Oh!! The monkey balancing. But there is some good stuff here. Anticipating an invasion from Samudragupta, Nagas of Mathura, Padmavati and Panchala joined hands with the Kota rulers of Pushpa(Kannauj - both Kanyakubja and Pataliputra are known as Pushpa)
jstor.org
jstor.org
joined forces to stop the invasion - the invasion happened and they were defeated - the war happened somewhere near Kannauj as Samudragupta enjoyed in Pushpa. The general acceptance is that the Pushpa mentioned is Patali but the problem here, it's already under Gupta control.
Now, the monkey balancing starts. Samudragupta chastised them and left them to their own devices but as vassals. Now, soon after this, Samudragupta decided to march on the Pallavas - while he was fighting the Pallavas, he got a news that the four rebelled again and he had to
cancel the campaign!! It's beyond comic that Samudragupta decided to empty his kingdom and march on the Pallavas and didn't have troops enough to contain some rebels? Now, the fun part? This cancellation of the campaign meant that he wasn't able to subdue the Vakatakas in the
campaign!! The desperation of this fight between Guptas and Vakatakas - it's hilarious. Because if Samudragupta had ideas to take on the Vakatakas, the Nagas wouldn't have rebelled - they would have allied with Vakatakas and blocked his route back -
or even worse, Vakatakas would have forgotten their differences with Pallavas and would have taken the bull by the horns. It's not a rosy prospect even for Samudragupta to face such an alliance!!
That's exactly how the mighty Someshwara was taken down - Bhoja attacking from Malwa, Gangeyadeva towards Chakrakuta and Rajendra Chola all along the Eastern Ghats till Mahendratanaya.
This doesn't end, eh? The author equates Raghu's campaigns as that of Samudragupta's - Allahabad Pillar's Daivaputra Shahi Shahanushahi Saka Murunda should be read as Sassanid Shapur and his Hunnic allies.
jstor.org
jstor.org
Interesting as well as plausible. Because an alliance of Shahanshas and Saka Murundas existed. Around 356 AD, Shapur was in the East fighting off the Kidara Huns - first enemies, then, allies and then enemies again. The Sassanids got in touch with those behind them(White Huns?)
forcing Kidara to search for allies. There are references to Kidara acknowledging Samudragupta as his suzerain. So, it was a joint invasion or Samudragupta using Kidara to inflict severe defeats before turning back - highly probable.
After all, if Chandragupta Maurya made a joke out of Seleucus Nikator, why not Samudragupta? Now, back to the article - and to Raghuvamsam. The invasion route and the names of the kingdoms make logical sense. Daivaputra Sahi, Sahanushahi is the Sassanid and the Saka Muruda are
Saka chieftains supporting him. Now, Kalidasa mentions Hunas as well - we know of Shapur joining hands with Kidara's northern neighobours - most probably the White Huns or Kalidasa assumed it to be Huns(Harisena writes Saka, Kalidasa writes Huna).
Defeated and marital alliances - all fine enough. Simhala? There is a 350s inscription of Sinhalese Monks in Bodh Gaya and a 361 Gupta embassy to the Romans - by sea. An alliance with Romans against Sassanids with Gupta ships prancing around Sinhala. Nice conjecture, it is.
By the way, one more reference to a Central Asian war from Manjushri Mula Kalpa.
Looks like there is a naval expedition as well...I guess Gupta-Sassanid relations is a topic which should be seriously looked into.
Loading suggestions...