<!--QuoteBegin-Ishwa+Jul 10 2008, 03:52 AM-->QUOTE(Ishwa @ Jul 10 2008, 03:52 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Ashok: You are right. That is why Vikramaditya's fight and Samvat is remembered and revered most by different Panthas. <b>Many kings wanted to be a Vikramaditya, especially in the face of the "Shakas".</b>
[right][snapback]84022[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes. a King who succesfully repulsed vidharmI invaders from North-West and secured North, had a tendency to be known as vikramAditya. Last of these was hemachandra, who was titled "vikramAditya" too, after he not only repulsed the humAyun, threw away his throne, and conquered the whole of North, but also destroyed the hegemony of Afghans, relatives of Sher Shah Suri of his own side to claim the title of King. At the time of his coronation at Delhi, he was titled vikramAditya by the brAhmaNa-s. He was the last Hindu king to have done that, and to have controled Delhi, although for a brief period.
[right][snapback]84022[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes. a King who succesfully repulsed vidharmI invaders from North-West and secured North, had a tendency to be known as vikramAditya. Last of these was hemachandra, who was titled "vikramAditya" too, after he not only repulsed the humAyun, threw away his throne, and conquered the whole of North, but also destroyed the hegemony of Afghans, relatives of Sher Shah Suri of his own side to claim the title of King. At the time of his coronation at Delhi, he was titled vikramAditya by the brAhmaNa-s. He was the last Hindu king to have done that, and to have controled Delhi, although for a brief period.