WI: Mauryan Empire unites all of India.

If Ashoka does not manage to be horrified in the conquest of Kalinga kingdom, i think he might be well be conquering all of Tamil kingdoms in the south, whole of the Nepal (also Monyul) and also Sri Lanka for some reasons: He wants to be a conqueror. (Before he converted to Buddhism, of course!)
With that, i want to ask a question: If he did that all of these things, will Indian culture glorify him as Uniter of India and probably make sure that India will remain always united (so, if there is any breaks on Mauryan Empire, it's successors will try to fight out to dominate and conquer the competitors) to protect Ashoka's legacy? Will India be even more stronger than it was now? How the world will be affected by always-united India? How modern-day United India would look like? I would like to know that.
 
Last edited:
The Marathas would collapse before conquering the entire subcontinent. Their confederate structure made the empire very prone to civil wars, as indeed happened between the Holkars and Scindias.

There is literally no way to get around that hurdle, other than with a POD at the time of Shivaji or any other early leader, or by somehow centralizing the empire. One way to do the latter is by having the Marathas win at Panipat and move their capital to Delhi while crowning Vishwantrao, the Peshwa's son, as emperor of Hindustan as was proposed. Such an empire could probably conquer Bengal while it was stuck in one of its many horrible famines, but the south is unreachable.
 
The title says "Marathas", but the description says "Mauryas".
Which empire do you desire to discuss about?
Maurya. I forgot that and confused it with Marathas when i made this post. Thanks for pointing it out!

The Marathas would collapse before conquering the entire subcontinent. Their confederate structure made the empire very prone to civil wars, as indeed happened between the Holkars and Scindias.

There is literally no way to get around that hurdle, other than with a POD at the time of Shivaji or any other early leader, or by somehow centralizing the empire. One way to do the latter is by having the Marathas win at Panipat and move their capital to Delhi while crowning Vishwantrao, the Peshwa's son, as emperor of Hindustan as was proposed. Such an empire could probably conquer Bengal while it was stuck in one of its many horrible famines, but the south is unreachable.
OK. That's about Marathas. Mauryas, please? Respond!
 
So, could a timeline where Ashoka stayed a Hindu see him be seen as the Qin Shi Huangdi of India? I think that if he establishes an effective centralized government structure to run said empire, he could have become India's "Qin Shi Huangdi" if he had stayed a Hindu.
 
If Ashoka had not decided to abandon the conquest of lands by sword and had continued with his policy of expansion, it was not difficult for him to conquer the four southern kingdoms and also the island of Lanka. If he had united the subcontinent and then administered the empire instilling a national spirit, he could have established a more stable empire. The fact that there were no capable successors after Ashoka also led to the fall of the dynasty. The blinding of Kunal, the ablest son of Ashoka by the intrigue of his stepmother Tishyarakshita also was disastrous for the dynasty. The Mughal empire lasted twice as longer as the Mauryan empire because, at least three successors of Akbar were capable rulers. Unfortunately, Ashoka had no capable successors to carry on his administration successfully.
Another factor also may be noted. Asoka had planted hundreds of stone pillars, uniformly carved and with inscriptions calling upon his subjects to follow the path of Dharma, through out the length and breadth of the empire. The language used in most of these pillars was Pali in Brahmi script. It was only in the Northwest portion of the empire that the Kharoshti script was used. Ashoka wanted all his subjects to read and understand his edicts and the wide use of Pali in Brahmi script shows that the Pali language was widely understood in India. Or that India was linguistically much more homogeneous than at anytime in future. Pali was the language used by Buddha also. It was in later years that the regional languages made their appearance. If Mauryan Empire had survived for a few more centuries and they used Pali as the language of administration, it would have become the common language of the land. The Mauryan empire lasted for barely one century and half. It may be noted that the Pandya dynasty lasted for sixteen centuries and the Chola dynasty lasted for fifteen centuries. The Chola empire lasted only for four centuries.
 
If Ashoka had not decided to abandon the conquest of lands by sword and had continued with his policy of expansion, it was not difficult for him to conquer the four southern kingdoms and also the island of Lanka. If he had united the subcontinent and then administered the empire instilling a national spirit, he could have established a more stable empire. The fact that there were no capable successors after Ashoka also led to the fall of the dynasty. The blinding of Kunal, the ablest son of Ashoka by the intrigue of his stepmother Tishyarakshita also was disastrous for the dynasty. The Mughal empire lasted twice as longer as the Mauryan empire because, at least three successors of Akbar were capable rulers. Unfortunately, Ashoka had no capable successors to carry on his administration successfully.
Another factor also may be noted. Asoka had planted hundreds of stone pillars, uniformly carved and with inscriptions calling upon his subjects to follow the path of Dharma, through out the length and breadth of the empire. The language used in most of these pillars was Pali in Brahmi script. It was only in the Northwest portion of the empire that the Kharoshti script was used. Ashoka wanted all his subjects to read and understand his edicts and the wide use of Pali in Brahmi script shows that the Pali language was widely understood in India. Or that India was linguistically much more homogeneous than at anytime in future. Pali was the language used by Buddha also. It was in later years that the regional languages made their appearance. If Mauryan Empire had survived for a few more centuries and they used Pali as the language of administration, it would have become the common language of the land. The Mauryan empire lasted for barely one century and half. It may be noted that the Pandya dynasty lasted for sixteen centuries and the Chola dynasty lasted for fifteen centuries. The Chola empire lasted only for four centuries.
What would happen to Indian culture shortly afterwards? Would India remain united for a long time after Ashoka died due to changes to Indian culture (of that, India should always be united)? or Indian culture would stay the same? If India remained united, how the united India would resist the British colonization, Muslim invasions, etc.? We know that India will not stay long if it's isn't united as shown in the history. How the United India's power would be in modern world from that scenario?
I would like to know that :)
 
So... you folks are kinda misunderstanding what the Maurya state looked like.

Historians compare it to a spider. It had an imperial core in the middle Ganges region where administration was centralized and effective, run along the lines of the Arthaśāstra. This would be the body of the spider, with the imperial government being the head. Then it had loose control over major commercial and political arteries in the rest of the subcontinent. The legs of the spider, so to speak. In between these roads of imperial control, there were vast territories--the "forest peoples" mentioned so often in Aśoka's inscriptions, but plenty of agricultural territories as well--where imperial writ was indirect to nonexistent.

Compare to Qin or Han, which had an extremely centralized government. Han had autonomous kings in the first few decades but quickly terminated them, putting the entirety of China under the direct authority of Chang'an. This was never done by any Indian empire all the way down to the British with their princely states.

So to have an India that evolves along Chinese lines, the Maurya would have to do a lot, lot more than just subjugating Lanka and the Tamils.
 
What impact would there have been on the Mauryan empire had Kunala not been blinded?

Also aside from ATL Ashoka managing to unite all of India by conquering the Tamil kingdoms in the south, Nepal (also Monyul) and Sri Lanka. What other territories could this ATL Mauryan Empire set their sights on to their north and east such as ancient Tibet aka Zhangzhung, Burma and possibly even parts of Yunnan?
 
Top