Where does this "Afghans never get conquered " meme originate from Veeky Forums? Reading up on Afghan history I noticed they got overrun consecutively by
> Persians
> Scythians
> Greeks
> Indians
> Kushans
> Arabs
> Turks
> Mongols
> Timurids
Only the British and the Soviet's failed there.
The British didn't fail in Afghanistan, only in the first incursion. By the end of the century it was a completely supplicant puppet state.
It's arguable that the Soviets didn't fail, either. The DRA government forces were regularly triumphant against the mujahideen, but they were unprepared for the sudden Soviet withdrawal that was arguably compelled more by Gorbachev's desire for rapproachment with the West than with any particular military situation.
Like Rommel, the bongs got their asses kicked so bad they had to build up their enemy as some sort of unconquerable super-predator to mitigate the damage.
What were the Mughals originally?
>It's arguable that the Soviets didn't fail, either
>this is what Russkies believe
Lmao
eternal anglo propaganda
same reason literal spear chucking niggers (zulus) were so overrated because they beat the british army once. historically, the eternal anglo is always shit on land warfare
American euphemism based on Soviet's failures and American's lack of understanding on history.
>. historically, the eternal anglo is always shit on land warfare
Ignoring the fact that what you said isn't true, people forget we were outnumbered in a 10 to 1 ratio in most battles with the Zulu.
... with cannons,gatling guns and rifles. despite these overwhelming advantage they still lost to niggers with stick
It's likely that the part of Afghanistan that "never gets conquered" is mostly limited to the tribal Pashtun areas. The more urbanized and developed areas were Persian. Of course, while conquering did happen, it was mostly in the latter that real control was imposed. The Pashtun areas were pretty unruly and at several points were more tributaries than actual subjects.
Of course, Pashtuns haven't existed forever. Their ethnogenesis likely began with the arrival of Hephthalites to the area, so between the Kushan and Arab parts of your timeline there.
17 cannons and 1 Gatling gun isn't enough to take on thousands and thousands of hordes.
>The Pashtun areas were pretty unruly and at several points were more tributaries than actual subjects.
That's still being conquered isn't it?
Ghenghis Khan for example, conquered most of the world but he let them do whatever they wanted, as long as they remembered to pay tribute to him.
>Of course, Pashtuns haven't existed forever. Their ethnogenesis likely began with the arrival of Hephthalites to the area
>likely
Proof?
It honestly depends on how you view the meaning of conquered. While being a tributary is not the most ideal state for sovereignty, it's a far cry from "all your lands belong to me, you're under my rule now". Semantics aside, I am aware that the meme is incorrect and just some Brits romanticizing how they got cucked on the Anglo-Afghan campaigns.
>ethnogenesis
Sure. But in this sense, I mean the creation of the what would become the modern culture and identity of these people, who are the most well-known of the salty tribal people that were a thorn in the side of future conquerers.
>It honestly depends on how you view the meaning of conquered.
Well the literal definition is to "overcome and take control of (a place or people) by military force" so I guess that would be the best one to go with.
>While being a tributary is not the most ideal state for sovereignty, it's a far cry from "all your lands belong to me, you're under my rule now".
Isn't it all the same thing?
Referencing their Eastern Hindu neighbors for example, the princely states were allowed to do whatever they wanted as long as they payed tribute to the Queen, but they were never under the impression that they weren't under the crown.
Their Western Persian neighbors were given permission by the Arabs to run their own society, but they had to continually supply them with a good amount of money and soldiers to fight for Arab interests.
>Sure. But in this sense, I mean the creation of the what would become the modern culture and identity of these people, who are the most well-known of the salty tribal people that were a thorn in the side of future conquerers.
I guess so but I don't see why it's relevant t b h
The Mughals weren't a race, they were what the Persians and Indians called Babur and his liegemen.
Babur was the lord of Ferghana descended from the house of Timur, with a Chaghatai Mom. He ran a small fiefdom which he lost to the Uzbeks. Fleeing with his followers he became a landless mercenary lord offering his services in the wars in central asia. Sometime he received an offer to govern Kabul by its ruler, who then died, and left an infant heir. Said heir had a relative who usurped him, who proved to be unpopular, and the Afghans backed Babur as a regent. Babur then became lord of Afghanistan for a short while because the Uzbeks invaded Afghanistan, forcing Babur out. This time: along with many Afghan nobles.
Babur ultimately invaded India because he needed to run away from the Uzbeks. His army was a motley crew of Turkics, Turko-Mongols, Mongols, Afghans, Iranics, and an odd Arab. Culturally they viewed themselves as refined Muslim lords of Persianate Culture.
>His army was a motley crew of Turkics, Turko-Mongols, Mongols, Afghans
>Afghans
Didn't Babur BTFO the Lodi Dynasty which was Afghan? Why would they betray their 'ethnic' brothers in joining him?
>Culturally they viewed themselves as refined Muslim lords of Persianate Culture.
Source? I've heard plenty of times that the Turk's/Mongols adopted Persian culture because they found it easier to rule over Persia but always viewed themselves as Mongol.
>Why would they betray their 'ethnic' brothers in joining him?
Because they weren't thinking about race, but Empire. Babur identified himself not in ethnic terms, but in dynastic: Timurid. He was a monarch. He needed an empire. Why give a fuck about race?
>Source? I've heard plenty of times that the Turk's/Mongols adopted Persian culture because they found it easier to rule over Persia but always viewed themselves as Mongol.
Basic fucking history
>He was also influenced by the Persian culture and this affected both his own actions and those of his successors, giving rise to a significant expansion of the Persianate ethos in the Indian subcontinent.[4][5]
The court language of the Mughal Empire was Farsi. The ruler called himself Padishah. Its overall taste in aesthetics and art was Indo-Persian.
There was close to 0 anything Mongol about the Mughals. The name is given to them only by the Persians and the Indians, who as far as they were concerned, were pretty much everyone who ever came from Central Asia. The Dynasty called itself Timurid, or Gurkani. In fact they would be offended if you called them Mongols because this was in a time way past the Mongol Empire, where the Mongols were back in their Steppeniggery ways in the Mongol Steppes. In addition, they saw themselves as civilized Muslim aristocrats steeped in Islamic and Persianate High Culture, not some tent-dwelling nomad who specializes in theft, murder, and rape.
Are you dumb. In the Punic wars there were roman soldiers in Hannibal army. Since the world is world they will be people than don't fucking care about they fellows. And afghans were divided in different tribes than were in constant war between themselves, normally they had more reasons to ally with new comers.
Haha reading on the Battle of Khanwa came across Silhadi.
What a backstabber.
en.wikipedia.org
>Because they weren't thinking about race, but Empire. Babur identified himself not in ethnic terms, but in dynastic: Timurid. He was a monarch. He needed an empire. Why give a fuck about race?
I'm not talking about Babur but his soldiers. He probably didn't give two shits about who fought for him but I don't understand why a bunch of soldiers would be willing to betray 'their' dynasty.
>There was close to 0 anything Mongol about the Mughals.
Well ok, but most people learn about the Mughal Empire as being a Turco-Mongol empire that embraced Persian culture at the beginning of it's reign.
> In addition, they saw themselves as civilized Muslim aristocrats steeped in Islamic and Persianate High Culture, not some tent-dwelling nomad who specializes in theft, murder, and rape.
Not true. Babur was proud of his Mongol heritage (because of Ghengis mainly desu). He claimed heritage to GK through the ancestry of his grandfather:
"Yunas Khan, son of Wais Khan, son of Sher-'ali Aughlon, son of Muhammad Khan, son of Khizr Khwaja Khan, son of Tughluq-timur Khan, son of Aisan-bugha Khan, son of Dawa Khan, son of Baraq Khan, son of Yesuntawa Khan, son of Muatukan, son of Chagatai Khan, son of Genghis Khan"
Ok. I just always assumed ethnic ties were more important than Asia then the West for some reason.
* in Asia
Why do people bother posting here if they don't have an argument to make? This isn't just /b/ with flavor.
>What were the Mughals originally?
turco-mongols
>Only the British and the Soviet's failed there.
And us Americans
I guess because it was taken in modern era colonial conquest, it's like saying China was never colonised but was conquered numerous times in the past
Well they were conquered but you couldn't control them I .E they did whatever the fuck they wanted
>Well they were conquered but you couldn't control them I .E they did whatever the fuck they wanted
Bruh, a lot of the conquerors didn't care about controlling them. They just wanted the land and other benefits.
And what you said isn't even true, since they're muslim today among a lot of other things.
>islamic high culture
>not specializing in murder, theft and rape
Pick one
Something I never got: why was it that people like Mahmud of Ghazni and Babur, guys who were basically landless aristocrats defeated by some tribal confederacy, were able to keep a huge army of nobles and mercenaries and go on to conquer a densely populated and advanced region like Northern India?
That's a pretty complicated answer.
Well to begin with, Northern India's full of open plains which gave them a large advantage over the mostly infantry leading army's of india. It's why the South always led a much better resistance than the North.
And second, they were never really stayed that long into the sc. The Delhi Sultanate came in 1200 and never stopped waging war in India. They reached their max extent (pic related) (with it fluctuating repeatedly due to revolts) after a 150 years of campaigning
The states they took over never stopped chimping out against their rule due to how oppressive the DS tended to be. In 1350 a series of revolts broke out and a large section of the Empire broke off
>en.wikipedia.org
until it kept diminishing and diminishing
For the Mughals, Babur wasn't a bad general and he also introduced gun powder into the sub-continent which completely BTFO'd the corpse of the Delhi Sultanate and the Rajputs.
Tbh it's kinda funny, in the final battle they had with the Rajputs, the RJ's were literally throwing themselves right into the cannons because they had no idea of what it was, apart from the fact that it was wrecking them lmao
But the Mughal Empire had the same potential to go as the Delhi Sultanate until fucking Akbar came. It was under his rule that a lot of Hindu's converted to Islam and saw themselves as muslims or 'Mughals' first, which would turn ethnic groups that had been brothers throughout history into the 'Hindu vsMuslim' bullshit you see today. The final result is Pakistan.
And Mahmud never really wanted to or did try to take over the sc desu. I don't think he had the capabilities and his fast moving troops were more interested in just looting temples.
That being said, the cavalry wasn't always that effective. The Gujarat dynasty was able to stop the Arabs from moving past Sindh but they declined and got gobbled up by the DS later on.
>the RJ's were literally throwing themselves right into the cannons because they had no idea of what it was, apart from the fact that it was wrecking them lmao
But I should mention they were trying to stop it that way
Fuck off. The Aryan people are the strongest and most resilient fighters the world has ever seen.
And Brydon had it coming.
I wouldn't call the british expeditions complete defeats either. they achieved their targets, made afghanistan a puppet state and avenged the first expedition. they never had the intention to completely dominate and own afghanistan like they did with other colonies. they just wanted a buffer zone against russia
The conquerors leave, for pretty much the same reason.
There's nothing of value there worth keeping, or fighting for unless you want to be in the heroin trade.
eurocentric view. Ever since elphinstones got utterly btfoed by the pashtuns the Brits put out the meme as an excuse to assauge their butthurt. Kind of like "yeah we lost but so did everyone else..."
Also its partially correct in that generally the Afghan tribes had to be consolidated and appeased in some way to maintain control of the region. The large fortresses and cities like Kandahar, Kabul, and Ghazni could be captured but the mountains that surrounded it would always be lawless and outside of the invaders control unless the Afghans could be bribed
>Aryan
b8
No, you're the one with b8. The rest of the board can back me up on my claims.
google.com
Conquering it is easy. Retaining control and occupying is more difficult.
It has tons of languages and groups of people who don't agree on anything so it's hard to keep occupied.
>eurocentric view.
How? Greeks conquered them.
Sure thing Reza Al Ahmad Pajeet
How long did the Mongols and Arabs control it?
>provide facts
>hurrrr sure thing *insert ad hominem here*
>I'm not talking about Babur but his soldiers.
..who were Turkics, Mongols, Turco-Mongols, Iranics, Afghans, Indians and the odd Arab. Who were in a liege relationship with their main lord.
who should betray who again?
>Not true. Babur was proud of his Mongol heritage (because of Ghengis mainly desu). He claimed heritage to GK through the ancestry of his grandfather:
No, he is proud of his ANCESTRY. He was proud of being descended from Genghis Khan and of the ruling house of Chaghatai. Not the race.
From the Baburnama, his own autobiography:
>"Were the Mongols a race of Angels, they would still be abominations."
>"Were the name Mongol written in gold, it will still be a filthy name."
>"Beware least you pluck an ear from a Mongol field. For whatever is sown with Mongol seed has an odious yield."
The Mongols were a pain in the ass for Babur. For one thing they were the barbarians raiding his Ferghana fiefdom. For another there were the Mongol mercenaries in his army who were the most ill-disciplined of his men.
Cyrus conquered them.
Alexander conquered them.
Every persian empire since conquered them.
Muslims stomped them.
Mongols stomped them.
Mongol wannabes (timurids and moguls) stomped them.
They've been ruled by others for almost 3000 years.
>It's a meme
>he thinks an insult is an ad hominem defence
Akbar consolidated the empire by going full on tolerance, not converting them en masse. He allied with several rajput clans and used them as part of his military forces. Aurangzeb crashed the empire
still breathes
RESILIENT
>Akbar consolidated the empire by going full on tolerance, not converting them en masse.
I think that's what he/she meant. It was arguably much better if he was a full on tyrant, since the Mughal Empire wouldn't have split the sub-continent (spiritually) that way.
>afghans
>all think its one nation
is right. It was just a bunch of tribes that unified in the early 20th century if I recall. Similar to Germany.
>"Were the Mongols a race of Angels, they would still be abominations."
>"Were the name Mongol written in gold, it will still be a filthy name."
>"Beware least you pluck an ear from a Mongol field.
>For whatever is sown with Mongol seed has an odious yield."
Oh wow. Thanks user. Didn't know about that.
>Greeks
Can somebody tell me the context of the Greek's being in Afghanistan?
I heard they played a part in killing the Alexander/Greek empire, but I never heard how.
he didn't split anything at all.
Two waves. Ionians were exiled by the persians there and later on the greeks who settled there under alexander eventually assimilated.
>a frankenstein's monster of a country that needs money pumped into it to stay in one piece
>resilient.
it's not the graveyard of Empire, the empires just realize they've conquered a terrible place with hateful people and make the wise choice to get the fuck out of there.