India History : Myth of 1000 Years of Mulsim Rule

[fida jan]

the rule began from mehood ghaznavi from 1000 or 1100, indians lie

 

[DesiGuy]

This is a complete non-issue.

Nearly all the Muslim rulers that invaded India became Indianized in the end, just like the Mongols and Manchus that invaded China became Sinicized.

India's greatest attribute throughout history was its ability to absorb foreign rulers and cultures, and make them part of Indian civilization as a whole.

That is why, in my opinion, India was never truly "conquered". Our culture and civilization was not wiped out, and it endures to this day.

100% agree. look at Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan......those all countries are now islamic countries and India still is INDIA!

 

[Yeti]

1000 just sounds better like the Nazis who wanted to build the 1000 yr Reich

 

[MilSpec]

Genuine query: How many years of Hindu rule on the Sub Continent????????????????????

 

[GodlessBastard]

100% agree. look at Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan......those all countries are now islamic countries and India still is INDIA!

I must disagree with relation to Iran.

Iran is much more than just an "Islamic" country. Iran is the home of Persian civilization, which flourished thousand years before Islam and and was the dominant force shaping the Middle East until the Arabs started their conquests. In fact, Iran did the same thing that India did, and absorbed the Arabic invaders. Persian civilization was so superior to Arab barbarism that Persia remained Persia while Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, etc. all lost their own great civilizations and simply became "Arab" countries. Even today, the modern Iranians derive their identity from the great Achaemenids and Sassanids, the pre-Islamic rulers of Iran. Call an Iranian an "Arab" and he will be thoroughly insulted!

But now I am going off-topic.

 

[GodlessBastard]

INTERESTING FACT:

While the Ghaznis were launching their first invasions into Northwest India, the Chola Empire of South India was launching invasions into Indonesia and exacting tribute from Burma and Malaysia.

What if Mahmud of Ghazni met Rajendra Chola?
It would be an interesting encounter, to say the least.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

hahaha...after 1100 years you are still trying to prove this.... pls forget your past think about future...

This is YOUR past as well...

good for you. by the way who gave this name HINDU to you guys?

It came from a Sanskrit world called Sindhu for the Indus river which lead to Sind, Hind, Hindu, Hindustan, etc.

What if Mahmud of Ghazni met Rajendra Chola?

Cholas would most likely lose.. They had armor, horse archers, etc..

 

[harsh1488]

who cares if the ruled for 1000 years the main point is dharmic religions and their culture survived and that to very successfully

 

[Hulk]

What people keep forgetting is that when invaders came in the past, they fought states, one state at a time and not a country. The geographical region of India might be under same ruler, but that does not mean it is same India. Today we live in same country by choice and not because the ruler captured the land. This is one big difference, today's India is country of people, yesterday's Bharat was country of the kings.

I know a lot of my fellow brothers will argue with this point, but honestly it is true. Did the people living in that country ever think in the lines of country. I do not think so, the rulers, like any other rulers were just trying to capture as much land as they can.

 

[Rig Vedic]

Cholas would most likely lose.. They had armor, horse archers, etc..

High quality armour was definitely produced in India. Horse archers IMHO are overrated. Foot archers equipped with long bows are probably more accurate and have greater range. But it seems true that there was a decline in archery standards in India in the medieval era.

 

[Rig Vedic]

This is a complete non-issue.

Nearly all the Muslim rulers that invaded India became Indianized in the end, just like the Mongols and Manchus that invaded China became Sinicized.

India's greatest attribute throughout history was its ability to absorb foreign rulers and cultures, and make them part of Indian civilization as a whole.

That is why, in my opinion, India was never truly "conquered". Our culture and civilization was never wiped out, and it endures to this day.

As an example, compare this to Egypt. Native Egyptian civilization was completely displaced, first by Greco-Roman civilization and then by Islamic civilization. No one in Egypt writes in hieroglyhs anymore and no one worships Set and Osiris anymore. But people in India still follow dharmic religions and speak Sanskrit and Sanskrit-based languages, as Indians did 2,000 years ago as well.

Actually this is not entirely true. People converted in the wake of the Islamic invasions did succeed in breaking off to form a separate nation. But the process of evolution never ends.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

High quality armour was definitely produced in India. Horse archers IMHO are overrated. Foot archers equipped with long bows are probably more accurate and have greater range. But it seems true that there was a decline in archery standards in India in the medieval era.

against these

Horse archers would be devastating against an army were armor is a rarity. Yes, I know armor was produced in India, but mostly in Northern, Central India, not Southern areas.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

Genuine query: How many years of Hindu rule on the Sub Continent????????????????????

Firstly ,there never entire Hindu rule over the subcontinent.

over India,then

700 BC to 1206.

Again from 1707 to 1819

So total , roughly 2000 years

 

[Rig Vedic]

Horse archers would be devastating against an army were armor is a rarity. Yes, I know armor was produced in India, but mostly in Northern, Central India, not Southern areas.

The Sanskrit word for armour is Kavach, it was extensively used in the Mahabharat war (dated maybe 1100 BC). Both archery (with powerful longbows) and armour were very common in ancient India. In fact, even horses and elephants used to be armoured.

IMHO the vulnerabilities were mainly political - the Islamic invasions occurred at a time of fragmented kingdoms. Also, maybe there was a decline in archery standards.

 

[Water Car Engineer]

The Sanskrit word for armour is Kavach, it was extensively used in the Mahabharat war (dated maybe 1100 BC). Both archery (with powerful longbows) and armour were very common in ancient India. In fact, even horses and elephants used to be armoured.

IMHO the vulnerabilities were mainly political - the Islamic invasions occurred at a time of fragmented kingdoms. Also, maybe there was a decline in archery standards.

Cholas didn't wear brigandine armor like the north. I am not talking about all of India..

Rajput army in the medieval era.

In the north they mostly would put silk clothing over chainmail.