Facts about Chandragupta & Chanakya

A propos the "ahistorical script" critique and this post in particular, I would like to make two points.

First the particular.

It is completely inaccurate to claim that Alexander managed to capture a large part of India. Nothing could be farther from the truth. All he captured was part of northwest India, much of which is today in Pakistan, and even there, a good part consisted of kingdoms like Takshashila that submitted to Alexander and continued to be ruled by the same kings, but now as Alexander's subordinates.

The key battle that Alexander fought during his all too brief campaign in India was the Battle of the Hydapses, on the banks of the Jhelum river, against Raja Purushottam aka Porus. I would like to share with those of you who are interested the following article on this battle, and following from that, a very plausible explanation of why Alexander decided to retreat from India.

This covers one of the most interesting accounts of why Alexander did not venture deeper into India, is the take on the Battle of the Hydapses, by one of the greatest generals of all time, Marshal Zhukhov, the legendary Soviet WWII hero.

It can be seen at

http://in.rbth.com/blogs/2013/05/27/marshal_zhukov_on_alexanders_failed_india_invasion_25383

and it throws an entirely new light on the battle itself, and on the circumstances surrounding Alexander's decision to retreat.

Marshal Zhukov discussed this thesis while addressing the cadets at the Indian Military Academy in Dehra Dun in 1957. He cited both the Greek historian Plutarch (who later became a Roman citizen!) and Roman historians like and Marcus Justinius among others.

In fact he compared Alexander's retreat from India to Napoleon's disastrous retreat from Russia in 1812, and he asserts that the Macedonian army was so demoralised at the cost of their "victory" in the battle that they were close to mutiny at the idea of going deeper into India and facing the powerful armies they had heard of, including that of Dhananand.

Naturally Greek historians would have whitewashed all this for posterity - though Plutarch seems to have been surprisingly honest about what actually happened - but it is a thrilling account that makes one proud of our fighting men in that age.

There is also an interesting account of Alexander's siege of Multan, in present day Pakistan, on his way back out of India, in which he suffered a very painful lung injury that affected him from then till his death. This can be seen at

http://tribune.com.pk/story/215087/alexander-in-multan/

and the writer is a noted and objective Pakistani historian. Salman Rashid.

I am sure you will enjoy both these articles.

Now the general this is a distortion of the real history argument. Here, let us look into two aspects, one, the actual amount of reasonably authentic historical data in Chandra Nandini thus far, and two, the difference between historical fiction and real history.

For the first, if you read serious sources on Mauryan and pre-Mauryan history, you will realise how much uncertainty there is about almost everything. ? For example, were the Nine Nandas the sons of Maha Padmanand or were he and they brothers? The historians are not sure. So, the confusion about whom Chandragupta toppled, Maha Padmanand or Dhananand, is hardly surprising, though most accounts plump for Dhananand. If anyone were to claim that he alone knows the "real" history of the period, one should be decidedly wary of him!😉

But one thing seems certain according to serious academics, who go by Buddhist, Jain and Greek chronicles of the period and the Arthashastra, which is that the founder of the Nanda dynasty was either a barber or the son of a barber. That means that Ekta's naapit who became the king is authentic.

Similarly,the Buddhist chronicles attribute royal lineage to Chandragupta, as belonging to the same Sakya clan as Siddhartha Gautama, who later became the Buddha. Piplivahan and Suryagupta fit in here, and are not, as I initially assumed, natakiya rupantar. In fact I was surprised by the extent of historical backing of one sort or another for the narrative so far.

We are not here to write a thesis on Chandragupta Maurya, and very little is known about his personal life anyway! So. it would be a good idea not to fret constantly about "history" and instead see whether one likes the acting and the narrative in general. And on both counts, especially the first, above all Rajat's performance, Chandra Nandini is doing very well.

One has also to remember that if anyone today were to make a clinically historical Chandragupta Maurya serial, like Chandrprakash Dwivedi's extensively researched and meticulously recreated depiction of that era, the 1990 Chanakya, it would not last 2 months.

It is very interesting to read Abhay (history_geek)'s latest about the pre-Mauryan dynasties, especially the Nanda dynasty, as also his earlier one about the origins of Chandragupta Maurya, just for personal information. He is very careful to mention the alternative theories, as he is a serious researcher.

As for the difference between historical fiction and history, I cannot do better that quote in full a recent post by my young friend Shailaja on my last thread, and I am sure she will not mind it.

"My friend you are in the wrong place if you are looking for historical accuracy. It is a costume and period drama. Moreover for the small mercies it is named Chandra Nandini to tell eternal optimists like us that this is a love story and not a history.

I guess the genre definition Historical Fiction ought to enlighten us to the fact that there might be a lot of fiction and very less of history or even nothing of history. According to its very categorization, you could call it a historical fiction if you have a few names and events lifted from history. Your take on them could be entirely different and might not even fall within the historical timeline. Still you would be justified in calling it historical fiction.

You'd perhaps be surprised to know that Shakespeare's Historical Plays adopted a timeline which did not coincide with the historical timeline neither did he stay close or true to history. It was his own imaginary take on history and it was what sold during his times as entertainment. Many famous historical novelists like Walter Scott did the same thing. They too were no pujaris of history. They too wrote what was entertaining and what sold!

If it was a documentary, or a text book on history, I could have understood your logic. Even there, there are times when we find history missing or distorted. Watch the series with an open mind you will find a lot in it to like as well. Dislike also becomes a habit if we give it too much importance. A stage comes when nothing could please us or keep us happy. "

I do not mean to try and put anything or anyone down, so I hope that you will take the above in the right spirit and not get upset about it.

Finally, it is of course your decision to take, to chill, and try and enjoy the good things in the show - like Rajat's performance and to a lesser extent, Chanakya - instead of indulging in doom and gloom! Look at me! I am surely very much older than any of you are, and I have been a hard core professional, an Indian diplomat of all of 38 years till I retired. Still I am able to have fun with this because right now, it is worth my time. When it fails to measure up, as happened with Jodha Akbar after about 220 episodes, I shall quit.

Shyamala B.Cowsik

Originally posted by: shrinath

Guys,

Ekta who is known for fictional shows should not have attempted such a show. First she made Jodha Akbar which was compleatly away from History. Well when fictional show makers make historic shows they should at least have common sense to understand that people have at least studied some thing in school, they have some idea about the historic character.

Chandragupta Maurya & Chanakya topple Dhanananda & take over Maghadh, Dhanananda is Mahapadmananda's son. Now in the show they are showing Chanakya & Chandragupta going to topple Mahapadmananda to take over Maghadh. Yes according to History Chandragupta marries Dhurandhara, some say she was Dhanananda's daughter, Chandragupta marries her under instance of Chanakya as the latter feel that by doing so Dhanananda's supporters will not revolt against Chandragupta in future. It was a political, & strategical alliance by Chanakya, & not a love story. Bindusara is the child of Dhurandra & Chandragupta.

Ekta is interpreting history in her own way, she is mixing things.

According to history, When Alexander the great (Unanis) attack India Chanakya tries that all the Kings of Indian subcontinent assemble under one flag & resist Unani invasion. But things don't work as per his plan, Dhanananda Emperor of Maghadh also says no, Chanakya thought that Maghadh being the most Powerful kingdom in India at that time should lead the united army. But that plan failed as Dhanananda said no. Chanakya all plan fails & Alexander by that time Manages to capture large Part of India.

Then after Alexander goes from India, with the support of his students Chanakya leads revolt against Unanis, with Chandragupta leading it, they gather huge army of Mercenary fighters also. Chandragupta first targets all the territory directly ruled by Unani governors. People of these places volunteerly accept Chandragupta as there King, thus Chandragupta manages to put platform for his kingdom. Then after ending Unani rule in those places Chanakya & Chandragupta turn towards Maghadh.

According to History & a serial long ago made on Chanakya, Chanakya knows that Maghadh being a powerful state & Patliputhra the capital well protected, it will not be easy to capture by directly attacking it. So he triggers a civil war like situation inside Patliputhra in which Dhanananda's sons are killed. Under shock of what happend, Dhanananda surrenders Maghadh to Chandragupta & latter Chanakya arrests & sends Dhanananda to exile. In some accounts say Chanakya orders Dhanananda to be killed.

Originally posted by: sashashyam

A propos the "ahistorical script" critique and this post in particular, I would like to make two points.

First the particular.

It is completely inaccurate to claim that Alexander managed to capture a large part of India. Nothing could be farther from the truth. All he captured was part of northwest India, much of which is today in Pakistan, and even there, a good part consisted of kingdoms like Takshashila that submitted to Alexander and continued to be ruled by the same kings, but now as Alexander's subordinates.

The key battle that Alexander fought during his all too brief campaign in India was the Battle of the Hydapses, on the banks of the Jhelum river, against Raja Purushottam aka Porus. I would like to share with those of you who are interested the following article on this battle, and following from that, a very plausible explanation of why Alexander decided to retreat from India.

This covers one of the most interesting accounts of why Alexander did not venture deeper into India, is the take on the Battle of the Hydapses, by one of the greatest generals of all time, Marshal Zhukhov, the legendary Soviet WWII hero.

It can be seen at

http://in.rbth.com/blogs/2013/05/27/marshal_zhukov_on_alexanders_failed_india_invasion_25383

and it throws an entirely new light on the battle itself, and on the circumstances surrounding Alexander's decision to retreat.

Marshal Zhukov discussed this thesis while addressing the cadets at the Indian Military Academy in Dehra Dun in 1957. He cited both the Greek historian Plutarch (who later became a Roman citizen!) and Roman historians like and Marcus Justinius among others.

In fact he compared Alexander's retreat from India to Napoleon's disastrous retreat from Russia in 1812, and he asserts that the Macedonian army was so demoralised at the cost of their "victory" in the battle that they were close to mutiny at the idea of going deeper into India and facing the powerful armies they had heard of, including that of Dhananand.

Naturally Greek historians would have whitewashed all this for posterity - though Plutarch seems to have been surprisingly honest about what actually happened - but it is a thrilling account that makes one proud of our fighting men in that age.

There is also an interesting account of Alexander's siege of Multan, in present day Pakistan, on his way back out of India, in which he suffered a very painful lung injury that affected him from then till his death. This can be seen at

http://tribune.com.pk/story/215087/alexander-in-multan/

and the writer is a noted and objective Pakistani historian. Salman Rashid.

I am sure you will enjoy both these articles.

Now the general this is a distortion of the real history argument. Here, let us look into two aspects, one, the actual amount of reasonably authentic historical data in Chandra Nandini thus far, and two, the difference between historical fiction and real history.

For the first, if you read serious sources on Mauryan and pre-Mauryan history, you will realise how much uncertainty there is about almost everything. ? For example, were the Nine Nandas the sons of Maha Padmanand or were he and they brothers? The historians are not sure. So, the confusion about whom Chandragupta toppled, Maha Padmanand or Dhananand, is hardly surprising, though most accounts plump for Dhananand. If anyone were to claim that he alone knows the "real" history of the period, one should be decidedly wary of him!😉

But one thing seems certain according to serious academics, who go by Buddhist, Jain and Greek chronicles of the period and the Arthashastra, which is that the founder of the Nanda dynasty was either a barber or the son of a barber. That means that Ekta's naapit who became the king is authentic.

Similarly,the Buddhist chronicles attribute royal lineage to Chandragupta, as belonging to the same Sakya clan as Siddhartha Gautama, who later became the Buddha. Piplivahan and Suryagupta fit in here, and are not, as I initially assumed, natakiya rupantar. In fact I was surprised by the extent of historical backing of one sort or another for the narrative so far.

We are not here to write a thesis on Chandragupta Maurya, and very little is known about his personal life anyway! So. it would be a good idea not to fret constantly about "history" and instead see whether one likes the acting and the narrative in general. And on both counts, especially the first, above all Rajat's performance, Chandra Nandini is doing very well.

One has also to remember that if anyone today were to make a clinically historical Chandragupta Maurya serial, like Chandrprakash Dwivedi's extensively researched and meticulously recreated depiction of that era, the 1990 Chanakya, it would not last 2 months.

It is very interesting to read Abhay (history_geek)'s latest about the pre-Mauryan dynasties, especially the Nanda dynasty, as also his earlier one about the origins of Chandragupta Maurya, just for personal information. He is very careful to mention the alternative theories, as he is a serious researcher.

As for the difference between historical fiction and history, I cannot do better that quote in full a recent post by my young friend Shailaja on my last thread, and I am sure she will not mind it.

"My friend you are in the wrong place if you are looking for historical accuracy. It is a costume and period drama. Moreover for the small mercies it is named Chandra Nandini to tell eternal optimists like us that this is a love story and not a history.

I guess the genre definition Historical Fiction ought to enlighten us to the fact that there might be a lot of fiction and very less of history or even nothing of history. According to its very categorization, you could call it a historical fiction if you have a few names and events lifted from history. Your take on them could be entirely different and might not even fall within the historical timeline. Still you would be justified in calling it historical fiction.

You'd perhaps be surprised to know that Shakespeare's Historical Plays adopted a timeline which did not coincide with the historical timeline neither did he stay close or true to history. It was his own imaginary take on history and it was what sold during his times as entertainment. Many famous historical novelists like Walter Scott did the same thing. They too were no pujaris of history. They too wrote what was entertaining and what sold!

If it was a documentary, or a text book on history, I could have understood your logic. Even there, there are times when we find history missing or distorted. Watch the series with an open mind you will find a lot in it to like as well. Dislike also becomes a habit if we give it too much importance. A stage comes when nothing could please us or keep us happy. "

I do not mean to try and put anything or anyone down, so I hope that you will take the above in the right spirit and not get upset about it.

Finally, it is of course your decision to take, to chill, and try and enjoy the good things in the show - like Rajat's performance and to a lesser extent, Chanakya - instead of indulging in doom and gloom! Look at me! I am surely very much older than any of you are, and I have been a hard core professional, an Indian diplomat of all of 38 years till I retired. Still I am able to have fun with this because right now, it is worth my time. When it fails to measure up, as happened with Jodha Akbar after about 220 episodes, I shall quit.

Shyamala B.Cowsik

Originally posted by: cactusbutt1123

Thank you so much for the explanation ma'am. I would like to request you to make this a separate post. As I think it would be something everybody would like to read but might miss.

Originally posted by: sashashyam

A propos the "ahistorical script" critique and this post in particular, I would like to make two points.

First the particular.

It is completely inaccurate to claim that Alexander managed to capture a large part of India. Nothing could be farther from the truth. All he captured was part of northwest India, much of which is today in Pakistan, and even there, a good part consisted of kingdoms like Takshashila that submitted to Alexander and continued to be ruled by the same kings, but now as Alexander's subordinates.

The key battle that Alexander fought during his all too brief campaign in India was the Battle of the Hydapses, on the banks of the Jhelum river, against Raja Purushottam aka Porus. I would like to share with those of you who are interested the following article on this battle, and following from that, a very plausible explanation of why Alexander decided to retreat from India.

This covers one of the most interesting accounts of why Alexander did not venture deeper into India, is the take on the Battle of the Hydapses, by one of the greatest generals of all time, Marshal Zhukhov, the legendary Soviet WWII hero.

It can be seen at

http://in.rbth.com/blogs/2013/05/27/marshal_zhukov_on_alexanders_failed_india_invasion_25383

and it throws an entirely new light on the battle itself, and on the circumstances surrounding Alexander's decision to retreat.

Marshal Zhukov discussed this thesis while addressing the cadets at the Indian Military Academy in Dehra Dun in 1957. He cited both the Greek historian Plutarch (who later became a Roman citizen!) and Roman historians like and Marcus Justinius among others.

In fact he compared Alexander's retreat from India to Napoleon's disastrous retreat from Russia in 1812, and he asserts that the Macedonian army was so demoralised at the cost of their "victory" in the battle that they were close to mutiny at the idea of going deeper into India and facing the powerful armies they had heard of, including that of Dhananand.

Naturally Greek historians would have whitewashed all this for posterity - though Plutarch seems to have been surprisingly honest about what actually happened - but it is a thrilling account that makes one proud of our fighting men in that age.

There is also an interesting account of Alexander's siege of Multan, in present day Pakistan, on his way back out of India, in which he suffered a very painful lung injury that affected him from then till his death. This can be seen at

http://tribune.com.pk/story/215087/alexander-in-multan/

and the writer is a noted and objective Pakistani historian. Salman Rashid.

I am sure you will enjoy both these articles.

Now the general this is a distortion of the real history argument. Here, let us look into two aspects, one, the actual amount of reasonably authentic historical data in Chandra Nandini thus far, and two, the difference between historical fiction and real history.

For the first, if you read serious sources on Mauryan and pre-Mauryan history, you will realise how much uncertainty there is about almost everything. ? For example, were the Nine Nandas the sons of Maha Padmanand or were he and they brothers? The historians are not sure. So, the confusion about whom Chandragupta toppled, Maha Padmanand or Dhananand, is hardly surprising, though most accounts plump for Dhananand. If anyone were to claim that he alone knows the "real" history of the period, one should be decidedly wary of him!😉

But one thing seems certain according to serious academics, who go by Buddhist, Jain and Greek chronicles of the period and the Arthashastra, which is that the founder of the Nanda dynasty was either a barber or the son of a barber. That means that Ekta's naapit who became the king is authentic.

Similarly,the Buddhist chronicles attribute royal lineage to Chandragupta, as belonging to the same Sakya clan as Siddhartha Gautama, who later became the Buddha. Piplivahan and Suryagupta fit in here, and are not, as I initially assumed, natakiya rupantar. In fact I was surprised by the extent of historical backing of one sort or another for the narrative so far.

We are not here to write a thesis on Chandragupta Maurya, and very little is known about his personal life anyway! So. it would be a good idea not to fret constantly about "history" and instead see whether one likes the acting and the narrative in general. And on both counts, especially the first, above all Rajat's performance, Chandra Nandini is doing very well.

One has also to remember that if anyone today were to make a clinically historical Chandragupta Maurya serial, like Chandrprakash Dwivedi's extensively researched and meticulously recreated depiction of that era, the 1990 Chanakya, it would not last 2 months.

It is very interesting to read Abhay (history_geek)'s latest about the pre-Mauryan dynasties, especially the Nanda dynasty, as also his earlier one about the origins of Chandragupta Maurya, just for personal information. He is very careful to mention the alternative theories, as he is a serious researcher.

As for the difference between historical fiction and history, I cannot do better that quote in full a recent post by my young friend Shailaja on my last thread, and I am sure she will not mind it.

"My friend you are in the wrong place if you are looking for historical accuracy. It is a costume and period drama. Moreover for the small mercies it is named Chandra Nandini to tell eternal optimists like us that this is a love story and not a history.

I guess the genre definition Historical Fiction ought to enlighten us to the fact that there might be a lot of fiction and very less of history or even nothing of history. According to its very categorization, you could call it a historical fiction if you have a few names and events lifted from history. Your take on them could be entirely different and might not even fall within the historical timeline. Still you would be justified in calling it historical fiction.

You'd perhaps be surprised to know that Shakespeare's Historical Plays adopted a timeline which did not coincide with the historical timeline neither did he stay close or true to history. It was his own imaginary take on history and it was what sold during his times as entertainment. Many famous historical novelists like Walter Scott did the same thing. They too were no pujaris of history. They too wrote what was entertaining and what sold!

If it was a documentary, or a text book on history, I could have understood your logic. Even there, there are times when we find history missing or distorted. Watch the series with an open mind you will find a lot in it to like as well. Dislike also becomes a habit if we give it too much importance. A stage comes when nothing could please us or keep us happy. "

I do not mean to try and put anything or anyone down, so I hope that you will take the above in the right spirit and not get upset about it.

Finally, it is of course your decision to take, to chill, and try and enjoy the good things in the show - like Rajat's performance and to a lesser extent, Chanakya - instead of indulging in doom and gloom! Look at me! I am surely very much older than any of you are, and I have been a hard core professional, an Indian diplomat of all of 38 years till I retired. Still I am able to have fun with this because right now, it is worth my time. When it fails to measure up, as happened with Jodha Akbar after about 220 episodes, I shall quit.

Shyamala B.Cowsik

Originally posted by: ...Tanu...

Thanks for the facts. 😳
But as far as I have read in my history books, Alexander never managed to capture a large part of India, they went away.
Ekta's historical shows are 10% history and 90% fiction anyways. 😆