Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "चन्द्रगुप्त मौर्य" in Hindi language version.
It is however known that Chandragupta was also called प्रियदर्शन, the record (palaeographically assigned to the first half of the 3rd cent B.C.) may therefore belong to Chandragupta Maurya.
Arrian has pointed out, each chariot carried two soldiers, besides the driver, and an elephant carried three archers, besides the Mahout, then the total number of men in Chandragupta’s army would be 6,00,000 infantry, 30,000 horse-men, 36,000 men with the elephants, and 24,000 men with the chariots, totalling 6,90,000 in all, excluding followers and attendants.
The Maurya raised the number of the infantry to 600,000, and of the elephants to 9,000. But his cavalry is said to have mustered only 30,000..... Each chariot required at least three, and that each elephant carried at least four men, his total force must have amounted to not less than 690,000, or in round numbers 700,000 men.
In ancient India there was a highly organised system of military administration. The state maintained a powerful standing army, and it was well looked after. Chandra Gupta Maurya had a huge force consisting of six lakhs infantary, 30,000 cavalry, 9,000 elephants, and 8,000 chariots. The total strength of his army was 6,90,000 men, excluding camp followers and attendants.
The Mauryan war-machine was therefore perfected in every respect. The military might consisted of troops of different kinds, namely hereditary or feudatory troops, hired troops, gild levies, and forest tribes. They were fully and efficiently equipped. The regular military establishment consisted of 600,000 infantry, 30,000 horsemen, 36,000 men with 9,000 elephants, and 24,000 men with nearly 8,000 chariots. Thus there were 6,90,000 fighting men in addition to followers and attendants.
His totem name, Maurya, suggests that he belonged to a peacock totem in a tribe, thus making him free-born.
Three different accounts of Candragupta, free of legendary and miraculous details, have been deciphered, one from the Rajavamsapustaka, another from the redactation of the Suvarnnapuravamsa, and the third longest being a chapter of the Paramparapustaka. The three accounts are in agreement with each other on many of the basic facts of Candragupta's origin and career, but they also contain wide divergences from one another with regard to important details.
If the Jaina tradition is to be believed, Chandragupta was converted to the religion of Mahavira. He is said to have abdicated his throne and passed his last days at Sravana Belgola in Mysore. Greek evidence, however, suggests that the first Maurya did not give up the performance of sacrificial rites and was far from following the Jaina creed of Ahimsa or non-injury to animals. He took delight in hunting, a practice that was continued by his son and alluded to by his grandson in his eighth Rock Edict. It is, however, possible that in his last days he showed some predilection for Jainism ...
the beginning of the Maurya dynasty comes to 1534 B. C. and that of the Gupta period to 327 B. C.
Maurya Chandragupta flourished in B. C. 1534 .
Chandragupta Maurya who lived in 1534 B. C. , is brought down to 323 B.C.
Chandragupta Maurya belonged to 1534 B.C.
The Sohgaura inscription has been com- mented on by numerous scholars, who have variously assigned it a pre-Asho- kan or post-Maurya date, the majority opinion currently favouring the latter. K. P. Jayaswal interpreted the crescent on the top as an emblem of the Maurya king Chandragupta and connected the contents of the inscription with the Jaim legend of a great famine during the reig of this king . Many years later, in 1931, Baru Faqir, a resident of Mahasthangarh village in Bagura district of Bangladesh ....The Mahasthan inscription appears to re- cord an order issued by a ruler to the mahamatra stationed at Pundranagara (the site of which is represented by Mahast- hangarh village), in order to relieve the distress caused on account of famine to some people known as the Samvamgiyas, who apparently lived in and around this town.
Alex.62.9 Androcottus, when he was a stripling, saw Alexander himself, and we are told that he often said in later times that Alexander narrowly missed making himself master of the country, since its king was hated and despised on account of his baseness and low birth.
