Asoka is a man?
- Thread starter bakshi
- Start date
Ugh...
- Mauryan dynasty (didnt´t "consolidate# India, as it didn´t exist as a nation. He did create the greatest empire the Indian subcontinent had ever seen.)
- he was apparently disgusted by the massacres of his own wars
- the Mauryans didn´t put weapons aside:
In the year 185 BC, about fifty years after Ashoka's death, the last Maurya ruler, Brhadrata, was assassinated by the commander-in-chief of the Mauryan armed forces, Pusyamitra Sunga, while he was taking the Guard of Honor of his forces. Pusyamitra Sunga founded the Sunga dynasty (185 BC-78 BC) and ruled just a fragmented part of the Mauryan Empire. Many of the northwestern territories of the Mauryan Empire (modern-day Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan) became the Indo-Greek Kingdom.
Finally, he´s generally known as Ashoka. I´ll leave it at that.
Jerrymander
Epistemologist
1. That is consolidation.
2. Romanization of foreign names is subject to interpretation.
3. You're nitpicking.
2. Romanization of foreign names is subject to interpretation.
3. You're nitpicking.
johnfalcon99977
Assassin
Don´t be daft.
This text:
The third ruler of Mauri dinasty which consolidated India through series of wars. And in reality he was very brutal and ruthless ruler. Apparently, after the masacre of a whole tribe numbering 100 000 by his army, he was disguised by the rivers of blood and the mountains of dead bodies, so he adopted budhism and since then he ruled sophisticated and peacefully.
Ironically, few decades later, his country was destroyed by brutal and ruthless neighbors, who came in power after the Mauri put the weapons aside.
makes no sense as is - apart from being factually incorrect.
invader83
Chieftain
well he is a man, becose asoka is a indian man's name 
yeah but i was unsure in the start 
yeah but i was unsure in the start johnfalcon99977
Assassin
well he is a man, becose asoka is a indian man's name
SIMILELY SPAMER! Prepair the bonfire!
globaooba
The Wolpertinger
Heh I thought he was a she too
Anony1200
Chieftain
You think it's hard to tell in game?Check out his pictures on that one "What Civ IV leaders looked like" video...
Higher Game
National Socialist
Disguised by rivers of blood...
Um...
Enoch Powell was a hero.
plasmacannon
Emperor
I got this confused the first time I saw him too.
The whole long haired bowing thing just isn't very manly.
In many cultures a name ending in "a" is feminine, and ending in "o" is the masculine version.
So, it seemed obvious. Until I looked up his history.
Even with the different namings Ashoka, and some confusion on whether it should have been the "Maurya Empire" instead of "India". Like with HRE and Rome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_Empire
He is a male leader.
The whole long haired bowing thing just isn't very manly.
In many cultures a name ending in "a" is feminine, and ending in "o" is the masculine version.
So, it seemed obvious. Until I looked up his history.
Even with the different namings Ashoka, and some confusion on whether it should have been the "Maurya Empire" instead of "India". Like with HRE and Rome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_Empire
He is a male leader.
Anony1200
Chieftain
Gotta say,calling India the Maruya Empire would be something akin to calling the Ottoman Empire the Sultanate of Ruman Empire
plasmacannon
Emperor
The decision would have been to have both empires, as India would not been removed.
This way, one could have had the fast worker UU, and the other a more combat oriented unit, like a Rajput.
Holy Roman Empire and Rome were given 2 Empires (some could argue 3, Byzantine).
when they ruled much of the same lands.
Native American and America occupy (much of) the same land.
CHEESE!
On a long nostalgia trip
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2007
- Messages
- 2,222
Not really. It's meant to cover from Northern Mexico to Nunavut, but in practice (dog soldier- Sioux, leader- Sioux, Totem Pole- Haida, Fishing- Haida OR Algonkian, Agriculture- Iroquois?) it only really represents Algonkians to Haidas.
Similar threads
