Facts about Chandragupta & Chanakya - Page 2

@TM

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

Dear Shrinath,

He came only as far as the Punjab. My objection was to the use of the phrase "a large part of India". And I have specifically noted "much of which is today in Pakistan", for of course, as you have pointed out, there was no Pakistan then. I do not think anyone could be confused on that point!😆

Yes, Raja Purushottam did fight bravely against Alexander, and far more successfully that is usually assumed, and I was taught as a schoolgirl, Field Marshal Zhukov's fascinating account is thought provoking in precisely that context.

The CN script shows him fighting bravely as well, not surrendering without a fight. He is defeated, but that is a very different thing from caving in without fighting. The "I want to be treated as one King treats another" is the classic formulation I learnt at school. The CN treatment is thus the standard one most Indians know.

But the odd thing is that they did not show the massive use of elephants by Porus, which has been emphasised not only by Zhukov but also by the Greek and Roman historians he cites. Probably this crucial omission was due to budget constraints!😉

After Alexander gave Porus his kingdom back, he apparently appointed him as his satrap, or governor, for the Kekeya kingdom that had earlier been his along, to rule over it under Alexander's overlordship. The Indian kings who accepted this arrangement had to furnish troops for Alexander's campaigns in India, like the Rajput Mansabdars under the Mughals. All this was shown in great detail in the 1990 Chanakya.

Ambhi of Takshashila was not called a satrap, but an ally, for he had been the key, bought thru lavish gifts, because of whom the Macedonians were able to enter India without a battle. Though in fact he too presumably had to more or less do what the Macedonians wanted him to do.

The 1990 Chanakya showed how, after Alexander's death, Ambhi was persuaded by his queen, who was Purushottam's daughter, to come over to Chanakya's side. That was really a fascinating, excellent production.

Also, the King who invites Alexander to his son's yuvarjyabhishek is not Porus. It is Parvatak, Malayaketu's father, the one who goes to Pataliputra to apologise in person for his son's absence at the swayamvar. He is probably wanting to cut a deal with Alexander as well!


Shyamala B.Cowsik

Originally posted by: shrinath

I agree my friend. But the period in which the story is being told, there was no India or Pakistan, it was only Bharatvarsh. Yes Alexander Managed to capture north west India till Punjab. First Ambhi king of Takshashila Gandhar surrenders to Alexander unconditionally. And latter helped Alexander defeat Porus of Punjab, & then also complete Sindh province.

In yesterdays Episode they show Porus surrendering to Alexander without fight & calling for a family function. Where as the truth is that Porus fights Alexander with all his might but is defeated. In the end sues for Peace.

Alexander comes till the borders of the Empire of Nandas. But goes back from there.

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