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
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.
Devampriya Priyadarshin would mean beloved the god

Vikramaditya was a legend but he came after mauryans

Only Chakravartin would make sense has it was seen as Universal Ideal Ruler according Indian and Buddhist traditions
 
Devampriya Priyadarshin would mean beloved the god

Vikramaditya was a legend but he came after mauryans

Only Chakravartin would make sense has it was seen as Universal Ideal Ruler according Indian and Buddhist traditions
I'm not saying Viktamaditya came around this time. That was just a side track for Prince di Corsica's post.

And why wouldn't Devanampriya Priyadarshin work? All Buddhist sources use this to refer to the Mauryan emperors long after Ashoka. Chakravartin, 'the one whose wheel never stops turning' was an important title but it was actually more linked to the concepts of Brahmanical sacrifices and performing yajnas, preferred by the the Shungas.

2. 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.
First off there's no such thing as an Aryan invasion, there was a multi-generational migration of Proto-Indo-Aryans speaking bands and groups into the subcontinent. And we don't know if the IVC people spoke Dravidian or were even a united or cohesive state, so no reason to suppose that the Dravidians pf the 4th century BCE would identify with some long forgotten ruins around the Indus let alone percieve a 'second invasion by the aryans'.

2. Maybe in like 1100 BCE when the Dravidians still a selection of Chalcolithic tribes and the Indo-Aryan kingdoms were still assimilating and establishing themselves in the north. But given that by 800 BCE the first Indo-Aryan kingdoms south of the Narmada were established, by 600 BCE the Brahmanas are making mention of Tamil country, by 500-300 BCE we see the Sangam period start and by the end of their literature there is intense northern influence starting to pervade the Tamilakam (ie. Mauryan period c. 300 BCE) I don't think there was any 'Aryan vs Dravidian' conflict happening. Especially given how major Mauryan feudatories like the Satavahanas and later Ikshvakus were likely Telugu chiefs that accepted Indo-Aryanization, yet a vast amount of their common populace continued to use local Dravidian dialects.

As for the second statement, the Newars practice a very late Vedic varna societal organization, and historical links imply that they are descended from around three centuries of migrations from Mithila north towards the terai. The Malla dynasty bolstered this by asking later Maithili settlers to come and join the community c. 12th century. As for the Kiratas you're right they've got more Tibetan socio-cultural systems in place- due to Tibetan migration in the 8th century CE. The indigenous Kiratas mentioned in Indic texts were probably less complexly organised chiefdoms like those found among the Kusundas as you mention.

3. Nope. The Romans held full and direct control on Gaul. Unlike the British, who established altogether 50 hill stations around the India, the Romans would often send Latin settlers to inhabit newly established colonias and municipiums across the empire, gradually changing the ethnic and cultural composition of the empire via assimilation. Arguably the only truly autonomous client kingdom in the empire was the Bosporan Kingdom which was geographically a hassle to project power to directly.

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.
Literates stratas of society were thoroughly established by the Mauryan age. Why else would Ashoka inscribe so many pillars if no one could read them? Panini mentions lipi (scripts) in the Astadhyayi and the Arthashastra has various references to reading and writing for various purposes.

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.
Gee I guess nearly every political actor since after Mohammad bin Tughluq must have been 'a radical, idiot and fantasy idiot with no place in the society'. Including Babar, Akbar, Sher Shah Suri, Hemu, Baji Rao I and II, Madhavrao etc.

Also what does all this mean? The Kurukshetra war hasn't been 'proven' there's just evidence to indicate that sometime around the 12th century BCE there was a conflict between two Iron age entities in the area. Everything else is still up in the air. There were no united Afghans during this period, only east Iranic tribes and the Indo-Aryan Iron Age kingdoms of Gandhara and maybe Kamboja. The proto-Turks aren't even supposed to have been a thing till 500 BCE and even then at the Altai mountains rather than anywhere near this area. Also what's a Kirat Empire? I don't think there's evidence of any such state in the historical record. Especially not becuase we don't know if Krishna Vasudeva was a historical personage at all and neither Yalambar, who was likelya folk hero/deity historicised, often associated with Akash Bhairava. And Nepal wasn't a united state either till Prithvi Narayan Shah established the modern state. And of course 'Lanka' wouldn't have been able to participate in a historical Kurkshetra conflict given that it was thousands of miels away and around that time there would have been largely the furerunners of the Vedda people practicing hunter-gatherer lifestyles.

And all three of the places you list have been influenced by Indic thought and culture via Buddhist thought and ethnic migration. The Sri Lankans and Nepalese speak Indo-Aryan language to this day, staying in contact with the greater subcontinent through the milleniums. The Licchavis were engaged in politics with the eastern Indo-Aryan sphere routinely, playing important roles in the formation of the Haryanka and Gupta empires while the Mallas routinely invited Maithil settlers to join the administration of their state.

How can you distinguish linguistics, religion, culture and tradition in antiquity? All these things are inhernetly linked, the myriad of states in what is now modern-day Nepal sharing these with whatever states existed on the Gangetic plains, forming a cultural continuum. And what do you mean 'old Nepalese' sounds like Chinese? What's Old Nepalese? The modern Nepali language in its various dialects is part of what is linguistically known as the Pahari continuum, an Indo-Aryan subgroup. It's attested as far back as 938 CE, before which we cannot know what languages they spoke but some texts indicate the Licchavis spoke a kind of Prakrit, most likely the predecessor for modern Nepalese.

You treat the modern states of Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Nepal and Afghanistan as some sort of everlasting concepts, all four states mentioned (except maybe Bhutan) existed as a part of a subcontinental continuum for a very long time before modern borders were established. The concept of insurgencies in antiquity are improbable. Assymetric warfare can happen but ethno-national resistance is just modern bias being projected back in time. The only thing that comes close is the Jewish resistance to Roman rule and that is an exception rather than a rule given the fascinating history of the formation of ethno-religious Judaism, linked with the history of the fertile crescent and a very different situation to that of the subcontinent. Also martyrs? Instability? Greco-Bactrians conquered and ruled the northwest for over a century and there was none of this. Why would an 'Afghan' state coalesce an anachronistic identity to resist Mauryan rule ITTL if they didn't do it in OTL when Chandragupta Maurya won those territoires against the Seleucids?

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.
What?! That's like saying an Avestan speaker would have an easier time understanding a Median or Old Persian speaker than someone who spoke Vedic Sanskrit! And mutual intelligibility among Chinese dialects still doesn't exist, let alone during the late Zhou dynasty when they were facing tribes of Hmong-Mienic speaker as well as thos of language isolates. Slavic was only mutually intelligible because our first written records are of Old Church Slavonic, dating to 900 CE. All linguistic evdience points to the small community of Slavic speakers spreading and bifurcating only after the 750s. Norse was in a similar case where dialectal change only intensified after the 11th century CE.

Also Manchu is not a Chinese language. It is one of the most unique of the Tungusic languages with features unique to itself, and given its imminent threat of extinction its certainly not a 'normal Chinese language' and I don't think those who hold it dear want it to be considered so.

Ethnic nationalism wasn't the same as political independence, especially not in antiquity. Even the Romans during the 5th century BCE cansidered their fellow Latins as equals but lesser, while the Etruscans to their north formed the basis of many of their institutions and were held in awe.


\


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.
John it's a good argument but there's a glaring misquote. The Vedas, a collection of hymns dedicated to deities in various forms, never describe themselves as the Vedas. Except in the Purusha Myth Hymn which was a later interpolation, inserted after the texts had been codified. Second of all they were codified among various recenscions by 900 BCE. That quote you use 'Veda destroys agriculture and agriculture destroys Veda' is from the Baudhayana Shrauta-Sutra, a 'Vedic' text but only because its composed in the latest variation of Vedic Sanskrit around 600 BCE. In reality the Second Urbanization was about to kick off and agriculture is being performed en-masse.

And the actual quote means something along the lings of "agriculture destroys the study of the Vedas [of a Brahman], the Vedas hinder the [Brahman's] practice of agriculture," arguing against the amount of Brahmans that had taken up agricultural practices around the Second Urbanization.

As for the rest of it, I'm getting tired of iterating the point but the same potential exists in India as it did in China. The north-west remains the only viable passage for invasion into the subcontinent and the southern kingdoms like Satavahanas and Vakatakas did not have the industrial or population base to project power into the Gangetic plain till 200 CE and the states of Tamilakam further south had even less of a reason to bother with the north, as the Cheras were busy profiting from the Arabian Sea Trade and would become even more so with the rise of Rome, the Pandyas were busy subjugating the Cholas, who were beginning to migrate onto Tamil Eelam (Northern Sri Lanka) all the while the Pallavas were on the rise, turning the ancient triarchy of kigns to a tetrarchy.

All these things were even more true during the Mauryan age. The old Mahajanapada system was spat on by the Magadha who conquered land rather than demand suzerainity over their neighbours, taken to the next step with the Nandas who already held a realm from Pataliputra to the Doab, holding land in the Deccan as well.



The Mauryas were actally step four in creating a dynastic cycle in India but Ashoka's inability to reconcile his increasingly powerful feudatories and the Buddhist temporal powers of the Sangha with the vital autocracatic administration and bureaucracy of the Mauryan state established by Chanakya, his father and grandfather resulted in the decline of this cycle.
 

Attachments

Last edited:
I'm not saying Viktamaditya came around this time. That was just a side track for Prince di Corsica's post.

And why wouldn't Devanampriya Priyadarshin work? All Buddhist sources use this to refer to the Mauryan emperors long after Ashoka. Chakravartin, 'the one whose wheel never stops turning' was an important title but it was actually more linked to the concepts of Brahmanical sacrifices and performing yajnas, preferred by the the Shungas.



First off there's no such thing as an Aryan invasion, there was a mutli-generational migrationg of Proto-Indo-Aryans speakers into the subcontinent. And we don't know if the IVC people spoke Dravidian or were even a united or cohesive state, so no reason to suppose that the Aryans fo the 4th century BCE would identify with some long forgotten ruins around the Indus let alone percieve a 'second invasion by the aryans'.

2. Maybe in like 1100 BCE when the Dravidians still a selection of Chalcolithic tribes and the Indo-Aryan kingdoms were still assimilating and establishing themselves in the north. But given that by 800 BCE the first Indo-Aryan kingdoms south of the Narmada were established, by 600 BCE the Brahmanas are making mention of Tamil country, by 500-300 BCE we see the Sangam period start and by the end of their literature there is intense northern influence starting to pervade the Tamilakam (ie. Mauryan period c. 300 BCE) I don't think there was any 'Aryan v Dravidian' conflict happening. Especially given how major Mauryan feudatories like the Satavahanas and later Ikshvakus were likely Telugu chiefs that accepted Indo-Aryanization, yet a vast amount of their common populace continued to use local Dravidian dialects.

As for the second statement, the Newars practice a very late Vedic varna societal organization, and historical links imply that they are descended from around three centuries of migrations from Mithila north towards the terai. The Malla dynasty bolstered this by asking later Maithili settlers to come and join the community c. 12th century. As for the Kiratas you're right they've got more Tibetan socio-cultural systems in place- due to Tibetan migration in the 8th century CE. The indigenous Kiratas mentioned in Indic texts were probably less complexly organised chiefdoms like those found among the Kusundas as you mention.

3. Nope. The Romans held full and direct control on Gaul. Unlike the British, who established altogether 50 hill stations around the India, the Romans would often send Latin settlers to inhabit newly established colonias and municipiums across the empire, gradually changing the ethnic and cultural composition of the empire via assimilation. Arguably the only truly autonomous client kingdom in the empire was the Bosporan Kingdom which was geographically a hassle to project power to directly.



Literates stratas of society were thoroughly established by the Mauryan age. Why else would Ashoka inscribe so many pillars if no one could read them? Panini mentions lipi (scripts) in the Astadhyayi and the Arthashastra has various references to reading and writing for various purposes.



Gee I guess nearly every political actor since after Mohammad bin Tughluq must have been 'a radical, idiot and fantasy idiot with no place in the society'. Including Babar, Akbar, Sher Shah Suri, Hemu, Baji Rao I and II, Madhavrao etc.

Also what does all this mean? The Kurukshetra war hasn't been 'proven' there's just evidence to indicate that sometime around the 12th century BCE there was a conflict between two Iron age entities in the area. Everything else is still up in the air. There were no united Afghans during this period, only east Iranic tribes and the Indo-Aryan Iron Age kingdoms of Gandhara and maybe Kamboja. The proto-Turks aren't even supposed to have been a thing till 500 BCE and even then at the Altai mountains rather than anywhere near this area. Also what's a Kirat Empire? I don't think there's evidence of any such state in the historical record. Especially not becuase we don't know if Krishna Vasudeva was a historical personage at all and neither Yalambar, who was likelya folk hero/deity historicised, often associated with Akash Bhairava. And Nepal wasn't a united state either till Prithvi Narayan Shah established the modern state. And of course 'Lanka' wouldn't have been able to participate in a historical Kurkshetra conflict given that it was thousands of miels away and around that time there would have been largely the furerunners of the Vedda people practicing hunter-gatherer lifestyles.

And all three of the places you list have been influenced by Indic thought and culture via Buddhist thought and ethnic migration. The Sri Lankans and Nepalese speak Indo-Aryan language to this day, staying in contact with the greater subcontinent through the milleniums. The Licchavis were engaged in politics with the eastern Indo-Aryan sphere routinely, playing important roles in the formation of the Haryanka and Gupta empires while the Mallas routinely invited Maithil settlers to join the administration of their state.

How can you distinguish linguistics, religion, culture and tradition in antiquity? All these things are inhernetly linked, the myriad of states in what is now modern-day Nepal sharing these with whatever states existed on the Gangetic plains, forming a cultural continuum. And what do you mean 'old Nepalese' sounds like Chinese? What's Old Nepalese? The modern Nepali language in its various dialects is part of what is linguistically known as the Pahari continuum, an Indo-Aryan subgroup. It's attested as far back as 938 CE, before which we cannot know what languages they spoke but some texts indicate the Licchavis spoke a kind of Prakrit, most likely the predecessor for modern Nepalese.

You treat the modern states of Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Nepal and Afghanistan as some sort of everlasting concepts, all four states mentioned (except maybe Bhutan) existed as a part of a subcontinental continuum for a very long time before modern borders were established. The concept of insurgencies in antiquity are improbable. Assymetric warfare can happen but ethno-national resistance is just modern bias being projected back in time. The only thing that comes close is the Jewish resistance to Roman rule and that is an exception rather than a rule given the fascinating history of the formation of ethno-religious Judaism, linked with the history of the fertile crescent and a very different situation to that of the subcontinent. Also martyrs? Instability? Greco-Bactrians conquered and ruled the northwest for over a century and there was none of this. Why would an 'Afghan' state coalesce an anachronistic identity to resist Mauryan rule ITTL if they didn't do it in OTL when Chandragupta Maurya won those territoires against the Seleucids?



What?! That's like saying an Avestan speaker would have an easier time understanding a Median or Old Persian speaker than someone who spoke Vedic Sanskrit! And mutual intelligibility among Chinese dialects still doesn't exist, let alone during the late Zhou dynasty when they were facing tribes of Hmong-Mienic speaker as well as thos of language isolates. Slavic was only mutually intelligible because our first written records are of Old Church Slavonic, dating to 900 CE. All linguistic evdience points to the small community of Slavic speakers spreading and bifurcating only after the 750s. Norse was in a similar case where dialectal change only intensified after the 11th century CE.

Also Manchu is not a Chinese language. It is one of the most unique of the Tungusic languages with features unique to itself, and given its imminent threat of extinction its certainly not a 'normal Chinese language' and I don't think those who hold it dear want it to be considered so.

Ethnic nationalism wasn't the same as political independence, especially not in antiquity. Even the Romans during the 5th century BCE cansidered their fellow Latins as equals but lesser, while the Etruscans to their north formed the basis of many of their institutions and were held in awe.




John it's a good argument but there's a glaring misquote. The Vedas, a collection of hymns dedicated to deities in various forms, never describe themselves as the Vedas. Except in the Purusha Myth Hymn which was a later interpolation, inserted after the texts had been codified. Second of all they were codified among various recenscions by 900 BCE. That quote you use 'Veda destroys agriculture and agriculture destroys Veda' is from the Baudhayana Shrauta-Sutra, a 'Vedic' text but only because its composed in the latest variation of Vedic Sanskrit around 600 BCE. In reality the Second Urbanization was about to kick off and agriculture is being performed en-masse.

And the actual quote means something along the lings of "agriculture destroys the study of the Vedas [of a Brahman], the Vedas hinder the [Brahman's] practice of agriculture," arguing against the amount of Brahmans that had taken up agricultural practices around the Second Urbanization.

As for the rest of it, I'm getting tired of iterating the point but the same potential exists in India as it did in China. The north-west remains the only viable passage for invasion into the subcontinent and the southern kingdoms like Satavahanas and Vakatakas did not have the industrial or population base to project power into the Gangetic plain till 200 CE and the states of Tamilakam further south had even less of a reason to bother with the north, as the Cheras were busy profiting from the Arabian Sea Trade and would become even more so with the rise of Rome, the Pandyas were busy subjugating the Cholas, who were beginning to migrate onto Tamil Eelam (Northern Sri Lanka) all the while the Pallavas were on the rise, turning the ancient triarchy of kigns to a tetrarchy.

All these things were even more true during the Mauryan age. The old Mahajanapada system was spat on by the Magadha who conquered land rather than demand suzerainity over their neighbours, taken to the next step with the Nandas who already held a realm from Pataliputra to the Doab, holding land in the Deccan as well.



The Mauryas were actally step four in creating a dynastic cycle in India but Ashoka's inability to reconcile his increasingly powerful feudatories and the Buddhist temporal powers of the Sangha with the vital autocracatic administration and bureaucracy of the Mauryan state established by Chanakya, his father and grandfather resulted in the decline of this cycle.
By old Nepali I meant old Nepali. It's like Old English, a more older complicated and rougher version of the language. It's still spoken in Mustang, Manang etc. It is more a total mix mash of tibetan and Sanskrit instead of the total reliance of Sanskrit for modern Nepali words.
Also you will find Newari language and cultures are similar to Sherpas and are more linked Tibet than India. The Kirats conquered much of the territory that is called Nepal today is why sometimes they call it an empire. Yalambars existence has been proved as well since the kirats did rule over Kathmandu Valley and it's adjoined lands for almost a millennia.
Also look at Roman Britain. All tribes in Britain were able to retain their lands under Roman Suzerain like the Bosohorus tribe/kingdom.
 
By old Nepali I meant old Nepali. It's like Old English, a more older complicated and rougher version of the language. It's still spoken in Mustang, Manang etc. It is more a total mix mash of tibetan and Sanskrit instead of the total reliance of Sanskrit for modern Nepali words.
Also you will find Newari language and cultures are similar to Sherpas and are more linked Tibet than India. The Kirats conquered much of the territory that is called Nepal today is why sometimes they call it an empire. Yalambars existence has been proved as well since the kirats did rule over Kathmandu Valley and it's adjoined lands for almost a millennia.
Also look at Roman Britain. All tribes in Britain were able to retain their lands under Roman Suzerain like the Bosohorus tribe/kingdom.
Old English isn’t a more complicated and ‘rougher’ version of the language. It’s just as refined as modern English, but a highly distinct language of purely West Germanic strain. What you’re describing is more of a dialect. And I’m not arguing that Sherpas and NewarI languages are Sino-Tibetan. I agree in fact. But they were already starting to be Indo-Europeanised by 800BCE.

Once again the Kirat peoples cannot have had complex enough societal structures to form anything resembling an ‘empire’ by 1100 BCE. And what sources do you have of this Yalambar’s extistence or of the existence of a united Kirat state ruling the Kathmandu Valley for a millenia. As far as I know proper state formation in Nepal started around 550 BCE like the Shakya republic or the Licchavi republic.

Roman Britain was completely made a province between the end of Claudius’ rule and the start of Vespasian’s. In fact most of the treaties ran out within Claudius’ rule and the autonomy of kings like Prasatagus and the Iceni was ended violently, with Britain administered as a direct province with 3 legions attached to it.
 

Considering they started in around 1000 BCE lasting until 200 BCE is an achievement.
By old Nepali it's more unrefined and it's language is basically 50 percent Sanskrit and 50 percent Tibetan. A genuine mix mash of languages. It's rougher, definitely more complicated to read and understand and it's vocabulary is around 60 percent alien in modern day Nepalese. You can consider it the precursor of modern Nepali as it was still spoken until around 1600 in majority but now it's only found in Mustang and Manang Valley.
 
@Shahrasayr

My view was not that the peoples in the Vedic era destroyed agriculture, but that the study of the Vedas, required time in which to study and agricultural activity did not permit such study. Though, I was not aware as to the age of said quotation.
------------------
My point is not to say that the Gangetic formed empire cannot form a Chinese-like empire, simply that the situation is different from that of the Central Valley of China, whose political unification began around 2100 BCE and had been relatively, a constant understanding and underpin, through long periods of stable governance. Namely, the Xia, 2100-1600 BCE, the Shang 1600-1064 BCE, the Zhou 1064-771 and 771-256 BCE. I maintain, the view, that the Magadhi unification of the Gangetic Plain, was the equivalent of the Hittite kingdom of the Late Bronze Age. The Hittite kingdom, formed by a relatively recently unified state, that came to assert a broad hegemony over a large region, that could have, if different circumstances, could have become a well sustained and durable political conglomeration similar to the Chinese Dynastic Cycle or certainly the Elamite or Assyrian states. China in comparison is Egypt, a state often unified to some degree in its core zone since the early bronze age in the case of Egypt and in the case of China, since the Middle Bronze Age.

This is one point.

The second, my view is that they did create such an empire, just that for varied circumstances, that were more difficult than China's situation, such a realm was unable to enforce total hegemony for prolonged periods of times over the Deccan and hence the subcontinent. It is important to note, the Maurya, the Shunga, the Indus Kingdom of Meander, the Saka states, the Kushan empire, the Gupta and so forth, all failed to assert a total hegemonic rule for a prolonged period of time across the south that fit the parameters of the poster's wishes. Is this all due to individual mistakes or must we to some degree admit that geopoltically, the situation in Hindustan is different to that of China's Central Valley, which through a long march in the Bronze and very very early Iron Age, made well to subdue much of its dangerous flanks.

Also, you mentioned the Satahavana lacked the ability to project northward power? Do you know the reason for the attempted Kushan expansionism into the realm, if there was nothing to fear? I am not an expert on the Satahavana or so forth, but my suspect, is that the Kushan would be unwilling to expand or direct their vassals towards ultimately harmless foes. The longevity of the Satahavana and its resistance and seeming victory over the Kushan and their Satraps, to me proves that this was a strong state, not one to be trifled with certainly.
 

Considering they started in around 1000 BCE lasting until 200 BCE is an achievement.
By old Nepali it's more unrefined and it's language is basically 50 percent Sanskrit and 50 percent Tibetan. A genuine mix mash of languages. It's rougher, definitely more complicated to read and understand and it's vocabulary is around 60 percent alien in modern day Nepalese. You can consider it the precursor of modern Nepali as it was still spoken until around 1600 in majority but now it's only found in Mustang and Manang Valley.
Aside from the Japanese monarchy, that is one of the only dynasties from history, that I could recognize as being nearly or more durable as the Traditional Assyrian royalty of the so-called Adaside line (1764-743 BCE). Definitely an achievement.
 
I'm not saying Viktamaditya came around this time. That was just a side track for Prince di Corsica's post.

And why wouldn't Devanampriya Priyadarshin work? All Buddhist sources use this to refer to the Mauryan emperors long after Ashoka. Chakravartin, 'the one whose wheel never stops turning' was an important title but it was actually more linked to the concepts of Brahmanical sacrifices and performing yajnas, preferred by the the Shungas.
Well I agree with this, its not like both cannot be used simultaneously
 
@Shahrasayr

My view was not that the peoples in the Vedic era destroyed agriculture, but that the study of the Vedas, required time in which to study and agricultural activity did not permit such study. Though, I was not aware as to the age of said quotation.
------------------
My point is not to say that the Gangetic formed empire cannot form a Chinese-like empire, simply that the situation is different from that of the Central Valley of China, whose political unification began around 2100 BCE and had been relatively, a constant understanding and underpin, through long periods of stable governance. Namely, the Xia, 2100-1600 BCE, the Shang 1600-1064 BCE, the Zhou 1064-771 and 771-256 BCE. I maintain, the view, that the Magadhi unification of the Gangetic Plain, was the equivalent of the Hittite kingdom of the Late Bronze Age. The Hittite kingdom, formed by a relatively recently unified state, that came to assert a broad hegemony over a large region, that could have, if different circumstances, could have become a well sustained and durable political conglomeration similar to the Chinese Dynastic Cycle or certainly the Elamite or Assyrian states. China in comparison is Egypt, a state often unified to some degree in its core zone since the early bronze age in the case of Egypt and in the case of China, since the Middle Bronze Age.

This is one point.

The second, my view is that they did create such an empire, just that for varied circumstances, that were more difficult than China's situation, such a realm was unable to enforce total hegemony for prolonged periods of times over the Deccan and hence the subcontinent. It is important to note, the Maurya, the Shunga, the Indus Kingdom of Meander, the Saka states, the Kushan empire, the Gupta and so forth, all failed to assert a total hegemonic rule for a prolonged period of time across the south that fit the parameters of the poster's wishes. Is this all due to individual mistakes or must we to some degree admit that geopoltically, the situation in Hindustan is different to that of China's Central Valley, which through a long march in the Bronze and very very early Iron Age, made well to subdue much of its dangerous flanks.

Also, you mentioned the Satahavana lacked the ability to project northward power? Do you know the reason for the attempted Kushan expansionism into the realm, if there was nothing to fear? I am not an expert on the Satahavana or so forth, but my suspect, is that the Kushan would be unwilling to expand or direct their vassals towards ultimately harmless foes. The longevity of the Satahavana and its resistance and seeming victory over the Kushan and their Satraps, to me proves that this was a strong state, not one to be trifled with certainly.
These can be considered valid points, do you think a Buddhist South Asia will be able to Unite the region ?
 

Considering they started in around 1000 BCE lasting until 200 BCE is an achievement.
By old Nepali it's more unrefined and it's language is basically 50 percent Sanskrit and 50 percent Tibetan. A genuine mix mash of languages. It's rougher, definitely more complicated to read and understand and it's vocabulary is around 60 percent alien in modern day Nepalese. You can consider it the precursor of modern Nepali as it was still spoken until around 1600 in majority but now it's only found in Mustang and Manang Valley.
Thanks for the information, though I would still classify it as a dialect if vocabulary is what has primarily changed rather than grammar and it’s still extant in areas.

I’m not sure as to the validity of the source. A lot of things seem anachronistic, Yalamber defeating a ‘Bhuvan Singh’ (which is an extremely modern Indo-Aryan name), 29 kings over 1225 years meaning an average reign of 42 years (almost unheard of in succession during antiquity) striking out to me straight off the bat. Given the website also uses the Puranas and the Mahābhārata as references for historical characters I don’t think this can be considered hard evidence. Now I’m not saying an indigenous Kirata state didn’t start forming around 700 BCE but literally all sources point to chiefs, rather than kings and elections in small village councils rather than hereditary kingship for states on the Himalayan foothills.

it’s likely it only reached a more matured form around 500 BCE alongside the rest of the subcontinent during the Second Urbanization.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the information, though I would still classify it as a dialect if vocabulary is what has primarily changed rather than grammar and it’s still extant in areas.

I’m not sure as to the validity of the source. A lot of things seem anachronistic, Yalamber defeating a ‘Bhuvan Singh’ (which is an extremely modern Indo-Aryan name), 29 kings over 1225 years meaning and average reign of 42 years (almost unheard of in succession). Given the website also uses the Puranas and the Mahābhārata as references for historical characters I don’t think this can be considered evidence. Now I’m not saying an indigenous Kirata kingdom didn’t start forming around 700 BCE but literally all sources point to chiefs, rather than kings and elections in small village councils rather than hereditary kingship for states on the Himalayan foothills.
I know that some are actually unbelievable and some are most probably a stretch, but in between there were a good amount of intergennum periods, which could have contributed to the long time periods. We don't know full details, and we don't know how much is we know is true, but what we do know is that they existed and ruled for a long time.
 
Thanks for the information, though I would still classify it as a dialect if vocabulary is what has primarily changed rather than grammar and it’s still extant in areas.

I’m not sure as to the validity of the source. A lot of things seem anachronistic, Yalamber defeating a ‘Bhuvan Singh’ (which is an extremely modern Indo-Aryan name), 29 kings over 1225 years meaning an average reign of 42 years (almost unheard of in succession during antiquity) striking out to me straight off the bat. Given the website also uses the Puranas and the Mahābhārata as references for historical characters I don’t think this can be considered hard evidence. Now I’m not saying an indigenous Kirata state didn’t start forming around 700 BCE but literally all sources point to chiefs, rather than kings and elections in small village councils rather than hereditary kingship for states on the Himalayan foothills.

it’s likely it only reached a more matured form around 500 BCE alongside the rest of the subcontinent during the Second Urbanization.
To put it into perspective. The Assyrian traditional dynasty of the Adasides, has some 61 kings in a period of 965 years. An average of 15-16 years per ruler. An 800 year period of each king ruling on average 42 years, would be an enormously stable and unlikely realm.
 
I know that some are actually unbelievable and some are most probably a stretch, but in between there were a good amount of intergennum periods, which could have contributed to the long time periods. We don't know full details, and we don't know how much is we know is true, but what we do know is that they existed and ruled for a long time.
I definitely agree that there is substance to the myths behind this but it is important to know what exactly is extraneous information and what can be realisticaly constructed as the truth.

Once again I'll state that if Yalamber was indeed historical he was simply an important chief who lead the Kirata migrations into the Kathmandu valley, and if the 'Kirata kingdom' did last this long it was likely a confederation of villages and tribes in the Kathmandu valley that elected local chiefs. As the Second Urbanization occured in the Gangetic plain and the influence of it reached Nepal they would likely have kept this and formed a rudimentary oligarchic republic, just like the Shakyas, (a small state of rice-cultivators and agriculturalists) are historically attested to have done. I find it very unlikely that a stable concept of hereditary kingship would get established out of the blue, especially given how the janapada with the best access to Nepal, Vrjji, had a republican constitution.

To put it into perspective. The Assyrian traditional dynasty of the Adasides, has some 61 kings in a period of 965 years. An average of 15-16 years per ruler. An 800 year period of each king ruling on average 42 years, would be an enormously stable and unlikely realm.
Couldn't put it better. Especially given the oligarchic nature of many states in the eastern subcontinent at this time I'd expect an average of about 7-8 between leaders odf this Kirata confederacy.
 
Last edited:
Can someone here first think, what about economy and cost of recruiting Army in India.
1- for major part of history Indian farmer and peasent have more right than any where in the place where almost 20-50 percent were slave .
2- this slave were easy recruitment to gain freedom, rich and Land , but in India a man can shift to any river basin in thousand river and becomwe land owner.
India always remain net exporter he can become merchant who had more freedom than there counterparts in the world .
So question come why will he fight a war there it come warrior class whose main work was to fight keep security in land , this warrior class was in lower number and his main work war which highly dangerous work so he wanted high pay thats where Indian empire found themselves incompetent and in low purse to keep happy there warrior class . Example a noble with 100 horse and 400 infantry in Mughal empire gain 1-2 lakh silver coin taxeble land .

So we have to search possibility for lower cost army, I thought about orphan in India or poor son adopted by government and groom as warriors some thing like Janissaries only loyal to emperor participate in army ffom18-40 after that work as administration in empire . The leader of this group also work as militia leader for security in region (as seen in China where administrator work as bureaucrat -commander of state.)
Second problem for Indian empire was too much money in the hand of local noble gain by tax on merchandise which make easily for them to gain concession from empire and create there sovereignty , so peripheral noble can't be commander of army .
 
Last edited:
So we have to search possibility for lower cost army, I thought about orphan in India or poor son adopted by government and groom as warriors some thing like Janissaries only loyal to emperor participate in army ffom18-40 after that work as administration in empire . The leader of this group also work as militia leader for security in region (as seen in China where administrator work as bureaucrat -commander of state.)
Except the Jannisarries became incredibly corrupt after a few decades. How are you going to rein them in? It took the Turks 300 years to successfully throw them out of power and corruption. You need to make the military structure incredibly detailed to stop anything of the same sort from happening.
 
Jannisarries became incredibly corrupt after a few decades. How are you going to rein them in? It took the Turks 300 years to successfully throw them out of power and corruption.
janissaries become corrupt due absence of new recruit (mainly ottoman took tribute of children from there neighbors Christian kingdom to from janissaries crop) by choosing orphan of empire you never found himself lack of new blood , also lower number of this group in comparison to local militia will keep them in check ( in Ottoman Janissaries become only fighting force which force the hand of Sultan where in India you have a extra warrior class to form army to impose will on this new group).
 
in Ottoman Janissaries become only fighting force
Who gave you that faulty information? Jannisaries were by no means the only fighting force of the Ottomans. Yaya, Sipahi, Akinci, Silahdars, Topcu, Cebeci, Humbaracci were all different types of Ottoman troops that far dwarfed the Jannisarries numbers like the solution you mentioned; which makes it again largely obsolete.
 
Except the Jannisarries became incredibly corrupt after a few decades. How are you going to rein them in? It took the Turks 300 years to successfully throw them out of power and corruption. You need to make the military structure incredibly detailed to stop anything of the same sort from happening.
In India the problem was that defence was at the hands of Kshatriya, which led to a much smaller talent pool of soldiers to be recruited from, and the lower castes did not really care who was in power, as their social mobility was practically zero no matter who was in power
 
Who gave you that faulty information? Jannisaries were by no means the only fighting force of the Ottomans. Yaya, Sipahi, Akinci, Silahdars, Topcu, Cebeci, Humbaracci were all different types of Ottoman troops that far dwarfed the Jannisarries numbers like the solution you mentioned; which makes it again largely obsolete.
Every given term is administratative office of janissaries. A single Janissaries called Sipahi,
Akinchi were ended in the startof 17 century by Michael the brave and which start by his grand father dracul ( Dracula ).
Silhadar - master of fort in the start of 17 century Janissaries started to fill the office.
Yaya- Christian militia disband in 1550
Topcu -janissaries artillery division
Cebeci- officers of Janissaries
Humbaracci- engineer crop.
Where is a large force which will fight janissaries.
 
Every given term is administratative office of janissaries. A single Janissaries called Sipahi,
Akinchi were ended in the startof 17 century by Michael the brave and which start by his grand father dracul ( Dracula ).
Silhadar - master of fort in the start of 17 century Janissaries started to fill the office.
Yaya- Christian militia disband in 1550
Topcu -janissaries artillery division
Cebeci- officers of Janissaries
Humbaracci- engineer crop.
Where is a large force which will fight janissaries.
the abolishment of the Yaya happened because of the extent of the Jannisarries influence; it was at this time that the Sultans became wary of the Jannisaries infleunce.
Silahdars, Cebeci, and Topcu were not jannisarries. janissaries were infantry units trained extensively and obstensively for the purpose of infantry fighting. Sipahis were Turkish freemen in the army and made up a third of the Cavalry force and a fifth of the infantry force.
Topcu were their own artillery regiments which were responsible for the procurement, deployment and utilization of artillery. Some prominent Topcu became Jannisary leaders, but other than that, they are not the same.
Cebeci were officers for the entire army and also the navy. Jannisaries made up less than a fifth of the Cebeci.
You also forget the Derbendjis, who had no association to the Jannisaries and were the elite paramilitary forces of the empire numbering twice of the Jannisaries.
Around 1/3 Silahdars were Jannisaries. Your point being?
Of course the Ottoman marines were also not Jannisarries. The Jannisaries are still outnumbered by a huge margin.
 
Top