Buddha does not become Buddha

Alexander's Conquests, although swift, relied on a solid foundation in the League of Corinth. It depends on what Siddhartha can do. Unifying India seems like a difficult task unto itself— Siddhartha may have to play the Philip to Rahula's Alexander.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Corinth

However, the Shakya can easily extend their Ganasangha to a Confederation. Defeating enemy rulers, then admitting them into a government of equals with Siddhartha himself as a "Great Elect" (stole the title from his own ancestor, Maha-Sammata, who was also elected to rule the entire world, according to Buddhist cosmology).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maha_Sammata

It would be incredibly funny if "Sangha" in TTL meant "United States" rather than "Monastic Order". In OTL, the Buddha modeled the Monastic Orders after the Senates of the Indian Republics, thus why they bore the same name.


Given India's syncretic and multicultural nature, I doubt anything as simple as Sun worship would stick around for long without innumerable layers of new religions slapped on top. That time period was rife with complex new schools.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_philosophy

ADDENDUM: So what if the Shakya Empire became something like an Elected Monarchy? With only the descendants of Siddartha being eligible for "Great Elect"ship, and all of the defeated independent rulers are now "Elector-Princes" who have the right to vote for their overlord, but only from the pool of the appropriate bloodline? Seems considerably more stable than what happened with the Diadochi after Alexander's death.
Would that last be possible? One thing to be a republic where your family holds most of the power, to being emperor, then allowing defeated princes to vote for who succeeds you.
 
Would that last be possible? One thing to be a republic where your family holds most of the power, to being emperor, then allowing defeated princes to vote for who succeeds you.

They are a Republic. But if we look at Islam and their attempt at an elected monarchy (sans bloodline restriction), it didn't work out after only a couple generations. Another trick is non-hereditary monarchy. That's also risky though. It removes the restriction on bloodline, maintains the stability of a monarchy, and allows the reigning monarch to choose their successors. But accidents can happen. All it takes it a premature death of a King, and the successorship is in chaos (the early Chinese did it very well for awhile, but it didn't last either).

Indeed, there is no good solution. Anyone wise would know to be flexible as things change down the road. Eventually, in a truly big enough Empire, we might have several independent empires, all descended from Shakya (even if they are not ruled under that name, I imagine ambitious Princes can abscond with a daughter of the line and legitimize their rule that way) and only nominally an united Empire, something like the Mongol Khanates under the overlordship of the Yuan Dynasty.

The Kosala Problem
A thought, the first major obstacle to Siddartha's rule would be the Kingdom of Kosala. Not only are the Shakya a vassal state of Kosala; their Prince hates the Shakya. Siddartha has to somehow defeat the Kosala.

Perhaps he should marry his own sister (if he has any) or prominent female cousin to the Prince as wife. But that sounds like something only doable after he has defeated the Kosala.
 
Indeed Rahula should he exist here and not be replaced by someone else would need to either so,Isiah his fathers gains or make more of them.

I think he'd exist, he was born before Siddharta left his palace to become a hermit. Unless you choose a PoD before Rahula's birth. Different upbringing? IOTL his father decided to keep all ugly things away from the prince, and as a result, it was a shock when he saw an ill man, a beggar and a corpse for the first time (after he had married and a son). Maybe if Siddharta hadn't been spoiled that much, that'd be the right preparation for a ruler?
 
I think he'd exist, he was born before Siddharta left his palace to become a hermit. Unless you choose a PoD before Rahula's birth. Different upbringing? IOTL his father decided to keep all ugly things away from the prince, and as a result, it was a shock when he saw an ill man, a beggar and a corpse for the first time (after he had married and a son). Maybe if Siddharta hadn't been spoiled that much, that'd be the right preparation for a ruler?
I agree, changing his upbringing to try and have him meet the conqueror prophecy makes sense
 
They are a Republic. But if we look at Islam and their attempt at an elected monarchy (sans bloodline restriction), it didn't work out after only a couple generations. Another trick is non-hereditary monarchy. That's also risky though. It removes the restriction on bloodline, maintains the stability of a monarchy, and allows the reigning monarch to choose their successors. But accidents can happen. All it takes it a premature death of a King, and the successorship is in chaos (the early Chinese did it very well for awhile, but it didn't last either).

Indeed, there is no good solution. Anyone wise would know to be flexible as things change down the road. Eventually, in a truly big enough Empire, we might have several independent empires, all descended from Shakya (even if they are not ruled under that name, I imagine ambitious Princes can abscond with a daughter of the line and legitimize their rule that way) and only nominally an united Empire, something like the Mongol Khanates under the overlordship of the Yuan Dynasty.

The Kosala Problem
A thought, the first major obstacle to Siddartha's rule would be the Kingdom of Kosala. Not only are the Shakya a vassal state of Kosala; their Prince hates the Shakya. Siddartha has to somehow defeat the Kosala.

Perhaps he should marry his own sister (if he has any) or prominent female cousin to the Prince as wife. But that sounds like something only doable after he has defeated the Kosala.
Tempt Kosala into invading, break them on the hills, then push in and take their kingdom
 
I agree, changing his upbringing to try and have him meet the conqueror prophecy makes sense

Expose him to the existential problems of life early on, then have teachers who advocate for socio-political solutions to them. Instead of Enlightenment as the solution to the Universe's problems, Siddartha must come to believe that enforcing a doctrine/economy/system of egalitarian rule is the way to lessen suffering and eventually find a solution to death.
 
Expose him to the existential problems of life early on, then have teachers who advocate for socio-political solutions to them. Instead of Enlightenment as the solution to the Universe's problems, Siddartha must come to believe that enforcing a doctrine/economy/system of egalitarian rule is the way to lessen suffering and eventually find a solution to death.
Aye, though if he’s to become emperor he’s going to need to either fill the council with his own men take only the best with authority rested in final decision making being his
 
Aye, though if he’s to become emperor he’s going to need to either fill the council with his own men take only the best with authority rested in final decision making being his

He's also going to piss all over the Caste System. Buddhism was ferociously anti-caste. Not hard to do, and people from all walks of life converted and joined the Order, princes to beggers. He has charisma up the wazoo suffice to say. In his presence, I think its easy for people to believe that all men are equal because Siddartha, the most remarkable man they know, believes so.

But that mean the peasants, the slaves, etc will be flocking to his banners. He will be seen as a liberator within India, I think.

And getting people who were historically famous Buddhist Monks as administrators and bureaucrats. He would have a corpus of Brahmins (but not necessarily so, given the non-relevance of caste) who will be very capable.
 
He's also going to piss all over the Caste System. Buddhism was ferociously anti-caste. Not hard to do, and people from all walks of life converted and joined the Order, princes to beggers. He has charisma up the wazoo suffice to say. In his presence, I think its easy for people to believe that all men are equal because Siddartha, the most remarkable man they know, believes so.

But that mean the peasants, the slaves, etc will be flocking to his banners. He will be seen as a liberator within India, I think.

And getting people who were historically famous Buddhist Monks as administrators and bureaucrats. He would have a corpus of Brahmins (but not necessarily so, given the non-relevance of caste) who will be very capable.

This is becoming very fascinating to say the least. I do figure that the destruction of the caste system will benefit India in the long run (for some reason, I can this allowing them to better integrate Genghis Khan's military style into them giving them an edge).

In regards to religion though, it will be interesting to see the rammifications of this new unified India interacting with Zoroastrianism and Christianity when they arrive over (I am not so sure about Islam though still likely.)
 
Good idea. Although I think uniting steppe warriors from different people is somewhat different from uniting people from different castes.
 
For some reason, this thread reminds me of how close Jesus came to doing the same. Or Confucius.

Jesus: the Devil was all like, "just be King of the World" whilst he was in the desert being tempted by him. Also, Judas was a member of the Jewish Zealot offshoot, the Sicarii. It has been suggested that Judas betrayal of Jesus was an attempt to force Jesus onto a path of war against Rome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealots_(Judea)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicarii

Confucius has been many times compared to the Sage Kings (his role models), and many times the implication has been made that if Confucius had been born a King or a Duke, he would have re-unified China and ruled as Sage Kings of Old, bringing paradise to Earth, etc, etc. Incidentally, this kind of fear of Confucius making himself King was why so many rulers turned him away (or had their advisors tell them to turn him away). Confucius himself had royal blood ties all the way back to the Shang Dynast (the same Dynasty whose claim to the Mandate of Heaven was predicated on their National God, Shang Di being the supreme being and also the ancestor of the Shang Kings).

It goes without saying that Jesus was descended from the line of David and Solomon (House of Miriam, sister of Moses). And Muhammad was descended from Abraham, as they all were.

The dichotomy between Kingship and Prophethood seems like a thin line. At least given my syncretic religious beliefs, it's a compelling study.
 
Jesus: the Devil was all like, "just be King of the World" whilst he was in the desert being tempted by him. Also, Judas was a member of the Jewish Zealot offshoot, the Sicarii. It has been suggested that Judas betrayal of Jesus was an attempt to force Jesus onto a path of war against Rome.

Don't you mean: The Christian sect?

Confucius has been many times compared to the Sage Kings (his role models), and many times the implication has been made that if Confucius had been born a King or a Duke, he would have re-unified China and ruled as Sage Kings of Old, bringing paradise to Earth, etc, etc. Incidentally, this kind of fear of Confucius making himself King was why so many rulers turned him away (or had their advisors tell them to turn him away). Confucius himself had royal blood ties all the way back to the Shang Dynast (the same Dynasty whose claim to the Mandate of Heaven was predicated on their National God, Shang Di being the supreme being and also the ancestor of the Shang Kings).

But AFAIK Confucius also said that in a big state a good ruler can do more good, but a bad ruler can do more bad, so small states are better.

And Muhammad was descended from Abraham, as they all were.

Mohammed really was everything: Religious, political and military leader.
 
Don't you mean: The Christian sect?



But AFAIK Confucius also said that in a big state a good ruler can do more good, but a bad ruler can do more bad, so small states are better.



Mohammed really was everything: Religious, political and military leader.
Mohammed also went a bit mad and might have been a bit of a peado depending on who you ask aha
 
Mohammed also went a bit mad and might have been a bit of a peado depending on who you ask aha

Fortunately, I ask the right people.

He couldn't have been more mad than any of the other holy men, and Aisha is a respected scholar and major political power in her own right. Whatever the nature of their marriage, it's certainly no worse than you or mine own medieval ancestors have done, or indeed anyone at that time period has done. I am not going to bother judging historical figures who have done so much good on the basis of contemporary politics. We've blamed the Irish, the Italians, all Asians, the Jews, the Germans, the Japanese, the Russians, [insert every ideology, from communism, to hippies, to draft dodgers] and now we blame the Muslims apparently. You watch, half a century from now, nobody will ever remember Muslims had a PR problem.

The Repeating Themes of Western Styled Racism
In the case of Asians, Jews and Muslims, you might as well recycle the propaganda- the racists literally used the same tricks and fearmongering strategy. It comes down to: 1) Conspiracy to conquer the world 2) religious and magical threat to white women 3) politically onerous.

Asians— Yellow Peril (immigration)/Japan defeating Russia (scary). Oriental sorcery seduces white women (common fear). Not European (inferior).

Jews— Protocols of the Elders of Zion (American Businessman Ford published 500,000 copies for free distribution). Nazi newspapers published fake news about Jewish crimes, and sexual crimes (it has its own section). Jewish people were commonly perceived as being tied to Bolsheviks and Socialism (and responsible for causing Germany to lose WW1 according to German Nationalists).

Muslims— Terrorists/Jihads/Caliphates/Freedom Fighters (even the ones on our side apparently, the media surely can't tell the difference). Sharia Law and Anti-women (interpreted through rightwing lenses). Supposedly alien values.

Historical European/Muslim Tension
There is also the fact that anti-Muslim propaganda was rife from the beginning. The Roman Christians called them "Ishmaelites" and had them pegged as some kind of Nestorian Christian heretics. The perception went downhill from there.
 
Fortunately, I ask the right people.

He couldn't have been more mad than any of the other holy men, and Aisha is a respected scholar and major political power in her own right. Whatever the nature of their marriage, it's certainly no worse than you or mine own medieval ancestors have done, or indeed anyone at that time period has done. I am not going to bother judging historical figures who have done so much good on the basis of contemporary politics. We've blamed the Irish, the Italians, all Asians, the Jews, the Germans, the Japanese, the Russians, [insert every ideology, from communism, to hippies, to draft dodgers] and now we blame the Muslims apparently. You watch, half a century from now, nobody will ever remember Muslims had a PR problem.

The Repeating Themes of Western Styled Racism
In the case of Asians, Jews and Muslims, you might as well recycle the propaganda- the racists literally used the same tricks and fearmongering strategy. It comes down to: 1) Conspiracy to conquer the world 2) religious and magical threat to white women 3) politically onerous.

Asians— Yellow Peril (immigration)/Japan defeating Russia (scary). Oriental sorcery seduces white women (common fear). Not European (inferior).

Jews— Protocols of the Elders of Zion (American Businessman Ford published 500,000 copies for free distribution). Nazi newspapers published fake news about Jewish crimes (it has its own section). Jewish people were commonly perceived as being tied to Bolsheviks and Socialism (and responsible for causing Germany to lose WW1 according to German Nationalists).

Muslims— Terrorists/Jihads/Caliphates/Freedom Fighters (even the ones on our side apparently, the media surely can't tell the difference). Sharia Law and Anti-women (interpreted through rightwing lenses). Supposedly alien values.

Historical European/Muslim Tension
There is also the fact that anti-Muslim propaganda was rife from the beginning. The Roman Christians called them "Ishamelites" and had them pegged as some kind of Nestorian Christian heretics. The perception went downhill from there.

Indeed this is true, still makes for the good joke for all religions now and then.
 
Fortunately, I ask the right people.

He couldn't have been more mad than any of the other holy men, and Aisha is a respected scholar and major political power in her own right. Whatever the nature of their marriage, it's certainly no worse than you or mine own medieval ancestors have done, or indeed anyone at that time period has done. I am not going to bother judging historical figures who have done so much good on the basis of contemporary politics. We've blamed the Irish, the Italians, all Asians, the Jews, the Germans, the Japanese, the Russians, [insert every ideology, from communism, to hippies, to draft dodgers] and now we blame the Muslims apparently. You watch, half a century from now, nobody will ever remember Muslims had a PR problem.

The Repeating Themes of Western Styled Racism
In the case of Asians, Jews and Muslims, you might as well recycle the propaganda- the racists literally used the same tricks and fearmongering strategy. It comes down to: 1) Conspiracy to conquer the world 2) religious and magical threat to white women 3) politically onerous.

Asians— Yellow Peril (immigration)/Japan defeating Russia (scary). Oriental sorcery seduces white women (common fear). Not European (inferior).

Jews— Protocols of the Elders of Zion (American Businessman Ford published 500,000 copies for free distribution). Nazi newspapers published fake news about Jewish crimes, and sexual crimes (it has its own section). Jewish people were commonly perceived as being tied to Bolsheviks and Socialism (and responsible for causing Germany to lose WW1 according to German Nationalists).

Muslims— Terrorists/Jihads/Caliphates/Freedom Fighters (even the ones on our side apparently, the media surely can't tell the difference). Sharia Law and Anti-women (interpreted through rightwing lenses). Supposedly alien values.

Historical European/Muslim Tension
There is also the fact that anti-Muslim propaganda was rife from the beginning. The Roman Christians called them "Ishamelites" and had them pegged as some kind of Nestorian Christian heretics. The perception went downhill from there.

And of course there's Eastern style racism to go with it. Everyone's racist at some point or another. Though Islam isn't a race it's a religion/.
 
And of course there's Eastern style racism to go with it. Everyone's racist at some point or another. Though Islam isn't a race it's a religion/.

True enough, although like what happened with the Jewish people, very quickly a racial identity emerges over time. Or a cultural identity I should say. Integration is hard when they're so defined by religion. Even the Jews who clearly considers themselves Spanish or German can find themselves expelled for one reason or another, making it difficult to establish firm roots. It goes both ways too, as long as people choose to see them as a race, they will be treated as one as well as whether they considers themselves to be one.

In Buddhism, Cultural Buddhism is one of the signs of the Ending Dharma Age. A Buddhist culture, but there's nothing Buddhist about it. Confucianism also is the de facto culture of China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan— even if nobody ever recognize themselves as Confucians or even religious.

But the idea is that it is possible for a religion to just become a culture.
 
True enough, although like what happened with the Jewish people, very quickly a racial identity emerges over time. Or a cultural identity I should say. Integration is hard when they're so defined by religion. Even the Jews who clearly considers themselves Spanish or German can find themselves expelled for one reason or another, making it difficult to establish firm roots. It goes both ways too, as long as people choose to see them as a race, they will be treated as one as well as whether they considers themselves to be one.

In Buddhism, Cultural Buddhism is one of the signs of the Ending Dharma Age. A Buddhist culture, but there's nothing Buddhist about it. Confucianism also is the de facto culture of China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan— even if nobody ever recognize themselves as Confucians or even religious.

But the idea is that it is possible for a religion to just become a culture.

It's possible yes, though I'd argue that in regards to the Jewish people in the modern age, they're hardly going to face expulsion now are they. And I sincerely doubt they're going to be causing unrest or trouble, not that they did before.
 
Top