Map III.B.3 (c) is based mainly on various accounts of Alexander's conquests and on Megasthenes' Indika, which sur- vives only as fragments in the works of Strabo, Pliny, Arrian, and others. Although Alexander's companions provided first- hand knowledge about the areas of his far-flung campaigns and some, most notably his general, Ptolemy (founder of the Ptolemaic dynasty of Egypt), and his admiral, Nearchos, wrote their memoirs, the earliest surviving account was writ- ten three hundred years after Alexander's death. Other prin- cipal sources are the works of Diodorus (mid-1st century B.C.). Quintus Curtius (1st century B.C.), and Plutarch, Justin, and Arrian, our best account (all from the 2d century A.D.). Scholarly opinions on the authenticity and meaning of the sources vary widely, ranging from harsh criticism to gloating delight in the marvels they hand down to posterity.

Similarly varied are the verdicts on Megasthenes. Although he had lived with Sybyrtius, the satrap of Arachosia, had vis- ited Porus the king of Punjab, and was in the view of many scholars the Seleucid ambassador at the Mauryan court at Pa&ttod;aliputra, none of his sources are named in the surviving fragments; and, judging from criticisms of his statements by the classical authors themselves, Megasthenes had not named them even when the Indika was intact. Nor did he distinguish those portions of his accounts that were based on his own ob- servations from those he composed on the basis of indigenous accounts including hearsay. Authors such as Eratosthenes (c. 275–c. 195 B.C.) and Strabo (c. 63 B.C.–c. A.D. 21) doubted those portions of the Indika describing regions beyond the Hyphasis River, and Arrian in particular questioned its list of 118 Indian tribes. Nevertheless, Megasthenes extended Greek knowledge beyond the Indus Plain to the eastern and southern extremities of the subcontinent and to the adjacent countries of Argyre, Chryse, and Taprobane. He remained the principal source for many of the classical writers, and their knowl- edge of interior India was not significantly improved until the appearance of Ptolemy's Geography (c. A.D. 150; see plate III.C.5). That work, however, was evidently inaccessible to Arrian, who in the same period was writing his Anabasis of Alexander and his own Indika. In considering the distribution of names plotted on our map one must bear in mind that the surviving information is fragmentary. Further, for part of what does remain we have been unable to provide possible, much less probable, identifications.

Two peoples, the Prasioi/Prasii and the Gangaridai, were taken by Megasthenes and certain later classical authors to form the principal constituents of the Magadhan Empire, whose sovereigns were usually referred to as "king of Prasii and Gangaridai." The term "Prasii" was a transliteration of the Sanskrit "Prācya," which, according to Brahmanical texts, extended eastward from Prayāga to the sea. If that connota- tion were applied by the Greeks, then they lacked a designation for the area directly west of Prayāga. Alternatively, one could assume that the term was intended to be the equivalent of Pā- &ntod;ini's more extensive usage, which connoted the entire Gan- getic Plain.

Megasthenes' account of the inland communication system partially corroborates the information on roads derived from indigenous sources. He states that royal officers called Agora- nomoi had, among other duties, "to construct roads and at every ten stadia [approximately 1⅙ miles] [to] set up pillars to show the by-roads and distances." This is corroborated by Aśokan inscriptions that mention planting trees, digging wells, and establishing inns along roads at regular intervals. The most famous among the imperial roads was the "Royal Road," 16,000 stadia long, the predecessor of the modern Grand Trunk Road, connecting Palibothra with both the northwest- ern frontier and the ports at the mouth of the Ganga.

Megasthenes further states that many rivers were navigable, and the testimony of such classical authors as Nearchos. Alex- ander's admiral, and Onesikritos, his chief pilot, points to the prevalence of coastal navigation. In fact, ships sailed from the ports of the Ganga delta to the countries of Southeast Asia and Sri Lanka and from the west coast to Babylon and other Per- sian and Arabian entrepôts.

Besides the leading power of the king of Prasii and Ganga- ridai (Candragupta Maurya), other regional powers are noted along the eastern coast:

1. a large island (sic, archipelago [?]) in the Ganga delta (its capital is identified by D. C. Sircar with the modern Ganga- sagara), whose king possessed 50,000 foot soldiers, 4,000 cavalry, and 400 elephants;

2. Kalingai, whose king maintained 60,000 infantry, 2,000 horses, and 700 elephants; and

3. Andarai, with numerous villages, thirty fortified towns, and an army consisting of 100,000 infantry, 2,000 cavalry, and 1,000 elephants.

These descriptions and about half a dozen others, which we could not identify but which relate to the Indian interior, sug- gest the political conditions obtaining around the beginning of the Christian era rather than the late 4th century B.C. and thus may indicate late interpolations into the Indika.

In the far south of India Megasthenes describes the Pandai (Pā&ntod;&dtod;ya) people and provides evidence for their connection with the north by linking them with the city of Methora (Ma- thura) and the region of the Sourasenoi (Sūrasena). This is corroborated by the Sanskrit grammarian Kātyāyana (c. 300 B.C.), who derived the name Pā&ntod;&dtod;ya from Pandu, the epic king of Hastināpura. The Pā&ntod;&dtod;yan capital was also known as South- ern Madhurā (i.e., Madurai, see III.B.2 (c)). In addition to legends pertaining to their rule by a line of queens. Megasthe- nes, quoted by Arrian, tells us that the Pā&ntod;&dtod;yans had 365 "vil- lages" and possessed an army of 500 elephants, 4,000 cav- alry, and 130,000 infantry (Pliny, allegedly quoting the same source, indicates 300 "cities" and 150,000 infantry). Some of these figures appear to be grossly exaggerated. Special note is made of the Pā&ntod;&dtod;yan pearl fishery, and Aristobolus, quoted by Strabo, mentions cinnamon, nard, and other products of the southern lands. Taprobane (Sri Lanka) figured prominently in classical accounts and was vaguely known to Alexander's pilot, Onesikritos. It was noted for its wealth in gold, pearls, and war elephants and probably for its aromatics.

The excerpt from the Indika quoted at the lower left corner of the map provides an idea of the boundaries of India, about which there was considerable difference of opinion among early classical authors. Megasthenes reckoned its length as 22,300 stadia³ (from north to south) and its breadth at 16,000 stadia, whereas Patrocles fixed it as 15,000 stadia from north to south.

Sources

See listing for III.B.3 (a) and (b).

III.B.4. South Asia in the Time of the Mauryan Empire, 321–181 B.C.

The pan-Indian Mauryan Empire represented at its height the culmination of a centuries-long process of regional inte- gration. Mauryan expansion was accomplished primarily by conquest; but the consolidation of power was effected by re- organizing the governmental bureaucracy and by promoting institutions of socioeconomic control. The concepts of a world state and a world religion were developed in India under Aśoka, whose career demonstrated both the cost of territorial conquest by war and the gains of victory by means of "right- eousness" (dhamma). While accepting territorial limits for his dominions, he recognized the boundless potential of the field for this ethical and humanitarian vision. Aśoka reconciled the traditional philosophy of power with principles of social justice and ethical idealism primarily associated with Bud- dhism. The administrative machinery and the vast resources of the empire were harnessed to achieve, to a remarkable de- gree, the political and cultural unity of Jambudvīpa (India and adjacent lands) and to promote the unity of mankind.

Among the various sources for the reconstruction of the his- torical geography of the Mauryan Empire, Aśokan edicts, a few other contemporary inscriptions, and archaeological ma- terials are especially noteworthy. For the first time in Indian history, royal edicts engraved on rocks, pillars, and cave walls testify to the imperial perspective and achievements. They also indicate the territorial expanse of the royal dominions, note the peoples inhabiting the frontier and forested areas within the empire, and mention foreign contemporary powers south to Sri Lanka and as far west as Greece and Cyrenaica (in modern Libya). Important literary sources for the period in- clude the classical accounts of Megasthenes, Justin, Plutarch, Arrian, Strabo, Pliny. Aeolina and others (see plates III.B.3 and III.C.5); the Buddhist histories Dīpava&mtod;sa, Mahāva&mtod;sa, Divyāvadana, Aśokavadana, and so forth; the Buddhist Tripi- &ttod;akas and Jātakas; numerous Jain sources including the Aca- rā&ndot;ga Sūtra and Kalpasūtra; Hindu sources, especially the Pu- rā&ndot;ic genealogies and works reproducing the story of Cā&ntod;akya and Candragupta; and later Tibetan and Chinese sources. The celebrated Kau&ttod;ilīya Arthaśāstra (plate III.B.2. map (c)) pro- vides insight into the concepts of and prescriptions for political and socioeconomic organization and furnishes details on the structure of centralized government and the functions of a bureaucracy supplementing and elucidating available contem- porary evidence on Mauryan polity.

In the absence of exact descriptions, the stages of growth of the Mauryan Empire (map (b)) are discernible only in out- line. Our reconstruction of Mauryan conquests and the chang- ³ One stadium was 600 Greek fact, or approximately 607 English feet or 182 meters in length. Hence, Megasthenes estimated India's length and breadth as 2,250 by 1,810 miles or 4,060 by 2,910 km. Both estimates were somewhat in excess of the true dimensions of the subcontinent, though not unreasonably so. ing extent of their empire therefore depends not only on his- torical events associated with them, but also on our perception of the emerging geopolitical patterns of the last quarter of the 4th century B.C. as well as of its historical antecedents, includ- ing the attainment by the Nandas of North Indian supremacy and the political changes wrought by Alexander's eastern conquests.

While opinions with respect to the beginnings of the Mau- ryan dynasty vary, the fast-changing situation in northwestern India throws light on the momentous career of its founder, Candragupta Maurya. According to one tradition, he was a scion of the petty "Moriya" (Skt. Maurya) republic centered at Pipphalivana in the central Ganga Plain (see map (b) and plate III.B.2. map (a)) and was a fugitive from the Magadhan Empire within which his properties lay. He formed a lasting association with his mentor, the former minister Cā&ntod;akya Kau- &ttod;ilya of Tak&stod;aśilā. who, having offended the king of Magadha, was also a fugitive and sought revenge against his erstwhile sovereign. Both Candragupta and Cā&ntod;akya observed in the northwest the consequences of regional and tribal divisions and the success of a determined conqueror, Alexander, with a well- organized army and a clear policy of destroying those who offered resistance and refused tribute. They also saw the fierce dèfense of independence by Alexander's adversaries. It is prob- able that they led the revolt against the Macedonian occupa- tion of the lower Indus region and achieved success in throwing off the alien yoke. Their ultimate objectives, however, were to seize the power of Magadha rather than to carve out a king- dom in Sind.

Success in Sind enabled Candragupta to build a base for the recruitment of an army and to plan for a military opera- tion against the Nandas. Candragupta and Cā&ntod;akya allegedly formed an alliance with a king named Parvataka (perhaps Porus, the king of Punjab, who alone among the Indian powers could provide substantial military aid against the might of the Nanda emperor). The military expeditions against Magadha were probably combined with the subversion of Nanda power, and it seems likely that a palace coup coincided with the vic- tory of Candragupta on the battlefield in c. 321 B.C.

With Candragupta's acquisition of the Magadhan throne be- gan the age of the imperial Mauryas. Although the subsequent pattern of consolidation of Mauryan power is unknown, it ob- viously necessitated some military campaigning by Candra- gupta, who appears to have been able to establish his authority virtually throughout the wide dominions of the Nandas, Ka- li&ndot;ga alone excepted, and also to have conquered Surā&stod;&ttod;ra and other areas.

Given the potential threat from the northwest posed to the security of his principal domains in the Ganga Plain and his early involvement in a war of liberation against Macedonian thralldom, Candragupta felt compelled to embark upon the conquest of Uttarāpatha (the Northern Region). One should recall not only that Alexander upset the regional patterns of this area, but also that the territorial awards on the partition of his empire in 321 B.C. further complicated the situation by augmenting the dominions of his Indian vassals the king of Taxila and, more important, King Porus of Punjab (see text for maps III.B.3 (a) and (b)). Moreover, one could neither dis- count the probability of further Hellenistic aggression against Magadha nor expect its arrest by Porus were it to occur. The several minor polities of the region southeast of the Vipāś, to the Śutudrī and beyond, could hardly hope to withstand ex- pansion by Porus himself, let alone the thrust of a Hellenistic invader united with the strength of his Indian vassals. Further- more, the lessons of geopolitics in the western Ganga Plain and Avanti called for intervention in central Punjab (see text for plate III.B.1) whenever the latter region was penetrated by an expansionist power from the west or was itself united. Classical authors indicate that Candragupta freed Uttarāpatha from all vestiges of foreign rule.

Candragupta's understanding of the regional pattern of power politics stemmed both from his own experience and from schooling under Cā&ntod;akya Kau&ttod;ilya, the master of state- craft and, according to tradition, the author of Arthaśāstra (see plate III.B.2, map (c)). Developments in Uttarāpatha and the Hellenistic world may explain Candragupta's tempo- rary abandonment of the Magadhan policy of southward ex- pansion, even in the face of probable defiance by the resource- ful Nanda province of Kali&ndot;ga.

By 311 B.C. or somewhat later the Indus had become the frontier of the Magadhan Empire. Further westward expan- sion was largely the outcome of the successful military encoun- ter with Seleucus Nicator (Seleukos Nikator), founder of the Seleucid dynasty and inheritor of Alexander's eastern empire from northern Syria to India. Between 305 and 302 B.C. Seleu- cus ceded the satrapies of Gedrosia, Arachosia, Paropamisadae, and probably Aria; gave his adversary a Greek princess in marriage; and obtained in return 500 war elephants and per- manent peace and friendship on his eastern frontier. About this time, perhaps earlier, western Gandhāra and areas north to the Hindu Kush, Abhisāra, and probably Kāśmīra were also annexed to the Mauryan dominions. The pact with Seleucus