How Successful Was Ashoka's Empire Dbq

To begin with, Asoka was kind and concerned about people. He became peaceful, enlightened, and more open-minded after finding enlightenment. Asoka’s ideas changed after his conquering of Kalinga because he felt sorry for them. According to historian Michael Wood, “[It was] a rejection of a whole way of understanding history.” ( Doc C). By this, Wood means that Asoka rejected the way rulers in the past felt after conquering land. Regardless of who they were, they enjoyed being victorious. But instead of abandoning the Kalingans, who had lost so much, Asoka’s reaction to the

Asoka was an enlightened ruler because of his intelligence and strategy. Evidence of this is when he conquered Kalinga. This was an important conquest to the economy of the Mauryan Empire. He strategically surrounded Kalinga when conquering it (Doc B). This evidence explains why Asoka was an enlightened ruler because he was doing good for his people and economy. He also

Cyrus the Great and King Ashoka were successful rulers because they both developed laws to protect their kingdom, valued their citizen’s rights and religions, and had a strong military. While they both had a thriving empire, they developed them in different ways. In order to be a good ruler, he must be liked by your subjects. Cyrus the Great as well as King Ashoka had strong leadership skills that enabled them to lead their people with confidence and power. They both wanted their kingdom to grow continuously. Historians today often refer to Cyrus the Great and King Ashoka as the most powerful rulers of their time.

He goes out seeking a teacher to help him be more enlightened. According to, Asoka: Ruthless Conqueror, or Enlightened Ruler?, it says, “(Doc C) By the riverbank he met a Buddhist monk who told him to sit beneath the Bodhi tree, where the Buddha found enlightenment. And there, the power of ideas, and the power of the state came together in a uniquely Indian way. It was the rejection of the path of violence and a whole way of understanding history.” When he was there, Asoka started thinking about his people. Buddhism is a spiritual practice, which caused this. He gave gifts to the poor, and started ruling in a more political manner, which had never been done

King Kamehameha and Stalin were effective leaders. Both were both proud of their economic systems and both representative of their people. Kamehameha demonstrated being proud of his beliefs by keeping the kapu system strong and enforcing people’s behavior, making sure everything was in order. He also made a new law called The Splintered Paddle. This law made it so that people weren’t allowed to attack a person without purpose. The law made Kamehameha an effective leader because people felt safer and the kingdom was more peaceful by having the laws enforced. Kamehameha portrayed himself as being hospitable by trading trading sandlewood to foreigners for various items. He also displayed his leadership by rebuilding villages and taro patches showing

Asoka was interested in power and peace. Did this make him an Enlightened Ruler or a Ruthless Conqueror? I believe Asoka was an Enlightened Ruler for many reasons.

Next, Asoka felt great crisis as well as forgiveness. For example, in article A, the legend shows that in the war a for Kalinga 200,000 lives were lost. After this war he felt a great crisis

In Document F, “ Asoka’s pillars of stone with their inscriptions would speak to me in their magnificent language and tell me of a magnificent language and tell me of a man, who, though an emperor, was greater than any king.” He did have some bad parts but overall he was a pretty good ruler, and did everything that he thought was right. He carved these messages to show what things meant to him. Yet another example of Document F, “This astonishing ruler, beloved still in India and in many different parts of Asia, devoted himself to spreading the religion.” But then even though he did do this they did not like what he carved or what he was spreading at the end.

Asoka started his change to Buddhism by mimicking the Buddha’s teachings in order to seek enlightenment (Document C). The powers of state and ideas came together and taught him the rejection of the path of violence. This new path will eventually be the main cause of Asoka being primarily remembered as a pacifist, unlike the former Mauryan leader, Chandragupta, who was a follower of Hinduism. Along with the path that rejects violence was also the understanding of history and helping the poor and local communities by increasing the knowledge of their

What if you could live in a golden empire? That was exactly what the Gupta Empire was for India, their “Golden Age.” That was because of their daily life, Chandra Gupta II, and achievements in academics.

Imperial support played a major part in facilitation and localisation of the spread of Buddhism into Southeast Asia. Asoka, as mentioned, was a big supporter of Theravada Buddhism and was deemed an exemplar for future Buddhist emperor to establish Buddhism as a part of the country’s traditions and lifestyle (Swearer 2010, 71). He believed that true conquest of a country was “by the force of the teachings of religion” (Swearer 1997, 89). Through his persistent method of conquest, he influenced several Theravada Buddhist rulers like King Kyanzittha of Pagan, Burma and King Tilokaraja of Chiang Mai, Thailand during 11th and 15th century respectively to position Buddhism as a part of their reign, conquest and authority (Swearer 2010, 71). This significantly enabled the localization of Buddhism into Southeast Asia especially in countries like Thailand who remains supportive of Buddhism as declared by the Chakri dynasty from the end of 18th century onwards (Bowker 2007, 150). It was through the support of imperial power that led the countries’ citizens to gain interest in and

Between approximately 509 BCE and the third century CE the Roman empire continually expanded and became one of the largest in history. While this expansion was due to many reasons, not the least of which was greed, to a great extent it was made possible because of Rome's overwhelming military and its combination of a democratic and republic government. (Lee) (Ferril)

The Mauryan Empire was famous for conquering almost all of the Indian subcontinent. In 322 B.C.E, Chandragupta Maurya conquered the Nanda Empire and killed Dhana Nanda. He rapidly expanded his empire westwards and northwards to India, and by 316 b.c.e his empire fully occupied Northwestern India by defeated and conquered the governors left by Alexander the Great, and to he expanded his empire to Tajikistan, Iran, and Kyrgyzstan. Afghanistan in the West, Bengal in the East, the Deccan plateau in the South and Kashmir in the North. The empire’s second king Bindusara, expanded into the central and southern regions of India, with the exception of the Kingdom of Kalinga and a small portion of tribal and forested land that was

Many leaders in modern day time (meaning any time in the past 300 years) liked to model their realm after previous and ancient governments. Over time Kingdoms, Empires, and Regimes fell and became extinct. Although, some were more successful than others. Some successful empires were, the Roman Empire, and the British Empire (known as, The Empire Where the Sun Never Sets, because it conquered about 30% of the world and had territories in all continents). Some unsuccessful versions were, the French First Empire, the French Second Empire, the German Empire, and the Third Reich. Most leaders used an extinct empire for reference. For example, Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, 1st Emperor of the French, modeled his Empire after Emperor Augustus’s

When studied, early complex civilizations naturally settled in groups and developed social hierarchies. Whatever the emerging culture, there must of course be a leader. Whether it is a warrior protecting the group from warring neighbors, forcing his way to the head of the pack, or a wise and eloquent father figure, gently guiding and imparting knowledge to his subjects, in order for a society to function there must be a leader for the people to follow. Jared Diamond claimed that the emergence of social elites and eventually kings were dependent on the establishment or sedentary cultures, according to him, “only in farming populations could a healthy, non-producing elite set itself above the disease-ridden masses?”. (Diamond, 1987)