1,837
edits
no edit summary
No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
||
| Line 164: | Line 164: | ||
The [[Hunas]] in [[Bactria]] were not a peaceful community and because they posed peril to both [[Iran]] and [[India]], and they might have tried to pursue [[Kidara I|Kidara]] or his successors in [[Gandhara]], and [[Faxian|Fa-hsien]] refers to [[Hepthalite]] king trying to remove [[Buddha]]'s coliseum from [[Peshawar|Purushapur]]. This may indicate [[Huna people|Huna]] invasion in [[Gandhara]] some time before [[Faxian|Fa-hsien]] concluded his peregrination in [[India]]. It is said that [[Kidara I|Kidara]] towards the end of the 4th century had to go northwestwards against the [[Hunas]], leaving his son Piro at [[Peshawar]]. It's possible that [[Kidara I|Kidara]] might have gained some help from the [[Gupta Empire|Gupta]] emperor. It is thus possible that [[Chandragupta II]] led an adventure to [[Bactria]] through [[Gandhara]] against the [[Hunas]], and this may be appertained to as his crossing of the seven rivers of [[Sindhu]] and conquering [[Bahlikas|Bahlika]] in the [[Iron pillar of Delhi|Mehrauli Pillar Inscription]]. This event may be placed towards the end of the 4th century A.D. [[Chandragupta II]]'s [[Bactria]]n expedition also led to the battle of the [[Oxus]] with his [[Gupta Empire|Gupta]] cavalry against the Hunas, who were defeated and the [[Gupta Empire|Gupta]] emperor having planted the [[Gupta Empire|Gupta]] flag on the banks of the river of [[Oxus]].{{efn|"However, Altekar suggests that Candra Gupta attacked the Kidara Kushāṇas. But in the situation then prevailing it is not impossible that Candra Gupta really invaded Balkh or Bactria referred to as Bāhlika in the inscription. We have seen that Bactria was occupied by the Epthalites in about 350 A.D. (Kalidasa refers to the Hūņas on the Oxus) and thus had led to the eventual conquest of Gandhara by Kidāra by 356 A. D., the contemporary (Daivaputrashātā of Samudra Gupta). After Kidāra, his successors were known as little Yue-chi. As we have seen Samudra Gupta was satisfied with the offer of submission of Kidāra, and he also claims to have received the submission of Shāhānushāhī, (the Sassanian emperor), mainly to consolidate his conquests in the country, and to have some share and control over the famous Silk-route. The Hūṇas in Bactria were not a peaceful community and because a danger to both Iran and India, and they might have tried to pursue Kidāra or his successors in Gandhara, and Fa-hsien refers to Epthalite king trying to remove Buddha's bowl from Purushapur. This may indicate Hūṇa inroad in Gandhāra some time before Fa-hsien concluded his travels in India. It is held that Kidāra towards the end of the 4th century had to proceed N. W. against the Hūṇas leaving his son Piro at Peshwar. It is possible that Kidāra might have received some help from the Gupta emperor. It is therefore possible that Candra Gupta II led an expedition to Bactria through Gandhāra against the Hūṇas, and this may be referred to as his crossing of the seven rivers of Sindhu and conquering Bāhlika in the Mehrauli Pillar Inscription. This event may be placed towards the end of the 4th century A. D."{{sfn|Sinha|1974|p=[https://books.google.mu/books/about/Comprehensive_History_of_Bihar.html?id=2WlDAAAAYAAJ&redir_esc=y 50–51]}}}}{{sfn|Agrawal|1989|p=[https://books.google.mu/books?id=hRjC5IaJ2zcC&vq=Oxus&source=gbs_navlinks_s]240 & 264}} | The [[Hunas]] in [[Bactria]] were not a peaceful community and because they posed peril to both [[Iran]] and [[India]], and they might have tried to pursue [[Kidara I|Kidara]] or his successors in [[Gandhara]], and [[Faxian|Fa-hsien]] refers to [[Hepthalite]] king trying to remove [[Buddha]]'s coliseum from [[Peshawar|Purushapur]]. This may indicate [[Huna people|Huna]] invasion in [[Gandhara]] some time before [[Faxian|Fa-hsien]] concluded his peregrination in [[India]]. It is said that [[Kidara I|Kidara]] towards the end of the 4th century had to go northwestwards against the [[Hunas]], leaving his son Piro at [[Peshawar]]. It's possible that [[Kidara I|Kidara]] might have gained some help from the [[Gupta Empire|Gupta]] emperor. It is thus possible that [[Chandragupta II]] led an adventure to [[Bactria]] through [[Gandhara]] against the [[Hunas]], and this may be appertained to as his crossing of the seven rivers of [[Sindhu]] and conquering [[Bahlikas|Bahlika]] in the [[Iron pillar of Delhi|Mehrauli Pillar Inscription]]. This event may be placed towards the end of the 4th century A.D. [[Chandragupta II]]'s [[Bactria]]n expedition also led to the battle of the [[Oxus]] with his [[Gupta Empire|Gupta]] cavalry against the Hunas, who were defeated and the [[Gupta Empire|Gupta]] emperor having planted the [[Gupta Empire|Gupta]] flag on the banks of the river of [[Oxus]].{{efn|"However, Altekar suggests that Candra Gupta attacked the Kidara Kushāṇas. But in the situation then prevailing it is not impossible that Candra Gupta really invaded Balkh or Bactria referred to as Bāhlika in the inscription. We have seen that Bactria was occupied by the Epthalites in about 350 A.D. (Kalidasa refers to the Hūņas on the Oxus) and thus had led to the eventual conquest of Gandhara by Kidāra by 356 A. D., the contemporary (Daivaputrashātā of Samudra Gupta). After Kidāra, his successors were known as little Yue-chi. As we have seen Samudra Gupta was satisfied with the offer of submission of Kidāra, and he also claims to have received the submission of Shāhānushāhī, (the Sassanian emperor), mainly to consolidate his conquests in the country, and to have some share and control over the famous Silk-route. The Hūṇas in Bactria were not a peaceful community and because a danger to both Iran and India, and they might have tried to pursue Kidāra or his successors in Gandhara, and Fa-hsien refers to Epthalite king trying to remove Buddha's bowl from Purushapur. This may indicate Hūṇa inroad in Gandhāra some time before Fa-hsien concluded his travels in India. It is held that Kidāra towards the end of the 4th century had to proceed N. W. against the Hūṇas leaving his son Piro at Peshwar. It is possible that Kidāra might have received some help from the Gupta emperor. It is therefore possible that Candra Gupta II led an expedition to Bactria through Gandhāra against the Hūṇas, and this may be referred to as his crossing of the seven rivers of Sindhu and conquering Bāhlika in the Mehrauli Pillar Inscription. This event may be placed towards the end of the 4th century A. D."{{sfn|Sinha|1974|p=[https://books.google.mu/books/about/Comprehensive_History_of_Bihar.html?id=2WlDAAAAYAAJ&redir_esc=y 50–51]}}}}{{sfn|Agrawal|1989|p=[https://books.google.mu/books?id=hRjC5IaJ2zcC&vq=Oxus&source=gbs_navlinks_s]240 & 264}} | ||
[[File:Inscription on Iron Pillar, Delhi.jpg|thumb|upright=1.27|The inscription of [[Chandragupta II]]]] | [[File:Inscription on Iron Pillar, Delhi.jpg|thumb|upright=1.27|The inscription of [[Chandragupta II]]]] | ||
== The Imperial crisis == | |||
=== Gupta interregnum === | |||
[[File:Silver Coin of Kumaragupta I.jpg|thumb|upright=1.5|Silver coin of the Gupta King [[Kumaragupta I]] (Coin of his Western territories, design derived from the [[Western Satraps]]). | |||
<br />''Obv'': Bust of king with crescents, with traces of corrupt Greek script.<ref>{{Cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=_mUg2BBJr7kC&pg=PA112 |title=Coin splendour: a journey into the past |last=Prasanna Rao Bandela |publisher=Abhinav Publications |year=2003 |isbn=978-81-7017-427-1 |pages=112– |access-date=21 November 2011 |archive-date=29 May 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130529030958/http://books.google.com/books?id=_mUg2BBJr7kC&pg=PA112 |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>"Evidence of the conquest of Saurastra during the reign of [[Chandragupta 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</ref> | |||
<br />''Rev'': [[Garuda]] standing facing with spread wings. Brahmi legend: ''Parama-bhagavata [[rajadhiraja]] Sri Kumaragupta Mahendraditya''.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Virji |first1=krishnakumari J. |title=Ancient History Of Saurashtra |date=1952 |page=225 |url=https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.57287/page/n249/mode/2up}}</ref>]] | |||
One of the topmost problems, which the [[Gupta Empire|Guptas]], had to face in those times of excited conditioning, was the problem of race. At that time there were several ambitious tycoons in the Homeric family. [[Skandagupta]] and Purugupta were two of them. also, there was Ghatotkachagupta presumably also a son of [[Kumaragupta I]]. According to the law of royal race, which the ancient [[India]]n autocrats generally followed, the eldest son of [[Kumaragupta I]] should have succeeded him. But so far, the [[Gupta Empire|Guptas]] had shown spare respect to this principle. It's also not clear whether they regarded the first son sired on the senior-most queen or the eldest son, indeed if he happed to be the son of an inferior queen, as the licit descendant . maybe they hadn't bothered themselves to evolve a specific rule on this point. As regards the [[Hindu]] law books, it's nowhere laid down that the son of the principal-queen alone should succeed to the throne. In the early days of the conglomerate the nomination by the ruling autonomous was the most important factor. [[Chandragupta I]] had nominated [[Samudragupta]] as his successor and the ultimate, in his turn, presumably expressed his preference for his young son [[Chandragupta II]], over and above the claim of [[Ramagupta]], the elder brother of [[Chandragupta II]].{{sfn|Goyal|1967|pages=266-267}} | |||
It is not beyond the realm of possibility that towards the close of his reign, [[Kumaragupta I]] also expressed his preference for his valliant son [[Skandagupta]], though the evidence on this point is rather inconclusive. In this connection the Apratigha type of coins of the former furnish veritably intriguing substantiation. On the obverse of these issues we have three numbers. The central bone is really [[Kumaragupta I]] since he is expressly labelled as similar. He is shown wearing a dhoti. His hands are folded at midriff and he wears no jewelry on his person. He is adjoined on his right by a woman with her right hand bent up and raised in the station of ritarka (argumentation) and on his left by a joker, his left hand holding a guard and the right in the vitarka mudrā. According to Altekar, in this scene the emperor [[Kumaragupta I]] is shown as meaning repudiation and his queen and crown-prince are trying to inhibit him without success. The suggestion is relatively intriguing, though it is good to note that as these coins were issued during the reign of [[Kumaragupta I]] himself, he supposedly had not renounced his Homeric status altogether. To us it appears that in the ending times of his reign, [[Kumaragupta I]] entrusted the government of the conglomerate in the hands of his crown-prince and himself retired to lead a life of religious pursuits. Maybe commodity like this was behind the tradition recorded in the Kathasaritsagara according to which Mahendrāditya, generally linked with [[Kumaragupta I]], nominated his son Vikramaditya who had succeeded in inflicting a crushing defeat on the [[Mlecchas|Mlechchhas]] as his successor and himself retired to [[Varanasi]].{{sfn|Goyal|1967|pages=266-267}} | |||
According to the [[Buddhist]] work Chandragarbbapaṛiprichchhā also, the king Mahendrasena, identified with [[Kumaragupta I]] by K.P. Jayaswal, culminated his son Duprasahahasta, the whipper of the [[Yavanas]], Palhikas and Sakunas as his successor and himself retired to lead religious life. therefore, from the combined evidence of the Apratigha type of coins and the erudite tradition it appears that in his old age [[Kumaragupta I]] came virtually a isolate and the responsibility of administering his vast conglomerate regressed upon the shoulders of one of his sons. The prince who was named for this favour was supposedly no other than [[Skandagupta]], for, the Kathisarilsigara refers to him by the name of Vikramaditya, one of the titles espoused by [[Skandagupta]], and gives him the credit of conquering the [[Mlechchhas]], an achievement for which Skandagupta was regarded as the unique hero of the [[Gupta Empire|Gupta dynasty]].{{sfn|Goyal|1967|pages=267-270}} | |||
[[File:KumaraguptaFightingLion.jpg|thumb|Kumaragupta I fighting a lion, as depicted on his gold coin<ref>CNG Coin [https://www.cngcoins.com/Coin.aspx?CoinID=65341]</ref>]] | |||
Numerous scholars, still believe that [[Skandagupta]] had no licit right to the throne and [[Kumaragupta I]], indeed if he'd all his affections reserved for the former couldn't give his throne to him. But the arguments cited in support of this proposition aren't conclusive. The view that the expression talpādānadhyāta was reflective of legal right to the throne and accordingly its elision in the Bhitari necrology for [[Skandagupta]] suggests that his claim was not licit, is not correct. The expression didn't have any indigenous significance. It was used indeed by the feudatory autocrats to express their fidelity towards their overlord. It is also relatively possible that as the author of the Bhitari record switched over from prose to verse at the place where the expression tatpādānadhyāta was to be used for [[Skandagupta]] to describe his devotion to his father, he gave its lyrical interpretation pitṛiparigatapādapadmavarti. P.L. Gupta remarks that this expression does not convey the sense that [[Skandagupta]] was the favourite of [[Kumaragupta I]]; it rather reflects his own anxiety to show that he was veritably important devoted to his father. But does not the expression tatpādānudhyāta also suggest the same idea–the devotion of the sovereign for which it was used for his precursor? It should also not be forgotten that in the Bhitari record the expression tatpādanadhyāta has been used neither for Ghatotkacha and nor for [[Chandragupta I]] and [[Samudragupta]]. Would it mean that none of these autocrats was the licit successor of his father? As regards the status of the mother of [[Skandagupta]], the elision of her name in the genealogical portion of the Bhitari record does not inescapably prove that she was not a Mahādevi. As refocused out by Raychaudhuri, the names of the maters of the lords were occasionally neglected in the ordinary pratastis, however in the royal seals they were always appertained indeed if it meant reiteration.{{sfn|Goyal|1967|pages=270-272}} | |||
In the genealogical portion of the [[Madhuban]] and Banskhera plates, the name of Yaśomati as Harsha's mother is not mentioned, but in the [[Sonepat]] and [[Nalanda]] seals she is mentioned both as the mother of [[Rajyavardhana]] and as the mother of [[Harshavardhan|Harsha]]. The view that the mother of [[Skandagupta]] was a doxy of [[Kumaragupta I]] and not a full-fledged queen, and that [[Skandagupta]] was ashamed of her status is altogether unwarranted. [[Skandagupta]] refers to her veritably proudly in the verse 6 of the Bhitari record. The change-over from prose to verse incontinently after the name of [[Kumaragupta I]], which redounded in the lyrical picture of the expression tatpādānadhyāta was maybe also the cause of the elision of her name in the genealogical portion of this record.{{sfn|Goyal|1967|pages=270-272}} | |||
Actually, so far as the struggle for the throne among the sons of [[Kumaragupta I]] is concerned, the question of the legality of [[Skandagupta]] is hardly applicable. For, indeed if he was not entitled to inherit the conglomerate, he could raise the banner of rebellion against the licit descendant and could win the preceding struggle. still, as yet there is nothing to show that his claim was less justified than that of other contenders. He was putatively devoted to and had the blessings of his father–a fact which is also suggested by the installation by him of an image of Sārngin in the memory of [[Kumaragupta I]]. It also needs no arguments to prove that he must have been the darling of the Homeric army. His consecutive military palms suggest it veritably explosively. But his rivals were not exactly helpless. Take, for illustration, Purugupta. In the Bhitari seal of Kumaragupta II he's described as begotten on the Mahadevi Anantadevi. Now, from the Bihar gravestone pillar necrology we learn that [[Kumaragupta I]] had married the family of his minister Anantasena. As in that period sisters were generally named after their sisters, it is nearly insolvable not to imagine that the queen Anantadevi was the family of Anantasena, the Homeric minister.{{sfn|Goyal|1967|pages=270-272}} | |||
However, it may be fluently conceded that Purugupta had an important section of ministers to support his candidature. If it was so. Then it may so be noted that after having consolidated his position as the new emperor, [[Skandagupta]] was obliged to appoint new 'pro-tectors' in all the businesses'. It may indicate that in some of the Homeric businesses his accession to the throne was opposed by the advanced officer-class. It is relatively possible that other contenders similar as Ghatotkachagupta, who had been the governor of the eastern [[Malwa]], reckoned substantially on similar original support. therefore, it appears that during the last times of the reign of [[Kumaragupta I]] pulls from colorful directions sought to impact the question of race the emperor and the army favoured [[Skandagupta]], the queen Anantadevi and an important clerical party supported the cause of Purugupta and in some businesses original officers stoned the ambition of tycoons similar as Ghatotkachgupta. In such a condition, dominated by factional power- polities, a close contest for the throne was but ineluctable. Fortunately for the conglomerate, [[Skandagupta]], the unique hero of the [[Gupta Empire|Gupta dynasty]], who had the blessings of his father and the support of the Homeric army on his side surfaced victorious in it. His rise gave a farther parcel of life to the conglomerate the palm of a weaker seeker would have quickened the pace of decomposition.{{sfn|Goyal|1967|p=273}} | |||
=== Pushyamitra invasion === | |||
[[File:Narmada river map.jpg|thumb|The [[Pushyamitras]] lived on the banks of the [[Narmada River]].]] | |||
[[File:South Asia historical AD450 EN.svg|thumb|Political situation in [[India]] in 450 CE.]] | |||
Some of the troubles of [[Skandagupta]] were the result of the programs followed during the after times of the reign of [[Kumaragupta I]]. As we have seen, [[Kumaragupta I]] had launched a vigorous crusade against his [[Vakataka]] relations eventually towards the concluding period of his reign which coincided with the early times of the reign of [[Narendrasena]] (c. 440-60 A.D.), the son and successor of [[Pravarasena II]]. In this adventure, the [[Gupta Empire|Guptas]] had an important inferior supporter in the [[Nala]] king Bhavattavarman. But from the [[Vakataka]] records, it appears that Narendrasena veritably soon succeeded in reacquiring the fallen fortunes of his family.{{sfn|Goyal|1967|pages=274-277}} | |||
In this attempt, he was mainly helped by his [[Kadamba dynasty]] relations; else one can not explain why Prithvishena II, the son of Narendrasena, should have mentioned his maternal forefather in the line of his family. therefore, in the middle of the fifth century A.D. two power-blocks-one conforming of the [[Gupta Empire|Guptas]] and the [[Nalas]] and the other comprising the [[Vakatakas]] and the [[Kadambas]] crystallized, and dominated the politics of the [[Deccan]]. Against this background the irruption of the [[Pushyamitras]], mentioned in the Bhitari record, assumes a new significance.{{sfn|Goyal|1967|pages=273-274}} | |||
The identification and position of the home of the [[Pushyamitras]] of the Bhitari record have been largely controversial issues. But now it's generally honored that they belonged to the [[Mekala]] region. In the [[Vishnupurana]] MSS consulted by Wilson it's stated that the Pushpamitra (according to Wilson a variation of Pushyamitra), Patumitra and others, to the number of thirteen, will rule over [[Mekala]]. opining on this statement Wilson says" it seems most correct to separate the thirteen sons or families of the Vindhya queen( sic.) from these Bahlikas, and them from the Pushpamitras and Patumitras, who governed Mekala, a country on the Narmada.{{sfn|Goyal|1967|pages=274-277}} | |||
[[File:Mansar Shiva image.jpg|thumb|left|An image of [[Shiva]] from Mansar, currently housed in the [[National Museum, New Delhi]]. The image was likely produced during the reign of Pravarasena II, who was known to be a devout Shaivite.]] | |||
A statement of analogous import is set up in the [[Vaynpurana]] which is generally regarded as one of the oldest and the most dependable of Purana textbooks. It was on the base of this substantiation that Fleet and numerous others have located the [[Pushyamitras]] of the Bhitari record 'in [[central India]] nearly in the country along the banks of the [[Narmada]]'. Some scholars have expressed mistrustfulness about this suggestion, but the recent epigraphic discoveries haven't only given fresh support to his proposition but have also thrown a new light on the alignment of powers in this area. The most important of these documents is a bobby plate entitlement of the Pandavavarṁśi king [[Bharatabala]] alias Indra, discovered at [[Bamhani]] in [[Sohagpur]] tahsil of [[Rewa (princely state)|Rewa district]] in [[Baghelkhand]]. It records the entitlement of the village Vardhamanaka positioned in the Panchagarta Vishaya of Mekala to Lohita, a Brahmana of [[Vats (clan)|Vatsa gotra]]. Palaeographically, it has been credited to the middle of the fifth century A.D. by Chhabras and Mirashi. Accordingly, the origin of the [[Pandava]] family mentioned in it may be placed in the last quarter of the fourth century A.D.{{sfn|Goyal|1967|pages=274-277}} | |||
[[File:Nalanda clay seal of Vishnugupta.jpg|thumb|Nalanda clay seal of Vishnugupta]] | |||
It is true that in this record Jayabala and Vatstāja, the first two members of the family, have no royal title prefixed to their names, but it was maybe due to the fact that their description occurs in verse; the coming two lords are described both in prose and verse. In any case, it appears certain that the early autocrats of this family were the feudatories of the [[Gupta Empire|Guptas]]. It is relatively possible that during the re-organisation of [[Baghelkhand]], [[Samudragupta]] gave an arena of Jayabala, the first member of this family. But the situation changed during the reign of Bharatabala. He is said to have married Lokaprakāśā, the queen of [[Kosala|Kosalā]]. She was presumably the son of the Sura king Bhimsena I who, according to Mirashi, was the contemporary of Bharatabala.{{sfn|Goyal|1967|pages=274-277}} | |||
In the 11th verse of the [[Bahmani]] record, Bharatabala makes a veiled reference to a certain Narendra, who appears to have been his suzerain. Chhabra and Mirashi identify this Narendra with Narendrasena, the contemporary [[Vakataka]] sovereign . It is not at each insolvable, for, from the [[Balaghat]] plates of Prithvisheņa II(c. 460- 80A.D.), the son and successor of Narendrasena, we learn that the cominands of the ultimate were fete by the autocrats of [[Kosala]], Mekalā and Malavā. therefore, the combined evidence of the Bamhani and the Balaghat plates prove it nearly conclusively that eventually in the middle of the fifth centuryA.D. the sovereign of Mekala transferred his constancy from the Guptas to the Vakatakas. From what we know about the history of the contemporary period, it's insolvable not to suggest that it must have happed either towards the close of the reign of [[Kumaragupta I|Kumāragupta I]] or in the carly times of the reign of [[Skandagupta]].{{sfn|Goyal|1967|pages=274-277}} | |||
It appears that as a response against the aggressive policy of the Guptas, which led to the occupation of the Vakataka capital Nandivardhana by Bhavattavarman, the Nala supporter of the Guptas, the Vakataka sovereign Narendrasena, soon after recovering the lost ground, launched an descent against the Guptas when their conglomerate was passing through a period of grave extremity. The [[Pandava]] sovereign Bharatabala of Mekalā readily transferred his constancy to him. Studied against this background, the statement of the Bhitari record that Skandagupta conquered "the Pushyamitras, who had developed great power and wealth, (and) he placed (his) left foot on a foot-stool which was the king (of that lineage himself)" becomes significant. It's impeccably in consonance with what we know of the history of the [[Mekala]] region to which the [[Pushyamitras]] belonged. supposedly, [[Pushyamitras]] king of the Bhitari record was no other than the Pandava sovereign of Mekala, the inferior supporter of Narendrasena Vakataka and his irruption on the Gupta conglomerate, obviously with the help of the Vakataka sovereign , was a part of the general descent which Narendrasena had launched against the [[Gupta Empire|Guptas]].{{sfn|Goyal|1967|pages=274-277}} | |||
=== The Second Huna invasion === | |||
During Skandagupta's period, the [[Indo-Hephthalites]] (known as the White Huns or [[Huna people|Hunas]]) invaded [[India]] from the northwest, advancing as far as the [[Indus River]].{{sfn|R. C. Majumdar|1981|p=73}} | |||
[[File:Kakandi Script.jpg|thumb|Madra inscription on the [[Kahaum pillar]]]] | |||
==== Battle of the Indus river (458 A.D.) ==== | |||
During the Hun invasion, a battle along the [[Indus river]] took place which resulted in [[Skandagupta]] checking the advances of the Huns with them facing heavy losses.{{sfn|Fisher|Yarshater|1968|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=Ko_RafMSGLkC]214}}{{sfn|Jaques|2007|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=ss5drgEACAAJ] 471}}{{efn|"In their second attempt, which took place in the initial years of the reign of [[Skandagupta]], these barbarians shook the foundation of the empire, though somehow [[Skandagupta]] ultimately succeeded in checking the tide of their progress."{{sfn|Goyal|1967|pages=280–281}}}} | |||
{{multiple image|border=infobox|perrow=2/2/2|total_width=300 | |||
| align = right | |||
| direction =horizontal | |||
| header=Bhitari pillar of Skandagupta | |||
| image1 = Bhitari pillar of Skandagupta.jpg | |||
| image2 = Bhitari pillar.jpg | |||
| footer=The Bhitari pillar of [[Skandagupta]] | |||
}} | |||
The Bhitari pillar inscription states that [[Skandagupta]] defeated the [[Hunas]]:{{sfn|R. C. Majumdar|1981|p=73}} | |||
{{quote|([[Skandagupta]]), "by whose two arms the earth was shaken, when he, the creator (of a disturbance like that) of a terrible whirlpool, joined in close conflict with the [[Huna people|Hûnas]]; . . . . . . among enemies | |||
==Notes== | ==Notes== | ||