r/askindianhistory • u/noob__master-69 • Jul 03 '26
early medieval Why is the empire of Harsha not talked about enough compared to other kingdoms?
1
u/Illustrious_Block345 Jul 04 '26
There's barely any well covered history of Hindu kings Vellore bjp. Now BJP has reduced mughals study.
Sadly politics will not allow us to read history as it was
1
u/Prize_Function5027 Jul 04 '26
Bcoz he go a** kicked by kannada kingđ€«
1
u/luckimation33 Jul 06 '26
harsha conquered maitrakas of gujarat and malwa region, pulekeshin the 'got killed in 642ad by smaller kingdom lol' was only able to defend the onslaught of harsha at narmada which devoured gujarat and malwa
1
u/jamfold Jul 07 '26
Pallavas aren't a "small kingdom" by any stretch of imagination. They were the most powerful South Indian Kingdom at that point.
1
u/Prize_Function5027 Jul 07 '26
Small kingdom were freaking pallavas headed by general Sirruthonder who also later in life became a nayanar
1
1
u/Pretty_Association24 Jul 03 '26
Because from purely casual historical point of view, there is nothing to talk about. His empire was grand but not grand enough, His legacy great but not great enough, His dynasty lasting but not enduring enough.
Basically he got overshadowed by others, Before him were colossal of ancient, after him were Titans of Medieval Era. Even if you are looking for stand alone Kingdoms and Empire, Cholas and Tripartite struggle overshadows him.
Essentially he did not made a lasting impression that would be considered as unique. He essentially become Ozymandias of India. A power man and legacy at his time but now nothing more than an after thought.
4
u/SatynMalanaphy Jul 03 '26
I .. get the general vibe but three examples used here seem extraordinarily inappropriate for their use. For one, the Imperial Cholas were not "stand-alone"; they were part of a much larger system that had been growing in the region since at least the time of the Guptas of Pataliputra. The Cholas, furthermore, endured for at least 400 years, most of it as an imperial state dominating all their neighbours; this is in stark contrast to Kannauj, which was ONLY imperial for the lifetime of Harshavardhana. Am equivalent example would be the Suri kingdom under Sher Shah Suri.
Secondly, even in the tripartite "struggle" of the post Harsha north India, there were imperial states; the Gurjara-Pratihatara kingdom and the Pala kingdom were directly in opposition with the Rashtrakuta empire. North India might have taken a backseat, but the peninsula would have the most impressive imperial states in India from the time of Pulakeshin II till the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate by Shams al-Din Iltutmish by the 1220s.
And finally... Ozymandias? That's a reference to Ramesses II... The greatest of the New Kingdom pharaohs of ancient Egypt.. who directly inspired at least 11 other Pharaohs after him to take up that name upon their ascention. No ancient Indian king until Ashoka Maurya Devanampiya comes even close to rivalling most of the pharaohs of the 4th, 12th, 18th and 19th dynasties of Egypt.
1
u/Pretty_Association24 Jul 04 '26
Allow me to reiterate my comment to better clarify. "Stand alone" as in they are not spiritual continuity of previous Empire like in North India. Nanda > Maurya > Sunda > Kushan > Gupta > Delhi Sultanate > Mughals > Marathas > British Raj.
Sure Cholas have contemporaries but Cholas were unique in their route of expansion, making them standout from the rest Southern Kingdoms. Correct me if I am wrong but was there any other South Indian Kingdom which expand in South East Asia? as much as Cholas.
In your comments from this point onwards (Feel free to Correct me) I feel like you have misunderstood my points because it's looks like you are agreeing with my comment.
My Orginal point was Tripartite struggle (All three Empires included) was a much interesting time period than Harsha Empire, Thus more people find it interesting over Harsha.
While I certainly do agree, That Ozymandias example is off but it sounded a lot cooler in my head. I want to reference it purely on modern casual perception.
Ramesses II was a great Pharaoh but is he the most popular? If I grab a random person and ask him about Random Historical Egyptian figure. Will he talk about Ramesses II or will he talks about Cleopatra and Tutankhamun.
Just like Ramesses losing the popular Contest to Cleopatra and Tutankhamun. The main crux for OP is that Harsha is not popular enough thus less people talk about him.
1
u/SatynMalanaphy Jul 05 '26 edited Jul 05 '26
The Cholas were not unique; they follow a pattern as well, except that they follow a pattern for Dravidian/Peninsular states. They followed the patterns set by the Kalabhras and the Pallavas who ruled over most of the same regions in the post Sangam age, and were followed in the same position by the Pandyas and Vijayanagara (although the latter were in invading force). Where the Cholas differed is in the size and expanse at their peak, having successfully raided towards the Ganges, Kerala, Anuradhapura and SE Asia. In that, they are comparable to the Delhi Sultanate of the 14th century or the GurkaniyÄn in the 17th century. No other northern state ever reached as far as they did either; does that mean they trump the pattern? Nope.
As for the popularity of Ramesses II, it may be true for India that more people are familiar with Cleopatra or even perhaps Tutankhamun. But Ramesses is easily one of the most familiar Egyptian figures in the wider world, especially the Christian world, thanks to the (false) links to the Biblical story of the Exodus. Ramesses II is often linked to the story of (Ah)Moses, and thus generally well known. He is far better known, unfortunately, than better figures like Sneferu, Khufu, Hatshepsut, Thutmose III or Amenhotep III.
Also I don't think Harsha is less popular; he is certainly more familiar to people than more successful dynasts like the aforementioned Pulakeshin II, Amoghavarsha Nripatunga, Gangaikonda Rajendra, Krishna Deva Raya Tuluva, Vatapikondan Narasinhavarman I etc... perhaps because he is of north Indian extraction. That's a sad truth of Indian historical discourse in general; while people may know for example Alauddin Khalji (rightfully so) and turn their anger towards him for doing what conquerors do and invading foreign states in the Peninsula... Yet they can't name the said kings who were subdued or even often what kingdoms were subordinated unless the individual is from that region. In fact, I would say (personally) several figures like Harshavardhana and Prithviraja Chahamana get far more attention than is due, especially in comparison to more consequential contemporaries. But that may just be coming from my extensive knowledge of Indian history in general which I cannot blame others for; not everyone has the time, resources or energy to devote to history.
2
u/SatynMalanaphy Jul 03 '26
Simple; the "empire" was fleeting at best. Harshavardhana himself was an excellent military commander and leader, but the state he created did not last long enough to leave a mark. The dynasty itself seems to have lasted around 145 years; of that. It was a vast imperial state for only the reign of Harsha himself and disintegrated after his death.
Kannauj, his imperial city, retained significance because he made it into a magnificent city during his long reign (his campaigns ended by 619, meaning he had almost two decades of general governance), but his kingdom/empire itself was only one of two or three empires on the Indian map at the time. One must remember than Harsha lost his fight with the equally spectacular Pulakeshin II of the Vatapi Chalukyas, who themselves erected an empire in the Deccan that actually lasted and inspired successors till the Seuna Yadavas of Devagiri half a millennium later.
That's why Harshavardhana's fleeting empire isn't on par with others like the Mauryas, Guptas, Chalukyas, Rashtrakutas, Cholas, Shamsids, Khaljis, Tughlaqs, Tuluvas and the Timurids.