AHC: Buddhist Crusade?
- Thread starter mlp
- Start date
It isn't entirely impossible for specific countries/regions to have particularly significant militaristic governments while retaining Buddhism, as there were several examples of this IOTL. For example, several Chinese historical figures claimed to be reincarnations of Buddha while undertaking extensive military campaigns in order to "pacify" border regions, while Goryeo, another Buddhist country, was founded by Gung Ye, who also claimed to be another reincarnation. In addition, the state continued to maintain a significant military, mostly due to consistent threats from the north, and the military faction even managed to assume de facto control over the government from 1170-1270.
That being said, however, this scenario is unlikely mostly due to geopolitics, along with significant cultural shifts over centuries. Most of India was divided among Hindu and Muslim entities by the time that the Muslims expanded into the subcontinent, as Buddhism became less attractive due to social issues. In addition, East Asia generally did not have particularly strong cultural ties with India after the 10th century, not to mention that various entities within Southeast Asia had numerous regional issues to deal with.
I thought that you weren't fond of people who were set in their "worldview," as you stated in another thread, but I'm just going to assume that you made this post based on a limited amount of knowledge. I'm more than open to ideas suggesting that events could have turned out radically different from IOTL, but only within specified limits, as an incredible amount of research is generally needed to cover events pertaining to a specific country/region. I will also acknowledge that there is no real "answer" to a specific question, as there are multiple possibilities and viewpoints, but the ones which have been thoroughly researched and meticulously analyzed generally tend to be better ones.
Not likely. The most obvious reason is that India is quite far away from most Buddhist countries, so that's going to be a substantial obstacle until modern times. China, the largest country you mention, also developed its own Buddhist holy sites in China itself, rather reducing its dependence on India for Buddhism, so there's going to be less interest for invading India to reclaim sacred sites. While there are historical examples which might qualify as Buddhist holy war in China, they're poor examples because they are motivated more by war and hardship than religious devotion. So there's not going to be much interest in holy war in that sense either.
Assuming you have a POD after Islam takes over northern India (so roughly 1000 or so), you're talking about a time when China is much less interested in taking over foreign lands.
No, Buddhists can be quite militaristic, and the idea that all/real Buddhists are pacifists does not make sense. The example of the Japanese from the 1930s to 1945 is one example, perhaps the most prominent, of a militant Buddhist population. Modern day examples would be the conduct of Buddhists in Sri Lanka and to a lesser extent Burma and Thailand.
Burma and Sri Lanka, under various dynasties, both were very interested in Bodh Gaya and the temple. Both wished to restore the temple (begins with an M) from damage incurred during the Islamic invasions, but it was Mughal policy that forbid foreign monarch's from sending missions to the area. So from that I'd say you need to greatly strengthen nearby Buddhist states and at the same time greatly weaken the Muslims. The interested Buddhists don't have the numbers to take on Muslim India without great political discord to exploit
(Information all from a reading I just had two days ago for my Southeast Asian History class. Yay college!)
(Information all from a reading I just had two days ago for my Southeast Asian History class. Yay college!)
It seems there is a big difference in foreign policy of Buddhist countries before and after the 10th century. Therefore, I should stop limiting the "crusade" only against Muslims and should also include Hindus- so that it can be before the 10th century.
Of course, there are major obstacles for this to happen, some of which I can identify are:
1. the Strait of Malacca is probably controlled by a Hindu government, which means it needs to either be circumvented or attacked. (in retrospect, this can get very interesting.)
2. there needs to be a central religious authority (and/or a regional Indian Buddhist government) that calls for action because of an attack.
3. the technology of the ships need to be in capacity to carry large amounts of people across a large expanse of water(Indian Ocean and South China Sea).
4. the Buddhist regional government that (may/may not) control the "holy areas of Buddhism" needs to logistically support the attack. Otherwise, it is impossible to go all the way into Northeast India.
please add to the list if you can find any other difficulties that have to be overcome to have the Buddhist Crusade!
How about a semi-ASB TM where Japan successfully subdues China while Germany wins at El-Alamein and captures Suez, thereby cutting Britain from India?
Japan then instigates anti-British rebellions in India and eventually sends fanatical troops to support them. At home, and across its Buddhist conquests, Japan starts a propaganda campaign claiming it's liberating Gaya from western imperialists. To further its agenda, Buddhist clergy from conquered nations are invited to visit Gaya to bolster Japan's dominance of Asia.
Japan then instigates anti-British rebellions in India and eventually sends fanatical troops to support them. At home, and across its Buddhist conquests, Japan starts a propaganda campaign claiming it's liberating Gaya from western imperialists. To further its agenda, Buddhist clergy from conquered nations are invited to visit Gaya to bolster Japan's dominance of Asia.
And Christianity has tennants like 'turn the other cheak' and 'thou shat not kill'.
I'm quite sure you knew, but just in case you didn't, in Burma the Buddhists are militaristic and Muslims are pacifist. So it's always the Buddhist monks that blow up mosques and other things. At least in Burma, that is. So there's the example for a non-pacifistic Buddhism!
No, there are still problems. The reason I bring up the 1000s is because that's when Muslims took over the Buddhist parts of India, so no anti-Muslim Buddhist holy war could have taken place before that. After about 750, China isn't likely to go on foreign expeditions in India at all. And even before that, China is developing its own Buddhist institutions, so it won't be dependent on India.It seems there is a big difference in foreign policy of Buddhist countries before and after the 10th century. Therefore, I should stop limiting the "crusade" only against Muslims and should also include Hindus- so that it can be before the 10th century.
Of course, there are major obstacles for this to happen, some of which I can identify are:
1. the Strait of Malacca is probably controlled by a Hindu government, which means it needs to either be circumvented or attacked. (in retrospect, this can get very interesting.)
2. there needs to be a central religious authority (and/or a regional Indian Buddhist government) that calls for action because of an attack.
3. the technology of the ships need to be in capacity to carry large amounts of people across a large expanse of water(Indian Ocean and South China Sea).
4. the Buddhist regional government that (may/may not) control the "holy areas of Buddhism" needs to logistically support the attack. Otherwise, it is impossible to go all the way into Northeast India.
please add to the list if you can find any other difficulties that have to be overcome to have the Buddhist Crusade!
I recall Muslims using violence against Buddhists in India. I don't recall Hindus doing the same thing, but it would be wrong to assume they are incapable of doing so. Hindus in India were already on the ascendancy. So while a Hindu holy war against Buddhists should be considered theoretecally possible, it would require some explanation as to how it comes about.
To be fair, if you have a point of divergence in 750 CE, I imagine you could end up with a Buddhist holy war against North Indian Hindus in 2000 CE, but I wouldn't be able to tell you the steps in between.
Technically, some japanese sects had VERY militant, nigh crusaderish bent in Sangoku era.... They where a big target of Nobunaga.
I think the problem is that the specific things that made for the crusades work are not necessarily present in Buddhist countries.
For example, samurai don't have a lack of things to do back home, nor any reason to think that going to free the "holy land" is going to be part of an already established tradition that pilgrimage to there is soul-saving.
Its not something you can just swap the trappings and call it the same thing, even if Buddhist warriors are entirely possible.
For example, samurai don't have a lack of things to do back home, nor any reason to think that going to free the "holy land" is going to be part of an already established tradition that pilgrimage to there is soul-saving.
Its not something you can just swap the trappings and call it the same thing, even if Buddhist warriors are entirely possible.
Idea - Korea or Vietnam as China start to loom in... and the rise of a 'radical' Confuscianist anti-Buddhism feeling, maybe... a mix of 'colonialism' and religious-philosophical warfare on local buddhism come... and the native buddhist radicalises.
More a form of 'Jyhad' than 'Crusades', more defensive than offensive, and I may say something ASBy, but..
I think it's definitely plausible if in a Ming-wank TL, the Emperor vassalizes Indochina and sets his sights on the fertile and productive Bengal. In order to legitimize himself in the eyes of his new Burmese, Thai, and Khmer subjects, and in order to expend potential rebels from these lands, he organizes an Imperial Pilgrimage to Bodh Gaya. The latest in Ming military technology combined with the devout Buddhist faith of the fighters leads to the swift conquest of the lower Ganges Valley. The Ming Dynasty gains legitimacy among its new subjects, potential rebels are either dead or defending holy sites, and the Empire gains an extremely fertile and wealthy land.
Problem solved.
Problem solved.
You can have Buddhism strike back (or strike first) without trying to pack into a mold that it doesn't fit.
scholar
Banned
Blatantly false. Buddhism was one of the more bloodsoaked religions of the east and has been aggressively expansionistic and xenophobic in more than one area of the world.
well, it's not me who started this.
But there is VERY SLIGHT analogies and concept in theory. 'Evil men against the Dharma etc'. And things ;like Nichiren and his proto-nationalism...
Depends on the where and when and the type of Buddhism you are referring to. Not all of them were wrapped in bloody sheets. Arguably Buddhism gentled one of the great conquerors of the sub-continent -- Ashoka Maurya.
katchen
Banned
Check out Wikipedia, Tibetan History. The period 1200-1600 was a period in which Tibetans and Mongols alike converted in a big way to Vajrayana Buddhism. This was also a time in which the Turkish Muslim world was in disarray. I don't know if the TIbetans and Mongols could have mustered a large enough army to conquer Northern India from the Muslims, but they could have put together enough of a Buddhist crusade to take an Iran and possibly Asia Minor and Golden Horde and Siberia that was in disarray. THEN, with the steppe united and Buddhist, maybe go after India.
