Were the Mauryans vassals of the Seleucids?

Apr 2018
57
Ayodhya
View attachment 17735

here you go, seems to have been a popular motif of depicting mahaut getting attacked by spearman from the back through the ages in the indian art, nothing but an artistic rendition, as i already stated. That coin also resembles saurashtra coin and typical indian art and nothing else, nothing greek about it as well.

View attachment 17736

Painting of mahout under attack from spearman, Mughal dynasty, India, late 16th century. The British museum, London

Stock Photo - . English: Painting illustrating an elephant with his mahout attacked by a spearman on horse. Void background. No text. Painted in opaque watercolour on paper. Two miniatures

as i said europeans need better research.

regards
Ashoka, I don't quite see the point you are making here... Sure, attacking the mahout may have been a "theme", as you say. Man Singh's mahout is also depicted as being killed by Rana Pratap's spear in Haldighati. But how does this "theme" suggest that a howdah was used in war, back then. If a howdah was used, I would have expected the cavalry soldier to pierce a mahout located in a howdah on the elephant.

Sure, the Europeans may need better research, but you also need to look at the evidence at hand carefully, before jumping to conclusions...
 
May 2019
51
Earth
I just came across the paper, "The Maurya dynasty and the Seleucids", by Hartmut Scharfe (link given below). He has argued that the Mauryans ruled as vassals of the Seleucids. He says that after Chandragupta conquered Alexander's satraps in the Northwest, Seleucus invaded and that the two eventually formed a peace treaty, with Chandragupta agreeing to vassalage, just like Porus did with Alexander some years back. After Porus' defeat, he was given the additional territories of Ambhi and made a member of Alexander's "close friends of the king", who formed his political council. In return, he was expected to supply some elephants and troops for Alexander. Hartmut Scharfe finds a striking resemblance between that treaty and the Mauryan-Seleucid one. In the latter, Chandragupta was given the territories of Seleucus in Afghanistan, to rule in as a vassal. In return, he had to give up 500 elephants. That is the argument Scharfe makes.

He also provides an explanation for the Devanampriya title of Ashoka. Major rock edict 8, (Shahbazgarhi version), starts by saying: "In times past the Devanampriyas (Kings) used to set out on so-called pleasure-tours..." Hence, he takes this to mean that Ashoka's predecessors also had the Devanampriya title. As we know from inscriptions, Dasharatha Maurya also held that Devanampriya title. Hartmut Scharfe quotes a verse from Panini, where the latter says: "Before the second word of a compound, there is a non-disappearance of the genitive ending, if the compound expresses an insult". Hence we have caurasya-kulam (clan of robbers), instead of caura-kulam. So, he follows the logic and says that if devanampriya was an honorific title in Ashoka's days, then wouldn't there be a disappearance of the ending of the first word in that compound (devanam)? This, to him, suggests that devanampriya was an insult, even in Ashoka's days. So why would Ashoka bear a title that is in reality an insult? The Indic texts don't provide a solution.

To explain the the origin of Devanampriya (beloved of the gods), he looks at perhaps a foreign influence. He thinks that Devanampriya comes from the translation of the hellenistic court title, "friend of the kings", that was employed by the vassals of Alexander (and his successors). Since it was a trend to deify Hellenistic kings (as is what happened to Indian kings), the "Devanampriya" title, which is usually translated as "friend/beloved of the gods", may infact mean "friend of the king". That is to say, it may infact be a title for one of the vassals of the Hellenistic king. To support his argument, he directs the reader to the Aramic inscriptions of Ashoka in Kandahar and Taxila. In those inscriptions, devanampriya is translated as "mr'n" (marAn), the title given in the Elephantine Papyri to the Achaemenid Satraps of Egypt and Judea. Scharfe further say "is it thinkable that the Mauryan rulers were not sovereign?" Scharfe concludes that all this suggests that the Mauryan rulers from Chandragupta down (all of whom had the Devanampriya title), were Satraps of the Seleucids. In 206 BC, Antiochus III cross the Hindu Kush and renewed his alliance with the Mauryan ruler of India, Sophagasenus (Subhagasena?). The latter gave some elephants to Antiochus III as well. Could this be a renewal of the vassalship of the Mauryas that was temporarily terminated by the revolts in Bactria and Parthia that were occurring in the reign of Antiochus II?

What are your thoughts on this paper? Please do read and share your views...

The Maurya dynasty and the Seleucids on JSTOR
Excellent post.

Chandragupta like Chankya was from Taxila, a vassel state of Alexander the great so it's not hard to believe that this punjabi king was ready to become a Greek vassal state.

Army of Chandragupta was also non Indian as he was a punjabi.

Mudrarakshasamentions that Chandragupta's army consisted of Sakas(Scythian), Yavanas (Greeks), Kiratas, Kambojas(nomadic c.asian Iranians), Parasika(Persian)s, and Bahlikas(Bactrians) etc.

Mauryan empire was a punjabi king with central asian army ruling India, possibility as 2md in command to Greeks.

The army who conquered Pataliputra is describeda s . ""Kusumapura was besieged from every direction by the forces of Parvata and Chandragupta: Shakas, Yavanas, Kiratas, Kambojas, Parasikas, Bahlikas and others, assembled on the advice of Chanakya" in Mudrarakshasa 2
 
Mar 2019
1,473
KL
when it comes to indian history for colonial standard scholarship it becomes a conspiracy

mauryans were vassals of greeks who were themselves of persian heritage. and pataliputra was planed by cyrus the persian using perso greeko romano celto germano architects. Punjabis were purest persian aryans who purified indians with their genetics.

aryans migrated to india and gave birth to a european colony, with brahmin using european genetics to enslave dravidian or Austronesian aboriginal indians as shudra.

eurocentric scholarship is not much different then hindu nationalists or afrocenrics, its only their conspiracies get published as research papers, if we replace them with afrocentrics, the history will be changed from europe to africans with everything originating from ancient egypt.

mohenjo daro was also created by iranian farmers who brought wheat crops with them

regards
 
Last edited:

Haakbus

Ad Honorem
Aug 2013
3,716
United States
Can we just ignore the nationalists (and such accusations) of one stripe or another (why do we make them relevant?) and just deal with the evidence and sources?
 
Likes: Aelfwine
Apr 2019
294
India
Mudrarakshasamentions that Chandragupta's army consisted of Sakas(Scythian), Yavanas (Greeks), Kiratas, Kambojas(nomadic c.asian Iranians), Parasika(Persian)s, and Bahlikas(Bactrians) etc.
Since when Mudrarakshash has become historic work? It is work of fiction based upon historic events with historic characters. It was written in Gupta era by same writer who also wrote Devichandraguptam.
Mudrarakshasa has so many unrealistic events.

But still if you want to take the drama seriously then it clearly mentions that Chandragupta was sired by last Nanda king himself but his mother was an unmarried barberess. So he was a Bihari according to the drama. Chanakya was a brahmin and brahmin used to travel all over India after completing their formal education. So he reached Patliputra after completing his education in the drama. Just because he studied in Taksha-shila didn't mean he was born there. According to the drama he was very dark- skinned so he could also belong to southern part of India.
 
Mar 2019
1,473
KL
Since when Mudrarakshash has become historic work? It is work of fiction based upon historic events with historic characters. It was written in Gupta era by same writer who also wrote Devichandraguptam.
Mudrarakshasa has so many unrealistic events.

But still if you want to take the drama seriously then it clearly mentions that Chandragupta was sired by last Nanda king himself but his mother was an unmarried barberess. So he was a Bihari according to the drama. Chanakya was a brahmin and brahmin used to travel all over India after completing their formal education. So he reached Patliputra after completing his education in the drama. Just because he studied in Taksha-shila didn't mean he was born there. According to the drama he was very dark- skinned so he could also belong to southern part of India.
maurya had saka, yavana, kambhoja soldiers because the guy conquered those territories

even the ghaznavids had indian soldiers and vijayanagar had turkic soldiers, what does that mean? nothing diddly crap

these pity arguments are only made by petty scholars or people who seem to make petty logic

in some another thread the guy declared rigvedic kikatas as punjabis who have been accepted as magadhans, now he declares mauryans as punjabis who were magadhans as well :lol:

probably towing some specific ethnic or anti-ethnic nationalism nothing else.

regards
 
Likes: Dewal
Jan 2019
159
Valencia
maurya had saka, yavana, kambhoja soldiers because the guy conquered those territories

even the ghaznavids had indian soldiers and vijayanagar had turkic soldiers, what does that mean? nothing diddly crap

these pity arguments are only made by petty scholars or people who seem to make petty logic

in some another thread the guy declared rigvedic kikatas as punjabis who have been accepted as magadhans, now he declares mauryans as punjabis who were magadhans as well :lol:

probably towing some specific ethnic or anti-ethnic nationalism nothing else.

regards
It’s quite funny when you think about it. Chandragupta Maurya was supposedly a Punjabi but he and his descendants all spoke Magadhi Prakrit? Ashokan edicts are all in Magadhi Prakrit.

This sort of Afrocentrist style historical revisionism makes sense in hindsight. Punjabis historically have been the doormats of South Asia who have consistently been conquered and ravaged by outside invaders. Hence they need to claim other people’s history.
 
Likes: Ashoka maurya