Miscellaneous <1900 (Alternate) History Thread

VVD0D95

Banned
It could, It already reached its limit in south after defeat to Chalukya but since Northwest and Kashmir are much weaker, it is possible
Intriguing, seeing it last for a few centuries would be fun. Maybe it becomes similar to the Roman Empire in that whilst the founding dynasty perhaos dies out, other dynasties with ties to it come in to continue the empire
 
Intriguing, seeing it last for a few centuries would be fun. Maybe it becomes similar to the Roman Empire in that whilst the founding dynasty perhaos dies out, other dynasties with ties to it come in to continue the empire
It would be too late for a founding dynasty because Mauryan and Guptan empires exist and so do Hindu Epics, however, it could continue the rule of a United India or atleast parts of India for a long time
 

VVD0D95

Banned
It would be too late for a founding dynasty because Mauryan and Guptan empires exist and so do Hindu Epics, however, it could continue the rule of a United India or atleast parts of India for a long time
That’s what I meant. A dynasty that establishes an idea of a United northern and central India even after the initial dynasty falls
 
All of the recent Feinstein drama has me wondering how things might've developed had the framers of the U.S. Constitution embraced Hamilton's idea of lifetime appointment for U.S. senators.
 
Could anyone recommend me an alt timeline where King Louis the XVI becomes a successful monarch?
Lately I can't help but feel sympathy for monarchs who were deposed and killed by the masses such as King Charles I.
 
WI: Radical reconstruction caused the south to rise again and lose again to the union.

1. what would the union policy would be
2. how would this impact southern culture
 

prani

Banned
What if hammira chauhan didn’t welcome the Mongol rebels from the Khaliji sultanate? Could this have butterflied the siege of Ranthambore in 1301 and thus keeps the dynasty around?

@Rajveer Naha @Brahman @souvikkundu25140017 @prani
Better POD would be, what if he was not such a pain to his neighbors? I mean by this time Hindu Muslim differences on a political level had set in, he should have played his cards right you see, he should have formed a league to resist the Khilji's and once Delhi was destroyed and the Turkic Barbarians are kicked out of India should have back stabbed his now former allies, Chanakya would have been proud.
If that is a bit of a stretch then the league would have been a spoke in the Military Machine of the Turkic invaders. To defeat the Turks would require a change in tactics and strategy from cavalry to infantry and a lot of persistence, they could have effectively bled the Delhi Sultanate of blood and gold
 

VVD0D95

Banned
Better POD would be, what if he was not such a pain to his neighbors? I mean by this time Hindu Muslim differences on a political level had set in, he should have played his cards right you see, he should have formed a league to resist the Khilji's and once Delhi was destroyed and the Turkic Barbarians are kicked out of India should have back stabbed his now former allies, Chanakya would have been proud.
If that is a bit of a stretch then the league would have been a spoke in the Military Machine of the Turkic invaders. To defeat the Turks would require a change in tactics and strategy from cavalry to infantry and a lot of persistence, they could have effectively bled the Delhi Sultanate of blood and gold
Interesting. Was there much of a drive to drive the Turks out? From what I’ve read from Eaton, and Trusckke it does seem as if by this point the Turks had been welcomed into the Indian polity frame and were seen as another competitor. Whuch was a contrast to how they were seen a century before.
 

prani

Banned
Eaton, and Trusckke
I really have issues with these two......... Bad historians, these are the people who do the bidding of the far right with their bad histories. They have an agenda to show that the Turkic Invaders were seen as a part of the wider Indian society? and there by showing that Muslims were considered as part of Indian society.

If you read the primary sources of the Turkic/Persian/Afghan Muslims themselves and that of the Hindus, it is anything but.. Basically the feeling was mutual. Both societies lived parallel lives. I mean even within the Muslim society here there were a lot of division based on race, an Arab or a Turk or a Persian or a Khorasani enjoyed better status than a native Muslim convert and both these groups lived separate lives. A lot of Persians educated elites found employment in India, working for the civil services, the Turks and the Pashtuns were employed in the Military. These are the Issues I find in their works.
Turks had been welcomed into the Indian polity frame and were seen as another competitor.
That does not mean that Hindu or even native Muslim polities did not want to destroy Turkic power, driving away the Turks would follow after the destruction of Turkic political power, I mean you need not actually drive them away cause a lot of the elites would just migrate voluntarily out of the country in search of better prospects abroad since their main source of Income here in India would be gone and who remain, basically the non aristocrats or aristocrats who chose to remain behind would be absorbed into the Hindu or the local Muslim population which would rapidly be gaining native features.

Whuch was a contrast to how they were seen a century before.
Guess the people here got used to it? lol which caused the Taboo of allying with a Muslim power or a Turkic power to go away. So in that sense yes they were a part of the wider political equation BUT just because it is so does not mean each side saw the other as its equal or found common grounds to break bread or roti??
 
Last edited:

VVD0D95

Banned
I really have issues with these two......... Bad historians, these are the people who do the bidding of the far right with their bad histories. They have an agenda to show that the Turkic Invaders were seen as a part of the wider Indian society? and there by showing that Muslims were considered as part of Indian society.

If you read the primary sources of the Turkic/Persian/Afghan Muslims themselves and that of the Hindus, it is anything but.. Basically the feeling was mutual. Both societies lived parallel lives. I mean even within the Muslim society here there were a lot of division based on race, an Arab or a Turk or a Persian or a Khorasani enjoyed better status than a native Muslim convert and both these groups lived separate lives. A lot of Persians educated elites found employment in India, working for the civil services, the Turks and the Pashtuns were employed in the Military. These are the Issues I find in their works.

That does not mean that Hindu or even native Muslim polities did not want to destroy Turkic power, driving away the Turks would follow after the destruction of Turkic political power, I mean you need not actually drive them away cause a lot of the elites would just migrate voluntarily out of the country in search of better prospects abroad since their main source of Income here in India would be gone and who remain, basically the non aristocrats or aristocrats who chose to remain behind would be absorbed into the Hindu or the local Muslim population which would rapidly be gaining native features.


Guess the people here got used to it? lol which caused the Taboo of allying with a Muslim power or a Turkic power to go away. So in that sense yes they were a part of the wider political equation BUT just because it is so does not mean each side saw the other as its equal or found common grounds to break bread or roti??
Hmm Intetesting so their own interpretation of those sources has been shifted to suit their own agenda? Interesting.

So is it then still possible to kick the Turks out of the north in the early 14th century? If so who would be the best bet to achieve this? The Chauhan?
 
Top