Why could Mauryas not conquer Tamil Country

Jinit

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
5,274
India
#61
Very great post. Can you explain this?
Anything who writes anything that deemed controversial or going against conventional thinking regarding Maratha history especially Shivaji immediately invites the wreath of those "Marathi manoos" variety of goons who are famous for their hooliganism. Similarly in Tamilnadu with the beginning of Dravidian movement of 1960s, Tamil nationalists made it hard for the one who didn't agree with their opinion to express their opinions. Since any history of Tamilnadu can't be written by omitting t issue of Arya-dravida interaction, Brahmins and Sanskrit etc it isn't any surprise that there was hardly any notable work in south Indian history after KAN sastri.
 

Jinit

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
5,274
India
#62
Anyone who believes that Vijaynagar was only large Hindu kingdom in that time is seriously mistaken.
@Tornada, this was what I was trying to explain. Vijayanagar was large and rich and powerful, mentioned by foreign travellers and survived by majestic sites like Hampi as visual reminder of that past. So it is obvious that it gets more attention than other Hindu polities of time. But when people start thinking that Vijayanagar was only large Hindu kingdom or only Hindu kingodm (which many people certainly thinks) then there is something seriously wrong about that historiography!!! (this is btw only about Hindu kingdoms of the time. Lets not even talk about Muslim polities like Bahmani which were also large one). It puts a serious question mark on nature of entire historiography.
 
Last edited:

tornada

Ad Honoris
Mar 2013
15,385
India
#63
Anything who writes anything that deemed controversial or going against conventional thinking regarding Maratha history especially Shivaji immediately invites the wreath of those "Marathi manoos" variety of goons who are famous for their hooliganism. Similarly in Tamilnadu with the beginning of Dravidian movement of 1960s, Tamil nationalists made it hard for the one who didn't agree with their opinion to express their opinions. Since any history of Tamilnadu can't be written by omitting t issue of Arya-dravida interaction, Brahmins and Sanskrit etc it isn't any surprise that there was hardly any notable work in south Indian history after KAN sastri.
True. Jadunath Sarkar after his text on Shivaji is an example of this. Meticulously researched, comprehensive and yet unpopular because it didn't paint everything Shivaji did in the most flattering light.
 
Mar 2019
1,535
KL
#64
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?
sources are too meager to make any conclusion whether mauryas fought the tamils, according to sangam poems themselves, the mauryas are mentioned aiding their allies in invasion of tamil country and making path through the mountains, the result of the invasion is not told, whether mauryas controlled tamil country portions for a long or short period is again not mentioned.

the tamilian sources also mention the nandas, so most probably the mauryas came into possession of the land which as also held by the nandas themselves, they probably were not interested in extending anything beyond wht was already possessed by the nandas, minus reclaiming the indian territories in the north west uttarpatha which served as trade route to central asia.

some historians base their mauryan territory on ashokan edicts, but i think that assumption that there was no mauryan hold beyond those edicts is a historical error, since we do have evidences of mauryans attacking the tamil lands.

regards
 
Last edited:
Mar 2019
1,535
KL
#65
Very correct. When there was one civilization from Kashmir to Sri Lanka and Gandhara to Assam, I do not even know how well educated people so vociferously deny borrowings from other parts. That is too evident to ignore. Gangetic plains owed its civilization to migrations from NW and Deccanis owed it to migrations from North. Tamil country owed it to Pallavas and Sri Lankans.
this migration BS that first iranians migrated from west and settled in east/indus plains and gave birth to IVC and the rest of west moving east crap is just a eurocentric history. the NBP occurance as a matter of fact put the NW under gangetic culture ambit and scholars have infact argued for the same, for instance the first coins emerge in gangetic plains and spread to NW, NPB, the iron smelting all points to the culture emerging from gangetic plains and moving out not to mention buddhism as well so philosophically as well. the NW had their own IVC culture earlier, deccanis also had their own as seen through daimabad culture, paintings from bhembhitka caves etc so dont really see any culture migrating in the first place, but if we define the pan indian culture and history today, it will be the gangetic plain ultimately which will triumph.

IVC had earlier beginnings, but ultimately the gangetic plains took over the lead despite emerging later.

regards
 
Last edited:
Mar 2019
1,535
KL
#66
1563619546717.png

1563619590581.png
1563619621797.png
1563619648621.png

The Mauryan Polity

1563620062490.png
Ancient Indian History and Civilization

Google Maps

this source actually states that the poem infact elaborates on the victory of the mauryas on the far south of the tamil country

im not sure why upinder singh has connected this to karnataka and not tamil nadu

1563619887638.png
1563619992956.png

A History of Ancient and Early Medieval India

the historicity of this passage can be challenged but if accepted, it would mean that mauryans did extend at the very south into tamil nadu.

the nandas are mentioned with the new comer mauryan empire, so it pretty much seems that nandas already held the south indian territory in karnataka and mauryas extended it to the very southern india.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2019
1,535
KL
#67
questions must be asked given the information whether cholas, cheras and pandyas even existed during the time of chandragupta maurya as Mohur seems to be based deep in tamil territory while cholas are not mentioned, because the kharavela inscription mentions formation of new tamil confederacy in 250 BC which would not put cholas, cheras and pandyas before 3rd century BC and probably were formed as a result of mauryan invasion itself. The mentioning of ''new moriyars'' after the nandas seem to indicate pre ashokan periods preferably chandragupta maurya period.

Chola dynasty - Wikipedia

Pandya dynasty - Wikipedia

Chera dynasty - Wikipedia

regards
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions