Durrani Conquest of India

  • Thread starter Deleted member 67076
  • Start date

Deleted member 67076

The Durrani Dynasty of what is now modern Afghanistan launched repeated invasions of India throughout its history, clashing with various native powers of the subcontinent, sometimes besting them, but never taking more inroads into the region past what we now know as Pakistan.

Would it be possible for the Durranis to push past that and take larger parts of India, perhaps (although I suspect this is unlikely) taking most or all of the subcontinent? What would need to happen to accomplish this?
 
Perhaps if the Afghans take less casualties during the 3rd battle of Panipat? While a smashing Afghan victory, the casualties they suffered, particularly in the early phases of the battle, left them unable to really exploit their success.

I think the Afghans were just about as likely as the Brits to secure power over the Mughal Empire.

fasquardon
 
I think the Afghans were just about as likely as the Brits to secure power over the Mughal Empire.

fasquardon

Uhh.... What? The Afghans were nowhere close to this. OTL they were hard pressed to defeat and hold Punjab, much less the whole subcontinent. Tribal powers were rarely able to seize the Northern Plains. In the last 1500 years this happened twice, once with the Turkics ( ie. Delhi Sultanate) and the Mughals. Both of which succeeded due to internal turmoil and a lot of random factors. By the time the Durrani came a lot factors actually work against them
1) The increased population density made the old system of garrison towns and brutal repression. The revolts had made the long established Mughal collapse, amateurs like the Durrani had no hope.
2) Complex administration was hardly something they could manage. Their *empire*was highly autonomous with local chieftains and warlords ruling their tracks of land, in exchange contributing levy. It was a tribal structure of the most basic kind. They presided over a sort of contained anarchy, not an Empire in the making.
3) They were looters and raiders, not conquerors.The OTL Third battle of Panipat was a very close run thing, and reflected more on the outdated military doctrine of the Marathas rather than the skill of the Durrani.
They were a potent military force but hardly empire-builders. Conquering India ( I assume you are talking about the Northern Plains) was more or less impossible for the Durrani.
 
Uhh.... What? The Afghans were nowhere close to this.

They did have a chance of rallying the Muslim population of North India to them. Indeed, that's where the bulk of their army at Panipat came from. And the disproportionate casualties those local allies took during the battle were one reason why they didn't try to capitalize more on the battle - they were exhausted and their local base of support had been savaged.

Complex administration was hardly something they could manage. Their *empire*was highly autonomous with local chieftains and warlords ruling their tracks of land, in exchange contributing levy

A "Durrani" empire that inherited the Mughal Empire would not be a very centralized affair. Much power would rest in the hands of the local elites who supported the Afghans out of fear of Marathra extremism.

But no-one at this point had the ability to build a centralized empire in India at this point - the British would only centralize their Indian Empire close to a century later. I don't see any other player being able to do better than that.

fasquardon
 
Top