Umayyad conquest of India

ar-pharazon

Banned
So the Islamic invasions reached as far as Punjab.

But what if they had pushed deeper into India which was divided at the time?

Perhaps the Umayyads focus all their energies eastward leaving North Africa and Egypt in Byzantine hands?

Can the Umayyads successfully conquer most if not all of India?
 
So the Islamic invasions reached as far as Punjab.

But what if they had pushed deeper into India which was divided at the time?

Perhaps the Umayyads focus all their energies eastward leaving North Africa and Egypt in Byzantine hands?

Can the Umayyads successfully conquer most if not all of India?

I doubt that.

Not only because by the time Umayyads took over Egypt was already under control of the Caliphate but for different reasons.

Unlike North Africa and Iberia, India is more populous and needs more focus to rule it. Makes it harder to rule and to convert. The discriminating behavior of the Umayyads won't help it.

Egypt, although smaller is more attractive to take for a power in Damascus.

It is easier for Persia to exist as a non muslim state than Egypt being Byzantine (assuming they conquer it back somehow) while the Umayyads go all for India.

God bless the Zagros mountains.
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
As I understand India was divided into at least three major states and some minor ones?

I don't see why if the Umayyads concentrate on the east they could not make a breakthrough.
 
So the Islamic invasions reached as far as Punjab.

But what if they had pushed deeper into India which was divided at the time?

Perhaps the Umayyads focus all their energies eastward leaving North Africa and Egypt in Byzantine hands?

Can the Umayyads successfully conquer most if not all of India?

There is no such thing as focusing interest in terms of the Umayyad. Like the later Abbasid era, war remained somewhat decentralized, with armies of muhjahadeen gathering in armies under Umayyad generals, with their own weapons and goods, engaging in wars on the frontiers. Thus, it was rarely initiatives by Caliphal states in these conquests, unless the Caliph or his regent directly went on campaign.

To add to this, the Umayyad base in Damascus, had only small interest in the Far East frontiers. The exception, being Iran, which was continually under military occupation. Thus, the Umayyad caliphs rarely extended direct state resources toward eastern gains, despite this, eastern governors did send armies east, but primarily to battle the Zunbils, Afghans, Tibetans or to capture slaves from the warring steppe hordes to the northeast. Armies like these, rarely exceeded 10k troops and thus have no ability to conquer India totally, at least to conquer and occupy. The largest of these armies sent east, “The Peacock Host,” is famous for falling to Kharajite heresy and claiming to fight against the Umayyad Khilafah.

Another point against eastward expansion, not a single Abbasid or Umayyad Caliph directly made a campaign to the east... Thus, you must make due with smaller armies or use possibly rebellious generals such as the later al-Afshin or Ya’qub Ibn Layth al-Safar of the Middle and late Abbasid era.
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
There is no such thing as focusing interest in terms of the Umayyad. Like the later Abbasid era, war remained somewhat decentralized, with armies of muhjahadeen gathering in armies under Umayyad generals, with their own weapons and goods, engaging in wars on the frontiers. Thus, it was rarely initiatives by Caliphal states in these conquests, unless the Caliph or his regent directly went on campaign.

To add to this, the Umayyad base in Damascus, had only small interest in the Far East frontiers. The exception, being Iran, which was continually gems under military occupation. Thus, the Umayyad caliphs rarely extended direct state resources toward eastern gains, despite this, eastern governors did send armies east, but primarily to battle the Zunbils, Afghans, Tibetans or to capture slaves from the warring steppe hordes to the northeast. Armies like these, rarely exceeded 10k troops and thus have no ability to conquer India totally, at least to conquer and occupy. The largest of these armies sent east, “The Peacock Host,” is famous for falling to Kharajite heresy and claiming to fight against the Umayyad Khilafah.

Another point against eastward expansion, not a single Abbasid or Umayyad Caliph directly made a campaign to the east... Thus, you must make due with smaller armies or use possibly rebellious generals such as the later al-Afshin or Ya’qub Ibn Layth al-Safar of the Middle and late Abbasid era.
I see. How then can we have an Islamic conquest of India in the 7th or 8th centuries?
 
Islamic conquests did reach Punjab, but mostly far after the fall of the Umayyads. The Umayyads did conquer what is now Sindh and nearby areas, but resistance to early Islamic conquest in what is now roughly Afghanistan was significant, and the logistics of pursuing that farther absolutely daunting.
The Umayyad forces in the East were stretched thin. They also tended to rebel, and developed a habit to infighting as dissidents from the core imperial areas sought refuge there (occasionally teaming with local forces opposed to Umayyad rule altogether) and "tribal" rivalries from the center, embedded in the armies, were also "outsourced" to the provinces.
In the Umayyad perspective, the rich stuff to be conquered was Central Asia with its rich network of trading cities and agricultural valleys; a relatevely easy target thanks to its political and religious fragmentation, attractive to a mindset that was deeply interested in accessing trading opportunities, and not too heavily populated. Also, not too alien in the overall religious landscape, and with deep connections with Iran.
I venture to add that the area might have had strategic (and possibly symbolic) value as defense against the Steppe ("we are protecting civilization against the Huns, dear Iranians, don't yous see? Just continuing the righteous struggle that Alexander and Khosrow fought alike, only with while whiorshipping the true Gid this time").
So, the juicy things (and clearly most of the military effort as consequence) lay north of the Hindukush.
The southern front was both more problematic to reach and control (all those freaking burning deserts and hideously rugged mountains) and less attractive, with the perspective of more resistance to be met once the profitable, densely pupulated parts of India were reached, even if the stubbornly defiant Zabulshahs and Kabulshahs weren't standing in the way, as they did until around 800 AD historically.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
If the Ummayad’s could not get it done, but the Abbasid’s could – could it unfold like this:


The Ummayyads succeed in the eastern conquests of Mesopotamia, Persia, southern Caucacus, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Baluchistan and Sindh only.


Expansion fails to the west—Byzantne Romans hold Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Asia Minor. The Ummayads may invade Syria Palestine before they are through but even at their best, they fail to stay for more than a decade. It's not because it's planned that way, it's just how it works out.


Not having Damascus, the Ummayyad capital is instead in Kufa, or Ctesiphon or Baghdad or Basra instead.


The Abbasids take over from the Ummayads eventually, maybe the same time as OTL, or sooner aided by the similar exclusionist policies of the Ummayyad. With the Abbasids in charge the Persian population really buys more into the Caliphate, the Abbasids conquer all of India, and probably more of Central Asia. Maybe later Caliphates or later traders, missionaries etc end up expanding Islam to points east of Bengal, or maybe they do not.


Answers the OP requirement, just not in exactly the same timeframe.
 
If the Ummayad’s could not get it done, but the Abbasid’s could – could it unfold like this:


The Ummayyads succeed in the eastern conquests of Mesopotamia, Persia, southern Caucacus, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Baluchistan and Sindh only.


Expansion fails to the west—Byzantne Romans hold Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Asia Minor. The Ummayads may invade Syria Palestine before they are through but even at their best, they fail to stay for more than a decade. It's not because it's planned that way, it's just how it works out.


Not having Damascus, the Ummayyad capital is instead in Kufa, or Ctesiphon or Baghdad or Basra instead.


The Abbasids take over from the Ummayads eventually, maybe the same time as OTL, or sooner aided by the similar exclusionist policies of the Ummayyad. With the Abbasids in charge the Persian population really buys more into the Caliphate, the Abbasids conquer all of India, and probably more of Central Asia. Maybe later Caliphates or later traders, missionaries etc end up expanding Islam to points east of Bengal, or maybe they do not.


Answers the OP requirement, just not in exactly the same timeframe.

I disagree. Allowing the Byzantines to remain powerful is the most dangerous development. The Byzantines are the only state on earth outside the Tang, which could land a death blow to the Umayyad or Abbasid states. A surviving Sassanid empire likewise, would not have the required power to defeat the Muslim power once it captured Iraq, no matter what state the Sassanid had.

A failed invasion of Byzantium would likely lead to Byzantium recovering and defeating the Abbasid near Mosul and capturing Iraq and then the entire stack of cards break. Thus, it is geopolitically imperative that the Islamic State places the Byzantines on their heels and at best, strangles them. No expansion east can safely occur long term without devastating Byzantium and keeping them constantly at war.

My opinion was that the Abbasid avoids the crisis of the 9th century that nearly saw its entire collapse. Thus, the Abbasid hegemony remains in control of the many magnates in Iran, Egypt, Syria, etc and defeat the resurgent Byzantines in Anatolia in the 860s. From there, the Abbasid hegemony is in a similar position in 930 as it was in 830, the hegemony of the near east, North Africa and the west directly outside India and China. By the 10th century, Turkic conquerors arrive and convert to Islam and invade India as otl, in the name of the Abbasids or nominal vassals.

From there, these Turkic armies bolstered by minor Arab retinues, Mamluks, muhjahadeen, etc... make better gains early. So, imagine the Ghurid conquest of Hindustan under various autonomous Mamluks generals, all of whom were vassals of the Abbasid nominally. However, in a scenario where the Abbasid remain the dominant power as it was in 830, this vassalage would be far more tangible.
 
I disagree. Allowing the Byzantines to remain powerful is the most dangerous development. The Byzantines are the only state on earth outside the Tang, which could land a death blow to the Umayyad or Abbasid states. A surviving Sassanid empire likewise, would not have the required power to defeat the Muslim power once it captured Iraq, no matter what state the Sassanid had.

A failed invasion of Byzantium would likely lead to Byzantium recovering and defeating the Abbasid near Mosul and capturing Iraq and then the entire stack of cards break. Thus, it is geopolitically imperative that the Islamic State places the Byzantines on their heels and at best, strangles them. No expansion east can safely occur long term without devastating Byzantium and keeping them constantly at war.

My opinion was that the Abbasid avoids the crisis of the 9th century that nearly saw its entire collapse. Thus, the Abbasid hegemony remains in control of the many magnates in Iran, Egypt, Syria, etc and defeat the resurgent Byzantines in Anatolia in the 860s. From there, the Abbasid hegemony is in a similar position in 930 as it was in 830, the hegemony of the near east, North Africa and the west directly outside India and China. By the 10th century, Turkic conquerors arrive and convert to Islam and invade India as otl, in the name of the Abbasids or nominal vassals.

From there, these Turkic armies bolstered by minor Arab retinues, Mamluks, muhjahadeen, etc... make better gains early. So, imagine the Ghurid conquest of Hindustan under various autonomous Mamluks generals, all of whom were vassals of the Abbasid nominally. However, in a scenario where the Abbasid remain the dominant power as it was in 830, this vassalage would be far more tangible.
My feeling on the end of the conquests is that it has to be linked to the gradual winding down of the Junds and the Diwan system of the Rashidun and Umayyad Army, which incentivized conquest to be taken up in a decentralized manner by the local governors. You pointed out that the Umayyads themselves didn't really do much conquering but rather let others do it in their name. Well, the army at the time was organized broadly into garrison cities where the Arabs would be segregated away from the local population, and while this hampered conversion to an extent, it kept the dominant population a martial one. They were paid in loot and by what order they were in on the diwan, and that made it so new converts and Arabs outside of the rich garrison cities of Iraq and Syria had a real reason to spread the conquests on their own, as they were not on the top of the pecking list.

Abd Al Malik's Arabization efforts probably brought a lot more Arabs into the bureaucracy than before, presumably from the army and that probably didn't help, but it was with Hisham that I think the conquests really slowed long term. If the Umayyads had cared a bit more about areas other than Iraq and Syria (other than their efforts at stamping out Ibn Zubayr at Mecca) than they might have thought about how to keep the conquests going.

The Abbasids allowed the system of Turkish Slave Soldiers to take over, and that made ritualization of raids against the Byzantines perhaps more effective, but it ended conquests, as they engaged in ceaseless palace politics.

So, the big question is, how do you keep the system of a relatively separate and martial Arab elite and enthusiastic newcomers (think about the role of the Berbers in al-Andalus and some Central Asian groups) from fragmenting as they began to wonder why, when conquests slow, they are suddenly getting less than those sitting in the garrison cities like Cairo or Basra? Perhaps you can't. But for the Umayyads to take India, I think you need to eliminate the desire of Hisham to consolidate things.

Perhaps one way might be to get the Northern/Southern tribal divide (Yemenis vs. Qaysis and all of that) out of the way early on. Maybe Mu'awiyah I shows less favoritism, or the Umayyads marry heavily into both groups. With less tribal friction, the Umayyads might be more willing to send some of their manpower out of Iraq and Syria and do so eastwards.
 
Last edited:
Top