Jump to content

Draft talk:Gupta–Hunnic Wars

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Orphaned references in Gupta–Hunnic Wars

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Gupta–Hunnic Wars's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "EI":

  • From Kidarites: Encyclopaedia Iranica, article Kidarites: "On Gandhāran coins bearing their name the ruler is always clean-shaven, a fashion more typical of Altaic people than of Iranians" in "KIDARITES – Encyclopaedia Iranica". www.iranicaonline.org.
  • From Sasanian–Kushan Wars: http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/hormozd-kusansah Encyclopedia Iranica

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph breaks?

[edit]

This article has a multitude of massive paragraphs. Inserting more paragraph breaks would make it less of a slog to read, providing breaks for the eye. Praemonitus (talk) 15:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha Praemonitus, I will certainly do it Jonharojjashi (talk) 02:57, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

@Jonharojjashi, what is the significance of the section Samudragupta's Āryāvarta campaigns? Seems like the section is not related to the article's scope, and as mentioned above, it is hard to navigate through the significant, and unnecessary parts due to the mass of the paragraphs and such. Please explain. Imperial[AFCND] 17:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mnbnjghiryurr, please stop restoring "Gupta victory" with the long list in the territory= section. The sources you've used here falls under WP:RAJ; and one is unreliable. I have cited 3 verifiable sources with quotation; that solely adress the victory of White Huns. The final territorial changes are the only thing that matters here. Please go through WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:MEATPUPPETRY. There's already and issue going on with the author Jonharojjashi suspecting meatpuppetry. This action just fed the fire here. Imperial[AFCND] 03:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gupta-Huna war was was gupta Alliance Victory hunnic Invader were repuled By yashodhrman and ishanvarman so it can't Be Huna victory Mnbnjghiryurr (talk) 03:47, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reign of Yaśovarman and Ishanavarman is an intermediate state of the War. The final outcome; Per cited sources, it is the fall of the Guptas due to Hunnic invasions. That's what there should be in the article. Imperial[AFCND] 04:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Constant disruption

[edit]

@Mnbnjghiryurr, @ImperialAficionado Can you both stop these disruptions for a moment? Samudragupta's Aryavart campaigns hold significance for this article as it's the event before Samudragupta's venture in the North-west which eventually commenced the initial Gupta-Hunnic conflicts. Though I'll make it less massive so that readers can go through it easily, but what is the point of bringing your past experiences with me? Jonharojjashi (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't made any comment on you (except the ANI report about meatpuppetry; and the above user is sparking (his actions are actually affecting your credibility). And may I know the reason for the reversion? I can clearly see that you've cited the result of an intermediate state of the war (second Hunnic War) as the result of the entire wars. Per the revision [1], the final outcome is cited. And ofcourse here it's the event before Samudragupta's venture in the North-west which eventually commenced the initial Gupta-Hunnic conflicts, but the article's scope is not the initial war as it seems. Per the title, I can count it as the article for the entire wars. I can go for a WP:30 if you're willing. Else, this will do nothing but fuels the report aganist you for being a PoV pusher. Imperial[AFCND] 17:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonharojjashi, I can see you making a false accusation at RFPI [2] of edit warring and poorly made a request for protection? All you did here is reverting to your version without a quality edit summary. Why was the time period of the war limited to 534? And why is it Gupta victory? If you have any objection with the edits I've made here, use the talk section and respond. I am happy to go for a WP:30. Else the WP:NOTHERE may cause damage to your editing privileges. Imperial[AFCND] 17:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @HistoryofIran. See how funny he posted this [3] on my talk page, without even reading what it says? As I said earlier, it is getting distorted everytime. Imperial[AFCND] 18:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[4] huh, had you gone through the sources. The sources you added only talk about the decline of the Gupta Empire after the Gupta-Hunnic Wars, I see no mention of Hunnic victory in your cited sources. You should file as many reports as you can if you think I did any wrong (apparently historyofIran has filed many poorly ANIs and SPIs, so you can try too). Samudragupta's Aryavart campaigns remarked on the very background of this topic article, I'd try to make it shorter for ease of reading. I didn't make any false accusations on you at RFPI, I mean you both were indulged in edit war. For the time period a source is right there before you, as per Hans T. Bakker Gupta-Hunnic struggle timeline was about 350-534 CE. I thought Infobox reflects the cited sources. So if someone needs citations then I'd certainly do it. Jonharojjashi (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a dispute; and I will choose WP:3O. Imperial[AFCND] 18:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead, but pinging historyofIran just to say see how funny he posted this on my talk page shows how much you are interested in off topic discussions. Also it proves my point of WP:TAGTEAM, thanks. Jonharojjashi (talk) 01:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty ironic considering your ANI report [5]. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it impossible for you and ImperialAficionado to not divert from the topic thread? Like [6] and I have answered all of your concerns at ANI, what ImperialAficionado has added is nothing more but half baked lies which can be easily be verified by clerks through their edit history. Jonharojjashi (talk) 12:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, 90% of my ANIs and especially SPIs end up in a block for the reported person (including Mr Anonymous 699 and Indo12122's socks whom you are well acquainted with), but if making up stuff makes you feel more safe, then sure. HistoryofIran (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now, let's discuss the response, focusing solely on the disputed areas as requested in the 3O. The cited sources clearly state that the Gupta Empire fell due to the invasions of the Huns. So, I'm confused why you asked, "huh, had you gone through the sources? The sources you added only talk about the decline..." with no mention of the Hunnic victory? The quotations make it unmistakably clear that the Huns emerged victorious against the Guptas (I won't repeat it since you've already linked to it). Upon reviewing the sources that've cited in support to the Gupta victory, I've found that the "Gupta victory" is mentioned by referencing the Second Hunnic War (ended in 534). Why is that? The conflicts between the Guptas and the Huns didn't conclude with that war. According to the sources I've cited, they persisted until the fall of the Guptas (550), which was also caused by the Huns. It's evident that there's an attempt to glorify the Guptas by artificially limiting the duration of the war to make it seem like the Guptas succeeded, while disregarding subsequent wars and invasions. Imperial[AFCND] 19:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does WP:RS actually use the name "Gupta–Hunnic Wars" with a given date (a la Roman-Persian wars), or is this more made up WP:SYNTH by Jonharojjashi to have yet another victory of a dynasty they like? HistoryofIran (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked the citation for the date in the infobox, WP:SYNTH indeed. It's a "Timeline" for "The Sasanian and Gupta Empires and their Struggle against the Huns". HistoryofIran (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ImperialAficionado I'll try to end all of your doubts here:
The quotations make it unmistakably clear that the Huns emerged victorious against the Guptas. No it doesn't.
The sources you cited for hunnic victory World History Encyclopedia. (in which you didn't even bother to cite pages in these and didn't cite a specific volume so how am I supposed to verify it?) no where give explanations for immediate results of Gupta-Hunnic Wars instead it says: The Gupta empire's decline started in the middle of the fifth century, when Hephthalite (Huna, or White Hun) incursions sapped the Gupta's strength and Dictionary of Wars. (The reliability should be questioned as the author is a specialist in infectious diseases, is assistant clinical professor of medicine at Yale University [7] not any scholar of history, it doesn't look RS to me.) states: Successful invasions by White Huns weakened the kingdom so thoroughly that with the death of the last Gupta ruler (c. 467) only a Bengal remnant of its power existed, and then only until 499. I don't see "Hunnic victory" as such in your quoted sources. These sources don't go beyond specifying decline of Gupta Empire after the war.
The problem with third one World Monarchies and Dynasties. is that I didn't even get full snippet view and I think you just quoted this particular snippet text and you don't have access to the book either, I wonder if this led to your conclusion for "Hunnic victory".
artificially limiting the duration of the war to make it seem like the Guptas succeeded. huh see the Bakker's. timeline so you won't have to say that it's "artificially limiting the duration of war". Jonharojjashi (talk) 02:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do have access to World Monarchies and Dynasties. Every books I've cited, does says the Gupta empire fell due to the invasions of the White Huns. I only cited 3 to not make it WP:CITEKILL, I can provide more if needed. The Bakker's timeline is the timeline of "Second Hunnic War", and not the whole Wars. If we consider the whole Wars, it should be included the fall of the Guptas. Imperial[AFCND] 05:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Barely addressed the issues. I want you to cite sources for exact Hunnic victory in the context of war not the sources which only talks about the fall of empire I can provide more if needed I could do the same but citing only those sources which precicly state it as Gupta victory. The Bakker's timeline is the timeline of "Second Hunnic Wars". No it's the timeline of the whole Gupta-Hunnic struggle, please don't waste anyone's precious time by misinterpreting sources, the sources are cited right there before you. Jonharojjashi (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How come Imperials source has be this exact when youre engaging in WP:SYNTH with many of the citations? Whos making the rules? Imperial probably wont find anything about this “war” because its made up by you per my comment up above. HistoryofIran (talk) 12:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I guess it's my problem if ImperialAficionado can't find sources for Hunnic victory and is even unable to cite those with specific volume and pages, ok. I'd again refer you to Bakker's. chronology, it's not made up by me. Jonharojjashi (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes @Jonharojjashi, I have checked both secondary and tertiary sources, and nowhere have I found explicit mention of the "Gupta-Hunnic Wars." Bakker explicitly discusses the "End of the Second Hunnic War" on page 34. Please let me know if you require page numbers from any sources by dropping {{pn}}. Let me conclude; is the "Second Hunnic War" (as per Bakker) is the same as the "Gupta-Hunnic Wars"? If yes, this could be considered a distorted representation of sources, aka WP:SYNTH. If not, do the wars/invasions/raids of the Huns following the Second Hunnic War contribute to the Gupta-Hunnic Wars? What further evidence do we need to establish it as a Hunnic victory, as suggested by sources that clearly attribute the fall of the Gupta Empire to Hunnic invasions? Let me know as 3O failed, I can take this to an RFC at MILHIST, or WP:DNR. I prefer RFC at MILHIST for better consensus. These comments are doing nothing good to the article. Imperial[AFCND] 12:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The second Hunnic war is part of the "Hunnic Wars" or "Gupta-Hunnic Wars" merely citing sources for the fall and disintegration of the Gupta Empire doesn't give further evidence for Hunnic victory. You can take this to other forms of dispute resolution if you want although I have already explained why the sources cited by you didn't give a clear explanation for Hunnic victory, i.e Disintegration of empire =/= Hunnic victory. Jonharojjashi (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fall of Guptas were caused by Hunnic Invasions per the sources. Taking to RFC. Imperial[AFCND] 14:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fyi Guptas existed till 570 CE and the war ended around 532-34 CE there's no connection between Fall of Guptas and Hunnic victory. Jonharojjashi (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So the sources must be lying? Use DRN. Imperial[AFCND] 16:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Misinterpreting the source and then saying, "Sources must be lying?". So easy. And I think the user Mnbnjghiryurr is more involved in this dispute than HistoryofIran. Isn't it? Address all of your concerns at DRN. I'll be summarising the dispute. Jonharojjashi (talk) 16:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even Gupta Empire has sourced info about them falling due to the Hunnic invasion. So not only did you create a fictional war out of WP:SYNTH, but you also made a fictional end date so you could have your "Gupta victory". HistoryofIran (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All I see is Guptas disintegrating after their prolonged successful struggle against Hunas, which indeed happened, they fell after repelling hunas (per sources quoted above/below) and that is what I have added in the aftermath section of this page.
  • From Majumdar. p-38 Baladitya as having defeated Mihirakula and saved the Gupta empire from the Huna depredations. The defeat of Mihirakula appears to have finally crushed the Huna political supremacy in India. The Hunas no longer appear as a great power or even a disturbing element in Indian history.
And how is this WP:SYNTH? Per Bakker.:
  • the simultaneous wars conducted by the Sasanians and Guptas against Hunnic peoples on either side of the Hindu Kush after he had passed away are suggestive to that effect. p-5
  • The evolving power of Hunnic people in Eastern Iran (Kidara) and northwest-ern India (Kidara/Alkhan) during the period 430 to 450 has a remarkable parallel in the expansion of Hunnic forces under Attila encroaching upon the Roman Empire. Three empires, the Roman, the Sasanian and the Gupta were ravaged by the wars fought with these elusive enemies and weighed down by the levies imposed p-14
Moreover there's a whole chapter (5th) on Hunnic Wars.
There's no "fictional end date". How many times do I have to say that it's based upon Bakker's chronology? I'd refer you to WP:CALC & WP:UCS before extending this discussion. Jonharojjashi (talk) 11:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also I need a favour from you. Can you please check if Maratha–Nizam wars & Ghaznavid campaigns in India bags the same issue of fictional end date? Jonharojjashi (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran Are you now going to remove that [8] or do you have more questions regarding its neutrality? Jonharojjashi (talk) 14:10, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're still engaging in WP:SYNTH with the Baker chronology to have your favourite dynasty get a victory, which you still haven't addressed. I'll look more into this later when I have time. And sorry, I don't do favours for soon to be indeffed users. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What a way to just throw off all of the sources by just saying "you still haven't addressed". Not doing favours? Or is it more like not intersecting tag team members? Jonharojjashi (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt throw anything off, I just dont like you evading arguments. And pretty ironic of you accusing me of tag teaming, dont you have a meatpuppet discord group to take care of? HistoryofIran (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The argument was already evaded when ImperialAficionado pinged you just to say "see how funny he posted this on my talk page". It's not ironic in my case when you I don't tag team members like you and your crew did. For discord, I'm not as influential as you who can build up an entire squad for tag teaming. You're emphasizing discord which means you have a good experience there. Isn't it? Jonharojjashi (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear. If you tag someone, we all you who's going to get caught off guard. And why do think most of the editors found mistake so that appears all of us are teaming up against you? Think. Imperial[AFCND] 16:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lets not forget Jonharojjashi also thought you, I and several other users of different backgrounds and interests were socks, just because we had all called Jonharojjashi out for their disruption, lol. And now they’re doing this poor tactic of attempting to parry the blatant evidence of meatpuppetry through their Discord. No one is going to take it serious. HistoryofIran (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And another coincidence that one of the articles Jonharojjashi raised concern above is now nominated for AFD by another brand new user [9](I can see some resemblance of this chat with the nomination reason by the nominators). "WP:SYNTH mess", "fictional timeline of 1720-1819", iykyk. Imperial[AFCND] 16:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see, certainly not suspicious at all! HistoryofIran (talk) 21:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofIran, we know whos ANIs and SPIs are getting declined or sidelined by clerks. So actually I'm not the one who's not taken seriously by anyone. Certainly these past few weeks I have got an ample amount of evidence which shows that the tag team leader is definitely adding more members in their group. It was already amusing enough that ImperialAficionado is now linking me with yet another user (my bad, a "brand new user") just because someone has found obvious flaws in their article and some words are identical (I hope I'm not the copyright holder of these words so that anyone needs to ask me for using these words). But ImperialAficionado, why didn't they proposed deletion for another article mentioned by me? I'm waiting for the day when ImperialAficionado would link me with HistoryofIran when I'd copy their style and words, lol. Seeing both of your history, it's quite visible that both of you are involved in edit war and just spamming proposed deletion in each other's started articles. Jonharojjashi (talk) 03:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my ANIs and SPIs are so bad that I got two of your buddies [10] [11], guess who's next? I hope your "ample evidence" is more impressive than your SPI [12]. HistoryofIran (talk) 03:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I can endear everyone like you. But @ImperialAficionado isn't it ironic that we don't find historyofIran intersecting you and the user DeepstoneV? Even if they did disruptive edits, we find historyofIran to defend them. Jonharojjashi (talk) 03:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that's suspicious then I think you should start taking your ANI case much more serious. HistoryofIran (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My buddies? Oh, it's no surprise anymore because you'll link me with every Wikipedia editor. Indeed, I'd take my ANI case much more seriously, thanks. Jonharojjashi (talk) 11:06, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran@Jonharojjashi summarise your analysis here. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Gupta–Hunnic Wars. Imperial[AFCND] 14:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing your claim about the Nizam Maratha wars and Ghaznavid campaigns in India, the idea of Indians achieving victory in the Umayyad campaigns in India itself is a Fictional conflict and It stated Indian victory while Campaigns of Imperial Ummayads ended with the Assasination of Muhammad bin Qasim rest All other campaigns mentioned are just mordern opinions and If even they're true, they are just few minor Skirmishes and Raids done by Gavernor of Sindh Province DeepstoneV (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be a bit confused. How can I help you buddy? Jonharojjashi (talk) 03:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Minor Skirmishes?? LOL Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 07:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok @Mohammad Umar Ali, you don't have to extend it further as it's already messed above because the involved users are bringing ANIs, SPIs and what not. Go to the talk page of the respective articles instead of discussing it here. Jonharojjashi (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Mohammad Umar Ali (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Response to third opinion request:
I am declining to provide a third opinion as there are already more than two editors involved in this dispute. 3O is explicitly for requesting a third opinion. Any editor is welcome to pursue other forms of dispute resolution. DonIago (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Pinging major contributors Jonharojjashi and DuncanHill, as well as HistoryofIran and ImperialAficionado who commented above.

  • I am disappointed to see that despite the excessive arguing, no-one picked up on massive amounts of close paraphrasing present in the article almost since its creation. Take the "Rise of Kidara Kushans" subsection:
    • Most of its content was added in this edit on 23 April. As you can see it is functionally identical to now.
    • It is cited to Goyal 1967, p. 169. Here is a link to the page in question.
    • The sentence structure is identical. Not just similar, identical. The only difference is the occasional use of synonyms or slight rearranging of wording.
    • This is plagiarism in its most obvious form.
  • This issue goes back to the earliest original content, added in this edit on 6 April (all previous edits were copying content from other articles).
    • You can find most of that content in the "The Huna Volkerwanderung" section, cited to Goyal pp. 336-341. The entirety of the following paragraph (sentences separated below for clarity) is pure plagiarism:
Article Goyal 1967 Notes
"The onslaught of the Hunas adhered the uniform geographical pattern which had been abided by the Indo-Greeks in the post-Maurya era and was to be adhered to by the Turkic peoples in the medieval dates.
Like the Indo-Greeks and the Turkic peoples, the Hunas first amalgamated their power in the Punjab.
After the setback endured at the hands of Skandagupta they had afresh turned the spotlight on Persia.
When they made incursions in 456 A. D. we find Yazdegird II relentless brawl against them.
After his death in 457 A. D., Phiroz became the emperor of the Sassanian empire, but the Hephthalite king Akhshunwar thwarted him and coercive him to pay tribute.
In 484 A. D. Phiroz ventured a campaign against the Hephthalites, but was defeated and killed." 		The invasion of the Hunas followed the same geographical pattern which had been followed by the Indo-Greeks in the post-Maurya period and was to be followed by the Turks at a later date.
Like the Indo-Greeks and the Turks, the Hunas first consolidated their power in the Punjab.
After the defeat sustained at the hands of Skandagupta they had once more turned their attention towards Persia.
In 456 A.D. we find Yazdegird continuing the struggle against them.
After his death in 457 A.D., Phiroz became the master of the Sassanian empire, but the Hephthalite king Akun or Akhschounwar defeated him and compelled him to pay tribute.
In 484 A.D. Phiroz attacked the Hephthalites, but was defeated and killed. 		Article text contains basic errors in word choice ("adhered the ... pattern"), grammar ("was to be adhered to"), syntax ("we find Yazdegird II relentless brawl against them"), etc.
  • Putting aside the abjectly poor grammar and spelling mistakes (occasionally so low-quality that even the closely-paraphrased text misrepresents the source!!!!) the close paraphrasing is clear as day.
@AirshipJungleman29 While I humbly acknowledge that "The Huna Volkerwanderung" section and the "Rise of Kidara Kushans" subsection is closely paraphrased but I don't see any valid reason for removing other fair contents and also there were not many but few grammatical mistakes (as you only found three instances in the big article) which makes you to draftify it, it seems removing fair contents and drafting for scanty grammatical mistakes was too much or unnecessary, nevertheless the close paragraphing issue is concerning whether it's done massively or not so I have to rebuild this article which would consume a lot of my time. It would be helpful if you could kindly restore the non plagiarised contents. Kind regards. Jonharojjashi (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More examples
Article Goyal 1967
The Huna conquest of the Gupta Empire was facilitated by the administrative structure of the empire, particularly its feudal system, which enabled the Huna king to gain the support of local chiefs.
...One inscription, dating to Gupta era 165 (484 AD), documents constructions undertaken by Maharaja Matrivshnu and his brother Dhanyavishnu during the reign of Budhagupta.
...This engagement possibly aimed to halt Huna incursions into eastern Malwa or expel them from the region.
If the former, Toramana's conquest of eastern Malwa could be dated to 510 AD, and if the latter, sometime prior to that year. 		The conquest of the Gupta empire by the Hunas was facilitated by feudal structure of its administration. It made it easier for the Huna king to enlist the services of the local chiefs.
...the Eran inscription of G.E. 165 (=484 A.D.) records some pious construction by the Maharaja Matrivshnu and his younger brother Dhanyavishnu during the reign of Budhagupta.
...The battle was fought against the Huna invaders either to check their inroad in the eastern Malwa or to oust them from that region.
In the former case, Toramana's conquest of the eastern Malwa may be dated in 510 A.D.m and in the latter case, sometime before that year.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft_talk:Gupta–Hunnic_Wars&oldid=1234433202"