https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/fwiwdo/did_emperor_ashoka_really_exist/
created by [deleted] on 07/04/2020 at 11:28 UTC*
1174 upvotes, 2 top-level comments (showing 2)
Note -: This is a repeat question that I asked a few weeks back. But I didn't get any answer. So I am reposting it.
I am from India and Emperor Ashoka Maurya is a known name here. Our national emblem comes from the Ashoka Pillars at Lion Capital found in Sarnath.
But I haven't found any conclusive, solid proof that Ashoka existed.
The only proof we have about him and his life story comes from the carvings on the stones in Greek language in which he depicts himself by another name and calls himself a benevolent ruler. Another source is the Buddhist texts which were written by monks centuries after his death and depict him in an exaggerated manner as a violent ruler who suddenly turned peaceful and adopted Buddhism and spread it across his whole empire. Both these sources don't match in their depictions of Ashoka.
These sources are unreliable and cannot be trusted to provide an accurate representation of a ruler who has been said to rule the biggest unified empire in India.
Also, despite being India's biggest ruler, he was forgotten for centuries and discovered again during the British Rule in India. The British historians at that time were infamous for distorting the Indian history.
We haven't found any palace or places of official work belonging to Ashoka's time except for the Sanchi Stupa, which is strange for an emperor of his power and stature.
Also, we haven't found any independent written account of the Kalinga War except in the Buddhist texts, which by today's geography, would be located in the state of Orissa. It was the only war that he fought and turned from a Hindu to a Buddhist after that. We haven't found any weapons or equipments that were used in the war.
My question is, did Emperor Ashoka really exist or is he some myth fabricated from some poor, unreliable and unrelated sources by Buddhists as a figurehead of a peaceful, powerful Buddhist empire?
Comment by SeptimusT at 07/04/2020 at 15:05 UTC*
382 upvotes, 8 direct replies
Great to see a question about an interesting time and figure! I’ve been doing a lot of research on Ashoka and the Maurya Empire lately, and I currently have an article on the collapse of its currency system under review by a journal.
Our written evidence for the Maurya is limited. That’s at least in part due to the massive upheavel during following centuries, which led to the loss of many sources. Its existence is still corroborated by several Greek writers and surviving texts like the *Arthashastra*. While problematic in a variety of ways (*Arthashastra* has probably been interloped by later writers, and the Greek writers often repeat third hand information), it’s enough to verify broad swathes of the Mauryan history detailed in Buddhist and Jain texts, minus the more religious claims. Certainly Chandragupta Maurya, the founder of the dynasty, existed and led a revolt which toppled the existing Nanda Dynasty in Pataliputra. He then began a conquest which took much of the subcontinent. His sucessors followed this model and continued to expand. Their creation of infrastructure like roads, a uniform currency, encouragement of long distance trade, maintenance of a central army, and governance of a large, multi-lingual and multi-ethnic territory are what makes them an ‘empire,’ although the rulers referred to themselves as *raja*, usually translated as king.
The Maurya Empire is further attested by archaeology. While not attributable to specific rulers, we can see the expansion of a uniform silver currency across their territory. We can also see the growth of a unique art styles, such as the “Mauryan polish” that makes the lion capitals so shiny. Many stupas and Buddhist sites do show notable expansion around the time of Ashoka, such as those excavated by John Marshall at Taxila.
The Ashoka inscriptions are actually multi-lingual, and were sort of like a Rosetta Some for scholars deciphering some no longer used Indian languages. In Prakrit, the main language of the Mauryan court, Ashoka refers to himself as *Devanampiya Piyadasi Asokaraja*, which is translated as “Humane King Ashoka, Beloved of the Gods.” They certainly paint him in an idealistic light and are subject to debate, but that’s true of any ancient document. Most modern scholars accept them as genuine, but there is certainly some debate. There’s really nothing else on the Kalinga War, but we do see the Mauryan currency and some architectural evidence of their rule or influence there.
Lastly, it may be helpful to view Ashoka and the Maurya as one dynasty within the history of a wider empire. Chandragupta Maurya, the founder of the dynasty, largely usurped the existing Pataliputra-based Magadha Empire after overthrowing the Nanda Dynasty, keeping and expanding much of their governmental structure, such as their uniform currency. They may have ruled relatively loosely, relying on satraps and subservient petty kings to govern distant territories. Ashoka’s successors, even less well understood than him, probably split the empore into multiple states. The Pataliputra-based rulers were overthrown by Pushyamitra Sunga, a Mauryan general. The subsequent Sunga Dynasty kept much of the Mauryan government model within a much reduced territory. There’s a marked period of decline and disintegration of central power (especially visible by the collapse of the uniform currency, a major indicator of long distance trade), but the Sungas were eventually overthrown by the Kanva Dynasty in another coup. By now a very small kingdom, they were swallowed up by the Deccan-based Satavahana Empire.
As far as further reading goes, most of the latest scholarship is very specialized and specific, and the broader syntheses are a little outdated. Still, *Aśoka and the Decline of the Mauryas* by Romila Thapar is probably the best. For an outline of the debates of Mauryan historiography, “Main Trends in the Historiography of the Early Maurya Empire Since Independence” by Shankar Goyal (*Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute*, Vol. 76, No. 1/4 (1995)) is pretty solid.
Comment by AutoModerator at 07/04/2020 at 11:28 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. **Please Read Our Rules[1] before you comment in this community**. Understand that rule breaking comments get removed.
1: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules
We thank you for your interest in this *question*, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to be written, which takes time. Please consider **Clicking Here for RemindMeBot[2]**, using our Browser Extension[3], or getting the Weekly Roundup[4]. In the meantime our Twitter[5], Facebook[6], and Sunday Digest[7] feature excellent content that has already been written!
5: https://twitter.com/askhistorians
6: https://www.facebook.com/askhistorians/