous nomadic grazing system and Somali civilizational network that connected port cities with those of the interior. The Ethiopian Emperor Menelik's Somali expedition, consisting of an army of 15,000 men, made a deep push into the vicinity of Luuq in Somalia. However, his troops were soundly defeated by the Sultanate of the Geledi, with only 200 soldiers returning alive and at the same time his survived soldiers were heavily traumatized. The Ethiopians subsequently refrained from further expeditions into the interior of Somalia but continued to attack the people in the Ogaden by plundering the nomads of their livestock numbering in the hundreds of thousands."
Source: Divine madness: Moḥammed ʻAbdulle Ḥassan (1856-1920) page 69.
Xabashis' greatest achievement against Somalis is, with cadaans' help, annexing our equivalent of Najd.
Last edited:
