What an excellent topic to raise, YB! :thumb:
civfanatic, LB and myself have been trolling the ShoutBox with discussions on these topics. It was wise of you to attempt to stop the messing of the SB!
Ashoka is arguably the greatest emperor of India. Great conqueror. Finally converted to Buddhism and became a pacifist.
What if he had not converted to Buddhism and remained "Chandashok"?
He would probably have invaded south India and may be united entire subcontinent as one and spread the cultural influence of north towards the south and may be left a lasting effect of a linguisitic and cultural unity?
Nope, Ashoka would not invade the South. Because he didnt have to! The 'probable' map of India before Ashoka came to power:
File:Bindusara mauryan empire.GIF - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The tiny bit that you see at the bottom in grey, were feudatories/allies. No point in conquering someone who has already proclaimed complete loyalty to you! The only bit that stuck out was Kalinga, a republic, but Ashoka put that down soon enough.
As for what would have happened if Ashoka remained Chandashoka, it's a big 'if'. Maybe Chandashoka would have expanded his empire all over. But what after he passed away? You have a huge empire which is trying to be ruled by the king in faraway Pataliputra. With the primitive transportation networks that we had during those times, with any semblance of weakness in the centre, you would have had distant regions trying to break free. Exactly like what happened with the Mauryan empire after Ashoka. The empire was too big and just waiting to break down! Erstwhile feudatories broke free, Satavahanas raised their rule in the South and Central India, while North west fell for Greeko Bactrians. If you wanted the empire to remain intact, a Chandashoka would have to be born in every other generation! Something that cannot happen.
And mind you, I said Chandashoka, not Ashoka. Ashoka had the luxury of following on Buddha's ideologies, promoting Buddhism as a state religion. He had the luxury of doing what he desired as a man, not overburdened in his role as a protector of the empire. That was because as Chandashoka, he had cleared even the vestiges of revolt within the empire. By the time the 'phase' of Chandashoka got over, the enemies were either too small and insignificant or just too distant. Ashoka's successors had relatively smaller enemies as well, but they didnt have the luxury of the fear that a Chandashoka had brought about in their enemies!
As for cultural and linguistic unity, even with the size of the empire he had, attempted for philosophical unity but not cultural or linguistic. In this regard, he has followed on Indian traditions of not imposing such on the citizens. Don't see why a Chandashoka would have done things differently as it did not bring him any strategic advantages. Even if we stretch our imagination and assumed that he was able to bring about some sort of a cultural unity, it is difficult to assume that this cultural unity would last more than his empire did.
Maybe the Mauryan empire could have been more decentralized. Loosely bound feudatories with a strong army, a concept tried out by a few other empires in India. But that would limit the spread of cultural benchmarks and take us back to where we started with.