Great video. Request :- Can you please make a video on the "Battle of the Hydaspes"? Are there any Indian sources about this battle? Also, did Porus belong to the 'Puru' tribe?
Did the two armies entered into a full fledged war or did they just signed a treaty? Are there are sources to support the claim that Chandragupta married the daughter of Seleucus?
Thank you, About your questions, There're quite good videos on the Battle of Hydaspes on RUclips and you can watch that, I am not planning to make a video on this topic rn. No Indian source mention the battle and King Porus. His association with the Puru tribe is also speculation. About the encounter with Chandragupta and the Seleucus we aren't sure wether a battle really took place or not, same is the case with the marriage.
Great video!! But I am surprised Poros did not came up in this history. Seems quite related to the warring for the destruction of the Nanda empire and Chandragupta. Chandragupta may have been even in the battle of the Hydaspes... I have read that in the books of Buddha Prakash.
अशोक शिलालेख में तो कहीं भी उल्लेख नहीं है...परन्तु यह कहा जाता है की मौर्य साम्राज्य के गुरु "चाणक्य" थे.... उनके ही मार्गदर्शन और शिक्षा-नीति की वजह से चंद्रगुप्त मौर्य हिन्दू धर्म छोड़कर "जैन" बन गए थे... बिंदुसार "आजीविक" बन गए थे और सम्राट अशोक "बौद्ध" बन गए थे...🤣
What do you mean by centre of Nanda Empire when chandragupt attached for the 1st time? Is it logical/possible to attack Magadh from Sindh region without protecting supply line and travelling that far?
@fI1ckerBecause Alexander's supply lines came from Greece to Bactria, and then southwards to Punjab. It's too long for those times, and moreover Greeks had no idea about Gangetic valley rivers.
Seems like Chandragupt I early career was revolving around Punjab. According to you, is there any possibility that he was a native of north-western India only ?
I’m curious about the Jian, Buddhist and Hindu sources mentioned here. The earliest writing in India dates to the reign of Ashoka , the grandson of Chandragupta. So none of these sources can be contemporary.
@@JayVardhanSingh can you tell about kachwaha s and mori and parmar maurya rajpura were closely related even today they marry each other and gotra also I guess most of oral history should be put taken hopefully u could research about chitoghad mori mauryan king , two theory ine was when Mughals attacks to save themselves they hide t in north u.p bihar region .
We have other ancient compositions which were much earlier. But there was no writing back then right. That doesn't mean they were from ashokan period. They were Orally passed and preserved by priests in exact form.
There's not enough proof on this, in my opinion. This topic, I have covered in an episode on the second channel. ruclips.net/video/lPApKkV3KM0/видео.html&ab_channel=HistoricallySpeaking
@@JayVardhanSingh Actually I even wanted to know about time for Vedas .I started to read Valmiki Ramayana and Mahabharata for last few years and found the mention of Vedas there . however the possibility of some new hymn added to Vedas during Mahabharata time by Vyas rishi is something which cannot be denied.
Its common with Hindi speaking people. Like you can see he says Chandragupt, Ashok instead of Chandragupta, Ashoka. Similarly they say Ram, Krishn, Arjun, Bhim instead of the Sanskrit words Rama, Krishna, Arjuna, Bhima. In Karnataka I observed that people have such names like my sir was Praveena. In India people speak with influence of local tongue. In Telugu we add du at the end, like Ramudu, Ashokudu
@@Sahil-lover-gy6dj we are not bhimta or hindu chor. As far as my understanding there is only human beings who can help fellow human beings rather bhagwan or bhoot
@@cheltooktribefreethinker1028 abbe bhimta reservation wala idhaar baat chanakya ki ho rhi ha bhagwaan kaha se le aaya 🤣🤡🤡 bhimta page Mahavamsa (buddhist source ) page 27 8 line padh 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Sir, please read about Chanakya before commenting. There are Buddhist Sources which talk about him. Mahavamsa which is pali text talk about Chanakya. Then there is a text called Abhayagirivihara, which is a chronicle compiled by Buddhist monks of Uttaravihara, here also we find the mention of Chanakya. Jaina Sources particularly in the Shvetambara canon you can find number of works which talk about Chanakya. Parishishtaparvan is a popular text which comes to my mind. We have two Sankrit text, Somadeva's Kathasaritasagara and Kshemendra's Brihatkathamanjari in which the story of Chanakya is told. But most importantly there is a play called Mudrarakshasa of Vishakadatta which deals with the story of Chanakya. So, Sir these are the evidence. Can you tell me in which book you have read that there are no Buddhist or Jaina Sources that talk about Chanakya. Please provide the name and the page number.
. सर्वप्रथम हम देखते हैं. चंद्रगुप्त का संघर्ष अलेक्झांडर से हूआ था . ऊस वक्त उसकी प्रेरणा कोन था. अलेक्झांडरके जो क्षात्रप थे उनकी हत्याये करवाई. गुरिला युद्धनितीसे उन्हे त्रस्त कर दिया. अखिर अलेक्झांडर लोट जानेके बाद उन्होंने नंद पर हमला किया था . इस्मे उसका साथ कई गणराज्य ने दिया. किसी भी समकालीन ग्रीक साहित्य मे चाण्यक्या का वर्णन नहीं . ग्रीक इतिहासकार जस्टिन, मकडोनेल, अरियन, खुद मेगास्थानिस कही पर भी चाण्यक्य का वर्णन नहीं करता. चौथी शताब्दी मे मुद्राराक्षस मे चाण्यक्य का वर्णन आता हैं सातसो साल बाद .वह एक नाटक हैं ओर हमे पता है नाटक या कादंबरी मे लेखक Liberty लेता है इस लिये यहा चाण्यक्य पात्र के माध्यमसे वैदीक supermacy जताने की कोशिश की हैं.. दुसरा उल्लेख सातवी शताब्दी मे महावंश मे आता हैं तब तक मुद्राराक्षस की दंत कथा फैल चुकी थी ऊसी प्रभाव मे उन्होंने भी उसिका अनुकरण किया. तिसरा उल्लेख हेमचंद्र के स्थविरावली चरित मे. बृहतकथामंजिरी ओर कथसरित्सर मे भी चाण्यक्य का उल्लेख हैं. लेकीन वह सब बाद की रचना हैं . उन सभी ने मुद्राराक्षस को ही आधार माना. अब हम अर्थशास्त्र देखते हैं यहा पर खुद लेखक अपने आपको कौटिल्य तथा विषणुगुप्त कहता हैं. फिर उसे चाणक्य ने लिखा इसका प्रमाण क्या. अर्थशास्त्र मे एक काल्पनिक छोटे राज्य की कल्पना करके राजा की भूमिका, मित्र, शत्रू, सवधनिया, विदेशनिती, जादूटोणा उपाय आदी का वर्णन हैं लेकीन मौर्य कालीन कोई उल्लेख नहीं. चंद्रगुप्त ने साम्राज्य खडा किया था . कौटिल्य साम्राज्य इस शब्द से अनभिज्ञ हैं. कौटिल्य सिंधु, कंबोज, कुरु, पांचाल, वज्जी का स्वतंत्र राज्य या गणराज्य उल्लेख करता हैं. जब की हकीकत यह थी वह मौर्य साम्राज्य के अधीन थे. ऐसी स्थिती ईसा के बाद तीसरी शताब्दी मे थी . जब ये राज्य स्वतंत्र थे उनके सिक्के से यह पता चलता हैं. कौटिल्य अर्थशास्त्र मे शिव, दुर्गा, कुबेर,, लक्ष्मी देवता के साथ कुलदेवता मंदींरोका वर्णन करता है. मंदिर निर्माण पहली शताब्दी के बाद ही बडे पैमाने मे होणे लगा इससे यही साबित होता है चाण्यक्या एक दंतकथा हैं
Thank you for the reply. Firstly Sir, if you're saying that these plays are used for propagating Vedic Supremacy then I don't agree with you. Scholars use these plays for historical analysis. For example, the evidence from Ramagupta, the Gupta ruler comes mostly from a play. So you can't deny the historical value of the play. It is true that in the play, not everything which is presented will be true but to completely reject a play as nothing but a source of Vedic supremacy is wrong. The earliest Pali texts also didn't talk about Chandragupta so that means even Chandragupta didn't exist. And why aren't you talking about the Buddhist text Uttaraviharatthkatha. Which was the basis of Mahavamsa. About the Greek sources, firstly you should know that Megasthenes Indica is not complete. The complete Megasthenes's Indica is now lost, we only have fragments. Secondly, these Greek sources which you have mentioned also do not talk about Lord Buddha. So by your logic then Lord Buddha is also a myth. Sir, if you are saying that the role of Chanakya/Kautilya which is given in these Sanskrit texts is exaggerated. Then I agree with you. Also, I agree, there are debates among scholars about the question of the identity of Chanakya and Kautilya. But Sir, to say that all of this is used to propagate Vedic Supremacy is, in my view, wrong. You can believe it and I don't have any problem with it because it is your opinion. But to say that it is historical fact is wrong. My reference for all of this detail is a book by Thomas R. Trautmann "Kautilya and the Arthashastra". Thank you
This is the same book that you have used to deny the Battle of the ten kings. I have provided you several references about the battle of ten kings. I think, Sir, that in this source there are many mistakes. If you have any other source, that is written by a well-known historian, then please let me know.
@@JayVardhanSingh I respect your opinion but desagree with you . though we don't get proof of chandrgupt in Pali as well Budha in Indica .we do get their evidence from other contemporary sources. Arthshastr itself denied existence of chanyakya.we have plenty of examples how Vedic distort our history for their supermacy.eg.how rajaram try to prove evidence of horse in Sindhu civilisation with the help of graphics. how Bhandarkar try to prove cast supermacy.and the very famous about chatrpati Shivaji Maharaj where We told by several Vedic historian that sant Ramdas was his Guru.this myth was busted after two hundred years .now think that mudrarakshas was written seven hundred years after chandrgupt .
Your thumbnails are dope
thanks bhai
Thanks for making this V. Knowledgeable videos with whose Help anyone can understand history very easy way
The story of the mother you told is also used for Nepalese Shah King Prithivi Narayana , I think the historians copied from Chandragupta story
Stories r just stories. Even Chandraguptas story seems just a story to teach kids.
It is definitely repeated many times, same story is used to describe how chatrapati shivaji Maharaj decided to take on the Mughals effectively
Sir the jain source mention of Chandragupti Raja of Ujjain who became Jain Muni among with Bhadrabahu.
We can see this in the biography of Bhadrabahu.
5:55 but chandragupt did fought a war and defeated the greek first before agreeing on a contract right
yeah, selucus was defeated.
Bro great Video! 🙌
thanks bhai
Great video.
Request :- Can you please make a video on the "Battle of the Hydaspes"? Are there any Indian sources about this battle? Also, did Porus belong to the 'Puru' tribe?
Did the two armies entered into a full fledged war or did they just signed a treaty? Are there are sources to support the claim that Chandragupta married the daughter of Seleucus?
Thank you,
About your questions,
There're quite good videos on the Battle of Hydaspes on RUclips and you can watch that, I am not planning to make a video on this topic rn.
No Indian source mention the battle and King Porus. His association with the Puru tribe is also speculation.
About the encounter with Chandragupta and the Seleucus we aren't sure wether a battle really took place or not, same is the case with the marriage.
Bro. Ur videos are really awesome
Glad you like them!
Great video!! But I am surprised Poros did not came up in this history. Seems quite related to the warring for the destruction of the Nanda empire and Chandragupta. Chandragupta may have been even in the battle of the Hydaspes... I have read that in the books of Buddha Prakash.
Sir please make video in hindi also....many audience in hindi can also listen ....
These vedio are so thrilling to watch ....It looks much better than the games of thrones
thank you
Did chanakya exist can we have sources for that
Yes
😂 don't ask anti-national things
But on one of the podcast u refuted this entire story
Yashoda ka nand lala... How is Krishna related to Nanda dynasty or not related at all?
there's no such relation.
Nanda = son
अशोक शिलालेख में तो कहीं भी उल्लेख नहीं है...परन्तु यह कहा जाता है की मौर्य साम्राज्य के गुरु "चाणक्य" थे.... उनके ही मार्गदर्शन और शिक्षा-नीति की वजह से चंद्रगुप्त मौर्य हिन्दू धर्म छोड़कर "जैन" बन गए थे... बिंदुसार "आजीविक" बन गए थे और सम्राट अशोक "बौद्ध" बन गए थे...🤣
What do you mean by centre of Nanda Empire when chandragupt attached for the 1st time? Is it logical/possible to attack Magadh from Sindh region without protecting supply line and travelling that far?
It could mean that they attacked the main army first or the Nanda stronghold.
@fI1ckerBecause Alexander's supply lines came from Greece to Bactria, and then southwards to Punjab. It's too long for those times, and moreover Greeks had no idea about Gangetic valley rivers.
I dont know why but that hot dish story comes in every india kings story lol
Seems like Chandragupt I early career was revolving around Punjab. According to you, is there any possibility that he was a native of north-western India only ?
there's a theory but personally I don't think he was from the north-west
The Moriya clan was from Uttarakhand. It was an offshoot of the Shakya clan.
Never heard of Chandragupta meeting Alexander to invade India and rule
It is not mentioned in the Indian Sources. We know this from Greek and Roman sources that talk about Alexander's Invasion of India.
@@JayVardhanSingh Can you mention some sources?
Bitter truth why should India mention. That’s not good for India. Even Chanakya was anti national, does anyone mention?
To Nanda history waha kese khatam hoti h
You mentioned about jain text on Chandragupta's death but you didn't mention what buddist text says.. kindly let us know.
Buddhist sources are silent on what happened to Chandragupta in his last days. Only the Jaina source talk about Chandragupta's last days.
Thanks for the suggestion, will surely make a video on Chanakya in future.
I’m curious about the Jian, Buddhist and Hindu sources mentioned here. The earliest writing in India dates to the reign of Ashoka , the grandson of Chandragupta. So none of these sources can be contemporary.
Yes, but these are the only sources we have.
@@JayVardhanSingh can you tell about kachwaha s and mori and parmar maurya rajpura were closely related even today they marry each other and gotra also I guess most of oral history should be put taken hopefully u could research about chitoghad mori mauryan king , two theory ine was when Mughals attacks to save themselves they hide t in north u.p bihar region .
We have other ancient compositions which were much earlier. But there was no writing back then right. That doesn't mean they were from ashokan period. They were Orally passed and preserved by priests in exact form.
@@Satyam1010-N😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
The hot dish story is told about Shivaji. 😂 Don't know who to trust anymore when it comes to history
Was Helen really existed and married to Chandragupta?
There's not enough proof on this, in my opinion. This topic, I have covered in an episode on the second channel.
ruclips.net/video/lPApKkV3KM0/видео.html&ab_channel=HistoricallySpeaking
Content in Hindi is better than in English.
was chandragupta and chanakya both were citizens of nanda empire?
there's no agreement on this. Some historian believe that they were original from Magadha whereas some argue otherwise.
Role of Chanakya have no reference as his prime minister
It is Karnataka not Karnatak
Thank you for pointing out my mistake.
@@JayVardhanSingh Actually I even wanted to know about time for Vedas .I started to read Valmiki Ramayana and Mahabharata for last few years and found the mention of Vedas there . however the possibility of some new hymn added to Vedas during Mahabharata time by Vyas rishi is something which cannot be denied.
Its common with Hindi speaking people. Like you can see he says Chandragupt, Ashok instead of Chandragupta, Ashoka. Similarly they say Ram, Krishn, Arjun, Bhim instead of the Sanskrit words Rama, Krishna, Arjuna, Bhima. In Karnataka I observed that people have such names like my sir was Praveena. In India people speak with influence of local tongue. In Telugu we add du at the end, like Ramudu, Ashokudu
Chandragupt maurya never convert to Jainism
Sandrakottus was dumb !!
From here onwards Hinduism declined....
Buddists targetted Hinduism.
Had Adi Shankaracharya not been there, India would have been a Buddhist country
Hawa chanakya didnt exist during chandra gupta, chanaka is a mythical character insert by arya samaj
Who said 😂 to you?? bhimta gangs ! Go and read buddhist sources and jain sources 😂😂
@@Sahil-lover-gy6dj we are not bhimta or hindu chor. As far as my understanding there is only human beings who can help fellow human beings rather bhagwan or bhoot
@@cheltooktribefreethinker1028 abbe bhimta reservation wala idhaar baat chanakya ki ho rhi ha bhagwaan kaha se le aaya 🤣🤡🤡 bhimta page Mahavamsa (buddhist source ) page 27 8 line padh 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Chanakya has not been referred by any historian before 1904 . Is there is any evidence ?
Yes
Chanyakya was myth .why indica, Greek, Jain,budhist litrature silent on him even
Sir, please read about Chanakya before commenting.
There are Buddhist Sources which talk about him. Mahavamsa which is pali text talk about Chanakya. Then there is a text called Abhayagirivihara, which is a chronicle compiled by Buddhist monks of Uttaravihara, here also we find the mention of Chanakya.
Jaina Sources particularly in the Shvetambara canon you can find number of works which talk about Chanakya. Parishishtaparvan is a popular text which comes to my mind.
We have two Sankrit text, Somadeva's Kathasaritasagara and Kshemendra's Brihatkathamanjari in which the story of Chanakya is told. But most importantly there is a play called Mudrarakshasa of Vishakadatta which deals with the story of Chanakya.
So, Sir these are the evidence.
Can you tell me in which book you have read that there are no Buddhist or Jaina Sources that talk about Chanakya. Please provide the name and the page number.
. सर्वप्रथम हम देखते हैं. चंद्रगुप्त का संघर्ष अलेक्झांडर से हूआ था . ऊस वक्त उसकी प्रेरणा कोन था. अलेक्झांडरके जो क्षात्रप थे उनकी हत्याये करवाई. गुरिला युद्धनितीसे उन्हे त्रस्त कर दिया. अखिर अलेक्झांडर लोट जानेके बाद उन्होंने नंद पर हमला किया था . इस्मे उसका साथ कई गणराज्य ने दिया. किसी भी समकालीन ग्रीक साहित्य मे चाण्यक्या का वर्णन नहीं . ग्रीक इतिहासकार जस्टिन, मकडोनेल, अरियन, खुद मेगास्थानिस कही पर भी चाण्यक्य का वर्णन नहीं करता. चौथी शताब्दी मे मुद्राराक्षस मे चाण्यक्य का वर्णन आता हैं सातसो साल बाद .वह एक नाटक हैं ओर हमे पता है नाटक या कादंबरी मे लेखक Liberty लेता है इस लिये यहा चाण्यक्य पात्र के माध्यमसे वैदीक supermacy जताने की कोशिश की हैं.. दुसरा उल्लेख सातवी शताब्दी मे महावंश मे आता हैं तब तक मुद्राराक्षस की दंत कथा फैल चुकी थी ऊसी प्रभाव मे उन्होंने भी उसिका अनुकरण किया. तिसरा उल्लेख हेमचंद्र के स्थविरावली चरित मे. बृहतकथामंजिरी ओर कथसरित्सर मे भी चाण्यक्य का उल्लेख हैं. लेकीन वह सब बाद की रचना हैं . उन सभी ने मुद्राराक्षस को ही आधार माना. अब हम अर्थशास्त्र देखते हैं यहा पर खुद लेखक अपने आपको कौटिल्य तथा विषणुगुप्त कहता हैं. फिर उसे चाणक्य ने लिखा इसका प्रमाण क्या. अर्थशास्त्र मे एक काल्पनिक छोटे राज्य की कल्पना करके राजा की भूमिका, मित्र, शत्रू, सवधनिया, विदेशनिती, जादूटोणा उपाय आदी का वर्णन हैं लेकीन मौर्य कालीन कोई उल्लेख नहीं. चंद्रगुप्त ने साम्राज्य खडा किया था . कौटिल्य साम्राज्य इस शब्द से अनभिज्ञ हैं. कौटिल्य सिंधु, कंबोज, कुरु, पांचाल, वज्जी का स्वतंत्र राज्य या गणराज्य उल्लेख करता हैं. जब की हकीकत यह थी वह मौर्य साम्राज्य के अधीन थे. ऐसी स्थिती ईसा के बाद तीसरी शताब्दी मे थी . जब ये राज्य स्वतंत्र थे उनके सिक्के से यह पता चलता हैं. कौटिल्य अर्थशास्त्र मे शिव, दुर्गा, कुबेर,, लक्ष्मी देवता के साथ कुलदेवता मंदींरोका वर्णन करता है. मंदिर निर्माण पहली शताब्दी के बाद ही बडे पैमाने मे होणे लगा इससे यही साबित होता है चाण्यक्या एक दंतकथा हैं
Thank you for the reply.
Firstly Sir, if you're saying that these plays are used for propagating Vedic Supremacy then I don't agree with you. Scholars use these plays for historical analysis. For example, the evidence from Ramagupta, the Gupta ruler comes mostly from a play. So you can't deny the historical value of the play. It is true that in the play, not everything which is presented will be true but to completely reject a play as nothing but a source of Vedic supremacy is wrong.
The earliest Pali texts also didn't talk about Chandragupta so that means even Chandragupta didn't exist. And why aren't you talking about the Buddhist text Uttaraviharatthkatha. Which was the basis of Mahavamsa.
About the Greek sources, firstly you should know that Megasthenes Indica is not complete. The complete Megasthenes's Indica is now lost, we only have fragments. Secondly, these Greek sources which you have mentioned also do not talk about Lord Buddha. So by your logic then Lord Buddha is also a myth.
Sir, if you are saying that the role of Chanakya/Kautilya which is given in these Sanskrit texts is exaggerated. Then I agree with you. Also, I agree, there are debates among scholars about the question of the identity of Chanakya and Kautilya. But Sir, to say that all of this is used to propagate Vedic Supremacy is, in my view, wrong.
You can believe it and I don't have any problem with it because it is your opinion. But to say that it is historical fact is wrong.
My reference for all of this detail is a book by
Thomas R. Trautmann "Kautilya and the Arthashastra".
Thank you
This is the same book that you have used to deny the Battle of the ten kings. I have provided you several references about the battle of ten kings. I think, Sir, that in this source there are many mistakes. If you have any other source, that is written by a well-known historian, then please let me know.
@@JayVardhanSingh I respect your opinion but desagree with you . though we don't get proof of chandrgupt in Pali as well Budha in Indica .we do get their evidence from other contemporary sources. Arthshastr itself denied existence of chanyakya.we have plenty of examples how Vedic distort our history for their supermacy.eg.how rajaram try to prove evidence of horse in Sindhu civilisation with the help of graphics. how Bhandarkar try to prove cast supermacy.and the very famous about chatrpati Shivaji Maharaj where We told by several Vedic historian that sant Ramdas was his Guru.this myth was busted after two hundred years .now think that mudrarakshas was written seven hundred years after chandrgupt .
The moral is Men r Might. Women r Knowledge. 😜😜😜 Wonder why Saraswathi is the Goddess of Knowledge & Brahma is Might who is a Creator. 😜😜😜