Lot of things are coming up in Socail Media on GPS. TheFilm showed Gautamiputra Satakarni referring to Telugu pride and the Telugu community. However the Satavahanas were never known as Telugus as nobody spoke Telugu then. Some are saying that it is distortion of history and that the film should not get any tax exemption.
They were known as Andhras – a term whose ownership was appropriated by people living on the AP coast and reliquished by Telangana. In reality, the Andhra word never denoted a geographical location during those times. Aitareya Brahmana of the Rig Veda (800 BC) used the Andhra word for the first time.
It says the Andhras have migrated to south India from the north. The Andhras were mentioned in Matsya and Vayu puranas and the Mahabharat. The word was mentioned again during the Ashoka’s rule in around 230 BC.
There is no historical record that says people from area that makes up Andhra Pradesh and Telangana were called Andhras. However, at the ebb of the Satavahana empire, its rule confined to the current AP and Telangana.
The puranas merely say that Andhras have left the north India to settle in an area between the river Godavari and the river Krishna. But this is vast area covering a large part of Maharashtra, northern Karnataka, Telangana and AP.
The esrtwhile united Andhra Pradesh. Historians claim that Satavahana founder Simuka established the Satavahana kingdom after defeating the Kanvas. So their capital cannot be far away at Amaravati on the eastern coast because a fledgling kingdom cannot attack a far-away enemy.
Also, several historians claim that the Satavahana capital was at Pratishthana (Paithan, near Aurangabad, Maharashtra). However, the capital must have been shifted to Amaravati later on during the ebb of the Satavahanas as the Western Kshatraps grew powerful during Rudradaman’s reign. But the film claims as if Amaravati was the capital throughout the Satavahana rule. This is wrong.
Gautamiputra Satakarni was mentioned as the Lord of Benakataka (which could be translated as Dhenkataka or Dhanyakataka) by his mother Gautami Balashri in her Nasik inscription. This appears to have been used to give credence to Amaravati as his capital. However, in the same inscription, Gautami Balashri claimed herself to be the mother and grandmother of two great kings.
So it is also possible that Gautamiputra Satakarni’s son Pulumavi, son-in-law of the Western Kshatraps king, was made the king of western region with Pratishthana as the capital, while Satakarni settling down at Benakataka (Dhanyakataka).
After defeating Western Kshatraps king Nahapana, the movie claims Satakarni had become the emperor of the entire India. It is completely wrong. During that time, the major powers in the country were:
The Kushana empire headed by predecessors of the famous king Kanishka. They ruled an area covering what is today Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Punjab, Delhi and parts of Rajasthan;
The Satavahanas ruling parts of Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and over-lording Tamil Nadu and Kerala;
The Western Kshtrapas ruling Gujarat, Rajasthan, Sindh and parts of Madhya Pradesh Other small kingdoms in eastern India.
So even after defeating the Kshtrapas, Gautamiputra Satakarni cannot claim himself to be the emperor of India as the Kushans were still strong enough.
The movie claims Satakarni (100 AD) fought against Demetrius of Bactria (180 BC). There is a time gap of 220 years. While there is a reference to him fighting Yavanas (the Greeks), it must be Indo-Greeks led by the Kushna dynasty, who were ruling from Purushapura (Peshawar, Pakistan).
The movie claims that Satakarni he defeated Magadha also. But it was wrong as it was not Gautamiputra, who led the conquest against Magadha. It was his ancestors who defeated the Kanva dynasty at Pataliputra.
There is no historical record of Gautamiputra Satakarni conducting Rajasooyam. In fact, it was his ancestor who was similarly named as Satakarni-I (187 BC), who conducted Ashwamedham as per the Naneghat inscription.
