Why has Afghanistan remained as the graveyard of empires ? What kind of advantage did the ruler or what kind of disadvantage did the invaders have in Afghanistan ?

by Aayush-Ap
[deleted]

Afghanistan has never been referred to as graveyard of empires in historical sources. The term must have appeared in the western (most probably America's) media after the demise of USSR. Afghanistan as a political unit is only three centuries old and before that it was part of various non-Afghan dynasties. Though the hilly portion of Pashtun belt was known as "Yaghistan" (meaning land of rebels) and it kept itself independent of Delhi and Kabul. Kafiristan (present-day Nuristan) region was always independent until it was conquered by the Amir of Kabul in 1896. Hazarajat in Central Afghanistan, peopled by descendants of Mongols, was also independent and was not part of Central Asian, Mughal or Safavid empires in the early modern period (1500-1800).

Afghanistan does not live up to the reputation of graveyard of empires in history. The Afghanistan proper was invaded by Sikhs from east in the 1813-1837 period and they managed to conquer several districts from Afghans. The ones who put an end to Sikh empire, were not Afghans but East India Company of Britain. British invaded Afghanistan twice and the British empire did not crumble. In fact they annexed several Afghan districts after Second Anglo-Afghan War through treaty of Gandamak and controlled foreign policy of Afghanistan from 1880 to 1919. "