WI: Reverse China and India (colonialism)

GdwnsnHo

Banned
This isn't true at all. India was invaded repeatedly throughout history, and major empires (the Delhi sultanates, the Mughals) originated from relatively recent conquerors.

It happened, I said it was easy to defend, not impossible to conquer. I'm aware of the Mughals and the Delhi Sultanates. But it isn't like Persia regularly invaded India with any great success. Beyond the Mughals, I can think of the Indo-Scythians, Indo-Greeks, and the aborted invasions of Alexander coming through the Kush. In the end, they had to either give up ownership or control their Indian possessions, or their non-Indian possessions. Hell, the Delhi Sultanates you speak of are an example that even the Rashidun and Ummayads couldn't invade and KEEP India, and they were colossal.

Hell, it was only those powers that centred themselves in India that flourished, e.g. The Delhi Sultanates, and the Mughals.

Perhaps I should have used "easier", but the Hindu Kush is much more defensible than the Ordos.

My point was that if you compare the natural borders of the two, Indias are much more impressive than Chinas (with the exception of the Taklamakan Desert and associated corridor) which means that neighbors can pounce on weaknesses more easily (excluding Human factors).
 
Except Chinese states seem much more durable historically than Indian states -- especially after the advent of Islam, when India faced a succession of short-lived Turkic and then Mughal sultanates in the northwest.

Intransigent, you're a China hand, so to speak. Is there a way for European trade companies to exploit Chinese division (a worse interregnum between dynasties or a non-Qing barbarian dynasty run on Yuanish lines) and either dominate puppet state or outright administer Chinese territory?

Would a second Mongol invasion during an alternate Ming collapse do the trick? Or would the Second Yuan be more akin to the Qing?
 
Hell, it was only those powers that centred themselves in India that flourished, e.g. The Delhi Sultanates, and the Mughals.

That's just as true for China. The Wuhu states assimilated completely and lost steppe power. The Liao struck a balance, but demographically the Chinese did not totally dominate the Liao empire. The Jurchens were being assimilated with rapidity when the Mongols terminated it. Some have suggested that the Yuan were on the way too when they were overthrown. The Qing, that's well-attested.

No empire ruled a significant portion of China without being primarily centered on China.
 
It happened, I said it was easy to defend, not impossible to conquer. I'm aware of the Mughals and the Delhi Sultanates. But it isn't like Persia regularly invaded India with any great success. Beyond the Mughals, I can think of the Indo-Scythians, Indo-Greeks, and the aborted invasions of Alexander coming through the Kush. In the end, they had to either give up ownership or control their Indian possessions, or their non-Indian possessions. Hell, the Delhi Sultanates you speak of are an example that even the Rashidun and Ummayads couldn't invade and KEEP India, and they were colossal.

Hell, it was only those powers that centred themselves in India that flourished, e.g. The Delhi Sultanates, and the Mughals.

Perhaps I should have used "easier", but the Hindu Kush is much more defensible than the Ordos.

My point was that if you compare the natural borders of the two, Indias are much more impressive than Chinas (with the exception of the Taklamakan Desert and associated corridor) which means that neighbors can pounce on weaknesses more easily (excluding Human factors).

India was invaded from the Northewest relatively often, and I would say that, overall, the rhythm of invasions of China from the steppe and of India from the Afghan massif is roughly comparable; your list is missing Indo-parthians, Tocharians - who actually managed to rule an Empire straddling North India and much of Central Asia without being always centered on India - and possibly the Hephalites, then there are at least three major Islamic invasions who left a lasting polity behind -Ummayads, Ghaznavids/Delhi and the Mughals (the latter actually invaded twice)- and no fewer then four more that DID not leave a lasting polity - Ghurids, Timur the Lame, Nadir Shah and the Durranis.
That seems a pattern that vaguely resembles the Chinese one (Xiongnu/Xianbei/Tuoba Wei/Liao/Northern Jin/Yuan/Qing).
I admit that I am conflating very different situations here - Nadir Shah's sack of Delhi is hardly comparable to the Mongol conquest of China.
 

GdwnsnHo

Banned
India was invaded from the Northewest relatively often, and I would say that, overall, the rhythm of invasions of China from the steppe and of India from the Afghan massif is roughly comparable; your list is missing Indo-parthians, Tocharians - who actually managed to rule an Empire straddling North India and much of Central Asia without being always centered on India - and possibly the Hephalites, then there are at least three major Islamic invasions who left a lasting polity behind -Ummayads, Ghaznavids/Delhi and the Mughals (the latter actually invaded twice)- and no fewer then four more that DID not leave a lasting polity - Ghurids, Timur the Lame, Nadir Shah and the Durranis.
That seems a pattern that vaguely resembles the Chinese one (Xiongnu/Xianbei/Tuoba Wei/Liao/Northern Jin/Yuan/Qing).
I admit that I am conflating very different situations here - Nadir Shah's sack of Delhi is hardly comparable to the Mongol conquest of China.

Why do I see my hand approaching the White Flag? :D

Fair enough, I didn't know about some of those. I'd still posit that those were enabled as India was united less often than China was - thus the human factors.

But I guess the Hindu Kush isn't as insurmountable as I've always been led to believe.
 
Why do I see my hand approaching the White Flag? :D

Fair enough, I didn't know about some of those. I'd still posit that those were enabled as India was united less often than China was - thus the human factors.

But I guess the Hindu Kush isn't as insurmountable as I've always been led to believe.

You are probably right about human factors. Hindu Kush is a barrier, but clearly not an insurmontable one -after all, most Afghan polities in history seem to have straddled it.
 
Top