Will a Buddhist India be better Off Than Hindu India ?

  • Yes

    Votes: 31 62.0%
  • No

    Votes: 19 38.0%

  • Total voters
    50
Buddhism was found in India, but was outcompeted by Hinduism, But what if the reverse happened, What if Buddhism replaced Hinduism in India, how would the effects be ?
  • Therevada Buddhism becomes the largest religion in Indian subcontinent (90 % Population)
  • Hinduism Exists, but is clearly replaced as a political, economical and theological force
How will it affect India, Buddhism and the world ?
 
Will there be a attempt to form a united Indian polity ?, Buddhism is a much more centralized religion than Hinduism
 
Will there be a attempt to form a united Indian polity ?, Buddhism is a much more centralized religion than Hinduism
Buddhism is not any more or any less centralising than Hinduism

Maybe Indonesia remains Hindu/Buddhist?
There were muslim rulers in Indonesia even going as far back 900s. India being Hindu/Buddhist does not stop traders from Arabia from travelling and spreading Islam to Indonesia.
 
Buddhism is not any more or any less centralising than Hinduism


There were muslim rulers in Indonesia even going as far back 900s. India being Hindu/Buddhist does not stop traders from Arabia from travelling and spreading Islam to Indonesia.
ah right, i forgot sorry.
A Buddhist India would however make Afghanistan, and Burma very different. The Shakya's would also change Nepal forever. They were offered the crown of Nepala Mandala, but they declined very reluctantly. In such a scenario, they would become Kings of Nepala Mandala, because no one will take no for an answer and create a Shakya Dynasty in Nepal. THAT will have long reaching consequences
 
Personally i simply want to know how a Shakya Nepal would change things. To all of you who do not know, the Nepala Mandala was like Cassibellanus's Confederation in Celtic Britain. It was a confederation of Nepalese kingdoms and states in modern day Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan and portions of Uttarakhand. They would fight with each other but if a foreign power attacked, they were bound to fight for the Head King of the Mandala. It was like a Nepali version of the HRE. as time progressed it grew weaker which allowed Gurkha to unify Nepal under simply them, however it was an unspoken rule that whoever controlled Kathmandu was the High King. a Shakya Nepal with a more proud feeling and prestigious nature is going to have a unified identity millennia earlier than OTL.
 
Personally i simply want to know how a Shakya Nepal would change things. To all of you who do not know, the Nepala Mandala was like Cassibellanus's Confederation in Celtic Britain. It was a confederation of Nepalese kingdoms and states in modern day Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan and portions of Uttarakhand. They would fight with each other but if a foreign power attacked, they were bound to fight for the Head King of the Mandala. It was like a Nepali version of the HRE. as time progressed it grew weaker which allowed Gurkha to unify Nepal under simply them, however it was an unspoken rule that whoever controlled Kathmandu was the High King. a Shakya Nepal with a more proud feeling and prestigious nature is going to have a unified identity millennia earlier than OTL.
What hypothetically can happen is that they might try to conquer regions in other part of India and use Buddhism as an excuse and the natives will buy it up as it is the descendants of Buddha conquering them
 
The spread of a religion is not really related to how it can centralise a nation/kingdom.

Christianity and Islam are also religions that spread easily but Christian & Islamic countries only centralised after the 17th century
No, What I meant was Hinduism was really complicated due to many gods and completely different theories as well as caste system

Whereas Buddhism is much more easier to spread with its precise origins and single founder as well as simplified teaching compared to Hinduism
 
What hypothetically can happen is that they might try to conquer regions in other part of India and use Buddhism as an excuse and the natives will buy it up as it is the descendants of Buddha conquering them
Though i think the Nepali kings would agree to become proto-dukes (or atleast the Asian version of it) under the Shakya Dynasty uniting the Nepala Mandala first. Though it may take a generation or two. But that is still like 2 millennia earlier than OTL so i won't complain.
 
Though i think the Nepali kings would agree to become proto-dukes (or atleast the Asian version of it) under the Shakya Dynasty uniting the Nepala Mandala first. Though it may take a generation or two. But that is still like 2 millennia earlier than OTL so i won't complain.
Yes, I nepali dynasty that slowly starts to eat up and integrate parts of India,
 
Yes, I nepali dynasty that slowly starts to eat up and integrate parts of India,
Not really. Nepal had no interest throughout history in expanding into India other than the Mountains and its foothills, which controlled trade with China. They were more successful in attacking Tibet. Considering Nepal won three wars with Tibet and almost annexed it in 1846, i think it's more plausible in having a Himalayan kingdom than anything else. As a half-Nepali i can tell you that even until the 1950s Nepalese hated going south due to the extremely forested areas and malaria
 
Not really. Nepal had no interest throughout history in expanding into India other than the Mountains and its foothills, which controlled trade with China. They were more successful in attacking Tibet. Considering Nepal won three wars with Tibet and almost annexed it in 1846, i think it's more plausible in having a Himalayan kingdom than anything else. As a half-Nepali i can tell you that even until the 1950s Nepalese hated going south due to the extremely forested areas and malaria
Well nepal better cultivate interest, as if a Buddhist rises in India, they will definitely go after Nepal to conquer the birth place of Buddha for religious legitimacy
 
Top