Will a India and Afghanistan be better off without Islamic conquests?

  • Better

    Votes: 49 86.0%
  • Worse

    Votes: 8 14.0%

  • Total voters
    57

Srihari14

Banned
I agree with @Ivoshafen, I voted yes on principle that regions are likely better off without being conquered when they can avoid it, but religion really has nothing to do with how “well off” they’ll be. A Hindu Afghanistan would face pretty much any number of threats that a Muslim one would. Swapping religions doesn’t do much with a PoD all the way back to the 7th and 8th centuries.
Well you are certainly true, it is hard to predict for Afghanistan, however, India would be mostly better of without islamic conquests
 

Srihari14

Banned
No More takers ? let me try again then -
  1. I see India being more or less same internally with small states fighting each other
  2. Occasionally India and Parts of Afghanistan would be united under a Pan Indian empire
  3. Afghanistan develops a siege mentality due to constant invasions from Central and West Asia
  4. Buddhism is still declining, though their architecture still remains
  5. Hindu denominations are a bit more apparent
  6. The Malay archipelago would still be Hindu and Buddhist
  7. India would be much more sexually free as they were before Islamic Invasions
  8. most Muslims in India live in the western coast as traders
 
What would we need for a successful Hindu Afganistan? What changes would arise globally from that in turn?

Could Southeast Asia remaining Hinduist/Buddhist facilitate trade between the Malay states and the Indian states? If yes, would this not lead to advances in shipbuilding?

Perhaps an alliance between Afganistan becomes traditional and lasting? Perhaps a state as far as Calicut, which might combined with the previously presumed increased trade and resultant advances in maritime technology become a maritime power it its own right? If there are Indian states with stronger, more advanced navies, they would have a smaller gap to close between them and the European explorers and traders, making it likely that India would not become just a particularly valuable place for colonial empires to set up outposts and annex land. Instead, Indian nations could end up being treated as equals and trading partners. If there are still powerful Islamic states in North Africa and Anatolia as OTL, European states might even see Indian states which are successfully fending Islam off as valuable allies.
 

Srihari14

Banned
What would we need for a successful Hindu Afganistan? What changes would arise globally from that in turn?

Could Southeast Asia remaining Hinduist/Buddhist facilitate trade between the Malay states and the Indian states? If yes, would this not lead to advances in shipbuilding?

Perhaps an alliance between Afganistan becomes traditional and lasting? Perhaps a state as far as Calicut, which might combined with the previously presumed increased trade and resultant advances in maritime technology become a maritime power it its own right? If there are Indian states with stronger, more advanced navies, they would have a smaller gap to close between them and the European explorers and traders, making it likely that India would not become just a particularly valuable place for colonial empires to set up outposts and annex land. Instead, Indian nations could end up being treated as equals and trading partners. If there are still powerful Islamic states in North Africa and Anatolia as OTL, European states might even see Indian states which are successfully fending Islam off as valuable allies.
yes
perhaps we could see an Indian version of the crusades, which would be interesting to say the least
 

Srihari14

Banned
Also we could see a Something one the lines of Brotherhood between Indian states, stating that they would all band together in case of an Islamic Invasion
 
Also we could see a Something one the lines of Brotherhood between Indian states, stating that they would all band together in case of an Islamic Invasion
How? Take the cases of external aggression which happened at different periods in history. When Alexander attacked India and King Porus fought against him Ambhi chose to side with Alexander against Porus. After fifteen centuries when Muhammad Ghori attacked India and Rajput princes united under Prithviraj Chauhan to fight Ghori, Jayachandra turned against Prithviraj out of petty jealousy and ego. I only pointed out two instances of backstabbing by Indian kings, but there are many other instances.
 

Srihari14

Banned
How? Take the cases of external aggression which happened at different periods in history. When Alexander attacked India and King Porus fought against him Ambhi chose to side with Alexander against Porus. After fifteen centuries when Muhammad Ghori attacked India and Rajput princes united under Prithviraj Chauhan to fight Ghori, Jayachandra turned against Prithviraj out of petty jealousy and ego. I only pointed out two instances of backstabbing by Indian kings, but there are many other instances.
true, this has been India's weakness, thus can there be any way a Pan Indian Empire Like Mauryan or Gupta survive and unite the area
 
true, this has been India's weakness, thus can there be any way a Pan Indian Empire Like Mauryan or Gupta survive and unite the area
Mauryan Empire was the first historical empire that covered most parts of the subcontinent with an area of 50 million sq.kms. The present Republic of India is only 33 million sq.kms in area. It was a great achievement by Chandragupta and Chanakya. But it had a comparatively short life and lasted barely less than a century and half. The first three emperors were very efficient but their reigns lasted only ninety years. The men who followed them on the throne were weak and inefficient. The power concentrated in the hands of the emperor and one or two weak emperors made the weak links of the chain. The absence of a strong bureaucracy caused the fall of empires when the rulers became weak. If the early Mauryans had organised a powerful bureaucracy the Empire might have lasted longer. Again the liberal attitude of Ashoka in avoiding stringent punishment for his enemies also might have encouraged the enemies of the Empire. But it must also be remembered that attempts to establish Pan-Indian empires continued and Guptas, Vardhanas, Palas, Cholas and finally Marathas tried and partially succeeded, though not to the extent of Mauryas or Mughals.
 

Srihari14

Banned
Mauryan Empire was the first historical empire that covered most parts of the subcontinent with an area of 50 million sq.kms. The present Republic of India is only 33 million sq.kms in area. It was a great achievement by Chandragupta and Chanakya. But it had a comparatively short life and lasted barely less than a century and half. The first three emperors were very efficient but their reigns lasted only ninety years. The men who followed them on the throne were weak and inefficient. The power concentrated in the hands of the emperor and one or two weak emperors made the weak links of the chain. The absence of a strong bureaucracy caused the fall of empires when the rulers became weak. If the early Mauryans had organised a powerful bureaucracy the Empire might have lasted longer. Again the liberal attitude of Ashoka in avoiding stringent punishment for his enemies also might have encouraged the enemies of the Empire. But it must also be remembered that attempts to establish Pan-Indian empires continued and Guptas, Vardhanas, Palas, Cholas and finally Marathas tried and partially succeeded, though not to the extent of Mauryas or Mughals.
True, perhaps an ashoka who remains ruthless could unify the kingdoms forever
 
Top