Talk:Chandragupta I

Sandrokottos = Chandragupta I
This looks like a fringe theory. Your cited sources either look very dated or unreliable and the language used is not very NPOV either. Please quote the relevant passages here from these references and obtain consensus before adding this to the article. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok I will try to quote the relevant passages — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghvendra99674010 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 30 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Copied from Cpt.a.haddock's talk page:


 * In the middle of the 19th century MaxMuller for the first time termed the identity of sandrokottas with Chandragupta Maurya as the sheet anchor of Indian history. It is being challenged since its inception. M.troyer was the first to oppose it in the letter to prof.MaxMullar and since then a number of scholars like T.S.Narayana Sastry, N. Jagannatharao , M.Krishnamachariar , Kota Venkatachalam , Pandit Bhagavadatta, D.s Trivedi and other are opposing it in their books and articles. According to Kota Venkatachelam

"The greatest mistake that has ever been committed in the field of the Chronology of Ancient India-nay the greatest harm that has ever been done to the cause and progress of the ancient Indian History and Literature-is the so called identification of Sandrocottus, Sandrocyptus, of the Greek writers of Alexander’s history with Chandragupta Maurya, the first king of the Maurya Dynasty, and of the so-called identification of Xandrames or Andramen with Nanda, the father of the said Chandragupta Maurya." "Greek writers mentioned along with sandrocottus two other names Xandrames his predecessor and sandrocyptus his successor. wantonly they ignored the Gupta Chandragupta whose predecessor was chandrasri or chandramas or chandrabija and successor SamudraGupta, who could easily be identified with Xandrames and sandrocyptus.In spite of lack of any correspondence between xandrames and sandracyptus with mahapadmananda and bindusara, the predecessor and successor of Chandragupta Maurya respectively, the latter was declared to be the cotemporary of alexander and relegated to 327 B.C., thus reducing the antiquity of Indian history by more than 12 centuries." can it be added? or other quotes needed?


 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghvendra99674010 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

TS Narayan Sastry appears to have died in 1918. "The age of the Mahabharata war" appears to be from 1931. "History of Classical Sanskrit Literature" is from 1937. Kota Venkatachalam's book also appears to be pre-1955. These are all highly dated sources. I'm not too sure about the other two sources listed either. But look at the excerpt from DS Trivedi where he places the Mauryas in the 15th century BCE, I'd say that they are not terribly reliable. In other words, these are either dated, fringe or unreliable opinions and do not merit inclusion in an encyclopaedia unless better and recent supporting sources are found. Thanks.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 12:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

William Jones identified sandracottus with Chandragupta Maurya in the 17th century and other scholars mentioned by me are more recent.recent supporting are as follow(above 1990)

--Raghvendra99674010 (talk) 03:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Most of those are not scholars. The Bioscope Man, for example, is a work of fiction. Please see WP:RS and WP:HISTRS.—Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 08:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

History
Chandragupata 1 42.106.126.33 (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)