Age of the Nandas and Mauryas c11.33

c11.33

How long Chandragupta lived after the war with Seleucus cannot be precisely determined from Greek sources. His grandson Aśoka is known to have been a contemporary of Magas of Cyrene who died not later than 259—58 B. C. according to the evidence of Porphyry, which seems to be confirmed by the testimony of Callimachus, a contemporary poet, of Polybius (X. 22) and of coins.² The acceptance of this date implies that the XIII Rock Edict of Aśoka cannot be dated later than 259—58 B.C. as it speaks of Magas as alive. As rescripts of morality began to be written when Aśoka was anointed twelve years, his coronation could not have taken place after 270—69 B.C. The death of Chandragupta and the reign of his son Bindusāra must, according to the evidence we have cited, fall between the Seleucidan war and 270—69 B.C. Tradition assigns a period of 24 years to the reign of the first Maurya, 25, 27 or 28 years to Bindusāra, and 4 to the interval between the accession and the coronation of Aśoka. If we accept the mean figure 27 for Bindusāra, a period of 55 years must have intervened between the accession of Chandragupta and the coronation of his grandson. The former event took place according to this calculation not later than 270—69+55=325—24 B.C. An early date for the rise of Chandragupta is suggested by the fact that at the time of the partition of Triparadeisos (321 B.C.) Antipater had to give the kingdoms that lay along the Indus and the Hydaspes (Jhelum) to Indian Rājās "for it was impossible to remove these kings without royal troops under the command of some distinguished general.¹” The inadequacy of “royal troops” and the absence of “distinguished general” are inexplicable unless the more important among the prefects of Alexander had already been put to death or expelled. That achievement is ascribed by the Latin historians solely to Chandragupta who, and not Ambhi or the Paurava, “was the leader who achieved their (i.e., Indians’) freedom”². It is true that the great liberator is not mentioned in connection with the partitions of Babylon and Triparadeisos. But we have similar reticence in regard to Eudemos who had been directed along with Taxiles to assume the administration of the province governed by Philippus as early as 324 B.C.³ He survived Porus, and clung to some part of India till about 317 B.C.