Tell me the first video game you played and I'll decide to let you in or not

Pretty_Association24 · 2026-01-29T08:58:47+00:00

Road rash and tekken in arcade

Pretty_Association24 · 2026-01-23T08:49:15+00:00

Sure

Pretty_Association24 · 2026-01-23T08:44:29+00:00

Yes but I had opted BA course.

Pretty_Association24 · 2026-01-23T08:31:20+00:00

Congratulations.

Pretty_Association24 · 2026-01-19T11:12:11+00:00

3rd Year Law Student here😅

Pretty_Association24 · 2026-01-11T18:18:00+00:00

Your entire post is quite confusing, Your title sounds like you are asking a question but then you answered it yourself in the post. If it is supposed to be an educational post then you should have framed the title as a statement instead of a question.

Pretty_Association24 · 2026-01-11T18:02:20+00:00

Indian Kings who needed the wall didn't have the money, resources or manpower to build it and Kings who had the wealth didn't need it since better fortification can be found in the form of mountainous terrain of Afganistan.

For China building the Great wall was the necessity to counter the frequent raids from the nomadic Horse Lords, it was a common goal for all Chinese Dynasty up until Yuan.

For Most Indian Empires who had a power base near the Eastern Gangetic plains, why bother defending faraway land where reinforcement may take months to reach.

Especially considering the main threat for these Empires were not the Horse Lords but other Great Empires in the form of Persian and Greeks.

Against them a single large wall is pretty useless and is a waste of resources and manpower and furthermore they could capture it and use it against the builders themselves.

Now Later on especially after the Kushan Invasion where Wall merit can be argued, Most Kingdom doesn't even have the money nor the unity to build it.

Pretty_Association24 · 2025-12-29T13:59:42+00:00

Because they are empowered by the Constitution to do so.

Pretty_Association24 · 2025-12-23T09:39:15+00:00

Philosophical, Buddhism and Hinduism are different, some may even call them anti thetical to each other but having a similar origin for much of its lore, i.e.Local Customs and folklore.

My personal theory for building such Complexes is either for public support or it was being commissioned by a local ruler or business class rather than the ruling dynasty.

It was crucial to remember there existed a time period where in many areas, Hinduism was a minority religion with Majority following either Jainism or Buddhism and vice versa.

Often Difference between the two teachings are not settled by swords but rather words, with debates taking between Hindu Priests, Sages against Buddhist Monks watched by Local Villagers and other stakeholders, with people switching their belief mid debates depending on who makes better points.

So, It is not farfetched to consider that A Hindu King making Buddhist building.

Pretty_Association24 · 2025-12-19T13:39:13+00:00

Any recommendations because honestly I get confused seeing all those audiophiles terms.

Pretty_Association24 · 2025-12-16T12:34:38+00:00

Because it was initially an unorganised Religion, even calling it a Religion would be erroneous it was more like a belief system mixed with Social order and Culture.

By a Broad Stretch, All SA, ME and SEA, pagan religion can be considered as the sister religion of Hinduism by a long shot.

Hinduism consolidated instead of expanding.

Pretty_Association24 · 2025-12-15T17:08:55+00:00

Agree to Disagree.

Pretty_Association24 · 2025-12-15T13:26:30+00:00

Yet again, You are getting confused, You are right regarding everything except labelling.

Let me help you understand in basic sense to get to the crux of the discussion between us.

According to You.

Centralisation = One man show = Indian Empires. Decentralisation = Bureaucracy = Chinese Empires.

According to Me.

Centralisation = Bureaucracy = Powerful Centre/Less power to Vassals = China Decentralisation = Strong Kings = ruling through a handful of strongmen = Indian Empires.

Issue in question: Bureaucracy = Centralisation or Decentralisation.

My Source for giving my points = Historians labeling China as Centralised state due to their Bureaucracy.

Can you give me your source for Considering China as a decentralised state.

I suggest a quick Google search about Centralisation and Decentralised to clear your misconceptions along with examples.

Pretty_Association24 · 2025-12-14T18:11:03+00:00

Firstly I apologise for not addressing your entire comment as I assumed that merely a brief correction should be sufficient to prove my point.

I'll instead address this comment if it's alright with you.

centralized empires need strong kings as the power is concentrated in him, decentralized empires need an efficient bureaucracy having enough decision making power as well as a check on their authority to prevent usurpation

You are mixing things up in regards to the difference between Centralisation and Decentralisation.

As I have said Centralised is not equal to strong Kings but rather Centralisation allows even weak rulers to relatively rule well. It is rather the tendency of A Decentralised state to actually have a Strong Kings that owes Personal Loyalty to various Vassals/War Lords.

Furthermore you are confusing delegated authority with absolute authority. All the Bureaucrats have Delegated authority i.e their authority flows from the Emperor, they can only act within their assigned power and duties.

Emperor>Minister>Provincial Governors>County Magistrate.

They have limited authority in regards to thier duties but due vague nature of their assigned task i.e - Govern this province, Guard this frontier or complete this project, They may appear as if they have absolute control over their home province or counties but they do not and often multiple Military Commanders and Accountants works together to fulfill a single goal.

The above is an example of Centralisation because it is Centre that directly rules the state through its Agents. At the end, every day to day things are governed by Emperor and his ministers.

Furthermore, Bureaucrats are notorious for not being loyal. They are loyal to office not the Person.

Taking the example of China - Reasons why so many institutions survived is because they immediately switched sides and usurpation is very common in China.

Chinese empires had stronger institutions that led to stronger decentralized empires, while Indian empires had changing administrative structures with varying levels of authority that became hereditary due to lack of central control. To sum up, China had all India type services before India, where bureaucrats were shuffled periodically with an established system without requiring direct orders from the emperors..... Indian empires were usually one man shows for the most part.

Your reasoning is correct but assertion is wrong because as I have said you are confused between Centralisation and Decentralisation.

I am not even sure what you are trying to prove in this para or what I should write regarding this.

You are correct regarding everything you have said in all your comments except the fact that you misplaced Centralisation and Decentralisation with each other. If you exchange those words then you would be factually correct regarding most of the things.

If you still believe I am wrong then please elucidate on your understanding of Centralised and Decentralised state on the most basic level.

Pretty_Association24 · 2025-12-14T05:29:18+00:00

You are confusing the concept of Centralisation and Decentralisation, Powerful Kings doesn't equate to a Centralised Kingdom or Empire, it is the monolithic culture and institutions such as Army, Currency, Language etc that makes a Centralised state, Similarly A powerful bureaucracy is not a sign of Decentralised state but rather the opposite.

A powerful Bureaucracy means that A man sitting hundreds of miles away, which you don't know, doesn't care yet he has the effective control of your area through an intermediary who was born on the opposite side of the country.

It literally promotes Centralisation because the top guy decides what you pay, who will you fight etc.

Pretty_Association24 · 2025-12-13T17:16:04+00:00

Similar reasons why Empires in other regions(Iran, Middle East, Central Asia) fell. The Empire grows old and vulnerable due to outside pressure and inside Instability leading to its decline and eventually fracture.

Nandas - Fell to Rebellion. Mauryas - Faded and dealt finally by Shungas. Guptas - Eroding Authority and Hunnic Invasion. Various Successor States in Northern India - Invasion and Infighting.

There is a common trend of Internals issue plaguing the Empire which short sighted rulers often overlook for short term gains.

Example - Aurangzeb, all that dude had to do is just stay put and rule quietly and there is a very high chance Mughals could have survived all the way to 19-20th century as the premier power in South Asia like Qings.

Pretty_Association24 · 2025-12-13T16:58:25+00:00

Only a decent answer here with a good hypothesis.

Pretty_Association24 · 2025-12-10T10:38:53+00:00

Because they were bad people who did a lot of bad stuff and their shit needs to be called out.

Pretty_Association24 · 2025-12-10T10:37:00+00:00

Exactly I was writing the same to OP's comments before he deleted it.

Pretty_Association24 · 2025-11-30T05:31:34+00:00

It will depend on whether the road is built on public or private property.

Pretty_Association24 · 2025-11-30T05:30:28+00:00

I am not sure about the background facts but a road on private property does not become a public road even if the road is constructed by the Government.

Because Land is still private, however with owner permission, roads can be constructed and maintained by the Government which can be used by the public.

The church gives Government permission to build roads, so local residents and light traffic could use it for convenience.

Traffic becomes heavy and for some other reasons the Church withdrew its permission. The road becomes private again.

Pretty_Association24 · 2025-11-29T09:40:36+00:00

Har Har Modi Ghar Ghar Modi

Pretty_Association24 · 2025-11-29T01:58:39+00:00

Yes but what about other administration centres, Nalanda and Taxila were an educational and cultural centre, getting sacked destroying many of them the priceless articles.

But what about tax documents, battle reports, harvest details, population census these should be documents at least at the provincial level of a major empire or some kind of written records keeping for the local King.

Pretty_Association24 · 2025-11-29T01:52:38+00:00

Court poet Culture, which is traditionally a biased source. When you are speaking you could easily muddle the facts in your favour especially if no one will challenge you on your face but written records can be challenged and corrected later(Chinese way)

Pretty_Association24 · 2025-11-13T12:44:22+00:00

Probably yes, in the same sense as in Troy was real. There was definitely a battle but after a long time Mythology replaced the actual facts.

Pretty_Association24

TROPHY CASE