Did decline of major indian empires played major factor in Islamic invasion and why?

[W.11]

Rashtrakutas, gurajara pratihara, pala empires were major players in the indian history shortly before the ghaurid invasion. But we see that during ghaurid invasions most of these empires had already vanished and indian subcontinent was being ruled by little kingdoms etc.

Arab chronicles before indian invasion reference Rashtrakutas as one of the biggest powers alog with byzantine, china and arabs, but we see that during the ghaurid invasion the entire geopolitical situation in india had crumbled into petty kingdoms. Is this fact or something whic needs to be proven? and if its a fact then what caused the decline of these major indian empires all of a sudden?

regards

 

[masterchief_mirza]

"major indian empires "

Elephant riding loin cloth wearers led by village shamans do not constitute an "empire". These tribal coalitions were being shattered and having their temples looted since the era of Alexander of Macedon. The only civilization of relevance was the Indus Valley civilization, which had long declined when the Muslims arrived.

 

[W.11]

The only civilization of relevance was the Indus Valley civilization, which had long declined when the Muslims arrived.

im not discussing Pakistan history but Indian history. Dont understand why are you so pissed off about discussing indian empires?

regards

 

[Chhatrapati]

im not discussing Pakistan history but Indian history. Dont understand why are you so pissed off about discussing indian empires?

Who cares about Indian history in PDF? No point in wasting time over it here.

As for your question, yes by the time India was attacked, there wasn't any large empires that could provide a credible defense. The Pratiharas were weakened by infighting between small feudals. Around the same time frame all three major empires were weakened and taken over by small kingdoms.

 

[Kedardel]

Gurjars defeated many invasions. Samrat mihir Bhola had huge armies at all fronts.

 

[Flash_Ninja]

Rashtrakutas, gurajara pratihara, pala empires were major players in the indian history shortly before the ghaurid invasion. But we see that during ghaurid invasions most of these empires had already vanished and indian subcontinent was being ruled by little kingdoms etc.

Arab chronicles before indian ivasion reference gurjara pratihara as one of the biggest powers alog with byzantine, china and arabs, but we see that during the ghaurid invasion the entire geopolitical situation in india had crumbled into petty kingdoms. Is this fact or something whic needs to be proven? and if its a fact then what caused the decline of these major indian empires all of a sudden?

regards

Its more the case that strong empires in "India" were rare, and small kingdoms and tribal alliances was the normal state of the subcontinent. Thats why there were many invasions by foreign powers over time, so the success of the Islamic invaders was therefore only inevitable.

 

[Kedardel]

Right the blood thirsty invaders attacked peaceful tribals.

"major indian empires "

Elephant riding loin cloth wearers led by village shamans do not constitute an "empire". These tribal coalitions were being shattered and having their temples looted since the era of Alexander of Macedon. The only civilization of relevance was the Indus Valley civilization, which had long declined when the Muslims arrived.

 

[W.11]

India in its pre islamic history did have some decent empires through out its history, there was harsha and then there was bhoja, in the interim period between the guptas and the rashtrakutas, gurjara etc, but the period when ghauri invaded, india had no large force, there were chalukyas which probably also had lost much of their authority as chalukyas never fought the gharids and central asians and mostly kings like prithvi raj chauhan. The rajputs governing petty kingdoms during sultanate period proves this point, even the marathas were a confederacy of small kingdoms and never got united as one strong force like their predecessors.

regards

 

[Kedardel]

When the Islamic armies reached Spain they couldn’t enter India. It’s only after Gurjars after 1000 that they could enter India. They couldn’t defeat gurjar empire for more than 300 years.

Its more the case that strong empires in "India" were rare, and small kingdoms and tribal alliances was the normal state of the subcontinent. Thats why there were many invasions by foreign powers over time, so the success of the Islamic invaders was therefore only inevitable.

 

[masterchief_mirza]

Right the blood thirsty invaders attacked peaceful tribals.

Nope. Civilised nations took turns trying to stop uncivilised shamans from indulging in animal abuse and human sacrifice. Sadly, we all failed - Greeks, mughals, British....none of us could stop human sacrifice and animal abuse by your shamanistic culture. That will be our biggest regret as we all had the opportunity to achieve this, yet we failed. Shame on us all.

im not discussing Pakistan history but Indian history. Dont understand why are you so pissed off about discussing indian empires?

regards

I'm not pissed off.

Great discussion taking place. Continue.

 

[war&peace]

"major indian empires "

Elephant riding loin cloth wearers led by village shamans do not constitute an "empire". These tribal coalitions were being shattered and having their temples looted since the era of Alexander of Macedon. The only civilization of relevance was the Indus Valley civilization, which had long declined when the Muslims arrived.

Totally concur.. that's the true history

 

[W.11]

Its more the case that strong empires in "India" were rare, and small kingdoms and tribal alliances was the normal state of the subcontinent. Thats why there were many invasions by foreign powers over time, so the success of the Islamic invaders was therefore only inevitable.

there were infact loads of strong indian empires through out its history, the three i just named and even excluding them were cholas, chalukyas, harsha, bhoja even after the guptas. India infact kept churning out empires even after the turkic invasions, the middle east lost that ability a long time ago, even the persians sustained a millennium of turkic rule, only in india were they able to come up with empires like khalsa, marathas, vijayanagar etc.

regards

 

[Flash_Ninja]

When the Islamic armies reached Spain they couldn’t enter India. It’s only after Gurjars after 1000 that they could enter India. They couldn’t defeat gurjar empire for more than 300 years.

The Arabs already had a presence in Afghanistan and Iran long before then. They conquered Balochistan and then finally invaded Sindh around 710. They made their way all the way up the Indus river to Kashmir where they stopped. So they essentially conquered most of modern day Pakistan in the 8th Century.

 

[Kedardel]

Yeah just heard a civilised nation is creating a safe zone to make peace. Their SFs could be seen cutting head off dead soldiers. (I don’t know Why they have to mention peace for killing humans). Thank god for modern weapons such civilised nations can be kept in their own boundaries.

Nope. Civilised nations took turns trying to stop uncivilised shamans from indulging in animal abuse and human sacrifice. Sadly, we all failed - Greeks, mughals, British....none of us could stop human sacrifice and animal abuse by your shamanistic culture. That will be our biggest regret as we all had the opportunity to achieve this, yet we failed. Shame on us all.


I'm not pissed off.

Great discussion taking place. Continue.

 

[Flash_Ninja]

there were infact loads of strong indian empires through out its history, the three i just named and even excluding them were cholas, chalukyas, harsha, bhoja even after the guptas. India infact kept churning out empires even after the turkic invasions, the middle east lost that ability a long time ago, even the persians sustained a millennium of turkic rule, only in india were they able to come up with empires like khalsa, marathas, vijayanagar etc.

regards

Empires which were made up of weak alliances, or based on single dynastys. The amount of time where the subcontinent was divided into smaller kingdoms and tribes is far higher than when it was ruled by large contiguous empires.