Fall+of+Chola+Empire+-+Megan

**Fall of the Chola Empire** – Research – // Essay // – Bibliography
 * Rise of the Chola Empire** – Research – Essay – Bibliography

The most significant lesson that can be learned from the Chola Empire is that when a country that is ruled by a monarch with absolute power it may flourish for a while ultimately will not last. The first kings are always excellent because they had to fight and conquer for their positions; they are naturally strong leaders. After that, because the monarchy is based on birthright, whether the country has a good ruler or not is up to luck. This is easily seen in the Chola kings. Rajaraja the Great and his son Rajendradeva were some of the greatest kings while others like Adhirajendra (who only lasted a few months) and Rajendra III (who ultimately lost the empire) were absolutely lousy ones.

Adhirajendra is a prime example of how someone, who is as far from fit to rule as you can get, ends up a king. He did no work for his position; it was given to him by birthright. Even then, when his father Virarajendra died, Adhirajendra needed his brother-in-law’s help to ascend the throne. His brother-in-law stayed in the capital for a month to help him deal with any opposition but just a few months later Adhirajendra was murdered (Majumdar, 492). Adhirajendra showed that just because he’d been born into his position it didn’t mean he was fit for it. When leaders are chosen by birthright there will always be some who can’t rule when and that will ultimately lead to an empire’s defeat.

In 1257 Jatavarman ascended the Pandya throne (Mujumdar, 502). He was an amazing ruler and solider. He invaded the Chola Empire during Rajendra III rule and forced him to submit to him. Rajendra had a weak administration due to a long line of increasing poor kings before him and stood no chance. By the time Rajendra III died the Cholas had been completely amalgamated into the Pandya Empire (Mujumdar, 502). The Chola Empire fell in the end because it didn’t have a strong ruler. The Pandyas on the other hand got lucky and had a great leader born into the royal family but they too eventually fell in the 16th century. With a monarchy where the king has absolute power everything after the first king comes down to chance. When left to chance everything will eventually fail it just become a matter of how long until it happens.

The Chola Empire lasted an unusually long time for a government where the monarch had absolute power. This is because their government found a way to keep the king in control but allow the people to be looked after by a chosen official. The Empire was broken into provinces and then subdivided into districts. Each district (village) had an elected committee to deal with rural affairs (such as education, selling/buying land ect.) (Joshi, Wadhwani, Pradhan, 100-120) This idea meant that although the king still had control, made the laws and got the tax money he did not have to see to all his individual citizens problems. This helped them survive because even it a poor king happened to be ruling the people were still looked after. A strong base helped the Cholas survive longer but a monarch still held control in the end and just like it created them, it destroyed them.

In conclusion, the Cholas eventually fell due to their monarchs with absolute power. They died because as a monarchy, the kings did not earn their positions but were handed them by birthright. Learning this lesson, that a monarchy is bound to fail is important. It teaches us that in order to survive we need to earn what we have. Our leaders need to earn their spot not be given it. No matter what we do, unless we work for it we will eventually fail.

Research