Posted:
This in one question I have been asking since a long while. Where will Chandra's army come from. It was not like Chanakya could motivate his few hundred students to join the Chandra's Army like Dumbledore's Army in Harry Potter.
What other alternatives did he have, rebels, disgruntled citizens, and mercenaries? But even here, he would have needed funds to keep the army in a functioning order. Where would they come from? That was when I thought that Chandra would go like Robin Hood robbing the Magadh treasury, the Sena Nayaks , Amatyas and the administrators working under Padmanand, and a few corrupt, tyrannical, dissolute kings and allies of Padmanand. One it would cripple the entire administrative machinery in those states. It would cause fear and terror in the minds of those working on Padmanand's side.
Two, to cope with the loss to the treasury, Nand and Co. Kings would have raised the taxes levied. This would lead to a feeling of discontent among the general populace. This could be cleverly fanned to induce mutinies against the government in one part after the other in a systematic manner.
Thirdly, all this money could be used to buy insiders, powerful officers and ministers in the Cabinet of Padmanand and make it hollow from within. A slow process of inside infiltration could be started along with keeping afloat a steady stream of guerrilla warfare at the other end.
Fourthly, Chanakya and Chandra could begin cutting off Padmanand's strengths and support systems one by one, gradually weakening him.
The Chandrakya conversation about how they should take advantage of Padmanand's weakness and showing Nandini immediately after that looked a bit stale to me. You cannot bring down a powerful king by kidnapping his daughter or arm twisting him by targeting her.
There was no need at all for Nandini to come anywhere here in their plans to overthrow Padmanand. I know that many times in history, the families or women are targeted by the enemies of kings. But here, we are not talking about any enemies.
It is Chanakya and Chandragupt. I hardly know if either of the two would stoop so low as targeting a girl to take revenge against Padmanand or capture his kingdom. Nandini will ultimately suffer as collateral damage when her father and brothers will die in war.
I know that Nand behaved abominably with Moora. But, Chandra or Chanakya cannot stoop so low as Padmanand for their revenge or for their goals. Even if he wants to, Chandra cannot treat Nandini so bad. He just cannot help being chivalrous.
Though I found Chanakya policy of unite and divide he adopted with the kings very impressive as an argument, I found it hard to believe that it actually worked. Which king can be bamboozled by the threat of an attack by a ramshackle army of students, disgruntled citizens, and cow herds? It is not a trained army at all.
However big it may be, they would hardly be able to withstand the onslaught of a trained military army of a King's. One trained soldier can cause the havoc twenty untrained citizens and civilians put together cannot cause. It would just be one lawless crowd and mob. How did the kings get scared of such a proposition and agree to join Chanakya's army for Chandra. Kings is Ancient India were known for their unbending nature and fearlessness. How did such a threat even work?
But again, I found the attempt by Chandra and Chanakya not to take on the Greeks head-on in battle and just concentrate on deflecting them from Indian soil logical. Similarly, carefully engineering a mutiny from the Indian soldiers fighting on the Greek side was also a fantastic and also realistic idea.
What other alternatives did he have, rebels, disgruntled citizens, and mercenaries? But even here, he would have needed funds to keep the army in a functioning order. Where would they come from? That was when I thought that Chandra would go like Robin Hood robbing the Magadh treasury, the Sena Nayaks , Amatyas and the administrators working under Padmanand, and a few corrupt, tyrannical, dissolute kings and allies of Padmanand. One it would cripple the entire administrative machinery in those states. It would cause fear and terror in the minds of those working on Padmanand's side.
Two, to cope with the loss to the treasury, Nand and Co. Kings would have raised the taxes levied. This would lead to a feeling of discontent among the general populace. This could be cleverly fanned to induce mutinies against the government in one part after the other in a systematic manner.
Thirdly, all this money could be used to buy insiders, powerful officers and ministers in the Cabinet of Padmanand and make it hollow from within. A slow process of inside infiltration could be started along with keeping afloat a steady stream of guerrilla warfare at the other end.
Fourthly, Chanakya and Chandra could begin cutting off Padmanand's strengths and support systems one by one, gradually weakening him.
The Chandrakya conversation about how they should take advantage of Padmanand's weakness and showing Nandini immediately after that looked a bit stale to me. You cannot bring down a powerful king by kidnapping his daughter or arm twisting him by targeting her.
There was no need at all for Nandini to come anywhere here in their plans to overthrow Padmanand. I know that many times in history, the families or women are targeted by the enemies of kings. But here, we are not talking about any enemies.
It is Chanakya and Chandragupt. I hardly know if either of the two would stoop so low as targeting a girl to take revenge against Padmanand or capture his kingdom. Nandini will ultimately suffer as collateral damage when her father and brothers will die in war.
I know that Nand behaved abominably with Moora. But, Chandra or Chanakya cannot stoop so low as Padmanand for their revenge or for their goals. Even if he wants to, Chandra cannot treat Nandini so bad. He just cannot help being chivalrous.
Though I found Chanakya policy of unite and divide he adopted with the kings very impressive as an argument, I found it hard to believe that it actually worked. Which king can be bamboozled by the threat of an attack by a ramshackle army of students, disgruntled citizens, and cow herds? It is not a trained army at all.
However big it may be, they would hardly be able to withstand the onslaught of a trained military army of a King's. One trained soldier can cause the havoc twenty untrained citizens and civilians put together cannot cause. It would just be one lawless crowd and mob. How did the kings get scared of such a proposition and agree to join Chanakya's army for Chandra. Kings is Ancient India were known for their unbending nature and fearlessness. How did such a threat even work?
But again, I found the attempt by Chandra and Chanakya not to take on the Greeks head-on in battle and just concentrate on deflecting them from Indian soil logical. Similarly, carefully engineering a mutiny from the Indian soldiers fighting on the Greek side was also a fantastic and also realistic idea.
Itti Si Khushi Sab TV
