States with bigger populations conquered by states with lower populations

MAGolding

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,933
Chalfont, Pennsylvania
If nobody mentioned it before, how about the Mongols conquering most of Asia and parts of Europe in the 13th century?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Aug 2019
92
Bengaluru, India/Sharjah, UAE
Conquest means you take over the lands. For example saudis did so in vast Arabia.

The British introduced doctrine of lapse thus acknowledge native Indian rule.

Even at the time of independence the British used cannons to salute kings.

A conquest means absolute removal of native power in all spheres.

Today people don't recognise Saudi Arabia as having been once a vast area of many rulers.
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,733
SoCal
Conquest means you take over the lands. For example saudis did so in vast Arabia.

The British introduced doctrine of lapse thus acknowledge native Indian rule.

Even at the time of independence the British used cannons to salute kings.

A conquest means absolute removal of native power in all spheres.

Today people don't recognise Saudi Arabia as having been once a vast area of many rulers.
Can you please elaborate on what a lapse is?
 
Aug 2019
92
Bengaluru, India/Sharjah, UAE
United States would not be considered a conquest but it sure is considering how the native population was significantly reduced and power, whatever form it might be, was demolished of the native Americans.

The mass migrations would count as non-native.

Native Americans were not taken permission from in setting up the 13 colonies initially. Neither were they ever given a notice about colonization.

The colonization was akin to what would happen in say mars if aliens existed.

The American old stock colonies were set up as British outposts for permanent assimilation.

The existence of all other European powers also shows alliance against natives
 
Aug 2019
92
Bengaluru, India/Sharjah, UAE
A conquest of India would be what the Dehli Sultanate or the Mughals did. Assimilate into and as Indians over a span of three generations minimum to achieve nativity. The invader, the settler and the native born.

All power was snatched in their dominions from the previous ruler.

Later when the Dehli Sultanate nativised and were starting to move Persian towards assimilation, the mughals conquered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Aug 2018
274
America
Conquest means you take over the lands. For example saudis did so in vast Arabia.

The British introduced doctrine of lapse thus acknowledge native Indian rule.

Even at the time of independence the British used cannons to salute kings.

A conquest means absolute removal of native power in all spheres.

Today people don't recognise Saudi Arabia as having been once a vast area of many rulers.
Yeah, no. The British did invade and conquer India just like other invaders. Some rulers of India surrendered themselves to get spared, but only after they saw their neighbours defeated and conquered. I mean, you talk as if things like the Battle of Plassey or the conquest of Mysore or the war with the Sikhs didn't happen. That you also use local rulers after conquering doesn't mean you didn't conquer the area. This is like saying that the Spaniards didn't conquer the Incas because they left Inca nobles in charge. It's also like saying the Ostrogoths didn't conquer Italy because they left the Pope and other Roman nobles and administrators.
 
Aug 2019
92
Bengaluru, India/Sharjah, UAE
Yeah, no. The British did invade and conquer India just like other invaders. Some rulers of India surrendered themselves to get spared, but only after they saw their neighbours defeated and conquered. I mean, you talk as if things like the Battle of Plassey or the conquest of Mysore or the war with the Sikhs didn't happen. That you also use local rulers after conquering doesn't mean you didn't conquer the area. This is like saying that the Spaniards didn't conquer the Incas because they left Inca nobles in charge. It's also like saying the Ostrogoths didn't conquer Italy because they left the Pope and other Roman nobles and administrators.
In India, conquer would mean assimilation. The amount of Anglo Indians are very less proof of conquest.

To conquer is to never turn back and consider this as home.

India asked for independence which it never ever did before. At all. And that too via non-violence. Does that sound like a conquered country?

People say English colonized but the assimilation of British aspects happened after independence so as to nativise it not before.

India still retains all its glory, except for the economy stolen by trillions. Literally every conquest has led to destruction in India and then assimilation.

The British retain aspects of various indian cultures. India indeed conquered most of the world culturally but the British only managed to colonise.

Unlike America India retains all its aspects pre-british except for wealth and free thinking and the trauma of rape. There is no sacred land for the conquered. The confederate Americans that lost to union do well to remember that.