title: Phaedo

text: Consequently, as absolute beauty is a "Form," and so is Life, then anything which has the property of being animated with Life, participates in the Form of Life. As an example he says, "will not the number three endure annihilation or anything sooner than be converted into an even number, while remaining three?". Forms, then, will never become their opposite. As the soul is that which renders the body living, and that the opposite of life is death, it so follows that, "... the soul will never admit the opposite of what she always brings." That which does not admit death is said to be immortal.


title: Phaedo

text: Socrates thus concludes, "Then, Cebes, beyond question, the soul is immortal and imperishable, and our souls will truly exist in another world. "Once dead, man's soul will go to Hades and be in the company of," as Socrates says, "... men departed, better than those whom I leave behind." For he will dwell amongst those who were true philosophers, like himself.


title: Phaedo

text: The "Phaedo" presents a real challenge to commentators through the way that Plato oscillates between different conceptions of the soul.


title: Phaedo

text: In the cyclical and Form-of-life arguments, for instance, the soul is presented as something connected with life, where, in particular in the final argument, this connection is spelled out concretely by means of the soul's conceptual connection with life. This connection is further developed in the "Phaedrus" and "Laws" where the definition of soul is given as self-motion. Rocks, for instance, do not move unless something else moves them; inanimate, unliving objects are always said to behave this way. In contrast, living things are capable of moving themselves. Plato uses this observation to illustrate his famous doctrine that the soul is a self-mover: life is self-motion, and the soul brings life to a body by moving it.


title: Phaedo

text: Meanwhile, in the recollection and affinity arguments, the connection with life is not explicated or used at all. These two arguments present the soul as a knower (i.e., a mind). This is most clear in the affinity argument, where the soul is said to be immortal in virtue of its affinity with the Forms that we observe in acts of cognition.


title: Phaedo

text: It is not at all clear how these two roles of the soul are related to each other. But we observe this casual oscillation nevertheless throughout the dialogue and indeed throughout the whole corpus. For instance, consider this passage from "Republic" I:Is there any function of the soul that you could not accomplish with anything else, such as taking care of something ("epimeleisthai"), ruling, and deliberating, and other such things? Could we correctly assign these things to anything besides the soul, and say that they are characteristic ("idia") of it?


title: Phaedo

text: That absolutely is.Throughout the 20th century, scholars universally recognized this as a flaw in Plato's theory of the soul, with this trend continuing and then ultimately being rejected in the 21st century.


title: Phaedo

text: Plato's "Phaedo" had a significant readership throughout antiquity, and was commented on by a number of ancient philosophers, such as Harpocration of Argos, Porphyry, Iamblichus, Paterius, Plutarch of Athens, Syrianus and Proclus. The two most important commentaries on the dialogue that have come down to us from the ancient world are those by Olympiodorus of Alexandria and Damascius of Athens.


title: Phaedo

text: The "Phaedo" has come to be considered a seminal formulation, from which "a whole range of dualities, which have become deeply ingrained in Western philosophy, theology, and psychology over two millennia, received their classic formulation: soul and body, mind and matter, intellect and sense, reason and emotion, reality and appearance, unity and plurality, perfection and imperfection, immortal and mortal, permanence and change, eternal and temporal, divine and human, heaven and earth."


title: 2020 FIA Formula 3 Championship

text: The 2020 FIA Formula 3 Championship was the eleventh season of the third-tier of Formula One feeder championship and also second season under the moniker of FIA Formula 3 Championship, a multi-event motor racing championship for single-seat open-wheel formula racing cars. The championship featured drivers competing in 3.4-litre Formula 3 racing cars which conformed to the technical regulations, or formula, of the championship. It ran in support of the Formula 1 World Championship and its sister series, Formula 2, serving as the third tier of formula racing in the FIA Global Pathway.


title: 2020 FIA Formula 3 Championship

text: Oscar Piastri won the title at the Mugello round, which is the final round of the season. Prema Racing became the Teams' Champion for the second season in the row having won the title at the Monza round.


title: 2020 FIA Formula 3 Championship

text: The following teams and drivers were under contract to compete in the 2020 championship. As the championship was a spec series, all teams competed with an identical Dallara F3 2019 chassis and a bespoke tyre compound developed by Pirelli. Each car was powered by a naturally-aspirated V6 engine developed by Mecachrome.


title: 2020 FIA Formula 3 Championship

text: Marcus Armstrong, Jehan Daruvala and reigning champion Robert Shwartzman all left Prema Racing and the championship to graduate to Formula 2. Logan Sargeant switched from Carlin Buzz Racing to join Prema alongside reigning Formula Regional European and Formula Renault Eurocup champions Frederik Vesti and Renault-backed Oscar Piastri.


title: 2020 FIA Formula 3 Championship

text: Leonardo Pulcini, Jüri Vips and Ye Yifei all left Hitech Grand Prix, with Pulcini and Vips moving to the International GT Open and Super Formula series respectively. Hitech hired Red Bull junior drivers Liam Lawson, who switched from MP Motorsport, and reigning Italian F4 champion Dennis Hauger. They were joined by Renault junior Max Fewtrell, who left ART Grand Prix.


title: 2020 FIA Formula 3 Championship

text: ART Grand Prix fielded an all-new lineup as David Beckmann left for Trident and Christian Lundgaard graduated to the team's Formula 2 outfit. The seats were taken by reigning ADAC Formula 4 champion Théo Pourchaire, Formula Renault Eurocup graduate Aleksandr Smolyar, and Sebastián Fernández, who moved from Campos Racing.


title: 2020 FIA Formula 3 Championship

text: Trident Racing initially retained Devlin DeFrancesco for 2020 but he was replaced with David Beckmann shortly before the championship began. Niko Kari left the team for Charouz Racing System and Pedro Piquet graduated to Formula 2. Their seats were taken by Lirim Zendeli, who joined the team from Charouz, and Formula Regional European graduate Olli Caldwell.


title: 2020 FIA Formula 3 Championship

text: HWA Racelab retained Jake Hughes while Bent Viscaal and Keyvan Andres left the team, with Viscaal switching to MP Motorsport. Formula Regional European runner-up and Ferrari Driver Academy member Enzo Fittipaldi joined the team, as did Asian F3 runner-up and Red Bull junior Jack Doohan.


title: 2020 FIA Formula 3 Championship

text: MP Motorsport retained Richard Verschoor and signed Euroformula Open graduate Lukas Dunner alongside Bent Viscaal. Simo Laaksonen left the team.


title: 2020 FIA Formula 3 Championship

text: Yuki Tsunoda and Andreas Estner left Jenzer Motorsport, with Tsunoda graduating to Formula 2. They were replaced by Euroformula Open driver Calan Williams and reigning Formula 4 UAE champion Matteo Nannini. Federico Malvestiti, who raced for Jenzer at the fourth round of the 2019 season as a replacement driver, joined the team full-time.


title: 2020 FIA Formula 3 Championship

text: Raoul Hyman and Fabio Scherer left Charouz Racing System, with Scherer joining the DTM series. They were replaced by reigning Toyota Racing Series champion Igor Fraga and Formula Regional European graduate David Schumacher. Despite initially hiring Niko Kari for 2020, Charouz Racing System replaced him with Formula 4 graduate Roman Staněk shortly before the season opener.


title: 2020 FIA Formula 3 Championship

text: Felipe Drugovich and Teppei Natori left Carlin Buzz Racing to compete in Formula 2 and Super Formula Lights respectively. Their seats were filled by Euroformula Open graduate Cameron Das and BRDC British Formula 3 champions Enaam Ahmed and Clément Novalak.


title: 2020 FIA Formula 3 Championship

text: Alex Peroni and Alessio Deledda were retained by Campos Racing. Sebastián Fernández was replaced with Formula Regional European graduate Sophia Flörsch.


title: 2020 FIA Formula 3 Championship

text: The first mid-season change came for the fourth round at Silverstone, when Enaam Ahmed left Carlin Buzz Racing. He was replaced by McLaren Automotive sportscar driver Ben Barnicoat. Barnicoat was recalled by McLaren before the sixth round in Barcelona and former Hitech Grand Prix driver Leonardo Pulcini stood in for him.


title: 2020 FIA Formula 3 Championship

text: The seventh round at Spa-Francorchamps featured multiple driver changes. David Schumacher departed from Charouz Racing System and announced he would join Carlin for the remainder of the season, thereby replacing Pulcini. Schumacher's seat at Charouz was taken by Formula Renault Eurocup driver Michael Belov. Campos driver Sophia Flörsch missed the round due to commitments in the European Le Mans Series. Former Jenzer driver Andreas Estner deputised in her place. Hitech Grand Prix parted ways with Max Fewtrell and his seat was taken by Formula Regional European driver Pierre-Louis Chovet.


title: 2020 FIA Formula 3 Championship

text: Chovet returned to the Formula Regional European Championship before the season finale at Mugello. Igor Fraga left Charouz to fill Chovet's seat at Hitech, however Charouz refused to authorise the move. Hitech claimed that Charouz had initially agreed to release Fraga before reversing their decision. This left Fraga without a seat at all and both teams competed at Mugello without a third driver.


title: 2020 FIA Formula 3 Championship

text: The following nine rounds were scheduled to take place as part of the 2020 championship. The series was to hold its opening round at the Bahrain International Circuit for the first time, and the Circuit Paul Ricard round was to be replaced by a round at Circuit Zandvoort. However, the championship was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, which saw several rounds postponed. A revised calendar was published in June 2020, which included two events at the Red Bull Ring and two at the Silverstone Circuit.


title: 2020 FIA Formula 3 Championship

text: The championship changed the grid and point systems for the second race of each weekend. The top ten finishers in the first race all scored points and had their places reversed for the grid of the second race.


title: 2020 FIA Formula 3 Championship

text: At the first round at the Red Bull Ring, ART's Sebastián Fernández took pole position. In race 1, Fernández and Prema's Oscar Piastri collided at the first turn, forcing Fernández into retirement. Piastri went on to win the race on his FIA Formula 3 debut, with Logan Sargeant and Alex Peroni completing the top three. Carlin's Clément Novalak finished 10th and thus started race 2 from pole position. Hitech's Liam Lawson came from fifth on the grid to claim his maiden FIA F3 victory ahead of Richard Verschoor. Novalak took Carlin's first FIA F3 podium with third place. The first round ended with Piastri leading the championship by seven points.


title: 2020 FIA Formula 3 Championship

text: Prema's Frederik Vesti took pole position at the next Red Bull Ring round on the following weekend. The race was affected by heavy rain and was interrupted by safety car periods due to multiple incidents, before eventually being red-flagged on lap 15 of 24. As a result, only half-points were awarded. Vesti took the race victory followed by the Trident pair of Lirim Zendeli and David Beckmann. Near the end of race 2, Liam Lawson and reverse-grid pole-sitter Jake Hughes collided whilst battling for the lead, forcing both into retirement and allowing ART's Théo Pourchaire to claim his first FIA F3 victory. He was followed by Logan Sargeant in second and Beckmann in third. Oscar Piastri maintained his championship lead by 6.5 points.


title: 2020 FIA Formula 3 Championship

text: Qualifying at the Hungaroring was stopped and then postponed due to heavy rain, with ART's Aleksandr Smolyar taking pole position when the session was restarted. Smolyar was eliminated from race 1 after he and Logan Sargeant collided at the first corner. At the same time, a multi-car collision further back eliminated Frederik Vesti and Calan Williams. Théo Pourchaire took the lead of the race, which was soon red-flagged for over 20 minutes when Liam Lawson's car spilt oil on the track. Pourchaire maintained the lead of the race and took his second consecutive victory, with Oscar Piastri in second and Sargeant in third. Sargeant was later penalised for an illegal overtake, promoting Bent Viscaal to the podium. David Beckmann began race 2 from pole position but was soon passed by Dennis Hauger, who led the majority of the race. Viscaal, who started in eighth place, made his way up to the lead but collected two five-second time penalties along the way for causing a collision with Igor Fraga and an illegal overtake on Sargeant. Viscaal had opened up a lead of six seconds before Federico Malvestiti crashed with two laps remaining, bringing out the safety car. The race ended under safety car conditions and Viscaal's penalties demoted him to 17th place. Beckmann was awarded the victory, followed by Piastri in second and Hauger in third. Piastri's championship lead had now extended to 26 points.


title: 2020 FIA Formula 3 Championship

text: Logan Sargeant took his maiden pole for the first round at Silverstone, but could only convert it into a third-place finish in race 1 after being overtaken by Liam Lawson and Oscar Piastri early in the race. The race ended under the safety car after a collision between Olli Caldwell, Lukas Dunner and Max Fewtrell. Lawson broke his series of three non-finishes with the win ahead of Piastri and Sargeant. In race 2, Aleksandr Smolyar led for the entire race distance and claimed victory on the road, but was handed a five-second penalty post-race for illegal defending, demoting him to sixth. As a result, David Beckmann inherited his second sprint race win in succession, with Clément Novalak and Alex Peroni rounding out the podium. Piastri retired from race 2 with a stuck-open DRS, but retained the championship lead by 17 points over Sargeant.


title: 2020 FIA Formula 3 Championship

text: Sargeant again took pole position at the second Silverstone round and converted it into his maiden FIA F3 victory in race 1, followed by Jake Hughes and Liam Lawson. With Oscar Piastri finishing seventh, Sargeant took the lead of the championship by six points. Carlin replacement driver Ben Barnicoat started race 2 on pole position after teammate Clément Novalak received a penalty, but Barnicoat went on to retire with mechanical issues. Lirim Zendeli took the lead at the race start and was closely followed by Bent Viscaal until the final lap. The two drivers fought for position before Viscaal passed Zendeli at the final corner, taking his maiden FIA F3 victory by a margin of 0.189 seconds. Théo Pourchaire completed the podium. Sargeant was eliminated from the race after a collision with Cameron Das, but kept the lead of the championship by one point as title rival Piastri finished sixth.


title: 2020 FIA Formula 3 Championship

text: Sargeant took his third consecutive pole position at the next round at the Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya, but dropped back to third place in race 1 behind eventual winner Jake Hughes and Liam Lawson. Jenzer driver Matteo Nannini started race 2 from pole position, but fifth-placed Oscar Piastri had the best start and took the lead of the race before the end of the first lap. Piastri maintained his lead to take his second victory of the season, with Alex Peroni in second and Nannini third with his maiden FIA F3 podium finish. Sargeant finished fifth and held on to first place in the championship by one point.


title: 2020 FIA Formula 3 Championship

text: Lirim Zendeli took his first FIA F3 pole position at Spa-Francorchamps and led the entirety of race 1 to claim his maiden victory. He was followed by Théo Pourchaire in second and Trident teammate David Beckmann in third. Title contender Piastri finished fifth, whilst Sargeant suffered engine trouble and eventually finished eighth, allowing Piastri to take the lead of the championship by five points. MP Motorsport's Richard Verschoor started race 2 from pole position, but dropped back to eventually finish seventh. Sargeant took the lead of the race early on and held off teammate Frederik Vesti to take his second victory of the season, with Liam Lawson in third place. Piastri crossed the line fifth but was penalised for an illegal overtake and demoted to sixth. Sargeant reclaimed the championship lead by seven points.


title: 2020 FIA Formula 3 Championship

text: A turbulent qualifying session at Monza ended with Théo Pourchaire fastest, but he and eight other drivers were handed grid penalties for driving unnecessarily slowly, promoting Liam Lawson from fourth to pole position. Pourchaire soon took the lead in race 1 and led until Frederik Vesti, who started ninth, took the lead with two laps to go and claimed his second victory of the season. Pourchaire finished second and Piastri finished third after starting the race in 15th place. This allowed Piastri to reclaim the lead of the championship by eight points; Sargeant failed to score after being pitched into a spin by Clément Novalak and finishing near the back. The teams' championship was decided after race 1 when Prema built an unassailable points lead with three races remaining. In race 2, Lirim Zendeli took the lead at the start from pole-sitter Michael Belov. Zendeli fought for the lead with Enzo Fittipaldi before the two collided, causing Fittipaldi to drop to the back with a puncture. The lead of the race soon passed to Liam Lawson and then Jake Hughes. On lap 10 of 22, fourth-placed Piastri was tapped by Novalak, causing a multi-car accident and forcing both drivers as well as David Schumacher into retirement. No Prema driver would finish the race after Sargeant and Vesti made contact and retired with three laps to go. Hughes won the race followed by Lawson and Pourchaire. A number of drivers were issued penalties post-race, including Lawson for forcing Zendeli off-track, which promoted Aleksandr Smolyar to his first FIA F3 podium. Piastri and Sargeant were both issued with grid penalties for the final round.


title: 2020 FIA Formula 3 Championship

text: Piastri entered the final round at Mugello with an eight-point lead over Sargeant in the standings. Lirim Zendeli took pole position and he, Jake Hughes and Frederik Vesti fought for the lead for the major part of race 1. Vesti came out on top, followed by Hughes with Théo Pourchaire coming from seventh to finish third. Piastri failed to score points after starting 16th and Sargeant finished sixth to leave both drivers tied on 160 points going into the final race, with Pourchaire the only other driver in mathematical contention for the title nine points behind. Liam Lawson started race 2 on pole position, with Sargeant, Pourchaire and Piastri starting fifth, eighth and 11th respectively. Sargeant was forced into retirement on the first lap after a collision with Lirim Zendeli, eliminating him from title contention. Pourchaire made multiple overtakes to eventually finish third behind winner Lawson and David Beckmann, however this was only enough to take second place in the championship as Piastri finished seventh to claim the title.


title: 2020 FIA Formula 3 Championship

text: Points were awarded to the top ten classified finishers in both races, but with fewer points available during race 2. The pole-sitter in race 1 also received four points, and two points were given to the driver who set the fastest lap inside the top ten in both races. No extra points were awarded to the pole-sitter in race 2 as the grid for race 2 was based on the results of race 1, with the top ten drivers having their positions reversed.


title: John Mara

text: Mara was born in New York City and grew up in White Plains, a nearby suburb. He is the eldest son of Ann Mara (née Mumm) and late Giants owner Wellington Mara. Mara graduated from Iona Prep High School in New Rochelle, graduated from Boston College in 1976 with a Bachelor of Science in marketing, graduating with Cum Laude honors. Mara earned his Juris Doctor degree from Fordham University School of Law in 1979. He specialized in labor and employment law and litigation at two Manhattan firms prior to joining the Giants.


title: John Mara

text: Mara joined the Giants in 1991, serving as General Counsel and later as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer until his father's death in 2005, when he assumed the team's presidency. Mara and Tisch were at the forefront of the planning and negotiations for MetLife Stadium, which opened in 2010.


title: John Mara

text: Despite winning two Super Bowls during his tenure as owner, Mara was criticized in the late 2010s and early 2020s for being too loyal to longtime Giants employees.


title: John Mara

text: In September 2021, he was booed by fans while speaking at Eli Manning's number retirement and Ring of Honor ceremony, and didn't address the crowd that November when the team retired Michael Strahan's number.


title: John Mara

text: Mara was also criticized for keeping Dave Gettleman throughout his four-year tenure, and instead allowing Gettleman to retire at the end of the 2021 season.


title: John Mara

text: Mara has served for 15 years on the NFL Competition Committee, which suggests rule and policy changes to all NFL teams. He is the current chairman of the NFL Management Council Executive Committee. He played an important role in the negotiations for the 2011 and 2020 collective bargaining agreements. Mara, alongside Steve Tisch and Woody Johnson, brought Super Bowl XLVIII to MetLife Stadium in February 2014.


title: John Mara

text: Mara is the third generation of his family to own the Giants. His grandfather, Tim, founded the team in 1925. Tim's sons, Wellington and Jack (John's uncle), inherited the team in 1959, when Tim died. Among NFL franchises, only the Chicago Bears (controlled by the Halas-McCaskey family since 1921) have been in the hands of one family longer than the Giants.


title: John Mara

text: He and his wife, Denise W. Mara, have one son, John Jr., and four daughters, Lauren, Courtney, Christine, and Erin.


title: John Mara

text: Mara serves on the Board of Directors of Saint Vincent's Hospital in Harrison, New York and Boys Hope Girls Hope of New York.


title: Irish Rebellion of 1641

text: The Irish Rebellion of 1641 () was an uprising by Irish Catholics in the Kingdom of Ireland, who wanted an end to anti-Catholic discrimination, greater Irish self-governance, and to partially or fully reverse the plantations of Ireland. They also wanted to prevent a possible invasion or takeover by anti-Catholic English Parliamentarians and Scottish Covenanters, who were defying the king, Charles I. It began as an attempted "coup d'état" by Catholic gentry and military officers, who tried to seize control of the English administration in Ireland. However, it developed into a widespread rebellion and ethnic conflict with English and Scottish Protestant settlers, leading to Scottish military intervention. The rebels eventually founded the Irish Catholic Confederacy.


title: Irish Rebellion of 1641

text: Led by Felim O'Neill, the rebellion began on 23 October and although they failed to seize Dublin Castle, within days the rebels occupied most of the northern province of Ulster. O'Neill issued the Proclamation of Dungannon which claimed he had support from Charles to secure Ireland against his opponents. Although the document was a forgery, it encouraged many Anglo-Irish Catholics to join the uprising and soon most of Ireland was in rebellion. In November, rebels besieged Drogheda and defeated an English relief force at Julianstown. In its initial stages, especially in Ulster, the rebellion led to the death or eviction of thousands of Protestant settlers who responded in kind. Events such as the Portadown massacre outraged public opinion in England and Scotland and had a lasting impact on the Ulster Protestant community.


title: Irish Rebellion of 1641

text: While both Charles and Parliament sought to quell the rebellion, neither side trusted the other with control of any army raised to do so, one of the issues that led to the First English Civil War in August 1642. The first English troops arrived in Dublin in December and recaptured much of the Pale and the area around Cork. In March 1642, Charles approved the Adventurers' Act, under which Parliament raised loans to fund further military intervention which would be repaid by confiscating rebel lands. In April, a Covenanter army landed in Ulster to protect their Presbyterian co-religionists and swiftly captured most of the eastern area of the province, while a local Protestant militia known as the Laggan Army held the northwest. Most of the rest of Ireland was under rebel control.


title: Irish Rebellion of 1641

text: In May 1642, Ireland's Catholic bishops met at Kilkenny, declared the rebellion to be a just war and took steps to control it. With representatives of the Catholic nobility in attendance, they agreed to set up an alternative government known as the Irish Catholic Confederacy and drew up the Confederate Oath of Association. The rebels, now known as Confederates, held most of Ireland against the Protestant Royalists, Scottish Covenanters and English Parliamentarians. The rebellion was thus the first stage of the Irish Confederate Wars and part of the wider Wars of the Three Kingdoms, which would last for the next ten years.


title: Irish Rebellion of 1641

text: The roots of the 1641 rebellion derived from the colonisation that followed the Tudor conquest of Ireland, and the alienation of the Catholic gentry from the newly-Protestant English state in the decades following. Historian Aidan Clarke writes that religion "was merely one aspect of a larger problem posed by the Gaelic Irish, and its importance was easily obscured; but religious difference was central to the relationship between the government and the colonists". During the decades between the end of the Elizabethan wars in 1603 and the outbreak of rebellion in 1641, the political position of the wealthier landed Irish Catholics was increasingly threatened by the English government of Ireland. As a result, both the Gaelic Irish, and the Old English communities increasingly defined themselves as Irish and were viewed as such by the newcomers.


title: Irish Rebellion of 1641

text: The pre-Elizabethan population of Ireland is usually divided into the native Irish and Old English, many of whom were descendants of medieval English and Anglo-Normans settlers. These groups were historically antagonistic, with English settled areas such as the Pale around Dublin, Wexford, and other walled towns being fortified against the rural Gaelic clans. By the 17th century, the cultural divide between these groups, especially at elite social levels, was narrowing; many of the Old English spoke Irish, patronised Irish poetry and music, and have been described as being "More Irish than the Irish themselves". Writing in 1614, one author claimed that previously the Old English "despised the mere Irish, accounting them a barbarous people, void of civility and religion and [each viewed] the other as a hereditary enemy" but cited intermarriage "in former ages rarely seen", education of the Gaelic Irish and "the late plantation of New English and Scottish [throughout] the Kingdom whom the natives repute a common enemy; but this last is the principal cause of their union". In addition, the native population became defined by their shared Catholicism, as opposed to the Protestantism of the new settlers.


title: Irish Rebellion of 1641

text: The Tudor conquest of the late 16th and early 17th century led to the Plantations of Ireland, whereby Irish-owned land was confiscated and colonised with British settlers. The biggest was the Plantation of Ulster, which utilised estates confiscated from the northern lords who went into exile in 1607. Around 80% of these were distributed to English-speaking Protestants, with the remainder going to "deserving" native Irish lords and clans. By 1641, the economic impact of the plantations on the native Irish population was exacerbated because many who retained their estates had to sell them due to poor management and the debts they incurred. This erosion of their status and influence saw them prepared to join a rebellion, even if they risked losing more.


title: Irish Rebellion of 1641

text: Many of the exiles, such as Eoghan Ruadh Ó Néill, served in the Catholic armies of France and Spain, particularly the Army of Flanders. They formed a small émigré Irish community, militantly hostile to the English-run Protestant state in Ireland, but restrained by the generally good relations England had with Spain and France after 1604. In Ireland itself, resentment caused by the plantations was one of the main causes for the outbreak and spread of the rebellion, combined with Poynings' Law, which required Irish legislation to be approved by the Privy Council of England. The Protestant-dominated administration took opportunities to confiscate more land from longstanding Catholic landowners. In the late 1630s Thomas Wentworth, the Lord Deputy of Ireland, proposed a new round of plantations designed to expand Protestant cultural and religious dominance. Delays in their implementation caused by Charles' struggles with his political opponents in England and Scotland meant that Catholics still owned over 60% of land in 1641.


title: Irish Rebellion of 1641

text: Most of the Irish Catholic upper classes were not opposed to the sovereignty of Charles I over Ireland but wanted to be full subjects and maintain their pre-eminent position in Irish society. This was prevented by their religion and the threat of losing their land in the Plantations. The failed Gunpowder Plot of 1605 had led to further discrimination against, and mistrust of, Catholics.


title: Irish Rebellion of 1641

text: The Protestant Church of Ireland was the only approved form of worship, although it was a minority even among Irish Protestants, many of whom were Presbyterians. Both they and the majority Catholic population were required to pay tithes to the church, causing great resentment, while practicing Catholicism in public could lead to arrest, and non-attendance at Protestant service was punishable by recusant fines. Catholics could not hold senior offices of state, or serve above a certain rank in the army. The Privy Council of Ireland was dominated by English Protestants. The constituencies of the Irish House of Commons gave Protestants a majority.


title: Irish Rebellion of 1641

text: In response, the Irish Catholic upper classes sought 'The Graces', and appealed directly first to James I and then his son Charles, for full rights as subjects and toleration of their religion. On several occasions, they seemed to have reached an agreement under which these demands would be met in return for raising taxes. However, despite paying increased taxes after 1630, Charles postponed implementing their demands until 3 May 1641 when he and the English Privy Council instructed the Lords Justices of Ireland to publish the required Bills.


title: Irish Rebellion of 1641

text: The advancement of the Graces were particularly frustrated during the time that Wentworth was Lord Deputy. On the pretext of checking of land titles to raise revenue, Wentworth confiscated and was going to plant lands in counties Roscommon and Sligo and was planning further plantations in counties Galway and Kilkenny directed mainly at the Anglo-Irish Catholic families. In the judgement of historian Pádraig Lenihan, "It is likely that he [Wentworth] would have eventually encountered armed resistance from Catholic landowners" if he had pursued these policies further. However, the actual rebellion followed the destabilisation of English and Scottish politics and the weakened position of the king in 1640. Wentworth was executed in London in May 1641.


title: Irish Rebellion of 1641

text: From 1638 to 1640 Scotland rose in a revolt known as the Bishops' Wars against Charles I's attempt to impose Church of England practices there, believing them to be too close to Catholicism. The King's attempts to put down the rebellion failed when the English Long Parliament, which had similar religious concerns to the Scots, refused to vote for new taxes to pay for raising an army. Charles therefore started negotiations with Irish Catholic gentry to recruit an Irish army to put down the rebellion in Scotland, in return for granting longstanding requests for religious toleration and land security. Composed largely of Irish Catholics from Ulster, an army was slowly mobilised at Carrickfergus opposite the Scottish coast, but then began to be disbanded in mid-1641. To the Scots and Parliament of England, this seemed to confirm that Charles was a tyrant, who wanted to impose his religious views on his kingdoms, and to govern again without his parliaments as he had done in 1628–1640. In early 1641, some Scots and English Parliamentarians even proposed invading Ireland and subduing Catholics there, to ensure that no royalist Irish Catholic army would land in England or Scotland.


title: Irish Rebellion of 1641

text: Frightened by this, and wanting to seize the opportunity, a small group of Irish Catholic landed gentry (some of whom were Members of Parliament) plotted to take Dublin Castle and other important towns and forts around the country in a quick "coup" in the name of the King, both to forestall a possible invasion and to force him to concede the Catholics' demands. At least three Irish colonels were also involved in the plot, and the plotters hoped to use soldiers from the disbanding Irish army.


title: Irish Rebellion of 1641

text: Unfavourable economic conditions also contributed to the outbreak of the rebellion. This decline may have been a consequence of the Little Ice Age event of the mid 17th Century. The Irish economy had hit a recession and the harvest of 1641 was poor. Interest rates in the 1630s had been as high as 30% per annum. The leaders of the rebellion like Phelim O'Neill and Rory O'Moore were heavily in debt and risked losing their lands to creditors. What was more, the Irish peasantry were hard hit by the bad harvest and were faced with rising rents. This aggravated their desire to remove the settlers and contributed to the widespread attacks on them at the start of the rebellion. A creditor of O'Neill's, "Mr Fullerton of Loughal... was one of the first to be murdered in the rebellion".


title: Irish Rebellion of 1641

text: The rebellion was planned by a small group of Catholic landed gentry and military officers, many of whom were Gaelic Irish from Ulster who had lost lands and influence in the post 1607 Plantation. Due to take place on Saturday 23 October 1641, armed men led by Connor Maguire and Rory O'Moore were to seize Dublin Castle and its arsenal, then hold it until help came from insurgents in neighbouring County Wicklow. Meanwhile, Felim O'Neill and his allies were to occupy strategic points in Ulster.


title: Irish Rebellion of 1641

text: The English garrison of Ireland was only about 2,000 strong and scattered around the country, but the plot relied on surprise rather than force to achieve their objectives, after which they would issue their demands, in expectation of support from the rest of the country. The plan to seize Dublin Castle was foiled when one of the ringleaders, Hugh Og MacMahon, revealed details to his foster-brother, a Protestant convert named Owen O'Connolly. He promptly informed one of the Lord Justices, and MacMahon and Maguire were arrested, while the remaining plotters slipped out of Dublin.


title: Irish Rebellion of 1641

text: Despite this failure, the rebellion in Ulster went ahead and Felim O'Neill and his allies quickly captured positions throughout the province, including Dungannon, Charlemont Fort, Newry, Tandragee, Portadown, Mountjoy Castle, Castleblaney and Carrickmacross. Those that did not surrender were besieged and within two days the insurgents held most of counties Armagh, Tyrone, Fermanagh and Monaghan. The Proclamation of Dungannon, issued by O'Neill on 24 October, stated they had taken up arms only to defend their freedoms and meant no harm to the king's subjects. This was followed on 4 November by the Newry declaration which claimed Charles had approved the rising to secure Ireland against his opponents in England.


title: Irish Rebellion of 1641

text: Although the declaration is now accepted as a forgery, many of the Anglo-Catholic gentry were dismayed by indiscriminate anti-Catholic measures taken by the Dublin authorities, including those who had initially condemned the rebellion. The suspension of the Irish Parliament on 17 November deprived them of the political means to resolve these issues and the declaration provided cover for moderates such as Nicholas Plunkett to make common cause with the rebels. Rumours also circulated that radical Protestants were seeking to replace Charles I with his exiled German nephew the Elector Palatine, paving the way for increased repression of Irish Catholics.


title: Irish Rebellion of 1641

text: The influential Lords of the Pale joined the rising in early December, while rebels in Cavan were led by Philip O'Reilly, the local Member of Parliament, and Mulmore O'Reilly, the High Sheriff. Dundalk was occupied, while an army under Brian McMahon moved south from Ulster towards Dublin and on 21 November besieged Drogheda from the north. Others advanced through County Meath and blockaded the town from the south, then defeated a relief force sent from Dublin at Julianstown on 29 November, inflicting over 600 casualties. On 28 November, around 8,000 rebels besieged Lisnagarvey but after losing some 300 men in an unsuccessful assault, they set fire to the town and retreated. This setback and the stubbornness displayed by the town's defenders allegedly made a deep impression on the attackers, since it showed hopes of a quick and relatively painless victory in Ulster were over optimistic.


title: Irish Rebellion of 1641

text: Further south, the rebellion spread into counties Leitrim, Longford, Wicklow, Wexford, Tipperary and Kildare. The Dublin government called it "a most disloyal and detestable conspiracy" by "some evil affected Irish Papists", which was aimed at "a general massacre of all English and Protestant inhabitants". In December, troops led by Charles Coote, Governor of Dublin Castle, and William St Leger, Lord President of Munster, attacked rebel-held areas in counties Wicklow and Tipperary respectively, expeditions characterised by "excessive and indiscriminate brutality" against the general Catholic population. This provoked many into joining the insurgency, including previously peaceful Munster where St Leger had imposed a brutal martial law regime.


title: Irish Rebellion of 1641

text: When the rebellion began, Phelim O'Neill sought to exploit divisions between English and Scots settlers by offering the latter protection, hoping thereby to gain their support. This strategy initially contributed to the rapid spread of the revolt, in part because the Dublin government was uncertain who to trust and thus delayed a co-ordinated response. The situation changed when it became clear the rising had been only partially successful, while the breakdown of state authority prompted widespread attacks by the Catholic peasantry on Protestants, regardless of nationality. They were soon joined by members of the gentry; O'Neill's authority was largely confined to County Armagh and even there was not total, his own brother being one of those who took part in these actions.


title: Irish Rebellion of 1641

text: A contemporary Catholic source wrote that O'Neill "strove to contain the raskall multitude from those frequent savage actions of stripping and killing" but "the floodgate of rapine, once being laid open, the meaner sort of people was not to be contained". It has been argued the initial purpose of the attacks was economic and killings occurred only when the victims resisted. They intensified as the rebellion progressed, particularly in Ulster where many had lost land in the post 1607 Plantations, while attacks on local Protestant clergy were in part due to resentment at the relative wealth of the Church of Ireland in that province. Other factors included religion and culture; in County Cavan, rebels justified the rising as a defensive measure against a Protestant threat to "extirpate the Catholic religion", reinstated original Irish language place names and banned the use of English.


title: Irish Rebellion of 1641

text: Following their repulse at Lisnagarvey in November, rebels killed about 100 Protestants at Portadown by forcing them off the bridge into the River Bann, and shooting those who tried to swim to safety. Known as the Portadown massacre, it was one of the bloodiest such events to take place in Ireland during the 1640s. In nearby Kilmore, English and Scottish men, women and children were burned to death in the cottage in which they were imprisoned, while in Armagh as a whole some 1,250 died in the early months of the rebellion, roughly a quarter of the local settler population. In County Tyrone, modern research has identified three blackspots for the killing of settlers, the worst being near Kinard, "where most of the British families planted... were ultimately murdered". Elsewhere at Shrule in County Mayo, Protestant prisoners were killed by their Catholic escorts, despite attempts by their officers to intervene.


title: Irish Rebellion of 1641

text: Killings of Catholics also took place, including the murder of two dozen at Islandmagee by members of the Carrickfergus garrison in November 1641. The arrival of a Covenanter army in Ulster in April 1642 led to further such atrocities, William Lecky, a 19th-century historian of the rebellion, concluding "it is far from clear on which side the balance of cruelty rests". The Scots executed Irish prisoners taken in a skirmish near Kilwarlin woods outside Dromore, while James Turner records that after retaking Newry, local Catholics were lined up on the banks of the Newry River and killed "without any legal process". On Rathlin Island, Scottish soldiers from Clan Campbell were encouraged by their commanding officer Sir Duncan Campbell to kill the local Catholic MacDonnells, who were related to the Campbells' enemies in Scotland, Clan MacDonald. They threw scores of MacDonnell women over cliffs to their deaths. The killings were brought under some degree of control by Owen Roe O'Neill, who in July 1642 was given command of Irish forces in Ulster and hanged several rebels for attacking civilians. Though still brutal, the war thereafter was fought according to the code of conduct both O'Neill and the Scottish commander Robert Monro had learned as professional soldiers in mainland Europe.


title: Irish Rebellion of 1641

text: Contemporary pamphlets published in London contained lurid details of the massacres and suggested over 200,000 Protestants had lost their lives. These figures were recognised even then as wildly exaggerated and in November 1641 Parliament jailed a publisher who admitted paying for fictitious atrocity tales. Recent research suggests around 4,000 were killed in the attacks, with thousands more expelled from their homes, many of whom died of exposure or disease, leading to an upper estimate of around 12,000 deaths. This represents around 10% of the total settler population in Ireland, though in Ulster the ratio of deaths would have been somewhat higher, namely around 30%. They were used to support the view of the rebellion as a Catholic conspiracy to wipe out all Protestants in Ireland, a narrative constructed in the "Depositions", a collection of victim reports gathered between 1642 and 1655 and now housed in Trinity College Dublin. In 1646, these accounts were summarised in "The Irish Rebellion", a book by John Temple, in which he urged the military re-conquest of Ireland and segregation of Irish Catholics from British Protestants.


title: Irish Rebellion of 1641

text: In the long term, the 1641 massacres intensified existing sectarian animosity on both sides, although modern historians argue the killings had an especially powerful psychological impact on the Protestant community. Dr. Mary O'Dowd wrote they "were very traumatic for the Protestant settler community in Ulster, and left long-term scars within that community". Contemporary Protestant accounts depict the rebellion as a complete surprise; one stated that it was "conceived among us and yet we never felt it kick in the womb, nor struggle in the birth". Many argued Catholics could not be trusted and in Ulster, Protestants commemorated the anniversary of the rebellion for over two hundred years. According to historian Pádraig Lenihan, this "helped affirm communal solidarity and emphasise the need for unrelenting vigilance [against] the masses of Irish Catholics surrounding them [who] were and always would be, unregenerate and cruel enemies".


title: Irish Rebellion of 1641

text: Although Charles, the English Parliament and Scottish Covenanter government all agreed the rebellion should be crushed, doing so was delayed by political tensions. Charles was in Edinburgh when he received news of the uprising on 28 October and immediately urged the Scots to send troops to Ulster, once approved by their colleagues in England. On 4 November, Parliament voted to send weapons and gunpowder to Ireland and recruit 8,000 men to suppress the rising but the situation was complicated since any such army would be legally controlled by the king. A series of alleged Royalist military conspiracies in 1641 and rebel claims that Charles supported their actions heightened fears he would turn it against his opponents in England and Scotland, rather than the Irish.


title: Irish Rebellion of 1641

text: The Covenanters urged the English Parliament to fund a Scottish army rather than recruiting their own, arguing it could reach Ireland more easily and would be independent of both Charles and his Parliamentary opponents. In the meantime, Charles sent weapons, gunpowder and a small number of Scots volunteers to Ireland at his own expense, but had insufficient money to finance an expedition on his own. James Butler, 1st Duke of Ormond, a member of one of the leading Old English families and Protestant convert, was made commander of Royal forces in Ireland and recruited three infantry regiments from the refugees flooding into Dublin. Several prominent Ulster Scots were also commissioned to raise troops, including Robert Stewart and his brother William, who formed the Laggan Army.


title: Irish Rebellion of 1641

text: Many politicians and officials in Dublin and London opposed Scottish intervention in Ulster, seeing a well-armed and independent Presbyterian army as a threat to the status quo, and Parliament continued recruiting English regiments. On 21 December, the Lords approved a Scottish army of 10,000 but the Covenanter government insisted they should also be given control of the three largest ports in Ulster, Carrickfergus, Coleraine and Derry, along with land grants. These demands were rejected by the Commons, leading to further delay and allowing the rebellion to spread. With the situation deteriorating, in February 1642 the two sides put aside their differences and agreed to send 2,500 Scots to Ulster.


title: Irish Rebellion of 1641

text: Parliament now adopted two measures intended to manage concerns over control of the forces needed for Ireland and how to raise funds for it as quickly as possible, both of which had significant consequences. On 15 March, the Militia Ordinance brought the military and county militia under the control of Parliament, rather than the king. When Charles refused to give it his royal assent, Parliament declared the legislation in force regardless, marking a major step on the road to civil war. On 19 March, the Adventurers' Act invited members of the public to provide loans which would be repaid with land confiscated from the rebels. This need to ensure these were repaid and maintain government credit was one of the factors behind the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland in 1649.


title: Irish Rebellion of 1641

text: In the first few months of 1642, Ormond regained much of the Pale, relieved Drogheda, re-took Dundalk and defeated a rebel force at Kilrush on 15 April. On the same day, the Covenanter army led by Robert Monro landed at Carrickfergus and recaptured Newry on 1 May. By mid-1642, Protestant forces in Ireland totalled 40,000 infantry and 3,600 horse, but the outbreak of the First English Civil War in August 1642 ended the flow of reinforcements and money from England and a military stalemate ensued.


title: Irish Rebellion of 1641

text: By early 1642, there were four main concentrations of rebel forces; in Ulster under Felim O'Neill, in the Pale around Dublin led by Viscount Gormanston, in the south-east, led by the Butler family – in particular Lord Mountgarret, and in the south-west, led by Donagh MacCarthy, Viscount Muskerry. In areas where British settlers were concentrated, around Cork, Dublin, Carrickfergus and Derry, they raised their own militia in self-defence and managed to hold off the rebel forces.


title: Irish Rebellion of 1641

text: Within a few months of the rebellion's outbreak, almost all of the Catholic gentry had joined it, including the Anglo-Irish Catholics. There are three main reasons for this. First, local lords and landowners raised armed units of their dependents to control the violence that was engulfing the country, fearing that after the settlers were gone, the Irish peasantry would turn on them as well. Secondly, the Long Parliament and the Irish administration, and King Charles, made it clear that Irish Catholics who did not demonstrate their loyalty would be held responsible for the rebellion and killings of settlers, and would confiscate their lands under the Adventurers Act, agreed on 19 March 1642. The old policy of issuing pardons to stop conflicts was ended, and the rebel leaders were outlawed on 1 January 1642.


title: Irish Rebellion of 1641

text: Thirdly, it looked initially as if the rebels would be successful after they defeated a government force at Julianstown in November 1641. This perception was soon shattered when the rebels failed to take nearby Drogheda, but by then most of the Catholic gentry had already committed themselves to rebellion. The Catholic gentry around Dublin, known as the "Lords of the Pale", issued their Remonstrance to the king on 17 March 1642 at Trim, County Meath.


title: Irish Rebellion of 1641

text: Hugh O'Reilly (Archbishop of Armagh) held a synod of Irish bishops at Kells, County Meath in March 1642, where a majority declared that the ongoing conflict was a "holy and just war".


title: Irish Rebellion of 1641

text: On 10 May 1642, Archbishop O'Reilly convened another synod at Kilkenny. Present were 3 archbishops, 11 bishops or their representatives, and other dignitaries. They drafted the Confederate Oath of Association and called on all Catholics in Ireland to take it. Those who took the oath swore allegiance to Charles I and vowed to obey all orders and decrees made by the "Supreme Council of the Confederate Catholics". The rebels henceforth became known as Confederates. The synod re-affirmed that the rebellion was a "just war". It called for the creation of a council (made up of clergy and nobility) for each province, which would be overseen by a national council for the whole island. It vowed to punish misdeeds by Confederate soldiers and to excommunicate any Catholic who fought against the Confederation. The synod sent agents to France, Spain and Italy to gain support, gather funds and weapons, and recruit Irishmen serving in foreign armies.


title: Irish Rebellion of 1641

text: Lord Mountgarret was appointed president of the Confederate Council, and a General Assembly was held in Kilkenny on 24 October 1642, where it set up a provisional government. Present were 14 Lords Temporal and 11 Lords Spiritual from the Parliament of Ireland, along with 226 commoners. The Assembly elected a Supreme Council of 24, which controlled both military and civilian officers. Its first act was to name the generals who were to command Confederate forces: Owen Roe O'Neill was to command the Ulster forces, Thomas Preston the Leinster forces, Garret Barry the Munster forces and John Burke the Connaught forces. A National Treasury, a mint for making coins, and a press for printing proclamations were set up in Kilkenny.


title: Irish Rebellion of 1641

text: The Confederation eventually sided with the Royalists in return for the promise of self-government and full rights for Catholics after the war. They were finally defeated by the English Parliament's New Model Army from 1649 through to 1653 and land ownership in Ireland passed largely to Protestant settlers.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: Pulakeshin II (IAST: Pulakeśin, r. c. 610–642 CE) was the most famous ruler of the Chalukya dynasty of Vatapi (present-day Badami in Karnataka, India). During his reign, the Chalukya kingdom expanded to cover most of the Deccan region in peninsular India.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: A son of the Chalukya king Kirttivarman I, Pulakeshin overthrew his uncle Mangalesha to gain control of the throne. He suppressed a rebellion by Appayika and Govinda, and decisively defeated the Kadambas of Banavasi in the south. The Alupas and the Gangas of Talakadu recognized his suzerainty. He consolidated the Chalukya control over the western coast by subjugating the Mauryas of Konkana. His Aihole inscription also credits him with subjugating the Latas, the Malavas, and the Gurjaras in the north.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: The most notable military achievement of Pulakeshin was his victory over the powerful northern emperor Harshavardhana, whose failure to conquer the Chalukya kingdom is attested by the Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang. In the east, Pulakeshin subjugated the rulers of Dakshina Kosala and Kalinga. After defeating the Vishnukundina ruler, he appointed his brother Vishnu-vardhana as the governor of eastern Deccan; this brother later established the independent Eastern Chalukya dynasty of Vengi. Pulakeshin also achieved some successes against the Pallavas in the south, but was ultimately defeated during an invasion by the Pallava king Narasimhavarman I.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: Pulakeshin was a Vaishnavite, but was tolerant of other faiths, including Shaivism, Buddhism, and Jainism. He patronized several scholars, including Ravikirtti, who composed his Aihole inscription.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: Two variants of Pulakeshin's name appear in the Chalukya records: Pulikeshin (IAST: Pulikeśin) and Polekeshin (IAST: Polekeśin). "Ereya" appears to have been another of his names: the Peddavaduguru inscription calls him "Ereyatiyadigal" (or "Ereyitiyadigal"), and the Bijapur-Mumbai inscription mentions the variant "Eraja". Historian K. V. Ramesh theorizes that Ereya was the pre-coronation name of Pulakeshin.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: Satyashraya ("refuge of truth"), a hereditary "biruda" (epithet) of Pulakeshin, was commonly used as a substitute for his name in the dynasty's records. He was the dynasty's most celebrated ruler, because of which the subsequent rulers called their dynasty Satyashraya-kula ("family of Satyashraya").


title: Pulakeshin II

text: The imperial titles of Pulakeshin include "Bhattaraka" and "Maharajadhiraja" ("King of great kings"). Besides, he also used the family epithets "Shri-prithvi-vallabha", "Vallabha", and "Shri-vallabha". Pulakeshin also assumed the title "Parameshvara" ("Supreme Lord") after defeating Harsha, as attested by his Bijapur-Mumbai inscription.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: The Chinese traveler Xuanzang calls him Pu-lo-ki-she. The Persian historian Al-Tabari calls him Paramesa or Pharmis, probably a Persian transcription of his title "Parameshvara".


title: Pulakeshin II

text: Pulakeshin was a son of the Chalukya king Kirttivarman I. When Kirttivarman died, Pulakeshin appears to have been a minor, as Kirttivarman's younger brother Mangalesha became the next king.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: The inscriptions of the later Chalukyas of Kalyani, who claimed descent from the Chalukyas of Vatapi, state that Mangalesha "took upon himself the burden of administration" because Pulakeshin was a minor. However, these inscriptions also wrongly claim that Mangalesha returned the kingdom to Pulakeshin when Pulakeshin grew up, praising the Chalukya lineage for such exemplary behaviour. This claim is contradicted by Pulakeshin's own Aihole inscription, and appears to be a late attempt to gloss over Pulakeshin's overthrow of Mangalesha. The exact details of the conflict between these two men are unclear, because the Aihole inscription describes it in a rather enigmatic way.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: It is possible that Mangalesha initially ruled as a regent, but later decided to usurp the throne. According to the Aihole inscription, Mangalesha was envious of Pulakeshin, because Pulakeshin was a favourite of Lakshmi (the goddess of fortune). Therefore, Pulakeshin, decided to go into exile. Subsequently, Mangalesha became weak "on all sides" as Pulakeshin applied his "gifts of good counsel and energy". Ultimately, Mangalesha had to abandon three things simultaneously: his attempt to secure the throne for his own son (or his ability to perpetuate his own descent), his kingdom, and his own life. The above description suggests that when Pulakeshin became an adult, Mangalesha rejected his claim to the throne and possibly appointed his own son as the heir apparent. Pulakeshin went into exile, during which he must have planned an attack on Mangalesha; he ultimately defeated and killed Mangalesha.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: The undated Peddavaduguru inscription records Pulakeshin's grant of the Elpattu Simbhige village after his subjugation of Ranavikrama. According to one theory, this Ranavikrama was Mangalesha, who bore the title "Ranavikrama", and who was defeated by Mangalesha in a battle fought at Elpattu Simbhige. However, another theory identifies Ranavikrama as a Bana king.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: Pulakeshin's Hyderabad inscription is dated 613 CE (Shaka year 534), and was issued during the third year of his reign, which suggests that he must have ascended the throne in c. 610–611 CE.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: The exact year of his ascension is debated among modern scholars. The 610–611 CE Goa grant inscription, which refers to an unnamed Chalukya overlord titled "Shri-prithvi-vallabha Maharaja", was probably issued during the reign of Pulakeshin's predecessor Mangalesha. It is dated to the Shaka year 532: assuming it was issued after 532 years of the Shaka era had expired, the date of issue was 4 January 611 CE. However, if we assume that it was issued when the 532rd year of the Shaka era was current, it can be dated to 5 July 610 CE. Based on this inscription, the end of Mangalesha's reign is variously dated to 610 CE or 611 CE.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: The matter is complicated by the Maruturu inscription, which is dated to Pulakeshin's eighth regnal year, and was issued on the occasion of a solar eclipse on the new moon day ("amavasya") of the Jyeshtha month. According to modern calculations, this solar eclipse took place on 21 May 616 CE, which would mean that Pulakeshin ascended the throne in 609 CE.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: After Mangalesha's death, Pulakeshin appears to have faced opposition from multiple rivals, including those who were loyal to Mangalesha and those who wanted to take advantage of the turmoil resulting from the Chalukya war of succession. The Aihole inscription declares that "the whole world was enveloped in the darkness that was the enemies". Pulakeshin subjugated these enemies, and established the Chalukyas as the dominant power in the Indian peninsula.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: The Aihole inscription suggests that two rulers named Appayika and Govinda rebelled against Pulakeshin. The identity of these rulers is uncertain, but they are said to have approached the core Chalukya territory from the north of the Bhimarathi (modern Bhima) river in present-day Maharashtra. According to historian K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, the way they are mentioned in the inscription suggests that they were military adventurers and not from a royal background. However, according to historian Durga Prasad Dikshit, their names suggest that they may have belonged to a Rashtrakuta branch, which was distinct from the imperial Rashtrakutas of Manyakheta. This branch may have become subordinate to the Chalukyas after facing invasions from the Nala and Mauryas of Konkan, and later rebelled taking advantage of the conflict between Pulakeshin and Mangalesha.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: According to the Aihole inscription, Pulakeshin adopted the policy of "bheda" (divide and conquer), and bestowed favours upon Govinda while alienating Appayika. Govinda became his ally, and Appayika was defeated.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: Pulakeshin's predecessors had subjugated the Kadambas of Banavasi, but the Kadambas no longer recognized the Chalukya suzerainty during his reign. Pulakeshin marched against them, and besieged their capital of Banavasi. The Aihole inscription suggests that the Kadambas put up a strong resistance, but were ultimately defeated. The Kadamba ruler at this time was probably Bhogivarman.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: Pulakeshin ended the Kadamba dynasty, and annexed their territory to his empire. He divided this territory among his vassals: the major part of the Kadamba kingdom was granted to the Alupas under the name kadamba-mandala; the Nagarakhanda division of Banavasi was given to the Sendrakas.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: The first Arab invasion of India was an expedition by sea to conquer Thana near Mumbai as early as 636 A.D. It was undertaken during the vigorous expansionist regime of the second Caliph, Umar-bin-Akhtab, who was on a proselytizing mission to spread Islam to all corners of the world. He appointed Usman, of the tribe of Sakif, to capture Bahrain and Oman. Usman sent his brother Hakam to Bahrain and himself proceeded to Oman. Upon reaching Oman, Usman sent a naval expedition to capture Thana on the western coast of India. The Arab naval expedition was successfully repulsed by Chalukyan Navy under Pulakeshin II and they returned to Oman. The first ever Arab raid on India was defeated.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: According to the Aihole inscription, Pulakeshin subjugated the Alupas, who had earlier served as Kadamba vassals. However, according to the Chalukya inscriptions, the Alupas had already been subjugated by Pulakeshin's predecessors. Therefore, it appears that the Aihole inscription simply refers to Pulakeshin reaffirming the Chalukya suzerainty over the Alupas. Another possibility is that the Alupas had not been completely subdued by the Pulakeshin's predecessors.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: The location of the core Alupa territory during Pulakeshin's period is not certain. Alupas are known to have been ruling in the Dakshina Kannada region of Karnataka for several centuries, but some scholars believe that their capital was located at Humcha in the Shimoga district. After subjugating the Kadambas, Pulakeshin assigned a major part of the former Kadamba territory to his Alupa vassal, who according to historian Moraes, may have been Kundavarammarasa.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: If "Aluka" is considered a variant of "Alupa", the Marutura inscription suggests that the Alupa vassals of Pulakeshin also ruled over the Guntur district in present-day Andhra Pradesh. According to this inscription, the Aluka ruler Gunasagara, who was a Chalukya vassal, was appointed to govern this region. The 692 CE Sorab inscription describes Gunasagara's son Chitra-vahana as an "Alupa", which suggests that "Aluka" is a variant of "Alupa".


title: Pulakeshin II

text: The Aihole inscription credits Pulakeshin with subjugating the Gangas of Talakad, who had matrimonial ties with the Kadambas. The Mahakuta pillar inscription of his predecessor Mangalesha states his father Kirttivarman also subjugated the Gangas. It is possible that the Gangas accepted the Chalukya suzerainty during Kirttivarman's reign, but subsequently gave up this allegiance taking advantage of the war of succession between Mangalesha and Pulakeshin. After Pulakeshin's victory over the Kadambas, the Gangas again accepted the Chalukya suzerainty, possibly without any military conflict.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: The Ganga ruler Durvinita married his daughter to Pulakeshin; she was the mother of Pulakeshin's son Vikramaditya I. The Gangas probably hoped to gain Chalukya support against the Pallavas, who had captured the Kongunadu region from them. The Gangas subsequently defeated the Pallava ruler Kaduvetti of Kanchi.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: Pulakeshin's father Kirttivarman had defeated the Mauryas of Konkana (modern Konkan), who ruled in the coastal region of present-day Goa and Maharashtra. The Mauryas acknowledged the Chalukya suzerainty during Mangalesha's reign, but seem to have declared independence during the Chalukya war of succession. After consolidating his power in southern Deccan, Pulakeshin successfully besieged the Mauryan capital Puri, which is variously identified as Gharapuri (Elephanta) or Rajapuri (near Janjira).


title: Pulakeshin II

text: The Aihole inscription states that Pulakeshin subjugated the Latas, the Malavas, and the Gurjaras, who were the northern neighbours of the Chalukyas. Historian Durga Prasad Dikshit theorizes that these kingdoms may have accepted Pulakeshin's suzerainty without a military conflict, when faced with an invasion from the northern king Harshavardhana. Alternatively, it is possible that these three rulers accepted Mangalesha's suzerainty after his victory over the Kalachuris, and the Aihole inscription simply refers to Pulakeshin reaffirming the Chalukya suzerainty over them.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: The Lata region (present-day southern Gujarat) was formerly under the control of the Kalachuris, who had been defeated by Mangalesha. Pulakeshin, who appears to have annexed Lata to the Chalukya kingdom, placed it under the governorship of a member of the Chalukya family. The rule of the Chalukya governor Vijaya-varma-raja over Lata is attested by his 643 CE Kheda copper-plate inscription.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: The Malavas ruled in and around the present-day Malwa (Malava) region in central India. According to the Chinese traveler Xuanzang, Malava ("Mo-la-po") was an independent kingdom, but the records of the Maitraka dynasty suggest that the Maitrakas controlled at least a part of the Malava territory. Thus, the Malavas may have been Maitraka vassals or independent rulers before they accepted Pulakeshin's suzerainty.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: The Gurjaras were most probably the Gurjaras of Lata (or Bharuch), and the Gurjara ruler who accepted Pulakeshin's suzerainty was probably Dadda II.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: The most notable military achievement of Pulakeshin was his victory over the powerful emperor Harsha-vardhana, who ruled over much of northern India. The inscriptions of Pulakeshin's successors prominently mention this victory even when they ignore his other military achievements.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: The date of the war between Harsha and Pulakeshin has been debated by modern scholars. The Kandalgaon copper-plate inscription, dated to Pulakeshin's fifth regnal year (c. 615 CE), mentions the conflict, but this inscription is regarded as spurious by modern scholars.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: Some scholars, such as K. V. Ramesh and K. A. Nilakanta Sastri, date the battle to c. 612 CE or before, based on the 612–613 CE Hyderabad inscription of Pulakeshin. This inscription boasts that Pulakeshin defeated a king who had fought a hundred battles (presumably Harsha). The later Chalukya inscriptions, dating from the reign of Vikramaditya I onwards, mention Pulakeshin's victory over Harsha using similar expressions. This early date for the war is also supported by the writings of Xuanzang, who states that Harsha fought wars for six years, and then ruled in peace for thirty years.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: Scholars Shreenand L. Bapat and Pradeep S. Sohoni date the battle to the winter of 618–619 CE. These scholars note that the Bijapur-Mumbai grant inscription, dated to 4 April 619 CE, mentions Pulakeshin's victory over Harsha, which proves that the conflict definitely took place sometime before this date. The earlier Satara inscription of Pulakeshin's brother Vishnu-vardhana, issued during his eighth regnal year (c. 618 CE) does not mention the conflict. Based on this, Bapat and Sohoni theorize that the conflict took place between November 618 CE and February 619 CE.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: Some earlier scholars, such as D. Devahuti dated the conflict to 630s CE, but this is no longer considered correct after the publication of the Bijapur-Mumbai inscription in 2017.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: The cause for the war between Harsha and Pulakeshin is not certain. Historian K. A. Nilakanta Sastri suggests that Harsha's growing influence may have driven the Latas, the Malavas, and the Gurjaras to accept Pulakeshin's suzerainty. Historian Durga Prasad Dikshit adds that these three kingdoms are known to have been enemies of Harsha's father Prabhakara-vardhana, as attested by Harsha's court poet Bana: this enmity probably continued during the reign of Harsha. The Malava king played a role in the murder of Harsha's predecessor Rajya-vardhana, and also killed Harsha's brother-in-law, the Maukhari ruler Graha-varman. The Gurjara ruler Dadda II aided the Maitraka dynasty against Harsha. When Harsha decided to take action against these three kingdoms, their rulers probably sought protection of Pulakeshin. Pulakeshin may have granted asylum to Harsha's adversaries.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: According to scholars Shreenand L. Bapat and Pradeep S. Sohoni, the "Malavas" mentioned in the Chalukya record were the Later Guptas who controlled the Malwa region. The expansion of the Maitraka influence in the Malwa region must have attracted Harsha's attention. The Maitraka ruler Shiladitya I may have sympathized with Pulakeshin's cause during the latter's northern campaign against the Latas, the Malavas, and the Gurjaras. This situation ultimately resulted in a conflict between Harsha and Pulakeshin.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: Another possibility is that Harsha decided to take advantage of the turmoil resulting from the conflict between Mangalesha and Pulakeshin, and invaded the Chalukya kingdom. During his march against Pulakeshin, Harsha advanced up to the Narmada River before being forced to retreat.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: The Aihole inscription of Pulakeshin boasts the "harsha" (mirth) of Harsha melted away by fear, as his elephants fell in the battle. The only other inscription from his reign that mentions this battle is the Bijapur-Mumbai inscription. Harsha's court poet Bana does not mention this conflict in his biography "Harsha-charita", presumably to avoid portraying his patron in a negative light. However, Pulakeshin's success against Harsha is confirmed by other independent sources.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: The Chinese traveler Xuanzang, who calls Pulakeshin's kingdom Mo-ho-la-cha (the Chinese transcription of "Maharashtra"), provides the evidence of Pulakeshin's success against Harsha. Xuanzang states that Shiladitya (that is, Harsha) had conquered the nations from east to west, and had marched with his army to remote parts of India: only the people of Mo-ho-la-cha had refused to accept his suzerainty. Xuanzang further states that Harsha gathered troops from different parts of his kingdom, summoned his best commanders, and himself led the army to punish the people of Mo-ho-la-cha, but could not subjugate them.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: The Rashtrakutas, who ultimately overthrew the Chalukyas several years after Pulakeshin's death, also boast that they defeated the dynasty that claimed victory over Harshavardhana, thus indirectly confirming Pulakeshin's achievement.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: The Aihole inscription poetically states that Pulakeshin's elephants had to avoid the neighbourhood of the Vindhya mountains beside the Narmada River, because they "by their bulk, rivalled the mountains". Historian K. A. Nilakanta Sastri interprets to mean that Pulakeshin "did not send his elephant forces into the difficult Vindhya terrain", and guarded the passes with infantry. According to Shreenand L. Bapat and Pradeep S. Sohoni, the inscription suggests that Pulakeshin's army subsequently tried to cross the Vindhyas, in a bid to invade Harsha's kingdom, but was unsuccessful, which may explain why only two inscriptions from Pulakeshin's reign mention his conflict with Harsha.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: The Aihole inscription states that the rulers of Koshala and Kalinga accepted Pulakeshin's suzerainty without offering any resistance.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: Koshala here can be identified as Dakshina Kosala (present-day Chhattisgarh and western Odisha), which was probably under the Panduvamshi rule. The Aihole inscription does not mention the name of the subjugated ruler, but historian D. C. Sircar theorizes that he may have been the Panduvamshi king Mahashivagupta Balarjuna.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: The name of the ruler of Kalinga, which includes parts of present-day Odisha and northern Andhra Pradesh, is not certain either. Historian Durga Prasad Dikshit suggests that he was probably a member of the Eastern Ganga dynasty. Historian K. A. Nilakanta Sastri suggests that he may have been a Vishnukundina feudatory.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: According to the Aihole inscription and the Maruturu inscription, Pulakeshin invaded and captured Pishtapura (modern Pithapuram in Andhra Pradesh). The Maruturu inscription suggests that this event took place around or before 617–618 CE. The Aihole inscription states that subsequently, a fierce battle was fought near Kunala lake (identified with modern Kolleru Lake), whose water turned red with the blood of those killed in the war. These inscriptions do not name Pulakeshin's rival in these conflicts, but modern scholars identify him as a king of the Vishnukundina dynasty, which ruled in Andhra Pradesh.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: Pulakeshin probably subjugated Vishnukundina vassals during his eastern campaign in Kalinga, which may have brought him in conflict with the Vishnukundina dynasty. Pulakeshin conquered the Vishnukundina kingdom, located in the lower Godavari-Krishna valley, and appointed his younger brother 'Kubja' Vishnu-vardhana as the governor of the newly conquered territory. The Chalukya conquest in this region is corroborated by Vishnu-vardhana's 631 CE Kopparam copper-plate inscription, which records a land grant in the Karma-rashtra region of present-day Andhra Pradesh.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: The Vishnukundina ruler defeated by Pulakeshin was probably Indravarman: he appears to have ultimately accepted Pulakeshin's suzerainty, and was allowed to rule as a Chalukya vassal. Pulakeshin assigned some of the newly conquered territories to his own feudatories. For example, the Maruturu inscription states that the Aluka ruler Gunasagara, a Chalukya vassal, came from Mangalapura (identified with modern Mangalagiri in Guntur district) to Kallura after undergoing several hardships.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: The Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang visited Pulakeshin's kingdom in 641–642 CE. He calls the Chalukya kingdom "Mo-ho-la-cha" (the Chinese transcription of "Maharashtra"), and corroborates Pulakeshin's success against Harsha (see above). He had visited the Pallava kingdom before arriving in the Chalukya kingdom, but he doesn't mention any conflict between the two kingdoms, presumably because he was not aware of major political changes or because his main interest was Buddhism rather than politics.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: Xuanzang describes Pulakeshin ("Po-le-ke-she") as "a man of farsighted resource and astuteness who extends kindness to all". The king's subjects were "tall and sturdy in nature and... proud and carefree by nature... grateful for kindness and revengeful for injustice". They preferred death to disloyalty, and called for a duel if they or their families were insulted.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: According to Xuanzang, the king was war-like and loved "military arts", because he was a Kshatriya by birth. His well-disciplined troops comprised several thousands of men, and several hundreds of elephants. The elephants, who were intoxicated with wine before battles, were used to break the enemy's front line. When his generals were defeated, they were not punished, but were humiliated by being ordered to wear women's dresses. The soldiers who lost a battle would commit suicide as a matter of honour.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: According to Xuanzang, the kingdom's capital (not named by Xuanzang) was situated to the east of a large river, around 1000 li from Bharukachchha (modern Bharuch). This description does not fit the Chalukya capital Vatapi (modern Badami). Modern scholars identify the city mentioned by Xuanzang as Nashik, although this identification is not conclusive. It is possible that Xuanzang spent some time in Nashik, which was an important centre of Buddhism, and mistook it as the kingdom's capital. Xuanzang mentions that there were five stupas in and around the capital city: these stupas had been built by the earlier king Ashoka, and were several hundred feet high. Around 5,000 Buddhist monks lived in over 100 monasteries in the kingdom; in particular, Xuanzang describes a large monastery identified with the Ajanta Caves by modern scholars. Xuanzang adds that the kingdom also had temples of "heretics" who "smeared dust on their bodies".


title: Pulakeshin II

text: The Pallavas were the southern neighbours of the Chalukyas. The Vishnukundins were their allies at the time, and Pulakeshin's subjugation of the Vishnukundins brought him in conflict with the Pallava king. The Chalukyas and the Pallavas fought several battles without conclusive results.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: The Aihole inscription states that the Pallava ruler opposed the rise of Pulakeshin, who caused the enemy's splendour to be "obscured by the dust of his army" and forced the enemy to take shelter behind the walls of the Pallava capital Kanchipuram. The Kashakudi inscription of the Pallavas states that the Pallava King Mahendravarman defeated an unnamed enemy at Pallalura (modern Pullalur). These two accounts appear to refer to the same battle, which must have been inconclusive: the Pallava army was probably forced to retreat to Kanchipuram, but inflicted enough damage on the Chalukya army to force Pulakeshin to retreat to Vatapi.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: The undated Peddavaduguru inscription records Pulakeshin's grant of the Elpattu Simbhige village in Bana-raja-vishaya ("Bana king's province") after the subjugation of Ranavikrama. Assuming that Ranavikrama was a Bana king, it appears that Pulakeshin defeated the Banas. (An alternative theory identifies Ranavikrama as Mangalesha; see Early life section above.) The Banas appear to have been Pallava feudatories before their submission to Pulakeshin, as suggested by the name of the inscription's engraver: Mahendra Pallavachari. Pulakeshin's subjugation of a Pallava feudatory must have renewed his conflict with the Pallavas.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: The Aihole inscription suggests that Pulakeshin won over the Chola, the Chera, and the Pandya kings as his allies in his struggle against the Pallavas. He marched towards Kanchipuram, but the Pallava inscriptions suggest that he suffered reverses in battles fought at Pariyala, Suramara, and Manimangala, near Kanchipuram.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: The Pallavas, during the reign of Narasimha-varman I, ultimately besieged the Chalukya capital Vatapi. Pulakeshin was probably killed, when a Pallava force led by Shiruttondar Paranjoti captured Vatapi in c. 642–643 CE. The Pallava occupation of Vatapi is attested by an inscription found at the Mallikarjunadeva temple in Badami, dated to the 13th regnal year of Narasimha-varman.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: By 641 CE, during Pulakeshin's lifetime, his brother Vishnu-vardhana had carved out an independent kingdom in the eastern part of the Chalukya empire, resulting in the establishment of the Chalukya dynasty of Vengi. According to one theory, this arrangement may have happened with the approval of Pulakeshin, who did not want his brother to wage a war of succession like Mangalesha.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: Pulakeshin had multiple sons, and the order of succession after him is not clear from the available historical evidence:


title: Pulakeshin II

text: The Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang attests that Pulakeshin ruled an extensive, militarily powerful and economically prosperous kingdom through several loyal vassals. The Aihole inscription states that Pulakeshin's kingdom was bound by the oceans on three sides, suggesting that he ruled a vast portion of the Indian peninsula to the south of the Vindhyas. However, there is no evidence that he was able to annex the extreme southern kingdoms of the Cholas, the Keralas (Cheras), and the Pandyas to his empire.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: After his victory over Harsha, Pulakeshin appears to have acquired control of a large part of western Deccan to the south of the Narmada river. The Aihole inscription states that he gained control of the "three Maharashtrakas" which included 99,000 villages. The identity of these "three Maharashtras" is not certain: according to historian D. C. Sircar, they may have been the Maharashtra proper (a large part of present-day Maharashtra), Konkana, and Karnata.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: Pulakeshin could not administer this large kingdom centrally, and therefore, ruled through governors from the Chalukya family and loyal vassals, who included the rulers defeated by him. The Sendraka prince Sena-nanda-raja ruled the Konkana and neighbouring areas as his loyal feudatory. The family of Alla-shakti ruled the Khandesh and neighbouring areas as his vassal, as attested by the Abhona and Kasare inscriptions.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: After defeating the Vishnukundins, Pulakeshin acquired control of a large part of the eastern Deccan region, extending from Vishakhapatnam in north to Nellore and Guntur in the south. Pulakeshin appointed his younger brother Vishnu-vardhana, who had earlier served as his governor of the Velvola country, as the governor of Vengi in eastern Deccan. Vishnu-vardhana acknowledges Pulakeshin's suzerainty in his 631 CE Kopparam inscription, but asserts himself as an independent ruler in his 641 CE Chirupalli inscription.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: After Pulakeshin's death, the Chalukya governor Vijaya-varman, who ruled in the Lata region (in southern Gujarat), also seems to have asserted his independence. Vijaya-varman's 643 CE Kheda (Kaira) inscription records a land grant without any reference to a Chalukya overlord.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: According to the ninth-century Persian historian Al-Tabari, Pulakeshin ("Pharmis") maintained diplomatic relations with the Sasanian ruler Khosrow II of present-day Iran. Pulakeshin sent expensive presents and letters to Khusrow and his sons, during the 26th regnal year of the Sasanian monarch. This embassy can be dated to c. 625 CE.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: In the 1870s, architectural historian James Fergusson theorized that a painting at the Ajanta Cave 1 depicted a Sasanian embassy to Pulakeshin's court. The painting depicts several figures in foreign dress: Fergusson identified the dress as Sasanian, and proposed that the Sasanian king sent a return embassy to the Chalukya kingdom. This theory was widely accepted by other scholars, but is no longer considered correct: the painting, which does indeed include the visit of foreigners in Persian or Sassanian dress, actually depicts a scene from the Maha-sudarsana Jataka, in which the enthroned king can be identified as the Buddha in one of his previous births as a King. The inclusions of numerous men in Sassanian clothing in the caves of Ajanta seems to reflect the great number of Sassanian traders or workers in Central India at that time, and the fact that they were an object of intense interest by the Indians.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: The good relations between Indian and the Sasanian Empire encouraged the migration to India of Zoroastrians, who were persecuted by the rise of Islam. They settled on the West coast of the Deccan and established the Parsi Community.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: Pulakeshin was a Vaishnavite, as attested by the Lohner copper-plate inscription which calls him a Parama-bhagavata ("devotee of Vishnu"), and the Pimpalner copper-plate inscription which states that he belonged to the line of Vishnu. Several of his inscriptions begin with salutations to Vishnu, and bear seals with emblems that feature varaha, an incarnation of Vishnu.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: He was tolerant of other faiths: The construction of the Shaivite shrines now called the Upper Shivalaya, the Lower Shivalaya, and Malegitti Shivalaya, started during his reign. The Chinese Buddhist pilgrim Xuanzang mentions that there were over 100 Buddhist monasteries in his kingdom; over 5,000 monks - both Mahayana and Hinayana - lived in these monasteries. The Meguti Jain temple at Aihole was also built during his reign, by Ravikirrti, who composed the Aihole inscription engraved on the wall of this temple.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: The Aihole inscription of Pulakeshin states that he was generous in "bestowing gifts and honours on the brave and the learned". The inscription's composer Ravikirrti, a court poet of Pulakeshin, describes himself as an equal of the famous Sanskrit poets Bhasa and Kalidasa.


title: Pulakeshin II

text: Following inscriptions are attributed to Pulakeshin's reign, but are considered spurious by modern scholars:


title: Pulakeshin II

text: Several Kannada groups demanded the installation of Pulakeshin statue at Badami, Karnataka, to celebrate the great Kannada ruler of past who is being ignored by present government


title: Mard (1985 film)

text: Mard ( 'Man') is a 1985 Indian Hindi-language action film, directed by Manmohan Desai. Starring Amitabh Bachchan and Amrita Singh. The movie was remade in Tamil as "Maaveeran". Amitabh Bachchan was nominated for Filmfare Award for Best Actor category. "Mard" was the second highest-grossing film. of the year. and the eighth highest-grossing film of the 1980s (1980 to 1989). Furthermore, when adjusted for inflation, "Mard" is one of the highest-grossing films released during the Diwali festival, approximately more than 450cr in today's time.


title: Mard (1985 film)

text: The film opens in India. It is the early 20th century when India remains part of the British empire. The opening sequence shows a group of British soldiers plundering an Indian fort and taking its riches by air England. They are stopped by the valiant Raja Azad Singh (Dara Singh), who is immensely strong and manages to lasso the light aircraft, subdue several English soldiers and recover the stolen jewels. Around this time, Raja Azad Singh's wife Rani Durga (Nirupa Roy) gives birth to a baby boy, who is named Raju. Raja carves the word "mard" (man, intending to convey strength and bravery) into the newborn's chest, noting proudly that the baby is smiling throughout, and can apparently feel no pain. (His words, "mard ko dard nahin hota", meaning "a true man feels no pain", are a recurring dialogue throughout the movie.) The British commission conducts an investigation, led by a sympathetic and liberal Englishwoman, Lady Helena; the investigation uncovers the atrocities of the English troops and results in several officers being officially reprimanded. Lady Helena is a close confidante of Raja Azad Singh and is generally supportive of Raja and the idea of India gaining independence from British rule.


title: Mard (1985 film)

text: The English officers General Dyer (Kamal Kapoor) and Inspector Simon (Bob Christo) conspire with a snivelling, weak-willed local doctor Harry (Prem Chopra) to capture Raja. Harry sedates Raja; weakened thus, Raja is captured and imprisoned in a dungeon. Rani Durga escapes on Raja's faithful steed Bahadur. But she is shot, and the horse brings baby Raju to a local orphanage for safekeeping until Rani Durga can recuperate and reclaim him. The wife of a poor blacksmith spots baby Raju in the orphanage, asks after him and eventually adopts him. When Rani Durga returns, she is shocked to find her baby gone and she loses the ability to speak. The penniless Rani Durga eventually becomes a washerwoman. The traitor Harry is appointed mayor of the town for his part in the capture of Raja.


title: Mard (1985 film)

text: Raju grows up to become a strong youth under the care of the loving blacksmith and his wife. His day job is to run a tanga. One day, he happens across an arrogant and oppressive young woman who blithely runs her car over an old lady. Raju gives chase, intercepts the young woman, and compels her to apologise to the old lady. The young woman is of high birth, and her bodyguard Zybisko (Manik Irani) engages Raju, but Raju fends him off quite easily. The young woman turns out to be Ruby, the daughter of mayor Harry. Ruby apologises. But she is charmed by Raju's rugged looks and candour. He initially refuses her advances to maintain his independence. But she eventually falls in love, changes his heart, and invites him to her birthday party.


title: Mard (1985 film)

text: Harry and General Dyer continue their relentless quest for power. Their first move is to demolish the "basti" (slum colony) in front of Harry's mansion. Raju rallies the "basti" dwellers to oppose the demolition crew and picket Harry's mansion. Harry arrests Raju and is about to execute him when Lady Helena arrives on the scene. Lady Helena stops the demolition (citing lack of documentation), reprimands Harry, and releases Raju. Harry tries to buy off Raju, but Raju douses the cases with liquor, sets it afire, and uses the soot to blacken Harry's face. (No, it is certainly black money, for it burns black, he observes!) A frustrated Harry tries to have him a shot, but Ruby intervenes, professes her love for the "tanga wallah" (tanga driver), and threatens to completely disavow her father if any harm should befall him. Unable to subdue or subvert Raju, a frustrated set of cronies (Harry, Dyer, Simon, and others) fret and fume.


title: Mard (1985 film)

text: The film introduces Danny (Dan Dhanoa) the son of General Dyer. Danny is every bit as corrupt, cunning, and avaricious as his father and his cronies. Danny runs the nefarious operations beneath the outwardly clean, lordly and manorial life of General Dyer and mayor Harry. There are three such operations. First, there is a secret blood camp; "basti" dwellers that are infirm, aged or otherwise unfit are secretly abducted and their blood (all of it) is involuntarily extracted to supply British war campaigns elsewhere. Second, there is a slave labour camp where, again, "basti" dwellers are put to work (with no pay) on various civil and construction projects for the British empire. And finally there is Raja Azad Singh, still imprisoned, and a champion for the "basti" and for the workers in the labour camps. His primary duty is to turn, by hand, a massive flour mill; this mill is the only source of food for the camps. (Rani Durga, it turns out, is a washerwoman in one of these camps.) The camps grow in size, and Raja Azad Singh secretly plans to have them revolt; this becomes a growing concern for Harry.


title: Mard (1985 film)

text: Harry and General Dyer decide the best way to remove Raju from the picture is to announce the engagement of Ruby and Danny. Ruby strongly opposes this and runs off with Raju. Danny gives chase with his men, and even tries to kill Ruby, but eventually brings her back to Harry. Harry is truly enraged. He threatens to kill Ruby if she ever disobeys him again. Danny devises a nefarious plot to get rid of Raju.


title: Mard (1985 film)

text: As the first step in the plot, Danny captures the blacksmith, burns his hovel, murders his wife, and puts the blacksmith in a slave camp. (As she lays dying, she reveals to Raju the story of his birth. Raju cremates his foster mother and writes out a letter for his real mother, which he immerses into the river along with the ashes of his foster mother. The river carries his note to the camp where the blacksmith finds it and reads it out to Rani Durga, who immediately recalls her story. The blacksmith stages a stick-up to facilitate her escape, and she is ultimately reunited with Raju. The blacksmith, however, is killed.)


title: Mard (1985 film)

text: Danny learns of Raju's lineage. Realizing Raju will attack the camp to free the blacksmith and Raja Azad Singh, Danny plays the second step of his plot and lays a trap. Raju enters the dungeon to rescue his father. But it turns out that Raja Azad Singh has been replaced by a masked impostor (Simon), and Raju is captured.


title: Mard (1985 film)

text: At this point, Danny devises a fatal final step. He announces a gladiatorial sword fight between Raju and Raja Azad Singh where the winner will go free. Prior to this fight, he takes steps to ensure father and son are truly bloodthirsty for the other. Raja Azad Singh is brought to a blood camp where he sees Raju (actually a masked imposter) extracting blood from innocent citizens and swearing loyalty to the British; the Raja is incensed and swears to finish him off in the contest. Concurrently, Danny sends word (through Ruby) that the fighter opposing Raju will be a masked impostor and not the real Raja. Raju, in turn, announces he will not let his opponent leave the ring alive. And Danny forthwith arranges to have the real Raja fight Raju.


title: Mard (1985 film)

text: The contest begins on the next day, and father and son are soon in a crazed sword fight. The duel takes a turn when the Raja spots the word "mard" on Raju's chest, and Raju notices one of his blows drew blood from the Raja's cheek. They quickly discover the truth and keep up the appearance of a death duel until the Raja hoists Raju off the arena and into the viewing gallery. Raju plunges his sword into General Dyer, killing him instantly.


title: Mard (1985 film)

text: Danny is infuriated. He orders his tanks to finish off Raju and the Raja. (Lady Helena and Rani Durga are strapped to the tanks, with British soldiers holding them at gunpoint.) Raju and the Raja seize horses and escape, with the tanks in hot pursuit. After a long chase and fight, Raju and the Raja overpower the tanks, rescue the ladies and engage the villains in combat. After a hard sword-and-gun fight, Harry, Danny, and Goga are drowned in quicksand, and Raju and his father return victorious.


title: Mard (1985 film)

text: The film ends with Raju and Ruby coming together and being reunited with Raju's real parents, on the dawn of India's independence movement.


title: Mard (1985 film)

text: "Mard" was mostly shot in Ooty (near a golf links site belonging to Hindustan Photo Films) and at various locations in Karnataka, such as the Lalitha Mahal in Mysore and the Bangalore Palace.


title: Mard (1985 film)

text: Anu Malik composed music for "Mard". The Soundtrack album consisting of 6 tracks was released on 7 June 1985 on T-Series.


title: Mard (1985 film)

text: Critics accused Desai of using double-meaning words in the song "Hum to tamboo mein bamboo lagaye baithe". However, the song was a hit.


title: Mard (1985 film)

text: This is one of the films where Kishore Kumar did not sing for Amitabh Bachchan, as well as Coolie and Naseeb, due to Bachchan refusing to appear as a guest in a film which Kishore produced.


title: Kinky Friedman

text: Richard Samet "Kinky" Friedman (born November 1, 1944) is an American singer, songwriter, novelist, humorist, politician, and former columnist for "Texas Monthly" who styles himself in the mold of popular Will Rogers and Mark Twain.


title: Kinky Friedman

text: Friedman was one of two independent candidates in the 2006 election for the office of Governor of Texas. Receiving 12.6% of the vote, Friedman placed fourth in the six-person race.


title: Kinky Friedman

text: He was born as Richard Samet Friedman in Chicago in 1944 to Jewish parents, Dr. S. Thomas Friedman and his wife Minnie (Samet) Friedman. Both of his parents were the children of Russian Jewish immigrants. When Friedman was young, his family moved to a ranch in Kerrville, Texas in Texas Hill Country and opened a summer camp called Echo Hill.


title: Kinky Friedman

text: Friedman had an early interest in both pop music and chess, and was chosen at age seven as one of 50 local players to challenge U.S. grandmaster Samuel Reshevsky to simultaneous games in Houston. Reshevsky won all 50 games, but Friedman was, by far, the youngest competitor.


title: Kinky Friedman

text: Friedman graduated from Austin High School in Austin, Texas in 1962. He went on and earned a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Texas at Austin in 1966, majoring in Psychology. He took part in the Plan II Honors program and was a member of the Tau Delta Phi fraternity. During his first year, Chinga Chavin gave Friedman the nickname "Kinky" because of his curly hair.


title: Kinky Friedman

text: Friedman served two years in the United States Peace Corps, teaching in Borneo, Indonesia with John Gross. During his service in the Peace Corps, he met future road manager Dylan Ferrero, with whom he still works. Friedman lives at Echo Hill Ranch, his family's summer camp near Kerrville, Texas. He founded Utopia Animal Rescue Ranch, also located near Kerrville, whose mission is to care for stray, abused and aging animals; more than 1,000 dogs have been saved from animal euthanasia.


title: Kinky Friedman

text: Friedman formed his first band, King Arthur & the Carrots, while a student at the University of Texas at Austin. The band, which poked fun at surf music, recorded only one single in 1966 ("Schwinn 24/Beach Party Boo Boo").