Is South Asia geographically prone to being invaded by people from the west or was there some other reason they were historically conquered by foreigners so often?
Europe has always been invaded from the east, Africa from the north, China from the west, and Bharat from the northwest
>>469130
>China from the west
Mongols are from the north
>>469162
The Mongols weren't the only invaders, or even the most relevant for most of history
>>469178
Nomads from the north. They never got invaded from the west.
>>469130
It is just easier to approach from the west. The topography map doesn't show you the flora, the end of the Himalayas in the east in Myanmar/Yunnan is further south and densely forested. The Pagan kingdom successfully resisted the Mongol invasions, though naturally they lost pitched battles, apparently the Mongols concluded it would be too much effort.
>>469130
depends on which part of India you talk about.
current day pakistan was the most invaded.
parts of eastern india were very hard to invade, and southern india was relatively independent
The NW was frequently invaded, whereas foreign invasion to the East and South was relatively uncommon.
Their NW corridor was a common approach vector for land invaders due to relative ease by which a ground army could cover its terrain due to the mountains to the North forming a natiral land barrier.
That region of the world has more invaders because it is central to the continent of Eurasia so there's greater friction between nations, cultures, races, civilizations in that area in particular.
>>469198
Tibet. Once a steepe empire that harassed the Chinese constantly.
>>469130
From the west, you have to ford a few rivers and you have nice open plains.
From the east, its huge ass mountains that empty into a comparatively narrow valley, followed by dense forests before you get to the deltaic flatlands.
The north is the Himalayas. India has NEVER been invaded from directly north. Even when the Tibetans invaded they did so from the east (and were promptly repulsed).
There is a reason the vast majority of pan-Indian empires had imperial capitals in the west until the Delhi Sultanate. It had higher population and had way less foreign incursions.
>>469689
>imperial capitals in the west
Shit. I meant east.
>>469648
Historically speaking northern nomads aka Mongollic people were consistent invaders of China. Tibetans were an exception, not the rule.
>>469689
>It had higher population and had way less foreign incursions.
>west
>way less foreign incursions
WHAT?
Persians, Greeks, Bactarians, Scythians, Parthians, Sassanids, Kushans, Arabs, Turks, Afghans, and Mughals ("Mongols") would disagree.
>>469157
>Bharat
t. Sanjeev Patel
>>469726
>persians
>greeks
stayed in the punjab and that was it.
>scythians
pretty much the same with a very tiny entrance into the doab
>arabs
in the sindh delta and not even punjab proper
>turks
came by a windfall with a stupidly chivalrous leader and needed centuries to expand from western india to the heartland and beyond.
>mughals
picked off where the turks left.
>afghans
came in as petty lords for the most part.
>>469130
Apart from the points stated by the other anons, you should also take into account who lives on the other side of the mountain paths. Those paths connect India with Central Asia and the eurasian steppe in general.
It's not that South Asia that it's prone to being invaded so often from the west, it's that the peoples who live in the west were prone to invade settled polities all the time. The settled neighbours of the indians, persians and other iranians, were also conquered by foreigners often. The chinese who (while distant from India) also border this big eurasian plain had the same or similar nomadic peoples as their enemies. Modern Russia and eastern Europe was also historically a victim of those nomads before poles first and russians after managed to prevent it.
>>469130
Like Protestantism is good for developing high work ethics, Hinduism is good for getting ruled by foreigners, they are pretty tolerant in regards to foreign occupation.
>>471108
Hindus really just didn't give a shit so long as you didn't bother them.
>>470678
Do you have a point though?
>>473240
not him but it is autistic to type bharat when india is used in common english parlance.
Its like calling japan nippon
