The map in the wiki matches the one I posted, the southern tip of South Asia was made a tributary state. Look up on google images and they will all look alike.
It's considered by most people that the Maurayan Empire was the only incident in history were India was united. I can't post links at the moment but their is a quote from a professor at the South Asian Studies centre at Oxford who says a similar thing,
Well, a tributary state does not equal direct control. In most cases the rulers ruled territory directly which was occupied by their own and that territory which was not occupied by their own was somehow occupied at least partially by members of the central power. Or large scaled migrations/settlements took place. That was far from the case on many instances. Or they used loyal locals to rule on their behalf while having a limited direct presence but always ready to mobilize if necessary. The later was the case in more or less the entire part of the Arab world that swore loyalty to the Ottoman Empire to give you one example.
It was similar during all the other earlier Caliphates (Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid) and Fatimid for the Shias here as they recognize that state.
So at most this could only have been a sphere of influence or a client state. This can always be discussed. For instance was large parts of Horn of Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa client states for Arabs as Arabs had a large presence there and controlled the sea trade, main trade routes and in some cases installed local local rules or Arab rulers directly? Most historians say influence yes but not direct control.
I tend to agree. But it's always hard to make those drawings as many details must be taken into account first.
We have not even talked about cultural, religious, linguistic influence etc. As you can see then the main dog can tend to be heavily influenced by people and their lands who they now control. It was partially the case with the Ottomans (I gave plenty of examples and you can study others as well) and the Mughals who were Mongols originally and later intermarried with Turks and later became heavily influenced by Persian and to a smaller extent Arab culture and after that more or less fully assimilated to the local culture. Also in terms of marriages, appearance etc.
That's a nationality of which 22% are Palestinian Arabs today.
I asked about your background. How did you end up in modern-day Israel/Palestine? I ask because two of your compatriots here are Moroccans and Uzbeks. Does not sound native to me.
Your likes are trying to make it sound like the Palestinians are foreigners while they are more natives than any Jew outside the Samaritans. In appearance and in terms of genetics. So who is the foreign occupier here?
