and destroy their economy? Old Indian states relied much on the Chinese trade and back then the only overland trade route with China and even until 1834 was in Nepal. If Nepal simply blocked the trade route their economies would take a crash dive. There's a reason why the Maurya Empire peacefully took over Lumbini and the Gupta Empire peacefully made Nepal into a vassal state. Military conquest would have meant the economy would have been in shambles. When Mir Qasim invaded, Bengal's economy took a plunge to the ground which was one of the reasons he could not raise a larger army against the British. A friendly Nepal is better for the Indian states back then. Nepali coins were used all over Tibet, and North India back then, simply exemplifying the strength of the Nepalese economy back then. (they exploited the only trade route to China like how Singapore exploited the Straits of Malacca)
WI - Buddhist India
- Thread starter Brahman
- Start date
The Parts of Nepal are probably annexed and the remaining is a satellite state, on they just outright conquer like Mauryans
what? The Mauryans negotiated the cessation of Palpa, Agarkanchi and Tilaurakot with Ashoka. When did they outright conquer? Also a pan-himalayan kingdom would be more than strong enough to fight off any invasion attempts.
Well By conquest, I meant peaceful integration, and yes If Nepal manages to conquer Tibet, than it is left alone by any Indian power
How will you see the effects of Buddhism around the world ITTL
Yes, How would you see buddhist influence across the world ITTL
I see it being the religion of trade across Indian Ocean and having buddhism in east africa and arabia
East Africa.....Can't see that, though it may become a minority religion like Christianity in some places.
Arabia will definitely become heavily influenced
I don't think this would happen tbh. Indian kings were different through out the nation but the one single thing they had in common was great ambitions. If the Shakya dynasty showed even a slight sign of weakness (such as during the death of a king or other succession crisis) then they would be discarded (possibly with a government stipend) and would not be allowed to take power again.
This is true. Himalayas are pretty much impossible to outright conquer unless you can control most of India or most of China (or both). The weather and terrain is difficult enough, without taking into account logistics and the hardy people living on the mountains who want you out of there. The ideal way to deal with the kingdoms in the Himalayas is through diplomacy since fighting them is just a huge waste of manpower and money.
uh you're mistaking Nepali Kings with Indian ones. The Kings of Nepala Mandala at least until 1200 AD were perfectly subservient to the King of Nepala Madala. Its only after the 1200s when the Delhi Sultanate started to slowly lose its influence and a power vacuum the likes not seen before started to open up that more ambitious kings in the confederation started to pop up. Before that no one really did anything. Even when there was an intergennum period after the Kirats, Literally, not a single king rose against the Nepala Mandala and instead waited for the nearest relative, the Lichavi dynasty to take power.
yeah. Whilst the lowland have fallen (even though like 4 times in its 1500 year old history, thats pretty funny actually). But the hills have never been conquered and was always ruled by native rulers.
Shakya were oligarchies republic was vessels state of Kosala before the birth of Budha(Sidharth), and in 5 BCE Kosala king Virudhaka, son of Pasenadi and Vāsavakhattiyā, the servant of a Shakyan chief named Mahānāma, ascended the throne of Kosala after overthrowing his father. As an act of vengeance for perceived slights against his mother, a servant before her royal marriage, he invaded the Shakya territory, massacred them and annexed it. so there was no claimant of Shakya throne.
Sidharth(Budha) son Rahula had become pupils of Budha. so there is no question of GOD hair.
for becoming India Buddhism - Harsh Vardhan had a son to propagate his line . then you will have a capable North India empire which can fight Mulsim conquest and keep their grip on south India successfully. you have know that North Indian resisted Muslim conquest for 500 years .
Sidharth(Budha) son Rahula had become pupils of Budha. so there is no question of GOD hair.
for becoming India Buddhism - Harsh Vardhan had a son to propagate his line . then you will have a capable North India empire which can fight Mulsim conquest and keep their grip on south India successfully. you have know that North Indian resisted Muslim conquest for 500 years .
one does not need to be directly descended from the main family. There's a reason why the House of Habsburg-Lorraine is attributed to the main Habsburg house which went extinct. Anyone from the clan of shakyas would have worked with a close enough relation like 2nd to 3rd cousins or something along those lines.
No one really denied that. Also the Shakyas were offered the throne of Nepala Mandala before 5 BCE. Kosala itself was a strong Kingdom, but it could not withstand 50 or more Nepali states being pissed off that Kosala was denying them a Shakya Dynasty (ITTL they would become very famous and sought after) and they would not be able to resist all of them as well as the pissed off Indian Buddhist states (The OP does mention the spread of Buddhism is greater).
Also what do you mean no claimant to the Shakya throne? The main line went extinct, but sub lines and secondary branches existed and still exist. There are hundreds of thousands of Shakya Newars in Nepal and Sikkim.
This could result in Interesting timeline, Buddhist Crusade ?
not gonna happen. The theme of Crusade only existed in Christianity and somewhat in Middle Eastern Islam. It certainly is not going to extend to East Asia