Why could Mauryas not conquer Tamil Country

Nov 2012
3,852
#1
Why could Mauryas not conquer the Tamil Country despite coming as far down south till Karnataka and Andhra? There is no physical barrier between these areas and Tamil Nadu and considering that they could cross Vindhyas and come down till there, itself was a feat. Then why not conquer Tamil kingdoms who were across the border. Am I missing something, was there a battle fought, was it considered? What happened, please elaborate?
 

Jinit

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
5,274
India
#2
Why could Mauryas not conquer the Tamil Country despite coming as far down south till Karnataka and Andhra? There is no physical barrier between these areas and Tamil Nadu and considering that they could cross Vindhyas and come down till there, itself was a feat. Then why not conquer Tamil kingdoms who were across the border. Am I missing something, was there a battle fought, was it considered? What happened, please elaborate?

After the KAlinga war, Ashoka abandoned his imperial ambitions. So there wasn't any question that he would have gone for another bloody war in south.

I am not sure about any battles but I checked on wikipedia and it shows both sri lanka and Tamil nadu as tributory states of the Mauryas during the Ashoka's reign.



 
#3
After the KAlinga war, Ashoka abandoned his imperial ambitions. So there wasn't any question that he would have gone for another bloody war in south.

I am not sure about any battles but I checked on wikipedia and it shows both sri lanka and Tamil nadu as tributory states of the Mauryas during the Ashoka's reign.



it's grossly incorrect. most of mainland India was not in control of Mauryas. I will post a real map when I find that enlightning book again ... basically they controlled the trade routes from North to an important Buddhist center in AP. Also most of Nrth East and North West were under Mauryas if I recall correctly. NO TRIBUTE FROM SOUTH. We were friendly kingdoms!
 
Feb 2013
724
#5
it's grossly incorrect. most of mainland India was not in control of Mauryas. I will post a real map when I find that enlightning book again ... basically they controlled the trade routes from North to an important Buddhist center in AP. Also most of Nrth East and North West were under Mauryas if I recall correctly. NO TRIBUTE FROM SOUTH. We were friendly kingdoms!
I wouldn't call it a grossly incorrect. Only kingdoms that existed in South India mentioned by the Mauryans were the early Cholas, Cheras, Pandyans and Satyaputras. Even further were the Sri Lankans. All of which were "friendly" to the Mauryan empire. These kingdoms were indeed very small at that time.



In 3nd century BC I'm sure they were pretty small.

For example

Look at thre territory of the Chola kingdom in 180 AD. It was very small.

 
Last edited:

Jinit

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
5,274
India
#6

In short there isn't anything grossly incorrect in the map that I posted. India at that time wasn't the India of today. many parts were covered with the thick forests and hilly areas. It doesn't matter if they are showns as actually controlled area or not!!! Btw satvahnas were feudatories of Ashoka. which is beyond any doubt.

And basically as I said Ashoka abandoned his imperial ambitions after Kalinga war. If he would have decided to move forward it wouldn't have been too hard for him to conqure tiny kingdoms of south considering his brilliant past record in warfare.
 
#7
In short there isn't anything grossly incorrect in the map that I posted. India at that time wasn't the India of today. many parts were covered with the thick forests and hilly areas. It doesn't matter if they are showns as actually controlled area or not!!! Btw satvahnas were feudatories of Ashoka. which is beyond any doubt.

And basically as I said Ashoka abandoned his imperial ambitions after Kalinga war. If he would have decided to move forward it wouldn't have been too hard for him to conqure tiny kingdoms of south considering his brilliant past record in warfare.
I read somewhere, that Mauryas were S Indians themselves. This would explain their warfare capabilities.:cool:
 

Jinit

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
5,274
India
#8
I read somewhere, that Mauryas were S Indians themselves. This would explain their warfare capabilities.:cool:
How can someone from Patliputra is considered south Indian? :zany:

And btw which south Indian kingdom actually ruled the entire Indian subcontinent? (which is btw equally true for most of the North Indian kingdoms also). very rarely either of them were able to cross the traditional boundries between north and south.

So Stop this racial nonsense.
 
Last edited:
#9
How can someone from Patliputra is considered south Indian? :zany:

And btw which south Indian kingdom actually ruled the entire Indian subcontinent? (which is btw equally true for most of the North Indian kingdoms also). very rarely either of them were able to cross the traditional boundries between north and south.

So Stop this racial nonsense.
Agree.
But just for the record, both city names Patali(putra) and Patna come from Pattanam, a "South Indian" word.:deadhorse:
 

Similar History Discussions