Talk:Maurya Empire

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Maurya Empire article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5: 30 days

India: History High‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Mid-importance).

Former countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country

Nepal Mid‑importance

	Nepal portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Section sizes

Section size for Maurya Empire (38 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	16,388	16,388
Etymology	4,966	4,966
History	13	47,132
Sources	1,851	1,851
Chandragupta Maurya	1,873	21,623
Unrest and warfare in the Punjab	3,888	3,888
Conquest of the Nanda Empire	6,659	6,659
Dynastic marriage-alliance with Seleucus	6,792	6,792
Chandragupta's state	2,411	2,411
Bindusara	9,949	9,949
Ashoka	4,771	4,771
Subhagasena (206 BCE)	1,595	1,595
Decline	4,655	7,330
Persecution of Buddhists	1,093	1,093
Establishment of the Indo-Greek Kingdom (180 BCE)	1,582	1,582
Military	513	513
Administration	86	6,938
Provinces	1,264	1,264
Network of core areas and trade routes	1,095	1,095
Monarchical ownership	552	552
Local government	2,298	2,298
Bureaucracy	1,643	1,643
Economy	4,181	4,181
Religion	8,002	8,002
Society	1,192	1,192
Architectural remains	4,028	4,028
Natural history	3,531	3,531
Contacts with the Hellenistic world	155	5,930
Greek population in India	2,736	2,736
Buddhist missions to the West (c. 250 BCE)	3,039	3,039
Timeline	918	918
Family tree and List of rulers	71	71
Branches and claimed descendants	277	277
See also	168	168
Notes	26,918	26,918
References	719	719
Sources	16,956	16,956
External links	1,647	1,647
Total	150,475	150,475

Status quo

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]

Jambudvipa?

I always assumed Jambudvipa was a geographical term, did the Mauryans use the term to describe their political entity or just the subcontinent? Or maybe both? Maurya-E-Mughal (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jambudvipa was added by another user a long time ago (several months), at that point of time, the edit was reverted, so I am wondering why is it being reinstated again? Maurya-E-Mughal (talk) 14:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Hello @Joshua Jonathan, I do not question your sources, but I am a bit puzzled here. Nowhere is it mentioned that "Jambudvipa" was the name of Ashoka's realm, and wasn't he referred to as "Magadha-raja"? I'm not sure he ever referred to himself as the 'ruler of Jambudvipa'? I'd like to hear your view on it. PadFoot (talk) 14:03, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have wrote about the same question in the above topic box,

Chandragupta was known as the Indian emperor and his empire as the Indian dominion by the Greeks. Maurya-E-Mughal (talk) 14:39, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PadFoot2008: this info is new for me too, but doesn't seem to be fringe; so, what do you mean exactly when you write Nowhere is it mentioned that "Jambudvipa" was the name of Ashoka's realm? Nowhere in the article? Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan I think Jambudvipa can be kept and we need a legacy section here as well. Mithilanchalputra (Talk) 15:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the lack of any edicts specifically mentioning that "our king's land is called Jambudvipa" or something like that. I do know that Jambudvipa itself is mentioned in his edicts but concluding that it must be the formal name of the polity and Ashoka doesn't use it to refer to a region seems a bit dubious to me. PadFoot (talk) 16:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PadFoot2008 Ah I will talk for it later but we need a legacy section Mithilanchalputra (Talk) 05:48, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Status quo #2

@Fowler&fowler: what consensus are you referring to with your statement diff I am sorry, but there is a consensus on the talk page not to tamper with the WP:STATUSQUO of the lead beyond rephrasing, but not changing the meaning or adding bells and whistles in the infobox.? The only status quo proposed so far is to stick to two maps. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I assume slightly modifying the network model by presenting a more accurate picture by representing vassals as well, without changing the borders in the slightest should not affect the status quo as well. I am open to suggestions on further improvements. PadFoot (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PadFoot2008 No need of depicting vassals in different shade atleast in infobox Mithilanchalputra (Talk) 05:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PadFoot2008 Needless change.[1] The modification you did is needless and doubius and original research. The references you given for location identification of those provinces is very uncertain.

Here in the king's domain among the Greeks, the Kambojas, the Nabhakas, the Nabhapamkits, the Bhoja, the Pitinikas, the Andhras and the Palidas, everywhere people are following Beloved-of-the-Gods' instructions in Dhamma. Rock Edict No.13 (S. Dhammika)

Which geographical map mention these provinces location so accurately. You even failed to provide proper identification of these locations. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 12:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't even bother to see the three scholarly sources, I expect. he locations are completely sourced per the sources provided. The sources provide sufficient description of the geographical locations including the capital cities themselves. PadFoot (talk) 13:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not comfortable with too much dickering with the lead. I wrote my sentences carefully cited to the best sources. You've changed them, for example the one about Arthashastra. Instead of leaving it as a work now thought to date to the early centuries CE, you've added the extraneous comment about it no longer being reliable because of .... Scholars don't make such black and white judgments. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 12:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. Regarding the Arthashastra, Olivelle and McClish do state that the Srthashastra can't be used as a source for the Maurya Empire, as it post-dates the ME. I'll look-up the pagenumbers. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you have the page numbers, there is no academic consensus about its lack of reliability as some scholars consider it to be based on contemporaneous material, which later compilers built on. Ancient Indian scholarship is full of such works. Indian mathematics is a good example. Aryabhatta's work on astronomy, in the lost work Aryabhattiyasidhant, is pieced together from the later commentaries of Bhaskara, Varamahira and others. There is academic consensus that the Arthashastra is a later work, of many centuries later. Let us leave it at that. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, implying that it may not be usefull as a source for Mauryan times, without explicitly stating so? Let me think about it. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Arthashastra, a work first discovered in the early 20th century and highly regarded as a source for Mauryan times, is traditionally attributed to Kautilya, but now thought to be composed by multiple authors in the first centuries of the common era, providing "a shaky foundation for the edifice built on it."

Quote from Basham's foreword to Trautmann (1971), as cited in the note. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you should leave it at: The Arthashastra, a work first discovered in the early 20th century, and previously attributed to Kautilya, but now thought to be composed by multiple authors in the first centuries of the common era

Trautmann's work is 55 years old. This Christmas morning I won't do anything, but please for the article's sake, do not dicker with the previous text in dozens of small edits. It begins to border on OR. You're a good guy and I've had a good relationship with you, but please do not do this. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no other empire in a loose knot fashion on this entire website. Why is Mauryan Empire an exception. This is pure bias 2409:40F4:8:70C4:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requirements of new updates

There has been some new development in terms of timelines of Different Rulers of this dynasty. And, some new Findings about Beliefs & Architecture during Mauryans. Moreover, Some cities aren't added in the map. Shouldn't we Add a Map of Peak extension of the Empire in Down South & East? Skalvanov (talk) 13:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skalvanov Can you briefly explain what those updates are? Mithilanchalputra (Talk) 16:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iran and the Mauryan Empire

Hello! Parts of modern-day Iran, like Nepal, were under Mauryan rule. They were ceded by the Seleucids to the Mauryans following the Mauryan-Seleucid war. This is supported by historical records. Should it not be included in the “today part of” section? This edit seems quite uncontroversial. Athukamvamsi (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go through the talkpage-history, and you'll see it's not "uncontroversial," nor "supported by historical records." It's an exaggerated interpretation of an ambiguous remark from a source written 300 years after the supposed event. Worse, the notion of "Maury rule" is questionable, even for India itself. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]