Jump to content

Talk:Maurya Empire

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

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2024

[edit]

Iran should be added to the "today part of" subsection. Parts of modern-day Iran (Sistan and Baluchistan Province and Khorasan Province) were in the Mauryan empire.[1] JGallagher83 (talk) 23:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Please wait for your request to be processed instead of making an another request with the exact same content in a different IP/account. This is considered disruptive. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/mauryan-empire/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2024

[edit]

Iran should be added to the "Today part of" subsection.[1] 174.62.255.4 (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Duplicate request. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/mauryan-empire/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

"Hinduism"

[edit]

@PadFoot2008: infoboxes summarize the article; you're tipping the border of WP:DISRUPTIVE. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NB: even Brahmanism is hardly supported by the sources; rather the opposite. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is ironical! You are the one who is unilaterally, disruptively replacing Hinduism with Brahmanism all over the Wiki and when I revert your edits, you say that I am disruptive. PadFoot (talk) 08:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stick to scholarly sources, you push a Hindutva-narrative. "Hinduism" is not supported by the sources, and even "Brahmanism" is questionable. The long-standing version says "Brahmanism"; see, for example, 17 october 2023, or 23 november 2021. "Hinduism" was first added here, with a source (Sailendra Nath Sen, Ancient Indian History and Civilization) which says "During the Mauryan perid Brahmanism was an important religion." Nath Sen is outright contradicted by Bronkhorst and Omvedt, the other two sources for "Brahmanism." Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan, if it is the long standing version then I wouldn't revert any further. Also I don't "push" any narrative. You support the section of scholars that consider the term "Hinduism" to encompass the religions in India from the classical period onwards, while I see the scholars that consider "Hinduism" as encompassing the post-synthesis religions as well as Brahmanism and Vedism as being more plausible. If you are going to be making personal attacks on me, and claim that I support some weird stupid propaganda, then I do not know what to think of you anymore. PadFoot (talk) 11:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's even worse: you reverted this edit of mine, from 9 september 2023, edit-summary

correction after checking the sources; they say "Brahmanism," as expected; what we today call "Hinduism" just *started* to emerge at the time of the Mauryan Empire, partly as a Brahmanical response to the influence and popularity of Buddhism

Instead of checking the sources, you removed the quotes from those sources diff. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More quotes:

  • Thapar, Romila (1960). "Aśoka and Buddhism". Past & Present, Nov., 1960, No. 18 (Nov., 1960), pp. 43-51. :
  • "the Mauryas did not conform to the accepted religion of most royal families of the time, Brahmanism."
  • Bronkhorst, Johannes (2011). "Candragupta Maurya and his importance for Indian history". Indologica Taurinensia 37 (2011 [2014]), 107-121.
  • "We know that Aśoka’s personal leanings were toward Buddhism, and tradition testifies to the fact that all the other rulers of the Maurya empire had strong links with Jainism, sometimes Ajivikism, but never with Brahmanism. A persistent tradition maintains that Candragupta was a Jaina."
  • "The picture that is slowly gaining ground in modern research is that the establishment of the Maurya empire spelt disaster for traditional Brahmanism. Brahmins in earlier days performed rituals at the courts of kings in the Brahmanical heartland. This Brahmanical heartland was conquered by rulers from Pāṭaliputra, who had no respect for Brahmanical rituals and needed no Brahmins at their courts."
  • "the region of Magadha had not been brahmanized at the time of Candragupta."

With respect to the Hindu synthesis, Bronkhorst again:

  • "This incorporation into a larger empire, first presumably by the Nandas, then by the Mauryas, took away all the respect and privileges that Brahmins had so far enjoyed, and might have meant the disappearance of Brahmins as a distinct group of people. The reason [110] why this did not happen is that Brahmanism reinvented itself. Deprived of their earlier privileges, Brahmins made an effort to find new ways to make themselves indispensable for rulers, and to gain the respect of others."
  • "It [118] was because of the Maurya empire that Brahmanism had to reinvent itself. It was because of that empire that Brahmanism transformed itself from a ritual tradition linked to local rulers in a relatively restricted part of India into a socio-political ideology that succeeded in imposing itself on vast parts of South and Southeast Asia, together covering an area larger than the Roman empire ever had."

So, even "Brahmanism" is questionable. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 02:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2024

[edit]

Iran should be added to the "Today part of" section.[1] Suhas18891995 (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done:Duplicate request. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/mauryan-empire/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

First Indian Empire

[edit]

it is also reffered to as the first indian empire

just like how First persian empire

should i add it along with the mauryan empire?

first persian empire has many names and all of them are in the first paragraph why not put this also in the first paragraph

https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/mauryan-empire/ WhatAGreatWikiTuber (talk) 10:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. The source you've provided says it was the first pan-Indian empire, not that it is referred to as "The First Indian Empire". RegentsPark (comment) 19:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so should we add that it was the first pan-indian empire? WhatAGreatWikiTuber (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://archive.org/details/indianempire0000roxb_o3e6what about this WhatAGreatWikiTuber (talk) 17:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't emulate material for grades 5-8 (material which instantly contradicts itself anyway) or primary school textbooks. NebY (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

dynasty?

[edit]

wasnt it a dynasty of the Magadha kingdom and not an empire? like the qing dynasty JingJongPascal (talk) 06:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong MAP

[edit]

The above map (with holes) should be of 261 BCE , Which is their low end estimate JingJongPascal (talk) 09:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better Map

[edit]

Part I

[edit]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Standard_Mauryan_Empire.png

This is the standard "textbook" map of the Maurya Empire which is used globally in studies. It is accepted by globally by nearly all the Historians.

Author of Map and Description : @Buddhamitra sangha

The current map with holes is not universally accepted.

Some maps references:

  • ASI (Archeological Survey Of India) referenced rough map of Mauryan Empire : [1]
  • British Historian Geoffrey Parker created map on Mauryan Empire : [2]
  • British historian Patrick K. O'Brien created Mauryan Empire Map : [3]
  • American historian Gerald Danzer created Mauryan Empire Map : [4]
  • British Historian Charles Allen created Mauryan Empire Map : [5]
  • Historian Robert W. Strayer and Eric Nelson created Mauryan Empire Map : [6]
  • Irish Historian and Indologist Vincent Arthur Smith created Mauryan Empire Map : [7]
  • Anthropologist and Bioarcheologist Professor Ian Barnes created Mauryan Empire Map : [8]
  • By World History Encyclopaedia : [9]
  • Historical Geographer Charles Joppen created Mauryan Empire Map : [10]

Greek Historian on Empire extent(regarding Chandragupta) :

  • Greek historians mentioned the result of Seleucid–Mauryan war where Seleucid Empire's eastern satrapies( Gedrosia,Arachosia, Aria, and Paropamisadae) ceded to Mauryan Empire :
    • " Seleucus crossed the Indus and waged war with Sandrocottus [Maurya], king of he Indians, who dwelt on the banks of that stream, until they came to an understanding with each other and contracted a marriage relationship. Some of these exploits were performed before the death of Antigonus and some afterward."

— Appian, History of Rome, The Syrian Wars 55[11]

    • "The geographical position of the tribes is as follows: along the Indus are the Paropamisadae, above whom lies the Paropamisus mountain: then, towards the south, the Arachoti: then next, towards the south, the Gedroseni, with the other tribes that occupy the seaboard; and the Indus lies, latitudinally, alongside all these places; and of these places, in part, some that lie along the Indus are held by Indians, although they formerly belonged to the Persians. Alexander [III 'the Great' of Macedon] took these away from the Arians and established settlements of his own, but Seleucus Nicator gave them to Sandrocottus [Chandragupta], upon terms of intermarriage and of receiving in exchange five hundred elephants. "

— Strabo 15.2.9[12]

  • Greecian historian Pliny also quoted a passage from Megasthanes work about Chandragupta Empire boundaries:
    • " Most geographers, in fact, do not look upon India as bounded by the river Indus, but add to it the four satrapies of the Gedrose, the Arachotë, the Aria, and the Paropamisadë, the River Cophes thus forming the extreme boundary of India. According to other writers, however, all these territories, are reckoned as belonging to the country of the Aria. "

— Pliny, Natural History VI, 23[13]

  • Megasthenes defined the region that Chandragupta won from Seleucus as likely western side Gedrosia which shares boundaries with the Euphrates River, and eastern side Arachosia shares boundaries with the Indus. The northern frontier boundary formed by Hindukush mountain range:
    • " India, which is in shape quadrilateral, has its eastern as well as its 'western side bounded by the great sea, but on the northern side it is divided by Mount Hemôdos from that part of Skythia which is inhabited by those Skythians who are called the Sakai, while the fourth or western side is bounded by the river called the Indus. "

- Book I Fragment I , Indica, Megasthanes[14]

    • " Sandrokottos (Chandragupta) the king of the Indians, India forms the largest of the four parts into which Southern Asia is divided, while the smallest part is that region which is included between the Euphrates and our own sea. The two remaining parts, which are separated from the others by the Euphrates and the Indus, and lie between these rivers... India is bounded on its eastern side, right onwards to the south, by the great ocean; that its northern frontier is formed by the Kaukasos range(Hindukush Range) as far as the junction of that range with Tauros; and that the boundary."

- Book I Fragment II , Indica, Megasthanes[15]

JingJongPascal (talk) 13:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

clearly it is the 'standard' extent of the Mauryan Empire.
Each empire specially ancient ones, have multiple debates and extents by different historians, the one universally accepted should be taken into consideration. JingJongPascal (talk) 13:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussed before; see talkpage history. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By saying that your ignoring all the sources written by the author of the map JingJongPascal (talk) 17:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the standard "textbook" map of the Maurya Empire which is used globally in studies. It is accepted by globally by nearly all the Historians. -says which source? Confirmation-bias WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the author has listed around 10 sources just below it JingJongPascal (talk) 05:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And which says that it is "the standard "textbook" map of the Maurya Empire," or "accepted by globally by nearly all the Historians"? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

these sources, all of them represent the same extent, meaning it is the one which more accepted by historians JingJongPascal (talk) 08:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Meaning" is your conclusion, not of those authors. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
still it shows that it is the most widely used map by historians, not the one in the wiki article itself. JingJongPascal (talk) 09:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think both maps are in infobox so we arent supporting any interpretation. Edasf (talk) 11:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part II

[edit]

Except the first two of Herman Kulke and Burton Stein

All other sources for the sources for the page redirect to here - https://books.google.co.in/books?id=yaJrCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA451&redir_esc=y

5 historians name are mentioned and all of them redirect to this book. which is not even written by these historians.

and the demographer Tim Dyson mentions nothing about the "holes" or "autonomous areas" and only mentions about the deep south.

Pinging @Joshua Jonathan @RegentsPark @Edasf

JingJongPascal (talk) 08:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How come no one noticed this before? JingJongPascal (talk) 09:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussed before, as also noted before. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what your going to ignore it?
It's literally false information, those historians arent even the authors of the book JingJongPascal (talk) 12:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The names of the historians should be removed. JingJongPascal (talk) 12:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That Dyson do mention read correctly it says Loose knit Maurya Empire Edasf (talk) 11:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but it doesn't mentions which areas or regions were autonomous using it as a source is not accurate
And all the other sources except the first two are not even written by the historians mentioned yet Joshua keeps telling me to "read archives" JingJongPascal (talk) 12:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are right here Jingjong and it should be duty of @Joshua Jonathan to give links to archives.I would say that even if that sourced one isnt written by historians they like Romila Thapar in one of her lecture stated that "Maurya Empire was a empire of metropolis,... and periphal (autonomous) areas".Though,she also doesnt mention which areas. Edasf (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still it shouldn't be mentioned here, as the link of her "citation" redirects to some other book written by some other person, the citations are either made wrrong accidentally or intentionally to increase the no. of historians , this is Wrong Sources and Original Research aswell.
I am not talking about Map, the map itself seems pretty fine (as of now) but about the sources. JingJongPascal (talk) 14:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Periphal doesn't necessarily mean autonomous but can also means vassals and frontier kingdoms, which the mauryas had. JingJongPascal (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am gonna ping @PadFoot2008,@Fylindfotberserk Edasf (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We tend to not include vassals since it clearly states Core regions Edasf (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the map without "holes" is wrong too
It states Sir Joseph's historical atlas as a source which states a bit different map
So I have added another map representing the map that Sir Joseph represented in his historical atlas. JingJongPascal (talk) 14:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Map of Roman Empire includes Vassals
Maybe we could use different shading to represent the "debated regions"
Like ;
Maurya Empire synthetic map 250 BCE.png
Or
First Magadha Empire 250 BC.png JingJongPascal (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jingjong the newer map was just wild.It vanished Maurya control from South and incorrectly showed Aria under Mauryas.You better create a newer map I agree with your second one. Edasf (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt Sir Joseph atlas was actually that. Edasf (talk) 15:06, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The historical atlas is even more exxagerated. JingJongPascal (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The map I had added , shows the maximum extent (Seleucid ceded all those territories to Mauryas, as mentioned in many sources and even the one already present in the article). JingJongPascal (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quote:"Selucus must have held Aria his son was active there years later" From Grainger 2014 Edasf (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quote : Seleucid Empire's eastern satrapies such as Aria, Arachosia, Gedrosia and Paropamisadae ceded to the Maurya Empire. As per https://archive.org/details/asokadeclineofma0000romi
Pg-16 JingJongPascal (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:India_250_BC.jpg
Ceded territoried as per this map, by Joppen JingJongPascal (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ceded territories as per
https://www.worldhistory.org/Mauryan_Empire/ JingJongPascal (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that Aria/Herat was one of the provinces (alongside Arachosia, Gedrosia, and Paropamisadae) ceded by Seleucus to Chandragupta Maurya is often repeated, but Aria (modern Herat) "has been wrongly included in the list of ceded satrapies by some scholars [...] on the basis of wrong assessments of the passage of Strabo [...] and a statement by Pliny." (Raychaudhuri & Mukherjee 1996, p. 594). Seleucus "must [...] have held Aria", and furthermore, his "son Antiochos was active there fifteen years later." (Grainger 2014, p. 109) Edasf (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this is debated among historians too, many claim Aria was ceded other don't, but the point still remains
The sources mentioned for the map is not how the map is, it still misses other ceded territories of North West JingJongPascal (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats why I have from long time want a new map you better create a. Edasf (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part III

[edit]

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The historians in the refrences list , most of them do not mention this "map"
The map given in refrences is actually the one which is the maximum extent (in Archaeology of South Asian, the book on source provided by the hole map)
I don't have any problem with the map itself but the erroneous use of "Romila Thappar" and other historians who don't provide a solid representation of how a Mauryan empire without autonomous region would look like
Romila states "relativly liberated" "eastern Central India and deep South" she doesn't mentions any of the other "holes" in the map
Only 1, i.e parts of Kalinga and deep South. JingJongPascal (talk) 17:22, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Map I dont have to debate now.Jingjong in this article public historian Anirrudh Kaniseti beautifully explains which parts. https://theprint.in/opinion/did-the-mauryas-really-unite-india-archaeology-says-no/1275078/ Edasf (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still many historical atlas show the "maximum extent" of Mauryan empire different, not the one in the wiki JingJongPascal (talk) 08:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Am taking about map without holes JingJongPascal (talk) 08:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give what problem you exactly have? Edasf (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are my problems summaried :
1)Name of the historians in the Maps with holes should be removed except the first two as they are very vague.
The sources provided for them , actually has a map without the "holes".
No problem with the map itself.
2) Maximum extent of the empire is to be the.... maximum.
The one currently displayed as the maximum extent is not the maximum Extent, as refer to
Standard Mauryan Empire.png
and it's sources
And
Charles Joppen , Ashoka Empire.jpg
Map by Charles Joppen JingJongPascal (talk) 10:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I am removing historian names.I think I should make a new map since, those maps have errors and arent very detailed. Edasf (talk) 10:29, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think the maps the holes is fine.
All problem I had with was the errenous use of names of historians.
But about the maximum extent map,
The
Standard Mauryan Empire.png should be used
As per the sources list on the description of the images itself. And by me in the start of this thread. JingJongPascal (talk) 10:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks but as told earlier that map has errors and imperfect detailing. Edasf (talk) 10:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

Pinging @JingJongPascal @Joshua Jonathan @Fowler&fowler @PadFoot2008 The first map, which shows the core areas separated by large independent areas, is poorly sourced, as none of the sources, except one, directly states the area that was not controlled; in addition to that, they neither state the area controlled(first two). Let's look at all the sources provided.:-

  1. Stein, Burton (2010), A History of India, John Wiley & Sons, p. 74, ISBN 978-1-4443-2351-1, "In the past it was not uncommon for historians to conflate the vast space thus outlined with the oppressive realm described in the Arthashastra and to posit one of the earliest and certainly one of the largest totalitarian regimes in all of history. Such a picture is no longer considered believable; at present what is taken to be the realm of Ashoka is a discontinuous set of several core regions separated by very large areas occupied by relatively autonomous peoples" Clear case of WP:OR does it even states the areas controlled forget about areas not being controlled.
  2. Dyson, Tim (2018), A Population History of India: From the First Modern People to the Present Day, Oxford University Press, pp. 16–17, ISBN 978-0-19-882905-8, "Magadha power came to extend over the main cities and communication routes of the Ganges basin. Then, under Chandragupta Maurya (c.321–297 bce), and subsequently Ashoka his grandson, Pataliputra became the centre of the loose-knit Mauryan 'Empire' which during Ashoka's reign (c.268–232 bce) briefly had a presence throughout the main urban centres and arteries of the subcontinent, except for the extreme south." Would reason the same as first.
  3. It is of Herman Kulke which shows the clear extent but it is the only one which does not fall in WP:OR.
  4. It is of Robin Coningham . I was not able to access it.


If we look, two of the four sources are WP: OR and the third, which shows the extent can be cross-questioned by the likes of historians: Vincent Arthur Smith, Joppen, Satish Chandra, R. C. Majumdar, historical geographer Joseph E. Schwartzberg, and many more. Hence the map should be removed and placed in a whole new section of Maximum extent or it should be put second in place.

Rawn3012 (talk) 04:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How is a source WP:OR? Are the authors not reliable? It's obvious that the 'vast space-map' is misleading', as clearly indicated by these sources. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also the historians whose names are mentioned except the first two don't even specifically specify anything about "autonomous region" they do mention that some tribes were "relatively" liberated. But don't specify anything about their actual imperial authoritisation and rule.
Hence I find it very vague,
and the third source ,"Archaeology of South Asia" actually shows a map without holes, it does not contain a map with holes or clearly specifies which regions were liberated from imperial rule.
According to me
Either the , names of historians should be removed (except the first two) and the "autonomous regions" should be clearly specified
As Romila Specifies these regions as "Eastern Central India" and "Deep South"
She doesn't mention any other autonomous region except these two.
So some of these sources are contradicting themselves. JingJongPascal (talk) 07:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maurya_Empire&oldid=1256507696"