Talk:Gupta Empire

Composition of Bhagavad Gita in Gupta Era?

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.

Map

Hello @पाटलिपुत्र, I have created a map of the Gupta Empire, which closely resembles yours but I have followed additional geographical maps for more detailed insights.

I've also added the edicts of the Gupta Empire based on this The history atlas of Asia pg.55 map. Would you like to update your map with these edicts, or we can discuss the possibility of using my map instead? Nxcrypto Message 02:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Your map shows the evolution of Gupta territory through time, and could nicely replace the twin map in the middle of the article currently captionned "Evolution of Gupta territory, with neighbouring polities", which is quite hard to read. A detail: what is the "Gupta inscription" your map is showing above Gandhara (which does not seem to appear in the source)? Also, I think it would be nice to add "Sasanian Empire" and "White Huns" at the western periphery, as does the source. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The "Gupta inscription" you mentioned was referring to the Sacred Rock of Hunza in the Gilgit-Baltistan region, which has connections to the Guptas but is also disputed. To maintain accuracy, I have removed its marking. I have also included the labels for the "Sasanian Empire" and "White Huns" as suggested. Nxcrypto Message 10:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

seems nice. JingJongPascal (talk) 09:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@पाटलिपुत्र: This, as well as this, are better representations of this work, apart from the "inscriptions" part ofcourse. The positioning of Pundra for example, isn't correct in the new map, that area is Kamarupa / Pragjyotisha instead considering that river is Brahmaputra. Pundra should be in the position of Magadha in the map and Magadha should be a bit more west. Also Vanga should spread a bit towards the west, alongwith Tamralipta (associated with Tamluk) which is positioned near Calcutta. It should be on the west bank of the 'wedge-like' part of the estuary per this and this. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 14:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but I guess these comments should be adressed to @NXcrypto:, who can make the corrections on his map. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk all naming/location is according to this[1] Atlas map. As you pointed some minor error, I will verify and improve. Nxcrypto Message 09:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@NXcrypto: OK, thanks. Also there are discrepancies between the sources you listed in your work, that is, this on which you map is based, doesn't match with the Schwartzberg map as far as the position of Magadha, Vanga and Pundra is concerned. Pundra apparently includes Harikela in the map, which should not be the case. Also, if Tamralipta was indeed located in the modern Tamluk, then Schwartzberg map is correct. Third, this atlas map includes the Chittagong Division (except the hill areas) which has been left out in your map. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk I have reviewed and corrected the identified issues. Please let me know if you have further suggestions for improvement. Nxcrypto Message 13:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@NXcrypto: That's nice. I've a few more suggestions to make:

1 A) The ochre colored region (Pragjyotishpura) should be renamed to Kamarupa (it was probably under Varman dynasty at that time, Pragjyotishpura was the capital).

1 B) The ochre colored region should extend a bit to include the river Brahmaputra (valley).

2) Would suggest to reinclude the cities of Champa (Bhagalpur) and Tamralipta (Tamluk).

3 A) Include Pundra north of Vanga, spanning the northern parts of the distributaries of Ganges and Brahmaputra (as in here)

3 B) Also move the text Vanga a bit west.

Thanks - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate your feedback, Fylindfotberserk! I'll take a closer look and make necessary updates as per your suggestions. Nxcrypto Message 17:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

@Fylindfotberserk updated as suggested. Nxcrypto Message 16:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@NXcrypto: Nicely done. Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that Kāsi, one of the major cities of the Gupta Empire and often regarded as its capital, has been left out of the current map. I would like to request पाटलिपुत्र to consider including Kāsi in the map. Also, it may sound like a minor update but the labeling of 'Prayaga' seems somewhat confusing or inconsistent, as most sources commonly use 'Prayag.' Personally, I think that would be more coherent. Just my suggestion. Regards. Garudam ^Talk! 21:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Pinging NXcrypto to kindly consider the same recommendation. Garudam ^Talk! 12:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Garudam, I will review the sources and if rs satisfy me then I will update my map. Nxcrypto Message 18:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, NXcrypto. I appreciate your efforts on the map. However, I would like to suggest a few additional changes in your map:

1. Please map the territories of Sri Gupta up to the Kāsi-Kannauj-Prayag regions.
2. The capital labeling is missing from the legend; kindly include it.
3. Add the years (240–579).
4. Exclude Pataliputra and Ujjain as Gupta capitals.
5. Include Ayodhya, Prayag, and Kāsi as Gupta capitals.

Thank you once again for your work! Garudam ^Talk! 07:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

@Garudam Marking the extent of Sri Gupta’s reign on the map may make it more complex, but I will give it a try. I will ensure that the map remains in good condition and clear to understand. Nxcrypto Message 14:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I completely understand. Take your time. Thanks again, cheers. Garudam ^Talk! 19:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Garudam I have updated the map as suggested. Nxcrypto Message 16:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Nicely done NXcrypto, thanks. Garudam ^Talk! 19:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 15 November 2024

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Frost 11:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

---

Gupta Empire → Gupta dynasty – Pretty self explanatory, it was the dynasty of the Restored Magadhan Empire, It wasn't a empire. Same way as Qing dynasty and others. JingJongPascal (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC) JingJongPascal (talk) 09:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

source - https://books.google.co.in/books?id=wV24AAAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y

Page no. - 107 JingJongPascal (talk) 09:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

It's also confusing, as it was a dynasty of OTHER EMPIRE and not a "empire" itself, it was a dynasty of a Empire. JingJongPascal (talk) 09:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per the n-grams, which show that 'empire' has consistently been used more than 'dynasty' since 1944. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

  But it is contradicting, it was a dynasty of a empire. JingJongPascal (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is the article on the "Restored Magadhan Empire". It is also consistent with, e.g., Maurya Empire. Srnec (talk) 03:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  Its not consistent with

  Haryanka dynasty

  Kanva dynasty

  Shishunga dynasty

  'Restored Magadhan Empire',includes not only guptas but also later guptas. 49.36.91.101 (talk) 06:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Srnec the restored magadhan empire was formed by Chandragupta I , this article is about Gupta dynasty JingJongPascal (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Everything you say is a nonsequitur. What does who restored the Magadhan empire have to do with anything? The Gupta dynasty ruled the Gupta Empire. The Gupta Empire was the state ruled by the Gupta dynasty. There is no contradiction. Srnec (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per Srnec and Randy Kryn. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 06:27, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  it's contradicting, it was a dynasty of an empire JingJongPascal (talk) 07:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose: They are all same! Gupta Empire is used to refer Gupta ruled Magadha you are confused.Magadhan Empire wasn't a same entity under all dynasties all had their own distinct rulers and identity.Magadhan Empire is an umbrella term to refer them collectively you request a move to rename that as something else.And for universe's sake don't do such non sense move requests before clearing confusion and having sources.

  Edasf«Talk» 06:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Then why aren't Delhi sultanate a different entity? Many kingdoms are ruled by different dynasties and rulers. Doesn't mean their political entity changes.

  The Kingdom remained that or Magadha only ruler changed JingJongPascal (talk) 07:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  Read correctly its an umbrella term and give source rather than Povpushing and stop comparing with medieval one Edasf«Talk» 07:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose:Per above and N-gram.-Imperial^[AFCND] 09:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Srnec. Nxcrypto Message 13:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Oppose because Gupta Empire is the common name, and that's what should be used in Wikipedia, as per WP:COMMONNAME EarthDude (talk) 07:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - There's no such thing as a "restored Magadhan Empire", Wikipedia is not a place to promote extremely fringe views or your own origial research. - Ratnahastin (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  Its called Second Magadhan Empire. JingJongPascal (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  JingJongPascal What sources justify labeling this the 'Second Magadha Empire'? Magadha was ruled by multiple dynasties; clarify or provide references for this specific terminology. Nxcrypto Message 17:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  A History of India page -107 by Narendra Krishna.

  @NXcrypto JingJongPascal (talk) 10:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disestablishment

The last remnants of Guptas came to end around 579 CE per Goyal and around 569 CE, an unknown scion of Imperial Guptas was overlord of the Kalinga king, for more references see Majumdar. Garudam ^Talk! 12:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Majumdar was a nationalist historians known for promoting Hindu nationalist views. I would like to see modern historians supporting these claims. - Ratnahastin (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

It could be the case, however Goyal makes this claim on the basis of the Soro plate inscription of Sambhuyasas. Garudam ^Talk! 12:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@HistoryofAryavart I think we need quit multiple sources for this since it's largely a mystery of when and how Gupta DynastyDynasty ended. Edasf«Talk» 09:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

There are no such uncertainty in the sources if you look thoroughly. Garudam ^Talk! 12:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Centre of power

We find Prayaga and Kāsi as the Gupta capital in recent studies rather than Pataliputra:

• Sanjeev Kumar argues:

The initial home of the Gupta dynasty is assumed to be in the area of the Käsi-Ayodhyā-Pāțaliputra region. Based on coin finds, all indications are that the Gupta capital was around Kannauj and Kāśī, not Pāțaliputra.

• In the Oxford – India's ancient past:

UP therefore seems to have been the place from where the Guptas operated and fanned out in different directions. Probably with their centre of power at Prayag, they spread into the neighbouring regions.

• Goyal further elaborates:

1. The capital of the Guptas was located somewhere in the eastern part of U. P. The evidence of the Puranas from which we learn that Prayaga was the nucleus of the original Gupta state.

2. Pataliputra has been mentioned under its own proper name in the Udayagiri cave inscription of Virasena, a minister of Chandragupta II, and the Gadhwa inscription of the time of the same emperor. But neither of them connect it with him as his capital.

3. On the other hand, the statement of Virasena that he was a Pātaliputrakah suggests that this city was not the imperial capital of the empire, for, being a minister of the central government, he was supposed to have been officially connected with the imperial capital; there was no necessity for him to describe himself as belonging to it. It means that he has referred to the city to which he belonged in his private capacity, and not to the capital of the empire.

4. No inscription of the imperial Guptas belonging to the first hundred-fifty rears of their rule, has been discovered at or in the neighbourhood of Pataliputra.

5. No specimen of the Chandragupta-Kumardevi type of coins, the earliest of the series of the Gupta gold coins, has so far been found at Pataliputra, no hoard of the Gupta gold coins has been yielded by this city.

Well taking everything into account. Prayaga and Kāsi should be included in the infobox as one of the capital of Guptas. That said the exclusion of Pataliputra is also debatable, further discussions are certainly welcomed. Garudam ^Talk! 12:54, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Pushpapura ≠ Pataliputra

PadFoot2008 The identification of 'Pushpapura' with Pataliputra relies on the assumption that it was the capital of the imperial Guptas. However, there is little to no evidence to support this claim; instead, it is associated with Kanyakubja/Kannauj. Garudam ^Talk! 12:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I reviewed the source you provided (Goyal (1967)) and you appear to be correct here. I've moved the source from Pataliputra to Ayodhya. Also per more recent scholars, it appears that Pataliputra was possibly a provincial capital but not the imperial capital. PadFoot (talk) 12:39, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

It all looks good. Best. Garudam ^Talk! 12:51, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Official religion?

I have removed the word "official"[2] which was describing Vaishnavism as the official religion of Gupta Empire. While some Gupta kings patronized Vaishnavism, it wasn't the exclusive state religion. The Guptas were known for supporting various faiths, including Buddhism and Jainism (see article religion section). For example, Kumaragupta I is credited with founding the Buddhist institution at Nalanda. I think, describing Vaishnavism as the "official" religion oversimplifies the religious dynamics of the Gupta period. Nxcrypto Message 18:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

That was unnecessary, considering it follows the citation. Founding religious institutions and patronizing certain religions do not necessarily mean that the Guptas leaned toward those religions. In fact, all Gupta emperors used the title 'Paramabhāgavata,' so I see no reason to exclude the term "official." Garuda ^Talk! 19:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

All Gupta emperors? Sorry but this title is limited to some rulers. Nxcrypto Message 19:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

If the argument is whether the title used by all Gupta emperors or not then you might need to go through these sources [3][4] although the citations in the religion parameter have already conformed the fact that Guptas were devout Vaishnavas, therefore it's unnecessary to interpret anything by ourselves. Best, Garuda ^Talk! 20:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

"240 CE" "Gupta Empire"

People here are taking the misconception of "dynasty" and "empire" Gupta dynasty was founded in 240 CE Gutpa dynasty became a imperial power in 319 CE. So, Gupta Empire is in 319 CE. SharmaPutra (talk) 13:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

That's WP:OR. Koshuri ^(グ) 14:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

No it isn't, Chandragupta I is the 'founder' of the gupta 'empire'

Sri Gupta is founder of Gupta dynasty SharmaPutra (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Makhuri dynasty = Kannauj

@Garudam, Makhuri dynasty ruled the Kingdom of Kannauj. Both of them are mentioned I think only the actual kingdom should be mentioned, as the dynasty RULED the kingdom

It would be like mentioning Delhi sultanate and it's dynasty in successor as well! PunjabPradesh (talk) 08:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

But yet you mentioned my edits as disruptive PunjabPradesh (talk) 08:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

That's just a blatant OR and your PoV pushing looks similar to JingJongPascal, So you need to stop evading the block [5] – Garuda ^Talk! 10:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Maukhuri dynasty ruled THE kingdom of kannauj.

That's literally written in their article page. PunjabPradesh (talk) 11:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

The Maukhari dynasty[b] was an Indian dynasty that ruled the Kingdom of Kannauj

Literally from the article page.

Maybe read before putting false accusations PunjabPradesh (talk) 11:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Well that's something else to deal with. Quite the same case as of AfD'd Magadhan Empire, I see. – Garuda ^Talk! 12:25, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Thats what I have been saying from the start.

Remove the mention of atleast one of them in the successor section as it can be quite confusing. PunjabPradesh (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

This account is a sock. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:46, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Separating Art from legacy section

Art should be it's own section and not included within the legacy section! 2409:4080:EE97:8AB3:720F:DD6E:14C6:7121 (talk) 12:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Might only be feasible if one revamps and add further to this particular topic. – Garuda ^Talk! 21:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)