Posted:
I want to share some information.
Few Scholars believe that Bindusara had married another daughter of Selecus while Chandragupta was married to Helen. This cemented the alliance between the Greeks and Indians and thus benefited both parties. While India became safe from impeding invasions Greeks got support of a mighty empire with matrimonial alliance. While the evidences supporting this view are nil still we can agree with the alliance part and can assume that Bindusara may have married a babylonian queen and also when he can marry a khurasani (Iranian), why not an Iraqi-Greek. Few Scholars also used this view to prove Asoka was born of Greek mother and thus was of Greek origin. But evidences available totally discard this part. If Asoka was born of Greek mother he would have mentioned it in his inscriptions. Also both Brahmin and Buddhist texts nowhere mentions him being half mlecha(unani, khurasani or any foreigner). His mother name and origins are clearly mentioned in texts proving him completely Indian. Maybe these scholars desperately wanted to link Mauryas with Greeks.
On Asoka's birth date, he was born in 304 B.C.E or around that year. This is the most accepted date. Proving chandragupta had seen his cute little grandson and his most competent successor. This proves if any Justin was born he must have been few years younger than Asoka. So no question of Selecus hating chandragupta and Bindusara and staying at Magadha. That is just absurd and quite frankly very insulting towards the mighty greek general.
comment:
p_commentcount