Ok, so I remember reading this answer from Historum. I'm not sure whether it's correct or not but you can give it a try. It's quite extensive mind you. I'm just copy pasting it.
"The first half of the 8th century in the political history of North India is quite obscure, with very few available sources. Modern historians have elevated two kings of North India to a particularly noteworthy status during this period: Lalitaditya Muktapida of Kashmir and Yashovarman of Kannauj. The first king, in particular, has been elevated to near-legendary status, largely due to the description of his wide-ranging military exploits found in Kalhana's famous 12th century poem, the
Rajatarangini. However, to what extent should Kalhana's appraisal of Lalitaditya be seen as representing historical facts, as opposed to a fairly conventional panegyric of a king ruling far before Kalhana's own time who was imagined to be a great conqueror? How does the available evidence regarding Yashovarman of Kannauj, the greatest contemporary of Lalitaditya in North India, square with Kalhana's claims regarding Lalitaditya's supposed conquests? This brief essay will attempt to answer these questions, and evaluate these two key personalities of 8th century North India.
Lalitaditya Muktapida, according to Kalhana, was the son of Durlabhaka of the Karkota dynasty. Durlabhaka's father, Durlabhavardhana, seems to have established the rule of the Karkota family in Kashmir sometime in the early 7th century. Xuanzang, the famous Chinese pilgrim, indicates that the Kingdom of Kashmir ruled over five states besides Kashmir proper. These five states were Takshashila (in Rawalpindi district in modern-day Pakistan), Simhapura (in the Salt Range), Urasha (Abbottabad district), Pannutso (Punch district), and Rajapura (Rajaori). Thus, the early Karkotas ruled over a fairly significant regional kingdom. Kalhana states that Durlabhavardhana reigned for 36 years, and that his son Durlabhaka enjoyed an even longer reign of 50 years. However, Durlabhaka's son, Chandrapida, is said to have reigned for just eight and a half years before being killed at the instigation of Tarapida, a younger brother of Chandrapida. Tarapida had an even shorter reign of just four years before being overthrown by Lalitaditya Muktapida, himself also a younger brother of the previous king.
According to the chronology provided by Kalhana, Lalitaditya ruled for 36 years from about 695 to 731. However, most historians regard Kalhana's chronology to be off by a couple decades, based on Chinese sources that provide more precise and reliable chronological details. For example, Chinese sources indicate that Lalitaditya's elder brother Chandrapida (called Chen-to-lou-pi-li) had sent an envoy in 713 to the Chinese imperial court to ask for aid against the Arabs (who had advanced into Sindh and Panjab in 711 and were threatening Kashmir), and the Chinese emperor Xuanzong is also recorded to have "granted the title of king" to Chandrapida in 720. Thus, Chandrapida must have ruled from 712/13 to 720/21 (assuming that he indeed reigned for about eight years, as recorded by Kalhana). Accounting for the four years of Tarapida's rule, it logically follows that Lalitaditya must have assumed the throne in 724/25, and ruled until 760/61. This modified chronology is the one used by most historians who have written on the topic, such as R.C. Majumdar.
Compared to Lalitaditya, there is much less information available on the background of Yashovarman. In fact, it is not even known which dynasty Yashovarman belonged to, or when his ancestors established their rule over Kannauj and nearby territories (or if his ancestors were notable at all). It is well-known that the city of Kannauj rose to prominence under Harsha of the Pushyabhuti dynasty in the 7th century, but following Harsha's death in 647, the history of Kannauj is blank until the rise of Yashovarman in the early 8th century. For determining the chronology of Yashovarman's reign, East Asian sources are once again quite helpful. Chinese records state that a King of Middle India (Madhyadesa) named Yi-sha-fu-mo sent a minister to the Chinese court in the year 731. This Yi-sha-fu-mo is quite likely Yashovarman. According to a Korean Buddhist traveler named Hui-chao, who had visited North India in 723/24, the King of Middle India waged wars frequently against his neighbors, often led his troops personally into battle, and was constantly victorious against enemies. This description seems to match that of Yashovarman, who is known to have been an ambitious conqueror. It is quite likely that the King of Middle India mentioned by Hui-chao in 723/24 was the same ruler (i.e. Yashovarman) as the King Yi-sha-fu-mo of Middle India mentioned by Chinese records in 731. If true, this suggests that Yashovarman had ascended the throne of Kannauj by 720 or so, though it is impossible to provide a precise date. Thankfully, for the end of Yashovarman's reign, we can make more precise statements. Three Jain texts, the
Bappabhattisuricharita, the
Prabhavakacharita, and the
Prabandhakosha, all state that a Jain named Bappabhatti was initiated as a monk on VS 807 (749 CE), and that following his initiation, Bappabhatti was able to convert a son of Yashovarman named Amaraja to Jainism. This Amaraja is said to have became a disciple of Bappabhatti, and to have already begun ruling over Kannauj by VS 811 (753 CE). Thus, Yashovarman must have been succeeded by Amaraja sometime between 749 and 753. Taking into account the evidence provided above, we can say that Yashovarman probably ruled for at least thirty years or so, from c.720-750. This would make Yashovarman almost a perfect contemporary of Lalitaditya.
Both Yashovarman and Lalitaditya are credited with spectacular conquests in Indian literary sources. For Yashovarman, the main source that describes his military exploits is the poem
Gaudavaho by Vakpati. According to this poem, Yashovarman led his armies throughout much of India. The relevant events of the poem, in sequential order, are as follows:
- Yashovarman first passed through the Son valley and reaches the Vindhya mountains, where he prayed to the Goddess Vindhyavasini.
- Yashovarman advanced east towards Magadha, causing the king of that country to flee in terror. However, the Magadhan king's vassals fought against Yashovarman, resulting in a bloody battle. The king of Magadha was eventually captured and killed by Yashovarman.
- Yashovarman proceeded along the coastline and conquered the Vangas.
- Yashovarman crossed the Malaya mountains and received the submission of a "southern" (dakshina) king.
- Yashovarman conquered the Parasikas (?) after a fierce battle.
- Yashovarman "levied tribute" on the regions around the Western Ghats.
- Yashovarman crossed the Narmada river and, marching along the sea coast, advanced into Marudesa in Rajasthan.
- Yashovarman advanced towards Srikantha, the district around Thanesar. Passing through Kurukshetra, he eventually reached Ayodhya.
- Yashovarman subjugated the people of the Mandara mountains, and advanced towards the Himalayan region.
- Yashovarman then finally returned to his capital at Kannauj, and released all the kings that he had captured during his campaigns, allowing them to return to their respective kingdoms.
It should be apparent that the above sequence of events is a highly conventional description of a classic
digvijaya, a ritualized "universal conquest" meant to proclaim the king's sovereignty, in which the king leads his armies in a circular fashion around his various neighbors and receives their "submission." It is interesting to note that Gauda, a country in northern Bengal, is not mentioned anywhere in the poem, even though the title of the poem is
Gaudavaho (which translates to "slaying of (the king of) Gauda"). However, the three Jain texts mentioned above provide an answer to this apparent oddity. According to these texts, Yashovarman invaded Gauda and killed its king, named Dharma. During this invasion, Dharma's court poet, named Vakpati, was imprisoned by Yashovarman, and Vakpati wrote the
Gaudavaho during his imprisonment. Thus, the title of the work seems to derive from the author Vakpati's personal connection to Gauda, rather than any particular importance of Gauda or its king in Yashovarman's military career.
For the military career of Lalitaditya in North India, Kalhana is essentially the only source. According to Kalhana, the most significant military exploit of Lalitaditya was the defeat of Yashovarman (who is mentioned by name in the
Rajatarangini, along with the poet Vakpati) and the acquisition of his extensive kingdom. Kalhana describes Lalitaditya's triumph over Yashovarman in quite bombastic language. Lalitaditya is said to "tear up Yashovarman from the root" (as if he were a mere plant), and Yashovarman was supposedly reduced to the position of a minstrel whose job was to eulogize Lalitaditya. The core territory of Kanyakubja (Kannauj), extending from the Yamuna to Kalika rivers, is said to have come under Lalitaditya's control, and to have become like his personal courtyard. However, Kalhana does not stop with Lalitaditya's supposed victory over Yashovarman, but goes on to credit Lalitaditya with even more grandiose military feats. The claimed accomplishments of Lalitaditya, in sequential order, are as follows:
- After defeating Yashovarman, Lalitaditya proceeded east to the great ocean, and reached the country of Kalinga. He received elephants from the king of Gauda as tribute.
- Lalitaditya passed through the country of Karnata, which is said to be ruled by a "Queen Ratta." This queen is said to have paid homage to Lalitaditya.
- Lalitaditya pressed further south and reached the banks of the Kaveri river, and conquered some unspecified islands.
- Lalitaditya then turned west and conquered the "seven Konkanas," and advanced as far as Dwarka in Gujarat.
- Lalitaditya then conquered Avanti and other countries, until he reached the mountainous territory of the northwest.
- Finally, Lalitaditya conquered the Kambojas, Tukharas, Bhauttas, and Daradas.
As one can see, this rather conventional description of Lalitaditya's military campaigns in Kalhana's Rajatarangini clearly fits the classical model of a
digvijaya or "universal conquest," just like the description of Yashovarman's military campaigns in Vakpati's
Gaudavaho. Most likely, both of these literary narratives contain exaggerations, and neither should be taken at face value. However, by taking into account independent corroborating evidence, it is possible to form a clearer picture of the political landscape in North India during this time.
Several pieces of corroborating evidence can help us roughly determine the extent of Yashovarman's power and influence. A key piece of epigraphic evidence is a stone inscription found at Nalanda that was issued during the reign of a king called "Yashovarmadeva." This inscription was published in
Epigraphia Indica, Vol. 20, pp.37-46. Although the inscription does not contain any date, the characters used in the inscription closely resemble the characters used in the Aphsad stone inscription of Adityasena, a Later Gupta ruler. Thus, on paleographical grounds the inscription can be dated to roughly the 7th-8th centuries. Because no other king called "Yashovarma(n)" is known to have ruled the eastern Indo-Gangetic plain during this time, it is quite likely that this Nalanda inscription was issued during the time of Yashovarman of Kannauj sometime in the first half of the 8th century. If this identification is correct, we have independent evidence to show that Yashovarman extended his sway over Magadha (modern-day Bihar). In addition to this epigraphic evidence, the Jain text
Prabandhakosha contains the line "Kanyakubjadeshe Gopalagiridurganagare Yashovarmanrupateh" (found on p.27 of the text), which indicates that Yashovarman was the ruler of Gopalagiri (Gwalior) and that his rule extended to northern MP. Finally, the Korean Buddhist named Hui-chao, who was mentioned previously, mentions an important tidbit in his account of North India. Hui-chao says that the state of Jalandhara in east Panjab (which he visited) was disputed between the kings of Kashmir and Kannauj during the time of his visit, in 723/24. If Hui-chao's account is indeed referring to Yashovarman, as mentioned earlier, this clearly indicates that eastern Panjab marked the boundary of Yashovarman's empire, while also representing the southern boundary of the kingdom of Kashmir at the beginning of Lalitaditya's reign.
Taking into account the evidence mentioned above, we can say that Yashovarman was probably one of the most powerful rulers in India, and certainly the most powerful in North India, during the first half of the 8th century. His dominions probably extended from Jalandhar in the west to at least Nalanda in the east, and probably further east into northern Bengal, as it is probably safe to assume that Gauda was conquered or subjugated by Yashovarman given the title of Vakpati's work, the independent testimony of Jain texts as narrated above, and the proximity of Gauda to Nalanda. It is more difficult to determine how far south Yashovarman's empire extended, but we can be fairly sure that at least Gwalior and the Gird region in northern Madhya Pradesh were under his control. Thus, Yashovarman was probably the master of the greater part of the rich Indo-Gangetic plains.
In comparison to Yashovarman, what corroborating evidence exists of Lalitaditya's supposed "extensive conquests" in North India? The answer is
absolutely nothing. There is not a single piece of evidence that corroborates the extraordinary conquests attributed to Lalitaditya by Kalhana in the Rajatarangini. There is not a single epigraph or inscription, nor a single literary source, that corroborates such fanciful claims. Indeed, it completely stretches credulity to believe that the kingdom of Lalitaditya, which seems to have consisted of just Kashmir proper and some neighboring areas of Panjab and modern-day NWFP, could have possibly had the resources and manpower necessary to conquer such a powerful kingdom as that of Yashovarman. If Lalitaditya was said to have conquered the Indo-Gangetic plains during a time of political disunity or anarchy, when there were a multitide of petty chiefdoms and mini-states scattered throughout UP and Bihar without any paramount authority over them, such a conquest would be more believable. Instead, however, we are to believe that Lalitaditya successfully invaded and conquered the rich Indo-Gangetic plains at a time when they were largely united under a single powerful king! This is simply too fanciful to believe on face value, especially given the complete lack of any corroborating evidence whatsoever for Lalitaditya's supposed conquests."
