PC: India Invades Persia

I suppose if some king decided he really really wanted to it would be technically doable. It probably wouldn't be profitable and one suspects the project would be th first thing cancelled if the crown happened to need a bit of money for something else

Revenge perhaps? Maybe after an alternate Timur or Nader Shah invades North India and sacks Delhi (or same variant thereof), a resulting Indian state decides to attack back?
 

Ak-84

Banned
After Taimur and Nadir Shah, the various Indian Kingdoms were in no shape to counter attack.
 
Would it be possible with one of the larger Indian kingdoms? For example. the Mauryan or Gupta Empires? Maybe because of the ASB existence of substantially stronger South Indian kingdoms such that expansion is easier towards Persia or Afghanistan? Highly implausible I think, but just throwing it our there.
 

Ak-84

Banned
The Mauryans had seen Greek power and had no desire to engage it and Ashoka then had to go on "make peace not war" angle.

The Gupta's did not even control all of the sub-continent.
 
The idea isn't too far out there but it's really unlikely.
I agree it's unlikely, but nevertheless plausible.
If India is divided between two friendly empires:
- North-Western Indian Empire;
- South-Eastern Indian Empire.

These Emperors somehow agreed (I don't know how - dynastic marriage, whatever) that they won't make war against each other in order to have free hand to expand outward of India.
So the only way to expand for the 'North-Western Indian Empire' is Bactria, Afghanistan and further if they are lucky.
So it might happen that they could control even Persia. For some period of time. Not for a thousand years of course. And definitely not forever :D
 
I can think of two possible scenarios in which this could happen.

The first is under the Mauryas. Seleucus Nikator invaded the Mauryan empire, was defeated and had to agree to humiliating terms. He gave up all of Alexander's India plus today's Baluchistan, Kabul valley and the Kandahar region in exchange for 300 (500 according to some sources) war elephants. The war, according to sources, was fought in today's eastern Afghanistan/north west Pakistan. But let us assume a different scenario - let us assume that Seleucus is not only defeated but is also chased by the Mauryan army, which ends up killing him and his sons in what is today's western Afghanistan/eastern Iran. Now, what is left of Seleucus' army would likely be integrated into the Mauryan army (most of Seleucus' troops were Persian and Medean horsemen) and some of them went on to become capable commanders in their own right, later on, in the Seleucid empire. There is no reason to believe that their competence would decrease in the Mauryan empire. The Mauryans would likely integrate the eastern parts of the Seleucid realm into their own kingdom.

Now, in the west, the Antigonids were ruling the roost, and Cassander and Lysimachus were scouring the entire region for allies. IOTL, they approached Seleucus for an alliance. ITTL, they approach the Mauryans for an alliance against Antigonus, with (In fact, Cassander was so desperate that he was making overtures to the Scythians for an alliance with the Scythians against Antigonus) the same terms - everything east of the Euphrates would be given to the Mauryans. The Mauryans accept and the battle of Ipsus goes on as IOTL (if anything, it should be easier, since the Mauryans can throw more resources into the conflict against the Antigonids than Seleucus could at this point of time). The Mauryans also have a reason to involve themselves because a good part of their cavalry and some very capable commanders come from the Persia-Medea region and this region is under threat from Antigonus. After the war, the Mauryans take over Seleucus original share (all regions east of the Euphrates). I would be surprised if this empire lasted for a century, but this is one scenario where the Indians could conquer Persia.

The other is during the Chola period. The two pre-eminent naval powers of south India in the 9th-10th century were the Cholas and the Rashtrakutas. In 907 AD, Parantaka became the ruler of the Cholas, overcoming the claims of Kannara, the son of the Chola king and his Rashtrakuta princess wife. This resulted in many years of sometimes cold, sometimes open hostility between the Rashtrakutas and the Cholas. But supposing that Kannara becomes the king, then we have a possibility that he could claim his Rashtrakuta inheritance too (the hostility between the Rashtrakutas and the Cholas ended only when the Rashtrakutas went into a death spiral). We have the entire peninsula united by one king, who represents the mercantile interests of the entire coast of India from Gujarat to Orissa.

It was customary for the Arabs to charge exorbitantly for the horses they brought from their lands, and shortchange the Indian merchants for their goods. In fact, Indian merchants were banned from all ports of south Arabia and several ports in the Persian Gulf, precisely because these merchants did not want the Indians to find out what the Arabs charged for Indian goods from the Europeans, nor what they paid the horse dealers in their own lands. If the Rashtrakuta-Chola emperor finds out the game the Arabs are playing in south Arabia-Persian gulf region, he may be tempted to do what he did to the Sri Vijaya kingdom and grab a port or two in both regions (the Persian gulf and south Arabia) so that he can deal directly with the horse dealers and the Europeans.
 
If a Peninsular Empire like The Cholas or Vijayanagar had lasted long enough for a few more centuries and developed as a naval power it was likely that they would have tried to establish ports and commercial centers in the west as well as east.In such a situation they could have established ports and also forts in Persia,Arabia and North East Africa.
 
Top