07-04-2008, 03:31 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-Hauma Hamiddha+Jul 4 2008, 09:24 AM-->QUOTE(Hauma Hamiddha @ Jul 4 2008, 09:24 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Interesting...
How would you rationalize the name of Saraganus The Elder from Hellenistic sources? What do you think was its Indic form ? Was there another king inserted before or after hAla?
[right][snapback]83802[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hauma Hamiddha: In general Saraganus is identified with Sâtakani by academia. Let us look at the linguistic question:
a. identification saraganus-satakani: The second member -gan.us clearly represents a Prakritic kana or kani form. This poses no problem, the -k- may give a -g- in the Periplus, see bary-g-aza. The first member has sara- which must be equated with sata-. In Satavahana Vaidarbhi the -t- was rendered as an Antastha -l- or -r- or Murdhanya -l- or -r- through intermediate Prakritism rendered as a Murdhanya -t- : Sata-vahana is equivalent to Sali-vahana. The athor of the Periplus had problems with the retroflex medial sound, thus giving sala as sara-.
b. identification hala-sata(kani): the kings of this dynasty have variations in their names, sometimes omitting the second member of Sata-karni (Sri Sata, Hala). Hala- is equal to sala- or sata-. The medial dental is explained above. The initial h- poses no problem too, when we look at the numismatics:
Obverse : Kings bust right, elaborate hair style
Rano Gotamiputasa Siri Yana Satakarnisa
Reverse : Hill, Satavahana symbol, sun, moon
Arahanaku gotami putaku Hiru Yana Hatakanaku
Reference : MCSI1, #156
See here that Satavahana Vaidarbi s- is rendered as h- in Hiru for Siru and Hatakanaku for Satakanaku. Note also that karna > kana, which is logical.
c. connection Hala-Gautamiputra: Hala for Sala, meaning Sala-vahana Satakarni, can be called Saraganus the "Elder" as opposed to a "Younger" Sala-vahana", which was Gautamiputra Satakarni.
The spellings in the Periplus are adaptations of the (regional) Prakrits and Hybrid Sanskrit(ized) words and names of those days. The sounds are fluid. The vowels too are fluid in Satavahana Vaidarbhi, where the -a- and -i- can be found alternating, see the coin above, having Satakarn-<b>i</b>-sa and Hatan-<b>a</b>-ku
Ashok: Do you refer to Bhoja the Paramara? He was one of the crucial powers Mahmud Ghaznavi feared enormously, having been terribly defeated by Bhoja.
About Mahmud, who raided India several times, his achievements are put in a wrong light. He hated "Kafirs" and was determined to conquer India, despite what standard works want us to believe that he only wanted to loot. He needed some 12 raiding campaigns to achieve this (we can see the same pattern with other looter-conqueror Ghazis. Timur didn't succeed, that is why he gave the excuse that he only wanted to punish the weak Muslims for their lax attitude towards the "Kafirs", hiding the fact that he couldn't conquer a piece of mainland "Kafirl" India permanently.), but was time after time, after intitial successes forced to a humiliating retreat. One of his most formidable opponent in the borderlands was the Hindu Shahi, with whom he had the most clashes. One formidable opponent of the heartland was Bhoja Paramara.
After him, Masud the Ghaznavid, also tried to conquer India, but was crushed in the Battle of Bahraich. His army hereafter was completely annihilated. No Turk dared to raid India, till they were supplanted by the Gurids. The Ghaznavid were as unsuccessful in the goals as the Arabs centuries before.
Muslims who make him into a hero, and some standard works exaggerate his achievements from the point of view of Mahmud, hailing him as a brilliant general. But he suffered crucial defeats, which are hardly given attention by Muslims and the same standard works.
http://persian.packhum.org/persian/main?ur...01014%26ct%3D69
<i>NOTE D. Mahmúd's Expeditions to India.
It has been usual to consider the number of Mahmúd's expeditions to India to be twelve. The first authority for this number is Nizámu-d dÃn Ahmad in the Tabakát-i AkbarÃ; and as Dow has also numbered them as twelve, most English authors following him as the standard, have entertained the same persuasion. But it is curious to observe that, while Nizámu-d dÃn mentions that there were altogether twelve, in recording them seriatim, he enumerates no less than sixteen; and Dow, while he marginally notes twelve, records no less than fifteen different invasions. Even Elphinstone, though he notes twelve, records more. The Khulásatu-t TawárÃkh gives twelve, and confines itself to that number, or in reality only to eleven, as by some mistake an expedition to KashmÃr and Kálinjar are placed in one year, and the tenth expedition is omitted. The Akhbár-i Muhabbat follows it in both errors. I will not attempt to maintain this established number of expeditions, but will consider them in the actual order of their occurrence.
First Expedition.âFrontier Towns. A.H. 390 (1000 A.D.)â [only 1 source, as per Elliot]
Second Expedition.âPesháwarâWaihind. A.H. 391-2.â
Third Expedition.âBhera (BhátÃa). A.H. 395 (1004-5 A.D.)â
Fourth Expedition.âMultán. A.H. 396.â
Fifth Expedition.* âDefeat of Nawása Sháh, A.H. 398.â
Sixth Expedition.âWaihind, Nagarkot.* A.H. 399 (1008-9 A.D.).â
Seventh Expedition.âNáráin. A.H. 400.â
Eighth Expedition.âMultán. A.H. 401.â
Ninth Expedition.âNinduna [or NárdÃn.]* A.H. 404 (1013 A.D.)â[Jud Hills, as per Elliot]
Tenth Expedition.âThánesar. A.H. 405.â [The TárÃkh-i Alfà omits all notice of the 10th expedition, as per Elliot]
Eleventh Expedition.âLohkot.* A.H. 406.â [unsuccessful, as per Elliot]
Twelfth Expedition.âKanauj, Mathura. A.H. 409.â
Thirteenth Expedition.âBattle of the Ráhib. A.H. 412.â
Fourteenth Expedition.âKÃrát, Núr, Lohkot, and Láhore.* A.H. 413. â [doubted by Elliot]
Fifteenth Expedition.âGwáliár and Kálinjár. A.H. 414.â [doubted by Elliot]
Sixteenth Expedition.âSomnát. A.H. 416-7.â
Seventeenth Expedition.âJáts of Júd. (A.H. 417.â</i>
(Notes Elliot added in the quote)
Most attempts were related to the Sindhu river border.
His attempts to conquer the heartland are only 3: the 10th, 12th and 15th . And perhaps the 16th. But the 15th one is doubted as a separate one, most probably occurring simultaneously with another one. The same may be the case with the 10th.
Thus, he didn't dare to attack the heartland many times, remembering his defeats
Mahmud's only success was his loot, massacres, rape. etc. Hardly befitting a hero. This staunch Muslim Ghazi extended his dominion, but he was unsuccessful in his primary goal: to conquer "Kafiri" India, the Dar-ul Harb. He also failed into his secondary goal: to Islamize India, or making India a Dar-ul islam.
So, against this light, Muslims have not much to celebrate.
How would you rationalize the name of Saraganus The Elder from Hellenistic sources? What do you think was its Indic form ? Was there another king inserted before or after hAla?
[right][snapback]83802[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hauma Hamiddha: In general Saraganus is identified with Sâtakani by academia. Let us look at the linguistic question:
a. identification saraganus-satakani: The second member -gan.us clearly represents a Prakritic kana or kani form. This poses no problem, the -k- may give a -g- in the Periplus, see bary-g-aza. The first member has sara- which must be equated with sata-. In Satavahana Vaidarbhi the -t- was rendered as an Antastha -l- or -r- or Murdhanya -l- or -r- through intermediate Prakritism rendered as a Murdhanya -t- : Sata-vahana is equivalent to Sali-vahana. The athor of the Periplus had problems with the retroflex medial sound, thus giving sala as sara-.
b. identification hala-sata(kani): the kings of this dynasty have variations in their names, sometimes omitting the second member of Sata-karni (Sri Sata, Hala). Hala- is equal to sala- or sata-. The medial dental is explained above. The initial h- poses no problem too, when we look at the numismatics:
Obverse : Kings bust right, elaborate hair style
Rano Gotamiputasa Siri Yana Satakarnisa
Reverse : Hill, Satavahana symbol, sun, moon
Arahanaku gotami putaku Hiru Yana Hatakanaku
Reference : MCSI1, #156
See here that Satavahana Vaidarbi s- is rendered as h- in Hiru for Siru and Hatakanaku for Satakanaku. Note also that karna > kana, which is logical.
c. connection Hala-Gautamiputra: Hala for Sala, meaning Sala-vahana Satakarni, can be called Saraganus the "Elder" as opposed to a "Younger" Sala-vahana", which was Gautamiputra Satakarni.
The spellings in the Periplus are adaptations of the (regional) Prakrits and Hybrid Sanskrit(ized) words and names of those days. The sounds are fluid. The vowels too are fluid in Satavahana Vaidarbhi, where the -a- and -i- can be found alternating, see the coin above, having Satakarn-<b>i</b>-sa and Hatan-<b>a</b>-ku
Ashok: Do you refer to Bhoja the Paramara? He was one of the crucial powers Mahmud Ghaznavi feared enormously, having been terribly defeated by Bhoja.
About Mahmud, who raided India several times, his achievements are put in a wrong light. He hated "Kafirs" and was determined to conquer India, despite what standard works want us to believe that he only wanted to loot. He needed some 12 raiding campaigns to achieve this (we can see the same pattern with other looter-conqueror Ghazis. Timur didn't succeed, that is why he gave the excuse that he only wanted to punish the weak Muslims for their lax attitude towards the "Kafirs", hiding the fact that he couldn't conquer a piece of mainland "Kafirl" India permanently.), but was time after time, after intitial successes forced to a humiliating retreat. One of his most formidable opponent in the borderlands was the Hindu Shahi, with whom he had the most clashes. One formidable opponent of the heartland was Bhoja Paramara.
After him, Masud the Ghaznavid, also tried to conquer India, but was crushed in the Battle of Bahraich. His army hereafter was completely annihilated. No Turk dared to raid India, till they were supplanted by the Gurids. The Ghaznavid were as unsuccessful in the goals as the Arabs centuries before.
Muslims who make him into a hero, and some standard works exaggerate his achievements from the point of view of Mahmud, hailing him as a brilliant general. But he suffered crucial defeats, which are hardly given attention by Muslims and the same standard works.
http://persian.packhum.org/persian/main?ur...01014%26ct%3D69
<i>NOTE D. Mahmúd's Expeditions to India.
It has been usual to consider the number of Mahmúd's expeditions to India to be twelve. The first authority for this number is Nizámu-d dÃn Ahmad in the Tabakát-i AkbarÃ; and as Dow has also numbered them as twelve, most English authors following him as the standard, have entertained the same persuasion. But it is curious to observe that, while Nizámu-d dÃn mentions that there were altogether twelve, in recording them seriatim, he enumerates no less than sixteen; and Dow, while he marginally notes twelve, records no less than fifteen different invasions. Even Elphinstone, though he notes twelve, records more. The Khulásatu-t TawárÃkh gives twelve, and confines itself to that number, or in reality only to eleven, as by some mistake an expedition to KashmÃr and Kálinjar are placed in one year, and the tenth expedition is omitted. The Akhbár-i Muhabbat follows it in both errors. I will not attempt to maintain this established number of expeditions, but will consider them in the actual order of their occurrence.
First Expedition.âFrontier Towns. A.H. 390 (1000 A.D.)â [only 1 source, as per Elliot]
Second Expedition.âPesháwarâWaihind. A.H. 391-2.â
Third Expedition.âBhera (BhátÃa). A.H. 395 (1004-5 A.D.)â
Fourth Expedition.âMultán. A.H. 396.â
Fifth Expedition.* âDefeat of Nawása Sháh, A.H. 398.â
Sixth Expedition.âWaihind, Nagarkot.* A.H. 399 (1008-9 A.D.).â
Seventh Expedition.âNáráin. A.H. 400.â
Eighth Expedition.âMultán. A.H. 401.â
Ninth Expedition.âNinduna [or NárdÃn.]* A.H. 404 (1013 A.D.)â[Jud Hills, as per Elliot]
Tenth Expedition.âThánesar. A.H. 405.â [The TárÃkh-i Alfà omits all notice of the 10th expedition, as per Elliot]
Eleventh Expedition.âLohkot.* A.H. 406.â [unsuccessful, as per Elliot]
Twelfth Expedition.âKanauj, Mathura. A.H. 409.â
Thirteenth Expedition.âBattle of the Ráhib. A.H. 412.â
Fourteenth Expedition.âKÃrát, Núr, Lohkot, and Láhore.* A.H. 413. â [doubted by Elliot]
Fifteenth Expedition.âGwáliár and Kálinjár. A.H. 414.â [doubted by Elliot]
Sixteenth Expedition.âSomnát. A.H. 416-7.â
Seventeenth Expedition.âJáts of Júd. (A.H. 417.â</i>
(Notes Elliot added in the quote)
Most attempts were related to the Sindhu river border.
His attempts to conquer the heartland are only 3: the 10th, 12th and 15th . And perhaps the 16th. But the 15th one is doubted as a separate one, most probably occurring simultaneously with another one. The same may be the case with the 10th.
Thus, he didn't dare to attack the heartland many times, remembering his defeats
Mahmud's only success was his loot, massacres, rape. etc. Hardly befitting a hero. This staunch Muslim Ghazi extended his dominion, but he was unsuccessful in his primary goal: to conquer "Kafiri" India, the Dar-ul Harb. He also failed into his secondary goal: to Islamize India, or making India a Dar-ul islam.
So, against this light, Muslims have not much to celebrate.