Shunga Empire Puns

***

Myth: Vikramaditya never existed, he’s just a legendary ruler based on Chandragupta II; there is no epigraphy or coinage issued by him, and he is not mentioned in the dynastic histories (vamsanucharita) of the Puranas.

Overcorrection: Vikramaditya not only existed, but became a world-emperor, ruling over the Middle East, Central Asia, Eastern Europe and Western China.

Truth: The Malavas of Ujjain won at least a defensive war against the Scythians c. 57 BC, possibly causing the destabilization of Scythian power back at Taxila. The Malava chief responsible for this feat may well have been named Vikrama.

***

The Maurya-Gupta interregnum (180 BC – 250 AD), in particular the period 57 BC – 78 AD, was a giant mess when it comes to the history of North-Western India.

South India under the Satavahanas and North India under the Shungas and successive Magadhan dynasties prospered in this period under relatively stable Vedic governance. In the North-West, however, the situation could only be described as political chaos.

There is already confusion about the political history in the period of Greco-Bactrian invasions before 57 BC [1], and during the period of Scythian invasions, sovereignty was fuzzy and fluctuating, borders were non-constant or even ill-defined, and the chronology is highly uncertain. It would perhaps be most accurate to refer to the period as a complex multipartite war between the Greco-Bactrians, Scythians, Parthians, Yuezhi and local and imperial Indic states.

In the midst of all this chaos, there is one name that shines most brightly: Vikramaditya of Ujjain – who, as per traditional record, emerged victorious over the invaders and established a glorious golden age of prosperity and governance in accordance with Vedic laws. His victory over the Scythians c. 57 BC marks the epoch of the Vikrama Samvat, the traditional Hindu calendar – and his name was immortalized by history as a regal title, equivalent to “Caesar” in Europe or “Alexander” in Persia.

The purpose of this text is to reconstruct a precise history of the period between 57 BC – 78 AD based on the primary sources available to us.

If you’re unfamiliar with the historical context, read the background chapters first.

Table of contents

• Historicity of Vikramaditya
• Reconstructing the period 57 BC – 78 AD
• Aftermath: 78 – 250
• Background: start of the barbarian invasions
• Background: 180 – 57 BC

Historicity of Vikramaditya

The most inform

Hello, r/ badhistory,

Recently a well known YouTuber, whose channel name is Kraut, made a video, comparing the processes of socio-political change and evolution that have come to define the modern day nation states of India and China. The video made observations on the history of these nation states, to ascertain why the two societies are the way they are today, which characteristics and phenomenons shaped them and compares them as well. I shall link the video here and I shall provide time stamps wherever possible. I will also paraphrase the video and I shall try to remain as accurate to the video as possible in terms of wording, however I do suggest giving this video a watch.

Finally, I would also like to say, that while I find myself agreeing with the overall point that Kraut makes in the video, I find his observations on Indian history questionable and many of his points seem to misrepresent Indian history. It is for a correction of these points, that this post is intended. With all of this said, we can begin.

9:00 to 9:40

>Brahmic religions played a core role in the creation of the first social structures of India.....

>A society of castes developed called "Varnas"

>Untouchables, divided into "Daltis", "Harijans" and "Pariahs"

We can begin by addressing this section where Kraut touches upon the emergence of social structures in India. Here, the claim is that it was the Brahmin religions that created the first social structures in India, these being Varnas and Jatis. The Brahmins or priestly class being at the top of this heirarchial structure and the Kshatriya or warrior class below them, the Vaishyas or aristocratic/merchant class below them, and the Shudras or labour class below them as well. While the untouchables, namely the "Daltis", harijans and pariahs being outside of this 4 fold structure. (Note : Astute observers of Indian history will notice that Kraut says "Daltis" instead of "Dalits")

These statements appear to be vague, and are not reflective of the social processes that led to the emergence of Jatis and Varnas and neither do they place the development of social structures in India in the appropriate order and context. Let us try and piece together these rather generalised and seemingly synonymous terms.

To begin with, we need to understand the process of development of social structures in the Indian subcontinent . According to Romila Thapar in *Early India

A brief walkthrough of Indian political history, focusing on the actually important things rather than just the stuff there are more tertiary sources on/that historians care more about.

Table of Contents

1. Prologue: the thousand-year recession
2. Early Iron Age (1200 BC – 750 BC)
3. Middle Iron Age (750 BC – 493 BC)
4. Late Iron Age (492 BC – 323 BC)
5. Classical Age: First Golden Age (322 BC – 269 BC)
6. Classical Age: Civil War period (268 BC – 181 BC)
7. Classical Age: Invasions period (180 BC – 249 AD)
8. Classical Age: Second Golden Age (250 – 543)
9. Classical Age: Intermediary period (544 – 749)
10. Classical Age: Third Golden Age (750 – 1194)
11. Dark Ages: Muslim period (1195 – 1669)
12. Dark Ages: Reconquest period (1670 – 1756)

Prologue: the thousand-year recession

The political system of Bronze Age India was probably a plutocracy.

https://preview.redd.it/41jg05m5tlv71.png?width=584&format=png&auto=webp&s=a93ff76ffbcb4b05bb2a7d676c794e3ba6e82793

In its peak, the Indus Valley civilization was the source of various technological innovations particularly in the fields of agriculture, water management, infrastructure and measurement. As the Indus Valley script remains undeciphered and very little of its writing remains, it is harder to comment on its academic achievements, most of these are first known from Mesopotamia (Egypt is a somewhat overrated Bronze Age civilization – it showed very little urbanization and was also a late adopter of the wheel; it just has an impressive archaeological record because of its palace economy).

In 1900 BC, a global depression struck. Indian cities crumbled; Near Eastern cities turned into stagnant palace economies; almost no inventions date to this period.

And then in 1200 BC, civilization collapsed.

It was the most mysterious event: Cities throughout the world burned and perished, literacy vanished, disease and local violence became widespread – civilization, from Greece to Gujarat, just collapsed.

Many historians posit pseudo-explanations for the Late Bronze Age collapse, like climate change, or “General Systems Collapse”, but none of these “explanations” are really good as scientific theories. Folks of the time were as confused by the event as we are – a letter from the Syrian king Ammurapi to the king of Cyprus reads:

>My father, behold, the enemy's ships came (here); my cities(?) were burned, and they did evil things in my country. Does not my father know that all my troops

I don't want to step on anybody's toes here, but the amount of non-dad jokes here in this subreddit really annoys me. First of all, dad jokes CAN be NSFW, it clearly says so in the sub rules. Secondly, it doesn't automatically make it a dad joke if it's from a conversation between you and your child. Most importantly, the jokes that your CHILDREN tell YOU are not dad jokes. The point of a dad joke is that it's so cheesy only a dad who's trying to be funny would make such a joke. That's it. They are stupid plays on words, lame puns and so on. There has to be a clever pun or wordplay for it to be considered a dad joke.

Again, to all the fellow dads, I apologise if I'm sounding too harsh. But I just needed to get it off my chest.

Do your worst!

I'm surprised it hasn't decade.

For context I'm a Refuse Driver (Garbage man) & today I was on food waste. After I'd tipped I was checking the wagon for any defects when I spotted a lone pea balanced on the lifts.

I said "hey look, an escaPEA"

No one near me but it didn't half make me laugh for a good hour or so!

Edit: I can't believe how much this has blown up. Thank you everyone I've had a blast reading through the replies 😂

It really does, I swear!

They’re on standbi

Pilot on me!!

Many take baji rao 1 as their idol. Libbus and muslims will hate him cause he was a brahmin.

But baji rao 1 fought 42 battles and lost none. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baji_Rao_I

His masterpiece was battle of bundelkhand against mughals in which he defeated a large army that too while attacking from low ground.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bundelkhand

Many historian compare this feat with battle of gaugamela and battle of canne.

Look map of maratha empire before baji rao and after baji rao

Many bhimtas and muslims were so hurt that they wrote a whole article on quora how rao was a brahmin and had European blood that means a imperialist. In short they said he was a good general because he was imperialist 🤣🤣. I am searching that answer, I will post the link

Btw if you rate indian generals capabilities---->

1. Samudragupta
2. Baji rao
3. Rajendra Chola
4. Raja Raja Chola
5. Ajatashatru
6. Lajit Borphukan
7. Raja Bhoja
8. Shunga
9. Chandragupta maurya
10. Skandagupta

Visit qutub minar, a muslim theft took damaged the iron pillar of delhi which was made during gupta empire. It has gupta army history scripted on it. You can read the translated version.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_pillar_of_Delhi It's older than islam btw.

And for pratap read bout napolean when he lost war of 6th coalition and was sent to island for exile he escape from their created an army and still fought at battle of waterloo which he lost but still he is a hero.

He lost still french celebrate him why? Because he fought english, russians and austria who were their enemy

Every country take pride in It's great people, a general like Samudragupta and Baji rao would have been a hero if they would have been born in other country but in India some people give more importance to mughals than guptas.

I know many people in this subs have IQ lower than planck constant but debate with facts not abuses. Why are baji rao and gupta empire ignored in India while great generals like Alexander, Napolean, Caesar are celebrated in their country.

And if you says enough information is not there about guptas and baji rao then to brust your bubble Guptas kept many scripture and work like decimal system, 0, chess, kama stura( randia mod's mom favorite book) was developed in this empire. From Chandragupta 1 to huna invasion every detail is still there still we are not taught

Baji rao was from 18th century.

You can ignore truth like BJP chaddis ignore brai

Nothing, he was gladiator.

Dad jokes are supposed to be jokes you can tell a kid and they will understand it and find it funny.

This sub is mostly just NSFW puns now.

If it needs a NSFW tag it's not a dad joke. There should just be a NSFW puns subreddit for that.

Edit* I'm not replying any longer and turning off notifications but to all those that say "no one cares", there sure are a lot of you arguing about it. Maybe I'm wrong but you people don't need to be rude about it. If you really don't care, don't comment.

When I got home, they were still there.

What did 0 say to 8 ?

" Nice Belt "

So What did 3 say to 8 ?

" Hey, you two stop making out "

I won't be doing that today!

[Removed]

You take away their little brooms

This morning, my 4 year old daughter.

Daughter: I'm hungry

Me: nerves building, smile widening

Me: Hi hungry, I'm dad.

She had no idea what was going on but I finally did it.

Thank you all for listening.

There hasn't been a post all year!

Why

It’s pronounced “Noel.”

After all his first name is No-vac

What, then, is Chinese rap?

Edit:

Notable mentions from the comments:

• Spanish/Swedish/Swiss/Serbian hits

• French/Finnish art

• Country/Canadian rap

• Chinese/Country/Canadian rock

• Turkish/Tunisian/Taiwanese rap

There hasn't been a single post this year!

(Happy 2022 from New Zealand)

Nothing, it just waved

Him: I can explain everything!

(It's his best joke yet I think)

Bob

***

Myth: Vikramaditya never existed, he’s just a legendary ruler based on Chandragupta II; there is no epigraphy or coinage issued by him, and he is not mentioned in the dynastic histories (vamsanucharita) of the Puranas.

Overcorrection: Vikramaditya not only existed, but became a world-emperor, ruling over the Middle East, Central Asia, Eastern Europe and Western China.

Truth: The Malavas of Ujjain won at least a defensive war against the Scythians c. 57 BC, possibly causing the destabilization of Scythian power back at Taxila. The Malava chief responsible for this feat may well have been named Vikrama.

***

The Maurya-Gupta interregnum (180 BC – 250 AD), in particular the period 57 BC – 78 AD, was a giant mess when it comes to the history of North-Western India.

South India under the Satavahanas and North India under the Shungas and successive Magadhan dynasties prospered in this period under relatively stable Vedic governance. In the North-West, however, the situation could only be described as political chaos.

There is already confusion about the political history in the period of Greco-Bactrian invasions before 57 BC [1], and during the period of Scythian invasions, sovereignty was fuzzy and fluctuating, borders were non-constant or even ill-defined, and the chronology is highly uncertain. It would perhaps be most accurate to refer to the period as a complex multipartite war between the Greco-Bactrians, Scythians, Parthians, Yuezhi and local and imperial Indic states.

In the midst of all this chaos, there is one name that shines most brightly: Vikramaditya of Ujjain – who, as per traditional record, emerged victorious over the invaders and established a glorious golden age of prosperity and governance in accordance with Vedic laws. His victory over the Scythians c. 57 BC marks the epoch of the Vikrama Samvat, the traditional Hindu calendar – and his name was immortalized by history as a regal title, equivalent to “Caesar” in Europe or “Alexander” in Persia.

The purpose of this text is to reconstruct a precise history of the period between 57 BC – 78 AD based on the primary sources available to us.

If you’re unfamiliar with the historical context, read the background chapters first.

Table of contents

• Historicity of Vikramaditya
• Reconstructing the period 57 BC – 78 AD
• Aftermath: 78 – 250
• Background: start of the barbarian invasions
• Background: 180 – 57 BC

Historicity of Vikramaditya

The most inform

Recently a well known YouTuber, whose channel name is Kraut, made a video, comparing the processes of socio-political change and evolution that have come to define the modern day nation states of India and China. The video made observations on the history of these nation states, to ascertain why the two societies are the way they are today, which characteristics and phenomenons shaped them and compares them as well. I shall link the video here and I shall provide time stamps wherever possible. I will also paraphrase the video and I shall try to remain as accurate to the video as possible in terms of wording, however I do suggest giving this video a watch.

Finally, I would also like to say, that while I find myself agreeing with the overall point that Kraut makes in the video, I find his observations on Indian history questionable and many of his points seem to misrepresent Indian history. It is for a correction of these points, that this post is intended. With all of this said, we can begin.

9:00 to 9:40

>Brahmic religions played a core role in the creation of the first social structures of India.....

>A society of castes developed called "Varnas"

>Untouchables, divided into "Daltis", "Harijans" and "Pariahs"

We can begin by addressing this section where Kraut touches upon the emergence of social structures in India. Here, the claim is that it was the Brahmin religions that created the first social structures in India, these being Varnas and Jatis. The Brahmins or priestly class being at the top of this heirarchial structure and the Kshatriya or warrior class below them, the Vaishyas or aristocratic/merchant class below them, and the Shudras or labour class below them as well. While the untouchables, namely the "Daltis", harijans and pariahs being outside of this 4 fold structure. (Note : Astute observers of Indian history will notice that Kraut says "Daltis" instead of "Dalits")

These statements appear to be vague, and are not reflective of the social processes that led to the emergence of Jatis and Varnas and neither do they place the development of social structures in India in the appropriate order and context. Let us try and piece together these rather generalised and seemingly synonymous terms.

To begin with, we need to understand the process of development of social structures in the Indian subcontinent . According to Romila Thapar in *Early India : From The Origins To AD

Recently a well known YouTuber, whose channel name is Kraut, made a video, comparing the processes of socio-political change and evolution that have come to define the modern day nation states of India and China. The video made observations on the history of these nation states, to ascertain why the two societies are the way they are today, which characteristics and phenomenons shaped them and compares them as well. I shall link the video here and I shall provide time stamps wherever possible. I will also paraphrase the video and I shall try to remain as accurate to the video as possible in terms of wording, however I do suggest giving this video a watch.

Finally, I would also like to say, that while I find myself agreeing with the overall point that Kraut makes in the video, I find his observations on Indian history questionable and many of his points seem to misrepresent Indian history. It is for a correction of these points, that this post is intended. With all of this said, we can begin.

9:00 to 9:40

>Brahmic religions played a core role in the creation of the first social structures of India.....

>A society of castes developed called "Varnas"

>Untouchables, divided into "Daltis", "Harijans" and "Pariahs"

We can begin by addressing this section where Kraut touches upon the emergence of social structures in India. Here, the claim is that it was the Brahmin religions that created the first social structures in India, these being Varnas and Jatis. The Brahmins or priestly class being at the top of this heirarchial structure and the Kshatriya or warrior class below them, the Vaishyas or aristocratic/merchant class below them, and the Shudras or labour class below them as well. While the untouchables, namely the "Daltis", harijans and pariahs being outside of this 4 fold structure. (Note : Astute observers of Indian history will notice that Kraut says "Daltis" instead of "Dalits")

These statements appear to be vague, and are not reflective of the social processes that led to the emergence of Jatis and Varnas and neither do they place the development of social structures in India in the appropriate order and context. Let us try and piece together these rather generalised and seemingly synonymous terms.

To begin with, we need to understand the process of development of social structures in the Indian subcontinent . According to Romila Thapar in *Early India : From The Origins To AD