This is the list of people who crossed Khyber pass.All of them led Armies into India except the bolded ones: Cyrus the Great Alexander the Great Chandragupta Maurya Demetrius I of Bactria Muhammad Bin Qasim Mahmud Ghaznavi Muhammad Ghori Genghis Khan Qutlugh Khwaja Tamerlane Babur Humayun Shah Jahan Nader Shah Afshar Ahmad Shah Durrani Ahmad Shah Abdali Ranjit Singh George Pollock General Sir Samuel James Browne VC Sir Donald Stewart, 1st Baronet Of these bolded ones Chandragupta Maurya was the most successful one, Shahjahan,George Pollock failed very badly,Browne was partially successful but had to withdraw his army. The Sikh Empire managed to control the pass till Ranjit Singh and Hari Singh Nalwa was alive. NOTE:It is believed that the Pala emperors also crossed Khyber Pass. So what do you think are the reasons that so few managed to cross westwards successfully?
It was considered a sin to cross the ancient Aryavarta boundary. The person would be deemed to have lost his caste/ vedic character and need rituals to re-enter vedic society. That is just my hazy second hand knowledge on this topic. This rule has vedic/puranic basis. Probably it was laid down so, because of the relegated un-vedic tribes that fought with their cousins and went westwards. Example - For the same reason Raja Bhagwant Das was initially reluctant to cross this western boundary to rein in the unruly afghan tribes when Akbar asked him to go for this campaign. Regards, Virendra
For those already living in the Subcontinent and enjoying its natural wealth, there was nothing particularly compelling about invading the barren, godforsaken piece of land known today as Afghanistan. Those who did cross the Khyber Pass in the westerly direction usually did it out of defence or some geopolitical motive related to protecting the real prize of India. Also, you did not mention Kanishka in your list. Under the Kushans both sides of the Khyber Pass were part of the same politico-cultural entity, and in those days Afghanistan was actually not so bad.
But then why did Chandragupta Maurya cross the pass? @Civfanaitic Kanishka was of central asian descent.So naturally he will cross the Khyber pass.
That is exactly why we see most of the rulers who defeated invasion attempts did not go full length to demolish the invaders core base completely. To some extent, the inferiority of our cavalry to the best bred turkish cavalry was also responsible. They were capable of easily out maneuvering our chasing armies. As far as the barren lands are concerned - Yes, The turks and afghans had their economy geared towards war/plunder. They lived off by looting the wealth of neighboring regions.
By the way large parts of Afghanistan were in Aryavarta(See Gandhara) And the Aryans first settled in Bactria(Present day Afghanistan). Remember Afghans are caucasians and not semites like arabs.
We were able to chase of white hunas and Arabs(See battle of rajasthan in 730A.D) until 'vegetarianism' slipped in.
No idea. Would surely love to ask Mr. Maurya In fact even Bhagwant Das crossed over and completed his campaign. Read here - http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/...-nalwa-captured-afghanistan-2.html#post471820
Most of the rulers that you mentioned are Central Asian. However, the Kushans deserve special mention since they appear to have campaigned in Central Asia even while they became Indianized and established their rule over northern India. They can be compared to the Mughals in this regard, though the Kushans were possibly more successful in creating a trans-Khyber empire.
True. Mughals links to Central Asia were severed by Afghans and Uzbeks and there were Shia Kings further straight west. Overall it seems Khyber Pass was used extensively.
Many/most of the Central Asians that invaded India were nomadic or semi-nomadic in nature and were quite decentralized as far as political organisation was concerned. As such there were no "cores" which would be attacked to subdue the the whole tribe or people. Furthermore, Central Asia, though sparsely populated, is a vast region; in total land area it is as large as the entire Subcontinent itself. Practically, it would have been impossible to "demolish the invaders' core base". The Chinese faced a similar problem throughout their history in regards to barbarian invasions emanating from their vast and turbulent northern frontier. Their solution was to build a series of static fortifications which over the centuries would become the Great Wall; however, such a solution was not feasible in the subcontinent due to various impediments, the chief of which were geography and the lack of centralised political organisation. On the point of cavalry, the main military threat posed by the Turks was not their light cavalry but their armored heavy cavalry. The Turkish heavy cavalry were highly versatile, carrying bows as well as lances and shields. They adopted the Persian method of "shower shooting", where a line of heavy cavalry would repeatedly shoot volleys of arrows into the enemy formation; the Turkish cavalry would then follow up such a bombardment with a massed charge to break the enemy. These tactics were quite effective against Indian armies, of whom levied foot archers formed a large part.
I was wrong to use the word "core". Indeed they were highly mobile and fluid, specially the military. Its the stationary agrarian societies that have such cores. But even after the Indian armies had adapted to the invasions and fielded light to medium cavalry, they were unable to give a successfull chase to the fleeing enemy. Outrunning a seasoned army of cavalry archers on their own fields was still extremely tough. Turks were defeated at occasions where their ranks were enveloped by a frontal cavalry charge and individual close combat had started. Their the light to medium cavalry would take advantage of the bogged down heavy cavalry which can't maneuver at all or slice and dice so easily now. That is exactly how Rajputs fought the Turks and almost all their enemies in future. That is exaclty how Tarain-I was won. Later when the European technology and better gunpowder descended to India, we see the same cavalry oriented powers diminish and infantry based powers like Jats or European Tech based powers like Marathas under Scindia; Sikhs under Ranjit Singh rise to prominence. Regards, Virendra
Fascinating discussion. One question why could soviets or Brits not conquer and control Afghanistan inspite of superior military might and organisational ability, Ignore if off topic
Why ignore it? That is a good topic of discussion. You should open a new thread. You can also make it general like why did big powers fail to control Afghanistan? Also, I think Soviets and Britain succeeded in conquering Afghanistan, but their occupation came at a high cost, and they had to leave.
In this context, Vegetarianism had nothing to do with that. In case you referred to Brahmins, it had more to do with superior tactics of the invaders, sticking with a war confined within raj dharma against barbarians, traitorous in-laws and cousins than with anything else.
a) Geography and b) the Style of Conflict play an important role. Both are elusive for the heavy baggage, slow, professional and predictable imperlialistic armies that ever set foot there, Afghans were not an agrarian society with a stable fixed core that could be overwhelmed and game over. There was nothing to destroy. What would you loot in the barren lands of elusive looters. Not only the military quotient, there is hardly any prosperous, usable civlian population. The one that survives in any condition, would never support you. The unruly afghan tribes have always been a headache to control. They used to loot Mughal lines and trade caravans on the highways even in medieval centuries. Something similiar happened to Mughals when they went deep in Mewar after the elusive Maharan Pratap.There was guerilla warfare originating from dense mountain forests of Aravali. Regards, Virendra
