Thank you. I have always wondered on how these large empires managed their civil administrations

Administration is equally important after having a new territory under control & this is nicely summarised here.thank you for your deliberations on the issue.

Was Toshali part of Kalinga and joined the kingdom only during Ashoka ? Did Ashoka build roads, hostpitals etc all acrross the kingdom ? Adminstrative wise what led to decline of Mauryan empire during the last 2 kings

The largest maps propogated tend to leave out Tamizhakam (Tamil Country) and the Northeast, and the Mauryan conquest of the Nanda state and the former Greek satrapies in India is well attested by Buddhist, Greek, Jain and Hindu accounts. Then we only need to concentrate on what sources have to say about the Deccan and whether any specific areas in the Deccan and the North were not under proper control, since this is what is commonly disputed by people. First, let's see Tamil accounts, which explicitly talk about a Mauryan invasion during Chandragupta's reign, which could not have happened without some degree of control over parts of the Deccan, more importantly, we know that the Vadugars, the people living in the Andhra-Karnataka region formed a part of this invading Mauryan army. The Sangam Tamil poet Mamulanar, in the Akananuru (Akam 251 and Akam 281) primarily talks of this, from it we get to know that the war-like Vadugar formed the vanguard of the Maurya army as it marched southwards, he also describes the Mauryan chariots rolling across a swathe cut in the mountain for their onward march. An important point is the mention of the 'Koshar', a group or a state whom Mamulanar insinuates were in conflict with the Tamils and were allies of the Mauryas in the Deccan (Upinder Singh places them in Northern Karnataka). Trans-Vindhyan conquests are also suggested by Graeco-Roman sources. Plutarch states that Sandrocottus over-ran and subdued the whole of ‘India’ with an army of 600,000 (an obvious exaggeration). Justin too describes Chandragupta as in possession of ‘India’. In the Greek view, as described by the diplomat Megasthenes, India was - "India then being four-sided in plan, the side which looks to the Orient and that to the South, the Great Sea (Indian Ocean) compasseth; that towards the Arctic is divided by the mountain chain of Hēmōdus (the Himalayas) from Scythia, inhabited by that tribe of Scythians who are called Sakai; and on the fourth side, turned towards the West, the Indus marks the boundary" Considering the existing evidence its safe to say that Chandragupta invaded Karnataka, most likely conquered it to some extent (native groups like the Koshar were perhaps subject to vassalage early on and later fully absorbed), then attempted an invasion of Tamil Country, which ended unsuccessfully (Tamil states continued on in their existence and Sangam poetry alludes to victory over the Vadugars and the Koshar). Then we have Taranatha’s account that states that Chanakya and Bindusara together *"destroyed the nobles and kings of 16 lands and made him master of all the territory between the eastern and western seas"*. Indicating further invasions and conquests in the Deccan, since only below the Vindhyas do we have "territory between the eastern and western seas". With this it is safe to say there was a conquest of the Deccan upto the northern fringes of Tamil Country, now what we need to do next is identify the level of control the Mauryans most likely had in the Deccan and in the North through surviving accounts. First, when we look at the Dhauli and Jaugada Major Rock Edicts, it mentions that officers stationed in Samapa and Tosali were to look out for and appease the avijita (unconquered) on the frontier, considering that both of these cities were on the Kalingan coast, we'd have to assume this refers to the inner central forested regions of Orissa-Chattisgarh, the land was dense and protected by terrain and proved hard for even the British to subdue, so the Mauryans having issue with it and the land being 'unconquered' even by the time of Asoka is not surprising. Then looking towards the Mansera and Girnar Rock Edicts, we see the mention of the aparanta, now traditionally the word is used to refer to a geographic region in Western India, but in this case it us used to refer to a class of peoples who are described as living "idha-raja-visayamhi" - in the kings territories, but not within direct and complete jurisdiction. The named groups are:- Yonas (Greeks - in modern day southern Afghan territories of the Mauryan state) Kambojas (in Northeast Afghanistan) Pitinikas (parts of Southern Maharashtra - Northern Karnataka) Nabhapamktis (Extreme North - parts of Uttrakhand, Western Nepal) Bhojas (parts of Southern Maharashtra) Andhras (parts of Coastal Andhra Pradesh and Telangana) Pulindas (Along the Vindhya ranges in MP) Gandharas (Modern Northwest Pakistan - Northeast Afghanistan) Rastrikas (No definite area known - some say Sindh, some say they were along with the Bhojas) So, from this what we can gather is that most of the North was under direct control, deeply forested regions in Central Orissa and Chattisgarh were inhabited by unconquered forest tribes (atavi), just like for most of history vast regions of the Afghan territory under the Mauryans were semi-autonomous or vassals not under full control, excluding the urban centers and major trade routes and roads. Then in the deccan parts of the Maharashtra-Karnataka border area were also semi-autonomous and so were parts of coastal Andhra, however, the rest of the Deccan was under direct Mauryan control de jure. Then we finish off with a few vassals near the Himalayas. These semi-autonomous regions and the unconquered lands were de jure under indirect jurisdiction or independent, while the rest were under direct control. Though it is important to note that exerting power would have been more difficult as one moved away from the core in Magadha, this does not imply that central control did not exist outside the north, merely that exercising it efficiently would have been harder away from Pataliputra. Correct me if I am rong. Sources:- A Brief History of India by Alain Danielou A History of India by Hermann Kulke and Dietmar Rothermund A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India: From the Stone Age to the 12th Century by Upinder Singh Asoka by R.K Mookerji Inscriptions of Asoka by Hultzsch Eugen

@01Crown

Жыл бұрын

Was the Thar desert and sundarbans under their control or not?

@kashutosh9132

Жыл бұрын

Wow such a elaborate commentary? Well are we sure Bengal region,NE region and Tamil region were not sort of vassals? are there theories for it? How did Ashok's children reached Sri Lanka to spread Buddhism without crossing Tamil region?

Love to see you concentrating on different aspects of mauryan empire and not just finishing it in few videos like most of the people i have seen

Your Thumbnails are absolutely beautiful

@JayVardhanSingh

Жыл бұрын

thank you!

_9:42__ Sangam literature refers this part of deccan (thakkaanam - தக்காணம்) as_ *region of twisted language* _(mozhi peyar theyam மொழிபெயர் தேயம்) indicating a creole of Tamil and prakrit is spoken here._

Great video! Can you also make a similar evidence based video on the influence of karkota Empire specially under Lalitaditya Muktipida. As many historians claim that he was subservient to Tang Dynasty of China and many have opposing view points!

@JayVardhanSingh

Жыл бұрын

Thanks for your suggestion. Will do a video on this soon.

@Jha.Pranav

Жыл бұрын

@@JayVardhanSingh 😊😊

@dwarasamudra8889

Жыл бұрын

Chinese believed everyone to be their vassals lol. They had a tribute system that every other nation thought was just called trade.

Can you make a video on siege weapons of ancient India? In depictions of battles in texts and sculptures I noticed a lack of artillery to the likes of Catapults or Ballistas in Ancient India. Even the armies mentioned by ancient authors don't talk about any significant artillery weapons. But despite that we can find high siege walls depicted in various sculptures such as in Sanchi where one of the sculptures depict the entrance of the city of Kushinagara and it does seem like Ancient Indian cities having high walls. Even in the Vedas, there are mentions of Arya tribes besieging forts and castles but most of the time, the destruction of such forts were credited to Indra who was referred to as the purambara meaning destroyer of forts and usage of siege weapons isn't mentioned. So how did siege battles take place in ancient India. We can clearly notice mentions and depictions of forts and high walls surrounding cities. Many Indian empires did indeed gain a large amount of territory in a very short period like the Nandas and the Mauryas. Such feat is impossible to achieve by just starving off the residents of the cities which would take a long time so there has to be techniques of destroying the walls of cities and forts. How did the militaries of those manage to do it?

@JayVardhanSingh

Жыл бұрын

I am currently gathering sources about this topic. Let's see if these sources are enough for a video or not. If you've any recommendation do let me know.

@Lmao69

Жыл бұрын

Good question

@alpha-vs1fx

11 ай бұрын

​@@JayVardhanSinghmake sure you note that when malik kafur and his troops were raiding deccan with siege cannons, they noted that many defenders had those as well.

Ashoka was sent to settle a rebellion in takshashila and govern ujjain according to some sources. Do they factor in the empire being centralised?

@JayVardhanSingh

Жыл бұрын

I don't think so. Centralisation would mean presence of huge government bureaucracy that implemented the decision of a central authority. Using force to put down a rebellion doesn't tell us about the functioning of the government.

Thanks for this most awaited and knowledgeable video

Saw your Vaad video, keep up the good work👍

@JayVardhanSingh

Жыл бұрын

Thank you!

Hey Jay, is there any archaeological evidence from the Mauryan empire which explains the governance and administration of that state apart from Arthasastra and is it sufficient enough?

@JayVardhanSingh

Жыл бұрын

I don't think there's any

I find your videos very informative and interesting. I have a few Mauryan coins, and this sparked my interest in Indias rich history. Now I have many different dynasties and empires from India in my collection. I have noticed other punch mark coins that don’t appear Mauryan, yet seem to be from the same era. Any ideas on their origins? Thanks for the videos, I really enjoy them, and I hope your channel grows quickly.

@JayVardhanSingh

Жыл бұрын

Thank you for the kind words. For the punch marked coins you can look at this book. archive.org/details/dli.ministry.25513

@mathewaitken938

Жыл бұрын

@@JayVardhanSingh thank you very much for the tip, I appreciate it .

@nationalist3227

Жыл бұрын

How do you have Mauryan Coins? Those are rare to India.

I m confused,like how do we know arthashastra was not used by mauryan kingdoms. If so does it mean arthashastra was theoretical book instead of practical implications?

@JayVardhanSingh

Жыл бұрын

The argument of these scholars here is that we don't have any evidence that the Arthashastra was the basis on which the Mauryan Empire was governed. They don't say that it wasn't used by the Mauryan kingdom. They just argue that we don't have any evidence. So here, the absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence. But apart from Athashastra, we also have to consider other evidence like the Ashokan Edicts.

Is there a correlation between the level of centralisation and use of paper/written method of transmitting info? Cuz it would be easier for kings to issue orders through paper than by oral tradition? And India was mostly an oral and rural society so wouldn't that be an argument for Indian empires being decentralised?

@JayVardhanSingh

Жыл бұрын

Yes, I think it is.

Nice

Hi Jay, this was an excellent vid. When Ashokas edicts refer to himself as king of magadha and not jambudvipa can you explain then exactly what he saw as his relationship with the realm of Jambudvipa. Also can you give me a very brief synopsis of where the term jambudvipa originates from and exactly what it’s boundaries are? Is it a Buddhist term? Because I’m sure the sources outlining the 7 dvipas is much later than Ashokas use of the term? On Wikipedia there is a new map of the mauryan empire with gaps which presumably connote polities, forests, areas where the Mauryans did not have control. Do you think this map might be more realistic than the one with no gaps? I have another question unrelated to this vid. In Strabos work on India he quotes Aristobulus who states that while on a mission he came across an area with 5000 abandoned cities complete with dependent towns and cities, destroyed from earthquake changing the course of the river bed. Are you familiar with this passage? If you are do you think Aristobulus is referring to the Indus ruins? Another question, I am posting here because I’m not sure if you still check comments on old videos. In one area you mentioned that the term mlechha was not used for Yavanas at one stage and later on it was used. I think you explained it was due to the political power over India which was wielded by the yavanas at the earlier stage which was later lost. I have also read that the achaemenids were not referred to as mlechhas, do you think it was for similar reasons or do you think ancient Indians and Persians recognised their shared Aryan culture? Hope you have time to answer all my questions. Thank you

@JayVardhanSingh

Жыл бұрын

Hard for us to say what Ashoka thought when he talked about Jambudvipa. I would say that he probably had in his mind the Indian subcontinent, as this is what Jambudvipa meant in Buddhist literature. About the history of the term Jambudvipa. I would do a series on Cosmology in Ancient India. So I will talk about it there. You can read Cosmography and geography in early Indian literature by Dineschandra Sircar. About the greek reference to Abandoned cities. It could be because the region is the same. But hard to say for sure. As far as I know, I don't think the Achaemenids are mentioned in Indian sources. So it is hard to say what the Ancient Indians thought about them.

@tvrulz46

Жыл бұрын

@@JayVardhanSingh Hey Jay, Thanks for replying. When you say it is hard to think about what he thought of Jambudvipa you appear to be referring to its physical borders. Can you also shed light on how he discusses his relation to it? As in, did he call himself Samrat or Chakravartin of jambudvipa or simply refer to the land in a detached context? This is a runaway passage from the wiki entry on "mleccha" - "Further, there is evidence that Indians of the Vedic period actually had contact with people outside of the subcontinent, namely the Persians. The Persians, who ruled over the Indus river valley during this time (522-486 BC) were not designated as mleccha, perhaps because they did not interfere with the brahminical way of life" In the context of your above comment I can see how they would not refer to the Achaemenids as mleccha as they were not referred to at all, though if that's the case it would be a dishearteningly misleading paragraph. For your interest also, I have drummed up this Post Arab invasion Persian poem appealing to Indians for military aid which tragically never came in time to save their religion. Are you familiar? "When may it be that a courier comes from India, and says: "The Shah Vehram from the family of the Kays has come, That there are a thousand elephants, upon their heads are elephant keepers, That he holds the raised standard in the manner of the Husravs, That the advance-guard is led by the army chiefs!" An intelligent man should be made our clever interpreter, Who may go and speak to the Indians: Namely, "What have we seen from the hand of the Arabs! For the unique people they ruined the Religion and killed the kings. We are from the Aryan stock, they are like the demons; And they hold the Religion as nothing, eat the bread like dogs. They have taken away the sovereignty from the Husravs, Not by skill, nor by manliness, but through sneaky mockery and scorn. They have taken away by force from men Their wives and wealth, sweet places, parks and gardens. Capitation-tax they have imposed, they have bestowed it upon their own chieftains; they have demanded a heavy tribute. Consider how much evil that Corruption has cast upon this world, So that nothing worse than that ever plagued the world!" "From us shall come that Shah Vehram, The Glorious, from the family of the Kays. We will bring vengeance on the Arabs, As Rotastahm brought vengeance by his mace on the whole world. Their mosques will we cast down, we will set up fires, Their idol-temples we will dig down and blot them out from the world, So that 'nihil' shall be the miscreations of the Corruption From this world.” (Vehram Varjavand)

@JayVardhanSingh

Жыл бұрын

Here's the edict where Ashoka mentions Jambudvipa. archive.org/details/InscriptionsOfAsoka.NewEditionByE.Hultzsch/page/n348/mode/1up?view=theater About the wikipedia information. From whatever I've read, Achaemenids aren't mentioned. Could the authors of Dharmasutra have in mind Persians when they wrote about Mlecchas? It could be, but this would be a speculation on our part. Thanks for this poem. I wasn't familiar with it. But it is true that the Sassanids did have relation with Indian powers.

@tvrulz46

Жыл бұрын

@@JayVardhanSingh Thank you for the source - I'm checking it out now. Ugh, it is so frustrating! "And men in Jambudvipa, being during that time unmingled with the gods" here he refers to it but when it comes to talking about the rock engravings - "And cause ye this matter to be engraved on rocks. (M) And where there are stone pillars here (in my dominions), there also cause (it) to be engraved." The crucial passage "in my dominions" is in brackets which i believe implies that the inscription was effaced and the words reinserted by the translator. So I can't confirm the veracity of the claim that the pillars were definitely placed in areas of Jambudvipa which are within the dominion of this King. This probably seems tedious to you Jay and I don't expect you to respond to it. More or less I understand why you hesitate to broaden his title from simply King of Magadh. Yes you are correct; the poem is far removed from the Achaemenid timeline, though I like to think it serves as circumstantial evidence that Zoroastrian Persians and Vedic IndoAryans shared a sense of kinship. These are the crossovers of history we don't get often like the Rabatak Inscription, Behistun and Alexanders exploration of Bactria/India that I love studying. Thanks for the chat - have a great day.

@JayVardhanSingh

Жыл бұрын

Ashoka calls himself Raja of Magadha in his edicts. Here's the edict archive.org/details/InscriptionsOfAsoka.NewEditionByE.Hultzsch/page/n351/mode/2up?view=theater About the line "in my dominion", here these words weren't effaced. Instead these words are added by the translator and according to him the word "here" refers to "in the Ashoka's dominion". I don't think that we can be sure of the fact that when Ashoka uses "here" he is talking about his dominion.

Bhaiya u are doing a great job by teaching history. I would like to suggest one thing - you use the word " that " a lot.

@JayVardhanSingh

Жыл бұрын

Thanks. Yes, I have this bad habit. Will work on it.

A non indian history channel called odd compass made a video on ashoka, and it said that he was a cruel and ugly king, I'm open to any possibility as long as it is true. So kya yahi sach hai?!

@JayVardhanSingh

Жыл бұрын

These details are mentioned in sources that were written some 300-400 years after the time of Ashoka. We cant prove whether these details are true or not. If you ask my view, some of these details are clear exaggerations. Like how cruel or ugly he was. It could be the case that these stories may contain some truth. But I don't think we should take these stories literally.

@friendlyvimana

Жыл бұрын

@@JayVardhanSingh yeah now it makes sense

@AryavardhanYaudheya

Жыл бұрын

Also He took his sources from Marxist historians like romalia thapar .

@friendlyvimana

Жыл бұрын

@@AryavardhanYaudheya ohh daumnnn

@ayush7745

Жыл бұрын

@@AryavardhanYaudheya I don't think you have read the romila thapar's book regarding ashoka

I was looking for this for a long time! Can you do a video about the decline of Buddhism in india, and role of Shankaracharya

@JayVardhanSingh

Жыл бұрын

thanks for the suggestion. Will do a video on Decline of Buddhism.

@Archi.x002

Жыл бұрын

@@JayVardhanSingh Another suggestion : The post Gupta period after their fall, political vacuum in northern India and rise of Pushyabhuti dynasty-Empire of Harshavardhana. kindly mention about the southern indian kingdoms too.

@JayVardhanSingh

Жыл бұрын

thanks will do videos on these topics as well.

@sanilyadav591

Жыл бұрын

@@JayVardhanSingh Video on Harsha and Pala Empire......

Thank you for giving such valuable and reliable information.

Make a video on religion of kushan

@JayVardhanSingh

Жыл бұрын

thanks for your suggestion, will do so soon

sir please suggest some books which give deep insight of Indian history

@JayVardhanSingh

Жыл бұрын

you can read the The History and Culture of the Indian People by R. C. Majumdar. It has 11 volumes.

@divyanshgarg451

Жыл бұрын

@@JayVardhanSingh thank you sir

Mauryan empire was divided in how many province?

@JayVardhanSingh

Жыл бұрын

we don't know

Hii I have also read that Ashoka also used to be called devanampriya piayadasi

@JayVardhanSingh

Жыл бұрын

yes in most of his inscriptions he uses this name

The only bureaucratic state in the ancient world was Qin Dynasty ruled China. No ancient Indian dynasty came close to China in being ruled by a scholar official elite. I wonder why? Was China more secular than India? Were Chinese emperors more authoritarian? Was it geography?

@ashupal4605

Жыл бұрын

Chinese emperor were heighly authoritarian in nature

@Deepak_Dhakad

Жыл бұрын

Though arthshastra represents highly bureaucratic state

@charvaka5705

Жыл бұрын

India was the birthland of different philosophies which even controlled the chinese state and even the chinese emperor could not control it, so India was far more "secular" than China...ancient Indian state had universities like Takshashila, Nalanda and so on...from where scholars were often hired by the rulers to guide them.

@jupe2001

Жыл бұрын

Qin Dynasty only lasted for 15 years? How was it more centralised? Also in every society it was the elites who had scholarly education. The Chinese empires for most of history only ruled between the region of the yellow and the yangzte rivers. The rest of China like the south, north, west, etc was not a part of the core civilisation. These peripheral regions also did not have the climate/productivity to stand up to the core regions between the two rivers. Look up the Heihe-Tengchong Line for better understanding.

@jupe2001

Жыл бұрын

@The Indian Socialist China never forced one language policy. Only the modern CCP did. China is one of the most linguisticly diverse place on earth.

Your video on Vaad channel was great!!!

@JayVardhanSingh

Жыл бұрын

Glad you think so!

Excellent sir Please consider my request one is tantricism and other is ithihasa purana tradition Thank you sir

@JayVardhanSingh

Жыл бұрын

Yes, will soon do a talk about it on the second channel.

@panchajanya4601

Жыл бұрын

@@JayVardhanSingh second channel kaha hai sir

Is there any evidence of Ashoka or Magadha kings doing Vedic rituals (Rajasuya Yadnya, etc) or is the indication that they were they exclusively donating to Buddhist temples/stupas etc…

@tvrulz46

Жыл бұрын

Great question. I’m also curious. Could be a complicated topic though. My two cents, writing became widespread under mauryan rule for the first time. And you see very important Vedic texts and traditions being written down as well as references to “depictions of epics” and depictions of vimanas. I would infer that large segments of mauryan society had interest in what what we describe as contemporary Hinduism

@JayVardhanSingh

Жыл бұрын

I haven't come across such evidence of Vedic rituals. But the Magadha kings didn't solely support Buddhism. We have inscriptional evidence of Dasharatha supporting the Ajivikas.

I read that there over 30 million manuscripts alone in sanskrit. And estimate for all indian languages is 50 million. Then why people say we have little survived texts. And are these all manuscripts based on literature or they contains some historical information.

@JayVardhanSingh

Жыл бұрын

Most of these manuscripts haven't studied yet. So we don't even know what information they contain. Maybe in future, these manuscripts could held us understand Ancient History in a better way.

@friendlyvimana

Жыл бұрын

@@JayVardhanSingh it is so lovely to think that there is possibility that in future we can actually get historical information about Indian history. Bht maza aega jab wo sab translate ho jaenge

@friendlyvimana

Жыл бұрын

@The Indian Socialist i think differently

@kashutosh9132

Жыл бұрын

​@theindiansocialist Mujhe pm banao Pehla kaam yehi karunga

please also attach your linkdin profile bhaiya

@JayVardhanSingh

Жыл бұрын

I don't have a linkdin profile

Came here from vaad

Was the roman empire a centralized entity?

@parthshukla545

Жыл бұрын

Yes, a military dictatorship per says after the ascension of Augustus Cesar in 27BCE. After 280 CE, the bureaucracy expanded further.

@JayVardhanSingh

Жыл бұрын

Yes, not like a modern state but compared to ancient society it was highly centralised

No empire is highly centralized. British used to govern with local rajas with Some autonomy.mughals did the same with rajputs and deccani sultanates. But they used to send armies only to quash rebellion or if the taxes were not being collected. Mauryans had similar style by what you said. Even today in India states and center work similarly.

@agnelomascarenhas8990

Жыл бұрын

Centralized governance requires very good communication links. Mongols had horse stables and relay stations, messages would travel non stop over thousands of kilometers. Mughals too had some kind of postal/messenger system. Turks had the Sarai (Inn) system for merchants. The British introduced telegraph, rail besides the earlier ships.

@mogambo4565

Жыл бұрын

@@agnelomascarenhas8990 whatever technology they had must have been good enough for their time.

@kashutosh9132

Жыл бұрын

​@@mogambo4565interseting view

Please sir use bi language I am from BHU

@JayVardhanSingh

Жыл бұрын

Hindi Channel shuru krunga jald hi bhai

Ashoka's edicts don't indicate a king who could enforce political commands immediately. Him giving a moral code instead makes the empire feel more decentralised imo. Even hindu texts instruct kings to let defeated kings continue to rule with paying some tribute(instead of seizing authority for yourself). Wouldn't that be an argument for decentralised kingdoms?

@JayVardhanSingh

Жыл бұрын

About your second point. These text talk about other state. But if you're talking about centralisation we have to consider the kingdom which was ruled by the king, not the kingdom that was conquered. For instance, a monarchy may conquer a republic and would allow the republic to function as they did earlier but they just have to accept the overlordship. So here the governments didn't change and we can't also say anything about Centralisation.

Who are the present descendent of maryans??

@JayVardhanSingh

Жыл бұрын

we don't know

@MrBUCKET-gt5og

Жыл бұрын

Bro their rule ended 2150+ years ago.

Second comment

Third comment

First comment