Mongol invasions of India

[Demhat]

The Mongols were literally so successful because they turned up at the weakest period of Western Asia. They had thousands of years to conquer South_Central and West Asia but managed to do so just when the Sassanid empire was in ruins. When the Mongols raided the Iranian Plateau they faced a network of small city states build by the remnants of the local population ruled by the caliphate and partly by the Seljuks who had simply crossed the open borders.

The Middle East had literally no standing defensive line by the time the Mongols came. I also refuse to call it an Empire in the traditional sense. It was more like a number of big raiding campaigns. They couldn't hold longer on power than several decades to around one century, because their campaigns were primarily raid and not control (empire) orientated.

[tipirneni]

Biggest strategic losses of Iran in post Safavi times have been

- Loss of Eastern Anatolia by Shah Ismail Safavi because of few of his stupid most generals from small tribes with big egoes.
- Nader Shahs murder by his own men.
- Aga Muhammad Khan Qajars murder. He united whole Iran, never lost a single battle against enemies of Iran in his life.
- Prince Abbas Mirza Qajar dying before becoming Shah of Iran. He was a regal warrior, noble, handsome, intelligent. He could have been literally Shah Ismail Safavi reborn if he had become king. Him and Prince Dowlatshah were great warriors of their times. They delivered crushing defeats to both Russians and Ottomans outside Iranian territory. Both died young and chaos started.

There are others as well even in modern most times.




-Mongol advance in South Asia was stopped by Irano-Turkic Khalaj/Ghilzai Lords and their Army who ruled India.

-Kamboja were not Indians.

Yes Zafar Khan and Khilji destroyed Mongols. But if you see Guptas, Vardhanas etc... were successful in stopping the Huns, that why you see some Huns forming kingdoms near Afghanistan but none near India.

[Dr_Maul]

My ASS they would have lol. Marathas and sikhs would have kicked them out out, just like they took afghan lands at the time british came. Thats why pakistani pashtun areas became part of pakistan in the first place. Same with tibetan area of ladakh becoming part of india.

Well, I don't see why if the Mughals could do it he couldn't, Mughals already had dozens of persian nobles and influential aristocrats all over India who would be sympathetic to Nader Shah and he had a massive Military and of course was a strategic genius

[Thambi]

Well, I don't see why if the Mughals could do it he couldn't, Mughals already had dozens of persian nobles and influential aristocrats all over India who would be sympathetic to Nader Shah and he had a massive Military and of course was a strategic genius

When mughals came, they only ruled parts of north india. It took them hundreds of years with multiple alliances to even get to central india. They never conquered tamil nadu, kerala in the south and northeast india. Also by the time nader shah came, aurangzeb, the last strong mughal leader was already dead, and most of their area of rule has been overtaken by marathas. Mughals basically ruled around delhi at that time. Thats why the persian guys were so easily able to defeat them. They were already in a decline.

And the hindu and sikh groups were getting stronger so there was no way persians would have made any huge impact on the subcontinent. Marathas ruled delhi by 1760s and that basically marks the end of mughals.

[Kyp]

The small band of warriors under local warlord Nader Qoli of the Turkomen Afshar tribe in north-east Iran were no more than a few hundred men. Yet at the height of Nader's power as the king of kings, Shahanshah, he commanded an army of 375,000 fighting men which constituted the single most powerful military force of its time,[1][2] led by one of the most talented and successful military leaders of history.[3]

[templumForasticus]

Are you proud of this ?

I mena, seems that thing, to YOU a feat ?

[Dr_Maul]

When mughals came, they only ruled parts of north india. It took them hundreds of years with multiple alliances to even get to central india. They never conquered tamil nadu, kerala in the south and northeast india. Also by the time nader shah came, aurangzeb, the last strong mughal leader was already dead, and most of their area of rule has been overtaken by marathas. Mughals basically ruled around delhi at that time. Thats why the persian guys were so easily able to defeat them. They were already in a decline.

And the hindu and sikh groups were getting stronger so there was no way persians would have made any huge impact on the subcontinent. Marathas ruled delhi by 1760s and that basically marks the end of mughals.

Well yeah the Mughals were already dead by the time Nader shah finished the job, but Nader Shah still had a larger and more technologically advanced military and not to mention that the Marathas ruled over the previous Deccan Sultanates in the south who would have no problem revolting or allying themselves with Nader Shah who was a Shia Persian like themselves. But I think the main part would be Nader Shah's much larger army (350,000 vs 200,000) as well as his western artillery pieces. He would have help from the Deccan sultanates and he himself was very adept militarily and consistently defeated numerically superior Ottoman armies like in the Battle of Kirkuk (1733) and Yeghevard (1735). Considering he easily routed the Ottomans who were probably the biggest military power in Asia and considering he could easily afford the war with the spoils of Delhi I see no reason why he would be unsuccessful in invading India. Sure he may have not conquered the entire subcontinent but he could have made large gains imo

[Kyp]

Well yeah the Mughals were already dead by the time Nader shah finished the job, but Nader Shah still had a larger and more technologically advanced military and not to mention that the Marathas ruled over the previous Deccan Sultanates in the south who would have no problem revolting or allying themselves with Nader Shah who was a Shia Persian like themselves. But I think the main part would be Nader Shah's much larger army (350,000 vs 200,000) as well as his western artillery pieces. He would have help from the Deccan sultanates and he himself was very adept militarily and consistently defeated numerically superior Ottoman armies like in the Battle of Kirkuk (1733) and Yeghevard (1735). Considering he easily routed the Ottomans who were probably the biggest military power in Asia and considering he could easily afford the war with the spoils of Delhi I see no reason why he would be unsuccessful in invading India. Sure he may have not conquered the entire subcontinent but he could have made large gains imo

Please edit the mistake

[Dr_Maul]

Please edit the mistake

But there is no mistake? The Bahmani Sultanate and effectively their broken off vassals (Bidar Sultanate, Ahmednagar Sultanates) Were governed by Persian Shiites or Persianized Brahmins

[Babak]

But there is no mistake? The Bahmani Sultanate and effectively their broken off vassals (Bidar Sultanate, Ahmednagar Sultanates) Were governed by Persian Shiites or Persianized Brahmins

True, but you said nader was a persian shia. He was an afshar actually.