Exactly, he seized power through cunning and treachery (not implying a moral proselytization here). Much like Brutus, who with the aid of some of Rome's patricians, took to stab Ceaser on the floor of the Senate and then seized Consulship from his cold, dead hands. But who is it that is remembered in the history books, for expanding Rome's dominion as far as the Gallic lands, Brutus or Caeser?
Brutus, who was killed just two years after assassinating Caesar and made no name for himself in history (besides being the assassin of a man far greater than himself), can hardly be compared to Ashok. A better comparison would be between Caesar and Augustus, the first Emperor of Rome. And in that case, I would argue that Augustus was indeed a far greater statesman and leader than Caesar. Though Caesar was a greater general and conqueror, it was Augustus who consolidated Rome into a stable polity and gave it the enduring legacy that it has today. Similarly, Ashok gave India an enduring legacy by being its first and only
chakravartin, and by spreading
dhamma throughout Asia, where it continues to shape the lives of people today. Ashok's legacy was so great that even kings of countries as far away as Laos claimed descent from him and adopted his symbols. Can anything similar be said of Chandragupta Maurya, who left nothing behind for us to evaluate his reign or legacy?
And Chandragupta Maurya demonstrated the greater part of it, not embellished in any way by cunning or treachery, which tends to detract from it.
The problem is that we know very little about Chandragupta Maurya's life or personality, especially when compared to his illustrious grandson, and he therefore tends to be romanticized (as is apparent by the votes on this thread). If he was at all influenced by Chanakya and the
Arthashastra, which he must have been, than he was likely no less cunning or treacherous than Ashok, if not more. Not that there is anything "wrong" with being cunning or treacherous, I'm just not sure how you came to the conclusion that Chandragupta Maurya was more "valorous" than his successors, based on the (extremely) limited information available to us.
His fame owes much to the diffused knowledge of his edicts which, in turn, owe themselves to the continental spread of Buddhism. His reign may have certainly be enlightened post conversion, but can we ignore his brutal governance and bloodthirsty acts before?
In order to understand and try to evaluate Ashok's reign, we must not look at it from the paradigm of "Chandashok before conversion" and "Dharmashok after conversion". Rather, we must look at his reign as a dynamic whole, and examine Ashok's support of Buddhism and his imperial ideology as reflected in his Edicts in the context of contemporary politics and surviving sources of the period (including the
Arthashastra).
Ashok's pillar edicts and the ideals inscribed on them are truly magnificent regardless of all other variables, a worthy symbol of the modern Republic of India. I will post more on this fascinating subject when I get the time.