Talk:Karikala II

No authentic reference for the dates in this article
None of the dates in this articles have any verifiable reference. The Sangam literature does not give dates. Where did you get the dates from? Can you give some specific references for the dates?

Parthi (Venu62) 10:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Nobody know accurately, what dates exactly were for Karikala, but from Sangam literature, one can get close to one. Kindly refer the dates of Karikala the Great talk page from Mahavamsa and Sri Lankanachronicle which place KK II 's period at the middle of 1st c. ce. Also, from the same, 113 ce.- Gajabahu's visit to Cenkuttuvan, for Kannagi temple festival. Cilappatikaram(if one is impartial would clearly understand Cilappatigaram is a biography and a chronicle of events in {you asked if it is true did all the three kings invaded north, may be it is true, and why not, as it and other Sangam literature also mentions atleast three Aryan invasions into Tamil Nadu clearly and impartially, one in early Magadha time, one in Mauryan time, and another in Satavahana time, which needed Tamil kings to struggle hard to defend; so Sangam documents contemporary historical events and is not just a imaginary work, unless you differentiate from euphemisms and uvamai and uvamaanam, correctly, like your thribhuvaneka loka title, just like shah-n-shah and basileus basilis , }) takes the age of Kannagi at marriage at Pugaar, to be 12, and that the couple lived for 12 more years at the old Pugaar, before moving to Madurai .Going from the back, 113/112-12/13, =100/99 ce,. KK II as a old king is said to attend a function of Madhavi's arangaettram, at around 99c.e. from above calc, Karikala ascends throne at an early age, 15/16, and looked to rule for long years say,55/60, till as an old man at the start of Cilappatigaram. So I have placed his ascent at around 30 c.e. and birth at around 15 c.e. It is my approximatable calc., with derivations from all these external sources above. Everything is open to see, only who doesnt tur n a deaf ear, can deduce it.


 * Firstly don't change the heading of my comment without asking me.


 * Secondly if nobody knows exactly the dates, then don't use bogud and incorrect dates. This is called lying. If you want to push your own theory regarding dating these events, then write a separate article called: My theories on Sangam literature or something like that. Don't pretend to write history. There is no proof for more than one Karikala. Sangam literarute which is assumed to be contemporary to Karikala's times (1 -2 centure C.E.) does not mention anything about his invasions to either Srilanka or the north or his building the grand Anicut. What you have written in your article is pure bulls**t. If you don't correct this article then I will do so.


 * Parthi (Venu62) 20:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatis this not my id, may be some 1 from same netcafe.

? is not seen inarticle, "around 120" seen, why not ?100 or ?200.

KK I have clearly given my justification of dates with"?" symbol

Urayur is at Thiruchchi, mark in map

Neither Sastri, nor myself saw KK and Ilanko in their times,sorry.

note SitalaiSattan(Manimegalai)in Puram59,onPandyawho diedin court.

note Cenkutuvan also in Puram(before 2nd c CE)

does Sastri say Cenkutuvan's brother Ilanko wrote on him in6thc.

Liguistic evidence is controversial,these Buddhist& Jain works.

Since theyhave high use of Pali,Prakrit words from earliest times.

Whatuse of contemporary workswith such flaws,without deep thinking.

let commonsense prevail.

it doesnt mean one should follow their same mistakes.

I respect your Tamil literature work(ThiruMurugatrrupadai-a beauty)

one should be sincere in analysing the abovepresent facts.

If Sastri and others is clearly wrong,it is our duty to correct him

I dont mean to hurt you or Sastri.

Thankyou.Senthilkumaras 08:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

No authentic proof that Karikala II existed
All the (reputable) books on Tamil history talk about only one Karikala, who lived around the 2nd century CE. I don't knw where the author of this article gets this information from. I have tried to get some authentic source for this claim. so far I haven't received any. Failing any informaiton I recommend that this article be either deleted, or redirected to the karikala Chola artic.e

Parthi (Venu62) 06:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)