What's new

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

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.

empires are empires whether based on alliances or by ruthless might, the british ruled india through those alliances as well, even during the british regime, india had more than forty princely states. British as a matter of fact almost lost their authority in india during war of independence when few princes turned against them.

regards
 
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

You are correct. The Gurjara Pratihara empire, Rashtrakutas and Pala empires kept Arabs at bay and kept them limited to Sindh but the downfall of these empire and the rise of smaller kingdoms led to success of waves of Turkic invaders which came later. What wad the reason for the decline of these empires ? Well I don't know the specific reasons but I do know that every empire declines after a while. I will leave the specific reasons for decline on more knowledgeable members on Indian history to discuss. @Joe Shearer
 
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.
Are you saying the gangadeshi elephant riders of yesteryear are analagous to the modern PKK and its rebranded offshoots? You may have a point. These terrorist drug baron warlords who terrorise Syrians and Turks alike do very much need civilising, just as the human sacrificers in Hindustan do. The YPG will get what's coming to them for their demographic assaults against Turkmen and Arabs and anyone else who inconveniently lived in the way of their pure Kurdish nation building experiment. Time you took the blinders off.
 
We have to acknowledge the positive impact of the many empires in Indian history, right up to the British Indian empire.
India got a national identity only because of them, otherwise we would have been like Europe.

India being the 7th largest nation at the time of independence is itself a great feat all thanks to these big empires.
 
empires are empires whether based on alliances or by ruthless might, the british ruled india through those alliances as well, even during the british regime, india had more than forty princely states. British as a matter of fact almost lost their authority in india during war of independence when few princes turned against them.

regards

The British held onto power there because it was far more advanced, had far more money, and had a global empire to support its efforts there. The British were also not a S.Asian empire.
 
The British held onto power there because it was far more advanced, had far more money, and had a global empire to support its efforts there. The British were also not a S.Asian empire.

no where i stated that the british were a south asian empire, im not sure how you got that idea, i was merely replying to your assertion that empires in india were based on ''weak alliances'' etc, i gave you first hand kmowledge of how the british empire was made out of no less than forty princely states who they had to keep happy in order to keep ruling, a few unhappy princes almost kicked them out of india and the british efforts to control rebellion itself was backed by other princely states like hyderabad, mysore etc. So one always needed ''alliances'' in indian geopolitical situation to rule it, rest of the indian empires were no exception to this rule.

regards
 
"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.
IVC was not "Indian" nor was it the only advanced polity of the region.

Don't let nationalism obscure rationality, the Indians had many brilliant civilizations and polities who excelled in various fields from sciences to the arts.
 
IVC was not "Indian" nor was it the only advanced polity of the region.

Don't let nationalism obscure rationality, the Indians had many brilliant civilizations and polities who excelled in various fields from sciences to the arts.
Bravo! What a splendid sentiment. Let's resolve ourselves to recognise first and foremost the greatest civilisation of the Indian subcontinent, that of the Mughals. Tell me, can any of the pre-Mughal confederations even come close to the majesty achieved in Mughal times? This is the ultimate problem for saffronistan, the enforced self-loathing because of a perceived "tainted" history, the divergence from reason and facts that arises when Hindutva is asked to objectively appraise "Indian" civilisation. You expect the world to acknowledge the various contributors to India's present status, yet Hindutva itself openly eradicates its most important historical period in an orgy of anti-Muslim violence against person, property and culture. These philistines are brainwashed into a frenzy of effective book-burning and saffron-washing of their own history by their Hindutva leaders and they are willing participants in the exercise, egging Modi and Shah on at every opportunity. It's much too late to rescue them from their mosque-trashing, name-changing frenzy. A shame they couldn't be more cultured and mature in their outlook, say like the British, who place great value on the history of the various civilisations that raided and occupied and ultimately fused with the indigenous peoples of Britain - Vikings, Romans, Normans etc. I don't see frenzied mobs demanding Roman names be eradicated because "they were invaders" or "they brutalised indigenous tribes"...which they did do very ably btw. The Romans even brought foreign religious beliefs with them. You see, Brits have evolved intellectually to supersede such inferiority complexes and actually draw knowledge and wisdom from the groups that invaded Britain in eras past. They enriched the island of Britain despite originally being "invaders", yet in the precious victimised hindutva mind, the mughals were a grave historic injustice that must be set right by total eradication of their legacy.

I mean, what the fk is wrong with these people?
 
Bravo! What a splendid sentiment. Let's resolve ourselves to recognise first and foremost the greatest civilisation of the Indian subcontinent, that of the Mughals. Tell me, can any of the pre-Mughal confederations even come close to the majesty achieved in Mughal times? This is the ultimate problem for saffronistan, the enforced self-loathing because of a perceived "tainted" history, the divergence from reason and facts that arises when Hindutva is asked to objectively appraise "Indian" civilisation. You expect the world to acknowledge the various contributors to India's present status, yet Hindutva itself openly eradicates its most important historical period in an orgy of anti-Muslim violence against person, property and culture. These philistines are brainwashed into a frenzy of effective book-burning and saffron-washing of their own history by their Hindutva leaders and they are willing participants in the exercise, egging Modi and Shah on at every opportunity. It's much too late to rescue them from their mosque-trashing, name-changing frenzy. A shame they couldn't be more cultured and mature in their outlook, say like the British, who place great value on the history of the various civilisations that raided and occupied and ultimately fused with the indigenous peoples of Britain - Vikings, Romans, Normans etc. I don't see frenzied mobs demanding Roman names be eradicated because "they were invaders" or "they brutalised indigenous tribes"...which they did do very ably btw. The Romans even brought foreign religious beliefs with them. You see, Brits have evolved intellectually to supersede such inferiority complexes and actually draw knowledge and wisdom from the groups that invaded Britain in eras past. They enriched the island of Britain despite originally being "invaders", yet in the precious victimised hindutva mind, the mughals were a grave historic injustice that must be set right by total eradication of their legacy.

I mean, what the fk is wrong with these people?


You are biased.....there have been many great civilisations before Mughals in the subcontinent.....irony is the historians who wrote history were from the ruling side hence they used to glorify their kings while systemically erasing achievements, glories of previous kings/empires. Alexander was not the only great, he was made great as all the history of that time was written by his men, making him epicenter of heroism.
Starting from Indus Valley civilisation, we had Ashoka, Maurya empire, Satvahanas, Gupta empire much before Mughals...also contribution of an empire is not only through monuments and buildings but how much art,science, trade, culture boomed during ones time.
 
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
What's an Indian empire lol. There was no India till August 15 1947
 
You are biased.....there have been many great civilisations before Mughals in the subcontinent.....irony is the historians who wrote history were from the ruling side hence they used to glorify their kings while systemically erasing achievements, glories of previous kings/empires. Alexander was not the only great, he was made great as all the history of that time was written by his men, making him epicenter of heroism.
Starting from Indus Valley civilisation, we had Ashoka, Maurya empire, Satvahanas, Gupta empire much before Mughals...also contribution of an empire is not only through monuments and buildings but how much art,science, trade, culture boomed during ones time.
Yes I am biased. But it's hardly a conspiracy theory to say the mughals elevated the status of India to one of the global economic powerhouses of that era.
 
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
Yes


Just like how the mongols invaded a divided empires and divided Islamic world
 
the problem with hindu ideology is that it is limited to indian subcontinent and not widespread in world as it is less attractive to people due to problems and defects with it and having no strong logic and evidence behind to support hindu faith,this is one major reason why so much huge number of hindus converted to Islam and other non hindu religions.If india of today tries to run their country on same ideology of hinduism and abandon secularism they will fail and disintegrate again
 
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
The true rulers that ruled India were central aasians turks rather then the Arabs.
First the Delhi sultanate then the Mughals all were almost central Asian Turks .
If you see urdu is more similar to Turkish then Farai . Almost 50 percent of urdu worlds are same or more. And they are less in farsi
 
Back
Top Bottom