Talk:Middle kingdoms of India

Clean Up
I propose either removing this from this section as it doesn't correspond to the time period under discussion. I also beleive this is either covered elsewhere or needs a section of its own that pre-dates the Middle Kingdom period. This is line with the timeline in the History of India article as well as the Template of the history of south asia.

Kingdoms and Empires

 * The Aryans are said to have had arrived in India from the Northwest, according to the Aryan Invasion Theory, and settled in the Punjab region. From there, according to this theory, they gradually penetrated eastward, clearing dense forests and establishing 'tribal' settlements along the Ganga and Yamuna (Jamuna) plains between 1500 BCE and 800 BCE; they ruled over this area after forming the basis of the three upper castes. This period corresponds to the Vedic Sanskrit language, and is also referred to as Vedic civilization.


 * By around 500 BCE, most of northern India was inhabited and had been brought under cultivation, facilitating the increasing knowledge of the use of iron implements, including ox-drawn plows, and spurred by the growing population that provided voluntary and forced labor. As riverine and inland trade flourished, many towns along the Ganga became centers of trade, culture, and luxurious living. Increasing population and surplus production provided the bases for the emergence of independent states with fluid territorial boundaries over which disputes frequently arose.


 * The rudimentary administrative system headed by tribal chieftains was transformed by a number of regional republics or hereditary monarchies that devised ways to appropriate revenue and to conscript labor for expanding the areas of settlement and agriculture farther east and south, beyond the Narmada River. These emergent states collected revenue through officials, maintained armies, and built new cities and highways. By 600 BCE, sixteen such territorial powers&mdash;including the Pandya, Magadha, Kosala, Kuru, and Gandhara&mdash;stretched across the North India plains from modern-day Afghanistan to Bangladesh. The right of a king to his throne, no matter how it was gained, was usually legitimized through elaborate sacrifice rituals and genealogies concocted by priests who ascribed to the king divine or superhuman origins.


 * The spirit of the era prior to the formation of the sixteen powers described above is captured by the Indian epics, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata.


 * ==The Mauryan Empire==


 * By the end of the 6th century BCE, the northwestern part of the Indian subcontinent became a satrap of the Persian Achaemenid Empire. This integration marked the beginning of administrative contacts between Central Asia and India.


 * Although Indian accounts ignored Alexander the Great's Indus campaign in 326 BC to a large extent, primarily because it affected only the northwestern parts of the subcontinent, Greek writers recorded their impressions of the general conditions prevailing in South Asia during this period. These accounts, prominent among them being the ones told by Megasthenes, are the oldest recorded accounts of life in South Asia by an European. A two-way cultural fusion between several Indo-Greek elements &mdash; especially in art, architecture, and coinage &mdash; occurred in the next several hundred years. Northern India's political landscape was transformed by the emergence of the Magadha Empire in the eastern Indo-Gangetic Plain. In 322 BCE, Magadha, under the rule of Chandragupta Maurya, began to assert its hegemony over neighboring areas. Chandragupta (known to the Greeks as Sandracottus) ruled from 324 to 301 BCE, and was the architect of the first Indian imperial power &mdash; the Mauryan Empire (326 – 184 BCE) &mdash; whose capital was Pataliputra, near modern-day Patna, in the state of Bihar.


 * Situated on rich alluvial soil and near mineral deposits, especially iron, Magadha was at the center of bustling commerce and trade. The capital was a city of magnificent palaces, temples, a university, a library, gardens, and parks, as reported by Megasthenes, the third-century BC Greek historian and ambassador to the Mauryan court. Legend states that Chandragupta's success was due in large measure to his adviser Kautilya, the Brahman author of the Arthashastra (Science of Material Gain), a textbook that outlined governmental administration and political strategy. There was a highly centralized and hierarchical government with a large staff, which regulated tax collection, trade and commerce, industrial arts, mining, vital statistics, welfare of foreigners, maintenance of public places including markets and temples, and prostitutes. A large standing army and a well-developed espionage system were maintained. The empire was divided into provinces, districts, and villages governed by a host of centrally appointed local officials, who replicated the functions of the central administration.


 * Ashoka, grandson of Chandragupta, ruled from 269 to 232 BCE and was one of India's most illustrious rulers. Ashoka's inscriptions chiseled on rocks and stone pillars located at strategic locations throughout his empire&mdash;such as Lampaka (Laghman in modern Afghanistan), Mahastan (in modern Bangladesh), and Brahmagiri (in Karnataka)&mdash;constitute the second set of datable historical records. According to some of the inscriptions, in the aftermath of the carnage resulting from his campaign against the powerful kingdom of Kalinga (modern Orissa), Ashoka renounced bloodshed and pursued a policy of nonviolence or ahimsa, espousing a theory of rule by righteousness. His toleration for different religious beliefs and languages reflected the realities of India's regional pluralism although he personally seems to have followed Buddhism. Early Buddhist stories assert that he convened a Buddhist council at his capital, regularly undertook tours within his realm, and sent Buddhist missionary ambassadors to Sri Lanka.


 * Contacts established with the Hellenistic world during the reign of Ashoka's predecessors served him well. According to the Edicts of Ashoka, set in stone, he sent diplomatic-cum-religious missions to the rulers of Syria, Macedon, and Epirus, who learned about India's religious traditions, especially Buddhism. India's northwest retained many Persian cultural elements, which might explain Ashoka's rock inscriptions&mdash;such inscriptions were commonly associated with Persian rulers. Ashoka's Greek and Aramaic inscriptions found in Kandahar in Afghanistan may also reveal his desire to maintain ties with people outside of India.''

--Tigeroo 06:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hunas Defeats
There is a great void over the dissapearance of the Hunas. We know the Gupta Empire was finished and overrun even as the Huna King Mihirkula was devastating Buddhism and expanding across North India in 520 BC from Sialkot. The Kidarites had been vanquished earlier and the Sassanians displaced until they returned in 565 BC and defeated the Huna. While they may have cleared the Huna from their rear they were getting to busy with the more significant Byzantines on their Western front to extend their influence beyond the Indus on the east. We do know they had some sort of influence on their satrapies as they were able to raise levies from there for their wars with the Romans and the Muslims later. However the question is just how far and how much did they control and how when and where did the Rajput arise to fill the void left by the collapse of the Hun. Did they descend from Huna warlords or lineages or did they eject the Huna following their defeat in the surging tides of the post Gupta political situation or a syncretism of both. Harsha does not seem to have fought the Huna so there is a political story here that needs filling in, the rise of Pratiharas and the Rai dynasty of Sindh, and the Balhara Jat King that later muslim geographers would call the primary king of India. Ferishta and Chachnama already mention the practice of Jauhar as being established when dealing with mlechhas when Qasim came with the first sucessful Muslim conquests in 720 and of the Gandaharan Turki-Shahi dynasty being called Rajputs when they encountered Sabuktigin. Unfortunately the Rajptu article does not help at all at helping understanding this story. Can definitely use some help here with this section. --Tigeroo 09:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Middle Kingdoms Template
Hello All,

I have a few questions to raise about the middle Kingdom template. First off, why are Gandhara and the Shahis listed as foreign kingdoms? Gandhara was a Mahajanapada and those familiar with the Mahabharata are aware of how it was a major indian kingdom in the early ancient period. As for the Shahis, they very clearly are identified as hindu/buddhist kings of india. Jayapala, Anandapala, and Trilochanapala are obviously Indian names, and Arab chroniclers mention them as kings of hind who factored greatly in its defense and not foreign occupiers. Morover, their very origin is not entirely accounted for.

Additionally, once can very easily identify invasions and foreign kingdoms in every major country/civilization. Many of persian dynasties, be it the Seleucids and Parthians, early arabs and turks, and moving on to the Mongols, Afghans, and Azeris, were foreign, yet we see no such template there. The Greek world had Persians, Macedonians, the Gauls, Romans, Sassanids, Avars, Bulgars, Turks, etc, etc, yet we do not see that there as well. I only want to apply the same corollary across the board. If there are some other considerations that were factored in for India, then I would be interested in hearing why it alone has the privilege of such a section.

Regards,

Devanampriya 21:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Devanampriya

Hi Devanampriya,

Indeed I am not sure about the "Foreign kingdom" title, but what is sure is that these polities ruled in the Northwestern Indian subcontinent during the period. Would "Northwestern Kingdoms" be a better heading? PHG 06:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello PHG,

I do not recall questioning the existence of these polities; however, I do question their (and by their I mean Gandhara and the Shahis) designation as foreign kingdoms for the reasons stated above. If we could make the requisite changes (or in Gandhara's case removal since it comes under the Mahajanapadas), I do believe the accuracy of that template will be much improved.

Devanampriya

Hello PHG,

I do not recall questioning the existence of these polities; however, I do question their (and by their I mean Gandhara and the Shahis) designation as foreign kingdoms for the reasons stated above. If we could make the requisite changes (or in Gandhara's case removal since it comes under the Mahajanapadas), I do believe the accuracy of that template will be much improved.

Devanampriya


 * I agree the Gandharas and the Shahis don't quite fit the definition. PHG 06:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Note to User:Dewan357 regarding the section on the Kushans
I have sadly had to reverse User:Dewan357's edits once again. I have discussed all the reasons for reversing his account of the Kushans in detail at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kushan_Empire. Dewan, I have already reversed very similar text (making several of the same faulty points) which you entered on the Kushan empire page and given you ample evidence that the information is unsound and misleading on several counts. Why do you persist repeating the same mistakes? Have you not read my comments? If you have not, please do so before you repeat your mistakes in the Wikipedia once again. Finally, do not reverse my present edit once again. If you want to, please take the issue up with Wikipedia's administrators first. Yours, John Hill (talk)

Note to User:Generalboss3 regarding the section on Kushans
I notice you have again reverted my notes without giving any reasons here on the Talk page as requested. I have just written a note to you on your own Talk page which I will repeat here (below) so others can understand what the dispute is about. If you keep up these edit wars with me I will have to call upon mediators to intervene. Yours, John Hill (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Some thoughts on your recent edits
 * Hi! I notice you have just recently been making a number of edits in articles I have contributed to. While some of your edits are very welcome, some of them contain unsupported claims; two of which I particularly object to.


 * The first is that you refer to the Kushan Empire as an Indian Empire. Certainly, the Kushans conquered much of the northern part of the Indian subcontinent, but the empire originated in what is now Afghanistan and territories immediately to the north, and archaeological evidence has shown time and again that they maintained their control of these territories long after their push into India. Calling the Kushan Empire "Indian" is rather akin to calling the British Empire "Indian". So, where I find such claims I will remove them.


 * Secondly, you make the claim that the Kushan Empire was ruled from "capitals" in ancient India. I have dealt with this claim in detail on the Talk:Kushan Empire page.


 * If you do not agree with my comments and changes - please give your reasons on the Talk:Kushan Empire page. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sri Lanka during the mideaval age
The map attached to the medieval India shows Sri Lanka totally under the chola empire. This was not so. In the text, it clearly says that only a part of Sri Lanka was under the Chola Empire. That was the correct position. Hiostory of Sri Lanka during that period clearly shows that there were Sri Lankan rulers who had ruled more than 2/3 of Sri Lanka, independent from the Chola Empire.

Punchihewa.(punchihewang@yahoo.com)

What about a wikibook?
The subject is interesting, but to learn about it is hard enough here. It would be not bad if somebody could start a project at WB, so that the learners could sometime come across a good pictorial source of a well comprehensive study on the region's history. JLincoln (talk) 09:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Middle kingdoms of India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090802092924/http://www.nupam.com:80/Sgupta1.html to http://www.nupam.com/Sgupta1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 00:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Middle kingdoms of India. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081204082030/http://www.wsu.edu:8001/~dee/ANCINDIA/GUPTA.HTM to http://www.wsu.edu:8001/~dee/ANCINDIA/GUPTA.HTM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Reorganise?
It appears that a Wikipedian invented the term "Middle kingdoms of India". It is an embarrassment. I think we should reorganise it into "classical period" lasting up to the end of Harsha's rule, and "early medieval period" from then till the Delhi Sultanate. Modern research establishes the latter as one of the most important periods of Indian history where the cultural ingredients of the erstwhile empires spread to all corners of the Indian subcontinent, spread of agriculture, the predominance of Brahmins and Sanskrit, and the establishment of almost all the modern Indian languages. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Middle kingdoms of India. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130226054454/http://www.visvacomplex.com/Keling_English_Version.html to http://www.visvacomplex.com/Keling_English_Version.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111007194411/http://archive.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/feb272007/spectrum1437452007226.asp to http://www.archive.deccanherald.com/deccanherald/feb272007/spectrum1437452007226.asp

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) 22:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 8 August 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: procedural close: including discussion in a more highly-participated-in one (Talk:Iron_Age_in_India). Consensus there applies here.  Dr Strauss   talk   16:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Middle kingdoms of India → Middle kingdoms of South Asia – The reason is very simple. Some Indian Wikipedia members are attempting to shove there own nationalistic Indian pseudo history onto Wikipedia by intentionally mixing up South Asian history with Indian history. SOUTH ASIA refers to the regions (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh) while INDIA refers to the Republic of India now. We're talking about the region of South Asia, not India. If this article is referring to the Middle Kingdoms of India, I fail to understand why Graeco-Bactria and Indo-Greeks are being mentioned here, when they literally have nothing to do with India. Hence forth for the sake of neutrality, this should be changed to Middle kingdoms of South Asia, just like South Asian Stone Age and South Asian Bronze Age which was again reverted to Bronze Age of India. This is totally unacceptable how some Indian wiki members are going around on Wikipedia and deleting South Asia and replacing it with India or Ancient India or Indian subcontinent, all either fake terms or obsolete terms. Kindly consider moving to South Asian Iron Age. PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC) --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943  (talk) 01:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Why not change "Indo-Greeks" to "South Asian Greeks"? (2600:1001:B00F:C83A:F571:B46C:2494:E2 (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC))
 * This sock of User:PakePakwan is again bringing his non-sense of South Asia vs Indian subcontinent. It was already discussed in talk page Indian subcontinent. (2600:1001:B00F:C83A:F571:B46C:2494:E2 (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC))


 * Your false accusations will not hold up. I've already reported you and several other of your fake user IDs. What is INDOnesia then? Is that also India's property? Furthermore, the term INDO is derived from the River Indus. Just because you folks named yourself India, doesn't mean you're really India. I compare it to the Macedonia naming dispute. The real historic India is Pakistan ironically, whereas the new Republic of India has largely nothing to do with Indus history whatsoever. You folks are Bharat....you should be concentrating on your rich Gangetic-Dravidian history. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Indus comes from the word Sindu. Again, go to Indian subcontinent talk page. Also, my point exactly, "India" or "Indo" does not mean Republic of India, but a geography or culture. (2600:1001:B00F:C83A:290A:7305:C7BA:C4A (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2017 (UTC))


 * I've started a new section on the talk pages of every article you've vandalized with your fake IDs. Rest assured, if you keep up this edit war, I'll keep on reverting them back. Your edits are nonsense and the fact you're hiding behind several fake profiles is even more laughable. I will be contact other admins of Wikipedia Pakistan to see if they can help me get your IP address banned. You're a nuisance and a ultra-nationalist bigot. If India is THAT great, go live there. What are you living abroad for? --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 02:39, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Why should I go to the Indian subcontinent talk page? That Indian subcontinent talk page has nothing to do with this article or any other article No consensus was made whatsoever. The term is not used at all except by ultra-nationalist Indian who are desperately trying to incorporate Indus history into Indian history. Do you know what SA stands for in SAARC? I have no idea why you folks are so desperate to ignore your own Gangetic history and obsessed with Indus history. This would be like Iran claiming Mesopotamia or Sudan claiming the ancient Egypt. You folks are BHARAT....your history lies in the Ganges plain (North India) and South India. The Indus Valley is part of Pakistan. Accept this fact. PS, enjoy the talk pages where I'll be posting on. As for your claim that Indo comes from Sindhu, yes...and once again what does Sindh have anything to do with India? Sindh could very well be a nation on its own...it has its own rich history which predates any other region in South Asia. Just because the British came and clumped us together for 104 years doesn't make us the "same" by any stretch of the imagination. A simple genetic map of the two countries would easily disprove of that in a heartbeat. Refer to Harappa Ancestory Project if you still have doubts. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 02:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not how wiki works. You need reliable sources. That is pure example of POV and violation of the editing restrictions placed on India-Pakistan pages. (2600:1001:B025:D62C:1C23:8806:4DE9:D0F0 (talk) 10:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC))


 * I've already made my case for Iron Age in India. Once that's changed, I'll be slowly moving down the timeline. Enough is enough of your BJP nonsense. --PAKHIGHWAY (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose per normal logic. "India" usually doesnt mean Republic of India, but it means Indian subcontinent. Speaking from your perspective, South Asia refers to 8 countries, whereas 95% content of this article deals with the territory that is now part of the "Republic of India". If you think particular content is unnecessary in the article, then kindly remove that content instead of renaming the article. — usernamekiran (talk)  02:54, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support usage is changing: in more recent sourcing, South Asia is typically used to refer to the Indian subcontinent while India refers to the Republic of India, and British India or the British Raj refers to the time period after the British became the dominant colonial power in India but before the partition. To say that India refers to Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh, etc. in contemporary usage is false. WP:NPOV requires this, which is one of our most core policies, which is above even WP:COMMONNAME. South Asia has become a very commonly accepted name, and it is certainly more NPOV than the current tile. FWIW, I have no dog in any South Asian dispute before this, since these type of conversations often turn into accusations of bias, I thought I would get that out of the way. Additionally, the arguments presented at Iron Age in India are sound, and also typically apply here. I'll be cross posting this at that page per CONSISTENCY. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now at least. This is explicit promotion of a POV. There may be a case for some of these foreshadowed RMs, but this one needs more careful consideration. Will we next be renaming Partition of India? Andrewa (talk) 01:15, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose:As long as Indian subcontinent is known as such rather than South Asian Subcontinent, India is more common. 86.97.129.33 (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support as less ambiguous and potentially confusing, and less PoV than the proposed alternative, even if the nom's claim "INDIA refers to the Republic of India now" is a bit hyperbolic. It simply refers more often to the RoI now than it formerly did. It does so sufficiently that the current name is problematic. The oppose above, claims that '"India" usually ... means Indian subcontinent' is also off-base; careful writing with either use "Indian subcontinent" or "South Asia", or the adjective "Indic", not "Indian".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A part that makes no sense
"attempt to contain the expansions of the successive before eventually crumbling" Can someone please correct it?--Adûnâi (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * South Asia (orthographic projection) without national boundaries.svg