This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Maurya Empire article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nepal, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Nepal-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page and add your name to the member's list.NepalWikipedia:WikiProject NepalTemplate:WikiProject NepalNepal
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups.
In it's infobox, the languages used by the Empire are said to be Sanskrit and Magadhi Prakrit. The latter is believable but the former is not. And neither have any references either. It's odd that despite Sanskrit being a "literary and academic" language, none of the edicts of Ashoka ever feature this language even when they still use Aramaic and Greek. The first instance of Sanskrit being used in inscriptions is in the 1st Century BCE which postdates the Mauryan Empire.
Since I cannot edit this particular article, I request someone to fix this mentioned section in the Infobox. There's another issue, which is in the infobox as well. I'm pretty sure the average Mauryan did not call themselves "Indian". The insertions in the demonym and languages field seem to be a case of Vandalism/POV pushing. Bodhiupasaka (talk) 11:03, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
1) It seems that Sanskrit is likely, but not proven: "Raychaudhuri does not accept the Mauryan period as the date of the Arthaśāstra and maintains that it is a later work. He states that none of the authors used for cross-dating can be definitely placed before A.D. 300. The language of the Arthaśāstra is Sanskrit, but the Mauryans used Prākrit. This argument is based on the fact that Aśoka used Prākrit for his inscriptions. However, since the inscriptions were meant to be read by the populace it is but natural that they should be written in the popular language. There was nothing to prevent the use of Sanskrit in court circles and among the better educated sections of society even during the Mauryan period. We know from the plays of Kālidāsa that even in the Gupta period when Sanskrit was widely employed there was a distinction between the classes of society who were expected to speak Sanskrit and those who spoke only Prākrit. Had any of the Gupta rulers wished to issue inscriptions for the same purposes as Aśoka they might well have used Prākrit. It is also possible that Aśoka encouraged Prākrit since it was a more widely used language, but for purposes of erudition Sanskrit was used." in Thapar, Romila (16 April 2012). Aśoka and the Decline of the Mauryas. Oxford University Press. ISBN978-0-19-908868-3.
@Joshua Jonathan Could you elaborate why you reverted my edit? Basically all infoboxes I have seen in Wikipedia which deal with states, either modern or historical, use the switcher temp. You also didn't provide anything in the edit summary. — EarthDude (Talk) 06:19, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Tbese maps have been discussed ad infinitum, so if you want to change anything about it, it's up to you to gain consensus to do so. The warning which you removed, "Before changing the maps, please discuss at talk", was actually quite clear in this respect, and shouldn't have been removed. Furthermore, showing the maps simultaneously shows the differences in interpretation more clearly. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!07:02, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't change the maps though. Both of the maps remained in the infobox. Furthermore, if the reader wants to see both maps simultaneously, they still can with the switcher temp. I just think its cleaner to have the temp there than otherwise. — EarthDude (Talk) 07:10, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
When a reader views the infobox, both maps already appear simultaneously, which helps in understanding the concept at first glance without effort and allows easy visual comparison between them. Shah Of Nowheretalk!07:47, 4 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A quick review shows that both maps are supported by scholarly sources from reading the references and it appears that there are two different interpretations in which first is modern. I also understand that there is a concept of the network model and the solid structure. Shah Of Nowheretalk!19:52, 7 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions like this have happened before several times. Feel free to look into the archives and know the reason why both maps are present and why not a single one is given priority. Both the maps have been referenced by several authors.
You are engaging me here where I am less interested. Anyway, I did little research on some forums and found that a large number of scholars have represented the Mauryan Empire using a “solid territorial map” model. And in above sources, Vincent Arthur Smith describe the empire as a geographically extensive and structured polity, while Joseph E. Schwartzberg presents a detailed cartographic reconstruction of the empire in plate. And this interpretation can also be found in multiple scholarly works:
This is incorrect, a demonym refers to the name for the people of a place (like "Indians," "Romans"). "Jambudvīpa" is the ancient Sanskrit/Pali name for the continent/landmass of the subcontinent, not a name for its inhabitants. ~2026-24156-77 (talk) 04:24, 20 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why the 'network' map for Maurya Empire has been added when no other kingdoms including Mongol and Alexander show it that way? this seems deliberate attempt to satisfy current view points rather than dissemination of knowledge https://www.britannica.com/place/Mauryan-Empire
Please remove the network map as it doesn't match wiki format for any other Empire or provide sources explaining why this deserves in the introduction itself rather than in the details RachitTheGr8 (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Toast1454TC 15:47, 27 March 2026 (UTC)
