How long can the Mauryas last, realistically?

I have recently stepped out of my historical comfort zone and begun exploring areas outside of my usual purview. One of my recent interests has been early India. I am especially fascinated by the Maurya due to their impact, size, and sheer longevity.

It's my understanding that the empire's fall was largely due to a series of weak rulers after Ashoka, so let us presuppose that this is avoided or at least mitigated somewhat. How long can the empire last with its Ashokan borders? What factors would still threaten its survival?
 
I have recently stepped out of my historical comfort zone and begun exploring areas outside of my usual purview. One of my recent interests has been early India. I am especially fascinated by the Maurya due to their impact, size, and sheer longevity.

It's my understanding that the empire's fall was largely due to a series of weak rulers after Ashoka, so let us presuppose that this is avoided or at least mitigated somewhat. How long can the empire last with its Ashokan borders? What factors would still threaten its survival?
If Ashoka son are not weak ruler, they divided the whole kingdom in two-part east and west, after 35 years in the next generation Greek Bactrian conquered west part and start raiding in east part tertiary which does not have any natural border. If they do not divide the kingdom in two part then around 300 AC Kingdom going to stable.
 
A Mauryan empire the size of Ashoka’s can last only as long as its good rulers last. Simple. The empire didn’t fall because Dasharatha was a super ineffective ruler. The empire fell because of Ashoka’s lack of drive to implement any sort of bureaucratic reforms.

Chankya had passed away in the final years of Bindusara’s reign and thus when Ashoka came to the throne he didn’t have the same sort of ‘Machiavellian’ minister behind him to check and make sure that which slipped his purview would be quickly patched up. And then there’s the problem of the autocracy. The Mauryan empire was the single most autocratic realm on the planet at the time and while it was fairly liberal on the rights of ownership and lifestyle practices any dissidents against the state were quickly crushed by an elaborate secret service that reported directly the king. Since there was always the threat of revolt the three major governorates of were always handed to princes of the blood due to the first three generations of the dynasty being fairly close.

However with the rise of the Sangha as an institution within the empire they desired that many tracts of land be ceded to their Viharas and relax the espionage services. Following this many heirs to the throne such as Mahendra joined the monastic orders and was thus out of the succession, Tivala died young, Kunala was cut down by court politics and extended relatives like the semi-historical Jalauka represented members of the extended royal house who were looking to carve out their own realm.

A proper decentralisation and the institution of a greater bureaucracy is what can save the Mauryan empire. Without that it is destined to fall apart. But surprisingly even by the time of Śaliśuka the empire can be saved and the lost territories reincorporated.
 
Last edited:
A Mauryan empire the size of Ashoka’s can last only as long as its good rulers last. Simple. The empire didn’t fall because Dasharatha was a super ineffective ruler. The empire fell because of Ashoka’s lack of drive to implement any sort of bureaucratic reforms.

Chankya had passed away in the final years of Bindusara’s reign and thus when Ashoka came to the throne he didn’t have the same sort of ‘Machiavellian’ minister behind him to check and make sure that which slipped his purview would be quickly patched up. And then there’s the problem of the autocracy. The Mauryan empire was the single most autocratic realm on the planet at the time and while it was fairly liberal on the rights of ownership and lifestyle practices any dissidents against the state were quickly crushed by an elaborate secret service that reported directly the king. Since there was always the threat of revolt the three major governorates of were always handed to princes of the blood due to the first three generations of the dynasty being fairly close.

However with the rise of the Sangha as an institution within the empire they desired that many tracts of land be ceded to their Viharas and relax the espionage services. Following this many heirs to the throne such as Mahendra joined the monastic orders and was thus out of the succession, Tivala died young, Kunala was cut down by court politics and extended relatives like the semi-historical Jalauka represented members of the extended royal house who were looking to carve out their own realm.

A proper decentralisation and the institution of a greater bureaucracy is what can save the Mauryan empire. But surprisingly even by the time of Śaliśuka the empire can be saved and the lost territories reincorporated.
Ashoka had Radhagupt the prodigy of Chanakya .
 
Ashoka had Radhagupt the prodigy of Chanakya .

We aren’t sure if the Radhagupta in the Ashokavadhana is a real person or an amalgamation of various ministers that supported Ashoka’s rise to the imperial throne. Also it isn’t mentioned that he is a prodigy of Chanakya, Radhagupta is a minister from Videha. And even if we say he is real, he portrayed as quite conformist and really manipulative since the very same Buddhist text mentions him as allowing Ashoka to partake in all material pleasures instead of guiding him towards his kingly duties and the dhamma.
 
We know vanishingly little about post Ashoka mauryan history, with everything not on the pillars being from Greek accounts and incredibly contradictory Puranas- the line of succession after Ashoka can be reconstructed to a degree of satisfaction but there’s no real guarantee that what we have is true.
We aren’t sure if the Radhagupta in the Ashokavadhana is a real person or an amalgamation of various ministers that supported Ashoka’s rise to the imperial throne. Also it isn’t mentioned that he is a prodigy of Chanakya, Radhagupta is a minister from Videha. And even if we say he is real, he portrayed as quite conformist and really manipulative since the very same Buddhist text mentions him as allowing Ashoka to partake in all material pleasures instead of guiding him towards his kingly duties and the dhamma.

As you rightly point out, key figures in one interpretation are amalgamations of other figures in others, and the sources we have, like the Buddhist ones you mention wildly misconstrue the story to imply that Ashoka was a hedonistic sadistic monster and his conversion to Buddhism was what saved him and made him a good person- well it could be true but it would be incredibly convenient for the sangha and some parts of their story like that he had little knowledge of Buddhism prior to just before conversion make very little sense considering that he visited areas near important Buddhist sites in his youth, according to their own account.
 
We know vanishingly little about post Ashoka mauryan history, with everything not on the pillars being from Greek accounts and incredibly contradictory Puranas- the line of succession after Ashoka can be reconstructed to a degree of satisfaction but there’s no real guarantee that what we have is true.


As you rightly point out, key figures in one interpretation are amalgamations of other figures in others, and the sources we have, like the Buddhist ones you mention wildly misconstrue the story to imply that Ashoka was a hedonistic sadistic monster and his conversion to Buddhism was what saved him and made him a good person- well it could be true but it would be incredibly convenient for the sangha and some parts of their story like that he had little knowledge of Buddhism prior to just before conversion make very little sense considering that he visited areas near important Buddhist sites in his youth, according to their own account.

Funnily enough the Sangha demonised their next great imperial patron in the same carbon copy way; Kanishka the Great was also depicted as a hedonistic and torturous savage with harems and torture dens. According to Aśvaghosa his wanton Mlechcha behaviour only stopped when he embraced the Eight-fold Path.

But once again it all comes down to the destruction and deterioration of historiography as a science in the sub-continent. With all the pre-classical universities like Taxila and Nalanda being destroyed or falling into disrepair there is very little chance we will ever know, even if there was a strong bureaucratic corpus keeping records.
 
But once again it all comes down to the destruction and deterioration of historiography as a science in the sub-continent.
One other factor is that even if there were cultures that noted everything down in records as meticulous as the Mughal ones, without paper their medium of choice was banana leaves which aren’t exactly the most long lasting substances.
 
One other factor is that even if there were cultures that noted everything down in records as meticulous as the Mughal ones, without paper their medium of choice was banana leaves which aren’t exactly the most long lasting substances.
Excuse me good sir, but banana leaves allowed the Tamil people to develop a new writing system and sustain the longest and most documented literary tradition in the Indian subcontinent.

Half-joking only.
 
Top