@IndianHistory0 The way ibn Khaldun presents his understanding& theorizing is rather unique. Hence, 1 could say there was no equivalent anywhere else in the ancient/medieval world. However, if we take a more general view we can see that he might be part of a large tradition which has parallels
@IndianHistory0 in various H works. 1st looking at ibn Khaldun himself he says he comes from the best of the Arab clans; hence the criticism might have been for those Arabs/Bedouins he saw as being lower. 2nd. His encounter with the islamized Mongol Timur gave him a direct understanding of the
@IndianHistory0 steppe people, the like of which we don't see elsewhere. 3rd However, his historical analysis can be seen as a culmination of the world history project initiated by the Mongols, especially successors of Hulegu, including synthesis by Rashid ad Din. 4th. I think he may also be
@IndianHistory0 seen as strand of historical tradition/theorizing continuing from Herodotus in the ancient Greek world, which was taken up by at least 1 lost author in the Iranic world& from them by Islamic writers like Gardizi.
Coming to India, ideas on the climes & their peoples (also having
Coming to India, ideas on the climes & their peoples (also having
@IndianHistory0 Iranic parallels in the karshvares) are seen in purANa-s, varAhamihira& the classical H medical tradition. Political thought is parallels by kauTilya & viShNusharman.The ethnology is seen kavi rAjashekhara's works;The social critique is seen in kShemendra. Together, viShNusharman
@IndianHistory0 & kShemendra offer considerable social critique of the self. That tradition continued in pockets closer to our times in the critique of nIlakaNTha dIkShita.
Loading suggestions...