Talk:Rajendra Chola I

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.


WikiProject_India This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
This article is maintained by the Indian history workgroup.
This article is maintained by the Tamil Nadu workgroup.
More information about this article...

Dear Venu62,

the map could have been more extensive, good work though ;its that the Kalinga , Bihar and Bengal conquered are included as very thin strips of land, and not justified . Kindly review . Also include Isthmus of Kra, and Bakong in the empire and also mention them in the Overseas Conquests section. Senthilkumaras 08:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


The map was based on K.A. Nilakanta Sastri's 'Colas', University of Madras (reprinted 1984). Sastri clearly states that the expedition to the Ganges was nothing other than a rapid raid across these countries to fetch the water for the consecration of the new capital. No territory was taken and added permanently. It is true that Rajendra's army defeat the kings of Sakkarakottam and Dhandabhukti and Mahipala. There is no evidence the these territories were added to the kingdom on a permanent basis. Even the Vengi kingdom was not part of the Chola terrotories, rather it was a protectorate.
The same holds true for the overseas conquests as well. These campaigns are mainly commercial in nature to secure the trade line betweeen China and Cholamandalam and the Srivijaya and Kadaram territories were given back to their rulers after they acknowledge the overlordship of Cholas. These territories were never part of the Chola empire proper.
Given the above facts as we know, I think the map I created is a very generous one in line with the widely expected extent of the Chola empire.

parthi 09:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


  • So, is it just because one( KANSastri) donot know whether it was a conquest or a raid( a 50-50 odd ?!)one should not be allotting 50% land or even a thin strip of Kalinga and Bengal . It is ridiculous, and generosity doesnot come here , who are we [[including historians] to grant generously "let you have Kalinga, and let he

have Bengal, " or " hey Rajendra I give you Bengal have it in your map!!"

  • Remember throughout middle Tamil history , kings Cholas and Pandyans gave themselves titles like "place" -konnda "title" like "Maduaiyum Eelamum konnda Perumaan(Paranthaka I), and many others . Dont you think Gangai konnda Chola means conquest of Ganges, I think u know wat konda means .?
  • Be clear, if Rajendra coonquered Bengal, Kalinga and Vengi then add full Bengal and full Orissa to the map. Or else if you and your illustrious Sanskrit and English scholar KANSastri , think it was just a raid then erase out all the north Indian extent in your map, kindly and limit the empire to within limits of Tamil Nadu . No 50-50 business please .
  • I think protectorate and overlordship acceptance mean to be a part of an empire.


    • In your other map in Karikala Chola Uraiyur was displaced to around Pattukottai, I think Uraiyur is old Thiruchchi .
    • Also the later Telugu-Prakrit stone inscription naming Karikala , why would a Telugu king describe achievements of a Tamil king who ruled a thousand years before him .
    • do you think the name of Karikala in the stone in an alien language was a joke or a foulplay by a Tamil fanatic of 11th c.[just like many other Old Tamil literature ?fanatics today, whom the indifferent and disrespecting neighbours chose to hate at all times, which perhaps resulted from Chola domination in Kar,AP,Keral,and SL, add Bramn geniuses . We see many atime these showing troubling indifff like in Vengi page a few anonymous editors(209.180.28.6 , 203.197.227.228 see also their other contributions so peculiar about the antiquity of Tamil ) for the umpteenth time erased a mention and link to evidence of king's (Tamil) long name in Satavahana coins. and who can forget the tussle of Arvind- and Bangalore Iyengar -Hattigas from Karnataka .]

Senthilkumaras 09:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


The fact remains that there is no definite evidence to the exact extent of any of these empires. Given that there is no point splitting hair regaring whether a particular district is included in the map or not. It is a known fact that Rajendra's armies conquered the Pala king. However whether these territories came under direct administration of the Cholas is not accepted. The meaning of the word 'protectorate' is simply that - the conquered kingdoms were give independent authority with the understanding that they accept the Chola superiority.
The Cholas might have migrated north to the Chola country during the Kalabhara's reign and established the Telugu Choda dynasty. We don't know for sure. They might have maintained a memory of the bygone glory days regarding the legendary Karikala. We can't say for sure. This is just like the inscriptions of the later cholas claiming descent from the Sun.
As far as the Kondan title, they also had the title 'Tribuvana Chakravarti' -Ruler of the three worlds. Do we hold this true as well?
I know none of your troubles with the Vengi pages.
The main point again is when writing history only write verifyable authentic sources and don't insert legends.
Parthi (Venu62) 10:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)