This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I propose the article be renamed to Maurya empire for consistency with the other 'empire' articles; e.g. Chola, et.c. Imc 18:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Rama's Arrow,
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.
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? Rama's Arrow 02:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
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.
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
I was navigating these pages and found something very confusing and perplexing. There is a contradiction with the pages of Magadha, the template History of South Asia and the template Middle Kingdoms of India. 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 Magadha 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.
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.
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.--Tigeroo 08:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it is quite usual on Wikipedia to separate Dynasty lists from Empire of Kingdom articles. I personally do not mind either way. PHG 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.--Tigeroo 10:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Religion and lack of
Carvaka was also a major force in this period - I get the impression it was at least as powerfull as the Jain community. Ajivika 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. Vastu 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. Vastu 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 PHG 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 :-) Vastu 10:33, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Concerns about undue weight
I don't support the excising of the information, but I feel we should get more info from Buddhist oriented sources or Jain sources to make it bigger. Because it does seem as though there is not much detail about Ashoka and Buddhism and Ashoka the conqueror, and the same in the Maurya Empire - at the moment there is lots of information about the Greek connection, which inherently there is nothing wrong, but it may give the impression that Ashoka was a Greek reprentative or something - it just feels a bit too oriented on his bloodline and not what he nor the Mauryans achieved. In any case it was interesting that I got Mahinda (his son, who brought Buddhism to Sri Lanka) and Moggaliputta-Tissa (his spiritual adviser) to DYK in the week leading up to the locking - could we put more stuff about Buddhism into the articles to balance it out as well as his stuff about the Kalinga conquest etc. The Greek stuff is still interesting of course and I don't see a reason to cull it unless there is POV or weaselly stuff compromising it. Anything this old, of course cannot be certain, so as long as we give both a fair hearing then it should work out OK. This could be an interesting case as I am interested in learning more about Asoka. Perhaps I can find more about his Indian activity (religion and miltary) to balance it out. Tell me what you think. Thanks, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 06:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not like culling would constitute censorship. There is a lot of redundancy between the information here and elsewhere, like the Ashoka page and the Indo-Greeks page.
That and having these sections of Hellenistic relations taking up half the article just seems kind of silly. The way it's written one would think the Indo-Greeks constituted the major regional superpower and all other kingdoms in the area were defined by their relationships to them. This is far from the reality.
This would be analogous to an encyclopedia article about the United States going into ponderous detail about our diplomatic ties with Canada. Sure Canada is a nice country, but in all honesty, it is not all that important to understanding what America is all about.
It would make a lot more sense to put all this information in a seperate article on "Hellenistic relations with Indian states" and just link to it from elsewhere when appropriate.
I just noticed underneath the map it lists Greek and Aramaic as languages of the empire. What's that about? I'm just curious as to whether we can deign to figure out some sort of standard to distinguish between a language of the empire from a language spoken in the empire. It wouldn't just be for this article, but for pretty much every empire in the ancient world seeing as how these empires generally spanned a large variety of languages and cultures.
Pavanapuram 02:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the Hellenistic 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 PHG 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. Wikipedia 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. Vastu 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 PHG 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! Vastu 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
Pavanapuram 01:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Hi Pavs, thanks for the post. The fact that there was Epigamia 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 Ashokavadana 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 PHG 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 Ashokavadana 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.
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 Ashokavadana (which did not even exist as an article and I created) and the Hellenistic tradition. I also created the articles for the Edicts of Ashoka, the Yuga Purana, the Hathigumpha inscription 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?). See also, "The Cambridge Shorter History of India", by J.Allan, p33: "If the usual oriental practice was followed and if we regard Chandragupta as the victor, then it would mean that a daughter or other female relative of Seleucus was given to the Indian ruler or to one of his sons, so that Asoka may have had Greek blood in his veins." Bottom line: this is referenced, published material by major historians, it has the right to be presented as per the Wikipedia 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. PHG 05:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
PHG; Select one side of the story and eliminate the other? Good God man you sound like a creationist! It's not a matter of selecting sides. It's a matter of mentioning theories that are broadly accepted and backed up with credible evidence. That means something from a direct source. The fact is, the only primary source that mentions Ashoka's mother says she was a Bhramin. The only claim that Ashoka's parentage is anything but that come from idle musings from historians. Even they do not bother to back up their claim with anything substantial. First of all, Chandragupta had many many sons as did Bindusara. To make such a claim requires relying on a whole bunch of half-baked assumptions. First you have to assume she was married to Bindusara and not Chandragupta or any of his other sons. Then you have to assume Ashoka was the product of that union and not of any of Bindasura's other kids. If I had concrete numbers as to how many uncles and siblings Ashoka had I'd calculate the odds out for you. But as it stands, they are simply not in your favour. I am sorry you find yourself unable to accept the only credible source with anything to say on the issue, but I am afraid you will just have to.
An edit war that leads to a locked article is in nobody's best interest - better to have a featured article than a locked one.
It is a shame that there is such stigma about 'bloodlines' in the world - something I doubt very much people in Ashoka's day would have cared about - but when a culture anywhere introduces the the fallic idea of purity, the cat is out of the bag, with everyone wanting to claim they were 'untouched'. The reality of course is very different - recognition of India's contribution to world culture is quite safe, but even if it wasnt, it is the open cultures, who do not believe in childish ideals like purity that have always been the most sucessfull, as they assimilate ideas from across the world. The idea of isolation is utterly fallic.
The British in the colonial era believed in long dead ideas of European racial superiority, and not so dead ideas of European intellectual superiority - this has left a permenent scar on the Indian psyche - we try to right the wrongs of the past with an equal and opposite nationalistic reaction. Same goes for other societies that have similar psychological scars, like China. Even people who know very well that the idea of purity is a complete child's dream, feel they must defend the originality of their culture simply because other people who do believe in these ideas will take a simple quote like 'he may have been partly Greek', and derive as much nationalistic fuel from it as they can.
I dont really see what is so bad about mentioning this possibility explicitly as a theory. Besides, Chandragupta was the greatest of the Mauryan Emperors - he was the Qin Shi Huang of India, and Chanakya was his Sun Tzu. Vastu 07:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Vastu; I agree completely. That is precisely why this little tidbit smells so sour to me. It seems to be plainly motivated by an attempt to appropriate Ashoka's parentage to aggrandize a particular race of people rather than letting the man's acheivements speak for themselves and the society he grew up in. So much so that the perpetrators would say such a thing in direct contradiction to all the primary sources on the topic.
Thank you Vastu for your openness. I personnally think these instances of close interaction between the two faraway worlds of Greece and India (even on the religious and marital plans) are some of the most beautiful and in a sense "modern" events of Ancient History (don't we talk about the interaction of world cultures in the 20th century as a new phenomenon!). And it goes both ways: the contribution of India to the rest of the world is of course amazing (I wish we had more understanding of the impact of the "Buddhist missions" sent by Ashoka to the Mediterranean world). Regards PHG 12:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Since I presume Vastu's post was addressed to me, I am responding. I understand your concerns about page protection, but that was not requested by me. The concern here is that fringe theories are being presented as the mainstream one, instead of the alternate version. While our philhellenic contributor above notes that Ashoka wrote in greek, an absence of understanding is demonstrated here as greek and aramaic were the languages used to reach out to foreigners--who were common in that region--and neighboring states who utilized those languages. Darius wrote in babylonian (behistun rock), in spite of that fact that he was an ethnic persian. Regardless, the point is that we keep this as an unbiased page rather than an instrument to "give greeks their due in India". These articles should not be megaphones for individuals who wish to trumpet a culture everywhere. Since the stated goal here is to ensure the most accurate record of history possible, and this entry was not in line with that, I was forced to counter edit.
Clearly, no civilization is untouched (as the greeks owe much to the egyptians and persians, chinese to the indians, and really, everyone to almost everyone). But it is one thing to rely on mainstream accepted theories and another to rely on throwbacks to the colonial era.
When an exchange is being proposed, the burden of proof is on the proposing party. It is because there is a dearth of this, that mainstream scholarship rejects the Greek heritage of Ashoka as the main one (esp since Bindusara's wives and concubines were in no shortage, and the dates of marriage and birth do not match up). In the wake of these overwhelming reasons, why has the vast majority of the modern Indological community not accepted this? Because, the odds are not in its favor. So why is an insistence placed upon using this as main version?
The very credulity of the ashokavadana is being questioned by the contributor while at the same time, the divyavadana is relied on to no end in order to condemn the Sungas. It is this willingness to cherrypick that has concerned me and other contributors about the intent of this edit.
Vastu, I understand your desire to make this an FA through additional material and editing, but with such POV-laced material, our common goal remains unreached. Efforts, to improve this article and others like it (indo-geek map, etc) have been stifled without debate before.
The biggest concern here is that this theory is used to further the cause of an even more preposterous one--namely that Demetrius invaded on account of his being the only heir on hand (with Ashoka's hypothesized Seleucid bloodlines being the foundation for that). The incredulity of this further developed on account of the fact that he attacked the Indian King Subhagasena who himself was a mauryan heir. Just as the rig vedas were abused for AIT, the puranas are being abused for Greek Savior theories.
As a similar debate occurred for the origin of Chandragupta Maurya, and the solution that was accepted was a separate page to discuss such ideas, I have proposed just such a compromise. the philhellenic contributor above refuses to even address it let alone accept it. If all parties are interested in a compromise for accuracy's sake, than I am more than satisfied.
Regards,
Devanampriya
I am afraid this polemic is off the point. Please read again the paragraph about "Marital alliances" that you have been repeatedly deleting: it is only a discussion of the nature of the Epigamia treaty, as an example of the relations between the Greeks and the Mauryas. You will note that the described conjecture that a Seleucid princess was bethrothed to the Mauryas, either to Chandragupta or Bindusara is indeed mainstream and made by almost any historian I know of, and as far as I know it is also favoured by the India historical community. There is absolutely no reason to delete this.
Rather than the whole paragraph, I suppose that the phrase which offends you is "Ashoka, the son of Bindusara, also happens to have been born around the time this matrimonial alliance was sealed." This is just one phrase, which alludes to a supposition made by some scholars of Antiquity (Tarn, Marshall), in "The Cambridge Shorter History of India", and by several modern scholars (McEvilley, "The shape of ancient thought", 2002, p367, ISBN1581152035: "Asoka may have been either one-half or one-quarter Greek"). Right after, it mentions the version of the Ashokavadana, which I think is quite balanced as an account, and that's it.
To answer your point, I do not think it is worth creating a new page just to address this one-phrase point. And I cannot believe just mentioning this one-phrase hypothesis is wrong.
Rather than erasing this whole paragraph, maybe a slight rephrasing could be done. Maybe you could qualify the Ashokavadana version as the "mainstream theory"? (with reference please, because I am not even sure this is true)... how about: "There is a possibility that Ashoka, who was born around the time this matrimonial alliance was sealed, was a fruit of this union (Tarn, Marshall, The Cambridge Shorter History of India p33), although the 2nd century account of the Ashokavadana (the only remaining ancient account of Ashoka's ancestry), describing Ashoka as the son of Bindusara with the daughter of a brahmin, is generally followed"PHG 22:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I havent been following this too closely, but it seems to me the solution is simple; wherever this threory is presented about Ashok's parentage, mention that the only source that even mentions his mother says Brahmin or whatever. This seems balanced. Pav is right about the primary source being the most important, but eliminating this theory is wrong. As Vastu put it, there isnt such a thing as purity in an inherently diverse world.
In reponse to PHG's note above:
Please read again the paragraph you have repeatedly been including in Ashoka. It rediscusses the entire point regarding Epigamia verbatim, and is a whole section in an already inordinate account of hellenistic relations. That is the reason for its deletion there.
Moreover, you note that every major historian has discussed this point about epigamia in the Maurya Empire article. Who is debating that point? And who deleted the entire paragraph? I specifically left the paragraphs which denotes that either intermarriage OR a dynastic alliance occurred and the corresponding primary text reference. What I deleted was the following speculation. We are debating about the Ashoka parentage theory: something which is not accepted by every major historian. And if it's only the ones you have read that note this, perhaps you should expand your reading list.
Maybe you should start off with Dr. Nilakantha Sastri who wrote the seminal work on the Mauryas in his The Age of the Nandas and Mauryas ed. Motilal Banarsidass. He notes how there is the inherent discrepancy between epigamia and kenos. Epigamia refers to the recognition of intermarriage where as kenos refers to the actual dynastic alliance. Nevertheless, I was not even contesting the interpretation of epigamia versus kenos. What I did note, was that one of the most respected and widely read and accepted scholars of Indian History pointed that out in the debate about dynastic alliance and how historians should not be irresponsible in how they interpret that, specifically, in speculating that the rulers of the empire were part greek. So Tarn's theory is clearly not the mainstream perspective. And is not even echoed by succeeding Indian historians.
The point we were debating was regarding whether Bindusara and Ashoka were products of such a union. And that is something that no historian is in a position to do(Ages of Bindusara and Ashoka not corresponding, plentiful wives and concubines for both, etc). As such, the Ashokavadana, in spite of your protests, is the mainstream theory, as it is the only account of Ashoka's birth that we have (and even provides the origin of his name). In fact, a balanced representation is not mentioning Tarn's theory every time and following up with the Ashokavadana, but rather, noting that the primary source is the accepted account, while not the existence of colonial and neocolonial theories.
My biggest concern is that wikipedia is the primary source for many individuals and a truly accurate account is necessary. People have constantly misinterpreted and misread history with unfortunate consequence (i.e. naked indian female archers in Creative Assembly's Rome Total War follow up "Alexander"). Female bodyguards of harems and kings were interpreted to be battlefield units, with unfortunate consequences in the game. It appears that the same type of misinterpretation appears here again. That is the reason for my insistence on caution, and why it would be in the interest of avoiding such misinterpretation in the future by creating a separate page on theories of dynastic alliances. Such a page would be more appropriate for such speculation and not the main page of an article that millions read and learn from.
Dr. Dinesh Agrawal published a paper on why there is reason to believe that Alexander was defeated at the Battle of the Hydaspes. However, it does not appear on the main page of the Alexander article, and I would not insist on it myself in spite of the fact that it is a citable source. This is for the simple reason that it is not widely accepted as a theory, and I would not want to misinform the reader into thinking it was (Note: This is not a comment on the scholarly value and veracity of Dr. Agrawal's work). That is the reason why precedence should not be given to the Tarn theory and why speculation should not occur on the main page.
Lastly, no one here is arguing for purity, so there is no need to debate that point. India is a racially, ethnically, religiously, culturally, and linguistically diverse country. All I seek is an accurate representation of its history.
Regards,
Devanampriya
I am afraid it is meaningless and unethical to insist on eliminating the mention of a significant historical theory (described in Tarn, Marshall, Mc Evilley or "The Cambridge Shorter History of India") on the nature of the alliance that occured. We would all learn a lot more if you put you mention of Dr. Nilakantha Sastri as a balance, with references, so that we can read his quotes and books. The mention is part of the "Relation with the Hellenistic world" section, where it has a very legitimate place indeed. By the way, I am not sure M.Mc Evilley, author of the 2003 "The Shape of Ancient Thought", would appreciate being called a "neocolonial theorist", whatever that means.
I would never qualify the Ashokavadana as "an accurate representation of history". It is just a great secondary source (written 5 centuries after the fact), that brings admittedly a strong presumption in favor of the "brahmin mother" theory, but certainly no unassailable proof. As far as I know, we are writing an encyclopedia, not a textbook for children, and an encyclopedia is only made richer by the addition of referenced sources, not by focusing on just one hypothetical thruth.
I suggest we finish the discussion here, I have proposed a compromise wording, and I don't see why there should be a big issue with this: "There is a possibility that Ashoka, who was born around the time this matrimonial alliance was sealed, was a fruit of this union (Tarn, Marshall, The Cambridge Shorter History of India p33, Mc Evilly), although the 2nd century account of the Ashokavadana (the only remaining ancient account of Ashoka's ancestry), describing Ashoka as the son of Bindusara with the daughter of a brahmin, is generally followed". Let's move to something more productive now. PHG 05:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me.
Seems reasonable to me also; what counts is that both theories are presented, and since the Ashokavadana's narration appears to be the most popular, this preeminence should be mentioned.--Aldux 22:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I support this also. Vastu 02:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
PHG's material is biased and gives the wrong impression to readers about the ancestry of ashoka. Indigenous sources should not be tossed aside to suit colonial theories.
PHG,
I would never qualify the Ashokavadana as "an accurate representation of history". It is just a great secondary source (written 5 centuries after the fact)
Keep in mind that Strabo, Polybus, and Justin all wrote centuries after Alexander was pushing up daisies. If you're going to insist on twisting indigenous mentions of the Greeks to aggrandize them, you cannot, in good conscience, brush aside indigenous sources whenever they fail to comply with your Grecophilia. If every historian you've read dwells on this idle speculation, I humbly suggest you broaden your reading-list.
This may not be a children's book, but neither is it a platform for blowing minor fringe theories and the contributions of historical actors completely out of proportion when it suits you. The article is supposed to give readers an accurate understanding of the Mauryan Empire. It is not your soapbox to "give the greeks their due" or whatever.
Nobody is brushing aside indigenous sources. On the contrary, I am the one who added the mention of the Ashokavadana here, and created the Ashokavadana article to back it up. As for indigeneous sources, I also created the Edicts of Ashoka article, the Hathigumpha inscription article, the Mahavamsa article, the Heliodorus pillar article, or the Yuga Purana article. And yes, all secondary sources have to be handled with some care and are generally not sufficient to reject alternative interpretations. Have you ever read the Ashokavadana? Its story of Pusyamitra Sunga's killing of Buddhist monks is an indication it might have been the case, but alternative theories according to which he sponsored Buddhism instead are current nevertheless. I am as "Graecophil" as I am Francophile, Japanophile or Indianophile. Let's stop this paranoia about Greek sources and the historical thought derived from them: history is made of multiple sources and theories, and Greek sources are some of the richest we have on the Maurya Empire. PHG 05:34, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
PHG,
It doesn't matter who mentioned the Ashokavadana, the point is the issue itself is not important enough to be mentioned at all. All it does is brings up a questionable theory and then debunks it with a more sound one a few sentences later. It is not an issue that is so hotly debated that any understanding of the Mauryan Empire would be incomplete without knowing it. We are not trying to recreate every debate about Indian history in these articles. We are trying to give people a quick and dirty, yet comprehensive understanding of the subjects they research here.
All this mention does though, is inflates the influence of fringe theories beyond their merit and fails to enrich the reader's understanding of the Mauryan Empire in any significant way. It would be analogous to me going into an article about Charles Darwin to say that
"Pastafarians believe the Flying Spaghetti Monster created life as we know it. But leading scientists contend that. . .
I still say your use of sources in such a way is highly questionable. Why do we get to mention a fringe theory about Ashoka's parentage when it gets to boost the rep of the Greeks, but dismiss Dinesh Agrawal's reading of classical texts concluding that Alexander was defeated at the Hydaspes? I don't think Dinesh Agarwal's reading should be in the Alexander article precisely because it is not a significant or hotly debated issue. Likewise, this should not be here.
Whoa, no need to get excited there, PHG. I think the previous contributor was just pointing out that if you can't take it, don't dish it out; after all, the whole bias accusation bit did begin with you. Also, it does seem like you do praise indigenous sources such as the yuga purana and mahabharata when it suits (in spite of the fact that their intrepretation of greeks to mean yavanas has been disputed--as noted by scholars such as klaus karttunen), and deprecate them when it does not. Your point about the Ashokavadana is noted, bearing in mind that the possible exaggeration about Pushyamitra was a mechanism intended to note the decline of buddhist patronage, and not as a fable of Ashoka's birth. Lastly, just so that we're clear, the mainstream view is the brahmin mother theory and not the seleucid ancestry bit. As the other contributors have noted, preeminence should be given to that.
Don’t worry, Nilakantha Sastri and other respectable sources are on there way. By the way, you are not a citeworthy scholar, so your opinion about the Ashokavadana is irrelevant. It is a primary source, and should not be brushed aside because it does not suit you.
As the sysop below noted, the Hellenistic relations section is inordinate. Your point is mistaken. The Ashoka and Mauryan articles are not a playground for your Hellenic interests. Represent history properly and proportionally.
As for the importance of this edit, it has been disputed by some that this is a relatively minor point; however, it is important to recognize that there have been repeated attempts by PHG to deify the indo-greeks as saviors of India from Indians. He has attempted to construct an image of the greeks only engaging in military action for altruistic purposes (such as saving Buddhism), when in reality, greeks, like all other peoples, we driven by expanding territory, increasing wealth, etc. This gives a false and detrimental impression of history. This point about Ashoka’s ancestry is one more nail in that platform, meant to show how Demetrius must have only invaded because he had a claim to the mauryan throne (preposterous since Subhagasena, the Indian king of the Kabul Valley whom Demetrius defeated, was actually of the royal line, and a more legitimate claimant anyway). That is called sneaky vandalism as the most far-fetched theory is conjured up to create a false impression of history.
Anyhow, in the interest of resolving this dispute so that other contributors can add on to the page, the following rephrase is recommended:
"While the marriage arrangement has led some to speculate that Ashoka may have been a product of this, the scholarly consensus is that Ashoka was born from a Brahmin mother who was a minor queen of Bindusara” (cite Ashokavadana)
Regards,
Devanampriya
I certainly do not share these rhetorics (most of all, we are not here to pick which theory should be presented or not in Wikipedia, as long as we are talking about published material from reputable sources, as per as WP:V), but I am absolutely fine with a compromise statement (my own proposal above as well). I suggest slight modifications for neutrality of language and referencing:
"The marriage arrangement has led some to suggest that Ashoka may have been a product of this union (cite Cambridge Shorter History of India, Mc Evilley), although the general view is that Ashoka was born from a Brahmin mother who was a minor queen of Bindusara, based on the account of the Ashokavadana (quote Ashokavadana)."
By the way, it is not Demetrius who encountered Subhagsena but Antiochos III, about 30 years before (and there is no record of a fight, only a "renewal of friendship", and the reception of elephants and presents (Polybius 11.39)).
I am aware of Subhagasena and Antiochus, as I do believe I pointed out Polybius' words to you when you referred to a Military Campaign by him. See John Keay regarding Demetrius's encounter, after all, your bactrian friend did conquer the Kabul Valley. I believe this is also echoed by bopearachchi.
Devanampriya
British
The link in the third paragraph goes to a disambiguation page, it should be relinked to the british empire. See British if you think it should relink somewhere else.Sam Hayes 13:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Ancient India
The link to Ancient India in the first line leads to a disambiguation page. I tried to fix this earlier before noticing the protected status. Might I reccomend to the powers that be that the link lead to History of India instead? = KaoBear(talk) 13:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Undue weight to Chanakya and detailed biographies of Chandragupta's usurpation
This article gives undue weight to a character rarely even mentioned in any reliable historical sources on India.
are there any Greeks even talking about the great wiley Chanakya going around trying to start wars and advising Chandragupta Maurya? No. They do mention Nandas indirectly, and Sandracotus by name. We don't even know who Chandragupta was, except that since he was a competant general, he must've already been a military man. Beyond that it is pure speculation...--216.254.121.169 16:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
--216.254.121.169 16:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Organization
The article stubs seem to be rather raw; it bounces from "India's first empire" to "bindusara" and seems rather disjunctive. I suggest streamlining the intro paragraph (which should contain key points), moving on to "Preceding Magadhan dynasties" (ie Shisunagas and Nandas), "India's first Empire", and restrained paragraphs on Chandragupta, Bindusara, and Ashoka. If you are a regular contributor or interested reader, let me know what you think. I will hold off for a week before making changes.
This section is bristling with inaccuracies- For one, the Qin were not the first empire of China, but alos it strikes me as some sort of attempt by an Indian patriot to embiggen his history by China-bashing... For Shame...
The first rulers to cover the majority of the geographical area of the two countries were Qin and Chandragupta respectively. Your immediate assumption of bad faith tells me you are a nationalist, so, in your own words - for shame.
I've removed this section because it's blatantly POV and unnecessary. I'm not even Chinese and I find it offensive! The general tone of the piece reads as India>China.
It seems the mention from the Mudrarakshasa is being deleted by one user on the ground that the Huns are mentionned in the quote, and that "expert historians have discredeted it as a source". I'd love to see where the Huns are actually mentionned in the passage, and have references for the "expert historians" in question. Even if it were true, it is not a justification to erase this account, but rather to balance it with differing opinions. PHG 16:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Excessive use of images
The article is becoming unreadable due to the large number of images. This problem is currently being discussed at Kushan Empire, which has the same problem. The statement that "In general, galleries are discouraged in main article namespace" is in WP:IUP#Photo_galleries. And here are the MOS guidelines, which address some of the problems I have been raising with inability to read the text due to having so many images overlapping: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images. One of the MOS guidelines is to not sandwich text between images on the left and right. There seems to be no way to avoid that if there is more than one image in a short section. So one approach would be to limit the number of images to one per section, and avoid short sections with images in series, which creates display problems for the short sections. Buddhipriya 18:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
An additional section
Natural history in the times of the Mauryas
The protection of animals in India became serious business by the time of the Maurya dynasty; being the first empire to provide a unified political entity in India, the attitude of the Mauryas towards forests, its denizens and fauna in general is of interest.
The Mauryas firstly looked at forests as a resource. For them, the most important forest product was the elephant. Military might in those times depended not only upon horses and men but also battle-elephants; these played a role in the defeat of Seleucus, Alexander's governor of the Punjab. The Mauryas sought to preserve supplies of elephants since it was more cost and time-effective to catch, tame and train wild elephants than raise them. Kautilya's Arthashastra contains not only maxims on ancient statecraft, but also unambiguously specifies the responsibilities of officials such as the Protector of the Elephant Forests:[1]
On the border of the forest, he should establish a forest for elephants guarded by foresters. The Superintendent should with the help of guards...protect the elephants whether along on the mountain, along a river, along lakes or in marshy tracts...They should kill anyone slaying an elephant.
The Mauryas also designated separate forests to protect supplies of timber, as well as lions and tigers, for skins. Elsewhere the Protector of Animals also worked to eliminate thieves, tigers and other predators to render the woods safe for grazing cattle.
The Mauryas valued certain forest tracts in strategic or economic terms and instituted curbs and control measures over them. They regarded all forest tribes with distrust and controlled them with bribery and political subjugation. They employed some of them, the food-gatherers or aranyaca to guard borders and trap animals. The sometimes tense and conflict-ridden relationship nevertheless enabled the Mauryas to guard their vast empire.[2]
When Ashoka embraced Buddhism in the latter part of his reign, he brought about significant changes in his style of governance, which included providing protection to fauna, and even relinquished the royal hunt. He was perhaps the first ruler in history to advocate conservation measures for wildlife and even had rules inscribed in stone edicts. The edicts proclaim that many followed the king's example in giving up the slaughter of animals; one of them proudly states:[2]
Our king killed very few animals.
— Edict on Fifth Pillar
However, the edicts of Ashoka reflect more the desire of rulers than actual events; the mention of a 100 'panas' (coins) fine for poaching deer in royal hunting preserves shows that rule-breakers did exist. The legal restrictions conflicted with the practices freely exercised by the common people in hunting, felling, fishing and setting fires in forests.[2]
^Rangarajan, M. (2001) India's Wildlife History, pp 7.
^ abcRangarajan, M. (2001) India's Wildlife History, pp 8.
Map
According to the map, the territories of the Mauryas in the northwest seem to cover the region of Bactria, i.e. the left and right banks of the Amu Darya, which is historically innacurate :the zone north of the Hindu-Kush has always been occupied by the Seleucids and then the Greco-Bactrians. Could the creator of the map correct accordingly? Regards. PHG 23:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
[1] is where the map comes from, its not user made.--Tigeroo 08:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Is this map free (Public Domain etc...)? PHG 23:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
I have not idea at all, but the Mughal Empire uses a similar map as well.--Tigeroo 10:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
What is www.allempires.com?AE is a non-profit site and forum community for world history founded in 2002. Its site administrators, editors and forum staff members consist entirely of hobbyists and volunteers.
From where does AE get its articles?All articles on our site comes from contributors, who are mainly members from our online forum community.
The map is not reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.225.198.227 (talk) 01:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Why redirect Ancient India here?
Would someone care to explain this? It would be far more sensible to link that page to History of India or Ancient India (disambiguation). Yet we have someone who decided to unilaterally redefine the English word "ancient" to mean a 200 year period from 300 BCE to 100 BCE. Shall we ignore 3300 BCE to 300 BCE and 100 BCE to 500 CE? What do we call that? Or did human civilization not exist in India during these periods? Give me a respectable source that considers the Mauryan Empire to constitute the whole of "Ancient India". Wikipedia probably has many, many culture and history articles that refer to "Ancient India". All of these would get redirected here, when the topic in question may be relevant to an entirely different period of Indian history before or after this meager 200 year period. The disambiguation page already specifically mentions Mauryan empire anyway. -- Matuenih (talk) 11:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Old comment moved from head of page
ou might consider putting in a link with the Wiki article on Sisupalgarh.
Sisupalgarh or Sishupalgarh are a ruined fortification in Khurda District in Orissa, India. It is the largest and best preserved early historic fortification in India.
Pyule —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.132.127.134 (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Indian Empire
The redirect Indian Empire has redirected to British Raj page for a long time. Recently it was redirected to Maurya Empire. I have reverted that edit and suggest that those interested in this page, decide where it should redirect or if it should become a dab page. See talk:Indian Empire. If the parties can not agree on what the majority of reliable sources mean when they say "Indian Empire" I suggest an RfC. --PBS (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Despite the huge size of this article, little is really known about Maurya and certainly nothing justifies it taking the redirect for Indian Empire, it just isn't as clearly pivotal as that. Therefore I would suggest no change or RFC is needed. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Lakhs of Jain Temples & Jain Stupas were erected during their reign..
Please don't use in the English Wikipedia numbers, which are not understood outside India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rihoalla (talk • contribs) 20:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Extent of Mauryan empire over-stated
I have not seen any source but wikipedia claim that the Mauryan empire extended into Iran.
The map referred to and used as a justification for the claim is created by a user-generated site:
What is www.allempires.com?AE is a non-profit site and forum community for world history founded in 2002. Its site administrators, editors and forum staff members consist entirely of hobbyists and volunteers.
From where does AE get its articles?All articles on our site comes from contributors, who are mainly members from our online forum community.
The map is not reliable
Whilst that source is very unreliable i.e. no bibliography whatsoever (shame as it seemed as though a lot of effort was taken), you do realise you are using the term "Iran" anachronistically, and in any case the Maurya Empire shared a border with the Seleucid Empire, this is definitely certain, so who are you arguing was in control of the area you contest? [[User:Giani g|Giani g]] (talk) 10:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea who controlled that region -I'm assuming the Seleucid Empire- but the claim that the Mauryan empire extended to Iran is a claim unique to wikipedia and not supported by any thing as far as I've seen. --218.225.198.227 (talk) 03:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the article should be edited to more closely resemble the consensus on the extent of Mauryan rule, by taking out the reference to Iran, which does not appear in any articles on the subject. --222.225.57.82 (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
The books I've looked at say it extended as far as Kandahar. Actually I believe all the evidence for the precise geographical extent of Maurya (and even for everything about Maurya) is very sketchy - there is hardly any archaeological evidence for example. The evidence amounts to a few artefacts and what it says in one or two ancient sources. This article is very long and repetitive; takes mythological sources as literal truth; has a 5-para intro, when the agreed norm is 4-paras and contains a lot of POV. Work needed! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Here is the link, the buddhist site found in sistan of iran dates back to mauryan age and its likely that Mauryan conquered this portion as well and further Selucid Empire was autonomous but under Mauryan empire. Mauryan defeated greeks and Chandragupta Married Helen the daughter of selecuid princess hence its exact to say that they conquer the extreme south eastern part of iran.ROONEYGIBBS6 (talk) 11:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Further greeks were defeated again by Bindusara the son of chandragupta, western historians try to hide these facts otherwise the heroic image of greeks will be ruined. If mauryans wanted they could have completely overrun all the cities of persepolis,susa(both were under selecuid empire). The only solace was the marriage of Helen with Chandragupta Maurya which made it possible for greeks to survive.ROONEYGIBBS6 (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Toned down extravagent population claims
I have just toned down extravagent population claims that the Mauryan empire was the most populous empire in the world in the pre-Christian era and that it was "home to over one third of humanity". It is important to note that this is just based on estimates and conjecture, not established facts. And, indeed, when compared with census figures from the Western Han Dynasty, these conjectures look pretty lame. See the WP article which reports: "In China's first known nationwide census taken in 2 CE, the population was registered as having 57,671,400 individuals in 12,366,470 households." The suggestion that there were less than 50-60 million people in the world outside of the Han and Mauryan empires is pure speculation. John Hill (talk) 13:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Removed probably misleading "guestimates"
I don't usually repond to personal attacks (see: "your anti-india ravings" [2]) - but I think I should clarify some issues here about the population estimates that ROONEYGIBBS6 is making. First, almost all the figures (except the 57-58 million figures from the Chinese census of 2 CE) are not facts, they are simply estimates or "assumptions", nothing more. Moreover, these estimates (or, preferably, "guesstimates") have been made by different people at different times and cannot be relied on for accuracy. What we need to know is what these estimates are based on.
I don't believe it is possible to make an accurate estimate of the population of the Mauryan empire at its height, much less estimate the total population of the world at that time. For this reason I am reversing his recent claims - all based on other people's estimates - hardly a sound basis for making statements like the "Mauryan empire was home to over one third of world humanity."
If his figures are to be believed, and there were only 150 million people in the whole world c. 250 BCE and the Mauryan Empire had about 60 million people, and assuming the Chinese Empire had roughly the same number, that would only leave 30 million people in all of the rest of Asia (Japan, Sri Lanka, SE Asia, Korea, etc.), the Middle East, Persia, Europe, Africa, and the Americas, asnd so on. Do you really feel this is credible?
So, until someone can come up for some real evidence, rather than loose estimates of the population of the Maurya Empire (which in his own words vary wildly from 50 to 100 million), this section has no place in an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. I will, therefore, remove his claims again. I certainly have no desire to enter into an edit war - so if Rodney still disagrees with me I request he asks one of the WP administrators to make a decision. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 06:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
His name seems to be Rooney. In any case, population figures at this time are very much guestimates. I did find for instance this: "The data for India arc taken from Ajii Das Gupta (1972), except for the pre-16th century era. where he merely argues that the population of India could have reached 100 million at the zenith of the Maurva empire (between 321 and 185 BCE), during the Gupta empire (320 to 470 CE), and under the reign of Marsha (612 to 627 CE). This very round figure of 100 million obviously requires qualification. It must be remem- bered that in all these periods vast tracts of the interior were still tribal lands, governed by a very antiquated economic system (some still a Nlesolithic culture almost until modern times), certainly with very losv population densities. It was therefore thought preferable to estimate populations of 50 to 60 million for these periods, which are still within the bracket accepted by John D. Dursnd (197-1), who argues for 75 million, but they could have been put 10 or 20 million higher without affecting the results. " [3] p.14 Demography: Analysis and Synthesis, Four Volume Set, Volume 1-4: A Treatise in Population by Graziella Caselli, Jacques Vallin and Guillaume Wunsch (Oct 1, 2005) - there are of course similar problems with world population figures. Dougweller (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Apologies to ROONEYGIBBS6 for getting his or her name wrong - my only excuse is that I am travelling, rushed and tired at tthe moment. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Don't apologise, they were a sockpuppet and are now indefinitely blocked. Dougweller (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Edit request from Vrajanap, 21 July 2011
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Hi,
I want to point out that the sentence "Asoka was a kind or Buddhist Constantine declearing himself against paganism is a complete misreading of India conditions. " is repeated twice.
Note: I only found it once in the article though its possible that someone already had noticed it and removed it. Jnorton7558 (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Sri lanka was tribuatary
i agree sri lanka was indirectly a part of Mauryan empire(ashoka son and daughter were recieved as emperors during their visit to sri lanka) but at the same time it will be better to write or mention it as tributary similarly it has been proven that the souther tip of india was not independent but recognize the authority of MAURYAN. Bindusara forced all the dravidian kings to surrender however allow them to keep extreme south of the india hence mauryan remains the only few of the empire to control such a huge terrotiry in that age. Atleast one province of Iran(sistan and baluchestan) was under Mauryan which was confirmed by buddhist monaestry in Iran or was atleast indirectly under Mauryan as selucids were also friends of Mauryans.Shail kalp (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Nonsense Tamilnadu was always an independent country. You guys no reason believe you northern barbarians ruled tamilnadu.
You are right, us "Northern barbarians" never ruled "TamilNadu", as most of us were born after the year 1900. I shall choose not to take offense at the barbarians comment my brother or sister (or other), there has been much racism on both sides and still today both sides seem to hate the other somewhat. I hope we can at least be civil :)
File:Maurya.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
An image used in this article, File:Maurya.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
The Empire was divided into four provinces, which one of the four, look like a giant crescents.
This sentence, at the beginning of administration makes absolutely no sense. Can somebody fix it?
Sorenm5757 (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Image
Mauryan Statuette, 2nd Century BCE.
An additional image for when this page becomes unprotected.PHG 14:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Needs to have the sources for the pictures/sculptures in the main page itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muthuppattar (talk • contribs) 16:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
The image of the sculpture entitled "Yakshini" is wrong. The sculpture is actually that of a "Chauri bearer" or "Fly whisk bearer", which was found at Didarganj, Patliputra and is presently kept in the Patna Museum. Please confirm. Thanks. (Sandeep, 4 May 2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.144.184.61 (talk) 05:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
today a part of countries list is too short
this empire strecthed deep into central asia all of afganistan was in the empire plus bordering nations like turkmenistan ,uzbekistan ,and taljikistan 76.244.145.253 (talk) 19:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Not done. The northern boundary of the empire was Bactria (Balkh) which is today's northern section of Afghanistan. Balkh was not ceded to the Mauryans in 305 though most of what is today's Afghanistan as far as Herat was. --216.15.12.233 (talk) 05:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
This was not supposed to be done but someone still added Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. Please try to portray history objectively. I removed those countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.20.154 (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Tributaries of Mauryan Empire
Ashoka's military campaigns ended with his war in Kalinga. His armies never landed in Chola territory. Also, Ashoka has at various instances mentioned the Cholas and Pandyas along with non-tributary regions like those ruled by the Greeks (this page has the relevant quotes). Why would he mention tributaries with non-tributaries? How come the Cholas and Pandyas accepted the supremacy of Mauryas without even fighting? Isn't something fishy?
I would like to see proof for the claim that the South Indian Kingdoms of Cholas, Pandyas, etc. were tributaries of Ashoka's Mauryan Empire. The map shown by wikipedia says they are tributaries, but neither do I find genuineness in the website from where it has come, nor have I been able to find evidence for the claim that Cholas and Pandyas were tributaries of Ashoka.
Why is this included? The article about the Persian Empire, Seleucid Empire and Roman Empire forexample does not mention it.
--Arsaces (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Possibly backed by some source, if it is not, just remove. But kindly check all related content before you do. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
What do you all think of the new map?
I remade the old blue map with a much higher quality orange-colored map:
Mauryan Empire ca. 265 BCE
What do you all think? Pretty awesome isn't it? Kirby (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Nice, but the extent and tributary status for some regions are still wrong like the previous picture. Most of the Dravidian kingdoms were never tributaries to the Mauryas. Northern regions of Andhra and Karnataka were infact tributaries, not core regions of the Mauryas. book link --213.47.76.227 (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Got it! I'll fix it up right now! :D Kirby (talk) 03:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
"One of the most populous empires of all time"
The introduction claims:
"The population of the empire has been estimated to be about 50 - 60 million making the Mauryan Empire one of the most populous empires of all time.[4][5]"
I'm not sure what is meant here. There are a myriad of modern countries larger than this, and I would think there have existed quite a few states of similar or larger size throughout history (the Roman, Mongolian and Chinese empires...). Maybe "of the ancient world" or "before the birth of Christ" or "until that time"?106.188.105.234 (talk) 11:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Map, geographical extent, NPOV & cleanup
The current map and the "today part of" list both seem to have a few inaccuracies. First, it is generally accepted that Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Sri Lanka were not "vassals" or part of the empire in any way (Schwartzberg p. 18: "tribal kingdoms and chieftainships independent" despite diplomacy and cultural influence). The situation of Assam is less clear, but it "seems to have lain outside the empire" (Raychaudhuri p. 275). The claim that Aria/Herat was one of the provinces ceded by Seleucus to Chandragupta Maurya is often repeated, but Mukherjee (p. 594) and Grainger (p. 109) have shown that this was not so. No significant part of Iran was part of the empire, and the Central Asian countries listed are not shown in my sources, either. Perhaps the listing of the latter, and China, was based on Schwartzberg's speculation about the Buddhist culture and Kharosthi inscriptions/manuscripts found in Khotan, but these texts from Khotan, Turfan, and Tajikstan have all been shown to be later than the 1st century BCE (Puri, p. 185). Furthermore, according to both Kulke & Rothermund (p. 68-71), as well as Stein (p. 74), large areas, especially in the Deccan peninsula, were probably occupied by fairly autonomous or even unconquered tribes (this is also discussed at India#Ancient_India).
I have made an updated map to reflect this evidence, and I will go ahead and fix the list as well.
My other concern is about the neutrality of the tone in some parts of the article, where it sometimes seems to overstate the case for how great/large/well-administered/harmonious/etc this empire was, while glossing over other perspectives - for instance, that Mauryan administration may have been generally much weaker than depicted. (E.g., Kulke & Rothermund, p. 68-69: the "highly centralised direct administration [...] prevailed only in the central part of the empire [the central Gangetic region]", while "provinces had a greater degree of administrative autonomy", but I'm sure there are other sources. I remember reading somewhere else that Mauryan governance was relatively weak in comparison with the Romans and the Han, for instance.) Also, Keay suggests (p.103-104) that the ensuing period between the Mauryas and Guptas was at least as great a period of cultural flowering, if not greater. I don't know if some sort of article-wide cleanup tag is appropriate, but this aspect of the article seems like it has good potential for improvement, especially if others want to look into it.
Sources:
Grainger, John D. (1990, 2014). Seleukos Nikator: Constructing a Hellenistic Kingdom. Routledge.
Keay, John (2000). India, a History. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
Kulke, H.; Rothermund, D. (2004). A History of India, 4th, Routledge.
Puri, Baji Nath (1996). Buddhism in Central Asia. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass.
Raychaudhuri, H. C.; Mukherjee, B. N. (1996). Political History of Ancient India: From the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty. Oxford University Press.
Schwartzberg, J. E. (1992). A Historical Atlas of South Asia. University of Oxford Press.
Stein, Burton (1998). A History of India (1st ed.), Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
The "inconclusive","doubtful" and "self-contradictory" theories of Rapson-H.C.Roychowdhury- Dr.Bhandarkar can not be a replacement to the monumental research of all eminent historians from Smith to RC Majumdar to Romila Thapar. Not a single historian with certainty has confirmed the "autonomous areas" in Maurya Empire."Vassal tribe" does not mean "vassal state or area".Ghatus (talk) 03:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Ok, but my main criticism about the old map is that it shows Tamil Nadu & Sri Lanka as vassals and Bactria as part of the empire, which is clearly wrong. I made a revised version of my map, with the "vassal tribes" taken out and Assam added back in, since this appears to be more controversial than I realized. Does this look better? Also, if you dispute the idea of autonomous regions in the Deccan region, you may want to consider editing India#History (part of a featured article), since it also makes this claim. Avantiputra7 (talk) 16:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Good job. Keep it up. And, if you get time, prepare the two maps. Thank you.Ghatus (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
The size of Maurya Empire vs Mughal Empire
From the map of the Maurya Empire (File:Maurya_Empire,_c.250_BCE_2.png) and the map of the Mughal Empire (File:Mughal_Historical_Map.png) in the infobox, it seems that the Mughal Empire was larger than the Maurya Empire at their maximum extent, since their northern borders as shown in the maps are very similar, and the Mughal Empire also reached further south than the Maurya Empire in their southern borders. But how come this article says the Maurya Empire was "the largest ever in the Indian subcontinent", and the area listed in the infobox is also significant larger than the area listed in the Mughal Empire article? I think either at least one of the maps are somehow incorrect, or at least one of the areas listed for the empires are incorrect. --Evecurid (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you on this one. To be honest, looking through books and taking World History classes in schools as of current myself. I have to say that the two empires were actually pretty equal in size.
Whoever typed "the largest ever in the Indian subcontinent" is either ignorant or being biased toward the Maurya Empire! This line is absurd. it should be "one of the largest to exist on the Indian subcontinent.". In fact, since editors here will not bother to correct it. I am afraid I have no choice, but to correct this mistake with one bold stroke!! Kirby (talk) 08:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Selecuid Mauryan War
There appears to be certain contradictions in the article surrounding the confrontations between the Selecus and Chandragupta. And over all saying Selecus lost or did not fare well in battle seems problematic.
Article states the Mauryan empire began expanding NE across the Indus in 317/316 BC. Also states Selecus went east and crossed the Indus to 'wage war' after in 305 BC and apparently gave back territories he took back from Chandragupta. Sp he apparently had enough to gain some territory from Chandragupta he eventually gave back in treaty.
Second marrying his daughter to Chandragupta was inline with the agreements of the treaty that also outlined the intermarriage and integration between greek colonists and indians. This seems more like a treaty between equals than any kind of victor-loser relationship.
The article admits there is no account of a battle but assumes selecus lost because he agreed to a treaty. But that is ignorant of the contextual situation of Selecus who was fighting a two front war against Antigons and Chandragupta on both sides of his newly established empire.
This is leading to considerable confusion and debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glrico476 (talk • contribs) 00:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Maurya Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
I have just modified one external link on Maurya Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
@Cpt.a.haddock: It's not about what the Mauryan Empire called themselves as much as it is a direct Sanskrit or Prakrit translation of 'Mauryan Empire'. In the Zhou dynasty, for example, Zhōu cháo is the modern Mandarin translation of it, and may have not been the endonym for the dynasty in Old Chinese - but the modern Chinese translation is still included regardless.
On a separate note, I find it really unnecessary that a lot of back-and-forth warring over language issues happen on India-related articles. It makes it hard to assume good faith, and often feels agenda-driven, because I don't see this issue on non India-related articles. Tiger7253 (talk) 19:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
What is "Mauryasāmrājyam" useful for, if it wasn't used as a self-designation? If IAST transliteration of the word "Maurya" was different from the normal English spelling, adding it would help people understand the correct pronunciation. But adding Mauryasāmrājyam doesn't serve any purpose, because it is neither an official name, nor a common name. Zhōu cháo actually appears in a few books, Mauryasāmrājyam doesn't.
Sanskrit Wikipedia is pretty bad, when it comes to history articles. They often use anachronistic and/or inaccurate Sanskritized terms. E.g. their article on Prithviraj Chauhan (Prithviraja III) is titled भारतेश्वरः पृथ्वीराजः ("Lord of India Prithviraja"), although that was not the king's regnal title -- it just appears in a eulogistic text. Their article on the king's dynasty (चौहानवंशः) includes a fictional map from the Alt history wiki. Oh, and for that article they don't use the accurate Sanskrit name of the dynasty (Chahamana), instead using the medieval vernacular term "Chauhan" with the Sanskrit suffix "vaṃśa" -- the term "Cauhana-vaṃśha" (चौहानवंशः) doesn't appear anywhere except Sanskrit Wikipedia (or websites copying it), leave alone the dynasty's inscriptions or scholarly sources. Let's not copy such things over to English Wikipedia.
As for your second point: India, unlike China and many other countries, has several prominent languages. Adding only one language leads to lame edit wars, or people keep adding multiple languages, resulting in useless lead clutter. Tomorrow, someone will insist that we also add the Magadhi Prakrit and Pali transcriptions to this article. None of these are remotely useful to the vast majority the readers. This is why we have the WP:INDICSCRIPT convention. utcursch | talk 20:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
@Tiger7253: I second Utcursch's points. And as an aside, Chinese articles are known to suffer from lead clutter which is why WP:MOS-ZH recommends relegating Chinese characters and transliterations to an infobox. As Zhou dynasty uses said infobox, the Chinese characters and transliterations should actually be removed from the lead. See the featured article, Ming dynasty, for a clean lead. Thanks.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 09:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Maurya Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
"He was the first ruler in history to advocate conservation measures for wildlife and even had rules inscribed in stone edicts. The edicts proclaim that many followed the king's example in giving up the slaughter of animals; one of them proudly states"
Isnt he quite late after Hittite king of kings? There are tablets of laws which prohibit even releasing water from baths openly in fear of birds may drink them.
The "first ruler" bit is not supported by the citation provided at the end of the sentence. I've added {{not in citation given}} to the relevant sentence -- it can be removed after some time, unless someone provides a source for this claim. utcursch | talk 03:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Map
@Bajirao1007: What is your source for the claim that the map File:Maurya Empire, c.250 BCE.png is "largely unaccepted theory"? The extent of the Mauryan empire shown in traditional maps has been challenged by multiple scholars in recent years. See for example:
Early scholarship and more recent political claims concerning the Mauryas have portrayed the empire as a highly centralized and homogeneous polity that unified a vast region into a single monolithic imperial state. However, some more recent scholarship has emphasized the discontinuous geography of the empire and the internal variability in its administration (Fig. 6.2; e.g., Thapar 1987, 1997; Fussman 1988; though see Chakrabarti 1997: 203-6 for an opposing view). In particular, Mauryan territories in the Deccan and south India appear to have been quite limited, restricted to areas near important mineral resources, especially gold sources along the Tungabhadra River and in the Kolar region of south India. Asokan inscriptions are rare in the western and eastern Deccan areas where the Satavahana polity emerged (see below, though Satavahana and Maurya inscriptions co-occur at Sanchi, Amaravati, and Sannathi). Other than Asokan inscriptions and some rare trade wares, these areas contain little direct evidence of the Mauryan presence, and no evidence of the form that presence may have taken. Thus, while the Mauryan empire was certainly far more extensive and complexly organized than any previous South Asian state, claims for its universal status and highly centralized political structure appear to have been overstated.
It doesn't matter if some certain recent scholarship has questioned the norm, theres doubts from scholars on a lot of historical boundaries, not just the Mauryans but its still a theory and is not generally accepted by most scholars. Not to mention, the map is original content created by a wiki user and is not exactly from an actual source. Bajirao1007 (talk) 09:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
@Bajirao1007: Actually, the map is based on an actual map in the source cited at the end of the caption. It is not original research. Please see the Ashoka talk page for an existing discussion on this with the map's author. FWIW, the map is already present in the Territorial evolution of the Mauryan Empire gallery of this article.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 11:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Bajirao1007, As mentioned above, the map is not "original content created by a wiki user" - it is from an actual book written by historians. Also, you have not proivded any source for your claim that it is "not generally accepted by most scholars". Do you have any other arguments? utcursch | talk 16:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I remember I made the same exact argument on the "Largest countries by population in 1800" page that I made an edit based off of a book and its claims but because it didn't state the figure exactly you said it counted as original research. Same goes for the map, if a map is not shown exactly in the book, it is original research. Nonetheless the vast majority of scholarly books on the Maurya Empire show the current map therefore that is what is generally accepted among academics. I am sure certain books mention all sorts of different theories as to the actual boundaries of any ancient empire, but we don't go around putting theorietical maps for the Roman Empire on the Roman Empire wiki page, we use the most commonly referred to and accepted map of the Roman Empire.Bajirao1007 (talk) 07:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
The map is not original research: the boundaries are shown exactly as in the cited book. And the map that you're talking about is also a 'theoretical' one. If recent scholarship disputes an older map of the Roman Empire, and presents a new map, it'll obviously be included in the Wikipedia article. utcursch | talk 08:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
WHY
You never write anything ri........... Excuse me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.40.38 (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Move Request
Move request to Mauryan Empire. That seems to be a more common usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdog1102 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Edit
The key under the second map in the 'Conquest of Magadha' section says Gangelitic. Please change to Gangetic.
The dates contradict themselves, the Maurya empire lasted from 321 BC- 185 BC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soldatesque (talk • contribs) 00:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Bit of inconsistency in the header section.
In the first paragraph it says this was the biggest empire to ever be in India, but then a couple paragraphs later it says that it was "one of the largest in India". If the first statement is true, the second statement should not be worded that way.--68.92.94.187 (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Did the Maurya Empire start in 321 BC or 322 BC?
This article states that the beginning of the Maurya Empire is 321 BC while the first eperor's reign begin in 322 BC, one year before. This unfortunately causes a contradiction since one cannot be a ruler of a state before the state is even formed. I would like to either have the start of the Empire be 322 BC or the beginning of Chandragupta's reign be 321 BC. This article would be better if this potentially confusing dates would be edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.15.114.246 (talk) 02:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
western revisionism and mauryan maps
i see in this article so many contradictory maps of mauryan empire, for instance the blue map showing western asian empires along with mauryan empire seem to cut out the entire eastern iranian and western pakistani territory which is claimed in the other maps, and one important thing and paradoxical western revised maps showing deserts of rajasthan and forested areas of chattisgarh as holes is not repeated in other western asian maps, i think that these revisionist maps should be excluded, since this same standard is not used in other maps as well. the greatest extent of gupta empire is also not shown and same hole thingy is repeated there as well with empire extension shown with a line thingy, i think that these indian maps should be fixed to conform to the regular standards applied in rest of the kingdom's maps, regards. 175.137.72.188 (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Unreliable sources?
There is an unreliable sources tag on this article. Does anyone here know which sources are the problem? I don't see anything in the above discussions. Dartslilly (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Infobox map of the Mauryan Empire
Infobox map of the Mauryan Empire
Published map.
Handmade map.
The handmade map has quite exaggerated boundaries (going well beyond Kandahar in the West). Not too good for a lead....
I have inserted in the lead infobox a published map of the Mauryan Empire (see here), which, besides being quite accurate has the advantage of being, well… published. It was removed by User:NomiNick on the basis that "there was no consensus" [4]. I tend to think that, when possible and accurate, it is better and more trustworthy to have a (free) published map rather than a handmade map, which has the added issues that it is quite exaggerated (going way beyond Kandahar in the west in particular, the acknowledged western limit, and quite far to the east as well). This published map is from the same source as most of the historial maps used in the FA India article. Anyway the handmade map has always remained in the article, but was appearing twice following NomiNick's change. So I suggest we do keep the published map for the infobox. Comments welcome. पाटलिपुत्रPat(talk) 16:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree with all of User:पाटलिपुत्र's reasons. Also, I was never entirely satisfied with this version of my user-created map; I recall, back when I was creating it, quite of a bit of pressure from other editors to expand the depicted limits (which I partly acceded to). Avantiputra7 (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Kashmir wasn't part of the Maurya Empire? The Kashmir page says it was. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
The Kashmir page only says "The Buddhist Mauryan emperor Ashoka is often credited with having founded the old capital of Kashmir, Shrinagari, now ruins on the outskirts of modern Srinagar." The published map does show Srinagar as part of the Mauryan territory, so that matches. It is only the northern part of Kashmir which seems to be excluded, actually by both maps.पाटलिपुत्रPat(talk) 15:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I stand corrected. :-) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Renaming This Page (Maybe)
Does anyone know if there's a difference between calling it the "Maurya Empire" or "Mauryan Empire"? My instinct would be to call it "Mauryan", since that's typically what's done in this context in English. (Someone above gives examples such as "Roman Empire" and "Ottoman Empire" - not sure if they were raising the same point as me or not.) Xanthos IV (talk) 15:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Mauryan Empire or Mauryan Dynasty?
There seems to be a confusion occurring frequently in this page, sometimes it has been called an empire and sometimes a Dynasty within it's headline, shouldn't it be 'Mauryan Dynasty' since it was culturally same, and had same family ruling it for all the time? this goes to other Indian empire/dynasties too. This needs an expert view with neutrality.
Sagnique (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
"Empire" is usual, for this and others. Part of the reason is that China had more or less the same territory through successive dynasties, so that is the term rather than eg "Ming Empire", but all the Indian "empires" had significantly different territories. Johnbod (talk) 05:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I understand, so this needs to be clarified and edited. Also i presume only land boundaries differentiate between an Empire and a Dynasty? or are there any other factors too? Sagnique (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't really see there's a problem. Obviously there was both an empire and a dynasty, & our usage looks ok. I don't really understand the last point. Johnbod (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Hinduism or Brahmanism ?
One of the religions that is followed in the Mauryan Empire is listed in the article as "Hinduism". I believe the term would still not coined for the follower of any religion until a couple hundred more years. Even later Mauryan emperors such as Bindusara ,are stated as a follower of 'Brahmanism'.
So would not the term 'Brahmanism' be preferred over 'Hinduism', since the latter does not make any historical sense ?
I think the religion section in the infobox should just say "See Religion" with a link to the religion section. To me, the issue is not so much with the term (I don't think there's a problem with using terms coined later), but rather that the precise religious ideologies and theologies active during the Maurya empire were complicated and rapidly changing, since it coincided with the era of the Hindu synthesis. Chan-Paton factor (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Article reorganisation
As it stands, the article is a bit of a mess: it is often haphazard and repetitive, contains a lot of unsourced content, and makes the mistake of presenting the narratives of specific poetic sources as fact, even when it contradicts other primary sources. There are also POV and OR issues regarding its appraisal of Ashoka's commanding abilities as a prince.
I'm planning on making a number of edits, and am proposing them here for discussion.
The main changes I want to make are:
Addition of comments on the prescriptions of the Arthashastra for context on early Mauryan economic policy. These will be based on the Arthashastra article, and should be uncontroversial.
Addition of references for the comments on internal trade in the Maurya Empire (such as Arthashastra references to various resources throughout the subcontinent).
Addition of a subsection on personal freedoms under the Maurya Empire, as per Greek descriptions (perhaps the criticism of Megasthenes in Greece should be mentioned here), the Arthashastra and during Ashoka's reign.
Addition of a subsection on the symbols of the Maurya Empire.
A section on the scientific and technological advancements and economic institutions created in India during the Maurya Empire.
A subsection for Hinduism under the "Religion" section, as the Hindu synthesis occurred during the Mauryan period, and Buddhist influence on Hinduism (and vice versa) is also seen in this period.
Removal of unsourced content (which have been citation needed since 2016):
attribution of waterways and canal construction to Ashoka
attribution of expanded trade with Indo-Greeks to Ashoka
claim of Ashoka being the first ruler in history to advocate wildlife conservation
claim of private corporations existing prior to the Maurya Empire
claim of Bindusara himself being an Ajivika seems to be OR (we know that the Ajivika sect peaked under his reign and that his wife and advisor were Ajivikas, but there are no sources that suggest he himself adopted a sramana religion).
A rewrite of the "History" section in accordance with the uncertainty regarding the chronology and details of the various described events. E.g.
The Mudrarakshasa should not be presented as an uncontroversial description of the founding of the empire, as it contradicts heavily with Buddhist and Jain sources, and is considered a fictionalized account
The account of the North-Western conquests are haphazard and repeated in multiple places.
It is not clear that Bindusara himself carried out the Deccan conquests: Greco-Roman sources suggest that Chandragupta Maurya himself already controlled peninsular India, as does the Jain legend of Maurya retiring to South India.
Whether Ashoka's conversion to Buddhism occurred as a result of the Kalinga war is controversial, as many historians believe it contradicts Sri Lankan legend. In any case, the section on Ashoka should be written in a more encyclopedic tone.
Expansion of the Decline section, which currently does not mention the two-capital theory (that a breakaway capital may have formed at Ujjain during the reign of Dasharatha).
Some reorganization of the content about the contact with the Hellenistic world -- I find it rather unnatural to have an entire section devoted to Mauryan trade with Greece, when the Mauryans also traded with Central Asia and even built significant infrastructure for this purpose. I would find it more natural to have a section on foreign relationships including subsections on Hellenistic influence and the transmission of Buddhism to Central Asia.
Minor edits to the Infobox:
A separate "notes" section in the article for the sources for and details of the differences between the maps, rather than clutter the infobox.
The predecessors and successors are a bit off (Indo-Greeks should be listed among the successors, Mahajanapada period had ended due to Magadhan conquests.)
The claim that Magadhi Prakrit was a "common language" throughout the empire is unsourced (certainly there does not seem to be any influence of Magadhi Prakrit on the other languages of India).
Shouldn't "Jambudvipa" be the native name of the empire, as it was used to describe Ashoka's territories?
The cited source doesn't confirm that the monarchy was an absolute one -- in fact it seems that the ministers had significant control, too.
I'm not sure if the "religion" section should include Jain and Ajivika. Chandragupta only adopted Jainism after retiring, and none of the emperors is known to have promoted Ajivika. Does "religion" refer to the religions of the state or religions followed in the empire's territories? I see that "religion" refers to predominant religions of the region -- I wonder if it would be better to insert a link to the religion section instead (as in e.g. the United States article), as there is some nuance on what "Hinduism" means in this time period, this being the era of the Hindu synthesis and all.
Addition of a section listing primary sources of information regarding the Maurya Empire. This could be an expansion of the "Literature" section which is currently sorely lacking.
The interpretation of the "autonomous areas" does not agree with the cited sources, which use the term "relatively autonomous".
Please discuss any objections or suggestions. I think that at least 2, 7 and 10 should be fairly uncontroversial for a first edit. Correct?
Hi @Chan-Paton factor: Thank you for your proposals, many of them seem quite relevant. I suggest you go bit-by-bit, one paragraph after another, probably over a period of several weeks, taking care about the sourcing, so that nobody gets scared about the changes, and so that we can work together on this. पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 07:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I would echo that. Your general plan of action is perfectly sensible. But please edit one section at a time so that we can double check the details and ensure quality.
Of the two sections you have edited previously, the political economy section looked quite good except that it was a bit long. The social policy section didn't look right. The persecution of ajivikas should probably go under religion. If there is a social policy section, it should definitely deal with slavery and whatever is known about the caste system. For example, doesn't the arthashastra legislative differential penalties depending one the culprit's varna? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I guess there's a bit of a grey area between the administrative section (political economy or economic policy, social policy, foreign policy) and the societal/cultural topics (the actual state of the economy and technologies of the period, religion and culture, cultural contacts with the Hellenistic world and Central Asia). My idea is that actions of the government go under "administrative" while independent private and social practices would go under a broad section called "Society" with all the subsections I mentioned.
I agree regarding the caste system -- it slipped my mind because it wasn't specific to the Maurya empire. Chan-Paton factor (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
It will be hard to assume good faith if you sneak in "relatively" to qualify "autonomous areas." This was a very loose-knit empire (see the lead of the India page); there wasn't the technology to support the communication needed in an empire. The nationalist interpretations of the "Grand Trunk Road" and "canals" are all exaggerated. It took British advances in technology to make proper canals in India. Otherwise, if by canal you mean a rudimentary cut made in a river to irrigate, anyone can make a canal. I would like edits to be presented here first. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Why don't you start with Mauryan canals? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I apologize for not previously proposing the edit, I've inserted it in the list now for discussion, and have created a subsection to discuss it, as I do not believe "fully autonomous" is an accurate representation of the cited sources. Do you have any specific objections regarding the other edit you reverted?
I don't understand your comment regarding canals. I didn't suggest any content about the construction of canals. Chan-Paton factor (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, but I see other, better-qualified editors are now involved, which is great, so I expect I'll just keep a watching brief. Except to say there should be a section on art - the main article for that is much improved (mostly by Pat I think. Johnbod (talk) 16:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Autonomous areas
@Fowler&fowler: I changed "autonomous" to "relatively autonomous", because that's the language used in the cited quote from Stein (2010). None of the cited sources claim that the areas were completely autonomous, and primary sources (Arthashastra, Greco-Roman descriptions) also (admittedly weakly) suggest that the regions were not fully autonomous. Chan-Paton factor (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Indeed the Stein quote says "relatively autonomous". Good point. पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 16:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. There are six, seven, or eight sources cited in the infobox. That means that that the characterization of the "empire" of the Mauryas is complex, not reducible to one of those sources. Besides, you picked only one part of one—Stein—not employing everything he had said there. Stein says, "In the past it was not uncommon for historians to conflate the vast space thus outlined with the oppressive realm described in the Arthashastra and to posit one of the earliest and certainly one of the largest totalitarian regimes in all of history. Such a picture is no longer considered believable; at present what is taken to be the realm of Ashoka is a discontinuous set of several core regions separated by very large areas occupied by relatively autonomous peoples. ("relatively is meant with respect to the core regions.) The autonomous areas are "very large."
"Autonomous," in any case, implies only a degree of independence: "Of a group, community, state, institution, etc.: that has (a degree of) independence; that administers its own affairs; self-governing." (OED). It is different from total independence. As I said, there are other sources cited there. Coningham and Young, for example, describe several models, of Monica Smith, of Stanley Tambiah. There is also the matter of Kautilya and the Arthasharstra, the latter now considered to have been composed in the second century CE, some four hundred years after Asoka. Obviously, as a primary source, it cannot be used for any assertion about the Mauryas, only as an illustration, by way of a brief vignette, of an assertion in a modern scholarly source.
The infobox is a double distillation, a one-word summary of the ideas in the lead, which itself is a summary of the article. Whatever state it is in, it should not be corrected now, but rather at the very end in a revision. I would propose that you begin with something concrete, such as canals, and then move on to roads. I would also propose that we begin with "relatively tertiary scholarly sources," i.e., history textbooks (not journal articles, or edited books) publisher by academic publishers (university presses, Routledge, Springer, Macmillan, ...), not travel books etc. That way WP:DUE will be fixed. After that, we can expand the text with more specialized references as needed, but not veering away much from DUE. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree with deferring the discussion on this for later -- it's only a phrasing issue anyway. By canals and roads, are you referring to what I had written in the Political Economy section? Yes, I could start with that. Chan-Paton factor (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes. It is about something concrete, works of civil engineering claims about which can be evaluated in the modern sources. I'll be happy to provide sources, to whatever extent I can. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Infrastructure
I suggest writing something like this regarding the infrastructure of the Maurya Empire:
For the first time in South Asia, political unity and military security allowed for a common economic system and enhanced trade and commerce, with increased agricultural productivity. Chandragupta Maurya established a standardized currency across the empire[1], and a network of regional governors and administrators and a civil service to provide justice and security for merchants, farmers and traders. The administration eliminated regional chieftains[2][3], quashed rebellions[4]and wiped out gangs of bandits that seeked to establish their own supremacy.
The Mauryans sponsored various infrastructural projects, including thousands of roads and canals. In particular, Chandragupta Maurya is recorded to have built the Grand Trunk Road connecting the Indian subcontinent to Central Asia via trade.[5][6] The road was further developed under Ashoka, whose edicts record having trees planted, wells built at every half kos and many "nimisdhayas" (rest-houses) for merchants and Buddhist travellers.[7] Private businesses are known to have undertaken many public projects such as irrigation and water-works.[8] Megasthenes' description of the construction and operation of irrigation canals during the reign of Chandragupta is in agreement with the description found in the Arthashastra, and mentions superintendents who inspected sluice gates to ensure a consistency in water supply.[9]
^Prasad, P.C. (2003), Foreign trade and commerce in ancient India, p. 168, Abhinav Publications, ISBN81-7017-053-2.
^Mookerji 1966, p. 6-8, 31-33. sfn error: no target: CITEREFMookerji1966 (help)
^K Thanawala (2014), Ancient Economic Thought (Editor: Betsy Price), Routledge, ISBN978-0415757010, page 52
^Mookerji 1966, p. 145. sfn error: no target: CITEREFMookerji1966 (help)
Changes:
I removed the sentence about farmers being "freed of tax and crop collection burdens from their local kings". As it doesn't really explain why a central tax system is necessarily less burdensome or beneficial than a local one, the only real meaning of the statement is the claim of political unity under the Mauryas, which just seems like unnecessary repetition of a point already made.
Added (mostly tertiary, as suggested) references for Mauryans eliminating regional chieftains and quashing rebellions.
Added references for the construction of irrigation canals.
Removed unsourced claim about the "construction of waterways". I have not seen any mention of transportation waterway construction in the Arthashastra or any other primary source, much less modern sources. Presumably this is what Fowler&fowler was talking about.
I've put down some stuff in red, for which I haven't found any secondary or tertiary sources. Most of these seem to be sourced from the Arthashastra itself, although there may be other sources that corroborate.
Any suggestions, sources for the red things are welcome of course. After this I hope to move on to the rest of the political economy section, then religion.
Chan-Paton factor (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately, these sources are not all reliable. That is why you will need to narrow your focus even more. Start with canals only. Once we get a handle on them, we can move to roads. Abhinav and Atlantic Publishers are not reliable. Any source older than 1970 would be unreliable. In order to fix DUE, please cite to only scholarly textbooks first. That will give us an idea of the level of detail (if any) the canals and roads are notable for mention. Here is a list of standard text-books that focus on, or include, ancient India. Avoid, monographs (such as Thapar's Ashoka and the Decline of the Mauryas) or journal articles at this stage. This I believe is a pretty good list:
Please examine what they say about canals and in what detail. Canals are not easy to construct. To build them, for example, in upper basins of the sediment-laden Himalayan rivers, with durability, presuppose some knowledge of the land gradients—for the purpose of slowing down the water flow; it cannot be done just with building sluices in the canals or their branch lines. These forms of knowledge did not really become available until much later, and in a fully fleshed-out form not until the Great Trigonometrical Survey. (See, for example, the early history during East India Company rule in Company_rule_in_India#Canals). Also, in my view, it is not enough to find a source which quotes only Megesthanes or Kautilya on Canals. We need some information on how long these canals remained in continuous use. How many were they; from which rivers, and which bank (right or left) did they take off; how long were they; and so forth? Without such concrete information, which, for example, we do have for the Roman aqueducts of a couple of centuries later, the mention of canals remains perfunctory, and therefore unreliable. Also, is there archaeological evidence for them? Theoretically, there should be some, even if there was no use of masonry in their construction. I'm happy to search for some of these sources if you are unable, but my time is limited. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand your objection re:the existence of canals. These are irrigation canals we're talking about, not transportation canals. Certainly there is plenty of evidence of irrigation being widespread in India both during and after the Maurya empire. Do you want sources for this. Chan-Paton factor (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Not a topic I'm especially knowledgeable about, but here is the full extent that the Mauryas are covered in the "Canals and Channels" section of An Encyclopaedia of Indian Archaeology, Vol. 1 (ed. Amalananda Ghosh: Brill Publishers, 1990, p.296): "The Hathigumpha inscription of Kharavela narrates the history of an irrigation canal originally excavated by the Magadhan ruler Nanda and extended by Kharavela to his capital. Similarly the Junagadh inscription of Rudradaman gives a graphic account of the Sudarsana lake originally created by Chandragupta Maurya being strengthened and provided with irrigation canals [under Ashoka, but it had fallen into disrepair before Rudradaman's time]. At Besnagar D.R. Bhandarkar traced a storage canal 2.13 m wide, 1.67 m high and 56 m long with brick walls serving as embankments and a flight of descending steps at one point. The brick wall had an inward better and was plastered with super strong lime mortar. At Kumrahar a canal, with a width of 13 m and depth of 3 m, is located by the side of the Mauryan pillared hall. It has been conjectured that the canal was connected to the Ganga and was used to transport the huge pillars from the Chunar quarries to the door of the hall. A sunk brick-lined channel of Ujjain, 11 m wide and 2.59 m deep, has been traced to a length of 45 m." (It then goes on to provide more detailed information about much-later constructions in South India.) -Avantiputra7 (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
@Chan-Paton factor: I do understand they are irrigation canals, not navigation, or stillwater, canals. But there is a difference between rudimentary cuts that peasants and farmers have made in rivers for ages, and canals that irrigate a large area, and involve some technological advances. The latter types of canals, also differ from the pageant canals that the ruling classes might build for themselves, as they have some continuity in history; others benefit from them and find it in their interest to maintain them. But the Mauryas folded very quickly. All traces were gone, and it took James Prinsep two thousand years later to give some meaning to Asokan inscriptions. Therefore to make the claim of a canal we need something more than an inscription. In other words, epigraphic evidence is fine, but for public works, we need some firm archaeological evidence and some evidence of continuity. That is why I have suggested those books in order to be able to decide what WP:Due weight is here. These are books on Indian history or ancient history. If they do not mention the canals or make only passing mention, then the Mauryan canals should not be given much weight in this article either. (I know Monica Smith, and other anthropological geographers, have done work on this.) @Avantiputra7: Thanks for that book. I have taken only a cursory look; moreover, on Google books, I cannot read the section about the canals. Thanks to you though I have some idea. In order for me to evaluate this book more carefully, I need to have some idea of how others have evaluated it, or other forms of archaeological evidence, i.e. I need to have some knowledge of due weight assigned in the major history books. This is my main concern right now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
PS Here is Monica Smith,
"The level of documented state-level investment in infrastructure under the Mauryans is minimal. Aside from the way stations mentioned in Asokan inscriptions, they constructed no formal road systems or communications networks. Investment in specific cities is unrecorded, although excavations at Patna have revealed substantial structures and a long wooden palisade that may date to the early centuries BC (summarized in Allchin 1995). In general, archaeological remains are at odds with the textual record about the manner, extent, and effectiveness of state-level control and bureaucracy. Sinopoli (2001, 159) and others have therefore proposed that the view of a strong, centrist Mauryan polity be reevaluated since ‘‘claims for its universal status and highly centralized political structure appear to have been overstated’’ (see also Sugandhi 2003)." (In Smith Monica, 2005, "Networks, Territories, and the Cartography of Ancient States" Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 95(4), pp. 832–849; p. 843)
The two rulers concluded a peace treaty in 303 BCE, including a marital alliance. Under its terms, Chandragupta received the satrapies of Paropamisadae (Kamboja and Gandhara) and Arachosia (Kandhahar) and Gedrosia (Balochistan).
According to the very article, the maurya empire had Gedrosia, the map seems to have completely eliminated Gedrosia. (talk) 19:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
In ca 200 BCE, the subcontinent's population is now thought to have been between 15 and 30 million, the older figures of 200 million considered exaggerated. Similarly, the population of Patliputra was approximately 100,000. The Mauryan army figures of 600,000 are also thought to have been exaggerated. (See Dyson, Tim. Population history of India, Oxford, 2019.) In a subcontinent that was still for the most part untamed, uncleared, and unsettled, what sort of sovereignty would it have boded for Chandragupta? Even with an assumption of a highly centralized polity, and of a firm treaty—both of which are disputed—how would the reinforcements from the center have gone to a periphery in which we are to also include Baluchistan. How would they have reached there, along what route? What language would they have spoken? The exaggerations are features of early- and mid-20th century nationalistic historiography in India. Baluchistan never became the part of any Indian empire, until it did of the British in the 1870s, and then too only a small sliver of the region was actually ruled by the British (who had vastly superior technology available to them than did the Mauryas). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to answer why Gedrosia is not shown in the map, have the scholars disputed the greek historical records mentioning seleucid giving up Gedrosia to CHandragupta? the map below shows Gedrosia as part of Seleucid, while the Seleucid empire wikipedia page shows Gedrosia as part of the maurya empire. Zombie gunner (talk) 22:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Welcome back Zombie Gunner, and I hope you can remain civil this time. For the map, see the discussion here. The Wikipedia map showing more extensive territory is actually a Wikipedia fabrication (widely replicated on Internet), and published maps generally fix Kandahar as the westernmost limit (which is also the farthest extent of the Edicts of Ashoka): see the Times Atlas of World History, p.83, see also this one or this one. I think Gedrosia is considered smaller in this case than in some other interpretations, and anyway most scholars consider only the eastern part of Gedrosia was included in the deal. पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 06:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
I see a very new user (5 edits) changed the Seleucid Empire map 4 days ago [5]. I hope it's not you. पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 06:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
The sources you mention for your map infact admits that Gedrosia was handed over to chandragupta (no eastern or western Gedrosia mentioned there), and even then the article shows Gedrosia as part of Seleucid, what kind of blatant revisionism/mischief is that, you are trying to manipulate the map based on your very own source? secondly, your edict nonsense theory is not peddled by your own source which you have used in support of your map, for instance your own source puts southern extension of maurya empire in northern mysore, but you have shown ashokan edict sites as southern end of maurya empire. I hope you fix those wrong maps. An argument can be made that those maps show ashokan territorial extent and we dont know if ashoka held on to Gedrosia, but then the sources talking about that need to be brought. Zombie gunner (talk) 20:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
If the Mauryas under Chandragupta (died 298 BCE) had a presence in Baluchistan, where were they based? Baluchistan was supposedly ceded in 305 BCE. That was seven years before his death. Did they build towns, cities, forts, or settlements during that time? Were they built after his death? If so, where? Temples, stupas, palaces, monuments ... if so, where? What public works and of what kind: roads, bridges, canals, ports, ...? If Mehrgarh, in the Kachi plain of Baluchistan, can have survived nearly 9,500 years, Nausharo nearly 5,000, and Pirak nearly 4,000, there has to be some trace of the Mauryas, especially of major monuments; they were there 2,300 years ago. If there is not any evidence, then I would suggest that you examine the sources I have compiled above, and to them add Monica L Smith's paper linked above, and summarize a consensus view. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
There are further several mistakes in the map, for instance, Patala is located near mdern day Thatta which would be on the Indus dealta and not northwards, the Satyaputra would be Located ni Jambai, Tamil Nadu, not Kerala, Karnataka etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zombie gunner (talk • contribs) 14:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
@Zombie gunner: Please take it up with Avantiputra7 who made the maps; present the evidence. and the citations verifying it, to him. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
@Zombie gunner: Regarding Gedrosia, see The Land of the Elephant Kings: Space, Territory, and Ideology in the Seleucid Empire[6] by Paul J. Kosmin (Harvard University Press, 2014) - as per the Greek historians themselves, only "the eastern parts of Gedrosia" (emphasis mine) were ceded by Seleucus (p.33), and in describing the Seleucid-Mauryan border lands, Kosmin believes: "the unrelieved desert of Gedrosia, today's Baluchistan on the shores of the Indian Ocean, was left an unclaimed wilderness" (p.16). There are no Mauryan archaeological remains identified here, are there? To the other points, the location of Patala, anciently at the head of the Indus Delta, is disputed; I have followed Schwartzberg (and others) in placing it near modern Hyderabad, Sindh. Some scholars have suggested Thatta as the location, but this seems unlikely in light of how the geography has been changed by siltation (for instance, see this). We can place a question mark to indicate uncertainty. You are correct the Satyaputra label is too far northwest, though; I should fix that. -Avantiputra7 (talk) 23:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
The source which has been used to create the map doesnt mention eastern Gedrosia, more over your reference which mentions eastern Gedrosia also mentions that probably the mauryan empire extended as far as aria, in herat, again, the territory which is not included in the map. EVen if Eastern gedrosia is mentioned and not complete Gedrosia, why is Gedrosia completely excluded from the map, dont you think this needs ractification?, im in process of finding the primary source and whether it mentions eastern gedrosia or just gedrosia, so please bare me some time, while i investigate this further. Zombie gunner (talk) 01:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
We shouldn't do WP:OR. The best way is to take proper published maps, such as the Times Atlas of World History, p.83 (broadly similar to this one or this one), and reproduce their boundaries, which is the current map. If you can find several published maps from reputable academic sources with the much enlarged boundaries you are claiming, then only we can have a discussion, either determining a mainstream interpretation, or showing both as major interpretations of the boundaries of the Maurya Empire. पाटलिपुत्र Pat(talk) 04:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
@Zombie gunner: I agree with पाटलिपुत्र (talk·contribs) that we should stick with what those maps show. For ancient primary sources, Strabo is the most precise, and says of the Gedroseni (and Paropamasidae and Arachoti), that "of these places, in part, some that lie along the Indus are held by Indians" since "Seleucus Nicator gave them to Sandrocottus." I referred to John D. Grainger (2014), Seleukos Nikator: Constructing a Hellenistic Kingdom (Routledge), p.109 for why inclusion of Aria/Herat by Pliny is considered erroneous: continuation of Seleucid rule in that region is documented under Antiochus I. -Avantiputra7 (talk) 15:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
I believe i have only discussed your own sources isnt it?, the source of the map which you have posted is not reflected in your very own maps [1] here is another map [2]. Avantiputra, notion that the line "of these places, in part, some that lie along the Indus are held by Indians" is relatred to the areas ceded by Seleucid to Chandragupta doesnt make any sense here, we know that territory of ashoka had yona, kambhojas, gandharas living in it and not just the indians along the indus.[Age of the Nandas and Mauryas P:153] Zombie gunner (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Espionage
How can you explain the Mauryan Empire without mentioning the use of spies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phantomsteve (talk • contribs) 19:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
According to one view great emperors like Chandragupta, Bindusara, Ashoka and Samundra Gupta could belong to chamar community becouse a Chamar can very well attain as much vision and greatness as these messed up great kings. It is a well known fact that Chandergupta Maurya belonged to a family which used to raise peacock feathers. The word Maurya means a mor (pecock) raiser. It were Chamars who apart from leather works used to raise peacock feathers. History reveals that many others remained confined to small cities, towns or just a district.Having ruled out all other options a chamar could be very well expected to establish larger empires and hence a right choice made by Chanakya. Mauryans had great love for principles and for all creatures. Similarly Chamar is a man of priinciples, honest, hardworking and good character who loves all creatures. A chamar would rather go for eating a dead animal rather than taking life of a living creature to meet his food requirements unlike many others. On account of the influence of Chamars' ideology during their adolecence Chandragupta Maurya adopted Jainism and Great Asha finally adopted Budhism. Asoka had extensive roads built so that he could visit the far corners of India.
Similarity between Ek-Lavvya and Chandergupta
There is similiarity between the legendary Mahabharata hero Ek-Lavvya and Chandergupta Maurya. Both were Dalit and had inbuilt natural talents. However there was a little diffrenece between both, i.e Eklavvya couldnot make use of his talents becouse of his fictious cunning Guru Dronacharya. On the other hand Chandergupta was fortunate to have a noble person who sponsored and supported him morally i.e Chanakya. Both, Eklavvya and Chandergupta Maurya didnot need any guru as they had inbuilt talents which only needed recognition and their application. The cunning Guru in case of Eklavvya learnt from his talents whereas Chanakya supplemeted his own knowledge with the reflections from the talented Chandergupta and also seems to have helped Chandergupta in proper understanding of his (chandergupta's) own talents. Eklavvya was superior to all the other people during those days and similiarly Chandergupta was also superior to all others including Greek warrior Alexander.
Folowwing explaination from the main page doesnot seem to make any convincing suggestion.
......A kshatriya tribe known as the Maurya's are referred to in the earliest texts Buddhist texts, Mahaparinibbana Sutta. However, any conclusions are hard to make without further historical evidence. Chandragupta first emerges in Greek accounts' .......
Above observation doesnot seem to make any convincing suggestion with regard to origin of Maurya dynasty becouse Budhist texts can contain any reference to Maurya tribe only after adoption of Budhism by Ashoka. This may naturally ignore the fact that the founder of Maurya dynasty ever belonged to any lower or middle group. Everybody is Kshatria when in a warring mood therefore each human being is Kshatria during most of one's life. Having illicit relations with other's woman, enjoying a luxurious life by pushing others into poverty, looting, cheating, barbarianism and criminal tendencies are not at all related to Kshatriyas as believed by many misguided tribes. Don't worry this is compltly true! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.40.38 (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Varenx101 has repeatedly removed one of the two estimates for the peak area (the lower one) from the infobox. They have been reverted repeatedly, including by me, and have been asked—also repeatedly—to discuss it here on the talk page. They have instead kept removing it without discussing it here, hence why I'm starting this discussion.
The estimate they have removed is sourced to a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities, which is about as WP:RELIABLE a source as it gets for this particular type of information. They have not provided any reason why the source should not be used, only asserted that the figure is erroneous.
What we have here is a case where WP:Reliable sources disagree with each other, as they sometimes do. When that happens, what we are supposed to do is note that the sources disagree and present the disagreement neutrally (see WP:YESPOV) instead of picking the viewpoint of one of the sources as the preferred one.
I would be perfectly fine with not having any area estimate in the infobox—it's not crucial information—but cherrypicking the higher estimate is not acceptable from a WP:NPOV perspective. So the question is this: should we restore the lower estimate to have both in the infobox, or remove the higher estimate to have neither? TompaDompa (talk) 11:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Problems with Tim Dyson
Why is Tim Dyson being used in a history article on India? Even in his own words, he stated (QI KNEW ZERO ABOUT INDIA'S GENERAL HISTORY) here on this Youtube lecture @42 seconds[8]. Tim Dyson is a demographer, not a historian. This shows in his writing, he used weasel words like "seems" and "possibly" that would not pass a DYK. Example [note 34]
The evolution of Indo-Aryan society in the centuries before c.200 bce not only saw increased segregation with respect to caste, it also seems to have seen increased differentiation with respect to gender. ... Therefore, by the time of the Mauryan Empire the position of women in mainstream Indo-Aryan society seems to have deteriorated. Customs such as child marriage and dowry were becoming entrenched; and a young women's purpose in life was to provide sons for the male lineage into which she married. To quote the Arthashāstra: 'wives are there for having sons'. Practices such as female infanticide and the neglect of young girls were possibly also developing at this time, especially among higher caste people. Further, due to the increasingly hierarchical nature of the society, marriage was possibly becoming an even more crucial institution for childbearing and the formalization of relationships between groups. In turn, this may have contributed to the growth of increasingly instrumental attitudes towards women and girls (who moved home at marriage). It is important to note that, in all likelihood, these developments did not affect people living in large parts of the subcontinent—such as those in the south, and tribal communities inhabiting the forested hill and plateau areas of central and eastern India. That said, these deleterious features have continued to blight Indo-Aryan speaking areas of the subcontinent until the present day."
It just seems like the old British prejudice which flys for Oxford, but wouldn't even fly in Wikipedia DYK. LearnIndology (talk) 04:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Oxford is, of course, per definition reliable, but it's weird that that sentence, the consolidation of caste in the Gangetic plain, and the declining rights of women in the Indo-Aryan speaking regions of India is only in the lead, and highly questionable: consolidation of caste in the time of the Mauryan Empire? Guess who added it...Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
The caste in Hinduism had shown clear signs well before the Mauryas. It was consolidated during their period of rule. To "consolidate" means (OED), "To make firm or strong; to strengthen (now chiefly power, established systems, and the like)." It was firmed up during their period of rule. Please don't remove content that is reliably sourced. Tim Dyson is one of the great living historical demographers. He has been cited 6,600 times in Google Scholar publications. More recently, he has been cited 1846 times since 2016. The book itself, published in early 2019, has already been cited 20 times. He is now being accused of knowing nothing about history by WP POV promoters. Pretty silly don't you think? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:21, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler: the info on caste wasn't removed; it was moved into the body of the article, and expanded, obviously in line with your intention: The text was added to the lead to provide a template for expanding the artice. The WP:LEAD summarizes the article; it does not provide stand-alone info which is not in the article. Additionally, you removed the following addition, with a quote from Dyson: though "these developments did not affect people living in large parts of the subcontinent.". You also mass-reverted other copy-edits, which I performed after checking the sources, and which are unrelated to Dyson. And you reverted the merging of two references, <ref name="Dyson2018-lead-maurya"> and <ref name="Dyson2018-16b"/>, which are the exact same references, but with different names.
So, at best we can discuss adding back
The empire's period of dominion was marked by exceptional creativity in art, architecture, inscriptions and produced texts, but also by the consolidation of caste in the Gangetic plain, and the declining rights of women in the Indo-Aryan speaking regions of India.
to the lead, though that raises questions of WP:UNDUE, and the question if the "the empire's period of dominion" was marked by these developments, or just the Gangetic Plain. As Dyson himself states: "these developments did not affect people living in large parts of the subcontinent." It was a regional development, due to the expansion of Indo-Aryan settlements at the Ganges Plain, unrelated to the expansion of the Mauryan Empire. Also, Dyson does not juxtapose these developments to the "explosion" of cultural creativity. Change "texts, but also by" into "texts." and "It saw," preferably at some other place in the lead, in line with the structure of the article, and that problem is solved, though it still may be undue.
NB: there was no "Hinduism" prior to the Mauryan Empire; the Hindus synthesis, as a synthesis of Brahmanical praxis and ideology with non-Vedic religions started during the Maurya Empire, partly in response to the threat posed by Buddhism when the western ganges plain was conquered by the Mauryan Empire. At best, you can say that there were signs of the caste-system prior to the Mauryan Empire, and developed further during the Mauryan Empire. But again, as Dyson himself states: "these developments did not affect people living in large parts of the subcontinent." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello JJ. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Thank you for the work. Please note though that the empire was a loose-knit one, with large parts mostly autonomous. I thought I had added that in the lead. The deforestation of the large parts of the Ganges plain and settlement had taken place by then, even the lower Ganges plain, which included Maghada. The usual maps of the empire at its greatest extent are mostly fantasies. As you will have noticed, the map in the infobox is more realistic, even about the geographical extent of the empire. So, the empire's heartland and real area of control was really the Ganges plain. Similarly, the talk of major highways and canals is mostly also optimistic. It took the British with much more advanced technology to finally overcome the silting in the canals of the Himalayan rivers of North India; similarly, it was they really who built the Grand Trunk Road. The Mauryans may have a rudimentary track on which their horses were ridden. I'm short of time right now, but thank you again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:42, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
The caste-system is a fascinating topic, and way more complex than I'd expected. Is Dyson's reference no. 62 Romila Thapar? She made a similar observation about the similarities between jatis and tribes. It should be added to "Caste system in India," where it is missing. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:33, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorry @Joshua Jonathan: I did not notice your question. Whether or not the Hindu synthesis had taken place, the caste system was well in place in the prevailing Indo-Aryan religious ideology. The full quote in Dyson is:
In this context, castes and tribes can be seen as being broadly analogous—especially in that they tend to marry endogenously and maintain their own collective identities.62 Accordingly, as tribal societies were encountered by the expanding Indo-Aryan societies, so the evolving caste system provided a framework within which—invariably at a low level—tribal people could be placed. For example, by the time of the Mauryan Empire (c.320–230 bce) the caste system was quite well established and the Aranyachará (i.e. forest people) were grouped with the most despised castes.63
ie. Béteille, A. (1986). ‘The Concept of Tribe with Special Reference to India’, European Journal of Sociology, 27(2): 296–318. Kosambi, D.D. (1956). An Introduction to the Study of Indian History. Bombay: Popular Book Depot. Maharatna, A. (2005). Demographic Perspectives on India’s Tribes. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Habib, I. and Jha, V. (2011). A People’s History of India 4, Mauryan India. Fifth Edition. New Delhi: Tulika Books. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Well
Caste definitely wasn't rigid until the gupta eras
Artgashastra
Mentions what looks like a form of limited slavery or bonded labour v
But the mauryan society was free loving
Megasthenes
Clearly stated that
The society loved freedom and people from other societies were accepted
. Arjuna randi (talk) 05:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
fowler&fowler s problems
fowler and folwer removed my new sections without providing any valid reason.
He straight up removed those important sections.
man this is probLematic
we can have a discussion if you want. but straight up vandalising my sections for no valid reason
PLEASE INFORM ME BEFORE REMOVING MY AUTHENTIC POSTS
THESE LINKS ARE EVEN QUOTED ON VAROUS WIKIPEDIA SOURCES. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhima Palavīṉamāṉa (talk • contribs) 19:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Mauryan empire s total area was well over 5million sqkms not 3.4 millionsqkms.
The edit by avinashchabral isnt authentic as joshuajonathan mentioned it only talks about the center of power ,not the maximum extent
therefore the maximum extent should be left out. Historians do agree at some point in history mauryan empire streched till Kandhar which is in
Please, correct the Mauryan origin so that the reader can easily understand that the Mauryas were Kshatriyas according to the evidence.
1. There is no mention of Chandragupta Maurya being born from Mura in Visakhadatta's Mudrarakshasa.
2. Dhundiraja commented on Mudrarakshasa only on the basis of imagination, because nowhere in the Mudrarakshasa there is mention of Maurya born of Mura.
3.Sridhar Swami, the translator of Vishnu Purana, also mentioned Chandragupta as born from Mura on the basis of imagination, whereas there is no mention of the name Mura in Vishnu Purana.
4. According to Sanskrit grammar, Mura can become "Moraiya", not Maurya.
But, according to Sanskrit grammar, Maurya is made from Moria, that is, Chandragupta Maurya is from the Moria clan, a sub-branch of Kshatriya Shakya. Amansinghmurao (talk) 14:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
You need to provide well-sourced 'historical' evidence. Making claims about Sanskrit grammar won't cut it. Badshah Tipu (talk) 03:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Title
I think the title of the page should be Mauryan Empire, not Maurya Empire.
Badshah Tipu (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Maximum extent
Why did you remove the maximum extent of mauryan empire from the info box.
You don't have any credible source to prove it wrong. This is straight up vandalism.
Most of the sources depict the maximum extent to be correct it should have been left there for reference purposes.
Euro centrism at it's finest. Arjuna randi (talk) 14:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
@fowler&fowler
Why did you remove the maximum extent of mauryan empire from the info box
You don't have any credible source to prove it wrong. This is straight up vandalism Most of the sources depict the maximum extent to be correct it should have been left there for reference purposes.
Why are you using biased sources to prove your agenda.
The maximum extent should still be published. Arjuna randi (talk) 14:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Common folwer&fowler everyone knows you vandalised the wiki page on purpose
The maximum extent of the empire was 5 million square Kilometres es and it must be left in the info box as it was.
At least for a proper reference
Tim Dyson holds no historical knowledge just because he's cited more in Wikipedia that doesn't mean his sources are correct
You are simply misusing your power
The article before the final edit provided a better idea of the mauryan empire
The maximum extent isn't a fantasy
And it has been cited my major historians. Arjuna randi (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
You're referring to this edit by User:AvinashCabral? The edit-summary is quite clear: "The source talks about the total sq km area within the longitudes and latitudes of the most extreme cardinal points (ie N.S.E.W.) of respective enpires, not the actual area which an empire actually controlled." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:32, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
At Joshua John
Then why is it edited
It should be left out
The maximum extent is still provides basic information about the empire
The info boxes should be restored
Avinash cabral is known for vandalising Indian articles
Please restore it Arjuna randi (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Dear Arjuna Rani, Please examine the main map of the empire. It shows large autonomous areas which the empire never reached. Let us do a simple computation. The total area of India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh is 1,666,800 sq miles. The area of Afghanistan below the Hindu Kush over which the Mauryas had any effective control was 65,000 sq miles, bumping the total up to 1,721,000 sq miles. The autonomous areas over which the Mauryas did not have control were: Balochistan (134,051 sq miles); Khyber-Pakhtunkwa minus the upper lip (where Peshawar is located) (25,000 sq mi); lower two-thirds of Jharkhand (25,000 sq mi); most of Chattisgarh (45K sq mi); southern Madhya Pradesh (50K sq mi); eastern Andhra Pradesh (50K sq mi); Tamil Nadu (which did not get a whiff of the Mauryas) 50K sq mi; Kerala neither (15K sq mi); southern Karnataka (50K sq mi); most of Rajasthan (100K sq mi); all of India's northeast (101K sq mi); southeastern Maharashtra which was forested (75K sq mi); Andaman and Nicobar Islands (3K sq miles). These total 811,000 sq mi. So the area of the maximum geographical extent of the Mauryas was 1.721,000 - 811,000 = 910,000 sq miles = 2,356,889 sq km. In other words, the Mauryas did not have control over two-thirds of the 3 million 400,000 sq km claim. How could they? Even the British with their advanced technology did not. The Mauryas did not have the decimal system, i.e. they couldn't do arithmetic. They did not know basic physics (a la Archimedes); they did not have the Roman arch (and couldn't build stone or masonry bridges, though they could have had rudimentary suspension bridges or pontoon ones). They no doubt had horses and elephants in plenty and perhaps the latter could swim across rivers, carrying humans and freight. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Dear fooler&powler
They were far ahead of the Greeks in terms of efficiency
The military state of mauryans were more effective than the Greeks
As stated by Greek historians, the architecture of the mauryan palaces were also considered superior to that of the Persians and Greeks (stated by megathenes)
Whatever you said doesn't make sense
Even ghenis Khan had a huge empire without any modern technology and no resources
Mongols were no scientists no builders
Just brutes
Yet they managed to do that
And can you please provide accurate sources for you claim.
Whatever you said is only an opinion.
From historians
Just like
The 5million squad kilometres opinion is supported by Vincent Arthur Smith, R. V maunder, and Joseph E. Schwartzberg.
This article is supposed to be a discussion and therefore both the opinions should be left out.
You just can't vandalise a page and remove important information.
Aylestone stop your propaganda
You didn't even give any reason why
Removed the already existing info
Pretty sure decimals were invented in the gupta areas since when did
Ancient Greeks started having decimals
I mean what's your point
Your comment is an opinion
Nothing more
Historians stat
That both the maps are possible
Hence it should more accurate to show both the territories properly
Ans describe them
Accurately
Rather than a one sided opinion Arjuna randi (talk) 05:46, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
I still don't understand
Why would you remove an existing piece of information which
Is already supported by major Historians
Aylestone their opinions should be left out..
You vandalise the page
And then put your opinions on it to justify it.
Great Arjuna randi (talk) 05:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Dear @Arjuna randi: Apologies for misspellings your last name; it was a careless mistake. There was no need to attempt revenge by calling me "fooler&powler." Unlike Mongolia, India was densely populated, especially in the Gangetic plain which was still being deforested under the Mauryas, and the people living in the forest being assigned the dreaded outcast status. Please read Tim Dyson's A population history of India. Unlike nationalists (especially Hindu nationalists) in India, Mongolians are not making empty boasts about Mongolian canals and roads. As you will see in my article Indian mathematics the earliest signs of the decimal place value system are commonly dated to the early to mid-first millennium CE, about half a millennium after the Mauryas. Obviously, the ancient Greeks did not have the number system, but Archimedes—commonly thought to be (along with Isaac Newton and Gauss) to be among the three greatest mathematicians of all time—did invent statics, hydrostatics, the Archimedes' screw, the principle of the lever, the notion of an infinitesimal implicit in Integral calculus (indeed he computed the quadrature of the parabola that way). Wikipedia has an article Ancient Greek technology and Roman technology, where you may find the references. The oldest surviving Roman stone bridge Pons Aemilius is from the 2nd century BCE. Greek monuments in the hundreds, all contemporaneous with the Mauryas, survive all over Greece and Turkey; there is nothing of the Mauryas except a the Asokan pillars. Nothing, for example, in Baluchistan, which is commonly added to the Mauryan empire in exaggerated nationlist claims. I was saying that the effective extent of the Mauryan empire was two-thirds of the inflated 3 million 400 thousand claim (in the revert link). the 5 million sq km claims is even more inflated. Please read the references supplied in the caption below the first map in the infobox. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:10, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
@fowler&fowler It seems that I am not the only editor experiencing your disruptive editing. Please refrain from removing the map displaying the maximum extant of the Maurya Empire. This is the widely recognized map of the Maurya Empire and this should be reflected on Wikipedia. The other hypothesized map can be listed as Map 2. However do not remove the widely recognized map to promote another. Vajra Raja (talk) 05:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
The Map 1 section is intended for the generally recognized map which is used throughout various encyclopedias and texts. Furthermore it is the map which is used for historical statistical information such as total land mass. Map 1 should reflect the maximum extant of the empire, while the alternative hypothesis is listed in map 2. Wikipedia is the only encyclopedia using the alternative map. The map with empty areas within the boundaries of the empire were the "autonomous and free tribes" is not an academic consensus. It was made by an editors own work, and is not universally recognized. Wikipedia should be using its own editors work while there is no official consensus, it should use the widely recognized and adopted map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vajra Raja (talk • contribs) 04:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
Please note WP:RS: which states: "In general, the most reliable sources are: Peer-reviewed journals, Books published by university presses, University-level textbooks. Please also note per WP:TERTIARY: which states: Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources. Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight
Consensus in the prevailing historiography can change. WP must reflect that. The map in place is based on the major modern textbooks on ancient India in which the territories of the Maurya Empire are conceptualized as core areas or linear networks separated by large autonomous regions in the works of scholars such as:
Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund, classic textbook Kulke, Hermann; Rothermund, Dietmar (2016), A History of India, 6th edition, Routledge, References of this kind have often been used to show that Ashoka was running a highly centralised direct administration of his whole empire. But the pillar inscriptions which contain these latter references have so far been found only in the central Gangetic region and the Ganga-Yamuna Doab ... In modern historical maps Ashoka's empire is often shown as covering the whole subcontinent, with the exception of its southern tip. But if we look at the sites where Ashoka's inscriptions have been found we clearly see a definite regional pattern. ... This means that large parts of present day Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh as well as Kerala and Tamil Nadu were administratively not yet included in the Maurya empire. South of the Vindhya mountains the Mauryas mainly controled the coastal areas and some interior near present Mysore. ... Large areas of the interior were inhabited by forest tribes (atavi) which had not yet been defeated. ... The revision of the spatial extent of the Maurya empire nevertheless does not detract from its 'All-India' dimensions and that it marked the apex of the process of state formation which had started in the sixth century BC.
Burton Stein's major textbook: Stein, Burton (2010), A History of India, John Wiley & Sons, p. 74, ISBN978-1-4443-2351-1, In the past it was not uncommon for historians to conflate the vast space thus outlined with the oppressive realm described in the Arthashastra and to posit one of the earliest and certainly one of the largest totalitarian regimes in all of history. Such a picture is no longer considered believable; at present what is taken to be the realm of Ashoka is a discontinuous set of several core regions separated by very large areas occupied by relatively autonomous peoples.
David Ludden's widely used: Ludden, David (2013), India and South Asia: A Short History, Oneworld Publications, pp. 29–3, ISBN978-1-78074-108-6, The geography of the Mauryan Empire resembled a spider with a small dense body and long spindly legs. The highest echelons of imperial society lived in the inner circle composed of the ruler, his immediate family, other relatives, and close allies, who formed a dynastic core. Outside the core, empire travelled stringy routes dotted with armed cities. ... In most janapadas, the Mauryan Empire consisted of strategic urban sites connected loosely to vast hinterlands through lineages and local elites who were there when the Mauryas arrived and were still in control when they left.
The historical demographer Tim Dyson's text book Dyson, Tim (2018), A Population History of India: From the First Modern People to the Present Day, Oxford University Press, pp. 16–17, ISBN978-0-19-882905-8, Magadha power came to extend over the main cities and communication routes of the Ganges basin. Then, under Chandragupta Maurya (c.321–297 bce), and subsequently Ashoka his grandson, Pataliputra became the centre of the loose-knit Mauryan 'Empire' which during Ashoka's reign (c.268–232 bce) briefly had a presence throughout the main urban centres and arteries of the subcontinent, except for the extreme south.
The work of the preeminent historian of ancient India, Romila Thapar, and anthropologists Monica L. Smith and Stanley Tambiah summarized in the extensive discussion in the widely used textbook of Coningham and Young.
You are misdirecting by stating that the alternative map depicting core territories is the the academic consensus. In fact, most papers and articles reference the maximum extant of the empire instead. Even the references that have been provided in the alternative map depict and specifically call the maximum extant map the traditional map. It is used in most encyclopedias, and is widely recognized. The maximum extant map hasn't been refuted academically, even though other hypothesis may have been proposed. Looking at earlier User Talks it seems that you have tried to remove the traditional map altogether in the past. Please refrain from gatekeeping information, and providing selective information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vajra Raja (talk • contribs) 10:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
@Vajra Raja: The map that was in place which you moved to a position below is the map of maximum geographical extent. The modern view of the Mauryas expressed succinctly in Kulke and Rothermund is that there were large autonomous areas throughout the empire, areas that the Mauryas never set foot in, where there were no Maurya settlements. The archaeological evidence points to the same. See for example this hot off the press:
Ray, Himanshu Prabha (2021), "The Mauryan Empire", in Peter Bang, C. A. Bayly, Scheidel (ed.), The Oxford World History of Empire, Oxford University Press, pp. 198–218, Unlike developments in the north, there were no contemporary fortified centers in peninsular India and no evidence of Mauryan settlement, except scattered finds of NBPW and black-slipped wares, found in coastal centers. Between the second and first millennia BCE, peninsular India was home to iron-using megalithic communities, and scholars posit significant cultural integration on the basis of the construction of large monuments of stones, often sepulchral in nature. Chronologically, the Iron Age megalithic sites occur over several centuries, from 1200 BCE to 300 CE, and extend across all regions of peninsular India, with the exception of the western Deccan, encompassing parts of the present states of Maharashtra and Gujarat. ... It is significant that the inscriptions of Asoka are located in the vicinity of megalithic sites, which both pre-date and post-date the Mauryan Empire. A study of site sizes indicates that the larger megalithic sites were found not at locations of Asokan inscriptions, but along major routes of communication, thereby throwing into doubt claims that there was a Mauryan settlement in peninsular India, in the vicinity of the rock edicts, that may have controlled local resources{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link) I'm afraid the historiographical consensus has changed.
Again, you are now dangerously close to violating the three revert rule. You need to establish a consensus here, not to force your viewpoint by talking in generalities or in edit summaries. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
@Fowler&fowler Once again you are totally wrong here firstly all the scholars you mentioned don't establish it with proof that Mauryan Empire didn't have rule in these areas they just put forward their theories and don't be afraid they have not changed.Mauryan rock edicts and inscription is found in all over the subcontinent from Taxila to Yerraguddi. More victinity of them near Magadh and comparatively less elsewhere is simply cause the empire is centered there.Even evidence of Asokan stupa in Kanchipuram has been attested by Indian archeologist R Nagaswamy so just stop with your bias.Even sangam era texts attest Moriyas(Mauryans) conquering the entire Deccan and northern peninsula.Still saying put the original map and stop with your bias.There is no "conclusive" proof or even proofs that Mauryans didn't control that area.The truth is they ruled from an area which comprises eastern Iran& South Eatern Afghanistan to northern part of Indian peninsula in the South. Aryanjaiswal1234 (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jae286.
Under "Conquest of Magadha" section, there is way too much reliance on this very late text. In provided source too historian Radha Kumud Mookerji points out Mudrarakshasa play is unrealiable historical source. Yet all this is not mentioned. In another sentence on the page, it claims Mauryan Empire was "established" in Greater Punjab, this is also not what provided source says. VinPrasad (talk) 00:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
@Kautilya3: Hello, can you please look into this? this sections relies entirely on this single medieval text, which historians have pointed out as largely/partially unreliable. There are other texts that should be considered here for balace view - Digha Nikaya, Mahavamsa, Divyavadana, Milindapanha, Ashokavadana for additional sources?.VinPrasad (talk) 02:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
I have added additional source - dating of Mudrarakshasa and Mookarji's views on this text. But, there really needs to be over haul and there is an entire last paragraph written like POV essay. VinPrasad (talk) 02:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
I have cleaned up, simplified and have included several sources for neutrality, including Radha Kumud Mukherjee and Thomas Trautmann. Section is now titled "Conquest of Nanda Empire"VinPrasad (talk) 06:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Not sure Mookerji, a historian of the nationalist school who was mostly active in the colonial era is reliable any longer. I noticed you've also used Upinder Singh's textbook. Not sure how reliable that is either as it bends over backward to please all historiographical POVs, also typically takes an Indian POV in South Asia-related matters. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Natgeo does not support that, and the other source is not reliable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
GDP?
Why is there a GDP value of $68 trillion listed? Aside from the impossibility of accurately measuring the output of ancient economies in a commensurable dollar amount, such a number is also prima facie absurd. 70.108.14.150 (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Write the ten point about mauryans 175.107.11.112 (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Social studies
Write the ten point about mauryans 175.107.11.112 (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Mauryan empire size
Mauryan empire size was shown 5.5 million square km why it is now shown 5 million km square 106.205.208.121 (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
History
About the rulers of the period of the maurya period in India Enact the role of ruler 115.96.77.171 (talk) 13:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2022
This edit request to Maurya Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Mauryan Empire area with tributaries was 5.5 million km² and Ashoka was a SHAVITE even after becoming Buddhist Unknown9890 (talk) 04:10, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lemonaka (talk) 07:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Chandragupta Maurya religion.
Hey in the religion section. Can you correct the part a little bit.It would be better if you added' chandragupta initially a follower of Brahmanism. We have ample of evidences of chandragupta performing various brahmaincal rituals and sacrifices according to Greeks and various other sources ((sastri 1988 pg no. 163-164. ))
And many other sources in Chandragupta official Wikipedia page. 103.81.213.136 (talk) 11:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
caste
Among the Indo-Aryan people of the Gangetic plain, who were conquered by the Mauryan Empire, the caste system was consolidated, and the rights of women declined, though "these developments did not affect people living in large parts of the subcontinent. can we please remove this line
it isnt supported anywhere, its just a big myth. please look at these references https://books.google.co.in/books?id=uYXDB2gIYbwC&pg=PA133&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
Note: I only found it once in the article though its possible that someone already had noticed it and removed it. Jnorton7558 (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Mauryan Empire ca. 265 BCE
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jae286.
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Natgeo does not support that, and the other source is not reliable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Hellenistic_world_281_B.C..png&diff=413591281&oldid=292443663){kind=link}