Tweet
Pay attention Wahe Guru, Luffy, karachi, NokiaWnW, amir al ghaznavi, soldat_amir,
PUNJABI'S
OK lets start with the easy ones. When did the Punjabi's conquer Afghan lands? now I know what you are going to say maharajah Rangit sing, right?
Well I've already clarified this in another post but since you may have missed it because you spend too much time on Wikipedia I'll clarify it here once again.
There is a difference between invasion and conquest. e.g. the soviets invaded Afghanistan but got a beating there. Now that doesn't mean just because the soviets invaded Afghanistan that they conquered Afghanistan or ruled it or even that Afghanistan became part of the soviet union.
Similarly Rangit sing invaded some Afghan territories but failed miserably to hold on to any Afghan territories, except for Peshawar. His territory did not include any of Afghanistan. in fact he was defeated in Kandahar, north of Malakand and in Waziristan. None of Khyber Pukhtunkhwa was part of his territory and that map that was projected on this forum is exaggerated or better described as manufactured fabrications.
Rangit sing collaborated with the British for assistance in trying to defeat the Afghans. The British came running because basically the Afghans were giving the British a hard time and here the Sikhs with assistance wanted to do the job on behalf of the British. Well that's how the British saw it.
Ranjit sings youngest son converted to Christianity and is buried in a church in Britain. After Ranjit sing death the British destroyed all Sikh resistance and became masters of Punjab.
To me Rangit sing was warrior and an intelligent ruler who took control of Punjab but a warrior that failed to subdue the Afghans in their own territory.
His empire stretched from Amritsa in the east to Peshawar in the west and north from Peshawar to just south of Multan. He was called the lion of the five rivers because that exactly what he controlled the land of the five rivers i.e. Punjab.
See the official map of Ranjit sings empire and the other is an exact replicate but highlighted and made more clear as it is hard to see the official without zooming in. The map is held at the British public library for anyone to verify.
This map was created in 1846 but it shows the extent of Sikh empire till the death of Maharajah Ranjit singh that's around 1839.
Its preserved in the British library and this image can be found on their site.
Or maybe for those who were going to say Hari sing??
Lets elaborate further. Hari sing was the best and most gifted general under Rangit Sing. Now since I have already elucidated Rangit sings empire it therefore has a direct correlation with what Hari sings achievements and it is therefore obvious from the map that he failed to annex Afghan lands. In fact Hari Sing went to battle with the Afghans who were headed by Akbar Khan the Great on April 30th 1837, this would turn out to be his last battle. He lost to the mighty Afghans and was killed.
I respect Sikhs, especially those who speak the truth but on this forum MOST BUT NOT ALL punjabi's love to exaggerate the extent of Rangit sings empire or maybe its just out of lack of knowledge and education. it seems any opportunity to try to put us down but in the end it is yourselves who are left standing as fools!
NOW DO YOU WANT ME TO SHOW YOU OFFICIAL MAPS WHERE WE (AFGHANS) CONQUERED AND RULED OVER THE PUNJABI PEOPLE??
SOVIETS
I think anyone who thinks the Russians conquered Afghanistan is oblivious of modern history. Again invasion and conquest is two different things and I am not going to waste my time on this one. I think your the only one that thinks they conquered it.
U.S/NATO
over a trillion spent, over 28 countries from around the world. led by the most powerful and richest country in history. Including Britain and France. The coalition death toll every year rises. last year alone 711 soldiers were killed. 3000 dead within the last five years, when the resistance regained full momentum.
Did you know these numbers do not even include those who were flown out and died off their injuries. Over 25,000 injured, most with permanent limbs missing. Out of them 14,342 are American soldiers alone.
An exist date has already been set to 2014 with no success and victory in sight. It has financially drained the U.S. economy. The number of U.S and U.K soldiers joining the army is at its lowest point ever. why? because they understand the high possibility of coming in back in a body bag. Note that when the U.S/NATO came into Afghanistan. It was local Afghans fighting on the ground not foreigners.
When the U.S. and NATO engage in a ground battle with the Afghans. They always outnumber the local resistance, they are individually better equipped, they have bullet proof vests and bullet proof helmets, they have tanks and heavy artillery and even then they are annihilated in combat by poor farmers with AK47's and this has becomes obvious from their own footage, when they hide themselves and call for air power from the skies. Air power doesn't come cheap and is called as a last resort but it seems its the constant inevitable consequence of fighting the Afghans.
Do you call this conquest? On this forum graveyardofempires has shown you a video clip of senators themselves saying its a failure and here you and others like Soldat_amir who thinks they conquered it in two weeks are ironically saying it is a successful conquest. Strange and illogical?
Also it is a fact that America could destroy Afghanistan in a day with their nukes but destroying something with technological innovations of mass destruction is totally different from taking over something and implementing your law and protocols upon a free people. You may have heard of the famous quote of William Wallace, originally a local bandit and the descendent of Richard Wallace (a Norman Breton knight) who raised an army to fight the English at the battle of Stirling bridge in1297. Once said “The English may take our lives but they will never take our freedom.”
You see even in 1297 a people understood the notion that taking ones life and taking ones freedom is two different things. Yet it seems beyond your comprehension in the 21st century with your little brain, as well as those others like soldat_amir who claimed the Americans conquered Afghanistan in two weeks.
INDIAN'S
When did the Indians ever rule Afghanistan. I guess your going to say the king Asoka, the Mauryan empire, right??
OK so here we go again. What were pillar edicts and rock edicts utilised for in antiquity??
Pillar edicts were installed in order to set the limit of their empire . The furthest pillar edict to the west that is found from the Mauryan dynasty is actually near Mansera, Pakistan. Look on the map of Pakistan and look where Mansera is located. Out of Afghan/ Pakhtun territory, Pakhtun territory basically begins west of Mansera.
The official language of the Mauryan court was magadhi and that is the language that is found on all of the Asoka's pillar edicts, utilising the Brahmi script. Pillar edicts do exist in Afghan lands that are written in Aramaic, the language of the ancestors of the Afghans and this should not be confused with Asoka's edicts.
MONGOLS
Genghis khan tasted his first and only defeat in his entire campaign in Afghanistan, when the tribes south of the Oxus river united to give him a crushing defeat. He controlled the north but note that no.1 Afghanistan had no set borders then and no.2 nor was that area populated by ethnic Afghans just as the same is true today.
Genghis khan certainly destroyed a lot, certainly irrigation channels, towns, markets but failed to control the centre and the south of what is today's modern Afghanistan. The soviets implemented the same tactics, that's why Afghanistan needs rebuilding from scratch but if the Russians had studied and accepted history they would have also known that you can destroy the country, just like Genghis did before them but the people will either die fighting you or bury you in it.
Also see the map of Genghis khans empire. Why is the middle and south in fact all of the pakhtun areas not part of his empire??
MUGHALS
Lets get some facts straight about the Mughals, no.1 The majority of his army were Pakhtun to begin with. no.2 the Mughlas succeeded in invading some Afghan lands but failed to subdue the Yusufzais north of Malakand (do not confuse the Yusufzais of Mardan, Peshawar with Malakand Yusufzais) they failed miserably to conquer any of the regions today classed as FATA areas. Southern Afghanistan was also out their control. Kabul was under their control to some extent.
Now his army were mainly made up of Pakhtuns, so the little he did control of the Afghans lands is irrelevant, for one 90% just like the other empires was out of their control and no.2 it was Afghans gaining and loosing land to other Afghans.
TURKS
Which Turks are you referring too?? I guess your going to say the Ghaznavids.
OK well lets talk about the greatest of them all. Sultan Mahmud Ghazni. During his reign his empire was at its peak. Did you know sultan Mahmud Ghazni was born in Afghanistan, in the town of Ghazni in the south that is named after him and this was the capital of his empire. He also died in Afghanistan and is buried in Ghazni in a mausoleum. His mother was an Afghan from Zabul.
Now that to me makes him more Afghan then Turk. If that was not the case, the Afghans would not have united under him like they did and as a result, a mighty empire would not have been created.
GREEKS
You never mentioned the Greeks but since soldat_amir mentioned that Kandahar was named after Alexander and therefore conquered and founded by Alexander I thought it is now necessary to give him a lesson on it.
Historians previously thought since Kandahar sounds a bit like Sikander that Alexander must have founded it. Now these theories were actually documented in books mainly between the early 1900's and mid 1900's.
Now it seems like soldat_amir is lost in the 1900's because in the last decade, thanks to many archaeological discoveries. It has been made clear that Kandahar was a thriving town at least a thousand years before Alexander stepped foot in what is modern Afghanistan and therefore it is not possible that Alexander founded this city. So soldat_amir keep projecting your outdated and flawed information and stop pretending your a pakhtun.
Alexander took a massive beating in Afghanistan. He was wounded many times in various battles. Once he was hit with a catapult where he fell to the ground and was left unconscious for weeks. He was partially blinded when he did finally become concious. The grreks and macedonian's were under a lot of tension and stress as they feared for their kings life.
In another battle, a unit from his army was ambushed and many lay slaughtered. Some that survived the onslaught were dragged by the Afghans from their legs, which were tied to their horses and dragged to the mountains.
Alexander comes running with a huge army to help protect what he can from those being dragged away but struggled immensely. At this point Alexander was hit by an arrow that split his shin bone into two. His loyal soldiers surround him to protect him from further assault. They quickly retreated their wounded King from the battle field as they had to escape for their lives. The full unit was annihilated as well as many others from those who came with Alexander who tried to help.
In another instance Alexander went to crush some resistance in the east, while leaving a huge contingent behind. The Afghans ambushed the Greeks and Macedonian soldiers and slaughtered 2,360 soldiers to be exact and this was in one instance alone and that's from Greek/Macedonian accounts and I would bet a much higher number. Alexander was so depressed and confused about the thousands dead, that he actually concealed the news from the rest of his soldiers because he knew the detrimental effects that it would have on their moral.
In another instance led by a general named Attinas led 300 heavy cavalry in pursuit of Spitamenes (a local warlord) and were ambushed during the pursuit, leaving no survivors as none ever returned.
Also according to modern archaeological finds, it has come to light that the Greeks highly exaggerated their wins and concealed their losses. one sight where a battle took place shows the remains of an even number of opposing soldiers. whilst the Greeks claimed only a few of theirs were killed. just like the Greek/Macedonians have exaggerated other claims, such as the 300 Spartan warriors against the huge and powerful army of king Xerxes.
Now I can go on further enumerating and elucidating the pieces of evidence but in the end we know that they got a full beating head on and indeed invaded but certainly not conquered except for the north which again I make clear that it is not inhabited by Pakhtuns. looking at history from their version alone, it is clear that they took a beating.
Why was Alexander in Afghanistan 4 years on?? because he failed to subdue the tribes. why would a king marry a local Afghan farmers daughter?? do you think the Macedonian's wanted a half Afghan heir to the throne?? obviously not but he had no option but to create an alliance after 4 years of brutal war without success. It is after this alliance that he was given a safe passage unto south Asia. Why did Alexander make his way unto south Asia, soon after the marriage alliance?? because they gave him a safe passage.
The Greeks and macedonians feared the Afghans to such an extent of their long beards and long hair and their ruthless aggression in battle, that one of Alexander's General suggested it would be a good idea to actually fight the Afghans in the dark.
PERSIANS
The Persians indeed invaded Afghanistan more than any other nation and were a force to reckon with through out history not like the Sikhs who empowered themselves during Rangit sings era, nothing before that and nothing after that but it is also note worthy that the Afghans also invaded Persia. In fact the Afghans invaded and conquered Persia territory more times than the Persians ever invaded the Afghans lands.
There are many maps out there especially on Wikipedia that exaggerate the extent of Persian control but Afghanistan as a whole was never part of Persia. Most often the today's nimruz, farah and herat province were often conquered (as was the case with the saffavid empire) and whilst the Persians often penetrated further east they never conquered it or controlled much east of these provinces. Kandahar and Helmand were annexed on a number of occasions but it was not long before the Persians lost these areas. The southern half of Baluchistan was often part of the Persian empire but nothing up north of that.
The Sassinid empire empire including about half of today's Afghanistan but it was mainly the northern areas. The sassinid empire did not include Kandahar and east from that. It also didn't include any of the areas of khyber pukhtunkhwa, FATA, kabul etc.
The only empire where there is a confusion as to the exact extent of their empire is the Achaemenid empire. For instance there is a stone in Iran from King Xerxes era, on this there is engravings of countries that gave tribute to him. Amongst the names is also Arabia? Now it is a historical fact that the Persians never conquered Arabia. You see the Arabs at that time were very similar to the Afghans in antiquity and those at modern times. They would fight other tribes and feuds would go on for hundreds of years but when an outside enemy came upon them they would unite instantaneously and make it extremely difficult for anyone to exercise control or manipulate their societies.
Now historians question this for the engravings are in direct conflict with proven historical facts and therefore question the extent. The same goes for the extent of the area they controlled east of modern Iran.
KUSHANS
It is a long held theory by a some historians that the Kushans came from china. The Chinese called them Yuezi and this has led a few historians to hold the theory that the Kushans were Chinese of the Yuechi tribe. Now lets analyse this quickly and effectively.
(a) When the Kushans began their conquest of Afghanistan the Greeks were ruling northern Afghanistan. Now the Greeks were masters at recording historical events. Yet no where in any Greek records is there any detail of mass migration or conquest from outside. In fact the Greeks record the Kushans rising from the vicinity of Kabul???
(b) the Kushans spoke Tochari, which is a language that has come out of Aramaic. A language of our ancestors. If they were from china why were the speaking Tochari/Aramaic.
(c)They called their land Tocharistan, why would a group that have just come out of china name their land with a foreign tongue.
(d)It is also a fact that the Kushans had no form of written language. Yet the Han Chinese had a well developed language and writing system at that time. In fact they even set up institutions where any one who wished to be part of the federal administration i.e. government they had to sit an exam. If the Kushans were Chinese then surely they would have utilised their language writing system but instead often used the neighbouring Greek language that was in use in northern Afghanistan that was set up by the Greeks and Macedonians.
Pukhto as written form was developed very late, this is why they often used Greek, Persian etc. as the official language of their courts.
(e) Also if you look at coinage from the period there is not one coin that has a image of a person that has east Asian features. Making it clear that they were not Chinese.
(f) Some coins have also Kings wearing turbans and having long beards. Now no one at that time wore turbans in china and in fact not even today. Further more there is no records of anyone wearing turbans during that period or prior, north of Afghanistan or in south Asian. Today even the only ones who wear turbans in central Asia are the Afghans.
I can elaborate further on this topic as every piece of evidences indicates that they were a tribe from the ancestors of the Afghans and not a foreign confederation but I think you've got the point!!
When the punjabi's realise that their glory history is no match to ours, instead of giving us are due credit they try to bring us down. I don't have a problem with anyone coming on here and contributing to an intellectual debate but the moment we have none Pakhtuns trying to teach us our history from sources that originate in their large intestine or from unauthentic sources like wikipedia we have a problem.
Someone on this forum said that the fact that we have never been conquered was propaganda to hype the Afghans up, needs to stop throwing rubbish around. The truth is we have never been conquered as a people. PORTIONS HAVE COME UNDER CONQUEST AND OTHER PORTIONS HAVE BEEN INVADED BUT AS A WHOLE WE HAVE BEEN INDEPENDENT OF ANY FOREIGN EMPIRE IN HISTORY.
Now I am going to throw a couple of questions here that have been thrown around on this topic and therefore needs clarifying once and for all.
Why are there Buddhist statues across the Pakhtun lands, isn't it not that they have been conquered by the Hindu's???
The answer is simple, in order to answer this one must analyse the advent of Buddhism in these areas. The first time Buddhism entered our areas was at the time of the king Kanishka, the great king of the Kushans. (Kushans are amongst the ancestors of Pakhtuns). The Kushan king was very liberal and allowed Buddhism to spread and this when it entered our areas and during this period it was also exported to china not vice versa. Also the coinage from the Kushan period have been just as old as the statues of the Buddhist that have been found. The Kushans themselves practised a monotheistic religion but many also began to follow the Buddhist religion and this is why the idols are there not because they were ruled by hindus!. As Muslims we believe one of the reasons Allah chose a prophet amongst a people was to lead them back to the straight path and all nations at some point would have had people that went astray.
ALSO I HAVE ALREADY CLARIFIED THAT NO HINDU EVER RULED OVER THE AFGHANS AND THEREFORE IT HAS BEEN ELIMINATED AS A POSSIBILITY.
SEE ABOVE FOR DETAILS.
Originally posted by NokiaWnW
View Post
OK lets start with the easy ones. When did the Punjabi's conquer Afghan lands? now I know what you are going to say maharajah Rangit sing, right?
Well I've already clarified this in another post but since you may have missed it because you spend too much time on Wikipedia I'll clarify it here once again.
There is a difference between invasion and conquest. e.g. the soviets invaded Afghanistan but got a beating there. Now that doesn't mean just because the soviets invaded Afghanistan that they conquered Afghanistan or ruled it or even that Afghanistan became part of the soviet union.
Similarly Rangit sing invaded some Afghan territories but failed miserably to hold on to any Afghan territories, except for Peshawar. His territory did not include any of Afghanistan. in fact he was defeated in Kandahar, north of Malakand and in Waziristan. None of Khyber Pukhtunkhwa was part of his territory and that map that was projected on this forum is exaggerated or better described as manufactured fabrications.
Rangit sing collaborated with the British for assistance in trying to defeat the Afghans. The British came running because basically the Afghans were giving the British a hard time and here the Sikhs with assistance wanted to do the job on behalf of the British. Well that's how the British saw it.
Ranjit sings youngest son converted to Christianity and is buried in a church in Britain. After Ranjit sing death the British destroyed all Sikh resistance and became masters of Punjab.
To me Rangit sing was warrior and an intelligent ruler who took control of Punjab but a warrior that failed to subdue the Afghans in their own territory.
His empire stretched from Amritsa in the east to Peshawar in the west and north from Peshawar to just south of Multan. He was called the lion of the five rivers because that exactly what he controlled the land of the five rivers i.e. Punjab.
See the official map of Ranjit sings empire and the other is an exact replicate but highlighted and made more clear as it is hard to see the official without zooming in. The map is held at the British public library for anyone to verify.
This map was created in 1846 but it shows the extent of Sikh empire till the death of Maharajah Ranjit singh that's around 1839.
Its preserved in the British library and this image can be found on their site.
Or maybe for those who were going to say Hari sing??
Lets elaborate further. Hari sing was the best and most gifted general under Rangit Sing. Now since I have already elucidated Rangit sings empire it therefore has a direct correlation with what Hari sings achievements and it is therefore obvious from the map that he failed to annex Afghan lands. In fact Hari Sing went to battle with the Afghans who were headed by Akbar Khan the Great on April 30th 1837, this would turn out to be his last battle. He lost to the mighty Afghans and was killed.
I respect Sikhs, especially those who speak the truth but on this forum MOST BUT NOT ALL punjabi's love to exaggerate the extent of Rangit sings empire or maybe its just out of lack of knowledge and education. it seems any opportunity to try to put us down but in the end it is yourselves who are left standing as fools!
NOW DO YOU WANT ME TO SHOW YOU OFFICIAL MAPS WHERE WE (AFGHANS) CONQUERED AND RULED OVER THE PUNJABI PEOPLE??
SOVIETS
I think anyone who thinks the Russians conquered Afghanistan is oblivious of modern history. Again invasion and conquest is two different things and I am not going to waste my time on this one. I think your the only one that thinks they conquered it.
U.S/NATO
over a trillion spent, over 28 countries from around the world. led by the most powerful and richest country in history. Including Britain and France. The coalition death toll every year rises. last year alone 711 soldiers were killed. 3000 dead within the last five years, when the resistance regained full momentum.
Did you know these numbers do not even include those who were flown out and died off their injuries. Over 25,000 injured, most with permanent limbs missing. Out of them 14,342 are American soldiers alone.
An exist date has already been set to 2014 with no success and victory in sight. It has financially drained the U.S. economy. The number of U.S and U.K soldiers joining the army is at its lowest point ever. why? because they understand the high possibility of coming in back in a body bag. Note that when the U.S/NATO came into Afghanistan. It was local Afghans fighting on the ground not foreigners.
When the U.S. and NATO engage in a ground battle with the Afghans. They always outnumber the local resistance, they are individually better equipped, they have bullet proof vests and bullet proof helmets, they have tanks and heavy artillery and even then they are annihilated in combat by poor farmers with AK47's and this has becomes obvious from their own footage, when they hide themselves and call for air power from the skies. Air power doesn't come cheap and is called as a last resort but it seems its the constant inevitable consequence of fighting the Afghans.
Do you call this conquest? On this forum graveyardofempires has shown you a video clip of senators themselves saying its a failure and here you and others like Soldat_amir who thinks they conquered it in two weeks are ironically saying it is a successful conquest. Strange and illogical?
Also it is a fact that America could destroy Afghanistan in a day with their nukes but destroying something with technological innovations of mass destruction is totally different from taking over something and implementing your law and protocols upon a free people. You may have heard of the famous quote of William Wallace, originally a local bandit and the descendent of Richard Wallace (a Norman Breton knight) who raised an army to fight the English at the battle of Stirling bridge in1297. Once said “The English may take our lives but they will never take our freedom.”
You see even in 1297 a people understood the notion that taking ones life and taking ones freedom is two different things. Yet it seems beyond your comprehension in the 21st century with your little brain, as well as those others like soldat_amir who claimed the Americans conquered Afghanistan in two weeks.
INDIAN'S
When did the Indians ever rule Afghanistan. I guess your going to say the king Asoka, the Mauryan empire, right??
OK so here we go again. What were pillar edicts and rock edicts utilised for in antiquity??
Pillar edicts were installed in order to set the limit of their empire . The furthest pillar edict to the west that is found from the Mauryan dynasty is actually near Mansera, Pakistan. Look on the map of Pakistan and look where Mansera is located. Out of Afghan/ Pakhtun territory, Pakhtun territory basically begins west of Mansera.
The official language of the Mauryan court was magadhi and that is the language that is found on all of the Asoka's pillar edicts, utilising the Brahmi script. Pillar edicts do exist in Afghan lands that are written in Aramaic, the language of the ancestors of the Afghans and this should not be confused with Asoka's edicts.
MONGOLS
Genghis khan tasted his first and only defeat in his entire campaign in Afghanistan, when the tribes south of the Oxus river united to give him a crushing defeat. He controlled the north but note that no.1 Afghanistan had no set borders then and no.2 nor was that area populated by ethnic Afghans just as the same is true today.
Genghis khan certainly destroyed a lot, certainly irrigation channels, towns, markets but failed to control the centre and the south of what is today's modern Afghanistan. The soviets implemented the same tactics, that's why Afghanistan needs rebuilding from scratch but if the Russians had studied and accepted history they would have also known that you can destroy the country, just like Genghis did before them but the people will either die fighting you or bury you in it.
Also see the map of Genghis khans empire. Why is the middle and south in fact all of the pakhtun areas not part of his empire??
MUGHALS
Lets get some facts straight about the Mughals, no.1 The majority of his army were Pakhtun to begin with. no.2 the Mughlas succeeded in invading some Afghan lands but failed to subdue the Yusufzais north of Malakand (do not confuse the Yusufzais of Mardan, Peshawar with Malakand Yusufzais) they failed miserably to conquer any of the regions today classed as FATA areas. Southern Afghanistan was also out their control. Kabul was under their control to some extent.
Now his army were mainly made up of Pakhtuns, so the little he did control of the Afghans lands is irrelevant, for one 90% just like the other empires was out of their control and no.2 it was Afghans gaining and loosing land to other Afghans.
TURKS
Which Turks are you referring too?? I guess your going to say the Ghaznavids.
OK well lets talk about the greatest of them all. Sultan Mahmud Ghazni. During his reign his empire was at its peak. Did you know sultan Mahmud Ghazni was born in Afghanistan, in the town of Ghazni in the south that is named after him and this was the capital of his empire. He also died in Afghanistan and is buried in Ghazni in a mausoleum. His mother was an Afghan from Zabul.
Now that to me makes him more Afghan then Turk. If that was not the case, the Afghans would not have united under him like they did and as a result, a mighty empire would not have been created.
GREEKS
You never mentioned the Greeks but since soldat_amir mentioned that Kandahar was named after Alexander and therefore conquered and founded by Alexander I thought it is now necessary to give him a lesson on it.
Historians previously thought since Kandahar sounds a bit like Sikander that Alexander must have founded it. Now these theories were actually documented in books mainly between the early 1900's and mid 1900's.
Now it seems like soldat_amir is lost in the 1900's because in the last decade, thanks to many archaeological discoveries. It has been made clear that Kandahar was a thriving town at least a thousand years before Alexander stepped foot in what is modern Afghanistan and therefore it is not possible that Alexander founded this city. So soldat_amir keep projecting your outdated and flawed information and stop pretending your a pakhtun.
Alexander took a massive beating in Afghanistan. He was wounded many times in various battles. Once he was hit with a catapult where he fell to the ground and was left unconscious for weeks. He was partially blinded when he did finally become concious. The grreks and macedonian's were under a lot of tension and stress as they feared for their kings life.
In another battle, a unit from his army was ambushed and many lay slaughtered. Some that survived the onslaught were dragged by the Afghans from their legs, which were tied to their horses and dragged to the mountains.
Alexander comes running with a huge army to help protect what he can from those being dragged away but struggled immensely. At this point Alexander was hit by an arrow that split his shin bone into two. His loyal soldiers surround him to protect him from further assault. They quickly retreated their wounded King from the battle field as they had to escape for their lives. The full unit was annihilated as well as many others from those who came with Alexander who tried to help.
In another instance Alexander went to crush some resistance in the east, while leaving a huge contingent behind. The Afghans ambushed the Greeks and Macedonian soldiers and slaughtered 2,360 soldiers to be exact and this was in one instance alone and that's from Greek/Macedonian accounts and I would bet a much higher number. Alexander was so depressed and confused about the thousands dead, that he actually concealed the news from the rest of his soldiers because he knew the detrimental effects that it would have on their moral.
In another instance led by a general named Attinas led 300 heavy cavalry in pursuit of Spitamenes (a local warlord) and were ambushed during the pursuit, leaving no survivors as none ever returned.
Also according to modern archaeological finds, it has come to light that the Greeks highly exaggerated their wins and concealed their losses. one sight where a battle took place shows the remains of an even number of opposing soldiers. whilst the Greeks claimed only a few of theirs were killed. just like the Greek/Macedonians have exaggerated other claims, such as the 300 Spartan warriors against the huge and powerful army of king Xerxes.
Now I can go on further enumerating and elucidating the pieces of evidence but in the end we know that they got a full beating head on and indeed invaded but certainly not conquered except for the north which again I make clear that it is not inhabited by Pakhtuns. looking at history from their version alone, it is clear that they took a beating.
Why was Alexander in Afghanistan 4 years on?? because he failed to subdue the tribes. why would a king marry a local Afghan farmers daughter?? do you think the Macedonian's wanted a half Afghan heir to the throne?? obviously not but he had no option but to create an alliance after 4 years of brutal war without success. It is after this alliance that he was given a safe passage unto south Asia. Why did Alexander make his way unto south Asia, soon after the marriage alliance?? because they gave him a safe passage.
The Greeks and macedonians feared the Afghans to such an extent of their long beards and long hair and their ruthless aggression in battle, that one of Alexander's General suggested it would be a good idea to actually fight the Afghans in the dark.
PERSIANS
The Persians indeed invaded Afghanistan more than any other nation and were a force to reckon with through out history not like the Sikhs who empowered themselves during Rangit sings era, nothing before that and nothing after that but it is also note worthy that the Afghans also invaded Persia. In fact the Afghans invaded and conquered Persia territory more times than the Persians ever invaded the Afghans lands.
There are many maps out there especially on Wikipedia that exaggerate the extent of Persian control but Afghanistan as a whole was never part of Persia. Most often the today's nimruz, farah and herat province were often conquered (as was the case with the saffavid empire) and whilst the Persians often penetrated further east they never conquered it or controlled much east of these provinces. Kandahar and Helmand were annexed on a number of occasions but it was not long before the Persians lost these areas. The southern half of Baluchistan was often part of the Persian empire but nothing up north of that.
The Sassinid empire empire including about half of today's Afghanistan but it was mainly the northern areas. The sassinid empire did not include Kandahar and east from that. It also didn't include any of the areas of khyber pukhtunkhwa, FATA, kabul etc.
The only empire where there is a confusion as to the exact extent of their empire is the Achaemenid empire. For instance there is a stone in Iran from King Xerxes era, on this there is engravings of countries that gave tribute to him. Amongst the names is also Arabia? Now it is a historical fact that the Persians never conquered Arabia. You see the Arabs at that time were very similar to the Afghans in antiquity and those at modern times. They would fight other tribes and feuds would go on for hundreds of years but when an outside enemy came upon them they would unite instantaneously and make it extremely difficult for anyone to exercise control or manipulate their societies.
Now historians question this for the engravings are in direct conflict with proven historical facts and therefore question the extent. The same goes for the extent of the area they controlled east of modern Iran.
KUSHANS
It is a long held theory by a some historians that the Kushans came from china. The Chinese called them Yuezi and this has led a few historians to hold the theory that the Kushans were Chinese of the Yuechi tribe. Now lets analyse this quickly and effectively.
(a) When the Kushans began their conquest of Afghanistan the Greeks were ruling northern Afghanistan. Now the Greeks were masters at recording historical events. Yet no where in any Greek records is there any detail of mass migration or conquest from outside. In fact the Greeks record the Kushans rising from the vicinity of Kabul???
(b) the Kushans spoke Tochari, which is a language that has come out of Aramaic. A language of our ancestors. If they were from china why were the speaking Tochari/Aramaic.
(c)They called their land Tocharistan, why would a group that have just come out of china name their land with a foreign tongue.
(d)It is also a fact that the Kushans had no form of written language. Yet the Han Chinese had a well developed language and writing system at that time. In fact they even set up institutions where any one who wished to be part of the federal administration i.e. government they had to sit an exam. If the Kushans were Chinese then surely they would have utilised their language writing system but instead often used the neighbouring Greek language that was in use in northern Afghanistan that was set up by the Greeks and Macedonians.
Pukhto as written form was developed very late, this is why they often used Greek, Persian etc. as the official language of their courts.
(e) Also if you look at coinage from the period there is not one coin that has a image of a person that has east Asian features. Making it clear that they were not Chinese.
(f) Some coins have also Kings wearing turbans and having long beards. Now no one at that time wore turbans in china and in fact not even today. Further more there is no records of anyone wearing turbans during that period or prior, north of Afghanistan or in south Asian. Today even the only ones who wear turbans in central Asia are the Afghans.
I can elaborate further on this topic as every piece of evidences indicates that they were a tribe from the ancestors of the Afghans and not a foreign confederation but I think you've got the point!!
When the punjabi's realise that their glory history is no match to ours, instead of giving us are due credit they try to bring us down. I don't have a problem with anyone coming on here and contributing to an intellectual debate but the moment we have none Pakhtuns trying to teach us our history from sources that originate in their large intestine or from unauthentic sources like wikipedia we have a problem.
Someone on this forum said that the fact that we have never been conquered was propaganda to hype the Afghans up, needs to stop throwing rubbish around. The truth is we have never been conquered as a people. PORTIONS HAVE COME UNDER CONQUEST AND OTHER PORTIONS HAVE BEEN INVADED BUT AS A WHOLE WE HAVE BEEN INDEPENDENT OF ANY FOREIGN EMPIRE IN HISTORY.
Now I am going to throw a couple of questions here that have been thrown around on this topic and therefore needs clarifying once and for all.
Why are there Buddhist statues across the Pakhtun lands, isn't it not that they have been conquered by the Hindu's???
The answer is simple, in order to answer this one must analyse the advent of Buddhism in these areas. The first time Buddhism entered our areas was at the time of the king Kanishka, the great king of the Kushans. (Kushans are amongst the ancestors of Pakhtuns). The Kushan king was very liberal and allowed Buddhism to spread and this when it entered our areas and during this period it was also exported to china not vice versa. Also the coinage from the Kushan period have been just as old as the statues of the Buddhist that have been found. The Kushans themselves practised a monotheistic religion but many also began to follow the Buddhist religion and this is why the idols are there not because they were ruled by hindus!. As Muslims we believe one of the reasons Allah chose a prophet amongst a people was to lead them back to the straight path and all nations at some point would have had people that went astray.
ALSO I HAVE ALREADY CLARIFIED THAT NO HINDU EVER RULED OVER THE AFGHANS AND THEREFORE IT HAS BEEN ELIMINATED AS A POSSIBILITY.
SEE ABOVE FOR DETAILS.
Comment