Subhash Bose, born in Odisha Cuttack and read there still the age of 16 and his forefathers and ancestors are from Puri town coastal town of Odisha my native place and his ancient bungalow is still there nearer to seaside of Puri, and now it is a heritage place, most of great leaders of independence have hanged or gone to anonymity like Netaji.

By titling Alexander, Akbar and Ashok, others are not degenerated. Other historic figures also had a virtue. One member wrote that in History, there is more about greatness of zMugha, Nehru and Gandhi then Shivaji, Rana Pratap, Bhagat singh.  all have their significance. But it goes without sdaying that the victors are given more prominence.  Rana Pratap singh may be praised for bravery but he was no victor. Bhagat Singh was a great freedom fighter but at end of day, it was Gandhi, Nehru and congress who were successful in attainment of independence. Success is main virtue everywhere. The vanquished hero may be respected as good fighter and courageous but will not be titled 'Great'.  Personally, I prefer Sher shah suri to Akbar but the fact remains that Suri was short lived whereas Akbar laid foundation stone of great Mughal dynasty. So history will recognize Akbar as Great.  

Kalyani Nandurkar wrote:

epraneeth77 wrote:

Kalyani Nandurkar wrote:

epraneeth77 wrote:

Jodhaa Akbar is a good movie to exemplify his life and it is a treat to watch. A good ruler, a good human.

Jodha Akbar movie is nothing but a Bollywood romance and has little to do with real history. Just because a movie portrays him as a good man or a good ruler does not mean it is true. It is just a movie. Do read the link provided by MG Singh for some true facts.

Thank you for enlightening me on that note uncle. Never thought that a movie will be manipulated. May be Jodhaa Akbar not a biopic uncle... Mary Kom and Bhaag Milka Bhaag are real i guess..

epraneeth, there is a great difference between the movies such as Jodha AKbar on one side Mary Kom and Bhaag Milkha Bhaag. While the latter true were based on contemporary celebrities stories of which could not be tweaked too much for fear of retribution from the celebrities themselves and their relatives. Jodha Akbar, on the other hand was based on history but the makers did not bother to research much apart from costumes and jewellery. They were busy producing only a silly Bollywood romance.  There is a real difference.

 

@MG Singh, yes, I missed out Netaji;'s name but is inclusive in my list of the neglected ! There are so many more which have never been taught to our children.

Got the distinction. But i would like to defer on one point uncle. The movie though was not real it also did not focus on romance much except in the fight where Jodhaa fights with Akbar. Apart from that there was not much of romance. It was a good story but yes much research was not done.

All this argument begins with HM unveiling statue of Maharana Pratap where, he said Akbar is the great and MahaRana Pratap is the great of greats. So, can we start another suffix in historical figure such as great of greats without demoting status of Akbar the great. Hahah

mohan manohar wrote:

All this argument begins with HM unveiling statue of Maharana Pratap where, he said Akbar is the great and MahaRana Pratap is the great of greats. So, can we start another suffix in historical figure such as great of greats without demoting status of Akbar the great. Hahah. 

 

No this 'Great of greatest' ends with this thread. This phrase will not find place in history books. 

Gulshan Kumar Ajmani wrote:

By titling Alexander, Akbar and Ashok, others are not degenerated. Other historic figures also had a virtue. One member wrote that in History, there is more about greatness of zMugha, Nehru and Gandhi then Shivaji, Rana Pratap, Bhagat singh.  all have their significance. But it goes without sdaying that the victors are given more prominence.  Rana Pratap singh may be praised for bravery but he was no victor. Bhagat Singh was a great freedom fighter but at end of day, it was Gandhi, Nehru and congress who were successful in attainment of independence. Success is main virtue everywhere. The vanquished hero may be respected as good fighter and courageous but will not be titled 'Great'.  Personally, I prefer Sher shah suri to Akbar but the fact remains that Suri was short lived whereas Akbar laid foundation stone of great Mughal dynasty. So history will recognize Akbar as Great.

 

I agree the victor is considered GREAT but what happenes if the greats lose the battle in future? Does that mean they lose the title too with their defeat?  The Great Moughal destiny ended with Bahadur Shah zafar2 singing songs in Rangoon as English exiled him. Does that mean English were the real GREATS? I have some other examples too at this point but will use them later if the need be.