In all fairness to Stalin, his murderous policies were exactly what the USSR needed. They had more people than could be fed by the current system, so Stalin exercised a little "ends justify the means" population control to prevent mass starvation. It's looked at as quite barbaric by today's standards, but nothing you wouldn't see from any other leader in Civ 4 given the same situation.
Who are the best leaders
- Thread starter Bast
- Start date
In all fairness to Stalin, his murderous policies were exactly what the USSR needed. They had more people than could be fed by the current system, so Stalin exercised a little "ends justify the means" population control to prevent mass starvation. It's looked at as quite barbaric by today's standards, but nothing you wouldn't see from any other leader in Civ 4 given the same situation.
RockTheCazbah87
Pacal's pal
Umm, Genghis Khan.
Just look at how much land he conquered. Good enough reason, huh?
George Washington, Mahatma Gandhi, Otto van Bismarck and Napoleon would complete my top 5 or so.
Just look at how much land he conquered. Good enough reason, huh?
George Washington, Mahatma Gandhi, Otto van Bismarck and Napoleon would complete my top 5 or so.
Rael
Chieftain
-> hoopsnerd
Stalin prevented mass starvation!? Stalin starved over 10 million Ukrainians because they refused to nationalise their land. Learn a bit of history before you start taking part in historical disscussion. And btw the cleansings Stalin did were solely the result of his paranoya, and almost caused the defeat of Soviet Union by Germany.
And to stay on topic, the best leader was Genghis Khan. Greatest conqueror of all times and the founder of the Mongol Empire, which endured in some forms until late XVIII century
Stalin prevented mass starvation!? Stalin starved over 10 million Ukrainians because they refused to nationalise their land. Learn a bit of history before you start taking part in historical disscussion. And btw the cleansings Stalin did were solely the result of his paranoya, and almost caused the defeat of Soviet Union by Germany.
And to stay on topic, the best leader was Genghis Khan. Greatest conqueror of all times and the founder of the Mongol Empire, which endured in some forms until late XVIII century
Rusty Edge
Deity
Evil Twin
Demented Sociopath
Duuh.. of course it's different.
Theocracy in Civ IV doesn't even emulate what it's like in real life anyway. Where are the inquisitions? The religious purges? (non state religions don't spread, but they don't go away if you already have them either). Where are the depopulations, the murders and emigrations?
And even if it had all that, it's still a digital world with digital people who don't exist. If they did then I'd probably be getting a visit from the FBI every time I dropped a nuke on Washington.
Anyway, the whole "the end justifies the means" argument is all fine and good.. unless you're the one who's the victim of the means.
Rusty Edge
Deity
I think Washington had incredible leadership qualities. His poise , courage , and presence must have been monumnetal. No ordinary man could keep an unpaid and unsupplied army in the field for so long without pillaging prospects against such a supperior foe. He wasn't "God's appointed Soverign", he was opposing him. There were amnesty offers for returning to the warmth , safety and family at home. That had to be tempting. Those are big distinctions from ancient leaders. I strongly disagree . I think had he lived in ancient times, he would have exceeded most others in leadership.
Evil Twin
Demented Sociopath
On the other hand the irony of replacing one King George with another would have been delicious..
Bast
Protector of Cats
Whenever I see King George, I keep thinking the Hanoverians of England and get excited that someone might be talking English history. 
Don't tell me to "learn something about history," perhaps you should read a book or two before jumping to the conclusion that I'm making things up. I said he used "ends justify the means" policies that were considered brutal by today's standards. Yes, Stalin prevented mass starvation (10 million people is a small % of Russia's total population) during the food shortages created when farmers were forced onto state farms (which was, admittedly, Stalin's own doing). The output of Russia's collective agriculture was reduced by 25%... So, rather than contiune dispersing food as if there were no famine, Stalin used food as leverage to control the people. "You don't want to nationalize? Fine, then you starve -- we don't have enough food to feed everyone as it is."
Basicly, Stalin didn't care if a moderate % of his population starved to death, as long as Russia's industrialization was hastened. He didn't have much choice but to starve a certain % of people once the famine began, because failing to ration during a famine can mean that the entire population may starve. It's simple really, and rather common throughout history. A population boom followed by changing environmental and/or political factors almost always triggers such events...
So, maybe you should do a little reading and explore the option of thinking critically, instead of just (badly) regurgitating paraphrased half-truths that you read in a biased history book.
Rusty Edge
Deity
DukeTancred
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2007
- Messages
- 16
But not in a way that makes the comparison invalid.
But were it to do that, would people stop using it because it morally offends them, because it causes a few citizens to be unhappy or because it is no longer beneficial to their overall strategy? Methinks mostly the latter.
And when you win the game you'd become leader of the real world. It's a simulation, even if not a perfect one, and fake in all ways, not just one.
Which perfectly demonstrates why considering their fate is not necessarily relevant to the appraisal of those good leaders who look at the big picture, and who strive to achieve what's important rather than forcing themselves to compromise their vision.
Good leaders make decisions that benefit the whole. If that means, generally speaking, killing one to save two, then that's what they do.
Leodavinci
Great Merchant
- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 136
I personally have to admit - guy was truly great (you rarely see Latvian telling this
). He used all possible means to get to power and rise it. His leadership and planning skills were among the best in the entire human history. But:
1) Latvia would be better off without him, before forced joining to USSR (btw brilliant theatre playing in the best traditions of "1984" or "Animal Farm") we were average rich European nation, today we are at 30% of EU average;
2) People in Russia would be better off without him for different reasons - brain washing, fear, soviet type motivation (dont ask
);3) I can not really get this "power is needed for power" logic. Everything he did and sacrifised was to get more power (bad childhood I guess
). I really doubt he was in this "making all world happy" idea;4) Great country should be country for people
, not country for country itself. And great leader is the one who creates great country.
The reason it's so fun to talk about this stuff is cause we can't prove who the best leader is cause all "played" on different starting positions. aren't there starts without copper/iron starting next to rome/monty/alex with agressive ai on immortal/deity, and knowing that no matter how good u are, u're pretty much doomed?.
for example alexander, augustus, hannibal - all had a birthright to be kings in a well established empire. who's to say that's easier or harder than to start as genghis khan/napoleon who relatively started from scratch. i keep remembering "the godfather" where i felt that it was actually harder for Michael to keep the empire than it was for Vito building it.
for example alexander, augustus, hannibal - all had a birthright to be kings in a well established empire. who's to say that's easier or harder than to start as genghis khan/napoleon who relatively started from scratch. i keep remembering "the godfather" where i felt that it was actually harder for Michael to keep the empire than it was for Vito building it.
Ahimsadharma
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
- Messages
- 145
I am surprised that no one has mentioned Ashoka yet.
I may be biassed(since i am actually an Indo-Canadian) but not by much i can assure you. I've been a student of history and sciences most of my life and i cannot help but marvel at Ashoka. He was, (if i am allowed to be slightly bombastic), the sum total of Napoleon, Augustus Ceasar, Kurash(Cyrus),Hamurabbi and Justinian rolled into one.
In the words of the famous science fiction author HG Wells (who was a very well read historian), Ashoka is described thus :
"In the history of the world there have been thousands of kings and emperors who called themselves 'their highnesses,' 'their majesties,' and 'their exalted majesties' and so on. They shone for a brief moment, and as quickly disappeared. But Ashoka shines and shines brightly like a bright star, even unto this day."
He is still one of *the* iconic emperors of India and much of south-east Asia.
What did this guy not do ?
Lets look at his life in historical context, in 3 segments - Ashoka before 29, Ashoka before 40 years of age and Ashoka from 40 till his death (at age 72). He lived from 304 BCE till 232 BCE.
But first, a little bit of historical reminder about the India during Ashoka's time- it was noted that the subcontinent back then enjoyed a super-power status in might, finance and culture by several historical sources, including Europeans of that era-the Romans & Greeks. The immediate dynasty before Mauryan dynasty(founded by Ashoka's grandfather) stared down Alexander before he ran away- Megasthenes (Alexander's own chronicler) noted that while Alexander beat Purushotthama(Porus) in the battle of Hydaspades, a much greater army lay in front of him in the form of the empire of Gangaridai( Magadha in India). Alexander fought a great battle with Porus, who had 40,000 men, 10-15,000 cavalry & 500 war elephants. It was the 500 war elephants that nearly caused Alexander to capitulate but his military genius and super-skilled Greek phalanxes won the day. Well, according to the numbers presented by Megasthenes, empire of Magadha had mobilized its forces to protect its borders & were making a stand against Alexander on the eastern banks of river Jamuna- with 150,000 infantry, 80,000 cavalry & 15,000 war elephants. *THIS* is the main reason why Alexander turned back from India and might've even caused his famous troop mutiny ( Greeks were pretty smart society even back then- they knew that no amount of 'courage'-even "the 300" style would stand up to that kind of firepower,especially when it is the superpower who is fighting for its own survival). Its financial, technological & cultural might was indisputable at that time too - only China came close in overall 'power'.
Anyways, back to Ashoka.
Part I: till age 29:
He was a minor prince in the pecking order ( several older bros ahead of him) of Emperor Bindushar. But he was a brilliant fighter & commander,often commented upon as being a 'future great' by the instructors of Royal education ( including warfare) in Pataliputra, the capital of the Mauryan empire.After a few campaigns against Hunnic invaders in the far north-west, he proved his mettle by crushing a rebellion in the volatile Taxila province (which was then governed by his older brother & crown prince Sushima) by surgical strikes and negotiation with the populace.He was only 18/19 when he dealt with the problem at Taxila. His balance between ruthlessly crushing armed rebellion and addressing the concerns of the local populace was so successful that the rebellion in Taxila was quelled & they even approached Sushima to erect a statue of ashoka in commemoration. This made him a hugely popular figure in the Mauryan empire & a province even requested that Ashoka be sent there as its administrator (as was the custom with non-ruling princes).
Father Bindushar was pretty happy but he was getting quite old ( 50+) and the crown prince Sushima felt tremendously threatened by Ashoka's meteoric rise in popularity as well as his demonstration of military expertese in quelling the rebellion at Taxila. Needless to say, Ashoka got governance of a province, which he improved tremendously by adjusting the taxation & land ownership rules efficiently(thus showing a lot of potential as an administrator).
Sushima & some of his younger brothers (older to Ashoka) conspired to implicate Ashoka in fraud & had their father banish him to a nearby vassal country. This was when Ashoka was approximately 22/23 yrs old. He resided in relative comfort but as a 'political prisoner' for another 5 years, when his father died.
Ashoka part II: 29 years to 40:
At the death of his father, he was covertly approached by some noblemen in his father's court, indicating that if Ashoka made a bid for the throne, the nobility would support him. The reason for this was two-fold :
1.Ashoka's exemplary handling of the Taxila rebellion & his efficient rulership of the province had won him great popularity.
2. The crown prince Sushima was a noted 'pleasure addict' and while he was a decent governor in spurts, he mostly spent his time seeking pleasure-ie, womanising, drinking, gambling, playing sports like polo, etc. He was not a good administrator over the long run because of his tendency to 'delegate responsibility & go off for some fun' led to massive corruption.
It was for this very reason why there was an uprising in his province before Ashoka was dispatched by their father to 'deal with the problem'.
The line of succession passing over the 'eldest son' and going to a 'more eligible son/daughter' was not uncommon in ancient India either.
Needless to say, Ashoka accepted the support of the nobility and made his way back to the capital ( Pataliputra, modern day Patna) but nearly lost his life on the way to Sushima's assassins ( who had found out about Ashoka's return).
This had a seminal impact in Ashoka's life and he reacted in the most ruthless fashion possible: After he recovered, he made it to a select group of soldiers loyal only to him ( his former bodyguards likely) and conducted a blitzkreig campaign directly against the palace capital, putting Sushima & most of his older brothers to death. He however, was considerate towards their family and while some of his brother's wives & children fled, he did not harm those who stayed behind.
For the next 10 years, he expanded his borders in all directions, subduing the powerful Satavahana empire who ruled in southern India ( the second largest empire of its time, though significantly smaller than the Mauryan empire pre-Ashoka), forayed significantly deep into Tibet, into the east and repelled a Hun invasion form the north. At this point, Ashoka's empire spanned from (in modern day context) western parts of Afghanistan in the west to beyond India's current border with Burma, North from the Pamir Knots, encompassing southern portions of Tibet, the entire subcontinent, deep into peninsular India.
Only the realms of Kalinga (which lay about 500 Km from Pataliputra, in modern day state of Orissa,India) & the southern kingdoms of Chola,Pandya & Cheras survived south of the Kaveri river ( almost the souternmost tip of India, maybe 150-250 Km inland from the southernmost tip of India is the cauvery river) without being under the Mauryan empire's banner.
This is when Ashoka undertook his historic campaign against Kalingan nation.
Kalinga was a democracy back then, very much Greek in style and ruled by a council (however, unlike the Greeks, Kalingans never kept slaves). Kalingans were also known for their bravery in war & extreme proficiency with the sword & bows. They repelled Ashoka's initial onslaught by annihilating Ashoka's forces ( Ashoka had sent one of his best generals to war) and Ashoka unleashed the full might of the Mauryan army on the much smaller Kalinga.
The battle between Kalinga & the Mauryans proceeded nearly along the same lines as Xerxes vs Greece (though the Mauryans were a much better equipped force & Ashoka was not an idiot, so there was no utter annihilation like Thermopelae) and Ashoka simply ground down the Kalingan army.
Kalinga sent six or seven armies against Ashoka and Ashoka won due to his superior numbers & better generalship (he was a brilliant general on his own right).
Since Mauryan policy was 'absorption of petty nations' under central leadership, Ashoka didnt go around burning & pillaging Kalinga ( that would be counter-productive if you want to just conquer the land, develop it & get more tax revenue, the mauryan mentality of governance). Instead, he simply ploughed 50-100 Km deep in Kalinga, established his supply line & stayed put till the Kalingan armies showed up one after the other. He knew that kalinga being a proud democracy will not simply 'forget' that Ashoka has impinged on its sovereignty but fight tooth & nail - thereby neatly restricting it to a military war for the most part ( it would at the same time be foolish to entirely rule out the possibility of some collateral damage).
However,Ashoka did not expect Kalinga to throw 6/7 armies at him and even though he won Kalinga, it was a bloody campaign that lasted three years and put serious cramps in the peerless might of the Mauryan armies.
Eventually when he did conquer Kalinga and toured the lands of his new conquest, the reality of the situation shocked him : Kalinga had resisted with every ounce of its strength - being a democracy, they'd levied the draft, had drafted almost all able bodied men & women in the war effort that they'd lost. Even modern day genetic data & analysis of the Kalingan campaign shows that Kalinga lost, at the very least, 75% of its population between the age of 15 and 50.
Now, Ashoka's kalinga was a broken society of mostly children & old people.
Kalinga had lost hundreds of thousands of men & women - many killed or displaced through this bloody struggle.
There is some evidence that once the enormity of kalinga got around the empire, Ashoka's popularity declined & it might've even caused a wedge between him and his favourite Queen (who was a buddhist and as you all know, Buddhists are greatly disturbed by insane amount of killing & broken societies). A societerial collapse due to military action on this scale was unheard of in ancient India of those times, since combat was mostly restricted to armed armies & kings fought to conquer & add to his already rich & mighty empire, not pillage & loot. Ancient Indic traditions, such as hinduism, jainism & buddhism, all present in Ashoka's time, were against warfare in general but deeply against warfare that causes such societerial collapse, even if unforeseen(This is why while some of you may be familiar with Chirstian Crusades & Islamic Jihads, i doubt there is any historical mention of a Hindu Jihad or Buddhist Crusade or Jain Intifada). The resulting criticism & Ashoka's own shock at the state of Kalinga inspired a near-astonishing transformation in him. As is commonly known throughout India & most of south-east Asia, Ashoka asked himself " What have I done ?". This leads us to the third (and final stage of Ashoka's life)
Ashoka part III : Age 40- 72
The complete breakdown of society in Kalinga saw a remarkable transformation in Ashoka- he embraced Buddhism and went from being a 'Julius Ceasar' type conquerer & administator to a benevolent Emperor completely finished with conquests. With an empire that was almost 4 million square kilometers in size ( bigger than modern-day India by almost 1 million sq. kms, bigger than entire Europe in size IIRC), Ashoka now spent his middle age developing his land.
He built roads connecting the capital to all his provinces - Big & small. He passed decrees on human rights & even animal rights ( first historic evidence that animal cruelty was punishable crime, hunting for sport was abolished & only hunting for sustainance was allowed). He used his thousands of war elephants to create infrastructure throughout the country - the copious dung of the elephant were offered to the Farmers as manure, the unmatched strength of the elephants used for building roads, artificial water tanks, irrigation channels etc. ( domesticated elephants were already used in India for this purpose but nothing like several thousand more elephants arriving from the emperor to boost the 'labour force').
He concluded peace treaties with the southern kingdoms of Chola, Pandya, Chera & Sinhala ( modern day Sri Lanka), Thailand & Indonesia and sent emessaries all the way to Alexandria (Egypt), Pella ( Macedonian capital) & Rome all bearing messages of peace.
The treaties Ashoka made with his neighbours promised them complete independence unless shown to be working in the Mauryan realm's harm.
He put forth a list of protected forests & wildlife ( those woods that shall not be felled from & those creatures that shall not be killed), he built over 20 universities & colleges in his realms and revived the ancient glory of Takshashila university, the oldest university known in the world ( where over 300 courses were offered to over 10,000 students as early as 750 BCE).
He built resthouses that housed travellers & pilgrims free of charge.
He outlawed the caste system ( again- several Indian rulers & governments have done this in history) and made all citizens equal.
He started a justice system that was free to prosecute anyone ( including the Emperor himself) and elected itself from lower council of justices, though he made it clear that false lawsuits would be good enough for the perpetrator to be imprisoned.
Several water transit systems ( canals & rivers) were connected in a series inter-connected channels for the purposes of agriculture and transport- so much so that the one could travel on boat from the rivers Krishna & Tunga & Bhadra all the way to the Ganga, a river over 1000 Km away to the north).
Death penalty was abolished and slaughter of prisoners of war was made a punishable offence under Ashoka.
Even though the empire officially adopted the Buddhist religion (through Ashoka's conversion), it explicitly spelt out the equality of all religions and non-religions. Ashoka's edicts show that he financed construction of Buddhist, Hindu, Jain and even Carvaka (atheist) centers of worship/education.
Even though slavery was unknown in ancient India of Ashoka's times, he gave his allies & foreign nations incentives to outlaw slavery - since India was the financial & cultural powerhouse of the world back then, Ashoka used the 'carrot' of 'prefferential trade treatment' to allies who gave up slavery, such as the southern Indian kingdoms and Indonesia.
Under him, Indian society completely irradicated poverty, found sea routes to China and even formed flourishing trade with modern day Kenya-Tanzania area . The newfound wealth of the society & its efficient usage promoted arts, architecture, culture, etc to unparalleled heights for its period in world history. He created a society that was unparalleled in the ancient world not only in might, wealth,population & culture but also in freedom,eglatarianism & democratic representation at the state/provincial level. It is a known fact that Ashoka's empire had, somewhere in the vicinity of 200 million citizens ( which was a lot in the ancient world, considering Rome/Greece/Persia etc never crossed even 15 million in total population) and to think that poverty was irradicated by a nation of 200 million citizens 2250 years ago - that is two thousand, two hundred and fifty years- simply boggles the mind.
In modern day context, that would be like the Chinese or the Indians being a billion strong and more developed (relatively speaking) than America with the 'next best dood' being Russia(China in 250 BCE) , off by some distance in population, economics, culture & might and the 'third best dood'( 250 BCE would be Carthage) being not even a fifth as powerful.
During the last 32 years of his life however, Ashoka was not a pushover who'd forgotten how to command armies in battle and maintain a highly skilled and technologically proficient army. About 15 years after his 'transformation' into the benevolent emperor, the Huns tried to break through the northern frontiers of the empire again ( modern day Afghanistan-Turkmenistan border area) and Ashoka crushed the invasion with an iron fist, winning some tremendous victories against the Hunnic invaders- so much so that the Hunnic invasions of the subcontinent were set back by another 150 years after Ashoka's death.
He was an efficient and able ruler till the age of 68/69, when his health started to fail him and he became increasingly dependent on his youngest wife, did his control over his realms started to slip & he relinquished his throne in favour of his son Dasharatha Maurya.
===============
Ashoka remains the iconic 'poster-boy' emperor of India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan and much of south-east Asia today.
And his presence is felt along subtle lines too - The 'wheel' in India's flag is actually 'Ashokachakra', meaning 'Ashoka's wheel. Even though the concept of the 'dharma wheel' far predates Ashoka in the subcontinent, the government of India chose Ashoka's version/model of the wheel of Dharma for its national symbol.
The national emblem of India ( 3 lions) are from Ashoka's royal emblem- the four-sided lion emblems that still adorns the top of the rock pillars he had erected/carved. ( The four sided lion emblem faces 4 directions, so when the emblem is put on paper/clothes, it looks like a 3-sided lion, with the 4th lion obscured due to the 2-d nature of a cloth/paper)
Ashoka's royal slogan also serves as India's national motto today :" Satyameva jayate" ( Truth alone triumphs).
I apologize if this post is way too long and too serious but i thought it wouldn't hurt the world to know about a great emperor, who blended the aspects of statesmanship, conquest and most importantly, humanity better than most, if not all, before or after him.
I may be biassed(since i am actually an Indo-Canadian) but not by much i can assure you. I've been a student of history and sciences most of my life and i cannot help but marvel at Ashoka. He was, (if i am allowed to be slightly bombastic), the sum total of Napoleon, Augustus Ceasar, Kurash(Cyrus),Hamurabbi and Justinian rolled into one.
In the words of the famous science fiction author HG Wells (who was a very well read historian), Ashoka is described thus :
"In the history of the world there have been thousands of kings and emperors who called themselves 'their highnesses,' 'their majesties,' and 'their exalted majesties' and so on. They shone for a brief moment, and as quickly disappeared. But Ashoka shines and shines brightly like a bright star, even unto this day."
He is still one of *the* iconic emperors of India and much of south-east Asia.
What did this guy not do ?
Lets look at his life in historical context, in 3 segments - Ashoka before 29, Ashoka before 40 years of age and Ashoka from 40 till his death (at age 72). He lived from 304 BCE till 232 BCE.
But first, a little bit of historical reminder about the India during Ashoka's time- it was noted that the subcontinent back then enjoyed a super-power status in might, finance and culture by several historical sources, including Europeans of that era-the Romans & Greeks. The immediate dynasty before Mauryan dynasty(founded by Ashoka's grandfather) stared down Alexander before he ran away- Megasthenes (Alexander's own chronicler) noted that while Alexander beat Purushotthama(Porus) in the battle of Hydaspades, a much greater army lay in front of him in the form of the empire of Gangaridai( Magadha in India). Alexander fought a great battle with Porus, who had 40,000 men, 10-15,000 cavalry & 500 war elephants. It was the 500 war elephants that nearly caused Alexander to capitulate but his military genius and super-skilled Greek phalanxes won the day. Well, according to the numbers presented by Megasthenes, empire of Magadha had mobilized its forces to protect its borders & were making a stand against Alexander on the eastern banks of river Jamuna- with 150,000 infantry, 80,000 cavalry & 15,000 war elephants. *THIS* is the main reason why Alexander turned back from India and might've even caused his famous troop mutiny ( Greeks were pretty smart society even back then- they knew that no amount of 'courage'-even "the 300" style would stand up to that kind of firepower,especially when it is the superpower who is fighting for its own survival). Its financial, technological & cultural might was indisputable at that time too - only China came close in overall 'power'.
Anyways, back to Ashoka.
Part I: till age 29:
He was a minor prince in the pecking order ( several older bros ahead of him) of Emperor Bindushar. But he was a brilliant fighter & commander,often commented upon as being a 'future great' by the instructors of Royal education ( including warfare) in Pataliputra, the capital of the Mauryan empire.After a few campaigns against Hunnic invaders in the far north-west, he proved his mettle by crushing a rebellion in the volatile Taxila province (which was then governed by his older brother & crown prince Sushima) by surgical strikes and negotiation with the populace.He was only 18/19 when he dealt with the problem at Taxila. His balance between ruthlessly crushing armed rebellion and addressing the concerns of the local populace was so successful that the rebellion in Taxila was quelled & they even approached Sushima to erect a statue of ashoka in commemoration. This made him a hugely popular figure in the Mauryan empire & a province even requested that Ashoka be sent there as its administrator (as was the custom with non-ruling princes).
Father Bindushar was pretty happy but he was getting quite old ( 50+) and the crown prince Sushima felt tremendously threatened by Ashoka's meteoric rise in popularity as well as his demonstration of military expertese in quelling the rebellion at Taxila. Needless to say, Ashoka got governance of a province, which he improved tremendously by adjusting the taxation & land ownership rules efficiently(thus showing a lot of potential as an administrator).
Sushima & some of his younger brothers (older to Ashoka) conspired to implicate Ashoka in fraud & had their father banish him to a nearby vassal country. This was when Ashoka was approximately 22/23 yrs old. He resided in relative comfort but as a 'political prisoner' for another 5 years, when his father died.
Ashoka part II: 29 years to 40:
At the death of his father, he was covertly approached by some noblemen in his father's court, indicating that if Ashoka made a bid for the throne, the nobility would support him. The reason for this was two-fold :
1.Ashoka's exemplary handling of the Taxila rebellion & his efficient rulership of the province had won him great popularity.
2. The crown prince Sushima was a noted 'pleasure addict' and while he was a decent governor in spurts, he mostly spent his time seeking pleasure-ie, womanising, drinking, gambling, playing sports like polo, etc. He was not a good administrator over the long run because of his tendency to 'delegate responsibility & go off for some fun' led to massive corruption.
It was for this very reason why there was an uprising in his province before Ashoka was dispatched by their father to 'deal with the problem'.
The line of succession passing over the 'eldest son' and going to a 'more eligible son/daughter' was not uncommon in ancient India either.
Needless to say, Ashoka accepted the support of the nobility and made his way back to the capital ( Pataliputra, modern day Patna) but nearly lost his life on the way to Sushima's assassins ( who had found out about Ashoka's return).
This had a seminal impact in Ashoka's life and he reacted in the most ruthless fashion possible: After he recovered, he made it to a select group of soldiers loyal only to him ( his former bodyguards likely) and conducted a blitzkreig campaign directly against the palace capital, putting Sushima & most of his older brothers to death. He however, was considerate towards their family and while some of his brother's wives & children fled, he did not harm those who stayed behind.
For the next 10 years, he expanded his borders in all directions, subduing the powerful Satavahana empire who ruled in southern India ( the second largest empire of its time, though significantly smaller than the Mauryan empire pre-Ashoka), forayed significantly deep into Tibet, into the east and repelled a Hun invasion form the north. At this point, Ashoka's empire spanned from (in modern day context) western parts of Afghanistan in the west to beyond India's current border with Burma, North from the Pamir Knots, encompassing southern portions of Tibet, the entire subcontinent, deep into peninsular India.
Only the realms of Kalinga (which lay about 500 Km from Pataliputra, in modern day state of Orissa,India) & the southern kingdoms of Chola,Pandya & Cheras survived south of the Kaveri river ( almost the souternmost tip of India, maybe 150-250 Km inland from the southernmost tip of India is the cauvery river) without being under the Mauryan empire's banner.
This is when Ashoka undertook his historic campaign against Kalingan nation.
Kalinga was a democracy back then, very much Greek in style and ruled by a council (however, unlike the Greeks, Kalingans never kept slaves). Kalingans were also known for their bravery in war & extreme proficiency with the sword & bows. They repelled Ashoka's initial onslaught by annihilating Ashoka's forces ( Ashoka had sent one of his best generals to war) and Ashoka unleashed the full might of the Mauryan army on the much smaller Kalinga.
The battle between Kalinga & the Mauryans proceeded nearly along the same lines as Xerxes vs Greece (though the Mauryans were a much better equipped force & Ashoka was not an idiot, so there was no utter annihilation like Thermopelae) and Ashoka simply ground down the Kalingan army.
Kalinga sent six or seven armies against Ashoka and Ashoka won due to his superior numbers & better generalship (he was a brilliant general on his own right).
Since Mauryan policy was 'absorption of petty nations' under central leadership, Ashoka didnt go around burning & pillaging Kalinga ( that would be counter-productive if you want to just conquer the land, develop it & get more tax revenue, the mauryan mentality of governance). Instead, he simply ploughed 50-100 Km deep in Kalinga, established his supply line & stayed put till the Kalingan armies showed up one after the other. He knew that kalinga being a proud democracy will not simply 'forget' that Ashoka has impinged on its sovereignty but fight tooth & nail - thereby neatly restricting it to a military war for the most part ( it would at the same time be foolish to entirely rule out the possibility of some collateral damage).
However,Ashoka did not expect Kalinga to throw 6/7 armies at him and even though he won Kalinga, it was a bloody campaign that lasted three years and put serious cramps in the peerless might of the Mauryan armies.
Eventually when he did conquer Kalinga and toured the lands of his new conquest, the reality of the situation shocked him : Kalinga had resisted with every ounce of its strength - being a democracy, they'd levied the draft, had drafted almost all able bodied men & women in the war effort that they'd lost. Even modern day genetic data & analysis of the Kalingan campaign shows that Kalinga lost, at the very least, 75% of its population between the age of 15 and 50.
Now, Ashoka's kalinga was a broken society of mostly children & old people.
Kalinga had lost hundreds of thousands of men & women - many killed or displaced through this bloody struggle.
There is some evidence that once the enormity of kalinga got around the empire, Ashoka's popularity declined & it might've even caused a wedge between him and his favourite Queen (who was a buddhist and as you all know, Buddhists are greatly disturbed by insane amount of killing & broken societies). A societerial collapse due to military action on this scale was unheard of in ancient India of those times, since combat was mostly restricted to armed armies & kings fought to conquer & add to his already rich & mighty empire, not pillage & loot. Ancient Indic traditions, such as hinduism, jainism & buddhism, all present in Ashoka's time, were against warfare in general but deeply against warfare that causes such societerial collapse, even if unforeseen(This is why while some of you may be familiar with Chirstian Crusades & Islamic Jihads, i doubt there is any historical mention of a Hindu Jihad or Buddhist Crusade or Jain Intifada). The resulting criticism & Ashoka's own shock at the state of Kalinga inspired a near-astonishing transformation in him. As is commonly known throughout India & most of south-east Asia, Ashoka asked himself " What have I done ?". This leads us to the third (and final stage of Ashoka's life)
Ashoka part III : Age 40- 72
The complete breakdown of society in Kalinga saw a remarkable transformation in Ashoka- he embraced Buddhism and went from being a 'Julius Ceasar' type conquerer & administator to a benevolent Emperor completely finished with conquests. With an empire that was almost 4 million square kilometers in size ( bigger than modern-day India by almost 1 million sq. kms, bigger than entire Europe in size IIRC), Ashoka now spent his middle age developing his land.
He built roads connecting the capital to all his provinces - Big & small. He passed decrees on human rights & even animal rights ( first historic evidence that animal cruelty was punishable crime, hunting for sport was abolished & only hunting for sustainance was allowed). He used his thousands of war elephants to create infrastructure throughout the country - the copious dung of the elephant were offered to the Farmers as manure, the unmatched strength of the elephants used for building roads, artificial water tanks, irrigation channels etc. ( domesticated elephants were already used in India for this purpose but nothing like several thousand more elephants arriving from the emperor to boost the 'labour force').
He concluded peace treaties with the southern kingdoms of Chola, Pandya, Chera & Sinhala ( modern day Sri Lanka), Thailand & Indonesia and sent emessaries all the way to Alexandria (Egypt), Pella ( Macedonian capital) & Rome all bearing messages of peace.
The treaties Ashoka made with his neighbours promised them complete independence unless shown to be working in the Mauryan realm's harm.
He put forth a list of protected forests & wildlife ( those woods that shall not be felled from & those creatures that shall not be killed), he built over 20 universities & colleges in his realms and revived the ancient glory of Takshashila university, the oldest university known in the world ( where over 300 courses were offered to over 10,000 students as early as 750 BCE).
He built resthouses that housed travellers & pilgrims free of charge.
He outlawed the caste system ( again- several Indian rulers & governments have done this in history) and made all citizens equal.
He started a justice system that was free to prosecute anyone ( including the Emperor himself) and elected itself from lower council of justices, though he made it clear that false lawsuits would be good enough for the perpetrator to be imprisoned.
Several water transit systems ( canals & rivers) were connected in a series inter-connected channels for the purposes of agriculture and transport- so much so that the one could travel on boat from the rivers Krishna & Tunga & Bhadra all the way to the Ganga, a river over 1000 Km away to the north).
Death penalty was abolished and slaughter of prisoners of war was made a punishable offence under Ashoka.
Even though the empire officially adopted the Buddhist religion (through Ashoka's conversion), it explicitly spelt out the equality of all religions and non-religions. Ashoka's edicts show that he financed construction of Buddhist, Hindu, Jain and even Carvaka (atheist) centers of worship/education.
Even though slavery was unknown in ancient India of Ashoka's times, he gave his allies & foreign nations incentives to outlaw slavery - since India was the financial & cultural powerhouse of the world back then, Ashoka used the 'carrot' of 'prefferential trade treatment' to allies who gave up slavery, such as the southern Indian kingdoms and Indonesia.
Under him, Indian society completely irradicated poverty, found sea routes to China and even formed flourishing trade with modern day Kenya-Tanzania area . The newfound wealth of the society & its efficient usage promoted arts, architecture, culture, etc to unparalleled heights for its period in world history. He created a society that was unparalleled in the ancient world not only in might, wealth,population & culture but also in freedom,eglatarianism & democratic representation at the state/provincial level. It is a known fact that Ashoka's empire had, somewhere in the vicinity of 200 million citizens ( which was a lot in the ancient world, considering Rome/Greece/Persia etc never crossed even 15 million in total population) and to think that poverty was irradicated by a nation of 200 million citizens 2250 years ago - that is two thousand, two hundred and fifty years- simply boggles the mind.
In modern day context, that would be like the Chinese or the Indians being a billion strong and more developed (relatively speaking) than America with the 'next best dood' being Russia(China in 250 BCE) , off by some distance in population, economics, culture & might and the 'third best dood'( 250 BCE would be Carthage) being not even a fifth as powerful.
During the last 32 years of his life however, Ashoka was not a pushover who'd forgotten how to command armies in battle and maintain a highly skilled and technologically proficient army. About 15 years after his 'transformation' into the benevolent emperor, the Huns tried to break through the northern frontiers of the empire again ( modern day Afghanistan-Turkmenistan border area) and Ashoka crushed the invasion with an iron fist, winning some tremendous victories against the Hunnic invaders- so much so that the Hunnic invasions of the subcontinent were set back by another 150 years after Ashoka's death.
He was an efficient and able ruler till the age of 68/69, when his health started to fail him and he became increasingly dependent on his youngest wife, did his control over his realms started to slip & he relinquished his throne in favour of his son Dasharatha Maurya.
===============
Ashoka remains the iconic 'poster-boy' emperor of India, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan and much of south-east Asia today.
And his presence is felt along subtle lines too - The 'wheel' in India's flag is actually 'Ashokachakra', meaning 'Ashoka's wheel. Even though the concept of the 'dharma wheel' far predates Ashoka in the subcontinent, the government of India chose Ashoka's version/model of the wheel of Dharma for its national symbol.
The national emblem of India ( 3 lions) are from Ashoka's royal emblem- the four-sided lion emblems that still adorns the top of the rock pillars he had erected/carved. ( The four sided lion emblem faces 4 directions, so when the emblem is put on paper/clothes, it looks like a 3-sided lion, with the 4th lion obscured due to the 2-d nature of a cloth/paper)
Ashoka's royal slogan also serves as India's national motto today :" Satyameva jayate" ( Truth alone triumphs).
I apologize if this post is way too long and too serious but i thought it wouldn't hurt the world to know about a great emperor, who blended the aspects of statesmanship, conquest and most importantly, humanity better than most, if not all, before or after him.
Here, one has a tendency to take a look to the east.
As for Ahimsadharma;
Wow. Good post.
Ahimsadharma
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
- Messages
- 145
Thanks, Oko. The contrast between Ashoka's image in the east and west always surprises me whenever i cross the cultural spheres (which i do fairly regularly).
In the east, he is perceived as the perfect Ruler, with accolades bestowed upon him by people as far away and removed form Indosphere as the Japanese and the Koreans. To some, he is seen as almost a God-King.
In the west, hardly anybody has even heard of him and even amongst those who have heard of him, his life remains mostly unknown.
Perhaps it has something to do with rise of Islam cutting India off from the west completely (along with several genocidal jihads waged on India by the muslim invaders, perpetrating the collapse of the superpower) along with dogmatic rise of Christianity in the west, ensuring historical revisionism in the 1400s/1500s followed by ultra-racism and yet another historical revision to edit out non-european/near eastern influences in the 1700s-early 1900s.
Not to mention, the spread of buddhism in the east as well as India's exceptional historical depth must've played a part in preserving the legacy of an iconic king from a forgotten world.
In the east, he is perceived as the perfect Ruler, with accolades bestowed upon him by people as far away and removed form Indosphere as the Japanese and the Koreans. To some, he is seen as almost a God-King.
In the west, hardly anybody has even heard of him and even amongst those who have heard of him, his life remains mostly unknown.
Perhaps it has something to do with rise of Islam cutting India off from the west completely (along with several genocidal jihads waged on India by the muslim invaders, perpetrating the collapse of the superpower) along with dogmatic rise of Christianity in the west, ensuring historical revisionism in the 1400s/1500s followed by ultra-racism and yet another historical revision to edit out non-european/near eastern influences in the 1700s-early 1900s.
Not to mention, the spread of buddhism in the east as well as India's exceptional historical depth must've played a part in preserving the legacy of an iconic king from a forgotten world.
Admittedly, I'd never even heard of Ashoka before Civilization series.
That's why your well detailed post was a great read. Made me want to play a game with him.
Peng Qi
Emperor
meatwad4289
Prince
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2005
- Messages
- 595
Dude, it's my opinion. First off, If the watergate scandel never got out there, Nixon would be remembered as one of the top 10 Presidents of All time. Nixon is the reason why we have the EPA. Opened trade with Russia and China. He created OSHA. and during the time when Affirmative Action was neccessary, he implemented the Philadelphia Plan, the first Federal Affirmative Action program. He approved Nasa Space Shuttle program, to further exploration in space. In his Reelection he won in a landslide.
The guy did so many good things, yet all people look at is.. Hey that guy spied on people. Besides No body said anything about Bush, Don't make it political. laissez fair means the government stays away from maintaining or distributing wealth, and does not create welfare programs. I don't understand what your comment on Laissez Fair was about, as most Presidents and Political Leaders do interfere, some interfere to much, others to little.
If you read what I wrote, I said Churchill would be great, but some thigns you read make him sound liek a puppet to FDR, and other things you read make it Vice Versa. I jokingly said that FDR was a puppet to his wife, because lets face it, a Man in power, usually will listen to his loved ones, IE his wife. His wife, became a large political figure and many ideas she had were taken in by FDR. Some people speculated that she was more like a co-president. It was a joke saying he was a puppet to her but ok. If you're going to call Reagan a puppet in seriousness, please provide information. But hey guess what. You still haven't given any reasons why my opinion of Reagan as a good leader should be different. If you're going to say an opinions wrong, try proving it.
You obviously don't know any world war history to claim Hitler set himself up for defeat by the US and Soviets. Hitler made 2 mistakes, he fought a two front war, and then he hesitated to long to destroy the Soviets. If he had continued to attack, theres a very good chance there would of been a different outcome to that war. As far as him bringing shame to his nation, i don't care. Any man that can unite his entire country into defying the world's demands is a PHENOMENAL leader, I'm not saying he was good guy, I'm saying that he was a good leader. If you deny that he is, then you honestly need to read history.
Edit. It's Meatwad, not Whad. Seriously? what is it with dumbasses saying "Meatwhad" "meatcrap" "meathead" "meatball" "d***wad" and other names dealing with meat and or wad. It's a cartoon character! The only way I would be offended by the childish insults people come up with, is because they'd let childish people post here. So don't even bother with that.
Similar threads
