Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > Asian History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Asian History Asian History Forum - China, Japan, Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Asia-Pacific Region


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 13th, 2012, 12:05 AM   #21

kauchenvinci-0's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2012
From: On a chain of Extinct Volcanoes
Posts: 1,503
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Imperial View Post
I think Cholas were the longest ruling dynasty in India, they existed from 300 BCE to the 13th century!!! Thats more than a millenia!
I suppose the early cholas were different from the medieval cholas . They were obscure and receded into background completely in the interregnum ,while the Satavahanas did not get obscured for such a long span of time .
If cholas can be considered as the longest dynasty , then even Cheras , Pandyas and Pallavas can also be considered I reckon.
kauchenvinci-0 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 11th, 2012, 11:03 AM   #22

Bharata's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Forum
Posts: 252

Nice post
Bharata is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 09:14 PM   #23
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: varanasi uttar pradesh, india
Posts: 1,610

Quote:
Originally Posted by manas teja View Post
thanks to the colonial legacy
It is Nehruvian and marxist legacy than colonial legacy.
avantivarman is offline  
Old November 23rd, 2012, 09:17 PM   #24
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: varanasi uttar pradesh, india
Posts: 1,610

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord_of_Gauda View Post
The Satavahana Dynasty lasted for about 450 years ( 220s BCE to 220s CE).

However, the Satavahana Empire did not last that long:

a) Satavahanas were, most likely, feudatories of the Mauryas. The Mauryan adiministration would've relegated them to governing a few cities at most, under a regional governor, who was answerable to the Emperor.

b) Purainc sources mention that Satakarni was the first major Satavahana ruler- it is unclear even if the Satavahanas declared idependence before the demise of the Mauryan Empire- it is likely, but not before 195-190 BCE, as mauryan empire was still quite powerful for a few decades after Ashoka's rule.

c) While Satakarni was quite succesful and ruled for 55 years, which included conquest of most of peninsular India ( he subjugated kalinga after Kharavela's death, he also had dominance over the Tamil princes), his dynasty became obscure after his death, which is estimated to've been around 135 BCE.

From then on, the Satavahanas gradually lost ground to the Sunga Empire, which extended its frontier deep into Satavahana lands, up to just 200 kms from their capital, Pratisthana. The Satavahanas accepted overlordship from the Sungas, while they accepted Vassal status to the Sunga successors, the Kanvas.

Thus, from between 130-30 BCE, the Satavahanas were not really an empire, they were a feudatory of the Sungas and the Kanvas.

However, they overthrew the Kanvas around 30 BCE and conquered Pataliputra. This most likely happened during the rule of Mahendra Satakarni or Kuntala Satakarni.
However, little is known about the Satavahana rule over Northern India: we do know that Pataliputra came under the influence, but it is most likely that they appointed vassal kings from the native rulership instead of ruling directly north of the vindhyas.

The revival of the Satavahanas come under the famous Gautamiputra Satakarni, who ruled between 78 CE-100s CE and he was the first to beat the invading Kushans that had taken over the numerous little kingdoms and city-states that rose in the aftermath of the decline of the Kanvas.

His two sons ruled for another 50 years after him, from which point on, the Satavahana influence began to weaken, as it coincides with the peak of the Kushan influence in India

Thus, we can say that the Satavahana 'empire' was roughly from 180 BCE-130 BCE, then again from 30 BCE-220 CE, thus making it a span of around 300 years.



the true fact is that Satvahanas were not earlier than first century bc.

I am amazed how such a myth is still used by scholars like you on this forum.
avantivarman is offline  
Old November 24th, 2012, 05:01 AM   #25
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: varanasi uttar pradesh, india
Posts: 1,610

The longest ruling dynasty in India is that of Chalukyas from 543 ad to 1200 ad and in Goa till 1369 when Mahmud Gavan was able to extinguish this great dynasty.

unlike cholas and cheras, the chalukyas were related so Badami, Kalyani and vengi Chalukyas all were related to each other and we have nuismastical as well as epigraphical evidence for this.
avantivarman is offline  
Old November 24th, 2012, 11:49 PM   #26

Bharata's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Forum
Posts: 252

Quote:
Originally Posted by avantivarman View Post
The longest ruling dynasty in India is that of Chalukyas from 543 ad to 1200 ad and in Goa till 1369 when Mahmud Gavan was able to extinguish this great dynasty.

unlike cholas and cheras, the chalukyas were related so Badami, Kalyani and vengi Chalukyas all were related to each other and we have nuismastical as well as epigraphical evidence for this.
Chalukya raja was also responsible for naming the town[could be the case for many others towns] where i live in an inscription was found on stone


Dated around 1100 ad
Bharata is offline  
Old November 25th, 2012, 01:12 AM   #27
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: varanasi uttar pradesh, india
Posts: 1,610

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bharata View Post
Chalukya raja was also responsible for naming the town[could be the case for many others towns] where i live in an inscription was found on stone


Dated around 1100 ad
where do you live ?

are you talking about great Vikramaditya chalukya as his date is of same period?
avantivarman is offline  
Old November 25th, 2012, 01:35 AM   #28

Bharata's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Forum
Posts: 252

The name "Bowenpally" derives from Bhuvanapalli. It is named after the King of Chalukya, Trailokya Malla Bhuvanesvara, from the 10th century. The State Archeology Department found an inscription on a pillar dating from the Chalukya times, thus confirming the name.
Bharata is offline  
Old November 25th, 2012, 03:28 AM   #29

kauchenvinci-0's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: May 2012
From: On a chain of Extinct Volcanoes
Posts: 1,503
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bharata View Post
The name "Bowenpally" derives from Bhuvanapalli. It is named after the King of Chalukya, Trailokya Malla Bhuvanesvara, from the 10th century. The State Archeology Department found an inscription on a pillar dating from the Chalukya times, thus confirming the name.
is it the same bowenpally of hyderabad ?
kauchenvinci-0 is offline  
Old November 25th, 2012, 05:04 AM   #30

Bharata's Avatar
Lecturer
 
Joined: Nov 2012
From: Forum
Posts: 252

Quote:
Originally Posted by manas teja View Post
is it the same bowenpally of hyderabad ?
yes.....
Bharata is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > Asian History

Tags
conditions, economic, political, religious, satavahanas


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Living Conditions in the Roman Empire Salah Ancient History 41 October 18th, 2013 03:50 AM
16th and 17th century religious and political centralization? wayytoognar European History 1 May 8th, 2012 01:16 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.