Talk:Maurya Empire

Off-wiki

At Redditt here. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
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)

@Joshua Jonathan Do you really consider a Public Historian as RS here? Edasf«Talk» 13:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

What's your point? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Do not take Reddit discussion and a mere opinion piece as source. Edasf«Talk» 08:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Protected Edit Request on 28 November 2024

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

References

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

@Fowler&fowler you are using miles while i am using million sq. metre!! JingJongPascal (talk) 17:01, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

How many square miles is that? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Fowler, it's about 965000 sq mile JingJongPascal (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

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:

• Taagepera, Rein (1978). "Size and duration of empires: Systematics of size" (PDF). Social Science Research. 7 (2): 108–127. doi:10.1016/0049-089X(78)90007-8. ISSN 0049-089X. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2020-07-07. Retrieved 2020-07-07.
• Taagepera, Rein (1978). "Size and Duration of Empires: Growth-Decline Curves, 3000 to 600 B.C." (PDF). Social Science Research. 7 (2): 180–196. doi:10.1016/0049-089x(78)90010-8. ISSN 0049-089X. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2020-07-07. Retrieved 2020-07-07.
• Taagepera, Rein (1979). "Size and Duration of Empires: Growth-Decline Curves, 600 B.C. to 600 A.D.". Social Science History. 3 (3/4): 115–138. doi:10.2307/1170959. JSTOR 1170959.
• Taagepera, Rein (September 1997). "Expansion and Contraction Patterns of Large Polities: Context for Russia" (PDF). International Studies Quarterly. 41 (3): 475–504. doi:10.1111/0020-8833.00053. JSTOR 2600793. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2020-07-07. Retrieved 2020-07-07.

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

Topic ban

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)

Note

AH#1

@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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

@PadFoot2008: ah, I see; thanks for claryfying. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@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)

Thanks; I'll have to look that up. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan? PadFoot (talk) 13:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@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)

Alright, thanks. PadFoot (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

Replying to @PadFoot2008's arguments.The Indus region, including the lower Indus, was under the control of some Greek satrapies until Chandragupta Maurya is known to have liberated these areas.. 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

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

Thanks. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Indeed. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

AH#2

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)

That's your conclusion, isn't it? See WP:OR. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

@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)

We're talking here about after that confrontation... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

"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)

@Joshua Jonathan That's pure speculation. Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 08:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

@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)

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)

I second your proposal. Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. Someguywhosbored (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Agree Mithilanchalputra(Talk) 07:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

@PadFoot2008 Needless change.[8] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)