AHC: Is it plausable for the Indian kingdoms to resistIslamic invasions

Alright so here is a challenge with a POD no earlier than the 8th century find away to [prevent the Islamic invasions of India and find a way for the rajput kingdoms to hold back the calphite. Is it plausable? If it does occur how does this change Indian history with no Muslim incursions into India. What happens?
 
Well, most likely a lot of small kingdoms still being there in India when Europeans arrive, except they have different religion, names and rulers. And the British still take control of them, with the result today being just one India, no Pakistan or Bangladesh. Not much, really.
 
I thought about it also. But in my mind it was more about gradual eviction of Islam beyond the Indus, not the immediate united resistance against muslim armies from the very beginning.

1) Timur's campaign against the Delhi sultanate does its job as it did IRL, crippling them severely.
2) Hinduist Deva dynasty of Bengal survives beyond 1300s, butterflying away islam in that area.
3) (My favorite indian state) Vijayanagara Empire is more cohesive and capable of projecting its power to the north of subcontinent, lets say in a post Timur gang bang of the Delhi s. with your stated Rajaputana.
4)Then you maybe have Deva Bengal's support from the east, maybe rebellion of Orissa and Punjab as well, and that's that.

Also some sort of mutual response alliance should be established for the benefit of keeping them at bay, but that is another story.
 
Arab incursions only really went beyond raiding with the Ghazvanids. They invaded India and they were the creators of the Ghurids and Delhi sultanate. Somehow stop the Turks from getting a foothold in Khorasan and you have your problem solved at least temporarily.
 
Well, most likely a lot of small kingdoms still being there in India when Europeans arrive, except they have different religion, names and rulers. And the British still take control of them, with the result today being just one India, no Pakistan or Bangladesh. Not much, really.

A lot of small kingdoms who won't have had their blood and treasure drained by the Late and Post-Mughal wars... British dominance is far from certain, or even any European.
 
One very important factor in the Islamic conquest was their superior horses. Indian states almost always lacked in both quality and numbers of horses relative to the Islamic invaders.
 
One very important factor in the Islamic conquest was their superior horses. Indian states almost always lacked in both quality and numbers of horses relative to the Islamic invaders.

Relative to anyone, really, since India is bad horse country. It may not be a tsetse zone like Africa, but it's still tropical, mostly. Maybe if they took better advantage of their elephants? I've heard tell that those are somewhat effective against cavalry. I suppose that doesn't deal with the mobility issues, though.
 

birdboy2000

Banned
Invaders from the Khorasan area (or at least taking that route) carving out kingdoms in northern India seems a recurring theme in Indian history. Indo-Greeks, Indo-Scythians, Yuezhi, Delhi Sultanate, Mughals, Alexander, Nadir Shah, and I'm probably missing some. I have no idea why, mind you - this area isn't my specialty (maybe cavalry strength, as mentioned upthread?) - but if it keeps happening and virtually always in this direction, not in reverse, I'm guessing there's some cause.

So I think that while Muslim conquest of parts of northern India could be delayed by one strong state or another, to stop it outright I'd assume you'd need to prevent the people of the regions which keep conquering India from adopting Islam.
 
Invaders from the Khorasan area (or at least taking that route) carving out kingdoms in northern India seems a recurring theme in Indian history. Indo-Greeks, Indo-Scythians, Yuezhi, Delhi Sultanate, Mughals, Alexander, Nadir Shah, and I'm probably missing some. I have no idea why, mind you - this area isn't my specialty (maybe cavalry strength, as mentioned upthread?) - but if it keeps happening and virtually always in this direction, not in reverse, I'm guessing there's some cause.

I suspect its mainly opportunity. All these invaders attacked it at weak points of its history. They are in the one area which has easy access to India(easy is relative) and if you look it at it nearly every single one has attacked weak, small kingdoms.
 
I have no idea why, mind you - this area isn't my specialty (maybe cavalry strength, as mentioned upthread?) - but if it keeps happening and virtually always in this direction, not in reverse, I'm guessing there's some cause.
Look at Afghanistan. Look at India. If you're in India, what use is Afghanistan to you economically? Create a buffer and turn your attention to far richer pickings in easier terrain south and east. If you want to know why invasions usually went one way, that's why.
 
A lot of small kingdoms who won't have had their blood and treasure drained by the Late and Post-Mughal wars... British dominance is far from certain, or even any European.

With no Mughals, there'd be someone else taking the power vacuum. Say, stronger Vijayangar that proves problematic for kingdoms in the north. Or, some other kingdom in the north - like some version of Rajputana that takes control of Indus and Ganges, becoming, essentially, a hindu Mughal Empire. Or earlier Maratha... there'd always be wars draining subcontinent's resources.
 
With no Mughals, there'd be someone else taking the power vacuum. Say, stronger Vijayangar that proves problematic for kingdoms in the north. Or, some other kingdom in the north - like some version of Rajputana that takes control of Indus and Ganges, becoming, essentially, a hindu Mughal Empire. Or earlier Maratha... there'd always be wars draining subcontinent's resources.

Indeed, the period imediately before the Mughal invasion saw a continual struggle for dominance between the Rashtrakutas, the Palas and the Gujarat-Pratiharas over the Kanauj Triangle, while in the south the Cholas and the Pandyas were almost continually fighting.
 
With no Mughals, there'd be someone else taking the power vacuum. Say, stronger Vijayangar that proves problematic for kingdoms in the north. Or, some other kingdom in the north - like some version of Rajputana that takes control of Indus and Ganges, becoming, essentially, a hindu Mughal Empire. Or earlier Maratha... there'd always be wars draining subcontinent's resources.

And Aurengzeb's wars were a massive bloodletting motivated by his own commitment to heterodoxy.

Anyway, before Islam broke past the Indus, it seems that some Hindu states were beginning to evolve into nation-states, especially Gujarat and Bengal. Extend this trend and you have a series of states with strong defenses and local loyalties. Also, European technological and logistical superiority is by no means assured, especially with a POD that far back.
 
Top