Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

why didn't ancient persia ever conquer india?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 6>
Author
bilal_ali_2000 View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 03-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 409
  Quote bilal_ali_2000 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: why didn't ancient persia ever conquer india?
    Posted: 24-Feb-2008 at 09:39
Originally posted by seko12

I think the other reason was the east of Indus the territory was mostly unknown and a lot more jungles existed there. It would have been difficult for the persians in that enviroment and thats why maybe even the greeks didn't go further.
 
         Just how many times will it be said that the Greeks didn't stop because of choice but rarher because they were forced to.
 
          And the subcontinent was along with China was the world's most settled region, anyone who says that someone stopped because of the forests is crying "sour grapes", the desolate wilderness of this region was a lot less than most other regions of the world.     
  


Edited by bilal_ali_2000 - 24-Feb-2008 at 09:39
Back to Top
Suren View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Chieftain

Joined: 10-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1673
  Quote Suren Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Feb-2008 at 10:54
@ bilal: do not forget that Pakistan was part of Sassanid empire for a long time. Also Saffarid, Saffavid and Nadir shah hold Pakistan for a long time. Nadir even managed to take Delhi. 
Anfører
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Feb-2008 at 14:24
That was my point, Nadir took Delhi than he fell back to the Beas.
Back to Top
bilal_ali_2000 View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 03-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 409
  Quote bilal_ali_2000 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Feb-2008 at 04:22
Originally posted by Suren

@ bilal: do not forget that Pakistan was part of Sassanid empire for a long time. Also Saffarid, Saffavid and Nadir shah hold Pakistan for a long time. Nadir even managed to take Delhi. 
 
 
       The Pakistani region of the Sassanid empire was hotly contested and it could never be called an undisputed part of the Sassanid empire. Yes the Saffarid empire did include all of western Pakistan, i forgot about that. And the Saffavid empire controlled only a tiny portion of Pakistan's Baluchistan. And i did say that Nadiir Shah did invade and conquered this region.
 
    However in about 500 B.C Persia had little influence in both Pakistan as well as Afghanistan and their foray into Western Pakistan was not because that region was already under Persian influence.
Back to Top
Mughal e Azam View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 10-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 646
  Quote Mughal e Azam Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Feb-2008 at 06:03
Because they had better fish to fry. Smile


Edited by Mughaal - 11-Apr-2008 at 05:45
Mughal e Azam
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Feb-2008 at 17:53
I stand corrected, Temujin.

Nader Shah only invaded to loot and plunder.  Mughal India was not annexed but it was weakened greatly and inadvertently opened the door to the English, that is one of the events in history I rather did not happen as it was the main carcinogen sparking the spread of  the Western colonialist /imperialist cancer in the wider region.

Cricket's Indian in origin? never knew that, but then again, I do hate the sport.

Wasn't there an Indian ruler who tried to emulate Persepolis? I remember reading that somewhere ages ago. 

All in all i think the Persian influence in India was spread by overwhelmingly soft means rather than militarily through various channels.


Back to Top
bilal_ali_2000 View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 03-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 409
  Quote bilal_ali_2000 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Feb-2008 at 05:10
Originally posted by Zagros

Cricket's Indian in origin? never knew that, but then again, I do hate the sport.
 
          Mughal was just kidding.
 
         By the way there is a new version of cricket on the market, the twenty twenty cricket. A match lasts for about only two hours and it has all the ingredients which make cricket so entertaining to watch. I suspect Iranians will need to be involved in a good match of twenty twenty cricket to really take a liking for the game. Twenty Twenty is going to arriev no a previously unexplored shores and maybe Iran will be one of them.
Back to Top
bilal_ali_2000 View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 03-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 409
  Quote bilal_ali_2000 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Feb-2008 at 05:19
Originally posted by Zagros

Nader Shah only invaded to loot and plunder
 
          People say that the "peacock throne" should be returned to from where Nadir Shah looted it. 
 
 
 
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
  Quote Zagros Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26-Feb-2008 at 16:05
That's a different peacock throne, the British took what was left of the Mughaal one including the Kuhe Noor. Peacock throne is a term used for the Qajar and Pahlavi monarchies as I recently learned.
 
So those "people" are awefully misinformed. 


Edited by Zagros - 26-Feb-2008 at 16:16
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2008 at 04:24

I can't believe that people are discounting Persian influence east of Sistan, please what was the official language here for 600 years? AMir Khusro, our own Iqbal, whose tomb can be found in Bilals city? Obviously it has been a lot more prnounced in what is now Pakistan then anywhere else due to sheer geography.

Back to Top
bilal_ali_2000 View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 03-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 409
  Quote bilal_ali_2000 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2008 at 05:43
Originally posted by Zagros

That's a different peacock throne, the British took what was left of the Mughaal one including the Kuhe Noor. Peacock throne is a term used for the Qajar and Pahlavi monarchies as I recently learned.
 
So those "people" are awefully misinformed. 
 
        Oh ok i am sorry, i was wrong. It was when i was reading one of Mustansar Hussain Tarrars's travelouges to Iran that he mentioned the Peacock throne and his views were that the peacock throne should be returned back to the subcnotinent. Of course he was wrong in assuming that the present day peacock throne is the original peacock throne. But Nadir Shah did loot the original one form Dehli, whose worth in today's currency is assumed to be about 1 billion dollars.
Back to Top
bilal_ali_2000 View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 03-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 409
  Quote bilal_ali_2000 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2008 at 06:16
Originally posted by Sparten

I can't believe that people are discounting Persian influence east of Sistan, please what was the official language here for 600 years? AMir Khusro, our own Iqbal, whose tomb can be found in Bilals city? Obviously it has been a lot more prnounced in what is now Pakistan then anywhere else due to sheer geography.

 
       No one is discounting Persian influence east of Sistan. My point is that the whole of Pakistan should not be classified as a perpetual Persian colony, as many modern musilm Pakistanis to distance themselves from the Indians do. Persia's borders touched Balochistan and considering that just how far Persia expanded west and north you do expect Persia to have some influence in these areas which were adjacent to them comapred to the north where there was afghanistan in between.
         And about Amir Khusro our own Iqbal, well interesting choice of words, as I am sure that Alama Iqbal was Pakistani therefore it should be more like Alam Iqbal our own Amir Khusro. And Amir Khusro was ethnically Rajput and Turk, Indian by birth and in education Persian so he really was a mixed bag.
 
Back to Top
ruffian View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 28-Jan-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 62
  Quote ruffian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2008 at 07:11
Originally posted by Sparten

Read the topic further, this is about the Persians, not old Alex.

I do know the topic. Did you read darius's letter to Porus? Does that sound like a victor writing to a vassal?


Back to Top
bilal_ali_2000 View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 03-Jul-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 409
  Quote bilal_ali_2000 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2008 at 07:30
Originally posted by ruffian

Originally posted by Sparten

Read the topic further, this is about the Persians, not old Alex.

I do know the topic. Did you read darius's letter to Porus? Does that sound like a victor writing to a vassal?


 
          I believe that most people think that at the time of the Alexanderonian invasions Persia had no influence in the land of Indus. Otherwise this region would be a part of the empire of Alexander after those three decisive battles and he would not have to conquer it seperately. There was no need for this, i think. 


Edited by bilal_ali_2000 - 27-Feb-2008 at 10:45
Back to Top
ruffian View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 28-Jan-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 62
  Quote ruffian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2008 at 12:14
Originally posted by bilal_ali_2000

Originally posted by ruffian

Originally posted by Sparten

Read the topic further, this is about the Persians, not old Alex.

I do know the topic. Did you read darius's letter to Porus? Does that sound like a victor writing to a vassal?


 
          I believe that most people think that at the time of the Alexanderonian invasions Persia had no influence in the land of Indus. Otherwise this region would be a part of the empire of Alexander after those three decisive battles and he would not have to conquer it seperately. There was no need for this, i think. 

India was never ruled by persians. Minor provinces to the west of afghanistan did change hands between indian kings and persians and that is about it. Persians did request for help from Indians against Macedonians as the passage above indicates.

Similar fate of alexander who lost to porus and barely scraped through against other hindoo tribes on the west of indus.

Ptolemy wrote to Aristotle that in his opinion hindus were the best figthers of that era.

Even in darius's army the indian cavalry was the most ferocious and if persians had shown half the bravery of this cavalry guagaemala would have had a different outcome.




Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2008 at 12:21
If Indians had show half of that bravery then India would nt have been conquered.........again and again and again.
Back to Top
innocent View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 10-Nov-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 10
  Quote innocent Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2008 at 12:45
If Indians had shown half the bravery they have shown ...entire India would have been Muslim not only Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Edited by innocent - 27-Feb-2008 at 12:46
Back to Top
AP Singh View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 05-Sep-2006
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 283
  Quote AP Singh Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Feb-2008 at 06:08
They persians were not fools for not doing so since India was much more powerful than them at the time under the Gujjar Pratihar Emperors and in case of attack India the Persian Empire would have been lost to Gujjar Pratihar Emperors. This question should be asked in a reverse manner that why the Gujjar Pratihars Emperors of India  even after having an army size of 80 Lakhs did not conquer Persia? It is because there was nothing to invade, in Persia that time since the horses and elephants used by the armies, could not be fed on petrol and diesel.
Hypothetically it is true that in present circumstances the Gujjar Pratihar Emperors would have conquered Persia to take control on vast reserve of oil in that region but the people are more civilised now.
It was Gujjar Power which defended India from 6th. century to 10th. century and it was possible the enter India from Arab side after the various fuedatories like Gujjar Tanwars of Delhi, Gujjar Chauhans of Sakambri, Gujjar Chandellas of Kalinjar,Gujjar Solankis of Patan, Gujjar Parmars of Dhar asserted independence from the Gujjar Pratihar empire and started fighting among themselves to gain supremacy over each other. Taking the advantage of the situation the other non Gujjar fuedatories like Kalchuris, and vassals like  Rathors Kachwahs also formed their own state. At this point of time also it was not Persian empire which got hold  in India but the Turks like Gaznavi and Ghori from Afghnistan. Since that part of afghanistan from where Gaznavi and Ghori belonged, was ruled by Gujjar Emperors, it can not be said that India was conquered but the right word will be that it was divided. These Turks were earlier Hindus only and the only difference between them and other Hindus were that these Afghans were converted to Muslim at earlier than other population.
 
Later India was conquered by Babar who was from present day Uzbekistan. That time also it were the Pathans who were among the most powerful ruler of India. They kept fighting among themselves and India was in fact offered to Babar. Later Sher Shah Suri expelled his Humayun from India and established Indian Empire again.
It was akbar who was the first alien ruler of India.   


Edited by AP Singh - 28-Feb-2008 at 06:15
Back to Top
Paul View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar
AE Immoderator

Joined: 21-Aug-2004
Location: Hyperborea
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 952
  Quote Paul Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Feb-2008 at 10:13
Surely this questions is on it's head. Shouldn't it be... Why would Persia want to conquer India? If you can't come up with a convincing reason. The question in this topic is irrelervant.
 
 


Edited by Paul - 28-Feb-2008 at 10:13
Light blue touch paper and stand well back

http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk

http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk
Back to Top
ruffian View Drop Down
Knight
Knight


Joined: 28-Jan-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 62
  Quote ruffian Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Feb-2008 at 11:59
Originally posted by Paul

Surely this questions is on it's head. Shouldn't it be... Why would Persia want to conquer India? If you can't come up with a convincing reason. The question in this topic is irrelervant.
 
 

India was more rich then any contemporary nation. For example diamonds were not known to europe before europeans arrived in India!

THere is no record of persians ever waging a war against indians. I would be happy to be corrected on this though.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 6>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.