Nandini really existed

Page

Next Last

siva06

@siva06

Voyager

Posted: 8 years ago

Nandini really existed
----------------------------
Nandini (Niadrus)- First wife of Chandragupta Maurya - Daughter of Dhanananda - Princess of Chandravanshi Clan and Nanda Dynasty - 337 BC - 265 BC Queen Nandini - Queen Nia
iadrus - or Chandravansham Chandra Nandini or Niadrus' is considered as the princess of Chandravanshi Clan Nanda Dynasty and daughter of Nanda Dynasty. Queen Nandini was one of the three daughters of , the ruler of the Great Nanda Dynasty which ruled Northern India around 322 BC.

CVS made some changes
But some think that CN story is a complete fantasy
CGM's history is so old, happened around 2300 years back,,hence so much confusion
Bindusaaar is son of Durdhara who died when given birth to him
But Nandini was with her hubby till his death
Nandini helped her husband In every war ,they both won almost all the wars & CGM kingdom extended upto Afghanistan

According to reference in Jain Literatures Queen Nandini was married to Chandragupta Maurya as a war compensation and Dhanananda was sent to exile in the forest, became a Jain Monk. According to Megasthenes reference from Indika (greek: Indica) Niadrus was an exceptional warrior and a great leader. Niadrus was the eldest of all descendants of Dhanananda.

Niadrus was also the advisor of militia and an able army commander. Niadrus had a fleet of 2000 Elephants and 4000 Chariots
Nandini may have girl child actually it's not mentioned in history
Nandini was warrior princess but CVs made her cry baby
(narrated by a history student)

Quote

Frequent Posters

myviewprem

@myviewprem

Sparkler

+ 3

Posted: 8 years ago

Siva

In 400 BC indian women neveer went to battle field

In 21st century only US is rethinking sending girls to war (after what happened to captured girl soldiers in afghanistan)

So in 400 BC no women ever went to war, it was all mans war

Especially Chankya and CGM would not allow wife on war fields

The Queens had army and chariots etc under them(which i doubt they really had) but that does not mean they went to war

Like many mughal begums had 5000-10000 soldiers with them but never went to war field

Only Nur Jahan and dara sikohs daughter went to proper war field once because their husbands were in grave danger

I do not know which book you got this data, If its net do not believe it.

Dhananand may have had many sons and many daughters but no one knows their names

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

Man

@Manzz

Coolbie

+ 5

Posted: 8 years ago

😃 😃 Contridictions Really, 😃 😃

😃 😃 😃 😳 😳 😃 😃 😳 But Gotta Agree With Siva ! ! 😳 😃 Good Points Really ! ! 😉 😳 😃 😉 😆

😃 😳 😃 😃 😃

Edited by Manzz - 8 years ago

Quote

basicquestion1

@basicquestion1

Dazzler

+ 2

Posted: 8 years ago

Since the history is ancient and it's written different in different traditions, probably no one can be certain.
I take all these historical Indian tv soaps as "Fan fictions"- inspired by the real characters and drenched by the author's imagination.

Quote

myviewprem

@myviewprem

Sparkler

+ 3

Posted: 8 years ago

All i am saying is there is no history book written in those times that mentions that Dhananand daughter name is Nandini or that she is a warrior or went to wars or that she had chariots and elephants under her.

So i am not sure who wrote all this about Nand daughter but historical books do not have all this.

In those times no girl was allowed in war field. Especially a chankya and CGM will not take wife help to win any war. No army then would accept a girl commanding them(please read megasthanese, adrian etc on woman status of that time).

Quote

siva06

@siva06

Voyager

Posted: 8 years ago

Originally posted by: viewpremym
All i am saying is there is no history book written in those times that mentions that Dhananand daughter name is Nandini or that she is a warrior or went to wars or that she had chariots and elephants under her.
So i am not sure who wrote all this about Nand daughter but historical books do not have all this.
In those times no girl was allowed in war field. Especially a chankya and CGM will not take wife help to win any war. No army then would accept a girl commanding them(please read megasthanese, adrian etc on woman status of that time).

Thank you viewpremym( had much difficulty to write yr name)

Emperor Chandragupta Maurya is believed to have been guarded by a contingent of female warriors.

Contrary to western believes where women were supposed to be fragile and homemakers, women in Indian subcontinent were more involved in politics, education and had much clout over society.We have seen many example where Visha Kanya in ancient time (mostly around Chandragupta's time) were used by kings to destroy their enemies or rivals. They used their beauty as their disguise.
I reckon that female warriors were much of indoor bodyguards. They primarily would protect his palace and royal family including female members where male bodyguard were not appropriate.

So women were strong and powerful enough to give advice and conduct the kingdoms
2300 yearss history..no proper documentation...my narration is from a post graduate history student(doing research on women in 300BC era)...we can not pinpoint on our ideas strongly..everything is hazy

Quote

myviewprem

@myviewprem

Sparkler

+ 3

Posted: 8 years ago

Originally posted by: siva06

Thank you viewpremym( had much difficulty to write yr name)
Emperor Chandragupta Maurya is believed to have been guarded by a contingent of female warriors.

Contrary to western believes where women were supposed to be fragile and homemakers, women in Indian subcontinent were more involved in politics, education and had much clout over society.We have seen many example where Visha Kanya in ancient time (mostly around Chandragupta's time) were used by kings to destroy their enemies or rivals. They used their beauty as their disguise.
I reckon that female warriors were much of indoor bodyguards. They primarily would protect his palace and royal family including female members where male bodyguard were not appropriate.

So women were strong and powerful enough to give advice and conduct the kingdoms
2300 yearss history..no proper documentation...my narration is from a post graduate history student(doing research on women in 300BC era)...we can not pinpoint on our ideas strongly..everything is hazy

I know about vishakanyas

But Chandragupta was 32-33 when he married Nandini who would be hardly 7-12 years(that was the age at which girls and guys married in those times) as historians have suggested her age would be. Because above 12-13 years if girl was not married in those times, they would never get a groom easily. If Nnad daughter was staying with him that means she was not married and that age group only.

Chandragupta was an exception who married at 20 years but his wife Dhurudhara must again be in age group 7-12 years when she would have married him. Please read megastahnese and adrian and bhagrava and other historians on this matter.

So i doubt a Chankya or CGM sent a 7-12 year old girl on war field. By 40 years CGM had finished akhand bharat almost. So Nandini would be 19 years when he married Helena(If we assume she was 12 years at time of marriage) she could be even younger say 14-19 years range when CGM became emperor from Mysore to Afghanistan

So i doubt at such age she would go to war with CGM ever. Her name or marraige or details etc was not mentoned by any traveller to CGM court or by Chankya or Ashoka. So that means she was important to CGM or the court. I am not saying this historians of Mauryan times mention this in books.

If any of CGM wife went to war or commanded elephant and chariot, they would be mentioned by travellers or ambassdor thats not there. So we can safely assume that all that is figment of imagination.

Vishankanya were brought up from childhood drinking drops of poison to make their body immune. I doubt a rich parent will send their daughter for Vishakanya or female body gaurd. They must be orphans or very poor family. Like in 21st century no rich father send daughters to army or spy(rare case may be there) same case. Its out of utter poverty a child is forced to drink drops of poison not otherwise.

Quote

siva06

@siva06

Voyager

Posted: 8 years ago

always 10% history..90% fictional factors to lure viewers..many sub plots to interlink various events

As somebody said, we are not going to write any exam in this...drenched in author's

imagination..well said...just enjoy finer points..keep clapping for good scenes..and for

bad ones..let us bomard the CVs

Quote

aishwish

@aishwish

Rocker

Posted: 8 years ago

Originally posted by: myviewprem

I know about vishakanyas

But Chandragupta was 32-33 when he married Nandini who would be hardly 7-12 years(that was the age at which girls and guys married in those times) as historians have suggested her age would be. Because above 12-13 years if girl was not married in those times, they would never get a groom easily. If Nnad daughter was staying with him that means she was not married and that age group only.

Chandragupta was an exception who married at 20 years but his wife Dhurudhara must again be in age group 7-12 years when she would have married him. Please read megastahnese and adrian and bhagrava and other historians on this matter.

So i doubt a Chankya or CGM sent a 7-12 year old girl on war field. By 40 years CGM had finished akhand bharat almost. So Nandini would be 19 years when he married Helena(If we assume she was 12 years at time of marriage) she could be even younger say 14-19 years range when CGM became emperor from Mysore to Afghanistan

So i doubt at such age she would go to war with CGM ever. Her name or marraige or details etc was not mentoned by any traveller to CGM court or by Chankya or Ashoka. So that means she was important to CGM or the court. I am not saying this historians of Mauryan times mention this in books.

If any of CGM wife went to war or commanded elephant and chariot, they would be mentioned by travellers or ambassdor thats not there. So we can safely assume that all that is figment of imagination.

Vishankanya were brought up from childhood drinking drops of poison to make their body immune. I doubt a rich parent will send their daughter for Vishakanya or female body gaurd. They must be orphans or very poor family. Like in 21st century no rich father send daughters to army or spy(rare case may be there) same case. Its out of utter poverty a child is forced to drink drops of poison not otherwise.

You know prem I just don't get it how you manage to "doubt" everything which you contradict and be "SURE" about your points put forward.

Firstly historians never suggest anything about nandini's age... because for them she don't exist or non exist ...thanks to bindusaar historians agree that CGM had a lady in his life must be his wife who was the mother of his son.No historian accept that her name was durdhara. Even with helena the name comes from Jaishankar prasad's drama called chankaya. ..it is generally held that CGM married a daughter of Seleucus though it is nor warranted by known facts.

Secondly child marriage was not prevalent in 4 century BC...not all historians accept it. Many of them on the contrary has a view that child marriage in India started around 1000 years ago with muslim invavsion.

Historians accept that CGM killed nand before he ascended throne at the age of 20 so why would he wait to be 32 years to marry nand's daughter(in case he married) is just plain unintelligible to me.

And please I have said this on your previous thread (which I doubt you bothered to check) and still saying megasthanese , abul fazal and their likes are NOT historians and neither their works are history they are merely ACCOUNTS!! Not even chanakya's arthashatra

The topic maker just merely shared a piece of information that she found ...she is time and again accepting that facts are hazy, we are all for that matter...and its high time that you accepted it as well that when it comes to CGM accepted textbook history has very less to offer and historians very less to say...we can't safely assume anything!! Just because you are adding at the end of every point you present "historians accept it" will not make it historians accept it. Kindly next time try quoting the historian with his/her name and when I say historians I mean HISTORIANS

@Siva: thanks for the information ...it always is good to know what different versions have to present!! Though I said and you said as well everything is hazy and its interesting to see so many interpretation

Edited by aishwish - 8 years ago

Quote

Princess of Videha

@JanakNandini

Voyager

Posted: 8 years ago

#10

Historians believe Chanakya of cgm and the one who wrote Arthasashtra was different..
some believe Even Chanakya was complete imaginary character ...

I agree with Aish

We really dont know whether Durdhara was wife of Cgm... as well as helena..

Whether she died by poisoning ?
all these are Jains and Buddhist accounts,whether its true.. Only god and Real cgm knows..

Cgm was famous personality so lots of hearsay tales are spinned around them...

We never knew

Cgm had how many wives
whether he had daughters
whether Bindusar was only one son
who was his parents
what was his religious belief
Whether Helena is true?

We cannot blame Cvs alone..
Even Malay is character of Mudrarakshasas..

Quote

1 2 3 4

Nandini really existed

Related Topics

Explore Topics