Challenge: An Indian empire conquers Persia, Arabia, and Egypt

How could an Indian empire (except the Mughals) expand westward until they've conquered most of the Middle East? When would be the most plausible time for this to happen?

Could it be done in just one extensive campaign, like a reverse of Alexander's conquests?

What effect would this have on the Middle East and the Mediterranean?
 
You'd want a very specific sort of Indian Empire, I think. Basically you're limited to the Gandhara/Central Asia area, and ideally you'd want to do it before the rise of Islam.

Then you need to ensure that for whatever reason attacking towards the subcontinent is impractical or dangerous for the time being. Get that power to unite Afghanistan and then spill out into Persia rather than vice versa, and keep making sure that attacking the subcontinent is too risky.

The butterflies needed to make this happen though are extensive, whatever the case may be. Antiquity probably represents your best bet - and from there perhaps an Indianized power similar to the Saka or Kushan could turn west?
 
You'd want a very specific sort of Indian Empire, I think. Basically you're limited to the Gandhara/Central Asia area, and ideally you'd want to do it before the rise of Islam.

Then you need to ensure that for whatever reason attacking towards the subcontinent is impractical or dangerous for the time being. Get that power to unite Afghanistan and then spill out into Persia rather than vice versa, and keep making sure that attacking the subcontinent is too risky.

The butterflies needed to make this happen though are extensive, whatever the case may be. Antiquity probably represents your best bet - and from there perhaps an Indianized power similar to the Saka or Kushan could turn west?
What if an large northern/central Indian empire, instead of a bunch of fragmented states, exists at the Umayyad conquest of Persia? So that an ambitious Indian general is able to "roll back" the Umayyad conquest and incorporate a lot of Persians into his army?
 
Traditionally an almost united India is pretty much at the peak of its expansion and logistical limits. While the idea is interesting, it would be tricky getting a central government in Pataliputra or Kannauj to care or indeed to launch more than a punitive expedition. At a certain point there's little to gain with endless conquering and holding the entire subcontinent is almost as tricky as establishing a universal European empire.

I think you're more likely to see a sort Indian version of Talas occur, where both of these massive land empires establish spheres of influence, rather than a massive conquest, unless the general is somehow 'gone rogue'.
 
Traditionally an almost united India is pretty much at the peak of its expansion and logistical limits. While the idea is interesting, it would be tricky getting a central government in Pataliputra or Kannauj to care or indeed to launch more than a punitive expedition. At a certain point there's little to gain with endless conquering and holding the entire subcontinent is almost as tricky as establishing a universal European empire.

I think you're more likely to see a sort Indian version of Talas occur, where both of these massive land empires establish spheres of influence, rather than a massive conquest, unless the general is somehow 'gone rogue'.

Well, I was thinking of a reverse of Alexander's conquests, where they don't necessarily hold together in one empire, but they leave a lasting cultural/technological/strategic impact. Persia might remain Zoroastrian (or become Hindu/Buddhist) while Indian technologies and mathematics that took a few more centuries to go west, arrive earlier.

So I guess it could be a general gone rogue, or just one that cares more about glory than holding together his empire.
 
It seems to me that whatever hypothetical empire does this would have to be pretty navally focused, have a good understanding of the monsoon trade winds, and be focused on the west coast, ideally with a capital near the mouth of the Indus.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
seconded DominusNovus

A land empire who already have Indus-Ganges plain would not want to conquer less fertile lands of Persia. Even if Persian collapse, the conquest probably stop at Herat-Meshded Khurasan area, crossing desert of central Iran would look like frivolous/waste of money.

A thassalocracy in Southwest India (Kerala and neighbour?) However, would have reason to defeat Arab sailor and capture the port cities( Aden, Muscat and others)
 
What if a strong but satisfied Indian empire feels threatened by a Mesopotamian power, say one developing a strong navy and aggressively promoting its commercial interests. And instead of conquering Persia, the Indian power makes allies of the Persians, in which over time the Indian component is dominant--succeeding by marriage into the high kingship, or perhaps if the struggle with the Mesopotamian power is drawn out enough, it becomes clear the Indians are overwhelmingly the stronger partner. So the Persians, being threatened, take refuge as a privileged superprovince of the Indian power. Then finally the integrated coalition succeeds and breaks the Mesopotamian threat, and incorporates Mesopotamia as well.

From there, moving west along the Fertile Crescent into Syria and down the Levant coast should not be too difficult. Do we want it so grandiose it dominates Anatolia, Egypt and Arabia as well? The Persian acquisition should provide goodly numbers of desert-accustomed troops; with Egypt it is largely a matter of a slugfest against mercenary armies (assuming all this is long after the great Pharaonic empires) and then a suitably astute state should not have too much trouble taking possession. Anatolia is sort of out of the way and a bit tough, unless the empire has decided to seize control of the straits to monopolize Black Sea trade I don't see why this empire would push in that direction. To be sure, the Caucasian front of the Persian element of the empire might lead to some quarrels that might seem amenable to settlement by coming round the back, pointing to a Black Sea hegemony. Arabia is probably the hardest thing to acquire and hold, just because it is so sparse.

If the original motive of the Indian Empire to acquire Mesopotamia was to suppress trade rivalry in the Indian Ocean, I don't suppose they'd be overly friendly with the Arabs either. Unless perhaps the "thalassocratic" element of the Indian Empire were in fact coastal people in relationships with the Arabs; say the Empire was originally not sea-oriented at all, but in the course of absorbing coastal assets that had a prior relationship with the Arabs, becomes the patron of the Hindu-Arab trade. In that case, the Empire might have an in into Arabia on Arab terms, just as I suggested having one into Persia on Persian terms.

Such a trajectory requires several phases of growth, it isn't created overnight by one super-conqueror. This implies the Indian core power has a sophisticated tradition of government that maintains cohesion over both vast space and a fairly long period of time, consolidating the gains of one wave of advance to secure the next wave.

Would such a power stop at the western borders of what we might call "the Middle East?" Or would it keep going? Would its traders not take it down the African coast, and east into Indonesia and beyond seeking the China trade? In the northwest, having gained the eastern shore of the Med, would that be a suitable stopping place, letting the trade of the Med come to it--or would moves against rivals on the Black Sea (that threaten the Persian portions landward) lead to a drive into southeastern Europe generally, and onto the steppes to fill out the flank of the long-standing Persian front in the north?

All history of OTl suggests it has to reach some sort of limit!
 
The big problem with your scenario is that Persia is actually really hard to hold from India. There's a giant mountain range in the way, and only a few passes. There's a reason most Persian/Western empires basically stopped at the border. That means occasional raids across the mountains (and Alexander was essentially a giant raid) are fine, but a scenario where it becomes the base for further invasions is difficult to conceive.

So, you're stuck with the naval empire. But a thassalocracy isn't going to want to garrison the interior of Persia (which is mountainous, not especially fertile, and very far from the coast) either; they'd prefer a content buffer state and dominance of the coast. An Indian empire with holdings along the Persian and Arabian coasts is certainly feasible, although conquering Egypt seems a bit unlikely (most of the good stuff in Egypt is along the Nile, which doesn't empty to the Indian Ocean, and trade with Europe seems unlikely to be worth the expense). Probably establish a trade port along the Red Sea and be done with it.
 
India was not always disunited. The Mauryan Empire covered all of present day India and South Asia including Afghanistan. That said Persia was a powerhouse in it's own right. Pre- Islamic Arabia probably wouldn't be a problem, but Egypt might. Actually, the best solution is a Persian/Indian alliance where they dominate West and South Asia. Like Poland-Lithuania and Austria-Hungary.
 
India was not always disunited. The Mauryan Empire covered all of present day India and South Asia including Afghanistan. That said Persia was a powerhouse in it's own right. Pre- Islamic Arabia probably wouldn't be a problem, but Egypt might. Actually, the best solution is a Persian/Indian alliance where they dominate West and South Asia. Like Poland-Lithuania and Austria-Hungary.


Pre Islamic Arabia would be extremely hard to control. Most nations would not be able to hold onto the Hedjaz and Nejd for any length, ask Aksum how empire in pre Islamic Arabia went.
 
Pre Islamic Arabia would be extremely hard to control. Most nations would not be able to hold onto the Hedjaz and Nejd for any length, ask Aksum how empire in pre Islamic Arabia went.

Wasn't the Arabian peninsula only united during the early caliphates and never again after that? I definitely can't see outsiders doing well at holding anything but the key ports in nowadays Yemen/Oman. Especially because there isn't much worth holding in Nejd for outsiders. Not sure about Hedjaz, it might be the same case especially pre-Islam where you don't have the Islamic holy cities to give it extra importance.

For a land based power, I definitely can't see why they wouldn't just direct their conquering impulses into South India/Bengal like basically every powerful North Indian state did at some point. What does Persia have to offer compared to those regions? A sea-based power likewise would probably find more to get in Indonesia (like the Chola dynasty did) than in Arabia.
 
Wasn't the Arabian peninsula only united during the early caliphates and never again after that? I definitely can't see outsiders doing well at holding anything but the key ports in nowadays Yemen/Oman. Especially because there isn't much worth holding in Nejd for outsiders. Not sure about Hedjaz, it might be the same case especially pre-Islam where you don't have the Islamic holy cities to give it extra importance.

For a land based power, I definitely can't see why they wouldn't just direct their conquering impulses into South India/Bengal like basically every powerful North Indian state did at some point. What does Persia have to offer compared to those regions? A sea-based power likewise would probably find more to get in Indonesia (like the Chola dynasty did) than in Arabia.


Yes, the peninsula was only united in the period you mentioned. However there is a large amount of powerful warlords and a very militant population in this time period which before Islam is very populous in comparison to periods after. To control the interior areas outside of just having vassals requires immense work, as even the various Caliphates learned, the Rashidun for instance almost collapsed in an attempt to control the lands of interior Arabia with warlords arising from out of nowhere, simply in defiance. Much of this defiant nature previously found amongst the tribes in the Nejd would be relocated to Iraq in the Qurra tribe and such.
 
How could an Indian empire (except the Mughals) expand westward until they've conquered most of the Middle East? When would be the most plausible time for this to happen?

Could it be done in just one extensive campaign, like a reverse of Alexander's conquests?

What effect would this have on the Middle East and the Mediterranean?

The trouble here is that there's very little incentive for an Indian polity to expand into Iran. If anything going North into Central Asia to secure the trade routes across the Oxus and Jaxertes, would be more logical. That still has the same logistical problems but at least with a more coherent payoff.

That's assuming that this Indian polity (presumably North Indian since a South Indian one would likely be a lot more maritime oriented) has a secure back which entails subduing South India.

That's a lot of expansion to achieve.

In any case, why would they bother? There's nothing an Indian polity really needs in the Middle East. It's much easier to let traders come to you and reap the profits
 
If a large empire existed in India in the 600s and heard that the Umayyads had conquered all of the west, and now they're invading Persia, wouldn't that be somewhat alarming for the Indian emperor?
 
If a large empire existed in India in the 600s and heard that the Umayyads had conquered all of the west, and now they're invading Persia, wouldn't that be somewhat alarming for the Indian emperor?

In real world terms people don't react like this. Especially before modern communications for the most part anything from overseas becomes rumour.

Consider how the crusaders were thrilled to hear about the Mongols because they thought they were an invading army of Christians.

Your hypothetical Indian emperor is going to think
(A) "Sucks to be a Sassanid- less border trouble for me while the Shahanshah fights off these Muslims whoever they are."
and (B) "This isn't really going to affect me. Anyway let's send a diplomatic mission to keep an eye on things".
and (C) "Holy shit, the vassal Raja of Somewhereapur is plotting against me. Let's make that our first priority"
 
In real world terms people don't react like this. Especially before modern communications for the most part anything from overseas becomes rumour.

Consider how the crusaders were thrilled to hear about the Mongols because they thought they were an invading army of Christians.

Your hypothetical Indian emperor is going to think
(A) "Sucks to be a Sassanid- less border trouble for me while the Shahanshah fights off these Muslims whoever they are."
and (B) "This isn't really going to affect me. Anyway let's send a diplomatic mission to keep an eye on things".
and (C) "Holy shit, the vassal Raja of Somewhereapur is plotting against me. Let's make that our first priority"

Yeah but other polities in the Middle East and eastern Europe that bordered the Mongol Empire directly, even before they themselves capitulated or were invaded, were generally scared shitless of the Mongols thanks to their quickly spreading reputation of cruelty.

Sure the Western Europeans had the wrong idea, but they were separated from the Mongols by the Mediterranean and thousands of miles of desert. The Crusaders themselves in the Levant were surrounded by enemies, and generally delusional about geopolitical realities by the 1200s.

A 600s/700s Indian emperor on the other hand is going to absolutely rule trade in the area, being right in the middle of the coastal route of the Silk Road. He'll have better information than anyone else east of Persia about what's happening in Persia or Mesopotamia.

The news that the Umayyads are invading Persia will probably arrive months late, but the Umayyads fought all the way up to the Indus. Surely the invasion of Sindh would be cause for some alarm. The Umayyads themselves would probably try to invade this hypothetical Indian Empire until they lose a battle in Rajasthan--which could be what spurs the hypothetical Indian emperor to march into Persia (not necessarily with the intent of actual conquest).

That being said, Tang China had plenty of arable land, good defensible geographic borders, and yet they still decided to cross the Gobi desert to conquer Central Asia due to the Silk trade. Why wouldn't a hypothetical Indian empire perceive similar benefits in conquering westward or at least defending their trade interests?
 
Yeah but other polities in the Middle East and eastern Europe that bordered the Mongol Empire directly, even before they themselves capitulated or were invaded, were generally scared shitless of the Mongols thanks to their quickly spreading reputation of cruelty.

Sure the Western Europeans had the wrong idea, but they were separated from the Mongols by the Mediterranean and thousands of miles of desert. The Crusaders themselves in the Levant were surrounded by enemies, and generally delusional about geopolitical realities by the 1200s.

A 600s/700s Indian emperor on the other hand is going to absolutely rule trade in the area, being right in the middle of the coastal route of the Silk Road. He'll have better information than anyone else east of Persia about what's happening in Persia or Mesopotamia.

The news that the Umayyads are invading Persia will probably arrive months late, but the Umayyads fought all the way up to the Indus. Surely the invasion of Sindh would be cause for some alarm. The Umayyads themselves would probably try to invade this hypothetical Indian Empire until they lose a battle in Rajasthan--which could be what spurs the hypothetical Indian emperor to march into Persia (not necessarily with the intent of actual conquest).

That being said, Tang China had plenty of arable land, good defensible geographic borders, and yet they still decided to cross the Gobi desert to conquer Central Asia due to the Silk trade. Why wouldn't a hypothetical Indian empire perceive similar benefits in conquering westward or at least defending their trade interests?

I agree with what you're saying about the Indian emperor probably being better informed than the W Europeans. I still don't think it would be seen as an immediate threat, though- not until the Sassanids actually collapse.

I also agree that then there'd be a sense of alarm when these invading forces actually hit the Westernmost provinces of the Empire. However, I'm not sure that you'd then see expansion into the Iranian plateau as a result. Wouldn't a more likely result (given that there's a large powerful Ummayad caliphate sitting on Iran and Mesopotamia) be to shore up the borders and seek for some sort of diplomatic relationship?

Tang China isn't a useful analogy because the Tang didn't have to deal with a coherent enemy in their initial expansion West- and in fact their control of Central Asia collapsed once they did have to deal with the Abbasids. A unified Indian Empire at this time is going to be deterred from expansion into West and Central Asia first by the Sassanids and then by their successor state, the Ummayads. There's no power vacuum which would make expansion attractive.
 
The big problem with your scenario is that Persia is actually really hard to hold from India. ...
So, you're stuck with the naval empire. But a thassalocracy isn't going to want to garrison the interior of Persia (which is mountainous, not especially fertile, and very far from the coast) either; they'd prefer a content buffer state and dominance of the coast. An Indian empire with holdings along the Persian and Arabian coasts is certainly feasible, although conquering Egypt seems a bit unlikely (most of the good stuff in Egypt is along the Nile, which doesn't empty to the Indian Ocean, and trade with Europe seems unlikely to be worth the expense). Probably establish a trade port along the Red Sea and be done with it.

I'm not sure this was in response to my suggestion, since it seems to ignore the essential features. Which is precisely that instead of conquering Persia, the Persian and Indian powers combine in an alliance against a Mesopotamian one, which harasses the Persians by land but the Indians by sea. And I also threw in the possibility that prior to the "conquest of the Mideast," the thalassocracy the Mesopotamians threaten is in fact largely an Arab/coastal Indian thing which the basically land-based Indian power has taken over the patronage of. Thus two tough nuts everyone was tut-tutting about the impossibility of conquering, Persia and Arabia, are in the empire pretty much voluntarily, for them it is more of a federation than a conquest.

Now how likely is this sort of scenario? It seems pretty far-fetched to say the least, but we are challenged to imagine an Indian power, one assumes one with control over the whole subcontinent, extending its power far to the west, "most of the Middle East." Just what is meant by "Middle East?" Surely, Mesopotamia-the entire Fertile Crescent in fact--Arabia to its south; Persia and Afghanistan...does Anatolia count? Certainly it does in the modern context where one marker of "Middle Eastern" is being an Islamic region. So clearly is Egypt.

I suppose that with control of many though not all these regions, the challenge is more or less met. Let's settle for Persia, a loose hegemony over Afghanistan (enough so imperial forces can move north into Central Asia, bypassing fractious centers of practical independence), Mesopotamia and important parts of Arabia, with at least some Arabs voluntary partners under imperial patronage the way Persia is, and possible forays onto the Med coast of the Levant. That leaves out key areas but anyway incorporates others, and provides a base from which the entire "Middle East" might be at least briefly included.

I am actually envisioning two different eras; an ATL "Alexandrian" one where the Indian power comes to the aid of Persians who have lost Mesopotamia to Greeks, and an Early Modern one spanning the late 16th, 17th and early 18th century where it is Mughal-derived power incorporating (via alliance) Persia aided against the Ottomans and Indian/Arab Indian ocean traders against the waves of Europeans; the struggle against the latter lays the groundwork for a progressive Islamic (but astutely religiously ecumenical) superstate in India that comes to patronize the Persians against the Ottomans.

I'm not much of a detailed TL writer but I think there might be potentials here.

Anyway the key is, voluntary alliance of Persia and India, with the latter coming to dominate within the union due to high populations translating into massive army reserves the Persians need against strong enemies to the west, along with voluntary acceptance of patronage of this empire by established Arab sea traders who become the naval and merchant arm of this empire.
 
Top