were king ashoka and chandragupta maurya really the most famous indian conquerers or others?

[W.11]

the dynasty founded by chandragupta maurya and strengthened by king ashoka receive the most highlight when it comes to indian conquerers, most of all it has been an imperialist strategy to highlight those people who find mention in the greek hellenistic records. Other more famous personalities who had nothing to do and either came before or after european/western references are downplayed so much that we dont know the true worth of their conquests or leadership.

A karnataka based inscriptions from 9th to 12 centuries from rival sources assert the fame of nanda kings and a gupta empire king called sri chandra vikramaditya.

greek sources and tamil sources highlight presence of the nandas in karnataka, greeks indirectly mention how chandra maurya possessed entire india, this fact begs an important argument of whether chandra maurya inherited that vast expensive empire or carved it himself like alexander did. The tamil sources from sangam age attest to their knowledge of the nandas and mauryas but not the magadh region kings before that. sangam lierature also hints mauryans flying white flags and scythe chariots and carving out mountain rocks in order to invade tail country kingdom which opposed the kingdoms of karnataka.

The same mysore sources highlight exploits of chandra vikramaditya along with the nandas, chalukyan king appearing as ejalous guy who's fame is eclipsed by these more known conquerers in south india and his efforts in establishing his own era.

regards

 

[Juggernaut_Flat_Plane_V8]

Some later plays I think mention that Chandragupta took the help of foreign mercenaries to establish his empire...for me the greatest Indic warrior would be Yashodharman...Any army that could take on and completely drive out nomadic horselords in the 1400 years between 400 AD and 1800 AD, deserves respect

 

[W.11]

Some later plays I think mention that Chandragupta took the help of foreign mercenaries to establish his empire

coquered foreign hence the foreign ercenaries, its not like the achaemenids didnt take help from the indians, greeks, egyptians etc.

regards

 

[Crixus]

Kautilya was the kne who made Chandragupt Maurya the king .... he is the main brain behind the hnification against Alexander ...

 

[Uguduwa]

Ashoka was an idiot though. He could have standardized the culture in his empire and instead he went with his tolerant mumbo jumbo and made India weaker and divided for future generations.

 

[Flash_Ninja]

Ashoka was an idiot though. He could have standardized the culture in his empire and instead he went with his tolerant mumbo jumbo and made India weaker and divided for future generations.

Thats the natural state of the region, you cant seriously think an area the size of Europe and 100 times more diverse can somehow be unified do you?

 

[Uguduwa]

Thats the natural state of the region, you cant seriously think an area the size of Europe and 100 times more diverse can somehow be unified do you?

China did so why couldn't India?

 

[Flash_Ninja]

China did so why couldn't India?

China is like 90% Han Chinese

I'm Punjabi and I could go 100km from my village in each direction and come across another ethnicity with their own language.

 

[Uguduwa]

China is like 90% Han Chinese

I'm Punjabi and I could go 100km from my village in each direction and come across another ethnicity with their own language.

China was not always like this. They standardized culture early on that's why you see a big share of han majority. If India had done the same then it would have been way easier to manage.

 

[Flash_Ninja]

China was not always like this. They standardized culture early on that's why you see a big share of han majority. If India had done the same then it would have been way easier to manage.

I dont think thats true. Regions of China with the most 'difficulties' like Xinjiang, Tibet, Mongolia, have been integrated since ancient China.

Also I dont know about India, but most of the ethncities of Pakistan have long warrior traditions and theres no way they would have rolled over like that. Probably the same for Tamils and Bengalis too, they've also been very protective of their cultures.

 

[Uguduwa]

I dont think thats true. Regions of China with the most 'difficulties' like Xinjiang, Tibet, Mongolia, have been integrated since ancient China.

Also I dont know about India, but most of the ethncities of Pakistan have long warrior traditions and theres no way they would have rolled over like that. Probably the same for Tamils and Bengalis too, they've also been very protective of their cultures.

The name "Han" comes from Han Dynasty that conquered a diverse population in a huge landmass and standardized the culture and language. (correct me if I am wrong). Actually to this day, China is quite diverse although you may not realize but the key is the people there were united and made to believe in one country. I think everyone has more to gain by this rather than being divided into tribes.

 

[Flash_Ninja]

The name "Han" comes from Han Dynasty that conquered a diverse population in a huge landmass and standardized the culture and language. (correct me if I am wrong). Actually to this day, China is quite diverse although you may not realize but the key is the people there were united and made to believe in one country. I think everyone has more to gain by this rather than being divided into tribes.

Han is an ethnic group though

 

[El Sidd]

Maybe they are glorified more because they were northerners where seat of power lies.

 

[Rusty]

"Famous" only because the British rediscovered them.
"Indians" had completely forgotten about them and now are using them for historic revisionism.

 

[CrazyZ]

There was no "India" at this time. Chandragupta Maurya's origins are unknown. There some who believe he was Gandharan.