Tell me about the Tibetan Empire Veeky Forums

>ywn live in a world where Tibet took over China and India and created a super-empire the likes of which the world has never seen all under the heavenly guidance of the Dali Lama
Why live?

>being this delusional

>Takes advantage of faltering Tang dynasty after defeats at Muslim armies.
>Claims mandate and leads massive Chinese armies across Himalayas into Bengal and conquers Ganges and Indus River valleys
>Creates sycreatic fusion of Hindu, Confucian and Buddhist under the mandate with a caste system to assimilate conquered people's and allow local rule which ultimately answers to Dali Lama/Emperor in mystic mountain city of Lhasa where no invading army can reach
It would be daunting, but not impossible and would be a SICK alt-history.

There's no way they could ever control such enormous populations. Nevermind how they'll unite India since literally no other entity since the Mauryans came close (and even they had vassals and tribal areas with little to no authority over).

It's about as plausible as Habsburg world domination through Charles V.

Mughals came close

Ok, but other than the Southern meme kingdoms, there were several times empires united the Northern and central areas under one rule: albeit decentralized but still more a less loyal to a single entity.

Uhm...the British?

The British employed a divide and conquer policy where they allied with upper-caste Brahmins and granted them special privileges to keep down other groups.
And 40% of local kingdoms were given independent authority after the rebellion of 1857 since they needed to have additional allies to cement authority.
It's not comparable to what the Tibetans would have done.

The user was right. Only the Mauryans had complete control of India for more then a century.

Close but only for a few decades.

But their height was under Buddhist leaders. Where is the evidence that the fracturing was because of Monastic Buddhism, rather than those being the only people who retained power after the fracturing era?

Yes I know they never recovered from this time, but I'm not convinced it's because of the Monastic system, that they collapsed.

Not in a real sense, no they didn't. Their time was over, Brits or not. It's very debatable if the far south would have ever been conquered, given the social changes in Hinduism at the time.

This is retarded.

When their leaders switched to Buddhism, Buddhism wasn't institutionalized. It was after those leaders Buddhism gained mainstream adoption and thus monastic system was born. This led to decline in their power.

Maps of this era are greatly deceptive and do not reflect the volatile shifts in territory of the two powers. The Tang dynasty lost its Central Asia territories to Tibet twice. The first was in the 60s or 70s (7th century) when Tibetan forces seized the Tarim Basin and held it until Tang reconquest in 790. The second time at the apex of the An Lushan rebellion that paralyzed the Tang dynasty. Tibetan forces expanded northwards and even seized Chang'an until being drive out by Uyghur forces.
Other details of interest:
>it was during this time that Buddhist animosity towards Islam began. Indian and Central Asian Buddhist scholars in Tibet took note as Islam spread into Northern India and Central Asia, destroying shrines. In this period "Armageddon" literature began to emerge, predicting a clashing of dharmanic and demonic (i.e. Islamic) forces. Tibetan intellectuals also began to develop a consciousness regarding the unique position of Tibet in regards to Buddhism with some treating it like the "city on a hill."
>Buddhism penetrated but had not yet permeated Tibetan society. The Tibetan monarchs facilitated between outright support and suspicion of the Buddhist clergy. The last king of this dynasty was murdered by Buddhist. Legend says the assassin wore a dark robe and painted his horse red. After the assassination, he cast off his robe and took his horse through a river, effectively concealing his identity as he fled into the mountains
>Interestingly, Tibetan chronicles detail that Tang forces seized Lhasa in 651 but latter abandoned it after failing to become acclimated to the highlands, though this goes unmentioned in Tang dynasty chronicles.
>The relations between Tibet and Tang varied greatly, to the point that in peaceful times, Tang forces were actually able to go through Tibetan territory and wage war in what is currently Nepal. (See Wang Xuance 王玄策)

It appears the the maps that display Tibetan control come from Wikipedia. Its more than likely that the map makers referenced each other. I've yet to encounter primary evidence or even secondary evidence that the Tibetan Empire exerted control over the entire Bengal region. The claims seem spurious as the Pala dynasty controlled Bangladesh at this time.

I want to believe this narrative, but I just want evidence. Not to be that guy, but can you provide source? Wikipedia is unclear about the era of fragmentation.

Its more of a coincidence than hard facts.

That's the vibe I was getting. I know there was conflict between the monastic orders and nobles, but I guess sources are a bit rare.

>In this period "Armageddon" literature began to emerge, predicting a clashing of dharmanic and demonic (i.e. Islamic) forces.
Really? Damn. Are there extant examples of this literature? What were relations like with the Palas?

>We find the same paradigm in South Asia. The Kalachakra Tantra written during a period when Indian Buddhism was threatened by the expansion of Islam, contains a prophecy: in the present age of degeneration, the Muslim barbarians will take control of South Asia and eliminate the true religion from their empire. At the end of this period,however, a Buddhist warrior-king will emerge in the inner-Asian kingdom of Sambjala, and with the help of the Brahmin gods he will defeat the barbarian's armies in a decisive battle. The king will reestablish Buddhist dharma, and a realm of happiness, prosperity, and uprightness will be established."
>see books.google.com/books?id=guTEpz98vYMC&pg=PA167#v=onepage&q&f=false
>further elaboration: studybuddhism.com/en/advanced-studies/history-culture/buddhism-islam/holy-wars-in-buddhism-and-islam#the-non-indic-invaders

If you want more detailed sources, go to the books.Websites are limited in their depths and coverage.

>Websites are limited in their depths and coverage.
I know, I'm just not informed on this area of history at all, and figured you'd know good places to start. Thank you m8.

The Pala were Buddhists so there must have been exchange between the two regions. The scholar, Atisa ཇོ་བོ་རྗོ came from Bengal. I'm not familiar with Pala but based on general lack of a historical tradition in medieval India, I would wager that Buddhists scholars (Tibetan scholars as opposed to immigrants) were familiar with and aware of Pala.

>lack of a historical tradition in medieval India
This always saddened me. Plenty of philosophy survives, but so very little history. But the little we have paints such an interesting picture of South Asia in its prime, that one can't wish the Indians were a little more like the Chinese in their recordkeeping.

Nalanda/Taxila/etc were hotbed for Indian manuscript/knowledge/history.

But they were destroyed by the Muslims and the Huns. The Buddhist monasteries in India served not just as knowledge centers but also the teachers of those knowledge.

What happened to the Inca's climate?

RIP

>Huns
wtf no