Why did successive North Indian dynasties never conquer the Ancient Tamil Country?

by GrinningManiac

In my shallow perusing of Indian history I have always noticed that whilst the Maurya, Pala, Gupta, Sunga etc. Empires dominate every part of the subcontinent from Bangladesh to modern Afghanistan, they always leave alone the small Tamil kingdoms of Chola, Pandya and Chera.

I read one source that mentioned that Ashoka the Great mantained good relations with the friendly Tamil kingdoms, but I'm confused as to why none of any of Indian history's multitudinous conquerors, who subjugated time and time again the entire subcontinent, never took on the Ancient Tamil Country. for any reason.

Oh_so_random

Someone else will probably have a better answer, but I remember studying in school and later. There were a few different reasons.

  1. With empires that stretched all over the northern part of India, their capitals were often too far from the borders. The north eastern and western problems kept them busy.
  2. The Vindhya mountain range runs east-west in the middle of the country. In a way, it acted as an effective barrier just as the Himalayas, keeping the south peninsula fairly separate from the northern occupations. Another thing that was mentioned and can actually be seen in the architecture in the south is that in the Deccan plateau (south of the Vindhyas) you'll find a tonne of forts on the higher plateau elevations. Compared to the plains in the north, it would have been difficult to attack from the north because of higher elevation in the south.

This is based on my limited recollection of my university south-east Asian history from India! I hope it helps.

Edited for language clarity.