Well These are actually pretty solid points, Could the Mauryan atleast develop a Single Identity in the Northern Indian Plains ?
AHC - Mauryan Empire Implement a Mandate of Heaven in India
- Thread starter Brahman
- Start date
I agree, A united Northern Plains is Possible, after which we could see a Gradual Push towards the South, It would happen slowly but surely
Shahrasayr
I agree with many of your points, here is a more detailed hypothesis on what can happen -
I agree with many of your points, here is a more detailed hypothesis on what can happen -
- Mauryan have a policy of Integration through language and religion, they try to Spread a Sanskrit and Buddhism across the realm for Integration and make social mobility much easier for lower classes and castes to promote the meritocracy
- Army is given the prime importance in the empire to promote order and stability and create a sense of brotherhood among the soldiers from different regions
- Having increased Integration between different provinces in the empire in both Political and economic sense to discourage separatism
- Having a concept of God King or a King descended from Buddha as the Emperor of India whom all must respect
They could have, but like I said, you need a string of good leaders to happen. One bad leader will make the pan-integration go south like with Russia in OTL. You need to make measures in which every emperor that comes out is competent enough. And such a thing......will be hard, extremely so, however it isn't impossible. You need a solution for that.
4. No one will accept the fact that the king is descended from Buddha since he was supposed to be a kind of virgin saint plus the Mauryans are from North West India and Buddha was a part of the Shakya Dynasty of South Nepal. The North Indians will easily call the bluff.
2. But however you will have to keep the army in check as well. Seeing as increased army politics led to the Triumvirate in Rome, Yuan Shikhai in China etc....
You need to find solutions to these three problems, then all the other things you want will happen easily.
Sarthak Bikram Panta
4. Buddha did have a son called Rahula, Mauryan could easily say they are descendant from him as such they are descendants of Buddha, but yes, it is difficult to prove it but not impossible
2. Agreed on this as well, Army needs to be checked like all Army, Army could also become like the Peshwas of Marathas and make the Emperor a figurehead
I agree, it is difficult to have a series of competent kings in any empire, but it is not impossible, Roman Empire could do it, so could various Chinese dynasties, so it is not out of question how to do it, perhaps a Roman Style governance where the Person most capable for the Title of Emperor could become the king, unlike succession from father to son
4. Buddha did have a son called Rahula, Mauryan could easily say they are descendant from him as such they are descendants of Buddha, but yes, it is difficult to prove it but not impossible
2. Agreed on this as well, Army needs to be checked like all Army, Army could also become like the Peshwas of Marathas and make the Emperor a figurehead
I agree, it is difficult to have a series of competent kings in any empire, but it is not impossible, Roman Empire could do it, so could various Chinese dynasties, so it is not out of question how to do it, perhaps a Roman Style governance where the Person most capable for the Title of Emperor could become the king, unlike succession from father to son
Agree on everything else except the son part. He was born before buddha gained 'enlightenment' and was still around the time when he was Siddhartha Gautama Shakya, the Crown Prince of Shakya. After he was enlightened though he and his wife never had any more physical relations to have another child as both swore it off.
Well since technically son of Buddha was born, there is no harm claiming decent from him
Except he became King of the Shakya Kingdom. He needs to be linked to the Maurya Kingdom and lineage that is viable. If Rahaul had a daughter, maybe she could be married to the maurya so that the child is a descendant of Buddha? That's the only real plausible way i see the Maurya's claiming Buddha's lineage.
Yeah I agree on this, they would need to cook up some explanation that is convincing for both Nobles and Commoners, which would be difficult,
Either way, how do you see a Hypothetical United India Affecting world History ?
They did to a degree though. Prior to the Magadhi unification, the Aryan states were divided and disunited in all but similar origins in the Vedic Age. Once the Magadhi state unfiied much of the Gangetic Plain, a series of ebbing and flowing Magadhi empires arose. Each of which uniting much of the subcontinent before falling. This lasted for quite soem time, until the subcontinent became more overtly dominated by the Islamic states originating in the north.
And generally, we may say that Hindu geopolitics for most of its history worked as follows:
1. Divided Aryan states in the Gangetic Plains alongside Aryan pastoral peoples of the Indus.
2. Aryan states unite under the conquering Magadhi state of Pataliputra.
3. Magadhi state forms a hegemony over the region, but declines.
4. External western power intercedes in the subcontinent
5. Power bloc arises in the Deccan that resists both powers to its north.
As such, we get a situation of a three way competition that repeats itself numerous times in Hindu history. A competition between an external ultra-Hindu force, a Gangetic state of the Aryans and then a southern based power that opposes the other two. This situation was the famed situation prior to Islam, and provides a great context to the reasons for why unification is difficult.
The iconic example was the fall of the Mauryan empire led to the formation of three distinct blocs. The Shungas, the spiritual successors of the Maurya, the Satahavana kingdom of the Deccan and the Indian kingdom of the Greeks within the Indus Valley. These three fought vigorously with one another, with the Indian kingdom of the Greeks gaining seemingly the advantage over the Shunga during the reign of Meander, with the king forcing possibly the Shunga, the Kosala and so forth under vassalage. Neverthless, the subcontinent could not be united, as the Satahavana stood in the way as a giant guardsman to southern expansionism and a check upon hegemonies in the north. Likely, the Indian kingdom was pressed from the south by the Satahavana and then invaded by the varied Scythian royal elites, destroying the Greek hegemony. Afterward, the Scythian states squabbled and were absorbed into the Kushan empire, which united the majority of the subcontinent in a series of satrapies and tributaries, aside for the Satahavana.
The Kushan came near the destruction of their Deccan rival, but were ultimately unable to finish and were invaded and weakened by the Sassanid state. Thus, developed a return to a three-way conflict in the subcontinent. The Neo-Kushans and their Scythian satraps in the northwest and west, the Gupta in Magadhi and the Satahavana. The Gupta would ultimately gain hegemony, but at a great cost and failed to sustain their victories as regionalism in the south emerged and the turbulence of the northwest sapped their military power.
Finding a way to stop this is difficult frankly. I would suggest, as I have elsewhere, the Kushan empire had the best chance of perpetually uniting the subcontinent before the advent of Islam. As it was lessening western threats while also subduing rebellion in the Gangetic Plains. Its only threat was the Satahavana and the unexpected Eranshahr resurgence in 226-232 CE.
Last edited:
Hmm well since no empires last forever. I would however think that no matter how long this empire lasts, its effects could be considered an Asian Alexander's Empire. The fringe lands grow a mixed ethnicity that creates their own identity like Afghanistan however the core territories become more important and United like in Greece and Baghdad.
I can agree on this, the most likely outcome I can see is that when Mauryan do inevitably collapse, India does not have many states, but only a single Giant State based around North Indian Plain and claims to be the successor of Mauryan and they slowly re - conquer South India
Last edited:
Emperor Gustavus Adolphus
Banned
I would go on to add that Unified Indian subcontinent needs a Prehistoric POD. The Geographical features and boundaries are so unique that this will never happen for a long term. Northwestern regions border the steppe, which will keep setting off frequent migrations and invasions, and the Gangetic plain is pretty much the only continuous land feature, fit for such unification.
It is impossible to reign cultural centralization on all those diverse regions, spread over a region as large as Mainland Europe.
It is impossible to reign cultural centralization on all those diverse regions, spread over a region as large as Mainland Europe.
You are correct, North Indian plains from its outskirts in Kabul to Manipur in the East are one large contracted landmass, most of which is plains, A strong militaristic force can unite all of this, then focus on south
I don't think that sort of lineage would have made a great impact as it might have in other civilisations. If I remember correctly (I may be wrong) on beginning the campaign to establish the Maurya dynasty Chandragupta Maurya promoted a sort of "lineage" from former reincarnations which then linked to the Buddha (of course he was not the Buddha, that would go against the very principle of Buddhism, but if I remember correctly his past life had given food or water to the Buddha who then prophesied one day he would rule India)
In fact, it would be interesting seeing a sort of Mandate of Heaven emerge in which each conquering ruler starting a dynasty claimed they were the reincarnation of Chandragupta. Sort of like the Pharaoh were Ra. I don't know if there's any precedent to that, however, in Indian history
I agree, he could play to the prophecy of Buddha being the conqueror of all India and use it to conquer India, when Mauryans inevitably fall, A new empire rises in northern Indian plains claiming decent from Chandragupta himself
Absolutely none I’m afraid. The closest I can think is that of Vikramaditya (the title and power of a just universal ruler last claimed as late as Hemu in the 15th century) but even that is folklore of a ‘King asleep in the Mountain’ mytheme.
Doesn’t mean one can’t develop though.
Not the Buddha (saying you're an incarnation of the Buddha would be quite bad in religious terms) but it could certainly be used that way.
Taking into account the importance Hindu civilisation placed on hereditary succession I can't see the dynasties themselves working by reincarnation themselves (but maybe I'm wrong, the Tibetan Dalai Lama shows it is possible but I don't know how Tibetan society looks at inheritance questions), but it could be a sort of narrative whenever a dynasty has decayed or a ruler is unliked that "the reincarnation of Chandragupta" will return to free the land and re-establish the (Sanskrit title of the Maurya that meant world ruler I can't recall right now) to its glory.
Which fits nicely with...
...a King in the Mountain theme.
I agree, however, the Term Chakravarti has been used as the Ideal Universal Ruler, As such it would not be too difficult to use it to Unite India
In India, we have the Term Chakravarti, which means Ideal Universal Ruler, it can be used as the one who united South Asia under on banner