Forgotten Indian Military history

civfanatic said:

Malavikagnimitram doesn't even mention the city of Pataliputra or Magadha region. The play only mentions locales in central India as being under Shunga dominion, and only indicates Vidisha as the Shunga capital. And I mentioned Vidarbha because, if we are taking the play at face value, it indicates that Pushyamitra (the father of Agnimitra) failed to restore Magadhan power in that direction, and also ended up losing most of North India including the Gangetic plains (since his son was ruling only in central India).





The coins don't indicate a Yaudheya victory over Greeks. First of all, legends like Yaudheya-ganasya-jayah or Arjunayanam-jayah simply have the meaning of "Long live Yaudheyas" or "Long live Arjunayanas," similar to how the modern phrase Jai Hind has the meaning of "Long live India." Second, none of the Yaudheya or Arjunayana coins even have dates (correct me if I am wrong), unlike many of the Saka coins from western India which do have dates. Thus, the Yaudheya and Arjunayana coins could be minted anywhere from about the 2nd century BC to the 3rd century CE. It's actually quite astonishing that such theories like "Yaudheyas defeated Greeks" are advanced based on such slim evidence.

We don't have any Yaudheya or Arjunayana inscriptions proclaiming their sovereignty over major cities like Mathura. However, we do have inscriptions proclaiming the rule of Yavanas in and around Mathura, as well as inscriptions proclaiming the rule of Saka satraps in the same area. Tarn's statement that the loss of Greek provinces east of Ravi had "nothing to do with Sakas" is clearly wrong, since there exist Saka inscriptions (like the Mirzapur inscription of Sodasa I mentioned earlier) in exactly those areas where the Greeks once held sovereignty. But Tarn died in 1957 and his work has since been rendered obsolete by new discoveries (like the famous Yavana-rajya inscription, which was discovered in 1988), so he cannot be blamed for all of his errors.

Click to expand...

Actually, the play clearly mentions that while Agnimitra has based himself in Vidisa, the real ruler or "Commander in Chief" is Pushpamitra (Pushyamitra) whose Rajasuya sacrifice leads to the successful battle against the Greeks. It doesn't mention Pataliputra or Magadha (I presume it doesn't mention them based on your words) because the story is based in Vidisa, but by clearly mentioning that Agnimitra isn't the final authority of the Shungas, it shows us that Vidisa isn't the capital of the empire. Also, even if you take the Sindhu River to be a tributary of the Yamuna, this location is still to the far west of Pataliputra. Also, the play mentions that the Shungas have set up a fort on the banks of the Narmada, which again is to the far west of Pataliputra. Also, this play is taking place a few years after Pushyamitra's coup, so the independence of Vidharba is to be expected as it is ruled by a Mauryan governor who is antagonist towards the Shungas and wants the release of a Mauryan minister. Nevertheless, the play ends with the Shungas scoring a victory against the Greeks at the SIndhu River (whether you want to take it to be in Pakistan, Kashmir or as a tributary of the Yamuna) and with the kingdom of Vidharba accepting Shunga dominance. Meaning, at the end of the play, wherever you take the Sindhu River to be, the Shungas control the major part of the Gangetic plains (because while the drama confines itself to Vidisa, it doesn't categorically deny that the Shungas controlled Pataliputra and only states that the Pushyamitra's son (who is clearly shown as a subordinate to his father) had taken up residence in Vidisa) and a large chunk of Central India. Therefore, rather than showing what you intended to display (i.e. the Shungas controlled an extremely tiny kingdom) by the end of the play, the Shungas actually control a massive territory (though not comparable to the Mauryas) and have proven their superiority in arms to both the Greeks and to the Vidharbas. Therefore, this argument is over.

Now, turning to your other argument, there is a gap of nearly 230 years from the Yavanas losing Mathura and the arrival of the Sakas. In fact, the Yavanaraja inscription is dated to the 1st century BCE and that's also when the Yaudheyas started minting their coins showing military victory (saying "Long Live the Yaudheyan Republic" while you're under Indo-Greek rule doesn't make sense and the fact that the Mitra kings of Mathura who were under the Yavanas until the 1st century BCE minted deferential coins only adds to the fact that the Yaudheyan coins declaring the glory of their republic meant the downfall of the Indo-Greeks). Thus, with all the evidence we have: the Yavanaraja inscription only extending Greek stay in Mathura upto the first century BCE, Yaudheyas suddenly starting to mint victorious coins and the fact that the Yaudheyas (of whom Rudraman says: "Rudradaman (...) who by force destroyed the Yaudheyas who were loath to submit, rendered proud as they were by having manifested their' title of' heroes among all Kshatriyas." Thus clearly proving that when he arrived 230 years later, the Yaudheyas were an independent republic) were independent when the Sakas arrived, clearly disproves your argument. Thus, this argument is ended as well. Thank you.

It is nearly impossible make a coherent chronology using coins. Inscriptions are very few. One has to rely on literary / Puranic sources and see which are supported by cions & inscriptions.

TamilWarrior said:

Meaning, at the end of the play, wherever you take the Sindhu River to be, the Shungas control the major part of the Gangetic plains (because while the drama confines itself to Vidisa, it doesn't categorically deny that the Shungas controlled Pataliputra and only states that the Pushyamitra's son (who is clearly shown as a subordinate to his father) had taken up residence in Vidisa) and a large chunk of Central India. Therefore, rather than showing what you intended to display (i.e. the Shungas controlled an extremely tiny kingdom) by the end of the play, the Shungas actually control a massive territory (though not comparable to the Mauryas) and have proven their superiority in arms to both the Greeks and to the Vidharbas. Therefore, this argument is over.

Click to expand...

Even if we accept everything that Malavikagnimitram says at face value, how does it prove that the Shungas recaptured key cities like Mathura (one of the most important cities in North India) in the Gangetic plains, let alone places further to the northwest? Even the "superiority of arms" which is credited to Vasumitra (the son of Agnimitra) is not related to any annexation or conquest of Yavana territory. Rather, the play simply says that the royal sacrificial horse, while being escorted along the river "Sindhu," was halted by a troop of Yavanas. Those Yavanas are then said to be defeated, and the sacrificial horse safely returned home. There is no indication in the play of some great reconquest of Yavana territories in North India. On the contrary, the play (again, taken at face value) indicates that Yavanas had a significant presence in North India, as they could not have halted the Shunga sacrificial procession otherwise.

Mind you, this is all from an extremely late Gupta-era text, written half a millennium after the supposed events. We have no reason to believe that any of the specific details contained in the text, except perhaps the names of the kings and cities, are accurate. By contrast, the arguments for Yavana hegemony in a large part of North India are based almost entirely on contemporary or near-contemporary evidence, including epigraphic evidence (which is sorely lacking for Shungas). So far, you have largely avoided dealing with this evidence.

Now, turning to your other argument, there is a gap of nearly 230 years from the Yavanas losing Mathura and the arrival of the Sakas.

Click to expand...

No, there isn't. We have evidence of Saka great satraps (mahakshatrapas) ruling in Mathura immediately after the Indo-Greek kings. These Saka rulers are sometimes referred to as "Northern Satraps," and they include rulers like Hagana, Hagamasha, Rajuvula, and Sodasa. We have have found coins of these rulers in the area around Mathura, as well as mentions of them in local inscriptions (like the Mirzapur inscription of Sodasa, which I cited earlier and which you ignored). I am not sure where you got this "gap of nearly 230 years" from. You are probably confusing the Northern Sakas of Mathura with the Western Sakas, who ruled Gujarat and nearby areas, and to whom the famous Rudradaman belongs. Those Western Sakas are distinct from the Northern Sakas, and are not relevant to my argument.

civfanatic said:

Even if we accept everything that Malavikagnimitram says at face value, how does it prove that the Shungas recaptured key cities like Mathura (one of the most important cities in North India) in the Gangetic plains, let alone places further to the northwest? Even the "superiority of arms" which is credited to Vasumitra (the son of Agnimitra) is not related to any annexation or conquest of Yavana territory. Rather, the play simply says that the royal sacrificial horse, while being escorted along the river "Sindhu," was halted by a troop of Yavanas. Those Yavanas are then said to be defeated, and the sacrificial horse safely returned home. There is no indication in the play of some great reconquest of Yavana territories in North India. On the contrary, the play (again, taken at face value) indicates that Yavanas had a significant presence in North India, as they could not have halted the Shunga sacrificial procession otherwise.

Mind you, this is all from an extremely late Gupta-era text, written half a millennium after the supposed events. We have no reason to believe that any of the specific details contained in the text, except perhaps the names of the kings and cities, are accurate. By contrast, the arguments for Yavana hegemony in a large part of North India are based almost entirely on contemporary or near-contemporary evidence, including epigraphic evidence (which is sorely lacking for Shungas). So far, you have largely avoided dealing with this evidence.




No, there isn't. We have evidence of Saka great satraps (mahakshatrapas) ruling in Mathura immediately after the Indo-Greek kings. These Saka rulers are sometimes referred to as "Northern Satraps," and they include rulers like Hagana, Hagamasha, Rajuvula, and Sodasa. We have have found coins of these rulers in the area around Mathura, as well as mentions of them in local inscriptions (like the Mirzapur inscription of Sodasa, which I cited earlier and which you ignored). I am not sure where you got this "gap of nearly 230 years" from. You are probably confusing the Northern Sakas of Mathura with the Western Sakas, who ruled Gujarat and nearby areas, and to whom the famous Rudradaman belongs. Those Western Sakas are distinct from the Northern Sakas, and are not relevant to my argument.

Click to expand...

Again, this argument is more about whose fighting method, Indian or Greek, is superior and we are going way off topic, but I will indulge you.

I never stated that the Shungas recaptured Mathura, I said that they had a powerful empire that encapsulated most of the Northern plains (which is true even if you take the Sindh to be a tributary of the Yamuna river) and while the Yavanas did have an important city like Mathura under their control, the preeminent city of that period was Pataliputra and the fact that the Shungas had control over this city and most of the Gangetic plains made the Shungas the preeminent powers of North India, not the Yavanas. Couple this with the fact that the Shungas were carrying out successful raids into Yavana territory without any apparent Yavana response (Vasumitra's battle on the Sindh, Pushyamitra's campaigns into Punjab and Kashmir, Panini's accounts of Pushyamitra's Rajasuya victory sacrifices) all point to Shunga dominance of North India, not to mention their subjugation of Vidharba.

Also, your drubbing of the Malavikagnimitram is silly because it largely holds true and doesn't go against contemporary accounts. Nowhere does it state that the Shungas captured Mathura and usually doesn't go against the numismatic and archaeological evidences we possess. In fact, the ruins of a Shunga capital at Vidisa was found after the discovery of the Malavikagnimitram, proving to naysayers that the play was mostly historically accurate since many had (like you had mistakenly done) assumed that the Shungas held court only in Pataliputra and had bashed it. This, if the play is largely accurate and doesn't go against contemporary evidence, there is no reason to doubt Shunga victory over Greek forces on the Sindh.

The Northern Satraps did indeed rule over Mathura but they never ruled over the Yaudheyas. Indeed, when Rudraman arrived, the Yaudheyas were loath to submit to him as they considered themselves heroes among kshatriyas. This, combined with the brazenly victorious coins they began to mint in the 1st century BCE clearly show that they had won independence from the Indo-Greeks, an independence they would keep until the arrival of Rudraman, whose Western Satrapy would be defeated by the burgeoning Gupta empire.

Rajeev said:

It is nearly impossible make a coherent chronology using coins. Inscriptions are very few. One has to rely on literary / Puranic sources and see which are supported by cions & inscriptions.

Click to expand...

True, coins and inscriptions are tools of propaganda and while written accounts can be used as such as well, the Malavikagnimitram, which agrees with most contemporary evidences musn't be so easily brushed aside.

Most of Rajputana (Rajasthan) was actually independent of Greek, Saka, and Kushan rule. We see this from the lack of foreign artifacts as well as the large amount of coins from different tribal republics.

dagoat1000 said:

Most of Rajputana (Rajasthan) was actually independent of Greek, Saka, and Kushan rule. We see this from the lack of foreign artifacts as well as the large amount of coins from different tribal republics.

Click to expand...

Apart from fact that Rajputana was arid and quite less important then which makes it harder to mount expedition against them as you gain nothing while expenditure of conquest is itself large, Rajputana was conquered by Scythians. We have inscription of Usavdatt which talks of his donations at Pushkar and then Rudradaman conquered Yaudheyas and most of Rajputana. This is portion of his famous inscription at Junagadh.

Giovanni said:

Apart from fact that Rajputana was arid and quite less important then which makes it harder to mount expedition against them as you gain nothing while expenditure of conquest is itself large, Rajputana was conquered by Scythians. We have inscription of Usavdatt which talks of his donations at Pushkar and then Rudradaman conquered Yaudheyas and most of Rajputana. This is portion of his famous inscription at Junagadh.

Click to expand...

How many Saka inscriptions do we have in Rajputana? Meanwhile, we have much evidence of Malava rule, starting with an inscription at Nagaur as well as hordes of coins of the Malava republic all throughout the Jaipur-Ajmer-Udaipur tract. Some parts of Rajputana were vassalized (south-western part) which were being ruled by Abhiras and Uttamabhadras. Yes, however, it is possible that he could launch a campaign against the Yauhdeyas by passing though his Abhira allied territories.

Edit: Ushavadata was a viceory of the Northern Territories most likely. He was sent against the Malavas who were besieging a Uttamabhadra vassal, which was ruling around Ajmer, it makes sense if he did donate near Pushkar.

TamilWarrior said:

True, coins and inscriptions are tools of propaganda and while written accounts can be used as such as well, the Malavikagnimitram, which agrees with most contemporary evidences musn't be so easily brushed aside.

Click to expand...

Actually this is other way around. Coins and inscriptions are much better than written sources. Inscription of Ashoka shows he ruled large areas while a written text like ShankarDigvijay talks of a ruler who did not even exist. The written sources were composed by writers who were mostly sycophants of kings they chose to flatter.
So far as Malavikagnimitram is concerned, it is not a historical work. It suffers from so many flaws. First it is a play not any historical work. Second, even if it was historical, it is 500 years removed from events. You can not use a film like Panipat to shed light on 1761 battle. Third and most importantly the play gives no details.

Patanjali who was contemporary has mentioned Greeks besieged Saket ( Ayodhya) and Madhyamika. The play by Kalidas nowhere mentions any such thing. Mathura was largest town of Uttar Pradesh and second largest in entire India of times we are talking and it continued being ruled by Greeks and then Shakas.


There should not be any debate as our evidences are so clear.However the blindness generated by nationalistic bigotry has no cure. If Indians advanced into interior Pakistan and Pakistanis call it victory of Pakistan, how are we to judge that? Nationalist bigotry.

dagoat1000 said:

How many Saka inscriptions do we have in Rajputana? Meanwhile, we have much evidence of Malava rule, starting with an inscription at Nagaur as well as hordes of coins of the Malava republic all throughout the Jaipur-Ajmer-Udaipur tract. Some parts of Rajputana were vassalized (south-western part) which were being ruled by Abhiras and Uttamabhadras. Yes, however, it is possible that he could launch a campaign against the Yauhdeyas by passing though his Abhira allied territories.

Edit: Ushavadata was a viceory of the Northern Territories most likely. He was sent against the Malavas who were besieging a Uttamabhadra vassal, which was ruling around Ajmer, it makes sense if he did donate near Pushkar.

Click to expand...

So a power based in Kathiawar did rule areas upto Ajmer ( Pushkar) and decades after him Rudradam inflicted defeat upon Yaudheyas. Rajputana remained mostly free or atleast not directly ruled throughout history precisely because of its location. So even a petty state like Bikaner and Jaisalmer were ruled by their own kings when Mughals had annexed Gujarat and Bengal. Returns from conquering Rajasthan were way less than in other areas.

Malavas were a Punjabi tribe who invaded Rajasthan and became a power there. These Malavas were driven southward by invaders. So in locations where fights took place the Malavas could not hold their position and so retreated to relatively difficult area.

Giovanni said:

So a power based in Kathiawar did rule areas upto Ajmer ( Pushkar) and decades after him Rudradam inflicted defeat upon Yaudheyas. Rajputana remained mostly free or atleast not directly ruled throughout history precisely because of its location. So even a petty state like Bikaner and Jaisalmer were ruled by their own kings when Mughals had annexed Gujarat and Bengal. Returns from conquering Rajasthan were way less than in other areas.

Malavas were a Punjabi tribe who invaded Rajasthan and became a power there. These Malavas were driven southward by invaders. So in locations where fights took place the Malavas could not hold their position and so retreated to relatively difficult area.

Click to expand...

Yes they had influence up to Ajmer, but that was under the control of Vassals. Eastern Rajasthan, however, was under Malava control (we have numismatic evidence to prove this). Also, the Mughals wanted to secure Rajasthan so the path to Gujarat was much easier, and because the Rajputs enjoyed good relationships with them (besides Chandrasen Rathod And Maharana Pratap), thy were given to Rajput zamindars. This is the exact opposite with what we see in some sieges of the Delhi sultanate where the resisting rulers will just killed right away.

Malavas were not a “Punjabi” tribe as “Punjabi” identity didn’t even exist back then, but you are right regarding their movement to the Rajputana to continue their successful resistance against foreigners.

dagoat1000 said:

They only ruled Gujarat. They were defeated by Malavas (who were a confederation of earlier tribes who once resisted Alexander). Ok and? These Sakas were Indianized weren’t they? Also, Northern satraps were limited to Panjab and West UP, the former being completely helpless against any foreign invader, so please do

Click to expand...

"who by force destroyed the Yaudheyas who were loath to submit, rendered proud as they were by having manifested their' title of' heroes among all Kshatriyas; "

Junagadh inscription. Rudradaman had defeated Yaudheyas. Plus, coins of Northern Saka Kshatraps have been found in Mathura region as well. So as it can be found, Northern Saka Kshatraps at least for few decades had ruled over some places of North India including Mathura region. So Yaudheya most likely first were defeated Northern Sakas, later revolted and regain independence(that's why they were considered best among Kshatriyas) then again were defeated by Rudradaman.

1. You would need an empire to that. Mauryans failed utterly to do that as seen by the easy Yavana campaign to Pataliputra.

Click to expand...

Greeks did not reach Pataliputra when Mauryan empire existed. There was no foreign invasion into India as long as first three Mauryan Emperors ruled. So Mauryan empire from 321 to 220s BC in their prime time kept India safe.

2. None of those defeats are “understandable “ but show how India was never willing to untite against a foreign invader. We then see how likes of the Malavas and Yaudheyas could uproot or contain those nomadic powers and that the Gupta could hold its ground until it economically collapsed against the Hunas. Likes of RC Majumdar agree that credit for destroying Kushan power in India go to the tribal republics (also they lost the Sassanid frontier around the same time), but according to some people, the Sassanids victory was more impressive than that of the Indians.

Click to expand...

There is a difference between defeating enemy in pitched battle and revolting conducting insurgency and uprooting Ruler. Yaudheyas or Malavas won by revolt and insurgency, similar to Rana Pratap's insurgency in later days. I am saying this, because we have Indo-Greek, Saka and Kushans coins, inscriptions all over that place. So it is safe to assume, first Yaudheyas and Malavas were defeated pitched battle, they became tributary, then revolted when foreign power became weak and became independent,

3. What makes you think that the Shungas were even economically stable? As I have shown, Indians DID recapture territory up to the Sutlej, but then you claim that these dynasties “fought the Indian way” as your excuse for the defeats of the beloved Indo Greeks and Kushans. Compare Menander to CGM, not a petty king like Pushyamitra (who also repulsed the Indo Greeks). I guess I can compare Genghis Khan to the last Song emperors and therefore conclude that China was inferior to the Mongols/ Steppe nomads in every way! Or I can compare someone like Mihira Bhoja (whom the Arabs feared) to the decaying Byzantine empire which struggled against the Arabs and therefore conclude that India is greater than Rome.

Click to expand...

Pushyamitra was not a petty king when he became King, else Buddhist books would not describe him marching to Sagala. But he became petty King because he failed to exploit the situation properly when Demetrius faced a revolt in Bactria.

China was bounced back to expel Mongols within 90 years and then Mongolia itself became tributary of China. When did Bactria became tributary of India? Will touch Gurjara-Pratihara vs Arab conflict later.

And the Gurjara Pratiharas (who accomplished much more militarily than any of these 2), but then again, I expect some people to claim the Pratiharas as foreign (I hope you don’t believe the foreign origin theory).

Click to expand...

Arabs sacked Ballavi, Gurjara-Pratihara capital once. Further Indian success against early Arab invaders depended on small number of Arab raiders. Can the strength of Arab army deployed in Talas or against Constantinople be equaled to Arab army deployed against India? Nope. Even Arab army that attacked Sindh was bigger. Sindh invading Arab army had no more than 15000. Had Arab authority in Baghdad decided to launch attack on scale as per their attacks against Chinese or Byzantine, India would be overran.

So? Europeans conquering Europe is more impressive than Indians conquering India? . Also, the Sassanids paid tribute to the Kidarites, which never chose to attack India but rather maintain friendly relationships with it. Persia chose to clash with Rome but never clash with an Indian power. Should I claim that Persia was entirely inferior to Macedonia JUST because they were politically unstable and finished off by Alexander the Great? As I said before, if the Janapadas or the tribal republics would unite (which they did in the end and that’s how they got their freedom) initially, then they would’ve been able to “restrict the Foreigners to the frontier” (since victory inside India is not good enough for you). Please stop generalizing Punjab’s ineffectiveness for all of India

Click to expand...

Distance between Rome to London : 1809 km.
Distance between Patna to Peshawar : 1609 Km.

I don't expect Indians to conquest West Asia, but at least Peshawar had to be kept constantly for 300 years as Rome did with London.

Sassanids indeed paid tribute but also defeated them. Guptas too defeated them but then again Guptas were not using Chaturangini Sena, but following Kushan model. Also Huns penetrated as far as Pataliputra which Huns could not in Persia. So it is mixed.

Then what about the Gurjara Pratiharas (who traded for central Asian horses)? What about the Guptas who had heavy cavalry cataphracts? Why would Indian warriors be heavily armored in a very hot place. When the Ajayaraja attacked the Ghaznavids in Nagaur, many of the Turks died because of the heavy armor they were wearing, and Ajayaraja mopped up the rest of the Turks with quite ease and filled the lake with their blood (according to Prithviraja Vijaya).

Click to expand...

You should read about horse trade more. In medieval age, when Turks imported a lot of horse into India, it was also recorded every years large number of horse sdie in India because of extreme heat and Indians can't properly maintain horses. Advantages of heavy armour simply nullifies whatever disadvantage not wearing armour may result.

Read accounts of Greco-Persian wars. Persian missile troops were rendered mostly ineffective by Greek's heavy armour.

Giovanni said:

Actually this is other way around. Coins and inscriptions are much better than written sources. Inscription of Ashoka shows he ruled large areas while a written text like ShankarDigvijay talks of a ruler who did not even exist. The written sources were composed by writers who were mostly sycophants of kings they chose to flatter.
So far as Malavikagnimitram is concerned, it is not a historical work. It suffers from so many flaws. First it is a play not any historical work. Second, even if it was historical, it is 500 years removed from events. You can not use a film like Panipat to shed light on 1761 battle. Third and most importantly the play gives no details.

Patanjali who was contemporary has mentioned Greeks besieged Saket ( Ayodhya) and Madhyamika. The play by Kalidas nowhere mentions any such thing. Mathura was largest town of Uttar Pradesh and second largest in entire India of times we are talking and it continued being ruled by Greeks and then Shakas.

View attachment 30719
There should not be any debate as our evidences are so clear.However the blindness generated by nationalistic bigotry has no cure. If Indians advanced into interior Pakistan and Pakistanis call it victory of Pakistan, how are we to judge that? Nationalist bigotry.

Click to expand...

Coins and inscriptions can give us accurate details of when and were a king ruled, but the propaganda inscribed on them? Highly untrustworthy. For example Gallienus, the Roman emperor, during his highly disastrous reign, minted coins that seemed to proclaim victory. That is what I was talking about.

Second, you state that the Malavikagnimitram is highly untrustworthy but provide no reason why. Other than a few small ahistorical tidbits that were probably added for drama, the play as a whole is historical enough and as long as you can't prove that it is significantly lying about something you can't dismiss it just because it is a play.

Mathura was anjust important city no doubt, but the largest city and most important city in North India at this point was Pataliputra and the fact that the Shungas controlled it is undisputed. Therefore while the Indo Greeks did control an important city, the majority of the Northern Plains and the most important and largest North Indian city was in Shunga hands and though a small part of India was in Yavana hands, the majority of it was held by Indians.

The play doesn't mention the besieging as it is set after these events and focuses on a romance between the king and another woman - it's object isn't to relate history. What it does mention is the horse sacrifice performed by Pushyamitra which was performed as a victorious sacrifice by Pushyamitra after the Yavanas retreated as stated by even Patanjali, an event that is corroborated by Malavikagnimitram, further lending it credibility. This, there is no reason to summarily dismiss the play as nonsense just bevcause it goes against your view of history and the fact remains that, according to literary evidences at least, the Shungas possessed a superior military might to that of the Yavanas.

SSDD said:

"who by force destroyed the Yaudheyas who were loath to submit, rendered proud as they were by having manifested their' title of' heroes among all Kshatriyas; "

Junagadh inscription. Rudradaman had defeated Yaudheyas. Plus, coins of Northern Saka Kshatraps have been found in Mathura region as well. So as it can be found, Northern Saka Kshatraps at least for few decades had ruled over some places of North India including Mathura region. So Yaudheya most likely first were defeated Northern Sakas, later revolted and regain independence(that's why they were considered best among Kshatriyas) then again were defeated by Rudradaman.



Greeks did not reach Pataliputra when Mauryan empire existed. There was no foreign invasion into India as long as first three Mauryan Emperors ruled. So Mauryan empire from 321 to 220s BC in their prime time kept India safe.



There is a difference between defeating enemy in pitched battle and revolting conducting insurgency and uprooting Ruler. Yaudheyas or Malavas won by revolt and insurgency, similar to Rana Pratap's insurgency in later days. I am saying this, because we have Indo-Greek, Saka and Kushans coins, inscriptions all over that place. So it is safe to assume, first Yaudheyas and Malavas were defeated pitched battle, they became tributary, then revolted when foreign power became weak and became independent,



Pushyamitra was not a petty king when he became King, else Buddhist books would not describe him marching to Sagala. But he became petty King because he failed to exploit the situation properly when Demetrius faced a revolt in Bactria.

China was bounced back to expel Mongols within 90 years and then Mongolia itself became tributary of China. When did Bactria became tributary of India? Will touch Gurjara-Pratihara vs Arab conflict later.



Arabs sacked Ballavi, Gurjara-Pratihara capital once. Further Indian success against early Arab invaders depended on small number of Arab raiders. Can the strength of Arab army deployed in Talas or against Constantinople be equaled to Arab army deployed against India? Nope. Even Arab army that attacked Sindh was bigger. Sindh invading Arab army had no more than 15000. Had Arab authority in Baghdad decided to launch attack on scale as per their attacks against Chinese or Byzantine, India would be overran.



Distance between Rome to London : 1809 km.
Distance between Patna to Peshawar : 1609 Km.

I don't expect Indians to conquest West Asia, but at least Peshawar had to be kept constantly for 300 years as Rome did with London.

Sassanids indeed paid tribute but also defeated them. Guptas too defeated them but then again Guptas were not using Chaturangini Sena, but following Kushan model. Also Huns penetrated as far as Pataliputra which Huns could not in Persia. So it is mixed.



You should read about horse trade more. In medieval age, when Turks imported a lot of horse into India, it was also recorded every years large number of horse sdie in India because of extreme heat and Indians can't properly maintain horses. Advantages of heavy armour simply nullifies whatever disadvantage not wearing armour may result.

Read accounts of Greco-Persian wars. Persian missile troops were rendered mostly ineffective by Greek's heavy armour.

Click to expand...

Gross inaccuracies quoted by you that need to be put to rest.

You say that there is a difference between pitched battles and insurgency and I agree, but later on you say that the Chinese are better than Indian since despite being under occupation for 90 years they bounced back and made the Mongols their vassals? WHAT? So now you support insurgencies?

The Yaudheyas indeed did revolt and were unable to put Bactria under their sway, but successive Magadhan empires successfully earned vassalage from Greek, Saka, Kushan, Persian and Hun territories. The China that made Mongolia a vassal wasn't a tiny dominion but a United China and the Indians who made foreign kings and kingdoms their lapdogs were also men who united large swaths of India (including the Yaudheyas who were distinguished parts of both the Mauryan and Guptan empire, serving as senapatis in the Mauryan empire due to their martial valour). You cannot expect a tiny state to conquer a whole another nation - even Greece had to be united by Macedonia (which itself had been under Persian subjugation) before conquering Persia.

Also, you state that the Gurjara Prariharas faced just 15,000 troops. From where are you getting thsee figures? Under Umayyad commanders like Junayd and Hakim, conquest of India was taken quite seriously and many troops were sent, but a large force was destroyed by a much smaller Indian force in the Battle of Rajasthan. The fact that the Arabs were unale, to sufficiently reinforce their commanders from this loss speaks more to their nightmarish logistics than it does to anything Indian.

Also, you are making a silly comparison with Rome, London, Patna and Peshawar. The distance between Patna and the border of Tamil Nadu where their invasions were stopped (or sometimes includes TN if you believe the Raghuvamsa) is roughly 2,000 kilometres, so you argument goes straight crashing out of the window.

You also state that the Guptas were using a Kushan model, but this isn't corroborated by any evidence. While there was an increased use of cavalry and horse archers, the dominant arm was elephants and foot archers as the Raghuvamsa and the Shiva Dhanur Veda clearly show. Please cite your sources where the Guptas made horse archers their dominant arm.

Also you state Indians are weaker than Persians since Huns penetrated directly into India, but the Sassanids paid tribute to the Huns while Indians empires like the Guptas exacted tribute from them and despite the Huns reaching Pataliputra, they were driven out by a Gupta guerilla campaign and Mihirukula was forced to retreat to Kashmir. So please check your sources.

TamilWarrior said:

Gross inaccuracies quoted by you that need to be put to rest.

You say that there is a difference between pitched battles and insurgency and I agree, but later on you say that the Chinese are better than Indian since despite being under occupation for 90 years they bounced back and made the Mongols their vassals? WHAT? So now you support insurgencies?

Click to expand...

Ming China took the war in conventional level after freeing China. Anything even remotely similar to it by Yaudheyas or Malavas?

Yongle Emperor's campaigns against the Mongols - Wikipedia

The Yaudheyas indeed did revolt and were unable to put Bactria under their sway, but successive Magadhan empires successfully earned vassalage from Greek, Saka, Kushan, Persian and Hun territories.

Click to expand...

No Greek empire was ever made vassal of Indian kingdoms. Similarly No Saka kingdom was made vassal of Indian kingdom. Kushans were indeed made vassal but it was in India, not in Central Asia which was their homeland, whereas China made Mongols vassal right in Mongolia itself. Same about Huns. No Persian kingdom was ever made vassal. It was Kushano-Sassanid kingdom. Not Persia proper. I have said this many times.

The China that made Mongolia a vassal wasn't a tiny dominion but a United China and the Indians who made foreign kings and kingdoms their lapdogs were also men who united large swaths of India (including the Yaudheyas who were distinguished parts of both the Mauryan and Guptan empire, serving as senapatis in the Mauryan empire due to their martial valour). You cannot expect a tiny state to conquer a whole another nation - even Greece had to be united by Macedonia (which itself had been under Persian subjugation) before conquering Persia.

Click to expand...

The very fact that China was united, India was not says India was weak. Greece itself is small compared to Persia.

Also, you state that the Gurjara Prariharas faced just 15,000 troops. From where are you getting thsee figures? Under Umayyad commanders like Junayd and Hakim, conquest of India was taken quite seriously and many troops were sent, but a large force was destroyed by a much smaller Indian force in the Battle of Rajasthan. The fact that the Arabs were unale, to sufficiently reinforce their commanders from this loss speaks more to their nightmarish logistics than it does to anything Indian.

Click to expand...

I did not say Gurjara-Pratiharas faced 15,000 troops. That figure is from Chachnama, probably new to you. Chachnama says Kashim had roughly 15000 troops when he attacked Sindh. There is no evidence that Arabs launched any big expedition into India, except localized raids which too resulted in plunder of Vallavi. Also there was no Battle of Rajasthan. There were a series of raids from Sindh, through Rajasthan, collevtively named battle of Rajasthan.

Also, you are making a silly comparison with Rome, London, Patna and Peshawar. The distance between Patna and the border of Tamil Nadu where their invasions were stopped (or sometimes includes TN if you believe the Raghuvamsa) is roughly 2,000 kilometres, so you argument goes straight crashing out of the window.

Click to expand...

Rome constantly ruled London for 300 years whereas Guptas left South India to be ruled by tributary states, Allahabad(Prayagraj) inscription itself says so. Just launching expedition and constantly ruling a place over 1500 km away for 300 years are not same.

You also state that the Guptas were using a Kushan model, but this isn't corroborated by any evidence. While there was an increased use of cavalry and horse archers, the dominant arm was elephants and foot archers as the Raghuvamsa and the Shiva Dhanur Veda clearly show. Please cite your sources where the Guptas made horse archers their dominant arm.

Click to expand...

This part contradicts itself. Raghuvamsa itself says Guptas used horse archers, in fact your post itself says Guptas used horse archery. Traditional Chaturangini model does not use horse archers.

Also you state Indians are weaker than Persians since Huns penetrated directly into India, but the Sassanids paid tribute to the Huns while Indians empires like the Guptas exacted tribute from them and despite the Huns reaching Pataliputra, they were driven out by a Gupta guerilla campaign and Mihirukula was forced to retreat to Kashmir. So please check your sources.

Click to expand...

Sassanids paid tribute, but did not let their capital get plundered. That' why Sassanids did not need to start guerrilla war to push back Huns.

See this :

Second Perso-Turkic War - Wikipedia

First Perso-Turkic War - Wikipedia Persians even captured Samarkhand.

Kavad I - Wikipedia

Sukhra's Hephthalite campaign - Wikipedia

Battle of Gol-Zarriun - Wikipedia

So when Persians indeed paid tribute later they launched counter-attacks right in Central Asia itself and dissolved Huna empire. Whereas Guptas indeed beat back Huns in frontier but later Huns penetrated as far as Malwa and Pataliputra, only to be defeated by guerrilla war.

TamilWarrior said:

I never stated that the Shungas recaptured Mathura, I said that they had a powerful empire that encapsulated most of the Northern plains (which is true even if you take the Sindh to be a tributary of the Yamuna river) and while the Yavanas did have an important city like Mathura under their control, the preeminent city of that period was Pataliputra and the fact that the Shungas had control over this city and most of the Gangetic plains made the Shungas the preeminent powers of North India, not the Yavanas. Couple this with the fact that the Shungas were carrying out successful raids into Yavana territory without any apparent Yavana response (Vasumitra's battle on the Sindh, Pushyamitra's campaigns into Punjab and Kashmir, Panini's accounts of Pushyamitra's Rajasuya victory sacrifices) all point to Shunga dominance of North India, not to mention their subjugation of Vidharba.

Click to expand...

If Shungas had such dominance over North India, why couldn't they eliminate the Yavanas altogether and recapture Mathura, which was a major religious and cultural center of North India? It is quite astonishing how the Shungas could supposedly campaign as far as Kashmir, yet couldn't assert their sovereignty over western UP.

Also, your drubbing of the Malavikagnimitram is silly because it largely holds true and doesn't go against contemporary accounts. Nowhere does it state that the Shungas captured Mathura and usually doesn't go against the numismatic and archaeological evidences we possess. In fact, the ruins of a Shunga capital at Vidisa was found after the discovery of the Malavikagnimitram, proving to naysayers that the play was mostly historically accurate since many had (like you had mistakenly done) assumed that the Shungas held court only in Pataliputra and had bashed it. This, if the play is largely accurate and doesn't go against contemporary evidence, there is no reason to doubt Shunga victory over Greek forces on the Sindh.

Click to expand...

Nobody has doubted Shunga rule over parts of central India, since we have independent archaeological and epigraphic evidence to support this (like the inscriptions at Bharhut). What we lack are independent archaeological and epigraphic evidence to suggest that the Shungas achieved any kind of decisive victory over Yavanas, or that they were the hegemonic power of northern India.

By the way, the Malavikagnimitram does contain details which contradict other accounts. Most notably, the text does not even identify the proper family name of Pushyamitra, i.e. "Shunga." Instead, it describes one "Pushpamitra" as being a member of the "Baimbika" family of Kashyapa gotra. This contradicts what we know about Pushyamitra's lineage from the Puranas and from Panini, who describe Pushyamitra as being a member of the Shunga family, with the Shungas belonging to Bharadvaja gotra according to Panini.

The Northern Satraps did indeed rule over Mathura but they never ruled over the Yaudheyas. Indeed, when Rudraman arrived, the Yaudheyas were loath to submit to him as they considered themselves heroes among kshatriyas. This, combined with the brazenly victorious coins they began to mint in the 1st century BCE clearly show that they had won independence from the Indo-Greeks, an independence they would keep until the arrival of Rudraman, whose Western Satrapy would be defeated by the burgeoning Gupta empire.

Click to expand...

Throughout this discussion, you have been making bold statements as if they are fact, when they are actually conjectures. For example, you say that the Yaudheyas began to mint "brazenly victorious" coins in the 1st century BC. How do you know that? None of the Yaudheya coins even contain any dates, as far as I am aware (if I am wrong, then kindly show some examples). On what basis are you asserting with such confidence that the Yaudheya coins containing legends like Yaudheya-ganasya-jayah began to be minted exactly when the Indo-Greek kings lost power, as proof that "Yaudheyas defeated Greeks"?

The Yaudheyas were present in the territory of modern-day Haryana and east Panjab, lying between the important cities of Sakala and Mathura, which we know were both held by the Greeks and then by the Sakas. In order for a Saka army to pass between Sakala and Mathura, it is necessary to pass through Yaudheya territroy. Ergo, the Yaudheyas must have - at the very least - acquiesced to the passage of Saka armies through their territory. Otherwise, it is physically impossible for Mathura to be part of the Saka kingdom.

Again, this argument is more about whose fighting method, Indian or Greek, is superior and we are going way off topic

Click to expand...

Indeed, we are going somewhat off-topic (though not entirely so, I think). To bring the discussion back on track, I would like to draw an analogy which may be illustrative. Imagine an alternate universe where the following facts are true:

1. A great Indian king (let's call him "Arjun") set out from India and conquered all the lands to the west, as far as the Aegean, and established numerous Indian colonies throughout this vast territory.
2. After Arjun's death, this vast territory was divided among his Indian generals, who established dynasties that would rule for centuries to come.
3. Over a century later, on the fringes of the territory conquered by Arjun (let's say in Thrace), there emerged a notable dynasty of Indo-Thracian kings who became independent and began launching far-flung conquests of their own.
4. These Indo-Thracian kings pushed further west than even Arjun had, and conquered important cities in Greece and Italy. Even great cities like Rome were sacked by the Indo-Thracian kings, as confirmed by both Indian and European accounts.
5. As a result of the Indo-Thracian conquests, people in Greece and Italy adopted a new calendar era called "the era of Indian kings," and there exist inscriptions in Italy which are set in "year 117 of the Indian rule."
6. Coins of the Indo-Thracian kings are found in abundance throughout Greece and Italy, and they contain Sanskrit legends written in Brahmi script.
7. Despite all of this evidence, some European insists that the Indian military system was inferior to the European military system, because European kings continued to rule in areas like northern Italy and Gaul, and because a Greek text written over half a millennium after the Indian invasions of Europe describes a European prince winning a battle against a party of Indians when the latter tried to interfere with a European sacrificial ritual. How would any sane person react to this European?

That is all that I have to say.

dagoat1000 said:

Cholas defeated Mauryans? No way!

Click to expand...

exactly whatever little references I have seen it seemed like Tamil forces were extremely terrified of the Mauryas.

TamilWarrior said:

Coins and inscriptions can give us accurate details of when and were a king ruled, but the propaganda inscribed on them? Highly untrustworthy. For example Gallienus, the Roman emperor, during his highly disastrous reign, minted coins that seemed to proclaim victory. That is what I was talking about.

Second, you state that the Malavikagnimitram is highly untrustworthy but provide no reason why. Other than a few small ahistorical tidbits that were probably added for drama, the play as a whole is historical enough and as long as you can't prove that it is significantly lying about something you can't dismiss it just because it is a play.

Mathura was anjust important city no doubt, but the largest city and most important city in North India at this point was Pataliputra and the fact that the Shungas controlled it is undisputed. Therefore while the Indo Greeks did control an important city, the majority of the Northern Plains and the most important and largest North Indian city was in Shunga hands and though a small part of India was in Yavana hands, the majority of it was held by Indians.

The play doesn't mention the besieging as it is set after these events and focuses on a romance between the king and another woman - it's object isn't to relate history. What it does mention is the horse sacrifice performed by Pushyamitra which was performed as a victorious sacrifice by Pushyamitra after the Yavanas retreated as stated by even Patanjali, an event that is corroborated by Malavikagnimitram, further lending it credibility. This, there is no reason to summarily dismiss the play as nonsense just bevcause it goes against your view of history and the fact remains that, according to literary evidences at least, the Shungas possessed a superior military might to that of the Yavanas.

Click to expand...

It is a play not any historical work. You are asking me to prove negatives which is impossible. Even if historical work such late text does not matter. Prithviraj Raso written just 3 centuries after Prithviraj talks of Prithviraj killing Ghori which is just pure nonsense.

Have you heard of Bhushan? He was Hindi poet who wrote under Shivaji. Shivaji was captured by Aurangzeb but Bhushan writes that Shivaji ran at him with sword and Aurangzeb fled to harem in Agra. He was writing in same time. Also unlike drama he was describing a real event yet the amount of nonsense is incredible.

Rani Lakshmibai of Jhansi was pro British. It were sepoys who forced her to fight against them at pain of death. How do Indian TVs and Films show her? keep in mind She died in 1858 so mere 160 years back. If modern day films and TV dramas which are plays of our times distort history in just 150 years and likes of Bhushan flattered their patron so wildly ,what is credibility of a play written some 500 years after event?

Finally when you are saying 'it goes against your view',it is otherway in reality. Nationalistic stupid bigotry alone creates such stupid debates. What I have said is supported by every side of historians who write on our history.

For instance on Shivaji this is the reality. An avg Marathi bigot can easily believe such opium eater tales.

SSDD said:

Ming China took the war in conventional level after freeing China. Anything even remotely similar to it by Yaudheyas or Malavas?

Click to expand...

Nothing by the Yaudheyas, but the Guptas and Mauryas conquered and subjugated several Central Asian territories as seen by the territories handed over by Seleucus and the conquests of Chandragupta as seen in the Raghuvamsa and as seen in Samudragupta's inscription. If you take the revolt (initially led by the Song who were defeated and later led by the White Lotus) and subsequent conquest of Mongolia (by the Ming) as an overall Chinese achievement, shouldn't you take the revolt (by the Yaudheyas) and the subsequent conquest of Central Asian territories (by the Guptas as stated by the Raghuvamsa) as an overall Indian achievement? Your bias is clearly showing here

SSDD said:

No Greek empire was ever made vassal of Indian kingdoms. Similarly No Saka kingdom was made vassal of Indian kingdom. Kushans were indeed made vassal but it was in India, not in Central Asia which was their homeland, whereas China made Mongols vassal right in Mongolia itself. Same about Huns. No Persian kingdom was ever made vassal. It was Kushano-Sassanid kingdom. Not Persia proper. I have said this many times.

Click to expand...

When Seleucus handed over territory to Chandragupta, these territories held significant Greek populations and modern historians even theorize if the Indo-Greek invasion was to protect said population. So it is clear that for a long period of almost 150 years, many Greeks lived under Mauryan rule. In the end, the Indo-Greeks were vassalized by the Sakas who were themselves vassalized by the Guptas.

Also, no Saka kingdom was made a vassal of an Indian kingdom? Samudragupta begs to differ : "The unimpeded flow (prasara) of the prowess of (whose) arm (was arrested) by an earth embankment (dharaṇi-bandha) put up by means of service through such measures as self-surrender, offering (their own) daughters in marriage and a request for the administration of their own districts and provinces through the Garuda badge, by the Devaputra-Shahi-Shahunashahi (Kushans) and the Śaka (Scythian) lords and by (rulers) occupying all Island countries, such as Simhala and others." - Allahabad inscription

So it seems the pitiful Sakas and Kushans, unable to bear Gupta prowess, offered their daughters in marriage and begged to be able to administer their own territories. You say that only the Kushans in India were subjugated, but by this time, the Kushans ruled mainly in India and the Huns were the premier Central Asian power. Despite this, the Guptas (according to the Raghuvamsa) pushed into Central Asian territory and gained the vassalage of Persian and Hunnic peoples. So your point is rendered invalid anyways, sorry

SSDD said:

The very fact that China was united, India was not says India was weak. Greece itself is small compared to Persia.

Click to expand...

But you yourself accept that most of India was united under the Mauryans and various Magadhan dynasties including the Guptas. So aren't you contradicting yourself? Also, Greece is small compared to Persia, but Persia itself had just come out of a devastating revolt in Egypt and severe coups that had thrown the state into turmoil which exacerbated their situation. Also, Mongolia is small compared to China, yet it held them for 90 years and the Germanic tribes and Arab tribes were smaller than Rome, yet they precipitated the downfall of the Western and Eastern Empire respectively. Seems like your arguments are running into a brick wall here, again

SSDD said:

I did not say Gurjara-Pratiharas faced 15,000 troops. That figure is from Chachnama, probably new to you. Chachnama says Kashim had roughly 15000 troops when he attacked Sindh. There is no evidence that Arabs launched any big expedition into India, except localized raids which too resulted in plunder of Vallavi. Also there was no Battle of Rajasthan. There were a series of raids from Sindh, through Rajasthan, collevtively named battle of Rajasthan.

Click to expand...

Okay, but the figures are for the conquest of Sindh. What proof do you have that the Arabs didn't gather more troops to invade further south, especially as the kingdoms down south were more powerful? Also, while the Arabs did sack Vallabhi, they suffered humiliating defeats at the hands of Bappa Rawal, Gurjaras, Chalukyas and Rashtrakuttas (who had united despite your vehement claims that Indians never did such a thing) at Navsari and other locations, both during the attempts by Junaid and Hakim. Seems like the Arabs are good at plundering defenseless cities but falter when coming up against strong Indian kingdoms lmao. And I know that there was no Battle of Rajasthan, I was just using it as a shorthand

SSDD said:

Rome constantly ruled London for 300 years whereas Guptas left South India to be ruled by tributary states, Allahabad(Prayagraj) inscription itself says so. Just launching expedition and constantly ruling a place over 1500 km away for 300 years are not same.

Click to expand...

But why did the Guptas need to constantly rule the South? As they so eloquently state in the Allahabad inscription, defeated enemies like the Sakas and Kushans begged the Guptas to let them rule their territories whilst bearing the Garuda badge (claiming fealty to the Guptas) and handing over their daughters in marriage and handing over tribute and taxes - why would the Guptas exert direct rule when they can reap the benefits without spending a penny on administration and putting down an occasional revolt and showing everyone who's boss? So while they didn't exert direct authority, they certainly did rule these places and areas in the south as far as Kanchi (which is 2,150 kms btw) were ruled in the name of the Magadhans. If we put together the rule of the Mauryans and the Guptas (with an interlude where the Shungas lost the southern territories) we get a combined period of way more than 300 years when the Magadhans controlled vast swathes of territory way more than the distance between Rome and London.

SSDD said:

This part contradicts itself. Raghuvamsa itself says Guptas used horse archers, in fact your post itself says Guptas used horse archery. Traditional Chaturangini model does not use horse archers.

Click to expand...

Uhhhh I stated that the Guptas didn't rely on horse archers as much as they did on elephants and foot archers, never that they didn't use horse archers. When did I state that? While they did undergo some Central Asian influence, the dominant arm was still elephants (as seen in the Bengal and Kalinga campaigns) and foot archers (as seen in the campaign against the Persians and Huns). This is what I categorically stated. Please show me where the use of horse archers was instrumental in Gupta victory. Even the Raghuvamsa, in the battle against the Persians, simply state that dust was raised and the superior Gupta archers were able to locate their opponents through the twangs of their bows. There is no explicit mention of horse archers being a dominant arm of the Gupta army and being influential in deciding the outcome of a battle.

SSDD said:

Sassanids paid tribute, but did not let their capital get plundered. That' why Sassanids did not need to start guerrilla war to push back Huns.

Click to expand...

Bruh, the Sassanids got whooped by the Huns and paid tribute before their capital got demolished, while the Guptas gave tribute as well, but eventually ambushed the Huns, captured their king, humiliated him, drove them out and restored their glory. That's the difference between Sassanid weakness and Guptan awesomeness

SSDD said:

So when Persians indeed paid tribute later they launched counter-attacks right in Central Asia itself and dissolved Huna empire. Whereas Guptas indeed beat back Huns in frontier but later Huns penetrated as far as Malwa and Pataliputra, only to be defeated by guerrilla war.

Click to expand...

Dude, the Huns basically ruled the Sassanid Empire from 480s CE to 531 CE, a veeerrrry long period of time by which time Narasimha Gupta would have gone from tribute paying loser to military badass at least a hundred times . The Persians counterattacked in Central Asia since it was close to them and the Guptas counter attacked till NW India since it was close to them, there's nothing to it. Also, you seem to forget how Chandragupta invaded Central Asia and made the Huns his puppies as stated by the Raghuvamsa.

As a whole your argument is weak boiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

Giovanni said:

It is a play not any historical work. You are asking me to prove negatives which is impossible. Even if historical work such late text does not matter. Prithviraj Raso written just 3 centuries after Prithviraj talks of Prithviraj killing Ghori which is just pure nonsense.

Have you heard of Bhushan? He was Hindi poet who wrote under Shivaji. Shivaji was captured by Aurangzeb but Bhushan writes that Shivaji ran at him with sword and Aurangzeb fled to harem in Agra. He was writing in same time. Also unlike drama he was describing a real event yet the amount of nonsense is incredible.

Rani Lakshmibai of Jhansi was pro British. It were sepoys who forced her to fight against them at pain of death. How do Indian TVs and Films show her? keep in mind She died in 1858 so mere 160 years back. If modern day films and TV dramas which are plays of our times distort history in just 150 years and likes of Bhushan flattered their patron so wildly ,what is credibility of a play written some 500 years after event?

Finally when you are saying 'it goes against your view',it is otherway in reality. Nationalistic stupid bigotry alone creates such stupid debates. What I have said is supported by every side of historians who write on our history.

For instance on Shivaji this is the reality. An avg Marathi bigot can easily believe such opium eater tales.

View attachment 30725

Click to expand...

Uh, I asked you to prove that the Malavikagnimitram (which is supported by numismatic and archaeological evidence) is spouting falsehoods, but here you are, ranting about Shivaji, Prithviraj and nationalistic propaganda. Are you all right buddy? Stick to the topic at hand