Critique of India

[mhcrxlc at dir.manchester-computing-centre.ac.uk]

Lars Fosse writes:

>As far as invations are concerned, unlike India we have been lucky. The
>Arabs didn't quite get us (they got Spain for some centuries), the Mongols
>didn't get us (though little merit of our own, we were just plain lucky)
>and the Turks didn't get us (although it was a close call). It seems that
>in history, you need a bit of luck.

I don't think this works. Either you treat Europe as a whole or you compare
Western Europe with Eastern India and/or Southern India.

In the first case various invaders conquered large parts of Europe - some
you indicated e.g. the Turks who ruled about half of Europe, I suppose (at
their peak). Some were briefer e.g. the Mongols or the Huns. Some came to
stay e.g. the Germanic peoples. Arguably even the Latins or the Slavs are
remnants of earlier waves of invaders.

If the comparison is between Eastern India and Western Europe, then Eastern
India did quite well. Were there any successful conquests (as opposed to
brief incursions) of Bihar from outside India before the twelfth century or
later ? The Maurya-Sungas seem to have successfully defended their
heartland as did the Guptas, even if the dynasty changed.

If the comparison is with the South, then I suppose there were none that
reached the far south before the fall of Vijayanagar or later.

Certainly, there was as much internecine war in Europe as in India on average.

I suspect that the difference in economic levels comes about between the
15th and 17th centuries and is more to do with conquest of the Americas and
European seizure of trade routes previously under Arab, etc. control. There
seems no reason to suppose that mediaeval Europe was economically better
off than India at the same time.

Lance Cousins

MANCHESTER, UK
Email: mhcrxlc at dir.mcc.ac.uk