The preislamic period, the pre 1100 CE period on Indian history is quite blank, with only a few smitten of information.
We seem to breeze through the Mauryas, the 2nd Guptas, Harsha, and arrive straight to the period referred to and shaped by the Islamic invasions. There are some mention about the about Maukharis,( Maukhars) etc etc without the historians going into any depth.
One group that is missing is the Tomars of the Indraprast/ Delhi area. They were in power from 736 CE to 1150 CE at least, 400 years, and we find the power continuing in monarchial form in Gwalior, Rajastan, and in a republican form in ( Western Uttar Pradesh, and Haryana) as part of the Jat Sarv Khap of Haryana.
I am posting this below for review and discussion.
According to the Mahabharat, Parikshit took the throne of Indraprasta after Yudhistra. His dynasty ruled for 1864 years or 28 generations, the last king Khemkaran was defeated by Vishrawah, who took the throne. His dynasty ruled for 14 generations. It lasted 500 years. The third dynasty ruled for 15 generations. Then Raja Dughsen came to power and his, fourth dynasty came to power, and after nine generations, the last king was Rajpal. This is supported by the Rajatarungani, and by other inscriptions.
This fourth dynasty was uprooted by Raja Vikramaditya Tanwar. (Tomar). He destroyed Indraprasta,( modern Delhi) and shifted the seat of power to Avanti in Ujjain. According to Todd, Vikramaditya, not only destroyed Indraprasta, but also started a new era which is the Vikramaditya era which starts in 57 BCE.
After the destruction of Indraprasta, it became less than a village, with no great prominence on the next 800 years.
In about 800 CE, Anangpal Tomar, following in the footsteps of his ancestor Vikramaditya, reestablished Indraprasta as the seat of his power.
The Tomars renamed Indraprasta as Dhilli or Dilli. Delhi was the center of power for the Tomar dynasty, and stayed that way even after them. In the Delhi area this capital shifted to a number of places, it name may have changed, but the centre of power remained in Dilli.
There is a saying âDilli was uprooted many times, and it reestablished many times.
The centers of power in the vicinity of Delhi were:
Delhi was given its look by the Tomars, who made it an object of pride by their efforts. Lakes, Temples were inaugurated, and they increased the splendour of Dilli. The ruins of many of these Lakes, Temples, and buildings can still be seen, and give evidence to reality of that age, and legend of the Tomars.
Anangpal Tomar, the First, built in Anangpur, a 289 foot long great Bundh ( a Dam).On two sides were rocky hills, and between them a small river. The river was dammed, with a pucca, sturdy dam, and that is testimony to the engineering skills of the Tomars.
Raja Anangpal Tomar built a fort on the hill on top of the Dam, and signs of that fort can be seen today.
In 1051 CE Anangpal Tomar II became the ruler and established his capital at Lalkot (Red Fort). He removed the iron victory pillar, erected by his ancestor Vikramaditya Tanwar, from the Vishnudutt Hill, and re erected it bin the centre of his capital Lalkot. The pillar is now outside the Kutb Minar in Delhi, and is testimony to the metallurgical skills of the Tomar era.
In Delhi Shakarpur is the ancient Shakarprasta. This city was as famous as the other cities of the Mahabharat- Tilpat (Telprasta), Soonpath (Svarnprasta), Indrapath (Indraprastha).The Tomars built temples, and lakes in these places. The Bhairon Mandir (temple) of Shakarpur is clear evidence of the ancient Mandirs of the Tomars.
The Tomars built the temple of Kaushiki Devi at Okla. She was born here, and she destroyed the rakshasas (demons)
Anangpal Tomar II first made his capital at Dhillkapuri, which is between Yoginipur and Mahipalpur. An account of the beauty of the city of Dhillika is found in the Palam Vavli inscription, and in the inscription on the Iron Pillar. The poet Shridhar in 1132 CE makes reference to the city of Dhillika in his book Parshvanath Charita, (Account of Parshvanath). In those times Dhillika was part of Greater Haryana. Anangpal Tomar constructed the lake of Anangpal (Anangpal sarovar), and decorated Dhillika with palaces and temples.
One great fort was Lalkot (Red Fort). The place of the Raja surrounded the Iron Pillar. Today that city, those temples are no more, all destroyed, yet this Killi ( iron nail/pillar) is testimony to the glory of the Tomars, the descendants of Vikramaditya Tanwar, many centuries after him.
The Raja had this pillar uprooted and reinserted into the ground, and there is an interesting legend of that, for the pillar could not be erected again with the same strong foundation as before.
A saying developed:
â Killi Jo Dilli Bhaii,
Tomar Nrp Bhayya Mathiheenâ
â The pillar which was taken to Delhi
The Tomar king had lost his sensesâ
The Bhat (bard) of Prithbviraj Chauhan Jagnik repeats this account. This is the place that later came to be known as Dilli (Hindi) or Delhi (English).
The Iron Pillar or Killi (nail) is 22 feet high and 41/2 feet in circumference. When one sees this pillar one understands what expert metallurgists the craftsmen who made it were. The pillar of beaten iron, indicative of itâs of its decorative forehead, looks auspicious and great. For centuries this pillar had borne the assault of the winds and rain, yet even now not a trace of rust can be found. There are many more such examples, which are hidden in the ruins of Delhi, which bear testimony to the glory of the Tomars.
The first name of Dilli or Delhi was Dhillkapuri.
Deshostith Hariyanakya Prthviyama Svargasanninamâ
Dillikavya Tatra Tomarreh-rasisth Nirmithaâ
Anangpal Tomar I was the son of Kunwarpal Tomar. Kunwarpalâs father was Jaipal Tomar., whose elder brother Shalakshpal Tomar put him on the throne. At the time of the invasions of Mahmud of Ghazni it was this Raja Shalakshpal who was ruling Mehrauli- Lalkot or Dhillika, and in 1005 CE he handed over the throne to his younger brother Jaipal. Shalakshpal retired towards Samchana (Gurud) in Haryana and took Sanyaas (spiritual retirement). It is this great personage of whom an account is to be rendered. It is he who was the founder of the Desh Khap of 84 villages.
Historians have betrayed the Tomars by restricting their accounts of the Tomars only to the last Raja Anangpal Tomar, whereas there are 26 generations between Anangpal Tomar the 1st and Anangpal Tomar the 2nd.
The dynastical list of the Tomars who sat on the throne of Delhi is as below:
Tomar Ascended the Throne CE
1 Anangpal 736
2 Vasudev 754
3 Gang 773
4 Prithvimal 764
5 Jaidev 814
6 Virpal 839
7 Adhereh 849
8 Vijay 875
9 Anek 876
10 Rikshpal 919
11 Sukhpal 940
12 Gopal 961
13 Salakshpal 976
14 Jaipal 1005
15 Kunwarpal 1021
16 Anangpal 2nd 1051
17 Vijaypal 1081
18 Mahipal* 1105 Founded th city of Mahipalpur
and built a Shiv Temple.
19 Arkpal ( Anangpal3rd) 1130
20 Vahardpal Devâs
Son ascended 1190
21 Tejpal 1162 ( ruled for 15 days. He was defeated
and killed by Kutubudin Aibak.)
Arkpal Tomar, also known as Anangpal the thirds was the last ruler of this dynasty. He ascended the throne in 1130 CE. He had no sons. He had two daughters. The elder Balm was married to Raja Vijaychand of Kannauj, who had a son borne to him -Raja Jaichand Rathor.
The other daughter Kamla was married to the son of Raja Someshwar of Ajmer, who was borne a son Prithviraj Chauhan. It was this Prithviraj Chauhan who was seated on the throne of Delhi after Anangpal Tomar the third or Arkpal Tomar.
Historians err in considering the Delhi Tomars to be Rajputs. Nowhere in the Rajput groups do we find the sons of the daughters taking over the inheritance.
Our concern here is now with Salakshpal Tomar who loved seven generations before Anangpal Tomar the third, and abdicating his throne, in favor of his younger brother.
The descendants of Salakshpal Tomar even toady, are to be found living in Desh republic, near modern Baraut, proud of their royal lineage and that they are Jats. This Khap is also known as Salakyan Tomars. His other brother Salakshpal gave his name to 84 villages of Kalashlayan Gujars, and those Jats have joined the Gujar stream.
Quoteâ
The Kalakcharya- kathnaka states that their kings were known as âSahiâ. Some of these âSahisâ were said to have been induced by a Jain teacher to proceed to Suratta( Surastra) Vishaya ( Country) and Ujjain in the HINDUKADESHA ( India) where they overthrew some local chiefs, and ruled for four years until they were themselves ousted in 58 BC.â
Source: Political History of Indiaâ Hemchandra Raychaudhuri, 1996 Oxford University press, New Delhi. ISBN 0 19 5643763
Somehow I had been under the impression that Hindu was given to the Indian courtesy the Arabs (circa 7 century CE).
If Raychaudhuri is correct, then India was known as Hindu- Desh as eraly as 58 BCE,
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Somehow I had been under the impression that Hindu was given to the Indian courtesy the Arabs (circa 7 century CE).
If Raychaudhuri is correct, then India was known as Hindu- Desh as eraly as 58 BCE,
Comments please<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interesting info, I remember reading that the word Hindu was not first used by Arabs but by Persians (before they were islamisised), I couldn't find the article now but this certainly is interesting, does he give any reference (I mean another book) from which he got this?
<!--emo&--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> Just saw this thread.. A good one!
My 2 quick cents..
Indian scholars, historians, and archeologists generally owe their allegiance <b>not to India or the truth</b>, but to their preceptors and founders, the British, who did their best to belittle our history and culture.
Modern history books and researches are based on two hypotheses, viz. the <b>Aryan Invasion/Migration/Hallucinations of India and the Alexander-Sandrocottus synchronism</b>. Accepted by all modern historians as a gospel truth. <b>But this has no acceptance anywhere in Indian literature, tradition or authority. It runs counter to all.</b> Based on the above two, for example, the historicity of post- Mahabharatha kings has been doubted by so-called historians as they are not corroborated by any foreign source or inscriptions. But the same is true of the Greek history or history based on bible, which is not supported by any foreign authority (and the inscriptions are useless for reconstructing the same).
The real History of India is yet to be written based on indigenous sources and supplemented by all other resources, wherever available.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bharatvarsh+Dec 8 2005, 08:55 AM-->QUOTE(Bharatvarsh @ Dec 8 2005, 08:55 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Somehow I had been under the impression that Hindu was given to the Indian courtesy the Arabs (circa 7 century CE).
If Raychaudhuri is correct, then India was known as Hindu- Desh as eraly as 58 BCE,
Comments please<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interesting info, I remember reading that the word Hindu was not first used by Arabs but by Persians (before they were islamisised), I couldn't find the article now but this certainly is interesting, does he give any reference (I mean another book) from which he got this?
[right][snapback]42682[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here is a response from Prof Malaiya
" Kalakcharya- kathnaka was written by Mahesara Suri, who is thought
to have lived around 12th century CE. However it must have been
based on some written or oral tradition.
Even then this must be one of the oldest usage of the term Hindu Desh
among Indians.
The Sahi kings ruled sections of Afghanistan and Gandhara for
several centuries. Hsuan Tsang encountered a Kshatriya ruler of
Kapisa, who is sometimes considered to the Sahi king Khingala who
had the maha-vinayaka idol of Gardez installed."
It is still curious how the term " Hindu" came into usage from Kanyakumari Kasmir, from Afghanistan to Bengal
I somehow find it hard to accept that all this was courtsey the Arabs/other Islamics?
Why would the Indians so universally accept a foreign term to describe themselves ?
Some historian mentioned that the western Arya languages like Kashmiri and Sindhi had a habit of using "H" instead of "S". So the inhabitants of the Sapta-Sindhu would have been calling themselves Hapta-Hindhus since ancient times. Hence the term Hindu came into being.
I don't have any proof for this theory. More research needs to be done on this issue to prove it conclusively.
We have always called ourselves Aryas since ancient times and India is Aryavarta.
We should use this term delibrately instead of the word "Indian", so it gets into common usage.
Further, the people in Kerala have used the word Aryan (instead of the Samskrta Arya) before the Europeans came. In Tamil/Malayalam Samskrta words like Mahadeva, Rama become Mahadevan, Raman. Similarly Arya must have become Aryan.
<!--QuoteBegin-mitradena+Dec 9 2005, 11:27 PM-->QUOTE(mitradena @ Dec 9 2005, 11:27 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->So "Aryan" is also our word only.
We should always call ourselves Aryas/Aryans.
[right][snapback]42748[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No doubt Arya and Aryan is our own. From the Valmiki Ramayana I read a while ago, I remember Rama reminding the Vaanaras that they are Aryas and should fight like one.
On a side note, my ardhangini calls me Aarya. This has caught on with other families in our friends' circle.
<!--QuoteBegin-mitradena+Dec 9 2005, 11:27 PM-->QUOTE(mitradena @ Dec 9 2005, 11:27 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->Some historian mentioned that the western Arya languages like Kashmiri and Sindhi had a habit of using "H" instead of "S". So the inhabitants of the Sapta-Sindhu would have been calling themselves Hapta-Hindhus since ancient times. Hence the term Hindu came into being.
<!--QuoteBegin-ben_ami+Dec 9 2005, 01:41 AM-->QUOTE(ben_ami @ Dec 9 2005, 01:41 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->what is "the Alexander-Sandrocottus synchronism"
[right][snapback]42712[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The synchronization is of Sandrokottus with Chandragupta I ( Maur, Maurya Clan) .
Many Indian Historians,( not beholden to European Historians for the knowledge and approach to the study of History) doubt this, and link Alexander/Sandrokottus to the Chandragupta I I( Dharan clan ) who came to power somewhere about 300 AD .
There is now a 500 year + gap.
Pushing the Mauryas back in time, creates quite a few problems with chronology as it is now accepted .Doing this also fills in a number of blanks , between the Sarasvati Sindhu period, and the Greek incursions.
K D Sethnaâs â Ancient Indiaâ, is a good piece of work in th English Stream. In the hindi stream there are many writers who do not agree with the Alexander/Sandrokottus/ Chandragupta I synchronization.
There is also some problem in the term âGuptaâ, and deriving it from âKottusâ.
I for one have been unable to see how Gupta can be derived from Kottus.
so alexander predates chandragupta or is it the other way round??
as for hindu and sindhu... its right.
the persian h is the indian s.
so sapt-sindhu became haft hindu.
the people of sind are not persians. they are indians who live in the estuary of the sindhu (indus) river. and they call themselves sindhi and their land sind.
the persians meanwhile call all the people living on this side of the sindhu river as the hindus.
even the name india comes from that. the greeko-romans took the persian name for indians (ie.hindu) and then droped the h (very common in romance languages to have the h rendered silent) and added the -ia as they do to so many other names. (eg - rus-ia= russia, chaldees-ia = chaldea)
Most likely from a tribe called 'Parasu'. The Vedic and later texts mention them. They were also called 'parshavs' and their land 'parasya'.
The medieaval term 'farsi' came from the town of 'Fars' in North-Central Persia.
The Western scholars, inspite of being eminent in their scholarship, (as eminent as Shourie's Eminent Historians), and pious distorted history. Why?
One reason given, apart from so many others (moral superiority et al), was their anxiety to prevent if possible, even by sacrificing truth and fairness, any slight upon or detraction from the authority and antiquity of the Holy Bible.
According to it the date of creation is 4004 B.C..The first man Adam lived for 950 Years, i.e.,Till B.C. 3054. The four generations of his descendants, till then (there were none else) could not have exceeded a modest 20,000.
By that time Mahabhaarata war had taken place in which 18 Akshouhinis of soldiers had participated--with all and everything that it implies.
So Prof. Sir William Jones could not accept 3138 B.C. as the date of the Mahabharatha War, and the beginning of Kali Era in 3102 B.C. or 3076 B.C. for the Saptharshi era., lest it leads to sacriligious conclusions and fouling with the Biblical chrnology. Along with him was Warren Hastings, who was the Governor General in India, in 1774 A.D.
The strategy, readily acceptable to the Western Scholars ( the Indian variety just did not matter to them) is to identify the Indian monarch whose name finds mention in the writings- however flimsy and fuzzy- of those attributed to those who had accompanied Alexander The Great in his exploits (which actually did not extend beyond the tributory of river Sindhu). Luck Seems to have favoured, and they discovered that one by name Chandraguptha, ruled . The name Sandrocuttus, was taken as the Greek equivalent to Chandraguptha.
Now there are two Chandragupthas referred to in Indian Puranas, from which the chronology of the kings who ruled is worked out.
One is Chandraguptha Maurya of Magadha, who ruled , according to Puranic accounts in 1534 B.C. The other ones are Guptha Dynasty's Chandraguptha and his son the Great Samudraguptha.
One was the contemporary with the presence of Alexander in India, i.e. 326 B.C. according to Puranic chronology. But they had the previlege of deciding , which Chandraguptha was Alexander's contemporary. And, they decided it was Maurya Chandraguptha. which means the date of Maurya <b>Chandraguptha is 326 B.C. and not 1534 B.C.</b>
So obliterarate and distort the history at one stroke, and achieve their purpose. It was promoted by all the Western historians, and our eminent historians were too happy to play the second fiddle, for whatever reason.
But what are the grounds to conclude that they were wrong and our Puranas correct?.
The most important factor, they took anto account was the similarity of names. conceding the similarity of Sandrocattus, with Chandraguptha, it could be of Maurya or Guptha Dynasty. But the Greek writers mentioned along with Sandrocattus, two other names, <b>Xandrames his predecessor and Sandrocryptus</b> his successor.
The Predecessor and successor of Maurya Chandraguptha, were Mahapadmananda and Bindusaara; and of Guptha Chandraguptha Chandrasri or <b>Chandramas or Chandrabija, and the successor Samudraguptha</b>. Which set is more similar?
<b>And the other details of life and conquests of the set of three bears total resmblance to the Gupthas and not Mauryas.</b>
It was Max-Muller, who took up the subject, in 1859 A.D., and too boldly, concluded that it was the Mauryan who was the contemporary of Alexander the Great, though he admitted his conclusion is opposed to Hindu, Buddhist and Jain traditions and authorities.
His very casual conclusion , became authoritative, and no western authority thought of further investigation to find the accuracy and veracity of the conclusion.--Our own authorities also thought Max-Muller's authoritiy is enough and should be taken as final.
<b>So an uncontested profit of 1200 years. For the labour and efforts.</b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Most likely from a tribe called 'Parasu'. The Vedic and later texts mention them. They were also called 'parshavs' and their land 'parasya'.
The medieaval term 'farsi' came from the town of 'Fars' in North-Central Persia.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
On the http://iranianlanguages.com/ forum they mentioned that the original Persian language does not have the F sound. The F sound came with the Arab invaders.
So the original name of the province is Parsa and the language Parsi.
Here is an English translation of the Achamenian King Cyrus' inscription.
You can see that he called himself Kurus/kurush and Persians are called Parsas. Also note the great similarity between old Persian and Samskrta. Further he refers to the province of Sindh as Hidus :-
G.F. Hegel in his work "Philosophy of History" mentions the Sandrocattus link made by Sir William Jones. Hegel died in 1831. So MaxMuller cannot claim this distinction.
From Deccan Chronicle, 15 oct., 2006
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->1542: Year of great turmoil
Â
Itihaas: By Akhilesh Mithal
Fifteenth Oc-tober is an important date in history. A ruler of India, whom even the India-despising British chroniclers called âGreatâ, was born on this day. The year was 1542, a year of great turmoil in the country. The dominion over the country was in serious dispute. <b>Turki-speaking Timurids originating in Samarqand were fighting Afghans from Roh who had, over many generations, become Bihari by residence and through intermarriage in their country of adoption. </b>
Babur won India the decisive battles of Panipat (April 21, 1526) and Kanwaha (March 17, 1527). Humayun lost the dominion he inherited as well as the areas he had added to it during his reign by losing the battles at Chausa (June 7, 1539) and Kannauj (May 17, 1540). The victories of the Timurids under Babur and the Suris under Farid (later Sher Shah) demonstrated that the military genius of the commander was the decisive factor. The defeated in all four battles far outnumbered the victors.
Humayunâs brothers were his bitterest enemies and did not help him or offer refuge. <b>Humayun chose to make his way to Iran where the Shah, hailing from another Turki-speaking tribe, could give sanctuary for the moment and, perhaps, provide armed support when the situation was ripe for an attempt to return to India.</b>
<b>During the long and arduous journey, Humayun chanced to see the fourteen-year-old Hamida Bano Begum. She was the daughter of a Sufi divine named Ali Akbar.</b> She was a beauty and most erudite lady of cultivated tastes. Humayun sought her hand in marriage. Hamida was initially doubtful about marrying a much-older man who had already had many women in his harem and no throne to sit upon. <b>The charm of the sensitive and most kindly emperor, the aura of the dynasty of Timur and the persuasion of Humayunâs female relatives prevailed and the marriage was solemnised.</b>
Jalaluddin Muhammad Akbar was born at Umerkote in Sindh on October 15, 1542.Â
Humayunâs misfortunes did not cease with the birth of a son and heir. Repeated betrayals and fear of being made hostage made him abandon Akbar and flee to Iran with a very small entourage including Hamida and the resolutely loyal Bairam Khan.
<b>Sher Shah, at fifty-five or sixty years of age when he assumed the crown, was a seasoned administrator and an experienced general who soon organised the civil and military administration along efficient lines. He also created the silver rupee coin which was to last many centuries. What distinguishes his coins is the line in Devanagari stating the name of the ruler. The improvements he made in communications include effective policing of highways, construction of caravan serais and employment of Brahmins to serve water and cook food to make sure that both Hindus and Muslims would use the facilities provided.</b>
To awe the recalcitrant tribes of the Indus region, Sher Shah built a formidable fortress on the banks of the Jhelum and called it Rohtas after the fortress already in existence in Bihar.
<b>Sher Shah died of burns and injuries suffered when an ammunition and gunpowder heap blew up under him while he was blasting his way into the gateway of Kalinjar fort. </b>His successor Islam or Salim Shah died after a short reign in 1552. Three weak and ineffectual rulers followed.
By 1553, Humayun had recaptured Kabul and repelled his brother Mirza Kamranâs assaults on Kabul three times. The other brothers, Askari and Hindal were already dead. <b>Humayun hardened his heart and had Kamran blinded and exiled to Mecca.</b> Humayun was now free to single-mindedly fight the Surs and captured Lahore in 1555.
<b>The reigning Sultan Adil Shah, disparagingly called âAdaliâ, was a great musician and is reputed to have trained both Miyaan Tansen and Baaz Bahadur. Military matters were left to Hemu, a Dhusar or Bhargava (Brahmin?) who had started as a saltpetre manufacturer/ merchant of Rewari and risen to win some twenty one pitched battles against Adaliâs rival Afghans.</b>
Humayun recaptured Delhi but died in January 1556 by falling down the steps of his library. The thirteen-year-old Akbar was proclaimed emperor. <b>Hemu captured Delhi and his army met the Timurid forces at Panipat on November 5, 1556. Hemu drove the enemy army back hundreds of yards and was in the act of moving in his war elephants to destroy them when an arrow pierced his eye. Hemu was brought captive and his head struck off.
Abul Fazl, the chronicler of Akbarâs reign pays unqualified tribute to Hemuâs administrative and military genius and says that if his life had been spared he would have been a great asset to the empire.</b> We shall revisit Akbarâs glorious reign in a future column.
regarding the chandragupta gupta/maurya question,Letâs look at the standard text books accounts and how history of India is treated in this period and what disparities show up.
<i>The accounts of the reigns of Bimbisara and Ajatsatru give evidence of a policy aimed at control of as much of Ganges as possible.it seems they were the first Indian kings to conceive policy of a far flung empire</i>. ( Here the author claims that though prince Rama is believed to have had such a vast empire ,this concept must have been superimposed on him after such a feat had been accomplished by these 6th century B C Kings) [<i>FONT=Courier]If there was any source of inspiration to these kings it must have been Acheamedia Empire of Persia, whose founder Cyrus the great (558-530) , rapidly built the greatest empire the world has ever seen. Young men from Magadh were sent to Taxila to finish their education , and Bimbisara was in diplomatic contact with puskarasaran , king of gandhar whose kingdom probably included Taxila. <b>But</b> in an inscription of about 519 BC darius I , the third achaemedian emperor claims possession of Gandhar and later claims India , which according to Herodotus , became the twentieth satrapy of the Persian empire. [/FONT]</i>this is the first disparity.
Alexander in his Indian exploits(326 BC )met Omphis identified with Ambhi of Taxila and Porus identified with Paurava of Punjab.(who were these kings and when did they reign in India, was Chandragupta Maurya their contempory?)
<i>Plutarch(classical sources) states that Sandrocottus adviced Alexander to attack Nanda emperor. Both Indian and classical sources agree that Chandragupta overthrew the Nanda empire</i>.( Agreed that Indian sources say that chandragupta overthrew the Nanda emperor, but do the classical sources also mention Nanda by name?? or do they just state that chandragupta overthrew the previous emperor??)
Chandragupta Maurya was succesed by his son Bimbisara who was in touch with Antiochus I of Syria (again the source of this information can help fix the dates for Bimbisara.
Have Ashokaâs edictâs been dated?? Which period do they belong to?
Asholaâs edicts name kings Antiyoka ,Turamaya , Antikini , Maga and Alikasundara which scholars claim correspond to Hellinic kings : Antiochus II Theos of Syria, Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Egypt, Antigonus Gonatas of Macedonia, Magas of Cyrene and Alexander of Epirus.
An inscription on a pillar at Besnagar claims that sunga king Bhagadbhadra received an ambassador named Heliodorus from Greek king of TAXILA, ANTIALCIDAS (another source to check)
What is the importance of saka era in this scenario??
<i>Some authorities have tried to depict the great gupta emperors as librators of India from foreign yoke but it seems by this time(320AD) , the invaders had become thoroughly indianised</i>. (here again some sources of a fight that might have occurred between alexanders successor and chandragupt gupta , are conspicuous by their absence)
<i>Reign of chandragupta II (grandson on cgI)marks the high water mark of Indian culture. Later Indian legend tells of a great and good king Vikramaditya , scholars here conclude vikramaditya and CGII as one and the same . the only important descripancy (as per the author himself) is that Vikramaditya is said to have founded the Vikram era in 58BC.</i>Again Chinese Buddhist monk Fa-hsien , stayed in India for 6 years and did not mention chandragupta.
Repeatedly I come across this book name which reportedly gives a new perspective to Indian chronology ,hope to read it soon, Ancient India in a New Light (Aditya Prakashan, 1989) by K D Sethna.
does anone have more information on this??
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif' /><!--endemo--> Just saw this thread.. A good one!