It's things like this that nevertheless amazes me at the way the Muslims conquered Asia, but offered through to European countries therefore easily. Similar to Europe, the Muslims never conquered all of "India" (although, they ...
This image with the title of "Sardargarh, India. Occupying a small ridge, this strong fortress with two large sets of walls was designed for both defence and to function as a lavish palace. I'll post more in the comments." is one of a large collection of pictures from the category Castles . We collect quality images, from a social network website reddit.com
Source: To view the original source also read the full comments of the original poster as well as from other redditor, you can click on the following Link.
Some random comments on reddit about Sardargarh, India. Occupying a small ridge, this strong fortress with two large sets of walls was designed for both defence and to function as a lavish palace. I'll post more in the comments.
- It's stuff like this that still amazes me at how the Muslims conquered India, but gave up on Europe so easily.
- Much like Europe, the Muslims never conquered all of "India" (although, they eventually brought a higher percentage of India under control than they did in Europe). At several points the Hindus drove out the Muslims, such as at the Battle of Rajasthan . Also, it should be noted that India was a much "richer" place than Europe was at the time.
- I didn't mean to make it sound so simple, but there was only one real front the Muslims fought in Europe. And they really didn't lose either, just NOPED really hard after they saw what Vlad was up to. It's just a really weird balance overall.
- There was more than Vlad , that stopped the Muslims in Europe. Are you familiar with the Battle of Tours ?
- Even then the Muslims weren't really turned away at this point by losing a small skirmish. Some historians like to play it up, but in all fairness saying 'They ran out of steam' is closer to the mark. The Arab conquests of the 600-700's are some of the Fastest and largest in History. Those North African Berbers attacking France were being lead by Officers whose Grandfathers were goat herders and traders in the Nafud. These guys wanted to take advantage of their fathers conquests and they needed to get down to ruling these conquests. The ad hoc administration set up during the conquests needed re organizing and solidifying. This is when you see the Arab renaissance and then intermittent civil war and the crusades. The next threat comes with the Turks from 1400-1700.
- I'm aware, but it that battle was pretty much it for the French front. There really wasn't an extended campaign after they conquered Iberia.
- There was more than one front on which the Caliphate expanded. They came into the Iberian Peninsula through North Africa, and held it for 800 years.
- Most of these Indian Castles/Forts were built by the Mugal Princes (Muslims) in the 1500-1700's. Much like Europe, the reasons for their construction were the lack of Centralized power and the propensity for Rebellions. You can clearly see the influence of Later European Castle design in these buildings absorbed through the Middle East and Arab Architects. By the 1500's tall walls and hill top forts were out dated in Europe due to the prevalence and sophistication of gunpowder weapons. Where as, these Indian princes were fighting with armies very similar to the Feudal levy's of Europe's middle ages. Not that Cannon weren't there, but were generally fewer in number and of poorer quality. But still had an affect. Compare this Castle built in the 1400's to the one submitted which was built in the 1700's. As well the Arabs did not 'give up on europe so easily' Please remember that they conquered Sicily, Spain, the Balkans, and Southern Italy. For centuries the coasts of France were raided by Arabs and the English channel was a favourite haunt of Arab Pirates. As well we should remember that until the Arab conquest, the idea that North Africa, Anatolia, The Middle East, and Egypt belonged in another culture or continent was almost 1000 years old. These places had been extremely Romanized and Christian for almost 500 years. TL;DR One should not trivialize a complicated 1500 year conflict as 'gave up on Europe so easily'
- Great points! However, it should be noted that, the majority of fortresses I have posted thus far from India were not originally built by Muslims.
- Fair enough. I suppose another point would be that the Islamic invaders of the Subcontinent were heirs of the Arab and Mongol Conquests. Both were well versed in Siege combat. As well some are from the Delhi Sultanate, also Muslim. For fun lets check your submission history! Visapur Fort is 1700's Lohagad current structure early 1700's Jaisalmer though originally built in the 1100's the current defenses of the fort include 99 bastions, of which 92 were built between the period of 1633-47. Khimsar construction started in 1523 A.D Daulatabad from 1100's built by the Chalukya dynasty Medak Fort is also 1100's. Gwalior originally occupied in the 800's but major re-construction in the 1500's. Bhongir 900's Thirumayam 1600's Golkonda 1200's Basavakalyana 1700's Bidar built in 1427 In the end I would say that a) you seem to give equal exposure to each period, b) Castles are structures that rarely remain unchanged or unoccupied for long and have complex/complicated histories, c) you are awesome.
- Thanks for all of these informative comments! I love a good history discussion and you are well versed on the topic... Cheers!
- My point was that they were so universally successful in their conquests, yet were also fairly easily discouraged. They tore through Iberia, but gave up on France after the Battle of Tours. They won a seemingly endless war of attrition against the Byzantines, but turned tail at the sight of Vlad's impaled forest. I don't mean to trivialize the era, just point out the seemingly arbitrary points in which the far more powerful Muslim armies decided they were content.
- Simply put it wasn't worth it. They conquered Spain because the Visigoths were divided politically and treated the people harshly. The Arabs by comparison were much more just and attractive rulers. France at this time was Centralizing under the strong leadership of Pepin and Charlemane, it was a completely different beast. As well the Arab armies never quite conquered the Northern Mountain kingdoms of Spain and they would have had to pass through those to strike at France. The 'War of attrition' against the Eastern Roman empire took 800 years to resolve and a re energized and re organized Empire under the rule of the Turks to accomplish the task. Vlad was a minor prince on the winning side of history I'm not sure why you are obsessing about him. He turned no tide. The common trope is that the Poles turned them back from the Siege of Vienna.
- Id love to stay there
- What's with the really shitty photoshop job on the lower half of the photo ?
- Compression artefacts, maybe?
- It's not just compression artifacts, there is some really shitty clone brushing going on it looks like. Read more comments