AmreekanDesi Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Thread title is not the best so feel free to edit it. But a question I have been struggling with in recent months is that why was India so easy to conquer and plunder roughly between the 1100's to 1800's. The Mughal empire as the most famous 'foreign' set of rulers who controlled the area but what is shocking is that they ddid not really defeat indigenous Indian empires. Babur mainly fought the Lodhi empire which was ruling north India at the time and was Afghan in origin. Even the Delhi sultanate ruled before that and the slave dynasty was also muslim and central asian in origin. My question is where the hell were indigineous empires of the north. Also a shocking thing is that even in South India we had different muslim empires grappling with each other. The Nizam of hyderabad is famous but before that in the 1300's and 1400's Bahmani sultanate was also ruling. Infact it revolted against the Islamic Delhi sultanate. Why were only muslims fighting for lands with each other where inhabitants are not muslims and where the inhabitants were severely persecuted. Their influence was so much so that there were even Shia empires. Same was the case in Bengal and bihar I know we have some purely indiginous empires such as the Rajputs and the Marathas but they are few and far between in terms of the multitudes of muslim empires. What is the reasoning for this? Why was this land so easy to conquer and why didn't we revolt enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmreekanDesi Posted June 10, 2014 Author Share Posted June 10, 2014 I didnt study a lot of history but have always been a fan and often go on wikipedia sessions where I spend hours reading one page after another. just would like to know the opinions of others especially those who might be students of history Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panther Posted June 10, 2014 Share Posted June 10, 2014 Hind if you look at if from a geographical map from the attock river with the exception of kashmir is just green land barely any difficult terrain to pass that's why The conquerors always came from the west or the north west. Now you see why India want's akand bharat, India could become like an impenetrable fortress with mountains of eastern afghanistan, the Himalayas to the north and north west making it a nightmare for any ground attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Merlyn Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Lol.The biggest empire in the SC was the Mauryan empire.The guptas the palas the Cholas the Vijaynagar empire so on and so forth were all very big empires.The so called foreigners only ruled any major part of India post 1200s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda-esque Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 We turned Buddhist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmreekanDesi Posted June 11, 2014 Author Share Posted June 11, 2014 Lol.The biggest empire in the SC was the Mauryan empire.The guptas the palas the Cholas the Vijaynagar empire so on and so forth were all very big empires.The so called foreigners only ruled any major part of India post 1200s. thats the period i am talking about as clearly mentioned in OP 1100-1800s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcolm Merlyn Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 thats the period i am talking about as clearly mentioned in OP 1100-1800s Not 1100s.Post 1200s. What is the time line of the Vijayanagar?Most foreign empires were limited to parts of north and East India.It was only mughals who were able to control most of India. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gattaca Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 We turned Buddhist This. Ashoka was at his peak occupied most of India turned to Buddhist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sachin=GOD Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 @Mods - close this thread before Muloghonto comes in and writes a novel on Indian history Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raghav_12 Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 @Mods - close this thread before Muloghonto comes in and writes a novel on Indian history don't worry.. he is busy creating theories on how Nadal is just a left handed Chang. He would be busy there for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detonator Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 @Mods - close this thread before Muloghonto comes in and writes a novel on Indian history He is a good poster dood :dontknow: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoda Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 He is a good poster dood :dontknow: +1 Some people can't accept different pov, have a need to get personal all in an effort to defend their "heros" who don't give a feck incidentally. :winky: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KeyboardWarrior Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 @Mods - close this thread before Muloghonto comes in and writes a novel on Indian history OMG .... :hysterical::hysterical::hysterical: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gattaca Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 He is a good poster dood :dontknow: Agree with this. S=g is just jealous that he cant articulate like him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sachin=GOD Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 He is a good poster dood :dontknow: +1 Some people can't accept different pov, have a need to get personal all in an effort to defend their "heros" who don't give a feck incidentally. :winky: Agree with this. S=g is just jealous that he cant articulate like him. Please turn on your sarcasm detectors. Kthnxbai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CG Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 +1 Some people can't accept different pov, have a need to get personal all in an effort to defend their "heros" who don't give a feck incidentally. :winky: Why do u always post the wink smiley.:winky: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dial_100 Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Hind if you look at if from a geographical map from the attock river with the exception of kashmir is just green land barely any difficult terrain to pass that's why The conquerors always came from the west or the north west. Now you see why India want's akand bharat, India could become like an impenetrable fortress with mountains of eastern afghanistan, the Himalayas to the north and north west making it a nightmare for any ground attack. Haha. ..:hysterical: I doubt this term means anything beyond Kashmir. As Indians, we DO NOT want Pak and Afg land at all... PERIOD. Its your land and you keep it till eternity. I hear this term all the time in Pak media. As if India is dying to snatch that piece of land back from Pak. NO WAY that will ever happen. India will NOT storm into any other territory. Not now. Not ever. But India is not ready to give away Kashmir. Thats what Akhand Bharat means. Pata kuchh nahi aur zaid hamid ko follow karke kuch bhi item utha ke laate ho yaar tum bhi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rahulrulezz Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Great thread.. Now that I am reading Abraham Early's book on Mughal empire, it just shocked me that Indians never got together to fight them.. Rather they prefered breaking their temples and work under Mughals... I think religion played a big role.. Hinduism IMO doesn't unite Hindus . whereas reading biographies of mughal rulers, they played the religion card in every war.. They would unite and motivate their army (mostly muslims) calling it a war against infidels..this way soldiers wudn't mind dying as they will get to jannat... emperors would strop drinking alcohol before the war... plus I think some of the barbaric customs from Central Asia like severing heads and making towers out it to scare local people was also a big factor in creating terror among local rulers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda-esque Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Great thread.. Now that I am reading Abraham Early's book on Mughal empire, it just shocked me that Indians never got together to fight them.. Rather they prefered breaking their temples and work under Mughals... I think religion played a big role.. Hinduism IMO doesn't unite Hindus . whereas reading biographies of mughal rulers, they played the religion card in every war.. They would unite and motivate their army (mostly muslims) calling it a war against infidels..this way soldiers wudn't mind dying as they will get to jannat... emperors would strop drinking alcohol before the war... plus I think some of the barbaric customs from Central Asia like severing heads and making towers out it to scare local people was also a big factor in creating terror among local rulers Good book,also read gem in the lotus by the same author It's before the Islamic conquests Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmreekanDesi Posted June 11, 2014 Author Share Posted June 11, 2014 Great thread.. Now that I am reading Abraham Early's book on Mughal empire, it just shocked me that Indians never got together to fight them.. Rather they prefered breaking their temples and work under Mughals... I think religion played a big role.. Hinduism IMO doesn't unite Hindus . whereas reading biographies of mughal rulers, they played the religion card in every war.. They would unite and motivate their army (mostly muslims) calling it a war against infidels..this way soldiers wudn't mind dying as they will get to jannat... emperors would strop drinking alcohol before the war... plus I think some of the barbaric customs from Central Asia like severing heads and making towers out it to scare local people was also a big factor in creating terror among local rulers Yes. what really shocked me is the amount these muslims empires penetrated into indian society. in school i learned most about the mughals and ranjit singh in the east with some info about marathas etc. So my understanding was that it was mostly north India and bengal which saw extended muslim rule and Mughals under aurangzeb tried to take over deccan and go into the south. But what really blew my mind is that there were several muslim empires even in the south so much so that there were wars between Shia empires and sunni empires whereas both shias and sunnis put together made a very small percentage of the total population. what the hell were the locals doing and why were they so easily subjugated. considering there was so much infighting between muslim empires themselves and within each empire itself, it was easy for outsiders to defeat them as the british showed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts