Why were Indian empires so weak post 1000 AD?

[enkidu_]

well, Sikhs controlled Kashmir for just 3 decades because they were beaten by British like it happened in all undivided India. Otherwise Sikhs would have controlled Kashmir for a long time.

Regarding the Muslim army recruits are concerned, show me some other source. This is written by some Muslim army officer. Show me some other source which says the same thing.

They were beaten by British because of Hindu high treason (read about Gulab Singh, he wasn't your average chaiwala, he had a high post under Sikhs, his help was providential for the British).

As for numbers, Pak Army is "professional" enough for its officers to not come up with fabricated statistics. It's well known that modern day Pakistan was over-represented in the British army. In fact, so much it was that the British tried to invite "non martial races" (as the author puts it) - without much success. From a recent book (written by an anti Pak bigot, anyway) :

During World War I, the British were compelled by the need for men to attempt to extend recruitment opportunities to non-martial races; however, they largely failed to increase the diversity of their recruitment pool even though the areas populated by non-martial races comprised some 70 percent of the empire’s territory. Bengal, for example, which had nearly 45 million inhabitants, produced only 7,117 combat recruits. The Punjab, with a total population of only 20 million, yielded 349,689 recruits. In the Punjab, 1 of every 28 men was mobilized; in the rest of British India, only 1 of every 150 men was mobilized. In the late 1920s, the Punjab, the NWFP, and Nepal provided 84 percent of all troops in the British Indian Army. On average, the Central Provinces, Bihar, and Orissa provided only 500 troops, and Bengal and Assam produced none (Rizvi 2000a).

The British recruitment experience during World War II was similar: the Punjab and the NWFP produced 712,952 of India’s 2,047,430 total recruits. In contrast, Bengal produced a mere 171,252 men. More than 60,000 Bengalis were recruited to pioneer (i.e., construction) units, but no regular Bengali Muslim unit was formed. Despite all efforts to effect change, the Punjab and the NWFP continued to dominate army recruitment until Pakistan’s independence in 1947 (Rizvi 2000b).

Christine Fair, Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army's Way of War, pp. 61-62

 

[hussain123]

well, Sikhs controlled Kashmir for just 3 decades because they were beaten by British like it happened in all undivided India. Otherwise Sikhs would have controlled Kashmir for a long time.

Regarding the Muslim army recruits are concerned, show me some other source. This is written by some Muslim army officer. Show me some other source which says the same thing.

INfact, they entered kashmir bcoz they were armed to teeth by britishers in the first place whow wanted to weaken afghan empire nad made them wrestle kashmir way from afghans.once there objectives were met they turned their guns towards sikhs.it was a norm fir britishers to pit one kingdom against another . However once there objectives were achieved, they came hard against the same kingdom they armed.

 

[Raw deal]

They were beaten by British because of Hindu high treason (read about Gulab Singh, he wasn't your average chaiwala, he had a high post under Sikhs, his help was providential for the British).

As for numbers, Pak Army is "professional" enough for its officers to not come up with fabricated statistics. It's well known that modern day Pakistan was over-represented in the British army. In fact, so much it was that the British tried to invite "non martial races" (as the author puts it) - without much success. From a recent book (written by an anti Pak bigot, anyway) :



Christine Fair, Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army's Way of War, pp. 61-62

below are the castes which was recruited by British. Also, please provide the link for you have quoted. I don't trust Pakistani officials for anything .

were:[16]
Ahir
Arain
Awan
Baloch (Baluch)
Gakhar
Gurjar (both Muslim and Hindu)
Hindu Jat
Jat Sikh
Kamboh
Khattar
Khokhar
Labana
Mahton
Mughal
Muslim Jat
Pathan
Qureshi
Rajput[ (Muslim and Hindu, excluding Dogras)
Ranghar
Saini
Syed

Communities that were at various times classified as martial races include:
Kodava[17]
Gurkhas[18]
Marathas[19]
Nairs[20][21] (removed after rebelling)
Reddys[22]
Sikhs[23]
Tanolis[24][25]
Mohyal[26]

The recruitment of 'Madrassis' for infantry only took place during the Second World War when large numbers of troops were required to defend the British Empire in the form of a newly raised Madras Regiment. The Nairs of Kerala were initially included in the list, however after the Nairs of Travancore rebelled against the British under Velu Thampi Dalawa, they were recruited in lower numbers

 

[Abhilash93]

Look [MENTION=138059]Raw deal[/MENTION] [MENTION=139084]Lurker_Ind[/MENTION] [MENTION=137989]hussain123[/MENTION] :



http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/05/muslim-soldiers-first-world-war

30% alone were Punjabi Muslims only, "backbone" of their army. Imagine other ethnic groups of Pakistan, namely Pakhtoons and Baloch. I guess in India you only had Sikhs, Gurkhas and Rajasthani Rajputs, but not too many Marathis, Tamils, Bengalis or Biharis I reckon. But modern Pakistanis were over-represented, the proof that they wanted to distance themselves from mainland/Gangetic India. Even a pro Indian like Tarek Fateh laments at the fact that Punjabi Mussalmans were used to bully Gangetic Indians during the 1857 sepoy mutiny.

Pakistanis have resisted against foreign invaders and shielded Gangetic India, but not for the sake of protecting it, just when it went against its own interests. When these foreign invaders became interesting and permitted Pakistanis to earn dividends (economic, administrative, ...) they let them off go berserk on Uttar Pradesh, symbolic seat of Hindu imaginary, taking Indra-prastha as their capital, better known as Dehli before or New Delhi today.

The Marathas residing in the Sahyadri hills formed the bulk of the Maratha Army. These 'Mawalas' were fierce guerilla fighters.

1. In 1681, the Mughal forces laid siege to Fort Ramsej. But the Marathas did not succumb to this onslaught and it took the Mughals seven years to take the fort.

2. In 1683, Aurangzeb moved to Ahmednagar. He divided his forces in two and put his two princes, Shah Alam and Azam Shah, in charge of each division. Shah Alam crossed the Krishna river and entered Belgaum. From there he entered Goa and started marching north via Konkan. As he pushed further,he was continuously harassed by Marathas forces. They ransacked his supply chains and reduced his forces to starvation. Finally Aurangzeb sent Ruhulla Khan to his rescue and brought him back to Ahmednagar. The first pincer attempt failed.

3. After the 1684 monsoon, Aurangzeb’s other general Shahbuddin Khan directly attacked the Maratha capital, Raigad. Maratha commanders successfully defended Raigad. Aurangzeb sent Khan Jehan to help, but Hambirao Mohite, commander-in-chief of the Maratha army, defeated him in a fierce battle at Patadi. The second division of the Maratha army attacked Shahbuddin Khan at Pachad, inflicting heavy losses on the Mughal army.

4. In early 1685, Shah Alam attacked south again via the Gokak-Dharwar route, but Sambhaji’s forces harassed him continuously on the way and finally he had to give up and thus failed to close the loop a second time.

5. In April 1685, Aurangzeb planned to consolidate his power in the south by undertaking expeditions to the Muslim kingdoms of Golkonda and Bijapur. Both of them were allies of Marathas and Aurangzeb was not fond of them. He broke his treaties with both kingdoms, attacked them and captured them by September 1686. Taking this opportunity, Marathas launched an offensive on the North coast and attacked Bharuch. They were able to evade the Mughal army sent their way and came back with minimum damage.



Historian Stanley Wolpert says :

"The conquest of the Deccan, to which, Aurangzeb devoted the last 26 years of his life, was in many ways a Pyrrhic victory, costing an estimated hundred thousand lives a year during its last decade of futile chess game warfare. The expense in gold and rupees can hardly be accurately estimated. Aurangzeb's encampment was like a moving capital – a city of tents 30 miles in circumference, with some 250 bazaars, with a 1⁄2 million camp followers, 50,000 camels and 30,000 elephants, all of whom had to be fed, stripped the Deccan of any and all of its surplus grain and wealth ... Not only famine but bubonic plague arose ... Even Aurangzeb, had ceased to understand the purpose of it all by the time he was nearing 90 ... "I came alone and I go as a stranger. I do not know who I am, nor what I have been doing," the dying old man confessed to his son, Azam, in February 1707. "


https://books.google.co.in/books?id...MI2cmcis7RyAIVk8SOCh1SAAqX#v=twopage&q&f=true


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mughal–Maratha_Wars

 

[hussain123]

Even Muslim kings and emperors had to deal with so many back stabbing Muslim kings and emperors.

Correct me if I am wrong. Didn't Mohammed Bin Kasim get murdered by his own men after he conquered Sindh?
Tipu Sultan had to deal with treacherous Muslim minister. Mughals were in constant battles with Pathans.

Forget the middle age history, look at Arab countries now. Everyone is pulling the others knickers down. Conspiring against each other.

This is called politics and power. India had so many kingdoms and each one conspiring against their neighbors and it was easy for any invader to take advantage of it.

Finally Indians are under one belt and it is not easy for any foreign power to over take us. Lets suppose a few thousand militia men like ISIS tries to attack India now. We know what the result will be. But had they tried it in 6th century, they would run over India.

I agree cent percent.contrary to popular perceptions, muslims have many a times stabbbed their "brethren" at their backs.infact, muslims lost golden islamic rule for the same traitorous reasons.and I belive that reflected on incapabilities of muslims which gave an easy passe to their brutal occupiers like mongols.whatever, the reasons for the donwfall and subsequent occupation of indian land by invaders, that reflected on shortcomings of indian kingdoms.

 

[Raw deal]

@ enkidu. Even if they have recruited Pakistani pathans and Punjabi Muslims in high numbers, below is the reason why they were recruited.



Critics of the theory state that the Indian rebellion of 1857 may have played a role in reinforcing the British belief in it. During this event the troops from the Bengal Native Infantry led by sepoy Mangal Pandey mutinied against the British. The Bengal troopers were recruits drawn from the martial stock of Bhumihars and Rajputs of Bihar and eastern Uttar Pradesh. However, the loyal Pashtuns, Punjabis, Gurkhas, Kumaoni/Kumaunis and Garhwalis did not join the mutiny, and fought on the side of the British Army. From then on, this theory was used to the hilt to accelerate recruitment from among these 'races', whilst discouraging enlistment of 'disloyal' troops and high-caste Hindus who had sided with the rebel army during the war.[13]



Some authors, such as Heather Streets, argue that the military authorities puffed up the images of the martial soldiers by writing regimental histories,.

As you can see these pathans and Punjabi Muslims were considered to be loyal. Hence the bigger numbers.

 

[Lurker_Ind]

I agree cent percent.contrary to popular perceptions, muslims have many a times stabbbed their "brethren" at their backs.infact, muslims lost golden islamic rule for the same traitorous reasons.and I belive that reflected on incapabilities of muslims which gave an easy passe to their brutal occupiers like mongols.whatever, the reasons for the donwfall and subsequent occupation of indian land by invaders, that reflected on shortcomings of indian kingdoms.

India needed a strong monorchy like the Mauryans to counter Arabs and British. But Muryans belonged to BC. After them, there were no strong contenders.
Even though India was still Hindu/Buddhist country, the leadership was missing. The closest they got was the Sikh and Marathas.
Sikhs had to deal with a declining Mughals and budding British. Marathas ran into a powerful British empire.
British were superior to everyone in terms of arms as well as strategy.

Thankfully there were no twitter or facebook or BBC or CNN. The pictures coming out of all these conquests would have damaged human psyche forever.

 

[enkidu_]

As you can see these pathans and Punjabi Muslims were considered to be loyal. Hence the bigger numbers.

If you want to buy the "martial race" theory or not it's up to you (I don't), but my point was that peoples of the Indus felt foreign to those of Gangetic India, that's why they preferred to serve foreign powers with the same ideology than Hindus.

 

[Abhilash93]

@ enkidu. Even if they have recruited Pakistani pathans and Punjabi Muslims in high numbers, below is the reason why they were recruited.



Critics of the theory state that the Indian rebellion of 1857 may have played a role in reinforcing the British belief in it. During this event the troops from the Bengal Native Infantry led by sepoy Mangal Pandey mutinied against the British. The Bengal troopers were recruits drawn from the martial stock of Bhumihars and Rajputs of Bihar and eastern Uttar Pradesh. However, the loyal Pashtuns, Punjabis, Gurkhas, Kumaoni/Kumaunis and Garhwalis did not join the mutiny, and fought on the side of the British Army. From then on, this theory was used to the hilt to accelerate recruitment from among these 'races', whilst discouraging enlistment of 'disloyal' troops and high-caste Hindus who had sided with the rebel army during the war.[13]



Some authors, such as Heather Streets, argue that the military authorities puffed up the images of the martial soldiers by writing regimental histories,.

As you can see these pathans and Punjabi Muslims were considered to be loyal. Hence the bigger numbers.

There is another theory, slightly differing from that though broadly similar.

British general and scholar Lieutenant-General Sir George MacMunn (1869–1952) noted in his writings "It is only necessary for a feeling to arise that it is impious and disgraceful to serve the British, for the whole of our fabric to tumble like a house of cards without a shot being fired or a sword unsheathed" To this end, it became British policy to recruit only from those tribes whom they classified as members of the 'martial races', and the practice became an integral part of the recruitment manuals for the Army in the British Raj. According to Jeffrey Greenhut, "The Martial Race theory had an elegant symmetry. Indians who were intelligent and educated were defined as cowards, while those defined as brave were uneducated and backward."

 

[Lurker_Ind]

If you want to buy the "martial race" theory or not it's up to you (I don't), but my point was that peoples of the Indus felt foreign to those of Gangetic India, that's why they preferred to serve foreign powers with the same ideology than Hindus.

Could it be because Indus people have been Muslims for a long time and Gangetic people were predominantly Hindus?
You see different language, script and religion plays a major role in not being able to connect.

 

[Abhilash93]

Strange that people are taking pride in serving the British who never promoted them as officers but made them do the donkeys work as foot soldiers in inconsequential wars.

 

[Lurker_Ind]

There is another theory, slightly differing from that though broadly similar.

British general and scholar Lieutenant-General Sir George MacMunn (1869–1952) noted in his writings "It is only necessary for a feeling to arise that it is impious and disgraceful to serve the British, for the whole of our fabric to tumble like a house of cards without a shot being fired or a sword unsheathed" To this end, it became British policy to recruit only from those tribes whom they classified as members of the 'martial races', and the practice became an integral part of the recruitment manuals for the Army in the British Raj. According to Jeffrey Greenhut, "The Martial Race theory had an elegant symmetry. Indians who were intelligent and educated were defined as cowards, while those defined as brave were uneducated and backward."

An educated fellow will think twice before committing violence or signing up for it. The less educated and uneducated are always aggressive.
Have you seen how aggressive illiterate people get near water pumps early in the morning? People fight like crazy sometimes. They do not think the consequences for a minute.

 

[Lurker_Ind]

Strange that people are taking pride in serving the British who never promoted them as officers but made them do the donkeys work as foot soldiers in inconsequential wars.

This is the one of the reasons why India got owned by foreign invaders so many times.

Take one kingdom, praise him, pit him against the neighbor and see the magic happen.

 

[Truth_Hurts]

indian subcontinent always invaded by many races from aryans , greeks , turks to british...during muslim invasion no real strong empire in india to resist...
but the question is why india didnt become a muslim country if it was ruled by muslims for so many years??

 

[Immchr]

There are a lot of myths being perpetuated as true facts.

First and foremost, the myth of India always having consisted of small kingdoms and being politically weak most of the time.

Let us investigate what we know of Indian history -

We are taught that the 1st pan-Indian empire in Indian history is that of the Mauryans.

However, the Mauryans largely succeeded the empire that had been created by the Nandas 100 years earlier.

When Alexander came to India, politically the North-West was fragmented - the reason being almost all of it had been under the Iranian Achaemenid empire which had fallen to Alexander. However, all the small kingdoms and republics that Alexander fought against were very fierce warriors and the Greeks had a very very tough time. On approaching Gangetic plains, the Greeks learnt that what awaited them was the mighty confederacy of Gangaridai and Prasii who were very powerful. The strength of these confederies deflated the hopes of Alexander's troops and they demanded instant ceasing of further conquests. Read history of Alexander's march in India for more.

The above shows that in Alexander's time, the ancient Indians (Pakistanis & Indians) were quite a military force to reckon with, even when they had small republics & kingdoms.

After the death of Alexander, one of his generals, Seleucus, inherited most of his Iranian empire. This Seleucus, invaded India - which had united under Chandragupta, to conquer those regions that Chandragupta had conquered from Alexander's army after his death. However, Seleucus met with a resounding loss. Rather than winning back those territories, Seleucus lost all his territories between the Indus and the Kabul to Chandragupta. A majority portion of Afghanistan and Baluchistan passed into the hands of Indian political leadership.

Though there were ups and downs, these frontier regions always defined the western boundaries of India for outsiders up until the time of Arabs.

The Persian empire of the Arsacids and Sasanians hardly made any conquests in that frontier region.

When the Arabs finally conquered Sindh in 712 AD, it was after a long decades old effort which started right from 644 AD. However, the Arabs never were able to conquer the Hindu Kingdoms of Kabul and Zabul which straddled Afghanistan and Pakistan. These powerful kingdoms survived upto 870 AD when Zabul finally fell to the Safarids. The Kabul Shahis, however, existed right upto the extinction of their royal house in 1026 AD under Ghaznavi.

So, the frontier of India fought on for more than 3 centuries against the Arabs, who eventually gave up all hope of ever conquering those regions. It was finally left to Mahmud Ghaznavi who conquered them.

-------

The reason why Mahmud Ghaznavi had such a great success in India was due to 2 factors :-

1. The 1st was that he was a very gifted and energetic military leader. There was no comparable leader in India at that time who could match him in these traits.

2. North India, where his campaigns were limited to, had fragmented into smaller kingdoms, after the fall of the mighty Gurjara Pratihara empire. If people are unware of this glorious empire, please search in google, you'll know all there is to know about it. The Pratihars were rulers of North India for more than 2 centuries and were the backbone of Kabul Shahi might in the northwest as well. The Arabs of the 8th & 9th centuries, recorded that the Pratihars were the greatest enemies of Muslims (i.e. the empire of the Caliphate) in India and the small Islamic kingdoms of Mansure & Multan in Sindh, the only remnants of Islamic power in India at that time, greatly feared them. The Arabs, after conquering Sindh, had made inroads into NW India reaching deep into Gujarat and perhaps even Rajasthan & Madhya Pradesh. However, soon enough they were driven back comprehensively and the great state that arose in response to these Arab incursions was the Gurjara Pratihara empire.

Unfortunately for these Pratihars, they had two very powerful neighbouring empires to contend with, the Palas and the Rashtrakutas. The Rashtrakutas were more powerful than the Pratihars. Infact, the Arabs considered them as one of the 4 great empires of the world. These Rashtrakutas almost always defeated the Pratihars whenever they battled each other.

Finally in the 10th century, a great invasion by the Rashtrakutas on the capital of Pratihars, Kannauj, almost totally destroyed their power and the various feudatories of Pratihars carved their own little kingdoms. These various feudatories formed most of what later came to be known as the the Rajput dynasties.

Hence, North India had not recovered from this fall and Ghaznavi entered the right place at the right time. had Ghaznavi met the Pratihars at their peak, he would have been easily driven back to his place and he would not have been the celebrated figure that he is today.

----------------

Similar things can be said about other periods of Indian history but the post will become unreadably long.

To come to the point, Indian civilization was a very vibrant one before the 11th century. It influenced the entire region of South East Asia comprising modern day states of Indonesia, Burma, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, Vietnam etc. All of this region was so thoroughly Indianised that the Arabs considered it a part of Al-Hind.

Similarly, the region of Afghanistan as well as vast majority of regions in Central Asia were heavily influenced by India in their pre-Islamic period. The modern Xinjiang region of China, had several kingdoms in the pre-Islamic period, all of them were heavily Indianised. Indianised also was the region of Balkh or Tokharistan. Sogdiana, a country above Tokharistan, was not Buddhist, but here the Hindu religion (for lack of a better word) deeply influenced these multi-religious people. The influence on China also goes without saying.

Such an enormous amount of cultural influence could not have been wielded by India if it was a people of weak pusillanimous disposition. The evidence clearly shows that in the pre-Islamic period, the Indians must have been a very vibrant, adventurous & brave people.

However all good things come to an end. That is the nature of this world. Indian civilization from the 11th century began to recede and its civilizational footprint began to shrink. It rather began to absorb influences from outside.

There is no shame in accepting that during the period of Islamic invasions, 'Hindu' India was not politically a strong counterweight. However, we should remember that the cause of Hindus was not so hopeless as imagined here :-

1. The powerful Vijayanagar Empire was the richest empire in India at its peak and the Delhi Sultanate or any other contemporary Islamic dynasty in India could not match its richness and affluence. It lasted from 1336 upto 1646. However its political power already greatly declined in 1565.

2. Hemachandra Vikramaditya, also known as Hemu, was on the verge of establishing Hindu rule over Delhi before he died of a freakish arrow in the battle against the teenage Akbar which he was clearly winning.

3. There was Rana Sanga who had defeated Ibrahim Lodhi several times and had ambitions to rule Delhi and hence North India. The greatest battle Babur had in India was not with Lodhi but with Rana Sanga.

4. The Marathas had conquered majority of India at the expense of Mughals before the rise of the British. Infact, the 18th century in India was dominated by the Marathas.

 

[Slog]

There are a lot of myths being perpetuated as true facts.

First and foremost, the myth of India always having consisted of small kingdoms and being politically weak most of the time.
.

weird post.

You first say that the particular claim of India consisting of small kingdoms is a myth and then proceed to explain that India was always made up of different kingdoms and not one entity throughout most of history.

Several non Muslim (or Hindu) empires which may even be strong, still does not mean that India didnt consist of small kingdoms ofteen at offs with each other

 

[CricketCartoons]

but the question is why india didnt become a muslim country if it was ruled by muslims for so many years??

India got split in 3, two muslim countries and one struggling to become a hindu country. Muslims-2, Hindus 0.5

 

[Slog]

indian subcontinent always invaded by many races from aryans , greeks , turks to british...during muslim invasion no real strong empire in india to resist...
but the question is why india didnt become a muslim country if it was ruled by muslims for so many years??

about 35% of subcontinent's population is Muslim. And lets be honest no matter how much Indians may say there were no wholesale conversions or threats of accept Islam or die issued especially during Mughal times.

so by that standard a significant amount did convert to Islam

another way to look at it would be areas where Muslims did rule for significant and long period of time and if you just look at that (North India, Pakistan area and Bengal) then a lot more did become muslim

 

[Truth_Hurts]

the reason why i asked this question is to show how tolerant indian society is...many ideologies , religions ruled india but they were all indianised...all those different different tradition and ideas mixed with indian culture and coexisted peacefully...even from ancient period india shows strong secularism...

 

[Legbreak]

Would there be Pakistan or Bangladesh if South Asia was never invaded by Muslims? [MENTION=138463]Slog[/MENTION]

 

[Zak_Fan]

Their is nothing like soft and meek.you are only capable or you are not capable of defending yourselves . Their is a reason why indians don't priduce many world class athletes, even those athletes are mostly from punjab or haryana.you are right modern warfare has changed the rules of the game.

If this logic is to be believed, then China would have the manliest of people, while countries like Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Bangladesh will be the biggest sissies.

 

[Shah]

I thought that this was a thread about weak Indian Umpires.

 

[loves_cricket]

North west of Indus continent converted easily into Islam, and rest oh It present day India is largely managed to remain Hindu.
And we are called weak!

 

[Shah]

Not sure about Indian Empires, but Indian Umpires are so weak that even India itself complains about the weakness of its own Umpires!

"India to lodge official complaint against umpire Kulkarni"
http://www.espncricinfo.com/india-v-south-africa-2015-16/content/story/928543.html

"Why Team India is miffed with umpire Vineet Kulkarni"
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/...fed-with-umpire-vineet-kulkarni/1/497384.html

 

[Legbreak]

North west of Indus continent converted easily into Islam, and rest oh It present day India is largely managed to remain Hindu.
And we are called weak!

but why didn't our empires defend north west of indus ?

 

[Saeed]

Because before 1000 AD army of indian empires used to consist of brave Punjabis. When brave people converted to Islam India could no longer recruit them.

 

[Lurker_Ind]

but why didn't our empires defend north west of indus ?

We did not have empires. It was all small kingdoms. Easy peasy for invaders.

 

[Alizai]

Cos Arabs are top lads that defeated Hindu empire of Sindh

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[kaayal]

The muslims of the subcontinent can thank the British for saving them from rule of Hindus and Sikhs for a very long time.

the slave mentality.

 

[Slog]

North west of Indus continent converted easily into Islam, and rest oh It present day India is largely managed to remain Hindu.
And we are called weak!

tbf most of it was voluntary conversion.

In Iran first they converted to Sunni. Shia conversion was bloody though

 

[Alizai]

If only these fancy muslim dynasties and empires gave away the leadership to a real caliphate for example Ottomans, that would've been more interesting especially surround Shia Iran... Would benefit ottomans who had to always station alot of their troops near the borders of Persia,so if ottomans surrounded Shia Persian from both left and right it could've helped ottomans advances into Europe much more due to less troops surrounding Persia

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

[speed]

If only these fancy muslim dynasties and empires gave away the leadership to a real caliphate for example Ottomans, that would've been more interesting especially surround Shia Iran... Would benefit ottomans who had to always station alot of their troops near the borders of Persia,so if ottomans surrounded Shia Persian from both left and right it could've helped ottomans advances into Europe much more due to less troops surrounding Persia

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

or if the Arabs had conquered Constantinople 700 years earlier, all of Europe could have been muslim.

 

[Saeed]

Cos Arabs are top lads that defeated Hindu empire of Sindh

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

What a bunch of BS! Only arab conquer of India was bin qasim and that too was limited to sindh.

 

[Alizai]

What a bunch of BS! Only arab conquer of India was bin qasim and that too was limited to sindh.

Yes sindh and south of Punjab, which for the Arabs was basically the gateway for the rest of south Asia for islam to spread

 

[anakin]

Also we Muslims took 1/5 of their 'ancient india'.

... man...comedy at its best !!

 

[anakin]

On the genuine question by the OP:

Like an other great cultures in the past, Indian culture and Empires in the sub continent were already decaying and degrading with Stringent hierarchies, Religious doctrines and lack of scientific enquiry .....
When this happens every cultures in the history falls to invasions and other catastrophs. Societies that dont evolve with time fall behind, By 1000AD , India had stopped progressing on the other hand the Islamic Scientific knowledge was at its peak.
The result was inevitable.

India had the great big empires of Mauryas and Guptas.. but their time was gone.. and the new kingdoms were simply living of the wealth created in the past and did not progress to meet their time

 

[CricketCartoons]

On the genuine question by the OP:

Like an other great cultures in the past, Indian culture and Empires in the sub continent were already decaying and degrading with Stringent hierarchies, Religious doctrines and lack of scientific enquiry .....
When this happens every cultures in the history falls to invasions and other catastrophs. Societies that dont evolve with time fall behind, By 1000AD , India had stopped progressing on the other hand the Islamic Scientific knowledge was at its peak.
The result was inevitable.

India had the great big empires of Mauryas and Guptas.. but their time was gone.. and the new kingdoms were simply living of the wealth created in the past and did not progress to meet their time

LOL. Too much analysis.

Reason was simple. Horses.

The Turks had the best breed of horses which were reared on difficult terrain, and their horsemen were skilled. Indians horses raised on plains were no match, and Indians were not great horsemen.

 

[Indiafan]

Because of lack of domestic infrastructure for umpires or a growth path. There is no guidance or infrastructure and no policy in place. Because of the lack of DRS, Indian domestic umpires are also not trained in the use of technology. Indian umpires are also used to slow, low pitches where ball do not bounce much and usually just see trundlers and real fast bowlers. the pay is very low at domestic level and top retired cricketers will not choose to be umpires. All of these factors combine to make Indian umpires among the worst in the world.

Edit: I bet they would make shitty rulers too

 

[rahulrulezz]

There are a lot of myths being perpetuated as true facts.

First and foremost, the myth of India always having consisted of small kingdoms and being politically weak most of the time.

Let us investigate what we know of Indian history -

We are taught that the 1st pan-Indian empire in Indian history is that of the Mauryans.

However, the Mauryans largely succeeded the empire that had been created by the Nandas 100 years earlier.

When Alexander came to India, politically the North-West was fragmented - the reason being almost all of it had been under the Iranian Achaemenid empire which had fallen to Alexander. However, all the small kingdoms and republics that Alexander fought against were very fierce warriors and the Greeks had a very very tough time. On approaching Gangetic plains, the Greeks learnt that what awaited them was the mighty confederacy of Gangaridai and Prasii who were very powerful. The strength of these confederies deflated the hopes of Alexander's troops and they demanded instant ceasing of further conquests. Read history of Alexander's march in India for more.

The above shows that in Alexander's time, the ancient Indians (Pakistanis & Indians) were quite a military force to reckon with, even when they had small republics & kingdoms.

After the death of Alexander, one of his generals, Seleucus, inherited most of his Iranian empire. This Seleucus, invaded India - which had united under Chandragupta, to conquer those regions that Chandragupta had conquered from Alexander's army after his death. However, Seleucus met with a resounding loss. Rather than winning back those territories, Seleucus lost all his territories between the Indus and the Kabul to Chandragupta. A majority portion of Afghanistan and Baluchistan passed into the hands of Indian political leadership.

Though there were ups and downs, these frontier regions always defined the western boundaries of India for outsiders up until the time of Arabs.

The Persian empire of the Arsacids and Sasanians hardly made any conquests in that frontier region.

When the Arabs finally conquered Sindh in 712 AD, it was after a long decades old effort which started right from 644 AD. However, the Arabs never were able to conquer the Hindu Kingdoms of Kabul and Zabul which straddled Afghanistan and Pakistan. These powerful kingdoms survived upto 870 AD when Zabul finally fell to the Safarids. The Kabul Shahis, however, existed right upto the extinction of their royal house in 1026 AD under Ghaznavi.

So, the frontier of India fought on for more than 3 centuries against the Arabs, who eventually gave up all hope of ever conquering those regions. It was finally left to Mahmud Ghaznavi who conquered them.

-------

The reason why Mahmud Ghaznavi had such a great success in India was due to 2 factors :-

1. The 1st was that he was a very gifted and energetic military leader. There was no comparable leader in India at that time who could match him in these traits.

2. North India, where his campaigns were limited to, had fragmented into smaller kingdoms, after the fall of the mighty Gurjara Pratihara empire. If people are unware of this glorious empire, please search in google, you'll know all there is to know about it. The Pratihars were rulers of North India for more than 2 centuries and were the backbone of Kabul Shahi might in the northwest as well. The Arabs of the 8th & 9th centuries, recorded that the Pratihars were the greatest enemies of Muslims (i.e. the empire of the Caliphate) in India and the small Islamic kingdoms of Mansure & Multan in Sindh, the only remnants of Islamic power in India at that time, greatly feared them. The Arabs, after conquering Sindh, had made inroads into NW India reaching deep into Gujarat and perhaps even Rajasthan & Madhya Pradesh. However, soon enough they were driven back comprehensively and the great state that arose in response to these Arab incursions was the Gurjara Pratihara empire.

Unfortunately for these Pratihars, they had two very powerful neighbouring empires to contend with, the Palas and the Rashtrakutas. The Rashtrakutas were more powerful than the Pratihars. Infact, the Arabs considered them as one of the 4 great empires of the world. These Rashtrakutas almost always defeated the Pratihars whenever they battled each other.

Finally in the 10th century, a great invasion by the Rashtrakutas on the capital of Pratihars, Kannauj, almost totally destroyed their power and the various feudatories of Pratihars carved their own little kingdoms. These various feudatories formed most of what later came to be known as the the Rajput dynasties.

Hence, North India had not recovered from this fall and Ghaznavi entered the right place at the right time. had Ghaznavi met the Pratihars at their peak, he would have been easily driven back to his place and he would not have been the celebrated figure that he is today.

----------------

Similar things can be said about other periods of Indian history but the post will become unreadably long.

To come to the point, Indian civilization was a very vibrant one before the 11th century. It influenced the entire region of South East Asia comprising modern day states of Indonesia, Burma, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, Vietnam etc. All of this region was so thoroughly Indianised that the Arabs considered it a part of Al-Hind.

Similarly, the region of Afghanistan as well as vast majority of regions in Central Asia were heavily influenced by India in their pre-Islamic period. The modern Xinjiang region of China, had several kingdoms in the pre-Islamic period, all of them were heavily Indianised. Indianised also was the region of Balkh or Tokharistan. Sogdiana, a country above Tokharistan, was not Buddhist, but here the Hindu religion (for lack of a better word) deeply influenced these multi-religious people. The influence on China also goes without saying.

Such an enormous amount of cultural influence could not have been wielded by India if it was a people of weak pusillanimous disposition. The evidence clearly shows that in the pre-Islamic period, the Indians must have been a very vibrant, adventurous & brave people.

However all good things come to an end. That is the nature of this world. Indian civilization from the 11th century began to recede and its civilizational footprint began to shrink. It rather began to absorb influences from outside.

There is no shame in accepting that during the period of Islamic invasions, 'Hindu' India was not politically a strong counterweight. However, we should remember that the cause of Hindus was not so hopeless as imagined here :-

1. The powerful Vijayanagar Empire was the richest empire in India at its peak and the Delhi Sultanate or any other contemporary Islamic dynasty in India could not match its richness and affluence. It lasted from 1336 upto 1646. However its political power already greatly declined in 1565.

2. Hemachandra Vikramaditya, also known as Hemu, was on the verge of establishing Hindu rule over Delhi before he died of a freakish arrow in the battle against the teenage Akbar which he was clearly winning.

3. There was Rana Sanga who had defeated Ibrahim Lodhi several times and had ambitions to rule Delhi and hence North India. The greatest battle Babur had in India was not with Lodhi but with Rana Sanga.

4. The Marathas had conquered majority of India at the expense of Mughals before the rise of the British. Infact, the 18th century in India was dominated by the Marathas.

Just wanted to mention as many others ignored this gem. GREAT POST!! Learnt so much from this post. Thanks buddy!!

 

[anakin]

LOL. Too much analysis.

Reason was simple. Horses.

The Turks had the best breed of horses which were reared on difficult terrain, and their horsemen were skilled. Indians horses raised on plains were no match, and Indians were not great horsemen.

Everything Should Be Made as Simple as Possible, But Not Simpler

 

[CricketCartoons]

Everything Should Be Made as Simple as Possible, But Not Simpler

Tell that to the historians who count the superior cavalry as the reason.

 

[kaayal]

Got this picture of Tipu Sultan from fb. Don't know whether it's truly him or not.

 

[anakin]

Got this picture of Tipu Sultan from fb. Don't know whether it's truly him or not.

Not Tipu Sultan..... Camera was not invented when Tipu Sultan lived... so the only image we have of him are the well known artistic depictions

 

[CricketCartoons]

Not Tipu Sultan..... Camera was not invented when Tipu Sultan lived... so the only image we have of him are the well known artistic depictions

Looks like a typical south indian.

 

[Slog]

Looks like a typical south indian.

What the heck. Tipu Sultan was this dark?? He was potrayed as a **** chitta in an Indian drama from 90s

 

[captain.hansolo]

Also we Muslims took 1/5 of their 'ancient india'.

correction, 'we' in the 'we Muslims' were really the ethnic population of the the region that converted or adopted Islam. some voluntarily, and some at the tip of the sword.

as for the general thread, consider this:

superior weapons and larger armies that did not assume an occupying role were highly successful. other armies that sought to colonize the region were met with fierce resistance but the resistance was factious. instead, the war was a war of attrition and guerrilla warfare. suppressing such opposition would be the then ruler's undoing as it sapped resources, drove high taxes and thus higher dissatisfaction.

quite frankly, without a dynastic rule that had little opposition, no empire succeeded in india after around 400-500 AD.

 

[captain.hansolo]

What the heck. Tipu Sultan was this dark?? He was potrayed as a **** chitta in an Indian drama from 90s

he was not potrayed, the titular role was played by the show's director and producer who happened to be fair in complexion.

 

[captain.hansolo]

I thought that this was a thread about weak Indian Umpires.

as did i, i thought some joker does not know how to spell. but then i was introduced some other jokers in the process. lol.

 

[PCP_1]

Kumars don't like fighting, servitude is easier

Pretty much this. Most of them were farmers and serfs. You could do pretty much anything you wanted as long ad you didn't have a rogue lady teaching them cricket.

 

[Slog]

Just wanted to mention as many others ignored this gem. GREAT POST!! Learnt so much from this post. Thanks buddy!!

it was a great post from an informational standpoint.

But his conclusion and the premise he was making is all over the place though.

He says Indian consisting of "small kingdoms and being politically weak most of the time" is a myth but for majority of the post explains that they were weak fragmented which made it easier to defeat them.

Theres a lot of other things aswell which while true at a basic level are being misrepresented. He says Maratha conquered majority of India at expense of Mughals before rise of British. While the first part of the sentence is true the italicized part is gross simplification at best to complete manufacturing at worst. Secondly conquering is different from ruling. Aside from the Maharashtra base and some other areas, the Marathas never really did have full control over an interrupted period of time in most of the territories conquered. They never got to 'rule' and develop a culture and system in most of these areas like the Mughals had gotten over a century or so of their rule. Which again comes to the point that empires that made up the Indian land mass were weak and always imploding from within.

 

[Abhilash93]

Which again comes to the point that empires that made up the Indian land mass were weak and always imploding from within.

Too much of a generalization.

 

[rahulrulezz]

it was a great post from an informational standpoint.

But his conclusion and the premise he was making is all over the place though.

He says Indian consisting of "small kingdoms and being politically weak most of the time" is a myth but for majority of the post explains that they were weak fragmented which made it easier to defeat them.

Theres a lot of other things aswell which while true at a basic level are being misrepresented. He says Maratha conquered majority of India at expense of Mughals before rise of British. While the first part of the sentence is true the italicized part is gross simplification at best to complete manufacturing at worst. Secondly conquering is different from ruling. Aside from the Maharashtra base and some other areas, the Marathas never really did have full control over an interrupted period of time in most of the territories conquered. They never got to 'rule' and develop a culture and system in most of these areas like the Mughals had gotten over a century or so of their rule. Which again comes to the point that empires that made up the Indian land mass were weak and always imploding from within.

Not many people are aware Indian history prior to arrival of Mughals. His description on eras prior to Mughals is super good

 

[Fallen King]

Looks like a typical south indian.

Interesting. Thank for the picture. Is it safe to assume this might be accurate painting? Prophets of Judaism and Christianity were also brown too. But their portrayal by Hollywood has been artificialized. Not sure about the color of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) though.

 

[Immchr]

Alright ! I accept that my post became a little incoherent because I did not address the issues systematically and just mixed everything up.

Let me make a fresh attempt to explain the things clearly. I would make several references to the facts that I have already stated in my previous post. Hence if a certain point is not clear perhaps reading it in conjunction with my previous post may help.

Now let us address the points one by one :-

1. The myth about India being always divided into hundreds of small & weak kingdoms.

While there was hardly any period of Indian history where the entire subcontinent was united under one central authority, it had, for most of its history a large & powerful empire ruling a considerable portion of the subcontinent.

First there were the Nandas. They were followed by the Mauryans. After them came the Sungas & Kanvas. The Satavahanas followed them. All of these came one after another and all of them were very powerful empires.

During the time of Satavahanas, North India did not have a strong united leadership. Therefore during the latter half of Satavahana rule, a considerable part of NW India came under the Western Kshatrapas, who were of Saka origin. However, they became Indianised soon and their power gradually became restricted to Gujarat & Malwa.

Then we had the powerful empire of the Guptas, which had a powerful king in the North West, possibly an Iranian king as their subordinate.

We had the Kushans, with their power center in Gandhara, who ruled upto Bihar & Central India in the South, and considerable portion of Central Asia north of Hindu Kush. At their peak under Kanishka & a few more kings of their line, even the region of Xinjiang in China was under their subjugation. Though the Kushans were probably from Balkh in North Afghanistan, their empire became a vehicle for transmission of Indian cultural influence throughout Central Asia and even into China. A reverse influence from China or Central Asia into India, if it ever happened, is not known.

Then we had the Maukharis ruling from Kannauj in the 550s over most of North India. They were succeeded briefly by Harshavardhana after the Maukhari emperor had been treacherously murdered by a rival king. Harshavardhana's death probably brought the rule of Kannauj under the Maukharis once again. Yashovarman who ruled in the early part of the 7th century was probably from the line of Maukharis.

Yashovarman was eclipsed by his contemporary and erstwhile ally, Lalitaditya of Kashmir, who was probably the greatest conqueror to come out of Kashmir. He is said to have conquered most of India and then gone on to also defeat several kingdoms in Central Asia.

After the death of Lalitaditya, his grandson Vinayaditya Jayapida was also a ruler over a very vast domain. After Jayapida, the power of Kashmir waned and the Gurjara Pratiharas arose in North India. What happened from then on has already been explained by me.

-----

In the brief overview I have given above, it can be noted that there was hardly any period when there was not a powerful empire in India during the pre-Islamic period. However, there were ocassions when, after the fall of an empire, North India became politically divided which allowed a militarily powerful king from the North West to move in to stake his claim over the domain of North India, known as Aryavarta in the ancient period. The Kushans were one such example.

However, such brief periods of political fragmentation and disunity were not unique to the Indian subcontinent. The Chinese had several such periods of political fragmentation as well.

Mahmud Ghaznavi lived in one such period of disunity. Hence he benefitted greatly. While the Arabs encountered a united North India under the Pratiharas and had no luck.

However, the periods when the Indian subcontinent did not have a large empire were very very rare. What was more common was the fact that along with the presence of one or two large empires, there also existed other kingdoms with the Indian subcontinent that could live independently without being under the authority of the empire, or who were semi-independent and could rule their kingdom in peace, only acknowledging a nominal submission to the empire. To make this point more clear - the historical situation seems to represent the kind of political fragmentation we see today, with a large India surrounded by smaller nations like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal etc.

This fragmentary nature of Indian polity in the past is not restricted to pre-Islamic period, as we can see that none of the great Muslim kings who ruled from Delhi could subjugate the entire subcontinent. The reason for this peculiar feature of our subcontinent is not quite clear to me.

Another peculiar feature of Indian polity was that when one king was defeated by another, he was not killed or compelled to abdicate his throne unless he was a deeply unpopular king. He was allowed by his victor to keep ruling his kingdom under the submission of the victorious king. This was a method considered as the best of all by none other than Kautilya. Therefore, the regional dynasties were allowed to keep ruling their fiefdom under the central authority of the empire. Often, this dynasty would outlast the empire and then come the submission of another empire that rises later on. Such kind of a political organisation would naturally lead to a strong regional identity within the larger pan-Indian setup. It also often gives the false impression of historical India as being always politically divided into small kingdoms.

But while India was politically divided, it was for most of its history not lacking powerful empires, who did or did not rule the entire subcontinent but were nevertheless ruling a very large section of the subcontinent and were more than a match for any invading force.

2. The myth of historical India always being at the mercy of the Invaders.

To bust this myth I gave the examples of the invasion of Alexander and that of the Arabs. In the time of Alexander, the Achaemenid empire had just fallen. These Achaemenids had ruled over NW India for about 2 centuries. Under its subjugation were smaller political entities of NW India which did not have much time to regroup and unite after the fall of the empire. In this confusion, Alexander made a swift entry and defeated several of the regional kingdoms and tribes. Yet even these small kingdoms & tribes gave Alexander a bloody nose and at Multan he was very gravely injured. After conquering NW India, Alexander reached the borders of the main political powers of North India, whom the Greeks referred to as the Confederacy of the Gangaridai & Prasii. This confederate power's military strength was such that when the Greek soldiers heard about it, they despaired and refused to follow Alexander any further.

Similar was the case with the Arabs more than a thousand years later. They too could only conquer Sindh. They could never conquer the Hindu kingdoms of Kabul Shahi & Zabul Shahi who were backed by the Pratihars.

What these two instances illustrate is that, even when NW India (present Pakistan & Eastern Afghanistan) was politically divided, they were not exactly a cakewalk but were fierce military warriors.

What the above two instances also show is that when the invaders came face to face with the dominant power in India at that time, Gangaridai-Prasii in case of Alexander & Gurjara Pratihara in case of Arabs, they could do nothing.

To be more precise, even when politically divided India was not an easy place to conquer. And whenever there was a dominant military power in South Asia, they were often more than a match for the invaders. The ancient Indians were therefore not at all militarily weak or lacking in courage.

Unfortunately, the Britishers constructed a narrative of Indian history to justify their own alien rule in the Indian subcontinent. Hence they put much emphasis on the various invasions of India and glorified the invaders. They even invented the mythical Aryan invasion, which is nowhere mentioned in any ancient Indian text. All of this to justify their own rule over a people who considered them alien.

One last point - all the invaders who succeeded in conquering North India or large parts of it, had their power center not far from the Hindu Kush. This is true for the Islamic period as well. Afghanistan has always been a frontier of Indian civilization for thousands of years. Hence most of the invaders came from the frontier of India and not from far off places. The only exception being the Achaemenids and then more than 2000 years later Nadir Shah. Alexander and the Arabs invaded but could not conquer much at all. In the case of Alexander, all of his conquests, upto the Hindu Kush, were quickly surrendered by his successor Seleucus after his defeat to Chandragupta.

3. The Insignificance of Hindu rulers during the Islamic period of the last millenium.

I think I explained this point clearly enough and hence would not want to go over it again in detail. While Islamic rulers were more successful in the last millenium in India, Hindu kingdoms also kept existing and some of them, as I have given examples in the last post, were more powerful the contemporary Muslim dynasties. The Hindu kingdoms were not exactly inconsequential at all. The Islamic kingdoms not just fought with each other but they also had to fight Hindu kingdoms for the entire duration of Islamic political power in South Asia.

----------------------------

If there is any point I have failed to address clearly please let me know. I am not averse to discussing it again.

 

[Slog]

Alright ! I accept that my post became a little incoherent because I did not address the issues systematically and just mixed everything up.

Let me make a fresh attempt to explain the things clearly. I would make several references to the facts that I have already stated in my previous post. Hence if a certain point is not clear perhaps reading it in conjunction with my previous post may help.

Now let us address the points one by one :-

1. The myth about India being always divided into hundreds of small & weak kingdoms.

While there was hardly any period of Indian history where the entire subcontinent was united under one central authority, it had, for most of its history a large & powerful empire ruling a considerable portion of the subcontinent.

First there were the Nandas. They were followed by the Mauryans. After them came the Sungas & Kanvas. The Satavahanas followed them. All of these came one after another and all of them were very powerful empires.

During the time of Satavahanas, North India did not have a strong united leadership. Therefore during the latter half of Satavahana rule, a considerable part of NW India came under the Western Kshatrapas, who were of Saka origin. However, they became Indianised soon and their power gradually became restricted to Gujarat & Malwa.

Then we had the powerful empire of the Guptas, which had a powerful king in the North West, possibly an Iranian king as their subordinate.

We had the Kushans, with their power center in Gandhara, who ruled upto Bihar & Central India in the South, and considerable portion of Central Asia north of Hindu Kush. At their peak under Kanishka & a few more kings of their line, even the region of Xinjiang in China was under their subjugation. Though the Kushans were probably from Balkh in North Afghanistan, their empire became a vehicle for transmission of Indian cultural influence throughout Central Asia and even into China. A reverse influence from China or Central Asia into India, if it ever happened, is not known.

Then we had the Maukharis ruling from Kannauj in the 550s over most of North India. They were succeeded briefly by Harshavardhana after the Maukhari emperor had been treacherously murdered by a rival king. Harshavardhana's death probably brought the rule of Kannauj under the Maukharis once again. Yashovarman who ruled in the early part of the 7th century was probably from the line of Maukharis.

Yashovarman was eclipsed by his contemporary and erstwhile ally, Lalitaditya of Kashmir, who was probably the greatest conqueror to come out of Kashmir. He is said to have conquered most of India and then gone on to also defeat several kingdoms in Central Asia.

After the death of Lalitaditya, his grandson Vinayaditya Jayapida was also a ruler over a very vast domain. After Jayapida, the power of Kashmir waned and the Gurjara Pratiharas arose in North India. What happened from then on has already been explained by me.

-----

In the brief overview I have given above, it can be noted that there was hardly any period when there was not a powerful empire in India during the pre-Islamic period. However, there were ocassions when, after the fall of an empire, North India became politically divided which allowed a militarily powerful king from the North West to move in to stake his claim over the domain of North India, known as Aryavarta in the ancient period. The Kushans were one such example.

However, such brief periods of political fragmentation and disunity were not unique to the Indian subcontinent. The Chinese had several such periods of political fragmentation as well.

Mahmud Ghaznavi lived in one such period of disunity. Hence he benefitted greatly. While the Arabs encountered a united North India under the Pratiharas and had no luck.

However, the periods when the Indian subcontinent did not have a large empire were very very rare. What was more common was the fact that along with the presence of one or two large empires, there also existed other kingdoms with the Indian subcontinent that could live independently without being under the authority of the empire, or who were semi-independent and could rule their kingdom in peace, only acknowledging a nominal submission to the empire. To make this point more clear - the historical situation seems to represent the kind of political fragmentation we see today, with a large India surrounded by smaller nations like Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal etc.

This fragmentary nature of Indian polity in the past is not restricted to pre-Islamic period, as we can see that none of the great Muslim kings who ruled from Delhi could subjugate the entire subcontinent. The reason for this peculiar feature of our subcontinent is not quite clear to me.

Another peculiar feature of Indian polity was that when one king was defeated by another, he was not killed or compelled to abdicate his throne unless he was a deeply unpopular king. He was allowed by his victor to keep ruling his kingdom under the submission of the victorious king. This was a method considered as the best of all by none other than Kautilya. Therefore, the regional dynasties were allowed to keep ruling their fiefdom under the central authority of the empire. Often, this dynasty would outlast the empire and then come the submission of another empire that rises later on. Such kind of a political organisation would naturally lead to a strong regional identity within the larger pan-Indian setup. It also often gives the false impression of historical India as being always politically divided into small kingdoms.

But while India was politically divided, it was for most of its history not lacking powerful empires, who did or did not rule the entire subcontinent but were nevertheless ruling a very large section of the subcontinent and were more than a match for any invading force.

2. The myth of historical India always being at the mercy of the Invaders.

To bust this myth I gave the examples of the invasion of Alexander and that of the Arabs. In the time of Alexander, the Achaemenid empire had just fallen. These Achaemenids had ruled over NW India for about 2 centuries. Under its subjugation were smaller political entities of NW India which did not have much time to regroup and unite after the fall of the empire. In this confusion, Alexander made a swift entry and defeated several of the regional kingdoms and tribes. Yet even these small kingdoms & tribes gave Alexander a bloody nose and at Multan he was very gravely injured. After conquering NW India, Alexander reached the borders of the main political powers of North India, whom the Greeks referred to as the Confederacy of the Gangaridai & Prasii. This confederate power's military strength was such that when the Greek soldiers heard about it, they despaired and refused to follow Alexander any further.

Similar was the case with the Arabs more than a thousand years later. They too could only conquer Sindh. They could never conquer the Hindu kingdoms of Kabul Shahi & Zabul Shahi who were backed by the Pratihars.

What these two instances illustrate is that, even when NW India (present Pakistan & Eastern Afghanistan) was politically divided, they were not exactly a cakewalk but were fierce military warriors.

What the above two instances also show is that when the invaders came face to face with the dominant power in India at that time, Gangaridai-Prasii in case of Alexander & Gurjara Pratihara in case of Arabs, they could do nothing.

To be more precise, even when politically divided India was not an easy place to conquer. And whenever there was a dominant military power in South Asia, they were often more than a match for the invaders. The ancient Indians were therefore not at all militarily weak or lacking in courage.

Unfortunately, the Britishers constructed a narrative of Indian history to justify their own alien rule in the Indian subcontinent. Hence they put much emphasis on the various invasions of India and glorified the invaders. They even invented the mythical Aryan invasion, which is nowhere mentioned in any ancient Indian text. All of this to justify their own rule over a people who considered them alien.

One last point - all the invaders who succeeded in conquering North India or large parts of it, had their power center not far from the Hindu Kush. This is true for the Islamic period as well. Afghanistan has always been a frontier of Indian civilization for thousands of years. Hence most of the invaders came from the frontier of India and not from far off places. The only exception being the Achaemenids and then more than 2000 years later Nadir Shah. Alexander and the Arabs invaded but could not conquer much at all. In the case of Alexander, all of his conquests, upto the Hindu Kush, were quickly surrendered by his successor Seleucus after his defeat to Chandragupta.

3. The Insignificance of Hindu rulers during the Islamic period of the last millenium.

I think I explained this point clearly enough and hence would not want to go over it again in detail. While Islamic rulers were more successful in the last millenium in India, Hindu kingdoms also kept existing and some of them, as I have given examples in the last post, were more powerful the contemporary Muslim dynasties. The Hindu kingdoms were not exactly inconsequential at all. The Islamic kingdoms not just fought with each other but they also had to fight Hindu kingdoms for the entire duration of Islamic political power in South Asia.

----------------------------

If there is any point I have failed to address clearly please let me know. I am not averse to discussing it again.

Just skimmed through it. Good post and very information!

You do explain well that while instances where the Indian subcontinent was under the rule of one empire as a single entity are rare throughout history, there is a factual case to be made where you can say that a handful of major empires were dominating the land. Hence the claim that India was always littered with small, weak empires is erroneous.

A small question:

So you state:

To be more precise, even when politically divided India was not an easy place to conquer. And whenever there was a dominant military power in South Asia, they were often more than a match for the invaders. The ancient Indians were therefore not at all militarily weak or lacking in courage.

Now just to go back to the thread you would see that in the thread I specifically mentioned 'post 1000 AD.' So in relevance to the question posed in the OP, how would you describe this period (post 1000 AD) where at time invaders who had set up empites were being defeated by new invaders and the presence of local Indian entities in some areas (esp North India) were non-existent?

From the case you put forward in the quote above it does it seem to be the other case you put forward which is that : "even when politically divided, India was not an easy place to conquer. The ancient Indians were therefore not at all militarily weak or lacking in courage." In this case the natives are so weak that they are not even in the battle at some places and invading forces are fighting empires which themselves had invaded and set up a kingdom earlier. The locals empires are no where to be seen in some places.

Basically the short question is. How do you define this post 1000 AD era where it seems that India is seen as a play thing for invading forces for the most part? (Marathas, Ranjit Singh etc not withstanding). 1000 AD forwards it was invading forces taking over other invading forces with Marathas being the among the few (i think only) indigenous empires which was able to conquer a large part of India. (Not rule it for any significant time though)

 

[Indiafan]

Kumars don't like fighting, servitude is easier

Pretty much this. Most of them were farmers and serfs. You could do pretty much anything you wanted as long ad you didn't have a rogue lady teaching them cricket.

I don't know why obviously racist/discriminatory comments are allowed here. Adds nothing to the discussion and is not using any logic but personal opinions. Only plus point is that it reveals what kind of people some of these guys are

 

[rahulrulezz]

I don't know why obviously racist/discriminatory comments are allowed here. Adds nothing to the discussion and is not using any logic but personal opinions. Only plus point is that it reveals what kind of people some of these guys are

Why bother. These folks don't know that they are bi-products of their great grand father Kumars who were first one to surrender and covert in front of a sword. Also, I heard the invaders raped some women and converted them and their kids too.
Atleast the current Kumars can proudly say our ancestors rather fought bravely or saved the honour of their women than meekly give up and become non-Kumars

 

[Civil]

Thread has had some good knowledge and the usual baiting back and forth by the nutjob posters.

I have a question for any history afficianado. What would be the population figures of ancient India and the size of their armies compartively to the Central Asian invaders that settled in India? Are there any estimates or sources I could research?

Also where did all the wealth come from in the temples and palaces that was such a tempting target for looters like ghazni and timur? I always found it weird how much wealth is kept in places of worship or with clergy (Modern Vatican, mormom church, mecca)

My personal opinion is that the history of the SC in past millenium never had to do with religion but wealth and power. Many cases you'll find Muslim kings fight each other and same with hindu kingdoms and they have each other as generals and advisors in their armies in medieval India.

But it would be interesting to know at what stage the local Muslim population spiked or if a large population came with the invaders. Other than the high birthrates of muslims in subcontinent in more recent times , was the ratio of mulsims to hindus low during historic periods ?(Mughals, Delhi sultans, Deccan sultans). I couldn't find sources from these anywhere. But my guess would be 10% muslim to 90% non muslim

 

[Slog]

Why bother. These folks don't know that they are bi-products of their great grand father Kumars who were first one to surrender and covert in front of a sword. Also, I heard the invaders raped some women and converted them and their kids too.
Atleast the current Kumars can proudly say our ancestors rather fought bravely or saved the honour of their women than meekly give up and become non-Kumars

Linking honor of women to whether they were sexually taken advantage of or not.

And then people wonder about the reasons behind mistreatment of women in such places?

 

[rahulrulezz]

Linking honor of women to whether they were sexually taken advantage of or not.

And then people wonder about the reasons behind mistreatment of women in such places?

I agree and now that I reread my post, what I said was pathetic and totally wrong. I would never ever disrespect women and sadly what I said is opposite of my personality. I guess anger got the worst out of me. Here I thought I thave become a mature person and got calmer with age.

Thanks for pointing me out. Wish I could remove my post.

 

[Slog]

I agree and now that I reread my post, what I said was pathetic and totally wrong. I would never ever disrespect women and sadly what I said is opposite of my personality. I guess anger got the worst out of me. Here I thought I thave become a mature person and got calmer with age.

Thanks for pointing me out. Wish I could remove my post.

no worries. Im sure you dont think like that.

I feel in subcontinent we pass a lot of poor comments like these without even thinking what they mean if you really analyzed them. Needs a societal level change which unfortunately will take decades, if at all

 

[Immchr]

Just wanted to mention as many others ignored this gem. GREAT POST!! Learnt so much from this post. Thanks buddy!!

You are most welcome, friend !

I have a bit of interest in ancient Indian history. So I happen to keep reading stuff about it. If you like discussions on Indian history, there is a good history forum of which I am a member - http://historum.com/

Perhaps you might enjoy it. But be warned ! The Indians on the forum are very opinionated and quarrelsome.

 

[Immchr]

Just skimmed through it. Good post and very information!

You do explain well that while instances where the Indian subcontinent was under the rule of one empire as a single entity are rare throughout history, there is a factual case to be made where you can say that a handful of major empires were dominating the land. Hence the claim that India was always littered with small, weak empires is erroneous.

I am glad we have reached an agreement on the above.

A small question:

So you state:



Now just to go back to the thread you would see that in the thread I specifically mentioned 'post 1000 AD.' So in relevance to the question posed in the OP, how would you describe this period (post 1000 AD) where at time invaders who had set up empires were being defeated by new invaders and the presence of local Indian entities in some areas (esp North India) were non-existent?

From the case you put forward in the quote above it does it seem to be the other case you put forward which is that : "even when politically divided, India was not an easy place to conquer. The ancient Indians were therefore not at all militarily weak or lacking in courage." In this case the natives are so weak that they are not even in the battle at some places and invading forces are fighting empires which themselves had invaded and set up a kingdom earlier. The locals empires are no where to be seen in some places.

Basically the short question is. How do you define this post 1000 AD era where it seems that India is seen as a play thing for invading forces for the most part? (Marathas, Ranjit Singh etc not withstanding). 1000 AD forwards it was invading forces taking over other invading forces with Marathas being the among the few (i think only) indigenous empires which was able to conquer a large part of India. (Not rule it for any significant time though)

As I have said in my 1st post on this topic, India civilizationally began its decline in the last millenium. If you observe the influence of Indian civilization over such a vast area of Asia and contrast it with its fortune post 1000 CE, you cannot escape from this conclusion.

This is a natural phase that each civilization has to go through.

In contrast, Islamic civilization was on the upswing and it dominated the world upto the time when European colonialism took over in the 18th century.

In my humble opinion, this is one way of looking at the issue. When a declining civilization is faced with one which is in high spirits, more often than not, the winner will be the latter. Post 17th century, when the Islamic civilization began to decline, you can see how it fared against the Marathas.

------------------------

Having said so, let me say that the perception of Indian kingdoms being walkovers for the Invaders post 1000 CE is not correct.

When Mahmud Ghaznavi started his campaign he faced a very stiff resistance from the Kabul Shahis. This is acknowledged in the work of Utbi, the chronicler of Mahmud, who was otherwise very bigoted against the 'idolatrous' Hindus. Infact, in one of the battles, from what I can remember, the battle was very fierce and evenly matched and it was only the better fortune of Mahmud's army that made them the victors.

After the defeat of the obstinate Shahis, Ghaznavi had a easier time raiding several North Indian kingdoms. One of the probable reasons was, according to the Islamic sources, the Rais of Kabul Shahis were the greatest kings of India. In their battles with Mahmud, several other North Indian kings had helped the Shahis. Inspite of this, Mahmud emerged victorious and this probably demoralised the lesser Hindu Kingdoms who were any way, militarily no match for Mahmud. However, Mahmud was indeed unsuccessful in raiding Kashmir and had to come back after making a failed attempt.

-------------

After the death of Mahmud, his successors were not much successful in raiding India. Though they did not lack in intent, these Ghaznavi successors were probably not as gifted. Though it is not quite clear, from the inscriptions of some of the Hindu kingdoms from this period it appears that they may have defeated the Muslim armies on more than a few occasions.

Hence, we see the next successful invader in the shape of Ghori more than 150 years later.

Mohammad Ghori too, was defeated twice, once by the Solanki king of Gujarat in 1176 and then by Prithviraj himself. It was the third time that he got lucky.

------------

After the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate, it grew in power steadily and was very powerful in the time of Allauddin Khilji. In his time, the Mongols made several attempts to conquer India but were repelled back comprehensively. Hence, the invaders, the most fearful of their times, had no luck in India. Contrast this with what the Mongols were able to achieve everywhere else and we may better appreciate this feat. This single instance itself repudiates the claim that the Invaders always had it easy post 1000 CE.

--------------

Later in 1398, Timur Lame did have it easy and devastated North India. However, Timur, was one of history's greatest conquerors. It wasn't like India was being invaded and conquered by all & sundry.

--------------

It is than in 1526, that we see another great invasion, that by Babur. Here it is without doubt true that all of yours arguments are proven true. Babur was nowhere near to Timur in terms of military might. His army was a small fraction of Lodhi's army and yet he had an easy victory.

However, here too, we should not forget that in Humayun's time, Sher Shah Suri was able to drive away the Mughals. Even after they had regained Delhi, the battle between Akbar & Hemu at Panipat was a fierce one with Hemu clearly having the upper hand. It was a fortuitous victory in that battle which reclaimed the throne of Delhi for the Mughals.

The defeat against Nadir Shah of the Mughals was not really due to inferiority in arms but due to the imbecility of the leaders. While in the time of Ahmad Shah Abdali, there was the major victory against Marathas in Panipat. However, this battle did not stop Marathas from taking over Delhi 10 years later.

---------------------

Here we have taken a brief survey of major invasions of the post 1000 CE era. We can see that while the invaders had a upper hand relatively, a simple generalisation of the kind you're trying to make cannot withstand the facts.

 

[Slog]

pertinent discussion/OP

 

[TM Riddle]

You have to clarify things up a bit here Sloggy. Does the Indian word here has secular connotations or it exclusively denotes Hindus?
We can proceed further after that.

 

[Slog]

You have to clarify things up a bit here Sloggy. Does the Indian word here has secular connotations or it exclusively denotes Hindus?
We can proceed further after that.

Indigenous Indians (primarily they will be Hindus)

(for me an indigenous empire/person would be someone who has been in subcontinent for atleast three generations. So lets say for Mughals - I would consider Akbar as indigenous but def not Babur or Humayun. So if Akbar set up an empire it would be an indigenous empire.

As a result invariably most indigenous Indian empires would be Hindu rulers. Ofcourse its just my rules and it could be different for you)

 

[Slog]

[MENTION=130700]TM Riddle[/MENTION] - do go through the thread before a response. Its interesting and only some parts are antagonistic/troll-type

 

[CricketCartoons]

Pretty obvious. The main differentiator was religion. While the hindus fought political wars, the muslims fought religious wars. Hindus fought for either money or their king, but muslims fought for God. The stronger faith won.

 

[TM Riddle]

I think Indian empires were pretty strong till 11th century and although there was no centralized authority and the subcontinent was divided into various principalities , they all remained formidable most of the times. Case in point - inability of Arabs to extend their influence beyond Sindh after they were defeated by joint Rajput confederacy of Pratihars , Gehlots and Western Chalukyas(Solankis of Gujarat).
Down South Rashtrakutas and Cholas (Pallavas before them) were superbly organized states , esp the Cholas who saw their Peak at the time of RajaRaja 1 and Rajendra and conquered as far as South East Asia thanks to their powerful Navy.
In the East , Palas held their end quite well despite being at constant warfare with The Imperial Pratihars and Rashtrakutas for the possession of important city of Kannauj , popularly known as Tripartite struggle.
It was only after decline and disintegration of Pratihars and Rashtrakutas that problems began surfacing. Various vessels of the former such as Chahmanas and Parmars ( [MENTION=136588]CricketCartoons[/MENTION]) declared themselves independent while Gadhavalas of Kannauj who were earlier feudatories of Rashtrakutas threw off their yoke and became an independent state. These newly constitued states were at constant war with each other , looting and plundering each other. In fact the Rajput age (6th -12th century) saw various battles between different clans , each trying to impose each other's authority on others thus resulting in lack of trust and disunity among them when facing foreign Invaders (Turks). Similarly in South , Cholas went downhill which resulted in their feudatories declaring themselves independent.In the Eastern regions , after the decline of Palas , Senas(Bengals) , Eastern Gangas (Orissa) and Kamrups (Assam) emerged as new Kingdoms. This was the overall situation in the subcontinent.

In Central Asia and middle East , new developments took place as well. The warring non muslim (mostly Buddhist) Turkic tribes of Central Asia were islamized and they were recruited heavily by The Abbasid Caliphate as mercenaries and guards , although their social status remained low compared to the Arabs and Persians. But after the decline of Caliphate these Turks emerged as a new power and soon began conquering regions around Transoxiana. In middle of this a new Kingdom of Gazani came at the forefront under the leadership of Mehmud. Mehmud had his eyes on Hindustan for a long time thanks to the riches it had to offer and thus it was under him that Turk raids began a common occurrence in India. He plundered and looted the Modern Pakistan and Ganga Yamuna Doab as well as parts of Gujarat and Rajasthan several times . But he didn't had any plans to permanently settle in India and thus left each time for his home.
The scene continued with Muhammad of Ghor except that this time around they decided to permanently settle in India and thus born The Slave dynasty.
These Mamluk Turks although quite efficient suffered from bitter rivalry among different nobles and thus couldn't extend their reach apart from Punjab and Doab region. The situation got worsened because of constant rebellions (For instance Khokhars of salt range ) and of course the Mongol threat which loomed over India. Mongols had earlier razed the entire middle East and Central Asia which alarmed the Delhi Sultans and thus instead of expansion of their empire they paid attention to keeping their army ready for the upcoming Mongol attack.
Fortunately for them Changiz Khan changed his mind after reaching till Indus and turned back. Thus the Sultanate survived although it remained quite vulnerable.

It was only under Alauddin Khalji that Delhi Sultanate reached its peak. He instituted a strong army to counter the Mongol threat , in fact in one of the battles with them he ordered slaughtering of 20 thousand of them. Alauddin as per your definition [MENTION=138463]Slog[/MENTION] could be called an indigenous emperor. He was born in India and his family had been here for centuries. He managed to extend his empire and conquer till Deccan . All the Rajputs were subjugated and Bengal Kings paid tribute to him.
After his death The Sultanate slowly declined , although Muhammad and Firoz Shah Tughlaq kept things steady for a while.
Meanwhile in the South many new dynasties emerged , chief among them being The Viajaynagara and Bahmani Sultans. These two kingdoms fought with each other to control the Krishna Tungbhadra doab and bloodshed went on for centuries. Soon thereafter the Bahmanis lost power and the Kingdom got bifurcated into various small principalities , chief among them being Bijapur , Golconda , Ahmadnagar and Berar. They all came together against The Viajaynagara and finally it got extinguished in Battle of Talikota.

Meanwhile in the north , Rajputs took advantage of inherent weaknesses of Sultanate and became independent. Among them , the house of Mewar Distinguished itself with leaders at helm such as Rana Kumbha and Sanga. They fought with Gujarat and Malwa Sultans over the control of the region. Eventually Mewar subdued most of them under Sanga and became contender for the next north indian empire. But the story of arrival of Babar and the crushing defeats of Lodis and Rajputs is too well known to be repeated here.

Anyway even though Mughals were had established their foothold in India , Till Humayun , the situation remained bleak.
It was only after when Akbar came at the scene that we saw the making of a first Pan Indian empire after the Guptas.
He rightly figured out that in order to rule over India it was necessary to win the hearts of the local population which was Hindu. Thus he started forging alliances with the Hindu kings which proved to be a masterstroke in the future. One by one , the Mughals conquered the entire subcontinent ( except parts of Kerala , Tamilnadu and north east) and their final outpost in north west reached as far as till Qandhar .

Akbar's policy was continued by his successors and the Mughals Empire reached its zenith in the times of Alamgir. It was here that Aurangzeb committed a fatal mistake of alienating Rajputs and launching a scathing attack on newly emerging Maratha power.
Marathas under Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj proves to be bane of the Mughaliya Sultanate and thus began the decline of The Great Mughals.
Had Aurangzeb been smart enough as his great grandfather and kept his religious intolerance at bay , we might have seen the Mughal power growing continually even after his death . Of course there were other reasons as well such as poor revenue policies , inefficient administration etc .
Khair after that India disintegrated again into different small Kingdoms and although Marathas did try to replicate the success of Mughals by conquering the large parts of subcontinent , they remained largely unsuccessful.
This paved the way for rise of a small commercial company known as East India Company and rest as we know is history.

 

[Slog]

I think Indian empires were pretty strong till 11th century and although there was no centralized authority and the subcontinent was divided into various principalities , they all remained formidable most of the times. Case in point - inability of Arabs to extend their influence beyond Sindh after they were defeated by joint Rajput confederacy of Pratihars , Gehlots and Western Chalukyas(Solankis of Gujarat).
Down South Rashtrakutas and Cholas (Pallavas before them) were superbly organized states , esp the Cholas who saw their Peak at the time of RajaRaja 1 and Rajendra and conquered as far as South East Asia thanks to their powerful Navy.
In the East , Palas held their end quite well despite being at constant warfare with The Imperial Pratihars and Rashtrakutas for the possession of important city of Kannauj , popularly known as Tripartite struggle.
It was only after decline and disintegration of Pratihars and Rashtrakutas that problems began surfacing. Various vessels of the former such as Chahmanas and Parmars ( [MENTION=136588]CricketCartoons[/MENTION]) declared themselves independent while Gadhavalas of Kannauj who were earlier feudatories of Rashtrakutas threw off their yoke and became an independent state. These newly constitued states were at constant war with each other , looting and plundering each other. In fact the Rajput age (6th -12th century) saw various battles between different clans , each trying to impose each other's authority on others thus resulting in lack of trust and disunity among them when facing foreign Invaders (Turks). Similarly in South , Cholas went downhill which resulted in their feudatories declaring themselves independent.In the Eastern regions , after the decline of Palas , Senas(Bengals) , Eastern Gangas (Orissa) and Kamrups (Assam) emerged as new Kingdoms. This was the overall situation in the subcontinent.

In Central Asia and middle East , new developments took place as well. The warring non muslim (mostly Buddhist) Turkic tribes of Central Asia were islamized and they were recruited heavily by The Abbasid Caliphate as mercenaries and guards , although their social status remained low compared to the Arabs and Persians. But after the decline of Caliphate these Turks emerged as a new power and soon began conquering regions around Transoxiana. In middle of this a new Kingdom of Gazani came at the forefront under the leadership of Mehmud. Mehmud had his eyes on Hindustan for a long time thanks to the riches it had to offer and thus it was under him that Turk raids began a common occurrence in India. He plundered and looted the Modern Pakistan and Ganga Yamuna Doab as well as parts of Gujarat and Rajasthan several times . But he didn't had any plans to permanently settle in India and thus left each time for his home.
The scene continued with Muhammad of Ghor except that this time around they decided to permanently settle in India and thus born The Slave dynasty.
These Mamluk Turks although quite efficient suffered from bitter rivalry among different nobles and thus couldn't extend their reach apart from Punjab and Doab region. The situation got worsened because of constant rebellions (For instance Khokhars of salt range ) and of course the Mongol threat which loomed over India. Mongols had earlier razed the entire middle East and Central Asia which alarmed the Delhi Sultans and thus instead of expansion of their empire they paid attention to keeping their army ready for the upcoming Mongol attack.
Fortunately for them Changiz Khan changed his mind after reaching till Indus and turned back. Thus the Sultanate survived although it remained quite vulnerable.

It was only under Alauddin Khalji that Delhi Sultanate reached its peak. He instituted a strong army to counter the Mongol threat , in fact in one of the battles with them he ordered slaughtering of 20 thousand of them. Alauddin as per your definition [MENTION=138463]Slog[/MENTION] could be called an indigenous emperor. He was born in India and his family had been here for centuries. He managed to extend his empire and conquer till Deccan . All the Rajputs were subjugated and Bengal Kings paid tribute to him.
After his death The Sultanate slowly declined , although Muhammad and Firoz Shah Tughlaq kept things steady for a while.
Meanwhile in the South many new dynasties emerged , chief among them being The Viajaynagara and Bahmani Sultans. These two kingdoms fought with each other to control the Krishna Tungbhadra doab and bloodshed went on for centuries. Soon thereafter the Bahmanis lost power and the Kingdom got bifurcated into various small principalities , chief among them being Bijapur , Golconda , Ahmadnagar and Berar. They all came together against The Viajaynagara and finally it got extinguished in Battle of Talikota.

Meanwhile in the north , Rajputs took advantage of inherent weaknesses of Sultanate and became independent. Among them , the house of Mewar Distinguished itself with leaders at helm such as Rana Kumbha and Sanga. They fought with Gujarat and Malwa Sultans over the control of the region. Eventually Mewar subdued most of them under Sanga and became contender for the next north indian empire. But the story of arrival of Babar and the crushing defeats of Lodis and Rajputs is too well known to be repeated here.

Anyway even though Mughals were had established their foothold in India , Till Humayun , the situation remained bleak.
It was only after when Akbar came at the scene that we saw the making of a first Pan Indian empire after the Guptas.
He rightly figured out that in order to rule over India it was necessary to win the hearts of the local population which was Hindu. Thus he started forging alliances with the Hindu kings which proved to be a masterstroke in the future. One by one , the Mughals conquered the entire subcontinent ( except parts of Kerala , Tamilnadu and north east) and their final outpost in north west reached as far as till Qandhar .

Akbar's policy was continued by his successors and the Mughals Empire reached its zenith in the times of Alamgir. It was here that Aurangzeb committed a fatal mistake of alienating Rajputs and launching a scathing attack on newly emerging Maratha power.
Marathas under Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj proves to be bane of the Mughaliya Sultanate and thus began the decline of The Great Mughals.
Had Aurangzeb been smart enough as his great grandfather and kept his religious intolerance at bay , we might have seen the Mughal power growing continually even after his death . Of course there were other reasons as well such as poor revenue policies , inefficient administration etc .
Khair after that India disintegrated again into different small Kingdoms and although Marathas did try to replicate the success of Mughals by conquering the large parts of subcontinent , they remained largely unsuccessful.
This paved the way for rise of a small commercial company known as East India Company and rest as we know is history.

did you write this yourself? while a good historical commentary from your pov tbh i know most of this

From your post, my takeaway is that you:

1) agree that Indian empires were weak post-1000AD
2) you dont think that religion as a motivating factor was a big reason for consistent defeats of indigenous Indian empires in this region
3) Indian empires were too fragmented and small to witshtand assualts by invading armies.

on a side note - is their any history of South India based empires ruling over majority of subcontinent in the modern period? Marathas did briefly but dont think are south as such and for me it was not a significant time period

 

[Traveller55]

did you write this yourself? while a good historical commentary from your pov tbh i know most of this

From your post, my takeaway is that you:

1) agree that Indian empires were weak post-1000AD

Post-1000 AD, Indian empires were going through a period of fragmentation, you see. The Kannauj triangle had left almost all of Indian subcontinent exhausted.

Though technically, the Chola golden age ended in 1100s AD, its close enough to the 1000 AD mark to count in spirit, IMO.
Cholas however, were a formidable military power and the first power to have a trans-oceanic empire for a brief period, when they vassalized western Indonesia and Malay peninsula.

2) you dont think that religion as a motivating factor was a big reason for consistent defeats of indigenous Indian empires in this region

Well lack of extra-motivating factor for killing each other would naturally result in a lesser efficacy in killing each other. That much, is straight-forward.

Bigger than lacking religious unity, the bigger factor was lacking political unity, to the point of exhaustion.

3) Indian empires were too fragmented and small to witshtand assualts by invading armies.

True, though at this stage, they were kingdoms, not empires. Empire signifies imperial control over a disparate group of ethnicities and cultures.

on a side note - is their any history of South India based empires ruling over majority of subcontinent in the modern period? Marathas did briefly but dont think are south as such and for me it was not a significant time period

Modern period ? If you go by the history definition of 'modern period', its somewhere in the post 1700/1800 AD period, so clearly, the answer is no.

The Rashtrakutas had control of almost all of southern India and a big chunk of central India, extending up through Malwa and into Kannauj for decades at a time, probably all in all close to 75-100 years.

Prior to that, there was about a 100 year period of Satavahana rule, when Satavahanas ruled almost all of peninsular india and the entire eastern half of the Ganges valley. But that is almost 2000 years ago.

 

[Slog]

Modern period ? If you go by the history definition of 'modern period', its somewhere in the post 1700/1800 AD period, so clearly, the answer is no.

The Rashtrakutas had control of almost all of southern India and a big chunk of central India, extending up through Malwa and into Kannauj for decades at a time, probably all in all close to 75-100 years.

Prior to that, there was about a 100 year period of Satavahana rule, when Satavahanas ruled almost all of peninsular india and the entire eastern half of the Ganges valley. But that is almost 2000 years ago.

i meant past 1500-2000 years so perhaps modern period is a wrong word. I know post-1000 AD there is no such history but was interested to see how long that has been the case.

tbh i place very little reliance on specific details of events pre-1000 AD in subcontinental history. Very little verifiable accounts and Indian literature of the time has too much of a history of mixing legends and reality.

 

[Traveller55]

LOL. Too much analysis.

Reason was simple. Horses.

The Turks had the best breed of horses which were reared on difficult terrain, and their horsemen were skilled. Indians horses raised on plains were no match, and Indians were not great horsemen.

This is half the story.

Indian subcontinent's 'uniqueness' to war has always been lack of quality horses and reliance on elephants to form a juggernaut.

Elephants, done the 'Asian' way - with archer/Javeliner + driver + pole-arm guy on top- is an exceedingly good weapon of war.
For one, elephants, if you have trained them well, are amazingly versatile in following commands.
Two, elephant archer/javeliner have decisive range advantage over cavalry or infantry archers. But above all, horses are scared of elephants - universally so- unless they are reared with them, especially when elephants are also being aggressive.

Its practical invincibility has been noted by several indegenous & foreign commentators.

However, they come with a big caveat :
1. They *MUST* be trained properly or else they are a liability. Elephants are one of the smartest creatures on the planet after us. Not dumb like horses. You can't just put blinkers on an elephant and get it to charge a stack of pikemen for eg. It knows that those sharp pointy bristly things are gonna be death.

2. They are bloody expensive. The average elephant eats like half a tonne or more of foliage and needs 200-300 litres of water a day (not just for sustainance but also for wallowing. Elephants need to wallow periodically or they start to sun-burn).

1 and 2 are practically impossible for small kingdoms.
This is why, when Alexander meets Porus ( a small king), Porus has 150-200 war elephants. Against an army of 25-30,000, 200 'invincible elephants' are a tactical problem.
But what about 5,000 war elephant ? thats a certain existential threat for practically any army lacking elephants- especially in the vast open-ness of Indo-gangetic plains.

This is why Alexander tucked tail and ran away, when according to Greek records themselves, 'the kings of Praesii and Gangaridai were marching with 5000+ elephants and 150,000 total troops'.

This is also why, only once has a major north-Indian empire fallen to outsiders : The Gupta Empire.
Even then, the Guptas decisively vanquished the huns several times for well over a century, so their loss was not due to military inferiority per-se ( could be, but could be Rome-esque economic & political factors).

However, take all the other major Indian empires - Mauryas, Shungas, Kushans, Harsha, Gurjara & Pala- none of them were ever beaten by a non-Indic force. Why ? Because being a vast & rich empire dominating the north meant close to 10,000, if not more war elephants on the ready : mission impossible for forces lacking elephants, in open plains.

Same reason why when India has been fragmented, it has fallen easy victim to outside forces : no horses and not big enough to afford thousands of elephants = infantry is dead-meat on the same vast, open plains of the north.

 

[Traveller55]

i meant past 1500-2000 years so perhaps modern period is a wrong word. I know post-1000 AD there is no such history but was interested to see how long that has been the case.

tbh i place very little reliance on specific details of events pre-1000 AD in subcontinental history. Very little verifiable accounts and Indian literature of the time has too much of a history of mixing legends and reality.

Err, it depends totally what period you are talking of.

Pre-500BC India is all mythical and uncorroborated.

500BC- 1000 AD period has a few gaps here and there. For eg, 0-100 AD is a big gap in the Gangetic and eastern parts. 500-700 is a big gap in the Punjab & Khyber region.

Mostly, the myths and legends of folktale in Indian history is from around the 1000 AD period. Ofcourse, there are a few 'mythic heroes' - almost every culture has them. But most of Indian history from 500 BC-1000 AD is based on epigraphical evidence ( meaning inscriptions, coins, etc) along with literary corroboration in some cases.

Without actually reading the sources of history, its always difficult to tell what stuff is very well evidenced and what isn't.

Ancient Magadh for eg, is very well evidenced in literature from competing sources- Buddhist & Jain.
Gupta period is mostly very well evidenced from their own inscriptions and coin-finds.

Harsha had a brilliant foreign biographer named XuanZong, who took his work back with him to China.

Things start to get confusing from around 900s AD onwards epigraphically and the full-on mythic legends start to take hold from a century or two later.

 

[Slog]

Err, it depends totally what period you are talking of.

Pre-500BC India is all mythical and uncorroborated.

500BC- 1000 AD period has a few gaps here and there. For eg, 0-100 AD is a big gap in the Gangetic and eastern parts. 500-700 is a big gap in the Punjab & Khyber region.

Mostly, the myths and legends of folktale in Indian history is from around the 1000 AD period. Ofcourse, there are a few 'mythic heroes' - almost every culture has them. But most of Indian history from 500 BC-1000 AD is based on epigraphical evidence ( meaning inscriptions, coins, etc) along with literary corroboration in some cases.

Without actually reading the sources of history, its always difficult to tell what stuff is very well evidenced and what isn't.

Ancient Magadh for eg, is very well evidenced in literature from competing sources- Buddhist & Jain.
Gupta period is mostly very well evidenced from their own inscriptions and coin-finds.

Harsha had a brilliant foreign biographer named XuanZong, who took his work back with him to China.

Things start to get confusing from around 900s AD onwards epigraphically and the full-on mythic legends start to take hold from a century or two later.

I say so because I once did research on the Maurya empire and I found that there was very little corroboration and too much reliance on legends and folklore. Even the rise of Chandragupta Maurya cannot be ascertained with a degree of reliability, let alone all the exploits later. A lot of what we accept as history is derived straight from the Vedas Hindu mythology

 

[TM Riddle]

Pre 500BC all mythical? What sourcing are you basing your information from [MENTION=146517]Traveller55[/MENTION] ?

 

[TM Riddle]

I say so because I once did research on the Maurya empire and I found that there was very little corroboration and too much reliance on legends and folklore. Even the rise of Chandragupta Maurya cannot be ascertained with a degree of reliability, let alone all the exploits later. A lot of what we accept as history is derived straight from the Vedas Hindu mythology

There are inscriptions of Ashoka found across India till as far as Afghanistan.
What bigger proof are you gonna need?

 

[Slog]

There are inscriptions of Ashoka found across India till as far as Afghanistan.
What bigger proof are you gonna need?

lol im not doubting its existence

 

[TM Riddle]

lol im not doubting its existence

HIS existence.
Other than that , there are Buddhist sources , both canonical and non canonical , large no of coins from that era , Puranas (although compiled a few centuries later , their genealogies of various dynasties are correct) ,Magasthanese's Indica (Although the original work is lost , we found it's quotes in various later works) and finally the contemporary Greek sources which calls Chandragupta by the name Sandrokottas.

 

[Traveller55]

Pre 500BC all mythical? What sourcing are you basing your information from [MENTION=146517]Traveller55[/MENTION] ?

Because first 'documented history' we have, is somewhere around the whole Bimbisara-Prasenjit-Ajatshatru period. Prior to that, there are literally no written history of the kings and the only thing mentioned prior to it, is the Mahabharata - which is half history, half fantasy.

There are also no epigraphical inscriptions of Indian rulers prior to this period.