Do any of you folks know, where i can find those shows apart form Dangal TV. They were in some sites and youtube but recently got deleted. i checked some results but no working links were found. If someone has the videos, thenkindly shre them with me.
I read somewhere that Chandragupta Maurya managed to conquer Indian lands and unite India partly because Alexander the Great had already destroyed the power of many smaller rulers and kingdoms of India. How true is it?
Looking mainly for works such as a biography of Chandragupta Maurya as well as an in depth analysis of Mauryan history, culture, religion, language, etc.
Any other works and media about or concerning any part of Indian history (such as the Seleucid Empire) are welcomed as well
Unfortunately I can only read English sources
So just out of curiosity I jumped straight to the annexations of forts and as I was reading, I felt that chanakya was not just smart, he was also ruthless. And truly ruthless. In that book there were several situations mentioned, where king is the most vulnerable to kill, and how to kill him, and you can say yourself he isn't a kind of person who would miss a chance. He did fake about gods appearing, just to gain confidence of people.
And all this was just after reading a few pages and which made me think, why would a guy this ruthless and smart, would let someone else rule? Why would chanakya just go through all this pain for someone else to rule? Some folktales say it was because the nanda king insulted him, but I don't personally feel someone as smart as him would be too moved by their words, let alone think of making someone else a ruler instead of him.
I also had this one extra question, what is the chance that the history of Mauryan empire as we know today, is completely different than what actually happened? For example, the story of Chanakya says that he was born with a tooth, which is an indication that he would become a king, and so he got his tooth removed, which means he would be a king maker. What is the chance that this story was completely made up,story made by chanakya himself, just to gain the confidence of his empire??
I would assume it has something to do with the Gupta dynasty honoring Chandragupta, but I donโt want to assume anything. Thank you!
I m Playing as Gandhi in Civ 6 but I have to play a very pacifist way. I saw Chandragupta Maurya is also playable and I can be little aggressive but I could not see him. Do I have to unlock him ? or DLC?
Curious to know what Jains are beliefs about the origins of Chandragupta maurya?
Was Chandragupta Maurya was born as a Jain or did to convert to Jainism at later stages as it is being claimed by some.
Based on some of my research, you folks can correct where I am wrong
In Ancient Greek and Latin accounts, Chandragupta is referred as Sandrokottos or Androcottus.
In Jain Prakrit form - Gupta is Gutta
Gutta (เคเฅเคคเฅเคค) is a Prakrit ending for deriving proper personal names, mentioned as an example in the Aแน
gavijjฤ chapter 26.
Chandragutta would be more closer to Sandrokottos or Androcottus, than Chandragupta
Etymologically, I think Maurya can be broken as
Maurya - Mou + arya
Muni - Silent Mouna - Pause
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muni_(Saint)
As Muni is strongly associated with Jains, does this indicate they were Jains but it could be generic back then used by other religions as well.
https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/gutta
Thanks
Here you can check them out.
This is getting out of control with this amount of legendary commanders. Hopefully one day we will get new normal epic commanders. :(
Hi fellow citizens,
As the title suggest, does anybody have any idea about which dynasties ruled Indian subcontinent before Chandragupta Maurya? Will appreciate it if you share the sources as well.
There's been concern recently about the extreme similarity between the leader abilities of three different leaders. They are, as follows:
Cyrus (Persia)
-
Declaring a surprise war has reduced warmonger and war weariness penalties
-
All units gain +2 movement for the first 10 turns after declaring a surprise war
-
Occupied cities have no penalties to growth and yields
Chandragupta Maurya (India)
-
Can declare a War of Territorial Expansion after gaining the Military Training Civic.
-
+2 Movement and +5 Combat Strength for the first 10 turns after declaring a War of Territorial Expansion.
Robert the Bruce (Scotland)
-
Can declare a War of Liberation after gaining the Defensive Tactics Civic.
-
+100% Production and +2 Movement for the first 10 turns after declaring a War of Liberation.
Though all three have distinctions, they all have that repeated element of "+2 movement for 10 turns after declaring war". Not only does this lead to very similar gameplay, but it also has balance problems - getting +2 movement is an enormous boost and it alone is why Persia tends to be considered so highly.
It might be strange to suggest changes to abilities before they're even released, but I think it's possible to tweak all three to make them feel different and also bring in more expansion mechanics. Here's just one possibility:
Cyrus (Persia)
-
Declaring a surprise war has reduced warmonger and war weariness penalties
-
All units gain +1 movement for the first 10 turns after declaring a surprise war
-
Occupied cities have no penalties to growth and yields
-
Occupied cities have additional loyalty
We haven't actually seen Rise and Fall Persia yet, so it might have changes already. If not, here's a possibility that reins in Persia's extreme speed boost while also giving them an appropriate new feature that fits in with the new expansion.
Chandragupta Maurya (India)
-
Can declare a War of Territorial Expansion after gaining the Military Training Civic.
-
+5 Combat Strength for the first 10 turns after declaring a War of Territorial Expansion.
-
If you are both in a Golden Age and at peace, gain bonus production and growth in all cities (or some other vaguely similar bonus)
Chandragupta Maurya in his later years renounced his conquests, and I thought it'd be interesting to take out the +2 movement boost and replace it with something that reflects both that and the infrastructural expansion that took place during his rule. This mak
... keep reading on reddit โกLet's say that Alexander did not succumb to a fever in 323 BC and continued to rule and consolidate his empire. Meanwhile, Chandragupta establishes and consolidates the Mauryan Empire. Around 305 BC, with a new generation of warriors eager to prove themselves, a 50-year-old Alexander resumes his Indian campaign. The two Empires declare all out war against each other.
Would Alexander vs Chandragupta turn out differently than the SeleucidโMauryan war?
Do any of you folks know, where i can find those shows apart form Dangal TV. They were in some sites and youtube but recently got deleted. i checked some results but no working links were found. If someone has the videos, thenkindly shre them with me.
)