Re: [WIP] The Barbarian Invasions - Overhaul Mod for the Grand Campaign with 8 New Starting Dates from 395ad-681ad.With new Custom Units.
The Faction/Region placements changed sometime ago. You will see them in the mod.Originally Posted by Char Aznable
Now with the Latest DLC personally I think due to the track Record from CA the FLC factions will be the Angles and Armenia.
The mod is planned to come out in the first Week after the Age of Charlemagne DLC patch for Attila.
Now Here is the Faction description for the new Playable Factions in the Grand Campaign panel in the Main Menu of the Game:
1)Avars:
History is written by the victors. This fits the most for the history of the Avars – Hunno-Scythian nation ,formed by the Uar and Honni tribes in Central Asia, founding a two centuries Empire on the territory of Pannonia and Vojvodina, and vanished after their Fall From Charlemagne and Krum the Fearsome in the late 8th and early 9th centuries.The Uar (also known Var or War) were one of the many ethnic components constituting the confederation known to the west as the Hephthalites and to the Chinese as Yanda and the dominant ethnicity of Khwarezm. Peoples with similar names had been present along the Silk Road for centuries, and several Central European family names actually derive from the names of these tribes. Theophylaktos Simokattes uses the name Uar, sometimes written as War or Var. According to the Chinese classic Liang Zhigongtu the name Huá was an endonym used by the Hephthalites themselves The appearance of the Avars in Europe has been an important event for Eastern Europe. The earliest clear reference to the Avar ethnonym comes from Priscus the Rhetor (died after 472 AD). Priscus recounts that, c. 463, the Šaragurs, Onogurs and Ogurs were attacked by the Sabirs, who had been attacked by the Avars. In turn, the Avars had been driven off by people fleeing "man-eating griffins" coming from "the ocean". Whilst Priscus' accounts provide some information about the ethno-political situation in the Don-Kuban-Volga region after the demise of the Huns, no unequivocal conclusions can be reached. In fact, Denis Sinor has argued that whoever the "Avars" referred to by Priscus were, they were different from the Avars who appear a century later, during the time of Justinian (who reigned (527-565) The next author of late antiquity to discuss the Avars, Menander Protector in the 6th century, details Gokturk embassies in Constantinople in 565 and 568 AD. Each time, the Turks appear angered at the Byzantines for having made an alliance with the Avars, whom the Turks saw as their subjects and slaves. Turxanthos, a Turk prince, calls the Avars "Varchonites" and "escaped slaves of the Turks", who numbered "about 20 thousand". Here is what is written by Theophylact Simocatta:"When the Emperor Justinian occupied the throne part of the Uar and Honi tribes migrated into Europe. They called their ruler and their leader - Khagan. We'll tell you why they changed their name. Tribes Barslet (Barsils) Unuguri (Onogurs) and Sabirs and other Honni tribes,when they saw the people of the Uarand Honni(Huns) fled, thinking that the true Avars came. Therefore they welcomed these refugees with significant gifts to ensure their own safety. Using the favorable situation the Uar and Honni started to call themselves Avars. They say that amongst the Scythian tribes the Avars were the most active and abled to wage war. Naturally, that in our time, these pseudo-Avars usurped their position of prime people continued to call themselves as usual – Uars and Honni" Theophan Wrote: ”In the same year came in Byzantium strange nation called Avars. And the whole town come to watch them, because they never had seen such people. Because they had very long hair at their backs, tied with ribbons and knit, and the rest of their cloths were similar to the other Huns. As they fled frm their homeland come in Scythia and Moesia and sent envoys to Justinian asking him to accept them (as federates).” Soon after the Avars settled in Moesia, they were forced to migrate again. Settled in distant Pannonia,held by the Langobards and the Gepids at that time. After the joint defeat the Gepids with the help of the Langobards in 567 AD,they were followed by part of the Kutrigurs and Onogurs who repeatedly mentioned as an essential part of the Avar Khaganate. The Anthropologist Istvan Erdelyi in its study "the Disapeard people – the Avars", mentions that in the cemeteries of the Avars, the most common subtype is the Mediterranean race, followed by less North-European (mainly Nordic) types, and single cases of Mongoloid. But the outdated official History today says that the Avars were Turkic ,not Indo-Europeans.
2)Bulgarians:
The origin of the Bulgarians from before the 460s AD is a problem that still provokes discussions among the Historians and Scientists even to the present day. The Bulgarians were mentioned for the First time and entered the European History by the name Bulgarians in the Chronography of 354 AD, writen by an anonymous Latin Chronographer, created for a wealthy Roman Christian named Valentinus. The Supposed proto-Bulgarian ethnicity was formed somewhere in Central Asia (East Kazakhstan) between the Caspian Sea and the mountain Imeon (Pamirs, Tian Shan and Hindu Kush). Other possible areas proposed by the Modern Historians are the mountain Altai or Western Siberia, the Tarim basin, western Mongolia, southern Siberia and upper reaches of the river Irtysh. There were multiple migrations from Central Asia into the steppes just north of the Caucasus mountain probably as early from the 3rd,4th,5th, till the late 6th century AD by the Bulgarian Kutigurs, Utigurs, Onogondurians and other minor tribes.Since the late 16th century there have been offered various hypotheses, some of which attract with their whimsicality and stubbornness in defending them. Most authorities reject the concepts of aboriginal (or Thracian), Slavic, Tatar and Finno-Ugric origin of the Bulgarians. More popular, but also challenged are the Hunnic and the Oguric options of the Turanian hypothesis. Some scientific papers and amateur research in the late 20th century revived another hypothesis according to which the Bulgars were mixed Hunic-Iranian speaking Scytian population.The various theories about the origin of the Bulgarians can generally be assigned to two directions - first to the Altaic ethnogenesis and, secondly the Arian/Baktrian ethnogenesis. Third thesis advocates their mixed formation as a nation. Each of the first two theories does not exclude participation as influences, assimilation, etc. population determined to be dominant than the other direction. Actually, the difference between them is not only whether the dispute are Arians or Proto-Turkic-Mongols,but what is the primary source. In this sense, the most accurate to speak of is the mixed origin theory - who first formulated by some serious scientists as a distinct third theory, that dont denies or contradicts the other two mutually challenging theories. It focuses not on how started the process and the result of it - The ancient proto-Bulgarians.The term Bulgars is a term coined in the 19th century by the historical science at that time (just like the Term Byzantine empire) to distinguish the people founded and ruled the First Bulgarian Empire – from 681 AD onwards and before they merged with the Slavs and the,the remains of the ancient Thracians and Gothic population and the formation of the Modern Bulgarian nation. Today its often replaced by the term Proto–Bulgarians, old Bulgarians and even just Bulgarians.It was Documented by the Armenian Chronologists Mouses Khorentsi, Vardan the Great, Michael the Syrian and others that after the Fall of the Parthian Empire(198ad) in the third Century that the Bulgarians "Onoghontor-Blgar" led by a ''Burdjan Shah'' (Bulgarian king) migrated from the Gorges of Baktria/Balhara, the Pamir, Hundu-Kush and/or the Tien Shan Mountains into the Pontic Steppes just north of the Caucasus Mountains in Sarmatia Asiatica by passing the land of the Armenians peacefully and some even settled on the shores on the lake Van in Armenia.The Armenians by being neignbours of the Bulgars and the Alans just south of the Caucasus Mountains reported that the Bulgars formed their own States,had highly developed civilisation with walled cities made of stone (same said for the Alans as well,this statement is quite unique for nations that were mentioned as nomads in that epoch) Some of them were settled and others were migrating with their herlds. That the Bulgars were also allies with the Armenians when going to war.Also the Bulgarians helped the rebelled Armenians for its defense of their Christian faith against their masters - Zoroastrian Persia. After the Great battle of Avarayr in 451 AD between Armenia and Sassanid Persia 5000 Bulgarians Helped the Armenian cause under the Leadership of the Bulgarian Vanand. The fallen Bulgarians,who were on the Side of Armenians were canonized by the Armenian Church as declaring them as Great Marturs. The Armenians wrote also in the 370s AD with the arrival of the Huns in Eastern Europe, the Bulgarians were one of the first who joined the Hunnic Confederation ,with or without their own will is not known yet, but by the looking into the past - the Bulgarians then did the right choice and survived from the Hunnic wrath by being one of their most loyal allies till the Death of Attila in 453. In the 380s AD the Bulgars attacked the Crimean Goths by crossing the Kerch straith and also the Armenians in 395-8 AD with the Huns.Until the death of Attila the Bulgars were united,but after he died they formed 3 groups - the Onogondurians (the Inner Bulgars)the biggest mass of the bulgars and was the most peacefull but the most developed and forming a state living near the Caucasus Mountains ,the Utigurs (the outer Bulgars) living east of the Don river, and the Kutigurs(the few bulgars) the most warlike ones who were the most proud of the legacy of the European Huns living west of the Don river. The Bulgarians that Followed the Hunic Confederation since the 370s AD westwards migrating, went back to the eastern steppes near the northern Caucasus to their Relatives.The third son of Attila – Ernak after 454 AD as part of the disintegrating Hunnic Empire, unlike his brother Dengizich,he managed to come to peace terms with the Byzantine Empire and his domaign was known as Patria Onogunduria .Ernak is considered to have succeeded his brother Dengizich as king of from what was left of the Hunnic Empire in the Pontic Steppes. According to the Nominalia of the Bulgarian khans from the 8th century, where he is called Irnik, he lived the legendary 150 years ,while his father Avitohol - 300 years (153-453 AD),who is though to have been Attila Himself. In 479 AD the Roman Emperor Zeno paid the Bulgarian Kutigurs to attack Theoderic the Great, who was leading the Ostrogoths in the Balkans and by doing so he was forced to invade the Kingdom of Odoacker in Italy due to the Romans and their Roman Allies.After that from 493AD onwards the Kutigurian Bulgarians started raiding the Eastern Roman Empire across the Balkans each year for the next 50 years.The Kutigurs even started to settle in the Balkans as Foederati to the Romans and even helped the rebelious roman general Vitalian in Moesia.This process stopped only temporeraly when Justilian the Great started on one hand the civil wars between the Kutigurs and the Utigurs and the arival of the Avars from Central Asia and after them the Turkic Khaganate from Another.By 632ad the Bulgarians threw the Vassalage Yoke of their Avar and Turkic masters and formed Great old Bulgaria led by Kan Kubrat who helped even the Byzantine empire fighting the Muslim Arabs,but the main enemy were the Khazars. After the Fall of the eastern half of Great old Bulgaria with the death of Kubrat by the Khazars, smaller groups of Bulgarians Migrated in the middle Volga region,southern Italy,Armenia and Macedonia, but the biggest migrating group,where the governmental Institutions of Great old Bulgaria, led by Asparukh formed the First Bulgarian Empire in Modern northern Bulgaria in the Balkan in 680/1ad – the 3rd European Superpower after the Franks and the Romans with a cultural legacy shaping the Eastern Slavic world just as much as the Vikings up to the present day.
3)Khazars:
The tribes that were to comprise the Khazars were not an ethnic union, but a congeries of steppe nomads and peoples who came to be subordinated, and subscribed to a core Tűrkic leadership.Many Turkic groups, such as the Oguric peoples, including Saragurs, Ogurs, who earlier formed part of the Tiele confederation, are attested quite early, having been driven West by the Sabirs, who in turn fled the Asian Avars, and began to flow into the Volga-Caspian-Pontic zone from as early as the 4th century AD and are recorded by Priscus to reside in the Western Eurasian steppe lands as early as 463 AD. They appear to stem from Mongolia and South Siberia in the aftermath of the fall of the Hunnic/Xiongnu nomadic polities. A variegated tribal federation led by these Turks, probably comprising a complex assortment of Iranian Alans,Sarmatians, proto-Mongolic, Uralic, and Palaeo-Siberian clans, vanquished the Rouran Khaganate of the hegemonic central Asian Avars in 552 and swept westwards, taking on their train other steppe nomads and peoples from Sogdiana and moving westwards to the lower Volga region. The ruling family of this confederation may have hailed from the Ashina clan of the West Turkic tribes, though Constantine Zuckerman regards Ashina and their pivotal role in the formation of the Khazars with scepticism. Moving west, the confederation reached the land of the Akatziroi,also known as the Ak-Khazars (the White Khazars) who had been important allies of the European Huns. David Marshall Lang identified the Kermikhion-Kidarites with the Khazars, involved in causing Hunnic migrations across the Volga into Europe around 463 according to their envoy Priscuss. Gokturk armies had penetrated the Volga by 549, ejecting the Avars, who were then forced to flee to the sanctuary of the Hungarian plains. The Ashina clan whose tribal name was 'Turk' (the strong one) appeard on the scene by 552, when they overthrew the Rourans and established the Gokturk Khaganate. By 568 AD, these Gokturks were probing for an alliance with Byzantium to attack Persia. An internecine war broke out between the senior eastern Gokturks and the junior West Turkic Khaganate some decades later, when on the death of Taspar Khagan, a succession dispute led to a dynastic crisis between Taspar's chosen heir, the Apa Khagan, and the ruler appointed by the tribal high council, Ashina Shetu, the Ishbara Khagan. An embryonic state of Khazaria began to form sometime after 630 AD, when it emerged from the breakdown of the larger Gokturk Khaganate after the expansion of Tang China into Central Asia ,trying to control the Silk road.With this expansion of Tang China as a consequence there was a huge migration of Turkic migrating clans into Khazar territory, a migration that gave new energy to the Khazars to expand their territory with an estimated increase of 40 000 horsemen ,who until that point were dominantly Indo-European Speaking nation.After this Migration the Khazars ethically changed into Turkic speakers. So with the dramatically increaced Khazar population - the Khazars defeated Great old Bulgaria,led by Kubrat, formed the Khazar Khaganate in the former eastern regions of the Bulgarians in the late 7th Century just north of the Caucasus mountains.After settling in the newly conquered lands,Khazaria was in the following decades in the late 7th and 8th centuries converted to Judaism and held off the invading Muslim Arabs ,coming from the Middle-East region, in battles fought from Mosul in modern Iraq to the Volga Delta.
4)Magyars:
The origin of the Magyars is still partly disputed. The most widely accepted Finno-Ugric theory from the late nineteenth century is based primarily on linguistic and ethnographical arguments, while it is criticized by some as relying too much on linguistics. There are also other theories stating that the Magyars are descendants of Scythians, Huns, Turks, Avars, and/or Sumerians. These are primarily based on medieval legends–whose authenticity and scientific reliability is strongly questionable–and non-systematic linguistic similarities. Most scholars therefore dismiss these claims as mere speculation.The Magyars or later known as Hungarians were part of the Finno-Ugric group of related languages,nations that were settled from modern Finland to the west to the Ural mountain and beyond into Siberia. Due to climatic changes in the early 1st millennium B.C.E., the Ugrian subgroup known as the Ob-Ugrians–until then living more in the north–moved to the lower Ob River, while the Ugrian subgroup that was the ancestor of the proto-Magyars remained in the south and became nomadic herdsmen. From the definitive departure of the Ob-Ugrians (around 500 B.C.E.), the ancestors of present day Magyars can be considered a separate ethnic group – the proto-Magyars.Location of their original homeland is subject to scholarly debates.Róna-Tas says the development of Hungarian started in the region of the rivers Kama and Volga, west of the Urals.The archaeologist István Fodor writes that the original homeland lay to the east of the Urals. During the following centuries, the proto-Magyars still lived in the wood-steppes and steppes southeast of the Ural Mountains, and they were immediate neighbors of and were strongly influenced by the ancient Sarmatians.In the 4th and 5th centuries AD, the Hungarians moved from the West of the Ural Mountains to the area between the southern Ural Mountains and the Volga River known as Bashkiria and Perm Krai.In the early eighth century, a part of the proto-Magyars moved to the Don River (to a territory between the Volga, the Don and the Donets), a territory called Levedia. The descendants of those proto-Magyars who stayed in Bashkiria were seen there as late as in 1241. Indeed, many historical references related both the Magyars (Hungarians) and the Bashkirs as two branches of the same nation. However, modern Bashkirs are quite different from their original stock, largely reduced in numbers during the Mongol invasion in the thirteenth century, and assimilated into Turkic peoples.The proto-Magyars around the Don River were subordinates of the Khazar Khaganate. Their neighbors were the archaeological Saltov Culture, i.e., Bulgars (Proto-Bulgarians, descendants of the Onogurs) and the Alans, from whom they learned gardening, elements of cattle breeding and of agriculture. The Bulgars and Magyars shared a long-lasting relationship in Khazaria, either by alliance or rivalry. The system of two rulers (later known as kende and gyula) is also thought to be a major inheritance from the Khazars. The word Hungarian is thought to be derived from the Bulgar-Turkic Onogur, possibly because the Magyars were neighbors (or confederates) of the Empire of the Bulgars in the sixth century.The H- sound in many languages (Hungarians, Hongrois, Hungarus etc.) is a later addition. It was taken over from the word "Huns," which was a similar semi-nomadic tribe living some 400 years earlier in present-day Hungary and having a similar way of life (or according to the older theories Huns were the people from which the Magyars arose). In ancient times, through the Middle Ages, and even today, the identification of Hungarians with the Huns has often occurred in history and literature, however this identification began to be disputed around the late nineteenth century, and is still a source of major controversy among scholars who insist that there could be no direct connection between the two.Like the Magyars,the Bulgars and the Turkic tribes also got major controversy among scholars to whom the Huns were the most closest relatives.
5)White Huns:
The question of the ethnic origins of the Chionites is very complex, especially as the names, Avestan X’iiaona/Pahlavi Xyōn and Hun/Chionite, are very close and the peoples in question inhabited approximately the same geographical region. The Chionites were known also with the Name White Huns .The Chionites in fact constituted one of several waves of eastern migration into Iran in late antiquity, though exactly which has been a matter of controversy.The Chionites (Chionitae) are first mentioned with Kushans by Ammianus Marcellinus who spent the winter of 356-57 CE in their Balkh territory. They arrived with the wave of immigration from Central Asia into Iran in late antiquity. They were influenced by the Kushan and Bactrian cultures, while patronizing the Eastern Iranian languages, and became a threat on the northeastern frontier of the Sassanid Empire.Simocatta, Menander, and Priscus provide evidence that the Chionites were somewhat different from the Hephthalites although, Frye suggested that the Hepthalites may have been a prominent tribe or clan of the Chionites.For many years, scholars suggested that they were of Turkic stock. Some have claimed that some groups amongst the Hephthalites were Turkic-speakers. According to the Encyclopedia of the Peoples of Asia and Oceania the ancestry of the Hephthalites is still uncertain but possibly Eastern Iranian within the larger Indo-European family for the majority. Some experts have also suggested the majority were of Turkic origins. They were certainly a mixed group who included peoples with many different origins.Probably dominated by Eastern Iranian language, but their mixed ancestry also led to multilingualism.Some White Huns may have been a prominent tribe or clan of the Chionites.One of them were the Hephthalites who Formed the Hephthalite Empire in 408ad.According to Richard Nelson Frye:Just as later nomadic empires were confederations of many peoples, we may tentatively propose that the ruling groups of these invaders were, or at least included, Turkic-speaking tribesmen from the east and north. Although most probably the bulk of the people in the confederation of Chionites and then Hephhtalites spoke an Iranian language... this was the last time in the history of Central Asia that Iranian-speaking nomads played any role; hereafter all nomads would speak Turkic languages.They displaced the Scythians and conquered Sogdiana and Khorasan before 425. After that, they crossed the Syr Darya (Jaxartes) River and invaded Persian lands. In Persia, they were initially held off by Bahram Gur but around 483–85, they succeeded in making Persia a tributary state by defeating the Sassanid forces at the Battle of Herat where they killed the Sassanid king, Peroz I. After a series of wars in the period 503–513, they were driven out of Persia and completely defeated in 557 by Khosrau I. Their polity thereafter came under the Göktürks and subsequent Western Turkic Khaganate.They also invaded the regions Afghanistan and present-day Pakistan, succeeding in extending their domain to the Punjab region.The Hephthalites were a vassal state to the Rouran Khaganate until the beginning of the 5th century.Between the Hephthalites and the Rourans there were also close contacts, although they had different languages and cultures, and Hephthalites borrowed much of their political organization from Rourans. In particular, the title "Khan", which according to McGovern was original to the Rourans, was borrowed by the Hephthalite rulers.The reason for the migration of the Hephthalites southeast was to avoid a pressure of the Rourans. Further, the Hephthalites defeated the Yuezhi in Bactria and their leader Kidara led the Yuezhi to the south.Procopius claims that the White Huns lived in a prosperous territory, and that they were the only Huns with fair complexions. According to him, they did not live as nomads, did acknowledge a single king, observed a well-regulated constitution, and behaved justly towards neighboring states. He also describes the burial of their nobles in tumuli, accompanied by their closest associates. This practice contrasts with evidence of cremation among the Chionites in Ammianus and with remains found by excavators of the European Huns and remains in some deposits ascribed to the Chionites in Central Asia. Scholars believe that the Hephthalites constituted a second "Hunnish" wave who entered Bactria early in the 5th century, and who seem to have driven the Kidarites into Gandhara.Newly discovered ancient writings found in Afghanistan reveal that the Middle Iranian Bactrian language written in Greek script was not brought there by the Hephthalites, but was already present from Kushan times as the traditional language of administration in this region. There is also evidence of the use of a Turkic language under the White Huns. The Bactrian documents also attest several Turkic royal titles (such as Khagan), indicating an important influence of Turkic people on White Huns, although these could also be explained by later Turkic infiltration south of the Oxus.The last Hephthalite King, Yudhishthira, ruled until about 670, when he was replaced by the Kabul Shahi dynasty.Not long after that the Arab Invasions in Central Asia in the second half of the 7th century with the spread of Islam conquered the last Hephthalite domains in Baktria.
6)Red Huns:
The Kidarites, a nomadic clan, are supposed to have arrived in Bactria with the great migrations of the second half of the 4th century.They were also known with another name - the Red Huns. This caused the Chionites to encroach upon Khorasan and the frontiers of the Kushan state around 320 AD. The Kidarite king Grumbat mentioned by Ammianus Marcellinus was a cause of much concern to the Persians. Between 353 AD and 358 AD, the Chionites under Grumbat attacked in the eastern frontiers of Shapur II's empire along with other nomad tribes. After a prolonged struggle they were forced to conclude a peace, and their king Grumbat accompanied Shapur II in the war against the Romans. The southern or "Red" Kidarite vassals to the Kushans in the North-Western Indus valley became known as Kermikhiones. A "Kidarite dynasty", south of the Oxus, was at war with the Sassanids in the fifth century. Peroz I fought Kidara and then his son Kungas, forcing Kungas to leave Bactria. They entered Kabul and replaced the last of the Kushan Empire rulers. However, the Kidarites in turn were soon overwhelmed by the Hephthalites. David Marshall Lang identified the Kermikhion-Kidarites with the Khazar and Kutrigurs proto-Bulgarians involved in causing Hunnic migrations across the Volga into Europe around 463 according to their envoy Priscus.The Kidarite kingdom was created either in the second half of the 4th century, or in the twenties of the 5th century. The only 4th century evidence are gold coins discovered in Balkh dating from c. 380 AD, where 'Kidara' is usually interpreted in a legend in the Bactrian language. Most numismatic specialists favor this idea. All the other data we currently have on the Kidarite kingdom are from Chinese and Byzantine sources from the middle of the 5th century. They may have risen to power during the 420s in Northern Afghanistan before conquering Peshawar and part of northwest India, then turning north to conquer Sogdiana in the 440s, before being cut from their Bactrian nomadic roots by the rise of the Hephthalite Empire in the 450s. Many small Kidarite kingdoms seems to have survived in northwest India up to the conquest by the Hephthalites during the last quarter of the 5th century are known through their coinage. The Kidarites are the last dynasty to regard themselves (on the legend of their coins) as the inheritors of the Kushan empire, which had disappeared as an independent entity two centuries earlier. The Kidarites were the first "Hunas" to invade India. Indian records note that the Hūna had established themselves in modern Afghanistan and the North-West Frontier Province in present day Pakistan by the first half of the 5th century, and the Gupta emperor Skandagupta had repelled a Hūna invasion in 455. As a result of "Wusun vultures" descending upon them in Transoxiana, the Kidarite powerbase moved in 460 from southern "Red" Balkh to western "White" Khiva, where the Hephthalite dynasty was established by Khingila I. The Greek envoy Rhetor often referred to the "White Huns" as "Kidarite Chionites" when they united with the Uar under the Hepthalite clan. Although they fought against the Sassanians, early 5th century coins (thought to have been minted by Chionite rulers) imitate Sassanian drachmas.The Kidarite Chionites flourished under the Hephthalites, until something forced them to migrate from Khiva to Atil under Kandik in the mid-6th century. Not long afterwards, the Hephthalites remaining in Central Asia submitted to Gokturk rule in 567AD. The Kidarites kingdoms survived till the Arab Invasions in Central Asia in the second half of the 7th century with the spread of Islam
7)Gupta empire:
The origin of the Gupta kingdom is ambiguous and continues to be a topic of debate among many historians.The Gupta’s rose to power sometime around 240 AD. The founder of the Gupta Empire was Sri- Gupta. The Gupta Empire was named after the Gupta dynasty which ruled approximately between 320- 550 CE. He ruled from 240- 280 AD. During the reign of Sri- Gupta the Gupta Empire comprised of Bengal and some areas of Bihar.However, the Empire reached its zenith during the rule of Chandragupta I. Chandragupta I was the grandson of Sri- Gupta and ascended the throne as the ruler of the Gupta Empire after the death of his father, Ghatotkach. He was considered to be a powerful ruler who expanded the territories of the Empire. Chandragupta I had acquired the Lichchhavi dynasty Kingdom by virtue of his marriage to the Lichchhavi Princess. It comprised of area stretching from Ganges River to Prayaga (modern day Allahabad). Chandragupta I was succeeded by two most capable and powerful rulers like Samudragupta and Chandragupta II. The Gupta dynasty period is regarded as the ‘’Golden Age of India’’ in the areas – Architecture, Literature,Art, Astronomy,expanding Trade and so on..Chandragupta II the Great was very often also called as Vikramaditya or Chandragupta Vikramaditya in Sanskrit. He was one of the most powerful emperors of the Gupta Empire. He ruled between a span of 375BC to 415 BCE, during which the Gupta Empire reached the peak of its gloryChandragupta II the Great was the son of the previous ruler, Samudragupta the Great. He attained success by pursuing both a favorable marital alliance and an aggressive expansionist policy. In this his father and grandfather set the precedent.Chandragupta’s greatest victory was his victory over the Saka-Kshatrapa dynasty and annexation of their kingdom in Gujarat, by defeating their last ruler Rudrasimha III. Chandragupta II the Great controlled a vast empire, extending from the mouth of the Ganges to the mouth of the Indus River and from the present day North Pakistan to down to the mouth of the Narmada. The reasons for the fall of the Gupta Empire were both external and internal factors. The external factors were the continuous attempts of invading the mighty Gupta kingdom by the White Huns, Vakatakas and other emerging kingdoms.Skandagupta was regarded as the last great ruler of the Gupta Empire. However, the threats of invasion had begun during the reign of Kumaragupta I. The Pushyamitra tribe had made several unsuccessful attempts to invade the Gupta Empire but was every time defeated by the capable Gupta Empire leader, Kumaragupta. During the reign of Skandagupta, the Huns tried repeatedly to conquer the Gupta Empire territories but were defeated by Skandagupta. However, the successors of Skandagupta were weak and could not control the vast Empire. The invasion of the Gupta Empire by the Huns or the White Huns was one of the main reasons for the decline of this mighty Empire. The Huns were successful in invading the Gupta Empire after the death of Skandagupta. The Huns were able to conquer many provinces of the Gupta Empire like the Malwa, Gujarat and Thanesar. It is said that despite their continuously declining power the Gupta’s managed to fight the Huns for some time and thus prevented the enemy from taking over their Empire. Narsimhagupta of the Gupta dynasty formed an alliance with the independent kingdoms to avert the Huns from entering the northern Indian regions.The smooth functioning of the Gupta Empire was severely affected by Yasodharman, the Malwa prince. The reign of Yasodharman did not last for a long but it certainly challenged the Gupta authority and power. The Gupta Empire also suffered because of the invasion attempts made by Toramana and his successor Mihirakula. The Gupta Empire was affected by the expansion of the Vakataka kingdom. The management and control of the Gupta Empire was also seriously affected by the widespread unrest within the kingdom. Some states had declared their sovereignty owing to the inability of the Gupta rulers to control the vast territories of the empire. These were the factors that led to the decline of the vast and the powerful Gupta Empire in the late 5th and 6th centuries AD.After the Fall of the Guptas in the 7th century the Harsha Empire was the consolidated atemp by the Gupta created administration to revive the empire by holding the lands in Northern India united one more.After the fall of the Harsha Empire in 647 AD India wasn’t united for the next 1000 years once more.
Reply With Quote
, like they are diferent from us, there were no "proto"-bulgarians and modern bulgarians, just bulgarians. So the bulgarians or the avars possibly perfected it by creating a spinning metal lower part for the foot. This alowed them to do their famous turnings on the saddle, making them more agile and deadly.
You DO know they are priests! It was was hilarious for me to see in the old RTW and BW druids and the katolik and orthodox priests. Yes the druids inspired and provoked the celts to fight against the romans but before the battles, not in it. Same for the christian priests. Bye from me and keep up the good work!
