Originally posted by: Kaana
Abhay, just brilliant. Was missing you in this forum as there is this incompleteness without your history blogs to go alongwith the show:-) and ofcourse one gets to learn so much of great men of history.
Big thanks for this well researched article. One could see the mammoth effort behind it.
Regd, Ashok I feel his edict should be taken into consideration more than the accounts from sources. It cannot be so varied that one says that he was chosen heir apparent while another says he killed 99 brothers. There could be variation in account but not such stark contrast. So do I get a feel that his story has been played with to give the required effect.
And the God giving weapons and showing him as king at Bindusar's death bed - to me, these are stories. I would not believe in such things.
Either, Bindusar and ministers were carried by the prophecy and the added prowess declared him heir. Or that Sushim was away and the temporary guardian theory with a layer crowning eliminating Sushim. From the edict it's not for sure that he killed no r of his brothers - so maybe Sushim was done away with- that too am tempted to believe the Radhagupt version or similar chal by RG and Ashoka.
Problem with history is and even our forums for that matter is, one gets carried away by their hero worship and so facts gets compromised. I am not completely convinced that Susima lived peacefully with Ashoka - he should have eliminated him.
Interesting discussion and a fab post. Thanks yet again and bigger thanks for coming back :-)
Kaana,
Thanks for this appreciation. Yes, it really took months to make this post ; wanted to understand before posting, the psychology of the ones who wrote them, by reading as many accounts as possible.
Your response is a perfect summary.
Before i start, let me write, i agree with the last point in your post completely, and that is one reason i try to NOT get associated with any actor who plays any particular character in any 'historical' show. While i believe in the greatness of various monarchs but i prefer to talk about their dark side too.
Coming back..
This, i also believe, personally - there might have been some struggle for the throne, but what is hard to digest is the extent of massacre depicted in the texts - to get the throne.
Struggle for the throne is a common thing everywhere. The only difference is the "magnitude" of struggle, as i replied to
Radhika earlier.
Maddy has also given a fine theory for the difference of 4 years in coronation and death of Bindusara related to some auspicious time. And one of the texts posted on blog says that, Asoka had eliminated the rivals in first year only, but he got himself coronated after
4 years of his rule. Though, he was "ruling" but he did not get himself coronated. And they also give us side by side example of age of his son.
Did you/anyone notice something about this ?
Another thing, which i should have mentioned in blog post is that - This number 100 or 500 or 1000 - i mean these multiples are used randomly without due emphasis on the number in ancient texts - this is what scholars have proposed after analyzing various writings of those times. Same thing i replied to
musicndance2 on previous page when i talked about "exaggeration" in numbers. Will write about this in next post in a fine manner.
Though, still we can discuss the edicts and the legends. It is not that the legends are entirely fictional, some of the things do match with edicts, which we shall see in future.
I have replied about the "weightage" to prophecy related views to
Radhika. Same here too. I feel same regarding Radha Gupta and Susima.
About Asoka and Susima - I would say that two swords are not possible to be kept in one scabbard. The conflict was inevitable as you said.
Edited by history_geek - 10 years ago
Indian Idol 15
