Rant on Director Krish

[workless_barber]

Historical inaccuracies in Telugu movie Gautamiputra Satakarni

Several film reviews have billed Telugu movie Gautamiputra Satakarni as a must watch for people, who are interested in the Telugu history. However, none of these reviewers appear to have verified the historical accuracy of the story narrated in the movie.

 

While the movie makers could take some freedom to make a movie interesting for the viewers, they shouldn't not introduce inaccuracies -- especially in the movies that may strengthen or weaken one's identity.

 

 

 

The character of Gautami Satakarni, who lived and ruled 1,900 years ago, was not unknown to those who studied history. However the people in general were not aware of him and his conquests. The greatest ruler, whom Telugus could own up, was always Krishnadeva Raya of the Vijayanagar Empire. However, Balakrishna's movie has introduced another great ruler for Telugus -- although people did not speak Telugu during his time.

 

When a director is making a movie that could affect the identity of a community, he must stick to facts. But the film Gautamiputra Satakarni has glaring mistakes and deliberate hype.

 

1) The film showed Gautamiputra Satakarni referring to Telugu pride and the Telugu community. However the Satavahanas were never known as Telugus as nobody spoke Telugu then. They were known as Andhras - a term whose ownership was appropriated by people living on the AP coast and reliquished by Telangana. In reality, the Andhra word never denoted a geographical location during those times. Aitareya Brahmana of the Rig Veda (800 BC) used the Andhra word for the first time. It says the Andhras have migrated to south India from the north. The Andhras were mentioned in Matsya and Vayu puranas and the Mahabharat. The word was mentioned again during the Ashoka's rule in around 230 BC. 

 

2) There is no historical record that says people from area that makes up Andhra Pradesh and Telangana were called Andhras. However, at the ebb of the Satavahana empire, its rule confined to the current AP and Telangana.

 

The puranas merely say that Andhras have left the north India to settle in an area between the river Godavari and the river Krishna. But this is vast area covering a large part of Maharashtra, northern Karnataka, Telangana and AP. And not just esrtwhile united Andhra Pradesh. Historians claim that Satavahana founder Simuka established the Satavahana kingdom after defeating the Kanvas. So their capital cannot be far away at Amaravati on the eastern coast because a fledgling kingdom cannot attack a far-away enemy. 

 

 

 

Also, several historians claim that the Satavahana capital was at Pratishthana (Paithan, near Aurangabad, Maharashtra). However, the capital must have been shifted to Amaravati later on during the ebb of the Satavahanas as the Western Kshatraps grew powerful during Rudradaman's reign. But the film claims as if Amaravati was the capital throughout the Satavahana rule. This is wrong.

 

Gautamiputra Satakarni was mentioned as the Lord of Benakataka (which could be translated as Dhenkataka or Dhanyakataka) by his mother Gautami Balashri in her Nasik inscription. This appears to have been used to give credence to Amaravati as his capital. However, in the same inscription, Gautami Balashri claimed herself to be the mother and grandmother of two great kings. So it is also possible that Gautamiputra Satakarni's son Pulumavi, son-in-law of the Western Kshatraps king, was made the king of western region with Pratishthana as the capital, while Satakarni settling down at Benakataka (Dhanyakataka).

 

3) After defeating Western Kshatraps king Nahapana, the movie claims Satakarni had become the emperor of the entire India. It is completely wrong. During that time, the major powers in the country were:
a) The Kushana empire headed by predecessors of the famous king Kanishka. They ruled an area covering what is today Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Punjab, Delhi and parts of Rajasthan;
b) The Satavahanas ruling parts of Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and over-lording Tamil Nadu and Kerala;
c) The Western Kshtrapas ruling Gujarat, Rajasthan, Sindh and parts of Madhya Pradesh
d) Other small kingdoms in eastern India.
So even after defeating the Kshtrapas, Gautamiputra Satakarni cannot claim himself to be the emperor of India as the Kushans were still strong enough.

 

4) The movie claims Satakarni (100 AD) fought against Demetrius of Bactria (180 BC). There is a time gap of  220 years. While there is a reference to him fighting Yavanas (the Greeks), it must be Indo-Greeks led by the Kushna dynasty, who were ruling from Purushapura (Peshawar, Pakistan).

 

5) The movie claims that Satakarni  he defeated Magadha also. But it was wrong as it was not Gautamiputra, who led the conquest against Magadha. It was his ancestors who defeated the Kanva dynasty at Pataliputra.

6) And there is no historical record of Gautamiputra Satakarni conducting Rajasooyam. In fact, it was his ancestor who was similarly named as Satakarni-I (187 BC), who conducted Ashwamedham as per the Naneghat inscription.

[kittaya]

Mama mana history ni nasanam cheyyatam kosam... There are fake websites which always spread fake things.. 

And in this movie regarding sathavahana.. there are no records... Only one sasanam was found...  Based on this and he added some masala. 

If you are anti Hindu

.. just read your scripts ... Don't read Hindu scriptures

 

[Raven_Rayes]

good post

[workless_barber]

2 minutes ago, kittaya said:

 

And in this movie regarding sathavahana.. there are no records... Only one sasanam was found...  Based on this and he added some masala. 

If you are anti Hindu

.. just read your scripts ... Don't read Hindu scriptures

 

 

no records antunnav, anti hindu antunnav chaala judge chestunnav

see the records

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naneghat

http://www.sundarayya.org/sites/default/files/2020-11/Tholi Charitraka Andhrapradesh (B.C. 500 - A.D. 624) [Andhrapradesh Samgra Charitra - Samskruthi - II].pdf

[workless_barber]

7 minutes ago, kittaya said:

.. just read your scripts ... Don't read Hindu scriptures

 

i am hindu..i read what ever i like

post meeda point vunte argue cheyyi

i dont need your unnecessary advices

[workless_barber]

history ni evadi istam vachhinattu vaadi teesethe vaatini choosina some lazy gallu ade nijamani nammi adigodinalla anti hindu antu tayaravutaaru

asalu ee post lo vunnadi history.... anti hindu emi vundo aa brains ke teliyali

[jiggubhai]

14 hours ago, workless_barber said:

Historical inaccuracies in Telugu movie Gautamiputra Satakarni

Several film reviews have billed Telugu movie Gautamiputra Satakarni as a must watch for people, who are interested in the Telugu history. However, none of these reviewers appear to have verified the historical accuracy of the story narrated in the movie.

 

While the movie makers could take some freedom to make a movie interesting for the viewers, they shouldn't not introduce inaccuracies -- especially in the movies that may strengthen or weaken one's identity.

 

 

 

The character of Gautami Satakarni, who lived and ruled 1,900 years ago, was not unknown to those who studied history. However the people in general were not aware of him and his conquests. The greatest ruler, whom Telugus could own up, was always Krishnadeva Raya of the Vijayanagar Empire. However, Balakrishna's movie has introduced another great ruler for Telugus -- although people did not speak Telugu during his time.

 

When a director is making a movie that could affect the identity of a community, he must stick to facts. But the film Gautamiputra Satakarni has glaring mistakes and deliberate hype.

 

1) The film showed Gautamiputra Satakarni referring to Telugu pride and the Telugu community. However the Satavahanas were never known as Telugus as nobody spoke Telugu then. They were known as Andhras - a term whose ownership was appropriated by people living on the AP coast and reliquished by Telangana. In reality, the Andhra word never denoted a geographical location during those times. Aitareya Brahmana of the Rig Veda (800 BC) used the Andhra word for the first time. It says the Andhras have migrated to south India from the north. The Andhras were mentioned in Matsya and Vayu puranas and the Mahabharat. The word was mentioned again during the Ashoka's rule in around 230 BC. 

 

2) There is no historical record that says people from area that makes up Andhra Pradesh and Telangana were called Andhras. However, at the ebb of the Satavahana empire, its rule confined to the current AP and Telangana.

 

The puranas merely say that Andhras have left the north India to settle in an area between the river Godavari and the river Krishna. But this is vast area covering a large part of Maharashtra, northern Karnataka, Telangana and AP. And not just esrtwhile united Andhra Pradesh. Historians claim that Satavahana founder Simuka established the Satavahana kingdom after defeating the Kanvas. So their capital cannot be far away at Amaravati on the eastern coast because a fledgling kingdom cannot attack a far-away enemy. 

 

 

 

Also, several historians claim that the Satavahana capital was at Pratishthana (Paithan, near Aurangabad, Maharashtra). However, the capital must have been shifted to Amaravati later on during the ebb of the Satavahanas as the Western Kshatraps grew powerful during Rudradaman's reign. But the film claims as if Amaravati was the capital throughout the Satavahana rule. This is wrong.

 

Gautamiputra Satakarni was mentioned as the Lord of Benakataka (which could be translated as Dhenkataka or Dhanyakataka) by his mother Gautami Balashri in her Nasik inscription. This appears to have been used to give credence to Amaravati as his capital. However, in the same inscription, Gautami Balashri claimed herself to be the mother and grandmother of two great kings. So it is also possible that Gautamiputra Satakarni's son Pulumavi, son-in-law of the Western Kshatraps king, was made the king of western region with Pratishthana as the capital, while Satakarni settling down at Benakataka (Dhanyakataka).

 

3) After defeating Western Kshatraps king Nahapana, the movie claims Satakarni had become the emperor of the entire India. It is completely wrong. During that time, the major powers in the country were:
a) The Kushana empire headed by predecessors of the famous king Kanishka. They ruled an area covering what is today Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Punjab, Delhi and parts of Rajasthan;
b) The Satavahanas ruling parts of Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and over-lording Tamil Nadu and Kerala;
c) The Western Kshtrapas ruling Gujarat, Rajasthan, Sindh and parts of Madhya Pradesh
d) Other small kingdoms in eastern India.
So even after defeating the Kshtrapas, Gautamiputra Satakarni cannot claim himself to be the emperor of India as the Kushans were still strong enough.

 

4) The movie claims Satakarni (100 AD) fought against Demetrius of Bactria (180 BC). There is a time gap of  220 years. While there is a reference to him fighting Yavanas (the Greeks), it must be Indo-Greeks led by the Kushna dynasty, who were ruling from Purushapura (Peshawar, Pakistan).

 

5) The movie claims that Satakarni  he defeated Magadha also. But it was wrong as it was not Gautamiputra, who led the conquest against Magadha. It was his ancestors who defeated the Kanva dynasty at Pataliputra.

6) And there is no historical record of Gautamiputra Satakarni conducting Rajasooyam. In fact, it was his ancestor who was similarly named as Satakarni-I (187 BC), who conducted Ashwamedham as per the Naneghat inscription.

lite teeskko baa.. aa meher ramesh gaadila egypt nundi eluru ki mummies ni rappincha ledu so ade big achievement

[Captain_nd_Coke]

49 minutes ago, workless_barber said:

Historical inaccuracies in Telugu movie Gautamiputra Satakarni

Several film reviews have billed Telugu movie Gautamiputra Satakarni as a must watch for people, who are interested in the Telugu history. However, none of these reviewers appear to have verified the historical accuracy of the story narrated in the movie.

 

While the movie makers could take some freedom to make a movie interesting for the viewers, they shouldn't not introduce inaccuracies -- especially in the movies that may strengthen or weaken one's identity.

 

 

 

The character of Gautami Satakarni, who lived and ruled 1,900 years ago, was not unknown to those who studied history. However the people in general were not aware of him and his conquests. The greatest ruler, whom Telugus could own up, was always Krishnadeva Raya of the Vijayanagar Empire. However, Balakrishna's movie has introduced another great ruler for Telugus -- although people did not speak Telugu during his time.

 

When a director is making a movie that could affect the identity of a community, he must stick to facts. But the film Gautamiputra Satakarni has glaring mistakes and deliberate hype.

 

1) The film showed Gautamiputra Satakarni referring to Telugu pride and the Telugu community. However the Satavahanas were never known as Telugus as nobody spoke Telugu then. They were known as Andhras - a term whose ownership was appropriated by people living on the AP coast and reliquished by Telangana. In reality, the Andhra word never denoted a geographical location during those times. Aitareya Brahmana of the Rig Veda (800 BC) used the Andhra word for the first time. It says the Andhras have migrated to south India from the north. The Andhras were mentioned in Matsya and Vayu puranas and the Mahabharat. The word was mentioned again during the Ashoka's rule in around 230 BC. 

 

2) There is no historical record that says people from area that makes up Andhra Pradesh and Telangana were called Andhras. However, at the ebb of the Satavahana empire, its rule confined to the current AP and Telangana.

 

The puranas merely say that Andhras have left the north India to settle in an area between the river Godavari and the river Krishna. But this is vast area covering a large part of Maharashtra, northern Karnataka, Telangana and AP. And not just esrtwhile united Andhra Pradesh. Historians claim that Satavahana founder Simuka established the Satavahana kingdom after defeating the Kanvas. So their capital cannot be far away at Amaravati on the eastern coast because a fledgling kingdom cannot attack a far-away enemy. 

 

 

 

Also, several historians claim that the Satavahana capital was at Pratishthana (Paithan, near Aurangabad, Maharashtra). However, the capital must have been shifted to Amaravati later on during the ebb of the Satavahanas as the Western Kshatraps grew powerful during Rudradaman's reign. But the film claims as if Amaravati was the capital throughout the Satavahana rule. This is wrong.

 

Gautamiputra Satakarni was mentioned as the Lord of Benakataka (which could be translated as Dhenkataka or Dhanyakataka) by his mother Gautami Balashri in her Nasik inscription. This appears to have been used to give credence to Amaravati as his capital. However, in the same inscription, Gautami Balashri claimed herself to be the mother and grandmother of two great kings. So it is also possible that Gautamiputra Satakarni's son Pulumavi, son-in-law of the Western Kshatraps king, was made the king of western region with Pratishthana as the capital, while Satakarni settling down at Benakataka (Dhanyakataka).

 

3) After defeating Western Kshatraps king Nahapana, the movie claims Satakarni had become the emperor of the entire India. It is completely wrong. During that time, the major powers in the country were:
a) The Kushana empire headed by predecessors of the famous king Kanishka. They ruled an area covering what is today Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Punjab, Delhi and parts of Rajasthan;
b) The Satavahanas ruling parts of Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and over-lording Tamil Nadu and Kerala;
c) The Western Kshtrapas ruling Gujarat, Rajasthan, Sindh and parts of Madhya Pradesh
d) Other small kingdoms in eastern India.
So even after defeating the Kshtrapas, Gautamiputra Satakarni cannot claim himself to be the emperor of India as the Kushans were still strong enough.

 

4) The movie claims Satakarni (100 AD) fought against Demetrius of Bactria (180 BC). There is a time gap of  220 years. While there is a reference to him fighting Yavanas (the Greeks), it must be Indo-Greeks led by the Kushna dynasty, who were ruling from Purushapura (Peshawar, Pakistan).

 

5) The movie claims that Satakarni  he defeated Magadha also. But it was wrong as it was not Gautamiputra, who led the conquest against Magadha. It was his ancestors who defeated the Kanva dynasty at Pataliputra.

6) And there is no historical record of Gautamiputra Satakarni conducting Rajasooyam. In fact, it was his ancestor who was similarly named as Satakarni-I (187 BC), who conducted Ashwamedham as per the Naneghat inscription.

Workless barber

[tennisluvrredux]

Manaki charitra tho sambandam ledu.

Telugu jaati pride unnadu chaalu ade 10velu maaku.

Jai balayya

 

 

 

[NeneRajuNeneManthri]

Aa cinema ni history knowledge kosam choose vallu unnara? Time waste article. 

[h2o]

inka nayam gautami putra ki wig ledu so wildly inaccurate ani article rayaledu..

[Picheshwar]

13 hours ago, jiggubhai said:

lite teeskko baa.. aa meher ramesh gaadila egypt nundi eluruki mummies ni rappincha ledu so ade big achievement

[Swatkat]

13 hours ago, jiggubhai said:

lite teeskko baa.. aa meher ramesh gaadila egypt nundi eluruki mummies ni rappincha ledu so ade big achievement

Em movie?

[jiggubhai]

6 minutes ago, Swatkat said:

Em movie?

Shakthi 

[tennisluvrredux]

Just now, jiggubhai said:

Shakthi 

NTRs best movie baa adi