Talk:Mahajanapadas

message: Of course, the references for each and every statement made in this article can be cited. Which section of the article do you want the references quoted sir?
But why this question and tag especially for this article? Do all other articles on Indian Civilization and History in particulrar, or other articles in Wikipedia in general, cite the references to substantiate the material they present to the readers? 
Not that we dont want to furnish the references here, but just am curious to know from the person who added the reference-tag for this article here as to why he doubts the contents of this article and want it substantiated through references?.
Response will be appreciated.
Regards
Sze cavalry01 04:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Every Article should cite its references.  If you see an article that doesnt cite references feel free to add the tag --Qweniden 04:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Any doubt about the statements of this article?

message: I just can't see a reason this shouldn't be singular as Mahajanapada. That's what the naming conventions call for unless something is overwhelmingly referred to in the plural. - Taxman Talk 02:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've carried out the move. --Joshua Issac (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move? 

message: Is it true,that "Manhattan" was purchased from the "Indians" at a very cheap price by a crooked "American" bussiness man back then?
Also,the name,"Manhattan" looks so much like "Mahajanapahas"?
Please send me an answer to - daorigino @www.yahoomail.com
Thank you for your time.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.16.100.222 (talk) 21:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mahajanapahas" 

message: I spent some hours improving the wording of the article without changing the substance. Most changes involved adding the word "the" in appropriate places. While I was doing this, I couldn't resist removing links to monarchy and republic, feeling they were not needed, but later I reconsidered. There may be ways these links are informative that I don't know about. I have restored the links manually. I hope all this is of help overall. Moonsell (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: links to [[monarchy]] and [[republic]]

message: The 16 Mahajanapada in Buddhist literature are merely Janapada that were visited by Gautama Buddha or were early converts to Buddhism and therefore being called "great". Notice tiny Malla and Vatsa in the liste while the paramount Panjab and Sindh are absent, and Yona (greece) included. Asmaka was an early convert to Buddhism (amaravati) - not the only kingdom in south india.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ge-eN-De (talk • contribs) 06:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing Great/Maha about the Mahajanapada 

message: , the map of Mahajanapadas deoesnt make sense, if its 500 BC, the Gandhara and Kambhoja mahajanapada would not exist, so its unreasonable to show them in the map, along with Achaemenid empire, its better to date the map 600 BC and remove achaemenid empire label. Zombie gunner (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the "short chronology" of the Buddha increasingly accepted by scholars, the Northwestern parts of the Indian subcontinent would have already been occupied by the Achaemenid Empire some years before the Buddha's lifetime. Gandhara and Kamboja would still have existed as satrapies, likely with a large degree of autonomy, as believed by many scholars, as they continued to exist long after the Achaemenids were gone. -Avantiputra7  (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  early 6th Bc link now please correct it, please dont go against established facts with you personal disposition, here in wiki info on Gandhara.Zombie gunner (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not just my personal opinion. Kulke and Rothermund say mahajanapadas "emerged in the fifth century BC," and John Keay has a mahajanapadas map that is labeled "Northern India at the time of the Buddha (c400 BC)". Allchin and Erdosy: "emerging after BC 550". -Avantiputra7 (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The late dating is not agreed by most scholars, the frequently quoted dates are 600 BC, D.K Chakrabarty has 800 BC-600 BC, Global security website also has dates ranging from 1000 BC to 600 BC, but no where it is suggested a late dating to 400 BC or post achaemenids which will not make any sense because the Achaemenids already had control of Gandhara and Kambhoja so thy wont exist as mahajanapadas any longer, this very article mentions date of 600 BC. The map of your quoted source Allchin and Erdosy also doesnt show any Achaemenid empire label Zombie gunner (talk) 06:51, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your posts almost do not make sense in English, and the logic is very hard to follow. Also you cannot just invoke non RS cites such as "Global security": this is meaningless as a source. You cannot expect to move the discussion forward with this kind of garbled arguments. पाटलिपुत्र Pat  (talk) 07:32, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

text: The late dating of the Buddha is broadly accepted; 1000 to 600 BCE is nonsense. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lets not talk about Buddha's date here and divert the contested point here, the date of Mahajanapadas is 600 BC in this very article and has been for a very long time, the Allchin's map shows no Achaemenid Empire, even if we consider late dates by the scholars posted above, there seem to be no exact concensus on which perod to place mahajanapadas, but it seems that scholars have placed them atleast before the Achaemenid, the nonsense that mahajanapads were existing simultaneously along with Achaemenid suzreinty is a complete BS, this is the point which im trying to make, the map should be reverted to the previous version where Achaemenid empire was not labelled. Zombie gunner (talk) 08:07, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  WARNING: DO NOT erase the posts of others . This is blockable behaviour. पाटलिपुत्र Pat  (talk) 08:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  i removed your comment because it was irrelevant to the discussion. Zombie gunner (talk) 08:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:   you have not replied on my assertion that your own Allchin source has a map of mahajanapada but it doesnt label Achaemenid Empire, since the map of the source you yourself have mentioned doesnt have achaemenid label, kindly reinstate the map as it was before before you tagged the the Achaemenids. Zombie gunner (talk) 07:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There are plenty of maps showing India circa 500 BCE with an "Achaemenid Empire label" on its border (The Hindu Equilibrium: India C.1500 B.C. - 2000 A.D. by Deepak Lal p.xxxviii, Times Atlas of the World, p.79, Encyclopedia Britannica...). पाटलिपुत्र Pat  (talk) 08:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  there is no reference for mahajanapadas in both of your references, secondly Gedrosia is shown in the Mauryan map in your Britannica reference even though you have completely excluded it from the wiki mauryan map, what about Allchin's map (AP's reference not mine, what makes Deepak Lal's map more credible?), what makes you disregard his map? Zombie gunner (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Quite the contrary: the map by Deepak Lal The Hindu Equilibrium: India C.1500 B.C. - 2000 A.D. by Deepak Lal p.xxxviii has all the main Mahajanapadas labeled alongside the Achaemenid Empire as of 500 BCE, so does the Encyclopedia Britannica map Encyclopedia Britannica. Regarding Mauryan Empire boundaries in Encyclopedia Britannica, you are not even looking closely at the map: Gedrosia is only marked as a strech of land alongside the mouth of the Indus, which is very different from the territorial extent you have been claiming. The general outline of Mauryan territory in Britannica is consistent with the map in our article. पाटलिपुत्र Pat  (talk) 06:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

text:  We can take info from multiple reliable sources to fill in the map. Absence of a label in Allchin's map should not be taken to mean the Achaemenid Empire wasn't there; in fact, this book has plenty of discussion of the Achaemenids' impact on India. It is beyond dispute that the Achaemenids were ruling the northwest of the Indian subcontinent in 500 BCE. The problem with writing 600 (or even 550) BCE on the map is that it is clearly earlier than many of the reliable sources state (again, see above), especially with the re-dating of the Buddha: remember that one has to allow for the Vajji republic's conquest of the Videha kingdom, and the emergence of Avanti and Ashmaka, which are all entirely unknown to even the latest Vedic literature dated to the 6th century BCE (e.g., Witzel says: perhaps a century between these texts and the Buddha.) 500 BCE is best we can do for a median date considering the various sources. As for the Maurya Empire map and Gedrosia, I see just the eastern part of Gedrosia included in the Britannica map, not all the way up to the border with Iran, so I see no contradiction: the current wiki map does include parts of eastern Gedrosia. -Avantiputra7 (talk) 23:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

text:  Furthermore, Klaus Karttunen (1989), India in Early Greek Literature  says that it is quite possible that Pukkusati (king of Gandhara in the Buddha's time) was an Achaemenid vassal, having a role similar to what is known of the "active and often independent" western satraps neighboring Greece. -Avantiputra7 (talk) 23:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not arguing whether Buddha's Pukkusati was a achaemenid vassal or not, im simply arguing that your own sources, such as Allchin place Mahajanapadas in 550 BC, while Gandhara mahajanapada was captured in 518 BC, Allchin's map also doesnt show Achaemenid empire, are you now contradicting your own sources by such logic as filling in the blanks of Allchin's map, i perfectly know that if i post any source, it will automaticlly get discredited so im only arguing your source, why we cant do the same with maurya's maps, the maps given by पाटलिपुत्र also doesnt giive any info on mahajanapadas, पाटलिपुत्र can you quote what details Deepak lal has in elaboration of his 500 BC map? Zombie gunner (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  In reference to eastern Gedrosia and not western gedrosia, i will be perfectly happy if you show the map as it is, meaning not displaying the other part which yu think is not under the mauryas, but showing it as not being part of maurya seems to assert it being part of seleucid, this contradicts the very greek reference to Gedrosia being handed over to chandra maurya. Zombie gunner (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  To be precise, Allchin says "emerging after 550 BC" (my emphasis). Deepak Lal's 500 BCE map has all of the Mahajanapadas labeled along with the Achaemenid Empire. I am not sure what you are saying you want with Gedrosia: that the wiki map should be cropped to the west? -Avantiputra7 (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  550 BC means pre achaemenid, which shows in Allchin's map, i have no issues if the date 500 BC is removed along with achaemenid label, because obviously such a date is disputed even according to your late chronology sources. yes i have no issue if you crop the mauryan map on likeness of the map shown and label Gedrosia, same should be done on Seleucid empire's map which shows Gedrosia as part of Seleucid's map. Zombie gunner (talk) 02:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  First, the 500 BCE map with Mahajanapadas and the Achaemenid Empire label is perfectly legitimate, as per The Hindu Equilibrium: India C.1500 B.C. - 2000 A.D. by Deepak Lal p.xxxviii. Second, cropping a Mauryan Empire map to avoid showing western boundaries, simply because you don't like them, does not make any sense. पाटलिपुत्र Pat  (talk) 17:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mahajanapada map 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: In the "List of Mahajanpadas" section, in the Anga part. Please add one line. "Karna was the ruler of the kingdom of Anga in the Mahabharata" This is a known fact.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anther24 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: In the "List of Mahajanpadas" section, please add one line in the "Anga" part