Was India this weak in RL?

scelestus13 · Apr 17, 2014

Now, I know that muslims did penetrate pretty far into India. BUT

Was India as undeveloped as it appears in game at 867? It seems bad, about on par with places like England. I mean, was Paris really bigger than Delhi in 867? When I look at stats, my liege, who is well loved by his vassals and owns nearly all of Northwest India, appears very low, past France, Persia, even Ruthenia. When Saffarids attacked, it took all of India north of the Deccan Empire to just barely win (holy order was not used). Most of what I read suggests India should be at least as nice as Middle East, and certainly able to cope with the shah of Persia (who lost his event troops). Is this really how it was?

Sir Tornado · Apr 17, 2014

In reality, India managed to hold on until the end of 12th century before Muslims took over North India.

Ranjid · Apr 17, 2014

scelestus13 said:
Now, I know that muslims did penetrate pretty far into India. BUT

Was India as undeveloped as it appears in game at 867? It seems bad, about on par with places like England. I mean, was Paris really bigger than Delhi in 867? When I look at stats, my liege, who is well loved by his vassals and owns nearly all of Northwest India, appears very low, past France, Persia, even Ruthenia. When Saffarids attacked, it took all of India north of the Deccan Empire to just barely win (holy order was not used). Most of what I read suggests India should be at least as nice as Middle East, and certainly able to cope with the shah of Persia (who lost his event troops). Is this really how it was?

You just answered your own question - without the Holy Order. Pratihara is very much capable of beating back the Saffarids on their own. The smaller realms aren't of course. But the Holy Order is just ridiculous, even though it's mostly LI. It's still ~7-10k troops for free. One of my favourite starts atm is Shahi. Everyone and their brother hates you. Your vassals the most. But you can still simply steamroll the muslims around you once you reach 280 Karma. Also Lahore is the best Duchy in the game right now.

Also Paris doesn't have to be "bigger" to have more holdings than Delhi. It's about infrastructure and developement. If we would go by population, every single county in k_arabia would have only 1-2 holdings. Except maybe Medina and Muscat.

Casiru · Apr 17, 2014

Ranjid said:
You just answered your own question - without the Holy Order. Pratihara is very much capable of beating back the Saffarids on their own. The smaller realms aren't of course. But the Holy Order is just ridiculous, even though it's mostly LI. It's still ~7-10k troops for free. One of my favourite starts atm is Shahi. Everyone and their brother hates you. Your vassals the most. But you can still simply steamroll the muslims around you once you reach 280 Karma. Also Lahore is the best Duchy in the game right now.

Also Paris doesn't have to be "bigger" to have more holdings than Delhi. It's about infrastructure and developement. If we would go by population, every single county in k_arabia would have only 1-2 holdings. Except maybe Medina and Muscat.

That's using modern demographics. The West's population was fairly low until the industrial era when it took off. Arabia is a much more difficult place to industrialize compared to India or Europe so they never had the same kind of population boom (Not to mention how many times Iraq got flattened).
Iirc India had a fairly normal population density until the Brits took over then it rose so fast the food production couldn't expand quick enough leading to the famine during the industrial era, which is ironically one of the reasons they hate the Brits.
The Muslim world was known for fielding very large armies at the time of the crusades which is well indicated by the amount of holdings they get.

Kljunas · Apr 17, 2014

In my game the Muslims didn't go very far. The Ghaznavids made some conquests but eventually they were pushed back and now there are no more Muslims east of Afghanistan/Baluchistan.

It seems India was balanced with their holy orders in mind though. They probably wanted them to be strong enough to fight the Muslims but didn't want the huge 867 kingdoms to roflstomp everything within India.

Ranjid · Apr 17, 2014

Casiru said:
That's using modern demographics. The West's population was fairly low until the industrial era when it took off. Arabia is a much more difficult place to industrialize compared to India or Europe so they never had the same kind of population boom (Not to mention how many times Iraq got flattened).
Iirc India had a fairly normal population density until the Brits took over then it rose so fast the food production couldn't expand quick enough leading to the famine during the industrial era, which is ironically one of the reasons they hate the Brits.
The Muslim world was known for fielding very large armies at the time of the crusades which is well indicated by the amount of holdings they get.

The arabian peninsula was still scarcely populated. The reason why the had such massive armies lies with their possessions in Egypt and Mesopotamia. Argueably the most densely populated areas of that time.

kdonovan · Apr 17, 2014

India's population seems to have been very high compared to other areas for thousands of years, about the same or even larger than that of all of Europe. It was also relatively poor on a per capita basis, though the aggregate wealth was huge. Indian armies were notable for being absolutely gigantic.

scelestus13 · Apr 17, 2014

kdonovan said:
India's population seems to have been very high compared to other areas for thousands of years, about the same or even larger than that of all of Europe. It was also relatively poor on a per capita basis, though the aggregate wealth was huge. Indian armies were notable for being absolutely gigantic.

See, the thing is, my liege probably has like 90% of Rajastan, but only beat the Saffarids thanks to Pala sending an extra 4k men. It just feels like India is weaker than it should be.

Theruss · Apr 18, 2014

scelestus13 said:
See, the thing is, my liege probably has like 90% of Rajastan, but only beat the Saffarids thanks to Pala sending an extra 4k men. It just feels like India is weaker than it should be.

You cannot really go with the experience of a single game. Each game can be vastly different than the last, as I am sure you know. In my last game, as a huge Abyssinia Kingdom holding Persia. I declared a holy war on one of the India states and literally all the states of India joined in to help defend. It was crazy, but I liked that.

anomanderus · Apr 18, 2014

Casiru said:
That's using modern demographics. The West's population was fairly low until the industrial era when it took off. Arabia is a much more difficult place to industrialize compared to India or Europe so they never had the same kind of population boom (Not to mention how many times Iraq got flattened).
Iirc India had a fairly normal population density until the Brits took over then it rose so fast the food production couldn't expand quick enough leading to the famine during the industrial era, which is ironically one of the reasons they hate the Brits.
The Muslim world was known for fielding very large armies at the time of the crusades which is well indicated by the amount of holdings they get.

That's wrong though, the West was always heavily populated.

unmerged(723069) · Apr 18, 2014

anomanderus said:
That's wrong though, the West was always heavily populated.

????

DunkFunk · Apr 18, 2014

Casiru said:
That's using modern demographics. The West's population was fairly low until the industrial era when it took off. Arabia is a much more difficult place to industrialize compared to India or Europe so they never had the same kind of population boom (Not to mention how many times Iraq got flattened).
Iirc India had a fairly normal population density until the Brits took over then it rose so fast the food production couldn't expand quick enough leading to the famine during the industrial era, which is ironically one of the reasons they hate the Brits.
The Muslim world was known for fielding very large armies at the time of the crusades which is well indicated by the amount of holdings they get.

The famines were due to the British planting cash crops like Tea instead of you know something the Indians could eat. . .

Naman · Apr 18, 2014

scelestus13 said:
Now, I know that muslims did penetrate pretty far into India. BUT

Was India as undeveloped as it appears in game at 867? It seems bad, about on par with places like England. I mean, was Paris really bigger than Delhi in 867? When I look at stats, my liege, who is well loved by his vassals and owns nearly all of Northwest India, appears very low, past France, Persia, even Ruthenia. When Saffarids attacked, it took all of India north of the Deccan Empire to just barely win (holy order was not used). Most of what I read suggests India should be at least as nice as Middle East, and certainly able to cope with the shah of Persia (who lost his event troops). Is this really how it was?

No, It isn't historically true. In the seventh century Gurjara Pratihara defeated the Arabs in the battle of Rajasthan (can be considered equivalent to the Tours) and checked the Arab invasion. Similarly Rashtrakutas defeated the Arab naval invasion on the western coast of India. According to the Arab work written c. 850 CE, Rashtrakutas were one of the four most powerful empires of the world. (other three being Caliphate, byzantine empire and China). Also according to the Arab travelers Gurjara Pratihara had the finest cavalry in the world. Arab sources also tell us that Gurjara Pratihara had four large armies (probably numbering 100,000 or more in each division according to the Arab source, I forgot the exact number) stationed at the four corner of the realm. And the Ruler of the Gurjara Pratihara empire was the biggest enemy of Caliphate. Gurjara Pratihara along with the Shahis of Afghanistan protected the Indian borders for almost 3 centuries. If it wasn't not for them India might have a Muslim country just like the Iran. The Muslims were able to penetrate inside India only after the fall of Gurjara Pratiharas in the north.

Interestingly despite of having such powerful army Gurjara Pratihara were never able to recapture the Sindh, the reason given by the Arab sources is that Multan was famous pilgrimage center of Hindus at that time. And everytime they tried to besiege the Multan, the Muslim rulers used to bring out the idol of the Sun from the Sun temple of Multan and used to show it on the wall and threatning to break it if the army tries to come inside the city!!! This used to discourage the army and they used lift the siege!!!

Ranjid · Apr 18, 2014

Naman said:
No, It isn't historically true. In the seventh century Gurjara Pratihara defeated the Arabs in the battle of Rajasthan (can be considered equivalent to the Tours) and checked the Arab invasion. Similarly Rashtrakutas defeated the Arab naval invasion on the western coast of India. According to the Arab work written c. 850 CE, Rashtrakutas were one of the four most powerful empires of the world. (other three being Caliphate, byzantine empire and China). Also according to the Arab travelers Gurjara Pratihara had the finest cavalry in the world. Arab sources also tell us that Gurjara Pratihara had four large armies (probably numbering 100,000 or more in each division according to the Arab source, I forgot the exact number) stationed at the four corner of the realm. And the Ruler of the Gurjara Pratihara empire was the biggest enemy of Caliphate. Gurjara Pratihara along with the Shahis of Afghanistan protected the Indian borders for almost 3 centuries. If it wasn't not for them India might have a Muslim country just like the Iran. The Muslims were able to penetrate inside India only after the fall of Gurjara Pratiharas in the north.

Interestingly despite of having such powerful army Gurjara Pratihara were never able to recapture the Sindh, the reason given by the Arab sources is that Multan was famous pilgrimage center of Hindus at that time. And everytime they tried to besiege the Multan, the Muslim rulers used to bring out the idol of the Sun from the Sun temple of Multan and used to show it on the wall and threatning to break it if the army tries to come inside the city!!! This used to discourage the army and they used lift the siege!!!

While I am certain that the indians were powerfull, I wouldn't take those reports at face value. After all they lost to them. People tend to exaggerate their odds after a defeat. "He was like 20m high!" and the such.

But the main problem of India in this game right now is the same idiotic AI behaviour, we see happening in france. The AI just should never under no circumstances create goddamn kingdom titles under gavelkind succession. Even with any other succession it should almost never happen.

Fishman786 · Apr 18, 2014

scelestus13 said:
Now, I know that muslims did penetrate pretty far into India. BUT

Was India as undeveloped as it appears in game at 867? It seems bad, about on par with places like England. I mean, was Paris really bigger than Delhi in 867? When I look at stats, my liege, who is well loved by his vassals and owns nearly all of Northwest India, appears very low, past France, Persia, even Ruthenia. When Saffarids attacked, it took all of India north of the Deccan Empire to just barely win (holy order was not used). Most of what I read suggests India should be at least as nice as Middle East, and certainly able to cope with the shah of Persia (who lost his event troops). Is this really how it was?

No, India was much more advanced than Europe in 867. India had a large population and a sophisticated, thriving civilisation. You are right.

rashtrakut · Apr 18, 2014

scelestus13 said:
Now, I know that muslims did penetrate pretty far into India. BUT

I mean, was Paris really bigger than Delhi in 867?

Delhi was a relatively minor town at the start of this period, but probably still bigger than paris. In 867 the Imperial city in the north was Kanauj/Kanyakubja.

Naman · Apr 18, 2014

Ranjid said:
While I am certain that the indians were powerfull, I wouldn't take those reports at face value. After all they lost to them. People tend to exaggerate their odds after a defeat. "He was like 20m high!" and the such.

But the main problem of India in this game right now is the same idiotic AI behaviour, we see happening in france. The AI just should never under no circumstances create goddamn kingdom titles under gavelkind succession. Even with any other succession it should almost never happen.

Most of these description are from the Arab sources, when there wasn't any direct conflict going on between two. As such there isn't any need to discard them as regular exaggeration. Besides it is the fact that North India remained stable under the rule of Gurjara Pratihara. And the Muslim invasion in India started again only after the collapse of the Gurjara Pratihara empire around 10th century ,when the India was divided under the regional kingdoms. Although the Ghazanvid invasion was halted by the confederacy of the Rajput rulers of northern India. In reality It wasn't until the 13th century that the Muslims reached Bengal and it wasn't before the 15h/16th century before they reached south, and Even at that time the pockets like Rajputana, Assam etc remained under the Hindu rule. Muslims invasion of India wasn't the walk in the garden as often being portrayed in popular media.

Fishman786 · Apr 18, 2014

Naman said:
Most of these description are from the Arab sources, when there wasn't any direct conflict going on between two. As such there isn't any need to discard them as regular exaggeration. Besides it is the fact that North India remained stable under the rule of Gurjara Pratihara. And the Muslim invasion in India started again only after the collapse of the Gurjara Pratihara empire around 10th century ,when the India was divided under the regional kingdoms. Although the Ghazanvid invasion was halted by the confederacy of the Rajput rulers of northern India. In reality It wasn't until the 13th century that the Muslims reached Bengal and it wasn't before the 15h/16th century before they reached south, and Even at that time the pockets like Rajputana, Assam etc remained under the Hindu rule. Muslims invasion of India wasn't the walk in the garden as often being portrayed in popular media.

Indian army sizes do tend to be rather exaggerated though, traditionally. Often the numbers of soldiers in a single battle are equal to the entire size of that realm's army, or the numbers of men are exaggerated for poetic reasons. The Arabs also make some spectacular exaggerations, even outside of India. There's a story of a pair of Arab heroes battling and destroying hundreds of thousands of Roman troops, for example.
Not that Indian armies were small by any means. Generally I agree with the main point.

AndreasPhokas · Apr 18, 2014

Yeah the rajputs put up a heck of a fight, their people were the shield of india for hundreds of years. The battle of rajasthan was very very important but sadly not really given much attention. Even once the pratiharas were gone the muslims still never really broke into india until the Mughals, there were muslim states prior to them but none had the sweeping conquest like the Mughals did.

Sadly for the Mughals they couldn't stop Maratha rebellion, 28 years(iirc), ridiculously long continuous war.

Fishman786 · Apr 18, 2014

AndreasPhokas said:
Yeah the rajputs put up a heck of a fight, their people were the shield of india for hundreds of years. The battle of rajasthan was very very important but sadly not really given much attention. Even once the pratiharas were gone the muslims still never really broke into india until the Mughals, there were muslim states prior to them but none had the sweeping conquest like the Mughals did.

Sadly for the Mughals they couldn't stop Maratha rebellion, 28 years(iirc), ridiculously long continuous war.

The Delhi Sultanate almost completely conquered the subcontinent under Muhammad Tughlaq, but these gains were not really consolidated.

Was India this weak in RL?

Lt. General

Colonel

Colonel

Major

Field Marshal

Colonel

Captain

Lt. General

First Lieutenant

Field Marshal

Private

Major

Private

Colonel

Maharaja

Major

Private

Maharaja

Alpha Nerd

Maharaja