Talk:Magadhan Empire

South Asia Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Asia, which aims to improve the quality and status of all South Asia-related articles. For more information, please visit the Project page.South AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject South AsiaTemplate:WikiProject South AsiaSouth Asia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

What?? -Tubby

Removed text (source of previous exclamation... :) -- April

Belonging to a group of young norwegians and friends who founded Magadhan Empire on an island in The Pacific in 1996. The Empire and its founders, Goggen, Marthe, Alfred and Alex still lives on - The population is now 157.

Why is Magadha kingdom and Magadha empire seperate?

theres no reason to seperate these

the seperation instead should have been of Restored Magdha or Later Magadha (under Guptas and Later Guptas)

not on kingdom and empire. JingJongPascal (talk) 09:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

True, this separation is just useless and this page should be merged back to Magadha, this is even WP:OR.Pinging page creator @PadFoot2008. Edasf (talk) 10:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't there be a separate article when sources cover it. Definitely not OR if there are numerous sources that cover it. Magadha was a Mahajanapada and a region, while the Magadhan Empire was an empire based in the region, but included vast territories outside of the Magadha region. They are not the same. PadFoot (talk) 13:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PadFoot2008 This article is simply unnecessary since whether Magadhan Empire or Magadha they are completely same entity.Your comparison is completely flawed since by this interpretation we should also have a separate article for Satvahnas since they were earlierly vassals of Mauryas but later became vast empire and so. Edasf (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Satavahanas were a dynasty, and Magadha was a region and Mahajanapada. They are not the same. PadFoot (talk) 14:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PadFoot2008 Magadha was a mahajanpada that later expanded to become a empire.This can be covered in a single article only in my belief I feel this article is unnecessary.Pinging @Fylindfotberserk. Edasf (talk) 14:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Mahajanapada and an empire are different polities. A single article would be conflating too many topics together unnecessarily, and causing unnecessary complications. The Magadha article is now much less complicated or cluttered. PadFoot (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PadFoot2008 Even if you want to separate then it should be from Mauryas or Nandas Edasf (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do what sources say. Scholars attribute the foundation of the Magadhan Empire to Bimbisara. PadFoot (talk) 15:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A mahajanapada is a *kingdom*

What your saying about region , I agree upon. But the seperation you have done is not based on region and political entity but rather on two political entities.

Every empire is an kingdom before it becomes a empire through conquests JingJongPascal (talk) 15:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mahajanapada is not equivalent to a kingdom. You can't call the Kingdom of Malwa or the Kingdom of Garhwal "Mahajanapadas". PadFoot (talk) 15:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PadFoot2008 What?? Give a source.Mahajanpadas were kingdoms your comparison is baseless those were Medieval kingdoms you can't compare them.Yes it may not completely equivalent.I am still opposed to this separation. Edasf (talk) 16:01, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

mahajanapada means great kingdom.

If you want a seperation , you could do one on basis of Region and Kingdom/Empire

or on basis of Early Magadha (till Kanvas)

and Restored Magadha (Guptas) JingJongPascal (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and by mahajanapada if you mean they are restricted to that time period you would be wrong.

Many of these kingdoms and republics outlived the tradition 'mahajanapada era' and not changing theirself as a political entity JingJongPascal (talk) 16:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JingJongPascal You are right Edasf (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Mahājanapadas were sixteen kingdoms and aristocratic republics that existed in ancient India from the sixth to fourth centuries BCE, during the second urbanisation period.

Quoted directly from the main article, this is the exact meaning. I meant to say that they were not simply equal to kingdoms in general, I meant to say that they refer to a specific period of history as clearly indicated in the quote above. And please stop pinging me. I am aware that a discussion is happening here. PadFoot (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your separation gives message both were different entities which they weren't.Magadha Empire is a name used by modern scholars to refer the expanded Magadha Kingdom.Yes, Mahajanpadas were to a specific period but this doesnt proves Magadha and Magadha Empire as different.In short, your separation has grown confusion rather than ending it. Edasf (talk) 16:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these kingdoms outlived

The Mahajanapadas period

Same way as "Gunpowder Empires"

Outlived each other

Ottoman Empire outlived the "Gunpowder Empire" era but doesn't mean it became a different . JingJongPascal (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This example best explains it JingJongPascal (talk) 17:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JingJongPascal Yes I feel this article can better be merged would be good only. Edasf (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've provided no reasoning for not having seperate articles for the two phases. I don't see why there can't be separate articles for the Mahajanapada phase and the Empire phase. See Kingdom of France, First French Republic and First French Empire which were the same polity and were continuous but only had a change in leadership. See Dominion of India and India which too are the same thing, and only a change in status and constitution happened. See Tsardom of Russia and Russian Empire. We usually have different articles for kingdom and empire phases of the same entity. As for the Gupta era, I would be happy to create a separate article, not by the name 'Restored Magadha' as that is not what scholars use, but by the name 'Second Magadhan Empire'. PadFoot (talk) 02:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PadFoot2008 Problem is there's a debate from where Magadha Empire started.Most have given it to either Nandas and Mauryas. Edasf (talk) 04:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most per what? Most scholarly sources attribute Bimbisara as the founder of the Magadhan Empire. PadFoot (talk) 08:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PadFoot2008 "Under Chandragupta Magadha kingdom expanded to become an empire that reached its peak under Ashoka"

Quoted from Chandragupta Maurya supported by Sources Edasf (talk) 08:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no mention of the "Magadhan Empire" itself. PadFoot (talk) 08:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its clear that its mentioning it. Edasf (talk) 08:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with @PadFoot2008 but also disagree.

While Mahajanapadas does refer to Indian Kingdoms and Republics during 6th to 4th Century BCE,

But many Kingdoms such as Gandhara did exceed that timeline.

So should we make one of Gandhara too?

Many of these Mahajanapads exceeded this 'timeline'.

While i dont necessary oppose this seperation of phases, but other exceptions of Gandhara exist too. JingJongPascal (talk) 08:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I now quite support separation but not from Bimbisara (Already from Mahajanpada period) Edasf (talk) 08:53, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Edasf, Perhaps then maybe it would be best that we compile sources explicitly mentioning "Magadhan Empire" and its foundation, and see the common scholarly view. I will say that I too am a bit confused as to what its start date actually is, and it would be best that we both discuss this. PadFoot (talk) 03:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]