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

[W.11]

Because this is the ploy of British who carefully created an alternate set of historic proposals, (talking about prime time and print media) when ever India tries to assert itself the eco system comes equiped with the dubious history of Macaulay and other british historians.

Every nation goes through invasions, cultural evolution which India also had. In India's case we stood firm and regrouped every time a tsunami came from outside.

i do feel that in indian history invaders were specially glorified because British themselves were the invaders and they needed to justify invasion. it has been particularly stressed how india was always invaded and ruled by outsiders from the hindu kush region.

But if you look closely, the glorified persian empire itself was invaded by the greeks/alexander, the parthians were also invaders/parthians though from iran were not persians, the hapthalites/huns, and then arabs invaded and then the turks, the native persians didn't regain control of their territory until after qajar period in the 20th century. Similarly the chinese had two big foreign dynasties called Yuan who were mongols of Kublai khan and the Qing just before the commies took over in the 20th century. Some other chinese members have also informed me even tang dynasty was foreign but im not able to find a source for that.

regards

 

[AfrazulMandal]

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.

Just imagine if the Muslim empires decided to plant our faith deeper instead of enjoying the jizya...we would have no Hindutva venom.

For fairly obvious reasons, I am sad to say.

What you see in contemporary India is the revolt of the Brahmins and their less cerebral upper caste followers from the equality and the rule of law imposed by those treacherous vermin, our British colonial rulers. What they want to see reinstated is the revival of a hieratic society and rule by majority opinion (in both instances, they are the beneficiaries, naturally, being the top layer in a hieratic society, and being opinion formers for the opinion to be held by the majority).

In order to achieve this revival (which is pretty successful already), they need to discard any shred of evidence that they themselves are migrants from several millennia ago, that their beloved language came in just as Persian and English did, and that the Indus Valley Civilisation is after all their own, appropriated culturally by the present inhabitants of those region.

Since they cannot lead any other religion, they have elimination of other religions as an urgent priority; the existence of a 'foreign' religion is a threat to their social leadership.

Incidentally, you will not find a single historian in their ranks. All their experts have parachuted in. The essential qualification is either a knowledge of Sanskrit, or a loyalty to those with a knowledge of Sanskrit. The vast bulk of these are engineers and the new element in society called call centre employees, with some strong elements of the medical and surgical professions bonded to them. There are one or two priests, but they are a tiny minority; it is the Brahmins who have taken to engineering and to medicine who are their fighting elite.

So now you know.



It will be interesting to see how many will agree with your unorthodox position. It comes as a breath of fresh air, but it is to be seen if it gains support.

The treachery of Brahminism has gained world notoriety already. Unless this ideology under the garb of religion is destroyed, there can be no law and order or equality in India.

 

[Menace2Society]

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.

The shamans were invoking jinn through psilocybin to get an understanding of our reality. Some of them worshipped these jinns or were led astray and introduced human sacrifice to please them. They called them 'Gods'. This needed to happen for us to understand the characteristics of jinn and how they operate. We learned from this. Some of them assisted us too. Not all are bad.

Hinduism along with Islam, Judaism Taoism, Buddhism, Ancient Egypt, Christianity and Jainism are the petals from the same flower of knowledge. There is wisdom in it all and it is by intelligent design by the creator to challenge you. Its a test of your ego and arrogance. We take wisdom from it all to learn and grow our consciousness. This is body is just a vessel, everything is an illusion, only your thoughts are real.

Empires have warped this knowledge in their desire for power. It has always been this way. Its the dualistic nature of the universe.

 

[Aryan0395]

These tribal coalitions were being shattered and having their temples looted since the era of Alexander of Macedon.

Tribals were on the outskirts, who Alexander attacked and yet Porus gave him a freaking tough fight that he returned his kingdom to him, where had a previous record of razing cities to the ground and massacring the inhabitants after defeating them in battle.
Porus was a small time king who wouldn't have found any mention in history had it not been for his fight with Alexander. And the Macedonian turned back because across the river the Nanda empire was waiting for him.
You may wanna read it properly, because as much as you hate it, up until 1974, all history is shared between Pakistan and India.

 

[W.11]

I suspect that porus's territory was part of Nanda empire itself, because

a. why would the Nandas mobilize for war with alexander when their territory was not being attacked?
b. Nanda territories on their borders were known to be semi autonomous, with centralization in its core territories like magadh etc

the greek records do indicate that their rivals lay on the other side of the river, but it may also be based on core territory idea and not borderlands.

But this estimation needs references from greek records as well to verify it.

regards

 

[Chhatrapati]

I suspect that porus's territory was part of Nanda empire itself, because

a. why would the Nandas mobilize for war with alexander when their territory was not being attacked?
b. Nanda territories on their borders were known to be semi autonomous, with centralization in its core territories like magadh etc

the greek records do indicate that their rivals lay on the other side of the river, but it may also be based on core territory idea and not borderlands.

But this estimation needs references from greek records as well to verify it.

regards

Porus may be a subject of Nandas, there is no way of knowing it. But Porus did have a rival that is Ambhi, ruler of Taxila who aligned with Alexander.
To the questions
a. Well, there are always spies so Nandas might have known the plans of Alexander when he defeated Persian empire. Nandas prepared for it. What Alexander didn't anticipate was the brute force of battle elephants, and chariots when he met Porus. He was a small kingdom, Nanda wasn't. Alexader turned back.

b. There are other records too and yes the boundaries are specified by local chiefs, kingdoms within the empire. An elaborate style of it can be obtained from Arthasasthra which gives an idea on how things were. This was the nearest one written after invasion of Alexander.

 

[Aryan0395]

I suspect that porus's territory was part of Nanda empire itself, because

No, Porus was an independent king.

a. why would the Nandas mobilize for war with alexander when their territory was not being attacked?

When the army of a king who has been on a expedition across continents, burned hundreds of cities and killed hundreds of thousand of people, is right across the river that separates ur land from that king, you mobilise and wait for him to cross.

Nanda territories on their borders were known to be semi autonomous, with centralization in its core territories like magadh etc

This is the nanda empire at its zenith under the Kind Dhana Nanda in 325BC..Battle of Hydaspes took place in 326BC east of Jhelum, land which now lies in Pakistan Punjab.
As you can see, Nanda empire never stretched even upto the western borders of modern day India.

 

[Tumba]

No, Porus was an independent king.

When the army of a king who has been on a expedition across continents, burned hundreds of cities and killed hundreds of thousand of people, is right across the river that separates ur land from that king, you mobilise and wait for him to cross.

This is the nanda empire at its zenith under the Kind Dhana Nanda in 325BC..Battle of Hydaspes took place in 326BC east of Jhelum, land which now lies in Pakistan Punjab.
As you can see, Nanda empire never stretched even upto the western borders of modern day India.

Nanda armies with strength of around 10000 war elephants would have crushed Alexandar if his greek and persian soldiers dared to invade.. too bad they turned back otherwise history would have never registered Alexander name ... Mauryas and Cholas were only too expansionist empires if Emperor Ashosh didnt become non violent.. after Kalinga ... massive mauryan Indian Armies would have marched to West Asia and Europe..

 

[W.11]

This is the nanda empire at its zenith under the Kind Dhana Nanda in 325BC..Battle of Hydaspes took place in 326BC east of Jhelum, land which now lies in Pakistan Punjab.
As you can see, Nanda empire never stretched even upto the western borders of modern day India.

The Nanda empire map is wrong, first of all there is little evidence what the nanda empire fully extended looked like, secondly this is made by a user who edits wikipedia. Nanda empire probably stretched all the way to karnataka, some inscriptions from mysore declare that the nanda territory included mysore as well. There is also nanda reference in tamil sangham literature along with mauryas, which means nandas could have been present as far as borders of tamil nadu.

Same article also states that nanda empire stretched from punjab in the west to odisha in the east

The Nanda empire appears to have stretched from present-day Punjab in the west to Odisha in the east.[15]

This is another map i found from the web

there is also reference to Nanda arbitrating in western asia's political disputes, this cannot be possible if nandas were not already present in borderlands of western asia

Greek writer Xenophon, in his Cyropaedia (4th century BCE), mentions that the king of India was very wealthy, and aspired to arbitrate in the disputes between the kingdoms of West Asia. Although Xenophon's book describes the events of the 6th century BCE (the period of Cyrus the Great), historian H. C. Raychaudhuri speculates that writer's image of the Indian king may be based on the contemporary Nanda king.[39

regards

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

Just imagine if the Muslim empires decided to plant our faith deeper instead of enjoying the jizya...we would have no Hindutva venom.

You are a Muslim today most probably because of that Jazya itself. Because your ancestors could not handle added pressure of a tax and converted.

 

[W.11]

You are a Muslim today most probably because of that Jazya itself. Because your ancestors could not handle added pressure of a tax and converted.

do you really think that muslims were not taxed?

regards

 

[Aryan0395]

The Nanda empire map is wrong

As you yourself say that multiple claims are available, we can't really say which map is correct. This map looks a lot like that of early mauryan empire, but that maybe because in 323BC Chandragupta Maurya overthrew Nanda dynasty.

Nanda empire probably stretched all the way to karnataka, some inscriptions from mysore declare that the nanda territory included mysore as well. There is also nanda reference in tamil sangham literature along with mauryas, which means nandas could have been present as far as borders of tamil nadu.

Can you share link to those inscriptions? I would love to read about that.
However mention of Nandas in sangam literature doesn't mean that Nandas extended all the way to the borders of Tamil. It was a powerful empire and much bigger than any other contemporary Indian kingdom, which could be the reason for mention. Indus valley had trade with other contemporary civilizations, and their records show it but that doesn't mean they shared borders.

On the matter regarding dispute arbitration, large kingdoms had trade between them and sent emissaries, they were very common from Indian kingdoms to other kingdoms in Indian mainland and to South east asian nations. Also, as the article itself mentions that Nanda was very rich which could have been another motive, to make his presence felt more prominently across far away kingdoms.
Indian kingdoms did not stretch to west asia until the Mauryan empire when they attacked the kingdoms that were captured by Alexander and took those territories.

PS:- Porus was a descendent of Paurava dynasty, much older than Nanda and it wasn't conquered by Nanda, they remained independent until Alexander defeated them and later by Mauryans.

 

[W.11]

As you yourself say that multiple claims are available, we can't really say which map is correct. This map looks a lot like that of early mauryan empire, but that maybe because in 323BC Chandragupta Maurya overthrew Nanda dynasty.


Can you share link to those inscriptions? I would love to read about that.
However mention of Nandas in sangam literature doesn't mean that Nandas extended all the way to the borders of Tamil. It was a powerful empire and much bigger than any other contemporary Indian kingdom, which could be the reason for mention. Indus valley had trade with other contemporary civilizations, and their records show it but that doesn't mean they shared borders.

On the matter regarding dispute arbitration, large kingdoms had trade between them and sent emissaries, they were very common from Indian kingdoms to other kingdoms in Indian mainland and to South east asian nations. Also, as the article itself mentions that Nanda was very rich which could have been another motive, to make his presence felt more prominently across far away kingdoms.
Indian kingdoms did not stretch to west asia until the Mauryan empire when they attacked the kingdoms that were captured by Alexander and took those territories.

PS:- Porus was a descendent of Paurava dynasty, much older than Nanda and it wasn't conquered by Nanda, they remained independent until Alexander defeated them and later by Mauryans.

The chandragupta map is wrong as well, there is no evidence that chandragupta only conquered the northern portion of india, according to sangham literature the mauryans invaded and captured some tamil territory as well which would have been done before ashoka because during ashoka, the tamils were independent and no conquest is associated with ashoka except kalinga. So are you suggesting that one guy captured entire india on his own along with western territories. This appears quite a load of BS to me. The sangham literaure doesnt mention other magadhan dynasties before the nandas nor any other indian dynasty so it appears that nandas might have extended to borders of tamil nadu.

Interesting thing is mysore inscriptions mentions nandas, mauryas and the guptas as well, here is the link to the description of mysorean nanda claims;

https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet...Annual-Report-Of-Mysore-1886-To-1903_djvu.txt

regards

On the matter regarding dispute arbitration, large kingdoms had trade between them and sent emissaries, they were very common from Indian kingdoms to other kingdoms in Indian mainland and to South east asian nations.

The arbitration on disputes most certainly means that the geographical extend of their kingdoms reached near the western borders, as a neighbour they arbitrated with the neighbourly matters. The trade links alone dont amount to such political influences.

regards

 

[Jackdaws]

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

Not forty. More than 500.

Empire rise and fall. Lest we forget, India was giving refuge to all sorts of persecuted peoples from around the world - pretty much everyone settled here - from an Apostle of Christ to fleeing Zorastrians to Siddhi tribes from Africa to even persecuted Jews who have apparently been found as far away as the North East of India.

 

[Aryan0395]

The chandragupta map is wrong as well, there is no evidence that chandragupta only conquered the northern portion of india, according to sangham literature the mauryans invaded and captured some tamil territory as well which would have been done before ashoka because during ashoka, the tamils were independent and no conquest is associated with ashoka except kalinga.

I didn't say anything to suggest this.
Chandragupta, during his early reign was mostly busy quelling the uprisings in his own kingdoms as not many nobles were happy with him becoming an emperor, afterall he was a nobody, just someone Chanakya saw playing with friends on afternoon. After quelling all the uprisings, conquests he undertook were to the west, none to the south to take the satraps left by Alexander, all the way to Indus, he infact defeated Seleucus and married his daughter and maintained diplomatic relations with him. Funny thing, Seleucus was actually thinking about invading the new mauryan kingdom. By the time Chandragupta descended from throne, he had already captured parts of Afghanistan and Balochistan.
It was his son Bindusara under whose reign, mauryan empire extended south to include all of peninsular India except for tamilian states ruled by cholas, pandyas and cheras as they were friendly to Mauryans. Thus throughout history, tamilians have remained independent. Just the kalinga was left.
Again Bindusara maintained diplomatic relations with the hellenic kingdoms. (See how large empires established diplomatic relations)
Ashoka captured Kalinga which was the only kingdom left. During his earlier life he was busy with crushing revolts, including twice in taxila.
After him, Mauryan empire gradually declined over next 50 years.