[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Antiquity and Continuity ... (Part 5)
In article <4d2a1d$6od@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Prasad Gokhale <f0g1@unb.ca> wrote:
>The Greek records mention Xandramas and Sandrocyptus as the kings
>immediately before and after Sandrocottus. These names in any way
>are not phonetically similar to Mahapadma Nanda and Bindusar, who
>were the predecessor and successor of Chandragupta Maurya,
>respectively. However, if Sandrocottus refers to Chandragupta
>"Gupta", the Xandramas reckons to be his predecessor Chandrashree
>alias Chandramas and Sandrocyptus to be Samudragupta. The phonetic
>similarity becomes quite apparent and also, with the assistance of
>other evidence, confirms the identity of Sandrocottus to
>Chandragupta Gupta.
Prasadji,
your articles make interesting reading, but I think you need to
give much more proof to show that Chandragupta Maurya existed 1000
years before Alexander's invasion. It is hard to accept that, because
time of Alexander's invasion is historic, and there are several literary
sources to corroborate. Assuming Gupta dynasty was ruling during Alexander
's invasion, won't it create problems? Why would the Chandragupta of Gupta
dynasty go and work for Alexander. Why would he study in Taxshila, and
rebel against Greek invasion. Why would he come with army from Taxshila
with help of other kings and try to overthrow the kingdom in Patliputra,
after all he is already the emperor of Patliputra and magadh empire, and he
is not starting a new dynasty. How about Sanskrit plays like Mudra Raaxas?
They give details about how Chanakya and Chandragupta first fought greek
invasion and then returned to Patliputra. Certainly they fought Nandas, and
certainly they fought invasions in west. S
o who were Chanakya and Chandragupta
fighting in west, if not Alexander?
Raja
