AHC - Mauryan Empire Implement a Mandate of Heaven in India

Will Such a United South Asia be Possible ?

  • Yes

    Votes: 39 62.9%
  • No

    Votes: 23 37.1%

  • Total voters
    62
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
Thing is like i said you don't need to necessarily conquer; you need to hold lands. The famous saying - "A Conquered Land is not a Ruled Land" is very apt. Conquering and ruling are very different things. Even today holding large masses of lands is hard; it would be extremely hard in the late antiquity era. The roman system was considered revolutionary for a reason.
 
Thing is like i said you don't need to necessarily conquer; you need to hold lands. The famous saying - "A Conquered Land is not a Ruled Land" is very apt. Conquering and ruling are very different things. Even today holding large masses of lands is hard; it would be extremely hard in the late antiquity era. The roman system was considered revolutionary for a reason.
I agree on this Part, India has very diverse group of people and religion as well as culture and ethnicity, Could a system of governance develop ?, If Chinese, Persians and Romans could do it, I believe Indians could as well
 
I agree on this Part, India has very diverse group of people and religion as well as culture and ethnicity, Could a system of governance develop ?, If Chinese, Persians and Romans could do it, I believe Indians could as well
The difference between Rome, China, Persia and India are a lot of reasons:-
1. Back then a united 'indian' feeling did not exist. Heck it didnt exist until the 1900s. At least in Ancient Greece when a foreign power a la Persia threatened it, they put down their differences and joined up to resist the invaders. India didn't do this in the 19th century, doing it in the BCE era is going to be nigh impossible.
2. Persia and China had huge ethnic populations of the same ethnicity who identified as one Persian or Chinese. This is one of the major reasons why the Chinese, and Persian Empires lasted so long. Even in Anatolia the Anatolians referred to themselves as Persian except for the Pontus and Aegean regions. China was even more united than Persia in terms of ethnicity as they have been a large one culture group since around 2100 BCE, arguably the only River valley civilization (Yangtze Valley Civilization) that survived the ages and evolved through the times. India in the antiquity era did not have this advantage. The Dravidians in the south will guaranteed gang up and join together at a perceived 'second invasion by the aryans'. The Kiratis, Kusundas and Newars of Nepal would certainly resist as their cultures are closer to Tibet than India. The Afghans just about century after being freed from the Greek kingdoms won't take being invaded and conquered lying down. These are just surface problems. Ancient Indian ethnic problems ran very deep and very complex.
3. Rome was basically an ancient version of the British Empire. They ruled through divide and conquer; and basically made protectorates. Nominally all of the Celtic tribes and kingdoms were under Roman suzerainty; meaning they retained autonomy much like how the Princely states operated in British India. This system was so uncommon that when Britain did it in the 19th and 20th century all of the other empires were scratching their heads asking "Why the hell are you doing this?" It's going to be a lot more uncommon in the antiquity era, especially in India where the tradition of direct rule is entrenched.
 
1. Back then a united 'indian' feeling did not exist. Heck it didnt exist until the 1900s. At least in Ancient Greece when a foreign power a la Persia threatened it, they put down their differences and joined up to resist the invaders. India didn't do this in the 19th century, doing it in the BCE era is going to be nigh impossible.
The Concept of a Cultural Sphere known as Bharat Existed for a long time, Even Vishnu Purana speaks about this, It was definitely not a political sphere but a Culture Sphere -
उत्तरं यत्समुद्रस्य हिमाद्रेश्चैव दक्षिणम् ।
वर्षं तद् भारतं नाम भारती यत्र संततिः ।।

uttaraṃ yatsamudrasya himādreścaiva dakṣiṇam
varṣaṃ tadbhārataṃ nāma bhāratī yatra santatiḥ
"
The country (varṣam) that lies north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is called Bhāratam; there dwell the descendants of Bharata."
—Vishnu Purana
Even Mahabharata speaks of a war Between two cousins to involve the whole Subcontinent
2. Persia and China had huge ethnic populations of the same ethnicity who identified as one Persian or Chinese. This is one of the major reasons why the Chinese, and Persian Empires lasted so long. Even in Anatolia the Anatolians referred to themselves as Persian except for the Pontus and Aegean regions. China was even more united than Persia in terms of ethnicity as they have been a large one culture group since around 2100 BCE, arguably the only River valley civilization (Yangtze Valley Civilization) that survived the ages and evolved through the times. India in the antiquity era did not have this advantage. The Dravidians in the south will guaranteed gang up and join together at a perceived 'second invasion by the aryans'. The Kiratis, Kusundas and Newars of Nepal would certainly resist as their cultures are closer to Tibet than India. The Afghans just about century after being freed from the Greek kingdoms won't take being invaded and conquered lying down. These are just surface problems. Ancient Indian ethnic problems ran very deep and very complex.
I agree to this, however, the Northern Indian Plains were all very similar to power structure, it can be said that after a few centuries of Mauryan Rule, They might all be Culturally and even religiously united in a sense,
3. Rome was basically an ancient version of the British Empire. They ruled through divide and conquer; and basically made protectorates. Nominally all of the Celtic tribes and kingdoms were under Roman suzerainty; meaning they retained autonomy much like how the Princely states operated in British India. This system was so uncommon that when Britain did it in the 19th and 20th century all of the other empires were scratching their heads asking "Why the hell are you doing this?" It's going to be a lot more uncommon in the antiquity era, especially in India where the tradition of direct rule is entrenched.
I Agree with this, Brits were the masters of Divide and Rule, It would be difficult for India to emulate such strategy, only through a common cultural and religious identity they could unify the Country, which I do think is possible after a few centuries of Mauryan Rule
 
The Concept of a Cultural Sphere known as Bharat Existed for a long time, Even Vishnu Purana speaks about this, It was definitely not a political sphere but a Culture Sphere -
उत्तरं यत्समुद्रस्य हिमाद्रेश्चैव दक्षिणम् ।
वर्षं तद् भारतं नाम भारती यत्र संततिः ।।

uttaraṃ yatsamudrasya himādreścaiva dakṣiṇam
varṣaṃ tadbhārataṃ nāma bhāratī yatra santatiḥ
"
The country (varṣam) that lies north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is called Bhāratam; there dwell the descendants of Bharata."
—Vishnu Purana
Even Mahabharata speaks of a war Between two cousins to involve the whole Subcontinent
It was, but until the 1900s the ones calling for an united India was a fringe group and anyone saying so would have been proclaimed by the ethncities to have been a radical, idiot and fantasy idiot with no place in the society.
Also the Kurushetra War of the Mahabharat drew all the nations of the Subcontinent in because of the importance of the Hastinapur Kingdom, they were considered the Strongest kingdom in the subcontinent back then, and direct influence on the kingdom would have changed the history of the lands; which it did OTL. Of course we cannot know myth from history but it has been proved that the Kurushetra War did happen. Also not all of the subcontinent was involved. The Afghans sat it out due to their fight with the Nomads of Central Asia and the proto-Turkic people. The Kirat Empire of Nepal also did not join the war, primarily because Krishna killed Yalambar, the first King of Nepal. Lanka did not participate either.
Also Lanka, Bhutan and Nepal were never considered a part of the 'Indian civilization'. Lanka was considered its own distinct place and Nepal and Bhutan were a mix of the Tibetans, Indians and Chinese which made an unique identity of their own. Nepal and Bhutan are like flip civilizations. Nepal's linguistic and religion is similar to India yet culture and tradition is similar to Tibet while Bhutan's linguistic and religion is similar to Tibet while their culture and tradition is similar to India. Infact old-Nepalese sounds more Chinese, look it up in youtube than Indian. Modern Nepali made in around 1850s made the language easier to learn for foreigners and made it look closer to the Indian language.

Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Afghanistan would never agree to be a part of this 'Pan-Indian state' and most probably lead to a huge insurgency attempt. Killing them would create martyrs for the people and not killing them would make instability; which is a chicken and egg situation.
 
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
That's the one I was not remembering, thank you.

The difference between Rome, China, Persia and India are a lot of reasons:-
1. Back then a united 'indian' feeling did not exist. Heck it didnt exist until the 1900s. At least in Ancient Greece when a foreign power a la Persia threatened it, they put down their differences and joined up to resist the invaders. India didn't do this in the 19th century, doing it in the BCE era is going to be nigh impossible.
2. Persia and China had huge ethnic populations of the same ethnicity who identified as one Persian or Chinese. This is one of the major reasons why the Chinese, and Persian Empires lasted so long. Even in Anatolia the Anatolians referred to themselves as Persian except for the Pontus and Aegean regions. China was even more united than Persia in terms of ethnicity as they have been a large one culture group since around 2100 BCE, arguably the only River valley civilization (Yangtze Valley Civilization) that survived the ages and evolved through the times. India in the antiquity era did not have this advantage. The Dravidians in the south will guaranteed gang up and join together at a perceived 'second invasion by the aryans'. The Kiratis, Kusundas and Newars of Nepal would certainly resist as their cultures are closer to Tibet than India. The Afghans just about century after being freed from the Greek kingdoms won't take being invaded and conquered lying down. These are just surface problems. Ancient Indian ethnic problems ran very deep and very complex.
3. Rome was basically an ancient version of the British Empire. They ruled through divide and conquer; and basically made protectorates. Nominally all of the Celtic tribes and kingdoms were under Roman suzerainty; meaning they retained autonomy much like how the Princely states operated in British India. This system was so uncommon that when Britain did it in the 19th and 20th century all of the other empires were scratching their heads asking "Why the hell are you doing this?" It's going to be a lot more uncommon in the antiquity era, especially in India where the tradition of direct rule is entrenched.
You say many correct things; I'll not however that neither the Persian nor Chinese concepts of nationhood (or the Roman, for that matter) emerged out of nowhere, but were creates by political conditions of conquest and hegemony.

Both Persia and China were originally divided into several different groups whose sentiment of unity emerged from political union and not the other way around (and frankly the same could be said of India: the common struggle against the British did more to unify than the several cultural initiatives might have). In Persia there was an entire confederation set up under the monarchy with powerful feudal Lords whose dynasties were ancient and royal by themselves. While in China you had plenty of language groups with their own traditions that began to adapt to the imperial system.

So you are correct to say Indian unity won't develop on its own: but I'd say a long period of time under one polity, in which society and culture grew to accommodate and prosper off it would do the trick.
 
That's the one I was not remembering, thank you.



You say many correct things; I'll not however that neither the Persian nor Chinese concepts of nationhood (or the Roman, for that matter) emerged out of nowhere, but were creates by political conditions of conquest and hegemony.

Both Persia and China were originally divided into several different groups whose sentiment of unity emerged from political union and not the other way around (and frankly the same could be said of India: the common struggle against the British did more to unify than the several cultural initiatives might have). In Persia there was an entire confederation set up under the monarchy with powerful feudal Lords whose dynasties were ancient and royal by themselves. While in China you had plenty of language groups with their own traditions that began to adapt to the imperial system.

So you are correct to say Indian unity won't develop on its own: but I'd say a long period of time under one polity, in which society and culture grew to accommodate and prosper off it would do the trick.
There lies the crux of the problem. All of the ancient Persian and Chinese cultures evolved to have a same language, same tradition except for perhaps areas like Khuzestan, Mongolia. Even Manchuria a newcomer in China adapted evolved naturally into a normal Chinese language. The modern day Hindi language did not exist back then. Maratha is completely not understandable to a Punjabi in that era. Dravidian is like listening to Chinese for a Bengalese back then. At least ancient Persian and Chinese languages were much like slavic or norse - able to basically understand each other.
You need to somehow be able to make the cultures into one. Remember that India is not Europe. Ethnic nationalism existed even back then. To make the empire have a pan-indian sense it needs to last long yes; and thats the problem. Just One successful revolt, and everything will tumble down.
 
It was, but until the 1900s the ones calling for an united India was a fringe group and anyone saying so would have been proclaimed by the ethncities to have been a radical, idiot and fantasy idiot with no place in the society.
Also the Kurushetra War of the Mahabharat drew all the nations of the Subcontinent in because of the importance of the Hastinapur Kingdom, they were considered the Strongest kingdom in the subcontinent back then, and direct influence on the kingdom would have changed the history of the lands; which it did OTL. Of course we cannot know myth from history but it has been proved that the Kurushetra War did happen. Also not all of the subcontinent was involved. The Afghans sat it out due to their fight with the Nomads of Central Asia and the proto-Turkic people. The Kirat Empire of Nepal also did not join the war, primarily because Krishna killed Yalambar, the first King of Nepal. Lanka did not participate either.
Also Lanka, Bhutan and Nepal were never considered a part of the 'Indian civilization'. Lanka was considered its own distinct place and Nepal and Bhutan were a mix of the Tibetans, Indians and Chinese which made an unique identity of their own. Nepal and Bhutan are like flip civilizations. Nepal's linguistic and religion is similar to India yet culture and tradition is similar to Tibet while Bhutan's linguistic and religion is similar to Tibet while their culture and tradition is similar to India. Infact old-Nepalese sounds more Chinese, look it up in youtube than Indian. Modern Nepali made in around 1850s made the language easier to learn for foreigners and made it look closer to the Indian language.

Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, Afghanistan would never agree to be a part of this 'Pan-Indian state' and most probably lead to a huge insurgency attempt. Killing them would create martyrs for the people and not killing them would make instability; which is a chicken and egg situation.
I was saying that there was atleast the knowledge that Subcontinent was a distinct cultural entity, as such it might not be difficult to unite India as it seems, Other than Bhutan, All other 3 were considered a part of this distinct cultural and civilizational identity, Nepal was the Birthplace of Sita, Central Character in Ramayana, as well as Buddha, who then went to Bihar to be enlightened, Sri Lanka was the Kingdom of Ravana in Ramayana and was seen as a part of Indian Cultural Civilization, especially since Vibhishana, who is one of the seven immortals of Hinduism, and the North west of the subcontinent was the kingdom of Gandhara, which again will play a central role in Mahabharata, and Panini laid the foundations of Sanskrit, It is very clear from Ancient Hinduism and Buddhism that all of subcontinent was a Cultural region, just not a political region
 
There lies the crux of the problem. All of the ancient Persian and Chinese cultures evolved to have a same language, same tradition except for perhaps areas like Khuzestan, Mongolia. Even Manchuria a newcomer in China adapted evolved naturally into a normal Chinese language. The modern day Hindi language did not exist back then. Maratha is completely not understandable to a Punjabi in that era. Dravidian is like listening to Chinese for a Bengalese back then. At least ancient Persian and Chinese languages were much like slavic or norse - able to basically understand each other.
You need to somehow be able to make the cultures into one. Remember that India is not Europe. Ethnic nationalism existed even back then. To make the empire have a pan-indian sense it needs to last long yes; and thats the problem. Just One successful revolt, and everything will tumble down.
One big reason for this was the lack of Sanskrit being taught to lower castes in India as it was seen as diluting the purity of the language, If All or atleast a majority of India is taught a Single language, thorough Buddhism, it can be feasible that a big portion of India, such as North Indian Plains will be culturally and religiously united
 
One big reason for this was the lack of Sanskrit being taught to lower castes in India as it was seen as diluting the purity of the language, If All or atleast a majority of India is taught a Single language, thorough Buddhism, it can be feasible that a big portion of India, such as North Indian Plains will be culturally and religiously united
In pre-literacy Indian, that is a herculean task and would be a drain on Imperial Finances. The PoD required for what you want needs to go back further to the origins of the Maurya's and Ancient India itself to truly make what you want happen.
 
In pre-literacy Indian, that is a herculean task and would be a drain on Imperial Finances. The PoD required for what you want needs to go back further to the origins of the Maurya's and Ancient India itself to truly make what you want happen.
I agree with this, the only was I can see it is by Buddhism being really successful in converting lower castes and Buddhist monks educating them in the language, it could happen if Mauryan found a zeal in Buddhism in order to Unite India
 
There lies the crux of the problem. All of the ancient Persian and Chinese cultures evolved to have a same language, same tradition except for perhaps areas like Khuzestan, Mongolia. Even Manchuria a newcomer in China adapted evolved naturally into a normal Chinese language. The modern day Hindi language did not exist back then. Maratha is completely not understandable to a Punjabi in that era. Dravidian is like listening to Chinese for a Bengalese back then. At least ancient Persian and Chinese languages were much like slavic or norse - able to basically understand each other.
You need to somehow be able to make the cultures into one. Remember that India is not Europe. Ethnic nationalism existed even back then. To make the empire have a pan-indian sense it needs to last long yes; and thats the problem. Just One successful revolt, and everything will tumble down.
I think you overestimate this inability for different groups to be under one polity, but that's just my opinion.

In China, for example, there are still major languages that are mutually unintelligible with one another, something which would be even more problematic in the ancient era. And still they stand.

In fact, all arguments pointed so far against the possibility of this idea fail to demonstrate how China withstood them:

Rugged terrain? China has that too, it just shares with India a very large and central river plain from which centralised rule can rise (and btw we could use Persia to make an argument here that would be much more challenging to oppose)

Proximity to the steppes? China has it much worse than India. The nomad threat served to bring them together not tear them apart.

Revolts? China had those too, and still the sentiment of a need to be together continued


However, I'll say this: perhaps it is important to make separatism economically undesirable. This could be done by establishing a strong central economy that flourishes from trade (as the Maurya made efforts to do) and simply make the "warring states" periods very bloody and chaotic, so as to make union seem like the natural solution to one's problems.

And the religious aspect of this could be quite useful, especially if Buddhism takes over. Buddhist centers would have an interest in unification (less war means more wealth and less danger to their monasteries like what happened OTL) an if the Buddhist Councils remain a thing, you have an institutionalised religion under the monarchy that could do wonders to assert the legitimacy of unification
 
I think you overestimate this inability for different groups to be under one polity, but that's just my opinion.

In China, for example, there are still major languages that are mutually unintelligible with one another, something which would be even more problematic in the ancient era. And still they stand.

In fact, all arguments pointed so far against the possibility of this idea fail to demonstrate how China withstood them:

Rugged terrain? China has that too, it just shares with India a very large and central river plain from which centralised rule can rise (and btw we could use Persia to make an argument here that would be much more challenging to oppose)

Proximity to the steppes? China has it much worse than India. The nomad threat served to bring them together not tear them apart.

Revolts? China had those too, and still the sentiment of a need to be together continued


However, I'll say this: perhaps it is important to make separatism economically undesirable. This could be done by establishing a strong central economy that flourishes from trade (as the Maurya made efforts to do) and simply make the "warring states" periods very bloody and chaotic, so as to make union seem like the natural solution to one's problems.

And the religious aspect of this could be quite useful, especially if Buddhism takes over. Buddhist centers would have an interest in unification (less war means more wealth and less danger to their monasteries like what happened OTL) an if the Buddhist Councils remain a thing, you have an institutionalised religion under the monarchy that could do wonders to assert the legitimacy of unification
I'm just using historical basis. The moment the Maurya Gupta and Mughal empires were at their peak they all came tumbling down into a bunch of squabbering ethnic kingdoms with the monarch being monarch in name and the capital city only. It's seems to be a trend in pre-british India. For some reason they could not get along.
 
I think you overestimate this inability for different groups to be under one polity, but that's just my opinion.

In China, for example, there are still major languages that are mutually unintelligible with one another, something which would be even more problematic in the ancient era. And still they stand.

In fact, all arguments pointed so far against the possibility of this idea fail to demonstrate how China withstood them:

Rugged terrain? China has that too, it just shares with India a very large and central river plain from which centralised rule can rise (and btw we could use Persia to make an argument here that would be much more challenging to oppose)

Proximity to the steppes? China has it much worse than India. The nomad threat served to bring them together not tear them apart.

Revolts? China had those too, and still the sentiment of a need to be together continued


However, I'll say this: perhaps it is important to make separatism economically undesirable. This could be done by establishing a strong central economy that flourishes from trade (as the Maurya made efforts to do) and simply make the "warring states" periods very bloody and chaotic, so as to make union seem like the natural solution to one's problems.

And the religious aspect of this could be quite useful, especially if Buddhism takes over. Buddhist centers would have an interest in unification (less war means more wealth and less danger to their monasteries like what happened OTL) an if the Buddhist Councils remain a thing, you have an institutionalised religion under the monarchy that could do wonders to assert the legitimacy of unification
I agree with this assertion, establishing a strong and more importantly an inter connected economic, social, political and religious system that makes revolt essentially a massive loss, why do you think Such a united political identity did not emerge in India ?
 
I'm just using historical basis. The moment the Maurya Gupta and Mughal empires were at their peak they all came tumbling down into a bunch of squabbering ethnic kingdoms with the monarch being monarch in name and the capital city only. It's seems to be a trend in pre-british India. For some reason they could not get along.
I have a hypothesis that the caste system prevalent in Hinduism led unification in terms of society being nearly impossible, as it made full use of population really impossible, as such If all of India or atleast a Majority become Buddhists, it could lead to a much stronger society and thus a country
 
I'm just using historical basis. The moment the Maurya Gupta and Mughal empires were at their peak they all came tumbling down into a bunch of squabbering ethnic kingdoms with the monarch being monarch in name and the capital city only. It's seems to be a trend in pre-british India. For some reason they could not get along.
If I remember correctly, there was something about local religious authorities looking unfavourably upon the very centralised Maurya regime as taking away their traditional powers, placing over them laws that were built for the entire Kingdom.
 
If I remember correctly, there was something about local religious authorities looking unfavourably upon the very centralised Maurya regime as taking away their traditional powers, placing over them laws that were built for the entire Kingdom.
That could be the case, something which can be solved through a common religion
 
\
I think you overestimate this inability for different groups to be under one polity, but that's just my opinion.

In China, for example, there are still major languages that are mutually unintelligible with one another, something which would be even more problematic in the ancient era. And still they stand.

In fact, all arguments pointed so far against the possibility of this idea fail to demonstrate how China withstood them:

Rugged terrain? China has that too, it just shares with India a very large and central river plain from which centralised rule can rise (and btw we could use Persia to make an argument here that would be much more challenging to oppose)

Proximity to the steppes? China has it much worse than India. The nomad threat served to bring them together not tear them apart.

Revolts? China had those too, and still the sentiment of a need to be together continued


However, I'll say this: perhaps it is important to make separatism economically undesirable. This could be done by establishing a strong central economy that flourishes from trade (as the Maurya made efforts to do) and simply make the "warring states" periods very bloody and chaotic, so as to make union seem like the natural solution to one's problems.

And the religious aspect of this could be quite useful, especially if Buddhism takes over. Buddhist centers would have an interest in unification (less war means more wealth and less danger to their monasteries like what happened OTL) an if the Buddhist Councils remain a thing, you have an institutionalised religion under the monarchy that could do wonders to assert the legitimacy of unification
I have to contest some of this.

----

As far as I know, China was not forced back together due to steppe pressures. The steppe was not a military issue until after the Bronze Age, when Chinese civilization was already developing a somewhat unified government model in the Central Valley. The Xia and Shang of the Middle and Late Bronze Age, had little to no difficulties with their steppe neighbors. In fact, they were improved by them through trade. Evidences that come to light, is that the Chinese Xia and Shang Dynasty were active partners in the trade network between Europe, China, Elam-Mesopotamia and the Indus. With semi-sedentary Indo-European peoples, the Oxus Civilization and the Elamites serving as intermediates, many things arrived in China. Bronze making from the west, the chariot/wheels, different sorts of crops and materials for wealth, jade, gold, amber and so forth. Only whence the Chinese culture was increasingly centred around unified monarchies and untied by the 9 Cauldrons of the Xia, did the steppe nomads to the north develop new sorts of bows and breed stronger horses for which to pose a threat to the people of the Central Valley, this occurred around 950-900 BCE in the northwest of the Chinese Central Valley; wherein western innovations possibly of the Scythian-Saka and others, developed more fearsome and aggressive modes of warfare than the old chariot warfare of the Middle Bronze Age. The Zhou countered these nomads very poorly, simply chasing them across the border and then returning. These steppe armies would remain a nuisance until the formation of a true steppe empire during the reign of Maodu of the Xiongnu in the Early Western Han.

During the formation of the Chinese civilization sphere, we could argue that China had a fairly ideal situation, all things considered. Its south was inhabited by jungles and mountains, less populated than their western counterparts in Mesopotamia and their north was a vector of trade and material improvement. The region that comprised the Aryan states, was not so.

For whateevr reason, the IVC collapsed around 1950 BCE and the agriculture of the land was dry and difficult. No thanks to the excessive drying and famines common from 2100-1900 BCE across the west at that time. The arrival of Indo-European peoples into the Indus, came upon a collapsed society and as the Vedas mention 'Veda destroys agriculture and agriculture destroys Veda.' The Vedic period composed a series of pastoral societies from the Indus to the Bengal until a period of centralization, which centralized along the lines of Aryan kinship and lineage groups forming into kingdoms, republics and oligarchies. This was a society that had no framework for a united entity and state, as the Central Valley of China did to its ancient Xia predecessors did. Comparing the Magadhi and the Aryan states to China is like comparing ancient Mycenaen Greece or the Hittite confederate kingdoms to the Ancient Egyptian realm, the Kingdom of the Two Horizons.

China's geopolitical situation was also better once it reached mature phase than the Gangetic Plain or the Aryan range of civilization. The Chinese had really only one offensive threat, that being their north and northwest, with the northwest taking the greatest precedence. Dangers from the Southern nomads had been remedied in the Zhou period to a large degree, with the creation of the states of Chu, Wu and Shu. The true east, held Japan and Korea, which were non-issues to Chinese stability in this period.

Standing in the way of the Aryans is not only the difficulty in uniting the Aryans, but also a complex and dangerous geopolitical sphere. As I described earlier, Hindu geopolitics played as a series of movements and reactions. Powerful states and peoples in the west move into the subcontinent and battle for hegemony, the Aryan states unite and attempt to unite the subcontinent and against both sides, a southern state arises in the Deccan that opposes both hegemonies and exists as a wrench in hegemonic formations in the subcontinent. China experienced nothing to this level. Magadhi hegemonies when they formed, were always fighting simply to survive against offensive and powerful realms, even after they have united the Gangetic Plains. China would have no foes except to its northwest and northeast after uniting its Central Valley. The fact that the Chinese lacked a sufficient southern offensive foe in the south, is what possibly permitted the Han to more efficiently defeat the Xiongnu. Had they not had this geopolitical situation, it is likely that they would have been much more hard pressed to maintain their Central Valley's integrity.
 
\


I have to contest some of this.

----

As far as I know, China was not forced back together due to steppe pressures. The steppe was not a military issue until after the Bronze Age, when Chinese civilization was already developing a somewhat unified government model in the Central Valley. The Xia and Shang of the Middle and Late Bronze Age, had little to no difficulties with their steppe neighbors. In fact, they were improved by them through trade. Evidences that come to light, is that the Chinese Xia and Shang Dynasty were active partners in the trade network between Europe, China, Elam-Mesopotamia and the Indus. With semi-sedentary Indo-European peoples, the Oxus Civilization and the Elamites serving as intermediates, many things arrived in China. Bronze making from the west, the chariot/wheels, different sorts of crops and materials for wealth, jade, gold, amber and so forth. Only whence the Chinese culture was increasingly centred around unified monarchies and untied by the 9 Cauldrons of the Xia, did the steppe nomads to the north develop new sorts of bows and breed stronger horses for which to pose a threat to the people of the Central Valley, this occurred around 950-900 BCE in the northwest of the Chinese Central Valley; wherein western innovations possibly of the Scythian-Saka and others, developed more fearsome and aggressive modes of warfare than the old chariot warfare of the Middle Bronze Age. The Zhou countered these nomads very poorly, simply chasing them across the border and then returning. These steppe armies would remain a nuisance until the formation of a true steppe empire during the reign of Maodu of the Xiongnu in the Early Western Han.

During the formation of the Chinese civilization sphere, we could argue that China had a fairly ideal situation, all things considered. Its south was inhabited by jungles and mountains, less populated than their western counterparts in Mesopotamia and their north was a vector of trade and material improvement. The region that comprised the Aryan states, was not so.

For whateevr reason, the IVC collapsed around 1950 BCE and the agriculture of the land was dry and difficult. No thanks to the excessive drying and famines common from 2100-1900 BCE across the west at that time. The arrival of Indo-European peoples into the Indus, came upon a collapsed society and as the Vedas mention 'Veda destroys agriculture and agriculture destroys Veda.' The Vedic period composed a series of pastoral societies from the Indus to the Bengal until a period of centralization, which centralized along the lines of Aryan kinship and lineage groups forming into kingdoms, republics and oligarchies. This was a society that had no framework for a united entity and state, as the Central Valley of China did to its ancient Xia predecessors did. Comparing the Magadhi and the Aryan states to China is like comparing ancient Mycenaen Greece or the Hittite confederate kingdoms to the Ancient Egyptian realm, the Kingdom of the Two Horizons.

China's geopolitical situation was also better once it reached mature phase than the Gangetic Plain or the Aryan range of civilization. The Chinese had really only one offensive threat, that being their north and northwest, with the northwest taking the greatest precedence. Dangers from the Southern nomads had been remedied in the Zhou period to a large degree, with the creation of the states of Chu, Wu and Shu. The true east, held Japan and Korea, which were non-issues to Chinese stability in this period.

Standing in the way of the Aryans is not only the difficulty in uniting the Aryans, but also a complex and dangerous geopolitical sphere. As I described earlier, Hindu geopolitics played as a series of movements and reactions. Powerful states and peoples in the west move into the subcontinent and battle for hegemony, the Aryan states unite and attempt to unite the subcontinent and against both sides, a southern state arises in the Deccan that opposes both hegemonies and exists as a wrench in hegemonic formations in the subcontinent. China experienced nothing to this level. Magadhi hegemonies when they formed, were always fighting simply to survive against offensive and powerful realms, even after they have united the Gangetic Plains. China would have no foes except to its northwest and northeast after uniting its Central Valley. The fact that the Chinese lacked a sufficient southern offensive foe in the south, is what possibly permitted the Han to more efficiently defeat the Xiongnu. Had they not had this geopolitical situation, it is likely that they would have been much more hard pressed to maintain their Central Valley's integrity.
It's always good to hear your take on things, even when we are disagreeing.

Regarding the steppe, I wasn't using it to explain a mechanism by which a centralised authority was formed; rather, I was dispelling the notion that closeness to the steppe makes a centralised unit impossible. If that was the case, China would be worse off than India.

And if we look at the time period of the Maurya, we see that the Chinese situation isn't as secured. We are at the later stages of the Warring States period, which means Zhou society is still unifying into what became what's more classically Chinese. The southern peoples still aren't integrated and it wasn't that far back that foreign kingdoms from the south (or at least mixed kingdoms) were a contender in Zhou politics (and looked down upon). The integration of the south of China and that of the south of India under our hypothetical lasting Maurya would be at the same time frame.

And should they integrate the south was well as China did (I'm optimist regarding that just because the Maurya embassy legacy in southern India is still felt culturally today in the form of the history of Buddhism in the region hailing from those efforts) then India isn't in that bad of a position, having only to worry about the northwest (a frontier I'd say is more defensible than the Chinese one).

So I'd say you're correct in your stance: the south of India will define the possibility for such a polity to survive. And my honest guess (we can't do much better in this field of knowledge) is it is possible; the cultural ties bonding the two regions are undeniable, despite their differences, which other empires withstood. Even OTL Southern India and Sri Lanka was impacted by the Maurya cultural heritage, despite its relative ephemerity. Which I take as a good sign towards the possibilities of a longer-lasting Maurya.

(I apologise in advance for any errors, incongruences or simple ommissions in the post, I just had a test and I'm very tired, please do point out any such faults to me)
 
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
Oh I know that. I’m fairly sure after Ashoka thone the only two titles of the Mauryan emperor were Chakravartin and Devanampriya Priyadarshin, or at least were epigraphically recorded. My thing about Vikramaditya was a bit of a sidetrack.
 
Top