The Delhi Sultanate and Mongol Invasions

[MarxSchmarx]

When one looks at a map of areas of Eurasia conquered by the Mongols, a notorious exception is the Indian subcontinent. The historically common question is, why did India, and in particular the Delhi Sultantes (over the course of two dynasties) escape a fate that destroyed the Sung and the Chin, the Khwarzimians and the Iranians and the Russians?

One plausible, materialist argument has been that the climate was simply unmanageable for the Mongol calvary, e.g.,

http://www.mongolianculture.com/MONGOL-ARMIES.htm

This has a very plausible argument, but I find it specious. For example, if one looks at www.weather.com, the weather in Hyderbad, India, during much of the year is not hotter than the weather in Tashkent, Uzbekistan - indeed, if anything summers in places like Samarkand or present day Hanoi were much more punishing and humid than Hyderbad or Delhi for that matter. Yet this did not deter Mongol conquest.

I have no real reason to believe that the weather in Hyderbad was hotter and the weather in Samarkand or Kunming or modern Hoa Lu was any less hospitable than that of Delhi. This raises serious doubts about the classical materialist explanation of why the Delhi sultanate, unique among major powers adjacent to the Mongols during their most expansive years, escaped conquest.

Thoughts?

[redSHARP]

at the time, weather patterns could be different but it seems a bit of a stretch.

mongol invasion plans followed the silk road, so that might have something to do with it. Also, territory on the borders of india are not very easy to cross and relatively easy to defend.

The mongols followed the money and the trail ended in the Middle East. Other Mongol groups entered Europe, but would not occupy European lands for long. However, the Mongols in Russia helped create the catalyst for the Muscovy awakening.

The lack of Mongol operations into India is interesting.

[Tommy4ever]

Timur led what was really the last of the great 'Mongol style' invaisions and he did indeed invade India.

[pranabjyoti]

When one looks at a map of areas of Eurasia conquered by the Mongols, a notorious exception is the Indian subcontinent. The historically common question is, why did India, and in particular the Delhi Sultantes (over the course of two dynasties) escape a fate that destroyed the Sung and the Chin, the Khwarzimians and the Iranians and the Russians?

One plausible, materialist argument has been that the climate was simply unmanageable for the Mongol calvary, e.g.,

http://www.mongolianculture.com/MONGOL-ARMIES.htm

This has a very plausible argument, but I find it specious. For example, if one looks at www.weather.com (http://www.weather.com), the weather in Hyderbad, India, during much of the year is not hotter than the weather in Tashkent, Uzbekistan - indeed, if anything summers in places like Samarkand or present day Hanoi were much more punishing and humid than Hyderbad or Delhi for that matter. Yet this did not deter Mongol conquest.

I have no real reason to believe that the weather in Hyderbad was hotter and the weather in Samarkand or Kunming or modern Hoa Lu was any less hospitable than that of Delhi. This raises serious doubts about the classical materialist explanation of why the Delhi sultanate, unique among major powers adjacent to the Mongols during their most expansive years, escaped conquest.

Thoughts?
IMO, at that time, there was little open space in India and most of it were jungle. Mongols, who are adept in fighting in planes can not adopt properly to the this kind of place. Moreover, India is more hot and humid than any country that Mongols previously invaded. Probably for the same reasons, even Alexander couldn't penetrate deep into India. He had understood well that his war strategies, which helped him to make an empire stretched from Macedonia to Punjab, can not be very helpful in the jungle provinces of India. Moreover, his phalanxes, his main weapon, weren't very useful before elephants and ineffective in jungle warfare.
Mongols were mainly cavalry warrior, but horses aren't very useful in the jungle. Their main weapon, speed is just useless and before elephants, they can not be good enough like other places.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Actually, they didn't need a land route to do it. Indeed, if they did their losses would have probably been much higher.

Kashmir was made a vassal state in 1286. But a decade earlier, many small kingdoms and principalities in southern India and Ceylon submitted to the Mongols without resistance due to the presence of a large seafaring force.

[MarxSchmarx]

But a decade earlier, many small kingdoms and principalities in southern India and Ceylon submitted to the Mongols without resistance due to the presence of a large seafaring force.

Fascinating - I had never heard of this. Do you have a citation that points to this, I would be very interested in following up on it.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Some thoughts:

(1) The Mongols did conquer India-eventually. The Mughals took power in the 1500s. They were able to do this due to the disunity of the Hindu Maharajas-although there were a few powerful Hindu warlords who were almost able to fend the Mughals.

(2) As pranabjyoti pointed out, India has heavy vegetation, high humidity and disease, and as such is probably inappropriate for light cavalry armies.

(3) India was a very large country very far from Mongol supply lines. Invading China was hard enough when the Mongols had short supply lines, but invading a similarly populated country which also spanned a large geographical area (albeit still smaller than China) was quite hard, considering they either had to supply their armies via the Hindu Kush, by boat, or through the jungles of Burma.

(2-3 b) If you consider 2 and 3 together, it makes sense why they had an easier time with Vietnam-Southeast Asia was much easier for the invading Mongols to get to without much trouble than the subcontinent. Vietnam may have been a hellish place to fight, but it was much easier to get to than Hyderabad (though I don't think Hyderabad was a city or at least not a major one back then ... it grew later under the Nizams who became stupendously wealthy)

(4) When the Mughals eventually did conquer India, local Hindu groups beat them at their own game-the Marathas excelled at fighting with light cavalry, for instance. It didn't help either that the Mughals went out of their way to disrespect local religious traditions under Aurangzeb.

(5) Navigating Medieval Indian politics was probably too complicated for even the astute Mongols to deal with ... :P the sheer number of city-states, kingdoms, religions, castes, jats, ethnic groups, languages, tribes and various other groups made conquering and ruling India much harder than, say, Central Asia where there was a single religious authority or China where there was a central political power. On the contrary, nobody had conquered all of India before, except for a few ancient Kings who were unable to pass their success on to future generations (like Ashoka) and even then its questionable whether anyone really did. Even the British had to rely on placating local factions and instituting a sort of latter-day feudatory relationship with the Maharajas since direct power was impractical and impossible to sort out.