The most powerful region in South Asian history was the southern part of India?

[Dreamhunter]

The southern part of India, which consists of the Deccan and south India, produced the most powerful Dynasties of ancient and medieval India like the Satavahana Dynasty, Chalukya Dynasty, Rashtrakuta Empire, Chola Empire, Western Chalukya Empire, Vijayanagar Empire and Maratha Empire. These Dynasties not only ruled large parts of modern India and invaded large parts of Southeast Asia. These Dynasties also defeated some of the most powerful foreign invaders in world history like the Scythians, Arabs, Turks, Portuguese, Mughals and many more.

Why was the southern part of India so powerful and so successful against foreign invasions in the past
while large parts of northwestern part of South Asia like Afghanistan and Pakistan were mostly ruled
by foreigners.

 

[Rowdy]

Why was the southern part of India so powerful and so successful against foreign invasions in the past
while large parts of northwestern part of South Asia like Afghanistan and Pakistan were mostly ruled
by foreigners.

That is false. Patently false.
Yes. The empires you mention were great. They were protected by the seas and the north Indians. But North Indians did save the south Indians many times. South India enjoyed relative peace, while North India was entangled in Internal and External battles.

 

[pmaitra]

The southern part of India, which consists of the Deccan and south India, produced the most powerful Dynasties of ancient and medieval India like the Satavahana Dynasty, Chalukya Dynasty, Rashtrakuta Empire, Chola Empire, Western Chalukya Empire, Vijayanagar Empire and Maratha Empire. These Dynasties not only ruled large parts of modern India and invaded large parts of Southeast Asia. These Dynasties also defeated some of the most powerful foreign invaders in world history like the Scythians, Arabs, Turks, Portuguese, Mughals and many more.

Why was the southern part of India so powerful and so successful against foreign invasions in the past
while large parts of northwestern part of South Asia like Afghanistan and Pakistan were mostly ruled
by foreigners.

The southern empires were far from the invading armies, considering most invasions happened from the north. Even those that managed to battle the southern kingdoms or empires, they arrived after being worn down by the northern armies, and thus, were easy to defeat by the southern armies. When the invaders came in ships, it was a different story. It is for a reason that the Madras Regiment is considered the oldest regiment of the British Indian Army,

When it comes to land warfare, the most powerful empire can be adjudged by their conquest, not merely by how well they defended themselves, and when it comes to conquest, nothing beats the Mauryan Empire. Sure, the Gupta Dynasty was great in other aspect, such as culture, religion, and economic development, but that is different from conquest. The southern empires however do get credit for spreading and ruling parts of Indo-China. Singha Pura or Lion City, now called Singapore, is one example.

 

[rohit.gr77]

The southern empires were far from the invading armies, considering most invasions happened from the north. Even those that managed to battle the southern kingdoms or empires, they arrived after being worn down by the northern armies, and thus, were easy to defeat by the southern armies. When the invaders came in ships, it was a different story. It is for a reason that the Madras Regiment is considered the oldest regiment of the British Indian Army,

When it comes to land warfare, the most powerful empire can be adjudged by their conquest, not merely by how well they defended themselves, and when it comes to conquest, nothing beats the Mauryan Empire. Sure, the Gupta Dynasty was great in other aspect, such as culture, religion, and economic development, but that is different from conquest. The southern empires however do get credit for spreading and ruling parts of Indo-China. Singha Pura or Lion City, now called Singapore, is one example.

Not all southern empires were far from the invasions of North, consider the Marathas for example. At one stage they had an empire all the way till peshawar. Also they did an excellent job in ending the Mughal hegemony and restricting the Portuguese in Goa and Bassein. Also they had a strong and powerful navy.

 

[ezsasa]

We have to remember that except southern parts of kerala and Tamilnadu, rest had been ruled by nizams. i am not sure the concept of powerful region holds good.

 

[avknight1408]

The southern part of India, which consists of the Deccan and south India, produced the most powerful Dynasties of ancient and medieval India like the Satavahana Dynasty, Chalukya Dynasty, Rashtrakuta Empire, Chola Empire, Western Chalukya Empire, Vijayanagar Empire and Maratha Empire. These Dynasties not only ruled large parts of modern India and invaded large parts of Southeast Asia. These Dynasties also defeated some of the most powerful foreign invaders in world history like the Scythians, Arabs, Turks, Portuguese, Mughals and many more.

Why was the southern part of India so powerful and so successful against foreign invasions in the past
while large parts of northwestern part of South Asia like Afghanistan and Pakistan were mostly ruled
by foreigners.

Since south india was far away it was not invaded.
Though I like the chola empire. They had a powerful navy. They conquered south east asia and spread our religion and culture.

 

[Blackwater]

Punjab [emoji481][emoji481][emoji481][emoji481][emoji481][emoji481][emoji481][emoji481][emoji481][emoji481][emoji481][emoji481][emoji481][emoji481][emoji481][emoji481][emoji481][emoji481]

 

[Srinivas_K]

Powerful region is North around the regions of Ganga and Yamuna, not South !

Any one who can conquer Red Fort can control the fertile lands of Ganga and Yamuna, Rule over large populations, Minerals, etc...etc..., Can forge a strong empire.

North has to face many invasions particularly the region of North west like Punjab.

Like are the empires of the past they crumbled when Turks rose and dominated the globe.


South has natural barriers which can protect invasions reason why most parts are isolated from the Mughals and other empires. I still wonder why any of the great empires of India had not built strong citadels in the region of Punjab and Kyber pass to ward of invasions from C.Asia.

 

[Abhijat]

So, what exact purpose this thread serves ?

 

[Dreamhunter]

That is false. Patently false.
Yes. The empires you mention were great. They were protected by the seas and the north Indians. But North Indians did save the south Indians many times. South India enjoyed relative peace, while North India was entangled in Internal and External battles.

Not really. The reason why southern part of India enjoyed relative peace was because of the powerful
Dynasties of southern India and not because of north India. For example the Scythian invaders easiliy conquered the northern Indian Subcontinent like Afghanistan and even huge parts of north India but when the Scythians invaded the Deccan they were defeated by the Satavahana Dynasty. The Arabs also conquered Afghanistan and northwestern India without any problems but when the Arabs attempted to invade southern India the Arabs were defeated by the Chalukya Dynasty.

 

[Dreamhunter]

The southern empires were far from the invading armies, considering most invasions happened from the north. Even those that managed to battle the southern kingdoms or empires, they arrived after being worn down by the northern armies, and thus, were easy to defeat by the southern armies. When the invaders came in ships, it was a different story. It is for a reason that the Madras Regiment is considered the oldest regiment of the British Indian Army,

When it comes to land warfare, the most powerful empire can be adjudged by their conquest, not merely by how well they defended themselves, and when it comes to conquest, nothing beats the Mauryan Empire. Sure, the Gupta Dynasty was great in other aspect, such as culture, religion, and economic development, but that is different from conquest. The southern empires however do get credit for spreading and ruling parts of Indo-China. Singha Pura or Lion City, now called Singapore, is one example.

North India was mostly never able to resist foreign invasions. Foreign invaders like Scythians, Huns, Arabs
Turks and even the Mughals conquered large parts of north India but were only defeated southern part of India.
The Scythians were defeated by the Satavahana Dynasty, the Arabs were defeated by the Chalukya Dynasty,
the Turks of the Delhi Sultanate were defeated by the Vijayanagar Empire and the Mughals were defeated by the Marathas.

The main reason why northern India fell prey to foreign invasions was because there did not exist any powerful native dynasties in northwestern India during ancient and medieval period to repulse the foreign invaders.

 

[OneGrimPilgrim]

didn't remember about Vijayanagaram empire after school (did they have it in our text anyway?!), until i listened to this discourse from SS some months back:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByAiBibd1R56a3prUWpWcFpXZU0/view?usp=sharing

and later this


and then found this

 

[punjab47]

Lol, few things to say

One any south Indian king was from north, as it was all basically naagvanshi ksytrii dynasties.

Second the name is India or Sapt Sindhu or Bharat.
All of these things are in 'Punjab'

All of the history, Ideology & culture is in the north.

North being unable to resist invasion is nonsense, & I will end with question

How many south were in army before quotas?

The original Bharat Raja was a Chandravanshi king.

This north south divide is there because deccan sultans killed all the naagvanshis, & now due to British propaganda you have over hyped shudras thinking it is all their heritage. Moreover, absorbing the British idea of 'manhood'

I.e wear tight trousers & kill innocents, instead of serve your desh whether as Ksytria, Bramin, vaish, or shudra.

 

[Srinivas_K]

Lol, few things to say

One any south Indian king was from north, as it was all basically naagvanshi ksytrii dynasties.

Second the name is India or Sapt Sindhu or Bharat.
All of these things are in 'Punjab'

All of the history, Ideology & culture is in the north.

North being unable to resist invasion is nonsense, & I will end with question

How many south were in army before quotas?

The original Bharat Raja was a Chandravanshi king.

This north south divide is there because deccan sultans killed all the naagvanshis, & now due to British propaganda you have over hyped shudras thinking it is all their heritage. Moreover, absorbing the British idea of 'manhood'

I.e wear tight trousers & kill innocents, instead of serve your desh whether as Ksytria, Bramin, vaish, or shudra.

There are many native dynasties like Cholas, Chalukyas, Yadavas, Reddys, etc...etc...

Even northern tribes cannot say they are the main source of customs and traditions, it is a mix, your post is a nonsense.

 

[Peter]

Lol, few things to say

One any south Indian king was from north, as it was all basically naagvanshi ksytrii dynasties.

Second the name is India or Sapt Sindhu or Bharat.
All of these things are in 'Punjab'

All of the history, Ideology & culture is in the north.

North being unable to resist invasion is nonsense, & I will end with question

How many south were in army before quotas?

The original Bharat Raja was a Chandravanshi king.

This north south divide is there because deccan sultans killed all the naagvanshis, & now due to British propaganda you have over hyped shudras thinking it is all their heritage. Moreover, absorbing the British idea of 'manhood'


I.e wear tight trousers & kill innocents, instead of serve your desh whether as Ksytria, Bramin, vaish, or shudra.

Shri Shri @JattHindustan phaaji is that you under a different avatar????

 

[pulikesi]

My guesswork is : the rulers from the south learnt from the mistakes in the north.

Two powerful kingdoms, Chalukyas and Rashtrakutas, stopped the Arabs together. **
Hoysala royals realizing their decline, helped in establishing Vijayanagara empire, to protect Hinduism.
Shivaji had learnt about the glorious empire that existed before.

They were all little wiser when it came to fighting Muslim rulers. But the way Vijayanagarans lost battle of Talikote, that was just stupid.

** I just read up - Dantidurga, founder of Rashtrakutas, was feudatory of Chalukyas before he defeated them to establish his empire. He fought along-side Chalukya governor in Lata (Gujarat) to stop Arabs invading from Sindh. On the other hand the rulers in the north didn't co-operate.

 

[SPIEZ]

Powerful region is North around the regions of Ganga and Yamuna, not South !

(Here we go off again!)

Any constructive proof to prove your argument?

Any one who can conquer Red Fort can control the fertile lands of Ganga and Yamuna, Rule over large populations, Minerals, etc...etc..., Can forge a strong empire.

Again Red Fort was constructed by the conquerors, so blows your point.

Red Fort

South has natural barriers which can protect invasions reason why most parts are isolated from the Mughals and other empires. I still wonder why any of the great empires of India had not built strong citadels in the region of Punjab and Kyber pass to ward of invasions from C.Asia.

South has barriers?

Please do explain what Himalayas were doing in the North. I certainly believe they weren't providing sufficient protection from invaders

Again not arguing that the northern empires weren't powerfull but please do let me know how the south didn't have any?

It should be an interesting read.

 

[pmaitra]

North India was mostly never able to resist foreign invasions. Foreign invaders like Scythians, Huns, Arabs
Turks and even the Mughals conquered large parts of north India but were only defeated southern part of India.
The Scythians were defeated by the Satavahana Dynasty, the Arabs were defeated by the Chalukya Dynasty,
the Turks of the Delhi Sultanate were defeated by the Vijayanagar Empire and the Mughals were defeated by the Marathas.

The main reason why northern India fell prey to foreign invasions was because there did not exist any powerful native dynasties in northwestern India during ancient and medieval period to repulse the foreign invaders.

It is sacrilegious for many in this forum to suggest Huns and Scythians making inroads into India, leave alone achieving conquest. For them, all Indians are indigenous, and anyone who suggests otherwise is a "Marxist."

(Here we go off again!)

Any constructive proof to prove your argument?



Again Red Fort was constructed by the conquerors, so blows your point.

Red Fort




South has barriers?

Please do explain what Himalayas were doing in the North. I certainly believe they weren't providing sufficient protection from invaders

Again not arguing that the northern empires weren't powerfull but please do let me know how the south didn't have any?

It should be an interesting read.

The Himalayas act as a barrier between India on one side and Tibet, East Turkestan, and China on the other. The Hindu Kush (or Indicus Caucasus or Indian Caucasus) act as a barrier between India on one side and Central Asia. The Hindu Kush is relatively easy to traverse than the Himalayas. The Himalayas were certainly not providing complete or sufficient protection to India, because it does not stretch the entire span of the northern edge of the Indian Subcontinent.

 

[SPIEZ]

The Himalayas act as a barrier between India on one side and Tibet, East Turkestan, and China on the other. The Hindu Kush (or Indicus Caucasus or Indian Caucasus) act as a barrier between India on one side and Central Asia. The Hindu Kush is relatively easy to traverse than the Himalayas. The Himalayas were certainly not providing complete or sufficient protection to India, because it does not stretch the entire span of the northern edge of the Indian Subcontinent.

Hi pmaitra,

I was hoping for a constructive argument with the above gentleman.

Yes! The Himalayas and Hindukush provide sufficient barriers better than whatever protection the above gentleman had stated.

Silly to suggest that other states didn't have issues or were sufficiently helped by the so called buffer northern region. Please do take in to account of the sufficient time gap between the supposed invasions. Please also take in to the account the distribution of population (of the invaders and the defenders).

 

[Screambowl]

North India was mostly never able to resist foreign invasions. Foreign invaders like Scythians, Huns, Arabs
Turks and even the Mughals conquered large parts of north India but were only defeated southern part of India.
The Scythians were defeated by the Satavahana Dynasty, the Arabs were defeated by the Chalukya Dynasty,
the Turks of the Delhi Sultanate were defeated by the Vijayanagar Empire and the Mughals were defeated by the Marathas.

The main reason why northern India fell prey to foreign invasions was because there did not exist any powerful native dynasties in northwestern India during ancient and medieval period to repulse the foreign invaders.

because whenever any invader came he travelled to conquer east not south. Only once when the invader conquered the complete north, they realized to travel south but before they could reach any further south, they had to face many kingdoms and by the time they reached south they were already more than 1000 km from north.

Plus there were northern Kingdoms who were in constant war with the invaders which always disturbed invaders to carry on a successful southern campaign. Plus the might of southern empire was another bigger challenge to take on.