WI: No Chandragupta Maurya

[SunKing105]

Chandragupta Maurya was a pivotal figure in the history of India. Although the sources differ on his early life, they generally agree that Chanakya took him under his wing to overthrow Dhana Nanda, the Nanda emperor. Chanakya and Chandragupta assembled an army and replaced the Nanda with the Mauryan empire. What if the rebellion failed, with both of them being executed and Dhana Nanda remains on the throne for the forseeable future? How much longer can the Nanda survive? What happens to the Macedonian satraps in the Punjab and Indus regions? And without Ashoka to promote Buddhism throughout India, Buddhism remains a minor nastika religion, what absolutely enormous butterflies could that have? Discuss away.

 

[Madhukar_Shah]

We have a lot more sources for Rome's conversion to Christianity 600 years after this and yet it's still incredibly fiercely debated whether Constantine's conversion was a significant factor in the conversion of the empire as a whole or whether it would have happened anyway. Ashokas impact on Buddhism is thus infinitely harder to assess and without the evidence discussion on what is likely is impossible. In fact my general response to most of these questions is simply we can't know, the sources are too patchy.

 

[Brahman]

Without Mauryan being the first Pan Indian empire, the entire Subcontinent has its history changed as previously disconnected regions were now in the same empire sharing the same economic system, thus allowing for economic growth across subcontinent

Seleucus still remains in control of north west subcontinent and Nanda might or might not have a war with him, especially if Selecus is busy in wars of Diodachi