In the wake of the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BCE, Chandragupta (or Chandragupta Maurya), founder of the Mauryan dynasty, carved out the majority of an empire that encompassed most of the Indian subcontinent, except for the Tamil-speaking south. The Mauryan empire was an efficient and highly organized autocracy with a standing army and civil service. That bureaucracy and its operation were the model for the Artha-shastra (“The Science of Material Gain”), a work of political economy similar in tone and scope to Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince.
Chandragupta
Chandragupta
Chandragupta, from an Indian postage stamp.
PHG
Much is known of the reign of the Buddhist Mauryan emperor Ashoka (reigned c. 265–238 BCE or c. 273–232 BCE) from the edicts inscribed on exquisitely executed stone pillars that he had erected throughout his realm. Those edicts constitute some of the oldest deciphered original texts of India. Ashoka campaigned little to expand the realm; rather, his conquest consisted of sending many Buddhist emissaries throughout Asia and commissioning some of the finest works of ancient Indian art.
Ashokan pillar
Ashokan pillar
Inscription on Ashokan pillar, Lauriya Nandangarh, Bihar state, India.
Frederick M. Asher
After Ashoka’s death the empire shrank because of invasions, defections by southern princes, and quarrels over ascension. The last ruler, Brihadratha, was killed in 185 BCE by his Brahman commander in chief, Pushyamitra, who then founded the Shunga dynasty, which ruled in central India for about a century.
To see if they are trying to provide bias or persuade or be one-sided in their claims. Also to know what was their purpose of providing the evidence was for. The author put in the time and effort to create the source so what was his end goal to accomplish for the reader.
Answer:
B. Four.
Explanation:
I know this stuff. I think...
Members of the 3rd Estate in France had all sorts of reasons to dislike the king and queen -- King Louis XVI and Queen Marie Antoinette -- in the days leading up to the French Revolution. Let me count the ways (well, a few of them):
1. Louis XVI was not a kingly figure. He preferred to be out in the woods hunting or at a workbench taking apart a clock than doing the tasks of royal government. He wasn't the sort of person to inspire the confidence of the people in him.
2. Marie Antoinette was an Austrian princess, and the French people despised the Austrians. France and Austria had been enemies for years, and this attempt to bring the two countries together through a marriage wasn't popular with the people.
3. Louis and Marie had sex problems. You'd think that would be a private matter, but when you're the king and queen it's your job to produce an heir to the throne, and they weren't managing to do that.
4. Both Louis and Marie spent way too much money -- money that came from the taxpayers (the members of the 3rd Estate). Louis spent it on the lavish palace life of Versailles and on wars. (His government had given a huge loan to the Americans to help them fight vs. Britain.) Marie spent money on frills and dresses and jewelry and whatnot.
5. They didn't seem to know the people's situation or care about them much. They didn't want to be bothered with concerns about the poor people of France.
I could keep counting more ways, but that's enough for now!
