User:Jonharojjashi/Chandragupta II's Northwestern Campaigns

Samudragupta's Āryāvarta campaigns

According to the Allahabad Pillar inscription, Samudragupta "forcibly uprooted" the following kings of Aryavarta, the northern region:^[2]

Unlike the southern kings, the inscription does not mention the territories ruled by these kings, which suggests that their kingdoms were annexed to the Gupta empire.^[3] The inscription also mentions that Samudragupta defeated some other kings, but does not mention their names, presumably because the poet saw them as unimportant.^[2]

Rudradeva

Rudradeva may be same as a king named Rudra, whose coin has been found at Kaushambi.^[4] Another theory identifies Rudradeva with a Western Kshatrapa (Shaka) king of Ujjain, either Rudradaman II or Rudrasena III.^[5]

Some earlier scholars, such as K. N. Dikshit and K. P. Jayaswal, identified Rudradeva with the Vakataka king Rudrasena I. However, this identification seems to be inaccurate, because Samudragupta's inscription explicitly mentions Rudradeva as a king of the northern region (Aryavarta), while the Vakatakas ruled in the southern region (Dakshinapatha). An argument cited in support of this identification is that Rudrasena bore the title Maharaja ("great king") as opposed to samrat ("emperor"), signifying his subordinate status to Samudragupta. However, multiple sovereign Vakataka kings bore the title Maharaja: only Pravarasena I assumed the title samrat after performing a vajapeya ritual sacrifice. An inscription of Rudrasena's descendant Prithvishena II mentions that the Vakataka kingdom had been prospering for a hundred years, suggesting that the Vakataka rule remained uninterrupted during Rudrasena's reign.^[5]

Matila

The identity of Matila is not certain.^[6][4] Earlier, Matila was identified with Mattila, who is known from a terracotta seal discovered at Bulandshahr.^[5] However, there is no evidence that this Mattila was a ruler, and epigraphist Jagannath Agrawal has dated the seal to the 6th century on palaeographic basis.^[7]

Nagadatta

Nagadatta is not known from any other inscriptions or coins, but his name has led to suggestions that he may have been the ruler of a Naga branch.^[6] D. C. Sircar theorized that he was an ancestor of a family of Gupta viceroys, whose names ended in -datta. Tej Ram Sharma speculates that he may have been a Naga ruler, whose successors were sent as Gupta viceroys in Bengal after the family accepted the Gupta suzerainty.^[8]

Chandravarman

Chandravarman of Samudragupta's inscription has been identified with Chandravarman, the ruler of Pushkarana (modern Pakhanna) in present-day West Bengal.^[6] P. L. Gupta and some earlier scholars have identified this ruler with another Chandravarman, who has been mentioned in an inscription discovered at Mandsaur in present-day Madhya Pradesh.^[9][4] Tej Ram Sharma disputes this identification, arguing that Samudragupta "exterminated" all kings of Aryavarta and annexed their territories, as suggested by the Allahabad Pillar inscription; however, Naravarman – a brother of Chandravarman of Mandsaur – is known to have been ruling as a feudatory in 404 CE.^[8]

Ganapatinaga

Ganapati-naga is identified as a Naga king. Several coins bearing the legend Ganapati have been discovered at Padmavati, Vidisha, and Mathura. Although these coins do not bear the suffix "naga", they are similar to the ones issued by the other Naga kings such as Skanda-naga, Brihaspati-naga, and Deva-naga. Since hundreds of Ganapati's coins have been found at Mathura, it appears that he was the ruler of a Naga branch headquartered at Mathura.^[6]

Nagasena

The 7th century text Harshacharita refers to the Naga king Nagasena, who "met with his doom in Padmavati, as his secret plan was divulged by a sarika bird". Assuming this describes a historical person, it appears that Nagasena was the ruler of a Naga branch headquartered at Padmavati in present-day Madhya Pradesh.^[6]

Achyuta-nandin

Achyuta-nandin seems to be same as Achyuta, who is mentioned earlier in the inscription; his name may have been shortened in the earlier verses for metrical purposes.^[4] An alternatively theory identifies Achyuta and Nandin as two distinct kings.^[10]

Achyuta was the ruler of Ahichchhatra in present-day Uttar Pradesh, where coins attributed to him have been discovered.^[11] These coins bear the legend "Achyu", and are similar to the coins issued by the Naga rulers. This has led to suggestions that the Achyuta-nandin defeated by Samudragupta was the ruler of a Naga branch headquartered at Ahichhatra.^[6]

Balavarman

V. V. Mirashi identified Bala-varman (or Balavarma) as a ruler of the Magha dynasty of Kosambi.^[12] U. N. Roy suggested that Bala-varman may have been an ancestor of the Maukhari kings, who initially served as Gupta vassals, and whose names ended in -varman.^[13] Another theory identifies him with the successor of Shridhara-varman, the Shaka ruler of Eran. Samudragupta may have ended the dynasty of Eran, as suggested by the discovery of his inscription at Eran.^[12]

K. N. Dikshit identified Balavarman with Balavarman, a ruler of the Varman dynasty of Kamarupa; however, Balavarman was not a contemporary of Samudragupta.^[14] Moreover, Kamarupa has been mentioned as a distinct frontier kingdom later on in the Allahabad Pillar inscription.^[13]

Rise of Kidara Kushans

The emergence of the Great Kushans in Bactria and Northwestern India during the first century A.D. transformed these regions into significant players in international politics. The Kushan empire posed a dual threat to the Parthians of Iran. Economically, the Kushans, like the Parthians, acted as intermediaries in trade. They controlled three crucial sections of the renowned Silk Road: firstly, the route connecting the Caspian and Euxine Seas; secondly, the path passing through Merv, Hecatompylos, and Ecbatana, crossing the Euphrates and reaching Mediterranean ports; and thirdly, the maritime route between India and the Red Sea, which gained immense importance after the discovery of monsoons. Consequently, they had the ability to redirect trade between China, India, and the eastern countries away from Parthian territory, posing a significant economic challenge to Parthian rulers. The political implications of the Kushans' rise as a major power were also profound for Iran. Instead of facing a single enemy in the West, Iran found itself sandwiched between the Roman Empire and the Kushans. The Romans, who were constantly engaged in rivalry and conflict with the Parthians, recognized the strategic importance of this empire and sought direct relations with its rulers to safeguard trade routes between Rome, China, and India. Caught between these two powers, the early Sasanians, who succeeded the Parthians as the imperial rulers of Iran in 224 A.D., made the conquest of the Kushan empire their primary objective in Eastern policy, and they achieved remarkable success in this endeavor. The first Sasanian emperor, Ardashir I (224-241 A.D.), conquered Kushan principalities to the north of the Hindukush. Although Kushan chiefs continued to govern these territories, they had to accept the overlordship of the Sasanian emperor.^[15]

Submission of Kidarites (Little Kushans)

The Kushan Empire continued as a remnant known as the "Little Kushans", based in the Punjab. Around 270 their territories on the Gangetic plain became independent under local dynasties such as the Yaudheyas. Then in the mid-4th century they were subjugated by the Gupta Empire under Samudragupta.^[16] In his inscription on the Allahabad pillar Samudragupta proclaims that the Dēvaputra-Shāhi-Shāhānushāhi (referring to the last Kushan rulers, being a deformation of the Kushan regnal titles Devaputra, Shao and Shaonanoshao: "Son of God, King, King of Kings") are now under his dominion, and that they were forced to "self-surrender, offering (their own) daughters in marriage and a request for the administration of their own districts and provinces".^[17][16][18] This suggests that by the time of the Allahabad inscription the Kushans still ruled in Punjab, but under the suzerainty of the Gupta Emperor.^[16]

North-western policy of Samudragupta

The reconstruction of Samudragupta's northwest policy mentioned earlier aligns with other intriguing facts. In 361 AD, an Indian delegation reportedly visited Rome, as stated by Roman historians. Despite having been dispatched from India earlier, the embassy did not reach Rome until 351 AD. Taking into account the political circumstances in India during the mid-4th century AD, this fact holds significant value. Before the year 361 AD, it was noted that the Roman emperors were engaged in a conflict with the Sassanids. Hence, it was not unexpected for Samudragupta to try to stop future conflicts with the Persian army on the Western Front by allying with Kidara against Shahpur II. Hence, it is possible that he dispatched an embassy to Rome prior to 361 AD. Additionally, considering the political background of Bactria and north-west India described earlier, it is more probable that Kalidasa authored the Digvijaya story of Raghu using the real events resulting from Samudragupta's conquest, assuming great force. Kalidasa stated that Raghu conquered the Deccan's Trikutas before heading overland to conquer the Parasikas. Having emerged victorious over them, he went on to conquer the Hunas before launching an assault on the Kambojas. The Parasikas mentioned by Kalidasa are evidently related to the Sasanians. He mentioned that the Hunas resided by the Vankshu or Oxus river. During the third quarter of the fourth century AD, this was exactly the area where they resided. Ultimately, it may be concluded that the Kambojas of Raghuvamsa are likely to be the same as Kidara Kushans, as historical evidence shows that Kidara not only conquered Gandhara but also the five neighboring kingdoms, of course which were situated in Kambojas.^[21]

Gupta-Kidara alliance

The Kushan contemporary of Samudragupta, was Kidāra. He was initially a part of the Great Kushan family. It was after him that his individuals got to be celebrated as the small Kushans. Hence, it can be promptly conceded that he was known to his counterparts as a ruler of the Devaputra family. But he was not effective enough to utilize the title Shahanushahi. He was simply a Shahi. His coins bearing the legend 'Kidāra Kushāṇa Shāhi' proved it. Subsequently, he can be effectively recognized with Daivaputrashāhi of the Allahabad pillar inscription. Here it is curiously to note that opposite to the for the most part acknowledged see, within the Prayaga Prasasti the word Devaputra has not been utilized as a title, for the reality that it has been utilized in its taddhita shape not simply appears that it must be taken in conjunction with the another word 'Shāhi', it moreover demonstrates that the compound Daivaputrashahi would connote 'Shāhi, who had a place to (the family of) the Devaputras'. As respects Kidāra's contemporary Shahanushahi, he might have been no other than Shapur II, the Sassanian Shahanshah. On the premise of this proposal the course of history of Bactria and North-Western India may be reproduced as takes after:

Kidara, after having set up himself in Gandhara, apparently at the cost of the Saka rulers, drew closer to Samudragupta a few times after 359 A. D., sent him presents and callings of steadfastness and inquired for his offer of assistance against the Sasanians. Samudragupta, on his part, was exceptionally much on edge to amplify his circle of impact past the central Punjab where his subordinate partners, the Gadaharas, were administering. He saw with uneasiness the tribal developments which were taking place in that heading and were posturing a risk to his recently established domain. But he was not a vanquisher, he was a statesman as well. He knew he possessed impediments and had the intelligence of restoring the prevailed rulers of the South. He needed to be included in a North-Western experience, indeed less. But, in any case, he was anxious to make the wildernesses of the domain and the western trade-routes secure and secure. He subsequently, did what was the most excellent; beneath the circumstances he concluded an alliance with Kidara and as the more grounded part of the association gave him an offer of assistance against Shapur II. His arrangement was prominently effective and Kidara vanquished the Sasanians twice in 367-68 A. D. It may not suggest that Shapur II got to be a vassal of Kidara or Samudragupta. But it does indicate that the articulation of Harishena about the connection of his master with the Sasanian ruler ought to not be suggested as through and through altogether without foundation.^[24]

First Hephthalite invasion

Kidara, thereafter the year 367-68 A. D., likely in c. 370 A. D. had to bargain with the attack of the Jouan-Jouan or Hiung-nu or the White Huns from Bactria or Valhika. He put his son within the charge of his capital and went towards west to meet the intruders. This time too, Samudragupta shows up to have given considerable assistance to his Kushan ally. As a matter of truth, the victory of Kidara against the Hunas, whom he seem not check prior when he was in Bactria, demonstrates that this time he had an effective partner on his side. In this way, a fruitful endeavor by the Gupta sovereign in c. 370 A. D. against the Valhikas 'across the seven mouths of the river Indus' gets to be a really solid plausibility. It is one of the reasons which have driven us to hypothesize the identicality of the lord 'Chandra' with Samudragupta. It may, in any case, be recollected that the history of Bactria and the North-Western India as laid out over does not depend upon the recognizable proof of Samudragupta with the ruler of the Meharauli inscription. For example, in case we are to incline toward the hypothesis of the distinguishing proof of Chandragupta II with the ruler of this record, we can assume that it was Chandragupta, the offspring of Samudragupta, was the one sent as the pioneer of this expedition.^[25]

The Hephthalites as vanquished enemies (face down on the floor), and then as allies (seated), in the Sasanian Bandian complex. The inscription next to the seated ruler reads: "I am Hephthalite, son … the Hephthalite is trustworthy".^[26][27] 459-497 CE

Geographical factors in North-western policy

The general station of the ancient conglomerate-builders of the Ganga Valley towards the North-West was conditioned by the interplay of several factors. Geographically, the Indus valley is the western of cornucopia of what may be called the Fertile Crescent of India, and gives the print that it's nearly connected with the Ganga Valley. But there's another side of this picture also. It may be noted and needs to be emphasized that the Indus river-system is not only unconnected with any other river of North India, but it's indeed separated from the rest of the country by the vast desert of Thar. The stretch of the home which connects it with the Ganga Valley viz. the Thanesar-Delhi-Kurukshetra division–roughly the ancient realm of the Kuru Kingdom-is veritably narrow and communication through it was rendered delicate in the ancient times by the great timbers, similar as the Khandava, Kāmākhyā, Kurujāngala and Dvaitavana and also by a large number of small gutters. These walls, it seems, rendered the subjection of the Indus receptacle by the powers of the Ganga Valley relatively delicate and made these two regions to appear more distant and remote from each other than they actually were. It's a literal fact that with the exception of the Mauryas, nearly all the conglomerate-builders of the Ganga Valley the Nandas, the Sungas, the Nagas, the Guptas and indeed the Vardhanas noway seriously tried to conquer the region to the west of the Divide. It doesn't mean that they noway took any interest in the political fortunes of the Indus receptacle; they couldn't go to neglect it altogether. piecemeal from the fact that this region also belonged to the larger Indian world and, thus, the achievement of universal sovereignty (chakravartitra) was regarded as deficient without establishing some kind of suzerainty over it, they could hardly forget that utmost of the routes of the Indian trade with the Western countries were controlled by the North-Western powers. Above all, the nearly constant affluence via the Indus receptacle of Central and Western Asiatic peoples who relatively constantly hovered the security of the antarvedi itself, impelled them to take note of the political developments in the Indus receptacle. But these lodestones weren't sufficient enough to bait them to take over wars of subjection in that region. The Vardhanas, though a power of Thanesar, were interested in it only to the extent of transferring occasional peregrinations against the Hunas; the Sungas communicated some interest only when they were hovered by the Bactrian Greeks; indeed the Mauryan subjection of this region was maybe the result of the fact that Chandragupta Maurya started his political career there and the irruptions of Alexander and Seleucus had rendered its objectification in the conglomerate necessary. In the early mediaeval period also, the Rajput autocrats of the Ganga receptacle generally communicated interest in the politics of the Indus Valley states only when they were themselves hovered by the raiders coming from that direction. Prithviraja III, the Chahamanas of Shakambhari king of Delhi, for illustration, took no notice of the expansion of the Ghurid area in the Punjab till his own security was hovered and indeed after achieving palm in the first battle of Tarain he took no suitable way to oust the Muslims from the Punjab; he was putatively more interested in the politics of the antarvedi.^[28]

In the light of the below discussion, the station of the Guptas towards the Indus Valley becomes comprehensible, though not justified. But whatever the causes, the fact remains that the first four generations of the Gupta emperors didn't take any way whatsoever to guard the north-western borders of the conglomerate. How strong were the roots of their cerebral incuriosity towards the North West, becomes clear by the fact that Skandagupta himself, who had to taste the bitter fruits of the idiocy of his forerunners, did nothing to amend it by taking measures against the possible rush of the Huna irruption. The Hunas now appear for the alternate time in Indian history, their first irruption being the bone which the king 'Chandra' met across the seven mouths of the swash Indus'. Their consecutive irruptions against the Gupta conglomerate present a veritably intriguing pattern of their growing power vis-a-vis the adding failure of the Guptas to stem their advance in the country. During the ending times of the reign of Samudragupta, the Hunas succeeded in enwrapping Bactria and expelling the Kidara Kushans from there. But veritably soon the Guptas took obnoxious and the king 'Chandra' led a successful passage against them. In their alternate attempt, which took place in the original times of the reign of Skandagupta, these invaders shook the foundations of the conglomerate, though ever Skandagupta eventually succeeded in checking the drift of their progress. In their third irruption, still, which they launched in the first decade of the sixth century, the Hunas were eminently successful, for, also they not only enthralled the antarvedi, the heart of the conglomerate, but also reduced the Gupta emperor to the status of their vassal.^[29]

India and Central Asia

The Hunas, led by Attila until his death in 453 A.D., posed a considerable threat to contemporary civilizations, challenging the courts of Ravenna and Constantinople and causing devastation from the Indus to the Danube. Despite their aggression, Skandagupta's leadership and military strategy enabled him to resist their advances.^[30]

• 
  Coin of Skandagupta (455-467), in the style of the Western Satraps.^[31]
• 
  Coin of Skandagupta Kramaditya with facing Garuda.
• 
  Gold dinar of Skandagupta.

India's geographical barriers shielded it from the full impact of racial and cultural currents originating in Western and Central Asia. While Iran bore the brunt of continuous Huna incursions, India faced comparatively weaker and intermittent invasions. Skandagupta's success exemplifies this pattern, with the Gupta Empire enduring less severe impacts compared to Iran.^[32]Skandagupta's victory against the Hunas, while notable, should be viewed within its proper historical context. It occurred amidst a backdrop of other challenges to the empire's stability, highlighting the complexity of the political landscape during his reign. Skandagupta's achievement in repelling the Hunas underscores his effectiveness as a leader and military strategist. However, it is essential to avoid overestimating its significance in the broader context of Gupta history, recognizing the multitude of factors at play during that time.^[33]

Route of the Huna invasion

Several scholars hypothesize that the Hunas entered India via the Bolan Pass, with Surashtra and Malwa being the initial regions to face their aggression. It's noted that Arab chroniclers equated Zabulistan, interpreted as 'the land of Zabuls', with a portion of modern Afghanistan, potentially inhabited by the Hunas. The Kura inscription of Toramana refers to him as Shahi Jauvla, with variants like Jaubla, Jabubla, and Jabula found on his silver coins, while Hephthalite coins mention it as Zabol. Inscriptions of Mihirakula in Afghanistan support the notion of a Huna settlement in Zabulistan. Despite these connections, it's debated whether the Hunas responsible for naming Zabulistan were the same ones invading India in the mid-fifth century AD.^[34]Scholars disagree on the extent of damage caused by the Huna invasion. McGovern suggests a series of defeats leading to near-total destruction of the Gupta empire, while R. D. Banerji posits Skandagupta's demise while resisting a significant Huna incursion. Smith also supports renewed Huna invasions during Skandagupta's later rule, leading to his eventual defeat. However, Sinha argues against the belief in repeated and successful Huna invasions during Skandagupta's reign. The theory of multiple invasions is anchored in numismatic evidence, specifically the debasement of heavier coins attributed to Skandagupta's later reign, allegedly due to Huna invasions. Yet, this hypothesis has been refuted, as the heavier coins show no higher percentage of alloy compared to lighter varieties.^[35]

After Shapur II withdrew, Constantius II provided assistance to Nisibis. In the East, his defensive plan relied on maintaining strongholds with few troops while he focused on military operations in the West. Luckily, he did not have to worry about Persians trying to invade Roman territory for the next few years due to other priorities. The Chionitai and Euseni/Cuseni (the Kushans or Guptas) were causing problems in Central Asia. The Indian Guptas may have been the Euseni led by Samudragupta, who ruled from 325 to 375/381 and conquered much of India. The Saka satraps of Sind and the Kushans acknowledged his rule, despite being technically subordinate to the Sasanians, showing that he had gained control over large parts of Sasanian territories in the eastern regions. It was not surprising at all when he was given the title 'Sarva-rājo-chchhettā', which means 'exterminator of all kings', and that his campaigns in the west and north happened in the 350s. The significant use of elephants by the Sasanians after indicated a possible agreement with the Guptas. It is highly likely that Shapur II waged wars against the Guptas in the 350s, rather than the Kushans. Taking into account the events that followed, it is likely that Shapur II persuaded the Chionitai to switch allegiance, enabling him to successfully broker a ceasefire in the eastern region. It is definite that the Sasanians did not emerge victorious, but only reached a stalemate, as the Saka satraps continued to be under the rule of Samudragupta. Shapur II probably negotiated a deal like Seleucus I Nicator (312-281 BC). Shapur II would have given up land in exchange for elephants.^[37]

Dhruvasvamini, Chandragupta II's consort

Dhruva-svamini or Dhruvadevi, historically known as the consort of Chandragupta II, played a role during his reign.^[38]

Ramagupta prepared to surrender his consort

Prior to her marriage to Chandragupta II, Dhruva-svamini was married to Ramagupta. However, during a conflict with the Sakas, Ramagupta was prepared to surrender her.^[39]

Chandragupta II's Ingenious Stratagem

Disapproving of Ramagupta's decision, Chandragupta II devised a clever plan to confront the invaders. He, along with select warriors disguised as females, approached the Saka camp. As the Saka king confidently welcomed what he thought was the Gupta queen, Chandragupta II seized the opportunity to attack, swiftly defeating the invaders.^[40]

Al-Biruni's references to the two Vikramadityas

Upon arriving in India, Al-Biruni encountered tales regarding the connection between the era of 57-58 B.C. and Vikramaditya, which he subsequently documented as follows:^[41]

"A Saka king tyrannized over the country between the river Sindh and the ocean–some maintained that he was a Sudra or low caste Hindu from the city of Almansura, while others maintained that he was not a Hindu at all, but had come to India from the West The Hindus had much to suffer from him, till at last they received help from the East, when Vikramaditya marched against him, put him to flight and killed him in the region of Karur between Multan and the castle of Loni Now this date became famous as people rejoiced in the news of the death of the tyrant and was used as the epoch of an era, especially by the astronomers Since there is a long interval between the era which is called the era of Vikramaditya and the killing of the Saka, we think that Vikramaditya, from whom the era has got its name, is not identical with that one, who killed Saka, but only a namesake of his"

— Al-Biruni

According to Al-Biruni, there were two Vikramadityas: one who predates the establishment of the Vikrama era and the other who conquered the Sakas and founded an era named after him. This suggests that the Vikrama era was instituted to commemorate the latter's victory over the Sakas, appending it to an earlier era. Based on historical records, it is highly probable that the second Vikramaditya referred to by Al-Biruni, the conqueror of the Sakas, was none other than Chandragupta II Vikramaditya.^[42]

Outcome

Following this decisive victory, Chandragupta II, already esteemed for his triumph, ascended the throne with grandeur. He married Dhruva-svamini and eliminated Ramagupta, solidifying his rule sometime before 380 AD.^[43]

Ardashir II and Chandragupta II

During Chandragupta II's reign, Ardashir II ruled the Sasanian Empire from 379 AD to 383 AD. Recognizing Chandragupta II's newfound power and prestige after his victory over the Saka-Kushans, Ardashir II sought to establish diplomatic relations by sending ambassadors bearing gifts. Though detailed informations from the Pehlavi and Persian sources exists, it remains a subject for further analysis and study.^[44]

Ardashir II assumed the throne in 379 AD, a period coinciding with the ascension of Chandragupta II Vikramaditya, whose earliest recorded reign is documented in an inscription discovered at Mathura, dated 61 GE (Gupta era), corresponding to 380 AD. This temporal overlap suggests contemporaneity between Ardashir II and Chandragupta II. Chandragupta II's notable triumph over the Saka Kushan invaders left a lasting impression on his contemporaries. Consequently, Ardashir II contemplated initiating diplomatic relations with him, leading to the dispatch of an embassy to his court. However, due to Ardashir II's comparative lack of renown compared to his predecessor, Ardashir I, historical events from his reign were often attributed to the latter. Thus, the legend of contemporaneity between Ardashir I and Kaid emerged. Ferdowsi meticulously followed his sources, refraining from embellishment or conjecture, as noted by Warner. Consequently, Ferdowsi perpetuated misconceptions or ambiguous traditions without attempting to rectify them. This accounts for the inclusion of the tradition of Ardashir I and Kaid from Pehlavi sources in the Shahnama.^[45]

Battle of Begram

References to Kāpiši wine persist in literary works like Dhanapala's Tilakamanjari, describing it as a favored royal beverage with a reddish hue akin to a woman's eyes filled with resentment or the petals of a red lotus. Archaeological findings at Begram reveal ceramic motifs illustrating wine production, featuring jars, vines, grape bunches, and birds, reminiscent of Pompeii's artistry. Additionally, plaster medallions depict symmetrical arches formed by grape leaves and bunches, indicating Begram's historical significance as a grape-growing hub and wine production center.^[46]

Recent archaeological endeavors uncovered a sizable wine cellar in Nisa, the former Parthian capital near modern-day Ashkabad, containing nearly 200,000 liters of wine stored in clay pitchers.^[47]

Inscriptions on broken pieces of pitchers suggest wine distribution to significant establishments like Nisa's prominent slave-owning palace and temple. The mention of grape wine in the Raghuvamsa underscores the poet's geographical awareness of Kapisi's significance along land routes during Raghu's Persian campaign. After having crossed swords with the Yavanas. Raghu (Chandragupta II) fought a battle against the Parasikas (Persians) somewhere at the valley of Kāpiśi.^[48]

Battle of Sistan and the Submission of Varahran

After the (Persian) Sasanians suffered defeat in the battle of Sistan, which demorilzed the Persian contingents in present day Afghanistan. As the Gupta Army marched northwards to Kapisa Province, Varahran was quick to grasp the political realities and offered his submission to the Gupta Emperor Chandragupta II.^[49]

Gupta cavalry's arrival by the Oxus river

Bactria was under the Huna occupation in the last quarter of the fourth century AD.^[51] The sudden attack into the Oxus valley caught the Transoxiana alliance off-guard. The Pamir Mountains Tocharians were unable to combine with the Hunas (Hephtalites). On hearing the news of the Gupta Empire advanced, the Hephtalites resorted to a tactical retreat to the north of the Oxus River into the plains of southern Uzbekistan. When the Gupta cavalry arrived by the Oxus river on the southern banks, they camped there. Kalidasa poetically described how the cavalry camped on the banks of the river Vankshu in the midst of saffron fields in a verse of his Raghuvamsa:

"...His horses, that had lessened their fatigues of the road by turning from side to side on the banks of the river Vankshu (Oxus), shook their shoulders to which were clung the filaments of saffron..."

Historians studied this as a description of the Gupta cavalry camping on the banks of the Oxus during Chandragupta II's expedition.^[52][53]

Kidara's conquest of Gandhara 356 CE and the Battle of the Oxus 399 CE

"Kushan" coins of Kidara

Kidara gold coin, circa 350–385 CE, derived from the Kushans. Vertical Brahmi legends from right to left:
Kushana ( Ku-shā-ṇa)
Kidara ( Ki-da-ra)
Kushana ( Ku-shā-ṇa)
Goddess Ardoxsho on the back.

The word "Kushana" in Brahmi script ( Ku-shā-ṇa) as it appeared on the bottom left corner of Kidarite coins circa 350 CE.^[54]

Kidara I (Late Brahmi script: Ki-da-ra) fl. 350-390 CE) was the first major ruler of the Kidarite Kingdom, which replaced the Indo-Sasanians in northwestern India, in the areas of Kushanshahr, Gandhara, Kashmir and Punjab.^[55]However, Altekar suggests that Candragupta II attacked the Kidara Kushans. But in the situation also prevailing it isn't insolvable that Chandragupta really raided Balkh or Bactria appertained to as Bahlikas in the inscription. We already saw that Bactria was enthralled by the Hepthalites in about 350 A.D. (Kalidasa refers to the Hunas on the Oxus) and therefore had led to the eventual subjection of Gandhara by Kidara by 356 A.D., the contemporary (Daivaputrashātā of Samudragupta). After Kidara, his successors were known as little Yue-chi. As we have seen Samudragupta was satisfied with the offer of submission of Kidara, and he also claims to have entered the submission of Shāhānushāhī (the Sasanian emperor), substantially to consolidate his vanquishing in the country, and to have some share and control over the renowned Silk-route. 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 or his successors in Gandhara, and Fa-hsien refers to Hepthalite king trying to remove Buddha's coliseum from Purushapur. This may indicate Huna invasion in Gandhara some time before Fa-hsien concluded his peregrination in India. It is said that 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 might have gained some help from the 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 Bahlika in the Mehrauli Pillar Inscription. This event may be placed towards the end of the 4th century A.D. Chandragupta II's Bactrian expedition also led to the battle of the Oxus with his Gupta cavalry against the Hunas, who were defeated and the Gupta emperor having planted the Gupta flag on the banks of the river of Oxus.^[a][57]

Chandragupta II's return to India

He returned home from Bactria proper, crowned with glory and perhaps laden with riches.^[60]

During Skandagupta's period, the Indo-Hephthalites (known as the White Huns or Hunas) invaded India from the northwest, advancing as far as the Indus River.^[61]

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 Hunas, along with heavy losses for the Hunas.^[62][63][b]

Bhitari pillar of Skandagupta

The Bhitari pillar of Skandagupta

The Bhitari pillar inscription states that Skandagupta defeated the Hunas:^[61]

(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 Hûnas; . . . . . . among enemies . . . . . . arrows . . . . . . . . . . . . proclaimed . . . . . . . . . . . . just as if it were the roaring of (the river) Ganga, making itself noticed in (their) ears."

— Bhitari pillar inscription of Skandagupta Line 15

Victory against the invaders

The date of the Huna invasion is not certain. The Bhitari inscription mentions it after describing the conflict with the Pushyamitras (or the Yudhyamitras), which suggests that it happened later during Skandagupta's reign. However, a possible reference to this conflict in the Junagadh inscription suggests that it may have happened at the beginning of the Skandagupta's reign or during the reign of his father Kumaragupta. The Junagadh inscription, dated to the year 138 of the Gupta era (c. 457–458 CE) mentions Skandagupta's success against the invaders:^[65]

...whose [Skandagupta's] fame, moreover, even [his] enemies, in the countries of the mlechchhas... having their pride broken down to the very root, announce with the words "verily the victory has been achieved by him."

— Junagadh inscription^[61]

The victory against the invaders happened in or before the year 136 of the Gupta era (c. 455-456 CE), when Skandagupta ascended the throne and when he appointed Parnadatta as the governor of the Saurashtra region, in which Junagadh is located. Since Skandagupta is not known to have fought against any other foreigners, these invaders were probably the Hunas. If this identification is correct, it is possible that as a prince, Skandagupta was sent to check the Huna invasion at the frontier, and Kumaragupta died in the capital while this conflict was happening; Skandagupta returned to the capital and overcame rebels or rival claimants to ascend the throne.^[65]

A sentence in the Sanskrit text Chandra-Vyakarana (c. 7th century) states Ajayad-Gupto Hunan, literally, "The Gupta conquered the Hunas". This may be a reference to Skandagupta's victory over the Hunas, although an alternative reading by scholar K. P. Jayaswal has "Jato" instead of "Gupto".^[66] A story in the Kathasaritsagara (11th century) states that the legendary king Vikramaditya ascended the throne after his father Mahendraditya abdicated it, and inflicted a crushing defeat on the invaders. Since Mahendraditya was a title of Kumaragupta, and Vikramaditya that of Skandagupta, this may be a reference to Skandagupta's victory over the Hunas.^[67] Mahendraditya was the title of Kumaragupta, in fact it seems that he sent his army under Skandagupta to check the progress of the invaders (which included the hoardes of the Hunas/Hepthalites, Persians/Sasanians and Kidarites/Kushanas) who invaded the northwestern frontiers and territory of the Gupta Empire, eventually, the wars and invasion were repelled by Skandagupta.^{[c][69][70][71][d][73]}