An extended Indosphere

GTAmario

Banned
Yes, I was thinking of the sea route- the Indo-Greeks are interesting but I've already done an AH scenario with them (Sons of Alexander) and I feel that South India gets ignored too much in AH- but it's interesting that a lot of people seem to be focusing on a later time period than I had thought.

The great age of Hindu/Buddhist expansion beyond India was in the last couple of centuries BCE and into the first few centuries CE. This is before the Hindu reforms that overthrew Buddhism as the dominant strain of the Dharmic religions (this process took quite a while- there's some evidence that a number of early Syrian Christians in South India were actually converts from Buddhism who were oppressed by the new reformed Hindu dynasties).

MNP- the prohibitions on crossing the Black Water are, AFAIK a more North Indian thing. South Indians have always had a thriving maritime culture.

It's the earlier, more flexible Hindu/Buddhism that spread to SE Asia and has more of a chance of spreading across the Indian Ocean. Trade goods are a must- horses as you say, are a good incentive.

Perhaps a religious incentive too? Maybe a more evangelical strain of Buddhism develops in Kerala and Ceylon and missionaries set off across the Arabian Sea to spread word of the Noble Eightfold Path.

As a North Indian, I call BS. The Marathis established the forerunner to the modern Indian navy, the Bengalis are well known for their seafaring abilities and Punjabis have emigrated in large numbers. This superstition is gone and never played a huge part.

I've always felt that Ethiopia and India would make good cultural partners, there just needs to be a good economic reason for it.

What does India have in common with Ethiopia?

Wouldn't it depend on what part of India you were talking about? North, central and western India were pretty well supplied with horses and produced native breeds. The superior horses and horsemanship of the Mongols is a given almost anywhere, but in the earlier Islamic invasions I had the impression that cavalry-based groups like the Rajputs were beaten (in the short term) due to other factors than inferior horses or horsemanship.

The high caste Rajputs were horsemen but the bulk of the army was infantry.
 
As a North Indian, I call BS. The Marathis established the forerunner to the modern Indian navy, the Bengalis are well known for their seafaring abilities and Punjabis have emigrated in large numbers. This superstition is gone and never played a huge part.

Thanks for clarifying- I was just speculating since I knew it was never present in S India but wasn't sure about the North.

Perhaps it was limited to specific castes?
 
1) Indonesia started islamization when the Muslim lands had become polycentric yet, so the Caliphate does not matter much. Indeed, there was sort of a Christian Caliphate-it was the Byzantine Empire prior the Arab conquests. :D (have them conquer Persia and you have the job half done)
2) The point, horribly simplifying, is that Islamic "classical" culture was structurally trade-oriented, while Christianity was not in the Middle Ages, especially in the East. This was not so totally set in stone as it may seem according to certain authors, but thing is, Christianity was more suspicious of getting rich than Islam was, to put it in a horribly simplyfied manner.

1) Well, if the *Caliphate was Christian and expand to the extent OTL Islamic did, its brand of Christianity will become polycentric. Persia will be to heavy of a burden for anyone who's in charge in Constantinople to subdue and then keep.

2) Well it's true that Islam glorifies poverty much less compared to Christianity. But I think strategic geopolitical positioning would effect things more than religious doctrine.

That will happen if the ruling elite are not hostile, if the ruling elite is hostile it will only make a minority syncretic religion.

Majapahit wasn't exactly friendly towards Islam, too. Besides, ruling elites seldom cannot stay ruling elites for terribly to long.....
 
Last edited:

GTAmario

Banned
Thanks for clarifying- I was just speculating since I knew it was never present in S India but wasn't sure about the North.

Perhaps it was limited to specific castes?

Not really specific castes, more like the more reactionary sections (which cuts across all sections)0
 
This is just a vague idea I've had so I welcome any thoughts on how to flesh it out.

IOTL, South Indian Hindu-Buddhist culture extended its reach into SE Asia resulting in Indianised cultures up to Southern Vietnam by the first century CE. I'd like to flesh out a scenario where this Indianisation moves Westwards as well. Hindu/Buddhist polities in Oman and Yemen, maybe Ethiopia and East Africa too.

Well, the idea is interesting, but you will need to tackle a few things before you get to creating a Hindu/Buddhist influenced Arabia.

First, there was nothing in Arabia that would have interested the Indian merchants to trade DIRECTLY with the Arabs. Most Indian manufactures/raw materials were sold to the Arabs, who then resold it at a profit to the Greeks/Romans. In fact, this was a strong incentive for the Arabs to keep the Indians out of their shores - they traded separately with the Indians and the Greco-Romans, so that neither side found out how much the Arabs were making, just as middlemen. When the Romans attacked western Arabia, the Yemeni Arabs actually barred the Indian merchants from their shores, precisely to keep their exploitative practices secret. So, I cannot visualise Arabs allowing a large scale presence of the Indian merchants on their lands.

Second, in east Africa, the principal attraction was slave trade. India had no particular interest in large scale slave trading. That was one reason why the Indians did not trade directly with the East Africans. Nothing of much interest, except for frankincense, and myrrh in East Africa. However, there is one thing that might revolutionise trade directly with Ethiopia. Coffee is a plant native to Ethiopia. However, no one seems to have discovered its uses until 14th-15th century. If coffee is discovered earlier, then we can have a large scale trade with Ethiopia.

Horses have been mentioned, but I am unsure of this, at least until the Turks put in an appearance in the north. Horses never played a major role in Indian warfare. Unless your timeline includes someone who changes the format of warfare in India, horses are not likely to play a major role in the pre-turkish times.

The other way this could play out is if the Indians, seeing the exploitative practices of the Arabs, decide to bypass them and establish a trading presence on the African side of the Red sea coast, trading directly with the Greco-Romans. This would almost certainly invite Arab hostility, but on the other hand, they were middlemen and their abiity to influence either side would be limited. Disrupting the trade seriously would invite serious repercussions from the Greco-Romans definitely, more likely both sides. So, I can imagine the Arabs playing spoilsport now and then, but not completely ruining the trade. Also, they might moderate their own behaviour, and try to persuade both sides to trade through them.

Good luck with your scenario
Regards,
Maidros
 
Last edited:
Top