why didn't ancient persia ever conquer india?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: History of the South Asian subcontinent
Forum Discription: The Indian sub-continent and South Central Asia
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=23588
Printed Date: 14-May-2024 at 14:28
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: why didn't ancient persia ever conquer india?
Posted By: Guests
Subject: why didn't ancient persia ever conquer india?
Date Posted: 21-Feb-2008 at 01:30
|
why did the persians never conquer ancient India? I mean they were able to conquer Greece then why not India. Was India really powerfull or the reason is something else? |
Replies:
Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 21-Feb-2008 at 02:31
|
Good question, what all was going on in Hindustan at the time? Sandragupta conquered modern Bharat(India) in 300s or 280s BC. So before that India was pieces of enemy kingdoms from the times of the Mahabharat to Sandragupta. I have read the Hackhamanids had Gujrat, but even Gujrat broke away from them after rebelling. And later all of Pakistan and Half of South Afghanistan was under the reign of Maghada and Buddhist proliferation spread. ------------- Mughal e Azam |
Posted By: Darius of Parsa
Date Posted: 21-Feb-2008 at 03:30
|
There is not a solid reason to why Achaemenid Persia pushed their armies west, rather than east. It could come down to the order of in which events occured.
The island of Naxos in the Agean revolted against Persian rule in 502 B.C. The Ionian Greeks revolted soon after. The Lydian satrap and the Athenians sent aid to the rebellious Greeks. When the iron fist of Persia crushed the revolt in 494 B.C, after the Persian victory at Lade. The rebels then paid their homage to the Great King, Darius of Persia. The Athenians however, were left in relative terms, untouched. Thus leading to the invasion of mainland Greece. The first invasion was stopped in its tracks at the Battle of Marathon, despite opening way to Athens itself, (The Persian objective was to burn Athens to the ground, much like the Persian city Sardis in the Ionian revolt). Xerxes' second invasion proved to be no more successful. After the second invasion the Greeks became more and more darring, attacking Persian trading vessals, and ports along the Agean Sea. India on the other hand had little or no intention to attack Persia. However, with time, and a secure northwestern border, the Great King's may have marched their armies beyond the eastern frontier.
------------- What is the officer problem? |
Posted By: Suren
Date Posted: 21-Feb-2008 at 03:48
|
I think Achaemenids had already conquered a lot of lands and maintaining such a vast terittory for a long term shows a significant power. They had rebellions inside their country and were busy about them. Two of the main reasons of downfall of Persians were their vast empire and civil wars. This shows why they did not try to conquer more lands. Invasion of Greece was a punishment for their help in Ionian revolt and destruction of Sardis, not a conquest. ------------- Anfører |
Posted By: Darius of Parsa
Date Posted: 21-Feb-2008 at 04:12
|
Which is what I stated above.
------------- What is the officer problem? |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 21-Feb-2008 at 05:27
|
They had the Punjab, the richest part of S Asia. WHat was the point of going further? ------------- |
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 21-Feb-2008 at 06:14
|
Well Persia cannot just will and conquer everything you know.
Persia didn't conquered India did for the same reason that they ddin't conquer China. When they got their act togehter both of them were far powerful than Persia in every matter economic, human resource wise, militiarily everything.
Perisa knew what it was getting into and never really pursued the east front that much.
Punjab shook off the Peria rule very very quickly, reminding Persia what it was dealing with.
|
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 22-Feb-2008 at 12:29
|
precedence and proximity.
Precedence: Warring and conquest already existed between states to the west.
Proximity: Persia was sitting on the other side of the world, as part of Mesopotamia.
------------- |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 22-Feb-2008 at 18:15
Are these your own deductions? You were there? Wow.  I think Sparten pretty much nailed it. ------------- |
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2008 at 04:55
No i wasn't, but i read about that period a lot. Do you dispute the fact that that region had a significant section of the world's population at that time. That it was the richest region in the world, that they were able to raise armies which were the best of their times in terms of organization, strategy, technology (elephants), the valour of their solidery (read about the what the vanqusihed forces of the region of the times used to do) as well as just the sheer numbers they could host in battle.
And Persia's domination of the Punjab lasted for a very brief time, almost as brief as their occupation of Greece.
If Persia could go as far east as Egypt surely given the riches of this region they must have wanted to go east as well, but didn't for certain reasons.
|
Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2008 at 08:38
Pure speculation on the part of sparten. Read this. "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 
 |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2008 at 10:39
|
Read the topic further, this is about the Persians, not old Alex. ------------- |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2008 at 13:19
|
I think Alexander had a different rationale for his conquests than the Persian empire - he was simply concerned with size at any cost from what I know, for example perilously forcing his entire army over a long stretch of desert just to get to the subcontinent. In contrast the Persians were more concerned with cost-benefit and how much they could leverage from any peripheral region based on the cost. Obviously having to administer an area so far from the seat of power would have tremendous human and capital costs and would be susceptible to rebellion. ------------- |
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2008 at 18:06
| The subcontinent was much less farther than Greece form Persia , and was vastly more richer. Persia wanted an Empire which meant as much territory as they could get, whatever that territory that may be. |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2008 at 18:18
|
I meant the gravity of power which is not necessarily related to physical distance - the Persians were well established in the Middle East and Asia Minor and used familiar forms of governing and administration - I think deep India was culturally on a different plain, if you get my meaning. Of course, I am just pondering here. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2008 at 18:46
|
Not really, the Persians in what is now Pakistan had far greater influence esp w of the Indus. The decision to stop at the Beas was based upon the fact that they had reached pretty much the natural boundry. Most people from the west did that, the Afghans and Mongols and Turks. ------------- |
Posted By: seko12
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2008 at 19:29
| 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. |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 23-Feb-2008 at 20:56
no actually he did that to get back to Fars, he reached the Indus via the mountains. ------------- |
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2008 at 09:17
I tend to agree with you. Perisans just like the Elamites before them had much more contacts with people to their west than to their east.
|
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2008 at 09:31
I don't tend to agree with that. Apart from the Achaemnids Persia borders never went inside into what is now Pakistan and apart from a few invaders like Nadir Khan Pakistan didn't saw much Persian attempts at expansionism. The Perisianiazation of the west of Indus was indirect rather than direct. Many groups of people who were heavily Persianized like the Turks, Mughals, Afghans, Balochis (their movement into Baluchistan was not pan Iranian exopansionism) and not Persia itself brought Persian influence there. But we are talking about a time when Persia had just came into being and in 300 B.C Afghanistan was a lot more under the subcontinental sphere of influence than it was Persian as a few centuries later under the Khushanis it would be a hub of Shiva worship and then later it would be largely Bhuddist. When the Parsis moved east in about 700 A.D to protect their religion they moved into Gujrat and not what is now Pakistan pretty much indcating that til that time beofre the Afghani, Balochi, Turk and Mughal expansion that area had little Persian influence. |
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2008 at 09:39
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.
|
Posted By: Suren
Date 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 |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 24-Feb-2008 at 14:24
|
That was my point, Nadir took Delhi than he fell back to the Beas. ------------- |
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 25-Feb-2008 at 04:22
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.
|
Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 25-Feb-2008 at 06:03
Because they had better fish to fry.  ------------- Mughal e Azam |
Posted By: Zagros
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 26-Feb-2008 at 05:10
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.
|
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 26-Feb-2008 at 05:19
People say that the "peacock throne" should be returned to from where Nadir Shah looted it.
|
Posted By: Zagros
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 27-Feb-2008 at 05:43
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.
|
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 27-Feb-2008 at 06:16
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.
|
Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 27-Feb-2008 at 07:11
I do know the topic. Did you read darius's letter to Porus? Does that sound like a victor writing to a vassal? |
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 27-Feb-2008 at 07:30
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.
|
Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 27-Feb-2008 at 12:14
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. |
Posted By: Guests
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: innocent
Date 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. |
Posted By: AP Singh
Date 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.
|
Posted By: Paul
Date 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.
------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 28-Feb-2008 at 11:59
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. |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 28-Feb-2008 at 12:38
|
India wasn't a nation, it was many nations. However being rich isn't a reason to invade, alone. ------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 28-Feb-2008 at 13:01
You are of course referring to the Mughals, which proves my point. After the Islamization of Persia Persian civilization was the new Islamic Civilization especially for the areas to the east and north east of Persia. Ironically Perisan culture spread much more under Islam than it otherwise in all likelihood would have, the only real serious casuality being Zoarastrainism.
|
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 28-Feb-2008 at 13:05
Persia wanted to rule the whole world.
 |
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 28-Feb-2008 at 13:12
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.
|
Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 28-Feb-2008 at 15:28
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.     |
Posted By: Suren
Date Posted: 28-Feb-2008 at 16:47
Just keep dreaming about how big and powerful was India (in that era) and no one dared to attack India. India was the most powerful and richest country in the world and small empires like Persian empire and Macedonian empire didn't dare to attack her. Indian warrior were so fierce even the Romans couldn't beat them. In fact all the treasures of the world were in India. All other countries had nothing interesting and lived in poverty, so powerful Indian emperors never wanted to conquer other countries...#@! Hey wake up! if the Indians were that much brave and fierce how come they never conquered Persia, China, central Asia or near east? @ ruffian: You live in fantasy man. Talking about Persian empire had noting worth to conquer, just ask Greek and Macedonian fellows about how much treasure Persians had . They were surprised from amount of treasure they found in Persepolis and other Persian cities. ------------- Anfører |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 28-Feb-2008 at 17:46
|
No, it's true. Bharat could have overrun the world...but it didn't need to, much like today's India. Just be thankful Hindi isn't your first language today. ------------- |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 29-Feb-2008 at 05:28
That is so totally wrong when I saw it in the other thread I didn't even bother about refuting it. The subcontient has never behaved as a single political entity even during the periods when it was one. Every country in India, whether native or foriegn, has been able to take this bit, then that bit, sign a treaty with them, and then wage war of them. Your source manages to be both superficial and biased. You wouldn't even realise that the "great" Hindu resistance lost, or that the British weren't even on the scene when the Maratha confederacy had its hopes of succeeding the Mughal empire smashed - at Panipat, by the Afghans. Name me one occasion when one political entity in India has aided another political entity soley because they were fellow "Indians". When did Kerala aid the Rajputs? ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 29-Feb-2008 at 06:02
|
That would be..............never.
------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 29-Feb-2008 at 06:03
Hindi is the first language of about 1% of India today. ------------- |
Posted By: innocent
Date Posted: 29-Feb-2008 at 08:04
| Indians are divided on Caste and Language.. |
Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 29-Feb-2008 at 11:49
You are confusing multiple issues. India was rich, rather very rich. Do you dispute this? Please provide sources that we can browse. India was attacked. It is recorded well. But what happened to the attackers and what effect they had on India is what is interesting. Then there is hyperbole that India was beaten multiple times. Mostly the view of apologists and court historians of the attackers! Local records point diametrically opposite facts.
Please point our where I said persians had nothing worth conquering. |
Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 29-Feb-2008 at 11:50
Sorry. what do you mean by hindi not your first lang? |
Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 29-Feb-2008 at 11:54
Your personal opinion is not very relevant unless you are a professional historian and have published peer-reviewed material. If you have it please point us so that we can read it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilson_Hunter - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wilson_Hunter , WIliam Hunter was a historian who knew India very well and the pages in earlier post are his work. Before you laugh of credible sources please proivde holes in his argument so that they can be evaluated. If you are talking about confederacy there are many example in north india. Take the rout that Prithviraj Chauhan gave to Mohammed Ghori. There was a confederacy of rajput kings under his aegis. |
Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 29-Feb-2008 at 11:59
What would be never? |
Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 29-Feb-2008 at 12:00
Is this a joke or are you serious because if you are serious then I can provide you data to the contrary. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 29-Feb-2008 at 13:51
|
No. Dead serious. Maydan mein ah jahain. ------------- |
Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 29-Feb-2008 at 14:57
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindi#Varieties_and_registers Aaap jung chedna chahte hain? |
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 29-Feb-2008 at 15:10
| I think that this thread has gotten a bit too rough. The direct answer to the question of this thread should be that India was a lot larger than both Babylonia and Egypt the two other major civilizations which the Persians were able to take but they hold some part of Punjab and Ghandhara and Balochistan for some time. |
Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 29-Feb-2008 at 16:27
There are no archaeological remains which point to the occupation of Punjab by persians. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 29-Feb-2008 at 19:27
Nahin mein sirif such chatha huon.
Anyhow, the seem to call all N Indian languages as "Hindi" which is palpably wrong. I stand by that.
------------- |
Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 01-Mar-2008 at 02:51
No. These are just dialects of hindi which is spoken in uttar pradesh (most populous state in India) , Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Haryana, Rajasthan. If you add the population of these states it is more then 1%! Where did you get this data from? |
Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 01-Mar-2008 at 06:22
|
India was very wealthy during most of its history. Colombus didnt attempt to circumnavigate the world because he was bored, rather because he was hoping to trade with Indians.
Jewelery of Jaipur, Gold of Hyderabad, and Film Industry of Mumbai have kept India rich for thousands of years. Before there was Brad Pitt, there was Dilip Kumar.
Okay, im just joking about the movie industry. However, Wikipedia your face, my friends.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_GDP_%28PPP%29 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_past_GDP_%28PPP%29
You will notice India will maintain top 3 positions throughout history, until the British Empire; which is why I say they were the worst disaster in Bharati History.
In fact, look at 1870. There is a seperate section for British Empire, and #3 is British Raj. Incredible. ------------- Mughal e Azam |
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 01-Mar-2008 at 07:08
The British was the biggest disaster that ever befell this region... ever.
It should also be noted that India started falling behinde even in Mughal times. Mughals like the british were foreign rulers who were not at all interested in the well being of the general populace and only on enriching themselves by ruling through turkish army most notabely their cavalry.
|
Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 01-Mar-2008 at 07:12
|
Also, I already told you guys, the reasons the Persians could not hold India was because they lost in a Cricket match and went home. ------------- Mughal e Azam |
Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 01-Mar-2008 at 12:53
Great posts Mughaal especially on how rich India was. Hey did the persians loose in a game of polo and not cricket perhaps? |
Posted By: Mughal e Azam
Date Posted: 01-Mar-2008 at 15:51
Just to point out though, Mughals lived in India and supported India with Mughal money; Britain didnt do the same. ------------- Mughal e Azam |
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 01-Mar-2008 at 16:11
I think this line of thought needs to be a bit elaborated upon. It should be noted that in the entire history of the sub-continent there is only one political entity which tried to behave like an Empire and that was the Gupta empire of around 300 B.C. I think that their fourth or fifth emperor was Ashoka. He was called Chand Ashoka by the general populace for coming to power by killing his brothers a rather routine affair in most other kingdoms, for example in the mughal line there was hardly any emperor which did not come to power by killing his brothers or father or at least imprisoning them. Then Ashoka went to the task of doing what empires do which is annexing territory to his empire. Enter Kalinga whose king was rather a proud man and he vowed not to giev in too Ashoka. Naturally enough Ashoka attacked the kingdom. They were no hopers in front of the mighty Army of Ashoka. But according to subcontinental tradition the males of the kingdom of Kalinga did not surrendered to the armies of Ashoka and preffered to die. This resulted in massive bloodshed. Ashoka was watching this all from behinde the lines and his reaction to this all was "Oh!!! What have i done". Then in his privacy he pondered over the fact that the blood of all those which he shed did him no harm unlike those before which he had killed (like his brothers). He then made a decision and decided to embrace Bhuddism and Bhuddism speard under his rule. His nature can be peeked in one of his lines in the Ashoka pillars
"I think all of humanity as my children and just like all every father wants his children to be happy i also want all of humanity to be happy"
And so that is how the only native empire of the sub-continent ended.
After that there was hardly ever any political entity which can be called an empire, and by empire i mean a political entity which annexes territories which are completely out of its sphere of influence, after that.
The people of the subcontinent proudly claim that they have not attacked any foreign country for the last 10,000 years and while that maybe slightly incorrect but generally it is true that the people of this region have almost never indluged in unprovoked agression against anyone right throughout their history. The two sole superpowers of the ancient world India and China never locked horns despite being right next to each other for this same reason. Uneccessay bloodshed especially one gennerally whose sole purpose is the blostering of the ego of one man (the emperor) was looked down upon by the culture.
|
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 01-Mar-2008 at 16:15
Yes but the money was used to built projects like the Taj Mahal and the peacock throne. These type of projects do not bloster the infrastructure and don't lead to further development.
Akbar planned city which was abondoned after only 15 years just shows you that how reckless Mughals could be with their money
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 01-Mar-2008 at 17:26
|
Bilal, the reason China and India never went to war is due to the fact China did nit always rule Tibet (which is next to India) and there is a little thing called the Himalayas seperating the two. ------------- |
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 01-Mar-2008 at 18:02
|
^ Yes of course, you are right. But still nations with even more geographical disonance locked horns. These regions never clashed with each other even in indo-Chian where both of them had their interests. |
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2008 at 13:14
| And even that first empire arose was to derive the froeigner Greeks out. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 02-Mar-2008 at 18:41
| 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. |
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2008 at 08:22
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.
|
Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 03-Mar-2008 at 12:02
I do not think geography was a deterrant at all. Trade routes existed in Indus valley civilization using which goods of this civilization have been unearthed in mesopatamia. People knew how to cross these mountains through passes. Real reason was that persians did not lock horns with Indians , India was a formidable entity. Please Darius's letter requesting for help from Porus. |
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 12:34
|
I really feel offended by these type of comments. People who make these comments should gather their facts more carefully. Baluchistan was never really seriously part of the Persian sphere of influence. There were three Persian empires which exerted influece in this region. The eastern part of the Sassanid empire was hotly contested and it could never be called a real part of the Persian empire. The Saffarid empire controlled western Pakistan for a very a short while and it was not actually ruled by a proper dynasty but rather just a warlord dynasty rather like the Lodhi one. And the Saffavid dynasty ruled only a tiny part of Balochistan. The change of language from a Indo-Aryan one to a Iranian one is very recent considering the antiquity of this region. Before the 12th century the population of Baluchistan was speaking Indo-Aryan Prakrit and only with the arrival of the Westenr Iranian Baloch's did the language changed to an Iranian one. But the history of Balochistan goes very far back in time with the Mehrgarh culture from 10,000 years ago and hence this Iranianization of Baluchistan is very recent. Similarly NWFP historically known as Ganshara the Pakhtuns originally a mountain tribe as indentified by Herodotus moved to south east into NWFP and assimilated a population which spoke the Pothohari Indo-Aryan tongue of hindko and which can still be found mainly concentrated in the cities and comprise 30% of that province's population. And considering the history of this region that too is very recent. Pannini lived in the Peshawar valley and he spoke Sanskrit and the vernacualr language of the population was also a dialect of Sanskrit as his work was on the difference between Vedic Sanskrit and spoken Sanskrit of his times . So i really don't get what you mean by saying that Balucistan and N.W.F.P have historically been always a part of Persia than ruled by the dynasties from what is now Pakistan. Please back up your claim with historical facts. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 15:26
| I didn't say always^ but more part of their history they have been either under persian or central asians. So they are more central asian/persian then they are indian |
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 08-Mar-2008 at 21:37
Please back up waht you are saying. I have told you that the Iranianization of this region is very recent so how can you say that for "most" of their history they have been under Persian rule.
|
Posted By: True Afghan
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2008 at 03:27
I agree to some extend but you need to tell me who is a "Persian"? one who speak Farsi language? or one who is from |
Posted By: True Afghan
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2008 at 04:31
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... |
Posted By: True Afghan
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2008 at 04:35
"marathas" were crashed at the hand of Durranis before Britishif British had not come there would never be a unified modern state called |
Posted By: True Afghan
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2008 at 04:40
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 |
Posted By: True Afghan
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2008 at 04:44
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 |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 24-Mar-2008 at 05:16
|
^
Way ta go Tex! ------------- |
Posted By: bilal_ali_2000
Date Posted: 02-Apr-2008 at 13:21
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.
|
Posted By: Aussiedude
Date 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. |
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 06-Apr-2008 at 16:41
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 ------------- |
Posted By: Darius of Parsa
Date Posted: 07-Apr-2008 at 01:42
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? |
Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 11-Apr-2008 at 05:08
One defeat does not mean much. Mughal Delhi was puppet in the hands of marathas. Durranis did not stay in delhi and returned back. |
Posted By: AP Singh
Date Posted: 19-Apr-2008 at 10:41
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.
|
Posted By: Julius Augustus
Date 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. |
Posted By: ruffian
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 11:41
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
|
Posted By: Julius Augustus
Date Posted: 20-Apr-2008 at 12:28
good points but as you have stated these are legends and folklore. but sometimes legends are even more real than histories. |
Posted By: True Afghan
Date Posted: 01-May-2008 at 18:57
The culture influence did not come from More over here is what the great Fardawsi says about the actual country---“
basically present day |
Posted By: pikesman
Date 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 !! |
Posted By: Suren
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2008 at 04:43
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.  |
Posted By: Zagros
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: Ardeshir
Date 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. ------------- Thinking is the essence of wisdom |
Posted By: Guests
Date 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. ------------- |
Posted By: MarcoPolo
Date 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 |