Greatest Afghan Empire?

[AfghanistanBactriaAriana]

Choose the greatest empire based and please explain why you chose it.

 

[Lord_of_Gauda]

Durrani empire because of the two afghan empires spanning the region (Durrani and Hotaki), the Durrani empire was clearly the most influential.

The other empires are not afghan empires, they are empires in Afghanistan or happen to include afghanistan in it.

 

[AfghanistanBactriaAriana]

Dude at this point I'm gonna put you on my ignore list.

Indo-Sythian=Mixed Pakhta-Saka empire who's capital was in Arachosia and Sakastan.

Kushan Empire= one of the main ancestors of Afghans and settled on Balkh

Hephthalites- Possibly the biggest ancestors of Afghans

Loykan of Ghazni- Pure Pashto word Loykan, from Pashtun territory, and we're called Pashtun by the Kushans.

Kabul Shahi- descendents of Hephthalites and Kushan, related to Zunbils.

Zunbils- Suris from traditional Pashtun territory Zabulistan

Ghorids- They're name is freaking Suri and they are from modern Afghanistan. No way they're not Afghan.

Ghaznavid- Though Alptageen was a turk. Mahmud Ghaznavi was from Ghazni (Pashtun Land) and his mother was a Pashtun that's how he got the loyalty of Pashtun from Zabulistan and Ghazna.

Suri Empire- Not even worth arguing everyone knows he is Afghan.

 

[AfghanistanBactriaAriana]

I picked Durrani since he united all Afghans and created a nation that has been around since 1747.

My top 3 would be
Durrani
Kushan
Ghaznavid

Though I really like the Ghorids.

 

[AfghanistanBactriaAriana]

Dang I also forgot the

Saffarid

Samanid- Debatable if they are Afghan or Persian

Khiliji

 

[Lord_of_Gauda]

Dude at this point I'm gonna put you on my ignore list.

Indo-Sythian=Mixed Pakhta-Saka empire who's capital was in Arachosia and Sakastan.

More like mixed pakhta-punjabi-northern indian-saka empire who's capital was in many places, three intact, two of which are in historic India: Taxila and Mathura.

Kushan Empire= one of the main ancestors of Afghans and settled on Balkh

And one of the ancestors of the Indians and Pakistani peoples too, who ORIGINALLY settled in Balk, then maintained a summer palace in Begram (close to Kabul), ruled from Taxila and Mathura, adopted Indian religions, culture and considered themselves paramount over India, married into Indians, etc etc.

Why do you get to claim Afghan exclusivity to the Kushans in a period when Afghans don't exist as an ethnic group, when the Kushans are ancestors to all those who lived there ?

Hephthalites- Possibly the biggest ancestors of Afghans

And of the Rajputs.

Loykan of Ghazni- Pure Pashto word Loykan, from Pashtun territory, and we're called Pashtun by the Kushans.

Kabul Shahi- descendents of Hephthalites and Kushan, related to Zunbils.

Descended of Hepthalites, Kushan and North-western Indian populations, ancestors of a lot of Punjabis and had most of their territory and extent in north-western punjab & Gandhara.

Zunbils- Suris from traditional Pashtun territory Zabulistan

Ghorids- They're name is freaking Suri and they are from modern Afghanistan. No way they're not Afghan.

Except back then, when we talk of the Zunbils and Suris, they are a major family name of that period,not afghan. Great power families often survive and integrate into changing or emerging ethnic identities.

Ghaznavid- Though Alptageen was a turk. Mahmud Ghaznavi was from Ghazni (Pashtun Land) and his mother was a Pashtun that's how he got the loyalty of Pashtun from Zabulistan and Ghazna.

Mahmud was a half pashtun, half turkic guy who lived in Afghanistan.
Anyways, i don't consider Mahmoud's legacy to be very good or influential. He destroyed a lot, made an unstable empire that barely out-lived him and added virtually nothing to afghanistan itself over the long run.

 

[Lord_of_Gauda]

Dang I also forgot the

Saffarid

nope, persian. Yaqub ibn al layth al saffar was a persian metalsmith.

Samanid- Debatable if they are Afghan or Persian

Quite easily persian and the next major ethnic contributor is turk.

Khiliji

Turks, even to the Afghans till recently they were considered turki.

 

[AfghanistanBactriaAriana]

More like mixed pakhta-punjabi-northern indian-saka empire who's capital was in many places, three intact, two of which are in historic India: Taxila and Mathura.



And one of the ancestors of the Indians and Pakistani peoples too, who ORIGINALLY settled in Balk, then maintained a summer palace in Begram (close to Kabul), ruled from Taxila and Mathura, adopted Indian religions, culture and considered themselves paramount over India, married into Indians, etc etc.

Why do you get to claim Afghan exclusivity to the Kushans in a period when Afghans don't exist as an ethnic group, when the Kushans are ancestors to all those who lived there ?



And of the Rajputs.






Descended of Hepthalites, Kushan and North-western Indian populations, ancestors of a lot of Punjabis and had most of their territory and extent in north-western punjab & Gandhara.



Except back then, when we talk of the Zunbils and Suris, they are a major family name of that period,not afghan. Great power families often survive and integrate into changing or emerging ethnic identities.



Mahmud was a half pashtun, half turkic guy who lived in Afghanistan.
Anyways, i don't consider Mahmoud's legacy to be very good or influential. He destroyed a lot, made an unstable empire that barely out-lived him and added virtually nothing to afghanistan itself over the long run.

1. However their first capital was in Sakastan, They amalgamated with Pakhtas, Pashtuns are they're descendents (Sakzai Pashtuns tribe)

2. Afghans get exclusive rights because they had a much bigger impact in their ancestry, they're from Afghan land, and they Amalgamated with the Pakhtas while it was kinda forced with the Indians as harsh as it sounds.

3. Majority of Asians have Mongol ancestry does that make them mongol. It's obvious huns had a small affect on them.

4. Suris spoke Pashto that makes them Pashtun.

5. Mahmud of Ghaznavi converted Afghans to Islam, had one of the biggest empires and had a huge impact on the region.

 

[AfghanistanBactriaAriana]

nope, persian. Yaqub ibn al layth al saffar was a persian metalsmith.



Quite easily persian and the next major ethnic contributor is turk.



Turks, even to the Afghans till recently they were considered turki.

I'll get back to you on Samanid and Saffarid.

Indians considered Khiliji Afghan. Also Khushal Khan Khattak called them Afghan.

 

[Lord_of_Gauda]

1. However their first capital was in Sakastan, They amalgamated with Pakhtas, Pashtuns are they're descendents (Sakzai Pashtuns tribe)

And they amalgamated with the people living in India and Pakistan too. Like every central Asian tribe going to India or middle east, Afghanistan usually is a geographic stop.

2. Afghans get exclusive rights because they had a much bigger impact in their ancestry, they're from Afghan land, and they Amalgamated with the Pakhtas while it was kinda forced with the Indians as harsh as it sounds.

No, that is faulty thinking. the Kushans or Sakas or Greeks all mostly lived in India, ruled from India and yes, their population in India was much smaller than relative to the Indian population than their population in Afghanistan relative to the people living there, and they got more absorbed in Indic history, but it doesn't change the fact that kushans, sakes, greeks mostly ruled from India, had most of their populations there and Indians/Pakistanis have just as much right to this ancestry as Afghans do. Most importantly, all these people were culturally Indian.

3. Majority of Asians have Mongol ancestry does that make them mongol. It's obvious huns had a small affect on them.

Yes, but majority of Asia was not where the mongols lived. The mongols also survive as an ethnic group themselves- the Kushans, Hepthalites, they do not. They all change, either consumed in Afghan identity or Indian identities.

4. Suris spoke Pashto that makes them Pashtun.

Yes, but speaking Pashtun doesn't make one a separate nation anymore than Bengalis in India or Sindhis in Pakistan.

5. Mahmud of Ghaznavi converted Afghans to Islam, had one of the biggest empires and had a huge impact on the region.

Conversion of Afghanistan is a gradual and brutal process, the Saffarids and the ghorids started and completed the process with the ghaznavids making the biggest difference.
But conversion of a region IMO is not the benchmark of an empire, its its ability to rule and provide a prosperous, stable and lasting empire.
Mahmoud failed in that on all counts- his empire was neither stable, nor prosperous or lasting.

 

[AfghanistanBactriaAriana]

And they amalgamated with the people living in India and Pakistan too. Like every central Asian tribe going to India or middle east, Afghanistan usually is a geographic stop.



No, that is faulty thinking. the Kushans or Sakas or Greeks all mostly lived in India, ruled from India and yes, their population in India was much smaller than relative to the Indian population than their population in Afghanistan relative to the people living there, and they got more absorbed in Indic history, but it doesn't change the fact that kushans, sakes, greeks mostly ruled from India, had most of their populations there and Indians/Pakistanis have just as much right to this ancestry as Afghans do. Most importantly, all these people were culturally Indian.




Yes, but majority of Asia was not where the mongols lived. The mongols also survive as an ethnic group themselves- the Kushans, Hepthalites, they do not. They all change, either consumed in Afghan identity or Indian identities.



Yes, but speaking Pashtun doesn't make one a separate nation anymore than Bengalis in India or Sindhis in Pakistan.



Conversion of Afghanistan is a gradual and brutal process, the Saffarids and the ghorids started and completed the process with the ghaznavids making the biggest difference.
But conversion of a region IMO is not the benchmark of an empire, its its ability to rule and provide a prosperous, stable and lasting empire.
Mahmoud failed in that on all counts- his empire was neither stable, nor prosperous or lasting.

1. The thing is they came into Sakastan after they mixed with people of Bakhtar. Sakastan was their main territory, they're influence is more visible in Pashtuns today and even in Pashto Saka.

2. However the Saka and the Kushan were the same as the Greeks in the sense that they were outsiders. Just like Indians cant claim Greeks as they're own they cant claim Kushan or Saka.

3. Mongols actually settled all across Asia, India was one of the main countries. Though the Khilijis kept out their initial attack.

4. Ghorids, Ghazna, Zabulistan were Pashtun nations just like Pars was not the only Persian nation.

5. The Ghaznavids lasted from 977-1186 and during their rule Ghazna was the Cultural Capital of the Islamic world. However we can't see just how beutiful he made Afghanistan because of the Mongols, Soviets, and our own idiotic warlords.

 

[PaKeeza]

@AfghanistanBactriaAriana Howdy mate. I go with Durrani Empire.

 

[AfghanistanBactriaAriana]

@AfghanistanBactriaAriana Howdy mate. I go with Durrani Empire.

Same here one of the few who Afghans called Baba along with Mirwais Baba and Roshan Baba.

What do Pashtuns in Pakistan think of him I know in Pakistan there are missiles called named after Sultan Mahmud Ghaznavi.

 

[PaKeeza]

Same here one of the few who Afghans called Baba along with Mirwais Baba and Roshan Baba.

What do Pashtuns in Pakistan think of him I know in Pakistan there are missiles called named after Sultan Mahmud Ghaznavi.

Very highly regarded and yes many of the most potent nuclear missiles are named after Pashtun conquerors

Rather appropriate I should think ha ha ha !

 

[Lord_of_Gauda]

1. The thing is they came into Sakastan after they mixed with people of Bakhtar. Sakastan was their main territory, they're influence is more visible in Pashtuns today and even in Pashto Saka.

And they mixed with turks before that, before which who knows what they mixed with.
Sakastan was *NOT* the main territory of the Kushans or the Indo-Scythians. They were there for small periods of time before the region reverted back to Suren control (Parthian).
Their main territory was Bactria, then transferred to the upper-Pakistan & Punjab region.
That is how the kushan, Saka, Indo-Greek, Hepthalite powers evolved and died out.

2. However the Saka and the Kushan were the same as the Greeks in the sense that they were outsiders. Just like Indians cant claim Greeks as they're own they cant claim Kushan or Saka.

Indians can't claim Greek because it is convention not to claim a small portion of influence from a small portion of the people. In the case of Greeks, most Greeks stayed in Greece & mediterranean. in case of Kushans, Hepthalites, etc. a significant majority of them came to live in India.

And if the Indians can't claim them, neither can Afghans. There is absolutely no difference in the way they arrive and settle in Afghanistan or India, with the distinction that far more of them lived and amalgamated with the Indians.
They even followed Indian religions and traditions and were thoroughly indianized.
This makes their claims stronger than Afghan claims.

3. Mongols actually settled all across Asia, India was one of the main countries. Though the Khilijis kept out their initial attack.

Incorrect, but that is another discussion alltogether. The point is, unlike the Greeks or the Mongols, most of the Kushans, hepthalites, etc. ended up in India AND they do not exist as an ethnic group today,making them ancestral people of modern ethnicities.

4. Ghorids, Ghazna, Zabulistan were Pashtun nations just like Pars was not the only Persian nation.

Err no. Ghorids & ghaznavids spoke and wrote in Farsi, not Pashtun. They had some pashtun troops and the soleiman mt. area was the stronghold of the pashtuns but not the ghurid or the ghazna region.

5. The Ghaznavids lasted from 977-1186 and during their rule Ghazna was the Cultural Capital of the Islamic world. However we can't see just how beutiful he made Afghanistan because of the Mongols, Soviets, and our own idiotic warlords.

Err no, from 977-1186 or intact for almost another century, Baghdad was the cultural capital of the Islamic world and it was not even close, with Cairo being a distant second.
After the sack of baghdad, the cultural capital of Islam shifts to Cairo. Afghanistan region had its heyday actually, under the Timurid ruler (can't remember his name, Timur's son or grandson) who made Herat the cultural capital of the Islamic world,but the Timurids were heavily persianized, not pastunized.

As for the real extent of the Ghaznavid empire,
it lasted from 977 to 1030. After Mehmoud died, the Ghaznavid empire disintegrated into inter-tribal warfare, civil war and little or no control west of Kandahar and east of the suleiman range.

That is neither stable, nor fruitful an empire.

 

[Azad67]

The two native Afghan Empires were
1- Durrani Empire
2- Hotaki Empire

The Afghan Empire established in India were
1- Khilji Empire (1290-1320)
2- Lodi Empire (1451-1526)
3- Suri Empire (1540-1550)
4- Karrani Kingdom (1560-1576)
5- Sayyid dynasty ( 1414-1451)......Sayyid by lineage and Afghan by nation according to 17th century historian Khafi Khan

There is uncertainty about origin of Ghauris of Ghor, they are simply labeled Tajiks by some but from works of contemporary historians of court of Ghazni, it is clear they were certainly not Persians but some distinct East Iranian group. Baihaqi who is considered as the most famous historian of the Ghaznavid era had written in page 117 that "Sultan Massud leaves for (jaroos ghor) “jai darmeshi paat”... and sends his learned companion with two people from Ghor as interpreter between this person and the people of that region. The court lanagage of Ghazni was Persian yet they needed interpretor to communicate with Ghorians. Morover Ghorians are mentioned as tribal people with tribal chiefs, Tajiks do not have categorization along tribes.

Traditional Muslim historians such as Istakhri and Ibn Haukal say that Ghorians didnt speak Persian,

"Ghor - Also called Ghoristan. The mountainous country between Hirat and Ghazni. According to Istakhri and Ibn Haukal it was a rugged mountainous country , bounded by the districts of Hirat, Farrah, Dawar, Rabat, Kurwan, and Gharjistan back to Hirat, which were all Muhammadan countries. Ghor itself was a country of infidels, containing only a few Musulmans, and the inhabitants spoke a language different from that of Khurasan" (The History of India as told by its own Historians by Eliot and Dowson, Volume 2 page 576)

 

[Azad67]

There is controversy regarding the origin of the Khaljis. To some scholars they are of Turkish origin while some assert that they are predominantly Afghans. Khushal Khan Khattak in his Dewan of poetry also calls the Khaljis as Ghiljis Afghans. (See Abdul Qayum Zahid Mashwani, ed. Da Khushal Khan Khattak Kulyat[Pashto] (Kabul: Danish Publications, 2013), p. 1302.). Preshan Khattak opines that most of the historians wrongly write "Khaljis" instead of "Ghiljis". There are also several similarities between the Khalji and other Afghan dynasties. For instance majority of the Afghan monarchs were very lenient and the simplicity of the court was a common feature shared by all these dynasties. Many Afghan monarchs fell victim of their own relatives and so was the fate of Jalal-ud-Din. Another common feature of the different Afghan dynasties was their disunity and inter-tribal warfare, every monarchy ceased to exist after its third heir such as Khaljis ruled over northern India with three monarchs and so were Lodhis. Suris, royal Khalji family of Qandahar, Abdalis and Barakzais etc. (See Preshan Khattak, Pashtun Kaun? Tarikh, Tahqiq, Tanqeed (Peshawar: Pashto Academy, 2005), p. 64)

According to Major Raverty and Elphinstone , the Khiljis were a people who were Turks , but having been long staying in Afghanistan first round Herat then Eastwards , they became so assimilated to the populations of the locality that they were taken to be more Afghans than Turks. The late Dr.Vincent Smith states on page 230 of Oxford History of India. "Although the Khaliji or Khilji tribe is reckoned by Raverty among the Turks , the contemporary author Ziau-d-din Barani , who must have known the facts, states that,' Jalal-d-din came of a race different from the Turks ,' and that by the death of Sultan Kaikoabad , 'The Turks lost the empire'.


Mr.Elliott's History of India (Vol.III page 34) has given the translation of a portion of Feroz Shahi , which runs as follows -​

"At the same time Jalaludin, who was Ariz-i-Mamalik , had gone to Baharpur , attended by a body of his relations and friends. Here he held a muster and inspection of the forces. He came of a race different from that of the Turks ; so he had no confidence in them , nor would the Turks own him as belonging to the member of his friends".
​

At another place Barani says,

"Aitmar Kachhan and Aitmar Surkha Wakil-i-dar conspired to denounce and remove several nobles of foreign extraction. They accordingly drew up a list at the head of which they placed the name of Jalal-ud-din Khalji."
​

Minhaj-us-siraj, author of Tabqat-Nasiri doesnt regard the Khiljis as belonging to the race of Turks. While giving a detailed account of Ikhtiar-ud-din Khilji Muhammad Bakhtiar Khilji's exploits , he gives the following statement , which clearly explains that the Khiljis and the Turks were two different entities.

"when his lashkar passed over that ridge , he posted there two of his amirs, one being a Turk , the other a Khalji, to guard that bridge"
​

Now there is only one possibility left to consider and that is whether or not Khiljis are Afghans?. The early historians deal with the Khiljis and the Afghans as if they were of separate national identity. But afterwards the history books written in Persian , the word Khilji and Afghan became interchangeable and were taken as describing the same group of people. And during Sultanate period the Khaljis were taken as Afghans.


In the light of the rule of grammar if two nouns are used in conjunction , they do not necessarily give opposite meanings, but many times they are synonymous. So it follows that when Khaljis and Afghans are mentioned togather , it is not done to represent two separate tribes belonging to different races but probably of the one and the same race.


It is an interesting feature of Afghan history that those individuals who achieve fame and importance are remembered as their name is given to their successors. Thus this new name of the family distinguishes it from other similar tribes of the family and ultimately this distinction becomes so established that a tribe within tribe is formed. For the purpose of historical treatment these sub-tribes are dealt with as quite separate from parent tribe. This factors leads to some misunderstanding as the historians of posterity do not take the trouble of finding out the link of which connects one with the other. For the purpose of illustration, we would mention here the case of Niazi and Suri Pashtuns who actually belong to the main stock of Lodhis. The history of these tribes is not different from that of the Lodhis and yet while some of them call themselves Lodhis today. Others are known as Niazis and Suris. The fact is that Niazis and Lodhis , in spite of different denominations are one and same.


Niazi tribe has further sub-divide itself into three branches which are known as Isa Khel, Mushani and Sarhangs . and all these branches have the same past but as we read Tuzk-e-Babari we find that Emperor Babur has considered the Niazi and Isa Khel tribes as quite separate from each other in the chapter where he describes the Afghan tribes of Bannu. But the fact is that Isa Khel tribe forms the part of main Niazi tribe. Since Emperor knew only the name of Isa Khel tribe and was not fully aware of the details about other Niazi tribes, so he mentioned Isa Khel under one heading and dealt with all the other Niazi tribes under the general heading of 'Niazis'. This ignorance on the part of Babur has also proved misleading for the subsequent historians.


Barani and Minhaj are quite authoritative in saying that Khajis were not Turks. In that case they were certainly Afghans. The contemporary historians knew the name of Khajis but didnt possess the detailed knowledge about the other Afghan tribes and so in their writings , they didnt mention the name Khilji as this was the only tribal name from among the various names which they knew for fame and strength associated with it. Sir W.haig remarks that the people of Delhi at that time undoubtedly believed Khaljis akin to Afghans and not Turks, and also it is hard to say what became of the Khiljis if we were not regard the Ghaljis as the Afghan's modern representative. The present Ghalji tribe is the largest of all Afghan tribes. And it could never have been a small sept hidden away in the Suleiman mountains in the days of Ghaznavids. They still hold the same territories

​

 

[Azad67]

Ghaznavids have nothing to do with Pashtun/Afghans.

Afghans are mentioned in detail in "Kitab-i-Yamini" written by Al-Utbi, secretary to Mahmud of Ghazni. He records that Sabuktagin enrolled the Afghans in his army , and that Mahmud in his invasion of Tokharistan led an army consisting of Indians, Khalj, Afghans and Ghaznawis.


The Afghans inhabiting the mountainous region between the Ghazna and the Indus , used to carry out plundering raids on the frontier districts of Sultan Mahmud. In 1049 AD they waylaid his troops as they were returning in detachments over the hill passes from Kanauj. The Sultan therefore marched against them about the end of same year, shortly after his return from Kanauj. In order to make them unawares, the Sultan gave out that he was going in other direction but he turned around , surrounded them in their mountain haunts and did terrible execution against them.


[FONT=Times, Times New Roman, serif]In Utbi's own words, [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Times, Times New Roman, serif]When the pimples of the disgrace and infamy of the puritans (lit., Tahirites, heretics so called) of Tabaristan had passed away, the Sultan occupied himself in repelling the nation of the Afghans, who made their homes in the acclivities of cliffs and the summits of mountains, and for a long time had been accustomed, with violent success, to stretch out their hand (to attack) the extreme border of his territories. He departed from Ghazna, with the wish to turn upon them, and, by giving their nest to the winds, cut off the germ of that annoyance. He therefore made as though he were marching towards another place and had a design against some other people, and suddenly fell upon them and, fastening the sword upon them, gave many people to destruction ([/FONT]

Utbi, The Kitab-i-yamini, p.467)​

​

Baihaki's chronicle, only a little later in date confirms the above mentioned event. Mahmud attacks on the Afghans took place in 1020-21 AD and 1023-24 AD.​

 

[Azad67]

@AfghanistanBactriaAriana Howdy mate. I go with Durrani Empire.

By Sheer size yes, but Durrani Empire lacked the strong administration and is not known for a centralized rule. The military itself was mostly rag tag volunteers from various Pashtun tribes summoned on occasions of battles, only regular Durrani and Qizalbash troops had quality to them.

I would say, the Short-lived Sur Empire, was greatest in size as well as achievements. They left the great legacy for great Mughals. Sher Shah Suri didnt attempt to conquer Roh (Pakhtunkhwa), respecting their independence, but he invited Pashtun chiefs of Roh to attend a Loya Jirga when he was a Khushab (Punjab). The native Pashtun dyansty sprung so late in 18th century, because Pashtun tribes didht like to be ruled by a king, nor they had customs of standing for King or bowing to him. For example Babur exempted newly integrated Afghan nobles from standing to the King. His predecessor Ibrahim lodi forgot the customs and nature of Afghans and tried to bring Turki and Persian etiquette into darbar, ordering them to bow and sand before King. It brought his downfall.

 

[TomarRajput]

I voted for the Suri Empire. His tomb can still be found in Bihar:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomb_of_Sher_Shah_Suri

He's very well respected in the state especially among the Muslim population but also among Hindus as he recruited a lot of Bihari soldiers into his army.