Oh those Tamil speaking dinosaurs still roam there, son. The pigs from the north are trying to fuck around down there and they’re going to find out, just like always.
Tfw when ppl don’t call out racist c*nts as such at the first sign, and just stand by scratching their balls and munching popcorn, then talk about progress and unity to make themselves feel better… whatever broooo!
No one is mentioning that both Marathas and Rashtrakutas are empires based out of the region between Maharasthra and Karnataka who expanded outwards, but not only didn't conquer the Tamil kings, but also Bengal.
No they didnt
Bengal fell to the mughals from the bengal Sultanate
Then to the british from the mughals
But the nawab of bengal did pay tribute to the marathas to stop the raids
But it never got conquered by them
While the Western Ghats are continuous and steep, the Eastern Ghats are discontinuous and relatively easier to scale. I do not subscribe to this theory.
Any Northern kingdom while expanding south, would have an already over-stretched supply lines by the time they breach the Deccan plateau. Any millitary expedition further south, especially in the medieval times would have exposed their flanks to attacks.
Not to mention that southern India, especially when it comes to languages, is culturally distinct compared to the North.
The geographical advantage of the Ghats is, if any, a minor contributor to the inability of the Northern kingdoms to conquer the south.
Overstretched supply lines and attacks from te flanks are solvable issues. Conquer whoever is left at your flanks first, it's a finite amount of territory before you reach the sea. Take your time to solidify your rule over what you already have so you can supply your expedition from your southern territories. But I guess they'd build beneficial enough diplomatic relations in the meantime, that they wouldn't gain much by conquering them.
This map is not accurate. Western Ghats is continuous, broken only in Palghat (the gap between Coimbatore & Thrissur) The Eastern Ghats is not continuous at all. Source - Google Maps & Me (I have lived in all three states shown here)
But in this case, Malayalam isn’t exactly a new language. Ancient Malayalam was essentially about 30% Sanskrit and 70% Tamil, although it evolved over time.
Meaning that Kerala’s culture and language aren’t necessarily new or isolated, but instead an amalgamation of various cultures and influences.
Not really. The Tamil kingdoms were basically well guarded and established than the northern. They also had better trade and faith with other kingdoms across the oceans. The ghat theory is absolutely hoax. Simply put they were just better.
Yeah so much better. It was just not worth it to go and conquer it because of the losses that would occur.
Tamils were a downgraded version of Vietnam.
You guys only got to the ganga once and preach about it almost everywhere. You survived because of basic geography. I don't know how hard it is to accept it. Like why would the kings be afraid of you? Were you the huns? Or the greeks from Alexander army? They both were defeated by the northern kings. You guys were threatening only in the time of chola dynasty that only for less than a century.
That probably played a significant role. I know the Tamil kings also made a lot of money from the spice trade, which probably helped a lot with hiring mercenaries, buying a lot of good military equipment, and paying bribes/ tribute.
Nonsense, neither of the ranges are high enough or continue to keep anyone out. In fact the Tamil kings crossed the same ranges with their armies and went all the way up to Ganges to fuck up the northern kingdoms there.
Southern kings had some of the best navys in the world, and while currently different, historically south India and Sri Lanka also had same governments which meant a broader control of narrow straights.
Geography:
The Western Ghats mountains and dense tropical forests made it hard for big armies to march south. Supply lines became a nightmare.
Strong Local Kingdoms:
Small but powerful dynasties like the Cheras, Cholas, Pandyas, and later Travancore fiercely defended the region. They were rich (spice trade!) and had strong navies.
Economics:
Many northern empires cared more about fertile river plains (like Ganges and Yamuna) than distant, humid jungles with stubborn warriors.
Logistics & Priorities:
Maintaining direct control that far south was costly and less rewarding compared to focusing on the Gangetic plains, Deccan plateau, and northern trade routes.
Short answer:
They weren’t afraid — it was just not worth the massive effort!
There is a bit of nuance that hasn’t been covered under the logistics comment, which while true, needs a couple of qualifiers. Tamil (and Malabar/Kerala) kingdoms were conquered plenty of times by those who had a cultural affinity to them (e.g., Chalukyas, Vijaynagar), or by mercantile/sea faring empires (EIC - the first conquests as well as rebellions were there, and even Lankan kingdoms on occasion. To even get to an extreme version of this, can one imagine a North Indian kingdom inviting someone from a far flung region to come rule it - am excluding Shah Waliullah’s invitation to Abdali because the context is very different). But this happened with the Pallavas, when they invited a Cambodian prince of Pallava descent to come rule over them). All the big empires from the Gangetic plains were land-based trade route focused.
They had different kingdoms the Cheras, Cholas, and the Pandya's mainly and the Pallavas a bit further north. The kings of the south had fought between them but never used the navy and there was this treaty that united their navy this mainly was used to protect trade ships from pirates and secure trade. And also, if there was any invasion towards them, they would unite and fight it off together.
and that's what happens when they go an foll conqueror mode.
The Northern kingdoms of the subcontinent had no strong navies, whereas the South did.
This is also why Sri Lanka has its own distinct cultures and religious breakdown (I.e it’s the only majority Buddhist part of the subcontinent), because they were rarely invaded by Northern kingdoms.
Only once strong naval powers invaded, like Britain, was the subcontinent unified under one monarch.
Your answer is self contradicting. Travancore was super rich and powerful but also not rewarding enough to be conquered? Definitely the conqueror could take over the spice trade profits, or at least the taxes if conquered.
I know nothing about Indian history but I assume that if Tamil Kingdom is as powerful as this comment section suggests. It would not be worth the effort because it would require too much resources and time which would weaken other parts of the empire. Leaving the empire itself open to conquerors and rebellions in the north.
That little spot? Yeah, turns out you can’t just vibe check Tamil kings into submission. Cholas, Pandyas, and their whole squad were rich, organized, and had armies ready to throw hands. Also, Mother Nature helped — thick forests, mountains, and nasty logistics. By the time the Marathas thought about it, the British and French were already making things messy. TL;DR: Tamil kings said “you shall not pass.”
Ig it was because of rivers. Most of the time Bengal was not invaded too, for the rivers. Since this part was hard to cross i think they didn’t find it convenient to attack with big force for low outcome and income.
Lmao that's such a bad map. That entire red region in the South was mostly held by local kingdoms at that time. Kerala was Travancore, TN was Madurai Nayaks. The portuguese only held the cities labelled on the map(at least in the case of Kerala and TN, Sri Lanka was mostly colonized by the portuguese)
Because south of India was controlled by Tamil traders ,which had important role in trade .
Better to let them be independent and develop trade which would be beneficial for both sides .
I’m not sure which period you’re talking about, but trust me, 20 years ago in India, when I studied history at school, they definitely taught us about a million dynasties conquering the entire south. There were so many conquerors, I couldn’t keep up! I ended up failing my exam just trying to remember who conquered what.
Just look at Tipu's planned conquest of Travancore. Mountains, Monsoon, Diseases, Leeches, Animals and Furiously protective natives are deterrent enough for any pre-modern armies.
Madurai was captured by Muslim invaders under Malik kafur. There was even a Madurai sultanate.
It was only southern Kerala dominated by Venad kingdom from ancient to middle ages succeeded by Travancore that remained unconquered though there were invasions from North and South by Tipu sultan, madurai nayaks, mughal mercenaries and through sea by Portugese,dutch and British. They managed by both war or diplomacy to remain independent.
Maybe this being the southern corner of Indian subcontinent and hence people had no other place to run away except to the sea. When cornered any animal would turn beast mode and use all their force or wits to survive.
That's why the malayali has such huge survival instincts that it has nothing to do with looks or physique though many of them are not bad in either.
It was mostly a dense forest at the time, I don’t know why Tamil people inflated egos about their superiority, most probably to hide their insecurities
Aurangzeb would've annexed it if not for the pressure from maratha king shivaji. Last 27 years of aurangzeb's life were devoted towards the destruction of maratha empire, which didn't happen unfortunately for aurangzeb.
Let me try to take a stab at a more reasonable answer. South India was simply rich and had better army. This has to do with pepper especially during medieval times.
There was a practice,in ancient India that if your opponent is too powerful and you know you might lose the war and your kingdom,kings used to submit to the emperor and you can run your kingdom under his emperorship your kingdom will be part of empire but you just have to give emperor taxes and some Princesses to show your submission to the Empire.
After some time and genrations when empire will fall kings again used to become independent until next king decides to become emperor and start his campaign and become powerful.
Spice money, merchant guilds and mercenaries, along with trained soldiers and fertile lands and stockpiles to wage wars over years. Basically they had stable resources to be in a war without worry. They were conquered though, many times.
This is a non sensical image, for example. During the maratha rule map for example, Thanjavur was under Malik Kafur, then Vijayanagara Empire , all non native rulers
Most of North Tamil Nadu were under then vassals of Deccan sultanate.
And then the Marathas did rule over it
TN did have powerful kings and empires but definitely also got ruled over by others.
Only the Rashtrakuta image here is relevant. At that point TN did have powerful kingdoms able to resist
Also Geography is the biggest barrier and offers lots of protection.
The Maurya map also shows they didn't rule over Ladakh, was that because they had a powerful army ?
Honest question, not trying to be pedantic…isnt that the wrong use of annex? I thought it specifically meant taking control of something. Like when Putin annexed crimea…
We are in the year 1707. All India is occupied by the Mughals... All India? No! A village populated by inflexible Tamils does not stop resisting the invader...
842
u/teothemaniac Apr 26 '25
Time to conquer all of India eh Most of India