Why did the mongols never succeed in india .

[Owlparrot3]

Title

[hellheaven1987]

But why did it all abruptly stop at the borders of India.

Except it did not.

[Owlparrot3]

What do you mean he'll.

[x187x BigEazyE]

Mogul Empire. Google it, and it was too hot, climate could not support the Mongol ponies. and not enough mongols over time. In a quick explanation.

[hellheaven1987]

Well Mughal did push into the very southern tip of India though...

[Owlparrot3]

H

[TWWolfe]

Know your history hellheaven moguls were of turkic origin .
I am talking about the mongols empire of 1240.

Mongol-turkic origin. they weren't the pure steppe mongols of 1240, but they were a mongol empire nevertheless, just islamic instead of pagan(horribly oversimplified i know). and again, the climate didn't agree with them and it was far easier to just keep expanding in the direction they were already headed, Europe an the Middle east.

[hellheaven1987]

I am talking about the mongols empire of 1240.

Mongol Empire in 1240 did not even have Middle East and southern China; in fact Mongol did not even invade Hungary until 1241.

[Copperknickers II]

We learn all about the great mongols conquests and empire .But why did it all abruptly stop at the borders of India .Why were the Mongols at least not able to loot if not annex India .Why did they stop .Who stopped them .More soon .Feel free to continue the discussion.

The Mongols invaded India on numerous occasions, from Genghis Khan's invasion in 1221 (in pursuit of the Khwarezmian sultan Jalal ad-Din) up until the siege of Delhi by the Chaghatai khan Tarmashirin in 1327. And then in the late 14th century Timur also invaded India and sacked various cities. The reasons the Mongols up until Timur (who wasn't really a Mongol himself, nor was Babur his Mughal descendant, although many of his generals and soldiers perhaps were) never got much beyond Delhi were manifold : partly because they kept being defeated by the Delhi Sultanate, partly because of general overextension.

At any rate India was conquered by various Turko-Persian armies - the Ghaznavids, the Ghorids, and others. They never conquered South India though, only the Indus and the Ganges and surrounding areas, until the Mughals. And even the Mughals never conquered the southern tip - Kerala and Sri Lanka. Only the British have ever managed to conquer Southern India to my knowledge, notwithstanding Southern Indian empires. Maybe they didn't think it was worth it. Although it did also contain the formidable Chola Empire for most of the 1st millenium, the only indigenous Indian empire to launch major military excursions outside of the Subcontinent (not counting Afghanistan). Most of the interior of India outside of the main rivers was sparsely inhabited tracts of tiger infested jungle so it's easy to see why most Indian empires restricted themselves to the North or the South but not both.

[sumskilz]

The reasons the Mongols up until Timur (who wasn't really a Mongol himself, nor was Babur his Mughal descendant, although many of his generals and soldiers perhaps were)

Babur was a descendant of Genghis Khan through his mother. His maternal grandfather was Yunus Khan.

[Copperknickers II]

Babur was a descendant of Genghis Khan through his mother. His maternal grandfather was Yunus Khan.

From your own article:

"I had heard that Yunus Khan was a Moghul, and I concluded that he was a beardless man, with the ways and manners of any other 'Turk of the desert. But when I saw him, I found he was a person of elegant de-portment, with a full beard and a Tajik face, and such refined speech and manner, as is seldom to be found even in a Tajik."

My maternal grandfather was from Bangladesh, doesn't make me much of a Bangladeshi. I might pass for Italian or Greek I suppose. Many Turkic warlords claimed descent from Genghis Khan, and indeed a lot of them were his descendants, as he did have rather a lot of children. But there's reason to believe some of the claims were tenuous at best, not to say largely fabricated. Even Timur always referred to himself as 'Emir Timur', rather than 'Timur Khan' since he did not feel he had the necessary credentials to identify himself as the Chaghatay Khan, although he did claim descent from Genghis on occasion. His main wife was of Mongol descent iirc so his Mughal descendants from that wife did have Mongol blood, but as far as I'm concerned anyone who spoke the Turki language rather than the Mongol language was not really a Mongol. There were still speakers of the Mongol language living in Afghanistan until the 1970s, and there are still today many ethnic Mongols (known as Moghols or Hazaras) so it's not like they died out with the empire, there were thousands of them around at the time of the Mughal empire but the Mughal emperors were not among their number, despite their name. They were primarily Turks with some Mongol blood.

[sumskilz]

From your own article:

"I had heard that Yunus Khan was a Moghul, and I concluded that he was a beardless man, with the ways and manners of any other 'Turk of the desert. But when I saw him, I found he was a person of elegant de-portment, with a full beard and a Tajik face, and such refined speech and manner, as is seldom to be found even in a Tajik."

My maternal grandfather was from Bangladesh, doesn't make me much of a Bangladeshi. I might pass for Italian or Greek I suppose. Many Turkic warlords claimed descent from Genghis Khan, and indeed a lot of them were his descendants, as he did have rather a lot of children. But there's reason to believe some of the claims were tenuous at best, not to say largely fabricated. Even Timur always referred to himself as 'Emir Timur', rather than 'Timur Khan' since he did not feel he had the necessary credentials to identify himself as the Chaghatay Khan, although he did claim descent from Genghis on occasion. His main wife was of Mongol descent iirc so his Mughal descendants from that wife did have Mongol blood, but as far as I'm concerned anyone who spoke the Turki language rather than the Mongol language was not really a Mongol. There were still speakers of the Mongol language living in Afghanistan until the 1970s, and there are still today many ethnic Mongols (known as Moghols or Hazaras) so it's not like they died out with the empire, there were thousands of them around at the time of the Mughal empire but the Mughal emperors were not among their number, despite their name. They were primarily Turks with some Mongol blood.

Yeah, I thought you were going to say something like that, but it's an interesting fact.

[athanaric]

Most of the interior of India outside of the main rivers was sparsely inhabited tracts of tiger infested jungle so it's easy to see why most Indian empires restricted themselves to the North or the South but not both.

I think the tigers were less of an issue than the tropical diseases, though. Even today, many first-time visitors to India get sick. The tigers (and crocodiles - eastern India has Salties) are just the icing on the cake.

[Conrad The Mad]

Here is a wiki reference (citations abound) about the Delhi Sultanate's interaction with Mongolian looters.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi_Sultanate#Khilji

[Copperknickers II]

I think the tigers were less of an issue than the tropical diseases, though. Even today, many first-time visitors to India get sick. The tigers (and crocodiles - eastern India has Salties) are just the icing on the cake.

Visitors to India from the developed world get sick mainly because it's an overpopulated developing country and doesn't have very good hygiene. It's no different to any other developing country in that regard. Before the present era, there was no developed world in which one could live a life insulated from sickness, so I don't think disease was seen as a problem localised to any particular region. Perhaps the less arid regions of India had a slightly greater prevalence of diseases than desert regions of Iran and Afghanistan, but still, the history of India has largely been a long succession of foreign invaders conquering the Indus and the Ganges so it obviously didn't affect them too much. And besides the 19th century British should have been the most susceptible of all, and so they were, hence the graveyards full of British civil servants and soldiers in Calcutta who died often before they reached 30, but it didn't stop them conquering the entire subcontinent. Historical travellers do mention the intense heat however, even those from the Middle East and Mediterranean let alone the British. Incidentally, the Mughal fort at Agra (or Delhi?) had a moat filled with crocodiles, and behind that a ditch full of tigers. Plus the elephant-mounted archers inside.

[sumskilz]

Visitors to India from the developed world get sick mainly because it's an overpopulated developing country and doesn't have very good hygiene. It's no different to any other developing country in that regard. Before the present era, there was no developed world in which one could live a life insulated from sickness, so I don't think disease was seen as a problem localised to any particular region. Perhaps the less arid regions of India had a slightly greater prevalence of diseases than desert regions of Iran and Afghanistan, but still, the history of India has largely been a long succession of foreign invaders conquering the Indus and the Ganges so it obviously didn't affect them too much. And besides the 19th century British should have been the most susceptible of all, and so they were, hence the graveyards full of British civil servants and soldiers in Calcutta who died often before they reached 30, but it didn't stop them conquering the entire subcontinent. Historical travellers do mention the intense heat however, even those from the Middle East and Mediterranean let alone the British. Incidentally, the Mughal fort at Agra (or Delhi?) had a moat filled with crocodiles, and behind that a ditch full of tigers. Plus the elephant-mounted archers inside.

South Asians, though it varies by region, have a high incidence of genetic resistance to malaria. Three different genetic variants in fact, which result in extremely reduced fitness in homozygous individuals. Even being heterozygous for more than one of the variants would make it unlikely that a particular individual would have survived to have children prior to modern medicine. For such otherwise highly deleterious mutations to occur at high frequencies, the negative selection pressure due to malaria had to be much higher. I image a native army with high natural resistance would have a lot of trouble functioning under the conditions that would produce this kind of long-term genetic outcome. For a completely foreign army, it would be almost impossible to operate for extended periods.

[Copperknickers II]

South Asians, though it varies by region, have a high incidence of genetic resistance to malaria. Three different genetic variants in fact, which result in extremely reduced fitness in homozygous individuals. Even being heterozygous for more than one of the variants would make it unlikely that a particular individual would have survived to have children prior to modern medicine. For such otherwise highly deleterious mutations to occur at high frequencies, the negative selection pressure due to malaria had to be much higher. I image a native army with high natural resistance would have a lot of trouble functioning under the conditions that would produce this kind of long-term genetic outcome. For a completely foreign army, it would be almost impossible to operate for extended periods.

Granted, I must roll back on my previous statement that 'disease was not localised to any particular region'. Obviously tropical areas are renowned for having a larger array of deadly diseases than other areas and this was true even in ancient times, albeit less true, since malaria and other diseases could still be found in Europe at that time. Nevertheless, history shows that foreign armies did manage to operate in India quite successfully, where success is measured by conquering territory. I would imagine they suffered considerable losses but clearly they were able to operate. To be fair, they didn't usually press into Bengal and the interior hilly areas away from the Ganges river valley, where diseases like malaria are most prevalent.

[RangerGxi]

Know your history hellheaven moguls were of turkic origin .
I am talking about the mongols empire of 1240.

I haven't studied the Mongols too much myself but I can only assume that geography played a massive part. Going through the jungles of Burma or over the Himalayas is just logistically impossible and even mountainous Afghanistan is a pain to get through.

The Mongol armies sent were defeated and I can only imagine the logistics and sheer numbers of Indians helped with that. China is close to Mongolia so it makes sense that logistics wouldn't be as big of a deal when fighting the numbers of China.

[ForVictory]

Himalaya mountains

[Cyclops]

Mongol Kush?

I think the Mongol horde (majority Turkic in culture) under Genghis Khan mostly mopped up areas prepared for them by the Turks, that is that were already amenable to domination by steppe people. In Russia they established new over-lordships, but everywhere else they conquered were prepared by Turkish conquerors for a nomad elite to rule mostly Islamic (and often Persian elite culture) cities and territories. is this right? China is almost entirely Kubilai's work.

They were rebuffed by two Islamic states with steppe traditions (Dehli's eltie were Turkic-descended as were the mujahadeen it regularly recruited from central Asia, the Mamelukes recruited Kipchaks and other steppe folk for their ghulams) that had adopted some settled culture and could field semi professional warriors with strong HA components.

The Mongols were by no means supermen, they had a genius in charge and apparently and extremely strong spiritual ethos that lasted maybe a generation almost certainly inspired by Genghis personal beliefs. A strong state with a horse archers, some degree of professional military experience and suitable terrain could rebuff the horde.