Jump to content

Talk:Maurya Empire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Absolute monarchy"?

[edit]

In the infobox, this is in the line for government-type. I can't access the single cited source for this, but clearly such a characterization is an anachronism, not compatible with the core-periphery model of loose-knit polity as explained in the approaches of historians Thapar, Tambiah, Burton Stein, etc. Is there a concise and commonly-understood term that would be more appropriate to replace "absolute monarchy"? (e.g., "suzerainty"?) Or replace it with simply "monarchy"? -Avantiputra7 (talk) 11:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was there any form of power or person, higher than the emperor? JingJongPascal (talk) 13:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Avantiputra7 Unable to understand your point a loose knit polity? Are you including Autonomous regions but your maps arent including it if you want then change map,And Absolute Monarchy means King or Emperor has highest power and its same Mauryan Emperor was highest authority no one was greater than him if you are replacing map and including Autonomous regions in different shade then ya this discussion is worth it. Edasf«Talk» 13:40, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant isn't a question of whether there was any higher power than the emperor, nor about holes/shading in maps. Absolutism, which has a specific definition in historical scholarship, was developed in the historical context of the early-modern states when ideology, technology, and infrastructure empowered the monarch to have complete unconstrained power to enforce his will throughout his realm. It's not applicable, in my understanding, to the pre-modern Indian states, not to other ancient empires generally speaking: check the wiki info boxes, for instance, of Gupta Empire, Achaemenid Empire, Seleucid Empire, Parthian Empire, Sasanian Empire, Han Dynasty, etc. -Avantiputra7 (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I misjudged will think of it.@Avantiputra7 Edasf«Talk» 14:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Avantiputra7:
Good question. The "Absolute Monarchy" bit is likely a holdover from long ago. Let me think about this. Will reply later in the day or tomorrow. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler If we are not including those tribes then I don't think this question seems good, If including then ya its thinkable. Edasf«Talk» 13:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont have any source supporting Absolute Monarchy, but i am pretty sure Emperor was the highest form of power. JingJongPascal (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And when there were floods in the upper Indus, and the river was un-fordable for several months, how did the emperor control the governor of the core region of Taxila? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler Can you give a source? Edasf«Talk» 14:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't said anything @Edasf and JingJongPascal:, but a Wikipedia talk page is not a chat group in which you say the first thing that comes into your head. I recommend for your own sake and for your fledgling career on Wikipedia, that you look before you leap. I know that this might sound harsh, but I've been around on Wikipedia a long time and I've thought about historical topics for even longer. I've seen editors such as you come and go. Far better if you are more thoughtful and less knee-jerk in your replies. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Edasf: See:
  • Iori, Elisa (2023). "Releasing Urban Religion beyond the City Wall: The Spatial Capital of Early Buddhist Monasticism in NW South Asia". Numen. 70 (2–3): 184–219. doi:10.1163/15685276-20231691. At the end of the farming year when the land was free of crops (end of October–April) and the water level low, it was the time for maintenance activities (e.g., clearing of wells and water infrastructure) and the time when manpower could be invested in other production and building activities both in rural and urban contexts. But above all, this was the time for movement and trade. The uttarāpatha, that is the main road linking eastern Afghanistan to India through the cities of Kabul, Charsadda, and Taxila down to Patna, is indeed a winter road typically used when local rivers (Kabul, Indus, and the rivers of Punjab) are at their lowest levels, so that they can be easily forded (Olivieri 2020: 645–646).
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler Sorry but I am already quit busy since I have my Exams in first week of December I am unlikely active in next days.So,after seeing Absolutism article I know what @Avantiputra7 is talking so yeah I would support adding monarchy but will do some research before I take a stance here.Especially finding Avantiputras source which he was unable to access. Edasf«Talk» 15:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler There's no source of this the book here by Burjor Avari makes no such mentions and pages cited 188,189 aren't even talking about Mauryas but of Islamic invasions. Edasf«Talk» 16:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Edasf: I'm confused: who is citing Avari and where? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: That's the source cited by the Infobox for "absolute monarchy." Although the book actually doesn't even say so, it appears. -Avantiputra7 (talk) 03:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Avantiputra7: Oh, I see. Will look at it and other relevant sources as well. Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indus River and Nanga Parbat made when the plane was in the vicinity of Sawal Dher, some 60 miles NW of Taxila
Eastern Hindu Kush range from approximately above Lowari Pass in the region of Pakistan bordering Afghanistan

.

A general caution

Although WP does give primacy to reliable sources, reliable sources themselves are not always fully aware of every little detail of what they choose to expound on. One has to mull over a lot of things and then use judicious language. Here are two videos I made while flying over the Taxila region and on into eastern Afghanistan. The first shows the upper Indus River (made when the plane was 60-odd miles NW of Taxila) and very far in the back, above the clouds, the Nanga Parbat around which the river bends, if one were traveling upstream, all the way to its origins in the Tibet Trans-Himalaya. The second is of the eastern Hindu Kush (when the plane was above the Lowari Pass) just before Pakistan's border with Afghanistan. In the "solid mass map," whereas the Nanga Parbat itself is not in the Mauryan realm, the upper Indus and the eastern Hindu Kush are. Authors will sometimes unthinkingly use maps, and throw around numbers (e.g. the Maurya army was 500,000 strong) from fragments of lost Greek histories. One has to be very careful in paraphrasing sources and in using the right level of detail in language when a source doesn't jibe with what is credible today. In other words, how did a region "Magadha," around which the Ganges plain, had barely been fully deforested by 500 BCE, in another 200 years, not only become a settled post-agricultural society, but also find the means of governing areas as forbidding as the eastern Hindu Kush, when all we have are infirm sources. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler Please no, don't insurrect this map again please for now. Edasf«Talk» 16:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its not about the map as the map only reflects what some sources say; it is about the history of the Mauryan Empire, which except for Asoka's edicts (if they are history) arose in a generally ahistorical ancient culture.
I'm suggesting that one has to be very careful and judicious in writing about such a culture, and not trust sources blindly. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler Understood thanks and why you don't upload those videos they look cool and beautiful. Edasf«Talk» 16:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Edasf:. They are already uploaded to Wikipedia. I'm trying to slowly mull over which page to add it to ... Indus River, Nanga Parbat, Hindu Kush ... in the articles or in the Wikimedia Commons galleries ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And another thing is just the distance from Patliputra to Taxila. Today, it would be a 35-hour drive (according to Google maps) if it were possible to drive across the India-Pakistan border. How did they communicate in Mauryan times? As late as 1820, before the invention of electric telegraph, the British were seriously considering an India-wide "telegraph" (which then meant semaphore hand-signalling) network. They even built some towers. See File:Semaphore telegraph bihar1823.jpg and the notes therein. In other words, was the "ideology, technology, and infra-structure" that user:Avantiputra7 alludes to, credibly there for a "centralized" empire in Mauryan times, when the three descriptors barely applied to the British in India in the 1820s? See also: Company_rule_in_India#Telegraphy Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. We just don't know, but one would imagine that the Mauryans, like all subsequent rulers of India up to 1947, made heavy use of Princely states, whatever their inscription-composers said. Johnbod (talk) 17:28, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Johnbod: Yes. I generally agree, but with a few caveats, and you probably already know about them. So apologies.
"Princely states" proper, by which I mean, regions of nominal sovereignty whose communications, defense, and foreign relations were controlled by the suzerain, really only belongs to a late early-modern world in South Asia. Although the Mughals did balance diverse regional elites in their empire, and to a lesser extent did the Delhi Sultanate, before the East India Company, which first formed the subsidiary alliances, I doubt the the requisite technological gap and the diplomatic experience had existed for effectively sustaining such a rule. For the British not only formed the subsidiary alliances with many Indian rulers, but thereafter also groomed the rulers and protected their states (the "breakwaters in the storm" in Lord Canning's words).
The Arthashastra, on the other hand, which was discovered in the early 20th-century—and which gave heart to generations of Indian nationalists and nationalist historians—spoke of a centralized empire, with a large army and police, and ridden with spies who reported on the slightest ripple of discontent. I think it is Patrick Olivelle, the most recent translator of the AS who says, that it was first thought to have been the work of Chandragupta's advisor/mentor/courtier Chanakya ca 310 BCE, but beyond the lexical and syntactical inconsistencies, the advice offered advice in it could only have made sense in the world of a small kingdom. One of the reasons, he goes on to say, modern historians and linguists, consider it to a later work—of the early centuries of the common era—is that by then, i.e. the "inter-imperial age" after the Mauryas, South Asia had devolved to a collection of small kingdoms.
So, did the Mauryas really manage diversity? I'm not sure despite Ashoka's edits. More likely their "empire" was a kind of network model of Monica L. Smith, in which there was a main core region, Magadha, where they might have had straight-jacketed control, some lesser core regions (Taxila, Kalinga, Avanti, and Karnataka) connected by well-defended trade routes. Outside of these, the vast South Asian space, much of it yet to be deforested, was beyond the pale of the recently urbanized, whether the Mauryas or others.
Meanwhile, I'll read more of Monica Smith. @Joshua Jonathan: has done a good job of summarizing her in the footnote to the top map. So, I will start there. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kulke and Rothermund state, as sumarized by me in the body, that Magadha, with the imperial capital at Pataliputra, and several former mahajanapadas next to it formed the center, which was directly ruled by the emperor's administration. The other territories were divided into four provinces, ruled by princes who served as governors.
Regarding the extend of the ceded territories, and the interpretation of the (rare) ancient sources, Sushma Jansari (2023), Chandragupta Maurya: The creation of a national hero in India, delves into the contrasting images of Chandragupta in the west and India; in chapter one she argues that the few sources on this treaty between chandragupta and Seleucid contain so little, and contrasting, information, that no sensible or 'exact' conclusions can be drawn from it. Relating this to the span of control: I can't imagine Mauryan control in west-Baluchistan, let alone Iran, via the Afghanistan trade-routes - Chandragupta didn't even control Kalinga.
This difference in perception is also reflected at this talkpage, I think; the IP actually pointed this out to me, at my talkpage. Questioning the extent of control feels like an attack on India. For 'us', sceptical westerners, in turn, that feels like an attack on enlightenment rationality. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan@Fowler&fowler, we have already argued on status quo, didn't we? Also please stop with your fringe ideas about the distance from magadha to taxila.
Have you ever considered the distance from Greece to India? Or from Iran to Egypt? Perhaps not JingJongPascal (talk) 10:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did Alexander reign his 'empire' from Macedonia? And have you ever hiked a 4,000 meter high mountain in the winter? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:45, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alexander continuously changed his routes, sometime in perisa, sometime in india.
Perhaps mention that too?
And again I can understdn your "common sense", but that can be said for practically any empire that ruled over those regions, including Persian Empire. JingJongPascal (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Similar discussion. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The same way the Persians and macedons did. JingJongPascal (talk) 09:49, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let us for a moment ignore the charismatic human megafauna (as it were) of these empires. Suppose then we had no evidence of Alexander, Darius, Xerxes, Cyrus, Chandragupta or Asoka, only of empires run by anonymous human drones (working human bees). Archaeological evidence certainly shows that from 320 BCE to 200 BCE there is a characteristic type of fortification in the regions of what have come to called Graeco-Bactrian kingdoms: Mairs, Rachel (2014). The Hellenistic Far East: Archaeology, Language, and Identity in Greek Central Asia. University of California Press. p. 163. ISBN 978-0-520-28127-1. Although socioeconomic symbiosis prevailed within the Surkhan-darya and Sherabad-darya valleys, however, the Graeco-Bactrian state monitored and regulated movement on northern routes from the cities of the Oxus Valley, such as Bactra, to Samarkand and Sogdiana in the north. We find defensive structures aimed at protecting these territories and routes even within the Surkhan-darya Valley, at sites such as Kurganzol, a fortress with massive walls and semicircular towers whose period of occupation coincides with the era of Alexander's conquests through to the first half of the second century B.c.£. and the final years of the Graeco-Bactrian kingdom.* The remains at Kurganzol display several features that recur in many of the major fortified sites of the regions to the north of the Oxus that I shall go on to discuss.
In other words, let us for a moment forget the infirm histories. All these empires were created by military prowess. They had fortified encampments, whether you call them cities or forts. There is archaeological evidence of such forts in the century or two following Alexander's invasion as evidenced by the quote of Rachel Mairs. Where is the analagous evidence for the Mauryas? There is a great paucity of evidence. This is in part because the archaeological chronologies of today, which are grounded in (no pun intended) the use of longer-lived ceramic wares for dating, are not precise enough to place the evidence in the relatively short-lived empire of the Mauryas.[1]

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC) The paper of Trautmann and Sinopoli has also appeared in an edited book (2022) without any changes that I can discern. Updated. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Avantiputra7: I'm still reading up. I'll reply to your question later in the day. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Trautmann, Thomas; Sinopoli, Carla (2002). "In the beginning was the word: Excavating the relations between history and archaeology in South Asia". Journal of Economic and Social History of the Orient. 45 (4): 492–523, 505. doi:10.1163/156852002320939339. In the study of the Mauryan empire, the physical remains have been overshadowed by the texts, which remain the principal focus of attention. This is partly because remains that can be definitively dated to the Mauryan period are few, except for the rock faces and stone pillars on which the Ashokan inscriptions are written. The pillars themselves attract study; massive monoliths, over fifty tons in weight, with elaborately carved capitals and a mirror-like polish to their surface, moved great distances with immense labor from the quarry sites (recently documented by Jayaswal 1998) to their present locations, they proclaim themselves as monuments of empire. Excavations in Patna in the early twentieth century revealed the wooden palisade of the Mauryan capital, Pataliputra, but the greater part of it is inaccessible because there is a crowded modern city built on top of it (Waddell 1903; Spooner 1913). That excavation apart, the Mauryan Empire is notable for the virtual absence of an archaeology of settlements, and few material remains can be definitively dated to the Mauryan period. This is not because such remains do not exist, but because current archaeological chronologies, based on long-lived ceramic wares, do not yet provide the resolution necessary to pinpoint the relatively brief (by archaeological standards) one-and-a-half century Mauryan period in sites with much longer occupational histories. Apart from the very palpable and durable rock faces and pillars of Ashoka's inscriptions, the huge, powerful Mauryan empire, which had diplomatic relations with the Hellenistic successor-states of Alexander, the Seleucids of Syria and the Ptolemies of Egypt, left a physical imprint that is surprisingly slight so far as we know, and the enterprise of recovering its history has been nearly wholly a matter of studying texts

Off-wiki

[edit]

At Redditt here. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also interesting: Did the Mauryas really unite India? Archaeology says ‘no’. And this video, which features the 'holes-map'! Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan Do you really consider a Public Historian as RS here? Edasf«Talk» 13:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's your point? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not take Reddit discussion and a mere opinion piece as source. Edasf«Talk» 08:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't, do I? I offer the links as related pieces of info interesting to read. But The Print article also refers to scholarly which are relevant. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:20, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello JJ, the discussion on this talk page during which people have cited only published scholarly sources has been complicated enough. Let's not lose are focus or dissipate our effort by citing youtube videos, and similar sources, interesting though they might be. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protected Edit Request on 28 November 2024

[edit]

Mauryan land area in 300 BCE, is 2.5 Million m^2 Source [1], basically i want it to be added to the infobox, like how it is in Roman Empire.

References

  1. ^ https://escholarship.org/content/qt8vx325vq/qt8vx325vq_noSplash_a2c2db5cdb06a3d4d4e35b2852a74948.pdf

JingJongPascal (talk) 08:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No way; based on an utterly naive 'methodology', using historical atlasses (p.113-114), ignoring contemporary insights and all the discussions above. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i dont think its far-fetched, considering Mauryas had most of the subcontinent by 300 BCE. (300 BCE or around that time is usually marked as the end of chandragupta's conquests) JingJongPascal (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is; "most of the subcontinent" is disputed, as they controlled cities and trade routes, not jungles and deserts, nor the largest part of Gedrosia, or Aria - as explained ad infinitum. Note by the way p.122:

The start of Phase 2 [that includes the Mauryans] may have resulted from a breakthrough in the art of delegating power in a withdrawable way, primarily through bureaucratic hierarchy of roles filled by people, rather than through purely personal relationships. The successful introduction of satrapies may have been the secret weapon which suddenly enabled the Medes and the Persians to build an empire of 5 Mm2 in a world that up to that time had seen no empire surpass 1.3 Mm2.

Perfectly in line with the network-model. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:27, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
your quotes in Page 112', literally mention that at this period of time, large empires were being able to form and it isnt 'in line' with your network-model. JingJongPascal (talk) 09:37, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely because of networks, with local delegates who managed an area instead of everything worked out at a central court. Interesting article, thus; thanks. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JingJongPascal: The areas of India + Pakistan + Bangladesh + Nepal + Bhutan + Afghanistan + Iran today = 2,593,652. Please tell us how you would like to subtract 93,652 miles and from which country to arrive at the 2,500,000 estimate you have proposed. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i have not arrived at this estimate, an scholar has, and areas of is not 2593652. perhaps we are using different unit systems and u have got confused JingJongPascal (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler you are using miles while i am using million sq. metre!! JingJongPascal (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How many square miles is that? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler, it's about 965000 sq mile JingJongPascal (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source presented above is part of a series of academic articles about the territorial extents of historical empires by Estonian political scientist Rein Taagepera published between 1978 and 1997:

The latter three articles in part supersede the first one, and indeed our article already cites the 1979 one for the low-end estimate of the peak area. On the rather niche subject of quantifying the territorial extents of historical polities, Taagepera is the central scholar and this series of articles is (probably) the most comprehensive research on that topic ever published. TompaDompa (talk) 11:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a broadscale article. For the most part its sentences are cited to introductory undergraduate or first-year graduate textbooks—in other words, not just any old, source, but those published by major academic publishers and used in classes around the world. To understand the role of introductory textbooks or courses in determining due weight, please read WP:TERTIARY, which is WP Policy.
None of the sources you have listed are Tertiary, and thus none can be employed to say anything general about the Mauryas. A surfeit of narrow-scale source may attest to the reliability of a statement, but not to its need in an encyclopedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
in that case, could you explain why it is already used in the article for low end estimate? The sources is same as mine.
Then we shall remove it too? @Fowler&fowler@Joshua Jonathan JingJongPascal (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have only paid attention to the text of the lead. I have now looked at the high and low you mention. In my view, neither should be there unless they are cited to a tertiary source such as Kulke and Rothermund; David Ludden; Burton Stein; Romila Thapar; Robin Coningham and Ruth Young; Tim Dyson's Population History of India, OUP, 2018; Michael Fisher's Environmental History of India, CUP, 2018, or some other broadscale textbook. If none of them mention the area, then we can't list anything in the area argument. Note that in the lead we cite Dyson to make a rough statement about population; we mention only the population of South Asia during the Mauryan period, not the population of the Maurya empire. Best regards,

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler: I think you may have misunderstood my point. I'm not suggesting any of these sources be used for anything other than a numerical estimate for the peak area. We currently cite the 1979 one in the infobox. Replacing it with the one suggested in the edit request would not be appropriate, since the currently-cited source supersedes the suggested one in that particular regard (the estimate was revised between the publication of the earlier and the later article). Now we don't have to provide any numerical estimate for the peak area at all—it's not required information—but if we do, we need to use the WP:BESTSOURCE, which would be the one we are already using. TompaDompa (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply above. I don't think WP:BESTSOURCE trumps WP:TERTIARY for determining due weight. The latter is specific policy in issues of due weight. The former is just advice. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean due weight in the specific sense of WP:PROPORTION, or in other words what aspects get covered in the first place, then sure. If you mean it in the sense of whose estimates we should go by, then I cannot agree—using an estimate from a lower-quality (i.e. less reliable) source instead of one from a source that is more reliable for that particular information is a non-starter. WP:BESTSOURCES is specific policy in issues of neutrality. Or to put it another way: I don't object to using tertiary sources to determine whether we should present an area estimate, but I would object to using tertiary sources to determine which area estimate to present here. TompaDompa (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to your first point. To the second, I would say "only general estimates." In other words, if the tertiary sources are unanimous in an estimate like the Indian subcontinent and Afghanistan below the Hindu Kush, etc then we go with it. But if only one tertiary source does, then we don't. Also, if the tertiary sources say unanimously the area of the Maurya empire was 2,593,623 square miles, then we also don't. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's end this discussion. The total land area of an empire whose region of dominion is uncertain cannot be estimated with the kind of due weight an encyclopedia warrants having. I have engaged you well enough. I don't see anything new here. Sorry, but that is my view. If you continue to press the point, I won't be responding Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:18, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to be sufficient agreement here to make an edit to a fully-protected page. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

[edit]

JingJongPascal has been topic-banned User talk:JingJongPascal#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 03:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note

[edit]

AH#1

[edit]

@Joshua Jonathan and @Fowler&fowler, just wanted to note that our current 'holes map' already includes all vassal tribes in ochre colour, mentioned in Ashoka's inscriptions (V and XIII), viz., the Kambojas, the Yonas, the Gandharas, the Nabhakas, the Nabhapanktis, the Bhojas, the Pitinikyas, the Andhras and the Pulindas. PadFoot (talk) 01:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC) Edited to improve clarity. PadFoot (talk) 08:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mahajanapadas (c. 500 BCE)
Sharp, though the Kabul-Kandahar line (Kambojas) is not presented as a hole. And edict 13 reads like an overview of proselytizing activities, deep into Greek-controlled territories. Like American Mormons going to Europe. And note the similar 'holes' between the small city-states at 500 BCE. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan, apologies but I didn't understand. Are you adding to what I said? I had meant to say that the current 'holes map' includes all the vassal tribes in ochre colour. PadFoot (talk) 07:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Eh?... Maybe I didn't fully understand what you're implying? Connecting the neywork-map with the edicts is sharp, as in, good, intelligent, etc. You seem to imply that those 'holes' were not complete 'holes', but also economical-popitical connected, e.g. "vassal tribes"? If so, that's a good point contra 'the holes'. But, as far as I can tell, the Kamboja's are fully included in the representation in the network map, while Edict 13 is not about economic ties, but about missionary activities. Though the Edict does state, of course, 'in my territory', but that may (may) still be an exaggeration. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:03, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No @Joshua Jonathan, you misunderstand me. I meant to say that in the current holes map that we have, all the vassals are already included in the ochre. I've noticed some other editors say that the holes in the map were vassals, so I was noting that that is not the case and the holes map that we are currently using, already does show all the vassals in the ochre colour like other Mauryan territory. There are no vassals in the holes or in the non-ochre part. PadFoot (talk) 08:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PadFoot2008: ah, I see; thanks for claryfying. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan, alright, thanks. Also, I was thinking that the current holes map shouldn't include the lower Indus plain. Most of the scholars mentioned in the sources for the map including Allchin, Sinopoli, and the network model of Smith don't include it in their maps. Coningham & Young explicitly mention the lower Indus plain as not forming a part. PadFoot (talk) 08:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I'll have to look that up. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan? PadFoot (talk) 13:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PadFoot2008: no time yet, but I'm working my way through the article, checking all the conquests, so I'll come back to it. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks. PadFoot (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PadFoot2008: I just checked Coningham & Young; I couldn't access all of it, but they interesting points. They seem to exclude Kabul-Kandahar, arguing that the inscriptions/edicts may indicate the points of maximum contact, not of maximum control. They do include the lower Indus valley, but as an area where the Mauryans had peripheral control. So, more work to do, when the page is unlocked. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan, thanks for looking into it. The maps in Sinopoli, Alchin and the network model of Smith all exclude the lower Indus valley as well. PadFoot (talk) 11:21, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan:@PadFoot2008: Indeed, the inclusion of the lower Indus Valley can be questioned (or it could have been at the most periphral) seeing as no pillars/edicts of Ashoka have been found there. When I was making my map, I simply chose to follow Kulke and Rothermund who do include it in their map. Certainly Alexander conquered the region and left behind Greek satraps, so I think usually it has been traditionally assumed to be included in the territory Chandragupta gained from the Greeks at c. 316 BCE, simply because there is no evidence it remained or became independent again. But really it isn't known for certain.
It should be kept in mind that there is such a lack of archaeological data in contrast to the Indus Valley Civilization and documentation of later historical periods (little amount of Kushan stupas, coins, inscriptions, more Buddhist sites and artworks from Sindh known from after the 4th/5th century CE). Kenoyer's "New Perspectives on the Mauryan and Kushana Periods" (2006), p.35-36 mentions: "The study of Early Historic sites of the Indus valley was pushed even further into the background by a shift in the focus of research [...] In the exploration and excavations of Aror, Bambhore, and Al Mansoora little interest was paid to the early levels that dated to the pre-Muslim period. [...] No Early Historic sites are indicated in the regions of Punjab and Sindh. [...] However, such settlements probably do exist and remain buried beneath historical cities such as Lahore, Multan, Aror, and Sehwan." and (p. 38), mentioning artifacts collected from sites in the region near Multan, which he compares to both Taxila and Kaushambi: "The presence of numerous other ruined mounds roughly dated to the second century BCE (or earlier, as noted above) suggests the presence of fairly large populations in the Punjab as early as 600 BCE and on through the Mauryan and Kushana periods" but "admittedly based on cursory examination and needs to be followed by systematic survey and excavation". So (in my opinion) the questions about Mauryas in the lower Indus Valley cannot be answered, until necessary archaeological studies get done.
Somewhat relatedly to this latter point, I saw on the Menander I page which I have recently been editing, that some scholars were questioning the accounts that he reigned from Sagala (Sialkot) due to lack of coroborrating archaeological evidence. Discovery of such evidence (in the form of his abundant coins, and Hellenistic pottery shards) was comparatively recent (1995), I found out.
P.S. Joshua: good work on the Chandragupta Maurya article, it reads well now. -Avantiputra7 (talk) 15:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Avantiputra7, then I suppose we probably should not be including it either, given the lack of any corroborative evidence supporting Mauryan control over the lower Indus and considering that most of the scholars referenced in the sources for the map do not include much of the Indus valley in their own maps. PadFoot (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PadFoot2008: what do you think of the current version of the map modified by Joshua to have a dashed line indicating "peripheral/questioned" areas? -Avantiputra7 (talk) 10:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Avantiputra7, many of the sources for the map do not include the parts of the Indus valley in their maps, including Sinopoli and Alchin, as well as the network model of Smith. Not a single Mauryan inscription or edict has been found anywhere in the vast Indus plains, nor do we find mentions of the region forming a part of the Mauryan territory. I do not think the region should be coloured in the map. PadFoot (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PadFoot2008: I am content with the current version of the map with Joshua's modification, but I do not object if you modify it further.
But how will the map look then? Is it plausible if cutting out the Indus plains but still including the stretches of land ceded by Selecus west of the Indus probably extending to eastern Gedrosia?
The lack of clear evidence and those cited maps, which focus on distribution of edicts, are significant as you have noted. However, on the other hand, it should not be overlooked that other scholars have recognized the Greek/Roman historians as indicating Chandragupta established his rule across the Indus provinces previously under Alexander's governors (and as per Appian cited here, Chandragupta was even dwelling on the banks of the Indus at the time of his conflict with Seleucus), and Kenoyer (a leading expert on Indus-region archaeology, I cited above) indicates there may be evidence of Mauryas in the lower Indus region still awaiting discovery, i.e. current lack of data isn't necessarily evidence of absence. -Avantiputra7 (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Avantiputra7, the upper Indus plains containing the northern route from Pataliputra to Taxila was certainly controlled by the Mauryans, but for the rest of the plains, it seems unlikely, and thus should not be included until we have evidence. Control over eastern Afghanistan and Gandhara are supported by edicts and inscriptions as well as Greek historians mentioning these territories being ceded. Greek historians tell us that the territories of eastern Afghanistan and Gandhara were ceded, but they do not say that the lower Indus valley was conquered by Chandragupta. Until evidence of Mauryan control over the lower Indus plain is discovered, we thus should not include the region until then. PadFoot (talk) 17:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the map is clear enough so: "peripheral/disputed." On a side-note, this must be the most extravagant claim: H.C. Seth (1937), Central Asiatic Provinces of the Mauryan Empire, The Indian Historical Quarterly. See here for some fantastic images. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are actually later Buddhist legends which credit the establishment of Buddhism in Khotan to Ashoka or his son, Prince Kunala: [1], [2]. So when the manuscripts and archaeological finds of Buddhism in Khotan came to light (1890s-1930s), there were some who jumped to conclusions by assuming the whole legend was true that Maurya rule extended all the way across the Himalayas. Of course by now, credible scholars can see that these Buddhist cultures were telling such legends to gain prestigious status by having purported heritage from Ashoka himself, the ideal Buddhist king. -Avantiputra7 (talk) 06:54, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PadFoot2008:@Joshua Jonathan: If going with Padfoot's arguements to change the map further, one option would be to erase the brown shading of the lower Indus and instead mark as a possible boundary a dashed line from south of Kandahar, as in the southern half of File:Malan Range.jpg, from about Quetta/Bolan Pass running south till the coastal Malan Range. Thoughts? (But as I have said, I find the current map acceptable as is, and looks like Joshua is also in agreement.)
Here is an older source but it makes sense and could be useful:

"the general rising of the northern peoples headed by Chandragupta, the founder of the Maurya dynasty of Pataliputra, followed in rapid succession. The Lower Indus Valley now became free from foreign rule, and the local chiefs were no doubt left to their own devices. Nominally the territory may have been a dependency of the Mauryan kingdom, but, separated from the main body of that kingdom by a wide expanse of desert, and at a vast distance from the capital on the Ganges, its tie of allegiance must have been of the slightest. This independence, or semi-independence, lasted under no doubt varying degrees of definiteness […] till […] Demetrius, in the second century B.C., invaded Patalene in force and completely subjected it to Bactria."

-Avantiputra7 (talk) 06:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you do this, finding al these sources?!? Definitely worth to be used, as text - and adding quite some work to do.
I noticed another point: Tarn (1922, p.100) refers to Eratosthenes, who states that 'Alexander [...] took away from Iran the parts of these three satrapies which lay along the Indus and made of them separate [...] governments or province'. This may actually be corroborated by Strabo, who states "Alexander took these [places, territories alongside the Indus] away from the Arians and established settlements of his own" - did the Arians subjugate "the tribes is as follows: along the Indus are the Paropamisadae, above whom lies the Paropamisus Mountains: then, towards the south, the Arachoti: then next, towards the south, the Gedroseni"? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I simply did a Google Books search for "Chandragupta" "Maurya" and "Lower Indus Valley"!
I think Strabo is using Eratosthenes as his source? According to the wiki page Ariana, Greeks sometimes used the term Ariana for "a general area of land between Central Asia and the Indus River" which "covered a number of satrapies spanning what is today the easternmost parts of Iran, the entirety of Afghanistan, and the westernmost parts of Pakistan." -Avantiputra7 (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, erasing the ochre shading of the lower Indus valley and instead marking it in a dashed line would be a better option, and that's what I had been thinking as well after seeing Joshua's new map. The source you found describes the state of the lower Indus magnificently. PadFoot (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to @PadFoot2008's arguments.The Indus region, including the lower Indus, was under the control of some Greek satrapies[1] until Chandragupta Maurya is known to have liberated these areas.[2][3][4]. See this (Seleucid-Mauryan boundaries and satrapies). Limiting the western boundaries of the Mauryan Empire unjustifiably exaggerates the extent of the Seleucid Empire's eastern territories.

References

  1. ^ ALEXANDER THE GREAT THE RISE OF MACEDONIA 359-323 BC. 2003. p. 105. The local Macedonian governors, Nicanor and Philippos, were assassinated. An obscure rebel named Chandragupta Maurya (Sandrocottus according to Greek historians), rose to power.
  2. ^ Roger Boesche (2003). The First Great Political Realist: Kautilya and His Arthashastra. Internet Archive. Lexington Books. p. 10. ISBN 978-0-7391-0607-5. By about 321 B.C.E., Chandragupta had taken the Punjab and Sindh from the Greeks, and by about 305 B.C.E., he had forced Alexander's successor in that area, Seleucus, into a humiliating treaty in which Seleucus married his daughter to Chandragupta.
  3. ^ Alain Daniélou (2003). A brief history of India. Internet Archive. Inner Traditions. pp. 85–86. ISBN 978-0-89281-923-2. In the Swat, Nicanor was killed. Philip, who was guarding Taxila with Ambhi, replaced Nicanor as satrap of Gandhara, but was himself assassinated in 325 B.C.E. ....... Chandragupta began attacking the Greek principalities. The Brahmans fomented revolts against the unclean foreigners. Peithon withdrew to Arachosia (Kandahar) in 316. After treacherously killing an Indian prince probably Ambhi. Eudemus left India with one hundred and twenty elephants to join Eumenes army. He was beaten and put to death with Eumenes by Antigonus, king of Babylon. It took no great effort for Chandragupta to annex the Greek kingdoms, which had prepared the terrain for him.
  4. ^ ALEXANDER THE GREAT THE RISE OF MACEDONIA 359-323 BC. 2003. p. 105. The local Macedonian governors, Nicanor and Philippos, were assassinated. An obscure rebel named Chandragupta Maurya (Sandrocottus according to Greek historians), rose to power.

Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 07:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... where did PadFoot2008 write that these areas were under control of Seleucid? You also missed the quote which Avantiputra found? And never read Justing carefully?

"India, after the death of Alexander, had assassinated his prefects, as if shaking the burden of servitude. The author of this liberation was Sandracottos [Chandragupta], but he had transformed liberation in servitude after victory, since, after taking the throne, he himself oppressed the very people he has liberated from foreign domination."

But thanks for "obscure rebel" and "revolts." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not claim that the Indus region was under the Seleucid Empire but rather that it was part of the Greek satrapies, which were later conquered by Chandragupta. Additionally, I provided the Schwartzberg representation of those boundaries: [3]. Malcolm Robert Haig (1830 -1916) is outdated. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 08:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been thinking it does make sense that the Lower Indus Valley (which had been under satrap Peithon) would also be included in what Chandragupta "liberated" then "oppressed" (in historian Justin's words); and the ceding of Eastern Gedrosia by Seleucids makes more sense geographically if the adjacent Lower Indus plains were recognized as, maybe very loosely, under Chandragupta's suzerainty. The valid point raised by PadFoot, and thise maps which he cites, is simply that we have no concrete proof one way or another: no specific historical records, edicts, nor archaeological data to shed light on the condition of administration, communication, infrastructure, urban centers in the area.
Also important context that these were not modern nation-states, meaning not every speck of land was part or some or other empire/satrapy/etc: many areas with tribes were simply being left to their own devices, or failed to be effectively administered by any imperial/state power from outside. Reducing Mauryas' western boundary doesn't equate to expanding Seleucid's eastern boundaries. -Avantiputra7 (talk) 09:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AH#2

[edit]

Okay..Yes you're right, Peithon served as the satrap of the Lower Indus region. However, Chandragupta Maurya later conquered these territories during his campaigns against the Greek satrapies. Peithon eventually abandoned Sindh. Pg 480: Chandra Gupta expels the satraps from the land of the Indus. Не proceeds against the kingdom of Magadha.
--Henry Smith Williams, "The Historians' History of the World[4]

Pg 32: Peithon between 320 BC and 318 BC. He would have met Porus, who was not murdered by Eudamas until 317 BC, enroute. If he then compiled his Indica after Porus death, but before Chandragupta took over the satrapies of the Indus river Indus river system.
--Andrew Chugg, Alexander the Great in India[5]

Pg 261: Eudamus withdrew with his Greek garrison, and Chandragupta (Sandrocottus), the Mauryan, made himself master of the Punjab and the lower Indus valley.
--The Imperial Gazetteer Of India Vol. XX[6]

Pg.10: By about 321 B.C.E., Chandragupta had taken the Punjab and Sindh from the Greeks, and by about 305 B.C.E., he had forced Alexander's successor in that area, Seleucus, into a humiliating treaty in which Seleucus married his daughter to Chandragupta.
--The First Great Political Realist: Kautilya and His Arthashastra[7].
I don't support modifications in kulke map boundaries. I am not convinced by your last statement. If we are reducing the ceded territories of war, then, by the same logic, we must similarly expand the Seleucid eastern boundaries to ensure alignment. By this reasoning, the eastern boundaries of the Seleucid Empire would need to be exaggerated. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's your conclusion, isn't it? See WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First point: yes, it's what I was saying about Sindh and Peithon. Many scholars have inferred reasonably that Chandragupta annexed Sindh from Peithon, I also think so: but it is still an inference based on interpretation of historical sources, not a certain fact. Because if you check the original ancient sources, none of them say specifically "Chandragupta annexed entire Indus Valley".
Latter point, not necessarily so: if Seleucus had agreed to relinquish his claims to a territory (take it as a hypothetical cenario, not making a specific assertion about any particular territories), and signed a treaty to such effect recognizing it as part of the Maurya domains, but subsequently Mauryas failed to concretely establish governance there, in effect leaving locals to have independence/autonomy, then one can say such territory was not truly part of either empire, no? (Therefore, in regions without concrete documentation, it can be argued from inferences whether or not it may have been included in Maurya governance, but cannot be settled conclusively.) -Avantiputra7 (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Avantiputra7 Which region? Indus plain? So, per @PadFoot2008 there's a lack of evidence but it was certainly under Mauryas since from where did the Chandragupta transported his soldiers and army during war with Seleucid or at least conflict it was essential for Mauryas to control it. Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 15:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking here about after that confrontation... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. )@Joshua Jonathan But what does it mean by nit not properly governed a rebellion or else
Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 17:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"leaving locals to have independence/autonomy," that's what it means. This was 300 BCE; no highways, no railroads. Compare it to warlords: you control what's profitable, you don't care about poor farmers and wasteland, unless there's a strategic use (Khyver pass). Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan That's pure speculation. Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 08:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's reality. The Ganges-plain was the core-territory of the Nandas and the Mauryas, which they could effectively rule. The janapadas in the Deccan were also profitable. Punjab and upper Indus Valley are strategically important. But the lower Indus Valley?.... No cities, far away, and difficult to acess from the west. Why bother, when you are Chandragupta? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan Right, Who will get water of Indus when your capital is located in region bounded by Ganga and Son. So, I would now be OK with giving Indus valley a different shade but not categorosing it independent since it wasn't even if locals remained independent Mauryas would definitely had a great authority to subjucate them whenever they need. And Kulke includes it ads well. I will be requesting lower this page protection here. Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 09:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Status quo

[edit]

I propose to keep the present status quo with the two maps. Unsatisfactory for most, one way or the other, but the best of all options, I'm afraid. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I second your proposal. Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this proposal. Someguywhosbored (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 07:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maurya_Empire&oldid=1264740777"