Why didn’t the Hindus of India ever defeat an invading army!

[Leishangthem]

it is a sub-continental (in-fact most of 3rd world trait) not peculiar to indians only

Even einstein sensed something similar

I have met and seen various communities in and out of India,gotten accross lots of scammers,but I still notice the stark mindset of many Indian ,which I can never make sense of,you expect a scammer to scam you but for legit businessman to scam their clients ?that too such blatant manner?, that's a special trait in India,I ask to myself how the fk are they businessmen with such poor business aptitude(forget morals) and short-sighted mindset,and I can never make sense of it. I haven't seen that in other regions east of India.

 

[magra]

Hmm,I don't agree with your theory that just because you are self sufficient in agriculture it mean you have to leave your belly vulnerable,it seems there's a lack of concern, laziness or short-sightedness .Here's my thesis against that.

Former nation Meitrabak was in the most fertile of valley ,food scarcity was not the core problem and average height 5.7 according to Hodson even back in 1912 which is pretty well built for that time on world average, below meitei & british soldiers standing side by side.British were supposed to be the tallest beings on the earth back then.

View attachment 777616


but that didn't prevent our kings from adopting a warlike tradition and defending itself from Bengal sultanate or in fact raiding Burma and extending the kingdom it up to the west of Chindwin river.

To defend our nation with much smaller population, against the backdrop of Bengal sultanate(largest in South Asia ) and Burmese empire(largest in east asia),we had to be highly ingenious and efficient by spreading literacy with our meitei script(which helped in relaying information and planning) , mandatory state service from each household(for a fee ofcourse) , extensive training in warcraft studies,Huyen-Langlon and regimentation for the youth.

Despite no lack of agricultural yield in a region, the nation never took it lightly, for the nation was as much benevolent toward war captives and those who surrendered(as noted by sir James Johnston ,the magnanimity of the king) but she had a warinfused culture which made the community regimented yet prepared. The result is still evident as people's name in Meitrabak or Manipur in use of war and war mythology names,common traditional names for Women: Lanlei (warflower) ,LanchenbiI( war bringer) ,Lanleima ( war missus),lanthoibi(war excellence).lanleima(war goddess),Lanthawan(war mo0n) ,panthoibi(sun goddess of war) etc

Men's name: Lanchenba(harbringer of war),lansana(war gold),lanthoi (war excellence), ChinglaiNgamba( dragon conquerer),Nonglenkhomba (Clouds,frost conqueror/son of water god), etc


Most of our Kings were renamed after war based on their conquest or war victories or their special war skills.
Ningthoukhompa ( conqueror of kings) .
Ching TaNG Khomba (conqueror of hills & plains)
Khagemba (conqueror of chinese yunnan)
etc etc.

The king didn't even shied away from sacrificing British in front of these leogryphs and their blood was smeared over the mouths of our two mythical beast statues. In this, Meiteis saw the fulfillment of an ancient prophecy in that invader's men’s heads would fall in front of the beasts that guards Kangla.
View attachment 777621




To preserve one's peace one has to be ready to undertake great hardship and prepared for war ,that was the belief, so along with other academics, the arts of war was thus deployed in various aspects of Meitrabak culture which is still evident as remanent of the bygone era as huyen langlon/thangta is performed during inauguration of events,worship of gods or any auspicious occasion, to please the gods or war off evil,or for good luck.

Huiyen langlon/thangta is an official subject in Manipur schools,and part of the sports curriculum.

But all that's during the feudal era before post-world war geopolitical settings.

May be your region was an exception but what I said is largely the case.
When a nation is wealthy (India was), belly is full and has relative peace, you tend to invest less in military tactics and weapons.

Japan once defeated the Chinese, but they did not rule China. China is the victor of WW2, Japan is not.

The Song Dynasty perished in 1279 and the Yuan Dynasty perished in 1368. The Mongols did rule the Chinese for 89 years. But do you know what the Mongols paid for these 89 years? In 1279, there were 30 million Mongols in the Yuan Dynasty. In 1368, the emperor of the Yuan Dynasty fled to the grassland, leaving only 1.5 million Mongols. Can you guess where the other Mongols went?

How can there be 30 million Mongols when the entire population of present day Mongolia is merely 3 million.

 

[MH.Yang]

How can there be 30 million Mongols when the entire population of present day Mongolia is merely 3 million.

In the Qing Dynasty, the number of Mongols even decreased to 500k, and now it has increased by 1160%(5.8million). At the peak of the Yuan Dynasty, they had 30 million people.

May be your region was an exception but what I said is largely the case.
When a nation is wealthy (India was), belly is full and has relative peace, you tend to invest less in military tactics and weapons.

You don't know about it?
The Meithei people in Manipur, India. Their ancestors are East Asian, they come from the royal family of Qi Dynasty in China and the king family of Qiang Nationality in Central Asia.

 

[magra]

The Meithei people in Manipur, India. Their ancestors are East Asian, they come from the royal family of Qi Dynasty in China and the king family of Qiang Nationality in Central Asia.

Whats that got to do with anything? India is a multi-ethnic nation.

 

[Hamza913]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1436412029569572866

Dumb take

 

[A1Kaid]

Why do all Indians have a flabby belly?

Sign of low testosterone. It’s very common in Indian males (Hindus especially) compared to men of other groups.

 

[GamoAccu]

You need strategies. Kind of hard when they have low IQ.

Indians have smaller brains, reveals study | India News - Times of India

India News: International Institute of Information Technology, Hyderabad (IIIT-H) has created the first-ever Indian Brain Atlas. While there are templates for Cau

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

 

[magra]

Sign of low testosterone. It’s very common in Indian males (Hindus especially) compared to men of other groups.

Its common across subcontinent region, outside of mountains. I do not know about testosterone, but I believe diet is a factor. A century ago, there was lot of hard work involved in daily life, which is now done by machines. However the diet has largely stayed fat heavy.

 

[Buddhistforlife]

You really think they can fight?
View attachment 777566

No Indians did fight back invaders like Prithviraj Chauhan defeated Muhammad Ghori in the first battle of Tarain, Vikramidtya 2 defeated Arab Invaders in the 8th century but yes most of the time Indians were unsuccessful against foreign invaders. However, this is not because Hindus aren't capable of fighting but because of lack of unity and the Hindu caste system itself.

First of all in the Hindu caste system, only the kshatriyas were allowed to fight meanwhile other low caste hindus were forbidden from even joining the military no matter how capable they were. This was a great disadvantage for the Hindu Indians back then.

Moreover, India was a confederacy of smaller kingdoms who never helped a neighbouring kingdom in need. Greek and Muslim invaders and others usually attacked from the North and it was the duty of the Rajputs alone to defend India. No other Hindu rulers came forward to help. Even many Hindu kings joined hands with invaders to weaken their rival kingdoms like Maharaja Ambhi joined Alexander's side when he foight Porus and Jaichand joined Muhammad Ghorid's side when he fought Prithviraj Chauhan.

The only times India was stronger when there was a legitimate "Empire" in the Indian subcontinent like the Mauryan empire, Mughal empire, British empire because there were unity and equality.

 

[Leishangthem]

May be your region was an exception but what I said is largely the case.
When a nation is wealthy (India was), belly is full and has relative peace, you tend to invest less in military tactics and weapons.

How can there be 30 million Mongols when the entire population of present day Mongolia is merely 3 million.

"wealthy" is a wrong world to represent India on world standard.That exist in Indian fairy tales.
India was but a bunch of independent princely states,which would have likely become nations without British interference. It is surplus wealth bearing nations with most industry with big population that plans an invasion of a foreign land, India was never the trade dreamland for Europeans in history,it was SEA archipelago & CHINA in Asia.India was a weak region fertile for conquest . India was the bypass crossing block between trade of east and west. India now is same as India back but only the states separate as independent nations.Though many Indian kingdoms has the population and gained some some perks from trade flow between east and west but considering its population,the case is same as the India today but probably worse. And of course Indian states had its own export but that was marginal compared to the scale of trade between SEA,Chinese empire and Europe.What India subcontinent had was population, but there was the lack of trade network and industry,which was later brought by the British.

 

[Hamza913]

No Indians did fight back invaders like Prithviraj Chauhan defeated Muhammad Ghori in the first battle of Tarain, Vikramidtya 2 defeated Arab Invaders in the 8th century but yes most of the time Indians were unsuccessful against foreign invaders. However, this is not because Hindus aren't capable of fighting but because of lack of unity and the Hindu caste system itself.

First of all in the Hindu caste system, only the kshatriyas were allowed to fight meanwhile other low caste hindus were forbidden from even joining the military no matter how capable they were. This was a great disadvantage for the Hindu Indians back then.

Moreover, India was a confederacy of smaller kingdoms who never helped a neighbouring kingdom in need. Greek and Muslim invaders and others usually attacked from the North and it was the duty of the Rajputs alone to defend India. No other Hindu rulers came forward to help. Even many Hindu kings joined hands with invaders to weaken their rival kingdoms like Maharaja Ambhi joined Alexander's side when he foight Porus and Jaichand joined Muhammad Ghorid's side when he fought Prithviraj Chauhan.

The only times India was stronger when there was a legitimate "Empire" in the Indian subcontinent like the Mauryan empire, Mughal empire, British empire because there were unity and equality.

The Hephthalites failed
The Arabs failed
The Greeks failed

Only the British, Mughals and Delhi Sultanate had any major conquests, and the latter two were heavily dependant upon Indian support (not even just from Muslims btw, even if that was the primary source as far as higher positions were concerned)

This "India has always been conquered" meme is exactly that, a meme. It applies more to Afghanistan and Iran than the sub-continent.

 

[Buddhistforlife]

The Hephthalites failed
The Arabs failed
The Greeks failed

Only the British, Mughals and Delhi Sultanate had any major conquests, and the latter two were heavily dependant upon Indian support (not even just from Muslims btw, even if that was the primary source as far as higher positions were concerned)

This "India has always been conquered" meme is exactly that, a meme. It applies more to Afghanistan and Iran than the sub-continent.

The Greeks did not fail. Alexander the great defeated Porus and Western Punjab was part of his Satrapy. Punjab was ruled by Seleucus Nicator who was eventually defeated by Chandragupta Maurya.

 

[magra]

"wealthy" is a wrong world to represent India on world standard.That exist in Indian fairy takes.
India was but a bunch of independent princely states,which would have likely become nations without British interference. It is surplus wealth bearing nations with most industry with big population that plans an invasion of a foreign land, India was never the trade dreamland for Europeans in history,it was SEA archipelago & CHINA in Asia.India was a weak region fertile for conquest . India was the bypass crossing block between trade of east and west. India now is same as India back but only the states separate as independent nations.Though many Indian kingdoms has the population and gained some some perks from trade flow between east and west but considering its population,the case is same as the India today but probably worse. And of course Indian states had its own export but that was marginal compared to the scale of trade between SEA,Chinese empire and Europe.What India subcontinent had was population, but there was the lack of trade network and industry,which was later brought by the British.

Is that a satire or are you being serious?

India had immense trade with Arabs and Europeans much before British ever came. During Mughal period, India had 1/3rd of global GDP. Indian spices were so much in demand in Europe that they worried that too much gold is being drained out of Europe to India.

When you are content with wealth within your country, you are not incentivized to look for conquest outside.

 

[gulli]

it is a sub-continental (in-fact most of 3rd world trait) not peculiar to indians only

3rd world is far more honorable than western cheaters.. We dont make African to run just to secure a gold medal at olympics..

 

[Leishangthem]

Is that a satire or are you being serious?

India had immense trade with Arabs and Europeans much before British ever came. During Mughal period, India had 1/3rd of global GDP. Indian spices were so much in demand in Europe that they worried that too much gold is being drained out of Europe to India.

When you are content with wealth within your country, you are not incentivized to look for conquest outside.

Please don't give me the Imaginary gdp crap,how the hell anyone calculated it when there's no India but a dozen of princely states?No serious economist would agree to that now .There's no record.Even smaller population states like Myanmar,Java,Thailand, Cambodia had built much greater edifices .Indian region simply didn't had any significant industry of goods on the scale that SEA & China had near monopoly on,some Indian states did try to create indigenous industry ,but they largely failed with few exceptions.Everything originated or spread from China & SEA region.That's like tesla stock in value,meanwhile Indian subcontinent is like tata stock in value . Mughal did lived lavishly but,read the thread,it's not about the region under invaders,but the mughals did brought trade links with Arab world but the administration's wealth was largely thanks to the population and the tax levy upon it,like current India,not because the region was wealthy.Indian spices popularity is the most popular theme but most spices originates from china and SEA ,they were real spice exporter before British brought trade network and industry to India.