Talk:Chandragupta Maurya

What does this Jiana tradition say about Chandragupta

He 2409:40D1:1022:2A2B:B413:FAFF:FE90:2F8F (talk) 03:39, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Candragupta real name

Candragupta real name Mohit atulkar (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Chandragupta Maurya’s spouse

Chandragupta defeated Selukor Nikator and as a friendship treaty married Nikator’s daughter Helena. 2405:201:C00D:7061:3998:D150:DA00:5769 (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Rfc on religion of Chandragupta Maurya

Currently theirs a lot of scholarly sources rejecting Chandraguptas conversion to Jainism.Should this be listed on infobox.I think a Rfc is necessary here.Edasf (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Edasf: I don't think a Rfc is necessary here: I see zero evidence that WP:RFCBEFORE has been tried, let alone exhausted. Just discuss in the normal way. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the current situation, with the health warnings is probably fine. I wouldn't be opposed to removing the religion field from the infobox altogether. I probably would be opposed to just stating "Brahmanical religion" and saying nothing about Jainism in the infobox, since that would seem to be picking a particular position on an issue that seems to be subject to some dispute. Furius (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

The infobox already says "according to Jain-sources," and there is an explanatory note with quotes; that suffices. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I am proposing that we should just remove religion field altogether on Infobox for these ancient kings who's religion is quite debatable.I don't know what benefit would one get from knowing religion with long explanatory notes on Infobox.We should rather talk it in later in page. Pinging @Furius@Joshua Jonathan@PadFoot2008@Fowler&fowler@Someguywhosbored Edasf (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't mean kings like Ashoka here who's religion is quite undisputed. Edasf (talk) 17:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. If data is so complicated that it needs a proviso, it's probably too complicated for an infobox Furius (talk) 18:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Interesting proposal; makes sense. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @NXcrypto@Fylindfotberserk Edasf (talk) 14:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I don’t have any issues with this proposal. It works for me. Someguywhosbored (talk) 08:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

So I am removing it Edasf«Talk» 06:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Merger proposal (Mauryan conquest of Greek satrapies)

Merge Mauryan conquest of Greek satrapies to Chandragupta Maurya: this article is split-off from Chandragupta Maurya (without proper attribution); it contains no additional info, but may also serve as a WP:COATRACK. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I had a quick look, and it seems that the main part of the article was copied from a similar section at Chandragupta Maurya last month. The article has four paragraphs, of which only the first (the lead) and last (tying it to future events) are new; the copied material has only been lightly edited, by splitting it into two paragraphs and inserting one brief clause. There is also a military conflict infobox, though it contains nothing that is not already clearly stated in the short article, and the not terribly helpful map of satrapies in the region (it focuses on who the governors were, but doesn't clearly name the satrapies or show their relationship to the Indus, which seems important), also from Chandragupta Maurya.

That said, there may be enough material available to expand this article beyond what would be worth merging back into Chandragupta Maurya. But the author does not seem to have expanded it, and showed little intention of doing so after copying it over; the first and last paragraphs merely provide context that wasn't necessary in the parent article, and summarize the article in a style that seems designed to justify the infobox, which in turn is more of a disinformation box: it promises to be helpful, but merely repeats a handful of key points from a brief article—nearly all of them in the lead paragraph, which itself is largely a summary of the copied material. The copied material could be rewritten to avoid the attribution issue; the correct way to split them off would have been to indicate in the edit summary creating the article that they were being split off from Chandragupta Maurya.

Overall, this article appears to have the potential for improvement, but I can see no indication that the original author means to expand or rewrite it to the degree necessary to justify it as a stand-alone article. I think it may be premature to call it a coatrack, but it would need considerable work to be worth keeping. Merging it back into its source may be appropriate, although I don't see anything that isn't already covered there; the lead and ending summary would seem redundant, and include no new sources; the rest is nearly identical with what is already in the parent article. However, since the article was created recently, and the creator objected to this being turned into a redirect right before this discussion, perhaps we should hear what he/she has to say about potentially expanding and improving upon it before, in essence, deleting it. P Aculeius (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@P Aculeius I am ready to expand it and please help me as well right now I am busy after 2nd Dec I will start working on this page. Edasf«Talk» 16:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan I have rewritten article a bit. Edasf«Talk» 16:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm alright with holding off on anything for now, but looking at your edits so far, I think you may have bitten off more than you can chew. They're really quite minimal, and seem to consist mostly of word substitutions and the deletion of snippets here and there, along with the addition of two sentences, one of which is completely redundant following the lead, while the other lacks any source. In order to deal with unattributed borrowing of someone else's writing, you would need to rewrite the text entirely, even if you're citing the same sources. That is, you basically need to start from scratch, though you can keep the sources that are there.

But you also need to show that there is a lot more to say about this topic—enough that it can't comfortably be a section or subsection of the parent article. That means going into greater detail about what was done by whom, how and when it happened, or why these details are important. If all of your sources say pretty much the same thing—what's currently in the article, and nothing more, then it can't really be expanded. If you have some sources that go into significantly more detail, then you may be possible to save this. I can't speak for other editors, but I'm willing to wait a couple of weeks to see whether you're able to turn it into an article that's clearly substantial enough not to be a candidate for merging. But if you can't find much that's new or significant, you might just want to admit that, and move on to some other topic that you can really expand on. Good luck! P Aculeius (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Junianus Justinus, Histoires Philippiques Liber, XV.4.12-13 :

India, after the death of Alexander, had assassinated his prefects, as if shaking the burden of servitude. The author of this liberation was Sandracottos [Chandragupta], but he had transformed liberation in servitude after victory, since, after taking the throne, he himself oppressed the very people he has liberated from foreign domination.

That's all there is; Justin doesn't say that Chandragupta conquered the eastern Indus valley. The only reason to have a separate article is to glorify Chandragupta as much as possible. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't see how that can be "all there is", as the corresponding section under Chandragupta is already several times that long and cites several other sources. Perhaps they are "all there is", in which case this article can be safely folded back into it. But the discussion process seems to have been short-circuited as one of the participants here has already carried out the merger and changed the article under discussion into a redirect (for the second time). This appears to be an edit war, and I don't wish to participate in it. P Aculeius (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Edasf split-off the article, and he also merged it back. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 15:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, got turned around. Anyway, that would seem to make the discussion moot. P Aculeius (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Kandahar, Herat

@Edasf: we can repeat the same discussions, but Herat was ceertainly not held by Chandragupta, and western Gedrosia is highly questionable. So don't revert to maps which are clearly wrong. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Kandahar was definitely under Mauryas as by Ashokan inscription there.Correct your map first and I see about Gdrosia only by an outdated source of Tarn.Also, include Gujarat in your map over which Chandraguptas control is attested by both Ashokan and Rudraman inscriptions.@Joshua Jonathan Edasf«Talk» 09:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Chandragupta and Ashoka were the same person? And the presence of inscriptions proves control? Does the BAPS control Robbinsville, New Jersey? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan There are no records of Ashoka making conquests there.And questioning Kandahar is a pure OR. Edasf«Talk» 09:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Stop such nonsense and baseless comparisons. Edasf«Talk» 09:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

NB: note the caption: "Mauryan Empire under Chandragupta Maurya, with disputed western territory marked by dots." You think that those areas are not questioned? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Except Aria and Gedrosia none. Edasf«Talk» 09:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I think @Edasf did raise some valid points, though: Gujarat came to be held by Chandragupta is corroborated by the construction of Sudarshana Lake by the governor under him there. Also, the ceding of Kandahar to Chandragupta is widely accepted in the current scholarship, it seems (and is much less doubtful than Aria or western Gedrosia). So one other map option would be to extract the "303 BCE" frame from this animated GIF which I had created a while ago, based almost directly on Schwarzberg's Atlas (I made some corrections at the western border from to Herat to Gedrosia), or this version of it modified with holes. -Avantiputra7 (talk) 10:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Avantiputra7 That seems fine to me.This map actually needs change. Edasf«Talk» 10:07, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I extracted "my" map from the map preferred by Edasf, which also doesn't include Gujarat. And Kandahar is included in my map, which also gives the maximalist interpretation. But the GIF would be fine for me too, with my caption. Meanwhile, I have further adjusted "my" maprJoshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan Your map and gif map are quit different about Gujarat definitely it needs inclusion and this map isnt OK maybe you didnt notice but borders are going till Tajikistan.I request you do a self RV for now.And your caption doesnt fits with etracted gif map. Edasf«Talk» 10:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I've also added Gujarat. If the borders up to Tajikistan are incorrect, then they are also incorrect with your preferred version. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 10:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan I am prefering the gif of Avantiputra about Magadha expansion Edasf«Talk» 10:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the map now is ok as is, except the northern border can be reduced slightly as Edasf said. Although if my gif is preferred I can come back and extract the frame in a couple of hours (have to step away right now). -Avantiputra7 (talk) 10:46, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I've adjusted the map for the northwestern boreder, approximately. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 11:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I think good to give those areas a differet shade Edasf«Talk» 11:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan I added a shaded map Edasf«Talk» 11:16, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Avantiputra7: I think I'd also prefer your map. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan:@Edasf: I have uploaded now. Version with holes is my preference, but also uploaded one without holes.

• 
• 

-Avantiputra7 (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Alxander meeting Chandragupta myth is mistranslation of early printed book

Please note this, I saw this myth being added here again without clarification of this, as noted by Thomas Trautmann. @Joshua Jonathan:.

"Some early printed editions of Justin's work wrongly mentioned "Alexandrum" instead of "Nandrum"; this error was corrected in philologist J. W. McCrindle's 1893 translation. In the 20th century, historians Hem Chandra Raychaudhuri and R. C. Majumdar believed "Alexandrum" to be correct reading, and theorized that Justin refers to a meeting between Chandragupta and Alexander the Great ("Alexandrum"). However, this is incorrect: research by historian Alfred von Gutschmid in the preceding century had clearly established that "Nandrum" is the correct reading supported by multiple manuscripts: only a single defective manuscript mentions "Alexandrum" in the margin."

References

I had to bring this to attention as myth of Alexander meeting Chandragupta is now being pasted on several pages due to mistranslation. 117.216.216.8 (talk) 16:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello User:117.216.216.8. Thank you for discussing this point, but it is not only based on the mistranslation of Justin's manuscript. There is also a passage from Plutarch's Life of Alexander:

Androcottus [Chandragupta], when he was a stripling, saw Alexander himself, and we are told that he often said in later times that Alexander narrowly missed making himself master of the country, since its king was hated and despised on account of his baseness and low birth.

(quoted from Jansari 2023, p.28-29). It is important not to mix-up these two different sources. -Avantiputra7 (talk) 11:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks; I already had the impression that something was not exactly correct about this. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Chronology of when/where Chandragupta came to power

I have been taking some time to go back over all the sources in light of the new discussion by Jansari (p. 18-31) which @Joshua Jonathan: has already added in a citation. By this view, the chronology is not at all certain before 305 BCE, seeing as the Cribb paper (available online at [1]), which Jansari has used, interpret's the account of Justin as indicating that Chandragupta became "ruler of India" at the same time Seleucus "laying the foundations" of his own empire, i.e. 311–305 BCE.

However, what Jansari has briefly mentioned as a counter-point (p.31, "there is no statement in Justin relating to the start of Chandragupta’s reign, simply that he was ‘ruler of India’ while Seleucus was securing and establishing the foundations of his own empire") becomes more clear from reviewing the other sources which I have been looking at: it seems Justin is actually saying Chandragupta was already ruling India when Seleucus was coming to power in 311-305. Trautmann (p.59-60) [2] interprets it as meaning that Chandragupta had already conquered both the Nanda Empire and Punjab at that point. In contrast, Wheatley and Heckel, in their commentary to the translation of Justin (p.277-291) [3], think that the conquest of Punjab / Indus Valley was still happening in 311-308 BCE, but after Chandragupta had already overthrown the Nandas to become king of Magadha.

In fact, Cribb's paper actually never specifically refutes the detailed analysis of the Latin passage done by the two above scholarly sources.

I also was re-reading Tarn (p.46-47) [4] for this point. Tarn interestingly refers to some traditional Jain chronologies which place Chandragupta's accession in 313/312 BCE, but he interprets it to be date Chandragupta had completed his conquests, excepting the later western expansion acquired from Seleucus. Tarn has interpreted Justin's original Latin passage differently from Trautman (who, p.59, footnote 1 criticizes Tarn for "straining the word-order and the sense and tense" of the Latin, but I do not know Latin to judge who is correct), interpreting it to be saying Chandragupta getting his kingdom contemporary with Seleucus. However, even so, Tarn (p.47, footnote 3) takes the view "Chandragupta seized the crown of Magadha c. 321 and completed the conquest of his empire by 312", excepting the later western expansion acquired from Seleucus.

As both Trautmann (p.57-58) and Wheatly and Heckel (p.289) have specified, Justin is also saying clearly that Chandragupta's conquest of Magadha took place before Alexander's satraps in Punjab were overthrown. (Jansari also mentions it, p.29: "Chandragupta ‘gathered a band of outlaws and incited the Indians to revolution’ against the Nanda dynasty, after which ‘he was preparing for hostilities against Alexander’s governors’".) As they mention, that some scholars have speculated about him becoming a ruler in Punjab first, before conquering Magadha, but it is only speculation. It could be the case that he received aid from the local Punjab rulers to defeat Nandas, before he went back to conquer Punjab in turn.

Wheatly and Heckel say that although Justin's account can be "difficult to interpret" it nevertheless "is the critical text for reconstructing the chronology of events in India after the death of Alexander" (p.277)

To conclude, in summary, it seems to me that Jansari (and Cribb, even more so) have not fully acknowleged the prior scholarly writings on the topic of chronology and the evidence for the usual dating at c.321-319 BCE, which most scholars have conventionally used. It is more than can be dismissed as "casual" or unfounded, even if it isn't completely certain. It is true, as Jansari recognizes, that the evidence is mainly based on Justin's account, which it isn't completely certain whether Justin has gotten all the details correct- therefore I certainly agree that there should be retained the footnote quoting Jansari with all the cautions she mentions. But I am wondering if it is undue to write "c.320/305" in the opening sentence (also the case for the Maurya Empire article), and could we instead retain the prevailing till now consensus of "c.320", while still keeping the footnote to Jansari. Also, I think we should not be saying that Punjab was Chandragupta's initial power base (for instance seen in File:Chandragupta_Maurya_Empire_303_BCE_2_v02.jpg), which isn't certain and seems to be contradicted by Justin's acount. The first sentences in my opinion, instead of starting first with conquest of Greek satrapies in Punjab, should acknowledge the uncertain sequence of events but begin with the overthrow of Nandas in Magadha, as the above scholars follow Justin in placing first. -Avantiputra7 (talk) 13:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I guess you may be right; you're absolutely better informed on these topics than I am. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 13:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)