This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
"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.
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.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm going to have to quickfail this, unfortunately, as the copyright and close paraphrasing problems outlined on the talk page clearly immediately fail this article under criterion for quick fail #2 of containing copyright violations. Please address these issues and rewrite this content in your own words rather than closely paraphrasing.
This article did not receive a thorough review, and may not meet other parts of the good article criteria. I encourage you to remedy this problem (and any others) and resubmit it for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment. Thank you for your work so far. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
this, unfortunately, as the copyright and close paraphrasing problems outlined on the talk page clearly immediately fail this article under criterion for quick fail #2 of containing copyright violations. Please address these issues and rewrite this content in your own words rather than closely paraphrasing.
