early cgm-helen marriage is documented, not EK's idea

As per bharat ek khoj or discovery of india written by jwahaarlal nehru, cgm & helena got married when nand was alive & this alliance was made by chanakya to win magadh. whether its true or not is of course debatable but it was shown before as well. i didnt read the book but i had watched the show based on the book which was made in 1990s. so this event of early cgm-helena marriage also has sum source. here is the link;

Thank you so much for sharing this video MunniDi. It clarifies a lot of doubts. History of CGM has a lot of versions and one can't confirm which one is actually authentic. The show makers will utilize that one which is easier to create drama, and will do a lot of dramatization be it relevant or irrelevant with history and it's a real fact.so it's worthless to dig and cry over Historical authenticity.

Thanks for sharing 😃 Clarified many doubts

Originally posted by: Shinning_Stuti

Thank you so much for sharing this video MunniDi. It clarifies a lot of doubts. History of CGM has a lot of versions and one can't confirm which one is actually authentic. The show makers will utilize that one which is easier to create drama, and will do a lot of dramatization be it relevant or irrelevant with history and it's a real fact.so it's worthless to dig and cry over Historical authenticity.

But I have only one doubt. Yesterday, Chanakya promised Selucas to give him 500 elephants as a condition of treaty (or I heard it wrong?)... But how can Chandra and Chanakya do this when Chandra is not any king of a kingdom, rather can be said a moneyless struggling rebellion leader?

Originally posted by: chahat4u

Might b because he did win over some kingdoms surrounding Magadh. I m trying to think that way.

Originally posted by: Shinning_Stuti

I am too thinking that way, though it's not cleared then why he was sleeping in open air in a jungle when Helena came to meet him.😛 if he has a stock of 500 elephants to give away, he should have a secured accommodation too...

Or maybe they have the help from other states from where they can give the 500 elephants etc... But yet this statement sounds somewhat out of space for me. They could have omitted it, or may attach a clause like- we will give you these and these after winning Magadh...

Maybe theyre hiding from magad so hense sleeps in jingle but they have support of other small kingdom

Whatever i history munni ,it is history ,im not looking at it through historical point of view its entertaining and diffirent

Thanks for sharing! So even this version of history has some historical backing. I am not surprised. This proves what I have been saying all along. History is also not single. It is multiple and fragmented. There is a lot of imagination and distortion inherent even here. Only its degree of authenticity is somewhat higher than a completely imaginary story.

We find discrepancies even in the news broadcasts of news channels which are supposed to be "highly authentic and the truth". But that often is not the case. A number of mistakes happen, they are never clarified later on even when the truth is something else. At times, even news channels have an agenda of their own.

Wouldn't you think it is futile to quarrel over hand-written, at places tattered palm leaf manuscripts, whose writing is at times illegible, whole pages and pages of the source are missing, the language, customs, and mores of that period widely different opening them up to a wide and confusing variety of interpretations,etc. This is about the sources which have survived.

What about those sources which never saw the light of the day? The minute we begin talking about historical authenticity for something that happened in BC, we are only exposing ourselves to a minefield of questions and debates.

Based on the historical sources we have, chronicles of the period, religious texts, rock edicts, ballads, folk and oral literature, etc, we can probably know that such and such people or kings lived during that era, their names, and a few basic and broad outlines of major historical incidents and a very hazy chronological sequence or timeline.

So it is really pointless if we keep on comparing various versions of history and try establishing which version is more authentic than the other. It is better to enjoy the story as we get it. Of course nobody is going to think it is completely authentic as a history. We are all watching only for the entertainment quotient.

I m sorry dear but this fact is not right.
Every version which is related to Chandra Gupta Maurya is said that
Helena was second wife of Chandra Gupta Maurya and durdhara was first one wife and mother of bindusaar , next king of Maurya empire .

Chandra Gupta Maurya got marry Helena in mid 30th okkk
I don't know 1990's document what says.
I know only that what 1000 or 2500 years old documents says.
😉

But now ekta is going to change history great.
And I m deadly sure she will be surly make this show
Jodha Akbar part-2 🤣

I m sorry I don't want to hurt anyone but you can't change history.
😉

Main yaha nahi aana chahati thi but maira Bhai channel change kar raha
Tha tab Maine Chandra and Helena ki shaadi by chance dekh ki.
Tab se mairi hansi ruk nahi rahi hain. 🤣
Sorry again I have no problem with any actor or actress.
But I can't support ekta's history.
Sorry I know it is fictional historical show.
But u can't make confused audience about history on name of so called NR.