System of administration in pala pratihara and rashtrakuta empire were based on ideas and practises of which empire
Answers
Rashtrakuta (IAST: rāṣṭrakūṭa) was a royal dynasty ruling large parts of the Indian subcontinent between the sixth and 10th centuries. The earliest known Rashtrakuta inscription is a 7th-century copper plate grant detailing their rule from Manapura, a city in Central or West India. Other ruling Rashtrakuta clans from the same period mentioned in inscriptions were the kings of Achalapur(modern Elichpur in Maharashtra) and the rulers of Kannauj. Several controversies exist regarding the origin of these early Rashtrakutas, their native home and their language.
The Elichpur clan was a feudatory of the Badami Chalukyas, and during the rule of Dantidurga, it overthrew Chalukya Kirtivarman IIand went on to build an empire with the Gulbarga region in modern Karnataka as its base. This clan came to be known as the Rashtrakutas of Manyakheta, rising to power in South India in 753. At the same time the Pala dynasty of Bengal and the Prathihara dynasty of Malwa were gaining force in eastern and northwestern India respectively. An Arabic text, Silsilat al-Tawarikh (851), called the Rashtrakutas one of the four principal empires of the world.[1]
This period, between the eighth and the 10th centuries, saw a tripartite struggle for the resources of the rich Gangetic plains, each of these three empires annexing the seat of power at Kannauj for short periods of time. At their peak the Rashtrakutas of Manyakhetaruled a vast empire stretching from the Ganges River and Yamuna River doab in the north to Cape Comorin in the south, a fruitful time of political expansion, architectural achievements and famous literary contributions. The early kings of this dynasty were influenced by Hinduism and the later kings by Jainism.
During their rule, Jain mathematicians and scholars contributed important works in Kannada and Sanskrit. Amoghavarsha I, the most famous king of this dynasty wrote Kavirajamarga, a landmark literary work in the Kannada language. Architecture reached a milestone in the Dravidian style, the finest example of which is seen in the Kailasanath Temple at Ellora in modern Maharashtra. Other important contributions are the Kashivishvanatha temple and the Jain Narayana temple at Pattadakal in modern Karnataka, both of which are UNESCO World Heritage Sites.
Explanation:
Feudalism
The prevailing system of government in the Middle Ages was feudalism. Though the actual term “feudalism” was not used during the Middle Ages, what we now recognize as a feudalist system of government was in control in Medieval Europe. Feudalism was a way for the Kings and upper nobility to keep control over the serfs and peasants.
Definition
There is no universally accepted modern day definition of feudalism. The word “feudal” was coined in the 17th century, some 200 years after the end of feudalism in Europe. The term “feudalism” was coined later still, in the 19th century.
After the publication of Elizabeth A. R. Brown’s The Tyranny of a Construct, many scholars have found the term “feudalism” troubling and have wanted to drop it, not just as the title of government in the middle ages, but as a term altogether.
Feudalism is mainly used in discourse today as a comparison or analogical term applied to governmental structures in history. This is known as “semi-feudal.” The term has also been brought up in discussions of non-Western societies today whose governments resemble the feudal system in medieval Europe, but this use of the term is often deemed inappropriate.
The Structure of Feudalism
Though class played an important role in feudal society in the Middle Ages, the more important relationship in feudalism is between the Lord, the Vassal and the Peasant. The Lord was the overseer of the entire government.
He was the monarch who controlled all of the land and people. The vassals were the nobleman who had been granted land by the monarch, and in exchange for that land provided military service or money. The peasants made up the majority of the population. They were very poor, or, in the case of serfs, had no money.
MARK ME AS BRAINLIST