Talk:Maurya Empire: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 05:17, 9 September 2006 editPer Honor et Gloria (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers53,031 edits →Regarding the Hellenstic Relations section ← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 14:27, 8 January 2025 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk \| contribs)Bots, Template editors2,302,381 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Maurya Empire/Archive 5) (bot
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Talk header}}
	{{Wikiproject History of India}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=B\|vital=yes\|1=
	Move request: bring inline with ], ], ]
			{{WikiProject India\|importance=High\|history=yes\|history-importance=mid\|pre=yes}}
	*'''Support''' ] ] 23:10, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
			{{WikiProject Former countries}}
	*'''Support''' - makes sense to me. ] 22:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
			{{WikiProject Nepal\|importance=mid}}
	''This article has been renamed as the result of a ].'' ] ] 18:13, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
			}}
			{{contentious topics/talk notice\|ipa}}
			{{Section sizes}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\| algo=old(30d)
			\| archive=Talk:Maurya Empire/Archive %(counter)d
			\| counter=5
			\| maxarchivesize=200K
			\| archiveheader={{aan}}
			\| minthreadsleft=5
			\| minthreadstoarchive=1
			}}

	== ~~Espionage~~ ==		== Status quo ==

			I propose to keep the present status quo with the two maps. Unsatisfactory for most, one way or the other, but the best of all options, I'm afraid. Regards, ] - ] 17:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	How can you explain the Mauryan Empire without mentioning the use of spies?

			:I second your proposal. Thank you. ]] 17:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Mauryan Empire v. Mauryan Dynasty ==
			::I agree with this proposal. ] (]) 00:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
			:Agree ]] 07:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Jambudvipa? ==

			I always assumed Jambudvipa was a geographical term, did the Mauryans use the term to describe their political entity or just the subcontinent? Or maybe both? ] (]) 14:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	] - "lasted from 321 to 185 BCE "
	] - "from 322 BCE to 183 BCE "
	Contradiction?

			:Jambudvipa was added by another user a long time ago (several months), at that point of time, the edit was reverted, so I am wondering why is it being reinstated again? ] (]) 14:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	: I was navigating these pages and found something very confusing and perplexing. There is a contradiction with the pages of ], the template ] and the template ]. If i go by this article then the Mauryan Empire is a standalone entity otherwise it is merely an appellation of a famous or more successful dynasty of the ] Kingdom. There is a similar problem with the Sunga dynasty/ Empire articles and pages. I just wanted to know which is it? Are these two dynasties or empires because it implies a continued and persistent rulership vs. an interrupted rulership and so should be brought in line. Should Mauryan Empire be redirect to Maurya Dynasty of Magadha? or should the references be removed from the article magadha and the Sunga and Mauryans be treated as seperate kingdoms.

			== Name ==
	:Whatever we decide we need to upgrade the templates Middle Kingdoms of India and History of South Asia accordingly to reflect this consistency as well. At any rate we need to merge the two articles mentioned as they replicate information. One can be a redirect to the other once we work out what goes where.
	--] 13:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

			Hello @], I do not question your sources, but I am a bit puzzled here. Nowhere is it mentioned that "Jambudvipa" was the name of Ashoka's realm, and wasn't he referred to as "Magadha-raja"? I'm not sure he ever referred to himself as the 'ruler of Jambudvipa'? I'd like to hear your view on it. ] (]) 14:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	==Rename; Mauryan to Maurya==
	I propose the article be renamed to Maurya empire for consistency with the other 'empire' articles; e.g. Chola, et.c. ] 18:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

			:I have wrote about the same question in the above topic box,
			:Chandragupta was known as '''the''' Indian emperor and his empire as '''the''' Indian dominion by the Greeks. ] (]) 14:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

			::{{yo\|PadFoot2008}} this info is new for me too, but doesn't seem to be fringe; so, what do you mean exactly when you write {{tq\|Nowhere is it mentioned that "Jambudvipa" was the name of Ashoka's realm}}? Nowhere in the article? Regards, ] - ] 15:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	Rama's Arrow,
			:::@] I think Jambudvipa can be kept and we need a legacy section here as well. ]] 15:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::I meant the lack of any edicts specifically mentioning that "our king's land is called Jambudvipa" or something like that. I do know that Jambudvipa itself is mentioned in his edicts but concluding that it must be the formal name of the polity and Ashoka doesn't use it to refer to a region seems a bit dubious to me. ] (]) 16:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::@] Ah I will talk for it later but we need a legacy section ]] 05:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Status quo #2 ==
	This page is about the Mauryan Empire and not Alexander; however, the version you continue to revert to finds it necessary to make Alexander the focal point of this article. There are almost as many if not more mentions of him in this article than Chanakya. The Background section is redundant and Alexander's campaigns in the rest of the article are already discussed later. Moreover, not all the kingdoms in India were small, as evidenced by Magadha. This section is purposefully meant to give the wrong impression. Lastly, there is no evidence whatsoever that the macedonian phalanx and other greek fighting techniques/formations were adopted. If you arrogate the rights of a page guardian, then please ensure that such mistakes are avoided.

			{{yo\|Fowler&fowler}} what consensus are you referring to with your statement {{tq\|I am sorry, but there is a consensus on the talk page not to tamper with the WP:STATUSQUO of the lead beyond rephrasing, but not changing the meaning or adding bells and whistles in the infobox.}}? The only status quo proposed so far is to stick to two maps. Regards, ] - ] 19:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
	::How did the Mauryan Empire form? What was going on in India before it? I'm sorry, but you cannot remove the entire "Background" section. And how do you not find Chanakya's campaign to unite kingdoms against the Greeks relevant? How did Chandragupta Maurya come to have to contend with a Greek general Nicator? ] 02:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

			:Yes, and I assume slightly modifying the network model by presenting a more accurate picture by representing vassals as well, without changing the borders in the slightest should not affect the status quo as well. I am open to suggestions on further improvements. ] (]) 04:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			::@] No need of depicting vassals in different shade atleast in infobox ]] 05:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			::@] Needless change. The modification you did is needless and doubius and original research. The references you given for location identification of those provinces is very uncertain. {{blockquote\|Here in the king's domain among the Greeks, the Kambojas, the Nabhakas, the Nabhapamkits, the Bhoja, the Pitinikas, the Andhras and the Palidas, everywhere people are following Beloved-of-the-Gods' instructions in Dhamma. Rock Edict No.13 (S. Dhammika)}} Which geographical map mention these provinces location so accurately. You even failed to provide proper identification of these locations. ] (]) 12:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::You didn't even bother to see the three scholarly sources, I expect. he locations are completely sourced per the sources provided. The sources provide sufficient description of the geographical locations including the capital cities themselves. ] (]) 13:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			:I'm not comfortable with too much dickering with the lead. I wrote my sentences carefully cited to the best sources. You've changed them, for example the one about Arthashastra. Instead of leaving it as a work now thought to date to the early centuries CE, you've added the extraneous comment about it no longer being reliable because of .... Scholars don't make such black and white judgments. ]] 12:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			::I see your point. Regarding the Arthashastra, Olivelle and McClish ''do'' state that the Srthashastra can't be used as a source for the Maurya Empire, as it post-dates the ME. I'll look-up the pagenumbers. Regards, ] - ] 12:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::Even if you have the page numbers, there is no academic consensus about its lack of reliability as some scholars consider it to be based on contemporaneous material, which later compilers built on. Ancient Indian scholarship is full of such works. Indian mathematics is a good example. Aryabhatta's work on astronomy, in the lost work Aryabhattiyasidhant, is pieced together from the later commentaries of Bhaskara, Varamahira and others. There is academic consensus that the Arthashastra is a later work, of many centuries later. Let us leave it at that. ]] 13:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::You mean, ''implying'' that it may not be usefull as a source for Mauryan times, without explicitly stating so? Let me think about it. ] - ] 13:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::{{talkquote\| The ''Arthashastra'', a work first discovered in the early 20th century and highly regarded as a source for Mauryan times, is traditionally attributed to ], but now thought to be composed by multiple authors in the first centuries of the ], providing "a shaky foundation for the edifice built on it."}}
			::::Quote from Basham's foreword to Trautmann (1971), as cited in the note. ] - ] 14:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			::::No, you should leave it at: {{tq\|The Arthashastra, a work first discovered in the early 20th century, and previously attributed to ], but now thought to be composed by multiple authors in the first centuries of the common era}}
			::::Trautmann's work is 55 years old. This Christmas morning I won't do anything, but please for the article's sake, do not dicker with the previous text in dozens of small edits. It begins to border on OR. You're a good guy and I've had a good relationship with you, but please do not do this. ]] 14:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
			:::::There is no other empire in a loose knot fashion on this entire website. Why is Mauryan Empire an exception. This is pure bias ] (]) 17:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

			== Requirements of new updates ==
	That's right Rama's Arrow, ask yourself that question: How did the Mauryan Empire form? Moreover, Chanakya's campaign to unite the kingdoms is relevant, and is mentioned in the following passage, just as Alexander is. Nicator is mentioned in the following passages anyways, and is truly relevant in the two decades following the empire's founding. These are redundancies that need to be removed. The contention here is on the over-emphasis on Alexander's campaigns. Rather than ignoring my points, please take care to respond to them.

			There has been some new development in terms of timelines of Different Rulers of this dynasty. And, some new Findings about Beliefs & Architecture during Mauryans. Moreover, Some cities aren't added in the map. Shouldn't we Add a Map of Peak extension of the Empire in Down South & East? ] (]) 13:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

			:@] Can you briefly explain what those updates are? ]] 16:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
	The guy has a point. The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to give the reader as good an understanding of a topic in question. As such, any mention of historical figures needs to be commensurate with their actual impact on the history. It is a bit misleading to talk about the Mauryan Empire and refer to Alexander more than Chanakya. It is also misleading to mischaracterize the nature of Indian civilization at the time of Alexander's conquests. While the kingdoms in the Punjab were not quite as militarily powerful, the ones further inside India, such as Magadha, were the most powerful kingdoms of the era. His edits have merit. While it may not necessitate erasing the entire background section, it is definitely worth editing it heavily to more accurately represent the geo-political environment of the time.
	Moreover, all the information in the "background" section is mentioned in other parts of the article. It doesn't really need to be there.
	~Pavs

			== Iran and the Mauryan Empire ==
	==Map==
	According to the map, the territories of the Mauryas in the northwest seem to cover the region of ], i.e. the left and right banks of the ], which is historically innacurate :the zone north of the Hindu-Kush has always been occupied by the ] and then the ]. Could the creator of the map correct accordingly? Regards. ] 23:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

			Hello! Parts of modern-day Iran, like Nepal, were under Mauryan rule. They were ceded by the Seleucids to the Mauryans following the Mauryan-Seleucid war. This is supported by historical records. Should it not be included in the “today part of” section? This edit seems quite uncontroversial. ] (]) 04:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	: is where the map comes from, its not user made.--] 08:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

			:Go through the talkpage-history, and you'll see it's ''not'' "uncontroversial," nor "supported by historical records." It's an exaggerated interpretation of an ambiguous remark from a source written 300 years after the supposed event. Worse, the notion of "Maury ''rule''" is questionable, even for India itself. ] - ] 05:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Is this map free (Public Domain etc...)? ] 23:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

	::I have not idea at all, but the Mughal Empire uses a similar map as well.--] 10:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

	==Merge==
	Also a query why did you remove the Merge tag, I think the other page can be easily fit into this page, it is only a list but it carries links to detailed article pages for all the rulers.--] 08:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
	:I think it is quite usual on Misplaced Pages to separate Dynasty lists from Empire of Kingdom articles. I personally do not mind either way. ] 23:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
	::I don't beleive there is a link that even leads from this page to that, it almost seems like both were started independently and on just froze out, thats the impression created by the other article and the links it makes.--] 10:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

	==Regarding the Hellenstic Relations section==

	Is it just me or is an inordinate amount of time spent on relations with hellenistic world. It seems that more than a third of the article is dedicated to that--more space than even the origin, achievements, or rulers of the empire. In the interest of community discussion, I wanted to raise this issue before deleting the bulk of the section. My understanding of the original purpose of the stub was that it was to highlight the main points of interaction between the hellenistic and Mauryan empires and not to dominate the entire article as done here. These facts are definitely worthy of mention on this page, but not to the extent that hellenistic relations becomes almost the single largest section. The contributor curiously finds it necessary to repeat points that were stated earlier in the article and incorporate an array of crackpot theories without an iota of proof. This injures the quality of the article.
	First and foremost, where is the proof that this was a dynastic alliance? Frankly, since it is epigamia and not kenos that is mentioned (as noted by Dr.Nilakantha Shastri "The Age of Nandas and Mauryas", Banaras, 1952.) it is almost certainly referring to Intermarriage between Indians and Greeks. Second of all, even if a dynastic alliance took place, it is a stretch to believe that automatically a greek princess must have been the chief queen of an Indian Emperor. Third, at the time this treaty was sealed, Bindusara was already a grown man and Ashoka was already born, in 304 BCE (the settlement took place in 303BCE). Accordingly, Indian records account for Ashoka's parentage while Greek sources do not. These indigenous sources clearly note that Ashoka was born of Bindusara and a minor queen of the brahmin caste (the caste point is raised to highlight the fact that the queen was an indian and not otherwise). Essentially, this contributor develops these far-fetched notions in order to lend credence to his positions.
	The propagation of such "theories" are to the detriment of the quality of the article. They are being used by a contributor to lay the groundwork for his treasured notion that bactrian greeks invaded India out of a sense of justice, nobility, and dynastic connection rather than the more obvious and natural desire for conquest and expansion (as noted on the Indo Greeks page). History must be based on evidence from archaeological and accurate/dependable documentation. It should not be subject to musings of people who "like to to think that such and such a thing happened". If fantasy is injected into the many gaps of history, we are doing a disservice to both history and wikipedia's readers. Please do not commandeer this page to advance political purposes.

	Regards,

	Devanampriya

	:Hi Devanampriya. It simply happens that there is a large amount of Hellenistic ressource on the Maurya Empire, and this clearly builds our understanding of the empire. If the other parts of the article can be strengthened a bit, the Hellenistic portion will naturally decrease in weight... but the fact that it is large and highly documented is no reason to cut it down.
	:Regarding the discussions on marital alliance, this is just relaying here some published analysis by Tarn, Marshall etc... It is clearly just one theory, and alternative views are very welcome.
	:I have no "political agenda" whatsoever, but only am interested in the interactions of cultures. Regards ] 07:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

	Hello PHG,

	My friend, it also happens that there is a wealth of information on the art and architecture of the period, relations between other indian states (i.e. the andhras), the nature of the government, etc, etc. These can and will definitely be included in time. However, the concern here is that the hellenistic portion consists primarily of points that are almost all previously repeated. In essence, establishing it as the dominant theme throughout the article. That section would be better placed to discuss Bindusara's correspondence with Antiochus I, Ashoka's mentions of the various hellenistic rulers and his conquest through righteousness, and Subhagasena's friendship with Antiochus III.

	Regarding the marital alliance, it is far-fetched fiction that neither author provided a shred of actual proof for. For points all previously mentioned, these musings are rendered moot, and indeed have been rendered moot, as there has been no evidence in their favor. All the points trying to link greeks with the ruling mauryan line have been negated. These same tactics were previously applied towards crediting greeks for the introduction of astronomy, drama, and a laundry list of other things because the british wanted to believe it. If we continue to use such tactics, Indians could then lay claim to the development of all western philosophy and learning since Pythagoras and his followers were all vegetarians and that theorem was first developed in India.

	I am glad that you declare that you do not have a political purpose. In the interest of observing this, let us stick to the facts. What you cite is no longer valid proof much like the previous claims of Greek linkages.

	Regards,

	Devanampriya

	:I think rather than Greek sources that may have been written in Europe, it would be best to focus on Buddhist and Jain accounts of the era (keeping in mind they may have been biased against Vedic authority, etc). A good book on Chandragupta's rule by P L Bhargava is available. It suggests that rather than Greeks, it was Persians who had a greater influence on Magadhan rule - for instance in political administration of a large empire - it is perhaps no coincidence that Chandragupta and Qin Shi Huang, the respective 'first emperors' of India and China, rose shortly after the speard of Achaemenid doctrines on governance of large territories. Persia was clearly the most influencial power of this era, yet modern scholars are only now acknolwedging this. Much early British scholarship on India consisted of Euro-centric speculation - I suggest that they should be taken with a pinch of salt, given that nobody would dream of using 60 year old Nazi sources to back up modern scholarship on the racial makeup of Europe - the Hellenic world was clearly not the only major sphere of influence in this era, yet is often treated as such - there is afterall no talk of the 'Persian world', etc. Ashoka Maurya likely had a greater influence on world hitory than Alexander of Macedon, given his proliferation of Buddhism, etc (could Christianity have existed without this influence?) - yet when thinking of how one is known as a household name, and one isnt, you can clearly see the magnitude of bias, and how it arose. Misplaced Pages isnt just open source so that history textbooks can be repeated, but it a project designed to overcome the flaws in these areas, like this very kind of bias - lets not repeat the mistakes or deliberate errors of the past for a whole new generation to experience via the ultimate medium of the internet. ] 10:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

	I don't think anyone can assimilate Tarn's or John Marshall's work to "Nazi sources". They are noted historians of the Hellenistic period, who, although arguably enthousiastic about Greek influence, are still highly respected, and still quoted extensively, regarding the ancient story of India. I don't see either why ancient Indian sources should be "privileged" versus ancient Greek sources. Arguably, Greek sources have a record of being generally more accurate, and anyway, both have the right to stand as primary sources. Negating ancient Greek sources, and negating what they suggest, is akin to censorship. All sides of the story have the right to stand, for the sake of a more comprehensive understanding of history. I personnally incorporate both ancient Greek as well as ancient Indian sources whenever I can, and expect anyone to respect both. Regards ] 11:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

	Right, greek sources have been so accurate that they note that "ethiopian semen is black", "Giant ants dig gold dust", and "men with one leg bounce around throughout india". First of all, you're the one who is attempting to commandeer the page for your own purposes. You have done so before and continue to do so now. You don't read up on the topics properly before commenting (i.e. Indian Astronomy and philosophy), and you make insinuations without merit. Using all of these you concoct the furthest possible fantasies to justify your conceits.
	Tarn is quoted extensively by you, and you have used him as your basis for the statement. Regarding India, you have used Tarn's clear opinion (and not construction of facts) to drive this statement to appropriate Ashoka's legacy. Ashoka was born before your settlement, and indian sources clearly note otherwise. You have now both reason and a direct counter in the Ashokavadana. I don't see why your hero, Tarn, should be regarded as more privileged than reason and indigenous sources. Your insinuations amount to sneaky vandalism. You have done this before on other articles.
	Lastly, please don't send your thug aldux to intimidate me. His charged comments and uncivil behavior stand against the community orientation of wikipedia, and pale only in comparison to his ignorance. Let us debate like people instead of using others to intimidate each other.

	Regards,

	Devanampriya


	::Thanks for the reply PHG. I dont believe I at any point talked about disregarding Greek sources - I did however note that Jain and Buddhist sources are closer to the subject matter, and infact rather reliable, seeing as they each saw portrayal of the truth to be consistent with their agnostic philosophies. I dont see how favoring them resembles censorship of Greek sources.

	::''''"They are noted historians of the Hellenistic period, who, although arguably enthousiastic about Greek influence, are still highly respected, and still quoted extensively, regarding the ancient story of India."'''' - it is this sort of enthusiasm that until recently hid the nature of the Persian contribution to early history.

	::Colonial era British sources, and their immediate followers, tend to be biased, hence the comparison with the Nazi regime - i.e. its not in the interest of ruling parties to promote the culture of those they occupy, it is infact in their interest to disfavor the originality and influence of the culture they occupy - the example of Sir Mortimer Wheeler's immediate assumption about an 'Aryan invasion', based upon bodies that were not even located within the same strata of the Harappan ruins, (that has plagued Indian scholarship for 70 years), is a prudent example.

	::Im not that interested in where this article goes - its just that things should be made more clear for people who treat wikipedia as their primary source of information - else they take these accounts at face value. Unfortunatly, while the standard wiki response is 'do it yourself' - since I dont plan on contributing to this article in any way, I have to ask that those who are, take these sensitivities into account.

	::When writing about an important Indian dynasty, it is best to be familiar with Indian scholarship on the matter - I wouldnt dream of going into a Greek dynasty with ancient Indian and imperial Turkish accounts as my main backing. Im not saying 'dont do it' because I want to see this article be featured - and you are a skilled contributor PHG.

	::The Mauryans are my faovrite pre-Christ dynasty - ill enjoy seeing what you two, as well as others, do to improve the article - good luck! ] 18:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


	Dear PHG,

	I noticed your comment regarding the marital alliance section and was a little disconcerted when you said. "Regarding the discussions on marital alliance, this is just relaying here some published analysis by Tarn, Marshall etc... It is clearly just one theory, and alternative views are very welcome."
	My understanding is that the purpose of an encyclopedia article is not to espouse every "theory" under the sun. The purpose is to allow a reader to develop a general understanding of the predominant academic consensus on an issue. Mentioning fringe theories does not enrich the article, it only elevates the credibility of various crackpot theories beyond their merit. And if you choose to discredit these fringe ideas later on in the article, what is the point of mentioning them in the first place? As far as I know, Ashoka's parentage as being of a Bhramin queen is not in any credible disupte. Claims to the contrary are, currently, little more than idle musings and unsubstantiated "what if" scenarios that can hardly be considered to merit mention.
	Cluttering up the article with all these random references to relatively unimportant theories only serves to make the article ponderous and unreadable. Keep it pithy and to the point.

	By the way, just because some point you wish to say has a source does not mean it deserves to be mentioned in an article. I could cite Stephen Colbert as my source for all sorts of crazy claims, but just because I refute them later in the article does not mean it deserved to be in there in the first place.
	Such a practice of insinuation will only serve to enhance the credibility of biased viewpoints. It will not improve the integrity and informativeness of an article.

	-Regards,
	Pavs

	:Hi Pavs, thanks for the post. The fact that there was ] is recognized by I think everybody, meaning either a dynastic alliance, or the recognition of marriage between Indians and Greeks. If it is a dynastic alliance, then there was intermarriage between the two dynasties, and of course Ashoka is a natural candidate as a result of such a union (first suggested by Tarn and Marshall). This is no crackpot theory, just a very straightforward inference from what Western sources say. Of course there is also the ] tradition that Ashoka was born from a Brahmin woman, but not everything in the Ashokavadana can be taken at face value. There is no certainty here, and I think both accounts deserve representation. Regards ] 20:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

	::Oh please. Just because Tarn and Marshall mused about something does not mean it is the broad academic consensus on a topic, nor does it mean it deserves mention. There is nothing "natural" about Ashoka's candidacy. There is nothing there but blind speculation to even hint at it, just because you have a citation for the speculation doesn't mean it is anything less than speculation. Bindasura had a lot of children. (As many as 99 by some counts.) And the story goes that Ashoka had to go on quite a killing spree of his siblings in order to secure the throne. To say Ashoka was a "natural" candidate without any evidence to point to Ashoka above all his other siblings is patently absurd. Especially in light of the fact that contradictory sources, which actually specify his parentage, discredit it. To suggest otherwise with any measure of certainty is simply Grecophilia.

	::"Of course there is also the ] tradition that Ashoka was born from a Brahmin woman, but not everything in the Ashokavadana can be taken at face value."
	::Oh please. I have seen you egregiously cherry pick obscure references from sources like the Gargi Samitha and Yuga Purana when it suits you. You didn't seem to have any qualms about taking sources at face value then. And even in those cases, your penchant for drawing conclusions based on independant research in this article, and others, is rather disconcerting.
	] 23:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

	:::Hi Pav. Please note I try to present both sides on the story as much as I can. On the Maurya-related page, I wrote both about the ] (which did not even exist as an article and I created) and the Hellenistic tradition. I also created the articles for the ], the ], the ] etc..., I created most of the graphic material on Indian art and artificats on these pages. I cannot understand your wish to select only one side of the story and eliminate the other. This is sad. History is a matter of debate with various theories. There is not "one truth". Your doubts about Ashoka's origins are legitimate, but the suggestion that he may have some Greek ascendency is also legitimate and has been published by major historians (didn't Ashoka even write edicts in Greek?). Bottom line: this is referenced, published material by major historians, it has the right to be presented as per the Misplaced Pages philosophy. And if you don't like what these sources say, well, I can only be sorry for you, but please try to respect them at least. Regards. ] 05:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

	==Religion and lack of==
	] was also a major force in this period - I get the impression it was at least as powerfull as the Jain community. ] was an early sect not unlike Buddhism and Jainism. Some theorise that Bindusara was a member of it. Upanishadic philosophy and Hindu reform should also be mentioned. It is interesting that out of all the classical civilizations, India is the only one where an atheistic/agnostic system had such influence - even in Greece, the major religious community opressed atheistic philosophers. ] 10:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

	==Maps==
	I quicky added a couple of maps - Chandragupta's conquests, Bindusaras conquests, and Ashokas conquests, plus Magadha under the Shungas - they may need formatting or editing though. ] 19:43, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

	Hi Vastu. Great maps. Additionallly, I think it would be nice to have a view of the territorial situation just before the advent of the Shunga. At present, the last map seems to show the terrotory of the Sungas themselves, which somewhat falls beyond the scope of the article. Regards ] 05:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

	:My thinking behind that was that the map of Magadha before the Mauryas seemed to show the extent of the Nanda or Shishunga dynasty (although I have seen some maps of the Nanda dynasty that give their size at almost that of the Shungas) - however I have removed the Shunga one for the reasons you mentioned - i.e. the Shungas actually slightly expanded their rule after the collapse of the last Mauryan king. I think it will be difficult finding an accurate depiction of the extent of post-Ashoka rulership, as historical records deteriorated after his phase, so I dont think I will be able to create a map for that time period - so its probably best to stick with the current four. Good luck on the rest of the article :-) ] 10:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 14:27, 8 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Maurya Empire article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This

level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India: History High‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance).

Former countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country

Nepal Mid‑importance

	Nepal portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Section sizes

Section size for Maurya Empire (38 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	16,388	16,388
Etymology	4,966	4,966
History	13	47,132
Sources	1,851	1,851
Chandragupta Maurya	1,873	21,623
Unrest and warfare in the Punjab	3,888	3,888
Conquest of the Nanda Empire	6,659	6,659
Dynastic marriage-alliance with Seleucus	6,792	6,792
Chandragupta's state	2,411	2,411
Bindusara	9,949	9,949
Ashoka	4,771	4,771
Subhagasena (206 BCE)	1,595	1,595
Decline	4,655	7,330
Persecution of Buddhists	1,093	1,093
Establishment of the Indo-Greek Kingdom (180 BCE)	1,582	1,582
Military	513	513
Administration	86	6,938
Provinces	1,264	1,264
Network of core areas and trade routes	1,095	1,095
Monarchical ownership	552	552
Local government	2,298	2,298
Bureaucracy	1,643	1,643
Economy	4,181	4,181
Religion	8,002	8,002
Society	1,192	1,192
Architectural remains	4,028	4,028
Natural history	3,531	3,531
Contacts with the Hellenistic world	155	5,930
Greek population in India	2,736	2,736
Buddhist missions to the West (c. 250 BCE)	3,039	3,039
Timeline	918	918
Family tree and List of rulers	71	71
Branches and claimed descendants	277	277
See also	168	168
Notes	26,918	26,918
References	719	719
Sources	16,956	16,956
External links	1,647	1,647
Total	150,475	150,475

Status quo

I propose to keep the present status quo with the two maps. Unsatisfactory for most, one way or the other, but the best of all options, I'm afraid. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I second your proposal. Thank you. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. Someguywhosbored (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree Mithilanchalputra (Talk) 07:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Jambudvipa?

I always assumed Jambudvipa was a geographical term, did the Mauryans use the term to describe their political entity or just the subcontinent? Or maybe both? Maurya-E-Mughal (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Jambudvipa was added by another user a long time ago (several months), at that point of time, the edit was reverted, so I am wondering why is it being reinstated again? Maurya-E-Mughal (talk) 14:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Name

Hello @Joshua Jonathan, I do not question your sources, but I am a bit puzzled here. Nowhere is it mentioned that "Jambudvipa" was the name of Ashoka's realm, and wasn't he referred to as "Magadha-raja"? I'm not sure he ever referred to himself as the 'ruler of Jambudvipa'? I'd like to hear your view on it. PadFoot (talk) 14:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I have wrote about the same question in the above topic box,

Chandragupta was known as the Indian emperor and his empire as the Indian dominion by the Greeks. Maurya-E-Mughal (talk) 14:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008: this info is new for me too, but doesn't seem to be fringe; so, what do you mean exactly when you write Nowhere is it mentioned that "Jambudvipa" was the name of Ashoka's realm? Nowhere in the article? Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan I think Jambudvipa can be kept and we need a legacy section here as well. Mithilanchalputra (Talk) 15:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I meant the lack of any edicts specifically mentioning that "our king's land is called Jambudvipa" or something like that. I do know that Jambudvipa itself is mentioned in his edicts but concluding that it must be the formal name of the polity and Ashoka doesn't use it to refer to a region seems a bit dubious to me. PadFoot (talk) 16:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008 Ah I will talk for it later but we need a legacy section Mithilanchalputra (Talk) 05:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Status quo #2

@Fowler&fowler: what consensus are you referring to with your statement diff I am sorry, but there is a consensus on the talk page not to tamper with the WP:STATUSQUO of the lead beyond rephrasing, but not changing the meaning or adding bells and whistles in the infobox.? The only status quo proposed so far is to stick to two maps. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and I assume slightly modifying the network model by presenting a more accurate picture by representing vassals as well, without changing the borders in the slightest should not affect the status quo as well. I am open to suggestions on further improvements. PadFoot (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008 No need of depicting vassals in different shade atleast in infobox Mithilanchalputra (Talk) 05:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

@PadFoot2008 Needless change. The modification you did is needless and doubius and original research. The references you given for location identification of those provinces is very uncertain.

Here in the king's domain among the Greeks, the Kambojas, the Nabhakas, the Nabhapamkits, the Bhoja, the Pitinikas, the Andhras and the Palidas, everywhere people are following Beloved-of-the-Gods' instructions in Dhamma. Rock Edict No.13 (S. Dhammika)

Which geographical map mention these provinces location so accurately. You even failed to provide proper identification of these locations. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 12:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

You didn't even bother to see the three scholarly sources, I expect. he locations are completely sourced per the sources provided. The sources provide sufficient description of the geographical locations including the capital cities themselves. PadFoot (talk) 13:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with too much dickering with the lead. I wrote my sentences carefully cited to the best sources. You've changed them, for example the one about Arthashastra. Instead of leaving it as a work now thought to date to the early centuries CE, you've added the extraneous comment about it no longer being reliable because of .... Scholars don't make such black and white judgments. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I see your point. Regarding the Arthashastra, Olivelle and McClish do state that the Srthashastra can't be used as a source for the Maurya Empire, as it post-dates the ME. I'll look-up the pagenumbers. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Even if you have the page numbers, there is no academic consensus about its lack of reliability as some scholars consider it to be based on contemporaneous material, which later compilers built on. Ancient Indian scholarship is full of such works. Indian mathematics is a good example. Aryabhatta's work on astronomy, in the lost work Aryabhattiyasidhant, is pieced together from the later commentaries of Bhaskara, Varamahira and others. There is academic consensus that the Arthashastra is a later work, of many centuries later. Let us leave it at that. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

You mean, implying that it may not be usefull as a source for Mauryan times, without explicitly stating so? Let me think about it. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

The Arthashastra, a work first discovered in the early 20th century and highly regarded as a source for Mauryan times, is traditionally attributed to Kautilya, but now thought to be composed by multiple authors in the first centuries of the common era, providing "a shaky foundation for the edifice built on it."

Quote from Basham's foreword to Trautmann (1971), as cited in the note. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

No, you should leave it at: The Arthashastra, a work first discovered in the early 20th century, and previously attributed to Kautilya, but now thought to be composed by multiple authors in the first centuries of the common era

Trautmann's work is 55 years old. This Christmas morning I won't do anything, but please for the article's sake, do not dicker with the previous text in dozens of small edits. It begins to border on OR. You're a good guy and I've had a good relationship with you, but please do not do this. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

There is no other empire in a loose knot fashion on this entire website. Why is Mauryan Empire an exception. This is pure bias 2409:40F4:8:70C4:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Requirements of new updates

There has been some new development in terms of timelines of Different Rulers of this dynasty. And, some new Findings about Beliefs & Architecture during Mauryans. Moreover, Some cities aren't added in the map. Shouldn't we Add a Map of Peak extension of the Empire in Down South & East? Skalvanov (talk) 13:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@Skalvanov Can you briefly explain what those updates are? Mithilanchalputra (Talk) 16:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Iran and the Mauryan Empire

Hello! Parts of modern-day Iran, like Nepal, were under Mauryan rule. They were ceded by the Seleucids to the Mauryans following the Mauryan-Seleucid war. This is supported by historical records. Should it not be included in the “today part of” section? This edit seems quite uncontroversial. Athukamvamsi (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Go through the talkpage-history, and you'll see it's not "uncontroversial," nor "supported by historical records." It's an exaggerated interpretation of an ambiguous remark from a source written 300 years after the supposed event. Worse, the notion of "Maury rule" is questionable, even for India itself. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: