Why could Mauryas not conquer Tamil Country

Jun 2013
24
Chennai
#41
Sea trade in ancient times was very risky, climate, pirates and so on. South, especially kerala, karnataka and eastern coasts had monsoon for most part of the year.

During Maratha Mughal wars post Shivaji, entire Karnataka and Andhra fell to Mughals and Marathas were fighting from Jinji Fort which was made their bastion. Entire Tamil Nadu kingdoms were either vassals of either Mughals or Marathas.
maharaths could come only upto tanjore and palayarkar system started during naiks tym was well established and they were neither vassals of maharatha nor islamic rulers. there were also sethupathi kings in ramnad district wo were seprate rulers too.


secondly south india was the centre of maritime trade as through history. from chinese, ancient roman and greek empires to eastern countries lykk cambodia, java, indonesia... they had both political and maritime links. saying single port in gujarat was bigger than d whole of south india in imaturish
 

tornada

Ad Honoris
Mar 2013
15,385
India
#43
Sea trade started with south east asia in megalithic period itself from 1000 to 200 BC. Much before the Mauryan influence.

This is a new area of exciting research from what i read.
nobody is denying it existed. But it only became very widespread after the charting of the Monsoon Winds.
 
Nov 2012
3,852
#44
I just think describing the South Indian kingdoms as "outposts" of northern kingdoms or "constantly dependent" on northern kingdoms is inaccurate. The Cholas, Cheras, Pandyas, etc were all very powerful kingdoms in their own rights. Harsha Vardhana, Ashoka, Ala-Ud-Din Khalji, none ever conquered the entire peninsula. The deep south was always a powerful center of wealth and culture in its own rights. And once the Monsoon was navigable, sea trade boomed, since sea trade takes less time, and helps reduce costs. The risks associated with overall trade ma have been less, but the taxes and tertiary costs were higher. And the south became an entrepot for trade, as evidenced by the massive hoards of foreign coins we seem to keep uncovering.

I am BTW referring to largely the Pre-Islamic conquest period, though the south remained free of the Islamic coverage to a much greater extent than North India
I agree with Tornado. There is a continuous tendency in here to project south indian kingdoms as poor, barbaric, uncivilized which relied on north but the truth is they were wealthy, highly cultured and probably the only ones having influence extending upto SE Asia and had ambassadors from Rome and China. This is a misconception and to deginerate South Indian kingdoms of the past to show that North and the Gangetic plain alone was the centre of India is absolutely wrong.

Btw the Cholas did conquer right upto the Gangetic plain in Bengal to SE Asia and could navigate all the difficulties of diverse terrain both on land and sea.
 

Jinit

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
5,274
India
#45
I agree with Tornado. There is a continuous tendency in here to project south indian kingdoms as poor, barbaric, uncivilized which relied on north but the truth is they were wealthy, highly cultured and probably the only ones having influence extending upto SE Asia and had ambassadors from Rome and China. This is a misconception and to deginerate South Indian kingdoms of the past to show that North and the Gangetic plain alone was the centre of India is absolutely wrong.

Btw the Cholas did conquer right upto the Gangetic plain in Bengal to SE Asia and could navigate all the difficulties of diverse terrain both on land and sea.
Ok I agree that South Indian polities do not get the deserved recognition and attention most of the times (although even that perception is somewhat questionable - Satvahanas, Vijayanagar empire etc certainly gets much more attention. Only Peninsular India - Tamilnadu and Kerala are somewhat ignored most of time. But then that is the case for regional kingdoms of all over India), but lets not go into exaggeration mode either.
 
Nov 2012
3,852
#46
Ok I agree that South Indian polities do not get the deserved recognition and attention most of the times (although even that perception is somewhat questionable - Satvahanas, Vijayanagar empire etc certainly gets much more attention. Only Peninsular India - Tamilnadu and Kerala are somewhat ignored most of time. But then that is the case for regional kingdoms of all over India), but lets not go into exaggeration mode either.
I am not exaggerating. Is it not true. Vijaynagar gets mentioned because at that time there was no strong and large kingdom that was Hindu up north so Vijaynagar filled that void. Had there been strong Hindu kingdoms up north Vijaynagar would not be as popularly known. When you look at history it becomes more Magadha, Gangetic plain, Punjab area centric. Bengal to some extent. Places like Assam, TN, Kerala etc. are neglected. I am not exaggerating. I just feel this Delhi, Gangetic plain centrism of history must stop. That Tamils got culture only from north and had no contribution but of the derivative type is erroneous.

I am also extremely critical of Dravidist historians so you cant accuse me of exaggeration. We must have a balance thats all am asking. I deny and reject Dravidian Tamil theories with the same vigour as well.
 

civfanatic

Ad Honorem
Oct 2012
3,315
Des Moines, Iowa
#47
I agree with Tornado. There is a continuous tendency in here to project south indian kingdoms as poor, barbaric, uncivilized which relied on north but the truth is they were wealthy, highly cultured and probably the only ones having influence extending upto SE Asia and had ambassadors from Rome and China. This is a misconception and to deginerate South Indian kingdoms of the past to show that North and the Gangetic plain alone was the centre of India is absolutely wrong.

Btw the Cholas did conquer right upto the Gangetic plain in Bengal to SE Asia and could navigate all the difficulties of diverse terrain both on land and sea.
It is only partially correct to say that ancient India history is "North-centric". It is centered not on North India as a whole, but specifically on the Indo-Gangetic plain, and even more specifically on the eastern Indo-Gangetic plain (UP-Bihar region). Large swathes of North India including Rajasthan, Kashmir, Panjab, Assam, Jharkhand, etc. receive even less attention than Sangam-era Tamil Nadu. It is only in medieval times that all of these regions hosted powerful kingdoms of their own.

In ancient times, the Gangetic plain was indeed the center of India. South Indians in 300 BCE were not "poor, barbaric, and uncivilized", but neither did South India have any cities that could compare to Pataliputra, and no South Indian kingdom could compare to Magadha. Given these facts, the relative emphasis on the Gangetic plain by historians of ancient India becomes understandable.
 

SSDD

Ad Honorem
Aug 2014
3,900
India
#48
South India is not really ignored. Along with Satvahanas and Vijayanagara, Rashtrakutas and Cholas are given importance as well.

Perhaps Mauryan supply line was over extended, I also think Tamils accepted Mauryan suzerainty. So there was no need to conquer.
 
Nov 2014
134
Chennai
#49
Mauryan rule should be considered as Dravidian
- Language similarities
- Religious similarities
- Culture and Trade similarities

Language: Both Prakrit and Tamil coexists. The stone writings as a culture followed which can be evidenced from Prakrit and Tamizhi stone writing were found in more than 100,000 carvings

Religion: Hinduism did not spread across or did not exists, where as Samanam (Jaina) and Buddhism spread across and coexists with Saivam and Murugan. Both the temples/pagodas were constructed on top of the hill traditionally, Samanam has made huge contribution to the growth of Tamil litrature

Culture & Trade: Both of them were focusing on spreading culture and sea trade, which can be evidenced from South East Asia and Sea trade with Mediterranean sea surroundings like Rome etc, also spread of Buddhism in ASEAN region

There is a possibility that both South Indian and Mauryan kings would have come from the same blood lineage, which cannot be denied just using the South and North divides.
 
Nov 2009
8,402
Canada
#50
Mauryan rule should be considered as Dravidian
- Language similarities
- Religious similarities
- Culture and Trade similarities

Language: Both Prakrit and Tamil coexists. The stone writings as a culture followed which can be evidenced from Prakrit and Tamizhi stone writing were found in more than 100,000 carvings

Religion: Hinduism did not spread across or did not exists, where as Samanam (Jaina) and Buddhism spread across and coexists with Saivam and Murugan. Both the temples/pagodas were constructed on top of the hill traditionally, Samanam has made huge contribution to the growth of Tamil litrature

Culture & Trade: Both of them were focusing on spreading culture and sea trade, which can be evidenced from South East Asia and Sea trade with Mediterranean sea surroundings like Rome etc, also spread of Buddhism in ASEAN region

There is a possibility that both South Indian and Mauryan kings would have come from the same blood lineage, which cannot be denied just using the South and North divides.


This is simply not true.
 

Similar History Discussions