Talk:Indo-Greek Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Indo-Greek Kingdom article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (`~~~~`). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

This page has been selected for Version 0.5 and the release version of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category History.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India.

Quality: FA-Class (add comments)

This article is maintained by the Indian history workgroup.

[edit] Archives

Archive I

[edit] Featured article candidates

What a fantastic article. Are the authors aiming to nominate it as a Featured article? -- ALoan (Talk) 11:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

That would certainly be an idea. PHGshould take most of the credit, I reckon.--Sponsianus 12:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. Or as an alternative there is the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom, also mainly by PHG, which could be considered as a candidate. The truth is PHG has really made a phantastic work in this historical and geographical area! Aldux 13:45, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments! Actually several related articles are already FA, such as Greco-Buddhism and History of Buddhism, where the Indo-Greeks are mentionned. Indo-Greeks still needs a little more work (as far as I know most of the available data is pretty much in there, but I guess the flow of the article still has to be smoothened). It's also a lot of work to get an FA through! (usually one week of intense editing to answer all voter's comments and requests): I will try to see when my next window of opportunity is. Thanks! PHG 22:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ye ole BC/AD

This article was originally given BC/AD dates. I was told (after previously editing the BCEs on a different page) that it causes alot of controverse on wikipedia and the best policy is to keep it with the dates given from it's creation. Well folks this is BC/AD...and I'll revert, and get every user I can think of to view this [1] page. Thank you, Chooserr

Hi Chooser. I am the original creator of this article, and have been developing it consistently beyond its original stub state along the BCE/CE format. This choice became all the more obvious as many linked subjects have nothing to do with "Anno Domini/ Year of the Lord" concepts (Buddhism, Indian kingdoms etc...). Within the BC/AD-BCE/CE debate I clearly have a preference for the progressiveness of the latter, especially where cultural sensitiveness is required. Best regards. PHG 22:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander

The article appears well-written and would no doubt be a good FA bet. However, I was wondering if some text in the intro can talk of Alexander's exploits in India as an inspiration to the Indo-Greek kingdom. --Gurubrahma 07:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yavanajataka

The section on astronomy gives a misleading impression since the Yavanajataka is primarily a work of astrology, and incidentally contains the astronomy needed to calculate horoscopes. I would also refer to Pingree's introduction to this work for information on three periods of Greek emigration to India. Zeusnoos 15:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexander and Narain

I recently added a brief condensation of the history of Alexander's campaigns in India.

I'm also interested to know if it has been decided somewhere that Dr. AK Narain's treatise on the Indo-Greeks would be disregarded in favor Tarn's?

-Antialcidas, hehe - love the whimsical nomenclature (unsigned comment by Antalcidas)

I've removed your edits because they were in the wrong place: this article speaks of the Indo-Greek kingdom started much later than Alexander.--Aldux 23:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

As you wish; though you'll note that every major history of the Indo-Greeks opens with a history of Alexander's exploits there. As the Indo-Greeks are a major area of my personal study, I need no correction; it merely occured to me as an appropriate addition in light of Alexander's role in potentially establishing the local dynast "Sophytes" as a possible "Indo-Greek" ruler, it's simple pertinance to the subject of Greeks in India, and the traditional written precedant of it's mention in relation to the subject.

[edit] South Asia versus India

Regarding the following passage: "The kingdom was founded when the Greco-Bactrian king Demetrius invaded India in 180 BCE, ultimately creating an entity which seceded from the powerful Greco-Bactrian Kingdom centered in Bactria (today's northern Afghanistan)."

It is proper to refer to the invaded region as South Asia rather han India per se for a couple of reasons. The territory that Demetrius I controlled was primarily in the north west.

"However, the campaigns to Pataliputra are generally attested to the later king Menander I and Demetrius I probably only invaded areas in Punjab, Kashmir and Pakistan, the latter including areas taken from the Seleucid kings, who were weakened after their defeat to the Romans in 190. Other kings may have expanded the territory as well." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demetrius_I_of_Bactria#Invasion_of_India

"At the same time the Milindapanha (1,2) describes the West Punjab as "the country of the Yonana," because in the time of Menander the Hellenized members of the local aristocracy and the descendants of the Graeco-Macedonian invaders constituted here the ruling substratum of slave owning society.

"The top of society harboured the Greek language: by the testimony of Philostratus Fraotes, King of Taxila (the latter half of the first century A.D.) spoke Greek fluently. It is in Greek, as Strabon states, that the message of the Indus King Por to the Roman Emperor Augustus (27 B.C. to A.D. 14) was composed. Some scholars hold that Greek was fostered as a living tongue at the court of the Saka rulers in North-West sub-continent." (The Peoples of Pakistan, By Yu. V. Gankovsky).

Also, India today refers to the Republic of India which is not synonymous with the use of the word in ancient times. India in ancient times refered to a particular area in the northwest of the subcontinent i:e river indus and the land associated with it or the "Indus country": Alexander recruited 10,000 peoples to inhabit a city he had founded in the Lower Indus. Seleucus Nicator carried on town construction too; he built many towns all over his vast kingdom, including "Alexandropolis in the land of the Indus" (The Peoples of Pakistan, By Yu. V. Gankovsky).

Greek maps would stop roughly at the Thar desert beyond which they thought was nothing else but ocean.

John Keay in "India: A History":

"Herodotus, of course, knew only of the Indus region, and that by hearsay. Hence he did not report that the land of Hindu was of sensational extent, nor did he deny the popular belief that beyond its furthest desert, where in reality the Gangetic plain interminably spreads, lay the great ocean which supposedly encircled the world; Hindu or `India' (but in fact Pakistan) was therefore believed to be the end of terra firma, a worthy culmination to any emperor's ambitions as well as a fabulous addition to his portfolio of conquests. "

"In Persian and Greek minds alike, the association of Hindu with elephants was thereafter almost as significant as its connection with the mighty Indus. To Alexander of Macedon, following in the Achaemanids' footsteps two centuries later, the river would be a geographical curiosity, but the elephants were a military obsession.

If Gandhara was already under Achaemenid rule, Darius' Hindu must have lain beyond it, and so to the south or east. Later Iranian records refer to Sindhu, presumably an adoption of the Sanskrit spelling, whence derives the word `Sind', now Pakistan's southernmost province. It seems unlikely though, that Sindhu was Sind in the late sixth century BC, since Darius subsequently found it necessary to send a naval expedition to explore the Indus. Flowing through the middle of Sind, the river would surely have been familiar to any suzerain of the region. More probably, then, Hindu lay east of Gandhara, perhaps as a wedge of territory between it, the jana-padas of eastern Panjab, and deserts of Rajasthan. It thus occupied much of what is now the Panjab province of Pakistan."

I suggest we use more historically and acaemically proper terms. omerlivesOmerlives 14:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Omerlives. As explained in the article "Although "India" only meant the upper Indus for Alexander the Great, since the embassies of Megasthenes in the 3rd century BCE "India" meant to the Greeks most of the northern half of the Indian subcontinent, an area roughly corresponding to the extent of the Mauryan Empire at its largest." Indeed, the knowledge of India by the Greek changed drastically from the time of the embassies to the Mauryan court in Pataliputra, and by the 2nd century BCE already clearly meant most of current northern India (the geographical zone described in Megasthenes's Indica).

In my own opinion "Invaded South Asia" is too vague a descriptive. Indeed, to use a geographical term (rather than a political one), how about "Invaded the Indian subcontinent"? PHG 22:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi PHG. I said South Asia because it corresponds to the general geaographial realm like other geographically close term: central asia. However, I beleive Indian Subcontinent would be a better term to employ than India just like the map shows pictorially. Thanks PHG. omerlivesOmerlives 23:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Map

The map dosent seem to coincide much with the only other historical map of the kingom I have found here: Map of Post-Mauryan states

I think it is wildly out of proportion - it covers the entire northwest quarter of South Asia. It has been drawn from sources which no doubt simply mention campigns into certain areas - and thus these areas may not have ever been part of the Indo-Greek kingdom. The map should indicate something more like this:

Where red represents the Shungas, green the Indo-Greek kingdom, and blue the Satavahanas. This map is thus more approximate to the holdings of the Indo-Greek kingdom:

I will change the map for now - the old one for instance included Pataliputra within the borders of the Indo-Greek kingdom - this dosent make historical sence, as a dynasty which lost its capital would not later be able to negotiate a peace treaty along much larger borders, as indicated by the Heliodorus pillar. Vastu 15:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quality of your contribution. It is clearly a more conservative (and consensual?) map, which doesn't show the temporary attacks/conquests farther east to Pataliputra. In view of the available historical material it fails to show the possession of the Greeks in the Gujarat as far as Surat according to Strabo:

"The Greeks... took possession, not only of Patalena, but also, on the rest of the coast, of what is called the kingdom of Saraostus and Sigerdis." (Strabo 11.11.1)

In the east, it cuts short the Kulindrene (Kuninda) territory described by Ptolemy. Also as far as I know, the Greeks were for a long period of time in Mathura (where they retreated from Pataliputra according to the Hathigumpta inscription), and where later the Indo-Scythians would rule after them (reign of Rajuvula for example).

I do not understand your point on Pataliputra: it is perfectly possible for the Sunga to lose their capital once, and then to re-take it once the Indo-Greeks have left. The conquest of Pataliputra by the Indo-Greeks is supported by the most recent analysis of the Yuga Purana (2002 translation), although it is not known for how long they held the city. Regards PHG 22:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. If the map includes only temporary conquests, is this conformative with other political maps of old dynasties and states? Afterall, if the Indo-Greek kingdom mearly ran through the lands near Pataliputra, they likely never administrated those land as part of their state. I am not sure what the wikipedia guidelines are for maps, if there are any, but my instinct would be to only show the non-fluctuating parts of a kingdom - i.e. the average holdings - which were mainly confined to Bactria and the regions around the Indus Valley. What I was trying to say about Pataliputra is that it is unlikely a dynasty could survive the loss of its capital and the lands between being administered by another state, which is what the previous map seemed to indicate, i.e. the Indo-Greeks may have reached Pataliputra but not held those lands - an unbroken border line implies the Indo-Greek state administered that territory - i.e. that those were the limits of the Indo-Greek state, where in reality they are approximate holdings. Your new map shows that the eastern territories were likely disputed, but perhaps the entire border should be a broken line to indicate that it is an approximate sphere of military influence? Or perhaps a solid blue area indicating the likely core state, surrounded by a broken line indicating sphere of influence or temporary conquest/raid? Great work on this article btw, it is one of my favorites, its just that the map currently implies to laymen viewing the article, that a Hellenic state ruled the entire north of South Asia for over a century, where the core state was probably more similar to the Greco-Bactrian kingdom, plus holdings in the Indus valley. Regards, Vastu 15:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Another opinion of the territory of the Indo-Greek states

"Map No3"

Hi Vastu. I tend to favour the dotted lines, because they allow for a doubt whether a given territory was "governed" or not, in the case the evidence is inconclusive. In the case of Pataliputra, some argue the city was taken and ruled for some time (... that the Indo-Greeks even followed in the steps, and ruled the territory, of the Mauryas), whereas others just speak about raids. For the other areas however, especially the southern area of Surastrene (Kathiawar peninsula) I do not think there is much doubt, as numerous author describe Greek rule there (Ptolemy, Strabo, and indirectly the Periplus: I have added some of the details in the article). Therefore, in view of the available evidence (primary sources), I would still prefer "Map No3". Curiously, the two maps you found on the Internet seem to disregard all the available sources regarding the southern possessions of the Indo-Greeks. Regards. PHG 13:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

PHG, I was recently contacted by another wikipedian who is concerned about the size of the map - the original map has been distributed across the internet by wikipedia-quoting websites, and I fear it may have given people a wrong impression of Indian history. This wikipedian pointed out that every history book on the subject he has seen has been far more conservative - some not even depicting borders, but simply campaigns. A think border line, dotted or not, really gives the impression of a long lasting permenant presence there - yet the Hellenic influence on modern India does not speak of any occupation by a Greek power - mearly trade. Today, the few Hellenic shrines left in the subcontinent are almost entirely in Afghanistan and Pakistan - and the ones in Pakistan are mostly small, not indicative of a kingdom covering an area the sizer of western Europe - the impression that the map currently gives. I urge you to re-draw it, or accept a new map proposal, as every source I have seen depicts either a kingdom more in line with the Greco-Bactrian one, or mearly a conservative collection of campaign arrows. I am not a cultural chauvenist, but I do think this map gives the wrong impression - especially when sources of this time period are not the most reliable - can we really trust every Greek account in this matter, let alone one indirectly reffered to by a Roman historian who likely never visited South Asia? Additionally, the map seems to liberally favour the Greco-Indian kingdom, whilst conservatively interpreting the Shunga kingdom - almost all historical maps project the stable boundries of a kingdom, and dont assume all campaigns were successfull - drawing borders gives exactly that impression. Vastu 00:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Based on the online online map I can find from a historical book, http://www215.pair.com/sacoins/images/maps/indo_greek.gif, I will change it for now:

Map four - arrow depicts campaigns towards Sungas.

Hi Vastu. Thank you for your interest in this page. I do not know where your Internet map comes from, or what its references are, but it contradicts all available historical sources. First, I am not sure all Bactria should be included in the Indo-Greek realm, as only parts of the Indian subcontinent could qualify as Indo-Greek. Then, Sialkot, also called Euthymedia, was the capital of Menander, so the city itself, and to a large extent the territories around it (Menander ruled a huge realm) should be considered part of the Indo-Greek territory. For the south, all Greco-Roman sources point to Patalene as a part of the Indo-Greek territory. For the dotted lines, I understand they could be misleading, but history is indeed not clear whether the Greeks ruled, or just raided in these areas up to Pataliputra (even Indian sources say the Greeks ruled and toppled local governments there): maybe we could add a legend saying the dotted line means "raids or temporary conquest". By the way, as far as I know, the current map is generally consistent with Westermanns "Atlas der Welt Geschichte". Regards. PHG 15:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Isnt Bactria's geographical location outside of South Asia irrelevent to whether or not a certain kingdom occupied it? Bactria was at the time Buddhist, and likely part of the Indo-Greek kingdom, until central asian people moved into the area. As for Sialkot - my map isnt perticularily good - I was trying to emulate the one from the link - which does include Sialkot's area within the kingdom - one of multiple capitals of the kingdom. Same with Patalene - also note that ancient sources tend to say 'king X ruled province X' without stating how much of such an area was ruled (perhaps a fraction) - and Patalene covered areas of modern Balochistan - therefore the map may not even be wrong in this respect. I therefore still favour the general outline of my map, buy with modifications. Vastu 09:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"but history is indeed not clear whether the Greeks ruled, or just raided in these areas up to Pataliputra (even Indian sources say the Greeks ruled and toppled local governments there)" - this in perticular is why a thick border is misleading, and in such circumstances, the conservative estimate is favoured - the map below in reality, is not that conservative, as it shows the Indo-Greek kingdom at possibly its furthest extent, gives it a well defined border, etc - and assumes several things, such as that those territories were ruled simultaniously - thus the Indo-Greek kingdom may not have even stretched this far:

Map five - arrow depicts campaigns towards Sungas - pourous borders indicate likely fluctuation given accounts of the Shungas and the Central Asian migrations into Bactria.

Or perhaps this map, which dosent include Bactria? Vastu 09:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Vastu. Thank you for your cartographical efforts, but I am afraid your maps are unduly restrictive. Territories: cutting Indo-Greek tighly around Menander's capital of Sialkot goes against geopolitical common sense as Menander most probably had some territory, some buffer zone around his capital. You also miss two important territories which are documented in ancient sources: Kulindrene to the North, and Surastrene to the South (references in the text). Regarding the extension to the East, by just making it an arrow suggests that the Indo-Greeks never ruled up to Pataliputra: some sources support they did rule, and some don't, hence the meaning of the original dotted lines. I am afraid that just making it an arrow overly supports the view that these incursions were just raids, which is not a matter of consensus. Regards. PHG 03:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply PHG. My map drawing skills are not the best amongst wikipedians, although I do support the urgent need for the original map to be re-drawn, and believe my latest interpretation is acceptable. The person who contacted me to encourage further discussion on the issue mentioned that - "While there is a dearth of maps online, the maps that I have seen in books to-date have been more conservative in treatment (at best utilizing arrows to denote the campaigns of Menander--which were not lasting), and rightfully so. There is, after all, very little certainty that we can apply to this period, and thus, this warrants cautious treatment and not wishful thinking." The user also noted that in his opinion, you were attempting to maximise all possible Hellenic conquests and contributions to the subcontinent - i.e. engaging in Hellenic-centrism. I would not go this far, but do think you may be biased by either interest, or perhaps just historical sources which were notorious for attempting to 'aryan-ise' Indian history, but which formed the basis of modern scholarship on the topic. Indeed, in matters of ancient history, where ancient Greco-Roman or colonial-era British historical scholarship was not what it is today, I would argue that a maximal interpretation of the Indo-Greek kingdom is 'wishfull thinking', and the reality warrants more caution.

I think that the current interpretation liberally favours the Greco-Indians, and conservatively disfavours bordering dynasties - you mentioned "some sources support they did rule, and some don't, hence the meaning of the original dotted lines" - but dotted lines in this instance favours the interpretation that they did rule, and not the latter interpretion - "I am afraid that just making it an arrow overly supports the view that these incursions were just raids, which is not a matter of consensus" - campaign lines are a legitimate way of depicting the ambiguity of whether a certain power ruled a certain area - for example, when one source says that "kingdom X raided province Y and was driven away" and one sources says "kingdom X invaded province Y and ruled it shortly" - a campaign line supports both sources, which both mention a campaign - only one supports a border - thus the campaign mentioned by both is the legitimate depiction, the border line only supported by one is not.

I am most certain of this - I am 100% sure that this map should at the very least depict a campign line as opposed to the border line - in your comment above you cited common sense about one of the Indo-Greek capitals being further from a border (which I dont think is neccecarily true, but I will accept), I must also point then to the prior argument of common sense that a kingdom capable of annexing the major cities of the Shunga dynasty would likely not be forced to capituate in an unfavourable treaty not long after, which is similar logic. Even if you do not favour this point of argument, there is still a lot more reasons for a less liberal use of borders, i.e. as in the latest map that I have drawn. The map below shows a version of your original map, altered only in one way - the ambigious conquests, marked by border, have been replaced with a campaign line.

I strongly encourage you to accept this change - the article may have been peer reviewed, but can always be further enhanced through interesting debate like this - and I think this new version is still a liberal interpretation, that in my opinion still gives the Indo-Greeks 'benefit of the doubt' on almost every issue of ambiguity, so I hope that this new map is a good compromise, that we can both accept as a permenant solution to this issue. I dont believe this new map can be disproven by sources that are not either ambigious or contradictory, and so should remain the final map in absence of alternative that dosent make use of speculation. Regards, Vastu 10:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Latest map

I agree heartily with Vastu's request for campaign arrows rather than defined borders. To claim that temporarily holding a territory somehow makes it part of an "Indo-Greek Kingdom" gives the wrong impression of the scope of Indo-Greek contributions East of the Punjab. It would be analogous to drawing dotted lines all over Western Europe, Vietnam, Korea, Japan, South America, and the Middle East to encompass the United States of America simply because the USA had a military presence in those areas at some point in time. -- Pav

Where did the latest part of this discussion go - the edits no longer show in history either - there was some server trouble earlier, which I guess must be to blame... Anyway, just to re-iterate, the latest map has enlarged the thinkness of the campaign line, and drawn it towards Pataliputra, as you suggested in the vanished section of the discussion, I hope that you find this version acceptable - from what I understood, you were willing to accept the camapign line as opposed to border, as long as it was extended in this manner - we had reached a consensus on the western side of the Indo-Greek kingdom, and I hope that this will put the issue of the eastern border to rest. Again, thanks for the previous reply, and regards, Vastu 23:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Latest map

P.S. rather than start another topic, id just like to add that in the languages part of the info box, perhaps Old Persian or Avestan (im not too familiar with linguistic history of Persia (perhaps written in the Aramaic script)) should be included. It was the literlugical language of Zoroastrianism presumably, and presumably wouldnt have fallen out of use in an area which had been ruled by the Persian Empire. Regards, Vastu 00:14, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Vastu. Indeed, I think the main issue is about how to show temporary conquests (dotted lines or arrows?), although I agree there is a lot of contentious debate about the extent and durability of these conquests to the east of India. I was reading again a summary by Mario Bussagli (The Art of Gandhara), who, for example says the Indo-Greeks probably ruled in Pataliputra from 175 to 168, which probably would justify putting the Pataliputra territory as part of the "maximum extent" of the Indo-Greek kingdom. However I agree your map is more in conformity with the usual cartography of the Indo-Greeks. Let's put it in the article and see for a while how it feels. Congratulations for your approach to the issue. On my side, be reassured I am not particularly Helleno-centric, but just trying to give these often forgotten kingdoms their fair share of History. Best regards. PHG 12:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks PHG, I must say ive also enjoyed the way this debate was conducted - I agree with your sentiments about giving these kingdoms their due coverage, and am interested in some of the cultures produced by Indic interaction with central asia, Persia and the Hellenic world in the northwest subcontienent, i.e. the Sakas, Bactrians, Hunas, Kushans, Indo-Pathians, Indo-Greeks, etc, (as part of a general interest in Indology) - having seen a number of your articles on Indian history on wikipedia, I think your contributions have been great, ive really enjoyed this article in perticular. Best regards, Vastu 13:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I was doing some looking around, and think that maybe soem combination of Aramaic, Bactrian, Old Persian and Avestan may have been spoken or written in the Indo-Greek kingdom, in addition to Greek, Sanskrit and Prakrits - I dont own much material on that, so ill leave it to you to decide whether to add them to the infobox :) Regards, Vastu 15:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi I just read the debate on the map and I would like to make a point. That on the Roman Empire article, the maximum extent of the Empire includes Trajan's temporary holdings in the East including Mesopotamia. These territories were held for just a year before being returned to Parthia yet they are clearly shown in many good encyclopaedias and reference books hence the arguement that lines (which is in my opinion short because they occupied Pataliputra not just get stopped near it) are more than adequate doesn't hold much strength in the face of this considering the Greek hold on Pataliputra was about 8 years.

Thank you. Looking again at other historical empires, I must say that the map shown in the Achaemenid Empire also includes the Greek mainland, which, as far as I know, was occupied for just 1 year by the armies of Xerxes I.PHG 04:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

With the above in mind I think we should restore the old map without the dotted lines amd label the map as being the greatest extent circa 170 BC

In ref to the above paragraphs - we do not even know if the Indo-Greek kingdom ever ruled that far, so I fail to see how the fact that other maps have chosen to include temporary conquests makes a difference - or how the example of some other maps choosing that route means this article must. In addition, here is another map favoring the current one: http://www.payer.de/kautilya/kautilya0101.gif Vastu 10:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"the old one for instance included Pataliputra within the borders of the Indo-Greek kingdom - this dosent make historical sence, as a dynasty which lost its capital would not later be able to negotiate a peace treaty along much larger borders" why should a dynasty have to topple, you write it as though it is inevitable that the Sunga line should disappear if the capital was lost.

"we do not even know if the Indo-Greek kingdom ever ruled that far" than you have not read PHG's side of the debate, as the Yuga Purana mentions how the Greeks caused society to collapse by imposing their own social ways and how it seemed inevitable that Pataliputra would fall. Then there is Strabo who mentions them of temporarily holding lands upto the Ganges.

"how the example of some other maps choosing that route means this article must" I fail to see how this part of history is being treated differently from any other. Also you seem to brush aside the mentioned articles about the Roman Empire and Achaemenid Empire as though they are insignificant or of little value to learn from (editing wise). Considering those artciles are of high importance and would attract a lot of interest, it has been edited in such a way that has deemed fit and that wikipedia seems to follow such a policy where a political entity is shown by the greatest extent that it has encompassed geographically. So to stay in league with other high quality articles it would be in the articles best interest to follow suit.

"lost its capital would not later be able to negotiate a peace treaty along much larger borders, as indicated by the Heliodorus pillar" the Heliodorus pillar was erected 60 years after Pataliputra was taken by the Greeks and within the same time was taken back by the Sunga Empire.

All of what you have just quoted played no part in the final decision - and is thus completely irrelevent. The final decision was that, given the ambiguity of the Indo-Greek campaign, a map that depicted their definite conquests, including a camapign line to denote the attempt mentioned in Greek sources would be included. This decision was essentially reached by consensus - and is the logical one, given conflicting accounts - as a border of any kind implies one unverified scholary theory is more right than the other - see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It is also interesting to note that every single map I have ever found on the internet depicts an Indo-Greek border in the region of the Indus - so one has to ask, are you engaging in 'original research'? If so, see Wikipedia:No original research. The current state of the map is not only consistent with wikipedia rules, but also consistent with logic - it should be left as such until a new scholary work comprehensibly proving either viewpoint over the other is presented, and accepted by the vast majority of scholars. Until then, the map should remain. Vastu 15:06, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi I do not wish to argue however in the article itself, it implicitly mentions how the Greeks retreated to Mathura from Pataliputra many times in the article which is sourced therefore by logic Mathura should definately be within the border. I am not fabricating original research as it is all already in the article. It would be appropriate if you were to provide sources contradicting their occupation of such areas within those dates if the article is wrong. As for the lines drawn, as far as I've seen in books they are only used to show the movement of armies in detailed books of military campaigns and are never shown on a map depicting the extent of a kingdom. As mentioned before due to the other articles following such a rule the border should enclose Pataliputra as an occupation period of 8 years is enough I think especially if many other pages include territories that have been held for only a year and these articles (mentioned above) have been peer reviewed. Giani g 19:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New map

I took the liberty to make a new, more precise map. Several of the previous locations were imprecise, an issue which was solved by the addition of the main river systems. I also modified the way the eastern expansion of the Indo-Greek kings is represented, a central point of contention in the above debate. The main reason is that it has become clear to me that there are two main scholarly positions on this expansion: either it is said to have consisted in simple, short raids, possibly under the guidance of local rulers such as the Panchala (a view mainly held by local historians such as A.K. Narain); or it consisted in a massive occupation of the region up to Pataliputra that lasted for about eight years (a mainly Western view, most recently voiced by McEvilley or Mario Bussagli). Now, when we try to express this graphically, a simple arrow to Pataliputra clearly refers to the former view, and is therefore one-sided. Conversely, clearly marking the territory as Indo-Greek refers to the latter view, and therefore is also one-sided. The only solution I can find is to mark this territory with doted lines. I am afraid it is the only way to maintain the balance between both historical interpretations. Regards to all. PHG 07:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Although I am glad that the initiator of the new map has finally deigned to discuss the matter with the rest of us, I am afraid that this is yet again an attempt to aggrandize the Indo-Greek Kingdom. If anything, the previous map was a compromise as the first view (that of Narain's) mentions the greeks as only joining a raid led by Indian Kings--hardly meriting mention of Greek conquest or raid here since it was not led by them. Moreover, contributors on this end of the debate already compromised on the extending of greek holdings into Gujarat in spite of previous maps, as provided by contributor vastu, not demonstrating any such holdings and no archaeological evidence existing to demonstrate it thus. In fact, archaeological evidence provides only for holdings in what is now Pakistani Punjab.
In spite of this, compromise has already been made in an attempt to reconcile classical texts with a Western push for greek expansion. This stands in stark contrast to the Shunga dynasty map, which does not even indicate the greatest extent of that Empire's territory. Shunga claims extend well into the Punjab (as confirmed by inscriptions in that region), and there is textual evidence to indicate that it did extend as far as the Indus. Nevertheless, this was once again resolved in favor of the Indo-Greeks. The Satavahana Empire is credited with ending the Kanva dynasty of Magadha and ruling over Pataliputra (this point being uncontested by historians), yet the same corollary was not applied to them in the very map created by the above signed contributor. And there we have it, territorial claims that are backed up by archaeology are sidelined and a shoddy construction supported by creative interpretation of scripture and classical propaganda are favored, hardly NPOV. In light of this, there is a clear basis to retain the old map.

Regards,

Devanampriya

Hi Devanampriya. The Sunga map is not mine, but belong to the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Of course should you have a better referenced map, let's look at it. Regarding the most recent Indo-Greek map, the territorial extension of the Indo-Greeks in the north is fairly restrictive (up to Sagala), although many claim that they also ruled in Mathura until around 100 BCE. The southern extension is attested by rich numismatic finds (expansion of Appolodotus) and numerous sources, both Western and Indian. For the invasion of the Indian heartland, Narain's is but one point of view, and rather farfetched and imaginative (as you said, "the greeks only joining a raid led by Indian Kings--hardly meriting mention of Greek conquest or raid here since it was not led by them."). This is not everybody point of view, others saying occupation lasted for several year. Hence dotted lines. Regards. PHG 06:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Length

This article is really really long. Perhaps it's time parts of it get spun off into independant articles with short blurbs and links leading to them?

The "Evidence of invasion," "art," and "religion" sections could probably all benefit from being listed under their own articles.

Come to think of it, the discussion page is a bit of a mess too. Methinks it's time to archive everything prior to the discussion with Vastu. (The Map) But I really don't know how.

71.57.124.188 03:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC) Pav

I agree on the length issue. I'll try to find reasonnable way to outlink some of the material. Regards. PHG 10:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/d/Talk%7EIndo-Greek_Kingdom_a8e7.html"