This
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
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. [1]
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)
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)
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)
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)
Can someone please expand on this? I don't understand. Tuncrypt 02:37, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
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 [2] [3]
Also please look at the maps below. Khokhar ( talk) 07:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
[1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Negandhi anand ( talk • contribs) 17:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
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 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
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)
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)
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)
The first section says the empire covered modern day Pakistan, this is not true and will be removed [2]:
“ | 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
[3] and compare it to the map of asia from wiki's
Asia page, here
[4] 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 [6] [7]
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 | ” |
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
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)
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)
Please add a definition for Gupta era Aravind V R ( talk) 10:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
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.
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
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 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.
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.
map 115.135.118.112 ( talk) 07:49, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
https://dsal.uchicago.edu/reference/schwartzberg/ changed the area reference added
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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
Based Kashmiri ( talk) 03:50, 5 May 2024 (UTC)"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 [2]
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[3]
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)
"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)
"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)
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)
References