All of the things are happening.
And, once again, Alexander is being Alexander the "name this new city after Me".
And, once again, Alexander is being Alexander the "name this new city after Me".
Paldana comes from the British word platoon, so I doubt they'd use it.A platoon of 500 men was called the ‘paldana’
No they attacked a secret ally of the Mandala.Did the Mauryas just attack the Nepal Mandala?
Will edit. Thanks.Paldana comes from the British word platoon, so I doubt they'd use it.
Heh, no matter how serious or mature that man becomes, I guarantee, this behavior of his would never be eradicated.And, once again, Alexander is being Alexander the "name this new city after Me".
It's not in Burma. It's in arakan. Scripts show there was a kingdom with the names speculative, however, the actual name, dynasty etc is not known to us. I just went ahead with the widely accepted oneThe graphics for the battle against the Qin look great! And it's good to see the Kasthamandap adoptinging Macedonian tactics like the phalanxes, though they will need to be modified to adapt for true mountainous and rugged warfare.
However there is no such thing as the Dhingyawati kingdom historically. Complex urban formation and development would not occur in Burma till the 2nd century BCE under the Pyu city states as the migration of the Mon people had only started about now. The complex network of organized realms wouldn't appear tille around the 4th century CE. The 'fleet' that mentioned in the update couldn't exist as Arakan wasn't really inhabited by anyone other than smaller tribes during this time period, the first proper states like Dhanyawadi would form when Indian princes from Kalinga, Anga and Vanga set up shop in the area.
It's not guaranteed, but with most things in this era, I just have to roll with the most accepted ones. Chanakya spoke about a small but powerful maritime power in the east and Dhana spoke of a small but independent trading power. It's not guaranteed of course, however I am just going by some accepted but not guaranteed versions of history.It's not in Burma. It's in arakan. Scripts show there was a kingdom with the names speculative, however, the actual name, dynasty etc is not known to us. I just went ahead with the widely accepted one
From all historians its most probably in modern day sonargoan and Chittagong area.It's not guaranteed, but with most things in this era, I just have to roll with the most accepted ones. Chanakya spoke about a small but powerful maritime power in the east and Dhana spoke of a small but independent trading power. It's not guaranteed of course, however I am just going by some accepted but not guaranteed versions of history.
It's not in Burma. It's in arakan. Scripts show there was a kingdom with the names speculative, however, the actual name, dynasty etc is not known to us. I just went ahead with the widely accepted one
It's not guaranteed, but with most things in this era, I just have to roll with the most accepted ones. Chanakya spoke about a small but powerful maritime power in the east and Dhana spoke of a small but independent trading power. It's not guaranteed of course, however I am just going by some accepted but not guaranteed versions of history.
From all historians its most probably in modern day sonargoan and Chittagong area.
Hm, you are right about Vanga being more plausible. Right. Will change it!I know it's in Arakan. However nearly all historical knowledge indicates that despite the fabricated and mythological kings lists made by the Pagan Empire, there were no complex states in Arakan until the 1st century AD. A few good sources are:
Noel F Singer's "Vaishali and the Indianization of Arakan ".
Yian, Goh Geok; Miksic, John; Aung-Thwin, Michael Bagan and the World: Early Myanmar and Its Global Connections.
I'm not sure of which part of Chanakya's works you're quoting here. Could you link it please? And while I agree if there is some reasonable doubt an author is free to do as they please, the fact that there's a lot of archaeological and textual proof that Arakan wasn't developed enough for kingdom based states for another 300+ years from the time we're discussing precludes the existence of such a state.
That would fall in the kingdom of Vanga would it not? Claudius Ptolemy mentioned Sounargoura as part of the kingdom of Samatatta, but that was a later breakaway which reconquered the area during Gupta times. It would make more sense for the TL to use Vanga as Kasthamandap's ally rathern than a non-existant Arakanese kingdom, easily posied to march on Tamralipti.
Also Sonargaon or Chittagong aren't exactly in the Rakhine. Most of Southeast Asia wouldn't complete the Indianization that kickstarted their complex state formations till the 4-5th centuries CE. Even Kedah, one of the earliest settlements to be mentioned by name in the Tamil texts while also having archaeological evidence to support it, only dtaes back to 93-110 AD.
Well there are still the southern kingdoms of the Cholas and the Kish Kingdom to the south.Well, all hell has has broken lose, the Wars In subcontinent will continue till there is only one undisputed power left
Vassalised like OTLWell there are still the southern kingdoms of the Cholas and the Kish Kingdom to the south.
Chandragupta is still there, and he still controls the southern Lands. Though the northern portion is lost to him after this battle. Any predictions after the war?Well there goes the Mauryans and Chanakya, now wharlt happens to Nepala, they control most of India right ?