Empire

The Shifting of Imperial Power and its Effects on the Indian Rebellion of 1857 Koala Collins HEISTS: world History Since 1500 March 18th, 2014 The Shifting of Imperial Power and its effects on the Indian Rebellion of 1857 Before the British Empire even set a foot in India, there was a thriving civilization known as Hindustan that occupied the area. As mentioned in the lectures by Dry. Cotton, the McHugh people were powerful people of Islamic faith who swept into this region in the late sass and early sass and began to implement their ruling system over the people of Hindustan, and grew wealthy off of the labor and resources of the Natives. However, it is the specific ways the McHugh Empire exercised this power that made them so successful in governing this area. It is the observation and imitation of this power system that allows the British Empire to slowly assert and expand their rule over India later in the sass. Therefore, it is due to these power changes and shifts from the traditional power structure of the McHugh Empire to that of a strict, Imperialistic British Empire, that resentment of foreign occupation by the Native peoples of India grew strong enough to warrant a rebellion on their part against the British occupiers in the mid-sass.

When the McHugh Empire conquered the Hindustan peoples in the late sass, a man by the name of Baber was at the head of the McHugh Empire. 2 However, as Baber entered the scene he did not oppress the peoples of Hindustan or impose strict laws demanding the assimilation of their culture to that of the McHugh people, and neither did his successors. In addition, as noted in lecture, his later successors such as, Kafka, who worked to expand the territory of the domain, decided that the est. form of power to ensure the cooperation of the conquered peoples was that which let them govern themselves for the most part. Although the Empire built up impressive displays of Islamic and McHugh might such as the various Mosques and architectural works of art such as the Tax Mall, they did not force their religious beliefs on the Hindustan people, but allowed them to continue their practice of their Hindu religion and cultural customs. 4 Furthermore, McHugh leadership put Native, non-Muslim officials, called Seminars, in certain mains of power in order to increase the cooperation of the native peoples for the wealth of the McHugh Empire and its leaders. This system of power encouraged the cooperation of the natives, which helped expand the wealth of the McHugh Empire that began to attract the eyes of other wealthy empires such as the British Empire. At first the British did not come as weapon-wielding conquers of the Mussels. It was only through the permission granted by the Nash and Maharajah, who were, as cited in lecture, McHugh and Indian Princes respectively, that the British were allowed to build trading posts and factories in the Empire. The rulers of the McHugh Empire saw this as a beneficial trading relationship in which both empires could work together to bring wealth to their countries. Overtime the British presence began to grow in India, and the development of the powerful East India Company helped give an even stronger economic foothold for the British in America. 7 However, the relationships were not hostile between the British and the people of the McHugh Empire, nor with the natives of India.

In fact, the image from the Lecture of Kelsey Snyder, is of a painting that depicts this specific time period in history in which there is a typical McHugh parade taking place and all of the natives are armed with British Muskets. 8 The synthetics shows the harmony of the cultures, and the willingness of the British to arm these people depicts the imitation of the McHugh exertion of power, or rather the allowance of certain freedoms and tolerance of Native peoples to derive the cooperation of the natives.

However, as the British Empire began to change internally, their form of rule in their colonies began to change. Britain had begun to expand into a more literate culture with issues of morality, especially regarding the slave trade, becoming popular topics of writing and debate. 9 The attitude of Great Britain towards her colonies began to change to that of a greater Imperialistic culture with aims to improve the morality and education of the world beginning in herself and then her colonized areas. 0 Around this time in the mid-sass the McHugh Empire had weakened from corruption and it was during this time period that the McHugh Emperor Mir Safari awarded one of the most powerful positions in the Empire of tax electing called the Dianna-I to a British military officer named Robert Clive. 1 1 With such economic power in the State now in the Hands of the British, their confidence increased, and due to the moral revival in Great Britain there developed a push by the British to spread Christian beliefs, and education throughout the colonies, which in their eyes, included the Indian peoples.

The feelings of Racism also began to grow which increased tensions between the British and the Native peoples. This can be exemplified in the fictional but historically accurate story of The Siege of Krishna. The section reads, “if the native was coming either directly towards them… It was fair to assume that his intentions were mischievous and they could blow him to smithereens,” which depicted the generalized loathing that these British soldiers had towards the Native peoples no matter the true intention of the man, and the labeling them all as one “mischievous” person groups all Native people into one negative image. 2 Moreover, the final straw that forced the Indian Revolt in the mid-sass, as related in lecture, was the refusal of the Native soldiers to load their weapons cause of the use of pig and cow grease that coated the cartridges that must be torn off by the teeth to insert into the muskets. 13 As revealed in lecture, these men were loyal soldiers of the British crown, but refused to compromise their religious beliefs by consuming a part of the cow that was sacred in their religion, Just to adhere to British rule. 4 The retaliation of the British for insubordination of by the Native soldiers sparked Native anger. Dry. Cotton stated in lecture, that this event showed the failure of the British to recognize the importance of the religion of the datives, and unlike the McHugh Empire, the British Crown tried to force their beliefs upon the native military men inciting an Indian Revolt in 1857 that left many dead, and a stain in the history of the British Crown.

Because of their shift to Imperialistic control, and their push for assimilation of the Native peoples the British thrust the Native peoples past their limits, which led to the bloody revolt. Therefore, although the British were successful in the beginning of their occupation of the Indian Territory and engaged in wealthy commerce, it was because of their shift to a more rueful and imperialistic rule, they were unable to pacify the natives, and instead drove them to revolt under their leadership.

The abandonment of McHugh idea of power delegation to Seminars, and Dianna-is, left the British implementing their imperialistic rule from their moral revival. The collapse of the McHugh Empire solidified the economic strength that Great Britain held in the country and led to their increasing aggressive and racist attitudes towards the Indian people. Lastly, the ignorance of the British to honor the religious and cultural principles of the Native peoples, and what they believed to be Justified aggressiveness in their shift to a more dominating imperialistic rule, is what led to the Indian Rebellion of 1857.

Alexander the Great is often thought of as the greatest military commander that the world has ever seen. He was born in July of 356 B. C to King Philip II of Macedonia and Olympias. Since his youth, Alexander was tutored and trained by great philosophers such as Aristotle and Leonidas. His legacy of greatness started with the taming of the wild horse, Bucephalus. Alexander of Macedonia is worthy of the title, Great, due to his strategic military operations, his expansion of the Greek Empire, and the cultural diffusion of the Greeks across the world.

Alexander the Great is recognized as one of the greatest commanders that world has ever seen, if not the greatest. Alexander first led troops as a mere teenager and became king afterwards due to the assassination of his father. He decided to expand the Greek Empire, which his dad, King Philip, started but couldn’t finish. At just the age of twenty years old, he set out with a massive army to conquer the east. During his time of campaign, he never lost a singer battle and was hailed as a hero and god for overcoming the Persian Empire.

Alexander the Great expanded the Greek Empire to be from the Ionian Sea to a part of Northern India. He formed the largest empire of the time that the world was yet to see. This alone make him deserving of the title “Great”, but Alexander also played an important role in the cultural diffusion of Greek ideas. Alexander the Great spread the Greek culture throughout the world. The start of western culture came with the Greeks, and Alexander made it achieve global dominance by spreading it throughout the vast empire that he formed.

He introduced the notion that the government should be for everyone, no just the wealthy. He is also considered to be a pioneer in urban planning and established around twenty cities, such as Alexandria, that became important trade centers and locations of many cultures. The local culture was further changed by Alexander’s Greek-influenced city planning techniques, which established towns with a central market square, school, offices, shops, a public theater, and gym.

It was changes such as these that led to the Hellenistic period of Greece after the death of Alexander, which is marked with increasing urbanization. His empire contained many cultures because he allowed the nations he conquered to practice any religion they wanted. He also incorporated some of the ideas of other nation into Greek culture making it stronger and lasting. As Alexander the Great made his way back to Greece, after conquering a part of India, he was stricken with severe fever and died in Babylon at the age of thirty-two. He had achieved so many accomplishments that few could measure up to.

His legacy had influence on many cultures and nations and led to many developments in the economy and changes to the government. He redesigned history and was an inspiration to future military leaders like Julius Caesar. It is through these accomplishments that he proved worthy of being called the “Great”. Alexander the Great changed the historical development of his country. While his father has made major changes inroads in expanded Macrdonia beyond the Balkan Peninusula, it was Alexander who expanded the sphere of influence well beyond even his father’s great expectations.

Alexander also carried the message of Greek democracy to Asia and into the dark continent of Africa, the journey that the concept would have never taken place. It was Alexander who introduced the individual freely participating in government, and it was this idea that government was for everyone, not simply for the wealthy. This influenced not only the historical development of his own country, but also inspired other countries to establish the same systems of government.

Many empires of Middle East civilizations have had strong political and social structures. Two of these empires are the Ottomans and the Safavids. The rise of the Ottomans correlates with the decline of the Roman Empire, which generated the shift in power from a singular Christian European society to a more Islamic influence. The Ottoman people became powerful in Asia Minor, which collapsed as a Seljuk Turk Kingdom, in the 13th to 14th centuries. The Safavids rose to power following the collapse of the Turkic Empire and invasion of the Mongols in the 13th and 14th centuries.

Although the Safavids had advanced political and social systems, the Ottoman empire had more efficient political and social methods. The Ottomans and the Safavids both had strong features to their political systems. The Ottomans controlled using a strong military, use of weapons, and an extensive bureaucracy. Their empire was known to be geared for warfare. The Ottoman empire had strong governmental power. They ruled in their center of Constantinople, which the Ottomans built defense walls around, aqueducts in, and was where they opened their markets. Absolute power was granted to their Sultans, such as Suleymon the Magnificent.

Another unique political factor of the Ottomans was their use of Janissaries. Janissaries were Ottoman infantry divisions that were made up of boys that were legally slaves that were captured and forced to fight. They were extremely strong and beneficial to the Ottomans. The Safavids ruled under the control of a Shah, or emperor. Some of these Shahs were Abbas the Great, Tahmasp I, and Isma’il. A large part of the Safavid political control was their followers who were given the nickname “Redheads” due to their red headgear. Similar to the Ottomans, the Safavid also had one especially great leader who led the empire to good times and success.

This Shah was Abbas The Great, who, like Ottoman janissaries, captured boys from southern Russia for the military and created a grand and powerful army. There were many differences between these empires because the two empires tended to stay separate from each other. When the Ottomans went to advance into the Safavid territory they had to retreat because it was too far away from the supply areas that the Ottomans survived off of. Due to this and other reasons the two seemed the stay separate and just pay attention to other areas and what they could do to better their empires individually.

The social life of the two empires were similar in some ways and not at all similar in others. The trade of the Safavid was also more advanced. There were roads built and workshops made during the time of the Safavids. The Ottomans had more religious tolerance than the Safavids did. These two societies for women were very similar. In both of these empires many women in the Islamic heartlands struggled against social restrictions in dress and confinement. In both of the empires, the women were politically weak. They had little to no power over the decisions and politics of the empires.

They were meant to be loyal to men and to be veiled. Both of these empires captured boys for their militaries. These men were considered slaves with few social rights, although they did have more then women. Even though the Safavids had many strong ideas on the correct political and social way to run their empire, the Ottoman empire had more efficient and advanced methods. The Ottomans used more warfare than the Safavids. But, the rights of women were the same in both empires. The Ottomans and the Safavids were both strong political empires of their time, with improved and efficient political and social systems.

The Maurya Empire was a geographically extensive Iron Age historical power in ancient India, ruled by the Mauryan dynasty from 321 to 185 BC. Originating from the kingdom of Magadha in the Indo-Gangetic plains (modern Bihar, eastern Uttar Pradesh and Bengal) in the eastern side of theIndian subcontinent, the empire had its capital city at Pataliputra (modern Patna).

The Empire was founded in 322 BC by Chandragupta Maurya, who had overthrown the Nanda Dynasty and rapidly expanded his power westwards across central and western India taking advantage of the disruptions of local powers in the wake of the withdrawal westward by Alexander the Great’s Greek and Persian armies. By 320 BC the empire had fully occupied Northwestern India, defeating and conquering the satraps left by Alexander. With an area of 5,000,000 sq km, it was one of the world’s largest empires in its time, and the largest ever in the Indian subcontinent.

At its greatest extent, the empire stretched to the north along the natural boundaries of the Himalayas, and to the east stretching into what is nowAssam. To the west, it conquered beyond modern Pakistan, annexing Balochistan, south eastern parts of Iran and much of what is nowAfghanistan, including the modern Herat and Kandahar provinces. The Empire was expanded into India’s central and southern regions by the emperors Chandragupta and Bindusara, but it excluded a small portion of unexplored tribal and forested regions near Kalinga (modern Orissa), till it was conquered by Ashoka.

Its decline began 60 years after Ashoka’s rule ended, and it dissolved in 185 BC with the foundation of the Sunga Dynasty in Magadha. Under Chandragupta, the Mauryan Empire conquered the trans-Indus region, which was under Macedonian rule. Chandragupta then defeated the invasion led by Seleucus I, a Greek general from Alexander’s army. Under Chandragupta and his successors, internal and external trade, agriculture and economic activities, all thrived and expanded across India thanks to the creation of a single and efficient system of finance, administration, and security.

After the Kalinga War, the Empire experienced half a century of peace and security under Ashoka. Mauryan India also enjoyed an era of social harmony, religious transformation, and expansion of the sciences and of knowledge. Chandragupta Maurya’s embrace of Jainism increased social and religious renewal and reform across his society, while Ashoka’s embrace of Buddhism has been said to have been the foundation of the reign of social and political peace and non-violence across all of India.

Ashoka sponsored the spreading of Buddhist ideals into Sri Lanka, Southeast Asia, West Asia and Mediterranean Europe. The population of the empire has been estimated to be about 50-60 million making the Mauryan Empire one of the most populous empires of the time. Archaeologically, the period of Mauryan rule in South Asia falls into the era of Northern Black Polished Ware (NBPW). The Arthashastra and theEdicts of Ashoka are the primary sources of written records of Mauryan times. The Lion Capital of Asoka at Sarnath, has been made the nationalemblem of India.

Chanakya and Chandragupta Maurya

A symbolic statue of young Chandragupta Maurya, In the courtyard of Indian Parliament, with the inscription, “Shepherd boy-Chandragupta Maurya dreaming of India he was to create”. Main articles: Chanakya and Chandragupta Maurya A Hindu brahmin named Chanakya (real name Vishnugupta, also known as Kautilya) traveled to Magadha, a kingdom that was large and militarily powerful and feared by its neighbors, but was dismissed by its king Dhana Nanda, of the Nanda Dynasty. Meanwhile, the conquering armies of Alexander the Great refused to cross the Beas Riverand advance further eastward, deterred by the prospect of battling Magadha.

Alexander returned to Babylon and re-deployed most of his troops west of the Indus river. Soon after Alexander died in Babylon in 323 BCE, his empire fragmented, and local kings declared their independence, leaving several smaller disunited satraps. Chandragupta Maurya deposed Dhana Nanda. The Greek generals Eudemus, and Peithon, ruled until around 316 BCE, when Chandragupta Maurya (with the help of Chanakya, who was now his advisor) utterly defeated the Macedonians and consolidated the region under the control of his new seat of power in Magadha.

Chandragupta maurya rise to power is shrouded in mystery and controversy. On the one hand, a number of ancient Indian accounts, such as the drama Mudrarakshasa(Poem of Rakshasa – Rakshasa was the prime minister of Magadha) by Visakhadatta, describe his royal ancestry and even link him with the Nanda family. A kshatriya tribe known as the Maurya’s are referred to in the earliest Buddhist texts, Mahaparinibbana Sutta. However, any conclusions are hard to make without further historical evidence. Chandragupta first emerges in Greek accounts as “Sandrokottos”.

As a young man he is said to have met Alexander. He is also said to have met the Nanda king, angered him, and made a narrow escape. Chanakya’s original intentions were to train a guerilla army under Chandragupta’s command. The Mudrarakshasa of Visakhadutta as well as the Jaina work Parisishtaparvan talk of Chandragupta’s alliance with the Himalayan king Parvatka, sometimes identified with Porus . Conquest of Magadha Main articles: Chandragupta Maurya, Nanda Dynasty, and Magadha Chanakya encouraged Chandragupta Maurya and his army to take over the throne of Magadha.

Using his intelligence network, Chandragupta gathered many young men from across Magadha and other provinces, men upset over the corrupt and oppressive rule of king Dhana, plus resources necessary for his army to fight a long series of battles. These men included the former general of Taxila, other accomplished students of Chanakya, the representative of King Porus of Kakayee, his son Malayketu, and the rulers of small states. Preparing to invade Pataliputra, Maurya hatched a plan. A battle was announced and the Magadhan army was drawn from the city to a distant battlefield to engage Maurya’s forces.

Maurya’s general and spies meanwhile bribed the corrupt general of Nanda. He also managed to create an atmosphere of civil war in the kingdom, which culminated in the death of the heir to the throne. Chanakya managed to win over popular sentiment. Ultimately Nanda resigned, handing power to Chandragupta, and went into exile and was never heard of again. Chanakya contacted the prime minister, Rakshasas, and made him understand that his loyalty was to Magadha, not to the Magadha dynasty, insisting that he continue in office.

Chanakya also reiterated that choosing to resist would start a war that would severely affect Magadha and destroy the city. Rakshasa accepted Chanakya’s reasoning, and Chandragupta Maurya was legitimately installed as the new King of Magadha. Rakshasa became Chandragupta’s chief advisor, and Chanakya assumed the position of an elder statesman.

The two rulers finally concluded a peace treaty: a marital treaty (Epigamia) was concluded, in which the Greeks offered their Princess for alliance and help from him. Chandragupta snatched the satrapies of Paropamisade (Kamboja and Gandhara), Arachosia(Kandhahar) and Gedrosia (Balochistan), and Seleucus I received 500 war elephants that were to have a decisive role in his victory against westernHellenistic kings at the Battle of Ipsus in 301 BCE. Diplomatic relations were established and several Greeks, such as the historian Megasthenes,Deimakos and Dionysius resided at the Mauryan court.

Chandragupta established a strong centralized state with a complex administration at Pataliputra, which, according to Megasthenes, was”surrounded by a wooden wall pierced by 64 gates and 570 towers— (and) rivaled the splendors of contemporaneous Persian sites such as Susaand Ecbatana. ” Chandragupta’s son Bindusara extended the rule of the Mauryan empire towards southern India. He also had a Greek ambassador at his court, named Deimachus (Strabo 1–70). Megasthenes describes a disciplined multitude under Chandragupta, who live simply, honestly, and do not know writing: ” The Indians all live frugally, especially when in camp.

They dislike a great undisciplined multitude, and consequently they observe good order. Theft is of very rare occurrence. Megasthenes says that those who were in the camp of Sandrakottos, wherein lay 400,000 men, found that the thefts reported on any one day did not exceed the value of two hundred drachmae, and this among a people who have no written laws, but are ignorant of writing, and must therefore in all the business of life trust to memory. They live, nevertheless, happily enough, being simple in their manners and frugal. They never drink wine except at sacrifices.

Their beverage is a liquor composed from rice instead of barley, and their food is principally a rice-pottage. Ahoka the Great Chandragupta’s grandson i. e. , Bindusara’s son was Ashokavardhan Maurya, also known as Ashoka or Ashoka The Great (ruled 273- 232 BCE). As a young prince, Ashoka was a brilliant commander who crushed revolts in Ujjain and Taxila. As monarch he was ambitious and aggressive, re-asserting the Empire’s superiority in southern and western India.

But it was his conquest of Kalinga which proved to be the pivotal event of his life. Although Ashoka’s army succeeded in overwhelming Kalinga forces of royal soldiers and civilian units, an estimated 100,000 soldiers and civilians were killed in the furious warfare, including over 10,000 of Ashoka’s own men. Hundreds of thousands of people were adversely affected by the destruction and fallout of war. When he personally witnessed the devastation, Ashoka began feeling remorse, and he cried ‘what have I done? ‘. Although the annexation of Kalinga was completed, Ashoka embraced the teachings of Gautama Buddha, and renounced war and violence.

For a monarch in ancient times, this was an historic feat. Ashoka implemented principles of ahimsa by banning hunting and violent sports activity and ending indentured and forced labor (many thousands of people in war-ravaged Kalinga had been forced into hard labor and servitude). While he maintained a large and powerful army, to keep the peace and maintain authority, Ashoka expanded friendly relations with states across Asia and Europe, and he sponsored Buddhist missions. He undertook a massive public works building campaign across the country.

Over 40 years of peace, harmony and prosperity made Ashoka one of the most successful and famous monarchs in Indian history. He remains an idealized figure of inspiration in modern India. The Edicts of Ashoka, set in stone, are found throughout the Subcontinent. Ranging from as far west as Afghanistan and as far south as Andhra (Nellore District), Ashoka’s edicts state his policies and accomplishments. Although predominantly written in Prakrit, two of them were written in Greek, and one in both Greek and Aramaic. Ashoka’s edicts refer to the Greeks, Kambojas, and Gandharas as peoples forming a frontier region of his empire.

They also attest to Ashoka’s having sent envoys to the Greek rulers in the West as far as the Mediterranean. The edicts precisely name each of the rulers of the Hellenic world at the time such as Amtiyoko (Antiochus), Tulamaya (Ptolemy), Amtikini (Antigonos), Maka (Magas) and Alikasudaro (Alexander) as recipients of Ashoka’s proselytism. The Edicts also accurately locate their territory “600 yojanas away” (a yojanas being about 7 miles), corresponding to the distance between the center of India and Greece (roughly 4,000 miles).

Empire was divided into four provinces, which one of the four, look like a giant crescents. with the imperial capital at Pataliputra. From Ashokan edicts, the names of the four provincial capitals are Tosali (in the east), Ujjain in the west, Suvarnagiri (in the south), and Taxila (in the north). The head of the provincial administration was the Kumara (royal prince), who governed the provinces as king’s representative. The kumara was assisted by Mahamatyas and council of ministers.

This organizational structure was reflected at the imperial level with the Emperor and his Mantriparishad (Council of Ministers). Historians theorize that the organization of the Empire was in line with the extensive bureaucracy described by Kautilya in the Arthashastra: a sophisticated civil service governed everything from municipal hygiene to international trade. The expansion and defense of the empire was made possible by what appears to have been the largest standing army of its time…. According to Megasthenes, the empire wielded a military of 600,000 infantry, 30,000 cavalry, and 9,000 war elephants.

A vast espionage system collected intelligence for both internal and external security purposes. Having renounced offensive warfare and expansionism, Ashoka nevertheless continued to maintain this large army, to protect the Empire and instill stability and peace across West and South Asia Economy Silver punch mark coin of the Mauryan empire, with symbols of wheel and elephant. 3rd century BCE. For the first time in South Asia, political unity and military security allowed for a common economic system and enhanced trade and commerce, with increased agricultural productivity.

The previous situation involving hundreds of kingdoms, many small armies, powerful regional chieftains, and internecine warfare, gave way to a disciplined central authority. Farmers were freed of tax and crop collection burdens from regional kings, paying instead to a nationally administered and strict-but-fair system of taxation as advised by the principles in the Arthashastra. Chandragupta Maurya established a single currency across India, and a network of regional governors and administrators and a civil service provided justice and security for merchants, farmers and traders.

The Mauryan army wiped out many gangs of bandits, regional private armies, and powerful chieftains who sought to impose their own supremacy in small areas. Although regimental in revenue collection, Maurya also sponsored many public works and waterways to enhance productivity, while internal trade in India expanded greatly due to newfound political unity and internal peace. Mauryan cast copper coin. Late 3rd century BCE. British Museum. Under the Indo-Greek friendship treaty, and during Ashoka’s reign, an international network of trade expanded.

The Khyber Pass, on the modern boundary of Pakistan and Afghanistan, became a strategically important port of trade and intercourse with the outside world. Greek states and Hellenic kingdoms in West Asia became important trade partners of India. Trade also extended through the Malay peninsula into Southeast Asia. India’s exports included silk goods and textiles, spices and exotic foods. The Empire was enriched further with an exchange of scientific knowledge and technology with Europe and West Asia. Ashoka also sponsored the construction of thousands of roads, waterways, canals, hospitals, rest-houses and other public works.

The easing of many over-rigorous administrative practices, including those regarding taxation and crop collection, helped increase productivity and economic activity across the Empire. In many ways, the economic situation in the Mauryan Empire is analogous to the Roman Empire of several centuries later. Both had extensive trade connections and both had organizations similar to corporations. While Rome had organizational entities which were largely used for public state-driven projects, Mauryan India had numerous private commercial entities. These existed purely for private commerce and developed before the Mauryan Empire itself.

Mauryan architecture in the Barabar Mounts. Grottoe of Lomas Richi. 3rd century BCE. Hinduism Hinduism was the only religion at the time of inception of the empire, Hindu priests and ministers use to be an important part of the emperor’s court, like Chanakya also known as Vishnu Gupt. Ajivikas, an ascetic Hindu movement was also practiced, Bhattotpala, in 950 A. D. identified them with the “Ekandandins” writes that they are devotees of Narayana (Vishnu), although Shilanka speaking of the Ekandandins in another connection identifies them as Shaivas (devotees of Shiva).

Scholar James Hastings identifies the name “Mankhaliputta” or “Mankhali” with the bamboo staff. Scholar Jitendra N. Banerjea compares them to the Pasupatas Shaivas. It is believed by scholar Charpentier that the Ajivikas before Makkhali Goshala worshiped Shiva. Chanakya wrote in his text Chanakya Niti, “Humbly bowing down before the almighty Lord Sri Vishnu, the Lord of the three worlds, I recite maxims of the science of political ethics (niti) selected from the various satras (scriptures)” Even after embracing Buddhism, Ashoka retained the membership of Hindu Brahmana priests and ministers in his court.

Mauryan society began embracing the philosophy of ahimsa, and given the increased prosperity and improved law enforcement, crime and internal conflicts reduced dramatically. Also greatly discouraged was the caste system and orthodox discrimination, as Mauryans began to absorb the ideals and values of Jain and Buddhist teachings along with traditional Vedic Hindu teachings.

Buddhism

Ashoka initially practiced Hinduism but later embraced Buddhism, following the Kalinga War, he renounced expansionism and aggression, and the harsher injunctions of the Arthashastra on the use of force, intensive policing, and ruthless measures for tax collection and against rebels. Ashoka sent a mission led by his son Mahinda and daughter Sanghamitta to Sri Lanka, whose king Tissa was so charmed with Buddhist ideals that he adopted them himself and made Buddhism the state religion. Ashoka sent many Buddhist missions o West Asia, Greece and South East Asia, and commissioned the construction of monasteries, schools and publication of Buddhist literature across the empire. He is believed to have built as many as 84,000 stupas across India i. e. Sanchi and Mahabodhi Temple, and he increased the popularity of Buddhism in Afghanistan, Thailand and North Asia including Siberia. Ashoka helped convene the Third Buddhist Council of India and South Asia’s Buddhist orders, near his capital, a council that undertook much work of reform and expansion of the Buddhist religion.

Jainism

Emperor Chandragupta Maurya embraced Jainism after retiring. At an older age, Chandragupta renounced his throne and material possessions to join a wandering group of Jain monks. Chandragupta was a disciple of Acharya Bhadrabahu. It is said that in his last days, he observed the rigorous but self purifying Jain ritual of santhara i. e. fast unto death, at Shravana Belagola in Karnataka. However, his successor, Emperor Bindusara, was a follower of a Hindu ascetic movement, Ajivika and distanced himself from Jain and Buddhist movements. Samprati, the grandson of Ashoka also embraced Jainism.

Samrat Samprati was influenced by the teachings of Jain monk Arya Suhasti Suri and he is known to have built 125,000 Jain Temples across India. Some of them are still found in towns of Ahmedabad, Viramgam, Ujjain & Palitana. It is also said that just like Ashoka, Samprati sent messengers & preachers to Greece, Persia & middle-east for the spread of Jainism. But to date no research has been done in this area. Thus, Jainism became a vital force under the Mauryan Rule. Chandragupta & Samprati are credited for the spread of Jainism in Southern India.

Lakhs of Jain Temples & Jain Stupas were erected during their reign. But due to lack of royal patronage & its strict principles, along with the rise of Shankaracharya & Ramanujacharya, Jainism, once the major religion of southern India, began to decline. Architectural remains Architectural remains of the Maurya period are rather few. Remains of a hypostyle building with about 80 columns of a height of about 10 meters have been found in Kumhrar, 5 km from Patna Railway station, and is one of the very few sites that has been connected to the rule of the Mauryas.

The style is rather reminiscent of Persian Achaemenid architecture. The grottoes of Barabar Caves, are another example of Mauryan architecture, especially the decorated front of the Lomas Rishi grotto. These were offered by the Mauryas to the Buddhist sect of the Ajivikas. The most widespread example of Maurya architecture are the Pillars of Ashoka, often exquisitely decorated, with more than 40 spread throughout the sub-continent.

Natural history in the times of the Mauryas

The protection of animals in India became serious business by the time of the Maurya dynasty; being the first empire to provide a unified political entity in India, the attitude of the Mauryas towards forests, its denizens and fauna in general is of interest. The Mauryas firstly looked at forests as a resource. For them, the most important forest product was the elephant. Military might in those times depended not only upon horses and men but also battle-elephants; these played a role in the defeat of Seleucus, Alexander’s governor of the Punjab.

The Mauryas sought to preserve supplies of elephants since it was cheaper and took less time to catch, tame and train wild elephants than to raise them. Kautilya’sArthashastra contains not only maxims on ancient statecraft, but also unambiguously specifies the responsibilities of officials such as the Protector of the Elephant Forests: On the border of the forest, he should establish a forest for elephants guarded by foresters. The Office of the Chief Elephant Forrester should with the help of guards protect the elephants in any terrain.

The slaying of an elephant is punishable by death.. — Arthashastra The Mauryas also designated separate forests to protect supplies of timber, as well as lions and tigers, for skins. Elsewhere the Protector of Animals also worked to eliminate thieves, tigers and other predators to render the woods safe for grazing cattle. The Mauryas valued certain forest tracts in strategic or economic terms and instituted curbs and control measures over them. They regarded all forest tribes with distrust and controlled them with bribery and political subjugation.

They employed some of them, the food-gatherers or aranyaca to guard borders and trap animals. The sometimes tense and conflict-ridden relationship nevertheless enabled the Mauryas to guard their vast empire When Ashoka embraced Buddhism in the latter part of his reign, he brought about significant changes in his style of governance, which included providing protection to fauna, and even relinquished the royal hunt. He was the first ruler in history to advocate conservation measures for wildlife and even had rules inscribed in stone edicts.

The edicts proclaim that many followed the king’s example in giving up the slaughter of animals; one of them proudly states: Our king killed very few animals. —Edict on Fifth Pillar However, the edicts of Ashoka reflect more the desire of rulers than actual events; the mention of a 100 ‘panas’ (coins) fine for poaching deer in royal hunting preserves shows that rule-breakers did exist. The legal restrictions conflicted with the practices freely exercised by the common people in hunting, felling, fishing and setting fires in forests. 24] Foundation of the Empire Relations with the Hellenistic world may have started from the very beginning of the Maurya Empire. Plutarch reports that Chandragupta Maurya met with Alexander the Great, probably around Taxila in the northwest: “Sandrocottus, when he was a stripling, saw Alexander himself, and we are told that he often said in later times that Alexander narrowly missed making himself master of the country, since its king was hated and despised on account of his baseness and low birth”.

Seleucus I Nicator, the Macedonian satrap of the Asian portion of Alexander’s former empire, conquered and put under his own authority eastern territories as far as Bactria and the Indus (Appian, History of Rome, The Syrian Wars 55), until in 305 BCE he entered in a confrontation with Chandragupta: “Always lying in wait for the neighboring nations, strong in arms and persuasive in council, he [Seleucus] acquired Mesopotamia, Armenia, ‘Seleucid’ Cappadocia, Persis, Parthia, Bactria, Arabia, Tapouria, Sogdia, Arachosia, Hyrcania, and other adjacent peoples that had been subdued by Alexander, as far as the river Indus, so that the boundaries of his empire were the most extensive in Asia after that of Alexander. The whole region from Phrygia to the Indus was subject to Seleucus”.

Appian, History of Rome, The Syrian Wars 55[28] Though no accounts of the conflict remain, it is clear that Seleucus fared poorly against the Indian Emperor as he failed in conquering any territory, and in fact, was forced to surrender much that was already his. Regardless, Seleucus and Chandragupta ultimately reached a settlement and through a treaty sealed in 305 BCE, Seleucus, according to Strabo, ceded a number of territories to Chandragupta, including southern Afghanistan and parts of Persia. Accordingly, Seleucus obtained five hundred war elephants, a military asset which would play a decisive role at the Battle of Ipsus in 301 BCE.

Marital alliance

It is generally thought that Chandragupta married Seleucus’s daughter, or a Greek Macedonian princess, a gift from Seleucus to formalize an alliance. In a return gesture, Chandragupta sent 500 war-elephants, a military asset which would play a decisive role at the Battle of Ipsus in 302 BC. In addition to this treaty, Seleucus dispatched an ambassador, Megasthenes, to Chandragupta, and later Deimakos to his son Bindusara, at the Mauryan court at Pataliputra (modern Patna in Bihar state). Later Ptolemy II Philadelphus, the ruler of Ptolemaic Egypt and contemporary of Ashoka the Great, is also recorded by Pliny the Elder as having sent an ambassador named Dionysius to the Mauryan court.

Mainstream scholarship asserts that Chandragupta received vast territory west of the Indus, including the Hindu Kush, modern day Afghanistan, and the Balochistan province of Pakistan. Archaeologically, concrete indications of Mauryan rule, such as the inscriptions of the Edicts of Ashoka, are known as far as Kandhahar in southern Afghanistan. The treaty on “Epigamia” implies lawful marriage between Greeks and Indians was recognized at the State level, although it is unclear whether it occurred among dynastic rulers or common people, or both . Exchange of ambassadors Seleucus dispatched an ambassador, Megasthenes, to Chandragupta, and later Deimakos to his son Bindusara, at the Mauryan court at Pataliputra (Modern Patna in Bihar state).

Later Ptolemy II Philadelphus, the ruler of Ptolemaic Egypt and contemporary of Ashoka, is also recorded by Pliny the Elder as having sent an ambassador named Dionysius to the Mauryan court. Exchange of presents Classical sources have also recorded that following their treaty, Chandragupta and Seleucus exchanged presents, such as when Chandragupta sent various aphrodisiacs to Seleucus: “And Theophrastus says that some contrivances are of wondrous efficacy in such matters [as to make people more amorous]. And Phylarchus confirms him, by reference to some of the presents which Sandrakottus, the king of the Indians, sent to Seleucus; which were to act like charms in producing a wonderful degree of affection, while some, on the contrary, were to banish love”Athenaeus of Naucratis.

His son Bindusara ‘Amitraghata’ (Slayer of Enemies) also is recorded in Classical sources as having exchanged present with Antiochus I: “But dried figs were so very much sought after by all men (for really, as Aristophanes says, “There’s really nothing nicer than dried figs”), that even Amitrochates, the king of the Indians, wrote toAntiochus, entreating him (it is Hegesander who tells this story) to buy and send him some sweet wine, and some dried figs, and a sophist; and that Antiochus wrote to him in answer, “The dry figs and the sweet wine we will send you; but it is not lawful for a sophist to be sold in Greece” Athenaeus, “Deipnosophistae” XIV.

Greek population in India

Greek population apparently remained in the northwest of the Indian subcontinent under Ashoka’s rule. In his Edicts of Ashoka, set in stone, some of them written in Greek, Ashoka describes that Greek population within his realm converted to Buddhism: “Here in the king’s domain among the Greeks, the Kambojas, the Nabhakas, the Nabhapamkits, the Bhojas, the Pitinikas, the Andhras and the Palidas, everywhere people are following Beloved-of-the-Gods’ instructions in Dharma”. Rock Edict Nb13 (S. Dhammika). Fragments of Edict 13 have been found in Greek, and a full Edict, written in both Greek and Aramaic has been discovered in Kandahar. It is said to be written in excellent Classical Greek, using sophisticated philosophical terms.

In this Edict, Ashoka uses the word Eusebeia (“Piety”) as the Greek translation for the ubiquitous “Dharma” of his other Edicts written in Prakrit: “Ten years (of reign) having been completed, King Piodasses (Ashoka) made known (the doctrine of) Piety to men; and from this moment he has made men more pious, and everything thrives throughout the whole world. And the king abstains from (killing) living beings, and other men and those who (are) huntsmen and fishermen of the king have desisted from hunting. And if some (were) intemperate, they have ceased from their intemperance as was in their power; and obedient to their father and mother and to the elders, in opposition to the past also in the future, by so acting on every occasion, they will live better and more happily”.

Buddhist missions to the West

Front view of the single lion capital inVaishali. Also, in the Edicts of Ashoka, Ashoka mentions the Hellenistic kings of the period as a recipient of his Buddhist proselytism, although no Western historical record of this event remain: “The conquest by Dharma has been won here, on the borders, and even six hundred yojanas (5,400–9,600 km) away, where the Greek king Antiochosrules, beyond there where the four kings named Ptolemy, Antigonos, Magas and Alexander rule, likewise in the south among the Cholas, the Pandyas, and as far as Tamraparni (Sri Lanka). “

Ashoka also claims that he encouraged the development of herbal medicine, for men and animals, in their territories: “Everywhere within Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi’s [Ashoka’s] domain, and among the people beyond the borders, the Cholas, the Pandyas, the Satiyaputras, the Keralaputras, as far as Tamraparni and where the Greek king Antiochos rules, and among the kings who are neighbors of Antiochos, everywhere has Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, made provision for two types of medical treatment: medical treatment for humans and medical treatment for animals. Wherever medical herbs suitable for humans or animals are not available, I have had them imported and grown. Wherever medical roots or fruits are not available I have had them imported and grown. Along roads I have had wells dug and trees planted for the benefit of humans and animals”.

The Greeks in India even seem to have played an active role in the propagation of Buddhism, as some of the emissaries of Ashoka, such as Dharmaraksita, are described in Pali sources as leading Greek (“Yona”) Buddhist monks, active in Buddhist proselytism (the Mahavamsa, Subhagsena and Antiochos III (206 BCE) Sophagasenus was an Indian Mauryan ruler of the 3rd century BCE, described in ancient Greek sources, and named Subhagsena or Subhashsena in Prakrit. His name is mentioned in the list of Mauryan princes, and also in the list of the Yadava dynasty, as a descendant of Pradyumna. He may have been a grandson of Ashoka, or Kunala, the son of Ashoka. He ruled an area south of the Hindu Kush, possibly in Gandhara. Antiochos III, the Seleucid king, after having made peace with Euthydemus in Bactria, went to India in 206 BC nd is said to have renewed his friendship with the Indian king there: “He (Antiochus) crossed the Caucasus and descended into India; renewed his friendship with Sophagasenus the king of the Indians; received more elephants, until he had a hundred and fifty altogether; and having once more provisioned his troops, set out again personally with his army: leaving Androsthenes of Cyzicus the duty of taking home the treasure which this king had agreed to hand over to him”. Ashoka was followed for 50 years by a succession of weaker kings. Brhadrata, the last ruler of the Mauryan dynasty, held territories that had shrunk considerably from the time of emperor Ashoka, although he still upheld the Buddhist faith. Sunga coup (185 BCE) Brihadrata was assassinated in 185 BCE during a military parade, by the commander-in-chief of his guard, the Brahmin general Pusyamitra Sunga, who then took over the throne and established theSunga dynasty.

Buddhist records such as the Asokavadana write that the assassination of Brhadrata and the rise of the Sunga empire led to a wave of persecution for Buddhists, and a resurgence of Hinduism. According to Sir John Marshall, Pusyamitra may have been the main author of the persecutions, although later Sunga kings seem to have been more supportive of Buddhism. Other historians, such as Etienne Lamotte and Romila Thapar, among others, have argued that archaeological evidence in favor of the allegations of persecution of Buddhists are lacking, and that the extent and magnitude of the atrocities have been exaggerated. Establishment of the Indo-Greek Kingdom (180 BCE) The fall of the Mauryas left the Khyber Pass unguarded, and a wave of foreign invasion followed.

The Greco-Bactrian king, Demetrius, capitalized on the break-up, and he conquered southern Afghanistan and Pakistan around 180 BC, forming the Indo-Greek Kingdom. The Indo-Greeks would maintain holdings on the trans-Indus region, and make forays into central India, for about a century. Under them, Buddhism flourished, and one of their kings Menander became a famous figure of Buddhism, he was to establish a new capital of Sagala, the modern city of Sialkot. However, the extent of their domains and the lengths of their rule are subject to much debate. Numismatic evidence indicates that they retained holdings in the subcontinent right up to the birth of Christ.

Although the extent of their successes against indigenous powers such as the Sungas, Satavahanas, and Kalingas are unclear, what is clear is that Scythian tribes, renamed Indo-Scythians, brought about the demise of the Indo-Greeks from around 70 BCE and retained lands in the trans-Indus, the region of Mathura, and Gujarat.

Reasons

The decline of the Maurya Dynasty was rather rapid after the death of Ashoka/Asoka. One obvious reason for it was the succession of weak kings. Another immediate cause was the partition of the Empire into two. Had not the partition taken place, the Greek invasions could have been held back giving a chance to the Mauryas to re-establish some degree of their previous power. Regarding the decline much has been written. Haraprasad Sastri contends that the revolt by Pushyamitra was the result of brahminical reaction against the pro-Buddhist policies of Ashoka and pro-Jaina policies of his successors.

Basing themselves on this thesis, some maintain the view that brahminical reaction was responsible for the decline because of the following reasons.

1. Prohibition of the slaughter of animals displeased the Brahmins as animal sacrifices were esteemed by them.
2. The book Divyavadana refers to the persecution of Buddhists by Pushyamitra Sunga.
3. Asoka’s claim that he exposed the Budheveas (brahmins) as false gods shows that Ashoka was not well disposed towards Brahmins.
4. The capture of power by Pushyamitra Sunga shows the triumph of Brahmins
5. All of these four points can be easily refuted.
6. Asoka’s compassion towards animals was not an overnight decision. Repulsion of animal sacrifices grew over a long period of time. Even Brahmins gave it up.
7. The book Divyavadana cannot be relied upon since it was during the time of Pushyamitra Sunga that the Sanchi and Barhut stupas were completed. The impression of the persecution of Buddhism was probably created by Menander’s invasion, since he was a Buddhist.
8. The word ‘budheva’ is misinterpreted because this word is to be taken in the context of some other phrase. Viewed like this, the word has nothing to do with brahminism.
9. The victory of Pushyamitra Sunga clearly shows that the last of the Mauryas was an incompetent ruler since he was overthrown in the very presence of his army, and this had nothing to do with brahminical reaction against Asoka’s patronage of Buddhism.

Moreover, the very fact that a Brahmin was the commander in chief of the Mauryan ruler proves that the Mauryas and the Brahmins were on good terms. After all, the distinction between Hinduism and Buddhism in India was purely sectarian and never more than the difference between saivism and vaishnavism. The exclusiveness of religious doctrines is a Semitic conception, which was unknown to India for a long time. Buddha himself was looked upon in his lifetime and afterwards as a Hindu saint and avatar and his followers were but another sect in the great Aryan tradition. Ashoka was a Buddhist in the same way as Harsha was a Budhist, or Kumarapala was a Jain.

But in the view of the people of the day he was a Hindu monarch following one of the recognized sects. His own inscriptions bear ample withness to the fact. While his doctrines follow the middle path, his gifts are to the brahmibns, sramansa (Buddhist priests) and others equally. His own name of adoption is Devanam Priya, the beloved of the gods. Which gods? Surely the gods of the Aryan religion. Buddhism had no gods of its own. The idea that Ashoka was a kind of Buddhist Constantine declearing himself against paganism is a complete misreading of India conditions. Asoka was a kind or Buddhist Constantine declearing himself against paganism is a complete misreading of India conditions.

Asoka was essentially a Hindu, as indeed was the founder of the sect to which he belonged. Raychaudhury too rebuts the arguments of Sastri. The empire had shrunk considerably and there was no revolution. Killing the Mauryan King while he was reviewing the army points to a palace coup detat not a revolution. The organization were ready to accept any one who could promise a more efficient organization. Also if Pushyamitra was really a representative of brahminical reaction he neighbouting kings would have definitely given him assistance. The argument that the empire became effete because of Asokan policies is also very thin. All the evidence suggests that Asoka was a stern monarch although his reign witnessed only a single campaign.

He was shrewd enough in retaining Kalinga although he expressed his remorse. Well he was wordly-wise to enslave and-and-half lakh sudras of Kalinga and bring them to the Magadha region to cut forests and cultivate land. More than this his tours of the empire were not only meant for the sake of piety but also for keeping an eye on the centrifugal tendencies of the empire. Which addressing the tribal people Asoka expressed his willingness to for given. More draconian was Ashoka’s message to the forest tribes who were warned of the power which he possessed. This view of Raychoudhury on the pacifism of the State cannot be substantiated. Apart from these two major writers there is a third view as expressed by kosambi.

He based his arguments that unnecessary measures were taken up to increase tax and the punch-marked coins of the period show evidence of debasement. This contention too cannot be up held. It is quite possible that debased coins began to circulate during the period of the later Mauryas. On the other hand the debasement may also indicate that there was an increased demand for silver in relation to goods leading to the silver content of the coins being reduced. More important point is the fact that the material remains of the post-Asokan era do not suggest any pressure on the economy. Instead the economy prospered as shown by archaeological evidence at Hastinapura and Sisupalqarh. The reign of Asoka was an asset to the economy.

The unification of the country under single efficient administration the organization and increase in communications meant the development of trade as well as an opening of many new commercial interest. In the post – Asokan period surplus wealth was used by the rising commercial classes to decorate religious buildings. The sculpture at Barhut and Sanchi and the Deccan caves was the contribution of this new bourgeoisie. Still another view regarding of the decline of Mauryas was that the coup of Pushyamitra was a peoples’ revolt against Mauryans oppression and a rejection of the Maurya adoption of foreign ideas, as far interest in Mauryan Art. This argument is based on the view that Sunga art (Sculpture at Barhut and Sanchi) is more earthy and in the folk tradition that Maruyan art. This is more stretching the argument too far.

The character of Sunga art changed because it served a different purpose and its donors belonged to different social classes. Also, Sunga art conformed more to the folk traditions because Buddhism itself had incorporated large elements of popular cults and because the donors of this art, many of whom may have been artisans, were culturally more in the mainstream of folk tradition. One more reasoning to support the popular revolt theory is based on Asoka’s ban on the samajas. Asoka did ban festive meetings and discouraged eating of meat. These too might have entagonised the population but it is doubtful whether these prohibitions were strictly enforced.

The above argument (people’s revolt) also means that Asoka’s policy was continued by his successors also, an assumption not confirmed by historical data. Further more, it is unlikely that there was sufficient national consciousness among the varied people of the Mauryan empire. It is also argued by these theorists that Asokan policy in all its details was continued by the later Mauryas, which is not a historical fact. Still another argument that is advanced in favour of the idea of revolt against the Mauryas is that the land tax under the Mauryas was one-quarter, which was very burden some to the cultivator. But historical evidence shows something else. The land tax varied from region to region according to the fertility of the soil and the availability of water.

The figure of one quarter stated by Magasthenes probably referred only to the fertile and well-watered regions around Pataliputra. Thus the decline of the Mauryan empire cannot be satisfactorily explained by referring to Military inactivity, Brahmin resentment, popular uprising or economic pressure. The causes of the decline were more fundamental. The organization of administration and the concept of the State were such that they could be sustained by only by kings of considerably personal ability. After the death of Asoka there was definitely a weakening at the center particularly after the division of the empire, which inevitably led to the breaking of provinces from the Mauryan rule.

Also, it should be borne in mind that all the officials owed their loyalty to the king and not to the State. This meant that a change of king could result in change of officials leading to the demoralization of the officers. Mauryas had no system of ensuring the continuation of well-planned bureaucracy. The next important weakness of the Mauryan Empire was its extreme centralization and the virtual monopoly of all powers by the king. There was a total absence of any advisory institution representing public opinion. That is why the Mauryas depended greatly on the espionage system. Added to this lack of representative institutions there was no distinction between the executive and the judiciary of the government.

An incapable king may use the officers either for purposes of oppression or fail to use it for good purpose. And as the successors of Asoka happened to be weak, the empire inevitably declined. Added to these two factors, there is no conception of national unity of political consciousness. It is clear from the fact that even the resistance against the greeks as the hated miecchas was not an organized one. The only resistance was that of the local rulers who were afraid of losing their newly acquired territory. It is significant that when Porus was fighting Alexander, or when Subhagasena was paying tribute to Antiochus, they were doing so as isolated rulers in the northwest of India.

They had no support from Pataliputra, nor are they even mentioned in any Indian sources as offering resistance to the hated Yavanas. Even the heroic Porus, who, enemy though he was, won the admiration of the Greeks, is left unrecorded in Indian sources. Another associated point of great importance is the fact that the Mauryan Empire which was highly centralized and autocratic was the first and last one of its kind. If the Mauryan Empire did not survive for long, it could be because of the failure of the successors of Asoka to hold on to the principles that could make success of such an empire. Further, the Mauryan empire and the philosophy of the empire was not in tune with the spirit of the time because Aryanism and brahminism was very much there.

According to the Brahmin or Aryan philosophy, the king was only an upholder of dharma, but never the crucial or architecture factor influencing the whole of life. In other words, the sentiment of the people towards the political factor, that is the State was never established in India. Such being the reality, when the successors of Asoka failed to make use of the institution and the thinking that was needed to make a success of a centralized political authority. The Mauryan Empire declined without anyone’s regret. Other factors of importance that contributed to the decline and lack of national unity were the ownership of land and inequality of economic levels. Land could frequently change hands.

American imperium alteration from the 1790s to the 1850s

The unusual struggle that split American life in the 1790s concentrated on conflicting position of the significance of the American Revolution and the manner its tradition could be developed into a new province.

The profound misinterpretation of the 1790s inspired the growing in American political relations. Throughout revolution patriots anticipated and demanded all people give the support because it was the lone manner for the public good. Many Americans held that was a individual place to travel on this political issue

It was unfortunate for John Adams to be the president during these disruptive times. He was a existent nationalist and deeply principled. It was during his term of office that by 1798 he and Federalist Congress had enacted many Torahs that adversely chopped off Americans civil autonomies. To Adams political critics were faithless oppositions of good authorities where he intensified domestic dictatorship under the leading Congress leaders. In so making he was utilizing his ain party in chairing control and as a agency to work the chauvinistic enthusiasm to his ain advantage. The difference that alienates our perceptual experience from those of Adams and his Federalist companions in the late 1790s unmaskings basic revolution of American political idea

The philosophical alterations that started by Gallic Revolution had immense effects in France and many European states. It helped to alter American political relations get downing from mid 1790s. It had in the beginning receive overpowering support in the United States but it subsequently lets to divergent positions in America because of radicalization in 1792-1793

America grew and changed from 1750-1850 in all domains i.e. politically socially and economically. In societal and cultural alteration, art changed which was started by Hudson River school motion. American painters for the first clip started their manner, for case Thomas Cole, who gave the American its individuality by switching off from England manner of picture and gave more concentration on landscaping. Literature on the other manus changed whereby authors started prosecuting themselves on American subjects. During this clip the indigens were ill treated by the foreigners. Foreigners introduced remotion policy which forced the Native American move from their hereditary lands. This act was propelled passing of the Removal Act in 1830.Cherokees in 1838 were forced to travel 100s of stat mis from their places to settle in West of the Mississippi river. This motion was referred to “trial of tears” .

Economic alterations took topographic point which majorly affected how America made money, how people earned a life, engineering and trade. In transit changed how goods were ferried from one topographic point to another. This was enabled due to the debut steamboats, canal edifice. Farmers earned more money due to faster and cheaper transportation of green goods to the markets. Progresss in engineering i.e. in of the telegraph by Samuel Morris improved communicating at big since messages could make the receiver in proceedingss unlike months. Invention of whirling Jenny by James Hargreaves changed the fabric industry immensely. Factories emerged ; the first successful mill in the US was started by Moses and Samuel Slater. The Factory was made up of Millss which spin yam. Slater bought the cognition from England where he was working. This aided the sprout of successful mill in America. The British fabric factory engineering brought to the U.S was upgraded by Francis Cabot. He combined both the turning of yarn and the weaving of apparels in one mill. It was started in Lowell Massachusetts in 1821. A Boston associate was formed by Lowell and outstanding business communities to finance the factory. As mills grew interchangeable parts and industrial rebellion thought came up. Eli Whitney came up with the idea. The chief docket was to utilize the machine to develop all parts likewise, therefore salvaging clip and money in the industry. This aided the rapid growing of the industrial revolution.

As money changed therefore the alterations in foreign policy besides took topographic point. America changed from thought of isolation to neutrality. The chief end was to merchandise with all states and acquiring involved in developing them. The president at that clip was Monroe. President Monroe due to his concern about European states colonising South America ; he made a bold statement warning them to remain off from Latin America. Due to weak military the policy was difficult to continue but the backup of England came in ready to hand. The statement by President Monroe aided to determine the foreign policy for many old ages.

American’s belief of manifest Destiny brought approximately political alterations. The belief stated that U.S had the authorization and duty to spread out ocean to ocean. They achieved this through sign language pacts, annexing and purchasing of land from Latin Americans. The Louisiana Purchase made in 1803 by Thomas Jefferson is a good illustration. He used $ 15 million on 800,000 square stat mis belongings which was about twice size of the U.S. Jefferson decided to look for adventurers to map and analyze wildlife. This occupation was given to Lewis and Clerk.

American exceptionalism is an enterprise that America is fundamentally different from other states. This point of view has dominated American economic sciences, political relations and faith for many old ages. Several early settlers proclaimed themselves to be an component of a exclusive venture with plentiful natural wealth, equity of society and faiths. It was non up to the rebellion that exceptionalism took on unfastened political intensions. The oratory of the current democratic government was often connected with expansionist pressing. This aligned foreign policy which stood on the strong belief that to spread out American democracy was reciprocally right and ineluctable.

American exceptionalism changed as they enlargement took topographic point. United State and its citizen perceive that they hold the particular topographic point on Earth, by offering opportunity and outlook for world, ensuing from an exceeding sense of balance of public and private benefit governed by legitimate rules that focused on single and economic autonomy. A high spot in the yesteryear of American Exceptionalism is the American rebellion. The ideas that shaped the American rebellion were eventful from a usage of republicanism that has been affected by the British mainstream. Thomas Paine’s general logic for the first point in clip articulated the strong belief that America was non an enlargement of Europe except a new district, a province of about illimitable prospective and opening that had over shined the Britain. These sentiments lay the rational footing for the extremist perceptual experience of American exceptionalism and were strongly attached to republicanism, the perceptual experience that rule belonged to the citizens, non to a catching opinion category.

Alexis de Tocqueville insisted the advanced environment of democratic system in America, in difference that it infused each characteristic of society and traditions, at a minute ( 1830s ) when societal equality was non in tendency anyplace else.

Alexander the Great Alexander the Great was a king and conqueror. He is commonly referred to as “the most powerful leader of all time. ” What is it that makes him such a powerful leader? What has he accomplished that has made him so significant? Were his accomplishments positive or negative? These are all questions that when combined as one create a debate that has been going on for decades. There are those who admire Alexander’s military achievements and ability to carve out the largest empire the world has seen. Then there are those who perceive him as a selfish, cruel madman with drinking problems.

This paper will outline the different sides taken on Alexander and the question as to what his significance/influence was and whether it was good or bad. Alexander the Great was the son of Phillip II, king of Macedonia. Phillip had always done much to prepare him for a military and political future (Lewis 48). Alexander served as a regent for his father at the young age of 16 for the start of his military career. After the assassination of his father he obtained the throne in 336 B. C. E. and leader of the League of Corinth. In 335 B. C.

E he crushed Macedonia’s borders and destroyed the city of Thebes. This caused Athens to join the league with no fight. 334 B. C. E. was the year of his first great victory, which opened Asia Minor to conquest. He then, in 333, met the Persian King for the first time and caused him to flee by charging even though Alexander was outnumbered. This was the beginning of the end for Persia. Alexander went on and in his 13 year reign was conquering the Mediterranean, forming new cities, and producing an empire touching on 3 continents and encompassing 2 million sq miles (O’Brien 44).

Such work is something one should be proud of and many agree that conquering all of Persia in such a short amount of time is Alexander the Greats biggest accomplishment. Balcer obviously agrees with that stating that Alexander succeeded in forming the largest western empire of the ancient world and removing Persian intervention in Greek affairs (Balcer 121-122). Sacks obviously agrees as well saying that his “principal achievement was the conquest of the empire of Persia,”(14).

The perspective of many scholars is that Alexander really was “the greatest leader” and through the conquering he undertook he achieved many great things. This is the side of the debate in which scholars find Alexander’s significance to be a positive thing. It is argued he was a “military genius with iron will and boundless ambition,” (O’Brien 45). Scholar Edmund Burke clearly supports this idea in saying that in his accession to the Macedonian throne his foundation of Alexandria, conquest of the Persian Empire and his strategic and tactical genius makes him a “legend” (Burke 67).

He was not the only scholar to refer to him as a legend for a professor at Boise State notes that Alexander exhibited tremendous bravery, didn’t let a wound stop him, never lost a battle, had those around him believe he was invincible, and knew and loved his men. Combining all these factors created an army that could not be stopped and its accomplishments outdid anything that had been seen yet. Alexander and his troops had become a “legend,” (Knox). Alexander had also been seen as the reason for successfully spreading Greek culture that still exists today.

Oriental and Greek cultures blended and flourished as a result of the Empire, making Greek culture his true legacy (Balcer 124). The Hellenistic Era took place right after Alexander’s death and he is said to be the one who ushered this fascinating era. (O’Brien 46). The scholars are right, Alexander truly is a legend for he was the finest battlefield commander of the ancient world and remade the map of the ancient world (Sacks 14). Not just anyone can achieve such success, there seems to be something extraordinary about this man.

Yet, not everyone agrees that he was so extraordinary. Yes, he did carve out the largest empire and at an amazingly rapid pace but his aims and ambitions were different than spreading Hellenism throughout the western Mediterranean and near the east. He was a self-confident man who only wanted to conquer for self-pleasure. Alexander is the reason that corruption and peculation were treated with casualness during this time. His pleasure was when his peoples were loyal to him and that was all that was necessary for his approval.

It was because of him that Macedonia lost its manpower through the strenuous battles he continuously fought. He left it as a weakened kingdom. His empire is given so much credit but it was only based on rapid military conquest and died right after his death (Stoneman 92-94). It is believed that Alexander conquered to rule, not to blend cultures. Heavy drinking led to disastrous incidents and hastened his death. An example of such a disaster was the burning down of Persepolis in a drunken revel. This is not an attribute of a good leader.

He also lacked long-range planning and neglected his kingdoms future by exhausting himself in warfare while he delayed fathering a royal successor. His selfishness is proved by his act of casually killing any threats to the throne at the beginning of his reign (Sacks 15). Those who see Alexander in a negative manner obviously have quite strong opinions about it. They see him as more of a madman than the most powerful leader. It is easy to see where they get their assumptions from for they look at the bloodshed part of Alexander’s reign.

Instead of focusing on the rare ability he had to conquer so successfully the use the old journals and other texts used to learn about Alexander and don’t see past the drunken stories and jump to the negative side of his actions to make them cruel. Those who make assumptions about him being the greatest military leader of all time look at the historical records we have of them and analyze his tactics realizing they really are extraordinary. No other person has conquered so much, so fast and left such a legacy.

I agree with those who see him as a significantly positive influence so its easier to see where they are coming from. I look at the whole picture; his achievements were unlike anyone else’s in history and as a King he was only trying to do the better for his country. He deserves the credit he has received for spreading Greek culture; there is no other way it would have happened. Scholar Burke put it perfectly when in his article he states, “when mention is made of a man of action and genius, there is perhaps no one of the ancients who so quickly comes to mind as Alexander the Great” (Burke 67).

In the Empire Company Limited Case, James Vaux, the associate director at Scotia Capital is the main decision maker. It is his job in September of 1998 to decide on a price at which The Oshawa Group Limited will sell their company/accept a takeover offer at. The Oshawa Group Limited (Oshawa) is a food retail, wholesale, and distribution firm. The Empire Company wants to expand beyond their Atlantic Canada roots; however, there are a few catches. The Wolfe family owns 100% of the voting shares of the company, and not only know the value of their company and expect to receive at least that much, but also a premium on top of that.

Greg Rudka is the Managing Director at Scotia Capital; he has extensive background in the history of the grocery industry and was the one who noticed this opportunity as well as the person who assigned James Vaux to his assignment of the value of Oshawa. ISSUES There are two main issues at hand. First, Vaux needs to determine a value for both classes of shares that Empire would be willing to pay to the Wolfe family and Oshawa equity holders to acquire a position in the Oshawa Company without starting a bidding war.

The second issue is that Vaux needs to find a way to finance the deal. There are a few minor issues in this case, starting with competition. The grocery industry is very competitive. There are only a few large firms involved in the industry. Of course, there are mom and pop stores all over North America, but they only make enough to live themselves and they are not bringing in the same profits as the major chains, so they are not legitimate threats to Empire. Next, the Oshawa Company’s entire voting shares are owned by the Wolfe family as mentioned above.

This will add to the level of difficulty in the purchase or acquisition of Oshawa. Finally, the last issue is that in the grocery industry, it is cheaper to acquire a competitor’s company and chains than it is to open a new store. In other words, horizontal acquisitions were the primary source of growth on the revenue side for the grocery business. People don’t like change and because of this, creating or changing the name of their “local grocery store” may upset or disrupt their previous shopping experiences.