| Samudragupta | |
|---|---|
| Mahārājādhirāja Chakravarti Samrat | |
 Coin of Samudragupta, withGaruda pillar, emblem ofGupta Empire. The name    Sa-mu-dra in an early version of the GuptaBrahmi script, appears vertically under the left arm of the emperor.[1] | |
| Gupta emperor | |
| Reign | c. 335–375 |
| Coronation | c. 335 |
| Predecessor | Chandragupta I, possiblyKacha |
| Successor | Chandragupta II, or possiblyRamagupta |
| Born | 318[citation needed] Gupta Empire |
| Died | 375(375-00-00) (aged 56–57) Gupta Empire |
| Spouse | Dattadevi |
| Issue | Chandragupta II, and possiblyRamagupta |
| House | Gupta Dynasty |
| Father | Chandragupta I |
| Mother | Kumaradevi |
| Religion | Hinduism |
| Military career | |
| Allegiance | Gupta Empire |
| Branch | Gupta Army |
| Rank | Supreme commander |
| Conflicts | See list
|
| Gupta Empire 320–550 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Samudragupta (Gupta script:Sa-mu-dra-gu-pta; 318[citation needed]–375) was the second emperor of theGupta Empire of ancientIndia. As a son of the Gupta emperorChandragupta I and theLicchavi princessKumaradevi, he inherited the kingdom and transformed it into a vast empire through his military campaigns.
TheAllahabad Pillar inscription, aprashasti (eulogy) composed by his courtierHarisena, credits him with extensive military conquests. It suggests that he defeated several kings of northern India, and annexed their territories into his empire. He also marched along the south-eastern coast of India, advancing as far south asKanchipuram in thePallava kingdom. In addition, he subjugated several frontier kingdoms and tribal oligarchies. At the height of his power, his empire under his direct control extended fromRavi River in the west (present-dayPunjab) to theBrahmaputra River in the east (present-dayAssam), and from the Himalayan foothills in the north to central India in the south-west; several rulers along the south-eastern coast were also his tributaries. The inscription also states that many neighbouring rulers tried to please him, which probably refers to his friendly relations with them.
He performed theAshvamedha sacrifice to prove his imperial sovereignty and remained undefeated in battle. His gold coins and inscriptions suggest that he was an accomplished poet, and also played musical instruments such as theveena. His expansionist policy was continued by his son and successorChandragupta II.
Modern scholars variously assign the start of Samudragupta's reign from c. 319 CE to c. 350 CE.[3]
The inscriptions of the Gupta kings are dated in theGupta calendar era, whoseepoch is generally dated to c. 319 CE. However, the identity of the era's founder is a matter of debate, and scholars variously attribute its establishment to Chandragupta I or Samudragupta.[4][5] Chandragupta I probably had a long reign, as the Prayag Pillar inscription suggests that he appointed his son as his successor, presumably after reaching an old age. However, the exact period of his reign is uncertain. For these reasons, the beginning of Samudragupta's reign is also uncertain.[3]
If Samudragupta is regarded as the founder of the Gupta era, his ascension can be dated to c. 319–320 CE.[6] On the other hand, if his father Chandragupta I is regarded as the founder of the Gupta era, Samudragupta's ascension must be dated to a later date. Samudragupta was a contemporary of KingMeghavarna ofAnuradhapura Kingdom, but the regnal period of this king is also uncertain. According to thetraditional reckoning adopted inSri Lanka forBuddha's death, he ruled during 304–332 CE; but the modified chronology adopted by modern scholars such asWilhelm Geiger assigns his reign to 352–379 CE. Accepting the former date would place Samudragupta's ascension to c. 320 CE; accepting the latter date would place it around c. 350 CE.[5]
The end of Samudragupta's reign is also uncertain.[5] Samudragupta's granddaughterPrabhavatigupta is known to have married during the reign of his son Chandragupta II, in c. 380 CE (assuming c. 319 CE as the epoch of the Gupta era). Therefore, the end of Samudragupta's reign can be placed before this year.[7]
Various estimates of Samudragupta's regnal period include:
Samudragupta was a son of the Gupta emperor Chandragupta I and Queen Kumaradevi, who came from the [Licchavi (tribe) Licchavi] clan.[9] His fragmentary [Eran] stone inscription states that his father selected him as the successor because of his "devotion, righteous conduct, and valour". His [Allahabad Pillar] inscription similarly describes how Chandragupta I called him a noble person in front of the courtiers, and appointed him to "protect the earth". These descriptions suggest that Chandragupta I renounced the throne in his old age, and appointed his son as the next emperor.[10]
According to the Allahabad Pillar inscription, when Chandragupta I appointed him as the next emperor, the faces of other people of "equal birth" bore a "melancholy look".[11] One interpretation suggests that these other people were neighbouring kings, and Samudagupta's ascension to the throne was uncontested.[12] Another theory is that these other people were Gupta princes with a rival claim to the throne.[11] If Emperor Chandragputa I indeed had multiple sons, it is likely that Samudragupta's background as the son of a Lichchhavi princess worked in his favour.[13]
The coins of a Gupta ruler namedKacha, whose identity is debated by modern scholars, describe him as "the exterminator of all kings".[14] These coins closely resemble the coins issued by Samudragupta.[15] According to one theory, Kacha was an earlier name of Samudragupta and the emperor later adopted the regnal name Samudra ("Ocean"), after extending his empire's dominion as far as the ocean.[16] An alternative theory is that Kacha was a distinct king (possibly a rival claimant to the throne[14][16]) who flourished before or after Samudragupta.[15]
The Gupta inscriptions suggest that Samudragupta had a remarkable military career. The Eran stone inscription of Samudragupta states that he had brought "the whole tribe of kings" under his suzerainty, and that his enemies were terrified when they thought of him in their dreams.[17] The inscription does not name any of the defeated kings (presumably because its primary objective was to record the installation of aVishnu idol in a temple), but it suggests that Samudragupta had subdued several kings by this time.[18] The laterAllahabad Pillar inscription, apanegyric written by Samudragupta's minister and military officerHarishena, credits him with extensive conquests.[19] It gives the most detailed account of Samudragupta's military conquests, listing them in mainly geographical and partly chronological order.[20] It states that Samudragupta fought a hundred battles, acquired a hundred wounds that looked like marks of glory, and earned the titlePrakrama (valourous).[21] The Mathura stone inscription of Chandragupta II describes Samudragupta as an "exterminator of all kings", as someone who had no equally powerful enemy, and as a person whose "fame was tasted by the waters of the four oceans".[18]
Modern scholars offer various opinions regarding Samudragupta's possible motivations behind his extensive military campaigns. The Allahabad Pillar inscription suggests that Samudragupta's aim was the unification of the earth (dharani-bandha), which suggests that he may have aspired to become aChakravartin (a universal ruler).[21] TheAshvamedha performances by theNagas, whom he defeated, may have influenced him as well. His southern expedition may have been motivated by economic considerations of controlling the trade between India and South-East Asia.[22]
The early portion of theAllahabad Pillar inscription mentions that Samudragupta "uprooted"Achyuta,Nagasena, and a ruler whose name is lost in the damaged portion of the inscription. The third name ends in "-ga", and is generally restored as Ganapati-naga,[13] because Achyuta-nandin (presumably same as Achyuta), Nagasena, and Ganapati-naga are once again mentioned in the later part of the inscription, among the kings ofAryavarta (northern India) defeated by Samudragupta.[23][24] These kings are identified as the rulers of present-day westernUttar Pradesh (see below).[22] According to the inscription, Samudragupta reinstated these rulers after they sought his forgiveness.[25]
It is not clear why the names of these three kings is repeated later in the inscription. According to one theory, these three kings were vassal rulers who rebelled against Samudragupta after the death of his father. Samudragupta crushed the rebellion, and reinstated them after they sought his forgiveness. Later, these rulers rebelled once more, and Samudragupta defeated them again.[25] Another possibility is that the author of the inscription thought it necessary to repeat these names while describing Samudragupta's later conquests in Aryavarta, simply because these kings belonged to that region.[26]
Samudragupta dispatched an army to capture the scion of the Kota family, whose identity is uncertain. The Kotas may have been the rulers of present-dayPunjab, where coins bearing the legend "Kota", and featuring a symbol ofShiva and hisbull, have been discovered.[25]
The inscription states that the Gupta army captured the Kota ruler, while Samudragupta himself "played" (or pleased himself) in a city called Pushpa[27] (the name Pushpa-pura referred toPataliputra at Samudragupta's time, although it came to be used forKanyakubja in the later period).[28] Modern scholars have interpreted the word "played" in various ways: According to one theory, this portion describes Samudragupta's achievements as a prince.[13] An alternative interpretation is that Samudragupta dispatched his army on these campaigns, while he himself stayed at the capital.[25] It is also possible that the poet intended to convey that these campaigns were minor affairs that did not require the king's direct involvement at the battlefront.[27]
According to the Allahabad Pillar inscription, Samudragupta captured (and later released) the following kings ofDakshinapatha, the southern region:[19]
The exact identification of several of these kings is debated among modern scholars,[29] but it is clear that these kings ruled areas located on the eastern coast of India.[30] Samudragupta most probably passed through the forest tract of central India, reached the eastern coast in present-dayOdisha, and then marched south along the coast ofBay of Bengal.[31]
The inscription states that Samudragupta later released these kings, and favoured (anugraha) them. Most modern scholars theorize that Samudragupta reinstated these rulers as histributaries.M. G. S. Narayanan interprets the wordanugraha differently based on its occurrence in theArthashastra; he theorizes that Samudragupta gave "protection and aid" to these kingdoms in order to secure their alliances.[32]
Some scholars, such asJ. Dubreuil and B. V. Krishnarao, theorized that Samudragupta only advanced up to theKrishna River, and was forced to retreat without fighting a battle, when the southern kings formed a strong confederacy to oppose him. According to these scholars, the claim that Samudragupta released these kings is an attempt by Samudragupta's courtier to cover up the emperor's failure.[33] However, there is no evidence of the southern kings forming a confederacy against Samudragupta. Historian Ashvini Agrawal notes that setting free a captured king is inline with the ancient Indian political ideals. For example, Kautilya defines three types of conquerors: the righteous conqueror (dharma-vijayi), who restores the defeated king in exchange for his acknowledgment of the conqueror's suzerainty; the covetous conqueror (lobha-vijayi), who takes away the possessions of the defeated king but spares his life; and the demoniac conqueror (asura-vijayi), who annexes the territory of the defeated king and kills him.[33] Such political ideals existed in the Gupta period too, as evident fromKalidasa's statement inRaghuvamsha that "the righteous victorious monarch (Raghu) only took away the royal glory of the lord of Mahendra who had been captured and released, but not his kingdom." Therefore, it is likely that Samudragupta acted like a righteous conqueror, and restored the defeated kings as his vassals.[34][32]
According to theAllahabad Pillar inscription, Samudragupta "forcibly uprooted" the following kings ofAryavarta, the northern region:[34]
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.[52] The inscription also mentions that Samudragupta defeated some other kings, but does not mention their names, presumably because the poet saw them as unimportant.[34]
According to the Allahabad Pillar inscription, Samudragupta reduced all the kings of the forest region (atavika) to subservience.[63] This forest region may have been located in central India: the inscriptions of theParivrajaka dynasty, which ruled in this area, state that their ancestral kingdom was located within the 18 forest kingdoms.[60]
Sa-mu-dra), derived from the style of lateKushan Empire coinage, andtamgha
. These atypical coins follow the fall of the last Kushan rulerKipunada, and just precede the coinage of the firstKidarite Huns in northwestern India. Circa CE 350–375.[64][65]TheAllahabad Pillar inscription mentions that rulers of several frontier kingdoms and tribaloligarchies paid Samudragupta tributes, obeyed his orders, and performed obeisance before him.[63][66] The inscription explicitly describes the five kingdoms as frontier territories: the areas controlled by the tribes were also probably located at the frontier of Samudrgupta's kingdom.[52]
"Samudragupta, whose formidable rule was propitiated with the payment of all tributes, execution of orders and visits (to his court) for obeisance by such frontier rulers as those ofSamataṭa,Ḍavāka,Kāmarūpa,Nēpāla, andKartṛipura, and, by theMālavas,Ārjunāyanas,Yaudhēyas,Mādrakas,Ābhīras, Prārjunas, Sanakānīkas, Kākas, Kharaparikas and other nations."
— Lines 22–23 of theAllahabad pillar inscription of Samudragupta (r.c.350–375 CE).[67]
HistorianUpinder Singh theorizes that the relationship of these frontier rulers to the Gupta emperor had "certain elements of a feudatory relationship".[66] According to historian R. C. Majumdar, it is likely that Samudragupta's conquests in Aryavarta and Dakshinapatha increased his reputation to such an extent that the frontier rulers and tribes submitted him without a fight.[68]
The frontier kingdoms included:[66]
) in the Allahabad Pillar inscriptionThe tribal oligarchies included:[66]
Samudragupta's inscription mentions that several kings tried to please him by attending on him personally; offering him their daughters in marriage (or, according to another interpretation, gifting him maidens[81]); and seeking the use of theGaruda-depicting Gupta seal for administering their own territories.[82] These kings included "Daivaputra-Shahi-Shahanushahi, Shaka-Murundas, and the rulers of the island countries such as Simhala".[66][83]
NumismatistJohn Allan theorized that Daivaputra, Shahi, and Shahanushahi were three different states; or alternatively, Shahi-Shahanushahi was a single state. HistorianD. R. Bhandarkar argued that Daivaputra ("a descendant of Devaputra") cannot be a stand-alone name, and identified Daivaputra-Shahi-Shahanushahi as a single ruler, possiblyKidara I, who had established a new kingdomGandhara (present-day Afghanistan).[85]
According to historian Tej Ram Sharma, Daivaputra refers to aKushan king (Devaputra being a Kushan title); Shahi refers to a sub-branch of the Kushans; and Shahanushahi refers to theSasanians. These kings controlled parts of present-day Punjab and Afghanistan.[86]
Historian Ashvini Agrwal theorizes that Kidara, who initially ruled as a vassal of the Sasanian kingShapur II, may have formed an alliance with Samudragupta to overthrow his Sasanian overlord. InRaghuvamsha, the Gupta court poetKalidasa states his hero Raghu defeated the Parasikas (Persians): Agrwal speculates that this description may be inspired from the Kidraite-Gupta victory over the Sasanians.[85]
According toAbraham Eraly and others, the expressionDevaputra Shāhi Shāhānu Shāhi evidently designates the Kushan princes, being a deformation of the Kushan regnal titlesDevaputra, Shao and Shaonanoshao: "Son of God, King, King of Kings".[84][87][88] This suggests that by the time of the Allahabad inscription the Kushans still ruled inPunjab, but under the suzerainty of the Gupta Emperor.[89]
According to Hans T. Bakker, candidates for the Daivaputrasāhi are the late Kushan kings ofGandhāra: Vasudeva II orKipunadha, and regarding the śaka-murunda I follow Konow and Lüders, who argue that this 'passage in the Allahabad inscription of Samudragupta leaves no doubt that murunda (i.e. 'commander'), originally was a title used by Saka princes'. The șāhānuṣāhi refers to the 'king of kings'Shapur II.[90]
According toS.R. Goyal, Samudragupta was determined to ensure the safety of the empire's frontiers and secure the western trade routes. To address these concerns, he formed an alliance with Kidara, a strategic move aimed at countering the threats posed byShapur II of theSassanianEmpire. As the more powerful partner in this alliance, Samudragupta provided significant support toKidara. This collaboration proved to be highly effective;Kidara achieved victories over theSassanians in 367-368 AD. However, these victories did not necessarily result inShapur II becoming a vassal of eitherKidara or Samudragupta.[91][92]
Some scholars believe that the term "Shaka-Murundas" refers to a single entity. For example, scholars such asSten Konow assert that "Murunda" is aShaka title meaning "lord"; the Kushans also used similar titles (for example, Kanishka is titled a "muroda" in his Zeda inscription).[93]
Other scholars, such asK. P. Jayaswal, believe that Shakas and Murundas are two different groups of people.[93] According to this theory, Shakas here most probably refers to theWestern Kshatrapa rulers ofUjjain.[86] Jayaswal notes that thePuranas mention the rule of 13 Murunda kings, andHemachandra'sAbhidhana-Chintamani describes Murunda as people ofLampaka (in present-day Afghanistan). However, Agrwal points out that these sources are of relatively late origin, and it is possible that a branch of the Shakas had come to be known as "Murundas".[93]
) mentioned by Samudragupta in theAllahabad pillar (Line 23) probably refer to theSaka rulerSridharavarman in Central India.[94]The exact location of the Shakas mentioned in Samudragupta's inscription is not certain.V. A. Smith identified them with theWestern Kshatrapas, who controlled the westernMalwa andSaurashtra regions.D. R. Bhandarkar alternatively identified the Shaka-Murunda ruler withShridhara-varman, a Shaka ruler whose inscriptions have been discovered atSanchi (Kanakerha inscription) andEran.[94] Eran then came under the direct control of Samudragupta, as attested by his Eran inscription.[93][94]
According to the Chinese sources,Meghavarna, the king of Simhala (present-daySri Lanka), sought to build a monastery at Bodh Gaya, for the convenience of the pilgrims from his kingdom. He sent rich presents for this purpose, and Samudragupta sanctioned his request to build the monastery. Using poetic exaggeration, Samudragupta's courtier Harishena appears to have described this act of diplomacy as an act of subservience.[95] Similarly, the 7th-century Chinese travelerXuanzang, who visited this monastery, appears to have regarded the rich presents sent by Meghavarna as tribute: he states that Meghavarna "gave in tribute to the king of India all the jewels of his country".[96]
The "other islands" may be theIndianized kingdoms of South-East Asia, but there is no evidence that their rulers were subordinate to Samudragupta.[95] They probably sent embassies to the Gupta empire, and maintained friendly relations.[96] The sea ports of the Gupta Empire, such as Tamralipti, were probably connected to these kingdoms through the marine routes. The widespread use of Sanskrit in these kingdoms may have happened as a result of Gupta influence.[97]
Samudragupta's empire included a core territory, located in northern India, which was directly controlled by the emperor. Besides, it comprised a number of monarchical and tribal tributary states.[52] HistorianR. C. Majumdar theorizes that Samudragupta directly controlled an area extending from theRavi River (Punjab) in the west to theBrahmaputra River (Bengal andAssam) in the east, and from theHimalayan foothills in the north to theVindhya hills in the south. The south-western boundary of his territory roughly followed an imaginary line drawn from present-dayKarnal toBhilsa.[98]
In the south, Samudragupta's empire definitely includedEran in present-day Madhya Pradesh, where his inscription has been found.[99] The Allahabad Pillar inscription suggests that he advanced up toKanchipuram in the south.[30] However, since the claims in the Allahabad Pillar inscription are from a royal eulogy, they must be treated with caution. The southern kings were not under his direct suzerainty: they only paid him tribute.[100]
According to historian Kunal Chakrabarti, Samudragupta's military campaigns weakened the tribal republics of present-day Punjab and Rajasthan, but even these kingdoms were not under his direct suzerainty: they only paid him tribute. Samudragupta's claim of control over other kings is questionable.[100] Historian Ashvini Agrawal notes that a gold coin of the Gadahara tribe bears the legend Samudra, which suggests that Samudragupta's control extended up to theChenab river in the Punjab region.[101]
Some earlier scholars, such asJ. F. Fleet believed that Samudragupta had also conquered a part ofMaharashtra, based on the identification of Devarashtra with Maharashtra, and Erandapalla withErandol, where some Gupta-era remains have been found.[102] However, this theory is no longer considered correct.[30][103]
The coinage of the Gupta Empire was initially derived from the coinage of theKushan Empire, adopting its weight standard, techniques and designs, following the conquests of Samudragupta in the northwest of the subcontinent.[107][105] The Guptas even adopted from the Kushans the name ofDinara for their coinage, which ultimately came from the Roman nameDenariusaureus.[108][109][110] The standard coin type of Samudragupta is highly similar to the coinage of the later Kushan rulers, including the sacrificial scene over an altar, the depiction of a halo, while differences include the headdress of the ruler (a close-fitting cap instead of the Kushan pointed hat), the Garuda standard instead of the trident, and Samudragupta's jewelry, which is Indian.[104]
The following types of Samudragupta's coins, inscribed withSanskrit language legends, have been discovered:[111]
Various scholars, including numismatistJohn Allan, consider that the gold coins bearing the portraits of Chandragupta and Kumaradevi were issued by Samudragupta to commemorate his parents,[115][105] while others have attributed the issue of these coins to Chandragupta himself.[9][116]
![Commemorative type of Chandragupta I: this coin is in the name of Chandragupta I, but since no other coin types of Chandragupta are known, this is thought to be a commemorative issue minted by his son Samudragupta.[115][105][106]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aChandragupta_I_or_Samudragupta._Circa_320-335_or_335-380_AD.jpg)
Two inscriptions from Samudragupta's reign have been discovered:[8]
Fleet theorized that the Allahabad Pillar inscription was posthumous, and was issued during the reign of Chandragupta II, but modern scholars disagree with this theory.[117]
Two other records are attributed to Samudragupta's reign, but the genuineness of these records is disputed:[118]
Both these inscriptions state that they were written at the order of the Gupta officer Gopaswamin. Like the Mathura stone inscription of Chandragupta II, these records describe Samudragupta as the "restorer of the Ashvamedha sacrifice". It seems suspicious that records issued so early in Samudragupta's reign mention this claim, which does not appear in the later Allahabad Pillar inscription. One possibility is that these records were issued during Samudragupta's reign, and were damaged after some time, because of which they were restored during the reign of Chandragupta II.[118]
AtEran, an inscription by Samudragupta seems to succeed that of a localSaka ruler namedSridharavarman, already known from theKanakerha inscription atSanchi and another inscription in Eran. Samudragupta may therefore have ousted Sridharavarman in his campaigns to the West.[119] TheEran Inscription of Samudragupta is presently stored inKolkataIndian Museum. The inscription, in red sandstone, was found not far to the west of the ruined temple of the boar. It reads:
(Lines 1 to 6, containing the whole of the first verse and the first half of the second, are entirely broken away and lost.)
(Line 7.)— ....................................in giving gold ...................................... [by whom] Prithu and Râghava and other kings [were outshone.]
(L. 9.)— . . . . . . . . . there was Samudragupta, equal to (the gods)Dhanada andAntaka in (respectively) pleasure and anger; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . by policy; (and) [by whom] the whole tribe of kings upon the earth was [overthrown] and reduced to the loss of the wealth of their sovereignty;—
(L. 13.)— [Who], by . . . . . . . . . satisfied by devotion and policy and valour,—by the glories, consisting of the consecration by besprinkling, &c., that belong to the title of'king,'— (and) by . . . . . . . . . . . combined with supreme satisfaction, — .................. (was) a king whose vigour could not be resisted;—
(L. 17.)— [By whom] there was married a virtuous and faithful wife, whose dower was provided by (his) manliness and prowess; who was possessed of an abundance of [elephants] and horses and money and grain; who delighted in the houses of .............; (and) who went about in the company of many sons and sons' sons;—
(L. 21.)— Whose deeds in battle (are) kindled with prowess; (whose) . . . . . . very mighty fame is always circling round about; and whose enemies are terrified, when they think,even in the intervals of dreaming, of (his). . . . . . . that are vigorous in war; —
(L. 25.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . in a place in Airikina (Eran), the city of his own enjoyment. . . . . . . . . . . . . has been set up, for the sake of augmenting his own fame.
(L. 27.) — . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . when the king said . . . . . . .(The rest of the inscription is entirely broken away and lost.)
— Eran inscription of Samudragupta[120]
Samudragputa'sEran inscription records the installation of aVishnu idol in a temple.[18] The Nalanda and Gaya inscriptions attributed to Samudragupta explicitly call him a devotee of Vishnu (parama-Bhagavata)[121] He was also tolerant towardsBuddhism, and permitted the construction of a Buddhist monastery commissioned by theAnuradhapura kingMeghavarna atBodh Gaya in his territory.[122]
TheAllahabad Pillar inscription states that Samudragupta was engaged in the performance of theBrahmanical ceremonies of Sattra (Soma sacrifices) and Diksha. It describes him as "the giver of many hundreds ofthousands of cows".[123] The Mathura stone inscription of his sonChandragupta II also describes him as the giver of "millions of cows and gold".[18] It appears that Samudragupta donated these cows to the Brahmins who officiated his Sattra and Diksha ceremonies.[123] The Eran inscription states that Samudragupta surpassedPrithu,Raghava and other legendary kings in giving gold.[8]
The Allahabad Pillar inscription alludes to hisdivine kingship, comparing him to theParama Purusha (supreme being), and also with deities such as Dhanada (Kubera),Varuna,Indra, and Antaka (Yama).[123] The Eran inscription states that he was equal to Kubera and Yama in pleasure and anger respectively.[8] The Mathura stone inscription similarly describes him as equal to the deities Kubera, Varuna, Indra, and Yama.[18]
Samudragupta performed theAshvamedha ritual, which was used by the ancient Indian kings to prove their imperial sovereignty, and issued gold coins (seeCoinage section) to mark this performance.[124] The copper-plate inscriptions of Samudragupta's granddaughter Prabhavati-Gupta, who was aVakataka queen, describe him as the performer of multiple horse sacrifices. According to one theory, Samudragupta indeed performed more than one horse sacrifices, as attested by the presence of two different legends on his Ashvamedha coins. Another theory dismisses the claim on Prabhavati-Gupta's inscriptions as an exaggeration or a scribal error since this claim does not appear on the inscriptions of Samudragupta or his successors.[114]
The Mathura stone inscription ofChandragupta II describes Samudragupta as "the restorer of the Ashvamedha sacrifice that had been long in abeyance" (Smith's translation). This claim also appears in the inscriptions of the subsequent Gupta kings,[18] as well as the spurious Gaya and Nalanda inscriptions attributed to Samudragupta.[121] However, several kings including those fromBharashiva, Vakataka,Shalankayana, andPallava dynasties had had performed Ashvamedha in the preceding years.[114][125] Different scholars have attempted to explain this anomaly in different ways:H. C. Raychaudhuri suggests that the Gupta court poet did not know about these kings.[126] According toR. C. Majumdar, Samudragupta was the first king several centuries to perform the sacrifice in theMagadha region.[121] Majumdar also theorizes that the Ashvamedha ceremony performed by Bharashiva, Vakataka, and other near-contemporary kings was "more of a religious nature", while Samudragupta's ceremony actually involved proving his imperial sovereignty.[127] Similarly, scholars such asS. K. Aiyangar andD. R. Bhandarkar, theorize that unlike the other kings, Samudragupta performed a "full-fledged" Ashvamedha ceremony. Others, such asV. S. Pathak and Jagannath Agrawal, interpret the verse to mean that Samudragupta performed the horse-ritual that lasted for a long-time.[126]
The surviving verses of Samudragupta's own Allahabad Pillar inscription do not mention the Ashvamedha ceremony. According to one theory, this inscription was put up to mark the beginning of the ceremony, as the panegyrics of the sacrificer were an essential part of the Ashvamedha ceremony.[126] It is possible that its first four lines, which are now lost, contained a reference to the ceremony.[121]
Samudragupta's coins depict him as a man of tall stature and muscular physique.[128] The Allahabad Pillar inscription presents him as a compassionate ruler, stating that his "mind was engaged in providing relief to the low, the poor, the helpless, and the afflicted".[129] It also mentions that he reinstated many royal families which had lost their kingdoms, including the kings defeated by him.[130] At the same time, it states that he maintained strict administration ("Prachanda shasana").[113]
The inscription states that Samudragupta became famous among the learned people because of his poetical works, and earned the epithet "king of poets".[130] This suggests that he composed some poetical works, but none of these works now survive.[130]
The inscription also boasts that Samudragupta put to shame the celestial musicianTumburu andNarada by his lovely performances of music.[113] Samudragupta's musical talents are also corroborated by his gold coins which depict him playing aveena.[130]
The inscription praises Samudragupta's wisdom and intellect,[130] stating that he put to shame the preceptor of the Lord of the Gods (that is,Brihaspati) by his sharp intellect.[113]
Vincent Smith referred to Samudragupta as the "IndianNapoleon" due to his remarkable military campaigns and strategic prowess. His achievements included the total defeat of adversaries inAryavarta, extensive expeditions in theDeccan across long distances and inhospitable terrains, and a notable expedition across theIndus River. This last expedition, which might have been led by Samudragupta himself or his sonChandragupta II, demonstrated his exceptional military skill and strategic acumen.[131]
The comparison between Samudragupta andNapoleon is relevant in several aspects. Both rulers organized their empires in a broadly similar fashion.Napoleon’s empire, centered aroundFrance and including adjacentDutch, Belgian,German, andItalian regions, was surrounded by a network of allied and protected states such as Spain, theConfederation of the Rhine, the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, and the Kingdoms of Italy andNaples. Similarly, Samudragupta’s empire encompassed nearly all ofnorthern India, excluding regions likeSindh, much of Kashmir and western Rajasthan[131]
Samudragupta's empire was vast and strategically organized. It encompassed nearly the whole of modernUttar Pradesh,Bihar, part ofBengal, and a significant portion of easternMalwa. Beyond a ring of tributary states were theSaka andKushaṇ principalities in the North-West, twelve states in theDeccan,kerala as well asSimhala (Sri Lanka) and several other islands. These regions were either allies or were compelled to show respect towards the empire, forming a second line of defense beyond the primary ring of tributary states.[131]
Samudragupta's imperial structure resembled that ofNapoleon’s organizational strategy, featuring a strong central core surrounded by friendly states and dependencies. LikeNapoleon, Samudragupta was influenced by the prevailing ideologies of his time. His Allahabad Prasasti (inscription) reflects his aspiration for *chakravartitva* or universal sovereignty, aHindu ideal prevalent during the Gupta era, which sought to establish overlordship over all ofBharatavarsha (India). This ideal can be compared to Napoleon’s vision of a European Commonwealth under French hegemony. Unlike Napoleon, whose ambitions were curtailed after the Battle of Waterloo, Samudragupta successfully realized his vision and celebrated his achievements with the performance of anAsvamedha (horse sacrifice).[131]
The Asvamedha performed by Samudragupta was of an elaborate type, denoted by the term chirotsanna, rather than the abbreviated form that was more common during that period. It is generally believed that this grand celebration occurred sometime after the inscription of the Allahabad Prasasti. However, it is also possible that the Asvamedha was conducted around the same time as the inscription.[131]
It is believed that the Allahabad Prasasti was composed in conjunction with the performance of Samudragupta’s Asvamedha sacrifice. This elaborate type of sacrifice, known as *chirotsanna*, included *prateyya* or hymns praising the sacrificer and long-ago kings, performed by lute-players including a Rajanya who sang three self-composed songs. It is possible that the Asokan pillar, on which the prasasti was engraved, was used as an ornamental post during the sacrifice. Prayaga (modern-day Allahabad) was the original seat of the Gupta dynasty.[131]
Samudragupta's reign marked a significant revival of Brahmanical religion, which had declined since Emperor Ashoka's promotion of Buddhism. Samudragupta represents a Hindu response toAshoka’s Buddhist ideals. While Ashoka sought to be a *chakravarti dharmika dharmaraja*—a ruler who conquered through righteousness (dhamma) rather than force—Samudragupta aimed to be a traditional *chakravartin* through military conquest. Both emperors were considered *dharma vijayins* (victors through righteousness), but their concepts of achieving righteousness differed. Ashoka emphasized the moral aspects of religion, while Samudragupta focused on traditional martial and political authority[131]
The question of whetherVikramaditya existed or is a legend is unresolved. However, it is well established that Samudragupta was the first historical ruler to assume the title of Vikrama. Elements of the Vikramaditya legend can be traced back to both Samudragupta and his sonChandragupta II, reflecting their personalities and achievements.[131]
According to aRoman historian, an Indian embassy arrived in Rome in 351 CE, although it had been dispatched from India earlier. This event holds historical significance when viewed in the context of the political conditions in India during the mid-fourth century.[131]
Before 361 CE, Rome was at war with theSassanian Empire. During this period, it was plausible that Samudragupta, a prominent Indian ruler, might have sought to support Roman efforts against theSassanians by sending an embassy. By aligning withKidāra againstShapur II, Samudragupta would have aimed to keepSassanian forces occupied and distracted.[91]
In light of the political dynamics inBactria and North-Western India, there is a suggestion that Kalidasa's portrayal of Raghu's conquests in his work, "Raghuvaṃśa," might be based on the actual historical events of Samudragupta's campaigns. Kalidasa describes Raghu's military expeditions, including the conquest ofTrikūta in the Deccan and subsequent campaigns against theParasikas,Hunas, and Kambojas.
Kalidasa's epic, therefore, might reflect the real historical interactions and conflicts of the time, providing a literary perspective on the political and military landscape of the era.[131]
The official records of the Gupta dynasty state that Samudragupta was succeeded byChandragupta II, who was his son from Dattadevi.[132] Based on a reconstruction of the partially-lost Sanskrit playDevichandraguptam, a section of modern historians believe that Samudragupta was initially succeeded byRamagupta (presumably the eldest son), who was then dethroned by Chandragupta II.[133][134]
