Greatest Buddhist and Hindu Dynasties of India?

There were several great Buddhist, Hindu and Jain Dynasties in Indian history.

History of the Mahrattas:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=wLURAAAAYAAJ&dq=mahratta&pg=PR1#v=onepage&q&f=false

What about Maurya emperor Ashoka who conquered Pakistan and Afghanistan in the name of Buddhism during the second century BC?

This is very doubtful. At first Chandragupta defeated the Nanda Dynasty and established

Originally posted by Master1 This is very doubtful. At first Chandragupta defeated the Nanda Dynasty and established the Maurya empire in Eastern India and then he started the conquests of Northwestern India.

in 321 BC: After the death of Taxiles (Alexander's Governor) in Taxila, with the help of King Porus, Chandragupta (or Sandrocottus) established his empire in modern Punjab (in North Pakistan).

in 320 BC: Chandragupta defeated Magadhan Empire under Nanda Dynasty and established himself as an Emperor of Magadha.

in 316 BC: Chandragupta captured modern Sindh (in South Pakistan) from Greek Governor Peithon.

in 305 BC: Chandragupta defeated Seleucus and got Arachosia and Paropamisadae (modern Southern and eastern Afghanistan).

Chandragupta's conquest in South India is highly doubtful.

Even in the records of Seleucus it is stated that Chandragupta ruled east from the Indus river

Originally posted by Nick1986 Does the "greatest Buddhist dynasty" include the Buddha himself? He was a prince before his quest for enlightenment, as was his son Rahula

Buddha's son also became a monk: an inheritance his father saw as more precious than material wealth or kingship

Originally posted by oxydracae He was the prince of small tribal Republic,

Would you explain why an Urban society with metallurgical, literary, religious , cultural and philosophical sophistication is reduced to the status of a "Tribe"?????

The Mahajanapadas  were advanced Iron age states.

They were not tribes.

To quote Steve Muhlberge,

Long ago Jayaswal rightly protested against the use of these terms: "The evidence does not warrant our calling [republics] 'clans.' Indian republics of the seventh [sic] and sixth centuries B.C...had long passed the tribal stage of society. They were states, Ganas and Samghas, though many of them likely had a national or tribal basis, as every state, ancient or modern, must necessarily have."  He was equally correct when he pointed out that "Every state in ancient Rome and Greece was 'tribal' in the last analysis, but no constitutional historian would think of calling the republics of Rome and Greece mere tribal organizations." 

Yet the phrases "clan-" and "tribal-republic" are still routinely used today in the Indian context, and it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that they are being used perjoratively. In both common and scholarly usage, to label a people's institutions or culture as tribal is to dismiss them from serious consideration. "Tribespeople" are historical dead-ends, and their suppression or absorption by more advanced cultures (usually those ruled by centralizing governments) is taken for granted.The terminology of even Indian historians demonstrates the survival of an ancient but inappropriate prejudice in the general evaluation of Indian republicanism.

Once that prejudice is overcome, Indian republicanism gains a strong claim on the attention of historians, especially those with an interest in comparative or world history.

It is especially remarkable that, during the near-millenium between 500 B.C. and 400 A.D., we find republics almost anywhere in India that our sources allow us to examine society in any detail. Unless those sources, not least our Greek sources, are extremely deceptive, the republics of India were very likely more extensive and populous than the poleis of the Greeks. One cannot help wondering how in many other parts of Eurasia republican and democratic states may have co-existed with the royal dynasties that are a staple of both ancient and modern chronology and conceptualization. This may well be an unanswerable question, but so far no one has even tried to investigate it. If an investigation is made, we may discover things that are as surprising to us as the republics of India originally were.

Edited by SuryaVajra - 21-Jul-2012 at 14:23

Ruins of Vaishali, capital of the Confederate Republic of  Videha, 600 BC -- 490 BC. It was a confederacy of 9 Republics who joined hands to fight Monarchies , especially Magadha.
The Pool, called Pushkarani, was a coronation tank for the ceremony.

A council of 7707 members who elected the president to Power.(BY Jain accounts).

Executive and Judiciary seperate

No Slavery. No segregation. A Buddhist society.

The Videhans almost wiped out Monarchy from North India. But Magadha defeated it in 491 BC, under Emperer Ajatashatru.

Ajatashatru had to invent the Schythed chariot , a catapult and  a covered chariot with swinging mace that has been compared to a Tank.  Ajatashatru defeated the 36 Republics around his kingdom after over a decade of Civili war. He attacked Vaishali with 5,70,000 troops.

The first war between Freedom and Monarchy was fought in India between 500 and 490 BC.Even after defeating the Republics, he had to permit them to have autonomy within his "Empire". The Republics survived until around 400 AD.

If Ajatashatru had lost, human political history would have been very different.




Oxydracae, Tribes dont built cities and maintain organized Armies and States..

I hope you have changed your mind, though I dont get a response.




Edited by SuryaVajra - 24-Jul-2012 at 04:16