Why was there never an Islamic invasion of Nepal?

[illusion8]

And I want to know how they "subdued" Nepal?

Why fear the "Hindus" and ask for a different "Muslim" majority state if they were the "conquerors of India"?

 

[KingMamba]

I am not entirely sure why there was no successful Muslim invasion of Nepal - maybe the reason was the same as to why the British with their much superior army failed.

@GorkhaPride, I am sure you have figured out the reason.

Only the Bengalis attacked Nepal and they won looted temples and then went back, the British attacked Nepal over territory issues and in the treaty they got all the territories they wanted. They never bothered to conquer Nepal because they knew the terrain was not worth sending men into and then having to face insurrection. Mughals never bothered to attack Nepal because their was never loot worthy of such a campaign.

It started from Shah Jahan's time, both Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb only had partial success against the Ahoms for a short period of time.

Shah Jahan never ordered a military campaign on the Ahom, there were border skirmishes but never outright war, when Shah Jahan got sick the Ahom attacked up to Decca and that is why after Aurangzeb came to power he wanted to teach them a lesson and he mounted I think three campaigns against them. Like I said he was a zealot so he always invaded everything.

 

[LURKER]

Only the Bengalis attacked Nepal and they won looted temples and then went back, the British attacked Nepal over territory issues and in the treaty they got all the territories they wanted. They never bothered to conquer Nepal because they knew the terrain was not worth sending men into and then having to face insurrection. Mughals never bothered to attack Nepal because their was never loot worthy of such a campaign.



Shah Jahan never ordered a military campaign on the Ahom, there were border skirmishes but never outright war, when Shah Jahan got sick the Ahom attacked up to Decca and that is why after Aurangzeb came to power he wanted to teach them a lesson and he mounted I think three campaigns against them. Like I said he was a zealot so he always invaded everything.

They were not merely border skirmishes , Shah Jahan attacked Assam to capture and control it. He launched three major campaigns against Assam, mughals even captured Guahati during his reign, though they could not hold onto them after initial success.

 

[KingMamba]

They were not merely border skirmishes , Shah Jahan attacked Assam to capture and control it. He launched three major campaigns against Assam, mughals even captured Guahati during his reign, though they could not hold onto them after initial success.

Okay if he launched three then I must have gotten names wrong and it was Shah Jahan and not Aurangzeb.

 

[IceSage]

To my knowledge there hasn't been any attempts by the Mughal Empire to attack Nepal, why is this?

I dont know why, but just be glad it didn't happen. I think India could have gone on to become a major world player like US/China had it not happened to us.

 

[Pakistani E]

I dont know why, but just be glad it didn't happen. I think India could have gone on to become a major world player like US/China had it not happened to us.

India didn't exist until 1947. What are you talking about ?

 

[IceSage]

India didn't exist until 1947. What are you talking about ?

Isnt it obvious? When I say India, I mean the cultural India that has been around since the last 8000 years starting from IVC to today. Modern political India, with its current boundaries is just a continuation of that cultural philosophy that started off with IVC, like how modern political Italy is the continuation of ancient Roman culture.

 

[Pakistani E]

Isnt it obvious? When I say India, I mean the cultural India that has been around since the last 8000 years starting from IVC to today. Modern political India, with its current boundaries is just a continuation of that cultural philosophy that started off with IVC, like how modern political Italy is the continuation of ancient Roman culture.

Lol really? Are you telling me the kashmiris in the north have cultural similarities with the tamils in south?

 

[IceSage]

Lol really? Are you telling me the kashmiris in the north have cultural similarities with the tamils in south?

Yes to a certain extent, but not as much as say Kashmir-Jammu-punjab vs Tamil-Telegu-Kerala.

 

[Kompromat]

@Aeronaut, you closed the wrong thread



and, "we"?? are you sure you were the conqueror and not the conquered too?

Muslims. Because thats the question member asked.

Not that it matters but i don't have Hindu ancesstory. My ancesstors were the 'invaders'.

And I want to know how they "subdued" Nepal?

Because Nepal was contained without being invaded. If it had offered a tactical, strategic or economic edge to our campaign. It didn't nor did it offer resistence or present a threat to us therefore it wasn't worth an invasion.

 

[Pakistani E]

Yes to a certain extent, but not as much as say Kashmir-Jammu-punjab vs Tamil-Telegu-Kerala.

To what extent? I don't feel no cultural similarity to a Tamil (No offense meant).

 

[IceSage]

To what extent? I don't feel no cultural similarity to a Tamil (No offense meant).

None taken, and Of course you wont, you are a Pakistani, silly

 

[GorkhaPride]

Muslims. Because thats the question member asked.

Not that it matters but i don't have Hindu ancesstory. My ancesstors were the 'invaders'.



Because Nepal was contained without being invaded. If it had offered a tactical, strategic or economic edge to our campaign. It didn't nor did it offer resistence or present a threat to us therefore it wasn't worth an invasion.

How can you say that Nepal wouldn't have been able to offer a resistance? Nepal was never subdued, it was a group of princely states until it was unified. Nepal was never subdued until the British took part of its teritory and even then the British where still defeated.

 

[IceSage]

Muslims. Because thats the question member asked.

Not that it matters but i don't have Hindu ancesstory. My ancesstors were the 'invaders'.

Funnily enough, every Pakistan ever seems to think his ancestors belong to the "invaders", and no one has been the converted. I am starting to believe that Islam was actually founded in Pakistan, and went to Arab world and rest of the world from there

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

Yes to a certain extent, but not as much as say Kashmir-Jammu-punjab vs Tamil-Telegu-Kerala.

Kashmiris share nothing with tamils. Not even linguistic group, otherwise every human is related somehow.

How can you say that Nepal wouldn't have been able to offer a resistance? Nepal was never subdued, it was a group of princely states until it was unified. Nepal was never subdued until the British took part of its teritory and even then the British where still defeated.

Well as explained already Nepal was not worth it. And the bravery is conquering unknown lands, not hiding in mountains to defend it. For exemple Nepal could have actually conquered and ruled Delhi if they were so powerfull, and its not far from Delhi.