underrated Nanda empire territorial extension?

Apr 2018
69
Ayodhya
#12
Have you checked out Pliny's geography of India? His work is based on those who accompanied him in his conquest of Magadha (in 303 BC, with CGM). If my memory serves me right, then the India described is a severely fragmented one, with Nanda influence only existing in Madha and srrounding area in the Ganges belt in UP. Even Kalinga was a separate kingdom then, as it had gained independence.
 
Mar 2019
1,535
KL
#14
fragmentation probably also doesnt mean that nanda power had vanished, probably the same case as alexander's fragmented empire where men in charge or the governors appointed by him had declared independence and ruling the regions independently and may not mean that the local rulers had completely ousted the nandas. same happened with the dehli sultanate as well whose fragemntation only resulted in fragmentary foreign turkic rule in diff parts of india.

one point to ponder as well, if the nandas indeed survived till year 303 BC, the conservative count of their era i-e 26 years would not put nandas even after alexander's conquest but after it or just few years before alexander's conquest.

regards
 
Apr 2018
69
Ayodhya
#15
one point to ponder as well, if the nandas indeed survived till year 303 BC, the conservative count of their era i-e 26 years would not put nandas even after alexander's conquest but after it or just few years before alexander's conquest.
I consider the Jain tradition more reliable in terms of chronology and skeleton of events. It says that the Nandas ruled for 155 years, which makes sense given that the Hathigumpha inscription suggests that the Nandas ruled for a minimum of 103 years.
 
Mar 2019
1,535
KL
#16
yeah i as well think jain dates on nandas are the most reliable because their description of the nandas match with the greek accounts. i think that choosing nanda rule of twenty something year is the most conservative estimate available from any indian source possible. similarly their empire extension is the most conservative the western scholars can agree on. conservative dating is nothing new for indology, since there is a big legacy of colonial scholars questioning early archaeological dates.

regards
 
Mar 2019
1,535
KL
#17
2. It is only possible to indicate very briefly such points of information obtained as seem to be
of special historical importance. Some of the most interesting inscriptions are those which confirm
the tradition ot the rule of the Gupta kings in the Mysore country. One, at the ruined town of
Bandanikke, has a valuable verse to the following effect, summing up the list of the ruling dynasties : —

‘ the Kuntala country (which included the north-western parts of Mysore and the southern parts of the
Bombay Presidency) was ruled by the nava-Nanda, Gupta-kula, Mauryya kings ; then the Rattas ruled
it : after whom weie the Chalukyas ; then the Kalachuryya family ; and after them the (Hoysala)
Ballalas.'’ Another, at Kubatur, expressly states that Chandra Gupta ruled the Naga-khanda in the
south of the Bharata-kshetra of Jambu dvipa : this is the Nagara-khanda Seventy of so many
inscriptions, of which Bandanikke seems to have been the chief town. And fuidher, a record to be
noticed below says that the daughters of the Kadamba king were given in marriage to the Guptas.
some user civfanatic says that indians forgot the mauryas and the colonists discovered mauryan empire, ashoka etc, this data is probably a tight slap on all those faces who believe indians forgot their history and colonists gave it to them to be proud of, a colonial era notion propagating that they discovered indian history, if thats the case, fail to understand how the tenth century kannada inscription remembers the mauryans, nandas, guptas etc?

probably the same reason why the eurocentric scholars are not able to digest nanda empire, mauryan empire and gupta empire being as big as the dehli, mughal or the british one, and planting fake history or omitting from it.

same idea of north and south indian division crap and aryan vs dravidian crap, the history itslf debunks this garbage. the term jamubudvipa also shows existence of the concept of one polity atleast in geopolitical sense.

regards
 
Last edited:
Likes: Bharata
Nov 2012
294
Forum
#18
some user civfanatic says that indians forgot the mauryas and the colonists discovered mauryan empire, ashoka etc, this data is probably a tight slap on all those faces who believe indians forgot their history and colonists gave it to them to be proud of, a colonial era notion propagating that they discovered indian history, if thats the case, fail to understand how the tenth century kannada inscription remembers the mauryans, nandas, guptas etc?

probably the same reason why the eurocentric scholars are not able to digest nanda empire, mauryan empire and gupta empire being as big as the dehli, mughal or the british one, and planting fake history or omitting from it.

same idea of north and south indian division crap and aryan vs dravidian crap, the history itslf debunks this garbage. the term jamubudvipa also shows existence of the concept of one polity atleast in geopolitical sense.

regards
Interesting that it mentions rattas before chalukyas . Does it mean Badami Chalukyas didn't directly conquer the Kuntala country but instead did it through rashtrakutas ?
 

Similar History Discussions