What if the Arabic conquests in India circa 731 AD to 739 AD succeded?

mad orc

Banned
I read that the conquests from 731 to 739 were the most successful of the early Islamic conquests of India.
One of them even made it to the Deccan where he was defeated by the Chalukya armies.



My question is. What if the Arabs defeated the Chalukyas and gained a decisive victory.


My actual question is
I want to write a tl, or I am planning to write a tl about an early Islamic conquest of India in this era.


1)Help me
2)Give me tips and information.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
They made it to Deccan via Sea from what I know and were easily defeated by the strong Chalukyas. Up North,they were halted by the Rajputs in Rajasthan though a couple of Indian kingdoms to the West fell to the Rashidun itself.
Most Indian Islamic empires were ruled by Turks,Persians and Afghans who lived nearer. Arab dominions were quite far to have a lasting impact on India and it was a huge country utterly outnumbering the Arabs to produce some lasting change.
The only notable change from OTL I can think of is a notable percent of population in India having an Arab/Middle Eastern origin. Nothing more.
 

mad orc

Banned
They made it to Deccan via Sea from what I know and were easily defeated by the strong Chalukyas. Up North,they were halted by the Rajputs in Rajasthan though a couple of Indian kingdoms to the West fell to the Rashidun itself.
Most Indian Islamic empires were ruled by Turks,Persians and Afghans who lived nearer. Arab dominions were quite far to have a lasting impact on India and it was a huge country utterly outnumbering the Arabs to produce some lasting change.
The only notable change from OTL I can think of is a notable percent of population in India having an Arab/Middle Eastern origin. Nothing more.

Then what is the pod for an earliest Islamic conquest.
Turks and Persians would do.
But it must be before Ghori and Ghazni at least.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
Then what is the pod for an earliest Islamic conquest.
Turks and Persians would do.
But it must be before Ghori and Ghazni at least.
Persians,Turks,Tajiks/Sogdians,Afghans, or inhabitants having a good hold in these regions are the only ones who can have a hold on India. Arabs are very faraway being rooted in Arabia and Southern Levant. Before Ghori/Ghazni and before the Turks means I could think of a breakaway Islamic Persia that could invade India from the North by land.
 
They made it to Deccan via Sea from what I know and were easily defeated by the strong Chalukyas. Up North,they were halted by the Rajputs in Rajasthan though a couple of Indian kingdoms to the West fell to the Rashidun itself.
Most Indian Islamic empires were ruled by Turks,Persians and Afghans who lived nearer. Arab dominions were quite far to have a lasting impact on India and it was a huge country utterly outnumbering the Arabs to produce some lasting change.
The only notable change from OTL I can think of is a notable percent of population in India having an Arab/Middle Eastern origin. Nothing more.

I would strongly, strongly disagree with this assessment, with all due respect.

Regarding the concept that the Arabs are tied to the nearby regions of the Arabian peninsula, this is an anachronistic opinion. In the times past, the Umayyad was not simply an Arab state, but an Islamic Caliphate, whose role was clear-cut, both in their words and their commentators, to spread the Sharia and thus Islam, to the entire world. The Umayyad war machine pushed to the far east and far west in this endeavor that we refer to as jihad and their armies existed across both Asia, Africa and Europe. There were Arab soldiery/muhjahideen on all the fringes of the Islamic world, pushing the frontiers in all directions and or defending the borders. It is not as if the Umayyad lacked the will to maintain the war in Hindustan or such, but that the Chalyuka and Rajput had a period of strength combined with difficult situations in the Umayyad realm, predominantly the frequency of rebellion and the then more pressing matters in Central Asia that posed greater threats than the Indian states. The Umayyad had been seeking to match the enemies within Central Asia, especially the Tang and Tibetans and the regions of Bactria, Sogdia, Ferghana and Zabul, remained outside Umayyad control. The Kwarezm itself was only minor Umayyad control and recently in the middle Umayyad, the Umayyad had suffered some defeats to the Tang-Karluks and had competed with the Tibetans in the Kashmir (with Umayyad general victory in the area and also an eventual conquest of the norther Buddhist Shahi states in Afghanistan). In other words, the Umayyad were competing incredibly on all fronts already, failing to conquer the most populous region on the planet while you are maintaining wars on 6-7 different fronts and across massive distances that exceed the length of any empire in the world at the time (including the Tang), is not a large failure.

The Umayyad campaigns also seemed to have had a large assortment of troops and naval companionship. In other words, there was enough soldiery to maintain sustained wars in the region of Hindustan, this is given evidence by the relative success of the campaigns, which at least battered the Hindu states. Meanwhile, the Umayyad are unharmed in anyway by these Hindu states, which are on the constant defensive, while the Umayyad have essentially all the time that they wish to launch invasions and with each invasion, the rate of success increases, as the Islamic armies as I mention, likely posses more soldiery and also have much less economic mal-effect from the wars. With all of this warring in India, it should be noted that within the Umayyad already, there is a slow creeping turmoil due to internal revolt, especially fromt he Khawarij, who sapped the Umayyad of many recruits and also hampered the extent to which armies could be raised. Such as the famous case of the Peacock Army, ordered by al-Hajjaj ibn Yusf to invade the Zabul and establish a beginning conquest of the Northern sections of Hindustan through the Khyber Pass, was infiltrated by Khawarij using 'Kitman' and rebelled int he field and turned on the Caliphate with an army of 50k warriors. Further, the region of southern Balochistan, had become a hotbed for Khawarij banditry and defectors/turncoats who fled the fronts of the wars in the east and joined varied bandits and rebel Imams (of the Khawarij variety), this situation in the Baloch region would not change until the middle Abbasid period, when the Ya'qub ibn Layth al-Saffar defeated the Khawarij Imam Yasr ibn al-Yammar in around 858 (I do not remember exact date right now). In conclusion, the Umayyad did very well for its circumstances.
 

mad orc

Banned
I would strongly, strongly disagree with this assessment, with all due respect.

Regarding the concept that the Arabs are tied to the nearby regions of the Arabian peninsula, this is an anachronistic opinion. In the times past, the Umayyad was not simply an Arab state, but an Islamic Caliphate, whose role was clear-cut, both in their words and their commentators, to spread the Sharia and thus Islam, to the entire world. The Umayyad war machine pushed to the far east and far west in this endeavor that we refer to as jihad and their armies existed across both Asia, Africa and Europe. There were Arab soldiery/muhjahideen on all the fringes of the Islamic world, pushing the frontiers in all directions and or defending the borders. It is not as if the Umayyad lacked the will to maintain the war in Hindustan or such, but that the Chalyuka and Rajput had a period of strength combined with difficult situations in the Umayyad realm, predominantly the frequency of rebellion and the then more pressing matters in Central Asia that posed greater threats than the Indian states. The Umayyad had been seeking to match the enemies within Central Asia, especially the Tang and Tibetans and the regions of Bactria, Sogdia, Ferghana and Zabul, remained outside Umayyad control. The Kwarezm itself was only minor Umayyad control and recently in the middle Umayyad, the Umayyad had suffered some defeats to the Tang-Karluks and had competed with the Tibetans in the Kashmir (with Umayyad general victory in the area and also an eventual conquest of the norther Buddhist Shahi states in Afghanistan). In other words, the Umayyad were competing incredibly on all fronts already, failing to conquer the most populous region on the planet while you are maintaining wars on 6-7 different fronts and across massive distances that exceed the length of any empire in the world at the time (including the Tang), is not a large failure.

The Umayyad campaigns also seemed to have had a large assortment of troops and naval companionship. In other words, there was enough soldiery to maintain sustained wars in the region of Hindustan, this is given evidence by the relative success of the campaigns, which at least battered the Hindu states. Meanwhile, the Umayyad are unharmed in anyway by these Hindu states, which are on the constant defensive, while the Umayyad have essentially all the time that they wish to launch invasions and with each invasion, the rate of success increases, as the Islamic armies as I mention, likely posses more soldiery and also have much less economic mal-effect from the wars. With all of this warring in India, it should be noted that within the Umayyad already, there is a slow creeping turmoil due to internal revolt, especially fromt he Khawarij, who sapped the Umayyad of many recruits and also hampered the extent to which armies could be raised. Such as the famous case of the Peacock Army, ordered by al-Hajjaj ibn Yusf to invade the Zabul and establish a beginning conquest of the Northern sections of Hindustan through the Khyber Pass, was infiltrated by Khawarij using 'Kitman' and rebelled int he field and turned on the Caliphate with an army of 50k warriors. Further, the region of southern Balochistan, had become a hotbed for Khawarij banditry and defectors/turncoats who fled the fronts of the wars in the east and joined varied bandits and rebel Imams (of the Khawarij variety), this situation in the Baloch region would not change until the middle Abbasid period, when the Ya'qub ibn Layth al-Saffar defeated the Khawarij Imam Yasr ibn al-Yammar in around 858 (I do not remember exact date right now). In conclusion, the Umayyad did very well for its circumstances.
I loved your post very much.
But now can you please answer my question?
Can there be an Islamic empire in India( A small one will also do) before Ghori and Ghazni
 
I loved your post very much.
But now can you please answer my question?
Can there be an Islamic empire in India( A small one will also do) before Ghori and Ghazni

Sure it is possible. POD in 700, Hajjaj Ibn Yusf does not garner such amounts of infiltration and goes through with its mission to invade Zabulistan. A victory here then leads to a greater access to India for the Muslim armies. Then from this point on, you simply write the tl to where the Umayyad gain victories against the Rajputs and Chalyuka. Umayyads simply add to the existing Emirate of the Sindh with a few new ones. It is not too difficult with victories in the Zabul region.
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
Fringes of Indian subcontinent begins from Bactria. As you go east,large mountain ranges and very difficult terrain gives a difficult time. For this reason,I consider any empire or peoples who want to make a mark on India should be located East of Kurdistan of today. Iran,Afghanistan,Sogdia or surroundings. Even Tocharians from the Tarim Basin who built the Kushan Empire first took a hold in Bactria. Greeks also established themselves as an independent empire in Bactria and then expanded. You can't have somebody sitting in Damascus,Medina or Corduba to administer such a far fledged region. The Umayyads could't maintain the region they had without fragmenting. If you are looking for a region Arabized like Jordan or Egypt/North Africa in the OTL Indian subcontinent,then it is purely ASB. The only effect you can produce with even a notable conquest would be 5% or so population of India of mostly or fully Arab descent and after centuries after the collapse of that Emirate/Empire,they would be of a different culture considerably and modifications in language and religion due to the Surrounding Hindus. India is too far and too big to influence for Arabs like how you think. Even if it is possible,I'd give it a very small glimmer of chance.
So as I said,Persians,Afghans and Turks as in OTL stand a chance. It would be possible for them to invade before OTL date but not possible for Arabs to make a lasting impact like that.
 
Last edited:

mad orc

Banned
Fringes of Indian subcontinent begins from Bactria. As you go east,large mountain ranges and very difficult terrain gives a difficult time. For this reason,I consider any empire or peoples who want to make a mark on India should be located East of Kurdistan of today. Iran,Afghanistan,Sogdia or surroundings. Even Tocharians from the Tarim Basin who built the Kushan Empire first took a hold in Bactria. Greeks also established themselves as an independent empire in Bactria and then expanded. You can't have somebody sitting in Damascus,Medina or Corduba to administer such a far fledged region. The Umayyads could't maintain the region they had without fragmenting. If you are looking for a region Arabized like Jordan or Egypt/North Africa in the OTL Indian subcontinent,then it is purely ASB. The only effect you can produce with even a notable conquest would be 5% or so population of India of mostly or fully Arab descent and after centuries after the collapse of that Emirate/Empire,they would be of a different culture considerably and modifications in language and religion due to the Surrounding Hindus. India is too far and too big to influence for Arabs like how you think. Even if it is possible,I'd give it a very small glimmer of chance.
So as I said,Persians,Afghans and Turks as in OTL stand a chance. It would be possible for them to invade before OTL date but not possible for Arabs to make a lasting impact like that.
But then why don't you give me some options.
Before Ghazni and empire in India for Islam
 

mad orc

Banned
Sure it is possible. POD in 700, Hajjaj Ibn Yusf does not garner such amounts of infiltration and goes through with its mission to invade Zabulistan. A victory here then leads to a greater access to India for the Muslim armies. Then from this point on, you simply write the tl to where the Umayyad gain victories against the Rajputs and Chalyuka. Umayyads simply add to the existing Emirate of the Sindh with a few new ones. It is not too difficult with victories in the Zabul region.
I think that a direct Ummayad rule is kinda hard.
What do you think?
 

Albert.Nik

Banned
But then why don't you give me some options.
Before Ghazni and empire in India for Islam
One option as I said is a Breakaway Persia or Afghanistan or even Sogdia after getting Islamized to their version and then invade India through the nearby Bactria and then through their settlements of Royal kins and the loyal population plus the missionary Sufi preachers or something convert the natives in the regions under rule. IMO,this empire would be limited to the Greater Punjab region for a long time first. Going further can be done later if the situation allows it. This is the best timeline that allows an earlier entry of Islam.
 
Fringes of Indian subcontinent begins from Bactria. As you go east,large mountain ranges and very difficult terrain gives a difficult time. For this reason,I consider any empire or peoples who want to make a mark on India should be located East of Kurdistan of today. Iran,Afghanistan,Sogdia or surroundings. Even Tocharians from the Tarim Basin who built the Kushan Empire first took a hold in Bactria. Greeks also established themselves as an independent empire in Bactria and then expanded. You can't have somebody sitting in Damascus,Medina or Corduba to administer such a far fledged region. The Umayyads could't maintain the region they had without fragmenting. If you are looking for a region Arabized like Jordan or Egypt/North Africa in the OTL Indian subcontinent,then it is purely ASB. The only effect you can produce with even a notable conquest would be 5% or so population of India of mostly or fully Arab descent and after centuries after the collapse of that Emirate/Empire,they would be of a different culture considerably and modifications in language and religion due to the Surrounding Hindus. India is too far and too big to influence for Arabs like how you think. Even if it is possible,I'd give it a very small glimmer of chance.
So as I said,Persians,Afghans and Turks as in OTL stand a chance. It would be possible for them to invade before OTL date but not possible for Arabs to make a lasting impact like that.

I never mentioned that the Umayyad leave some lasting eternal mark of Arab ethnicity in India. Simply that they can conquer these areas short term.
 
Top