PC/WI: Chola Empire never declines

The Chola Empire (4th century BCE -- 13th century CE) was one of the most successful empires of the indian subcontinent, sustaining territory in most of sothern India while exerting cultural influence over places such as Malaysia, Burma, Indonesia, and the Maldives. The empire eventually declined as its main rival, the empire of Pandyan, arose. But did the Cholas have any chance of further survival?
-What's the best PoD there is to prevent the decline of Chola?
-Could this surviving empire estabilish any colonies somewhere beyond the indian subcontinent?
-What are the main effects on indian culture? More tamil proeminence?
 
Never? I doubt such a thing is possible.

-What's the best PoD there is to prevent the decline of Chola?

It was under Sadayavarman Kulasekaran I that the Pandya really broke away from the Chola. Otherwise, they would have permanently been vassals. As a POD, have the Chola crush Sadayavarman and kill his successors, and the Pandya will never rise in the first place.

-Could this surviving empire estabilish any colonies somewhere beyond the indian subcontinent?

They did IOTL. But I guess you could have them travel to Australia (due to a few lucky off-course ships) and have a branch of the Chola settle themselves there.

-What are the main effects on indian culture? More tamil proeminence?

Depends what happened afterwards. Later Tamil empires, in fact, held more power over the mainland than the Chola, but then this Tamil influence was destroyed by the much later Deccan Sultanates, who established Indo-Islamic thought in the region.

It would have far more effects on Southeast Asia. Indonesia would remain Hindu-Buddhist, which is a tremendous POD. And that part of the world would be very much Tamil-influenced.
 
The best way to do so would be to centralize power. The Pandyas can be defeated once, but in the longer term some other vassal would inevitable break away. Take away power from the nobles, defer more to the Tamil merchant class; awarding them non-hereditary governorships like empires in the North did. Create a bureaucratic and mercantile 'middle class' that owes their loyalty only the Chola dynasty and depends on them for power and legitimacy. Kshatriya 'Nayaks' had their own ambitions and demands for autonomy, while merchants themselves were Vaishya, the caste most of the people belonged to. Throw some sops to the Brahmins and you can weaken the nobility.
 
The best way to do so would be to centralize power. The Pandyas can be defeated once, but in the longer term some other vassal would inevitable break away. Take away power from the nobles, defer more to the Tamil merchant class; awarding them non-hereditary governorships like empires in the North did. Create a bureaucratic and mercantile 'middle class' that owes their loyalty only the Chola dynasty and depends on them for power and legitimacy. Kshatriya 'Nayaks' had their own ambitions and demands for autonomy, while merchants themselves were Vaishya, the caste most of the people belonged to. Throw some sops to the Brahmins and you can weaken the nobility.
Oh, so it's basically like the centralization of power in late 17th century france?
 
It was the presence of the Pandyas as a competing power that always limited the expansion of the Cholas. Though Cheras too were ancient kingdom of the South India along with Pandyas and Cholas, they never presented a powerful challenge against the Cholas. On many occasions they were allies or vassals of the Cholas. These kingdoms existed from the time of Mauryas in the fourth century before Christ to the thirteenth or fourteenth centuries after Christ. Other powers like Kalabhras, Kadambas, Hoysalas, Pallavas etc. had arose at different periods, but these three kingdoms went on for around one and a half millenia. The Cheras were the first to go and the Pandyas last. But it was the Cholas alone who expanded to the largest extent, conquering Srilanka, islands of Sumatra, Java etc. and also to the North. But they never fully subdued the Pandyas who revived again and again to challenge the Cholas.
 
It was the presence of the Pandyas as a competing power that always limited the expansion of the Cholas. The Cholas never fully subdued the Pandyas who revived again and again to challenge the Cholas.
Any particular reason as to why the Pandyas never/rarely accepted Chola rule?
 
In ancient India, the kingdoms often fought each other, but the victors uprooting the vanquished was not common. Often the aim of the conquerors was to establish their hegemony and make the defeated kings their vassals and collect the taxes from their lands. They were allowed to rule their own kingdoms as the vassals of the victors. The concept of Aswamedha is an example of the attitude of the ancient kings. The three Tamil dynasties which existed for around fifteen or sixteen centuries fought each other winning and losing on different occasions. But they never tried to wipe out their rivals. Sometimes they also co-operated to face common enemies. But this attitude of ancient kings also prevented the rise of large empires.
 
In ancient India, the kingdoms often fought each other, but the victors uprooting the vanquished was not common. Often the aim of the conquerors was to establish their hegemony and make the defeated kings their vassals and collect the taxes from their lands. They were allowed to rule their own kingdoms as the vassals of the victors. The concept of Aswamedha is an example of the attitude of the ancient kings. The three Tamil dynasties which existed for around fifteen or sixteen centuries fought each other winning and losing on different occasions. But they never tried to wipe out their rivals. Sometimes they also co-operated to face common enemies. But this attitude of ancient kings also prevented the rise of large empires.
Yes, but... is there any chance for the Chola to keep the Pandyas/Cheras as near-permanent vassals? IMO, sure the Cholas could do that, and maintain their hegemony over other indian states with a tight leash. Of course, that means having to watch your back for rebellious kings, but even annexation can cause some unrest over the conquered populace, especially due to proto-nationalism and love for their traditional kings.
I don't think a system of vassals can mean incomplete strength for an empire. The Cholas themselves were a large empire.
Another question: how likely is it for the Cholas to estabilish colonies across the indian ocean? Was Kala Pani (the indian sea taboo) common amongst tamils/dravidians?
 
I do not have an exact idea about the sea taboo that developed in India. I do not think that it is very old, or it must have been restricted to the higher castes. It must have developed after the arrival of Islam in India, especially in the north. If such a taboo existed in the south as well, the Cholas wouldn't have developed a strong navy which helped them to cross the ocean and conquer Southeast Asian islands.
One reason for the fall of empires could be the concentration of all power/authority in one person, namely the emperor himself. In the case of the Cholas, they reached their zenith under Rajaraja Chola and his son Rajendra Chola. The empire declined under weaker successors. The Mauryan Empire flourished under the first three emperors, Chanragupta, Bindusara and Ashoka and then started the downhill journey. Similarly the Mughals were lucky to the extent that five out of their first six emperors were efficient enough to extend their power. The reign of one weak emperor, Humayun was enough for them to lose their throne. This is the story of all kingdoms, flourishing under strong rulers and floundering under weak leaders. Everything depended on the personality of the ruler. The failure of the kingdoms/empires to develop a beaurocracy that could outlast the rulers might be the reason.
 
Last edited:
Top