|Gupta Empire has been listed as a level-3 vital article in History. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Removed text
- 2 Pending tasks
- 3 Map
- 4 Contributions
- 5 Origin of Guptas
- 6 "Classical anarchy"
- 7 Guptas never ruled Punjab and Sind
- 8 True map of the Gupta empire
- 9 Decimal System
- 10 the largest empire??
- 11 Please restore images
- 12 Origin of Guptas page created
- 13 History of the Gupta dynasty
- 14 Gupta empire coverage
- 15 Diagram in 'Huna invasions and the end of empire' section
- 16 hippos
- 17 "Empire"
- 18 King Oprah? Seriously?
- 19 Gupta era
- 20 References
- 21 Can we use a picture of an actual Gupta temple, not a temple from a different time and place?.
- 22 Faxian spelling
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 126.96.36.199 (talk) 08:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The map depicts Gupta Empire ruling greater Sistan and Afghanistan. Its totally false :
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.
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.
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
True map of the Gupta empire
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."
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. Ill 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)
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||”|
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
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.
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 188.8.131.52 (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 184.108.40.206 (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.
- "Evidence of the conquest of Saurastra during the reign of Chandra Gupta II is to be seen in his rare silver coins which are more directly imitated from those of the Western Satraps... they retain some traces of the old inscriptions in Greek characters, while on the reverse, they substitute the Gupta type (a peacock) for the chaitya with crescent and star." in Rapson "A catalogue of Indian coins in the British Museum. The Andhras etc...", p.cli
- Oxford History of India
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 220.127.116.11 (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.