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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maurya_Empire&oldid=1250631868"