Our History?

Re: Our History?

[RIGHT]کیا صلیبی جنگوں میں عربوں اور کردوں کو فتح اسلام کی بدولت ہوئی؟جب ازمنہ وسطیٰ میں یورپ اور مشرق وسطیٰ صلیبی جنگوں کے نام پر باہم مقابل ہوئے تو یورپ اس وقت مکمل مسیحی اعتقادی دماغ کی نمائندگی کرتا تھا جبکہ مشرق وسطیٰ مادی، سائنسی اور جنگی تکنیک پر انحصار کیے ہوئے تھا.دونوں کی نوعتیں متضاد تھیں.یورپ مذہب کے مجنونانہ جوش کا علمبردار تھا جبکہ ترکوں،کردوں اور عربوں کے پیچھے ایک مضبوط علمی و تمدنی روایت تھی.یورپ کا انحصار دعاؤں، پادریوں کی شعلہ بیاں جذباتی تقریرں پر تھا جبکہ مسلمان اس عہد کی جنگی ٹیکنالوجی ، جدید ہتھیاروں، اور جنگ لڑنے کی ماہرانہ تزویرات کو بروئے کار لا رہے تھے.یورپ کا اعتقاد صرف خداوند،اور اس صلیب کی برکت پر تھا جسے وہ صلیب المصلوب سمجھ کر میدان جنگ میں اٹھائے پھرتے تھے جبکہ مسلمان جرنیل مادی سروساماں کا بہتر سے بہتر استعمال کر رہے تھے. یورپ والوں کو صرف معجزوں کے ظہور کا انتظار تھا جبکہ مسلمان بہترین حربی چالوں کو برت رہے تھے.معروف فرانسیسی صلیبی مجاھد ژواین ویل کی سرگزشت سے کچھ اقتباسات پیش کر رہا ہوں تاکہ اس صورت حال کو بہتر طور سمجھا جا سکے.
ژواین ویل ایک جگہ لکھتا ہے کہ؛
" جب مصری فوج نے منجنیقوں کے زریعے آگ کے بان پھینکنے شروع کیے تو ہم فرانسیسی جن کے پاس پرانے دستی ہتھیاروں کے سواء کچھ نہ تھا بالکل بے بس ہوگئے.ایک رات جب ہم ان برجیوں ،جو دریا کے راستے کی حفاظت کے لیے بنائی گئیں تھیں، پر پہرا دے رہے تھے تو اچانک کیا دیکھتے ہیں کہ مسلمانوں نے ایک انجن جیسی پٹریری Petrary کو لا کر نصب کر دیا اور اس سے ہم پر آگ پھینکنے لگے.یہ حال دیکھ کر میرے لارڈ والٹر نے جو ایک اچھا نائٹ تھا ہمیں یوں مخاطب کیا؛ "اس وقت ہماری زندگی کا سب سے بڑا خطرہ پیش آ گیا ہے کیونکہ اگر ہم نے ان برجیوں کو نہ چھوڑا اور مسلمانوں نے ان میں آگ لگا دی تو ہم بھی ان برجیوں کے ساتھ جل کر راکھ ہو جائیں گے.لیکن اگر ہم برجیوں کو چھوڑ کر نکل جاتے ہیں تو پھر ہماری بے عزتی میں کوئی شبہ نہیں کیونکہ ہم انکی حفاظت پر معمور کیے گئے ہیں.اب ایسی حالت میں خداوند کے سوا کوئی نہیں جو ہمارا بچاؤ کر سکے میرا مشورہ آپ سب لوگوں کو یہ ہے کہ جونہی مسلمان آگ کے بان چلائیں ہمیں چاہیے کہ ہم گھٹنوں کے بل جھک جائیں اور اپنے نجات دہندہ منجی رحمت خداوند سے دعا مانگیں کہ ہماری مدد کرے".
"چنانچہ ہم نے ایسا ہی کیا جیسے ہی مسلمانوں کا پہلا بان چلا ہم گھٹنوں کے بل جھک گئے اور دعا میں مشغول ہو گئے.یہ بان اتنے بڑے تھے جیسے شراب کے پیپے اور آگ کا شعلہ ان سے نکلتا تھا جس کی دم نیزے کی مانند لمبی ہوتی.جب یہ آتا تو ایسی آواز نکلتی جیسے بادل گرج رہے ہوں.اس کی شکل ایسی دکھائی دیتی جیسے کوئی آتشیں اژدھا ہوا میں اڑ رہا ہو.اس کی روشنی نہایت تیز تھی.چھاؤنی کے تمام حصے اس طرع اجالے میں آجاتے جیسے دن نکل آیا ہو".اس کے بعد وہ فرانس کے شہنشاہ لوئس نہم کے بارے میں لکھتا ہے؛
"ہر مرتبہ جب بان چھوٹنے کی آواز ہمارا ولی صفت بادشاہ سنتا تھا تو بستر سے اٹھ کر کھڑا ہو جاتا اور روتے ہوئے ہاتھ اٹھا اٹھا کر ہمارے نجات دہندہ سے التجائیں کرتا؛ اے میرے مہربان مولیٰ میرے آدمیوں کی حفاظت کر.میں یقین کرتا ہوں کہ ہمارے بادشاہ کی ان دعاؤں نے ہمیں فائدہ پہنچایا ہوگا".لیکن ژواین ویل کو فائدے کا یہ یقین خوش اعتقادانہ وہم کے سوا کچھ نہ تھا. کیونکہ کوئی دعا بھی سودمند نہ ہوئی تھی اور بالآخر آگ کے بانوں نے تمام برجیوں کو جلا کر خاکستر کر دیا تھا.لیکن یہ حال تو گیارہویں صدی کا تھا.سات صدیوں بعد جب پھر یورپ اور مشرق کا مقابلہ ہوا تو اب صورت حال یکسر الٹ چکی تھی.اب بھی دونوں فریقوں کے متضاد خصائص اسی طرع نمایاں تھے جس طرع صلیبی جنگ کے عہد میں رہے تھے.البتہ اب دونوں نے اپنی اپنی جگہ بدل لی تھی جو جگہ پہلے مشرق وسطیٰ کی تھی اسے اب یورپ نے اختیار کر لیا تھا.
اٹھارویں صدی کے اواخر میں جب نپولین نے مصر پر حملہ کیا تو مرادبک نے جامعہ ازہر کے علماء کو جمع کر کے ان سے مشورہ کیا کہ اب کیا کرنا چاہیے؟علمائے ازہر نے بالاتفاق یہ رائے دی کہ جامعہ ازہر میں صیح بخاری کا ختم شروع کر دینا چاہیے کہ مقاصد کے حصول کے لیے تیربہدف ہے.چنانچہ ایسا ہی کیا گیا لیکن ابھی صیح بخاری کا ختم ختم بھی نہیں ہوا تھا کہ اہرام کی لڑائی نے مصری حکومت کا خاتمہ کر دیا.
اسی طرع انیسویں صدی کے اوائل میں جب روسیوں نے بخارہ کا محاصرہ کیا تو امیر بخارہ نے حکم دیا کہ تمام مدرسوں اور مسجدوں میں ختم خواجگان پڑھا جائے.ادھر روسیوں کی قلعہ شکن توپیں شہر کا حصار منہدم کرتی چلی آرہی تھیں، ادھر اہل بخارہ ختم خواجگان کے حلقوں میں بیٹھے یا مقلب القلوب یا محول الاحوالہ کے نعرے لگا رہے تھے.جبکہ درحقیقت دعا صرف ترک عمل کا حیلہ ہے.
پانی پت کے میدان میں سراج الدولہ کی ڈیڑھ لاکھ تیغ بکف فوج بیس ہزار برطانوی فوجیوں کے ھاتھوں شکست کھا گئی.کیونکہ جب برطانوی فوجیوں کی توڑے دار بندوقوں سے گولی نکلتی تو مسلمان فوجی اپنی تلواریں، نیزے، بھالے چھوڑ یوں بھاگتے جیسے ایک بھیڑیے کے آگے بھیڑوں کا ریوڑ بھاگتا ہے.یہاں بھی بنگال کی مسجدوں میں پڑھی جانے والی قضائے حاجات کی نمازوں نے کوئی فائدہ نہ دیا.
تاج برطانیہ کی فوج جب بنگال کے بعد ریاست اودھ کی طرف بڑھی تو آخری نواب واجد علی شاہ نے ریاست کی تمام امام بارگاہوں میں دعائے کمیل اور حدیث کساء کے دورے کا حکم دیا لیکن نتیجہ کیا نکلا؟
گیلی پولی کے میدان میں عظیم ترک سلطنتِ اسلامیہ کی فوج کو اتحادیوں کے ھاتھوں شکست فاش ہوئی.کیونکہ ان کا انحصار جدید جنگی وسائل پر نہیں بلکہ اس خوش اعتقادی میں تھا کہ اسلامی خلافت تاقیامت قائم رہے گی.حتیٰ کہ ترک یہ بار خلافت امام مہدی کے سپرد نہ کر دیں.
65 کی جنگ کے دوران اخباروں میں ایسی بکثرت اطلاعات آتیں کہ پاکستان کی مدد کے لیے فرشتوں کی فوج آئی تھی جو سبز لباس میں گھوڑوں پر سوار ہوتی.بہت سے لوگوں نے اس فوج کو دیکھنے کا دعویٰ بھی کیا.کچھ لوگوں نے لاہور کے محاذ پر داتا گنج بخش کو بھی دیکھا جو بھارتی بمباروں کے پھینکے گئے گولوں کو کیچ کر رہے تھے.اسی عقیدہ پرستی کے ساتھ ہم نے 71 کی جنگ لڑی اور آدھا ملک گنوا دیا.پوسٹ کی طوالت زیادہ تفصیلات کی متحمل نہیں ہو سکتی وگرنہ تاریخ ایسی مثالوں سے اَٹی پڑی ہے.اور آج اس واقعے کے تیتالیس سال بعد بھی ہماری زہنی پستی،بے عملی،خوش فہمی،اور فکری دیوالیہ پن کا وہی عالم ہے.آج بھی نسیم حجازی مارکہ مورخ ہمیں یہ جتلانے میں لگے ہیں کہ مسلمان صلیبی جنگوں میں اس لیے فاتح رہے کہ انکا اعتماد الہی مدد پر تھا جبکہ فرنگیوں کو اپنی طاقت پر گھمنڈ تھا.آج بھی ہر مسئلے کا ایک ہی سبب بیان ہوتا ہے کہ ہم دین سے دور ہوگئے.آج بھی ہر دکھ درد کا ایک ہی تریاق پیش کیا جاتا ہے کہ چودہ صدیاں ماقبل کی بدوی حمیت کو اپنا لیا جائے تو دنیا ہمارے سامنے سرنگوں ہوجائے گی.جبکہ مادی اسباب اور زمینی حقائق کو نظرانداز کرنے والوں کے لئے عقیدہ محض تنکے کا سہارا ہوتا ہے، جو مکافات کے سمندر میں ڈوبنے سے نہیں بچا سکتا.

Written by Ahmad Sagheer - Pakistani freethinkers[/RIGHT]

Re: Our History?

I had graduation in History from Delhi University as well. Those aspects are not certain aspect but rather core aspect. they came for loot and tried to become political leader. Later on Khiljis burned Nalanda University, if kids or me even now conclude that this was burnt because of loot and burning infidel knowledge house, what is wrong in that.

It good to see CBSE text is being labelled right here, Right is cringing it is marxist leninist because it wrote about bhagat singh as revolutionary terrorist :)

Re: Our History?

You get points for honesty in this post. We are all biased, as you correctly point out.

But maybe we have it all wrong. Kids probably may be better served if we state facts. That will build a strong foundation.

Speaking of strong foundation, How is Misbah these days?

Re: Our History?

If you are history student then you must have known that every nation have its own version of history, in that version, everyone writes what suits or glorify them regardless the results...
Same is here, heroes for muslims are villans to hindus and vice-versa...

Re: Our History?

Looks like you haven't read my first post in this thread, I wrote that Pakistan had her own narrative to sustain herself and I don't think there is anything wrong in that act.

Re: Our History?

Hello @phoenixdesi/@Mostar95/@muqawwee123:
Would you like to say something on the reply above?

Re: Our History?

The overwhelming majority of "British" troops in India were native Indians. Large parts of the East India Company's sepoys from areas that had no interest in being part of a resurgent Mughal Empire sided with the British, including the armies of Indian princes whose predecessors had spent a long time becoming independent of the Mughals and feared that an Independence victory would lead to a Mughal takeover of their lands again.

For example, when Delhi was under siege, the British were able to call on the 600 Pakhtuns of the Corps of Guides to immediately march from Mardan near Peshawar to Delhi during the hottest month of the year in 1857. Despite it being Ramadan, these Muslims were able to march 600 miles without eating or drinking during the day, cross 5 rivers and fight 4 battles while fasting, and at the end of the march they immediately started fighting the pro-independence besiegers without taking a break first with such intensity that 350 out of the 600 were dead within 1 hour.

Re: Our History?

what about it? if you disagree with this version, please present yours. you are welcome. thx

Re: Our History?

I think I agree with bold part in @the_kaur 's post and I mentioned that in my posts in that thread.

As far as telling truth to your children, I’m all for it but of the view that such history should be taught at higher classes (say after class 8). When you teach a class four student two nation theory, I don’t think they really are in position to appraise. To be very honest, I don’t find students remembering many facts or myths (taught in name of history), they were taught at early age.

In short, its better not to teach than teaching lies.

Re: Our History?

We have no history lessons in primary, medival history comes in class VII. Pakistan in Class VIII geography.
Two nation theory in modern India, class VIII.
Besides nobody takes Social studies seriously, history is like literature subject for students who mug up and write whatever is in the book, I am sure average Central Board student is good at maths and science than in Humanities. Infact after class X if anyone takes humanities he/she is seen as losers.
My brother used to say, "who says history is interesting, all interesting things are in Chemistry.
When he explained me time dilation, space-time continuum and when I understood how aliens from 20 million lights away are still seeing dinosaurs through telescopes on earth and hence not invading, it makes me think that I chose wrong stream :slight_smile:

and if one thinks that this affects our relationship with anyone, well it doesn’t. no Indian hate Iranian for Nadir Shah invasion rather we have good relations with them :slight_smile:

Re: Our History?

I think the bias is evident when one says that the CORE reason they came here was to loot. How can you come to this conclusion about tens of Muslim warlords and emperors whose history encompasses hundreds of years?
No. To say that ALL of them had only one thing on their mind (LOOT) is ridiculous.

Here is what Babur said to Humayun. See that Babur is not asking Humayun to fleece the locals and loot all they’ve got. NO. He is talking about peaceful preaching of ISLAM. How can Bharatis say that their core aspect was LOOTING?!

He told Humayun that “Islam can better be preached by the arms of love and affection, rather than the sword of tyranny and persecution.”

And if ALL of them came for looting then why not implement this on all the emperors/warlords throughout the history?


Yes, they wanted to be political leaders and powerful kings. But what’s wrong with that? Everyone in the world had this goal. Just because they succeeded doesn’t make them hateful character as portrayed by Bharatis.


And mentioning Khiljis’ burning some university for some reason, and then leaving it to the students to come to the obvious conclusion, is a clear manifestation of Bharati bias towards Muslims. The only purpose is to create hatred against Muslim emperors among the Bharati students.

Is that burning an established historical event, or just a concocted claim by Bharatis? Ok. I assume it really did happen. But if they mentioned Khiljis’ that particular “crime” then I wonder if Bharati curriculum also mentions similar crimes by Bharatis against Muslims. Like Sikh action of turning Badshahi Mosque in Lahore as horse stable.

On 7 July 1799, the Sikh army of the Sukerchakia chief, Ranjit Singh, took control of Lahore.[SUP][6]](Badshahi Mosque - Wikipedia)[/SUP] After the capture of the city, the Badshahi mosque was desecrated[SUP][7]](Badshahi Mosque - Wikipedia)[/SUP] by Ranjit Singh, who used its vast courtyard as a stable for his army horses

Re: Our History?

Agreed that our curriculum is based to inculcate certain ideology among children but Pakistan is not the only country which does it. The same thing happens in Bharat or China or Afghanistan or the US.

We shouldn’t just be abusing our people all the time. That’s it.

Re: Our History?

Purpose of everyone who turned towards India from Kushans in First century AD to British was loot of resources, for instance Babar had nowhere to go after escaping from Samarqand. So they came for loot, religion for most of them was a politically necessary tool to extend their empire. Natives never needed there rule, they had equally better rulers already. Many of them for benevolent dictator but dictator nevertheless.

It is implemented through out history irrespective of rulers, it straight away says that Sikhs tried desecrating Jama Masjid in 1857

It does make them look hateful, becoming political leader by damaging anybody's religion site will definitely make them what they were looter, same thing is not extended to Akbar who was politically Muslim or Al-Biruni or Malik Muhammad Jayasi or Mirza Ghalib.


Khiljis burning Nalanda for loot and stating that this is infidel knowledge house is self-evident reason. Again, No history book is against Akbar or Shahjehan or Balban or Tuglaq. Modern History records almost all modern kings be it Nizam of Hyderabad or Maharaja of Patiala as inept or spendthrifts:)

Yes it does, it also mentions that after defeating the Mughals whom Sikhs considered enemy, Sikh soldiers stationed themselves in Moti Masjid, ate pork and danced around fire.

Re: Our History?

We are quick to ridicule our people and Bharatis wholeheartedly jump on the band wagon with a ‘khush-amdeed’. They must feel quite self-righteous when they see Pakistanis saying all that.

But we Pakistanis also need to mention how twisted Bharati views are about those rulers only because they were Muslims. For example:
Indian History - Muslim Period in India

**Policy of Muslim rulers in India - **The general policy of most of the rulers during the 700 years of Muslim occupation of India was to systematically replace the fabric of Hindu society and culture with a Muslim culture. They tried to destroy Indian religions language, places of knowledge (universities e.g Nalanda were totally destroyed by Muslims). They destroyed and desecrated places of thousands of temples including Somnath, Mathura, Benaras, Ayodhaya, Kannauj, Thaneswar and in other places. There was wholesale slaughter of the monks and priests and innocent Hindus with the aim to wipe out the intellectual bedrock of the people they overran.

The Muslims could not subjugate India with ease and were never able to rule it entirely. There was a valiant and ceaseless struggle for independence by Hindus to deliver India from Muslim tyranny. The Rajputs, Jats, Marathas and Sikhs led this struggle in North India. In the South this struggle was embodied in the Vijayanagar Empire. This struggle culminated when the Marathas ended the Muslim domination of India.

They won’t tell that the policy of most Muslim rulers was actually much better towards local Hindus. This is why Hindu-Muslim problem did not exist as such. There was no forceful conversion, which is why majority of Bharati population is still Hindu or Sikh.
Throughout that time, the armies of Muslim rulers mostly comprised of local population of Hindus. And it was precisely for this reason that when Hindustanis rose up against the British in 1857 then their aim was to re-establish Mughal Empire with Bahadur Shah Zafar as the emperor.

Re: Our History?

I am not here to convince YOU. My purpose was to show some of my country-men the bias that you Bharatis have towards Pakistan in particular and Muslims in general.

My above posts serve that purpose. By showing the bias and hatred evident from your above post and previous posts, I think I showed Pakistanis that they need to ponder before joining Bharatis in unjustly ridiculing and abusing their own people in history.

I don't expect any Bharati to be convinced by the above posts. And if some people from my target audience are also not convinced ... then so be it. I can't argue paragraph-by-paragraph, post-by-post, line-by-line; just like that kaur can.

So happy hating. :)

Re: Our History?

How come presenting people based on the fact (without bathing them with some holy light) is abusing them? As far as others doing it, it does not make an automatic permission for us to do the same.

Re: Our History?

I think you might need to read / re-read Babarnama and Humayun-nama to see:

(i) How much Babar hated India and its environment
(ii) What was Babar’s purpose to invade India and how much he looted from India. Babar’s daughter Gulbadan Begum gives a detailed account how this loot (including slave girls) was distributed among the ladies of Babar’s families in Samarqand.

If these Mughal people (including Babar himself) let us know the actual purpose of invading India in a clear version, why should we blame others to portray them what they were.

As far as their love for Islam is concerned, Babar did used Islam and denounced drinking while having a fight (which he called Jihad) against Rana Sanga, but after victory he revert to drinking. See how much devoted he was to Islamic injunctions.

If someone raises point that Muslims killed Muslim for power, whats wrong in it. Didn’t Babar defeated another Muslim Ibrahim Lodhi? Who made Humayun to wander in exile? Why do not our text books tell us about Aurangzeb killing his brothers and keeping his father in prison for power? (He is portrayed as a saint, who used to write Quran and made caps to earn his bread and butter. Strange that he could afford 36 dishes from such earnings).

As far as these rulers always supporting purpose of Islam and sufis, thats also not true in various cases. Mughals started from loot and their end was also with loot. Last Mughal kings (after Aurangzeb) were so cruel that they wanted to have all the crop as tax (not from Hindus, but Muslims subjects as well).

صوفی شاہ عنایت: سندھ Ú©Û’ پہلے سوشلسٹ - Opinions](صوفی شاہ عنایت: سندھ کے پہلے سوشلسٹ - Opinions - Dawn News Urdu)

Re: Our History?

I like such readings because these text try to portray rulers in modern lines, Auragzeb or for that matter Shivaji weren’t secular, they never meant to be secular nor did they know meaning of secularism, all this secular talk came only after American declaration of independence and French revolution. History should be studied in context and then should be left to era to which it belongs.

And if you think there weren’t any forceful conversion then read about Tipu Sultan’s policy in Kerala but he was portrayed as hero in National drama in India. Annihilation of Mughal army in Assam, struggle of Maratha.

I personally believe there was no need of muslim law in Hindu India, According to Al-Biruni, Hindus calculated that earth in elliptical in shape, there must be some continent at South Pole and explanation of day and night is possible through Heliocentric model etc. Common hindu mistrusted every foreigner because muslims were vandalizing temples and educational system due to which curious and educated muslim like him had to face so much of trouble to get into literary circle of that era. Looks like Hindus and Muslims would have learnt more through interaction than imposition of muslim rule :slight_smile:

I am not here to get convinced either. I am here to learn something new. We may have hatred towards Pakistan but we don’t have hatred towards muslims. Iran is muslim country with which we have better relation than Pakistan. We have good relation with Israel as well. We are the only nation where Taziya procession is not threatened by bomb. Dawoodi Bohra, Parsis and Quadianis are living like ordinary citizen with full rights and their personal law boards.

We are judging ourselves by number of people we are pulling out of poverty and advancement in technology like recently launched GPS system Navic, honestly I don’t care how Pakistan or Uncle Sam judge us.

I think history syllabus should be reduced a bit more, we are talking about interstellar travel, Mr Nolan in his movie depicted an Indian Air Force drone programmed in Sanskrit language. That should be the vision.

We should be busy living in technology rather than finding reasons to kill each other in history.

Frankly I can trade ten medival emperors be it Aurangzeb or Ranjit singh for one Mustafa Kemal Ataturk or Pandit Nehru

Re: Our History?

That make me think…The closest example of a group of people that like to call their ruling a certain area as “Muslim Rulers” have been Taliban rulers of Afghanistan and** ISIS/Daesh** rulers of its area & I fail to see any difference in how they ruled vs how above text tells us about mughal rulers.

Why is that?

Pakistanis deny that those muslim rulers came to sub continent to loot and empower the natves and strongly believe that majority of those rulers were trying to spread Islam in subcontinent…Just the same goal that ISIS and Taliban had.

So Why would we not even remotely think about the idea that muslim rulers/invaders of subcontinent can have same attitude towards non muslims in that era? Just because thinking that would support the ideas that @khoji branded as “Bharati views”?

Re: Our History?

I think you are a Pakistani. Then I don’t know why my calling India with its proper name Bharat makes you so uneasy that you had to specifically mention it here. Calling India Bharat is like calling Egypt Misr. Nothing offensive. But if it is hurtful for some “Pakistanis” then I don’t have problem calling it India. Ok? :slight_smile:

Comparing Muslim who ruled South Asia for hundred of years with Taliban is as much laughable as it is preposterous. Most of those rulers were not not religious at all.
My point, which did not make you think, was that they were secular, and they invaded India for the same reasons which everyone else has used throughout history to invade other areas. One of the reasons could be looting but it is extremely wrong to say that it was the ONLY reason. And if one thinks ALL Muslim rulers came to loot then why not say the same thing about all other conquerors from history? Why not Alexander? Why not Conquistadors? Why not Sikh Ranjeet Singh? Why not Marathas? Why not Cyrus? etc. etc.?

The reasons Muslim rulers invaded India are complex. There were tens of rulers, and they continued arriving for hundreds of years. Some were religious, some were secular, some were in-between.

So their reasons of invasion can not be lumped together as looting, or propagation of religion.

If invasion of foreign lands makes someone evil then why single out Muslims alone? They were as good and as bad as other conquerors throughout the history. And their invasions had various reasons.

That is the point.