Talk:Gupta Empire

Removed text
Removed the following text: Very recently a few scholars have linked Guptas with rulers mentioned in Bhagwatam; however, these things are largely disputed and the idea seems politically motivated to promote the sale of books written and promoted by some entities. Seemed to promote a POV.

___________________________

Somebody, after 23rd of October has added the name of Ashoka after Skandagupta in the dynastic list. I know because I copied the name of the rulers on 23rd and then today someone said ashoka's name is in the list. There is a conspiracy to put the name of Ashoka in Gupta dynasty. Would the editors please note and take action ?

--- somsuj from Indian History Community of Orkut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.180.16 (talk) 08:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

== Pending tasks

system of government deeptrivia (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Map
The map depicts Gupta Empire ruling greater Sistan and Afghanistan. Its totally false :

1. Sistan was one of the most important provinces of the Sassanid empire and it was governed for almost 700 years by Suren-Pahlav Clan.

2. On the given period of time Sassanids were in their first Golden era the period that Shapur II annexed many cities in nowadays Pakistan and western India to his already vast empire. After him the successive rules were so protective of their eastern territory.

3. See Indo-Sassanian.

Amir85 10:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Amir85,


 * I did not post the map, but out of curiousity, I would like to discuss it. First a clarification: you are referring to the map that is currently posted on the Gupta page, correct?


 * Now that that is out of the way, on that map, no part of Seistan appears under Gupta control. The Western-most territory is that of Sind, a part of Greater India and under Guptan rule after the defeat of the Sakas. Regarding Afghanistan, from what I can tell, no part of it is featured as part of the Gupta Empire, as Takshasila and the Kabul Valley are recorded to have remained under the direct rule of the Kushans. It should be noted though that Guptan records mention campaigns extending to Bahlika which refers to Afghanistan.


 * Sassanid control on the subcontinent is recorded to have taken place following their defeat and reinstatement of the Kushans as vassals. Just to clarify, what does your research indicate as the eastern-most region/city on the subcontinent that came under Sassanid control? Are there actual inscriptions or imperial records to indicate control in these regions or is the evidence again numismatic?


 * For example, did the Saka Kshatraps of Gujarat pay homage to the Sassanids? As far as I know, the Kabul Valley and the parts of Pakistan (i.e. Takshasila) under Kushan rule did, but not Gujarat under the Kshatraps. Moreover, the Kshatraps themselves became independent of the Kushans prior to the rise of the Sassanids. I would be interested in taking a look at some articles you could point me out to that have a more definitive boundary for Sassanid control on the Subcontinent. As you know, there is insufficient research out there on this and other subcontinental topics.


 * Also, the article on Indo-Sassanians erroneously credits the Indo-Sassanians with continuous rule in parts of the subcontinent from the fifth through tenth centuries. After all, the Sassanids themselves were extinguished following the death of Yazdegerd III and the escape of Feroz into China. What evidence is there to indicate that they are connected to the Hindu Shahi Dynasty that ruled the Kabul Valley and the Punjab until the 10 century?


 * Lastly, could you please refer me to some evidence that establishes the Indo-Sassanians as a separate and independent dynasty from the Imperial Persian line? From what I understand, the Kushanshahs were merely the reinstated Kushan dynasts. Anyhow, I am looking forward to your response.


 * Regards,


 * Devanampriya

Contributions
This part of the page is in need of much work. The language here is quite confusing, and I can only hope an expert can come in to expand upon this section further.

The 'Legacy' section mentions Aryabhata 'proposing' that the earth is round. The round earth theory is by the time of the Guptas about 1000 years old, so i'm not sure it's really relevant (or appropriate to call it part of the gupta legacy). see page on the theory of a spherical earth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_Earth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B029:E2E6:ED28:F32C:F748:8E2 (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Origin of Guptas
The Arya Manjushri Mul Kalpa, is a history of India covering the period 700 BCE to 770 AD. The history was a Buddhist Mahayana work, by a Tibetan scholar, and was composed sometime in the 8th century CE.

K P Jayaswal brought this material out from above book in his eminently scholarly book :An Imperial history of India C 700 BC – C 770 AD. K P Jayaswal has spotted and brought out the fact that the second Guptas, (Chandra Gupta II, Samudra Gupta etc circa 200 BCE to 600 BCE) were Jats, who came originally form the Mathura area. They were of the “ Dharan” goth/Gotra, as shown by the inscription of the Prabhadevi Plate, where she gives her father’s (and her) goth as Dharan. The Dharan Jats still can be found in the U.P Mathura region and they proudly point to their ancient glory, of how their forefathers ruled Hindustan.

According to him Gupta is said to have been a Mathura-Jata (Sanskrit- Jata-vamsa). Jata-vamsa, that is, Jata Dynasty stands for Jarta, that is, Jat. That the Guptas were Jat; we already have good reasons to hold (JBORS, XIX. p. 1U). His Vaisali mother is the Lichchhavi lady.

The historian Bhim Singh Dahiya has proved by applying “Grimm's law of Variation” that in Indo-European languages the alphabet “J” changes to “G”. Due to this law the Chinese call Jats as “Getae” and Germans call them “Got”, “Gaut” or “Goth”. The Proto-Germanic name Gaut changes to Gupt as under:

Gapt is considered to be a corruption of Gaut (Gaut→Gavt→Gaft→Gapt, cf. eftir and eptir, "after" in Old Norse). Gapt changed to Gupt in India.

When Chandragupta II, Vikramaditya married his daughter with a Vakataka prince he called tribe as "Dharan" which is a gotra of Jats even today. Skandagupta has written in an inscription of Junagarh that Gupta is a title, which means soldier or a chief. Hence Bhim Singh Dahiya concludes that Guptas were Jats.

The above facts may help to find the origin of Guptas and need further research.--burdak 17:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Guptas were neither Jats, nor low born Vaishyas as many have mentioned and which is also mentioned in article. They have claimed themselves to be of Solar race in their inscription. As per Vedic literature, Solar and Lunar race are of Kshatriyas only. Therefore, it's clear that they were Kshatriyas. TeamIndic (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Guptas were Jats of Dharan gotra Prerit Tushir (talk) 08:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

"Classical anarchy"
Can someone please expand on this? I don't understand. Tuncrypt 02:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Guptas never ruled Punjab and Sind
Gupta empire was confined to central and north-eastern part of modern India. Gupatas never ruled Pujab, Sind and parts of Rajisthan, as it is shown in the map.

Oh gosh is this another one of those 'islamic' histories of Pakistan that you are refering to?...All evidence points to the fact that Guptas did rule punjab and sindh and southern mountains of kashmir i.e Akhnur, mirpur. The areas upto the Indus river in the West, entire Sindh coast and Jhelum river in the north have been known to include the Gupta territory and its Vassals. March, 25, 2006

Reality is always bitter. There is no such a thing as Islamic Histories Of Pakistan. But the Hindutva History of Hindutvas is unfortunately a reality and these Hindutvas have ruined the whole Wikipedia.

This is not a biased view...it is supported by many history reference books written from primary evidence (archeological or from surviving documents). Look at the book The Gupta Empire by Radhakumud Mookerji published by Hind Kitabs Ltd, Bombay, 1959. Shyam (talk) 04:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Kindly provide this 'evidence', as the Oxford History of India seems to state otherwise:

His son and chosen successor, Samudragupta, stands forth as a real man — scholar, poet, musician, and warrior. The early years of his vigorous reign were devoted to the thorough conquest of Upper India, that is to say, the country now known as the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh with the Central India Agency and Bengal, but not including the Panjab

Oxford Students History of India by Vincent Arthur Smith

Also please look at the maps below. Khokhar (talk) 07:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

True map of the Gupta empire
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Negandhi anand (talk • contribs) 17:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

Decimal System
The reference to the Decimal System is inaccurate - although zero was invented around 400 CE, The decimal system itself was invented at least 600 years earlier, long before the Guptas. (See the Wikipedia article on the Hindu-Arabic numeral system.) Sasha 13:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

the largest empire??
The first sentence claims that the Gupta Empire was the largest in the world. This claim is made also for the Mongolians, for the Romans, the English and so on and so forth. Everyone wants their empire to be the biggest. Size is I think a relatively minor gague of importance. I suggest that whoever works on this page remove this sentence so that this entry sound more professional.Brosi 22:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

-- Well, the Mongol Empire WAS the largest empire in history, both in land mass and population. But the Gupta Empire was much smaller than others in terms of area - but had a very large population. HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

Please restore images
Somebody, probably well-intentioned, broke the link to two of the images in the article by introducing an additional space in the image names. Could somebody restore the original image names in the article? (Image:Two Gold coins of Chandragupta II.jpg and Image:Silver Coin of Chandragupta II.jpg, without spaces). Cheers PHG (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Origin of Guptas page created
Following para has been removed from the introduction. It can be discussed in the page origin of Guptas.

"The most accepted theory about the origins of the Guptas is that the Guptas originated from Bengal. The mention of "Varendra Mrigashihavan Stupa" on a mound in Nepal is a strong evidence that the Guptas originated from Bengal. Maharaja Sri-Gupta probably ruled a portion of Northern/Southern Bengal. Later Chandragupta I established his dominion over Magadha through marital policy with the Licchavis."

The above paragraph violates WP:APT. No reference has been cited which says that the theory is the most accepted. So it an WP:OR. Manoj nav (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

History of the Gupta dynasty
There's a big unreferenced text dump at History of the Gupta dynasty which should either be referenced, cleaned up and wikified or incorporated into this article. Pichpich (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Absolutely! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 06:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely. A lot of India articles are really just overwhelming text dumps.  I try to clean them up when I can, but I have just sporadic knowledge of Indian history and limited access to texts on the topic.  It should be a separate article, ideally, as the topic is huge.  However, do what you can, and you have my support.  I''ll see what I can do, also.  --KP Botany (talk) 07:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Gupta empire coverage
The first section says the empire covered modern day Pakistan, this is not true and will be removed :

An important development had taken place in the neighbouring Country of India a little earlier which deserves our attention. Buddhism, which was on the decline from the 3rd century A.D. onward was overthrown by Hinduism reasserting its lost hegemony. This process culminated with the coming into power of the Guptas by the end of the 4th century A.D. A point of considerable significance to be noted here is that though the Gupta Empire is considered one of the most glorious in the annals of Hindu history covering a vast area of this sub-continent, yet it could not bring Pakistan under its tutelage. During the Gupta period, Pakistan was in the hands of Kushan Shahis and Sassanians. Even during Samudragupta's triumphal career this region remained independent of India. "Samudragupta did not attempt to carry his arms across the Sutlej or to dispute the authority ofthe Kushan kings who continued to rule in and beyond the Indus basin...... Gupta Empire---the greatest in India since the days of Ashoka-extended in the north to the base of the mountains, but did not include Kashmir" (Oxford History of India)

or refer to A Short History of Pakistan and History of Pakistan





Also if you look at the map of the Gupta empire, also found in the main article or from a neutral reference, here and compare it to the map of asia from wiki's Asia page, here  you will notice that Pakistan is not part of the Geographic spread of the Empire. Khokhar (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

His son and chosen successor, Samudragupta, stands forth as a real man — scholar, poet, musician, and warrior. The early years of his vigorous reign were devoted to the thorough conquest of Upper India, that is to say, the country now known as the United Provinces of Agra and Oudh with the Central India Agency and Bengal, but not including the Panjab

Oxford Students History of India by Vincent Arthur Smith

Diagram in 'Huna invasions and the end of empire' section
The diagram shows the boundaries to extend beyond the Indus and Sutlej whereas the empire never extended past those points, hence the picture will be removed.

Following quot e from the Oxford history of India:

Samudragupta did not attempt to carry his arms across the Sutlej or to dispute the authority ofthe Kushan kings who continued to rule in and beyond the Indus basin...... Gupta Empire---the greatest in India since the days of Ashoka-extended in the north to the base of the mountains, but did not include Kashmir

hippos
there is a small reference to the military use of hippos in the military organization section of this article. there is no reference of this use of hippos in their article. please check acuracy.

military organization section has no quotes.

--Ben.M.DT (talk) 02:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - hippos cannot be 'tamed' for military use any more than a kangaroo could. In fact, hippos are extremely dangerous and I pity the poor slob ordered by his king to put such a policy into effect! (We lose more trainers that way .... ) HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmsFan

"Empire"
Gupta Rajavamsa cannot be translated by "Gupta Empire". Vamsa means family, rajavamsa therefore something like "dynasty". Please use a Sanskrit dictionary now and then. GB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.20.154.64 (talk) 13:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

King Oprah? Seriously?
This is why no one should ever cite wikipedia. Some anonymous vandal comes along and it and nearly three years later no one has noticed? Someone even went as far as to helpfully remove the link to Oprah Winfrey so that Oprah would point to the ancient king, not the talk show host. The worst part of this is that this ridiculous line about the mighty King Oprah has been copy-pasted in a number of places, including educational documents and a wikimedia book. How is it that a community comprised mostly of pedants and know-it-alls allowed this to pass unnoticed for so long? You can even find articles in wikipedia itself that directly refute the existence of king Oprah, invader of the Gupta empire.

The edit in question was: 23:50, 8 March 2009‎ 76.105.237.36 (talk)‎ (22,891 bytes) (→Huna invasions and the end of empire)

My absolute favorite part of this episode is that this vandal made three edits. The first two added obvious typos, which were caught within minutes. Afterwards he changed the name of an important Huna king to Oprah. And here we are three years later.

98.237.178.164 (talk) 09:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

fixed now -september 6, 2012   replaced king oprah with hepthalites   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.161.17 (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Gupta era
Please add a definition for Gupta era Aravind V R (talk) 10:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Can we use a picture of an actual Gupta temple, not a temple from a different time and place?.
I notice that the temple shown in the picture in the article is from Indonesia, and was built in the 9th century. The temple shown is neither from the time or place of the Gupta empire. A picture of an actual Gupta temple should be used. Although rare, there are some Gupta temples still around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.111.162.2 (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Faxian spelling
This article should either decide on a certain spelling of the Buddhist monk Faxian or inform the reader that Faxian is equivalent to Fa Xian and Fa Hsien and Fa Hien. As it stands now, things are slightly confusing.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Gupta Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761571624/gupta_dynasty.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wsu.edu:8001/~dee/ANCINDIA/GUPTA.HTM
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120414141049/http://www.indonesia.travel/en/destination/233 to http://www.indonesia.travel/en/destination/233

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Golden Age of India
| This revision removed the references and statement about some scholars disputing that the Gupta Empire was "the Golden Age", claiming it was an "exaggerated claim. Only DN Jha refuted the claim of Golden Age, while most modern historians still maintain the claim." I reverted the change, but would like that user to know why and allow them an opportunity to open a dialogue about this.
 * I reverted the change because the wording of the article already implied that this is an idea only contested by some scholars. If the claim is to be made that this was "The Golden Age" of India, it is important to show all dissenting ideas and the scholars that wrote them in order to help provide a neutral point of view.  Denied Club  ❯❯❯ talk?   16:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Composition of Bhagavad Gita in Gupta Era?
I just read that " Dr.Ambedkar along with Buddhist scholar Kausambi places Bhagavad Gita in the period of the Gupta emperor Baladitya (early sixth century CE)." See https://swarajyamag.com/longform/dr-ambedkar-dr-elst-and-bhagavad-gita

Here also: The Bhagavad Gita: A Biography - Page 6 https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1400851971 Richard H. Davis - 2014 - ‎Preview Most Sanskrit scholars agree that the Bhagavad Gita originated in northern India, sometime in the classical period between the reign of the Mauryan king Ashoka (r. 269–232 BCE) and Gupta dynasty (320–547 CE), as part of a much larger ...

And here: The Bhagavadgita: Doctrines and Contexts - Page 243 https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1139469053 Angelika Malinar - 2007 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions Some scholars, for instance, interpret the BhG as a 'synthesis' of different ideas and groups which mirrors a peaceful, prosperous society in which diversity has been harmonised, as was allegedly achieved under the Gupta dynasty (350–500 ...

Do other sources support this claim as well?

2604:2000:1103:A206:B173:415F:C641:6DDF (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)R.E.D.

Gupta empire, greatest extent period chandragupta 2, 414 AD map
Dallas museum of art mentions the following map of gupta empire, i think its the greatest extent of gupta empire which should be mentioned in this article, its a great injustice that empires like empires of alexander, and mughal are shown at their greatest extend in their articles even though they were only to retain that for a very few years while gupta empire article has multiple maps none of them showing their greatest extent.

chandragupta II, 414 AD

map115.135.118.112 (talk) 07:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Founding of the Gupta Dynasty
The gupta dynasty was founded from the marriage of Princess kumaradevi and Chandragupta I am planning to add this in the article

https://books.google.com/books?id=yjStCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT75&dq=Gupta+origins&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj5-az2mZfgAhWnIDQIHeyQDBYQ6AEIMzAC#v=onepage&q=Gupta%20origins&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangitha rani111 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

New Gupta empire map
to the guy who made reverts,

i think your maps dont represent maximum extent of the Gupta empire, in any article related to empires, maximum extent is always shown, secondly your maps are not of the same quality as other shaded maps, i think my map should be replaced on the template while you can put detailed map below. 60.50.173.223 (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I did not undo your changes, but I'd like to point out that the extent depicted in your map may not be accurate. Your map depicts large parts of large parts of south-eastern India as well as north-western India as parts of the Gupta Empire at the same time. In reality, the south-eastern campaign of Samudragupta probably resulted in some tributary states rather than annexed territories, and this tributary status probably did not last during the reign of Chandragupta II when the empire is believed to expanded in the north-west. utcursch &#124; talk 00:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * the map has been backed by a source, so it is not just a random map, here is another source of the map which is by dallas museum of arts. 60.50.173.223 (talk) 04:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the extent depicted in these maps is not unanimously accepted among scholars. For example, see the sources of the current map.
 * Other than that, as RegentsPark (who undid your edit) states, the current map is more informative. And I agree -- it labels various places and neighbouring kingdoms, while the other map shows nothing more than three colors. utcursch &#124; talk 15:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ok, how about mentioning both maps? 60.50.173.223 (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * How about in the Chandragupta section (assuming the sourcing is good). Along with the caveats stated by Utcursch above - clearly stating that it includes tributary states. --regentspark (comment) 00:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

added a new template
https://dsal.uchicago.edu/reference/schwartzberg/ changed the area reference added

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2023.
72845ggg (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2023 (UTC) Please they are some few mistake

The Gupta dynasty is not ruled by vaishyas. Please remove the work contect or history 72845ggg (talk) 10:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Inaccurate Map of Guptas
The current map depicting the Gupta Empire is highly inaccurate. It erroneously includes parts of modern-day Pakistan, Afghanistan and southern India. During the same era, modern-day Punjab in Pakistan and Taxila was ruled by the Kidarites and local tribes, and Sindh was under the control of the Sassanids, succeeded by the Rai dynasty. Details regarding the southern conquests are scarce, and conflicts indicate that the southern kings were not directly under the suzerainty of the Guptas. The cited source for the map is highly flawed, as observed in the case of the Vijayanagar Empire as well. This Map Conflate different eras into One DeepstoneV (talk) 10:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The Current map has sources. Can you please provide an alternative map with proper sources and explain why it is a better option? Thanks SKAG123 (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure But I gave the reason regarding the Current Map, which conflates different eras into one, The current Map shows Taxila and Punjab as Territory of Guptas But as same Era Kidarites ruled and Litrally same in the case of Sindh, at Same era Sassanids followed by Rai dynasty ruled it
 * Gupta empire Map.jpg
 * This is the Most accurate Map of Guptas DeepstoneV (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This map doesn’t have a source. The current map in the infobox is sourced SKAG123 (talk) 02:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I told current Map conflates different eras into one, Is there any Sold Evidence to Support that Guptas ruled Taxila and Sindh? Because at same era other dynasties were rulling DeepstoneV (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This map is totally inaccurate without any sources and there's no way we can change the current map to this. Well, even worse! Not only is this map inaccurate and without any sources, but it's also just a screenshot from a YouTube video [1 ], [2 ]. Definitely not changing the current map to this, and I hope you know YouTube videos aren't WP:RS. Based Kashmiri (talk) 10:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Current Map has alot of InAccuracies, and We have seen that in the case of Vijayangar empire's Map too.
 * Current Map shows Sindh as territory of Guptas But at same era Sindh was Province of the sassanid empire and Rai dynasty Preceded them in Sindh
 * DeepstoneV (talk) 18:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Look, there's no way we're going to change the current map that's accurate and well sourced to your screenshot from a YouTube video. I suggest you to take a look at WP:RS
 * The current map is of 420 CE and Rai Dynasty started in 489 CE.
 * Also Gupta Arts have been found in Sindh (circa 410 CE) so the current map is absolutely correct.
 * ""The terracotta figures of Mirpur Khas represent the Gupta idiom as it flourished in Sindh. (...) In the terracottas of Mirpur Khas, of which the Museum has a most representative collection, one may see the synthesis of Gandhara and Gupta traditions . Here the old sacrosanct forms of Gandhara are moulded in the Gupta character of nobility, restraint and spirituality and the result is very pleasing. The figures of the Buddha from Mirpur Khas show transformation from the Gandhara to Gupta idiom, which the figures of the donor and Kubera show well developed Gupta types.""

- Prince of Wales Museum of Western India Based Kashmiri (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This source conflates different eras into one DeepstoneV (talk) 17:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What are you going on about? You asked for solid evidence of Gupta rule in Sindh, so I gave you sources of their influence there. Did you know that the Guptas extended till Sindh?
 * The above discussion enables us to describe the nature and extent of the empire of Samudra-gupta with an accuracy and fulness of details which are rare in ancient Indian history. It comprised nearly the whole of Northern India, with the exclu- sion of Kashmir, Western Punjab, Western Rajputāna, Sindh and Gujarat, together with the highlands of Chattisgarh and Orissa and a long stretch of territory along the eastern coast extending as far south as Chingleput and probably even further. Of these vast territories, a considerable portion of Northern India, more accurately defined above, was directly adminis- tered by the emperor through his own officials
 * Clearly you aren't an expert in this topic. You shouldn't spout off about things you know nothing about.
 * Based Kashmiri (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Your source is litrally depend upon arts, even a Indian art is found in Italy known as Rome Laxmi. This don't proves anything DeepstoneV (talk) 17:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Its actually Pompeii Lakshmi DeepstoneV (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * No unrelated and invalid arguments please. We won't edit the current map, which is properly sourced to your unsourced screenshot from YouTube. Do you even know what WP:RS is? Based Kashmiri (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is litrally a article present on Sassanid Sindh Province Depend upon WP:RS and you are Giving some Art Sources that at same era Gupta ruled Sindh, Wow. DeepstoneV (talk) 19:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but we are not going to add your unsourced and fake map which is literally a screenshot from YouTube[1 ], [2 ]. Also, I already gave you sources regarding the Gupta's conquests of Sindh. Based Kashmiri (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's also been brought to my attention that you removed the "Gupta Empire section" from History of Sindh (3) in a highly biased manner. if you continue to engage in vandalism and removing WP:RS on pages related to the Gupta Empire and Sindh, I will report it to WP:ANI (Wikipedia: Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents). This is your last warning. Based Kashmiri (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Wow, this is genuinely hilarious. Referring to everything as WP:RS (Wikipedia Reliable Source), and by the way, you can't even locate the context in most of those sources. Just observe the timeline to see how both the Guptas and Sassanids ruled simultaneously. This is nonsense, and Sitush was correct about Indian history. DeepstoneV (talk) 12:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Interesting, the edit by DeepstoneV which Based Kashmiri was talking about was reverted by brand new user User:Malik-Al-Hind who made the same argument, who also tries to overinflate the Gupta territory  just like brand new user Based Kashmiri and who makes the exact type of edits as Based Kashmiri. Certainly doesn't sound similar to the countless other new users . Also  - 4th-century Kalidasa is not WP:RS per WP:AGEMATTERS, WP:PST and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Even more interestingly there is another user who opposes DeepstoneV and isn't a brand new user. (9)
 * Tagging him @Flemmish Nietzsche. Based Kashmiri (talk) 14:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Nice whataboutism. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ignore DeepstoneV's disruptive edits and just say Nice Whataboutism, so interesting. Based Kashmiri (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And who are you to decide whose edits I should talk about? I'm currently talking about you and the recent edit warring that led to this page being protected. Feel free to respond to my first comment up above. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You are saying using Kalidasa as a source isn't WP:RS, But the cited sources use Ashwini Agarwal and Upinder Singh, Both of them are historians and they come in the category of WP:RS clearly. And they clearly talk about Kalidasa Praising Guptas for having conquered Oxus, Kambojas, And other 21 kingdoms in and outside India. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Feel free to quote Ashwini Agarwal and Upinder Singh here then, what are they saying? Are they agreeing with Kalidasa? Or is this more WP:SYNTH? HistoryofIran (talk) 14:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The cited sources which are WP:RS talk about Kalidasa Praising Guptas for conquering 21 kingdoms in and Outside India, This included the Oxus valley, kambojas and bactria.
 * And that is what the lead said.
 * "The 4th-century CE Sanskrit poet Kalidasa credits the Guptas with having conquered about twenty-one kingdoms, both in and outside India, including the kingdoms of Persians, the Hunas, the Kambojas, tribes located in the west and east Oxus valleys, the Kinnaras, Kiratas, and others."
 * So there is nothing wrong with this. Since the cited sources clearly say what the lead section of the page says
 * Make sure to read Read what Ashwini Agarwal has said in the cited sources:
 * Ashvini agarwal in p-165-
 * "Trans-Indus region and from there he headed northwards, reached Bactria, where perhaps he had a battle with the Hūņas on the Oxus. This view remarkably tallies with Kālidāsa's account of Raghu's conquests of the north. His description seems to be based on a historical background and he seems to have combined the conquests of Samudragupta and Chandragupta II into that of the legendary Raghu"
 * Goyal is a Historian as well as well and see what he says about this: Goyal p-218- lt conclusively proves that if Kalidasa wrote the account of the digvijaya of Raghu on the basis of the actual facts provided by the military achievements of Samudragupta and Chandragupta II, he had completed the composition of the Raghuvamsa before the conquest of the Western India by Chandragupta II the Saka rule in the Westera India came to an end towards theclose of the reign of Chandragupta. Therefore, the composition of the Raghuvamsa may well have been over by c. 400 A. D.

It is a very significant clue, because as is generally admitted, the Raghuvamsa is by far one of the best and most mature works of Kalidasa.Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)


 * So where is the part where they support what you added? . I'm still waiting. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ?!?!?! "Are they agreeing with Kalidasa" I don't get you. And what was that ? Please be sure about what you ask. Then I may be able to respond you. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That was me clarifying an already simple question, yet you still failed to understand it. It's not rocket science. Are you going to address it? HistoryofIran (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * My first quote is just above your comment, Answering your question. Indeed it is not rocket science. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 04:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Sigh... okay, let's try one last time. This info you added, it's by reported by a person from the 4th-century, but you are claiming that the two modern historians Ashwini Agarwal and Upinder Singh are supporting this claim. So please cite the quote where they are supporting the following; "The 4th-century CE Sanskrit poet Kalidasa credits the Guptas with having conquered about twenty-one kingdoms, both in and outside India, including the kingdoms of Persians, the Hunas, the Kambojas, tribes located in the west and east Oxus valleys, the Kinnaras, Kiratas, and others." HistoryofIran (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I simply said the two Modern historians agree with the claim that Kalidasa Praises Guptas for having Conquered 21 Kingdoms In and Outside India Including Oxus valley, Kambojas, Balkh and kingdom of the persians. Which is obviously true if you simply click on the citation and check it.
 * But since it looks like rocket science to you, I am quoting him again.
 * Ashwini Agarwal in Pg 165 says:
 * "Trans-Indus Region and from there he headed towards northwards, reached Bactria, where perhaps he had a battle with the Hunas on the Oxus. This view remarkably tallies with Kalidasa's account of Raghu's conquest of the north. His description seems to based on a historical background and he seems to have combined the conquests of Samudragupta and Chandragupta II into that of the legendary Raghu." Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes it is "rocket science" because this quote in no way supports the above claim - the only part that would maybe do so is "perhaps had a battle with the Hunas on the Oxus", but it does not claim this battle was won and uses the word perhaps. If you would be so kind as to provide further great evidence that accurately and fully supports this claim, you are welcome to do so. I originally supported the "anti-deletion" side of this debate as these sources which stated the larger extent of the Guptas seemed at first to be reliable, however I have now yet to see that the sources actually support the claim. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * First of all the topic thread was about whether the Guptas ended upto Sindh or not. And obviously about the map of the Gupta Empire, Since @Based Kashmiri already provided sources stating that Gupta rule indeed extended upto Sindh while the current map of Guptas is well sourced and accurate and shouldn't be replaced with a map which is from a YouTube video, This topic thread should have already been closed. However, History of Iran then jumps in to change the topic, Just to defend DeepstoneV's disruptive edits on this page. Still I'd like to extend it further by providing more sources for Guptas defeating the hunas, Kambojas and Persians.

The account of the conquest of the North-Western region by Raghu is consonant with and supports our suggestion. According to Kalidasa, Persia could have been reached by a sea-route, but Raghu discarded it. He went by the land-rout and defeated the Persians in a fierce fighting. Thereafter, he moved northwards and vanquished the Hunas on the banks of the river Oxus. Then came the turn of the Kambojas who were unable to resist his valour and accepted his overlordship. - History of Imperial Guptas by SR Goyal pg 218-219

The poet begins his account of the north-western campaign of Raghu bystating that he set out to conquer the Persians (Parasikas) This shows that the primary object of Raghu was to crush the Parasikas. But after defeating them somewhere near Begram and conquering the adjoining regions it became imperative for the conqueror to proceed right north and pounce upon the Hunas on the Oxus. This proves that the association of the Hunas withthe Parasikas were so close that without conquering them the victory over the latter was quite meaningless. - Studies in Indian History And Civilization by Buddh Prakash pg-323

Just after defeating the Hunas on the Oxus Raghu conquered the Kambojas. As will be shown later, the Kambojas occupied the Badakhshan - Studies in Indian History And Civilization by Buddh Prakash pg-346.

Chandragupta II undertook an expedition across Vahlika (Balkh?). R.K. Mookerji asserts that Chandragupta II crossed the Sindhu (Indus) and its tributary rivers (the Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas and Sutlej rivers). This expedition was directed probably against the Huns or the Sassanids. Another objective of this campaign was to get access to the Central Asian and Afghanistan horses. - Warfare in pre British India by Kaushik Roy p-57.Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)


 * And now you are citing different sources, which means you were misciting Ashwini Agarwal and Upinder Singh. Malik-Al-Hind is no doubt misusing those sources as well or something similar. If someone could check it, that would be appreciated. And I'm not defending anyone. Funny, you argue just like a certain someone HistoryofIran (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Interesting, the last quote shows uncertainty too. And its the exact same quote misuse by a certain someone… more evidence for the ANI, we love it. HistoryofIran (talk) 07:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC)