I have been following this group for quiet some time and would like to give it to you for making it lively.
You speak of PS and kalki and other works of him. You also analyse history a lot.
As for the inscription that u depend on i hear some one say " history is written by the winners".
The Cholas with RRC or Rajendra at its peak was not much a great power as far as i know when compared with the indian empreors like ashoka or aurangazeb.
nor were they great conqureors like alexander or nepolean or like our own baber or akbar.
What you say is perceived to be true by almost the entire world, or rather India. Indian History doesnt talk much about south India history.
If you had followed the group mails correctly, probably this doubt would not have come to you.
You say RRC and RJC are not that great compared to other emperors.
You know, thanjai periya koil attracts more tourists than Taj Mahal? Tanjai Periya koil has more amazing things than any other building in India? Do you know, Tanja periya koil is far superior in architecture then Taj, or any othe palaces built by the rulers you have mentioned? The list goes on.. this is just a tip of the ice berg.And you very well know such a marvel was created by RRC.
If you put together all the teritory conquered by Rajendra, its almost equalent to the size of India, and you must know that no India emperor has conquered whole of India so far. Does this not prove that Rajendra was a better conquerer than the others. Even if the size is less than the size of India, or even the size of land conqured by Ashoka or Aurangazeb or whoever it is, all those emperors conqured through land. But Whatever Rajendra conqured is through sea. Conquering through Sea is much difficult than through land. Hope you understand the logistics behind it. If Rajendra had concentrated on Land, I think he would have superceded Alexander or Chengis Khan, because for a person who can wil across sea, its a left hand game to do it on land.
As I said, Indian history do not give importance to south India rulers and thats why people like you are still asking such questions. We are trying to break this myth my friend.
Hai Raghav comparing kings based on the territories they conquered is not fair they are from different eras, cultures and technology. plain generals like mcarthur in WW2 conquered more area than could have even been dreamt of by medeival kings. for one aurangazeb inherited substantial land from his father and grand father. and the inpact of gun in mughal eras( as a technological advancement ) helped people conquer more territories.( the enemies had guns too I accept) but most of the land the mughals had from the start was conquered when they had the gun and the enemy did not.