Around 272 BC, after the Maurya emperor Bindusara departed from his body, a dispute over the throne broke out between the different Maurya princes. Susima Maurya, the eldest son of Bindusara, was sent to quell a rebellion in Takshashila, and shortly afterward, Bindusara died. Ashoka quickly seized the throne with the help of 500 ministers, and tricked Susima into falling into a pit of burning charcoal, becoming Chakravartin. What if Susima had usurped power after Bindusara died? How would Buddhism fare without Ashoka's patronage? Is Kalinga still conquered? What happens to the Mauryas long-term?
WI: Susima becomes Maurya emperor?
- Thread starter SunKing105
- Start date
-
- Tags
- maurya maurya empire
What is Susima's attitude towards Buddhism? Does he tolerate it, or does he initiate persecutions, like Pushyamitra Shunga?
Deleted member 116192
As for Buddhism whether Susima's attitude is positively disposed or otherwise would continue to grow infact one of Asoka's wife was a Buddhist , although without Ashoka's patronage it would not be as popular as in our time line. I would see it becoming popular amongst the masses, albeit gradually taking a few centuries. The attitude of the authorities would be indifferent and there wont be any mass repression. But the specific details of rituals etc would be different given the fact the most probably the faith would not receive the huge booster shot with Ashoka's conversion and thus would grow differently, the effort of Asoka to canonize certain aspects of the Buddhist faith cannot be ignored and it was on the basis of this the orthodox Buddhist creed began to emerge. Without this the faith would grow organically and in time would become very popular and in a few centuries Kings and emperor would patronize it anyway. Perhaps it would evolve taking more of local faith and culture becoming more grass roots gradually merging with Vedic Hinduism or not, its hard to tell.
Going off tangent The role of Pushyamitra Shunga in persecution of Buddhists is disputed by modern scholarship, while it is true that he did cut of tax privilege's to the Sangha and the system of state sponsorship was curtailed it seems hard to believe that he engaged in any systematic persecutions of Buddhists , persecutions if any was sporadic and limited to a few places and the accounts of persecutions were written few decades after the death of Pushyamitra Shunga.
As for the survival of the Mauryan Dynasty, well it was a dammed to failure from the beginning. I would call it a failed political experiment. Prior to the rise of Nanda dynasty, the subcontinent was ruled by Mahajanapadas, these two Magadhan dynasty swept away centuries old way of governance, which strangely was popular with the ordinary masses and obviously, the elite , to be replaced by a autocratic and very unpopular system of government. The Mahajanapadas were yes small but their growth was organic, based on the needs of the local elites and they had a governing legacy spanning more than 800 years. These Magadhan Empires were probably trying to recreate a Persian Empire on the subcontinent, the Achaemenids did conqueror the Indus valley and swat valley where the greatest centers of learning was located , I am talking of Taxashila which is where the political architect of Mauryan Dynasty was located, Chanakya. It was also said that Chandragupta Mauryan used Persian, Sogdian, Bactrian Mercenaries to overthrow the Nanda Dynasty, these were the remnants of the Achaemenid troops, which is plausible since that empire ended a few years ago. My point is the empires were unprecedented in history and consequently it lacked any legitimacy. Its despotic rule made the situation worse. People tolerated the situation for years but when the going got tough like few bad harvests and the Greco Bactrian invasion, the empire fell like a pack of cards. Frankly the maurayas did a great disservice to india, they derailed the organic development of unity and replaced it with a system of autocracy.
Going off tangent The role of Pushyamitra Shunga in persecution of Buddhists is disputed by modern scholarship, while it is true that he did cut of tax privilege's to the Sangha and the system of state sponsorship was curtailed it seems hard to believe that he engaged in any systematic persecutions of Buddhists , persecutions if any was sporadic and limited to a few places and the accounts of persecutions were written few decades after the death of Pushyamitra Shunga.
As for the survival of the Mauryan Dynasty, well it was a dammed to failure from the beginning. I would call it a failed political experiment. Prior to the rise of Nanda dynasty, the subcontinent was ruled by Mahajanapadas, these two Magadhan dynasty swept away centuries old way of governance, which strangely was popular with the ordinary masses and obviously, the elite , to be replaced by a autocratic and very unpopular system of government. The Mahajanapadas were yes small but their growth was organic, based on the needs of the local elites and they had a governing legacy spanning more than 800 years. These Magadhan Empires were probably trying to recreate a Persian Empire on the subcontinent, the Achaemenids did conqueror the Indus valley and swat valley where the greatest centers of learning was located , I am talking of Taxashila which is where the political architect of Mauryan Dynasty was located, Chanakya. It was also said that Chandragupta Mauryan used Persian, Sogdian, Bactrian Mercenaries to overthrow the Nanda Dynasty, these were the remnants of the Achaemenid troops, which is plausible since that empire ended a few years ago. My point is the empires were unprecedented in history and consequently it lacked any legitimacy. Its despotic rule made the situation worse. People tolerated the situation for years but when the going got tough like few bad harvests and the Greco Bactrian invasion, the empire fell like a pack of cards. Frankly the maurayas did a great disservice to india, they derailed the organic development of unity and replaced it with a system of autocracy.
Deleted member 116192
Well.... It's my observations, you see the mahajanapadas were for the most part monarchy yes, but the form of monarchy were very different to the ones of the nanda Or maurya dynasty, in that all had some form of councils like the Senate in Rome. In some janapadas these samithi wielded little power while in some they were vested with huge powers like those of ganasangha form of government. But most of ancient literature agree that these sabha samithi played important role in policy making and in few janapadas also in administration. The Mahajanapadas as a whole were a unique system of government which has little parallel in history ( may be the British system of government of the late middle ages maybe the closest analogy) . What astounds anyone is how often did these Mahajanapadas switched government style from monarchy to republics and vice versa.
Another important aspect of this form of government was the way it conducted conquests, the conquered janapada was never annexed and the obligation that the conquered had was to pay tribute, supply troops, maintain friendly relations with its conquerer and for the conquerer, they had to preserve protect and defend it against outside aggression, the conquerer did not annex it or did not administer outright, if any such annexation was done it was done gradually.
Contrast to the Maurayan system of government based on autocracy backed by a KGB style intelligence agency and a massive army to quell any internal rebellion, outright annexation of territory, disenfranchisement of the local elite, enslavement and deportation of ordinary people of the conquered or rebelling territories (as we are made aware of the accounts of emperor Ashoka in the kalinga wars, which is again a Assyrian or Mesopotamian political traditions brought to India by persian influence), seizure of land and property of local elites.
Now to those people who say "well the Maurayan system brought unity the subcontinent" Well true they did but at what cost? You have to understand that the empire set up collapsed in 30 years after ashoka's death, suggesting that the empire was unpopular, overstretched and unable to administer the huge empire. Further the empire lasted 180 of which they ruled effectively for 150 years whereas empires of it's comparable size and achievement like the Gupta's lasted for 300 years as empire and some 200 years as mid level power. The Gupta's weren't autocratic they still defeated hunic invaders. Goes to show that autocracy sounds good on paper.
As for alternate system of conquering territories well there were many traditions in the subcontinent, from collecting tributes to forcing a patron client state relationship, forced alliance or my favorite establishing Garrison cities within the conquered territories. Arthshaastra lists all of this plus many more but the Maurayans just went on Annexing territories and when the empire became huge collapsed on its own weight.
from what i have read, most of the monarchies were elected monarchies. For example, before Buddha, the Shakya Ganarajya's elite class would vote for a king after the previous one died. The candidates would all have to be from the same dynasty, however yeah they were voted upon, therefore making most of the monarchies an elective monarchy.
this is only said by skim readers. If you read the multitude of rebellions, then any proper reader will be able to tell you that outside the Magadha area, the Magadha Empires were not popular
Deleted member 116192
The one Buddha came from was a ganarajya, a oligarchic republic, the one on the river plains of Ganga or Sindhu were monarchy who had to rule in consent or in consultation, as the case may be, with a council of leaders and military chieftain, but yeah you just pointed out a political traditions unique to a area of the subcontinent, there were n number of them through out the subcontinent which emphasis my point the mahajanapadas were organic, their traditions were based on local needs and history and consequently the local elites loved it and the ordinary people were ok with it cause they were able to relate to it.
As person who studied legal history, I can point out that all dharmasutra proclaim the superiority of local, regional customs over any other source of laws, some infact went on claim it superiority over vedas as vedas concerned with gods, ritual and philosophy nothing to do with jurisprudence. The duty of king was to protect these customs, he has no authority to make laws contrary to customs unless the customs were causing mischief. If you read arthshaastra you see the proclamation that rajashasana ie kings decree was given the highest position. Such was the radical departure from history.
As for rebellion, obviously when you slaughter the local elite or displace them or disenfranchise them or oppress people with bewildering number of taxes and imposts combined with bad administration you get rebellion. Indian subcontinent, the land of 16 mahajanapadas and many other jana pada spread through out was replaced by 4 provinces ruled by princes. I mean centralization is ok but this? I don't think it's practical. My opinion is mauryas should have concentrated on Ganges Brahmaputra river Valley, making it base of the empire, annexation here was ok considering the similar nature of government and shared common history, but they should keep the local elites. After few centuries pass, then expand to other areas establish relationship over other jana pada maybe established imperial cities within those to house Garrison and also to encourage the migration of surplus population to those areas. Maybe then the empire would be able to last longer and rule much more effectively