Indian Kings Lived Like Common People - Explained | Abhijit Chavda

[@nageswarasastry6150]

After seeing the ruins of Royal palaces in Hampi, I came to conclusion that the king and Queens lived in very modest buildings having plinth area not more than about 2000 sft. Anyone can see and confirm. The Vijayanagar kings were famous for constructing so many large temples in Hampi and many parts of South India. But they chose to live in simplicity.

[@nishanth4480]

Yes it true

[@sancti3707]

How much land does aan need, wrote Tolstoy. But Indians had that wisdom long before he was born.

[@drap3872]

One of the great dynasties of Indi.

[@cptthunderbolt5084]

To put sir's point in simple words, Bharatiya Kings didn't live in Big Palaces, they lived in Fortified Mansions (Kind of similar to present days when PMs and Presidents don't have "Palaces" as such) but they did have their own luxuries. But they generally were a lot modest than their European/Arabian counterparts. Even most African kingdoms, the Incas, the Mayans, didn't have "Palaces" as such. The Aztecs did have Palaces though I believe.

[@mayanksinghfartiyal5290]

No the forts are made on border cities to defend like rajasthan has many forts. #NoPalace

[@Bharatwasi7]

​@@mayanksinghfartiyal5290 Sir, We want a video on Mallika Puran. According to it India is going under attack by Pakistan and China. And Russia will be A Hindu Nation. And end of the world in 2028-30. It is great concern for Hindu people and even more for odia people.As Jagannath Temple will submerged in Sea. Like it guys for sir's notice.

[@pushpenderrana6190]

Only after the british rule was established firmly in india were luxurious palaces made by the bigger states .Earlier there were fortresses which had living areas for the rulers and families

[@cptthunderbolt5084]

@@pushpenderrana6190 Exactly! The concept of "Palaces" didn't exist in Bharat. First introduced by the Muslims though.

[@agniswar3]

@@cptthunderbolt5084 the ancient Assyrian kings had palaces.

[@hahagaja]

When Marco polo visited pandya kingdom in 1292 he mentioned king sits in the ground, did not use a throne. When asked King said I will be going to ground one day, so I want to stay like that. He also mentioned King wears a very simple cloth, only way to identify a King is by a crown.

[@IXfQ2A]

same is mentioned about Rani Abbakka of Ullal. The foreign visitor claims she looked nothing more than a kitchen help. But her manor embodied so much empathy and she was so concerned why a visitor would come so far leaving his loved ones back home and was the visitor feeling well. What a queen... She fought back the Portuguese way before 1857 revolt.

[@Deepak_Dhakad]

And Marco Polo mentioned King worn so much jewellery which he never seen. Less cloth was due to heat

[@Deepak_Dhakad]

@INDRASTRA 卐 read his travel texts. Search Marco Polo visit to South India

[@Deepak_Dhakad]

@INDRASTRA 卐 bahut pahle padha tha lekin tum search kar sakte h agar aalsi nahi ho toh

[@ngk2163]

He is a porkidtan fellow. No knowledge of Indian history n suffering from memory loss

[@Rishi123456789]

I think I read in Srimad Bhagavatam (or some other book, I can't remember) that Krishna lived in a palace, but I still think your point of Indian rulers being equal to their subjects is true, Abhijitji. That's why Indian rulers in antiquity would do everything they could to ensure that their subjects lived in the same luxury they did or at least at some level of comfort. Also, in Ancient India, people who weren't rulers could become rulers simply based on merit because society in Ancient India was meritocratic. Social mobility existed in Ancient India.

[@000Aful]

In ancient times, all big houses were called mahal, "maha" + "aalay" is mahal - ay. King's mahal was called rajmahal. It was not very different from other big houses, except may be in size and facilities.

[@agniswar3]

@@000Aful I think they were not that massive that we usually think but were nonetheless luxurious than other houses of the common folk.

[@jaxonboi5411]

Indeed. And even kings like yuddhishthira, or Rāma, or daśaratha also had grand palaces as described in mahabharata and ramayana. Duryodhana was even startled to see such magnificent palace of pandavas in indraprastha

[@jaxonboi5411]

Also, I read in shrimad bhagavatam that, the city of dwarka had around 900,000 thousand magnificent palaces. And normal citizens too lived in palaces like krishna's palace

[@okbyebye9586]

@@jaxonboi5411i think that's the whole point of the video that bhartiya kings used to live the same life as they were able to give to their praja. Like lord Krishna used to live in a big luxurious palace lekin fir wo apni praja ko bhi wese hi rakhte the.

[@srirambalakrishnan1990]

Sir - Chola king Rajendra Chola's palace ruins have been found in Gangai Konda Cholapuram. The Palaces were build in sand stones compared to Granite that was used in temples. Hence the palaces were gone and easy to destroy b invaders or weather..

[@jppsatish]

The chola palace were destroyed by later pandyas and its documented in carvings

[@govindarajangovindarajan1145]

It's not sandstones, it was made by bricks

[@govindarajangovindarajan1145]

​@@jppsatish The tanjavur palace was destroyed by pandyas, but no one knows who destroyed gangai konda cholapuram palace, When the pandyans came into power, the chola descendents went to mouth of kolidam river, where they built a palace on a delta known as theevu kottai,

[@kavithavk9656]

Ofcourse there were palaces, but more importance given to Temples. Gangai konda cholapuram palace was destroyed by the Muslim invaders. Whatsoever leftover royal family left that place and moved to a village called Vehakkollai and nearby villages.

[@harshit2.02]

1:27 Sir I agree with you but recently I read about Fa Hien A Chinese traveler who visited India wrote in his book that when he visited Emperor Ashoka Mauraya's Palace he was amazed and says "as if it was built by God itself" Can you please clear it in future videos 😅

[@vishnuteja9747]

you read my mind. i too was going to point this out. Chavda sir please answer this.

[@anjaysah8901]

Sir pls ans this

[@akhilsharma413]

Well it could be Possible that Fa-hien maybe Talking about that Purana Qila in Delhi. As we all know Ashoka's Stambh was Found in Delhi.

[@harshit2.02]

@@akhilsharma413 Interesting ...

[@akhilsharma413]

@@jijio000 sorry bro Purana Qila is very Old. It's Archeological Dating is still yet to be research

[@mohans428]

Sir, You forgot the one among many greatest emporer immadi pulikeshi of chalukya, who defeated harshavardana around 1000years ago. His sandalwood palace remains is still found in Badami Karnataka.

[@hemanyasharma2055]

Yeah,Pulikeshi and specially the chalukyas and rashtrakutas are one of the most badass Indian empires inndia ever had and also in my list,just live them also the Marathas,satavahanas,cholas,travancore,vakatakas, vijaynagar etc,but Abhijit needs to talk about rashtrakut and chalukyas too

[@sssrrr1988]

And we have some ruins of the maurya empire as a kind of palace in kumhrar park Patna.

[@amazinglife_in]

This guy talks only about North Indian emperors except Cholas of south. Guys don’t listen to such “half-knowledge”.

[@dkbros1592]

@@amazinglife_in Stfu he said chola idiot see the video again

[@AR-mw3gq]

​@@amazinglife_in Cholas en Bere deshanaa ..

[@ExtermeRightist]

They were the the real ones who never wanted any comfort or have any selfish dreams for themselves and not gandi which a fortune to show that he lives in poverty

[@agniswar3]

But still if no Indian king ever had a palace then why do various Indian legends talk about them I.e Raj mahal.

[@agniswar3]

The Ramayana and Mahabharata mentions Palaces.

[@srijon4548]

@@Cocopakamovoco like r@pist prophet Muhammed who r@ped 9 yr old ayesha

[@Visakh_S_Nair]

@@agniswar3 events of Mahabharata and Ramayana are way way older probably a different Yuga

[@successiongaming7829]

@@agniswar3 many kings lived in palaces but some didn't

[@chetankhandave1072]

What a brilliant and innocent question, "Where are palaces of Indian kings ?" Answer of this question is very important.

[@pimacanyon6208]

India is the only country on the planet whose people have preserved dharma down thru the ages. It's my hope that there will be a renewal and revival of this ancient knowledge, and will thrust the world into a new golden age. thank you for your videos.

[@asurakengan7173]

Almost all countries have done this, are you dumb?

[@aaryavartsolutions5359]

Yes, it will be. The Varnashrams system must be and will be revived.

[@TextBookPuncher1]

I appreciate your honesty for describing the Mughals as Turkic invaders. Many would label them as Muslim invaders but that would be the same as labelling the British and other Europeans as Christian empires

[@Batega_toh_Katega_Hindu_108]

sorry but I have to break your hallucination. turks which came were muslim invaders and British were church monarch/empire in disguse of a nation. most of the evil genocides, wars and colonisations are done by cannibal religions like Christianity and islam. church and masjid empires who controlled who will be their puppet and what will they do on the throne behind nation mask. it's still happening now. church, mosques are responsible for manipulating votes and so on in their communal favour even in India.

[@indrajeetkamat6138]

Turko-Mongol to be precise.

[@TextBookPuncher1]

@@indrajeetkamat6138 yes 👍 I’m a British born Bangladeshi tired and p%## off at some of my fellow people from the subcontinent. We need to encourage and promote better business relations. We all come from a similar part of the world and share historical connections. The subcontinent is full of culture and the Bengali language comes from Sanskrit. Look at the situation in bangladesh riddled with corruption we need to have more respect and love for our homeland and plan to uplift our country !

[@aniket1638]

Hindushahi kings were turkic which ruled northern India and assimilated in our culture and later defended India from these Muslim turkic Invaders who never assimilated in our culture

[@rkvshorts2213]

Sir yu r absolutely R8 ... INDIAN CIVILIZATION is a GOAT civilization ...I hope every INDIAN should know about these things ... that yes we r GREAT not because we say it but because our ACTIONS have PROVED IT ...

[@neet_sage]

In Tamil we say a word Kovil Which means Ko - king , il - house The king stays in the temple

[@indianatlarge]

There is a school of thought that kings lived adjacent or within the precincts of temples, the word temple is called koyil in tamil, where ko means king and yil implies home

[@SadanandkG]

Must be true

[@ashrithharith3474]

Not true. Ko refers to supreme and that refers to the almighty.

[@korakatar7921]

But the Mahabharata and the Ramayana describe Royal palaces and buildings in detail . Maybe the early palaces were built in wood and hence have not survived like the brick and stone structures have.

[@Bhatti_Saab_7773]

Yeah, probably

[@asurakengan7173]

Both are stories, how are you going to find anything about them in real life?

[@korakatar7921]

@@asurakengan7173 to Sanatani Indians they are Itihasa. Written records of events of the past. Is that not what history means? All ancient and even medieval history is built on few evidences and writings of people of that time or later. That is the reason there is "story" in "History".

[@Bhatti_Saab_7773]

@@asurakengan7173 Both are history, and we even didn't found palaces of Mauryans, Guptas, Kushanas than how can we find palaces of those Mahabharat and Ramayan era.

[@Harleyquimm]

Totally i could never imagine the Ramayana and Mahabharata without great palaces, it's also what gives beauty and epicness to the stories.

[@Aravindselvaraj]

Cholas and Pandyans built and lived in palaces. we still have the ruins of the palaces near Thanjavur and Madurai. These palaces were destroyed during war. One started to destroy the palace and it became a ritual of destroying palaces when they capture throne. Also, an interesting thing about Cholas/Pandyas, or in most cases the Kings in general - They built Temples in Rocks and their palaces in Red bricks. That's the reason still the temples are standing after 1000s of years.

[@manpaohaihing4230]

That mindset to serve the nation is a window for most to contemplate on and be very proud of. Thank you . Jai Hind.🇮🇳🇮🇳🇮🇳

[@minalkhamkar1754]

You are right brother. Never thought this way. Salute to all our great ancestor's. Thank you very much

[@Unfiction]

Kya baat Mr. Abhijit! 👍👏👏 Just to add to this...The so called "Mughal tombs " in India were actually Hindu temples, illegally captured by the Turks and converted into tombs and what not? Our history has been distorted , or should I say, vandalized and raped by the "Mlechcha" Mughals and the "Opportunist" Europeans alike.

[@infinite5795]

Yes we had and still have, atleast in Odisha, all constructed by Odia kings before British influence. The cuttack Barabati fort was a palace 1000 years old built by Odia king Chorda Ganga deva, as a royal palace and military cantonment. It was a nine-storied palace. It's broken into pieces now mostly. Chudanga fort was built in Old Bhubaneswara by Sri Lalatendu Kesari in the 12th century AD. It's still standing. Raibania fort was made by Narasingha deva in 13th century AD, as a victory symbol over the Turks ruling over Bengal. Still standing Kendujhar fort was made in the 13-14th century AD. Still standing. Kalahandi fort, Sambalpur, Athagarha forts were made recently, in the 15th century AD, Still standing.

[@saiprateek5779]

Ancient Indian King's were like the Zameendars.. who lived with its people as they wanted to be more open to its citizens with problems Some may have palaces and forts because they: 1. Want to fortify their kingdom with enemies.. 2. For comfort and protection from citizens itself..(mostly Mughals of course😅) P.S - I'm no Historian, I just heard from my grandpas whose arguments about our actual ancestral history made me wonder highest..😊

[@whatsinaname2706]

The concept of Zameendar/landlord was introduced by the English! Prior to that ppl just leased land.

[@agniswar3]

@@whatsinaname2706 we had Samanta Rajas. Just take look at the History of Harsha's empire.

[@sachisin1924]

​@@challenger539 well said brother 👍

[@drashokn]

Megasthanes, the Greek ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya in the 4th century BC described the king’s palace at Pataliputra as set amidst gardens, with a series of open halls supported by wooden columns decorated in gold and silver. The Palace, according to him, surpassed the grandeur of the Achaemenid.

[@ankurpandey4479]

India was daam rich that time. We build our houses with VASTUSASTRA. That’s why they were simple build with decorative work done on it.

[@RkR2001]

U are very right!even Chola / Pandya/ Laliditya palaces are missing

[@blackadam6468]

Indian kings lived in palaces...in ancient tamil literatures and poet, it was mentioned about massive 5 storey palaces...but more than 90 percent of them were destroyed in wars as Indian kings fight against each others

[@manjunath322]

For modern Karnataka Krishna Rajendra Vodeyar 4 of Mysore is real King. IISC Bangalore, University of Mysore, Minto Eye Hospital Bangalore, Kannada Sahitya Parishath, Hydroelectric project Shivana Samudra, world famous Mysore Sandal Soap factory, State Bank of Mysore ( now SBI), UVCE Bangalore, Visvesvaraya Iron and Steel Plant (VISL) Bhadravati, Mysore Paints and Varnish( only company to produce idelible ink used in election) , Vani Vilas Hospital Bangalore and many colleges in Mysore. KRS dam was constructed provide water facility to old mysore region. Sir M Vishweshwarayya was devan ( prime minister) under this Maharaja.

[@suhashg8664]

We kannadigas know our kings...The queens of the royal family mortgaged their jewellery to get the KRS dam completed....In a previous video he said some not so nice things about wodeyars.....

[@kurellajitendrkumar3486]

That’s is the greatness of our kings who ruled Bharath & never conquered any other country Being a king they like a Common Man

[@alopal3191]

Please read the layout of palace plans in the Arthashastra. The plans are clearly layed out Construction material was wood.

[@vidhyarthilakshiya888]

So All those Indian TV Opera sold Just Bullshit😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@ReligioCritic]

Not only that just look at the Samadhi sthals of Raja Bhoj, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj or the Chola Kings and then compare then to the Tombs of Shah Jahan, Akbar, Humayaun, etc.

[@Krish-jm6ve]

WOW ! this is groundbreaking !!!!

[@Quotesyuj]

We were much more sincere before. I hope we become sincere again.

[@Ron.xionzre]

Palaces are a pretty modern concept, historically no regions in the world had dedicated palaces. There were mostly forts and encampments.

[@tejasa8429]

I wish we had king rule again instead of corrupt politicians.

[@saandeeprondla1412]

Deities in Grand Temples reign over Kings and Subjects alike, so is why Kings lived like a commoner in land of Dharma. Fortification is to thwart incessant invasions but not for aggrandizement so is reason why we find Forts in stretches where Bharath bore the brunt like in Gandhara, Sindh, Rajputana, Gujarath, Madhya Pradesh and places which experienced similar invasive campaigns.

[@artmocha9901]

Then why do forts have rooms like Rani’s room or bath houses or entertainment rooms etc?

[@pribrazakpritam4931]

I advice to visit Narayanhiti palace museum , kathmandu.nepali kings and their simple life. This hindu kings always thinks of people, so they are called narayanavatar.

[@mrbladestone]

Rajputs had Palaces. Nahargarh Palace and Jal Mahal Palace are both in Jaipur. Chittorgarh Fort also had a separate Palace for the Queens. Some Kings built palaces some didn't.

[@rehanphalswal]

Most of such big palaces were build after muslims established rule in delhi. Maybe they made palaces to show mughals that its not only you who can make big palaces. Also most of such rajputs were subordinates of Akbar. Real Rajput MAHARANA PRATHAP never build a palace.

[@mask53]

​@@rehanphalswal Because he already had Udaipur palace to live. And his reign was plagued by wars, so he had little time to build palaces.

[@FragasmNepal]

Love from Nepal Abhijit Sir 😊❤️

[@soniyasinha3496]

Thank you for shedding more light on the matter. I agree with you. fortresses seemed more like garrisons with provisions to shelter people when needed or during war.

[@GauravMahajanAvaron]

Indians kings were afraid of comfort. They didn't pursue soft things like we do. They revered inner and physical strength above all.

[@shubhacr6151]

"Stumped"! Never thought about it before...

[@abhishekdhanda7497]

That way even red fort is a fort then not palace. I think kings used to live in a building within forts now you can call it a palce or whatever you want to call it

[@shivanshrai1171]

THEY WERE DHARMIC 😊

[@indranidey6555]

The similar question even I had in mind. Thanks for clarifying this Sir.

[@VikasSharma-il3gf]

Great video. 👍

[@nightwatchman7482]

Where are the great palaces of Alexander, Cyrus, Genghis Khan etc.? It's not because these kings didn't live in palaces, but those palaces haven't survived. Perhaps because they weren't meant to stand for centuries and so weren't built as sturdy as temples and monuments.

[@somalapuram]

Very interesting.. Looks like all palaces have been built in recent times.. There is no concept of a palace, hope the palace concept is also imported by invasion 🤔

[@deepakupd]

Most of the Indian Kings were abide by the eternal principal of Rajdharma, they serve /rule their Kingdom as per the divine order of the deity/Goddess and follow it as an executive. In Southern Part of Bharat most of the temples are high rise structure but none of the human habitat/palace/house is of such height. This simple shows their respect/devotion/faith towards their deity/Goddess. Thanks Abhijit Ji for such wonderful points to mention.

[@krishan6331]

Thank you abhijit sir🙏🇮🇳

[@Neogi596]

#AskAbhijit My question is simple sir.....if invaders history is removed from our text books, won't there be people questioning the books?

[@Sena-zf7ij]

@Soham Neogi 11A The answer is more simple and vibrant... none of the invaders/colonisers did any good to Bhaarath. But what we are reading in textbooks is.. they are being praised as good rulers, reformers and what not. They even went to an extent saying that they were the ones who civilised Bhaarath. Bhaarath never lied about its history ever. Be it Raamayana or be it Mahaabhaaratha. It was written exactly what happened. There is no made up. We are reading a false history narrative because it was written by western people who wanted to destroy Bhaarath on the basis of religion. Muslim invaders also destroyed our structures, temples, and universities on the same religious basis. We are still reading false narratives because our historians mindsets are still enslaved to the west.

[@ShivaYadav-uu7rl]

We r not removing them , we just want it to be written By INDIAN PROSPECTIVE . ex .. AKBAR V/S MAHARANA PRATAP ( Villen ). ( Hero )

[@anirudh425]

abhijit sir never support removing anything , he already said in a video

[@ThamizhiAaseevagar]

@@Sena-zf7ij I accept the first part of Ur comment,but second part is bogus, simple logic mind is enough to understand it, Ramayana may have happened,but not like the ones with talking monkey,which can fly, and it's spouse all being human and offspring r ape-man, and bird which talks,as far as evolution it's impossible,there r hundred version of Ramayana and Mahabharat, atleast Mahabharat happened much later,hence it couldn't be fabricated with ape-man,bird man,though,it speaks some fabricated story,which today is lauded by pseudo science.

[@Sena-zf7ij]

@@ThamizhiAaseevagar Mr Tamil asivakar, I presume that you are not Sanathana Dharmic/Hindu. I am 100% sure that you are not. If you are a Sanathana Dharmic/Hindu(but you are not anyway), I request you to read Ramaayanam, Mahaabhaaratham and Puranaas. Vedas are a bit complicated for which we need a better guru.. If possible you can read vedas too.. Without reading anything, talking nonsense is not wise. You said that you will accept my first point but not the second one. But my dear both are interlinked. The first point of my previous comment was like skin to a soul. Soul is the second point and the skin is my first point. You spew a lot of vulgar words while talking about the Holy Raamaayanam and Mahaabhaaratham. Look man, you being a non believer talking shit will not make your points valid. Because, people like you spoke the same stuff for years yet they never succeeded. Their only success is breeding people like you. Like I said in the very first line of my second point in my first comment, "Bhaarath never lied about its history." Ithihaasa means true record of actual incidents. Raamaayanam and Mahaabhaaratham are Ithihaasaas. Even Vedas have many historical events recorded in them. Vaalmeeki wrote and I quote him that, "I am always truthful for my entire life". That means every word from Raamaayanam is 100% true. You are right about many versions of Both Ithihaasas but my dear there is still only one original version still exists for both Ithihaasaas. You should only read them. Coming to talking Vanara(you called them monkeys and used very abusive language while mentioning some of their actions. I dont know whether that was intentional or a typo) and their flying abilities and evolutions.. They are vanaraas and they do not entirely look like present day monkeys. Those days, everything on earth has the ability to talk. It is pretty much the common capacity of different species those days. We might feel wonder today and can call it impossible but it was not then at that time. Maybe you believe in a serpent speaking to a naked couple or a voice speaking to their so-called prophets from the sky. Maybe you believe in an un-imaginory and never explained/non-existent charector who speaks from the sky. Maybe you believe in a person walking on water. Maybe you believe that an ape evolved into a human. Maybe you believe in many other fictional things but not true events of Bhaarath. Whether you agree or not, true things are always true. They don't change. Only deniers vanish from earth after their life is over. Truth stands still strongly and forever.

[@poisson6673]

sir can u pls bring plasma physicist sir patrick kilian to the show

[@Hemantscherzo]

Please read in Hindi - कादम्बरी - एक सांस्कृतिक अध्ययन- shri Vasudevsharan Agarwal . He has described बाणभट्ट ‘s कादम्बरी and हर्षचरित् in detail. With description of palaces. Your comments are not historically correct

[@Selvaranjan3388]

We recently found king ragendra chola 1 son of Raja Raja chola palace in left out ruins in near gangai konda chola puram

[@mrabhi100k]

Same question,I have been trying to get answers .

[@raghvendrasingh9984]

Later kings in 18th century made palaces, like City Palace Jaipur, Udaipur, Jodhpur!

[@pranavnair2616]

Even Mysore

[@gopikadd8]

Aussssome info Brother...thanx and hattsoff for your efforts....❤

[@poisson6673]

sir can we have a podcast with sir aanand srinivas founder of stayqrious

[@time_pass6394]

The clear reason is most of them were destroyed during invasions. invader built other buildings on them

[@Braveheartwriter]

At last I found you wrong, Abhijii! We know about the opulence of kings mentioned in the Mahabharata, their palace and everything. We always try to copy our forefathers, so all those great kings you mentioned did have fabulous palaces. But we also know that they warred among themselves. You know what the victor king would do to the loser king? First they demolish the loser king's palace. If they wished to hurt them more they would ransack the capital then. This is history. I am surprised if not astonished to see this video. You...?😮 Btw, Maratha had that kind of palace because of obvious reasons - those warrior-to-the-core lions' whole beginning and end were one of big battlement.

[@greatkaafir7478]

Lal Kota ( Lal Kila ) Was Built By Tomar Rajput King Shri Annagpal Tomar |🙏🚩🚩

[@SadanandkG]

Yes, but it is for soldiers

[@__bhavyansh]

are there any sources because i searched and got to know that lal kot and lal kila are different

[@rahulkulkarni536]

Abhijit sir. Your voice, knowledge and wisdom is enough. Please no background music

[@saurabhbhadoria3299]

#AskAbhijit sir, few people say that harappan's were not vedic as they speak proto dravidian and it conformed from the mesopotamian accounts as they trade with them and import sesame oil from harappa and call it by the name "ilha" and today in tamil we call it "illa"

[@roypashupalan959]

My Grandfather used to say Indian rulers followed a rule of conduct so many enemies were also after a loss or defeat was set free. Rajas and Maharajas lived a much more normal lives and their subjects were much more relaxed and free. There was a sense of responsibility which was destroyed by the advent of Turks and Britishers.

[@abhijithiyengar3262]

@Abhijit Chavda ji : Actually the Mauryan empire was around 3500/3600 years ago i.e 16th century BCE. Gupta dynasty was 2300 years ago i.e around 300 BCE. There are 2 different Saka Eras . I.e Saka Eras and Sakanta era of 78 CE. Also Gautama Buddha lived in the 19th century BCE not 563-483 BCE.

[@juicecan6450]

And Aryans came to India 65 million years ago

[@Sena-zf7ij]

@Abhijith Iyengar You are 100% correct.. Some of our Bhaaratheeya historians proved it but somehow it is not coming to light except folks like you and me are mentioning it in comments in random places..

[@abhijithiyengar3262]

@@Sena-zf7ij not too sure why even today text books in our land give Mauryan empire around 322 BCE . About 1300 years of Indian antiquity has been brushed under the carpet. In fact there's even evidence to suggest that Vijayanagar empire ( I'm from Karnataka, so Vijayanagar empire is very dear to us )was established around 1300 + years ago , not 1336 CE as mentioned in texts i.e about 700 years ago . So even a recent empire like Vijayanagar empire needs to be re visited. Vardhamana Mahaveera ( Mahaveer Jain) lived around 1150 BCE not 599-527 BCE as mentioned in text books. Adi Shankaracharya - around 568-530 BCE, not around 800 CE as mentioned in text books

[@gauravsinghjanghel2226]

What about Rajput Palaces in Rajasthan ? What about the palaces of Krishna and Rama we've seen in tv shows before ?

[@stunnerviper5425]

Dude the hype he created....

[@shubamrao]

Yes sir, you are correct. There is an example which stands true with your concept, The fort of chitradurga in Karnataka, which stood against multiple invasions attempt by Hyder Ali and allied foreign troops, there the King lived inside the fort In a small quarters along with people.

[@aishwarya1896]

The cholas had a rule.They would always build their palaces near temples,but those palaces should not be more taller than the temple.There is the palace of Rajendra chola which was destroyed by the Pandyas now it’s called maligai medu.But those ‘palaces’ too where like fortified mansions

[@R0binVayne]

Most palaces were built by wood thats why they dint stand the test of time or destroyed by fire for example the mysore palace was such.

[@naginimandava1261]

This is so amazing!! Thanks much....🙏

[@biohomie]

Good Question. Very nicely articulated

[@talksofdharma2466]

Ancient Indian kings did had palaces, but not very luxurious as per today's standards. All of their palaces were made of common materials like Mud , Mud bricks, etc. These degenerated over time.

[@karthikeyanak9460]

There is still Ramanathapuram palace in Tamilnadu. Even in near run state, it spans 36 acres.

[@srinivasanradhakrishnan]

Wow! I always had this question. Never knew whom to ask. I long standing doubt has been finally cleared.

[@DevAnand-yi7wm]

Super 👍

[@Saawan_Halale]

The picture of palace in thumbnail is Ambavilas palace it is in Mysore Karnataka which belongs to wodeyar dynasty what is your view on that.

[@ravindrabr99]

Wow great 🎉🎉🎉 thanks for the information Abhijit Ji

[@User_1_-]

the house where bajirao was born is very modest

[@RM-in6lj]

Churning the history will bring us more knowledge and wisdom.

[@LEOMESSI-dc5lg]

It's such a proud for me that bornt in this country...

[@beranorchhotogalpo4936]

U didn't mention Palas. They ruled Bengal and most of northern India for almost 400 years.The temples, stupas etc. still stand but where's their palace? Thank u for the thought provoking question, sir

[@flashldn155]

Or Mughals lol, or even Tipu Sultan more famous than some of the kingdoms he mentioned like marathi lol

[@pavanrgulaganji]

#AskAbhijit If serving the nation was king's Dharma, why were all kings busy conquering other kingdoms.

[@Sam-hu2zq]

your question reeks innocence lol, as long as there is chaos outside your home, your home would be in peace, attack is the best defence

[@pavanrgulaganji]

@@Sam-hu2zq oh tq 👍

[@hitenrana799]

It was also their dharma to enlarge their kingdom.

[@Sam-hu2zq]

its fine brother always welcome healthy discussions

[@amithrodrigo87]

True...This is the same case in Sri Lanka. Where ruins of only one or two palaces were ever found in 2500+ written history. The most prominent one being King Parakramabahu the Great's palace. If you ever visit Kandy the last Sri Lankan kingdom and visit the Temple of the tooth relic. You can still see the royal house where the king used to live. A single-story long house that reminds me of an old film hall or a college main hall. It's just a very modest dwelling protected and guarded like hell but still a very modest place to live for a King. There is a term in Sinhalese that is used to call the royal residence- RAJA GEDARA - which literally means Kings House.

[@balaraama3385]

Abhijit ji. I am from TN. The cholas had palace. The Thanjavur Martha palace. I saw there palace, it was like a palace with art collection and with 🔔 in the palace. It looked like a palace.

[@srijankesarwani901]

Good question , superb answer ❤

[@AB-jw3mz]

excellent point.

[@LewiWall-mx6fq]

Meanwhile rajputs with 7000 forts alone and 117000+ manisons 😦

[@samarthgandhi3427]

Loved the video!

[@Ashutosh-lw3cn]

The modern concept of hierarchy is a Western term (Arabic/European). The region believed some people are superior to others and hence have the birthright for every sort of luxury. Slave Culture, Dynast politics (without calibre ) etc are the concepts which came through western philosophy only. Even in modern History the events prove this theory. Whether it's Hitler's hatred towards Jews or Churchil's spurn of Indians. The concepts of hierarchy was there in ancient Indian society too, however it goes with the motto that "Greater the power, Greater the responsibility and hence greater the sacrifice". Prime example of this was Lord Ram, Krishana, Emperor Yudhisthir etc in pre ancient times, Ashoka, Chandragupta Maurya, Acharya Chanakya etc in Ancient times and also in Mediaeval period with the likes of Shivaji.

[@karanamsagarmurthy6354]

Yes you are right. In Hampi there are many temples and great sculptures built by vijaya nagar emporers. But no big palace for the kings to live. They believed in simple living and high thinking.

[@indrajeetkamat6138]

This is true to a large extent. I can speak of the Marathas, my ancestors. As much as I have read about them. It's all about winning the gadh or fort on top of Sahyadris. To liberate the people from hands of Mughals, Siddis, Shahis... Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj is not great because Chhatrapati means some emperor or overlord. The word Chhatra alludes to an umbrella like protection, a foliage, a canopy if you will, a roof. He is the provider of the Chhatra to those left to suffer at the hands of invaders. He is worshipped because he is the protector of common folk; not because he's the emperor, or king or over-lord.

[@sachinkondke1309]

Mauryan palace grounds have been found with wooden beams and all that Shivaji Maharaj lived in forts and his capital was Raigad..earlier he lived in Lal Mahal Shaniwar wada was the Peshwa’s residence, unfortunately gutted in fire The red forts r converted palaces The Vijaynagar lots of Hampi had huge palace grounds and the bases still survive

[@AR-bk4jb]

Thank you for sharing 🙏

[@ankitanandy6076]

Lakshagriha is mentioned in the Mahabharata. So is Krishna's "bhawan". There were big houses, mansions oe havelis maybe, in these royal families lived, maybe we don't identify it as palace when compared to what is seen in fairy tales. The media gives us a different incorrect image. Why we don't find them, as they were demolished and new houses built on it, most of our historical evidence lies buried under the now densely populated cities. We have such big old houses in the Eastern and North Eastern region, but not "palace" like we imagine the Buckingham to be, and Tamilian stories also mention such big houses. These houses had stables and cowsheds, surrounded by gardens like we read in Jataka tales, with royal women involved in all household chores, the queens actually used to cook. Why they were not opulent, is because opulence is where people distinguished or not will visit and see. Homes with the womenfolk working were not for that, as in Rajasthani culture. Receiving visitors was often done in separate open air arrangements, on a hill, near a cave with rishis present to counsel, like we hear about Vikramaditya and see in Udayagiri. Even today where palaces are standing, like in Thiruvananthapuram, the families actually live somewhere else and they come to the palace only on important occassions.

[@palegardeepakmysuru4524]

Yes it's true. Our monarchs used to live simplest life. Still they had palaces mostly built using wood. Especially in South India the palaces were built using Sandalwood, Teak, Rosewood etc., Hence it's hard to find the remains. Even Mysuru Wodeyar's old palace was mostly wooden, which was burnt down during a marriage ceremony. Later it was rebuilt using contemporary European technology. One could still witness the model of old palace constructed based on paintings and photographs. Even the Tippu Sultan Palaces, The Shivamoga palace of Keladi Nayaka rulers, the palace of Travancore rulers which were still standing are mostly wooden buildings. And yes, size wise they are small still aesthetic when compared to lavish palaces of Indian Maharajas under British crown.

[@sidharthvarma-er6cu]

in the mahabharat era, pandavas lived in their own palace in indraprastha which was built with great magnanimity and opulence.

[@Anshulhe]

Wrong we find mentions of magnificent palaces from Mauryas to cholas In fact we can find ruins of cholas palace and Megasthanes mentions magnificent palace in middle of pataliputra, in fact palaces became quite common theme in medieval India. You can find ruins in all such cities where not forts but entire cities were walled

[@stanislavplazilski]

Wowww... 👌👌👌

[@phewphew1060]

Who says they didn't have palace. Chandragupta maurya had palace in kumrahar (patna) as per asi. It's the 80-pillared hall and arogya vihar of Ashoka also🤨

[@bhagyeshmali5714]

Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj used stay in Lal Mahal when he was a child but then he used to stay in the forts . After Rajyabhishek he mostly stayed in Fort of Raigad which was Swarajya's capital.