I was in discussion with this India guy online and I mentioned that Tang Dynasty armies had once conquered and built tributary garrisons in parts of India, namely "Gilgit" and "Patma." He said no such cities exist in India and that I was lying. What has pride got to do with it? He even said Moguls were not Central Asians but Persians???

I never read anything about Tang army conquering India territory since the Tang mostly expand their empire northward and westward.

I've never read of Chinese occupying Indian territories except the PRC. Maybe someone here knows? Interesting to find out more about these two garrisons you mentioned.

I don't think Tang army ever conquer parts of India...heck, they can't even conquer Tubo (Tibetans) or Nanzhao (Yunnan) southwards, how are they suppose to conquer India?

No. No one from Tang ever conquered parts of India. There was however contact with India.

Buddhism flourished in this period, originating from India. Taizong and his decendants never declared war on India but befriended them.

What I read is Tang did sent an army into India. Not to conqure it, but to aid Tang allie to win a civil war.

lol. but the topic is "Did Tang armies ever conquer parts of India?"

And your point is? My thread already answered that question. You know, in the part where it says "not to conqure it".

Whoops My bad read it wrong...

The Mogul emperors claimed descent from Tamerlane, who claimed descent from Chinggis Khan. Hence their name 'Mogul', which is a variant of 'Mongol'. So no Persians there - unless you count Tamerlane as Persian for having conquered Persia.

But Tang China never conquered any Indian territory. Wang Xuance 王玄策, a Tang envoy, did intervene in a civil war there in 647, as Naruwan mentioned. But it was not a Tang army that he used, but an allied army of 1,000 Tibetan infantry and 7,000 Nepalese cavalry. Wang had arrived just after the death of the formidable and talented King Harsha, and one of the ministers had usurped the throne and decided to expel Wang. Wang was escorted by several tens of Tang cavalry, but they were all killed or captured, and the gifts borne by the embassy were seized. Wang fled to the western borders of the Tibetan empire, and wrote a letter requesting the aid of the Tibetans and other neighbouring states. With the allied troops given to him, Wang laid siege to the capital and took it after 3 days, executing 3,000 Indians and driving another 10,000 to their deaths in a river. The usurper fled and regrouped his forces, but was again defeated and captured by Wang's deputy Jiang Shiren 蒋师仁. Harsha's short-lived kingdom (founded in 606) simply fell apart after this war.

Wang presented the captured usurper to Tang Taizong, who said, "If the Brahmans had not tried to capture my envoys, what reason would I have had to capture this rebel?" This shows that the Tang had no interest in involving itself in Indian politics, and there could not have been any Tang occupation since the army that defeated the Indians was not even from the Tang.

Thanks Yun. That's very detailed. I read it so long ago I don't remember the details anymore.

I am a little amazed that the Tibetans send troops to Wang. Was this after the princess was married to Tibet?

I guess it depends on the occasion. Tang and Tibet probably were probably on the same side this time.

I just found out that Gilgit is now located in modern Pakistan. It is a trading and highway town adjacent to Xinjiang and Tibet.

The Tang did establish a protectorate over Gilgit for a couple decades.

Isn't India in the westward??
i know of Chinggis did chase and trying to catch the prince to Indus river, not sure
of Tang ?? but heard the Nepal was almost under influence of the Tang at that
time!!

What about patma?

Hi

Perhaps Patma refers to the city of Patna, located in what is now Bihar state, which was once a stronghold of Buddhist learning. Monks from the many universities in Patna spread Buddhism to places in East Asia, and during the Tang period, these cultural contacts were at its heyday, where Indian monks went to China, and Chinese monks studied in India.

However, its would be very incorrect to say that Patna was at all conquered or tibutary to any Chinese empire.

No, from the info from Yun, I think it's quite clear Chinese armies never conquered or garrisoned any Indian territories in ancient times.

If anything, India and China battled rather indirectly, in South East Asia. It's fascinating to flip through history watching how their cultural influence varied in different times, constantly being in rivalry.

I just stumbled over this:

Eventually, though, a crisis developed when a pro-Tibetan ruler came to power in the kingdom of Gilgit, located in the neighborhood of the modern city of the same name, now in Pakistan. The Chinese, after a number of unsuccessful attempts to rectify this unacceptable situation, finally sent a large army westward in 747 under the command of the famed Korean general Kao Hsien-chih who, in a dramatic campaign, remembered long after in both China and Korea, crossed the Pamirs and swooped down on an unsuspecting Gilgit. Demolishing the bridge across which Tibetan reinforcements would have had to arrive, Kao beheaded selected pro-Tibetan officials, and took the king and his Tibetan wife prisoner -thereby ending Gilgit's flirtation with China's enemy, but failing nonetheless to head off the impending collision with the Arabs at Talas.

What to make of it?

Source: http://www.saudiaramcoworld.com/issue/1982...le.of.talas.htm

Map of the area: http://www.geocities.com/johnmap2001/kkh/maps.html

^That Chinese troops saw and encountered some beautiful Bollywood type of women

That article in Saudiaramco World has already been discredited on CHF. But what it seems to be saying to me is that the kingdom known to Chinese as Xiao Bolu 小勃律 was known as Gilgit to the local people. Gao Xianzhi did lead that expedition into Xiao Bolu across the Pamirs in 747. It is now in Pakistan, but it should not be considered as lying within the Indian cultural sphere. Rather, it is something like an extension of Tibet.

Yes, Gilgit was Little BoLu in Chinese sources, Gao Xian Zhi took the kingdom from Tubo in 747 and garrisoned it. Bolu was in Tang's sphere of influence as early as the 710s, in 722, Tang already routed a Tubo force trying to penetrate into Little Bolu. But it was not part of India back then, in 753, Tang also took Big Bolu from Tibet.

"If anything, India and China battled rather indirectly, in South East Asia. It's fascinating to flip through history watching how their cultural influence varied in different times, constantly being in rivalry. "

???? no, the kingoms of Tien Zu as Tang calls India were actually Tang allies against Tubo, The kingdom of central and Southern Tien Zu constantly sent letters to Tang to [provide support and halt Tubo expansion west and south. Wang Xuan Ce did made CEntral and Eastern Tien Zu vassals, but never garrisoned or occupied it.

Yun, Harsha's empire collapsed as early as 647, and divided into 4-5 different kindom, it was already in turmoil when Wang arrived, when Wang took the Ursurper king to Chang An Central Tien Zu simply had a new king.

I have recently read that Gilgit (Lesser Bolu/Bolor in the Chinese sources) was in present-day Kashmir. If so, whether China ever conquered part of present-day India depends on whether you support India or Pakistan in the Kashmir dispute.

Anyway, Gao Xianzhi only occupied Gilgit for one or two months, and then withdrew to the Tarim Basin with the Gilgit king and his queen (who was a Tibetan princess) as prisoners.

Perhaps that idea would derive from the fact that there was a very strong Persian component in Mughal high culture and language. And if you look at a map of the Timurid empire, it's essentially a map of lesser Achaemenid or Parthian Persia.


I think when people refer to India in an ancient context, they include Pakistan and Bangladesh, even parts of Afghanistan depending on the era. For example, Porus being referred to as an Indian king.

Indian influence never have to battle against chinese influence in southeast asia. It was rather well recieved, usually or mostly absorbed by will. Vietnam is the only southeast asian state that noticeably absorbed chinese culture, while Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Cambodia, and Myanmar are Indic states with relative no or little chinese influence. This however changed during recent centuries as China became more important in global trade, southeast asia had many chinese settlements that brought there culture with them but I wouldn't say Indian influence have to battle with chinese influence. Its rather Chinese and Indian influence against native culture.

^ "Vietnam is the only southeast asian state that noticeably absorbed chinese culture, while Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Cambodia, and Myanmar are Indic states with relative no or little chinese influence. "

India did influence SE nations signficantly, but so has China relatively significantly as well. They've been trading with SE Asian nations since the Tang, and helped make former South East Asian kingdoms rich. For example, China had numerous colonies along Malaysia. Malaysia also has a large Chinese population (over 30%) and contains Chinese culture mixed with native Malay. Cambodia and Myanmar, are essentially carbon copies of Vietnam, and have both been influenced from China in culture.

I heard and I got a few friends from Tibet and Nepal. They look some look Indian some look Chinese.Some looked mixed.

Don't know about Tibetans, but Nepalese are definitely mixed with Indians to some extent.

err.. what?
How do you figure Cambodia and Burma are carbon copies of Vietnam?!

I hate to break it to you but Cambodia and Burma are decidely NOT carbon copies of Vietnam. A basic understanding of their history and cultures should tell you that.
But really... I'm keen to you hear your explanation of this ridiculous generalization.

Amongst both cultures... Tibetan and Nepalese there is very little intermarriage with Indians.
While they may share some customs and cultural traits (eg. hinduism/buddhism etc.) they generally do not intermarry.
Between Nepalese and Indians it's very rare... and amongst Tibetans it's almost completely unheard of.
While there are many Tibetans and for that matter Nepalese living in Northeast India they generally stick to their own people.
In most places (Sikkim, Siliguri, Darjeeling etc.) Nepalese is the defacto language - but most speak basic Hindi.

There are many reasons that both groups have not intermarried amongst the Indians - one of the primary ones being that
the majority of marriages amongst both Nepalese and Tibetans are arranged marriages. This holds true for many Indians as well.

Tibetans for sure. Nepali people are, however, intermixed to a noticeable degree with Indians. This can be seen in the features of many Nepali people, such as P.M. Girija Prasad Koirala, and even King Gyanendra. Perhaps it's less common today because of the political border, but the flow of people between the two countries was much easier in ancient times.

Interesting. I wonder to what degree this actually holds true though. Are you basing your idea of intermixing based on the facial features of the PM or King Gyanendra?

The reason I wonder this is that in all my time in Nepal and India (which is several times a year over the past 15 years)... I've yet to see a mixed Indian/Nepalese couple. I've found generally there is a bit of tension if not downright distrust between the Indian and Nepalese communities. To that point most Nepalese don't intermarry amongst other Nepalese tribes/castes. You wont generally find a Newari married to a Gurung or a Magar married to a Bawan. The caste divisions are generally very clearly spelled out in Nepal. For that matter here in Hong Kong as well. Though... that being said... the younger generations are somewhat less conservative than their parents. Overseas Nepalese are probably more inclined to intermarry and have 'love' marriages as opposed to arranged marriages. But because of the strong family structures present in Nepalese society intermarriage amongst castes in Nepal still isn't very common.

All of which brings some interesting questions - that no doubt my Nepalese and Indian friends here in Hong Kong will be duly quizzed on.... What happens if a high caste Indian man marries a low caste Nepalese woman. Which set of social rules do they follow? Surely not the womans. I can't see any Indian man making that sort of stand against his family's values. Nor can I see a a low caste Nepalese woman being married off to an Indian man. I believe there is far too much distrust from the Nepalese side. The reason being that many Nepalese women are sold off from their families and kidnapped out of Nepal and sent on to work in brothels in India under forced prostitution and essentially sexual slavery.

Yes, yes, it is uncommon in modern times. But in ancient times, before there was an India or a Nepal (politically speaking), there was a continuum of tribes and kingdoms from the Himalayas to Kanyakumari, with the occasional empire bursting upon the scene. States unified and split, and people migrated to and fro, so there was quite a bit of intermixing in those days. Thus, you find people in modern Nepal (like Koirala) with features typical of modern Indians, and some of the vice-versa.

Ah fascinating... that's something I'm not that well versed in... the ancient history of the northern parts of India. It suddenly dawned on me how modern times I was thinking in response. Ok... off to do some reading.

Like Monkey King, I disagree with this too. Even in ancient times, the Cambodian Khmers were certainly not the same as either the Viet or the Cham, and you can even tell them apart in old art by style of dress. From looks at these countries, no, I would certainly not say that they are carbon copies of Vietnam.

This is an interesting thread, with great posts by Yun as usual.

Historian Charles Benn mentions the incident in his China's Golden Age: Everyday Life in the Tang Dynasty (page 38):



Eric

Wang, did you not read what Yun already posted here? It's the exact same story! Only Yun didn't mention anything about old men and elixers, and in Benn's book he doesn't provide the names of the officers and the monarch, that and a more detailed account as Yun provided here in this thread.

Pay attention Wang, there will be a test on this.

Lol.

Eric.
P.S. No test, just kidding.

Most people's history and, particularly, geography are weak - it is no surprise that many could not be sure of the details even our resident go to guys

It is relatively easy to come up with maps and campaigns of the subject should one go looking. nonetheless, as a rather small tale in the plethora of events, the fate of the Tang embassy in India in the 7th century might be overlooked by those with less than encyclopedic reading abilities; gilgit might not be realized to lie within Paki / Indian territory even with full map spreads in clear evidence

and certainly the average man in the street and, for that matter, the average coworker and the average acquaintance of the average forumer and indeed the average forumer as has been shown here could hardly be expected to know of such matters. pity

What??? Cambodian Khmers in my view were far potential than Champa or Laos kingdom. Perhaps they could ranked among one of the most advanced civilisation in South East Asia. (Means I agree with you, Yang Zongbap)

From another source, I knew that at a time of 8th or 9th century, Tang armies did encounter a threat from the Arabian speaking tribes. Of course, in terms of World History, this was the period of explosion for Muslim culture. I am wondering whether were there any major conflicts between Tang's armies and, let call them, The Turks. Did the Tang Armies met any difficulty in dealing with these Tribes.

The Battle of Talas, which was an Abbasid victory showed that a definite dependence upom Alliance (In this case is Qarluq and Ferghana). In my opinion, the army of Tang culminated their power about 650-670 and declined about 751 onwards

贞观十年，沙门玄奘至其国，将梵本经论六百余部而归。先是遣右率府长史王
玄策使天竺，其四天竺国王咸遣使朝贡。会中天竺王尸罗逸多死，国中大乱，其臣
那伏帝阿罗那顺篡立，乃尽发胡兵以拒玄策。玄策从骑三十人与胡御战，不敌，矢
尽，悉被擒。胡并掠诸国贡献之物。玄策乃挺身宵遁，走至吐蕃，发精锐一千二百
人，并泥婆罗国七千余骑，以从玄策。玄策与副使蒋师仁率二国兵进至中天竺国城，
连战三日，大破之，斩首三千余级，赴水溺死者且万人，阿罗那顺弃城而遁，师仁
进擒获之。虏男女万二千人，牛马三万余头匹。


This is the whole story recorded in the Jiu Tang Shu. "When King Harsha of central hindustan died, his country was in chaos(Harsha had conquered all the other Hindustan kingdoms previously and united north India), his subject A Lo Shun Na ursurped the throne, sent Hu armies to face Xuan Ce. Xuan Ce led over 30 horsemen to encounter the Hu soldiers, could not win, and lost all his goods. The hu people plundered the tributes of the various kingdoms. Xuan Ce straightened himself and entered Tibet, which sent 1,200 people, and Nepal(which was a Tibetan vassal at this point) sent over 7,000 cavalry to follow Xuan Ce. Xuan Ce and his vice envoy Jiang Shi Ren led the armies of the two states and arrived at the city of central Hindustan, the battle lasted three days, and routed their forces, cutting off the heads of over 3,000, drowning 10,000. A Lo Shun Na abandoned his city, Shi Ren captured him. They also captured 12,000 male and female, over 30,000 ox and horses."



By Turks, I presume you refer to the Turgis. They were the dominant tribes that ruled the Ili valley and lake balkash region. They were nominally Tang subjects and fought with the Muslims constantly, driving the Arabs out of most of Sogdiana for one and a half decades(although they were subjects, by the 720s, they were far greater threats to the Tang than the Arabs, the latter has never been a threat because they were too far away, Talas was a distant confrontation that had no strategic significance.
Consult here:
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=725
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php...12789&st=45

Thanks for the corrections, I was in a haste. I am a bit surprised that Xuan Ce captured Harsha's successor. I've always thought the kingdom belonged to that of a petty rajah, until I read Jiu Tang Shu. Tai Zone also made a statue of A Fu Na Shun placed near his tomb as one of the many kings he captured in his life time.

At the time between 650-670, India plunged into turmoil after the collapse of respectable Gupta Empire (collapsed in 550). Not until 770, when Dharmapala expanded the kingdom again did India refresh their military force. However, Tibet and Himalaya mountain seems to be great obstacles for Tang dynasty to reach their power to India. the

Harsha did briefly united northern India from 606-647. Tibetan power really only rose in the 660s and it was the mutual enemy of the various Indian states and the Tang.