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  <1 3456>
Author
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
True Afghan View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 21-Mar-2008
Location: Paradise
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		  Quote True Afghan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: why didn't ancient persia ever conquer india?
    Posted: 24-Mar-2008 at 04:35
Originally posted by ruffian

Originally posted by Paul

India wasn't a nation, it was many nations. However being rich isn't a reason to invade, alone.


Says who? This is what I posted in another thread and does answer your question well. Also is there anyother more powerful reason to invade then greed?

India was one entity with a common culture, religion and political ethos from kashmir to kanykumari and  afghanistan to  bangladesh. If british had not come, mughals were already puppets in the hands of marathas and princely states of rajasthan. India would have gone back to various monarchies ruled by different clans but would have politically behaved as a single entity.




 

"marathas" were crashed at the hand of Durranis before Britishif British had not come there would never be a unified modern state called India.
Back to Top
True Afghan View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 21-Mar-2008
Location: Paradise
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		  Quote True Afghan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Mar-2008 at 04:40
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. 

 

Nadir Shah was Turkmen and Saffavid were Shia Turk. Saffarid were eastern Iranic people...although both Nadir Shah and Saffavid had Dari as their court language but their native language were Turkish. Thus they were not really Persian per say but they were called king of Persia.
Back to Top
True Afghan View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 21-Mar-2008
Location: Paradise
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		  Quote True Afghan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Mar-2008 at 04:44
Originally posted by Zagros

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.


 

Not quit true...but the "Persian influences" were imposed by sword of Turks, Moghols and Afghans. Whom in tern were influences by Tajik culturally. That is why Hindustan's Muslim are culturally closer to Tajiks then Turkiszed "Farsi ethnic of Fars"
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Mar-2008 at 05:16
^
Way ta go Tex!
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: 02-Apr-2008 at 13:21
Originally posted by True Afghan

Originally posted by bilal_ali_2000

Originally posted by saba

actually if you look at persian historical writings, it doesn't really mention India that often. Maybe the reason they didn't go east of Indus is that they had no idea what India beyond Indus was like.
          The Elamites before them (who might have been Dravidians) did not look east and let the Indus Valley Civilization have Afghanistan. Iranians also apart from northern Afghanistan did not look east too much. I think it was because of Geography, the mountains of Afghanistan as well as the Himalayas prevented these people from looking to east too much.       
 

What you mean by "Iranian"? I think you actually mean Iranic ---Pashton, Tajik, Kurd, Persian and Baloch. Iranian means citizen of country "Iran" that included, Azari  Turk, Armani, Asserians, Bakhtari Turks, Turkman, Arab and...

 

 
      By Iranian i mean people of the country of Iran whoever they maybe if they existed in the said times and that includes Azeri, Bkhtiari and Turkman if they were present at that time in Iran.
Back to Top
Aussiedude View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary


Joined: 16-Mar-2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		  Quote Aussiedude Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Apr-2008 at 16:35
Simple, their capital was located in Mesompotamia-closer to Greece(which they failed to conquer) then India. Whats more, their were 2 deserts between the capital and India proper. Hell, the only reson they could hold the Indus was because it was a nice Horizontal river, not to distant- going further into India, the natural path was the Ganges, but that was vertical- their was not natural border without taking ALL of North India.
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: 06-Apr-2008 at 16:41
Originally posted by True Afghan

Originally posted by Zagros

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.


 

Not quit true...but the "Persian influences" were imposed by sword of Turks, Moghols and Afghans. Whom in tern were influences by Tajik culturally. That is why Hindustan's Muslim are culturally closer to Tajiks then Turkiszed "Farsi ethnic of Fars"

 
Well at that point there was no difference between Persian and Tajik culture at that time and the only difference today is religious sect - language, architecture, national heros everything is the same.   The cultural influence came from the whole Persian world from Fars itself to Khorasan/Afghanistan


Edited by Zagros - 06-Apr-2008 at 16:41
Back to Top
Darius of Parsa View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar
King of Kings

Joined: 03-Oct-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 599 		  Quote Darius of Parsa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07-Apr-2008 at 01:42
Originally posted by Aussiedude

Simple, their capital was located in Mesompotamia-closer to Greece(which they failed to conquer) then India. Whats more, their were 2 deserts between the capital and India proper. Hell, the only reson they could hold the Indus was because it was a nice Horizontal river, not to distant- going further into India, the natural path was the Ganges, but that was vertical- their was not natural border without taking ALL of North India.
 
The Persian capital was not located in Mesopotamia. Persepolis could be argued as the Achaemenid capital, not Babylon as many people think (the Alexander movie portrayed Babylon as the Persian capital). Persepolis is closer to India than Greece. Deserts were did not stop the Persian war machine. Under Cambyses, the Persians crossed Arabian and African deserts, with the help of the native tribes.
What is the officer problem?
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: 11-Apr-2008 at 05:08
Originally posted by True Afghan

Originally posted by ruffian

Originally posted by Paul

India wasn't a nation, it was many nations. However being rich isn't a reason to invade, alone.


Says who? This is what I posted in another thread and does answer your question well. Also is there anyother more powerful reason to invade then greed?

India was one entity with a common culture, religion and political ethos from kashmir to kanykumari and  afghanistan to  bangladesh. If british had not come, mughals were already puppets in the hands of marathas and princely states of rajasthan. India would have gone back to various monarchies ruled by different clans but would have politically behaved as a single entity.




 

"marathas" were crashed at the hand of Durranis before Britishif British had not come there would never be a unified modern state called India.


One defeat does not mean much. Mughal Delhi was puppet in the hands of marathas. Durranis did not stay in delhi and returned back.
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: 19-Apr-2008 at 10:41
Originally posted by bilal_ali_2000

Originally posted by AP Singh

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.   
 
   I think there were no Gujjars in 500 B.C. The time frame about which we are talking about about.
    And Turks were never Hindus, niether were they the natives of Afghanistan.
 
 
 
The Gujjar Kushans were rulers of India that time and the Persian Empire was much weaker than them.
 
Kushan is a branch of Gujjars and now days are called Kasana (with variations like Kansana, Kushana, Kasana etc).
 
Some of the famous Kasana Gujjars of the present era are Ex- President of India Late Shri Fakhrudin Ali Ahmed, Ex- MP of India Mrs. Rama Pilot ( Wife of late Shri Rajesh Pilot, Ex- Home Minister of India), Mr. Shoaib Akhtar ( Cricketer from Pakistan, setting the world record twice by  achieving the speed of more than 100 miles per hours  in two different Cricket World Cups), Business Tycoon from Japan Mr. Dinesh Kasana ( having his Own Industries in Japan ,China and chain of Restaurants in USA) etc. etc.
 
Also the majority of Gujjars found in presently in  Jammu and Kashmir, Pakistan and Afghanistan are Gujjars of Kasana Gotra which confirms that Gujjar does not leave
their place of birth except when on conquering new areas or their services are required by their motherland.
 
The Gujjars are called in History by different names in Different languages. The are called Kuchelo in chinese, Gurjara in Sanskrit, Gujjar, Gujar in Hindi, Guzar in Urdu and Al-Juzr, Juzr, Jurz in Persian and Arabic etc. etc.
 
In Persian the Gurjaras are also written as Juzaria/Jurzia and thus Georgia ( also written as Jurjistan in many persian historical records) is named after Gujjar tribe, which also confirms the boundry of Gujjar Empire in that direction during the period of Gujjar Kushan Dynasty.
 
Also there are places in present day Uzbekistan named after the Gujjar tribe like Kasan and Guzar.
 
It is said that Gujjars in India came from Georgia but that is not true. The Gujjars went from India and conquered those territories. At the time of attack and defeats at the Hands of Huns the Gujjars of Georgia  and India were separated from each others.
In Georgia, the Gujjars must have embraced Christian religion and lost their identity as Gujjars. The Christian religion started spreading in Georgia in the first century and we dont find even a single Christian Gujjar in India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. 
 
The Huns at later stage were defeated in India by another Gujjar empire called Gujjar Pratihars. It was Bahuk Dhawal of Gujjar Solanki clan, a fuedatory of Gujjar Pratihar Emperor " Mihir Bhoja the Great" who defeated Huns and Huns were later assimilated among Gujjars. It was a practice that time to assimilate the clans having equal status among equals and presently the Huns are a celebareted Gotra of Gujjars.
 
 
 
 


Edited by AP Singh - 19-Apr-2008 at 11:08
Back to Top
Julius Augustus View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 20-Mar-2008
Location: Tajikistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 274 		  Quote Julius Augustus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Apr-2008 at 11:41
here is how I view it, the Persians created their empire out of necessity, the conquest of Lydia by Cyrus was because Lydia had attacked the Persian Empire of that time with a timely assault, while the Persians and Medians of that time were fighting amongst themselves, Croesus being a wise strategist saw this time as a means of utilizing this civil war with a swift conquest and the destruction of its nemesis in the east, in regards to Media, they were freeing themselves as a vassal state and in turn united both Iranic tribes into a singular empire.

Greece was attacked because of what they did in Sardis, it was a matter of vengeance, now India had done nothing against the Persians of that time, to assault them would gain them nothing because they were already having a hard time maintaning their vast empire, to add to it may cost revolts.
 
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: 20-Apr-2008 at 11:41
Originally posted by Julius Augustus



 now India had done nothing against the Persians of that time, to assault them would gain them nothing because they were already having a hard time maintaning their vast empire, to add to it may cost revolts.
 


Reasonable but ethiopian texts disagree. Persians were really not in a position to attack  India.

"Alexander the great" by Wally Badge which is a Syriac edition, with English translation, of the folk-lore and legends connected to Alexander the Great. This ancient text represents a Greek text that is much older than any text that has been known before. This text shows that alexander was actually defeated (though perhaps a later layering of the text confuses the issue).

a) Darius's call to help from Porus



b) Porus's letter to Alexander and the reply and the ensuing fight





Back to Top
Julius Augustus View Drop Down
Earl
Earl
Avatar

Joined: 20-Mar-2008
Location: Tajikistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 274 		  Quote Julius Augustus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 12:28
Originally posted by ruffian

Originally posted by Julius Augustus



 now India had done nothing against the Persians of that time, to assault them would gain them nothing because they were already having a hard time maintaining their vast empire, to add to it may cost revolts.
 


Reasonable but ethiopian texts disagree. Persians were really not in a position to attack  India.

"Alexander the great" by Wally Badge which is a Syriac edition, with English translation, of the folk-lore and legends connected to Alexander the Great. This ancient text represents a Greek text that is much older than any text that has been known before. This text shows that alexander was actually defeated (though perhaps a later layering of the text confuses the issue).

a) Darius's call to help from Porus



b) Porus's letter to Alexander and the reply and the ensuing fight







good points  but as you have stated these are legends and folklore. but sometimes legends are even more real than histories.
Back to Top
True Afghan View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 21-Mar-2008
Location: Paradise
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		  Quote True Afghan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01-May-2008 at 18:57
Originally posted by Zagros

Originally posted by True Afghan

Originally posted by Zagros

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.


 

Not quit true...but the "Persian influences" were imposed by sword of Turks, Moghols and Afghans. Whom in tern were influences by Tajik culturally. That is why Hindustan's Muslim are culturally closer to Tajiks then Turkiszed "Farsi ethnic of Fars"

 
Well at that point there was no difference between Persian and Tajik culture at that time and the only difference today is religious sect - language, architecture, national heros everything is the same.   The cultural influence came from the whole Persian world from Fars itself to Khorasan/Afghanistan
 
 

 

The culture influence did not come from Fars.. indeed the Farsi---Aryan had come from Central Asia and settled there...more over after Arab invasion for more two hundred years the official language was Arabic...until Samanid of Balkh whom changed the language to Dari--- Darbai language. The new language Dari which later was called as New Farsi is actually a mixture of Palavi, Arabic and Awestian….and it originated from Balkh under Samanids rulers. Thus the culturally influences went from Balkh to west…not the other way around…specially when almost 90% of great  Persian poets and philosophers of ancient times---including Zoroastrian, Daqiqi Balkhi(the one who actualy started Shahnahma) and so on were native of Balkh---Khorrasaan and Now Afghanistan.

 

More over here is what the great Fardawsi says about the actual country---“Iran”(Aryana Venjda---Aryana). There is no mention of Fars, Tahran, Tabriz or …..  

 

 

 

 

 فردوسی گرامی به ما میگوید که شهر های ایران کدام ها و کجاهااستند  
کزین سان همی جنگ شیران کنی  
همی ازپی شهر ایران کنی  
بگو تا من اکنون هم اندر شتاب  
نوندی فرستم به افراسیاب  
بدان تابفرمایدم تا زمین  
ببخشیم و پس در نوردیم کین  
چنانچون به گاه منوچهرشاه  
ببخشش همی داشت گیتی نگاه  
هران شهر کز مرز ایران نهی  
بگو تا کنیم آن ز ترکان تهی  
وز آباد و ویران و هر بوم و بر  
که فرمود کیخسرو دادگر  
از ایران بکوه اندر آید نخست  
در غرچگان از بر بوم بُُُست  
دگر تالقان شهرتا فاریاب  
همیدون در بلخ تا اندراب  
دگر پنجهیز و در بامیان  
سر مرز ایران و جای کیان  
دگر گوزکانان فرخنده جای  
نهادست نامش جهان کدخدای  
دگر مولیان تا دربدخشان  
همینست ازین پادشاهی نشان  
فروتر دگر دشت آموی و زم  
که با شهر ختلان براید برم  
چه شگنان وز ترمز ویسه گِِرد  
بخارا و شهری که هستش بگِِرد  
همیدون برو تا در سغد نیز  
نجوید کس آن پادشاهی بنیز  
وزان سو که شد رستم گرد سوز  
سپارم بدو کشور نیمروز  
زکوه و ز هامون بخوانم سپاه  
سوی باختر برگشاییم راه  
بپردازم این تا در هندوان  
نداریم تاریک ازین پس روان  
زکشمیر وز کابل و قندهار  
شما را بود آن همه زین شمار

 

 

 

basically present day Afghanistan with exception of Kashmir--khorrasan province of today’s "Iran" and Samarqand and Bokhara which is sadly today occupied by Uzbaks.

 

 
Back to Top
pikesman View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2007
Location: India
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 0 		  Quote pikesman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Jul-2008 at 03:48
The ancient persians didnt even conquer antarctica ..so ??
There are three ways to an argument..your way,my way and the right way !!
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: 16-Jul-2008 at 04:43
Originally posted by pikesman

The ancient persians didnt even conquer antarctica ..so ??


What do you mean? your sentence doesn't make sense.

Btw true-afghan if you have read shahnameh, you may find many names which are located in today Iran. Stop misleading people.Wink


Edited by Suren - 16-Jul-2008 at 04:44
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: 16-Jul-2008 at 17:34
The problem is that I don't think he has read the Shahnameh.

There are places from the northwest, the southwest, the southeast and north of modern day Iran mentioned in the Shahnameh.   But in those days Bukhara and the rest was considered a part of Iran.  And it is not suprrising since the language in those places is still persian.
Back to Top
Ardeshir View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 29-Dec-2007
Location: Iran
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28 		  Quote Ardeshir Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jul-2008 at 20:59
There was no need for ancient Persia to conquer india(non-iranic people) as it was a far off land and was not of any significance to them.. they did however conquere the Eastern Iranian plateau up to Pakistan(the last bastion of Iranic peoples in the east) including Pakistan's fertile lands of Sind & panjab and had an empire that stretched west to modern day Greece. 

Edited by Ardeshir - 19-Jul-2008 at 21:01
Thinking is the essence of wisdom
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19-Jul-2008 at 21:27

LAst time I checked, Sindh is a desert. And secondly I think you are mixing up India as in S Asia with the modern day republic of India.
Back to Top
MarcoPolo View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 05-Jul-2007
Location: Planet Earth
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 190 		  Quote MarcoPolo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Aug-2008 at 17:57

What i think he was referring to was the fertile plains of the indus river which in ancient times yielded much produce, further east of the indus lays the dessert which seperated the region from the rest of south asia(modern day india etc...)  even in the current context.  (is that right ardeshir?:?) Having secured such productive and fertile regions would have made sense in order to maintain such a vast empire as the Persian one.  As I understand it, the Persian satraps of Panjab and SIndh were the richest in the entire Persian empire and made considerable contributions to the treasury and to the army as there were known to be many Indus(Pakistan regiments).

Persians made it a point to conquer strategically important and vital regions such as the Nile(egypt), fertile crescent of Iraq/Turkey, Arghandab/kabul valley/Oxus river of Afghanistan/Central Asia and the indus river(Pakistan) which was and still is(if im not mistaken) one of the most fertile regions of the world.  Ancient persian techniques are still often found in these regions rural areas

Edited by MarcoPolo - 03-Aug-2008 at 18:03
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 3456>

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 0.093 seconds.