>Chanakya is mentioned independently across completely different religious and cultural traditions—including the Buddhist Mahavamsa, the Jain Parishishtaparvan, and various Hindu Puranas. Proponents argue it is highly improbable that competing religious groups would all independently invent the exact same legendary figure to credit for the Mauryan revolution.
>Loss of Records: Very little physical material or documentation survives from the 4th century BCE in India. The fact that Megasthenes' records only survive in tiny fragments quoted by later Greek historians makes it entirely possible that references to a prime minister were simply lost over time.
>>198001
Literally everything in lundian history pre Delhi Sultanate comes from fictional religious sources.
As mentioned already almost nothing from 4th century remains aside from secondary or tertiary references and even those are in fragments.
>>198009
>Literally everything in lundian history pre Delhi Sultanate comes from fictional religious sources.
Harshcharita, rajatarangini are not religious.
>>197960
Yes, all archeological and historical scholars consider him fake basically made up by pongas to inflate thier worth. That's y he was removed from upsc papers.
when i was a child my father's phone had these chanakya neeti quotes
even i figured out at the age of 8 years that
nothing like this taklu exist
but people die in their graves belieiving he existed
>>198066
>all archeological and historical scholars consider him fake
No one other than some seething lubdbedkarite chamars consider him fake, there is little material proof regarding him, but that is true for literally all of lundian history pre 14th century.
>>198060
There is nothing remaining of muh greek sources lmao, they are all secondary or tertiary references to those supposed sources and even they are in small fragments.
>>198079
>No one other than some seething lubdbedkarite chamars consider him fake
Lundbedkarites consider him real chutiye, they just add that chandragupta was a dalit.
