Achaemenid-influenced India

[GauchoBadger]

Suppose that the Acharmenid Empire of Persia survives (by defeating and annexing the greek city-states, defeating Alexander, what have you) for longer, at least until the early 1st century AD (of OTL).
My question is... how does this affect India?

I'll postulate a scenario: considering that Alexander either never existed or never achieved as much success ITTL, i'd presume that the Mauryan Empire never rises to prominence. The achaemenid persians end up trickling down into the subcontinent, and found some sort of zoroastrian indo-achaemenid kingdom, encompassing the Indus Valley and the Ganghes, that may outlive its persian patron. The kalingas of Orissa, which were actually pretty powerful IOTL, found their own empire, conquering Bengal and OTL Maharashtra.
If the persians decide to pursue a maritime focus in expansion, they could end up vassalizing the southern dravidian kingdoms and even conquering some ports. Buddhism never becomes as powerful as OTL and finds itself in a lot of competition with zoroastrians.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

He may. According to semi-mythical sources, Chanakya was planning a rebellion against the Nanda since before Alexander, looking for a suitable boy. Assuming these myths are true, some boy will be found, who may still be Chandragupta, and this boy will be raised to overthrow the Nanda. Thus, a Maurya Empire may exist. However, without the instability in India caused by Alexander's arrival or by the Diadokhoi, Chandragupta would be unable to conquer as much as OTL, and he would be unable to unify India. Perhaps a successor may do so, perhaps not, but a concept of "Bharata" as a region will likely still exist, as such a concept exists in the Mahabharata as the realm of the eponymous Emperor Bharata, with the vague bounds of the OTL Indian subcontinent. This has many other butterflies - Pali would never become the common language of classical India and Buddhism would remain a minor nastika cult.

Indian culture is also different without the Greeks. Indian astrology, for instance, was almost entirely ripped off from Greeks, to the point that an Indian zodiac almost identical to that of Greece exists. ITTL, that zodiac and other Greek-inspired discoveries would not exist, and Indian astrology and astronomy is almost certainly unrecognizable.

 

[fi11222]

Suppose that the Acharmenid Empire of Persia survives (by defeating and annexing the greek city-states, defeating Alexander, what have you) for longer, at least until the early 1st century AD (of OTL).
My question is... how does this affect India?

I'll postulate a scenario: considering that Alexander either never existed or never achieved as much success ITTL, i'd presume that the Mauryan Empire never rises to prominence. The achaemenid persians end up trickling down into the subcontinent, and found some sort of zoroastrian indo-achaemenid kingdom, encompassing the Indus Valley and the Ganghes, that may outlive its persian patron. The kalingas of Orissa, which were actually pretty powerful IOTL, found their own empire, conquering Bengal and OTL Maharashtra.
If the persians decide to pursue a maritime focus in expansion, they could end up vassalizing the southern dravidian kingdoms and even conquering some ports. Buddhism never becomes as powerful as OTL and finds itself in a lot of competition with zoroastrians.

I think that this is a very interesting scenario. Well worth pursuing further.

The key element here, as always, is religion.

In the period considered, India had a very wide spectrum of competing religious option: Traditional Brahmanism (pre-Hinduism), Budhism, Jainisim, as well as a varied array of "Sramana" movements with very varied opinions.

Throwing Zoroastrianism into the mix would certainly alter the balance of power between these competing currents in a major way. For example, Zoroastrianism is "anti-Daeva" i.e. against gods like Indra, Agni, etc which still form the core of the Brahmanic pantheon. It is therefore likely that some kind of alliance between Zoroastrian and Buddhist currents would emerge, maybe leading to a form of "Manichaeism" well in advance of what went by that name IOTL. It is then conceivable that India, instead of the Middle East as IOTL, would become the craddle of all the great universalist religions that would subsequently conquer the world.

 

[Indicus]

achaemenid persians end up trickling down into the subcontinent, and found some sort of zoroastrian indo-achaemenid kingdom, encompassing the Indus Valley and the Ganghes, that may outlive its persian patron

Alexander is too late. By this point, the Achaemenid decentralization had already resulted in modern-day Punjab being Achaemenid in name only, with no effective rule afterwards. I think you need the Achaemenids to conquer India in their prime, not at this point.

For example, Zoroastrianism is "anti-Daeva" i.e. against gods like Indra, Agni, etc which still form the core of the Brahmanic pantheon.

It's not against all the Vedic gods - merely the devas. For instance, Varuna is actually quite similar to Ahura Mazda, albeit with a reduced dominion. Ahura Mazda the sun god could also be equated to Surya, resulting in a stronger surge of Surya worship. And there are the Adityas, the post-Vedic gods, and a whole bunch of others.

You're also overestimating Buddhism. Prior to Ashoka, Buddhism was a minor religion, just another nastika religion like all the others like Ajivaka, or even Charvaka (though the latter just consists of the ancient equivalent of edgy atheists). With the Maurya almost certainly butterflied away, there goes Ashoka, and with it Buddhism's dominance.

 

[fi11222]

It's not against all the Vedic gods - merely the devas. For instance, Varuna is actually quite similar to Ahura Mazda, albeit with a reduced dominion. Ahura Mazda the sun god could also be equated to Surya, resulting in a stronger surge of Surya worship. And there are the Adityas, the post-Vedic gods, and a whole bunch of others.

Although there are indeed non-Daeva gods in the Brahmanic Pantheon, they are all relatively minor gods (in practice, if not in theoretical standing like Varuna). The most important ones, like Indra and Agni (and also Surya I think) are Daevas. The kind of Indra-centered religion that late Brahmanical religion had become is exactly what Zoroastrianism was up against.

You're also overestimating Buddhism. Prior to Ashoka, Buddhism was a minor religion, just another nastika religion like all the others like Ajivaka, or even Charvaka (though the latter just consists of the ancient equivalent of edgy atheists). With the Maurya almost certainly butterflied away, there goes Ashoka, and with it Buddhism's dominance.

I agree. I just used the label "Buddhism" so that people who are not familiar with Indian religious history would understand. But you are right, what I meant is that a Zoroastrian-Nastika convergence (in general) would occur, not necessarily one only with Buddhism.

 

[Indicus]

Although there are indeed non-Daeva gods in the Brahmanic Pantheon, they are all relatively minor gods.

With the notable exception of Varuna, a quite major and good Asura.

 

[fi11222]

With the notable exception of Varuna, a quite major and good Asura.

In late Brahmanism, Varuna is not such an important god. He is a little like Ouranos (same name as Varuna) in Greek Mythology: A theoretically highly placed heavenly god who is in practice largely ignored. Already in the Rigveda, there are relatively few Varuna-dedicated hymns compared to those where Indra or Agni are the main focus. Later on, this tendency seems to have been even more pronounced.