Why is the Gupta age called the Golden period?

Good sir, you must be dreaming. There's a defacto omerta among India's Eminent Historians when it comes to the Gupta Empire. The only reason they don't actively deny that it existed is because a lot of the original research had been already done by the Angrej and the early Indian ASI and it'd have been unfeasible to bury the evidence.

As such, the great scholars and the Educated classes expend no little effort in trying to wipe out the idea of a Gupta Empire - or the Empire of the Gurjara- from public sources.

It's for this reason that excavations on Classical sites has been at a virtual standstill from the one at Kaushambi in the 60s; why you only hear of digs from Harappan sites or Ancient period locations- because they can be conveniently dismissed off as “Dravidian” or “Buddhist”.

It's for this reason that not one - one- piece of Armour or pane of Glass- save the ones at Kopia found by the Germans- or even a fucking cup from the Gupta period has been found in the past 50 years. Even the coins you hear about are only “discovered” when local villagers donated massive caches they discover all the time. Compare Roman coin find patterns with Gupta ones; and you'll see just what level of skulldruggery is going on behind the scenes.

Kaushambi had eleven meter walls build over eight meters high platforms, and it wasn't even a military center. There used to nine storey buildings built for pilgrims. Keshavadeo at Mathura, built by Emperor Chandra II, would've towered half as big again as Sri Jagannath at Puri- and it predated the latter by more than five centuries. A purification system capable of handling two million liters was discovered back in the 70s. Huein Tsang saw copper statues over a hundred feet tall.

Ever read a word about the Gupta Bureaucracy? Anything about the Military organization or Police system? Yes, there was a Police system. But not according to the Eminent Historians; it was a “feudal” Empire. Even Feudal Empires require Bureaucrats. And the Gupta Bureaucracy was, even with the scarce data we have, arguably far more extensive and detailed than anything until the British Raj. But damned if anyone after Radhabinod Dutta could be half arsed to study it. BTW how long since the poor man passed away? 50 years? 60?

It's for this reason that the sheer size and scope of the Gupta Empire is routinely lowballed. Emperor Harsha’s own grandmother was a Gupta, his heirs were Guptas, and it's very likely he inherited all of Central and Eastern India save Kanyakubja and Bengal instead of conquering it. But you won't learn this from our Eminent Historians. Gupta remains have been found as south and late as 7th Century Orissa (which traditionally extends well into the modern “Deccan”) so the Empire was likely extending well into the Godavari basin, which was essentially one great forest then, but good luck finding this in public sources.

It's for this reason that you have an absurdity called the “Later Gupta”. What the hell is a Later Gupta? How about I spit on my noble Ancestors and call myself a Later Mohanty? Did Emperor Adityasena call himself Adityasena Later Gupta? And he's also a prime candidate for lowballing; described as a “king of Magadha” when its known for a fact that he was holding court at the banks of the Gomati and directing officials as west as the Sutlej basin were using Gupta titles.

People ask why Indian history, especially in the Classical period, is so patchy. Why shouldn't it be? There was one great Superstate all this time, from around the mid 3rd Century CE to the 9th Century CE, extending all over the North and reaching South as far as Kanchi at multiple points. And there's pindrop silence, and often blanket denial over its very existence.

“Golden Age”? There's no greater Dark Age in the history of the Continent, and it'll remain so given I expect this country to balkanize by 2040 and Hindus to go the way of the dodo shortly after, all the while preaching tolerance and human rights.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comments

Poster0: 

Wasn’t it Harsha’s grandmother who was a Gupta princess, sister of the Emperor Mahasena-gupta? This would explain the rise of Prabhakara-vardhana and the kingdom of Thanesar with the Gupta empire in decline.

CAT:

The Gupta Empire lasted till the early 8th Century. Emperor Harsha’s successor was clearly his nephew Emperor Adityasena while the control of Thaneswar itself passed to some Varmana guy, likely an early Rajput.

From all accounts, the Pushyabhuti, the Gurjara, Shasanka, the Varmana were all feudal Lords under the Guptas themselves- all drawing their power, military, and Bureaucracy from the Gupta Superstate. Essentially they were different dynasties trying to control the same Empire, ruling over a territory half the size of Europe.

Poster0:

I do not contest the fact that the Gupta Empire lasted much longer than most people think. You say that Harsha’s mother was a Gupta princess; in reality, his grandmother was. Yes, that’s pedantic of me.

According to epigraphical sources, Aditya-vardhana married Mahasena-gupta-devi and Prabhakara-vardhana was born to them. Prabhakara-vardhana, upon his ascension, used royal titles (Maharajidhiraja and Parambhattaraka) which no Pushyabhuti had used before. Two Gupta princes were members of his court. The imperial authority of the Guptas had weakened. Why else would all these ‘feudal lords’ fight one another?

Madhava-gupta and his brother Kumara-gupta were living in the Thanesar court. In the Harsha-charita, it is mentioned that Harsha anointed ‘Kumara’ as his successor, probably this very Kumara-gupta. But, one Adityasena, son of Madhava-Gupta, is mentioned as the sovereign of Magadha and Bengal in the inscriptions, which corresponds to what you have said.

The Varmana guy might’ve been Yashovarman.

CAT: 

Yes, you’re right. Harsha’s mother was a Malwa princess.
You’re probably referring to the Emperor Kumara IV- who’s one of the outliers in my personal theory of the Empire. There are three periods in Imperial history that are really confusing and the 10-odd years directly after Emperor Harsha’s death fall in that category. Was there a Civil War? We don’t know; Civil Wars weren’t unknown among the Guptas.
 

Poster1: 

Once a hoard of coins were found in Calcutta but the Zamindar glibly gifted them away to British as gift.

Only 20 coins are existing now.

CAT:

A massive collection of Gupta artifacts from the 5th to 7tg Centuries was found at a buried port near modern Berhampur in Orissa. Anyone who keeps track of Oriya papers knows this but there's zero mention in any public record

Poster2: 

Why weren't there any conflict between sassanids and Guptas? Romans and sassanids used to be at each other's throats all the time.

Would it be correct to say that guptas had the strongest military on the planet at their peak?

CAT:

We don’t know.

Thing is- there are no Sassanid texts for the same reason we don;t have many Gupta-era Texts. Peacefuls.

I’m aware of one- but they’re not Sassanid texts; they’re Indian texts- Parsi priests translated the thing from Sanskrit translations of the original done by gods-know-who, probably some brahmin legalist at the University at Valabhi. The only ‘Persian’ Sassanid text is the Book of a Thousand Judgements, which is the equivalent of trying to reconstruct Oriya literature from a single battered copy of Saraswati Vilasa.

It’s possible that the Guptas and Sassanids did clash- but there are no records. As such, there’s a very clear border between the two Empires- the arid regions of Baluchistan and Sakastan across which projecting power is difficult. It;s for this reason I don;t buy accounts of Achaemenids ruling Punjab. It’s absurd.

Depends on the context. Assembled at one point, the Gupta Military under Emperor Skanda would’ve easily been the single largest force in the World. But I doubt they ever assembled more than 140,000 at any point- that’d been the equivalent of the armed might of 5–6 provinces.