Arab descriptions of early medieval India

[MAYURA]

=civfanatic;725435]There were plenty of other people in West and Central Asia besides the Turks. The Persians, Tajiks, Afghans, maybe even the Tibetans could have invaded India. As it turned out, many of them would eventually invade India anyway at later dates. If the Turks did not establish a centralized empire in India in the 13th century, someone else would have.

what were these tajiks and persians and tibetans doing in 550 to 1000 ad.


your assertion is much worse as persians had not been able to do anything against sahis and tibetans were not able to occupy Kashmir at their prime so what was their chance in 12th century.


this is sheer nonsense.

"Ruthlessness" alone has never resulted in anyone becoming victorious. There were plenty of other factors, most of which were of far more consequence.

[/QUOTE]


these factors have themselves arisen due to ruthlessness.


take the case of spain, in 1490s they had a sizeable muslim minority but they simply eliminated them and are free of any problem of muslim separatism.



the indians had a golden oppurtunity in 1947 to implement partition to its full and will pay for it.


the indians had everything but what they lacked was ruthlessness.

 

[civfanatic]

what were these tajiks and persians and tibetans doing in 550 to 1000 ad.


your assertion is much worse as persians had not been able to do anything against sahis and tibetans were not able to occupy Kashmir at their prime so what was their chance in 12th century.


this is sheer turkish nostalgia.

You are clearly ignorant of history for making these statements, but I will attempt to respond regardless.

The period between the 9th and 11th centuries saw the emergence of native Iranian dynasties who ended the the dominance of the Arab Khilafat in the region and revived Persian culture. The main Iranian dynasties included the Tahirids, Buyids, Saffarids, and Samanids. The Samanids were the most influential of the above-mentioned dynasties and were Persians from Balkh (related to the modern Tajiks); it was they popularized the practice of recruiting Turkish slaves in the military and began the process of Persianization in Central Asia. These Iranian empires were actually the most powerful states in West Asia, and by the 10th century the Abbasid Khilafat was under the effective control of Shi'a Iranian kings (Buyids) who used the ancient Persian title of "Shahenshah".

As for the Tibetans, at their prime they had conquered nearly the whole of China in the 4th century. The empire of Tufan in the 8th century was also one of the most powerful states in Central Asia and its power extended into Ferghana, Kashmir, and Bengal. So yes, I would consider the Tibetans as potential candidates for establishing a centralized empire in northern India, though admittedly this was not as likely as the Persians, Afghans, or Tajiks achieving the same.

 

[MAYURA]

The samanids were conquered or exterminated by their vassals ghazanavids so their power is not something i would take it seriously.


You are not telling as to why in this period from 9th to 11th century, modern day india was not conquered by turks or persians or tibetans.


as for tibetans they had defeated tangs but their rule over kashmir is unsubstantiated and kalhan does not mention them.

they might have controlled ladakh but that is worthless area in pre industrial age.



your tahirids, saffarids and samanids all could not breach the defences of kabul let alone conquering india.


the reason why turks were successful was why they succeeded against byzantines.


even in their prime arabs never controlled modern day turkey but turks did this for islamdom so you can not use any such analogy to india.



only the turks had the stuff to conquer indians coming from horse archer area against which footsoldiers or even rajput cavalry was useless.

 

[MAYURA]

The empire of Tufan in the 8th century was also one of the most powerful states in Central Asia and its power extended into Ferghana, Kashmir, and Bengal.

where is the evidence for their rule in bengal and kashmir as wiki map is insufficient and there is no tibetan presence in bengal of that time in any military form.


second, india was conquered by turks only in late twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth century so there was enough time for these tibetans to rule india, why they did not do it ?

 

[MAYURA]

You are clearly ignorant of history for making these statements, but I will attempt to respond regardless.

Well, it will be seen who is ignorant.

 

[MAYURA]

he Hindus had kings residing in Kabul, Turks who were said to be of Tibetan origin. The first of them, Barhatakin "¦ brought these countries under his sway and ruled them under the title of Shahis of Kabul. The rule remained under his descendants for generations, the number of which is said to be sixty"¦

the number can not be sixty and this shows the account of alberuni with all halo created around him is wrong.

 

[Virendra]

only the turks had the stuff to conquer indians coming from horse archer area against which footsoldiers or even rajput cavalry was useless.

I would not believe that other nomadic invaders that we encountered earlier like Huns didn't have cavalry archers. Yet we know they didn't succeed as there were not only Imperial power in India but strong Kingdoms in far northwest (Af-Pak).

But anyway, Turks were heavy armored cavalry while the Rajputs were light to medium at best (which is decided on basis of the breed you mount).
They maintained and honed the best possible Indian breeds they could, such as Marwari and Kathiawari.
But the cavalry being useless against Turks is not accurate. We wouldn't witness Rajputs seeing off the Turks on so many occasions then (and eventually completely).
It depended on individual battles. Wherever Rajput cavalry's frontal charge succeeded in enveloping the Turks, thereby killing their maneuver .. they won. Nomadics liked their maneuvers, but with heavy armour once you're enveloped it is very difficult to cut through the enemy.
I know I might be over simplifying it but that is the crux of it.

From Hammir to Kumbha to Sanga, they had all sustained against the Turko Afghans quite well, defeating Turks on multiple fronts, keeping the Sultans, Princes captive on many occasions.

By the time Babur arrived, Rana Sanga had already won Gwalior, subdued Malwa, invaded Gujrat and had held a Lodi prince captive. He had defeated Lodi's advance, subdued Khanzadas of Mewat and was breathing down Lodi's neck for the latter's core territories. Peela Khal near Agra was his northern boundary now. Delhi, Malwa and Gujarat all three Sulanates were defeated in respective battles.
~Source - "Maharana Sanga" by Har Bilas Sarda

I can also sweep into what Kumbha did to Nagor and other Sultanates.

Except Rajputs with their Marwadi and Kathiawadi breeds, there was literally no Indian power employing a decent standing cavalry in the army back then.
The dashing heavy cavalry invaders were donning best breeds of horses coupled with best armour and highly agile cavalry archers.
So much so that our natives began to call any mounted horsemen as "Turk Savaar".

the number can not be sixty and this shows the account of alberuni with all halo created around him is wrong.

Is it saying 60 descendants at once or 60 generations? :shocked:
None can be termed as fully accurate and free of bias. It is upto us to critically examine and sift the chaff from grain.
By the way Abu Fazl is also accused of sugar coating Akbar. Have you read the account of his atrocious summary execution of 30,000 inhabitants (mostly civilians) at Chittor?


Regards,
Virendra

 

[civfanatic]

The samanids were conquered or exterminated by their vassals ghazanavids so their power is not something i would take it seriously.

only the turks had the stuff to conquer indians coming from horse archer area against which footsoldiers or even rajput cavalry was useless

The Ghaznavids were not the vassals of the Samanids but their slaves. The Samanids had the same horse archers and heavy cavalry in their army as the Ghaznavids, because both armies were based around the same system of Turkic military slavery and used the same Turks as soldiers. Comparing the "power" of Samanids to that of the Ghaznavids when they had virtually identical military systems makes no sense and shows your lack of knowledge on the subject. Alptigin, the grandfather of Mahmud of Ghazni, was originally a ghulam (military slave) of the Samanids; I don't think there was any difference in the tactics he used when under Samanid sovereignty and the tactics he used as an independent warlord. It should also be noted that Mahmud of Ghazni was explicitly recognized as the heir of the Samanids by the Abbasid Caliph. Really, the only difference between Samanids and Ghaznavids is that the ruling elites of the former were Persians, while the ruling elite of the latter were Persianized Turks. In most other ways the two states were virtually identical. However, the Persian Samanids proved to be less cruel than the Turks and in fact were widely praised for their benevolent administration and civilized rule.

your tahirids, saffarids and samanids all could not breach the defences of kabul let alone conquering india.

The Saffarids did conquer Kabul, Zabul, as well as other parts of Afghanistan, and in fact it was they who Islamized much of the region. Although the Arabs had previously conquered Afghanistan, they did not Islamize the region and soon lost control over it.

Link: Al-Hind, the Making of the Indo-Islamic World: Early Medieval India and the ... - Andre Wink - Google Books

You are not telling as to why in this period from 9th to 11th century, modern day india was not conquered by turks or persians or tibetans.

The Saffarids did not expand into India because in 901 C.E. they suffered a serious defeat by the Samanids which caused them to lose control over much of Afghanstan. The Samanids themselves did not expand into India because their capital was Bukhara in present-day Uzbekistan and they were far more concerned with Central Asia than the Subcontinent. The Turkic tribes of Central Asia, many of whom were still pagans, were a constant threat to the Samanids and so most of their military resources were devoted to this region. Even the Ghaznavids were under constant pressure from the Kara-khanid Turks, but since their capital was in eastern Afghanistan rather than Uzbekistan they were in a much better position to expand into India.

Also keep in mind that Persians in various times both before and after the Turko-Mongol conquests had expanded their influence up to the Punjab, from Darius the Great to Nader Shah, and other Iranian peoples like the Scythians and Kushans had gone much further. So I do think it is quite likely that some Iranian dynasty would have eventually invaded and conquered India during this time period if the Turks did not, since there are several historical precedents for this.

where is the evidence for their rule in bengal and kashmir as wiki map is insufficient and there is no tibetan presence in bengal of that time in any military form.

You are again wrong as there are indeed recorded cases of Tibetans invading North India. And no, I am not talking about some rocky wasteland like Ladakh but actually the fertile Indo-Gangetic plains itself. The Tibetan king Srongsten Gampo is recorded to have sent an army of over 8,000 men to invade Magadha after the death of Harsha; this army was able to soundly defeat Arjuna, Harsha's successor, and take him as a prisoner. Keep in mind that this part of India was one of the most prosperous and densely-populated places in the whole world, let the lack of political centralization and weakness of Indian kings allowed even Tibetans to successfully invade it. It should be noted that Nepal, which is historically a part of North India, was also a subject of Tibet during this time.

 

[civfanatic]

I would not believe that other nomadic invaders that we encountered earlier like Huns didn't have cavalry archers. Yet we know they didn't succeed as there were not only Imperial power in India but strong Kingdoms in far northwest (Af-Pak).

I don't think an "imperial power" in India has much to do with the successful resisting of the Hunas, as the Guptas suffered numerous reversals at their hands and ultimately it was actually a regional king, Yasodharman of Malwa, who seems to have played the decisive role in routing them. The "Imperial" Guptas were quite decentralized as far as empires go, and much of their "empire" was actually ruled by vassal or tributary kings who had considerable autonomy.

But anyway, Turks were heavy armored cavalry while the Rajputs were light to medium at best (which is decided on basis of the breed you mount).
They maintained and honed the best possible Indian breeds they could, such as Marwari and Kathiawari.
But the cavalry being useless against Turks is not accurate. We wouldn't witness Rajputs seeing off the Turks on so many occasions then (and eventually completely).

The Turks employed essentially two types of troops: the "ghazi" freelancers and volunteers lured by the prospect of loot and religious fervor, and the ghilman who were the professional military slaves. The ghazis fought mostly as light cavalry, raiding and pillaging the enemy's territory and also skirmishing against enemy troops, while the slaves fought as heavy cavalry with the intention of meeting and routing enemy armies in decisive battles. The Turkish heavy cavalry employed both bows and lances but their manner of horse archery was different from that of the light horse archers. They used a "shower shooting" method where large numbers of arrows were loosed by a large formation of ordered cavalry into an enemy formation, while the light cavalry's horse archery was more geared towards low-intensity skirmishing and harassment. The heavy cavalry would follow up their arrow volleys with a charge, which would cause most infantry formations to rout (do note that heavy cavalry seldom actually made contact with the enemy during such charges).

Overall, it was the heavy cavalry which played the most important role in the Turkish conquests and not the light horse archers as many people assume. I elaborate more on that in Post #4 here:
http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/military-history/45647-how-did-romans-actually-fight.html

 

[MAYURA]

he Ghaznavids were not the vassals of the Samanids but their slaves. The Samanids had the same horse archers and heavy cavalry in their army as the Ghaznavids, because both armies were based around the same system of Turkic military slavery and used the same Turks as soldiers. Comparing the "power" of Samanids to that of the Ghaznavids when they had virtually identical military systems makes no sense and shows your lack of knowledge on the subject.

The Thing which is quite clear that samanids were easily eliminated by ilkhanids and ghazanavids and since it took ghaznavids some 47 years to control and defeat the shahis completely does show that sahis had something worth.
please note that ghaznavids under mahmud were regarded as foremost power of islamic world and even the much dreaded seljuks did not attack ghaznavids till death of mahmud.

And it does depend who is whom as tangs also employed horse archers but since their armies were mix of han, turks and some proto manchus, it collapsed many times against tibetans or turks which were homogenous in their composition.

the difference between samanids and ghaznavids was that former were mixture of persians, turks and some arabs whereas the ghaznavids were completely turks with persianization a cultural thing only.


And, you are just making excuses as the ghazanavids too had fight with other powers and at times deadly so that is no factor.

he Saffarids did conquer Kabul, Zabul, as well as other parts of Afghanistan, and in fact it was they who Islamized much of the region. Although the Arabs had previously conquered Afghanistan, they did not Islamize the region and soon lost control over it.

Kabul at time of alpitgin was still ruled by hindus and hindu shahis lost it only in 986-87( forever) . the saffarid conquest of kabul was same as arab conquest of sindh. it were the ghaznavids who materialised this in a good manner.

Also keep in mind that Persians in various times both before and after the Turko-Mongol conquests had expanded their influence up to the Punjab, from Darius the Great to Nader Shah, and other Iranian peoples like the Scythians and Kushans had gone much further. So I do think it is quite likely that some Iranian dynasty would have eventually invaded and conquered India during this time period if the Turks did not, since there are several historical precedents for this.

First Nadir was a turk and not persian so your fact is completely wrong.

do not bring in here the achaemenids as that was long ago.

scythians and kushans wre not able to rule india for more than 2 centuries ( shaks lasted longer but had been assimilated thoroughly whereas kushans werenot able to rule todays north india for more than a century.

also, these were horse archer based armies but by time turks arrived, iraninas ( of central asia ) were powerless against the turks and areas from which kushans came is now completely turkic.

anyway, modern day india in 532 to 1005 ad was nearly free of any foreign rule and this can not be understated

ou are again wrong as there are indeed recorded cases of Tibetans invading North India. And no, I am not talking about some rocky wasteland like Ladakh but actually the fertile Indo-Gangetic plains itself. The Tibetan king Srongsten Gampo is recorded to have sent an army of over 8,000 men to invade Magadha after the death of Harsha; this army was able to soundly defeat Arjuna, Harsha's successor, and take him as a prisoner.

There was no successor of harsha as arjuna and chinese records are confusing. what really happened was that a petty kingdom near tirhut was destroyed by tibetans and that is all. the man you are calling arjuna is called as arunashva and has zero evidence in harshacharita or grants of harsha where an officer named skandagupta is very prominent.

we have various indian kings issuing their grants from same region so even if they invaded, it was a temporary thing.


the tibetan conquest of bengal is not historically attested and has zero backing of archaeology.



nepal was never part of north india and its hinduization occured very late and it is really ridiculous to present their victory against nepal as their potential to rule india ( this was their zenith ) .

 

[MAYURA]

don't think an "imperial power" in India has much to do with the successful resisting of the Hunas, as the Guptas suffered numerous reversals at their hands and ultimately it was actually a regional king, Yasodharman of Malwa, who seems to have played the decisive role in routing them. The "Imperial" Guptas were quite decentralized as far as empires go, and much of their "empire" was actually ruled by vassal or tributary kings who had considerable autonomy.

that is post skandagupta scenario. hunas had also destroyed sassanian armies repeatedly but the fact that yashodharmana could rout them shows that these kings with considereable autonomy deserved that .

why are you not paying attention to freedom enjoyed by north india for more than 5 centuries.

 

[MAYURA]

The Turks employed essentially two types of troops: the "ghazi" freelancers and volunteers lured by the prospect of loot and religious fervor, and the ghilman who were the professional military slaves. The ghazis fought mostly as light cavalry, raiding and pillaging the enemy's territory and also skirmishing against enemy troops, while the slaves fought as heavy cavalry with the intention of meeting and routing enemy armies in decisive battles. The Turkish heavy cavalry employed both bows and lances but their manner of horse archery was different from that of the light horse archers. They used a "shower shooting" method where large numbers of arrows were loosed by a large formation of ordered cavalry into an enemy formation, while the light cavalry's horse archery was more geared towards low-intensity skirmishing and harassment. The heavy cavalry would follow up their arrow volleys with a charge, which would cause most infantry formations to rout (do note that heavy cavalry seldom actually made contact with the enemy during such charges).

Muhammad ghori had attacked Prithviraj chauhan with a force of 50,000 horsemen in first battle of tarain.

how did prithviraj manage to win against such formidable military machine ?

 

[Virendra]

Muhammad ghori had attacked Prithviraj chauhan with a force of 50,000 horsemen in first battle of tarain.

how did prithviraj manage to win against such formidable military machine ?

By enveloping the Ghorid cavalry via a frontal cavalry charge. The heavy cavalry turks couldn't move freely and their ranks broke under the pressure.
Ghori was seriously injured in this battle.

 

[civfanatic]

The Thing which is quite clear that samanids were easily eliminated by ilkhanids and ghazanavids and since it took ghaznavids some 47 years to control and defeat the shahis completely does show that sahis had something worth.

the difference between samanids and ghaznavids was that former were mixture of persians, turks and some arabs whereas the ghaznavids were completely turks with persianization a cultural thing only.

The Ilkhanids did not appear until the 13th century whereas the Samanids were gone by 1000 C.E., so I have no idea what you are talking about.

I have already told you that the Samanid and Ghaznavid armies were basically the same. The Ghaznavids were nothing more than ex-Samanid generals and administrators. Even the Ghaznavid armies were not homogeneous as they used Persian and Afghan troops as well as Hindu mercenaries. There was definitely no military obstacle preventing the Samanids from conquering the Kabul Shahis, as even the Saffarids had conquered Kabul (as I showed you) who in turn were completely defeated by Samanids. The only thing preventing Samanids from extending into India was their location in Uzbekistan which made them highly vulnerable to Turkish raids, whereas Ghaznavids were based in eastern Afghanistan and India was only a short distance away,

Kabul at time of alpitgin was still ruled by hindus and hindu shahis lost it only in 986-87( forever) . the saffarid conquest of kabul was same as arab conquest of sindh. it were the ghaznavids who materialised this in a good manner.

You claimed that "tahirids, saffarids and samanids all could not breach the defences of kabul let alone conquering india." and I simply proved that claim wrong. I did not state whether the Saffarid conquest was permanent or not, but definitely they did breach the defences of Kabul and also sent looted idols to the Caliph as evidence of their conquests.

First Nadir was a turk and not persian so your fact is completely wrong.

Nader may have personally been of Turkish ethnicity but he was called the Shahenshah of Persia and the troops under his command were Persians. All the contemporary accounts refer to the Afsharid armies as Persians and not as Turks.

Link: Mughal Empire in India: A Systematic Study Including Source Material - S.R. Sharma - Google Books

do not bring in here the achaemenids as that was long ago.

Why not? They were clearly Persians and they did make the regions up to Punjab as their satrapies.

scythians and kushans wre not able to rule india for more than 2 centuries ( shaks lasted longer but had been assimilated thoroughly whereas kushans werenot able to rule todays north india for more than a century.

It is irrelevant how long they were able to rule but it is clear that they succeeded in conquering much of North India.

There was no successor of harsha as arjuna and chinese records are confusing. what really happened was that a petty kingdom near tirhut was destroyed by tibetans and that is all. the man you are calling arjuna is called as arunashva and has zero evidence in harshacharita or grants of harsha where an officer named skandagupta is very prominent.

The records state explicitly that Magadha was invaded. All because it does not find mention in Indian sources does not mean it didn't happen. Even Alexander and his Macedonians find no mention in Indian sources but that doesn't mean they never invaded India up to Punjab.

the tibetan conquest of bengal is not historically attested and has zero backing of archaeology.

If you read my post, I never claimed that Tibetans conquered Bengal or Kashmir but that their influence extended up to there. Military invasion is one way of exerting influence, and it is clear that Tibetans had the ability to invade North India during that time and did so.

nepal was never part of north india and its hinduization occured very late and it is really ridiculous to present their victory against nepal as their potential to rule india ( this was their zenith ) .

The Nepalis who were subject to Tibetans were Licchavis, and if Licchavis are not North Indians then maybe Guptas are not North Indian either.

Anyway, I do not consider Tibetans as primary contenders for invading India and setting up a centralized empire. As I stated before the chances of Persians, Afghans, Tajiks, or some other West Asians doing so are much higher.

 

[civfanatic]

It is also interesting to note the speed with which the Turks conquered North India. The Second Battle of Tarain was won by the Turks in 1192, and within a decade they had invaded Bihar and Bengal and extened their realm to the other end of India.

 

[MAYURA]

The Ilkhanids did not appear until the 13th century whereas the Samanids were gone by 1000 C.E., so I have no idea what you are talking about.

Yes, that was a mistake as i really meant karakhanids whose founder satuk was also from oghuz stock. barthold believes that it were they who changed the character of central asia. they were already in power by 975 and were instrumental in ending samanids. later on they fought with ghaznavi just as stalin fought with

british for war spoils . ( stalin's fight was not real though )

have already told you that the Samanid and Ghaznavid armies were basically the same. The Ghaznavids were nothing more than ex-Samanid generals and administrators. Even the Ghaznavid armies were not homogeneous as they used Persian and Afghan troops as well as Hindu mercenaries. There was definitely no military obstacle preventing the Samanids from conquering the Kabul Shahis, as even the Saffarids had conquered Kabul (as I showed you) who in turn were completely defeated by Samanids. The only thing preventing Samanids from extending into India was their location in Uzbekistan which made them highly vulnerable to Turkish raids, whereas Ghaznavids were based in eastern Afghanistan and India was only a short distance away,

Ghazanavids too fought with karakhanids who were better organized than the pagan turks. if it did not prove hard for them, it should not have been that difficult for samanids.


BTW, tell me how did they decline ?

You claimed that "tahirids, saffarids and samanids all could not breach the defences of kabul let alone conquering india." and I simply proved that claim wrong. I did not state whether the Saffarid conquest was permanent or not, but definitely they did breach the defences of Kabul and also sent looted idols to the Caliph as evidence of their conquests.

Look, kabul was a shaiva frontier hindu kingdom and it was outer line of defense , when the saffarids occupied it in 870 under their leader Yaqub, what they did was gaining a temporary advantage in a long lasting war.

if you have a defensive post in laddakh and that remains in indian hands even after attacks from chinese for more than a century, how can anyone describe that as breaching the defense post.

Nader may have personally been of Turkish ethnicity but he was called the Shahenshah of Persia and the troops under his command were Persians.

The manchus were also calling themselves as chinese emperors but the fact remains that they were manchus.

as for his armymen being persians, read the army of safavids and tell me how his army was different.

Why not? They were clearly Persians and they did make the regions up to Punjab as their satrapies.

So you are using their conquest ability of 500 bc to claim that they could have done so in 11th century. really amazing.

anyway, now explain to me how they did not rule Indian punjab region .

It is irrelevant how long they were able to rule but it is clear that they succeeded in conquering much of North India.

It is relevant as turks stayed in india for much longer and you are substituting them for turks so they must meet the condition.

also, it is doubtful if they ever crossed vindhyas like the turks did.

The records state explicitly that Magadha was invaded. All because it does not find mention in Indian sources does not mean it didn't happen. Even Alexander and his Macedonians find no mention in Indian sources but that doesn't mean they never invaded India up to Punjab.

Unlike amateur people like me and you, professional historians like RC Majumdar and Sri Ram Goyal ( not much maligned sita ram goel ) have studied the records and found it utterly bombastic and untrue.


A chinese historian has made it clear that it was destruction of a petty state near tirhut and nothing more.

All historians are in doubt if they even reached kannauj and mind you conquering is different than raiding.


the rashtrakutas also raided the pratihar strongholds but could not do much in conquering them.

this is getting ridiculuous as a petty state being conquered is tantamount to conquering whole north india.


as for alexander's invasion analogy, it is apples and oranges.

india was illiterate at time of alexander's invasion so you can not get any inscription from indian side recording the invasion of Yavanas .

also, there is a coin dated 317 bc which shows their invasion in punjab region.


but the problem with tibetan raid is that it is unrecorded in any archaeological finds or credible literary sources plus there is opposite evidence with indian kings ruling their lands as usual.

even if all copies of muslim historical texts are burnt, we would know about their invasions through archaeology.

same has been the case with the hunas who lasted for 37 years and have left many archaeological sources.

If you read my post, I never claimed that Tibetans conquered Bengal or Kashmir but that their influence extended up to there. Military invasion is one way of exerting influence, and it is clear that Tibetans had the ability to invade North India during that time and did so.

'Ability" without any conquest is a paper tiger thing. infact the very fact that tibetans could not conquer kashmir means that they are not serious contenders at all.

just look at maps and find out if it was that impossible geographically. 8th and 9th centuries were their golden ages in military conquests and if they did not do it ( for reasons unknown as per you ) then, their chances in later times are very slim.

The Nepalis who were subject to Tibetans were Licchavis, and if Licchavis are not North Indians then maybe Guptas are not North Indian either.

The inscription of samudragupta clearly regards them as frontier people and north india is not any frontier region.


culturally, Michael Witzel believes them to be hinduized only from 9th century .

nyway, I do not consider Tibetans as primary contenders for invading India and setting up a centralized empire. As I stated before the chances of Persians, Afghans, Tajiks, or some other West Asians doing so are much higher.

From 226 ad to 1192ad , a period of nearly a milennium, the only time land from haryana to Bengal ( indo gangetic plains ) was under any foreign rule, was from 505 to 530 a period of 25 years.


so what were these tajiks, afghans, persians doing in this 1000 year long period?

going on picnic and celebrating nawruz.

 

[MAYURA]

It is also interesting to note the speed with which the Turks conquered North India. The Second Battle of Tarain was won by the Turks in 1192, and within a decade they had invaded Bihar and Bengal and extened their realm to the other end of India.

What is even more interesting is that they could not cross vindhyas for next 100 years and could not conquer Gujarat even after sacking it in 1197 ad.

they controlled dhaka a city which is 1500 kms away from delhi but could not reduce Udaipur or even malwa till 1295 areas much closer to them and with no significant barriers .

till the time of balban their hold on Uttar Pradesh was precarious.

 

[Virendra]

It is also interesting to note the speed with which the Turks conquered North India. The Second Battle of Tarain was won by the Turks in 1192, and within a decade they had invaded Bihar and Bengal and extened their realm to the other end of India.

In 10 years Turks had entire north India conquered?
It wasn't a resolute and comprehensive victory by any measure.
Initially ofcourse the Turks cavalry sprinted in spectacularly, but that is something even the seasonal invaders had achieved who used to come in, loot and fly back.
To rule effectively you had to control all the towns, forts and important trade routes. That is where Turks failed.
They were limited to a few towns and forts, surrounded by numerous desi Chieftains.
There was a constant warfare between Turks and organized Rajput units at one hand; and Turks vs. the Mandals of villages on the other.
Both side were victorious on various occasions and control of many forts kept swinging between the two sides.
When the main bulk of Turk cavalry would engage with Rajputs at a far away fort, the garrisons left behind would be attacked by the local Mandals.
Limitation of Turks is obvious from the fact that they were never able to break the shackles and come out of their pockets of Forts/Cities.
At best these pockets were like any other north Indian Kingdom..
The pockets are :
Delhi, Malwa, Gujarat and minor ones like Nagor, Jaunpur. Each was ruled by different rulers and there were no other Turkish Kingdoms in India.

Later when Mongols ransacked the Turks at the beginning of 13th century in their core territories, many of them came to India in existing Turkish pockets and with the increased armies the Turks were effectively reinforced.
Not just that, the better cavalry of Turks meants that they could avoid pitched battles with native forces and swiftly sweep into rich cities to sack them before comparable defenses could be arranged.

I have already posted many times over - how Nagor was turned into a vassalage by surrounding Rajput states and how Malwa, Gujarat and Delhi Sultanates were defeated time and again; how Turkish Kings and princes were held captive.

Losses in Rajputana, south India, constant resistance of mandals etc. as witnessed by Ibn-Batuta eventually led to the decay of Turkish grip.
Last nail in the coffin was when Babur arrived with Mughals. If Turks were ruling the roost in India, Babar wouldn't have to fight so many wars in India after getting rid of Lodi.

Regards,
Virendra

 

[MAYURA]

In 10 years Turks had entire north India conquered?
It wasn't a resolute and comprehensive victory by any measure.
Initially ofcourse the Turks cavalry sprinted in spectacularly, but that is something even the seasonal invaders had achieved who used to come in, loot and fly back.
To rule effectively you had to control all the towns, forts and important trade routes. That is where Turks failed.
They were limited to a few towns and forts, surrounded by numerous desi Chieftains.
There was a constant warfare between Turks and organized Rajput units at one hand; and Turks vs. the Mandals of villages on the other.
Both side were victorious on various occasions and control of many forts kept swinging between the two sides.
When the main bulk of Turk cavalry would engage with Rajputs at a far away fort, the garrisons left behind would be attacked by the local Mandals.
Limitation of Turks is obvious from the fact that they were never able to break the shackles and come out of their pockets of Forts/Cities.
At best these pockets were like any other north Indian Kingdom..
The pockets are :
Delhi, Malwa, Gujarat and minor ones like Nagor, Jaunpur. Each was ruled by different rulers and there were no other Turkish Kingdoms in India.

Later when Mongols ransacked the Turks at the beginning of 13th century in their core territories, many of them came to India in existing Turkish pockets and with the increased armies the Turks were effectively reinforced.
Not just that, the better cavalry of Turks meants that they could avoid pitched battles with native forces and swiftly sweep into rich cities to sack them before comparable defenses could be arranged.

I have already posted many times over - how Nagor was turned into a vassalage by surrounding Rajput states and how Malwa, Gujarat and Delhi Sultanates were defeated time and again; how Turkish Kings and princes were held captive.

Losses in Rajputana, south India, constant resistance of mandals etc. as witnessed by Ibn-Batuta eventually led to the decay of Turkish grip.
Last nail in the coffin was when Babur arrived with Mughals. If Turks were ruling the roost in India, Babar wouldn't have to fight so many wars in India after getting rid of Lodi.

Regards,
Virendra

Brilliant sir.

BTW, do you know how whole Uttar pradesh was seething with revolt and that jaychandra's sons and grandsons ruled over Varanasi and Chandauli region just 700 kms away from Delhi.

Infact, in my view the whole situation is summed up by RC Majumdar in following words

�India south of the Vindhyas was under Hindu rule in the 13th century. Even in North India during the same century, there were powerful kingdoms not yet subjected to Muslim rule, or still fighting for their independence� Even in that part of India which acknowledged the Muslim rule, there was continual defiance and heroic resistance by large or small bands of Hindus in many quarters, so that successive Muslim rulers had to send well-equipped military expeditions, again and again, against the same region� As a matter of fact, the Muslim authority in Northern India, throughout the 13th century, was tantamount to a military occupation of a large number of important centres without any effective occupation, far less a systematic administration of the country at large.�

 

[dhananjay1]

It is also interesting to note the speed with which the Turks conquered North India. The Second Battle of Tarain was won by the Turks in 1192, and within a decade they had invaded Bihar and Bengal and extened their realm to the other end of India.

The reason is geography. Northern plains are fertile and can support big population and big armies. But once the dominant military power is defeated, there is no scope for guerrilla warfare and resistance against a powerful cavalry, there is no running for the hills as there are no hills. That's the reason that once Chauhan army was defeated, collapse of the other smaller forces followed. The resistance was supported only in the hilly terrain of Rajasthan, MP and the Deccan plateau. In hilly areas the Turks could only move in big armies and were concentrated in the safety of big cities, and all the surrounding areas where the armies could be ambushed were left to small Hindu kingdoms. This is also true for plains of Gujarat, once the dominant forces of Waghela/Solanki were destroyed, there was no much resistance to Turkish rule. The only resistance came from small hill kingdoms like Idar, Junagarh.