Am i wrong in saying Indic/Hindu civilization is the least militarily competent out of all major civilizations?

Am i wrong in saying Indic/Hindu civilization is the least militarily competent out of all major civilizations?
East Asian/Sinic civilization and white European civilization seem to have been historically a whole lot more warlike and better at fighting, and of course Muslims have almost always used Hindus as punching bags on the battlefield right up until the 1940s or so. So why were Jeets seemingly so soft in terms of fighting compared to everybody else? how did it get this way? Or am i wrong and they have an underrated military history? what was the greatest military accomplishment of the Indic/West Asian civilizational sphere?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I have no idea. Civilization makes people weak. I wonder what evolutionary pressures made our subcontinent relatively soft.

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    It's interesting actually, because the Vedic civilization was extremely warlike, which is clearly Indoeuropean legacy.

    The Indian civilization underwent a paradigmatic shift when the Brahmin caste of priests took over as the most important strata of the society, displacing the warriors/kings caste. Brahmins not only made sure that war became generally shunned in the late classical and medieval Indian society. They also made sure it became increasingly ritualized, with Indian kings using chariots and elephants centuries after they became obsolete. Thus India was an easy picking for Muslim Turks and later for Europeans.

    The Brits actually found Indians to be largely useless for military purpose, hence they reliance on "martial races" as source of recruits - mostly Indian "internal barbarians".

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Warlike =/= Military Competence.

      Kinda like how Warrior-Classes don't do well in total warfare scenarios. A society that monopolizes military roles to a special class will have difficulty versus those that mobilizes *everything* for war.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Vedic civilization was warlike and competent. They overrun the Indus valley and penetrated into the Gangetic plain,

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        if your culture's warlike that usually means you're better at war

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Nope it just means your culture revolves around war and you into war a lot. And said war could be anything from tribal spats, small scale brushfire conflicts, well up to ebin world wars. Being good at it is relative (and franky irrelevant).

          Both the United States and Kenyan Cattle-rustling tribes are a very warlike people. But guess who's better at war?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            But those Kenyan cattle rustlers would be better at war proportionately to the other less warlike tribes around them

            Comparing them to the US is like saying “that 12 year old likes boxing as a hobby? Let’s see how he fares against Mike Tyson hurr”

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      They are physically the weakest of humanity.
      Easterlings are strong for their size.
      Africans are of a middling strength.
      Europeans are BVLL mode distilled
      Polynesians, a subset of Easterlings are tremendous physically.
      But Abos and Indians are very weak, lethargic, and physically unimpressive. They build less muscle and get less out of it.

      The Aryan army stopped being filled with Nordic superhumans and began filling its ranks with common S.Asiatics which nerfed their potential for conquest.
      Their only expansions were into SEA against literal midget tier races.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Their only expansions were into SEA against literal midget tier races.
        Also greeks lol

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >The war that started the war elephants autismos in all the Hellenistic and Sasanid rulers

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Am i wrong in saying Indic/Hindu civilization is the least militarily competent out of all major civilizations
    >Or am i wrong and they have an underrated military history
    both of these are right.
    the Indian subcontinent does have an underrated military history, but it's still objectively the least impressive out of all major 'cultural spheres,' for lack of a better term

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The Mauryan Empire under King Ashoka had a larger military than Rome, moron.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Ashoka
      That was early in Indian history where the warrior chaste still had a considerable power. By all accounts after the Guptas the Indians became the punching bang of everyone else

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >By all accounts after the Guptas the Indians became the punching bang of everyone else
        Which accounts are these? The one you write yourself or are you just that moronic? They literally stopped the Arab invasions when all of Byzantine and Persian empires lands fell to them in quick succession.

        it was only from 12th through to 18th centuries that the Islamic invasions ramped up into colonization and then by the beggining of the 1700s Mughals were fricked and the Marathas were busy absolutely wrecking their shit while the Afghans were invading from the west because they cannot into stable economy or civilization as their entire inferior way was dependent on stealing and loot.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >That was early in Indian history where the warrior chaste still had a considerable power
        it was actually quite late. We're talking about 200 BC here, which is very late in the context of Indian history.

        >By all accounts after the Guptas the Indians became the punching bang of everyone else
        By all accounts the descendants of the Guptas held off Arabs and Muslims for almost 1000 years without breaking

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      So their empire was larger than Rome too?

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Sikhs and Gurkhas
    Both were highly effective attack dogs for Anglos, the latter are still attack dogs for Anglos to this day

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The british thought Indians were very good warriors

    >he noted that the Marathas, though poorly led by their Generals, had regular infantry and artillery that matched the level of that of the Europeans and warned other British officers from underestimating the Marathas on the battlefield. He cautioned one British general: "You must never allow Maratha infantry to attack head on or in close hand-to-hand combat as in that your army will cover itself with utter disgrace"
    >Even when Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, became the Prime Minister of Britain, he held the Maratha infantry in utmost respect, claiming it to be one of the best in the world
    >Norman Gash says that the Maratha infantry was equal to that of British infantry.

    >Post battle, Ahmad Shah Abdali in a letter to one Indian ruler claimed that Afghans were able to defeat the Marathas only because of the blessings of almighty and any other army would have been destroyed by the Maratha army on that particular day even though the Maratha army was numerically inferior to the Afghan army and its Indian allies
    >Though Abdali won the battle, he also had heavy casualties on his side. So, he sought immediate peace with the Marathas

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The romans described Indians as ferocious in battle and difficult to fight against. Also an emphasis on bravery

    Arrian:
    >tall of stature, nor similarly brave in spirit, nor as black as the greater part of the Indians

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >what was the greatest military accomplishment of the Indic/West Asian civilizational sphere?
    pic rel is one of the best

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >When you put all the culture points in the "seafaring and trade" talent tree

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah, Egypt is worse.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Egypt is good only for early kickstarting civilizations. They have litterally no resources outside farming and stones. Only reason they survived so long is that they were kept safe on 3/4 sides by geographic casualities.
      Once their eastern neighboroods catched up in tech Egypt got pretty much conquered by eastern foes almost cyclically. Once you broke out Sinai, there is nothing stopping you from conqueringn one city after another on the Nile

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >nothing stopping you
        Because they have weak military yeah.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *