Asoka killed 99 brothers to get the throne | Fact or Myth ? | A Debate - Page 4

Hi Abhay..

Hi Guys..

Originally posted by: MaddyO

Abhay 😃 😃 I am so glad to see your post here.

Wonderful blog, as usual you have dug up rare archives and so many different sources.

Thanks a lot Maddy.!
Good to see your comment here. :)

I don't think Ashoka could have killed 99 brothers for getting the throne. For simple reason if one prince was on killing spree of 99 others they wouldn't wait around to be killed! They were also royal blood with I am sure their own influences and power centers.

Nice deduction and this is very true.
They others would also have their own power centers and would not sit idle.

It is possible that Ashok might have killed Sushim or RG did it by trickery. Sushim was the eldest and a clear rival. Ashok could never have been able to rule in peace if Sushim was around. Maybe few others who supported Sushim.

Agreed totally.

It seems Ashok was coronated 4 years after Bindusaar's death. Here there are two possibilities,

The throne tussle went on for long, with some brothers declaring support to Sushim, some to Ashok. Ashok achieved full control in 4 years

Or

Ashok became Samrat after Bindusaar's death, he gained complete control but the coronation ceremony "actual Vidhivat Rajyabhishek" was done after 4 years, so created this confusion. Those days auspicious period would be considered, could be it was advised to wait for 4 years.

Maddy,

The first theory is what various scholars also talk about, but the second one is new to me. And looks equally convincing.

As i said if there was really a war of succession of the "magnitude" as written in Buddhist legends, then i don't see a reason for Asoka's inscriptions being silent on it.

When he could write about the massacre of Kalinga, then why not about the massacre of alleged 99 brothers if that really took place.

I don't think religion could have changed Ashok. He deeply regretted the Kalinga war bloodshed and the brutality and that changed his thinking. He maybe turned to religion for the answers AFTER renouncing "himsa".

Same here. As per the edicts it was the war which made him change his perspective, after he saw so much violence. His policies were for pro-Buddhists as well as even the anti-Buddhists.

Religion was simply a tool of spreading his message of compassion and peace. Even in present day world we can see how religion can used to spread 'different kind of messages'. Asoka used Buddhism for peaceful purpose. That's all. There are reasons for using Buddhism, which we shall see in this debate. I am sure this point will be discussed as well.

I find it hard to believe that a person can just let go of the teachings that have shaped his personality for almost 30+ years, yes he can seek solace or embrace new thought processes, without totally abandoning the old persona and teachings. They might have combined in his personality.

It is alleged by scholars that Asoka called himself a Buddhist 2 years before Kalinga war, but if that is true, then it is interesting to think why Kalinga happened. I don't deny this alleged statement, but what i think is - it takes time for some realization, as you said. It is not related to religion.

It is hugely to his credit that he changed himself when he was under no compulsion to. He had become the most powerful man, he changed himself.

Yes. For me the important thing is that, it really hard to imagine that someone could even THINK about Non-Violence 2300 years ago when the term itself was almost meaningless in that age.

Thanks to CAS and you, we are now thinking about him 2400 years later and trying to learn about his magnificent reign which encompassed from Afghanistan to Bangladesh to almost entire India.

Welcome Maddy.
Hope to have more discussions with you here. :)

@musicndance2

Read the starting and the end only of that link. I understand the underlying theme based on 2 religions. But, i won't write more about the present case. That is an opinion. It is fine. Let it be.

Historical 'Debate' is possible when based on some evidence. Sometimes evidence is not possible then at least a strong argument is required for the discussion to be carried on.

Even in present case, we are only "debating" about Asoka, with different opinions from different members.

@history_geek

Originally posted by: Moumimon

well a very well written and well researched post...thanks for posting abhay...

ashoka's 99 brothers which fact always left me in confusion no matter how much i read about this fact still its seems impossible for me to reach at any conclusion... for the fact that ashok was actually killed his 99 come 100 brothers of him i feel like its kind of fictional for me... its not like i believe he was not killed any of his brother but still the number100 disturb me much...

this number firstly make me sick about Bindusar.. that actually with how many women he was involved...its really a big number to believe a man with 100 of sons...SICK...

well whatever that was, your post is surely well researched..and really helpful...thanks for sharing it all...

Thanks for posting Moumi.
Dont think so much about Bindusara.! :-P

One more contradiction is there in the Buddhist accounts if you / anyone else noticed regarding the number of wives of Bindusara.

Yes, we can not reach any conclusion with an assurity about the number of brothers but the mention of a century of brothers is strange and even the traditions are not in sync with each other. Some say 6 brothers, some say 100 brothers, some say 3 brothers.!

Do share your readings also if you come across some thing new in future again. :)

Originally posted by: chicksoup

That was a thoroughly researched article, and a pleasure to read. Thank You for it.

I don't know if it is a fact or myth. But it does seem possible to me...He could easily have had 100 brothers...I imagine the number must have been more than 6, considering concubines would have given sons too. Considering there was no contraception, that many pregnancies are possible by a single sperm donor😉.

So, if Ashoka had 100 brothers, did he kill 99 of them? I find that possible too...I am guessing there was an army formed by these brothers against him and he vanquished them all.

My Q is, if at all there were 100 brothers, how many sisters did Ashoka have? Biologically, I am sure there was at least one sister if there were 100 brothers. May be they were not considered worth mentioning.😕

Probably there were only 6 children from the queens.

@chicksoup

Your views are different from the majority of us here. But yes, why not. :)

I believe it is not strange to have many brothers. But only doubt which i have in my mind is the exact number of 100 brothers whom he killed for getting the throne. Don't you think it is not easy to digest that he killed all 100 of them. They also must be having their coterie of supporters. But, overall, i can not say i am correct. Anything is possible. :)

Sisters - His edicts tell us about his brothers and sisters staying in Patliputra. So, for sure he must be having many of them.

6 brothers are mentioned in the Tibetan account. Interestingly, all 6 were born to the same mother and Asoka wanted peace from them and not war, in the starting.

Abhay, had posted the below in response to Roxelana in another thread - any edicts that throws light on this aspect?

"I would like to agree in general on the religious tolerance part.
Ashoka the great - honestly am still trying to figure why the great title. This is not to offend anyone just my view. Likewise Akbar the great - another case where am not completely convinced.
I had also shared similar view about Guta age in the Basis of Greatness thread by Abhay in the MP forum.
Your argument that forced conversion was not there then, which came after the Mughal entry primarily, is valid. So in that sense during or post Islamic period religious tolerance may have more to its credit. But here again, if you see, more than Akbar, I would put the religious tolerance of Maharana and especially Chakravarti Shivaji ahead. Because their anscestors and they have been through the cruel times, when forced conversion, massacre etc was prevalent. So revenge would be a natural feeling. However though they had the power of their own states, they never showed the wrath or the heart burn. Also the Praja was Hindus, so it could be lot more easier to harass and convert a minority population, still winning the good will of the Praja. So there is no reason or a need in their cases to practice religious tolerance. In Akbar case, this could be a counter argument for his religious tolerance, as we have seen. So if we are talking about religious tolerance, in my view, these are great examples, greater than the case of the two Greats more talked off. I would put even the Gupta age after Maharana and Chakravarti Shivaji here.

Coming back to Ashoka, there should be a good reason for the transformation - so Kalinga sells in that sense. Unless the transformation itself is a spinned one - then why the Great title? unless Ashok also had a Abul Fazl to write his glory away."

Tbh I believe the last paragraph... the one that states that Ashoka's cruelty was exaggerated just to show how much he changed after Kalinga.

Ashok killed his 6 brothers out of which only Sushim's name is known. He only left his real brother vitashoka alive. You can ask me anything I have researched on it😊