Talk:Chandragupta II's Campaign of Balkh

Sassanian involvement

I couldn't find the involvement of the Sassanid emperor Yazdegerd I. If there is any sources quoting Yazdegerd, please drop a quotation. Else, it would be considered as original research, especially using "He probably led this campaign during the reign of Sassanian emperor Yazdegerd I" is inappropriate.Imperial^[AFCND] 10:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC) Additionally, please provide a strong source which states the presence of Sassanids and Huns. The source is reliable, but the statement The expedition was directed probably against the Huns or the Sassanids. is not a strong statement. Therefore the information on the infobox is challenged. Imperial^[AFCND] 15:31, 10 December 2023 (UTC) See discussion. Putting what the source says.

The campaign just took place in the reign of the emperor yezgerd. All the sources used there are reliable. And all of them state the existence of Hunns and Persians in balkh, hence I dont understand how the Statement "The expedition was directed probably against the hunns or the sassanids" is challenged, Overall One thing is very clear. That the campaign did really take place. Magadhan3933 (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

We all can agree about the campaign. But just becasue Yazdegard was the ruler, we can't put him in an infobox, where is was not physically involved. Else provide sources for that or it would be considered as original research. The quotation and the statement doesn't really match. The quote says about the possibility. It is not confirmed. Provide a strong quote. Imperial^[AFCND] 18:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

We are sure that either they were Sassanians or Hunns.

"Hence it follows that Chandragupta II led an expedition in Bactriana in order to remove the menace of the Sakas, Kushaņas and Parasikas root and branch." The Mehrauli pillar inscription simply says that Chandra conquered the Välhikas. Who were they? We have seen before that the Kushaņas had moved out of Bactria c. A.D. 350 under the ever increasing pressure of the Chionites and were in the Kabul valley about this time, and the Chionites or the Hüņas had occupied Bactria. Assuming that Kalidasa's account of Raghu's campaign of conquest has a real historical background and that Chandra- gupta Vikramaditya adopted a land route for conquering the Parasikas, he must have come close to the south-eastern fringe of the Sassanian empire, where according to Kalidasa he defeated the Parasikas, Kalidasa's mention of the bearded heads of the Persian warriors suggests their identification with the Sassanians who bore beards. After this victory Chandragupta proceeded further northwards. Passing by Kapisa"

-Rise and fall of the imperial guptas pp 52.

It can be no other. Or perhaps they were both. Magadhan3933 (talk) 04:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Brother you miss understood my point.

As per all of my sources, one thing is very clear. That either they were hunns or sassanians, there cant be anyone else. Secondly my sources also state that it can be both. Hence based on the article and sources

This should be the belligerents "Sassnian empire Or Hunas (Probably both" Magadhan3933 (talk) 11:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I am giving the quote from the cited source: The expedition was directed probably against the Huns or the Sassanids. It says "probably" aganist Huns or the Sassanids. The author never confirmed it. That is how it becomes necessary to put it like that. I can't see it showing "both",btw. Imperial^[AFCND] 11:10, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

"Hence it follows that Chandragupta II led an expedition in Bactriana in order to remove the menace of the Sakas, Kushaņas and Parasikas root and branch." The Mehrauli pillar inscription simply says that Chandra conquered the Välhikas. Who were they? We have seen before that the Kushaņas had moved out of Bactria c. A.D. 350 under the ever increasing pressure of the Chionites and were in the Kabul valley about this time, and the Chionites or the Hüņas had occupied Bactria. Assuming that Kalidasa's account of Raghu's campaign of conquest has a real historical background and that Chandra- gupta Vikramaditya adopted a land route for conquering the Parasikas, he must have come close to the south-eastern fringe of the Sassanian empire, where according to Kalidasa he defeated the Parasikas, Kalidasa's mention of the bearded heads of the Persian warriors suggests their identification with the Sassanians who bore beards. After this victory Chandragupta proceeded further northwards. Passing by Kapisa"

-Rise and fall of the imperial guptas pp 52.

It clearly says thosse were either sassanians or hunas, there cant be anyone else, and it uses the word proobably for both, read the quoted citations Magadhan3933 (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

According to this discussion, the possibility must be addressed on the infobox till getting provided by a strong statement from a source. Imperial^[AFCND] 18:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Apparently okay, As long as people are fine with it, we have removed yazegerd in Commanders and leader section. Thanks for the idea. Magadhan3933 (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Consider adding the '(possibility)' on the infobox as well as the article body. After checking the citation, I found that the author quoted it as a 'possibility' of Sassanids and Huns. So it should be adressed. Imperial^[AFCND] 18:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Magadhan3933, clarify what is the meaning of "conducted infront of". The clarify template was inserted to clarify the statement, not to get an additional source. Imperial^[AFCND] 18:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Magadhan3933, also consider removing the flag of Guptas as long as its source is own work of an editor. It cannot be used as a flag. Imperial^[AFCND] 18:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

New flag will be uploaded very soon, thanks again for the idea Magadhan3933 (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Infobox "Result"

Please note that Template:Infobox military conflict#Parameters states against "result" that "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"." The infobox has been amended to reflect this. Please read the template "result" guidance in full before amending or reverting. It would probably be best to discuss any proposed change here first to seek consensus. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

You are right. The subjugation part should be cited in the aftermath section and only for the subjugation of persians/hunns in Afghanistan and not in result section. Magadhan3933 (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Can you review the result section now? Because I think territorial changes can be mentioned in the result section. Magadhan3933 (talk) 18:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

That's what the "| territory =" field is supposed to be used for. Koopinator (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Magadhan3933 (talk) 18:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild, Upon reviewing the source, I discovered that it doesn't strongly state that the expedition was against the Sassanids and Huns. The wording is, "The expedition was directed probably against the Huns or the Sassanids." Can we conclusively affirm that the Sassanids and Huns were the belligerents based on this statement alone? Furthermore, the infobox includes both entities. Could this be considered original research, as the source's author did not explicitly specify the opponents? Imperial^[AFCND] 04:18, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Well well well, Either they were the hunns or the persians, that is for sure. Consider reading the hunza inscription and other inscriptions mentioned in the backround. We are not sure whether they were hunns or sassaniians, but one thing is very sure, That they were "Only" either hunns or sassanians, there can be no other than these 2 if you have studied the geopolitics of 5th century. We can also add "Or" In bellegerents while mentioning Hunns "Or" Sassanians Magadhan3933 (talk) 04:43, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

We are not the base of statements. Read WP:NOR. Just because we are sure, we can't add. Imperial^[AFCND] 04:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

That is why i suggest, we can write "Sassanians OR Hunas (probably both)" in bellegerents. Removing them entirely wouldnt be appropriate. Magadhan3933 (talk) 04:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree. I neither support removing them. Add as you said. Imperial^[AFCND] 05:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild As per the citations goes.

"Hence it follows that Chandragupta II led an expedition in Bactriana in order to remove the menace of the Sakas, Kushaņas and Parasikas root and branch." The Mehrauli pillar inscription simply says that Chandra conquered the Välhikas. Who were they? We have seen before that the Kushaņas had moved out of Bactria c. A.D. 350 under the ever increasing pressure of the Chionites and were in the Kabul valley about this time, and the Chionites or the Hüņas had occupied Bactria. Assuming that Kalidasa's account of Raghu's campaign of conquest has a real historical background and that Chandra- gupta Vikramaditya adopted a land route for conquering the Parasikas, he must have come close to the south-eastern fringe of the Sassanian empire, where according to Kalidasa he defeated the Parasikas, Kalidasa's mention of the bearded heads of the Persian warriors suggests their identification with the Sassanians who bore beards. After this victory Chandragupta proceeded further northwards. Passing by Kapisa"

-Rise and fall of the imperial guptas pp 52

Can we just write "Sassanians or Hunas (probably both)" In bracket since the cited sources says it? Magadhan3933 (talk) 05:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

If this is the only source - I assume it is Roy - it supports having the Sassanians ab=s belligerents, but not the Hunas. The only mention of them in this quote is to suggest that they may have been in Bactria, and nothing about them being attacked. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

So what should we do to the infobox? Is this data enough to have to be included in the infobox? Imperial^[AFCND] 00:37, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Based on all primary and secondary sources. The military box is perfect according to the citations used. Magadhan3933 (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

No. That isn't the only source. You can check my other sources and citations used. I just quoted one source because @ImperialAficionado was asking about whether the citations mention hunas and sassanians or not. So I quoted one source as an example. Moreover even primary sources are used. Gupta campaigns over oxus valleys are well recorded Magadhan3933 (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, he vanquished the Vällikas (Kingdom of Balkh) Magadhan3933 (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Moreover. The entire oxus valley campaigns of Guptas are recorded. Where they conquered the hunas in Afghanistan along with Persians maybe. Bactria itself was conquered by the Guptas

This is well recorded in all contemporary sources along with Authentic secondary sources talk about it. There just enough battles of Gupta Empire which are not on wiki and this was one of them, which has been posted and uploaded now. We will continue extending it. Magadhan3933 (talk) 01:48, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Is there any sources that confirm it was Sassanids? If there is, please quote down. Imperial^[AFCND] 02:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

This is the full quote of the Kuashik Roy source; "Chandragupta II undertook an expedition across Vahlike (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." So not only is it unsure of whom it was against, but also where it took place, the latter which was conveniently omitted. In other words, this article is starting to look like WP:SYNTH to me. Also, clearly some ongoing sock/meatpuppetry Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jonharojjashi. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

In "Territorial changes" in the infobox it says "Afghanistan up to Balkh conquered by the Guptas". And to no surprise, the cited sources do not say that. Brown says [1]; "He also probably led his victorious army beyond the Indus River and as far as Balkh and imposed his suzerainty over the Kushana principalities in the northwest" while Agrawal's account [2] is quite long and just talks generally about Chandragupta II's campaigns, some of whose historicity is even doubted. In other words, this is another WP:TENDENTIOUS article with misused sources and low quality sources, making me even more certain that this the SPI was warranted. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Srnec: @Folly Mox: Since you two were a big help at Kanishka's war with Parthia, I was wondering if you had any thoughts about this article? If you have the time and interest of course. Otherwise, sorry for bothering you. I'm not very optimistic on this article (especially due to my findings in the SPI), it's not even sure of whom Chandragupta II fought against - I'm inclined to nominate it for draft. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

(responding to ping) I've been looking for sources on this for the past couple hours, with mixed results. The good source I found is Agrawal, Ashvini (2016). "Gupta Empire". In N. Dalziel; J.M. MacKenzie (eds.). The Encyclopedia of Empire. Wiley. TWL link. This does mention campaigns specifically by Chandragupta II, as well as the archaeological record of Gupta presence in various regions during the period his reign is ascribed. It's a pretty good overview.

There are a couple problems with this article. The tone of the lead is one; and the bit about "possibly showered with riches" should go. Including the Sassanians based only on the conjecture of a single scholar seems irresponsible. It's not cited in the Roy source. We're also relying on the words of Kalidasa, and I'm not familiar enough with early South Asian historiography to have any idea how factual his accounts are considered in modern scholarship.

On the plus side, there are some things that look problematic that (as of my current understanding) may actually be fine There's this SYNTHY feeling about saying that there's this archaeological evidence of some Gupta ruler that probably coincides with Chandragupta II in these places, so therefore he must have conquered them (on at least one epigraph, the ruler's name is not legible, but it's dated to a year that Chandragupta II is dated to). But, the Agrawal 2016 source spells this out, so no SYNTH required (also noting here for accountability that I've only inspected two sources currently in the article). Another thing that bothered me on first read is the blithe glossing of unfamiliar terms without citation (like Bactria for Balkh), but this one at least is widely accepted, so citing shouldn't be a problem.

A major problem here is that the article is pretty lean, and doesn't seem like it can get much less lean. If we were at AfD right now, I'd be inclined to say "merge into Chandragupta II". This whole thing seems to boil down to just a few facts: Kalidasa wrote about Chandragupta II to the effect of: he crossed the Indus and defeated some Hunas in a place called Balkh.

I'm pretty much a novice in this topic area. Notes for others looking for sources: Chandragupta is often spelt Candragupta (sometimes with an underdot of palatisation neath the initial letter), and shares his name with a much more famous ancestor. "Candragupta" tends to turn up more art history, religious studies, and numismatics. I think I hit Brill pretty thoroughly, and did an ok job at CUP and Wiley. Haven't really checked the rest of TWL. Folly Mox (talk) 06:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I see, thank you very much, your input is highly appreciated. I've removed the Sasanians and the bit about "perhaps laden with riches". I guess I'll wait a few more days to see if someone else has any input. HistoryofIran (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@ImperialAficionado: I'm the one who made those changes [3], please see the new comments here. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:03, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I was reverting the edit where @Hassan Gangu removed the image. The user have a history of engaging in edit warring. I reverted to your revision, but it was the wrong version. It was a honest mistake. Imperial^[AFCND] 14:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

The clarity of the points demonstrates that the Sassanid Empire had no involvement in the conflict. Why is there a need for an irrelevant image now? @ImperialAficionado Hassan Gangu (talk) 14:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

If the image depicts anything related to the event, it do have a significance. As long as depicts the area of the campaign, it is relevant. I am not making a comment on the image. Nor I am intrested to. Imperial^[AFCND] 15:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

This entire conquest is grounded upon a legend, and there is no clarity as to whom it refers. A speculative claim of a mordern historian has suggested that it may have been Chandragupta II. DeepstoneV (talk) 14:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Provide sources for the claim or it would be considered as just a weasel word if you add that into the article. Imperial^[AFCND] 15:22, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

See my Recent Edits. The Sources themselves mentioned that it is not more than a speculative Assertion. The Identity of of Vikramaditya Legend will remain Anonymous DeepstoneV (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Actually you have a miss understanding to consider the Legendary king "Vikramaditya" as "Chandragupta II". Please consider reading the sources and research about the topic. Still considering your argument, the new info box have been updated. Shakib ul hassan (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The Historians Have Described VikramAditya as a Legend and they Speculate it with Chandragupta II. Basically All this Article is based on A Speculation of A Legend DeepstoneV (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@Shakib ul hassan @DeepstoneV, instead of lengthening the thread by baseless arguement, put forward your statements with valid evidence. What happening here is just flogging a dead horse. Imperial^[AFCND] 19:12, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

References