An Alternate Fate for the Great Subcontinent?

Thermopylae

I have begun getting very, very interested in Indian history (and Eastern history in general), and have as such began pondering PoDs concerning those regions.

The most intriguing example to me is the idea that the Muslim invaders who established their great Sultanates from the mouth of the Indus to the high Deccan might have been expelled, through a series of Indian revolts and/or expert military leadership on the side of, say, Vijaynagara (or, alternatively, boneheaded military/administrative blunders on the part of the Sultans).

So I suppose my question is twofold: what would it take for the Sultans to be expelled from India (or even preempted entirely)? Additionally, how might the lack of the Sultanates affect European colonization of India (if it even gets off the ground), and how might India look today?

Specifically, I'm most interested in the tantalizing possibility that India could even be unified under the leadership of fiercely-protective Hindu Vijaynagara, whose leaders at least nominally sought to expel the Muslims, if only from the more Dravidian sections of the subcontinent. (One might even say that this attitude could be the seeds for some sort of nationalism that could arise out of India, although I'm sure that's generalizing a bit).
 

Tom Veil

The most successful Muslim empire, the Mughals, barely got off the ground, and had incredible luck both times that they invaded the Delhi heartland. They would be very easy to knock off. Of course, by the time they emerge, the Muslim ruling class is well established across India. Other individual Muslim states can often be picked off by changing a battle or two as well.

Knocking out the Muslims entirely? That's a lot harder. India is hemmed in by geography in every possible direction except for northwest -- and that's where the Muslims come from. :) Essentially, you are asking for the Punjab/Doab valleys to be systemically stronger than Persia and Afghanistan.

We're dealing with 2 different problems. Afghanistan is the birthplace of so many empires not because it's a great place to live, but because it's a great launching pad for nomadic warriors. To stop that, the Punjab needs to have a unified, defense-minded society from very early on. We'll need the sophistication of the Rajputs, but much much less infighting, and starting about 700 AD.

To stop Persia, we need India to develop more infrastructure and innovation. Often during India's peaks, its downfall would be that the government unintentionally discouraged civic works or economic growth through an abusive tax system. So while a Persian ruler's legacy would be things like irrigation systems and new technologies that could benefit people hundreds of years later, the typical Indian ruler's legacy was yet another temple and yet more jewelery.
 

Smaug

Tom Veil said:
The most successful Muslim empire, the Mughals, barely got off the ground, and had incredible luck both times that they invaded the Delhi heartland. They would be very easy to knock off. Of course, by the time they emerge, the Muslim ruling class is well established across India. Other individual Muslim states can often be picked off by changing a battle or two as well.

Knocking out the Muslims entirely? That's a lot harder. India is hemmed in by geography in every possible direction except for northwest -- and that's where the Muslims come from. :) Essentially, you are asking for the Punjab/Doab valleys to be systemically stronger than Persia and Afghanistan.

We're dealing with 2 different problems. Afghanistan is the birthplace of so many empires not because it's a great place to live, but because it's a great launching pad for nomadic warriors. To stop that, the Punjab needs to have a unified, defense-minded society from very early on. We'll need the sophistication of the Rajputs, but much much less infighting, and starting about 700 AD.

To stop Persia, we need India to develop more infrastructure and innovation. Often during India's peaks, its downfall would be that the government unintentionally discouraged civic works or economic growth through an abusive tax system. So while a Persian ruler's legacy would be things like irrigation systems and new technologies that could benefit people hundreds of years later, the typical Indian ruler's legacy was yet another temple and yet more jewelery.
Click to expand...

I would fling out there that India has a history of using the materials it has available. There's a line that runs down the middle of it,(can't remember the name, its from a anthropology class), which dictates that the Eastern part of the Sub-Continent has a sub-standard level of cultural advancement, when in reality, it was a matter of a higher use of stone and metal tools, in the west, which survived to this day.

Just because a society uses natural material such as bamboo and other materials doesn't mean its not sophisticated in my opinion, either intellectually, or scientifically. It just means that thier raw materials don't survive as long in the fossil record.

I think its obvious that the Fertile Crescent was the birthplace of modern civilization, and India was an important part of this. JMO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top