2006-10-07 23:51:21 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Education & Reference ➔ Homework Help
in a way 'yes'
since he was a king and a warrior but after a battle he stopped fighting and became a believer of non-violence therefore he could not capture any kingdoms nor could he stop enemies from capturing his kingdoms.
so i guess he was to quite an extent a reason for the downfall of the Maurays
2006-10-08 00:01:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would not say that he was entirely responsible for there were other forces at work in India at that time. However, Ashoka's thorough-going Buddhism antagonized India's Brahmin class who resented the king's prohibition of animal sacrifices among other things. The Maurya Dynasty fell in 185 BC, and northwest India came under the heel of an Iranian tribe called the Kushans.
2006-10-08 09:39:38 · answer #2 · answered by Phoebhart 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In 321 BC, exiled general Chandragupta Maurya founded the Maurya dynasty after overthrowing the reigning king Dhana Nanda to establish the Mauryan Empire. Chandragupta was succeeded by his son Bindusara, who expanded the kingdom over most of present day India, barring the extreme south and east. During this time, most of the subcontinent was united under a single government for the first time.
The kingdom was inherited by his son Ashoka The Great who initially sought to expand his kingdom. In the aftermath of the carnage caused in the invasion of Kalinga, he renounced bloodshed and pursued a policy of non-violence or ahimsa after converting to Buddhism. The Edicts of Ashoka are the oldest preserved historical documents of India, and from Ashoka's time, approximate dating of dynasties becomes possible. The Mauryan dynasty under Ashoka was responsible for the proliferation of Buddhist ideals across the whole of East Asia and South-East Asia, fundamentally altering the history and development of Asia as a whole. Ashoka the Great has been described as one of the greatest rulers the world has seen.
2006-10-08 08:08:53 · answer #3 · answered by landkm 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no i don't think he was
many may say that bcoz of his abandoning of war Mauryan empire was led to a downfall but actually his control was over virtually whole of india. it was his successors who were responsible for the end
2006-10-08 08:12:43 · answer #4 · answered by Devilish_chic31 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋